RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #24 (Stephen Curry)

[Dutchball97]

But Suns offense was the best ever expect Showtime Lakers and MJ Bulls in playoffs basically. I mean, if you say that Phoenix would have been better with Nash shooting more then you expect them to be by far the best offensive team in NBA history. Given that they were talented, but nothing special in historical sense, I don't think it's reasonable.

I think that Nash is more consistent and more impressive than guys like Curry or Thomas which are already considered (and neither one is good defensively). Even though I'm Stockton fan, Nash is also clearly superior postseason performer than him as well.

If you think about defining run in a way that leads to ring then you are right, but I think that whole 2005-07 run is remarkable and he also proved a lot in 2010 when he didn't have D'Antoni on his side anymore.

Just to clarify with he should shoot more I don't mean he should try to be Curry. When you look at the 2005 play-offs for example, the Suns won every game where Nash scored under 20 points, while they lost a game where Nash scored 48 as well as some other high scoring performances from Nash that led to a loss. What this tells me is that when everything is working as intended, then amazing. However, you're also relying on role players to make their shots in high pressure situations. It's not like Nash couldn't take over a game in terms of scoring but when he did it was often as a last resort. I don't necessarily think the Suns offense would've been better had Nash shot more but I expect it would've been more consistent and arguably more play-off resilient.

I also think there is a pretty massive defensive difference between Nash' defense and the defense of guys like Curry and IT. Nash might be the worst defender ever, Curry and IT at least have some upsides between them. IT had the effort and the leadership, while Curry is great at playing the passing lanes. I think Nash is a defensive liability, while I wouldn't say the same about Curry and IT.

Although I do think that Nash is below average defender, calling him the worst ever is a huge exaggaration.

I bet there have been plenty of guys in the NBA who were even worse defenders than Nash but in terms of All-Time greats I think he's at or at least very close to the bottom defensively.

[70sFan]

Just to clarify with he should shoot more I don't mean he should try to be Curry. When you look at the 2005 play-offs for example, the Suns won every game where Nash scored under 20 points, while they lost a game where Nash scored 48 as well as some other high scoring performances from Nash that led to a loss. What this tells me is that when everything is working as intended, then amazing. However, you're also relying on role players to make their shots in high pressure situations. It's not like Nash couldn't take over a game in terms of scoring but when he did it was often as a last resort. I don't necessarily think the Suns offense would've been better had Nash shot more but I expect it would've been more consistent and arguably more play-off resilient.

I also think there is a pretty massive defensive difference between Nash' defense and the defense of guys like Curry and IT. Nash might be the worst defender ever, Curry and IT at least have some upsides between them. IT had the effort and the leadership, while Curry is great at playing the passing lanes. I think Nash is a defensive liability, while I wouldn't say the same about Curry and IT.

Although I do think that Nash is below average defender, calling him the worst ever is a huge exaggaration.

I bet there have been plenty of guys in the NBA who were even worse defenders than Nash but in terms of All-Time greats I think he's at or at least very close to the bottom defensively.

Someone like Calvin Murphy or Isaiah Thomas were much worse than him. In terms of all-timers, I think that some of the other great PGs are comparable.

[Baski]

How can you possibly be surprised? There is a moderator here who bans people for speaking well of Curry. Because of that this group is self-selected to favor certain players over others.

Participation in these projects by people who try to be objective such as yourself simply rewards such behavior and perpetuates the farce. And let's be honest this list is a farce. I have no problem with it though because it makes manifest the entire ludicrous narrative that is being put in play.

So this list is a farce because Curry isn't high enough? How can anyone be this biased?

I am not the one who is "stunned by how low this group is on Curry". It wasn't me who said that.

But it was you who called it a farce. No way to sidestep that one.
Considering the guy who is stunned "speaks well" of Curry frequently and was welcomed into the project, it's fair to say it wasn't simply "speaking well of Curry" that got you or whoever you're referencing banned. It was probably stuff like calling this list a farce, dismissing media accolades that Curry lacks as jokes and "ludicrous narratives" and spreading conspiracy theories about how everyone hates Curry because he's a 6'1" PG instead of a 6'7" SF.

