RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #46 (Chauncey Billups)

[Hal14]

Pierce v. English from the thread with their names:

Pierce has the edge in rebounding and length of career. The 00s are also a stronger era than the 80s were.

Based on what?

[DQuinn1575]

1. Sam Jones
2. Dave Cowens
3. Paul Pierce


Ive mentioned Jones in numerous posts, for his playoff performance, as he was probably most impactful player left in championships.
Cowens was dominant, top 5-6 player in league for a number of years.
Pierce was great player for number of years.

SWITCHING MY 3rd PICK TO BILLUPS BASED ON SUPERIOR PLAYOFF PERFORMANCE VS COWENS OR PIERCE


1. SAM JONES
2. COWENS
3. BILLUPS
4. PIERCE

[Hal14]

1. Sam Jones
2. Dave Cowens
3. Paul Pierce


Ive mentioned Jones in numerous posts, for his playoff performance, as he was probably most impactful player left in championships.
Cowens was dominant, top 5-6 player in league for a number of years.
Pierce was great player for number of years.

SWITCHING MY 3rd PICK TO BILLUPS BASED ON SUPERIOR PLAYOFF PERFORMANCE VS COWENS OR PIERCE


1. SAM JONES
2. COWENS
3. BILLUPS
4. PIERCE

Hmm, interesting. 3 Celtics on your list, but neither of them is McHale and Cousy - who I rank higher than all 3 Celtics you put down.

I suppose when you get this deep into the rankings there's a lot of different ways you can go..

[penbeast0]

Pierce v. English from the thread with their names:

Pierce has the edge in rebounding and length of career. The 00s are also a stronger era than the 80s were.

Based on what?

Primarily expansion, the league exploded during the end of the 60s and through the 70s and while the expansion slowed into the 80s, it continued thus spreading the available talent thinner. In the 00s, the stream of foreign players expanded the population while the rate of expansion had slowed making the average player most likely superior. At the very top, the group is so small that it is much less affected by this but the competition for guys past that tiny group of superstars improved.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #24:

Chauncey Billups - 3 (Cavsfansince84, Joao Saraiva, penbeast0)
Kevin McHale - 1 (Hal14)
Paul Pierce - 1 (Odinn21)
Pau Gasol - 1 (trex_8063)
Manu Ginobili - 1 (Dutchball97)
Sam Jones - 1 (DQuinn1575)


Probably about 21 hours left for this one.

EDIT: probably a good idea to sound off on your order between Billups, McHale, and Pierce [+/- Manu??], regardless of who your picks are.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Bernard King 1984 playoffs, 12 games, 34.8 ppg, FG 57.4%, EFG 57.4%, TS 62%
Only Kareem and Bernard King have had a playoff season of 6 or more games during which they scored 33 or more points per game at 55 or better percent FG%. Using EFG% or TS% doesn't change this.

Yes it is more of a peaks thing. Yes King did not have a good reputaion for defense. But his peak was something else and he was not ball dominant.

[LA Bird]

Pierce v. English from the thread with their names:

Pierce has the edge in rebounding and length of career. The 00s are also a stronger era than the 80s were.

On the other hand, English has a small edge as a RS scorer (more volume, more efficient for era, but only a little), a small edge in playmaking (less assists, but less turnovers despite the extra volume), and his playoff scoring average for his career was much more resilient than Pierce's as he outscored Pierce in the playoffs 24.4 to 18.7 on similar efficiency despite Pierce averaging slightly more minutes. Playoffs matter enough for me to prefer Alex English here since both were primarily valuable as scorers.

The volume stats from the 80s Nuggets should be taken with a grain of salt when you consider pace. There is no reason they shouldn't get the same inflation adjustment as the teams from the 60s when their numbers were even crazier. This is the points scored and against for every team in 1982 when the Nuggets set the all time record for scoring:



They were an average team that upped their pace to ridiculous levels while giving up just as many points as they scored. Everyone on the Nuggets had great stats because of the pace and it is why English only ever led the team in WS once in his career despite his box scores (27/6/5) looking incredible in isolation. WS isn't a perfect stat but there is something to be said when teammates like Kiki Vandeweghe, Calvin Natt and Fat Lever (none of who are top ~200) were all better than him at one point or another because of that super pace. If there was a defensive equivalent of box scores that measured points allowed instead of just points scored, I think Alex English would be viewed as closer to the top 80 with Issel rather than in the top 50.

