i'd replace duncan with malone, only because of the chemistry he and stockton would have -- best pick and roll combo the game has seen.
lol you would replace one of the best defensive anchors in the history of the game, the best PF to ever play, and the guy had one of the most amazing finals performances ever in 03 while carrying scrubs for Karl Malone on the basis of "chemistry".
i'd replace duncan with malone, only because of the chemistry he and stockton would have -- best pick and roll combo the game has seen.
lol you would replace one of the best defensive anchors in the history of the game, the best PF to ever play, and the guy had one of the most amazing finals performances ever in 03 while carrying scrubs for Karl Malone on the basis of "chemistry".
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
tribe has spoken
Vanquish_: tell me friend Vanquish_: when did cory the ginger abandon reason 4madness
nash doesn't play D. garnett is very similar to duncan, i really don't have an argument against garnett. ray would be the only other player i'd have at the 2, but miller's defense is just too good to put ray over him.
PG defense has the least impact + I don't know many basketball heads that wouldn't take Nash/CP3 over Stockton.
Nash especially is absolutely ELITE on offense and criminally underrated. That said I'm not a big Magic fan, but he's the best. 08-09 Paul is the second best point guard ever, I really hope he comes back up to that level later this year.
for me, I really really really like the 08 Celtics. They have the GOAT defense,but I'm gonna tweak them a little bit.
CP3 Allen Pierce KG Russell
I'm a big Miller homer, and I want to put him in here, but Allen just works better for this team. CP3 is the best point since Magic, and has orchestrated elite offenses on slow pace. Replaced Perkins with arguably the best defensive anchor of all time in Russell. This team will straight murder you in the half court and the defense would suffocate like nothing ever seen before, all while being extremely efficient with great execution. Can't see many teams breaking 60 points against this team. Bench stays the same with Tony Allen, Cassell, Posey, House, etc.
nash doesn't play D. garnett is very similar to duncan, i really don't have an argument against garnett. ray would be the only other player i'd have at the 2, but miller's defense is just too good to put ray over him.
PG defense has the least impact + I don't know many basketball heads that wouldn't take Nash/CP3 over Stockton.
Nash especially is absolutely ELITE on offense and criminally underrated. That said I'm not a big Magic fan, but he's the best. 08-09 Paul is the second best point guard ever, I really hope he comes back up to that level later this year.
for me, I really really really like the 08 Celtics. They have the GOAT defense,but I'm gonna tweak them a little bit.
CP3 Allen Pierce KG Russell
I'm a big Miller homer, and I want to put him in here, but Allen just works better for this team. CP3 is the best point since Magic, and has orchestrated elite offenses on slow pace. Replaced Perkins with arguably the best defensive anchor of all time in Russell. This team will straight murder you in the half court and the defense would suffocate like nothing ever seen before, all while being extremely efficient with great execution. Can't see many teams breaking 60 points against this team. Bench stays the same with Tony Allen, Cassell, Posey, House, etc.
You'd choose Bill Russell over Shaq? lol. I think Bill fell out of his wheel chair the first time he saw Shaq step onto an NBA court.
I disagree about defense from the PG, I actually think it's extremely important. Why wouldn't you want to play D on the guy who has the ball in his hands 90% of the time? Poor PG defense is why the Lakers always get raped by raw PGs, such as Iverson in the early 2000s, CP3, JLin, etc. Whoever Nash defends basically has a field day on him. Stockton was a lot tougher. Stockton is number 1 in the NBA all time for steals.
Nash hasn't come close to the kind of career Stockton has had. Stockton averaged 10+ assists a game for 10 straight seasons. Nash didn't come close to those kind of numbers until he was traded to Phx and thrown into the fuck all defense, run and gun offense.
I think your lineup is a wash at the 1, 3, and 5. Billy won't be able to stop Shaq. Pierce on Jordan? Use your imagination for that one. Stockton CP3 would be more interesting, but Stockton would definitely cause more turnovers and is just a better passer overall imo. Also, if you want to chose players based upon a single season performance, lets not forget the year Miller shot 60%+ from the 3 and the next year when he shot 50%+.
nash doesn't play D. garnett is very similar to duncan, i really don't have an argument against garnett. ray would be the only other player i'd have at the 2, but miller's defense is just too good to put ray over him.
PG defense has the least impact + I don't know many basketball heads that wouldn't take Nash/CP3 over Stockton.
Nash especially is absolutely ELITE on offense and criminally underrated. That said I'm not a big Magic fan, but he's the best. 08-09 Paul is the second best point guard ever, I really hope he comes back up to that level later this year.
for me, I really really really like the 08 Celtics. They have the GOAT defense,but I'm gonna tweak them a little bit.
