PDA

View Full Version : PSD's Official #31 NBA Player of All-Time



JordansBulls
09-05-2011, 11:31 PM
Voting for #30 has concluded and PSD's Official #30 NBA Player of all time is....

Patrick Ewing

Top 5 Voting:
Patrick Ewing = 18 votes
Allen Iverson = 16 votes
Bob Cousy = 8 votes
Walt Frazier = 8 votes
Clyde Drexler = 5 votes



The List:
The List Thread (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=635088)

The List:
1. Michael Jordan (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=631361)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=631585)
3. Wilt Chamberlain (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=632046)
4. Magic Johnson (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=632690)
5. Bill Russell (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=632852)
6. Larry Bird (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=633428)
7. Shaquille O'neal (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=633751)
8. Kobe Bryant (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=634022)
9. Hakeem Olajuwon (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=634733)
10. Tim Duncan (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=635092)
11. Oscar Robertson (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=635506)
12. Moses Malone (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=636033)
13. Jerry West (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=636552)
14. Karl Malone (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=636998)
15. Julius Erving (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=637671)
16. David Robinson (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=638526)
17. Charles Barkley (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=639576)
18. John Stockton (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=640285)
19. George Mikan (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=641172)
20. Kevin Garnett (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=641975)
21. LeBron James (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=642511)
22. Dirk Nowitzki (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=643161)
23. Bob Pettit (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=644031)
24. John Havlicek (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=645330)
25. Elgin Baylor (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=645990)
26. Dwyane Wade (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=646496)
27. Scottie Pippen (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=647144)
28. Rick Barry (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=648440)
29. Isiah Thomas (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=649170)
30. Patrick Ewing (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=649815)


Voting will now begin for the #31 NBA Player All Time

NOTE: Nominations will end now, we are going up to the top 50 all time which means 19 spots left and right now we have 30 options. So for the #50 spot we will have a list of 10 players which is a lot.


These are the players that can be voted for the #31 spot.

Willis Reed
Bob Cousy
Gary Payton
Clyde Drexler
Dominique Wilkins
Sam Jones
Walt Frazier
Allen Iverson
Steve Nash
Jason Kidd
Wes Unseld
Dave Cowens
Bob Mcadoo
Bill Walton
George Gervin
Kevin McHale
James Worthy
Reggie Miller
Elvin Hayes
Dolph Schayes
Nate Thurmond
Shawn Kemp
Alonzo Mourning
Kevin Johnson
Jerry Lucas
Robert Parish
Nate Thurmond
Paul Pierce
Pau Gasol
Artis Gilmore

Ebbs
09-05-2011, 11:32 PM
Saddens me that guys like Kidd, Nash, and Iverson still aren't on the list.

I will vote AI again like I did on 26 he made that Sixers team beyond special.

Hellcrooner
09-05-2011, 11:38 PM
ill reserve my vote for later.

For the moment i will nominate hall greer, a member of the OFFICIAL NBA list of all time greats.

NBA Champion (1967)
10× NBA All-Star (1961–1970)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1968)
7× All-NBA Second Team (1963–1969)
NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team
#15 Retired by the Philadelphia 76ers

JordansBulls
09-05-2011, 11:39 PM
Vote: Clyde Drexler (Led the Blazers to the finals mulitple times as the man, led team to 57+ wins for 3 years in a row. Also led a championship team in Win Shares in the season (once you add up his total win shares that year) and in the playoffs.

Chacarron
09-05-2011, 11:41 PM
Vote multiple All-NBA guard Bob Cousy.

Hellcrooner
09-05-2011, 11:43 PM
Vote multiple All-NBA guard Bob Cousy.

Would definelty be my vote as in he should definetly be the one chosen with the resumes, but sadly a Political vote may be needed.

tredigs
09-05-2011, 11:46 PM
Vote multiple All-NBA guard Bob Cousy.

If you're going that route, you can do better than that:

You vote MVP, 6x Champion, 10x consecutive All-NBA 1st Team guard Bob Cousy.

I think he's a fine pick here.

Ebbs
09-05-2011, 11:49 PM
Give me Nash + Kidd over Cousy :hide:

pd7631
09-06-2011, 12:06 AM
Would definelty be my vote as in he should definetly be the one chosen with the resumes, but sadly a Political vote may be needed.

Sadly, you don't have the testicular fortitude to choose the actual person you believe in and it's quite clear that you are "saving" your vote to try and prevent someone from being chosen rather than having the guts to support the person you truly think is the next best player.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 12:08 AM
Sadly, you don't have the testicular fortitude to choose the actual person you believe in and it's quite clear that you are "saving" your vote to try and prevent someone from being chosen rather than having the guts to support the person you truly think is the next best player.

id rather have someone who deserves it slide 5 or 6 position and someone that does not deserve it go up 5 or 6 positions, than get someone i firmly belive does not deserve it leapfrog 30-40 positions.

pd7631
09-06-2011, 12:15 AM
id rather have someone who deserves it slide 5 or 6 position and someone that does not deserve it go up 5 or 6 positions, than get someone i firmly belive does not deserve it leapfrog 30-40 positions.

Whatever makes you sleep at night buddy. Nobody has come anywhere close to supporting their choice as me and several others have with AI. The one thing missing in his resume is a championship, but there have been several others not to win a championship voted in at this point. AI took the NBA by force when he came to the league and was one of the most dominant scorers of all time. If I really have to go through all the statistics he's put up, hardware he's won, and testimonials from his peers about how good he was......I will, but I've done that countless times already.

pd7631
09-06-2011, 12:19 AM
I nominate Chris Webber, and also move to have Shawn Kemp removed from the list. How is he on it, and Chris Webber isn't?

tredigs
09-06-2011, 12:24 AM
I nominate Chris Webber, and also move to have Shawn Kemp removed from the list. How is he on it, and Chris Webber isn't?

Hahah. Good point, and awesomely put.

naps
09-06-2011, 12:24 AM
Allen Iverson is still on the board is a blasphemy!

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 12:30 AM
I nominate Chris Webber, and also move to have Shawn Kemp removed from the list. How is he on it, and Chris Webber isn't?

i fully agree with that.

Cano4prez
09-06-2011, 12:33 AM
Whatever makes you sleep at night buddy. Nobody has come anywhere close to supporting their choice as me and several others have with AI. The one thing missing in his resume is a championship, but there have been several others not to win a championship voted in at this point. AI took the NBA by force when he came to the league and was one of the most dominant scorers of all time. If I really have to go through all the statistics he's put up, hardware he's won, and testimonials from his peers about how good he was......I will, but I've done that countless times already.

:laugh2: Not even close I can name at least 20+ more dominant scorers.


Inb4 Iverson was more dominant because he's short and has the heart of a lion!!

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 12:36 AM
i just realized walt bellamy isnt in the list wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chacarron
09-06-2011, 12:37 AM
Allen Iverson should not be winning this.

pd7631
09-06-2011, 12:38 AM
:laugh2: Not even close I can name at least 20+ more dominant scorers.


Inb4 Iverson was more dominant because he's short and has the heart of a lion!!

6th All Time in PPG

2nd All Time in playoff PPG

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 12:39 AM
6th All Time in PPG

2nd All Time in playoff PPG

%?

success?

pd7631
09-06-2011, 12:41 AM
Allen Iverson should not be winning this.

Hilarious, yet another person who provides no insight whatsoever and does nothing to back up their choice. Hey JB, can you just change the options to "Allen Iverson" and "Not Allen Iverson", because it's quite clear that that's what this has boiled down to.

Cano4prez
09-06-2011, 12:48 AM
6th All Time in PPG

2nd All Time in playoff PPG

Shot .425 on his career career, chucker, not efficient, and not a good facilitator


Nevermind you're right

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 12:50 AM
:laugh2: Not even close I can name at least 20+ more dominant scorers.


Inb4 Iverson was more dominant because he's short and has the heart of a lion!!

Name them.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 12:51 AM
Shot .425 on his career career, chucker, not efficient, and not a good facilitator


Nevermind you're right

Tell me how many players all time have finished top 5 in the league in scoring AND assists in the same season.

Allen Iverson is not a good facilitator what degree of utter GARBAGE is that? I mean really?

Chronz
09-06-2011, 12:54 AM
Whatever makes you sleep at night buddy. Nobody has come anywhere close to supporting their choice as me and several others have with AI. The one thing missing in his resume is a championship, but there have been several others not to win a championship voted in at this point. AI took the NBA by force when he came to the league and was one of the most dominant scorers of all time. If I really have to go through all the statistics he's put up, hardware he's won, and testimonials from his peers about how good he was......I will, but I've done that countless times already.
I disagree with every one of your opinions.

Just tell me, why AI over Frazier? What does AI have that he doesnt already?

Chronz
09-06-2011, 12:55 AM
Tell me how many players all time have finished top 5 in the league in scoring AND assists in the same season.

Allen Iverson is not a good facilitator what degree of utter GARBAGE is that? I mean really?

Maybe you guys have different definitions of facilitating.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 12:56 AM
%?

success?

Success?

Karl Malone, Elgin Baylor, Charles Barkley, George Gervin, Jack Twyman, Adrian Dantley, Tracy McGrady, Bernard King etc all great scorers how many titles do they all have combined? The same amount as Iverson. Even with a better shooting %. So does that mean at their peak they weren't dominant scorers either? :rolleyes:

Chronz
09-06-2011, 12:56 AM
Allen Iverson is still on the board is a blasphemy!
By DEFAULT, amirite?

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 12:57 AM
Maybe you guys have different definitions of facilitating.

Do you think Allen Iverson is not a good facilitator?

pd7631
09-06-2011, 12:58 AM
Shot .425 on his career career, chucker, not efficient, and not a good facilitator


Nevermind you're right


5th all time in 50+ point games

only he and MJ have gone for 50+ twice in the same playoff series

averaged 35.6ppg in the NBA Finals en route to scoring the most points ever by a player in a 5 game series

broke Wilt Chamberlain's record for consecutive 40 point games by a rookie

the list goes on and on for his SCORING accomplishments, if you are denying that he was one of the most dominant scorers in league history you need to check yourself into a mental hospital

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 01:00 AM
Success?

Karl Malone, Elgin Baylor, Charles Barkley, George Gervin, Jack Twyman, Adrian Dantley, Tracy McGrady, Bernard King etc all great scorers how many titles do they all have combined? The same amount as Iverson. Even with a better shooting %. So does that mean at their peak they weren't dominant scorers either? :rolleyes:

how many of them did refuse to train/ become team cancers/ had awfull fg%/ had horrible efficiencies?
what was the durability in the league of karl malone?

and i dont even want to start looking to outcourt things.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:01 AM
I was going to stay out of the A.I. debate because of the fact that I am biased towards him but some of the garbage I keep reading is downright disrespectful and I'm not going to sit around and watch while people say dumb stuff like Allen Iverson never played D, or isn't a good facilitator, or isn't a top 80 player, or wasn't a dominant scorer because he didn't have "success" etc etc.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 01:02 AM
5th all time in 50+ point games

only he and MJ have gone for 50+ twice in the same playoff series

averaged 35.6ppg in the NBA Finals en route to scoring the most points ever by a player in a 5 game series

broke Wilt Chamberlain's record for consecutive 40 point games by a rookie

the list goes on and on for his SCORING accomplishments, if you are denying that he was one of the most dominant scorers in league history you need to check yourself into a mental hospital

tell me do you think if kg, kobe, grant hill, dirk, for gods sake even battier wouldnt score some 40 games if they chucked at will?

pd7631
09-06-2011, 01:02 AM
I disagree with every one of your opinions.

Just tell me, why AI over Frazier? What does AI have that he doesnt already?

Really? I've said it all over and over again, go back and read. Other than a ring, Walt Frazier's career isn't anywhere close to as decorated as AI's. What does he have that AI doesn't? Get outta here with that BS.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:05 AM
how many of them did refuse to train/ become team cancers/ had awfull fg%/ had horrible efficiencies?
what was the durability in the league of karl malone?

and i dont even want to start looking to outcourt things.

What about success? I don't get it. I thought you alluded to A.I. not being a dominant scorer because he wasn't successful enough?

What does off court and allegedly being a team cancer (wasn't viewed as much of a cancer when he was at his best) have to do with being a dominant scorer?

It's like you guys just keep fishing for excuse after excuse after excuse to discredit the man. :pity:

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 01:08 AM
What about success? I don't get it. I thought you alluded to A.I. not being a dominant scorer because he wasn't successful enough?

What does off court and allegedly being a team cancer (wasn't viewed as much of a cancer when he was at his best) have to do with being a dominant scorer?

It's like you guys just keep fishing for excuse after excuse after excuse to discredit the man. :pity:

i didnt say that in regards fo "being a dominat scorer" i said that in regards of being overated.

you shoudl stop putting words on peoples mouths.

pd7631
09-06-2011, 01:08 AM
What about success? I don't get it. I thought you alluded to A.I. not being a dominant scorer because he wasn't successful enough?

What does off court and allegedly being a team cancer (wasn't viewed as much of a cancer when he was at his best) have to do with being a dominant scorer?

It's like you guys just keep fishing for excuse after excuse after excuse to discredit the man. :pity:

It's totally disgraceful. These guys spend so much time knocking AI, yet never say anything that the other players have done to deserve being chosen. Okay, we get it you guys don't like AI.....but you have done NOTHING to prove that other players were any greater than him. As if these other players didn't have any deficiencies in their game. And the off the court stuff is SOOOO irrelevant in this discussion, that anyone bringing it up should just keep their mouth shut.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:11 AM
i didnt say that in regards fo "being a dominat scorer" i said that in regards of being overated.

you shoudl stop putting words on peoples mouths.

So now I am the one putting words in people's mouth?

Crooner do you really need me to make you argue against yourself again. To save myself the time could you kindly quote for the PSD posters what exactly you were replying to when you spoke of him being overrated. Please.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:12 AM
It's totally disgraceful. These guys spend so much time knocking AI, yet never say anything that the other players have done to deserve being chosen. Okay, we get it you guys don't like AI.....but you have done NOTHING to prove that other players were any greater than him. As if these other players didn't have any deficiencies in their game. And the off the court stuff is SOOOO irrelevant in this discussion, that anyone bringing it up should just keep their mouth shut.

Imagine he's now trying to say that Allen Iverson is an overrated player because of the fact that he has seen trouble off the court :laugh2:

I swear with each post Crooner makes himself look worst and worst.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 01:14 AM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thurmna01.html

this is just one of the people in the board.

talk to me again when Iverson does something close to averaging 20 ppg and 22 rpg.

Now

lets find me Allen iverson Here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/ratings.cgi

Chronz
09-06-2011, 01:16 AM
Do you think Allen Iverson is not a good facilitator?

NBA Terminology isnt exactly defined anywhere, I have my own set but it may differ from yours, whats important is the message.

What do you mean by facilitator? In my world, and Ive said this before, there are 3 types of passers, Playmakers, Distributors and Facilitators.

Playmakers is broad term that can have nothing to do with passing but simply creating plays, but when they do pass they are more dynamic in how they set their teammates up, by being a threat to score with the ball by collapsing a defense off the dribble. Think a drive and kick guy or someone who can dump it off downlow. AI was pretty great at this.

Facilitators are different and usually go hand in hand with distributors. A great facilitator can operate in stationary sets with people around him doing all the moving, but because hes such a threat to score the ball with his own shooting ability it opens passing lanes that arent available without being so respected by the defense. Think Deron Williams in Utah, operating a great flex system requires the playmaker in this system to have the ability to bail the team out if the play doesnt develop while at the same time being such a threat that it increases the likelihood of such a play working in the first place.

A distributor can get an offense going without even touching the ball, he provides his teammates such great spacing that he always occupies a defender, this makes him a better post entree passer and allows his post player to go to work, increasing the efficiency of players around him. What hes distributing is the possession of the ball.

I get the 2 mixed up but the idea of the 2 is basically the same, they share the ball and can make players better without it.

AI isnt really that strong in that area but I wouldnt say hes a bad facilitator.

pd7631
09-06-2011, 01:16 AM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thurmna01.html

this is just one of the people in the board.

talk to me again when Iverson does something close to averaging 20 ppg and 22 rpg.

Now

lets find me Allen iverson Here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/ratings.cgi

:facepalm:

Kobe Bryant is at #97 there, good find....totally credible

And your boy Pau is at #131 hahaha

Chronz
09-06-2011, 01:17 AM
Really? I've said it all over and over again, go back and read. Other than a ring, Walt Frazier's career isn't anywhere close to as decorated as AI's. What does he have that AI doesn't? Get outta here with that BS.
What are you basing this opinion on? You telling me to get out of here discredits your stance.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:18 AM
Got so caught up with the A.I. talk that I forgot to make my vote. I going Walts here.
Vote: Walt Frazier
Nominate: Walt Bellamy

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:19 AM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thurmna01.html

this is just one of the people in the board.

talk to me again when Iverson does something close to averaging 20 ppg and 22 rpg.

Now

lets find me Allen iverson Here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/ratings.cgi

Crooner thanks for the horrible links you just posted. Great job :clap:

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 01:20 AM
:facepalm:

Kobe Bryant is at #97 there, good find....totally credible

And your boy Pau is at #131 hahaha

yes but unlike some of Ai fans boy i havent been voting "my boy" since number 5 or something like that.

pd7631
09-06-2011, 01:22 AM
NBA Terminology isnt exactly defined anywhere, I have my own set but it may differ from yours, whats important is the message.

What do you mean by facilitator? In my world, and Ive said this before, there are 3 types of passers, Playmakers, Distributors and Facilitators.

Playmakers is broad term that can have nothing to do with passing but simply creating plays, but when they do pass they are more dynamic in how they set their teammates up, by being a threat to score with the ball by collapsing a defense off the dribble. Think a drive and kick guy or someone who can dump it off downlow. AI was pretty great at this.

Facilitators are different and usually go hand in hand with distributors. A great facilitator can operate in stationary sets with people around him doing all the moving, but because hes such a threat to score the ball with his own shooting ability it opens passing lanes that arent available without being so respected by the defense. Think Deron Williams in Utah, operating a great flex system requires the playmaker in this system to have the ability to bail the team out if the play doesnt develop while at the same time being such a threat that it increases the likelihood of such a working in the first place.

A distributor can get an offense going without even touching the ball, he provides his teammates such great spacing that he always occupies a defender, this makes him a better post entree passer and allows his post player to go to work and increases the efficiency of players around him.

I get the 2 mixed up but the idea of the 2 is basically the same, they share the ball and can make players better without it.

AI isnt really that strong in that area but I wouldnt say hes a bad facilitator.

Distributors


I'd agree with this. AI did have an incredible passing ability (stemming from his days as a QB), but there were only a few occasions in his career in which he was asked to "facilitate" the offense. His primary job was to score the ball, and he was the 6th best at that job in NBA history.

pd7631
09-06-2011, 01:27 AM
What are you basing this opinion on? You telling me to get out of here discredits your stance.

Once again, you continually ask me to elaborate, or add on......meanwhile, you don't give me anything. Why don't YOU tell me what Walt has done that makes him more deserving of AI. I've laid everything out on the table as far as AI goes, and nobody has come close to approaching as in depth an argument FOR another player as I have for AI. I'm done with playing your game Chronz, it's your time to actually show me something. And please, make it a pro-argument for Walt rather than the tired old "AI was a chucker, he shouldn't be picked", because AI was not the only player with deficiencies in his game.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:29 AM
yes but unlike some of Ai fans boy i havent been voting "my boy" since number 5 or something like that.

You do know at one point 3 months A.I. was 51 in that ranking? And before that 42.

That's the only online ranking that has A.I. outside the top 50.

here are some good ones for you

http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.com/2011/07/ranking-top-100-players-in-nba-history.html


I have combined the rankings from nine different publications (including – but not limited to – Bill Simmons’ ‘Book of Basketball’, Slam magazine’s ‘Top 500’, Elliot Kalb’s ‘Who’s Better Who’s Best in Basketball?’ and Sport magazine’s 50th anniversary rankings) to create a master list.

