John Stockon's Offensive Collapse in the 97' and 98' Playoffs?

[Roundball_Rock]

What happened here? This data is available only from 1997 on https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/ so we miss a lot of Stockton's career but we have the info for the two finals runs. (ORAPM is Regularized Adjusted Plus/Minus)

Stockton 97' RS ORAPM: +3.0 (7th in NBA)
Stockton 98' PO ORAPM: -0.1 (102nd of playoff players)

Stockton 98' RS ORAPM: +3.2 (5th in NBA)
Stockton 98' PO ORAPM: -0.2 (122nd of playoff players)

He went from elite in the RS to being a net negative in the playoffs (per this stat)--both years. This is a shocking decline.

Given how close those Bulls-Jazz games were, if Stockton doesn't fall off a cliff both years in the playoffs, the Jazz probably win 2 championships and we look at Malone's career completely differently. With his longevity (second only to Kareem's to date), and his aggregate stats (2nd all-time in scoring) and accolades (2x MVP, a ton of all-NBA, etc.) he may be considered borderline top 10 instead of around 17th-20th today.

The excuse always given for Stockton's playoff issues is the Bulls' defense but he wasn't lighting it up against the WC either. He was 12/3/7 in the 98' PO through the first three rounds and 17/4/10 in 97'. These aren't far off from his finals numbers of 10/3/9 and 15/4/9 in the 98' and 97' finals respectively.

[warriorfan]

Sorry to shit in your Cheerios bud but this came from the same site

https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/1999-00/playoffs/

https://i.postimg.cc/WbVVB4JD/9-EC30011-D151-4-C64-A99-C-7-DCB4-FA96204.jpg

Playoff RAPM 1999-2000

#1. Reggie Miller

Explain.

[Kblaze8855]

I don’t know if a reduction in an advanced stat is the same as a collapse. He’s the main reason they even made the finals the first time.

[Roundball_Rock]

I don’t know if a reduction in an advanced stat is the same as a collapse. He’s the main reason they even made the finals the first time.

Fair point. The title is a bit provocative.


Playoff RAPM 1999-2000

#1. Reggie Miller

Top 50-60 all-time. Great player. Not surprising.

[warriorfan]

Fair point. The title is a bit provocative.



Top 50-60 all-time. Great player. Not surprising.

RAPM 30% higher than your boy Pippen.

Interesting

[Roundball_Rock]

RAPM 30% higher than your boy Pippen.

Interesting

Your link shows post-prime Pippen at #3 for the NBA playoffs (as you know, the Blazers nearly won the chip that year). :bowdown:

Anyway, this thread isn't about Pippen or Miller. Any thoughts on Stockton?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Good seeing the data that I educated you on. Props OP :applause:

[Roundball_Rock]

Hah! Hey, have to give you credit for the info. :cheers:

Personally, I don't think any advanced stat is the be all end all but these splits are stark and is consistent with the other info we have of Stockton declining in the PO (albeit not this much).

With Malone a lot of it can be explained by him having to shoulder a very high load--especially later on when the Jazz had no viable second scorer for defenses to account for (relative to if Malone played with a 20 PPG or so sidekick during those finals years). What is the explanation for Stockton, though?

[warriorfan]

Your link shows post-prime Pippen at #3 for the NBA playoffs (as you know, the Blazers nearly won the chip that year). :bowdown:

Anyway, this thread isn't about Pippen or Miller. Any thoughts on Stockton?

Scottie Pippen and Miller are literally the exact same age bro. :roll:

For real though. Why is Miller blowing your boy Pippen out of the water at the same age? Pippen doesn’t even have Jordan to tie him down anymore...What gives?

[Roundball_Rock]

There are multiple Miller and Pippen threads going on the first 2 pages. Go into those to talk about them. :confusedshrug:

No thoughts on Stockton? Where is Stockton on that 2000 list?

[warriorfan]

There are multiple Miller and Pippen threads going on the first 2 pages. Go into those to talk about them. :confusedshrug:

No thoughts on Stockton? Where is Stockton on that 2000 list?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

In the other thread you tried to find every cherry picked stat to prove how Miller wasn’t doing enough in the playoffs... Then in your very next troll thread you inadvertently post data that shows how Reggie Miller was the most impactful playoff performer in the league. :oldlol: That is some good shit.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

That they are :lol They also back up some of the arguments you've made for your guy, Pippen. The talk is always his play beyond numbers, and RAPM captures that better than most.

We don't have Stockton or Malone's averages when they were younger and "more in their prime". In other words, early and mid 90s RAPM. OBPM is next best though. Statistically speaking.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's a shame we are missing so many of these advanced stats for for large chunks of these player's career. At least for 90's players we can get an idea. If these guys were doing X in 1997 or 1998 we can make some guess about what they did in their primes.

There is augmented plus/minus (another advanced plus/minus stat) info available for a bit longer--but only starting in 1994. Here is some of that discussed for Stockton:


While passing like Stockton’s can be additive, it’s not game-changing. And while his shooting scales well, he was reluctant to fire open shots. In the last three seasons (2015-17), no player with a comparable scoring rate to prime Stockton cracked the top-10 percent of offensive RAPM scores, and the highest-impact player of that group, Kyle Korver (+3.5), was an all-time level 3-point specialist who posted a ridiculous +16.5 percent shooting efficiency (rTS) while spacing the floor.

Fortunately, the majority of Stockton’s career is captured by some form of plus-minus. There, he grades out well, with scaled and minute-weighted values around All-Star or all-league levels from 1994-99 (between+2.6 and +5.5). His best numbers came in his final few years in reduced minutes, likely due to the selectivity of his role and, in the case of 2001 — where he posted a monster +7.8 — losing longtime backup Howard Eisley. Either way, Adjusted Plus-Minus casts Stockton as a really valuable player who lacked top-tier impact during his formative years. His plus-minus numbers also suggest he was a small, but relevant impact player on defense, in line with the awareness and coverage he displays on film.

This isn't surprising. The question is what was his impact in the PO and what caused the decline? The BP author thinks a lot of it was his lack of scoring ability which would get exposed against good defenses and in the PO.


They also back up some of the arguments you've made for your guy, Pippen. The talk is always his play beyond numbers, and RAPM captures that better than most.

True. I will look into it more. I wonder what other players look better in RAPM than in traditional stats.

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/25/backpicks-goat-25-john-stockton/

[Shooter]

Scottie Pippen and Miller are literally the exact same age bro. :roll:

For real though. Why is Miller blowing your boy Pippen out of the water at the same age? Pippen doesn’t even have Jordan to tie him down anymore...What gives?

Imagine comparing MJ's best opposition to MJ's own #2 option :lol

next

[Roundball_Rock]

Imagine comparing MJ's best opposition to MJ's own #2 option :lol

next

When the Pippen bashing agenda collides with the "Everyone MJ played was 10 feet tall and flawless" agenda. :lol

[Shooter]

When the Pippen bashing agenda collides with the "Everyone MJ played was 10 feet tall and flawless" agenda. :lol

"MILLER IS GREAT , but PIPPEN SUX!"