CP3 Allen Pierce KG Russell
I'm a big Miller homer, and I want to put him in here, but Allen just works better for this team. CP3 is the best point since Magic, and has orchestrated elite offenses on slow pace. Replaced Perkins with arguably the best defensive anchor of all time in Russell. This team will straight murder you in the half court and the defense would suffocate like nothing ever seen before, all while being extremely efficient with great execution. Can't see many teams breaking 60 points against this team. Bench stays the same with Tony Allen, Cassell, Posey, House, etc.
You'd choose Bill Russell over Shaq? lol. I think Bill fell out of his wheel chair the first time he saw Shaq step onto an NBA court.
I disagree about defense from the PG, I actually think it's extremely important. Why wouldn't you want to play D on the guy who has the ball in his hands 90% of the time? Poor PG defense is why the Lakers always get raped by raw PGs, such as Iverson in the early 2000s, CP3, JLin, etc. Whoever Nash defends basically has a field day on him. Stockton was a lot tougher. Stockton is number 1 in the NBA all time for steals.
Nash hasn't come close to the kind of career Stockton has had. Stockton averaged 10+ assists a game for 10 straight seasons. Nash didn't come close to those kind of numbers until he was traded to Phx and thrown into the fuck all defense, run and gun offense.
I think your lineup is a wash at the 1, 3, and 5. Billy won't be able to stop Shaq. Pierce on Jordan? Use your imagination for that one. Stockton CP3 would be more interesting, but Stockton would definitely cause more turnovers and is just a better passer overall imo. Also, if you want to chose players based upon a single season performance, lets not forget the year Miller shot 60%+ from the 3 and the next year when he shot 50%+.
Shaq was a dominating force and a sheer force of power, but Bill Russell contributed so much. There isn't one player who has or had anywhere near as much defensive value as Russell did. Add that in with a prime KG? KG alone enforced the GOAT defense, add in the best defensive anchor ever and well, it's sheer dominance.
Here's some examples of the ridiculous impact he had.
(1) The Celtics led the league in defense in 12 of Russells' 13 years (2) From 1958-1966 they dominated the league defensively like no team I can find for a 9 year period (3) From 1961-1965 the ran off 5 consecutive historically dominant seasons. Look at those numbers. (4) Before Russell they were a bottom defensive team and immediately jumped 6.3 relative points and 8.0 raw points to the top. (5) After Russell they dropped to the middle of the pack, losing 6.2 relative points and 10.1 raw points.
those uber-dominant Celtics teams are the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th best defensive teams of all time, relative to competition. And there's nothing remotely comparable in NBA history for such sustained defensive dominance.
As far as PG defense goes, its relatively unimportant. Yeah, it has some impact but anything remotely close to the bigs do. Having a lot of steals =/= playing good defense. An individual player can effect the offense much more positively than a rather bad individual defender can effect the team defense negatively. You can talk career numbers all you want, fact remains that Nash's impact goes far beyond his individual stats.
Here are the Suns without Nash on the court from 83games
this is what supremely talented supporting cast of Nash accomplished without him on the floor. only twice they were even above league average and this is pretty consistent trend.
Top30 Offensive Teams over the last 35 years (sorted by AL - Above League Average):
Rk Team Year Ortg AL PG 1. Dallas Mavericks 2004 112.1 9.2 Nash 2. Phoenix Suns 2005 114.5 8.4 Nash 3. Phoenix Suns 2010 115.3 7.7 Nash 4. Chicago Bulls 1997 114.4 7.7 5. Utah Jazz 1998 112.7 7.7 Stockton 6. Dallas Mavericks 2002 112.2 7.7 Nash 7. Chicago Bulls 1996 115.2 7.6 8. Boston Celtics 1988 115.4 7.4 9. Phoenix Suns 2007 113.9 7.4 Nash 10. Denver Nuggets 1982 114.3 7.4 11. Sacramento Kings 2004 110.3 7.4 12. Los Angeles Lakers 1987 115.6 7.3 Magic 13. Chicago Bulls 1992 115.5 7.3 14. Dallas Mavericks 2003 110.7 7.1 Nash 15. Los Angeles Lakers 1998 111.9 6.9 16. Utah Jazz 1997 113.6 6.9 Stockton 17. Orlando Magic 1995 115.1 6.8 18. Chicago Bulls 1991 114.6 6.7 19. Dallas Mavericks 1987 114.9 6.6 20. Seattle Supersonics 1998 111.6 6.6 Payton 21. Seattle Supersonics 1995 114.8 6.5 Payton 22. Indiana Pacers 1999 108.7 6.5 23. Utah Jazz 2008 113.8 6.3 Williams 24. Phoenix Suns 1995 114.5 6.2 25. Los Angeles Lakers 1985 114.1 6.2 Magic 26. Seattle Supersonics 2005 112.2 6.1 27. Los Angeles Lakers 1986 113.3 6.1 Magic 28. Utah Jazz 1995 114.3 6.0 Stockton 29. Los Angeles Lakers 1989 113.8 6.0 Magic 30. Los Angeles Lakers 1990 114.0 5.9 Magic
Nash has 5 of the top 10. Magic's Lakers had their best season in 1987 and that team is ranked 12th. Steve Nash was on 5 teams which had a better offensive rating difference in comparison to the league average than Magic's best. You have to go down to 30 to find Magic's 5th best offensive team, while Steve Nash's best 5 are all in the Top10 All-Time. That is amazing.
