RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #20 (Chris Paul)

[therealbig3]

Can people explain why they are high on 2012 Wade? I don't really see it. In real time, his PS performance was pretty disappointing, and I'm not seeing anything in retrospect to really change that view. Looking beyond winning bias...that playoff run was a major struggle for Wade, mainly because he was starting to break down. He wasn't as bad as he would be in the 2013 playoffs, but it was a similar story of having a strong RS only to obviously slow down by the playoffs and LeBron forced to do some serious heavy-lifting.

His best performance came against the Pacers, and even that series was a tale of two halves in which he was just straight up falling apart in the first 3.5 games of that series before finally stepping up. He was inconsistent the entire time, and I think the LeBron-only lineups played better than the LeBron + Wade lineups. This is when the lack of consistent outside shooting from Wade started hurting them, because he lost enough athletically that his off-ball cutting wasn't nearly as effective anymore. There were times when he had the chance to step up and take over in the absence of LeBron, and failed to do so (I think when LeBron fouled out against the Celtics in one game, and another game when he had to leave early because of cramps against the Thunder...the Heat lost the Celtics game, and barely held onto the Thunder game in which Chalmers actually came through...Wade was kind of blowing it IIRC).

I wouldn't really put it that much higher value than 2013 tbh. Wade's best seasons pretty clearly are 05, 06, 09-11. That's 5 MVP-level seasons. 07, 08, and 12-14 are pretty ruined by injury, and then there's really not much value to Wade's career outside of that. And it's not clear that his peak is actually better than someone like Nash or Paul, they just operated in a different way. But Nash from 05-10 is pretty much an MVP-level player every year, and his other seasons are still solidly All-Star level (01-04, 11 and 12). I would take 11 and 12 Nash over 12-14 Wade pretty easily, for example. Nash could have still anchored great teams if he had the help those years...Wade clearly needed LeBron for the heavy lifting and still struggled in his role as 2nd option come playoff time.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Steve Nash Nash is the creation GOAT, alongside Magic. Fantastic floor general, creating easy shots for his teammates.
James Harden Harden was very good for a 5 year stretch. I have him at 5 MVP seasons which is up there with KD, Giannis and CP3 in terms of highest peaks of the current group. His problem is longevity, which I sadly don't see him adding too many more great seasons to his resume.

while harden might have longevity problems against longevity greats, i'm not seeing how this is a problem for harden and not for nash. in simple measures, we have:

Harden ahead in win shares by 22%
Harden 158.0 (22nd all-time)
Nash 129.7 (38th all-time)

Harden ahead by even more in VORP by 58%
Harden 76.0 (16th all-time)
Nash 48.2 (39th all-time)

Harden ahead by even more in postseason win shares by 74% (in only 33% more games)
Harden 20.61 (24th all-time)
Nash 11.87 (64th all-time)

And Harden ahead by even more in postseason VORP by 113% (in only 33% more games)
Harden 11.87 (17th all-time)
Nash 5.56 (52nd all-time)

Looking at my big board

which seasons are you not counting for harden? 2012-2020 are givens so that's the only 9? nash can't possibly be any seasons other than 2001-2012 and his 2001/09/11/12 seasons don't seem to stand out compared to harden 2011/2021/2023.

Nash
- 2001 a nice regular season with a mediocre playoffs (15.1 PER, 55 TS%, 0.082 WS48, 1.7 BPM) and a straight up terrible 2nd round (9/6 on 47 TS%)
- 2009 is a down year across the board and they miss the playoffs before a spring back in 2010
- 2011 and 2012 are nice regular seasons with the magic seemingly gone on the team ORtg front with both teams finishing 9th in offense and there are no playoffs either season

Harden
- 2011 is a meh regular season but he basically does his best 2006-2007 manu ginobili impression in the playoffs.
2011 Harden postseason - 32 mpg, 19.1 PER, 63.4 TS%, 0.193 WS48, 5.7 BPM, +14.7 on/off
2006-7 Ginobili postseason - 31 mpg, 21.7 PER, 58.0 TS%, 0.183 WS48, 5.0 BPM, +13.2 on/off

- 2021 is a great regular season with a statistically dominant 1st round. He misses games in the regular season and gets injured in the playoffs but he's so good that his MVP-caliber regular season games produce a 29-7 regular season record, meaning the nets only needed to go 6-30 in the other games to make the playoffs so he didn't risk costing them a playoff berth. and a dominant 1st round is obviously better than missing the playoffs and his playoff numbers were still 23.9 PER, 67.3 TS%, 0.263 WS48, 9.1 BPM even with the injury (his numbers playing on one leg of 10/6 on 49 TS% aren't even worse than nash's healthy second round in 2001).

- 2023 certainly a good enough regular season to match up with weaker nash seasons (21.6 PER, 0.188 WS48, 5.4 BPM, #4 offense) and the playoffs again are certainly enough to match weaker nash playoffs with harden's 18.5 PER only being exceed by 5 nash playoffs, his 0.111 WS48 only being exceed by 5 nash playoffs, and his 4.1 BPM only being exceed by 3 nash playoffs. with a 22/8/6 series against the #3 defense, including 2 40 point games.

I know you really believe in box-score numbers over plus-minus figures. But if you only use the box-scores to evaluate Nash, than of course he will look much worse than Harden. It's okay for you to stick to your methodology, but the reason for the difference in your opinion from others, is that people do weight the plus-minus and offensive team ratings more than you.

For example, taking a look at team results that are eye-popping, and really highlight the value of Nash.

2005-2008; 2010 PHX PS:

+9.53 rORTG in 2543 min Nash on floor
52.04% from 2
40.65% from 3

+2.01 rORTG in 708 min Nash off floor
48% from 2
35.08% from 3

Then you look at Houston

2015; 2017-20 HOU PS:

+2.26 rORTG in 2535 min Harden on floor
52.13% from 2
35.38% from 3

-4.74 rORTG in 744 min Harden off floor
50.13% from 2
32.93% from 3


Based on this, you could argue that Nash created cleaners shots for teammates, and was able to lift a fine offense to all-time level heights, which is probably more impressive to people than lifting a bad offense to respectable heights (at least the former might be better for championship contention).

Even in 2011, a "meh," Nash is pretty good.

The Suns had a 114.3 ORtg with Nash on the court, which would be about a +7 rORtg. When Nash was off the court they had a 102.3 ORtg, which is about -5 rORtg.

