PDA

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



mightybosstone
09-17-2014, 08:26 AM
Voting for #30 has concluded and PSD's Official #30 NBA Player of all time is....

Clyde Drexler

The List:

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...7#post28837457

I'm just taking over this poll because it appears ManRam is really busy right now and I'd like to see this thing continue going. I didn't see any nominations in the last thread, so I apologize if I missed any. If the mods could please sticky this when they get a chance, I would appreciate it.

mightybosstone
09-17-2014, 11:40 AM
Wow. No votes or posts so far.

Well, I'll start it off by saying that I'm torn between Reed, Thomas and McHale. I'm definitely leaning toward Reed, but I'd like to see some legitimate discussion and debate first. What is everyone else thinking?

abe_froman
09-17-2014, 04:54 PM
thomas or reed-either is fine with me,but atm i have thomas with a slight edge...though i can be persuaded to flip my vote to the other

SLY WILLIAMS
09-17-2014, 05:43 PM
I think I will stick with Mchale-Isiah-Drexler.

Its not fair to Willis but I try not to vote for guys I was too young to see play a lot.

JPMMalone
09-17-2014, 07:31 PM
Is there any reason why Elvin Hayes a PF at 6'9 with long arms and weighed 260 with 30000points, 15000rebounds 3000 blocks and led his team to a title is omitted from the voting?

mightybosstone
09-17-2014, 07:56 PM
Is there any reason why Elvin Hayes a PF at 6'9 with long arms and weighed 260 with 30000points, 15000rebounds 3000 blocks and led his team to a title is omitted from the voting?

Nobody nominated him. If you'd like to nominate him, he can be included on the following vote. Although I think it's going to be a while before Hayes goes. His basic numbers and career achievements sound great on paper, but he was insanely inefficient historically, even for big men of the 70s. The title is also nice, but that Bullets team is one of the great "team teams" in NBA history. Dandridge and Unseld were arguably every bit as important to that squad as Hayes was.

mightybosstone
09-17-2014, 07:58 PM
Six votes so far and all for different players. That's unusual. Let's see some more votes in this poll tonight.

KnicksorBust
09-17-2014, 10:34 PM
Next time I am on my computer I will vote for Reed. At this point he is the easy choice. League and Finals MVP who was a two-way stud. There is only one other player who fits that description and it aint Zeke.

mightybosstone
09-17-2014, 11:33 PM
Wow.... Kidd has two votes already? If I were ranking point guards left on the board, I'd probably rank him fifth behind Thomas, Payton, Paul and Nash. I'd like to see those Kidd voters justify their votes.

Raidaz4Life
09-18-2014, 03:18 AM
I actually think this is Durant pretty easily here

Bruno
09-18-2014, 04:26 AM
Wow.... Kidd has two votes already? If I were ranking point guards left on the board, I'd probably rank him fifth behind Thomas, Payton, Paul and Nash. I'd like to see those Kidd voters justify their votes.

2nd all time in assists, 2nd in steals, 3rd in three point shots made, 3rd in minutes played, 10x all-star, 27th in win-shares, 9 defensive teams. it's a nice resume.

mightybosstone
09-18-2014, 08:35 AM
2nd all time in assists, 2nd in steals, 3rd in three point shots made, 3rd in minutes played, 10x all-star, 27th in win-shares, 9 defensive teams. it's a nice resume.

It's a good resume, but how much of that comes from the fact that he's third in career minutes played? Paul and Kidd both have superior career AST% and Thomas isn't far behind him. And Kidd was also a career 34.9% 3-point shooter, so the 3-pointers made is far less impressive.

I liked Kidd as a player, don't get me wrong. I rooted for those Nets teams with Kidd, Carter and Jefferson when I was a kid and really liked to watch him play. But when I look back at his career, I question how good of a player he really was. Could he get other players involved offensively? Sure, he was phenomenal at that. But so were the other point guards I mentioned.

The real issue I have with Kidd is his overall offensive game. Because for much of his career, he was pretty much a slightly better version of Rajon Rondo. He only topped 16 points per game four times and it took him at least 14 FGA per game to do that every season. His career FG% was 40% and his career TS% is 50.7%. And when you consider that he became a pretty damn good 3-point shooter later in his career, that's especially concerning.

You mentioned that he's 27th in career WS, but it bothers me that he's only 73rd in career OWS and was only top 5 in OWS one time in 19 seasons. For a guy who was supposed to be an elite offensive player because of his distribution skills, his overall offensive game was detrimental at times to his team's success. And as good as he was at distributing the ball, both Paul and Nash are/were far better. Thomas wasn't much worse, but at least the guy could score. And Payton wasn't remotely the distributor those guys were, but he was probably the most effective scorer of the five, he was relatively efficient and he's probably the greatest defensive PG of all time.

So Kidd might have the longevity on those guys, but they were leaps and bounds better overall offensive players than he was.

mrblisterdundee
09-18-2014, 03:24 PM
Wow. No votes or posts so far.