[WarriorGM]

So this list is a farce because Curry isn't high enough? How can anyone be this biased?

I am not the one who is "stunned by how low this group is on Curry". It wasn't me who said that.

But it was you who called it a farce. No way to sidestep that one.
Considering the guy who is stunned "speaks well" of Curry frequently and was welcomed into the project, it's fair to say it wasn't simply "speaking well of Curry" that got you or whoever you're referencing banned. It was probably stuff like calling this list a farce, dismissing media accolades that Curry lacks as jokes and "ludicrous narratives" and spreading conspiracy theories about how everyone hates Curry because he's a 6'1" PG instead of a 6'7" SF.

I'm just being more frank. That seems to get people muzzled around here. You are free of course to take exception to my observations more than the actions that directly undermine the integrity of this project and which contribute to making this exercise a farce, but if my observations are true the result is a farce nonetheless. And yes my observations are true and you know it.

[70sFan]

And yes my observations are true and you know it.

Or they are not, have you ever thought about it?

[WarriorGM]

And yes my observations are true and you know it.

Or they are not, have you ever thought about it?

Again "stunned" and "floored" aren't my comments. Neither am I the participant who is begging off from being contacted further to participate because his votes were apparently subject to a double standard and ignored.

That doesn't even get into the ridiculous justifications that are made to vote for certain players over others in this list.

[Dutchball97]

I am not the one who is "stunned by how low this group is on Curry". It wasn't me who said that.

But it was you who called it a farce. No way to sidestep that one.
Considering the guy who is stunned "speaks well" of Curry frequently and was welcomed into the project, it's fair to say it wasn't simply "speaking well of Curry" that got you or whoever you're referencing banned. It was probably stuff like calling this list a farce, dismissing media accolades that Curry lacks as jokes and "ludicrous narratives" and spreading conspiracy theories about how everyone hates Curry because he's a 6'1" PG instead of a 6'7" SF.

I'm just being more frank. That seems to get people muzzled around here. You are free of course to take exception to my observations more than the actions that directly undermine the integrity of this project and which contribute to making this exercise a farce, but if my observations are true the result is a farce nonetheless. And yes my observations are true and you know it.

I'm confused why you think the integrity of the project is compromised. The entire point of this project is, next to the discussion itself of course, to reflect an aggregate top 100. I don't agree with Curry's relatively low ranking either (I'd have him in the top 15) but if other posters legitimately think that other players that peaked lower still managed to attain more career value due to a significant longevity edge then what makes that invalid?

[70sFan]

That doesn't even get into the ridiculous justifications that are made to vote for certain players over others in this list.

Then show me examples of these votes, but exclude Curry in your examples.

[WarriorGM]

But it was you who called it a farce. No way to sidestep that one.
Considering the guy who is stunned "speaks well" of Curry frequently and was welcomed into the project, it's fair to say it wasn't simply "speaking well of Curry" that got you or whoever you're referencing banned. It was probably stuff like calling this list a farce, dismissing media accolades that Curry lacks as jokes and "ludicrous narratives" and spreading conspiracy theories about how everyone hates Curry because he's a 6'1" PG instead of a 6'7" SF.

I'm just being more frank. That seems to get people muzzled around here. You are free of course to take exception to my observations more than the actions that directly undermine the integrity of this project and which contribute to making this exercise a farce, but if my observations are true the result is a farce nonetheless. And yes my observations are true and you know it.

I'm confused why you think the integrity of the project is compromised. The entire point of this project is, next to the discussion itself of course, to reflect an aggregate top 100. I don't agree with Curry's relatively low ranking either (I'd have him in the top 15) but if other posters legitimately think that other players that peaked lower still managed to attain more career value due to a significant longevity edge then what makes that invalid?

