RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #32 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 10/9/23)

[AEnigma]

Of the top 20 players in career VORP (RS + playoffs combined) only 2 of them aren’t voted in so far. #3 Stockton and #20 Kidd. It’s honestly getting kinda weird and puzzling how low everyone’s been on Stockton so far.

You might find it less weird and puzzling if you paid attention to the criticisms rather than repeating VORP ranks.

It's always "well he didn't peak that high". Never mind that the guys who actually did peak extraordinarily high like Jokic, Giannis, and Kawhi all went extremely low too. Like if it's all about peak, Kawhi should be in the top 20. If it's all about value over the course of a career, Stockton should be top 15. I don't see a consistent argument that keeps both out of the top 30.

In other words, you are puzzled because all you can see are strawmen.

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: John Stockton
Don't know what's left to be said about him at this point. Was an all-timer by impact stats at ages where most superstar guards are complete non-factors if they're still even in the league. More win shares than any player except Kareem, LeBron, Wilt, Malone, and MJ. Should really be swapped with Mikan.

Alternate: Kawhi Leonard
All-time peak, was possibly the best playoff scorer of all-time and the best wing defender of all-time simultaneously. Playoff injuries have been an issue but they haven't stopped him from winning Finals MVP on 2 different teams.

Nominate: Anthony Davis
4th all-time in PER, 5th all-time in playoff PER, 6th all-time in playoff WS/48. Elite defender. 35th all-time in POY points. Every player ahead of him that hasn't been voted in yet peaked before 1980.

Alternate: Jason Kidd
20th all-time in VORP, widely considered the best defensive PG of all-time. Finished a very close second in the MVP race in 2002.

[iggymcfrack]

You might find it less weird and puzzling if you paid attention to the criticisms rather than repeating VORP ranks.

It's always "well he didn't peak that high". Never mind that the guys who actually did peak extraordinarily high like Jokic, Giannis, and Kawhi all went extremely low too. Like if it's all about peak, Kawhi should be in the top 20. If it's all about value over the course of a career, Stockton should be top 15. I don't see a consistent argument that keeps both out of the top 30.

In other words, you are puzzled because all you can see are strawmen.

You think that's a straw man? If the argument against Stockton isn't that he didn't peak that high, what is it?

[Owly]

That’s a fair point about Frazier, but I think he was the best player on the 1973 Knicks in a similar way to Isiah Thomas with the Bad Boys Pistons—the best of an ensemble cast. But it’s a fair point.

I question the idea that Isiah was the best player on an ensemble cast, to be honest.

The phrasing makes this ambiguous here. So, for the sake of making your point clear, does the questioning relate to best player or ensemble cast?

[AEnigma]

It's always "well he didn't peak that high". Never mind that the guys who actually did peak extraordinarily high like Jokic, Giannis, and Kawhi all went extremely low too. Like if it's all about peak, Kawhi should be in the top 20. If it's all about value over the course of a career, Stockton should be top 15. I don't see a consistent argument that keeps both out of the top 30.

In other words, you are puzzled because all you can see are strawmen.

You think that's a straw man? If the argument against Stockton isn't that he didn't peak that high, what is it?

The straw man is the idea people are stuck between some binary peak measure wherein either Kawhi or Stockton must make the top thirty. You may as well have started complaining about Walton or McGrady.

And then accompanying that straw man is the casual assertion that Stockton’s total career value must be top fifteen by any measure that does not prioritise peak value.

[tsherkin]

What efficient scorers did Havlicek play with during his best years? Do you think he should have given more scoring chances to Don Nelson?

Yeah, he was doing what was needed for his team. I hate this idea that because you shoot a lot on low efficiency you somehow don't have a high basketball IQ. Certain teams need guys like Havlicek to shoot simply because other players cannot, either because they cannot handle that load or they don't have enough confidence. Guys like Jerry West and Lou Hudson have mentioned how difficult it is to shoot 20+ times night in and night out, and many players cannot do that. Even Rick Barry has touched on this point, referring to how he and Elgin would take "hard shots" when other players cannot and how difficult it is to actually get so many shots off by hustling and moving--it requires an incredible amount of stamina that is not possible for most.

Players that are more efficient on lower volume tend to be called higher basketball IQ, but in some cases you could argue that their team needed them to be more aggressive and they didn't realize that.

So I've had this conversation before. Havlicek's MOST efficient scoring seasons happened right as he hit his volume peak post-Russell. 24.2, 28.9 and 27.5 ppg at 104, 103 and 102 TS+ those seasons. Then he had like 4 years at 101. But he was also playing 41.6, then led the league in consecutive years with 45.4 and 45.1 mpg, so that volume is spread out and his proportion of team possessions isn't as large as his FGA/g might imply. He was a 45.7% FG guy those years, and in those first two, had the best FTr seasons of his career.

Having said that, he definitely wasn't very efficient relative to his other volume-scoring peers. He was more a B- or even C-tier kind of guy at his peak. A selection of some of the other 20+ ppg scorers in the league in that stretch, with PPG and TS+:

1970:
Havlicek, 24.2, 104
Jerry West, 31.2 (scoring title), 112
rookie Kareem, 28.8, 108
Billy Cunningham, 26.1, 102
Earl Monroe, 23.4. 102
Chet Walker, 21.5, 109
Willis Reed, 21.7, 108
Hal Greer, 22.0, 99
Walt Frazier, 20.9, 113
Gail Goodrich, 20.0, 105
Spencer Haywood, 30.0 (scoring title), 108
Bob Love, 21.0, 105
Oscar Robertson, 25.3, 113

1971:

