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

[rk2023]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=_HOjrsiLtTYaVpOZxyl7Iw

A timeless sports or HoH or any smaller snippet isn’t going to hold much weight for my vote (I’d guess that’s more or less known and consensus for everybody else here), but how physically imposing Wade was in his heyday very much impressed me. I think such a brute force approach to volume scoring and guard defense (whether his younger, gas pedal first step self in 2006 or the bulkier, post Olympic Adrian Peterson-esque version of Wade from 2009) catapulted his raw value added on teams bereft of solid offensive talent. I maintain that aside from Jokic, he is the best floor raiser remaining among nominees and yet-to-be-nominees. Mentioned this in the post I made elaborating on why he got the nod for me, but from the 06-11 span - I find it hard to believe that Wade’s impact and aggregate value added doesn’t come out as any worse as 4th behind this projects’ #1, 13, and 18. Longevity and play-style taking a toll on Wade’s lower-body unfortunately holds him back to being in my top 20 :/ - but he warrants serious consideration here (especially with Jokic gaining traction and Giannis in).

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=_HOjrsiLtTYaVpOZxyl7Iw

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=_HOjrsiLtTYaVpOZxyl7Iw

[tsherkin]

He wasn't scoring at the rate of Wade or Kobe, but those guys also weren't huge forward sized super freaks who could palm the ball and be a devastating weapon on both ends.

These are peak Dr J's stats. I'll take that over Wade or Kobe's peak.

1976 RS Erving: 34.4 pp 100, 12.9 r, 5.9 a, 116 Ortg/97 Drtg, 569 TS%

1976 PS Erving: 37.4 pp 100, 13.6 r, 5.3a, 2.1, 2.2, 128 Ortg/103 Drtg, 610 TS%, and a title.

Eye test wise; when I watch Dr J clips I see a guy who would be an MVP today.

I don't think Erving could be an MVP today, but I don't think that takes away from what he was. He made himself into what he needed to be for his team at the time. I think he loses a little because he didn't have the scoring chops of some of the more contemporary scorers and lacked the playmaking ability, so he doesn't really match up to that tier of player, but he was still really remarkable and effective. And he would still be very good today due to his two-way impact.

[HeartBreakKid]

Well - first, Nash is a one way player too. And second, I did say I was less sure about Moses...I have hard time figuring out my own opinion of him, he's a tough one to pin down. I'd never call Moses an elite defender, but there are those who argue he was solid at least.

As for Barkley, I think his scoring(combination of volume and efficiency) and rebounding(on both sides of the ball) are elite enough to take him over a two-way player, yeah.

I like CP3, I've always been a fan, but I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around him as a Top 20 guy. I know what the impact metrics say, but the guy gets hurt too much and has had some underwhelming back-against-the-wall playoff performances. And I know the eye test is not necessarily reliable, but let's just say with CP3, for me, the eye test does not quite suggest the level of impact his metrics do.

My curiosity isn't about one way players vs two way players. I see all 4 of them as predominantly offensive oriented players (CP3 is the only real two way player, but I would still say his defense is not that big of a selling point at #20).

I have a hard time rationalizing how Barkley could be so much better on offense than two ATG PG's, even more so when Barkley was a negative on defense for a large portion of his career to give him another handicap. (I'm aware Nash was as well)

It just seems unlikely to me.

Well, I didn't say "better on offense", I said "his scoring", which is not the same thing. Purely as a scorer, Barkley is much better than Paul, while Nash is right there with Barkley(albeit they score in very different ways).

But isn't scoring part of offense?

If Barkley's scoring is better than Paul/Nash's but his offense isn't, why does it matter that he is a better scorer?

[LukaTheGOAT]

Well - first, Nash is a one way player too. And second, I did say I was less sure about Moses...I have hard time figuring out my own opinion of him, he's a tough one to pin down. I'd never call Moses an elite defender, but there are those who argue he was solid at least.

As for Barkley, I think his scoring(combination of volume and efficiency) and rebounding(on both sides of the ball) are elite enough to take him over a two-way player, yeah.

I like CP3, I've always been a fan, but I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around him as a Top 20 guy. I know what the impact metrics say, but the guy gets hurt too much and has had some underwhelming back-against-the-wall playoff performances. And I know the eye test is not necessarily reliable, but let's just say with CP3, for me, the eye test does not quite suggest the level of impact his metrics do.