Well, I'll start it off by saying that I'm torn between Reed, Thomas and McHale. I'm definitely leaning toward Reed, but I'd like to see some legitimate discussion and debate first. What is everyone else thinking?

I went with Thomas. He led a Bad Boy Pistons team that took out Jordan's Bulls two years in a row. The first championship he won in 1989 was against a particularly stacked Showtime Lakers, too.
Isiah's stats were obviously great, but he was also a great leader and had an appropirately dickish attitude. Too bad he's a dick off the basketball court, too.

mrblisterdundee
09-18-2014, 03:26 PM
I actually think this is Durant pretty easily here

Why don't we wait on that until Durant's even got 10 years and/or some championships under his belt?

Chronz
09-18-2014, 03:54 PM
Im not a big fan of longevity but I really dont like it towards the tail end of the goats. I get the feeling its the opposite for most, that you guys would rather have the long years served and accumulating counting stats that go with it. To me its akin to asking if you would rather have a decade of 55 win seasons and the probability of championships that go with that level of play, or if you would go all in for a few 60 win seasons.

Having a long career is great and all but at what point does an MVP like Reed get chosen? I would honestly have him over Patrick Ewing if I were building a team and Ewing went long ago.

Of all the players left, nobody really stands out in terms of All-NBA seasons (He has as many as Zeke) so I feel like his lack of longevity is overstated. That said, his case isn't overwhelming hes just a legendary player that Im probably overrating abit, but I like the tradition we've established for honoring bigmen for their 2-way impact on championship caliber teams.


GP, Dwight, Nique and Gervin are the guys with the most All-NBA selections but I would argue only GP/Nique had legit comp for all available spots.



If we value longevity, shouldn't those guys go next? How do you guys break down longevity anyways?

todu82
09-19-2014, 10:10 AM
Willis Reed.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-19-2014, 11:54 AM
I appreciate Isiah's game but I would take Mchale first then Mchale. There is a reason Barkley used to say Mchale was the best.

NYKalltheway
09-19-2014, 03:55 PM
Wow.... Kidd has two votes already? If I were ranking point guards left on the board, I'd probably rank him fifth behind Thomas, Payton, Paul and Nash. I'd like to see those Kidd voters justify their votes.

No way Nash over Kidd. No way Paul over Kidd. Payton over Kidd is debateable.

KnicksorBust
09-19-2014, 07:47 PM
Wow.... Kidd has two votes already? If I were ranking point guards left on the board, I'd probably rank him fifth behind Thomas, Payton, Paul and Nash. I'd like to see those Kidd voters justify their votes.

No way Nash over Kidd. No way Paul over Kidd. Payton over Kidd is debateable.

Paul slaughters Kidd

mightybosstone
09-20-2014, 08:56 AM
No way Nash over Kidd.
This has always been a fun debate for me, because they were two great all-time point guards playing in the same era with completely different play styles. But I've always hated that people were quick to give Kidd the edge because he's a superior defensive player. While that is true, Nash is/was leaps and bounds better offensively than Kidd. In addition to being a superior distributor, passer and overall point guard, Nash was in a completely different stratosphere as a scorer and shooter.

We're talking about a PG who's 15th in career TS% (a remarkable feat in itself) at 60.5% versus a guy whose career 50.7 TS% is atrocious by today's standards and would have been mediocre 40 or 50 years ago. Nash's advanced numbers crush Kidd's, as do Nash's basic and advanced postseason numbers. Hell, Nash was a two-time MVP. Not that he necessarily deserved it, but it goes to show you how highly thought of he was within his era as a leader and the kind of impact he had on his teams.


No way Paul over Kidd.
I don't get this one. Why? Sure, Kidd got further in the playoffs than Paul did, but consider the competition in the Eastern Conference in the early 2000s compared to the competition in the West in the last decade. It's apples and oranges. Also, Kidd was just not remotely the player that Paul is. Kidd's best statistical season was probably 02-03 (98-99 was arguably better, but he only played 50 games). He posted a 19/9/6/2 with a 22.2 PER, 11.3 WS, .182 WS/48, a 52.6 TS% and a 42.2 AST%.

That's a phenomenal season by most point guard standards, but it was be horrible by Paul's standards. If Paul posted those numbers next season, I'd wonder what the hell was wrong with him. Last season, Paul posted a 19/11/4/3 with a 25.9 PER, 58% TS%, 48.9 AST%, 12.2 WS (in only 62 games) and a .270 WS/48. The guy is a monster. In fact, in the last seven years, Paul hasn't had a PER under 23.7, WS/48 under .204. AST% under 43.8 or a TS% under 57.6%. You can't really bring up defense with these guys either. Paul is a 6x All-defensive player in only nine seasons and Kidd was a 9x All-defensive guy in 19 seasons.