As far as Russell not being able to stop Shaq, I think that remains true for a lot of elite offensive players. At best, you can only slow them down. a KG/Russel front court would give him fits. That holds true for Jordan as well, but again, a team defense that would be even better than the best defense of all time, would give him problems. Can't really see your argument for Stockton being better than CP3
here's a post about why I believe CP3 is better than Stockton:
"Stockton was good, but the team got way better when he had a SMALLER role and was taken off-ball, producing less gaudy stats. Hornacek did more for that team than did Stockton when he was playing at his most statistically dominant.
He was really good, but the value of his defense is monstrously overrated on these boards. People act like he was a lockdown man defender, which isn't even close to true, for example. Stockton's value was picking passing lanes, playing good team defense and hustling like hell any time the ball got loose. Great value, really good stuff, but he was no Sidney Moncrief, Walt Frazier or Gary Payton.
Stockton had value, and he had some impressive performances in his career at some key moments... but he also had some rather stark limitations. Moreover, he wasn't much better as a shooter than is Paul, was considerably less athletic and far less able at isolation scoring, which is critical to a team when the opponent goes "Oh, you're going to use the PnR AGAIN? Well, deal with THIS!" The Jazz were a staggeringly predictable team, and it hurt them because Malone was almost literally the only iso-capable player on that team for like a decade. That they were as good as they were is a testament to the talent of their two star players and the skill of their coach, of course, but Paul is a far more dynamic offensive force than was Stockton and at least as good as a PnR player. Hell, he made Tyson Chandler look good on offense, and that's tough.
I wouldn't say that it's a huge gap, but I'm definitely taking the guy who is also a good help defender and great playmaker but who can also score a lot more effectively."
nash doesn't play D. garnett is very similar to duncan, i really don't have an argument against garnett. ray would be the only other player i'd have at the 2, but miller's defense is just too good to put ray over him.
PG defense has the least impact + I don't know many basketball heads that wouldn't take Nash/CP3 over Stockton.
Nash especially is absolutely ELITE on offense and criminally underrated. That said I'm not a big Magic fan, but he's the best. 08-09 Paul is the second best point guard ever, I really hope he comes back up to that level later this year.
for me, I really really really like the 08 Celtics. They have the GOAT defense,but I'm gonna tweak them a little bit.
CP3 Allen Pierce KG Russell
I'm a big Miller homer, and I want to put him in here, but Allen just works better for this team. CP3 is the best point since Magic, and has orchestrated elite offenses on slow pace. Replaced Perkins with arguably the best defensive anchor of all time in Russell. This team will straight murder you in the half court and the defense would suffocate like nothing ever seen before, all while being extremely efficient with great execution. Can't see many teams breaking 60 points against this team. Bench stays the same with Tony Allen, Cassell, Posey, House, etc.
You'd choose Bill Russell over Shaq? lol. I think Bill fell out of his wheel chair the first time he saw Shaq step onto an NBA court.
I disagree about defense from the PG, I actually think it's extremely important. Why wouldn't you want to play D on the guy who has the ball in his hands 90% of the time? Poor PG defense is why the Lakers always get raped by raw PGs, such as Iverson in the early 2000s, CP3, JLin, etc. Whoever Nash defends basically has a field day on him. Stockton was a lot tougher. Stockton is number 1 in the NBA all time for steals.
Nash hasn't come close to the kind of career Stockton has had. Stockton averaged 10+ assists a game for 10 straight seasons. Nash didn't come close to those kind of numbers until he was traded to Phx and thrown into the fuck all defense, run and gun offense.
I think your lineup is a wash at the 1, 3, and 5. Billy won't be able to stop Shaq. Pierce on Jordan? Use your imagination for that one. Stockton CP3 would be more interesting, but Stockton would definitely cause more turnovers and is just a better passer overall imo. Also, if you want to chose players based upon a single season performance, lets not forget the year Miller shot 60%+ from the 3 and the next year when he shot 50%+.
