RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #52 (Jimmy Butler)

[trex_8063]

Payton is less impressive to me than the last time I looked at him. Just don't think he really tips the scale in a meaningful enough way. He's not great at what his position should be great at (in an all time sense), and the thing he is great at is what his position is weakest in. He never really "dominated" or had a really crazy run either that I can think of.

Re: the bolded
Same could basically be said of Nikola Jokic, no? Did you use it against him that he's atypical for the position he plays?

Okay..I don't appreciate the sass but

I apologize for any mis-fire of tone. Though I'm not really a sassy guy, honestly, so any perceived sass was not intended.

1) Jokic wasn't exactly voted at #1, so I don't even know what you're saying. The Jokic comment is so abstract, use it against him for what ranking?

For ranking wherever it was he was being discussed (as it's being used against Payton where he's being discussed).

2) Read the bold part. If Payton had been a dominating player or dominating at the things he was good at then it would be different. If he had a crazy run like some other all time greats then that would be different.

Jokic is not a DOMINATING offensive player for a center, he is a DOMINATING offensive player against any position.

Fair enough. Though I think "warts and all" are the ONLY types of players we have left to consider this far out on the list.

If Payton's defense translated into something like Dikembe Mutumbo levels or he was a scorer like Jerry West then it would be different, but he was not that much of an outlier. He isn't even on the defensive level of Jason Kidd much less an army of front court men.

I would agree (wrt Kidd). otoh, he was arguably a slightly BETTER offensive player than Kidd, making them not far apart [at all] as overall players. And Kidd went in more than 15 places ago, too, for whatever that says regarding Payton's placement.

Payton was FAR better offensively than Mutombo; like multiple tiers, so he doesn't need to be as impactful a defender to be ranked as high (or higher) than Deke.

As to West, idk, that seems as abstract as my bringing up Jokic [at least]. If Payton was even remotely close to West as s scorer, we wouldn't be having this discussion here.........because he'd have been voted in weeks ago. We voted that guy #14. Payton can be well-separated from West as a scorer and not have that tarnish his candidacy at this stage.

There are still players who were actual MVP candidates at this point in the project, and there were players who tore up the playoffs still. That is what I meant by an insane run.

Well, here we're getting into philosophical/criteria differences, so I have only one comment.....

I personally prefer a criteria that I can use unchanged from #1 to #500 (or even #5000); no shifting of goal-posts in between. That's the career output and impact above replacement [short summary description].

When you say "at this point in the project", it seems to imply that at some non-disclosed point later in the project you will switch gears, as it were, and begin considering other factors in other ways for player ranking. For me, that sounds too close to changing the rules partway through.

[Doctor MJ]

Not sure Rice was stronger at his strengths (or net better) than Jones was. Jones and Kobe were both starting in '99.

Across year stuff can be hazardous and generalizing from it too. What does one make of Lee, Russell, Barnett. What of Smith, Wilkes, Dudley (and latterly Bridges at the margins) [PF is definitely more offensively tilted, spaced now Wilkes in for Lee]. How close was Thurmond to his best in the last year in GS? How good does one think Ray is? How much does one think holdovers got net better/worse? There's probably a lot of cumulative wiggle room there. Not saying it's wrong doing things this way but people could come to very different opinions.

So to be clear I was thinking of Kobe & Wade when I was thinking of teams moving on from Eddie.

Just because Kobe & Eddie started together for 20 games doesn't mean that they played different positions, nor that Eddie & Glen played the same position. I would suggest that if Eddie had Rice's size they probably don't make that trade.

I would also suggest that if not for Kobe, they wouldn't even consider trading Eddie.

I'd also say it's a mistake to think that the Lakers "made the right move by getting in Rice a guy with a better fit" as one might think. The team got worse as they moved from Eddie to Glen. Yes they improved the year after with Rice and won a title, but he was soon moved on from because he never really gave them what they were after.

Agree that they "didn't play dif... positions" fundamentally ... but Jones was good, flexible enough that both teams did well with him at the 3 that season (unless you want to say Kobe and Phills were 3s). Think it's entirely possible to keep both, start two athletic multi-tooled wings. (fwiw was Kobe a better night to night defender, 3pt shooter, athlete ...?).

Tend to agree they got worse, that's kind of the point (not that Thurmond at that point is necessarily better than Ray at that point but the team comp is a complex picture with moving parts and humans changing over time.

