Give me the best and worst player on each of these short lists please.

[Kblaze8855]

Dont need them ranked. Just the best and worst from each group.

Not much work. Youre bored. You can handle this brief exercise put together just to annoy you with other peoples selections.








Kg
Chris Paul
David Robinson
Durant
Dirk
Nash







Tmac
Pierce
Vince Carter
Grant Hill
Paul George
Leonard





Giannis
Karl Malone
James Harden
Isiah Thomas
Doctor J





****Trolls delight****
Kyrie
Pau Gasol
Pippen
Dumars
Klay
****Trolls Delight****






Jason Kidd
Steph Curry
Gary Payton
Wade
Clyde Drexler










Lillard
Ray Allen
Reggie Miller
Mitch Richmond
Manu






Ben Gordon
Lou Williams
Barbosa
Jason Terry
John Starks
Jamal Crawford



Magic Johnson
Tim Duncan
Shaq
Kobe
Hakeem



Simple enough.

[Shogon]

Eh, my only real problem is... are we talking about peak play or overall career? Anyways, I just shot from the hip...

Kg - Best
Chris Paul
David Robinson
Durant
Dirk
Nash - Worst







Tmac
Pierce - Worst
Vince Carter
Grant Hill
Paul George
Leonard - Best





Giannis - Best
Karl Malone
James Harden
Isiah Thomas - Worst
Doctor J





****Trolls delight****
Kyrie - Worst
Pau Gasol
Pippen - Best
Dumars
Klay
****Trolls Delight****






Jason Kidd
Steph Curry - Best
Gary Payton
Wade
Clyde Drexler - Worst










Lillard
Ray Allen - Best
Reggie Miller
Mitch Richmond - Worst
Manu






Ben Gordon
Lou Williams
Barbosa
Jason Terry - Worst
John Starks
Jamal Crawford - Best



Magic Johnson
Tim Duncan
Shaq - Best
Kobe - Worst
Hakeem

[Reggie43]

Kg - best
Chris Paul
David Robinson
Durant
Dirk
Nash - worst







Tmac
Pierce
Vince Carter - worst
Grant Hill
Paul George
Leonard - best





Giannis
Karl Malone - best
James Harden - worst
Isiah Thomas
Doctor J





****Trolls delight****
Kyrie
Pau Gasol
Pippen - best
Dumars
Klay - worst
****Trolls Delight****






Jason Kidd - worst
Steph Curry
Gary Payton
Wade - best
Clyde Drexler










Lillard
Ray Allen
Reggie Miller - best
Mitch Richmond
Manu - worst






Ben Gordon
Lou Williams
Barbosa - worst
Jason Terry
John Starks - best
Jamal Crawford



Magic Johnson - best
Tim Duncan
Shaq
Kobe - worst
Hakeem

[ArbitraryWater]

I'll go by what they represented in a prime of about at least a 5-year period

Kg
Chris Paul
David Robinson
Durant
Dirk - best
Nash - worst







Tmac
Pierce - worst T/
Vince Carter - worst T/
Grant Hill
Paul George
Leonard - best





Giannis - best
Karl Malone
James Harden
Isiah Thomas - worst
Doctor J





****Trolls delight****
Kyrie
Pau Gasol
Pippen - best
Dumars - worst
Klay
****Trolls Delight****






Jason Kidd - worst/T
Steph Curry - best
Gary Payton
Wade
Clyde Drexler - worst/T










Lillard - best (hardest one)
Ray Allen
Reggie Miller - worst?? (again, hardest one)
Mitch Richmond
Manu






Ben Gordon
Lou Williams - best
Barbosa
Jason Terry
John Starks
Jamal Crawford - worst



Magic Johnson
Tim Duncan
Shaq - best
Kobe - worst
Hakeem

[tpols]

Best/Worst


Dirk
Nash


Kawhi
Paul George


Dr. J
Karl Malone


Pippen
Dumars


Curry
Payton


Reggie
Richmond


Jason Terry
Jamal Crawford


Kobe
Shaq

[SouBeachTalents]

Best: KG
Worst: Nash

Best: Kawhi
Worst: Vince

Best: Dr. J
Worst: Isiah

Best: Pippen
Worst: Dumars

Best: Curry
Worst: Payton

Best: Manu
Worst: Richmond

Best: Lou
Worst: Barbosa

Best: Shaq
Worst: Kobe

[warriorfan]

Kg - best
Chris Paul
David Robinson
Durant
Dirk
Nash - worse

Tmac - worse
Pierce
Vince Carter
Grant Hill
Paul George
Leonard - best

Giannis - worst
Karl Malone
James Harden
Isiah Thomas
Doctor J - best

****Trolls delight****
Kyrie
Pau Gasol - Worst
Pippen - Best
Dumars
Klay
****Trolls Delight****

Jason Kidd
Steph Curry - best
Gary Payton
Wade - second best
Clyde Drexler
(Can’t decide on worst)

Lillard - Worst
Ray Allen
Reggie Miller - Best
Mitch Richmond
Manu

Ben Gordon
Lou Williams - Best
Barbosa
Jason Terry
John Starks
Jamal Crawford - Worst

Magic Johnson
Tim Duncan - Best
Shaq
Kobe
Hakeem - Worst

[Phoenix]

Kobe
Shaq

You got a couple of eye-brow raisers but this one......phew. Let the games being.

[tpols]

like which ones?

[Wally450]

...





Kg
Chris Paul
David Robinson
Durant - BEST
Dirk
Nash - WORST



Tmac
Pierce
Vince Carter - WORST
Grant Hill
Paul George
Leonard - BEST





Giannis
Karl Malone
James Harden
Isiah Thomas
Doctor J



Kyrie - WORST
Pau Gasol
Pippen - BEST
Dumars
Klay




Jason Kidd - WORST
Steph Curry
Gary Payton
Wade - BEST
Clyde Drexler



Lillard - WORST
Ray Allen - BEST
Reggie Miller
Mitch Richmond
Manu


Ben Gordon
Lou Williams - BEST
Barbosa - WORST
Jason Terry
John Starks
Jamal Crawford



Magic Johnson
Tim Duncan - BEST
Shaq
Kobe - WORST
Hakeem



Simple enough.

[msbutthurt]

Kg
Chris Paul - Worst
David Robinson
Durant
Dirk - Best
Nash


Tmac
Pierce
Vince Carter - Best
Grant Hill
Paul George - Worst
Leonard


Giannis - Best
Karl Malone
James Harden
Isiah Thomas - Worst
Doctor J


****Trolls delight****
Kyrie - Worst
Pau Gasol
Pippen - Best
Dumars
Klay
****Trolls Delight****


Jason Kidd
Steph Curry - Best
Gary Payton
Wade - Worst
Clyde Drexler


Lillard
Ray Allen
Reggie Miller - Best
Mitch Richmond - Worst
Manu


Ben Gordon
Lou Williams
Barbosa
Jason Terry - Best
John Starks - Worst
Jamal Crawford


Magic Johnson
Tim Duncan - Best
Shaq
Kobe - Worst
Hakeem

[r0drig0lac]

best:

D-Rob
Kawhi
Malone
Pippen
Wade
Allen
Lou
Duncan




worst:

Nash
PG
Isiah or Harden
Irving
Payton
Miller
Barbosa
Kobe

[Phoenix]

like which ones?

I suppose it depends on your criteria, whether it's peak or career. Right off the top, Dirk as your best. He didn't 'peak' higher than KD or the Admiral, and him and KG is a conversation as well. And I'm a Dirk guy. What's your criteria?

Terry as best, Crawford as worst in that category of player. Just a few 'hmmmmms' for me in your list but hey it's your opinion.

