RealGM

Forget legacy , accolades and reputation,

Who plays basketball at a higher level?

Give me Clyde. He was a more complete player and reliable source of impact. Plenty of time for Ant to change my mind though

GeorgeMarcus wrote:Give me Clyde. He was a more complete player and reliable source of impact. Plenty of time for Ant to change my mind though

That. ^

Succinct.

Ill say Drexler for now hes better at most things but he was a weak halfcourt scorer w/ the ball in his hands. Ants ability to hit 3s specially off dribble makes him a far more dangerous and capable halfcourt scorer but Drexler does have the edge in arguably every other area and Ants scoring is still inconsistent this could change however

I might regret this but give me Ant. His ability to blow the game open with unreal shot-making and some of the best 3-point pull-up shooting ever is real, and this further complimented by his first step and general speed being something difficult to gameplan for. The Lakers defense looked like a zone to Ant at times, and the looks OKC throws are probably even more ghastly- but I think Ant has done a fine job working through these coverages. He is not the passer of Drexler, but he has the aforementioned ways to circumnavigate problems. I think Ant is probably the harder guy to gameplan for.

I also favor Ant's defense a bit more. His highs as a defender are just better. Right now, I have seen enough of him dicing up these advanced defensive schemes to have him ahead. He is tested.

LukaTheGOAT wrote:I might regret this but give me Ant. His ability to blow the game open with unreal shot-making and some of the best 3-point pull-up shooting ever is real, and this further complimented by his first step and general speed being something difficult to gameplan for. The Lakers defense looked like a zone to Ant at times, and the looks OKC throws are probably even more ghastly.

But I think Ant has done a fine job working through these coverages. He is not the passer of Drexler, but he has the aforementioned ways to circumnavigate problems. I think Ant is probably the harder guy to gameplan for.

I also favor Ant's defense a bit more. His highs as a defender are just better. Right now, I have seen enough of him dicing up these advanced defensive schemes to have him ahead. He is tested.

Ants scoring efficiency was .533ts against La..... And this a defense where 40yo Bron was their most reliable rim protector and paint defender. Jj went no bigs later in series no Jaxon Haye so they had no rim protection and defensive sieves in Reaves and Luka were starters on their defense too.......

GSP wrote:

LukaTheGOAT wrote:I might regret this but give me Ant. His ability to blow the game open with unreal shot-making and some of the best 3-point pull-up shooting ever is real, and this further complimented by his first step and general speed being something difficult to gameplan for. The Lakers defense looked like a zone to Ant at times, and the looks OKC throws are probably even more ghastly.

But I think Ant has done a fine job working through these coverages. He is not the passer of Drexler, but he has the aforementioned ways to circumnavigate problems. I think Ant is probably the harder guy to gameplan for.

I also favor Ant's defense a bit more. His highs as a defender are just better. Right now, I have seen enough of him dicing up these advanced defensive schemes to have him ahead. He is tested.

Ants scoring efficiency was .533ts against La..... And this a defense where 40yo Bron was their most reliable rim protector and paint defender. Jj went no bigs later in series no Jaxon Haye so they had no rim protection and defensive sieves in Reaves and Luka were starters on their defense too.......

I'm aware he didn't shoot all that well. But his reads were much improved:



Overall, out of the series he been healthy for, that was his worst shooting series. Overall, him not being caught in the daze by LA or OKC is enough for me. He probably would do better next to a good passer who has on-ball juice (like a younger Mike Conley). But the fact he can be a pseudo-PG works.

Also, I think Lebron was legit one of the best defenders this PS based on that Minnesota series. He was doing DPOY-level stuff.


It's early, but if Ant really has figured out the Thunder's defense and forces them to make a scheme change, that would be a herculean feat that I am not sure if Drexler could have/has achieved:



This Thunder defense is GOAT level.

Clyde for now.

I still feel like the idea of Ant the player doesn't really correlate with the player he actually is. Like his impact numbers in the RS don't scream 'face of the league' nor in the playoffs. His last 2 playoff series were good, but they weren't outstanding or anything.

But he's been really good the past 2 games vs OKC.

Ant by far

Drexler easy. Better scorer, passer, rebounder etc. Took his Blazers to two Finals in 3 years (should’ve been three) and finished 2nd to Jordan for the 1991-92 MVP. St his best he was considered the 2nd best player in the league. I don’t think anyone thinks Ant is the 2nd best player in the league. Ant ain’t on that level yet but he might get there one day.

One_and_Done wrote:Ant by far

I'm sensing a pattern: every modern player > every older player (and it's not even close)

C'mon bruv what are we doing here

GeorgeMarcus wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Ant by far

I'm sensing a pattern: every modern player > every older player (and it's not even close)

C'mon bruv what are we doing here

Well, that's inherently more likely when you consider how much better today's game is.

Clyde had a legit top 4 argument in 92. If Ant leads Minny past Okc with a strong series I might be open to changing my mind but as of now I go with Clyde.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:Clyde had a legit top 4 argument in 92. If Ant leads Minny past Okc with a strong series I might be open to changing my mind but as of now I go with Clyde.

Respectfully, the Top 4 of today is much stronger than 92 imo at least

One_and_Done wrote:

GeorgeMarcus wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Ant by far

I'm sensing a pattern: every modern player > every older player (and it's not even close)

C'mon bruv what are we doing here

Well, that's inherently more likely when you consider how much better today's game is.