And if LA traded Jones for Rice because the official listing for the top of his head was two inches taller (actually that's Reference listings, but in career I've seen Rice listed 6'7 ... the gap could be smaller), he carried more weight (but not necessarily in a good way - later Rice was fat, some Miami era pics his face looks a bit "baby fat" round, though how far you want to trust that ...), but certainly wasn't any better at defending the 3 position, was a similar level rebound producer
...
I mean I'd say they were ... let's say silly ... but then just about any reason one gives ... Rice had been a bit better scorer and a purer distance shooter (and points back then ...) ... he was more than 4 years older, more expensive (trading with a team notorious getting cold feet in terms of big money commitments), much worse defensively by reputation, coming off an injury not having played that season thus far, they wouldn't know this but by the last season worse across all three Reference box-aggregates so in retrospect, probably a worse box-score ... and you need throw in Elden Campbell too. I don't know what the tipping point in changing things would have to be for LA to say no but ... I think the sensible one was a way in the rear view mirror.

So, regarding "the point": I feel like this is kind of a vague thing here. I agree with you that team basketball is a complex thing, but Thurmond is a defensive specialist and Jones is an all-arounder, so the calculus from moving on from one just isn't the same thing.

Sounds like moving on from Jones for any kind of basketball reasons is something we agree was likely misguided, but my impression was that they saw Kobe & Jones as both lead guard types and that they were under the mistaken impression that Rice was essentially a Miller/Allen type of player who a) didn't need the ball in his hands, b) moved well off-ball, and c) was a great shooter from the adult 3-point line. I think the reality is that Jones was better both on & off ball than Rice, to say nothing of defense.

Also, "Kobe better night to night defender". Not sure what you mean here. If you mean that when Kobe was utterly locked in trying to prove how good he could be as a man defender he was better than Jones, that's plausible. If you mean he was a more valuable defender in general, I'd argue the opposite, and not by a small margin.

[Owly]

So to be clear I was thinking of Kobe & Wade when I was thinking of teams moving on from Eddie.

Just because Kobe & Eddie started together for 20 games doesn't mean that they played different positions, nor that Eddie & Glen played the same position. I would suggest that if Eddie had Rice's size they probably don't make that trade.

I would also suggest that if not for Kobe, they wouldn't even consider trading Eddie.

I'd also say it's a mistake to think that the Lakers "made the right move by getting in Rice a guy with a better fit" as one might think. The team got worse as they moved from Eddie to Glen. Yes they improved the year after with Rice and won a title, but he was soon moved on from because he never really gave them what they were after.

Agree that they "didn't play dif... positions" fundamentally ... but Jones was good, flexible enough that both teams did well with him at the 3 that season (unless you want to say Kobe and Phills were 3s). Think it's entirely possible to keep both, start two athletic multi-tooled wings. (fwiw was Kobe a better night to night defender, 3pt shooter, athlete ...?).

Tend to agree they got worse, that's kind of the point (not that Thurmond at that point is necessarily better than Ray at that point but the team comp is a complex picture with moving parts and humans changing over time.

And if LA traded Jones for Rice because the official listing for the top of his head was two inches taller (actually that's Reference listings, but in career I've seen Rice listed 6'7 ... the gap could be smaller), he carried more weight (but not necessarily in a good way - later Rice was fat, some Miami era pics his face looks a bit "baby fat" round, though how far you want to trust that ...), but certainly wasn't any better at defending the 3 position, was a similar level rebound producer
...
I mean I'd say they were ... let's say silly ... but then just about any reason one gives ... Rice had been a bit better scorer and a purer distance shooter (and points back then ...) ... he was more than 4 years older, more expensive (trading with a team notorious getting cold feet in terms of big money commitments), much worse defensively by reputation, coming off an injury not having played that season thus far, they wouldn't know this but by the last season worse across all three Reference box-aggregates so in retrospect, probably a worse box-score ... and you need throw in Elden Campbell too. I don't know what the tipping point in changing things would have to be for LA to say no but ... I think the sensible one was a way in the rear view mirror.

So, regarding "the point": I feel like this is kind of a vague thing here. I agree with you that team basketball is a complex thing, but Thurmond is a defensive specialist and Jones is an all-arounder, so the calculus from moving on from one just isn't the same thing.

Sounds like moving on from Jones for any kind of basketball reasons is something we agree was likely misguided, but my impression was that they saw Kobe & Jones as both lead guard types and that they were under the mistaken impression that Rice was essentially a Miller/Allen type of player who a) didn't need the ball in his hands, b) moved well off-ball, and c) was a great shooter from the adult 3-point line. I think the reality is that Jones was better both on & off ball than Rice, to say nothing of defense.

Also, "Kobe better night to night defender". Not sure what you mean here. If you mean that when Kobe was utterly locked in trying to prove how good he could be as a man defender he was better than Jones, that's plausible. If you mean he was a more valuable defender in general, I'd argue the opposite, and not by a small margin.

Just for clarity ...

my point re complexity primarily regarded the other moving parts, improvement/loss with age etc ... I'm not sure on the meaning on specialist versus all-rounder.

