+2800 roster and sidekick < Hornacek, so 73 wins means CURRY is goat-like, not lebron

[3ba11]

.
Regular Season

Hornacek (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hornaje01.html)'.... 17.7 PER.. 2.9 bpm.. 0.153 ws/48.. 42.1 vorp.. 15/3/5 on 58.2 ts
Klay (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01.html)............ 16.4 PER.. 0.7 bpm.. 0.110 ws/48.. 14.4 vorp.. 19/3/2 on 57.5 ts


Playoffs

Hornacek (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hornaje01.html)'.... 16.5 PER.. 3.1 bpm.. 0.145 ws/48.. 14.1 vorp.. 15/4/4 on 57.5 ts
Klay (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01.html)............ 14.4 PER.. 0.7 bpm.. 0.091 ws/48.... 3.1 vorp.. 19/3/2 on 56.0 ts


the CONSENSUS was that the 15' Warriors weren't a good roster, such as +2800 preseason odds and a lower producer than Hornacek at 2nd option.. So the 67 and 73 wins means that Curry did a goat thing, not Lebron.. Lebron doesn't deserve props for beating a 1-man team with the only "big 3" super-team in the league and the preseason favorite.

Lebron also had unprecedented help with a 2nd option outplaying the MVP - that's like Mathurin outplaying SGA or Pippen outplaying MVP Barkley - it's impossible to lose in this scenario. yet Lebron needed 7 games because he wet the bed through 4 games (24 and 6 TO's).. So Lebron shouldn't get MORE credit for coming back, since a dominant performance or knockout is better than having to get off the canvas and basically get lucky.

[sdot_thadon]

Hornacek isn't close to Klay man stfu.

[3ba11]

Hornacek isn't close to Klay man stfu.


Not according to PER, BPM, WS/48, VORP, FTA, or APG

Btw, weaker scorers like Klay or Pippen can't be franchise players because teams led by them lack capacity to add talent, i.e. any decent scorer will surpass them as 1st option.. Accordingly, franchise players are reserved for dominant producers like Love, KAT, or AD, and their obvious dominance means that they don't need playoff success to make All-NBA...

Otoh, secondary producers like Klay or Pippen needed titles to make All-NBA, similar to Manu, Parker, Pau, Dumars or Worthy - they needed winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA.. And no one got more winning spotlight than Pippen - he never played above a Larry Nance or Iguodala caliber, but the winning spotlight inflated him to all-time status and media accolade - he's simply the most overrated player ever.

[warriorfan]

Good thread

Sthot never saw Hornacek so his opinion is immediately discarded

[1987_Lakers]

PER doesn't take into account defense, and Klay was one of the best man defenders in the league during his prime.

I like Hornacek though, underrated playmaker, but Utah Hornacek doesn't come close to the player prime Klay was.

[warriorfan]

PER doesn't take into account defense, and Klay was one of the best man defenders in the league during his prime.

I like Hornacek though, underrated playmaker, but Utah Hornacek doesn't come close to the player prime Klay was.

Klay Thompson is the most overrated defender in the modern era.

He was decent but he was no where near some lock down elite perimeter guy.

[1987_Lakers]

Klay Thompson is the most overrated defender in the modern era.

He was decent but he was no where near some lock down elite perimeter guy.

Disagree, his man defense in particular was top notch. In particular, I remember him playing stick glue defense on every one of his assignments during the '17 postseason.

[1987_Lakers]

Where you could give Klay shit is the other aspects of his defense, in particular off ball, team/help defense. He wasn't particularly great in those areas which limited his defensive impact (it shows in the advanced stats).

But as a man defender, I've never seen a pure shooter as good as Klay.

[warriorfan]

Got some data to back up your stuff? Or is this just a “trust me bro”

[tpols]

Hornacek isn't close to Klay man stfu.

Actually the playoff data says Hornacek was slightly better over signifigant sample size. Welcome to reality.

[Lebron23]

Hornacek and John Stockton averaged 10 ppg and 9.7 ppg in the 1998 NBA finals. The 2020 miami heat have out of their 5 players averaged more points than Hornacek and Stockton. Jordan had terrible competition in the 1990's.

[Full Court]

No question Curry is the best player of his generation.

Curry is everything that Bronie fans wish Lebron was, and is not.

[sdot_thadon]

Actually the playoff data says Hornacek was slightly better over signifigant sample size. Welcome to reality.

