RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #22 (Kevin Durant)

[trex_8063]

2020 List
1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kevin Garnett
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. Dirk Nowitzki
16. Karl Malone
17. David Robinson
18. Julius Erving
19. George Mikan
20. Moses Malone
21. Charles Barkley
22. ???


Target stop-time will be roughly this time of evening on Friday.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[colts18]

I've been reading a lot posters here state that Stockton had a weak peak. Not only was it weak, it wasn't anywhere near the level of Nash's. I'm looking through Stockton's B-R page and I don't see any evidence for that at all. In fact, I believe that one of Stockton's late prime seasons (1997) is just as good if not better than Steve Nash's MVP 2006 season. If Nash can win an MVP with a season like 2006 and be considered a high peak player thrn Stockton has to be considered on that level.

Team Context:

1997 Jazz- 90.0 Pace (17th), 11.0 3PA/Game (29th, last place), 35.7 3P% teammates (3.1 Made Per game)
2006 Suns- 95.8 Pace (1st), 25.6 3PA/Game (1st), 39.1 3P% teammates (8.4 Made Per Game)

Nash played in a much more favorable offensive environment to Stockton. Nash's team played fast and had 3 point shooters spreading the floor. By contrast, Stockton's teams were slow and took the least amount of 3 pointers in the league. Nash's teammates scored over 15 more PPG from 3 pointers which inflated Nash's team O rating compared to Stockton's. Could you imagine Stockton getting to play in a fast offense with 3 point shooters to spread the floor?

2006 was clearly an easier environment for perimeter players than 1997. All 10 of the top 10 scorers in 2006 were perimeter players. All 10 of them scored 25+ PPG on 54+ TS%. Only 3 perimeter players accomplished that in 1997 and a total of 4 players reached 25+ PPG. In 2006, 3 players reached 30+ PPG while no player accomplished that feat in 1997, not even Michael Jordan. It was clearly a more favorable environment for Nash in the post handchecking NBA.

Per Game stats:

Stockton- 35 MPG, 14.4 PPG, 10.5 AST-3.0 TOV, 55 FG%, 42 3P%, 65.4 TS% (+12 rTS%)
Nash- 35 MPG, 18.8 PPG, 10.5 AST-3.5 TOV, 51 FG, 44 3P%, 63.2 TS% (+9.6 rTS%)

The Per Game stats look pretty close. Both of them played an even amount of minutes. Nash scored better, but Stockton's passing and efficiency rated higher. Remember, Nash played on the fastest offense in the league while Stockton was on a slow offense. Stockton played 82 games while Nash played 79 so that's another slight edge for Stockton.If you adjust for pace, the numbers look close.


Per 75 Possessions:

Stockton- 16.4 PPG, 11.9 AST-3.5 TOV, 3.2 Reb, 2.3 STL
Nash- 20 PPG, 11.1 AST-3.7 TOV, 4.5 Reb, 0.8 STL

The Per game gap shrunk when you adjust for pace.

Advanced Stats:

Stockton- 6.6 BPM, 22.1 PER, .226 WS/48, 6.3 VORP
Nash- 5.0 BPM, 23.3 PER, .212 WS/48, 4.9 VORP

RAPM:

Stockton: 2.3 Off, 1.5 Def, 3.9 Tot
Nash: 2.2 Off, -0.4 Def, 1.9 Tot

When you look at both the box score advanced stats and the advanced impact data, Stockton beats out Nash on both counts. Stockton's offense comes out nearly equal to Nash's while Stockton's defense crushes Nash.


Playoffs:

This is where Stockton shined. Stockton stepped up his game in the 97 Playoffs.

Per 75 Possessions:

Stockton- 18.2 PPG, 10.7 AST-3.7 TOV, 4.4 Reb,1.9 STL, 62.7 TS% (+9.5 rTS%)
Nash- 19.9 PPG, 10.0 AST-3.5 TOV, 3.6 Reb, 0.4 STL, 61.5 TS% (+7.9 r TS%)

In the playoffs, Stockton passed better, was more efficient, had 5x more steals than Nash, and outrebounded Nash too. The gap is scoring volume was reduced during the postseason.

Average opponent in the playoffs:

Stockton- 57.2 Wins, 4.88 SRS, 104.0 D Rating
Nash- 50.2 Wins, 3.29 SRS, 104.8 D Rating

Stockton played tougher opponents in the playoffs. He played a 56 win Lakers team, 57 win Rockets team, and a 69 win Bulls team. Nash played a 45 win Lakers team, 47 win Clippers team, and a 60 win Mavericks team. Stockton's numbers look better when you account for the stiff opposition.

Team Results:

Stockton- 64-18, 7.97 SRS (2nd), 113.6 O Rating (2nd), 104.0 D Rating (9th)
Nash- 54-28, 5.48 SRS (4th), 111.5 O Rating (2nd), 105.6 D Rating (16th)

Playoff Team Results:

Stockton- 7.88 SRS, +6.9 Offense, -2.1 Defense, +9.0 Net relative to opponent
Nash- 4.19 SRS, +9.5 Offense, +4.5 Defense (bad), +5.0 Net relative to opponent

Stockton's team results beat out Nash's in the regular season. In the playoffs, that gap widens.

Playoff Advanced Stats:
Stockton- 7.8 BPM, 22.7 PER, .201 WS/48, 1.8 VORP
Nash- 3.7 BPM, 21.3 PER, .153 WS/48, 1.1 VORP

Once again, the gap between them widens in the playoffs for Stockton.

