RealGM Top 100 List #18

[ElGee]

A general point about causality and basketball statistics, since despite some conversation about it they seem to be just grossly misused by certain people:

Evaluation should start with your eyes. You need to know how an offense runs, how a coach works, and what an individual is doing before you can properly interpret his stats. You need context. Furthermore, when people speak of the "eye test," they usually mean something that's not mysterious, but instead simply isn't measured in the standard box.

With John Stockton, watching his career unfold, there was the sense of a very good player. Again, this is all without ever looking at a single box. The guy had a great open shot, was efficient and smart, and ran a mean PnR. But that was about it. He really never hit another gear. Didn't take over with scoring. Rarely carved up a D off the dribble. Rarely forced stuff. There was nothing about watching him that said "that guys a spectacular driving for of an offense." He played hundreds of PS games and a few were noteworthy (even the newspaper summaries rarely played him up). He was rarely considered as an MVP candidate...fora reason. (And NB: Nash played with his K. Malone in Stoudemire, and people could see and time has tested who was more valuable in both cases. In the first it was Malone by a lot, in the second it was Nash by a lot.)

THEN we look at the statistical information and see that confirmed. Few high scoring games. Disappearing acts at times. Assist inflation in a Utah system that was based off efficiency and intelligent sets and the offensive prowess of Karl Malone (other PGs seemed to do just fine, as sherkin noted in a must-read post provided above, Hornacek may have been more valuable to the Sloan offense than Stock because of his great shooting/scoring).

Nash is a different animal. In 2005, you just watched the dude play and noticed "he has the ball A LOT and is making some ridiculous passes/decisions." Then he would score a lot if they didn't respect him. And it never ended. Outlet. Kick. Swing. Stepback. PnR PnR PnR to death. When he went out, it didn't look like that at all.

CHECK THE NUMBERS...and low and behold Phoenix is historically good with him and marginal with him out. OK, but maybe they are lifted so high because of legit offensive weapons? Can't judge everything after one year, right? (Thickly veiled LeBron James point.) But then the weapons go away and Nash did the exact same thing ITO of ball dominance with guys people hadn't heard of (and subsequently have proven to be nothing special) and AGAIN an historically good offense with him and just a wreck without him.

It's because of that that I see Nash as almost an evolutionary version of Stockton. Stock on steroids. What Stock wants to be when he grows up. Nash is one of the GOAT offensive players in NBA history, it's very similar to Magic in 87 and on (although not as good). John Stockton? Very good PG, but what exactly would be the argument that he was better at running offenses/a better offensive player than Kevin Johnson?

[JordansBulls]

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.

Yeah it was about how good they are at playing basketball which means how good do they make a team, how well do they perform when needed on the highest stage. How well do they play with and then without the ball? Do they need the ball in there hands all the time to be even effective. Do they do the little things as well to help as well?

[JerkyWay]

Hello!

For me, it's between LeBron, Pettit and Barkley. Simply, it comes down to the fact that those three were chosen MVP at least once. I'd not feel fine if I pick LBJ over Pettit. Finals are decisive here, and those has been LeBron's Achilles' heel so far. Pettit even raised his game when his competition became better and it can be argued he was top 5 player basically every year until his last season. His 58' Finals were epic, the only player who had beaten The Lord of the Rings until 1967.

Vote: Bob Pettit
Nominate: if Dirk is gone, it's time for Steve Nash to be taken into consideration. I was considering Thomas here, but he'll be my next nominee.

[therealbig3]

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.

Yeah it was about how good they are at playing basketball which means how good do they make a team, how well do they perform when needed on the highest stage. How well do they play with and then without the ball? Do they need the ball in there hands all the time to be even effective. Do they do the little things as well to help as well?

All of those are legitimate ways to evaluate basketball players, but that doesn't translate into simply counting titles/Finals appearances. Doesn't even translate into counting MVPs, because MVP does not necessarily mean the best player. Does anyone really think that Rose was better than LeBron this year?

There are quantifiable ways to go back and check those things. +/-, on/off, significant team improvement/decline with the addition/subtraction of one player...they can all tell you how much an individual is affecting a team. That's important, and those are much more accurate ways of measuring "impact" than using rings and Finals appearances. You can then use box score stats and advanced stats to get an estimate of how important/how good this player was, and then you can check how they performed in elimination games, to get an idea of how "clutch" they were.

And of course, watching them play always helps.

