PDA

View Full Version : PSD's Official #33 NBA Player of All-Time



JordansBulls
09-10-2011, 06:52 PM
Voting for #32 has concluded and PSD's Official #32 NBA Player of all time is....

Walt Frazier

Top 3 Voting:

Walt Frazier = 16 votes
Allen Iverson = 11 votes
Clyde Drexler = 10 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)
31. Bob Cousy (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=650318)
32. Walt Frazier (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=651181)


Voting will now begin for the #33 NBA Player All Time

NOTE: Nominations will end now, we are going up to the top 50 all time which means 18 spots left and right now we have 29 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 #33 spot.

Willis Reed
Gary Payton
Clyde Drexler
Dominique Wilkins
Sam Jones
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
Hal Greer

JordansBulls
09-10-2011, 06:57 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.

KnicksorBust
09-10-2011, 07:02 PM
I'm voting for Clyde.

Anybody else eyeing Kevin McHale for #34/#35? I definately think we're in his area now and I loved his game on both ends of the floor. He and Willis really need to start being campaigned for.

Chacarron
09-10-2011, 07:12 PM
Voted for Clyde Drexler.

naps
09-10-2011, 07:21 PM
Sickening.

Cano4prez
09-10-2011, 07:25 PM
Clyde then GP

Swashcuff
09-10-2011, 07:29 PM
Vote: Clyde Drexler
Nominate: Walt Bellamy

I've argued against Drexler enough in these threads (all thanks to NYKalltheway) its about time I argue for him.

JordansBulls
09-10-2011, 07:29 PM
Sickening.

How so? Are you saying Clyde wasn't better than Iverson?

Chacarron
09-10-2011, 07:33 PM
I think George Gervin should be the next SG to be voted in. One of the best scorers in the history of the NBA, super efficient for a 30+ PPG scorer in his prime.

TheNumber37
09-10-2011, 07:47 PM
So... AI at 34?

Hellcrooner
09-10-2011, 09:57 PM
clyde, then il guess ill go mchale again, then we will see.

nominate walt bellamy ( and think bellamy should be the last dude included as votable, lets get options disminish from now on)

Hustlenomics
09-10-2011, 10:14 PM
-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

Swashcuff
09-10-2011, 10:16 PM
clyde, then il guess ill go mchale again, then we will see.

nominate walt bellamy ( and think bellamy should be the last dude included as votable, lets get options disminish from now on)


NOTE: Nominations will end now, we are going up to the top 50 all time which means 18 spots left and right now we have 29 options. So for the #50 spot we will have a list of 10 players which is a lot.

:nod:

69centers
09-10-2011, 11:53 PM
I think George Gervin should be the next SG to be voted in. One of the best scorers in the history of the NBA, super efficient for a 30+ PPG scorer in his prime.

I voted Gervin here, as well as a few spots ago.

Lakersfan2483
09-11-2011, 01:24 AM
I am voting for Allen Iverson. 4 time scoring champ, 11 time all star, regular season mvp, won the rookie of the year, led his team to the finals, one of the best scorers in NBA history. For his career, he averaged 27 ppg and 6 apg during the regular season. He averaged 29.7 ppg for his playoff career and 6 apg. For his career, he scored 24,368 pts and handed out 5,624 assists. Revitalized the Philly Sixers' franchise. Allen was one of the best clutch players in the NBA during his career and ranked in the top 5 throughout most of his time in the NBA.

LakersMaster24
09-11-2011, 02:31 AM
Clyde.

Gonna vote Wilkins in the next poll.

NYKalltheway
09-11-2011, 05:47 AM
let's Glide

ShakeN'Bake
09-11-2011, 02:07 PM
Voted for Clyde last time so I'll do the same here.

Raps18-19 Champ
09-11-2011, 02:30 PM
:laugh:

I've just been trying to delay Allen Iverson.

NYKalltheway
09-11-2011, 03:12 PM
next one should be interesting.

Is it gonna be:

McHale?
Reed?
Wilkins?
Payton?
Gervin?
Kidd?
Hayes?
Worthy?
McAdoo?
Schayes?

I'm torn between McHale, Wilkins and Hayes. Might go for Nique coz he's my favorite after Ewing :o

Swashcuff
09-11-2011, 03:20 PM
next one should be interesting.

Is it gonna be:

McHale?
Reed?
Wilkins?
Payton?
Gervin?
Kidd?
Hayes?
Worthy?
McAdoo?
Schayes?

I'm torn between McHale, Wilkins and Hayes. Might go for Nique coz he's my favorite after Ewing :o

Thoughts on Nash. Where do you have him? I can't see Worthy, Schayes and McAdoo ahead of Nash.

Hellcrooner
09-11-2011, 03:25 PM
Mcaddo shouldnt make the top 50.

Yep he won an mvp very early in his career then started to decline fast as hell , his best accolades are the rings won as a Role player in the laerks

Chacarron
09-11-2011, 03:37 PM
We shouldn't sleep on Gervin for the next poll, though McHale has a good case as well.

NYKalltheway
09-11-2011, 03:40 PM
Thoughts on Nash. Where do you have him? I can't see Worthy, Schayes and McAdoo ahead of Nash.

Nash, I guess I have him at around 8th PG after Stockton, Frazier, Thomas, Cousy, Kidd, Cheeks, Payton... and you can add Magic, Oscar and Jerry West to that list which I don't as they're not actual PGs and could also consider Kevin Johnson and Mark Jackson ahead of him. Nash is amazing on the offensive end, but a player I could personally take when defending, can't give him more respect than that.