Clutch Play:

It would be wrong to mention 1997 Stockton without mentioning how clutch he was in that postseason. That was the year of Stockton's top career highlight, his buzzer beater in Game 6 vs Houston to send the Utah Jazz to their 1st NBA finals. What's forgotten is that Stockton carried the team for the whole 4th quarter. The Jazz were down by 10 points with 3:13 left in the 4th quarter when John Stockton decided to go into Beast Mode. He scores 13 points on 4-4 shooting with 2 Assists and a crucial steal that led to the layup that tied the game. He scored or assisted on all 19 of the Jazz points. He makes a clutch layup with 22 seconds left to tie the game. Then makes a 3 pointer at the buzzer to win the game.

Watch on YouTube

Then in Game 4 of the finals, he takes over the game in the 4th. He forces a critical steal off of Michael Jordan which leads to an easy 2 points. Later he throws his iconic full court baseball pass to Karl Malone for a layup that gives the Jazz the lead.

Watch on YouTube

Based on all of that, I don't see how anyone can rate Nash's 2006 season ahead of Stockton 1997's season. Stockton's statistical and impact stats edge Nash in the regular season and postseason. This season was peak Steve Nash when he won an MVP. 1997 was clearly not Stockton's best season and he still finishes ahead of Nash. In fact, 1997 is Stockton's 11th best season according BPM, 10th best according to PER, and 6th best season according to win shares. If Nash can't really beat out 34 year old Stockton in his 5th-10th best season, then I don't see how anyone can say that Stockton doesn't have a comparable peak.

[Cavsfansince84]

I do have to say that the one thing that seems strange to me about Nash is how he went from having b2b mvp seasons to only making 1 all nba team after 2008 when he was still most definitely still in his prime I would say until 2011 or 2012. Its kind of strange. Its not like the guard competition was that stiff during those years either. Good but not really great imo.

[Cavsfansince84]

1. Bob Pettit
-10 time all nba 1st team
-what stands out to me as near prototypical size with very good length, athleticism and fluid movement for a pf
-very good shooter which he could do off the dribble
-excellent rebounder
-very good metrics/efficiency for his era(led league in per 4 times, has total ts add of 1757 for his career)
-25.5/15.8 career playoff averages
-won ring and top 4 in mvp voting 8 times

2. Kevin Durant
-9x top 10 in mvp voting, 6x top 5, 4x top 2. 5x top 3 in vorp.
-4x scoring leader with career ts add of 2607(higher than MJ)
-extremely unique combination of size, length, athleticism and skills which translates into him being one of the best iso players of all time.
- generally speaking I think he's consistently very good with some great peaks in the playoffs and plays on winning rs teams. I think its pretty easy to build around him as your best player though I don't like his leadership skills much and think he needs a strong coach or teammate to sort of guide his teams.
-I think his Warrior years are somewhat underrated now due to the whole KD/Steph debate but those were likely to be his best years(age 28-30) from a guy who had already been a league mvp.

3. John Stockton
-very good prime where he is consistently running offenses that rate very highly in ORtg(top 11 every year from 1990-2003 and top 7 every year from 92-01)
-top 6 in vorp for 10 straight years
-obviously extremely durable and still a very good player until he retired at the age of 40
-career ts add of 2466 and consistently in the 140-200 range for 15 straight years
-led league in assists 9 straight years
-made 5 all defensive 2nd teams
-top 15 in mvp voting 13 times despite being sort of overshadowed by the Mailman
-I think somewhat underrated in terms of how dominant the Jazz were in those playoff runs in the 97/98 seasons until the finals. The Jazz were 22-6 vs the west in those years while going against 4 teams that won 56+ games including a sweep of a 61 win Laker team.
-this spot sort of came down to Stockton and Nash for me and while sort of close I feel as though Stockton deserves the nod as the more complete player with the better meaningful longevity/prime.

[Jordan Syndrome]

I do have to say that the one thing that seems strange to me about Nash is how he went from having b2b mvp seasons to only making 1 all nba team after 2008 when he was still most definitely still in his prime I would say until 2011 or 2012. Its kind of strange. Its not like the guard competition was that stiff during those years either. Good but not really great imo.

2009: Kobe/Wade/Paul/Roy--all close to their peaks. Billups and Parker making it over Nash is a travesty--no way were either of them better than Nash in 2009.

2011: Kobe/Rose/Wade/Westbrook/Paul and Manu having his peak regular season.

[eminence]

I'll need to see those '06 RAPM calculations that wound up with those numbers Colts. Put simply... they seem wrong.

[Cavsfansince84]

I do have to say that the one thing that seems strange to me about Nash is how he went from having b2b mvp seasons to only making 1 all nba team after 2008 when he was still most definitely still in his prime I would say until 2011 or 2012. Its kind of strange. Its not like the guard competition was that stiff during those years either. Good but not really great imo.

2009: Kobe/Wade/Paul/Roy--all close to their peaks. Billups and Parker making it over Nash is a travesty--no way were either of them better than Nash in 2009.

2011: Kobe/Rose/Wade/Westbrook/Paul and Manu having his peak regular season.

Seeing the players who made it over him it makes a bit more sense. I'd also forgotten about Wade.

[colts18]

I'll need to see those '06 RAPM calculations that wound up with those numbers Colts. Put simply... they seem wrong.

2006 RAPM:

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2006-npi

1997 RAPM:

http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2013/10/introducing-1990s-rapm.html

[penbeast0]

I agree that Curry was the more dominant and impactful player in his prime than Durant. I have them 1-2 here.

