Top 20 Offensive Player Peaks

[Top10alltime]

All I know is Nash is massively overrated. Primary offence with value lies in higher volume or something that has a differential. Magic had rebounding, inside post play, and size obviously the rest GOAT like trounce the pure volume stakes

I find Nash to be closer to Paul then ever getting near tier zero.

Well, Magic Johnson is GOAT lvl offensive player for careers and also for peaks, but let's not act like Nash isn't GOAT playmaker, with how much he created, and at the level he was taking out defenders. Nash passing also maximised the talent around him (tbf, its a great situation, that Magic, Steph, and all-time offensive players have had). \

His scoring is not bad, he has ATG gravity, also while being a historic shooter. He creates far more shots for himself than most historic shooters, which is an advantage in the era. And he also had reslient postseason play.

Also one more thing, he anchored best offenses of all time, that elevated into the postseason. So yeah, Nash has a strong of a case to the top spot as any of the GOAT offensive players (Bron, Steph, Jordan, Magic, Jokic, Oscar, and yes, Nash himself)

Shaq to me is underrated. In Basketball terms 99 to early 2000`s is historically the dead ball era yet still put up amazing offensive results because duh its Shaq

Even in 2004 I just recently watched the whole playoffs he was still a joke and was clearly the best offensive player even with Kobe and prime Garnett it was still ludicrous to watch.

Even on a more defensively orientated team to cover and being the most triple teamed player and fouls that didn't get called of all time.

Shaq is just bizzaro Curry they dement whole defences for just appearing on the court. MJ, James don't have that effect imo. Those are the only two

Shaq has GOAT gravity, rim pressure, and finishing, yeah. He was basically monstrous inside, and that is more valuable than things that perimeter payers bring (because Shaq was more valuable there, than perimeter players on... the perimeter). So if you have him anywhere in top 8-10, then I agree. But anything above that, is too high...

I champion Bird as well for higher rankings biggest indicator of his GOAT port is Mchales production which stayed awesome with and without it goes to show that he really could catapult a team offensive homegeny because dude was just fundamentally peerless it was effortless with his all round skillet. Not a chance in hell SGA is a better offensive player than peak Bird. Look at the damn usage for godsakes. Bird really did make everyone around him play to their strengths.

I feel like you are directing this at me, due to post above. SGA absolutely wipe Bird pfp, due to his scoring. You can literally watch games and see how good SGA is. He has insane impact as an offensive floor raiser, he is also incredible iso scorer (check how many of his shots are unassisted), he has an elite mid-range jumper with combo of him driving and drawing fouls.

Finally I have Dirk clearly ahead of Durant. Sometimes less is more, rebounding, turnover eco better straightline structure and about a decade of elite returns puts him clearly ahead imo. Call me old fashioned but players with size can learn more from Dirk than with KD.

No, not really, KD is clearing Dirk as a scorer, not really all that close. Add to fact that Dirk isn't even that good of PM compared to KD, I don't see any case for Dirk over KD, but yea, Dirk csn be top 15.

[Top10alltime]

Spoiler:

No Kevin McHale love? Absolutely lethal offensive player at his peak. Here's an old post from ElGee:

McHale is a good player to bring up. It was indeed in 1988 that the Celtics posted a 117.1 ORtg (+9.4) with Bird and McHale in the lineup for 63 games. I do indeed consider 1988 to be McHale's offensive peak, and your description of him is correct. Here is my impression/question of him at this time though:

(1) By the end of 1987, he wasn't the same defender he was in the mid 80's (foot injury)
(2) In 1988, that physical limitation is evenly slightly more pronounced.

Do you not agree with this? Because while 87 and 88 McHale is one of the GOAT post scorers, and an underrated passer, I no longer consider him the versatile and mobile defender he was in prior seasons. It's possible I'm not remembering this correctly though, although re-watching the games from this year has only confirmed this thought. McHale's post work is simply astounding, and he's still a positive impact defender IMO (he was even as late as 1991 with his length and intelligence), but this is a classic issue of offensive and defensive peak not overlapping.

