RealGM Top 100 List #29

[Texas Chuck]

Posting this here too just because this gives me an excuse to---a really fun game to watch and Nash and Kidd had a great duel:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDoYDwVCEw[/youtube]

Nash 42/6/13 77%TS 147 ortg
Kidd 38/14/14 63% TS 131 ortg

[Quotatious]

Posting this here too just because this gives me an excuse to---a really fun game to watch and Nash and Kidd had a great duel:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDoYDwVCEw[/youtube]

Nash 42/6/13 77%TS 147 ortg
Kidd 38/14/14 63% TS 131 ortg

Amazing game. Some really lax defense (or no defense at all, in some cases) being played by the Nets, sometimes they didn't even close out on shooters...Nash had a few wideeeee open looks (I guess Kidd was supposed to bother him on those...). Nash and Bell each went 6/7 from beyond the arc, 12/14 for 3 from just two of your shooters, not bad...

[Texas Chuck]

yeah. one of the things that doesnt get mentioned enough in regards to Nash is how good he was during the RS at getting the other team to play his style of game. I was always amazed when he was a Mav how he was able to sucker opposing PG's into trying to match his tempo and then in Phoenix he just continued right on doing it.

[DQuinn1575]

Leaning heavily towards Gilmore here. I'll have to take a closer look at his defensive impact in the NBA (he missed almost a half of the 79-80 season with a knee injury, which may have limited his mobility a bit), because at first glance, it seems somewhat questionable (considering that Chicago had really poor defensive teams after 1977 - in the 76-77 season, they had the second best defense in the league, during A-Train's first season there, but after that, just 20th of 22, 16th of 22, 15th of 22 even with Gilmore out for half a season in 79-80, 14th of 23, and finally 17th of 23 in 1982), and then in San Antonio, he didn't seem to anchor good defensive teams - just 15th of 23 in 1983, then 21st of 23, and 17th of 23 in both 1985 and 1986.

Anyway, Artis may just fall into the same category as peak Ewing (Knicks finished just 13th in DRtg in 1990, and 12th in 1991), or KG in Minnesota, where his teams were just about average defensively, except for 2004. May be as simple as playing on weak teams, which didn't allow them to give as much effort defensively as they otherwise would have given, if they had good teams around them.

Still, Gilmore's ABA defensive impact is irrefutable - he anchored the best (three times) or the second best (two times) defense in the ABA in each of his five seasons.

Gilmore's numbers and longevity, combined with his defensive impact during his first six pro seasons, IMO makes him as good a candidate as you can have at this point in the project.

Gilmore was the only center in the gosh darn league when he was in the ABA - an over-the-hill and never great
Zelmo Beaty was the league's 2nd best center.
He was barely in the Top 10 players in the NBA at any time -
Before his last season at age 38 in Boston - He won 2 playoff series

One was a 2-0 series
The other he was 4th on his team in minutes played.

[DQuinn1575]

quote="DQuinn1575"]

Why Paul over durant?

For me it's the longevity. I realize that if you see it as 7 good years vs 5 years, it's easy to side with the 5 if you think the peak better, but it's not that simple. Compare the two guys with any kind of advanced metric tallied over their careers, and Paul has a pretty massive summed advantage.

You're right

http://bkref.com/tiny/c57uD

Paul is way ahead of Frazier and Durant in regular season WS/36,
Playoffs is real even for the 3



And Paul has more great seasons versus Durant's - played at a top 5 player level in current day- tougher league than Frazier faced in the 70s. -




Right now in eras the one we are penalizing is the current one - we have 5 players from the early 60s and only LBJ and Wade from today.



Voting for Chris Paul[/quote]

[G35]

Basically all of kidd success as a franchise player game in arguably the worst Conference in history

The East wasn't particularly strong in the early 00's but there was some competition and it isn't like Kidd was playing with amazing talent. His best player was Kenyon Martin who (going by memory) absolutely sucked when it came to creating his own offense in the halfcourt.

The fact that Kidd almost led those bums to the Finals 3x in a row is pretty impressive.
I mean they almost knocked off a very strong Detroit team in 2004.
Maybe they would have been Champions if they did and then how would Kidd be viewed?