Criteria used ^


37 – Allen Iverson

Bill Simmons

http://www.nbadraft.net/node/16527


29. Allen Iverson

Slam Magazine

http://www.slamonline.com/online/the-magazine/features/2009/06/the-new-top-50/


39. Allen Iverson

There are many more but these are 3 of the most recognized and respected right now. Way more than BBreference's ELO rankings.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:30 AM
NBA Terminology isnt exactly defined anywhere, I have my own set but it may differ from yours, whats important is the message.

What do you mean by facilitator? In my world, and Ive said this before, there are 3 types of passers, Playmakers, Distributors and Facilitators.

Playmakers is broad term that can have nothing to do with passing but simply creating plays, but when they do pass they are more dynamic in how they set their teammates up, by being a threat to score with the ball by collapsing a defense off the dribble. Think a drive and kick guy or someone who can dump it off downlow. AI was pretty great at this.

Facilitators are different and usually go hand in hand with distributors. A great facilitator can operate in stationary sets with people around him doing all the moving, but because hes such a threat to score the ball with his own shooting ability it opens passing lanes that arent available without being so respected by the defense. Think Deron Williams in Utah, operating a great flex system requires the playmaker in this system to have the ability to bail the team out if the play doesnt develop while at the same time being such a threat that it increases the likelihood of such a working in the first place.

A distributor can get an offense going without even touching the ball, he provides his teammates such great spacing that he always occupies a defender, this makes him a better post entree passer and allows his post player to go to work and increases the efficiency of players around him.

I get the 2 mixed up but the idea of the 2 is basically the same, they share the ball and can make players better without it.

AI isnt really that strong in that area but I wouldnt say hes a bad facilitator.

Distributors

I understand your POV. I see nothing wrong with what you're saying. I fully agree.

Chronz
09-06-2011, 01:33 AM
Once again, you continually ask me to elaborate, or add on......meanwhile, you don't give me anything.
I cant give you anything if I dont know the criteria. What do you think makes him more decorated. What I wanted to say before deciding to hear you out was that it sounds like your only focusing on accolades with little detail about performance or context. Some of which may be completely arbitrary (Such as listing scoring titles or some oblique stat)


Why don't YOU tell me what Walt has done that makes him more deserving of AI. I've laid everything out on the table as far as AI goes, and nobody has come close to approaching as in depth an argument FOR another player as I have for AI. I'm done with playing your game Chronz, it's your time to actually show me something. And please, make it a pro-argument for Walt rather than the tired old "AI was a chucker, he shouldn't be picked", because AI was not the only player with deficiencies in his game.

I can make a case for ANY of these guys before AI so just pick and choose which you want to hear.

Drexler, GP, Frazier, Reed, Kidd, McHale

You know, efficient champions who could defend not only their position but outside their position and on a team scale.

AI is more along the lines of Nique and Gervin with a few others having a shot. Including Bill Walton who has to be voted for at some point.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:36 AM
I still can't get over the fact that Crooner posted a list which ranks Rajon Rondo ahead of Kobe Bryant as for his reasoning to put A.I. in the 80s or lower. Really Crooner that's the best you can do?

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 01:36 AM
this is a simple as this.

Iverson is a polarizing subject.

there is vision A.

People that loves Points and loves highlit reels and espn and shoe ads will believe that.

1 Iverson is a great player
2 iverson is a great scorer
3Iverson was the saviour and hero of their team saving them in many games and making them reach better heights they could ahve reached.
4 Iverson was featured so much in tv and made so many ads because he was great.
5 league and media turned his back on ai for his off court trouble

and Vision B

While people that loves Team Game or loves advanced stats will describe Iverson.

1 Iverson is a hyped player that is perceived as great by some people because of media and publicity
2 iverson is an Inneficient chuker.
3 Iverson in fact won some games but also LOST his team a lot of them because of his hogging me first attitude, wich in fact KEPT the teams down from realizing their True potential.
4 Iverson is a Comertial brand hyped up by tv and show company and the League, it was a pet project for a marketing brand based on his spectacular ( even if unefecive) play .
5 league and media turned their back on him when he started failing to deliver to the hype big time on the court while, creating lockerrom torubel after lokerroom trouble.


imprtant fact , who votes MVP? media.

Who votes allstar starters? Fans subjected to media and adds.

Korman12
09-06-2011, 01:39 AM
McHale, again.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:40 AM
this is a simple as this.

Iverson is a polarizing subject.

there is vision A.

People that loves Points and loves highlit reels and espn and shoe ads will believe that.

1 Iverson is a great player
2 iverson is a great scorer
3Iverson was the saviour and hero of their team saving them in many games and making them reach better heights they could ahve reached.
4 Iverson was featured so much in tv and made so many ads because he was great.
5 league and media turned his back on ai for his off court trouble

and Vision B

While people that loves Team Game or loves advanced stats will describe Iverson.

1 Iverson is a hyped player that is perceived as great by some people because of media and publicity
2 iverson is an Inneficient chuker.
3 Iverson in fact won some games but also LOST his team a lot of them because of his hogging me first attitude, wich in fact KEPT the teams down from realizing their True potential.
4 Iverson is a Comertial brand hyped up by tv and show company and the League, it was a pet project for a marketing brand based on his spectacular ( even if unefecive) play .
5 league and media turned their back on him when he started failing to deliver to the hype big time on the court while, creating lockerrom torubel after lokerroom trouble.

Interesting story. Please tell us about people who thinks that prior to 2011 there were 69 players better than Dirk Nowitzki. Tell us about that kind of person.

Chacarron
09-06-2011, 01:40 AM
Two things caught my eyes while checking out Allen Iverson's multiple stats.

He is 4th all-time in MPG and 3rd all-time in USG%. Now, I may be wrong but when you are playin 40+ minutes per game and are responsible for 31.8% of the offense you will score your fair share of points. A career average of 26.7 PPG on 21.8 FGA tells me that player is a chucker and inefficient. His efficiency in terms of shooting by the way is horrendous for a player putting up 26 PPG.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 01:43 AM
Two things caught my eyes while checking out Allen Iverson's multiple stats.

He is 4th all-time in MPG and 3rd all-time in USG%. Now, I may be wrong but when you are playin 40+ minutes per game and are responsible for 31.8% of the offense you will score your fair share of points. A career average of 26.7 PPG on 21.8 FGA tells me that player is a chucker and inefficient. His efficiency in terms of shooting by the way is horrendous for a player putting up 26 PPG.

dont there to try to show them the truth.

Didnt you see the adds , he can fly .

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 01:43 AM
Interesting story. Please tell us about people who thinks that prior to 2011 there were 69 players better than Dirk Nowitzki. Tell us about that kind of person.

once again you are DISTORTING the truth and putting words in my mouth.

Its a pity that you cant understand what i wrote.

But thats your problem not mine.

Chacarron
09-06-2011, 01:44 AM
dont there to try to show them the truth.

Didnt you see the adds , he can fly .

I saw him cross Jordan up nasty once.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:44 AM
Two things caught my eyes while checking out Allen Iverson's multiple stats.

He is 4th all-time in MPG and 3rd all-time in USG%. Now, I may be wrong but when you are playin 40+ minutes per game and are responsible for 31.8% of the offense you will score your fair share of points. A career average of 26.7 PPG on 21.8 FGA tells me that player is a chucker and inefficient. His efficiency in terms of shooting by the way is horrendous for a player putting up 26 PPG.

All facts something which I cannot and will not dispute. We can go into detail to explain why his stats reflect such BUT why should we? We don't explain the short comings in other player's stats so I don't think we should do that for A.I. now.

What I will say however to that is this.


“He had a knack for going 9-for-24 but somehow making the two biggest shots of the game. And he played with an eff-you intensity only KG and Kobe matched (although MJ remains the king in this category)” (Bill Simmons).

Efficiency is a very very important thing when discussing scoring ability, however so too is effectiveness and impact. Never overlook that.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:47 AM
once again you are DISTORTING the truth and putting words in my mouth.

Its a pity that you cant understand what i wrote.

But thats your problem not mine.

What you wrote is utter garbage. You're trying to say that A.I. fans only see the good in him and nothing else and that A.I. haters (the select few with you included) see past all that.

We who have reasonable view however see from every possible angle which is why despite the fact that I am an A.I. fan boy I am not going to say ignorant stuff that can't be backed up. You however well I pity you.

Chacarron
09-06-2011, 01:48 AM
I just can't ignore Iverson's inefficiency. He may have been clutch, whatever that is, and carried his team in the playoffs but at the end of the day I can't look away the bad.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:48 AM
imprtant fact , who votes MVP? media.

Who votes allstar starters? Fans subjected to media and adds.

Important fact

Allen Iverson wont the NBA MVP Award in the year 2001.

pd7631
09-06-2011, 01:49 AM
I cant give you anything if I dont know the criteria. What do you think makes him more decorated. What I wanted to say before deciding to hear you out was that it sounds like your only focusing on accolades with little detail about performance or context. Some of which may be completely arbitrary (Such as listing scoring titles or some oblique stat)


I can make a case for ANY of these guys before AI so just pick and choose which you want to hear.

Drexler, GP, Frazier, Reed, Kidd, McHale

You know, efficient champions who could defend not only their position but outside their position and on a team scale.

AI is more along the lines of Nique and Gervin with a few others having a shot. Including Bill Walton who has to be voted for at some point.


I don't give a flying **** why you think Allen Iverson shouldn't be picked. All I want is for somebody to state their choice, and why they should be the next player chosen. Is it really that hard? Where is the support for Walt Frazier, Bob Cousy, etc..? It's like people are just looking for ways to knock Allen Iverson, instead of just saying who they think should be picked and why.


Please Chronz, just tell me your choice and why they should be picked. If you can do it without mentioning Allen Iverson I'll give you a high five.

pd7631
09-06-2011, 01:51 AM
Well, ask yourself one question: How could a coach-killer who allegedly monopolizes the ball, hates to practice and can't sublimate his game double as one of the most revered, respected players in the league? Why did the ex-players on "NBA Coast To Coast" (Anthony, Legler and Barry) trade Iverson war stories last night like they were trading stories about Keyser Söze? Why are Philly fans overwhelmingly heartbroken that he's leaving town? How can anyone blame Iverson for anything when he's been saddled with an incompetent front office and decidedly mediocre supporting cast for the past decade?

Consider the following:

Fact: He played with only two All-Stars in Philly (Theo Ratliff in 2001 and the soon-to-be-decrepit Dikembe Mutombo in 2002), as well as a host of overpaid role players (Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, Kyle Korver, Kenny Thomas, Marc Jackson, Brian Skinner, Greg Buckner, Tyrone Hill, George Lynch, Corliss Williamson), overpaid underachievers (Derrick Coleman, Keith Van Horn, Sam Dalembert, Joe Smith), overpaid and washed-up veterans (Todd MacCulloch, Toni Kukoc, Chris Webber, Glenn Robinson, Matt Geiger, Billy Owens), and underachieving lottery picks (Jerry Stackhouse, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes).

Fact: Other than Mutombo, Iverson's four best teammates were Coleman (the signature head case of the 1990s), Stackhouse (a selfish scorer who's been traded three times), Ratliff (a shotblocker with no offensive skills) and Andre Igoudala (a talented athlete who hasn't improved in two years).

Fact: Since Larry Brown left in 2003, he's played for four coaches in four years (Randy Ayers, Chris Ford, Jim O'Brien and Mo Cheeks)

Fact: Thanks to the C-Webb trade and their botched salary cap, the Sixers can't trade for an impact guy unless they keep rolling the dice with somebody else's problem ... a strategy that hasn't worked for them in five years.

Can you blame A.I. for wanting out? Hell, no. That's why we're knee-deep into one of the weirdest weeks in recent NBA history -- Philly effectively putting a future Hall of Famer on eBay for a three-day auction, with a trade expected to be consummated any second -- and I'm not sure anyone fully understands the ramifications here. This isn't just any All-Star player. This could be the basketball bargain of the decade.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/061213

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:51 AM
I just can't ignore Iverson's inefficiency. He may have been clutch, whatever that is, and carried his team in the playoffs but at the end of the day I can't look away the bad.

I am not asking you to. Have you not seen that I am yet to take A.I. in any of these polls. No one is telling you to ignore his offensive inefficiency. However if that's all you're going to pay attention to then you'd lose sight of context and perspective.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 01:51 AM
Important fact

Allen Iverson wont the NBA MVP Award in the year 2001.

yep, and who votes that?

media that wants to make sure their Milkcow gets the best benfits for them?


Theres a reason why basically 99% odf the time the Supposed best player of the team that wins the ring wins the Finals mvp even when a teamate has outplayed them or being more of a key act in the finals ( with the exception that the main dude is UNSELFISH like hell, aka Duncan or Magic).

Millkcow cashing.

Chacarron
09-06-2011, 01:53 AM
I am not asking you to. Have you not seen that I am yet to take A.I. in any of these polls. No one is telling you to ignore his offensive inefficiency. However if that's all you're going to pay attention to then you'd lose sight of context and perspective.

I got carried away a bit.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 01:54 AM
yep, and who votes that?

media that wants to make sure their Milkcow gets the best benfits for them?


Theres a reason why basically 99% odf the time the Supposed best player of the team that wins the ring wins the Finals mvp even when a teamate has outplayed them or being more of a key act in the finals ( with the exception that the main dude is UNSELFISH like hell, aka Duncan or Magic).

Millkcow cashing.

I'm just reminding you that A.I. did win the MVP. That is all.

Lakersfan2483
09-06-2011, 02:02 AM
I am actually voting for Allen Iverson at this spot. He was one of the greatest scorers in NBA history. He was an all star and all nba 1st and 2nd teamer for multiple years, led a team to the finals as the no. 1 option, won an MVP, and was a top 5 player throughout most of his career. He was a lethal scorer and one of the fiercest competiors the game has ever seen.

Baller1
09-06-2011, 02:04 AM
Allen Iverson is in no way better than Gary Payton. What a shame.

pd7631
09-06-2011, 02:04 AM
Allen Iverson is in no way better than Gary Payton. What a shame.

lol

Chronz
09-06-2011, 02:19 AM
I don't give a flying **** why you think Allen Iverson shouldn't be picked.
Then why claim to being able to defend your stance if your not willing to hear the argument against your case?


All I want is for somebody to state their choice, and why they should be the next player chosen. Is it really that hard? Where is the support for Walt Frazier, Bob Cousy, etc..? It's like people are just looking for ways to knock Allen Iverson, instead of just saying who they think should be picked and why.
Its all in your head, Im looking for a way to see your point of view and your bickering.


Please Chronz, just tell me your choice and why they should be picked. If you can do it without mentioning Allen Iverson I'll give you a high five.

Ive given you several contenders, all of which I can make a case for.

The notion that we should have no basis for comparison makes it hard to take your opinion seriously.

pd7631
09-06-2011, 02:26 AM
Then why claim to being able to defend your stance if your not willing to hear the argument against your case?


Its all in your head, Im looking for a way to see your point of view and your bickering.


Ive given you several contenders, all of which I can make a case for.

The notion that we should have no basis for comparison makes it hard to take your opinion seriously.

I really don't know what's so difficult about this. Who do you think is the best player, and why should they be picked over EVERYONE else? This isn't Allen Iverson vs. everyone else. Why do you make it so that it has to be:

Gary Payton vs. Allen Iverson

Walt Frazier vs. Allen Iverson

Bob Cousy vs. Allen Iverson

etc....

Why not?:

Gary Payton vs. Bob Cousy

Walt Frazier vs. Gary Payton

etc....

It's really quite simple, I think Allen Iverson is the best player on the board. You have contributed nothing. I have seen no argument for anyone from you, only arguments against one player.

I can't take you seriously, because you seem to have no opinion at all other than Allen Iverson shouldn't be the choice.

Baller1
09-06-2011, 02:39 AM
I really don't know what's so difficult about this. Who do you think is the best player, and why should they be picked over EVERYONE else? This isn't Allen Iverson vs. everyone else. Why do you make it so that it has to be:

Gary Payton vs. Allen Iverson

Walt Frazier vs. Allen Iverson

Bob Cousy vs. Allen Iverson

etc....

Why not?:

Gary Payton vs. Bob Cousy

Walt Frazier vs. Gary Payton

etc....

It's really quite simple, I think Allen Iverson is the best player on the board. You have contributed nothing. I have seen no argument for anyone from you, only arguments against one player.

I can't take you seriously, because you seem to have no opinion at all other than Allen Iverson shouldn't be the choice.

And you have no opinion other than Allen Iverson should be the choice.

pd7631
09-06-2011, 02:45 AM
And you have no opinion other than Allen Iverson should be the choice.

No **** sherlock, you can only pick one guy. I've presented many reasons why I believe he should be the choice. Saying why one person should not be the choice doesn't really help when the goal is to pick somebody. Even if you don't think AI should be picked, surely you (Chronz) must think that a single player in particular should be chosen. Very few people actually give reasons why their player is most deserving, rather they simply say something like...."voting for____so AI doesn't get it"

Baller1
09-06-2011, 03:00 AM
No **** sherlock, you can only pick one guy. I've presented many reasons why I believe he should be the choice. Saying why one person should not be the choice doesn't really help when the goal is to pick somebody. Even if you don't think AI should be picked, surely you (Chronz) must think that a single player in particular should be chosen. Very few people actually give reasons why their player is most deserving, rather they simply say something like...."voting for____so AI doesn't get it"

AI is winning this poll, which is absolutely ridiculous; that's why people are making comments against him.

Iverson was a great player, and a fun basketball player to watch. BUT, he is not the #31 player of ALL-TIME. His inefficiency and lack of defense are overlooked due to his flashy play and incredible scoring ability.

My vote, Gary Payton, is the greatest defensive player of all-time at his respective position (the only PG to ever win DPOY), lead his team to the NBA Finals (only lost to the greatest team in NBA history), and has a championship ring to top it off.

NYKalltheway
09-06-2011, 03:19 AM
People are so sensitive over this thing :laugh2:


Need to adjust/realize some stuff:

1) NBA in the 50s and early 60s was what I like to call "pure". You had some superior players in a league that wasn't great in terms of depth.
2) NBA in the late 60s and early 70s was the beginning of stats padding. My guess would be that people were hyping up the likes of John Havlicek and Sam Jones. The birth of single "superstars" that "led" their teams bla bla bla. Also the era of inefficiency. And during that era, you had some golden players as well. It was also the transition from superstardom to total team play, the late 70s.
3) NBA in the 80s-mid 90s... Golden era of the NBA. When you had the best teams overall, the best players overall (you still have GOAT at every position probably - PG Magic SG Jordan SF Bird PF Malone(for many people) C Kareem). It was also an era where NOBODY CARED ABOUT STATS. It was the era of PRESERVATION as Clyde Drexler has stated (see previous thread for interview). Players would share the ball, the aim was to win, not to break records. It was an era where defense was a team task. An era where offense was science.
4) Late 90s-Mid 2000s. The era of DEFENSE. Defense was taken to another level, but people were still attached to Michael Jordan. Hence people like Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady were looked as gods, while guys like Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan and Jason Kidd were overlooked to some extent. It was a weak era in terms of player qualities, but the team effort from most teams was spectacular. Difference between Pistons 04 and teams in the 80s? Back in the 80s there were over a dozen similar teams, and also happened to have amazing players on top. Those teams were hyped up back then. And you still hear names like Joe Dumars, Bobby Jones, Sidney Moncrief as some of the best defensive guards ever and also highly ranked for some people. You're not gonna remember any Pistons from the 04 team when people wanted to see Shaq & Kobe, Tmac, Allen Iverson, the "birth" of Lebron, Wade, Melo...
5)... the supposed era of superstars. Mid2000s till today. The era of handchecking. The open lane. The "please score" era as I like to call it. All you see is a regular season that nobody gives a ******* about except these "superstars" that are padding on their statlines, wannabe stars that ballhog and dominate the ball (eg Monta Ellis) and you have a mass media that overhypes PLAYERS and not teams. Team effort is non-existent. It's something unheard of for the newer generation. It's always the players. As if since the 50s, it was just 1 or 2 guys that did all the work just like post-2005 NBA. Sure, you did have some great players that dominated, but it was still a team effort. Take that guy out, the team would still do some damage. Take a star from a small market team, you have LLLLL (till he gets back). The era of stats padding... Where breaking records > winning. Kevin Love's 30/30 game. ZOMG! Kobe Bryant's 81 points. ZOMG! Blake Griffin's highlight dunk. ZOMG!