It was asked why the people here are so down on Curry. I have answered the question by sharing my experience. Maybe the others can come up with a better more believable reason instead of attacking the messenger.

[Baski]

But it was you who called it a farce. No way to sidestep that one.
Considering the guy who is stunned "speaks well" of Curry frequently and was welcomed into the project, it's fair to say it wasn't simply "speaking well of Curry" that got you or whoever you're referencing banned. It was probably stuff like calling this list a farce, dismissing media accolades that Curry lacks as jokes and "ludicrous narratives" and spreading conspiracy theories about how everyone hates Curry because he's a 6'1" PG instead of a 6'7" SF.

I'm just being more frank. That seems to get people muzzled around here. You are free of course to take exception to my observations more than the actions that directly undermine the integrity of this project and which contribute to making this exercise a farce, but if my observations are true the result is a farce nonetheless. And yes my observations are true and you know it.

I'm confused why you think the integrity of the project is compromised. The entire point of this project is, next to the discussion itself of course, to reflect an aggregate top 100. I don't agree with Curry's relatively low ranking either (I'd have him in the top 15) but if other posters legitimately think that other players that peaked lower still managed to attain more career value due to a significant longevity edge then what makes that invalid?

You must not be familiar with that poster. Check out his post history and you'll get it.

[Baski]

I am not the one who is "stunned by how low this group is on Curry". It wasn't me who said that.

But it was you who called it a farce. No way to sidestep that one.
Considering the guy who is stunned "speaks well" of Curry frequently and was welcomed into the project, it's fair to say it wasn't simply "speaking well of Curry" that got you or whoever you're referencing banned. It was probably stuff like calling this list a farce, dismissing media accolades that Curry lacks as jokes and "ludicrous narratives" and spreading conspiracy theories about how everyone hates Curry because he's a 6'1" PG instead of a 6'7" SF.

I'm just being more frank. That seems to get people muzzled around here. You are free of course to take exception to my observations more than the actions that directly undermine the integrity of this project and which contribute to making this exercise a farce, but if my observations are true the result is a farce nonetheless. And yes my observations are true and you know it.

Right. Well I'm "floored" and "stunned" that you can keep up this schtick for so long and not see why you'd get banned or generally shunned as you have been. But that's just me. Carry on.

[Baski]

I'm just being more frank. That seems to get people muzzled around here. You are free of course to take exception to my observations more than the actions that directly undermine the integrity of this project and which contribute to making this exercise a farce, but if my observations are true the result is a farce nonetheless. And yes my observations are true and you know it.

I'm confused why you think the integrity of the project is compromised. The entire point of this project is, next to the discussion itself of course, to reflect an aggregate top 100. I don't agree with Curry's relatively low ranking either (I'd have him in the top 15) but if other posters legitimately think that other players that peaked lower still managed to attain more career value due to a significant longevity edge then what makes that invalid?

It was asked why the people here are so down on Curry. I have answered the question by sharing my experience. Maybe the others can come up with a better more believable reason instead of attacking the messenger.

Both are being done right now in this thread, and the former was being done as far back as the #11 thread iirc. Your statement is only valid if you can't read or refuse to read, both of which are you problems.

[MO12msu]

Man I can’t wait for Curry to be voted in.

While not a participant, I really enjoy reading through these projects and learning new things. All the complaints about Curry are detracting from that.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #153:

Stephen Curry - 4 (Dutchball97, Joao Saraiva, Magic Is Magic, penbeast0)
Bob Pettit - 2 (Cavsfansince84, Dr Positivity)
John Stockton - 2 (sansterre, trex_8063)
Steve Nash - 1 (Whopper_Sr)
Dwyane Wade - 1 (Joey Wheeler)
Elgin Baylor - 1 (Hal14)


Probably about 8 hours left for this one.
*IF you do NOT see your handle above, I have NOT seen a vote from you itt.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Jordan Syndrome]

1. Steve Nash
2. Steph Curry
3. Bob Pettit

-Steve Nash has the highest CORP left, one of the highest offensive peaks and helped revolutionize the game. His impact offensively can never be overstated as he was comparable to Magic Johnson on this front.

