RealGM #38

[penbeast0]

Criteria: Take into account both peak and career play, era dominance, impact on the game of basketball, and how well their style of play and skills would transcend onto different eras. To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball.

Voting Will End In 2 Days (Monday 9/12) at 10PM EST

Please vote and nominate

Newest addition:

Reggie Miller

3x3rd Team All-NBA
5xAll-Star

Willis Reed

2x NBA Champion
Hall of Fame 1982
MVP (1970)
1x All-NBA 1st Team
4x All-NBA 2nd Team
1x All-Def 1st Team
7x All-Star
Rookie of the Year (1965)

Allen Iverson

MVP (2001)
3x All-NBA 1st Team
3x All-NBA 2nd Team
1x All-NBA 3rd Team
11x All-Star
Rookie of the Year (1996)

Dave Cowens

Hall of Fame 1991
2x NBA Champion
MVP 1973
3x All-NBA 2nd Team
1x All-Def 1st Team
2x All-Def 2nd Team
Rookie of the Year 1971
7x All-Star


Elvin Hayes

Hall of Fame (1990)
NBA Champion (1978)
3× All-NBA First Team Selection
3× All-NBA Second Team Selection
2x All-Defense Second Team Selections
12× All-Star

Dominique Wilkins

Hall of Fame (2006)
1x All-NBA 1st Team
4x All-NBA 2nd Team
2x All-NBA 3rd Team
9x All-Star

Kevin McHale

Hall of Fame 1999
3 NBA Championship Teams
1 All NBA 1st Team
3 All-Defense 1st Team
3 All-Defense 2nd Team
2 Sixth Man of the Year Awards

Paul Pierce

NBA Champion 2008
2008 NBA Finals MVP
1x All-NBA 2nd Team
3x All-NBA 3rd Team
9x All-STar

Dwight Howard

4x All-NBA 1st Team
1x All-NBA 3rd Team
3x NBA DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR
3x NBA All-Defensive 1st Team
1x NBA All-Defensive 2nd Team
5x All-Star

[penbeast0]

Voting Candidates

Allen Iverson and Reggie Miller couldn't be more unalike as scorers. Iverson the super high volume, inefficient, undersized, bad practice, streetball superstar with accolades and endorsements everywhere; Miller the superefficient, come off of screens, playoff assassin with only 5 All-Star games in his long career and never better than 3rd team All-NBA. Neither were much defensively. Additionally, you have two more scorers at the 3.

Nique is another high scoring, super athletic, slashing scorer who led some good ATL teams to the playoffs though they didn't do much there. Pierce is the more efficient and versatile player who never received the accolades but who looks better on the individual advanced stats.

Then you have the bigs. Cowens and Reed were early 70s stars with reasonably short careers and not great stats but who were recognized as MVP's for their leadership and hard nosed play. Elvin Hayes is stronger statistically and also a 70s champion but was known as a whiner rather than a leader. But the two best candidates to me are Kevin McHale and Dwight Howard. Dwight Howard is a damn good candidate here, short career so far but with peak for multiple years as the best big man in NBA once Duncan slowed down. McHale is also strong but is no more efficient than Howard despite playing on a team with two other great scoring bigs and a weak rebounder (also affected by playing next to Parish and Bird) and although he is more versatile, he doesn't have Howard's defensive impact.

And it is the two way impact that make me favor the nominated bigs over the nominated wings.

VOTE: Dwight Howard

[penbeast0]

For the nomination:

PG -- It is between the great playmaking but inefficient even for his era (especially in playoffs) Bob Cousy, and the young gun with 2 great years but only 5 1/2 years total, Chris Paul. If someone can do a comp to show me Cousy was actually reasonably efficient either individually or in terms of team offense in the period from 58-62 . . . Other candidates include Kevin Johnson, the surprisingly efficient Chauncey Billups, and possibly Lenny Wilkens from the 60s or the purely offensive Nate Archibald or Pete Maravich from the 70s.

Wings -- On the wings, there are still great scorers left . . . I like Alex English's consistency and Ray Allen's 3 point shooting over the more spectacular but less consistent Bernard King, Mark Aquirre, or David Thompson, or the statistically most efficient Adrian Dantley. Paul Arizin, Sam Jones, and Hal Greer also should come into play reasonably soon -- Defensively, I love Moncrief (and Dumars and Bobby Jones have a shot too but Moncrief was the most dominant at his peak) though the shortness of his peak (5 years then a major falloff) is a big issue.