Hellcrooner and some other guys get my point and see why I rate players the way I do. If you don't, then you're most probably part of the new generation of fans. The "show me his Airness copycats, but only on the offensive end" and "show me the box score" kind.

Vote should go for Cousy here as he's BPA, followed by Walt Frazier, Clyde Drexler, Elvin Hayes and Dominique Wilkins. Jason Kidd, Gary Payton, George Gervin, Bob McAdoo, Jerry Lucas among others are accepted for debate. Allen Iverson? Not now. Too early still. Top 60-70 perhaps and I'm being far too kind. And no, this is not disrespecting.
If respecting the league, its players and its history means that I'm "disrespecting Allen Iverson", then so be it.

Chronz
09-06-2011, 03:35 AM
I really don't know what's so difficult about this. Who do you think is the best player, and why should they be picked over EVERYONE else? This isn't Allen Iverson vs. everyone else. Why do you make it so that it has to be:
Because Im asking YOU to explain YOUR STANCE. I really dont care if you dont like the way Im voting but Im not seeing a valid argument being made on your part. If you dont care then so be it but you cant go on claiming youve done the best job defending it when you run away from any and all questions.

Chronz
09-06-2011, 03:38 AM
God damn this sucks, if it comes down to Cousy or AI I might have to begrudgingly vote for AI.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 03:58 AM
God damn this sucks, if it comes down to Cousy or AI I might have to begrudgingly vote for AI.

multichampion, legend and already in teh OFFICIAL top 50 players even nba list vs overated, ♋ unefficient ringless ball hog?

come on be serious.

Hustlenomics
09-06-2011, 09:39 AM
-Big East Rookie of the Year award
-2X Big East Defensive Player of the Year
-First team AP All-American, 1996
-97 Rookie Of The Year
-97 Rookie Game MVP
-97 All Rookie First-Team
-7 x All-NBA Selection
-3 x steals champion(01,02,03)
-4 x NBA Scoring Champion(99,01,02,05)
-11 x NBA All-Star
-2 x NBA All-Star Game MVP(01,05)
-2001 NBA MVP
-1983 Career Steals (12th all-time)
-5624 Career Assists(4th Actively)
-24,368 Career Points in just 914 games played (17th all-time)
-One of only 5 players in NBA History to average at least 30 ppg and 8 apg in a season
-Career Average of 2.2 SPG(7th all-time)
-Career Average of 6.2 APG
-Career Average of 26.7 PPG(6th all-time)
-5 Consecutive games of 40+ points as a rookie
-Playoff Steal record
-Became fifth player ever to make an average of 30 points and seven assists in a season


VOTE: ALLEN IVERSON

Hustlenomics
09-06-2011, 09:48 AM
and since when was it easy playing 40 + minutes a game on a consistent basis playing hurt?

I saw him cross Jordan up nasty once.

i bet you loved that play

JordansBulls
09-06-2011, 10:50 AM
I can't believe Drexler isn't getting more love here.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 10:53 AM
I can't believe Drexler isn't getting more love here.

Why Drexler over Frazier?

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 11:17 AM
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/member.php?u=42034

zdtm13 0 posts and a vote for iverson.....

Evil_Empire
09-06-2011, 11:19 AM
Voted for the Cous. He defined the point guard position more or less.

Chronz
09-06-2011, 11:26 AM
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/member.php?u=42034

zdtm13 0 posts and a vote for iverson.....
Yea but it was made in 2008, do you think someone created that account just to double up his votes for years?

I wonder if hes been voting for AI since his account was created

Chronz
09-06-2011, 01:07 PM
multichampion, legend and already in teh OFFICIAL top 50 players even nba list vs overated, ♋ unefficient ringless ball hog?

come on be serious.

What makes you think Cousy was efficient? I would take GP, Frazier, Kidd, and Nash before him. I dont romanticize the past, him being the first of anything isnt an advantage and do you really think the guys I listed couldnt have won under those circumstances? Most of these guys should have a case with AI now that I think about it but whatever. The next few slots should be interesting, curious to where all the AI voters go for the next poll.

Chacarron
09-06-2011, 01:15 PM
and since when was it easy playing 40 + minutes a game on a consistent basis playing hurt?


i bet you loved that play

I was being sarcastic with that remark because of what Crooner said. It was a nice play nonetheless.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 01:29 PM
What makes you think Cousy was efficient? I would take GP, Frazier, Kidd, and Nash before him. I dont romanticize the past, him being the first of anything isnt an advantage and do you really think the guys I listed couldnt have won under those circumstances? Most of these guys should have a case with AI now that I think about it but whatever. The next few slots should be interesting, curious to where all the AI voters go for the next poll.
nowhere they will wlak away cause they dont care for anything else.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2011, 02:02 PM
I already made the case for Walt, granted it was against Isiah but I substituted in A.I.


Isiah over Walt? Make a case, I'm all ears. But I'm :pity: at you Swash. Walt is CLEARLY statistically superior. He was also a BETTER defender (7x all-nba 1st team defense which you'll notice Isiah never made.....)

They both were on 2 championship teams. Walt led those 2 teams just as much as Isiah did. But are we seriously giving Isiah the nod just because of his Finals MVP? It sure seems like it.

BTW, in that clinching game 7 against the Lakers in 70 (the Willis Reed inspiring appearance), it was Frazier who had 36 points and 19 assists. In a game 7 no less, against a Lakers team that had Wilt, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West (granted, they were all old but all were still good players and West was on the all-D team that year).

Swash, you were getting upset about JB's criteria, but it appears you're falling into the same trap. Isiah is a statistical bum in the regular season. Yes, he raised his game in the playoffs (and even then, he wasn't as good as Walt), but should the regular season be ignored?

As I've stated many times, he's about the equivalent of Gus Williams, but slightly better. This is way too early for Gus, so yes, this is too early for Isiah.

Win Shares:


career best 3 5 consc playoff 10 consc
Iverson 99.0 34.0 42.0 8.84 82.2
Walt 113.5 45.1 70.8 14.66 110.0


I can do them out for PER too, they won't be close. Walt had 7 consecutive seasons with 10+ win shares, Isiah had 1 in his entire career. As I said, statistically, these guys aren't in the same league. In Walt's 3 best years, he was also closer to winning an MVP than Isiah (for what thats worth).

Can't believe Isiah is going ahead of Walt :pity:

Anyways, since people are sitting there listing random accomplishments, here's Walts:

2× NBA Champion (1970, 1973)
7× NBA All-Star (1970–1976)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1975)
4 ×All-NBA First Team (1970, 1972, 1974–1975)
2× All-NBA Second Team (1971, 1973)
7× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1969–1975)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1968)
#10 Retired by the New York Knicks
NBA 50th Anniversary All-Time Team
Led NBA in 69-70 in WS/48
In the playoffs, led the league in assists per game in 68-69
Led the NBA in the playoffs in Win Shares in both 71-72 and 72-73
Also led the NBA in the playoffs in WS/48 in 71-72

I'll also repeat this again:

BTW, in that clinching game 7 against the Lakers in 70 (the Willis Reed inspiring appearance), it was Frazier who had 36 points and 19 assists. In a game 7 no less, against a Lakers team that had Wilt, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West (granted, they were all old but all were still good players and West was on the all-D team that year).

That was common of him though. He always raised his game in the playoffs and remained calm in almost any pressure situation.

In addition, he was a 7-time All-NBA 1st team defender. Read that again, because its something important that AI lacks. He also lacks a dominant game 7 win for a championship over an all-time franchise.

In addition 4-time All-NBA First team > 3 All-NBA first teams.

Yeah, Iverson has an MVP, one that he probably didn't deserve- Shaq and Duncan both had better years. And in any case, Walt's 7-time All-NBA defense more then makes up for Iverson's 1 MVP.

And I haven't even really got into the numbers yet- which favor Frazier, unless you want to look at misleading numbers like points per game, which on its own, tells you nothing.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 02:07 PM
I already made the case for Walt, granted it was against Isiah but I substituted in A.I.



Anyways, since people are sitting there listing random accomplishments, here's Walts:

2× NBA Champion (1970, 1973)
7× NBA All-Star (1970–1976)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1975)
4 ×All-NBA First Team (1970, 1972, 1974–1975)
2× All-NBA Second Team (1971, 1973)
7× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1969–1975)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1968)
#10 Retired by the New York Knicks
NBA 50th Anniversary All-Time Team
Led NBA in 69-70 in WS/48
In the playoffs, led the league in assists per game in 68-69
Led the NBA in the playoffs in Win Shares in both 71-72 and 72-73
Also led the NBA in the playoffs in WS/48 in 71-72

I'll also repeat this again:

BTW, in that clinching game 7 against the Lakers in 70 (the Willis Reed inspiring appearance), it was Frazier who had 36 points and 19 assists. In a game 7 no less, against a Lakers team that had Wilt, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West (granted, they were all old but all were still good players and West was on the all-D team that year).

That was common of him though. He always raised his game in the playoffs and remained calm in almost any pressure situation.

In addition, he was a 7-time All-NBA 1st team defender. Read that again, because its something important that AI lacks. He also lacks a dominant game 7 win for a championship over an all-time franchise.

In addition 4-time All-NBA First team > 3 All-NBA first teams.

Yeah, Iverson has an MVP, one that he probably didn't deserve- Shaq and Duncan both had better years. And in any case, Walt's 7-time All-NBA defense more then makes up for Iverson's 1 MVP.

And I haven't even really got into the numbers yet- which favor Frazier, unless you want to look at misleading numbers like points per game, which on its own, tells you nothing.

Though it reflected such on the stat sheet it may have been a bit off.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=953IPz0fJcA
http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1970.htm

Now while the Box Score clearly states that he had 19 assists the video suggests otherwise. It was a phenomenal accomplishment regardless (36 pts 7 rebs and 9 asts) but maybe not as great as many have been lead to believe.

^ That's what I posted in the earlier thread.

Outside of that I have no problem with anything that was said here. If you ask me Frazier was no doubt the best player on both those championship teams despite the fact that he didn't win a FMVP.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2011, 02:09 PM
Though it reflected such on the stat sheet it may have been a bit off.



^ That's what I posted in the earlier thread.

Outside of that I have no problem with anything that was said here. If you ask me Frazier was no doubt the best player on both those championship teams despite the fact that he didn't win a FMVP.

Whether it was 9 assists or 19 assists, it was still a great performance. Don't forget, he was (probably, I haven't watched that particular finals) being guarded by Jerry West, who while old, still made the All-D team that year. And Wilt and Elgin (old, I know, but still good) guarding the paint. Pretty impressive feat, even if it was only 9 assists vs. 19.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 02:11 PM
Whether it was 9 assists or 19 assists, it was still a great performance. Don't forget, he was (probably, I haven't watched that particular finals) being guarded by Jerry West, who while old, still made the All-D team that year. And Wilt and Elgin (old, I know, but still good) guarding the paint. Pretty impressive feat, even if it was only 9 assists vs. 19.

Fully agreed pretty much said the same in the previous reply I made on it.

NYKalltheway
09-06-2011, 03:19 PM
Why Drexler over Frazier?

why Kobe over Frazier? :shrug:

JordansBulls
09-06-2011, 03:34 PM
Whether it was 9 assists or 19 assists, it was still a great performance. Don't forget, he was (probably, I haven't watched that particular finals) being guarded by Jerry West, who while old, still made the All-D team that year. And Wilt and Elgin (old, I know, but still good) guarding the paint. Pretty impressive feat, even if it was only 9 assists vs. 19.

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1970.htm#Game #7

wjmoffatt
09-06-2011, 03:50 PM
Saddens me that guys like Kidd, Nash, and Iverson still aren't on the list.

I will vote AI again like I did on 26 he made that Sixers team beyond special.

Only game the Lakers lost that year in the playoffs was a home one to AI's. Not the 76ers!

naps
09-06-2011, 03:52 PM
By DEFAULT, amirite?

Dude, you always underrate Allen Iverson. We all know that.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2011, 03:52 PM
http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1970.htm#Game #7

Right, that was in response to Swash posting that Frazier's assist total may have been inflated. But in the official record books, he has 19 assists.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2011, 03:54 PM
Dude, you always underrate Allen Iverson. We all know that.

Got a response as to why he should go ahead of Frazier? Or are you another AI fanboy?

Even Swash who is a hardcore A.I. fan is voting Frazier here. He may not have the points per game averages that A.I. had but he did more to help his team win and was a triple double threat, not to mention a great defender.

While Reed was the supposed "leader" of the Knicks 2 championship runs, they were more co-leaders.

NYKalltheway
09-06-2011, 03:57 PM
There was no such thing as a "sole leader" back in the 70s... why does today's generation fails to understand that? :/

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 03:59 PM
There was no such thing as a "sole leader" back in the 70s... why does today's generation fails to understand that? :/

because Stern and Vaccaro society have made sure of it.

AntiG
09-06-2011, 04:01 PM
Drexler by far. Should have been there in the teens.

NYKalltheway
09-06-2011, 04:11 PM
because Stern and Vaccaro society have made sure of it.

the last thing I've expected to be brainwashed over the years were NBA fans :D

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 04:17 PM
the last thing I've expected to be brainwashed over the years were NBA fans :D

that battle was lost around 20 years ago.

JordansBulls
09-06-2011, 04:32 PM
that battle was lost around 20 years ago.

You are correct --> http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-05/sports/sp-83_1_lakers

NYKalltheway
09-06-2011, 04:38 PM
You are correct --> http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-05/sports/sp-83_1_lakers

you sir, have managed to confuse me :)

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 04:44 PM
you sir, have managed to confuse me :)

he brings up that B.S whenever he feels Mj is being attacked.

Cano4prez
09-06-2011, 05:09 PM
Lol AI. Will go with Cousy here and Drexler after that

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 05:11 PM
why Kobe over Frazier? :shrug:

When making my case for one player over another I go with MY criteria for choosing a player in a debate such as this is.


Dominance relative to your peers during your prime.
Peak year(s) dominance.
Longevity of elite seasons.
Titles won as the teams best player.
Titles won as a number 2 (major reason why Scottie went so high)
Individual performance in the playoffs
Team success relative to supporting casts (one of the many reasons why Hakeem is universally seen as being a better player than David Robinson)
Accolades and accomplishments (whether it be ABA/NBA).
Ability to transcend any era of play (though this will favour current players due to their superior athletic ability that is not the standpoint I take it from but rather a skill and ability POV once put into context)


Now of course dominance, elite seasons and peak all incorporates statistical production which certainly in my opinion have to include advanced metrics.

All and all everything has to be put into context with circumstances taken into consideration to which an understanding of exactly how a player went about achieving his statistics (both basic and advanced).

Unlike many older posters however I was not able to see prime Drexler player every day but I have seen enough film in my opinion to give myself a strong enough basis to account for their overall skill, ability and overall intangible worth.

Now with all that said I'll show you exactly why I have Kobe over Clyde

As far as accolades go

Kobe Bryant: 5 x NBA champion, 1 x Regular Season MVP, 2 x Finals MVP, 9 x All-NBA 1st Team, 13 x All-Star, 9 x All-Defensive 1st Team

Clyde Drexler: 1 x NBA champion, 1 x All-NBA 1st Team, 2 x All-NBA 2nd Team, 10 x All-Star

As for stats I value advanced metrics more so than basic

Advanced Regular Season career.

Player PER TS% eFG% TRB% AST% STL% TOV% USG% ORtg OWS DWS WS/48
Kobe Bryant 23.5 .556 .488 8.2 23.9 2.1 11.4 31.5 112 111.3 44.9 156.3 0.187
Clyde Drexler 21.1 .547 .495 9.9 25.2 114 85.6 49.9 135.6 0.173

Playoffs


Player PER TS% eFG% TRB% AST% STL% TOV% USG% ORtg OWS DWS WS/48
Kobe Bryant 22.3 .542 .481 7.5 23.2 1.9 11.2 30.8 110 19.5 7.3 26.8 0.158
Clyde Drexler 19.7 .532 .476 10.4 26.1 2.5 12.5 24.6 113 9.6 5.9 15.5 0.134

Best season

also a bit more on WS coutesy patsSOXknicks

Player career best 3 5 consc playoff 10 consc
Kobe Bryant 156.3 44.0 64.2 12.30 123.1
Clyde Drexler 135.6 38.6 62.6 9.66 104.1

There is a whole lot more that can be said but long story short based on my criteria Kobe is undoubtedly a better player than Clyde.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 05:14 PM
http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1970.htm#Game #7

I posted that already JB.

You still haven't answered. Why Drexler over Frazier?

JordansBulls
09-06-2011, 05:17 PM
I posted that already JB.

You still haven't answered. Why Drexler over Frazier?

Drexler carried teams as the hands down best on his team while Frazier won but with Reed winning the league and finals mvp over him.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 05:22 PM
Drexler carried teams as the hands down best on his team while Frazier won but with Reed winning the league and finals mvp over him.

Do you think Reed was a better player than Frazier?

Would you also put A.I. ahead of Frazier based on your reasoning?

NYKalltheway
09-06-2011, 05:24 PM
My question was clearly why Kobe over Frazier, but anyway I'll take that and hush :)

P.S: If stats are the major criteria you have, then it's really not a legit reason. You say you saw both play, you know that stats don't matter that much. Drexler played less time, played less against scrub teams while Kobe was padding stats against inferior competition, Kobe also happened to have most of his prime coincide with a rule change that probably maximized his offensive efficiency by at least 150% (and most athletic guards that is)

There's too much criteria. Stats are seriously the least I'll take when we discuss Drexler and Kobe. I'll take stats when we compare Kobe and Wade. But Drexler played 10 years before Kobe came in the league. Can't compare them with stats. Kobe is not clearly a better player. Kobe can be considered a better player, but it's not uncommon to see people favor Drexler over him. And I'll even add George Gervin to that which I've been saying quite a lot. Stats and championships mean nothing when you compare players in different eras. Stats will only seperate the players from the same era. So you can say that Kobe is the best guard of the 2000s, that Iverson, Wade and a few others are not the best, so Kobe can be compared with other greats, while Iverson cannot at the same rate. Not sure if you get my point here...

P.S2: Clyde Drexler was easily a better defensive player than Kobe Bryant. Please don't throw the "all defensive team" thingy in the discussion, you're just gonna make your case even worse.

NYKalltheway
09-06-2011, 05:46 PM
Nominate Sidney Moncrief who should be going at around 40-42 at worst imo

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 05:51 PM
My question was clearly why Kobe over Frazier, but anyway I'll take that and hush :)

From my understanding you have Drexler over Frazier as well so why not get it out of the way? I chose Frazier in this round and I am not going to directly argue against my choice despite the fact that I also have Kobe ahead of him.


P.S: If stats are the major criteria you have, then it's really not a legit reason. You say you saw both play, you know that stats don't matter that much. Drexler played less time, played less against scrub teams while Kobe was padding stats against inferior competition, Kobe also happened to have most of his prime coincide with a rule change that probably maximized his offensive efficiency by at least 150% (and most athletic guards that is)

There's too much criteria. Stats are seriously the least I'll take when we discuss Drexler and Kobe. I'll take stats when we compare Kobe and Wade. But Drexler played 10 years before Kobe came in the league. Can't compare them with stats. Kobe is not clearly a better player. Kobe can be considered a better player, but it's not uncommon to see people favor Drexler over him. And I'll even add George Gervin to that which I've been saying quite a lot. Stats and championships mean nothing when you compare players in different eras. Stats will only seperate the players from the same era. So you can say that Kobe is the best guard of the 2000s, that Iverson, Wade and a few others are not the best, so Kobe can be compared with other greats, while Iverson cannot at the same rate. Not sure if you get my point here...

Do you need a lesson in reading comprehension?


When making my case for one player over another I go with MY criteria for choosing a player in a debate such as this is.


