Rank: 15 Harden vs Peak Manu vs 14 Curry

[liamliam1234]

Manu was absolutely nowhere near the passer of Nash, and under no circumstances was the defensive difference equal to that.

What about when Nash brought his Suns to the conference finals in 2010? Gee, D’Antoni sure was carrying Nash then. Popovich has overseen efficient offensive years, but yep, all Manu. And of course absolutely baseless that one of the two best passers ever, and one of the five or so best shooters ever, would somehow magically fail to “fit” with Tim Duncan.

You want to come with something of a substantiated thought, fine, but half-baked bull like this just wastes everyone’s time.

[HBK_Kliq_33]

Manu was absolutely nowhere near the passer of Nash, and under no circumstances was the defensive difference equal to that.

What about when Nash brought his Suns to the conference finals in 2010? Gee, D’Antoni sure was carrying Nash then. Popovich has overseen efficient offences years, but yep, all Manu. And of course absolutely baseless that one of the two best passers ever, and one of the five or so best shooters ever, would somehow magically fail to “fit” with Tim Duncan.

You want to come with something of a substantiated thought, fine, but half-baked bull like this just wastes everyone’s time.

I disagree, I view Manu as one of the top 15 great passers ever and Nash as one of the top 5 great passers. Manu is an elite defender for his position and Nash is a far below average defender for his position. So I see the gap as being bigger on defense.

Nash was lucky to face the Richard Jefferson spurs era Spurs and made a western conference finals trip but their SRS wasn't even top 5 that year and were still a much better team with D'antoni.

Greg Pop never even led a top 5 offensive team up until Manu took over the offense in 2011.
D'antoni has led top 2 offensive times in seven different seasons with two different franchises.

That's a big difference.

[HBK_Kliq_33]

^More importantly, switch Manu and Nash and watch what happens to their respective team offences.

Manu was a James Harden clone and Harden is leading #1 offenses with D'antoni? I don't get where you came up with this logic. Lets put it this way, the gap on Nash\Manu is the same gap as Manu\Duncan. Overall, Manu and Duncan win because their defense advantages.

[liamliam1234]

You are not basing that off anything, and your assessment about Manu “leading” the 2011 offence to a second-place finish has been thoroughly dismantled in separate threads — or was he simply so good in the thirty games he played in 2012 that it magically translated into them finishing even better?

Meanwhile, after D’Antoni left, Nash responded by leading the second ranked offence and then the first ranked offence. Gee, he sure was essential! Just like Harden led the fourth ranked offence in 2014; but you know, they had the league’s top offence with Chris Paul on the team, so all credit to D’Antoni and his brilliant scheme of “put efficient scorers on the floor”.

Manu was a “James Harden clone” who never broke twenty points and five assists per game — but I guess Popovich simply disliked playing his best offensive weapon more than twenty-nine minutes per game, right?

[HBK_Kliq_33]

You are not basing that off anything, and your assessment about Manu “leading” the 2011 offence to a second-place finish has been thoroughly dismantled in separate threads — or was he simply so good in the thirty games he played in 2012 that it magically translated into them finishing even better?

Meanwhile, after D’Antoni left, Nash responded by leading the second ranked offence and then the first ranked offence. Gee, he sure was essential! Just like Harden led the fourth ranked offence in 2014; but you know, they had the league’s top offence with Chris Paul on the team, so all credit to D’Antoni and his brilliant scheme of “put efficient scorers on the floor”.

Manu was a “James Harden clone” who never broke twenty points and five assists per game — but I guess Popovich simply disliked playing his best offensive weapon more than twenty-nine minutes per game, right?

Manu was 2nd in minutes in 2011 and started every game he played in. His OBPM is by far the highest on the team. Who are you claiming ran the team? Parker? 2012 was a lockout year and much smaller sample size but parker/Duncan had a lot better years that year. Manu was there for half of a lockout season. So your argument is they had good offense without Manu for half of a lockout season? And that proves what now?

Pop had tim tony Manu on minute managements during Manu's prime because he expected deep playoff runs every year. Its a lot easier for Nash to coast in regular season when he doesn't play any defense. Manu gives it all on on both ends.