P.S: Cheeks and Mark Jackson may very well go as the most underrated PGs of all time, followed by Mookie Blaylock and Mark Price

goose14741
09-11-2011, 04:05 PM
i love dirk a lot but honestly he isnt top 40

Chronz
09-11-2011, 05:04 PM
i love dirk a lot but honestly he isnt top 40

Plz say your voting for AI

Bruno
09-11-2011, 08:55 PM
Was Drexler that much better than Payton offensively to make up for Paytons superiority on defense?

Can those who watched the '96 finals live confirm whether or not Payton guarded MJ for the bulk of games two, four, and six? I only ask because Jordans numbers were very mortal during those games, arguably some of his worst finals performances ever.

MJ's '96 Finals stats
Game 2: 29 points, 9/22 FG, 10/16 FT's, TS%- .499.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199606070CHI.html

Game 4: 23 points, 6/19 FG, 11/13 FT's, TS%- .465.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199606120SEA.html

Game 6: 22 points, 5/19 FG, 11/12 FT's, TS%- .453.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199606160CHI.html

If Payton did guard MJ for those finals games, and forced MJ into poor efficiency, that's really impressive. That speaks volumes to his ability as a one on one defender in a league that didn't permit box-zones.

Do I need to post Jordans numbers from '92 when he torched Drexler and the Blazers? (Did Drexler guard him?)

I guess I'm just suggesting that Payton was perhaps close enough to Drexler offensively for his clear defensive prominence to propel him to higher ranking :shrug:

naps
09-11-2011, 09:30 PM
How so? Are you saying Clyde wasn't better than Iverson?

Yes and the fact that people are intentionally voting against AI. How else can he be 2nd for the millionth time?

KnicksorBust
09-11-2011, 09:56 PM
Was Drexler that much better than Payton offensively to make up for Paytons superiority on defense?

Can those who watched the '96 finals live confirm whether or not Payton guarded MJ for the bulk of games two, four, and six? I only ask because Jordans numbers were very mortal during those games, arguably some of his worst finals performances ever.

MJ's '96 Finals stats
Game 2: 29 points, 9/22 FG, 10/16 FT's, TS%- .499.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199606070CHI.html

Game 4: 23 points, 6/19 FG, 11/13 FT's, TS%- .465.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199606120SEA.html

Game 6: 22 points, 5/19 FG, 11/12 FT's, TS%- .453.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199606160CHI.html

If Payton did guard MJ for those finals games, and forced MJ into poor efficiency, that's really impressive. That speaks volumes to his ability as a one on one defender in a league that didn't permit box-zones.

Do I need to post Jordans numbers from '92 when he torched Drexler and the Blazers? (Did Drexler guard him?)

I guess I'm just suggesting that Payton was perhaps close enough to Drexler offensively for his clear defensive prominence to propel him to higher ranking :shrug:

Hersey Hawkins and Nate McMillan were on him to start the series. Payton guarded him for two of those games. Games 4 and 6.

Hellcrooner
09-11-2011, 11:19 PM
Yes and the fact that people are intentionally voting against AI. How else can he be 2nd for the millionth time?

because he have a number of determinate fanboys that are voting him since number 8? ( and only because he wasnt available before).

Once the fanboys are JOINED but people that SINCERELY believe iverson deserves the votes, he should win his place.


And Imo, in the best case scenario that shouldnt happen at least in 7 or 8 more votations.


In my PERSONAl point of view it shouldnt even happen.

LakersIn5
09-11-2011, 11:48 PM
its so funny that dirk would not even be top 40 if we talked rankings before the playoffs started but just because they won the ship then it automatically makes him top 22. had the mavs not won the championship would dirk still be top 22? but not winning the ship wont make him less talented than he does winning the ship.

voted for iverson

Chacarron
09-11-2011, 11:49 PM
its so funny that dirk would not even be top 40 if we talked rankings before the playoffs started but just because they won the ship then it automatically makes him top 22. had the mavs not won the championship would dirk still be top 22? but not winning the ship wont make him less talented than he does winning the ship.

voted for iverson

I've seen this post before.

LakersIn5
09-11-2011, 11:58 PM
^yeah in the top 5 poll thread i posted here too cuz i want to get more comments since im really curious why dirk got so high. and since this is a top 50 poll thread i dont think that posting what i posted would hurt. :D

Hellcrooner
09-12-2011, 12:00 AM
its so funny that dirk would not even be top 40 if we talked rankings before the playoffs started but just because they won the ship then it automatically makes him top 22. had the mavs not won the championship would dirk still be top 22? but not winning the ship wont make him less talented than he does winning the ship.

voted for iverson

yep in may he wouldnt make top 40 Imo.


btu the fact is HE WON THE RING.

thats it

he WON the ring.

and when we are talking the top of the crop, la creme de la creme A RING is a difference maker.

You can debate ad nauseam if Barkley or Karl is better, if English or Gervin is better, if Wilkins or Dantley is better.

Had any of them lead their team to one ( or at least won one as the second man) and the debate would be over.

Bruno
09-12-2011, 12:07 AM
Hersey Hawkins and Nate McMillan were on him to start the series. Payton guarded him for two of those games. Games 4 and 6.

thanks dude!

AntiG
09-12-2011, 10:37 AM
Clyde is a top 20 player of all time and a top 5 SG, with a legit argument for 2nd best. If not for Jordan, we'd all be comparing contemporary SGs to The Glide. I was fortunately enough to grow up watching him, not only was he a tremendous scorer and leader, he was a very good rebounder for a swingman, and terrific defender who got his share of blocks and steals. In Houston towards the end of his career, he had a season where he led the team in points, steals and assists, and had several seasons leading the league in assists amongst SGs.

Amongst the list so far, I had him at #13, so #33 is pretty far out there IMO.