Shaq was a dominating force and a sheer force of power, but Bill Russell contributed so much. There isn't one player who has or had anywhere near as much defensive value as Russell did. Add that in with a prime KG? KG alone enforced the GOAT defense, add in the best defensive anchor ever and well, it's sheer dominance.
Here's some examples of the ridiculous impact he had.
(1) The Celtics led the league in defense in 12 of Russells' 13 years (2) From 1958-1966 they dominated the league defensively like no team I can find for a 9 year period (3) From 1961-1965 the ran off 5 consecutive historically dominant seasons. Look at those numbers. (4) Before Russell they were a bottom defensive team and immediately jumped 6.3 relative points and 8.0 raw points to the top. (5) After Russell they dropped to the middle of the pack, losing 6.2 relative points and 10.1 raw points.
those uber-dominant Celtics teams are the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th best defensive teams of all time, relative to competition. And there's nothing remotely comparable in NBA history for such sustained defensive dominance.
As far as PG defense goes, its relatively unimportant. Yeah, it has some impact but anything remotely close to the bigs do. Having a lot of steals =/= playing good defense. An individual player can effect the offense much more positively than a rather bad individual defender can effect the team defense negatively. You can talk career numbers all you want, fact remains that Nash's impact goes far beyond his individual stats.
Here are the Suns without Nash on the court from 83games
this is what supremely talented supporting cast of Nash accomplished without him on the floor. only twice they were even above league average and this is pretty consistent trend.
Top30 Offensive Teams over the last 35 years (sorted by AL - Above League Average):
Rk Team Year Ortg AL PG 1. Dallas Mavericks 2004 112.1 9.2 Nash 2. Phoenix Suns 2005 114.5 8.4 Nash 3. Phoenix Suns 2010 115.3 7.7 Nash 4. Chicago Bulls 1997 114.4 7.7 5. Utah Jazz 1998 112.7 7.7 Stockton 6. Dallas Mavericks 2002 112.2 7.7 Nash 7. Chicago Bulls 1996 115.2 7.6 8. Boston Celtics 1988 115.4 7.4 9. Phoenix Suns 2007 113.9 7.4 Nash 10. Denver Nuggets 1982 114.3 7.4 11. Sacramento Kings 2004 110.3 7.4 12. Los Angeles Lakers 1987 115.6 7.3 Magic 13. Chicago Bulls 1992 115.5 7.3 14. Dallas Mavericks 2003 110.7 7.1 Nash 15. Los Angeles Lakers 1998 111.9 6.9 16. Utah Jazz 1997 113.6 6.9 Stockton 17. Orlando Magic 1995 115.1 6.8 18. Chicago Bulls 1991 114.6 6.7 19. Dallas Mavericks 1987 114.9 6.6 20. Seattle Supersonics 1998 111.6 6.6 Payton 21. Seattle Supersonics 1995 114.8 6.5 Payton 22. Indiana Pacers 1999 108.7 6.5 23. Utah Jazz 2008 113.8 6.3 Williams 24. Phoenix Suns 1995 114.5 6.2 25. Los Angeles Lakers 1985 114.1 6.2 Magic 26. Seattle Supersonics 2005 112.2 6.1 27. Los Angeles Lakers 1986 113.3 6.1 Magic 28. Utah Jazz 1995 114.3 6.0 Stockton 29. Los Angeles Lakers 1989 113.8 6.0 Magic 30. Los Angeles Lakers 1990 114.0 5.9 Magic
Nash has 5 of the top 10. Magic's Lakers had their best season in 1987 and that team is ranked 12th. Steve Nash was on 5 teams which had a better offensive rating difference in comparison to the league average than Magic's best. You have to go down to 30 to find Magic's 5th best offensive team, while Steve Nash's best 5 are all in the Top10 All-Time. That is amazing.
As far as Russell not being able to stop Shaq, I think that remains true for a lot of elite offensive players. At best, you can only slow them down. a KG/Russel front court would give him fits. That holds true for Jordan as well, but again, a team defense that would be even better than the best defense of all time, would give him problems. Can't really see your argument for Stockton being better than CP3
here's a post about why I believe CP3 is better than Stockton:
"Stockton was good, but the team got way better when he had a SMALLER role and was taken off-ball, producing less gaudy stats. Hornacek did more for that team than did Stockton when he was playing at his most statistically dominant.
He was really good, but the value of his defense is monstrously overrated on these boards. People act like he was a lockdown man defender, which isn't even close to true, for example. Stockton's value was picking passing lanes, playing good team defense and hustling like hell any time the ball got loose. Great value, really good stuff, but he was no Sidney Moncrief, Walt Frazier or Gary Payton.
