Elliott vs. Rice

[ambchang]

Last night, while reading the Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons, he raised a question about the Spurs drafting Elliott instead of Glen Rice in the 1989 draft.

While I do not agree with most of the book with his obvious bias towards the Celtics, constant bashing of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and ignoring teammate strength in evaluating individual player's standing in history, it does make me think about what would happen in alternative scenarios.

Simmons argued that if the Spurs got Rice over Elliott, the Spurs would have been better (opened the floor better with his shooting, and taking the scoring load off Robinson), and Robinson would have been seen as a better basketball player in history.

The numbers are right there, with Rice being a dominant scorer with both the Heat and the Hornets. The problem is that he is a ball dominant player, who was destined to be the alpha dog on a crappy team. His team won more than 50 games twice with him scoring 20+ points, losing in the 1st round once and the 2nd round the other time.

However, he was a deadly 3-pt shooter, something Robinson lacked throughout his whole prime, and would add definite value to the system the Spurs played in the early/mid 90s. There is a good chance that the Spurs could have won in 95 with Rice nailing jumpers instead of Elliott bricking crucial FTs.

On the other hand, Elliott was far and away the better defender, and the Spurs might not have won the title in 99 without his contributions. He fits well into the system, and never tried to do too much. He was the better ball handler and passer, and has a better slashing game.

I am obviously biased as Elliott is one of my favourite players of all time, but what do you think?

[TJastal]

Que in Chumpdumper any moment with his bitching about alternate realities.......

[SpurCharger]

Good Arguement, but I dont think Rice Would have Put over The Hump. The Supporting Cast For Mr Robinson was terrible Back then. I think Sean Elliott had A way better All Around Game then Rice. Rice was Definately the Better Shooter, but elliott Was better Everywhere Else.

[TJastal]

Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_ scored 20 ppg in the 95/96 season and Rice had 21.4 with similar shooting % so at least in that year it doesn't look like it would have put the spurs over the top.

[JR3]

every time - ill take better everywhere else, then just a great outside threat.

[spectator]

i read the book. the "guy" is pretty smart and makes good arguments - he doesn't just leave you in one place wondering how you got there. in hindsight, one would obviously pick rice. the arguments: the spurs never won anything until duncan came through. and that '99 team just steam-rolled everyone to the title. you can't tell me it was elliott defense making that big of a difference. however, no one knows how well robinson would have combined with rice in '95. he might have put us over the hump.

there's an old romanian proverb: after the war, many brave warriors appear (verbatim). i think it's easy to say that rice would have fitted better in spurs system, after seeing that elliott did not bring a title before duncan. (which is what simmons did)

cheers @ambchang (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=986) for reading the book of bb

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I haven't seen much of Rice's commercial work, but it seems like he could have given Sean a run for his money as a TC pitchman as Glenn "Refried Beans &" Rice.

[jacobdrj]

I was never a fan of Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_. Can't get that double-dribble shot in the Finals out of my head. iirc, even caused a bit of a ruckus here in Detroit, although that was WAY before my time...

Let me be clear, I was not and am not a fan of D-Rob either. But had they drafted Rice, maybe that would have changed...

Glen Rice was a stud. My enduring memory of him was that gaudy All-Star game performance where he broke every 3-point record in the book.

Spurs would have had more success earlier, but Sean Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_'s kidney thing paved the way for the Spurs getting into the draft lottery and getting Timmay. Even with Sean Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_, it took a guy with Mario Ellie's heart to get that team's mentality right. Were I a SA fan, I would not lament the 90's because of the success in the 00's. But if we are talking the Prime D-Rob era, Rice should have been the guy. I think he would have had Ellie's fire and that 3 point shot that D-Rob never had.

[polandprzem]

It cracks me up every time it happens

:lol

[Obstructed_View]

The biggest problem with Elliott his entire career was getting him to step up and be aggressive. Glen Rice would have provided more fire than Sean did, and could possibly have made a difference to a team that lost to a lower seed in the playoffs nearly every year. It's all speculation with some hindsight. As a Spurs fan, I'm in no way unhappy with having Sean on the team. He contributed to that first championship in a number of ways and helped give the Spurs momentum going forward.

[DAF86]

I'm just testing something:

Sean Eliot

[DAF86]

Now I feel very stupid. I really thought that misspelling Sean's name would produce the "Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_. " to appear

[Sean Cagney]

i read the book. the "guy" is pretty smart and makes good arguments - he doesn't just leave you in one place wondering how you got there. in hindsight, one would obviously pick rice. the arguments: the spurs never won anything until duncan came through. and that '99 team just steam-rolled everyone to the title. you can't tell me it was elliott defense making that big of a difference. however, no one knows how well robinson would have combined with rice in '95. he might have put us over the hump.

there's an old romanian proverb: after the war, many brave warriors appear (verbatim). i think it's easy to say that rice would have fitted better in spurs system, after seeing that elliott did not bring a title before duncan. (which is what simmons did)

cheers @ambchang (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=986) for reading the book of bb

In 95 though Elliott was a better defender and shot 40% from three! Thats an outside threat there if there is any. I think Elliott averaged near 20 a game that year too and made the all star team, so I doubt it puts us over the top in 95 with Rice instead of Sean.