And amongst SGs, while Kobe has achieved more championships being fortunate enough to be on superior teams (no fault of his own, he's a lucky guy in that aspect), Drexler led three teams to the finals, with two of them where he was the only top level player. In terms of offense, while Kobe scored more points, Drexler was a more efficient and was a better rebounder and passer, and defensively he was superior to Kobe in every way.

Ebbs
09-12-2011, 11:04 AM
Wow people hate AI now.

Chronz
09-12-2011, 11:43 AM
Was Drexler that much better than Payton offensively to make up for Paytons superiority on defense?

Can those who watched the '96 finals live confirm whether or not Payton guarded MJ for the bulk of games two, four, and six? I only ask because Jordans numbers were very mortal during those games, arguably some of his worst finals performances ever.

MJ's '96 Finals stats
Game 2: 29 points, 9/22 FG, 10/16 FT's, TS%- .499.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199606070CHI.html

Game 4: 23 points, 6/19 FG, 11/13 FT's, TS%- .465.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199606120SEA.html

Game 6: 22 points, 5/19 FG, 11/12 FT's, TS%- .453.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199606160CHI.html

If Payton did guard MJ for those finals games, and forced MJ into poor efficiency, that's really impressive. That speaks volumes to his ability as a one on one defender in a league that didn't permit box-zones.

Do I need to post Jordans numbers from '92 when he torched Drexler and the Blazers? (Did Drexler guard him?)

I guess I'm just suggesting that Payton was perhaps close enough to Drexler offensively for his clear defensive prominence to propel him to higher ranking :shrug:

Im pretty sure Karl scrapped saving GP on defense after G2. GP should go before Drexler IMO but the list is razor close from here on out.

Chronz
09-12-2011, 11:45 AM
Wow people hate AI now.

No we just love superior players, at least I do.

millerandco
09-12-2011, 11:56 AM
one question: could drexler take that a.i's 76's to the nba championship by himself???

if you answer no, then clearly you must vote iverson

Lakersfan2483
09-12-2011, 12:04 PM
Clyde is a top 20 player of all time and a top 5 SG, with a legit argument for 2nd best. If not for Jordan, we'd all be comparing contemporary SGs to The Glide. I was fortunately enough to grow up watching him, not only was he a tremendous scorer and leader, he was a very good rebounder for a swingman, and terrific defender who got his share of blocks and steals. In Houston towards the end of his career, he had a season where he led the team in points, steals and assists, and had several seasons leading the league in assists amongst SGs.

Amongst the list so far, I had him at #13, so #33 is pretty far out there IMO.

And amongst SGs, while Kobe has achieved more championships being fortunate enough to be on superior teams (no fault of his own, he's a lucky guy in that aspect), Drexler led three teams to the finals, with two of them where he was the only top level player. In terms of offense, while Kobe scored more points, Drexler was a more efficient and was a better rebounder and passer, and defensively he was superior to Kobe in every way.


Drexler is right where he needs to be in terms of voting. He was a great player, but not better than Kobe or Jerry West in terms of all time shooting guards and that is not even a debate. D. Wade has a case for being just as good if not better than Drexler also.

Study Kobe and West's careers and you will see that Drexler's peak/prime was not better than either players and they were more efficient also.

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 01:10 PM
lol at Lakers fans saying Drexler is not better than Kobe... :p


"study their careers" :laugh:

Study what? Numbers? Rings? :laugh:

The game of basketball is more than numbers. Statistics aren't even 10% of understanding the game...

Respect goes to AntiG, someone who really knows his game ;)

Chronz
09-12-2011, 01:50 PM
lol at Lakers fans saying Drexler is not better than Kobe... :p
Its not just Lakers fans, its pretty much the majority of the population by like a 95-5% edge (guesstimate)


"study their careers" :laugh:

Study what? Numbers? Rings? :laugh:

Numbers, Rings, Intangibles what more is there of importance? Skillsets? Well Kobe ***** on Clyde "I have to dribble with my down" Drexler.


The game of basketball is more than numbers. Statistics aren't even 10% of understanding the game...

False, if that were true you wouldnt have all these egg heads shaping the league. You ever wonder why they call things that dont show up in the boxscore the "little things that help teams win", its because they CLEARLY dont offset the BIG things that are a MUST to win.

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 01:58 PM
False, if that were true you wouldnt have all these egg heads shaping the league. You ever wonder why they call things that dont show up in the boxscore the "little things that help teams win", its because they CLEARLY dont offset the BIG things that are a MUST to win.

show me how a player who makes a great pass to a player who misses is shwon on the statistics table..

show me a player who passes the ball to another guy who just gives the ball to the guy next to him and earns the assist, how is he viewed by statistics?

show me how a pf or c that boxes out for his sg or sf teammate to grab the valuable rebound is shown on the statistics table

show me how tipping the ball to help your teammate gets the steal is shown on the statistics table

show me how making "smart fouls" is shown on the statistics table, other than just +1 pf?

show me how you can differ the efficiency and win shares #s of a sg that's mainly a shooter with a same kind of player on another better/worse team with the same abilities and performance...


show me how statistics show contested/unconstested shots go in/out...

show me how statistics show how many times per game a player is double teamed or even triple teamed...

show me how statistics show post moves.

show me how statistics show player off the ball movement...

show me how statistics show how good a player is at blocking the view of a shooter or ball handler with his body or hands...

I can go on.

Statistics are barely 10% of the game.

