RealGM

Players with high-end offensive impact possess a combination of scoring and playmaking at volume. They can score points themselves and also create scoring opportunities for teammates. This can be considered a general rule or principle, true from the beginning of the NBA until right now.

But how rigid are the parameters?

We get a potpourri of archetypes when looking at the players considered the best offensively in NBA history. On a general level, these individuals show differing levels of scoring volume and playmaking volume. On a more granular inspection, we'd see different time of possessions, play-type usage, and movement/ground covered.

I don't have access to Box Creation stats, so here's a basic scoring-playmaking comparison of oft-mentioned offensive greats:

Harden: 24.1 ppg (25.7 per 75) --- 7.2 apg (7.73 per 75), 34.2 AST% --- [3.57 points per assist per 75]
Luka: 28.6 ppg (30.1 per 75) --- 8.2 apg (8.63 per 75), 41.6 AST% --- [3.49 points per assist per 75]
LeBron: 27.0 ppg (27.5 per 75) --- 7.1 apg (7.5 per 75), 36.5 AST% --- [3.67 points per assist per 75]
Steph: 24.7 ppg (26.55 per 75) --- 6.4 apg (6.83 per 75), 30.8 AST% --- [3.89 points per assist per 75]
Magic: 19.5 ppg (19.05 per 75) --- 11.2 apg (10.88 per 75), 40.9 AST% --- [1.75 points per assist per 75]
Nash: 14.3 ppg (17.48 per 75) --- 8.5 apg (10.35 per 75), 41.5 AST% --- [1.69 points per assist per 75]
Paul: 17.0 ppg (19.35 per 75) --- 9.2 apg (10.5 per 75), 44.1 AST% --- [1.84 points per assist per 75]
MJ: 30.1 ppg (30.3 per 75) --- 5.3 apg (5.25 per 75), 24.9 AST% --- [5.77 points per assist per 75]
Kareem: 24.6 ppg (22.43 per 75) --- 3.6 apg (3.38 per 75), 14.6 AST% --- [6.64 points per assist per 75]
Shaq: 23.7 ppg (26.4 per 75) --- 2.5 apg (2.78 per 75), 13.9 AST% --- [9.5 points per assist per 75]
Dirk: 20.7 ppg (23.93 per 75) --- 2.4 apg (2.78 per 75), 12.6 AST% --- [8.6 points per assist per 75]
Jokic: 21.8 ppg (25.28 per 75) --- 7.2 apg (8.4 per 75), 37.2 AST% --- [3.01 points per assist per 75]
Bird: 24.3 ppg (22.73 per 75) --- 6.3 apg (5.93 per 75), 24.7 AST% --- [3.83 points per assist per 75]

Obviously, era and how long they've been playing/where they're at in their careers affect the numbers. But it's more about the ratio of scoring to playmaking.

So, we've got playmaking-slanted guards (Magic, Paul, Nash), heliocentric guards (Luka, Harden), an off-ball/on-ball shooter-scorer-playmaking guard (Curry), a scoring-slanted guard (MJ), point-forwards (LeBron, Bird), a face-up/shooting PF/C (Dirk), post-up centers (Shaq, Kareem), and a point-center with post-up skills that can shoot (Jokic).

Quite the variety, and I couldn't be bothered adding Reggie, Oscar, Barkley, KD, and others.

From Shaq's 9.5 points per assist per 75 to Nash's 1.69 points per assist per 75. It's quite the range of scoring-to-playmaking ratio. It seems most put Nash, Magic, and MJ at the top, followed by Curry, LeBron, Shaq, and Jokic. And between those, the offensive archetype varies considerably.

The salient point, I guess I'm trying to make, is that high-end offensive impact comes in a variety of forms. I'm always a little confused when certain posters try to apply rigid rules to their debate, analysis, and conclusions. Suggesting a player must create this much for teammates, or individually score this much, to have a certain level of offensive impact. Some players are such dominant scorers that it compensates for comparatively lacking playmaking. Some players create so many scoring opportunities for teammates that it doesn't matter if their individual scoring lacks volume.

