RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #24 (Steve Nash)

Post #1 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Sep 10, 2023 4:06 pm

Our system is now as follows:

1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.

2. Nomination vote now works the same way.

3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.

4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.

5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.

5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.

Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):

Spoiler:

Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):

Giannis Antetokounmpo

Charles Barkley

James Harden

Steve Nash

Dwyane Wade

Post #2 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Sep 10, 2023 5:12 pm

Vote: Giannis: Actually was planning to vote Julius here and certainly Julius has a longevity advantage but while Julius was as amazing in the ABA as Giannis has been in the NBA, I don't think he was actually more amazing or dominating. And the modern league is bigger, deeper, and more competitive than late era ABA. So balancing, I came down on the side of Giannis.

Alternative: Nash: Truth be told, I have Stockton, Jokic, Patrick Ewing, and Walt Frazier over anyone left. Barkley and Harden are offensive juggernauts (like Nash but stronger individual impact, less team impact) but give it back on the defensive end (also like Nash) though it's a bigger problem with Barkley. Barkley is the only one of the three that is a playoff riser though he never carried a team all the way, not even with the strong teams he had in Phoenix. But Barkley and Harden have another problem, immaturity/selfishness/intangibles. I never got the feeling either of them were really team players, they were me players . . . great ones but out to maximize themselves rather than the team. Bad/lazy practice habits for Barkley, whining his way out of multiple teams for Harden, lack of defensive intensity for both; as an occasional coach, when your star does that, the rest of the team picks it up unless you are a better motivator than I ever have been. Thus Nash. I have Wade as a strong level below these guys offensively, better defensively, good intangibles, but health issues also hurt him. Again, there are multiple guys not yet nominated I have higher though I live in South Florida and enjoyed the heck out of him as a player.

Nomination: Jokic
Highest peak left outside of the disaster that was Bill Walton's health. Hasn't played enough to be top 20 but has made enough of an impact to be here as arguably the greatest offensive center in history.

Alternate Nomination: John Stockton -- I have Stockton as better than Nash, not as a pure offensive field general, it's close with Stockton doing a better job getting the ball to the open man in sets but Nash doing better in broken plays, but Stockton's ironman leadership and defense to me are more valuable than Nash's ability to occasionally have a big game (offset by small ones to bring Nash and Stockton back to the same rough scoring level) and his playoff career is similar rather than stronger than Stockton's except that Stockton's defensive value is smaller as teams found they could scheme to isolate him rather than letting him quarterback and freelance as much.

My next two nominations are probably Patrick Ewing and Walt Frazier, and probably over anyone nominated except Giannis.

falcolombardi · Post #3 » by **falcolombardi** » Sun Sep 10, 2023 6:33 pm

vote steve nash here

By team results he is a top 3 offensive player ever at minimum, and the eye test tracks with that kind of level of impact too. Goat tier combination of versatile hyper efficient scoring seamlessly mixed with goat tier passing in a high motor player who used agressive on ball movement and elite handles to create openings in spite of limited size

Overstated defensive issues as his presence didnt affect suns much negatively and while a weak 1vs1 defender he was solid in other areas. I see him as a slight negative at worst, neutral at best defensively whilr being Goat tier in the other end.

Kinda likr jokic but with better offensive impact data and a easier position to build around his defensive weaknesses (granted jokic made some strides on that end)

I will let other more data knowledgeable posters post the in depth impact breakdown charts in detail (spoiler: they are good)

Alternate: dwayne wade. I will make a in-depth post about wade if i get the time

Peak wade was a elite combo of efficient high volume scoring with quality high volume creation + fairly above average D for his position which stood well to even elite defenses in the playoffs

Some legit if overstated concerns about spacing and weaker longevity keep him away from contending in higher tiers (like longevity did this project for the likes of jokic and giannis who are catching up to wade there)

Nomination: scottie pippen, who i want to start getting talk as one of the forgotten superstar impact players there is. And who proved it as both a goat tier second banana and showed himself as a mvp tier caliber lead player in his limited time as a team best player

Gibson22 · Post #4 » by **Gibson22** » Sun Sep 10, 2023 7:17 pm

I'll nominate
pettit and stockton for reasons ive been saying (stockton longevity stuff, pettit being very good in his era while his era not being very far from russell west robertson and well, mikan who is here at 16)

As far as voting, i'd vote pettit but he's not here, so, my ranking would probably be
1) charles
2) nash
3) giannis
4) wade
5) harden