For the next slot, it's either Paul, Stockton, or Pettit. OF the 3, Pettit is the only one who was ever the best player in the league, albeit for the short stretch between Mikan and Russell who easily eclipsed him. And, during the strong league stretch of his career, he was a clear level above every except Russell, Wilt, West, Oscar and Baylor. It's close between Baylor and Pettit and they were contemporaries who both played the PF forward over the same period generally speaking (I have Baylor as more of a PF type than LaRusso) though Baylor was a 4/3 while Pettit was a 4/5. As expected from their positions, Pettit was the better rebounder while Baylor was the better ballhandler. But Pettit has two edges on Baylor that give him the advantage for me. First, he was the more efficient scorer, particularly relative to league since he played his first few years in a much less efficient league than Baylor played his post-Pettit career. Second, from what I've been able to gather from their contemporaries, Pettit was the stronger defender. So, I have Pettit over Baylor.

1. Curry
2. Durant
3. Pettit

[Doctor MJ]

RAPM:

Stockton: 2.3 Off, 1.5 Def, 3.9 Tot
Nash: 2.2 Off, -0.4 Def, 1.9 Tot

When you look at both the box score advanced stats and the advanced impact data, Stockton beats out Nash on both counts. Stockton's offense comes out nearly equal to Nash's while Stockton's defense crushes Nash.

Okay so first colts18, I'll say that I appreciate all the work you put into that post. I don't know how much I'm going to end up responding on, but I felt I needed to address this.

In '96-97, all of the impact data favors Karl Malone over John Stockton. I'm not saying you're arguing Stockton > Malone, but there's a fundamental truth about how we're looking to compare Stockton to Nash when Stockton was secondary to Malone in his role. Plan A of the offense was to get the ball to Malone and have him do his thing. Stockton operated as the 2nd priority on the court and rarely made teams pay repeatedly over the course of the game for this (rarely drifts into volume scoring territory, which is quite unusual).

I'm not saying we should bash Stockton or claim that that meant Stockton couldn't play alpha, but we need to acknowledge that we haven't seen him in the role we saw Nash in in Phoenix.

We haven't seen him with all of the defenses attention focused on blunting his attack like we have with Nash.
We haven't seen him manufacture playing chances the same way we saw Nash do it.
We haven't seen him run offenses that stand out like the ones Nash did.

Your general thrust of argument is that because the box score and cumulative success of Stockton impresses you more than the box score of Nash while Nash leads better offenses than Stockton, then imagine how much more Stockton could have achieved if only he had Nash's situation, and I would reject that in principle.

You cannot infer from the box score that Stockton could do what Nash did. Period. I'm not saying I know Stockton couldn't do it and I'm not saying you can't think it likely, but I am saying that you cannot capture the entirety of what they were doing out there by use of this data on its own.

You really have to get into a player's moves, traits, tendencies. Honestly, video is really, really good for this, and frankly I'll readily admit that I am influenced here by ElGee's BackPicks 40 analysis. If you haven't done so, I'd say it's worth checking out the two analyses:

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/25/backpicks-goat-25-john-stockton/
https://backpicks.com/2018/02/22/backpicks-goat-19-steve-nash/

As you may recall, this fits with how I previously saw things so feel free to consider my perception biased - I'm not offended, do look at it with independent eyes maybe you'll make me think about something I didn't think about.

But just fundamentally, I don't think there's any good reason to think Stockton could do Nash. I think he could have been great in any era, but he's not the agent of chaos that Nash is so his effects would always be a bit different. And hey, you may rate those differences in favor of Stockton then just as you do now.

But Nash did take a team completely out from the blue and turn them into arguably the best and eventually most influential offensive dynasty in NBA history. I'm not just going to assume Stockton could have done the same thing when he's not shown all of the same abilities that Nash has.

Regarding Nash's '05-06 numbers. You're clearly using the non-prior numbers. The prior numbers look better, but of course, they were informed by '04-05 in which Nash was arguably the offensive GOAT peak, so the non-prior numbers make sense to use.

What do you do when you "use" them? Ask questions. Dig into data.

Remember that before the '05-06 season the Suns let go of two starters and lost another to injury. They went into the season with something that felt like a completely new team that had to figure each other out.

It took about 10 games.

The Suns started the year .500 ball to that point and it was a struggle.
After that they went 49-23, which was more impressive than it sounds because the team got hit with further injury. For about half a season they were playing 60-win level ball and this was in voters heads when they were voting.

So then let's note Nash's +/- in those two timespans:

Game 1 to 10: -51
Game 11 to 82: +523

And let's compare that to Boris Diaw, the guy NPI is giving so much of the credit to:

Game 1 to 10: +72
Game 11 to 82: +425

Boris Diaw got inserted into the starting lineup in Game 11. Basically he played his way from the bench playing small minutes against back-up competition to being a starter. He deserves a ton of praise for this...but once he was in the starting lineup with Nash, while he was very effective, he wasn't the most vital one out there.

Now if you just use that data it is worth asking "Oh my gosh, maybe a team should just hand the entire offense to Diaw and see what he can do! Maybe Diaw is super-Nash!", but we're 15 years on and I think we all know this wasn't the case.

But this RAPM most definitely does not know this. It's literally treating all these data points like they're telling the same story about player value. And so that's why Nash's numbers for that year by that method are weaker than the years around it.

For the record, in terms of the MVP that year, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that those first 10 games really keep Nash from being worthy of the MVP that year. But in terms of what this says about Nash's impact capability in general, nah, when you really break things down you end up with data that just further hammers in the idea that Nash was kicking ass the vast majority of the time.

