Towns or Okafor or Mudiay or Russel?

[moocow007]

Career-wise of course not he's only been playing for 6 seasons. However, his past few seasons statistically have been on par or better than guys like Isaiah, Clyde, GP. So it is not unreasonable whatsoever to suggest he is on a path towards that top 5 level if he stays on this trajectory for a while.

Also, I would hope that leaving Paul off that list was just an oversight, because it would be lunacy to purposely do so,

Offensively...in a league where it's a lot easier for scorers to score...

I would estimate that possibly no PG in history restrained his scoring more than Isiah Thomas ---- that dude could have just gone off if he wanted to but often put his game on cruise control for the teams benefit.

Yeah. Same for Magic Johnson really. If Johnson (who, at 6'9" towered over his opponents on a nightly basis) really wanted to focus on scoring he wouldn't have had much problem putting up much higher PPG's, but that wasn't his primary role. Same with Thomas. They were tasked with running a team that won championships, getting their teammates involved and doing all the other things their teams needed them to do. As far as Thomas goes, folks may also forget that the PIstons bread and butter was defense. Their system under Daly wasn't a high octane system, it was basically a ground and pound system. Put Thomas in an uptempo free flowing system? Yeah he'd have put up a lot more points.

[Nazrmohamed]

interesting

I loved Tyreke when he came into the league, in fact I still think he can be a very good player, but he seems to have stopped trying to grow his game

Mudiay is such a mystery to me - his attitude, his maturity, his raw tools

I love a guy who can be a lockdown defender at the 1, who can get to the rim and finish at will in the NBA, and a guy who is a skilled and willing passer. i don't like a guy who can't hit a shot when open or who's focus is in question.

I have to give the edge to Russel over him at this point just from my exposure and access alone

I like your points for what you like and dislike about Mudiay's game but one of the most troubling thing for me is his free throw shooting and i think that people sometimes forget just how important it is to have good free throw shooters in close games in the 4th quarter or OT. I think the question shouldn't be who we want if we have the 1st pick but who we like at 2/3 or 4??
Okafor
Towns
Russell
S.Johnson
Mudiay
I love Russell but put Towns above him because i know how important it is to have a couple of good bigs in Phil/Fishers triangle but would be absolutely happy with Russell. I'm also a big fan of WCS but think he'll take 3 years before we see his true potential but i think he'll be awesome in his 3rd/4th year.

See I agree with your basis but dissagree with your potential.

I think that Stein is showing us his potential right now. I dont think hes gonna have much of a different skillset than he has now and when I think of his potential its really about one day at the nba level, with the bigger bodies and higher athleticism, being able to do what he does or looking like he looks against college players...at the nba level. To me he'll end up like a Tyson Chandler or a Marcus Camby, which is actually pretty good when you think about it. Those guys had very long careers and have won titles and multiple playoff berths between them. You just wouldnt run any offense through them.

To me thats what Towns bottom rung is in his development. I think at worst he will be that type of player, maybe slightly less of an anchor defensively but still a great defender/rebounder and where the potential lies is his scoring ability. Ive often likened him to a Rasheed Wallace type, where on defense he can trully harrass and ball deny, block some shots and make things tough. But then on offense could develop into a teams second option. I wouldnt say Im confident he has a primary scorers mentallity but I do think he could be a secondary scorer down the road with all the other intangables included. At worst I see a Serge Ibaka like role where a primary and secondary option exists and hes the outlet midrange jumpshooter on offense/putback specialist.

And I know that dont sound too hot, that bottom rung but lets face it. This draft is deep but not as top heavy historically as others. Its good in that the top 7 dont seem to have any busts in it and you may get two franchise players with the other five being very solid starters with all star nods once or twice, but bad on that I dont think it has one single once per generation player. Not even Okofor in my opinion. Id select AD or Cousins ahead of anyone in this draft.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Magic, Oscar, isiah, Stockton, Kidd, Clyde, even Gary Payton who was a defensive beast... There's no way Steph Curry can be considered at there level career wise at this point.