Suns were 12th in SRS in 08-09 so they just took advantage of a weak schedule.

In 09-10 Nash was a -3.1DBPM and on a terrible defensive team, he was coasting.

He was just coasting those years, not impressive. As far as Harden, his teams were never elite offensively without D'antoni besides that 1 year. 2014-15 they were 12th and 2012-13 they were 6th and 15-16 season they were 7th. That's 3/4 years without D'antoni where he failed to get them elite.

[HBK_Kliq_33]

Never cracked 20 PPG....neither has Nash and he's playing more minutes and no defense, how ironic. At least Manu has cracked 19 unlike Nash! And that was playing less minutes too. Just not in an offense like D'antoni system to rack up all those assists and Manu is the master of hockey assists anyway. Try watching some game tape instead of ignorantly worshiping your country's hero.

[70sFan]

I can't pick Manu over either one because his lack of durability and low minutes. He never proved he was capable of playing ~35 mpg in ~75 games. Even if he's the most talented, the gap in availability is just too big.

I'd take Harden first, then Curry. Both very good seasons that will likely be underrated in future.

As to 2005 playoffs, I can't pick Manu over Nash and Duncan. Duncan's defensive edge was still huge and it's not like he played like a scrub in all playoffs offensively. Nash was simply better offensive player, even if their raw stats looks close.

I also don't get it why some posters call Manu "great defender". He was good, clearly above average but he's far from great. Bruce Bowen was great, Manu was smart and played in good system with ATG rim protector. The word "great" is sometimes overused, Manu is likely not even top 30 defender ever at his position.

[HBK_Kliq_33]

I can't pick Manu over either one because his lack of durability and low minutes. He never proved he was capable of playing ~35 mpg in ~75 games. Even if he's the most talented, the gap in availability is just too big.

I'd take Harden first, then Curry. Both very good seasons that will likely be underrated in future.

As to 2005 playoffs, I can't pick Manu over Nash and Duncan. Duncan's defensive edge was still huge and it's not like he played like a scrub in all playoffs offensively. Nash was simply better offensive player, even if their raw stats looks close.

I also don't get it why some posters call Manu "great defender". He was good, clearly above average but he's far from great. Bruce Bowen was great, Manu was smart and played in good system with ATG rim protector. The word "great" is sometimes overused, Manu is likely not even top 30 defender ever at his position.

Why does Manu have to play 35 minutes when the lead minutes on team in 2011 was 32 minutes? You have to look at the load relative to the team they are playing on. Manu was by far the best overall player on the 2011 team.

Playoffs is what matters most anyway and Manu was the offensive anchor from 2005-2011. Spurs won 12 series from 05-2011 and Manu offensively outplayed Duncan in 7/12 of them including two finals series and one conference finals series. Anchoring the playoff offense of the winningest trio in NBA history is more valuable than your criteria of playing 35MPG for 75 games.

[liamliam1234]

Manu was 2nd in minutes in 2011 and started every game he played in. His OBPM is by far the highest on the team. Who are you claiming ran the team? Parker? 2012 was a lockout year and much smaller sample size but parker/Duncan had a lot better years that year. Manu was there for half of a lockout season. So your argument is they had good offense without Manu for half of a lockout season? And that proves what now?

It proves that Manu is not an irreplaceable player in that system, ergo nowhere near the driving force of Nash. Nash’s teams collapsed without him. The fact Manu was second in minutes with his low load shows how balanced that team was. And it carried over for years afterward. D’Antoni oversees two of the five greatest offensive guards in NBA history, and he gets credited as some genius. Sure his weird how that never translated to New York or Los Angeles. Or, most relevantly, the pre-Nash Suns. Oh, I know, blame the players, blame the talent... but when a top-two passer captains an offensively minded roster to a decade of excellence, that is all on the coach.

Pop had tim tony Manu on minute managements during Manu's prime because he expected deep playoff runs every year. Its a lot easier for Nash to coast in regular season when he doesn't play any defense. Manu gives it all on on both ends.

