rebirthoftheM wrote:If Riley did indeed utilize Ewing much more effectively, leading to much higher defensive impact, then this would too be an indictment on him.
...How? Truly elite coaches (of which there are very few) have that kind of impact on players, including HOFers. Ewing specifically also lacked stability with several coaches up until that point.
Edit - and as trex pointed out, the knicks improved incrementally roster-wise defensively, which coincided with the arrival of riley. And in general, great defensive teams aren't solely attributed to 1 guy. They feature multiple plus defenders.
Senior wrote:I can't really agree with this 94 Finals hypothetical that's being used as a credit to Ewing. Yes, Starks had a terrible Game 7. But not only was he on fire in Game 6 (a game Ewing went 6/20 for 17 points in a 2 point loss, btw), the Knicks pushed the series to 7 despite Ewing having one of the worst offensive series of all-time. In the RS, Ewing was at 25/11/2.3, 55% TS, 38 MPG, 19 FGA. In the Finals, he went to 19/12/1.7, 39% TS in 44 MPG, 23 FGA. FTA went from 7.4 in the RS to 3 FTA in the Finals. RS ORTG of 108 down to 85 in the Finals. That's about as bad as it gets, and I'd be hard pressed to think of a team that can win with its leading scorer taking 23 FGA/game at 36% FG.
All this stuff about Starks having an unlucky bad game at the worst time ignores that Ewing was getting demolished out there for the entire series. Credit the Knick defense (led by Ewing) for keeping their team in it despite Ewing's own horrific offense, but Starks can't take the fall here.
To some degree this misses the mark (of what I was saying, at least). I’m not trying to lay blame, and I apologize if it came out like that. I’m not suggesting Ewing had a great series (and I’m not sure anyone is denying he had a very poor offensive series). But it’s been stated fairly explicitly by more than one poster that the presence or absence of a title----and particularly the winning a title as the clear best player on the team----is a HUGE factor in the criteria of many of the voter/participants of this project.
So I was merely pointing out that Ewing could have played EXACTLY as he did in ‘94 and in that series, and they still could/would have one if not for ONE teammate in ONE game having an extreme outlier bad performance…….that’s how close they were. And then I’m further asking the question of how much differently Ewing would be perceived if we could attach that “accomplishment” or narrative to his career resume? How much different would Hakeem’s legacy without that win, too, for that matter?
I’m fairly certain Ewing would have been off the table a few places ago if Starks had had a better game 7 (so maybe we should get him off the table here), is what I’m suggesting.
"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
Patrick Ewing - 5 Steve Nash - 5 Kevin Durant - 5 Stephen Curry - 4 Elgin Baylor - 2 Pippen/Cousy/Drexler - 1 each
Thread will be open perhaps 4-5 more hours.
eminence wrote:.
penbeast0 wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
Colbinii wrote:.
Texas Chuck wrote:.
drza wrote:.
Dr Spaceman wrote:.
fpliii wrote:.
euroleague wrote:.
pandrade83 wrote:.
Hornet Mania wrote:.
Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.
SactoKingsFan wrote:.
Blackmill wrote:.
JordansBulls wrote:.
RSCS3_ wrote:.
BasketballFan7 wrote:.
micahclay wrote:.
ardee wrote:.
RCM88x wrote:.
Tesla wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:.
kayess wrote:.
2klegend wrote:.
MisterHibachi wrote:.
70sFan wrote:.
mischievous wrote:.
Doctor MJ wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
Jaivl wrote:.
Bad Gatorade wrote:.
andrewww wrote:.
colts18 wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
Cyrusman122000 wrote:.
Winsome Gerbil wrote:.
Narigo wrote:.
wojoaderge wrote:.
TrueLAfan wrote:.
90sAllDecade wrote:.
Outside wrote:.
scabbarista wrote:.
janmagn wrote:.
lebron3-14-3 wrote:.
Arman_tanzarian wrote:.
oldschooled wrote:.
Pablo Novi wrote:.
john248 wrote:.
mdonnelly1989 wrote:.
Senior wrote:.
twolves97 wrote:.
CodeBreaker wrote:.
JoeMalburg wrote:.
dhsilv2 wrote:.
"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
Pablo Novi wrote:Elsewhere I've tried to make the case for why ALL-League selections are much more valuable than MVPs an thus a much better criteria for building a GOAT list. (The two main points: The ALL-League selection process is much, much broader AND deals with players by "position": Guards, Forwards, Center; and, historically speaking, I believe the MVP award has been flawed a number of times; whereas I've never had any BIG problems with the ALL-League selections over the last 58 years.
What about MVP award share? I think any "all or nothing" selection is an issue and that is an issue with first team all nba.
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow you. I don't use just ALL-League 1st-Team; I also use 2nd-Team - so, IF, that's what you're referring to, I don't "do all or nothing". I also don't rely exclusively on All-League selections; they are just my FIRST and main factor; NOT "ONLY".
I also don't get your reference to MVP award shares. (Even including ANNUAL MVP award shares, THAT selection process is less deep; and more subjective than are the ALL-League selecitons, imo.)
So, I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I voted for Ewing, who's currently in a 3-way tie with Nash and Durant. I don't have a strong feeling to particularly vote for either of them as alternates, but this vote looks like it's coming down to the alternate votes. Steph Curry also has a dog in the fight as well. I think I have him pretty clearly above Durant, who I'm not as impressed with as many. But, what of Nash? I'm unclear. If I knew for sure that Nash wouldn't go through in this vote, I'd hold this post for the next thread. But, there's no telling, so I'm going to paste it here at the end of this thread. If Nash is still around next thread, I'll re-post this earlier in the thread.
Anyway, if Nash is getting major traction, then that means to me that Jason Kidd should be getting some mention as well. Here's a throwback post from the last project, but that still works now as a comp between the two.
Steve Nash vs Jason Kidd (from 2014)
The box scores: the least important part of this comparison?
Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions Jason Kidd 1998 - 2007: 20.6 pts (49% TS), 9.9 reb, 11.8 ast (4.3 TO) Steve Nash 2002 - 2010: 25.5 pts (58.9% TS), 5.1 reb, 13.3 ast (4.7 TO)
I put these stats here for easy reference and for posterity's sake, but for point guards in general (and especially these two) their impacts are about so much more than the box scores that this data isn't especially telling to me without couching it in with the rest of their game. So let's go ahead and jump into the stylistics and other aspects of the comparison, and I'll bring up box score stats as the need arises.
The style makes the fight: two opposite ends of the spectrum
I think for many, the Suns version of Nash defines an ideal point guard. He was an offensive wunderkind. A maestro capable of controlling every aspect of his team's offense while leading said offense to historic ratings; a distributor/general that knew the strengths/weaknesses of his troops to a T and was capable of putting them into maximal situations to succeed; an excellent penetrator who was able to deform defenses and get them out of position off the dribble which helped him to get those easy shots for teammates; and on top of that, an excellent shooter who could put up scoring efficiencies unseen at the point guard position outside of Stockton but who could also call his own number to volume scorer at similarly great efficiency when the team needed him to. That is a very complete offensive package, and he was able to demonstrate it effectively for several years in Phoenix.
Kidd, on the other hand, is seen as more of a misfit than an ideal as point guard. I say this because his J was limited enough that he was known as Ason Kidd as a young player. Thus, Kidd could never be the scoring threat to opponents that Nash (or, frankly, most point guards) could be. And it's not just that his jumper wasn't a strength (after all, as his career progressed he developed his 3-point shot enough to be (I believe) 3rd on the all-time made 3s list)...it's that he couldn't reliably score off the dribble or on the move outside of layups. This did limit his abilities as a half-court point guard, and also limited his ability to have individual take-over games as a scoring PG. But even with that said and that limitation placed front and center, Kidd was still high on the list of best offensive players in the NBA during his run (see the RAPM section below). He was an incredible floor general, also able to maximize the talents of his teammates and to set them up in positions to succeed. I remember reading the USA today back when Kidd was a high school senior, and them deeming him the #1 prospect in the country before he went to Cal because his court vision was ridiculous. He was outstanding at finding teammates off the bounce, and excelled at doing so on the fast break. Of course, even with that vision Kidd didn't have nearly the offensive impact that Nash had in Phoenix...but he DID also have a very strong defensive impact. Kidd was a great on-ball defender (especially against big guards), he was a monster defensive rebounder from the guard position, and he was also very disruptive in team defense. Thus, it is the combination of his offense AND defense that makes his impact comparable to Nash even at Nash's best in Phoenix.
The impact stats: databall helps greatly in evaluating Nash's effect vs Kidd's
As has often been pointed out, Nash measures out as the highest impact offensive player of the databall era using RAPM. From Doc MJ's spreadsheet of 1998 - 2012 normalized PI RAPM, and using his technique of ranking by the best 5 years, Nash's offensive marks are off the charts with a 5-year average of +9.1 that laps the field (LeBron is 2nd best at +8.1, and no one else is over +8). Kidd's offensive scores are further down the list at #16 overall (best 5-year average of +4.7). He is the 9th rated guard on offense by this method, trailing Nash, Wade, Kobe, Ginobili, Paul, Baron Davis, Chauncey BIllups and Ray Allen.
However, on the defensive side of the ball, Kidd comes out much stronger with a best 5-year average of +3.3 that ranks him 40th on defense overall but 4th among guards (behind Tony Allen's +3.9, Eddie Jones' +3.5, and Doug Christie's +3.3). Nash, on the other hand, ranks #650 overall on defense using this method and only once had a value above 0 (0.6 in 2012).
Thus, when you look at their overall 5-year peaks according to this method, it is fairly close. Nash has the 5-year advantage with an average of +7.9 (8th overall) vs. Kidd's 5-year average of +6.9 (12th overall). To put this in perspective, this difference is similar in magnitude to the differences between the 5-year best marks of Shaq (+10.3) and Duncan (+9.3)...slightly smaller than the distance between LeBron's +10.5 and Dirk's +9.1, but slightly larger than the distance between Wade's +8.4 and Kobe's +7.5. In other words, there is a reasonable line there and in Nash's favor, but that the difference isn't very big at all. And this is for their best 5-year spans.
As you might expect, Nash's best 5 years all come from his time with the Suns and 4 of Kidd's 5 best marks came from his time with the Nets. However, it does have to be at least mentioned that both players played in multiple situations. How much those other time periods are weighed is of course up to the evaluator, but I think we should include that data here to make for easier evaluation:
Kidd (Late 90s, Phoenix): average scaled RAPM of +4.8 from 1998 - 2000 Kidd (late 00s, Dallas): average scaled RAPM of +4.4 from 2008 - 2011 Nash (early 00s, Dallas): average scaled RAPM of +0.5 from 2002 - 2004
I think this was important to point out for a few reasons. Nash is universally rated higher in Phoenix than in Dallas, but I don't think many people appreciate the massive scale of difference in his impact. In Phoenix he was the most impactful offensive player of this generation, but in Dallas (despite being a 2-time All Star) he was pretty much measuring out as a net neutral player. Kidd, on the other hand, measured out as a strong positive player at every stop in his career. His +4.8 and +4.4 averages would both have snuck into the top-20 scores from 1998 - 2012, despite his roles changing dramatically.
Postseason: where Nash separates himself from Kidd...or does he?
As I mentioned above, Suns Nash is considered to be an ideal offensive point guard in part because of his excellent scoring efficiency that scales with higher scoring volume in the postseason. Scoring in the playoffs is much more difficult on both a team and individual level against the ramped up quality and effort of defenses in the postseason, so individual scoring (at great efficiency) is highly valued. This is one of the big areas where Nash is postulated to separate himself from Kidd as a player.
