RealGM Top 100 List #18

[Dr Positivity]

Bit torn on Pettit considering I can't find any damn footage of him

Part of me thinks he's the Bob Cousy of PFs as a player who might be a borderline to Jameer Nelson all-star today but superstar status came from virtually inventing his position and nobody being equipped to guard or match his ability there.

At the same time, the fact that he could keep going till 64, 65 at a high level is encouraging. You have to be special to put up 27 and 15 as late as 64. The earliest full game I've seen is G6 of the 63 Finals and it didn't look that shabby compared to the next 20 years or so, albeit it was loaded with stars. Even Bob Cousy in that game looked better than I'd given him credit for and that was the last game before retiring. So being the Bob Cousy of PFs may not be an insult

Still though, over Lebron? Can't bring myself to do that. Lebron is simply a better player

Vote: Lebron James

Nominate: Isiah Thomas

[Baller 24]

I already pointed out how Nash wasn't a consensus Top 5 player either. You referenced MVP voting in the last thread.

huh? Yes he was, check the RPOY, check documented articles on SI.com/ESPN/ETC, he was very well a top 5 player in those following given seasons. Guess you might be the minority in the consensus

I reminded you that Stockton was playing next to Malone. How many Top 10 MVP votes did Nash get playing next to Dirk?

We're not playing a game of IFs, we're looking at facts, and Nash has been there/done that. Historically offensively, consistently, with different teammates, coaches, and schemes (I'll continue to rewrite that until you get the gist of it). Nash with the Mavs wasn't used in the same context. Check quotes from 2003, I'll dig them up but Don Nelson would on numerous occasions state that he didn't want Nash handling the load or playing large minutes in the R/S, because he wanted to save his efforts for the playoffs.

[pancakes3]

Check quotes from 2003, I'll dig them up but Don Nelson would on numerous occasions state that he didn't want Nash handling the load or playing large minutes in the R/S, because he wanted to save his efforts for the playoffs.

Nash definitely wasn't used to his full potential in Dallas what with his "low" mins, Dirk/Finley being good 1-on-1 players, and having to splitting ball-handling duties with NVX.

[Fencer reregistered]

LeBron has rarely kept it up through (enough of) the whole season plus the whole postseason. The past two postseasons ended badly. 2008 he did well, giving a harder time to Pierce and the Celtics than Kobe and the Lakers did. 2007 -- well, that depends on whether you blame him or the Spurs.

As for Pettit, everybody we'd remotely consider as Pettit's peer or superior from this era is already on the list. Something similar is true for James, but it's not as clear that his era deserves such high rankings, since he doesn't have longevity yet. Besides, there's Wade.

As for the details, the Pettit supporters have been very supportive:

Vote: Pettit

As for nomination, I'm deciding between Isiah, Nash, and Pippen.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I find it perplexing how you can use team offensive results in regards in regards to Nash, yet dismiss individual results. Didn't you just get through saying that you didn't put much into "team success".

?

You were talking about total championship rings. I'm talking about his IMPACT strictly given to his offensive teams despite DIFFERENT teammates, coaches, & schemes his impact has remained CONSISTENT. Didn't we just have a whole thread about this over Russell? I'm not sitting here stating "oh he didn't even make the finals", I'm going by how well he maintined his impact through various systems.

Well no. I never mentioned rings, in fact, I pointed out that team impact isn't the same thing as titles. The point I have been harping on is that individual AND team impact both matter.

My reply to Gongxi laid this out, "Yeh, I already have been rating players by how they play. BUT basketball is a team sport, so how a player impacts that team's success is a factor too.".

I pointed out Stockton's superior indivdual production, and yet...you countered with Nash's team production.

Yet even where the Suns were off the playoffs he maintained that impact under Porter in '09, then did it again in historic sense offensively in '10 (4th all-time) under Gentry. If you're talking about offensively minded teams, then why haven't other players done under D'Antoni? Marbury hasn't….Duhon hasn't..Billups hasn't..

The Knicks were a mess, and didn't have the same weapons as PHX did offensively. I mean look at the names you're throwing around.