[Odinn21]

A quick recap with changes compared to the 2017 list so far;

1. LeBron James (+2)
2. Michael Jordan (-1)
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (-1)
4. Bill Russell -
5. Tim Duncan -
6. Wilt Chamberlain -
7. Magic Johnson -
8. Shaquille O'Neal -
9. Hakeem Olajuwon -
10. Larry Bird -
11. Kevin Garnett (+1)
12. Kobe Bryant (-1)
13. Jerry West (+2)
14. Oscar Robertson (-1)
15. Dirk Nowitzki (+2)
16. Karl Malone (-2)
17. David Robinson (+1)
18. Julius Erving (-2)
19. George Mikan (+6)
20. Moses Malone -
21. Charles Barkley (-2)

---

I have Pettit/Wade/Curry order for now but I think I may skip voting in this round because I might feel too strong in some discussions and I don't think that'll do any good.

BTW, I seriously think we're getting closer and closer to the player pool with Frazier. His good seasons were basically from 1969 to 1975, that's hardly short of Curry's 5 seasons from 2015 to 2019 or Wade's 2006-11 span, especially considering durability was an issue for Wade/Durant/Curry. And I find Frazier's defensive impact very significant.

Frazier always caused big troubles to the player he defended.

A quick look at the star players played against the Knicks in the playoffs during Frazier's prime;
E. Monroe against Frazier in '69 playoffs - 28.3 ppg on .386 fg (25.8 ppg on .440 fg r. season average for Monroe and his team was .427 against the Knicks)
E. Monroe in '70; 28.0 ppg on .481 fg (23.4 ppg on .446 fg r. season and .418 fg team)
E. Monroe in '71; 24.4 ppg on .407 fg (21.4 ppg on .442 fg r. season and .448 fg team)
S. Jones in '69; 14.5 ppg on .350 fg (16.3 ppg on .450 fg r. season and .469 fg team)
P. Maravich in '71; 22.0 ppg on .377 fg (23.2 ppg on .458 fg r. season and .427 fg team)
J. West in '70; 31.3 ppg on .450 fg (31.2 ppg on .497 fg r. season and .494 fg team)
J. West in '72; 19.8 ppg on .325 fg (25.8 ppg on .477 fg r. season and .421 fg team)
J. West in '73; 21.4 ppg on .442 fg (22.8 ppg on .479 fg r. season and .431 fg team)
J. White in '72; 22.6 ppg on .402 fg (23.1 ppg on .431 fg r. season and .416 fg team)
J. White in '73; 23.6 ppg on .414 fg (19.7 ppg on .431 fg r. season and .443 fg team)
J. White in '74; 15.2 ppg on .385 fg (18.1 ppg on .449 fg r. season and .467 fg team)
C. Murphy in '75; 20.7 ppg on .418 fg (18.7 ppg on .484 fg r. season and .481 fg team)

The only time a player improved their scoring volume and fg% from the floor was Monroe in 1970. There are 12 performances on there and literally half of them regressed in both volume and % against Frazier. Other than those 6, I'd put also '69 against Monroe, '70 against West and '75 against Murphy as definite wins in Frazier's case. That's 9 out of 12.
That's a pretty impressive track record if you ask me. Especially considering defense was more about 1v1 performances back then meaning those performance drops were more directly related to Frazier than team's defensive schemes.

I don't think Frazier was particularly a tier below than Nash, Paul and Ewing who are next in line for me.

Harden is also a good name to keep in mind at this point.

[Dutchball97]

1. Kevin Durant - I don't think there is much left to say tbh. If you're still not convinced after like 8 threads of me voting KD, I doubt you'll be convinced by anything I say now. He's the clear second best player of the 2010s to me. His career choices might leave something to be desired but that doesn't mean anything to his level of play. If anything his portability and flexibility was showcased by how well he fit into the GSW line-up, making them pretty much unbeatable.

2. Steph Curry - Didn't really expect to be voting for Curry here, because I think he has already done enough to be top 15. I just don't think even 10 All-NBA/All-Star years can compensate for 5 years of being a MVP level player and making the finals every year, winning 3 titles in that timespan. To me longevity is something that acts as a tiebreaker between players of a similar level, I can't put a worse player ahead of better players unless it's really extreme cases like Walton or Rose. I think KD and Curry are comparable players but KD has had a few more years of elite play. I'd also argue Curry has a slight regular season advantage, while KD takes a small lead in the play-offs.

3. Dwyane Wade - My third choice Barkley got voted in so looks like I can once again change a name on my ballot. In the end this came down to Wade vs Pettit. CP3 was also in consideration for me but I just can't give it to him yet. In terms of regular season performance he should already be in, level of play in the play-offs is more than good enough as well but he just never made a deep run as the first option. All those second round exits and untimely injuries hurt a career that had the potential to be much higher. Pettit bridged the gap between Mikan and Russell as the best player in the league and his 10 year career includes solely elite years. I'm always a bit peeved at people mentioning Baylor instead of Pettit when talking about early stars as I think Pettit was the clearly superior player. Wade has questionable longevity but if you look at my other two votes here, that isn't a dealbreaker to me. The deciding factor was Wade's insane carryjob of the Heat in 06 on the way to a ring. Pettit's one ring came in a year where Cliff Hagan in just his second year outplayed Pettit in the play-offs. In terms of quality of his ring, it's more akin to Wade's 12 and 13 performances than the 06 one.

