RealGM Top 100 List #18

[Fencer reregistered]

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.

You're disputing Penbeast's interpretation of the OP when he's the guy who posted it? OK ...

[lorak]

@DavidStern:

That's interesting stuff, thanks for the info. But about "against really good opponents", what about Barkley in 87 against the Bucks, 89 against the Knicks, 91 against the Bulls, and 93 against the Sonics and the Bulls?

None of these teams (well, except NYK) had big men of quality like Malone, Hakeem or Robinson. So it's not surprise that Barkley destroyed them under the basket.

And when I look at offenses, I mainly look at where they ranked compared to the rest of the league, not really at how much better than average they were.

But the Sixers were still average ranked offensive teams more often than I thought, so maybe Barkley didn't help an offense as much as I originally thought, but some of the ranks of his teams:

89 Sixers: 3rd
90 Sixers: 2nd
93 Suns: 1st
94 Suns: 1st
95 Suns: 3rd
96 Suns: 7th

Relative to the rest of the league, some of his teams have been elite offensively.

Well, we have all time kind of comparison in this project and that's why using relatively to league average makes a lot more sense. It actually show us how strong was, for example, number one ranked offense. And it's not something I made up now to help my case ;] Dean Oliver for example is also using that method to compare quality of offenses and defenses.

So yes, Barkley played on some 1st or 2nd offensive teams in particular seasons, but they weren't elite when we look at quality of offense. Very good (+5) but not elite (+7 like Jordan's Bulls or Nash's Suns).


re: Isiah
TMACFORMVP, txh for recap of end of G1, I never seen this game.
And to be clear - I'm rather criticizing Thomas here and I nominated Nash, but for me it's very close between Nash, Stockton and Isiah. And when time for voting came I might as well vote Isiah first or Stockton. It depends on what their supporters would say

And I'm with these people who think that Thomas is underrated defensively. Overall it doesn't matter much, because PGs defense is the less important, but I don't think he was much worse defender than for example Stockton.

[Gongxi]

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.

You're disputing Penbeast's interpretation of the OP when he's the guy who posted it? OK ...

If he wanted his words to mean something different, he probably should've used different words. Are we just ranking teams now? Alright.

[penbeast0]

It's Baller's OP, I just copy it for each new thread.

And, could we cut back on the Nash v. Stockton stuff since Stock isn't gaining any traction and instead get some Nash v. Isiah argument which is the main competition for the nomination?

[Laimbeer]

Well, I'm just in time then.

I'd take Isiah without thinking much about it. No one's ever convinced me why Nash isn't the Gervin of point guards. The offensive stats are impressive, he probably makes teams good but not great, and to maximize his abilities you have to employ guys and systems that don't lend themselves to titles. Dallas became a more serious contender after he left. His skills don't translate well to winning situations. And he's a lousy defender.

Isiah's record is well documented, a guy that was considered a superstar in his day, a leader of a multiple title team in a fiercely competitive era. His defence was far better, but as said that's not what's hugely important in a point. Leadership and tenacity are, and does anyone doubt Zeke trumps Nash big time here?

If you're building a franchise, or getting ready to play a huge game, does anyone really want Nash? For the "just tell me who the better player is" notion, the better player is pretty clearly Isiah. Not prettier stats, but he is the better player. As penbeast said earlier, basketball is about winning titles. You want the guy who will help you most to do that.

[Fencer reregistered]

Well, I'm just in time then.

I'd take Isiah without thinking much about it. No one's ever convinced me why Nash isn't the Gervin of point guards. The offensive stats are impressive, he probably makes teams good but not great, and to maximize his abilities you have to employ guys and systems that don't lend themselves to titles. Dallas became a more serious contender after he left. His skills don't translate well to winning situations. And he's a lousy defender.

Isiah's record is well documented, a guy that was considered a superstar in his day, a leader of a multiple title team in a fiercely competitive era. His defence was far better, but as said that's not what's hugely important in a point. Leadership and tenacity are, and does anyone doubt Zeke trumps Nash big time here?

