RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #24 (Stephen Curry)

[MyUniBroDavis]

Outlandish is when someone is outlier level. Being one of the top guys in the league in impact isnt outlandish, its elite

I see. I consider Curry outlandish because I believe his level of play and impact to be on the Nash/Magic level in 2014--you don't.

Nashs rapm was an outlier

For pi rapm offensicely

In 2006, he was 1st at 6.66, then ray and kobe at 5.71 and 5.65, the dirk and wades of tbe world were 4-5

In 2007, he was 1st at +7.15, wade second at 5.13

In 2008, he was 1st at +7.26, kobe second at +6.29, then bron at +5.07

In 2009, first at +7.11, bron at 6.11, others at the low 5a

Currys was third behind harden and bron, but he was within 0.25 of harden, durant, paul, and ginobli, ao not an outlier


For npi rapm, its similar, nash is still an outlier in 07 and 08 but obv noise effects it, although he is one in 05 in this one. Other notable is odoms is def noise in 09 based off him being higher than bron offensicely and being near netural or negative on offense the year after and before so that would have effected kobe negatively.

Currys 6th in 2014 there

So my reasoning on curry not being an outlier in impact is because he was in the same level as 4-5 other guys and was in a situation where he was the only ball handler and most of his impact came from how bad the team was with him off the court given his on court rtg was good but nothing special for a superstar.

Rapm itself is noisy but someone being an outlier multiple years, curry not being one, and other factors that would inflatebhis raw net rtg, that isnt even close to as impressive as nash's was contextually, make it pretty clear he wasnt a nash level outlier

[MyUniBroDavis]

One of the hallmarks of the 2014 Golden State Warriors was their lack of late shot clock shots. The team averaged 4.8 FGA/G in the 0-4 second time period (6.0% of their total shots). The Warriors have led the league multiple times since then, in large part due to the teams (Curry) ability to score early in the shot clock.

For 2014

It was actually 7.6FGA/G and 9.8% of his shots, which was 6th least the league

7-4 seconds is at 12.2%, 9.7, 4th most in the league, so idk if that hypothesis holds up

NBA.com must be lying to me then. The stats I see are 4.8 FGA and 6.0% of total shots in the 4-0 range. Are you sure you are on the correct tab?

Was looking at the wrong one, but that number still equates to 13th lowest, which is about league average

[Jordan Syndrome]

For 2014

It was actually 7.6FGA/G and 9.8% of his shots, which was 6th least the league

7-4 seconds is at 12.2%, 9.7, 4th most in the league, so idk if that hypothesis holds up

NBA.com must be lying to me then. The stats I see are 4.8 FGA and 6.0% of total shots in the 4-0 range. Are you sure you are on the correct tab?

Was looking at the wrong one, but that number still equates to 13th lowest, which is about league average

It was last in the league in frequency--stop lying and have a good night

[MyUniBroDavis]

NBA.com must be lying to me then. The stats I see are 4.8 FGA and 6.0% of total shots in the 4-0 range. Are you sure you are on the correct tab?

Was looking at the wrong one, but that number still equates to 13th lowest, which is about league average

It was last in the league in frequency--stop lying and have a good night

I was looking at 2020 lol oops

Yeah, fair point there.

Otoh that doesnt really change anything else ive said about his impact lmao. Or the dodge when u didnt understand the word

[WarriorGM]

Outlandish is when someone is outlier level. Being one of the top guys in the league in impact isnt outlandish, its elite

I see. I consider Curry outlandish because I believe his level of play and impact to be on the Nash/Magic level in 2014--you don't.

Nashs rapm was an outlier

For pi rapm offensicely

In 2006, he was 1st at 6.66, then ray and kobe at 5.71 and 5.65, the dirk and wades of tbe world were 4-5

In 2007, he was 1st at +7.15, wade second at 5.13

In 2008, he was 1st at +7.26, kobe second at +6.29, then bron at +5.07

In 2009, first at +7.11, bron at 6.11, others at the low 5a

Currys was third behind harden and bron, but he was within 0.25 of harden, durant, paul, and ginobli, ao not an outlier


For npi rapm, its similar, nash is still an outlier in 07 and 08 but obv noise effects it, although he is one in 05 in this one. Other notable is odoms is def noise in 09 based off him being higher than bron offensicely and being near netural or negative on offense the year after and before so that would have effected kobe negatively.

