RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #27 (Dwyane Wade)

[Chosen01]

Voting Wade. Should have been on board a few spots ago.

Damn, dude will be voted top 40 on these lil projects in 2029 at this rate.

[Doctor MJ]

Well, we're not the only ones.

I even thought I was a pinch bullish on him, but I don't look like it in comparison to the media pundits voting for the league MVP each year.
Ewing ranks 37th all-time (ABA/NBA combined) in MVP award shares, though 8-10 of the guys ahead of him are of eras/leagues you've been largely dismissive of (and presumably could then be disregarded); and here we are at #27, so.....

If you'd like to know where we're at with POY shares among players yet to be selected (better judge of player value than MVP shares since they include playoffs), this is it:

(nominees in bold)
Pettit 4.467
Wade 2.60
Baylor 2.223
Schayes 2.176
Harden 2.087
Frazier 2.061
Barkley 2.029
Gervin 1.582
McAdoo 1.402
Walton 1.373
Kawhi 1.315
AD 1.245
Barry 1.187
Cousy 1.115
Dwight 1.104
Johnston 1.095
Ewing 1.087

It's interesting to look at, but in the RPOY projects participants are asked to put in ONLY their top 5. Even in my own [I thought bullish] rankings I rarely have him in the top 5. However, he otherwise consistently ranks 6-12.

In the POY project, a guy who was consensus 5th ONCE, had a couple seasons in the top 12-15, and then got injured and career ended.......would theoretically have MORE POY shares than someone who's 6th-12th range for a decade and top 25-30(ish) for another 3-4 seasons (as long as he was never top 5).

EDIT: Perhaps a similar(ish) case-in-point example is Walton's placement.

An important point. Both the MVP & POY are geared toward identifying Top 5 player-seasons, which means that they'll underrate players who live in the range just below that.

I think it's useful to consider who was getting the nod over a guy. So in Ewing's case, if we focus on the decade-run where he was getting All-NBA love, here are the guys who finished ahead of him and in the Top 5 for POY in those years:

'87-88: MJ, Magic, Bird, Dream, Chuck
'88-89: MJ, Magic, Chuck, Dream, Malone
'89-90: MJ, Magic, Chuck
'90-91: MJ, Magic, Malone, Barkley, Robinson
'91-92: MJ, Malone, Drexler
'92-93: MJ, Dream, Chuck
'93-94: Dream, Robinson, Shaq
'94-95: Dream, Shaq, Robinson, Malone, Chuck
'95-96: MJ, Robinson, Malone, Penny, Payton
'96-97: MJ, Malone, Dream, Hill, Pippen

[HeartBreakKid]

If you'd like to know where we're at with POY shares among players yet to be selected (better judge of player value than MVP shares since they include playoffs), this is it:

(nominees in bold)
Pettit 4.467
Wade 2.60
Baylor 2.223
Schayes 2.176
Harden 2.087
Frazier 2.061
Barkley 2.029
Gervin 1.582
McAdoo 1.402
Walton 1.373
Kawhi 1.315
AD 1.245
Barry 1.187
Cousy 1.115
Dwight 1.104
Johnston 1.095
Ewing 1.087

It's interesting to look at, but in the RPOY projects participants are asked to put in ONLY their top 5. Even in my own [I thought bullish] rankings I rarely have him in the top 5. However, he otherwise consistently ranks 6-12.

In the POY project, a guy who was consensus 5th ONCE, had a couple seasons in the top 12-15, and then got injured and career ended.......would theoretically have MORE POY shares than someone who's 6th-12th range for a decade and top 25-30(ish) for another 3-4 seasons (as long as he was never top 5).

EDIT: Perhaps a similar(ish) case-in-point example is Walton's placement.

An important point. Both the MVP & POY are geared toward identifying Top 5 player-seasons, which means that they'll underrate players who live in the range just below that.

I think it's useful to consider who was getting the nod over a guy. So in Ewing's case, if we focus on the decade-run where he was getting All-NBA love, here are the guys who finished ahead of him and in the Top 5 for POY in those years:

'87-88: MJ, Magic, Bird, Dream, Chuck
'88-89: MJ, Magic, Chuck, Dream, Malone
'89-90: MJ, Magic, Chuck
'90-91: MJ, Magic, Malone, Barkley, Robinson
'91-92: MJ, Malone, Drexler
'92-93: MJ, Dream, Chuck
'93-94: Dream, Robinson, Shaq
'94-95: Dream, Shaq, Robinson, Malone, Chuck
'95-96: MJ, Robinson, Malone, Penny, Payton
'96-97: MJ, Malone, Dream, Hill, Pippen

I thought about this for a second, but it's not a great excuse. Because all those players above him are also competing with the titans of basketball.

[Mogspan]

I know this project isn't about peaks, but with comparable meaningful longevity between the candidates, I would have to go with the guy who I think was clearly "best" among them: Wade.

He never won an MVP, but he has 3 titles, a Finals MVP, and 13 All-Star selections - along with pretty ridiculous box score and impact stats in the league's toughest era. Honestly Wade is a no-brainer for me here, as I think anyone would choose his career over the others'.

[HeartBreakKid]

I know this project isn't about peaks, but with comparable meaningful longevity between the candidates, I would have to go with the guy who I think was clearly "best" among them: Wade.

He never won an MVP, but he has 3 titles, a Finals MVP, and 13 All-Star selections - along with pretty ridiculous box score and impact stats in the league's toughest era. Honestly Wade is a no-brainer for me here, as I think anyone would choose his career over the others'.

Make sure to bold your vote so it stands out.

Also, feel free to list any nominations for future candidates or alternative votes.

[Colbinii]

Voting Wade. Should have been on board a few spots ago.

Damn, dude will be voted top 40 on these lil projects in 2029 at this rate.

It is possible.

Tatum, Luka, Embiid, Harden, Butler, Lillard, Kawhi and Booker could all surpass him if the chips fall in their directions.

[trex_8063]

Voting Wade. Should have been on board a few spots ago.

Damn, dude will be voted top 40 on these lil projects in 2029 at this rate.

It is possible.

Tatum, Luka, Embiid, Harden, Butler, Lillard, Kawhi and Booker could all surpass him if the chips fall in their directions.

idk, Lillard is already 2-3 years into the downslope off off his peak, and 33 years old. Given he's got a lot of ground to make up to catch Wade [imo, at least], I'm not sure it's possible for him to get there.

Booker I honestly just don't think has sufficient talent. He's got EIGHT seasons under his belt already, and still only shows defense in short spurts (and has NEVER [even in a really short burst] shown the flare for it that a peak/prime Wade had, imo). He's simply not enough of an offensive talent to overcome such a defensive gap relative to Wade.
I mean, his longevity could end up being far more impressive than Wade's (especially given he came into the league at 19); but I'm so far just not hugely impressed with his resume so far.
Where Lillard has "a lot of ground" to make up, Booker has a veritable continent of ground to make up.......which makes me skeptical.

Embiid, as always, has questions of durability/longevity. Also, his playoff collapse last season is something that perhaps can't happen again if he's to have a shot of catching Wade, imo. Put him in the maybe pile (though again I'm a pinch skeptical).

Kawhi......maybe. He's gonna need at least a couple healthy semi-prime(ish) seasons to surpass Wade for me. Does he have that in him?

Butler.......idk, doubtful. He struggles with missing time, too, and is now 34 years old. How much more is left in the tank. Not impossible, but not likely for me.

Tatum and Luka, call 'em maybes. Both are still pretty young, so potentially still have a lot of career in front of them (and have been reasonably durable [Tatum, at least]). Anything could happen there.

Harden, tbh, I already have nudged ahead; though only by two places, and it's definitely not a hill I'd be willing to die on.

[rate_]

Voting Wade. Should have been on board a few spots ago.

Damn, dude will be voted top 40 on these lil projects in 2029 at this rate.

It is possible.

Tatum, Luka, Embiid, Harden, Butler, Lillard, Kawhi and Booker could all surpass him if the chips fall in their directions.

idk, Lillard is already 2-3 years into the downslope off off his peak, and 33 years old. Given he's got a lot of ground to make up to catch Wade [imo, at least], I'm not sure it's possible for him to get there.

Booker I honestly just don't think has sufficient talent. He's got EIGHT seasons under his belt already, and still only shows defense in short spurts (and has NEVER [even in a really short burst] shown the flare for it that a peak/prime Wade had, imo). He's simply not enough of an offensive talent to overcome such a defensive gap relative to Wade.
I mean, his longevity could end up being far more impressive than Wade's (especially given he came into the league at 19); but I'm so far just not hugely impressed with his resume so far.
Where Lillard has "a lot of ground" to make up, Booker has a veritable continent of ground to make up.......which makes me skeptical.

Embiid, as always, has questions of durability/longevity. Also, his playoff collapse last season is something that perhaps can't happen again if he's to have a shot of catching Wade, imo. Put him in the maybe pile (though again I'm a pinch skeptical).

Kawhi......maybe. He's gonna need at least a couple healthy semi-prime(ish) seasons to surpass Wade for me. Does he have that in him?

Butler.......idk, doubtful. He struggles with missing time, too, and is now 34 years old. How much more is left in the tank. Not impossible, but not likely for me.

Tatum and Luka, call 'em maybes. Both are still pretty young, so potentially still have a lot of career in front of them (and have been reasonably durable [Tatum, at least]). Anything could happen there.

Harden, tbh, I already have nudged ahead; though only by two places, and it's definitely not a hill I'd be willing to die on.

Heard the same thing 2 years ago.

[tsherkin]

Nomination: Stockton: Similar to Steve Nash, better in set plays,

I think I asked this in another thread, but I've either forgotten the answer or missed it when it came up. What makes you think Stockton is better in set plays than Nash?

[Colbinii]

It is possible.

Tatum, Luka, Embiid, Harden, Butler, Lillard, Kawhi and Booker could all surpass him if the chips fall in their directions.

idk, Lillard is already 2-3 years into the downslope off off his peak, and 33 years old. Given he's got a lot of ground to make up to catch Wade [imo, at least], I'm not sure it's possible for him to get there.

Booker I honestly just don't think has sufficient talent. He's got EIGHT seasons under his belt already, and still only shows defense in short spurts (and has NEVER [even in a really short burst] shown the flare for it that a peak/prime Wade had, imo). He's simply not enough of an offensive talent to overcome such a defensive gap relative to Wade.
I mean, his longevity could end up being far more impressive than Wade's (especially given he came into the league at 19); but I'm so far just not hugely impressed with his resume so far.
Where Lillard has "a lot of ground" to make up, Booker has a veritable continent of ground to make up.......which makes me skeptical.