[f4p]

Steve Nash Nash is the creation GOAT, alongside Magic. Fantastic floor general, creating easy shots for his teammates.
James Harden Harden was very good for a 5 year stretch. I have him at 5 MVP seasons which is up there with KD, Giannis and CP3 in terms of highest peaks of the current group. His problem is longevity, which I sadly don't see him adding too many more great seasons to his resume.

while harden might have longevity problems against longevity greats, i'm not seeing how this is a problem for harden and not for nash. in simple measures, we have:

Harden ahead in win shares by 22%
Harden 158.0 (22nd all-time)
Nash 129.7 (38th all-time)

Harden ahead by even more in VORP by 58%
Harden 76.0 (16th all-time)
Nash 48.2 (39th all-time)

Harden ahead by even more in postseason win shares by 74% (in only 33% more games)
Harden 20.61 (24th all-time)
Nash 11.87 (64th all-time)

And Harden ahead by even more in postseason VORP by 113% (in only 33% more games)
Harden 11.87 (17th all-time)
Nash 5.56 (52nd all-time)

Looking at my big board

which seasons are you not counting for harden? 2012-2020 are givens so that's the only 9? nash can't possibly be any seasons other than 2001-2012 and his 2001/09/11/12 seasons don't seem to stand out compared to harden 2011/2021/2023.

Nash
- 2001 a nice regular season with a mediocre playoffs (15.1 PER, 55 TS%, 0.082 WS48, 1.7 BPM) and a straight up terrible 2nd round (9/6 on 47 TS%)
- 2009 is a down year across the board and they miss the playoffs before a spring back in 2010
- 2011 and 2012 are nice regular seasons with the magic seemingly gone on the team ORtg front with both teams finishing 9th in offense and there are no playoffs either season

Harden
- 2011 is a meh regular season but he basically does his best 2006-2007 manu ginobili impression in the playoffs.
2011 Harden postseason - 32 mpg, 19.1 PER, 63.4 TS%, 0.193 WS48, 5.7 BPM, +14.7 on/off
2006-7 Ginobili postseason - 31 mpg, 21.7 PER, 58.0 TS%, 0.183 WS48, 5.0 BPM, +13.2 on/off

- 2021 is a great regular season with a statistically dominant 1st round. He misses games in the regular season and gets injured in the playoffs but he's so good that his MVP-caliber regular season games produce a 29-7 regular season record, meaning the nets only needed to go 6-30 in the other games to make the playoffs so he didn't risk costing them a playoff berth. and a dominant 1st round is obviously better than missing the playoffs and his playoff numbers were still 23.9 PER, 67.3 TS%, 0.263 WS48, 9.1 BPM even with the injury (his numbers playing on one leg of 10/6 on 49 TS% aren't even worse than nash's healthy second round in 2001).

- 2023 certainly a good enough regular season to match up with weaker nash seasons (21.6 PER, 0.188 WS48, 5.4 BPM, #4 offense) and the playoffs again are certainly enough to match weaker nash playoffs with harden's 18.5 PER only being exceed by 5 nash playoffs, his 0.111 WS48 only being exceed by 5 nash playoffs, and his 4.1 BPM only being exceed by 3 nash playoffs. with a 22/8/6 series against the #3 defense, including 2 40 point games.

I know you really believe in box-score numbers over plus-minus figures. But if you only use the box-scores to evaluate Nash, than of course he will look much worse than Harden. It's okay for you to stick to your methodology, but the reason for the difference in your opinion from others, is that people do weight the plus-minus and offensive team ratings more than you.

the problem is, they literally ONLY weigh team ORtg with steve nash. it's a trend back to the peaks project. i literally got in a debate with someone about peak 2017 kawhi leonard against peak nash and defense was considered a wash since kawhi wasn't a DPOY any more and the only relevant information was team ORtg in the playoffs, and even when kawhi was actually better, then it had to be ORtg against a particular team.

no titles, terrible resiliency, weak box score numbers, weak postseason RAPM, weak playoff on/off plus/minus. all subsumed to team ORtg. he seemingly gets the narrowest argument of anyone on this board. and as i detailed in the last project thread, this project is actually following the box score rankings almost step for step (23 of the inductees/nominees so far are from the top 24 in my box score rankings, steve nash is 58th, 31 spots below anyone so far).

For example, taking a look at team results that are eye-popping, and really highlight the value of Nash.

2005-2008; 2010 PHX PS:

+9.53 rORTG in 2543 min Nash on floor
52.04% from 2
40.65% from 3

+2.01 rORTG in 708 min Nash off floor
48% from 2
35.08% from 3

Then you look at Houston

2015; 2017-20 HOU PS:

+2.26 rORTG in 2535 min Harden on floor
52.13% from 2
35.38% from 3

-4.74 rORTG in 744 min Harden off floor
50.13% from 2
32.93% from 3


Based on this, you could argue that Nash created cleaners shots for teammates, and was able to lift a fine offense to all-time level heights, which is probably more impressive to people than lifting a bad offense to respectable heights (at least the former might be better for championship contention).

Even in 2011, a "meh," Nash is pretty good.

The Suns had a 114.3 ORtg with Nash on the court, which would be about a +7 rORtg. When Nash was off the court they had a 102.3 ORtg, which is about -5 rORtg.

yeah, that's great. really, his offenses are great. but it's only one half of the game. he doesn't seem especially amazing by things like plus minus.

according to that Cheema RAPM that Ohayo posted a few weeks ago:

Postseason RAPM
Harden +4.12 (basically tied with steph for 6th)
Nash +2.22 (basically tied with middleton for 28th if i counted correctly)

We have regular postseason On/off
Harden 2011-2022: +11.0
Nash 2001-2010: +4.6, even posting a -0.5 in 2005 and +0.1 in 2010

you can look at series like the 2005 and 2010 conference finals to see how offensively slanted nash's teams tended to be in the playoffs and to see why some of these offensive results should probably be taken with a grain of salt, in light of the other evidence (longevity, box score, resiliency, actual vs expected titles) painting nash in a much lesser light compared to the other potential nominees.

2005 WCF - the suns offense improved its relative rating by +6.8. so their league-leading +8.4 offense got even 6.8 points more ridiculous. if their +1.0 regular season defense holds, they smush the spurs, who were only 0.7 SRS better than the suns. instead their defense gets +10.1 worse to +11.1, meaning this was just an offensive slugfest series. they lose.

2010 WCF - the suns offense improved its relative rating by an even more amazing +8.2. so their league-leading +7.7 offense got even 8.2 points more ridiculous. if their +2.6 regular season defense holds, they smush the lakers, who were only 0.1 SRS better than the suns. instead their defense gets an even more amazing +12.8 worse to +15.4, meaning this was just even more of an offensive slugfest series than in 2005. they lose.

in fact from 2001-2010, nash's offenses improved by 3.0 in the playoffs but his defenses fell off by 1.9. and if not for the crazy defensive outlier first 2 rounds in 2010, it would literally be 2.8 and 2.8. so a significant part of his amazing team playoff offenses seems to have come at a significant defensive cost as his teams leaned in hard on an all-offense strategy.