Shai's all-in-one offensive metrics aren't that far off from Jokic, and he's scoring and playmaking at a similar ratio to MJ and Kobe. An iso, scoring-slanted guard dominating offensively in the heliocentric era of the LeBron's, Luka's, Trae's, and Harden's. Hell, KAT's ORAPM is 7th all-time (+5.8) in Jeremias Englemann's 29-year career RAPM database, just behind CP3 (+6.0) and above Nash (+5.7). Towns' archetype is Dirk-like.

I would put a combination of efficiency and volume on my list rather than just volume, particularly for scoring where I don't rate guys like Allen Iverson that highly, but also for playmaking where high turnover/assist rates (yes, I know assists aren't an ideal measure but they are the one we have) create a lot of opportunity for the other team as well. Thus I don't have Pete Maravich ranked highly either despite many NBA players having him as one of the ATGs.

I also think you have to look at team Ortg type measures to make sure that the great individual ball cominant offense is creating great team offense rather than just big numbers.

penbeast0 wrote:I would put a combination of efficiency and volume on my list rather than just volume, particularly for scoring where I don't rate guys like Allen Iverson that highly, but also for playmaking where high turnover/assist rates (yes, I know assists aren't an ideal measure but they are the one we have) create a lot of opportunity for the other team as well. Thus I don't have Pete Maravich ranked highly either despite many NBA players having him as one of the ATGs.

I also think you have to look at team Ortg type measures to make sure that the great individual ball cominant offense is creating great team offense rather than just big numbers.

Good points. I just find it funny when people try to apply this heliocentric, scoring-and-playmaking-must-be-balanced framework to their player analysis, then have MJ, Magic, and Nash as their top offensive all-time players. Nash and MJ are on opposite sides of the scoring-playmaking equation.

This thread was partly inspired by the Top 20 Offensive Player Peaks thread on the first page. I suggested Kevin McHale based on his historic combination of scoring volume & efficiency, +9.4 ORtg in 63 games played, Squared2020's building RAPM sample, and insane playoff production & resilience against the best opposition. I've argued for him before, and the obvious rebuttal is a lack of creation for teammates, and playing "second-fiddle" to Bird.

It just makes me think about what the parameters are for all-time high-end individual offensive impact. Is there a specific AST%/apg/creation level a player must meet? And if they compensate for a lack of playmaking with scoring, how good does that scoring have to be? Because, apparently, 25+ ppg on 66-67% TS isn't enough.

1987-88 Playoffs

ECFR vs. New York (4 games): 24.3 ppg on 68.8% TS (+14.1 opponent-adjusted TS%)
ECSF vs. Atlanta (7 games): 24.9 ppg on 70.3% TS (+16.7 opponent-adjusted TS%)
ECF vs. Detroit (6 games): 26.8 ppg on 62.9% TS (+10.5 opponent-adjusted TS%)

opponent-adjusted TS% = McHale's series TS% - opponent's regular season defensive TS% average

I can see the argument for Amar'e being dependent on Nash. He's a pick-and-roll guy, and his %s took a big hit without Nash. I don't see that with McHale concerning Bird, though. I see a guy killing set defenses again and again... and again. No matchup or defensive strategy had any tangible effect on him.

The guy I tend to wonder about is Adrian Dantley. Is scoring enough? He was extremely efficient, extremely high volume, one of the best individual scorers to ever play and a guy who created for himself but it didn't translate to great team offenses. So apparently you need to create for others as well? On the other hand, Jason Kidd, 2nd highest volume assist guy in NBA history, good A/T, and yet consistently unimpressive team offenses. So you need some degree of scoring impact as well?

How much? McHale's passing apparently not enough, Wilt's passing when leading the league not enough, Stockton's scoring not enough until he got a second offensively above average teammate then his team offenses were consistently top 3 in the league. Nash's scoring apparently enough in Phoenix to create one of the great offenses; Dirk's passing apparently enough in Dallas to create one of the great offenses. I just don't think there's a measurement formula based on just one individual's scoring and playmaking that's a given even if the guy scores like Jordan and passes like Magic.

penbeast0 wrote:The guy I tend to wonder about is Adrian Dantley. Is scoring enough? He was extremely efficient, extremely high volume, one of the best individual scorers to ever play and a guy who created for himself but it didn't translate to great team offenses. So apparently you need to create for others as well? On the other hand, Jason Kidd, 2nd highest volume assist guy in NBA history, good A/T, and yet consistently unimpressive team offenses. So you need some degree of scoring impact as well?