[therealbig3]

Anyways, I think Barkley is getting underrated here in favor of Pettit and LeBron. The dude was a beast, one of the greatest offensive forces ever, and he maintained his play in the playoffs, which is important.

Vote: Barkley
Nominate: Pippen

[Laimbeer]

Era dominance is Isiah's calling card, at least a mini one. He does, after all, have two titles, and like Russell you can link his tenacity to what made those Piston teams great.

I'd put that up against Gervin-like offensive play or Stockton's admittedly amazing longevity.

[fatal9]

Barkley's playoff gamelogs from '86-'90 in case anyone wanted to see them...

1986:

Sixers played entire playoffs without Moses (eye injury), played first round without McAdoo and had injuries to Dr. J and few other players before playoffs started.

Vs. Bullets

G1: 26/22/9 (11/19 FG, 4/8 FT)
G2: 27/20/6 (11/21, 4/7)
G3: 13/14/2 (5/14, 3/3)
G4: 22/15/7 (8/16, 6/10)
G5: 19/15/12 (8/12, 3/3)

Vs. Bucks

G1: 31/20/6 + 6 stls + 2 blks (12/19, 7/13) (led come back from down 18)
G2: 26/15/4 (8/16, 10/13)
G3: 29/13/3 (10/14, 9/12)
G4: 37/14/9 + 3 blks (11/17, 15/19)
G5: 29/8/5 (8/13, 13/18)
G6: 23/21/2 (6/10, 11/18)
G7: 18/12/2 + 4 stls (6/9, 6/7) Lost by 1 pt, Dr. J misses shot at buzzer.

Should be noted Barkley was very turnover prone in these playoffs (averaged over 5 a game), which is partly why his insane statline of 25/16/6 on 63 TS% produces only a PER of 23.8.

1987 vs. Bucks:

G1: 21/13/2 + 6 blks (8/15, 4/4)
G2: 26/15/3 (9/15, 8/11)
G3: 39/9/2 + 2 stls (13/19, 13/14)
G4: 25/13/4 (8/10, 9/14)
G5: 12/13/1 (5/16, 2/2)

1989 vs. Knicks:

G1: 22/12/6 (7/12, 7/12)
G2: 30/12/7 (10/17, 10/11)...lost by 1 pt.
G3: 29/11/3 (12/16, 5/8)…game tying shot to send it to OT. Lost by 1 point.

Maybe the closest sweep ever? Sixers outscored by only 8 pts in the three games.

1990:

Vs. Cavs

G1: 38/21/? (15/25, 7/11)
G2: 32/8/6 (13/19, 5/11)
G3: 17/11/?(5/10, 5/8) didn’t play last 17 minutes due to blowout
G4: 23/11/? (7/16, 8/13)
G5: 18/19/? (7/15, 4/7)

Vs. Bulls

G1: 30/20/4 (10/21 FG, 10/11 FT)
G2: 16/19/? (7/11, 1/1)
G3: 34/20/8 (10/18, 14/21)
G4: 22/13/? (8/17, 6/15)
G5: 17/13/5 (6/10, 5/10)

[ThaRegul8r]

delete

[An Unbiased Fan]

With John Stockton, watching his career unfold, there was the sense of a very good player. Again, this is all without ever looking at a single box. The guy had a great open shot, was efficient and smart, and ran a mean PnR. But that was about it. He really never hit another gear. Didn't take over with scoring. Rarely carved up a D off the dribble. Rarely forced stuff. There was nothing about watching him that said "that guys a spectacular driving for of an offense." He played hundreds of PS games and a few were noteworthy (even the newspaper summaries rarely played him up).

Uh, many were calling Stockton the 2nd best PG ever behind Magic during his career. The guy was quite amazing, and this is coming from someone who HATED Stockton back during his playing days.

The late great Chick Hearn said it best, "No lead is safe with Stockton on the floor". the guy was a menace on the court.

I saw Stock play in person, guy was a beast. Are you telling me the guy in these videos doesn't look like "a spectacular driving for of an offense"?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_lE70C21ZA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myMvojT6zIc[/youtube]

He was rarely considered as an MVP candidate...fora reason. (And NB: Nash played with his K. Malone in Stoudemire, and people could see and time has tested who was more valuable in both cases. In the first it was Malone by a lot, in the second it was Nash by a lot.)

Dirk was Nash's Malone, and he never was even Top 10 in MVP voting, or higher than All-NBA 3rd team next to him.