I agree with RayBan, it seems as if anyone who made the playoff's from 2000-2003 from the East shouldn't get any credit at all. It's similar to Lebron making the Finals in 2007 and everyone says it's because the East sucks....well yeah the East did suck in comparison to the West. But, you still have to play the games and as RayBan said it wasn't as if Kidd had a whole lot of talent to work with. It says something when you can lead a team to the finals without any All Star support, which Kidd did not have. I also remember the Nets giving the Spurs a good run in the 2003 Finals. Those Nets did just as well vs the Spurs as the Dirk/Nash Mavericks and Kobe/Shaq Lakers, winning two games in the series.

Kidd has a lot of intangibles that do not play out as well on the PC board but for those that like a player who doesn't play for stats and plays for wins Kidd is a great option.....

[G35]

Posting this here too just because this gives me an excuse to---a really fun game to watch and Nash and Kidd had a great duel:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDoYDwVCEw[/youtube]

Nash 42/6/13 77%TS 147 ortg
Kidd 38/14/14 63% TS 131 ortg

Amazing game. Some really lax defense (or no defense at all, in some cases) being played by the Nets, sometimes they didn't even close out on shooters...Nash had a few wideeeee open looks (I guess Kidd was supposed to bother him on those...). Nash and Bell each went 6/7 from beyond the arc, 12/14 for 3 from just two of your shooters, not bad...

yeah. one of the things that doesnt get mentioned enough in regards to Nash is how good he was during the RS at getting the other team to play his style of game. I was always amazed when he was a Mav how he was able to sucker opposing PG's into trying to match his tempo and then in Phoenix he just continued right on doing it.

This is exactly what I mean when people want to say the reason why Phoenix lost was because they didn't have interior defense/rebounding, a big man to bang in the paint. What big man can run at that tempo all game? What big man wants to run at that tempo all game? This is why I do not think Nash as the best player Phoenix' poor defense was not all because of personnel, much of it was their mentality and approach to the game. Phoenix/Nash wanted to play a wide open game, with lots of possessions. That type of approach is not conducive to defense, a defensive team does not want a lot of possessions. A good defensive team values each possession and tries to slow down the tempo. In the playoff's good defensive teams slow down the pace. This is why the Suns could have had Russell or Mutumbo back there and there defense would still not have been elite. The Suns did not value possessions, they believed the more possessions the better and that they would be able to outscore your or outshoot you. This is why I say the Spurs beat the Suns at their own game.....

[colts18]

This is exactly what I mean when people want to say the reason why Phoenix lost was because they didn't have interior defense/rebounding, a big man to bang in the paint. What big man can run at that tempo all game? What big man wants to run at that tempo all game? This is why I do not think Nash as the best player Phoenix' poor defense was not all because of personnel, much of it was their mentality and approach to the game. Phoenix/Nash wanted to play a wide open game, with lots of possessions. That type of approach is not conducive to defense, a defensive team does not want a lot of possessions. A good defensive team values each possession and tries to slow down the tempo. In the playoff's good defensive teams slow down the pace. This is why the Suns could have had Russell or Mutumbo back there and there defense would still not have been elite. The Suns did not value possessions, they believed the more possessions the better and that they would be able to outscore your or outshoot you. This is why I say the Spurs beat the Suns at their own game.....

Your point makes no sense at all. Nash's teams were playing at a pace of 95 possessions per game. You mention Bill Russell, but his teams were playing at 130 possessions and it didn't stop him from having great defense. The NBA in the 80's played at a pace much faster than any season of Nash's SSOL Suns.


btw, the studies show that there is little correlation between pace and either offense or defensive efficiency.

[Warspite]

Im curious why someone would mention Kidd or CP3 before Bob Cousy. When you look at Bobs resume it screams that he accomplished more than both of them combined. I just dont see how you can vote for a PG who is a worse shooter and has less success than Bob or a player in CP3 who is much more about stats than winning. Every bad thing ever said about Wilt and his stat padding is CP3 squared.