Havlicek, 28.9, 103
Jerry West, 26.9, 114
Kareem, 31.7 (scoring title), 121
Billy C, 23.0, 104
Earl Monroe, 21.4. 100
Chet Walker, 22.0, 108
Willis Reed, 20.9, 102
Walt Frazier, 21.7, 111
Spencer Haywood, 20.6, 101
Bob Love, 25.2, 103

1972:

Havlicek, 27.5, 102
Kareem, 34.8 (scoring title), 119
Jerry West, 25.8, 108; (led the league in APG that year as his scoring volume dipped)
Billy C, 23.3, 102
Chet Walker, 22.0, 116
Walt Frazier, 23.2, 114
Spencer Haywood, 26.2, 105
Gail Goodrich, 25.9, 109
Nate Archibald, 28.2, 113
Bob Love, 25.8, 97

[tsherkin]

That’s a fair point about Frazier, but I think he was the best player on the 1973 Knicks in a similar way to Isiah Thomas with the Bad Boys Pistons—the best of an ensemble cast. But it’s a fair point.

I question the idea that Isiah was the best player on an ensemble cast, to be honest.

The phrasing makes this ambiguous here. So, for the sake of making your point clear, does the questioning relate to best player or ensemble cast?

I question that he was the best player on that ensemble cast, pardon my ambiguity.

[iggymcfrack]

In other words, you are puzzled because all you can see are strawmen.

You think that's a straw man? If the argument against Stockton isn't that he didn't peak that high, what is it?

The straw man is the idea people are stuck between some binary peak measure wherein either Kawhi or Stockton must make the top thirty. You may as well have started complaining about Walton or McGrady.

And then accompanying that straw man is the casual assertion that Stockton’s total career value must be top fifteen by any measure that does not prioritise peak value.

A straw man is when you attack someone else's bad argument that doesn't exist. Stockton being top 15 if you prioritize career value isn't a straw man, it's my personal assertion. Personally, I prioritize peak higher than career value relative to most and I still have Stockton top 15.

[AEnigma]

You think that's a straw man? If the argument against Stockton isn't that he didn't peak that high, what is it?

The straw man is the idea people are stuck between some binary peak measure wherein either Kawhi or Stockton must make the top thirty. You may as well have started complaining about Walton or McGrady.

And then accompanying that straw man is the casual assertion that Stockton’s total career value must be top fifteen by any measure that does not prioritise peak value.

A straw man is when you attack someone else's bad argument that doesn't exist. Stockton being top 15 if you prioritize career value isn't a straw man, it's my personal assertion.

Which is why I did not call that part a straw man, did I?

Personally, I prioritize peak higher than career value relative to most and I still have Stockton top 15.

Yeah, because he fares well in what you prioritise higher than anyone here.

[penbeast0]

That’s a fair point about Frazier, but I think he was the best player on the 1973 Knicks in a similar way to Isiah Thomas with the Bad Boys Pistons—the best of an ensemble cast. But it’s a fair point.

I'm curious who you think was better or close to better than Frazier on those Knicks.

Reed is limping that year and playing behind Jerry Lucas for much of the time (unlike 70 where it is indeed arguable whether Reed or Frazier was the main man), Lucas never played strong defense and now isn't a stronge scorer either. Bradley and Monroe are significantly behind Frazier in points, efficiency, assists, rebounding, and defensive ability.

The closest one to even a B argument is Dave Debusschere who might have been Frazier's equal as a defender, rebounds a bit more (though Frazier much better for a 1 than DeBusschere for a 4), passes the ball less (though the positional differenial makes up a lot of that difference) and is a significantly weaker scorer both in volume and efficiency despite playing a position that is more efficient league wide. The idea that Frazier isn't the clear best player on that year's team is a pretty weak argument.

Isiah in 89 was scoring less than Dantley (presumably why he pushed that trade), easily less efficient offensively than Dumars, Dantley, or Aguirre (or Laimbeer but Laimbeer is lower volume), and has no argument defensively against Laimbeer, Dumars, or Rodman (more valuable than Mahorn despite Mahorn starting). In the playoffs, Isiah tried to shoot more but his efficiency dropped even more relative to his teammates and Dumars won finals MVP.

In 90, Isiah has a strong playoff and can at least be said to the best postseason player on the team, regular season is again a question with his taking a larger percentage of shots but scoring even less efficiently both overall and relative to his teammates.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm curious who you think was better or close to better than Frazier on those Knicks.

Reed is limping that year and playing behind Jerry Lucas for much of the time (unlike 70 where it is indeed arguable whether Reed or Frazier was the main man), Lucas never played strong defense and now isn't a stronge scorer either. Bradley and Monroe are significantly behind Frazier in points, efficiency, assists, rebounding, and defensive ability.

The closest one to even a B argument is Dave Debusschere who might have been Frazier's equal as a defender, rebounds a bit more (though Frazier much better for a 1 than DeBusschere for a 4), passes the ball less (though the positional differenial makes up a lot of that difference) and is a significantly weaker scorer both in volume and efficiency despite playing a position that is more efficient league wide. The idea that Frazier isn't the clear best player on that year's team is a pretty weak argument.

Isiah in 89 was scoring less than Dantley (presumably why he pushed that trade), easily less efficient offensively than Dumars, Dantley, or Aguirre (or Laimbeer but Laimbeer is lower volume), and has no argument defensively against Laimbeer, Dumars, or Rodman (more valuable than Mahorn despite Mahorn starting). In the playoffs, Isiah tried to shoot more but his efficiency dropped even more relative to his teammates and Dumars won finals MVP.

In 90, Isiah has a strong playoff and can at least be said to the best postseason player on the team, regular season is again a question with his taking a larger percentage of shots but scoring even less efficiently both overall and relative to his teammates.