[Kermit]

BINGO

would Rice have given back money to the Spurs so they could build a practice facility so as to KEEP DUNCAN? and IMPROVE THE ORGANIZATION.


call me when Sean gets arrested...


Bill Simmons is a DOUCHE

Can't fault Glen on that arrest. He did what a lot of men would've done had they gone over to their estranged wife's house to confront them on their infidelity and found some dude hiding in her closet. Can't speak for everyone, but I would've beat that ass too.

[duncan228]

I'm just testing something:

Sean Eliot


Now I feel very stupid. I really thought that misspelling Sean's name would produce the "Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_. " to appear

It's the 't'. If you spell it with one it does it. When you tested it you had one 't' but only one 'l'. Try two 'l's' and one 't'. :)

[DAF86]

It's the 't'. If you spell it with one it does it. When you tested it you had one 't' but only one 'l'. Try two 'l's' and one 't'. :)

:lol thanks.

Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_

[FeZZy]

What if having rice would have impacted our chances of getting duncan for some reason like if rice would of had some mvp season in 98? while drob was hurt

[Sean Cagney]

Can't fault Glen on that arrest. He did what a lot of men would've done had they gone over to their estranged wife's house to confront them on their infidelity and found some dude hiding in her closet. Can't speak for everyone, but I would've beat that ass too.

Ditto, and then some.

[Blackjack]

It's revisionist history to be sure (as RC would tell you they wouldn't have been able to acquire Finley and others had they signed Scola :smokin).

[mogrovejo]

I'm far from sure that Rice+Robinson would have delivered a title, but I agree the teams would be better/more successful.

Kareen was a ninny.

[NFGIII]

Simmons argued that if the Spurs got Rice over Elliott, the Spurs would have been better (opened the floor better with his shooting, and taking the scoring load off Robinson), and Robinson would have been seen as a better basketball player in history.

However, he was a deadly 3-pt shooter, something Robinson lacked throughout his whole prime, and would add definite value to the system the Spurs played in the early/mid 90s. There is a good chance that the Spurs could have won in 95 with Rice nailing jumpers instead of Elliott bricking crucial FTs.

Iniatially the Spurs brought in Terry Cummings (22.2 ppg) to do just that. And with Rod Strickland at PG (14.6 ppg) along with Willie Anderson (15.7 ppg) at SG there was enough fire power to get the job done. That team with Sean scored 106.3 ppg while giving up 102.8 ppg. If Rice had been on that team then maybe they score a little more but also give up a little more.

My observation about that season was Strickland's no look pass to Sean in Game 7 against Portland late in the 4th Q. If he looks and then makes the correct pass (or for that matter no pass at all) to Sean breaking baseline towards the rim we win that game and are in the Finals. I tend to believe (since I'm a fan of the Spurs I always will believe in the best possible outcome) that with the Spurs getting to the Finals that year the confidence gained would have made them a much better team with a brighter future than what history actually records. But in sports you never know how that would have played out.


On the other hand, Elliott was far and away the better defender, and the Spurs might not have won the title in 99 without his contributions. He fits well into the system, and never tried to do too much. He was the better ball handler and passer, and has a better slashing game.

I am obviously biased as Elliott is one of my favourite players of all time, but what do you think?

Sean fit much better into Pop's system than Rice would have. With the twin towers and Sean Pop was able to play the defensive scheme - twin towers + perimeter stopper - that lead to 4 rings. Sean is and would have been my choice over Rice.


The biggest problem with Elliott his entire career was getting him to step up and be aggressive. Glen Rice would have provided more fire than Sean did, and could possibly have made a difference to a team that lost to a lower seed in the playoffs nearly every year. It's all speculation with some hindsight. As a Spurs fan, I'm in no way unhappy with having Sean on the team. He contributed to that first championship in a number of ways and helped give the Spurs momentum going forward.

Agreed - it's all speculation and we really don't know what would really have happened if Rice had been taken over Sean. Maybe things might have turned out very differently. Kinda like the SciFi "Grandfather Paradox". If you igo back in time and inadvertantly kill you grandfather before he either helps conceive your Mom/Dad do you exist? Maybe with the drafting of Rice things change and Drob nevers (or has it earlier) has that injury leading to TD's lottery pick. We'll never know but I'm happy to have had Sean on this team. I doubt if Rice could have contributed to the team in the manner in which Sean much less to the community and the Spurs organization like Sean has.

