RealGM Top 100 List #18

[penbeast0]

Yeah, if Kidd had discovered his 3 point shot while he was still playing top drawer defense he'd definitely be in this conversation but at the time his defense started slipping he was the second worst shooting regular rotation player of modern times. Only Vern Maxwell was worse if I remember.

I do think Frazier is a step up from Nash/Stockton/Payton/Isiah group . . . Kidd and Billups are in next group with KJ, Timbug, and Tiny. . . and Cousy probably will rear his head somewhere in here too.

[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.

Wanted to touch on this a little more because it's not something I think we've really talked much about in the past and we should.

Truly, in terms of playoff ORtg's among teams who win a playoff series, no one comes close to leading the league as much as the Showtime Lakers in b-r's data. Truly, when you look at the data (which goes back through the mid-70s), the Showtime Lakers are the only ones that look like an "offensive dynasty" from that perspective.

Again, I don't really have a problem with using that to elevate those Lakers (In the end, I'm an Angeleno weaned on the Magic & Showtime), but a few things to keep in mind:

1) Small sample size in the playoffs

2) Being in a weak conference can skew these stats a lot

3) We're tending to see bigger separation from offenses in more recent years in the playoffs, so there are literally years where the league leading Lakers deviations from the mean is less than half of what the Suns did at their peak.

So I think it's wise to just not get too carried away with the data. Nash's teams did about what you'd expect given their regular season ratings, so I don't see any reason to let the playoffs drastically sway your opinions about him. If the playoffs cause you to give Magic a little boost, I don't have a problem with that.

[mysticbb]

This is where we differ in opinion. I don't think points per possession is a flawless way to rate an offense or defense. The King's DRtg isn't wrong, the use of that DRtg to say they were better than the Pistons however, would be. I'm not taking issue with the stats, but how they are being used.

The problem here seems to be that you haven't understood that each team has roughly the same amount of possessions in a game. The team which can convert those more efficient will in almost all cases win the game. The Kings were more efficient at defending opponents possessions than the Pistons. That is a fact. How they did it, matters not much in such a comparison. We can go deeper and look how they did it, that is fine, but only because they defended differently doesn't make them worse.

[Baller 24]

If Stockton impacted his team in a dominant fashion which is individual statistics claim, the Jazz would have been a lot better. Karl Malone might be the most effective and dominant offensive machine the forward position has ever seen, pair those individual statistics with Malone and you'd think the Jazz have a lot more successful runs, but that's obviously not the case. Then you look through it and see, who was the problem? Was one of them not as impactful as their individual statistics claim?

Well, a couple of seasons go on and bam the Jazz start hitting franchise records in wins, start peaking in dominance in the playoffs, routinely destroying teams, their offensive rating hits all-time franchise highs at the time. You notice Malone pick up a few MVPs, his production remains just as dominant, just as lethal offensively, and just as powerful when it comes to scoring. But you notice Stockton's production, you see it dropping, significantly.

That just seems wild to me, weren't they suppose to also drop as a team? Why is it that in '98 another peak season for Utah, they go 11-6 (including a 6 game win-streak) without him? Not only that, but MVP voting metrics virtually agree with that notion. As great as his individual numbers claim, they never translated to success where routinely KJ, Price, & even Porter rightfully so placed ahead of him in voting. Every superstar has his mark in MVP voting, even those that are one or two time wonders (Bernard King), but just not Stockton, and somehow just because it doesn't support his standing, we "can't" use it? Please.

Still don't see ANY reasoning to why he should be ahead of even Payton OR Kidd.

[ElGee]

I never "damned" Nash because of the Sun's performance in the playoffs. The whole issue came up when I referenced how the Suns weren't as versatile as the Showtime Lakers offensively, and how the Lakers were much better in the halfcourt as opposed to other offensive teams, which is a big factor in why they had playoff success as a run & gun team. the whole conversation was specifically about why the Suns couldn't get past the Spurs, and why they struggled against the LA teams in 06'.

But ALL of the evidence suggests otherwise. They couldn't get past the Spurs because the Spurs scored more points than they did. They couldn't *stop* the Spurs. Their scoring continued at an historically good rate...even against an historically good defense. In fact, it's pretty easy so argue the 2005 Suns postseason offense is the greatest in NBA history...which was the opposite of what you were contending about their postseason play.