[lessthanjake]

I really like Charles Barkley, but I’m just having a hard time seeing how he belongs in the discussion at the moment.

His impact profile just seems fairly underwhelming to me. We actually have on-off data for all but one year of his career, and it’s not overly impressive. On the 76ers, the on-off each season in chronological order was: +1.9, +10.6, +7.9, +2.7, +11.0, +8.3, +8.8, and +6.0. It’s solid, but definitely nothing earth-shattering, especially when we realize he was on mediocre teams for most of this (i.e. easier to get high on-off numbers). We also have on-off data for 1994, 1995, and 1996—i.e. every Suns season except 1993. Those numbers were, in chronological order: +6.8, +6.8, and +7.8. And then we know he had a +6.1 on-off with the Rockets (and -2.9 with the Rockets in the playoffs). So we are only missing the 1993 season. That’s his MVP season so in theory it might be a really high-impact season, but we should remember that he joined a team that had averaged a 6.53 SRS the prior 4 seasons and they had a 6.27 SRS that season, so that’s not exactly a big indicator of massive impact. And otherwise, the on-off numbers are just good but not great. His WOWYR is also good but not anything earth-shattering. And, beyond impact, we’re talking about someone without a title and with only one finals run. He actually was a good playoff performer by box numbers, so that mitigates that to some degree IMO, but we’re not talking about a guy whose lack of earth-shattering impact is made up for by team success. Nor are we talking about someone with particularly great longevity. So I’m just struggling to see the argument for having Barkley above even a bunch of guys who have yet to be nominated (Moses Malone, Jokic, Wade, Nash, etc.).

[One_and_Done]

Shaq's plus minus numbers suck. Where did we rate him? There's more to assessing a guy than what his advanced stats were.

[70sFan]

Shaq's plus minus numbers suck. Where did we rate him? There's more to assessing a guy than what his advanced stats were.

No they don't?

RS:

2001-04 LAL ON Shaq: +8.6
2001-04 LAL OFF Shaq: -3.9
On/Off: +13.5

PS:

2001-04 LAL ON Shaq: +7.1
2001-04 LAL OFF Shaq: -9.1
On/Off: +16.2

[Owly]

Shaq's plus minus numbers suck. Where did we rate him? There's more to assessing a guy than what his advanced stats were.

Do they?

What is your source? Do you mean plus/minus or on/off (more frequently cited in general, I think - I suppose +/- might be used more by someone looking for an against-Shaq case, where his injury absences hurt him more)?

Others may be able to help you more with on the intricacies of why they voted Shaq (if they did) and the role of the impact family of stats (plus of course the voting is still there), but they'd be better able to engage with a more specific, sourced claim, If they don't really recognize your claim as accurate I would think it more likely to be ignored.

[70sFan]

Moses was a bruising 5 man, who wasn’t a defensive anchor, wasn’t especially quick laterally, wasn’t much of a passer, and wasn’t a guy who could space you out with his shooting.

Moses wasn't a good passer and his defensive ability wasn't on a level of top defensive anchors, but I don't think there was anything wrong with his lateral quickness and he actually had a good jumpshot and all the signals we have suggest that he could extend his range (he already did that, in the mid and late 1980s he took a lot more long midrange shots than early in his career).

Remove passing and add no jumpshot and your description fits perfectly to Shaq, who is already in by the way.

So there’s not really any model for a guy like that succeeding as a top tier star in the modern era, and conceptually it’s difficult to picture.

I think the same problem applies to Shaq again, do you think Shaq wouldn't be a superstar today?

It’s like imagining Jokic, but taking away his passing and shooting, and making him a bit more of a bruiser. You take away the strengths that let him get away with being a ground bound plodder to some degree, and replace them by doubling down on the things that are also weaknesses. I don’t see it.

That's not a good analogy, because Moses was much different than Jokic physically and athletically. He had much quicker first step, was much better jumper, could move faster and quicker than Jokic. He's also smaller of course, but I don't see the comparison at all.

I also think you underestimate Moses shooting ability. Like sure, he didn't bomb threes back then but he was comparable shooter to someone like Hakeem or Duncan at very least.

I honestly think I might rate Artis Gilmore higher than Moses, because his game would actually translate better to the modern game, where he has a clear role as a defensive anchor who is a rim rolling supporting offensive piece. Moses can’t just camp in the paint waiting for rebounds, he’ll be pick and rolled to death by stretch bigs.

Statistically, Moses doesn’t really jump out given that his stats are a product of a play style that wouldn’t be viable today.

Moses per 100 from 1979-84: 31.6/18.2/2, 2 blks, 115 Ortg/103 Drtg, 578 TS%
Gilmore per 100 from 1975-79: 27.5/17.1/3.4, 3 blks, 113 Ortg/97 Drtg, 601 TS%

Yeh, Moses scores a bit more, because of a play style he wouldn’t be able to replicate today. Otherwise though I’m not seeing much difference between him and Gilmore, except Gilmore’s style would be even more valuable today, and his team mates and situation was in general far worse than Moses. Moses doesn’t even really have Gilmore beat on longevity. Gilmore played 1329 games and was an all-star still at age 36. Moses last all-star season was at age 33, and if we take away his completely irrelevant final 3 seasons he drops from 1455 games down to 1372 games, though I guess Gilmore’s last few seasons weren’t terribly relevant either. Moses has maybe more longevity, depending on how you look at it, because he started earlier. But it’s not enough to matter.

I love that you bring up Gilmore as early, maybe we should consider his candidacy?

But trying to be objective, it's not that easy with these 2:

1. Gilmore never played roll-man role in his prime, he was mostly a post player and deep catch finisher. Would he translate to that role? Probably (his hands weren't perfect, but they were much better than Gobert's), but it's not 100% given.

2. Moses wouldn't camp in the paint for rebounds on defense, but I don't think he'd have more problems with P&R than most bigs from that era. He was fairly light on his feet despite the look. Gilmore was extremely athletic when he was young (especially 1972-75 version should do well today), but he became huge and I don't think he'd do perfectly well in P&R situations either.

3. If you argue that Moses wouldn't score today as much as back then, then you should do the same with Gilmore because Artis was mostly a post up player who was a mediocre creator, so he wouldn't shoot as much as he did back then.

How different is Moses to Dwight really?