Career-wise of course not he's only been playing for 6 seasons. However, his past few seasons statistically have been on par or better than guys like Isaiah, Clyde, GP. So it is not unreasonable whatsoever to suggest he is on a path towards that top 5 level if he stays on this trajectory for a while.

Also, I would hope that leaving Paul off that list was just an oversight, because it would be lunacy to purposely do so,

yeah, I forgot some guys like Paul and Nash. I do love those guys too.

Curry may very well be on his way, but its just too early to put him in the class of the elite top 5 pgs of all time which i think some people said. Isiah had great stats (a season of 21 and 14 assists). And he always stepped up huge in the playoffs. He's firmly a top 5 guy. As much as i hate him as a gm, Curry is not on that level yet and has a lot of work to do.

The thing is there are a ton of pgs who put up great numbers. Kevin Johnson had seasons with 22 and 11, Marbury had great numbers, Mark Price, etc. I'm sure i am forgetting some too. It gets a little difficult comparing the numbers from different eras especially when they are all good. I think it comes down to how dominant they were in their era and what they did in the playoffs. Currys a great player and may get there, just not there yet if we are talking top 10 all time.

[E-Balla]

I would estimate that possibly no PG in history restrained his scoring more than Isiah Thomas ---- that dude could have just gone off if he wanted to but often put his game on cruise control for the teams benefit.

Yeah. Same for Magic Johnson really. If Johnson (who, at 6'9" towered over his opponents on a nightly basis) really wanted to focus on scoring he wouldn't have had much problem putting up much higher PPG's, but that wasn't his primary role. Same with Thomas. They were tasked with running a team that won championships, getting their teammates involved and doing all the other things their teams needed them to do. As far as Thomas goes, folks may also forget that the PIstons bread and butter was defense. Their system under Daly wasn't a high octane system, it was basically a ground and pound system. Put Thomas in an uptempo free flowing system? Yeah he'd have put up a lot more points.

We saw Thomas in that system. He was putting up 21/14 and leading one of the best offenses in the league.

I'd say Nash restrained his scoring more than any other PG though. He went from averaging 14 ppg to 24 ppg in the playoffs his first year in Phoenix.

[newyorker4ever]

interesting

I loved Tyreke when he came into the league, in fact I still think he can be a very good player, but he seems to have stopped trying to grow his game

Mudiay is such a mystery to me - his attitude, his maturity, his raw tools

I love a guy who can be a lockdown defender at the 1, who can get to the rim and finish at will in the NBA, and a guy who is a skilled and willing passer. i don't like a guy who can't hit a shot when open or who's focus is in question.

I have to give the edge to Russel over him at this point just from my exposure and access alone

I like your points for what you like and dislike about Mudiay's game but one of the most troubling thing for me is his free throw shooting and i think that people sometimes forget just how important it is to have good free throw shooters in close games in the 4th quarter or OT. I think the question shouldn't be who we want if we have the 1st pick but who we like at 2/3 or 4??
Okafor
Towns
Russell
S.Johnson
Mudiay
I love Russell but put Towns above him because i know how important it is to have a couple of good bigs in Phil/Fishers triangle but would be absolutely happy with Russell. I'm also a big fan of WCS but think he'll take 3 years before we see his true potential but i think he'll be awesome in his 3rd/4th year.

See I agree with your basis but dissagree with your potential.

I think that Stein is showing us his potential right now. I dont think hes gonna have much of a different skillset than he has now and when I think of his potential its really about one day at the nba level, with the bigger bodies and higher athleticism, being able to do what he does or looking like he looks against college players...at the nba level. To me he'll end up like a Tyson Chandler or a Marcus Camby, which is actually pretty good when you think about it. Those guys had very long careers and have won titles and multiple playoff berths between them. You just wouldnt run any offense through them.

