Build around: Jimmy Butler vs Gary Payton

[durantbird]

Which player would you prefer to build around in the current league - Butler or prime Payton?

[SHAQ32]

While I have no doubts that GP could resonate in today's league, he's clearly more suited for the 90s/early 00s.

[MiamiBulls]

Butler.

Payton's POA oriented defense is overestimated. He doesn't have any vertical presence and throughout his prime he was a medium volume/low efficiency scorer; 93-02: rTS +1%, TS+: 102. Never had a TS+ above 104 in his career.

[SilentA]

Payton is a great player and there can be specific situations or matchups where I might take him over Butler, but to me "build around" suggests they're the first draft option in the roster. And there are just a lot more ways you can go with roster construction with a clutch, well rounded 2-way wing like Butler vs a defensive passing PG who can't shoot well. Not like Butler is a great shooter either of course but he gets a good TS% advantage, probably mainly from noticeably higher FTA and FT%.

[Cavsfansince84]

Butler.

Payton's POA oriented defense is overestimated. He doesn't have any vertical presence and throughout his prime he was a medium volume/low efficiency scorer; 93-02: rTS +1%, TS+: 102. Never had a TS+ above 104 in his career.

League average isn't low efficiency though. Being between 100-104 ts+ every year from 94-01 means he is a solid efficiency scorer. Maybe more so for a guard. Also durability is hugely on Payton's side. He barely missed games in his prime while Jimmy usually misses about 15-20 every season.

[lessthanjake]

One interesting fact I came across, which I think is relevant to this:

There are only two instances in NBA history of a team having a 6+ SRS for six straight years. One was the 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 Spurs. And the other was the 1992-1993 to 1997-1998 Sonics. Obviously the Sonics did not find playoff success—mostly a combination of losing several deciding games and also facing the 1996 Bulls—but they were really good!

It’s worth keeping in mind in a discussion like this. A team built around Payton (though of course there were other very important pieces) has actually been really really good.

[rk2023]

Butler, as I like his scoring and defense better. Prime Payton is underrated Imo, but I’m higher than most on Butler

[tsherkin]

Can't imagine Payton as a good option in today's game. His point defense is less valuable today, and he flatly couldn't score efficiently today, not with his jumper, and would not likely be a FTr king in today's game. I don't really see his value today, relative to someone like Butler. He's been a 106 TS+ guy these past 8 years or so, as a 59.1% TS guy. Payton's career-best was 56.4%, and he wasn't a particularly good FT shooter. Competent, but sub-80% his whole career (close a couple times). I'm sure his raw TS% would rise a little, but I don't think he'd be as good as Butler in today's game, and he'd definitely not be a good choice as a volume scoring option.

One interesting fact I came across, which I think is relevant to this:

There are only two instances in NBA history of a team having a 6+ SRS for six straight years. One was the 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 Spurs. And the other was the 1992-1993 to 1997-1998 Sonics. Obviously the Sonics did not find playoff success—mostly a combination of losing several deciding games and also facing the 1996 Bulls—but they were really good!

It’s worth keeping in mind in a discussion like this. A team built around Payton (though of course there were other very important pieces) has actually been really really good.

This isn't really worth keeping in mind. This isn't an All-Time ranking. There, it would matter, because Payton was both good and successful in his own era. This is about today's game, where Payton is poorly positioned based on his limited shooting ability and predilection towards volume shooting. In-era, Payton was quite good, and worth plenty of respect, but the game isn't the same now and his deficiencies mean a lot more.

[kcktiny]

It's prime Payton and it's not really even close.

And the other was the 1992-1993 to 1997-1998 Sonics.

Assuming we consider these his prime years (ages 24-29) Payton was an absolute beast for a PG on both offense and defense in his prime. These 6 seasons:

- Seattle won the second most games in the regular season, averaged 59-60 wins a season (only Chicago won more)
- Seattle as a team ranked second in the league in offensive efficiency, third in defensive efficiency
- Payton played 4700+ more minutes than any other Sonics player
- among all PGs in the league Payton scored the most points, got the second most steals, grabbed the 4th most rebounds, had the 7th most assists
- was all-NBA 5 times (1st once, 2nd three times, 3rd once)
- was all-defensive 1st team five times
- missed just 1 single game over the 6 seasons

As a matter of fact his first 16 seasons in the league he averaged missing less than 1 game per season.

