RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #26 (John Stockton)

[penbeast0]

Stockton v. Nash. These are my next two guys along with Patrick Ewing. Nash has the higher offensive peak but Stockton is close; he did nearly as much with much less offensive talent around him. Additionally, he has a strong defensive edge and nearly unmatched consistency and ironman performance.

Again there are a bunch of guys I could support and the last couple of picks and the next several could all be easily swapped around without my feeling someone is out of place. My next guys are Baylor, Frazier, Ewing, Harden, Gervin, and Wade. Because they are close, I can go with my prejudices a bit and eliminate Harden who is a great offensive player but seems lacking on the defensive and leadership ends of the spectrum. Gervin is weak in both defense and playmaking though his teams do reasonably well considering the talent around him. Baylor and Wade are incredible players individually but seemed to have some issues with health and inconsistency. This leaves me with Ewing and Frazier -- both great defensively, both very good offensively, both strong leaders. Frazier's case would be based on his great playoff performances, particularly in the finals. Like Hakeem or Jordan, he stepped up his game on the biggest stage. Ewing, on the other hand, has a long prime as a great player and is a center in an era where center is still influencing more plays than any other position. If I was starting a team and could pick one of these guys to start it with, it would be Ewing so I will go with that.

1. Stockton
2. Ewing
3. Nash

[Ancalagon]

I think a lot of the Stockton topics have been covered as nauseum on the last several threads. I tend to be in the camp that he was putting up monster numbers under Layden (with some playoff series as good or better than any PG in history not named Magic), he was slowed down and hamstrung during his prime under Sloan, and then he started to lead top offenses as soon as the Jazz got any modicum of talent.

What I do want to address is the topic of defense and the incessant discussion around Terry Porter, Kenny Smith, et al.

What I think is obvious by watching the games (which many posters have generously posted) is that Stockton was not used defensively in the way a modern defense would use any player. He had exceptional lateral quickness and strong hands, and for that reason he was expected to play a ball-hawking, rover role where he would help far, far off his man and attempt to get steals and disrupt the offense.

Part of that is era (with illegal defense rules and the need to help on the bigs of the era), and part of that is coaching.

He wouldn’t be used anything like that today. While he would still get steals, I don’t know if he would lead the league in steals. At the same time, a player with his lateral quickness, hands, and understanding of the game would likely have an even more positive impact on team defense. He would not be a guy teams would repeatedly seek out switches against to isolate in pick and roll plays.

I think some of the numbers that PGs put up against the Jazz were very much a function of how Stockton was used. And the perception at the time and comments from opposing players like Gary Payton (and, in fact, Terry Porter) indicate that his defense was widely respected.

Edited to add: it is extremely apparent from reading the stories in the press after Game 2 of the 1992 Blazers series or Game 4 of the 1995 Rockets series (to give a few examples) that Sloan - like most but not all coaches in his era - did not understand the impact of the 3-pointer on the game of basketball.

Tomjanovich’s Rockets set the record for threes made in a game (at the time) against the Jazz in the playoffs, and the Blazers broke the series record against the Jazz.

That isn’t a player’s fault. It feels like a coaching problem.

[Hal14]

Head to Head
Stockton: 14-8 W-L, 12 PPG, 9 AST-2.1 TOV, 3 Reb, 1.7 STL, 47 FG%, 44 3P%
Nash: 8-14 W-L, 11 PPG, 6 AST-3.0 TOV, 3 Reb, 0.5 STL, 40 FG%, 39 3P%

Stockton destroys Nash head to head despite being an old man. Nash struggled vs Stockton in a physical handchecking league.

This should be a reportable offense. Nash wasn't in his prime until 2002 where the Jazz went 1-3 against the Mavericks and then 2-2 in 2003. Obviously these don't matter because the Primes don't line-up but the fact that you tried to use this as an argument brings my entire post to completion--you aren't here for knowledge or objectivity--you are here because of your infatuation with John Stockton being better than Nash.

1) Nash entered the league in 96, yet you're saying we should just throw everything out the window and not count anything he did until 2002? You're saying his first SIX years are garbage and not worthy of comparing Nash during those seasons to a 39 year old Stockton, yet you think Nash is a top 26 player of all-time? Perhaps it should be held against Nash that he had so many unproductive seasons at the beginning of his career (as well as the 2-3 seasons at the end)?

2) Many players over the years have had some of the best seasons of their entire career in their first 1 or 2 seasons. Bellamy as a rookie, Kareem was a legend right off the bat, Duncan was an MVP candidate in his 2nd season, etc. yet we're supposed to throw out Nash's first 6 seasons?

3) Nash was a starting point guard, playing over 30 minutes a game beginning in 98-99..

[Hal14]

1. Elgin Baylor
3. John Havlicek
3. Isiah Thomas

Pettit just got voted in, but I'm voting for Baylor here. IMO Baylor is slightly better than Pettit because Baylor was faster, better passer and better ball handler. And in terms of impact, Baylor was Dr. J before Dr. J. Baylor was Connie Hawkins before Connie Hawkins. Jordan modeled his game after Dr. J, as did Dominique Wilkins. Kobe and LeBron modeled their game after Jordan. Baylor was a pioneer. He paved the way for all of the explosive, big, strong, athletic wings to come later.

