RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18

[Jordan Syndrome]

You guys go be the community police and I'll go do something else, see you in the #19 thread.

Sorry, I just wanted you to see irony in all of this.

[DQuinn1575]

Mikan played 7 games against the Harlem Globetrotters and 1 against the New York Rens. They each won a world championship, and were considered the two best black teams. The Trotters would tour and have winning records against the All-Americans each year - 1961 the AA team included Walt Bellamy, Don Kojis, Tom Meschery for example, so they weren't playing patsies even then. In the early 50s they would attract top talent.
Mikan was 5-2 against the Trotters and beat the Rens. The Rens were in the 1948 world championship, Mikan scored 40 in a 75-71 win.
Mikan scored 204 points in 7 games against the Trotters; the Lakers scored 473,averaging 68 versus the Trotters 58.
So he averaged 30.5 ppg against the top black talent of the day.

I took 1951, Mikan's last super dominant year. There was one starting center who was 6-10, Ron Livingstone, and 4 others who were 6-9 - Risen,Foust,Rocha,Halbert. In those 30 games Mikan scored 829 points, a 27.6 average; in the other 38 games scored 1,107 points, a 29.1 average. So he's scoring 27.6 a game against 6-9 guys. And realize the mid 70s still had 6-9 guys like Cowens, Reed, besides of course Unseld. And yes, the other games he is playing against 6-6, 6-7 guys, which benefitted him.

So he did well against guys his height, he did well against black teams.
Mikan was the best player on the best team seven times. So longevity doesn't bother me.

My vote:
1. Mikan
2. Moses
3. Doctor J

[Doctor MJ]

Also - it certainly seems like I have Baylor ranked higher than most on here, but in terms of scoring and rebounding numbers in his prime - he was not far off at all from Wilt Chamberlain, despite the fact that Baylor was 8 inches shorter than Wilt. Wilt got voted in the no. 6 spot, so I see no reason why Baylor can't be no. 20. Also, while I do have West ahead of Baylor, I think the gap between those 2 is very close, much closer than what most people think. Often times when they were teammates, Baylor was simply the better, more dangerous player who was bigger, stronger, more powerful and more athletic. Baylor was an exceptional passer and defender. Again, I have West ahead of Baylor, but it's very close. West got voted in at no. 13, so I see no reason why Baylor can't be no. 20. Baylor played 14 seasons, the last 2 he missed most of them to injury so he played 12 full seasons which is the same amount as Bird and Magic and the same amount of full seasons Jordan played for the Bulls. Baylor was an 11 time all-star and 10 time all NBA first team selection, making it to 8 NBA finals. Baylor played one of the greatest games in NBA finals history, scoring 61 points to go with 22 rebounds to lead the Lakers to a 126-121 win over Bill Russell's Celtics in the 1962 NBA finals.

Elgin Baylor passing:

Watch on YouTube

Elgin Baylor defense - defensive rebound is part of defense, and Baylor is easily one of the best defensive rebounding wing players ever. Also, here's some defensive footage of Baylor, at the 12:54 mark of this video:

Watch on YouTube

Alright, so I'm going to say some things on Baylor. Be warned, I'm a skeptic.

1. I think we all agree that Baylor's career is front-loaded, and thus there's years at the end where he's really not having the impact of a superstar despite the fact he was still volume scoring and getting All-NBA numbers. I'm sure we disagree on how big of a deal the early fall off was and I don't really need to go into that. I think it hurt more than most realize.

2. Relative to the other guys in the Big 6 of his early years when he was actually at his best, his efficiency still wasn't that great. I just made a spreadsheet that I made a thread for using bkref's new TS Add. Here's the spreadsheet:

Historical TS Add

Okay so ranking that Big 6 by peak TS Add:
1. Wilt Chamberlain 430.3
2. Oscar Robertson 392.5
3. Jerry West 374.3
4. Bob Pettit 250.6
5. Elgin Baylor 148.2
6. Bill Russell 88.2

Same guys by the number of times they surpassed Baylor's 148.2 peak:
Wilt Chamberlain: 13
Oscar Robertson: 11
Jerry West: 10
Bob Pettit: 8

Worth noting also that Pettit was older than Baylor, and Pettit surpassed Baylor's peak 5 times while Baylor was in the league.

What I'm trying to emphasize here is that it's not just that Baylor was weak on the back end of his career compared to these other guy, the gap between the Big 4 offensive players of the era was massive, and while Wilt/Oscar/West is moot because they're already in (as is Russell), to my knowledge no one's voted for Pettit yet despite the fact he was a glaringly better scorer with a better defensive reputation. I don't think Baylor should be really even seriously considered until Pettit is voted in.

After Pettit it becomes more debatable, but here are other players who also produced bigger TS Add years in the NBA during Baylor's career:

Paul Arizin
Dolph Schayes
Cliff Hagan
Kenny Sears
Clyde Lovellette
George Yardley
Richie Guerin
Bailey Howell
Jack Twyman
Larry Costello
Terry Dischinger
Dick Barnett
Jerry Lucas
Rick Barry
Zelmo Beaty
Willis Reed
Bob Boozer
Lou Hudson
Dick Van Arsdale
Connie Hawkins
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Johnny Green
Archie Clark
Dave Bing
Walt Frazier
Tiny Archibald
Chet Walker
Gail Goodrich
Dick Snider

What about Baylor's passing? Ah well this is the devil of highlights. Show footage of Baylor & Oscar passing the ball like what you showed above to anyone without access to data and reputation and they'll conclude Baylor was the better passer. Why? Because Baylor was big on circus passes while Oscar's passes were mostly pretty boring.

There's a long history of razzle-dazzle playmaking in basketball that comes in the wake of the Rens/Globetrotters that I don't want to bash at all, but you can't judge the effectiveness of players with such approaches by highlights because the highlights don't show you what it looks like when it goes wrong, nor give you a sense for how often it actually went right.

And this is why it's understandable why people would look at Magic Johnson and Pete Maravich as if they were the same type of player but the data tells us that while Magic may have been the greatest playmaker in history, Maravich was largely wasting everyone's time.