If LA thought that ... as ever in this they seem wrong, Jones never really looked that much a lead guard. His usage peaks at maybe 2nd option level (and not the high end) and career wise is average. As you alluded to (and as I had thought otoh) my belief is Rice benefited from the shortened line. MInd you as I said and you seem to agree ... this was not a good trade.

Regarding D I'm just noting D as an area of strength for Jones that Kobe wasn't better at. The list is Jones's strengths and asking is Kobe better (clearly or even at all)? My impression was earlier you were saying Jones is okay because he's surpassed in the things he does well by a great and I'm not sure he was surpassed in those areas (and per above regarding possession, wasn't really replaced by Bryant as the two could play together - hence my raising Rice). I'd suggest otoh, Kobe was better at generating shots and at making really tough shots and that would be his big leverage point over most players, though there are other areas of advantage.

Think I'll leave this here.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm glad to see such a strong ranking for Jimmy big balls! The only thing I'd dock him for is he misses some regular season games.

[Doctor MJ]

Agree that they "didn't play dif... positions" fundamentally ... but Jones was good, flexible enough that both teams did well with him at the 3 that season (unless you want to say Kobe and Phills were 3s). Think it's entirely possible to keep both, start two athletic multi-tooled wings. (fwiw was Kobe a better night to night defender, 3pt shooter, athlete ...?).

Tend to agree they got worse, that's kind of the point (not that Thurmond at that point is necessarily better than Ray at that point but the team comp is a complex picture with moving parts and humans changing over time.

And if LA traded Jones for Rice because the official listing for the top of his head was two inches taller (actually that's Reference listings, but in career I've seen Rice listed 6'7 ... the gap could be smaller), he carried more weight (but not necessarily in a good way - later Rice was fat, some Miami era pics his face looks a bit "baby fat" round, though how far you want to trust that ...), but certainly wasn't any better at defending the 3 position, was a similar level rebound producer
...
I mean I'd say they were ... let's say silly ... but then just about any reason one gives ... Rice had been a bit better scorer and a purer distance shooter (and points back then ...) ... he was more than 4 years older, more expensive (trading with a team notorious getting cold feet in terms of big money commitments), much worse defensively by reputation, coming off an injury not having played that season thus far, they wouldn't know this but by the last season worse across all three Reference box-aggregates so in retrospect, probably a worse box-score ... and you need throw in Elden Campbell too. I don't know what the tipping point in changing things would have to be for LA to say no but ... I think the sensible one was a way in the rear view mirror.

So, regarding "the point": I feel like this is kind of a vague thing here. I agree with you that team basketball is a complex thing, but Thurmond is a defensive specialist and Jones is an all-arounder, so the calculus from moving on from one just isn't the same thing.

Sounds like moving on from Jones for any kind of basketball reasons is something we agree was likely misguided, but my impression was that they saw Kobe & Jones as both lead guard types and that they were under the mistaken impression that Rice was essentially a Miller/Allen type of player who a) didn't need the ball in his hands, b) moved well off-ball, and c) was a great shooter from the adult 3-point line. I think the reality is that Jones was better both on & off ball than Rice, to say nothing of defense.

Also, "Kobe better night to night defender". Not sure what you mean here. If you mean that when Kobe was utterly locked in trying to prove how good he could be as a man defender he was better than Jones, that's plausible. If you mean he was a more valuable defender in general, I'd argue the opposite, and not by a small margin.

Just for clarity ...

my point re complexity primarily regarded the other moving parts, improvement/loss with age etc ... I'm not sure on the meaning on specialist versus all-rounder.

If LA thought that ... as ever in this they seem wrong, Jones never really looked that much a lead guard. His usage peaks at maybe 2nd option level (and not the high end) and career wise is average. As you alluded to (and as I had thought otoh) my belief is Rice benefited from the shortened line. MInd you as I said and you seem to agree ... this was not a good trade.

Regarding D I'm just noting D as an area of strength for Jones that Kobe wasn't better at. The list is Jones's strengths and asking is Kobe better (clearly or even at all)? My impression was earlier you were saying Jones is okay because he's surpassed in the things he does well by a great and I'm not sure he was surpassed in those areas (and per above regarding possession, wasn't really replaced by Bryant as the two could play together - hence my raising Rice). I'd suggest otoh, Kobe was better at generating shots and at making really tough shots and that would be his big leverage point over most players, though there are other areas of advantage.

Think I'll leave this here.

Not to belabor the point but Jones was the lead perimeter scorer on a Lakers team that was quite good. While there can be situations where the lead perimeter scorer can still be classified as secondary to a facilitator, I would consider Jones to be pretty clear cut the best perimeter player on those teams, and not remotely someone analogous in role to what Derek Fisher would later become known for.