[Joey Wheeler]

1-Kevin Durant

Should already be in, don't see any case for some of the guys already in over him. GOAT level scorer, imo the best ever in that regard along with Jordan, his insane volume and efficiency holds up even in the biggest stage in the Finals. Too big to be defended by wings, he'll just shoot over them; too quick and agile to be defended by bigs. He's a walking mismatch and can score at insane efficiency with a shot profile full of what would be inefficient shots for just about anyone else. Very good longevity already too.

2-Dywane Wade

Incredible force at his peak, one of the best Finals performances ever. Could be much higher if not for injuries/longevity. He's one of the greatest forces ever attacking the rim.~

3-Isiah Thomas

Clear cut best player on a dynastic-type team (back to back champions, would have 3-peated if not for an egregious call + injury, 5 ECFs in a row) that overcame Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers. He lacks the individual dominance of other guys who were clear cut best players in dynastic type teams, but this is about the range where he belongs. Great floor general, could really ramp up his scoring when necessary and elevated his game in the playoffs. Also of course great intangibles, he was the captain of the team and set the tone for the "Bad Boy" culture.

[penbeast0]

....Pettit's one ring came in a year where Cliff Hagan in just his second year outplayed Pettit in the play-offs. In terms of quality of his ring, it's more akin to Wade's 12 and 13 performances than the 06 one.

Hagan was one of those guys who elevated his game in the playoffs, like Hakeem or Frank Ramsey. Pettit was not, but that year, you have to give him credit because when it came down to the final game, he put the team on his back and did one of the greatest finals carry jobs in history. Normally I'm not a fan of hero ball, but when it works, you have to give the man the credit.

[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]

[Joao Saraiva]

Votes
1. Kevin Durant
2. Steph Curry
3. John Stockton

KD has been one of the top players of the league for a big while now. He has the accodales, he's an ultra scorer and easy fit with anybody.

On and off numbers say wonders about Curry vs him I bet, but that's because the extra forwards of the Warriors were always better than the bench PGs.

Accodales wise he's probably the most accomplished player left.

I don't like him and I give him less credit for the GSW championships than I would give him for winning in other situations... but enough is enough, and he still performed really well and was very consistent in that stint.

Plus it's not like he was bad with OKC. I still give him a ton of credit for the 14 RS and the 12 campaign too.

I have him ahead of Curry for longevity, I think his prime and peak justify him ahead of Stockton already, altough I'm still not sure about that.

[Dutchball97]

....Pettit's one ring came in a year where Cliff Hagan in just his second year outplayed Pettit in the play-offs. In terms of quality of his ring, it's more akin to Wade's 12 and 13 performances than the 06 one.

Hagan was one of those guys who elevated his game in the playoffs, like Hakeem or Frank Ramsey. Pettit was not, but that year, you have to give him credit because when it came down to the final game, he put the team on his back and did one of the greatest finals carry jobs in history. Normally I'm not a fan of hero ball, but when it works, you have to give the man the credit.

[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]

Even in the regular season Pettit and Hagan seemingly carried the team together. Pettit and Hagan had comparable regular seasons in terms of winshares with Pettit having 11 to Hagan's 10 but in the play-offs Hagan smokes Pettit with 2.7 to 1.2 WS. Hagan also had significantly better PER (27.5 to Pettit's 22.6) and TS% (57.6% to 47.2%) in the play-offs. Of course this doesn't come close to painting the whole picture but a difference that significant at least raises some question marks around Pettit's individual performance in his lone title run.

It's not enough to completely stray me off Pettit but the uncertainty about his impact in the title run compared to Wade's heroics in 06 made the difference to me. Another thing that it does though is that it brings Cliff Hagan to my attention a bit more. I see that he didn't make the top 100 last time but if Bob Davies is getting serious consideration, so should Hagan imo.

[trex_8063]

(edited: flipped #1 and #2)

1st vote: Chris Paul
I think Paul suffers severely in the esteems of the media and casual fans alike because he's a pass-first PG (which limits ppg), because he's not been to the finals, and a relative lack of flash.
But this is a player who is 9th all-time in career PER (despite a career lasting 15 seasons, >1000 games, >35,000 minutes), 14th in WS (12th in NBA-only careers), and 7th in VORP.
In the playoffs he's got the 10th-best career PER of all-time (ahead of contemporaries like Dirk, Kawhi, Steph Curry, and James Harden), as well as being 34th in WS and 24th in VORP (despite never making a run as deep as the finals).

In terms of impact, his best 10 years RAPM added is 5th among those players we have the data for. Only Lebron, Garnett, Duncan, and Shaq exceed him in this (all of them already voted in, the nearest being 8 places ago)......which means he's AHEAD of contemporaries like Dirk and Wade. He's also ahead of the best 10-years of Charles Barkley, fwiw (and we have some pseudo-RAPM going back as far as '88 for Barkley).

While I think Paul's fallen slightly short of the offensive peaks attained by Nash or Magic (I think his relative conservatism holds him back), it's notable that he combines the offense he does provide [GOAT-tier mid-range shooting, GOAT-tier turnover economy] with frequently being one of the best defensive PG's of his generation: he's short, but thick, strong, and aggressive. He's not easily abused even by bigger guards, doesn't die on screens, is persistently pesky on ball [with quick hands], and is impeccable in his positioning to interfere with the slip pass on pnr defense. Rebounds reasonably well for his size, too (obviously well shy of Magic in this regard, not that Magic is on the table for comparison presently).