Butler is absolutely one of the very best players in the league - on both offense and defense - when he plays. But the last 6 seasons he averaged playing just 59 games a season, just 63 games a season in his career.

I'd take Payton playing 81-82 games a season over Butler and his 59-63 games a season all day every day.

[mitchco]

Payton

He's become underrated on this board. Prime GP was a generational talent. He took over games on both ends of the floor. Was always one of the league leaders in assists. Was a great rebounder for a PG. Was always among league leaders in minutes played, and virtually never missed games. There was many a game that he never even left the floor. His competitive nature was equal to the very greats in my opinion. This should have been evident to everyone in the 96' finals vs MJ.

And it's not like he had an easy road. He played in an extremely stack western conference back then, and had to battle with titans every year. He consistently faced the likes of Barkley, Stockton, Kidd, The Dream, Drexler, Malone, KJ...etc. He earned his stripes to say the least.

To take it a step further, after Kemp left, he proved that he could be the guy as well. No they weren't champions, but Payton led some trash teams to the playoffs his last few years in Seattle. And if you look at the numbers, he actually led some fairly efficient offense considering the players he had. He was left with no choice but to be the number one option in scoring. Who else was going to do it? Brent Barry? Rashard Lewis? Ruben Patterson? Ewing and Grant were both 40 years old by that point, and Vin Baker had fallen victim to his own demons.

This fact seems to be held against Payton, but I look at it in the opposite light. Would Stockton be able to do this on his own? Kidd? Tim Hardaway? I have my doubts for some of them, but that's another story. We got to see it with GP, and to me that should only prove to elevate his status around here.

[tsherkin]

Payton

He's become underrated on this board. Prime GP was a generational talent. He took over games on both ends of the floor. Was always one of the league leaders in assists. Was a great rebounder for a PG. Was always among league leaders in minutes played, and virtually never missed games. There was many a game that he never even left the floor. His competitive nature was equal to the very greats in my opinion. This should have been evident to everyone in the 96' finals vs MJ.

And it's not like he had an easy road. He played in an extremely stack western conference back then, and had to battle with titans every year. He consistently faced the likes of Barkley, Stockton, Kidd, The Dream, Drexler, Malone, KJ...etc. He earned his stripes to say the least.

To take it a step further, after Kemp left, he proved that he could be the guy as well. No they weren't champions, but Payton led some trash teams to the playoffs his last few years in Seattle. And if you look at the numbers, he actually led some fairly efficient offense considering the players he had. He was left with no choice but to be the number one option in scoring. Who else was going to do it? Brent Barry? Rashard Lewis? Ruben Patterson? Ewing and Grant were both 40 years old by that point, and Vin Baker had fallen victim to his own demons.

This fact seems to be held against Payton, but I look at it in the opposite light. Would Stockton be able to do this on his own? Kidd? Tim Hardaway? I have my doubts for some of them, but that's another story. We got to see it with GP, and to me that should only prove to elevate his status around here.

Lots of people seem not to be paying heed to the idea of Payton today. His achievements in the 90s don't matter. This thread isn't about all-time status, it's about his efficacy in the contemporary league environment.

In his actual career, Payton was an average to slightly above average scorer in terms of efficiency. That would drop off notably today. And his defensive value would not be the same today as it was in his own career, which erodes his overall value to at least some degree. Payton had a 9-year stretch from 95-03 as a 21 ppg scorer... and at 53.2% TS. 50.5% eFG, which is about 4% eFG below league average in 2023, and that TS would be about -4.9% rTS. Even if you assume that a little more spacing, higher tempo and maybe better draw would up his scoring efficiency (which, for sure, it likely would), he still grades out as a poor choice to draw volume scoring from. His passing would be still be good, though it would be interesting to see if he adapted to a more contemporary style of play or kept trying to push tempo and attack from a post-up.