[Owly]

So, regarding "the point": I feel like this is kind of a vague thing here. I agree with you that team basketball is a complex thing, but Thurmond is a defensive specialist and Jones is an all-arounder, so the calculus from moving on from one just isn't the same thing.

Sounds like moving on from Jones for any kind of basketball reasons is something we agree was likely misguided, but my impression was that they saw Kobe & Jones as both lead guard types and that they were under the mistaken impression that Rice was essentially a Miller/Allen type of player who a) didn't need the ball in his hands, b) moved well off-ball, and c) was a great shooter from the adult 3-point line. I think the reality is that Jones was better both on & off ball than Rice, to say nothing of defense.

Also, "Kobe better night to night defender". Not sure what you mean here. If you mean that when Kobe was utterly locked in trying to prove how good he could be as a man defender he was better than Jones, that's plausible. If you mean he was a more valuable defender in general, I'd argue the opposite, and not by a small margin.

Just for clarity ...

my point re complexity primarily regarded the other moving parts, improvement/loss with age etc ... I'm not sure on the meaning on specialist versus all-rounder.

If LA thought that ... as ever in this they seem wrong, Jones never really looked that much a lead guard. His usage peaks at maybe 2nd option level (and not the high end) and career wise is average. As you alluded to (and as I had thought otoh) my belief is Rice benefited from the shortened line. MInd you as I said and you seem to agree ... this was not a good trade.

Regarding D I'm just noting D as an area of strength for Jones that Kobe wasn't better at. The list is Jones's strengths and asking is Kobe better (clearly or even at all)? My impression was earlier you were saying Jones is okay because he's surpassed in the things he does well by a great and I'm not sure he was surpassed in those areas (and per above regarding possession, wasn't really replaced by Bryant as the two could play together - hence my raising Rice). I'd suggest otoh, Kobe was better at generating shots and at making really tough shots and that would be his big leverage point over most players, though there are other areas of advantage.

Think I'll leave this here.

Not to belabor the point but Jones was the lead perimeter scorer on a Lakers team that was quite good. While there can be situations where the lead perimeter scorer can still be classified as secondary to a facilitator, I would consider Jones to be pretty clear cut the best perimeter player on those teams, and not remotely someone analogous in role to what Derek Fisher would later become known for.

Didn't want to bite but this seems to wildly misconstrue things as I see it ...

"Leading perimeter scorer" (and "clear cut the best perimeter player") and "lead" guard are different things, no?

Where I tend to see "lead guard" is "dominant guard" where that isn't point. Some sources see it as synonymous with point. One could say the point is generally implicitly the lead guard, as the leading guard and it only needs stating if you've got your two as the ball heavy guy like Jordan, Kobe, Wade, Harden, Iverson types.

That's my framework lead guard is the on ball guard, implicitly tending towards point, more likely to be stated for a 2 where they're dominant and the 1 is likely to take more of a backseat.

Jones scored more points than Bryant or Van Exel a couple of years because he played more minutes than either, neither of the other two was shooting for a great percentage. '97 he's below NVE for Reference Usage (narrowly), assist rate or percentage, turnover rate or percentage. He's behind Bryant for usage and turnover rate or percentage. '98 same is true except turnover rate with NVE is now a tie and Bryant is now ahead in both assist variants.

He played a bunch of minutes and shot well but he wasn't a lead guard because of these things at least by my understanding.

No he's not particularly analogous to Derek Fisher, a point guard sized noteworthy for lower usage roles in LA (15.4 for LA career), but then who was saying he was.

[Doctor MJ]

Just for clarity ...

my point re complexity primarily regarded the other moving parts, improvement/loss with age etc ... I'm not sure on the meaning on specialist versus all-rounder.

If LA thought that ... as ever in this they seem wrong, Jones never really looked that much a lead guard. His usage peaks at maybe 2nd option level (and not the high end) and career wise is average. As you alluded to (and as I had thought otoh) my belief is Rice benefited from the shortened line. MInd you as I said and you seem to agree ... this was not a good trade.

Regarding D I'm just noting D as an area of strength for Jones that Kobe wasn't better at. The list is Jones's strengths and asking is Kobe better (clearly or even at all)? My impression was earlier you were saying Jones is okay because he's surpassed in the things he does well by a great and I'm not sure he was surpassed in those areas (and per above regarding possession, wasn't really replaced by Bryant as the two could play together - hence my raising Rice). I'd suggest otoh, Kobe was better at generating shots and at making really tough shots and that would be his big leverage point over most players, though there are other areas of advantage.

Think I'll leave this here.

Not to belabor the point but Jones was the lead perimeter scorer on a Lakers team that was quite good. While there can be situations where the lead perimeter scorer can still be classified as secondary to a facilitator, I would consider Jones to be pretty clear cut the best perimeter player on those teams, and not remotely someone analogous in role to what Derek Fisher would later become known for.

