RealGM

05-08 Billups in place of 05-08 Nash - Does Phoenix win any championships?


RS numbers:

Billups -
309gm, 35.1mins, 3.1reb, 7.1ast, 1.1stl, 2.1tos, 17.2pts
per 100- 4.9reb, 11.1ast, 1.7stl, 3.3tos, 27.1pts, 125OR, 106DR
21.8PER, 60.5ts%, 40.1ows, 12.4dws, 52.5ws, .232ws/48, 5.7bpm

Nash -
311gm, 34.8mins, 3.6reb, 11.2ast, 0.8stl, 3.5tos, 17.5pts
per 100- 5.2reb, 16ast, 1.1stl, 5.1tos, 25.1pts, 122OR, 110DR
22.5PER, 63.4ts%, 39.8ows, 6.5dws, 46.3ws, .205ws/48, 4.9bpm


PS:

Billups -
38.1mins, 3.6reb, 6.1ast, 1.1stl, 2.1tos, 17.9pts
per 100- 5.3reb, 9.1ast, 1.6stl, 3.2tos, 26.5pts, 120OR, 105DR
19.6PER, 58.2ts%, 8.2ows, 3.6dws, 11.8ws, .201ws/48, 5.1bpm

Nash -
51gm, 39.3mins, 3.8reb, 11ast, 0.5stl, 3.9tos, 20.7pts
per 100- 5reb, 14.4ast, 0.7stl, 5.1tos, 27.1pts, 117OR, 114DR
21.7PER, 59.7to%, 6.1ows, 0.4dws, 6.5ws, .155ws/48, 4.2bpm


Billups may have been good enough offensively, especially with that coaching system of D"Antoni and definitely a very good defender. May have been a better result for Phoenix those years. Likely he outplays Parker in the losses to the Spurs and limits him well really restricting the Spurs.

no

I rate Billups higher than Nash, but nobody was a better point guard for that team than Steve.

What

Jaivl wrote:What

the heart of a champion!

No

My controversial opinion is the 2015-18 Warriors still win 2 rings with 05-08 Billups instead of Curry

Nah but Isiah Thomas wins 4 championships.

EmpireFalls wrote:No

My controversial opinion is the 2015-18 Warriors still win 2 rings with 05-08 Billups instead of Curry

Not really controversial.

Billups/Klay/Iggy/KD/Green is the best team in the NBA in 2017 and 2018. Maybe even 2015/2016 too [assuming Kyrie/Love both injured].

EmpireFalls wrote:No

My controversial opinion is the 2015-18 Warriors still win 2 rings with 05-08 Billups instead of Curry

I agree with this. Actually, I believe they just might win 3.

It's an interesting idea. We saw he was better in Denver during the playoffs than Iverson had been. Think of the PGs that get rated higher than Billups that came up just short . . . Stockton, Paul, Kidd, Kevin Johnson, Penny, etc. and sub in Chauncey's peak for their highest potential championship years. Because, after all, he did win (and won FMVP) so you know you have someone who plays well in big runs.

Colbinii wrote:

EmpireFalls wrote:No

My controversial opinion is the 2015-18 Warriors still win 2 rings with 05-08 Billups instead of Curry

Not really controversial.

Billups/Klay/Iggy/KD/Green is the best team in the NBA in 2017 and 2018. Maybe even 2015/2016 too [assuming Kyrie/Love both injured].

That's just insulting to Curry... You can't replace a potential top 10 all time GOAT with a guy who was barely ever top 10 in the league vs his contemporaries and expect similar results. Billups was a very good game manager and an elite shooter for his time but the Warriors were built around Curry's insane gravity which was driven by his outlier volume and efficiency, neither of which Billups would be able to replicate.

In 2015 they may still make the Finals but I think LeBron could beat them. He took 2 games off the team with Steph after all. Probably 50-50.

2016 they don't even make the Finals, the Thunder beat them in 5-6.

2017 they will make the Finals if Kawhi still gets hurt but the Cavs win again. The two teams are fairly even at that point, it's Durant + supporting stars vs LeBron vs supporting stars.

2018 they lose to the Rockets.