My curiosity isn't about one way players vs two way players. I see all 4 of them as predominantly offensive oriented players (CP3 is the only real two way player, but I would still say his defense is not that big of a selling point at #20).

I have a hard time rationalizing how Barkley could be so much better on offense than two ATG PG's, even more so when Barkley was a negative on defense for a large portion of his career to give him another handicap. (I'm aware Nash was as well)

It just seems unlikely to me.

Well, I didn't say "better on offense", I said "his scoring", which is not the same thing. Purely as a scorer, Barkley is much better than Paul, while Nash is right there with Barkley(albeit they score in very different ways).

I am also very high on Barkley's rebounding ability, both defensive and offensive boards.

Also, the lack of defense didn't stop people from voting Karl Malone in - as I've said over and over, despite his reputation, I have seen no statistical evidence that he was a consistently positive defender either.

But this is probably an uphill battle for me because Barkley doesn't seem to be very popular around here.

I wouldn't be so confident that Barkely and Nash are definite better scorers than CP3 at their peak.

From 2012-2016, CP3 faced the 4th most difficult gauntlet of defenses over a 5-year span among historic all-time greats per this article https://diamondhoop5.wordpress.com/2021/05/04/playoff-defenses-faced-by-all-time-players/

going up against an average defense of -2.6 rDRTG

Chris Paul averaged an adjusted 23 pts per 75 (rTS% of 6%). Chris Paul had a PS ScoreVal of 1.1.


Nash from 04-08, faced considerable worse defenses that had an average rDRTG of -.75.

Nash averaged an adjusted 20.9 pts per 75 (rTS% of 6.4%). Nash had a ScoreVal of 0.8.


Barkely from 1990-1995, faced considerable worse defenses that had an average rDRTG of -.59.

Barkely averaged an adjusted 25.1 pts per 75 (rTS% of 4.5%). Barkely had a ScoreVal of 1.7.



CP3 looks arguably better here, while facing MUCH tougher defenses. I do think Barkley's offensive rebounding is a serious thing that needs to be accounted for, and something such as ScoreVal, which attempts to consider one's offensive environment, does help with this. Barkley looks better per ScoreVal.

CP3 peaks higher in 1 and 3-year ScoreVal stints than Nash as well, and actually matches Barkley in single year PS ScoreVal. CP3 has 3 PS that eclipse Nash in ScoreVal. Generally CP3 has shown to be able to score on higher volume than Nash on comparable efficiency.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

My curiosity isn't about one way players vs two way players. I see all 4 of them as predominantly offensive oriented players (CP3 is the only real two way player, but I would still say his defense is not that big of a selling point at #20).

I have a hard time rationalizing how Barkley could be so much better on offense than two ATG PG's, even more so when Barkley was a negative on defense for a large portion of his career to give him another handicap. (I'm aware Nash was as well)

It just seems unlikely to me.

Well, I didn't say "better on offense", I said "his scoring", which is not the same thing. Purely as a scorer, Barkley is much better than Paul, while Nash is right there with Barkley(albeit they score in very different ways).

But isn't scoring part of offense?

If Barkley's scoring is better than Paul/Nash's but his offense isn't, why does it matter that he is a better scorer?

I meant that Barkley doesn't have their playmaking and thus his overall offensive impact might not be as high, but...looking at JE's O-RAPM...we don't have many years of it for Barkley, but this is his final three years when he was in Houston and by consensus well past his peak:

97-98 5.11
98-99 6.16
99-00 4.79

Those O-RAPMs are in the same ballpark as CP3's(most of his are 4s and 5s), while Nash is a bit above both of them, having a string of 6s and 7s during his Phoenix years.

In light of that, I am not sure that his offensive impact, fueled by his scoring and offensive rebounding, wasn't comparable to the players we're discussing.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

My curiosity isn't about one way players vs two way players. I see all 4 of them as predominantly offensive oriented players (CP3 is the only real two way player, but I would still say his defense is not that big of a selling point at #20).

I have a hard time rationalizing how Barkley could be so much better on offense than two ATG PG's, even more so when Barkley was a negative on defense for a large portion of his career to give him another handicap. (I'm aware Nash was as well)

It just seems unlikely to me.