We know that Oscar came into the NBA and was immediately the most effective offensive player in the world rocketing Cincinnati to the best offense in the world over night. We also know that Baylor had no effect at all like this and that the Lakers didn't really get great on offense until West showed up, and that offensive success always correlated with West's presence far more than Baylor.

Add this along with his inability to be the outlier-efficient scorer that top tier players were clearly capable of in his time, and my general conclusion is that Baylor was the sort of spectacular player whose "Wow" outstripped his impact by a good margin.

My apologies if this rubs anyone overly harsh. I don't want to come off like I'm gleefully bashing the dude. Chick Hearn made very clear that out of any player he ever watched he thought Baylor was the best, and I venerate Chick. But while I have no doubt that Chick saw real stuff, I would suggest he may not have been able to discern true impact with his eyes all that precisely, not because he had bad eyes, but because that's what the eye-test does to you. You can scout a guys' capabilities with your eyes, but it's hard to gauge possession-by-possession impact.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote:

1. Julius Erving
2. Steph Curry
3. Steve Nash

With Robinson in my next two guys move up and the new opening ends up going to Nash - which admittedly makes me a bit nervous that I'm overrated him. On each of these guys and others I considered:

Erving: I think it's clear that what happened in the NBA to Erving was to some degree a product of defenses doing everything to stop him from getting to the rim. Had Erving's teams been stocked with outside shooters like they would today, this wouldn't have worked so well. As it was, it didn't work great, but it worked some and this was why he was less successful in the NBA than in the ABA while some other guys (Malone, Gervin, Jones, etc) got better.

What all this means is that while I don't pretend Erving was more effective in the NBA than he was, neither do I think that it represents some kind of proof that he simply thrived against weaker competition. When we did the RPOY project Erving got Top 5 votes in more NBA years than ABA years, that doesn't happen if he was simply a minor league wonder.

I want to mention the Moses comparison specifically while considering Erving. From my perspective, Erving was a more all-around player while Moses was primarily a specialist. Can a specialist be more valuable than an all-around? Absolutely and during Moses peak years, this was certainly the case. Do I think Moses' peak matches with Erving at his best? No. It's one thing a bad team to good or a great team to something slightly greater, it's another thing to lead a bad team to a title, which sure seems to be what Erving did in '75-76 when you look at what happened to the Nets the next year. When the generalist also has the superior peak, it's an easy choice for me.

Curry: Feel pretty comfortable having him at least here. Honestly it's possible someone could say me to put him ahead of Erving, but my instinct is to say "Not yet". With current players I often ask "If the last we saw of him becomes the final note of his career, how will I see him?", and the reality that while I think you can make a solid case that Curry's last 7 years are better than Erving's best 7 year run, it matters that Erving kept going and continued to write a killer legacy for years afterward.

Nash: Alright, the guy I'm slotting in for now. As I've said, it's reasonable to consider me biased here so don't bother calling me "biased", just make arguments if you could.

I'll just come out and say that if I were forced to make a list of the most capable playmakers in history, Nash would top my list, and I think he should be on everybody's short list.

I think many people would say "Sure" to that last part but would also say "Aren't Stockton & Paul about as good?", to which I'd say a firm "No", and I would point you to ElGee's Back Picks 40 profiles if you really want to see a good scouting difference between the players. Nash was drastically more aggressive than the other two, and it paid off.

Y'all have probably heard me mention stuff about GOAT offense before, but here are some facts to consider:

Among big minute players, Nash had the highest on-court ORtg for 7 straight years from '04-05 to '10-11, which if you'll remember, includes the year after Amar'e got traded and the team's 2nd leading scorer (behind Nash) was a 38-year-old Grant Hill who still wasn't comfortable shooting the 3.

In '04-05, the year of the Seven Seconds or Less revolution, Nash had an on-court ORtg of 120. To date, the only other players besides Nash to have numbers that high came from Curry & Durant while they played together in the most ridiculous super-team ever assembled. Not saying Nash's teammates were bad at basketball, but one of these things is not like the other.

It's worth noting that that 120 number was more than 6 points higher than the top score from the previous year which was 113.9 by Dirk Nowtizki...who was of course playing with Nash. Can you guess who was 2nd in the entire league that year? Yup, Nash.

Dirk was the #1 guy in the league by this metric during Nash's last 3 years in Dallas, and Nash was 2nd in the league in all 3 years, which means that Nash spent an entire decade in a row either recording the #1 or #2 best on-court ORtg in the entire league. While we'll never know, it's entirely possible that no one else has ever done this (Oscar & Magic would be the two most likely candidates).

Add on top of that Nash was an exceptionally positive cultural force. A relentless high-fiver, a dinner planner, and otherwise organizer. Dirk has basically said he might have left and gone back to Germany without Nash, and mentoring Dirk didn't even happen on Nash's main team.

What about the lack of championships? What about it? Nash's Suns had only one year with their best core (Amar'e, Marion, Johnson) and only one year beyond that with their Big 3 (Amar'e, Marion) before stupid, stupid, Sarver-ity happened and they turned their back on what was working. They eventually went back to the right approach, but never had access to the same kind of talent again. Want to say someone else peaked higher? Cool. Want to say that any of this "proved" that Nash and the Suns couldn't win it all? Ridiculous. There's nothing to back that up.

Given all of this you might think, "Okay, so why don't you have him over Curry then?", and I'll tell you, I can see the argument. It matters that Curry isn't just the best shooter in history but better than we ever expected to see. It also matters that Curry has developed a game that's arguably more noteworthy for his off-ball game, particularly given that Curry will never be the on-ball thinker that Nash was. In the end I think Curry is the template that future generations should be following more so than Nash.

Alright now as I say all of that:

I am concerned about how current offenses would attack Nash's defense and I'm not entirely sure what to do with that in this project. The notion that Nash's defense was a big weakness was often stated as a given while he played, but people were wrong to do so. The reality was that there was nothing in the data to indicate that in general Nash was major negative on the defensive end of the floor, and meanwhile there was evidence to indicate both that a) Nash made very few mistakes as he played his designated role and b) Nash was perfectly capable of heady plays on defense just as he was on offense.

But if a modern offense decided to attack Nash all the time, how much could you mitigate for that? At the very least, you'd have to do some of the protective stuff that GS does with Curry, but it's hard to know where it would all land, and that gives me thoughts long the lines of "Aren't you more confident in KD against top competition than Nash?"