To be clear, most people think of McHale's 1987 RS of 26 ppg on 66% TS. But he did suffer through the PS a bit with the foot. In 1988, his ORtg went UP and he was part of a GOAT-level offense (117.1 ORtg would beat the all-time mark by 1.5 points!) and then in the PS, he averages 25 ppg on 67% TS! Even when Bird crumbles against Detroit, McHale averages 27 ppg on 63% TS. Keen observers will note that in the famous Wilkins-Bird duel in 88, McHale had 33 points and 13 reb on 84% TS.

I would vote 87 McHale as of now (perhaps due to RS missed games as a tie-breaker), but am open to the 88 season as well.

And from Fatal9:

Discussion about McHale inspired me to finish up this video:

Watch on YouTube

These were his main one on one scoring weapons. Pretty much unguardable at his peak due to the combination of long arms, amazing foot work and maybe unrivaled touch around the basket. So many moves to evade doubles (can turn away from them with the baseline hook or fadeaway without putting the ball on the floor or outright fake them out), the only defense is to literally sandwich him with two defenders before he gets the ball. I really think he would be amazing in a "4 around 1" system like Hakeem had, Duncan to an extent and Dwight had with the Magic. His passing and feel for the defense is really underrated (especially from '86-'88), way too much is made of the "black hole" joke by Ainge (at the end of the '86 season he actually took back the comment and noted McHale's improved passing). In his early years I'd agree with that assessment but not in '86-'88, he was part of some of the greatest passing teams ever, used to make some phenomenal passes and was competent at using defensive attention to create looks for teammates (it's just his role was to score and double teaming couldn't slow him down, he was efficient against any type of defense thrown at him).

Lot of people don't realize but he was actually the leading scorer for the Celtics in 1987 for most of the year, up until middle of March to be exact (this is in a year Bird had one of his highest scoring seasons). From end of Jan to middle March he had a stretch of scoring 28.6 ppg on 67% shooting, 82% from the line and overall 71 TS%. He broke the bone in his foot at the end of March against the Bulls. Was still doing work in the playoffs but defensively he had clearly lost a step. In my personal list I have '87 as his peak and overlook the freak injury, but for this project I would rather vote for '86 over '88. Much better on defense, missed just as many games, a bit more polished offensively in '88 but doesn't make up for the defense to me (he was still a good defender in '88 but in '86 he was great, had much better foot speed). His in/out is better in '88 only because peak Bird did some crazzzzy GOAT level things offensively when he was out in '86. In '86 he arguably the greatest playoff run by a second option ever. He was amazing in the '88 playoffs too but didn't have enough help. They probably get swept if he doesn't make a three to send game two to overtime, but Celtics had lot of nagging injuries to the starters, a dreadful bench and Bird had a horrific shooting series. He was the only one who showed up and kept the Celtics from getting embarrassed.

Vote: 2003 Tracy McGrady

I have '98 Malone coming up next. I don't know what to do or how to comparatively judge Pettit, so if anyone has a take on him, I'd love to read it. Seems like he belongs around here.

Why is Howard leapfrogging McHale so easily? Is it an issue of McHale's health in '87 playoffs (just switch to '86 or '88) or do you guys believe Howard was just the better player?

McHale in a "4 around 1" offensive system built around him would be lethal, way more than Howard, because he could stabilize the high variance you get with such an offense with his unstoppable post scoring (and he has waay more moves to evade doubles). He is a better passer than Howard despite his reputation. His advantage on offense is HUGE. Dwight's offense is so much easier to make adjustments for and shut down in the playoffs. Peak McHale is a guy who had no trouble scoring on anyone or any type of defense. You couldn't slow him down with doubles either because he had shots/moves to turn away from them and score without taking a dribble (like the baseline jumphook which was not only super effective but impossible to block because of his long arms). No one had any measurable success at slowing him down in his prime, especially in the playoffs. With Dwight? I've seen teams put a help defender in the middle of the paint (to take away his rolling hook) and turn him into an offensive foul/turnover machine. Teams can and have made it look remarkably easy to neutralize his post offense. There is a big disparity in FT shooting as well. Dwight is a sub 60% FT shooter and very unreliable game to game (McHale was around ~80ish%). I actually feel fouling him a lot is a good strategy, especially in a game he's getting a lot of touches in the post, because it breaks down the rhythm of the Orlando offense, and he can't make you pay for it at the line (in 2011, Howard shot 15+ FTs 23 times...good right? But his team record in those games was only 12-11).

