RealGM

Who had a better prime

I think I’d rank it like this:

1. Chris Paul
2. Steve Nash
3. James Harden

I like Nash a lot more, but I can’t really justify putting him above Chris Paul when I look at the data. Nash’s DRAPM just hurts him a lot compared to a positive defensive player like Chris Paul. Nash is definitely the best offensive player here, though.

For prime I would take CP3 > Harden > Nash

CP3 have numerous season that bring elite value to his team. And his floor as a engine is stretch out for a long moment compare to the other two IMO

Their Prime would be :
08-18 CP3
13-20 Harden
04-10 Nash

Which CP3 have it longer while providing around the same production

mdonnelly1989 wrote:Who had a better prime

Hard to answer so a good thread topic. I'm going to start off with a few of quant-ish approaches before talking it through a bit more.

Recently I've been applying my Career RS RAPM VORP to things. Here's how that comes out for these 3:

1. Chris Paul +5362 (3rd in PBP era)
2. James Harden +3860 (13th)
3. Steve Nash +3294 (18th)

If we head over to b-r's MVP shares, we get:

1. James Harden 3.6 (14th all-time going back to the '50s)
2. Steve Nash 2.4 (26th)
3. Chris Paul 1.8 (32nd)

Now, my own personal POY shares which are subjective on the season level, but get tallied in a predictable 10-7-5-3-1 fashion:

1. Steve Nash 2.2 (30th all-time going back to NBL)
2. Chris Paul 1.3 (44th)
3. James Harden 0.8 (60th)

So what's going on here?

Well, Paul was given true primacy at age 20, Harden at 23, and Nash at 30. That goes a long way to speaking to longevity of impact.

On the MVP shares, we get Paul held back relative to the other two, and I'd say the essence there is that Paul was never really a top-tier candidate after his '07-08 campaign, which arguably had a lot to do with his Clipper prime being in the midst of brutal competition from LeBron, KD, etc.

On my POY shares, Harden falls to the bottom and Nash's lead over Paul increases. Why?

Well with Harden, something looming large is how highly I rank the Warriors (Steph, Dray, KD) of the era. In '16-17, Westbrook won the MVP barely over Harden...but I have neither in my Top 5 (which is populated by the 3 Warriors, LeBron & Kawhi). One might see that as unfair to Harden within that year, and one might also see that as unfair competition because Nash & Paul's primes didn't have to compete against all those same guys.

Paul's smaller slippage from MVP to my POY has a lot to do with the injuries and upsets Paul's playoff career is made up of. I don't want to make it out like Paul sucks in the playoffs, but it's important not brush aside how disappointing the Paul-Griffin Clipper playoff years were. The idea that they'd only ever win 3 playoff series together just didn't fit without how they were perceived, but it's also not really justified to say that these disappointments were just flukes.

So then, if I define prime based on a 5+ year run at a guy's best relative to competition, I'd go with Nash > Paul > Harden.

If I adjust for competition, I'd say Harden jumps above Paul, but I think I'd still side with Nash who I see as the best offensive player of the bunch.

I think Paul's defense gives him an argument in these things over the other two guys, but again, in prime, this didn't lead to clearly superior results.

Career-wise start to finish, hard not to go for Paul over the other two unless you're ultra-focused on peak or cultural factors (Nash & Harden were arguably both more influential than Paul).

lessthanjake wrote:I think I’d rank it like this:

1. Chris Paul
2. Steve Nash
3. James Harden

I like Nash a lot more, but I can’t really justify putting him above Chris Paul when I look at the data. Nash’s DRAPM just hurts him a lot compared to a positive defensive player like Chris Paul. Nash is definitely the best offensive player here, though.

Since RAPM's being brought up, here's how these guys rank by 3, 4 & 5 year RAPM peaks according to nbarapm.

3-year:

1. Chris Paul, 2nd, +8.3
2. Steve Nash, 2nd, +8.0
3. James Harden, 9th, +5.5

4-year:

1. Steve Nash, 1st, +8.8
2. Chris Paul, 2nd, +9.1
3. James Harden, 3rd, +6.4

5-year:

1. Chris Paul, 1st, +9.8
2. Steve Nash, 3rd, +8.5
3. James Harden, 5th, +7.1

Note that I'm ordering first by rank rather than rating because ratings are not apples-to-apples between different studies.