So what about KD vs his new coach Nash? Well if you had asked me in 2017 whether I thought KD would surpass Nash by now, I'd have said "Yes" without hesitation. I mean, KD had just won Finals MVP on the greatest team in history, given 3 more years, that ought to clinch it right?

It matters to me a good deal though how things went for KD in GS after that. While I understand you can look at those 3 years as "2 chips and 1 finals where they would have won without injury", but this was a championship team with an incredibly empowering culture when Durant arrived - and he benefitted from that empowerment! - and literally he was the one who started working to grind the joy into misery after he won the Finals MVP.

If I'm running a company that's going great and then I bring in a badass coder that boosts productivity for a while by his 2nd year he's getting mad at everybody, leaving people hesitant, and then eventually leaving us all in the lurch worse off than we started, am I going to say it was a great run on his part? Not really.

What this amounts to in this project is something of a "hold". While Durant is higher on my list than 2017, he's very much on a tier of other guys who I end up feeling like he's going to have to do something more in Brooklyn in order to pass.

On Chris Paul there's something similar here. I was basically ready to elevate Paul ahead of Nash after the Rockets nearly beat the Warriors, and then it turned out that the legends of Paul's annoying personality turned out to be an understatement. Last year in OKC helped, but that was a floor-raising job and that's not the concern with Paul.

This next year in Phoenix, of all places, will be big for Paul. If I see Paul's teammates skyrocket with his presence, he's probably going to surpass Nash.

On John Stockton, I'm forever torn here. While I think Nash did enough that it's not right to say he had poor longevity, I'm 100% fine giving Stockton the longevity edge here. Add in a defensive edge for Stockton and I could see someone saying that just thought Stockton was a better overall player. Obviously, I'm not comfortable saying that. I think a Nash-led offense gives you something a lot more robust than a Stockton-led offense, and I say that with a feeling that in practice we didn't really see a Stockton-led offense so much as a Malone-led offense. The Nash-led offense was more robust than the Malone-led offense Stockton played on.

On Dwyane Wade: I'm feeling him fall in my estimation and I don't like it. I loved watching Wade play and there was a time when I would have said Wade was as good as Kobe. But I don't think Wade is that great of a choice if you want someone to be the alpha on a truly great offense, and I don't think he's really that well suited to being a 2nd banana either. His lack of shooting matters in his prime, and his style of play seemed to doom him to limited longevity.

On Scottie Pippen: Torn here. Pippen may have been the best non-big defensive player I ever saw and he was a nice passer and a capable finisher. He was also a guy who had an ego about things he really needed not to have an ego about and in general seemed to need to be pet like a nervous dog on the 4th of July. Maybe these type of concerns are overblown, but I'm really comfortable with handing Nash the reins both for the offense and for the locker room, and I'm just not with Pippen.

On George Mikan: Wanted to speak to him a little bit more just because he's so important. When I evaluate Mikan, I tend to focus on comparisons with other bigs. So that's guys like Moses, Artis Gilmore, and Patrick Ewing among guys not voted in. And here the matchups are tricky.

Arguing for Mikan over Moses actually makes a lot of sense to me, but so does Gilmore over Mikan and Moses over Gilmore. Adding in Ewing it's easy to see an argument for Ewing as being more two-way dominant than Moses or Gilmore, but Ewing spent much of his career in a volume scoring role that I really only think was justified for for a brief window.

If forced to pick from this bunch right now, I'd go Moses. I think he and Mikan are the ones who really proved must comfortable using aggression to dominate, and Moses did it at a time when he had to deal some real big fellas. The fact that Moses wasn't a defensive anchor though makes Moses quite vulnerable to my flights of caprice.

On Bob Pettit: Tons of respect for this man. Traditionally I have had him ahead of Mikan. Feeling a temptation to move Mikan ahead though. It's just plain true that Mikan had a defensive dominance that Pettit couldn't match and that's a great argument for Mikan likely being more dominant than Pettit had they both been born in 1924 (like Mikan). But as I've also said, I think Mikan's time is a weird one, and I don't so much see Mikan as "as good as a big could get in his era" as much as "he was the big-time big who happened to be in the NBA". I think Pettit likely scales better to subsequent eras at least in terms of the fact that Mikan's defense wouldn't be the same kind of outlier once other great bigs were playing.

[Doctor MJ]

I've been championing Mikan and will continue to do so, but a bit of an aside - him being the 'first' giant is quite romanticized, he was simply the first great one. Shoun was ~6'11 for Akron all the way back in the 20's. Otten/Siewert/Morgenthaler/Hermsen all entered the league within a couple of years of Mikan, but only Otten really panned out. Plenty of other guys in the near 7 ft range played before or at the same time as Mikan, it's just none put it all together like Mikan(well, maybe Kurland). Anywho, the point is that a fair number of big guys tried to dominate the game, Mikan was the first to succeed.

Wanted to speak to this specifically:

I'm not saying that there have been hundreds and hundreds of bigs that had a better "whole package" than Mikan. Guys like that are never dime-a-dozen, but I do think there have been a couple handfuls of guys that have arrived in the past 70 years that were probably more capable as big men than Mikan. This is why I say that legit Mikan is someone I tend to consider a Top 50 player, which I see as pretty dang impressive when all is said and done, and which I wouldn't be saying if I thought every Tom, Dick, or Swede Halbrook was better than him.

Re: Mikan was the first to succeed. Yup, which is why if he's not the most Hall-worthy big man of all time, he's darn close. I induct Mikan before I induct Ewing to the Hall without hesitation, but would I draft Mikan ahead of Ewing? Eh...

[Odinn21]

Vote:
3. Steve Nash

How did Nash end up over Barkley?

I know that you're bigger on individual and team +/- data than me.
As a side note for Barkley's +/- data.

Spoiler:

We can track Barkley's +/- data in Philly from Dipper 13's works.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZxRM9p2dFil5w6s21VEB4HnQZJymEY8_2vej-jREuUo/edit#gid=917972440
viewtopic.php?t=1344019

But the things going in for or against Nash also do that for Barkley.
Nash's impact in Phoenix earned him a position among the goat offensive players. But Barkley was also a goat level offensive player.We
Both were negative impact on defense on average. Barkley was better than Nash though. The only time he had a big downfall was 1992. Other than that, he was way closer to average than Nash.
Both's primes were not among the long ones. Actually, Barkley's prime lasted longer than Nash's.