Maybe 1 title in 2015 at best, but that's it.

with all due respect to Billups but without that high octane offense based on Nash, Suns lose everything that makes them special (And that let them standout in their era). Spurs probably sweep them every season if they meet

ardee wrote:2017 they will make the Finals if Kawhi still gets hurt but the Cavs win again. The two teams are fairly even at that point, it's Durant + supporting stars vs LeBron vs supporting stars.

That's ridiculous statement. Warriors without Curry and KD were significantly better than Cavs without LeBron. It's not even up to discussion.

The Suns win titles that era with just mediocre ownership not selling off depth players and picks.

No, you don't sub him for Magic, Oscar, West, or Curry, they are all too central to their team's offense both scoring and playmaking. But the idea of subbing an extremely efficient (for era) guy who rarely turns the ball over for a flashier player with a bigger reputation and thinking about how the team and coach would do things differently and whether it would work, possibly even better than with the slightly more talented point, is interesting.

And please DONT TURN THIS INTO YET ANOTHER LEBRON THREAD.

I wouldn't bet on them winning with Billups but I think Chauncey at his peak was really good. Like better than Kidd and the pgs who usually get talk in the 35-60 range all time.

Love the OP's idea, putting in one of the game's most historically underrated players for one of its most overrated.

I think the answer is "maybe," but if you forced me to choose between yes and no, I think I'd have to go with no. Nash was no slouch in the playoffs, even though he 100% should have shot more (as he has admitted), and those WC's were ridiculously stacked. So, I still have to say no.

Some full disclosure here: I have Nash 37th on my list and Billups 66th.

Could have Nash as low as like 48th and Billups at 60th, though. OP posed a good question.

EDIT: In fact, I did some fiddling today (05/28) and moved Nash to 40th 38th and Billups to 67th. Unrelated to this thread, but there you go. Rankings are usually fluid, and I'm never going to look at my list and be like, "Yeah, it's perfect." I'm much more likely to look at it and want to make a change here and there...

scrabbarista wrote:Love the OP's idea, putting in one of the game's most historically underrated players for one of its most overrated.

I think the answer is "maybe," but if you forced me to choose between yes and no, I think I'd have to go with no. Nash was no slouch in the playoffs, even though he 100% should have shot more (as he has admitted), and those WC's were ridiculously stacked. So, I still have to say no.

Some full disclosure here: I have Nash 37th on my list and Billups 66th.

Could have Nash as low as like 48th and Billups at 60th, though. OP posed a good question.

What interested me about this idea was that Parker always played well against Nash and the Spurs won all the time against them. Billups is a much better defender and could post up a bit, which would expose Parker. Nash ran a better offense but Amare, Marion and the shooters would still be what they were, but the defense would be significantly better and that respect. In those years Billups was at his best and the Pistons won, needing his offense which was actually very good compared to other PGs those years.

migya wrote:

scrabbarista wrote:Love the OP's idea, putting in one of the game's most historically underrated players for one of its most overrated.

I think the answer is "maybe," but if you forced me to choose between yes and no, I think I'd have to go with no. Nash was no slouch in the playoffs, even though he 100% should have shot more (as he has admitted), and those WC's were ridiculously stacked. So, I still have to say no.

Some full disclosure here: I have Nash 37th on my list and Billups 66th.

Could have Nash as low as like 48th and Billups at 60th, though. OP posed a good question.

What interested me about this idea was that Parker always played well against Nash and the Spurs won all the time against them. Billups is a much better defender and could post up a bit, which would expose Parker. Nash ran a better offense but Amare, Marion and the shooters would still be what they were, but the defense would be significantly better and that respect. In those years Billups was at his best and the Pistons won, needing his offense which was actually very good compared to other PGs those years.

That's not based in reality.

Phoenix would crater from Nash to Billups, because Nash is simply a far more impactful player, and the rest of those guys were way more reliant on Nash than any team has ever been on Billups.

Nash to Billups would be a major downgrade in team offense. His impact stats don't match up, his playmaking wasn't there. He shot more, he scored more. He was a low-percentage shooter mostly. A very good three-point shooter for his era and very good at drawing fouls, but really unimpressive beneath the arc, so he made major variance issues.

I just don't really see how he makes them better. Defense at the point didn't lose Phoenix title opportunities, and Billups certainly wasn't a better offensive player than Nash, nor was he better-suited to Phoenix in particular.