RealGM Top 100 List: #19

[Winsome Gerbil]

I don't think that's accurate. They played in different eras and Stockton's PnR based offense was as successful relative to his time (for 4 years v. 6) as Nash's D'Antoni based offense . . . it was just a decade earlier so certain things (3 point shooting, etc.) were not as widely accepted. That's like saying Lenny Wilkens's handles couldn't compare to those of half the PGs in the modern league. He (arguably) had the best handles of his day but the rules and the way those rules were implemented and enforced were different. Stockton in his day ran as successful an offense as Nash in his . . . and in my belief, with less offensive talent around him (despite Karl Malone).

The norms of what is conservative in their day were different; Stockton's offense was a drastic change from the standard offense of his day too. He made Sloan's PnR offense work just as Nash was the engine driving D'Antoni's Suns. I don't see Nash as superior offensively to Stockton in terms of running an offense. Maybe in terms of being more willing to call his own number but that's the only offensive edge I see with him.

With all due respect to the 100+ years of basketball you have watched, I don't believe this to be true. Utah's offense was very consistently predictable and this also meant they would very consistently suffer in the playoffs before acquiring a 17/5/120 O-Rating type of guy in Hornacek. Nash never demonstrated the need for another wing scorer of this caliber. You could toss Joe Johnson out of the team and the Suns were still WCF material.

The only reason I could take Stockton over Nash is if my team already has offensive creators or needs additional guard defense. Nash's PnR is still fantastic without a guy like Amare. Nash's ability to aggressively attack and create in addition to having immense IQ makes him special. He's more on the level of an elite do it-all guard such as Wade or Kobe in that sense, and Stockton's appears to be a tier lower on the actual way he can impact the offense. Both Nash and Stockton could post an 15/12 type statline, but these numbers are coming in entirely different ways.

You can't be serious.

Here is a list of strong offensive players Steve Nash got to pass to in his career (after becoming a fulltime starter in 00-01):
Dirk Nowitzki
Michael Finley
Amare Stoudemire
Shawn Marion
Shaquille O'Neal
Grant Hill
Leandro Barbossa
Joe Johnson
Raja Bell
Jalen Rose
Jim Jackson
Jason Richardson
Quinton Richardson
Boris Diaw
Goran Dragic
Tim Thomas
Brian Grant
Josh Howard
Antoine Walker (a dubious honor obviously)
Raef LaFrentz
Nick Van Exel
Walt Williams
Juwann Howard
Tim Hardaway
Johnny Newman
Danny Manning
Christian Laettner
Vernon Maxwell
Loy Vaught
Robert Pack
Cedric Ceballos
Hubert Davis
Channing Frye
Vince Carter
Hedo Turkoglu
Marcin Gortat
Jared Dudley
Michael Redd
Hakim Warrick
Antawn Jamison
Pau Gasol
Dwight Howard
Kobe Bryant
Metta World Peace
Nick Young

A similar list for John Stockton (after becoming a fulltime starter in 87-88) might go:
Karl Malone
Thurl Bailey
Kelly Tripucka
Daryl Green
Mel Turpin
Jeff Malone
Blue Edwards
Tyrone Corbin
Larry Krystowiak
Tom Chambers
Antoine Carr
Jeff Hornacek
David Benoit
Chris Morris
Byron Russel
Arman Gilliam
Pete Chilcutt (I'll leave this, but upon glancing at career numbers...no)
Danny Manning
Donyell Marshall
John Starks
Andrei Kirilenko
Matt Harpring
Calbert Cheaney


The guy who created offense out of nothings and nobodies was John Stockton. Utah had just enough cash and influence to keep one good player next to Stockton/Mailman at a time (Bailey then Malone then Hornacek, maybe AK47 in their last couple of years before retirement) and a few solid roleplayers or aging once weres for the bench.

On the other hand Steve Nash was eternally the head of ultra-talented uptempo circuses.

[Outside]

Thru post #101:

Charles Barkley - *9 (*2klegend, andrewww, Hornet Mania, Joao Saraiva, LABird, Narigo, trex_8063, twolves97, Winsome Gerbil)
Moses Malone - 3 (scabbarista, JordansBulls, Dr Positivity)
George Mikan - 2 (penbeast0, wojoaderge)
John Havlicek - 1 (Outside)
Dwyane Wade - 1 (mischievous)
Steve Nash - 1 (micahclay)

Thread will be open for at least a few more hours.