[ArbitraryWater]

Best/Worst


Dirk
Nash


Kawhi
Paul George


Dr. J
Karl Malone


Pippen
Dumars


Curry
Payton


Reggie
Richmond


Jason Terry
Jamal Crawford


Kobe
Shaq

u KNOW thats not true

[ArbitraryWater]

I suppose it depends on your criteria, whether it's peak or career. Right off the top, Dirk as your best. He didn't 'peak' higher than KD or the Admiral, and him and KG is a conversation as well. And I'm a Dirk guy. What's your criteria?

Terry as best, Crawford as worst in that category of player. Just a few 'hmmmmms' for me in your list but hey it's your opinion.

so you'd rather have the best Robinson over the best Dirk? Which Robinson?

[tpols]

I suppose it depends on your criteria, whether it's peak or career. Right off the top, Dirk as your best. He didn't 'peak' higher than KD or the Admiral, and him and KG is a conversation as well. And I'm a Dirk guy. What's your criteria?

Terry as best, Crawford as worst in that category of player. Just a few 'hmmmmms' for me in your list but hey it's your opinion.


my criteria for first option types like whats in that first list is whose going to lead the squad to the most championships relative to how much help they'll need to do it.

Dirk for me has the best alpha dog offensive game out of that lot, and he was averaging 12+ boards against Duncan getting game winning game 7 blocks on him. I just feel like he could compete defensively and on the boards far more than people give him credit for. His offensive advantage is quite bigger than the others, id never trust KG or Robinson in the playoffs or tight crunchtime to do the things Dirk did he was straight GOAT with that while they shied away. Paul shied away scoring at times too he didnt have a true Dirk gear. Durant is close, but he wasnt as good on OKC and we all know how that ended up going... So he has a lot to prove if he wants to match Dirk.

For the support player list, Jason Terry has blown up in the playoffs way more than those guys. His 2011 run trumps anything any of those guys did in their whole careers.

18 ppg with almost 45% 3pt shooting 119 ORTG and eye test mega clutch 2nd scoring option for a legendary title team.

Where as crawford is an and 1 baller who is typically awful efficiency wise in the playoffs ask any clipper fan he was terrible. he was dreadful there. Lou Will's another guy who has generally been very inefficient in the playoffs. People just get blinded by the sexy dribbling moves these guys have but as far as effectiveness and putting the ball in the hole, Terry is handily better, he simply did it better lol, was a much better shooter than any of them. And none of them are true great defensive players so offense is all we have to go on there.

[Phoenix]

so you'd rather have the best Robinson over the best Dirk? Which Robinson?

I don't think best Dirk was as dominant as 94 or 95 Robinson but they brought different things to the table. Admiral faltered in the 94 playoffs and then got his ass kicked by Hakeem in 95. I just think he's become a bit underrated. Like I said, I'm a Dirk guy...one of my favourites actually. I just never really considered that his best was better than the the Admirals best in terms of outright on-court dominance. What's your take?

[Shogon]

I mean this from the deepest place in my heart... only a complete and utter brain dead idiot with absolutely zero awareness would think that Kobe was a better player than Shaq. Unreal. I mean I've heard some really stupid shit on this board but that takes the cake.

[Phoenix]

my criteria for first option types like whats in that first list is whose going to lead the squad to the most championships relative to how much help they'll need to do it.

Dirk for me has the best alpha dog offensive game out of that lot, and he was averaging 12+ boards against Duncan getting game winning game 7 blocks on him. I just feel like he could compete defensively and on the boards far more than people give him credit for. His offensive advantage is quite bigger than the others, id never trust KG or Robinson in the playoffs or tight crunchtime to do the things Dirk did he was straight GOAT with that while they shied away. Paul shied away scoring at times too he didnt have a true Dirk gear. Durant is close, but he wasnt as good on OKC and we all know how that ended up going... So he has a lot to prove if he wants to match Dirk.



Fair enough. I have a very high opinoion of Dirk so it's not like I'm calling you crazy. Like I said to AW I just never really saw him as the dominant force Robinson was, nor do I think he peaked as high as 17 KD but if the argument is that KD needed the security blanket of the Warriors to reach * that* level, fair enough. I don't think many people would say in a vacuum he's a better player than KD but I feel like Durant sold himself short going to the Warriors. I think the 2017 Thunder had a great opportunity to atone for 2016 had Durant stayed but that's all hypothetical. I'm in the 'that move was weak as hell' camp where that is concerned.

[Whoah10115]

Dont need them ranked. Just the best and worst from each group.

Not much work. Youre bored. You can handle this brief exercise put together just to annoy you with other peoples selections.








Kg
Chris Paul
David Robinson
Durant
Dirk
Nash







Tmac
Pierce
Vince Carter
Grant Hill
Paul George
Leonard





Giannis
Karl Malone
James Harden
Isiah Thomas
Doctor J





****Trolls delight****
Kyrie
Pau Gasol
Pippen
Dumars
Klay
****Trolls Delight****






Jason Kidd
Steph Curry
Gary Payton
Wade
Clyde Drexler










Lillard
Ray Allen
Reggie Miller
Mitch Richmond
Manu






Ben Gordon
Lou Williams
Barbosa
Jason Terry
John Starks
Jamal Crawford



Magic Johnson
Tim Duncan
Shaq
Kobe
Hakeem



Simple enough.

Best - David Robinson
Worst - Kevin Durant (surprise)

Best - Paul Pierce
Worst - Tracy McGrady

Best - Julius Erving
Worst - James Harden

Best - Scottie Pippen
Worst - Kyrie Irving

Best - Jason Kidd (wow)
Worst - Clyde Drexler

Best - Damian Lillard
Worst - Mitch Richmond (doesn't seem right)

Best - John Starks (biased maybe)
Worst - Jamal Crawford (I guess)

Best - Magic Johnson
Worst - Shaquille O'Neal

[Whoah10115]

I mean this from the deepest place in my heart... only a complete and utter brain dead idiot with absolutely zero awareness would think that Kobe was a better player than Shaq. Unreal. I mean I've heard some really stupid shit on this board but that takes the cake.

Well given that it's a more recent take where Shaq has jumped Kobe, this is a full of shit take.

[Kblaze8855]

I mean this from the deepest place in my heart... only a complete and utter brain dead idiot with absolutely zero awareness would think that Kobe was a better player than Shaq. Unreal. I mean I've heard some really stupid shit on this board but that takes the cake.


Shaq is gonna get less and less respect as time goes on because fans have less and less respect for getting baskets inside. I really saw it clearly watching a Jordan game highlight on facebook. It was some game he had maybe 45ish with all kinds of insane layups, pullups, and post moves. Kid(who was probably 20 something really) said "Wow. Thats a lot of 2 pointers" and everyone agreed. A point was made that if Steph or Dame got that hot they would take less shots but score more points than that.

Insane degree of difficulty midrange and post shots are seen as taking a bad shot for only 2 points when you could have taken a 3 and spaced the floor.

And thats Jordan. Imagine those people evaluating shaq taking 22 jump hooks and dunks for 32 points after he goes 8-14 from the Ft line. They wont be able to grasp why that was effective except to assume teams back then were just too stupid to trade his 2s for 3s and beat him.

[ArbitraryWater]

I don't think best Dirk was as dominant as 94 or 95 Robinson but they brought different things to the table. Admiral faltered in the 94 playoffs and then got his ass kicked by Hakeem in 95. I just think he's become a bit underrated. Like I said, I'm a Dirk guy...one of my favourites actually. I just never really considered that his best was better than the the Admirals best in terms of outright on-court dominance. What's your take?

So you‘d actually prefer 94-95 Playoff D-Rob to lead your squad over 06/09/11 Dirk?

Dirk‘s game wasn‘t vulnerable to falling apart, he put together sustained long runs with better on/off numbers than D-Rob.