Payton over Kidd is debateable.
This is a pretty great argument, too, but Payton's got a pretty substantial edge as a scorer and a defender. And both guys led their teams to the Finals against a superior opponent and lost and later won a title as a role player at the end of their careers. I'm feeling lazy, so I don't feel like posting the stats here, but pretty much the only thing Kidd has an edge in is AST% and rebounding. I'd easily take Payton for his all-around more superior game.

NYKalltheway
09-21-2014, 05:49 AM
If you rate Steve Nash so high, I'd love to see where you rate Mark Price (who imo was a superior player)

I don't see a basketball argument on why Paul is superior to Kidd. Playoffs and stats, that's not how you compare individuals.

Kidd and Payton are almost a wash but Kidd is more versatile. Defensively they're pretty much equal but it depends on what sort of defending you rate higher.

mightybosstone
09-21-2014, 10:47 AM
If you rate Steve Nash so high, I'd love to see where you rate Mark Price (who imo was a superior player)
How so? At best, Price is a very poor man's version of Nash. Let's see you actually back up your point with some facts, stats or logic.


I don't see a basketball argument on why Paul is superior to Kidd. Playoffs and stats, that's not how you compare individuals.
Okay.... How about this... Paul is/was an absolutely superior offensive player. He is a hyper efficient scorer and a better passer and distributor. Kidd was one of the least efficient offensive stars of his era, and Paul is/was one of the most efficient offensive stars of his. Defensively, they're about a wash. Kidd was great on the glass and could defend either guard position, but Paul continues to be one of the most dominant turnover creators of his era. In addition to being third all-time in steals per game, Paul draws offensive fouls about as well as anyone in the league.

And, yes, stats is exactly how you can compare individuals. If you have two similarly talented players and you want to know who was better, you look to see who was more productive in the regular season and postseason. It's not the fault of the rest of us to prove that to you. It's your fault for absolutely refusing to accept that fact.


Kidd and Payton are almost a wash but Kidd is more versatile. Defensively they're pretty much equal but it depends on what sort of defending you rate higher.
Payton was the better defender, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who believed otherwise. And I'd take his skill as a scorer over Kidd's "versatility." I gotta say, man. This post of yours was really, really weak. I spent all that time breaking down players' productivity and you come back with 1-2 vague sentences with absolutely no points or facts to back up anything you're saying. Weak sauce. You're better than that.

Mengxing
09-22-2014, 12:46 AM
I actually think this is james pretty easily here:clap: (http://www.thenbajerseystore.com/)

TheCatch
09-22-2014, 01:30 PM
Kidd and Paul are more like around 100. Maybe Paul around 80 and Kidd around 90.

KnicksorBust
09-22-2014, 06:03 PM
I don't see a basketball argument on why Paul is superior to Kidd. Playoffs and stats, that's not how you compare individuals.

:laugh: Chris Paul is a significantly more well-rounded and effective offensive player than Kidd (passing, shooting, driving) and an elite defensive player.

It couldn't be much simpler and it's all basketball.

NYKalltheway
09-23-2014, 08:06 AM
:laugh: Chris Paul is a significantly more well-rounded and effective offensive player than Kidd (passing, shooting, driving) and an elite defensive player.

It couldn't be much simpler and it's all basketball.

What makes him more effective offensively? He might be superior to two of the three things you mentioned (he's not a superior passer, equivalent is the word) but that's not all there is in offense. Kidd is also an elite defensive player and a much better one than Paul. You can give Paul that he's quicker if that counts for anything.

FlashBolt
09-24-2014, 01:41 AM
What makes him more effective offensively? He might be superior to two of the three things you mentioned (he's not a superior passer, equivalent is the word) but that's not all there is in offense. Kidd is also an elite defensive player and a much better one than Paul. You can give Paul that he's quicker if that counts for anything.

CP3 is much better than Kidd at the offensive end. Not even worth debating that. Defensively, it might be a toss-up but I think Kidd was a smarter player.

FlashBolt
09-24-2014, 01:42 AM
It's kind of embarrassing that AI has gotten 3 votes. I mean really, what has he really done that was significant?

NYKalltheway
09-24-2014, 07:28 AM
CP3 is much better than Kidd at the offensive end. Not even worth debating that. Defensively, it might be a toss-up but I think Kidd was a smarter player.

You mean he scores more? What does "offensive end" means to you? For me it's about ALL parts of the offense, including positioning and playmaking abilities. Things that end up on the box score aren't all there is to offense.

Chronz
09-24-2014, 09:56 AM
Yeah, Kidd was a pretty mediocre offensive player, his teams were rarely elite on that end as well, cant see what anyone would have going for them in an argument vs CP3.

Chronz
09-24-2014, 12:33 PM
You mean he scores more? What does "offensive end" means to you? For me it's about ALL parts of the offense, including positioning and playmaking abilities. Things that end up on the box score aren't all there is to offense.

ALL? Could you be more specific? Is there suppose to be something honorable about missing shots at a higher rate?