Currys 6th in 2014 there

So my reasoning on curry not being an outlier in impact is because he was in the same level as 4-5 other guys and was in a situation where he was the only ball handler and most of his impact came from how bad the team was with him off the court given his on court rtg was good but nothing special for a superstar.

Rapm itself is noisy but someone being an outlier multiple years, curry not being one, and other factors that would inflatebhis raw net rtg, that isnt even close to as impressive as nash's was contextually, make it pretty clear he wasnt a nash level outlier

Curry's +/- is an outlier for multiple years.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I see. I consider Curry outlandish because I believe his level of play and impact to be on the Nash/Magic level in 2014--you don't.

Nashs rapm was an outlier

For pi rapm offensicely

In 2006, he was 1st at 6.66, then ray and kobe at 5.71 and 5.65, the dirk and wades of tbe world were 4-5

In 2007, he was 1st at +7.15, wade second at 5.13

In 2008, he was 1st at +7.26, kobe second at +6.29, then bron at +5.07

In 2009, first at +7.11, bron at 6.11, others at the low 5a

Currys was third behind harden and bron, but he was within 0.25 of harden, durant, paul, and ginobli, ao not an outlier


For npi rapm, its similar, nash is still an outlier in 07 and 08 but obv noise effects it, although he is one in 05 in this one. Other notable is odoms is def noise in 09 based off him being higher than bron offensicely and being near netural or negative on offense the year after and before so that would have effected kobe negatively.

Currys 6th in 2014 there

So my reasoning on curry not being an outlier in impact is because he was in the same level as 4-5 other guys and was in a situation where he was the only ball handler and most of his impact came from how bad the team was with him off the court given his on court rtg was good but nothing special for a superstar.

Rapm itself is noisy but someone being an outlier multiple years, curry not being one, and other factors that would inflatebhis raw net rtg, that isnt even close to as impressive as nash's was contextually, make it pretty clear he wasnt a nash level outlier

Curry's +/- is an outlier for multiple years.

Only looking at 2014 buddy

[WarriorGM]

Nashs rapm was an outlier

For pi rapm offensicely

In 2006, he was 1st at 6.66, then ray and kobe at 5.71 and 5.65, the dirk and wades of tbe world were 4-5

In 2007, he was 1st at +7.15, wade second at 5.13

In 2008, he was 1st at +7.26, kobe second at +6.29, then bron at +5.07

In 2009, first at +7.11, bron at 6.11, others at the low 5a

Currys was third behind harden and bron, but he was within 0.25 of harden, durant, paul, and ginobli, ao not an outlier


For npi rapm, its similar, nash is still an outlier in 07 and 08 but obv noise effects it, although he is one in 05 in this one. Other notable is odoms is def noise in 09 based off him being higher than bron offensicely and being near netural or negative on offense the year after and before so that would have effected kobe negatively.

Currys 6th in 2014 there

So my reasoning on curry not being an outlier in impact is because he was in the same level as 4-5 other guys and was in a situation where he was the only ball handler and most of his impact came from how bad the team was with him off the court given his on court rtg was good but nothing special for a superstar.

Rapm itself is noisy but someone being an outlier multiple years, curry not being one, and other factors that would inflatebhis raw net rtg, that isnt even close to as impressive as nash's was contextually, make it pretty clear he wasnt a nash level outlier

Curry's +/- is an outlier for multiple years.

Only looking at 2014 buddy

Curry led the league in +/- even in 2014

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Totals

Given that there were 7(!) teams with a better wins record than the Warriors that year that is indeed an outlier.

[Dutchball97]

I don't think Nash' BPM and VORP being unremarkable is just about low steal numbers, it looks much more heavily impacted by his negative defense. You can also see Nash didn't step up in the play-offs as his BPM was routinely lower in the play-offs than the regular season.

It's not like Nash doesn't deserve consideration here but being a negative on defense as well as a so so play-off performer are legit criticisms that make me hesitant to go for him.

On the other hand, Moses was pretty much in the same boat and he's already voted in. Maybe the ring is the difference or something.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Curry's +/- is an outlier for multiple years.

Only looking at 2014 buddy

Curry led the league in +/- even in 2014

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Totals

Given that there were 7(!) teams with a better wins record than the Warriors that year that is indeed an outlier.