Sure in abstract view Rob‘s game was more complete and imposing, but not more efficient when exposed to the post-season challenge.

I mean, thats the knack on him, right? His effectiveness when the game is slowed down under bigger scrutiny.

So I don‘t see why you‘d have him over a reliable crunchtime option that isnt far off in terms of RS scoring to begin with.

[tpols]

Shaq had holes in his game... lazy leader, poor individual work ethic, dreadful constantly exploited FT shooting... intangibles matter too. I agree his talent is GOAT but his overall package wasn't compared to top 5 players all time.

[Whoah10115]

Shaq is gonna get less and less respect as time goes on because fans have less and less respect for getting baskets inside. I really saw it clearly watching a Jordan game highlight on facebook. It was some game he had maybe 45ish with all kinds of insane layups, pullups, and post moves. Kid(who was probably 20 something really) said "Wow. Thats a lot of 2 pointers" and everyone agreed. A point was made that if Steph or Dame got that hot they would take less shots but score more points than that.

Insane degree of difficulty midrange and post shots are seen as taking a bad shot for only 2 points when you could have taken a 3 and spaced the floor.

And thats Jordan. Imagine those people evaluating shaq taking 22 jump hooks and dunks for 32 points after he goes 8-14 from the Ft line. They wont be able to grasp why that was effective except to assume teams back then were just too stupid to trade his 2s for 3s and beat him.

I don't think that's what people could get put off from with Shaq. In my case I think he did a little bit in a vacuum, super stat-focused.

But I rank him lower because I think it's unbelievable what he got away with. Shouldn't be allowed to do that, whatever your size.

And Shaq has definitely gone the other way in the last few years. People are focused on his physical dominance and athleticism, and on his efficiency. The efficiency will always be on his side, with a sprinkle of "If he took it seriously and tried harder" or "If he shot just 60% from the line".

Opinion on Shaq has gone up.

[Roundball_Rock]

Best: Durant, Leonard, Dr. J (too early on Giannis), Pippen, Curry, Allen, Williams, Shaq.

Worst: Nash, Carter, Harden, Kyrie, Payton, Manu, Barbosa, Hakeem.

Nash, Hakeem were the toughest since it was close.

[Kblaze8855]

Its funny to me watching people figure out what to do with Dirk after he was called a loser for 12 years....won once...then lost for like 7 more years. 1 win in 20 years, one of the worst defeats in history, and 18 years of losing with various degrees of success before it.

And I dont mean what you probably think. I remember saying after 07 that id still take Dirk over Malone because of the skillset and people acting like I was on another anti Malone crusade because all Dirk had done was lose with players that were at the time getting more respected. Losing with Nash when Nash looked so good past what should have been his prime kinda put a dent in him along with the Warrior series.

Overall given 10-15 years of relative health and the same talent on the cast.....Dirk, KG, and Drob might give you similar results but I might lean away from David just off knowing basketball wasnt his thing. He was just too good at it to not play.

[Phoenix]

So you‘d actually prefer 94-95 Playoff D-Rob to lead your squad over 06/09/11 Dirk?

Dirk‘s game wasn‘t vulnerable to falling apart, he put together sustained long runs with better on/off numbers than D-Rob.

Sure in abstract view Rob‘s game was more complete and imposing, but not more efficient when exposed to the post-season challenge.

I mean, thats the knack on him, right? His effectiveness when the game is slowed down under bigger scrutiny.

So I don‘t see why you‘d have him over a reliable crunchtime option that isnt far off in terms of RS scoring to begin with.

First I did specify that Robinson was shit in 94. I didn't neglect to mention that. In 95 he got shat on by Hakeem but Dream was shitting on everyone that year. They played in different eras and against different players so that needs to be weighed too. David Robinson in 2011 is probably better than in 1995 expressly because the league wasn't as physical, which is why he wasn't as good in the playoffs compared to the regular season. 2009 Dwight Howard was more raw than peak Robinson and got to the finals, so I'm looking at the two in a vacuum. How well do you think Dirk's game holds in the 95 playoffs?

Dirk also did have 07 as the first seed. That's probably as low as Robinson's playoff blunders. He had less of those, and higher highs in the postseason.

[Kblaze8855]

I don't think that's what people could get put off from with Shaq. In my case I think he did a little bit in a vacuum, super stat-focused.

But I rank him lower because I think it's unbelievable what he got away with. Shouldn't be allowed to do that, whatever your size.

And Shaq has definitely gone the other way in the last few years. People are focused on his physical dominance and athleticism, and on his efficiency. The efficiency will always be on his side, with a sprinkle of "If he took it seriously and tried harder" or "If he shot just 60% from the line".

Opinion on Shaq has gone up.


Efficiency? People already dont care if you make more of your shots if your combined 3(field goal, 3 point, and FT) percentages are worse.

There is absolutely no reason to combine the 3 into one number that still requires you look at the other 3 to know how it was reached....but people arent gonna stop doing it. Ive seen people say Shaq was worse on offense than any number of people specifically because of his lack of "Efficiency". 4 of the last 5 years Hardens TS was higher in the playoffs than Shaqs in 2000 and ive absolutely heard people bring it up.

Stupid people. But it comes up.

[Shogon]

Well given that it's a more recent take where Shaq has jumped Kobe, this is a full of shit take.

Do you speak English?

[Phoenix]

Its funny to me watching people figure out what to do with Dirk after he was called a loser for 12 years....won once...then lost for like 7 more years. 1 win in 20 years, one of the worst defeats in history, and 18 years of losing with various degrees of success before it.

And I dont mean what you probably think. I remember saying after 07 that id still take Dirk over Malone because of the skillset and people acting like I was on another anti Malone crusade because all Dirk had done was lose with players that were at the time getting more respected. Losing with Nash when Nash looked so good past what should have been his prime kinda put a dent in him along with the Warrior series.

Overall given 10-15 years of relative health and the same talent on the cast.....Dirk, KG, and Drob might give you similar results but I might lean away from David just off knowing basketball wasnt his thing. He was just too good at it to not play.

I have all 3 generally in the same GOAT list ranking. People are acting like there's huge differences here. David Robinson, for his 'failures' in the playoffs, was the guy people thought was gonna take over the league from MJ. An annual IBM award winner as the best overall statistical player. 'Bill Russell with a offensive game'. He wasn't as maniacally competitive but if you injected that same batshit crazy 'win at all costs' thing that guys like MJ, Magic and Bird had in that era it would have been interesting.

[Carbine]

Why don't you like TS percentage KBlaze888555?

Seems like a logical stat to me.

[RRR3]

I mean this from the deepest place in my heart... only a complete and utter brain dead idiot with absolutely zero awareness would think that Kobe was a better player than Shaq. Unreal. I mean I've heard some really stupid shit on this board but that takes the cake.
I mean you picked Jamal Crawford as the best and Jason Terry as the worst in the group they were in, and considering Terry>>>>Crawford, thats way worse than taking Kobe over Shaq.

[tpols]

Why don't you like TS percentage KBlaze888555?

Seems like a logical stat to me.

he wants to pretend FT shooting doesn't exist and impact the final score.

[Kblaze8855]

Why don't you like TS percentage KBlaze888555?

Seems like a logical stat to me.


If I have to go look at all the numbers you combined to make it....to understand why it is what it is?

What do we get from combining them?

Its not more convenient if I still have to go look at their numbers to know why the number is what it is.

And without the why....im just talking out of my ass.

Klay doesnt have a high number for the same reason Tyson Chandler does. If I have to go look into it....why not give me the information to begin with?

[Kblaze8855]

he wants to pretend FT shooting doesn't exist and impact the final score.


So....why not tell me what the person shot from the line?

How is it more information when I need the components to understand it?

Just tell me that.

If I still have to go see the other numbers...why not give me those to begin with?

