RealGM Top 100 List #25

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

DQuinn1575
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,952
And1: 712
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#21 » by DQuinn1575 » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:37 pm

Warspite wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:Nash is the frontrunner here. I don't think I can take Frazier, Barry, or Pippen over him.

To those who voted for George Mikan — Will you be considering Paul Arizin next? He had the GOAT offensive season pre-shot clock, becoming one of the few players in NBA history to lead the league in scoring and field goal percentage in 1952. He comes back to the league in 1955, except now there's a shot clock, yet he's still dominant offensively because of his jump shot. Wins a scoring title in 1957. Has an all-time great playoff run in 1956, dropping 28.9 points and 8.4 rebounds per game in the playoffs en route to a championship. He was still an All-Star and 20+ PPG player in 1962, the year he retired. Notable players in 1962 include Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Pettit, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, and Elgin Baylor.

Come to think of it, if era dominance is big for you, I'm not sure why Mikan would be ahead of Arizin. Arizin proved his greatness against 5 players who were better than Mikan based on this list.



I think Arizin is a top 30 player but since you, I and Penbeast are the only ones who have ever heard of him what is the point? Before I get to my players in the 20s Im going to finish the top 20 1st.


All-star in 62 is not dominance at all.
Arizin is maybe best player in league in 52, top 5 player 4 other years in 50s, probably best player on champ team. Mikan had maybe best player in league 5 years best player on 4 champ teams - with no era adjustment

I can't pick him over Nash, who was top player twice in much tougher era.

And I think I'll have other guys with resumes similar to Arizin in tougher eras.

But at some point I pick him




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
JordansBulls
RealGM
Posts: 60,467
And1: 5,349
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#22 » by JordansBulls » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:43 pm

Between Isiah Thomas, Rick Barry, Walt Frazier for me here.
Image
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan
Basketballefan
Banned User
Posts: 2,170
And1: 583
Joined: Oct 14, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#23 » by Basketballefan » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:45 pm

JordansBulls wrote:Between Isiah Thomas, Rick Barry, Walt Frazier for me here.

In what way is Thomas better than Nash, Baylor, Drexler etc?
colts18
Head Coach
Posts: 7,434
And1: 3,255
Joined: Jun 29, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#24 » by colts18 » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:51 pm

Basketballefan wrote:In what way is Thomas better than Nash, Baylor, Drexler etc?


Winning titles with Franchises that never won before
User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,145
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#25 » by Quotatious » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:52 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Pure and simple . . . defense. Lanier was not a terribly good defensive center and that's a position where defense is crucial. Look at Detroit's defense throughout his prime, the team was good defensively once and below average defensively 8 times although toward the end of his tenure in Detroit, he was platooning offense/defense with Leon Douglas so not completely his fault.

That's (and of course the presence of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) is why despite being a consistent 24/12 big with good efficiency and a well liked player during his prime, he never made an all-NBA team, not even as 2nd team. Think rich man's Greg Monroe.

Yeah, Lanier's defensive reputation isn't very good, his teams in Detroit were typically below average defensively (except for the 1973-74 season, which was also clearly the best for the Pistons of that era, and they ranked 3rd in DRtg that year), but when he finally had some talented teams around him in Milwaukee, late in his career, the Bucks were among the best defensive teams in the league (3rd in 1981, 1st in 1982, 6th in 1983 and 2nd in 1984) - his minutes went down from about 36 in Detroit to 27 in Milwaukee, but he was still the Bucks' starting center, so it seems possible that he really stepped up his defensive effort (certainly had good defenders around him, Moncrief in particular, but still, I think he was better defensively in Milwaukee than in Detroit, not having to be the go-to-guy offensively anymore).

That being said, I think that Howard is better than Lanier because he combines elite defense and rebounding with very efficient scoring on a pretty decent volume, about 20 ppg on over 60% TS, he's a real two-way player and an MVP candidate, in his best seasons (a weak one, but still). So was Mourning (but he was a clearly worse rebounder than Howard, although had a midrange jumper that Dwight lacks). Mutombo? He's IMO a level below these guys (Howard and Mourning), because he couldn't be your #1 offensive option - he was a very efficient finisher, occasionally could even take advantage of a favorable matchup (like the 1997 Hawks vs Pistons series, when he averaged 18.2 ppg on 70% from the field and 74.5% TS), but he couldn't do it consistently, unlike Howard and Mourning. He may've been an even better defender than Howard or Mourning (but all of them were top 10 all-time caliber defenders, it's their main strength, but Mutombo is just possibly top 5), and he's still a little ahead of Howard and Mourning in terms of longevity (especially clearly ahead of Zo, Dwight's longevity is already better than Alonzo's) - Dikembe played on his prime level for 11 consecutive seasons, from his rookie season in 1991-92 to 2001-02, and he was also very durable, usually playing 80+ games, never playing less than 71 games during that stretch, but honestly, for me it would be hard to put him ahead of Mourning or especially Howard, because he IMO simply wasn't on the same level as a player (Howard was arguably the best player in the NBA in 2011, top 5 between 2008 and 2012, Mourning was arguably the second best in 1999 and 2000, while Mutombo was maybe top 10 in a season or two, at best, but usually just top 15).