I wanted to just say barkley was a really good player. He had flaws, like defense, holding the ball a lot, being a bad shooter, so I don't see him as a very fittable player, he isn't the type of guy you really see in dream starting fives, but he was also really good. He's an mvp and 11 times all nba. He's extremely efficient. I think it's one of the craziest things how this guy, from 87 to 90, averaged 26/12/4/2.8 stocks on +12 rts!!! like bro!!! So yeah, obviously he was an ATG rebounder and scorer, also very very good passer for his position. Also, barkley never really had elite teams, beside maybe in his rookie year. all the big names he played with were old, either at the start or at the end of their careers. and he lost against a lot of great teams. he clearly wasn't the luckiest superstar ever as far as teammates and opponents.

One_and_Done · Post #5 » by **One_and_Done** » Sun Sep 10, 2023 7:21 pm

Vote: Giannis

Alternate: Nash (Barkley lacks traction)

Nominate: Kawhi

Alternate nomination: Jokic (because he's better than the other candidates with traction)

Giannis is up for me now.

Yeh, sure, Giannis only has 10 years in the league; but when Jordan first retired he only had 9 and people were already calling him one of the greatest ever. In today’s game would Jordan really be more impactful than Giannis? I have my doubts. Just comparing Giannis/D.Rob/Dirk/Kobe’s best seasons, here’s how they come out:

Giannis 2019-23 – 42.6 pp100, 17.6 rp100, 8.4 ap100, 120 Ortg/103 Drtg, 625 TS%

D.Rob (pre-Duncan) prime 90-96 – 33.9 pp100, 15.6 rp100, 4.1 ap100, 118 Ortg/97 Drtg, 592 TS%

Dirk (post-Nash) prime 2005-11 RS – 35.7 pp100, 12.1 rp100, 4.2 ap100, 119 Ortg/104 Drtg, 586 TS%.

Kobe (post-Shaq) prime 2006-10 RS – 39.2 pp100, 7.3 rp100, 6.6ap100, 114 Ortg/106 Drtg, 565 TS%

How about playoffs?

Giannis 19-23: 39 pp100, 17.8 rp100, 7.5 apg, 113 Ortg/ 102 Drtg 580 TS%

D.Rob 90-96: 31.6 pp100, 15.5 rp100, 3.9 ap100, 113 Ortg/101 Drtg 557 TS%

Dirk 05-11: 34.3 pp100, 13.3 rp100, 3.9 ap100, 119 Ortg/107 Drtg, 586 TS%

Kobe 06-10: 38.1 pp100, 7.3 rp100, 6.9 ap100, 114 Ortg/108 Drtg, 570 TS%

So the first observation is that Giannis is the best of the bunch and it’s not close. The only reason not to take him yet is if you don’t think he has “enough” longevity. He isn’t just a force offensively, he’s one of the best defensive players you could have in the modern era. Defense is something that’s hard to measure, but I think we can all agree D.Rob and Giannis are 2 of the best defensive players ever. Then on the other end they’d only need to be solid to be in discussion here. But they’re not just solid. Giannis is flat out better than the rest on offense, and while D.Rob is the “worst” of the 4 in the playoffs on O, he’s still close enough that I don’t know that the others have much of a case over him given his all-time defensive anchoring ability. If you’re taking Dirk or Kobe it’s got to be on longevity. Kobe looks the worst on balance by far. He’s 2nd of the group on volume scoring, but he does it by having bad efficiency which is probably part of why his TS% is the worst of anyone except playoffs D.Rob, and his Ortg is the worst of the bunch on balance (because regular season isn’t worthless, your performance there adds a lot of value). Then factor in this is literally Kobe’s very best stretch. If we’d run this from 00-10 for instance, he’d look so much worse (see above comparison with KD).

Dirk’s high end run in the 2011 playoffs is a level of impact neither D.Rob nor Kobe had during a singular playoff run, putting up 39.1 pp100, 11.5 rp100, 3.6 ap100 on 115 Ortg/105 Drtg, and 609 TS% while taking out Kobe’s Lakers, KD’s Thunder, and Blazers, and the first incarnation of the Heatles, is crazy impressive. Yeh, they’d have gone down to the 2012 Heatles once they balanced the team a little and figured out the line-ups to play, etc, but nobody expected them to win that year. They weren’t even supposed to beat the Lakers, and they ka-rushed them. Check out the stat-line of 32 year old Kobe v.s 32 year old Dirk. It’s not pretty. Kobe had 23.3 ppg, 3rpg, 2.5 apg on 519 TS%, v.s Dirk’s 25.3ppg, 9.3 rpg, 2.5apg on an insane 673 TS%.

