Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #61-65, 2009 DEN, 1997 UTA, 1984 LAL, 2000 POR, 1962 BOS

[sansterre]

As I said, I hope to figure out what kind of a split is more predictive of playoff success (whether weighting playoff games 5 to 1, 7 to 1, 10 to 1 or whatever) is a better predictor of the next round's performance, and use that.

Let me ask you this. If it turned out that weighting playoffs even more heavily (say, 10 RS games to every 1 PS game, which would be more like 80% postseason for Finals teams) was more predictive of success, would you still want the 50%?

Or phrased another way, is your concept of greatness "Who performed the best in aggregate?" or "Whose performance was the most consistent with a title-winning team?"

I lean toward the latter because it's something I can test empirically, but I'm curious about the impressions of others.

[eminence]

Ahh, the good ol' descriptive vs predictive debate.

It's a scale, how much an you increase the predictive portion by weighting playoff games more? Idk. I like the idea of 50/50 as the starting point (easy to digest, gives significant weight to both) and looking at how things improve from there, if you can only gain a couple points of predictive power while going to 10 to 1 or whatever then I'd say it's not really worth it.

[sansterre]

I suppose I'll take it to the credit of everyone involved that the response to the '09 Nuggets at #65 wasn't "You and this system are clearly stupid" but instead was "Wow, that's interesting. I think that they're this high reveals some flaws in the system, but both the flaws and the team are neat to talk about."

Also, Team #64, the 1997 Utah Jazz!

[Dr Positivity]

I think 09 Nuggets are one of the most underrated teams ever, not only did they play the Lakers even the first four games I would argue they outplayed them save a few late game gaffes and blown leads in Games 1 and 3, it could have been 3-1 Nuggets. But being ahead of some teams like 00 Lakers/85 Celtics/82 Lakers, etc., no way.

[homecourtloss]

I suppose I'll take it to the credit of everyone involved that the response to the '09 Nuggets at #65 wasn't "You and this system are clearly stupid" but instead was "Wow, that's interesting. I think that they're this high reveals some flaws in the system, but both the flaws and the team are neat to talk about."

Also, Team #64, the 1997 Utah Jazz!

Because this is the RealGM Player Comparison board that has the best and most nuanced discussion of player evaluations anywhere. Had you posted this on the General board, you’d see the reaction you’re describing along with “No non championship belong on this list” or some such nonsense. Glad you posted it here.

[colts18]

I love the Stockton-CP3 comparison. I made that a few weeks ago because their games are so similar. Stockton and CP3 were both good mid-range players with strong passing, efficient scoring, great at generating steals.

They are similar in some aspects, but there are a few key differences. We only have data for Stockton's last 7 years (1997-2003), his age 34-40 years. We have data for CP3's whole career. Keep in mind we don't have Stockton's peak data. I'll compare Stockton's last 7 years vs CP3's last 7 years (2014-2020, Age 28-34):

Shooting stats:
% of shots in each range:
Stockton....CP3
0-3 ft: 34% vs 10%
3-10 ft: 8% vs 12%
10-16 ft: 14% vs 23%
16-23 ft: 28% vs 21%
3P: 16% vs 35%

CP3 and Stockton shot a similar amount of mid range shots from 10-23 feet (42% vs 44%). The key difference is that Stockton was much more willing to go to the basket. Stockton was taking 1/3 of his shots at the rim while CP3 barely went to the basket. At the same time, CP3 was much more willing to shoot 3s than Stockton due to the era differences. As a result, Stockton's average shot distance was 12 feet vs CP3's 17 feet.


Shooting % in each range:
Stockton....CP3
0-3 ft: 64% vs 66%
3-10 ft: 36% vs 48%
10-16 ft: 46% vs 50%
16-23 ft: 50% vs 48%
3P: 40% vs 38%

Very similar profiles in shooting. Both of them are among the best mid range shooters of this era.

Size:
Stockton: 6-1, 170 lbs.
CP3: 6-1, 175 lbs.

# of dunks:
Stockton: 0
CP3: 4

Exact same size and similar athletic abilities.

Per 100 Possession stats:
Stockton: 22-15-5, 4.4 TOV, 3.0 stl, 22 PER, 6.0 BPM, +10.8 On/off
CP3: 28-14-7, 3.6 TOV, 2.9 stl, 25 PER, 7.0 BPM, +13.3 On/off

Stats aren't too far off. CP3 was a better scorer and had more skills creating his own baskets. Everything else is pretty similar. CP3 has a small edge in advanced stats due to his age.