-Steph Curry has a shorter prime than Nash but by far the highest level of prime play left. His run from 2014-2019 (6 seasons) dwarfs everyone else left for a 6-year period. His versatility both on and off-ball along with his ability to score at an all-time great level from anywhere and with any team makes him a clear-cut choice for #25.

-Pettit is once again in a group of a handful of players who have been going off the board (Paul, Durant). I may end up changing this vote or propelling another player to #2 once Curry/Nash get in.

[No-more-rings]

3) People loooove when a single player uses a ton of possessions to lift a team to the title. Wade did it in '06. Neither Drexler or Pippen did it.

And this is supposed to be a bad thing? I would've thought a player being able to win a title carrying a big load was a good thing. Lebron's done it in every single one of his titles.

1) People love scoring. Wade was a better scorer than Drexler and Pippen. At his peak, his volume was incredible.

1) Things that aren't scoring. Wade was a strong passer, but he was a weaker rebounder than Pippen and Drexler (despite being quite good himself).

I lumped these two together to make an overall point.

Even if you wanted to argue that scoring is the only major category Wade was better at, that doesn't mean his overall impact was worse. You can argue scoring is the only thing that Jordan does better than KG, yet he's universally seen as better even despite clearly worse longevity. Scoring is arguably the only thing Kareem does better than KG, and he's universally regarded as the better player.

And he looks like a weaker defender than them (which may have been a byproduct of his offensive usage, but that still counts).

I don't think there's much of a difference between Drexler and Wade defensively, they seem around the same.

And he spaced the floor worse.

Not really actually. Pippen's jumper is far from reliable in the postseason, that's a big reason why his scoring was never super hot.

Check this out, Wade's 3 point shooting his only major weakness he's not really worse than Pippen and Drexler in the playoffs.

Wade from 06-2012: 83 games- 33% on 2.6 3PA

Drexler from 87-95: 98 games- 27.1% on 3.2 3PA

Pippen from 91-98: 136 games- 28.8% on 3.2 3PA

These guys certainly do not add more spacing than Wade, unless you think Wade is just left alone off ball, which he wasn't obviously.

2) Sustained Value. Wade has three really strong seasons ('05-07) and then another five really strong seasons ('09-13). His career besides those years is fairly negligible. Compare that with Drexler who played at a high level from '87 to '97.

That's fair, but it seems a little lazy to me to just lump all those seasons together, put them side by side and call Drexler better because he played more. If it were that simple, Karl Malone should've been easily in the top 10. We're getting to the point, where i think longevity should honestly be less of an issue because Wade is one of the few left who has true 1st option championship ability. Drexler doesn't quite have that, and Pippen certainly doesn't. Curry has it, Nash to a lesser degree i think does, Stockton i don't think so.

Riddle me this Batman: if the '06 Heat lose to the Mavericks, do we still have this discussion? I feel like a particular selling-point for Wade is that he "lifted his team to the championship" even though the '06 Heat were probably the weakest title-winner in the last two decades.

I mean why wouldn't we? Even if he loses that one championship as the 1st option, you have multiple guys already voted in who never won one anyway, Cp3, Karl and Barkley.

They were a weak title winner because Wade's cast was nothing special, not because Wade wasn't all time great he clearly was by all metrics.

Do you knock Hakeem for the 94 Rockets being weak title winners?

Wade was obviously the best floor-raiser of the three. But I think the other two have arguments that they added value in ways that Wade did not. And in order to push Wade here you've got to believe that his floor-raising during his peak was so good that it overcomes the defense/scalability over more years for the other two.