The Mavs however, did just fine

Offensive weapons you say? What about '06? Joe Johnson, Q. Richardson, & Amar'e all gone---three of the most contributing players offensively, yet the team still maintains it's consistency offensively (10th all-time ranked offensive team statistically), replaced by Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Eddie House, James Jones, Tim Thomas, and Kurt Thomas. 6 new players utilized as key players for production in a 82 games season span. Diaw coming from a team that didn't trust him, never showcased his full potential where he was drafted upon, Bell playing off the bench in Utah (12 PPG on. 527 TS%), and I can go on about Eddie House & James Jones being appalling chuckers.

Again, you're naming offensive players under an extremely offensively friendly system. What were Nash's production numbers before he went to PHX? He had the same rise in stats that others did in PHX. Meanwhile, Dirk had his best years after Nash left, he didn't miss a beat.

Nope, in '04 they hit historic marks (6th all-time), after they weren't even close after that.

Where do you get these "historic marks" from? Dallas was #1 & #2 in ORtg in 2006 & 2007. They won more after Nash left, and their defense was much better.

And wasn't Nash "under-utilized" back in 04'?

Who do you think benefited more in the relationship? Stockton did from Malone, or Malone did from Stockton? It's pretty clear everyone knows the answer to that question. ElGee's already pointed out how big of an offensive monster Karl Malone was, and I frankly could give a half a rats ass about how well Stockton produced similarly or out-produced him, it didn't TRANSITION onto the court in terms of impact. Nash's did, in an all-time historic sense statistically.

Huh? Stockton did what Sloan wanted, and controlled the tempo of the game perhaps better than anyone else. How in the world is dropping 14+ apg not "transitioning" onto the court in terms of impact.

Again, these are the guys Stockton turned into 10+ ppg scorers, by dissecting defense and creating opportunities.

Thurl Bailey
Darrell Griffith
Jeff Malone
Blue Edwards
Tyrone Corbin
Hornacek
David Benoit
Chris Morris
Byron Russell

Nope, not at prime/peak form.

How's it not?

In 1997, Stockton posted a 65.6% TS in the regular season, and a 62.7% TS in the playoffs.

[An Unbiased Fan]

We're not playing a game of IFs, we're looking at facts, and Nash has been there/done that. Historically offensively, consistently, with different teammates, coaches, and schemes (I'll continue to rewrite that until you get the gist of it). Nash with the Mavs wasn't used in the same context. Check quotes from 2003, I'll dig them up but Don Nelson would on numerous occasions state that he didn't want Nash handling the load or playing large minutes in the R/S, because he wanted to save his efforts for the playoffs.

Stockton is historically great in individual offensive production. Way more so than Nash, and he didn't have the weapons that Nash did, nor did he play under two free-for-all offensive coaches.

And how was Nash being saved in Dallas, when his mpg & USG% were the same in PHX? Nash's numbers jumped in PHX, at the age of 30. Clearly, he played in a very favorable system, and yet still didn't matched Stockton's peak production.

[Baller 24]

Well no. I never mentioned rings, in fact, I pointed out that team impact isn't the same thing as titles. The point I have been harping on is that individual AND team impact both matter.

And in terms of individual and team impact, when D'Antoni gave Nash the keys to facilitate the offense, he excelled it on levels we've never seen historically & statistically.

My reply to Gongxi laid this out, "Yeh, I already have been rating players by how they play. BUT basketball is a team sport, so how a player impacts that team's success is a factor too.".

I pointed out Stockton's superior indivdual production, and yet...you countered with Nash's team production.

Yet what did Stockton's individual production lead to? Nothing special if we're talking about offensively anchoring teams..and I'm not countering it with Nash's team production. I'm countering it stating Nash's individual impact to his team statistically saw offenses this league has never seen. Note that he did it with numerous coaches, limited talent ('06), different players, and different offensive schemes.

The Knicks were a mess, and didn't have the same weapons as PHX did offensively. I mean look at the names you're throwing around.

Uhh…not if we're considering the '06 Suns. Why doesn't D'Antoni use all of his PGs in the same style he used Nash? Because it can't be replicated, his skillset simply fit beautifully with it, and he excelled in all regards. Historically, and even when he didn't have D'Antoni he still excelled historically, he excelled historically even without Amar'e for the love of god.

The Mavs however, did just fine

Nope, they never reached historic levels that the Suns did with Nash.

