Players in your all-time list that you rank significantly lower than this board?

[Matt15]

Same idea as the topic from ceiling raiser but this time lower instead of higher.

[dygaction]

Russell 8/9 as opposed to 5ish
KG 19/20 as to 15ish
CP3 30 as to 25ish

[ceiling raiser]

Aside from pre-shot clock guys, Kobe/Wilt/Erving.

It's not a huge difference in terms of rankings (3 vs 1), but I also am lower on LeBron's status as a *strong* GOAT candidate. Though I don't see an argument for him any lower than 5th (and that's pushing it).

[TheGOATRises007]

Chris Paul.

Larry Bird(I've become much lower on him recently).

[Dr Positivity]

I'm lower on

Olajuwon - I think the first 8 years of his career he wasn't on pace to even have a top 20 career all time (by today's list not 90s list) due to offensive flaws. So while I think he played at a top 10 level from 93-95 when looking at the totality I have him lower than other people.

Durant - One of the lower basketball IQs of the top 20 candidates and I never felt like he was as valuable in regular season as some of the other guys carrying their teams. He is a reverse Malone/Harden in that his skillset is better in playoffs, but he also got stopped in a few series as well such as this year.

West/Oscar - I just question how high up the 3rd/4th best players of one of the weaker eras for competition should be ranked

maybe: Magic - I think you can argue Magic from 80-86 is overrated due to his scoring rate for that pace being pretty pedestrian, as in closer to Stockton than Nash or Paul. However I'm high on 87-91 version, and you can say earlier 80s had to take backseat to Kareem. I can overall be talked out of this one.

[Homer38]

Garnett...He is top 15-20 for me but not close to be top 10 like some think

[falcolombardi]

jordan-rank him 3rd right now below kareem and lebron am unconvinced he was a better player than either (specially by a significant margin) which would be needed to overcome the longevity gap with both (i have all 3 with comparable levels of impact)

shaq- i think he doesnt have a better peak than duncan but still clearly in the top 10

bird- think his offensives weaknesses and playoffs inconsistency are a bit underplayed i would have him at the bottom of the top 10 or right outside it

i dont believe in the idea he gave teams a higher offense ceiling than magic based on portability when the results say the opposite if anythingh

durant- i think he gets slightly overated at times because he is in the "unstopable scorer" archetype but still a top 20~ all time player

curry- i think he gets a bit too much credit for the whole "ceiling raising" thingh but still one of the best peaks of all time, probably top 15 or better

[penbeast0]

Walton -- One season he made it to the playoffs as a healthy starter and even then he only played 66 games. Not close to my top 100 list.

Iverson, Wilkins, and pretty much any other high volume, mediocre efficiency, weak defense scorer. I don't think they contribute much to championship possibility which is where I tend to focus. Others disagree.

I think I'm lower on Jordan too thanks to what I see as his toxic personality but he's still top 2-3 for me so can't really see that as "significantly" lower.

[penbeast0]

I'm lower on ...

maybe: Magic - I think you can argue Magic from 80-86 is overrated due to his scoring rate for that pace being pretty pedestrian, as in closer to Stockton than Nash or Paul. However I'm high on 87-91 version, and you can say earlier 80s had to take backseat to Kareem. I can overall be talked out of this one.

This idea that Nash was a high volume scorer gets overplayed on this board relative to the actual numbers. Magic 80-86 is a clearly superior volume scorer to 97 to 01 Nash, only in 02 does Nash surpass him and then later Magic again surpasses Nash.

The average Nash season is 23.3 pts/100 possessions, the average Stockton season (and Stockton played longer) is 21.0 pts/100, the prime differential is a bit larger but not ridiculously so. And Nash played in systems that let him free lance and call his own number more.

[falcolombardi]

I'm lower on ...

maybe: Magic - I think you can argue Magic from 80-86 is overrated due to his scoring rate for that pace being pretty pedestrian, as in closer to Stockton than Nash or Paul. However I'm high on 87-91 version, and you can say earlier 80s had to take backseat to Kareem. I can overall be talked out of this one.

This idea that Nash was a high volume scorer gets overplayed on this board relative to the actual numbers. Magic 80-86 is a clearly superior volume scorer to 97 to 01 Nash, only in 02 does Nash surpass him and then later Magic again surpasses Nash.

The average Nash season is 23.3 pts/100 possessions, the average Stockton season (and Stockton played longer) is 21.0 pts/100, the prime differential is a bit larger but not ridiculously so. And Nash played in systems that let him free lance and call his own number more.

what about playoffs? doesnt stockton have a significative volume and efficiency drop?

[Dr Positivity]

I'm lower on ...

maybe: Magic - I think you can argue Magic from 80-86 is overrated due to his scoring rate for that pace being pretty pedestrian, as in closer to Stockton than Nash or Paul. However I'm high on 87-91 version, and you can say earlier 80s had to take backseat to Kareem. I can overall be talked out of this one.

This idea that Nash was a high volume scorer gets overplayed on this board relative to the actual numbers. Magic 80-86 is a clearly superior volume scorer to 97 to 01 Nash, only in 02 does Nash surpass him and then later Magic again surpasses Nash.