However, while having an individual offensive player that can carry the load in the face of increased defensive pressure is very valuable, it should be noted that there is the obvious other side to the coin, that perhaps defensive impact also has the potential to scale up in value in the postseason. After all, if defenses as a whole are making the larger impact with respect to offense that many of us see and point out, then perhaps the defense of an individual might also scale up in value in the postseason vs. the regular season?
That isn't proven. But of course, I have started populating a postseason on/off +/- table of the elite players of this generation from 2001 on. I've posted many disclaimers and examples of data each time I bring this up in the project, so let me go ahead and re-post them in spoilers here so that you can decide how much (if any) credence to put into these results. Colts18, for instance, gives them no value. I, on the other hand, do think the data is worth seeing and evaluating. So:
Spoiler:
(Aside on playoff on/off +/-) One thing that I like to look at when available (but which is considered controversial as a quantitative tool) is the postseason on/off +/- scorers. There was a time (not that long ago) when on/off +/- was the state of the art for "impact" studies, before APM came into being. There are obvious issues with on/off +/- that led to developing APM, such as the potential for big teammate effects, level of competition effects (e.g. there's no correction for playing against a starting unit or back-ups), and skews due to back-up quality or even rotations (shout out to Unbiased Fan). These issues are exacerbated in the postseason, as many stars rarely leave the court and the sample sizes can get vanishingly small.
I'm aware of these issues, but I'm also convinced that in long playoff runs in a given season (e.g. conference finals or beyond) or multi-year samples we can get large enough samples to be able to get some useful information. I tend to find that really high on/off +/- values over runs or periods help indicate heavy lifting, whereas really negative marks over extended periods don't indicate negatives so much as a lack of a positive drive. Also, I'm less impressed with entire units having high on/off scores (usually indicates a strong unit more-so than a strong individual) but I note when a star puts up a huge number on an island. Reminder: B-R only has this data from 2001 to present.
Examples of some of the best single-season postseason on/off +/- championship runs: LeBron '12: +24.3 per 100 possessions (he also went +24.2 in his 2007 Finals run) Duncan '03: ++23.1 per 100 possessions Shaq 2002: +22.9 per 100 (also went +25.3 during 2004 Finals run) Wade 2006: +22.2 per 100
Famous counter-intuitive counter-examples: LeBron '11: -14.7 per 100 Dwight '09: -12.7 Duncan '05: -5.3
Examples of some of the best 3 - 4 year stretches of postseason on/off +/- Duncan 01 - 03: +27.4 Manu 03 - 06: +21.6 (caveat: came off bench in 44/70 games) Shaq 02 - 04: +21.5 LeBron 07 - 10: +20.4
Examples of some of the best career +/- scores (from 2001 - 2014) Manu Ginobili +11.2 (caveat: 128/180 games off the bench) Jason Kidd +10.2 (+10.2 in Jersey, +14.9 in Dallas, negative else) Duncan +8.9 Shaq +8.6 (+16.3 in LA, -6.4 in Miamii, negative else) LeBron +8.1 (+12.3 in Cleveland, +4.6 in Miami)
With that done, here again is the career (or at least since 2001, which is when B-R has postseason on/off +/- results available) on/off +/- data in both the regular and post season for most of the current players that either have already been voted in or are coming up on the horizon. The chart is listed in descending order for who has the best difference between postseason and regular season on/off +/-, but at a glance you can also see who has the best regular season and best postseason on/off +/- scores (per 100 possessions):
Player Team Years Reg On/off PO On/off Change Kidd Tot 01 - 13 6.3 10.2 +3.9 Kobe LAL 01 - 14 6.7 8.3 +1.6 Shaq Tot 01 - 11 7.7 8.6 +0.9 Duncan SAS 01 - 14 8.3 8.9 +0.6 Nash Tol 01 - 14 7.5 4.8 -2.7 Paul Tot 06 - 14 9.0 6.2 -2.8 LeBron Tot 04 - 14 11.2 8.1 -3.1 Wade Mia 04 - 14 7.8 3.7 -4.1 Dirk Dal 01 - 14 11.1 1.8 -9.3
And here, again, is a similar chart for these same players when focused on their best years. The following table will track important multi-year periods in these players careers...e.g. the Lakers years for Shaq, the "dynasty" years when Duncan's Spurs won the majority of their titles, the pre-LeBron years for Wade, the Cleveland years for LeBron, the Jersey years for Kidd, the post-Shaq years for Kobe, the Suns years for Nash and the post-Nash years for DIrk:
For both their entire careers (post 2000), as well as for their peak years, Kidd has better on/off +/- scores in the postseason than in the regular season, and in both epochs Kidd's scores are solidly higher than Nash's.
Again, your mileage may vary as to how much you weigh these postseason +/- numbers. However, I would like to re-post Lorak's post from the #20 thread where he points out the trends of the postseason offenses and defenses of Nash's squads, and at least loosely ties them to his postseason on/off scores:
Spoiler:
lorak wrote:There's no "ergo" in that, unless you will provide evidence showing how often Nash was actually defending opposing PGs or that "hiding" him on Bowen or opposing SGs hurt his teams defense. But I think that I agree with your general conclusion - that Nash's defense was a problem for DAL/PHO in the playoffs. In fact, I'm looking at his on/off playoffs splits and I'm shocked how bad he looks:
year MIN off ORTG on ORTG off DRTG on DRTG off DRTG net OVERALL net 2001 110 104,0 106,4 110,0 105,0 5,0 -7,4 2002 065 112,6 106,7 108,2 129,0 -20,8 26,7 2003 241 111,4 106,4 112,5 106,0 6,5 -1,5 2004 045 101,3 105,2 102,8 94,9 7,9 -11,8 2005 114 118,7 113,7 114,3 108,8 5,5 -0,5 2006 182 116,5 104,9 110,6 119,3 -8,7 20,3 2007 116 112,5 107,1 105,8 105,2 0,6 4,8 2008 067 105,6 100,0 110,2 97,6 12,6 -7,0 2010 229 120,6 114,2 114,8 108,5 6,3 0,1
Sure, "off" in playoffs always deals with small sample issue, but here we see year by year consistency - he improves offense and defense with him usually was much worse than without him. What's surprising, is that overall his net impact in playoffs doesn't look so great as in regular season. Five years with negative (!) on/off, one slightly positive (0.1), one ok (4.8) and only two really great.
Conclusion I've always loved this debate, because I always thought that Kidd was better and was surprised at how conclusive it was considered in these parts that Nash topped him. We had some good Nash vs Kidd talk in the 2011 Top 100 project, but I wasn't able to get much pro-Kidd traction. Which is fine, as this is more about information than the ranking to me. However, it's interesting to me that at the time of the 2011 project, we lacked the pre-2003 RAPM scores and the basketball-reference playoff on/off +/- scores, and that lack of data definitely hurt Kidd in those rankings. A HUGE part of Nash's case is tied up into his impact, with RAPM scores used as evidence of that impact. The fact that so many of the offenses that Nash has run have been so great is obviously also big evidence, but the RAPM data is more granular and shows that those offenses (at least in Phoenix) can be correlated directly to Nash's presence. Without that +/- support, those that question why Nash should get the benefit of his team's outstanding team ORatings without that opening him up to the ringz argument as the ultimate team accomplishment would have an excellent poing. So +/- results are VERY important to Nash's "campaign".
Thus, I find it interesting that the expanded +/- data really muddies the comparison between Nash and Kidd to such a large degree. Yes, Nash had the advantage in RAPM over their 5 best years (both a higher mark, and a consistently higher year-to-year mark when compared in rank order with Kidd, e.g. Nash's best is better than Kidd's best, his 2nd best better than Kidd's 2nd best, on down through that top 5 or 6 slots). However, that advantage at their 5-year bests wasn't very large...while Kidd's advantages in their non-peak RAPM scores was much larger. Kidd had the impact of a star at pretty much every stage of his career and every role...even when that role was seemingly more role-player late in his career in Dallas. Nash, outside of his time in Phoenix, didn't. Plus, Kidd's postseason +/- scores also look better than Nash and (for Nash in particular) these results seem to track with his team's performances. And could be a solid evidence point that in this particular comparison, defense DOES matter even though it's point guards we're discussing.
Nash has major traction here, and I wouldn't even be surprised if he gets the vote. But to me, Kidd has an excellent argument against Nash. Maybe Nash at his best may have been slightly better, but Kidd was right there with him at his best, but had a pretty large impact longevity edge, demonstrated much better portability, and (to the extent that you believe it) may have been the more impactful post-season performer. I think that's a pretty strong case.
Was wanting to vote Hondo, but i can see he has no real shot so i will go in a different direction.
Vote: Nash. Nash is a legitimate all time great offensive anchor with good longevity to boot. Over Kd and Curry because of longevity. And honestly i might take Nash over Kd if i'm going into a 3-5 year playoff stretch. Kd has been alright in the playoffs but nothing special outside of 2012 and this past season. Nash is a great playoff performer usually did pretty well against the Spurs, and he'd have a ring or 2 if he actually had a legit defensive center in the middle to go with Amare.
drza wrote:So, I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I voted for Ewing, who's currently in a 3-way tie with Nash and Durant. I don't have a strong feeling to particularly vote for either of them as alternates, but this vote looks like it's coming down to the alternate votes. Steph Curry also has a dog in the fight as well. I think I have him pretty clearly above Durant, who I'm not as impressed with as many. But, what of Nash? I'm unclear. If I knew for sure that Nash wouldn't go through in this vote, I'd hold this post for the next thread. But, there's no telling, so I'm going to paste it here at the end of this thread. If Nash is still around next thread, I'll re-post this earlier in the thread.
Anyway, if Nash is getting major traction, then that means to me that Jason Kidd should be getting some mention as well. Here's a throwback post from the last project, but that still works now as a comp between the two.
Steve Nash vs Jason Kidd (from 2014)
The box scores: the least important part of this comparison?
Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions Jason Kidd 1998 - 2007: 20.6 pts (49% TS), 9.9 reb, 11.8 ast (4.3 TO) Steve Nash 2002 - 2010: 25.5 pts (58.9% TS), 5.1 reb, 13.3 ast (4.7 TO)
I put these stats here for easy reference and for posterity's sake, but for point guards in general (and especially these two) their impacts are about so much more than the box scores that this data isn't especially telling to me without couching it in with the rest of their game. So let's go ahead and jump into the stylistics and other aspects of the comparison, and I'll bring up box score stats as the need arises.
The style makes the fight: two opposite ends of the spectrum
I think for many, the Suns version of Nash defines an ideal point guard. He was an offensive wunderkind. A maestro capable of controlling every aspect of his team's offense while leading said offense to historic ratings; a distributor/general that knew the strengths/weaknesses of his troops to a T and was capable of putting them into maximal situations to succeed; an excellent penetrator who was able to deform defenses and get them out of position off the dribble which helped him to get those easy shots for teammates; and on top of that, an excellent shooter who could put up scoring efficiencies unseen at the point guard position outside of Stockton but who could also call his own number to volume scorer at similarly great efficiency when the team needed him to. That is a very complete offensive package, and he was able to demonstrate it effectively for several years in Phoenix.
