Clyde Frazier wrote:Probably looking at stockton with my second nominiation regardless of him being ripped apart by some the last few threads. I still have his career as the next best PG available. I'm pretty sure in past projects I had nash right after him tho. I totally get not everyone has the same criteria which is what makes this project more interesting. But for me him being the poster boy for longevity and durability puts him on another level. The late career impact stats are icing on the cake. As we get into the 20-30 range, these are all time greats with *some* blemishes on their resume or lacking in some part of their skillset. Let's not pretend like anyone's perfect at this point.
in some ways, when it comes down to it, i think about how i felt rooting for or against certain players. guys who i hated but always won tend to get a little more respect from me. guys who i wanted to win but i never quite trusted get rated lower. in some ways, it's like anti-homerism. i hated michael jordan, but he felt inevitable. i'd probably rate steph curry even lower than i do, but i must admit that against all but the very very best teams (lebron, 2018/19 rockets), his teams felt inevitable. not jordan inevitable, but i think about the 2022 warriors. they were definitely the most talented team. they should have won. but it's the fact i just really couldn't picture another team beating them 4 times. like i was resigned to it before the playoffs. and then it played out.
well, john stockton feels the opposite. if you were a 90's rockets fan, you hated the jazz. so i had the hate factor. but we beat them so easily in 1994. they should have snuffed us out early in 1995, but we beat them again. even had a comeback in game 5.
in 1997, stockton did hit a series-winning 3 right in our eye, but the point of this whole post is really 1998. stockton and malone still going strong with a 62 win season. the rockets 41-41. hakeem missing half the season and could barely shoot in the playoffs. clyde drexler in his last playoff series ever. charles barkley coming off the bench and injured and only taking 23 shots the whole series due to the injury.
and yet, as i watched that series, it was so clear which team wanted the moment. and it wasn't the 62 win team. even 3 years removed from 1994 and 1995, there was still some magic left. hitting just the shot we needed to, getting the stop we had to have. and the jazz? it was like they were asking themselves "we're the 1 seed and we have to face these guys again?". there was a real "why can't we kill these cockroaches?" feel coming from their side. the panic oozed out of the screen. the rushed shots, the missed opportunities. i hated them, but they didn't feel inevitable. in fact, i pitied them. this had to be embarrassing for them. and in game 4, they arguably hit their nadir. already down 2-1 in the series. 1st quarter, only 10 points. we just smothered them. i think stockton or hornacek picked up their dribble and had nowhere to go with the ball until the shotclock almost ran out like 3 times in the 1st quarter. then barkley tore his tricep and that was that for our offense and the jazz ended up winning.
yes, that jazz team went on to roll a very good lakers team and went to the finals, but that was an indelible memory. one of the best jazz teams ever and they should have lost to an 8th seed in the 1st round in 4 games. not because we were so good, but because they just didn't seem up to the moment. and i don't think it's really that different than all the other times they failed in the playoffs.
"Inevitable" should be really easy to call after the fact. So far as I can tell if this inevitability were were widely known then bookmakers wouldn't take bets on certain series and if it were narrowly known and genuinely known in advance the people doing the calling would be multi-millionaires.
Even if how one felt were a measure of players the human brain as accurate record keeping device can be pretty flawed.
The Barkley injury as death knell would make more sense if he'd played well in the series to that point. Instead game BPMs of 1.0, -8.5 and 3.0 whilst playing circa 27mpg. More Harrington worked out pretty well too. If Barkley was having a great playmaking series the idea that it was this injury that meant a weak Jazz snuck though might make sense, but he wasn't. Then too I really don't know why a Barkley injury would prevent a Rockets defense from forcing defensive errors. The Rockets led at the half and just shot badly in the second half especially the final quarter. Not because any lack of "wanting the moment" nor the Jazz of finding it but because the Jazz shot .647 from the field against them, whilst they shot .289 (both numbers are both fg% and efg%) and the Jazz got to the line more often. Could Barkley have helped score a bit more efficiently and on the offensive glass, perhaps, could he also have made their D even worse or further gunked up the paint on offense when off the ball, perhaps. Was his partial absence (an already diminished version who we could expect to be off the court for a little more than 20 minutes anyhow) the primary reason the Jazz won (by 22 points) ... probably not.
penbeast0 wrote:It's your pick, I'm just higher on Stockton who I have clearly above Nash and Wade for career.
