RealGM

Don't take longevity into account here.

Kidd
Thomas
Payton

Unfortunately we don't have RAPM for IT's era but it's safe to say he's nowhere near Glove and Kidd's defensive class. The gap there is so large that IT would have to be better than he was on offense to overcome it.

Could go either way with Payton and Kidd.

I'm biased as Glove was my favorite PG of the 90s. In a hypothetical pick-up game I'd pick him first.

If we are going on of primes, I'm taking GP all day.

Payton pretty easily for me. Kidd was a better playmaker, but also turned the ball over way more and was a much less efficient scorer.

Mmmm.

Kidd's D was high end. His offense was... okay. Great playmaker, not a particularly skillful scorer when he was in his prime.

Payton was a very good defender. Very much an unimpressive scoring threat, but a good playmaker who wasn't turning the ball over a ton. Kind of like a better-scoring Kidd but worse at rebounding.

Isiah had big volume numbers, but everything behind that looks worse. I think he's the worst of the bunch, though an important developmental step for the league as far as his handles and what have you. Detroit got better as he did less on a per-game basis, though one may remark about the value of his presence in the locker room as a positive factor beyond the box score, and he certainly had some timely big games.

I think I go with Payton here, though I wouldn't want to build around any of them.

From the comments you would think that Glove and Kidd would be running away with this.
IT voters (we exist) are quiet in the thread.

Many of the comments on Glove vs Kidd revisit the excellent discussion in another recent thread that included Stockton and Nash.

Zeke is always going to be a divisive example for those whose criteria/interpretations either track, or do not track, with the reputational rankings.

Anybody going to try and defend Zeke here? Hope so!
(I'm not the best candidate for a persuasive presentation.)

Oh, and for the record, Zeke is one of my least favorite players/people in over 4 decades of following the NBA.
Anytime he shows up on NBA-TV, I either mute or change the channel.
And I liked both Glove and Kidd very much.
But I still think the correct answer is Zeke, though of course I understand why so many others are using a whole range of objective measure to go in the other directions.

Ginoboleee wrote:Anybody going to try and defend Zeke here? Hope so!

I think it's troublesome to defend him here because he was really an inappropriate volume scoring option for a long stretch, then worsened as the team got better. He didn't shoot less, his usage didn't drop, just his efficiency and per-game output. Zeke was not a good scorer. Basically, he sits with Kidd in terms of scoring efficiency. Payton's average was around their peak, but he had a nice 4-year peak (give or take) where he was comfortably better than both of them at their best as far as scoring efficiency. Thomas had turnover issues even as his assist volume came down.

Just in terms of some basic b-ref numbers:

Kidd: .133 WS/48 career (.145 in NJN), +2.3 OBPM (peaked at +4.8 in 02-03), 11 seasons of +4.0 VORP or better (4 at +4.9 or better, peaked at +6.5).

Payton: .148 WS/48 (.161 in SEA), +2.7 OBPM (peaked at +5.8 in 99-00), 8 seasons of +4.0 VORP or better (6 at +5.2 or better, another at +4.9, peaked at +7.3).

Zeke: .109 WS/48 (.148 from 84-87 during his playmaking peak, the double-digit APG seasons), +2.4 OBPM (3 seasons of +4.0 or better, peaked at +5.1), 4 seasons of +4.0 VORP or better (2 at +5.0 or better, peaked at +6.3).

For a very brief period of time, Isiah was in the ballpark, but as soon as the volume playmaking went away, he was an inefficient chucker who was fairly limp overall, and with notably worse longevity. He essentially peaked at 23. Detroit benefited considerably from adding Dumars.

There's just more value coming from the other guys. Kidd at least had the decency not to shoot more than he should have with his crappy efficiency. Of course, to be fair, the Pistons were typically a top 6 to top 9 kind of offense through Isiah's peak and through the title years, so even as he declined, he wasn't hurting them THAT badly. But yeah, comparing them as far as impact stats and actual scoring efficacy and efficiency and all that does him few favors. Of course, Kidd actually doesn't really hit Isiah's offensive peak. Because he was a similarly crap scorer, he was able to do only so much. THe big difference is that his baseline offensive level was roughly on par with Zeke's short prime, and of course he was also a better rebounder and defender. Similar situation with Payton, although you replace rebounding with superior scoring and better care taken with the ball.