The average Nash season is 23.3 pts/100 possessions, the average Stockton season (and Stockton played longer) is 21.0 pts/100, the prime differential is a bit larger but not ridiculously so. And Nash played in systems that let him free lance and call his own number more.

I meant compared to Nash's best years, although even one of those (2005) his scoring rate isn't that much higher than Stockton I suppose.

[scrabbarista]

Barkley and Nash are two of the biggest for me. I always feel weird about it, because it doesn't feel right to argue "against" such great (and fun) players, but I just think people overrate them, so I have no choice. I wish they were rated way lower and I could argue them "up," honestly, because that'd be a lot more fun. The main reason in Barkley's case is defense (also, to a small extent, outside shooting, and I guess longevity) and in Nash's case is not shooting enough... and defense... and the system he played in. But seriously, I would love to be the guy arguing the other side. I can't help other people's wrong opinions.

KG is also overrated by a small minority (those putting him on Duncan's level: virtual insanity, as far as I'm concerned), but I actually have him 13th at the moment - up a few spots from where I once had him - and he's 11th or 12th on the recent 100, iirc, so he doesn't really fit the "significantly lower" descriptor. Curry and Durant might pass him some day on my list, though. Curry might even do it this month, if things go his way.

[scrabbarista]

I'm lower on ...

maybe: Magic - I think you can argue Magic from 80-86 is overrated due to his scoring rate for that pace being pretty pedestrian, as in closer to Stockton than Nash or Paul. However I'm high on 87-91 version, and you can say earlier 80s had to take backseat to Kareem. I can overall be talked out of this one.

This idea that Nash was a high volume scorer gets overplayed on this board relative to the actual numbers. Magic 80-86 is a clearly superior volume scorer to 97 to 01 Nash, only in 02 does Nash surpass him and then later Magic again surpasses Nash.

The average Nash season is 23.3 pts/100 possessions, the average Stockton season (and Stockton played longer) is 21.0 pts/100, the prime differential is a bit larger but not ridiculously so. And Nash played in systems that let him free lance and call his own number more.

what about playoffs? doesnt stockton have a significative volume and efficiency drop?

If you got that idea from Ben Taylor, be aware that he pretty much lied about Stockton's performance, literally omitting (as in, giving highs and lows that were not actual high and lows, if I recall correctly) some of his playoff performances. There's a thread discussing it somewhere. When I first came across Taylor's work, I could see that he had an extreme bias for Nash, so much that it colored virtually all of his work - as in, he was building his ideas of what "value" is from his perceptions of Nash's value, simply because he liked the player. So, I was very skeptical of his work from the start; but since I discovered his omissions on Stockton, I've avoided his work entirely.

I'm not saying anything about Stockton's general numbers. I don't know. I'm just saying be aware, in case that's your source.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Garnett’s the big one probably, I don’t have him pushing top 10 at all. Not because I think he wasn’t that good but because of a lack of team success

West and Oscar for the reasons dr positivity said kind of

[Statlanta]

Kevin Garnett, Larry Nance, Chris Bosh

[falcolombardi]

This idea that Nash was a high volume scorer gets overplayed on this board relative to the actual numbers. Magic 80-86 is a clearly superior volume scorer to 97 to 01 Nash, only in 02 does Nash surpass him and then later Magic again surpasses Nash.

The average Nash season is 23.3 pts/100 possessions, the average Stockton season (and Stockton played longer) is 21.0 pts/100, the prime differential is a bit larger but not ridiculously so. And Nash played in systems that let him free lance and call his own number more.

what about playoffs? doesnt stockton have a significative volume and efficiency drop?

If you got that idea from Ben Taylor, be aware that he pretty much lied about Stockton's performance, literally omitting (as in, giving highs and lows that were not actual high and lows, if I recall correctly) some of his playoff performances. There's a thread discussing it somewhere. When I first came across Taylor's work, I could see that he had an extreme bias for Nash, so much that it colored virtually all of his work - as in, he was building his ideas of what "value" is from his perceptions of Nash's value, simply because he liked the player. So, I was very skeptical of his work from the start; but since I discovered his omissions on Stockton, I've avoided his work entirely.

I'm not saying anything about Stockton's general numbers. I don't know. I'm just saying be aware, in case that's your source.

stockton best scoring regular seasons were 88-97 with a 15.6 points per game average (21.8/100)

playoffs he scored 15.6 (21.5/100) so he actually scored the same amount of points

the difference is that he went from a elite 62%ts (+8 for the era) to a merely good 57.5%ts in the playoffs (+3.5) over that span

toughet defenses explains part of it, but is still a notable drop

steve nash in comparision in 2001-2010 (best scoring stretch)

scored 16.8 (25 per 100) points per game on 61%ts, fairly comparable to stockton efficiency but with a volume edge to stockton 21.8

in the playoffs nash scored 18.4 (25.1/100) per game over 9 playoffs runs (2001-2010) on 58.5%

stock 21.5 on 57.5% vs nasg 25 on 58.5% (similar league average efficiency over these spans) nash definetely has a edge in scoring

in phoenix era (2005-2010) he averaged 27 per 100 on 60.5%ts

in his best 5 year playoffs scoring stretch by volume is 1989-1993

21.3 per 100 on 57%ts, quite a drop off compared to suns nash

so yeah, it seems like nash was the better playoff scorer than stockton, particularly in his phoenix days