And speaking of impact, you could also make the argument that Baylor is the one who invented the euro-step:

Watch on YouTube

Also, Pettit's crowning achievement was his 50 point, 19 rebound game to led the Hawks to the win in game 6 over the Celtics to clinch the 1958 NBA championship. However, Russell only played 20 minutes that game because he had a severely sprained ankle suffered in game 3 of that series. Baylor meanwhile, scored 61 points and pulled down 22 rebounds to lead the Lakers to a win over the Celtics in game 5 of the 1962 NBA finals, so Baylor put up better numbers and did it against a healthy Russell who played all 48 minutes of that game. Baylor also played all 48 minutes that game. Jerry West? He had 26 points, 4 rebounds and 0 assists.

Baylor is the best all-around player left on the board IMO when you take into account his scoring, rebounding, passing, defense, ball handling and ability to score/defend both inside and outside.

Baylor and Pettit are both very close and it's definitely debatable which was the greater player. I think both have a case to be top 20 of all time. Scary to think how good they would have been if they played in the modern era with the advantage of 50 years of advances in basketball skills, more favorable rule changes, less days off between games, better equipment, better facilities, better weight training, better nutrition, better sports science, etc.

Baylor's teammate Jerry West is the no. 13 player on this list. And while I do have West ranked ahead of Baylor all-time, it is very close, so if West is no. 13 then Baylor could definitely be the no. 26 guy, considering that when they were teammates, Baylor was often times the better player. Lakers broadcaster Chick Hearn was quoted saying that Baylor was the best player he covered - not West. West is quoted saying that Baylor was better than him. Both Baylor and West made first team all NBA 10 times. Baylor was a better rebounder than Wes, a bigger, stronger more powerful player who could score and defend just as well inside as he could outside.

Hondo is in my no. 2 spot here. 8 titles (8-0 in the NBA finals), Celtics all time leading scorer, outstanding defensive player, strong clutch player, 1 NBA finals MVP.

And yes, I do have Isiah ranked slightly ahead of Stockton and Nash. Isiah, Stockton and Nash - all 3 of them had good careers, and had good supporting casts. But of the 3, Nash is the only 1 who could never make it to the NBA finals and he's also the only one who couldn't play a lick of defense. Plus he struggled his first few years when the game was more physical, had less spacing and more geared towards big men/post play (a.k.a. the environment that Isiah played his whole career in and Stockton played his entire prime in) and wasn't until rule changes, no more hand checking, no more hard fouls, more spacing, the rise of the 3-point shot, D'Antoni's system - defense got much weaker in 05, etc. it wasn't until then that Nash dominated.

In this video at the 14:45 mark, Bill Simmons says, "And then David Stern changed the rules so you could succeed"

Watch on YouTube

At the 49:35 mark of this video, Isiah says, "the game today, it favors the point guards and the small players. The era that I won in, the rules were geared towards the bigger players."

Watch on YouTube

Stockton made it to the finals twice, but a) that was after Isiah retied and b) Stockton's Jazz team lost to Jordan's Bulls both times. Meanwhile, during the time when Stockton and Isiah were both in their prime, Isiah made it to 3 NBA finals, won 2 championships and would have been 3 if not for the phantom foul call on Laimbeer in 88, which even Pat Riley admits was a BS call:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2103545-pat-riley-admits-84-lakers-benefited-from-phantom-foul-vs-detroit-pistons

And while Stockton's team lost to Jordan's Bulls twice in the finals, Isiah's Pistons beat Jordan's Bulls 3 times in the playoffs, and beat Magic's Lakers in 89, would have beat Magic Lakers in 88 if not for Phantom Foul and beat Bird's Celtics in 88..

Yes, it's a team game and Isiah had a strong supporting cast, but Isiah was the Piston's best player his entire career except for the very end of his career when he had injuries and the Pistons were a joke before they drafted him.

[Jordan Syndrome]

1) Nash entered the league in 96, yet you're saying we should just throw everything out the window and not count anything he did until 2002? You're saying his first SIX years are garbage and not worthy of comparing Nash during those seasons to a 39 year old Stockton, yet you think Nash is a top 26 player of all-time? Perhaps it should be held against Nash that he had so many unproductive seasons at the beginning of his career (as well as the 2-3 seasons at the end)?

Steve Nash was mediocre until he took a jump in 2001 as the Mavs went from a 40-win team to a 53-win team.

I'm not saying throw everything away but do yourself the favor by taking the time to look at context here. Nash is in a unique situation where he did in fact enter his prime later than many stars during his age of 26 season and his prime lasted until his age 37 season.

Unfortunately the primes of Stockton and Nash didn't overlap like the primes of Magic and Stockton or Porter and Stockton--making head-to-head comparisons difficult (let alone the tiny sample sizes).

2) Many players over the years have had some of the best seasons of their entire career in their first 1 or 2 seasons. Bellamy as a rookie, Kareem was a legend right off the bat, Duncan was an MVP candidate in his 2nd season, etc. yet we're supposed to throw out Nash's first 6 seasons?

Players have different career arcs. Nash was a great player through his age 37 season. Kevin Durant could be finished as a high-impact player following his tragic injury at age 30.