This nonsense about Wade's scalability has been debunked countless times. I don't mean to come off as aggressive, but i don't know how many times it has to be repeated before people stop falsely claiming it.

Wade's scalability worked just fine when he co led a finals team as 1a/1b, and then was a good 2nd option on two championship teams.

What's more scalable about Drexler and Pippen? They had better health, that's pretty much it.

My rankings are built on a BPM->CORP converter for career value that uses half regular season BPM and half postseason BPM. I'm not saying that the rankings are proven or anything. But Wade fits the profile of a player that would be very easy to overrate.

That's an ironic thing to say about Wade, when the guy you pushed for(Cp3), is already in. For all his great impact metrics, it translated to the least playoff success of anyone else already voted it. I'm not saying he's undeserving necessarily, but i raised a lot of concerns earlier about his very shaky postseason health and no one seemed to have a good rebuttal for it as far as I'm concerned.

Wade's prime when healthy(05-12), was a clear level or two above Drexler or Pippen's, and like Trex said he has the best peak left aside from possibly Curry or Walton, so i think his amount of longevity along with high level superstar seasons is more than enough to get him somewhere in the 25-28 range. I mean if we're going to misuse longevity this much where does it end? We may as well start voting for Miller and Ray Allen over him too.

I appreciate your take on this, though you i think you seem to underestimate the force that Wade was in the league at his healthy best(06-11).

[eminence]

1. Steve Nash
2. Stephen Curry
3. John Stockton

Nash - offensive wiz kid, arguably the best ever. Run with Phoenix was certainly worthy of those MVPs. Team was a title contender multiple times. If I had to pick somebody to make decisions for my offense I don't think there's anyone I'd go with over Nash. Overall solid longevity, '01-'12. Negatives - Kerr should've seen this in advance, but Shaq was an atrocious fit that Nash couldn't really overcome. Needed a coach to really recognize his brilliance. Defensively weak and the optimized lineups around him also normally have defensive weaknesses as well.

Curry - bit of a successor to Nash. Run with the Warriors is rivaled by very few teams in league history. Showed pre-Kerr that he could do it in a more traditional way as well. GOAT shooter. No huge weaknesses in his game, can get to the rim, pass, plays decent defense. In coming generations we'll see if he launched a bit of a revolution. Negatives - longevity just isn't there yet, only 7 high level seasons. Durability, injuries slowed down the start of his career and have put dents in some otherwise spectacular seasons on top of missing the most recent season. I do feel the injury issues mostly explain the playoff struggles.

Stockton - Solid PG for a very very long time. Had the skill to do just about anything on the court - shoot, pass, defend, Stockton's got it all. One half of one of the most legendary pairings in NBA history. Negatives - not a particularly adventurous player, didn't seem to fully understand when to push his advantages offensively, leading to a lower peak than the other guys on the ballot and in contention for this spot. Wish we'd got to see him develop a bit more with Layden, oh well.

[Jordan Syndrome]

1. John Stockton - I realize he's not a sexy pick, but he actually really good at his peak. Super efficient shooting, high assists, low turnovers, didn't make mistakes . . . I mean, he's just a really good point guard. Stockton's drawbacks? I see two. One, he never scored in volume (and for whatever reason, everybody loves volume scoring). And two, that he played with terminator-like consistency for so long with the same team that kept coming up short corrupts his narrative. Because Utah never won it's easy to dismiss Stockton with "just wasn't good enough, and that he played for so long just makes him not good enough for longer". Was he ever a Top 5 player? I don't think so. But he was almost certainly a Top 10 player for more than a decade. If he'd been the point guard in Chicago for the duration of his career he'd be ranked in the top 20 easy. But he played in Utah with Malone and not a whole lot else to work with. He was really good for really long. And that's enough for me.