The shooting, the passing, defense, and advanced stats are pretty similar between the two players. Here is the biggest difference between the two

Stockton......CP3
Usage Rate: 19% vs 24%
% of 2 Pointers assisted: 45% vs 12%
% of 3 Pointers assisted: 65% vs 34%

CP3 took on a bigger scoring burden than Stockton. But more importantly, he was creating the shots himself while Stockton had teammates helping him create shots. Look at the vast disparity in assisted 2 pointers. CP3 was nearly 4x less likely to have a 2 point bucket assisted than Stockton.

Overall, I do agree that CP3 is the closest comparison to Stockton. Both of them are amazing mid range shooters, skilled passers, and adept at generating steals. If prime Stockton was in the NBA, he would be putting up similar numbers to CP3 but with less scoring.

[sansterre]

I love the Stockton-CP3 comparison. I made that a few weeks ago because their games are so similar. Stockton and CP3 were both good mid-range players with strong passing, efficient scoring, great at generating steals.

They are similar in some aspects, but there are a few key differences. We only have data for Stockton's last 7 years (1997-2003), his age 34-40 years. We have data for CP3's whole career. Keep in mind we don't have Stockton's peak data. I'll compare Stockton's last 7 years vs CP3's last 7 years (2014-2020, Age 28-34):

Shooting stats:
% of shots in each range:
Stockton....CP3
0-3 ft: 34% vs 10%
3-10 ft: 8% vs 12%
10-16 ft: 14% vs 23%
16-23 ft: 28% vs 21%
3P: 16% vs 35%

CP3 and Stockton shot a similar amount of mid range shots from 10-23 feet (42% vs 44%). The key difference is that Stockton was much more willing to go to the basket. Stockton was taking 1/3 of his shots at the rim while CP3 barely went to the basket. At the same time, CP3 was much more willing to shoot 3s than Stockton due to the era differences. As a result, Stockton's average shot distance was 12 feet vs CP3's 17 feet.


Shooting % in each range:
Stockton....CP3
0-3 ft: 64% vs 66%
3-10 ft: 36% vs 48%
10-16 ft: 46% vs 50%
16-23 ft: 50% vs 48%
3P: 40% vs 38%

Very similar profiles in shooting. Both of them are among the best mid range shooters of this era.

Size:
Stockton: 6-1, 170 lbs.
CP3: 6-1, 175 lbs.

# of dunks:
Stockton: 0
CP3: 4

Exact same size and similar athletic abilities.

Per 100 Possession stats:
Stockton: 22-15-5, 4.4 TOV, 3.0 stl, 22 PER, 6.0 BPM, +10.8 On/off
CP3: 28-14-7, 3.6 TOV, 2.9 stl, 25 PER, 7.0 BPM, +13.3 On/off

Stats aren't too far off. CP3 was a better scorer and had more skills creating his own baskets. Everything else is pretty similar. CP3 has a small edge in advanced stats due to his age.

The shooting, the passing, defense, and advanced stats are pretty similar between the two players. Here is the biggest difference between the two

Stockton......CP3
Usage Rate: 19% vs 24%
% of 2 Pointers assisted: 45% vs 12%
% of 3 Pointers assisted: 65% vs 34%

CP3 took on a bigger scoring burden than Stockton. But more importantly, he was creating the shots himself while Stockton had teammates helping him create shots. Look at the vast disparity in assisted 2 pointers. CP3 was nearly 4x less likely to have a 2 point bucket assisted than Stockton.

Overall, I do agree that CP3 is the closest comparison to Stockton. Both of them are amazing mid range shooters, skilled passers, and adept at generating steals. If prime Stockton was in the NBA, he would be putting up similar numbers to CP3 but with less scoring.

And let's not forget that in that stat comparison we were comparing Stockton to Paul when he was six years younger. It's pretty nuts to think about how good he was even when he was quite old.

Also, announcing team #63, the 1984 Los Angeles Lakers!

[RCM88x]

It's really amazing how many times the Celtics and Lakers seemed to be handed high draft picks by incompetent organizations in this era. Both teams basically seem to win every trade they would make in the mid-late 70s thru the late 80s, it's really quite incredible.

[sansterre]

Bump for team #62, the 2000 Portland Trail Blazers!

[homecourtloss]

Bump for team #62, the 2000 Portland Trail Blazers!

Absolutely terrific write up for the 2000 Blazers.

Note: The 2000 Blazers aren’t updated in the thread title.

[sansterre]

Bump for team #62, the 2000 Portland Trail Blazers!

Absolutely terrific write up for the 2000 Blazers.

Note: The 2000 Blazers aren’t updated in the thread title.

Thanks for catching that!

I knew almost nothing about them going into it, and I was really surprised to see both how amazingly robust but starless their team was and the fact that, you could make a solid argument that they may have been the best team of 2000. I wish they were remembered more; they were so neat.