[Texas Chuck]

Im curious why someone would mention Kidd or CP3 before Bob Cousy.

Make a case for Cousy. I'll listen. I'll need more than Kidd sucks at shooting tho since I already know he sucks at shooting and still think he's a candidate here. Maybe more about what makes Cousy great?

[E-Balla]

This is exactly what I mean when people want to say the reason why Phoenix lost was because they didn't have interior defense/rebounding, a big man to bang in the paint. What big man can run at that tempo all game? What big man wants to run at that tempo all game? This is why I do not think Nash as the best player Phoenix' poor defense was not all because of personnel, much of it was their mentality and approach to the game. Phoenix/Nash wanted to play a wide open game, with lots of possessions. That type of approach is not conducive to defense, a defensive team does not want a lot of possessions. A good defensive team values each possession and tries to slow down the tempo. In the playoff's good defensive teams slow down the pace. This is why the Suns could have had Russell or Mutumbo back there and there defense would still not have been elite. The Suns did not value possessions, they believed the more possessions the better and that they would be able to outscore your or outshoot you. This is why I say the Spurs beat the Suns at their own game.....

Your point makes no sense at all. Nash's teams were playing at a pace of 95 possessions per game. You mention Bill Russell, but his teams were playing at 130 possessions and it didn't stop him from having great defense. The NBA in the 80's played at a pace much faster than any season of Nash's SSOL Suns.


btw, the studies show that there is little correlation between pace and either offense or defensive efficiency.

There is a correlation. Just not a damning one or strong one but its there.

[Clyde Frazier]

Im curious why someone would mention Kidd or CP3 before Bob Cousy. When you look at Bobs resume it screams that he accomplished more than both of them combined. I just dont see how you can vote for a PG who is a worse shooter and has less success than Bob or a player in CP3 who is much more about stats than winning. Every bad thing ever said about Wilt and his stat padding is CP3 squared.

What makes you say that?

[Quotatious]

What makes you say that?

I'd also like to know, but I'm afraid the answer will be as simple as "Cousy (or Isiah) won championships, CP3 still hasn't", but what's funny is that Thomas and Paul couldn't be any more similar than they actually are. CP3 may be the farthest thing from a stat-padder that I can think of, to be honest. He seems like a guy who would do literally anything to win. Even Kobe, widely known as a winner and a competitive freak himself, named Paul as one of the top 3 most competitive players he ever played against, along with Jordan and Drexler.

It's really frustrating to see a player being accused of playing for stats, just because he wasn't fortunate enough to win a championship (luck has a lot to do with that).

[penbeast0]

Im curious why someone would mention Kidd or CP3 before Bob Cousy. When you look at Bobs resume it screams that he accomplished more than both of them combined. I just dont see how you can vote for a PG who is a worse shooter and has less success than Bob or a player in CP3 who is much more about stats than winning. Every bad thing ever said about Wilt and his stat padding is CP3 squared.

The problem with Cousy has always been that while he was THE great playmaker of the early NBA, (a) he was a decent enough shooter for much of the 50s, but he was not great then, and as the 60s rolled in he fell further and further off the curve; (b) his playoff performances in the Celtic championship generally sucked (while teammates like Ramsey particularly, and Heinsohn to a lesser extent stepped up to cover); and (c) his defense was generally considered poor too, though much of that rep comes from Red Auerbach's comments when he said he didn't want Cousy on the Celtics when he got stuck with him because he was a flashy, no defense type.

[penbeast0]

Elgin Baylor – GC Pantalones, trex_8063

Isiah Thomas – JordansBulls

Rick Barry – ronnymac2

Chris Paul – Dquinn1575

[Quotatious]

With Cousy's name being mentioned so early, I'd like to ask - what makes him better than Dolph Schayes or Paul Arizin?

I'm also surprised that Gary Payton hasn't been mentioned yet, if people are already talking about Kidd, Isiah and Cousy. I'd probably put Kidd a bit higher than Payton, but I believe a very good case could be made for the Glove (I'd have to rethink this comparison, but I'm sure you can make a strong case).