Moses per 100 from 1979-84: 31.6/18.2/2, 2 blks, 115 Ortg/103 Drtg, 578 TS%
Dwight per 100 from 2008-12: 29.3/19.8/2.2, 3.6 blks, 112 Ortg/96 Drtg, 609 TS%

Dwight just wasn’t playing in a weaker league, where bruising post presence was as important. Yeh, Moses was a little better on O, a little more refined, but not enough that he’d be effective today, which is all that matters. I don’t see myself voting Moses anytime soon.

Well, that's why I suggest you to go beyond raw numbers (which you accuse other posters of), because if you think Moses was similar to Dwight on offense, just "a little more refined", then I'm starting to think you haven't really watched these two...

[f4p]

Can people explain why they are high on 2012 Wade? I don't really see it. In real time, his PS performance was pretty disappointing, and I'm not seeing anything in retrospect to really change that view. Looking beyond winning bias...that playoff run was a major struggle for Wade, mainly because he was starting to break down. He wasn't as bad as he would be in the 2013 playoffs, but it was a similar story of having a strong RS only to obviously slow down by the playoffs and LeBron forced to do some serious heavy-lifting.

His best performance came against the Pacers, and even that series was a tale of two halves in which he was just straight up falling apart in the first 3.5 games of that series before finally stepping up. He was inconsistent the entire time, and I think the LeBron-only lineups played better than the LeBron + Wade lineups. This is when the lack of consistent outside shooting from Wade started hurting them, because he lost enough athletically that his off-ball cutting wasn't nearly as effective anymore. There were times when he had the chance to step up and take over in the absence of LeBron, and failed to do so (I think when LeBron fouled out against the Celtics in one game, and another game when he had to leave early because of cramps against the Thunder...the Heat lost the Celtics game, and barely held onto the Thunder game in which Chalmers actually came through...Wade was kind of blowing it IIRC).

certainly the playoffs didn't live up to the regular season, but the regular season was basically MVP level so a fall is still pretty good. and he even managed a +11.4 on/off in the playoffs, even though presumably a decent amount of the "off" involves lebron james being on (though maybe they overlapped more than i'm thinking). his last 3 games against indy are also pretty spectacular with his team down 2-1. he definitely wasn't "carry a team as an alpha"-level any more but it seems like a pretty good second banana playoffs. also, was there another cramp game in the finals than game 4? because in that one, lebron left for 1:15 of game time and wade missed a shot but chalmers also missed a shot and turned it over in those 1:15. then wade had an assist and a layup on either side of lebron's 3 when he came back in.

I wouldn't really put it that much higher value than 2013 tbh.

his numbers in the 2013 playoffs are almost as bad of a fall off from 2012 as 2012 is from 2011. with a horrible plus/minus to boot.
2012 felt like we got plenty of peak dwade moments mixed in with the bad. by 2013, peak dwade was just gone.

Wade's best seasons pretty clearly are 05, 06, 09-11. That's 5 MVP-level seasons. 07, 08, and 12-14 are pretty ruined by injury, and then there's really not much value to Wade's career outside of that. And it's not clear that his peak is actually better than someone like Nash or Paul,

i would say it's clear that it is. especially for nash. i don't see how any nash seasons would rank with 06/09/10/11. nash has nothing that compares to wade's 2006 ECF and 2006 Finals combo. 2006 isn't just an alpha title, but it's probably more of a solo-star title than not, given shaq fell off in the playoffs. 2006 gives us a very clear proof of concept for wade's style of play translating into an alpha championship. and it translated on a very weird roster.

the heat player who played the second most minutes in the finals was antoine walker! who played exactly like you expect for antoine walker, with 39/27/56 shooting splits for a 45.6 TS%! and he shot so much he was their second leading scorer! that's just a straight up offensive negative taking up the second most shot attempts (true shot attempts as well) on the team.

4th in minutes and points was jason williams with 36/35/64 shooting splits and a 48.3 TS%
6th in minutes and points was udonis with 50/0/30 shooting splits and a 48.3 TS%
7th in minutes was gary payton with 37/14/33 shooting splits and a 39.4 TS%

even shaq only managed a 53.2 TS% because of his 29.2 FT%!

that is a trainwreck of an offensive supporting cast. hell, it's so much worse than i remembered before i started typing this. the shooting splits for these guys are comical. the non-wade players shot 45% on free throws. has that ever happened? he just barely missed out on outscoring the next 3 teammates combined. dwade averaging 40 ppg over the last 4 games is just floor-raising on an epic level and it turned around a finals on a dime. even by game 4 it was clear that the mavericks were just trying to survive the dwyane wade onslaught and trying to somehow scratch out 2 more wins before dwade got to 4.

and given that 09/10/11 all look basically the same as 2006 by the numbers, i see no reason to think wade couldn't have basically done the same thing all 4 seasons if the heat hadn't fallen apart those years.

nash had a good conference finals in 2005 and good semifinals in 2007, but nothing on this level. and 2007 fails the "big moment" test that he would need to peak like dwade. game 5, amare suspended. suns seemingly having no chance. but the spurs forget how to score. they only score 88 points. the suns are even leading by 6 after 3. and then steve nash shoots 1-8 in the 4th quarter as the spurs come back and win by 3. 6-19 for the game, only 85 points scored. that's the non-ideal moment where you show you can rise up like wade. and he didn't.

they just operated in a different way. But Nash from 05-10 is pretty much an MVP-level player every year,

2009 can't really be considered an mvp level season. his numbers fall across the board and the suns miss the playoffs.
2008 is a really good regular season but if we're holding the playoffs against dwade, then the +5.1 suns get worked by the +5.1 spurs in the first round 4-1, nash's numbers are pretty bad, and the suns relative offense falls off 3 pp100 in the series.

and his other seasons are still solidly All-Star level (01-04, 11 and 12). I would take 11 and 12 Nash over 12-14 Wade pretty easily, for example.

ignoring that he didn't make the all-star team in 01/04/11, they don't stand out as gimme all-star appearances even if we think the voters were wrong, and the playoffs in 01 and 04 are straight up bad and there are no playoffs in 11. like, we're saying 2012 wade with an MVP regular season and all-star playoffs and championship isn't on the level of 2001 nash, who put up 9/6 on 47 TS% in the 2nd round? or 2004 nash, who put up 14/9 on 46 TS% while losing in the 1st round while the highest regular season rORtg team in history put up a negative playoff rORtg?