Big Men -- The bigs left all have some issue with their games. Zo had health issues and was always a step behind the best like Shaq/Robinson/Duncan/etc. while Neil Johnston and Mel Daniels played against inferior competition during their primes and were more limited besides. Bob McAdoo while his 5 year peak is spectacular, didn't play big man defense and his teams didn't dominate; Bob Lanier and Walt Bellamy had nice numbers but their teams weren't that much either and Detroit with Lanier sucked defensively for 9 of Lanier's 10 prime years which I consider pretty bad. Finally there is Dikembe Mutombo who was a great shot blocker and consistent player for years. Finally, Bill Walton had one great year (not that much better than Wes Unseld's MVP year) but every other year he broke down and left the Portland and San Diego teams which had built around him destroyed until he made another 1 year comeback as a top reserve. I wouldn't choose a one in eight shot at catching lightning in a bottle at the expense of a virtually guaranteed team crash the other seven over most of the above named players. Of them I lean Unseld.

At PF, Bobby Jones and Dennis Rodman may be the greatest pair of defensive forwards but Jones, while extremely efficient, didn't score or rebound that much while Rodman had no offense and for 1/2 his career, left his man at times to pad his rebounding stats at the team's expense. On the offensive end, Amare Stoudamire and Chris Webber just have too many issues to rank above Jones or Rodman.

Let me explain why I am voting for Sidney Moncrief here. His peak is short, only 5 full years from 82-86 and those years coincided with the peak years of both the Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ Celtics and of the Moses/Erving/Toney/Cheeks Sixers (as well as the Showtime Lakers) so he never made it past the ECF but in those peak years he led Milwaukee, a Don Nelson coached team with no consistent center, to be one of the best defensive and an above average offensive team. Individually he was a consistent 20ppg scorer with excellent passing and rebounding skills who is widely considered the greatest man-up perimeter defender to ever play winning the first two ever awarded DPOY awards in this 5 year stretch.

Milwaukee's leaguewide ratings, even in those years of great dynastic teams, were

82 Moncrief 6.7reb/4.8ast/19.8pts on .601ts% incredible for a guard before wide use of the 3pt shot
9th in offense, 1st! in defense -- Marques Johnson was the second star only scoring 16ppg, center was good offense, mediocre defensive aging Bob Lanier, the other biggest minutes were PG Quinn Buckner (excellent defender) and Brian Winters (offense only pure jump shooter)

93 Moncrief 5.8reb/3.9ast/22.5pts on .602ts% 1st DPOY award (82 was actually better defense)
10th in offense, 6th in defense -- Marques Johnson had a great year, Alton Lister replaced Bob Lanier

94 Moncrief 6.7reb/4.5ast/20.9pts on .591ts% 2nd DPOY award
12th in offense, 2nd in defense -- Lanier came back to split time with Lister and Marques's last year

95 Moncrief 5.4reb/5.2ast/21.7pts on .594ts%
6th in offense, 2nd in defense -- Terry Cummings took over for Marques as the other star, Lister split time with Randy Breuer at center, 3pt specialist Craig Hodges split time with Paul Pressey and Junion Bridgeman

96 Moncrief 4.6reb/4.9ast/20.2pts on .604ts%
4th in offense, 2nd in defense -- Breuer became the starter still splitting time, Pressey as point forward

Moncrief was an incredible two way player. In a slightly weaker era, he might have led his team to one or two championships like a Chauncey Billups or Isiah Thomas but the one year they beat the Celtics (with great performance by Sid), they then ran into the "fo fo fo" Sixer team. But he was the clearly acknowledged leader of Milwaukee teams and led them to terrific defensive performances despite average defensive big men (Cummings doesn't have a good rep but is underrated but before him the starter was journeyman Mickey Johnson though Don Nelson liked to use Marques Johnson as PF and play 3 guards more than using Johnson).