I think you're vastly overrating the speed at which the league and/or the human race evolves. Hopefully you realize the latter is completely inconsequential. As for the former- the expanding international player pool- let's put it into perspective.

The league was 7.6% international in '98 and has since risen to 23%. So your argument hinges on a 15.4% increase in international representation. Do you not see how silly that is? The vast majority of talent is still US-driven, which is a pool that hasn't expanded meaningfully in what, 40 years? I teach statistics for a living and I'll tell you, the numbers don't support your conclusion the way you seem to think.

GeorgeMarcus wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:

GeorgeMarcus wrote:
I'm sensing a pattern: every modern player > every older player (and it's not even close)

C'mon bruv what are we doing here

Well, that's inherently more likely when you consider how much better today's game is.

I think you're vastly overrating the speed at which the league and/or the human race evolves. Hopefully you realize the latter is completely inconsequential. As for the former- the expanding international player pool- let's put it into perspective.

The league was 7.6% international in '98 and has since risen to 23%. So your argument hinges on a 15.4% increase in international representation. Do you not see how silly that is? The vast majority of talent is still US-driven, which is a pool that hasn't expanded meaningfully in what, 40 years? I teach statistics for a living and I'll tell you, the numbers don't support your conclusion the way you seem to think.

As has been explained many times, this has nothing to do with evolution (a process that takes millions of years). The difference is the increasing professionalisation of the game and the exponentially greater money and resources put into it. That has massively increased the player pool.

If I am the champion of my local poker club, with a $150 payout, the pool of ppl interested will be small. The skill of the players and the sophistication of their strategies will not be best in the world; because the best in the world are not incentivised to play at my local poker club. But if the prize is 100 million, then the best players in the world will come and techniques to win and skill levels will exponentially increase, because people are now motivated to spend days and months on end training.

For me to say 'well, 8% of the players at my poker club were already immigrants' completely misses the point. Maybe they were, but that was a random fact. It didn't reflect the number of people worldwide who are now training to participate in my event. The % of foreigners in the poker finals might even go down, but the number trying to get in went way up

Drexler played in a much superior league to say Russell or Mikan, but it was still a basic league compared to today. The money and sophistication was less, and as a result so were the average players. When Drexler grew up the games weren't even broadcast live, assuming you had a tiny TV to watch on. Today the sport is everywhere, scouts and coaches are everywhere, and working to refine kids games at a young age, and to scour ever cranny for potential ballers, because money. In 1985 the salary cap for your whole team was 3.6 million. Today the average player salary is over 14 million. Those economics have a huge impact.

In Drexler's era teams had a limited understanding of how to play the game well. Nobody took 3s. Guys were often allowed to play for themselves and got away with it. Strategies were simplistic. Unskilled players who would never make the league were allowed on the court because you needed a 'rebounder' at the 4. Coaches didn't understand all the stuff they do today. International players weren't scouted as much, and the investment in developing kids at a young age was much less. It's easier to look good in a league like that.

Drexler would be good today too, but he would be a lesser player. Hard to believe he'd be a borderline top 5 guy like Ant. He's less athletic, less skilled, a worse shooter and defender. I struggle to think of an area where Clyde has the advantage other than being 2 inches taller.

1993Playoffs wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:Clyde had a legit top 4 argument in 92. If Ant leads Minny past Okc with a strong series I might be open to changing my mind but as of now I go with Clyde.

Respectfully, the Top 4 of today is much stronger than 92 imo at least

Not so sure I actually agree, particularly this year. Jokic & Shai were great, Giannis is still great but Luka had a down year and no one else was that good this year and Ant still isn't seen as top 4. In 92 we still had prime MJ, Hakeem, Malone and Barkley. I mean you can argue it but I don't think the gap is that big at all. So I stand by the point I made because era relevance matters more to me in something like this anyhow.

Hair Jordan wrote:Drexler easy. Better scorer, passer, rebounder etc. Took his Blazers to two Finals in 3 years (should’ve been three) and finished 2nd to Jordan for the 1991-92 MVP. St his best he was considered the 2nd best player in the league. I don’t think anyone thinks Ant is the 2nd best player in the league. Ant ain’t on that level yet but he might get there one day.

It's kinda the other way around, what a low level league it must've been if Drexler was truly top 2 (luckily for the early 90s NBA, that was never the case).

Hair Jordan wrote:Drexler easy. Better scorer, passer, rebounder etc. Took his Blazers to two Finals in 3 years (should’ve been three) and finished 2nd to Jordan for the 1991-92 MVP. St his best he was considered the 2nd best player in the league. I don’t think anyone thinks Ant is the 2nd best player in the league. Ant ain’t on that level yet but he might get there one day.

Drexler today wouldn’t be anywhere near considered in the running for a top two player in the league. He wasn’t the second best player that year either, but they needed some sort of rivalry with Jordan in a league that did not have very many outstanding wing players.

Jaivl wrote:

Hair Jordan wrote:Drexler easy. Better scorer, passer, rebounder etc. Took his Blazers to two Finals in 3 years (should’ve been three) and finished 2nd to Jordan for the 1991-92 MVP. St his best he was considered the 2nd best player in the league. I don’t think anyone thinks Ant is the 2nd best player in the league. Ant ain’t on that level yet but he might get there one day.

It's kinda the other way around, what a low level league it must've been if Drexler was truly top 2 (luckily for the early 90s NBA, that was never the case).

You know it’s a low level league when 40 year olds who can’t get out of the first round make All NBA 2nd Team.