[8FOR!3]

I'm just testing something:

Sean Eliot

He fires the three. OHHH ELLIOTT!

[baseline bum]

I'm not a Rice fan at all, and don't think he would have worked well in San Antonio. We all saw how awful he was when he didn't have every play ran for him in LA. Rice was worthless as a supporting player and his defense was awful. He always seemed to get benched at crucial parts of games so LA could play Rick Fox and have someone who gave a crap on the defensive end. Plus, Rice was a drama queen. I remember the constant talk about how he was going to Miami during the fucking Finals. How chickenshit is that? I'll never forget the LA reporter (I can't remember which one) who went and interviewed Rice in the locker room after they beat Indy, and asked his son (who he was holding on his shoulder) where he wanted daddy to play next year (Rice was a FA). The kid blurted out Miami! :lol

[baseline bum]

The Spurs' big screwups in the 90s weren't not drafting Rice. They were

1) Letting Strickland walk for absolutely nothing. Him breaking his hand in the barfight and throwing that horrible no-look pass in game 7 in Portland pissed everyone off, but it was inexcusable to lose a player that talented and replace him with fucking Vinny Del Negro. Blame the curse of cheap-ass McCombs for Robinson not having any team success until Duncan.

2) Not trading for Barkley because the owner was too cheap to pay him.

3) Trading Frank Brickowski for loser Paul Pressey. Brick was an awesome big off the bench who the team badly missed.

At least Red never followed through on the cost-cutting Robinson for Ewing deal though.

[tlongII]

Why is this even a question? Glen Rice was so much better than Sean Elliott it's ridiculous.

[lefty]

Elliott was a far better defender than Rice

Heck, Rice couldn't even guard a 5 year old

[outmap]

Rice is the better player but it was for the better. If the Spurs drafted Rice, they might not have been able to draft Duncan.

[The Truth #6]

Rice possibly could have put up better numbers as a Spur, and helped 5-0's development, but Rice very easily wouldn't have stayed in San Antonio as long as Ninja did. Considering how many seasons we got out of Ninja, I think it worked out fine.

Having him stick around as a commentator isn't bad either.

[baseline bum]

It's like people never watched the guy play. He could fill up a stat sheet as a #1 option, but he was awful when not having plays run for him all the time. His two years in LA this supposed great shooter shot at a 43% clip. As a #2 option he was terrible in 1999, and then as the #3 option even worse in 2000. That's the same role he would have played in SA with Robinson and Cummings as the clear #1 and #2, and Strickland maybe even the #3. Rice would be a spot-up shooter in that offense; I mean, no way you run your offense through Rice when you have Robinson who can just put the ball on the floor and get either get a layup or two free throws.

[baseline bum]

My observation about that season was Strickland's no look pass to Sean in Game 7 against Portland late in the 4th Q. If he looks and then makes the correct pass (or for that matter no pass at all) to Sean breaking baseline towards the rim we win that game and are in the Finals.

So many what-ifs. What if Willie Anderson puts up that layup at the buzzer on Wingate's pass instead of stupidly taking an extra dribble?

[ambchang]

The Spurs in the 90s just were good enough to the win it all. Looking back, there were way too many holes in the team.

90-91, team too young. It's the most talented team Robinson had in his prime, but lack of experience doomed the team, and the owner breaking up the team killed it.

92, the team started to fall apart because the owner doesn't want to pay. It's a shame, really. That 90 team, if kept together, could have been a real contender.

93, one of the worst years of Robinson's prime. The team was just horrible. There were no point guards to speak of (yes, Avery Johnson was on the roster then, and he wasn't that good, really), Lloyd Daniels played 20mpg. Basically, outside of Robinson, there wasn't another top 50 player on that team. The whole team was Robinson + role players.

94-95, Rodman was great when not needed, and horrible when needed. Drama queen killed Robinson's legacy, and any chance the Spurs have. If Rodman was sane, the Spurs would still need a couple of guards who could actually put the ball in the basket. That team was flawed, if an easy to figure out offense, and slightly above average defense.

96, how this team won 59 games is a wonder. Robinson and Elliott were both great, but then Vinny Del Negro, Avery Johnson, aging Person, and then Charles Smith, Will Perdue, and Doc Rivers off the bench. Just look at that lineup. Without Robinson, that's a 30 win team, max.

Anyways, Elliott fits in the team very well, because he played his role, is a good shooter, can handle the ball, defends the perimeter perfectly (best defensive SF outside of Pippen during the mid-90s), just an amazing player.

BTW, kept reading the book, and Simmons ranked Pippen above Robinson. WTH?

[Kool Bob Love]

It's the 't'. If you spell it with one it does it. When you tested it you had one 't' but only one 'l'. Try two 'l's' and one 't'. :)


:nerd its not working

[NFGIII]

The Spurs in the 90s just were good enough to the win it all. Looking back, there were way too many holes in the team.