If you're building a franchise, or getting ready to play a huge game, does anyone really want Nash? For the "just tell me who the better player is" notion, the better player is pretty clearly Isiah. Not prettier stats, but he is the better player. As penbeast said earlier, basketball is about winning titles. You want the guy who will help you most to do that.

I'm leaning this way as well. However, does anybody have any analysis on the question as to whether Nash REALLY led to teams being bad defensively (or in rebounding or something, although I don't see how that could be)? We assume yes, since they were great offensively yet didn't win all that much. But is it confirmed, and specifically confirmed that he was a major part of the problem, either directly or else indirectly by the kind of team composition he encouraged?

The only thing that's obvious to me about Nash's teammates is that you don't want anybody who slows down the transition offense. But what's so bad about that?

[mysticbb]

I'm leaning this way as well. However, does anybody have any analysis on the question as to whether Nash REALLY led to teams being bad defensively (or in rebounding or something, although I don't see how that could be)? We assume yes, since they were great offensively yet didn't win all that much. But is it confirmed, and specifically confirmed that he was a major part of the problem, either directly or else indirectly by the kind of team composition he encouraged?

I brought that up in a thread about Nash vs. Stockton before, but it seems some of the posters who even read in that thread aren't paying attention to the facts.

In 2005/06 Steve Nash played 1089 minutes with Kurt Thomas. During those minutes the Phoenix Suns had an average DRtg of 102.6. That is 3.6 points better than league average. The offensive rating was 113.6 during those minutes. We are talking about a team playing 7.4 points better than average on offense and 3.6 points better on defense for 1089 minutes. That sample shows that it is indeed possible to have a really good defensive team.

The only thing that's obvious to me about Nash's teammates is that you don't want anybody who slows down the transition offense. But what's so bad about that?

Where does the myth comes from that the Suns around Nash are only good in transition? In fact last season the Suns were ranked #26 in efficiency using transition plays, and that were only 12% of the plays anyway. The majority of the plays is happening in halfcourt sets and they were incredible well in that area (overall #2), especially when they have Steve Nash on the court. Some people seem to think that p&r and guard penetration is some sort of transition offense.


The Suns with Nash made the conference finals 3 times, Nash with the Mavs made that an additional 4th time. In 2005 the Suns lost to the superior Spurs while having to deal with injury to Joe Johnson. In 2006 the Suns lost to the superior Mavericks and in 2010 to the superior Lakers. Not even once they lost to a weaker team. The Mavericks in 2003 lost against the Spurs while Nowitzki injured his knee in game 3 of the 3rd game with 8 minutes to go. For Nash it is just a whole bunch of bad luck with injuries and supensions to key players in key games.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Vote: Pettit

Nomination: Stockton

[semi-sentient]

They acquired Nash and had the greatest offensive dynasty in history.

Hardly. The Showtime Lakers dominated for an entire decade, so I think they deserve that honor more than a team that had a great 6-year run where their offense only lived up to the hype twice in the post-season. I've been a Nash supporter for a while now and think that he's one of the best offensive players ever, but claiming that the Suns are the greatest offensive dynasty is kind of absurd.


Showtime Lakers

Code: Select all

Year   RS oRtg         PS oRtg (+5 games)
---------------------------------------
79-80  109.5 (1st)     107.6 (2nd)
80-81  107.6 (7th)     103.9 (7th)
81-82  110.2 (2nd)     111.9 (1st)
82-83  110.5 (1st)     108.1 (1st)
83-84  110.9 (5th)     114.7 (1st)
84-85  114.1 (1st)     117.0 (1st)
85-86  113.3 (1st)     115.6 (1st)
86-87  115.6 (1st)     119.9 (1st) -- GOAT offense
87-88  113.1 (2nd)     114.1 (3rd)
88-89  113.8 (1st)     115.8 (1st)
89-90  114.0 (1st)     112.7 (1st)
90-91  112.1 (5th)     111.7 (4th)