[penbeast0]

Vandeweghe was the real defensive seive, his offense is top 100 worthy. Natt's injuries hurt him, very good forgotten player, Lever also had a 4 year prime from 87=90 that would be an easy top 100 choice if he had done it for 8-10 years. These aren't stiffs and the Nuggets offense was a share the wealth/motion offense that was very modern except for the lower use of the 3 point shot (except for Michael Adams).

And, every stat I used other than playoff scoring was per possession or ast/reb % so pace inflation should not be an issue. IF anything, playing at that frantic pace should be driving efficiency down as the Havlicek/Cousy fans say about the Russell Celtics and yet English was one of the more efficient scorers of his era.

[Owly]

Bernard King 1984 playoffs, 12 games, 34.8 ppg, FG 57.4%, EFG 57.4%, TS 62%
Only Kareem and Bernard King have had a playoff season of 6 or more games during which they scored 33 or more points per game at 55 or better percent FG%. Using EFG% or TS% doesn't change this.

Yes it is more of a peaks thing. Yes King did not have a good reputaion for defense. But his peak was something else and he was not ball dominant.

Unsure what you mean by the bolded.

But for instance, Donovan Mitchell has 36.3ppg average on a playoff season above 6 games (7) - and a higher per possession rate to boot (50.5 per 100, to King's 42.4 - a significant gap). Mitchell matches King's TS% (again, more than ... though era differences - .696 to .620).

King's is a larger (though not large, especially talking on a career scale) sample. King had a series (over half their games) against a good defense.

You could move the games threshold to cut out Mitchell but it just highlights the arbitrariness of threshold achievements.

[Hal14]

It baffles be that people are voting for Chauncey Billups over both Gary Payton and Bob Cousy.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #30:

Chauncey Billups - 3 (Cavsfansince84, Joao Saraiva, penbeast0)
Kevin McHale - 1 (Hal14)
Paul Pierce - 1 (Odinn21)
Pau Gasol - 1 (trex_8063)
Manu Ginobili - 1 (Dutchball97)
Sam Jones - 1 (DQuinn1575)


Maybe 6 more hours for this one, still sitting at this count. If your name isn't shown above, I haven't seen a vote from you here.

And again: maybe sound off on your order of Billups/McHale/Pierce/Manu, just in case.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Joao Saraiva]

It baffles be that people are voting for Chauncey Billups over both Gary Payton and Bob Cousy.

And why is that? Billups is actually the prototype of what a point guard should be.

Payton often let that trash talk trash his own team or give momentum to others. His outside shot wasn't as good as Billups' and his offensive arsenal wasn't as complete.

Yes he was a better defender. It's not like Billups was a liability on that end either.

I'd give pace control to Billups too and intangibles.

So why is so bad to vote Billups over Payton?

[trex_8063]

It baffles be that people are voting for Chauncey Billups over both Gary Payton and Bob Cousy.

And why is that? Billups is actually the prototype of what a point guard should be.

Payton often let that trash talk trash his own team or give momentum to others. His outside shot wasn't as good as Billups' and his offensive arsenal wasn't as complete.

Yes he was a better defender. It's not like Billups was a liability on that end either.

I'd give pace control to Billups too and intangibles.

So why is so bad to vote Billups over Payton?

I'd generally agree with most of the specifics here. However, I feel Payton was perhaps the marginally better playmaker, and fwiw did have a slightly superior all-around turnover economy, as well as being the little better rebounding PG.

And then he's got a notable longevity/durability edge on Billups.

For those reasons I have Payton ahead of Billups, perhaps even by a "comfortable" [though not huge] margin. However, I'm not "baffled" that others may disagree.

[sansterre]

1. Paul Pierce - never had an extremely dominant peak, but played at a high level for a very long time, providing some of everything with few weaknesses. I feel like his lack of singular peak, and that his best years were wasted with the worst teammates, make him look worse than he was.

2. Chauncey Billups - Kind of like Pierce, except that he got to play on good teams. He was never great at anything, yet his strong teams seemed surprisingly dependent on his efficient offense. Very few weaknesses as a player.

3. Manu Ginobili - If I cared about peak it'd be Manu all the way. But his career value suffers from injuries, the fact that he didn't get good until his late 20s, and a lot of minutes conservation. Also he played his entire career in an extremely hospitable infrastructure for his game. That said, at his best he was spectacular, and managed to provide value long after his peak was past.

I'm just not the McHale fan a lot of other people are, and I was a huge Payton fan until I saw what appears to be a considerable drop-off in performance in the postseason.