Still didn't have a great jumper, still didn't have a three-ball, was still mediocre at the free throw line. These are issues for a guy who wants to score today. He'd be a pretty weak option in that role today, so that translation is troublesome compared to someone who has already demonstrated scoring efficacy, including superior relative scoring efficiency.

Talking about what Payton did is somewhat irrelevant. Achievements, teams faced, etc, much of that matters a lot less than the change in league environment and Payton's weaknesses and strengths. Like, in his day, Payton was able to be a much more effective defensive force than he'd manage today. Having an inefficient volume scorer who doesn't shoot well and is only semi-reliable at the line isn't the main thing you want.

Also, "generational talent" seems an overstatement. Payton was good, but he also played on some very, very deep teams relative to his competition. And of course, he was very good defensively in-era. He'd still be a good defender now, but his impact wouldn't be the same on that end of the floor. And he wasn't a particularly stunning scorer to begin with, and that only worsens in a more efficient environment which rewards shooting proficiency. He wasn't a generational playmaker, he wasn't a generational scorer, he wasn't even a generational physical talent. So that's a bit hyperbolic.

He was durable as hell, though. Tough as nails. Played tons of games and handled lots of minutes and some fairly physical ball, too. But yeah, not nearly as much faith in a guy like that today.

[OhayoKD]

Can't imagine Payton as a good option in today's game. His point defense is less valuable today, and he flatly couldn't score efficiently today, not with his jumper, and would not likely be a FTr king in today's game. I don't really see his value today, relative to someone like Butler. He's been a 106 TS+ guy these past 8 years or so, as a 59.1% TS guy. Payton's career-best was 56.4%, and he wasn't a particularly good FT shooter. Competent, but sub-80% his whole career (close a couple times). I'm sure his raw TS% would rise a little, but I don't think he'd be as good as Butler in today's game, and he'd definitely not be a good choice as a volume scoring option.

One interesting fact I came across, which I think is relevant to this:

There are only two instances in NBA history of a team having a 6+ SRS for six straight years. One was the 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 Spurs. And the other was the 1992-1993 to 1997-1998 Sonics. Obviously the Sonics did not find playoff success—mostly a combination of losing several deciding games and also facing the 1996 Bulls—but they were really good!

It’s worth keeping in mind in a discussion like this. A team built around Payton (though of course there were other very important pieces) has actually been really really good.

This isn't really worth keeping in mind. This isn't an All-Time ranking. There, it would matter, because Payton was both good and successful in his own era. This is about today's game, where Payton is poorly positioned based on his limited shooting ability and predilection towards volume shooting. In-era, Payton was quite good, and worth plenty of respect, but the game isn't the same now and his deficiencies mean a lot more.

there's also the matter of srs inflation for the better teams through the 90's

[kcktiny]

Lots of people seem not to be paying heed to the idea of Payton today.

Yourself included.

His achievements in the 90s don't matter.

Oh? Well then how shall we answer the "build around" question? He played over half his NBA career in the 90s.

Tell us - what in fact does matter?

This thread isn't about all-time status, it's about his efficacy in the contemporary league environment.

Exactly. And just how do you know how he would play now if what he did in the 90s doesn't matter?

In his actual career, Payton was an average to slightly above average scorer in terms of efficiency.

False.

In the time span you mentioned, 1994-95 to 2002-03, 9 seasons, Payton shot 50.5% on 2s when just the league average PG shot 45.5%, and close to 4/5 of his FGAs were 2pt attempts. So over a very long 9 years he shot 5% higher on 2s than did just the league average PG.

He shot a 50.1% eFG% when just the league average PG shot a 47.6% eFG%.

Those 9 seasons there were 71 PGs that played 5000+ minutes, and among those 71 PGs Payton's 50.5% 2pt FG% was the 5th highest, and his 50.1% eFG% was the 15th highest.

Those 9 seasons he was far more efficient on offense than the vast majority of PGs.

That would drop off notably today.

You say this based on what?