How about because Stockton was an all-star role player, ala Draymond Green, whereas Wade was a legit MVP calibre star who was in a wholly different tier of player?
Draymond Green wasn't "an all-star role player", he was top 5 player in the league at his peak.
penbeast0 wrote:It's your pick, I'm just higher on Stockton who I have clearly above Nash and Wade for career.
How about because Stockton was an all-star role player, ala Draymond Green, whereas Wade was a legit MVP calibre star who was in a wholly different tier of player?
Draymond Green wasn't "an all-star role player", he was top 5 player in the league at his peak.
But he only scored 14ppg at peak (other RS seasons all less than 12). So he's a role player. Scoring is the important stuff and the other stuff is all bit-part roles, right? You can't impact the game with that other junk can you?
I might have to switch my alternate nomination from Wade. I am having a hard time thinking of a lot of good reasons to put him over Stockton other than he carried a team to a title (which I think is certainly quite important, but I'm not exactly pushing for Rick Barry either).
penbeast0 wrote:It's your pick, I'm just higher on Stockton who I have clearly above Nash and Wade for career.
How about because Stockton was an all-star role player, ala Draymond Green, whereas Wade was a legit MVP calibre star who was in a wholly different tier of player?
And yet, Stockton has better RAPM numbers from age 34-40 than Wade has for his entire career. He also has higher WS/48 and BPM even for a 7 year prime (89-95 for Stockton, 06-12 for Wade) which is fitted to find Wade's best seasons. Get away from those top 7 seasons and Wade never has a BPM over 5 while Stockton will do that in ten more seasons. "All-star role player" just means "I don't care about anyone who's not a primary scorer" even if elite playmaking, passing, and defense have shown themselves to be just as valuable over time.
I don't rate guys based on advanced stats.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
rk2023 wrote:Same primary vote and nomination as last time.
To be completely honest, from more of an impact / results oriented approach (ofc such should come with context) I am struggling to see a case for Harden over Wade (let alone Nash). Of course, Wade's injury problems are well-noted and probably hold a ton of bearing for voters.. but I wouldn't consider Harden a longevity titan is his own-right. His last MVP level season was in 2020, at 30 years old (Might be worth noting that peers such as CP3, Durant, Lillard [for now], Curry, LBJ all have aged better than Harden). I would say Wade is decently better / more impactful at his best years (06, 09-11) than Harden was at his (17-20) - where I'm not sure Harden's 21-23 added years are doing much to sway me. He has had bad injury luck across this time-frame, but I think some of this 'lesser longevity' hinges on Harden's actions placing him in more turn-style, less stable basketball contexts each going season.
Using 05-12 Wade vs. 13-20 Harden, Wade translates better into a PS setting as well where they look comparable, more or less, in TB's and BBR's Box Score - keying in on offense. Harden playmakes better, but they're comparable as scorers (both volume and efficacy considered), same grouping ITO OBPM, while on/off and APM stats prefer Wade. This also isn't factoring in Wade being a vastly better defender than Harden. In a more flat-lined, W/VAR approach - I would be more keen on Harden here, but with multiple factors and curving up for peak/prime and MVP+ level years.. I can't get there myself.
Vote - Steve Nash
Spoiler:
rk2023 wrote: Whom I want to hone in on some more, however, is Steve Nash. Of course, a more recent nominee in this project - but a player I feel should be getting some consideration around the next couple/few threads.
A while ago, Doc posted a POTD/Ballon D'Orange Spreadsheet for reference. The list of players in the last 70 years' worth of time (eg. 1953-63 and repeat) to have an O-POTD, along with their 2023 T-100 ranking, is as follows.
Oscar - 15 West - 14 Kareem - 2 Magic - 10 Jordan - 3 [b]Nash - TBD[/b] James - 1 Curry - 11
While I might not agree fully with each 10 year iteration's selection (on another note, would be hard to see Jokic not crack this list and be tenured for a fair share of time down the line) - it's worth noting 7 of the other 8 players to crack this elite grouping all made the top 15. Of course, this can be attributed to other factors like sustaining such a level of play longer, defensive value being considered, more of an emphasis on achievement.. but I find it harder to be *that* much lower on Nash in comparison. He falls just right outside of my personal T-20 due to not having as many quality seasons as I would want for someone to reach such a grouping.. but his prime was amazing. Of course, his defense is nothing to write home about (I view Nash as a slight negative), so this value was all accrued on offense. What made Nash so special was a playmaking knack that only has been paralleled by Magic Johnson. Nash wasn't the lowest TOV economy guy in the room, but traded this off for a very exploitative, high-risk-high-reward style that paid off ITO engining all-time offenses. BBR's might not paint him as highly (which I think the raw value 16-11 and lower BPM value grossly undersells Nash's offensive value), but Thinking Basketball's Box Score model seems to view Nash more favorably.