2nd vote: John Stockton
Again: meaningful longevity matters to me; and Stockton's got that in spades. He was valuable (almost a borderline All-Star calibre player) even in his 19th and final season (every metric, including the impact variety, bare this to be true).
He was so clever (and dirty), particularly defensively, as well as being an excellent shooter, fantastic [if a touch overly "safe"] passer; and bloody tough as nails. There's some value to having a guy you can count on being there EVERY night. He's also a teammate that no one ever did [no one ever would, I suspect] say something bad about. Just a humble, hard-working class act; though still tough as anyone (someone who Chris Webber once referred to as "the baddest man in the NBA").

While I don't think he attained the offensive heights of Steve Nash, he so thoroughly trumps Nash as a defender AND in terms of longevity that I have him comfortably ahead in an all-time sense.
vs Chris Paul: I feel Paul was a slightly better offensive engine in the rs, and certainly a bit better [or at least more consistent] where the playoffs are concerned. He's also every bit Stockton's peer (a bit better at his peak, actually) defensively. This is what pulls him roughly even, despite lesser longevity. I could [and have] flip their order relative to each other.
I imagine I'll be championing him for awhile before others are willing to give him votes. I keep meaning to provide some additional arguments; we'll see if I actually get to it.


3rd vote: Kevin Durant
What can I say about him that hasn't already been said in the last thread [or ones before that]? He's a solid candidate for this stage. It's ONLY the longevity has him faintly trailing Stock or CP3 for me.


Dwyane Wade is the only other player still on the table who'd be on my radar for this spot. Longevity [of quality] is the thing that holds him back, too.

[WestGOAT]

3-Isiah Thomas

Clear cut best player on a dynastic-type team (back to back champions, would have 3-peated if not for an egregious call + injury, 5 ECFs in a row) that overcame Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers. He lacks the individual dominance of other guys who were clear cut best players in dynastic type teams, but this is about the range where he belongs. Great floor general, could really ramp up his scoring when necessary and elevated his game in the playoffs. Also of course great intangibles, he was the captain of the team and set the tone for the "Bad Boy" culture.

I definitely think IT is underrated on this board, but I'm not sure if I personally place him above Curry. I just think Curry at his peak is so dominant, basically the PG version of Shaq, and he doesn't even need the ball to dominate. It's true he won't get his shot off as easily as someone like Durant, who you can simply just dump the ball to and he will get you a bucket at relatively good efficiency (which imo is a somehwat overrated since the Warriors almost lost their series against the Rockets, cause KD kept iso-ing instead of passing), but Curry raises the ceiling so much for his team and provides tremendous space for his teammates to play in.

That said as I mentioned in the previous topic, I think IT in his prime (1985-1990) was better than Stockton in his prime (1988-1993). I really don't think Stockton could have carried the offensive load IT was managing for the Pistons. IT was the first option and he was taking the tough shots for his teams, comparing TS% is unfair since Stockton was simply taking different types of shots while playing off Malone. When did IT play with someone with the calibre of Malone? People mention Dantley and Aguirre could compensate, but right when they left Detroit and saw an increase in usage their TS% dropped considerably.

The Pistons are rightfully famous for their all-time defense, but they were no slouches on offence either which IT spearheaded, have a look below at how their playoff offense ranked compared to other playoff teams (16 in total, and 1 of course is the best in this context):


Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lMHVWmmq6lEy9O9XqLk0Ji-xawtX8gPRtHHwbvV9634/edit#gid=999526014

Detroit from 1985 to 1990 playoffs

Code: Select all

Year   Team rOFF Relative Offense adjusted to Oppositions' RS DRtg
1985   DET   5   5.0
1986   DET   9   3.8
1987   DET   3   7.6
1988   DET   12   0.7
1989   DET   3   6.4
1990   DET   8   2.1

Utahfrom 1988 to 1993 playoffs

Code: Select all

Year   Team rOFF Offense adjusted to Oppositions' RS DRtg
1988   UTA   10   1.6
1989   UTA   15   -1.6
1990   UTA   9   2.1
1991   UTA   6   5.3
1992   UTA   2   8.4
1993   UTA   12   -2.5

Phoenix from 2005 to 2010 playoffs

Code: Select all

Year   Team rOFF Relative Offense adjusted to Oppositions' RS DRtg
2005   PHO   1   17.0
2006   PHO   3   9.5
2007   PHO   1   7.6
2008   PHO   9   3.1
2010   PHO   1   13.4

Detroit was top 5 3x out of 6 playoffs
Phoenix was top 5 4x out of 5 playoffs
Utah was top 5 1x out of 6 playoffs

Now we all know Utah improved considerably on offense once Hornachek arrived, but somehow he hardly gets any credits for this improvement, Malone gets blamed when the Jazz got knocked-out in the play-offs, whereas Stockton has no fault at all?

I actually have more data that I scraped myself from basketball-reference, game-logs of all playoff teams from 1985 onwards. Perhaps I will also collect the game-logs of certain players and see how their individual ORtg associates with the team's ORtg in the playoffs. Perhaps this can give a fair impression of which player's offense was most relevant for their team performance?

So for Detroit probably Thomas, Dantley/Aguirre, and Dumars. For Utah Stockton, Malone, and Hornachek. For the Suns Nash, Stoudimire, and Marion.

[Doctor MJ]

Alright, so I'm just going to get my vote out there this time, and it's going to be the same as last time for now. It's possible I might end up changing the 3rd vote.