Speaking to Nash, it has been explained numerous times how he is BETTER in the halfcourt, and digging up those PS offensive ratings, with a slightly slower pace, suggests that's true. Furthermore, if your point is one of rigidity, the year you keep pointing to, 2005, Nash was forced into a scorer and the offense didn't miss a beat. That's the crux of the issue between Nash and Stockton as players: Nash was always a threat to SCORE or make the right decision if the offense took it away. Stockton made efficient plays when they were available.

I'm not sure how you don't see that -- that's exactly what it looks like just watching them. That pretty much every available piece of information backs that up is like using an A-bomb to kill an ant.

[semi-sentient]

2) Being in a weak conference can skew these stats a lot

I had considered that, and when I get time I'll do a little more analysis on how the Lakers offense performed against top 3 defenses. I don't recall the Showtime Lakers ever really having trouble the way that the Suns did when they faced off against a top-tier defensive team such as the Spurs, but that's just based on memory at the moment.

Here is a list of top 3 defenses (based on dRtg) that the Lakers faced during Magic's tenure, not including 1988-89 when Magic was injured against the Pistons (#2 defense):

1979-80: Sixers (1st), Sonics (3rd)
1983-84: Celtics (3rd)
1987-88: Pistons (2nd), Jazz (1st)
1989-90: Rockets (1st)
1990-91: Blazers (3rd), Rockets (2nd)

I suppose the easiest way to see how much of a drop off there was is to calculate the Lakers oRtg and see how much it deviated from their RS oRtg, but it's a fairly complicated formula they use and I don't have time at the moment (surely someone else is up to the task?).

The only data that I have readily available is for the 1990-91 run, and the Lakers had a slight drop against the Blazers (-0.5) and Rockets (-1.2).

On the flip-side, the Suns oRtg dropped off by fairly significant margins (-0.6, -6.2, -9.2) in 2 of the 3 times they faced the Spurs who were the only top 3 defense that Nash's Suns faced.

[lorak]

That just seems wild to me, weren't they suppose to also drop as a team? Why is it that in '98 another peak season for Utah, they go 11-6 (including a 6 game win-streak) without him?

IN 1998 season Jazz without Stockton were 11-7 (61.1%).
With him 51-13 (79.7%).
So he improved good team (61.1% is 50-51 wins during 82 games) to great team (65 wins), something what is very hard to do, and it seems that old (35 years) and after injury he was worth about 15 wins! (several different APM data that is available also suggest that Stockton impact was big outside of box score).

And during these 64 games with Stockton Jazz had the best offense of all time. Better than any of Nash's or Magic's teams...

[ElGee]

^^^Wait, what? Where are you getting this "best offense of all-time?" I'm confused.

[Baller 24]

IN 1998 season Jazz without Stockton were 11-7 (61.1%).
With him 51-13 (79.7%).
So he improved good team (61.1% is 50-51 wins during 82 games) to great team (65 wins), something what is very hard to do, and it seems that old (35 years) and after injury he was worth about 15 wins! (several different APM data that is available also suggest that Stockton impact was big outside of box score).

And during these 64 games with Stockton Jazz had the best offense of all time. Better than any of Nash's or Magic's teams...

Any links/evidence to hold this information accountable?

[Doctor MJ]

Also guys, just one word to think about when thinking that when looking at a guy like Payton's volume stats and thinking "Nash's offense can't be THAT much better than his":

Starbury

Go look up the numbers, quite similar to Payton's.

Gotta go beyond the numbers folks.

[lorak]

IN 1998 season Jazz without Stockton were 11-7 (61.1%).
With him 51-13 (79.7%).
So he improved good team (61.1% is 50-51 wins during 82 games) to great team (65 wins), something what is very hard to do, and it seems that old (35 years) and after injury he was worth about 15 wins! (several different APM data that is available also suggest that Stockton impact was big outside of box score).

And during these 64 games with Stockton Jazz had the best offense of all time. Better than any of Nash's or Magic's teams...

Any links/evidence to hold this information accountable?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... 8/gamelog/


Do calculations by yourself if you don't believe me.

ElGee,
during 1998 season Jazz with Stockton (64 games) had the best ortg relatively to LA in NBA history.

[penbeast0]

Also guys, just one word to think about when thinking that when looking at a guy like Payton's volume stats and thinking "Nash's offense can't be THAT much better than his":

Starbury

Go look up the numbers, quite similar to Payton's.

Gotta go beyond the numbers folks.

I didn't compare Payton's offense to Nash's (or Stockton's), I compared it to Isiah's with whom it compared reasonably -- and the defensive difference is huge.