But MJ's #2 option was nearly equal to Milller

"OH.. UH. "

:lol It's one or the other cupcakes

[warriorfan]

"MILLER IS GREAT , but PIPPEN SUX!"

But MJ's #2 option was nearly equal to Milller

"OH.. UH. "

:lol It's one or the other cupcakes

Not so fast baby ladyboi...

https://i.postimg.cc/dttFQVJL/8-B60585-B-464-C-485-B-9820-4-A8695-BD723-C.jpg

Your boy Hornacek the janitor dwarfing lil pip. :roll:

Nice stats nerds. Next.

[Roundball_Rock]

"MILLER IS GREAT , but PIPPEN SUX!"

But MJ's #2 option was nearly equal to Milller

"OH.. UH. "

:lol It's one or the other cupcakes

:lol

This is post-prime Pippen too he invoked. Pippen was 34--so was Miller--but Pippen was never the same after his 98' finals back injury. That came on top of a slew of injuries from 1996-1998. It eventually took a toll, as did making the finals every year (a lot more mileage than Miller, who got out the first round only four times heading into 2000). Miller didn't have any major injuries.

Here is what we know for the two players' primes for these type of stats.

Miller:


Miller’s career reached into the Databall era, and his statistical footprint there is strong but not overwhelming. In scaled adjusted plus-minus, his first seven seasons (1994-2000) are above the 75th percentile, with three seasons between the 93rd and 96th percentile. His game-level plus-minus is steady, a rung below the superstars. So while Reggie lacks the indicators of a monster peak, all signs are that his economical scoring, spacing and moderate creation made him a valuable offensive weapon for a number of years.

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/18/backpicks-goat-29-reggie-miller/

Pippen:


Pippen’s best years hit the beginning of the plus-minus era, and his numbers are impressive. After a marginal year in ’94 (86th percentile), he posted scaled Augmented Plus-Minus values in the 97th percentile in ’95 and ’96, followed by a season in the 98th percentile using adjusted plus-minus (APM) in 1997. His augmented ’95 season was second in the league to plus-minus goliath David Robinson, while his ’96 season trailed only Robinson, Jordan and the venerable Penny Hardaway.

Pippen sucks but he peaked as 2nd best in the entire NBA. :lol

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/29/backpicks-goat-23-scottie-pippen/

[Shooter]

Not so fast baby ladyboi...

https://i.postimg.cc/dttFQVJL/8-B60585-B-464-C-485-B-9820-4-A8695-BD723-C.jpg

Your boy Hornacek the janitor dwarfing lil pip. :roll:

Nice stats nerds. Next.

Which Jeff Hornacek? 10.7 literal worst #2 option in NBA History Hornacek? :lol

Next

[Roundball_Rock]

Your boy Hornacek the janitor dwarfing lil pip.

Miller is 78th that same year. If 4th is dwarfing 9th, what is 9th versus 78th? :lol

[warriorfan]

Miller is 78th that same year. If 4th is dwarfing 9th, what is 9th versus 78th? :lol

A f.ucking stupid statistic and a should be locked thread.

[Roundball_Rock]

A f.ucking stupid statistic and a should be locked thread.

It is a statistic your friends proferred as a central argument against Pippen. :confusedshrug:

[HBK_Kliq_2]

RAPM seems overrated, it tells you Stockton had a goat level regular season career if I'm not mistaken? But RAPM hit Pippen in top 3 for 2000 playoffs, so it was correct there.

Having said that, yes Stockton/Malone were chokers. Malone was definitely the bigger choker of the two. If you are two top 30 GOATS and spend basically your entire primes together and never win a ring? That screams that they were chokers. Pippen with Rasheed even closed them in 6.

Another problem was Stockton's minutes. 1998 finals Phil is playing Jordan/Pippen 40MPG and Sloan is playing Stockton 32MPG. Sloan's excuse was basically load managing Stockton so he can have a long career. Are you kidding me? Its the damn finals, your superstars shouldn't be playing less then 39MPG.

[Shooter]

It is a statistic your friends proferred as a central argument against Pippen. :confusedshrug:

:roll:

Wrekt'm again

[3ball]

I clicked on OP's link and it's pretty obvious that rapm isn't ranking the players - Ron Harper, Charlie Ward, Ostertag, Pippen and countless other role players ranked at the top, above many superstars

And there's pretty high correlation to whether your team won a lot or not..

it's only useful to rank one player over another (in a broad, general sense) with an absolutely massive sample size of many years and lineups... So looking at rapm for a single playoff run is completely useless, and infact erroneous if used to rank players

in theory, rapm is great - in reality, there can never be anywhere NEAR the sample size needed to make any accurate judgements

Carry on

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It is a statistic your friends proferred as a central argument against Pippen. :confusedshrug:

Incorrect. You were educated on RAPM after wanting to credit Pippen with a team stat.

Don't be dishonest.



it's only useful to rank one player over another (in a broad, general sense) with an absolutely massive sample size of many years and lineups... So looking at rapm for a single playoff run is completely useless, and infact erroneous if used to rank players

in theory, rapm is great - in reality, there can never be anywhere NEAR the sample size needed to make any accurate judgements

Carry on

Possessions and roles should also be taken into account. Role player vs a #1 option. A #2 vs #1 etc will not yield accuracy.

[Roundball_Rock]

RAPM seems overrated, it tells you Stockton had a goat level regular season career if I'm not mistaken? But RAPM hit Pippen in top 3 for 2000 playoffs, so it was correct there.

Having said that, yes Stockton/Malone were chokers. Malone was definitely the bigger choker of the two. If you are two top 30 GOATS and spend basically your entire primes together and never win a ring? That screams that they were chokers. Pippen with Rasheed even closed them in 6.

Another problem was Stockton's minutes. 1998 finals Phil is playing Jordan/Pippen 40MPG and Sloan is playing Stockton 32MPG. Sloan's excuse was basically load managing Stockton so he can have a long career. Are you kidding me? Its the damn finals, your superstars shouldn't be playing less then 39MPG.

Good point. In the most important series of his career (in 98' the Jazz were favored by many since they swept the WCF while the Bulls barely survived in 7 in the ECF), Stockton played only 32 MPG? An injured Pippen played 40. Kukoc played 37, Russell 26, Hornacek 34.

I am not sure how much of a choker Malone was. If he has no second scorer on his team, defenses can focus on him absent a second threat to hold them honest. Stockton obviously didn't come through when it mattered but if you give Malone a reliable 20 PPG scorer his results may be different. The guy was getting 9.7 and 10.7 from Stockton and Hornacek in a finals. That has to be record low support from a 2nd and 3rd option.

Going ringless while playing your entire prime with another top 30 player is bad but was Stockton's play in the finals and WCF top 30 play? He generated a lot of big numbers in the RS in the Sloan system but he got outplayed by people like Porter in the WCF.

