How good was Mark Price

[fandarko]

And how well would he fare in today's NBA?

I loved his game back in the late 80's.

He was one of the best shooters in history, granted, but he was an underrated passer and man leader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sua9u318wGo

On this clip, he seems a tad quicker than everyone of the floor, splitting the pick and roll, penetrating and dishing at will. Not to mention the shooting.

Make him undergo advanced strength and conditioning programs of the 2000s and put him in a team where he doesn't have to feed Daugherty, Nance and Harper and I can easily see him be a perennial 20/8 player at least.

In the right team, I don't see who could contain him today when they weren't able to guard him in the handchecking era.

He was basically a quicker, less flashy Steve Nash. His explosiveness and dribbling quickness I think was severely underrated. Watch how he gets by defenders as if they didn't existed. Perhaps could be compared to a smaller Curry without the length and the fancy dribbling.

With a shoot-first mindset, he would kill it today...

Anybody remembers this guy? Of course, you need to be +40 to have really enjoyed his game...

[JohnFreeman]

Great shooter

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Poor mans Steve Nash

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Would be the 4th best Pg today after Paul Curry and Lin and 5th best if Westbrook was healthy

[Dragonyeuw]

If you saw what the rule changes circa 2004 did for Nash's game, I believe it would have a similar effect on Price. He was deceptively quick, great shooter, high IQ and instincts....he'd be easily one of the top PGs today.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Very similar to Nash (before Nash), extremely close to him as an overall shooter and with a quicker release, not as good of a passer also but a great passer nonetheless, bit shorter but clearly more athletic, better finisher, and could actually play defense. At his best, right now, would be at least a top3 PG.





Make him undergo advanced strength and conditioning programs of the 2000s


Unsubstantial, no need for that.

[Nikola_]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjv2EEg2-gc

[Calabis]

Poor mans Steve Nash

:facepalm

Nash blossomed after the rule change....Price would easily be just as effective as Nash in this era. Freedom without being steered by handchecking is the main reason this is a era of point guard

[FatComputerNerd]

Poor mans Steve Nash

Rich man's more like.

Nash may have been the slightly better passer, but Price was no slouch at it, while being arguably just as good (or damn near) of a shooter, much scrappier, and a better defender.

Not to take anything away from Nash, but Price was Nash before Nash.

We've had a few identical threads btw. If you do a google search for "Mark Price insidehoops" you will find them, and possibly see more opinions.

Or just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sua9u318wGo

[ZenMaster]

Rich man's more like.

Nash may have been the slightly better passer, but Price was no slouch at it, while being arguably just as good (or damn near) of a shooter, much scrappier, and a better defender.

Not to take anything away from Nash, but Price was Nash before Nash.

We've had a few identical threads btw. If you do a google search for "Mark Price insidehoops" you will find them, and possibly see more opinions.

Or just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sua9u318wGo

There is no way one of these guys is "rich mans" compared to the other and one guy playing his career before the other doesn't make it so.

You say "not to take anything away from Nash", but you do by saying one guy is the rich mans version of the other.

[andgar923]

:facepalm

Nash blossomed after the rule change....Price would easily be just as effective as Nash in this era. Freedom without being steered by handchecking is the main reason this is a era of point guard

Basically

Take away the hanchecking, the big men camping out in the lane, the overall physical play and this dude is top 3 PG with ease.

One thing we must remember when comparing him with Nash....

This lil f*ck was tough as hell. He'd get in your face and would't back down, he'd go back at you just as hard. Dude was a combination of Nash and CP3.

[ZenMaster]

Basically

Take away the hanchecking, the big men camping out in the lane, the overall physical play and this dude is top 3 PG with ease.

One thing we must remember when comparing him with Nash....

This lil f*ck was tough as hell. He'd get in your face and would't back down, he'd go back at you just as hard. Dude was a combination of Nash and CP3.

You think big defensive bigs "camped out in the lane" more back then than now?

[FatComputerNerd]

There is no way one of these guys is "rich mans" compared to the other and one guy playing his career before the other doesn't make it so.

You say "not to take anything away from Nash", but you do by saying one guy is the rich mans version of the other.

You are right. My bad.

I saw him calling Price a poor man's Nash and over-reacted.

[tontoz]

The rules today really help small, quick guards. Back then small guards used to get beat up which is a big reason why they didn't have much longevity (Price, Isiah, KJ, etc).