[ElGee]

So, just want to reiterate how the Nash Suns performed on offense:

Using efficiency relative to league average (http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205), the top offenses in RS history:

1. Suns 2007 (3.25 z-score)
2. Suns 2005 (2.92)
3. Bucks 1971 (2.72)
4. Suns 2010 (2.59)
5. Nuggets 1982 (2.56)
6. Mavericks 2004 (2.49)
7. Rockets 1975 (2.40)
8. Lakers 1987 (2.34)
9. Kings 2004 (2.33)
10. Suns 2006 (2.31)
11. Suns 2009 (2.13)
12. Celtics 1988 (2.12)
13. Sonics 1998 (2.07)
14. Bulls 1996 (2.02)
15. Lakers 1985 (2.00)
16. Spurs 1978 (2.00)
17. Sonics 1995 (2.00)
18. Sonics 2004 (1.99)
19. Mavericks 2002 (1.98)
20. Sonics 1997 (1.94)

Nash has been 7 of the top-20 offenses of all-time. He's been on 3 of the top 4 in Phoenix.

Here's what's so interesting...in 2008 the team was totally shaken up with the Shaquille O'Neal trade. So you're looking at 05-07, and 2010 as good situations for the team. 4 years. One of those years, in 2006, they were playing with scraps and went into the playoffs, basically, without any big people. And yet...

I'd like to add in that I've now calculated almost all of the 110+ offenses in the PS since 1980, and relative to their opp RS DRtg avg., these are the unofficial top PS offenses:

1. Suns 2005 16.2
2. Suns 2010 12.6
3. Lakers 2001 12.2
4. Suns 1992 11.8
5. Suns 1995 11.5
6. Bulls 1991 10.9
7. Lakers 1987 10.5
8. Nuggets 2009 10.2
9. Mavericks 2003 10.0
10. Lakers 1985 9.8
11. Lakers 1998 9.5
12. Kings 2003 9.5
13. Magic 1996 9.3
14. Rockets 1997 9.3
15. Lakers 1989 9.1
16. Mavericks 2002 9.0
17. Spurs 2006 9.0
18. Suns 2006 9.0
19. Bulls 1993 8.9
20. Mavericks 2005 8.7

Somehow the 2006 Suns still managed one of the 20-best PS offenses relative to their defensive environment. The ONLY Suns team not on that list is the greatest RS offense of all-time in 2007. Why? What happened to them if they were so great in the RS?

Well, in G3, the entire Suns team was dubiously in foul trouble. This was considered at the time one of the weirdest/worst officiated games in recent times, and has since been discussed in the Donaughy scandal, which is saying something since the teams involved were so small market and it was the conference semis. (I watched with a bunch of “neutral” fans at the gym and they were saying stuff like “I'm not rooting for Phoenix, but they just got screwed.” Make of that what you will, but the team was in heavy foul trouble that game.)

In G5 they played without suspended players Stoudemire and Diaw and ran 6 guys basically. SAS had a 99.9. If we remove G5, Phoenix's Ortg for the series becomes 109.2 (+9.3), which would be 13th on the above list. Without G3, they had a 110.2 Ortg (+10.3), which would be 8th on the above list.

Basically, saying in any form that Steve Nash, or the Suns offense, didn't bring it at historically good levels during these key years is just categorically false.

[mysticbb]

ElGee,
during 1998 season Jazz with Stockton (64 games) had the best ortg relatively to LA in NBA history.

Actually, that is not true. The Jazz had 113.9 ORtg in games with Stockton, that is "only" 8.9 better than league average. The 2004 Mavericks were 9.2 better.
The Jazz, btw, got also worse defensively with Stockton.

But Stockton also played only 29 minutes. Not quite sure how much is really related to him. If we would assume that this is all his impact, we would end up with a +11 player in order to get the result, that is basically peak level Nash.

And the biggest question: Why did they do so much worse in the playoffs? Against 102.7 DRtg teams they managed to get to 102.8 ORtg, that is basically average.

So, not quite sure how much stock we should put into it.

[therealbig3]

@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.

The 91 and 93 Bulls had Horace Grant, one of the best defensive forwards in the league, and Scottie Pippen, one of the best defensive players ever. The 93 Sonics had a prime Shawn Kemp, who was just an overall force to be reckoned with.

[lorak]

ElGee,
during 1998 season Jazz with Stockton (64 games) had the best ortg relatively to LA in NBA history.

Actually, that is not true. The Jazz had 113.9 ORtg in games with Stockton, that is "only" 8.9 better than league average. The 2004 Mavericks were 9.2 better.