Stockton had value, and he had some impressive performances in his career at some key moments... but he also had some rather stark limitations. Moreover, he wasn't much better as a shooter than is Paul, was considerably less athletic and far less able at isolation scoring, which is critical to a team when the opponent goes "Oh, you're going to use the PnR AGAIN? Well, deal with THIS!" The Jazz were a staggeringly predictable team, and it hurt them because Malone was almost literally the only iso-capable player on that team for like a decade. That they were as good as they were is a testament to the talent of their two star players and the skill of their coach, of course, but Paul is a far more dynamic offensive force than was Stockton and at least as good as a PnR player. Hell, he made Tyson Chandler look good on offense, and that's tough.
I wouldn't say that it's a huge gap, but I'm definitely taking the guy who is also a good help defender and great playmaker but who can also score a lot more effectively."
Some good points. I'll reply first to the quote you took from the same board I was reading, with another quote:
"On the contrary, at the end of Stockton's career, it was widely accepted that he was easily the second best PG ever behind Magic. This wasn't even a question. It's only been in the past decade or more that people have decided that he wasn't really that good. And most of them decide that based on the idea that his "stats" don't measure up. There's more to the game than stats. Just because the Jazz's offense was designed for Stockton to distribute the ball and break down the defense, doesn't take a way a thing from his abilities on the court. In fact, it only goes to show that the Jazz's success ... over and over and over and over again ... was because Stockton actually understood how to play the game. Something Paul hasn't yet figured out. As for the reasons that Stockton didn't make first team all defense ... they were more or less two ... and their names were Alvin Robertson (the already well established defensive PG in the league) during his first few years as a starter, and Gary Payton (the best defensive PG ever) during the end of his career. Add to that the four or so yeas that no PG was put on the first team because Jordan and Dumars were busy taking up the spots. Stockton never played great man on man Defense, but he was as fast and quick as any PG out there, he played great position defense and rarely got beat by his man. There are 4 or 5 different kinds of defense in the NBA, and Stockton was very good at 3 or 4 of them."
Also, JS has 11 seasons of a higher TS% than CP3 s highest. If I had to build a team from scratch and was deciding between CP3 and JS, I'd choose CP3. Paul is more athletic and quicker and more valuable to a team that doesn't already have every piece of the puzzle. However, with Jordan and Shaq on the same team, they'll need the ball in their hands a lot. In that case I'll want a PG who is comfortable passing first, will set a hard pick to get his shooters open, and can knock down an open shot with complete ease, while playing some tough defense. In the case of a "Dream Team", I'll take Stock. (Same reasons why I wouldn't put Magic on the perfect team..)
I'm not sure how the Celts were the GOAT defense, could you please elaborate? I thought the Pistons squad that defeated the Lakers like 5 years back was the best defensive squad. Also, I think it's safe to assume that a team made up of players who participated in amazing team/individual defenses will combine to form an elite defensive unit.
It's true Russell has put up some amazing stats, back in the 50s and 60s. I don't think there's any doubt Shaq would have crushed the league back then. I feel like this has been discussed to death, but I'll repeat it here. The game has evolved tremendously in the years since Russell played. How many 7 footers were in the league with Russell? How many were black and athletic? There's just so much more to the game today that I'm pretty confident a good center in today's game would put up Russell/Wilt like stats in the game back then (Tyson Chandler for instance). Hell, I doubt Michael Jordan would have lost a game back then.
The Steve Nash stats are pretty convincing arguments as well. I'll point out that the reffing is different than when Stock played, making it easier for offensive players to score and get to the lane. That might explain why so many of the better offenses are in the post Jordan era. Other than that, I'd still take Stock over Nash for the same reasons I listed against CP3, Magic, etc, although I will say that Nash is a tiny bit closer to the requirements I would need for my "perfect team".
Wow some of the people posting in that forum should be on ESPN. I might have to change my opinion on Stockton now :/. There were some great points made and I'm inclined to agree with them. I think I'll change my mind and pick Nash over Stockton.
nash doesn't play D. garnett is very similar to duncan, i really don't have an argument against garnett. ray would be the only other player i'd have at the 2, but miller's defense is just too good to put ray over him.
PG defense has the least impact + I don't know many basketball heads that wouldn't take Nash/CP3 over Stockton.
Nash especially is absolutely ELITE on offense and criminally underrated. That said I'm not a big Magic fan, but he's the best. 08-09 Paul is the second best point guard ever, I really hope he comes back up to that level later this year.
for me, I really really really like the 08 Celtics. They have the GOAT defense,but I'm gonna tweak them a little bit.