Well, I didn't say "better on offense", I said "his scoring", which is not the same thing. Purely as a scorer, Barkley is much better than Paul, while Nash is right there with Barkley(albeit they score in very different ways).

I am also very high on Barkley's rebounding ability, both defensive and offensive boards.

Also, the lack of defense didn't stop people from voting Karl Malone in - as I've said over and over, despite his reputation, I have seen no statistical evidence that he was a consistently positive defender either.

But this is probably an uphill battle for me because Barkley doesn't seem to be very popular around here.

I wouldn't be so confident that Barkely and Nash are definite better scorers than CP3 at their peak.

From 2012-2016, CP3 faced the 4th most difficult gauntlet of defenses over a 5-year span among historic all-time greats per this article https://diamondhoop5.wordpress.com/2021/05/04/playoff-defenses-faced-by-all-time-players/

going up against an average defense of -2.6 rDRTG

Chris Paul averaged an adjusted 23 pts per 75 (rTS% of 6%). Chris Paul had a PS ScoreVal of 1.1.


Nash from 04-08, faced considerable worse defenses that had an average rDRTG of -.75.

Nash averaged an adjusted 20.9 pts per 75 (rTS% of 6.4%). Nash had a ScoreVal of 0.8.


Barkely from 1990-1995, faced considerable worse defenses that had an average rDRTG of -.59.

Barkely averaged an adjusted 25.1 pts per 75 (rTS% of 4.5%). Barkely had a ScoreVal of 1.7.



CP3 looks arguably better here, while facing MUCH tougher defenses. I do think Barkley's offensive rebounding is a serious thing that needs to be accounted for, and something such as ScoreVal, which attempts to consider one's offensive environment, does help with this. Barkley looks better per ScoreVal.

CP3 peaks higher in 1 and 3-year ScoreVal stints than Nash as well, and actually matches Barkley in single year PS ScoreVal. CP3 has 3 PS that eclipse Nash in ScoreVal. Generally CP3 has shown to be able to score on higher volume than Nash on comparable efficiency.

I don't know if the results would change, but you're looking at what seem to be CP3 and Nash's peak years, but Barkley's peak years are probably 1987-1993, as his crazy peak efficiency went down to 6+ rts in 93 and lower than that after.

[One_and_Done]

I'm actually thinking if Nash makes it I might vote for him for #21. I think Nash and Paul are pretty close to each other.

Durant, Doc, and Barkley should all go before both CP3 and Nash imo. Arguably Moses too but less sure about that. I'd take Nash over CP3 though. Uncomfortable with CP3 getting in this high.

JMO.

If CP3 gets in now he'll be at most a few spots too high. It's nothing like the nadir of the project that already happened when Mikan got in. Calm down.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I'm actually thinking if Nash makes it I might vote for him for #21. I think Nash and Paul are pretty close to each other.

Durant, Doc, and Barkley should all go before both CP3 and Nash imo. Arguably Moses too but less sure about that. I'd take Nash over CP3 though. Uncomfortable with CP3 getting in this high.

JMO.

If CP3 gets in now he'll be at most a few spots too high. It's nothing like the nadir of the project that already happened when Mikan got in. Calm down.

Only if you promise to keep calm if/when Pettit is nominated before we get to #30.

I kid. I'm perfectly calm. I just think CP3 at 20 is a bit too high.

[f4p]

I'm actually thinking if Nash makes it I might vote for him for #21. I think Nash and Paul are pretty close to each other.

Nash supporters don't really respond to anything I ask but I suppose hope springs eternal with each new questionee. Do you really have a Steve Nash season over any of 2006/09/10/11 dwade?

[One_and_Done]

I'm actually thinking if Nash makes it I might vote for him for #21. I think Nash and Paul are pretty close to each other.

Nash supporters don't really respond to anything I ask but I suppose hope springs eternal with each new questionee. Do you really have a Steve Nash season over any of 2006/09/10/11 dwade?

Yes. You are using different criteria, that seems to be based on stuff Nash supporters like myself just aren't going to care about. Nash has more longevity too, which I don't say lightly.

[iggymcfrack]

I'm actually thinking if Nash makes it I might vote for him for #21. I think Nash and Paul are pretty close to each other.