It's interesting on this that Paul & Nash both look considerably stronger than Harden.

Between Paul & Nash I'd say Paul looks slightly strong.

Nash is obviously last. Harden vs Paul is tough.

Excellent poll. They're all very close.

Primedeion wrote:Nash is obviously last.

Nothing obvious about that at all.

Nothing obvious about that at all.

No?

Look at a ten year stretch for both Nash and Paul that you think is each's prime. I chose 0102-1011 for Nash and 0708-1617 for Paul (you can chose whatever it won't be much different):

Nash - 783 g, 26632 min, 7852 ast, 595 st, 2541 to, 13085 pts (16.7 pts/g)
Paul - 692 g, 24484 min, 7071 ast, 1617 st, 1680 to, 13248 pts (19.1 pts/g)

That's 781 more assists for Nash but at a cost of 861 more TOs. Think that's worth it?

Also that's 1617-595+2541-1680=1883 more team possessions gained/not lost by Paul than Nash, through more steals and less turnovers. That's about 2.4-2.7 per game over 10 years, with each team possession valued at something over 1 point.

On top of this Paul was clearly the better defender (all-defensive 1st team 7 times, 2nd team twice), and by a lot. Nash shot better but Paul was the better rebounder.

Care to explain how Nash makes up for these large differences that clearly favor Paul over an entire decade of games for both players?

You get different things.

Paul is probably just better at basketball than Nash and Harden.

And as competitive as anyone ever. His injuries are the only things that open the door. Harden was an iron man. Nash was was as well in Phoenix for about an 8 year stretch.

Harden got a little ridiculous to end the 10’s though his early prime was loaded with flaws. Nash had the highest potential to synergize with other ATG talent. Which does count.

But I have no doubts Chris Paul was the best here. It’s just a matter of if his health showed you to really get the titles odds you should get for having him.

CPGOAT of course

kcktiny wrote:

Nothing obvious about that at all.

No?

Look at a ten year stretch for both Nash and Paul that you think is each's prime. I chose 0102-1011 for Nash and 0708-1617 for Paul (you can chose whatever it won't be much different):

Nash - 783 g, 26632 min, 7852 ast, 595 st, 2541 to, 13085 pts (16.7 pts/g)
Paul - 692 g, 24484 min, 7071 ast, 1617 st, 1680 to, 13248 pts (19.1 pts/g)

That's 781 more assists for Nash but at a cost of 861 more TOs. Think that's worth it?

Also that's 1617-595+2541-1680=1883 more team possessions gained/not lost by Paul than Nash, through more steals and less turnovers. That's about 2.4-2.7 per game over 10 years, with each team possession valued at something over 1 point.

On top of this Paul was clearly the better defender (all-defensive 1st team 7 times, 2nd team twice), and by a lot. Nash shot better but Paul was the better rebounder.

Care to explain how Nash makes up for these large differences that clearly favor Paul over an entire decade of games for both players?

Okay, so first let me say: You're responding to someone saying something is not easy for them to conclude by demanding them to rebut your evaluation. That's kinda weird.

To just speak a bit to your question at the end:

1. When you set the terms "over an entire decade", you're literally off-topic as this isn't a thread about longevity. Certainly though I think we can all agree that Paul's longevity is outstanding and helps him in a career conversation.

2. You point out that Paul was the better defender, which is certainly true and very much relevant to this particular topic.

3. In terms of the less assists, more turnovers, my answer would be: The game is more nuanced than is captured in those data points. Regression data in my experience seems to agree with Paul's low raw turnover stats are indicative of a supreme ability to mitigate risk for the offense, but Nash's superior overall offensive impact comes from effects on guys' scoring.

4. In terms of basketball-wise, how it's possible that Nash's floor generalship was achieving something more than Paul's, the number one thing I'd point to is the pace in which Nash played with - which to be clear was already a signature part of his game in Dallas before he joined with D'Antoni under the Colangelo Suns vision. The idea of playing fast - which includes attacking in transition, but also speaks to speed of half court action - is that you can attack holes in the defense before they have time to patch them. The reason to play slow, as Paul preferred to do, by contrast, is to avoid blowing possessions with incomplete passes or hasty shots. But if you're good enough at passing to players who are good enough at catching and shooting, the unreadiness of the opposing defense will pay off for you on average.