CP3 Allen Pierce KG Russell
I'm a big Miller homer, and I want to put him in here, but Allen just works better for this team. CP3 is the best point since Magic, and has orchestrated elite offenses on slow pace. Replaced Perkins with arguably the best defensive anchor of all time in Russell. This team will straight murder you in the half court and the defense would suffocate like nothing ever seen before, all while being extremely efficient with great execution. Can't see many teams breaking 60 points against this team. Bench stays the same with Tony Allen, Cassell, Posey, House, etc.
You'd choose Bill Russell over Shaq? lol. I think Bill fell out of his wheel chair the first time he saw Shaq step onto an NBA court.
I disagree about defense from the PG, I actually think it's extremely important. Why wouldn't you want to play D on the guy who has the ball in his hands 90% of the time? Poor PG defense is why the Lakers always get raped by raw PGs, such as Iverson in the early 2000s, CP3, JLin, etc. Whoever Nash defends basically has a field day on him. Stockton was a lot tougher. Stockton is number 1 in the NBA all time for steals.
Nash hasn't come close to the kind of career Stockton has had. Stockton averaged 10+ assists a game for 10 straight seasons. Nash didn't come close to those kind of numbers until he was traded to Phx and thrown into the fuck all defense, run and gun offense.
I think your lineup is a wash at the 1, 3, and 5. Billy won't be able to stop Shaq. Pierce on Jordan? Use your imagination for that one. Stockton CP3 would be more interesting, but Stockton would definitely cause more turnovers and is just a better passer overall imo. Also, if you want to chose players based upon a single season performance, lets not forget the year Miller shot 60%+ from the 3 and the next year when he shot 50%+.
Shaq was a dominating force and a sheer force of power, but Bill Russell contributed so much. There isn't one player who has or had anywhere near as much defensive value as Russell did. Add that in with a prime KG? KG alone enforced the GOAT defense, add in the best defensive anchor ever and well, it's sheer dominance.
Here's some examples of the ridiculous impact he had.
(1) The Celtics led the league in defense in 12 of Russells' 13 years (2) From 1958-1966 they dominated the league defensively like no team I can find for a 9 year period (3) From 1961-1965 the ran off 5 consecutive historically dominant seasons. Look at those numbers. (4) Before Russell they were a bottom defensive team and immediately jumped 6.3 relative points and 8.0 raw points to the top. (5) After Russell they dropped to the middle of the pack, losing 6.2 relative points and 10.1 raw points.
those uber-dominant Celtics teams are the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th best defensive teams of all time, relative to competition. And there's nothing remotely comparable in NBA history for such sustained defensive dominance.
As far as PG defense goes, its relatively unimportant. Yeah, it has some impact but anything remotely close to the bigs do. Having a lot of steals =/= playing good defense. An individual player can effect the offense much more positively than a rather bad individual defender can effect the team defense negatively. You can talk career numbers all you want, fact remains that Nash's impact goes far beyond his individual stats.
Here are the Suns without Nash on the court from 83games
this is what supremely talented supporting cast of Nash accomplished without him on the floor. only twice they were even above league average and this is pretty consistent trend.
Top30 Offensive Teams over the last 35 years (sorted by AL - Above League Average):
Rk Team Year Ortg AL PG 1. Dallas Mavericks 2004 112.1 9.2 Nash 2. Phoenix Suns 2005 114.5 8.4 Nash 3. Phoenix Suns 2010 115.3 7.7 Nash 4. Chicago Bulls 1997 114.4 7.7 5. Utah Jazz 1998 112.7 7.7 Stockton 6. Dallas Mavericks 2002 112.2 7.7 Nash 7. Chicago Bulls 1996 115.2 7.6 8. Boston Celtics 1988 115.4 7.4 9. Phoenix Suns 2007 113.9 7.4 Nash 10. Denver Nuggets 1982 114.3 7.4 11. Sacramento Kings 2004 110.3 7.4 12. Los Angeles Lakers 1987 115.6 7.3 Magic 13. Chicago Bulls 1992 115.5 7.3 14. Dallas Mavericks 2003 110.7 7.1 Nash 15. Los Angeles Lakers 1998 111.9 6.9 16. Utah Jazz 1997 113.6 6.9 Stockton 17. Orlando Magic 1995 115.1 6.8 18. Chicago Bulls 1991 114.6 6.7 19. Dallas Mavericks 1987 114.9 6.6 20. Seattle Supersonics 1998 111.6 6.6 Payton 21. Seattle Supersonics 1995 114.8 6.5 Payton 22. Indiana Pacers 1999 108.7 6.5 23. Utah Jazz 2008 113.8 6.3 Williams 24. Phoenix Suns 1995 114.5 6.2 25. Los Angeles Lakers 1985 114.1 6.2 Magic 26. Seattle Supersonics 2005 112.2 6.1 27. Los Angeles Lakers 1986 113.3 6.1 Magic 28. Utah Jazz 1995 114.3 6.0 Stockton 29. Los Angeles Lakers 1989 113.8 6.0 Magic 30. Los Angeles Lakers 1990 114.0 5.9 Magic
Nash has 5 of the top 10. Magic's Lakers had their best season in 1987 and that team is ranked 12th. Steve Nash was on 5 teams which had a better offensive rating difference in comparison to the league average than Magic's best. You have to go down to 30 to find Magic's 5th best offensive team, while Steve Nash's best 5 are all in the Top10 All-Time. That is amazing.