[tpols]

People can give you the numbers separately, the conclusion on who was more efficient will still be the same.

[Carbine]

If I have to go look at all the numbers you combined to make it....to understand why it is what it is?

What do we get from combining them?

Its not more convenient if I still have to go look at their numbers to know why the number is what it is.

And without the why....im just talking out of my ass.

Klay doesnt have a high number for the same reason Tyson Chandler does. If I have to go look into it....why not give me the information to begin with?


The Chandler/Klay comparison, you know better than to compare a 5th option taking nothing but dunks or put backs for most part to a 20ppg scorer.

TS is excellent for comparable roles. I didn't think it was that controversial of a stat. Ill continue to use it, for sure. Great stat.

Certainly doesn't help Shaq fans though, although no stat takes into effect the other intangible effects hacking the big fellah makes on the game.

[Uncle Drew]

Shaq had holes in his game... lazy leader, poor individual work ethic, dreadful constantly exploited FT shooting... intangibles matter too. I agree his talent is GOAT but his overall package wasn't compared to top 5 players all time.

Shaq was better than Kobe. Everyone knows it, including you.

[Roundball_Rock]

TS % often is a tool to inflate or deflate a player's efficiency based on how good or bad a FT % they are. What people don't realize is you have to be an absolutely terrible FT shooter to actively hurt your team. If a 65% FT shooter gets to the line he is helping his team. 10 trips (20 FTA) will net an average of 13 points. That is a bad thing? The player should avoid getting fouled so he can shoot 50% on 10 two pointers--which would yield only 10 points?

I have moved to using TS % simply because it seems the be the commonly accepted stat but eFG % is better because it adjusts for threes being worth more. Harden shooting 42% isn't the same as DeRozan doing it, after all. If people want to talk FT, they could always be listed separately.

[Kblaze8855]

Not really because what’s required then is a breakdown that includes positional issues, offense you play in, the number of times you do each of them and so on. Never mind the abstract issues like how much it matters who in particular misses a shot when your team as a whole is gonna miss about the same number anyway. It takes you down a deeper hole of variables and actual basketball discussion. True shooting is just lazy. And it’s fine to be lazy. We don’t always have time to consider why Cedric Maxwells advances shooting numbers are what they are as opposed to Glen Rice and what that says about their total games.

But if you are trying to make a real comparison you make time....or you’re just making noise.

[Carbine]

TS % often is a tool to inflate or deflate a player's efficiency based on how good or bad a FT % they are. What people don't realize is you have to be an absolutely terrible FT shooter to actively hurt your team. If a 65% FT shooter gets to the line he is helping his team. 10 trips (20 FTA) will net an average of 13 points. That is a bad thing? The player should avoid getting fouled so he can shoot 50% on 10 two pointers--which would yield only 10 points?

I have moved to using TS % simply because it seems the be the commonly accepted stat but eFG % is better because it adjusts for threes being worth more. Harden shooting 42% isn't the same as DeRozan doing it, after all. If people want to talk FT, they could always be listed separately.

Someone shooting 13/20 Ft is at 74ish TS% so of course he is helping the team a lot doing that.

Even shooting 10/20 isn't bad.

But when someone goes 2/9 like some bad free throw shooters have in the past, or stretches of 10/50.... Yeah it hurts quite a bit.

The difference between someone going 13/20 and 17/20 should also be factored in. One is contributing more points on the same attempts, there should be a stat that tells us this.

[Kblaze8855]

The Chandler/Klay comparison, you know better than to compare a 5th option taking nothing but dunks or put backs for most part to a 20ppg scorer.

TS is excellent for comparable roles. I didn't think it was that controversial of a stat. Ill continue to use it, for sure. Great stat.

Certainly doesn't help Shaq fans though, although no stat takes into effect the other intangible effects hacking the big fellah makes on the game.



That is exactly the point. If I require knowledge of their game and role to use a number....of what use is the number as a substitute?

Its like using an egg substitute in a recipe....then adding eggs anyway.

[Carbine]

Why use any stat then? Like ever?

Having basic knowledge of the players role isn't asking too much. That's all that is required for TS to matter.

[Phoenix]

I don't think I started heavily using TS% until I started posting regularly here. Before I typically did field goal percentage.

[tpols]

Not really because what’s required then is a breakdown that includes positional issues, offense you play in, the number of times you do each of them and so on. Never mind the abstract issues like how much it matters who in particular misses a shot when your team as a whole is gonna miss about the same number anyway. It takes you down a deeper hole of variables and actual basketball discussion. True shooting is just lazy. And it’s fine to be lazy. We don’t always have time to consider why Cedric Maxwells advances shooting numbers are what they are as opposed to Glen Rice and what that says about their total games.

But if you are trying to make a real comparison you make time....or you’re just making noise.


well yea... you have to compare apples to apples.

shaq didnt play like harden. Compare Shaq's numbers to the hakeem's, kareem's, and wilt's. Thats fine to do with ORTG or TS.

anybody can say any number doesnt matter if they just make silly comparisons like comparing 5th options to 2nd options or guys who play nothing alike.

[Whoah10115]

Efficiency? People already dont care if you make more of your shots if your combined 3(field goal, 3 point, and FT) percentages are worse.

There is absolutely no reason to combine the 3 into one number that still requires you look at the other 3 to know how it was reached....but people arent gonna stop doing it. Ive seen people say Shaq was worse on offense than any number of people specifically because of his lack of "Efficiency". 4 of the last 5 years Hardens TS was higher in the playoffs than Shaqs in 2000 and ive absolutely heard people bring it up.

Stupid people. But it comes up.

Well, unfortunately I can't argue this.

Shaq has gone up in recent years tho.

[Whoah10115]

Why use any stat then? Like ever?

Having basic knowledge of the players role isn't asking too much. That's all that is required for TS to matter.

TS doesn't matter.

Saved you time.

[Roundball_Rock]

The other issue with TS % is it distorts positional comparisons. Generally, the smaller the player, the better the FT %--but these also are the players with the worst FG %.


The difference between someone going 13/20 and 17/20 should also be factored in. One is contributing more points on the same attempts, there should be a stat that tells us this.

It should--but I would separate FT's out from eFG %. TS % would imply the 13/20 guy shouldn't be taking 20 FTA's because he is "inefficient" at it--instead he should have taken lower percentage FGA attempts, which doesn't make sense.

TS % also obscures the damage done to a team by a guy going 9 for 25 (assume all twos) who happens to go 9 from 10 from the line. TS % says that is a decent outing: 27 points on 25 shots but obscures the damage done by such an inefficient player taking that many FGA and wasting possessions.

[Phoenix]

The other issue with TS % is it distorts positional comparisons. Generally, the smaller the player, the better the FT %--but these also are the players with the worst FG %.



Exactly. James Harden, for example, is a career 61% TS scorer but basically shoots 44% from the field since playing for Houston. Shaq in his prime hit 60% once, in 2003.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'll use TS% time to time because posters I communicate with here and the other board do.

The only issue I have is the affinity with freethrows.

Freethrows are part of the game. Understandable. What I don't like is a mediocre or average 'efficient player' can resemble an efficiency monster. You're a volume chucker who shoots too many bad shots, but because you can make a freethrow...I'm supposed to call you efficient now? That's not ALWAYS the case but that part is dumb.

[Kblaze8855]

well yea... you have to compare apples to apples.

shaq didnt play like harden. Compare Shaq's numbers to the hakeem's, kareem's, and wilt's. Thats fine to do with ORTG or TS.

anybody can say any number doesnt matter if they just make silly comparisons like comparing 5th options to 2nd options or guys who play nothing alike.