One thing people need to keep in mind: McHale does not need Larry Bird or any one to create his own offense, he was that damn good at scoring on his own. This is something I feel McHale gets penalized for no reason. In his '87 season he was having almost month long stretches of scoring like 30 ppg on close to 70% shooting , he is still the only player in history to put up a 25+ ppg season on 60+% shooting, was behind in MVP voting to only Magic, MJ and Larry (got about same amount of votes as him). He was unstoppable with or without Larry. I have no personal reason to overrate McHale, I wasn't initially even a fan of his, but after watching hundreds of old Celtic games over the years (Bird is my favorite player of all-time), he gained a lot of respect from me.

Howard is the better interior defender, I don't quite view him as a clear cut DPOY type player as most do. I have tremendous respect for his ability to shut down the lane though. McHale was more versatile (could guard 3-5 comfortably...and I'm not saying this, he has legitimately shut down SFs like Dominique, Dantley and others in the playoffs) and was an excellent shot blocker and team defender himself (staple on all defensive first teams). This is a top 5 defensive big in the league too, so don't underestimate what he brings defensively. The biggest difference is in their rebounding, Howard is better but it should be considered that he has played around stretch 4s who don't rebound while McHale played on a frontline of two other 10+ rpg guys. Regardless, McHale never showed himself close to being on Dwight's level as a rebounder, though I never saw rebounding as a weakness for him. But is rebounding and edge in paint defense (keep in mind that McHale too is a great defensive player) enough to make up for how much more McHale brings offensively?

Vote: Nash
Nominate: McHale

At his peak McHale imo was the best second option ever (would take '86-'88 McHale over '00-'02 Kobe, Pippen etc). So if we're going to give Pippen this much credit, then McHale deserves it too.

His offense was historically efficient (Gilmore fans love this, don't they? ). Only player ever to have a 25+ ppg season shooting 60+%, but usually good for 21-22 ppg on well above 60 TS% (could have undoubtedly averaged more if asked), on top of that we're talking an all-defensive first teamer, 8-10 rebounds (probably more if he isn't playing with Bird/Parish, his orb% was better than KG's for example, but it's tough to boost your average with defensive boards when you have two other 10 rpg guys), a guy who always showed up in the playoffs/finals, played remarkably consistently from game to game, even got enough MVP votes to be a top 4 candidate at one point in his career (despite playing with Bird!), and put up 25/9 on 64 TS% during the championship run of the greatest team ever. The main criticism of him is that he was a blackhole. He actually was a good passer, just not willing, which I don't really have a problem with considering a) his role with the team (not asked to distribute, ask to provide efficient half-court scoring) and b) his ability to score at historical efficiency.

Bird is my favorite player, I don't have a reason to overrate McHale, in fact I should probably bring him down (like most people usually do to teammates of their favorite player), but I can't deny how seriously good he was. McHale would have gotten the recognition he deserved if Celtics won in '85 (if Kareem doesn't pull off an unbelievable performance over the final 5 games). McHale imo would have been the best player in that playoff run for the Celtics and won finals MVP (Bird really struggled after the first round due to injuries). But overall, McHale, based on watching him play, is a guy that could have done a lot more if he was asked, especially as a second banana on a team with less options (higher ppg, rpg, which I guess would get him more respected nowadays), so I hope people keep that in mind.

He's looking nice on Squared2020's 1987-88 RAPM sample. Limited, but interesting nonetheless.

There are a LOT of crazy offensive players at their peaks, but we're talking top 20-30. McHale isn't good enough to make it there, but this is nice read of how he can maybe squeeze into top 35-40.

[Top10alltime]

Alright, very very very rough estimate of offensive peaks (1 yr), will also seperate this into tiers (when interchangeable, its IC):

TIER 1 (GOAT LVL)
1. 18 Lebron
2. 05 Nash
3. 87 Magic (IC)
4. 16 Steph (IC)
5. 91 Jordan

TIER 2 (Sub-GOAT LVL)
6. 23 Jokic
7. 64 Oscar
8. 00 Shaq (IC)
9. 77 Kareem (IC)

TIER 3 (ATG LVL)
10. 19 Harden
11. 66 West
12. 25 SGA (IC)
13. 15 CP3 (IC)
14. 06 Kobe
15. 24 Luka (IC)
16. 14 KD (IC)

17. 11 Dirk (IC)
18. 87 BIrd (IC)

TIER 4 (OPOY LVL)
19. 90 Chuck
20. 64 Wilt

HM: 75 Barry, 09 Wade, 03 TMac, 94 Reggie.