[LA Bird]

Vandeweghe was the real defensive seive, his offense is top 100 worthy. Natt's injuries hurt him, very good forgotten player, Lever also had a 4 year prime from 87=90 that would be an easy top 100 choice if he had done it for 8-10 years. These aren't stiffs and the Nuggets offense was a share the wealth/motion offense that was very modern except for the lower use of the 3 point shot (except for Michael Adams).

The bar here isn't top 100 though, it is top 50. If English was really this good, he should be lapping every one of his teammates considering his whole selling point is his stat totals and yet he got beat by one of them in WS almost every year. Fat Lever was better than English in 87-89 when the latter was still putting up huge numbers. An 8-10 year prime Lever should theoretically rank around as high as English's overall career. Is Fat Lever with a longer prime going top 50 all time? I don't see it. And that's why I don't have English this high either.

And, every stat I used other than playoff scoring was per possession or ast/reb % so pace inflation should not be an issue. IF anything, playing at that frantic pace should be driving efficiency down as the Havlicek/Cousy fans say about the Russell Celtics and yet English was one of the more efficient scorers of his era.

A fast pace usually help with efficiency because there are more scoring opportunities in transition before the defense is set. It's why there is a clear positive correlation between pace and ORtg. A faster pace not only mean more shots but most often more easy shots too. The Celtics under Russell was an exception and what they did before he arrived was more in line with what we would normally expect from a fast paced team (high pace, high rORtg).

[penbeast0]

And, every stat I used other than playoff scoring was per possession or ast/reb % so pace inflation should not be an issue. IF anything, playing at that frantic pace should be driving efficiency down as the Havlicek/Cousy fans say about the Russell Celtics and yet English was one of the more efficient scorers of his era.

A fast pace usually help with efficiency because there are more scoring opportunities in transition before the defense is set. It's why there is a clear positive correlation between pace and ORtg. A faster pace not only mean more shots but most often more easy shots too. The Celtics under Russell was an exception and what they did before he arrived was more in line with what we would normally expect from a fast paced team (high pace, high rORtg).

Do you have stats on the team pace correlating positively with team efficiency? I believe you but I'd like to see them.

[DQuinn1575]

1. Sam Jones
2. Dave Cowens
3. Paul Pierce


Ive mentioned Jones in numerous posts, for his playoff performance, as he was probably most impactful player left in championships.
Cowens was dominant, top 5-6 player in league for a number of years.
Pierce was great player for number of years.

SWITCHING MY 3rd PICK TO BILLUPS BASED ON SUPERIOR PLAYOFF PERFORMANCE VS COWENS OR PIERCE


1. SAM JONES
2. COWENS
3. BILLUPS
4. PIERCE

Hmm, interesting. 3 Celtics on your list, but neither of them is McHale and Cousy - who I rank higher than all 3 Celtics you put down.

I suppose when you get this deep into the rankings there's a lot of different ways you can go..

Didn’t even notice. Probably only one i picked maybe because he was a Celtic us Jones, as I am rewarding his role in all the championships and it sure looks like i am giving a #2 guy on multiple championships more credit than others

I loved McHale as a player but think his top impact is a little overrated as far as peak and longevity of that peak.

I think top end Cowens was more impactful - he has bigger role in his teams success than McHale.

Pierce is a place holder right now and i could easily retain him next time.

[trex_8063]

And, every stat I used other than playoff scoring was per possession or ast/reb % so pace inflation should not be an issue. IF anything, playing at that frantic pace should be driving efficiency down as the Havlicek/Cousy fans say about the Russell Celtics and yet English was one of the more efficient scorers of his era.

A fast pace usually help with efficiency because there are more scoring opportunities in transition before the defense is set. It's why there is a clear positive correlation between pace and ORtg. A faster pace not only mean more shots but most often more easy shots too. The Celtics under Russell was an exception and what they did before he arrived was more in line with what we would normally expect from a fast paced team (high pace, high rORtg).

Do you have stats on the team pace correlating positively with team efficiency? I believe you but I'd like to see them.

I also would like to see correlation study details, if you have them.
I had done some investigations into the correlation between pace and ORtg [or more precisely: rPace and rORTG], and found indications that the nature of the [potential] relationship was dependent upon just how fast a pace we're talking about [more on that below].

wrt the bolded portion: that sounds a little like a generalization. I mean, I don't doubt teams that want to push the pace will look to sneak out in transition and look for the outlet pass more consistently.......but you can't just manufacture transition opportunities out of thin air.
A team can---on any possession they choose---call out set play #2, for example; but they can't just choose to have a transition opportunity. You generally need defensive stops to even have a chance.