Chronz
09-12-2011, 02:21 PM
show me how a player who makes a great pass to a player who misses is shwon on the statistics table..
I dont need to, while GM's do track attempted assists, its not exactly vital information. The league average shooter isnt so much better or worse that he would drastically inflate or deflate a players stats.


show me a player who passes the ball to another guy who just gives the ball to the guy next to him and earns the assist, how is he viewed by statistics?
You mean the hockey assist? Typically these players see their teams assist % suffer without them on the court.


show me how a pf or c that boxes out for his sg or sf teammate to grab the valuable rebound is shown on the statistics table
Same as above, if the team is greatly dependent on his boxing out ability more than his actual rebounding then the team will typically fare better with him on the court which by vitrue the player splits would also show a correlation with his teammates grabbing more rebounds with him on the floor. (Think Jason Collins in his prime)


show me how tipping the ball to help your teammate gets the steal is shown on the statistics table

You would have to ask Pat Riley for those deflection stats, or Tommy Points. In any case you have yet to assess your 10% theory.


show me how making "smart fouls" is shown on the statistics table, other than just +1 pf?

Again I dont need to, player stats tell me far more important information than the small things ever could.


show me how you can differ the efficiency and win shares #s of a sg that's mainly a shooter with a same kind of player on another better/worse team with the same abilities and performance...

I can try but I need a more accurate description. In any case, statistics must be considered when evaluating these contextual issues.


show me how statistics show contested/unconstested shots go in/out...

For who? Those are only available for players today though if the sample size is great enough you can measure the defensive influence a player has on his team. For example if that player is such an impactful defender you would be able to see a vast improvement on his teams defensive efficiency. (think Russ joining the C's)


show me how statistics show how many times per game a player is double teamed or even triple teamed...

You speak as if this is always a great thing, Eddy Curry used to get doubles but he sucked passing out of them so it only made him and the team less effective. This was reflected in his otherwise high shooting marks but porous passing efficiency.


show me how statistics show post moves.

Sorry only available in the current era but more importantly would you take an inefficient post scorer over an efficient one who scores elsewhere?

Perhaps thats why your so badly misinformed about Elvin Hayes, you think your eyes matter more than the efficiency a player produces.


show me how statistics show player off the ball movement...

Only available from 2003+. Typically its a list revolving around guys who are assisted on a high rate of their possessions.


show me how statistics show how good a player is at blocking the view of a shooter or ball handler with his body or hands...



I can go on.

Im just waiting for the point, nobody said statistics capture 100% of the game but your 10% figure is laughable, if that were true you wouldnt have so many egg heads shaping the league.


Statistics are barely 10% of the game.
You have said NOTHING to substantiate this claim. Again, they refer to all the things you mentioned as the SMALL things, this is because the BIG things (What you produce) are far more important.

10%? LMFAO yea and Elvin Hayes is a legend. Tell me something, for someone who pretends to value intangibles above all else how can you have such a twisted view on Hayes? A guy whos stats and reputation fall well short of the company you put him in.

Bruno
09-12-2011, 02:41 PM
show me how a pf or c that boxes out for his sg or sf teammate to grab the valuable rebound is shown on the statistics table


Kinda like how Kobe pulled down 15 rebounds in game seven of the 2010 NBA Finals. Remember? When he pulled down more rebounds than Bostons starting C, PF and SG combined? Remember? In a series when the winner of the glass won every game? ;)

Obviously you won't be convinced, but neither will 95% of basketball fans. Kobe Bryant had a higher peak, a longer prime, more accolades, and more team success than Clyde Drexler. For at least 90% of NBA fans, it's not even a debate, for all those reasons. Good luck finding any SG list from any credible NBA mind who would take Drexler over Bryant. Your inability to give this generation and Bryant specifically a fair assessment hurts your credibility.

Swashcuff
09-12-2011, 02:53 PM
So the Clyde vs Kobe argument arises again. I see this time however it's not just NYKalltheway and I who'll be going at it. I'm going to love this.

Also NYKalltheway how can you say that Anti G knows his stuff when he has Clyde a 13 ahead of Jerry West? He has a hard on for Clyde he doesn't know his stuff because he thinks Drexler is better than Kobe.

Bruno
09-12-2011, 02:58 PM
Clyde is a top 20 player of all time and a top 5 SG, with a legit argument for 2nd best. If not for Jordan, we'd all be comparing contemporary SGs to The Glide. I was fortunately enough to grow up watching him, not only was he a tremendous scorer and leader, he was a very good rebounder for a swingman, and terrific defender who got his share of blocks and steals. In Houston towards the end of his career, he had a season where he led the team in points, steals and assists, and had several seasons leading the league in assists amongst SGs.

Amongst the list so far, I had him at #13, so #33 is pretty far out there IMO.

And amongst SGs, while Kobe has achieved more championships being fortunate enough to be on superior teams (no fault of his own, he's a lucky guy in that aspect), Drexler led three teams to the finals, with two of them where he was the only top level player. In terms of offense, while Kobe scored more points, Drexler was a more efficient and was a better rebounder and passer, and defensively he was superior to Kobe in every way.

Scoring efficiency transcends FG%. You have to take a players ability to get to the line, and their ability to knock down FT's on a high percentage into account when addressing scoring efficiency:

Kobe Bryant career TS%- .556%
Clyde Drexler career TS%- .547%

Stats and accolades suggest that defense is a wash, maybe slight edge Kobe.

Kobe Bryant- Nine selections to the NBA defensive first team (11 total selections).
Clyde Drexler- zero (*MJ).

Kobe Bryant total regular season defensive win-shares: 44.9
Total playoff defensive win-shares: 7.3

Clyde Drexler total regular season defensive win-shares: 49.9.
Total playoff defensive win-shares: 5.9


Im pretty sure Karl scrapped saving GP on defense after G2. GP should go before Drexler IMO but the list is razor close from here on out.
Thanks. x2

Bruno
09-12-2011, 03:11 PM
Drexler is right where he needs to be in terms of voting. He was a great player, but not better than Kobe or Jerry West in terms of all time shooting guards and that is not even a debate. D. Wade has a case for being just as good if not better than Drexler also.