Dominance relative to your peers during your prime.
Peak year(s) dominance.
Longevity of elite seasons.
Titles won as the teams best player.
Titles won as a number 2 (major reason why Scottie went so high)
Individual performance in the playoffs
Team success relative to supporting casts (one of the many reasons why Hakeem is universally seen as being a better player than David Robinson)
Accolades and accomplishments (whether it be ABA/NBA).
Ability to transcend any era of play (though this will favour current players due to their superior athletic ability that is not the standpoint I take it from but rather a skill and ability POV once put into context)


Now of course dominance, elite seasons and peak all incorporates statistical production which certainly in my opinion have to include advanced metrics.

All and all everything has to be put into context with circumstances taken into consideration to which an understanding of exactly how a player went about achieving his statistics (both basic and advanced).

What in any of that didn't you understand? Team success relative to supporting casts goes to Clyde without a doubt because of the fact that Kobe had more help than Clyde in taking his teams to the finals.

Statistical production is only one aspect of my criteria. However this is broken down further to account for Peak, Prime and Playoff production. As I said "everything has to be put into context with circumstances taken into consideration to which an understanding of exactly how a player went about achieving his statistics (both basic and advanced)". I didn't just look at the stats and say OOOOOO Kaboom!!! Kobe is better!

When comparing stats, accolades, titles etc of players across eras you can't just look at one player's vs another's and say he's better had that been the case I would be lobbying for Cousy since around 20 or earlier. Like I said you have to put them into perspective with the proper comparative analysis of the players' supporting casts, opponents, peers. You also have to account for the changes in the game whether it be pace, rules, 3pt line etc.

One last thing on stats. Was it not you who said that you don't like advanced stats but rather basic stats and in terms of basic stats Clyde is better than Kobe? So why now chastise me for including stats in my argument?

NYKalltheway
09-06-2011, 05:59 PM
Indeed I said that I'm not a fan of advanced stats. I'm not a fan of basic stats either. It's just statistics. Collections for the history books. Means virtually nothing to me. But if people are gonna go mental about stats and use it after every 2 words, I'm gonna jump the bandwagon.

As for Frazier - Drexler. I'd take Frazier. I'd also take Cousy over Frazier as well. Different players of course, I think Frazier and Drexler are more comparable but Mikan-Stockton are not comparable either and we had them in the same discussion so I think I'm allowed to prefer Cousy over both of them.

We just need to settle this... we rate players differently. That's about it.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 06:02 PM
P.S2: Clyde Drexler was easily a better defensive player than Kobe Bryant. Please don't throw the "all defensive team" thingy in the discussion, you're just gonna make your case even worse.

It is an accolade. Did I make any case for Kobe being better defensively than anyone? In case you don't understand individual accolades are part of my criteria for gauging where a player should be ranked all time. It's an indicator of how well a player dominated his respective era. Is the award an utter joke at times? Hell yes however it is an accolade and I include them as part of my criteria.

Could you tell us all however why Drexler is easily better defensively than Kobe.

NYKalltheway
09-06-2011, 06:08 PM
Could you tell us all however why Drexler is easily better defensively than Kobe.

I wish I could... Drexler's defense is as underrated as it gets. Kobe's defense is as overrated as it gets. Both were (at least) good defensively, but I'll give Drexler the edge.
Drexler gets a lot of **** for the finals vs Jordan... but people forget how many shots MJ took in those series. And as Clyde himself said, the best SG he faced (defensively) was Rolando Blackman. "Michael Jordan took like 35 shots, if he took 16 he wouldn't have been that tough" ;)

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 06:09 PM
Indeed I said that I'm not a fan of advanced stats. I'm not a fan of basic stats either. It's just statistics. Collections for the history books. Means virtually nothing to me. But if people are gonna go mental about stats and use it after every 2 words, I'm gonna jump the bandwagon.

As for Frazier - Drexler. I'd take Frazier. I'd also take Cousy over Frazier as well. Different players of course, I think Frazier and Drexler are more comparable but Mikan-Stockton are not comparable either and we had them in the same discussion so I think I'm allowed to prefer Cousy over both of them.

We just need to settle this... we rate players differently. That's about it.

That's what I've been trying to get through to you for more than a month now. You have a TOTALLY different method of evaluating an individual's rank to the wide majority of knowledgeable fans.

You have to realize that it is your opinion and your own personal way of rating a player and what you say is not fact but rather your way of looking at it. It however differs from us all.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 06:13 PM
I wish I could... Drexler's defense is as underrated as it gets. Kobe's defense is as overrated as it gets. Both were (at least) good defensively, but I'll give Drexler the edge.
Drexler gets a lot of **** for the finals vs Jordan... but people forget how many shots MJ took in those series. And as Clyde himself said, the best SG he faced (defensively) was Rolando Blackman. "Michael Jordan took like 35 shots, if he took 16 he wouldn't have been that tough" ;)

Sigh

Now you're saying edge? Before it was easily. Make up your mind brother. I would never say it was easily, I would however agree that there is a debate I would also agree about Drexler's D being underrated and Kobe's being overrated.

NYKalltheway
09-06-2011, 06:23 PM
Clyde Drexler and Kobe Bryant: The Second Best Career

The post “Kobe Makes Pau Gasol Unhappy” has apparently made fans of Kobe unhappy. Such fans are quite interesting. As many people have learned, any suggestion that Kobe is not the greatest basketball player in both this world and all future worlds is quickly met with a great deal of anger in the Internet. And this anger is often part of a package that includes misspelled words and poorly constructed arguments (which readers such as Simon, jbrett, ilikeflowers, and others are doing a great job of adddressing).

Unfortunately, I wish to tell another story today that involves Kobe. My story is actually focused on Clyde Drexler, but I think it’s a good idea to begin with a direct comparison of Clyde the Glide and Kobe.

Table One: Comparing the Career Performances of Kobe Bryant and Clyde Drexler (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=cdee124b11d6baacda6c3e29b12e23dc&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwagesofwins.net%2F2010%2F03%2F17% 2Fclyde-drexler-and-kobe-bryant-the-second-best-career%2F&v=1&libid=1315344734717&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wagesofwins.com%2FKobeDrexler .html&title=Clyde%20Drexler%20and%20Kobe%20Bryant%3A%20T he%20Second%20Best%20Career%20%C2%AB%20Wages%20of% 20Wins%20Journal&txt=%3Cstrong%3ETable%20One%3A%20Comparing%20the%2 0Career%20Performances%20of%20Kobe%20Bryant%20and% 20Clyde%20Drexler%3C%2Fstrong%3E&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13153473649051)

As Table One reports, Drexler’s career averages top Kobe’s marks with respect to shooting efficiency, rebounds, steals, blocked shots, and assists. And yet Kobe is considered by many to be the better player.

Why is Kobe Better?

There appear to be three explanations for why Kobe is thought to be the better player. First – as Table One notes – Kobe is the more prolific scorer. Of course, this is because Kobe leads Drexler in field goal attempts.

Another issue is that Kobe spent his career with the Lakers while Drexler played for Portland and Houston. In general, players for teams located in LA and New York tend to get more media exposure and therefore are thought of as better players.

And then there is the issue of championships won. People tend to think players on championship teams are better than those who toil for teams that tend to lose in the playoffs. It’s easy to point out the absurdity of such logic. Teams win championships and one can pick up a ring just because you happen to have the right teammates. After all, does anyone think Luc Longley (three titles) was a better center than Patrick Ewing (0 titles)? Or that Robert Horry (seven titles) was a better forward than Dominique Wilkins or Karl Malone (0 titles)? Despite such obvious arguments, people will note that Kobe’s four titles must mean he’s a better guard than Drexler (1 title).

Drexler Second Best

Drexler did appear in the NBA Finals four times. But his team came up “second-best” three times. And that appears to be the story of Drexler’s career. He often toiled for the “second-best” team.

Back in 1990, Drexler and the Portland Trail Blazers finished the season with league’s 4th best efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency). After defeating the Phoenix Suns – the team with the best differential – in the Western Conference Finals, the Blazers faced the Detroit Pistons in the NBA Finals. The Pistons differential of 6.2 was only slighly better than the Blazers mark of 5.9. But after seizing homecourt advantage in the series, Portland went on to lose three consecutive games at home.

The next season the Blazers were even better. When the regular season ended the Blazers differential of 8.3 was only bested by the 9.2 differential posted by the Chicago Bulls. But in the Western Conference Finals the Blazers were defeated by the LA Lakers.

In 1991-92 the Blazers again posted the best differential in the Western Conference. Their mark of 7.0, though, lagged far behind Chicago’s 10.6 differential. Hence it was not a surprise that the Blazers were defeated in the NBA Finals.

Across the next two seasons the Blazers slipped. Then in 1994-95, Drexler was traded to the Houston Rockets. And despite the fact the Rockets were underdogs in all four rounds in the playoffs, Houston managed to repeat as NBA champions.

The next season the Rockets were swept in the second round of the playoffs, while the Chicago Bulls won 72 games and the NBA Title. At this point it looked like Drexler was never going to contend for another NBA championship.

What Might Have Been in 1997

But then the Rockets made a move that looked to return this team to contending status. In August of 1996 the Rockets traded for Charles Barkley. This acquisition gave the Rockets an impressive trio of Hakeem Olajuwon, Drexler, and Barkley. These three produced 45.2 wins in 1995-96, so it wouldn’t take much more for the Rockets to contend in 1996-97.

When we look at what the Rockets did that season, though, it seems like the “much more” never arrived.

Table Two: The Houston Rockets in 1996-97 (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=cdee124b11d6baacda6c3e29b12e23dc&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwagesofwins.net%2F2010%2F03%2F17% 2Fclyde-drexler-and-kobe-bryant-the-second-best-career%2F&v=1&libid=1315344734717&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wagesofwins.com%2FHouston9697 .html&title=Clyde%20Drexler%20and%20Kobe%20Bryant%3A%20T he%20Second%20Best%20Career%20%C2%AB%20Wages%20of% 20Wins%20Journal&txt=%3Cstrong%3ETable%20Two%3A%20The%20Houston%20R ockets%20in%201996-97%3C%2Fstrong%3E&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13153476335432)

As Table Two indicates, the Rockets won 58 games in 1996-97. But the team’s efficiency differential – and corresponding Wins Produced – is more consistent with a 52 win team. After the aforementioned trio, the Wins Produced of the rest of the roster was only 14.1.

So there wasn’t much after Hakeem, Clyde the Glide, and Sir Charles. Plus, Hakeem – who was 34 years old, saw his production decline. Had he maintained what he did in 1995-96 the Rockets would have been five wins better.

Such an improvement, though, would not have been enough to catch the Chicago Bulls and the Utah Jazz. There was a move made, though, that should have made a difference. A month before the Rockets acquired Barkley, Houston signed Brent Price. In 1995-96, Price produced 9.8 wins and posted a 0.230 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] for the Washington Bullets.

As Price’s bio at NBA.com reveals, his 1996-97 season went off the tracks before it began:

Price was expected to step in as Houston’s regular point guard after he joined the Rockets as a veteran free agent, but a broken left humerus suffered in a preseason game on Oct. 24 ruined those plans. He did not make his debut until Dec. 28, and just when he seemed to be playing his way back into top form he suffered a torn anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee in a game against the Los Angeles Lakers on Feb. 25. He was placed on the injured list on March 3, underwent surgery on March 15 and sat out the remainder of the regular season and postseason…Price was on a roll when he got hurt the second time. In the eight games prior to his torn ACL, Price had averaged 10.1 ppg and 4.9 apg while shooting .482 from the field and .462 from behind the arc…That spurt included a season-high 20 points on 8-for-11 shooting, plus a season-high six assists, in a 106-97 win over Vancouver on Feb. 11.

Because Price was hurt the Rockets had to turn to Matt Maloney. An undrafted rookie out of the University of Pennsylvania, Maloney started every game in 1996-97 and produced 2.7 wins with a 0.053 WP48. Had Maloney’s minutes gone to the Price we saw in 1995-96 (and Maloney took Price’s 1996-97 minutes), the Rockets would have been 11.3 wins better. Coupled with Olajuwon maintaining what we saw in 1995-96, the Rockets would then have been transformed into a team with 69.8 Wins Produced.

This mark might have allowed the Rockets to challenge the Chicago Bulls (who won 69 games in 1996-97). And it’s possible Drexler might have won a second title.

Of course, Drexler, Olajuwon, and Barkley would have still had to defeat Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman, Scottie Pippen and company in the NBA Finals; and even with Price and Olajuwon performing as we saw in 1995-96 the Rockets were not really better than the Bulls. So Drexler might have still finished second best to Jordan.

So even this “what-if” tale is consistent with the story of Drexler’s career. Even if the breaks did go his way, he was still not as good as Jordan. But that really isn’t such a shame. Second to MJ is still pretty good.

After all, Kobe Bryant – how is also pretty good — is also second to Jordan. But Kobe is not – as the above table indicates – as good as Drexler (yes, I could have let it go but I didn’t).

- DJ

http://wagesofwins.net/2010/03/17/clyde-drexler-and-kobe-bryant-the-second-best-career/

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 07:18 PM
amewea just joined, 0 posts and votes for "iverson".

Why arent mods investigating this?

they did when it was lebron the oen receiving the benfits of dupes.

69centers
09-06-2011, 07:24 PM
I already made the case for Walt, granted it was against Isiah but I substituted in A.I.

Anyways, since people are sitting there listing random accomplishments, here's Walts:

2× NBA Champion (1970, 1973)
7× NBA All-Star (1970–1976)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1975)
4 ×All-NBA First Team (1970, 1972, 1974–1975)
2× All-NBA Second Team (1971, 1973)
7× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1969–1975)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1968)
#10 Retired by the New York Knicks
NBA 50th Anniversary All-Time Team
Led NBA in 69-70 in WS/48
In the playoffs, led the league in assists per game in 68-69
Led the NBA in the playoffs in Win Shares in both 71-72 and 72-73
Also led the NBA in the playoffs in WS/48 in 71-72


I like how everyone is debating AI and Frazier when George Gervin should clearly be higher in this poll than either one of those two.

2× NBA Champion (1970, 1973) - Gervin 4x NBA Scoring Champ
7× NBA All-Star (1970–1976) - Gervin 9x NBA All Star, 3x ABA all star
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1975) - Gervin NBA All Star MVP (1980)
4 ×All-NBA First Team (1970, 1972, 1974–1975) - Gervin 5x All NBA First Team
2× All-NBA Second Team (1971, 1973) - Gervin 2x NBA All-NBA 2nd Team, 2x ABA All-ABA 2nd Team
7× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1969–1975) -
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1968) - Gervin ABA All Rookie First Team
#10 Retired by the New York Knicks - Gervin #44 retired by Spurs
NBA 50th Anniversary All-Time Team - ditto for Gervin and All Time ABA Team

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 07:26 PM
I like how everyone is debating AI and Frazier when George Gervin should clearly be higher in this poll than either one of those two.

2× NBA Champion (1970, 1973) - Gervin 4x NBA Scoring Champ
7× NBA All-Star (1970–1976) - Gervin 9x NBA All Star, 3x ABA all star
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1975) - Gervin NBA All Star MVP (1980)
4 ×All-NBA First Team (1970, 1972, 1974–1975) - Gervin 5x All NBA First Team
2× All-NBA Second Team (1971, 1973) - Gervin 2x NBA All-NBA 2nd Team, 2x ABA All-ABA 2nd Team
7× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1969–1975) -
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1968) - Gervin ABA All Rookie First Team
#10 Retired by the New York Knicks - Gervin #44 retired by Spurs
NBA 50th Anniversary All-Time Team - ditto for Gervin and All Time ABA Team

Defense is half the game.

Frazier has a greater case than Gervin.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 07:28 PM
Not a fan of Gervin ( or english, issell, van de wege, David thomspson, World be free or even Zach Randolph, or gay and many others)

for the SAME reasons im not a fan of AI.

69centers
09-06-2011, 07:33 PM
Not a fan of Gervin ( or english, issell, van de wege, David thomspson, World be free or even Zach Randolph, or gay and many others)

for the SAME reasons im not a fan of AI.

I've seen many interviews over the past 20 years with some of the all time greats who played in the 70's and a lot of them claim Gervin was the best they played with. You never hear AI or Alex English's peers calling them the best ever. You're also naming other guys much below Gervin's level.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 07:38 PM
I've seen many interviews over the past 20 years with some of the all time greats who played in the 70's and a lot of them claim Gervin was the best they played with. You never hear AI or Alex English's peers calling them the best ever. You're also naming other guys much below Gervin's level.

wasnt comparing them to him just a generalitation to state tha ti dont like VOlume scorers with not so great efficience.

In terms of sheer talent he obviously is one of the best Volume scorers at sg/sf positions up there with Bernard King or Dominique Wilkins and silighlty bellow Baylor.

JordansBulls
09-06-2011, 07:38 PM
amewea just joined, 0 posts and votes for "iverson".

Why arent mods investigating this?

they did when it was lebron the oen receiving the benfits of dupes.

Because we wait to the end, also it is other posters who have mentioned who the dupes are. So when it is is time tomorrow evening then we can take care of the dupes.

ManRam
09-06-2011, 07:48 PM
Two of the votes for AI should not count, since they are dupes with 0 posts...

HC, we're looking into it some more...

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 07:54 PM
*good

naps
09-06-2011, 07:55 PM
Got a response as to why he should go ahead of Frazier? Or are you another AI fanboy?

Even Swash who is a hardcore A.I. fan is voting Frazier here. He may not have the points per game averages that A.I. had but he did more to help his team win and was a triple double threat, not to mention a great defender.

While Reed was the supposed "leader" of the Knicks 2 championship runs, they were more co-leaders.

No, I am not a AI fanboy.

The reasons on AI's favor have been mentioned plenty of times here in last couple of threads. And I don't see how Frazier was a triple double threat. And again winning championships don't mean much for me when I rate individual players.

69centers
09-06-2011, 07:57 PM
wasnt comparing them to him just a generalitation to state tha ti dont like VOlume scorers with not so great efficience.

In terms of sheer talent he obviously is one of the best Volume scorers at sg/sf positions up there with Bernard King or Dominique Wilkins and silighlty bellow Baylor.

Gervin's athleticism and efficient shooting was what set him apart. He could hit from outside, and than finger roll inside. He was very efficient and considered one of the best pure outside shooters of his era. His career FG% was better than MJ. Where did you get that he wasn't efficient? There aren't many guards all time that have a better FG%.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 07:59 PM
Gervin's athleticism and efficient shooting was what set him apart. He could hit from outside, and than finger roll inside. He was very efficient and considered one of the best pure outside shooters of his era. His career FG% was better than MJ. Where did you get that he wasn't efficient? There aren't many guards all time that have a better FG%.

go advanced stats.

Hustlenomics
09-06-2011, 08:12 PM
so because somebody signed up to vote it couldn't be because they disagree with the Ai hate and wanted to vote, they just have to be dupes?

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 08:14 PM
so because somebody signed up to vote it couldn't be because they disagree with the Ai hate and wanted to vote, they just have to be dupes?

two of them have already been detected as dupes.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2011, 08:22 PM
No, I am not a AI fanboy.

The reasons on AI's favor have been mentioned plenty of times here in last couple of threads. And I don't see how Frazier was a triple double threat. And again winning championships don't mean much for me when I rate individual players.

Ok, you still didn't answer why AI is ahead of Frazier. Respond to my other post where I went more in depth for Frazier's candidacy.

He was an All-D caliber player, he scored efficiently, he passed the ball, he rebounded pretty well for a guard. He had a much more well rounded game that A.I.

Frazier's championships are just an added bonus. Even without them, he'd still rate ahead of A.I.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2011, 08:25 PM
go advanced stats.

He doesn't like advanced stats because he thinks the concept of TS%/eFG% is like rocket science, nor does he have the ability to use it in context, which is huge for a stat like that.

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 08:26 PM
He doesn't like advanced stats because he thinks the concept of TS% is like rocket science, nor does he have the ability to use it in context, which is huge for a stat like that.

He would have quicker shot himself than attempt to understand advanced stats.