My guess is that Price would be a top 3 pg today.

[hateraid]

I've never liked the comparison to Steve Nash. Really the similarities start and end at the are both short, white, can shoot, and play pg.
First off Nash is far more creative, better vision, and a much more effictive scorer. He's far superior athletically and a much more efficient penatrator.

Price was more gritty and heady. Although a great ft shooter I didn't think he was as deadly a 3 point shooter. He's good, but I didn' t find him a threat. Nash is more a threat from 3.
I find Price more like a more efficient Jameer Nelson.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Guy was a master at splitting doubles. Great handle too.
You think big defensive bigs "camped out in the lane" more back then than now?

Is that a rhetorical question?

[ZenMaster]

Guy was a master at splitting doubles. Great handle too.

Is that a rhetorical question?

Wasn't the rule before defensive 3 seconds that you always had to be an arms length within the guy you where guarding or going for a rotation or double team while moving?

[hateraid]

Basically

Take away the hanchecking, the big men camping out in the lane, the overall physical play and this dude is top 3 PG with ease.

One thing we must remember when comparing him with Nash....

This lil f*ck was tough as hell. He'd get in your face and would't back down, he'd go back at you just as hard. Dude was a combination of Nash and CP3.

That is a bold statement. Considering in his era I don't think he was even top 5. By that definition players like KJ and Tim Hardaway would be the best pg's today, because I felt they were clearly better than Price.
Price was more on the tiers with Derek Harper, Mark Jackson, Alvin Robertson, Mookie Blaylock.....
I'll give you the toughness. He was also a silent competitor and very steady. But being realistic Price was never really outstanding at anything except for ft. He was never amongst the leaders in other major pg categories like steals, 3 point percentage, assists...
I think Price tends to get overrated due to not getting the recognition, but at the same time being one of the more likeable players and a true blue collar hero.
Like I said before he' s more like Jameer Nelson than Steve Nash.

[houston]

The rules today really help small, quick guards. Back then small guards used to get beat up which is a big reason why they didn't have much longevity (Price, Isiah, KJ, etc).

My guess is that Price would be a top 3 pg today.


Zeke didn't have longevity??:roll: KJ what lol


Man Price would probably be a top5 if he played today but that a stretch. PG is deep as hell in todays NBA.

[fandarko]

But being realistic Price was never really outstanding at anything except for ft. He was never amongst the leaders in other major pg categories like steals, 3 point percentage, assists...

Like I said before he' s more like Jameer Nelson than Steve Nash.

You must be joking, right?

Not outstanding at anything? Flat out one of the best shooters ever.
Jameer Nelson?
Price was a four time All Star.

[andgar923]

That is a bold statement. Considering in his era I don't think he was even top 5. By that definition players like KJ and Tim Hardaway would be the best pg's today, because I felt they were clearly better than Price.
Price was more on the tiers with Derek Harper, Mark Jackson, Alvin Robertson, Mookie Blaylock.....
I'll give you the toughness. He was also a silent competitor and very steady. But being realistic Price was never really outstanding at anything except for ft. He was never amongst the leaders in other major pg categories like steals, 3 point percentage, assists...
I think Price tends to get overrated due to not getting the recognition, but at the same time being one of the more likeable players and a true blue collar hero.
Like I said before he' s more like Jameer Nelson than Steve Nash.

He was a better shooter than everybody you mentioned from his era. Harper, Robertson, Mookie are not on his level because they're basically defensive specialists. They couldn't create, pass nor shoot like him

Mark Jackson couldn't create like him, couldn't shoot like him, break down the defense like him etc.etc.

He was a better shooter than both KJ and Tim, more athletic than Hardaway, better passer than KJ.

Also, his game is better suited for today's free flowing era. Mookie Blaylock would have a harder time playing in this era than Mark. This tempo and style of game is molded for his style. The main reason he wasn't THE best pg or a top 3 is because the physical defense hindered his play more than the players you mentioned. He was either smaller or less athletic so he faced more opposition. Put him in a less physical era and he flourishes.

As far as never one of the leaders in major categories :wtf: :biggums:
Are you serious dude?

One quick look http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pricema01.html and he's a top 10 in and higher in different categories.

[hateraid]

You must be joking, right?