Embiid, as always, has questions of durability/longevity. Also, his playoff collapse last season is something that perhaps can't happen again if he's to have a shot of catching Wade, imo. Put him in the maybe pile (though again I'm a pinch skeptical).

Kawhi......maybe. He's gonna need at least a couple healthy semi-prime(ish) seasons to surpass Wade for me. Does he have that in him?

Butler.......idk, doubtful. He struggles with missing time, too, and is now 34 years old. How much more is left in the tank. Not impossible, but not likely for me.

Tatum and Luka, call 'em maybes. Both are still pretty young, so potentially still have a lot of career in front of them (and have been reasonably durable [Tatum, at least]). Anything could happen there.

Harden, tbh, I already have nudged ahead; though only by two places, and it's definitely not a hill I'd be willing to die on.

Heard the same thing 2 years ago.

And it's true. It isn't likely, but its possible.

[Mogspan]

I know this project isn't about peaks, but with comparable meaningful longevity between the candidates, I would have to go with the guy who I think was clearly "best" among them: Wade.

He never won an MVP, but he has 3 titles, a Finals MVP, and 13 All-Star selections - along with pretty ridiculous box score and impact stats in the league's toughest era. Honestly Wade is a no-brainer for me here, as I think anyone would choose his career over the others'.

Make sure to bold your vote so it stands out.

Also, feel free to list any nominations for future candidates or alternative votes.

I'm not a voter yet, but Doctor MJ said I should participate as a non-voter in the meantime.

[penbeast0]

Nomination: Stockton: Similar to Steve Nash, better in set plays,

I think I asked this in another thread, but I've either forgotten the answer or missed it when it came up. What makes you think Stockton is better in set plays than Nash?

(a) I see Nash break off the set plays far more often and just pull up or go through the lane and restart the play far more often; Stockton tends to push them through pretty successfully.
(b) Stockton better at finishing at the hoop so in the PnR, if they favor the roll man, he is better at taking it in himself.

[tsherkin]

Vote: James Harden

So I guess I'll write a Harden post, for whatever reason. It's sad people dislike him so much. For a guy who never got in trouble off the court, said anything bad, or punched people in the nether regions like Chris Paul, and who mostly just stayed to himself, people sure don't like that he drew a lot of fouls. For a guy who started his career coming off the bench for 3 seasons and then worked his way up to a 5-time MVP candidate, people sure do seem to think he's just a partier who didn't try very hard. For a 6'-5", moderately athletic, below average straight-line-speed shooting guard who isn't an all time elite shooter, he sure never gets the "How did he do it with his physical limitations?!!" praise that some other people get. Wonder why that is.

It's probably because most people hate watching him because he shams for fouls with wild flopping. You see a similar response for at least some of the same reasons with Embiid.

Harden is unquestionably a very skilled player. His iso game is quite strong and even though he isn't Steph, he's one of the first ultra-volume 3pt shooters. He, Lillard and Steph (who has done it 6 times, including the last 3 seasons in a row) are the only guys with more than one 10+ 3PA/g seasons in their careers. Klay and Buddy Hield have the other 2. Harden and Lillard have both done it 3 times. That's... significant.

And that also dovetails into your other remarks about his postseason performances. He has some big ones. When his 3 is dropping, he's a very, very dangerous player. He is already quite a proficient isolation scorer, as mentioned, but that becomes a much bigger problem when that stepback is dropping. Over the shorter sample of the playoffs, of course, coming up dry from downtown on a little over half of his FGAs is a problem. His average drop-off into the playoffs from an efficiency standpoint isn't as exaggerated as some make it out to be, of course. 60.9% to 58.5% overall. He dropped off 2 or 3 ppg from RS to PS in Brooklyn and Philly, and like 1.5 in Houston.

But let's look at Houston, yes? 2013-2020 postseasons.



2013: One series, lost to OKC.

Spoiler:

Harden posted 26.3 ppg, 6.7 rpg and 4.5 apg over 40.5 mpg. Posted a 54.8% TS, dropping from 60% in the RS. He shot 39.1% from the field, and 34.1% on 7.3 3PA/g.



Look at that. That's horrid. Game 5 aside, he came out and crapped himself in that series. Continuously able to get to the line, of course, but he had a 10-turnover game and couldn't hit a shot to save his life. THAT'S the stuff people are thinking of.

2014, lost in 6 to the Blazers in the first round, back when they were inexplicably letting LaMarcus Aldridge shoot far too much, heh.

Spoiler:

Harden laid another egg. 26.8 ppg, 4.7 rpg and 5.8 apg. Good, right? 51.9% TS. 37.6% from the field, 29.6% from 3 (9 3PA/g).

He had a pair of games under 20 points in that series (they actually won game 5 with him doing that) and he shot 40% or better in only 2 games. That was a dreadful series.

2015.

Spoiler:

Player very well in the abbreviated series with Dallas, aside from Game 2. Didn't shoot well in Game 1; he was 4/11 and 1/5 from 3, but he was also 15/17 at the line and cracked off 11 assists against 3 turnovers. Cranked out 42 points in Game 3. 6.2 3PA/g on the series.

Tense series against the Clipppers which went the distance. 59.3% TS from Harden. 25.4 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 8.1 apg. 39.8% from the field, 35.4% from 3 on 6.9 3PA/g. 91.8% from the line. Triple double in Game 5, lots of high-assist games. Didn't go nuts as a scorer but he had a 32-point game and 31 another time. Mostly a good series.

Also shot like absolute trash in game 7, which did not bolster his playoff reputation. 7/20 from the field, 2/7 from 3, 7 turnovers. 15/18 from the line. He was 3/11 with 4 turnovers in the second half, and was 0/5 (0/3 from 3) with 3 of those turnovers in the 4th. He was 9/10 at the line in the fourth quarter.

Okay, the Warriors series. Down in 5. 28.4 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 6.4 apg, 46.7% FG, 42.9% from 3 (5.6 3PA/g), 4.6 tpg. 62.7% TS.

Big opener. 28/11/9, 11/20 from the field. An L, but he played well. He was even 5/8 from the field in the 4th. They were down 5 going into the 4th and won the 4Q by 1 point, just not enough after getting blasted in the second quarter. Close game. Harden had 4 turnovers in the 4th, though, which wasn't amazing.

Game 2, even better. 38 points, 13/21 from the field, 3/6 from 3, 9/10 at the line, only 2 turnovers after 5 in the first game.

Game 3, trash. Only played 32 minutes as the Warriors mopped them by 35 points. He was 3/16 from the field and posted 17/3/4. 1/5 from 3, 10/11 at the line.

Game 4, his big explosion. 45/9/5. 13/22 from the field, 7/11 from 3, 12/13 at the line. Rockets win.

Game 5, back to business. Warriors win by 14. Harden managed 14/6/5 with 12 (!) turnovers. 2/11 from the field. 0/3 from 3, 10/13 at the line. He sucked all game. 8 turnovers by the half, didn't hit 2 field goals in any quarter. All the other starters on Houston but Josh Smith outscored him. Corey Brewer scored more off of the bench for the Rockets. That was a rough, rough night for Harden.

2016, wherein they lose again to the Warriors, this time in the first round, with Steph only playing 2 games and 38 minutes the whole series.

Spoiler:

2 games under 19 points. 26.6 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 7.6 apg, 5.2 tpg. 41.0% FG, 31.0% 3P on 8 3PA/g. 55.5% TS.

Opened up the series with 17 points and 6 turnovers, shooting 7/19 from the floor (4/14 inside the arc), 3/5 from 3, 0/0 at the line. That's a 44.7% TS for the game. 4 fouls.

Came back with 28/11, 5 turnovers, 5 fouls. 7/19 from the field again, 1/8 from 3, 13/15 at the line.

35/8/9, 4 turnovers, 3 fouls. 11/26 FG, 4/14 from 3, 9/11 FT.

18 points, 4 turnovers. 7 steals. 4/13 from the field, 2/8 from 3, 8/10 at the line, 51.7% TS for the game.

35/6/6, 7 turnovers. 12/23 FG, 3/7 3P, 8/9 from the line.

But... 10/2/5 on 4/11 shooting in the second half. Golden State put 37 on them in the first quarter and put them into a 17-point hole. They didn't win one quarter all game: -17, -5, -8, -3. Final score, 114-81. Decent game from Harden. Weaker second half, but big scoring explosions are often like that. The increased reliance on 3pt shooting not really helping him. Dude is definitely a FT merchant and puts up a ton of shots which do not go down. And then those are rebounded by the defense and turned around on them, which is not amazing.

2017. Smash the Thunder, lose to the Spurs. First year under MAD, Harden's APG title.

Spoiler:

33/6/7 against the Thunder. 41.1% FG, 24.0% 3P (10 3PA/g), 90.4% FT (14.6 FTA/g), 5.6 tpg. 59.7% TS.

So again we see turnover problems. We see him bombing away mercilessly from 3 and sucking at it. But the overall profile of the series is good. He had a 16-point game which they still won, and a 44-point game to offset that. He also had 3 straight 7-turnover games (followed by a 5-turnover performance) and didn't manage double-digit assists in any of them.

Right after that 16-pointer (in which he shot 5/16), he finished the series with an 8/25 performance, 2/13 from downtown, but 16/17 from the line, so he posted 34 points. The classic Harden.

Then the Spurs series. 24.5, 4.7, 9.7. 41.4% FG, 30.8% 3P (10.8 3PA/g), 83.3% FT (7.0 FTA/g), 5.2 tpg. 56.8% TS.

20/1/14 on 46.2% FG, 3/8 3PA and 5/5 FT to open the series, Houston wins.

13 points on 3/17 shooting the following game. 2/9 from 3, 5/6 FT, 7 boards, 10 assists, 4 turnovers. 1/9 in the first half, 1/5 from 3. No FTAs, 4 boards, 4 assists, 1 turnover. 2/8 in the 2nd half, 1/4 from 3, 3 boards, 6 assists, 3 turnovers. Useless in the fourth, played less than 4 minutes because it was already done. SAS won 121-96 and blew them out by 20 in the 4th. -3, -7, +5, -20.