We were only talking about offense lol, currys on court offensive rtg is what matters there and it was good but not anywhwre near outlier territory,

[70sFan]

I don't think Nash' BPM and VORP being unremarkable is just about low steal numbers, it looks much more heavily impacted by his negative defense. You can also see Nash didn't step up in the play-offs as his BPM was routinely lower in the play-offs than the regular season.

It's not like Nash doesn't deserve consideration here but being a negative on defense as well as a so so play-off performer are legit criticisms that make me hesitant to go for him.

On the other hand, Moses was pretty much in the same boat and he's already voted in. Maybe the ring is the difference or something.

Nash had low BPM and VORP numbers because these are boxscore stats and Nash was low volume scorer who had high TOV% (again, strictly because of low volume scoring). It's true that his DBPM is usually negative, but his OBPM isn't high either relative to other all-time great offensive players.

As far as playoffs goes, Nash was certainly elite in postseason. In 2005-10 period he went from 17-11 with 3.5 tov and 63 TS% in 34 mpg in RS to 20-11 with 3.8 tov and 60 TS% in 38 mpg in playoffs. Oddin already showed that Nash production against top defenses is remarkable. On top of that, Suns always sustained their offensive excellence in playoffs.

Nash is a perfect example of why boxscore components like BPM or PER have very clear limitations. I don't see any reason to call Nash underwhelming in playoffs at all. He's one of the better ones left in fact.

[dcstanley]

Not participating, just reading for enjoyment but I just don't see the argument for KD and CP3 impacting winning more than Curry. While I do appreciate the longevity concern, I think Curry has been a more valuable player in the past seven seasons than any seven season stretch in either KD or CP3's career. I would also venture to say that Curry arguably has two or three seasons better than either of their best. KD's claim over Curry, in particular, is very dubious imo.

[Dutchball97]

I don't think Nash' BPM and VORP being unremarkable is just about low steal numbers, it looks much more heavily impacted by his negative defense. You can also see Nash didn't step up in the play-offs as his BPM was routinely lower in the play-offs than the regular season.

It's not like Nash doesn't deserve consideration here but being a negative on defense as well as a so so play-off performer are legit criticisms that make me hesitant to go for him.

On the other hand, Moses was pretty much in the same boat and he's already voted in. Maybe the ring is the difference or something.

Nash had low BPM and VORP numbers because these are boxscore stats and Nash was low volume scorer who had high TOV% (again, strictly because of low volume scoring). It's true that his DBPM is usually negative, but his OBPM isn't high either relative to other all-time great offensive players.

As far as playoffs goes, Nash was certainly elite in postseason. In 2005-10 period he went from 17-11 with 3.5 tov and 63 TS% in 34 mpg in RS to 20-11 with 3.8 tov and 60 TS% in 38 mpg in playoffs. Oddin already showed that Nash production against top defenses is remarkable. On top of that, Suns always sustained their offensive excellence in playoffs.

Nash is a perfect example of why boxscore components like BPM or PER have very clear limitations. I don't see any reason to call Nash underwhelming in playoffs at all. He's one of the better ones left in fact.

But do we just forget that Nash' defense was a big problem, even with how little PG defense matters, it's still a huge problem in the play-offs to have a negative defender. It's also a fact Nash should've shot more himself. If he committed to shooting more, he'd have a higher OBPM.

I don't see how scoring a few points more on worse TS% is proof that Nash stepped up in the post-season either.

[sansterre]

Oh, I'll grant you about Curry's peak being way better than Drexler's peak, but that just means that everything besides those five years for Curry is way worse than what Drexler averaged (since it seems like Curry's career and Drexler's best eleven are comparable). Per 36 aren't really fair, since Drexler played more minutes per game. And you can't really say that Curry's being underrated in the comparison because of his offensive role. Drexler would have given the hair he never had to play with the teammates Curry has had to work with. Do you think playing alongside Durant might have helped Drexler? That seems pretty likely to me.

If you're voting for peak, duh, Curry's your first second and third choices. But I think a pretty substantial argument can be made that Drexler's career brought more value than Curry's, even if we're giving extra credit to top years.

The hard part is I think that Golden State's success bleeds into Curry's even and above how good Curry has been, and Portland's struggles bleed into Drexler's reputation, even and above what is merited.