Agreed that Frazier is likely far and away the best player on the 73 team and co #1 with Reed in 70. I think Frazier peaked slightly higher than Hondo but then Hondo's overall prime/longevity are much bigger. To me both Hondo and Frazier should still go ahead of Kawhi whose overall record is very spotty since 2019 outside of some series where he put up good box score numbers along with all the missed games and 1-2 playoff collapses.

[WestGOAT]

I saw penbeast mention that someone previously provided the numbers demonstrating how Frazier locked down opposing PGs in the playoffs, so I had a look myself:

Frazier during his prime [1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978]:

Code: Select all

 Season         Round          PLAYER   Age    MP   PTS   TSA   TS%  AST  TOV  STL   PF
   1969     E.D.Semis  Kevin Loughery 28.00 43.25 20.25 24.12 41.02 5.25 <NA> <NA> 4.00
   1969    E.D.Finals       Em Bryant 30.00 37.40 12.40 12.30 48.90 3.60 <NA> <NA> 4.20
   1969    E.D.Finals Larry Siegfried 29.00 24.00  9.00  9.50 47.40 3.00 <NA> <NA> 3.00
   1970     E.D.Semis     Earl Monroe 25.00 42.71 28.00 26.29 53.01 4.00 <NA> <NA> 3.29
   1970    E.D.Finals  Flynn Robinson 28.00 29.00 12.00 16.12 36.65 3.25 <NA> <NA> 2.75
   1970    E.D.Finals     Guy Rodgers 34.00 17.00  6.00  5.00 60.00 6.00 <NA> <NA> 3.00
   1970        Finals      Jerry West 31.00 47.86 31.29 29.29 53.96 7.71 <NA> <NA> 3.00
   1971     E.C.Semis    Walt Hazzard 28.00 40.40 14.00 17.70 38.80 5.40 <NA> <NA> 4.40
   1971    E.C.Finals     Earl Monroe 26.00 39.71 24.43 25.64 48.06 4.29 <NA> <NA> 3.57
   1972     E.C.Semis    Archie Clark 30.00 45.17 26.67 25.92 50.73 7.83 <NA> <NA> 2.50
   1972    E.C.Finals     Jo Jo White 25.00 39.20 22.60 24.40 46.52 4.40 <NA> <NA> 2.60
   1972        Finals      Jerry West 33.00 41.20 19.80 26.30 37.02 8.80 <NA> <NA> 2.40
   1973     E.C.Semis    Archie Clark 31.00 42.80 21.20 20.20 51.72 5.20 <NA> <NA> 4.00
   1973    E.C.Finals     Jo Jo White 26.00 43.71 23.57 25.50 45.96 5.14 <NA> <NA> 4.14
   1973        Finals      Jerry West 34.00 34.40 21.40 22.40 46.80 4.60 <NA> <NA> 2.80
   1974     E.C.Semis    Archie Clark 32.00 35.00 13.67 17.00 39.20 3.33 <NA> <NA> 3.33
   1974     E.C.Semis    Kevin Porter 23.00 37.25 16.50 18.38 44.25 5.75 <NA> <NA> 4.75
   1974    E.C.Finals     Jo Jo White 27.00 38.00 15.20 17.60 42.90 5.00 <NA> <NA> 4.60
   1975 E.C.1st Round   Calvin Murphy 26.00 36.67 20.67 21.17 48.93 5.00 <NA> 2.33 4.00

Stockton during his prime [1988,1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997]:

Code: Select all

 Season         Round             PLAYER   Age    MP   PTS   TSA   TS%   AST  TOV  STL   PF
   1988 W.C.1st Round       Terry Porter 24.00 37.25 17.00 14.62 58.52  7.00 3.25 2.50 3.25
   1988     W.C.Semis      Magic Johnson 28.00 38.57 18.71 16.71 55.49 10.29 3.86 1.00 2.00
   1989 W.C.1st Round    Winston Garland 24.00 38.67 14.00 14.83 47.37  4.33 1.00 1.33 3.67
   1990 W.C.1st Round         Greg Grant 23.00 17.00  4.00  6.00 33.30  3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
   1990 W.C.1st Round      Kevin Johnson 23.00 41.25 24.75 25.38 49.77 10.25 4.75 1.00 2.00
   1991 W.C.1st Round      Kevin Johnson 24.00 36.50 12.75 17.00 37.58  9.75 3.00 0.50 2.25
   1991     W.C.Semis       Terry Porter 27.00 38.40 22.20 18.10 62.28  6.80 2.20 1.80 2.40
   1992 W.C.1st Round         Doc Rivers 30.00 37.40 15.20 13.90 56.24  4.20 0.60 1.20 3.20
   1992     W.C.Semis        Gary Payton 23.00 28.67  5.33  5.00 59.27  3.33 0.67 0.67 1.67
   1992     W.C.Semis      Nate McMillan 27.00 33.00 10.00  9.25 54.10 10.50 2.00 3.50 4.00
   1992    W.C.Finals       Terry Porter 28.00 40.50 26.00 18.50 69.70  8.33 1.33 1.00 2.00
   1993 W.C.1st Round        Gary Payton 24.00 34.60 12.60 13.60 43.76  4.20 1.80 2.00 3.60
   1994 W.C.1st Round      Negele Knight 26.00 27.00  9.25 11.75 38.92  3.00 1.75 0.75 2.25
   1994     W.C.Semis Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf 24.00 32.20 15.80 16.00 47.72  3.40 0.80 0.60 2.20
   1994     W.C.Semis        Robert Pack 24.00 33.00 17.50 16.25 53.75  4.00 4.50 3.00 2.00
   1994    W.C.Finals        Kenny Smith 28.00 36.50 17.50 12.62 67.67  5.00 1.50 1.25 2.00
   1994    W.C.Finals        Sam Cassell 24.00 28.00 14.00 14.00 50.00  4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00
   1995 W.C.1st Round        Kenny Smith 29.00 34.80 17.40 11.00 75.26  5.40 2.40 0.40 2.20
   1996 W.C.1st Round     Rod Strickland 29.00 40.40 20.60 20.40 50.30  8.40 2.40 1.00 2.80
   1996     W.C.Semis      Avery Johnson 30.00 38.33 10.83 12.42 42.25  7.00 2.83 2.50 2.17
   1996    W.C.Finals        Gary Payton 27.00 42.14 20.71 18.21 56.49  6.00 3.71 1.57 3.43
   1997 W.C.1st Round     Darrick Martin 25.00 31.02 11.00 11.75 44.55  5.50 1.00 0.00 2.50
   1997 W.C.1st Round    Pooh Richardson 30.00 16.68  2.00  3.50 28.60  3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
   1997     W.C.Semis      Nick Van Exel 25.00 41.83 19.20 18.20 52.42  6.40 2.20 1.60 2.20
   1997    W.C.Finals       Matt Maloney 25.00 31.49  6.50  8.25 36.82  3.17 1.83 0.67 2.33
   1997        Finals         Ron Harper 33.00 29.88  5.50  6.75 35.67  2.75 0.50 1.25 2.50
   1997        Finals         Steve Kerr 31.00 24.62  4.50  4.50 37.50  0.50 0.50 0.00 2.00