Trex -- FYI, I changed my vote to Barkley. Moses is still my alternate.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Charles Barkley

Vote 2 - Moses Malone

Won't try to do this too often, but here is my reasoning for Barkley from the 2014 project:

viewtopic.php?p=40963683#p40963683

[penbeast0]

With all due respect to the 100+ years of basketball you have watched, I don't believe this to be true. Utah's offense was very consistently predictable and this also meant they would very consistently suffer in the playoffs before acquiring a 17/5/120 O-Rating type of guy in Hornacek. Nash never demonstrated the need for another wing scorer of this caliber. You could toss Joe Johnson out of the team and the Suns were still WCF material.

The only reason I could take Stockton over Nash is if my team already has offensive creators or needs additional guard defense. Nash's PnR is still fantastic without a guy like Amare. Nash's ability to aggressively attack and create in addition to having immense IQ makes him special. He's more on the level of an elite do it-all guard such as Wade or Kobe in that sense, and Stockton's appears to be a tier lower on the actual way he can impact the offense. Both Nash and Stockton could post an 15/12 type statline, but these numbers are coming in entirely different ways.

50 at most.

But, when did Nash not have a solid 3rd and 4th, usually even 5th option on those +5 relative Ortg Suns teams. He had QRich one year, but also had Amare, Marion, and Joe Johnson. When Amare went down was the biggest challenge but he's still got Marion, Bell, Diaw plus James Jones, Barbosa, and Eddie House as the top 6 other guys getting minutes. That's all 6 with better offensive skills than Byron Russell and Greg Ostertag (or David Benoit and Felton Spencer). (He also had Kurt Thomas for 1/2 a season where the defense was better but Kurt isn't a great offensive threat and played less than all those 3 point shooters that spaced the floor for the first of the truly modern offenses.)

My point was that Stockton got similar results with one or even two players who were lousy offensive weapons and while Karl Malone was a serious stud (as was Amare offensively), Nash had deeper offensive talent around him than Stockton and yet Stockton produced similar results. That to me (in addition to his ridiculous assist totals and the easy buckets he generated off his steals) make me rate Stockton as roughly on the same level as Nash though Nash was in a more modern system and with more modern rule interpretations which give him an edge which is why I use Ortg relative to the league as a crude measurement of team offensive ability.

[Doctor MJ]

I honest can't believe I just saw Hakim Warricks name mentioned in a GOAT project. I've seen guys who can't cut it in the NBA run circles around him in summer league.

Sorry to be a jerk but cmon now. We often focus too much on evaluating stars by their teammates, but Warrick is a guy who literally never figured how to have an NBA career. He shouldn't be used to try to discredit anyone other than those who thought he had potential.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

I have him top 25. Thoughts?

Yes

Man, you guys keep throwing me for a loop. Here I am a Warriors fan, Curry is my current favorite player, I'm in with both feet on the gravity thing, and his 2015-16 season was the most phenomenal year I've seen, but I've tapped the brakes on him because he doesn't have the longevity yet, so I slotted him at 37 in my initial spitball ranking. Guess I'll have to rethink that, too.

So here's the thing:

Durant being top 30-ish to me is something of a given. I don't maintain long lists and I don't believe in having a philosophical believe for thresholds, but Durants been a top tier superstar for more than half a decade. I doubt anyone like that is out of my top 30 unless it's because I disagree with calling them a top tier superstar.

Now, thing is, while Currys had less time in such prominence, what he's accomplished in that time will last in a way Durants time in OKC will not.

The Warriors have been around a long time. In a that time they'd basically done crap. Around Curry they built arguably the best team in history and he will be an icon there forever.

Durant in OKC will be remembered for his inability to create a culture, for being surpassed in primacy by Westbrook, and for going back on his word and then inserting his foot in his mouth in every single interview afterward for a year, at least (I have a feeling it will never end. Just ask him about OKC and boom, he reveal how awkward and insecure he is, and thus reveal why he wasn't able to put Westbrook in line early on).