I feel like they’re pretty close if you compare Paul’s peak years to Nash’s peak years in Phoenix. All the years from year 6 through year like 18 though, Paul has a massive advantage and I can’t help like feeling that Nash’s Phoenix years benefit from an impact perspective from D’Antoni having a perfect ahead of his time system to maximize Nash and Stoudemire and Marion being a perfect fit.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm actually thinking if Nash makes it I might vote for him for #21. I think Nash and Paul are pretty close to each other.

Nash supporters don't really respond to anything I ask but I suppose hope springs eternal with each new questionee. Do you really have a Steve Nash season over any of 2006/09/10/11 dwade?

I think they were reasonably close (they were both the top players in 06). Before this project I had Wade ahead of Nash (I nominated him a few times earlier), but I'm coming around now and starting to think maybe I am underselling Nash.

[f4p]

I'm actually thinking if Nash makes it I might vote for him for #21. I think Nash and Paul are pretty close to each other.

Nash supporters don't really respond to anything I ask but I suppose hope springs eternal with each new questionee. Do you really have a Steve Nash season over any of 2006/09/10/11 dwade?

Yes. You are using different criteria, that seems to be based on stuff Nash supporters like myself just aren't going to care about. Nash has more longevity too, which I don't say lightly.

uhh, i'm using the criteria that 2006 dwade, however one wants to describe his style or aesthetic, had one of the more impressive title wins ever. like, what else would one need to see from wade that season to say it was better than the best of nash? what criteria exactly are saying nash is better than that? and given that 2009/10/11 are healthy seasons and there doesn't seem to be anything about 2009/10/11 that indicates wade was any lesser of a player (with 2009/10 just looking outright better), those would seem to go above nash as well, wouldn't you agree?

[AEnigma]

Nash supporters don't really respond to anything I ask but I suppose hope springs eternal with each new questionee.

Speaking for myself, we have done this dance before and it did not go anywhere.

I think some of your criticisms are fair and merited. The box score stuff is a bad angle; if that is disqualifying for you, fine, but better box metrics are more favourable to him, and without components that measure effect on teammates or otherwise have some impact component, basic box metrics are going to fall severely sort. I know you like that 23/24 number, but maybe better measures would have 24/24 and a more closely tied ordering. Again, to whatever extent we want to say that is what we want out of player assessments. Lack of a title… there too, bit of a conversational dead end, and although I understand why people will downgrade him for that, there is no change of direction likely with that approach.

The more interesting angles of criticism are potential playoff impact, total longevity value, and generalised prime impact — all in a more comparative sense. I have him comfortably top thirty, and I want him in the discussion, but if you are looking to push Wade or Harden or Giannis or Jokic (or with greater uncertainty, Barkley or Pippen or Ewing or Reggie), that is where I could see you changing some minds.

[f4p]

Durant, Doc, and Barkley should all go before both CP3 and Nash imo. Arguably Moses too but less sure about that. I'd take Nash over CP3 though. Uncomfortable with CP3 getting in this high.

JMO.

That's interesting you have relatively one way players like Chuck and Moses over CP3 and Nash. You think they are better on offense than them?

Well - first, Nash is a one way player too. And second, I did say I was less sure about Moses...I have hard time figuring out my own opinion of him, he's a tough one to pin down. I'd never call Moses an elite defender, but there are those who argue he was solid at least.

As for Barkley, I think his scoring(combination of volume and efficiency) and rebounding(on both sides of the ball) are elite enough to take him over a two-way player, yeah.

yeah, it can't be ignored that barkley and malone are 2 of the greatest rebounders ever. they may not be giving you defense, but nash isn't giving your defense or rebounding. and barkley was also posting some of the most ridiculous TS Add seasons ever, averaging almost 400 from 1988 to 1990. if people are going to ding barkley's defense more than normal because he's a power forward, then the converse is that getting that kind of offense from a PF is more special than from a guard.