[Texas Chuck]

No, not really, KD is clearing Dirk as a scorer, not really all that close. Add to fact that Dirk isn't even that good of PM compared to KD, I don't see any case for Dirk over KD, but yea, Dirk csn be top 15.

Oh as individual scorers KD trumps Dirk.

But in terms of shots created for others? Oh Dirk has KD by a huge margin. And no it does not show up in assists, but we know by 2025 that it doesn't need to show up in assists for it to have happened.

Go read any contemporary reports from opposing coaches about Dirk. They speak of him as the toughest player in the entire league to defend. And it was obvious why. Dallas ran two primary actions:

PNR with guard as screener. Teams wouldn't leave Dirk to double so you had to switch putting your big on a guard and your small on Dirk, both terrible matchups, or what most teams tried, having the guard fight over or under the screen having the big stick to Dirk, so now JET was shotting wide open 18 footers or Barea was downhill to the rim playing 4 on 3 and just lighting teams ups.

Or it was Dirk at the elbow with live dribble. Put a small on him, he shoots over them, so you had to play a big on him, except they couldn't stay in front on him so it was layups or FT's. So most teams doubled that. Dirk became incredible at reading that and making the right pass and quickly beating the double, now your defense is in rotation against a veteran team with lots of shooting and its swing or swing swing open 3.

Over and over like a metronome.

All kinds of evidence how much more Dirk elevated his team offenses over KD. But if its volume, or variety of skills as a scorer, its absolutely KD. After all, he openly stole all of Dirk's stuff plus he was more athletic to boot. But as an offensive anchor? It's Dirk just as clearly. He terrified opposing coaches. Seriously go read old post-game interviews with opposing coaches. It's remarkable how often they just repeat we have nothing for him.

[Top10alltime]

No, not really, KD is clearing Dirk as a scorer, not really all that close. Add to fact that Dirk isn't even that good of PM compared to KD, I don't see any case for Dirk over KD, but yea, Dirk csn be top 15.

Oh as individual scorers KD trumps Dirk.

But in terms of shots created for others? Oh Dirk has KD by a huge margin. And no it does not show up in assists, but we know by 2025 that it doesn't need to show up in assists for it to have happened.

Go read any contemporary reports from opposing coaches about Dirk. They speak of him as the toughest player in the entire league to defend. And it was obvious why. Dallas ran two primary actions:

PNR with guard as screener. Teams wouldn't leave Dirk to double so you had to switch putting your big on a guard and your small on Dirk, both terrible matchups, or what most teams tried, having the guard fight over or under the screen having the big stick to Dirk, so now JET was shotting wide open 18 footers or Barea was downhill to the rim playing 4 on 3 and just lighting teams ups.

Or it was Dirk at the elbow with live dribble. Put a small on him, he shoots over them, so you had to play a big on him, except they couldn't stay in front on him so it was layups or FT's. So most teams doubled that. Dirk became incredible at reading that and making the right pass and quickly beating the double, now your defense is in rotation against a veteran team with lots of shooting and its swing or swing swing open 3.

Over and over like a metronome.

All kinds of evidence how much more Dirk elevated his team offenses over KD. But if its volume, or variety of skills as a scorer, its absolutely KD. After all, he openly stole all of Dirk's stuff plus he was more athletic to boot. But as an offensive anchor? It's Dirk just as clearly. He terrified opposing coaches. Seriously go read old post-game interviews with opposing coaches. It's remarkable how often they just repeat we have nothing for him.

Dirk is an awesome offensive force don't get me wrong. but KD is much better scorer, and as a playmaker Dirk was just a good big-man, KD was just good.
So, KD is a better offensive player to me. I don't want to read old post game interviews, when we can actually see what happened on the basketball court, and that shows KD has a better offensive peak than Dirk.

Dirk was great spacing big man, but also KD has that strength BTW.

