No-more-rings wrote:Jokic and kawhi were at least average overall with Kawhi having ample ability to turn it up in the playoffs, we've been over that part.
Yeah you know I strongly disagree with Jokic, and I agree Kawhi can turn it on but it doesn't change the fact he went half speed on D through the regular season.
Dame isn't on the level of the others so i won't go there, and i'm not saying Barkley is hurt on offense, but yeah i think he's a large negative on D, he'd have to exert way more energy into it and i don't think he'd be up for that challenge. The game is spaced out way more, and him defending on the perimeter closing out on shooters isn't gonna work. He'll get blown by/shot out from quicker smaller guards, and he isn't tall enough to contest stretch 4s/5s.
The best defensive player of this era is a PF smaller than Chuck... We've seen Draymond on interviews with Chuck and while they haven't stood next to each other Chuck looks bigger than Draymond with a fuller frame (that said he's old and fat so that could explain the size difference there). There's more players with his physical profile in the league now than ever!
If Barkley's to have an impact as big or bigger on O like he did then he'd have to pass way more, scoring 25 on 66 ts% from inside buckets and mid range isn't going to produce elite offenses.
Giannis led a top 5 offense and is a worse midrange shooter, 3 point shooter, scorer, and passer than Chuck. Jokic was the same percentage from deep last year as Chuck was in 93 when he led the #1 offense...
Sorry, but i think he'd be a joke on defense today, he already admitted he didn't try on that end and that's not going to change with teams bombing 3s from everywhere.
At this point I gotta ask, have you ever seen Charles Barkley play? Are you assuming he was some plodding oaf? Are you assuming he was too small to play big? Seriously these statements are becoming more and more confusing.
You realize you're talking about one of the 6 most impressive athletes in league history (Chuck, Bron, Nate, Shaq, Wilt, Zion) right? This guy:
He has that many amazing feats of athleticism in ONE GAME. Quite frankly logic that applies to everyone else ever doesn't apply to him. He's just different. It's not like there were other players of his ilk in the league before him either. It's hard for you to imagine him playing in 2019 the same way it was hard for you to imagine a player averaging a triple double again 5 years ago. The same way it was hard to imagine a player like Barkley ever existing in 1984.
He was a slashing SF while at the same time being a physically imposing finishing big.
Have i not made an argument in other threads?
You made an argument covering what you thought were his strengths. No mention of his criticisms. Westbrook probably wouldn't be in if I didn't address his two main criticisms in my post for him (postseason level of play, not being able to fit in on great squads). Everyone knows what guys can do and what their positives are (for the recent guys at least). You need to convince people their flaws and weaknesses are either not true, or not enough to effect his overall success.
The argument against him is the impact stuff(which he isn't even bad at anyway), which i don't take as gospel. He has the numbers, and the success to go with it.
He has less success than everyone getting votes outside of McAdoo. Less success than Reggie Miller.
And anyone with 2 eyes can see how much easier he makes it for teammates,
Given those same two eyes can't read numbers and never watch those players WITHOUT Harden on the court.
CP3 of all people who's getting voted in before Harden, had his most success next to Harden and Harden had just as much or more without Paul.
Going to mention he had as much or more success while playing next to numbers 24 and 25 on this list?
At some point, i can't take discussion revolving Harden with you seriously, when you think he's basically Ai/Rose level. I think you're so annoyed with the way he plays it clouds your objectivity.
I think you're so enamored with his scoring efficiency it clouds yours. My argument against Harden has long been, "if someone had the same statistical profile in impact stats, way less turnovers, and a proportionately lower TS%, they'd never be seen as a top 3 player." I value missed shots over turnovers, most people don't even pay attention to turnovers because they see them as opportunities and not a loss of possession with the other team gaining what's statistically the most efficient type of possession outside of a possession off an ORB. If Harden had more average TOV% numbers and a 58 TS% instead of his usual 61-62 TS% he'd be seen as a worse player despite not being any more effective.
My favorite player to compare to Harden for this reason is Brandon Roy. Roy was just as effective as Harden ever was offensively in the regular season but he was better on defense. Roy just happened to play the exact opposite game as Harden which meant he didn't get amazing numbers and because of that even around here Harden has a reputation as better than Roy (this also helps me introduce Roy to the project, because he needs to be). Still when you look at 17 Harden vs 09 Roy here's what you have:
The Blazers were a +5.6 offense and -0.5 defense.
The Rockets were a +5.9 offense and +0.2 defense.
The Blazers won 54 games and the Rockets won 55.
The Blazers had a +9.0 net rating with Roy on the court (he had a +11.6 on/off and a +13.6 offensive on/off).
The Rockets had a +6.7 net rating with Harden on the court (he had a +3.7 on/off and a +8.5 offensive on/off).
The Blazers had a 114.5 ORTG with Roy on the floor.
The Rockets had a 115.6 ORTG with Harden on the floor (in a slightly more offense friendly era).
Roy was 20th in PI RAPM and in combined 08-11 RAPM (which includes an injury year and a year before he became a star) he's 41st.
Harden was 40th in NPI RAPM and in combined 17-19 RAPM he's 21st.
The Blazers had the 13th slowest pace in NBA history with a 86.6.
The Rockets were 3rd in pace with a 100.0.
Roy had a +2.9 rTS% but had a 6.6 adjusted TOV% and a 4.4 ORB%. Thanks to his style which limited turnovers arguably more than any creator ever, he had a 123 (+15) ORTG. The only players over 20 ppg and have a higher ORTG in a season (excluding PGs) are Jordan, Jimmy, KD, Chuck, Reggie, and Moncrief.
Harden had a +6.0 rTS% but had a 11.9 adjusted TOV% and a 3.5 ORB%. Thanks to his style which was turnover heavy despite his heavy scoring efficiency gap, he had a 118 (+9) ORTG. Harden makes up for that efficiency gap with a volume gap. 67.5% of Rockets possessions with Harden on the floor ended with a Harden shot attempt, turnover, or assist. To compare that number was only 45.8% for Roy.
Overall when broken down like this they look even offensively. When looking at the boxscore Harden is clearly better though. By eye test if you're impressed by what a player does with the ball in his hands Harden looks better because he's doing more. If you're impressed by how smoothly they run their team offenses they're about even to my eye. Overall, I'm voting Harden over Roy because Roy only played one series healthy (it would be one of Harden's best but not his best), but it's the go to example I have of a player being valued less because of which boxscore numbers they exceed with, not necessarily how much they exceed.
And you can say "well his team is stacked", but they wouldn't be what they are without him.
A sentence you can use for literally every player on every team ever. Each team is made better by having a player where there wasn't one. This isn't a good response to a claim that a team is stacked.
I got you bro.