Payton had a 9-year stretch from 95-03 as a 21 ppg scorer... and at 53.2% TS. 50.5% eFG, which is about 4% eFG below league average in 2023

Why are you directly comparing shooting percentages from seasons 2-3 decades ago to today and trying to draw conclusions from that? The league average PG in 2022-23 shot a 51% 2pt FG%.

Did you ever stop to ask yourself why? Do you think it's because players are simply better shooters now than then?

Or is it because players are in general worse defenders now compared to back then? If that is the case then wouldn't Payton shoot even better now than he did then, not worse?

Those 9 years of 1994-95 to 2002-03 a player blocked 150+ shots in a season 87 times, 200+ shots 33 times, blocked 250+ shots 13 times, 300+ shots twice.

The past 9 seasons, 2014-15 to 2022-23, a player blocked 150+ shots in a season only 27 times, 200+ shots just 3 times, 250+ shots just once, and no one blocked 300+ shots.

You think that might have something to do with why FG%s are so high this past season compared to 2-3 decades ago?

Did you know that the league average C from 1994-95 to 2002-03 shot a 48.8% 2pt FG%, but in 2022-23 shot a 61.6% 2pt FG%? Why do you think that is? Are Cs simply much "better shooters" now compared to then? Or are Cs simply much worse defenders now compared to then, or a combination of both?

it's about his efficacy in the contemporary league environment

Saying this is one thing. Defining it is another. Care to define what you mean here?

was still mediocre at the free throw line

Payton shot 74% on FTs 1994-95 to 2002-03. The league average FT% for PGs during that time was 79%.

But Payton got to the FT line for 4.5 FTA/40min during that time, the league average PG was at just 3.6 FTA/40min. So he scored almost a whole point more on FTs per 40min over 9 full seasons, while shooting 74% on that extra FT. How is that mediocre?

These are issues for a guy who wants to score today. He'd be a pretty weak option in that role today

Over 9 seasons Payton scored more points than any other PG in the league (4600+ more points), while shooting 5% better on 2s and a 2%-3% better eFG%, and scoring more points from the FT than just the average PG.

Playing against the weaker team defenses of today (compared to when he did play) I don't think there is any question he would score as much if not more as he would be shooting better against the weaker defenses.

Talking about what Payton did is somewhat irrelevant.

Really? Is it better to talk somewhat about what he didn't do?

Achievements, teams faced, etc, much of that matters a lot less than the change in league environment

What change in league environment? This is the second time you have mentioned league "environment" without specifying exactly what you mean.

Having an inefficient volume scorer who doesn't shoot well

This has already been dispelled.

and is only semi-reliable at the line isn't the main thing you want.

From 1994-95 to 2002-03 Payton made the third most FTs (2309) among all PGs.

And of course, he was very good defensively in-era.

He'd still be a good defender now, but his impact wouldn't be the same on that end of the floor.

Payton was all-defensive 1st team 9 years in a row 1993-94 to 2001-02. He is arguably the greatest defensive PG in league history. What is your reasoning for making this outlandish statement?

Why couldn't Payton, Walt Frazier, Jason Kidd, Maurice Cheeks, Don Buse, and Jerry West have the same impact now defensively as they did when they played?

Alex Caruso, Jrue Holiday, Marcus Smart, Patrick Beverley were all-defensive 1st team the past few season. What did they do that Gary Payton didn't?

he wasn't a particularly stunning scorer to begin with, and that only worsens in a more efficient environment which rewards shooting proficiency

More efficient environment? Why is that? Are you assuming players shoot better now than they did 2-3 decades ago but players are the same as shot defenders? If players' shooting changes over years don't you also think players' shot defense abilites also change?

Or is it just the rule changes that have allowed the shooting to improve? If that's the case, then Payton would surely shoot better now than when he did play.

This idea of yours that players only shoot better today than they did decades ago because they are in fact "better shooters" while shot defense has remained the same is grossly flawed.

If player shooting has "improved" as you claim - without shot defense being part of the reason - then why has player FT% not improved? The past 7-8 years the league average FT% is 77%. But it was also 77% in 1987-88, 1988-89, and 2008-09.