How much? McHale's passing apparently not enough, Wilt's passing when leading the league not enough, Stockton's scoring not enough until he got a second offensively above average teammate then his team offenses were consistently top 3 in the league. Nash's scoring apparently enough in Phoenix to create one of the great offenses; Dirk's passing apparently enough in Dallas to create one of the great offenses. I just don't think there's a measurement formula based on just one individual's scoring and playmaking that's a given even if the guy scores like Jordan and passes like Magic.

Basically means you need talent on your teams? Can't do it all yourself. Give Dantley another pretty good scorer on his Utah teams, a better playmaker more importantly, and he likely does better, at least his team's offense is better.

migya wrote:
Basically means you need talent on your teams? Can't do it all yourself. Give Dantley another pretty good scorer on his Utah teams, a better playmaker more importantly, and he likely does better, at least his team's offense is better.

Agree, as I've said often enough in discussions of Stockton and Nash. You can also try to get at this by using impact stats like RAPM to see how much the player makes others better (playmaking or gravity). It's not perfect but another thing to look at.

Depends on where the ‘high-end’ bar is set.

In any particular era it could be more rigid, but across history it’s pretty broad. Mikan and Nash were almost certainly each the best offensive players for periods and share very little.


There does seem to be both a scoring and passing bar that a player has to pass, but it’s not *that* high. Think Stockton for minimum scoring, ??? for passing. Depending on how you feel about Moses there may be no practical minimum for passing.

migya wrote:Basically means you need talent on your teams? Can't do it all yourself. Give Dantley another pretty good scorer on his Utah teams, a better playmaker more importantly, and he likely does better, at least his team's offense is better.

I think Dantley's problems were the same as Durant's. He approached the limitations of a high-volume scorer who doesn't effectively create a ton for others and wasn't a defensive stalwart. So team composition surely could have made a large difference, no doubt.

penbeast0 wrote:The guy I tend to wonder about is Adrian Dantley. Is scoring enough? He was extremely efficient, extremely high volume, one of the best individual scorers to ever play and a guy who created for himself but it didn't translate to great team offenses. So apparently you need to create for others as well? On the other hand, Jason Kidd, 2nd highest volume assist guy in NBA history, good A/T, and yet consistently unimpressive team offenses. So you need some degree of scoring impact as well?

How much? McHale's passing apparently not enough, Wilt's passing when leading the league not enough, Stockton's scoring not enough until he got a second offensively above average teammate then his team offenses were consistently top 3 in the league. Nash's scoring apparently enough in Phoenix to create one of the great offenses; Dirk's passing apparently enough in Dallas to create one of the great offenses. I just don't think there's a measurement formula based on just one individual's scoring and playmaking that's a given even if the guy scores like Jordan and passes like Magic.

Agreed on all points.

Dantley is the perfect name to bring up. I think he gets unfairly critiqued; whether it's the ball-stopper accusations, or Utah's middling ORtgs. I just can't so easily dismiss that combination of scoring volume and efficiency. Which brings me to my point and something I've been thinking about for some time.

People tend to simplify the game into easily understood, digestible narratives—ones underpinned by theories (oft postulated as inviolable rules) that present logical inconsistencies. Personal biases appear when you begin to investigate these paradoxes. Ben Taylor/ElGee/Thinking Basketball often uses Dantley & Wilt as case studies for why highly efficient *mostly isolation* scoring with a relative lack of playmaking is overrated.

But how do MJ, Dirk, and Shaq fit into that? As in, where are the lines drawn? The threshold points for playmaking vs. scoring? And why is one player's form of isolation-heavy offense valued, while another's isn't? Even if the unappreciated has superior scoring volume and efficiency?

And how is circumstance considered? The teammates played with, the scheme, the game plan, and the substitution patterns, playing for a specific coach. How do we account for these variables?