https://imgur.com/a/IWdzcF8 As expected, a fair share of Nash's value comes from play-making - being 99.9th%ile or higher across all players in prime values of PlayVal, Box Creation, & Passer Rating while having a scoring arsenal that translated very well into PS play (eg. all-time great shooting, crafty and smart ability to get down hill and finish effectively at the rim) and led to sustaining production for the most part. Blending the two together and consistently probing defenses, keeping them guessing what on earth the action possibly could be gave Nash a footprint as one of the game's best offensive engines:
rk2023 wrote:Even with an offensive slant, the 2000s Suns team offensive results are off the charts:
Same trend, from an on-off standpoint, continues in 2011 and 2012 - where Nash was keeping a pretty mediocre cast afloat on offense (13.72 net-rating swing, 10.7 offensive-rating swing - this with no apparent inflation due to co-linearity).
Using team results is far from the end-all, be-all (as Nash was flanked by an offensively slanted team across the board and solid scorers), but it's clear Nash was the engine that made 7SOL run - as evidenced by him lapping the pack of all NBA players in the 2001-14 sample ITO effect on teammates' eFG% / PPS / TS%. Somewhat expected due to archetype too with volume creators / one man army defenders being favored, Nash looks very impressive in ElGee's WOWY/GPM Studies, consistently logging top 5 values in scaled WOWYR/GPM and prime WOWYR). So from a more different data-driven approach, Nash comes off as one whom elevates the team offense around him to a great degree. - https://web.archive.org/web/20150329072330/http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/adj_PPS_shooter_all.html https://imgur.com/a/qAl4p4a
I view this 6 year 2005-10 span I'm most-so emphasizing as the heart of his prime as one that was played at an MVP level threshold on average. This span being supported by two-more weak MVP years in 2011/12 and All-NBA level years from 2001-04 as a Maverick gives him pretty solid longevity. The years played from 1997-200 and in 2013/14 as a Laker are essentially moot ITO evaluating Nash's career. I would suspect those six campaigns drag down his RAPM (I've seen his lower value in JE's entire-career model be cited), but he looks great in the same creators' samples that key-in on his prime rather. So yeah, TLDR: Nash was a pretty damn good and impactful offensive centerpiece. https://web.archive.org/web/20201024055538/https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/
2002-11: 5.7 RAPM and 5.5 ORAPM (8th and 4th) 2006-11: 7.7 RAPM and 8.2 ORAPM (4th and 1st) 2008-11: 7.8 RAPM and 7.7 ORAPM (T-2nd and 1st)
Nomination - Dwyane Wade
Spoiler:
rk2023 wrote: With all of this said, I have a hard time voting him over Wade / seeing the case for it at this point of his career. Even with longevity concerns for Wade, he still has tremendous campaigns like 2006 and 2009-11 under his belt.
Despite having his rookie season, coming back from an injury in 2007, and 2008 which was a vast downturn of a year for Wade - he still looks good in JE's RAPM for the multi-year, PI samples that hone in on his prime play (in comparison to this project's #1/5/9/13/19/20 voted players and a current nominee in Nash.
As a player, I think Wade's floor raising ability is the best of anybody not named Nikola Jokic or Giannis Antetokounmpo (where he's debatable with them in this regard imo) due to being able to shoulder a very high, quite resilient scoring attack predicated on puncturing the rim. Solid passing ability coupled with this gave Wade a great playmaking / shot-creating track record too. Not only could Wade shoulder a huge load to keep casts bereft of talent (before the 'Heatles') afloat, Wade was a tremendous guard defender all throughout the main part of his career (eg. amazing lateral quickness to rotate horizontally or to/from the rim and perimeter, GOAT level shot blocking / rim proto for a guard, athletic/smart enough to function well as a man defender). Even as a 2nd fiddle to LBJ, the 12 and 13 Heat (before Wade battled through injuries / had to get his knee drained) looked amazing with Wade and James on-court. I'd say they surely figured it out .