Lanier vs Mutombo is pretty interesting - both guys had a totally different weakness in their game - Lanier was a relatively poor defender, Mutombo was a relatively poor offensive player), Mutombo was the clearly better rebounder, Lanier the clearly better passer, longevity is pretty close...It's really about your personal preference - I know that many guys on this board prefer their bigman to be a great defensive player, first and foremost (me too), but I'd really like to give Lanier the benefit of the doubt, about his defense. I know that lorak is the main Lanier supporter here, so I think he could share some insight about his D with us. I'd certainly appreciate that.

Still, Gilmore is my #1 pick among the remaining centers - he's the best combination of offense, defense, rebounding and longevity. Also, Parish is somewhere in the mix, roughly on the level of Mutombo and Lanier.

Warspite wrote:I think Arizin is a top 30 player but since you, I and Penbeast are the only ones who have ever heard of him what is the point? Before I get to my players in the 20s Im going to finish the top 20 1st.

Oh, come on, why do you have to act like that? Simply because someone doesn't agree with your views,doesn't mean that you should act like they're clueless about a certain player.
I don't rank Arizin nearly as high, first I'd like to see someone compare him to his peers like Schayes, Cousy and Sharman (maybe also Hagan?). Admittedly, his 1951 and 1952 (speaking of the pre-shot clock era, as Mikan's contemporary) seasons were very impressive (45% FG and almost 55% TS in '52 is pretty amazing), but I'm not sure if he was really that much better than his contemporaries like Cousy, Sharman or Schayes. It's possible that I'll change my mind, but right now I see Arizin closer to the Cousy/Sharman/Schayes level (probably somewhere in the 50-60 range on my all-time list, so even if Arizin was better than all of them, he'd be top 45-50 at best), than to Bob Pettit level (top 25).
Basketballefan
Banned User
Posts: 2,170
And1: 583
Joined: Oct 14, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#26 » by Basketballefan » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:59 pm

colts18 wrote:
Basketballefan wrote:In what way is Thomas better than Nash, Baylor, Drexler etc?


Winning titles with Franchises that never won before

The funny thing is, Thomas is overrated by most outside of this site yet a little underrated on here.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,535
And1: 22,531
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#27 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Sep 1, 2014 12:02 am

ronnymac2 wrote:Nash is the frontrunner here. I don't think I can take Frazier, Barry, or Pippen over him.

To those who voted for George Mikan — Will you be considering Paul Arizin next? He had the GOAT offensive season pre-shot clock, becoming one of the few players in NBA history to lead the league in scoring and field goal percentage in 1952. He comes back to the league in 1955, except now there's a shot clock, yet he's still dominant offensively because of his jump shot. Wins a scoring title in 1957. Has an all-time great playoff run in 1956, dropping 28.9 points and 8.4 rebounds per game in the playoffs en route to a championship. He was still an All-Star and 20+ PPG player in 1962, the year he retired. Notable players in 1962 include Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Pettit, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, and Elgin Baylor.

Come to think of it, if era dominance is big for you, I'm not sure why Mikan would be ahead of Arizin. Arizin proved his greatness against 5 players who were better than Mikan based on this list.


So just a few rambling thoughts here.

First, obviously I'm expecting to vote Nash here.

On Frazier, I've always had a ton of respect for the guy. I think he's smarter and more self-aware than Isiah or Payton and more capable of alpha-ing than Stockton or Kidd. Going by peak, I probably take him over all of them, but longevity is a concern.

Barry is a guy I respect a lot and I could easily see voting for him very soon. He has the definite possibility of being overrated based on his volume scoring, and I need to be clear that my esteem for him comes from seeing him as a very smart player despite his inefficiency as a scorer. This is where it gets a little tricky. Low shooting efficiency is often a sign of a player who in general doesn't do smart things, but such is not necessarily the case. The obvious exceptions come from guys like Kidd or, say, Ricky Rubio, who just aren't good shooters but have to shoot to keep the defense honest. With someone like Barry though, it is a decision making weakness but it doesn't seem to carry over into other parts of his game. He played point forward, he moved well without the ball, he shot free throws the smartest way he could, and of course he had championship success with a club that relied on him to be the veteran voice on the floor for big minutes as the younger guys checked in & out.

Pippen? Another strong candidate. I do tend to think of him and Hondo together, and I have to give the nod to Pippen prime on prime. If someone can make a longevity argument for Hondo though I'd listen.

Okay now, Arizin. And of course I wasn't one of the MIkan guys, so technically you aren't asking me.