To me thats what Towns bottom rung is in his development. I think at worst he will be that type of player, maybe slightly less of an anchor defensively but still a great defender/rebounder and where the potential lies is his scoring ability. Ive often likened him to a Rasheed Wallace type, where on defense he can trully harrass and ball deny, block some shots and make things tough. But then on offense could develop into a teams second option. I wouldnt say Im confident he has a primary scorers mentallity but I do think he could be a secondary scorer down the road with all the other intangables included. At worst I see a Serge Ibaka like role where a primary and secondary option exists and hes the outlet midrange jumpshooter on offense/putback specialist.

And I know that dont sound too hot, that bottom rung but lets face it. This draft is deep but not as top heavy historically as others. Its good in that the top 7 dont seem to have any busts in it and you may get two franchise players with the other five being very solid starters with all star nods once or twice, but bad on that I dont think it has one single once per generation player. Not even Okofor in my opinion. Id select AD or Cousins ahead of anyone in this draft.

I would hope/think everyone would take AD or Cousins over anyone in this draft because there is no jump off the page great player in this draft.

[CKamm1]

Magic, Oscar, isiah, Stockton, Kidd, Clyde, even Gary Payton who was a defensive beast... There's no way Steph Curry can be considered at there level career wise at this point.

Career-wise of course not he's only been playing for 6 seasons. However, his past few seasons statistically have been on par or better than guys like Isaiah, Clyde, GP. So it is not unreasonable whatsoever to suggest he is on a path towards that top 5 level if he stays on this trajectory for a while.

Also, I would hope that leaving Paul off that list was just an oversight, because it would be lunacy to purposely do so,

Offensively...in a league where it's a lot easier for scorers to score...

Yeah that's simply not true. From 80-81 through 89-90 the average points per game per team ranged from 107-110.8. Pace ranged from 99.6-103.1. The past 2 years team scoring has been from 100-101 per team, and pace just under 94. And those are among the highest those numbers have been in 20 years.

[CKamm1]

Offensively...in a league where it's a lot easier for scorers to score...

I would estimate that possibly no PG in history restrained his scoring more than Isiah Thomas ---- that dude could have just gone off if he wanted to but often put his game on cruise control for the teams benefit.

Yeah. Same for Magic Johnson really. If Johnson (who, at 6'9" towered over his opponents on a nightly basis) really wanted to focus on scoring he wouldn't have had much problem putting up much higher PPG's, but that wasn't his primary role. Same with Thomas. They were tasked with running a team that won championships, getting their teammates involved and doing all the other things their teams needed them to do. As far as Thomas goes, folks may also forget that the PIstons bread and butter was defense. Their system under Daly wasn't a high octane system, it was basically a ground and pound system. Put Thomas in an uptempo free flowing system? Yeah he'd have put up a lot more points.

People aren't forgetting that; again it's simply untrue for the most part. By 89-90 or so sure. For example though, in Thomas' best year statistically 84-85, they were 4th in the league in pace at 105 and 3rd in scoring at 116 a game. Compare that to GS this year who leads the league at 98.9 pace and 110.8 ppg.

84-85 Thomas averaged 21 and 14 and it was also his best year on a more standardized 100 possession basis as well. 14-15 Curry is averaging a 23 and 8, slightly below is career bests, but is having his best per 100 possessions. Thomas' ORtg that year of 115 ties Curry's 3rd best of his career in 12-13. As you'd expect, Curry's shooting efficiency blows Thomas out of the water using any metric. They're very similar in numbers like turnover and steal percentages. Where Thomas has a decided advantage is in Assist %. The gap isn't nearly as wide as those raw numbers of 14 per game versus 8 per game would suggest, but Curry's # this year would only be the 4th best of Thomas' career.

None of this is to say that Curry is better than Thomas. It doesn't even account for defense and everything on a basketball court can't be encapsulated by neat little #'s like this. However, it makes it quite clear that dismissing the idea of Curry being at that level is extremely ignorant. He has years to go but his peak thus far is obviously as good as some of the all time greats.

Lastly, these #'s take about 2 seconds to look up on basketball reference so there's no need to make blanket statements about a team or era and how they played without actually knowing.

[CKamm1]

My original comment was about a specific statement made in the thread. Curry is not a top 5 all time, thats what my comment was based on.