Garbage take, in terms of Nash’s defence, Manu’s defence, and Manu’s minutes load in the playoffs.

Suns were 12th in SRS in 08-09 so they just took advantage of a weak schedule.

In 09-10 Nash was a -3.1DBPM and on a terrible defensive team, he was coasting those years, not impressive.

1. That is not what that SRS rating means. That means they had a horrendous team defence. Which, contrary to popular belief, the point guard typically affects the least.

2. BPM is famously worthless for assessing Nash. But all you ever do is look at box scores. Nash’s DRAPM was -0.25 in 2010, while legendary defender Manu was +0.12. Gee, imagine if Nash had not been “coasting” on defence. In 2009, Nash was -0.33, in 2008 he was -0.03, in 2007 he was +0.29, in 2006 he was +0.49. He was not the reason for those bad defences.

3. Of course, even if the 2008-10 Suns had a weak schedule, that weirdly did not translate to the playoffs. In 2010 they put up the sixth-best relative playoff offence all-time. (With number one of course being the 2005 Suns.) How about the Spurs? You know, what with an “unleashed” Manu running things after having his minutes preserved all season? Well, their best finish is by... oh, weird, the 2006 Spurs, where Manu played shy of 33 minutes per game (fourth) and dished out a whopping three assists per game (behind Parker and Tim Duncan). Okay, next finish is by... the 2014 Spurs, when Manu played 25.5 minutes per game. And after that comes the 2012 Spurs, with Manu playing just shy of 28 minutes per game. Gee, Manu sure did carry those offences!

As far as Harden, his teams were never elite offensively without D'antoni besides that 1 year. 2014-15 they were 12th and 2012-13 they were 6th and 15-16 season they were 7th. That's 3/4 years without D'antoni where he failed to get them elite.

And the roster stayed exactly the same, right?

Why does Manu have to play 35 minutes when the lead minutes on team in 2011 was 32 minutes? You have to look at the load relative to the team they are playing on. Manu was by far the best overall player on the 2011 team.

Because the fact the minutes distribution was like that shows he was simply an excellent piece on an even better team.

Playoffs is what matters most anyway and Manu was the offensive anchor from 2005-2011. Spurs won 12 series from 05-2011 and Manu offensively outplayed Duncan in 7/12 of them including two finals series and one conference finals series. Anchoring the playoff offense of the winningest trio in NBA history is more valuable than your criteria of playing 35MPG for 75 games.

You know what is more valuable that that?

Overseeing a decade of the greatest postseason and regular season offences in NBA history. You know, like Nash actually did.

Never cracked 20 PPG....neither has Nash and he's playing more minutes and no defense, how ironic. At least Manu has cracked 19 unlike Nash! And that was playing less minutes too.

I never said Nash was like Harden. Manu is neither the scorer nor the passer that Harden is. It is a ridiculous claim.

Just not in an offense like D'antoni system to rack up all those assists and Manu is the master of hockey assists anyway.

Yes, it sure was neat how D’Antoni’s system allowed Nash to finish third and first in the league in passing from 2009-10.

Try watching some game tape instead of ignorantly worshiping your country's hero.

Oh, no. No no no no no no no.

Bull****. You do not watch “game tape”. You routinely dismiss the value of passing (both in terms of volume and in terms of impact passing), exaggerate the effects of man-on-man defence, repeatedly and constantly evidence a total disregard for what non-“star” players do for their teams, habitually misrepresent players to prop up one specific guy, and ultimately devolve back to citing trite box score statistics whenever backed into a corner, and you accuse me of not being educated enough? You accuse me of “ignorantly worshipping” a “hero”?

I have spent more time analysing Nash than you have Nash, Manu, and Harden combined. Of course, that does not need to be true to have a better grasp of NBA impact and analysis than you have ever shown. But I am being too much of a homer by talking about how Manu Ginobili is not on the level of a man who was a two-time MVP, top-two passer ever, and captain of two of the greatest regular season and playoff offensive stretches in NBA history, such that the relative offensive leaderboard is utterly dominated by his presence? What, did you receive a warning for too much Kawhi trolling, so now you have to change your focus to trolling other players? Screw off.