- 12 RS: 13.46 net-rating with James/Wade on court - 13 RS: 13.54 net-rating with James/Wade on court - 12 PS: 13.35 net-rating with James/Wade on court
Not that I value this *as* much, but Wade was a hell of a leader too for my 2 cents (I saw Doc citing how important Wade was as a figure of Heat Culture). Still turning the clock back despite a very rough 2013 PS to eek out a few vintage games that helped Miami win the 2013 finals, buying in to adding/subtracting from his game (eg. less creation, more of a release valve scoring function, smart cutting, forming arguably the GOAT transition duo, providing a ton of defensive utility in Spoelstra's scheme, having James' back after the 11 finals and reinforcing the Heatles being James' attack to lead). I think all of that is embedded into "scalability" and being a winning player.
i just don't see how these wade arguments apply to harden but somehow not to nash, who is just basically harden-lite in almost every way (figuratively and literally).
you say harden's last mvp level season was age 30. are you not counting 2021 because of the playoff injury, because it was definitely mvp-level play (not that he would actually beat jokic in the vote). the nets were 29-7 when he played and he put up ridiculous first round playoff numbers (35 PER, 75 TS%, 0.350 WS48, 14 BPM) for one of the few teams in history with a 130+ ORtg series. but even if we cut it off at 30, there's also the fact that steve nash's FIRST mvp level season was at age 30. it's not like they were even, and then nash pulled away in his 30's. nash's case started in his 30's.
nash literally didn't become a full-time starter until he was 26. harden was an mvp runner-up by 25. harden has been having nash-level playoffs since he was 21 and going on 13 years, except last year i would say, so 12 years. not peak nash playoffs, but certainly up there with his nash's non-mvp prime years.
comparing to nash's playoffs, harden 2011 would be ranked as follows: PER - 5th WS48 - 1st BPM - 1st
even harden 2023 would be ranked: PER - 6th WS48 - 6th BPM - 4th
2023 would certainly clear 2001/04/08 for nash so if years like 2023 aren't helping harden then we seemingly have to shorten nash's prime by quite a few years.
if we're comparing prime harden to prime wade in BBR's Box Score, then they both just crush nash.
in terms of other things like impact, as far as i can tell harden would be better in those, though there are lots of metrics and i don't follow them all:
harden wins JE 97-22 RAPM 5.1 to 4.3 and wins the offense part of it even more at 6.5 to 5.1.
In Cheema, they are almost identical in the regular season with nash at 3.096 and harden at 3.090, but then harden goes up in the playoffs and nash goes down for a 4.106 to 2.220 advantage (even more possessions for harden).
harden even slightly edges nash out in 97-14 RAPM in 34th place to nash's 35th place (with this basically missing all of harden's prime).
in just regular plus/minus, in the playoffs from 2001-2010 over 9 playoffs, nash is +4.6. from 2011 to 2022 over 12 playoffs, harden is +11.0. even over 3 year peaks it is 2005-2007 nash at +9.8 and 2018-2020 harden at +13.3.
both are poor individual resiliency guys in the playoffs. i have nash 42nd out of 47 at -0.1772 and harden 45th out of 47 at -0.1982. they both don't look good in actual vs expected championships. harden is 96th out of 103 at -1.06 but nash is even worst at 98th out of 103 at -1.15. and if we factored out their two most tragic circumstances, 2007 suspensions for nash and 2018 chris paul injury against arguably best team ever, it would help harden even more as it would be -0.87 for nash and now -0.58 for harden. by SRS, they both show up as guys who basically beat the teams they are supposed to beat and lose to the teams who they are supposed to lose to.
and while harden certainly isn't a longevity legend, it still looks like this with nash:
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)
harden basically averages out to about #20 in longevity while nash looks more like he's in the 40-50 range. with harden having more high level playoffs and at least as many regular seasons.
harden's also been on the best team of the 2 and has the better "oh so close" championship case with 2018, taking a better team to more games with an even worse mitigating circumstance compared to the amare/diaw suspension.
now if someone says wade is better than harden at his peak and wants to vote him over harden for that reason, i don't have a problem with that. in fact, i would pick wade over harden if he had traction right now. but then all of that would seem to apply to nash even moreso.
