OhayoKD wrote:-> unlike Stockton, led good offenses without the best offensive players of the 90's
When did it happen?
Moderators: trex_8063, PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0
OhayoKD wrote:-> unlike Stockton, led good offenses without the best offensive players of the 90's
70sFan wrote:OhayoKD wrote:-> unlike Stockton, led good offenses without the best offensive players of the 90's
When did it happen?
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
penbeast0 wrote:OhayoKD wrote:...
-> unlike Stockton, he directed teammates where to go as the bulls primary on-court decision-maker...
I love Pippen and am not going to denigrate him to try to prop up other players, but who do you think was directing Utah's offense?
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
OhayoKD wrote:Vote
1. James Harden, played the best team ever(-iggy) to a draw, did it again the next year with weaker support, and then had an all-time rs and playoff carry job in 2020 playing great against one of the best defenses ever with injury nuking his co-star and mediocre spacing.
Wierd that he's going to go multiple spots lower than Durant given KD+Curry+Klay+Dray was unable to gain seperation from his team when he had backend of his prime Chris Paul. Also excellent longevity dueling the westbrook-less +9 srs thunder to a draw the first year he had an opportunity to shine a year removed from being the opposing defenses' primary focus on a statistically all-time non-champion.
People have pushed for Barkley, but Harden's just seems like a stronger version. Charles probably shouldn't be voted in when contemporaries that looked similarly capable as #1's like Pippen and Ewing haven't even been nominated
2. Pippen
A. Skillset
-> excellent creator, even when we limit creation to passing:While he was a phenomenal finisher and transition player, Pippen’s best offensive attribute was his passing. By my estimates, he dolled out “good” or “great” passes on about 3 plays per 100, which, for comparison, was slightly behind John Stockton’s rate.
-> unlike Stockton, he also broke defenses down as a penetrator with a legitimate scoring threat
-> unlike Stockton, he directed teammates where to go as the bulls primary on-court decision-maker
-> unlike Stockton, led good offenses without the best offensive players of the 90's
Also unlike Stockton was arguably the best ever non-big defensively, coordinating teammates as a floor-general, making more plays on the perimeter than anyone, being the bulls primary help defender and also functioning as a co-primary paint protector:Spoiler:
Chicago's defense was average before Pippen(and grant's) ascension in the second half of 1990. Their offense was good but not historic. At his apex, doing as much as he could, Jordan had done a commendable job(or at least most of the commendable job) turning a 27-win team into a 53-win one(full-strength ratings here), but it was the help that elevated the Bulls into a legitimate title threat in 1990 and then a dynasty for near the next decade with Pippen as the guy seeing the biggest jump in raw-production and the biggest jump in load/responsibility(on both ends).
He proceded to lead a contender in 1994 in spite of intense internal conflict and the bulls stayed very good in 1995 despite the best and 3rd best players missing(with Scottie filing a trade request).
Notably the Bulls defense consistently elevated in the postseason, something which was not happening when it was just micheal/oakley/sam vincient. Using san's rolling srs, there were years where the defense outpaced the offense. Consider playoff scottie also saw a general "simple box" improvement, proceeded to lead the bulls to an elevated post-season outing in 1994, and then played a signficant role nearly knocking off the 67-win Lakers post-prime, and the notion Scottie wasn't also a playoff elevator seems detached from reality.
In fact, Pippen managed to anchor, by sans rolling ratings, the 7th and 22nd best playoff defenses ever in 96 and 98 respectively. He was arguably as close as any non-big has ever come to being a defensive superstar. And he was also someone who could lead good offenses in the absence of overwhelming talent. I think that combination demands induction sooner rather than later. Even if you pay no heed to the team-success, some of which came without Micheal. People speculate he lacked the intangibles of an alpha, but the results disagree.
OhayoKD wrote:70sFan wrote:OhayoKD wrote:-> unlike Stockton, led good offenses without the best offensive players of the 90's
When did it happen?