[HBK_Kliq_33]

Manu was 2nd in minutes in 2011 and started every game he played in. His OBPM is by far the highest on the team. Who are you claiming ran the team? Parker? 2012 was a lockout year and much smaller sample size but parker/Duncan had a lot better years that year. Manu was there for half of a lockout season. So your argument is they had good offense without Manu for half of a lockout season? And that proves what now?

It proves that Manu is not an irreplaceable player in that system, ergo nowhere near the driving force of Nash. Nash’s teams collapsed without him. The fact Manu was second in minutes with his low load shows how balanced that team was. And it carried over for years afterward. D’Antoni oversees two of the five greatest offensive guards in NBA history, and he gets credited as some genius. Sure his weird how that never translated to New York or Los Angeles. Or, most relevantly, the pre-Nash Suns. Oh, I know, blame the players, blame the talent... but when a top-two passer captains an offensively minded roster to a decade of excellence, that is all on the coach.

Pop had tim tony Manu on minute managements during Manu's prime because he expected deep playoff runs every year. Its a lot easier for Nash to coast in regular season when he doesn't play any defense. Manu gives it all on on both ends.

Garbage take, in terms of Nash’s defence, Manu’s defence, and Manu’s minutes load in the playoffs.

Suns were 12th in SRS in 08-09 so they just took advantage of a weak schedule.

In 09-10 Nash was a -3.1DBPM and on a terrible defensive team, he was coasting those years, not impressive.

1. That is not what that SRS rating means. That means they had a horrendous team defence. Which, contrary to popular belief, the point guard typically affects the least.

2. BPM is famously worthless for assessing Nash. But all you ever do is look at box scores. Nash’s DRAPM was -0.25 in 2010, while legendary defender Manu was +0.12. Gee, imagine if Nash had not been “coasting” on defence. In 2009, Nash was -0.33, in 2008 he was -0.03, in 2007 he was +0.29, in 2006 he was +0.49. He was not the reason for those bad defences.

3. Of course, even if the 2008-10 Suns had a weak schedule, that weirdly did not translate to the playoffs. In 2010 they put up the sixth-best relative playoff offence all-time. (With number one of course being the 2005 Suns.) How about the Spurs? You know, what with an “unleashed” Manu running things after having his minutes preserved all season? Well, their best finish is by... oh, weird, the 2006 Spurs, where Manu played shy of 33 minutes per game (fourth) and dished out a whopping three assists per game (behind Parker and Tim Duncan). Okay, next finish is by... the 2014 Spurs, when Manu played 25.5 minutes per game. And after that comes the 2012 Spurs, with Manu playing just shy of 28 minutes per game. Gee, Manu sure did carry those offences!

As far as Harden, his teams were never elite offensively without D'antoni besides that 1 year. 2014-15 they were 12th and 2012-13 they were 6th and 15-16 season they were 7th. That's 3/4 years without D'antoni where he failed to get them elite.

And the roster stayed exactly the same, right?

Why does Manu have to play 35 minutes when the lead minutes on team in 2011 was 32 minutes? You have to look at the load relative to the team they are playing on. Manu was by far the best overall player on the 2011 team.

Because the fact the minutes distribution was like that shows he was simply an excellent piece on an even better team.

Playoffs is what matters most anyway and Manu was the offensive anchor from 2005-2011. Spurs won 12 series from 05-2011 and Manu offensively outplayed Duncan in 7/12 of them including two finals series and one conference finals series. Anchoring the playoff offense of the winningest trio in NBA history is more valuable than your criteria of playing 35MPG for 75 games.

You know what is more valuable that that?

Overseeing a decade of the greatest postseason and regular season offences in NBA history. You know, like Nash actually did.

Never cracked 20 PPG....neither has Nash and he's playing more minutes and no defense, how ironic. At least Manu has cracked 19 unlike Nash! And that was playing less minutes too.

I never said Nash was like Harden. Manu is neither the scorer nor the passer that Harden is. It is a ridiculous claim.