By game score, Stockton outplayed the opposing #2 only twice in eight key series (Finals, WCF plus 95' first round--60 win team, no excuse for losing in the first round). That's 2-6, 25 percent. Hard to win rings when your top 30 AT sidekick is getting outplayed by Terry Porter.


:roll:

Wrekt'm again

3ball creates a thread every day complaining about a sidekick scoring 20 but doesn't have a peep to say about a sidekick scoring 12 PPG across two finals. Neither do his minions. :confusedshrug:

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Good point. In the most important series of his career (in 98' the Jazz were favored by many since they swept the WCF while the Bulls barely survived in 7 in the ECF), Stockton played only 32 MPG? An injured Pippen played 40. Kukoc played 37, Russell 26, Hornacek 34.

I am not sure how much of a choker Malone was. If he has no second scorer on his team, defenses can focus on him absent a second threat to hold them honest. Stockton obviously didn't come through when it mattered but if you give Malone a reliable 20 PPG scorer his results may be different. The guy was getting 9.7 and 10.7 from Stockton and Hornacek in a finals. That has to be record low support from a 2nd and 3rd option.

Going ringless while playing your entire prime with another top 30 player is bad but was Stockton's play in the finals and WCF top 30 play? He generated a lot of big numbers in the RS in the Sloan system but he got outplayed by people like Porter in the WCF.

By game score, Stockton outplayed the opposing #2 only twice in eight key series (Finals, WCF plus 95' first round--60 win team, no excuse for losing in the first round). That's 2-6, 25 percent. Hard to win rings when your top 30 AT sidekick is getting outplayed by Terry Porter.



3ball creates a thread every day complaining about a sidekick scoring 20 but doesn't have a peep to say about a sidekick scoring 12 PPG across two finals. Neither do his minions. :confusedshrug:

I generally agree but Malone was dependent on Stockton feeding him the ball, Malone also choked in big moments (game 6 1998 turning ball over with a minute left), and his efficiency always takes a massive hit. Stockton at least hit that clutch game winning shot in WCF to close the series against Rockets. I don't really remember any clutch moments from Malone in conference finals or finals.

[kawhileonard2]

I don’t know if a reduction in an advanced stat is the same as a collapse. He’s the main reason they even made the finals the first time.

This!. Also he hit big shots in those finals. In game 1 he hit big threes in the late part of the game. In game 4 he basically tied the series. In 1998 game 1 he won the game in OT.

[Roundball_Rock]

I generally agree but Malone was dependent on Stockton feeding him the ball, Malone also choked in big moments (game 6 1998 turning ball over with a minute left), and his efficiency always takes a massive hit. Stockton at least hit that clutch game winning shot in WCF to close the series against Rockets. I don't really remember any clutch moments from Malone in conference finals or finals.

It is hard to say since they overlapped almost completely (Stockton was on the bench until his fourth year) and both were durable. All we have is 18 games of prime Malone in 98' without Stockton and he did fine. His efficiency went down a bit (on my phone so can't look up the numbers right now) as did his scoring but he was still scoring at a level that would have placed him 4th if he continued at that rate all year.

I don't think Stockton could function as a #1 option because of his inability to score. Your number one can't be a 15 PPG prime scorer.

Malone didn't have moments per se and his efficiency fell more than any star of his era by far (he does have mitigating circumstances of no scoring help) but he had big games in the finals. How many did Stockton have? For example, Malone was dominant in Game 3 in 97' to avoid a 0-3 hole (Pippen almost led the Bulls back late in the game, after being down 24). With Stockton you have a shot here, a shot there. But how many signature games? Game 1 of the 98' finals was his best finals game. What happened next, though? He averaged 6.8 PPG on 40.5 percent in games 2-6. This is the second option in a NBA finals. 6.8 across five games, including a 2 point game on 1 for 4.

[3ball]

Possessions and roles should also be taken into account. Role player vs a #1 option. A #2 vs #1 etc will not yield accuracy.




Thank you for this insight - so it's no surprise that Pippen was ranked as a top role player in 2000 (he was infact a role player those years)

Otoh, he was ranked as a shitty primary option in 97' (9th behind everyone, aka garnett, hardaway, blaylock, hornacek, etc)

[Roundball_Rock]

MJ stans obsessed with Pippen, have zero to say about Stockton in a Stockton thread. The same people claim they have no agenda against Pippen (it's "objective analysis" they swear!) but diss him from thread to thread with not a word of criticism of any other 90's legend. :lol

[3ball]

MJ stans obsessed with Pippen, have zero to say about Stockton in a Stockton thread. The same people claim they have no agenda against Pippen (it's "objective analysis" they swear!) but diss him from thread to thread with not a word of criticism of any other 90's legend. :lol

Everything you post shows that Pippen stinks

In this case, your rapm data shows that pippen's impact excelled in a role player capacity (2000), and sucked in a primary option capacity (1997).

So your data proves my point - Pippen was a role player/glue guy that was inflated by the winning spotlight

Anyone wins with MJ/Phil in the 90's 2-star format.. your posts have helped us reach this understanding

[Roundball_Rock]

There are plenty of threads to push the MJ stan agenda against Pippen. This is a Stockon thread. Take the insecurity over 1-9 elsewhere.

[3ball]

There are plenty of threads to push the MJ stan agenda against Pippen. This is a Stockon thread. Take the insecurity over 1-9 elsewhere.

No seriously bruh - thank you - the rapm data clearly shows that pippen's impact was total shit as a primary option in 97' and 98'

But he had the best impact among role players in 2000!

That's some major evidence that will be cited going forward to prove my seminal point - that Pippen's impact was suited for a role play, but got inflated by the winning spotlight

Again, thanks for the links and hardcore data/proof... You da man!.. yaohappy:

[Roundball_Rock]

You are insane. The data you referenced has Harper ahead of MJ twice (once in RS, once in PO). MJ a role player using your crazy logic. :facepalm

What's wrong with you all? You run around disclaiming an agenda, bitching when someone calls you out on the agenda, then go around dissing Pippen in threads that have nothing to do with him? You all claim to be "objective analysts" but not one word of "objective analysis" to critique any other 90's star? It's pathetic.

1-9. Signed, sealed, delivered to the history books. Get over it.

[3ball]

You are insane. The data you referenced has Pippen ahead of MJ in one of them (forgot which year and whether it was RS or PO but you can look it up yourself).

What's wrong with you all? You run around disclaiming an agenda, bitching when someone calls you out on the agenda, then go around dissing Pippen in threads that have nothing to do with him? You all claim to be "objective analysts" but not one word of "objective analysis" to critique any other 90's star? It's pathetic.

1-9. Signed, sealed, delivered to the history books. Get over it.

Pippen is #9 in the 1997 Playoffs (behind Garnett, T Hardaway, Blaylock, Hornacek)

And he's #13 in 1998 Playoffs (behind Rik Smits, Karl Malone, Mark Jackson and Hornacek)

But he's #3 in 2000 as a role player (the #2 role player)

^^^ that's as clear-cut as you can get - Pippen's impact excelled in a role player capacity, but was trash as a primary option... Facts gonna facts... And thanks again - this data will be referenced often

Edit: holy crap - Pippen was #88 in 99' - so he was nothing as a primary option without MJ!.. :eek:

[Lebron23]

Stockton lacked some lacked alpha level genes in his arsenal. His contemporaries Magic Johnson, and Isiah Thomas led their respective teams in the playoffs because they were capable of scoring in the finals.