Kawhi has as much longevity as Jokic probably, if we're taking guys without longevity he's my pick for now. I could go 10 different ways nominating right now tbh.

If I was focusing more on longevity I'd take all manner of guys over Stockton including Ray Allen, Jimmy Butler, Gilmore, Paul Pierce, etc. Stockton wasn't a star

trelos6 · Post #6 » by **trelos6** » Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:01 pm

I’m going Steve Nash

His 3yr PS creation is better than the greats, and his efficiency was second to Curry. His scoring and turnovers were on par with Magic. That’s enough for me to have him over my alternate. Giannis Antentokounmpo. Giannis is a beast. Awesome defender, insane in transition, he’s here for his peak, as he doesn’t quite have the longevity yet (7 great seasons).

I nominate Nikola Jokic. Single season peak ahead of anyone not already inducted. Longevity is starting to add up. Again, he’s here because my formula rates peaks as a significant component.

Alternate nomination Scottie Pippen. Behind the 5 current nominee’s, lies Pippen. 6 weak MVP seasons, another 2 all nba, another 3 at all star level. The best perimeter defender of all time.

homecourtloss · Post #7 » by **homecourtloss** » Sun Sep 10, 2023 9:18 pm

homecourtloss wrote:Vote: Steve Nash
Alternate: James Harden
Nomination: Scottie Pippen
Alternate Nomination: Nikola Jokić

It came down to two all-time great offensive engines. They are very close and in sone ways I prefer Harden, but overall went with Nash for a skill set that might translate the best through all eras. The recent elgee video highlighted some of these things really well.

Watch on YouTube

I really do think a team constructed differently, a more defensive team relying on Steve Nash’s offensive creation skills, could have won a title. As is with a few breaks here and there they could’ve won a title. It takes something extraordinary to create this:

But Harden also has points in his favor such as being an all-time ISO savant, corner-three creator, screen roll maestro. You cannot imagine any offense not being elite with Harden at the helm. His career ORAPM is a testament to this.

Harden’s ISO work (yes, the foul baiting but also the tight handle, strong body that allowed him to get by defenders) was absolutely crazy at his peak:

Compare this to spot up PPP IN 2018:

1.22 ppp would be 93rd percentile for SPOT UP ppp, the most efficient play type, of course. That’s ridiculous.

One_and_Done · Post #8 » by **One_and_Done** » Sun Sep 10, 2023 9:26 pm

I'm starting to think we should discuss Pippen and Anthony Davis soon too, along with Gilmore, Kawhi, Jimmy Butler, etc. Alot of under-discussed candidates.

HeartBreakKid · Post #9 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Sun Sep 10, 2023 9:26 pm

Vote for Steve Nash - Other than Giannis this is a battle of offensive juggernauts.

Barkley, Malone, and Nash are all heavy oriented offensive players with varying degrees of defensive limitations.

Malone and especially Barkley leave a lot to be desired on defense. Also, if you're going to reply "Malone may have been average" - that means he is bad. Saying someone is average at best means they are almost certainly below par, and it is not worth arguing just to make them look a little more palpable.

But basically, it comes down to if I want someone to really carry the best offense am I picking these big boys over Nash? And I really just do not see how I can.

Being a better scorer isn't relevant. Being a better rebounder isn't relevant. Those are means to an end. Nash being one of the best shooters and passers of all time is just a how when explaining his methods of becoming one of the best offensive players of all time which is the actual important part. What matters is if a team has Steve Nash and they generate more points than teams that have Barkley/Malone/Durant than that likely means Nash is the superior offensive player despite any PPG or rebounding differences.

Nash has been on the #1 offense for a billion years in two different clubs. He has been on the best offenses of all time and again, has more or less done so in two different clubs (defined by relative to their competition). While most people only look at Nash as existing between the years of 2005-2007, he did indeed exist before and after.

Nash's after years where people did not really care about him are the years that helped ensure that he wasn't just a flash in the pan to me. When you look at Nash and the Suns with a closer eye you can see that even if his boxscore numbers go down, his coach that supposedly made him a "system pg" left, or his teammates become irrelevant the Suns are always winning games and are always popping out great offenses. Even at 37 years old, his last season in Phoenix still lead to a top ten offense and a .500 record in a tough Western conference. That was a team that had Jared Dudley, Marcin Gortat and 40 year old Grant Hill as their best players.