While "fast teams" likely [usually] have more transition possessions, the faster pace is achieved more via advancing the ball at a trot [instead of walking it up] after dead-ball inbounds, and thru not lingering in the halfcourt, no?


In my own investigations I chose some semi-informed threshold league-average paces, and investigated rORTG's as paces went above [+ rPace] and below [- rPace] those thresholds.
What I found was that in years where the league average pace was >107, increasing pace [that is: going ABOVE the league avg] at least weakly corresponded with a decreasing rORTG (while slowing things down weakly correlated with an increasing rORTG).
In years where league-average pace was >115, there was a somewhat stronger correlation with an increasing [positive rPace] pace and a decreasing rORTG (and vice versa); given all the myriad of other factors that can influence rORTG, I thought the correlation was fairly significant for pace in that region.

Alternately, I looked at years where the league avg pace was <92 (or was it . In those years, I found increasing rPace did very weakly correspond to an increasing rORTG.


To me, these results made sense. There logically has to be a point of diminishing return on continuously increasing the pace. Imagine if you escalated the pace to the point that as soon as you gain possession you're just heaving the ball the length of the court to end the possession as soon as is possible......you'll no doubt achieve the fastest pace ever, but also the worst ORtg ever.

Obviously that's a hyperbolic example, but hopefully the general point comes thru: at some point an exaggerated pace *requires a certain lack of discretion on shot selection within the half-court (*in order to achieve that exaggerated pace). I think that is what we saw with many of those Auerbach Celtic teams [as well as a few others of that era].

But on the other end of the spectrum, slowing the pace beyond a certain point will also be detrimental because to get that slow (like 90(ish) and lower), one is likely not "looking hard" for transition opportunities, and sacrificing rhythm and flow [movement] in the halfcourt (instead just winding down the clock and ultimately settling on iso play).....in order to obtain that low pace, I mean.


EDIT: should note that I have NOT investigated the middle-ground (between league avg 92 and 107) to see if there is a specific "tipping point" and/or an optimal range where increasing pace helps the most [or a peak NON-optimal range, where increasing hurts the most].

[Hal14]

It baffles be that people are voting for Chauncey Billups over both Gary Payton and Bob Cousy.

And why is that? Billups is actually the prototype of what a point guard should be.

Payton often let that trash talk trash his own team or give momentum to others. His outside shot wasn't as good as Billups' and his offensive arsenal wasn't as complete.

Yes he was a better defender. It's not like Billups was a liability on that end either.

I'd give pace control to Billups too and intangibles.

So why is so bad to vote Billups over Payton?

Payton was a better scorer - better playmaker/facilitator - quicker off the dribble / better penetrator - more explosive as a threat leading the break in transition compared to Billups who walked the ball up the court - kept pressure on the defense more in the half court as well as opposed to Billups who simply brought the ball up and dished it off to the wing for a Pistons team that had a boring offense and lost in one of the most boring / unwatchable NBA finals of all time in 2005.

Scoring-wise, Payton averaged 20+ PPG 8 times. Billups did it 0 times.

Payton was a better playmaker. Payton averaged 7+ APG 11 times. Billups did it only 3 times.

All of these advantages Payton had as an offensive weapon, despite the fact that
a) Payton played most of his career (and his entire prime) before hand checking started to actually be enforced more in the 04-05 season - compared to Billups who played most of his career (and his entire prime) AFTER hand checking was enforced more
b) Payton played most of his career (and his entire prime) before defensive 3 seconds rule was introduced in 01-02 season which means Payton had a higher degree of difficulty to accumulate points and assists with opposing bigs clogging up the paint - compared to Billups who played most of his career (and his entire prime) AFTER defensive 3 second rule was introduced
c) Billups played in the era which was by far more "3 pointer friendly" with an increase in 3 pointers being taken during Billups' prime which resulted in a) Billups is naturally going to be a better outside shooter since that's the way the league had evolved in his era and b) more emphasis on 3 point shooting in Billups era = increased spacing = easier for Billups to have room to operate in the post, more space in the lane to dish off to teammates, simply easier to create offense and accumulate posts and assists than Payton had in a less 3 point friendly era
d) Payton played most of his career in an era dominated by big men (Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo, Hakeem, etc.) whereas Billups rise to stardom came precisely at a time when we saw a huge increase in smaller guards dominating the NBA (Nash wins 2 MVPs magically after being a bum his first few years - did he somehow turn into a better player? No. Rules changes and evolution of the game now favored point guards, Derrick Rose wins MVP, Chris Paul, Steph Curry,. Westbrook, etc.) the game evolved to favor 3 point shooting and point guards which made it easier for Billups to thrive
e) Billups played in a weak eastern conference, which typically only had 1 or 2 teams who were legit contenders compared to Payton who was battling it out every year in the 90s west which was insanely competitive (Suns, Rockets, Sonics, Spurs, Jazz, Lakers, Blazers and then you have the 91 Warriors and 94 Nuggets, it was a battle!)

