OT: true or false: jordan played in a watered down league

[lefty]

All this talk about these superior SG talent of today ... please let me remind you. The best SG today is James Harden, with washed up Kobe and Wade as 2nd and 3rd, depending on who you want to choose first.

Will you choose these guys over Jordan and Drexler?

Even if you reverse it back to the mid 00s, there was Kobe, Wade, T-Mac, Carter, and AI (If you count him as a 2 guard).

The 80's / 90's had Jordan, Drexler, Dumars, Mitch Richmond, Reggie Lewis, Sidney Moncrief, Rolando Blackman, Glen Rice, Penny Hardaway, and Grant Hill.

Jordan >>>>> Kobe
Drexler >=Wade
Prime Hardaway = T-Mac
Prime Hill >= Carter
AI >= Kevin Johnson or Tim Hardaway.

[RsxPiimp]

Drexler was one of the best 2 guards of all time. Ranking behind Jordan, west and Kobe. He was better than carter and mcgrady and was and most definitely better than miller. ?

drex has been overrated for a while now, i know he's the type of player thats never been in the spotlight to begin with so it sounds like a conundrum but throughout the years especially in the 90's when the league was trying its hardest to come up with a Jordan vs _____ rivalry, clyde's name was always thrown out there with the best (jordan, magic, barkley etc) when its clear that drexler was never in that level. he was a perennial all star, a pretty good scorer (not great) but a solid rebounder for a guard. i'd take a healthy tmac and raptors vince carter over drexler for sure. i'm not downplaying his achievements because drexler was a class act who did everything well but not necessarily great but his legacy is overrated by some*

Richmond can post up, shoot and drive. How is that one dimensional?

the fact you mentioned all that and said nothing about his defense, ability to make his teammates better, proves my point. richmond was an all world scorer, but he didn't do anything much to spark his team, evident by his losing record from 91-2001. his team only made the playoffs ONCE in a span of 10 years.

[lefty]

Jordan s on any era


End of story

[Rogue]

I think the dominance of perimeter players in the current league has as little to do with the change as rules as... the climate change. Rules were changed according to the change of the game itself to better fit the game and fan's preference, which in returns also boosted the change of the game dialectically. The change of rules was both a reason and a result of the game's change imho.

[ambchang]

Before Penny was injured, he had seasons of 14.4 WS and 10.7 WS. T-Mac, obviously with a longer prime, had highs of 16.1 (second highest was around 12). While McGrady was a little better, I am comfortable putting them on the same level.

Hill was dynamite in his prime, he was a mix of Jordan and Pippen. He couldn't stay healthy, but he had WS of 14.6, 11.7, 10.7 and 10.2, many coming from incomplete seasons due to injuries. Carter, on the other hand, had WS of 12.9 and 11.8 in his prime. They are relatively equal, but I just dislike Carter for what he did to Toronto. The astounding thing is, as oft-injured as Carter was, Hill was even more so. If Hill stayed healthy, he would have been a top 10 SF/SG of all time.

As for the AI, I could have just put AI > KJ, Hardaway was a stretch, I must admit. But when you look at the numbers, AI had WS highs of 11.8 and 11.6, while Kevin Johnson had 12.7, 12.2 and 11.6. People forgot how good KJ was at his prime, he was, at one time, challenging a near-prime Magic and Isiah as the best PG in the league. Again, injuries did him in, but KJ was an amazing player, it was a shame people only remember KJs side kick to Barkley years, but he was a true alpha back in the day. Not too many guys can dunk on Hakeem like that, and before McGrady rode Bradley, KJ rode Hot Rod.

Tim Hardaway, on the other hand, had WS of 12.9 and 11.7. Again, people forgot how good he was in the mid/late 90s because he played on the thug Heat at a slow pace, but he drove those Heat teams with Zo.

[ambchang]

drex has been overrated for a while now, i know he's the type of player thats never been in the spotlight to begin with so it sounds like a conundrum but throughout the years especially in the 90's when the league was trying its hardest to come up with a Jordan vs _____ rivalry, clyde's name was always thrown out there with the best (jordan, magic, barkley etc) when its clear that drexler was never in that level. he was a perennial all star, a pretty good scorer (not great) but a solid rebounder for a guard. i'd take a healthy tmac and raptors vince carter over drexler for sure. i'm not downplaying his achievements because drexler was a class act who did everything well but not necessarily great but his legacy is overrated by some*

Please tell me you are joking, because if anything, Drexler is pretty widely underrated because he played in a small market that never rang. He had seven seasons of double digit win shares with a high of 13.2. In his best season, he averaged 26/6/6, and a few other seasons of 20/6/8 25/7/5 25/6/6. Those are some very impressive seasons.