Nash could have still anchored great teams if he had the help those years...Wade clearly needed LeBron for the heavy lifting and still struggled in his role as 2nd option come playoff time.

keep in mind, 2001-04 nash in his prime played as a second option with dirk nowitzki, who just got voted into this project, and the best they mustered was a 1-2 deficit in the conference finals to tim duncan's worst title squad. nash hadn't really done much until he got to the suns and 2 of his peak 6 years aren't really all that impressive from a regular season + playoffs perspective. and as much as he meant to the suns, his former team didn't really seem to notice that he left, going up 1 in SRS in 2005, making the finals in 2006, and winning 67 in 2007 (though obviously followed by a disaster in the playoffs).

[One_and_Done]

Did someone just compare Moses Malone to Shaq? Pretty sure they're not at all equivalent offensive forces.

[70sFan]

Did someone just compare Moses Malone to Shaq? Pretty sure they're not at all equivalent offensive forces.

Yes, I did - in a specific context. You mentioned 5 Moses features that would limit his effectiveness today:

1. "was a bruising 5 man" - which 100% applies to Shaq.
2. "wasn’t a defensive anchor" - which also applies to Shaq (especially in 2020s league).
3. "wasn’t especially quick laterally" - which is significantly bigger issue for Shaq than Moses.
4. "wasn’t much of a passer" - this one doesn't apply to Shaq, who was much better passer than Moses.
5. "wasn’t a guy who could space you out with his shooting" - another significantly bigger issue for Shaq than Moses.

So out of 5 features mentioned, 4 applies to Shaq and 2 of them to significantly bigger degree than in Moses case.

[One_and_Done]

Brent Barry and Vince both won dunk contests, it doesn't make them comparable players. I could pick 2 guys with 5 similar characteristics, it doesn't make them remotely similar talents.

[70sFan]

Brent Barry and Vince both won dunk contests, it doesn't make them comparable players. I could pick 2 guys with 5 similar characteristics, it doesn't make them remotely similar talents.

That doesn't answer the problem though, because Shaq would face the same problems today as Moses, and in some cases he'd be even more limited than Malone.

It's also a false analogy, because Moses and Shaq were both MVP-caliber players who overcame their limitations by being huge outliers in other aspects of the game. What makes you think that Shaq wouldn't struggle today compared to Moses?

[Owly]

Brent Barry and Vince both won dunk contests, it doesn't make them comparable players. I could pick 2 guys with 5 similar characteristics, it doesn't make them remotely similar talents.

But by the nature of it you would be choosing the characteristics. Regarding "comparable players" it depends what one means, it doesn't mean they are as good as one another but if they do share issues raised by one poster then a discussion, a comparison if you will, of that seems fair enough.

If someone raised 5 characteristics of which 4 were with a player and another player had 4 of those exact same characteristics, It seem reasonable to point that out and either question if the same analysis applies to them or ask why not.

It doesn't mean they are the same: Moses runs at a higher motor, is better on the offensive glass, has more range, Shaq is better passer and is generally the monster that Shaq is (was).

Maybe the differences might mean one's weaknesses are mitigated in a way the other's are not. Perhaps the weaknesses are of a different degree (70sfan has asserted of the three shared issues a couple are significantly bigger issues for Shaq). But it's certainly viable to ask the question to ensure consistency of analysis.

Fwiw, I would argue "won dunk contests" isn't really a skill or characteristic of one's game.

[One_and_Done]

Brent Barry and Vince both won dunk contests, it doesn't make them comparable players. I could pick 2 guys with 5 similar characteristics, it doesn't make them remotely similar talents.

That doesn't answer the problem though, because Shaq would face the same problems today as Moses, and in some cases he'd be even more limited than Malone.

It's also a false analogy, because Moses and Shaq were both MVP-caliber players who overcame their limitations by being huge outliers in other aspects of the game. What makes you think that Shaq wouldn't struggle today compared to Moses?

I have said before Shaq would have some issies with the pick and roll today. He had issues even in his day. What makes it different is the overwhelming offensive force he's counter-balancing that weakness with. Another factor is young Shaq was significantly more mobile, while still being dominant in way Moses could never dream of.

Calling them 'both MVP calibre players' is an insult to Shaq. Derrick Rose, Unseld and Cowens won MVP too, it doesn't make them the equal of Dirk, Hakeem and Jokic.

[70sFan]

I have said before Shaq would have some issies with the pick and roll today. He had issues even in his day. What makes it different is the overwhelming offensive force he's counter-balancing that weakness with.

That's only one problem you brought up. What about his lack of shooting, reliance on brute force and limited defensive value?
You say it wouldn't matter because Shaq was an outlier, but why do you think the same reasoning wouldn't apply for Moses?

Another factor is young Shaq was significantly more mobile, while still being dominant in way Moses could never dream of.

I think it depends on what you mean by "young Shaq", but:

1. I don't think any NBA version of Shaq was more mobile than prime Moses.
2. I don't think Orlando Shaq was significantly better ("more dominant") than peak Moses.

Calling them 'both MVP calibre players' is an insult to Shaq. Derrick Rose, Unseld and Cowens won MVP too, it doesn't make them the equal of Dirk, Hakeem and Jokic.

I know MVPs don't mean much by themselves, but you created another false analogy. You just brought up three of the weakest MVPs in the league history as an analogy for 3 times MVP who definitely peaked higher than all of them.

I also don't understand why skillset comparison is "an insult" to Shaq (or any other player). I didn't say Moses was as good as Shaq, but comparative analysis is valuable. Moses was good enough to bring up Shaq in this discussion, even if he was clearly weaker player overall. There is nothing insulting in my comparison.

[trex_8063]

VOTE: Chris Paul
Alternate: Kevin Durant

Don't have a lot of time. Short answer is Paul is a reasonably efficient scorer, fairly elite-level playmaker [best of group handily], with GOAT-tier turnover economy [best of group, handily (even accounting for position played)], arguably the second-best defender in a vacuum (despite playing PG; arguably best relative to position played), and is either #1 or close 2nd [to Dr. J] in terms of longevity in this group of candidates. Tremendously underrated in the mainstream, imo, who was usually in the top 5-6 [sporadically top 3-4] players in the league throughout his prime. Has remained a valuable player straight through present. Hope that will suffice for now.


Durant has question marks regarding impact (lagging behind his box metrics). However, based on Pollack's numbers, the same is the case for Erving; and the aforementioned box metrics are among the best of the group here (they're kind of wicked, in fact). It's close between him and Dr. J for my alternate vote, but that's how I'll go for now.


Nomination: John Stockton
Alt nomination: Moses Malone

[Colbinii]

1. Chris Paul
2. Julius Erving

Nomination: Steve Nash

1. Level of Peak Play

Put me in the camp that CP3 has a peak rivaling Magic Johnson and Steph Curry--and CP3 did it both in 2008, 2009 and 2015.