Kidd, on the other hand, is seen as more of a misfit than an ideal as point guard. I say this because his J was limited enough that he was known as Ason Kidd as a young player. Thus, Kidd could never be the scoring threat to opponents that Nash (or, frankly, most point guards) could be. And it's not just that his jumper wasn't a strength (after all, as his career progressed he developed his 3-point shot enough to be (I believe) 3rd on the all-time made 3s list)...it's that he couldn't reliably score off the dribble or on the move outside of layups. This did limit his abilities as a half-court point guard, and also limited his ability to have individual take-over games as a scoring PG. But even with that said and that limitation placed front and center, Kidd was still high on the list of best offensive players in the NBA during his run (see the RAPM section below). He was an incredible floor general, also able to maximize the talents of his teammates and to set them up in positions to succeed. I remember reading the USA today back when Kidd was a high school senior, and them deeming him the #1 prospect in the country before he went to Cal because his court vision was ridiculous. He was outstanding at finding teammates off the bounce, and excelled at doing so on the fast break. Of course, even with that vision Kidd didn't have nearly the offensive impact that Nash had in Phoenix...but he DID also have a very strong defensive impact. Kidd was a great on-ball defender (especially against big guards), he was a monster defensive rebounder from the guard position, and he was also very disruptive in team defense. Thus, it is the combination of his offense AND defense that makes his impact comparable to Nash even at Nash's best in Phoenix.
The impact stats: databall helps greatly in evaluating Nash's effect vs Kidd's
As has often been pointed out, Nash measures out as the highest impact offensive player of the databall era using RAPM. From Doc MJ's spreadsheet of 1998 - 2012 normalized PI RAPM, and using his technique of ranking by the best 5 years, Nash's offensive marks are off the charts with a 5-year average of +9.1 that laps the field (LeBron is 2nd best at +8.1, and no one else is over +8). Kidd's offensive scores are further down the list at #16 overall (best 5-year average of +4.7). He is the 9th rated guard on offense by this method, trailing Nash, Wade, Kobe, Ginobili, Paul, Baron Davis, Chauncey BIllups and Ray Allen.
However, on the defensive side of the ball, Kidd comes out much stronger with a best 5-year average of +3.3 that ranks him 40th on defense overall but 4th among guards (behind Tony Allen's +3.9, Eddie Jones' +3.5, and Doug Christie's +3.3). Nash, on the other hand, ranks #650 overall on defense using this method and only once had a value above 0 (0.6 in 2012).
Thus, when you look at their overall 5-year peaks according to this method, it is fairly close. Nash has the 5-year advantage with an average of +7.9 (8th overall) vs. Kidd's 5-year average of +6.9 (12th overall). To put this in perspective, this difference is similar in magnitude to the differences between the 5-year best marks of Shaq (+10.3) and Duncan (+9.3)...slightly smaller than the distance between LeBron's +10.5 and Dirk's +9.1, but slightly larger than the distance between Wade's +8.4 and Kobe's +7.5. In other words, there is a reasonable line there and in Nash's favor, but that the difference isn't very big at all. And this is for their best 5-year spans.
As you might expect, Nash's best 5 years all come from his time with the Suns and 4 of Kidd's 5 best marks came from his time with the Nets. However, it does have to be at least mentioned that both players played in multiple situations. How much those other time periods are weighed is of course up to the evaluator, but I think we should include that data here to make for easier evaluation:
Kidd (Late 90s, Phoenix): average scaled RAPM of +4.8 from 1998 - 2000 Kidd (late 00s, Dallas): average scaled RAPM of +4.4 from 2008 - 2011 Nash (early 00s, Dallas): average scaled RAPM of +0.5 from 2002 - 2004
I think this was important to point out for a few reasons. Nash is universally rated higher in Phoenix than in Dallas, but I don't think many people appreciate the massive scale of difference in his impact. In Phoenix he was the most impactful offensive player of this generation, but in Dallas (despite being a 2-time All Star) he was pretty much measuring out as a net neutral player. Kidd, on the other hand, measured out as a strong positive player at every stop in his career. His +4.8 and +4.4 averages would both have snuck into the top-20 scores from 1998 - 2012, despite his roles changing dramatically.
Postseason: where Nash separates himself from Kidd...or does he?
As I mentioned above, Suns Nash is considered to be an ideal offensive point guard in part because of his excellent scoring efficiency that scales with higher scoring volume in the postseason. Scoring in the playoffs is much more difficult on both a team and individual level against the ramped up quality and effort of defenses in the postseason, so individual scoring (at great efficiency) is highly valued. This is one of the big areas where Nash is postulated to separate himself from Kidd as a player.
However, while having an individual offensive player that can carry the load in the face of increased defensive pressure is very valuable, it should be noted that there is the obvious other side to the coin, that perhaps defensive impact also has the potential to scale up in value in the postseason. After all, if defenses as a whole are making the larger impact with respect to offense that many of us see and point out, then perhaps the defense of an individual might also scale up in value in the postseason vs. the regular season?
That isn't proven. But of course, I have started populating a postseason on/off +/- table of the elite players of this generation from 2001 on. I've posted many disclaimers and examples of data each time I bring this up in the project, so let me go ahead and re-post them in spoilers here so that you can decide how much (if any) credence to put into these results. Colts18, for instance, gives them no value. I, on the other hand, do think the data is worth seeing and evaluating. So:
Spoiler:
(Aside on playoff on/off +/-) One thing that I like to look at when available (but which is considered controversial as a quantitative tool) is the postseason on/off +/- scorers. There was a time (not that long ago) when on/off +/- was the state of the art for "impact" studies, before APM came into being. There are obvious issues with on/off +/- that led to developing APM, such as the potential for big teammate effects, level of competition effects (e.g. there's no correction for playing against a starting unit or back-ups), and skews due to back-up quality or even rotations (shout out to Unbiased Fan). These issues are exacerbated in the postseason, as many stars rarely leave the court and the sample sizes can get vanishingly small.
I'm aware of these issues, but I'm also convinced that in long playoff runs in a given season (e.g. conference finals or beyond) or multi-year samples we can get large enough samples to be able to get some useful information. I tend to find that really high on/off +/- values over runs or periods help indicate heavy lifting, whereas really negative marks over extended periods don't indicate negatives so much as a lack of a positive drive. Also, I'm less impressed with entire units having high on/off scores (usually indicates a strong unit more-so than a strong individual) but I note when a star puts up a huge number on an island. Reminder: B-R only has this data from 2001 to present.
Examples of some of the best single-season postseason on/off +/- championship runs: LeBron '12: +24.3 per 100 possessions (he also went +24.2 in his 2007 Finals run) Duncan '03: ++23.1 per 100 possessions Shaq 2002: +22.9 per 100 (also went +25.3 during 2004 Finals run) Wade 2006: +22.2 per 100
Famous counter-intuitive counter-examples: LeBron '11: -14.7 per 100 Dwight '09: -12.7 Duncan '05: -5.3
Examples of some of the best 3 - 4 year stretches of postseason on/off +/- Duncan 01 - 03: +27.4 Manu 03 - 06: +21.6 (caveat: came off bench in 44/70 games) Shaq 02 - 04: +21.5 LeBron 07 - 10: +20.4
Examples of some of the best career +/- scores (from 2001 - 2014) Manu Ginobili +11.2 (caveat: 128/180 games off the bench) Jason Kidd +10.2 (+10.2 in Jersey, +14.9 in Dallas, negative else) Duncan +8.9 Shaq +8.6 (+16.3 in LA, -6.4 in Miamii, negative else) LeBron +8.1 (+12.3 in Cleveland, +4.6 in Miami)
With that done, here again is the career (or at least since 2001, which is when B-R has postseason on/off +/- results available) on/off +/- data in both the regular and post season for most of the current players that either have already been voted in or are coming up on the horizon. The chart is listed in descending order for who has the best difference between postseason and regular season on/off +/-, but at a glance you can also see who has the best regular season and best postseason on/off +/- scores (per 100 possessions):
Player Team Years Reg On/off PO On/off Change Kidd Tot 01 - 13 6.3 10.2 +3.9 Kobe LAL 01 - 14 6.7 8.3 +1.6 Shaq Tot 01 - 11 7.7 8.6 +0.9 Duncan SAS 01 - 14 8.3 8.9 +0.6 Nash Tol 01 - 14 7.5 4.8 -2.7 Paul Tot 06 - 14 9.0 6.2 -2.8 LeBron Tot 04 - 14 11.2 8.1 -3.1 Wade Mia 04 - 14 7.8 3.7 -4.1 Dirk Dal 01 - 14 11.1 1.8 -9.3
And here, again, is a similar chart for these same players when focused on their best years. The following table will track important multi-year periods in these players careers...e.g. the Lakers years for Shaq, the "dynasty" years when Duncan's Spurs won the majority of their titles, the pre-LeBron years for Wade, the Cleveland years for LeBron, the Jersey years for Kidd, the post-Shaq years for Kobe, the Suns years for Nash and the post-Nash years for DIrk:
For both their entire careers (post 2000), as well as for their peak years, Kidd has better on/off +/- scores in the postseason than in the regular season, and in both epochs Kidd's scores are solidly higher than Nash's.
Again, your mileage may vary as to how much you weigh these postseason +/- numbers. However, I would like to re-post Lorak's post from the #20 thread where he points out the trends of the postseason offenses and defenses of Nash's squads, and at least loosely ties them to his postseason on/off scores:
Spoiler:
lorak wrote:There's no "ergo" in that, unless you will provide evidence showing how often Nash was actually defending opposing PGs or that "hiding" him on Bowen or opposing SGs hurt his teams defense. But I think that I agree with your general conclusion - that Nash's defense was a problem for DAL/PHO in the playoffs. In fact, I'm looking at his on/off playoffs splits and I'm shocked how bad he looks:
year MIN off ORTG on ORTG off DRTG on DRTG off DRTG net OVERALL net 2001 110 104,0 106,4 110,0 105,0 5,0 -7,4 2002 065 112,6 106,7 108,2 129,0 -20,8 26,7 2003 241 111,4 106,4 112,5 106,0 6,5 -1,5 2004 045 101,3 105,2 102,8 94,9 7,9 -11,8 2005 114 118,7 113,7 114,3 108,8 5,5 -0,5 2006 182 116,5 104,9 110,6 119,3 -8,7 20,3 2007 116 112,5 107,1 105,8 105,2 0,6 4,8 2008 067 105,6 100,0 110,2 97,6 12,6 -7,0 2010 229 120,6 114,2 114,8 108,5 6,3 0,1
Sure, "off" in playoffs always deals with small sample issue, but here we see year by year consistency - he improves offense and defense with him usually was much worse than without him. What's surprising, is that overall his net impact in playoffs doesn't look so great as in regular season. Five years with negative (!) on/off, one slightly positive (0.1), one ok (4.8) and only two really great.
Conclusion I've always loved this debate, because I always thought that Kidd was better and was surprised at how conclusive it was considered in these parts that Nash topped him. We had some good Nash vs Kidd talk in the 2011 Top 100 project, but I wasn't able to get much pro-Kidd traction. Which is fine, as this is more about information than the ranking to me. However, it's interesting to me that at the time of the 2011 project, we lacked the pre-2003 RAPM scores and the basketball-reference playoff on/off +/- scores, and that lack of data definitely hurt Kidd in those rankings. A HUGE part of Nash's case is tied up into his impact, with RAPM scores used as evidence of that impact. The fact that so many of the offenses that Nash has run have been so great is obviously also big evidence, but the RAPM data is more granular and shows that those offenses (at least in Phoenix) can be correlated directly to Nash's presence. Without that +/- support, those that question why Nash should get the benefit of his team's outstanding team ORatings without that opening him up to the ringz argument as the ultimate team accomplishment would have an excellent poing. So +/- results are VERY important to Nash's "campaign".