Didn't want to bite but this seems to wildly misconstrue things as I see it ...

"Leading perimeter scorer" (and "clear cut the best perimeter player") and "lead" guard are different things, no?

Where I tend to see "lead guard" is "dominant guard" where that isn't point. Some sources see it as synonymous with point. One could say the point is generally implicitly the lead guard, as the leading guard and it only needs stating if you've got your two as the ball heavy guy like Jordan, Kobe, Wade, Harden, Iverson types.

That's my framework lead guard is the on ball guard, implicitly tending towards point, more likely to be stated for a 2 where they're dominant and the 1 is likely to take more of a backseat.

Jones scored more points than Bryant or Van Exel a couple of years because he played more minutes than either, neither of the other two was shooting for a great percentage. '97 he's below NVE for Reference Usage (narrowly), assist rate or percentage, turnover rate or percentage. He's behind Bryant for usage and turnover rate or percentage. '98 same is true except turnover rate with NVE is now a tie and Bryant is now ahead in both assist variants.

He played a bunch of minutes and shot well but he wasn't a lead guard because of these things at least by my understanding.

No he's not particularly analogous to Derek Fisher, a point guard sized noteworthy for lower usage roles in LA (15.4 for LA career), but then who was saying he was.

So, let me first say that to the extent "lead guard" to "off guard" is a spectrum, Jones' tendency is not as lead-y as Kobe or Van Exel.

But if you look at the Laker lineups for '97-98, you'll see that the top lineup for both regular & post-season has a Fisher-Jones backcourt, and of the two there's no question who has the greater shooting primacy.

Further, obviously any lineup with Shaq in it focused on feeding Shaq, while the backups (Kobe, and Van Exel once benched) were more free to jack while Shaq rested.

So I do think that Eddie counts as something more like a "lead guard" once the Lakers realize that Van Exel isn't it, and moreover, once Eddie goes to Charlotte, I think he's pretty clearly a lead guard, leading the team in scoring in his first full year there, and also getting more than 4 APG per game on a team where no one averages 6 APG.

All this to say that while Eddie is most clearly a shooting guard and can be an off-guard, I do think he was used as a lead guard too in his career, and I think basically whatever he was tasked to do, he did it pretty well.

[Owly]

Not to belabor the point but Jones was the lead perimeter scorer on a Lakers team that was quite good. While there can be situations where the lead perimeter scorer can still be classified as secondary to a facilitator, I would consider Jones to be pretty clear cut the best perimeter player on those teams, and not remotely someone analogous in role to what Derek Fisher would later become known for.

Didn't want to bite but this seems to wildly misconstrue things as I see it ...

"Leading perimeter scorer" (and "clear cut the best perimeter player") and "lead" guard are different things, no?

Where I tend to see "lead guard" is "dominant guard" where that isn't point. Some sources see it as synonymous with point. One could say the point is generally implicitly the lead guard, as the leading guard and it only needs stating if you've got your two as the ball heavy guy like Jordan, Kobe, Wade, Harden, Iverson types.

That's my framework lead guard is the on ball guard, implicitly tending towards point, more likely to be stated for a 2 where they're dominant and the 1 is likely to take more of a backseat.

Jones scored more points than Bryant or Van Exel a couple of years because he played more minutes than either, neither of the other two was shooting for a great percentage. '97 he's below NVE for Reference Usage (narrowly), assist rate or percentage, turnover rate or percentage. He's behind Bryant for usage and turnover rate or percentage. '98 same is true except turnover rate with NVE is now a tie and Bryant is now ahead in both assist variants.

He played a bunch of minutes and shot well but he wasn't a lead guard because of these things at least by my understanding.

No he's not particularly analogous to Derek Fisher, a point guard sized noteworthy for lower usage roles in LA (15.4 for LA career), but then who was saying he was.

So, let me first say that to the extent "lead guard" to "off guard" is a spectrum, Jones' tendency is not as lead-y as Kobe or Van Exel.

But if you look at the Laker lineups for '97-98, you'll see that the top lineup for both regular & post-season has a Fisher-Jones backcourt, and of the two there's no question who has the greater shooting primacy.

Further, obviously any lineup with Shaq in it focused on feeding Shaq, while the backups (Kobe, and Van Exel once benched) were more free to jack while Shaq rested.

So I do think that Eddie counts as something more like a "lead guard" once the Lakers realize that Van Exel isn't it, and moreover, once Eddie goes to Charlotte, I think he's pretty clearly a lead guard, leading the team in scoring in his first full year there, and also getting more than 4 APG per game on a team where no one averages 6 APG.

All this to say that while Eddie is most clearly a shooting guard and can be an off-guard, I do think he was used as a lead guard too in his career, and I think basically whatever he was tasked to do, he did it pretty well.