5. Note that the fact that fast breaks become harder to achieve in the playoffs was always a concern about relying on winning with pace, and so you can't expect to create an elite playoff offense on transition alone, but of course Nash is now arguably more known for his half court game than his transition game now that we have the term "Nashing" to refer to a point guard driving into the paint with the intent of scrambling the defense and feasting off the gaps this creates elsewhere - bonus points if the play ends with a jump pass to assist a 3.

Paul > Nash > Harden

Okay, so first let me say: You're responding to someone saying something is not easy for them to conclude by demanding

So now "care to explain" is the same as "demanding"? You currently undergoing some sort of sensitivity training?

them to rebut your evaluation. That's kinda weird.

Using simple, raw, cumulative box score statistics and simple addition and subtraction is now "weird"?

This from someone posting as relevant a convoluted black box concoction like RAPM? Are you serious?

When you set the terms "over an entire decade", you're literally off-topic as this isn't a thread about longevity.

Is that a fact.

Nash was named to an all-NBA team over 8 seasons, Paul over 15 seasons. That IS their prime - unless you want to try to convince us all that a player making an all-NBA team is not in their prime.

Paul was named to the all-NBA 2nd team in 2020-21. As a PG only Steph Curry was named ahead of him. Doesn't that mean Paul was really really good at the age of 35? The second best PG in the league that year (2nd or 3rd as Lillard was also named to the 2nd team) according to the voters?

Nash was named to an all-NBA 2nd team in 2009-10, also at the age of 35. The 1st team didn't even have a PG. Doesn't that mean the voters thought of Nash as the best PG in the league? But somehow you want to tell us he was not in his prime then?

So lets make this easy. Why don't you explain to us when Paul's and Nash's primes were?

In terms of the less assists, more turnovers, my answer would be: The game is more nuanced than is captured in those data points.

Are you a Nash sycophant or something? A turnover is a bad thing team-wise, a steal a good thing team-wise. An assist is a good thing as it means your team scored.

But here you are now trying to re-define what they truly mean for the sake of a specific player?

Nash's top ten seasons for assists he averaged 792 assists and 258 turnovers. Paul 742 assists but just 179 turnovers. Why don't you nuance that?

but Nash's superior overall offensive impact

So now you are trying to say Nash's assists are somehow more valuable than Paul's (or anyone else's ) assists?

how it's possible that Nash's floor generalship was achieving something more than Paul's

I guess you are. Two future HOF players but one's assists were of more importance and turnovers were of less importance than the other guy's?

I'm a little surprised at the results given out dominant of scorer James Harden was compared to those guys. While probably being the worse of the passers but still very good.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:I'm a little surprised at the results given out dominant of scorer James Harden was compared to those guys. While probably being the worse of the passers but still very good.

Definitely interesting. To explore the space a bit:

Paul has a major lead over the two right now, so I'll start there. On Harden vs Paul:

- I would say that the PC Board has specifically been bullish on Paul at times where the mainstream has been tepid. I remember ESPN having an all-time list that had Harden ahead of Paul while we'd seen Paul continue to be ahead of Harden on the Top 100 here and thinking it was less about disagreement on Harden, and more about disagreement on Paul - surely based on specific rank differences but I couldn't tell you those specifics now. I will though speak a bit more in this general area when I cover Nash below.

- Things then shifted in the positive direction for Paul with his run in Phoenix. The shine came off a little bit as that run ended, but I do think that that finals run did have a permanent effect on how Paul is remembered in evaluated, both here and in the mainstream.

- And I'd say things have really shifted negative for Harden - again both here and in the mainstream - in recent years. Basically from his trade demand away from Houston things have been rocky. His peak in perception probably came early in Brooklyn when hopes were highest, but how things ended there - with another trade demand not long after the previous, followed by how things ended at the next stop - with another trade demand not long after the previous, has taken a toll.

- Worth noting the weirdness of me talking about someone essentially earning negative basketball credit for years of basketball play that has been WAY above replacement value. There's a lot that could be unpacked in there.