Study Kobe and West's careers and you will see that Drexler's peak/prime was not better than either players and they were more efficient also.

x2. Wade has surpassed Drexler. In a discussion of peak it's not even a debate.

I'm still waiting for an analysis or statically break down for as to what makes Drexler so much better than Gary Payton. The glove was a superior defender, and has the offensive stats to hang with Drexler. I'm open to Drexler and Payton being equals. Just saying nobody has really presented a statical breakdown.

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 03:19 PM
man I love how these "statistics" PROVE anything :laugh2:

It's like comparing cars from the 50s based on photo albums

Bruno
09-12-2011, 03:33 PM
lol at Lakers fans saying Drexler is not better than Kobe... :p

"study their careers" :laugh:

Study what? Numbers? Rings? :laugh:

The game of basketball is more than numbers. Statistics aren't even 10% of understanding the game...



man I love how these "statistics" PROVE anything :laugh2:

It's like comparing cars from the 50s based on photo albums

So what should be considered in world where analysis ignores statical dominance and team success?

Statical comparison is nothing like comparing cars from the 50s based on photo albums, at all.

Using statistics isn't about "proving" things with 100% substantial proof. It is there to support what we witness on the court. Statistics are a reflection of production and efficiency. Watching in bias and ignoring statistics can be one in the same.

If statistics are such a waste of time then why do many a general manager and scout use it to analyze the production of their players. You're under the impression that only internet nerds observe stats to formulate their opinions. People directly involved in the league who have careers in the NBA do the exact same thing. Your criticism on statistics is groundless on that basis alone.

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 03:38 PM
Can you "support" how much impact a PF that sets the pick or a SF that sets a screen have with your magic numbers?

I never said statistics is for nerds or anything like that. I said it's not for basketball ;) And most of the world agrees with me. Don;'t know what's wrong with America thinking that basketball is a statistical game

Chacarron
09-12-2011, 03:47 PM
The use of statistics makes arguments objective. Anybody can say I think this player is better than another because I watched him play, but how can that be considered a valid argument when there is clear bias. The use of statistics gives the person making a claim credibility and impartial evidence to back up an argument.

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 03:53 PM
The use of statistics makes arguments objective. Anybody can say I think this player is better than another because I watched him play, but how can that be considered a valid argument when there is clear bias. The use of statistics gives the person making a claim credibility and impartial evidence to back up an argument.


but can you honestly suggest that a player of a 2nd tier team in the 80s playing in stacked teams where winning was first can compare to a player in the late 2000s of a 2nd tier team where stats come first, just by using statistics???
Example could be Kevin Love 2010-11 vs Wayman Tisdale 1985-86.

Stats are nice when you compare players of the same team or at least players of the same role/position IN THE SAME SEASON. The game has changed. Statistics show that if you wanna talk stats again (ie guards have inflated numbers these days compared to the rest before 2000s) You cannot use statistics to compare Jerry West and Kobe Bryant. You need videos of games. Anything else is like wathcing a race of dogs running in circles... /End

Bruno
09-12-2011, 03:53 PM
Can you "support" how much impact a PF that sets the pick or a SF that sets a screen have with your magic numbers

No. That's when I'd evaluate based off what I watched. There not being a specific stat in regards to setting screens does not render all other stats meaningless. You need to get real here.

I never said statistics is for nerds or anything like that. I said it's not for basketball ;) And most of the world agrees with me. Don;'t know what's wrong with America thinking that basketball is a statistical game

So stats aren't for basketball, even though general managers and scouts for professional NBA teams make it their business to study and address statistics regularly? How can you justify such an absurd opinion?

You've just shown your bias. You use "the opinion of the rest of the world" to support your own even though you have no evidence of the basketball loving population supporting such a notion, globally.

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 03:57 PM
I'd post a link to other basketball forums if I was allowed to and you can go there and ask/see for yourself ;)

Bruno
09-12-2011, 03:59 PM
The use of statistics makes arguments objective. Anybody can say I think this player is better than another because I watched him play, but how can that be considered a valid argument when there is clear bias. The use of statistics gives the person making a claim credibility and impartial evidence to back up an argument.

It's that simple. But he can't accept that because if he does he knows it renders his opinions (based off his emotion) contradictory. If he accepts statistics as the unbiased mediator between emotional evaluation then his feelings on Clyde vs. Kobe for example render nothing short of ridiculous. And he knows that, which is why he's so adamant about putting up this porous front bashing the validity of statical analysis (which the pros get paid to do).

Swashcuff
09-12-2011, 03:59 PM
I'd post a link to other basketball forums if I was allowed to and you can go there and ask/see for yourself ;)

PM the site's name not the actual link and tell me exactly where to go to find what you're talking about.

Bruno
09-12-2011, 04:02 PM
I'd post a link to other basketball forums if I was allowed to and you can go there and ask/see for yourself ;)

So the opinions of a handful of posters on other basketball forums which have no more than a few hundred people posting on them reflects the opinion "of the rest of the world". That's cop-out dude.

Swashcuff
09-12-2011, 04:08 PM
So the opinions of a handful of posters on other basketball forums which have no more than a few hundred people posting on them reflects the opinion "of the rest of the world". That's cop-out dude.

Bruno87 you don't understand. The experts are paid to brainwash us. We are brainwashed. The only ones who aren't are those that don't listen to the experts. The person who owns a shop on a corner in Alabama or Texas they are the ones who know about the NBA not those who have spent their entire adult lives following the game and it's history.