84-86, Isiah has a dog in a comparison with Payton and Kidd offensively, playing at a similar level to their baseline level. Outside of those years... eh.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:Better Player During Prime: Isiah Thomas, Gary Payton, Jason Kidd

Don't take longevity into account here.

You may get better answers if you clarify what you mean.

For myself I wouldn't know how to compare primes of different sizes without rewarding longevity (e.g. these two primes of equal average standard, are not equal because this one lasted twice as long). Alternately one could reframe it to what you consider "prime" and ask for who had "the best top X years" to mitigate for the longevity issue (a variant of which would be to rank the top X years of each - or rank all years and then chop off the years below a certain standard as non-prime though that reintroduces longevity as an issue).

tsherkin wrote:

Ginoboleee wrote:Anybody going to try and defend Zeke here? Hope so!

I think it's troublesome to defend him here...

Oh, I couldn't possibly agree more with your statement.

That is my whole point.

That there are plenty of objective directions to go here and prove that Zeke doesn't belong.

And yet, amongst RGM thread voters, he is still (for now) basically in a 3-way tie for first.

Thus, the gap between the culture of Analytics and (for lack of a better term) alternative/contrarian approaches exists in the absence of ProZeke comments... even though there are plenty of ProZeke votes.

Hope that made sense.

Thanks again for a helpful recap of just some of the objective hurdles ahead for his (quiet/shy) defenders/voters.

This poll is as close as I think it should be. Everyone of these players would get about a 92ish during their primes.

Owly wrote:

mdonnelly1989 wrote:Better Player During Prime: Isiah Thomas, Gary Payton, Jason Kidd

Don't take longevity into account here.

You may get better answers if you clarify what you mean.

For myself I wouldn't know how to compare primes of different sizes without rewarding longevity (e.g. these two primes of equal average standard, are not equal because this one lasted twice as long). Alternately one could reframe it to what you consider "prime" and ask for who had "the best top X years" to mitigate for the longevity issue (a variant of which would be to rank the top X years of each - or rank all years and then chop off the years below a certain standard as non-prime though that reintroduces longevity as an issue).

Say the 3 primes lasted 7, 9 and 11 years for example.

You would just take the average prime year amongst the 7 years and compare it to the average year in 9 years and 11 years respectively.

Basically the average prime year.

But what if their primes lasted 3, 9 and 9 seasons? I'd say that's a pretty big hurdle for Zeke to overcome. Kidd maintained a similar level of prime production for three times as long, Payton posted a higher level of prime production for three times as long.

Isiah's prime lasted about three season, age 22-24...

21.5 PER | .533 TS% | ~99 TS+ | 29.0 WS | .157 WS/48 | 5.4 BPM | 113 ORtg | 107 DRtg

I'd say Kidd's prime spanned about nine seasons, age 25-33...

19.9 PER | .508 TS% | ~97 TS+ | 80.2 WS | .157 WS/48 | 4.9 BPM | 106 ORtg | 99 DRtg

I've also got Payton's prime spanning nine seasons, age 25-33...

21.5 PER | .537 TS% | ~102 TS+ | 102.5 WS | .180 WS/48 | 4.9 BPM | 113 ORtg | 105 DRtg

mdonnelly1989 wrote:

Owly wrote:

mdonnelly1989 wrote:Better Player During Prime: Isiah Thomas, Gary Payton, Jason Kidd

Don't take longevity into account here.

You may get better answers if you clarify what you mean.

For myself I wouldn't know how to compare primes of different sizes without rewarding longevity (e.g. these two primes of equal average standard, are not equal because this one lasted twice as long). Alternately one could reframe it to what you consider "prime" and ask for who had "the best top X years" to mitigate for the longevity issue (a variant of which would be to rank the top X years of each - or rank all years and then chop off the years below a certain standard as non-prime though that reintroduces longevity as an issue).

Say the 3 primes lasted 7, 9 and 11 years for example.

You would just take the average prime year amongst the 7 years and compare it to the average year in 9 years and 11 years respectively.

Basically the average prime year.

You get that this (unless I am missing something) would actively bias against longevity (of quality) though, yes?