VOTE: Sidney Moncrief

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Dominique Wilkins
Nominate: Bob Cousy

[therealbig3]

Vote: Pierce
Nominate: KJ

I understand it's not the majority opinion, but I think it's kind of ridiculous that Pierce is still being questioned...what exactly do you want from the guy? A better peak? Better playmaking? If he had those traits, in addition to what he already does, we're talking about a top 25 player all-time.

BTW, drza, you said that the only time frame that it could be argued that Pierce was a top 5 perimeter player in the league was 02-06. I disagree, I think his 01 was pretty great also.

You said that Carter, Kidd, Payton, and AI were definitely better pre-02. I don't see the clear separation of AI, Carter, and Payton from Pierce. And I think Pierce was a better player than Kidd anyway. I love Kidd, but a lot of his legacy comes from a somewhat inaccurate narrative, and his great playmaking, which never led to an elite offense, because he was overall, not a great offensive player.

AI is probably the most controversial person I said "I don't see it" with, so let me explain my rationale. Yeah, I get that he won MVP that year, and his team made the Finals. But let's look at Pierce's advantages: much better scoring efficiency, much better durability, and his raw box score stats match up fine. You can make the case that AI was better simply because of the huge offensive load that he had to carry, because he was playing with poor offensive teammates, but he did have 2 other double-digit scorers on his team, in Mutombo and McKie...Pierce had 1, in the horribly inefficient Antoine Walker. Outside of Walker, none of his other teammates averaged double-digit scoring. I don't see a big difference in terms of the offense of the supporting cast, and AI's Sixers were 13th offensively that year, while Pierce's Celtics were 17th. The difference in team quality was defense.

And in the 11 games without AI, the Sixers posted an ORating of 103.2, while their ORating for the entire season was 103.6.

Anyways, here are my possible perimeter players who were better than Pierce from 01-06:

01: T-Mac, Carter (arguable), AI (arguable), Payton (arguable), Kobe

02: T-Mac (arguable), Kobe, Payton (arguable)

03: T-Mac, Kobe, Payton (arguable), AI (arguable)

04: T-Mac, Kobe, probably a few random guys, this was Pierce's worst season...but I'd be interested in seeing who was better

05: T-Mac, Nash, Kobe, AI, LeBron, Wade

06: Nash, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, AI (arguable)

So I think you can make the case that Pierce was a top 5 perimeter player 4 times from 01-06...and in 05 and 06, it's mainly because Nash had two MVP seasons, and LeBron and Wade entered superstar status, and they're both top 20 all time or pretty close to it. And Kobe's always been better than Pierce, not arguing that.

[Fencer reregistered]

I'd call it "absurd" for anybody to choose Wilkins over Pierce if it were not for the accolades. Since the accolades are there, I'll merely call it "incorrect".

The idea of Wilkins approaching Pierce's defensive successes is ... implausible. Or, if he did buckle down on D, he presumably wouldn't have had the energy to explode and showboat on offense the way he actually did.

For scoring + passing + spacing, I take Pierce over Wilkins. Wilkins' offensive rebounding, while a good argument, doesn't put him in front for me.

One weirdness is that Wilkins has a huge playoff dropoff in WS/48, but I don't immediately see why.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=1995

Vote: Pierce

[Fencer reregistered]

Nominate: Cousy

I've been looking over what was said around the time of his retirement, and Cousy was pretty universally regarded as the elite player up to that point in the history of the league. Now, that was probably already incorrect, as Russell already deserved the crown, but it still speaks to how he was viewed at the time.

If you want to say other guys copied and outdid him, fine, but in that case please give him the huge impact-on-the-game bonus I've been arguing he deserves.

[therealbig3]

BTW, Pierce missed a total of 8 games from 01-06. From 01-06 overall, the Celtics had an average ORating of 103.5. In the 8 games without Pierce, the Celtics had an average ORating of 102.9. However, in one of the games they played without him, the Celtics put up an ORating of 132.5, a clear outlier (it was the last game of the season against the Hawks, who were in the bottom 5 of the league defensively).

In the 7 "normal" games, the Celtics averaged a 98.7 ORating.

But even then, the numbers aren't that reliable, because most of the games that Pierce missed were the last games of the season. The team just plays completely different, and role players who aren't that good see a lot more time. And you can get games like the 132.5 ORating game, when the other players just step their game up to completely unorthodox levels. It was also a game that they needed to win to make the playoffs I think, so that added pressure was there, as it was the last game of the season.