The league average 2pt FG% in 2022-23 was 54.8%, in 2000-01 it was 46.1%, almost 9% lower. The argument that players are just "better shooters" now compared to then is as flawed as saying shooting has remained the same but the shot defense has gotten much worse.

[mitchco]

Payton

He's become underrated on this board. Prime GP was a generational talent. He took over games on both ends of the floor. Was always one of the league leaders in assists. Was a great rebounder for a PG. Was always among league leaders in minutes played, and virtually never missed games. There was many a game that he never even left the floor. His competitive nature was equal to the very greats in my opinion. This should have been evident to everyone in the 96' finals vs MJ.

And it's not like he had an easy road. He played in an extremely stack western conference back then, and had to battle with titans every year. He consistently faced the likes of Barkley, Stockton, Kidd, The Dream, Drexler, Malone, KJ...etc. He earned his stripes to say the least.

To take it a step further, after Kemp left, he proved that he could be the guy as well. No they weren't champions, but Payton led some trash teams to the playoffs his last few years in Seattle. And if you look at the numbers, he actually led some fairly efficient offense considering the players he had. He was left with no choice but to be the number one option in scoring. Who else was going to do it? Brent Barry? Rashard Lewis? Ruben Patterson? Ewing and Grant were both 40 years old by that point, and Vin Baker had fallen victim to his own demons.

This fact seems to be held against Payton, but I look at it in the opposite light. Would Stockton be able to do this on his own? Kidd? Tim Hardaway? I have my doubts for some of them, but that's another story. We got to see it with GP, and to me that should only prove to elevate his status around here.

Lots of people seem not to be paying heed to the idea of Payton today. His achievements in the 90s don't matter. This thread isn't about all-time status, it's about his efficacy in the contemporary league environment.

In his actual career, Payton was an average to slightly above average scorer in terms of efficiency. That would drop off notably today. And his defensive value would not be the same today as it was in his own career, which erodes his overall value to at least some degree. Payton had a 9-year stretch from 95-03 as a 21 ppg scorer... and at 53.2% TS. 50.5% eFG, which is about 4% eFG below league average in 2023, and that TS would be about -4.9% rTS. Even if you assume that a little more spacing, higher tempo and maybe better draw would up his scoring efficiency (which, for sure, it likely would), he still grades out as a poor choice to draw volume scoring from. His passing would be still be good, though it would be interesting to see if he adapted to a more contemporary style of play or kept trying to push tempo and attack from a post-up.

Still didn't have a great jumper, still didn't have a three-ball, was still mediocre at the free throw line. These are issues for a guy who wants to score today. He'd be a pretty weak option in that role today, so that translation is troublesome compared to someone who has already demonstrated scoring efficacy, including superior relative scoring efficiency.

Talking about what Payton did is somewhat irrelevant. Achievements, teams faced, etc, much of that matters a lot less than the change in league environment and Payton's weaknesses and strengths. Like, in his day, Payton was able to be a much more effective defensive force than he'd manage today. Having an inefficient volume scorer who doesn't shoot well and is only semi-reliable at the line isn't the main thing you want.

Also, "generational talent" seems an overstatement. Payton was good, but he also played on some very, very deep teams relative to his competition. And of course, he was very good defensively in-era. He'd still be a good defender now, but his impact wouldn't be the same on that end of the floor. And he wasn't a particularly stunning scorer to begin with, and that only worsens in a more efficient environment which rewards shooting proficiency. He wasn't a generational playmaker, he wasn't a generational scorer, he wasn't even a generational physical talent. So that's a bit hyperbolic.

He was durable as hell, though. Tough as nails. Played tons of games and handled lots of minutes and some fairly physical ball, too. But yeah, not nearly as much faith in a guy like that today.

I maybe should have specified my "generational" comment a little further, but I'm standing by my statement. From the PG position, I view GP as a generational talent. I think it will be another generation before we see another PG dominate on both ends of the floor like Payton did. All the while basically giving 20 and 10 in points and assists, 5 rebs, 2-3 steals. Could score from literally anywhere on the court, 3pt, mid-range, post up....etc. And virtually never missed games, and many a night never even subbed off the floor. Yes, I do view that as generational talent.