[Texas Chuck]

Dirk was only used as a spacer at the very beginning and end of his career. Not sure you are familiar with his actual game? He could shoot 3's but didn't in volume in his prime. And he was the offensive focal point with Nash and then obviously once Nash left, the sole focal point. He wasn't there to space.

But that's cool. If you don't want to go back and appreciate him its only your loss. But he definitely was the superior overall offensive player.

[Top10alltime]

Dirk was only used as a spacer at the very beginning and end of his career. Not sure you are familiar with his actual game? He could shoot 3's but didn't in volume in his prime. And he was the offensive focal point with Nash and then obviously once Nash left, the sole focal point. He wasn't there to space.

But that's cool. If you don't want to go back and appreciate him its only your loss. But he definitely was the superior overall offensive player.

I appreciate Dirk, not sure what makes you think I don't....
The reasoning is simple: KD >>>> Dirk as scorer
As playmaker they are at similar level, in passing court vision decision making. Also in creation they are both similar.

I am open to being higher on Dirk, but for now I don't see Dirk being better than KD as an offensive player, and the only thing you've told me is that DIrk is better offensive player than KD, with next to nothing backing it up (telling me to read old post game interviews, like you cant watch games instead).
I'm sorry, but I don't find that convincing. Maybe for casuals, maybe. But not me.

[MiamiBulls]

Dirk was only used as a spacer at the very beginning and end of his career. Not sure you are familiar with his actual game? He could shoot 3's but didn't in volume in his prime. And he was the offensive focal point with Nash and then obviously once Nash left, the sole focal point. He wasn't there to space.

But that's cool. If you don't want to go back and appreciate him its only your loss. But he definitely was the superior overall offensive player.

I appreciate Dirk, not sure what makes you think I don't....
The reasoning is simple: KD >>>> Dirk as scorer
As playmaker they are at similar level, in passing court vision decision making. Also in creation they are both similar.

I am open to being higher on Dirk, but for now I don't see Dirk being better than KD as an offensive player, and the only thing you've told me is that DIrk is better offensive player than KD, with next to nothing backing it up (telling me to read old post game interviews, like you cant watch games instead).
I'm sorry, but I don't find that convincing. Maybe for casuals, maybe. But not me.

Dirk Nowitzki is a much better playoffs scorer than Kevin Durant. Durant is an absolute turnover machine in the playoffs. KD has an absurdly high dribble suspension that makes it rather easy for almost any solid defender to get underneath the ball to either strip Kevin Durant from the ball or create a deflection that disrupts his team's half court Offense and create a hurried play.

Most of Durant's Turnovers in the Playoffs were generally in the act of scoring; would implore you to go back & watch the 2012 through 2016 Playoffs that involved the Thunder. KD was turning the ball over like a mad man.

While Dirk is the complete opposite, he had a GOAT Tier Turnover Economy with All-Time level foul drawing and FT shooting.

[lessthanjake]

Dirk was only used as a spacer at the very beginning and end of his career. Not sure you are familiar with his actual game? He could shoot 3's but didn't in volume in his prime. And he was the offensive focal point with Nash and then obviously once Nash left, the sole focal point. He wasn't there to space.

But that's cool. If you don't want to go back and appreciate him its only your loss. But he definitely was the superior overall offensive player.

I appreciate Dirk, not sure what makes you think I don't....
The reasoning is simple: KD >>>> Dirk as scorer
As playmaker they are at similar level, in passing court vision decision making. Also in creation they are both similar.

I am open to being higher on Dirk, but for now I don't see Dirk being better than KD as an offensive player, and the only thing you've told me is that DIrk is better offensive player than KD, with next to nothing backing it up (telling me to read old post game interviews, like you cant watch games instead).
I'm sorry, but I don't find that convincing. Maybe for casuals, maybe. But not me.

FWIW, on balance I’d say Dirk’s ORAPM generally looks better than Durant’s. They’re not far off, but (1) Dirk is ahead in ORAPM in Engelmann’s 29-year RAPM; (2) Dirk has a little more impressive five-year ORAPM according to TheBasketballDatabase; and (3) Dirk’s five-year ORAPM in the 2000s and early 2010s according to the NBArapm website peaks slightly higher and is more consistently good on average than Durant’s five-year ORAPM ever was. Again, it’s all very close, but I think if you blindly showed me the ORAPM data for Player A and Player B, with one of them being Dirk’s data and the other being Durant’s, I’d definitely choose the one that was Dirk.