I typically think of Arizin in terms of Schayes. Schayes had the better career then, but Arizin probably has the better career in future eras. However, much of the reason for this is that Arizin had his career interrupted. These guys were the same age and Arizin was arguably the better player before he went off to the military, so it's not actually that great of a leap to give Arizin the nod there.

The fact remains though that Arizin didn't have great longevity, and while that longevity wouldn't be an issue in a comparison against Mikan, it would be against most anyone else. If you want to come back and say "Well if it didn't stop Mikan..." okay, but MIkan's already in now, so there's not much productive to be said about it.

Generally Arizin gets in around 60 or so, and to me that's not unreasonable. We can judge as the time comes, and my ears will be open, the one thing on the pro-Arizin side I will say right now:

Cousy is the same age as Arizin, and he didn't actually play THAT much more than Arizin. To me Arizin was the better player at the time, and he maps better to the modern game than Cousy. I've never seen any group take seriously the idea of voting Arizin before Cousy, but I think they should really think about it.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
colts18
Head Coach
Posts: 7,434
And1: 3,255
Joined: Jun 29, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#28 » by colts18 » Mon Sep 1, 2014 12:09 am

Amazing Stockton stats:

15x leader in Assist% (18x in the top 3)
From his 2nd season until he retired, Stockton finished top 2 in Assist% every single season :o

7x in top 3 of steal%
15x in the top 10 of steals

10x in the top 10 of TS% (8x in eFG%)
7x in the top 3 of TS%

12x in the top 10 of Offensive Rating
11x in the top 10 of Offensive Win Shares
4x in the top 10 of Defensive Win Shares
11x in the top 10 of Win Shares
14x in the top 10 of WS/48

10x in the top 10 of PER


16 seasons of 82 games played (17 if you count the lockout year), Most in history (2nd best at 13)
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,413
And1: 9,939
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#29 » by penbeast0 » Mon Sep 1, 2014 12:17 am

Doctor MJ wrote:...When you say they are about even as scorers, what's the basis for this? They shot at similar volume, but Nash was considerably more efficient.....


More efficient but not "considerably" when you look at efficiency relative to the other PGs in his era. The 3 point shot has made it much easier for guards to score efficiently but Frazier was the most efficient PG of the 70s. In his early career, West and Oscar (both already voted in) competed with him for most efficient (at higher scoring volumes during Oscar's Cinncinnati days) but from 72 on, Frazier had the other guards in the league beaten. The other All-NBA guard of that era were Archibald, Goodrich, Maravich, Bing, Van Lier, Chenier, JoJo White, Phil Smith, Randy Smith . . . that takes us up to the ABA merger. Only Archibald approached Frazier's efficiency.

And, that's while putting in full energy on defense. So many times, people have excused players like Jordan, Kobe, Erving, etc. from putting their full energy on defense so they could be better offensive players. Frazier carried the primary offensive load for the Knicks while also setting new standards for outstanding defense.

I'd give Nash the efficiency advantage too but it's not a strong edge like Frazier's defensive edge. The only strong advantage Nash has over Frazier is assists and, as I said, anyone who saw Frazier's offense saw that he ran extremely well; it just wasn't designed for high assist volumes (like Nash did a fine job running the Dallas offense but never put up the assist numbers he had in Phoenix because the offense wasn't built for that).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,822
And1: 25,116
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#30 » by E-Balla » Mon Sep 1, 2014 12:18 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:I am voting Clyde Frazier at this spot. He was just flat out better defensively than Nash. Offensively they're about even as scorers and Nash is a better passer (better overall) but I can't help but to think that the hand check helped him become so dominant and if it did that means that for half his career he wasn't an ATG that could lead anyone anywhere. Meanwhile Walt by his second season was a top 5 player caliber guy and was good enough to lead NY to rings (a level he stayed at for many years). I'd take 8 years of Walt's prime over 5 years of Nash even if its at a slightly lower level.


Apologies again for now doubling up on you. I'll say up front that I expected (and hoped) that there would be a serious Nash vs Frazier discussion and I won't be remotely offended if Frazier gets vote in first.

When you say they are about even as scorers, what's the basis for this? They shot at similar volume, but Nash was considerably more efficient.

Hand check rule? An understandable thing to bring up, but what exactly is the specific allegation? There never was an era where it was seen as okay to actually push a driving player. Guys got away with minor stuff, but anything major got called. The notion then that a player couldn't drive like Nash drove with the old norms in place seems pretty weird to me.

Moreover, part of the reason people freaked out over the rule change is that they perceived that it let guys dominate by getting to the line. Dwyane Wade was the poster boy for this, but Kobe, Iverson, etc also saw a similar boost.

Guess who didn't? Nash

This is important because it can't be both ways here. If Nash is the true poster boy for guys whose career was forever changed by the rule, then the narrative has to be that the rule change made defenses immediately play timid to avoid fouls, but that doesn't fit with the narrative that the rule change made defenses foul more, which is backed up when we look at the careers of Kobe & Wade who were voted in to this project with basically no concern about them being able to make it in the prior eras.