Thing is....comparing two basketball players you DONT have to compare apples to apples. Nobody sits befuddled because they were asked if they want Mutombo or Glen Rice. The very act of ranking players requires you list players of different types. Especially if you go all time. Even among similar positions guys play very different games in the same basic role. You dont need apples to apples to compare basketball ability. Only to compare stats. The problem is....so many people act like they are the same thing.

I dont give a **** about Paul George not playing like Larry Johnson or Mark Jackson or whoever. I can evaluate them just fine on their own or against eachother. Basketball has no problem there.

Stats do. Which is why they are often out of place in a basketball talk.

[Overdrive]

Kg - best
Chris Paul
David Robinson
Durant
Dirk
Nash - worst







Tmac
Pierce
Vince Carter
Grant Hill
Paul George - worst
Leonard - best





Giannis - best
Karl Malone
James Harden - worst
Isiah Thomas
Doctor J





****Trolls delight****
Kyrie
Pau Gasol
Pippen - best
Dumars
Klay - worst
****Trolls Delight****






Jason Kidd
Steph Curry - best
Gary Payton - worst
Wade
Clyde Drexler










Lillard
Ray Allen - best
Reggie Miller
Mitch Richmond
Manu - worst






Ben Gordon
Lou Williams
Barbosa
Jason Terry - best
John Starks
Jamal Crawford - worst



Magic Johnson
Tim Duncan
Shaq - best
Kobe - worst
Hakeem



Some were pretty tough and the worst close to the best.

[Carbine]

The other issue with TS % is it distorts positional comparisons. Generally, the smaller the player, the better the FT %--but these also are the players with the worst FG %.



It should--but I would separate FT's out from eFG %. TS % would imply the 13/20 guy shouldn't be taking 20 FTA's because he is "inefficient" at it--instead he should have taken lower percentage FGA attempts, which doesn't make sense.

TS % also obscures the damage done to a team by a guy going 9 for 25 (assume all twos) who happens to go 9 from 10 from the line. TS % says that is a decent outing: 27 points on 25 shots but obscures the damage done by such an inefficient player taking that many FGA and wasting possessions.

Actually if you read my post - TS implies the player shooting 13/20 should absolute continue doing that because it's a TS% of 74..... That's unheard of efficiency.

[Whoah10115]

Quick edit. Just realized I picked McGrady below Paul George. No offense to George, but I have to take that back and edit.

[Carbine]

Also, that scenario you posted about 9/25 but going 9/10 FT is not a good example on your part.

That's a 46 TS% so it values that type of performance in the right light generally speaking, an inefficient scoring output.

[Kblaze8855]

It seems people are really over Steve Nash. Which seems odd to me in this day of "But look at the shooting numbers...." and orating and all that nonsense. Nash gives you 16-19 a game...shoots 52-55%....42-45% from 3...might shoot 89% from the line in a bad year. Guy had a 51/43/95 season scoring 17 a game leading the league in assists winning 55 games and losing to the champs in the WCF. And he was 36. IT wasnt nearly his best season.

We not giving a **** anymore?

Just curious. People used to get on me for not praising him more.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Kg
Chris Paul
David Robinson
Durant
Dirk
Nash

Best: Dirk
Worst: Nash







Tmac
Pierce
Vince Carter
Grant Hill
Paul George
Leonard

Best: Leonard
Worst: Paul George





Giannis
Karl Malone
James Harden
Isiah Thomas
Doctor J

Best: Giannis
Worst: Isaiah Thomas





****Trolls delight****
Kyrie
Pau Gasol
Pippen
Dumars
Klay
****Trolls Delight****

Best: Pippen
Worst: Klay






Jason Kidd
Steph Curry
Gary Payton
Wade
Clyde Drexler

Best: Wade
Worst: Gary Payton










Lillard
Ray Allen
Reggie Miller
Mitch Richmond
Manu

Best: Manu
Worst: lillard






Ben Gordon
Lou Williams
Barbosa
Jason Terry
John Starks
Jamal Crawford

Best: Jason Terry
Worst: Barbosa



Magic Johnson
Tim Duncan
Shaq
Kobe
Hakeem

Best: Shaq
Worst: Kobe

[Carbine]

It seems people are really over Steve Nash. Which seems odd to me in this day of "But look at the shooting numbers...." and orating and all that nonsense. Nash gives you 16-19 a game...shoots 52-55%....42-45% from 3...might shoot 89% from the line in a bad year. Guy had a 51/43/95 season scoring 17 a game leading the league in assists winning 55 games and losing to the champs in the WCF. And he was 36. IT wasnt nearly his best season.

We not giving a **** anymore?

Just curious. People used to get on me for not praising him more.

It's definitely centered around the stigma that he is a complete liability on defense.

It's not actually true, but that's the reason for it.

[ArbitraryWater]

First I did specify that Robinson was shit in 94. I didn't neglect to mention that. In 95 he got shat on by Hakeem but Dream was shitting on everyone that year. They played in different eras and against different players so that needs to be weighed too. David Robinson in 2011 is probably better than in 1995 expressly because the league wasn't as physical, which is why he wasn't as good in the playoffs compared to the regular season. 2009 Dwight Howard was more raw than peak Robinson and got to the finals, so I'm looking at the two in a vacuum. How well do you think Dirk's game holds in the 95 playoffs?

Dirk also did have 07 as the first seed. That's probably as low as Robinson's playoff blunders. He had less of those, and higher highs in the postseason.

No idea, and I don‘t think it matters. I just compare what they did in their respective era.

[Roundball_Rock]

Actually if you read my post - TS implies the player shooting 13/20 should absolute continue doing that because it's a TS% of 74..... That's unheard of efficiency.

That assumes that 13/20 FTA guy takes 0 FG's to get to that high TS %.


Also, that scenario you posted about 9/25 but going 9/10 FT is not a good example on your part.

That's a 46 TS% so it values that type of performance in the right light generally speaking, an inefficient scoring output.

It was random numbers, you get that point. That scenario was all two pointers. If that 9/25 and 9/10 FT guy is Harden the TS % numbers come out differently. I found a TS % calculator and plugged in 32 points on 25 FGA and 10 FTA. That comes out to 54.4%.


We not giving a **** anymore?

Just curious. People used to get on me for not praising him more.

It is selective. A player on ISH we have seen TS % used a lot for is Miller, as it is argued he was Barkley-like in efficiency based on TS %. Never mind the difference in volume between the two.

Nash, like some other players, is also hurt by a lot of his impact not showing up on the stat sheet. The efficiency numbers for his teammates with and without him are night and day--but there is no neat stat to capture that on basketballreference. People say he shouldn't have been MVP but if you look at his global impact it is obvious he had MVP-like impact.


It's definitely centered around the stigma that he is a complete liability on defense.

Also team success, which is selective as well. It seems fans give a lot of credit to losing in the finals (except for LeBron) to a much higher level than losing in the conference finals. The problem for Nash is he played for the Phoenix Suns, not the Philadelphia Suns and his losses to the best team often came in the WCF, not the finals. Somehow if he played on the Philadelphia Suns he would be perceived a lot better.

[Phoenix]

It seems people are really over Steve Nash. Which seems odd to me in this day of "But look at the shooting numbers...." and orating and all that nonsense. Nash gives you 16-19 a game...shoots 52-55%....42-45% from 3...might shoot 89% from the line in a bad year. Guy had a 51/43/95 season scoring 17 a game leading the league in assists winning 55 games and losing to the champs in the WCF. And he was 36. IT wasnt nearly his best season.

We not giving a **** anymore?

Just curious. People used to get on me for not praising him more.

Probably because Steph came along and added an extra 10ppg with the same basic numbers. Nash could have done Curry 2017 scoring numbers if he was less inclined to dish out.

[ArbitraryWater]

Its funny to me watching people figure out what to do with Dirk after he was called a loser for 12 years....won once...then lost for like 7 more years. 1 win in 20 years, one of the worst defeats in history, and 18 years of losing with various degrees of success before it.