All that smacks of reliance on narrative of course, and your mileage varies there, but the reality is that Durant has never had the track record for insane on/off impact Curry has, and this is certainly related to why Curry was able to set the tone he was in GS.

Among current players the other guys in a similar debate are Wade and Paul.

Wade vs Paul, Wades big narrative edge is the rings and people like to knock Paul for limited playoffs success, but the reality is that Paul has much more of a track record for leading elite offenses, an arguably superior defense record, and better longevity.

Paul vs Durant, I can see Paul here, but the reality is that Paul's prime isn't much longer than Durants, and most everyone things Durant is better.

So yeah, while I don't see it as clear cut that Curry deserves a place soon, it's actually pretty easy to make the argument.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

Vote Barkley
Alt Moses

I still don't feel strongly about either vote, but deadline is approaching and seems I largely see things similarly to others.

Just to say a thing on Chuck:

I thought it was reassuring to see RAPM in Houston years that rated him not only well but better than Hakeem.

I think Barkley is a lot like a slightly lesser Shaq. Lazy, ornery, but just freakishly talented. Could have been far more successful, and we thus question whether he was really all that good, but the fat bears him out.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Winsome Gerbil]

I honest can't believe I just saw Hakim Warricks name mentioned in a GOAT project. I've seen guys who can't cut it in the NBA run circles around him in summer league.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Oh sure, but his biggest problems were that he was too scrawny and weak to rebound or defend. Offensively he was a fairl effective career 16.8pts/per 36 on .555TS guy. No stud obviously, but I was tagging most guys who were able to sustain at that level for any length. I think giving David Benoit a nod for Stockton was far shakier, all because one year Stockton made that scrub a double figure scorer. He was only 13.4 per 36 on .513TS for his career though.

Heck, I added Pete Chilcutt to Stockton's list just because he was an early stretch 4 and I misremembered him having a few bigger years than he had. His Per36 was 10.7pts on .498TS. Comparatively Warrick was Dirk.

[trex_8063]

Either you missed my post #21 in this thread, or I did something wrong that didn't make it clear enough. Here it is:
Vote: Bob Pettit (my GOAT #3 PF) "Great Years +" "Points": 43.3
Alt: Bob Cousy (my GOAT #3 PG) "Great Years +" "Points": 40

I missed it. Though I've said multiple times (and is stated in OP of sign-up thread, I believe) to please bold your picks within a large block of text, to make it easier for me to find (I try to read as much as I can, but ultimately there are some posts I just skim).

[trex_8063]

Thru post #101:

Charles Barkley - *9 (*2klegend, andrewww, Hornet Mania, Joao Saraiva, LABird, Narigo, trex_8063, twolves97, Winsome Gerbil)
Moses Malone - 3 (scabbarista, JordansBulls, Dr Positivity)
George Mikan - 2 (penbeast0, wojoaderge)
John Havlicek - 1 (Outside)
Dwyane Wade - 1 (mischievous)
Steve Nash - 1 (micahclay)

Thread will be open for at least a few more hours.

Trex -- FYI, I changed my vote to Barkley. Moses is still my alternate.

That's interesting, you jumped Barkley ahead of Moses? What convinced you to make that move?

[trex_8063]

Thru post #130:

Charles Barkley - 14 (2klegend, andrewww, Hornet Mania, Joao Saraiva, LABird, Narigo, trex_8063, twolves97, Winsome Gerbil, Outside, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, drza, Senior)
Moses Malone - 3 (scabbarista, JordansBulls, Dr Positivity)
George Mikan - 3 (penbeast0, wojoaderge, janmagn)
Dwyane Wade - 1 (mischievous)
Steve Nash - 1 (micahclay)
Bob Pettit - 1 (Pablo Novi)

Sorry this is a little late. The day kinda got away from me.
But anyway, wow! I really did not expect Barkley to simply run away with this one. Although A LOT of secondary votes were for Moses, Barkley has an easy majority taking 14 of 23 1st place votes.