2. Scottie Pippen - Basically, name anything that isn't "1st option scoring" and Pippen was amazing at it. Passing? Great. Rebounding? Really great. Defense? Pippen may be the best defensive non-big *ever*. Could he be the first option on an offense? He could, but it wasn't what he was built for. He was built for secondary playmaking, off-ball cutting, board crashing and murderous defense. If Pippen is your first option, you'd better have an amazing team around him to make it work. But if he's your second option . . . you're in a really good position. Pippen could fit on almost any roster ever. '74 Celtics instead of Havlicek? Sure! '90 Pistons instead of Rodman? Sure! He brings everything you could possibly want to the table and then some; Pippen was crazy scalable. He's prone to being underrated because he's not a first option scorer (at a championship level) but he was great at everything else and has a history of excellent postseason play. Do you realize how many roster combinations his skillset unlocks? Scottie Pippen may not be a flashy championship piece, but that doesn't make him less valuable.

3. Clyde Drexler - I know, I know, Drexler above Curry? But seriously. Drexler. He's got a Prime WOWYR comparable to Garnett, Kareem and Russell. He's got a career WOWYR comparable to Larry Bird and Steve Nash. He's a solid high usage scorer with decent efficiency, he's a good rebounder (and one of the best offensive rebounding 2s ever), he's a good passer who doesn't turn it over much and he was a very good defender, posting high steals and blocks totals consistently. Was he a dominant first option? No. But he was good at everything. And he carried the Blazers *hard*. I've looked at that roster: I'm not saying that it was garbage, but that team won the Western Conference twice only because of Drexler. When he was traded the Blazers went from averaging 107 points per game to 101 points per game for the rest of the year; losing him knocked them from being a +6.1 team to a +1.2 team (not adjusted for opposition). He carried a huge load, posting Heliocentrism ratings of 37% and 42% for two Conference Winners (43% and 38% in the playoffs for those years). Did he fall off in the playoffs? Yeah, a little. His volume shrank slightly and his efficiency dropped a bit, but not more than you'd expect against playoff opposition. And his rebounding, passing and defense retained value just fine. It's easy to point to the player with a narrow peak who had one insane skill (if that skill is scoring). Drexler was really good for a long peak (probably an 11-year peak from '87-'97) and he was good at *everything* which means that he'd be a quality addition to most rosters.

Here's Drexler's eleven year peak compared to Curry's eleven year peak (kidding, this is his whole career) (this is per game):

Curry: 23.5 / 4.5 / 6.6, 0.7 offensive rebounds, 1.7 steals, 3.1 turnovers, 62.3% TS, over 699 games
Drexler: 22.5 / 6.7 / 5.8, 2.6 offensive rebounds, 2.1 steals, 2.8 turnovers, 55.2% TS, over 779 games

Curry: 103.2 Win Shares, 0.207 WS/48, +6.4 BPM, 50.7 VORP
Drexler: 112.2 Win Shares, 0.189 WS/48, +6.0 BPM, 57.9 VORP

Curry's the better scorer, no doubt. He's a slightly better passer. But Drexler's a much better rebounder and much better defender. And he's played in more games, which gives him more aggregate value (even if all the metrics think that Curry was slightly better per game).

But what about the playoffs?

Curry: 26.5 / 5.4 / 6.3, 0.8 offensive rebounds, 1.6 steals, 3.5 turnovers, 60.9% TS (112 games)
Drexler: 21.6 / 7.2 / 6.2, 2.5 offensive rebounds, 1.9 steals, 2.7 turnovers, 53.9% TS (122 games)

Curry: 17.1 Win Shares, 0.194 WS/48, +6.9 BPM, 9.5 VORP
Drexler: 14.7 Win Shares, 0.146 WS/48, +6.1 BPM, 9.9 VORP

So at this point Curry's lead in scoring has expanded (the gap in efficiency is the same, but the volume gap has increased), but now Drexler's a comparable distributer with fewer turnovers, while being the better rebounder (especially offensive), and defender. The aggregate stats think that Curry was better in the playoffs, but not by much.

And let's not forget that Drexler has four more seasons that we're not even considering.