I also think because Nash is a PG he hurts your defense a little less than Barkley. I think this is a major weakness for Barkley in this comparison. Even if they were equal on offense which might not be too far off, it's difficult to imagine many combinations of teams that are not hurt by Barkley playing bad defense (sometimes even on purpose).

People love talking about Barkley's rebounds, but if Barkley is a terrible defender then what is the point of referencing that he gets a lot of defensive rebounds? If the argument is that he gets a lot of offensive rebounds...well, yes, he is a great offensive player. No one is really denying that. I don't get why people talk about rebounds as if they are a spectrum of basketball that exist in a vacuum. They affect offense and defense just like every thing else.

Nash's lack of team success can be explained pretty easily, there was only like a two year window where the Suns had a chance and they simply lost to competitive teams. Most of the other years they weren't contenders. I have no doubt that the Suns could win a title with Nash as their "guy". And aside from that, Barkley, Durant, and Malone are either ringless or only won titles with literally the best team(s) of all time. So I don't think it is fair to really pick on Nash for that.

Alternate vote is for Wade - Switching from Barkley to Dwyane Wade. I actually was going to vote for Giannis here (I've been convinced that he deserves a vote over Barkley). I did not notice Wade is now on the official nominees. I feel like Wade's ability as a combo guard may lead to him being able to consistently put his will on teams in the post season. He isn't a liability like Chucky is on defense as well. It's close between him and Giannis.

My nomination is for Nikola Jokic (I'm very peak oriented and he has enough seasons where it is pretty easy to see he is no fluke, he is probably better than some of the players on the top 10 list already)

Alternate nomination is for Kawhi Leonard - At two different points he was an awesome defender and an awesome scorer. His health and priorities never made them line up at least not for a long time, but I think his dominance as a scorer and defender depending on the year is truly special.

One_and_Done · Post #10 » by **One_and_Done** » Sun Sep 10, 2023 9:43 pm

I feel comfortable saying Kawhi was peak on D and O in 2017.

Post #11 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:11 pm

VOTE: Charles Barkley
Alternate: James Harden

Again......Barkley, I am supporting for similar reasons to why I voted for Durant the last couple threads: I've the most confidence in his combined box-production/efficiency profile, impact profile, longevity, and career accomplishment (in a tough era) of those players listed (made a little easier now that Moses is off the table [and Stockton is not yet on the table]). Giannis simply lacks the full career value for me yet. And as noted in prior thread, I'm just not as high on Steve Nash as others (despite him being a favorite). Wade is a somewhat intriguing option for alternate.

However Harden, at this point, is also intriguing for me. Honestly, I think his player type [vaguely: offensive power-house, weak defensively], effective longevity, career accomplishment and accolades all closely parallel that of Charles Barkley. I consequently feel that wherever you have Barkley on your list, Harden should not be far away. Their respective careers just have too much in common, imo.

Nomination: John Stockton
Alt Nom: Nikola Jokic

rk2023 · Post #12 » by **rk2023** » Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:24 pm

One_and_Done wrote:I feel comfortable saying Kawhi was peak on D and O in 2017.

His defense was vastly better from 2014-16 than it was in 2017 when he took a higher O Load on.

rk2023 · Post #13 » by **rk2023** » Mon Sep 11, 2023 2:01 am

Vote - Steve Nash

Explained in past threads. I'm too undecided at the moment for an alternate vote - just for the record.

Spoiler:

rk2023 wrote:
Whom I want to hone in on some more, however, is Steve Nash. Of course, a more recent nominee in this project - but a player I feel should be getting some consideration around the next couple/few threads.

A while ago, Doc posted a POTD/Ballon D'Orange Spreadsheet for reference.
The list of players in the last 70 years' worth of time (eg. 1953-63 and repeat) to have an O-POTD, along with their 2023 T-100 ranking, is as follows.
Code: Select all
Oscar - 15 West - 14 Kareem - 2 Magic - 10 Jordan - 3 [b]Nash - TBD[/b] James - 1 Curry - 11