I think int the end it's just important to not to look for excuses to ignore accomplishments. One can turn that back on me given that I was against Mikan and that's fine, I won't say I'm above reproach here, but when we're talking about a guy whose prime we all just lived through, to me that's a bit more eye-opening.

Well eFG% went up for those guys too (Kobe, Vince, Ray, Iverson, etc. all saw eFG% jumps. Not major but noticeable). Now the reason I never brought up prior eras with Wade was that we had no proof on how he would play. Outside of his pretty decent rookie season he played in the non hand check era (same thing with Lebron who I actually believe would fall off a bit but I have no proof at all so I didn't let it effect my thinking).

With Kobe he was already seen as great in the handcheck era and he was supposed to be hitting his peak right around the time the rules changed when you look at his age. For those two its nothing like Nash who went from top 5-10 guard to top 5 player in one season. Now he changed teams and roles but there's no doubt in my mind that the rule changes affected him and his impact. I think the lack of a handcheck made it a bit easier for Nash to play that high tempo PNR ball because along with it they called more fouls and defenders got a bit more timid. That didn't effect Nash much but it effected his impact on his teammates who now had more open lanes to work off of his creation.

In Nash's Dallas All-NBA seasons (02-03) he averaged 27.3 pp100 on 59 TS with postseason averages of 23.2 pp100 on 57 TS which is amazing and when compared to league average his ORTG in Dallas was more impressive than in Phoenix (119 ORTG from 02-04, 120 ORTG in Phoenix). So as far as the impact goes something is fishy here.

Personally I think the only difference between the two Nashes is role and postseason performance (where he legitimately improved).

Re: Walt vs Nash scoring -

Here's something I found pretty interesting, a comparison of both guys career high in pp100 (mainly doing this because both played in completely opposite systems for their primes, Nash in the high paced SSOL and Walt in the slow paced early triangle):
Nash 03 - 27.8 pp100, 57.6 TS
Walt 72 - 29.6 pp100, 57.6 TS

Now I'm a big believer in stats not mattering for PGs. Like at all. The best PG in the league would average 15/7 if that's what was needed (look at Conley who didn't improve last season but increased production and efficiency when Mark Gasol went down) and a scrub PG could average 18/10 on a bad team (think Jrue Holiday and Ray Felton increasing production while still being bad offensive players). Walt IMO was in a system where he wasn't asked to create much (career high of about 8.5 ap100), score much (outside of 72 where he had no Reed or Monroe and happened to have his best statistical season), and he was allowed to let his team flourish. Now Nash didn't have to score much or create much in Dallas but in Phoenix he was asked to do everything and as a result his raw numbers skyrocketed but his overall efficiency numbers didn't.

When I look at who was the better scorer I look at Nash on a slower paced, less Nash-centric team because honestly its the only way to create an even field with Walt and the two look about the same. Then when adjusting for time period and rules I see no reason to take Nash over Walt as a scorer unless I'm ignoring his Dallas seasons or I believe (like many do) that he improved leaps once leaving Dallas.

If someone could show me or prove to me that outside of him becoming a better postseason performer Nash improved leaps and bounds over what he did in Dallas I'd definitely change my mind but I'm seeing more of a stylistic change and less of a game change.
JordansBulls
RealGM
Posts: 60,467
And1: 5,349
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#31 » by JordansBulls » Mon Sep 1, 2014 12:23 am

Basketballefan wrote:
JordansBulls wrote:Between Isiah Thomas, Rick Barry, Walt Frazier for me here.

In what way is Thomas better than Nash, Baylor, Drexler etc?

Better player than they were especially in the playoffs.
Image
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,822
And1: 25,116
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#32 » by E-Balla » Mon Sep 1, 2014 12:30 am

Basketballefan wrote:
JordansBulls wrote:Between Isiah Thomas, Rick Barry, Walt Frazier for me here.

In what way is Thomas better than Nash, Baylor, Drexler etc?

My guess is that he likes the postseason performance.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,535
And1: 22,531
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#33 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Sep 1, 2014 12:55 am

penbeast0 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:...When you say they are about even as scorers, what's the basis for this? They shot at similar volume, but Nash was considerably more efficient.....


More efficient but not "considerably" when you look at efficiency relative to the other PGs in his era. The 3 point shot has made it much easier for guards to score efficiently but Frazier was the most efficient PG of the 70s. In his early career, West and Oscar (both already voted in) competed with him for most efficient (at higher scoring volumes during Oscar's Cinncinnati days) but from 72 on, Frazier had the other guards in the league beaten. The other All-NBA guard of that era were Archibald, Goodrich, Maravich, Bing, Van Lier, Chenier, JoJo White, Phil Smith, Randy Smith . . . that takes us up to the ABA merger. Only Archibald approached Frazier's efficiency.