At face value, it looks like Stockton had trouble more often than Frazier keeping the other PG in check. So was Stockton that much better on offense than Frazier to elevate him higher, even with the longevity advantage? It doesn't seem like their respective prime duration is that much different.

Note I put this quickly together, so I'll look into adjusting PTS, TSA, TS% relative to regular season numbers to make the comparison more apple-like. If anyone has any posession data for these playoff games/series that'd be great, then I could also calc (rel) ORTg/DRtg.


Of course, it's not that straight-foward a comparison and it's not a given that Frazier/Stockton guarded the opposing PG. Frazier probably also has better defensive support than Stockton with Willis Reed and Dave DeBusschere backing him up, but since I had the data I was very curious to see how this looked like.

[Doctor MJ]

A couple quick thoughts on the topics folks are discussing right now:

- I really do think that the mainstream perspective on Frazier got crazy-skewed based on the narratives in place at the time. I think the basketball cognoscenti had basically given up on the idea that non-bigs could lead teams to championships, and so we're looking to identify a team with a big and then give him the MVP credit when his team did well. For New York, this meant that it was Reed's team, and they didn't just make him the default candidate for the Knicks for any given award, but tended to want to write stories about the Knicks through the lens of Reed's experience.

By contrast, while we still have narrative inertia on team's today that could result in the same sort of thing, I'd say we're more focused on those we can associate with turnarounds, which is essentially a coarse form of WOWY-ism. And if you're doing the analysis like this, I think Frazier & DeBusschere become the guys you'd focus on for the Knicks more so than Reed. Not saying this would necessarily have been right either, just saying, could have been very different.

The thing about Frazier vs Reed of course is the way Reed got so badly hampered by injuries during the Knicks' core run. Here's a simple objective sense of it. The Knicks are a serious contending team for 6 playoff runs. Here's the leaderboard for most Games Started in victories playing majority minutes for that time period:

The Top 5:

1. Bill Bradley 33
(tie) Walt Frazier 33
(tie) Earl Monroe 33
4. Dave DeBusschere 32
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 31
(tie) Bob Dandridge 31
(tie) Oscar Robertson 31

Willis Reed clocks in in the 16th spot with a count of 19.

So yeah, the harsh truth is that Reed wasn't actually anywhere near up there with the other guys in terms of making those playoff wins happen, and it's less a question of whether Frazier should top him, and more a question if Reed really deserves to be above a guy like DeBusschere.

- On Stockton, I completely get how one could conclude that Stockton's career impact was Top 20 level and am not looking to say anyone is crazy for this.

But when I go through each year looking at Top 5 guys, Stockton just generally doesn't make the cut. Willing to listen to others who believe this is wrong, but as things stand, I only have him making my Top 5 one time ('96-97).

And yeah competition was tough...but I have Miller making the cut 5 times in the same period.

Now, this has everything to do with me looking closely at the playoffs, and being very impressed with Miller - more so than Stockton - so feel free to push back on that specifically, but as things stand, I just see Stockton as a guy who was generally more of a Top 10-ish guy.

And while I can understand someone having a criteria that would let a player go indefinitely high with enough Top 10-ish seasons, that's not how my criteria really works.

[tsherkin]

But when I go through each year looking at Top 5 guys, Stockton just generally doesn't make the cut.

That lines up with part of how I think of him. And the rest of it is that the way teams are constructed and the way title teams have gone, it's very rare that you have a guy who cannot lead his team in scoring actually leading his team to victory. The cost of adding that scoring on top of other talent is usually too high to invest in a dude who just didn't shoot. Dude has a single, 3-game postseason where he shot 15+ FGA/g, and they needed it from him at times. I don't mind so much in the RS, because they were cruising. The grinding pressure of Sloan's system and Malone's efficacy coupled to whomever their 3rd scorer was at the time plus their defense was a great setup... until you got deeper into the playoffs and needed more scoring support, particularly if/when Malone floundered. Or Hornacek floundered, etc.