I also feel confident Draymond was never one of the 5th best players in the league, no more than Noah was. He would not be top 5 when you're asking who to build a team around.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
VOTE: Moses Malone Alternate: Steve Nash NOMINATE: Dwyane Wade AltNom: Nikola Jokic Voting Moses first because he seems to have early steam, but these two are the clear next two names on my list. If it is a case where my vote could swing the result from Moses to Nash, then I will give more thought to the exact ordering.
I do not see the broad strokes of Wade’s case as too markedly different from Moses’s, and depending on my parametres I have placed Wade ahead of Moses at times. Moses was healthier in the postseason in his prime but also has a less impressive individual peak and title, as well as a less productive postseason history out of his prime.
Again, I am open to Ewing, Pippen, and Reggie going forward, but seeing as none of those three have serious support, I will take Jokic over Stockton and Pettit.
Clyde Frazier wrote:Probably looking at stockton with my second nominiation regardless of him being ripped apart by some the last few threads. I still have his career as the next best PG available. I'm pretty sure in past projects I had nash right after him tho. I totally get not everyone has the same criteria which is what makes this project more interesting. But for me him being the poster boy for longevity and durability puts him on another level. The late career impact stats are icing on the cake. As we get into the 20-30 range, these are all time greats with *some* blemishes on their resume or lacking in some part of their skillset. Let's not pretend like anyone's perfect at this point.
in some ways, when it comes down to it, i think about how i felt rooting for or against certain players. guys who i hated but always won tend to get a little more respect from me. guys who i wanted to win but i never quite trusted get rated lower. in some ways, it's like anti-homerism. i hated michael jordan, but he felt inevitable. i'd probably rate steph curry even lower than i do, but i must admit that against all but the very very best teams (lebron, 2018/19 rockets), his teams felt inevitable. not jordan inevitable, but i think about the 2022 warriors. they were definitely the most talented team. they should have won. but it's the fact i just really couldn't picture another team beating them 4 times. like i was resigned to it before the playoffs. and then it played out.
well, john stockton feels the opposite. if you were a 90's rockets fan, you hated the jazz. so i had the hate factor. but we beat them so easily in 1994. they should have snuffed us out early in 1995, but we beat them again. even had a comeback in game 5.
in 1997, stockton did hit a series-winning 3 right in our eye, but the point of this whole post is really 1998. stockton and malone still going strong with a 62 win season. the rockets 41-41. hakeem missing half the season and could barely shoot in the playoffs. clyde drexler in his last playoff series ever. charles barkley coming off the bench and injured and only taking 23 shots the whole series due to the injury.
and yet, as i watched that series, it was so clear which team wanted the moment. and it wasn't the 62 win team. even 3 years removed from 1994 and 1995, there was still some magic left. hitting just the shot we needed to, getting the stop we had to have. and the jazz? it was like they were asking themselves "we're the 1 seed and we have to face these guys again?". there was a real "why can't we kill these cockroaches?" feel coming from their side. the panic oozed out of the screen. the rushed shots, the missed opportunities. i hated them, but they didn't feel inevitable. in fact, i pitied them. this had to be embarrassing for them. and in game 4, they arguably hit their nadir. already down 2-1 in the series. 1st quarter, only 10 points. we just smothered them. i think stockton or hornacek picked up their dribble and had nowhere to go with the ball until the shotclock almost ran out like 3 times in the 1st quarter. then barkley tore his tricep and that was that for our offense and the jazz ended up winning.
yes, that jazz team went on to roll a very good lakers team and went to the finals, but that was an indelible memory. one of the best jazz teams ever and they should have lost to an 8th seed in the 1st round in 4 games. not because we were so good, but because they just didn't seem up to the moment. and i don't think it's really that different than all the other times they failed in the playoffs.
"Inevitable" should be really easy to call after the fact. So far as I can tell if this inevitability were were widely known then bookmakers wouldn't take bets on certain series and if it were narrowly known and genuinely known in advance the people doing the calling would be multi-millionaires.
inevitable like mikan's team is going to win and then they win 7 out of 8. or russell's team is going to win and they win 11 out of 13. or it seems like jordan is going to win every full year and then he wins 6 straight. or it seems like shaq and kobe are definitely going to win and then they win 3 straight even if portland has to miss 13 straight shots in game 7 or the league has to rig a game against the kings. the odds said none of these things were actually that likely but the general perception of these teams is that they were going to win and then they won way more than the odds would suggest. inevitable like that. not that they literally won 100%.