[Warspite]

What makes you say that?

I'd also like to know, but I'm afraid the answer will be as simple as "Cousy (or Isiah) won championships, CP3 still hasn't", but what's funny is that Thomas and Paul couldn't be any more similar than they actually are. CP3 may be the farthest thing from a stat-padder than I can think of, to be honest. He seems like a guy who would do literally anything to win. Even Kobe, widely known as a winner and a competitive freak himself, named Paul as one of the top 3 most competitive players he ever played against, along with Jordan and Drexler.

It's really frustrating to see a player being accused of playing for stats, just because he wasn't fortunate enough to win a championship (luck has a lot to do with that).

This is the exact opposite impression of CP3. Guy has no desire to win or try or do anything for fear of messing up his TS% or Asst to TO ratio. Just no BBIQ or imagination whatsoever. The inability to make your teammates better and your backups put up the same stats when you exit. He is a robot that can only play 1 way and has no ability to create. At least Stockton had an excuse in that he played for the worst offensive minded coach in the history of the game.

Todays era favor the PG more than Mikans era favored big man. Yet he has no success. His resume is more along the lines of a Doc Rivers or Pete Maravich. The more I think about it CP3 does remind me of Pistol for his impact on the game.

Bob Cousy

Well we are talking about the 1st PG who was the MVP. He essentially invented the PG position, fast break, behind the back pass, maybe the GOAT dribble, When Russell was hurt and Pettit went off for 50pts Cousy was the guy who was playing C for Russell and had a triple double. A huge stud at drawing fouls and getting teammates into the bonus.

10x all NBA 1st team
8x led the NBA in apg

Oh and yes he has 6 rings (like that is a bad thing)


If CP3 was 1st team all NBA had led the league in apg the last 8 yrs and had won 6 of the last 7 titles would he be already voted in?

[Quotatious]

Chris Paul having "no BBIQ whatsoever" is definitely the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on this board.

2011-12 NBA GM Survey:

Which player has the best basketball IQ?

1. Steve Nash, Phoenix -- 28.6%
2. Chris Paul, L.A. Clippers -- 21.4%
3. Jason Kidd, Dallas -- 17.9%
T4. Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers -- 7.1%
T4. Tim Duncan, San Antonio -- 7.1%
T4. Manu Ginobili, San Antonio -- 7.1%

2012-13 NBA GM Survey:

Which player has the best basketball IQ?

1. Chris Paul, L.A. Clippers -- 33.3%
2. Steve Nash, L.A. Lakers -- 16.7%
3. Tim Duncan, San Antonio; LeBron James, Miami -- 13.3%
5. Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers; Rajon Rondo, Boston -- 6.7%


I'm not even going to comment on anything else, I'm just speechless.

[Warspite]

Im curious why someone would mention Kidd or CP3 before Bob Cousy. When you look at Bobs resume it screams that he accomplished more than both of them combined. I just dont see how you can vote for a PG who is a worse shooter and has less success than Bob or a player in CP3 who is much more about stats than winning. Every bad thing ever said about Wilt and his stat padding is CP3 squared.

The problem with Cousy has always been that while he was THE great playmaker of the early NBA, (a) he was a decent enough shooter for much of the 50s, but he was not great then, and as the 60s rolled in he fell further and further off the curve; (b) his playoff performances in the Celtic championship generally sucked (while teammates like Ramsey particularly, and Heinsohn to a lesser extent stepped up to cover); and (c) his defense was generally considered poor too, though much of that rep comes from Red Auerbach's comments when he said he didn't want Cousy on the Celtics when he got stuck with him because he was a flashy, no defense type.

I saw in an interview of Red that he had the 3rd pick of that dispersal draft and that in order to get Cousy he had to bad mouth him and tell other GMs that he was a flashy no defense type. Red liked him because he was the most talented player and that he was elite at drawing fouls and could run the up tempo style that he wanted with fewer TOs.

[Jaivl]

With Cousy's name being mentioned so early, I'd like to ask - what makes him better than Dolph Schayes or Paul Arizin?

Hype, accolades.