Big game. 43/2/5 with 5 turnovers. 14/28 FG, 5/13 3P, 10/11 at the line, but Houston lost. Only down 4 at the half with Harden shooting 4/12, for 13 points with 4 turnovers. He had 30 points in the second half, 10/16 from the field, 4/8 from 3, 6/7 at the line, but they didn't win the 3rd or 4th quarters. On the game, +2, -6, -2, -5, finished losing 92-103. 16 points in the 4th quarter, 5/9 shooting, 2/6 from 3, 4/4 FT, only 1 turnover. Big game, but no dice.

28/5/12 with 4 turnovers in a win. 10/18 FG, 4/11 3P, 4/6 FT.

33/10/10. 11/24 FG, 4/15 3P, 7/8 FT. 9 turnovers, 6 of which came in the second half (3 in OT). Houston was up 2 at the half. Harden had 23, had shot 8/13, 3/7 3P, 4/4 FT. He shot 3/8 in the second half, 1/5 from 3, 3/4 at the line. He had an offensive foul at the end of regulation that killed their chance to win in OT. So by quarter, -3, +5, -3, +1, then -3 in OT. Harden was 0/3 (all from 3) with 3 turnovers in OT.

Then he exited the series with another stinker. 10 points on 2/11 shooting 6 turnovers, fouled out after playing 36 minutes. 2/9 from 3, 4/6 at the line.

2018, lost to the eventual-champ Steph/KD Warriors in 7 in the WCFs. First year with Chris Paul. First of 3-straight scoring titles in the RS.

Spoiler:

Basically 29/5/7 against the Wolves. REALLY cut down his turnovers. They even survived him scoring 12 points on 2/18 shooting (1/10 3P) to win Game 2. He posted 29/7/7 and they lost game 3, but Wiggins was useful that game and Teague and Butler were hot. 3 guys scoring 20+ is hard to overcome. 56.3% TS on the series, 61.9% on the RS. 41.1% on 22.4 FGA/g, 38.5% on 10.4 3PA/g, 86.8% on 7.6 FTA/g. Only 2.8 tpg.

Mooshed the Jazz in 5. 8-2 through these two series. About 28/7/7.5, 3.4 tpg. 40.4% FG on 21/8 FGA/g, 29.8% on 8.8 3PA/g, 90.7% on 8.6 FTA/g. Pretty solid throughout. Had an 8-turnover game in Game 4 while shooting 8/22, then posted 18 points on 7/22 shooting (31.8%), 1/7 3P and 3/4 FTA/g in Game 5. They won anyway.

Warriors series. 7 games against a really high-end squad. Harden posted about 29/5.5/6, 4.9 tpg. Took 23.4 FGA/g, 11.1 3PA/g, 7.4 FTA/g. Shot 41.5% FG, 24.4% 3P, 88.5% FT. Really wasting possessions from 3. He was 5/9 to open the series and then didn't shoot better than 33.3% from 3 in a game thereafter. Dropped 41 in the series opener while doing that, though they lost. Big offensive performance from Harden. 27/10/3 in the next game, though he shot 9/24 FG and 3/15 from downtown. Steph and Klay were horrible, and Houston popped off for 38 in the 2nd quarter, which carried them. PJ Tucker had 13 points that quarter and Ariza had 9. Harden and Eric Gordon each scored 5.

20/5/9 on 7/16 shooting (43.8%) in a Game 3 loss. 30/4/4 in Game 4, 11/26 FG in a win. 19/4/2 and 6 turnovers on 5/21 shooting (0/11 3P) and 9/9 at the line in the Game 5 win. 4/13 FG, 0/7 3P in the first half. 1/8 FG, 8/8 FT in the second half. 1/6 FG and 4/4 FT in the 4th quarter. 32/7/9, then 32/6/6 over the last two games, both losses. 10/24, 12/29. 9 and 5 turnovers. No Chris Paul in either of those last 2 games. Rough nights as far as turnovers for Harden, but otherwise reasonably classic stuff from him. Didn't have the pieces to fight that Warriors squad once Paul went down.

2019, the 36 ppg season, something only he, Wilt and Jordan have done. Second and last season with Chris Paul. Second-last year with Houston for Harden.

Spoiler:

Smooshed the Jazz, lost in 6 to the Warriors. About 28/7/8 versus the Jazz. 5.6 tpg. 37.4% FG on 23 FGA/g. 12 3PA/g at 35%. 86.5% on 7.4 FTA/g. 52.9% TS. Not a good series. Marred by 3/20 FG in Game 3, 10/26 (38.5%) FG in Game 5, a pair of 8-turnover games and three with 5 fouls. Had stronger games in G2 and G4. Matched off the 3/20 shooting with 14/16 FT in Game 3. Opened the series with 3 straight games of 10 assists and had a 32/13/10 triple-double in G2. But outside of that performance, kind of lackluster.

Back to the Warriors. 59.4% TS. 35/7/5.5. 3.8 tpg. 24.8 FGA/g at 44.3%. 12.8 3PA/g at 35.1%. 10.2 FTA/g at 82%.

35/4/6 to open the series, followed by 29/7/4, both losses. 9/28 FG to open the series in G1, 4/16 from 3, 13/14 at the line. 9/19, 3/7, 8/9 in G2. Big game 3, 41/9/6 in a win, 14/32 shooting, 5/13 from 3. 38/10/4 in another win in G4. 13/29, 6/17, 6/8. 31/4/8 and 4 steals in G5 in a loss. 10/16 FG, 3/9 3P, 8/10 FT. Then the close-out, another 35 points. 35/8/5, though 6 turnovers. 11/25 FG, 6/15 3P, but 7/12 at the line in a 5-point loss. +1, -1, +5, -10. Steph put 23 on them in the 4th, while Harden shot 5/8, including 2/4 from 3, to post 12. But they just couldn't handle that. No Durant that game, either.

2020, the last year with Houston. Third straight scoring title.

Spoiler:

7-game series with the Thunder. 61.8% TS. About 30/6/8, 46.5/31/3/85.0 on 20.3 FGA/g, 11.4 3PA/g, and 8.6 FTA/g. 3.1 tpg, 4.1 fpg. Very much up and down. Actually stank in the final game, posting 17 points on 4/15 shooting, 1/9 from 3. But overall, played quite well. Kind of a casual treatment of the series, but he'd been beating on the Thunder a while and these weren't Westbrook's Thunder (he was on the Rockets), they were led by Chris Paul. Westie had played for 57 games with the Rockets, was an All-Star for the last time, posted about 27/8/7 while Harden was averaging 34/6.5/7.5. He did only play 3/7 games in the Thunder series, though, and only 28 mpg in those. Managed 15/6/4 on 43.4% TS, very much not helping Harden against Paul, Schroeder and a young SGA. Still they got it done.

Onto the Lakers, where they lost in 5 to the eventual-champs. Lebron, AD.

Westbrook was back, which may not have been a good thing. 20/7/5 on 47.9% TS. 42.4% FG, 25.9% from 3, 53.8% at the line. Very much a lodestone.

Harden, by contrast, managed 29/4.5/7 against 4.6 tpg, but 66.4% TS. He shot 50% from the field on 17.2 FGA/g, basically the best series we've discussed to date from him in that regard. 37.8% on 7.4 3PA/g, and 83.9% on 11.2 FTA/g.

36/2/5 w 5 turnovers to open. 12/20 shooting in a Rockets win. 3/6 from 3, 9/12 at the line. 27/2/7 with 5 turnovers in G2, 6/12 from the field, 4/8 from 3, 11/13 at the line. 50% shooting from 3 for the first two games. 33/9/9 with 2 turnovers, 11/23 shooting (47.8%), 4/9 from 3, 7/7 at the line. Big game, but not enough. 21/4/10 with 5 turnovers in G3, 2/11 from the field, 1/6 from 3, 16/20 at the line. The inevitable regression. Ugly game. Then 30/6/5 with 6 turnovers and 5 fouls, shooting 12/20 FG, 2/8 from 3 and 4/4 at the line in the final game.

Lebron put 26/10/7 on them on 60.4% TS. AD posted 25/12/4 on 66.3% TS. Harden was working with Westbrook, who stank horribly, so the loss makes sense.

There's a bit of a theme here. You can basically see Harden gassing after any major effort, and how much he relies on free throws. You can also see a correlation between him throttling his 3pt volume and then doing better as a result. Turnover issues, massive inconsistency from the field. He's a good player, but there are specific weaknesses to his skill set and approach that become more apparent against better defenses in the postseason environment. You can tolerate his ebb and flow over an 82-game regular season, but in a best-of-seven environment, those feast or famine types have some issues. Even Steph isn't immune to this, as we've seen several times over the years.

[tsherkin]

I think I asked this in another thread, but I've either forgotten the answer or missed it when it came up. What makes you think Stockton is better in set plays than Nash?

Thanks for getting to this, btw, especially if I've made you repeat yourself.

(a) I see Nash break off the set plays far more often and just pull up or go through the lane and restart the play far more often; Stockton tends to push them through pretty successfully.

Is that a sign of superiority in the set play for Stockton, or that Nash is making a different read to generate a better look?

(b) Stockton better at finishing at the hoop so in the PnR, if they favor the roll man, he is better at taking it in himself.

Is he? They're pretty close with available data, 63.7% for Stockton, 63.9% for Nash. Of course, that's 97 forward for Stockton.

There is also that Nash is a 44.4% shooter from 3-10 versus Stockton's 35.8% (and on a slightly higher proportion of his shots). Nash is known explicitly for short pull-ups and floaters in the lane when he got around/past the defense, so I'm not really sure that's accurate. Same same from 10-16 feet, where he shot 46.7% to Stockton's 46.1%... on a proportion twice as high as Stockton's. About a third of Nash's shots came from that range.

So I'm not sure that's actually a strength for Stockton, even if you assume that capturing his younger years would help his numbers there more than the diminishing, selective shooting volume of his later seasons.

[tsherkin]

Barkley, Ewing, Harden, Pettit and Wade.

Of these guys, there are 4 MVPs, one of them (Pettit) being a repeat winner who was also ROY. You can make whatever noise you want about era, but from an accomplishment perspective, the 2-time MVP who was top 4 in 8 seasons and did win a title as the main guy is pretty impressive.