3) Nash was a starting point guard, playing over 30 minutes a game beginning in 98-99..

But he wasn't in his prime. I'm not seeing the value of comparing post-prime Stockton with pre-prime Nash. If you find that comparison worthy of discussion continue it with someone who shares a similar sentiment.

[trex_8063]

Below are the 23 all-time greatest team defenses in all of NBA/ABA history (for simplicity, based just on rs rDRTG)....

'64 Celtics: -10.8
'65 Celtics: -9.4
'04 Spurs: -8.8
'08 Celtics: -8.6
'62 Celtics: -8.5
'63 Celtics: -8.5
'93 Knicks: -8.3
'94 Knicks: -8.1
'20 Bucks: -7.7
'52 Lakers: -7.6
'61 Celtics: -7.6
'04 Pistons: -7.5 (*even better late-season after acquiring Sheed)
'16 Spurs: -7.4
'14 Pacers: -7.4
'05 Spurs: -7.3
'99 Spurs: -7.2
'11 Celtics: -7.0
'11 Bulls: -7.0
'07 Bulls: -6.9
'66 Celtics: -6.6
'06 Spurs: -6.6
'07 Spurs: -6.6
'70 Knicks: -6.6


Just pointing out that TWO of the top 8 EVER were Ewing Knicks teams. Yes, these teams had an excellent defensive-minded coach, a roster packed with guys who were "more defense than offense". But still, you don't achieve those kinds of results without an all-time tier defensive big in the middle.
We're talking about TWO defenses that only ONE of Duncan's teams, ONE Garnett team, and only 4 (of 13) of Bill Russell's teams ever bested......NO ONE else managed better.
And note that there is not a single team of Hakeem's, or Dikembe's, or Wilt's, or any Utah team (Eaton/Gobert), or any ABA Gilmore team, etc on this list.

Because his shot block numbers don't quite stack up, Ewing is often held in substantially lower esteem defensively than some of his same-era peers......but he really wasn't far behind [at all] guys like Hakeem, DRob, Deke in their respective primes.
And he did so while being relied upon for anywhere from 22-29 ppg [on anywhere from -1% to +7% rTS].

I'm also going to remind everyone it basically took John Starks having the single-worst shooting night of his entire career in game 7 of the '94 Finals to put Hakeem and the Rockets over the Knicks for the title. If Ewing had a ring [and the FMVP that no doubt would have gone to him in that instance], I don't think Ewing would even still be on the table for this spot; he likely would have gone in the vicinity of Moses/Barkley.


I'll try to get to some video scouting of his defense, though I don't know if I'll have time. But as I feel the discussion of Stockton [my top pick] has already gone pretty extensively in prior threads, I decided I want to try and drum up more support for my 3rd pick, a guy I think is perpetually underrated.

[Odinn21]

Below are the 20 all-time greatest team defenses in all of NBA/ABA history (for simplicity, based just on rs rDRTG)....

I think you missed Garnett era Celtics. They had 2 seasons would qualify for the top 20.
-8.6 rDRtg in '08
-7.0 rDRtg in '11

[Dutchball97]

1. Dwyane Wade - Wade's incredible performance in the 2006 play-offs alone should be enough to get him considered. I also don't think Wade's longevity is that bad. I'd have liked to see a bit more consistency in his prime but other than that is his longevity that much worse than Bird's longevity? I understand why he's not voted in yet but at this point I see him as the best candidate left by quite a bit.

2. Kawhi Leonard - I'll likely be voting him for a while but I'm alright with that. We all have different criteria but in my eyes he's a guy I can't not vote for here. He's been elite with 3 different teams and is one of the most consistently great play-off performers in the NBA. Even though people have been trying to devalue Kawhi's performances by saying he's a diva or he only excelled by playing on stacked teams, I think that's a cop out. Sure if you really care about the regular season I can see why voting for Kawhi in the late 20s feels a bit soon but in terms of play-offs he's just about the strongest candidate left.

3. Elgin Baylor - I think Baylor gets overhyped sometimes but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great player. He was absolutely elite in his prime. Since I'm looking at voting for players who had incredible peaks and decent longevity I think Baylor is a solid option.

[trex_8063]

1. Dwyane Wade - Wade's incredible performance in the 2006 play-offs alone should be enough to get him considered. I also don't think Wade's longevity is that bad. I'd have liked to see a bit more consistency in his prime but other than that is his longevity that much worse than Bird's longevity? I understand why he's not voted in yet but at this point I see him as the best candidate left by quite a bit.

2. Kawhi Leonard - I'll likely be voting him for a while but I'm alright with that. We all have different criteria but in my eyes he's a guy I can't not vote for here. He's been elite with 3 different teams and is one of the most consistently great play-off performers in the NBA. Even though people have been trying to devalue Kawhi's performances by saying he's a diva or he only excelled by playing on stacked teams, I think that's a cop out. Sure if you really care about the regular season I can see why voting for Kawhi in the late 20s feels a bit soon but in terms of play-offs he's just about the strongest candidate left.

3. Elgin Baylor - I think Baylor gets overhyped sometimes but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great player. He was absolutely elite in his prime. Since I'm looking at voting for players who had incredible peaks and decent longevity I think Baylor is a solid option.