On Harden vs Nash - with Nash having a slight lead in the poll at this time:

- A lot of the same stuff applies here, though obviously with Nash retired for a good while, not all of it.

- I'd note what Nash & Paul have in common as an archetype (pass-first point guard) which is not what Harden became known for in Houston (dominant scorer), and I'd say that's something that's actually been baked into the fabric of this board since before my time here given the fact that John Stockton rated so highly in the original Top 100 in 2003 (17th, while Malone was 13th, iirc). I expect the roots of this had to do with having access to statistics on the internet, along with a greater appreciation for stats other than points. And then as +/- data started becoming a thing, and Stockton/Kidd/Nash/Paul ended up looking so good, it further cemented things - and the fact that Paul looks so good by both box score all-in-ones and +/- stats surely bolstered his status here during times when the mainstream has chased narrative elsewhere.

- On Nash specifically, well, as I alluded to with the S/K/N/P, you might say was Paul before Paul here...but I should be very cautious about saying it because of the role I played here. I don't want to overcredit (or overblame) myself for the direction of the board specifically because a) as noted, there's clear signs of the board already leaning this way before I'd ever heard of the board, and b) I would say that was probably not unrelated to why this board impressed me more than the others on the internet at the time. But yeah, I may or may not have written more about Nash here during his hey day than anyone else.

Doctor MJ wrote:

mdonnelly1989 wrote:I'm a little surprised at the results given out dominant of scorer James Harden was compared to those guys. While probably being the worse of the passers but still very good.

Definitely interesting. To explore the space a bit:

Paul has a major lead over the two right now, so I'll start there. On Harden vs Paul:

- I would say that the PC Board has specifically been bullish on Paul at times where the mainstream has been tepid. I remember ESPN having an all-time list that had Harden ahead of Paul while we'd seen Paul continue to be ahead of Harden on the Top 100 here and thinking it was less about disagreement on Harden, and more about disagreement on Paul - surely based on specific rank differences but I couldn't tell you those specifics now. I will though speak a bit more in this general area when I cover Nash below.

- Things then shifted in the positive direction for Paul with his run in Phoenix. The shine came off a little bit as that run ended, but I do think that that finals run did have a permanent effect on how Paul is remembered in evaluated, both here and in the mainstream.

- And I'd say things have really shifted negative for Harden - again both here and in the mainstream - in recent years. Basically from his trade demand away from Houston things have been rocky. His peak in perception probably came early in Brooklyn when hopes were highest, but how things ended there - with another trade demand not long after the previous, followed by how things ended at the next stop - with another trade demand not long after the previous, has taken a toll.

- Worth noting the weirdness of me talking about someone essentially earning negative basketball credit for years of basketball play that has been WAY above replacement value. There's a lot that could be unpacked in there.

On Harden vs Nash - with Nash having a slight lead in the poll at this time:

- A lot of the same stuff applies here, though obviously with Nash retired for a good while, not all of it.

- I'd note what Nash & Paul have in common as an archetype (pass-first point guard) which is not what Harden became known for in Houston (dominant scorer), and I'd say that's something that's actually been baked into the fabric of this board since before my time here given the fact that John Stockton rated so highly in the original Top 100 in 2003 (17th, while Malone was 13th, iirc). I expect the roots of this had to do with having access to statistics on the internet, along with a greater appreciation for stats other than points. And then as +/- data started becoming a thing, and Stockton/Kidd/Nash/Paul ended up looking so good, it further cemented things - and the fact that Paul looks so good by both box score all-in-ones and +/- stats surely bolstered his status here during times when the mainstream has chased narrative elsewhere.

- On Nash specifically, well, as I alluded to with the S/K/N/P, you might say was Paul before Paul here...but I should be very cautious about saying it because of the role I played here. I don't want to overcredit (or overblame) myself for the direction of the board specifically because a) as noted, there's clear signs of the board already leaning this way before I'd ever heard of the board, and b) I would say that was probably not unrelated to why this board impressed me more than the others on the internet at the time. But yeah, I may or may not have written more about Nash here during his hey day than anyone else.