As players, I'd say Barkley, harden and Wade are all more impressive offensive forces, though. As an era concern, it is worth noting that dude was a 110 TS+ guy on 49% TS more than once, though there are reasons for that. He was a 76% FT shooter as a big and was excellent at drawing fouls. His FG% is the main knock on his efficiency relative to later eras. I don't recall him looking terribly athletic compared to more contemporary players, but his last season was 1965. He was 32, still an All-Star, still drawing at .439 and still scoring 22.5 ppg. That was 30,690 minutes into his career, which is 142nd in NBA history. Excellent rebounder, couple of scoring titles before Wilt went psycho on the league.

He is actually 9th on the NBA's all-time list of players for scoring average, at 26.4 ppg. That's ahead of Gervin, Oscar, Kobe, the Mailman, Nique, Bird, KAJ, loads of guys.

So you look at 1965. He had Wilt, Russell, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Willis Reed... he had some pretty interesting bodies to contend with for the boards, and was still a 12.4 rpg guy in 35 mpg at a pretty advanced mileage. There was athleticism there, and he still got his work done. He put 22/15 on San Fran over 7 games, and about 26/14 on Philly over 8, which is relevant because he saw Wilt in many of those games. He had a short jumper and he had a nice, quick rip-through off the catch that helped him get to the basket and he finished well in traffic. And this is his last season. You can imagine him translating well enough, if that's bothering people. If someone like Kevin Love can get it done, a 6'10 dude with solid foot speed, good end to end speed, a good motor and a Ho Grant/Kurt Thomas type 12- to 15-footer on the baseline could definitely be fine today. I don't think he'd be shooting threes with the elite, but you can envision him pulling a Sheed and figuring out how to mash 33, 34 percent on 2 or 3 per game, I think. He was deft enough at the line and his mechanics weren't bad. For instance, he shot 82.0% in that 65 season in 8 FTA/g. It was over 50 games, but still.

Ewing, we know. Overtasked on offense a lot of the time, prime cut down by injuries and weak offensive support. Not a high-end performer on O in the playoffs, most notably in 94. Outstanding defender, decent rebounder, weak playmaker. I think he traveled just about every time he faced up but he was one hell of a competitor. I don't think he's the guy just yet, though, from an impact standpoint.

Harden has an MVP, he has 3 scoring titles, he was definitely one of the best RS offensive players we've seen in his hey day. Struggled a lot in the playoffs and we know enough about him that he's not the most likeable guy. Not, like, Karl Malone unlikeable but with his trade demands and other small things, he hasn't captured the joy of the masses, so to speak, in the same way as other media darlings and players whose style is more aesthetically appealing than an endless parade of step-back 3s and FTs.

Wade has a couple of rings, one as the main guy. He has an MVP, he has a scoring title. He has an abbreviated prime due to injury and then Lebron, but he accomplished a lot. I don't think his resume matches up to Pettit's, though, and I think the same of Harden and Ewing.

Same with Chuck, really. Dynamo rebounder and an absurd offensive player. He has the MVP. He was only top 5 4 times. Pettit was top 4 8 times in 11 seasons. Harden has been top 5 on 6 occasions (top 2 4 times and 3rd another time beyond that). Ewing was 4th or 5th on 6 occasions, but never any higher than that. Jordan, Magic, Karl Malone, Barkley, D Rob, Drexler, KJ, Nique, Bird, a parade of players were considered ahead of him. But let's look at 92-95.

92: Jordan, Drexler, D-Rob, Malone, Ewing
93: Barkley, Hakeem, Jordan, Ewing
94: Hakeem, D-Rob, Pippen, Shaq, Ewing
95: D-Rob, Shaq, Malone, Ewing (, Olajuwon)

95 was weird. Olajuwon was CLEARLY outplaying Ewing that year but was 5th in the vote. That PS was mega cathartic, as had been the 94 Finals.

Anyway, Ewing never managed to be top 3, whereas all these other guys have won at least one MVP and been top 2, top 3. It doesn't seem quite the spot for Pat.

Food for thought, anyway.

[penbeast0]

I think I asked this in another thread, but I've either forgotten the answer or missed it when it came up. What makes you think Stockton is better in set plays than Nash?

Thanks for getting to this, btw, especially if I've made you repeat yourself.

(a) I see Nash break off the set plays far more often and just pull up or go through the lane and restart the play far more often; Stockton tends to push them through pretty successfully.

Is that a sign of superiority in the set play for Stockton, or that Nash is making a different read to generate a better look?

(b) Stockton better at finishing at the hoop so in the PnR, if they favor the roll man, he is better at taking it in himself.

Is he? They're pretty close with available data, 63.7% for Stockton, 63.9% for Nash. Of course, that's 97 forward for Stockton.

There is also that Nash is a 44.4% shooter from 3-10 versus Stockton's 35.8% (and on a slightly higher proportion of his shots). Nash is known explicitly for short pull-ups and floaters in the lane when he got around/past the defense, so I'm not really sure that's accurate. Same same from 10-16 feet, where he shot 46.7% to Stockton's 46.1%... on a proportion twice as high as Stockton's. About a third of Nash's shots came from that range.

So I'm not sure that's actually a strength for Stockton, even if you assume that capturing his younger years would help his numbers there more than the diminishing, selective shooting volume of his later seasons.

I did really like Nash's floater and pull-up game, though you don't draw as many fouls on them as taking it right to the rack, not that either of them are Pettit or Harden in that regard. But career ts% favors Stockton (both great and only by a little) so Stockton has to be beating Nash somewhere.

Nash's offensive game overall is very comparable to Stockton, slight advantage on volume, slight disadvantage on efficiency, less assists but less turnovers, stronger team offenses but with generally far better offensive players around him. I have no real problem with anyone arguing either is the better offensive player. The problem is that I feel it's close on that end, that Stockton is clearly the better defender and the more durable, and yet Nash went in a few picks ago and Stockton hasn't got nominated yet.

[f4p]

Vote: James Harden

So I guess I'll write a Harden post, for whatever reason. It's sad people dislike him so much. For a guy who never got in trouble off the court, said anything bad, or punched people in the nether regions like Chris Paul, and who mostly just stayed to himself, people sure don't like that he drew a lot of fouls. For a guy who started his career coming off the bench for 3 seasons and then worked his way up to a 5-time MVP candidate, people sure do seem to think he's just a partier who didn't try very hard. For a 6'-5", moderately athletic, below average straight-line-speed shooting guard who isn't an all time elite shooter, he sure never gets the "How did he do it with his physical limitations?!!" praise that some other people get. Wonder why that is.

It's probably because most people hate watching him because he shams for fouls with wild flopping. You see a similar response for at least some of the same reasons with Embiid.

and yet jimmy butler has FTr's that would put harden to shame and people love him. people just pick who they like and who they don't and the harden dogpile got started early and never stopped.

Harden is unquestionably a very skilled player. His iso game is quite strong and even though he isn't Steph, he's one of the first ultra-volume 3pt shooters. He, Lillard and Steph (who has done it 6 times, including the last 3 seasons in a row) are the only guys with more than one 10+ 3PA/g seasons in their careers. Klay and Buddy Hield have the other 2. Harden and Lillard have both done it 3 times. That's... significant.

And that also dovetails into your other remarks about his postseason performances. He has some big ones. When his 3 is dropping, he's a very, very dangerous player. He is already quite a proficient isolation scorer, as mentioned, but that becomes a much bigger problem when that stepback is dropping. Over the shorter sample of the playoffs, of course, coming up dry from downtown on a little over half of his FGAs is a problem. His average drop-off into the playoffs from an efficiency standpoint isn't as exaggerated as some make it out to be, of course. 60.9% to 58.5% overall. He dropped off 2 or 3 ppg from RS to PS in Brooklyn and Philly, and like 1.5 in Houston.

But let's look at Houston, yes? 2013-2020 postseasons.

Spoiler:

2013: One series, lost to OKC.
[spoiler]Harden posted 26.3 ppg, 6.7 rpg and 4.5 apg over 40.5 mpg. Posted a 54.8% TS, dropping from 60% in the RS. He shot 39.1% from the field, and 34.1% on 7.3 3PA/g.



Look at that. That's horrid. Game 5 aside, he came out and crapped himself in that series. Continuously able to get to the line, of course, but he had a 10-turnover game and couldn't hit a shot to save his life. THAT'S the stuff people are thinking of.

2014, lost in 6 to the Blazers in the first round, back when they were inexplicably letting LaMarcus Aldridge shoot far too much, heh.[/spoiler]

Spoiler:

Harden laid another egg. 26.8 ppg, 4.7 rpg and 5.8 apg. Good, right? 51.9% TS. 37.6% from the field, 29.6% from 3 (9 3PA/g).

He had a pair of games under 20 points in that series (they actually won game 5 with him doing that) and he shot 40% or better in only 2 games. That was a dreadful series.

2015.

Spoiler:

Player very well in the abbreviated series with Dallas, aside from Game 2. Didn't shoot well in Game 1; he was 4/11 and 1/5 from 3, but he was also 15/17 at the line and cracked off 11 assists against 3 turnovers. Cranked out 42 points in Game 3. 6.2 3PA/g on the series.

Tense series against the Clipppers which went the distance. 59.3% TS from Harden. 25.4 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 8.1 apg. 39.8% from the field, 35.4% from 3 on 6.9 3PA/g. 91.8% from the line. Triple double in Game 5, lots of high-assist games. Didn't go nuts as a scorer but he had a 32-point game and 31 another time. Mostly a good series.

Also shot like absolute trash in game 7, which did not bolster his playoff reputation. 7/20 from the field, 2/7 from 3, 7 turnovers. 15/18 from the line. He was 3/11 with 4 turnovers in the second half, and was 0/5 (0/3 from 3) with 3 of those turnovers in the 4th. He was 9/10 at the line in the fourth quarter.

Okay, the Warriors series. Down in 5. 28.4 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 6.4 apg, 46.7% FG, 42.9% from 3 (5.6 3PA/g), 4.6 tpg. 62.7% TS.

Big opener. 28/11/9, 11/20 from the field. An L, but he played well. He was even 5/8 from the field in the 4th. They were down 5 going into the 4th and won the 4Q by 1 point, just not enough after getting blasted in the second quarter. Close game. Harden had 4 turnovers in the 4th, though, which wasn't amazing.

Game 2, even better. 38 points, 13/21 from the field, 3/6 from 3, 9/10 at the line, only 2 turnovers after 5 in the first game.

Game 3, trash. Only played 32 minutes as the Warriors mopped them by 35 points. He was 3/16 from the field and posted 17/3/4. 1/5 from 3, 10/11 at the line.