Just not in an offense like D'antoni system to rack up all those assists and Manu is the master of hockey assists anyway.

Yes, it sure was neat how D’Antoni’s system allowed Nash to finish third and first in the league in passing from 2009-10.

Try watching some game tape instead of ignorantly worshiping your country's hero.

Oh, no. No no no no no no no.

Bull****. You do not watch “game tape”. You routinely dismiss the value of passing (both in terms of volume and in terms of impact passing), exaggerate the effects of man-on-man defence, repeatedly and constantly evidence a total disregard for what non-“star” players do for their teams, habitually misrepresent players to prop up one specific guy, and ultimately devolve back to citing trite box score statistics whenever backed into a corner, and you accuse me of not being educated enough? You accuse me of “ignorantly worshipping” a “hero”?

I have spent more time analysing Nash than you have Nash, Manu, and Harden combined. Of course, that does not need to be true to have a better grasp of NBA impact and analysis than you have ever shown. But I am being too much of a homer by talking about how Manu Ginobili is not on the level of a man who was a two-time MVP, top-two passer ever, and captain of two of the greatest regular season and playoff offensive stretches in NBA history, such that the relative offensive leaderboard is utterly dominated by his presence? What, did you receive a warning for too much Kawhi trolling, so now you have to change your focus to trolling other players? Screw off.

Chris Paul never fit with Harden and always injured both years. The roster was generally the same (harden and role players) but the key difference was D'antoni.

Nash was old when D'antoni left and coasted on defense or his teams had a weak SRS. He was still very good without D'antoni but he wasn't nearly as great. D'antoni enhanced his offense, just like he did Hardens and just like he would do Manu. The other places he coached didn't have stars. All coaches need stars but D'antoni is a proven offensive genius. Kobe and the triangle offense had a similar advantage when comparing him to Kawhi for example.

From a talent standpoint that 2011 Spurs team was much worse than majority of the suns teams that Nash led. Duncan was a glorified role player in 2011 who played terrible in the playoffs, Tony Parker was never a very impactful player, so who did they have? Nobody close to Amare Stoudamire.

Nash was not a guy you can call on to win a playoff game when you need him most. 2007 Nash could of rose to the occasion in game 5 on his home court but what does he do? 19 points on 19 FGA and 45% TS. Manu has 26 points on 68% TS and 10 rebounds. Manu proved he can take over a game when it mattered most and Nash did not despite being on his home court and his season on the line. So you want to know why Pop had Manu on load management? Go ask Steve Nash how many rings he has and than you'll find out.

Manu out played Duncan in 7/12 playoff series wins from 2005-2011, the offensive anchor of the winningest trio of all time, show some respect.

[liamliam1234]

This is what I am talking about, you make up narratives to suit yourself.

Harden and Paul fit together excellently; the two of them with Capela were like, what, 50-5 together that first season? And they were on another healthy sixty-win pace the year after.

I just discredited your defence commentary, but as usual you ignore it. I also pointed out you were applying SRS completely nonsensically, but you ignored it.

That Spurs team was so “talent deficient” that they went on a four-year run as the conference’s top seed? Despite Duncan only being a “role-player”? This is the problem with making up narratives when convenient: they quickly contradict each other. The Spurs without Manu have always performed better than the Suns without Nash; that is a fact, no narrative invention needed.

2007 Nash was the greatest passing postseason ever (peak Magic the only comparable), but you ignore that because you want efficient scoring to be everything. Nash led numerous better postseason offences than Manu, but we ignore that. Nash put up 30/11/6.5 on 62% true shooting against the ninth-ranked Dallas defence in 2005, but we ignore that. Manu was the thirty minutes per game offensive “anchor” of a defence-first team (so basically Chauncey Billups or Isiah Thomas), but he gets enormous credit for the one season he led his team to something Nash matched or exceeded ten times. “Out-played Duncan”, please, if Duncan never shot he would still be at minimum matching Manu’s postseason impact through defence alone. But that also would get in the way of “narrative”.