He's very good good, one of the best of today. No, he would not be my choice given players peaks, I'd likely choose at least 10 that I would want more if not 15. I dont go gaga over shooting like some.

15 PGs over him? Just curious but do you think Steve Nash is a top 10 player of the last decade (meaning from 01-10)?

I'll put it this....I would take a peak from Steve Nash over ANYTHING from Steph Curry to date. Nash peak lasted nearly the entire decade.

50-40-90.....Curry cant compete with Nash 8 seasons in Phx, let him get the years first or since we're using shooting as a bar can

Curry hit 50% of his shots in one season? Just one? This is why I dont go gaga over shooting....plenty have done better than Steph Curry.

And I'd actually take 10 pg peaks over Nash.

He's 6th in the league in TS% behind Korver, three centers who do nothing but dunk, and Durant. So he's the 2nd most efficient shooter in the entire league among guys shooting 10+ times a game. But yeah man, "plenty" doing better.

Nash topped Curry's number this year 3 times in his career. However he was also doing it on 4-5 shots less per game.

[moocow007]

I would estimate that possibly no PG in history restrained his scoring more than Isiah Thomas ---- that dude could have just gone off if he wanted to but often put his game on cruise control for the teams benefit.

Yeah. Same for Magic Johnson really. If Johnson (who, at 6'9" towered over his opponents on a nightly basis) really wanted to focus on scoring he wouldn't have had much problem putting up much higher PPG's, but that wasn't his primary role. Same with Thomas. They were tasked with running a team that won championships, getting their teammates involved and doing all the other things their teams needed them to do. As far as Thomas goes, folks may also forget that the PIstons bread and butter was defense. Their system under Daly wasn't a high octane system, it was basically a ground and pound system. Put Thomas in an uptempo free flowing system? Yeah he'd have put up a lot more points.

People aren't forgetting that; again it's simply untrue for the most part. By 89-90 or so sure. For example though, in Thomas' best year statistically 84-85, they were 4th in the league in pace at 105 and 3rd in scoring at 116 a game. Compare that to GS this year who leads the league at 98.9 pace and 110.8 ppg.

84-85 Thomas averaged 21 and 14 and it was also his best year on a more standardized 100 possession basis as well. 14-15 Curry is averaging a 23 and 8, slightly below is career bests, but is having his best per 100 possessions. Thomas' ORtg that year of 115 ties Curry's 3rd best of his career in 12-13. As you'd expect, Curry's shooting efficiency blows Thomas out of the water using any metric. They're very similar in numbers like turnover and steal percentages. Where Thomas has a decided advantage is in Assist %. The gap isn't nearly as wide as those raw numbers of 14 per game versus 8 per game would suggest, but Curry's # this year would only be the 4th best of Thomas' career.

None of this is to say that Curry is better than Thomas. It doesn't even account for defense and everything on a basketball court can't be encapsulated by neat little #'s like this. However, it makes it quite clear that dismissing the idea of Curry being at that level is extremely ignorant. He has years to go but his peak thus far is obviously as good as some of the all time greats.

Lastly, these #'s take about 2 seconds to look up on basketball reference so there's no need to make blanket statements about a team or era and how they played without actually knowing.

Without actually knowing what? That the Pistons were defensive driven and that it was their defense that create opportunities for their offense? That their offense was based on guys that didn't make mistakes and that worked perfectly in unison as a collective? Try watching the games instead of looking at stats and assuming. The Pistons...when they were an actually championship caliber team...WERE a defensive minded team. They were NOT a high octane offense. The Lakers WERE a high octane offense.

The 84-85 Pistons team...odd that you would use this as your example...was a fringe playoff team. Went just 46-36 and got bounced early in the playoffs. It wasn't until they became one of the top defensive teams that they actually became elite. In 87-88, the Pistons were 8th in the league in PPG, but 3rd in opponent PPG. In 88-89 they were 16th in the NBA in PPG, but 2nd in opponent PPG. In 89-90 they were 19th in the NBA in PPG, but 1st in opponent PPG (and it was this team that won the 1st title). Their pace that year? Was next to last in the NBA (at just 94.4)!!!! That's a CLEAR AS DAY indication that they created a good portion of their offense off of their defense.