Vote:

1. Steph Curry
2. Steve Nash
3. Kevin Durant

In terms of my explanation, I've been writing like crazy in this and the prior thread so frankly I'm worried folks are tuning me out at this point. Plus it's Thanksgiving. I should chill.

I was looking back at my posts toward the end of the thread, and I'll share two things form that.

First, just what I said about Curry & Nash while voting for them:

In Curry I see a guy whose game is maybe better suited to being valuable with great teammates than anyone else in history, and whose maturity seems to be an outlier in its own right. When you can get a guy who can be the most valuable player in the entire world, but will also willingly take a backseat to someone with an ego without displaying even a trace of resentment, you're talking about someone very special.

Of course, I could say something similar about Nash. I wouldn't quite say that Nash is as suited to playing with great teammates as Curry is. If you want to use Nash right, you put the ball in his hands. While I'm sure Nash and LeBron could do great things together, fit would always be something of an issue there because both are indisputably better when they are the one making the decisions. Curry? On LeBron's team, you let LeBron run the show and Curry yields massive value through his off-ball play. Need Curry to run the point? He can do that effectively and it will give him even more chances to shoot the ball.

But I will say that Nash is probably the best on-ball mind the game has ever seen. Curry is the best off-ball gravity manipulator in the history of the game (runner up Reggie), Bird is the best at causing impact at any moment on the floor, but no one attacked the defense with a better combination of vision, aggression, and improvisation than Nash. I consider that a big deal.

I can obviously say more about them as needed.

The other post is about Durant, and I'm going to put it in spoilers because it's long, and negative:

Spoiler:

I just can't get over nobody downgrading Karl Malone for what he did but KD joining the Warriors makes him the devil. Could be a cultural difference or something but idk.

Seems to me you're confused to be honest. And to be fair, we are coming from different cultures and different mother tongues, so I don't want to be super-sanctimonious here.

A couple points and then I'm going to get into some quotes and stuff because frankly, despite the fact I don't enjoy getting into this stuff, I don't really feel like people get it yet.

1. I'm really trying to emphasize that the big issue is what happened AFTER Durant was in GS not his decision to leave OKC, but both things come up because they are related and to understand Durant's mindset, you really need to have everything in mind. Am I claiming to perfectly understand Durant's mindset? No, but there's information out there if you look for it.

2. I'm not actually sure what you're referring to relating to Malone but others have brought up him impregnating an underage girl so I'll address that. I cannot emphasize enough that I'm not referring to some "Morality rating" that then has some weight in how I judge a player. I'm talking about a) actual damage done to the team that's paying the player as well as b) personality traits that showed up along the way that indicates the player is problematic in a team setting. If you personally want to knock Malone by saying "If you draft him, he may end up in jail and you gotta factor that in", but I have to be honest and say that the incident in question hasn't really been on my mind at all.

Okay now:

Ethan Strauss wrote a book called "The Victory Machine" you may have heard about. In that book Strauss mentions Durant incidents both relating to the press and to his teammates. I think a particular telling quote, comes from another beat writer relaying an incident where KD confronted him:

KD said, "I hear and I read everything. And don't forget that." He said it multiple times.

Durant may well have the most sensitive rabbit ears of any player in NBA history with the aid of the internet. He's a guy who is looking at what everyone is saying about him, and if anything feels like a sleight, he gets obsessed.

Strauss is writing this book in part because Durant did the same thing to him. You might also remember the sock puppet incident where Durant was caught trying to argue for "KD" on the internet under the guise of being a fan. You may also remember Durant bashing "blog boys" in one of his many rants about the media.

And you may think, "Why do I care about Durant's relationship with the media?"

Because it's related to his jealous toward his rivals, which it turns out very much includes his teammates.

Durant, according to Strauss, believed that the local press was basically against him because they were pro-Curry. But Durant didn't just have issues with the credit Curry got. Here are a couple quotes about teammates:

How can you call yourself 'Mo Buckets' when you never averaged twenty points a game?

You guys gonna write about that? You're not, are you, because anything Klay does is okay because it's Klay. But anything I do is not okay because I'm Kevin Durant'.

I'm sorry if this seems slimy me talking about this stuff, but folks have asked for examples and I think they are clearly necessary.

We don't just know THAT Durant turned Golden State's Joy culture in an ugly, uncomfortable place, we really seem to know how it happened.

Durant was disappointed with the reactions he saw online beginning in the aftermath of the 2017 title. He really thought that if he won a title by outplaying LeBron head to head that all the critics would shut up, and they didn't. As I've said, Durant's misunderstanding here was something some of us raised the red flag on when he signed with Golden State - my statement at the time was not that I was damning Durant for going there but that Durant almost certainly was doing this thinking he would get a legacy win from it that he wasn't likely to get, and the question was always how he'd respond when he realized he was deluded.

And he responded by being jealous toward his teammates. Even the role players. Durant thought the media was treating him unfair compared to his teammates, and this led him to be bitter and lash out against all sorts of people around him. Journalists, teammates, coaches - they all walked on eggshells around Durant and simply took it when he disrespected them either in the press (teammates) or directly to their fact (Steve Kerr).

Well not all of them. Draymond obviously didn't give an F about all that and escalated the situation, for which I do put blame on Draymond, but it does not absolve Durant.

I can't emphasize enough that when we're talking about the tendency to view the people on your team as your rivals, THAT is what kills great teams. That is precisely why Shaq kept changing teams, for example. We're not talking about a random, obscure danger here when it comes to locker room issues, we're talking about THE issue that you should be looking out for in basically every locker room in the NBA.