Not sure why this is rearing it's head now (maybe people get "false"/repeat or massively delayed quote alerts?) but ...

Basically per the definitions given above he isn't that lead-y.

I think he's really good. Just not a "lead guard" where's a ball-dominating two that negates the need for or value of a conventional 1.

Going back to what I said in an earlier post

His usage peaks at maybe 2nd option level (and not the high end) and career wise is average

So yes he could lead a team in scoring at 20ppg ... but he's doing so because he's playing an awful lot of minutes, the only guy near him isn't shooting and it's a pretty equal opportunity offense. Jones is towards the top at 23.4 usage. But bar Mason (14.4) nearly all the 9-man rotation are within 3.5 points of 20 usage. Coleman the outlier at 25.2. This remains true with 10th man Ricky Davis. He's probably creating more of his shots for himself than most of those other guys.

I don't know, I suppose if the continuum is "off guard" to "lead" ... maybe ... I don't know exactly how the scale would work, but yeah he'd be closer to that.

But if we say his prime is 96-03 his usage there is 21.4. As before it never breaks 24. Which I think in most circumstances makes him peak towards the low-end of 2nd option. Could he be the more "leading" of two guards on "normal" teams. Yes of course. And he'll do some amount of playmaking and score above average efficiency and be a good player.

Technically you can say he led them in his partial season in Charlotte too. He plays more than others, per game score 17, a bunch of guys score around 15,14 including JR Reid ... and his usage is at 21.5.

I don't know that it matters but for my conception of what a lead guard is he doesn't match it. That isn't to say my definition is "correct". For guys I'd think of as 2 that made me think "lead guard" they'd have been higher primacy and higher usage in a place like Charlotte where that was arguably there for the taking. And some would do that and be worse players. It's not that he isn't good he just never showed (arguably with some opportunity) the things I'd think of as "lead guard" ... but that doesn't mean I don't think he was really good and I don't think the label matters.

[Doctor MJ]

Didn't want to bite but this seems to wildly misconstrue things as I see it ...

"Leading perimeter scorer" (and "clear cut the best perimeter player") and "lead" guard are different things, no?

Where I tend to see "lead guard" is "dominant guard" where that isn't point. Some sources see it as synonymous with point. One could say the point is generally implicitly the lead guard, as the leading guard and it only needs stating if you've got your two as the ball heavy guy like Jordan, Kobe, Wade, Harden, Iverson types.

That's my framework lead guard is the on ball guard, implicitly tending towards point, more likely to be stated for a 2 where they're dominant and the 1 is likely to take more of a backseat.

Jones scored more points than Bryant or Van Exel a couple of years because he played more minutes than either, neither of the other two was shooting for a great percentage. '97 he's below NVE for Reference Usage (narrowly), assist rate or percentage, turnover rate or percentage. He's behind Bryant for usage and turnover rate or percentage. '98 same is true except turnover rate with NVE is now a tie and Bryant is now ahead in both assist variants.

He played a bunch of minutes and shot well but he wasn't a lead guard because of these things at least by my understanding.

No he's not particularly analogous to Derek Fisher, a point guard sized noteworthy for lower usage roles in LA (15.4 for LA career), but then who was saying he was.

So, let me first say that to the extent "lead guard" to "off guard" is a spectrum, Jones' tendency is not as lead-y as Kobe or Van Exel.

But if you look at the Laker lineups for '97-98, you'll see that the top lineup for both regular & post-season has a Fisher-Jones backcourt, and of the two there's no question who has the greater shooting primacy.

Further, obviously any lineup with Shaq in it focused on feeding Shaq, while the backups (Kobe, and Van Exel once benched) were more free to jack while Shaq rested.

So I do think that Eddie counts as something more like a "lead guard" once the Lakers realize that Van Exel isn't it, and moreover, once Eddie goes to Charlotte, I think he's pretty clearly a lead guard, leading the team in scoring in his first full year there, and also getting more than 4 APG per game on a team where no one averages 6 APG.

All this to say that while Eddie is most clearly a shooting guard and can be an off-guard, I do think he was used as a lead guard too in his career, and I think basically whatever he was tasked to do, he did it pretty well.

Not sure why this is rearing it's head now (maybe people get "false"/repeat or massively delayed quote alerts?) but ...

Basically per the definitions given above he isn't that lead-y.

I think he's really good. Just not a "lead guard" where's a ball-dominating two that negates the need for or value of a conventional 1.

Going back to what I said in an earlier post

His usage peaks at maybe 2nd option level (and not the high end) and career wise is average

So yes he could lead a team in scoring at 20ppg ... but he's doing so because he's playing an awful lot of minutes, the only guy near him isn't shooting and it's a pretty equal opportunity offense. Jones is towards the top at 23.4 usage. But bar Mason (14.4) nearly all the 9-man rotation are within 3.5 points of 20 usage. Coleman the outlier at 25.2. This remains true with 10th man Ricky Davis. He's probably creating more of his shots for himself than most of those other guys.