[colts18]

Bump for team #62, the 2000 Portland Trail Blazers!

Absolutely terrific write up for the 2000 Blazers.

Note: The 2000 Blazers aren’t updated in the thread title.

Thanks for catching that!

I knew almost nothing about them going into it, and I was really surprised to see both how amazingly robust but starless their team was and the fact that, you could make a solid argument that they may have been the best team of 2000. I wish they were remembered more; they were so neat.

You're making me feel old. The 2000 Blazers were an iconic team. Unfortunately they are going to be remembered most for choking in the 4th quarter. That Blazers team had most depth I've ever seen outside of the 2010s Spurs. They had Detlef Schrempf (underrated player), Brian Grant, Greg Anthony, Bonzi Wells, and Stacey Augmon on the bench. They had also a young Jermaine O'Neal buried deep on the bench. Hard-nosed, tough veteran squad. They gave the Lakers so much trouble because they of their size. Kobe said that the 2000 Blazers exposed his physical weakness in the post and made him work hard in the offseason to correct it.

[sansterre]

Bump for team #61, the 1962 Boston Celtics!

[trex_8063]

Quick question regarding placement:

'97 Jazz were an overall SRS of +9.13 and lost in finals; they're ranked #64.
'84 Lakers were an overall SRS of +7.65 and lost in the finals; they're ranked #63.

EDIT: For that matter the '00 Blazers are an overall SRS of +9.09 and lost in the conference finals, but are ranked #62.

? Is there a typo somehwere?

[trex_8063]

Had a couple comments to make wrt the '97 Jazz (a team I'm quite familiar with).......

Firstly, I'm not at all surprised by the extremely high rank of their "wingmen" % (particularly given how much BPM loves John Stockton's statline), nor how low they rank in terms of depth %. They're not awful in the 4th/5th best players department (Russell, Ostertag), but that was a pretty weak bench in '97. You can kinda see in the +/- data how this team literally falls off a cliff when the starters sit:
ALL of Malone, Hornacek, and Bryon Russell had a on/off > +20 (I like Malone's was something ridiculous like +22.5??), and Ostertag's was like +16, iirc.
Stockton's is the worst (at +7.6, iirc), but that's because he was the one tasked with carrying the 2nd unit while the other starters rested. This is reflected in the line-up frequencies you can look at on bbref: FOUR of the common Stockton line-ups were him with NO other starters (and I think another 3-4 of the common Stockton line-ups were him with just ONE other starter).

Karl Malone, otoh, doesn't have ANY line-ups listed that were him and NO other starters (and I think only two that were him with only ONE other starter).
Bottom line: tremendous starting line-up; crap bench.
fwiw, the bench would improve in '98 (mostly by way of Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley making strides forward as young players, also Chris Morris getting out of his slump a little); but '98 is also the first sort of post-prime year for Stockton, AND Ostertag has a bit of a disappointing year (just seemed less motivated, had arrived to training camp out of shape too, iirc).


On the Karl/Giannis comparison......I'm not sure how well it works [except maybe strictly by numbers]. Karl doesn't rely on rim running and transition as much as he did in his younger years. He really lives A LOT in the mid-range by this point.
You mentioned that neither really spreads the floor, but I don't think that's true at all where '97 Malone is concerned (bearing in mind that you don't have to have 3pt range to spread the floor as a big).

Malone had very reliable touch out to around 19-20', and the numbers suggest he's an entirely different animal from Giannis in this regard: Giannis's % from 16-23' in '18 was 33.9%; Malone's in '97 was 53.6% (and on significant volume, too). I mean, he is literally 20% better, and hitting them at a clip this year that sort of puts him in an all-time tier.

wrt to passing, I don't recall your exact wording, though it implied Malone was merely capable as a big-man passer......which I think undersells what he was by the late 90's. He makes a lot of high-leverage passes.
It's highlights (which are obviously cherry-picked, but still you get a good idea):

Watch on YouTube

otoh, Malone's passing is almost exclusively at a stand-still from the post or elbow (or rarely high-post or wing); he does NOT create off the dribble (which Giannis DOES).

Still great write-up; just pointing out the notable differences in play-style.

[sansterre]

Quick question regarding placement:

'97 Jazz were an overall SRS of +9.13 and lost in finals; they're ranked #64.
'84 Lakers were an overall SRS of +7.65 and lost in the finals; they're ranked #63.

EDIT: For that matter the '00 Blazers are an overall SRS of +9.09 and lost in the conference finals, but are ranked #62.

? Is there a typo somehwere?

Don't forget about standard deviations. The Lakers were worse on an SRS basis than the other two, but they were way past most of the rest of the teams in their year, while the Jazz, though having a better SRS, existed in a lower parity year and so stand out less.