Thus, I find it interesting that the expanded +/- data really muddies the comparison between Nash and Kidd to such a large degree. Yes, Nash had the advantage in RAPM over their 5 best years (both a higher mark, and a consistently higher year-to-year mark when compared in rank order with Kidd, e.g. Nash's best is better than Kidd's best, his 2nd best better than Kidd's 2nd best, on down through that top 5 or 6 slots). However, that advantage at their 5-year bests wasn't very large...while Kidd's advantages in their non-peak RAPM scores was much larger. Kidd had the impact of a star at pretty much every stage of his career and every role...even when that role was seemingly more role-player late in his career in Dallas. Nash, outside of his time in Phoenix, didn't. Plus, Kidd's postseason +/- scores also look better than Nash and (for Nash in particular) these results seem to track with his team's performances. And could be a solid evidence point that in this particular comparison, defense DOES matter even though it's point guards we're discussing.
Nash has major traction here, and I wouldn't even be surprised if he gets the vote. But to me, Kidd has an excellent argument against Nash. Maybe Nash at his best may have been slightly better, but Kidd was right there with him at his best, but had a pretty large impact longevity edge, demonstrated much better portability, and (to the extent that you believe it) may have been the more impactful post-season performer. I think that's a pretty strong case.
Thanks for posting this. I'm not the biggest Nash guy and I think the artistry with which he did his job (and his general personality) has attracted people to him and caused him to be rated higher than needed. THe RAPM offensive data then gives you the justification to hold him in such high regard - because other indicators don't hold him nearly as high.
Pablo Novi wrote:A ton of great points and questions raised! A few responses (in the order in which you referred to them ...)
Durant: I have him 27th so, imo, he should go right after the guys I have ahead of him: Cousy, Baylor & Barry.
Stephen Curry: Imagine the "unimaginable" that Curry gets injured early this coming season and never is great again. (Could happen). Then his less than 4 great seasons would NEVER be near enough, despite their GOAT PEAK-ishness; to merit inclusing in an overall GOAT list this high up. btw, in my system based primarily on ALL-League selections, he has 16 points in 55th place! (15th PG). For me ranking him in the GOAT top 30 is terrible RECENCY bias. (Give him time to accumulate a few more Great Years and he's challenging for top-tier bragging rights; but not nearly yet.)
Rick Barry, Elgin Baylor & Bob Cousy: Cousy DOMINATED his position for 12 seasons: 10 as a ALL-NBA 1st-Teamer (same as Baylor) and 2 more as a 2nd-Teamer. I don't get why you say that he slowed down in the second half of his careere. After those 12 Great Years, his career was just about over (few All-Time greats back then played more than 12 years). Baylor too DOMINATED his position for 10 years - these two are the only not-yet-selected players with double-digit ALL-League 1st-Team selections - for me, that's THE BEST argument there could be. Cousy & Baylor also revolutionized their respective positions - being FAR ahead of their times. Baylor "invented" hang-time; and though it was often "below-the-rim"; his excellent wrist-strength enabled him to wait til his opponent had landed and still flip the ball in. Barry is just behind them in this regard. He got NINE ALL-League 1st-Team selections; and would surely have gotten a 10th if the NBA hadn't of legally stopped him from playing that year in the ABA.
Elsewhere I've tried to make the case for why ALL-League selections are much more valuable than MVPs an thus a much better criteria for building a GOAT list. (The two main points: The ALL-League selection process is much, much broader AND deals with players by "position": Guards, Forwards, Center; and, historically speaking, I believe the MVP award has been flawed a number of times; whereas I've never had any BIG problems with the ALL-League selections over the last 58 years.
I have: Pippen, Isiah & Clyde all in my GOAT late 30s; with Hondo a bit behind. Again, mostly because that's about where they rank, position-wise in my system based mostly on "Great Years"; and where, in each descending set of FIVE GOAT spots, one player per position is selected.
This is exactly my problem with your "Great Years" system. Having Curry 55th is way way to low and it's not recency bias. Your system puts the like of Dominique Wilkins, Sidney Moncrief, Dwight Howard, Chris Webber, and quite a few others ahead of Curry which is clearly absurd. It doesn't take into account how great those seasons were and whether they were actually deserved or not. In Cousy's case I'd say those 10 1st team All-NBAs are way better than he actually was as a player. Curry has had 4 years of GOAT impact and he has changed the game forever. His 3 year peak is top-10 all time at least. He has had 3 years of dominance and one of the greatest seasons ever in 2016. He has two best on champs which Cousy was never even close to capable of that and relied on Russell for his rings. I have said this before and I'll say it again would you rather have a guy who can lead you to a title for 4 years and is a good starter the rest of his career or a guy who can lead you to 1st and second round exits and is not capable of winning a championship without a lot of help for 10 years. It's a no brainer if championships are the goal (which they should be). Your system overvalues longevity and the less dominant positions and undervalues greatness and more dominant positions especially centers. For crying outloud at least four of these 6 people are outside your top 10 and two are outside your top 20, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan(unless you consider him a PF which he isnt). I really think you need to tinker with your system somehow to change this. Or at least make exceptions for guys like Shaq and Hakeem who probably fall to 16th and 21st on your list which is pretty crazy. Meaning no offense just a suggestion that I really hope you listen to.
About Curry's PEAK: THIS discussion is NOT mostly about PEAK at all. If it were mostly about PEAK, I'd have Bill Walton way high on my GOAT list.
About YOUR contention about it being better to have a player with a higher PEAK (so you get more Chips, supposedly) than PRIME (you call it longetivity as if it's a put-down - All-Time Great players ARE AT Greats because THEIR longetivity is composed of MORE Great Years than lesser players, IMO (along with PEAK, Play-Off success and any number of other factors).
How do YOU explain CP3 already being voted in - given you ASSUREDNESS that your understanding is so much better than mine?
btw, I have repeatedly (though not in every thread) stated that the INITIAL part of my system treats all 1st-Team selections as equal in value (except for pre 1960 ones), same for all 2nd-Team selections; BUT that in my 2nd Step, I take into account the QUALITY of 1st-Team selection years (as well as a series of other factors).
About your "For crying outloud ...") : 1) It's semi-universal to refer to Duncan as THE GOAT / Greatest POWER FORWARD - so I treat him as a PF. 2) My GOAT list goes: KAJ, Magic, MJ, LBJ (if he has another Great Year, he passes MJ, io), TD; then: Wilt, Dr J, Kobe, "O", K.Malone. In my GOAT Top 21 (NOT Top 20) I have: KAJ, Wilt, Shaq, Russell, Hakeem, all Centers.
Any argument that all of them should be in the top 10 is an argument based on the PREMISE that Centers clear (or have clearly) dominate(d) NBA play. (and a PREMISE is ALL it is, regardless of its popularity, historically speaking) ... is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT. They should be in the top 10 because "Centers dominate" and they were the top Centers.
I DISAGREE with the first part (though not the 2nd part). The smaller the player, the more: running, cutting, stop-and-starting, dribbling, passing they do. For me, that counts ALMOST as much as the Centers' advantages.
Another way to put it is this: In our RealGM GOAT list, Magic doesn't even make our top SIX. (And he's the only PG in our Top 12). I've hardly ever seen a serious GOAT list where Magic is not in the top 5. Kobe is not in our collective Top 10; again, the overwhelming majority of serious GOAT lists I've seen disagree with this.
So, perhaps there's more wrong with YOUR individual and RealGM's collective system than mine?
So, to use your words (but I'm not including any sarcasm-ridicule-anger), "For crying out loud ..." that's just wrong!
Our list has SIX of the top nine players as 5 Centers plus TD (who you consider a Center). For me, that's ridiculous. For you, it's not. So we have a significant difference of OPINION: but your "for crying out loud" is just a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT, saying: Pablo your system is no good because it doesn't have enough Centers at the top. What if there should NOT be so many Centers at the very top? THEN my system is better than yours or RealGM's.
ABOUT BILL RUSSELL. I got to see him play LIVE a number of times at the Gaaden. I loved how he played; loved him as a player; and ADMIRED the bleep out of his DIGNITY in the face of his own fans calling him the "N" word repeatedly. Still, the C's were THE GREATEST one-team "All-Star team" in history AND they had the ERA-WISE GREATEST: COACH AND GM in Red Auerbach. IMO, Red was EASILY worth 3+ points a game, especially in the Play-offs; and the Cs won a large number of games and series by 5 points or less or in overtime and/or in Game 7s. I didn't like Red at all (because of his arrogance); but there's no denying his greatness. For me, RED was the real MVP of those years; NOT BILL RUSSELL.
In addition, BILL RUSSELL was DOMINATED at HIS OWN POSITION during his own time by Wilt Chamberlain. (In the NINE seasons they both were voted to the ALL-NBA Teams, Wilt DOMINATED Russ by: 7-2 in 1st-Team selections; that's CAREER DOMINATION!. IN MY BOOK, you can't rank at the top of MY GOAT list in such cases. Our collective GOAT list has TWO Centers from the SAME DECADE in our GOAT Top 6 - imo, that's RIDICULOUS. PERIOD.
IF it turns out some time in the future that NBA analysists / GOAT list makers change their thinking TO: all 5 positions are RELATIVELY equal (notice I don't say absolutely and that I DO rank the Center the highest of the 5 positions in each descending set of 5 spots in my GOAT list) ... then my thinking will turn into having been "visionary" / more balanced / more accurate.
Lastly, in response to your, "Meaning no offense just a suggestion that I really hope you listen to."
I've been making GOAT lists since the end of the 1959-60 season; and have ALWAYS (and continue to) listen(ed) to OTHER POVs. I did NOT take your suggestion as an offense (besides I got "over myself" (as Pop says); 50 some years ago.)
My own system for making GOAT lists (NBA, Hard-Rock Songs, My Greatest Long-Distance Runs & Races, etc, etc); has continually evolved - it has never been fixed in stone. I just happen to believe that my current system is more objective, reflects NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT rankings more accurately than anybody else's.
"In addition, BILL RUSSELL was DOMINATED at HIS OWN POSITION during his own time by Wilt Chamberlain. (In the NINE seasons they both were voted to the ALL-NBA Teams, Wilt DOMINATED Russ by: 7-2 in 1st-Team selections; that's CAREER DOMINATION!. IN MY BOOK, you can't rank at the top of MY GOAT list in such cases. Our collective GOAT list has TWO Centers from the SAME DECADE in our GOAT Top 6 - imo, that's RIDICULOUS. PERIOD. "
What the hell? So the two best players ever can't coexist?
1st all nba teams is a reg. season award. If RS counts so much Karl Malone should be in your top 5.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
trex_8063 wrote:But it’s been stated fairly explicitly by more than one poster that the presence or absence of a title----and particularly the winning a title as the clear best player on the team----is a HUGE factor in the criteria of many of the voter/participants of this project.
One of the benefits of this project is how it forces me to examine how I apply my criteria (subjectively squishy though they may be) to the candidates. As for playoff performance in general and titles in particular, I've tried to be fair with my assessment, both with candidates I have a bias for -- to ensure that I don't give, say, Havlicek too much credit for his many titles or unduly rationalize away Baylor's lack of titles -- and players I have a bias against -- to not penalize them for, say, a lack of titles that was largely out of their control.