But you're right about there being acts beyond the box score, CP3 has them as well, the impact of his well rounded offensive game goes beyond his own makes and misses. You know what tho, the reason they are known as "the small things that win games" is because they can be pretty minor in comparison to the measurables. I would understand if Kidd was consistently leading elite offenses or something but hes not exactly Steve Nash/Magic Johnson in that regard. Neither is CP3, but I dont see how Kidd is in the same stratosphere offensively.


The argument for Kidd comes on the defensive end, and for those who scoff at the notion, they really underrate the impact Kidd's teams have felt from his addition on that end. He doesn't turn teams offenses around, he turns their defense and uses it to fuel their offense.

Chronz
09-24-2014, 12:35 PM
CP3 is much better than Kidd at the offensive end. Not even worth debating that. Defensively, it might be a toss-up but I think Kidd was a smarter player.
Its no toss up, Kidd had the greater team impact. And the Longevity argument is his.

KnicksorBust
09-24-2014, 12:42 PM
Its no toss up, Kidd had the greater team impact. And the Longevity argument is his.

Who do you rank higher all-time?

Chronz
09-24-2014, 01:38 PM
Who do you rank higher all-time?

Kidd. Cuz accolades

JordansBulls
09-24-2014, 09:09 PM
So the project stopped once Isiah got on board?

:p

DarrylDawkins
09-25-2014, 04:20 PM
Kidd. Cuz accolades

so on other peoples opinions (accolades). You let people like Mike Breen and Tim Cowlishaw form your opinon of the players?

mightybosstone
09-25-2014, 11:53 PM
so on other peoples opinions (accolades). You let people like Mike Breen and Tim Cowlishaw form your opinon of the players?
You're remarkably transparent. How many dupe accounts have you made this point? It's got to be past double digits...

mightybosstone
09-25-2014, 11:54 PM
So the project stopped once Isiah got on board?

:p

I just don't have the time to keep this thing going right now with the way things are at work, and ManRam is clearly too busy as well. It's going to have to take someone with a lot of extra time on their hands to keep this thing going at this point.

YAALREADYKNO
09-26-2014, 09:30 AM
we really comparing cp3 to kidd? kidd led two mediocre nets squads to two nba finals. Cp3 arguably has the most talented roster in the league and cant get out of the 2nd round lol

Chronz
09-26-2014, 10:50 AM
we really comparing cp3 to kidd? kidd led two mediocre nets squads to two nba finals. Cp3 arguably has the most talented roster in the league and cant get out of the 2nd round lol

In a world where we ignore support and competition , this would be a greater deal. I'm not seeing the lol that u seem to.

YAALREADYKNO
09-26-2014, 12:06 PM
In a world where we ignore support and competition , this would be a greater deal. I'm not seeing the lol that u seem to.

the "lol" is for all the people who think cp3 is up there with kidd already

YAALREADYKNO
09-26-2014, 12:07 PM
cp3 might pass up kidd when its all said and done but as of right now people on this website over hype him. I seen this one dude who even said paul is as good as isiah Thomas smh

Chronz
09-26-2014, 02:35 PM
cp3 might pass up kidd when its all said and done but as of right now people on this website over hype him. I seen this one dude who even said paul is as good as isiah Thomas smh

That depends on what you are asking. I also think CP3 is better than Isiah ever was. What I dont think is that hes had a better career based on accolades, longevity and team success. But in terms of individual performance, CP3 is ahead of someone like Isiah IMO.


In your post you give an example of both, like when you insinuate that CP3 may well pass Kidd one day, well what would that take? Would he need to improve as a player or simply achieve more team success/years served? Because CP3 is no longer at the top of his game, I can tell you that much. Hes a better 2-way player today but I miss seeing the CP3 who could dunk around Dwight Howard.

YAALREADYKNO
09-26-2014, 04:37 PM
That depends on what you are asking. I also think CP3 is better than Isiah ever was. What I dont think is that hes had a better career based on accolades, longevity and team success. But in terms of individual performance, CP3 is ahead of someone like Isiah IMO.


In your post you give an example of both, like when you insinuate that CP3 may well pass Kidd one day, well what would that take? Would he need to improve as a player or simply achieve more team success/years served? Because CP3 is no longer at the top of his game, I can tell you that much. Hes a better 2-way player today but I miss seeing the CP3 who could dunk around Dwight Howard.

cp3 over isiah??? and yes, cp3 would have to get some more accolades to pass up some of the better point guards in history. When did he ever dunk around Dwight howard? Even in his prime he wasn't the most athletic PG. He had speed and quickness but as far as dunking like rose and westbrook, he doesn't come close to that kind of athleticism

tredigs
09-26-2014, 11:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh_7i4gHNNA
cp3 over isiah??? and yes, cp3 would have to get some more accolades to pass up some of the better point guards in history. When did he ever dunk around Dwight howard? Even in his prime he wasn't the most athletic PG. He had speed and quickness but as far as dunking like rose and westbrook, he doesn't come close to that kind of athleticism

NYKalltheway
09-27-2014, 06:30 AM
That depends on what you are asking. I also think CP3 is better than Isiah ever was. What I dont think is that hes had a better career based on accolades, longevity and team success. But in terms of individual performance, CP3 is ahead of someone like Isiah IMO.