Not outstanding at anything? Flat out one of the best shooters ever.
Jameer Nelson?
Price was a four time All Star.

I use the comparison to Jameer in terms of style of play, not impact. There are too many comparisons to Nash which I don't agree with. I'm not knocking him at all. I realize he was an all-star. But does being an all-star dictate how good of a shooter you are?
And being one of the best shooters? I said he was great but not outstanding. I don't ever remember him hitting it at clip compared to guys like Kerr, Les, Hawkins or the great 3 point shooters of that time. He was good enough to keep his defender close, but didn't impact the game in those regards.

[andgar923]

I use the comparison to Jameer in terms of style of play, not impact. There are too many comparisons to Nash which I don't agree with. I'm not knocking him at all. I realize he was an all-star. But does being an all-star dictate how good of a shooter you are?
And being one of the best shooters? I said he was great but not outstanding. I don't ever remember him hitting it at clip compared to guys like Kerr, Les, Hawkins or the great 3 point shooters of that time. He was good enough to keep his defender close, but didn't impact the game in those regards.
:biggums: :biggums:

Did you ever watch him play?

[chocolatethunder]

I use the comparison to Jameer in terms of style of play, not impact. There are too many comparisons to Nash which I don't agree with. I'm not knocking him at all. I realize he was an all-star. But does being an all-star dictate how good of a shooter you are?
And being one of the best shooters? I said he was great but not outstanding. I don't ever remember him hitting it at clip compared to guys like Kerr, Les, Hawkins or the great 3 point shooters of that time. He was good enough to keep his defender close, but didn't impact the game in those regards.
You must not have seen him play. Kerr? Kerr got cut by Cleveland when Price was there.

[FatComputerNerd]

I use the comparison to Jameer in terms of style of play, not impact. There are too many comparisons to Nash which I don't agree with. I'm not knocking him at all. I realize he was an all-star. But does being an all-star dictate how good of a shooter you are?
And being one of the best shooters? I said he was great but not outstanding. I don't ever remember him hitting it at clip compared to guys like Kerr, Les, Hawkins or the great 3 point shooters of that time. He was good enough to keep his defender close, but didn't impact the game in those regards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50%E2%80%9340%E2%80%9390_club

[Miller for 3]

Imagine an HGH filled Price allowed to travel/carry all over the place with no handchecking and defensive 3 seconds in place :eek: Game over NBA.

He would be best player in modern NBA easy. 25/15 at least on 55/50/90 shooting, leading the GOAT offense (118 ORTG at worst)

[SHAQisGOAT]

I've never liked the comparison to Steve Nash. Really the similarities start and end at the are both short, white, can shoot, and play pg.
First off Nash is far more creative, better vision, and a much more effictive scorer. He's far superior athletically and a much more efficient penatrator.

Price was more gritty and heady. Although a great ft shooter I didn't think he was as deadly a 3 point shooter. He's good, but I didn' t find him a threat. Nash is more a threat from 3.
I find Price more like a more efficient Jameer Nelson.

Nash got him on the playmaking/passing side of things, no doubt about it, but Price was not far behind by any means. As far as overall shooting I'd give it to Nash also but it's really close and again Price had a quicker release. Far superior athletically? :lol Price was a bit smaller but clearly a better overall athlete. Price could penetrate the defense just as well as Steve and was a better finisher.

More gritty and could actually play defense. I don't know your definition of deadly from 3 but in my book he was, clearly. You don't find him a threat probably because you never saw much from him. Dude is in the 50-40-90 club, shot many times over 40%, even after major injuries, has the 2nd best mark in the 3pt contest (no money-ball rack either lol).

Seriously, at their best I think I'd go with Nash but it's an extremely tough choice, can go either way and it depends on different aspects.

[SHAQisGOAT]

I use the comparison to Jameer in terms of style of play, not impact. There are too many comparisons to Nash which I don't agree with. I'm not knocking him at all. I realize he was an all-star. But does being an all-star dictate how good of a shooter you are?
And being one of the best shooters? I said he was great but not outstanding. I don't ever remember him hitting it at clip compared to guys like Kerr, Les, Hawkins or the great 3 point shooters of that time. He was good enough to keep his defender close, but didn't impact the game in those regards.

:biggums:

Underrating like a mother****er

[SHAQisGOAT]

Wasn't the rule before defensive 3 seconds that you always had to be an arms length within the guy you where guarding or going for a rotation or double team while moving?