While I might not agree fully with each 10 year iteration's selection (on another note, would be hard to see Jokic not crack this list and be tenured for a fair share of time down the line) - it's worth noting 7 of the other 8 players to crack this elite grouping all made the top 15. Of course, this can be attributed to other factors like sustaining such a level of play longer, defensive value being considered, more of an emphasis on achievement.. but I find it harder to be *that* much lower on Nash in comparison. He falls just right outside of my personal T-20 due to not having as many quality seasons as I would want for someone to reach such a grouping.. but his prime was amazing. Of course, his defense is nothing to write home about (I view Nash as a slight negative), so this value was all accrued on offense. What made Nash so special was a playmaking knack that only has been paralleled by Magic Johnson. Nash wasn't the lowest TOV economy guy in the room, but traded this off for a very exploitative, high-risk-high-reward style that paid off ITO engining all-time offenses. BBR's might not paint him as highly (which I think the raw value 16-11 and lower BPM value grossly undersells Nash's offensive value), but Thinking Basketball's Box Score model seems to view Nash more favorably.

https://imgur.com/a/IWdzcF8
As expected, a fair share of Nash's value comes from play-making - being 99.9th%ile or higher across all players in prime values of PlayVal, Box Creation, & Passer Rating while having a scoring arsenal that translated very well into PS play (eg. all-time great shooting, crafty and smart ability to get down hill and finish effectively at the rim) and led to sustaining production for the most part. Blending the two together and consistently probing defenses, keeping them guessing what on earth the action possibly could be gave Nash a footprint as one of the game's best offensive engines:

rk2023 wrote:Even with an offensive slant, the 2000s Suns team offensive results are off the charts:

2005-07: 117.4 -> 104.6 RS, 116.1 -> 108.1 PS with vs. without Nash
2006-08: 116.8 -> 104.5 RS, 113.4 -> 105 PS
2007-10: 117.8 -> 106.8 RS, 115 -> 109 PS

Same trend, from an on-off standpoint, continues in 2011 and 2012 - where Nash was keeping a pretty mediocre cast afloat on offense (13.72 net-rating swing, 10.7 offensive-rating swing - this with no apparent inflation due to co-linearity).

Falcolombardi wrote:Nash
2005 suns. +8.4(RS) +17 (PS)
2006 suns +5.3(RS) +9.5 (PS)
2007 suns +7.4(RS)+7.6 (PS)
2008 suns. +5.8(RS) + 3.1 (PS)
2010 suns +7.7(RS) +13.4 (PS)
Average +6.9(RS) + 10.1 (PS)
combined average: +8.5

Using team results is far from the end-all, be-all (as Nash was flanked by an offensively slanted team across the board and solid scorers), but it's clear Nash was the engine that made 7SOL run - as evidenced by him lapping the pack of all NBA players in the 2001-14 sample ITO effect on teammates' eFG% / PPS / TS%. Somewhat expected due to archetype too with volume creators / one man army defenders being favored, Nash looks very impressive in ElGee's WOWY/GPM Studies, consistently logging top 5 values in scaled WOWYR/GPM and prime WOWYR). So from a more different data-driven approach, Nash comes off as one whom elevates the team offense around him to a great degree.
-
https://web.archive.org/web/20150329072330/http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/adj_PPS_shooter_all.html
https://imgur.com/a/qAl4p4a

https://thinkingbasketball.net/metrics/wowyr/

I view this 6 year 2005-10 span I'm most-so emphasizing as the heart of his prime as one that was played at an MVP level threshold on average. This span being supported by two-more weak MVP years in 2011/12 and All-NBA level years from 2001-04 as a Maverick gives him pretty solid longevity. The years played from 1997-200 and in 2013/14 as a Laker are essentially moot ITO evaluating Nash's career. I would suspect those six campaigns drag down his RAPM (I've seen his lower value in JE's entire-career model be cited), but he looks great in the same creators' samples that key-in on his prime rather. So yeah, TLDR: Nash was a pretty damn good and impactful offensive centerpiece.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201024055538/https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/

Code: Select all
2002-11: 5.7 RAPM and 5.5 ORAPM (8th and 4th) 2006-11: 7.7 RAPM and 8.2 ORAPM (4th and 1st) 2008-11: 7.8 RAPM and 7.7 ORAPM (T-2nd and 1st)

Nomination - Nikola Jokic
Not much left to say at this point given the traction he's gotten up to this point and some of the arguments in his favor of being nomination (eg. GOAT level offensive performance, best peak remaining, high impact even in his younger years of play). He strikes me as the best player available yet to be in the nominee pool, where I'd reckon weighting for that more gives him an edge over players with more accrued value in a more linear/flat-lined and additive approach.