But I believe that the Celtics' numbers without Pierce post-07 show a big decline offensively, so even on a better offensive team, he has a big offensive impact.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Paul Pierce

Nomination: Chris Paul

As I've said, go look at the Win Share leaders list on b-r. You'll find Wade barely ahead of Howard who is barely ahead of Paul, because they all really have about the same longevity. Picking Wade & Howard over Paul is fine, but I see zero basis for having a significant gap between Howard & Paul.

Question: Other than the legendary Bill Walton, is there anyone left with a higher peak than Paul?

[drza]

Anyways, here are my possible perimeter players who were better than Pierce from 01-06:

01: T-Mac, Carter (arguable), AI (arguable), Payton (arguable), Kobe

02: T-Mac (arguable), Kobe, Payton (arguable)

03: T-Mac, Kobe, Payton (arguable), AI (arguable)

04: T-Mac, Kobe, probably a few random guys, this was Pierce's worst season...but I'd be interested in seeing who was better

05: T-Mac, Nash, Kobe, AI, LeBron, Wade

06: Nash, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, AI (arguable)

So I think you can make the case that Pierce was a top 5 perimeter player 4 times from 01-06...and in 05 and 06, it's mainly because Nash had two MVP seasons, and LeBron and Wade entered superstar status, and they're both top 20 all time or pretty close to it. And Kobe's always been better than Pierce, not arguing that.

I might go back and forth with you and try to come up with a comprehensive list of Pierce's perimeter competition on a year-to-year basis...I think Ray has a case against him in several of those years (01 and 05 come to mind), I'd definitely take Manu's 05 over Pierce's, etc. A quick primer from the RPoY results remind me how strong Peja and Kirilenko were, for instance, in '04. We could really go through it (and maybe we will), but ultimately at this stage in the game that's not my point. My point is, debating whether (and how often) Pierce was a top-5 PERIMETER player in any year is a legitimate exercise.

Meanwhile, Howard has been a top-5 PLAYER in the NBA for at least the last 3 years. Reed was a top-5 PLAYER in the NBA at his peak. Mchale peaked as a top-5 player. Nique as a top-5 player. Iverson as a top-5 player. Hayes as potentially a top-5 player.

Yes, Pierce has good longevity. Yes, he is a great and versatile player. But as I wrote last thread, Howard has been better than Pierce on a year-by-year basis for about 5 years now and better for the last 3 than Pierce ever was in his career. When there are players like that still out there, I just have trouble looking past that to give Pierce the vote.

[penbeast0]

Yes, Moncrief has a higher peak than Paul when you consider defense and team impact asI have outlined a couple of times in posts; possibly David Thompson or Bob McAdoo if you don't rank defensive impact as highly as I do(though substance abuse issues are quite significant in my POV).

[ElGee]

vote: Paul Pierce
nominate: Chris Paul

Answer: I believe Bernard King has a higher peak than Paul. That is it.

[therealbig3]

When was Iverson a top 5 player in the NBA?

99-Duncan, Malone, Shaq, KG, Hill, Payton
00-Duncan, Malone, Shaq, KG, Hill, Payton
01-Duncan, Malone, Shaq, KG, Kobe, Dirk, T-Mac
02-Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, KG, Dirk, T-Mac
03-Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, KG, Dirk, T-Mac
04-Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, KG, Dirk, T-Mac
05-Duncan, Shaq, Wade, LeBron, Kobe, KG, Dirk, T-Mac, Nash
06-Duncan, Wade, LeBron, Kobe, KG, Dirk, Nash
07-Duncan, LeBron, Kobe, KG, Dirk, Nash, T-Mac
08-Duncan, LeBron, Kobe, Dirk, KG, Nash, Paul

And I'd include Pierce, Kidd, and maybe even Webber for a few of those years.

[therealbig3]

Also, I'm finding Manu to be pretty overrated by some posters. Like, considering him over Carter, and even Pierce? Really?

Yes, Manu does great in the APM studies, good for him. But he's been a 30 mpg bench player for the most part, and he's never had to be the focal point of a defense. He played with a prime Duncan from 03-07, and Duncan was still their best player and the focus of the defense from 08-10. It wasn't until this past season when Duncan was no longer their main offensive option...but Ginobili's numbers really didn't get all that much better, the Spurs just got more balanced scoring. And I'm not even sure if Ginobili is better than Parker, who's also helped lighten the offensive load.