Maybe that's what was written in the book but it wasn't as "strict" as that and there were ways to bend it let's say, and it was different when regarding the ball-handler. Plus you had most centers playing like center so they stayed near the lane offensively. And of course you had hand-checking which helps a lot, mostly/especially when you can't really play defense.
And to answer your question, the lane was more packed back then, on average, I mean it's not the norm and there were/are exceptions to the "rule" but again, on average.

Here's some quick examples of it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLv2F33snCE

[ZenMaster]

Maybe that's what was written in the book but it wasn't as "strict" as that and there were ways to bend it let's say, and it was different when regarding the ball-handler. Plus you had most centers playing like center so they stayed near the lane offensively. And of course you had hand-checking which helps a lot, mostly/especially when you can't really play defense.
And to answer your question, the lane was more packed back then, on average, I mean it's not the norm and there were/are exceptions to the "rule" but again, on average.

Here's some quick examples of it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLv2F33snCE

I always thought hand checking was a bigger change than the defensive 3 seconds.

I started watching ball around 96, I might have noticed it more because it's not a rule here, but I just seem to remember a lot of illegal defense calls there in the late 90's.
Also checked a few block numbers and they blocked around the same ammount of shots that they do today. I'm not putting too much into this though.

I'd say the majority of centers today play as close to the hoop as centers always have. I've heard a lot here how the centers now are soft and want to shoot 3 pointers, but from the top of my head I couldn't mention a single center in the league right now who shoots 3's at any regularity.

The Jordan rules clip is a bit extreme, I've read one of PJs books and he talks about that series and on how ALL their defensive focus was on catching Jordan, Pistons on top of that was an excellent defensive team.
When I see that video I don't just see a lane that's blocked because those where the rules. I see a great defensive team hustling their ass to follow the game plan on how to guard a single very good player.

Today they load the strong side up with an extra defender when good players have it below the foul line, that makes up for quite a bit.

Another theory of mine is that players took more tough shots back then because there wasn't a culture of using the 3pt line like they do today.

And just to clarify I'm not saying the lane wasn't more packed then than now, just that I though the hand checking was a quite bigger part than the defensive 3 seconds.

[andgar923]

I always thought hand checking was a bigger change than the defensive 3 seconds.

I started watching ball around 96, I might have noticed it more because it's not a rule here, but I just seem to remember a lot of illegal defense calls there in the late 90's.
Also checked a few block numbers and they blocked around the same ammount of shots that they do today. I'm not putting too much into this though.

I'd say the majority of centers today play as close to the hoop as centers always have. I've heard a lot here how the centers now are soft and want to shoot 3 pointers, but from the top of my head I couldn't mention a single center in the league right now who shoots 3's at any regularity.

The Jordan rules clip is a bit extreme, I've read one of PJs books and he talks about that series and on how ALL their defensive focus was on catching Jordan, Pistons on top of that was an excellent defensive team.
When I see that video I don't just see a lane that's blocked because those where the rules. I see a great defensive team hustling their ass to follow the game plan on how to guard a single very good player.

Another theory of mine is that players took more tough shots back then because there wasn't a culture of using the 3pt line like they do today.

And just to clarify I'm not saying the lane wasn't more packed then than now, just that I though the hand checking was a quite bigger part than the defensive 3 seconds.
.....

[ZenMaster]

.....

Sorry I'm not older and I'm sorry that league pass didn't exists back then :confusedshrug:

And don't get cocky, I've seen how you disect basketball, offense in several parts while defense is just defense. You couldn't even respond to my post, only a bunch of dots.

96 that's still a good 18 years of watching ball, the last 5 years extensively because I don't play anymore but coach.

[fandarko]

I use the comparison to Jameer in terms of style of play, not impact. There are too many comparisons to Nash which I don't agree with. I'm not knocking him at all. I realize he was an all-star. But does being an all-star dictate how good of a shooter you are?
And being one of the best shooters? I said he was great but not outstanding. I don't ever remember him hitting it at clip compared to guys like Kerr, Les, Hawkins or the great 3 point shooters of that time. He was good enough to keep his defender close, but didn't impact the game in those regards.

He was a four-time All Star mainly for his shooting.