Wade had a WS high of 14.7 (should have put him above Clyde, forgot about him for a sec), Kobe 15.3. T-Mac had a higher 16.6 WS season, but he didn't have the longevity, and neither did Carter.

Reggie Miller I felt was massively overrated, likely due to his duo with e Lee and Jordan. He was consistent his entire career with 10 double digit WS seasons, but he had a WS high of 12.5. His longevity was great because his game that was based on stamina, position and shooting ages very well, but at no point in his career would I take him over a prime Drexler.

the fact you mentioned all that and said nothing about his defense, ability to make his teammates better, proves my point. richmond was an all world scorer, but he didn't do anything much to spark his team, evident by his losing record from 91-2001. his team only made the playoffs ONCE in a span of 10 years.

I thought you were talking about SG on the offensive side of the ball? Richmond actually averaged 3.5 apg over his career, wtih a high of 5.1, which is very respectable for a SG.

[ambchang]

I think the dominance of perimeter players in the current league has as little to do with the change as rules as... the climate change. Rules were changed according to the change of the game itself to better fit the game and fan's preference, which in returns also boosted the change of the game dialectically. The change of rules was both a reason and a result of the game's change imho.

I cannot agree to this. The majority of those perimeter friendly rule changes were made during the Shaq/Duncan/Webber/Garnett heydays. it really is no coincidence that Carter, McGrady, Pierce, Kobe and AI all saw dramatic jumps in their stats in the same season.

The league was very transparent about increasing scoring in the game, and they were obviously doing it through opening up the perimeter. This was very much known knowledge back in the day. not sure when this was some how now relegated results rather than a cause.

[JamStone]

who uses win shares and only win shares as the ultimate advanced statistic in player comparisons?

I mean if you're going to use win shares as evidence, at least additionally use win shares per 48 and PER to give a bigger picture. using ONLY win shares is such a sloppy argument.

[ambchang]

Given the players played big minutes and total games, the ws per 48 doesn't change much. Statistics wise, the players are very close. Some scorer more, some more efficiently, some had more rebounds, assists and such. The point of ws is to show their impact on the team, which ultimately is what a fan really cares about.

[JamStone]

Given the players played big minutes and total games, the ws per 48 doesn't change much. Statistics wise, the players are very close. Some scorer more, some more efficiently, some had more rebounds, assists and such. The point of ws is to show their impact on the team, which ultimately is what a fan really cares about.

Still a sloppy and lazy argument to use WS and WS only. I'd say all advanced stats, while generally useful and providing good insight, are incomplete and less useful when used by themselves in an argument without context, additional statistics, and other facts or factors.

Let's use this WS stat in another player comparison. Here are the top 5 WS seasons of four players, so it's not just each player's top 1 or 2 seasons:

Gary Payton: 13.9, 12.9, 12.6, 12.5, 11.7
Jason Kidd: 11.3, 10.1, 9.6, 9.3, 8.9
Steve Nash: 12.6, 12.4, 11.6, 10.9, 10.5
Chauncey Billups: 15.5, 13.5, 12.1, 11.4, 11.3

Now, based on your win shares argument, not only was Billups at the same level of GP and Kidd and Nash, but he had clearly been the better player than Kidd and Nash in his best seasons. And at peak, he was better than all three at each of their respective peaks. His top 4 win share seasons trump any season Kidd ever put up. Better at his peak than peak Payton and peak Kidd? Maybe you do believe he was a better player. But even as a Pistons fan, I don't think he was. Billups WS output was a big product of being on a winning team with other very good complementary players. Win shares obviously relies at least on a base level to team success as well. Billups was ball dominant on offense and his DWS was greatly aided by playing in front of Wallace/Wallace and having a strong wing defender in Prince to always take the toughest perimeter defensive assignment. I still don't know why Billups ever got NBA defensive honors. His high defensive win shares in those years do not accurately reflect his defense.

How about this comparison:

Tim Duncan's best two WS seasons: 17.8, 16.5
Karl Malone's best two WS seasons: 16.7, 16.4

Now you can see why these two based on two of their best two WS seasons can be considered among the all time greats. But also consider this. Karl Malone also put up another 7 seasons with at least a 15.0 WS. After his top two WS seasons, Tim Duncan did not put up another season with better than a 13.2 WS. Who would you say had the better overall career... based only on the WS stat? 99.9% of the basketball world acknowledges Tim Duncan as the best PF in NBA history. A WS argument, although close, would favor Karl Malone.