The 9 or 11 year prime could have a better best 7 years then the 7 year guy but because their decline was more gentle and included other significant value add years at a level lower lower than 7 guy's average their overall prime average could be worse. Hence my suggestion to enforce a same number of years (whether duration stated by you or open to each individual).

To me, and perhaps I've got something wrong, average prime over different lengths seems to have little value given the apparent fairness issue.

Owly wrote:

mdonnelly1989 wrote:

Owly wrote:You may get better answers if you clarify what you mean.

For myself I wouldn't know how to compare primes of different sizes without rewarding longevity (e.g. these two primes of equal average standard, are not equal because this one lasted twice as long). Alternately one could reframe it to what you consider "prime" and ask for who had "the best top X years" to mitigate for the longevity issue (a variant of which would be to rank the top X years of each - or rank all years and then chop off the years below a certain standard as non-prime though that reintroduces longevity as an issue).

Say the 3 primes lasted 7, 9 and 11 years for example.

You would just take the average prime year amongst the 7 years and compare it to the average year in 9 years and 11 years respectively.

Basically the average prime year.

You get that this (unless I am missing something) would actively bias against longevity (of quality) though, yes?

The 9 or 11 year prime could have a better best 7 years then the 7 year guy but because their decline was more gentle and included other significant value add years at a level lower lower than 7 guy's average their overall prime average could be worse. Hence my suggestion to enforce a same number of years (whether duration stated by you or open to each individual).

To me, and perhaps I've got something wrong, average prime over different lengths seems to have little value given the apparent fairness issue.

I always thought Prime and Longevity were distinct. But the reason I'm not wanting to take into account Longevity is this...

Say I'm in a debate about who teams wins

PG: Curry
SG: MJ
SF: Scottie
PF: KG
C: David Robinson

V

PG: Magic
SG: Kobe
SF: Larry Bird
PF: Duncan
C: Hakeem

Which version do we take here? There is a big difference between 1999 Duncan and 2009 Duncan. Even though both could be classified as Prime. When does a prime start can it start during a rookie or 1st year season? What actually decides a prime.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:

Owly wrote:

mdonnelly1989 wrote:

Say the 3 primes lasted 7, 9 and 11 years for example.

You would just take the average prime year amongst the 7 years and compare it to the average year in 9 years and 11 years respectively.

Basically the average prime year.

You get that this (unless I am missing something) would actively bias against longevity (of quality) though, yes?

The 9 or 11 year prime could have a better best 7 years then the 7 year guy but because their decline was more gentle and included other significant value add years at a level lower lower than 7 guy's average their overall prime average could be worse. Hence my suggestion to enforce a same number of years (whether duration stated by you or open to each individual).

To me, and perhaps I've got something wrong, average prime over different lengths seems to have little value given the apparent fairness issue.

I always thought Prime and Longevity were distinct. But the reason I'm not wanting to take into account Longevity is this...

Say I'm in a debate about who teams wins

PG: Curry
SG: MJ
SF: Scottie
PF: KG
C: David Robinson

V

PG: Magic
SG: Kobe
SF: Larry Bird
PF: Duncan
C: Hakeem

Which version do we take here? There is a big difference between 1999 Duncan and 2009 Duncan. Even though both could be classified as Prime. When does a prime start can it start during a rookie or 1st year season? What actually decides a prime.

I'm not saying one has to benefit longevity in a comparison (Also I'm not arguing prime length isn't fuzzy or arbitrary). Especially in terms of comparing hypothetical teams yes it makes more sense to define specific editions of players (or at least spans, or indeed longer ones if the idea is of a franchise over time more than a series or title odds in a year).

But that doesn't seem to speak to anything I'm saying I was in the first account that where primes are of different sizes we should at least give them the benefit of not requiring them to be better for longer (and possible ways around that) and then reiterating that when you seem to advocate an approach that actively penalizes longevity.

I don't know whether you think the last post defends your prior stance regarding average or are abandoning it and are attempting to justify a general principle.

In case it's the former I'll reiterate with a practical example.
"Player 11" has the following prime seasons
9
8.5
8.5
8
8
8
8
7.5
7.5
7.5
7

"Player 7" has
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

and lets say he doesn't play or plays at a circa "4" level such that he's clearly considered non-prime.
Amongst each's top 7 seasons player 11 is better. He's also better or as good in each matched pair (top season vs top season). But if you were to "just take the average prime year amongst the 7 years and compare it to the average year in 9 years and 11 years" ... well the player 7 is an 8, and player 11 is 7.954545455.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:What actually decides a prime.