Also Americans don't know what's good basketball (apparently I'm an American as well :shrug: ), only Europeans know the game. These are prover facts by our resident conspiracy theorists.

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 04:10 PM
So the opinions of a handful of posters on other basketball forums which have no more than a few hundred people posting on them reflects the opinion "of the rest of the world". That's cop-out dude.

Different representation. 90% of the users here are American(and Canadian). The American way is using stats. Heck, people are even getting paid on basketball teams to talk about stats... I'm gonna say that over here and people will think I'm making this **** up :laugh2:

Chronz
09-12-2011, 04:33 PM
man I love how these "statistics" PROVE anything :laugh2:

It's like comparing cars from the 50s based on photo albums

Its not that they prove everything, its that they tell us more than your blind eye

Chronz
09-12-2011, 04:34 PM
Can you "support" how much impact a PF that sets the pick or a SF that sets a screen have with your magic numbers?
Can you tell me why I should care about the "Little things" over the Big ones?


I never said statistics is for nerds or anything like that. I said it's not for basketball ;) And most of the world agrees with me. Don;'t know what's wrong with America thinking that basketball is a statistical game
Most of the world doesnt run an NBA team.

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 04:48 PM
When you fail to work on the little things you never get in a position to succeed with the big things.

"little" things > "big" things, whatever those big things you claim are

Chronz
09-12-2011, 05:01 PM
but can you honestly suggest that a player of a 2nd tier team in the 80s playing in stacked teams where winning was first can compare to a player in the late 2000s of a 2nd tier team where stats come first, just by using statistics???
Example could be Kevin Love 2010-11 vs Wayman Tisdale 1985-86.
When the comparison is so lopsided, yes. Love ***** on Wayman Tisdale.

In 1986 Tisdale's Pacers went 26-56
Perhaps you meant to say 1987, they went .500. Not exactly stacked.


Stats are nice when you compare players of the same team or at least players of the same role/position IN THE SAME SEASON. The game has changed.
Only one word comes to mind when I hear people babble on about this... COP-OUT.


Statistics show that if you wanna talk stats again (ie guards have inflated numbers these days compared to the rest before 2000s)
LOL show me this proof and I will show you what your missing.


You cannot use statistics to compare Jerry West and Kobe Bryant. You need videos of . Anything else is like wathcing a race of dogs running in circles... /End
Heres the problem with your method, what do you do when someone sees the exact same footage of a players career but comes to a completely different conclusion about the players legacy?

Usually if a comparison is so lopsided the population at large will acknowledge him, as they have with Kobe vs Drexler. Usually people who are in the minority have SOMETHING to back their opinion on. When you shun away stats and majority, what exactly are you left with? No objective evidence, just pure minority opinion. WHOOPDEEDOO

Chronz
09-12-2011, 05:02 PM
When you fail to work on the little things you never get in a position to succeed with the big things.

"little" things > "big" things, whatever those big things you claim are
Maybe Im not understanding my own language but by literal definition, small things CANNOT be greater than the big ones. Who knows maybe Im in the minority, lets find out.

Chronz
09-12-2011, 05:05 PM
So the opinions of a handful of posters on other basketball forums which have no more than a few hundred people posting on them reflects the opinion "of the rest of the world". That's cop-out dude.
It is something though, Id be interested in expanding my bookmarked forums.

Avenged
09-12-2011, 05:14 PM
Different representation. 90% of the users here are American(and Canadian). The American way is using stats. Heck, people are even getting paid on basketball teams to talk about stats... I'm gonna say that over here and people will think I'm making this **** up :laugh2:

So are you saying the American way is wrong when it comes to basketball? What makes your way better?

JordansBulls
09-12-2011, 05:15 PM
Why was this restickied?

Swashcuff
09-12-2011, 05:15 PM
So are you saying the American way is wrong when it comes to basketball? What makes your way better?

They don't use stats. They're (I don't know if I'm included since I'm also not American) smarter bro. :eyebrow:

Geargo Wallace
09-12-2011, 05:21 PM
Chronz <3

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 05:27 PM
So are you saying the American way is wrong when it comes to basketball? What makes your way better?

it's not a matter of way. Europeans don't compare players, they just acknowledge that there are some great players. If you wanna compare players in Europe, you ask people who've seen them play, you don't use stats and ASSUME that because he grabbed 5+ rebounds than a modern guy he's a better rebounder...

Chronz, you're missing the big picture. No little things, no big things. If your TEAMmates cannot do the "little things", you will never be in a position to do those "big things". Is it so hard to grasp? Where I'm assuming big things = rings, at least the most important one for you.

Chronz
09-12-2011, 05:30 PM
Why was this restickied?

The pure pwnage makes it worthy

Bruno
09-12-2011, 05:30 PM
Why was this restickied?

I just checked, it isn't stickied.

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 05:34 PM
The pure pwnage makes it worthy

pwnage?

:facepalm:

The fact that you have a different opinion on comparing players means that you're superior and owning me? :crazy: :horse: :horse:

Bruno
09-12-2011, 05:35 PM
Who ever said the small things aren't factored into statical analysis?

For you NYK:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 05:37 PM
Who ever said the small things aren't factored into statical analysis?

For you NYK:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html

long read and past midnight so I'll give it a go tomorrow

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bowenbr01.html

Best defensive wing of the decade has NO STATISTICAL dominance, not even in Defensive Win Shares. Why's that? I'm guessing Bowen was a terrible player overall...