Payton may not have been the best at everything he did, but you have to look at his game overall. He was at least respectable at every aspect of the game. There were no real holes.

No offense, but your view seems a little too one-sided. This while conversation is nothing but conjecture anyway, so it really doesn't matter. But, what makes you think a HOF player like GP wouldn't adapt his game. And before you say we have no proof of that, that's not true either.

Yes, Payton struggled offensively his first few seasons in the L, he worked very hard on his game. So to start the decade of the 90s, he was an abysmal shooter. By the end of the decade in 99-00, he was number one in 3pters made.

Sure his % could have been better, but you have to take into account his minutes played and games missed. Point is, this idea that Payton couldn't shoot just isn't correct. Opposing teams had to at least respect his long ball.

As far as transitioning into today's game, I again have to say that there's no reason to think he wouldn't adapt his game. I agree his defense would take a little bit of a hit, but your talking about the best defensive PG ever here. And I also believe that whatever he loses on D in this era, he makes up for on offense. Payton had to go up against some of the best defenses ever back then. I see him getting to the rim with ease in todays game.

GP may not have been a high-flyer. But people forget how quick and coordinated he really was. Because of his height/length, people forget how truly fast he was. He could cover ground like it was nothing. Couple that with his durability and ability to get into opposing players heads, and would be lethal in today's soft game.

As far as assists go, theres no doubt he would flourish in the open court today. And with as 3 point oriented as the game has become, I don't see how his passing from the post doesn't help open things up more. Not to mention his penetration.

[tsherkin]

I maybe should have specified my "generational" comment a little further, but I'm standing by my statement. From the PG position, I view GP as a generational talent. I think it will be another generation before we see another PG dominate on both ends of the floor like Payton did. All the while basically giving 20 and 10 in points and assists, 5 rebs, 2-3 steals. Could score from literally anywhere on the court, 3pt, mid-range, post up....etc. And virtually never missed games, and many a night never even subbed off the floor. Yes, I do view that as generational talent.

He wasn't really a dominant offensive player, though. He was a GOOD offensive player, but the idea that he dominated with his offense doesn't really click for me. He played on some very good offensive teams and he contributed to those teams, but his individual efficacy as an offensive player wasn't really there enough to be called "dominant."

Payton may not have been the best at everything he did, but you have to look at his game overall. He was at least respectable at every aspect of the game. There were no real holes.

Shooting was a fairly consequential hole.

No offense, but your view seems a little too one-sided. This while conversation is nothing but conjecture anyway, so it really doesn't matter. But, what makes you think a HOF player like GP wouldn't adapt his game. And before you say we have no proof of that, that's not true either.

Not every player has unlimited ability to improve. If he was going to get better as a shooter, he'd have done it in his own time. I'm not ripping on him because he isn't a 40% 3P guy at 7 3PA/g. I'm cranking on him because he was a mediocre free throw shooter as a guard, and had weak range past the foul line. He also wasn't a dominant physical specimen.

Yes, Payton struggled offensively his first few seasons in the L, he worked very hard on his game. So to start the decade of the 90s, he was an abysmal shooter. By the end of the decade in 99-00, he was number one in 3pters made.

Yes, and number one in attempts, while shooting 34.0% on 6.3 3PA/g, the best mark of his career. He was also not a good 3pt shooter from the corners.

Point is, this idea that Payton couldn't shoot just isn't correct. Opposing teams had to at least respect his long ball.

Not really. I mean, sure, you couldn't Rondo him. Even then, if you tried, he'd take the space and post you which, in his day, was a perfectly viable strategy due to the way the game was spaced.

You seem to think I believe he wouldn't adapt. I do. I think he'd see some bumps in his raw percentages, and also his draw rate. That's an era-based adjustment. What I said, however, was that league efficiency has outpaced his offensive skill profile and he'd be a weak choice to continue scoring at that volume.

[dooki667]

As a matter of fact his first 16 seasons in the league he averaged missing less than 1 game per season.

Damn that's impressive.