Granted, this flips if we look at the offensive values for these players in all-in-ones. But I just posted a thread that calculates who is advantaged and disadvantaged by BPM as compared to RAPM, and Dirk was amongst the ones that was most disadvantaged by that box metric while Durant was one of the ones most advantaged by it. So it feels likely that the box component of all-in-ones might be similarly overrating Durant and underrating Dirk.

[Top10alltime]

Dirk Nowitzki is a much better playoffs scorer than Kevin Durant. Durant is an absolute turnover machine in the playoffs. KD has an absurdly high dribble suspension that makes it rather easy for almost any solid defender to get underneath the ball to either strip Kevin Durant from the ball or create a deflection that disrupts his team's half court Offense and create a hurried play.

Most of Durant's Turnovers in the Playoffs were generally in the act of scoring; would implore you to go back & watch the 2012 through 2016 Playoffs that involved the Thunder. KD was turning the ball over like a mad man.

While Dirk is the complete opposite, he had a GOAT Tier Turnover Economy with All-Time level foul drawing and FT shooting.

Nah, KD is a better PO scorer, here is what shows this (best 10 yr stretch):

2012-21 KD: 31.5 IA pts/75 on +6.4 rTS

2002-11 Dirk: 26.5 IA pts/75 on +10.6 rTS

Looks like KD has the edge there for me, of course that's not it, but it's a start.
Reason KD has more TO is because he is on-ball more than Dirk.

FT shooting, we can just check the FT% nothing else. There isn't a big difference in their stats.
For foul drawing, we can just check their FTr. KD has a huge edge, 144 to 115.

So most of what you are saying is misguided and wrong, don't be lying.

[Top10alltime]

Dirk was only used as a spacer at the very beginning and end of his career. Not sure you are familiar with his actual game? He could shoot 3's but didn't in volume in his prime. And he was the offensive focal point with Nash and then obviously once Nash left, the sole focal point. He wasn't there to space.

But that's cool. If you don't want to go back and appreciate him its only your loss. But he definitely was the superior overall offensive player.

I appreciate Dirk, not sure what makes you think I don't....
The reasoning is simple: KD >>>> Dirk as scorer
As playmaker they are at similar level, in passing court vision decision making. Also in creation they are both similar.

I am open to being higher on Dirk, but for now I don't see Dirk being better than KD as an offensive player, and the only thing you've told me is that DIrk is better offensive player than KD, with next to nothing backing it up (telling me to read old post game interviews, like you cant watch games instead).
I'm sorry, but I don't find that convincing. Maybe for casuals, maybe. But not me.

FWIW, on balance I’d say Dirk’s ORAPM generally looks better than Durant’s. They’re not far off, but (1) Dirk is ahead in ORAPM in Engelmann’s 29-year RAPM; (2) Dirk has a little more impressive five-year ORAPM according to TheBasketballDatabase; and (3) Dirk’s five-year ORAPM in the 2000s and early 2010s according to the NBArapm website peaks slightly higher and is more consistently good on average than Durant’s five-year ORAPM ever was. Again, it’s all very close, but I think if you blindly showed me the ORAPM data for Player A and Player B, with one of them being Dirk’s data and the other being Durant’s, I’d definitely choose the one that was Dirk.

Granted, this flips if we look at the offensive values for these players in all-in-ones. But I just posted a thread that calculates who is advantaged and disadvantaged by BPM as compared to RAPM, and Dirk was amongst the ones that was most disadvantaged by that box metric while Durant was one of the ones most advantaged by it. So it feels likely that the box component of all-in-ones might be similarly overrating Durant and underrating Dirk.

ORAPM isn't everything. It's important to look at skillset and WOWY as well. And, I'd probably need the link to all these sites to check for myself, to make sure that you're not lying.

Don't just look to advance stats. You should look at stats+film+impact instead of weird formula.

[MMyhre]

If you lose you cant.

That isn't how that works, no. It just means you didn't, which isn't the same thing.

Nash had ample time and postseason appearances to up his volume, so here I kind of agree with you in some sense that his talent has the potential to score on higher volume. However, he did not do it, so it still has to be a what if with Nash, and a mental thing, but playing that high volume game is tougher as a small player so he couldn't overcome.