As far as Russell not being able to stop Shaq, I think that remains true for a lot of elite offensive players. At best, you can only slow them down. a KG/Russel front court would give him fits. That holds true for Jordan as well, but again, a team defense that would be even better than the best defense of all time, would give him problems. Can't really see your argument for Stockton being better than CP3
here's a post about why I believe CP3 is better than Stockton:
"Stockton was good, but the team got way better when he had a SMALLER role and was taken off-ball, producing less gaudy stats. Hornacek did more for that team than did Stockton when he was playing at his most statistically dominant.
He was really good, but the value of his defense is monstrously overrated on these boards. People act like he was a lockdown man defender, which isn't even close to true, for example. Stockton's value was picking passing lanes, playing good team defense and hustling like hell any time the ball got loose. Great value, really good stuff, but he was no Sidney Moncrief, Walt Frazier or Gary Payton.
Stockton had value, and he had some impressive performances in his career at some key moments... but he also had some rather stark limitations. Moreover, he wasn't much better as a shooter than is Paul, was considerably less athletic and far less able at isolation scoring, which is critical to a team when the opponent goes "Oh, you're going to use the PnR AGAIN? Well, deal with THIS!" The Jazz were a staggeringly predictable team, and it hurt them because Malone was almost literally the only iso-capable player on that team for like a decade. That they were as good as they were is a testament to the talent of their two star players and the skill of their coach, of course, but Paul is a far more dynamic offensive force than was Stockton and at least as good as a PnR player. Hell, he made Tyson Chandler look good on offense, and that's tough.
I wouldn't say that it's a huge gap, but I'm definitely taking the guy who is also a good help defender and great playmaker but who can also score a lot more effectively."
Some good points. I'll reply first to the quote you took from the same board I was reading, with another quote:
"On the contrary, at the end of Stockton's career, it was widely accepted that he was easily the second best PG ever behind Magic. This wasn't even a question. It's only been in the past decade or more that people have decided that he wasn't really that good. And most of them decide that based on the idea that his "stats" don't measure up. There's more to the game than stats. Just because the Jazz's offense was designed for Stockton to distribute the ball and break down the defense, doesn't take a way a thing from his abilities on the court. In fact, it only goes to show that the Jazz's success ... over and over and over and over again ... was because Stockton actually understood how to play the game. Something Paul hasn't yet figured out. As for the reasons that Stockton didn't make first team all defense ... they were more or less two ... and their names were Alvin Robertson (the already well established defensive PG in the league) during his first few years as a starter, and Gary Payton (the best defensive PG ever) during the end of his career. Add to that the four or so yeas that no PG was put on the first team because Jordan and Dumars were busy taking up the spots. Stockton never played great man on man Defense, but he was as fast and quick as any PG out there, he played great position defense and rarely got beat by his man. There are 4 or 5 different kinds of defense in the NBA, and Stockton was very good at 3 or 4 of them."
Also, JS has 11 seasons of a higher TS% than CP3 s highest. If I had to build a team from scratch and was deciding between CP3 and JS, I'd choose CP3. Paul is more athletic and quicker and more valuable to a team that doesn't already have every piece of the puzzle. However, with Jordan and Shaq on the same team, they'll need the ball in their hands a lot. In that case I'll want a PG who is comfortable passing first, will set a hard pick to get his shooters open, and can knock down an open shot with complete ease, while playing some tough defense. In the case of a "Dream Team", I'll take Stock. (Same reasons why I wouldn't put Magic on the perfect team..)
I'm not sure how the Celts were the GOAT defense, could you please elaborate? I thought the Pistons squad that defeated the Lakers like 5 years back was the best defensive squad. Also, I think it's safe to assume that a team made up of players who participated in amazing team/individual defenses will combine to form an elite defensive unit.
It's true Russell has put up some amazing stats, back in the 50s and 60s. I don't think there's any doubt Shaq would have crushed the league back then. I feel like this has been discussed to death, but I'll repeat it here. The game has evolved tremendously in the years since Russell played. How many 7 footers were in the league with Russell? How many were black and athletic? There's just so much more to the game today that I'm pretty confident a good center in today's game would put up Russell/Wilt like stats in the game back then (Tyson Chandler for instance). Hell, I doubt Michael Jordan would have lost a game back then.