Game 4, his big explosion. 45/9/5. 13/22 from the field, 7/11 from 3, 12/13 at the line. Rockets win.

Game 5, back to business. Warriors win by 14. Harden managed 14/6/5 with 12 (!) turnovers. 2/11 from the field. 0/3 from 3, 10/13 at the line. He sucked all game. 8 turnovers by the half, didn't hit 2 field goals in any quarter. All the other starters on Houston but Josh Smith outscored him. Corey Brewer scored more off of the bench for the Rockets. That was a rough, rough night for Harden.

2016, wherein they lose again to the Warriors, this time in the first round, with Steph only playing 2 games and 38 minutes the whole series.

Spoiler:

2 games under 19 points. 26.6 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 7.6 apg, 5.2 tpg. 41.0% FG, 31.0% 3P on 8 3PA/g. 55.5% TS.

Opened up the series with 17 points and 6 turnovers, shooting 7/19 from the floor (4/14 inside the arc), 3/5 from 3, 0/0 at the line. That's a 44.7% TS for the game. 4 fouls.

Came back with 28/11, 5 turnovers, 5 fouls. 7/19 from the field again, 1/8 from 3, 13/15 at the line.

35/8/9, 4 turnovers, 3 fouls. 11/26 FG, 4/14 from 3, 9/11 FT.

18 points, 4 turnovers. 7 steals. 4/13 from the field, 2/8 from 3, 8/10 at the line, 51.7% TS for the game.

35/6/6, 7 turnovers. 12/23 FG, 3/7 3P, 8/9 from the line.

But... 10/2/5 on 4/11 shooting in the second half. Golden State put 37 on them in the first quarter and put them into a 17-point hole. They didn't win one quarter all game: -17, -5, -8, -3. Final score, 114-81. Decent game from Harden. Weaker second half, but big scoring explosions are often like that. The increased reliance on 3pt shooting not really helping him. Dude is definitely a FT merchant and puts up a ton of shots which do not go down. And then those are rebounded by the defense and turned around on them, which is not amazing.

2017. Smash the Thunder, lose to the Spurs. First year under MAD, Harden's APG title.

Spoiler:

33/6/7 against the Thunder. 41.1% FG, 24.0% 3P (10 3PA/g), 90.4% FT (14.6 FTA/g), 5.6 tpg. 59.7% TS.

So again we see turnover problems. We see him bombing away mercilessly from 3 and sucking at it. But the overall profile of the series is good. He had a 16-point game which they still won, and a 44-point game to offset that. He also had 3 straight 7-turnover games (followed by a 5-turnover performance) and didn't manage double-digit assists in any of them.

Right after that 16-pointer (in which he shot 5/16), he finished the series with an 8/25 performance, 2/13 from downtown, but 16/17 from the line, so he posted 34 points. The classic Harden.

Then the Spurs series. 24.5, 4.7, 9.7. 41.4% FG, 30.8% 3P (10.8 3PA/g), 83.3% FT (7.0 FTA/g), 5.2 tpg. 56.8% TS.

20/1/14 on 46.2% FG, 3/8 3PA and 5/5 FT to open the series, Houston wins.

13 points on 3/17 shooting the following game. 2/9 from 3, 5/6 FT, 7 boards, 10 assists, 4 turnovers. 1/9 in the first half, 1/5 from 3. No FTAs, 4 boards, 4 assists, 1 turnover. 2/8 in the 2nd half, 1/4 from 3, 3 boards, 6 assists, 3 turnovers. Useless in the fourth, played less than 4 minutes because it was already done. SAS won 121-96 and blew them out by 20 in the 4th. -3, -7, +5, -20.

Big game. 43/2/5 with 5 turnovers. 14/28 FG, 5/13 3P, 10/11 at the line, but Houston lost. Only down 4 at the half with Harden shooting 4/12, for 13 points with 4 turnovers. He had 30 points in the second half, 10/16 from the field, 4/8 from 3, 6/7 at the line, but they didn't win the 3rd or 4th quarters. On the game, +2, -6, -2, -5, finished losing 92-103. 16 points in the 4th quarter, 5/9 shooting, 2/6 from 3, 4/4 FT, only 1 turnover. Big game, but no dice.

28/5/12 with 4 turnovers in a win. 10/18 FG, 4/11 3P, 4/6 FT.

33/10/10. 11/24 FG, 4/15 3P, 7/8 FT. 9 turnovers, 6 of which came in the second half (3 in OT). Houston was up 2 at the half. Harden had 23, had shot 8/13, 3/7 3P, 4/4 FT. He shot 3/8 in the second half, 1/5 from 3, 3/4 at the line. He had an offensive foul at the end of regulation that killed their chance to win in OT. So by quarter, -3, +5, -3, +1, then -3 in OT. Harden was 0/3 (all from 3) with 3 turnovers in OT.

Then he exited the series with another stinker. 10 points on 2/11 shooting 6 turnovers, fouled out after playing 36 minutes. 2/9 from 3, 4/6 at the line.

2018, lost to the eventual-champ Steph/KD Warriors in 7 in the WCFs. First year with Chris Paul. First of 3-straight scoring titles in the RS.

Spoiler:

Basically 29/5/7 against the Wolves. REALLY cut down his turnovers. They even survived him scoring 12 points on 2/18 shooting (1/10 3P) to win Game 2. He posted 29/7/7 and they lost game 3, but Wiggins was useful that game and Teague and Butler were hot. 3 guys scoring 20+ is hard to overcome. 56.3% TS on the series, 61.9% on the RS. 41.1% on 22.4 FGA/g, 38.5% on 10.4 3PA/g, 86.8% on 7.6 FTA/g. Only 2.8 tpg.

Mooshed the Jazz in 5. 8-2 through these two series. About 28/7/7.5, 3.4 tpg. 40.4% FG on 21/8 FGA/g, 29.8% on 8.8 3PA/g, 90.7% on 8.6 FTA/g. Pretty solid throughout. Had an 8-turnover game in Game 4 while shooting 8/22, then posted 18 points on 7/22 shooting (31.8%), 1/7 3P and 3/4 FTA/g in Game 5. They won anyway.

Warriors series. 7 games against a really high-end squad. Harden posted about 29/5.5/6, 4.9 tpg. Took 23.4 FGA/g, 11.1 3PA/g, 7.4 FTA/g. Shot 41.5% FG, 24.4% 3P, 88.5% FT. Really wasting possessions from 3. He was 5/9 to open the series and then didn't shoot better than 33.3% from 3 in a game thereafter. Dropped 41 in the series opener while doing that, though they lost. Big offensive performance from Harden. 27/10/3 in the next game, though he shot 9/24 FG and 3/15 from downtown. Steph and Klay were horrible, and Houston popped off for 38 in the 2nd quarter, which carried them. PJ Tucker had 13 points that quarter and Ariza had 9. Harden and Eric Gordon each scored 5.

20/5/9 on 7/16 shooting (43.8%) in a Game 3 loss. 30/4/4 in Game 4, 11/26 FG in a win. 19/4/2 and 6 turnovers on 5/21 shooting (0/11 3P) and 9/9 at the line in the Game 5 win. 4/13 FG, 0/7 3P in the first half. 1/8 FG, 8/8 FT in the second half. 1/6 FG and 4/4 FT in the 4th quarter. 32/7/9, then 32/6/6 over the last two games, both losses. 10/24, 12/29. 9 and 5 turnovers. No Chris Paul in either of those last 2 games. Rough nights as far as turnovers for Harden, but otherwise reasonably classic stuff from him. Didn't have the pieces to fight that Warriors squad once Paul went down.

2019, the 36 ppg season, something only he, Wilt and Jordan have done. Second and last season with Chris Paul. Second-last year with Houston for Harden.

Spoiler:

Smooshed the Jazz, lost in 6 to the Warriors. About 28/7/8 versus the Jazz. 5.6 tpg. 37.4% FG on 23 FGA/g. 12 3PA/g at 35%. 86.5% on 7.4 FTA/g. 52.9% TS. Not a good series. Marred by 3/20 FG in Game 3, 10/26 (38.5%) FG in Game 5, a pair of 8-turnover games and three with 5 fouls. Had stronger games in G2 and G4. Matched off the 3/20 shooting with 14/16 FT in Game 3. Opened the series with 3 straight games of 10 assists and had a 32/13/10 triple-double in G2. But outside of that performance, kind of lackluster.

Back to the Warriors. 59.4% TS. 35/7/5.5. 3.8 tpg. 24.8 FGA/g at 44.3%. 12.8 3PA/g at 35.1%. 10.2 FTA/g at 82%.

35/4/6 to open the series, followed by 29/7/4, both losses. 9/28 FG to open the series in G1, 4/16 from 3, 13/14 at the line. 9/19, 3/7, 8/9 in G2. Big game 3, 41/9/6 in a win, 14/32 shooting, 5/13 from 3. 38/10/4 in another win in G4. 13/29, 6/17, 6/8. 31/4/8 and 4 steals in G5 in a loss. 10/16 FG, 3/9 3P, 8/10 FT. Then the close-out, another 35 points. 35/8/5, though 6 turnovers. 11/25 FG, 6/15 3P, but 7/12 at the line in a 5-point loss. +1, -1, +5, -10. Steph put 23 on them in the 4th, while Harden shot 5/8, including 2/4 from 3, to post 12. But they just couldn't handle that. No Durant that game, either.

2020, the last year with Houston. Third straight scoring title.

Spoiler:

7-game series with the Thunder. 61.8% TS. About 30/6/8, 46.5/31/3/85.0 on 20.3 FGA/g, 11.4 3PA/g, and 8.6 FTA/g. 3.1 tpg, 4.1 fpg. Very much up and down. Actually stank in the final game, posting 17 points on 4/15 shooting, 1/9 from 3. But overall, played quite well. Kind of a casual treatment of the series, but he'd been beating on the Thunder a while and these weren't Westbrook's Thunder (he was on the Rockets), they were led by Chris Paul. Westie had played for 57 games with the Rockets, was an All-Star for the last time, posted about 27/8/7 while Harden was averaging 34/6.5/7.5. He did only play 3/7 games in the Thunder series, though, and only 28 mpg in those. Managed 15/6/4 on 43.4% TS, very much not helping Harden against Paul, Schroeder and a young SGA. Still they got it done.

Onto the Lakers, where they lost in 5 to the eventual-champs. Lebron, AD.