Stockton was great, but he had limitations. He was pretty good end-to-end, but didn't have an explosive first step, he didn't have size, he didn't have elevation. He didn't have a lot of scoring aggression. He made safe plays inside the context of the system a lot of the time and he was an absolutely fantastic technical passer inside the opportunities developed through Utah's system. It's unsurprising that the team looks good in his minutes because he was a very intelligent coordinator for the team.

I think he was best deployed as a number 3, and Sloan just didn't like the type of player they needed badly next to Malone because he didn't like iso wings. SYSTEM TO THE DEATH was a little bit their weakness, particularly when a team like Chicago unleashed athletic wing hounds, even in their mid-30s. That length and mobility really caused disruptive issues for them and they could have used someone with better physical tools to combat that. Stockton just didn't have the juice to dial it up in the postseason enough (IMHO).

The results Utah enjoyed speak for themselves, yes? From 85-03, they won 50+ games 11 times, (7 of them from 94 onward, coinciding initially with Hornacek's arrival). They advanced past the first round 10 times, made the WCFs 5 times (include back-to-back Finals visits). That's pretty good.

But no one here is talking about Parish or McHale. No one is talking about Dumars. We aren't discussing Hal Greer or Chet Walker much (though I think I've seen some rumblings recently). We aren't talking about Kyrie, we aren't talking much yet about Draymond or Klay. We aren't talking about number 2s, in other words. We're still talking about guys who were at the top of the league or near to it and most of whom led teams to a title. Now, Stockton's a little different because he has some WILD stats and some crazy longevity, and that sets him apart from a lot of his other peers. It'll be a little shocking if we hit 35 and he isn't in, I'd imagine, and that makes some sense. He was an excellent player.

Having said that, we're starting to talk about Scottie. We're talking about Reggie. Traction for Hondo is building up. It's starting to make sense (at least to me, of course) that Stockton's name is really in the right range. Scottie is getting maybe a little bit of extra traction because in 94 (if not so much in 95), the Bulls didn't fall off as much as people expected. We haven't REALLY talked enough about how Armstrong and Grant stepped up, or about how they added Kerr, Kukoc and Longley that year, but I feel like 94 plays a lot for him. I wouldn't start a team with him in current league. In the 90s, though, it might have worked. They were 34-31 pre-Jordan in 95 after Ho Grant left, or about 43-win pace, a considerable fall-off from 55 in 94. 13-4 after Jordan returned. Some food for thought when we're talking up Scottie against some of his other #2 peers. Kawhi was great, but he has major longevity/durability issues. Someone like Stockton is well-poised to jump ahead of him.

Frazier's an interesting one, and perhaps a little more of a classical model for people to parse versus Stockton. A little more proactive and assertive than Stockton, too, but again, he suffers from a lack of Stockton's total longevity. So how much stock (hurr) do you put in RAPM for Stockton's low-minute late seasons versus their prime-to-prime matchups and difference in scoring prowess? An interesting conversation to have, and one which will be different depending on how people value peak/prime/longevity and all that, no doubt. Intriguing conversations in this thread. It's almost your time, penbeast! He's almost in, maybe even this round, hehe.

Jokes aside, Stockton WAS awesome, and he really ought to be in the top 35 until it's time to include some more young guns, I'd think.

[falcolombardi]

But when I go through each year looking at Top 5 guys, Stockton just generally doesn't make the cut.

That lines up with part of how I think of him. And the rest of it is that the way teams are constructed and the way title teams have gone, it's very rare that you have a guy who cannot lead his team in scoring actually leading his team to victory. The cost of adding that scoring on top of other talent is usually too high to invest in a dude who just didn't shoot. Dude has a single, 3-game postseason where he shot 15+ FGA/g, and they needed it from him at times. I don't mind so much in the RS, because they were cruising. The grinding pressure of Sloan's system and Malone's efficacy coupled to whomever their 3rd scorer was at the time plus their defense was a great setup... until you got deeper into the playoffs and needed more scoring support, particularly if/when Malone floundered. Or Hornacek floundered, etc.

Stockton was great, but he had limitations. He was pretty good end-to-end, but didn't have an explosive first step, he didn't have size, he didn't have elevation. He didn't have a lot of scoring aggression. He made safe plays inside the context of the system a lot of the time and he was an absolutely fantastic technical passer inside the opportunities developed through Utah's system. It's unsurprising that the team looks good in his minutes because he was a very intelligent coordinator for the team.

I think he was best deployed as a number 3, and Sloan just didn't like the type of player they needed badly next to Malone because he didn't like iso wings. SYSTEM TO THE DEATH was a little bit their weakness, particularly when a team like Chicago unleashed athletic wing hounds, even in their mid-30s. That length and mobility really caused disruptive issues for them and they could have used someone with better physical tools to combat that. Stockton just didn't have the juice to dial it up in the postseason enough (IMHO).

The results Utah enjoyed speak for themselves, yes? From 85-03, they won 50+ games 11 times, (7 of them from 94 onward, coinciding initially with Hornacek's arrival). They advanced past the first round 10 times, made the WCFs 5 times (include back-to-back Finals visits). That's pretty good.

But no one here is talking about Parish or McHale. No one is talking about Dumars. We aren't discussing Hal Greer or Chet Walker much (though I think I've seen some rumblings recently). We aren't talking about Kyrie, we aren't talking much yet about Draymond or Klay. We aren't talking about number 2s, in other words. We're still talking about guys who were at the top of the league or near to it and most of whom led teams to a title. Now, Stockton's a little different because he has some WILD stats and some crazy longevity, and that sets him apart from a lot of his other peers. It'll be a little shocking if we hit 35 and he isn't in, I'd imagine, and that makes some sense. He was an excellent player.