Nash's Suns

Code: Select all

Year   RS oRtg         PS oRtg (+5 games)
---------------------------------------
04-05: 114.5 (1st)     118.2 (1st)
05-06: 111.5 (2nd)     113.7 (2nd)
06-07: 113.9 (1st)     110.6 (2nd)
07-08: 113.3 (2nd)     104.1 (8th)
08-09: 113.6 (2nd)     n/a
09-10: 115.3 (1st)     117.8 (1st)
10-11: 109.5 (9th)     n/a

[Rapcity_11]

They acquired Nash and had the greatest offensive dynasty in history.

Hardly. The Showtime Lakers dominated for an entire decade, so I think they deserve that honor more than a team that had a great 6-year run where their offense only lived up to the hype twice in the post-season. I've been a Nash supporter for a while now and think that he's one of the best offensive players ever, but claiming that the Suns are the greatest offensive dynasty is kind of absurd.

Isn't it more important to factor in the opponent when considering offensive performance? Like what Elgee did on page 7?

It's not fair to just say "Their offense only lived up to the hype once" (your words) when they play a team as great defensively as the Spurs were. The 06/07 Suns absolutely lived up to the hype...

[mysticbb]

They acquired Nash and had the greatest offensive dynasty in history.

Hardly. The Showtime Lakers dominated for an entire decade, so I think they deserve that honor more than a team that had a great 6-year run where their offense only lived up to the hype twice in the post-season. I've been a Nash supporter for a while now and think that he's one of the best offensive players ever, but claiming that the Suns are the greatest offensive dynasty is kind of absurd.

Doc is talking about the difference to the league average, not absolute ORtg. It makes not much sense to compare absolute values, because they are affected by a lot of things specific for one season. For example, during the 1987 playoffs the average ORtg was 112.1 and the Lakers were hardly the only team above that average value. The Lakers were 7.8 points better than average. The 2010 Suns had a 117.8 ORtg while the average was 108.6, that is 9.2 points better. The Suns simply had a bigger difference from the average.

The best 6 yr stretch for the Suns ends up with +6.7 better than average, for the Lakers it is 6.1. In average the Suns had +6.0 for those 7 years, and the Lakers +5.0. And if the Suns without Nash would have been at least as good as in 2010 on offense, the team would have had 112.8 ORtg, bringing the average up to 6.5. That is better than the Lakers during any similar stretch in the 80's.

And we can add the 4 years on the Mavericks to that from 2001 to 2004 and we end up that Nash was a vital part of an offense over 11 years which was 6.4 points better than average. It is +5.0 for Magic from 1980 to 1990.

Edit: Another comparison, if we just look at the DRtg of the teams they played against, we have the Lakers in 1987 playing in average against teams with 109.4 DRtg, the 119.9 is 10.5 better, that is awesome. In 2010 the Suns played teams who had in average 105.2 DRtg, the 117.8 are 12.6 better than that. The Suns in 2010 played better offensively than the Lakers in 1987.

[semi-sentient]

It's not fair to just say "Their offense only lived up to the hype once" (your words) when they play a team as great defensively as the Spurs were. The 06/07 Suns absolutely lived up to the hype...

Don't mistake what I'm saying. The Suns were a great offensive team that ran into a good defensive team. It's only natural that they're oRtg would drop as a result.

However, calling a team that had such a short(er) run a dynasty seems nutty to me. The Suns were fantastic for 6 years -- the Showtime Lakers for an entire decade.

The Showtime Lakers were downright dominant in the post-season, having the best offense 8 out of 9 seasons and the GOAT offensive season in 1986-87. I just don't see how the Suns can compare to that.

If we want to cherry-pick a few seasons here and there, great. The Suns have a case for being better here and there... but a dynasty is all about sustained excellence and the Suns have no argument when compared to the Showtime Lakers.