Just anticipating where things will go [and wanting to save time]: would you state who your pick would be between Stockton and Nash?

[Dutchball97]

1. Dwyane Wade - Wade's incredible performance in the 2006 play-offs alone should be enough to get him considered. I also don't think Wade's longevity is that bad. I'd have liked to see a bit more consistency in his prime but other than that is his longevity that much worse than Bird's longevity? I understand why he's not voted in yet but at this point I see him as the best candidate left by quite a bit.

2. Kawhi Leonard - I'll likely be voting him for a while but I'm alright with that. We all have different criteria but in my eyes he's a guy I can't not vote for here. He's been elite with 3 different teams and is one of the most consistently great play-off performers in the NBA. Even though people have been trying to devalue Kawhi's performances by saying he's a diva or he only excelled by playing on stacked teams, I think that's a cop out. Sure if you really care about the regular season I can see why voting for Kawhi in the late 20s feels a bit soon but in terms of play-offs he's just about the strongest candidate left.

3. Elgin Baylor - I think Baylor gets overhyped sometimes but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great player. He was absolutely elite in his prime. Since I'm looking at voting for players who had incredible peaks and decent longevity I think Baylor is a solid option.

Just anticipating where things will go [and wanting to save time]: would you state who your pick would be between Stockton and Nash?

It's a comparison I've been going back and forth on quite a bit but I'd go with Stockton over Nash if it came to that.

[ccameron]

Alright, I supposed I'll get into all this here as it's a fair set of things to bring up.

Thanks for the detailed response, and I’ll answer here so as to keep the discussion moving in the new thread.

First, what I specifically mean here about Wade is that he had a game that was bound to age out quickly compared to most players, to the point that if you understand what you have in him, you realize you're in "win now" mode almost immediately after you draft him. It's one thing to talk about a guy's longevity in terms of how long he actually played with freak injuries potentially changing that drastically, and it's another thing to realize that you're dealing with a guy with an abnormally short relevance span.

But it wasn’t abnormally short relevance. In my opinion, the last we saw of prime Wade was middle of 2013 – that’s strange to most people because everyone remembers how bad he was for much of the playoffs when he was injured, but I was happy at least to see Ben Taylor recognized in his backpicks project that when he was healthy that year, he was still playing at an arguably prime level (FWIW, the 27 game win streak largely coincided with Wade being healthy). That’s 10 years after he was drafted. Granted, injuries were a pretty frequent interruption, especially from 2012-2014 unfortunately, but that’s not an abnormally short relevance span for prime level play.

You can say that his playing style is bound to get him injured and that should be held against him, although that doesn’t sound like what you’re saying – it sounds like you think he is so dependent on his athleticism that he wasn’t capable of being an effective player beyond a few years, by necessity – but that was clearly not the case. I can easily imagine a scenario where Wade comes into the league with an actual meniscus, doesn't have a freak shoulder dislocation or collision resulting in bone bruises, and has an uninterrupted 10-11 year prime. Obviously that's not what happened, so this is moot, but it just sounds like you're saying he was incapable of that simply because of his playing style.

Nash was the most effective offensive player in the league through the age of 36, and Wade basically was no longer capable of superstar play by the time he hit 30. This is something I don't feel it makes sense to ignore as minor.

It feels a little unfair to not point out that Nash was a late bloomer, whereas Wade was pretty much ready to lead champion level teams almost out of the gate. It sounds like you are penalizing Wade for being a “win now” player and elevating Nash for being a "win later" player (hypothetically, because Nash never won). Also, Wade turned 32 in the 2013 season – I don’t include 2013 as a prime year because of the unfortunate bone bruise that plagued him at the end of the season, but he was clearly still capable of superstar play then.

I don't see any reason to look at Curry's longevity like I see Wade's. I mean, I'm certainly holding his longevity against him if you compare him to certain other guys, but Curry's current lack of longevity to me doesn't say anything about his game. Yes, his run-around-off-ball game will fade as he ages, but short of specific massive injuries, there's really no reason to think Curry can't remain awesome for a very long time.

For the record, I'd also say that Curry had 7 Top 5 years while Wade had 5, and that Curry's Top 5 years were on average more considerably impressive than Wade's.

Fair point that Curry’s game may age better than Wade’s, but to say that is projecting into the future. As noted above, we disagree on the number of seasons’s Wade was in his prime and the degree to which one was more impressive than the other.

You mention Wade's other all-star years, and I think that gets to something that's really at the heart of things:

If you voted for a guy with a lesser peak over Curry in the name of longevity, I think you need to ask yourself what exactly you're waiting for in order to elevate Curry ahead of that other player. I'll use Paul because to use anyone else would be to just ignore the elephant in the room?

Does Curry require more MVP seasons in order to surpass Paul? Better not, that would be silly.
Does Curry require more championships, finals appearances, conference finals as alpha appearances? Better not, that would be silly.

So what we're really talking about is the idea that if Curry has enough B-list seasons, he'll surpass Paul. And I would argue that that's a problem specifically because those B-list seasons won't matter to anyone who looks back on this era with objective distance. They won't change Curry's legacy at all. Once you're a 2 time MVP with 3 chips and 5 finals appearances, no one freaking cares if you lead a team to the 2nd round. Not the other players, not the writers, not management, and certainly not fans.