Where do you get these "historic marks" from? Dallas was #1 & #2 in ORtg in 2006 & 2007. They won more after Nash left, and their defense was much better.

Please stop arguing if you're basing this strictly on ORtg, because I'm not: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205

And wasn't Nash "under-utilized" back in 04'?

Technically no, his AST% blew up, he was allowed to handle the offense more, they limited the one-on-one game, but enough.

Huh? Stockton did what Sloan wanted, and controlled the tempo of the game perhaps better than anyone else. How in the world is dropping 14+ apg not "transitioning" onto the court in terms of impact

It didn't, it's as simple as that. Nash impacted it in a statistical way that was historically an all-time great offense. Various times with the Suns. Stockton never came close.

Again, these are the guys Stockton turned into 10+ ppg scorers, by dissecting defense and creating opportunities.

When you say "turned" do you mean he was controlling them? Anyways, why not bring up the '06 Suns? The Suns replaced THREE key contributing members of a historical offense with Diaw, Bell, House, K. Thomas, T. Thomas, & Jones and made 70% of them have career seasons, while achieving historical marks offensively, again (10th all-time).

Thurl Bailey

He still had productive seasons outside of Utah, don't know what you're point is.

Darrell Griffith

20+ PPG scorer WELL before Stockton even receiving contributing minutes or became a starter.

Jeff Malone

Another 20+ PPG scorer and proven All-Star WELL before he even played with Stockton and the Jazz.

Blue Edwards

Still had productive seasons and a career season AFTER he left Utah.

Tyrone Corbin

Productive player, 10 yr vet, 18+ PPG scorer and proven before the Jazz acquired him.

Hornacek

Productive player, had career years OUTSIDE of Utah, proven All-Star before Jazz acquired him.

Chris Morris

Productive 17PPG+ scorer before Utah acquired him.

Byron Russell

Nothing more than a defensive and three point shooting specialist, had career seasons when he played a full load of minutes, other than that he was the same player when he played limited minutes with the Jazz, Lakers, or Wizards.

*yawn*
Why don't we talk about how Nash took a unproven Boris Diaw and utilized him to have a MIP/career season. Why don't we talk about how he utilized known 5PPG chuckers in Jones & House and used them as productive players? Why don't we talk about how he took an inefficient bench player from Utah in Raja Bell and made him have a career season, not just overall but also in terms of efficiency?

In 1997, Stockton posted a 65.6% TS in the regular season, and a 62.7% TS in the playoffs.

Average them out for prime/peak seasons.

[Baller 24]

Stockton is historically great in individual offensive production. Way more so than Nash, and he didn't have the weapons that Nash did, nor did he play under two free-for-all offensive coaches.

Dallas never played a free-for-all offense, they played a lot of one-on-one ball using Dirk & Finley, and he shared a lot of time with NVX. And we're talking about seasons where he didn't have "offensive weapons" in '06, he still reached historical marks offensively (10th all-time), even without D'Antoni his team reached historic marks again all-time under an entirely difference scheme (4th all-time in '10).

And how was Nash being saved in Dallas, when his mpg & USG% were the same in PHX? Nash's numbers jumped in PHX, at the age of 30.

Nash was playing on a team in Dallas that used ISO set-ups with Finley & Dirk, shared playing time with NVX, he could've done the same thing if he was allowed to freely run the entire system.

Clearly, he played in a very favorable system, and yet still didn't matched Stockton's peak production.

Prove it, any objective evidence to justify this claim? Because he did it even in a not so favorable system, under TWO OTHER COACHES. Historic marks statistically, Stockton never hit those facilitating his great "individual offense".

[penbeast0]

Making it to the Finals means nothing whatsoever. Worthless. The directions were very explicit to not try to compare resumes. You and several others continue to do this. Why even participate if you won't follow one of the very few directions given?

The OP said: "Take into account both peak and career play, era dominance, impact on the game of basketball, and how well their style of play and skills would transcend onto different eras. To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball."

Era dominance certainly has rings involved plus it involves both lifting one's team and clutch play (though of course it isn't despositive of those factors). There is nothing that says helping teams win championships is a prohibited factor -- winning is the ultimate goal of the game, everything else is just to help get you there!