I wonder how much defense was taken into account where CP3 is one of the better guard defenders of all time and both Nash and Harden have been known to be liabilities. I just can’t see a world where Harden isn’t the best offensive player when you look his offensive output stints with Houston.


BTW do you have a link to that list in 2003? That would be fascinating too see.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

mdonnelly1989 wrote:I'm a little surprised at the results given out dominant of scorer James Harden was compared to those guys. While probably being the worse of the passers but still very good.

Definitely interesting. To explore the space a bit:

Paul has a major lead over the two right now, so I'll start there. On Harden vs Paul:

- I would say that the PC Board has specifically been bullish on Paul at times where the mainstream has been tepid. I remember ESPN having an all-time list that had Harden ahead of Paul while we'd seen Paul continue to be ahead of Harden on the Top 100 here and thinking it was less about disagreement on Harden, and more about disagreement on Paul - surely based on specific rank differences but I couldn't tell you those specifics now. I will though speak a bit more in this general area when I cover Nash below.

- Things then shifted in the positive direction for Paul with his run in Phoenix. The shine came off a little bit as that run ended, but I do think that that finals run did have a permanent effect on how Paul is remembered in evaluated, both here and in the mainstream.

- And I'd say things have really shifted negative for Harden - again both here and in the mainstream - in recent years. Basically from his trade demand away from Houston things have been rocky. His peak in perception probably came early in Brooklyn when hopes were highest, but how things ended there - with another trade demand not long after the previous, followed by how things ended at the next stop - with another trade demand not long after the previous, has taken a toll.

- Worth noting the weirdness of me talking about someone essentially earning negative basketball credit for years of basketball play that has been WAY above replacement value. There's a lot that could be unpacked in there.

On Harden vs Nash - with Nash having a slight lead in the poll at this time:

- A lot of the same stuff applies here, though obviously with Nash retired for a good while, not all of it.

- I'd note what Nash & Paul have in common as an archetype (pass-first point guard) which is not what Harden became known for in Houston (dominant scorer), and I'd say that's something that's actually been baked into the fabric of this board since before my time here given the fact that John Stockton rated so highly in the original Top 100 in 2003 (17th, while Malone was 13th, iirc). I expect the roots of this had to do with having access to statistics on the internet, along with a greater appreciation for stats other than points. And then as +/- data started becoming a thing, and Stockton/Kidd/Nash/Paul ended up looking so good, it further cemented things - and the fact that Paul looks so good by both box score all-in-ones and +/- stats surely bolstered his status here during times when the mainstream has chased narrative elsewhere.

- On Nash specifically, well, as I alluded to with the S/K/N/P, you might say was Paul before Paul here...but I should be very cautious about saying it because of the role I played here. I don't want to overcredit (or overblame) myself for the direction of the board specifically because a) as noted, there's clear signs of the board already leaning this way before I'd ever heard of the board, and b) I would say that was probably not unrelated to why this board impressed me more than the others on the internet at the time. But yeah, I may or may not have written more about Nash here during his hey day than anyone else.

I wonder how much defense was taken into account where CP3 is one of the better guard defenders of all time and both Nash and Harden have been known to be liabilities. I just can’t see a world where Harden isn’t the best offensive player when you look his offensive output stints with Houston.


BTW do you have a link to that list in 2003? That would be fascinating too see.

Well, here's my historical spreadsheet that has the partial list from 2003:

RealGM 100 Spreadsheet

What happened to the rest? In around 2008 RealGM did an upgrade that archived threads before a certain point. Hence, the only data I have comes from archive.org's screenshots. ftr, I have asked RealGM admin if they can find those old threads so we can complete the list, but I've been told no. Wouldn't be surprised if they just wiped the old posts after a few years, and unfortunately I wasn't on RealGM a lot around the time archival occurred.

Edit: re, basketball:

Certainly defense is helping Paul in this 3-man comparison, as it should.

Re: can't see a world where Harden isn't the best offensive player. I mean, I'd say the offensive impact data definitely looks better for Nash than Harden.

Kinda sounds like you can't imagine that the combination of Harden's (volume) scoring & passing gives him an unbeatable edge, but there's more to a floor general than PPG & APG, as I alluded to an earlier post in the Nash-Paul conversation.