[penbeast0]

stockton best scoring regular seasons were 88-97 with a 15.6 points per game average (21.8/100)

playoffs he scored 15.6 (21.5/100) so he actually scored the same amount of points

the difference is that he went from a elite 62%ts (+8 for the era) to a merely good 57.5%ts in the playoffs (+3.5) over that span

toughet defenses explains part of it, but is still a notable drop

Nash, of course, also drops as do top 20 ATGs other than Hakeem. He goes from an elite .605 ts% (not quite Stockton's level as a shooter) to 58.3 (less than 1% superior to Stockton as a shooter in the playoffs) so again, not seeing Nash at a whole different level than Magic or Stockton. If someone wants to adjust for era, I have not yet done so.

[falcolombardi]

stockton best scoring regular seasons were 88-97 with a 15.6 points per game average (21.8/100)

playoffs he scored 15.6 (21.5/100) so he actually scored the same amount of points

the difference is that he went from a elite 62%ts (+8 for the era) to a merely good 57.5%ts in the playoffs (+3.5) over that span

toughet defenses explains part of it, but is still a notable drop

Nash, of course, also drops as do top 20 ATGs other than Hakeem. He goes from an elite .605 ts% (not quite Stockton's level as a shooter) to 58.3 (less than 1% superior to Stockton as a shooter in the playoffs) so again, not seeing Nash at a whole different level than Magic or Stockton. If someone wants to adjust for era, I have not yet done so.

the efficiency of their eras was actually quite similar, give and take a few decimals, calculating by the ts% the playoffs rivals allowed would be interesting but i dont think i have the time/energy for it right now

i compared stockton highest volume 5 year stretch (89-93) to nash suns 5 year stretch in the playoffs (2005-2010) and the difference in volume and efficiency widens


in phoenix era (2005-2010) nash averaged 27 per 100 on 60.5%ts in the playoffs

stockton best 5 year playoffs scoring stretch by volume is 1989-1993

21.3 per 100 on 57%ts, quite a drop off compared to suns nash (5.5 points and 3.5%ts difference per 100)

over a 10 year sample (2001-2010 vs 88-97) nash still has around 3 points volume advantage but as you say in similar efficiency

but the data suggests that suns nash reached a higher level of scoring that stockton ever did

[penbeast0]

stockton best scoring regular seasons were 88-97 with a 15.6 points per game average (21.8/100)

playoffs he scored 15.6 (21.5/100) so he actually scored the same amount of points

the difference is that he went from a elite 62%ts (+8 for the era) to a merely good 57.5%ts in the playoffs (+3.5) over that span

toughet defenses explains part of it, but is still a notable drop

Nash, of course, also drops as do top 20 ATGs other than Hakeem. He goes from an elite .605 ts% (not quite Stockton's level as a shooter) to 58.3 (less than 1% superior to Stockton as a shooter in the playoffs) so again, not seeing Nash at a whole different level than Magic or Stockton. If someone wants to adjust for era, I have not yet done so.

the efficiency of their eras was actually quite similar, give and take a few decimals, calculating by the ts% the playoffs rivals allowed would be interesting but i dont think i have the time/energy for it right now

i compared stockton highest volume 5 year stretch (89-93) to nash suns 5 year stretch in the playoffs (2005-2010) and the difference in volume and efficiency widens


in phoenix era (2005-2010) nash averaged 27 per 100 on 60.5%ts in the playoffs

stockton best 5 year playoffs scoring stretch by volume is 1989-1993

21.3 per 100 on 57%ts, quite a drop off compared to suns nash (5.5 points and 3.5%ts difference per 100)

over a 10 year sample (2001-2010 vs 88-97) nash still has around 3 points volume advantage but as you say in similar efficiency

but the data suggests that suns nash reached a higher level of scoring that stockton ever did

Now compare their low 5 years and I would bet Stockton wins it easily as he was one of the most consistent players of all time. But yes, he does, I just think people overstate the difference. They act like Stockton is Jason Kidd to Nash's Chris Paul and it just seems a wild overstatement about two players who are reasonably similar in volume and efficiency, albeit Nash is the superior scorer of the two.

[tsherkin]

They act like Stockton is Jason Kidd to Nash's Chris Paul and it just seems a wild overstatement about two players who are reasonably similar in volume and efficiency, albeit Nash is the superior scorer of the two.

This is certainly untrue, I agree. Nash was a better scorer than Stockton, but Kidd was so much worse as a scoring threat that he really isn't even in the conversation. Or shouldn't be, anyhow. There are a lot of similarities between Stockton and Nash, the latter of whom was a better shooter and had a superior on-ball attack. Stockton was a very good player, though, and brought more defensively than did Nash, plus of course durability and longevity, which does matter to some extent.