Kerr was a bench warmer and a shooting specialist, nothing close to Price.

Hawkins, a great shooter in his own right, had nothing on Price.

I remember Price hitting six threes in one ASG in the 90's.

I'm not sure you've watched him in his prime (I'm 43)...

[tpols]

That is a bold statement. Considering in his era I don't think he was even top 5. By that definition players like KJ and Tim Hardaway would be the best pg's today, because I felt they were clearly better than Price.
Price was more on the tiers with Derek Harper, Mark Jackson, Alvin Robertson, Mookie Blaylock.....
I'll give you the toughness. He was also a silent competitor and very steady. But being realistic Price was never really outstanding at anything except for ft. He was never amongst the leaders in other major pg categories like steals, 3 point percentage, assists...
I think Price tends to get overrated due to not getting the recognition, but at the same time being one of the more likeable players and a true blue collar hero.
Like I said before he' s more like Jameer Nelson than Steve Nash.
Youre talking to one of the most nostalgia blinded poster on this site..


Price was a 4 time allstar huh? Well Steve nash was a two time MVP and prolly double the amount of all star selections... Comparing the two is a sin

[fandarko]

Youre talking to one of the most nostalgia blinded poster on this site..


Price was a 4 time allstar huh? Well Steve nash was a two time MVP and prolly double the amount of all star selections... Comparing the two is a sin

Nash was the better player, though he for sure was not a better shooter.

But comparing Price to Jameer Nelson or Mookie Blaylock is flat out hilarious.

[hateraid]

:oldlol:
I love how on here things get misinterpreted to such huge degree.
First off I'm 37. I've watched as much basketball as you possibly can with as little means as any household would have to show the NBA. My house was a basketball household. My father played and followed, I played and followed, I attended many Sixers games including against the Cavs back in those days. Also one of my best friends in highschool was from Ohio so he was huge into the Cavs and a big Mark Price fan. So I got to hear first hand how amazing he is.
So let's get that old BS out the way when you don't agree with somebody question their age and/or if they've seen him play.

Second, let's get this part straight. I am not saying:
Mark Price = Jameer Nelson.
I am very aware and more than willing to testify Mark Price is by far the superior player. What I am am trying to say is Mark price is more similar in game style to Jameer Nelson than he is to Steve Nash. I am not a fan of that comparison because it's the obvious they are both white.
Also in that same context I did not say say Kerr or Hawkins are as good as players as Price. I was comparing their marksmanship. Price was not in the calibre of those players. And if you really dug into his 3 point shooting statistics, the more he shot, the worse he got. His highest percentage was at 2 per game. Shooting more put his around 40%. This is not to say he wasn't a great 3 point shooter, but like ISH fashion let's blow it out of context.
I will admit I mistaken about his statistics. But even in regards to that he was not consistently at that level for a prolonged period of time nor did he finish in a top 3 in those categories, if even top 5. Fat Lever posted the same type of gaudy numbers for a short period of time. Is he top 3 today?

The fact is he is being greatly overrated. Not that he wasn't great nor he didn't deserve 4 all star appearances. He wasn't on the level of the KJs, John Stocktons, Tim Hardaways, GPs, of his time. Maybe a tad under them. But you guys need to really put his career into perspective and not aver glorify the man.

Great PG yes, Steve Nash calibre? c'mon man!

[MiseryCityTexas]

:facepalm

Nash blossomed after the rule change....Price would easily be just as effective as Nash in this era. Freedom without being steered by handchecking is the main reason this is a era of point guard

Stop twisting the truth. Nash never played when the rules were different. He was basically just like Kobe in the mid to late 90s: unfairly riding the bench because another star veteran starter that plays the same position is on the team.

[hateraid]

Nash was the better player, though he for sure was not a better shooter.

But comparing Price to Jameer Nelson or Mookie Blaylock is flat out hilarious.

Just as hilarious as comparing Price to Nash.

And honestly, what's the point of asking how good is Price if you had no intention of being objective?

[Bird]

And how well would he fare in today's NBA?

I loved his game back in the late 80's.

He was one of the best shooters in history, granted, but he was an underrated passer and man leader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sua9u318wGo

On this clip, he seems a tad quicker than everyone of the floor, splitting the pick and roll, penetrating and dishing at will. Not to mention the shooting.