[Roundball_Rock]

Stockton lacked some lacked alpha level genes in his arsenal. His contemporaries Magic Johnson, and Isiah Thomas led their respective teams in the playoffs because they were capable of scoring in the finals.

Agreed--he did not have that type of mentality. However, I think some of it was he didn't have the skills and ability to be a regular 20+ PPG scorer, even if he had a different mentality.


Pippen is #9 in the 1997 Playoffs (behind Garnett, T Hardaway, Blaylock, Hornacek)

He is #3 in the 97' playoffs--right behind MJ. :roll: Anyone can read the list at https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/1996-97/playoffs/ .

He is #13 in the 98' PO--ahead of Robinson, Miller, Drexler, Stockton, Barkley, K. Johnson, Mourning, Payton, Kemp, Haradawy, Rice, Hakeem, Ewing. Anyone can read the info at https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/1997-98/playoffs/

[tpols]

Sorry to shit in your Cheerios bud but this came from the same site

https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/1999-00/playoffs/

https://i.postimg.cc/WbVVB4JD/9-EC30011-D151-4-C64-A99-C-7-DCB4-FA96204.jpg

Playoff RAPM 1999-2000

#1. Reggie Miller

Explain.

:roll:

[Roundball_Rock]

Does any MJ stan have a single thought on Stockton? None of that "objective analysis" (no agenda whatsoever--it is just "objective analysis") being presented here, for some reason? :confusedshrug:

It is funny how the non-MJ crowd is actually able to respond to Stockton and the OP. MJ stans obsessed with one 90's player who makes them insecure. :oldlol:

[goozeman]

What's the data for relative efficiency RG vs PG for his position? That's the starting point of analysis. I would imagine it is down across the board. Look, if I'm trying to win a championship there are only three PG's that have ever played that I want: Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and Steph Curry. I suppose you could add Lebron to that list, but he really overall is not a true point in my opinion. That's it. Playoff defense has always been more physical and little guys are the ones most impacted. Magic was too big to phase, and Isiah was perhaps the most physical small point guard of all-time and also possessed the quickest first step in the history of the game. Curry doesn't play in a physical era. I think Luka has the potential to be the next guy to get added to that list due to his overall skill and size, but still too early to tell.

[iamgine]

Is RAPM a good stat to base this claim on? Top 5 playoff RAPM 18-19:

1. Embiid
2. Lowry
3. Kahwi
4. Looney
5. Brogdon

:confusedshrug: Doesn't seem right to me.

[Roundball_Rock]

I generally agree but Malone was dependent on Stockton feeding him the ball

Here is the info on Malone without Stockton in 98'. It is the only time we saw prime Malone without Stockton (we never saw Stockton without Malone in his prime) for an extended period but 18 games is a decent sample and 98' was between Malone's 2 MVP seasons and they made the finals that year.

Malone without Stockton 98': 24.9/11.1/3.6 58.2% TS 19.3 GS
Malone with Stockton 98': 27.7/10.1/4.0 60.1% TS 22.2 GS

So unsurprisingly he was better with Stockton but he was still elite without him. 24.9 PPG would be 4th in scoring in 98'; 27.7 (or 27.0, his 98' total average) would be 3rd. His efficiency took a hit but it was -2%. He didn't fall off a cliff efficiency wise like Amare without Nash or McHale without Bird, as comps.

Here is BP on Malone without Stockon:


Stockton himself was incapable of ramping up his offensive attack and his scoring and efficiency both plummeted in the playoffs. Per the scouting report (and contrary to popular opinion), Malone’s play was only marginally synergistic with Stockton. There were small stretches that supported what’s visible on tape: Without Stockton, Malone played 18 games to start the ’98 season, averaging 27.3 points per 75 on +5.8 percent rTS. He also played four games in 1990 without Stockton, averaging 26.3 points per game at +9.9 rTS, and, in a 1992 playoff game against Portland, Stockton left the game early and Malone marched to 38 points on 58 percent efficiency

All small sample sizes but everything we have shows Malone as still great without Stockton, which makes sense. He is a top 20 talent.

https://backpicks.com/2018/02/08/backpicks-goat-13-karl-malone/

[Roundball_Rock]

What's the data for relative efficiency RG vs PG for his position?

His efficiency numbers decline a lot in the PO but they come from a high level. The issue with those are they are inflated by him cherry picking cake shots, his low volume, and his inability to score hurt his team's in the playoffs. Here is the scoring for Stockton, Hornacek from 1994-1998. Utah made four WCF and two finals during this span.

1994 PO scoring: Stockton 14.4, Hornacek 15.4
1995 PO scoring: Stockton 17.8, Hornacek 14.0 (5 game playoff "run"--lost in 1st round)
1996 PO scoring: Stockton 11.1, Hornacek 17.5
1997 PO scoring: Stockton 16.1, Hornacek 14.6
1998 PO scoring: Stockton 11.1, Hornacek 10.9

If Stockton tried to score 20 PPG he would need to take tougher shots to get there and his efficiency would decline. If almost all your shots are layups or open jumpers of course your percentages will be high. Here is what BP said about this:


But Stockton’s regular season efficiency is deceptive. He wasn’t an unstoppable force like Shaq, nor did he gain an advantage with marksmanship like Reggie Miller or Steph Curry. Instead, his efficiency was fueled by conservatism — he shot well because he only took premium shots. Look at what happens to Stockton’s profile in the playoffs — it (literally) shrinks. Despite the selectivity, his efficiency fell off along with his scoring


Stockton’s inability to pressure opponents and create havoc in the lane significantly dampened his impact as an offensive dynamo. Great players don’t have to score, but their threat to score generates global impact. Stockton simply wasn’t capable of this: He scored over 30 points just 11 times in his 11-year prime (1.2 percent of games), and hoisted over 20 true shot attempts just 2.4 percent of the time. This pales in comparison to the great 3-point era point guards, who could call their own number if the defense didn’t respect their scoring enough.

As that chart hints at, the playoffs exposed these weaknesses in Stockton

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/25/backpicks-goat-25-john-stockton/


Is RAPM a good stat to base this claim on?

Provocative title. He didn't literally collapse--but he did underachieve notably by any metric. That matters when you are losing razor thin NBA finals games. If Stockton didn't shrink in the PO and shrink even more in the finals, the Jazz would have at least 2 rings and probably more (one or two WCF loss likely would turn into a ring).