Draft Nash in 2025 and he probably would. Its a shame.

[The-Power]

I appreciate Dirk, not sure what makes you think I don't....
The reasoning is simple: KD >>>> Dirk as scorer
As playmaker they are at similar level, in passing court vision decision making. Also in creation they are both similar.

I am open to being higher on Dirk, but for now I don't see Dirk being better than KD as an offensive player, and the only thing you've told me is that DIrk is better offensive player than KD, with next to nothing backing it up (telling me to read old post game interviews, like you cant watch games instead).
I'm sorry, but I don't find that convincing. Maybe for casuals, maybe. But not me.

That's not really a fair characterization. Chuck pointed out how Dallas ran their offense and how Dirk's influence consistently created good shots for teammates without it necessarily showing up in the boxscore in terms of assist numbers.

You refuted that by claiming that they are similar in terms of playmaking and creation. You did not back that up at all, it's just postulated. So I think Chuck's brief elaborations on play style and tactics added more to a potential discussion as a starting point.

It's fine to have KD higher (though I probably wouldn't agree) but it's not as simply as saying ‘KD is a much better scorer and similar playmaker, ergo he must be ahead’ – because that's a very crude way of looking at complex basketball dynamics and clearly it's not self-evident either when so many disagree.

[tsherkin]

However, he did not do it, so it still has to be a what if with Nash, and a mental thing, but playing that high volume game is tougher as a small player so he couldn't overcome.

I was with you until the last part. When we deal with All-Time discussions, we have to treat with "didn't."

But again, that isn't the same as "couldn't." They are not the same thing.

Draft Nash in 2025 and he probably would. Its a shame.

Sure. If Trae Young can do it, Nash certainly could, for example. And we saw the 05 postseason, after all.

But we can both agree that he DIDN'T, which was at least a contributing factor in some things. I still believe it wasn't as relevant as their defense, which was the major difference maker for, say, the Warriors in 2015 and 2022, though.

[Top10alltime]

That's not really a fair characterization. Chuck pointed out how Dallas ran their offense and how Dirk's influence consistently created good shots for teammates without it necessarily showing up in the boxscore in terms of assist numbers.

You refuted that by claiming that they are similar in terms of playmaking and creation. You did not back that up at all, it's just postulated. So I think Chuck's brief elaborations on play style and tactics added more to a potential discussion as a starting point.

It's fine to have KD higher (though I probably wouldn't agree) but it's not as simply as saying ‘KD is a much better scorer and similar playmaker, ergo he must be ahead’ – because that's a very crude way of looking at complex basketball dynamics and clearly it's not self-evident either when so many disagree.

It's definitely not as simple. Which is why it was just a very small explanation from my part. Dirk is ATG offensive force because he is a top ten scorer ever, his off-ball game and his shooting, spacing out floor is similar to KD. The reason I bring it up, is because it's most talked about when you're looking at Dirk.

There is much more to the story that I can dive deep into, but to me, with you guys it seems like a time waste.

[lessthanjake]

If you lose you cant.

That isn't how that works, no. It just means you didn't, which isn't the same thing.

Nash had ample time and postseason appearances to up his volume, so here I kind of agree with you in some sense that his talent has the potential to score on higher volume. However, he did not do it, so it still has to be a what if with Nash, and a mental thing, but playing that high volume game is tougher as a small player so he couldn't overcome.

Draft Nash in 2025 and he probably would. Its a shame.

I think it’s important to realize that what you’re saying Nash did not do is simply to increase his shooting volume. You are not saying that Nash did not lead absolutely elite playoff offenses. And nor could you, since he led some of the absolute best playoff offenses in history, and we know that his teams’ relative offensive rating with him on the court in the playoffs was better than anyone in the play-by-play era (including LeBron, Steph, and Jokic). Your position may be that his offenses would’ve been even better if he’d increased his shooting volume, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t already lead the best playoff offenses ever. He actually did. It just wasn’t enough to win titles, because the teams’ defenses were bad (in part because of Nash himself, to be fair).