And, that's while putting in full energy on defense. So many times, people have excused players like Jordan, Kobe, Erving, etc. from putting their full energy on defense so they could be better offensive players. Frazier carried the primary offensive load for the Knicks while also setting new standards for outstanding defense.

I'd give Nash the efficiency advantage too but it's not a strong edge like Frazier's defensive edge. The only strong advantage Nash has over Frazier is assists and, as I said, anyone who saw Frazier's offense saw that he ran extremely well; it just wasn't designed for high assist volumes (like Nash did a fine job running the Dallas offense but never put up the assist numbers he had in Phoenix because the offense wasn't built for that).


This is a strange statement to make given that Nash has an argument as the GOAT shooter, and Frazier's nowhere near the discussion. I get that there's more to actual efficiency than pure shooting, but when you're hanging your hat on things like 3-point shooting making up the difference to help Frazier in comparison with a far better 3-point shooter it's weird to me.

To the notion that Frazier was as good as any in his time, sure, but there was no Nash back then.

To the connection with Oscar & West, well, not that it matters for the pure efficiency conversation, but as scorers they scored at greater volume than Nash & Frazier and that's where there arguments relative to Nash come from.

Also as I noted earlier, love Oscar & West and consider them quite efficient, but their efficiency numbers plateaued as the league average rose. There's no justification to elevate them to volume/efficiency combos that would make them GOAT level scorers.

Last I'll note that the 3 point shot means taking longer shots which are technically more difficult. This is compensated for counting them more, but if we just look at FG% which ignores degree of difficulty (and FT% for that matter), the league averages haven't gone up since Frazier's time to now despite added skill in these deeper shots. Yet even if we look there Frazier doesn't come out with an edge over Nash.

Re: energy on defense. Yup, that's Frazier's argument.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,650
And1: 8,296
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#34 » by trex_8063 » Mon Sep 1, 2014 1:04 am

Warspite wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:Nash is the frontrunner here. I don't think I can take Frazier, Barry, or Pippen over him.

To those who voted for George Mikan — Will you be considering Paul Arizin next? He had the GOAT offensive season pre-shot clock, becoming one of the few players in NBA history to lead the league in scoring and field goal percentage in 1952. He comes back to the league in 1955, except now there's a shot clock, yet he's still dominant offensively because of his jump shot. Wins a scoring title in 1957. Has an all-time great playoff run in 1956, dropping 28.9 points and 8.4 rebounds per game in the playoffs en route to a championship. He was still an All-Star and 20+ PPG player in 1962, the year he retired. Notable players in 1962 include Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Pettit, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, and Elgin Baylor.

Come to think of it, if era dominance is big for you, I'm not sure why Mikan would be ahead of Arizin. Arizin proved his greatness against 5 players who were better than Mikan based on this list.



I think Arizin is a top 30 player but since you, I and Penbeast are the only ones who have ever heard of him what is the point?



:roll:

Image
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Basketballefan
Banned User
Posts: 2,170
And1: 583
Joined: Oct 14, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#35 » by Basketballefan » Mon Sep 1, 2014 1:06 am

I can't agree with the notion that Frazier is near Nash on offense.

Defense is Frazier's main argument, but how legitimate is it? Frazier was a better defender than Magic as well, doesn't make him a better player.
Warspite
RealGM
Posts: 13,533
And1: 1,231
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: Surprise AZ
Contact:
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#36 » by Warspite » Mon Sep 1, 2014 1:12 am

No Arizin is not better than Cousy but Cousy has a top 15 resume.

What is strange to me is Willis Reed. A 2 time MVP with 2 titles and he is maybe the most portable big man of all time who would be a much better player today than in his own era.

However IMHO we should let the bigs take a back seat and let the 20s be about PGs and scoring wings.
HomoSapien wrote:Warspite, the greatest poster in the history of realgm.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,650
And1: 8,296
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#37 » by trex_8063 » Mon Sep 1, 2014 1:58 am

I want to comment a bit on how we weight offense vs. defense for the various positions, with application toward the Stockton/Nash comparison.

Nash's defensive short-comings (relative to Stockton or Frazier, for instance) are often given a pass based on the claim that the PG position is not a big defensive impact position anyway; so any short-comings are minimally felt. So what is the appropriate offense:defense weight-ratio by position?

For centers is it more or less a 1:1 ratio? Or is it even 1:2+ (in favor of defense), given their responsibilities as rim-protectors/defensive anchors? Is that why/how Russell is #3?

How far does the pendulum swing back in the other direction for PG's? Is offense weighted like 5x as much as defense for a PG? 5x seems a bit extreme to me, but let's run with that as we compare Nash/Stockton.....