And I dont mean what you probably think. I remember saying after 07 that id still take Dirk over Malone because of the skillset and people acting like I was on another anti Malone crusade because all Dirk had done was lose with players that were at the time getting more respected. Losing with Nash when Nash looked so good past what should have been his prime kinda put a dent in him along with the Warrior series.

Overall given 10-15 years of relative health and the same talent on the cast.....Dirk, KG, and Drob might give you similar results but I might lean away from David just off knowing basketball wasnt his thing. He was just too good at it to not play.

Thats funny but we are over that now.

Of what value is you bringing up Dirk‘s flawed perception (which wasn‘t talked about much since he wasn‘t cared for as much) pre 2011? What do you get out of it?

Do you agree with it? If not I don‘t see the point of bringing it up.

[Whoah10115]

It seems people are really over Steve Nash. Which seems odd to me in this day of "But look at the shooting numbers...." and orating and all that nonsense. Nash gives you 16-19 a game...shoots 52-55%....42-45% from 3...might shoot 89% from the line in a bad year. Guy had a 51/43/95 season scoring 17 a game leading the league in assists winning 55 games and losing to the champs in the WCF. And he was 36. IT wasnt nearly his best season.

We not giving a **** anymore?

Just curious. People used to get on me for not praising him more.

I love Nash and I love Paul, but even with the defense Nash is the better player. As a scorer I don't think he's below Paul and he's clearly the better playmaker and I say the better passer. Simply a case of him doing more.

He gets compared to Stockton and I can go either way, but I do think that, in Phoenix, he maximized his gifts more than Stockton did. That's specifically as an offensive player. It's why I don't consider Paul the better scorer.

It's also evidence backing up your take on stats and proof that the game is what matters. I'm not know if Nash is better than Stockton, but he was a scorer when it was time to be. "Alpha" or whatever. Nash made his teams better than most.

Had he done it straight out of college it would have been looked at differently. People still cling to Shaq being robbed, when he wasn't a top 5 player that year (hard to argue).

Nash also led the biggest single-season turnaround ever. The Celtics took it a few years later, but they got Garnett AND Allen, not to mention Pierce only played like 50 games the year before.

[Whoah10115]

Probably because Steph came along and added an extra 10ppg with the same basic numbers. Nash could have done Curry 2017 scoring numbers if he was less inclined to dish out.

but also 4-5 fewer assists.

[ArbitraryWater]

Why use any stat then? Like ever?

Having basic knowledge of the players role isn't asking too much. That's all that is required for TS to matter.

TS% is grossly misrepresentative.

You don‘t NEED further knowledge and inquiry if you just look at eFG% and FT% separately

[HBK_Kliq_2]

It seems people are really over Steve Nash. Which seems odd to me in this day of "But look at the shooting numbers...." and orating and all that nonsense. Nash gives you 16-19 a game...shoots 52-55%....42-45% from 3...might shoot 89% from the line in a bad year. Guy had a 51/43/95 season scoring 17 a game leading the league in assists winning 55 games and losing to the champs in the WCF. And he was 36. IT wasnt nearly his best season.

We not giving a **** anymore?

Just curious. People used to get on me for not praising him more.

Chris Paul can do similar things but with better defense

Robinson/KG have a massive defense edge

And I just rather have Dirk/Durant great offense and better then average defense.

No knock on Nash, I just thought he was the odd man of the group. I wouldn't really argue if you pick Nash over Drob though.

[Phoenix]

No idea, and I don‘t think it matters. I just compare what they did in their respective era.

That's fine as long as we realize its not apples to apples. We can compare Dirk vs KG or Duncan alot easier than you can Dirk vs the Admiral.

[ArbitraryWater]

but also 4-5 fewer assists.

What?

[Phoenix]

but also 4-5 fewer assists.

Yes, that's why I specified scoring numbers. Nash could have dropped 25ppg in 2005 if that was his MO. If you dropped Nash in a 2015 D'Antoni system onwards he would get you 25 and 11.

[Roundball_Rock]

Nash could have done Curry 2017 scoring numbers if he was less inclined to dish out.

Nash had an episode on Simmons' Book of Basketball 2.0 podcast and in it one thing Nash said he would do differently is score more. He noted that back then (and really all of basketball history to that point), point guards were taught to be facilitators and that it would be a bad thing if they shot too much but these days you have all these high scoring PG's.

[Phoenix]

Nash had an episode on Simmons' Book of Basketball 2.0 podcast and in it one thing Nash said he would do differently is score more. He noted that back then (and really all of basketball history to that point), point guards were taught to be facilitators and that it would be a bad thing if they shot too much but these days you have all these high scoring PG's.

2005 Nash pretty much came a decade before the best time for a player with his skillset to exist.

[tpols]

It seems people are really over Steve Nash. Which seems odd to me in this day of "But look at the shooting numbers...." and orating and all that nonsense. Nash gives you 16-19 a game...shoots 52-55%....42-45% from 3...might shoot 89% from the line in a bad year. Guy had a 51/43/95 season scoring 17 a game leading the league in assists winning 55 games and losing to the champs in the WCF. And he was 36. IT wasnt nearly his best season.

We not giving a **** anymore?

Just curious. People used to get on me for not praising him more.

you put him in a mix of top 20 all time players.

put him in the lower group with payton and kidd and people would still be ****ing with him.

[colts19]

Kg
Chris Paul worst
David Robinson best
Durant
Dirk
Nash







Tmac
Pierce Best
Vince Carter Worst
Grant Hill
Paul George
Leonard





Giannis
Karl Malone
James Harden Worst
Isiah Thomas
Doctor J Best





****Trolls delight****
Kyrie Worst
Pau Gasol
Pippen Best
Dumars
Klay
****Trolls Delight****






Jason Kidd Best
Steph Curry
Gary Payton Worst
Wade
Clyde Drexler










Lillard
Ray Allen
Reggie Miller
Mitch Richmond Worst
Manu Best






Ben Gordon
Lou Williams Best
Barbosa
Jason Terry
John Starks Worst
Jamal Crawford



Magic Johnson Best
Tim Duncan
Shaq
Kobe
Hakeem Worst

[Roundball_Rock]

2005 Nash pretty much came a decade before the best time for a player with his skillset to exist.

Yup.

Dirk came up earlier in the thread. He is a prime example of how much 1 ring can change a player's perception. If the Suns keep Joe Johnson they likely win at least once and Nash would be seen differently.

[Carbine]

That assumes that 13/20 FTA guy takes 0 FG's to get to that high TS %.



It was random numbers, you get that point. That scenario was all two pointers. If that 9/25 and 9/10 FT guy is Harden the TS % numbers come out differently. I found a TS % calculator and plugged in 32 points on 25 FGA and 10 FTA. That comes out to 54.4%.



It is selective. A player on ISH we have seen TS % used a lot for is Miller, as it is argued he was Barkley-like in efficiency based on TS %. Never mind the difference in volume between the two.

Nash, like some other players, is also hurt by a lot of his impact not showing up on the stat sheet. The efficiency numbers for his teammates with and without him are night and day--but there is no neat stat to capture that on basketballreference. People say he shouldn't have been MVP but if you look at his global impact it is obvious he had MVP-like impact.



Also team success, which is selective as well. It seems fans give a lot of credit to losing in the finals (except for LeBron) to a much higher level than losing in the conference finals. The problem for Nash is he played for the Phoenix Suns, not the Philadelphia Suns and his losses to the best team often came in the WCF, not the finals. Somehow if he played on the Philadelphia Suns he would be perceived a lot better.

No, that's always what 13/20 FTs is. You could have 20 FG attempts thrown in there but for the free throw portion of it, it's contributing those points at a 74 TS%........