I don't know, I suppose if the continuum is "off guard" to "lead" ... maybe ... I don't know exactly how the scale would work, but yeah he'd be closer to that.

But if we say his prime is 96-03 his usage there is 21.4. As before it never breaks 24. Which I think in most circumstances makes him peak towards the low-end of 2nd option. Could he be the more "leading" of two guards on "normal" teams. Yes of course. And he'll do some amount of playmaking and score above average efficiency and be a good player.

Technically you can say he led them in his partial season in Charlotte too. He plays more than others, per game score 17, a bunch of guys score around 15,14 including JR Reid ... and his usage is at 21.5.

I don't know that it matters but for my conception of what a lead guard is he doesn't match it. That isn't to say my definition is "correct". For guys I'd think of as 2 that made me think "lead guard" they'd have been higher primacy and higher usage in a place like Charlotte where that was arguably there for the taking. And some would do that and be worse players. It's not that he isn't good he just never showed (arguably with some opportunity) the things I'd think of as "lead guard" ... but that doesn't mean I don't think he was really good and I don't think the label matters.

I'm with you that the labels don't matter that much so I don't want to be too combative here.

When I use these terms in general I'm using either "point guard and shooting guard" or "lead guard and off guard", and Fisher is perhaps THE example of why we use the term "off guard" rather than "point guard". But the relationship between he and Eddie on the court was of course different from he and Kobe. All we can really say is that Fisher never puts up APG like we'd expect from a guy playing point guard. It would be cool if we had player tracking for this era to have a better sense of who was more on and off ball.

Re: Charlotte. Yeah see to me when I look at data like '99-00 (his first full year in Charlotte), it just doesn't make a lot of sense to describe any player as the "point guard", but there is clearly one guard who is by far the most important on the team, so calling him "lead guard" just makes sense to me.

It'd be one thing if all he did was lead the team in scoring, but with him getting >4 APG and himself having a lower % of his FGs assisted than any other big minute player, he's clearly not just being a Reggie Miller out there.

On the point of "Yeah but he plays more than the other guys", I understand why looking at rate stats makes sense, but I can't help but translate it as "He was better at basketball than the other veteran guards, so of course, the team depended on him more".

There is one other aspect I'd be remiss if I didn't mention:

Baron Davis was a rookie that season, and while he was not playing big minutes, he was the guy they were grooming to be the clear cut point guard of the future. By the next year Baron would be not simply the team's point guard, but also their MVP. Of course, by that point, Jones would no longer be on the team.

[Owly]

So, let me first say that to the extent "lead guard" to "off guard" is a spectrum, Jones' tendency is not as lead-y as Kobe or Van Exel.

But if you look at the Laker lineups for '97-98, you'll see that the top lineup for both regular & post-season has a Fisher-Jones backcourt, and of the two there's no question who has the greater shooting primacy.

Further, obviously any lineup with Shaq in it focused on feeding Shaq, while the backups (Kobe, and Van Exel once benched) were more free to jack while Shaq rested.

So I do think that Eddie counts as something more like a "lead guard" once the Lakers realize that Van Exel isn't it, and moreover, once Eddie goes to Charlotte, I think he's pretty clearly a lead guard, leading the team in scoring in his first full year there, and also getting more than 4 APG per game on a team where no one averages 6 APG.

All this to say that while Eddie is most clearly a shooting guard and can be an off-guard, I do think he was used as a lead guard too in his career, and I think basically whatever he was tasked to do, he did it pretty well.

Not sure why this is rearing it's head now (maybe people get "false"/repeat or massively delayed quote alerts?) but ...

Basically per the definitions given above he isn't that lead-y.

I think he's really good. Just not a "lead guard" where's a ball-dominating two that negates the need for or value of a conventional 1.

Going back to what I said in an earlier post

His usage peaks at maybe 2nd option level (and not the high end) and career wise is average

So yes he could lead a team in scoring at 20ppg ... but he's doing so because he's playing an awful lot of minutes, the only guy near him isn't shooting and it's a pretty equal opportunity offense. Jones is towards the top at 23.4 usage. But bar Mason (14.4) nearly all the 9-man rotation are within 3.5 points of 20 usage. Coleman the outlier at 25.2. This remains true with 10th man Ricky Davis. He's probably creating more of his shots for himself than most of those other guys.

I don't know, I suppose if the continuum is "off guard" to "lead" ... maybe ... I don't know exactly how the scale would work, but yeah he'd be closer to that.