Replace Manu with Nash, and the Spurs are better off every year up until 2011. No 2006 choke against Dallas with Nash; think the Spurs would have appreciated a little more support than Manu’s two assists per game in that series? No, of course not, because you only ever look at one and a half things when assessing player ability, and passing may as well contribute nothing in your eyes. And then you have the gall to talk about “watching film.”

[ardee]

Actually slightly off topic but does anyone else think Manu has a case for being the best player of the entire 05
Playoffs?

There's no case imo. Nash was historic.

Sent from my SM-A505F using RealGM mobile app

[HBK_Kliq_33]

This is what I am talking about, you make up narratives to suit yourself.

Harden and Paul fit together excellently; the two of them with Capela were like, what, 50-5 together that first season? And they were on another healthy sixty-win pace the year after.

I just discredited your defence commentary, but as usual you ignore it. I also pointed out you were applying SRS completely nonsensically, but you ignored it.

That Spurs team was so “talent deficient” that they went on a four-year run as the conference’s top seed? Despite Duncan only being a “role-player”? This is the problem with making up narratives when convenient: they quickly contradict each other. The Spurs without Manu have always performed better than the Suns without Nash; that is a fact, no narrative invention needed.

2007 Nash was the greatest passing postseason ever (peak Magic the only comparable), but you ignore that because you want efficient scoring to be everything. Nash led numerous better postseason offences than Manu, but we ignore that. Nash put up 30/11/6.5 on 62% true shooting against the ninth-ranked Dallas defence in 2005, but we ignore that. Manu was the thirty minutes per game offensive “anchor” of a defence-first team (so basically Chauncey Billups or Isiah Thomas), but he gets enormous credit for the one season he led his team to something Nash matched or exceeded ten times. “Out-played Duncan”, please, if Duncan never shot he would still be at minimum matching Manu’s postseason impact through defence alone. But that also would get in the way of “narrative”.

Replace Manu with Nash, and the Spurs are better off every year up until 2011. No 2006 choke against Dallas with Nash; think the Spurs would have appreciated a little more support than Manu’s two assists per game in that series? No, of course not, because you only ever look at one and a half things when assessing player ability, and passing may as well contribute nothing in your eyes. And then you have the gall to talk about “watching film.”

Chris Paul didn't do much in the regular season during his Rockets years besides be a glorified role player. Harden's peak MVP season is what carried them, than he carried them again the next season. Paul loves to dominate the ball and doesn't fit well with Harden, they were winning despite Paul. You can replace Paul with Patrick Beverly those years and they wouldnt miss a beat in the regular season.

SRS is the strength of a schedule and Nash had a weak SRS, while coasting hard on defense.

You are reading too hard into assist stats. This is not Westbrook or Chris Paul 1 man offense where they dominate the ball all game and get assists. Spurs offense with Manu were known for having the best ball movement in the league, thus getting a lot of hockey assists. I don't know why that's hard for you to understand. If Manu was in a D'antoni type offense, he would be averaging around 8 assists per game at least.

Manu had 21 PPG 64% TS 121 offensive rating vs mavs and Parker had 20 PPG 47% TS 93 offensive rating and somehow your blaming Manu? Showing your bias. If anything, spurs lost because Duncan was their best offensive player and not Manu. 7/12 series including both finals series and the 2007 WCF were all won when Manu was Spurs best player, Tim is the best player usually during those easy 1st round series. The offense and team went wherever Manu took them, he was their engine and was their heart and soul.

Spurs stayed good in 2011 because Duncan anchored the defense and Manu anchored the offense. I am not discrediting Duncan for his defense, I am just saying there was never a time during Manu's prime (05-2011) when he wasn't his teams best offensive player. By 2011 he was carrying that offensive role player Duncan.

2005 - Manu outplayed Steve Nash for the series.

2007 game 5 - In the biggest game of Nash's career and when his team needs him the most it was Manu who dominated and Nash who put up a stinker.

Manu owned Nash in the playoffs.

[PaulieWal]

Try watching some game tape instead of ignorantly worshiping your country's hero.

You just can't help yourself can you. You know by now that this is baiting and attacking another poster. And if you think somebody is doing it to you then report the post and let the mod team do their job.