I think the game is far more complex than how many present it online. And much nuance & minutiae are missed, limiting the potential possibilities of what's actually possible. A player's impact and, therefore, value, have a wide range of permutations concerning who he plays with and who he plays for, leading to a number of different outcomes.

Stick Dantley on the right team, and I'm sure he'd have ATG offensive impact. That level of outlier production is just too much to handwave away, IMO.

I think there’s probably a pretty big difference between a high-efficiency, high-volume scorer who is a ball-stopper, and a high-efficiency, high-volume scorer who genuinely works within the confines of the offensive system. Offensive systems are designed to produce easy buckets. If a player is a ball stopper, the opportunity cost of their shots attempts will be higher, since there’s more likely to be easy looks that the offense would’ve produced if the player would’ve been more patient and made the decision the offensive system asked of him. Crucially, this doesn’t mean that the non-ball-stopper guy needs to be an elite playmaker to have a significant advantage over the ball stopper. Even just making normal reads and passes called for by the offensive system contributes a lot to production of good looks for the offense—particularly in offensive systems built around a lot of ball movement.

Of course, the above is all abstract, and it’s not really clear who is and isn’t a ball stopper. Is Kevin McHale a ball stopper? Was Adrian Dantley? If so, were they ball stoppers their entire careers or only in certain timeframes? Hard to really know. We could potentially look at team results for a guy like Dantley and say his team was weak offensively so he must’ve had this flaw, but it could also just be that his teammates were awful offensively.

FrodoBaggins wrote:Players with high-end offensive impact possess a combination of scoring and playmaking at volume. They can score points themselves and also create scoring opportunities for teammates. This can be considered a general rule or principle, true from the beginning of the NBA until right now.

But how rigid are the parameters?

We get a potpourri of archetypes when looking at the players considered the best offensively in NBA history. On a general level, these individuals show differing levels of scoring volume and playmaking volume. On a more granular inspection, we'd see different time of possessions, play-type usage, and movement/ground covered.

I don't have access to Box Creation stats, so here's a basic scoring-playmaking comparison of oft-mentioned offensive greats:

Harden: 24.1 ppg (25.7 per 75) --- 7.2 apg (7.73 per 75), 34.2 AST% --- [3.57 points per assist per 75]
Luka: 28.6 ppg (30.1 per 75) --- 8.2 apg (8.63 per 75), 41.6 AST% --- [3.49 points per assist per 75]
LeBron: 27.0 ppg (27.5 per 75) --- 7.1 apg (7.5 per 75), 36.5 AST% --- [3.67 points per assist per 75]
Steph: 24.7 ppg (26.55 per 75) --- 6.4 apg (6.83 per 75), 30.8 AST% --- [3.89 points per assist per 75]
Magic: 19.5 ppg (19.05 per 75) --- 11.2 apg (10.88 per 75), 40.9 AST% --- [1.75 points per assist per 75]
Nash: 14.3 ppg (17.48 per 75) --- 8.5 apg (10.35 per 75), 41.5 AST% --- [1.69 points per assist per 75]
Paul: 17.0 ppg (19.35 per 75) --- 9.2 apg (10.5 per 75), 44.1 AST% --- [1.84 points per assist per 75]
MJ: 30.1 ppg (30.3 per 75) --- 5.3 apg (5.25 per 75), 24.9 AST% --- [5.77 points per assist per 75]
Kareem: 24.6 ppg (22.43 per 75) --- 3.6 apg (3.38 per 75), 14.6 AST% --- [6.64 points per assist per 75]
Shaq: 23.7 ppg (26.4 per 75) --- 2.5 apg (2.78 per 75), 13.9 AST% --- [9.5 points per assist per 75]
Dirk: 20.7 ppg (23.93 per 75) --- 2.4 apg (2.78 per 75), 12.6 AST% --- [8.6 points per assist per 75]
Jokic: 21.8 ppg (25.28 per 75) --- 7.2 apg (8.4 per 75), 37.2 AST% --- [3.01 points per assist per 75]
Bird: 24.3 ppg (22.73 per 75) --- 6.3 apg (5.93 per 75), 24.7 AST% --- [3.83 points per assist per 75]

Obviously, era and how long they've been playing/where they're at in their careers affect the numbers. But it's more about the ratio of scoring to playmaking.