Not to mention Payton was a far better defensive player to Billups. I mean, with Payton we are talking about arguably the best defensive point guard of all time. 9x all defensive 1st team, 1x defensive POY, 1x league leader in steals. Billups meanwhile made 2x all defense 2nd team and that's it - no comparison, it's apples to oranges.

The choice becomes even more obvious when we look at:
All star selections - 9 to 5 in favor of Payton
All NBA 1st team selections - 2 to 0 in favor of Payton
All NBA 2nd team selections - 5 to 1 in favor of Payton
All NBA 3rd team selections - 2 apiece

Not saying awards are the be all, end all, but it's hard to at least not factor them in when there's such a glaring difference between 2 players.

How about durability? After all, you're only valuable to your team if you can actually play and be on the court. Payton had 12 seasons with 78+ games and 30+ MPG in the same season. Billups only had 5. This category favors Payton even more if we take the lockout season of 99 into account - there was only 50 games and Payton played in all 50 of them, averaging 40 MPG, compared to Billups who sat out 5 games that season and also played less minutes (33 MPG).
Keep in mind, they both played exactly 17 seasons.

Lastly, Billups was never really THE guy on any team. Those Pistons teams were truly an ensemble. They won with defense and Ben Wallace was obviously their best defender. Wallace was the guy they built that team around - not Billups. Wallace got to Detroit 2 years before Billups. The Pistons added pieces around Wallace who they fit fit that blue collar, tough, physical, defensive mold. Billups was a key piece but was really more of strong role player who had the luxury of moving the ball around, getting other guys involved and picking his spots here and there when he wanted to shoot. I mean, there was times when you could even argue that Billups was their 5th best player (since him, Hamilton, Prince and the 2 Wallaces were at times seen as interchangeable and brought relatively equal value) and if there was 1 guy. who was the most valuable to those Pistons teams, gun to your head most people are probably picking Ben Wallace. And Hamilton was often times their best scorer. Payton meanwhile carried the Sonics. He was THE guys. Yeah, maybe at time Kemp was their best player, but when you factor in not just scoring, but playmaking and defense, Payton was THE guy leading those Sonics teams, he had to be the one running the offense and carrying the load as a dual threat scoring/playmaking.

Payton was THE guy leading the Sonics, which was arguably the best team of the 90s other than the Bulls, year in and year out. Over a six-year span, the Sonics won 357 games and finished with the best record in the West four times, reaching the conference finals twice and the NBA Finals once.

[Joao Saraiva]

It baffles be that people are voting for Chauncey Billups over both Gary Payton and Bob Cousy.

And why is that? Billups is actually the prototype of what a point guard should be.

Payton often let that trash talk trash his own team or give momentum to others. His outside shot wasn't as good as Billups' and his offensive arsenal wasn't as complete.

Yes he was a better defender. It's not like Billups was a liability on that end either.

I'd give pace control to Billups too and intangibles.

So why is so bad to vote Billups over Payton?

Payton was a better scorer - better playmaker/facilitator - quicker off the dribble / better penetrator - more explosive as a threat leading the break in transition compared to Billups who walked the ball up the court - kept pressure on the defense more in the half court as well as opposed to Billups who simply brought the ball up and dished it off to the wing for a Pistons team that had a boring offense and lost in one of the most boring / unwatchable NBA finals of all time in 2005.

Scoring-wise, Payton averaged 20+ PPG 8 times. Billups did it 0 times.

Payton was a better playmaker. Payton averaged 7+ APG 11 times. Billups did it only 3 times.