I just want to say I think you are very low on Drexler's teammates and the degree to which Clyde carried those Blazer teams. I've always felt those were very talented and deep teams aided by being coached with one of the best hc's of that era. Porter was a great pg, Kersey fit the up tempo style of that team very well and Buck Williams was perfect fit for that team as a very good rebounding/defensive pf. Its also worth noting I think that from 90-92(the best Blazer teams that Clyde played on) Porter actually led those teams in both rs and ps win shares in 90 & 91 and in ps ws in 92. In short, I don't think Clyde actually carried those teams that much. He was the star player but not doing a LeBron circa 08-10 carry job.

Sorry, I probably exaggerated. Porter was very good. I guess, what I mean to say is that the roster was fairly specialized. Kersey was gifted athletically but had a limited skillset. Duckworth was fairly worthless. Porter was a great shooter but never took many shots. Buck Williams was awesome but was dependent on being very selective for his efficiency (like John Salley). All of this worked because Drexler could carry a Usage role in the high 20s at a solid level of efficiency. It's sort of like the late 80s Pistons: you've got lots of low usage specialists. To make it work, you need a few higher usage guys to use up the possessions, even if they're not great (hence, Vinne Johnson and James Edwards). Drexler was the guy who could make it work. He was also the best passer on the team, and one of the better defenders.

All I mean, is that all of his teammates are really nice role players. The low usage, high efficiency, rebounding machine? Great scaling piece for a good squad. The hyper-athletic, dominant rebounding wing that played strong defense, but couldn't really shoot, score efficiently or pass well? Great scaling piece for a good squad. Extremely efficient shooting PG who doesn't take too many shots, plays decent defense and also passes well? Great scaling piece. But to make those pieces work you need one player with high usage who can run the offense, and that was Drexler. Win Shares may think that Porter and Drexler are comparable, but BPM thinks that Drexler was considerably better. I think that was a slightly above average team that Drexler took to the Finals twice (and based on how they played after Drexler left, there may be something to that).

[sansterre]

1. John Stockton - I realize he's not a sexy pick, but he actually really good at his peak. Super efficient shooting, high assists, low turnovers, didn't make mistakes . . . I mean, he's just a really good point guard. Stockton's drawbacks? I see two. One, he never scored in volume (and for whatever reason, everybody loves volume scoring). And two, that he played with terminator-like consistency for so long with the same team that kept coming up short corrupts his narrative. Because Utah never won it's easy to dismiss Stockton with "just wasn't good enough, and that he played for so long just makes him not good enough for longer". Was he ever a Top 5 player? I don't think so. But he was almost certainly a Top 10 player for more than a decade. If he'd been the point guard in Chicago for the duration of his career he'd be ranked in the top 20 easy. But he played in Utah with Malone and not a whole lot else to work with. He was really good for really long. And that's enough for me.

2. Scottie Pippen - Basically, name anything that isn't "1st option scoring" and Pippen was amazing at it. Passing? Great. Rebounding? Really great. Defense? Pippen may be the best defensive non-big *ever*. Could he be the first option on an offense? He could, but it wasn't what he was built for. He was built for secondary playmaking, off-ball cutting, board crashing and murderous defense. If Pippen is your first option, you'd better have an amazing team around him to make it work. But if he's your second option . . . you're in a really good position. Pippen could fit on almost any roster ever. '74 Celtics instead of Havlicek? Sure! '90 Pistons instead of Rodman? Sure! He brings everything you could possibly want to the table and then some; Pippen was crazy scalable. He's prone to being underrated because he's not a first option scorer (at a championship level) but he was great at everything else and has a history of excellent postseason play. Do you realize how many roster combinations his skillset unlocks? Scottie Pippen may not be a flashy championship piece, but that doesn't make him less valuable.

3. Clyde Drexler - I know, I know, Drexler above Curry? But seriously. Drexler. He's got a Prime WOWYR comparable to Garnett, Kareem and Russell. He's got a career WOWYR comparable to Larry Bird and Steve Nash. He's a solid high usage scorer with decent efficiency, he's a good rebounder (and one of the best offensive rebounding 2s ever), he's a good passer who doesn't turn it over much and he was a very good defender, posting high steals and blocks totals consistently. Was he a dominant first option? No. But he was good at everything. And he carried the Blazers *hard*. I've looked at that roster: I'm not saying that it was garbage, but that team won the Western Conference twice only because of Drexler. When he was traded the Blazers went from averaging 107 points per game to 101 points per game for the rest of the year; losing him knocked them from being a +6.1 team to a +1.2 team (not adjusted for opposition). He carried a huge load, posting Heliocentrism ratings of 37% and 42% for two Conference Winners (43% and 38% in the playoffs for those years). Did he fall off in the playoffs? Yeah, a little. His volume shrank slightly and his efficiency dropped a bit, but not more than you'd expect against playoff opposition. And his rebounding, passing and defense retained value just fine. It's easy to point to the player with a narrow peak who had one insane skill (if that skill is scoring). Drexler was really good for a long peak (probably an 11-year peak from '87-'97) and he was good at *everything* which means that he'd be a quality addition to most rosters.