[goozeman]

Okay, and that analysis of Stockton highlights exactly why many people value Kobe's offense despite its seeming relative inefficiency compared to pick-your-spot guy like Stockton and other offensive players with better efficiency numbers. Kobe value as a volume scorer and play maker came from this ability to exploit all levels of the defense while taking difficult shots and remaining consistent in his makes. He could put much more pressure on a defense and ultimately more effective despite sacrificing efficiency numbers. Imagine if Kobe went out there every night and just decided to just take easy shots a la Stockton. Kobe's efficiency numbers would probably be off the charts. The style of offense is most effective when in the playoffs when there are limited opportunities, and Stockton's lack of offensive versatility maybe was a liability. So my answer is that yes efficiency is important, but it depends on the player and their role in the offense. It's kind of a chicken and egg argument. You can't add one thing without taking out another. Stockton was a master at leveraging the pick-and-roll and getting Malone easy buckets. If he's a guy looking to create his own shot, I doubt Sloan's offense is as effective ultimately.

[tpols]

Is RAPM a good stat to base this claim on? Top 5 playoff RAPM 18-19:

1. Embiid
2. Lowry
3. Kahwi
4. Looney
5. Brogdon

:confusedshrug: Doesn't seem right to me.

you have to account for role and production on top of efficiency. Sure there will be role players sprinkled in. If i gave you the list of the top 10 FG% leaders there would be role players sprinkled in. Does that mean we ignore context? Look at the list for just star players you will see it is right. Lowry went nuts in the playoffs last year.

[Roundball_Rock]

Okay, and that analysis of Stockton highlights exactly why many people value Kobe's offense despite its seeming relative inefficiency compared to pick-your-spot guy like Stockton and other offensive players with better efficiency numbers. Kobe value as a volume scorer and play maker came from this ability to exploit all levels of the defense while taking difficult shots and remaining consistent in his makes. He could put much more pressure on a defense and ultimately more effective despite sacrificing efficiency numbers. Imagine if Kobe went out there every night and just decided to just take easy shots a la Stockton. Kobe's efficiency numbers would probably be off the charts. The style of offense is most effective when in the playoffs when there are limited opportunities, and Stockton's lack of offensive versatility maybe was a liability

Agreed. For perspective on the type of volume he had in his finals, he averaged 8 FGA in 98' and 10 FGA in 97'.

I am not sure how many of his games are on YouTube but all the finals games are. Just watch a few minutes and you can see he tends to shoot only layups or when he gets wide open (a few end of shot clock bailouts mixed in as the exceptions to the rule). He was a proficient shooter when open--but the volume is too small to move the needle and his lack of a scoring threat limited him compared to his contemporaries Isiah, Price, Johnson, Hardaway who could make a defense pay by scoring.

If Stockton played on a team with a strong second scorer his lack of scoring threat wouldn't be an issue but if you are going to the finals and your 2nd & 3rd options are combining for 21 PPG in the playoffs in an era where there were 2nd options scoring around that alone, that is a huge problem.

Utah had J. Malone scoring 20.7 in the PO in 91' and 92' but that probably is it for 20+ for Utah's second option (excluding random 3-4 game "runs"--I am talking real runs). 92' J. Malone scored 19 PPG in the WCF but Stockton got outplayed by Terry Porter and that was that.

[ImKobe]

I don't think he "collapsed" offensively in the Playoffs, especially not in 1997, when he averaged ~16/10 in the POs compared to 14/11 in the RS. They really could have won it in '97, had Malone showed up in the Finals. That '97 WCF against the Rockets is one of Stockton's best series. He wasn't the same in '98. First time he had a significant injury, sat out 18 games when he had only missed 4 games in his entire career up to that point & played a lot less minutes for most of the season.

[Kblaze8855]

He practically drug Karl Malone kicking and screaming into the finals.....


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/EdibleEmbarrassedDassierat-size_restricted.gif




I have no more to add.

[Roundball_Rock]

I don't think he "collapsed" offensively in the Playoffs, especially not in 1997, when he averaged ~16/10 in the POs compared to 14/11 in the RS. They really could have won it in '97, had Malone showed up in the Finals. That '97 WCF against the Rockets is one of Stockton's best series. He wasn't the same in '98. First time he had a significant injury, sat out 18 games when he had only missed 4 games in his entire career up to that point & played a lot less minutes for most of the season.

Malone was bad in the 97' finals but some (not all--Malone deserves blame and the Bulls' defended him well with Rodman, Longley, Williams) of that ties back to his scoring "help." 15.0 PPG from Stockton and 12.0 PPG from Hornacek. The Bulls didn't have to honor a viable second scorer like the Jazz had to.

Stockton was great in the 97' WCF. If he played that way in the finals the Jazz win but he didn't as he went from 21/4/10 in the WCF to 15/4/9 in the Finals. That -6 PPG matters when the average margin is 0.6 PPG in the series...

[999Guy]

That’s not PI ORAPM. That’s NPI, which defeats the point of the stat. It’s not taking into account previous years because there’s no year before 97. Simple.


Stockton was very good in 1997, the entire way. Especially in the WCF and Finals.

He hurt his knee in 98, and it ended his true prime. Couldn’t play big minutes anymore and while he still very quick, he lost some explosion.

[Roundball_Rock]

Not sure how good he was in the 97' finals--but that was discussed earlier. He wasn't a bum but when you are facing MJ on the other side and you are the fourth best player in the series with Malone struggling (by his standards), that isn't going to be enough to actually win.

It wasn't all roses before 1997. He went 9.9/2.9/7.6 on 39.7% in the WCF in 1996 as the Jazz lost in 7. In 1992 he was outplayed by Terry Porter in the WCF, Jazz lose. In the 1994 WCF it was 14.4/3.4/9.4 on 41.5%, Jazz lose.

He had a career long trend of playoff issues and declines. We just don't have the data in the OP for prior to 1997.

Anyway, 1997 and 1998 are big parts of his legacy since that is when they made the finals. No one talks about what the Jazz did in 1996 or 1992 these days but their finals trips come up. He is remembered for his gaudy assist totals and for being the second HOF on an "almost" team.

The excuse is "Jordan" but the chip was right there on the table, Jordan or no Jordan but Malone (97'), Hornacek (both times), Stockton (clearly in 98', I would argue in 97') performed below the level they needed to be at to win. If any one of these factors shift, the outcome likely does as well. We aren't talking games that were blowouts, except the 96-54 game.

[3ball]

I just binge-watched the Last Dance, and Stockton scored or assisted on every big bucket the Jazz made

His clutch stats destroy someone like Pippen, who has the worst clutch stats (non-existent actually)

[Hey Yo]

I just binge-watched the Last Dance, and Stockton scored or assisted on every big bucket the Jazz made

His clutch stats destroy someone like Pippen, who has the worst clutch stats (non-existent actually)

dumb......

[tpols]

John Stockton averaged 16/10/3/2 on 122 ORTG in the 1997 playoffs. Literally exact same efficiency as regular season... how is that a collapse?

once again we see that standard for success is such that if you lose to the GOAT and his dynasty team, you're a bum. OP did the same thing with reggie.

[Roundball_Rock]

dumb......