If we think back to 2015 we had first round match-ups consisting of the 55-win, reigning champion, 6.33 SRS Spurs facing off against the 56-win, 6.80 SRS Clippers. We also had the 56-win Rockets facing a 50-win Mavericks team and a 55-win Grizzles team facing the 51-win Portland team; Wow. The Clippers drew the short end of the stick but needed Chris Paul in every game this season; his only 82-game regular season of his career. The Clippers rattled off 7-games in a row to end the season and claim home-court in the first round over the San Antonio Spurs, perhaps topped by the fact the Clippers won 14 of the final 15 games of the season.

Over the final 15 games of the season, with a bolstering 14-1 record, Chris Paul put up 22.1/11.1/4.1 with 2.1 steals, 46.1% from 3 on 5.1 Attempts/Game, and a whopping 1.9 Turnovers. Let that sink in; 14-1 record, 5.8 Assist to Turnover Ratio, +18.1 On-Court rating. Some more goodies over this stretch: 66.7 TS%, 51.4 AST%/10.1 TOV%, 141 Offensive Rating.

Oh and the only loss? A 4-point loss to Golden State where Chris Paul was +4 while on the court in 39 minutes (Team -8 in the 8 minutes he sat).

In the first round of the post-season Chris Paul faced the San Antonio Spurs (mentioned above). 108.5 Offensive Rating (7th), 102.0 Defensive Rating (2nd). However, the team was even better than this as both Duncan/Leonard averaged 35 MPG in the post-season and right around 30 in the regular season (31.8 for Leonard/28.9 for Duncan). Chris Paul orchestrated a +6.0 offense against this defense, posting 22.7/4.6/7.9/2.0, 63.2 TS%, 3.4 AST/TOV ratio and 124 Offensive Rating. The Clippers were +18 in the 275 minutes Paul played in and -21 in the 61 minutes he sat. Per 48 On: +3.1; PER 48 Off: -16.5.
I realize the sample is small but it falls right in line with CP3's on/off for the regular season as well at +20.3 (PS @ +19.6).

Quite Frankly, when compared to someone like Steph Curry, well, Curry hasn't matched a lot of these numbers.

During the 24-game win streak in 2016 the Warriors were +15.1 with Curry on the Court; Paul was +18.1 for his 15 game stretch.
Curry's numbers were absurd at 32.5/6.1/5.3 with 2.3 steals, 46.5% from 3 on 11.2 Attempts/Game but with 3.8 turnovers. Chris Paul put up 22.1/11.1/4.1 with 2.1 steals, 46.1% from 3 on 5.1 Attempts/Game, and a whopping 1.9 Turnovers.
Curry had 69.2 TS%, 31.2 AST%/13.9 TOV%, 126 Offensive Rating.
Paul had 66.7 TS%, 51.4 AST%/10.1 TOV%, 141 Offensive Rating.

2. Affect on teammates efficiency

This is a post by me in 2021 in response to Doctor MJ [He isn't really a fan of CP3, is he?]

P.J. Browns TS Add leading up to and including Paul was 101.7, 16.9, -29.9, then adding Paul stayed at -26.7, then leaving CP3 dropped to -74.8.
David West went from 1.3 TS Add his rookie season to 41.0 TS Add in Paul's first year (omitting his injury riddled sophomore season). West struggled the next 3 seasons as we was essentially an average scorer relative to the league (Weren't most players who lived in the midrange?) but saw an uptick in efficiency in 2010 and 2011, only to see a fall from 40.1 to 5.5 when leaving Paul and joining Indianapolis.

It is crucial to understand that both Brown and West are players whose skill-set complimented what CP3 was attempting to do on the court--Strong defenders who could partake efficiently in the pick and roll. Both are players who you do not want to dump it down to on the block and Paul minimized any mistakes they could be making (which we really saw with West right away as his TOV% in Paul's first 2 seasons were 8.4% and 9.9% respectively).

Rasual Butler is another interesting case where he had his best year as a rotation player while starting for New Orleans in 2009, -5.0 TS ADD, only to drop off a cliff in 2010 to -35.0 (Maybe not a cliff but he definitely rolled down a hill). Butler's earlier time spent with New Orleans wasn't very impressive comparatively to the rest of his career but it is important to note his career low in TOV% (when healthy) was met in 2009 as well at 6.5% and his other seasons in New Orleans were 8.7 and 7.5% (and they decreased each yeah with CP3).

Unfortunately for CP3 he had older Peja, whom still effective, simply wasn't what he once was in Sacramento due to injuries. Paul did revitalize his career though as Peja had his best FG Add in 2008 since 2004 while it was the last season of Peja's productive career.

Blake Griffin--clearly the most difficult player to peg here. Yes, he was young and talented and his growth curve coincided perfectly with the addition of CP3. Who takes responsibility here? Well, both. As Griffin was healthy (2012-2014), his TS Add increased every season but also his average shot distance also increased and his FG% at rim (slight dip from 2013 to 2014). It is apparently obvious to me that CP3 expedited his growth as an off-ball player and forced/assisted Griffin in developing his scoring arsenal--obviously with Griffin's talents we can't give Paul all the credit and in Blake's defense, he showed strong passing signs even as a rookie.

Where I do give Paul credit is when Griffin took a step in 2015 as he grew into a tremendous playmaker from the Power Forward position (He really is one of the last, prototypical Power Forwards we will see). And once again, we see a player who instead of developing a 3 point shot in the early 2010's instead develop a mediocre (maxed around 40%) long range 2. History seems to repeat itself far to much in this development (or lack there-of).

Jamal Crawford--Yippie! We see the last 2 years of his prime, 2013 and 2014, producing 2 of his 3 most productive seasons at 52.0 and 35.1 TS Add. Unfortunately, starting in 2015, we see him decline physically, forced into a role where he is on-ball more (38% of 2's and 83% of 3's were assisted on in 13 and 14, compared to 26% and 70% in the 15-17 seasons).

J.J. Redick--Here I disagree with you. You say "J.J. Redick develops himself"...well no. First, he was already 29 when joining the Clippers. Second, he plateaued as a player from 2010-2013 and the change of growth didn't happen until playing next to CP3. I give CP3 most, if not all the credit here for J.J. becoming a good offensive player. The biggest pattern here is taking the ball out of J.J.'s hands as a playmaker (15.8 AST% in the previous 4 seasons with 10.4 TOV%; down to 8.5 AST% and 8.3 TOV%, with a higher Usage% in Los Angeles). There really isn't or wasn't a better way to utilize and maximize J.J. Redick's impact on a basketball court and Chris Paul did just that. Prior to joining the Clippers, J.J. Redick broke 70 TS ADD once, he broke 170 TS ADD twice in a 3-year stretch with the Clippers.