I'm going to run thru some offensive comparison numbers.
Here are Regular Season Per 100 possession (Pts + Ast)/Per 100 Turnovers/TS% for.....
Peak Season (based on Pts+Ast per 100)
Stockton ('90): 42.4/4.7/.607
Nash ('07): 42.9/5.4/.654

Prime
Stockton ('88-'97): 39.7/4.7/.619
Nash ('02-'11): 39.8/4.8/.613

Career
Stockton: 37.8/4.5/.608
Nash: 37.1/4.7/.605

Post-Season Per 100 (Pts + Ast)/Per 100 Turnovers/TS% for.....
Peak Season (based on Per 100 (Pts + Ast) in year going BEYOND 1st Round)
Stockton ('88): 39.9/5.1/.618
***In '89 he had 42.6/3.8/.601, but was a 1st round exit
Nash ('05): 44.1/5.9/.604

Prime
Stockton: 37.6/4.5/.574
Nash: 38.8/4.7/.589

Career
Stockton: 35.8/4.3/.568
Nash: 37.8/4.6/.583

Regular Season Individual ORtg for....
Peak Season
Stockton ('88, '95, '96, '97): 125
Nash ('07): 124

Prime
Stockton: 122
Nash: 120

Career
Stockton: 121
Nash: 118

Post-Season Individual ORtg for.....
Peak Season (where went beyond 1st round)
Stockton ('91): 124
***though did have 130 ORtg in '87, 128 ORtg in '86, '89, and '01; but all were 1st round exits
Nash ('10): 122

Prime
Stockton: 117
Nash: 117

Career
Stockton: 116
Nash: 116

Both led league-leading team offenses in their respective careers.

Now I won't argue that Stockton is Nash's equal offensively. But I would argue the gap isn't huge (and I think all of the above is ample support of that). So let's go back to the above suggestion of a 5:1 ratio weighting offense 5x as important as defense for PG's. And just for the sake of simplicity within this example let's just go with an uber-simple rating on a scale of 1-10 for both sides of the ball.

Nash Offense---10 (one of the best ever, no question)
Stockton Offense---9 (again: gap not huge, well supported by the above; exact rating is debatable, obviously).

Nash Defense---4 (effort is there, reasonable defensive IQ is there, just isn't tall/big enough to be versatile [guard other positions] or even the rare big/strong PG, and lacks the lateral quickness to guard well many other PG's)
Stockton Defense---9 (he's tough, aggressive, DIRTY, with high defensive IQ; and unlike Nash, he had the lateral quickness to stay with other PG's his own size....basically he's elite guarding his own position, and also tends to create many turnovers; frankly only reason he's not more like a 10, imo, is that he simply lacks the size to be versatile defensively)

So with the 5:1 ratio I proposed (and again, I think that's fairly extreme already; I mean if we were to stretch it to 8:1 or 10:1, for instance: that's basically saying that a PG [particularly one who's a sub-par defender anyway] can literally sit on the sideline when his team's on defense with minimal adverse effect on the outcome).....
Nash: 10 (x5) + 4 = 54
Stockton: 9 (x5) + 9 = 54

I'm not suggesting this as an actual method of evaluation, but just using this simple system to get everyone to think about how they're factoring (or disregarding) PG defense, and to illustrate that the defensive gap is relevant between Nash/Stockton even with defense weighted way down.
EDIT: And don't forget Stockton has at least a small longevity advantage, too.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,535
And1: 22,531
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#38 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Sep 1, 2014 2:24 am

GC Pantalones wrote:Well eFG% went up for those guys too (Kobe, Vince, Ray, Iverson, etc. all saw eFG% jumps. Not major but noticeable). Now the reason I never brought up prior eras with Wade was that we had no proof on how he would play. Outside of his pretty decent rookie season he played in the non hand check era (same thing with Lebron who I actually believe would fall off a bit but I have no proof at all so I didn't let it effect my thinking).

With Kobe he was already seen as great in the handcheck era and he was supposed to be hitting his peak right around the time the rules changed when you look at his age. For those two its nothing like Nash who went from top 5-10 guard to top 5 player in one season. Now he changed teams and roles but there's no doubt in my mind that the rule changes affected him and his impact. I think the lack of a handcheck made it a bit easier for Nash to play that high tempo PNR ball because along with it they called more fouls and defenders got a bit more timid. That didn't effect Nash much but it effected his impact on his teammates who now had more open lanes to work off of his creation.


What you seem to be saying is that the only reason it matters to you with regards to Nash is that he made his narrative leap from all-star to superstar the same year as the rule change occurred.

I phrase it like that and my hope is that doesn't sound crazy to you...but truthfully I have a huge problem with that because I'd say it needs to be based on something more concrete. Realistically, based on individual box score stats, there''s no reason to single Nash out here. Not only did other guys make more obvious leaps, Nash isn't even the type of player that makes that type of leap. It's score-first guards who showed signs of really getting the most help here, and quite literally Nash is the ONLY pass-first guard to even make All-NBA in '04-05. Yet it's Nash you doubt.