Hustlenomics
09-06-2011, 08:26 PM
two of them have already been detected as dupes.

prove it instead of finding any reason to take away votes from AI

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2011, 08:28 PM
He would have quicker shot himself than attempt to understand advanced stats.

lol at him thinking TS% is an advanced stat

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 08:28 PM
prove it instead of finding any reason to take away votes from AI


Two of the votes for AI should not count, since they are dupes with 0 posts...

HC, we're looking into it some more...

i dont need to prove anything, if a mod says so then it is so.

KingPosey
09-06-2011, 08:29 PM
I say it every time, but its really annoying that about 7 players on here that are not the player Mitch Richmond was are on the list. Its stupid.

Hustlenomics
09-06-2011, 08:30 PM
he didn't even say who the original accounts belonged to he just said its a dupe because it has zero posts

LAKERMANIA
09-06-2011, 08:36 PM
Bob Cousy

Swashcuff
09-06-2011, 08:38 PM
I say it every time, but its really annoying that about 7 players on here that are not the player Mitch Richmond was are on the list. Its stupid.

Why can't you at least ONCE make a case for Richmond? Make your argument for him. You have added nothing to the discussion but knock other posters for their choices. Give us your argument, maybe you'd sway the opinion of some posters and possibly get him on the list.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 08:40 PM
the only people on the list that i see there with worse Careers than Richmond are Kemp and Tmac ( and only because of injurys)

Cano4prez
09-06-2011, 08:55 PM
he didn't even say who the original accounts belonged to he just said its a dupe because it has zero posts

They're not supposed to say the original account name..

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 08:58 PM
They're not supposed to say the original account name..

the original name should soon be in the "village of the banned" tough.

Chronz
09-06-2011, 09:24 PM
the only people on the list that i see there with worse Careers than Richmond are Kemp and Tmac ( and only because of injurys)

You have a twisted way of evaluating careers, Kemp and Tmac **** on Richmonds career

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 09:32 PM
You have a twisted way of evaluating careers, Kemp and Tmac **** on Richmonds career

we are talking careers NOT PEAKS.

if tmac had a stronger building and kemp didnt like bottles so much we could be talking bout a different thing.

Chronz
09-06-2011, 09:33 PM
we are talking careers NOT PEAKS.

if tmac had a stronger building and kemp didnt like bottles so much we could be talking bout a different thing.

There is no argument to be made for Mitch in any form, go ahead and try it out.

Hustlenomics
09-06-2011, 09:37 PM
They're not supposed to say the original account name..

then it seems like the poll is rigged. Just like when Isiah Thomas was voted before LeBron and "dupes" voted for Isiah Thomas

Hustlenomics
09-06-2011, 10:13 PM
Iverson's stats kill Cousy's and I know the people voting for Cousy didn't watch him play so how is Cousy a better player?

69centers
09-06-2011, 10:32 PM
go advanced stats.

Never


He would have quicker shot himself than attempt to understand advanced stats.

I understand that advanced stats are flawed. I understand that applying them is misinterpreting the game. I understand that those who use them don't get chicks. I get chicks. I don't use advanced stats.


lol at him thinking TS% is an advanced stat

You may wish to send emails to yahoo, nba.com, and espn and ask them to start putting TS% in the player stats because none of them currently use it. I guess it's so advanced, it's even over the head of 3 major NBA sports stats sites.

You may also want to contact Basketball-Reference.com and tell them they incorrectly put TS% under the advanced stats section. You may also want to try to contribute to the Wikipedia page called "basketball stats" because TS% is nowhere to be found.

But, I stand corrected, it's not advanced. It's so very common. :pity:

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 10:35 PM
i wonder why should anybody take seriously fanboys that have been voting their dude since no less than number 9 http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=37975

and only because he wasnt available before :facepalm:

Hustlenomics
09-06-2011, 10:41 PM
^ poll was a joke since #8 anyway. lol you're just voting for whoever has the most votes near Iverson

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2011, 10:56 PM
I understand that advanced stats are flawed. I understand that applying them is misinterpreting the game. I understand that those who use them don't get chicks. I get chicks. I don't use advanced stats.

:laugh: Classic response. You don't understand **** about the game. If you did, a simple concept like TS% would be simple to understand. You don't even know what it is, despite the fact that its a very simple concept. Nor are you able to even comprehend how its supposed to be used.

Oh my bad, you're right, stats eeez fah nerds, I iz a 40 year old 3rd grade drop out. i iz workin at mcdonals for a livin. Sound about right?

Quick, who's more likely to get a chick, the high school drop out or the guy with lots of money?

BTW, these stats guys, who get hired by teams (22 to be exact, that's a large majority), actually do stuff. Dean Oliver, formerly of the Nuggets, essentially drafted both Ty Lawson and Aaron Afflalo. In fact, he's quite plugged into the goings of the NBA. Can you say the same? Definitely not.

But hey, don't let me disrupt your life in your mom's basement while you try to be an internet tough guy boasting about how you get chicks because you don't use advanced stats :laugh:



You may wish to send emails to yahoo, nba.com, and espn and ask them to start putting TS% in the player stats because none of them currently use it. I guess it's so advanced, it's even over the head of 3 major NBA sports stats sites.

You may also want to contact Basketball-Reference.com and tell them they incorrectly put TS% under the advanced stats section. You may also want to try to contribute to the Wikipedia page called "basketball stats" because TS% is nowhere to be found.

But, I stand corrected, it's not advanced. It's so very common. :pity:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics

TS% on ESPN.

Well, I would imagine they put it under advanced stats because they feel people like you find multiplication and division hard to grasp. Kind of sad huh? When the smarter guys feel like the idiots of the world so much outnumber them that they feel concepts like multiplication and division are over the heads of your typical NBA fan. :pity:

PS- For what its worth, lots of guys at ESPN use basketball-reference, so I would imagine a bunch of them are familiar with advanced stats. The marketing people just chose not to push it as much, which of course, I will bet will be changing. (Maybe not immediately cause of the lockout, but it will happen)

PSS- The NBA efficiency metric is technically an advanced stat. So nba.com has one too.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 11:03 PM
:laugh: Classic response. You don't understand **** about the game. If you did, a simple concept like TS% would be simple to understand. You don't even know what it is, despite the fact that its a very simple concept. Nor are you able to even comprehend how its supposed to be used.

Oh my bad, you're right, stats eeez fah nerds, I iz a 40 year old 3rd grade drop out. i iz workin at mcdonals for a livin. Sound about right?

Quick, who's more likely to get a chick, the high school drop out or the guy with lots of money?

BTW, these stats guys, who get hired by teams, actually do stuff. Dean Oliver, formerly of the Nuggets, essentially drafted both Ty Lawson and Aaron Afflalo. In fact, he's quite plugged into the goings of the NBA. Can you say the same? Definitely not.

But hey, don't let me disrupt your life in your mom's basement while you try to be an internet tough guy boasting about how you get chicks because you don't use advanced stats :laugh:



http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics

TS% on ESPN.

Well, I would imagine they put it under advanced stats because they feel people like you find multiplication and division hard to grasp.

stats dont tell the whole picture tough.

you need to take on account Plain stats, advanced stats and intuition/eyes , context etc when rating a player.

There are a lot of things that are not been considered in advanced stats yet, but they probably will eventualy develop a system that makes them fit in it.

As an example.

Gonna say something negative bout my boy.

If you look at advanced stats regarding pau gasol , and you dont see him play, you would think he is a VERY GOOD defender.

On teh contrary people that wacht him play, and fall into the Testosterone 7tatoo/bad *** hype will tell he is a horribe defender.

The truth probably is he is slightly over average at D.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2011, 11:05 PM
^ poll was a joke since #8 anyway. lol you're just voting for whoever has the most votes near Iverson

And you voting for Iverson at #9 was pretty much a joke too. (It's a public poll, we can all see). You're clearly a fanboy. Heck, even Swash, who loves Iverson would tell you he doesn't deserve to be anywhere near #9.

Hellcrooner
09-06-2011, 11:09 PM
And you voting for Iverson at #9 was pretty much a joke too. (It's a public poll, we can all see). You're clearly a fanboy. Heck, even Swash, who loves Iverson would tell you he doesn't deserve to be anywhere near #9.

they dont get it.

yve nominated Pau but im not letting my personal bias/apretition on him interfering in my votings untill we are voting like player 45 or something like that (then i will start voting him).

at that stage the difference between players is all bout Little things and you can argue convincily like 60 or 70 paleyrs that are very close in quality taht could enter those last 5 spots on a top 50 loist.

so in that scenario homerism is logic.

but voting Iverson since pick 9 is plainly stupid.

You could understand homerism have them voting him at late 30s, but thats it.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2011, 11:10 PM
stats dont tell the whole picture tough.

you need to take on account Plain stats, advanced stats and intuition/eyes , context etc when rating a player.

There are a lot of things that are not been considered in advanced stats yet, but they probably will eventualy develop a system that makes them fit in it.

As an example.

Gonna say something negative bout my boy.

If you look at advanced stats regarding pau gasol , and you dont see him play, you would think he is a VERY GOOD defender.

On teh contrary people that wacht him play, and fall into the Testosterone 7tatoo/bad *** hype will tell he is a horribe defender.

The truth probably is he is slightly over average at D.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Defensive stats in particular, especially before this decade, were completely underdeveloped. They've gotten a lot better though. But you're right, context needs to be applied. But advanced stats can be useful if you know how to use them. In addition, they are still an improvement over regular per game stats. That isn't debatable.

My issue with that guy, is he lumps all advanced stats together, even though some of them are not at all advanced. Like TS% for example. It's basically points per shot attempt, which has been a concept in the NBA for a long time. On its own, it tells you nothing. But its still better than FG%. And with context, its useful.

TheNumber37
09-06-2011, 11:11 PM
Iverson belongs in the 30-35 range, if he doesn't land here, that's a conspiracy.

Chacarron
09-06-2011, 11:34 PM
Never



I understand that advanced stats are flawed. I understand that applying them is misinterpreting the game. I understand that those who use them don't get chicks. I get chicks. I don't use advanced stats.



You may wish to send emails to yahoo, nba.com, and espn and ask them to start putting TS% in the player stats because none of them currently use it. I guess it's so advanced, it's even over the head of 3 major NBA sports stats sites.

You may also want to contact Basketball-Reference.com and tell them they incorrectly put TS% under the advanced stats section. You may also want to try to contribute to the Wikipedia page called "basketball stats" because TS% is nowhere to be found.

But, I stand corrected, it's not advanced. It's so very common. :pity:

I'd like to nominate this for post of the ****ing year. :clap:

69centers
09-06-2011, 11:38 PM
Classic response. You don't understand **** about the game. If you did, a simple concept like TS% would be simple to understand. You don't even know what it is, despite the fact that its a very simple concept. Nor are you able to even comprehend how its supposed to be used.

100% slander right here. How they hell do you know what I know or not? Since when does not accepting, not utilizing, and not caring about something mean you don't know anything about it?


BTW, these stats guys, who get hired by teams (22 to be exact, that's a large majority), actually do stuff.

Key word is they are "hired" to do it. What's your excuse.




http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics

TS% on ESPN.

Having to link to Hollinger to find it just about sums everything up right there.


PS- For what its worth, lots of guys at ESPN use basketball-reference, so I would imagine a bunch of them are familiar with advanced stats. The marketing people just chose not to push it as much, which of course, I will bet will be changing. (Maybe not immediately cause of the lockout, but it will happen)

:bla:

AntiG
09-06-2011, 11:46 PM
Clyde Drexler and Kobe Bryant: The Second Best Career

The post “Kobe Makes Pau Gasol Unhappy” has apparently made fans of Kobe unhappy. Such fans are quite interesting. As many people have learned, any suggestion that Kobe is not the greatest basketball player in both this world and all future worlds is quickly met with a great deal of anger in the Internet. And this anger is often part of a package that includes misspelled words and poorly constructed arguments (which readers such as Simon, jbrett, ilikeflowers, and others are doing a great job of adddressing).

Unfortunately, I wish to tell another story today that involves Kobe. My story is actually focused on Clyde Drexler, but I think it’s a good idea to begin with a direct comparison of Clyde the Glide and Kobe.

Table One: Comparing the Career Performances of Kobe Bryant and Clyde Drexler (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=cdee124b11d6baacda6c3e29b12e23dc&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwagesofwins.net%2F2010%2F03%2F17% 2Fclyde-drexler-and-kobe-bryant-the-second-best-career%2F&v=1&libid=1315344734717&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wagesofwins.com%2FKobeDrexler .html&title=Clyde%20Drexler%20and%20Kobe%20Bryant%3A%20T he%20Second%20Best%20Career%20%C2%AB%20Wages%20of% 20Wins%20Journal&txt=%3Cstrong%3ETable%20One%3A%20Comparing%20the%2 0Career%20Performances%20of%20Kobe%20Bryant%20and% 20Clyde%20Drexler%3C%2Fstrong%3E&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13153473649051)

As Table One reports, Drexler’s career averages top Kobe’s marks with respect to shooting efficiency, rebounds, steals, blocked shots, and assists. And yet Kobe is considered by many to be the better player.

Why is Kobe Better?

There appear to be three explanations for why Kobe is thought to be the better player. First – as Table One notes – Kobe is the more prolific scorer. Of course, this is because Kobe leads Drexler in field goal attempts.

Another issue is that Kobe spent his career with the Lakers while Drexler played for Portland and Houston. In general, players for teams located in LA and New York tend to get more media exposure and therefore are thought of as better players.

And then there is the issue of championships won. People tend to think players on championship teams are better than those who toil for teams that tend to lose in the playoffs. It’s easy to point out the absurdity of such logic. Teams win championships and one can pick up a ring just because you happen to have the right teammates. After all, does anyone think Luc Longley (three titles) was a better center than Patrick Ewing (0 titles)? Or that Robert Horry (seven titles) was a better forward than Dominique Wilkins or Karl Malone (0 titles)? Despite such obvious arguments, people will note that Kobe’s four titles must mean he’s a better guard than Drexler (1 title).

Drexler Second Best

Drexler did appear in the NBA Finals four times. But his team came up “second-best” three times. And that appears to be the story of Drexler’s career. He often toiled for the “second-best” team.

Back in 1990, Drexler and the Portland Trail Blazers finished the season with league’s 4th best efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency). After defeating the Phoenix Suns – the team with the best differential – in the Western Conference Finals, the Blazers faced the Detroit Pistons in the NBA Finals. The Pistons differential of 6.2 was only slighly better than the Blazers mark of 5.9. But after seizing homecourt advantage in the series, Portland went on to lose three consecutive games at home.

The next season the Blazers were even better. When the regular season ended the Blazers differential of 8.3 was only bested by the 9.2 differential posted by the Chicago Bulls. But in the Western Conference Finals the Blazers were defeated by the LA Lakers.

In 1991-92 the Blazers again posted the best differential in the Western Conference. Their mark of 7.0, though, lagged far behind Chicago’s 10.6 differential. Hence it was not a surprise that the Blazers were defeated in the NBA Finals.

Across the next two seasons the Blazers slipped. Then in 1994-95, Drexler was traded to the Houston Rockets. And despite the fact the Rockets were underdogs in all four rounds in the playoffs, Houston managed to repeat as NBA champions.

The next season the Rockets were swept in the second round of the playoffs, while the Chicago Bulls won 72 games and the NBA Title. At this point it looked like Drexler was never going to contend for another NBA championship.

What Might Have Been in 1997

But then the Rockets made a move that looked to return this team to contending status. In August of 1996 the Rockets traded for Charles Barkley. This acquisition gave the Rockets an impressive trio of Hakeem Olajuwon, Drexler, and Barkley. These three produced 45.2 wins in 1995-96, so it wouldn’t take much more for the Rockets to contend in 1996-97.

When we look at what the Rockets did that season, though, it seems like the “much more” never arrived.

Table Two: The Houston Rockets in 1996-97 (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=cdee124b11d6baacda6c3e29b12e23dc&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwagesofwins.net%2F2010%2F03%2F17% 2Fclyde-drexler-and-kobe-bryant-the-second-best-career%2F&v=1&libid=1315344734717&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wagesofwins.com%2FHouston9697 .html&title=Clyde%20Drexler%20and%20Kobe%20Bryant%3A%20T he%20Second%20Best%20Career%20%C2%AB%20Wages%20of% 20Wins%20Journal&txt=%3Cstrong%3ETable%20Two%3A%20The%20Houston%20R ockets%20in%201996-97%3C%2Fstrong%3E&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13153476335432)

As Table Two indicates, the Rockets won 58 games in 1996-97. But the team’s efficiency differential – and corresponding Wins Produced – is more consistent with a 52 win team. After the aforementioned trio, the Wins Produced of the rest of the roster was only 14.1.

So there wasn’t much after Hakeem, Clyde the Glide, and Sir Charles. Plus, Hakeem – who was 34 years old, saw his production decline. Had he maintained what he did in 1995-96 the Rockets would have been five wins better.

Such an improvement, though, would not have been enough to catch the Chicago Bulls and the Utah Jazz. There was a move made, though, that should have made a difference. A month before the Rockets acquired Barkley, Houston signed Brent Price. In 1995-96, Price produced 9.8 wins and posted a 0.230 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] for the Washington Bullets.

As Price’s bio at NBA.com reveals, his 1996-97 season went off the tracks before it began:

Price was expected to step in as Houston’s regular point guard after he joined the Rockets as a veteran free agent, but a broken left humerus suffered in a preseason game on Oct. 24 ruined those plans. He did not make his debut until Dec. 28, and just when he seemed to be playing his way back into top form he suffered a torn anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee in a game against the Los Angeles Lakers on Feb. 25. He was placed on the injured list on March 3, underwent surgery on March 15 and sat out the remainder of the regular season and postseason…Price was on a roll when he got hurt the second time. In the eight games prior to his torn ACL, Price had averaged 10.1 ppg and 4.9 apg while shooting .482 from the field and .462 from behind the arc…That spurt included a season-high 20 points on 8-for-11 shooting, plus a season-high six assists, in a 106-97 win over Vancouver on Feb. 11.

Because Price was hurt the Rockets had to turn to Matt Maloney. An undrafted rookie out of the University of Pennsylvania, Maloney started every game in 1996-97 and produced 2.7 wins with a 0.053 WP48. Had Maloney’s minutes gone to the Price we saw in 1995-96 (and Maloney took Price’s 1996-97 minutes), the Rockets would have been 11.3 wins better. Coupled with Olajuwon maintaining what we saw in 1995-96, the Rockets would then have been transformed into a team with 69.8 Wins Produced.

This mark might have allowed the Rockets to challenge the Chicago Bulls (who won 69 games in 1996-97). And it’s possible Drexler might have won a second title.

Of course, Drexler, Olajuwon, and Barkley would have still had to defeat Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman, Scottie Pippen and company in the NBA Finals; and even with Price and Olajuwon performing as we saw in 1995-96 the Rockets were not really better than the Bulls. So Drexler might have still finished second best to Jordan.

So even this “what-if” tale is consistent with the story of Drexler’s career. Even if the breaks did go his way, he was still not as good as Jordan. But that really isn’t such a shame. Second to MJ is still pretty good.

After all, Kobe Bryant – how is also pretty good — is also second to Jordan. But Kobe is not – as the above table indicates – as good as Drexler (yes, I could have let it go but I didn’t).

- DJ

http://wagesofwins.net/2010/03/17/clyde-drexler-and-kobe-bryant-the-second-best-career/

Thank you for this. I had the fortune to be able to follow Clyde for most of his career. As elite a SG as I've ever seen play the game, and one of the top players in every facet of the game. Its MJ and then basically a dead tie between Clyde and Kobe (depending on how you evaluate them statistically), but its close.

Ludicrous that Clyde didn't even go in the top 15.

bootsy
09-07-2011, 12:17 AM
Bob Cousy:facepalm:

Hustlenomics
09-07-2011, 01:22 AM
And you voting for Iverson at #9 was pretty much a joke too. (It's a public poll, we can all see). You're clearly a fanboy. Heck, even Swash, who loves Iverson would tell you he doesn't deserve to be anywhere near #9.