In Ewing's case, I see the arguments for and against whether the lack of a title is a negative. He didn't have the strongest offensive cast around him, so just reaching the finals that one time and testing the Bulls to their limits on multiple occasions can be viewed as overachieving. However, his poor offensive showing in the 1994 finals (36.3 FG%) is a reality that isn't washed away by his 12.4 rebounds and 4.3 blocks per game. It's a mixed bag, and to me, it doesn't stack up to other candidates we have in this range.
However, it's just part of the picture. If he'd had more times making the finals or had better teammates, maybe he'd have other good performances to offset this one, like Kevin Durant now has. What matters more to me in evaluating Ewing is that he was very good defensively for the majority of his career, good but limited offensively, and was increasingly impacted by knee issues as his career went along to the point that he lost much of his athletic fluidity and became largely a mid-range shooter. His peak was good, but his career is a bell curve that started off pretty good, peaked in 1990, and then started a gradual drop-off that became more pronounced in later years. He should get credit for being the anchor of his team for most of his career. He averaged only 1.9 assists for his career. The dude was on the Dream Team. I get whiplash looking at all the factors.
I have Ewing at 28th on my list, behind five guys who aren't in yet (Baylor, Havlicek, Nash, Barry, and Pippen). I can see arguments for him over any of those guys except Baylor, and I don't begrudge anyone voting him in now. He's one of the tougher players to evaluate.
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
Pablo Novi wrote:A ton of great points and questions raised! A few responses (in the order in which you referred to them ...)
Durant: I have him 27th so, imo, he should go right after the guys I have ahead of him: Cousy, Baylor & Barry.
Stephen Curry: Imagine the "unimaginable" that Curry gets injured early this coming season and never is great again. (Could happen). Then his less than 4 great seasons would NEVER be near enough, despite their GOAT PEAK-ishness; to merit inclusing in an overall GOAT list this high up. btw, in my system based primarily on ALL-League selections, he has 16 points in 55th place! (15th PG). For me ranking him in the GOAT top 30 is terrible RECENCY bias. (Give him time to accumulate a few more Great Years and he's challenging for top-tier bragging rights; but not nearly yet.)
Rick Barry, Elgin Baylor & Bob Cousy: Cousy DOMINATED his position for 12 seasons: 10 as a ALL-NBA 1st-Teamer (same as Baylor) and 2 more as a 2nd-Teamer. I don't get why you say that he slowed down in the second half of his careere. After those 12 Great Years, his career was just about over (few All-Time greats back then played more than 12 years). Baylor too DOMINATED his position for 10 years - these two are the only not-yet-selected players with double-digit ALL-League 1st-Team selections - for me, that's THE BEST argument there could be. Cousy & Baylor also revolutionized their respective positions - being FAR ahead of their times. Baylor "invented" hang-time; and though it was often "below-the-rim"; his excellent wrist-strength enabled him to wait til his opponent had landed and still flip the ball in. Barry is just behind them in this regard. He got NINE ALL-League 1st-Team selections; and would surely have gotten a 10th if the NBA hadn't of legally stopped him from playing that year in the ABA.
Elsewhere I've tried to make the case for why ALL-League selections are much more valuable than MVPs an thus a much better criteria for building a GOAT list. (The two main points: The ALL-League selection process is much, much broader AND deals with players by "position": Guards, Forwards, Center; and, historically speaking, I believe the MVP award has been flawed a number of times; whereas I've never had any BIG problems with the ALL-League selections over the last 58 years.
I have: Pippen, Isiah & Clyde all in my GOAT late 30s; with Hondo a bit behind. Again, mostly because that's about where they rank, position-wise in my system based mostly on "Great Years"; and where, in each descending set of FIVE GOAT spots, one player per position is selected.
This is exactly my problem with your "Great Years" system. Having Curry 55th is way way to low and it's not recency bias. Your system puts the like of Dominique Wilkins, Sidney Moncrief, Dwight Howard, Chris Webber, and quite a few others ahead of Curry which is clearly absurd. It doesn't take into account how great those seasons were and whether they were actually deserved or not. In Cousy's case I'd say those 10 1st team All-NBAs are way better than he actually was as a player. Curry has had 4 years of GOAT impact and he has changed the game forever. His 3 year peak is top-10 all time at least. He has had 3 years of dominance and one of the greatest seasons ever in 2016. He has two best on champs which Cousy was never even close to capable of that and relied on Russell for his rings. I have said this before and I'll say it again would you rather have a guy who can lead you to a title for 4 years and is a good starter the rest of his career or a guy who can lead you to 1st and second round exits and is not capable of winning a championship without a lot of help for 10 years. It's a no brainer if championships are the goal (which they should be). Your system overvalues longevity and the less dominant positions and undervalues greatness and more dominant positions especially centers. For crying outloud at least four of these 6 people are outside your top 10 and two are outside your top 20, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan(unless you consider him a PF which he isnt). I really think you need to tinker with your system somehow to change this. Or at least make exceptions for guys like Shaq and Hakeem who probably fall to 16th and 21st on your list which is pretty crazy. Meaning no offense just a suggestion that I really hope you listen to.
About Curry's PEAK: THIS discussion is NOT mostly about PEAK at all. If it were mostly about PEAK, I'd have Bill Walton way high on my GOAT list.
About YOUR contention about it being better to have a player with a higher PEAK (so you get more Chips, supposedly) than PRIME (you call it longetivity as if it's a put-down - All-Time Great players ARE AT Greats because THEIR longetivity is composed of MORE Great Years than lesser players, IMO (along with PEAK, Play-Off success and any number of other factors).
How do YOU explain CP3 already being voted in - given you ASSUREDNESS that your understanding is so much better than mine?
btw, I have repeatedly (though not in every thread) stated that the INITIAL part of my system treats all 1st-Team selections as equal in value (except for pre 1960 ones), same for all 2nd-Team selections; BUT that in my 2nd Step, I take into account the QUALITY of 1st-Team selection years (as well as a series of other factors).
About your "For crying outloud ...") : 1) It's semi-universal to refer to Duncan as THE GOAT / Greatest POWER FORWARD - so I treat him as a PF. 2) My GOAT list goes: KAJ, Magic, MJ, LBJ (if he has another Great Year, he passes MJ, io), TD; then: Wilt, Dr J, Kobe, "O", K.Malone. In my GOAT Top 21 (NOT Top 20) I have: KAJ, Wilt, Shaq, Russell, Hakeem, all Centers.
Any argument that all of them should be in the top 10 is an argument based on the PREMISE that Centers clear (or have clearly) dominate(d) NBA play. (and a PREMISE is ALL it is, regardless of its popularity, historically speaking) ... is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT. They should be in the top 10 because "Centers dominate" and they were the top Centers.
I DISAGREE with the first part (though not the 2nd part). The smaller the player, the more: running, cutting, stop-and-starting, dribbling, passing they do. For me, that counts ALMOST as much as the Centers' advantages.
Another way to put it is this: In our RealGM GOAT list, Magic doesn't even make our top SIX. (And he's the only PG in our Top 12). I've hardly ever seen a serious GOAT list where Magic is not in the top 5. Kobe is not in our collective Top 10; again, the overwhelming majority of serious GOAT lists I've seen disagree with this.
So, perhaps there's more wrong with YOUR individual and RealGM's collective system than mine?
So, to use your words (but I'm not including any sarcasm-ridicule-anger), "For crying out loud ..." that's just wrong!
Our list has SIX of the top nine players as 5 Centers plus TD (who you consider a Center). For me, that's ridiculous. For you, it's not. So we have a significant difference of OPINION: but your "for crying out loud" is just a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT, saying: Pablo your system is no good because it doesn't have enough Centers at the top. What if there should NOT be so many Centers at the very top? THEN my system is better than yours or RealGM's.
ABOUT BILL RUSSELL. I got to see him play LIVE a number of times at the Gaaden. I loved how he played; loved him as a player; and ADMIRED the bleep out of his DIGNITY in the face of his own fans calling him the "N" word repeatedly. Still, the C's were THE GREATEST one-team "All-Star team" in history AND they had the ERA-WISE GREATEST: COACH AND GM in Red Auerbach. IMO, Red was EASILY worth 3+ points a game, especially in the Play-offs; and the Cs won a large number of games and series by 5 points or less or in overtime and/or in Game 7s. I didn't like Red at all (because of his arrogance); but there's no denying his greatness. For me, RED was the real MVP of those years; NOT BILL RUSSELL.
In addition, BILL RUSSELL was DOMINATED at HIS OWN POSITION during his own time by Wilt Chamberlain. (In the NINE seasons they both were voted to the ALL-NBA Teams, Wilt DOMINATED Russ by: 7-2 in 1st-Team selections; that's CAREER DOMINATION!. IN MY BOOK, you can't rank at the top of MY GOAT list in such cases. Our collective GOAT list has TWO Centers from the SAME DECADE in our GOAT Top 6 - imo, that's RIDICULOUS. PERIOD.
IF it turns out some time in the future that NBA analysists / GOAT list makers change their thinking TO: all 5 positions are RELATIVELY equal (notice I don't say absolutely and that I DO rank the Center the highest of the 5 positions in each descending set of 5 spots in my GOAT list) ... then my thinking will turn into having been "visionary" / more balanced / more accurate.
Lastly, in response to your, "Meaning no offense just a suggestion that I really hope you listen to."
I've been making GOAT lists since the end of the 1959-60 season; and have ALWAYS (and continue to) listen(ed) to OTHER POVs. I did NOT take your suggestion as an offense (besides I got "over myself" (as Pop says); 50 some years ago.)
My own system for making GOAT lists (NBA, Hard-Rock Songs, My Greatest Long-Distance Runs & Races, etc, etc); has continually evolved - it has never been fixed in stone. I just happen to believe that my current system is more objective, reflects NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT rankings more accurately than anybody else's.