You and many other people in this forum don't seem to get it.

Isiah and other legends of his era didn't play for individual performance. They played to win. They would sacrifice their future box score commentary for the team. Today the "stars" play for themselves, they pad their stats and at the end of the day, they play for money or in the hope of a greater contract. There's no comparison and you have to get this in context.

The fact that people argue that there's more talent around the league these days than in the Golden Era of the NBA yet today's stars play longer minutes (at useless games) should be something you have to consider as well but no one seems to do so.

Isiah Thomas is one of the greatest PGs of all time. Paul is not. It's as simple as that. Paul might be the best PG of our generation but that's not good enough. This is a generation of score-first guards and everyone who averages 20ppg is immediately compared with Isiah as if is scoring was the only thing he did. Same thing with MJ, everyone who dunks or scores a lot and plays SG is always gonna be compared to MJ (eg Kobe, Wade).

When you show me a player that gives everything he has for the W and his team, I'm gonna say he's among the top players of all time. We haven't seen one of those since Duncan and Garnett and those guys are gonna retire sometime soon.

tredigs
09-27-2014, 12:53 PM
You and many other people in this forum don't seem to get it.

Isiah and other legends of his era didn't play for individual performance. They played to win. They would sacrifice their future box score commentary for the team. Today the "stars" play for themselves, they pad their stats and at the end of the day, they play for money or in the hope of a greater contract. There's no comparison and you have to get this in context.

The fact that people argue that there's more talent around the league these days than in the Golden Era of the NBA yet today's stars play longer minutes (at useless games) should be something you have to consider as well but no one seems to do so.

Isiah Thomas is one of the greatest PGs of all time. Paul is not. It's as simple as that. Paul might be the best PG of our generation but that's not good enough. This is a generation of score-first guards and everyone who averages 20ppg is immediately compared with Isiah as if is scoring was the only thing he did. Same thing with MJ, everyone who dunks or scores a lot and plays SG is always gonna be compared to MJ (eg Kobe, Wade).

When you show me a player that gives everything he has for the W and his team, I'm gonna say he's among the top players of all time. We haven't seen one of those since Duncan and Garnett and those guys are gonna retire sometime soon.

So, we are to assume that Derrick Rose was on that trajectory for you? It's definitely an uphill battle to challenge his effort. How about Westbrook? While you can challenge his decision making ability, I would contend that he's doing what he believes is best for the team -- and there is absolutely no denying his effort. In fact, I would argue most players give it their all the majority of the time they're on the court, although I do agree that competition levels overall are clearly down from the early 90's.

I would also agree that CP3 does not give it his all for the 36 minutes he's in (he has spurts, but generally waits until the end of the game to go full bore more noticeably than any great player in history off my recollection). That said, he is still an incredible talent with close to zero weaknesses who helps teams win at an elite level, period. Is he better than Zeke ever was? That's a tough call. But your open/shut arguments that - without fail - favors past greats over current ones is a tiresome act.

YAALREADYKNO
09-27-2014, 03:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh_7i4gHNNA
















That was a nice dunk but he still isn't the athlete Westbrook and rose are and people still over hype him on this website. What has he done in his career to be considered better than Thomas and Kidd? To say he's better than isiah is ridiculous

NYKalltheway
09-27-2014, 05:17 PM
So, we are to assume that Derrick Rose was on that trajectory for you? It's definitely an uphill battle to challenge his effort. How about Westbrook? While you can challenge his decision making ability, I would contend that he's doing what he believes is best for the team -- and there is absolutely no denying his effort. In fact, I would argue most players give it their all the majority of the time they're on the court, although I do agree that competition levels overall are clearly down from the early 90's.

I would also agree that CP3 does not give it his all for the 36 minutes he's in (he has spurts, but generally waits until the end of the game to go full bore more noticeably than any great player in history off my recollection). That said, he is still an incredible talent with close to zero weaknesses who helps teams win at an elite level, period. Is he better than Zeke ever was? That's a tough call. But your open/shut arguments that - without fail - favors past greats over current ones is a tiresome act.


It's not an argument about favoring the past era over the modern one. It's more like trying to give people context.
You'll rarely see a superstar sit on the bench in the 4th quarter of a blowout if he's on 30-40 points. He's gonna go for some sort of record. 20 years ago, when the job was done, guys like Drexler, Richmond, Miller and a few others would not play the rest of the game, having a total of 20something minutes in a game. And it's easier to score when you're that good playing against a demoralized opponent. That's what stat padding is. And it was frowned upon in the past.