I know its a public poll which is why I voted for him in every poll because these ***** are a joke

NYKalltheway
09-07-2011, 02:59 AM
Thank you for this. I had the fortune to be able to follow Clyde for most of his career. As elite a SG as I've ever seen play the game, and one of the top players in every facet of the game. Its MJ and then basically a dead tie between Clyde and Kobe (depending on how you evaluate them statistically), but its close.

Ludicrous that Clyde didn't even go in the top 15.

Michael Jordan and Jerry West are by far the best Shooting Guards in the game. Then it's Clyde Drexler. Then you make a case for Gervin vs Kobe. And I'd take Gervin gladly if anyone asked. Though I'm starting to believe that Sidney Moncrief has a case as well, but I'll let him be #6 to avoid further controversy with people who haven't watched any of their games.

Heediot
09-07-2011, 07:53 AM
AI = legendary individual one on one player. I wouldn't put him in the top 50.

Voted Cousy to help his case against AI.

pd7631
09-07-2011, 08:53 AM
AI = legendary individual one on one player. I wouldn't put him in the top 50.

Voted Cousy to help his case against AI.

Why should votes like this count?

Hustlenomics
09-07-2011, 09:21 AM
^ it's been 10 of those votes for Cousy

Swashcuff
09-07-2011, 09:31 AM
go advanced stats.

Crooner you do realise that Gervin was one of the most efficient volume scorers of all time right?


Player TS% eFG%
George Gervin .572 .513
Michael Jordan .569 .509
Dwyane Wade .567 .500
Kobe Bryant .556 .488
Clyde Drexler .547 .495

Chronz
09-07-2011, 12:18 PM
i wonder why should anybody take seriously fanboys that have been voting their dude since no less than number 9 http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=37975

and only because he wasnt available before :facepalm:

WOW since #9? Oh well its a public vote so you can expect things like this, its all for fun anyways.

Chronz
09-07-2011, 12:19 PM
Why should votes like this count?
Because its just as relevant as yours

Hellcrooner
09-07-2011, 12:35 PM
Why should votes like this count?

why should someones voting AI since 9 ( and im 100% sure had him been available from thread one he would have been voted) count then?

pd7631
09-07-2011, 12:36 PM
Because its just as relevant as yours

My arguments have had more substance than anything you've said, so you can continue to act like King of the Mountain all you want, but you're really just a coward that can't pick a reason to vote for anyone. You really are some piece of work dude.

If stats, awards, peer testimonials, and feats, are all "arbitrary" then nobody can be argued for.

You still have yet to answer any of my questions. Why does the person that gets your vote deserve to be chosen as the next greatest player? And since you seem to know exactly what qualifies as an acceptable argument, you should have no trouble doing this.

LAKERMANIA
09-07-2011, 12:40 PM
Michael Jordan and Jerry West are by far the best Shooting Guards in the game. Then it's Clyde Drexler. Then you make a case for Gervin vs Kobe. And I'd take Gervin gladly if anyone asked. Though I'm starting to believe that Sidney Moncrief has a case as well, but I'll let him be #6 to avoid further controversy with people who haven't watched any of their games.
:pity:

NYKalltheway
09-07-2011, 01:06 PM
:pity:

so from the whole post and the article I posted, all you can say is "pity" (or is that smh?) Well, I guess that goes to yourself then and not me... I still don't see how Kobe Bryant should be ahead of Clyde Drexler in any way. And pleeeeeeeeeease say championships and "all NBA teams-all star games". I miss laughing :)

Chronz
09-07-2011, 01:59 PM
My arguments have had more substance than anything you've said, so you can continue to act like King of the Mountain all you want, but you're really just a coward that can't pick a reason to vote for anyone. You really are some piece of work dude.
False, you cant even defend your own stance.


If stats, awards, peer testimonials, and feats, are all "arbitrary" then nobody can be argued for.

What? I never said that.


You still have yet to answer any of my questions. Why does the person that gets your vote deserve to be chosen as the next greatest player? And since you seem to know exactly what qualifies as an acceptable argument, you should have no trouble doing this.

Already covered it in the post you chose to ignore.

Super.
09-07-2011, 03:49 PM
How is Cousy still even around?

:pity:

LAKERMANIA
09-07-2011, 05:11 PM
so from the whole post and the article I posted, all you can say is "pity" (or is that smh?) Well, I guess that goes to yourself then and not me... I still don't see how Kobe Bryant should be ahead of Clyde Drexler in any way. And pleeeeeeeeeease say championships and "all NBA teams-all star games". I miss laughing :)

So you're going to laugh at all the evidence that piles up against your opinion? Boy am I surprised!

pd7631
09-07-2011, 05:22 PM
False, you cant even defend your own stance.


What? I never said that.


Already covered it in the post you chose to ignore.

And what post is that?

LakersMaster24
09-07-2011, 05:58 PM
The Glide.

NYKalltheway
09-07-2011, 06:56 PM
So you're going to laugh at all the evidence that piles up against your opinion? Boy am I surprised!

what evidence is that? Kobe earns more points in Fantasy NBA?? Did you read that article I posted earlier? Anyway you can comment on that travesties against the almight evidence? :eyebrow: :cool:

Lakersfan2483
09-07-2011, 07:05 PM
so from the whole post and the article I posted, all you can say is "pity" (or is that smh?) Well, I guess that goes to yourself then and not me... I still don't see how Kobe Bryant should be ahead of Clyde Drexler in any way. And pleeeeeeeeeease say championships and "all NBA teams-all star games". I miss laughing :)

You don't even have a legit argument here buddy. What exactly makes Drexler better than Kobe because I can guarantee you I can disspell any argument you may throw out there. Everyone on hear knows you aren't a big fan of Kobe, however when you start to make unsubstantiated claims then it makes you look as if you are lacking knowledge of the game.

I have several questions to ask you regarding your claim that Drexler is better. What exactly puts Drexler ahead of Kobe? Is it PER for a career, is it league wide MVP voting for a career (Bryant finished higher than Drexler in this category), no. of finals mvps achieved and won, league mvps, all nba 1st teams, all nba defensive 1st teams, championships (Bryant won 2 titles as the clear cut no. 1 option and best player, he won 3 as the 2nd option playing with Shaq, although he was the go to guy in the 4th quarter of the Shaq/Kobe era. As far as Clyde, he won 1 ring as the 2nd option to Hakeem in Houston, went to the finals twice as the main option in Portland and lost both times), career playoff scoring, career points, wins, etc??? Bryant has the edge in all of the categories I mentioned.

The question is what exactly are you basing your argument on because if you look at both guys careers and look at their achievements, Bryant has clearly had the better overall career. I just don't see how you can make a case for Drexler being the better player. I don't want your opinion, I want you to make a sound argument and use facts.

Here is the last thing, you laughed at the idea of Bryant being better because of what he has accomplished, his no. of titles won, his all nba 1st team appearances, etc., and I ask you, what then is your criteria for ranking players? How else can we rank players if we don't look at stats, accolades for a career, etc...?

Hustlenomics
09-07-2011, 08:04 PM
Iverson's stats kill Cousy's and I know the people voting for Cousy didn't watch him play so how is Cousy a better player?

^

KnicksorBust
09-07-2011, 08:59 PM
Finally.

Swashcuff
09-07-2011, 09:03 PM
Finally.

I don't think Cousy should go ahead of Walt Fraizer BUT for the sake of the argument could you give us your reasoning since no one else took the time to. Bring a bit of perspective to the thread.

NYKalltheway
09-07-2011, 09:23 PM
You don't even have a legit argument here buddy. What exactly makes Drexler better than Kobe because I can guarantee you I can disspell any argument you may throw out there. Everyone on hear knows you aren't a big fan of Kobe, however when you start to make unsubstantiated claims then it makes you look as if you are lacking knowledge of the game.

I have several questions to ask you regarding your claim that Drexler is better. What exactly puts Drexler ahead of Kobe? Is it PER for a career, is it league wide MVP voting for a career (Bryant finished higher than Drexler in this category), no. of finals mvps achieved and won, league mvps, all nba 1st teams, all nba defensive 1st teams, championships (Bryant won 2 titles as the clear cut no. 1 option and best player, he won 3 as the 2nd option playing with Shaq, although he was the go to guy in the 4th quarter of the Shaq/Kobe era. As far as Clyde, he won 1 ring as the 2nd option to Hakeem in Houston, went to the finals twice as the main option in Portland and lost both times), career playoff scoring, career points, wins, etc??? Bryant has the edge in all of the categories I mentioned.

The question is what exactly are you basing your argument on because if you look at both guys careers and look at their achievements, Bryant has clearly had the better overall career. I just don't see how you can make a case for Drexler being the better player. I don't want your opinion, I want you to make a sound argument and use facts.

Here is the last thing, you laughed at the idea of Bryant being better because of what he has accomplished, his no. of titles won, his all nba 1st team appearances, etc., and I ask you, what then is your criteria for ranking players? How else can we rank players if we don't look at stats, accolades for a career, etc...?


I'll start from bottom.
You cannot use all NBA defensive teams (they kinda are way off reality honestly in the last 10-15 years) , all NBA teams, playoff runs etc WHEN YOU COMPARE PLAYERS OF DIFFERENT ERAS! It's a different game if it's a different time. You just can't compare 25 PPG in 2007 with 25 PPG in 1985 or 1964... If you fail to see this, you need to watch some older games. Key word "watch". People who've seen Clyde Drexler play (and from what I get, it's not a lot since Portland wasn't a highly celebrated market) say he's a top 2-4 shooting guard of all time! I won't go as far as #2 since Jerry West got that covered, but I say he's top 3.

You said you don't want my opinion and want a sound argument. Well, as I clearly mentioned, statistical analysis is quite far from a sound argument when it comes to comparing eras. You need to adjust way too much stuff in order to make it a realistic statistical challenge, and yet, you still cannot calculate small things that made huge difference like handchecking, quality of centers, the fact that 90s averaged almost 1 block more per game than 2000s which means it was slightly harder to drive the lane (compared to the mockery of today's game) and many many other small things. Even the 3pt line changed for some people. That spreads the floor or forces teams to play further inside and have a congested post = harder to score [ reason why you see older players average 36-41% FG, you can't really score when you're surrounded by everyone 6ft away from the basket]

Now to the stuff you'll pay attention to....

Kobe Bryant is a "better scorer" than Clyde Drexler.

Career PPG:
25.3 Kobe
20.4 Clyde

Kobe scores more... but let's evaluate that.

Career FGA and FG%:
19.9 and 45.4% for Kobe
16.3 and 47.2% for Clyde

So Kobe takes 3.6 more shots per game. That equals 7 PPG if they go in. Given Clyde's FG%, we'll make that 3.3 PPG which is the almost exact value.


That means if they shot at the same rate, their PPG would be 25.3 for Kobe and 23.7 for Clyde. Moving on.

Career MPG:
36.4 Kobe
34.6 Clyde

Kobe averages almost 2 more minutes per game... It was common back in the 90s to preserve players since most games were very important and players didn't stay on the court to pad their stats like they do these days. To Kobe's credit, he doesn't do that a lot, but he did when he was all alone in LA. Reason was because Lakers couldn't clear the games like Drexler did to enable him to sit on the bench for the end.

Let's translate that though. Give Drexler 1.8 more minutes and see how his scoring is affected.
It becomes 21.5 if we just give Drexler the extra 1.8 minutes. But what if we give him the shots as well to make it more fair.
It becomes 24.9 PPG for Drexler. Compared to Kobe's 25.3 PPG. 0.4 PPG difference in favor of Kobe

Then we have the free throws factor.
Kobe's 7.6 per game VS Clyde's 5.5 per game. That's 2.1 free throws for a guy who averaged 78.8% from the line.
That's +1.65 ppg for Drexler.

So 24.9 + 1.6 = 26.5 PPG vs Kobe's 25.3 PPG (in equal terms -> equal time, equal shots, equal free throw attempts)



Now let's talk about the famous 2005-6 rules change.

Kobe scored 13834 points in the handchecking era. That's 6 seasons. In the previous 9 seasons, he scored 14034 points. A whole 200 points difference with 3 seasons less. You can argue that his first 2 seasons he wasn't as productive and that he hit his prime, but truth is he hit 4017 free throws in that 6 year period compared to 4373 in the previous 9 seasons.

Averages per season:
2305.6 points per season in handchecking era
1559.3 points per season in normal rules era
746.3 points more per season.

669.5 free throws per season in handchecking era
485.8 free throws per season in normal rules era
183.7 free throws more per season


Compare that to Clyde Drexler's 1479.6 points per season and 397.4 free throws per season (313.2 scored = 1166.4 FG points)

Kobe has 2305.6-565.2(ft made) = 1740.4 ppg in handchecking era
Kobe has 1559.3-403.8= 1155.4 in normal rules era

Kobe gets penalized for having his best years excluded, but Drexler gets penalized for having an elbow and two hands on him every time he stepped onto the court. And also Clyde's stats declined at the end of his career. If I were to use his first 9 seasons, he'd benefit more, so he also loses from the fact that his numbers dropped significantly after his injury in his 10th season. The fair thing to do is to use this, 9 seasons for Kobe and full career for Drexler. I'm not using totals anyway.

And to verify this, here's Clyde's 9 seasons:
Drexler has 1650.7 points per season in his first 9 seasons using only FG
Drexler has 340 points per season from free throws in his first 9 seasons using only FG

1310.7 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Clyde Drexler
1155.4 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Kobe Bryant

The catch is 98-99 season that is against Kobe. He started in 50 out of 50 games. The full season. Let's convert his 996 points scored in 50 games into 82 games (since he hasn't lost a game that season it's only fair to assume he'd play a full length season in full health) Second catch is we need to do the same thing with free throws.
1633 points instead of 996.
402 free throws made instead of 245


AFTER:
1630.1 points per season - 421.3 free throw points = 1208.8 points per season

1310.7 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Clyde Drexler
1208.8 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Kobe Bryant
still quite behind.

You can argue PPG all you want instead of Per Season, but if you argue PPG, you can add Iverson, English, Dantley, Dominique Wilkins, Gervin, Tracy McGrady, Blackman, Monroe and many others here...
Per season imo is the way to go unless of course the guy played under 40 games. We're judging longevity combined with success, aren't we?
And still, in terms of PPG, when you adjust everything as equal, Drexler beats Kobe. And the fun part is that Drexler had a tougher job attacking the rim than Kobe because of their eras. Drexler could have averaged 35 ppg in 30 mpg in this era with his athleticism and high basketball IQ and better shot selection than Kobe.

This was just about points.

Drexler was by far a better distributor. You'll find many quotes from NBA coaches and players back in the day saying that only him and Magic Johhnson could pass like that back then, not even Stockton and Mark Johnson were as great passers. Assists are nice, but if your teammate sucks and misses the open layup, you won't get a pity assist... Hence why stats are not the best method. You can get a rebound that falls to you 15ft away from the basket, it doesn't make you a good rebounder if it happens 4 times a game, you're just lucky it falls to you.

As for Clyde, he's one of a select few that has over 20k points, over 6k rebounds and over 6k assists. Kobe isn't part of that club.

Drexler's career was 15 year long (+4 college)
Kobe's still going after 15 years already. They are at the stage where you can compare them head-to-head using statistics. I made it clear that they don't mean much to me, but it's quite obvious that Kobe is not superior to Clyde.

Clyde Drexler - Kobe Bryant
Total games: 1086 - 1103
Total points*: 22195 - 27868
*Total FGA*: 17673 - 21370
*Total FTA*: 5962 - 8391
*Total 3PTA*: 2603 - 4185
Total assists: 6125 - 5154
Total defensive rebounds: 6677 - 4531
Total offensive rebounds: 2615 - 1298
Total steals: 2207 - 1653
Total blocks: 719 - 576
Total turnovers: 2977 - 3228 (negative though)

* 2429 more free throws x 78.8% = 1914 points
* 3697 more shots**= 2115 more 2pt shots x 49.8%*** = 1053 points
** 1582 more 3 pt shots x 31.8% = 503 points

*** calculated 2PT% by subtracting 3pt from fg stats

Extra 3470 points for Clyde Drexler. Add that to his existing number = 25665
per game?
Drexler: 23.6
Kobe: 25.3

So Kobe leads at scoring due to handchecking rules, more shot attempts, more free throw attempts, less blocks in his era.
And Clyde leads in assists, defensive rebounds, offensive rebounds, steals, blocks and has less turnovers.

Hmm... I wonder if this is a landslide Kobe win as people make it seem :shrug:

Hellcrooner
09-07-2011, 09:29 PM
I'll start from bottom.
You cannot use all NBA defensive teams (they kinda are way off reality honestly in the last 10-15 years) , all NBA teams, playoff runs etc WHEN YOU COMPARE PLAYERS OF DIFFERENT ERAS! It's a different game if it's a different time. You just can't compare 25 PPG in 2007 with 25 PPG in 1985 or 1964... If you fail to see this, you need to watch some older games. Key word "watch". People who've seen Clyde Drexler play (and from what I get, it's not a lot since Portland wasn't a highly celebrated market) say he's a top 2-4 shooting guard of all time! I won't go as far as #2 since Jerry West got that covered, but I say he's top 3.

You said you don't want my opinion and want a sound argument. Well, as I clearly mentioned, statistical analysis is quite far from a sound argument when it comes to comparing eras. You need to adjust way too much stuff in order to make it a realistic statistical challenge, and yet, you still cannot calculate small things that made huge difference like handchecking, quality of centers, the fact that 90s averaged almost 1 block more per game than 2000s which means it was slightly harder to drive the lane (compared to the mockery of today's game) and many many other small things. Even the 3pt line changed for some people. That spreads the floor or forces teams to play further inside and have a congested post = harder to score [ reason why you see older players average 36-41% FG, you can't really score when you're surrounded by everyone 6ft away from the basket]

Now to the stuff you'll pay attention to....

Kobe Bryant is a "better scorer" than Clyde Drexler.

Career PPG:
25.3 Kobe
20.4 Clyde

Kobe scores more... but let's evaluate that.

Career FGA and FG%:
19.9 and 45.4% for Kobe
16.3 and 47.2% for Clyde

So Kobe takes 3.6 more shots per game. That equals 7 PPG if they go in. Given Clyde's FG%, we'll make that 3.3 PPG which is the almost exact value.


That means if they shot at the same rate, their PPG would be 25.3 for Kobe and 23.7 for Clyde. Moving on.

Career MPG:
36.4 Kobe
34.6 Clyde

Kobe averages almost 2 more minutes per game... It was common back in the 90s to preserve players since most games were very important and players didn't stay on the court to pad their stats like they do these days. To Kobe's credit, he doesn't do that a lot, but he did when he was all alone in LA. Reason was because Lakers couldn't clear the games like Drexler did to enable him to sit on the bench for the end.

Let's translate that though. Give Drexler 1.8 more minutes and see how his scoring is affected.
It becomes 21.5 if we just give Drexler the extra 1.8 minutes. But what if we give him the shots as well to make it more fair.
It becomes 24.9 PPG for Drexler. Compared to Kobe's 25.3 PPG. 0.4 PPG difference in favor of Kobe

Then we have the free throws factor.
Kobe's 7.6 per game VS Clyde's 5.5 per game. That's 2.1 free throws for a guy who averaged 78.8% from the line.
That's +1.65 ppg for Drexler.

So 24.9 + 1.6 = 26.5 PPG vs Kobe's 25.3 PPG (in equal terms -> equal time, equal shots, equal free throw attempts)



Now let's talk about the famous 2005-6 rules change.

Kobe scored 13834 points in the handchecking era. That's 6 seasons. In the previous 9 seasons, he scored 14034 points. A whole 200 points difference with 3 seasons less. You can argue that his first 2 seasons he wasn't as productive and that he hit his prime, but truth is he hit 4017 free throws in that 6 year period compared to 4373 in the previous 9 seasons.

Averages per season:
2305.6 points per season in handchecking era
1559.3 points per season in normal rules era
746.3 points more per season.