DeAndre Jordan is a tale similar to Blake but DeAndre's growth in efficiency took steeper growth slope compared to Blake. It is important to note Jordan's TS Add plummeted in 2018 and TOV% shot-up once CP3 departed but his Usage didn't increase. Griffin's on-court impact and scoring efficiency (TS ADD) increased every season from 2013-2015. Jordan is, like Redick, a player who is maximized next to Paul because you don't want Jordan doing anything other than finishing at the rim with the basketball.

I'm going to stop here because I have some errands to run before work, but it is apparent to me that Paul has shown the ability to maximize players who are great at 1 or 2 things offensively (Redick, Jordan) while minimizing their mistakes. This is what Paul is best at, but we also see a player who could do other things in Griffin develop into a well-rounded 2nd option playing next to Paul. Doesn't this development of Griffin show that players can, in-fact, develop a complete game playing next to Paul?

3. On-Court Ortg

Chris Paul's offensive On/Off and his On-court offensive rating relative to the league is also remarkable and comparable to the best.

Chris Paul -- Ortg On (+Rel League Average) / Off
2011: 109.5 (+2.2) / 98.3
2012: 113.5 (+8.9) / 99.5
2013: 116.5 (+10.6) / 104.3
2014: 114.3 (+7.6) / 109.4
2015: 118.1 (+12.5) / 98.6
2016: 118.6 (+12.2) / 99.6
2017: 118.7 (+9.9) / 107.3
2018: 119.8 (+11.2) / 111.7
2019: 115.2 (+4.8) / 117.0
2020: 116.3 (+5.7) / 102.1
2021: 118.1 (+5.8) / 117.3

4. I will take all the hard shots, teammates take all the easy shots--a la Dirk

Percentage of shots per location from 2008-2009 and post-injury (2010 Injury)

At Rim (2008-2009): 23.0% and 26.4% respectively

At Rim (2011-2022): 2%-15.3%

What we can see is Chris Paul allowed himself, through development and general lack of explosion/burst, to let his teammates take the shots at the rim (most effective shot in basketball) while Paul has almost entirely removed this shot from his arsenal. Look at his percentage of shots at the rim from 2015-Present Day: 8.5%, with 2% of his shots this season being at the rim.

How does this impact his teams? It allows cutters, roll man and any off-ball play to circumvent around the rim. It allows other slasher(s) to attack the rim (See James Harden and Blake Griffin) with space.

Midrange (2011-2022)): 44.3% on 49.2 FG% (4,452 shot attempts)

This volume and efficiency is remarkable. For comparison:

Dirk Nowitzki (2003-2011): 59.1% of his shots on 47.3 FG% (7,537 shot attempts)
Steve Nash (2001-2012): 38.5% of his shots on 48.3 FG% (4,192 shot attempts)
Steph Curry (2013-2022): 20.7% of his shots on 46.8 FG% (2300 shot attempts)

What we end up seeing with Paul is a player who operates similar to Dirk in that "I will take all the difficult shots in an offense [Midrange] while the rest of the team will take 3 point shots and lay-ups." We saw Chris Paul adapt and increase his 3P volume in Houston next to Harden, where Chris Paul went from an average of 5.6 3PA/100 [2011-2017] to 10.2 3PA/100 in 2018 which hints at Chris Paul being able to operate in a different style.

The style of offense in which Chris Paul ultimately plays and presents is evident in the fact his TS+ isn't in the same stratosphere as a "High Volume Scorer" like Steph Curry or even a lower-volume guy like Steve Nash. However, when we look at the team results of Chris Paul, we get all-time great offensive teams, particularly when he is on the court [the same can be said for Nash and Curry offenses).

[HeartBreakKid]

Vote is for Chris Paul - CP3 has about everything you cold ask for except health.

Usually his size is cited as a weakness. Size, speed, strength etc are means to an end. Being undersized is a weakness for defense not offense. No one thinks CP3 is a weak defender. People are naturally inclined to link lack of success with offense.

Now, one might naturally say "yeah, but if he was bigger he would be able to dunk". And it's like....the Clippers did not lose because they could not score. CP3 has anchored many elite offenses.

The whole "he plays too safe" is nonsense and is usually said by Americans because they are subconsciously influenced by American Football. There is no such thing as a hail marry in basketball. You get the ball in the hoop or you do not. There isn't any difference between someone who scores in the half court by hitting a pick and roll pass and someone who for some reason throws a bounce pass 2/3rd of the court in transition - they are both worth 2 points in the end.

So the criticism that he plays too safe doesn't make much sense because in the end his offense was often the best. If he played more wreckless how would that help?

The criticism that he is too small doesn't make sense as a weakness, as for a point guard he is one of the better defenders of his era. Now, him being bigger COULD become a major strength like Ben Simmons, but that is more of an anomaly. A player is more likely to be like Magic Johnson on defense if they are big and playing PG.

He, like a lot of players during his era is slammed for "lebron ball", but again, it is rather baseless. Elite offenses, why are we punishing people for aesthetics? He has lead the league in assist and hockey assist multiple times.

He takes safe shots - well, then how come he is cited as the best mid range shooter of his generation? Mid range are not safe shots, if anything he was "bigger" then he would get getting dunks which are safer shots.

His play holds up in the post season likely because he has insanely high b-ball iq, handles, and shot making with good defense. Those things tend to be highly transferable and resilient.



In terms of "goodness" and longevity CP3 is well there. He was the best player on a finals team a couple years ago in his mid 30s. His one weakness is he gets injured, and it's a major weakness, but hey, Karl Malone not being resilient is a major weakness also.

Alternate Vote is for Julius Erving - I look at Dr.J as a "bigger" Dwyane Wade (who I think is a comparable player to Dirk). He doesn't dominate in the ways that you would think a superstar should in 2023. He doesn't have overly dominant defense. Isn't a point forward or a eyes behind the back passer. Doesn't have an amazing pull up game. Doesn't have a 3 ball.

What he does have though is really good decision making and insane athleticism. I think Bball IQ is the most scalable attribute in basketball. If you make the right decision then even if you a mediocre athlete you will come out ahead. Dr.J finds ways to get to the rim and leverage his insane athleticism.

While he doesn't look as good as he should in Phily, I think a lot of that comes down with coaching. The Sixers had good talent but they were not used properly, I think this goes without saying.