Alternate Nomination - Reggie Miller
Remarkable scoring and shot-making (quite ahead of the curve, for his time) make me more confident here in the sense of how much offensive value he provides. His playmaking/passing abilities not being *too* much a needle mover sets his average baseline back, but it's very hard to argue with the evidence we have in his favor. In a nut-shell: Remarkable playoff translation & ramp-ups, one of the best PS scoring profiles in the data-ball era, impressive team offenses. As seen played out in the 90s, I'm unsure how far a Reggie anchored team could fare ITO contending, but I think questions in that lens are more or less mitigated towards how great he could fare alongside comparable talent / 1 better player by his side.

rk2023 wrote:Since he's garnering discussion in this thread and perhaps would be my next nomination after Wade/Joker, I'll put it out there that I think it's understated in the mainstream how damn good Reggie Miller was! He probably never reached an MVP-level of play, but 13 years of Miller being an offensive force (and one that ramped up insurmountably in the playoffs) is very impressive.

Here's some good for thought how good Reggie was, even at older ages:
Spoiler:
LukaTheGOAT wrote:
Reggie Miller in the Playoffs from 1990-99:
• 27.0 Points/75 on +11.3 rTS%

Kevin Durant in the playoffs from 2012-19:
• 29.0 Points/75 on +6.2 rTS%

Steph Curry in the playoffs from 2014-19:
• 28.0 Points/75 on +9.0 rTS%

James Harden in the playoffs from 2015-21:
• 28.1 Points/75 on +5.5 rTS%

3-year playoff stretches above +2 in ScoreVal (basically all-time level stuff)

Kareem 7x
Jordan 7x
Shaq 7x
Miller 7x
West 7x

The Pacers offenses were also typically spectacular with Miller, as he is one of 3 people ever in history to play on two separate teams with five-year stretches of +5 playoff offenses (Magic and Kobe are the other 2).

Heck, in 1999 the Pacers were the best offense in the NBA (+6.5 rORTG) as well as the best in 2000 (+4.4 rORTG) This is at 33 and 34 years old and Reggie was the best offensive player on those teams.

Reggie Miller in the 2000s Finals against an all-nba talent in Kobe (whose ankle injury might have him perform worse than his averages):

• 24.2 PPG
• 4.5 REB
• 3.7 AST
• 0.8 STL
• 58.8 TS%
• 37% From 3
• 98% From the Line (45-46)

And those numbers only cover the 90's decade. He was the best offensive player and player on a team that made to the Finals in 2000, despite not being close to his peak years.

In the Finals game 1:

Reggie Miller in G1 vs the Lakers of the 2000 finals: 7pts 1/16 FG (6.3%)

After the worse playoff game of his life he rebounded really well:

Reggie Miller in G2-G6: 27.8ppg on 47.7/40.5/97.6 shooting.

In the end:

Reggie Miller in the 2000s Finals against an all-nba talent in Kobe (whose ankle injury might have him perform worse than his averages):

• 24.2 PPG
• 4.5 REB
• 3.7 AST
• 0.8 STL
• 58.8 TS%
• 37% From 3
• 98% From the Line (45-46)

Kobe in the Finals in 2000 (Once again his ankle injury maybe made things significantly worse)

15.6 PPG
4.6 RPG
4.2 AST
1 Steal
41.1 TS%

Chasing Reggie around, probably was incredibly taxing for Kobe...

That's insanely impressive for a 34-year-old man. Reggie is the definition of consistency year after year.
The consistency for so long is just too much to pass over here.

I think his lesser volume playmaking and shot-creation holds him back from top-20 or so offensive players in NBA History for example (I think on-off reflects that - from what I've seen).. but the scoring potency Miller displayed from 1990-2002 (with a significant ramp up in PS goodness, as Colbinii pointed out earlier) made him a very good centerpiece to build around in that era. The Pacers became a solid offense upon Miller's breakout and didn't tail-off too much as they got defensive pieces and became a more serious playoff threat. Here's some more data significantly in Miller's favor once the calendar flips to April:
https://imgur.com/a/J4EMJ9h

Even as we got a more stable, more holistic sample - Reggie's scoring production and impact didn't show any significant dip with excellent team offensive data (not even a case of gimmicky rORTGs) to show for it. It's worth keeping in mind that we are analyzing within an era where outlier shot-making can hold more value ITO offensive separation because the league average efficiency marks would be lower than that of the modern-day. I still might not be as confident with Miller as the best player on a championship team, but he would be an absolute dynamite offensive co-pilot alongside a two-way force (eg. Hakeem, Duncan, KG) or a secondary offensive option - because of how well his scoring approach scales down.

trelos6 · Post #14 » by **trelos6** » Mon Sep 11, 2023 3:31 am

How are we feeling about Ewing vs D12 v AD vs Embiid vs Ben Wallace vs Artis vs Neil Johnston vs Mutombo.