[sansterre]

Had a couple comments to make wrt the '97 Jazz (a team I'm quite familiar with).......

Firstly, I'm not at all surprised by the extremely high rank of their "wingmen" % (particularly given how much BPM loves John Stockton's statline), nor how low they rank in terms of depth %. They're not awful in the 4th/5th best players department (Russell, Ostertag), but that was a pretty weak bench in '97. You can kinda see in the +/- data how this team literally falls off a cliff when the starters sit:
ALL of Malone, Hornacek, and Bryon Russell had a on/off > +20 (I like Malone's was something ridiculous like +22.5??), and Ostertag's was like +16, iirc.
Stockton's is the worst (at +7.6, iirc), but that's because he was the one tasked with carrying the 2nd unit while the other starters rested. This is reflected in the line-up frequencies you can look at on bbref: FOUR of the common Stockton line-ups were him with NO other starters (and I think another 3-4 of the common Stockton line-ups were him with just ONE other starter).

Karl Malone, otoh, doesn't have ANY line-ups listed that were him and NO other starters (and I think only two that were him with only ONE other starter).
Bottom line: tremendous starting line-up; crap bench.
fwiw, the bench would improve in '98 (mostly by way of Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley making strides forward as young players, also Chris Morris getting out of his slump a little); but '98 is also the first sort of post-prime year for Stockton, AND Ostertag has a bit of a disappointing year (just seemed less motivated, had arrived to training camp out of shape too, iirc).


On the Karl/Giannis comparison......I'm not sure how well it works [except maybe strictly by numbers]. Karl doesn't rely as much on rim running and transition as much as he did in his younger years. He really lives A LOT in the mid-range by this point.
You mentioned that neither really spreads the floor, but I don't think that's true at all where '97 Malone is concerned (bearing in mind that you don't have to have 3pt range to spread the floor as a big).
Malone had very reliable touch out to around 19-20', though, and the numbers suggest he's an entirely different animal from Giannis in this regard: Giannis's % from 16-23' in '20 was 33.9%; Malone's in '97 was 53.6% (and on significant volume, too). I mean, he is literally 20% better, and hitting them at a clip this year that sort of puts him in an all-time tier.

wrt to passing, I don't recall your exact wording, though it implied Malone was merely capable as a big-man passer......which I think undersells what he was by the late 90's. He makes a lot of high-leverage passes.
It's highlights (which are obviously cherry-picked, but still you get a good idea):

Watch on YouTube

otoh, Malone's passing is almost exclusively at a stand-still from the post or elbow (or rarely high-post or wing); he does NOT create off the dribble (which Giannis DOES).

Still great write-up; just pointing out the notable differences in play-style.

Yeah, the comps are and not style driven.

The goal isn't for people to see 2018 Giannis as a comp and think "Okay, so Malone was a super-long hyper-athletic freak who was a terror going to the rim". What I want them to do is think "Okay, so Malone was the absolute focal point of the offense, scoring a ton and with efficiency, a great rebounder (specifically on defense), no three point range, good passing and good defense." And all of that's true. And I apologize if I undersold Malone's passing; it's not always easy to use the right adjective, and often I'm grading without regard to position. So Marc Gasol is a "good" passer, even though he's one of the better passers from that position ever.

And fair point about Malone's midrange advantage.

[penbeast0]

I'm curious as to which your top Russell era Celtics team was. Can you let us know when you reach it?

[sansterre]

I'm curious as to which your top Russell era Celtics team was. Can you let us know when you reach it?

I definitely will. I'll want to bring it to a close since I'll have written about a ton of them.

But I don't mind saying that it's the '61 Celtics.

Their regular season SRS was fairly low (+4.94), but their playoffs were dominant. There were only two teams above +1 SRS besides them, the Nationals and the Hawks. And the Celtics crushed both of them. Two 4-1 series, one by +10.8 over the +2.6 Nationals and one by +12.4 over the +2.1 Hawks. So the Celtics had a postseason SRS of +13.94. And the final OSRS breakdown for the '61 NBA was:

Celtics: +9.17
Rest of NBA: +1.43, +0.64, +0.37, +0.27, -2.97, -3.04, -5.43.

So the gap between the 2nd best team in the league and the worst team (6.86) is smaller than the gap between the Celtics and the 2nd best team in the league (7.74). So at the intersection of 1) playing the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the league and blowing them apart by double digits, 2) having a postseason SRS of +13.94 (16th on the list, even if it's only ten games) and 3) outclassing their year/league by so much that it's not even funny . . . yeah. That's my top ranked Celtics team.

Hardly saying it's definitive or anything, but it's got what my formula looks for more than the others.