I would suggest that this type of "trying too hard to be smart" is one of the key pitfalls of the more granular approach statistically minded player rankers tend to fall into. You want an algorithm that tallies up accomplishment incrementally one good thing at a time, and when you do that it's easy to see how you could end up with a ranking that resembles the leaderboard for career Win Shares. But this is not how NBA accomplishment actually works.

The first thing people are looking for is a sense of how high a level a player's prime is, because that's what's going to determine how likely you are to win championships with that player. Then, for the most part, we're only really looking at longevity as a way to break ties between guys on the same tier.

Well it sounds like you’re not big on longevity and are much more interested in peak and prime. I agree with you. I think the number of seasons a player can help you win a championship are what’s relevant. The number of seasons a player can help you win a championship as your best player are obviously the most relevant, but the number of years you can help a team win a championship as a number 2 or possibly number 3 player I don’t think are irrelevant. How relevant a season is depends on how irreplaceable you are. Obviously, merely all-star level play is more easily replaceable than superstar level play, but again, not irrelevant.

Just for instance, I don’t think Wade’s contributions as late as 2016 are irrelevant. He lead the team to within 1 game of the ECF as clearly the best player on the team, with his co-star and arguably the true number #1 option in Bosh out for most of the season. The feeling within the organization, before Bosh went down with blood-clots, was that they had a real shot to make it to the finals (Bosh spoke about this in a recent podcast) – that was not a crazy idea if they got that far without their number 1 option. Wade wasn’t irreplaceable like he might have been in his prime, but he is still capable of being a major reason why a team could contend. I don’t weigh that too heavily obviously, but it’s not irrelevant.

And, well, I think that's where things start to get annoying for me, because what I'm seeing are people who are essentially putting Curry & Paul on the same tier but not so much trying to make the argument of "I know Curry has been consider a drastically stronger MVP candidate whose game has more proven to lead to championship basketball, but here's why I think he and Paul are the same", so much as just skipping straight to a longevity argument.

I mean, I feel like I can take the same arguments made for Paul over Curry and put Larry Bird's name in place of Curry's. If longevity matters that much to you, are you really being consistent here?

I suspect the answer is that people are not. I suspect the answer is that people are really lower on Curry than they were a year ago for reasons they haven't really thought through.

I wouldn’t even bring up longevity if I didn’t think Paul was in fact at a similar level to Curry at his peak. Maybe that means I’m lower on Curry’s peak than you, but to be consistent, I have to acknowledge that Paul was also on a similar level to Wade. I’ve wavered on this a bunch – I don’t know what to think of Paul’s impact, which seems at a level up there with the best ever. The eye test tells me guys like Wade and Curry are better, but I struggle with how to place him. From what I understand about the metrics that show his impact, I cautiously say that he was just as good as them. At that point, maybe his longevity comes in to play, because not only has he had more “B-list” seasons, he’s had more “A-list" seasons. If I really felt that he wasn’t at the level of Wade or Curry, I wouldn’t bother to bring up longevity. I’m not saying I’m confident in saying he was as good as them – I haven’t made up my mind on it and I think I need to get more understanding about why I have this dissonance with him. But if I do think he may have been as valuable a player in his prime, if he had more of those seasons, that makes a difference.

But this is why, for instance, I don’t care about Stockton’s longevity over Wade or Curry. I’m not really prepared to do a comparison of CP3 and Stockton, but my impression is that CP3 at his best was a better player. So when it comes to Wade/Curry, I just think it's even more clear they were better than Stockton, his peak is just a little too far off for his longevity to make any difference to me.

For perspective here, let's compare Curry through 2020 to LeBron through 2011.

LeBron had 2.523 MVP Shares then, Curry now has 2.207.
LeBron had 3.692 POY Shares then, Curry now has 2.957 (which would be considerably higher if not for final-form LeBron).
LeBron had played 29,183 minutes, Curry 28,233.
Curry's teams while he's been on the floor have outscored opponents 5444, while LeBron's had done so by 3224.
Curry has 3 titles and 5 finals appearances, and played unimpeachably great in one of those two finals losses.
Curry also led a team to 73 wins.
LeBron had 0 titles and 2 finals appearances, and really didn't play great in either finals appearance, plus had the weirdness of the Boston series.

I'll add specifically that in 2011 LeBron had just had his worst moment against Dallas in the finals. Here's what his numbers look like in their respective bad finals:

LeBron in 2011: 17.8 PPG, 54.1% TS, +/-: -36.
Curry in 2016: 22.6 PPG, 58.0% TS, +/-: -14.

Now I want you to consider:

What if Curry came first?

If we were ranking LeBron in 2011 in comparison to Curry-through-2020, with LeBron having just come off that awful series, do you think we would have elevated LeBron ahead of Curry?

I would suggest to folks we wouldn't have.

Yet back then we placed LeBron at 18, and here we placed Curry at 24. That's quite the reversal.

I’m not sure there is any inconsistency here. The comparison of stats is a little weird to me since you're looking at largely cumulative stats but you're taking 10 years of Curry compared to 8 years of Lebron. I guess you chose that because their minutes were comparable at that point, but some of those comparisons seem arbitrary to me.