So the end all be all criteria of "scoring .matters most" ....."uh uh eye test"...."uhh uhh rangz" goes out the window depending on which way we want to bend? Because I guarantee Klay annihilates Hornacek as a scorer without looking at a single stat. And as a defender? Kinda laughable comparison and that's not to say Jeff was some pushover, he was a very good player but Klay was a borderline great player even if we're being modest. Amd i actively disliked both players but by the standards the actors in this thread use in other threads, there's no way to have this conversation and put Jeff anywhere near Klay.

[Lebron23]

No question Curry is the best player of his generation.

Curry is everything that Bronie fans wish Lebron was, and is not.

Nope
4x NBA MVP 4x finals mvp is better than 1 NBA finals mvp and 2 finals MVP.

[tpols]

So the end all be all criteria of "scoring .matters most" ....."uh uh eye test"...."uhh uhh rangz" goes out the window depending on which way we want to bend? Because I guarantee Klay annihilates Hornacek as a scorer without looking at a single stat. And as a defender? Kinda laughable comparison and that's not to say Jeff was some pushover, he was a very good player but Klay was a borderline great player even if we're being modest. Amd i actively disliked both players but by the standards the actors in this thread use in other threads, there's no way to have this conversation and put Jeff anywhere near Klay.

No its not just scoring. Jeff was better in almost every advanced stat. Way better playmaker and dynamic offensive player while also shooting more efficiently than Klay. Klay is a better defender which lessens the gap but perhaps not by enough to overtake him. Hornacek was an above average defender as well and Klays defense is vastly overrated. He was a basic man defender with average help defense and defensive rebounding. Even then he wasnt even the best man defender on his own team. That would be iggy or dray.

So what youre saying doesn't make sense. Its impossible for somebody to beat you in every advanced stat and you're not even close to them. Doesn't add up.

[SouBeachTalents]

If we're talking prime for prime, I'd probably disagree, but you could make a valid argument for Hornacek. But if we're talking the Utah version, absolutely indefensibly stupid to claim that version of Hornacek is better than peak Klay.

[1987_Lakers]

Got some data to back up your stuff? Or is this just a “trust me bro”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y589G84w03E

[sdot_thadon]

No its not just scoring. Jeff was better in almost every advanced stat. Way better playmaker and dynamic offensive player while also shooting more efficiently than Klay. Klay is a better defender which lessens the gap but perhaps not by enough to overtake him. Hornacek was an above average defender as well and Klays defense is vastly overrated. He was a basic man defender with average help defense and defensive rebounding. Even then he wasnt even the best man defender on his own team. That would be iggy or dray.

So what youre saying doesn't make sense. Its impossible for somebody to beat you in every advanced stat and you're not even close to them. Doesn't add up.

Advanced stats dont ever factor defense perfectly. Klay made an all defensive team, Jeff did not. Klay received all defensive team votes in 6 seasons to Jeff's 1. Klay made 2 all nba teams to none for Jeff. Klay has received mvp votes in a season, Jeff? Nope. Jeff won't ever see the hall of fame while Klay is likely to hes on the short list of greatest shooters to ever live. Klay has somewhere around double the 30 point games Jeff has in his career. Jeff had a single 40 point game in his career, Klay probably has at minimum of 10 times that amount. 50 point games? Jeff? None 60 point games? Jeff? None. Scoring isnt the end all be all but the other things Jeff may do arent near enough to make up this gap in both scoring and defense. And this is coming from someone who wished someone would come off the bench and clothesline Klay everytime he played lol. You can t let numbers form your opinion about a guy you may have not seen. Again Jeff was no pushover he was a very good player but Klay is at least a whole tier above him as a role player/2nd option. Klay on those Jazz is probably enough to beat the bulls.

[tpols]

Advanced stats dont ever factor defense perfectly. Klay made an all defensive team, Jeff did not.


Advanced stats absolutely do and can highlight defensive impact. There are tons of advanced stats out there centered around +/- and its regressions that measure impact a player has when on the floor in terms of the scoreboard which allows us to separate the Dwayne wades from the Zach lavines even if their stat line was similar.

And fact is Hornacek in his prime not only was way craftier with the ball in his hand, he outshot Klay from an era where shooting %s were lower. Outrebounded him as well, the only thing Klay has is slightly boost in man defense.

To act like Jeff has no argument is beyond absurd. Hornacek was closer to Manu than Klay.

[3ba11]

Klay made 2 all nba teams to none for Jeff.





You're forgetting that true franchise players like Curry or Love are dominant elite producers, so they make All-NBA without any playoff success... Otoh, secondary producers like Klay or Pippen needed titles to make All-NBA, similar to Manu, Parker, Pau, Dumars or Worthy - they needed winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA.. And no one got more winning spotlight than Klay - he never produced anywhere near Jeff Hornacek, but the winning spotlight inflated him to all-time status and media accolade.. Contrastingly, Jeff didn't get this benefit of getting carried to titles early in his career like Klay, and making All-NBA thereafter.. If Klay was barely scraping 20 ppg while losing on the Wizards, he might not make a single all-star game - the numbers show that he's a 1-dimensional player on offense that doesn't get to the line or pass.