So, we've got playmaking-slanted guards (Magic, Paul, Nash), heliocentric guards (Luka, Harden), an off-ball/on-ball shooter-scorer-playmaking guard (Curry), a scoring-slanted guard (MJ), point-forwards (LeBron, Bird), a face-up/shooting PF/C (Dirk), post-up centers (Shaq, Kareem), and a point-center with post-up skills that can shoot (Jokic).

Quite the variety, and I couldn't be bothered adding Reggie, Oscar, Barkley, KD, and others.

From Shaq's 9.5 points per assist per 75 to Nash's 1.69 points per assist per 75. It's quite the range of scoring-to-playmaking ratio. It seems most put Nash, Magic, and MJ at the top, followed by Curry, LeBron, Shaq, and Jokic. And between those, the offensive archetype varies considerably.

The salient point, I guess I'm trying to make, is that high-end offensive impact comes in a variety of forms. I'm always a little confused when certain posters try to apply rigid rules to their debate, analysis, and conclusions. Suggesting a player must create this much for teammates, or individually score this much, to have a certain level of offensive impact. Some players are such dominant scorers that it compensates for comparatively lacking playmaking. Some players create so many scoring opportunities for teammates that it doesn't matter if their individual scoring lacks volume.

Shai's all-in-one offensive metrics aren't that far off from Jokic, and he's scoring and playmaking at a similar ratio to MJ and Kobe. An iso, scoring-slanted guard dominating offensively in the heliocentric era of the LeBron's, Luka's, Trae's, and Harden's. Hell, KAT's ORAPM is 7th all-time (+5.8) in Jeremias Englemann's 29-year career RAPM database, just behind CP3 (+6.0) and above Nash (+5.7). Towns' archetype is Dirk-like.

Interesting questions as usual from our resident Hobbit!

Generally I'd just agree that when we seek to put rigid boxes around how competitive success can come about in basketball (and so many other things), we're proven wrong.

I think for me Nash will always be the example of this because when the Suns started doing their think in '04-05, I did not understand it and at first refused to believe that a guy who looks like Nash and puts up the box score he did could be the most valuable player in the league...but he was. So that involved me letting go certain assumptions about what I thought I knew about the game, and it happened to coincide with the rest of the basketball world about to go through the same ordeal.

This then to say that I expect such things will keep happening, even if will typically be more subtle.

On Shai, let's say right from the jump that there's been an irrational bias against elevating him to where he deserves that's fascinating specifically because the reality is, when he plays he looks roughly like a classic Jordanian superstar. I'd chalk it up at least partially to the trend of the basketball world having this "Impossible 'til Inevitable" mindset where cynicism gives way to religiosity with a chip, and so I expect it to flip pretty hard if the Thunder win the title with Shai winning MVP, WCF MVP & F MVP.

I'd say part of the deal though has everything to do with Shai being a late bloomer in the same draft class as Luka & Trae. People jumped on the bandwagons of those guys early, and while Trae's faded from prominence, Luka's done enough to keep people on his train. People then naturally compare Shai to Luka, and find fault with Shai specifically in the areas where he's weak compared to Luka.

Add on top of that that Shai's MVP competition has been Jokic, who shares with Luka the rep for being a genius at passing, and it continues to be the knock on him that leads people to seek out other knocks. If Shai's not a genius how's he so successful? Free throw merchant! Not saying he doesn't manipulate the refs of course, just that he's far from alone at this, and all those other guys aren't putting up numbers like he does, so obviously you can't explain away what makes him special just by that criticism.

I tend to see Shai's specific outlier genius to have to do with his "slither". He's the best in the world the way he operates inside the 3-point line as a scorer due to his ability to stop & start with exceptional balance and touch. He's not the best passer in the world, but if his other advantages are big enough, he can be more valuable than the best passers, and I'd say there's a great case that this is just what he's done this year.