Now that there's all these "nerds" that love to talk about stats, some books with all time greatest using box score stats and other statistics to rank players, we see that the players want to be on court more often and enhance their stats. This started in the mid 2000s. Coincidentally, this was also the period of time when the lane was cleared for offensive players. So much much easier to score in the 4th quarter for lots of the stars (wing players) of the modern game.

This is not something very common obviously, but if it happens in 10-15-20 games in a 82 game season, it's a large enough number to skew any serious statistical analyses.

So it's not about using arguments that favor any era. It's merely facts. If you watched the older eras you'd see that no one really cared about stats that much. It was actually mostly used for trash talking...

Chronz
09-28-2014, 05:03 AM
You and many other people in this forum don't seem to get it.

Isiah and other legends of his era didn't play for individual performance. They played to win.
You don't seem to get that i don't buy ur OPINION that today's stars don't do the same, especially someone like cp3. Plz respond to my original rebuttal to you. Individual performance doesn't just means stats so spare me the strawmen arguments


They would sacrifice their future box score commentary for the team. Today the "stars" play for themselves, they pad their stats and at the end of the day, they play for money or in the hope of a greater contract. There's no comparison and you have to get this in context.
Lmfao
The greatest player of any era has played for stats, yet his best stats came when he was winning chips.


The fact that people argue that there's more talent around the league these days than in the Golden Era of the NBA yet today's stars play longer minutes (at useless games) should be something you have to consider as well but no one seems to do so.

Can you prove any of these UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINIONS



Isiah Thomas is one of the greatest PGs of all time. Paul is not. It's as simple as that. Paul might be the best PG of our generation but that's not good enough. This is a generation of score-first guards and everyone who averages 20ppg is immediately compared with Isiah as if is scoring was the only thing he did. Same thing with MJ, everyone who dunks or scores a lot and plays SG is always gonna be compared to MJ (eg Kobe, Wade).

When you show me a player that gives everything he has for the W and his team, I'm gonna say he's among the top players of all time. We haven't seen one of those since Duncan and Garnett and those guys are gonna retire some
I disagree on ur assessment, KG seemed to shy away from the big moments imo. CP3 is clearly the better & more skilled player. Definitely better defensively and smarter offensively imo. All Zeke had over him was a historical defense that he himself (individual performance remember) had very little to do with.

mightybosstone
09-28-2014, 09:14 AM
You and many other people in this forum don't seem to get it.

Isiah and other legends of his era didn't play for individual performance. They played to win. They would sacrifice their future box score commentary for the team. Today the "stars" play for themselves, they pad their stats and at the end of the day, they play for money or in the hope of a greater contract. There's no comparison and you have to get this in context.
This is such a ****ing ridiculous argument, NYK. Especially in a Paul vs. Thomas case. You claim that Thomas sacrificed individual statistical production and Paul doesn't, but what the **** are you even basing this on? Thomas averaged 16.2 FGA per game in his career and Paul has averaged 13.8, despite the fact that Thomas averaged only .6 PPG more than Paul in his career. Thomas also nearly twice as many FGA overall in his career despite Paul playing roughly two-thirds as many games as Thomas in his career. So how exactly was Thomas "sacrificing individual performance" more so than Paul when he took far more shots, scored at a way less efficient level and turned the ball over a lot more often?

This is just a lame, generalized excuse people use when they've run out of arguments. "Player X is better than Player Y because players were more [insert generic sports cliche] back then." But you have absolutely no evidence to back up your argument.


The fact that people argue that there's more talent around the league these days than in the Golden Era of the NBA yet today's stars play longer minutes (at useless games) should be something you have to consider as well but no one seems to do so.
What the hell does this have to do with the Thomas/Paul debate? The two players averaged nearly identical MPG in their careers and Paul continues to see fewer and fewer minutes as he gets older, so Thomas will inevitably have averaged more MPG by the end of their careers.


Isiah Thomas is one of the greatest PGs of all time. Paul is not. It's as simple as that. Paul might be the best PG of our generation but that's not good enough.
No, it's not. And it's insulting that you're being such an arrogant dick about it. You simplify everything because you have no basis for any argument aside from the eye test, but if you actually used context and facts to make your case, you'd see that Paul has a very, very strong case as one of the greatest point guards of all time. The bottom line is that Paul is a far better distributor than Thomas ever was, scored far more efficiently than Thomas ever did and, despite Thomas' two titles, Paul has been far better in the postseason than Thomas was. And Paul was a better player within his own generation than Thomas was in his.

Basically, you see rings and the decade in which an athlete played and just completely throw sanity and context out. But there's so much more to this argument that you're refusing to see because you're remarkably dense and close-minded.


This is a generation of score-first guards and everyone who averages 20ppg is immediately compared with Isiah as if is scoring was the only thing he did. Same thing with MJ, everyone who dunks or scores a lot and plays SG is always gonna be compared to MJ (eg Kobe, Wade).
But what does that have to do with Paul? Paul has never been a score first guy. So that's just another moot point.