669.5 free throws per season in handchecking era
485.8 free throws per season in normal rules era
183.7 free throws more per season


Compare that to Clyde Drexler's 1479.6 points per season and 397.4 free throws per season (313.2 scored = 1166.4 FG points)

Kobe has 2305.6-565.2(ft made) = 1740.4 ppg in handchecking era
Kobe has 1559.3-403.8= 1155.4 in normal rules era

Kobe gets penalized for having his best years excluded, but Drexler gets penalized for having an elbow and two hands on him every time he stepped onto the court. And also Clyde's stats declined at the end of his career. If I were to use his first 9 seasons, he'd benefit more, so he also loses from the fact that his numbers dropped significantly after his injury in his 10th season. The fair thing to do is to use this, 9 seasons for Kobe and full career for Drexler. I'm not using totals anyway.

And to verify this, here's Clyde's 9 seasons:
Drexler has 1650.7 points per season in his first 9 seasons using only FG
Drexler has 340 points per season from free throws in his first 9 seasons using only FG

1310.7 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Clyde Drexler
1155.4 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Kobe Bryant

The catch is 98-99 season that is against Kobe. He started in 50 out of 50 games. The full season. Let's convert his 996 points scored in 50 games into 82 games (since he hasn't lost a game that season it's only fair to assume he'd play a full length season in full health) Second catch is we need to do the same thing with free throws.
1633 points instead of 996.
402 free throws made instead of 245


AFTER:
1630.1 points per season - 421.3 free throw points = 1208.8 points per season

1310.7 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Clyde Drexler
1208.8 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Kobe Bryant
still quite behind.

You can argue PPG all you want instead of Per Season, but if you argue PPG, you can add Iverson, English, Dantley, Dominique Wilkins, Gervin, Tracy McGrady, Blackman, Monroe and many others here...
Per season imo is the way to go unless of course the guy played under 40 games. We're judging longevity combined with success, aren't we?
And still, in terms of PPG, when you adjust everything as equal, Drexler beats Kobe. And the fun part is that Drexler had a tougher job attacking the rim than Kobe because of their eras. Drexler could have averaged 35 ppg in 30 mpg in this era with his athleticism and high basketball IQ and better shot selection than Kobe.

This was just about points.

Drexler was by far a better distributor. You'll find many quotes from NBA coaches and players back in the day saying that only him and Magic Johhnson could pass like that back then, not even Stockton and Mark Johnson were as great passers. Assists are nice, but if your teammate sucks and misses the open layup, you won't get a pity assist... Hence why stats are not the best method. You can get a rebound that falls to you 15ft away from the basket, it doesn't make you a good rebounder if it happens 4 times a game, you're just lucky it falls to you.

As for Clyde, he's one of a select few that has over 20k points, over 6k rebounds and over 6k assists. Kobe isn't part of that club.

Drexler's career was 15 year long (+4 college)
Kobe's still going after 15 years already. They are at the stage where you can compare them head-to-head using statistics. I made it clear that they don't mean much to me, but it's quite obvious that Kobe is not superior to Clyde.

Clyde Drexler - Kobe Bryant
Total games: 1086 - 1103
Total points*: 22195 - 27868
*Total FGA*: 17673 - 21370
*Total FTA*: 5962 - 8391
*Total 3PTA*: 2603 - 4185
Total assists: 6125 - 5154
Total defensive rebounds: 6677 - 4531
Total offensive rebounds: 2615 - 1298
Total steals: 2207 - 1653
Total blocks: 719 - 576
Total turnovers: 2977 - 3228 (negative though)

* 2429 more free throws x 78.8% = 1914 points
* 3697 more shots**= 2115 more 2pt shots x 49.8%*** = 1053 points
** 1582 more 3 pt shots x 31.8% = 503 points

*** calculated 2PT% by subtracting 3pt from fg stats

Extra 3470 points for Clyde Drexler. Add that to his existing number = 25665
per game?
Drexler: 23.6
Kobe: 25.3

So Kobe leads at scoring due to handchecking rules, more shot attempts, more free throw attempts, less blocks in his era.
And Clyde leads in assists, defensive rebounds, offensive rebounds, steals, blocks and has less turnovers.

Hmm... I wonder if this is a landslide Kobe win as people make it seem :shrug:

i dont agree with clyde being better than Kobe.

but you are forgetting one key point.

Kobe + Shaq then kobe +Pau.


What If blazers had accepted Sampson For clide as it was proposed.

Clyde and Hakeem, how many rings?

Swashcuff
09-07-2011, 09:29 PM
I'll start from bottom.
You cannot use all NBA defensive teams (they kinda are way off reality honestly in the last 10-15 years) , all NBA teams, playoff runs etc WHEN YOU COMPARE PLAYERS OF DIFFERENT ERAS! It's a different game if it's a different time. You just can't compare 25 PPG in 2007 with 25 PPG in 1985 or 1964... If you fail to see this, you need to watch some older games. Key word "watch". People who've seen Clyde Drexler play (and from what I get, it's not a lot since Portland wasn't a highly celebrated market) say he's a top 2-4 shooting guard of all time! I won't go as far as #2 since Jerry West got that covered, but I say he's top 3.

You said you don't want my opinion and want a sound argument. Well, as I clearly mentioned, statistical analysis is quite far from a sound argument when it comes to comparing eras. You need to adjust way too much stuff in order to make it a realistic statistical challenge, and yet, you still cannot calculate small things that made huge difference like handchecking, quality of centers, the fact that 90s averaged almost 1 block more per game than 2000s which means it was slightly harder to drive the lane (compared to the mockery of today's game) and many many other small things. Even the 3pt line changed for some people. That spreads the floor or forces teams to play further inside and have a congested post = harder to score [ reason why you see older players average 36-41% FG, you can't really score when you're surrounded by everyone 6ft away from the basket]

Now to the stuff you'll pay attention to....

Kobe Bryant is a "better scorer" than Clyde Drexler.

Career PPG:
25.3 Kobe
20.4 Clyde

Kobe scores more... but let's evaluate that.

Career FGA and FG%:
19.9 and 45.4% for Kobe
16.3 and 47.2% for Clyde

So Kobe takes 3.6 more shots per game. That equals 7 PPG if they go in. Given Clyde's FG%, we'll make that 3.3 PPG which is the almost exact value.


That means if they shot at the same rate, their PPG would be 25.3 for Kobe and 23.7 for Clyde. Moving on.

Career MPG:
36.4 Kobe
34.6 Clyde

Kobe averages almost 2 more minutes per game... It was common back in the 90s to preserve players since most games were very important and players didn't stay on the court to pad their stats like they do these days. To Kobe's credit, he doesn't do that a lot, but he did when he was all alone in LA. Reason was because Lakers couldn't clear the games like Drexler did to enable him to sit on the bench for the end.

Let's translate that though. Give Drexler 1.8 more minutes and see how his scoring is affected.
It becomes 21.5 if we just give Drexler the extra 1.8 minutes. But what if we give him the shots as well to make it more fair.
It becomes 24.9 PPG for Drexler. Compared to Kobe's 25.3 PPG. 0.4 PPG difference in favor of Kobe

Then we have the free throws factor.
Kobe's 7.6 per game VS Clyde's 5.5 per game. That's 2.1 free throws for a guy who averaged 78.8% from the line.
That's +1.65 ppg for Drexler.

So 24.9 + 1.6 = 26.5 PPG vs Kobe's 25.3 PPG (in equal terms -> equal time, equal shots, equal free throw attempts)



Now let's talk about the famous 2005-6 rules change.

Kobe scored 13834 points in the handchecking era. That's 6 seasons. In the previous 9 seasons, he scored 14034 points. A whole 200 points difference with 3 seasons less. You can argue that his first 2 seasons he wasn't as productive and that he hit his prime, but truth is he hit 4017 free throws in that 6 year period compared to 4373 in the previous 9 seasons.

Averages per season:
2305.6 points per season in handchecking era
1559.3 points per season in normal rules era
746.3 points more per season.

669.5 free throws per season in handchecking era
485.8 free throws per season in normal rules era
183.7 free throws more per season


Compare that to Clyde Drexler's 1479.6 points per season and 397.4 free throws per season (313.2 scored = 1166.4 FG points)

Kobe has 2305.6-565.2(ft made) = 1740.4 ppg in handchecking era
Kobe has 1559.3-403.8= 1155.4 in normal rules era

Kobe gets penalized for having his best years excluded, but Drexler gets penalized for having an elbow and two hands on him every time he stepped onto the court. And also Clyde's stats declined at the end of his career. If I were to use his first 9 seasons, he'd benefit more, so he also loses from the fact that his numbers dropped significantly after his injury in his 10th season. The fair thing to do is to use this, 9 seasons for Kobe and full career for Drexler. I'm not using totals anyway.

And to verify this, here's Clyde's 9 seasons:
Drexler has 1650.7 points per season in his first 9 seasons using only FG
Drexler has 340 points per season from free throws in his first 9 seasons using only FG

1310.7 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Clyde Drexler
1155.4 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Kobe Bryant

The catch is 98-99 season that is against Kobe. He started in 50 out of 50 games. The full season. Let's convert his 996 points scored in 50 games into 82 games (since he hasn't lost a game that season it's only fair to assume he'd play a full length season in full health) Second catch is we need to do the same thing with free throws.
1633 points instead of 996.
402 free throws made instead of 245


AFTER:
1630.1 points per season - 421.3 free throw points = 1208.8 points per season

1310.7 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Clyde Drexler
1208.8 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Kobe Bryant
still quite behind.

You can argue PPG all you want instead of Per Season, but if you argue PPG, you can add Iverson, English, Dantley, Dominique Wilkins, Gervin, Tracy McGrady, Blackman, Monroe and many others here...
Per season imo is the way to go unless of course the guy played under 40 games. We're judging longevity combined with success, aren't we?
And still, in terms of PPG, when you adjust everything as equal, Drexler beats Kobe. And the fun part is that Drexler had a tougher job attacking the rim than Kobe because of their eras. Drexler could have averaged 35 ppg in 30 mpg in this era with his athleticism and high basketball IQ and better shot selection than Kobe.

This was just about points.

Drexler was by far a better distributor. You'll find many quotes from NBA coaches and players back in the day saying that only him and Magic Johhnson could pass like that back then, not even Stockton and Mark Johnson were as great passers. Assists are nice, but if your teammate sucks and misses the open layup, you won't get a pity assist... Hence why stats are not the best method. You can get a rebound that falls to you 15ft away from the basket, it doesn't make you a good rebounder if it happens 4 times a game, you're just lucky it falls to you.

As for Clyde, he's one of a select few that has over 20k points, over 6k rebounds and over 6k assists. Kobe isn't part of that club.

Drexler's career was 15 year long (+4 college)
Kobe's still going after 15 years already. They are at the stage where you can compare them head-to-head using statistics. I made it clear that they don't mean much to me, but it's quite obvious that Kobe is not superior to Clyde.

Clyde Drexler - Kobe Bryant
Total games: 1086 - 1103
Total points*: 22195 - 27868
*Total FGA*: 17673 - 21370
*Total FTA*: 5962 - 8391
*Total 3PTA*: 2603 - 4185
Total assists: 6125 - 5154
Total defensive rebounds: 6677 - 4531
Total offensive rebounds: 2615 - 1298
Total steals: 2207 - 1653
Total blocks: 719 - 576
Total turnovers: 2977 - 3228 (negative though)

* 2429 more free throws x 78.8% = 1914 points
* 3697 more shots**= 2115 more 2pt shots x 49.8%*** = 1053 points
** 1582 more 3 pt shots x 31.8% = 503 points

*** calculated 2PT% by subtracting 3pt from fg stats

Extra 3470 points for Clyde Drexler. Add that to his existing number = 25665
per game?
Drexler: 23.6
Kobe: 25.3

So Kobe leads at scoring due to handchecking rules, more shot attempts, more free throw attempts, less blocks in his era.
And Clyde leads in assists, defensive rebounds, offensive rebounds, steals, blocks and has less turnovers.

Hmm... I wonder if this is a landslide Kobe win as people make it seem :shrug:

:speechless:

NYKalltheway just made a statistical argument which was based entirely on hypotheticals. SMH.

NYKalltheway
09-07-2011, 09:36 PM
entirely? i dont think so... and it's not hypotheses. It's stating the obvious. While apparently you're staring at the tree and not the forest.

Swashcuff
09-07-2011, 09:47 PM
entirely? i dont think so... and it's not hypotheses. It's stating the obvious. While apparently you're staring at the tree and not the forest.

Who is to say it's a given fact that with more shots attempts and more minutes played Clyde would contribute at the same rate? Hypothetical.

You neglect to mention the fact that Kobe came into the league at the age of 18 and spent damn near every game of his first to years in the league on the bench. Also ignoring the fact that he played all those years alongside Shaq. Though playing alongside Shaq will help his efficiency (at least it should) it hurts his volume scoring. Drexler for the vast majority of his prime was the primary offensive option on his teams.

You gave not context and no circumstance to your arguments. You neglected to give them any form of perspective and was in no way comprehensive.

You also left out a very important side of the ball. Defense. All you said is that you can't use All NBA Defensive Team accolades. Well give us your reasoning and your method as to why exactly Clyde was better than Kobe on the defensive end of the ball.

LakersIn5
09-08-2011, 12:33 AM
once again iverson finishes second just because the haters vote on the player who is competing with iverson in votes just so iverson doesnt win. pathetic.

pd7631
09-08-2011, 12:58 AM
once again iverson finishes second just because the haters vote on the player who is competing with iverson in votes just so iverson doesnt win. pathetic.

reminds me of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NglGAoJCmmY&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL


and this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EX2iIBp-0c


Ref: "My job is to referee the game"

AI: "Alright, so what you worrying about the crowd for?"

Ref: "Allen...that's *big pause*...because you're not gonna do that"

translation, he got a technical foul for no justifiable reason.....same as these people voting against allen iverson.


Hey people, you're supposed to vote FOR the person you think is the next best player!

What a joke.

tredigs
09-08-2011, 04:39 AM
reminds me of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NglGAoJCmmY&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL


and this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EX2iIBp-0c


Ref: "My job is to referee the game"

AI: "Alright, so what you worrying about the crowd for?"

Ref: "Allen...that's *big pause*...because you're not gonna do that"

translation, he got a technical foul for no justifiable reason.....same as these people voting against allen iverson.


Hey people, you're supposed to vote FOR the person you think is the next best player!

What a joke.

You do realize the guy that was chosen ahead of AI was an integral part to 6 NBA titles, was chosen to 13 straight All Star games and 10 straight All NBA 1st teams, was MVP of the league (top ten for the better part of a decade), lead the league in assists more times than he can count (top 5 his entire career), top ten in scoring the majority of a decade, etc.

His case is massive at this juncture of a top 50 list. Absolutely stronger than Iverson's by most measures; they didn't just vote in Rik Smits, although... : ]

NYKalltheway
09-08-2011, 04:55 AM
You also left out a very important side of the ball. Defense. All you said is that you can't use All NBA Defensive Team accolades. Well give us your reasoning and your method as to why exactly Clyde was better than Kobe on the defensive end of the ball.


Defense.... Here comes the pain.

You can't MEASURE defense. Only means of measuring defense is watching the players play. All-defensive teams are a joke in the NBA for the past few years, but still, even if Kobe has made the all-Defensive team, it doesn't make him a better defender than a guy FROM A DIFFERENT ERA who didn't. There were bette ELITE defenders back in the day. They just were.

When you're competing for 2 guard spots and there's Dumars (the guy who Jordan said was his toughest guy to play against in offense) , Dennis Johnson, Maurice Cheeks, Derek Harper, Alvin Robertson, Michael Cooper, John Starks, Mookie Blaylock, Gary Payton, Michael Jordan, John Stockton and some others who also did not make the all defensive teams because of these guys, through your career being recognized as a great defensive player and a top 5 defensive guard throughout your career means much more than some all-defensive team...
Kobe Bryant in his career had Jason Kidd, Gary Payton in his late years, Doug Christie, Eddie Jones and later on Raja Bell, Rajon Rondo and Tony Allen... some of these names make me laugh when I compare them to those Drexler faced...

So please, let me hear about how objective comparing a guy's "all defensive teams" from 83 to 98, to someone who played in 96 till today...

As for Kobe entering from high school. Not my problem. He elected to skip college and wasn't ready to play.

If you really want to see why I believe Drexler is a better defensive player than Kobe, find tapes/videos of older games. I can't help you with words, words are not enough to persuade someone about the game of basketball.

And I'll take the guy who didn't play for stats all day long.

Drexler's highest FGA per game was 21.4 shots. He also had 49.7% FG that season. His second highest FGA per game was 20.7 and had 50.6% FG.

Kobe had 5 seasons he shot more than Drexler and not once did he come close to his FG%.
Why are we calling Monta Ellis an inefficient player btw these days? Trick of the day, Monta Ellis shots 16 FGA per game in his career compared to Kobe's 19.4. And Monta also has a better FG%, 46.9% compared to 45.4%. I don't see you say that Monta is a great player in a bad situation :shrug: And don't use Win Shares please if you're gonna come back to haunt me for doing the unthinkable and calling Monta better than Kobe (which I actually didn't). When your team sucks, you can't win, hence no +win shares for you. Funny thing is Monta is told to be an inefficient ballhog, and never had more than 30% USG, while Kobe has over 30% except once since 2000-1 and also reached heights such as 38.7% and 35.1%. Drexler's USG% never exceeded 30% either. Mitch Richmond's either.... Take Kobe Bryant back to an 80s draft class, and his career would be no better than Mitch Richmond if not in a good situatiom.

You still have not provided anything that show Kobe is a better player than Drexler. All you do is attack my opinion just because you disagree and you even don't have a full view of the situation. As I said, championships mean nothing, it's a team effort, unless your name is Rick Barry. As Moses Malone and Julius Erving said, take Mo Cheeks out of the 83 Sixers, they wouldn't have gone as far. And this is probably the best team ever. Who here thinks of Mo Cheeks as a top 5 point guard? Nobody. Because "he was not a leader of a team (statistically) :facepalm: "

How is Kobe better than Drexler. Don't use all-NBA teams, different times, different rules, different competition. Don't use all star games. It's marketing and a popularity contest, heck even Yao got voted in last season :laugh2:

Wanna use basic stats? As pointed out, Kobe has been benefitting of:
More minutes
More shots
More free throws

And also happens to have:
Less assists
Less rebounds on either end
Less steals
Less blocks


Please don't use team stats in the equation either... Can you do that? Or actually use them becaue apparently you got nothing else to back Kobe > Drexler statistically

Lakersfan2483
09-08-2011, 05:06 AM
I'll start from bottom.
You cannot use all NBA defensive teams (they kinda are way off reality honestly in the last 10-15 years) , all NBA teams, playoff runs etc WHEN YOU COMPARE PLAYERS OF DIFFERENT ERAS! It's a different game if it's a different time. You just can't compare 25 PPG in 2007 with 25 PPG in 1985 or 1964... If you fail to see this, you need to watch some older games. Key word "watch". People who've seen Clyde Drexler play (and from what I get, it's not a lot since Portland wasn't a highly celebrated market) say he's a top 2-4 shooting guard of all time! I won't go as far as #2 since Jerry West got that covered, but I say he's top 3.

You said you don't want my opinion and want a sound argument. Well, as I clearly mentioned, statistical analysis is quite far from a sound argument when it comes to comparing eras. You need to adjust way too much stuff in order to make it a realistic statistical challenge, and yet, you still cannot calculate small things that made huge difference like handchecking, quality of centers, the fact that 90s averaged almost 1 block more per game than 2000s which means it was slightly harder to drive the lane (compared to the mockery of today's game) and many many other small things. Even the 3pt line changed for some people. That spreads the floor or forces teams to play further inside and have a congested post = harder to score [ reason why you see older players average 36-41% FG, you can't really score when you're surrounded by everyone 6ft away from the basket]

Now to the stuff you'll pay attention to....

Kobe Bryant is a "better scorer" than Clyde Drexler.

Career PPG:
25.3 Kobe
20.4 Clyde

Kobe scores more... but let's evaluate that.

Career FGA and FG%:
19.9 and 45.4% for Kobe
16.3 and 47.2% for Clyde

So Kobe takes 3.6 more shots per game. That equals 7 PPG if they go in. Given Clyde's FG%, we'll make that 3.3 PPG which is the almost exact value.