Here's Drexler's eleven year peak compared to Curry's eleven year peak (kidding, this is his whole career) (this is per game):

Curry: 23.5 / 4.5 / 6.6, 0.7 offensive rebounds, 1.7 steals, 3.1 turnovers, 62.3% TS, over 699 games
Drexler: 22.5 / 6.7 / 5.8, 2.6 offensive rebounds, 2.1 steals, 2.8 turnovers, 55.2% TS, over 779 games

Curry: 103.2 Win Shares, 0.207 WS/48, +6.4 BPM, 50.7 VORP
Drexler: 112.2 Win Shares, 0.189 WS/48, +6.0 BPM, 57.9 VORP

Curry's the better scorer, no doubt. He's a slightly better passer. But Drexler's a much better rebounder and much better defender. And he's played in more games, which gives him more aggregate value (even if all the metrics think that Curry was slightly better per game).

But what about the playoffs?

Curry: 26.5 / 5.4 / 6.3, 0.8 offensive rebounds, 1.6 steals, 3.5 turnovers, 60.9% TS (112 games)
Drexler: 21.6 / 7.2 / 6.2, 2.5 offensive rebounds, 1.9 steals, 2.7 turnovers, 53.9% TS (122 games)

Curry: 17.1 Win Shares, 0.194 WS/48, +6.9 BPM, 9.5 VORP
Drexler: 14.7 Win Shares, 0.146 WS/48, +6.1 BPM, 9.9 VORP

So at this point Curry's lead in scoring has expanded (the gap in efficiency is the same, but the volume gap has increased), but now Drexler's a comparable distributer with fewer turnovers, while being the better rebounder (especially offensive), and defender. The aggregate stats think that Curry was better in the playoffs, but not by much.

And let's not forget that Drexler has four more seasons that we're not even considering.

I'm just saying. Clyde Drexler was really good.

Up until this project I don’t think i’ve ever seen Drexler ranked ahead of Wade. And rarely Pippen, can you explain that?

Of course! Obviously I can't prove any of it. But there are several biases in play here:

1) People love scoring. Wade was a better scorer than Drexler and Pippen. At his peak, his volume was incredible.
2) People love peaks. Wade's peak was quite high, definitely higher than Pippen and Drexler.
3) People loooove when a single player uses a ton of possessions to lift a team to the title. Wade did it in '06. Neither Drexler or Pippen did it.

But of course, the inverse of all of those biases favor Drexler and Pippen:

1) Things that aren't scoring. Wade was a strong passer, but he was a weaker rebounder than Pippen and Drexler (despite being quite good himself). And he looks like a weaker defender than them (which may have been a byproduct of his offensive usage, but that still counts). And he spaced the floor worse.
2) Sustained Value. Wade has three really strong seasons ('05-07) and then another five really strong seasons ('09-13). His career besides those years is fairly negligible. Compare that with Drexler who played at a high level from '87 to '97.

Riddle me this Batman: if the '06 Heat lose to the Mavericks, do we still have this discussion? I feel like a particular selling-point for Wade is that he "lifted his team to the championship" even though the '06 Heat were probably the weakest title-winner in the last two decades. Conversely, the '92 Blazers have a more impressive profile, but they happened to run into the '92 Bulls.

Wade was obviously the best floor-raiser of the three. But I think the other two have arguments that they added value in ways that Wade did not. And in order to push Wade here you've got to believe that his floor-raising during his peak was so good that it overcomes the defense/scalability over more years for the other two.

My rankings are built on a BPM->CORP converter for career value that uses half regular season BPM and half postseason BPM. I'm not saying that the rankings are proven or anything. But Wade fits the profile of a player that would be very easy to overrate. And I know that Pippen and Drexler aren't going to be showing up in serious voting right now (especially Drexler). But at least their names are circulating a bit.