Lakers (a REAL high octane team) in contrast? In their glory years starting at around 81-82...the Lakers were 2nd (81-82), 2nd in 82-83, 4th in 83-84, 2nd in 84-85, 1st in 85-86, 2nd in 86-87, 5th in 87-88, 5th in 88-89 and 6th in 89-90.

It's not hard to project that had Thomas been playing on an actual high octane team in his prime that his scoring average would have been a lot higher than it was (he was one of the most talented players not named Michael Jordan of that era). Thomas sacrificed a good portion of his offensive game to help his DEFENSIVE MINDED team win. He defended, he played physical, he boarded, he passed, he lead that team mentally and emotionally, etc. Heck, the **** even played on a busted ankle that would have resulted in most other players calling it quits because his team needed him and he wasn't about to quit.

Maybe you should spend a few seconds to think first before posting next time, especially if you are going to be insulting someone else. Huh?

[CKamm1]

Without actually knowing what? That the Pistons were defensive driven and that it was their defense that create opportunities for their offense? That their offense was based on guys that didn't make mistakes and that worked perfectly in unison as a collective? Try watching the games instead of looking at stats and assuming. The Pistons...when they were an actually championship caliber team...WERE a defensive minded team. They were NOT a high octane offense. The Lakers WERE a high octane offense.

The 84-85 Pistons team...odd that you would use this as your example...was a fringe playoff team. Went just 46-36 and got bounced early in the playoffs. It wasn't until they became one of the top defensive teams that they actually became elite. In 87-88, the Pistons were 8th in the league in PPG, but 3rd in opponent PPG. In 88-89 they were 16th in the NBA in PPG, but 2nd in opponent PPG. In 89-90 they were 19th in the NBA in PPG, but 1st in opponent PPG (and it was this team that won the 1st title). Their pace that year? Was next to last in the NBA (at just 94.4)!!!! That's a CLEAR AS DAY indication that they created a good portion of their offense off of their defense.

Lakers (a REAL high octane team) in contrast? In their glory years starting at around 81-82...the Lakers were 2nd (81-82), 2nd in 82-83, 4th in 83-84, 2nd in 84-85, 1st in 85-86, 2nd in 86-87, 5th in 87-88, 5th in 88-89 and 6th in 89-90.

It's not hard to project that had Thomas been playing on an actual high octane team in his prime that his scoring average would have been a lot higher than it was (he was one of the most talented players not named Michael Jordan of that era). Thomas sacrificed a good portion of his offensive game to help his DEFENSIVE MINDED team win. He defended, he played physical, he boarded, he passed, he lead that team mentally and emotionally, etc. Heck, the **** even played on a busted ankle that would have resulted in most other players calling it quits because his team needed him and he wasn't about to quit.

Maybe you should spend a few seconds to think first before posting next time, especially if you are going to be insulting someone else. Huh?

When the Pistons became their best as a team and what style they used to do that is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about. As I clearly stated, I picked 84-85 because that was when Thomas put up his best numbers. His first six seasons in the league, and in fact his best statistical years whether we are talking raw numbers or on a per possession basis, were on Pistons teams that played at a significantly faster pace than the Warriors of today. So we have no need to project what Thomas' numbers would be on a "high octane team"- he played on a number of them and was at his most productive then. We actually need to project Curry to playing up at that higher pace in order to compare him to Thomas at his peak.

[K_ick_God]

I reject the entire notion that you have to take it as an article of faith that if a guy hits certain statistical markers, or there is enough of a consensus that someone is a perfect player, then he is the perfect player and beyond critique.

It's beyond silly.

The same line of reasoning would have us believe last year that Kevin Love was awesome. Doesn't look awesome now. In fact, I said I wasn't wild about him last year and I had similar people asking 'Is you crazy?'

