RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #11 (Stephen Curry)

[Doctor MJ]

Curious, Doc, did you think Nash had a serious MVP case that year?

Not saying player of the year, because that Spurs series is tough to defend. But he had the best raw plus/minus after the Celtics core four and Kobe, and his individual point differential with his team’s total was the largest in the league (tortured way of emphasising he led the league in on/off on a rate and cumulative basis).

I think he was absolutely on pace to be a strong POY candidate until the Suns made just about the dumbest move ever giving up on pace & space. In fairness - Shawn Marion's attitude had become so problematic that I don't really blame the Suns for moving on, but I do blame them for looking to re-focus their scheme with super-old, super-overweight Shaq.

I will say I still have Nash 3rd on my OPOY behind Kobe & Paul. If he'd just been allowed to keep doing the thing, he'd probably have been my OPOY for a 4th year in a row.

[iggymcfrack]

Kobe Top 5 in 2004 and 2005 is hard to sell.

2004 when they reached the finals? How much weight are you putting on a series? 2005 is at least defensible if we apply the logic often used for Garnett

And we can do the rankings here or not but ultimately, at least in a career sense, for Bird to push Kobe in value he would have had to been a goat-level offensive player(and to be clear he probably still falls short if you're being strictly corp about things). Realistically he was not anywhere near that, so him "accomplishing more" seems dubious outside of mvp wins.

The Lakers in 2004 were regarded as a complete superteam that was fully expected to easily win the title. Their preseason odds to win the title were amongst the very best ever. Their loss in the finals was the biggest upset in finals history. In the context, I don’t really think them making the finals after a 56-win 4.35 SRS season is suggestive that Kobe must have been a top 5 player that year.

Of course, it doesn’t preclude it necessarily either. A part of why expectations were so high is because Kobe was really good, so the team failing to meet expectations doesn’t mean Kobe can’t have been a top 5 player. But Kobe was also 31st in Engelmann’s RAPM, 27th in RPM, 21st in EPM, 53rd in GitHub RS RAPM, 34th in GitHub Playoff RAPM, etc. And he was rough for a lot of the playoffs, including the Finals. One could maybe make a top-5 argument for him solely on the basis of some box stats (he was 5th in PER and BPM). But I think it’d be a pretty weak argument. It’s not just about the Finals that year.

Kobe top 5 in 2004 is nuts. He single-handedly sunk a superteam because he didn't want to pass. If the Lakers had gotten decent all-NBA level play from the SG position in 2004, they probably win the title. But no, Kobe had to take all the shots in the Finals as he was shooting 38% from the field and 17% from three.

[ShaqAttac]

I have KG and LeBron ahead after my last go through. I’ll say though that LeBron vs Kobe is something I go back and forth on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i think kg over kobe is kinda crazy ngl. i get his apm was high but he didnt play nearly as much and hsi team was really stuggling for all the playoffs.

i think its gotta be kobe or bron and kobe was probably better for most of the season i think

So, this particular debate is one that's been done like crazy in PC Board project for years. Back when we were doing the Retro POY, Kevin Garnett won for that year, but I'll say that at the time I had Garnett in the #4 spot, with his missed time being something I struggled to get past.

What I eventually became convinced on was that Garnett's impact really was 2nd to none that year, and that it really doesn't seem that important that Garnett played a bit less.

This is part of a more general thing where availability matters to me, but if the lack of availability doesn't end up getting in the way, then the guy playing the most valuable ball matters most to me.

Regarding the Celtic struggles early in the playoffs, it kinda fits in the same category. It would have mattered if the Celtics lost, but they didn't lose.

Just for perspective though, it's not just that KG has super-high +/- numbers all year long, it's that while you might thing the Celtics were largely treading water all along the playoffs, that didn't stop KG from having way higher +/- numbers than everyone else.

Using the raw +/- numbers, which of course are minutes-dependent, here's how various top stars of that year looked in the playoffs:

Garnett 182
LeBron 66
Kobe 64
Paul 57

didnt everyone on the celtics post high +/-?

actually i thought pierces was higher?

[ShaqAttac]

actually i found it:

i think kg over kobe is kinda crazy ngl. i get his apm was high but he didnt play nearly as much and hsi team was really stuggling for all the playoffs.

i think its gotta be kobe or bron and kobe was probably better for most of the season i think

So, this particular debate is one that's been done like crazy in PC Board project for years. Back when we were doing the Retro POY, Kevin Garnett won for that year, but I'll say that at the time I had Garnett in the #4 spot, with his missed time being something I struggled to get past.

What I eventually became convinced on was that Garnett's impact really was 2nd to none that year, and that it really doesn't seem that important that Garnett played a bit less.

This is part of a more general thing where availability matters to me, but if the lack of availability doesn't end up getting in the way, then the guy playing the most valuable ball matters most to me.