Westbrook was back, which may not have been a good thing. 20/7/5 on 47.9% TS. 42.4% FG, 25.9% from 3, 53.8% at the line. Very much a lodestone.

Harden, by contrast, managed 29/4.5/7 against 4.6 tpg, but 66.4% TS. He shot 50% from the field on 17.2 FGA/g, basically the best series we've discussed to date from him in that regard. 37.8% on 7.4 3PA/g, and 83.9% on 11.2 FTA/g.

36/2/5 w 5 turnovers to open. 12/20 shooting in a Rockets win. 3/6 from 3, 9/12 at the line. 27/2/7 with 5 turnovers in G2, 6/12 from the field, 4/8 from 3, 11/13 at the line. 50% shooting from 3 for the first two games. 33/9/9 with 2 turnovers, 11/23 shooting (47.8%), 4/9 from 3, 7/7 at the line. Big game, but not enough. 21/4/10 with 5 turnovers in G3, 2/11 from the field, 1/6 from 3, 16/20 at the line. The inevitable regression. Ugly game. Then 30/6/5 with 6 turnovers and 5 fouls, shooting 12/20 FG, 2/8 from 3 and 4/4 at the line in the final game.

Lebron put 26/10/7 on them on 60.4% TS. AD posted 25/12/4 on 66.3% TS. Harden was working with Westbrook, who stank horribly, so the loss makes sense.

There's a bit of a theme here. You can basically see Harden gassing after any major effort, and how much he relies on free throws. You can also see a correlation between him throttling his 3pt volume and then doing better as a result. Turnover issues, massive inconsistency from the field. He's a good player, but there are specific weaknesses to his skill set and approach that become more apparent against better defenses in the postseason environment. You can tolerate his ebb and flow over an 82-game regular season, but in a best-of-seven environment, those feast or famine types have some issues. Even Steph isn't immune to this, as we've seen several times over the years.

so i think it's important to note where we are. this is thread #27. if harden had a clean, resilient playoff career with lots of big moments, he'd be a no-doubt-about-it top 15 guy. maybe some fringe top 10 talk though probably not. i think i made a pretty good case that he looks a whole lot like steph curry. very similar playoff stats by box or impact or head to head. and steph was #11. and steph is no resiliency king, has some pretty big ups and downs, had his best numbers in his least pressure-packed year (2017), and once blew a 3-1 lead. is a slightly messier version of curry worth an 18+ spot drop (as voting looks now), just because of ringz?

i mean harden's less talented team was straight up about to beat steph's in 2018. and almost did again in 2019 and might have if chris paul wasn't playing terribly. but harden is 18+ spots behind.

it's also important to note, how many people get their playoff career broken down game by game like harden, with every flaw pointed out? even when he has a good game, the 3 point shooting gets criticized, or it's too many turnovers, or he didn't score enough at a certain part of the game. or if it's a really good game, it's a one sentence "yeah that's nice".

this is the 2015 WCF write-up:

Game 2, even better. 38 points, 13/21 from the field, 3/6 from 3, 9/10 at the line, only 2 turnovers after 5 in the first game.

Game 3, trash. Only played 32 minutes as the Warriors mopped them by 35 points. He was 3/16 from the field and posted 17/3/4. 1/5 from 3, 10/11 at the line.

Game 4, his big explosion. 45/9/5. 13/22 from the field, 7/11 from 3, 12/13 at the line. Rockets win.

Game 5, back to business. Warriors win by 14. Harden managed 14/6/5 with 12 (!) turnovers. 2/11 from the field. 0/3 from 3, 10/13 at the line. He sucked all game. 8 turnovers by the half, didn't hit 2 field goals in any quarter. All the other starters on Houston but Josh Smith outscored him. Corey Brewer scored more off of the bench for the Rockets. That was a rough, rough night for Harden.

one sentence for games 2 and 4. game 2 is a 38/10/9, 3 steal 2 turnover game on 62% shooting where the rockets were +12 in 41 minutes with harden on the floor and -13 in 7 minutes with harden off the floor, and so they somehow lost. in the entire 2010's in the playoffs, it ranks 23rd in game score. and that undersells it because 9 of the games ahead of him are lebron. so 14th in the non-lebron category. something that happens once or twice a year in the entire playoffs. and it's not even his best game score of the series! because game 4 ranks 4th in the non-lebron category. that's 2 lines combined in the write-up. less than game 5. which, if game 4 is meaningless because it was 3-0, game 5 seems equally meaningless. so a series where he overall puts up great stats against the #1 defense while being a plus/minus monster is bad.

or the game before against the clippers:

Also shot like absolute trash in game 7, which did not bolster his playoff reputation. 7/20 from the field, 2/7 from 3, 7 turnovers. 15/18 from the line. He was 3/11 with 4 turnovers in the second half, and was 0/5 (0/3 from 3) with 3 of those turnovers in the 4th. He was 9/10 at the line in the fourth quarter.

so he beats a +6.8 team in game 7 with 31/8/7 on 55.3 TS% and even scores 9 in the 4th, but it was the wrong way to score so it's a trash shooting game that hurts his reputation. this is how so much of his career gets described.

never, his team was down 0-2 and he averaged 40/10/5 to tie the series in 2019 against the warriors. never he averaged 33/10.5/9 on 69 TS% in 2 games in Oracle against the #1 defense in games 1 and 2 in 2015 while outscoring the warriors by 9 when he was on the court, but still lost. plenty of people like durant or nash or paul who certainly do not have flawless playoff careers have already been voted in. and just to the point that harden definitely has bad moments, i posted this somewhere in an earlier thread, else but he arguably had his best years when his teams were their best.

this is game score from harden's 2018 to 2021 series:

2018 1st Round - led both teams (including jimmy butler as opponent and chris paul as teammate)
2018 2nd Round - led both teams (including donovan mitchell as opponent and chris paul as teammate)
2018 WCF - 3rd (18.6) behind KD (21.0) and just a fraction behind steph (19.2)
2019 1st Round - led both teams (including donovan mitchell as opponent and chris paul as teammate)
2019 2nd Round - led both teams (including kevin durant and steph curry as opponents and chris paul as teammate)
2020 1st Round - led both teams (old chris paul as only significant opponent)
2020 2nd Round - led both teams at 23.4 (including lebron james (22.9) and anthony davis (21.9) as opponents)
2021 1st Round - led both teams (including jayson tatum as opponent and kevin durant and kyrie irving as teammates)

that's 7 out of 8 series from his peak, with the "loss" being by a very small number to 2 all-time greats who didn't face as much defensive talent. given that leading even 50% of your career series is incredible, 7 out of 8 is probably hardly matched by anyone but lebron, jordan, hakeem, and jokic (i didn't actually confirm for jokic but it seems likely). so much of his actual "horrible" play in big moments has come from arguably the much lower leverage moments of his career. like 2013/14 first rounds. or game 5 in 2015 being after the series was pretty much over after being brilliant when it was competitive. or even his worst moment, game 6 in 2017, was just for the right to get obliterated by the 2017 warriors. but with his best teams and his best chances, he's been really good. 7 out of 8 good. with the only other year where his team sort of had a chance being 2015 where he was amazing in the WCF until the last game. or i guess 2012, where he got his team a surprise finals appearance, even if he was weak in the finals.


one final note, since again this project has shown it doesn't actually care about resiliency and just absolutes. in houston, harden had 8 straight playoffs averaging 26+ ppg. and he very likely does it again in 2021 without the injury and playing through it (28 ppg in 1st round). but we'll stick with 8 seasons. even cutting it off at 25 ppg, here's the list of people with more such seasons:

Lebron 13
Jordan 13
Durant 12
Malone 12
Kareem 11
Kobe 9
Shaq 9
Dirk 9
Harden 8

For 8 consecutive seasons (injuries or retirement don't break the streak), the list is:
Jordan 13
Durant 12
Shaq 9
Harden 8

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

Vote: James Harden

So I guess I'll write a Harden post, for whatever reason. It's sad people dislike him so much. For a guy who never got in trouble off the court, said anything bad, or punched people in the nether regions like Chris Paul, and who mostly just stayed to himself, people sure don't like that he drew a lot of fouls. For a guy who started his career coming off the bench for 3 seasons and then worked his way up to a 5-time MVP candidate, people sure do seem to think he's just a partier who didn't try very hard. For a 6'-5", moderately athletic, below average straight-line-speed shooting guard who isn't an all time elite shooter, he sure never gets the "How did he do it with his physical limitations?!!" praise that some other people get. Wonder why that is.

For a guy who averaged 30.7/6.7/5.9 against the 2015/18/19 Warriors, he sure gets a lot of "Worst playoff performer ever!" talk. In fact, I would struggle to name someone so great about whom so little positive is said as James Harden. LIke Lebron has probably gotten more negative attention than anyone in NBA history, but it's balanced with probably the 2nd most positive attention ever as well. But every James Harden story is either outright bad or starts with "He sucks in the playoffs, but man could he...". It's crazy, for a guy 12th all time in MVP shares. For a guy who hard carried a franchise for a decade of almost never missing a game and playing league-leading type minutes, only to have to bash up against a perennial 10 SRS (when they tried) dynasty year after year. Who had his best chance stolen by injury to a teammate. And 2nd best chance stolen by an injury to himself, that he still tried to play through.

MVP guys without an alpha championship - Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, Harden, Nash, Paul

Is there any argument against Harden having the best "oh so close" championship case with the 2018 Rockets? 4 guys are already in and Barkley looks next. Why is Harden getting inducted behind all these guys? Or at least so far behind them?