I like Durant a lot and I think highly of Curry. But it's perfectly reasonable, and in this case accurate, to argue that we should hold the phone before talking about them as finished products who have already gotten to where they need to be pretty much. I disagree. Even in the case of Durant, who is one of the best scorers ever, statistically, already, as I acknowledged repeatedly, he has growth to do in order to perfect his dominance and win a title. Curry is also a tremendous scoring/shooting point, but I don't think he's already 1 of the top 5 points of all time.

Just like it was unclear to me how great Love was last year, when his numbers were off the charts, I have the same questions about Durant and Curry. That said, I think both are clearly more valuable than Love, and I give them pretty decent odds to figure out how to take the final step in their development. That final step, however, is much harder than people here realize. Even LeBron took a good long while, and a couple of outstanding teammates, to get there, and he's the best statistical and talent player of the last 20 years.

Anyway, you guys should be celebrating this fact. It means that stats and talent are not actually the final determinants of what makes a player truly great. It is making oneself a winner and team contributor that impacts the final tally. It's why I would say Paul Pierce has been a greater player than Melo to date, despite the statistical disparity between them.

Were Ewing and Barkley and Malone great? Yes. Winning titles is not everything, but it's important. And at some level if a player does it wire to wire but still cannot win a title, after going deep, then the lack of titles can be excused. It's a balance. Durant and Melo and Curry have a ways to go in order to match those 3 guys. They have a lot of career left as well.

[EchelonNYK]

Add me to the Russell bandwagon. Kid is going to be a star.

[CKamm1]

I reject the entire notion that you have to take it as an article of faith that if a guy hits certain statistical markers, or there is enough of a consensus that someone is a perfect player, then he is the perfect player and beyond critique.

It's beyond silly.

The same line of reasoning would have us believe last year that Kevin Love was awesome. Doesn't look awesome now. In fact, I said I wasn't wild about him last year and I had similar people asking 'Is you crazy?'

I like Durant a lot and I think highly of Curry. But it's perfectly reasonable, and in this case accurate, to argue that we should hold the phone before talking about them as finished products who have already gotten to where they need to be pretty much. I disagree. Even in the case of Durant, who is one of the best scorers ever, statistically, already, as I acknowledged repeatedly, he has growth to do in order to perfect his dominance and win a title. Curry is also a tremendous scoring/shooting point, but I don't think he's already 1 of the top 5 points of all time.

Just like it was unclear to me how great Love was last year, when his numbers were off the charts, I have the same questions about Durant and Curry. That said, I think both are clearly more valuable than Love, and I give them pretty decent odds to figure out how to take the final step in their development. That final step, however, is much harder than people here realize. Even LeBron took a good long while, and a couple of outstanding teammates, to get there, and he's the best statistical and talent player of the last 20 years.

Anyway, you guys should be celebrating this fact. It means that stats and talent are not actually the final determinants of what makes a player truly great. It is making oneself a winner and team contributor that impacts the final tally. It's why I would say Paul Pierce has been a greater player than Melo to date, despite the statistical disparity between them.

Were Ewing and Barkley and Malone great? Yes. Winning titles is not everything, but it's important. And at some level if a player does it wire to wire but still cannot win a title, after going deep, then the lack of titles can be excused. It's a balance. Durant and Melo and Curry have a ways to go in order to match those 3 guys. They have a lot of career left as well.

That's a whole lot of words for something no one is arguing against. No one claimed any of these guys are "perfect players" or "beyond critique." Your earlier argument was that they NEED to get better in order to go from really good to great. The counter was that they could never get any better and still be hall of fame, all time greats and be in position to win championships.

[BeagleBoss]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugCbmikA_hE[/youtube]

Well, it confirms what we know. Okafor has a lot of work to do defensively. Can he get better?

[K_ick_God]

I reject the entire notion that you have to take it as an article of faith that if a guy hits certain statistical markers, or there is enough of a consensus that someone is a perfect player, then he is the perfect player and beyond critique.

It's beyond silly.

The same line of reasoning would have us believe last year that Kevin Love was awesome. Doesn't look awesome now. In fact, I said I wasn't wild about him last year and I had similar people asking 'Is you crazy?'