THEN we look at the statistical information and see that confirmed. Few high scoring games. Disappearing acts at times. Assist inflation in a Utah system that was based off efficiency and intelligent sets and the offensive prowess of Karl Malone (other PGs seemed to do just fine, as sherkin noted in a must-read post provided above, Hornacek may have been more valuable to the Sloan offense than Stock because of his great shooting/scoring).

At his peak, Stockton was scoring 17+ PPG, and dishing out 14+ APG. Nash was better at scoring in bunchs when needed, yes. but Stockton was more consistent night in and out.

I also find it strange that you're calling his APG as inflated, considering the systems Nash played under in PHX. For the first 8 years of Nash's career, he never had more than 8.8 APG. I'm fairly certain Stockton wouldn't have had a problem dishing out 14+ APG under D'Antoni.

Nash is a different animal. In 2005, you just watched the dude play and noticed "he has the ball A LOT and is making some ridiculous passes/decisions." Then he would score a lot if they didn't respect him. And it never ended. Outlet. Kick. Swing. Stepback. PnR PnR PnR to death. When he went out, it didn't look like that at all.

Saw the same from Stockton. Saw it all his career too, not just the last half. Nash was a different animal in 2005 because he went to a different system.

CHECK THE NUMBERS...and low and behold Phoenix is historically good with him and marginal with him out. OK, but maybe they are lifted so high because of legit offensive weapons? Can't judge everything after one year, right? (Thickly veiled LeBron James point.) But then the weapons go away and Nash did the exact same thing ITO of ball dominance with guys people hadn't heard of (and subsequently have proven to be nothing special) and AGAIN an historically good offense with him and just a wreck without him.

Nash certainly played his role in PHX. I think he's a fantastic orchestrator on the court. But even when guys left, PHX management plugged guys into that system who could excel in that offense. that's no different from SA getting guys for their system, or LA getting Triangle guys.

It's because of that that I see Nash as almost an evolutionary version of Stockton. Stock on steroids. What Stock wants to be when he grows up. Nash is one of the GOAT offensive players in NBA history, it's very similar to Magic in 87 and on (although not as good). John Stockton? Very good PG, but what exactly would be the argument that he was better at running offenses/a better offensive player than Kevin Johnson?

"Nash is what Stockton wants to be when he grows up"......er????

For MOST of Nash's career he did nothing spectacular. Then at age 30, he goes to D'Antoni's system, and his numbers skyrocket, despite playing the same minutes & same USG%.

What are you basing these historic offense claim on? What i saw in PHX was an offense-first minded coach and a system built around offensive players. I mean Kurt Warner did great with those Rams teams, but that doesn't make me put him over Dan Marino.

In 2005, PHX had 5 regular players with an ORtg above 110.
In 2006, PHX had 6 regular players.
In 2007, PHX had 7 regular players with a 110+ ORtg
in 2008, PHX had 6 guys
in 2009, PHX had 7 guys
In 2010, PHX had 7 guys

Conversely....

In 1988, Utah had 2 guys above 110 ORtg. Stockton at 125, and the next guy was Hansen at 112.
In 1989, Utah had 2 guys, Stock & Malone. In fact, half the team was under 100.
In 1990, Utah had 4 guys
In 1991, Utah had 3 guys
In 1992, Utah had 5 guys
In 1993, Utah had 3 guys
in 1994, Utah had 3 guys
In 1995, Utah had 6 guys
in 1996, Utah had 4 guys
In 1997, Utah had 6 guys
in 1998, Utah had 7 guys

For the majority of Stockton's career, he had little weapons on offense outside of KM. Even still he outproduced Nash in a rigid Sloan offense. When he did get more offensive help, his team's offense went higher accordingly.

Team offense is a reflection of the overall system, and the players in it. Nash benefited from that system just as much as everyone else. He didn't magically get better at age 30.

[Doctor MJ]

Hey everybody!

Let's see:

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.

I don't really get the whole "weak defenses and playoff failures" failures perspective here. I mean, certainly, I'm all for factoring everything in, but that line of argument seems to go hand-in-glove with "Stockton had more team success". i.e. "Yes, Nash may have been better at offense, but Stockton was better at defense and that was why he had better team results". Problem with that is that Stockton didn't really have better team results. Yes, he got to the Finals twice, but only well after his peak. Anyone looking to use that to say "ergo Stockton was able to do more with his teams" is really stretching things.