Does this not seem odd to you?

GC Pantalones wrote:Personally I think the only difference between the two Nashes is role and postseason performance (where he legitimately improved).


Although maybe I"m confused because I'm largely fine with this. I do think he was improving as a player, but to me the big thing is just how he was used in the scheme he was used.

GC Pantalones wrote:Re: Walt vs Nash scoring -

Here's something I found pretty interesting, a comparison of both guys career high in pp100 (mainly doing this because both played in completely opposite systems for their primes, Nash in the high paced SSOL and Walt in the slow paced early triangle):
Nash 03 - 27.8 pp100, 57.6 TS
Walt 72 - 29.6 pp100, 57.6 TS


Huh? Nash didn't play SSOL in 2003. I'm also really confused by the estimate of Walt's pp100. That doesn't seem to me to fit with what b-r has listed from him only a couple years later.

GC Pantalones wrote:Now I'm a big believer in stats not mattering for PGs. Like at all. The best PG in the league would average 15/7 if that's what was needed (look at Conley who didn't improve last season but increased production and efficiency when Mark Gasol went down) and a scrub PG could average 18/10 on a bad team (think Jrue Holiday and Ray Felton increasing production while still being bad offensive players). Walt IMO was in a system where he wasn't asked to create much (career high of about 8.5 ap100), score much (outside of 72 where he had no Reed or Monroe and happened to have his best statistical season), and he was allowed to let his team flourish. Now Nash didn't have to score much or create much in Dallas but in Phoenix he was asked to do everything and as a result his raw numbers skyrocketed but his overall efficiency numbers didn't.


First thing: Clearly his numbers didn't skyrocket, which is why you just used a year from his time in Dallas as his peak to compare him to Frazier. To me this is the thing we keep getting into again and again:

The reason why people think Nash's numbers skyrocketed is precisely because what was brilliant about his game wasn't his numbers. The lack of huge numbers is what led to people's skepticism, and amazingly this led to narratives talking about his numbers being inflated, and the ultimate irony of him being labeled a system player.

As far as Frazier not doing more than was needed, I agree, and this has everything to do with why I prefer him over many point guard who racked up more assists, but in the end one needs to boil it down to what a guy actually did do that helped his team. Those Knick teams weren't winning with unbeatable offense. The offense was good but not great. So for Frazier to take on a more minimalistic approach to point guard - however much it fit with what Red wanted - do we really think he had impact to the offense anything like what Nash was doing in Phoenix?

I don't see it as even close.

On the other side of things: Of course that means the Knicks were winning with defense, for which Frazier deserves some kudos. That defense died though before Frazier left his prime, which to me is all the more evidence that those other guys on his team were really doing great things for the team defense too.

GC Pantalones wrote:When I look at who was the better scorer I look at Nash on a slower paced, less Nash-centric team because honestly its the only way to create an even field with Walt and the two look about the same. Then when adjusting for time period and rules I see no reason to take Nash over Walt as a scorer unless I'm ignoring his Dallas seasons or I believe (like many do) that he improved leaps once leaving Dallas.

If someone could show me or prove to me that outside of him becoming a better postseason performer Nash improved leaps and bounds over what he did in Dallas I'd definitely change my mind but I'm seeing more of a stylistic change and less of a game change.


So the only way to compare the two as scorers is to ask how they would do if both were too dumb to attack the defense before it was ready to defend? :wink: Let's also note that the Knicks were still playing at a plenty fast pace compared to Nash's era.

I'm all for looking at guys in how they'd do in a wide variety of situations, but you have to take care not to place pointless, unrealistic handcuffs on a guy when doing the comparison.

One other thing, talking about individual scoring. One might assume that SSOL meant that Nash inflated his scoring by getting fast break points, but that wasn't how it worked. In fact, a smaller percentage of his points came from the fast break (12.5%) than did Chris Paul in his breakthrough year of '07-08 on the slow-as-molasses Hornets (15.7%).

The Suns scored a lot of fast break points on fast breaks run by Nash, but the goal was to get the ball to the guy running ahead, not for Nash to take it all the way. If you take a look at Nash's scoring in '04-05 by when it was in the shot clock, you'll actually see he shot better later in the shot clock while Marion & Amare's shooting went down.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,238
And1: 26,114
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#39 » by Clyde Frazier » Mon Sep 1, 2014 2:57 am

trex_8063 wrote:I want to comment a bit on how we weight offense vs. defense for the various positions, with application toward the Stockton/Nash comparison.


Great post. This is something I've been thinking about a lot today.

I see stockton's major advantage defensively giving him the edge. I find it interesting that Nash's lack of D is seemingly getting pushed aside here when he was highly criticized for it during his prime. Granted, this was emphasized more by people who didn't understand that the SSOL suns were a merely avg to slightly below avg defensive team as opposed to the worst in the league.