Ginobili has never been in the same situation as Carter or Pierce or AI or any of the other high volume scoring wings, who have had to carry offenses, while facing the brunt of the defense. Ginobili's job has been made a lot easier throughout his career by playing with Duncan and Parker, and it's not like he's logging big minutes either. He's a very rich man's "spark off the bench" imo.

I really don't see how Pierce's 05 and Ginobili's 05 are even close. First of all, Pierce played 8 more games than Ginobili. And his per 36 stats are still better than Ginobili's. And again, I don't think it's a fair comparison in the first place, because Pierce was the clear-cut best player on the Celtics, meaning he was facing the opposition's best defender and the defense gameplanned against Pierce mainly. Ginobili was benefitting off Duncan and, to a lesser extent, Parker being around.

[Doctor MJ]

Yes, Moncrief has a higher peak than Paul when you consider defense and team impact asI have outlined a couple of times in posts; possibly David Thompson or Bob McAdoo if you don't rank defensive impact as highly as I do(though substance abuse issues are quite significant in my POV).

I like Moncrief a lot, but I have trouble seeing him on that level. The volume/efficiency is nice, but the playoff dropoff is troubling to say the least. He simply didn't have the "taking it all over" track record Paul does. And while I believe Moncrief played his defensive role about as well as it could be played, he's still just a guard. I have a hard time choosing between guards based on defense unless their offense is extremely close, and I couldn't say that here.

Thompson I'm not that in love with period.

McAdoo I could certainly see the peak debate against Paul.

[Doctor MJ]

Answer: I believe Bernard King has a higher peak than Paul. That is it.

Good call. King was damn impressive.

[lorak]

Also, I'm finding Manu to be pretty overrated by some posters. Like, considering him over Carter, and even Pierce? Really?

Yes, Manu does great in the APM studies, good for him. But he's been a 30 mpg bench player for the most part, and he's never had to be the focal point of a defense. He played with a prime Duncan from 03-07, and Duncan was still their best player and the focus of the defense from 08-10. It wasn't until this past season when Duncan was no longer their main offensive option...but Ginobili's numbers really didn't get all that much better, the Spurs just got more balanced scoring. And I'm not even sure if Ginobili is better than Parker, who's also helped lighten the offensive load.

Ginobili has never been in the same situation as Carter or Pierce or AI or any of the other high volume scoring wings, who have had to carry offenses, while facing the brunt of the defense.

2004 Olympics, when Argentina defeated USA, or 2002 WC when Argentina also defeated USA (with Pierce). I know, that's not NBA, but Ginobili for decade proves time and time again that teams build around him are winning teams - from Italian league, to Euroleague to international competition when Argentina with Ginobili as leader defeated USA teams.

And in 30 mpg he's doing more than any other player left or several players already voted in.
And in terms of skillset he is better than Pierce in almost every aspect of the game. And that's what we are supposed to judge here: who is better at playing basketball.

Nominate: KJ

Was KJ better than Mark Price?

[therealbig3]

Also, I'm finding Manu to be pretty overrated by some posters. Like, considering him over Carter, and even Pierce? Really?

Yes, Manu does great in the APM studies, good for him. But he's been a 30 mpg bench player for the most part, and he's never had to be the focal point of a defense. He played with a prime Duncan from 03-07, and Duncan was still their best player and the focus of the defense from 08-10. It wasn't until this past season when Duncan was no longer their main offensive option...but Ginobili's numbers really didn't get all that much better, the Spurs just got more balanced scoring. And I'm not even sure if Ginobili is better than Parker, who's also helped lighten the offensive load.

Ginobili has never been in the same situation as Carter or Pierce or AI or any of the other high volume scoring wings, who have had to carry offenses, while facing the brunt of the defense.

2004 Olympics, when Argentina defeated USA, or 2002 WC when Argentina also defeated USA (with Pierce). I know, that's not NBA, but Ginobili for decade proves time and time again that teams build around him are winning teams - from Italian league, to Euroleague to international competition when Argentina with Ginobili as leader defeated USA teams.