Well, by my calculations they were 114.7 and that's why I was saying the best of all time. But maybe my calculations are bad, I was doing them several years ago, so I'll check it tomorrow morning.

The Jazz, btw, got also worse defensively with Stockton.

Yes, but their efficiency differential improved with him (almost x2!), and of course W-L% (from 50-51 team, to 65). It seems he was worth about 15 wins.

And the biggest question: Why did they do so much worse in the playoffs? Against 102.7 DRtg teams they managed to get to 102.8 ORtg, that is basically average.

So, not quite sure how much stock we should put into it.

Well, playoffs are different story. I was just pointing how big impact had 35 year old Stockton during that regular season (and APM data we have confirms that he had big impact outside of box score, so it's rather not a fluke). But it wouldn't be first time when he disappointed in the playoffs. Nash here is better, probably because he is more a scorer than Stockton was.

[ElGee]

IN 1998 season Jazz without Stockton were 11-7 (61.1%).
With him 51-13 (79.7%).
So he improved good team (61.1% is 50-51 wins during 82 games) to great team (65 wins), something what is very hard to do, and it seems that old (35 years) and after injury he was worth about 15 wins! (several different APM data that is available also suggest that Stockton impact was big outside of box score).

And during these 64 games with Stockton Jazz had the best offense of all time. Better than any of Nash's or Magic's teams...

Any links/evidence to hold this information accountable?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... 8/gamelog/


Do calculations by yourself if you don't believe me.

ElGee,
during 1998 season Jazz with Stockton (64 games) had the best ortg relatively to LA in NBA history.

Well, I know they scored 102.1 ppg in the 64 games with Stock. The pace was right around the 89.2 they had without Stock. 102.1/89.2 = 114.5. That's 9.5 points better than league average.


EDIT: Actually did the calculation. Mystic is 100% correct that it is 113.9

The only problem with the statement is that it's 64 games, not 82. When we remove other superstars from lineups, their offense is bumped as well. For instance, the 05 Suns go up to 115.5 ORtg (+9.4) if we remove Nash's 7 missed games. So it's kind of a bizarre thing to phrase that way -- it's not a level field, so don't get to say that -- even if your point about their offense being fantastic is a sound one.

[lorak]

The 91 and 93 Bulls had Horace Grant, one of the best defensive forwards in the league, and Scottie Pippen, one of the best defensive players ever. The 93 Sonics had a prime Shawn Kemp, who was just an overall force to be reckoned with.

Grant is overrated as defender. Bulls actually improved when he left.
And Kemp in 1993 was still too young.
And are you really comparing them to Hakeem, Robinson and Malone?! Because about such quality big men I was talking about.

[lorak]

Well, I know they scored 102.1 ppg in the 64 games with Stock. The pace was right around the 89.2 they had without Stock. 102.1/89.2 = 114.5. That's 9.5 points better than league average.

The only problem with the statement is that it's 64 games, not 82. When we remove other superstars from lineups, their offense is bumped as well. For instance, the 05 Suns go up to 115.5 ORtg (+9.4) if we remove Nash's 7 missed games. So it's kind of a bizarre thing to phrase that way -- it's not a level field, so don't get to say that -- even if your point about their offense being fantastic is a sound one.

Yeah, I know, but still, look even Suns 2005 in games Nash played hadn't so good ortg.
But ok, "the best offense of all time" isn't too important, the point is - Stockton impact was all time great that season.

[An Unbiased Fan]

That's the crux of the issue between Nash and Stockton as players: Nash was always a threat to SCORE or make the right decision if the offense took it away. Stockton made efficient plays when they were available.

I'm not sure how you don't see that -- that's exactly what it looks like just watching them. That pretty much every available piece of information backs that up is like using an A-bomb to kill an ant.

Except I have posted plenty of evidence to the contrary. I have already said that Nash is the more explosive scorer, Stockton however, was just as efficient. Stockton was just as much of a threat to find a weakness in the defense, and hit the open man for a score. His unparalleled production as a playmaker backs that up. Stockton was also one of the best PGs ever at setting screens, and the best ever at stripping the ball away on defense.

Both players were great offensive PGs, but Stockton also played defense. Even more striking is that Stockton's individual offensive production is off the charts. His individual ORtg is higher than Nash's. Stockton's AST/To ratio is much higher too.

It's fine if you want to reference team ratings in the comparison. But it doesn't trump how they performed as individuals. I really don't know why these rating stats has taken over the debate.