Will have the next one up shortly.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[euroleague]

I hate defending Lebron because I really don't like him but let's be realistic please. sry trex i didnt intend to be inflammatory

Let's look at efficiency/defense a little bit. KD had a far lower USG rate compared to LBJ and lower minutes. the reason I say KD won is more because KD operates so well in a system without killing ball movement. KD is operating within the offense. the offense of the cavs is completely tooled to LBJ, because LBJ can't operate within an offense - thus when LBJ sits, his team loses. there is no ball movement on the cavs. zero. Irving just doesn't have control over the game that suits his style, as the team is built to only focus on LBJ's play. just give it to LBJ and ask him to drive and dish.

mostly, KD on defense was a key aspect of the warriors winning. the warriors defense was far more effective than the Cavs, despite hiding Curry and having no true Center in the game. KD can rim protect while he guards the perimeter. LBJ isn't an effective defender in this series.

I think LBJ would be a ridiculously good fit for the warriors - but that's because the warriors are the best shooting team in history without a good slasher. MJ/magic/shaq/olajuwon/kareem/westbrook/harden/chris paul/etc. - they are all terrible fits with LBJ, but amazing with KD. But, if you want a team that's built as a team, not based on a single player, KD contributes far more.


anyways, I'm not suggesting KD is #3- I'm suggesting he should be #2 for this spot, behind Moses.

[trex_8063]

I have him top 25. Thoughts?

Yes

Man, you guys keep throwing me for a loop. Here I am a Warriors fan, Curry is my current favorite player, I'm in with both feet on the gravity thing, and his 2015-16 season was the most phenomenal year I've seen, but I've tapped the brakes on him because he doesn't have the longevity yet, so I slotted him at 37 in my initial spitball ranking. Guess I'll have to rethink that, too.

I actually have Curry in the mid (or early-mid) 40's still. I'm a BIG longevity guy, though.
But to answer twolves97, yes, I absolutely think Curry has been better than Cousy ever was (I just forgot to mention him; Gary Payton too, for that matter).

[Outside]

Thru post #101:

Charles Barkley - *9 (*2klegend, andrewww, Hornet Mania, Joao Saraiva, LABird, Narigo, trex_8063, twolves97, Winsome Gerbil)
Moses Malone - 3 (scabbarista, JordansBulls, Dr Positivity)
George Mikan - 2 (penbeast0, wojoaderge)
John Havlicek - 1 (Outside)
Dwyane Wade - 1 (mischievous)
Steve Nash - 1 (micahclay)

Thread will be open for at least a few more hours.

Trex -- FYI, I changed my vote to Barkley. Moses is still my alternate.

That's interesting, you jumped Barkley ahead of Moses? What convinced you to make that move?

I had them as very close to begin with. This is my first go-round at this process, my initial list was hastily and crudely put together compared to others, my evaluation process is heavily subjective compared to others, and my internal balancing act between criteria is evolving during this process, so positions on my list are far more likely to change than others.

As far as jumping Barkley over Malone, that resulted from the discussion during this thread combined with me taking repeated looks at their info. Numerous posters made arguments that resonated with me, primarily for Barkley. But the biggest factor was probably me comparing their assists -- Barkley's were better than I recalled, and Moses's are embarrassingly low -- and the shockingly poor postseason resume Moses has.

Moses played 21 seasons. I'll throw out his last 3 seasons and 1986 when he was hurt, leaving 17 years to look at PS info. Here's a breakdown of those 17 seasons:

4 - missed playoffs
8 - lost in first round
5 - advanced past first round
100 - total PS games

Barkley played 16 seasons. I'll throw out the 1998 and 2000 seasons when he was hurt. Here's a breakdown of those 14 PS:

2 - missed playoffs
4 - lost in first round
8 - advanced past first round
123 - total PS games

We can talk about Barkley having better supporting casts, but a top-20 all-time great should be able to lead even mediocre teams to victory at a better rate than that. Moses made it to the finals twice, but in the other 15 seasons I'm counting, he won a total of 4 series. For a guy to play that many seasons and either miss the playoffs or lose in the first round 12 times, to have only 100 playoff games, man, that's a black mark in my book. I put a lot of weight on postseason performance, and while Moses's PS numbers are elevated a bit over his RS numbers, winning is the name of the game. That was the clincher for me in switching the two guys.

