Dutchball97 wrote: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.
Moderators: PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0, trex_8063
Dutchball97 wrote:You guys go be the community police and I'll go do something else, see you in the #19 thread.
Hal14 wrote: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:
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:
eminence wrote: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.
Doctor MJ wrote:Vote:
3. Steve Nash
Odinn21 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote: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:
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 wrote:Odinn21 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote: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:
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 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote: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:
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.
LA Bird wrote:Odinn21 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote: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:
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 wrote: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.
LA Bird wrote:Odinn21 wrote: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 wrote: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.
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.
LA Bird wrote:Odinn21 wrote: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.
LA Bird wrote:Odinn21 wrote: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.
Doctor MJ wrote: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.
Odinn21 wrote: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.
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.
Dutchball97 wrote:...
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. ....