Best Team (or best "oh so close" team)
Barkley - 1993 Suns
Malone - 1997 Jazz
Ewing - 1994 Knicks
Robinson - 1995 Spurs
Harden - 2018 Rockets
Nash - 2007 Suns
Paul - 2014 Clippers

Regular Season Quality
Harden: +8.2 SRS - Paul misses 24 games, Harden misses career-high 10 games, Rockets 44-5 with +11.0 SRS in games Harden/Paul play, so extremely good when healthy
Malone: +8.0 SRS - expansion inflated number maybe more like +7.2 or +7.5, no injuries (82 games from big 3)
Nash: +7.3 SRS - no real injuries, Nash missed 6 games and Diaw 9
Paul: +7.3 SRS - decent amount of injuries, Paul misses 20 games but team only plays at 58 win pace with him so not much difference, Redick misses half the season but team plays the same with or without him
Ewing: +6.4 SRS - lots of role players missed games but Ewing/Oakley play almost all games, Mason misses 9 games
Barkley: +6.3 SRS - injuries to KJ and Dumas (49 and 48 games played) but team has basically the same record with or without those 2
Robinson: +5.9 SRS - only Rodman missed games but he only played 49 and the team was 40-9 (67 wins pace) so very good when healthy, though MOV was only +6.4 (58 win pace) in Rodman's games so may have been some luck in that record

So Harden seems to have generated the best regular season team of any of them, by a significant margin when healthy

Toughest Team Who They Lost To
Harden: 2018 Warriors - maybe a small step below the 2017 Warriors, still GOAT level
Malone: 1997 Bulls - maybe a small step below the 1996 Bulls, still GOAT level
Nash: 2007 Spurs - +8.4 SRS, very good team, but a step down from the 2 above
Barkley: 1993 Bulls - 16-4 playoff run through 3 6+ SRS teams, equal to 2007 Spurs
Robinson: 1995 Rockets - terrible regular season, great playoffs, Hakeem going berserk makes them tougher than 1994 Rockets
Ewing: 1994 Rockets - a one-star title team without the confidence of having already won a title
Paul: 2014 Thunder - good +6.7 team but didn't even make finals

How Close They Came To Winning
Harden: Game 7
Ewing: Game 7
Malone: Game 6
Nash: Game 6
Barkley: Game 6
Robinson: Game 6
Paul: Game 6

Led the Series?
Harden: 3-2
Ewing: 3-2
Paul: 1-0 (not 2-0 for a change)
Malone: No
Nash: No
Barkley: No
Robinson: No

Mitigating Reason For Losing?
Harden: Best teammate injured for 2 games with series lead
Nash: Best teammate suspended for 1 game with tied series
Robinson: Rodman going crazy (also Hakeem going crazy)
Ewing: No (could say Starks shooting in Game 7 but Ewing shot horribly for the whole series so no room to talk)
Barkley: No
Paul: No
Malone: No

Harden has the best regular season team (yes, with the best teammate), lost to at least tied for the best opponent, got closer to winning than anyone but Ewing, had a series lead late unlike anyone but Ewing, and had the best mitigating reason for losing. He didn't lose the first 2 games at home like Barkley, didn't have a 39 TS% like Ewing, wasn't 1-4 with 3 points and 3 turnovers with 9 minutes to go in the closeout game like Nash (after going 1-8 in the 4th while losing a lead in the previous game), didn't get slaughtered by his counterpart like Robinson, didn't miss the potential series swinging free throws like Malone, and I can't remember but I think this was the series Chris Paul committed some huge crunch time error to lose one game.

But 4 and about to be 5 of these guys are in and who knows, Ewing might make it yet before Harden.


But maybe they've got way better careers:

SRS defeated as a team alpha in the playoffs:
Malone: 41.9 (Top 35 teammate for 18 years)
Harden: 27.1
Ewing: 22.1
Nash: 21.3
Paul: 18.6 (32.2 if you counted 2021 but that seems iffy and all opponents injured)
Barkley: 14.9 (didn't count negative SRS opponent in 1986 1st round to be nice)
Robinson: 7.2 (!!, he is ranked so much lower without Duncan showing up)

Doesn't seem like a ton of winning from these guys to outpace Harden

What about standard career-long measures:

Win Shares - Regular Season
Malone: 234.6
Paul: 205.0
Robinson: 178.7
Barkley: 177.0
Harden: 158.0
Nash: 129.7
Ewing: 126.5

VORP - Regular Season
Malone: 99.0
Paul: 96.2
Robinson: 81.9
Barkley: 80.5
Harden: 76.0
Ewing: 50.0
Nash: 48.2

Win Shares - Postseason
Malone: 23.0 (7900 minutes, 0.143 WS48)
Paul: 21.2 (5442 minutes, 0.187 WS48)
Harden: 20.6 (5750 minutes, 0.172 WS48)
Barkley: 19.5 (4850 games, 0.193 WS48)
Robinson: 17.5 (4220 minutes, 0.199 WS48)
Ewing: 14.1 (5200 minutes, 0.130 WS48)
Nash: 11.9 (4300 minutes, 0.133 WS48)

VORP - Postseason
Malone: 12.1
Harden: 11.9
Paul: 11.9
Barkley: 10.2
Robinson: 8.7
Ewing: 6.7
Nash: 5.6

Definitely some regular season advantages for the others, but Harden jumps back up in the playoffs.

So Harden is the guy with the best championship case, beat more opponent SRS in the playoffs than anyone but the massive-longevity guy who had a hall of fame teammate for almost 2 decades, and look middle of the pack by the career measures. But maybe we shouldn't compare him to those guys.

James and the Giant Reach or James Harden is either way more like Steph Curry than you think or Steph Curry is way more like James Harden than you think

These guys end up next to each other a lot in different measures. And Harden doesn't always lose.

Normalized 10 Year Box Score (my calculation, nothing fancy)
22. Harden 0.593
24. Steph 0.576

2 peas in a pod. Only 2 spots apart.

Harden is terrible at playoff resiliency. But guess who else is:
Resiliency (my calculation, nothing fancy)
34th out of 41. Steph -0.1613
39th out of 41. Harden -0.1982

So small advantage for Steph, but once again right there in the same range (Harden would actually be ahead if it included 2011).

RAPM 97-22?
13. Steph 6.5
22. Harden 5.1

Okay, an advantage for Steph, but probably not as excessive as people would guess. But what if we just do the playoffs:
Playoff RAPM - Cheema
6. Steph 4.12
7. Harden 4.11

Well damn, that's about as close as it gets.

What about plain ol' playoff plus/minus for these BFF's
Steph 2013-23, (11 years, 9 playoffs): +12.0 on/off (all prime years)
Harden 2011-22 (12 years, 12 playoffs): +11.0 on/off (not all prime years)

So really close, even in the area where Steph dominates. But we included a little non-prime for Harden. What if we just do 2011-2021, still as many years and more playoffs than Steph:
Harden 2011-21 (11 years, 11 playoffs): +11.4 on/off

Even closer. What if we just do 2011-2020? Still more playoffs than Steph. +11.9. Practically a tie.

And just to show how disastrous the Milwaukee hamstring series was, what if we just do 2011 up until the end of the 1st round in 2021:
Harden 2011-21 1st Round: +12.9

So Harden spent a decade having every bit the playoff on/off impact that Steph did.

But f4p, they played 3 head to head series and Steph won them all, checkmate.

Stats from 2015/18/19 Series
Harden: 30.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 5.9 apg, 58.0 TS% (-3.4% from regular season), 21.9 Game Score
Steph: 26.3 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 5.4 apg, 59.5 TS% (-5.9% from regular season), 19.2 Game Score

But those are box score numbers, we know Steph is all about impact:

Harden On/Off: +16.2 per 48 (Harden with a hilarious +48.8 in 2015)
Steph On/Off: +5.3 per 48

But this isn't about how much better Harden is than Steph and how he seems to have definitely outplayed him in these series, it's about how similar they are. So let's try a little magic. I'll get rid of those garbage time minutes I always talk about in Game 2 and Game 3 in 2018. While they do make the series look a lot further apart than it was, they also seriously inflated Harden's plus/minus because they were disastrous "off" minutes. So now it's:

Harden +11.7
Steph +10.4

Wow, still not that different once again. And Harden still ahead. Of course, I'm a vengeful god, and I can't help but notice how well Steph did in Games 6 and 7 in 2018, after the talent advantage became overwhelming. Kind of like how 2017 was coincidentally his best playoffs ever. So what if we remove those (while still removing the garbage time):

Harden +13.0
Steph +5.5

Wow. So the guy who lost all 3 series had better box numbers and on/off numbers. I'm sure people are taking that into account in these rankings (feel free to check the on/off numbers in case I somehow botched them).

So Harden seems to look a lot more like Steph Curry than "rangz" would indicate and has plenty of reasons to be ahead of the non-alpha title guys. Why is he about to be outvoted by almost all of them (and maybe 6 spots behind Nash!) and somehow have Bob Pettit squished in between him and those guys?

A Requiem for the 2018 Houston Rockets or "Are we sure Harden didn't play on a top 5 healthy team ever?" or "**** Chris Paul's hamstring"

Chris Paul's hamstring. **** that thing. Mike D'Antoni might be widely recognized as a genius coach forever if that that thing stays healthy. Daryl Morey's revolutionizing of the NBA and his team building might be cemented as legendary if that thing stays healthy. Chris Paul gets his championship. And James Harden might be considered the leader of a top 5 team ever if that thing stays healthy.

The 2018 Rockets were very good. 65-17 and +8.21 SRS. But that belies their real strength. James Harden and Chris Paul only played 49 games together. The Rockets were 44-5 with a +11.0 SRS. That's a 74 win pace. When Clint Capela also played, they were 42-3 with a +12.1 SRS. That's a 77 win pace (it was actually 41-2 before losing the 2nd to last game). Chris Paul missed 24 games. James Harden missed a career high (at the time) 10 games. Capela missed 8 games. And other than PJ Tucker, Capela's 74 games led the team. Gordon/Ariza/Mbah-a-moute/Anderson also missed a combined 65 games (13 to 21 each).

How does that compare?
1967 76ers (68-13): 6 best guys played 80 or 81 games
1972 Lakers (69-13): Jerry west played 77, rest of top 5 played 80+
1983 76ers (65-17): Erving played 72 and Jones off the bench played 74, but mostly 77-80 games
1996 Bulls (72-10): Rodman 64 games but basically no other major missed games (Longley missed some)
2016 Warriors (73-9): the big 3 missed 6 combined games

You win lots of game by being healthy. Or you are the 2018 Rockets and you just never lose when healthy. Now would the Rockets have really won 77 games if healthy? Obviously not. And can you expect absolutely perfect health? No. But what if they had 1983 Sixer or 1996 Bulls health? Chris Paul plays 74 games, Harden maybe 76, Capela 78. That team is at least winning 68 and takes on a new level of dominance only being behind the big 4 (69, 69, 72, 73). And honestly, 69 and 70 don't seem out of reach, especially since 70 wouldn't have the kind of pressure and teams gunning for you it did before the Warriors won 73 two years before.

Imagine a 69 or 70 win Rockets team goes into the playoffs. That's a team chasing an all-time legacy.