there's also just the fact that barkley, wade, and moses all had peak performances that nash didn't. wade has the 2006 ECF and Finals that easily clear any of nash's big series. moses has a playoffs where he got a 40 win team to the finals (that team would later go from -0.4 SRS in 1982 to -11.1 SRS in 1983 after moses left, for someone saying he didn't have good impact numbers). he also has a dominant title by going through the lakers and kareem. i've posted this before, but people tend to treat the 83 76ers as a superteam, but most 1 or 2 loss playoff teams have 2 great players in the playoffs. moses stands way away from his teammates more like '91 jordan than we see from the 1999 spurs, 2001 lakers, or 2017 warriors:



nash in the year he was probably closest to winning a title in 2007 with the mavericks knocked out, with the series tied in game 3 he went 6-17 and with the series tied in game 5, he went 6-19 and 1-8 in the 4th. barkley, in basically his first legit chance to contend in 1993, with the series tied 2-2 put up a crazy 43/15/10 triple double in a 6 point win and then in game 7 with the series tied 3-3, he put up the famous 44/24 game to get to the finals (where he also had a 42/13 and 32/13/10 game). part of winning (or at least making the finals in this case) when you aren't on a perennial contender is taking advantage of the few chances you get. i'm actually kind of surprised people are so low on barkley given the tremendous efficiency and above average passing he had for a power forward.

[f4p]

Nash supporters don't really respond to anything I ask but I suppose hope springs eternal with each new questionee.

Speaking for myself, we have done this dance before and it did not go anywhere.

to be fair, we've all done most of these songs and dances before. we've literally got another peak lebron vs peak jordan thread going somehow.

I think some of your criticisms are fair and merited. The box score stuff is a bad angle; if that is disqualifying for you, fine, but better box metrics are more favourable to him, and without components that measure effect on teammates or otherwise have some impact component, basic box metrics are going to fall severely sort.

okay but i've pointed out his postseason RAPM (from something Ohayo posted, not me) doesn't stand out at all (28th at +2.22), his RAPM from the source rk2023 posted comes in 42nd just for the last 25 years (so maybe like 100th if we had all of history?), his raw on/off in the playoffs is +4.7 and would be +3.8 if we take his 8 year stretch from 2003-2010 or +5.8 if we throw in 2002. the plus/minus actually surprised me because he seems to fit the archetype of someone who would do well in plus/minus (especially being the sole creator for a team full of finishers), but he doesn't stand out.

and the box stuff isn't to say you have to fall exactly in line with the box score. it's to point out the degree to which people are deviating from this particular baseline. people haven't been wildly out of line with it so far, but nash is currently poised to be by far the biggest outlier is my real point. outliers are fine, but usually come with the caveat of accomplishment (like steph and bird) or lack of accomplishment (karl malone).

it's not the fact people aren't just reading the box score list because i realize this board tries to distance itself from the box score even if the project is not that far off from it, but a nash-like jump for his nearest comp in magic johnson would have made magic, with even better longevity in the sense that all 12 of his seasons are very, very good, like a top 5 or 6 guy. but by that updated table i showed above, magic literally moved one spot, from 11 to 10 (i actually would have had him 5). it's just hard to see how a playoff faller with no title and no epic series or set of series, the kinds of series that vault you up a ranking above your baseline, is the biggest outlier.

I know you like that 23/24 number, but maybe better measures would have 24/24 and a more closely tied ordering.

if this sounds facetious or sarcastic, it's not, but what measures do that? i mean they could exist i suppose, but i find it interesting the more simple something is while still having explanatory power. i didn't even make this box score thing for this purpose. i made it months ago before i could have known the order. now adding in longevity was after i knew the order so i suppose i could just be fitting to the data, but since it got slightly worse, i think not. but it's still got only giannis outside of the top 27 and the guys who could be in by the box score but aren't are again guys like jokic and schayes, where jokic just doesn't seem to have crossed a longevity threshold to get considered.

Again, to whatever extent we want to say that is what we want out of player assessments. Lack of a title… there too, bit of a conversational dead end, and although I understand why people will downgrade him for that, there is no change of direction likely with that approach.

The more interesting angles of criticism are potential playoff impact, total longevity value, and generalised prime impact — all in a more comparative sense. I have him comfortably top thirty, and I want him in the discussion, but if you are looking to push Wade or Harden or Giannis or Jokic (or with greater uncertainty, Barkley or Pippen or Ewing or Reggie), that is where I could see you changing some minds.

and i've tried to make the playoff impact and longevity arguments. and referenced wade and harden. my comment about nash supporters comes from it feeling like i've seemingly tried to engage on like 5 or 6 separate occasions (the point of the project is discussion i think) with people either claiming he has longevity or that his peak is up there with someone like wade, but there's never really any follow up conversation or explanation as to how or why the longevity exists or why a season like 2006 wade isn't a clear step up on basically anything left on the board (nash or not) except maybe 1983 moses. maybe it's just a weird lull and people went and did other things or don't want to talk about nash until he's nominated, but it's felt strange compared to the normal back and forth of the project.


like am i off on his dallas years? they seem wholly underwhelming, again more underwhelming than i expected just like the plus/minus stuff, even coming in with a negative nash bias. a mediocre at best elimination series in 2003, really just straight up bad elimination series in 2001 and 2004. the fact they actually got better when he left (even barkley being replaced by hornacek still saw about a -4 fall for philly). i mean it feels like the real crux of his argument doesn't even start until he's 30 and in phoenix and by then, he only has 5 playoffs left.