+2 when pippen played in 94, +1 in 95 before jordan came back
70sFan wrote:OhayoKD wrote:70sFan wrote:When did it happen?
+2 when pippen played in 94, +1 in 95 before jordan came back
Good is an overstatement then.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
LA Bird wrote:Vote: James Harden
Nom: Reggie Miller
Copy pasting f4p's long post on Harden:Spoiler:
I've said enough on Pettit already but it still surprises me how much heavy lifting a single game can do for a player's reputation. Consistent playoff dropoff every year and he was averaging 21.6 ppg on 44.8% TS in the championship run before the last game (compared to Hagan's 29.0 ppg on 59.0% TS). One 50 point game should not put him above all criticism. If Pettit had consistently maintained his regular season level, I would be voting for him in the top 25 or even higher... but he didn't.
For nomination, the top candidates seem to be Frazier, Reggie, Kawhi and I am cool with any of them being up next. I also have Davis on my list coming up soon so I am kind of surprised MyUniBroDavis hasn't already started pushing for him
HeartBreakKid wrote:LA Bird wrote:I've said enough on Pettit already but it still surprises me how much heavy lifting a single game can do for a player's reputation. Consistent playoff dropoff every year and he was averaging 21.6 ppg on 44.8% TS in the championship run before the last game (compared to Hagan's 29.0 ppg on 59.0% TS). One 50 point game should not put him above all criticism. If Pettit had consistently maintained his regular season level, I would be voting for him in the top 25 or even higher... but he didn't.
It seems like to me that Bob is pretty close to his regular season level (which is quite high, is it not?). Also, why do you keep comparing him to Hagen?
70sFan wrote:OhayoKD wrote:70sFan wrote:When did it happen?
+2 when pippen played in 94, +1 in 95 before jordan came back
Good is an overstatement then.
LA Bird wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:LA Bird wrote:I've said enough on Pettit already but it still surprises me how much heavy lifting a single game can do for a player's reputation. Consistent playoff dropoff every year and he was averaging 21.6 ppg on 44.8% TS in the championship run before the last game (compared to Hagan's 29.0 ppg on 59.0% TS). One 50 point game should not put him above all criticism. If Pettit had consistently maintained his regular season level, I would be voting for him in the top 25 or even higher... but he didn't.
It seems like to me that Bob is pretty close to his regular season level (which is quite high, is it not?). Also, why do you keep comparing him to Hagen?
No, his RS and PO are not close. As I've said earlier already, Pettit's advanced metrics went down every single year except 63. His second highest WS/48 in the playoffs is even worse than his career worst in the regular season. His RS performance is at another level (especially 56-59 RS) and I have no issue if people were to vote for Pettit here based on that. But guys talk about him like he was as dominant in the playoffs simply because he won a ring and dropped 50 once. That's like ESPN-level analysis. A single game shouldn't define a player's overall career, even if it's the close out game in the Finals. Just because you put in the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle doesn't mean you are most responsible for putting in all the pieces beforehand. If Pettit was so good at stepping up when it matters, how did he do in all the other playoff games over his career? (Hint: not nearly as great).
I point out the comparison to Hagan because many people like to think Pettit didn't have a teammate who literally peaked higher than him in the postseason. I also compare Pettit to Schayes because he is an actual example of someone who maintained their RS performance into the PO from that era at the same position.
falcolombardi wrote:Somethingh to remember is that the average post season defense a team facea is fairly stronger to way stronger than the average regular season defense (except maybe for weird runs like lakers in the early 80's and all those ass defensive teams in the west)
So having only a slight drop off in the playoffs is virtually the same as not having any drop off
While he was a phenomenal finisher and transition player, Pippen’s best offensive attribute was his passing. By my estimates, he dolled out “good” or “great” passes on about 3 plays per 100, which, for comparison, was slightly behind John Stockton’s rate.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
f4p wrote:I will copy and paste from the last thread.
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.