Having said that, we're starting to talk about Scottie. We're talking about Reggie. Traction for Hondo is building up. It's starting to make sense (at least to me, of course) that Stockton's name is really in the right range. Scottie is getting maybe a little bit of extra traction because in 94 (if not so much in 95), the Bulls didn't fall off as much as people expected. We haven't REALLY talked enough about how Armstrong and Grant stepped up, or about how they added Kerr, Kukoc and Longley that year, but I feel like 94 plays a lot for him. I wouldn't start a team with him in current league. In the 90s, though, it might have worked. They were 34-31 pre-Jordan in 95 after Ho Grant left, or about 43-win pace, a considerable fall-off from 55 in 94. 13-4 after Jordan returned. Some food for thought when we're talking up Scottie against some of his other #2 peers. Kawhi was great, but he has major longevity/durability issues. Someone like Stockton is well-poised to jump ahead of him.

Frazier's an interesting one, and perhaps a little more of a classical model for people to parse versus Stockton. A little more proactive and assertive than Stockton, too, but again, he suffers from a lack of Stockton's total longevity. So how much stock (hurr) do you put in RAPM for Stockton's low-minute late seasons versus their prime-to-prime matchups and difference in scoring prowess? An interesting conversation to have, and one which will be different depending on how people value peak/prime/longevity and all that, no doubt. Intriguing conversations in this thread. It's almost your time, penbeast! He's almost in, maybe even this round, hehe.

Jokes aside, Stockton WAS awesome, and he really ought to be in the top 35 until it's time to include some more young guns, I'd think.

I feel your post may be a bit harsh on sloan/utah thinking they didnt want a star wing scorer rather than they couldnt get one. (Granted i am not too knowledgeable on the deep utah jazz lore so maybe it was sloan decision to not trade for one of those?)

Also too harsh on 95 scottie imo, even at face value a slightly above .500 pace in a team with zero near all star talent is a fairly solid floor raising job. And i believe if not mistaken their srs was closer to a 50 win pace to boot. I think zeroing in the w-l record in a 50 game ish sample is too volatile (so is srs, which is why i would prefer to look at both)

[tsherkin]

I feel your post may be a bit harsh on sloan/utah thinking they didnt want a star wing scorer rather than they couldnt get one. (Granted i am not too knowledgeable on the deep utah jazz lore so maybe it was sloan decision to not trade for one of those?)

No, he didn't want an ISO scorer. He likely would have been fine with someone like, say, Reggie. He didn't have any issue with guys who handled, I mean Hornacek had been an AS guard himself and they fielded at least two different guys who had been 20+ ppg guards.

Also too harsh on 95 scottie imo, even at face value a slightly above .500 pace in a team with zero near all star talent is a fairly solid floor raising job. And i believe if not mistaken their srs was closer to a 50 win pace to boot. I think zeroing in the w-l record in a 50 game ish sample is too volatile (so is srs, which is why i would prefer to look at both)

No, not harsh, you just misread.

I don't BLAME Scottie for them dropping off like that. I specifically referenced Grant leaving for a reason. They lost an AS forward, of course they were going to fall off. But people try to use 94 to prop Scottie up more than is strictly sensible because there was a lot going on in 94 beyond just his performance, that's all.

[70sFan]

The biggest knock on Kawhi is, of course, longevity and injuries. It’s a big downside. But his longevity didn’t stop him from being the clear-cut best player on a championship team—something that all of the other nominees lack.

That's not true, Frazier was clearly the best player on 1973 team.

I’ve explained my Rick Barry nomination before. He was the best player on a title team, dragged his team to the finals in 1967 while posting extremely gaudy stats, and went to the finals in the ABA. He was consistently all-NBA first team. I think he should be nominated already, because I see his achievements as being above multiple current nominees.

The bolded part is questionable, considering that he had a teammate that was arguably better than him that year.

That’s a fair point about Frazier, but I think he was the best player on the 1973 Knicks in a similar way to Isiah Thomas with the Bad Boys Pistons—the best of an ensemble cast. But it’s a fair point.

As others already implied, I don't think you can create a reasonable argument that Frazier was not the best player in 1973 Knicks team. If you want to make a case for someone like DeBusschere, then we don't we start talking about Lowry and Gasol Vs Kawhi?

1970 is an open field, but Frazier improved from that point, while Reed became a roleplayer due to injuries. A lot of people equate Thomas runs to Frazier's, but I fail to see the comparison - outside of playing on good defensive minded rosters (but then you can also equate Kawhi to them).

[70sFan]

Of the top 20 players in career VORP (RS + playoffs combined) only 2 of them aren’t voted in so far. #3 Stockton and #20 Kidd. It’s honestly getting kinda weird and puzzling how low everyone’s been on Stockton so far.

You might find it less weird and puzzling if you paid attention to the criticisms rather than repeating VORP ranks.

It's always "well he didn't peak that high". Never mind that the guys who actually did peak extraordinarily high like Jokic, Giannis, and Kawhi all went extremely low too. Like if it's all about peak, Kawhi should be in the top 20. If it's all about value over the course of a career, Stockton should be top 15. I don't see a consistent argument that keeps both out of the top 30.

I think we should be aware that we don't need to deal with absolutes, you know? There is a lot of middle ground between "it's all about peak" and "it's all about longevity".

I am saying this as someone who would probably vote Stockton in already and who wouldn't have all the recent guys that high.

[tsherkin]

Of the top 20 players in career VORP (RS + playoffs combined) only 2 of them aren’t voted in so far. #3 Stockton and #20 Kidd. It’s honestly getting kinda weird and puzzling how low everyone’s been on Stockton so far.

You might find it less weird and puzzling if you paid attention to the criticisms rather than repeating VORP ranks.