First of all I did not intend to come off as condescending and for that I apologize. Secondly, though you say that All-NBA first teams aren't all created equal in your system it sure seems like they are. That is clear when you think Cousy should be chosen despite playing in a time with depleted/weak guards and he couldn't succeed without Russell. It's clear that all All-NBA selections are not created equal and it should be treated as such. I agree with you that Paul and Chamberlain are too high but their rankings aren't absurd. I have Magic at 6 so I don't think his ranking is so bad either. You take your positional equality too far and punish players on your list for having played the same position as other greats. (I'm going to assume that Hakeem is the one you have at 21 it could be Wilt or Shaq but for the sake of argument I'll use Hakeem). Is it Hakeem's fault that so many ATGs played his position? Is it right to punish him for the position he played or should we just judge him on what he accomplished. He was clearly a more impactful player than, for example, John Stockton who you probably have above him. I can't imagine anyone thinking I would rather have Stockton than Hakeem the Dream. The position shouldn't matter we should just judge each player on what they did/accomplished in their career regardless of what position they played. This is even more true when you realize that positions are arbitrary and are made up so novices can understand the game better. Their are really on only three "positions" bigs, wings, and primary ballhanders. Now these 3 positions can take many different forms for example wings can be shooters or slashers and bigs can be high-post or low-post or bruisers or pnr/pnf specialists as well as countless other styles. Brook Lopez and Shaq are both "Centers" but their games could not be more different. You could consider Lebron anything between a pg and a pf and I wouldn't disagree with you (except maybe if you said he was an sg). The same goes for many other players. You should just judge players on the value they added to their teams over their careers and not place them lower just because they played the same "position" as some other ATGs. Lastly I do value longevity I just feel it is LESS important than peak/prime I still value it a lot. My list doesn't have Walton and Curry in the top 20 because I value longevity if I didn't then I would.
smartyz456 wrote:Duncan would be a better defending jahlil okafor in todays nba
twolves97 wrote:This is exactly my problem with your "Great Years" system. Having Curry 55th is way way to low and it's not recency bias. Your system puts the like of Dominique Wilkins, Sidney Moncrief, Dwight Howard, Chris Webber, and quite a few others ahead of Curry which is clearly absurd. It doesn't take into account how great those seasons were and whether they were actually deserved or not. In Cousy's case I'd say those 10 1st team All-NBAs are way better than he actually was as a player. Curry has had 4 years of GOAT impact and he has changed the game forever. His 3 year peak is top-10 all time at least. He has had 3 years of dominance and one of the greatest seasons ever in 2016. He has two best on champs which Cousy was never even close to capable of that and relied on Russell for his rings. I have said this before and I'll say it again would you rather have a guy who can lead you to a title for 4 years and is a good starter the rest of his career or a guy who can lead you to 1st and second round exits and is not capable of winning a championship without a lot of help for 10 years. It's a no brainer if championships are the goal (which they should be). Your system overvalues longevity and the less dominant positions and undervalues greatness and more dominant positions especially centers. For crying outloud at least four of these 6 people are outside your top 10 and two are outside your top 20, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan(unless you consider him a PF which he isnt). I really think you need to tinker with your system somehow to change this. Or at least make exceptions for guys like Shaq and Hakeem who probably fall to 16th and 21st on your list which is pretty crazy. Meaning no offense just a suggestion that I really hope you listen to.
About Curry's PEAK: THIS discussion is NOT mostly about PEAK at all. If it were mostly about PEAK, I'd have Bill Walton way high on my GOAT list.
About YOUR contention about it being better to have a player with a higher PEAK (so you get more Chips, supposedly) than PRIME (you call it longetivity as if it's a put-down - All-Time Great players ARE AT Greats because THEIR longetivity is composed of MORE Great Years than lesser players, IMO (along with PEAK, Play-Off success and any number of other factors).
How do YOU explain CP3 already being voted in - given you ASSUREDNESS that your understanding is so much better than mine?
btw, I have repeatedly (though not in every thread) stated that the INITIAL part of my system treats all 1st-Team selections as equal in value (except for pre 1960 ones), same for all 2nd-Team selections; BUT that in my 2nd Step, I take into account the QUALITY of 1st-Team selection years (as well as a series of other factors).
About your "For crying outloud ...") : 1) It's semi-universal to refer to Duncan as THE GOAT / Greatest POWER FORWARD - so I treat him as a PF. 2) My GOAT list goes: KAJ, Magic, MJ, LBJ (if he has another Great Year, he passes MJ, io), TD; then: Wilt, Dr J, Kobe, "O", K.Malone. In my GOAT Top 21 (NOT Top 20) I have: KAJ, Wilt, Shaq, Russell, Hakeem, all Centers.
Any argument that all of them should be in the top 10 is an argument based on the PREMISE that Centers clear (or have clearly) dominate(d) NBA play. (and a PREMISE is ALL it is, regardless of its popularity, historically speaking) ... is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT. They should be in the top 10 because "Centers dominate" and they were the top Centers.
I DISAGREE with the first part (though not the 2nd part). The smaller the player, the more: running, cutting, stop-and-starting, dribbling, passing they do. For me, that counts ALMOST as much as the Centers' advantages.
Another way to put it is this: In our RealGM GOAT list, Magic doesn't even make our top SIX. (And he's the only PG in our Top 12). I've hardly ever seen a serious GOAT list where Magic is not in the top 5. Kobe is not in our collective Top 10; again, the overwhelming majority of serious GOAT lists I've seen disagree with this.
So, perhaps there's more wrong with YOUR individual and RealGM's collective system than mine?
So, to use your words (but I'm not including any sarcasm-ridicule-anger), "For crying out loud ..." that's just wrong!
Our list has SIX of the top nine players as 5 Centers plus TD (who you consider a Center). For me, that's ridiculous. For you, it's not. So we have a significant difference of OPINION: but your "for crying out loud" is just a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT, saying: Pablo your system is no good because it doesn't have enough Centers at the top. What if there should NOT be so many Centers at the very top? THEN my system is better than yours or RealGM's.
ABOUT BILL RUSSELL. I got to see him play LIVE a number of times at the Gaaden. I loved how he played; loved him as a player; and ADMIRED the bleep out of his DIGNITY in the face of his own fans calling him the "N" word repeatedly. Still, the C's were THE GREATEST one-team "All-Star team" in history AND they had the ERA-WISE GREATEST: COACH AND GM in Red Auerbach. IMO, Red was EASILY worth 3+ points a game, especially in the Play-offs; and the Cs won a large number of games and series by 5 points or less or in overtime and/or in Game 7s. I didn't like Red at all (because of his arrogance); but there's no denying his greatness. For me, RED was the real MVP of those years; NOT BILL RUSSELL.
In addition, BILL RUSSELL was DOMINATED at HIS OWN POSITION during his own time by Wilt Chamberlain. (In the NINE seasons they both were voted to the ALL-NBA Teams, Wilt DOMINATED Russ by: 7-2 in 1st-Team selections; that's CAREER DOMINATION!. IN MY BOOK, you can't rank at the top of MY GOAT list in such cases. Our collective GOAT list has TWO Centers from the SAME DECADE in our GOAT Top 6 - imo, that's RIDICULOUS. PERIOD.
IF it turns out some time in the future that NBA analysists / GOAT list makers change their thinking TO: all 5 positions are RELATIVELY equal (notice I don't say absolutely and that I DO rank the Center the highest of the 5 positions in each descending set of 5 spots in my GOAT list) ... then my thinking will turn into having been "visionary" / more balanced / more accurate.
Lastly, in response to your, "Meaning no offense just a suggestion that I really hope you listen to."
I've been making GOAT lists since the end of the 1959-60 season; and have ALWAYS (and continue to) listen(ed) to OTHER POVs. I did NOT take your suggestion as an offense (besides I got "over myself" (as Pop says); 50 some years ago.)
My own system for making GOAT lists (NBA, Hard-Rock Songs, My Greatest Long-Distance Runs & Races, etc, etc); has continually evolved - it has never been fixed in stone. I just happen to believe that my current system is more objective, reflects NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT rankings more accurately than anybody else's.
First of all I did not intend to come off as condescending and for that I apologize. Secondly, though you say that All-NBA first teams aren't all created equal in your system it sure seems like they are. That is clear when you think Cousy should be chosen despite playing in a time with depleted/weak guards and he couldn't succeed without Russell. It's clear that all All-NBA selections are not created equal and it should be treated as such. I agree with you that Paul and Chamberlain are too high but their rankings aren't absurd. I have Magic at 6 so I don't think his ranking is so bad either. You take your positional equality too far and punish players on your list for having played the same position as other greats. (I'm going to assume that Hakeem is the one you have at 21 it could be Wilt or Shaq but for the sake of argument I'll use Hakeem). Is it Hakeem's fault that so many ATGs played his position? Is it right to punish him for the position he played or should we just judge him on what he accomplished. He was clearly a more impactful player than, for example, John Stockton who you probably have above him. I can't imagine anyone thinking I would rather have Stockton than Hakeem the Dream. The position shouldn't matter we should just judge each player on what they did/accomplished in their career regardless of what position they played. This is even more true when you realize that positions are arbitrary and are made up so novices can understand the game better. Their are really on only three "positions" bigs, wings, and primary ballhanders. Now these 3 positions can take many different forms for example wings can be shooters or slashers and bigs can be high-post or low-post or bruisers or pnr/pnf specialists as well as countless other styles. Brook Lopez and Shaq are both "Centers" but their games could not be more different. You could consider Lebron anything between a pg and a pf and I wouldn't disagree with you (except maybe if you said he was an sg). The same goes for many other players. You should just judge players on the value they added to their teams over their careers and not place them lower just because they played the same "position" as some other ATGs. Lastly I do value longevity I just feel it is LESS important than peak/prime I still value it a lot. My list doesn't have Walton and Curry in the top 20 because I value longevity if I didn't then I would.
You say, "First of all I did not intend to come off as condescending and for that I apologize." I didn't think you really came off as condescending; we just have a difference of opinion - each arguing for their POV. (I appreciate the spirit behind "... I apologize.")
About my RELATIVE positional equality: I'd rather have Magic than anybody not named Kareem. Somebody has to bring the ball up and set other TEAM-mates up with good passes (against any and all defensive schemes to prevent them). I'd ALWAYS take Magic over MJ because, imo, Magic was the FAR better TEAM-mate (I don't admire any of: punching two different team mates, quitting twice on your team (once for gambling), being a maniac about winning).
For me, it's more important HOW you play the game ("the right way") than if you win the game; particularly in a TEAM sport.
I wonder if stats exist as to the amount of running players do (by position, by player, whatever). Again, I ASSUME (but could be wrong) that the smaller the player / position the more: running, cutting, stop-and-starting, dribbling, passing and chasing you do. Nobody much ever talks about those contributions to the game - but they are vital - personally, I value them ALMOST as much as I value the added advantages Centers provide.
Do people think that all that extra effort by the smaller players counts for very little?
About the example of Hakeem going against great Centers. This TOO is a circular argument - seemingly they were great PLAYERS partially at least because they were Centers. Fact is, Hakeem FAR from dominated his contemporary Centers - thus, in my book, he doesn't rank as high. Overall, how each player did against his contemporaries at HIS POSITION is my #1 (but far from only) criteria. No one can "require" a player to do more than that - and GUESSING which decades (not counting pre-1960) were stronger than others (beyond the amount of expansion) is PURE SUBJECTIVITY - as witnessed by the lack of agreement. (i.e., some have MJ's 1990's as the best; I believe they were the weakest decade since the 1970s - and the MAIN reason the teams & players APPEAR so great from the 1990's is because with first 4 new teams added in two years, and, altogether 6 teams added in 8 years - NATURALLY, the top teams had more easy games than usual and thus better records; historically better records.
So, for instance, in my book, the 73-9 Warriors' record (where only 1 team had been added in the last 20 years WHILE we had an influx of non-American talent as never before) was decidedly superior to the Bulls 72-10.
Similarly for "Great Years" (vis-à-vis ALL-League 1st-Team (or 2nd-Team) selections. Sure not all 1st-Team selections are equal; BUT, I believe they are closer to equal than they are closer to having large gaps. And, imo, they are a more accurate "measure" of yearly performance than any other means: stats (advanced or regular, separate or combined), MVPs, Chips, etc.) Looks like we should just agree to disagree.
"Looks like we should just agree to disagree." Fair enough but I would like you to address just one last thing . You base so much of your off of what position a player played and how they dominated compared to others at their position. What do you think of what I said about positions being arbitrary. Lebron and Magic play basically the same style but Lebron is a SF/PF and Magic is a PG. While Brook Lopez and Shaq are both centers but their games are completely different. I don't want to repeat what I already wrote so please look at my last post for the rest of my explanation of my interpretation. Also if Kobe and MJ played at the same time and MJ won all the 1st team selections would that make Kobe worse? Thanks!
smartyz456 wrote:Duncan would be a better defending jahlil okafor in todays nba
Would you group Ewing closer to the top tier bigs (WIlt/Russ/KAJ/Dream/Shaq/Duncan/Admiral/Moses) or closer to Mourning/Mutombo/Howard/Gilmore/Thurmond for comparison? Like you said, Ewing became more mechanical the older he got and was never really a good passer out of the post like say Duncan was even though Duncan never really racked up the assists either. He wasn't particularly fast either, so in many ways I have my doubts about considering him as a strong candidate at this juncture when you still have elite talents left on the table, especially KD/Curry.