[warriorfan]

So the end all be all criteria of "scoring .matters most" ....."uh uh eye test"...."uhh uhh rangz" goes out the window depending on which way we want to bend? Because I guarantee Klay annihilates Hornacek as a scorer without looking at a single stat. And as a defender? Kinda laughable comparison and that's not to say Jeff was some pushover, he was a very good player but Klay was a borderline great player even if we're being modest. Amd i actively disliked both players but by the standards the actors in this thread use in other threads, there's no way to have this conversation and put Jeff anywhere near Klay.

This post should be banworthy

[sdot_thadon]

Advanced stats absolutely do and can highlight defensive impact. There are tons of advanced stats out there centered around +/- and its regressions that measure impact a player has when on the floor in terms of the scoreboard which allows us to separate the Dwayne wades from the Zach lavines even if their stat line was similar.

And fact is Hornacek in his prime not only was way craftier with the ball in his hand, he outshot Klay from an era where shooting %s were lower. Outrebounded him as well, the only thing Klay has is slightly boost in man defense.

To act like Jeff has no argument is beyond absurd. Hornacek was closer to Manu than Klay.

We don't need advanced stats to tell us Dwade is better than Lavine, just eyes wtf? Same applies for Klay vs Jeff. Klay is a clearly superior player. One of the greatest shooters to ever live. Jeff being more crafty with the ball still doesn't outweigh klays superiority as a shooter, scorer or defender. Its too overwhelming a comparison. In what world did he outshoot Klay? He posts a higher fg% for his career taking 2 3s a game while klay takes nearly 8 and has taken as many as 10 a game for a season. What big games can you offer me from Jeff Hornacek that rival Klays game 6? Or any of the times hes shown up big in the postseason? Klay was a bonafied no.2 that on any given night could score as much as Kobe. I never liked the guy but you gotta put some respect on his name.

[sdot_thadon]

You're forgetting that true franchise players like Curry or Love are dominant elite producers, so they make All-NBA without any playoff success... Otoh, secondary producers like Klay or Pippen needed titles to make All-NBA, similar to Manu, Parker, Pau, Dumars or Worthy - they needed winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA.. And no one got more winning spotlight than Klay - he never produced anywhere near Jeff Hornacek, but the winning spotlight inflated him to all-time status and media accolade.. Contrastingly, Jeff didn't get this benefit of getting carried to titles early in his career like Klay, and making All-NBA thereafter.. If Klay was barely scraping 20 ppg while losing on the Wizards, he might not make a single all-star game - the numbers show that he's a 1-dimensional player on offense that doesn't get to the line or pass.

Until that stupid moment you realize Klay made all nba as well as being voted an allstar in 2015, months before the warriors win a title. Pippen was an allstat in 90, made all-defense in 91, once again some time before they ever won a chip. Sounds like your narrative sucks again. And FYI these guys more likely begin to make all nba and all def etc because of their gradual improvement to that level rather than because whatever star you're sucking off won a title. Scottie started making all defensive teams after the world saw his work on magic and other stars. He became all nba once he graduated to being a 20 a game guy. His numbers increased in nearly every aspect during the transition to being recognized as an all nba level player.

[sdot_thadon]

This post should be banworthy

Pot, meet kettle. I dont even know why they ever allow you back to be honest.

[NBAGOAT]

Now show us drays stats. Epm 4.3, 5.6, 4.5 from 15-17. He’s the true sidekick and easily top 15 guy in the league and all-nba lvl those 3 years. Tbf klay was 4.4, 3.4, 2.9 those 3 years. He’s easily an all star. They don’t highly rate klay on defense either.

What the box score stats and metrics don’t show is how much klays shooting helps his teams offense. Warriors could play 3 non spacers in bogut dray iggy and still be an elite offense because of curry and klay. Hornacek was a great shooter but he was taking less than 3 3’s a game klays on a different lvl. Two guys aren’t jumping out to hornacek and leaving Malone completely open, that’s what teams did vs klay. Shooting is also why Steph’s best ever season clears Jokic by a bit even though Jokic has better stats and is a better playmaker.

[RRR3]

Pot, meet kettle. I dont even know why they ever allow you back to be honest.
What, you don't think his constant racist insults are contributing to the board? :lol

[warriorfan]

Now show us drays stats. Epm 4.3, 5.6, 4.5 from 15-17. He’s the true sidekick and easily top 15 guy in the league and all-nba lvl those 3 years. Tbf klay was 4.4, 3.4, 2.9 those 3 years. He’s easily an all star. They don’t highly rate klay on defense either.