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Hardens 9/25 with 5 three pointers is different than Derozens 10/25 with no 3pters....... TS reflects this which it should. What's the problem here?

[Overdrive]

It seems people are really over Steve Nash. Which seems odd to me in this day of "But look at the shooting numbers...." and orating and all that nonsense. Nash gives you 16-19 a game...shoots 52-55%....42-45% from 3...might shoot 89% from the line in a bad year. Guy had a 51/43/95 season scoring 17 a game leading the league in assists winning 55 games and losing to the champs in the WCF. And he was 36. IT wasnt nearly his best season.

We not giving a **** anymore?

Just curious. People used to get on me for not praising him more.

I really like Nash I just think he's the weakest player of them in a vacuum, but not by much. Same for Manu.

[Kblaze8855]

you put him in a mix of top 20 all time players.

put him in the lower group with payton and kidd and people would still be ****ing with him.

I put him in a list with Chris Paul and I think Nash got every pick for worst except one. That wouldn’t have been the case years ago and all that’s happened since is Paul still not winning. I often heard about that lack of winning when I was saying he was Nash level or above at the time....

Just a lot of weird results I’d say based on my years here. People legit thought I’d hated Nash for years for having the same high opinion I have now. But he never gets mentioned anymore.

[Roundball_Rock]

No, that's always what 13/20 FTs is. You could have 20 FG attempts thrown in there but for the free throw portion of it, it's contributing those points at a 74 TS%

If it is 16/20 FT it becomes 91% and 17/20 97%--so when the 13/20 guy is compared to the 16/20 guy it becomes a large deficit that will be used in debates against the 13/20 guy. Does it make that large a difference (17%) on the court? Missing 3 FT's is equal to missing 1 three pointer.


Hardens 9/25 with 5 three pointers is different than Derozens 10/25 with no 3pters....... TS reflects this which it should. What's the problem here?

16 missed shots out of 25 is never a good thing for a team, especially when a player that off should likely be taking less shots that game. TS masks that.

[Carbine]

My point is yes, it should matter. That better free throw shooter is contributing 3 more points in the same situation. That's a big deal to me, even if both are doing a great job of being efficient. Just one is better and should be valued as such.

Missing 14 shots usually is a bad thing, it takes a lot of three pointers and godly FT percentage on 10+ free throw attempts to even making it slightly above average. I don't see a problem here.

[Roundball_Rock]

Why lump the three data sets into one? It obscures other relevant details. If people care about FT % so much, they can always talk about FT %. Westbrook is playing smarter than ever and it shows in his career-high FG %, but TS % tells us this is his fourth most efficient season because his FT % has slipped since his peak OKC days. If 30 years from now people looked just at his TS % they would miss the change in his game and why that matters for Houston.

I am sharing my personal view. I recognize TS % is the generally accepted metric now so I use that in my posts after using eFG % for a decade.

[Phoenix]

I put him in a list with Chris Paul and I think Nash got every pick for worst except one. That wouldn’t have been the case years ago and all that’s happened since is Paul still not winning. I often heard about that lack of winning when I was saying he was Nash level or above at the time....

Just a lot of weird results I’d say based on my years here. People legit thought I’d hated Nash for years for having the same high opinion I have now. But he never gets mentioned anymore.

Who are you picking 'worst' in that list you placed Paul and Nash in?

[Dr Hawk]

Kg
Chris Paul
David Robinson WORST
Durant
Dirk - BEST
Nash





Tmac
Pierce
Vince Carter
Grant Hill
Paul George WORST
Leonard BEST





Giannis WORST
Karl Malone BEST
James Harden
Isiah Thomas
Doctor J





****Trolls delight****
Kyrie
Pau Gasol BEST
Pippen
Dumars WORST
Klay
****Trolls Delight****






Jason Kidd WORST
Steph Curry
Gary Payton
Wade BEST
Clyde Drexler










Lillard
Ray Allen
Reggie Miller
Mitch Richmond WORST
Manu BEST






Ben Gordon WORST
Lou Williams BEST
Barbosa
Jason Terry
John Starks
Jamal Crawford



Magic Johnson BEST
Tim Duncan
Shaq WORST
Kobe
Hakeem

[Carbine]

He is shooting a horrific 3PT percentage and getting to the free throw line less than his peak OKC years by 3-4 FT attempts.

Why shouldn't this matter? Getting to the line is a great way to score efficiently. Is someone is doing that less than previously, it should and in TS percentage case does get accounted for, along with the horrific 3pt shooting.

His absolute elite 2pt percentage is the only thing saving him. That's worrisome come playoff time, when everything generally gets tougher but especially those 2PT lay ups and fast breaks that are harder to come by.

[warriorfan]

No, that's always what 13/20 FTs is. You could have 20 FG attempts thrown in there but for the free throw portion of it, it's contributing those points at a 74 TS%........

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Hardens 9/25 with 5 three pointers is different than Derozens 10/25 with no 3pters....... TS reflects this which it should. What's the problem here?

It doesn’t align with his agendas. Everyone who knows two shits about basketball has known TS has been a better indicator of efficiency for over 10 years.

[msbutthurt]

I suppose it depends on your criteria



Good point.



The worst humans and dumbest humans criteria.... basically anybody listed that's currently in the NBA is the worst compared to the previous generation.


Notice that former players aren't angry and running their mouth on a daily basis, complaining how hard life is.


The guys making 10, 20, 30 million a year are the ones crying. While forming super teams to win more easily and play with their butt buddies.


It's not just players today that are weak minded, it's all young people in general.


The brainwashed generation.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EA2ohrt5Q

[Roundball_Rock]

He is shooting a horrific 3PT percentage and getting to the free throw line less than his peak OKC years by 3-4 FT attempts.

It should matter--but it isn't the whole story. One of the big questions about him going into the season was how/if he would fit into Houston's offense since he was the antithesis of what Houston does. He has done it by changing his game and playing smarter than he ever did in OKC. He is taking half the threes he did at his peak in 17' and his FG % is up from 42.8% last year to a career-high 47.4% this year. All this nuance is erased by TS %. TS % says Westbrook in 20' is the same as previous versions of Westbrook, which is ridiculous. A real picture would not what I just did and then point out his FT attempts and FT % are down from his peak.

[Akeem34TheDream]

A lot of people chose KG and no one chose KD in the first bracket. And that's fine by me. But I remember posting this thread.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?471381-KD-or-KG
Most people voted for KD. Now, either people are sheeplike and follow each other or people are changing their opinions all the time.

[msbutthurt]

A lot of people chose KG and no one chose KD in the first bracket. And that's fine by me. But I remember posting this thread.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?471381-KD-or-KG
Most people voted for KD. Now, either people are sheeplike and follow each other or people are changing their opinions all the time.




The correct answer is that half the NBA fans are leaving because they don't want politics shoved down their throats 24/7.


People that say "they just want players to shut up and dribble"..... I assure you that nobody wants to watch a political movie either. It's not that people want the players to shut up and dribble, it's that they don't care about what somebody else thinks politically. People already have their own political beliefs. When people want to listen to politics, they read the news. If I watch a Tom Cruise movie.... the last thing I want in that movie is for him to talking about Scientology. So in real life when he pushes Scientology, I am not going to listen. Tom Cruise Xenu alien lord believer. Kyrie Irving flat earther. Yeah... people don't care about your fake politics or your made up religion.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

I put him in a list with Chris Paul and I think Nash got every pick for worst except one. That wouldn’t have been the case years ago and all that’s happened since is Paul still not winning. I often heard about that lack of winning when I was saying he was Nash level or above at the time....

Just a lot of weird results I’d say based on my years here. People legit thought I’d hated Nash for years for having the same high opinion I have now. But he never gets mentioned anymore.