Regarding the Celtic struggles early in the playoffs, it kinda fits in the same category. It would have mattered if the Celtics lost, but they didn't lose.

Just for perspective though, it's not just that KG has super-high +/- numbers all year long, it's that while you might thing the Celtics were largely treading water all along the playoffs, that didn't stop KG from having way higher +/- numbers than everyone else.

Using the raw +/- numbers, which of course are minutes-dependent, here's how various top stars of that year looked in the playoffs:

Garnett 182
LeBron 66
Kobe 64
Paul 57

didnt everyone on the celtics post high +/-?

actually i thought pierces was higher?

yea from statmuse


doesnt colinearty mean kg is getting overrated and kobe getting underrated

homie sent this to me 3 days agoo

[ShaqAttac]

sorry for extra tags. i wanted to quote doc and quoted the wrong posterr.

[lessthanjake]

i think kg over kobe is kinda crazy ngl. i get his apm was high but he didnt play nearly as much and hsi team was really stuggling for all the playoffs.

i think its gotta be kobe or bron and kobe was probably better for most of the season i think

So, this particular debate is one that's been done like crazy in PC Board project for years. Back when we were doing the Retro POY, Kevin Garnett won for that year, but I'll say that at the time I had Garnett in the #4 spot, with his missed time being something I struggled to get past.

What I eventually became convinced on was that Garnett's impact really was 2nd to none that year, and that it really doesn't seem that important that Garnett played a bit less.

This is part of a more general thing where availability matters to me, but if the lack of availability doesn't end up getting in the way, then the guy playing the most valuable ball matters most to me.

Regarding the Celtic struggles early in the playoffs, it kinda fits in the same category. It would have mattered if the Celtics lost, but they didn't lose.

Just for perspective though, it's not just that KG has super-high +/- numbers all year long, it's that while you might thing the Celtics were largely treading water all along the playoffs, that didn't stop KG from having way higher +/- numbers than everyone else.

Using the raw +/- numbers, which of course are minutes-dependent, here's how various top stars of that year looked in the playoffs:

Garnett 182
LeBron 66
Kobe 64
Paul 57

didnt everyone on the celtics post high +/-?

actually i thought pierces was higher?

No, Pierce’s wasn’t higher.

Here’s the playoff +/- for the Celtics that year:

Garnett: +184
Allen: +153
Pierce: +135
Perkins: +123
Rondo: +60
Posey: +10

In on-off terms, Garnett was +19.8, while no one else on the Celtics was above +10.3. It would be better if you didn’t ask leading questions that provide incorrect information. If you think something is true, perhaps take a moment to look up whether it’s true before posting a question asserting it. What you do requires other people to take the time to fact check things you say, because they’re often false but you assert them as if you’re almost certain they’re true.

[ShaqAttac]

So, this particular debate is one that's been done like crazy in PC Board project for years. Back when we were doing the Retro POY, Kevin Garnett won for that year, but I'll say that at the time I had Garnett in the #4 spot, with his missed time being something I struggled to get past.

What I eventually became convinced on was that Garnett's impact really was 2nd to none that year, and that it really doesn't seem that important that Garnett played a bit less.

This is part of a more general thing where availability matters to me, but if the lack of availability doesn't end up getting in the way, then the guy playing the most valuable ball matters most to me.

Regarding the Celtic struggles early in the playoffs, it kinda fits in the same category. It would have mattered if the Celtics lost, but they didn't lose.

Just for perspective though, it's not just that KG has super-high +/- numbers all year long, it's that while you might thing the Celtics were largely treading water all along the playoffs, that didn't stop KG from having way higher +/- numbers than everyone else.

Using the raw +/- numbers, which of course are minutes-dependent, here's how various top stars of that year looked in the playoffs:

Garnett 182
LeBron 66
Kobe 64
Paul 57

didnt everyone on the celtics post high +/-?

actually i thought pierces was higher?

No.

Here’s the playoff +/- for the Celtics that year:

Garnett: +184
Allen: +153
Pierce: +135
Perkins: +123
Rondo: +60
Posey: +10

In on-off terms, Garnett was +19.8, while no one else on the Celtics was above +10.3.

why was it so different than the rest of the season?

[Colbinii]

didnt everyone on the celtics post high +/-?

actually i thought pierces was higher?

No.

Here’s the playoff +/- for the Celtics that year:

Garnett: +184
Allen: +153
Pierce: +135
Perkins: +123
Rondo: +60
Posey: +10

In on-off terms, Garnett was +19.8, while no one else on the Celtics was above +10.3.

why was it so different than the rest of the season?

Simplest reason: Garnett impacts the game at an MVP level in the post-season and Pierce doesn't.