Chronz
09-12-2011, 05:38 PM
it's not a matter of way. Europeans don't compare players, they just acknowledge that there are some great players. If you wanna compare players in Europe, you ask people who've seen them play, you don't use stats and ASSUME that because he grabbed 5+ rebounds than a modern guy he's a better rebounder...
Cmon bro, thats the biggest load of crap Ive ever seen. It most definitely means hes a better rebounder, the fact that you totally ignore pace/mpg just compounds your obvious lack of understanding.


Chronz, you're missing the big picture. No little things, no big things. If your TEAMmates cannot do the "little things", you will never be in a position to do those "big things". Is it so hard to grasp? Where I'm assuming big things = rings, at least the most important one for you.

Your making the assumption that I said small things do not matter, I dont know whats getting lost in translation but its pretty obvious from my post:

You ever wonder why they call things that dont show up in the boxscore the "little things that help teams win"

Clearly Ive acknowledged that they help teams win, but Im making the rather important distinction that they are in fact considered "Small" and identify them as things that generally dont show up in the statline, its only logical to assume that, if those aspects are considered SMALL, that the things that do show up in the boxscore are LARGE or at the least Larger part of the game. This isnt to mean they are automatically better, just that it doesnt matter how many small things you do, if your a subpar finisher despite carrying a minimal role offensively, there is literally NOTHING you can do to offset that negative impact.

Theres a balance to the game that YOU dont understand. Plz share the link with me and Ill preach to your brethren .

Bruno
09-12-2011, 05:38 PM
It is something though, Id be interested in expanding my bookmarked forums.

I'm having trouble grasping why Europe of all places would have such an opposite view on basketball analysis than we do state-side.

Some of the most unique opinions in the NBA forum come from european born posters. I disagree with most of it but it's interesting to see such different opinions, based on where one's from. Different places, different opinions I guess.

Chronz
09-12-2011, 05:40 PM
pwnage?

:facepalm:

The fact that you have a different opinion on comparing players means that you're superior and owning me? :crazy: :horse: :horse:

Im not being serious. I do believe it but I was only joking when I said it. Somebody is getting pwned, it could be me, but a debate like this only has a winner and a loser.

Chronz
09-12-2011, 05:41 PM
I'm having trouble grasping why Europe of all places would have such an opposite view on basketball analysis than we do state-side.

Some of the most unique opinions in the NBA forum come from european born posters. I disagree with most of it but it's interesting to see such different opinions, based on where one's from. Different places, different opinions I guess.
I know of several beyond this board that dont share their opinion, but they may have been tainted by the American influence. I want to see what the sheltered/isolated have to back their case on the game we all watch, though I argue that they have definitely been less exposed to the game.

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 05:45 PM
Cmon bro, thats the biggest load of crap Ive ever seen. It most definitely means hes a better rebounder, the fact that you totally ignore pace/mpg just compounds your obvious lack of understanding.



what am I ignoring exactly? You're talking to me about mpg, pace etc? Me? The person who did a whole analysis of why Kobe's stats are inflated compared to Drexler INCLUDING HIS +2 MPG?? :confused:



Theres a balance to the game that YOU dont understand. Plz share the link with me and Ill preach to your brethren .

First of all, people don't gather and talk negative about statistics. They compare players WITHOUT statistics. If anyone uses stats, he's probably gonna get ignored, because stats are baseless.

Best example would be David Lee. David Lee was an all star under D'Antoni, then as a Warrior he was below par compared to his last season. Why is that? Did he lose his touch? Or were his stats inflated the year before? Why does that happen? Doesn't that prove that stats vary from team to team? Team style to team style?

NYKalltheway
09-12-2011, 05:51 PM
I know of several beyond this board that dont share their opinion, but they may have been tainted by the American influence. I want to see what the sheltered/isolated have to back their case on the game we all watch, though I argue that they have definitely been less exposed to the game.

I've been attending games since I was 3...

I was playing for a basketball team from age 5 till 15 (serious injury stopped me)

I qualified for FIBA licensed basketball coach at age 18

I've watched at least 3 NBA games a week from 1995 till 2003 and as many Knicks games possible from 2004 till this day and lots of playoff series.

I've watched at least 400 European basketball games till this day, at all levels.

I've watched all NCAA Final Fours from 1998 till 2010

I have an archive of NBA and European national team basketball games from the late 70s till the mid 2000s which I've watched the majority of.


Are you implying that I have limited association with the game of basketball?

Chronz
09-12-2011, 06:03 PM
what am I ignoring exactly? You're talking to me about mpg, pace etc? Me? The person who did a whole analysis of why Kobe's stats are inflated compared to Drexler INCLUDING HIS +2 MPG?? :confused:
OK I didnt know that. But considering the pace has decreased in the modern era its obvious that MPG being equal, a rebound in 2010 is worth more than it is in 19__.



First of all, people don't gather and talk negative about statistics. They compare players WITHOUT statistics. If anyone uses stats, he's probably gonna get ignored, because stats are baseless.

I just want to see what you guys say when the other disagrees on the same point, as for me, I want to see what they can say to make my statistical claims baseless. Saying stats dont tell the whole story doesnt change the fact that it can support a SPECIFIC story. For example, if someone told you that Steve Nash is a better FT shooter than Kobe, would you tell someone who cites FT% that stats are baseless?

They obviously serve a purpose, one that I have never seen you understand. Maybe Im being forgetful


Best example would be David Lee. David Lee was an all star under D'Antoni, then as a Warrior he was below par compared to his last season. Why is that? Did he lose his touch? Or were his stats inflated the year before? Why does that happen? Doesn't that prove that stats vary from team to team? Team style to team style?

Its not inflated at all, it just means he was playing in a role that maximized his skillset offensively. What you think is different about his game is up to you but you better have some sort of quantifiable proof to it. If you were to ask me I would look at several metrics to help me find the answer.