He complains about Pippen's scoring every day yet defends Stockton averaging 12 PPG across two finals. We get chapter and verse each day about how Pippen sucked as a scorer and how awesome guys like Worthy, Porter, Johnson, Stockton were--yet that scrub Pippen somehow managed to outscore all of them in the finals (with only Worthy coming close). :lol

Edit: one of the Team 3ball people just came into the thread to defend Stockton and flip flopped again on whether opposing defenses matter (as if teams have the luxury of cake defenses in the finals :facepalm ).

[Charlie Sheen]

What happened here? This data is available only from 1997 on https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/ so we miss a lot of Stockton's career but we have the info for the two finals runs. (ORAPM is Regularized Adjusted Plus/Minus)

Stockton 97' RS ORAPM: +3.0 (7th in NBA)
Stockton 98' PO ORAPM: -0.1 (102nd of playoff players)

Stockton 98' RS ORAPM: +3.2 (5th in NBA)
Stockton 98' PO ORAPM: -0.2 (122nd of playoff players)

He went from elite in the RS to being a net negative in the playoffs (per this stat)--both years. This is a shocking decline.



Let me get this straight. You've found a measure that paints John Stockton as a net negative in the playoffs the two years the Jazz went to the finals? You don't question the stat because the conclusion fits your agenda? Do you even watch basketball?

Let me guess, it's just a response to the Pippen/Jordan trolling. If you're trying to be Pippen's 3ball, you are well on your way with threads like this.

[Roundball_Rock]

In order to win a championship you have to get it done against top defenses. This is a dumb talking point you go with in thread to thread (except when a player you hate faced a top defense--then defense doesn't matter :oldlol: ). The kind of teams that make it to the finals and conference finals will tend to have strong defenses. Let's isolate 1992-1998, the years Utah was making the WCF or finals in 5 of those years and see the defensive rank of the "final four" teams.

1992: 3rd, 4th, 7th, 11th
1993: 1st, 2nd, 7th, 9th
1994: 1st, 2nd, 7th, 8th
1995: 5th, 6th, 12th, 13th
1996: 1st, 2nd, 8th, 12th
1997: 1st, 5th, 9th, 10th
1998: 3rd, 6th, 11th, 18th

21 of 28 teams had a top ten defense and 12 of 28 had a top five defense. Saying playoff defenses are "too tough" doesn't cut it.


You don't question the stat because the conclusion fits your agenda?

I have questioned this stat and any particular stat. I don't need to spell it out in every thread, every post for yahoos like you but here it is on page 1:


Personally, I don't think any advanced stat is the be all end all but these splits are stark and is consistent with the other info we have of Stockton declining in the PO (albeit not this much).

With Malone a lot of it can be explained by him having to shoulder a very high load--especially later on when the Jazz had no viable second scorer for defenses to account for (relative to if Malone played with a 20 PPG or so sidekick during those finals years). What is the explanation for Stockton, though?

People are free to defend Stockton--hence the question being posed versus a definitive statement--but we are not hearing that from many of the people in the thread. We see a lot of player scrutiny on ISH. I fail to see why Stockton, Miller, and a few others are sacred cows above criticism. In this very thread another unrelated player has been criticized several times--no bitching about that from you and the others saying Stockton is a sacred cow.

No, I don't think he was a negative player. I do think he underperformed when he climbed onto the finals stage.

This stat was pointed out to be favorable to Stockton (relative to Pippen) in another thread. I just clicked "playoffs" and was surprised to see those splits. We can only use ORAPM vis-a-vis one player? If it is kosher to compare 7th to 9th, why can't we talk about 122nd? I didn't see any objections (other than from me, like I stated in this thread and others) to the stat in that thread.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Careful with the sample size, OP.

The more you read up on it you'll see people bring that up. RAPM is best when weighed for a long period. Even a seasons worth can give "weird" results. Playoffs are a smaller sample in general, and RAPM is pure regression, so use at your own discretion.

Malone was more of a "choker" than Stockton. For me anyway. Take a coach like Sloan who was big on that p&r system (ran similar action (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-may-09-sp-sloan9-story.html) with D-Williams and Boozer).

If Stockton was playing his natural faciliator role, then Malone didn't produce enough to cash in on those assists. Stockton could have increased his volume but that wasn't really his game. And definitely not what a guy like Sloan asked from him. The collapse talk is hyperbole, but in retrospect, seeing Malone's efficiency nosedive BIG game one after another? He should have upped the ante some.

[Roundball_Rock]

If Stockton was playing his natural faciliator role, then Malone didn't produce enough to cash in on those assists.

Good point. We know Malone's efficiency was terrible in the 97' finals so that is going to bring Stockton's PO numbers down. Hornacek was bad in both years. So if he is facilitating and the other two scorers are struggling (Malone was solid in 98', though) that will bring his numbers down.

Some of it is the "D'Antoni effect", if you will. The Jazz offense was predictable and put up big assist numbers in the RS but in the PO teams who see that offense every other day will adapt to it, have more time to plan for it, and PO defenses will tend to simply be better defenses than RS defenses--especially if you are making finals or WCF runs.


Even a seasons worth can give "weird" results. Playoffs are a smaller sample in general, and RAPM is pure regression, so use at your own discretion.

There is some "rising tide lifts all boats" effect with any of these plus/minus metrics. That's another oddity. Malone is positive but Stockton isn't--even though they overlap a lot on the floor.

Malone 97': +1.1
Stockton 97': -0.1
Hornacek 97': +1.4

Stockton 98': -0.2
Malone 98': +0.4
Hornacek 98': -0.2

So there is a delta with Malone, especially in 97'.

Some of it may be Eisley played well during his 16 or so MPG.


The collapse talk is hyperbole

I don't think he collapsed--but the stat says he does. The title was supposed to be provocative but several people have commented negatively about it so I'll be more careful in future titles.

Malone also suffered from the "D'Antoni effect" thing I mentioned earlier with the Sloan offense (I think Goozeman was the one who made that analogy a few days ago in another thread and I thought it was good). Malone bears blame but it would have helped if he had a viable second scorer on the team. J. Malone twice was the only 20+ PPG second option he had.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yeah some of that is because RAPM isolates "individual" worth.

If Malone isn't producing the way he should, Stockton is not going to be looked at kindly. Again a small sample but at least w/ Malone you could dump him the basketball, and he would go to work. Stockton didn't literally spoon-feed him, obviously.

Knew what you were getting @ with your title :lol Some here don't know how to read between the lines. Both players underperformed in the playoffs though. No doubt. But again if I had to call anyone a "choker" it would be Malone. Who became a bigger Allen Iverson in the postseason. 50%TS in the '97 playoffs? No bueno.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's a sign of how good Barkley was that his prime PO efficiency was what Malone's was in the RS. Malone was down to 51 percent from 1996-1999, arguably his best years as well as Utah's team peak. There were no other superstar PF's from the 90's to compare but we could look at McHale from the 80's and a couple Kemp years as comps. Kemp and McHale didn't have anywhere near the volume Malone did, though.