I do believe Curry may be the biggest floor raiser here, but does his (relatively) short career value thus far mean someone like Nash is ahead for now?
Its worth noting that even though West was far ahead of his time, he actually couldn't dribble with his off hand. And like you said, Baylor's era did not preach efficiency like today, but at the same time would it be unfair to characterize him similar in mentality to Moses as a pitbull. Get shots up, rebound like crazy?
West certainly could dribble with his offhand though with the old, much more difficult dribbling rules, he tended to be much more one handed than modern players (as were most players). Someone even made a video (too lazy to look for it) about it.
Ewing would be in an intermediate tier with Moses, Gilmore and maybe Dwight. A bit above the Zo, Mel Daniels, Mutombo, Thurmond, Cowens, Unseld, McAdoo tier for one reason or another.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Yes, I'm voting Curry here. To me he has shown enough. Maybe he lacks some longevity, but he's got one of the GOAT peaks, 2 MVPs and 2 championships as the top dog (second is arguable). He led his team to the best regular season record ever, he led them to beat a record nobody thought could be beat. GOAT shooter along with killer handles.
As for my second vote, Baylor is really the opposite than Curry. He has the longevity, but was always beaten by better players in MVP voting and in the playoffs. Had the tough task of beating the Celtics, and like many others, he couldn't do that. But his scoring and especially rebounding for somebody his size, it's special
Baylor is next to be eliminated, but both become ghost votes (one for Hondo, one for Cousy). So Curry and Durant are the next two eliminated. Four votes transfer to Nash, two votes transfer to Ewing. The rest become ghost votes, being for already eliminated players.
Nash - 10 Ewing - 9
So Steve Nash takes this one. Will have the next thread up shortly.
eminence wrote:.
penbeast0 wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
Colbinii wrote:.
Texas Chuck wrote:.
drza wrote:.
Dr Spaceman wrote:.
fpliii wrote:.
euroleague wrote:.
pandrade83 wrote:.
Hornet Mania wrote:.
Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.
SactoKingsFan wrote:.
Blackmill wrote:.
JordansBulls wrote:.
RSCS3_ wrote:.
BasketballFan7 wrote:.
micahclay wrote:.
ardee wrote:.
RCM88x wrote:.
Tesla wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:.
kayess wrote:.
2klegend wrote:.
MisterHibachi wrote:.
70sFan wrote:.
mischievous wrote:.
Doctor MJ wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
Jaivl wrote:.
Bad Gatorade wrote:.
andrewww wrote:.
colts18 wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
Cyrusman122000 wrote:.
Winsome Gerbil wrote:.
Narigo wrote:.
wojoaderge wrote:.
TrueLAfan wrote:.
90sAllDecade wrote:.
Outside wrote:.
scabbarista wrote:.
janmagn wrote:.
lebron3-14-3 wrote:.
Arman_tanzarian wrote:.
oldschooled wrote:.
Pablo Novi wrote:.
john248 wrote:.
mdonnelly1989 wrote:.
Senior wrote:.
twolves97 wrote:.
CodeBreaker wrote:.
JoeMalburg wrote:.
dhsilv2 wrote:.
"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
drza wrote:So, I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I voted for Ewing, who's currently in a 3-way tie with Nash and Durant. I don't have a strong feeling to particularly vote for either of them as alternates, but this vote looks like it's coming down to the alternate votes. Steph Curry also has a dog in the fight as well. I think I have him pretty clearly above Durant, who I'm not as impressed with as many. But, what of Nash? I'm unclear. If I knew for sure that Nash wouldn't go through in this vote, I'd hold this post for the next thread. But, there's no telling, so I'm going to paste it here at the end of this thread. If Nash is still around next thread, I'll re-post this earlier in the thread.
Anyway, if Nash is getting major traction, then that means to me that Jason Kidd should be getting some mention as well. Here's a throwback post from the last project, but that still works now as a comp between the two.
Steve Nash vs Jason Kidd (from 2014)
The box scores: the least important part of this comparison?
Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions Jason Kidd 1998 - 2007: 20.6 pts (49% TS), 9.9 reb, 11.8 ast (4.3 TO) Steve Nash 2002 - 2010: 25.5 pts (58.9% TS), 5.1 reb, 13.3 ast (4.7 TO)
I put these stats here for easy reference and for posterity's sake, but for point guards in general (and especially these two) their impacts are about so much more than the box scores that this data isn't especially telling to me without couching it in with the rest of their game. So let's go ahead and jump into the stylistics and other aspects of the comparison, and I'll bring up box score stats as the need arises.
The style makes the fight: two opposite ends of the spectrum
I think for many, the Suns version of Nash defines an ideal point guard. He was an offensive wunderkind. A maestro capable of controlling every aspect of his team's offense while leading said offense to historic ratings; a distributor/general that knew the strengths/weaknesses of his troops to a T and was capable of putting them into maximal situations to succeed; an excellent penetrator who was able to deform defenses and get them out of position off the dribble which helped him to get those easy shots for teammates; and on top of that, an excellent shooter who could put up scoring efficiencies unseen at the point guard position outside of Stockton but who could also call his own number to volume scorer at similarly great efficiency when the team needed him to. That is a very complete offensive package, and he was able to demonstrate it effectively for several years in Phoenix.
Kidd, on the other hand, is seen as more of a misfit than an ideal as point guard. I say this because his J was limited enough that he was known as Ason Kidd as a young player. Thus, Kidd could never be the scoring threat to opponents that Nash (or, frankly, most point guards) could be. And it's not just that his jumper wasn't a strength (after all, as his career progressed he developed his 3-point shot enough to be (I believe) 3rd on the all-time made 3s list)...it's that he couldn't reliably score off the dribble or on the move outside of layups. This did limit his abilities as a half-court point guard, and also limited his ability to have individual take-over games as a scoring PG. But even with that said and that limitation placed front and center, Kidd was still high on the list of best offensive players in the NBA during his run (see the RAPM section below). He was an incredible floor general, also able to maximize the talents of his teammates and to set them up in positions to succeed. I remember reading the USA today back when Kidd was a high school senior, and them deeming him the #1 prospect in the country before he went to Cal because his court vision was ridiculous. He was outstanding at finding teammates off the bounce, and excelled at doing so on the fast break. Of course, even with that vision Kidd didn't have nearly the offensive impact that Nash had in Phoenix...but he DID also have a very strong defensive impact. Kidd was a great on-ball defender (especially against big guards), he was a monster defensive rebounder from the guard position, and he was also very disruptive in team defense. Thus, it is the combination of his offense AND defense that makes his impact comparable to Nash even at Nash's best in Phoenix.
The impact stats: databall helps greatly in evaluating Nash's effect vs Kidd's
As has often been pointed out, Nash measures out as the highest impact offensive player of the databall era using RAPM. From Doc MJ's spreadsheet of 1998 - 2012 normalized PI RAPM, and using his technique of ranking by the best 5 years, Nash's offensive marks are off the charts with a 5-year average of +9.1 that laps the field (LeBron is 2nd best at +8.1, and no one else is over +8). Kidd's offensive scores are further down the list at #16 overall (best 5-year average of +4.7). He is the 9th rated guard on offense by this method, trailing Nash, Wade, Kobe, Ginobili, Paul, Baron Davis, Chauncey BIllups and Ray Allen.
However, on the defensive side of the ball, Kidd comes out much stronger with a best 5-year average of +3.3 that ranks him 40th on defense overall but 4th among guards (behind Tony Allen's +3.9, Eddie Jones' +3.5, and Doug Christie's +3.3). Nash, on the other hand, ranks #650 overall on defense using this method and only once had a value above 0 (0.6 in 2012).
Thus, when you look at their overall 5-year peaks according to this method, it is fairly close. Nash has the 5-year advantage with an average of +7.9 (8th overall) vs. Kidd's 5-year average of +6.9 (12th overall). To put this in perspective, this difference is similar in magnitude to the differences between the 5-year best marks of Shaq (+10.3) and Duncan (+9.3)...slightly smaller than the distance between LeBron's +10.5 and Dirk's +9.1, but slightly larger than the distance between Wade's +8.4 and Kobe's +7.5. In other words, there is a reasonable line there and in Nash's favor, but that the difference isn't very big at all. And this is for their best 5-year spans.
As you might expect, Nash's best 5 years all come from his time with the Suns and 4 of Kidd's 5 best marks came from his time with the Nets. However, it does have to be at least mentioned that both players played in multiple situations. How much those other time periods are weighed is of course up to the evaluator, but I think we should include that data here to make for easier evaluation:
Kidd (Late 90s, Phoenix): average scaled RAPM of +4.8 from 1998 - 2000 Kidd (late 00s, Dallas): average scaled RAPM of +4.4 from 2008 - 2011 Nash (early 00s, Dallas): average scaled RAPM of +0.5 from 2002 - 2004
I think this was important to point out for a few reasons. Nash is universally rated higher in Phoenix than in Dallas, but I don't think many people appreciate the massive scale of difference in his impact. In Phoenix he was the most impactful offensive player of this generation, but in Dallas (despite being a 2-time All Star) he was pretty much measuring out as a net neutral player. Kidd, on the other hand, measured out as a strong positive player at every stop in his career. His +4.8 and +4.4 averages would both have snuck into the top-20 scores from 1998 - 2012, despite his roles changing dramatically.
Postseason: where Nash separates himself from Kidd...or does he?
As I mentioned above, Suns Nash is considered to be an ideal offensive point guard in part because of his excellent scoring efficiency that scales with higher scoring volume in the postseason. Scoring in the playoffs is much more difficult on both a team and individual level against the ramped up quality and effort of defenses in the postseason, so individual scoring (at great efficiency) is highly valued. This is one of the big areas where Nash is postulated to separate himself from Kidd as a player.
However, while having an individual offensive player that can carry the load in the face of increased defensive pressure is very valuable, it should be noted that there is the obvious other side to the coin, that perhaps defensive impact also has the potential to scale up in value in the postseason. After all, if defenses as a whole are making the larger impact with respect to offense that many of us see and point out, then perhaps the defense of an individual might also scale up in value in the postseason vs. the regular season?
That isn't proven. But of course, I have started populating a postseason on/off +/- table of the elite players of this generation from 2001 on. I've posted many disclaimers and examples of data each time I bring this up in the project, so let me go ahead and re-post them in spoilers here so that you can decide how much (if any) credence to put into these results. Colts18, for instance, gives them no value. I, on the other hand, do think the data is worth seeing and evaluating. So:
Spoiler:
(Aside on playoff on/off +/-) One thing that I like to look at when available (but which is considered controversial as a quantitative tool) is the postseason on/off +/- scorers. There was a time (not that long ago) when on/off +/- was the state of the art for "impact" studies, before APM came into being. There are obvious issues with on/off +/- that led to developing APM, such as the potential for big teammate effects, level of competition effects (e.g. there's no correction for playing against a starting unit or back-ups), and skews due to back-up quality or even rotations (shout out to Unbiased Fan). These issues are exacerbated in the postseason, as many stars rarely leave the court and the sample sizes can get vanishingly small.