Regardless of Lebron’s awful Dallas series, and the titles won or not won, I think he was a significantly better player than Curry. Up until 2011, Wade had more success than Lebron, too, and certainly in the wake of the Dallas series there would have been good reason to say Wade had had the better career. But Lebron was ranked higher than Wade in that project because Lebron was better and didn't have the same injury problems -- the same reasons he would have been ranked higher than Curry, too.

The fact that Lebron played awful in 2011 matters to me, it really does, as a Heat fan to this day I am very salty about it. But what is the point of comparing his 2011 finals to Curry’s 2016 finals? Nobody talks about Curry’s 2016 as a massive meltdown in the same way Lebron’s was a massive meltdown. Certainly 2011 hurt Lebron’s legacy more than 2016 hurt Curry’s, I don’t think there is any double standard there.

I'll end with the context that left me so frustrated:

Prior to thread 23, Paul had not been a major contender and in thread 23, I could have sworn I counted up the votes at one point and saw Curry at 6 votes while Paul had 2, and thus literally even making arguments about Curry > Paul didn't even come to mind. Curry had apparently been the much stronger candidate up through that point, he's consider by the basketball world in general to be a much bigger deal than Paul, why would I expect that Paul would come from behind?

And of course, it turns out the reason I should have really wasn't about Paul, because it's not like more people actually voted for Paul at #1 than Curry. No, what happened was that a majority of our voting base didn't just have Curry lower than 23, but a LOT lower based on some notion of longevity...

but that notion of longevity didn't keep LeBron from going quite a bit higher in 2011.

It's not like we didn't know LeBron's career still had a lot left to go at the time - that's why he was as low as #18 - but there wasn't this sense of "Eh, is he really THAT worthy?" that we've gotten this time around Curry.

Hence, my criticisms about longevity were a bit off point as I look back. The issue isn't so much that I saw that as overrating Paul's longevity - though I think people do - but people are just really embracing skepticism toward Curry that seemed to have everything to do with perceptions formed based on the 2016 & 2017 finals that just don't stand up to further scrutiny what I can see. Curry wasn't even bad in the 2016 finals the way LeBron was in 2011, but because Durant had by far the best series of his life in 2017 against the Cavs as they focused on Curry, folks seems to think Curry's something of a poser.

And while others of course can disagree, we never even really had the debate. Paul just snuck in because people were essentially looking to be low on Curry. That's what I don't like. It's a very different thing to me than Paul getting in higher than I expect because people are just all in love with Paul. They were not in love with Paul, they just doubted Curry, and I don't think they were being objective with those doubts.

In the grand scheme of things, these rankings don't matter, and one spot really doesn't matter. I need to remember that because I know better. But there's a negative wind blowing against Curry right now that just really disturbs me in a way that skepticism toward my actual homer crush (Nash) just doesn't.

I certainly have never thought of Curry as a poser and in fact give Curry more credit for the Golden State dynasty than Durant, who I DO actually consider to be something of a poser.

[eminence]

Below are the 22 all-time greatest team defenses in all of NBA/ABA history (for simplicity, based just on rs rDRTG)....

'64 Celtics: -10.8
'65 Celtics: -9.4
'04 Spurs: -8.8
'08 Celtics: -8.6
'62 Celtics: -8.5
'63 Celtics: -8.5
'93 Knicks: -8.3
'94 Knicks: -8.1
'20 Bucks: -7.7
'61 Celtics: -7.6
'04 Pistons: -7.5 (*even better late-season after acquiring Sheed)
'16 Spurs: -7.4
'14 Pacers: -7.4
'05 Spurs: -7.3
'99 Spurs: -7.2
'11 Celtics: -7.0
'11 Bulls: -7.0
'07 Bulls: -6.9
'66 Celtics: -6.6
'06 Spurs: -6.6
'07 Spurs: -6.6
'70 Knicks: -6.6

Just wanted to note you're missing the '52 Lakers -7.6.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - John Stockton
Vote 2 - Patrick Ewing
Vote 3 - Scottie Pippen

I know everyone values durability and longevity differently, but stockton was simply in a different stratosphere. In 17 of his 19 seasons, he played in 100% of possible games played. In the 2 seasons in which he missed games, he missed 4 and 18 respectively. While nash was pretty durable during his prime (played in 70+ games per season from 01-11), he really doesn't compare when looking at his career as a whole.

From 97-2000 and 2012-14 (7 seasons), Nash only played in 69% of possible games played. Given the length of their careers, I find this contrast to be significant. For those who point to the suns not being able to function without nash on the court, missing games could be thought of as more of a detriment than your average star player.

Nash is praised for his 50/40/90 seasons (that isn't to say people ignore stockton as an efficient scorer), yet both players are nearly identical in career TS% on similar output:

Stockton - 1504 games, 60.8% TS on 13.1 PPG, 21 PPG per 100, 216.8 peak TS Add, 2465.6 career TS Add
Nash - 1217 games, 60.5% TS on 14.3 PPG, 23.3 PPG per 100, 242.8 peak TS Add, 2127.5 career TS Add

Stockton is right there with nash, and the fact that he did this for nearly 300 more games and didn't fall off is really impressive.