All of these advantages Payton had as an offensive weapon, despite the fact that
a) Payton played most of his career (and his entire prime) before hand checking started to actually be enforced more in the 04-05 season - compared to Billups who played most of his career (and his entire prime) AFTER hand checking was enforced more
b) Payton played most of his career (and his entire prime) before defensive 3 seconds rule was introduced in 01-02 season which means Payton had a higher degree of difficulty to accumulate points and assists with opposing bigs clogging up the paint - compared to Billups who played most of his career (and his entire prime) AFTER defensive 3 second rule was introduced
c) Billups played in the era which was by far more "3 pointer friendly" with an increase in 3 pointers being taken during Billups' prime which resulted in a) Billups is naturally going to be a better outside shooter since that's the way the league had evolved in his era and b) more emphasis on 3 point shooting in Billups era = increased spacing = easier for Billups to have room to operate in the post, more space in the lane to dish off to teammates, simply easier to create offense and accumulate posts and assists than Payton had in a less 3 point friendly era
d) Payton played most of his career in an era dominated by big men (Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo, Hakeem, etc.) whereas Billups rise to stardom came precisely at a time when we saw a huge increase in smaller guards dominating the NBA (Nash wins 2 MVPs magically after being a bum his first few years - did he somehow turn into a better player? No. Rules changes and evolution of the game now favored point guards, Derrick Rose wins MVP, Chris Paul, Steph Curry,. Westbrook, etc.) the game evolved to favor 3 point shooting and point guards which made it easier for Billups to thrive
e) Billups played in a weak eastern conference, which typically only had 1 or 2 teams who were legit contenders compared to Payton who was battling it out every year in the 90s west which was insanely competitive (Suns, Rockets, Sonics, Spurs, Jazz, Lakers, Blazers and then you have the 91 Warriors and 94 Nuggets, it was a battle!)

Not to mention Payton was a far better defensive player to Billups. I mean, with Payton we are talking about arguably the best defensive point guard of all time. 9x all defensive 1st team, 1x defensive POY, 1x league leader in steals. Billups meanwhile made 2x all defense 2nd team and that's it - no comparison, it's apples to oranges.

The choice becomes even more obvious when we look at:
All star selections - 9 to 5 in favor of Payton
All NBA 1st team selections - 2 to 0 in favor of Payton
All NBA 2nd team selections - 5 to 1 in favor of Payton
All NBA 3rd team selections - 2 apiece

Not saying awards are the be all, end all, but it's hard to at least not factor them in when there's such a glaring difference between 2 players.

How about durability? After all, you're only valuable to your team if you can actually play and be on the court. Payton had 12 seasons with 78+ games and 30+ MPG in the same season. Billups only had 5. This category favors Payton even more if we take the lockout season of 99 into account - there was only 50 games and Payton played in all 50 of them, averaging 40 MPG, compared to Billups who sat out 5 games that season and also played less minutes (33 MPG).
Keep in mind, they both played exactly 17 seasons.

Lastly, Billups was never really THE guy on any team. Those Pistons teams were truly an ensemble. They won with defense and Ben Wallace was obviously their best defender. Wallace was the guy they built that team around - not Billups. Wallace got to Detroit 2 years before Billups. The Pistons added pieces around Wallace who they fit fit that blue collar, tough, physical, defensive mold. Billups was a key piece but was really more of strong role player who had the luxury of moving the ball around, getting other guys involved and picking his spots here and there when he wanted to shoot. I mean, there was times when you could even argue that Billups was their 5th best player (since him, Hamilton, Prince and the 2 Wallaces were at times seen as interchangeable and brought relatively equal value) and if there was 1 guy. who was the most valuable to those Pistons teams, gun to your head most people are probably picking Ben Wallace. And Hamilton was often times their best scorer. Payton meanwhile carried the Sonics. He was THE guys. Yeah, maybe at time Kemp was their best player, but when you factor in not just scoring, but playmaking and defense, Payton was THE guy leading those Sonics teams, he had to be the one running the offense and carrying the load as a dual threat scoring/playmaking.

Payton was THE guy leading the Sonics, which was arguably the best team of the 90s other than the Bulls, year in and year out. Over a six-year span, the Sonics won 357 games and finished with the best record in the West four times, reaching the conference finals twice and the NBA Finals once.

I'm sorry but no, Payton was not a better scorer. Less versatility, and a lot less efficiency. I'll take Billups slight less volume with much more efficiency and ability to take shots down the stretch and make plays due to his offensive versatility.

For the Sonics being the 2nd best team in the 90s... I disagree. But Billups had a stetch from 03 to 09 making the conference finals. He made 2 finals, won once and was the FMVP if you wanna talk about awards.