Garnett can always impact a playoff game [High intensity, better competition, deeper strategic format] where Pierce, which phenomenal as a player, simply wasn't at that level.

[lessthanjake]

didnt everyone on the celtics post high +/-?

actually i thought pierces was higher?

No.

Here’s the playoff +/- for the Celtics that year:

Garnett: +184
Allen: +153
Pierce: +135
Perkins: +123
Rondo: +60
Posey: +10

In on-off terms, Garnett was +19.8, while no one else on the Celtics was above +10.3.

why was it so different than the rest of the season?

I don’t know and I don’t really care. DoctorMJ made an assertion about Garnett’s playoff +/-. In the guise of a question, you made a related assertion about the Celtics’ playoff +/-, in response to DoctorMJ. I was correcting you, because your question-assertion was factually inaccurate.

And because you responded before I edited it into my last post, I’ll repeat this again to make sure you see it: It would be better if you didn’t ask leading questions that provide incorrect information. If you think something is true, actually take a moment to look up whether it’s true instead of posting a leading question that essentially asserts it. What you do asks other people to take the time to fact check things you say, because they’re often false but you assert them in leading-question form as if you’re almost certain they’re true. It’s a posting style that puts the onus on everyone else to actually provide real information, while you sit back and throw things out there haphazardly.

[ShaqAttac]

No.

Here’s the playoff +/- for the Celtics that year:

Garnett: +184
Allen: +153
Pierce: +135
Perkins: +123
Rondo: +60
Posey: +10

In on-off terms, Garnett was +19.8, while no one else on the Celtics was above +10.3.

why was it so different than the rest of the season?

I don’t know and I don’t really care. DoctorMJ made an assertion about Garnett’s playoff +/-. In the guise of a question, you made a related assertion about the Celtics’ playoff +/-, in response to DoctorMJ. I was correcting you, because your question-assertion was factually inaccurate.

And because you responded before I edited it into my last post, I’ll repeat this again to make sure you see it: It would be better if you didn’t ask leading questions that provide incorrect information. If you think something is true, actually take a moment to look up whether it’s true instead of posting a question that essentially asserts it. What you do asks other people to take the time to fact check things you say, because they’re often false but you assert them in leading-question form as if you’re almost certain they’re true. It’s a posting style that puts the onus on everyone else to actually provide real information, while you sit back and throw things out there haphazardly.

I didn't realize he was talking just playoffs sorry.

When else have i said something that's not true? I dont even post stats much

[lessthanjake]

why was it so different than the rest of the season?

I don’t know and I don’t really care. DoctorMJ made an assertion about Garnett’s playoff +/-. In the guise of a question, you made a related assertion about the Celtics’ playoff +/-, in response to DoctorMJ. I was correcting you, because your question-assertion was factually inaccurate.

And because you responded before I edited it into my last post, I’ll repeat this again to make sure you see it: It would be better if you didn’t ask leading questions that provide incorrect information. If you think something is true, actually take a moment to look up whether it’s true instead of posting a question that essentially asserts it. What you do asks other people to take the time to fact check things you say, because they’re often false but you assert them in leading-question form as if you’re almost certain they’re true. It’s a posting style that puts the onus on everyone else to actually provide real information, while you sit back and throw things out there haphazardly.

I didn't realize he was talking just playoffs sorry.

When else have i said something that's not true? I dont even post stats much

I’m not going to take the time to dig up examples when the entire point I’m making is that your posting style requires others to dig up information for you. This isn’t a big deal, but I’m just requesting that you actually take the effort to look up and provide relevant info instead of asking leading questions asserting things you think off the top of your head are true.

[ShaqAttac]

I don’t know and I don’t really care. DoctorMJ made an assertion about Garnett’s playoff +/-. In the guise of a question, you made a related assertion about the Celtics’ playoff +/-, in response to DoctorMJ. I was correcting you, because your question-assertion was factually inaccurate.

And because you responded before I edited it into my last post, I’ll repeat this again to make sure you see it: It would be better if you didn’t ask leading questions that provide incorrect information. If you think something is true, actually take a moment to look up whether it’s true instead of posting a question that essentially asserts it. What you do asks other people to take the time to fact check things you say, because they’re often false but you assert them in leading-question form as if you’re almost certain they’re true. It’s a posting style that puts the onus on everyone else to actually provide real information, while you sit back and throw things out there haphazardly.

I didn't realize he was talking just playoffs sorry.

When else have i said something that's not true? I dont even post stats much

I’m not going to take the time to dig up examples when the entire point I’m making is that your posting style requires others to dig up information for you. This isn’t a big deal, but I’m just requesting that you actually take the effort to look up and provide relevant info instead of asking leading questions asserting things you think off the top of your head are true.

okay i'll try and fact-check more. though it would be nice if people fact checked what ive said when they say im not being consistent