I ask about Barkley particularly because they look similar to each other in my criterias. You know I'd take Moses over Steve and wouldn't think twice about it.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote:
3. Steve Nash

How did Nash end up over Barkley?

I know that you're bigger on individual and team +/- data than me.
As a side note for Barkley's +/- data.

Spoiler:

We can track Barkley's +/- data in Philly from Dipper 13's works.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZxRM9p2dFil5w6s21VEB4HnQZJymEY8_2vej-jREuUo/edit#gid=917972440
viewtopic.php?t=1344019

But the things going in for or against Nash also do that for Barkley.
Nash's impact in Phoenix earned him a position among the goat offensive players. But Barkley was also a goat level offensive player.We
Both were negative impact on defense on average. Barkley was better than Nash though. The only time he had a big downfall was 1992. Other than that, he was way closer to average than Nash.
Both's primes were not among the long ones. Actually, Barkley's prime lasted longer than Nash's.

I ask about Barkley particularly because they look similar to each other in my criterias. You know I'd take Moses over Steve and wouldn't think twice about it.

Wait, isn't that Harvey Pollack's 76er work? Dipper may have made the spreadsheet, but my understanding is that data came from Pollack's contemporary stat keeping.

Regardless I believe I've used those very spreadsheets and while Barkley comes off looking good, he's not overwhelming. By my count we have this data from every year in Barkley's career except his first in Phoenix, and that's enough to know that, for example, Nash led his team in +/- more times than Barkley did.

I mentioned before that Nash was 1st or 2nd in ORtg for a decade straight. We don't have data from all Barkley's years, but I think it's unlikely Barkley is a serious candidate to rival that.

Add in that Barkley is temperamental and not really the kind of guy you can expect to lead your efforts day-in-day-out for years and years, and yeah, I'm more impressed with Nash.

You would hope that defense would be what swung things for Chuck, as it basically does for the Mailman, but I'm really not comfortable watching the Round Mound take off possessions and asserting that.

Regardless, appreciate that you're disagreeing while trying to keep it positive. Cheers Odinn!

[Odinn21]

Vote:
3. Steve Nash

How did Nash end up over Barkley?

I know that you're bigger on individual and team +/- data than me.
As a side note for Barkley's +/- data.

Spoiler:

We can track Barkley's +/- data in Philly from Dipper 13's works.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZxRM9p2dFil5w6s21VEB4HnQZJymEY8_2vej-jREuUo/edit#gid=917972440
viewtopic.php?t=1344019

But the things going in for or against Nash also do that for Barkley.
Nash's impact in Phoenix earned him a position among the goat offensive players. But Barkley was also a goat level offensive player.We
Both were negative impact on defense on average. Barkley was better than Nash though. The only time he had a big downfall was 1992. Other than that, he was way closer to average than Nash.
Both's primes were not among the long ones. Actually, Barkley's prime lasted longer than Nash's.

I ask about Barkley particularly because they look similar to each other in my criterias. You know I'd take Moses over Steve and wouldn't think twice about it.

Wait, isn't that Harvey Pollack's 76er work? Dipper may have made the spreadsheet, but my understanding is that data came from Pollack's contemporary stat keeping.

Regardless I believe I've used those very spreadsheets and while Barkley comes off looking good, he's not overwhelming. By my count we have this data from every year in Barkley's career except his first in Phoenix, and that's enough to know that, for example, Nash led his team in +/- more times than Barkley did.

I mentioned before that Nash was 1st or 2nd in ORtg for a decade straight. We don't have data from all Barkley's years, but I think it's unlikely Barkley is a serious candidate to rival that.

Add in that Barkley is temperamental and not really the kind of guy you can expect to lead your efforts day-in-day-out for years and years, and yeah, I'm more impressed with Nash.

You would hope that defense would be what swung things for Chuck, as it basically does for the Mailman, but I'm really not comfortable watching the Round Mound take off possessions and asserting that.

Regardless, appreciate that you're disagreeing while trying to keep it positive. Cheers Odinn!

You're right about it's being Pollack's work. It just stayed with me as Dipper 13's work because I had seen it from Dipper 13 first.

I wasn't saying Barkley's +/- data would match Nash's one. But Chuck's on court production and the defensive attention he got would make up for meaningful part of that gap, if not all.

Yeah, Barkley's personality issues hold him back. He could be much bigger and greater, very much like O'Neal in that sense, but I think we're coming to the group it'd be hard to deny Barkley a spot on our ballots. (I don't have him on my ballot either fwiw.)

Malone was actually a good defender though. It was natural for him to have a good case based on defensive gaps over players like Nash, Nowitzki, etc. I just stated defense because I feel like between Nash and Barkley, we're playing in such close quarters. I agree that Barkley's defense wouldn't make a swing like Malone.

Cheers mate. I just want to see rather chilled out discussions in the project because it's almost as if this is politics. Disagreeing means fighting now and me disagreeing with you in a normal way earned me a cheers.

[LA Bird]

Vote:
3. Steve Nash

How did Nash end up over Barkley?

I know that you're bigger on individual and team +/- data than me.
As a side note for Barkley's +/- data.

Spoiler:

We can track Barkley's +/- data in Philly from Dipper 13's works.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZxRM9p2dFil5w6s21VEB4HnQZJymEY8_2vej-jREuUo/edit#gid=917972440
viewtopic.php?t=1344019

But the things going in for or against Nash also do that for Barkley.
Nash's impact in Phoenix earned him a position among the goat offensive players. But Barkley was also a goat level offensive player.We
Both were negative impact on defense on average. Barkley was better than Nash though. The only time he had a big downfall was 1992. Other than that, he was way closer to average than Nash.
Both's primes were not among the long ones. Actually, Barkley's prime lasted longer than Nash's.

I ask about Barkley particularly because they look similar to each other in my criterias. You know I'd take Moses over Steve and wouldn't think twice about it.