When you show me a player that gives everything he has for the W and his team, I'm gonna say he's among the top players of all time. We haven't seen one of those since Duncan and Garnett and those guys are gonna retire sometime soon.
"Player X is better than Player Y because players were more [insert generic sports cliche] back then." Rinse. Repeat.

Chronz
09-28-2014, 01:21 PM
cp3 over isiah??? and yes, cp3 would have to get some more accolades to pass up some of the better point guards in history.
I agree, but its not a talent/impact type of thing, its a longevity issue. This is what Im trying to get across.


When did he ever dunk around Dwight howard?
Thnx to Tre for posting it.


Even in his prime he wasn't the most athletic PG. He had speed and quickness but as far as dunking like rose and westbrook, he doesn't come close to that kind of athleticism
My point still stands, not seeing what the strawman argument is suppose to prove.



That was a nice dunk but he still isn't the athlete Westbrook and rose are and people still over hype him on this website.
Why do you keep mentioning them? LOL, the point I made had to do with his relative athletic ability and how its declined.


What has he done in his career to be considered better than Thomas and Kidd? To say he's better than isiah is ridiculous
You yourself have admitted he just needs some more accolades, so unless you want to change that argument, what he has is what others and I have seen is a higher level of play. When ur a better player and ur only losing to the longevity argument, then theres gonna be some people who differ on how much they value that sort of thing.

Chronz
09-28-2014, 03:57 PM
It's not an argument about favoring the past era over the modern one. It's more like trying to give people context.
You'll rarely see a superstar sit on the bench in the 4th quarter of a blowout if he's on 30-40 points. He's gonna go for some sort of record. 20 years ago, when the job was done, guys like Drexler, Richmond, Miller and a few others would not play the rest of the game, having a total of 20something minutes in a game. And it's easier to score when you're that good playing against a demoralized opponent. That's what stat padding is. And it was frowned upon in the past.

Now that there's all these "nerds" that love to talk about stats, some books with all time greatest using box score stats and other statistics to rank players, we see that the players want to be on court more often and enhance their stats. This started in the mid 2000s. Coincidentally, this was also the period of time when the lane was cleared for offensive players. So much much easier to score in the 4th quarter for lots of the stars (wing players) of the modern game.

This is not something very common obviously, but if it happens in 10-15-20 games in a 82 game season, it's a large enough number to skew any serious statistical analyses.

So it's not about using arguments that favor any era. It's merely facts. If you watched the older eras you'd see that no one really cared about stats that much. It was actually mostly used for trash talking...
Did you ever find a single source for ur last statistical claim? The one about fg/a counting on fouled shots?

Also, "a few others"? RLY? You literally named 3 guys and thats suppose to pass for an argument. I can name names too. Guys like Yao Ming, Richard Hamilton, Chauncey Billups, Ray Allen and "a few others" would rest when winning too. Big whoop. Didn't Kobe sit out that 62 point stomping where he couldve made history by outscoring a ****ing team? What is this isolated incident suppose to prove? Am I to believe you know which players were so honorable for every game? Because Kobe actually led the league in garbage time buckets the year I mentioned. What do you do with these numbers?

Nowadays we can parse data however we like. Feel free to do so to at least add 1 side of the era argument to ur point. As for it skewing the data, playing in the free flowing 80's without zone defenses against inferior athletes and teams not as dedicated to defense (As current execs, Bird&Ainge have attested to) for the entirety of the regular season is something thats a bigger advantage than the minor aspects you've mentioned. And even in that situation I dont see this transformation you seem to be convinced of.

Chronz
09-28-2014, 10:17 PM
And if any era is going to play for stats, its the era where numbers played a greater role in determining contract value aka the stone age before modern scouting technology.

NYKalltheway
09-29-2014, 06:58 PM
Lmfao
The greatest player of any era has played for stats, yet his best stats came when he was winning chips.

Jordan played for stats? Seriously?



Can you prove any of these UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINIONS


Facts you mean. Yes, you can watch older games and compare them to modern games.




I disagree on ur assessment, KG seemed to shy away from the big moments imo. CP3 is clearly the better & more skilled player. Definitely better defensively and smarter offensively imo. All Zeke had over him was a historical defense that he himself (individual performance remember) had very little to do with.

The next thing I expect to see here is that Isiah Thomas didn't put the ball to the basket but he was just being credited with them for the laughs... Come on, you can't be serious that Zeke wasn't a very good defensive player and one of the best ever offensive PGs.


MBT, you're still not getting it.

NYKalltheway
09-29-2014, 07:00 PM
Nowadays we can parse data however we like. Feel free to do so to at least add 1 side of the era argument to ur point. As for it skewing the data, playing in the free flowing 80's without zone defenses against inferior athletes and teams not as dedicated to defense (As current execs, Bird&Ainge have attested to) for the entirety of the regular season is something thats a bigger advantage than the minor aspects you've mentioned. And even in that situation I dont see this transformation you seem to be convinced of.