Thanks for the outstanding open-ended question!

[70sFan]

I don't think Nash' BPM and VORP being unremarkable is just about low steal numbers, it looks much more heavily impacted by his negative defense. You can also see Nash didn't step up in the play-offs as his BPM was routinely lower in the play-offs than the regular season.

It's not like Nash doesn't deserve consideration here but being a negative on defense as well as a so so play-off performer are legit criticisms that make me hesitant to go for him.

On the other hand, Moses was pretty much in the same boat and he's already voted in. Maybe the ring is the difference or something.

Nash had low BPM and VORP numbers because these are boxscore stats and Nash was low volume scorer who had high TOV% (again, strictly because of low volume scoring). It's true that his DBPM is usually negative, but his OBPM isn't high either relative to other all-time great offensive players.

As far as playoffs goes, Nash was certainly elite in postseason. In 2005-10 period he went from 17-11 with 3.5 tov and 63 TS% in 34 mpg in RS to 20-11 with 3.8 tov and 60 TS% in 38 mpg in playoffs. Oddin already showed that Nash production against top defenses is remarkable. On top of that, Suns always sustained their offensive excellence in playoffs.

Nash is a perfect example of why boxscore components like BPM or PER have very clear limitations. I don't see any reason to call Nash underwhelming in playoffs at all. He's one of the better ones left in fact.

But do we just forget that Nash' defense was a big problem, even with how little PG defense matters, it's still a huge problem in the play-offs to have a negative defender. It's also a fact Nash should've shot more himself. If he committed to shooting more, he'd have a higher OBPM.

I don't see how scoring a few points more on worse TS% is proof that Nash stepped up in the post-season either.

Yeah, defense is a problem. I mostly talked about his offensive production though.

I don't think Nash should have shot more at all - Suns were absolutely dominant offensively in playoffs during his prime and he was the main ball-handler and creator:

2005 Suns: +17 rORtg
2006 Suns: +9.5 rORtg
2007 Suns: +7.6 rORtg
2008 Suns: +3.1 rORtg
2010 Suns: 13.4 rORtg

It's better than anything we've seen from Curry's Warriors outside of 2017. I mean, you are right - Nash would have had higher BPM if he shot more, but would this make his team better? I think that maximizing your team's offense is more important than playing for the highest BPM.

As to efficiency decrease - it's true but it's not like he became inefficient - he upped his scoring by considerable margin (2 points per75 is not small increase) and his efficiency stayed on elite level.

[Dutchball97]

Nash had low BPM and VORP numbers because these are boxscore stats and Nash was low volume scorer who had high TOV% (again, strictly because of low volume scoring). It's true that his DBPM is usually negative, but his OBPM isn't high either relative to other all-time great offensive players.

As far as playoffs goes, Nash was certainly elite in postseason. In 2005-10 period he went from 17-11 with 3.5 tov and 63 TS% in 34 mpg in RS to 20-11 with 3.8 tov and 60 TS% in 38 mpg in playoffs. Oddin already showed that Nash production against top defenses is remarkable. On top of that, Suns always sustained their offensive excellence in playoffs.

Nash is a perfect example of why boxscore components like BPM or PER have very clear limitations. I don't see any reason to call Nash underwhelming in playoffs at all. He's one of the better ones left in fact.

But do we just forget that Nash' defense was a big problem, even with how little PG defense matters, it's still a huge problem in the play-offs to have a negative defender. It's also a fact Nash should've shot more himself. If he committed to shooting more, he'd have a higher OBPM.

I don't see how scoring a few points more on worse TS% is proof that Nash stepped up in the post-season either.

Yeah, defense is a problem. I mostly talked about his offensive production though.

I don't think Nash should have shot more at all - Suns were absolutely dominant offensively in playoffs during his prime and he was the main ball-handler and creator:

2005 Suns: +17 rORtg
2006 Suns: +9.5 rORtg
2007 Suns: +7.6 rORtg
2008 Suns: +3.1 rORtg
2010 Suns: 13.4 rORtg

It's better than anything we've seen from Curry's Warriors outside of 2017. I mean, you are right - Nash would have had higher BPM if he shot more, but would this make his team better? I think that maximizing your team's offense is more important than playing for the highest BPM.

As to efficiency decrease - it's true but it's not like he became inefficient - he upped his scoring by considerable margin (2 points per75 is not small increase) and his efficiency stayed on elite level.