Barkley's defensive on/off in 92 looks a lot worse than it really is because of Manute Bol primarily playing in his off minutes. On the flip side, that also means Barkley's offensive on/off in 92 looks a lot better than it really is because he is mostly not sharing minutes with Manute. The total +6.0 net on/off is more important than the offense-defense split for that season IMO.

Regardless of the offense-defense split though, Barkley's overall +/- is a step behind prime Nash. It's still great but Nash was second in net on/off to only LeBron during his time in Phoenix. If Barkley's defensive impact is closer to average than Nash's (I agree), that also means his offensive impact is closer to average than Nash's as well. The case for Nash as offensive GOAT is based on his team's ORtg and his individual offensive impact and Barkley is not close in either areas.

Nash's Mavs years is a different story though which is why I would still have Barkley ranked higher for overall career.

[Odinn21]

Vote:
3. Steve Nash

How did Nash end up over Barkley?

I know that you're bigger on individual and team +/- data than me.
As a side note for Barkley's +/- data.

Spoiler:

We can track Barkley's +/- data in Philly from Dipper 13's works.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZxRM9p2dFil5w6s21VEB4HnQZJymEY8_2vej-jREuUo/edit#gid=917972440
viewtopic.php?t=1344019

But the things going in for or against Nash also do that for Barkley.
Nash's impact in Phoenix earned him a position among the goat offensive players. But Barkley was also a goat level offensive player.We
Both were negative impact on defense on average. Barkley was better than Nash though. The only time he had a big downfall was 1992. Other than that, he was way closer to average than Nash.
Both's primes were not among the long ones. Actually, Barkley's prime lasted longer than Nash's.

I ask about Barkley particularly because they look similar to each other in my criterias. You know I'd take Moses over Steve and wouldn't think twice about it.

Barkley's defensive on/off in 92 looks a lot worse than it really is because of Manute Bol primarily playing in his off minutes. On the flip side, that also means Barkley's offensive on/off in 92 looks a lot better than it really is because he is mostly not sharing minutes with Manute. The total +6.0 net on/off is more important than the offense-defense split for that season IMO.

Regardless of the offense-defense split though, Barkley's overall +/- is a step behind prime Nash. It's still great but Nash was second in net on/off to only LeBron during his time in Phoenix. If Barkley's defensive impact is closer to average than Nash's (I agree), that also means his offensive impact is closer to average than Nash's as well. The case for Nash as offensive GOAT is based on his team's ORtg and his individual offensive impact and Barkley is not close in either areas.

Nash's Mavs years is a different story though which is why I would still have Barkley ranked higher for overall career.

I'd go back to a point in my response to Doctor MJ, yeah - I know that Barkley's +/- numbers were still behind Nash. But his on court production was not-so arguably better. So, that makes up for some of the gap between +/- data sets.

Another thing is;
https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Shaq-5-yr-PS-Offenses.png
Just look at '92-'96 Suns team on that chart. Those numbers for the Suns have one season without Barkley in them and also a declining Barkley.

Looking at the ORtg numbers Nash had in Phoenix, and then the ORtg numbers Barkley had in Philadelphia is not exactly a fair playing level, is it?

Barkley was also one of the goat level offensive players and I don't think even if Nash is still ahead of him, I don't think that the gap'd be enough.

[TrueLAfan]

1. Julius Erving. So, other stuff about Doc. Erving was a great teammate; his impact went beyond his numbers. And his numbers and longetivity are top notch as well. I truly think the image of Dr. J as the hyper athletic high flyer has hurt him. He had strong skills across the board; great defender, great scorer, very good rebounder. I also think he’s extremely underrated as a floor lifter. We are talking a guy who never played on a sub .500 team, never missed the playoffs. I’ll say it again--he went to five finals before Moses came along … and, looking back, it’s kind of surprising that he got that far, much less did as well as he did. For the most part, his teams were not good during that period. The 1974 Nets may have been the best of the lot. The 1976 Nets were okay, but nothing special. The 1977 Sixers had starpower, but were poorly constructed and had a second star that just folded up in the finals. And here’s another one. The 1980 and 1982 Sixers—which each took two games from the Showtime Lakers, for God’s sake—were not a team with great talent. Steve Mix was an aging player who had been somewhat mediocre to begin with; Mo Cheeks was good to very good, but not as good as he would be later. Caldwell Jones was a good defender that had little offense; Daryl Dawkins was a good offensive player who was raw (to put it charitably) on D, and tended to be distracted (by Planet Lovetron, for those who remember). Toney was great in ’82, and Bobby Jones was great, of course, but it’s kind of weird how weak those Sixers finals teams look in retrospect. Cunningham was a terrific coach; he really got the most out of his players. But he also had Erving carrying the team in whatever way was necessary.

2. Stephen Curry I honestly don’t know if Curry at his one year peak is much, if any better than Erving in 1976. But the top 4 (consecutive!) seasons of Curry strand up and may surpass anybody else’s outside of the top 4—and he’s got a handful of other great seasons too. Can anyone really debate his gifts?

Put it this way—I get it that some people are talking about Durant already. But there’s no way I can compare Durant’s impact to that Curry—no way. Durant’s neediness as a person occasionally bleeds over onto the court. That never happens with Curry. It never happened with Erving. “Mental strength” is a loony phrase and thing to consider—except it isn’t. Curry is the most dominant player of the last 20 years not named “LeBron”—and LeBron is number one on the list. And Curry’s dominance is shorter, but the peaks and their effects are no lower. I mean ... damn.

3. George Mikan I've got 4-5 players all in the mix here, but I’ll defer to penbeast’s analysis here. Responding to detractors—yes, the league and play were different then. But it’s another case where there’s simply too much there there; too much dominance, too many contemporary reactions, too much statistical superiority, too many kudos.

[LA Bird]

Another thing is;
https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Shaq-5-yr-PS-Offenses.png
Just look at '92-'96 Suns team on that chart. Those numbers for the Suns have one season without Barkley in them and also a declining Barkley.

Looking at the ORtg numbers Nash had in Phoenix, and then the ORtg numbers Barkley had in Philadelphia is not exactly a fair playing level, is it?

Barkley was also one of the goat level offensive players and I don't think even if Nash is still ahead of him, I don't think that the gap'd be enough.