Even if how one felt were a measure of players the human brain as accurate record keeping device can be pretty flawed.
probably. it's just one thing that might move a player up or down for me. did you not think the bulls would win every year during the dynasty?
The Barkley injury as death knell would make more sense if he'd played well in the series to that point. Instead game BPMs of 1.0, -8.5 and 3.0 whilst playing circa 27mpg. More Harrington worked out pretty well too. If Barkley was having a great playmaking series the idea that it was this injury that meant a weak Jazz snuck though might make sense, but he wasn't.
did you watch the series? because i did. our offense was horrible. with drexler being terrible, the offense was basically "hakeem posts up until he can't breathe" and then it was "willis does awkward post up" and then, when he was in the game "barkley posts up". it wasn't exactly a thing of beauty, but barkley being around to take up some touches was huge in the first 4 games because, if nothing else, it kept hakeem and willis slightly fresh. barkley went 3-6 in game 1 (win), he went 3-5 in game 3 (win), and he was 4-5 in game 4 (up by 10 when he got injured) and was working over everyone they put on him in his 9 minutes. factoring in game 4, the rockets had about a 102 or 103 ORtg at the time of barkley's injury. doesn't seem great. but after the injury, the rockets had a 79.4 ORtg, so we just fell off a cliff. given how good the defense was in the series, we just needed to squeak out some points. even game 5 was only a 7 point game after 3 in a game the rockets only scored 70.
Then too I really don't know why a Barkley injury would prevent a Rockets defense from forcing defensive errors. The Rockets led at the half and just shot badly in the second half especially the final quarter. Not because any lack of "wanting the moment" nor the Jazz of finding it but because the Jazz shot .647 from the field against them, whilst they shot .289 (both numbers are both fg% and efg%) and the Jazz got to the line more often. Could Barkley have helped score a bit more efficiently and on the offensive glass, perhaps, could he also have made their D even worse or further gunked up the paint on offense when off the ball, perhaps. Was his partial absence (an already diminished version who we could expect to be off the court for a little more than 20 minutes anyhow) the primary reason the Jazz won (by 22 points) ... probably not.
when results turn on a dime right after a major event, i would say the evidence is that the event had a big effect. a rockets team that was up 2-1 and up 10 in game 4 suddenly couldn't score and seemingly got more tired and worn out for the rest of the series. even if you think game 4 was also lost on defense, game 5 definitely wasn't. and either way, none of it changes what i saw in the jazz. they were down 2-1 and the #1 offense had 26 points with 3 minutes to go in the half in game 4. this wasn't a #1 seed that was tired of playing with its food and showed who was boss from the beginning of game 4. it was a shook team that caught a break.
penbeast0 wrote:It's your pick, I'm just higher on Stockton who I have clearly above Nash and Wade for career.
How about because Stockton was an all-star role player, ala Draymond Green, whereas Wade was a legit MVP calibre star who was in a wholly different tier of player?
Of course, this is false. Stockton was a legit MVP with playmaking ability unmatched in NBA history, with Magic, Oscar, and Nash as his closest rivals (though Magic and Oscar also provided extra scoring and rebounding). What Wade was that Stockton was not is a volume scorer, and a very good one but it that's the only criteria for value you get the Isiah Thomas version of the Knicks.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
penbeast0 wrote:It's your pick, I'm just higher on Stockton who I have clearly above Nash and Wade for career.
How about because Stockton was an all-star role player, ala Draymond Green, whereas Wade was a legit MVP calibre star who was in a wholly different tier of player?
Of course, this is false. Stockton was a legit MVP with playmaking ability unmatched in NBA history, with Magic, Oscar, and Nash as his closest rivals (though Magic and Oscar also provided extra scoring and rebounding). What Wade was that Stockton was not is a volume scorer, and a very good one but it that's the only criteria for value you get the Isiah Thomas version of the Knicks.
I'd say stockton vs pippen is a better playmaking debate than any of the comparisons offered here
OhayoKD wrote:I'd say stockton vs pippen is a better playmaking debate than any of the comparisons offered here
And Jordan v. Hornacek as scorers is a better scoring debate . . . or at least comparable in its ridiculousness.
not really. You're just attached to assist totals. The scoreboard doesn't care who makes the final pass, it cares about whether you draw extra defensive attention and make teammate looks significantly easier.