Paul or Nash have never won anything, so it comes down too who you view as the better player. Steve Nash is a defensive liability to an extreme level, that's my main problem with him. Teams consistently lit up Nash's team in conference finals:

Spurs offensive rating in West finals 2005: 118

Mavs offensive rating in West finals 2006: 114

Lakers offensive rating in West finals 2010: 124

An offense average of 118.6! That's goat level offense in a span of three different years. His only argument is 2007 when his team got suspended but he could of took that series to 7 at least.

[SouBeachTalents]

Paul or Nash have never won anything, so it comes down too who you view as the better player. Steve Nash is a defensive liability to an extreme level, that's my main problem with him. Teams consistently lit up Nash's team in conference finals:

Spurs offensive rating in West finals 2005: 118

Mavs offensive rating in West finals 2006: 114

Lakers offensive rating in West finals 2010: 124

An offense average of 118.6! That's goat level offense in a span of three different years. His only argument is 2007 when his team got suspended but he could of took that series to 7 at least.
But Nash wasn't guarding Duncan, Manu, Dirk, Kobe etc, so I don't know why you pin the blame on him for his teams defensive woes. Hell, the opposing PG's in those series didn't even play that well

[Reggie43]

Nash being the poster boy for rule change induced greatness plus being a defensive liability has something to do with him being picked worst of the group.

[goozeman]

Best/Worst

Durant/Nash
Leonard/Vince
Malone/Thomas
Kyrie/Dumars
Curry/Kidd
Miller/Manu
Terry/Barbosa
Magic/Duncan

[Shooter]

Eh, my only real problem is... are we talking about peak play or overall career? Anyways, I just shot from the hip...

Kg - Best
Chris Paul
David Robinson
Durant
Dirk
Nash - Worst







Tmac
Pierce - Worst
Vince Carter
Grant Hill
Paul George
Leonard - Best





Giannis - Best
Karl Malone
James Harden
Isiah Thomas - Worst
Doctor J





****Trolls delight****
Kyrie - Worst
Pau Gasol
Pippen - Best
Dumars
Klay
****Trolls Delight****






Jason Kidd
Steph Curry - Best
Gary Payton
Wade
Clyde Drexler - Worst










Lillard
Ray Allen - Best
Reggie Miller
Mitch Richmond - Worst
Manu






Ben Gordon
Lou Williams
Barbosa
Jason Terry - Worst
John Starks
Jamal Crawford - Best



Magic Johnson
Tim Duncan
Shaq - Best
Kobe - Worst
Hakeem

Jesus H. Christ. You got nearly every single one right.

My only minor beef is KG or KD, but I could see it either way.

Oh, and you put Barbosa over Terry.

98% accuracy damn good tho!

[Phoenix]

Nash being the poster boy for rule change induced greatness plus being a defensive liability has something to do with him being picked worst of the group.

I mean, there is a ring of truth to what the rules did for Nash, but in the big picture they opened up the game for his already present skillset to max out. Which, really, can be said for all perimeter players the last 15 years. Its not like he alone was the beneficiary of those changes. Everyone was competing in the same environment and some scaled better than others but there needed to be something there to scale in the first place.

Look at Iverson. He jumps from like a 31ppg 40ish% scorer to 33ppg 45% in 06, at 31 when he was already on the back nine of his prime and visibly slower than he was in his MVP heyday. Kobe,Dirk, Pierce, Arenas, Lebron, alot of guys did their career high scoring numbers around that time. Boosts in PPG and/or boosts in field goal efficiency. That's not a coincidence.

[NBAGOAT]

nash gets underrated everywhere and i'm a paul guy. yes rule changes blah blah but moving into a good system with dantoni and getting healthy mattered a lot too. Yes ik nelson was a pretty good option to coach Nash to his strengths too but he was a bit obsessed with forwards nash's final year and the mavs played a lot more iso heavy. even pre 2005 that how many pg's all time had his combo of passing+shooting ability? His defense is worse than paul's for sure but he's a magic lvl playmaker.

[Reggie43]

I mean, there is a ring of truth to what the rules did for Nash, but in the big picture they opened up the game for his already present skillset to max out. Which, really, can be said for all perimeter players the last 15 years. Its not like he alone was the beneficiary of those changes. Everyone was competing in the same environment and some scaled better than others but there needed to be something there to scale in the first place.

Look at Iverson. He jumps from like a 31ppg 40ish% scorer to 33ppg 45% in 06, at 31 when he was already on the back nine of his prime and visibly slower than he was in his MVP heyday. Kobe,Dirk, Pierce, Arenas, Lebron, alot of guys did their career high scoring numbers around that time. Boosts in PPG and/or boosts in field goal efficiency. That's not a coincidence.

Yeah I admit that type of perception of Nash is unfair and lots of players benefitted from the rule change obviously.

[Phoenix]

nash gets underrated everywhere and i'm a paul guy. yes rule changes blah blah but moving into a good system with dantoni and getting healthy mattered a lot too. Yes ik nelson was a pretty good option to coach Nash to his strengths too but he was a bit obsessed with forwards nash's final year and the mavs played a lot more iso heavy. even pre 2005 that how many pg's all time had his combo of passing+shooting ability? His defense is worse than paul's for sure but he's a magic lvl playmaker.

The closest I can think of is Mark Price but I dont think Price was quite the passer( though he was very good in that dept as well).

[Sulico]

Dirk
Durant

Leonard
T-Mac

Giannis
Isiah Thomas

Pippen
Kyrie

Steph Curry
Gary Payton

Manu
Mitch Richmond

Jason Terry
Jamal Crawford

Magic Johnson
Hakeem


Had doubts about first one, who's worse Nash or Durant, trolls delight, who's best Pau Gasol or Pippen and last one, Magic or Duncan.
Other than that pretty obvious answers.

[Roundball_Rock]

The closest I can think of is Mark Price but I dont think Price was quite the passer( though he was very good in that dept as well).

Yeah Price probably is the closest thing to Nash before Nash. Great player--underrated because he didn't have longevity. Price missed 66 games in 91'--his team went from contenders to the lottery--but because he was scoring 18 PPG and not 28 PPG he is forgotten.

The D'Antoni effect is overstated:

https://www.backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/DAntoni-Lead-Guards.png

Here is the Nash impact on teammate TS % (using 3 year averages where possible):

Amare w/out Nash 2003-2004: 53.3%
Amare with Nash 2008-2010: 63.1% (62.8% from 2005-2010)
Amare w/out Nash 2011-2013: 56.7%

Marion with Nash 2005-2007: 58.0%
Marion w/out Nash 2009-2011: 53.7%
Marion 2010 in Phoenix: 59.4%
Marion 2010 in Miami: 50.3%

J. Johnson w/out Nash 2002-2003: 47.5%
J. Johnson with Nash 2004-2005: 52.2%
J. Johnson w/out Nash 2006-2008: 54.2%

Bell w/out Nash 2003-2005: 51.2%
Bell with Nash 2006-2008: 57.0%
Bell w/out Nash 2010-2012: 54.6%
(2009 56.9% in PHX, 54.1% in CHA)

Barbosa w/out Nash 2004: 55.3%
Barbosa with Nash 2005-2010: 58.1%
Barbosa w/out Nash 2011-2013: 52.4%

Diaw w/out Nash 2004-2005: 48.1%
Diaw with Nash 2005-2008: 55.1%
Diaw w/out Nash 2010-2012: 54.5%
(60.0% in PHX, 55.8% in CHA in 09')

Shaq w/out Nash 2005-2007: 58.1% (57.9% in 06' and 07')
Shaq with Nash 2009: 62.3%
Shaq w/out Nash 2011-2012: 59.5%
(60.5% in PHX, 57.7% in MIA in 08')

[insidehoops]

This is a good grouping of players.