On Stockton playing through injury and his standard for others:

“That was all it took,” former Jazz center Mark Eaton said. “A guy would come limping into the locker room and he would get that look from John. All the sudden, the limp would go away. He didn’t need to say anything. But you knew the way things were in John’s eyes. If you could walk, you could play, and if you could play, you were 100 percent.”

- - - - - - - - - -

He played through sore knees. He played through illness. He even played for the Dream Team in the 1992 Olympics despite a stress fracture in his leg.

“I will tell you, there was one year in the early ’90s and we were playing Seattle in the playoffs,” said Jazz assistant coach Phil Johnson. “John had an elbow injury, and he could not lift his right arm. He spent most of the series dribbling with his left hand. He even considered shooting free throws with his left hand, but he did not want to let the Sonics know that he was hurt. He never told the press, never told anyone. After the season, he had surgery on his elbow. No one ever knew. We knew in the locker room only because he didn’t want to hurt the team.”

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2009-09-10/stockton-always-came-ready-play

A few playoff series where PGs struggled against stockton and the Jazz (all series wins):

91 Kevin Johnson (4 games) - 12.8 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 9.8 APG, .5 SPG, 39% TS
Reg season - 22 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 10 APG, 2 SPG, 60% TS

94 Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf (7 games) - 15.7 PPG, 2 RPG, 2.9 APG, .4 SPG, 49% TS
Reg season - 18 PPG, 2 RPG, 4.5 APG, 1 SPG, 52% TS

94 Vinny Del Negro (4 games) - 7.3 PPG, 1 RPG, 4.5 APG, .3 SPG, 49.7% TS
Reg season - 10 PPG, 2 RPG, 4.2 APG, .8 APG, 54.5% TS

96 Avery Johnson (6 games) - 10.8 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 7 APG, 2.5 SPG 44% TS
Reg season - 13 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 9.6 APG, 1.5 SPG, 53% TS

I know we have to take these "hardest to guard" quotes from players with a grain of salt, but I think this is noteworthy. Payton on stockton:

Q: Did John Stockton ever talk trash back to you?

A: "Never. That is the reason I really respected him because you never could get in his head. He's the hardest person I ever had to guard. I tried to talk to him, try to do something and he'd just look at me, set a pick and cause me [to get mad and] get a tech. And then all of the sudden it was over. There was much respect to him doing that to me. It taught me a lot."

Q: You say Stockton was the hardest to guard, but what about guarding Michael Jordan?

A: "Those battles were a little easier. I would have Jordan get mad at me and go back at me. He knew he was really talented and could do whatever he wanted to. But [Stockton] was more of a challenge to me than guarding someone that would talk back to me. When you talk back to me and say something to me it made my game go to another level. John was one who wouldn't say nothing and you couldn't figure him out. He'd keep going in the pick and rolls and he and Karl Malone would score a big bucket. At times I would guard Jordan and get him mad and into other things."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--gary-payton-might-cry-at-hall-of-fame-induction-202019084.html

This exemplifies stockton's style of play as a guy who couldn't be rattled and had excellent decision making. You weren't going to throw him off course by getting into his head.

Stockton in series clinchers during deep playoff runs

92 vs. SEA - 18 PTS, 6 REB, 17 AST, 5 STL, 1 BLK, 3 TO, 52% TS, 132 ORtg

94 vs. SAS - 13 PTS, 18 AST, 3 STL, 1 BLK, 2 TO, 70% TS, 145 ORtg

96 vs. POR - 21 PTS, 4 REB, 11 AST, 2 STL, 4 TO, 80% TS, 137 ORtg

97 vs. LAL - 24 PTS, 1 REB, 10 AST, 1 STL, 4 TO, 70% TS, 138 ORtg

I know this has been semi-touched upon from a gameplan standpoint, and it's a pretty simple notion, but stockton played with a guy who averaged 27 PPG on 59% TS over a span of 13 seasons. I just don't know that stockton was ever asked to step up his game scoring-wise (even throwing out sloan's rigid system).

He spent his time facilitating to an elite volume scorer and scoring when the opportunities presented themselves. At the very least, it seems logical, especially for the time. And that isn't to say he would have equaled nash in scoring output in the playoffs, but I think he'd come closer if the situation was different.

[WestGOAT]

Below are the 22 all-time greatest team defenses in all of NBA/ABA history (for simplicity, based just on rs rDRTG)....

'64 Celtics: -10.8
'65 Celtics: -9.4
'04 Spurs: -8.8
'08 Celtics: -8.6
'62 Celtics: -8.5
'63 Celtics: -8.5
'93 Knicks: -8.3
'94 Knicks: -8.1
'20 Bucks: -7.7
'61 Celtics: -7.6
'04 Pistons: -7.5 (*even better late-season after acquiring Sheed)
'16 Spurs: -7.4
'14 Pacers: -7.4
'05 Spurs: -7.3
'99 Spurs: -7.2
'11 Celtics: -7.0
'11 Bulls: -7.0
'07 Bulls: -6.9
'66 Celtics: -6.6
'06 Spurs: -6.6
'07 Spurs: -6.6
'70 Knicks: -6.6

Just wanted to note you're missing the '52 Lakers -7.6.