That isn't really what Stockton is doing:
Spoiler:
OhayoKD wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Stockton in today's environment would almost certainly shoot a great deal more. The drive and dish, pass first guard that we were taught was the ideal PG growing up in the 70s just isn't a template taught today. Compare Stockton's per possession willingness to shoot with that of his peers rather than with today's guards to get a better feel for where he would fit on the spectrum of modern PG's willingness to shoot. And remember that he is an extremely efficient shooter with outstanding 3 point range even growing up then, maybe more of an outlier in that regard than Nash was relative to Nash's peers a decade later.
This assumes there isn't a point of diminishing returns.
The other thing is that Stockton, even relative to his peers, is a ridiculous outlier as a shot creator for others. This is even compared to guys like Magic or Nash, much less to everyone else.
You say "even", but I'd imagine it's an easier to be an outlier when Stockton played. My impression is also that Magic was a much better shot creator with the "quality" of his creations being much higher. Ditto with Nash. Stockton didn't really pry or penetrate which is a big limitation for a playmaker. I'd guess stockton's "quality of creation" was actually pretty low: [url]
[/url] Looking at Stockton's first 10 assists, only 3 lead to an open shot. And only 2 have stockton taking more than 1 defender out of the play. 3 of these involve the player Stockton passes to dealing with multiple defenders to score, and all of these reads seem pretty simple by the standards of a modern helio. Stockton creates 1 open layup, and his other assist is a simple read to a shooter(and these are generally alot less valuable than say, layup assists which made up roughly half of Nash's dishes).
Would probably put his playmaking on par with someone like Pippen rather than all-time-great creators like Nash, Magic, or Jokic. Even comparing him to what would be a second-tier passer in today's NBA: https://youtu.be/EmHJI0NRqmk?t=23 All 3 of Luka's assists involve Luka taking out multiple defenders and creating an open shot. All 3 have Luka passing through tighter windows with less time to make a decision.
Luka actively manipulates and anticipates openings. From what I've seen, Stockton generally just reacts to what shows up. Even in a comparison to his peers, someone like Isiah is alot more aggressive(and I think more developed handles contribute to this). Unless we consider rondo/draymond great playmakers, I don't think what stockton brings is a recipe for driving an offense.
Of course there's no need to take my word for it. You can check out the video yourself(or another one) and if instead of asking yourself, "how many times does he pass to the scorer", you ask "how many times does he take multiple defenders out of the action", I'm pretty sure that number is going to be a lot lower than the assist count
penbeast0 wrote:It's your pick, I'm just higher on Stockton who I have clearly above Nash and Wade for career.
How about because Stockton was an all-star role player, ala Draymond Green, whereas Wade was a legit MVP calibre star who was in a wholly different tier of player?
Of course, this is false. Stockton was a legit MVP with playmaking ability unmatched in NBA history, with Magic, Oscar, and Nash as his closest rivals (though Magic and Oscar also provided extra scoring and rebounding). What Wade was that Stockton was not is a volume scorer, and a very good one but it that's the only criteria for value you get the Isiah Thomas version of the Knicks.
One of us said something false, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. Stockton was not seen as an MVP calibre player, and the awards voting reflected that. The team results prior to the Jazz big run in the mid to late 90s also seems to support that view, as the Jazz didn't miss a beat in 98 as Stockton's role wss greatly reduced.
On what planet is a guy with Stockton's resume an MVP calibre player? His highest MVP showings were 7th, 8th and 9th. Generally he was in the 10-15 range. His only 2 all-nba 1st teams are highly qualified by the circumstances. It was one of the weakest era for guards.
In 94 and 95 Jordan was gone. A number of prominent all-nba guys like Magic/Dumars/Isiah aged out or retired, and Penny was a rookie in 94 (and immediately took 1st team in yr 2). In addition KJ was hurt in 94 & 95, T.Hardaway missed the 94 season and was hurt in 95 missing 20 games. Drexler got old, only had 68 games in 94, then took a lesser role in Houston in 95. Price was hurt in 95. Petrovic died.
I think it's clear in a competetive year, Stockton is not a 1st team guy, which means he's not a real MVP candidate. He would have no hope of making the 1st team in today's game. To compare him to 2 time MVP Steve Nash seems off base to put it lightly.
As an iron man Stoclton should have been well placed to scoop up award votes easily. Here is a list of point guards who beat him out for all nba from 89-00; Magic, Kevin Johnson, Mark Price, Tim Hardaway, Penny, Gary Payton, Jason Kidd, R.Strickland & Stephon Marbury.