I'm aware of these issues, but I'm also convinced that in long playoff runs in a given season (e.g. conference finals or beyond) or multi-year samples we can get large enough samples to be able to get some useful information. I tend to find that really high on/off +/- values over runs or periods help indicate heavy lifting, whereas really negative marks over extended periods don't indicate negatives so much as a lack of a positive drive. Also, I'm less impressed with entire units having high on/off scores (usually indicates a strong unit more-so than a strong individual) but I note when a star puts up a huge number on an island. Reminder: B-R only has this data from 2001 to present.
Examples of some of the best single-season postseason on/off +/- championship runs: LeBron '12: +24.3 per 100 possessions (he also went +24.2 in his 2007 Finals run) Duncan '03: ++23.1 per 100 possessions Shaq 2002: +22.9 per 100 (also went +25.3 during 2004 Finals run) Wade 2006: +22.2 per 100
Famous counter-intuitive counter-examples: LeBron '11: -14.7 per 100 Dwight '09: -12.7 Duncan '05: -5.3
Examples of some of the best 3 - 4 year stretches of postseason on/off +/- Duncan 01 - 03: +27.4 Manu 03 - 06: +21.6 (caveat: came off bench in 44/70 games) Shaq 02 - 04: +21.5 LeBron 07 - 10: +20.4
Examples of some of the best career +/- scores (from 2001 - 2014) Manu Ginobili +11.2 (caveat: 128/180 games off the bench) Jason Kidd +10.2 (+10.2 in Jersey, +14.9 in Dallas, negative else) Duncan +8.9 Shaq +8.6 (+16.3 in LA, -6.4 in Miamii, negative else) LeBron +8.1 (+12.3 in Cleveland, +4.6 in Miami)
With that done, here again is the career (or at least since 2001, which is when B-R has postseason on/off +/- results available) on/off +/- data in both the regular and post season for most of the current players that either have already been voted in or are coming up on the horizon. The chart is listed in descending order for who has the best difference between postseason and regular season on/off +/-, but at a glance you can also see who has the best regular season and best postseason on/off +/- scores (per 100 possessions):
Player Team Years Reg On/off PO On/off Change Kidd Tot 01 - 13 6.3 10.2 +3.9 Kobe LAL 01 - 14 6.7 8.3 +1.6 Shaq Tot 01 - 11 7.7 8.6 +0.9 Duncan SAS 01 - 14 8.3 8.9 +0.6 Nash Tol 01 - 14 7.5 4.8 -2.7 Paul Tot 06 - 14 9.0 6.2 -2.8 LeBron Tot 04 - 14 11.2 8.1 -3.1 Wade Mia 04 - 14 7.8 3.7 -4.1 Dirk Dal 01 - 14 11.1 1.8 -9.3
And here, again, is a similar chart for these same players when focused on their best years. The following table will track important multi-year periods in these players careers...e.g. the Lakers years for Shaq, the "dynasty" years when Duncan's Spurs won the majority of their titles, the pre-LeBron years for Wade, the Cleveland years for LeBron, the Jersey years for Kidd, the post-Shaq years for Kobe, the Suns years for Nash and the post-Nash years for DIrk:
For both their entire careers (post 2000), as well as for their peak years, Kidd has better on/off +/- scores in the postseason than in the regular season, and in both epochs Kidd's scores are solidly higher than Nash's.
Again, your mileage may vary as to how much you weigh these postseason +/- numbers. However, I would like to re-post Lorak's post from the #20 thread where he points out the trends of the postseason offenses and defenses of Nash's squads, and at least loosely ties them to his postseason on/off scores:
Spoiler:
lorak wrote:There's no "ergo" in that, unless you will provide evidence showing how often Nash was actually defending opposing PGs or that "hiding" him on Bowen or opposing SGs hurt his teams defense. But I think that I agree with your general conclusion - that Nash's defense was a problem for DAL/PHO in the playoffs. In fact, I'm looking at his on/off playoffs splits and I'm shocked how bad he looks:
year MIN off ORTG on ORTG off DRTG on DRTG off DRTG net OVERALL net 2001 110 104,0 106,4 110,0 105,0 5,0 -7,4 2002 065 112,6 106,7 108,2 129,0 -20,8 26,7 2003 241 111,4 106,4 112,5 106,0 6,5 -1,5 2004 045 101,3 105,2 102,8 94,9 7,9 -11,8 2005 114 118,7 113,7 114,3 108,8 5,5 -0,5 2006 182 116,5 104,9 110,6 119,3 -8,7 20,3 2007 116 112,5 107,1 105,8 105,2 0,6 4,8 2008 067 105,6 100,0 110,2 97,6 12,6 -7,0 2010 229 120,6 114,2 114,8 108,5 6,3 0,1
Sure, "off" in playoffs always deals with small sample issue, but here we see year by year consistency - he improves offense and defense with him usually was much worse than without him. What's surprising, is that overall his net impact in playoffs doesn't look so great as in regular season. Five years with negative (!) on/off, one slightly positive (0.1), one ok (4.8) and only two really great.
Conclusion I've always loved this debate, because I always thought that Kidd was better and was surprised at how conclusive it was considered in these parts that Nash topped him. We had some good Nash vs Kidd talk in the 2011 Top 100 project, but I wasn't able to get much pro-Kidd traction. Which is fine, as this is more about information than the ranking to me. However, it's interesting to me that at the time of the 2011 project, we lacked the pre-2003 RAPM scores and the basketball-reference playoff on/off +/- scores, and that lack of data definitely hurt Kidd in those rankings. A HUGE part of Nash's case is tied up into his impact, with RAPM scores used as evidence of that impact. The fact that so many of the offenses that Nash has run have been so great is obviously also big evidence, but the RAPM data is more granular and shows that those offenses (at least in Phoenix) can be correlated directly to Nash's presence. Without that +/- support, those that question why Nash should get the benefit of his team's outstanding team ORatings without that opening him up to the ringz argument as the ultimate team accomplishment would have an excellent poing. So +/- results are VERY important to Nash's "campaign".
Thus, I find it interesting that the expanded +/- data really muddies the comparison between Nash and Kidd to such a large degree. Yes, Nash had the advantage in RAPM over their 5 best years (both a higher mark, and a consistently higher year-to-year mark when compared in rank order with Kidd, e.g. Nash's best is better than Kidd's best, his 2nd best better than Kidd's 2nd best, on down through that top 5 or 6 slots). However, that advantage at their 5-year bests wasn't very large...while Kidd's advantages in their non-peak RAPM scores was much larger. Kidd had the impact of a star at pretty much every stage of his career and every role...even when that role was seemingly more role-player late in his career in Dallas. Nash, outside of his time in Phoenix, didn't. Plus, Kidd's postseason +/- scores also look better than Nash and (for Nash in particular) these results seem to track with his team's performances. And could be a solid evidence point that in this particular comparison, defense DOES matter even though it's point guards we're discussing.
Nash has major traction here, and I wouldn't even be surprised if he gets the vote. But to me, Kidd has an excellent argument against Nash. Maybe Nash at his best may have been slightly better, but Kidd was right there with him at his best, but had a pretty large impact longevity edge, demonstrated much better portability, and (to the extent that you believe it) may have been the more impactful post-season performer. I think that's a pretty strong case.
Is there anyway you could do something like this for Curry and Durant.
smartyz456 wrote:Duncan would be a better defending jahlil okafor in todays nba
Kidd was a better player? Lets say that's 100% true. Why would he rank over nash for his career?
I do think the idea of using plus minus numbers for the playoffs is pretty suspect given both a lack of sample size and the opponents not being remotely balanced.
twolves97 wrote:"Looks like we should just agree to disagree." Fair enough but I would like you to address just one last thing . You base so much of your off of what position a player played and how they dominated compared to others at their position. What do you think of what I said about positions being arbitrary. Lebron and Magic play basically the same style but Lebron is a SF/PF and Magic is a PG. While Brook Lopez and Shaq are both centers but their games are completely different. I don't want to repeat what I already wrote so please look at my last post for the rest of my explanation of my interpretation. Also if Kobe and MJ played at the same time and MJ won all the 1st team selections would that make Kobe worse? Thanks!
You're most welcome! (I like your style; keep sending more compliments and "thanks" my way, bro!) I don't have a whole lot more to add. So let's see how long I can make this anyway. lol
About Kobe and MJ playing at the same time and MJ winning all the 1st-Team selections - (assuming, I assume you assume that both put up their same (separate-era) numbers: let me bring that question back to you: Wouldn't MOST NBA analysts have lower opinions of Kobe because he was consistently beaten / dominated at his own position in his own era? I would think so.
A very similar example is DWade. He was just dominated at his position in his era by Kobe. Had they not played mostly simultaneously (and DWade put up the same stats (regular and advanced; and with the same success rate)); then I picture MOST NBA analysts would rate DWade higher than they do now - I would.
Wilt. For lots of people, Wilt's numbers seem "cartoonish" - and, particularly with those who are (far) removed from his era - they TEND to treat his stats and what is contemporaries said about him ("Greatest All-Sports Athlete of the 1900s" type statements) as if they're all exaggerations and/or Wilt would never repeat anything close in any other subsequent era.
We can't know for sure (naturally) how any player would actually have done in any different decade; and Wilt's Post-Season record is not very impressive (if you just go by series won/lost and Chips won); but he DID dominate THE greatest defensive presence the League has ever seen (in HIS era at HIS position) - which might be the reason that I'm not the only one who ranks Wilt GOAT #6 (and not way lower).
It appears that people are inconsistent in when they use the "against their own competition" criteria - applying it in some cases and not in others. In my case, I use that criteria 100% of the time - as my INITIAL GOAT list building block.
For me it just keeps coming down to: you can only play and beat (or lose to) whatever teams / whichever players / under whatever rules - you are presented with. AND, exactly because the variables are SO variable - I return to that basic criteria: how you did against your contemporaries.
btw, LeBron's "Mount Rushmore" has NO CENTERS on it at all; and LeBron's got a terrific b-ball iq. Does he know more than you. DEFINITELY! (lol) Does he know more than me? NO WAY ! I'm TWICE HIS AGE! (lol - you'll have to excuse my ingrained habit of making fun of myself (the only person I make fun of; but I do TRY to be gentle about it.)
I've seen / reviewed a ton of GOAT lists; and RealGMs 2017 one is one of THE most Center-centric lists I've seen. Does that make it right? Maybe, maybe not?
I've seen / reviewed a ton of GOAT lists; and RealGMs 2017 one is one of THE most Center-centric lists I've seen. Does that make it right? Maybe, maybe not?
Until the Bad Boys in 89 and 90, can you name me two teams that won an NBA title without a HOF center starting? 75 Warriors and . . . (ABA had some, but not NBA). That's over half the history of the league where you were not a title team without a HOF center. Centers dominated the first 40 years of the league far more than any other position and even after that you still had the Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan multiple championships.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
. You base so much of your off of what position a player played and how they dominated compared to others at their position. What do you think of what I said about positions being arbitrary. Lebron and Magic play basically the same style but Lebron is a SF/PF and Magic is a PG. While Brook Lopez and Shaq are both centers but their games are completely different. I don't want to repeat what I already wrote so please look at my last post for the rest of my explanation of my interpretation. Also if Kobe and MJ played at the same time and MJ won all the 1st team selections would that make Kobe worse? Thanks!