[Laimbeer]

Era dominance certainly has rings involved plus it involves both lifting one's team and clutch play (though of course it isn't despositive of those factors). There is nothing that says helping teams win championships is a prohibited factor -- winning is the ultimate goal of the game, everything else is just to help get you there!

Thank you.

[penbeast0]

I don't have a dog in this fight yet but re: Stockton v. Nash

If Nash get credit for running historically great offenses he also has to get come blame for the weak defenses and playoff failures . . . Stockton's individual statistics are more impressive particularly his assist and assist/turnover numbers which is key since both's big strength is playmaking, his defense (the biggest factor that doesn't show up statistically) was clearly better, it's hard to say even Nash tops Stockton's work ethic, practice habits, and willingness to play through pain type leadership/intangible issues, Stockton's team won more and went further in the playoffs losing two championships to our (ok, not mine but the consensus) GOAT on the greatest modern dynasty.

Nash's only advantages are that the offensive team numbers from Phoenix and Dallas look better plus he was voted MVP twice which shows a lot of respect from those who watched him. Is that enough to justify voting him over Stockton? sure . . . Is that enough to say anyone who votes for Stockton is clearly clueless? Not even close.

[Baller 24]

\Though, it's good to note that when Stockton was at his ultimate peak, his team consistently underperformed, yet at the Jazz's ultimate peak, Stockton was on the clear decline (especially '98). And if it weren't for two key suspensions in the '07 2nd round against the Spurs, who knew what would've happened.

Toughness & willingness to play through pain? Oh Nash is right there..remember the game against the Spurs? Or what about the game last season where Fisher headbutts him, continues to play game 4 after a fracture.

I don't know how we can measure practice habits and work ethic, because we just weren't there. Like ronnymac's stated, it's hard to get into intangibles and habits because we weren't there on the bench next to them, or even sharing a locker room with them. And if we're talking about individual defense (although Stockton gets the credit), I'll argue that on numerous occasions that Stockton got lit up in the midst of his peak seasons ('92 WCF by Terry Porter). Leadership? He's clearly shown those, for the past 6 years now.

[ThaRegul8r]

If you throw out titles, Russell at 2 is inexplicable.

Many of the complaints that I see about Russell ranking so high relate to the assumption that he got his ranking purely on the back of his 11 rings. When in reality, and I can only speak for me and my vote, that isn't the case at all. I knew Russell had 11 rings before I did the RPoY project last year, and at that time I wasn't fully convinced he was actually a better player than Wilt. But what sold me was further analysis of how those Celtics played, how the reason that they won could very quantitatively be traced to their defensive dominance, and that said defensive dominance could very quantitatively be traced to Russell. [...] I didn't vote Russell for #1 because he had 11 rings...I voted Russell for #1 because he was by-far the most impactful player of his generation in a quantifiable way...that had absolutely nothing to do with the box scores.

[RoyceDa59]

Vote: Pettit
Nomination: Nash

[Gongxi]

Making it to the Finals means nothing whatsoever. Worthless. The directions were very explicit to not try to compare resumes. You and several others continue to do this. Why even participate if you won't follow one of the very few directions given?

The OP said: "Take into account both peak and career play, era dominance, impact on the game of basketball, and how well their style of play and skills would transcend onto different eras. To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball."

Era dominance certainly has rings involved plus it involves both lifting one's team and clutch play (though of course it isn't despositive of those factors). There is nothing that says helping teams win championships is a prohibited factor -- winning is the ultimate goal of the game, everything else is just to help get you there!

Absolutely not. Era dominance means dominating the era through your playing of basketball, not how well your GM did in putting together the team, the coach in coaching the team, or your teammates in playing basketball well. WHY do some of you people insist on ranking players using a criteria that you know is incredibly dependent upon the players GM, coaches, and teammates? It's like you want to rate these players unfairly; god knows why.

[Baller 24]

Great tsherkin post about Stockton:

Because I wonder what more Stockton could do in that previous seasons?

"Score" comes to mind. Stockton wasn't a particularly dangerous scoring threat, nor was he a guy who was a significant threat to break down a defense with an isolation set. There's much to be said for fostering ball movement and not pounding the pall too long, but there's a reason lead guards have always been important, all the way back to Cousy and before. At some point, you need a guy who can create a shot without the aid of another teammate in order to change the look a defense is seeing. You need a guy who can pop off for a bunch of points to get the team going when the system is floundering, and Stock just wasn't that guy.