Re: ORAPM & KAT. Well here I think we need to start by drilling down into the epochs of KAT's career. According to nbrarapm, based on their 2 & 3 year numbers, it appears KAT peaked - both offense & overall - from around '19-20 to '21-22. What was the context at that time? KAT was on bad to mediocre teams that were generally mediocre on offense.

What was KAT's On-Court ORtg in those years:
'19-20: 113.9 (#1 team ORtg 115.9)
'20-21: 114.6 (#1 team ORtg 117.3)
'21-22: 116.9 (#1 team ORtg 116.2)

So, obviously I'm comparing his on-court to the best teams, that's good by all reasonable standards, and I like to specifically not when a player's on-court - either ORtg, DRtg, or Net - is above the best in the league. I call that TAO for "times above one".

For KAT, we've seen him achieve 2 TAOs in his career.

For comparison, here's the leaderboard we have for the PBP era for Offensive TAOs:

1. Steve Nash 12
2. Shaquille O'Neal 8
3. Kevin Durant 7
(tie) LeBron James 7
(tie) Dirk Nowitzki 7
(tie) Chris Paul 7

And just among current players:

1. Kevin Durant 7
(tie) LeBron James 7
(tie) Chris Paul 7
4. James Harden 6
(tie) Nikola Jokic 6
6. Steph Curry 5
7. Draymond Green 4
(tie) Kyrie Irving 4
(tie) Damian Lillard 4
10. Devin Booker 3
(tie) DeAndre Jordan 3
(tie) Kawhi Leonard 3
(tie) Jamal Murray 3
(tie) Russell Westbrook 3
(tie) Klay Thompson 2

Alright so, all of this doesn't necessarily mean any particular thing, but it's just something I look at when I'm thinking about exactly how awesome a team is doing (offense/defense/overall) when a player is on the court.

If a guy has high RAPM numbers, but isn't living in the TAO space, I may have questions about whether the guy in question can really keep scaling his impact as his teammates get better and the schemes get more sophisticated.

This relates to my concerns about KAT. I have concerns about KAT's decision making and passivity on offense compared to top tier offensive players, and of course, they aren't unrelated to his problems on defense.

Is it possible I'm being closed minded in thinking that in the moment intelligence and feel are necessary to reach that tippy top tier regardless of what the ORAPM says? Yes...but then I would also note, I think these are considerably bigger concerns than they were in earlier times, and I'd point to the finals we're watching right now to see how engaged players on contenders really need to be right now. Frankly, I think a lot of veterans playing right now are ill-equipped to join these finals teams, and I wonder how many of them realize it.

FrodoBaggins wrote:I don't have access to Box Creation stats

Zoinks!

I can help with this.


(through 2023)
Harden: had a 3-year peak with a BC of around 18 (tops was 18.5)... still crushing it in double digits
Luka: 16.5 - 21.9
LeBron: Solidly around 11-13 since 2008, spikes to about 15 in 2018 and 2020.
Steph: hangs around 12, was around 14 from 2015-2018.

Magic: 4 double-digit seasons, topping out at 13.1 (he admits there's some weakness for the 80s era due to 3pt usage)

This one's weird, because his original Nylon Calculus article lists Magic at 16.0 in 1990 being the 7th-highest individual season of Box Creation, but then doesn't have it in the normal database. Must have changed his specific equation or something.

Nash: 10-11.5 in his later Dallas years. Hovers around 15 in Phoenix until his decline, peaked at 16.1.
Paul: Hovered around 11-13 most years. Has a couple just shy of 15 in his later years, and pre-injury, had 15.3 and 16.1 with the Hornets
MJ: Hovered around 7-8, peaked at 10.1 in 89 and 90.
Kareem: Hovered around 3.5 to 4. Peaked at 4.6 in 86, nice and late.
Shaq: Hovered around 5, peaked at 5.6 in 01.
Dirk: Hovered around 5, peaked at 6.5 and 6.2 in 07 and 08. Was at 5.4 in 2011.
Bird: 3.5 to 4 or so for first 4 years, then 5.6, then 7.2 to 9 for 5 years, then 6.4 and 7.1

Jokic: Don't have 2024 or 2025. Prior to: 2.4, 6.3, 7.4, 9.8, 10.2, 14.8, 14.7, 15.4.