I'm just saying. Clyde Drexler was really good.

Clyde Drexler was really good--but he wasn't great enough to be remotely considered in the top 30. If you are seriously considering Drexler here then you should consider superior players like Reggie Miller as well.

Regular Season
Drexler ('87-'97): 22.5 / 6.7 / 5.8, 2.6 offensive rebounds, 2.1 steals, 2.8 turnovers, 55.2% TS, over 779 games
Miller ('90-'99): 21.0 / 3.1 / 3.2, 1.2 steals, 2.0 turnovers, 62.5 TS%, over 776 games

Drexler ('87-'97): 112.2 Win Shares, .189 WS/48, +6.0 BPM, 57.9 VORP
Miller ('90-'99): 110.8 Win Shares, .192 WS/48, +4.4 BPM, 44.6 VORP

What we have here is Reggie Miller being a significantly better scorer while Clyde being a better rebounder, passer and defender. It is also worth noting a couple of things, one being the spacing Miller provided allowed his teams to routinely be top-tier offenses and two Miller's defense being underrated by counting stats. Miller could move his feet and contest shots at a good level given his lengthy frame and three Drexler started to break down from 93-97, missing 33, 14, 6, 30 and 20 games--Miller was an ironman, missing 12 total games in this time period.

Post-Season
Drexler ('87-'97): 21.6 / 7.2 / 6.2, 2.5 offensive rebounds, 1.9 steals, 2.7 turnovers, 53.9% TS (122 games)
Miller ('90-'99): 23.0 / 2.5 / 3.0, 1.1 steals, 1.9 turnovers, 60.9 TS% (78 games)

Drexler ('87-'97): 14.7 Win Shares, .146 WS/48, +6.1 BPM, 9.9 VORP
Miller ('90-'99): 12.0 Win Shares, .194 WS/48, +5.7 BPM, 5.8 VORP

Once again the differences in these players we see grow larger, with Miller being able to increase his scoring volume at little cost to efficiency while both of Drexler's volume and efficiency decreased--not a good sign.

Miller still has 6 more seasons of high-impact basketball albeit a clear decrease in volume in his final 3 seasons.

Regular Season
Miller ('00-'05): 15.2 / 2.8 / 2.8, 0.9 steals, 1.3 turnovers
Miller ('00-'05): 52.8 Win Shares, .163 WS/48, +2.5 BPM, 17.7 VORP

Post-Season
Miller ('00-'05): 17.9 / 2.7 / 2.5, 1.0 steals, 1.7 turnovers
Miller ('00-'05): 7.9 Win Shares, .162 WS/48, +4.2 BPM, 3.6 VORP

Was he a dominant first option? No. But he was good at everything. And he carried the Blazers *hard*. I've looked at that roster: I'm not saying that it was garbage, but that team won the Western Conference twice only because of Drexler.

Drexler wasn't just not a dominant first option--he was a mediocre first option--significantly worse than Reggie Miller on that front who is not a "good first option".

As for Drexler carrying the Blazers "Hard", not close. Terry Porter was one of the best Point Guards in the early 1990s providing crucial spacing and allowed Drexler to be the 1B playmaker to Porter's 1A. In Porter's short prime ('88-'93) he was a 17/4/8 player on big-time efficiency (58.7 TS%) and performed better in the post-season, unlike Clyde. The Blazers also had all-defensive talent Buck Williams--an astonishingly efficient post-player, a very solid Jerome Kirsey on the wing, Veteran Danny Ainge off the bench and an all-star Center in Kevin Duckworth all thrown together with Rick Adelman at the helm.

[70sFan]

Well, if we reached Drexler vs Miller comparison then I'd also suggest to look at George Gervin who was also a better player at his best than Clyde.

[Owly]

an all-star Center in Kevin Duckworth

Technically correct in that he made one. You don't think he's all-star caliber though, do you?

For me, he isn't close, so personally I wouldn't invoke it.