It's funny that you mention spacing a lot, but you're not really giving credit to the era where it's due; the necessity of having a lot of 3pt shooters for spacing really didn't exist at that point in the league. They helped, certainly, and Darrell Griffith and Bob Hansen (with Stockton) sufficed in 89-90. Stockton and Griffith were sufficient in 91. In Stock's REALLY big year in 92, it was him and Blue Edwards. But the whole point of the pick-and-roll system was that it moved defenders without touching them. You get Malone up at the elbow, out on the wing setting a screen, where's his man going to be? That's a big 6'9+ defender who suddenly ISN'T in the paint. They were dragging defenders up top, then plunging back into the paint when Malone rolled. All the action was happening on ball; there were some cuts and everything that happened after that, but there really wasn't a super big need for guys to finish threes. They hit them, or they stepped in and took a slightly shorter shot. Certainly by the time the Jazz got dominant, the three point line had been pulled in... and wouldn't you know it, Hornacek, Stockton, Walter Bond, Blue Edwards and even David Benoit were able to shoot reasonable percentages from downtown. Etc, etc, insert rotating players hitting spacer jumpers from 22 feet for the next three years.

The Jazz had rebounding and could put up a shot to get a shot. Between Malone and Eaton (and later Ostertag), they just needed to grind the gears of their offense and muscle teams, and it worked. They got SPECTACULAR once they took the ball out of Stockton's hands more often and started giving it to former All-Star PG Jeff Hornacek, and adding his 3pt shooting to the mix, letting him handle the ball some and giving the defense a different look.

That's the thing, that's what makes me so skeptical of Stockton's "value" as a truly elite playmaker; they got not just better, but WAY better once his role was actually LIMITED. Hornacek started 9 of the 27 games he played for the Jazz in 93-94 (remember, this is when they were still getting owned by the Rockets, before Malone decided to illegally screen Barkley for the win in 97). They took the ball out of his hands just a little bit, gave Hornacek more responsibility in 94-95 and immediately won 60 games. Stockton played like 2 fewer minutes per game, but that was 5 better than their previous franchise record, right as they took the ball away from Stockton a little bit.

Then boom, 55 wins, 64 wins, 62 wins. 62 wins? But Stockton only played 64 games at 29 mpg that year, averaging 8.5 apg when he did play!

See what I mean? His minutes declined from his peak, his usage went down, he actually had his first season with a major injury... and it didn't matter. The Jazz clicked along as the best offense in the league that year.

Stock was a guy who hit his open shots, who knew how to run a pick-and-roll and who played hustle ball from the word "Go," but he wasn't some epic playmaker. It's functionally clear that Hornacek and Howard Eisley and limited contributions from Stockton were sufficient to drive that offense. This is part of why people remain so skeptical about Deron Williams' place in the league, or were, until he asserted himself as an iso scoring threat (which Stockton never did).

Stockton's APG fell off every year as they won more and more. That's not a correlation that really makes sense if you believe it was him driving the offense. How could he be involved less and less as their efficiency rose along with their winning percentage?

Yeah, he was great. He was a clever, savvy veteran player who had the ability to contribute in many ways, but there he is again, having only one really noteworthy postseason in that stretch, diving off even as they went farther than they ever had before. And in his good postseason, he didn't even average double-digit assists.

Do you know what he was doing, though? He was scoring, 16 ppg over those 20 games (mostly because he was shooting 38% from downtown, well above his career playoff average from 3). The 97 Finals opened with Stockton dropping 7 turnovers in game one. He had 4 against 7 assists in the next game while shooting 4-12 in game 2, dropping the Jazz into a 2-0 hole. Had a great game 3 to get Utah back in the series. 17 and 12, 4 turnovers, great shooting. Did it again with only 2 turnovers the next game (78-73... EEEEW, and we thought Spurs/Pistons was bad). Tie series.

Game 5? Howard Eisley ran the point and Utah ripped off a 14-1 run in the 1st Q. Lots of value from Stock, there. 13/5, 3 fouls, 3 turnovers and no big moments from Stock as the Jazz went down 3-2. 13 and 5 with 3 turnovers in the deciding game and bam, it was a series in favor of the Bulls.