These are the big men up next on my big board.

It’s easier to discuss bigs vs bigs.

HeartBreakKid · Post #15 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Mon Sep 11, 2023 3:48 am

trelos6 wrote:How are we feeling about Ewing vs D12 v AD vs Embiid vs Ben Wallace vs Artis vs Neil Johnston vs Mutombo.

These are the big men up next on my big board.

It’s easier to discuss bigs vs bigs.

I think it'll be a handful of threads and I'll start thinking of Ewing. A bit behind is Howard/Mourning/Gilmore. Haven't thought about Davis, but I reckon he'll go 1st or 2nd of that list of bigs.

Don't care much for Neil Johnston.

Samurai · Post #16 » by **Samurai** » Mon Sep 11, 2023 3:53 am

Vote for #24: Giannis. Not entirely comfortable with this pick due to his lack of longevity compared to to the other nominees; would likely feel much more confident in this if he continues his pace another couple of years. But his prime has been so impressive so far that it becomes a mitigating factor for me. George Mikan Trophy winner in 2017, two-time MVP , Finals MVP, and DPOY - his accolades speak for themselves. Particularly impressive to me is his gravity; the opposing team has to shift their overall strategy to account for him on both ends of the court more than I've seen from the other nominees.

Alternate vote: Charles Barkley. This was very tough for me since there are a number of people not nominated yet that I would prefer over the choices available. Kind of like an election where you don't like any of the candidates and would prefer to vote for none of the above. But since I can only vote for someone who has been nominated, I will give Sir Charles my vote. Elite offensive player with longevity. 1993 MVP and 11-time All NBA (5 first teams, 5 second teams and 1 third team), and led the league in TS% 4 times. Also an excellent rebounder in his prime, leading the league once and finishing in the top ten 9 times.

Nomination: Bob Pettit. To be clear, I have not and still do not believe in time machines so anyone wanting to time machine Pettit to the present NBA or a future era must first convince me that a time machine exists. Without a time machine, it is obvious that he would be terrible today since the man is over 90 years old. And also completely irrelevant. He was a 2-time MVP and 10-time All NBA First Team and Second Team once. I will also concede that I never saw him play live. But his adaptability is extremely impressive to me. His first season was 1955 and Neil Johnston was the big star then (a broken-down Mikan came out of retirement to play 37 games in 56). But by 1964, Pettit's second to last season, he was competing against the likes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, Baylor, Lucas and Havlicek. The league strength was much higher in 1964 than 1955 and yet Pettit was still All NBA First Team in 64. He was the bridge from the Mikan era to the Russell/Wilt/Oscar/West era and he was elite in both eras.

Alternate nomination: Walt Frazier. Was always a fan of his and felt he was largely underrated since his role on the Knicks wasn't to be a dominant shooter. The Knicks were the epitome of a team-first emphasis in which the ball kept moving and resulted in guys like Frazier, Reed, DeBusschere, Barnett (then Monroe), Bradley, Lucas, etc. all getting their shots. Frazier was so good and efficient that if I were Red Holzman I probably would have wanted Frazier shooting more and DeBusschere and Bradley shoot a little less, but no one was asking me to coach the team. But within the parameters that Holzman wanted, Frazier played his part superbly. He took care of the ball, shot a very high percentage, and was a dominant man defender. 7-time All Defensive First Team, 4-time All NBA First Team (and 2-time second team), he was a guy who did everything very well with no glaring weakness.

One_and_Done · Post #17 » by **One_and_Done** » Mon Sep 11, 2023 5:14 am

trelos6 wrote:How are we feeling about Ewing vs D12 v AD vs Embiid vs Ben Wallace vs Artis vs Neil Johnston vs Mutombo.

These are the big men up next on my big board.

It’s easier to discuss bigs vs bigs.

AD/Gilmore

Embiid
D12
Ewing
Zo

Ben Wallace
Deke

[100 more modern bigs]

[Top 100 Euroleague bigs ever]

[Top 50 G-League bigs ever]

[50 feet of moneyball reference]

Neil Johnston

One_and_Done · Post #18 » by **One_and_Done** » Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:36 am

Spoiler:

Samurai wrote:Vote for #24: Giannis. Not entirely comfortable with this pick due to his lack of longevity compared to to the other nominees; would likely feel much more confident in this if he continues his pace another couple of years. But his prime has been so impressive so far that it becomes a mitigating factor for me. George Mikan Trophy winner in 2017, two-time MVP , Finals MVP, and DPOY - his accolades speak for themselves. Particularly impressive to me is his gravity; the opposing team has to shift their overall strategy to account for him on both ends of the court more than I've seen from the other nominees.