I mean Nash had a tendency to make the pass even if he didn't have to. This isn't always a bad thing because the offense was always in motion but Nash definitely also didn't take some shots he should've. When you're as good of a shooter as Nash, sometimes the better choice is to take it yourself instead of passing it to a worse shooter in a better position. I think that, at times, Nash shooting more would have definitely improved the offense.

I didn't call him a bad play-off performer iirc, more like unremarkable. While he didn't slump in the play-offs, he didn't step up either. Compared to most other candidates at this point, he doesn't seem to have a defining play-off run where everything came together.

[70sFan]

But do we just forget that Nash' defense was a big problem, even with how little PG defense matters, it's still a huge problem in the play-offs to have a negative defender. It's also a fact Nash should've shot more himself. If he committed to shooting more, he'd have a higher OBPM.

I don't see how scoring a few points more on worse TS% is proof that Nash stepped up in the post-season either.

Yeah, defense is a problem. I mostly talked about his offensive production though.

I don't think Nash should have shot more at all - Suns were absolutely dominant offensively in playoffs during his prime and he was the main ball-handler and creator:

2005 Suns: +17 rORtg
2006 Suns: +9.5 rORtg
2007 Suns: +7.6 rORtg
2008 Suns: +3.1 rORtg
2010 Suns: 13.4 rORtg

It's better than anything we've seen from Curry's Warriors outside of 2017. I mean, you are right - Nash would have had higher BPM if he shot more, but would this make his team better? I think that maximizing your team's offense is more important than playing for the highest BPM.

As to efficiency decrease - it's true but it's not like he became inefficient - he upped his scoring by considerable margin (2 points per75 is not small increase) and his efficiency stayed on elite level.

I mean Nash had a tendency to make the pass even if he didn't have to. This isn't always a bad thing because the offense was always in motion but Nash definitely also didn't take some shots he should've. When you're as good of a shooter as Nash, sometimes the better choice is to take it yourself instead of passing it to a worse shooter in a better position. I think that, at times, Nash shooting more would have definitely improved the offense.

I didn't call him a bad play-off performer iirc, more like unremarkable. While he didn't slump in the play-offs, he didn't step up either. Compared to most other candidates at this point, he doesn't seem to have a defining play-off run where everything came together.

But Suns offense was the best ever expect Showtime Lakers and MJ Bulls in playoffs basically. I mean, if you say that Phoenix would have been better with Nash shooting more then you expect them to be by far the best offensive team in NBA history. Given that they were talented, but nothing special in historical sense, I don't think it's reasonable.

I think that Nash is more consistent and more impressive than guys like Curry or Thomas which are already considered (and neither one is good defensively). Even though I'm Stockton fan, Nash is also clearly superior postseason performer than him as well.

If you think about defining run in a way that leads to ring then you are right, but I think that whole 2005-07 run is remarkable and he also proved a lot in 2010 when he didn't have D'Antoni on his side anymore.

[Dutchball97]

Yeah, defense is a problem. I mostly talked about his offensive production though.

I don't think Nash should have shot more at all - Suns were absolutely dominant offensively in playoffs during his prime and he was the main ball-handler and creator:

2005 Suns: +17 rORtg
2006 Suns: +9.5 rORtg
2007 Suns: +7.6 rORtg
2008 Suns: +3.1 rORtg
2010 Suns: 13.4 rORtg

It's better than anything we've seen from Curry's Warriors outside of 2017. I mean, you are right - Nash would have had higher BPM if he shot more, but would this make his team better? I think that maximizing your team's offense is more important than playing for the highest BPM.

As to efficiency decrease - it's true but it's not like he became inefficient - he upped his scoring by considerable margin (2 points per75 is not small increase) and his efficiency stayed on elite level.

I mean Nash had a tendency to make the pass even if he didn't have to. This isn't always a bad thing because the offense was always in motion but Nash definitely also didn't take some shots he should've. When you're as good of a shooter as Nash, sometimes the better choice is to take it yourself instead of passing it to a worse shooter in a better position. I think that, at times, Nash shooting more would have definitely improved the offense.

I didn't call him a bad play-off performer iirc, more like unremarkable. While he didn't slump in the play-offs, he didn't step up either. Compared to most other candidates at this point, he doesn't seem to have a defining play-off run where everything came together.