[PaulieWal]

Oh, no. No no no no no no no.

Bull****. You do not watch “game tape”. You routinely dismiss the value of passing (both in terms of volume and in terms of impact passing), exaggerate the effects of man-on-man defence, repeatedly and constantly evidence a total disregard for what non-“star” players do for their teams, habitually misrepresent players to prop up one specific guy, and ultimately devolve back to citing trite box score statistics whenever backed into a corner, and you accuse me of not being educated enough? You accuse me of “ignorantly worshipping” a “hero”?

I have spent more time analysing Nash than you have Nash, Manu, and Harden combined. Of course, that does not need to be true to have a better grasp of NBA impact and analysis than you have ever shown. But I am being too much of a homer by talking about how Manu Ginobili is not on the level of a man who was a two-time MVP, top-two passer ever, and captain of two of the greatest regular season and playoff offensive stretches in NBA history, such that the relative offensive leaderboard is utterly dominated by his presence? What, did you receive a warning for too much Kawhi trolling, so now you have to change your focus to trolling other players? Screw off.

Same goes for you, this type of posting is not welcome here. If someone is attacking or baiting you, report the post and let us do our job. Warned.

[Colbinii]

This is what I am talking about, you make up narratives to suit yourself.

Harden and Paul fit together excellently; the two of them with Capela were like, what, 50-5 together that first season? And they were on another healthy sixty-win pace the year after.

I just discredited your defence commentary, but as usual you ignore it. I also pointed out you were applying SRS completely nonsensically, but you ignored it.

That Spurs team was so “talent deficient” that they went on a four-year run as the conference’s top seed? Despite Duncan only being a “role-player”? This is the problem with making up narratives when convenient: they quickly contradict each other. The Spurs without Manu have always performed better than the Suns without Nash; that is a fact, no narrative invention needed.

2007 Nash was the greatest passing postseason ever (peak Magic the only comparable), but you ignore that because you want efficient scoring to be everything. Nash led numerous better postseason offences than Manu, but we ignore that. Nash put up 30/11/6.5 on 62% true shooting against the ninth-ranked Dallas defence in 2005, but we ignore that. Manu was the thirty minutes per game offensive “anchor” of a defence-first team (so basically Chauncey Billups or Isiah Thomas), but he gets enormous credit for the one season he led his team to something Nash matched or exceeded ten times. “Out-played Duncan”, please, if Duncan never shot he would still be at minimum matching Manu’s postseason impact through defence alone. But that also would get in the way of “narrative”.

Replace Manu with Nash, and the Spurs are better off every year up until 2011. No 2006 choke against Dallas with Nash; think the Spurs would have appreciated a little more support than Manu’s two assists per game in that series? No, of course not, because you only ever look at one and a half things when assessing player ability, and passing may as well contribute nothing in your eyes. And then you have the gall to talk about “watching film.”

I think you should stop wasting your time.

Every poster here has a different mixture of tools they use to assess and compare players (a la the Player Comparison board we all enjoy). Some posters are heavily influenced by analytics, others rely on a faulty eye test from 12-15 years ago, some use basic statistics and others fall into the strong crowd of "Narratives".

The Narrative crowd has long been heralded and driven by the force of Jordan Bulls; a lifelong Jordan fan who through thick and thin is one of the most consistent posters on this forum with regards to holding onto his HCA as the forefront for his estreemed player assessments.

HBK is no different in that he relies heavily on Narratives to evaluate players. There is nothing wrong with this assessment but there will be a difficult time coming to common ground as his assessment and view of basketball is far different than yours. Due to this it is likely best for you to take your "talents" elsewhere (Perhaps south beach!) or to other posters who have interest in other areas of basketball assessment like statistics and other barometers.

[liamliam1234]

HBK is no different in that he relies heavily on Narratives to evaluate players. There is nothing wrong with this assessment but there will be a difficult time coming to common ground as his assessment and view of basketball is far different than yours.