I was curious to see which teams posted the best relative DRtg in the playoffs, so for those who are also interested:
Specifically 1990 onwards and at least 8 games played in the post-season

Code: Select all

   Team   Year   Defense   G
0   DET   2004   -10.7   23.0
1   NYK   1996   -9.9   8.0
2   MIA   2000   -8.4   10.0
3   CHI   1996   -8.3   18.0
4   DET   1990   -8.3   20.0
5   SAS   2003   -8.0   24.0
6   SAS   1998   -7.8   9.0
7   UTA   1998   -7.6   20.0
8   IND   2004   -7.5   16.0
9   UTA   1996   -7.5   18.0
10   MIA   1997   -7.5   17.0
11   CLE   2007   -7.5   20.0
12   WAS   2014   -7.5   11.0
13   NYK   1999   -7.4   20.0
14   SAS   1999   -7.3   17.0
15   SAS   2008   -7.2   17.0
16   LAL   2001   -7.1   16.0
17   CHI   1998   -7.0   21.0
18   SAC   2004   -7.0   12.0
19   CHI   1997   -6.9   19.0
20   BOS   2010   -6.9   24.0

Ewing's Knicks is listed twice, 1996 and 1999.

From 1952 onwards, and at-least 15 games played:

Code: Select all

   Team   Year   Defense   G
0   BOS   1964   -14.1   10.0
1   DET   2004   -10.7   23.0
2   BOS   1965   -10.3   12.0
3   NYK   1996   -9.9   8.0
4   MIL   1972   -9.5   11.0
5   BOS   1961   -9.3   10.0
6   BOS   1957   -9.1   10.0
7   BOS   1960   -8.9   13.0
8   SFW   1967   -8.7   15.0
9   BOS   1962   -8.7   14.0
10   PHI   1967   -8.5   15.0
11   BOS   1959   -8.4   11.0
12   MIA   2000   -8.4   10.0
13   CHI   1996   -8.3   18.0
14   DET   1990   -8.3   20.0
15   LAL   1972   -8.2   15.0
16   DET   1988   -8.1   23.0
17   SAS   2003   -8.0   24.0
18   SAS   1998   -7.8   9.0
19   BOS   1958   -7.7   11.0
20   BOS   1967   -7.7   9.0

[Dr Positivity]

1. Dwyane Wade - Still think elite level peak is the most valuable here, and when you add in a few other good seasons beyond just the 5-6 top ones, that's enough for me

2. John Stockton - Elite level longevity, great offensive skillset, good defense.

3. James Harden - Superstar for 8 seasons, he has flaws on defense, translating it to the playoffs, and in intangibles, but I still think he's a better player than Nash

[Dr Positivity]

Proud of this board for no Russ votes yet

[Odinn21]

1. Dwyane Wade - Still think elite level peak is the most valuable here, and when you add in a few other good seasons beyond just the 5-6 top ones, that's enough for me

Wade's 2006, 2009 and 2010 performances are just too good for the remaining names, yeah. I mean he took a step back to share the ball with James in 2011 and 2011 Wade was still arguably better than the most. Add 2005 and 2012 (and maybe even 2013, but I wouldn't), that's 5 proper seasons and 3 of them are just a tier above.

[Hal14]

Proud of this board for no Russ votes yet

It would be a sad day if Westbrook makes it in over Stockton, Pippen, Rick Barry, Hondo, Isiah, Baylor AND Ewing

[No-more-rings]

1. Dwyane Wade - Still think elite level peak is the most valuable here, and when you add in a few other good seasons beyond just the 5-6 top ones, that's enough for me

Wade's 2006, 2009 and 2010 performances are just too good for the remaining names, yeah. I mean he took a step back to share the ball with James in 2011 and 2011 Wade was still arguably better than the most. Add 2005 and 2012 (and maybe even 2013, but I wouldn't), that's 5 proper seasons and 3 of them are just a tier above.

So far in this project we’ve had votes for Pippen, Baylor, Drexler, Thomas, Hondo and Harden over him.

Even if he doesn’t take this spot there’s a chance he falls to like 28 or 29. I don’t understand why this panel is so low on him.

[Odinn21]

1. Dwyane Wade - Still think elite level peak is the most valuable here, and when you add in a few other good seasons beyond just the 5-6 top ones, that's enough for me

Wade's 2006, 2009 and 2010 performances are just too good for the remaining names, yeah. I mean he took a step back to share the ball with James in 2011 and 2011 Wade was still arguably better than the most. Add 2005 and 2012 (and maybe even 2013, but I wouldn't), that's 5 proper seasons and 3 of them are just a tier above.

So far in this project we’ve had votes for Pippen, Baylor, Drexler, Thomas, Hondo and Harden over him.

Even if he doesn’t take this spot there’s a chance he falls to like 28 or 29. I don’t understand why this panel is so low on him.

It's the overall career value approach. But Wade's peak has gotten quite underrated. Wade's peak was on par with (or arguably better than) Barkley's, Robertson's, West's, Robinson's, Curry's, Durant's, Paul's, Nowitzki's, Malone's (both) peaks. They all made the list already and Wade is still on the board. Surely, durability is an issue for Wade but on the flip side, when he was not injured in his prime; he had 3 seasons on that level. Not just 1 or 2.