But Suns offense was the best ever expect Showtime Lakers and MJ Bulls in playoffs basically. I mean, if you say that Phoenix would have been better with Nash shooting more then you expect them to be by far the best offensive team in NBA history. Given that they were talented, but nothing special in historical sense, I don't think it's reasonable.

I think that Nash is more consistent and more impressive than guys like Curry or Thomas which are already considered (and neither one is good defensively). Even though I'm Stockton fan, Nash is also clearly superior postseason performer than him as well.

If you think about defining run in a way that leads to ring then you are right, but I think that whole 2005-07 run is remarkable and he also proved a lot in 2010 when he didn't have D'Antoni on his side anymore.

Just to clarify with he should shoot more I don't mean he should try to be Curry. When you look at the 2005 play-offs for example, the Suns won every game where Nash scored under 20 points, while they lost a game where Nash scored 48 as well as some other high scoring performances from Nash that led to a loss. What this tells me is that when everything is working as intended, then amazing. However, you're also relying on role players to make their shots in high pressure situations. It's not like Nash couldn't take over a game in terms of scoring but when he did it was often as a last resort. I don't necessarily think the Suns offense would've been better had Nash shot more but I expect it would've been more consistent and arguably more play-off resilient.

I also think there is a pretty massive defensive difference between Nash' defense and the defense of guys like Curry and IT. Nash might be the worst defender ever, Curry and IT at least have some upsides between them. IT had the effort and the leadership, while Curry is great at playing the passing lanes. I think Nash is a defensive liability, while I wouldn't say the same about Curry and IT.

[70sFan]

I mean Nash had a tendency to make the pass even if he didn't have to. This isn't always a bad thing because the offense was always in motion but Nash definitely also didn't take some shots he should've. When you're as good of a shooter as Nash, sometimes the better choice is to take it yourself instead of passing it to a worse shooter in a better position. I think that, at times, Nash shooting more would have definitely improved the offense.

I didn't call him a bad play-off performer iirc, more like unremarkable. While he didn't slump in the play-offs, he didn't step up either. Compared to most other candidates at this point, he doesn't seem to have a defining play-off run where everything came together.

But Suns offense was the best ever expect Showtime Lakers and MJ Bulls in playoffs basically. I mean, if you say that Phoenix would have been better with Nash shooting more then you expect them to be by far the best offensive team in NBA history. Given that they were talented, but nothing special in historical sense, I don't think it's reasonable.

I think that Nash is more consistent and more impressive than guys like Curry or Thomas which are already considered (and neither one is good defensively). Even though I'm Stockton fan, Nash is also clearly superior postseason performer than him as well.

If you think about defining run in a way that leads to ring then you are right, but I think that whole 2005-07 run is remarkable and he also proved a lot in 2010 when he didn't have D'Antoni on his side anymore.

Just to clarify with he should shoot more I don't mean he should try to be Curry. When you look at the 2005 play-offs for example, the Suns won every game where Nash scored under 20 points, while they lost a game where Nash scored 48 as well as some other high scoring performances from Nash that led to a loss. What this tells me is that when everything is working as intended, then amazing. However, you're also relying on role players to make their shots in high pressure situations. It's not like Nash couldn't take over a game in terms of scoring but when he did it was often as a last resort. I don't necessarily think the Suns offense would've been better had Nash shot more but I expect it would've been more consistent and arguably more play-off resilient.

I also think there is a pretty massive defensive difference between Nash' defense and the defense of guys like Curry and IT. Nash might be the worst defender ever, Curry and IT at least have some upsides between them. IT had the effort and the leadership, while Curry is great at playing the passing lanes. I think Nash is a defensive liability, while I wouldn't say the same about Curry and IT.

Although I do think that Nash is below average defender, calling him the worst ever is a huge exaggaration.

[Baski]

Curry's career isn't even close to done yet so I think its sort of disingenuous for people to be amazed that he's being voted behind players who have that advantage over him.

Disingenuous? Uh, nope.

Y'all, when they made a best player list 50 years into basketball's existence, Hank Luisetti ranked 2nd despite never having played pro ball. In the NBA's Top 50 list they had Shaq after only a few years in the NBA and I'm quite sure Walton was seen as a given despite having a pittance of the longevity that Curry already has.

Was it a ranked list? If not, do you think anyone at the time had Shaq around top 20 by 1996? If Curry missed out on this year's top 50 I'd get what you're saying but he'll be in soon.