How is this related to basketball? It's just random numbers being played around with. It's no basketball context. Don't fool yourself that it's related to basketball just because the numbers come from a basketball court..

Chronz
09-30-2014, 06:09 PM
Jordan played for stats? Seriously?

You dont remember him making promises to outscore guys in 1 half, just to get revenge. Or how about him asking score keepers how many assists/rebounds they credited him with during his +30PPG-8-8 season. I thought you said you read up on the legends of the past....


Facts you mean. Yes, you can watch older games and compare them to modern games.
LOL. The high and might stuff is suppose to be my routine bro. Seriously tho, you've offered no facts and your defense for your opinions are 100% subjective. I've seen the games, I dont believe you.


The next thing I expect to see here is that Isiah Thomas didn't put the ball to the basket but he was just being credited with them for the laughs...
If this is suppose to be a joke, Im not getting it. If ur trying to be serious, he did put the ball in the basket, sadly you have offered nothing to convince me why I should be impressed with him doing that at an inferior rate. Thats before we go into the OBVIOUS edge CP3 has in ball handling and decision making. Zeke was all heart, the little engine that could type of guy. CP3 is a cerebral assassin who controls the pace of the game in ways that I havent seen since Magic.


Come on, you can't be serious that Zeke wasn't a very good defensive player and one of the best ever offensive PGs.

Oh Im serious alright....
You've been joking this whole time tho right?


How is this related to basketball?
For one , its related to ur unsubstantiated statistical claims. And because I cant recall ever believing anything you've ever said regarding numbers.


It's just random numbers being played around with. It's no basketball context.

You're not getting it. By parsing the data however you like, I meant by adding more context than unsubstantiated opinions could ever provide. Like how I did in my Kobe comparison that you have conveniently ignored (still waiting for that source btw).


Don't fool yourself that it's related to basketball just because the numbers come from a basketball court..
Not buying it. Nothing in your history suggest I should trust your take on statistical analysis. As much as it annoys you, it will always play a role in the NBA. Not just us fans, but the guys who help run teams. Im all for providing additional context, I just dont dismiss the numbers entirely. And when I make statistical claims, I dont back out or ignore requests.
Thats the difference.

mightybosstone
09-30-2014, 11:45 PM
MBT, you're still not getting it.

Saying "you're not getting it" is not a legitimate argument. Either make a point or just stop arguing altogether, but you're starting to look very foolish.

NYKalltheway
10-01-2014, 03:04 PM
My point is that you don't make any points because all you do is "PER PER PER PER". That's not basketball discussion. When you start talking about without all the numbers, then I'll stop thinking you're making foolish posts that impress no one with real basketball knowledge. I invite you to talk to basketball scouts and ask them how much emphasis is used on advanced stats, box scores etc and how much on the "eye test"(obviously of someone who knows what he has to look for and not just the average fan). Sending scouts to watch games would have been redundant if you were on the right side. And there are at least 50 scouts in every NBA game and dozens in any other league watching some players. Tell them it's irrelevant please.

Chronz, Jordan saying he's gonna outscore someone doesn't mean he plays for stats. Again, I mentioned that stats were mostly used by the players for trash talking reasons, not for glorification. The ones who did that were usually chuckers. eg. Antoine Walker.

NYKalltheway
10-01-2014, 03:14 PM
Chronz, about your Kobe argument. Of course it's not ALWAYS the case, but answer this to yourself. Do modern superstars play more or less time than the previous ones? And do we have more bad teams than good teams these days while it was rather even in the past?

TheGame
10-01-2014, 03:17 PM
So, we are to assume that Derrick Rose was on that trajectory for you? It's definitely an uphill battle to challenge his effort. How about Westbrook? While you can challenge his decision making ability, I would contend that he's doing what he believes is best for the team -- and there is absolutely no denying his effort. In fact, I would argue most players give it their all the majority of the time they're on the court, although I do agree that competition levels overall are clearly down from the early 90's.

I would also agree that CP3 does not give it his all for the 36 minutes he's in (he has spurts, but generally waits until the end of the game to go full bore more noticeably than any great player in history off my recollection). That said, he is still an incredible talent with close to zero weaknesses who helps teams win at an elite level, period. Is he better than Zeke ever was? That's a tough call. But your open/shut arguments that - without fail - favors past greats over current ones is a tiresome act.


No, dude, You don't understand. the player has to make good decisions as well. so, no Westbrook doesn't count.

comparing Isiah to Chris Paul is disrespectful to the game of basketball. Isiah was far better at just about everything. Isiah was quicker, faster, better on the break, better a lighting up the scoreboard if needed. Better in big games, better leader, shared the ball better. Isiah has had Great Finals perfomances against the best of the best.

TheGame
10-01-2014, 03:32 PM
Isiah is alot better than Chris Paul