The 90s Suns were already a top offense with KJ before Barkley arrived (#2 in regular season from 89-92 behind only Jordan Bulls) and they had their single best postseason offense in 92 without Barkley. Nash went to a Suns team that was a subpar offense and his postseason rORtg are still considerably better. Here are the year by year team playoffs offense breakdown,

KJ Suns
1989: +5.8
1990: +4.9
1991: -5.4
1992: +12.5
Average: +5.66

Barkley+KJ Suns
1993: +5.2 (Barkley MVP year)
1994: +8.2
1995: +12.3
1996: +5.7
Average: +7.35

Nash Suns
2005: +17.0 (#1 all time)
2006: +9.5 (no Amare)
2007: +7.6
2008: +3.1
2010: +13.4
Average: +11.32

[Odinn21]

Another thing is;
https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Shaq-5-yr-PS-Offenses.png
Just look at '92-'96 Suns team on that chart. Those numbers for the Suns have one season without Barkley in them and also a declining Barkley.

Looking at the ORtg numbers Nash had in Phoenix, and then the ORtg numbers Barkley had in Philadelphia is not exactly a fair playing level, is it?

Barkley was also one of the goat level offensive players and I don't think even if Nash is still ahead of him, I don't think that the gap'd be enough.

The 90s Suns were already a top offense with KJ before Barkley arrived (#2 in regular season from 89-92 behind only Jordan Bulls) and they had their single best postseason offense in 92 without Barkley. Nash went to a Suns team that was a subpar offense and his postseason rORtg are still considerably better. Here are the year by year team playoffs offense breakdown,

KJ Suns
1989: +5.8
1990: +4.9
1991: -5.4
1992: +12.5
Average: +5.66

Barkley+KJ Suns
1993: +5.2 (Barkley MVP year)
1994: +8.2
1995: +12.3
1996: +5.7
Average: +7.35

Nash Suns
2005: +17.0 (#1 all time)
2006: +9.5 (no Amare)
2007: +7.6
2008: +3.1
2010: +13.4
Average: +11.32

Surely, Phoenix was an elite offensive team prior to Barkley's arrival.
My point was looking at how well Nash did in Phoenix, and then Barkley's numbers in Philadelphia, then putting Nash soo ahead due to ORtg numbers in a more fortunate setup doesn't make sense.


The following part will be about postseason +/- data and 2005 Suns being #1 postseason offense ever. It is not related to Barkley.

Postseason +/- data is susceptible to sample size and context as always.
- ORtg numbers usually spike with 1st round matchups. The average for a 57+ wins / +6 SRS team that made the conference finals, is +15 rORtg in the 1st rounds. This is more of an observation though. I did not run numbers for entire samples but I'm pretty confident in this one.
- And they can't account for injuries.
Looking at +17.0 value for 2005 and it doesn't make sense to praise it for #1 all time without mentioning the reasons.
In that series, the Spurs played as an offense first team to mask Duncan's mobility issues in that series rather than their usual style at the time.
The Spurs in regular season; 96.2 ppg and 106.1 ortg
The Suns in regular season; 110.4 ppg and 112.7 ortg
2005 WCF; the Spurs 108.2 ppg and 116.1 ortg / the Suns 104.0 ppg and 112.1 ortg
So, does it really make sense to put that #1 all time notion as if Nash did that when the Spurs played like they did in the regular season or against the Pistons? But that approach would have +14.3 rORtg (NBA.com) or +15.2 rORtg (BBRef) for the Suns.
Let's see changing a simple thing to see how that number would lose that #1 spot and see it was not earned entirely on merit.
If Duncan weren't struggling his mobility due to an injury, the Spurs would be in a way better shape, they'd play harder defense instead of letting Stoudemire go. 2005 Spurs were better than their 2007 versions prior to Duncan's injury and 2005 Suns weren't as great as 2007. In 2007 series, the Suns had +7.3 rORtg against the Spurs. Let's tone it down to +6.5. Now, it's +13.9 rORtg for the Suns. Not 17.0 and not #1 all time. Surely, it's still a massive number, insanely impressive.

Don't find your presentation accurate though.

A closing note; I talked about 2005 because I know it too well. And I certainly do not like this aura around ORtg of 2005 Suns because when it's used like you did, it is not accurate.
If you can talk about a similar situation happened to Barkley, you should know that I'd agree.

[LA Bird]

Surely, Phoenix was an elite offensive team prior to Barkley's arrival.
My point was looking at how well Nash did in Phoenix, and then Barkley's numbers in Philadelphia, then putting Nash soo ahead due to ORtg numbers in a more fortunate setup doesn't make sense.

Barkley's rORtg numbers aren't close to Nash's in either Phoenix or Philadelphia so the location is irrelevant. And Barkley is the one with the more fortunate setup since he teamed up with an elite point guard who led top offenses without him already and he still couldn't lead/co-lead an offense nearly as good as Nash did.

Looking at +17.0 value for 2005 and it doesn't make sense to praise it for #1 all time without mentioning the reasons.
In that series, the Spurs played as an offense first team to mask Duncan's mobility issues in that series rather than their usual style at the time.
The Spurs in regular season; 96.2 ppg and 106.1 ortg
The Suns in regular season; 110.4 ppg and 112.7 ortg
2005 WCF; the Spurs 108.2 ppg and 116.1 ortg / the Suns 104.0 ppg and 112.1 ortg
So, does it really make sense to put that #1 all time notion as if Nash did that when the Spurs played like they did in the regular season or against the Pistons? But that approach would have +14.3 rORtg (NBA.com) or +15.2 rORtg (BBRef) for the Suns.
Let's see changing a simple thing to see how that number would lose that #1 spot and see it was not earned entirely on merit.
If Duncan weren't struggling his mobility due to an injury, the Spurs would be in a way better shape, they'd play harder defense instead of letting Stoudemire go. 2005 Spurs were better than their 2007 versions prior to Duncan's injury and 2005 Suns weren't as great as 2007. In 2007 series, the Suns had +7.3 rORtg against the Spurs. Let's tone it down to +6.5. Now, it's +13.9 rORtg for the Suns. Not 17.0 and not #1 all time. Surely, it's still a massive number, insanely impressive.