Alternate vote: Charles Barkley. This was very tough for me since there are a number of people not nominated yet that I would prefer over the choices available. Kind of like an election where you don't like any of the candidates and would prefer to vote for none of the above. But since I can only vote for someone who has been nominated, I will give Sir Charles my vote. Elite offensive player with longevity. 1993 MVP and 11-time All NBA (5 first teams, 5 second teams and 1 third team), and led the league in TS% 4 times. Also an excellent rebounder in his prime, leading the league once and finishing in the top ten 9 times.

Nomination: Bob Pettit. To be clear, I have not and still do not believe in time machines so anyone wanting to time machine Pettit to the present NBA or a future era must first convince me that a time machine exists. Without a time machine, it is obvious that he would be terrible today since the man is over 90 years old. And also completely irrelevant. He was a 2-time MVP and 10-time All NBA First Team and Second Team once. I will also concede that I never saw him play live. But his adaptability is extremely impressive to me. His first season was 1955 and Neil Johnston was the big star then (a broken-down Mikan came out of retirement to play 37 games in 56). But by 1964, Pettit's second to last season, he was competing against the likes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, Baylor, Lucas and Havlicek. The league strength was much higher in 1964 than 1955 and yet Pettit was still All NBA First Team in 64. He was the bridge from the Mikan era to the Russell/Wilt/Oscar/West era and he was elite in both eras.

Alternate nomination: Walt Frazier. Was always a fan of his and felt he was largely underrated since his role on the Knicks wasn't to be a dominant shooter. The Knicks were the epitome of a team-first emphasis in which the ball kept moving and resulted in guys like Frazier, Reed, DeBusschere, Barnett (then Monroe), Bradley, Lucas, etc. all getting their shots. Frazier was so good and efficient that if I were Red Holzman I probably would have wanted Frazier shooting more and DeBusschere and Bradley shoot a little less, but no one was asking me to coach the team. But within the parameters that Holzman wanted, Frazier played his part superbly. He took care of the ball, shot a very high percentage, and was a dominant man defender. 7-time All Defensive First Team, 4-time All NBA First Team (and 2-time second team), he was a guy who did everything very well with no glaring weakness.

I mean, how would you feel if the NBA traced it's origins to an 1821 league of 3 foot dwarves who performed in circuses? Would you be arguing that the GOAT of that league who was a 4 foot dwarven behemoth was worthy of inclusion on this list? No? Then I think it's fair to ask 'what was the context of the league they played in?'

Everyone here is 'time machining' to some degree, or else Mikan would have gone top 5 easily. I look at photos of Neil Johnston for eg, and I can't imagine he'd have made it in today's league.

70sFan · Post #19 » by **70sFan** » Mon Sep 11, 2023 9:10 am

One_and_Done wrote:
trelos6 wrote:How are we feeling about Ewing vs D12 v AD vs Embiid vs Ben Wallace vs Artis vs Neil Johnston vs Mutombo.

These are the big men up next on my big board.

It’s easier to discuss bigs vs bigs.

AD/Gilmore

Embiid
D12
Ewing
Zo

Ben Wallace
Deke

[100 more modern bigs]

[Top 100 Euroleague bigs ever]

[Top 50 G-League bigs ever]

[50 feet of moneyball reference]

Neil Johnston

Is there any reason why you have Ewing below Embiid and Dwight? Why do you have Wallace higher than Mutombo?

70sFan · Post #20 » by **70sFan** » Mon Sep 11, 2023 9:13 am

One_and_Done wrote:I mean, how would you feel if the NBA traced it's origins to an 1821 league of 3 foot dwarves who performed in circuses? Would you be arguing that the GOAT of that league who was a 4 foot dwarven behemoth was worthy of inclusion on this list? No? Then I think it's fair to ask 'what was the context of the league they played in?'

Is this a solid analogy to 1963 NBA? I could be wrong, but to me it's useless.

Everyone here is 'time machining' to some degree, or else Mikan would have gone top 5 easily.

You keep repeating that, but Milan is outside top 10 mostly because of his mediocre longevity, not time machine argument.

I look at photos of Neil Johnston for eg, and I can't imagine he'd have made it in today's league.

Now that's a great way to judge players capabilities. I have the same feeling when I look at Steve Nash photos.