Dr.J's ABA career is enough proof to me of his dominance. Nearly every year his team upset another team in the post season and often had great records despite not having a very stacked team. Even when the Nets key players left the Nets still won titles, beating the very team that those players joined (the Spurs if I can recall). If Dirk's biggest claim to fame is carrying a team to a title that shouldn't have won, then Dr.J did the same thing (and quite frankly, there was more evidence that the 2011 Mavs should have won the playoffs regardless of what mainstream media thought).

I think Dr.J gets punished because of his aesthetics really. He doesn't play like how people want their best players to play, so he is assumed to be lesser than, but it doesn't really line up with what he did. He also is not properly interpreted as a 3 time champion as people often forget that the ABA titles are just as valid as NBA titles.



His impact must have been pretty high to do what he did in the ABA.

Even if one were to say the ABA wasn't as good competition, his teams were still not supposed to do what they did. Off the top of my head, I think one Dr.J team was upset or underachieved, the rest more or less exceeded expectations.

Even going back to Virginia, they are a terrible club that had barely any money in it. Dr.J took them to the playoffs twice even winning a series (going to the playoffs in a small league is nothing special, but both seasons Virginia did not have a losing record). The year after he left they were 28-56 (2nd to last in standings), which is about right for a team like that.

The year Dr.J joins the Nets they not only improved from a 30 win first round playoff team to the champions, but they swept an incredibly talented Kentucky team (and swept Utah in the finals as well).

The final ABA season the Nets aren't expected to do much. They had a huge collapse in the year prior in the post season, and then lose both their 2nd and third leading scorers due to financial troubles if I can recall. They beat the same team that inherits those players in the Spurs who have other NBA all-star level talent and a highly talented ensemble cast in the Nuggets (who would go on to be a good NBA team with many of their players intact post merger).

Now, those clubs are built much differently than Philly so it is entirely possible that the structure of Philly depressed Dr.J's impact (I think on many levels we do know that coaching was a problem for them).

It's a shame we do not have more advance data for the ABA because it seems clear that Dr.J's must have some type of incredible impact on his teams that he can carry them to defeat teams that should be way superior on paper. Maybe Dr.J is a bit like D-Wade in that he doesn't have the best impact stats but he seems to be the driving factor for winning games in a more crude manner.


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)


My alternate nomination is for Steve Nash (very close between him and Wade)

[Doctor MJ]

the problem is, they literally ONLY weigh team ORtg with steve nash. it's a trend back to the peaks project. i literally got in a debate with someone about peak 2017 kawhi leonard against peak nash and defense was considered a wash since kawhi wasn't a DPOY any more and the only relevant information was team ORtg in the playoffs, and even when kawhi was actually better, then it had to be ORtg against a particular team.

no titles, terrible resiliency, weak box score numbers, weak postseason RAPM, weak playoff on/off plus/minus. all subsumed to team ORtg. he seemingly gets the narrowest argument of anyone on this board. and as i detailed in the last project thread, this project is actually following the box score rankings almost step for step (23 of the inductees/nominees so far are from the top 24 in my box score rankings, steve nash is 58th, 31 spots below anyone so far).

For example, taking a look at team results that are eye-popping, and really highlight the value of Nash.

2005-2008; 2010 PHX PS:

+9.53 rORTG in 2543 min Nash on floor
52.04% from 2
40.65% from 3

+2.01 rORTG in 708 min Nash off floor
48% from 2
35.08% from 3

Then you look at Houston

2015; 2017-20 HOU PS:

+2.26 rORTG in 2535 min Harden on floor
52.13% from 2
35.38% from 3

-4.74 rORTG in 744 min Harden off floor
50.13% from 2
32.93% from 3


Based on this, you could argue that Nash created cleaners shots for teammates, and was able to lift a fine offense to all-time level heights, which is probably more impressive to people than lifting a bad offense to respectable heights (at least the former might be better for championship contention).

Even in 2011, a "meh," Nash is pretty good.

The Suns had a 114.3 ORtg with Nash on the court, which would be about a +7 rORtg. When Nash was off the court they had a 102.3 ORtg, which is about -5 rORtg.

yeah, that's great. really, his offenses are great. but it's only one half of the game. he doesn't seem especially amazing by things like plus minus.

according to that Cheema RAPM that Ohayo posted a few weeks ago:

Postseason RAPM
Harden +4.12 (basically tied with steph for 6th)
Nash +2.22 (basically tied with middleton for 28th if i counted correctly)

We have regular postseason On/off
Harden 2011-2022: +11.0
Nash 2001-2010: +4.6, even posting a -0.5 in 2005 and +0.1 in 2010

you can look at series like the 2005 and 2010 conference finals to see how offensively slanted nash's teams tended to be in the playoffs and to see why some of these offensive results should probably be taken with a grain of salt, in light of the other evidence (longevity, box score, resiliency, actual vs expected titles) painting nash in a much lesser light compared to the other potential nominees.

2005 WCF - the suns offense improved its relative rating by +6.8. so their league-leading +8.4 offense got even 6.8 points more ridiculous. if their +1.0 regular season defense holds, they smush the spurs, who were only 0.7 SRS better than the suns. instead their defense gets +10.1 worse to +11.1, meaning this was just an offensive slugfest series. they lose.

2010 WCF - the suns offense improved its relative rating by an even more amazing +8.2. so their league-leading +7.7 offense got even 8.2 points more ridiculous. if their +2.6 regular season defense holds, they smush the lakers, who were only 0.1 SRS better than the suns. instead their defense gets an even more amazing +12.8 worse to +15.4, meaning this was just even more of an offensive slugfest series than in 2005. they lose.

in fact from 2001-2010, nash's offenses improved by 3.0 in the playoffs but his defenses fell off by 1.9. and if not for the crazy defensive outlier first 2 rounds in 2010, it would literally be 2.8 and 2.8. so a significant part of his amazing team playoff offenses seems to have come at a significant defensive cost as his teams leaned in hard on an all-offense strategy.

I think it's good to see push back here. The thing that made me want to respond here pushing back against your push back is the idea of "resiliency".

The term can mean various things, but looking at what you've said about playoff +/-, to me that seems like a reasonable part of your argument.

Thing is, some other views tell a very different story.

If I compare:
a) The number of games a player's team has won in the playoffs
b) The number of games a player has had a positive +/- in the playoffs

For Nash I get: a) 57, b) 69.
That +12 number is actually the largest number I found in a previous study for any of the stars I checked (not going to swear that this means he's the all-time leader).

If I add in a threshold where only opponents who played at a 50+ win pace are counted, I get:
a) 26 b) 37

So that +11 is slightly less than 12, but percentage-wise it's a more dramatic difference.

This then to say that I think Nash's capacity for winning on the court against strong teams in the playoffs - which seems like major component of resilience to me - is quite solid.