[wojoaderge]

Moses played 21 seasons. I'll throw out his last 3 seasons and 1986 when he was hurt, leaving 17 years to look at PS info. Here's a breakdown of those 17 seasons:

4 - missed playoffs
8 - lost in first round
5 - advanced past first round
100 - total PS games

Barkley played 16 seasons. I'll throw out the 1998 and 2000 seasons when he was hurt. Here's a breakdown of those 14 PS:

2 - missed playoffs
4 - lost in first round
8 - advanced past first round
123 - total PS games

We can talk about Barkley having better supporting casts, but a top-20 all-time great should be able to lead even mediocre teams to victory at a better rate than that. Moses made it to the finals twice, but in the other 15 seasons I'm counting, he won a total of 4 series. For a guy to play that many seasons and either miss the playoffs or lose in the first round 12 times, to have only 100 playoff games, man, that's a black mark in my book. I put a lot of weight on postseason performance, and while Moses's PS numbers are elevated a bit over his RS numbers, winning is the name of the game. That was the clincher for me in switching the two guys.

Plus I don't you should count total PS games on account of 1) longer best-ofs 2)fo, fo, and fos etc.

[Pablo Novi]

As much as I like and respect penbeast0, I just can't bring myself to support Mikan out of consideration for pen, when I don't truly feel strongly for Mikan at this stage.

penbeast0 has had the opportunity to change his vote. I guess it's a fine or grey line between this and "strategic manipulation of the vote", but I'll tentatively say I don't have a problem with people voting for individuals who are actually NOT their top available pick, if their top available pick simply doesn't have the traction yet. I would just ask that they are honest in voting for their highest pick who does have reasonable traction (which might be any time now for Mikan). That's a little different than voting for Player X because you really don't want Player Y to win.

Heck, that's what the alternative vote is for

Is it? (I'm genuinely confused).

[penbeast0]

Heck, that's what the alternative vote is for

Is it? (I'm genuinely confused).

You can go back and read the voting discussion in the signup thread but basically one reason we put it in is to get around some of the "strategic voting" problems. IF I think that Mikan is the best candidate, I can vote for him and a second candidate who may or may not get traction but with two, it is more likely if far from certain.

[Doctor MJ]

I honest can't believe I just saw Hakim Warricks name mentioned in a GOAT project. I've seen guys who can't cut it in the NBA run circles around him in summer league.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Oh sure, but his biggest problems were that he was too scrawny and weak to rebound or defend. Offensively he was a fairl effective career 16.8pts/per 36 on .555TS guy. No stud obviously, but I was tagging most guys who were able to sustain at that level for any length. I think giving David Benoit a nod for Stockton was far shakier, all because one year Stockton made that scrub a double figure scorer. He was only 13.4 per 36 on .513TS for his career though.

Heck, I added Pete Chilcutt to Stockton's list just because he was an early stretch 4 and I misremembered him having a few bigger years than he had. His Per36 was 10.7pts on .498TS. Comparatively Warrick was Dirk.

I'm not sure what to say here. I'm not going to debate finer points.

Listing out journeymen players to try to evaluate how good a Hall of Famer was will never be a worthwhile approach, and I think you know that.

[LivingLegend]

I hate the guy, but do people really think Wade is better than Pierce all-time? Like people are ready to put Wade as a top 20 player ever and I havent seen one mention of Pierce in the top 30.

Like Im really seeing Steve Nash, Dwayne Wade, Steph Curry and Kevin Durants names mentioned but not Paul Pierce.

Hes a moron, but he was darn good for a loooong time and was the NBA's equivalent of a 5 tool player.

[mikejames23]

The guy who created offense out of nothings and nobodies was John Stockton. Utah had just enough cash and influence to keep one good player next to Stockton/Mailman at a time (Bailey then Malone then Hornacek, maybe AK47 in their last couple of years before retirement) and a few solid roleplayers or aging once weres for the bench.

On the other hand Steve Nash was eternally the head of ultra-talented uptempo circuses.

I'll post something more detailed when I can, but I don't really know what to make of your post. If you're implying by that list that Nash had ultra talent around him to produce top tier offense, I will have to vehemently disagree.