[Doctor MJ]

Uh, many were calling Stockton the 2nd best PG ever behind Magic during his career. The guy was quite amazing, and this is coming from someone who HATED Stockton back during his playing days.

People say a lot of different things, but it's a basic fact that Stockton was never respected as an MVP candidate.

Fine if you think Nash SHOULDN'T have been an MVP candidate either, but it's simply incorrect to assert that Stockton got as much peak accolade-love as Nash did.

[therealbig3]

Anyone want to do a Nash vs Pippen vs Frazier post? Because it was between those three for my nomination, and I went with Pippen, because I feel he was the best defensive player (slightly better than Frazier), with a defensive impact as big as a traditional defensive anchor.

I think Pippen's offense gets underrated, he was a decently efficient scorer with great playmaking and rebounding. And it was largely because of him taking a bigger role that the 94 Bulls didn't really skip a beat.

[shawngoat23]

Vote: LeBron James
Nominate: Isiah Thomas

[An Unbiased Fan]

Uh, many were calling Stockton the 2nd best PG ever behind Magic during his career. The guy was quite amazing, and this is coming from someone who HATED Stockton back during his playing days.

People say a lot of different things, but it's a basic fact that Stockton was never respected as an MVP candidate.

Fine if you think Nash SHOULDN'T have been an MVP candidate either, but it's simply incorrect to assert that Stockton got as much peak accolade-love as Nash did.

Stockton didn't get MVP love because he was playing next to KM. Again, neither did Nash next to Dirk. Stockton would have 5+ All-NBA 1st teams...but this guy called Magic Johnson was playing during his era.

Who back during Stockton's era, would Nash have won MVP voting over if he was on Utah? Magic, Barkley? MJ? Hakeem? Karl? It's such a strange argument. Stockton was a 17/14 player at his peak. He was just as efficient at scoring, better off the ball, more productive passing, and the far better defender.

[Doctor MJ]

How is Nash getting nominations over Stock, Kidd, Isiah, and even Payton? He didn't even become an elite player until 2005, and played in an extremely PG friendly system. He's non-existent on the defensive side of the court, and the only one of the group to never even have made the FInals.

Hmm, I'm going to get into this some because it's absolutely the right place to discuss it...but you've been in conversations like this for year. I don't know how you can't know the answer, which is:

People who pick Nash over these guys don't think it makes sense to see him as someone whose stature was inflated by great luck.

You obviously disagree, and that's fine, but your continual state of surprise is odd.

Anywho, so yeah:

Phoenix was a terrible offense with both Kidd and Marbury. They acquired Nash and had the greatest offensive dynasty in history. For 7 years, whenever Nash has sat on the bench...the offense sucks again. When D'Antoni tries to implement his system in other places, no drastic offensive improvement is seen, even when he acquired Amare again, and then Carmelo.

Pretty dang impressive.

The defense? Key thing here is that Nash isn't getting this hype simply because his team is scoring points, he got 2 MVPs because his team won games. MASSIVE team improvement. What that means is that Nash is having huge total impact.

Does that mean Nash is a secret defensive superstar? Of course not, just that his offensive is so damn good, that his defense isn't getting in the way of superstar-level total impact.

Should we penalize the guy for being more one sided than other players? I don't see why. I mean, yes I do figure in versatility into the mix when judging players, but only within reason. I don't knock Shaq for not shooting 3's better because he shouldn't be shooting 3's, and if a coach makes him shoot 3's, all that tells me is that the coach is an idiot.

"But Nash can only do his thing when playing this way, the offense sucked with Shaq!" No it didn't. The offense with an old, far-past-his-prime Shaq still slaughters the vast majority of the offenses the above point guards ran, it just wasn't as good as Nash's high standards.

"Doc, I just can't make myself believe Nash on offense was THAT much better than these other guys. I mean, Payton was a 22/9 guy with great defense." Okay, consider this:

Look at Payton's scoring stats compared to someone like Jerry Stackhouse. You'll notice they're in the same ballpark. Now obviously, Payton gives you other things as well. I'm not arguing that Stackhouse is as good as Payton...but c'mon, nobody is going to bring up Stackhouse as a candidate in this project and not just because he wasn't a great defender but because his scoring is just not that impressive. 22 points scored by a player is not 22 points the team would not have otherwise have had.