Don't find your presentation accurate though.

A closing note; I talked about 2005 because I know it too well. And I certainly do not like this aura around ORtg of 2005 Suns because when it's used like you did, it is not accurate.

And how did you get this +6.5 figure? Why not tone it down to +6.6 or +6.7 if you are just choosing a random number? Is it a coincidence that +6.6 for the series would give the 05 Suns a playoff average of +14.0 offense (tied with 1956 Lakers) and so you worked backwards to come up with +6.5 to drop them a little lower to a +13.9 offense? The 56 Lakers had a postseason +14.0 rORtg but they only played 3 games in the playoffs and they were inflated by a record 58 point blowout win which obviously lifted their averages a lot due to the small sample. You wrote earlier that "Postseason +/- data is susceptible to sample size and context as always" but championing the 56 Lakers' 3 game +14.0 offense as #1 all time is the prime example of someone ignoring both sample size and context. The 05 Suns are still the best all time postseason offense at +13.9 rORtg even if we accept your questionable method of arbitrarily assigning them a ORtg for the Spurs series.

[Odinn21]

Surely, Phoenix was an elite offensive team prior to Barkley's arrival.
My point was looking at how well Nash did in Phoenix, and then Barkley's numbers in Philadelphia, then putting Nash soo ahead due to ORtg numbers in a more fortunate setup doesn't make sense.

Barkley's rORtg numbers aren't close to Nash's in either Phoenix or Philadelphia so the location is irrelevant. And Barkley is the one with the more fortunate setup since he teamed up with an elite point guard who led top offenses without him already and he still couldn't lead/co-lead an offense nearly as good as Nash did.

I believe you're too into your opinion because you don't see the fundamental issue I'm talking about and keep it labelled as irrelevant.
What I'm saying is Barkley was at his best in Philadelphia and Nash was at his best in Phoenix. What you're doing is similar to comparing Philly Barkley to Dallas Nash or post-Phoenix Nash, to a lesser extent but still.

Looking at +17.0 value for 2005 and it doesn't make sense to praise it for #1 all time without mentioning the reasons.
In that series, the Spurs played as an offense first team to mask Duncan's mobility issues in that series rather than their usual style at the time.
The Spurs in regular season; 96.2 ppg and 106.1 ortg
The Suns in regular season; 110.4 ppg and 112.7 ortg
2005 WCF; the Spurs 108.2 ppg and 116.1 ortg / the Suns 104.0 ppg and 112.1 ortg
So, does it really make sense to put that #1 all time notion as if Nash did that when the Spurs played like they did in the regular season or against the Pistons? But that approach would have +14.3 rORtg (NBA.com) or +15.2 rORtg (BBRef) for the Suns.
Let's see changing a simple thing to see how that number would lose that #1 spot and see it was not earned entirely on merit.
If Duncan weren't struggling his mobility due to an injury, the Spurs would be in a way better shape, they'd play harder defense instead of letting Stoudemire go. 2005 Spurs were better than their 2007 versions prior to Duncan's injury and 2005 Suns weren't as great as 2007. In 2007 series, the Suns had +7.3 rORtg against the Spurs. Let's tone it down to +6.5. Now, it's +13.9 rORtg for the Suns. Not 17.0 and not #1 all time. Surely, it's still a massive number, insanely impressive.

Don't find your presentation accurate though.

A closing note; I talked about 2005 because I know it too well. And I certainly do not like this aura around ORtg of 2005 Suns because when it's used like you did, it is not accurate.

And how did you get this +6.5 figure? Why not tone it down to +6.6 or +6.7 if you are just choosing a random number? Is it a coincidence that +6.6 for the series would give the 05 Suns a playoff average of +14.0 offense (tied with 1956 Lakers) and so you worked backwards to come up with +6.5 to drop them a little lower to a +13.9 offense? The 56 Lakers had a postseason +14.0 rORtg but they only played 3 games in the playoffs and they were inflated by a record 58 point blowout win which obviously lifted their averages a lot due to the small sample. You wrote earlier that "Postseason +/- data is susceptible to sample size and context as always" but championing the 56 Lakers' 3 game +14.0 offense as #1 all time is the prime example of someone ignoring both sample size and context. The 05 Suns are still the best all time postseason offense at +13.9 rORtg even if we accept your questionable method of arbitrarily assigning them a ORtg for the Spurs series.

How did I get that figure? It was literally written in the post you quoted.

Spoiler:

If Duncan weren't struggling his mobility due to an injury, the Spurs would be in a way better shape, they'd play harder defense instead of letting Stoudemire go.
2005 Spurs prior to Duncan's injury were better than their 2007 version and 2005 Suns weren't as great as 2007.
In 2007 series, the Suns had +7.3 rORtg against the Spurs.
Let's tone it down to +6.5.
Now, it's +13.9 rORtg for the Suns. Not 17.0 and not #1 all time. Surely, it's still a massive number, insanely impressive.

Another thing you misunderstood; I did not select +6.5 rORtg to deny 2005 Suns. I did not even know that '56 Lakers had that value and I was generous to the Suns by giving them +6.5 against 2005 Spurs with a fully healthy Duncan, considering the Spurs were having a season +11.0 NRtg season. On par with teams like 1996/1997 Bulls and 2016/2017 Warriors.
https://on.nba.com/36SWEaJ
I don't think I have to tell you the level of +11.0 NRtg.
They were having another -8 rDRtg season after 2004 with -8.1. But with way better offense. 6th in ORtg with +3.0 relative value.
Up until Duncan's injury, 2005 Spurs were having a significantly better season than their 2007 versions.

And they had -2.0 NRtg for the remainder of the season. Duncan played 92 minutes in the last 4 games and the team headed to playoffs with a recovering superstar.

These were the things I knew when I was giving 2005 Suns a +6.5 rORtg against 2005 Spurs with fully healthy Duncan. I did not choose that value to put them below or next to '56 Lakers.

I could give +6.0 rORtg to 2005 Suns, probably would've been closer to what'd happen with a healthy Duncan, and you wouldn't have those conspiracy theories...

FWIW, I have a weighted calculation and 2001 Lakers are the champions of that data set with almost +15. I went by memory and did not realize that +13.9 rORtg for 2005 Suns was unweighted or I had weighted value as the champion in mind.