That means if they shot at the same rate, their PPG would be 25.3 for Kobe and 23.7 for Clyde. Moving on.

Career MPG:
36.4 Kobe
34.6 Clyde

Kobe averages almost 2 more minutes per game... It was common back in the 90s to preserve players since most games were very important and players didn't stay on the court to pad their stats like they do these days. To Kobe's credit, he doesn't do that a lot, but he did when he was all alone in LA. Reason was because Lakers couldn't clear the games like Drexler did to enable him to sit on the bench for the end.

Let's translate that though. Give Drexler 1.8 more minutes and see how his scoring is affected.
It becomes 21.5 if we just give Drexler the extra 1.8 minutes. But what if we give him the shots as well to make it more fair.
It becomes 24.9 PPG for Drexler. Compared to Kobe's 25.3 PPG. 0.4 PPG difference in favor of Kobe

Then we have the free throws factor.
Kobe's 7.6 per game VS Clyde's 5.5 per game. That's 2.1 free throws for a guy who averaged 78.8% from the line.
That's +1.65 ppg for Drexler.

So 24.9 + 1.6 = 26.5 PPG vs Kobe's 25.3 PPG (in equal terms -> equal time, equal shots, equal free throw attempts)



Now let's talk about the famous 2005-6 rules change.

Kobe scored 13834 points in the handchecking era. That's 6 seasons. In the previous 9 seasons, he scored 14034 points. A whole 200 points difference with 3 seasons less. You can argue that his first 2 seasons he wasn't as productive and that he hit his prime, but truth is he hit 4017 free throws in that 6 year period compared to 4373 in the previous 9 seasons.

Averages per season:
2305.6 points per season in handchecking era
1559.3 points per season in normal rules era
746.3 points more per season.

669.5 free throws per season in handchecking era
485.8 free throws per season in normal rules era
183.7 free throws more per season


Compare that to Clyde Drexler's 1479.6 points per season and 397.4 free throws per season (313.2 scored = 1166.4 FG points)

Kobe has 2305.6-565.2(ft made) = 1740.4 ppg in handchecking era
Kobe has 1559.3-403.8= 1155.4 in normal rules era

Kobe gets penalized for having his best years excluded, but Drexler gets penalized for having an elbow and two hands on him every time he stepped onto the court. And also Clyde's stats declined at the end of his career. If I were to use his first 9 seasons, he'd benefit more, so he also loses from the fact that his numbers dropped significantly after his injury in his 10th season. The fair thing to do is to use this, 9 seasons for Kobe and full career for Drexler. I'm not using totals anyway.

And to verify this, here's Clyde's 9 seasons:
Drexler has 1650.7 points per season in his first 9 seasons using only FG
Drexler has 340 points per season from free throws in his first 9 seasons using only FG

1310.7 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Clyde Drexler
1155.4 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Kobe Bryant

The catch is 98-99 season that is against Kobe. He started in 50 out of 50 games. The full season. Let's convert his 996 points scored in 50 games into 82 games (since he hasn't lost a game that season it's only fair to assume he'd play a full length season in full health) Second catch is we need to do the same thing with free throws.
1633 points instead of 996.
402 free throws made instead of 245


AFTER:
1630.1 points per season - 421.3 free throw points = 1208.8 points per season

1310.7 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Clyde Drexler
1208.8 Points per season in first 9 seasons for Kobe Bryant
still quite behind.

You can argue PPG all you want instead of Per Season, but if you argue PPG, you can add Iverson, English, Dantley, Dominique Wilkins, Gervin, Tracy McGrady, Blackman, Monroe and many others here...
Per season imo is the way to go unless of course the guy played under 40 games. We're judging longevity combined with success, aren't we?
And still, in terms of PPG, when you adjust everything as equal, Drexler beats Kobe. And the fun part is that Drexler had a tougher job attacking the rim than Kobe because of their eras. Drexler could have averaged 35 ppg in 30 mpg in this era with his athleticism and high basketball IQ and better shot selection than Kobe.

This was just about points.

Drexler was by far a better distributor. You'll find many quotes from NBA coaches and players back in the day saying that only him and Magic Johhnson could pass like that back then, not even Stockton and Mark Johnson were as great passers. Assists are nice, but if your teammate sucks and misses the open layup, you won't get a pity assist... Hence why stats are not the best method. You can get a rebound that falls to you 15ft away from the basket, it doesn't make you a good rebounder if it happens 4 times a game, you're just lucky it falls to you.

As for Clyde, he's one of a select few that has over 20k points, over 6k rebounds and over 6k assists. Kobe isn't part of that club.

Drexler's career was 15 year long (+4 college)
Kobe's still going after 15 years already. They are at the stage where you can compare them head-to-head using statistics. I made it clear that they don't mean much to me, but it's quite obvious that Kobe is not superior to Clyde.

Clyde Drexler - Kobe Bryant
Total games: 1086 - 1103
Total points*: 22195 - 27868
*Total FGA*: 17673 - 21370
*Total FTA*: 5962 - 8391
*Total 3PTA*: 2603 - 4185
Total assists: 6125 - 5154
Total defensive rebounds: 6677 - 4531
Total offensive rebounds: 2615 - 1298
Total steals: 2207 - 1653
Total blocks: 719 - 576
Total turnovers: 2977 - 3228 (negative though)

* 2429 more free throws x 78.8% = 1914 points
* 3697 more shots**= 2115 more 2pt shots x 49.8%*** = 1053 points
** 1582 more 3 pt shots x 31.8% = 503 points

*** calculated 2PT% by subtracting 3pt from fg stats

Extra 3470 points for Clyde Drexler. Add that to his existing number = 25665
per game?
Drexler: 23.6
Kobe: 25.3

So Kobe leads at scoring due to handchecking rules, more shot attempts, more free throw attempts, less blocks in his era.
And Clyde leads in assists, defensive rebounds, offensive rebounds, steals, blocks and has less turnovers.

Hmm... I wonder if this is a landslide Kobe win as people make it seem :shrug:

I don't deal in hypotheticals when evaluating players and so the notion that Drexler would have done this or that had he played more mins, etc, etc... doesn't hold any weight around here. I deal with strictly facts and the fact is, Bryant has the better resume and is/was the better player. Study both guys best seasons and Bryant had better years. He finished higher in the MVP voting, won more titles as the lead guy, won more scoring titles, won more finals mvps, won more all star mvps, was selected to more all nba 1st teams, was selected to more all nba defensive 1st teams, had a higher PER, holds more all time records in the postseason and regular season. Bryant is also one of only 7 guys in league history to have over 25,000 points, 5000 or more assists and 5000 or more rebs. for his career (Other guys are MJ, Oscar, West, Malone, Kareem and Wilt). All of those are facts and not opinions or hypothetical scenarios that you like to makeup to better your argument.

When debating with someone you have to present fact based evidence in your argument or else you don't have a real argument.

One last thing, you keep stating that this current era is not as good as the era in the 80's or 90's in terms of defense and overall quality of players and talent. How is that true? What is this based on? I could argue that this era is just as good as it has ever been with guys like Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, KG, Dirk, Nash, Melo, Lebron, Wade, Howard, Durant, etc..... I also would like for you to take the time to study the numbers in terms of overall league scoring, fg pct., etc... and you will see that scoring is harder to come by then it was in the 90's when you factor in pace, team defensive schemes, zone defense, etc.... By the way, this era produced 2 all time defensive teams in the 04 Pistons and the 08 Celtics. Study those teams and they stack up against most teams in terms of defense despite the no handchecking that you keep harping on.

*I watched Clyde play during his years in Portland and so believe me, I know all about Clyde's abilities.

NYKalltheway
09-08-2011, 05:36 AM
Pistons 04 was before handchecking.

Celtics 08 was great defensively, but you can't compare them to Pistons 90, Sixers 83, Knicks 90s, Spurs early 2000s...

As for your facts. Well, playing against the GOAT and against 2 GOAT in position for a long time in your career makes it hard to win championships, to win MVP awards, to reach all-NBA 1st teams....

I'm not making hypothetical scenarios no more than anyone else does. How do you compare the PLAYERS Kobe and Clyde? You're saying Kobe is better, but how? Why use Kobe's competition and call it equal to Clyde's competition? There's no point, it's all hypotheses. So since we all "love" stats, Clyde's numbers are better in a per minute, per shot situation. There's no denying that.

And there's no denying that Kobe's inflated stats are because he shoots 2 more free throws per game, 3 more shots and also plays 2 more minutes. How can you statistically compare these players when they got similar stats and played in the same position? You find a way to equate them. Sure, you can use per36 minutes too, but I prefer the other method. The "Clyde in Kobe's shoes" or "Kobe in Clyde's shoes" method.

You want facts?
The game has become easier for guards. They can score more either by penetrating the (empty) lane, or by shooting free throws since every touch is a foul. Compare that to hand and elbow on you, it's almost twice as easy to score these days if you're fast enough.

As for Drexler's legacy. All Americans are so proud about the 92 Dream Team. Well, back then Drexler's name was as high as Michael Jordan's, Magic Johnson's and Hakeem's... It's only after that he lost popularity. Because MJ changed the game and forced the league to change the rules and made guys like Wade and Kobe into elite superstars while they are extremely talented, defenses would have been better these days than earlier if they allowed physical play (proof is that early 2000s was considered the best defensive era for many people) so players like Kobe and Wade wouldn't have the stats they do now. They'd still average something in the low 20s overall and still be considered the best in their era. But top 10-20? Doubt it. I don't see poor Sam Jones being called as a top 10 or 20 player either.

You can't seriously call post2005 NBA defenses better than anything. They're not allowed to play defense these days!!

Swashcuff
09-08-2011, 09:14 AM
Defense.... Here comes the pain.

You can't MEASURE defense. Only means of measuring defense is watching the players play. All-defensive teams are a joke in the NBA for the past few years, but still, even if Kobe has made the all-Defensive team, it doesn't make him a better defender than a guy FROM A DIFFERENT ERA who didn't. There were bette ELITE defenders back in the day. They just were.

When you're competing for 2 guard spots and there's Dumars (the guy who Jordan said was his toughest guy to play against in offense) , Dennis Johnson, Maurice Cheeks, Derek Harper, Alvin Robertson, Michael Cooper, John Starks, Mookie Blaylock, Gary Payton, Michael Jordan, John Stockton and some others who also did not make the all defensive teams because of these guys, through your career being recognized as a great defensive player and a top 5 defensive guard throughout your career means much more than some all-defensive team...
Kobe Bryant in his career had Jason Kidd, Gary Payton in his late years, Doug Christie, Eddie Jones and later on Raja Bell, Rajon Rondo and Tony Allen... some of these names make me laugh when I compare them to those Drexler faced...

So please, let me hear about how objective comparing a guy's "all defensive teams" from 83 to 98, to someone who played in 96 till today...

So basically it's all up to the eye test right? Okay that's fine with me, but what if my eyes and your eyes tell different. Does that make you correct and me wrong?


As for Kobe entering from high school. Not my problem. He elected to skip college and wasn't ready to play.

Again you need to understand context. It's sad that you aren't able to put your argument into perspective but rather look at stats blindly in their base for and attempt to ascertain a player's worth just by that.


If you really want to see why I believe Drexler is a better defensive player than Kobe, find tapes/videos of older games. I can't help you with words, words are not enough to persuade someone about the game of basketball.

Actually you can. I am not ignorant. If I were I would not have been having this debate with you for over a month. I too accept knowledge from those who know more about the game or have been around longer than I. If your words and my eyes some how come to an agreement from the film I've already watched on Clyde and then I go back and watch Kobe again and compare the difference maybe just maybe I'll see your POV.


And I'll take the guy who didn't play for stats all day long.

Drexler's highest FGA per game was 21.4 shots. He also had 49.7% FG that season. His second highest FGA per game was 20.7 and had 50.6% FG.

Would you take Clyde over MJ? or even over Baylor?


Kobe had 5 seasons he shot more than Drexler and not once did he come close to his FG%.
Why are we calling Monta Ellis an inefficient player btw these days? Trick of the day, Monta Ellis shots 16 FGA per game in his career compared to Kobe's 19.4. And Monta also has a better FG%, 46.9% compared to 45.4%. I don't see you say that Monta is a great player in a bad situation :shrug: And don't use Win Shares please if you're gonna come back to haunt me for doing the unthinkable and calling Monta better than Kobe (which I actually didn't). When your team sucks, you can't win, hence no +win shares for you. Funny thing is Monta is told to be an inefficient ballhog, and never had more than 30% USG, while Kobe has over 30% except once since 2000-1 and also reached heights such as 38.7% and 35.1%. Drexler's USG% never exceeded 30% either. Mitch Richmond's either.... Take Kobe Bryant back to an 80s draft class, and his career would be no better than Mitch Richmond if not in a good situatiom.

Compare Monta's success to Kobe's. Kobe a ballhog? Let's see where the Lakers would be had Kobe not been the player he was. Let's see how many games they win. Kobe did what needed to be done for his team to get the job done. If that calls for being selfish and putting the team on your back, then by all means do it. If it equates to a W in the end what else really matters.


You still have not provided anything that show Kobe is a better player than Drexler.

Have I not provided anything? Sigh.

I've been providing factual evidence from the very beginning of this thread. You however have not paid the slighest bit of attention to any of it. I haven't said anything you'd like to hear because you are closed minded and already hold your view as to who is the better player.

You told me about comparing stats but want to know something what you did was even worst. You compare base stats of players who had different roles at the point of their comparisons. Kobe was a 2nd option the majority of his early prime days. Clyde was a #1 option for almost his entire career. With base #s that changes dynamics a LOT. But again you failed to use perspective.


All you do is attack my opinion just because you disagree and you even don't have a full view of the situation.

Because I am younger? In my youth I have already proven you wrong on at least 5 occasions during our debates about the NBA's past. So I think my view of the situation is just as good as yours.

What infuriates me more than anything is that you love guys like Cousy. Have you seen Cousy play? So how can you say that Cousy is better than Kobe or Kidd or anyone else who you've seen for that matter? Because he's the first of his kind?


As I said, championships mean nothing, it's a team effort, unless your name is Rick Barry. As Moses Malone and Julius Erving said, take Mo Cheeks out of the 83 Sixers, they wouldn't have gone as far. And this is probably the best team ever. Who here thinks of Mo Cheeks as a top 5 point guard? Nobody. Because "he was not a leader of a team (statistically) :facepalm: "

Cool story bro but I never mentioned anything about Championships. I stated their accolades and a title is part of that. I never at any or any place argued that Kobe was better than Drexler because he won more titles.


How is Kobe better than Drexler. Don't use all-NBA teams, different times, different rules, different competition. Don't use all star games. It's marketing and a popularity contest, heck even Yao got voted in last season :laugh2:

Don't you understand that these are all accolades which are part of the debate when attempting to ascertain a player's individual worth? You don't seem to grasp that concept. Hell if I used ASGs what does that have to do with anything. Every single one of Kobe's ASG appearances was merited.


Wanna use basic stats? As pointed out, Kobe has been benefitting of:
More minutes
More shots
More free throws

And also happens to have:
Less assists
Less rebounds on either end
Less steals
Less blocks

You do know that minutes played and offensive efficiency (matter of a fact efficiency on the whole) has a negative correlation right?

You exclude more points. Why?


Please don't use team stats in the equation either... Can you do that? Or actually use them becaue apparently you got nothing else to back Kobe > Drexler statistically

I have nothing else?

You refused to dispute the stats that I posted earlier. You ignored them even. Then you're trying to make a statistical case where someone must conform to your view of what stats are good and what aren't. :rolleyes:

Dispute the facts in which I proved earlier and lets see how they stack up.

You know what's most ignorant. You tell me you can't use stats when comparing players who played in a different era but here you are throwing stats around. What's even worse. The hypotheticals. Who is to say for a certainty that Kobe would be > or < if he played in the 80s and early 90s?

That's your opinion. I cant say that had Kobe played in the 80s with his superior athletic ability and his complete offensive repertoire that he would be an even better player than he is today. Does that mean I'm wrong? NO. So how does that make your opinion right.

No one is attacking your opinion what I am doing however is showing you how blatantly biased you are being. I am not saying that someone can't believe Drexler is better than Kobe I can understand that but all your arguments do is show your bias.

Lastly don't try to chastise me because I'm younger than you. You NEVER saw George Mikan play how do you know he's a great player? Can you prove to me or anyone here that Mikan is better than Dwight Howard because of what you saw? No you can't, so don't attempt to belittle me because of my age. I've already proven I am wise beyond my years and I don't make outlandish claims without backing them up with facts. Facts that I have seen, researched and heard. You have no seen every player who has ever played the game of basketball so don't bash me for not being old enough to see Drexler play every day. I have done my home work on the player's of the 90s and I've seen enough to have an informed opinion on their worth.

Swashcuff
09-08-2011, 09:26 AM
While everyone was busy argument Clyde, A.I. and Kobe Cousy just beat out the likes of Walt, Clyde and GP in a quite convincing manner with no one giving a reason for their choice. But hey let's continue to bash the A.I. fanboys for they have given reasons for their choice. :eyebrow:

I have no serious gripe with Cousy winning here (though I don't think he should have over Walt) but I'm just saying make your case for your choice. The only reasoning for someone gave for going with Cousy in this entire thread was that they were voting him so A.I. doesn't win. Something quite a few of posters have done apparently.

Let's hear your arguments for Cousy people.

pd7631
09-08-2011, 01:01 PM
You do realize the guy that was chosen ahead of AI was an integral part to 6 NBA titles, was chosen to 13 straight All Star games and 10 straight All NBA 1st teams, was MVP of the league (top ten for the better part of a decade), lead the league in assists more times than he can count (top 5 his entire career), top ten in scoring the majority of a decade, etc.

His case is massive at this juncture of a top 50 list. Absolutely stronger than Iverson's by most measures; they didn't just vote in Rik Smits, although... : ]

Yeah, and I have no problem with it at all.....although, I disagree. My issue is with the way people are going about their votes. If people want to discuss what you just said as their reason for voting Cousy, then I'm all for that. But there have been several people saying "I'm voting for __________ so AI doesn't get it." These people have provided NO reasons as to why the player they voted for is the next greatest player. You may disagree with the arguments in favor of AI, but at least we provided support for those arguments (Chronz, this is your cue to criticize me for my argument being worthless, when you haven't said jack **** since I asked you to support your votes. You're a fraud).

Hellcrooner
09-08-2011, 01:23 PM
You do realize the guy that was chosen ahead of AI was an integral part to 6 NBA titles, was chosen to 13 straight All Star games and 10 straight All NBA 1st teams, was MVP of the league (top ten for the better part of a decade), lead the league in assists more times than he can count (top 5 his entire career), top ten in scoring the majority of a decade, etc.

His case is massive at this juncture of a top 50 list. Absolutely stronger than Iverson's by most measures; they didn't just vote in Rik Smits, although... : ]

i think those are enough reasons, and he should have been gone ages ago.

Chronz
09-08-2011, 01:43 PM
Yeah, and I have no problem with it at all.....although, I disagree. My issue is with the way people are going about their votes. If people want to discuss what you just said as their reason for voting Cousy, then I'm all for that. But there have been several people saying "I'm voting for __________ so AI doesn't get it."
Ima break it down for you one more time, they are voting for 1 of many superior players because they would rather have the player they find to be superior to AI to make the list, even if it means not voting for the guy they find to be the best. Its called taking the best player available, why waste your vote when you can make an impact here? If AI didnt have so many ignorant fans voting for him from #9 and on they wouldnt feel the need to offset that ignorance.


These people have provided NO reasons as to why the player they voted for is the next greatest player.
So all they have to do is copy and paste those achievements and you will shut up? OK so from now on if every vote against AI came with a few highlights you will have nothing to ***** about?


You may disagree with the arguments in favor of AI, but at least we provided support for those arguments (Chronz, this is your cue to criticize me for my argument being worthless, when you haven't said jack **** since I asked you to support your votes. You're a fraud).

You cant even defend your own stance so your opinion of my character or argument is moot.