Chronz
09-12-2011, 06:04 PM
I've been attending games since I was 3...

I was playing for a basketball team from age 5 till 15 (serious injury stopped me)

I qualified for FIBA licensed basketball coach at age 18

I've watched at least 3 NBA games a week from 1995 till 2003 and as many Knicks games possible from 2004 till this day and lots of playoff series.

I've watched at least 400 European basketball games till this day, at all levels.

I've watched all NCAA Final Fours from 1998 till 2010

I have an archive of NBA and European national team basketball games from the late 70s till the mid 2000s which I've watched the majority of.


Are you implying that I have limited association with the game of basketball?
You are a sample of 1, are you seriously trying to argue that Euros have been as exposed to the NBA Product as much as Americans have?

Hellcrooner
09-12-2011, 06:26 PM
You are a sample of 1, are you seriously trying to argue that Euros have been as exposed to the NBA Product as much as Americans have?

nope, but we also have our own thing to watch, in various levels, plus nations competitions,

basket is basket after all.

Chronz
09-12-2011, 06:30 PM
nope, but we also have our own thing to watch, in various levels, plus nations competitions,

basket is basket after all.

According to this guy here its not, he is trying to say the game within the same organization cant even be compared year to year so what hope do you guys have of understanding the NBA if your main source of exposure is Euro-Ball?

Im with you though, how about we acknowledge that the game ISNT that complex, basketball is basketball, obviously there are intricate differences throughout the world and time, but the concepts of the game have been the same. Put the ball in the ****ing hole. You measure players based on how well they help their team do it and how well they help the team prevent it.

NYKalltheway
09-13-2011, 03:25 AM
FT, I'm with you there. A guy is standing alone and has all the time in the world to shoot a free throw. FT% is the only argument there.

I'm not saying I'm exposed to the NBA product more. As you said, basketball isn't that complex, what you see is what you get. All these statistics just make the game weirder (and for some more interesting and from what I learned during my time on PSD, people actually are getting paid for that in the NBA :p )

Chronz, on the D Lee example. You said "maximized his skillset offensively". So what if other BETTER players have not been in that situation yet? Or ever? Do we take it away from them because they're coaches sucked or played them out of position or played them on a role that doesn't suit them? Statistics as I repeatedly said, are good for a team, to compare within the team, and also compared how your team fares against other teams defensively and offensively (ie the games between them). Using statistics to compare various players OVER TIME is as wrong as you can get. I get that for most people it's the only tool of comparison, but adjusting pace/mpg doesn't do the trick. Otherwise Elgin Baylor would have been a top 5 player of all time.

Chronz
09-13-2011, 03:23 PM
FT, I'm with you there. A guy is standing alone and has all the time in the world to shoot a free throw. FT% is the only argument there.
Nope, its just the easiest one to explain. Id LOVE to see how they go about diminishing other statistical examples.


I'm not saying I'm exposed to the NBA product more. As you said, basketball isn't that complex, what you see is what you get. All these statistics just make the game weirder (and for some more interesting and from what I learned during my time on PSD, people actually are getting paid for that in the NBA :p )

Wait, so now your saying basketball is basketball, meaning what you see in your daily life gives you some kind of insight to the game right? Then you have to understand why we CAN compare different eras.


Chronz, on the D Lee example. You said "maximized his skillset offensively". So what if other BETTER players have not been in that situation yet? Or ever? Do we take it away from them because they're coaches sucked or played them out of position or played them on a role that doesn't suit them?
No you simply rank players based on what they have proven.
Think of the alternative, crediting players based on what you think they could have done with zero evidence for it. Its not as if you can say so and so could do like so and so, without any sort of statistical backing.

Let me put it this way, when it comes to NBA teams scouting for talent and deciding what to do with that talent they turn to various statistics to help them project their own players rate of production and the teams offensive efficiency. Right or Wrong, they have to consider the stats.

When Wade-Bron-Bosh came together, nobody thought they were all going to produce at the same rate as they did before, that you use this as something against the field only exposes your own incompetence.

For example with Lee we had several years of data saying he could play at that level, in his years as a reserve his PER wasnt far off from his peak season, suggesting that he could handle a greater load. When he finally got it he thrived, that his #'s declined his first year with a new team is typical of guys who have to learn a whole new system/teammates but it was also exasperated by the play of someone I consider cancerous (Monta) and his own troubles with injuries (he had an infected elbow), he also played more PF (which is something you have to account for when discussing stats) and despite all this he was still a very productive player.





Statistics as I repeatedly said, are good for a team, to compare within the team, and also compared how your team fares against other teams defensively and offensively (ie the between them).
Your free to feel this way but you have said nothing to substantiate your claims, specifically your laughably low 10% figure.


Using statistics to compare various players OVER TIME is as wrong as you can get.
LOL wat? How do you go from saying basketball is basketball, essentially saying that what you see in Europe can give you insight to the game, yet we cant even look at players within the NBA. NBA Basketball in the 80's is more of an apples to apples comparison than ANY era of basketball compared to Euro ball.

So if you think we cant compare players in the NBA then you have to admit how meaningless your experiences outside the NBA truly are. You cant have it both ways.


I get that for most people it's the only tool of comparison, but adjusting pace/mpg doesn't do the trick. Otherwise Elgin Baylor would have been a top 5 player of all time.

This makes no sense, all it tells me is you dont know jack about what your trying to critique.

NYKalltheway
09-13-2011, 05:46 PM
you seriously got nothing from what I said and just replied because you felt you ought to... we can't communicate here, it's as if you read Chinese and reply in hieroglyphs :/