I like Durant a lot and I think highly of Curry. But it's perfectly reasonable, and in this case accurate, to argue that we should hold the phone before talking about them as finished products who have already gotten to where they need to be pretty much. I disagree. Even in the case of Durant, who is one of the best scorers ever, statistically, already, as I acknowledged repeatedly, he has growth to do in order to perfect his dominance and win a title. Curry is also a tremendous scoring/shooting point, but I don't think he's already 1 of the top 5 points of all time.

Just like it was unclear to me how great Love was last year, when his numbers were off the charts, I have the same questions about Durant and Curry. That said, I think both are clearly more valuable than Love, and I give them pretty decent odds to figure out how to take the final step in their development. That final step, however, is much harder than people here realize. Even LeBron took a good long while, and a couple of outstanding teammates, to get there, and he's the best statistical and talent player of the last 20 years.

Anyway, you guys should be celebrating this fact. It means that stats and talent are not actually the final determinants of what makes a player truly great. It is making oneself a winner and team contributor that impacts the final tally. It's why I would say Paul Pierce has been a greater player than Melo to date, despite the statistical disparity between them.

Were Ewing and Barkley and Malone great? Yes. Winning titles is not everything, but it's important. And at some level if a player does it wire to wire but still cannot win a title, after going deep, then the lack of titles can be excused. It's a balance. Durant and Melo and Curry have a ways to go in order to match those 3 guys. They have a lot of career left as well.

That's a whole lot of words for something no one is arguing against. No one claimed any of these guys are "perfect players" or "beyond critique." Your earlier argument was that they NEED to get better in order to go from really good to great. The counter was that they could never get any better and still be hall of fame, all time greats and be in position to win championships.

My point is and was that the hype and common wisdom around them is that they're already as dominant as they ever need to be because they're great shooters who can find their shot. I think they need to find a couple crunch-time moves to finish the job. Until that happens they're vulnerable, overrated, whatever word you like but you get the idea.

[E-Balla]

I reject the entire notion that you have to take it as an article of faith that if a guy hits certain statistical markers, or there is enough of a consensus that someone is a perfect player, then he is the perfect player and beyond critique.

It's beyond silly.

The same line of reasoning would have us believe last year that Kevin Love was awesome. Doesn't look awesome now. In fact, I said I wasn't wild about him last year and I had similar people asking 'Is you crazy?'

I like Durant a lot and I think highly of Curry. But it's perfectly reasonable, and in this case accurate, to argue that we should hold the phone before talking about them as finished products who have already gotten to where they need to be pretty much. I disagree. Even in the case of Durant, who is one of the best scorers ever, statistically, already, as I acknowledged repeatedly, he has growth to do in order to perfect his dominance and win a title. Curry is also a tremendous scoring/shooting point, but I don't think he's already 1 of the top 5 points of all time.

Just like it was unclear to me how great Love was last year, when his numbers were off the charts, I have the same questions about Durant and Curry. That said, I think both are clearly more valuable than Love, and I give them pretty decent odds to figure out how to take the final step in their development. That final step, however, is much harder than people here realize. Even LeBron took a good long while, and a couple of outstanding teammates, to get there, and he's the best statistical and talent player of the last 20 years.

Anyway, you guys should be celebrating this fact. It means that stats and talent are not actually the final determinants of what makes a player truly great. It is making oneself a winner and team contributor that impacts the final tally. It's why I would say Paul Pierce has been a greater player than Melo to date, despite the statistical disparity between them.

Were Ewing and Barkley and Malone great? Yes. Winning titles is not everything, but it's important. And at some level if a player does it wire to wire but still cannot win a title, after going deep, then the lack of titles can be excused. It's a balance. Durant and Melo and Curry have a ways to go in order to match those 3 guys. They have a lot of career left as well.

That's a whole lot of words for something no one is arguing against. No one claimed any of these guys are "perfect players" or "beyond critique." Your earlier argument was that they NEED to get better in order to go from really good to great. The counter was that they could never get any better and still be hall of fame, all time greats and be in position to win championships.