Or look at last season and over the careers of Tony Parker and Chris Paul. Last season, an interesting debate arose whether Tony Parker had surpassed Chris Paul as the better PG. Well based on a WS argument, it wasn't a debate at all. Last season and over the course of each of their careers, Tony Parker has never been at the same level as CP3... based on a win shares argument. Win shares don't even allow the debate to be close. I think most agree that it was at least a debate.

You see what I'm saying about using one advanced stat and one advanced stat only to make an argument? It's incomplete. It's sloppy. It's lazy. Give more context, more explanation, more additional statistical evidence. Win shares in addition to other advanced stats, basic standard stats, team dynamics, winning-losing, and other factors can be very useful. By itself, it's just another incomplete manipulation of one, single statistic to support an argument you want to present.

[lefty]

lol stats

Its not the whole story

[RsxPiimp]

Damn JamStone with the goods

[ambchang]

Still a sloppy and lazy argument to use WS and WS only. I'd say all advanced stats, while generally useful and providing good insight, are incomplete and less useful when used by themselves in an argument without context, additional statistics, and other facts or factors.

Let's use this WS stat in another player comparison. Here are the top 5 WS seasons of four players, so it's not just each player's top 1 or 2 seasons:

Gary Payton: 13.9, 12.9, 12.6, 12.5, 11.7
Jason Kidd: 11.3, 10.1, 9.6, 9.3, 8.9
Steve Nash: 12.6, 12.4, 11.6, 10.9, 10.5
Chauncey Billups: 15.5, 13.5, 12.1, 11.4, 11.3

Now, based on your win shares argument, not only was Billups at the same level of GP and Kidd and Nash, but he had clearly been the better player than Kidd and Nash in his best seasons. And at peak, he was better than all three at each of their respective peaks. His top 4 win share seasons trump any season Kidd ever put up. Better at his peak than peak Payton and peak Kidd? Maybe you do believe he was a better player. But even as a Pistons fan, I don't think he was. Billups WS output was a big product of being on a winning team with other very good complementary players. Win shares obviously relies at least on a base level to team success as well. Billups was ball dominant on offense and his DWS was greatly aided by playing in front of Wallace/Wallace and having a strong wing defender in Prince to always take the toughest perimeter defensive assignment. I still don't know why Billups ever got NBA defensive honors. His high defensive win shares in those years do not accurately reflect his defense.

How about this comparison:

Tim Duncan's best two WS seasons: 17.8, 16.5
Karl Malone's best two WS seasons: 16.7, 16.4

Now you can see why these two based on two of their best two WS seasons can be considered among the all time greats. But also consider this. Karl Malone also put up another 7 seasons with at least a 15.0 WS. After his top two WS seasons, Tim Duncan did not put up another season with better than a 13.2 WS. Who would you say had the better overall career... based only on the WS stat? 99.9% of the basketball world acknowledges Tim Duncan as the best PF in NBA history. A WS argument, although close, would favor Karl Malone.

Or look at last season and over the careers of Tony Parker and Chris Paul. Last season, an interesting debate arose whether Tony Parker had surpassed Chris Paul as the better PG. Well based on a WS argument, it wasn't a debate at all. Last season and over the course of each of their careers, Tony Parker has never been at the same level as CP3... based on a win shares argument. Win shares don't even allow the debate to be close. I think most agree that it was at least a debate.

You see what I'm saying about using one advanced stat and one advanced stat only to make an argument? It's incomplete. It's sloppy. It's lazy. Give more context, more explanation, more additional statistical evidence. Win shares in addition to other advanced stats, basic standard stats, team dynamics, winning-losing, and other factors can be very useful. By itself, it's just another incomplete manipulation of one, single statistic to support an argument you want to present.

Honestly, I was surprised at the Billups numbers, and I must say I have to re-evaluate his worth. Billups was actually an integral part of a Pistons system, and he was the driving force behind their offence. The Pistons would have been a much lesser team without Billups. But Billups have also shown to be a product of the system, and did not have the versatility of a Payton or a Kidd.

As I mentioned earlier, I have never used WS and WS only as the metric, but WS is a great tool to use in the context of an argument.

As for Duncan vs. Malone, I have addressed that in the other thread.

Finally, Paul > Parker, I wouldn't even try to argue that, and imo, it's not even debatable. Parker has always been a fantastic point guard, but I will take Paul over Parker 100 out of 100 times.