[mysticbb]

If we want to cherry-pick a few seasons here and there, great. The Suns have a case for being better here and there... but a dynasty is all about sustained excellence and the Suns have no argument when compared to the Showtime Lakers.

The Suns had Nash for 7 years, how much sense does it make to base your argument on the fact that Magic played more seasons for the Lakers than 7? The Suns in 7 years even with the down last season due to weak offense without Nash beat out the Lakers in terms of difference to the league average in every possible 7 yr stretch. The Suns were simply better offensively in comparison to their competition than the Lakers.

[Doctor MJ]

In 2005 Suns had 114 ortg against Spurs in the playoffs
Spurs defense that season was 98.8 ((BTW, 2005 SAS is 6th best defensive team of all time/since 1974)
That means Suns offense in that series was GREAT. +15.2 ortg is amazing result.
And of course Nash also played very good: 23.2 PPG, 10.6 APG, 57.5 TS%

ElGee had some great posts on this, but you make it very clear, very succinctly for anyone confused.

It does not make sense to say the Suns offense was stopped by the Spurs by looking only at their ORtg going down. One would expect a great defense to make any offense worse. The reasonable way to look at it is comparing how the offense did compared to what a typical offense does against that great defense.

Doing 15+ points above average is INSANELY good...and that's before remembering that Marion just had an aberrationally bad series (Spurs never came close to doing that again) and Johnson was hurt.

There's just never been any basis for saying the Sun offense stops working in the playoffs.

[semi-sentient]

Doc is talking about the difference to the league average, not absolute ORtg. It makes not much sense to compare absolute values, because they are affected by a lot of things specific for one season.

I'm not comparing oRtg's, in fact. What I'm showing you is that the Lakers were the best offense in the league for an entire decade, both in the regular season and playoffs. We're talking about dynasties here, not who was better for a one or two year period.

Had the Suns been able to do it for longer, and more importantly, dominate offensively in the playoffs on a regular basis, they'd have an actual argument. I don't think the whole "well they didn't have the opportunity" argument works either, because it's about who did what not who could have done this or that given the opportunity.

And we can add the 4 years on the Mavericks to that from 2001 to 2004 and we end up that Nash was a vital part of an offense over 11 years which was 6.4 points better than average. It is +5.0 for Magic from 1980 to 1990.

Really? We can add Nash's 4 years on the Mavs to bolster the argument that the Suns were a greatest offensive dynasty in history?

Stellar.

[An Unbiased Fan]

The Suns were simply better offensively in comparison to their competition than the Lakers.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you on this statwise. The point is that many of us don't equate ORtg differentials as a measurement for the best offense. There are a myriad of factors at play.

For example, the 2002 Kings had a bigger DRtg differential than the 1989 Badboy Pistons. Yet, the Kings were in no way, shape or form close to being an equal defensive team.

[Rapcity_11]

It's not fair to just say "Their offense only lived up to the hype once" (your words) when they play a team as great defensively as the Spurs were. The 06/07 Suns absolutely lived up to the hype...

Don't mistake what I'm saying. The Suns were a great offensive team that ran into a good defensive team. It's only natural that they're oRtg would drop as a result.

However, calling a team that had such a short(er) run a dynasty seems nutty to me. The Suns were fantastic for 6 years -- the Showtime Lakers for an entire decade.

The Showtime Lakers were downright dominant in the post-season, having the best offense 8 out of 9 seasons and the GOAT offensive season in 1986-87. I just don't see how the Suns can compare to that.

If we want to cherry-pick a few seasons here and there, great. The Suns have a case for being better here and there... but a dynasty is all about sustained excellence and the Suns have no argument when compared to the Showtime Lakers.

You said they didn't live up to the hype, except for 2 years. That's not a fair point to make and frankly, not true. That's all I'm saying.

Prefering longer playoff runs and more years is a fine view point to have, no issues there. But, the Suns did a better job relative to league average, how is that not comparable?

