All-NBA Teams Project: 1996-00 All-NBA First Team

[mailmp]

Your argument is literally that you think boxscore stats have a value of absolutely nothing, while prioritizing MVP votes and anecdotal evidence. You can't be serious, surely?

You cannot be serious that you think a basketball reference visit is liTEraLLy all you need. I never said box scores mean “literally nothing” — but when you use literally nothing else and do not bother to account for their limits in any way whatsoever, your opinion may as well mean that.

What do you know about what is and isn't established on this forum anyway? You joined 2 days ago.

Might come as a shock that you can read the forums without an account. Incredible, I know. But even going back years, people who refused to go any level beyond PER were at a severe information disadvantage. And doing so in *CURRENT YEAR* seems borderline embarrassing.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Best NPI 1999-2000
1 Rodney Rogers, 2 Terry Porter, 3 Bo Outlaw, 4 Shaq
The stat also thinks Derek Fisher is better than Kobe.
The stat thinks Tony Delk is better than Tim Duncan and the stat hates 2000 Karl Malone


What is going on with that stat?
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html

Temperature doesn't predict snowfall.

[70sFan]

It's the first time I've heard that Payton was percevied as much better than Stockton. Stockton can be sometimes overrated by his assist numbers, but overall he was much better shooter, better floor general and far better passer than Payton. On top of that, I love what he gave Utah defensively and was far more consistent on that end (even if worse overall).

I know that stats doesn't tell the whole story, but there are plenty of non-stats related reasons to pick 1997 Stockton over any version of Gary.

[mailmp]

Oh no 70sFan not you too

Even if interpreting RAPM data is beyond some people, I will never understand why there is any call to continue to point to BPM and PER when we have a far more rigorous and holistic box-score derivative statistic in PIPM.

And there, from 1996-98, Stockton is +4.3, +3.8, and +4.2. In contrast, from 1996-2000, Gary Payton is +3.93, +4.62, +5.13 (fifth in the league), +2.87, and +5.69 (second in the league), all with higher minutes than Stockton. Stockton gets his usual regular season and low minutes boost, and even then he still cannot really match Payton (save for Payton’s down year in 1999), which is far more reflective of the reality of their positions.

We also have Ben Taylor’s data. Granted you need to pay for that so I know why not everyone uses it, but if you were to find his numbers, you would see 1996-98 Stockton with plus/minus evaluations of 2.75, 2.5, and 2.25, and CORP evaluations of 8.7, 8, and 6.8, versus 1996-2000 Payton with plus/minus evaluations of 3, 3.5, 3.75, 3.25, and 3.25, and CORP evaluations of 8.7, 10.2, 11, 9.3, and 9.1 (he does take a slight portability hit compared to Stockton). There again, we see Payton’s value come through beyond the more inadequate box score metrics like PER.

Just listing out traits like “better shooter” (at low volume and by picking spots so defences are not actually pressured that much) and “more consistent defender” (even though Stockton could never hope to do what Payton did when he was allowed to guard Jordan) is how you end up saying Stockton was better than Nash — not to mention that by similar extension you could argue old Stockton (or more recently, old Manu) was better than the peaks of Westbrook, Rose, Parker...

[70sFan]

Oh no 70sFan not you too

I didn't say he was better, but I don't see this as anything out of reality.

Just listing out traits like “better shooter” (at low volume and by picking spots so defences are not actually pressured that much)

It's true that Stockton picking spots made him more efficient, but it doesn't change the fact that Stockton was significantly better three point shooter. Payton wasn't good three point shooter even as a roleplayer in 2000s.

and “more consistent defender” (even though Stockton could never hope to do what Payton did when he was allowed to guard Jordan)

It's true, but at the same time Payton could never touch Stockton's help defense because he's just too inconsistent and had bad habits of ball watching.

is how you end up saying Stockton was better than Nash

No, because Nash was better shooter than Stockton and he was also better playmaker.

— not to mention that by similar extension you could argue old Stockton (or more recently, old Manu) was better than the peaks of Westbrook, Rose, Parker...

I think I'd prefer him over them (especially Parker), maybe outside Westbrook absolute best seasons (2016 and 2017). I don't think poor defenders who shoot too much and struggles with turnovers are more valuable than Stockton, even if they can pressure defense more. Neither one is a good option as the leading player and Stockton brings much more as a second best player.