Malone's most efficient PO run easily is 92' at 62 percent. He was getting 21 from J. Malone that year. Of course he got 21 the year before and was at 54 percent then (9 games in 91' versus making the WCF in 92'). If he went 54 percent instead of 50 in 97' Utah wins (he was 53 in 98' but he had even less scoring support in 98' so he needed to improve more to offset it, probably 55 would have been enough.)

[3ball]

Lebron's RAPM in 09' and 10' playoffs is 29th and 20th respectively.. it was also trash in 06' and 08'

Apparently, it's common for the ball-dominant brand to have less impact in the playoffs

[warriorfan]

Lebron's RAPM in 09' and 10' playoffs is 29th and 20th respectively.. it was also trash in 06' and 08'

Apparently, it's common for the ball-dominant brand to have less impact in the playoffs

Aka “Empty Stats”

Box score production with little real impact.

[Roundball_Rock]

Lebron's RAPM in 09' and 10' playoffs is 29th and 20th respectively.. it was also trash in 06' and 08'

Apparently, it's common for the ball-dominant brand to have less impact in the playoffs

Is that a trend? That you cut it off in 10' is a tell.

LeBron PO RAPM's from 2011-2018: 49th, 2nd, 6th, 5th, 21st, 2nd, 3rd, 55th. So solid outside of the infamous 11' run, his last run carrying a bad team. When they won the chip he was 2nd, 6th, 2nd.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

A sign of how good Barkley was that his prime PO efficiency was what Malone's was in the RS. Malone was down to 51 percent from 1996-1999, arguably his best years as well as Utah's team peak.

Barkley was a better player and don't think its that close either. Defense counted.

'90-96 Barkley in the playoffs: 7 OBPM and overall ~7 BPM on 57%TS
'90-98 Malone in the playoffs: 5 OBPM and overall 6 BPM on 53%TS

44 points and 24 rebounds in Game 7 vs the Sonics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP1MV2rSxIU)
Eliminates the Warriors scoring 56 points on 73% shooting (mostly on jumpshots and threes) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuR-GbZma1Q)
40-point finals game against Jordan. Shot 60%+ and had 13 rebounds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EcC2FC-8wo)

Now picture Barkley playing with someone like Stockton? We know that Chuck could play either uptempo or @ a slow pace (w/ Houston). The havoc he and Stockton would create in p&r is a coaches dream. And as shown, Barkley could maintain high efficiency in the playoffs. Which also means there aren't as many wasted possesions for Stockton. The two would be unguardable.

[Shooter]

Lebron's RAPM in 09' and 10' playoffs is 29th and 20th respectively.. it was also trash in 06' and 08'

Apparently, it's common for the ball-dominant brand to have less impact in the playoffs

Wrong. The best brand of winning is having Scottie Pippen in the 90s.

[Round Mound]

Barkley was a better player and don't think its that close either. Defense counted.

'90-96 Barkley in the playoffs: 7 OBPM and overall ~7 BPM on 57%TS
'90-98 Malone in the playoffs: 5 OBPM and overall 6 BPM on 53%TS

44 points and 24 rebounds in Game 7 vs the Sonics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP1MV2rSxIU)
Eliminates the Warriors scoring 56 points on 73% shooting (mostly on jumpshots and threes) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuR-GbZma1Q)
40-point finals game against Jordan. Shot 60%+ and had 13 rebounds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EcC2FC-8wo)

Now picture Barkley playing with someone like Stockton? We know that Chuck could play either uptempo or @ a slow pace (w/ Houston). The havoc he and Stockton would create in p&r is a coaches dream. And as shown, Barkley could maintain high efficiency in the playoffs. Which also means there aren't as many wasted possesions for Stockton. The two would be unguardable.

:applause:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

:applause:

:cheers:

Amazing isn't it? How fans jump thru hoops for "2-way" players.

But looking at it objectively? They don't always have more impact. Magic and Barkley are frequently chided for defense. Their offense was so good they might as well have been elite, defensively :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

Barkley was a better player and don't think its that close either. Defense counted.

I agree but I bet if put a poll on ISH Malone would win with 60-65%. Malone is "greater" because of longevity and accomplishments but prime versus prime Barkley clearly was better. He just had more impact and as you noted you could rely on him in the playoffs or finals.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Malone's longevity was great, and you aren't wrong. People do value longevity. We're the 'hardcore' minority so prime vs prime, peaks etc are looked at under a microscope.

Both of their primes were actually long. I could make the argument Barkley was priming in the 80s.

[Roundball_Rock]

True--and while Malone usually is ranked ahead of Barkley all-time, they are always within 1-3 spots of each other.

The second MVP helps him--Barkley should have a second too but we know about 1990.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

True--and while Malone usually is ranked ahead of Barkley all-time, they are always within 1-3 spots of each other.

The second MVP helps him--Barkley should have a second too but we know about 1990.

Yup.

Magic had a good case but Barkley was a beast that year.

Reminds me of Cowens/Jabbar in '73 and Kobe/Paul in '08. A lot of snub talk and while there is some truth there, the winner was still a good candidate.

[tpols]

Malone's longevity was great, and you aren't wrong. People do value longevity. We're the 'hardcore' minority so prime vs prime, peaks etc are looked at under a microscope.

Both of their primes were actually long. I could make the argument Barkley was priming in the 80s.

Barkley was even going off in the playoffs as late as '99.

24/14/4 on 120 ORTG? Holy shit.... and thats washed up Charles. I've seen his mixes, think i'm gonna rewatch the '93 Finals before the bubble tournament starts... but damn. His splits are totally incredible. He was an MJ esque talent... right there with hakeem for 2nd best player of the decade. the fact he never won is just pure bad luck.

[Roundball_Rock]

Magic had a good case but Barkley was a beast that year.

Reminds me of Cowens/Jabbar in '73 and Kobe/Paul in '08. A lot of snub talk and while there is some truth there, the winner was still a good candidate.

When did they switch from just "first place" votes to ranking 5 candidates? I never got the idea of voting for five guys. If you are selecting a MVP, one choice is logical.


He was an MJ esque talent... right there with hakeem for 2nd best player of the decade. the fact he never won is just pure bad luck.

Yeah, he is probably Exhibit A on the limits of rangz talk. He spent his time on bad teams in Philadelphia after they did things like trade the #1 overall pick for Roy Hinson (they could have drafted Daughtery) and trade away an old but still productive Moses. He got to Phoenix, had a team capable of winning but KJ choked in the finals and then Barkley's body started to break down in 94' and continued to deteriorated. He even thought of retiring after 94' or 95' due to injuries. Then Houston but Hakeem, Drexler, Pippen were all past their primes.

Just an unbroken string of bad luck, outside of 93' (not sure of "choking" by a teammate is luck).

A distinction between Barkley and some other ringless legends is Barkley held up his end of the bargain.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

When did they switch from just "first place" votes to ranking 5 candidates? I never got the idea of voting for five guys. If you are selecting a MVP, one choice is logical.

Sometime in the early 80s. The whole 1st place netting 10 points, 2nd place getting 7 and third 5 etc. is arbitrary though. The media has random "voter fatigue" too which is why I'm not a big fan on MVP. Not now anyway.