I would also note that he did actually increase his scoring volume a lot in one difficult series—particularly against the Mavericks in 2005. It was an incredible performance. And the Suns in that series had an even better relative net rating than they averaged in general with Nash. If that is indicative of what could’ve happened if Nash had always increased his scoring volume, then it just means that Nash could’ve been *far and away* the best offensive player ever. Even without that though, his team results offensively, including in the playoffs, are already the best of anyone else.

[MMyhre]

However, he did not do it, so it still has to be a what if with Nash, and a mental thing, but playing that high volume game is tougher as a small player so he couldn't overcome.

I was with you until the last part. When we deal with All-Time discussions, we have to treat with "didn't."

But again, that isn't the same as "couldn't." They are not the same thing.

Draft Nash in 2025 and he probably would. Its a shame.

Sure. If Trae Young can do it, Nash certainly could, for example. And we saw the 05 postseason, after all.

But we can both agree that he DIDN'T, which was at least a contributing factor in some things. I still believe it wasn't as relevant as their defense, which was the major difference maker for, say, the Warriors in 2015 and 2022, though.

You can't say for sure Nash would have mastered it, so couldn't is fine.

[MMyhre]

That isn't how that works, no. It just means you didn't, which isn't the same thing.

Nash had ample time and postseason appearances to up his volume, so here I kind of agree with you in some sense that his talent has the potential to score on higher volume. However, he did not do it, so it still has to be a what if with Nash, and a mental thing, but playing that high volume game is tougher as a small player so he couldn't overcome.

Draft Nash in 2025 and he probably would. Its a shame.

I think it’s important to realize that what you’re saying Nash did not do is simply to increase his shooting volume. You are not saying that Nash did not lead absolutely elite playoff offenses. And nor could you, since he led some of the absolute best playoff offenses in history, and we know that his teams’ relative offensive rating with him on the court in the playoffs was better than anyone in the play-by-play era (including LeBron, Steph, and Jokic). Your position may be that his offenses would’ve been even better if he’d increased his shooting volume, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t already lead the best playoff offenses ever. He actually did. It just wasn’t enough to win titles, because the teams’ defenses were bad (in part because of Nash himself, to be fair).

I would also note that he did actually increase his scoring volume a lot in one difficult series—particularly against the Mavericks in 2005. It was an incredible performance. And the Suns in that series had an even better relative net rating than they averaged in general with Nash. If that is indicative of what could’ve happened if Nash had always increased his scoring volume, then it just means that Nash could’ve been *far and away* the best offensive player ever. Even without that though, his team results offensively, including in the playoffs, are already the best of anyone else.

It's hard for me to agree to that when he never got within 2 games of even winning the WCF. At some point winning, results and success - overcoming barriers (which to me is increasing your ppg and doing more, as to the volume debate and he didn't/couldn't (figure it out?) has to matter more than idk what ur using here, but if you are in contention for best offensive player ever, with a pretty decent team around you, you gotta at least get past the WCF. For me it would need to be even more than that again but yeah...

I'm not going to talk in absolutes because I didnt see in realtime, but I am just using logic.

[tsherkin]

You can't say for sure Nash would have mastered it, so couldn't is fine.

No, you definitively cannot say he couldn't, because we didn't really see him try much, except in 05... when it was working just fine. He put 23.2 ppg on 57.5% on the Spurs in that series. But San Antonio pounded them 44-38 on the boards, absolutely DEMOLISHED them on the offensive glass (+22 ORB on the series) and got 20+ from both Manu and Parker.

There's just no teeth to what you're saying.

[MMyhre]

You can't say for sure Nash would have mastered it, so couldn't is fine.

No, you definitively cannot say he couldn't, because we didn't really see him try much, except in 05... when it was working just fine. He put 23.2 ppg on 57.5% on the Spurs in that series. But San Antonio pounded them 44-38 on the boards, absolutely DEMOLISHED them on the offensive glass (+22 ORB on the series) and got 20+ from both Manu and Parker.

There's just no teeth to what you're saying.

He had tons of time to figure it out. If you did not do it, you couldn't. How long does he need? He didn't have the instincts or mindset for it, or he would have done it.

Those instincts needed to be developed at a young age, and some of it is personality. Steve Nash does seem unselfish and like a good teammate. I think it would be harder for him than say a young Kobe to be more selfish, so it would need to be more instinctive, but that needs to be shaped when you are younger and much more neuroplastic.