[70sFan]

Official 1996-00 All-NBA First Team

G: 1995/96 Penny Hardaway
G: 1995/96 Michael Jordan
F: 1997/98 Karl Malone
F: 1998/99 Tim Duncan
C: 1999/00 Shaquille O'Neal

Guards:

Michael Jordan 12
Penny Hardaway 6
John Stockton 3
Gary Payton 3

Forwards:

Tim Duncan 12
Karl Malone 9
Kevin Garnett 2
Scottie Pippen 1

Centers:

Shaquille O'Neal 12

[mitchco]

This board has selective amnesia when it comes to Payton imo. It should have been clear to anyone watching during the mid to late 90s that as Stockton aged, GP surpassed him as the best PG in the L. Prime Payton dominated the game on both ends of the floor, and he was good/respectable at every aspect of the game. All while never missing games and consistently being a league leader in minutes played.

[ShotCreator]

Highly skeptical Malone at the hypothetical SF position would produce better results than putting young KG there over this time period.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Highly skeptical Malone at the hypothetical SF position would produce better results than putting young KG there over this time period.

That isn't how this works.

It's G,G, F, F and C.

[70sFan]

Highly skeptical Malone at the hypothetical SF position would produce better results than putting young KG there over this time period.

We're not creating teams and we don't differentiate SF and PF positions.

[ShotCreator]

Highly skeptical Malone at the hypothetical SF position would produce better results than putting young KG there over this time period.

We're not creating teams and we don't differentiate SF and PF positions.

Then why require positions at all?

[70sFan]

Highly skeptical Malone at the hypothetical SF position would produce better results than putting young KG there over this time period.

We're not creating teams and we don't differentiate SF and PF positions.

Then why require positions at all?

Because it's done in the same format as real all-nba teams. You have 2 guard spots, two forward spots and one center spot. This voting doesn't take fit of this team into account - it's just collection of the best players from each era at each position.

[freethedevil]

Impact data is a thing, lmao, and has been shared in this very thread, and should be tougher for a higher minutes star like Payton to overcome a low-minutes supposed star like Stockton, and nevertheless your preference has been to use borderline useless metrics like PER as an argument. What does that say if you cannot even recognise it?

You do not need to do cross film analysis of 2000 Payton versus 1997 Stockton, you can do — and people did — film analysis of them against each other at the same time. He was “the best point guard in the league” and not recognised as such by the people watching them at the time? Oh if only they had the brilliant insight BPM offered! Sadly, instead they marked Stockton instead as at least a tier worse than Payton from 1997-2000 (not to mention Tim Hardaway and Jason Kidd). Or perhaps we should look to MVP voting, where Payton had 98 points to Stockton’s 12, then 105 to Stockton’s 3, then 431 (third place!) to Stockton’s 5, then 35 to 0, then 180 to 0. You can even see it in the 1996 Olympics, when Payton got 18 minutes a game to Stockton’s 11 and led the team in assists (total and per minute).

Stockton was demonstrably not at his peak, and the problem with him that even at his peak he was never close to a top five player the way Payton was (or even Tim and Kidd were). It was not common, it was not popular, and the narrative to the contrary has only happened as people devoid of any real context have glanced at box scores and made their interpretation based off that alone. In ten years will you also be telling me José Calderon and Ricky Rubio were robbed of all-NBA spots? Are you the people who even now argue Stockton over Nash? Media voters do not literally need to be perfect to have been more generally informed in their time than someone who saw the most rudimentary form of data and formed a conclusion based on that. Teams knew Payton was better, viewers knew Payton was better, the media knew Payton was better, and anyone who watches how they performed in the playoffs knows who was better. Stockton was not matching Payton’s defence (or his minutes), and his selective scoring made him a simpler task for playoff defences to guard. This is all well established, including here on RealGM, and it is pretty disappointing to see all that disregarded because of some pretty box scores.

Your argument is literally that you think boxscore stats have a value of absolutely nothing, while prioritizing MVP votes and anecdotal evidence. You can't be serious, surely?

What do you know about what is and isn't established on this forum anyway? You joined 2 days ago.

1
Stats that are raondomly weighed(per) or have no manner of accounting for defense(bpm) shouldn't be used comapred to stats which ar rooted in winning and are demonstrably better via predictiveness:
https://fansided.com/2019/01/08/nylon-calculus-best-advanced-stat/

Can we please get some ratioanle for the usage of per here beyond "well we've always used it!" It measures the exact same thing as all the other stats linked but just does it way worse.

2. Assists per game is completely useless for creation yes Hence why eams having more assists have little to no correlaiton wih them having better offenses

3. Boc stats have no way odf capuring defense which is a rater relevant point when we're discussing a player who was more valuable defensively than offensively

[prolific passer]

G: 96 Payton
G: 96 Jordan
F: 97 Karl Malone
F: 99 Duncan
C: 00 Shaq

Might as wel move onto the 2nd team.