Make him undergo advanced strength and conditioning programs of the 2000s and put him in a team where he doesn't have to feed Daugherty, Nance and Harper and I can easily see him be a perennial 20/8 player at least.

In the right team, I don't see who could contain him today when they weren't able to guard him in the handchecking era.

He was basically a quicker, less flashy Steve Nash. His explosiveness and dribbling quickness I think was severely underrated. Watch how he gets by defenders as if they didn't existed. Perhaps could be compared to a smaller Curry without the length and the fancy dribbling.

With a shoot-first mindset, he would kill it today...

Anybody remembers this guy? Of course, you need to be +40 to have really enjoyed his game...

Untrue.

Price retired after the 98 season. I'm 29 and remember watching him play very thoroughly (I also copied his playing style since I was and still am a short white guy with a very good 3 pt shot).

As to your question: Price was very good. I think he would be one of the 6 or 7 best PG's in the game. Better defensively than Nash was/is (probably his most comparable player since he retired and not just because they are both white), just as deadly a shooter and probably would have been just as successful being the engine of those run'n'gun Suns.

You wouldn't want him to be the #1 on your team, but I would LOVE to watch him PG for Clippers (better shooter than Paul), Indiana (which would make the Pacers absolutely terrifying), Dallas (that's my homer pick though) or in Oklahoma City (I think he would be better for KD than Westbrook, but think Westbrook, when healthy, would be a better PG than Price).

If I had to rank him, Paul, Curry, Westbrook, Wall, Lillard, Price, Kyrie, etc. Somewhere in the 5th or 6th area, depending on how you feel about Lillard and Kyrie.

[fandarko]

Just as hilarious as comparing Price to Nash.

And honestly, what's the point of asking how good is Price if you had no intention of being objective?

Well, I said Nash was better, didn't I?

It's not hilarious to compare them, since great white PG's are a rare bread.

Apart from Dragic, there isn't a single one in today's game.

[fandarko]

:oldlol:
I love how on here things get misinterpreted to such huge degree.
First off I'm 37. I've watched as much basketball as you possibly can with as little means as any household would have to show the NBA. My house was a basketball household. My father played and followed, I played and followed, I attended many Sixers games including against the Cavs back in those days. Also one of my best friends in highschool was from Ohio so he was huge into the Cavs and a big Mark Price fan. So I got to hear first hand how amazing he is.
So let's get that old BS out the way when you don't agree with somebody question their age and/or if they've seen him play.

Second, let's get this part straight. I am not saying:
Mark Price = Jameer Nelson.
I am very aware and more than willing to testify Mark Price is by far the superior player. What I am am trying to say is Mark price is more similar in game style to Jameer Nelson than he is to Steve Nash. I am not a fan of that comparison because it's the obvious they are both white.
Also in that same context I did not say say Kerr or Hawkins are as good as players as Price. I was comparing their marksmanship. Price was not in the calibre of those players. And if you really dug into his 3 point shooting statistics, the more he shot, the worse he got. His highest percentage was at 2 per game. Shooting more put his around 40%. This is not to say he wasn't a great 3 point shooter, but like ISH fashion let's blow it out of context.
I will admit I mistaken about his statistics. But even in regards to that he was not consistently at that level for a prolonged period of time nor did he finish in a top 3 in those categories, if even top 5. Fat Lever posted the same type of gaudy numbers for a short period of time. Is he top 3 today?

The fact is he is being greatly overrated. Not that he wasn't great nor he didn't deserve 4 all star appearances. He wasn't on the level of the KJs, John Stocktons, Tim Hardaways, GPs, of his time. Maybe a tad under them. But you guys need to really put his career into perspective and not aver glorify the man.

Great PG yes, Steve Nash calibre? c'mon man!

I agree with everything in your post, apart from the marksmanship thing. Kerr couldn't touch Price on in-game shooting. Hawkins ok, but Kerr was a from-the-bench specialist, it's not the same league. You've got his overall standing just about right. No, he wasn't at the level of KJ, Stockton (he didn't have Malone, I believe that's more or less the only reason, skills wise, Stockton had nothing on Price) or prime Hardaway. Though Price is sometimes slightly overrated due to the combination of nostalgia/white factor, I still believe he would have been an all star calibre player today. And I don't agree that it's hilarious comparing him to Nash. Nash was better, but let's not make it sound he was another league compared to Price...