[One_and_Done]

Nash supporters don't really respond to anything I ask but I suppose hope springs eternal with each new questionee. Do you really have a Steve Nash season over any of 2006/09/10/11 dwade?

Yes. You are using different criteria, that seems to be based on stuff Nash supporters like myself just aren't going to care about. Nash has more longevity too, which I don't say lightly.

uhh, i'm using the criteria that 2006 dwade... had one of the more impressive title wins ever.

Titles are a team achievement. Nash was a more impactful player than Wade. MVP voters seem to agree, because despite his late career surge Nash has 3 finishes higher than Wade ever managed.

[Doctor MJ]

1st Induction Vote: Julius Erving



2nd Induction Vote: Kevin Durant

There I go flipping at the last minute. My impression is that this vote is really about Paul vs one of these two, so it won't matter which guy I vote first between the two. I may be confused, but regardless, I wonder if that's making it easier for me to flip.

I'll put the thought in my mind at the moment like this:

If it were simply about on-court career value, I'm inclined to side with Durant. I do think Durant's had significant negative impact on his franchises though because of his behavior, where I think Erving is a positive. is that enough to move Erving ahead? Maybe. Hard to say definitively. Right now, as I'm typing this, I'm siding with Erving.

1st Nomination Vote: Dwyane Wade



2nd Nomination Vote: Moses Malone

I'm rolling with the same choices here as last time, and have the prior prose in spoilers below.

I feel a need to say that the coalescing of support for Nash is something that very much resonates with me, but I want to let it stew a bit before I seriously consider raising Nash further up my list. To some degree, this is a thing I try to do with all players - and I think it's one of the benefits of the Nomination-Induction process that it gives you time to ruminate. But I'm extra careful here because Nash is my favorite player of all-time. I don't want to underrate him of course, but I really don't want to be a homer.

Spoiler:

Okay, so this is the nomination vote I'm actually more comfortable with after me putting Jokic 1st last time. I think it's still a bit early for Jokic but when the choice was between him, Giannis & Barkley, well, I'll go with Jokic there.

Makes sense to talk Moses vs Chuck a lot I think. I see it as reasonable to look at Barkley as being in some ways a better version of Moses...but Barkley has a lazy streak on the court that I can't ignore, and this compounds with all sorts of other stuff that would naturally add to an argument saying Moses accomplished more than Chuck.

I do think the Barkley vs Wade debate is funny because of the ads they appeared in together for a number of years. I feel like Wade never really got anointed as having surpassed Barkley's career...but he deserved this to be done. What Wade did for Miami was huge, and aside from the fact that Barkley never burst through all comers like Wade did in 2006, I think it unlikely that a Barkley would have gotten a LeBron to come join him later on, let alone help instinct an intensity that now has a name ("Heat culture").

[One_and_Done]

Apparently you weren't also worried about fandom getting in the way of your Erving flip. Might as well go full hog and nominate Nash.

[One_and_Done]

The 2005 Suns were not predicted by most to make the playoffs. After losing Marbury they were seen as a rebuilding team. Here's D'Antoni's comments in training camp that year:

Phoenix Suns Coach Mike D'Antoni
Prediction: "We're optimistic but we want to be somewhat guarded because we're in the West where, I'm sure right now, there are 15 teams thinking they're going to get into the playoffs. This is going to be exciting and I hope we can perform up to standard."
Outcome: Phoenix finished with the best record in the NBA.

Then the next year Amare got hurt, Joe Johnson left, and everyone thought they would take a big step back. Instead they were a top team again and made the WCFs. Some crazy ppl even suggested Marion was key to success. Then he left and Nash was still driving them to contender status (terrible Porter coaching year aside).

When did Wade lift his teams like this? He didn't.