From my perspective, it's simply not anywhere close to right to say "Okay, Nash gives you a touch more on offense than Payton" because they are really doing very different things. I would actually say that of all the point guards here, but it's particularly pronounced with Payton. I don't even WANT my point guard scoring 20 low efficiency points!

[Laimbeer]

Top players not yet nominated

Combined rankings from nine different publications (including – but not limited to – Bill Simmons’ ‘Book of Basketball’, Slam magazine’s ‘Top 500’, Elliot Kalb’s ‘Who’s Better Who’s Best in Basketball?’ and Sport magazine’s 50th anniversary rankings)

21 – Isiah Thomas
22 – Bob Cousy
26 – John Stockton
30 – Scottie Pippen
32 – Willis Reed

http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.co ... story.html

[penbeast0]

Barkley’s 5 year peak and those numbers adjusted to 2011 equivalents. I only used his first year in PHO because he began to miss games with physical problems in 1994 although clearly 1993 was his career year as 1975 was Gilmore's.

Barkley Min Reb Ast Pts TS% league efg% W-L
1989 PHI 39.1 12.5 4.1 25.8 .653 .489 (46-36) lost in 1st rd
1990 PHI 39.1 11.5 3.9 25.2 .661 .489 (53-29) lost in 2nd
1991 PHI 37.3 10.1 4.2 27.6 .635 .487 (44-38) lost in 2nd
1992 PHI 38.4 11.1 4.1 23.1 .612 .487 (35-47) missed playoffs
1993 PHX 37.6 12.2 5.1 25.6 .596 .491 (62-20) MVP / NBA Finals (Chicago)

1989 adj – 11.8 3.4 23.5 .665
1990 adj – 11.0 3.4 23.4 .673
1991 adj – 9.7 3.4 25.8 .649
1992 adj – 10.5 3.6 23.3 .626
1993 adj – 11.7 4.4 24.2 .604

Gilmore’s 5 year peak – I am using 75-79 to include 3 of his Chicago years and only the last two ABA years when the ABA was roughly equal to the NBA. 1980 was his second big knee injury. He came back again to post the two highest efficiency years in NBA history pumping his average efficiency by an incredible 100 pts! but his scoring, defense and mobility took a second hit (First knee surgery was after 76 season).

Gilmore Min Reb Ast Pts TS% league efg% W-L
1975 KEN 41.6 16.2 2.5 23.6 .615 .479 (58-26) ABA Champion and Playoff MVP
1976 KEN 39.1 15.5 2.5 24.6 .595 .472 (46-38) lost in 2nd round
1977 CHI 35.1 13.0 2.4 18.6 .566 .465 (44-38) lost in 1st round
1978 CHI 37.4 13.1 3.2 22.9 .604 .469 (40-42) missed playoffs
1979 CHI 39.8 12.7 3.3 23.7 .619 .485 (31-51) missed playoffs

1975 adj – 13.7 2.2 21.1 .639
1976 adj – 15.4 2.7 24.9 .628
1977 adj – 11.4 2.2 17.4 .606
1978 adj – 11.5 2.7 21.0 .641
1979 adj – 11.6 2.8 21.8 .636

Looking at the numbers, Barkley was the more dynamic scorer by about 3 points a game and slightly MORE efficient (Gilmore’s efficiency peak came later as his scoring declined). Gilmore was the better rebounder by about 1.5/game while Barkley was the better passer. As for defense, Gilmore blocked about 2.5 shots a game which is significant and by any eye test he was MUCH the better man defender (particularly in the post). So, by taking Barkley over Gilmore you are adding about 3 pts and 1 ast per game on about 2 more shots while losing 1.5 rebounds and over 1.5 blocks while getting considerably better defense. Gilmore also turns it over about 0.5 times a game more.

Barkley is flashier and I love listening to him too. However, as a player that outspokenness caused several problems in the locker room – and then there was the incidents of all night drinking, partying, and missing practices while Gilmore was a very professional player albeit very reserved and shy.

Overall, for peak, this comparisom favors Gilmore (particularly in the earlier eras where interior defense was even more important than it is today).

[OldSchoolNBA]

Barkley’s 5 year peak and those numbers adjusted to 2011 equivalents. I only used his first year in PHO because he began to miss games with physical problems in 1994 although clearly 1993 was his career year as 1975 was Gilmore's.

I think 1990 was Barkley's career year. He just had a better team in Phoenix. Although Barkley's words don't mean much most of the time, he's said he had better years in his Philly days than 1993. He was much more of explosive in his Philly years. I thought he had a knack for taking more jumpers than he should and held the ball too long often breaking the flow of the offense.