My point is and was that the hype and common wisdom around them is that they're already as dominant as they ever need to be because they're great shooters who can find their shot. I think they need to find a couple crunch-time moves to finish the job. Until that happens they're vulnerable, overrated, whatever word you like but you get the idea.

No. Nobody believes that. Nobody said that. All we said is that they are already great. Jordan was already great in 87 when he won MVP and DPOY but that doesn't mean he didn't become better in 1990.

[K_ick_God]

That's a whole lot of words for something no one is arguing against. No one claimed any of these guys are "perfect players" or "beyond critique." Your earlier argument was that they NEED to get better in order to go from really good to great. The counter was that they could never get any better and still be hall of fame, all time greats and be in position to win championships.

My point is and was that the hype and common wisdom around them is that they're already as dominant as they ever need to be because they're great shooters who can find their shot. I think they need to find a couple crunch-time moves to finish the job. Until that happens they're vulnerable, overrated, whatever word you like but you get the idea.

No. Nobody believes that. Nobody said that. All we said is that they are already great. Jordan was already great in 87 when he won MVP and DPOY but that doesn't mean he didn't become better in 1990.

Semantics. This started with me saying they need pet moves in the clutch to perfect their games and people got all upset lol. Durant to some extent feeds off his great height and great jumper. It is usually so easy for him to shoot over people that I think it may make him complacent about developing a couple of unstoppable moves to the basket, in the post or off the dribble, as Dirk basically did, to make his offensive attack harder to stop during the closing minutes of playoff games. Curry ... similar situation.

[K_ick_God]

... Just to add, I of course know that Durant can get to the basket most times and use his foot speed, height and skill to just score easily. That's not what I'm saying though. It's the same as his jumper (size and shooting ability often permit him to get easy scores). This can make a player think that's all he needs, because Durant has such immense talent that he often doesn't need anything creative to beat his man. But with lots of pressure and collapsing defenses when it matters most, and just to keep defenses honest in general, he'll need to add a couple or few evasive moves and add to his clutch-time repertoire.

[NYSport]

Career-wise of course not he's only been playing for 6 seasons. However, his past few seasons statistically have been on par or better than guys like Isaiah, Clyde, GP. So it is not unreasonable whatsoever to suggest he is on a path towards that top 5 level if he stays on this trajectory for a while.

Also, I would hope that leaving Paul off that list was just an oversight, because it would be lunacy to purposely do so,

Offensively...in a league where it's a lot easier for scorers to score...

Yeah that's simply not true. From 80-81 through 89-90 the average points per game per team ranged from 107-110.8. Pace ranged from 99.6-103.1. The past 2 years team scoring has been from 100-101 per team, and pace just under 94. And those are among the highest those numbers have been in 20 years.

The majority of rule changes from the early 90's (when I started watching) to this point has clearly been in favor offense and scoring. If true, the stats that you are pointing out has more to do with the overall talent in today's league (especially in terms of depth). The NBA has definitely pushed and catered toward more scoring, but this isn't a just a basketball thing. Football has gone a similar route, all in the name of marketing itself to the casual fan.

[moocow007]

Offensively...in a league where it's a lot easier for scorers to score...

Yeah that's simply not true. From 80-81 through 89-90 the average points per game per team ranged from 107-110.8. Pace ranged from 99.6-103.1. The past 2 years team scoring has been from 100-101 per team, and pace just under 94. And those are among the highest those numbers have been in 20 years.

The majority of rule changes from the early 90's (when I started watching) to this point has clearly been in favor offense and scoring. If true, the stats that you are pointing out has more to do with the overall talent in today's league (especially in terms of depth). The NBA has definitely pushed and catered toward more scoring, but this isn't a just a basketball thing. Football has gone a similar route, all in the name of marketing itself to the casual fan.

Yep. Everything is relative...which is what I've been trying to get across. If you were to take the rules today and apply to back in the 80's it's quite possible that we'd be looking at much higher pace and even higher scoring than the managed.