But if we say his prime is 96-03 his usage there is 21.4. As before it never breaks 24. Which I think in most circumstances makes him peak towards the low-end of 2nd option. Could he be the more "leading" of two guards on "normal" teams. Yes of course. And he'll do some amount of playmaking and score above average efficiency and be a good player.

Technically you can say he led them in his partial season in Charlotte too. He plays more than others, per game score 17, a bunch of guys score around 15,14 including JR Reid ... and his usage is at 21.5.

I don't know that it matters but for my conception of what a lead guard is he doesn't match it. That isn't to say my definition is "correct". For guys I'd think of as 2 that made me think "lead guard" they'd have been higher primacy and higher usage in a place like Charlotte where that was arguably there for the taking. And some would do that and be worse players. It's not that he isn't good he just never showed (arguably with some opportunity) the things I'd think of as "lead guard" ... but that doesn't mean I don't think he was really good and I don't think the label matters.

I'm with you that the labels don't matter that much so I don't want to be too combative here.

When I use these terms in general I'm using either "point guard and shooting guard" or "lead guard and off guard", and Fisher is perhaps THE example of why we use the term "off guard" rather than "point guard". But the relationship between he and Eddie on the court was of course different from he and Kobe. All we can really say is that Fisher never puts up APG like we'd expect from a guy playing point guard. It would be cool if we had player tracking for this era to have a better sense of who was more on and off ball.

Re: Charlotte. Yeah see to me when I look at data like '99-00 (his first full year in Charlotte), it just doesn't make a lot of sense to describe any player as the "point guard", but there is clearly one guard who is by far the most important on the team, so calling him "lead guard" just makes sense to me.

It'd be one thing if all he did was lead the team in scoring, but with him getting >4 APG and himself having a lower % of his FGs assisted than any other big minute player, he's clearly not just being a Reggie Miller out there.

On the point of "Yeah but he plays more than the other guys", I understand why looking at rate stats makes sense, but I can't help but translate it as "He was better at basketball than the other veteran guards, so of course, the team depended on him more".

There is one other aspect I'd be remiss if I didn't mention:

Baron Davis was a rookie that season, and while he was not playing big minutes, he was the guy they were grooming to be the clear cut point guard of the future. By the next year Baron would be not simply the team's point guard, but also their MVP. Of course, by that point, Jones would no longer be on the team.

So broadly granting if off isn't used for 2 and it's that scale then ... I've already said he could be more.

I don't like the waving away of minutes because they're better. It starts mixing two things some version of primacy and goodness.

Let's say I have peak Jones (maybe '00) and rookie Allen Iverson and say an Eric Snow or Derek Fisher or John Paxson or some low usage maybe low mistake 1. I think Jones is the best player and so play him 40mpg. I split my remaining 56 guard minutes 30 to Iverson and 26 to low mistake, solid maybe impactful low production guard. I'd have no qualms saying Jones is better. Depending on construction I might say that any perceived "limiting" of Iverson's minutes makes sense as he's not clearly a positive impact player and he's turning the ball over a lot. And Jones might put up more points. But I'd be really reticent to call him the "lead guard". Because there's someone else who fits that archetype and that primacy much more. Jones is better because he's more efficient and and better defender and probably making fewer mistakes but I'd prefer to regard these things separately, I'd think mixing goodness in with primacy only muddies it.

And yeah part of that [Iverson being more "lead] is based something you acknowledge in terms of not just scoring and indeed point to assists in his favor... but then similar to the above he's benefiting from minutes ... he peaks at 4.2 but closer to 3 is more typical his per 100pos is 5.6 here, 4.9 prime (career 4.6).

I kind of alluded to assisted in terms of self-creation but then see the comparison with even baby Baron, or Iverson or Wade. This fits a broader trend. Jones is a relative leader among a particular set of players and guards and if that's what you mean by it okay.

In terms of Jones off the team ... and he's gone to Miami ... to be a tertiary option behind Zo, who doesn't end up playing, and then even given he has to take more on because of this and hits a career peak usage ... is behind a washed-up Tim Hardaway.

It doesn't mean I don't rate him, I absolutely do. He just isn't hitting my definition or mental framework of "lead guard" in the way he does yours.

edit:

but there is clearly one guard who is by far the most important on the team, so calling him "lead guard" just makes sense to me.

If I felt it necessary to put a label on that it would be "best player among guards on the team" or "best guard" if context made it clear what was meant by that ... as far as I'm understanding it, it isn't something I'd personally feel a need to put a label on. I'm kind of assuming importance is goodness (rather than say a wildly erratic player who might make or destroy the team's night ... then we'd somewhat be getting back to primacy with a dose of volatility).

[Pelly24]

All time, I think Jimmy is one of the greatest wings ever. If you can't get MJ, LeBron, Wade or Kobe or KD (and maybe even over KD), I might take Jimmy.