It's always "well he didn't peak that high". Never mind that the guys who actually did peak extraordinarily high like Jokic, Giannis, and Kawhi all went extremely low too. Like if it's all about peak, Kawhi should be in the top 20. If it's all about value over the course of a career, Stockton should be top 15. I don't see a consistent argument that keeps both out of the top 30.

I think we should be aware that we don't need to deal with absolutes, you know? There is a lot of middle ground between "it's all about peak" and "it's all about longevity".

This is it. Everyone's on their own spot on a little balancing act of the different things which matter to them. Some people value longevity more than peak, some the other way around, some in the middle with a little lean in one direction or the other. Sometimes, there are other considerations. Sometimes, there are thresholds.

Like, with Kawhi. Leonard hasn't played 75 games in a season, ever. In 12 seasons, he's played 70+ games twice, missed a whole season, played 9 games in another season and played under 60 games 5 times overall. He's not really a guy who is regularly available for the season to the extent of other stars. He has 3 or 4 big-time seasons from an offensive production standpoint and only 3 seasons in the top 5 of the MVP vote.

What people will make of that information will differ. For some, the 4 seasons are enough, because that describes a pretty good peak. 50+ games in most of those seasons... and of course he has the accolades. Couple of DPOYs, he's hit Finals MVP once very clearly and another time that is up for some debate, steals title, he has been in that top 5 of the MVP vote, he's got rings, the Toronto ring in particular resonates well. There's stuff to talk about, it all boils down to the coefficient you put on each piece of the equation, right?

And then you have someone like Stockton, where one of his major claims is all of those end-career seasons he has for extra, non-contention value. Big-time RAPM stuff in those later seasons. And of course he was also a ridiculous iron man on top of the number of seasons. Stockton is 5th all-time in total games played in NBA history. Parish, Kareem, Vince Carter and Dirk Nowitzki are the only guys ahead of him. Karl Malone's behind him at #6, fittingly. Then KG and Kevin Willis, followed by the only active player, Lebron, 3 behind Willis. And indeed, he has some big assist and steals records, and the Jazz had six 112+ ORTG squads in the 90s, including 4 in a row from 95-98, which was a big deal then. The first one had them 10th in the league in 1990. The second had them 4th in 92. Then they were 4th, 2nd, 2nd and 1st from 95-98, which was quite the impressive run alongside Hornacek and Malone.

Like 70s says, there's some middle ground to examine here. There is a lot of information to parse and weigh.

[trex_8063]

I saw penbeast mention that someone previously provided the numbers demonstrating how Frazier locked down opposing PGs in the playoffs, so I had a look myself:

Frazier during his prime [1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978]:

Code: Select all

 Season         Round          PLAYER   Age    MP   PTS   TSA   TS%  AST  TOV  STL   PF
   1969     E.D.Semis  Kevin Loughery 28.00 43.25 20.25 24.12 41.02 5.25 <NA> <NA> 4.00
   1969    E.D.Finals       Em Bryant 30.00 37.40 12.40 12.30 48.90 3.60 <NA> <NA> 4.20
   1969    E.D.Finals Larry Siegfried 29.00 24.00  9.00  9.50 47.40 3.00 <NA> <NA> 3.00
   1970     E.D.Semis     Earl Monroe 25.00 42.71 28.00 26.29 53.01 4.00 <NA> <NA> 3.29
   1970    E.D.Finals  Flynn Robinson 28.00 29.00 12.00 16.12 36.65 3.25 <NA> <NA> 2.75
   1970    E.D.Finals     Guy Rodgers 34.00 17.00  6.00  5.00 60.00 6.00 <NA> <NA> 3.00
   1970        Finals      Jerry West 31.00 47.86 31.29 29.29 53.96 7.71 <NA> <NA> 3.00
   1971     E.C.Semis    Walt Hazzard 28.00 40.40 14.00 17.70 38.80 5.40 <NA> <NA> 4.40
   1971    E.C.Finals     Earl Monroe 26.00 39.71 24.43 25.64 48.06 4.29 <NA> <NA> 3.57
   1972     E.C.Semis    Archie Clark 30.00 45.17 26.67 25.92 50.73 7.83 <NA> <NA> 2.50
   1972    E.C.Finals     Jo Jo White 25.00 39.20 22.60 24.40 46.52 4.40 <NA> <NA> 2.60
   1972        Finals      Jerry West 33.00 41.20 19.80 26.30 37.02 8.80 <NA> <NA> 2.40
   1973     E.C.Semis    Archie Clark 31.00 42.80 21.20 20.20 51.72 5.20 <NA> <NA> 4.00
   1973    E.C.Finals     Jo Jo White 26.00 43.71 23.57 25.50 45.96 5.14 <NA> <NA> 4.14
   1973        Finals      Jerry West 34.00 34.40 21.40 22.40 46.80 4.60 <NA> <NA> 2.80
   1974     E.C.Semis    Archie Clark 32.00 35.00 13.67 17.00 39.20 3.33 <NA> <NA> 3.33
   1974     E.C.Semis    Kevin Porter 23.00 37.25 16.50 18.38 44.25 5.75 <NA> <NA> 4.75
   1974    E.C.Finals     Jo Jo White 27.00 38.00 15.20 17.60 42.90 5.00 <NA> <NA> 4.60
   1975 E.C.1st Round   Calvin Murphy 26.00 36.67 20.67 21.17 48.93 5.00 <NA> 2.33 4.00

Stockton during his prime [1988,1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997]:

Code: Select all

 Season         Round             PLAYER   Age    MP   PTS   TSA   TS%   AST  TOV  STL   PF
   1988 W.C.1st Round       Terry Porter 24.00 37.25 17.00 14.62 58.52  7.00 3.25 2.50 3.25
   1988     W.C.Semis      Magic Johnson 28.00 38.57 18.71 16.71 55.49 10.29 3.86 1.00 2.00
   1989 W.C.1st Round    Winston Garland 24.00 38.67 14.00 14.83 47.37  4.33 1.00 1.33 3.67
   1990 W.C.1st Round         Greg Grant 23.00 17.00  4.00  6.00 33.30  3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
   1990 W.C.1st Round      Kevin Johnson 23.00 41.25 24.75 25.38 49.77 10.25 4.75 1.00 2.00
   1991 W.C.1st Round      Kevin Johnson 24.00 36.50 12.75 17.00 37.58  9.75 3.00 0.50 2.25
   1991     W.C.Semis       Terry Porter 27.00 38.40 22.20 18.10 62.28  6.80 2.20 1.80 2.40
   1992 W.C.1st Round         Doc Rivers 30.00 37.40 15.20 13.90 56.24  4.20 0.60 1.20 3.20
   1992     W.C.Semis        Gary Payton 23.00 28.67  5.33  5.00 59.27  3.33 0.67 0.67 1.67
   1992     W.C.Semis      Nate McMillan 27.00 33.00 10.00  9.25 54.10 10.50 2.00 3.50 4.00
   1992    W.C.Finals       Terry Porter 28.00 40.50 26.00 18.50 69.70  8.33 1.33 1.00 2.00
   1993 W.C.1st Round        Gary Payton 24.00 34.60 12.60 13.60 43.76  4.20 1.80 2.00 3.60
   1994 W.C.1st Round      Negele Knight 26.00 27.00  9.25 11.75 38.92  3.00 1.75 0.75 2.25
   1994     W.C.Semis Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf 24.00 32.20 15.80 16.00 47.72  3.40 0.80 0.60 2.20
   1994     W.C.Semis        Robert Pack 24.00 33.00 17.50 16.25 53.75  4.00 4.50 3.00 2.00
   1994    W.C.Finals        Kenny Smith 28.00 36.50 17.50 12.62 67.67  5.00 1.50 1.25 2.00
   1994    W.C.Finals        Sam Cassell 24.00 28.00 14.00 14.00 50.00  4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00
   1995 W.C.1st Round        Kenny Smith 29.00 34.80 17.40 11.00 75.26  5.40 2.40 0.40 2.20
   1996 W.C.1st Round     Rod Strickland 29.00 40.40 20.60 20.40 50.30  8.40 2.40 1.00 2.80
   1996     W.C.Semis      Avery Johnson 30.00 38.33 10.83 12.42 42.25  7.00 2.83 2.50 2.17
   1996    W.C.Finals        Gary Payton 27.00 42.14 20.71 18.21 56.49  6.00 3.71 1.57 3.43
   1997 W.C.1st Round     Darrick Martin 25.00 31.02 11.00 11.75 44.55  5.50 1.00 0.00 2.50
   1997 W.C.1st Round    Pooh Richardson 30.00 16.68  2.00  3.50 28.60  3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
   1997     W.C.Semis      Nick Van Exel 25.00 41.83 19.20 18.20 52.42  6.40 2.20 1.60 2.20
   1997    W.C.Finals       Matt Maloney 25.00 31.49  6.50  8.25 36.82  3.17 1.83 0.67 2.33
   1997        Finals         Ron Harper 33.00 29.88  5.50  6.75 35.67  2.75 0.50 1.25 2.50
   1997        Finals         Steve Kerr 31.00 24.62  4.50  4.50 37.50  0.50 0.50 0.00 2.00

At face value, it looks like Stockton had trouble more often than Frazier keeping the other PG in check. So was Stockton that much better on offense than Frazier to elevate him higher, even with the longevity advantage? It doesn't seem like their respective prime duration is that much different.

Note I put this quickly together, so I'll look into adjusting PTS, TSA, TS% relative to regular season numbers to make the comparison more apple-like. If anyone has any posession data for these playoff games/series that'd be great, then I could also calc (rel) ORTg/DRtg.

I'm not sure the difference is as much as you thought at first glance. I went thru and figured what the opposing guards were averaging (series to series, or "per series", if you like).

*NOTE: where you listed TWO opposing guards, I COMBINED their numbers as though they were one guard, even though at times their minutes added up to MORE THAN 48. This could inflate the per-game averages of the opposing guard(s), and fwiw that will inflate the numbers of those Stockton faced more, because there are six [out of 21] such series's in his sample, vs just two [of 17] for Frazier.

**NOTE #2: I used your listed TS% on first pass, EXCEPT where combining the guards in a single series (there I calculated using the listed pts and TSA). HOWEVER, I noted your TS% listed are wrong in almost all instances. Usually only by a small amount, and they're off in BOTH directions, so I'm hoping that comes out in the wash; I didn't want to have to calculate them myself for each one. But fyi, most of them are wrong.
The only one I saw where the listed TS% was off by a LARGE amount was that of Harper/Kerr in the '97 Finals (but I calculated the TS% from the TSA [which I double-checked on bbref] for them anyway [because they're "combined" into one guard]).

And I did the rTS% for each series, too.

Here's how it shaped out.....

Average series of opposing guard(s) facing Frazier: 21.1 pts @ -3.98% rTS, 5.7 ast (turnovers not available)

Average series of opposing guard(s) facing Stockton: 17.8 pts @ -2.07% rTS, 7.1 ast, 2.5 tov (again, bearing in mind "combined guard" series's inflating the volume stats slightly more for Stockton that for Frazier's opponents)