For me the prime is decided by the quality of play relative to surrounding seasons for any given player. There is no fixed length, each individual is different.

Here are what I would consider the before, during, and after primes for the three players in this thread...

Isiah 20-21: 17.0 PER | .509 TS% | .085 WS/48 | 0.7 BPM
Isiah 22-24: 21.5 PER | .533 TS% | .157 WS/48 | 5.4 BPM
Isiah 25-32: 17.0 PER | .510 TS% | .095 WS/48 | 2.0 BPM

Kidd 21-24: 16.6 PER | .482 TS% | .090 WS/48 | 2.1 BPM
Kidd 25-33: 19.9 PER | .508 TS% | .157 WS/48 | 4.9 BPM
Kidd 34-39: 15.6 PER | .530 TS% | .124 WS/48 | 3.2 BPM

Glove 22-24: 14.5 PER | .499 TS% | .099 WS/48 | 1.3 BPM
Glove 25-33: 21.5 PER | .537 TS% | .180 WS/48 | 4.9 BPM
Glove 34-38: 15.6 PER | .514 TS% | .108 WS/48 | 0.8 BPM

For a GOAT tier example, I would break down LeBron's before, during, after prime something like this...

LeBron Rook: 18.3 PER | .488 TS% | .078 WS/48 | 1.7 BPM
LeBron 20-23: 26.8 PER | .561 TS% | .220 WS/48 | 9.1 BPM
LeBron 24-29: 30.2 PER | .613 TS% | .290 WS/48 | 10.8 BPM
LeBron 30-37: 26.6 PER | .599 TS% | .206 WS/48 | 8.1 BPM

Isiah is the better shooter, passer, leader and he is the quickest/ hardest to guard.

If you want to win you want Isiah Thomas.


If you like to lose but look cool you want Kidd and if you like to run your offense through the low post with your PG posting up and 7fters shooting 3s then you want GP.

SickMother wrote:

mdonnelly1989 wrote:What actually decides a prime.

For me the prime is decided by the quality of play relative to surrounding seasons for any given player. There is no fixed length, each individual is different.

Here are what I would consider the before, during, and after primes for the three players in this thread...

Isiah 20-21: 17.0 PER | .509 TS% | .085 WS/48 | 0.7 BPM
Isiah 22-24: 21.5 PER | .533 TS% | .157 WS/48 | 5.4 BPM
Isiah 25-32: 17.0 PER | .510 TS% | .095 WS/48 | 2.0 BPM

Kidd 21-24: 16.6 PER | .482 TS% | .090 WS/48 | 2.1 BPM
Kidd 25-33: 19.9 PER | .508 TS% | .157 WS/48 | 4.9 BPM
Kidd 34-39: 15.6 PER | .530 TS% | .124 WS/48 | 3.2 BPM

Glove 22-24: 14.5 PER | .499 TS% | .099 WS/48 | 1.3 BPM
Glove 25-33: 21.5 PER | .537 TS% | .180 WS/48 | 4.9 BPM
Glove 34-38: 15.6 PER | .514 TS% | .108 WS/48 | 0.8 BPM

For a GOAT tier example, I would break down LeBron's before, during, after prime something like this...

LeBron Rook: 18.3 PER | .488 TS% | .078 WS/48 | 1.7 BPM
LeBron 20-23: 26.8 PER | .561 TS% | .220 WS/48 | 9.1 BPM
LeBron 24-29: 30.2 PER | .613 TS% | .290 WS/48 | 10.8 BPM
LeBron 30-37: 26.6 PER | .599 TS% | .206 WS/48 | 8.1 BPM

If there were teams with all timers on them. The bolded versions is what I would choose.

Basically with the highest PER.

Of the bolded. These players look VERY close. Kidd looks like the worst but doesn't show defense. Isiah looks close offensively, but GP probably takes the cake here.

I'd be curios to see the numbers for the primes of

CP3
Stockton
Nash

I have a feeling these players are close too. Stockton might be closer to the above group though, hard to say.