If Stockton was an MVP candidate, and he's healthy, most of those guys should NEVER be beating him out. Yet the results make it clear that these guys were all seen as either comparable to or better than him. Kidd has five 1st teams and finished as high as 2nd in MVP voting. Payton only has 2, bit finished top 6 in MVP voting 6 times and was as high as 3rd. Clyde finished 2nd, 5th and 6th in MVP and has lots of longevity. We have not discussed any of these guys. I could go on. I'll be ready to discuss Stockton around 50.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
HeartBreakKid wrote:What do some of you guys think of Kawhi Leonard?
I had Kawhi mid-30s on my pre-project rough draft, highest among active players other than LeBron, Curry, Durant, Paul, Jokic & Giannis. I can definitely see arguments for him over Paul, Jokic & Giannis though. I definitely have more faith in him in the playoffs compared to Paul & Giannis, and it's easy to see how won might see his total accomplishment being ahead of the 4-years-younger Jokic. He gets hurt for me because a) my season-by-season approach tends to make guys who don't take the regular season seriously score lower than it might for some, and b) I hold it against a player when his behavior damages the franchise he's on.
penbeast0 wrote:Of course, this is false. Stockton was a legit MVP...
Ah, c'mon beast, it's fine if you think Stockton was an MVP level talent, but there's nothing "of course" about a statement which talks about a guy who was literally never a serious MVP candidate - as evidenced by voting - as "a legit MVP".
f4p wrote:i just don't see how these wade arguments apply to harden but somehow not to nash, who is just basically harden-lite in almost every way (figuratively and literally).
I understand that both were decision-dominant on-ball guys who played for D'Antoni, but Harden was not doing all the things Nash did, and their style in general was considerably different. Doesn't mean Nash was better - Harden obviously has strengths (figuratively and literally) than Nash didn't have, so maybe those outweighed Nash's advantages - but when you call Nash "Harden-lite" you basically punt on the nuance you need to compare them beyond impact numbers.
With people throwing out new names, I feel like it's a good time to comment on some guys who are just over the horizon for me.
Walt Frazier - the Knicks were the top core over a half-decade-plus run, and Frazier was their most valuable player over the course of that run. I'd say he had the best NBA prime of any player born in between Oscar/West in 1938 and Kareem in 1947. Longevity hurts him of course.
Scottie Pippen - I'm someone who doesn't rate all alphas above all betas. Pippen's volume shooting capacity was limiting, but in all other aspects of the game he was remarkably strong, and I think he's basically the dream sidekick for any higher ranked player, to say nothing of a guy who would be the MVP on many contender-level teams where someone else was the better scorer. Longevity also hurts him.
Manu Ginobili - I expect to be championing Ginobili in the not too distant future. There are many good reasons to doubt him because of his limited minutes, but every more detailed look I get at Ginobili, the more convinced I am that he was an absolute top tier player who got miscategorized because Pop wasn't sure what to do with him on a team whose offense was built around Duncan.
Rick Barry - he's a guy who I think a lot of us would see drastically more appealing if his shooting efficiency were more impressive. He's such a classic alpha star, and the way he led a team platooning around him to a title is legendary.
Reggie Miller - a lot of people must see this coming. I believe I've championed Reggie in near every project since 2006. I do think I and others are in danger of overrated his actual achievement given what we know of how valuable he could have been with more forward thinking around him. But just because he could have done more, doesn't mean he didn't do a lot.
In what way is Reggie better than Klay? If anything I'd say Klay is the better shooter and defender. Ok, Reggie has more longevity, but we're also a looong way from nominating Klay.
Reggie and Stockon are a perfect example of how guys with advanced stats, who were not rated super highly in their day, get overrated today.
Just granting that their advanced stats were taken at face value; you then need to join the dots and ask why their impact might (and I say only might) have been bigger than it seemed back then. The answer for both is largely due to the fact that they were good 3pt shooters in a league that didn't care too much about stopping 3pt shots. In today's league defence is geared around stopping easy 3s, so they'd be far less impactful because unlike Harden or even Nash to a lesser extent they can't blow by you in iso to punish overguarding the 3. They'd be nice all-star level players today, but if anything their impact would be lower because the league has wised up.
Now Manu on the other hand would certainly translate, though I won't be rating him nearly as high as Doc MJ and his extremist comments. Yes, rating him over Duncan in some prime years qualifies as an extreme take.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
.