The Steve Nash stats are pretty convincing arguments as well. I'll point out that the reffing is different than when Stock played, making it easier for offensive players to score and get to the lane. That might explain why so many of the better offenses are in the post Jordan era. Other than that, I'd still take Stock over Nash for the same reasons I listed against CP3, Magic, etc, although I will say that Nash is a tiny bit closer to the requirements I would need for my "perfect team".
Fair enough on that quote. I was strictly speaking on Paul's superiority to JS, not necessarily speaking on his fit inside your team. That thread is a great read though. Glad to see another user besides Lucky.
As far as the Celtics defense goes, based on the whole year and playoffs they were the better defensive team, but the Pistons post-trade of Sheed were animals too.
Here's some numbers for thought.
03-04 Pistons
Opponent field goal percentage: .413, rank 3 League average: .439 Pistons---- +.026
Opponent three point percentage: .302, rank 1 League average: .347 Pistons------ +.045
Defensive rebounding %: rank 13
Opponent Points per Game: 84.3, rank 1 League average- 93.4 Pistons: + 9.1
Defensive rating: 95.4, rank 2 League average: 102.9 Pistons: +7.5
07-08 Celtics
Opponent field goal percentage: .419, rank 1 League average: .457 Celtics: +.038
Opponent three point percentage: .316, rank 1 League average: .362 Celtics: +.046
Defensive rebounding %: rank 8
Opponent points per game: 90.3, rank 2 League average: 99.9 Celtics: +9.6
Defensive rating: 98.9, rank 1 League average: 107.5 Celtics: +8.6
Celtics were pretty freaking dominant.
On the 90s/00s vs pre-3 point line, I'm not here for this argument and I'm sure Shaq would've been great just as he was in the late 90s/early 00s as he would've been back then. About any great player would be. Fact remains that the stat and empirical evidence show that Bill was otherworldly dominant on defense. It's absolutely asinine to imply that Chandler could put up Wilt or Russell's numbers or come close to their impact. Sorry, but that's absolutely retarded to compare 2 top 5 all time players to a role player that's a glorified garbage man.
Wow some of the people posting in that forum should be on ESPN. I might have to change my opinion on Stockton now :/. There were some great points made and I'm inclined to agree with them. I think I'll change my mind and pick Nash over Stockton.
Some of those guys know so much about the game they could easily coach a team effectively, some of the best could probably even run a franchise. There are a lot of idiots on the General Board, but the Player Comparison and Stats Analysis are great places to peruse.
Once you start browsing that forum daily, you really have to wonder how some of the people at ESPN or TNT have jobs.
if any of these stats and stuff interest anyone im looking to go half in with someone on a www.mysynergysports.com account. this is what NBA teams use to scout other teams, and gameplan for playoffs, etc.
I'm not trying to marginalize his accomplishments at all. I think if he were born in this era and gone through the rigorous training today's players go through since childhood, he would at the very least be a good NBA center. However, you can't ignore the fact that players back then were:
1) Less atheltic 2) Shorter (white centers at 6'9) 3) Less skilled and explosive (AI status) 4) Less talented shooters (Was there a 3 point line back then?)
The game was in its infancy, players and coaches were just beginning to try new things. The cross-over hadn't even been thought of. Players were taught not to block shots because it put them out of position for rebounding. Basketball has gone from a backyard hobby with relatively few televised games to a global enterprise. Reason stands to argue that as the game evolves and competition increases, players become better. The Celts with Bird are considered one of the greatest teams in NBA history, yet an extremely athletic sophomore out of UNC named Michael Jordan dropped 63 points on them in the playoffs. No one had seen that level of athleticism before. Today's star players compete at or near that same level of athleticism (LBJ, Kobe, Wade, etc). It might be asinine to suggest that Chandler would be a legend if he played during Bill's era, especially considering all of the advantages Chandler has had training in the modern era, but I still think he'd at least be in the conversation when it came to best centers of that time.
You should do some research on the pre-3 era vs handchecking era vs no handchecking era and the effects on stats like pace, percentages, the way defense was played, etc. I don't know enough about it to put up a real argument against or for it, but I do know that there are a lot of misconceptions about the way basketball was played, players getting "more athletic", etc. There probably isn't as big a gap as you think.
Hmm, I think it might be useful to imagine the NBA's talent smushed into only 8 teams, and compare this talent/athleticism to what Russell faced during the 50s/60s. I think the difference in athleticism would be more pronounced in that comparison (there were only 8 teams in Russell's day).