And in 30 mpg he's doing more than any other player left or several players already voted in.
And in terms of skillset he is better than Pierce in almost every aspect of the game. And that's what we are supposed to judge here: who is better at playing basketball.

Nominate: KJ

Was KJ better than Mark Price?

Put those European teams in the NBA, with NBA rules and actual NBA teams, with NBA players that take the competition 100% seriously...and those European teams led by Ginobili would get floored.

And regarding his NBA play...has he ever had to carry a team offensively? Has he ever had to be the main guy that the opposing defense focused on? Or has he been more of a spark off the bench, who gets a lot of good looks because of a very balanced offense, that traditionally ran through Duncan in the low post?

In 30 mpg, he does not do more than what Vince Carter or Paul Pierce do in 35 mpg. And anyway, like I said, the per 36 minute stats for Pierce vs Ginobili in 05 favor Pierce.

In terms of skillset, I don't think anyone matches Kobe all time, except for MJ. Is Kobe the 2nd GOAT?

And regarding KJ vs Price, yeah I think KJ was a better player.

[Doctor MJ]

Also, I'm finding Manu to be pretty overrated by some posters. Like, considering him over Carter, and even Pierce? Really?

Yes, Manu does great in the APM studies, good for him. But he's been a 30 mpg bench player for the most part, and he's never had to be the focal point of a defense. He played with a prime Duncan from 03-07, and Duncan was still their best player and the focus of the defense from 08-10. It wasn't until this past season when Duncan was no longer their main offensive option...but Ginobili's numbers really didn't get all that much better, the Spurs just got more balanced scoring. And I'm not even sure if Ginobili is better than Parker, who's also helped lighten the offensive load.

Ginobili has never been in the same situation as Carter or Pierce or AI or any of the other high volume scoring wings, who have had to carry offenses, while facing the brunt of the defense. Ginobili's job has been made a lot easier throughout his career by playing with Duncan and Parker, and it's not like he's logging big minutes either. He's a very rich man's "spark off the bench" imo.

I really don't see how Pierce's 05 and Ginobili's 05 are even close. First of all, Pierce played 8 more games than Ginobili. And his per 36 stats are still better than Ginobili's. And again, I don't think it's a fair comparison in the first place, because Pierce was the clear-cut best player on the Celtics, meaning he was facing the opposition's best defender and the defense gameplanned against Pierce mainly. Ginobili was benefitting off Duncan and, to a lesser extent, Parker being around.

Wanted to chime in on the notions relating to the advantage of 1) playing 30 MPG and 2) playing next to Duncan.

The thing is, we don't really see evidence that these things help a guy with APM. I mean, if a guy is being sat on the bench each game to avoid bad matchups, that obviously skews things, but that wasn't what happened with Ginobili. The Spurs never sat him down because they thought it made their team better, they just decided they had to give him rest.

And of course there's the matter that Ginobili looks unreal by APM metrics where as other guys who play by superstars don't. Parker for example, look pretty much exactly like you'd think he would. No matter how you look at it, Ginobili is the anomaly, again and again in independent studies.

Then you add in as mentioned that Ginobili was a European Player of the Year, and actually led his country to an Olympic Gold Medal over a team full of NBA all-stars. (I know those things aren't directly relevant to the conversation, but they are relevant to understanding his track record of impact)

Now take the +/- out, and consider PER, a stat known to favor volume scorers to a fault. What do you get when you compare Ginobili and Carter? Carter had a PER of 22+ 3 times in his career, Ginobili's done it 6 times.

So you see every per minute thing we look at tells you Ginobil's a better player.

Re: "never had to carry". I think it's fine to bring up that scenario, but wrong to look at it as if it's the end all be all. If I've got a crappy team and I want someone to raise it to mediocre, then I can use a volume scorer with questionable efficiency. Is that more meaningful than someone who can reliable provide huge lift to a contender? I don't think so.

All that said, there is still the matter that you have to factor in how much someone plays, and that hurts Ginobili quite a bit. I don't know if I'd vote for Ginobili above Carter in this project for that reason.

[Doctor MJ]

Was KJ better than Mark Price?

Yeah he was. KJ's efficiency wasn't based on being timid. There were times when teammate Charles Barkley stayed the hell out of his way because he was unstoppable. Price wasn't lie that.