Lebron's last MVP was in 2013. Its been 7 years since dude has won. Hard to believe if you really think about it.

[Roundball_Rock]

Sometime in the early 80s. The whole 1st place netting 10 points, 2nd place getting 7 and third 5 etc. is arbitrary though. The media has random "voter fatigue" too which is why I'm not a big fan on MVP. Not now anyway.

Lebron's last MVP was in 2013. Its been 7 years since dude has won. Hard to believe if you really think about it.

Good points. Yeah, it is odd--he won 4 in 5 years and nothing before or after.

The other issue with MVP is there is no set criteria. I suspect the NBA likes it this way because it generates more media interest, more debate (people debate NBA MVP a lot more than MVP in the other sports). It should be a "best player" award. It is the best proxy we have for that but MVP has lost credibility as the best player has become less likely to actually win it in this century. Back then you had cases like Malone, Barkley, Cowens, etc. winning over the best player (MJ, KAJ, etc.) but it wasn't as common as it is now.

The only value I see to 1-5 voting is it tells us something if a star can't get even a 5th place vote (like Kyrie).

[RRR3]

Sometime in the early 80s. The whole 1st place netting 10 points, 2nd place getting 7 and third 5 etc. is arbitrary though. The media has random "voter fatigue" too which is why I'm not a big fan on MVP. Not now anyway.

Lebron's last MVP was in 2013. Its been 7 years since dude has won. Hard to believe if you really think about it.
2013 is the last year LeBron gave 100% effort in the regular season. That’s why.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

2013 is the last year LeBron gave 100% effort in the regular season. That’s why.

Most players don't give "100% effort" in the regular-season. And Bron's less than 100 is still better than 99% of the league. The award is a sham.


The only value I see to 1-5 voting is it tells us something if a star can't get even a 5th place vote (like Kyrie).

True. Checkout the narrative shifts in voting;

14-15: Wins > Stats
16-17: Stats> Wins
18-19: Wins > Stats

Not a big Harden fan but he was snubbed an MVP. Beard's only MVP was when he had both numbers and wins. The media was forced to honor consistency :lol

[Roundball_Rock]

True. Checkout the narrative shifts in voting;

14-15: Wins > Stats
16-17: Stats> Wins
18-19: Wins > Stats

Not a big Harden fan but he was snubbed an MVP. Beard's only MVP was when he had both numbers and wins. The media was forced to honor consistency :lol

:lol true. Everyone hates Harden because of his style of play but who can blame him? If refs are going to give him 10 FTA from flopping, why the hell not? Hate the game, not the player.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

:lol true. Everyone hates Harden because of his style of play but who can blame him? If refs are going to give him 10 FTA from flopping, why the hell not? Hate the game, not the player.

I hate his game and don't find him all that entertaining :oldlol:

You're not lying though. If that's how the game is called then Beard's doing what he's got to.

[Roundball_Rock]

I hate his game and don't find him all that entertaining :oldlol:

You're not lying though. If that's how the game is called then Beard's doing what he's got to.

Yeah, he is annoying but I respect how he is exploiting today's BS reffing. The problem of course is he doesn't get the same calls in big games.

[Phoenix]

Most players don't give "100% effort" in the regular-season. And Bron's less than 100 is still better than 99% of the league. The award is a sham.



True. Checkout the narrative shifts in voting;

14-15: Wins > Stats
16-17: Stats> Wins
18-19: Wins > Stats

Not a big Harden fan but he was snubbed an MVP. Beard's only MVP was when he had both numbers and wins. The media was forced to honor consistency :lol

The one distinction with 16-17 is that Westbrook got the first triple D in like 50 years. Then he went on to do it two more years in a row and nobody cared. At one point this year Luka was flirting with one but accomplishing it wouldn't have gotten him the MVP this year unless it was coupled with top 2-3 record( and the narrative that he's a 2nd year player). Harden in 17 had better overall stats than 18 ( career highs in both rebounds and assists shifting to PG) and the team won 55. A year later with CP3 they win 65 and he gets the MVP nod. Really the 'story' changes every year.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yeah, he is annoying but I respect how he is exploiting today's BS reffing. The problem of course is he doesn't get the same calls in big games.

Hey, I don’t mind that at all :cheers:


The one distinction with 16-17 is that Westbrook got the first triple D in like 50 years. Then he went on to do it two more years in a row and nobody cared. At one point this year Luka was flirting with one but accomplishing it wouldn't have gotten him the MVP this year unless it was coupled with top 2-3 record( and the narrative that he's a 2nd year player). Harden in 17 had better overall stats than 18 ( career highs in both rebounds and assists shifting to PG) and the team won 55. A year later with CP3 they win 65 and he gets the MVP nod. Really the 'story' changes every year.

Good observation. Westbrook got more triple -doubles, and then you heard talk of x/y/z being overrated. Or not "conducive to winning".

Personally? I’m not big on the triple-double hype. I will acknowledge it, but at the same time, understand there is less inherent value to it now. No coincidence the uptick in numbers are happening in the cupcake era. Where even the wife and kids eat for free.

After citing 2018, I was thinking of Paul in Houston. All Harden needed was a GOAT-level PG to become recognized :lol

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah, it is funny how big a deal it was when he did it in 2017 but no one cared in the following years or when Luka looked like he might do it.


Personally? I’m not big on the triple-double hype. I will acknowledge it, but at the same time, understand there is less inherent value to it now. No coincidence the uptick in numbers are happening in the cupcake era. Where even the wife and kids eat for free.

I saw a graphic that showed LeBron is 12th in scoring--and he is averaging 25.4. In the 90's you would have to be around 21 to be 12th. These stats are becoming a joke. I get what they did in 05' and why they did it (justified since games were ending 78-73) but the pendulum has swung too far in favor of offense.

[Phoenix]

Yeah, numbers don't mean much now. Nobody even blinks an eye when someone drops 40. They barely do for 50. I mean, Luka is doing 29/9/9 this year. Peak Lebron in Miami was like 27/7/7 eight years ago. The roof has just completely blown off on stats.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah, numbers don't mean much now. Nobody even blinks an eye when someone drops 40. They barely do for 50. I mean, Luka is doing 29/9/9 this year. Peak Lebron in Miami was like 27/7/7 eight years ago. The roof has just completely blown off on stats.

The NBA needs to do something but they won't. Fans want to see scoring.

Luka 29/9/9 today. What is he going to be in his peak? 35/11/12? This stuff will be getting to 60's level.

[Phoenix]

The NBA needs to do something but they won't. Fans want to see scoring.

Luka 29/9/9 today. What is he going to be in his peak? 35/11/12? This stuff will be getting to 60's level.

It's Adam Silver's wet dream. It's going to be hard comparing current players to ones even at the turn of the century, let alone further back.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's Adam Silver's wet dream. It's going to be hard comparing current players to ones even at the turn of the century, let alone further back.

Yup and we have seen the weight some people put on stats years down the road. We may be hearing how Luka's peak at 34/11/12 makes him better than MJ 20 years from now on ISH.