Stockton did almost nothing for 4 games in that series, nothing but turn it over and foul, anyway. If he was such an amazing playmaker, then he'd have been able to at least help the rest of the team look better, but he wasn't, he was merely very good at a specialist's role.

The year after is tougher to get all gripey about because Stockton was still injured, but his ineffectual play against the Bulls cost the Jazz a title in both of those seasons a lot moreso than Malone. People don't like to mention this because Karl is a big, loud guy and Stockton's this quiet, little dude that no one ever breathes a bad word about, but in the end, Malone had a really good series against the Bulls in 98 but had no help.

Stockton started the series well in 98, scoring 7 of Utah's final 9 points to seal the win and putting up a 24-point game. Fabulous. He had to shoot 9/12 to do it, but he did it. He responded in Game 2 with 9 and 7, 5 fouls and 2 turnovers in a Utah loss. Game 3 was that monstrously embarrassing rout, the record-low for a shot-clock-era playoff game (96 to 54). Stockton had 2 points, 7 assists and 5 turnovers. You would think that, even though he was past his prime (as were all the stars in that series) that he would have found a way to use his epic playmaking skills to make an impact on the game somehow, instead of just making mistake after mistake after failure after failure. Game 4 showed up and the Bulls, looking for the 3-1 lead, saw Stockton play ineffectually as a scorer (3-11 shooting, 7 points) but dish out 13 assists against 2 turnovers. Lots of grinding that pick-and-roll and hoping to God Malone finished. 86-82 Chicago. Series done, right there, even though they'd play two more games. Big moment, big game, Stockton really didn't show up.

Malone dropped 39 points, including a fadeaway with like a minute left to seal the win. Stockton had 6 points and 12 assists. As with the rest of both of these matchups, he kind of chilled at the top of the key and worked the pick and roll, but unlike the other games,he had 5 steals, which was outstanding.

OK, show-time, elimination game. 10 points, 5 assists, 4 fouls, 3 turnovers. Malone at least went out in style, with 31, 11 and 7. Everyone remembers the turnover where he was blind-sided by Jordan (with no way of seeing him) at the end of the game, but they don't remember Stockton going 4/10 (and 1-4 from downtown) or Russell blanking from 3, etc, etc. It bears mention that the Jazz couldn't get a good shot off in the final 5.6, even though that's an eternity in basketball. Stockton's vaunted playmaking didn't come up with anything there.

So again I ask you, given the preponderance of evidence that puts a shadow over the true value of Stockton's playmaking where offensive efficiency and playoff efficacy are concerned, what can you say to counter that? How do you account for the major increase in the Jazz's team success once Stockton's role was lessened, and the significant gap in offensive efficiency that occurred when that happened?

[ElGee]

Vote: LeBron James
Nominate: Steve Nash

[JordansBulls]

No one- except for JordansBulls- has been as blatant and obvious about it as you've been. How about you rate players on how they play, not whether or not they and 11 other dudes coached by another dude, all hired by another dude, made it to the Finals? This really isn't that hard.

Yeh, I already have been rating players by how they play. BUT basketball is a team sport, so how a player impacts that team's success is a factor too.

You should go back to 2008, your thinking style would fit better there. My opening post also says "better" basketball player, you can only value that off of peak play, aside from you & JordanBulls who seem utterly confused, the members involved in this project have strictly been limiting "team success", it's a team game, critical moments, plays, and schemes in a basketball impact that by numerous individuals, it's hard to take that into account when you're ranking an individual player.

Well with Dirk the team was 2-7 without him last season. And he had no other star on his team and upset the 2x defending champs and a team with 3 top 15 players in the league with 3 of his own players out. Explain to me how that is ranking him based off of team play?

Or explain to me how ranking Moses Malone is ranking off of team play?

[Gongxi]

If you haven't gotten it by now, I highly doubt one post now is going to make you see the light. I really think you're just incapable of it. But let's move this discussion to the main project thread, I'm sorry I ever brought it up.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: LeBron James

Nominate: Isiah Thomas

Isiah vs. Nash is becoming a tossup to me. I'll try to post why I nominated Thomas sometime...