This is way off topic BTW. Even though I know that I'll feel compelled to respond your next post, I won't. Cheers.

[eminence]

Just realized I hadn't voted yet.

1. George Mikan
2. Steve Nash
3. Julius Erving

Mikan - dominated an era, not much else to say.

Nash - One of the best offensive players ever, helped spearhead a bit of an offensive revolution in the league. Think his time in Dallas gets a bit undersold at times.

DrJ - Great on both ends, good longevity, always played on good to great teams. Offensive feel questions keep him below Nash for me.

Others:
Moses - inconsistent prime
KD - not great longevity, prime level not notably higher
Wade - injury issues
CP3 - probably my next guy right now?
Curry - lacks the longevity for me, injuries also an issue
etc

[therealbig3]

As someone not taking part and observing in the background, I personally don't understand a Curry>Nash case, if we're looking beyond a ring count.

Nash has clearly demonstrated imo he's more "unguardable" against a wide variety of defenses in a playoff situation. He didn't need Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green around him to lead playoff offenses that were comparable to the 2017 Warriors playoff offense, and he's led multiple playoff offenses that are crystal clearly better than any other year of the Warriors dynasty under Curry.

I'm just not seeing the case for Curry over Nash offensively, at all...not in terms of team offense, not in terms of enabling teammates, not in terms of individual ability against elite defenses. And unless Curry is secretly a DPOY caliber player, any difference between them defensively is marginal at best and this pretty much gives Nash the victory in this comparison, no?

[therealbig3]

Given all of this you might think, "Okay, so why don't you have him over Curry then?", and I'll tell you, I can see the argument. It matters that Curry isn't just the best shooter in history but better than we ever expected to see. It also matters that Curry has developed a game that's arguably more noteworthy for his off-ball game, particularly given that Curry will never be the on-ball thinker that Nash was. In the end I think Curry is the template that future generations should be following more so than Nash.

I'm not convinced by the logic here.

I think playing like Nash is great. I think playing like Curry is great. There is no "right" way. There is no way that future generations "should" play. I think they should play as effectively as possible.

If you're as good on-ball as Nash, that's the right way to play and it should be emulated...if you're that good. Playing like Curry is maybe how most players should play, since they're not going to be as good as Nash on the ball. But when you do have a player like Nash, I've seen no evidence that there is a difference in terms of team performance or effectiveness that comes from his style of play vs Curry's style of play. In fact, offensive performance for on ball guys at that level like Nash and LeBron are demonstrably superior to Curry's. I feel like that point keeps getting lost, when it's literally the most important thing to talk about.

[LA Bird]

What I'm saying is Barkley was at his best in Philadelphia and Nash was at his best in Phoenix. What you're doing is similar to comparing Philly Barkley to Dallas Nash or post-Phoenix Nash, to a lesser extent but still.

My first post was comparing Suns Nash to Philly Barkley before you brought Suns Barkley into the discussion but ok...

Another thing you misunderstood; I did not select +6.5 rORtg to deny 2005 Suns. I did not even know that '56 Lakers had that value and I was generous to the Suns by giving them +6.5 against 2005 Spurs with a fully healthy Duncan, considering the Spurs were having a season +11.0 NRtg season. On par with teams like 1996/1997 Bulls and 2016/2017 Warriors.
https://on.nba.com/36SWEaJ
I don't think I have to tell you the level of +11.0 NRtg.
They were having another -8 rDRtg season after 2004 with -8.1. But with way better offense. 6th in ORtg with +3.0 relative value.
Up until Duncan's injury, 2005 Spurs were having a significantly better season than their 2007 versions.

And they had -2.0 NRtg for the remainder of the season. Duncan played 92 minutes in the last 4 games and the team headed to playoffs with a recovering superstar.

These were the things I knew when I was giving 2005 Suns a +6.5 rORtg against 2005 Spurs with fully healthy Duncan. I did not choose that value to put them below or next to '56 Lakers.

I could give +6.0 rORtg to 2005 Suns, probably would've been closer to what'd happen with a healthy Duncan, and you wouldn't have those conspiracy theories...

FWIW, I have a weighted calculation and 2001 Lakers are the champions of that data set with almost +15. I went by memory and did not realize that +13.9 rORtg for 2005 Suns was unweighted or I had weighted value as the champion in mind.

This is way off topic BTW. Even though I know that I'll feel compelled to respond your next post, I won't. Cheers.

The Spurs performance toward the end of the regular season would be a good indicator for the Suns series, if it was the first round. It's not. The 05 Spurs played at 10+ SRS level through each of the first three rounds:

+11.1 vs 2.2 SRS Nuggets = +13.3 eSRS
+7.9 vs 2.6 SRS Sonics = +10.5 eSRS
+4.6 vs 7.1 SRS Suns = +11.7 eSRS
-2.3 vs 3.3 SRS Pistons = +1.0 eSRS

Toning down the Suns from the actual +15.2 rORtg to a hypothetical +6.5 rORtg in that series would mean the Spurs playing at the equivalent of 20+ SRS against the West and that 05 regular season Duncan had 9 points per 100 defensive impact over 05 playoffs Duncan because of health. Yeah, it's best we just agree to disagree and move on.



FYI, here is the playoff net ratings spreadsheet by ElGee: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_AdaCB40YpgZGY1cGZheV8xcHM/

[penbeast0]

...
Team defense might be equally valuable to team offense but we're looking at individuals here. An individual's offense, especially an individual who is the first option for a team like KD or D-Rob, has a higher impact than individual defense. ....

If you would like to do a correlation study with individual scoring relating to titles (or win%) v. individual defensive impact, I'd like to see it and would wager that you are wrong again. Not sure how to do it, but you could look at the league's leading scorer each year since the DPOY was put in as an award and see if it correlates more to winning team record than the DPOY does. Jordan might even skew the results enough that you would win on this one, but I'd be far from surprised if you found that the DPOY's team results were superior to those of the league's leading scorer.

Again, I think you are wrong and great defensive impact has more relation to winning than great scoring (though good offense probably has more then good defense as a second/third scorer might be more valuable than the 2nd/3rd best defensive player) but I could be wrong too.