Except it is demonstrably wrong. It is demonstrably wrong to say “Chris Paul was no better than Patrick Beverly”. It is demonstrably wrong to say Manu was a more impactful offensive player than Nash, postseason or otherwise. And it is demonstrably dishonest to switch arguments whenever convenient — whether it be points per game, box score metrics, series averages, team composition, team results, single game performances... And here it is incessant.

Why does the entire board need to agree to just ignore someone who will say whatever they want, assert it as truth, disregard any counterpoint, and insert their personal narrative into any thread? Maybe I was not here for peak JordanBulls posting, or whatever, but as much as guys like him and Gooner espouse dreadful takes, none of them do it as perpetually and extensively. So we get to waste time explaining why 21.3/12.7 on 60.5% true shooting has no comparison to 17.8/4.3 on 54.9% true shooting, and then the response is, “Oh, but look at this one game where the ‘winner’ was better,” and we get to waste time explaining minutes impact, and offensive production, and coaching, and elementary definitions like SRS versus SOS and relative offensive rating, and that is it?

It deserves to be called out for what it is. The choices should not be to either write an essay explaining ten different kinds of dishonesty, or let it go unchallenged. So every new person to the board just needs to receive a disclaimer going, “Hey, this guy will say whatever he feels and then invent ridiculous and inconsistent criteria to ‘justify’ it, and will never listen to any rational deconstruction, so just let him keep making his twenty posts a day carrying on as normal”? That does not make for a good forum environment.

[Odinn21]

Saying peak Manu is rather ambigious.
I consider 2005 playoffs Manu as peak Manu but that's just too short. When I think of this question as one of the following;
2015 Harden vs. 2005 Manu vs. 2014 Curry
2015 Harden vs. 2007 Manu vs. 2014 Curry
2015 Harden vs. 2008 Manu vs. 2014 Curry

No matter of the picked version, Harden is the best of the lot and I don't see much case for Manu being better than Steph.

[freethedevil]

This is what I am talking about, you make up narratives to suit yourself.

Harden and Paul fit together excellently; the two of them with Capela were like, what, 50-5 together that first season? And they were on another healthy sixty-win pace the year after.

I just discredited your defence commentary, but as usual you ignore it. I also pointed out you were applying SRS completely nonsensically, but you ignored it.

That Spurs team was so “talent deficient” that they went on a four-year run as the conference’s top seed? Despite Duncan only being a “role-player”? This is the problem with making up narratives when convenient: they quickly contradict each other. The Spurs without Manu have always performed better than the Suns without Nash; that is a fact, no narrative invention needed.

2007 Nash was the greatest passing postseason ever (peak Magic the only comparable), but you ignore that because you want efficient scoring to be everything. Nash led numerous better postseason offences than Manu, but we ignore that. Nash put up 30/11/6.5 on 62% true shooting against the ninth-ranked Dallas defence in 2005, but we ignore that. Manu was the thirty minutes per game offensive “anchor” of a defence-first team (so basically Chauncey Billups or Isiah Thomas), but he gets enormous credit for the one season he led his team to something Nash matched or exceeded ten times. “Out-played Duncan”, please, if Duncan never shot he would still be at minimum matching Manu’s postseason impact through defence alone. But that also would get in the way of “narrative”.

Replace Manu with Nash, and the Spurs are better off every year up until 2011. No 2006 choke against Dallas with Nash; think the Spurs would have appreciated a little more support than Manu’s two assists per game in that series? No, of course not, because you only ever look at one and a half things when assessing player ability, and passing may as well contribute nothing in your eyes. And then you have the gall to talk about “watching film.”

Chris Paul didn't do much in the regular season during his Rockets years besides be a glorified role player. Harden's peak MVP season is what carried them, than he carried them again the next season. Paul loves to dominate the ball and doesn't fit well with Harden, they were winning despite Paul. You can replace Paul with Patrick Beverly those years and they wouldnt miss a beat in the regular season.

SRS is the strength of a schedule and Nash had a weak SRS, while coasting hard on defense.

SRS is not strength of schedule. That's sos. SRS does, take into account sos, so it still remains highly predictive. Regardless sos is barely worth a couple of wins at max so it's a really not as important as you're making it out to be