90-91, team too young. It's the most talented team Robinson had in his prime, but lack of experience doomed the team, and the owner breaking up the team killed it.

92, the team started to fall apart because the owner doesn't want to pay. It's a shame, really. That 90 team, if kept together, could have been a real contender.



This will always be a problem with me and why I have always liked Holt as an owner. He hires people with the knowlegde of the sport to make the BB decisions that are neccessary. The problem: owner's viewing the team as their personal toy and making BB related decisions without much knowledge of the sport. McCombs, despite his business savvy, had this view and wanted to impose his standard of conduct on the players. The world he grew up in didn't exist anymore and he was going to have to adapt to the changing tide. Letting go of Strickland for nothing was a very dumb move and doomed the team for years to come. Yeah, I understand that Rod was a hot head but a very talented BB player who could have been mentored or at least controled by a vet like Terry Cummings and then DRob later on. Maybe it wouldn't have worked out but to let him go due to that fight was just bad business. Letting go of an asset and getting nothing in return? I doubt that Red would have done that with his car business but he sure did with his BB team. He reminds me of Jerry Jones to an extent in the way they both get involved with something that they aren't very knowledgeable about. And the fans suffer because of that.

As for the money side of the sport the rising salaries may not have set well with Red but that was a fact of life and he had to accept it in order to keep and/or acquire talented players. The explosion of incoming revenue to the NBA help fuel this and there was nothing he could have done to stop it. Why would he want ot stop the NBA expansion and the revenue it was producing? It was to the benefit of all - players and owners. Anyway the value of the franchise and his share was rising, too. Exponentially if I'm not mistaken. I don't know what the exact price his portion of the team was or what he sold it for but I'm willing to bet he walked away with a tad bit of money.

And yeah that '90 team could have made a serious run if kept together. Damn that was a wasted effort since the owner never let it mature. :depressed

[G-Dawgg]

How many championships did this Bill Simmons guy win anyway?

[Udokafan05]

Simmons book is really good, and funny.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The Spurs' big screwups in the 90s weren't not drafting Rice. They were

1) Letting Strickland walk for absolutely nothing. Him breaking his hand in the barfight and throwing that horrible no-look pass in game 7 in Portland pissed everyone off, but it was inexcusable to lose a player that talented and replace him with fucking Vinny Del Negro. Blame the curse of cheap-ass McCombs for Robinson not having any team success until Duncan.

Wasn't that against Houston? The same game where Rodman attempted more threes in the first half than he did all season long?

[baseline bum]

Nah, Strickland was long gone by the Houston series.

[ShoogarBear]

Sean Elliott was universally acknowledge as the best all-around player coming out of college that year. Glen Rice was a hellacious shooter and that's about it, and that's about what he was as a pro. Simmons is just writing original-sounding shit to sell books.

What held Elliott back in the pros was his unaggressive nature and a certain lack of clutchness. But in terms of his offensive toolset (outside jumper, range, slashing, postgame), the only guy in the league who had more was Jordan.

[ambchang]

Simmons book is really good, and funny.

I agree about the funny part, I am not sure about being good.

He always came off as being more a fan than a writer, and that's the good part, but I am surprised about his general lack of knowledge of anything not Celtics related.

I am not sure if he ever admitted it, but he most definitely jumped on the Bulls bandwagon in the 90s when his Celtics sucked, and that really is just sad.

His obvious homerism towards the Celtics and the 90s Bulls was really disturbing though. Ray Allen > Chris Mullin? Garnett and Pippen over Robinson?

His criteria also was inconsistent. Randomly pulling in the weak supporting casts for some players (such as Bill Walton), and totally dismissing it for others (namely Robinson)?

He raved on and on about "the secret" which is playing team ball vs. being an individualistic moron. Then why would Jordan ever be ranked over Magic? Why would Kobe Bryant ever be ranked high at all? These are players who had a history of throwing their teams under the bus, and only won with the right supporting cast bending over to adjust to their games.

[senorglory]

[QUOTE=Phila_Chamberlain;4151197]He was supposed to play in the ABA that 73-74 as a player/coach, but due to leagal issues with his contract an the Lakers he could only be a coach.

NBA contracts were weird back then, if players wanted to jump leagues they would have to wait a season. Also the players were all under team options if I am not mistaken. It's really weird how it worked.[/QUOTE

CNNSI posted an archived Sports Illustrated article written by Wilt (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1089076/index.htm?eref=sisf) that talks about these issues in particular, his retirement and his time with the Qs. It's a great article because Wilt is all over the place, talking over just about everything on his mind.

[senorglory]

Wouldn't Rice have turned out a different player had he grown up Spurs?