While Nash is in an elite class offensively for guards, Stockton was still very good offensively. I'd say his playoff shortcomings are overblown by detractors, although there are a few questionable games I still want to explore further. I wasn't quite ready to vote for him, but I think I probably will as Nash has gotten so much traction.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,413
And1: 9,939
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #25 

Post#40 » by penbeast0 » Mon Sep 1, 2014 2:58 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
Spoiler:
penbeast0 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:...When you say they are about even as scorers, what's the basis for this? They shot at similar volume, but Nash was considerably more efficient.....


More efficient but not "considerably" when you look at efficiency relative to the other PGs in his era. The 3 point shot has made it much easier for guards to score efficiently but Frazier was the most efficient PG of the 70s. In his early career, West and Oscar (both already voted in) competed with him for most efficient (at higher scoring volumes during Oscar's Cinncinnati days) but from 72 on, Frazier had the other guards in the league beaten. The other All-NBA guard of that era were Archibald, Goodrich, Maravich, Bing, Van Lier, Chenier, JoJo White, Phil Smith, Randy Smith . . . that takes us up to the ABA merger. Only Archibald approached Frazier's efficiency.

And, that's while putting in full energy on defense. So many times, people have excused players like Jordan, Kobe, Erving, etc. from putting their full energy on defense so they could be better offensive players. Frazier carried the primary offensive load for the Knicks while also setting new standards for outstanding defense.

I'd give Nash the efficiency advantage too but it's not a strong edge like Frazier's defensive edge. The only strong advantage Nash has over Frazier is assists and, as I said, anyone who saw Frazier's offense saw that he ran extremely well; it just wasn't designed for high assist volumes (like Nash did a fine job running the Dallas offense but never put up the assist numbers he had in Phoenix because the offense wasn't built for that).


This is a strange statement to make given that Nash has an argument as the GOAT shooter, and Frazier's nowhere near the discussion. I get that there's more to actual efficiency than pure shooting, but when you're hanging your hat on things like 3-point shooting making up the difference to help Frazier in comparison with a far better 3-point shooter it's weird to me.

To the notion that Frazier was as good as any in his time, sure, but there was no Nash back then.

To the connection with Oscar & West, well, not that it matters for the pure efficiency conversation, but as scorers they scored at greater volume than Nash & Frazier and that's where there arguments relative to Nash come from.

Also as I noted earlier, love Oscar & West and consider them quite efficient, but their efficiency numbers plateaued as the league average rose. There's no justification to elevate them to volume/efficiency combos that would make them GOAT level scorers.

Last I'll note that the 3 point shot means taking longer shots which are technically more difficult. This is compensated for counting them more, but if we just look at FG% which ignores degree of difficulty (and FT% for that matter), the league averages haven't gone up since Frazier's time to now despite added skill in these deeper shots. Yet even if we look there Frazier doesn't come out with an edge over Nash.

Re: energy on defense. Yup, that's Frazier's argument.



Not sure I understand your point. Mine was that Frazier was the most efficient guard of his day much the way Oscar and West were in the 60s (though not to the same degree). Relative to the other guards of his time, he was as efficient as Nash relative to the other guards of his day, or very close. Frazier for his day was as efficient as Nash for his -- and most likely as efficient or more than Nash would be in Frazier's day (the opposite is probably not true since Nash is such an efficient 3 point shooter). The greater utilization of the 3 point shot has turned the guard position from the least efficient (but necessary to stretch the floor) to as or more efficient than bigs on the average. Thus guard efficiency for the average guard HAS gone up since the 60s and 70s. The 3 point shot isn't necessarily more difficult in terms of skill; it's usually an open shot v. a guarded shot from the 10-15 footer. The added distance does make it a less likely shot to go it but the added points make it the most efficient shot outside of scoring right at the rim. Again, I don't see where you are countering my argument . . . maybe we aren't understanding the points each other are making.

Thus the argument for individual efficiency is there, but not particularly strong. Frazier dominates Nash in terms of defense and is stronger in terms of rebounding and performing on the highest stage (the NBA finals). The only argument I can see for Nash is making the claim that his playmaking is so great that it trumps everything else which is a claim I believe you frequently make pointing to Phoenix's team Ortg (and ignoring Phoenix's team Drtg which is affected by the same deliberate small ball mismatches that help make the Ortg so effective).

If you are making the claim that Phoenix's Ortg-Drtg is appreciably better than that of Frazier's Knicks and that Phoenix was able to use that efficiency to succeed to a greater degree than the Knicks; that's where the ring counting comes in. It's not just rings, it's that the offense + defense that Frazier led in NY (and he was the clear leader on both ends) was more successful than the offense + defense that Nash led in Phoenix. So, Frazier not only is the individually more impactful player (mainly due to the defensive edge) but the team success favors him as well.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.

Return to Player Comparisons