[Doctor MJ]

People say a lot of different things, but it's a basic fact that Stockton was never respected as an MVP candidate.

Fine if you think Nash SHOULDN'T have been an MVP candidate either, but it's simply incorrect to assert that Stockton got as much peak accolade-love as Nash did.

Stockton didn't get MVP love because he was playing next to KM. Again, neither did Nash next to Dirk. Stockton would have 5+ All-NBA 1st teams...but this guy called Magic Johnson was playing during his era.

Who back during Stockton's era, would Nash have won MVP voting over if he was on Utah? Magic, Barkley? MJ? Hakeem? Karl? It's such a strange argument. Stockton was a 17/14 player at his peak. He was just as efficient at scoring, better off the ball, more productive passing, and the far better defender.

My friend, I JUST got through saying it was fine for you to think this opinion. You going through and trying to justify that opinion is not a response to my point.

To speak to the crux of what you're saying here though: Stockton never finished higher than 7th in MVP voting. Saying that he played in an era with stronger superstar talent is understandable, but saying he played in an era where it was so much stronger that a guy with 1 7th place finish in that era is the equivalent of 2 MVP wins in another era is silly. You don't even believe that yourself.

The truth is that you don't think Nash should have won MVPs, and that understandably shapes your opinions on how he stacks up against Stockton.

[An Unbiased Fan]

How is Nash getting nominations over Stock, Kidd, Isiah, and even Payton? He didn't even become an elite player until 2005, and played in an extremely PG friendly system. He's non-existent on the defensive side of the court, and the only one of the group to never even have made the FInals.

Phoenix was a terrible offense with both Kidd and Marbury. They acquired Nash and had the greatest offensive dynasty in history. For 7 years, whenever Nash has sat on the bench...the offense sucks again. When D'Antoni tries to implement his system in other places, no drastic offensive improvement is seen, even when he acquired Amare again, and then Carmelo.

Pretty dang impressive.

Greatest offensive dynasty in history? Really? The Showtime Lakers are rolling over in their graves...

PHX was all offense orientated, and built that roster based on that premise. D'Antoni hasn't had the same degree of success in NY because that franchise was a mess when he got there.

The defense? Key thing here is that Nash isn't getting this hype simply because his team is scoring points, he got 2 MVPs because his team won games. MASSIVE team improvement. What that means is that Nash is having huge total impact.

Does that mean Nash is a secret defensive superstar? Of course not, just that his offensive is so damn good, that his defense isn't getting in the way of superstar-level total impact.

Funny, the team Nash left did better with out him, maintained a great ORtg, and their DRtg shot up once he went to PHX. Nash was a horrible defender, let's not sugar coat things. PHX had a great turn around because they got healthy and added a star to the roster.

And again, if we are to reference PHX's regular season team success....shouldn't we also speak of their shortcomings in the playoffs.

Should we penalize the guy for being more one sided than other players? I don't see why. I mean, yes I do figure in versatility into the mix when judging players, but only within reason. I don't knock Shaq for not shooting 3's better because he shouldn't be shooting 3's, and if a coach makes him shoot 3's, all that tells me is that the coach is an idiot.

Of course we should penalize them. There are 2 sides of the court, and Nash was non-existent on one of them.

My friend, I JUST got through saying it was fine for you to think this opinion. You going through and trying to justify that opinion is not a response to my point.

To speak to the crux of what you're saying here though: Stockton never finished higher than 7th in MVP voting. Saying that he played in an era with stronger superstar talent is understandable, but saying he played in an era where it was so much stronger that a guy with 1 7th place finish in that era is the equivalent of 2 MVP wins in another era is silly. You don't even believe that yourself.

The truth is that you don't think Nash should have won MVPs, and that understandably shapes your opinions on how he stacks up against Stockton.

Again, MVP doesn't equal best player. Nash got more peak MVP love than Shaq, but what does that even mean. Stockton never had a narrative that yielded high MVP votes, how could he playing next to Malone. How could he be MVP when he wasn't the MVP of his own team?? His production still beats out Nash's at their peaks.

Please explain how KG is up at #13, and DRob isn't even in the conversation yet, when DRob anchored better defenses, and had more MVP shares. Afterall, you seem to be using team ratings, & MVP votes for Nash. Nash is the first guy where MVP voting seems to be a big criteria.