And that team was great in the 1st 2 rounds. In the 2018 Rockets/2020 Lakers thread, someone posted point differentials through 3 quarters. It was to boost the Lakers case, because they got outscored a lot during garbage time. But it turned out the Rockets were really good as well.

Through 2 rounds against teams who weren't top 5 all-time teams, against teams with an average +3.9 SRS, the Rockets MOV through 3 quarters was 11.2. That compares to (I didn't check these numbers except the 2017 Warriors, someone else posted them):

2020 Lakers +8.3 points (average SRS +1.9)
2017 Warriors +9.0 (average SRS +3.4 but much lower without Kawhi for the Spurs, other 3 opponents +2.2)
2014 Spurs +7.7 (average SRS +4.5)
2001 Lakers +9.8 (average SRS +5.5)
2018 Warriors 8.6 (average SRS +3.3)

The 2018 Rockets were extremely good. What if they had followed their +11.7 SRS 1st Round and +14.7 SRS 2nd Round and then somehow, some way taken down the 2018 Warriors with a healthy Chris Paul before smacking the Cavs around? Where is that team ranked all-time? Nothing about Harden has changed. He just has a healthy best teammate. And is 33 year old, never been out of the 2nd round Chris Paul really so good that 68+ wins and a dominant title is expected? I'm thinking no. Now the 1967 76ers did smack the 1967 Celtics around by 10 ppg but they lost 4 playoff games in 3 rounds. They were basically at the same regular season SRS completely healthy (+8.5) as the Rockets injured. Wilt gets a ton of credit (and should) for being on such a dominant team. And that's peak Wilt for most people.

And yet James Harden with a prime but not peak Chris Paul managed to be the best player on a team every bit as dominant, just not as healthy. And it wasn't Harden's health that was the problem. This isn't to knock Wilt. But to point to a proof of concept that you can create a really, really great, all-time type team with James Harden as the best player. A team better than the vast majority of champions throughout history. And significantly better than a number of champions. All that separated Harden from his ring and a much better legacy was either good health for his best teammate or not having a ridiculous opponent. And there's no reason to think 2019 or 2020 Harden couldn't have accomplished just as much if those were the years he got a great team around him. Anyway, **** Chris Paul's hamstring.

Great post f4p.

I got a bit of a chuckle out of the final "**** Chris Paul's hamstring."
You've maybe convinced me to nudge Harden ahead of Barkley on my ATL; though I don't think I'll change my vote order (for strategic reasons) itt.

As a tiny counterpoint, I did want to provide a little more detail on the box-comparison in the cited Rockets/Warriors series's....

Stats from 2015/18/19 Series
Harden: 30.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 5.9 apg, 58.0 TS% (-3.4% from regular season), 21.9 Game Score
Steph: 26.3 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 5.4 apg, 59.5 TS% (-5.9% from regular season), 19.2 Game Score

It's worth noting that Steph averaged 2.7 topg in those, while Harden averaged 4.4 topg. That ain't nothin', and 4.4 tov takes a little of the shine off of Harden's statline. Still pretty awesome, but jsia.


As to why he's perceived the way he is......
I do suspect a lot of people just hated the way he played: with the travelling step-backs and bully-ball to go to the line over and over. I think for many it seemed a "gimmicky" way of scoring; almost like a loophole in the rules. And whether they'd like to admit it or not, it probably influences overall opinion.
But the thing is: other players were free to do the same; but none did so as well as Harden. So.....credit where credit is due.

His all-time bad defense in some years hurts a bit too (though his overall impact profile is still pretty good).

The playoff choker label, I agree, is at least a bit overused and/or misleading.


As I've mentioned in other contexts: player perception is STRONGLY influenced by external [i.e. out of the player's control] factors, whether people like to admit this or not.

What if the refs don't blow the shotclock calls game 6 '98 Finals?
What if Rodman doesn't have a public cancerous melt-down and go AWOL on defense key possessions in '95 WCF?
What if John Starks doesn't go 2 for 18 from the field (0 of 11 from 3pt) in game 7 of the '94 Finals?

And yeah: Chris Paul's ****ing hamstring.

The perception/outlook/hierarchy of SO many players could be vastly different if not for these things.......which are all almost ENTIRELY independent of Malone/Stockton, Robinson, Ewing, or Harden.


Anyway, solid post.

[tsherkin]

I did really like Nash's floater and pull-up game, though you don't draw as many fouls on them as taking it right to the rack,

That is certainly true, though it didn't seem to bother his personal scoring efficiency. He was a career 60.5% TS guy, 61.7% in Phoenix. Buckets in transition, 3pt shooting, FT shooting. Dude had 4 50/40/90 seasons, including a run of three in a row, so he didn't need the boost that much, heh.

But career ts% favors Stockton (both great and only by a little) so Stockton has to be beating Nash somewhere.

Stockton did do a considerably better job of drawing fouls. That said, his career TS% is 60.8%, so I wouldn't make a platform out of his superior efficiency, heh.

The problem is that I feel it's close on that end, that Stockton is clearly the better defender and the more durable, and yet Nash went in a few picks ago and Stockton hasn't got nominated yet.

I suspect that the 2 MVPs and riding the forefront of the change in offensive style means a lot to people. And of course, doing it in a slower environment while shouldering more offensive responsibility, particularly when Amare was injured. And then also, 05 and 06 look pretty good for Nash in the postseason, while Stockton is a notable playoff dropper.

To illustrate.

RS Stockton: 13.1 ppg, 10.5 apg, 51.5% FG, 38.4% 3P (1.5 3PA/g), 54.1% 2FG, 60.8% %TS
PS Stockton: 13.4 ppg, 10.1 apg, 47.3% FG, 32.6% 3P (1.9 3PA/g), 50.7% 2FG, 56.8% TS

RS 88-98 Stockton: 15.3 ppg, 12.5 apg, 52.4% FG, 39.4% 3P (1.9 3PA/g), 55.4% 2FG, 62.0% TS
PS 88-98 Stockton: 14.9 ppg, 11.1 apg, 47.7% FG, 32.4% 3P (2.2 3PA/g), 51.6% 2FG, 57.3% TS

You see the roughly 5% drop in efficiency, the tail-off in 3pt shooting and the notable drop in FG% below the arc in the playoffs?

Nash's career slash line is 49/42.8/90.4 in the RS; it's 47.3/40.6/90.0 in the playoffs. In Phoenix, his PS slash line is 49.7% / 38.2% / 89.8%. He was a little more resilient in the playoffs than Stockton, who faded a lot like Malone, particularly in longer postseasons.

Something to think about.

Of course Stockton was a very good player. He was durable, he was smart. He generally made very good decisions and he was perfect for Sloan's system. When he was younger, he had good end to end speed and he was a crafty little bastard, no question about it. He wasn't as dynamic off the bounce and he wasn't as good a shooter; he wasn't really close at the line, nor from 3. He was also like a < 12 FGA/g player, so his specific percentages are curated to some extent with how he selected his shots. Nash matched or exceeded Stockton's career-high in FGA/g a half-dozen different times. Now, some of that is from free throws reducing FGAs, because their usage rate is actually quite similar, to be fair. But there is a notable difference in 3pt volume and Stockton's suppressed overall volume does contribute some to his percentages, and to his assist output. And if we're speaking of Nash's offensive teammates, we do have to mention Karl Malone, who was around longer and healthier than Stoudemire. Other than that, Nash's teammates were mostly just flavor-of-the-week shooters and one athletic wing to run with him in transition. That isn't far different than having Jeff Malone/Hornacek, corner 3pt specialists or guys like Tyrone Corbin, Bryon Russell, etc. The Channing Frye's of the world aren't what made Nash successful.

In 2006, the Suns trotted out Shawn Marion, Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Leandro Barbosa, half a season of Kurt Thomas, 26 games of Tim Thomas, James Jones and Eddie House. That's a bunch of spot-up shooters, an athletic wing who had no iso scoring skills whatsoever and was a mediocre 3pt shooter, and a surprise season from Boris Diaw, a 23 year-old in his 3rd season who would immediately look worse after leaving Phoenix (like, in the same season as the trade to Charlotte).

Then in 2010, they popped a 115.3 team ORTG, which I believe was the all-time record at that point. Higher than 05, higher than the Showtime Lakers. Oh no, excuse me, the 88 Celtics were a tenth of a point higher, actually. But still, one of the best seasons we've ever seen on offense. And this with Amare in a slightly reduced role, trotting out Jason Richardson, the corpse of Grant Hill, Channing Frye started half that season, Jared Dudley was a big fixture, Marion was gone by then (the Shaq trade). A very different team environment, Amare notwithstanding, and the best results yet. Seasons like that are a big part of why people look at Nash vs. Stockton a little differently, IMHO. Nash was as 17/11 guy on about 51/43/94 in the RS, and put up about 18/10 on 52/38/89 in the playoffs as they made it to the WCFs and fell to the eventual repeat-champion Lakers.

By series.

POR: 15.2, 9.8. 46.7%, 47.1%, 89.7%.
SAS: 22.0 ppg, 7.8 apg, 55.7% FG, 45.5% 3P, 88.2% FT. Dropped 33 in the opener (leading all scorers) and they swept.

LAL: 17.7 ppg, 11.8 apg, 52.9% FG, 27.3% 3P, 89.7% FT. He went for 21/9 in the final game, shot 8/11 from the field, 2/5 from 3, but the 2nd quarter killed them. The Suns only managed 19 points and the Lakers managed 28. The team was 7/18 from the field, 4/9 inside the arc. And Kobe killed them. He had 4 games of 36+, including a 40-pointer in the opener. I think it was his last truly spectacular postseason performance, actually. Anyway, tough series but the better team won. Nash played quite well, though, even if he struggled from 3 (he was a 64% TS player that series regardless).

Again, it's stuff like that people see versus Stockton's playoff drop-off. Shifting rosters, still success. And he wasn't a trivial part of the Donn Nelson Mavericks and their offensive success either. He did quite well in 02 and 03, despite having to share the ball with a bunch of iso ballers. In 04, he shot poorly but led the playoffs in APG. And then yeah, he erupted in 05 and 06. Stockton never averaged more than 19.5 ppg in a postseason other than the 3-game loss to the Warriors in 89, but Nash did it over 20 and 15 games in 2005 and 2006, which is also where some of the postseason scoring discussion is generated from over these two.

[penbeast0]

And again, we have Nash in already or I'd argue more, lol. Stockton v. Ewing or Kawhi or whoever is a different argument.