But while Shaq's issues were about face-to-face stuff like Kobe literally being antagonistic to Shaq in person, the disturbing thing about Durant is that this was about Durant paying attention to the internet. His teammates didn't start this crap, if anyone other than Durant could be said to start it, it was journalists.

For this reason, while I see Durant's behavior toward the journalists as disturbing, if it didn't spread to the team, quite frankly I wouldn't even bring it up here. But Durant did take it out on teammates. The jealousy he displayed shows us part of how that came about, but in the end on a daily basis what we're really talking about is Durant having a propensity to act like a sarcastic teenager mocking those around him. The thing that set Draymond Green off was Durant mocking him mid-game, and Kerr endured quite a bit more of that while turning the other cheek.

And what all this means is that if Durant was going to take things this way, long-term sustainability for him on Golden State was literally impossible. Durant put himself in a situation where he could have been a part of a long-term dynasty (and btw, if GS wins like 5 rings with Durant, he would have gotten the fawning press he was aching for) playing for the best team culture he'd ever seen, and by his 2nd year there could only see the negatives.

I don't want to make it sound like I think Durant should be in jail for this. Not understanding what will actually make you happy is something many of us have, and have a considerably more advanced ages than Durant.

But if I'm looking to build an NBA team around guys who will allow me to build and sustain a great culture, THIS is the sort of thing I'm looking at with regards to intangibles. It's a big deal, and quite frankly there's a massive spectrum of "cultural force" that goes from positive to negative, and while I'd have given Curry a significant edge before Durant imploded the Warriors' culture, now I see them as about as far apart as any two players can get.

I honestly don't know of player that took a super-positive culture like this and flushed it down the toilet so rapidly despite winning like crazy. We always say "winning cures everything", and even for Shaq-type of pettiness, it basically does keep the toxicity from boiling over. But for Durant, it's not just that it didn't, it's that he was actively pissed off that the team won and he was still getting criticism. This was always going to be what happened, and thus Durant was absolutely doomed to ruin the good thing he had.

This stuff matters to all coaches and GMs, and it should matter to you if you're trying to rank guys like those whose livelihood actually requires they do so.

Two last things:

1. What about the fact other teams still want Durant? Durant is an exceptionally talented basketball player, and for most teams, giving him whatever he wants is still probably the best option. I'm not saying we should rank Durant as a zero by any stretch of the imagination, but we have a stark contrast here with Curry where if you're picking Durant, you're literally choosing the guy who just ruined the best thing in the NBA because of his own neuroticism over the guy who handled everything about perfectly while being more impactful on the court.

2. I'm going to look at the votes, and then there's a good chance I'm going to vote for Durant in the last spot. How can I say all this stuff and still vote for Durant? Well first, I'm not going to consider guys for the 3rd spot that don't seem to have a chance to be around after my top 2 choices are ghosted. But more significantly, Durant is very good at basketball and he's not the only knucklehead around.

So whether you read (or re-read) or not, the gist is clearly that Durant's behavior was a problem. And I'll end with 3 parting thoughts:

1. Remember that every single person getting paid to make decisions for NBA teams cares a great deal about this stuff. You can choose to ignore it, but in doing so you're choosing to make your analysis simplified compared to what serious folks with livelihood on the line have to do.

2. Remember that these are people in a work environment. If you're old enough to have been in various work environments, you understand that someone can be competent at their work focus and still be very damaging to the organization you work for, and if you were thinking of starting your own company, you would strongly consider not working with that person again.

For me personally, I tend to think of some of the most talented coders I've worked with. One in particular was talented enough that he'd always be able to get a new job, but was always unhappy with those around him. He had an incredible memory, and like most (but not all) the people I've been around with outlier memories, he had a tendency to remember slights and hold grudges. The longer he worked at a place, the more the people around him bothered him and while it mostly involved just being rude and sarcastic, sometimes he'd blow up and bring up stuff the other person didn't even remember.

Is this starting to feel familiar to the topic at hand? It should. These are not isolated phenomena, they are common ways in which teams fall apart, and basketball is a team sport.

3. I'm a long-time fan and analyst of many sports, but my two main sports are basketball and tennis. Tennis, of course, isn't a true team sport unless you're a doubles specialist. There have been quite a few tennis players who I think have some things in common with Durant, including currently Novak Djokovic, but it largely doesn't matter there because in the end, you can't confuse teammates for rivals if you don't have teammates.

The dynamic of guys who can be said to be better suited mentally for individual sports but whose athleticism casts them into team sports is one I find to be very interesting looking at the basketball landscape. Kobe is another example of this, and folks may know I'm critical of Kobe...but Kobe's brain is a very different thing than KD's brain. KD is literally a guy who drives himself miserable replaying negative things that hurt him over and over in his head building up destructive emotions, and Kobe's just not that kind of guy.

[Doctor MJ]

on Isiah & Stockton

Great post! This is the direction that Isiah supporters need to go to influence me.

In general I think it's clear that because playoff statistical analysis is a lot noisier than the regular season, those of us who tend to use data run the risk of thinking too much in terms of the regular season, and good analysis of playoff data can really help rectify that.

I will say it's not like I'm ever purposefully ignoring the playoffs, but I recognize it could effectively happen.

I'd be curious to see more data along these lines with other players. I'm interested in any players, but since you're focused on point guards right now that's what comes to mind. What about more modern guys like Billups & Lillard? What about contemporaries like KJ, Hardaway & Price?

If I can see evidence that Isiah's literally leading better playoff offenses than most comparable guys, that's meaningful to me.