[semi-sentient]

The Suns had Nash for 7 years,

... and in those 7 years they had the best offense in the league only 3 times in the regular season and twice in the playoffs. I don't care what the circumstances were either.

Please explain to me how that makes them a better DYNASTY than a team who had the #1 offense 7 times in the regular season and 8 times (and 6 consecutive years) in the playoffs.

how much sense does it make to base your argument on the fact that Magic played more seasons for the Lakers than 7?

Do you even understand my argument, or are you just looking to argue?

[Doctor MJ]

They acquired Nash and had the greatest offensive dynasty in history.

Hardly. The Showtime Lakers dominated for an entire decade, so I think they deserve that honor more than a team that had a great 6-year run where their offense only lived up to the hype twice in the post-season. I've been a Nash supporter for a while now and think that he's one of the best offensive players ever, but claiming that the Suns are the greatest offensive dynasty is kind of absurd.


Showtime Lakers

Code: Select all

Year   RS oRtg         PS oRtg (+5 games)
---------------------------------------
79-80  109.5 (1st)     107.6 (2nd)
80-81  107.6 (7th)     103.9 (7th)
81-82  110.2 (2nd)     111.9 (1st)
82-83  110.5 (1st)     108.1 (1st)
83-84  110.9 (5th)     114.7 (1st)
84-85  114.1 (1st)     117.0 (1st)
85-86  113.3 (1st)     115.6 (1st)
86-87  115.6 (1st)     119.9 (1st) -- GOAT offense
87-88  113.1 (2nd)     114.1 (3rd)
88-89  113.8 (1st)     115.8 (1st)
89-90  114.0 (1st)     112.7 (1st)
90-91  112.1 (5th)     111.7 (4th)

Nash's Suns

Code: Select all

Year   RS oRtg         PS oRtg (+5 games)
---------------------------------------
04-05: 114.5 (1st)     118.2 (1st)
05-06: 111.5 (2nd)     113.7 (2nd)
06-07: 113.9 (1st)     110.6 (2nd)
07-08: 113.3 (2nd)     104.1 (8th)
08-09: 113.6 (2nd)     n/a
09-10: 115.3 (1st)     117.8 (1st)
10-11: 109.5 (9th)     n/a

I don't really disagree.

In all honesty, "greatest offensive dynasty of all time" came out of my fingers because of Nash being on the best offense 9 years in a row, which Magic clearly can't match. You're quite right that Nash was only on the Suns for 6 of those years.

2 points:

1) For those wondering why I say Nash led the best offense 9 years in a row when sentient lists 3 2nd place finishes, it's because I'm going by an article written by Schumann on NBA.com which unfortunately doesn't seem to be coming up right now.

Why give more credibility to NBA.com than b-r.com? Well partly because I know with certainty that b-r.com is estimating here, which is the only way to do it if you want to make calculations going as deep into history as possible. I don't know the details of exactly how the NBA gets their numbers, but better numbers are possible, and if the NBA truly has inferior accuracy to b-r that's kind of insane given how much greater their resources.

2) As was mentioned, it should be factored in how effective offenses were in general, and who you faced in the playoffs. Love the Showtime Lakers and I don't want to take anything away from them, but clearly making such adjustments would make their playoff numbers look a bit less impressive.

[Doctor MJ]

The Suns were simply better offensively in comparison to their competition than the Lakers.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you on this statwise. The point is that many of us don't equate ORtg differentials as a measurement for the best offense. There are a myriad of factors at play.

For example, the 2002 Kings had a bigger DRtg differential than the 1989 Badboy Pistons. Yet, the Kings were in no way, shape or form close to being an equal defensive team.

When you make broad stroke assertions of failure though, and people come back with the best stats we have on the subject and those stats contradict what you said, this is not something you can just sweep aside in the argument by mentioning one anecdote.

You are entitled to your opinion, but at this point, I just don't see what the contemplating voter should take away from your words here.