What the box score stats and metrics don’t show is how much klays shooting helps his teams offense. Warriors could play 3 non spacers in bogut dray iggy and still be an elite offense because of curry and klay. Hornacek was a great shooter but he was taking less than 3 3’s a game klays on a different lvl. Two guys aren’t jumping out to hornacek and leaving Malone completely open, that’s what teams did vs klay. Shooting is also why Steph’s best ever season clears Jokic by a bit even though Jokic has better stats and is a better playmaker.

Yes. There is literally no data that shows Klay being an elite defender.

[1987_Lakers]

Yes. There is literally no data that shows Klay being an elite defender.

Just look at the 7:08 mark in the vid I posted. The data is there as a man defender.

You should be happy Curry had a teammate who always guarded the opponents best offensive perimeter player. He hid a lot of Curry's weaknesses as a defender.

[warriorfan]

Just look at the 7:08 mark in the vid I posted. The data is there as a man defender.

You should be happy Curry had a teammate who always guarded the opponents best offensive perimeter player. He hid a lot of Curry's weaknesses as a defender.

I’m not watching one second of some nerdy ass kid who never played ball and has KG in his top 10 of all time. That dude is ass and doesn’t know shit about basketball.

Post the stats here. I’m not watching low iq clown bball youtube videos.

[1987_Lakers]

I’m not watching one second of some nerdy ass kid who never played ball and has KG in his top 10 of all time. That dude is ass and doesn’t know shit about basketball.

Post the stats here. I’m not watching low iq clown bball youtube videos.

It's not even his data, but he puts it in the vid.

But we all know you have a history of shitting on every teammate Curry has ever had. You have no objectivity in these convos.

[warriorfan]

It's not even his data, but he puts it in the vid.

But we all know you have a history of shitting on every teammate Curry has ever had. You have no objectivity in these convos.

You are legit a dude who admit he was an obese child (who didn’t play basketball subsequently I’m assuming)

So you were an obese kid and didn’t magically drop all the weight and pick up basketball overnight and play for the high school team….


I’m not trying to be a dick but you are just making shit up. You don’t fundamentally understand the game. You don’t even math nerd statistically understand the game. You have resorted to posting youtube links of another kid who never played ball and has KG as a top 10 ATG for some bizarre reason I’m not really interested in pursuing further.

Post some metrics of Klay being an elite defender or get the f.uck out of here

[1987_Lakers]

You are legit a dude who admit he was an obese child (who didn’t play basketball subsequently I’m assuming)

So you were an obese kid and didn’t magically drop all the weight and pick up basketball overnight and play for the high school team….


I’m not trying to be a dick but you are just making shit up. You don’t fundamentally understand the game. You don’t even math nerd statistically understand the game. You have resorted to posting youtube links of another kid who never played ball and has KG as a top 10 ATG for some bizarre reason I’m not really interested in pursuing further.

Post some metrics of Klay being an elite defender or get the f.uck out of here

This is your problem. You ask for data, I give it to you. Then go into denial mode and have a meltdown when I give it to you.

[warriorfan]

This is your problem. You ask for data, I give it to you. Then go into denial mode and have a meltdown when I give it to you.

Post the data you self admitted 5 8 obese kid who never played ball. I’m not watching some know nothing guys video to reinforce your know nothing point. Articulate your data like a normal human being or get the **** out. I’m sorrry if outside of copy pasting a youtube from some equally low iq dude is too much for you.

That ain’t my problem.

[1987_Lakers]

Post the data you self admitted 5 8 obese kid who never played ball. I’m not watching some know nothing guys video to reinforce your know nothing point. Articulate your data like a normal human being or get the **** out. I’m sorrry if outside of copy pasting a youtube from some equally low iq dude is too much for you.

That ain’t my problem.

Or you could just click the video like a normal damn person. My goodness, what a meltdown. :oldlol:

No wonder Curry couldn't win FMVP all those years, his teams were STACKED! You had Dray, Iggy, & Klay playing lockdown D while KD was dropping like 35 points a game.

[1987_Lakers]

The crazy thing is even if the Warriors had won in 2016 and 2019 we all know they would have given the FMVP to Draymond in '16 & Klay in '19.

[warriorfan]

You were an obese child who didn’t play basketball and can’t produce any stats about klay being an elite defender

[1987_Lakers]

You were an obese child who didn’t play basketball and can’t produce any stats about klay being an elite defender

You were high on crack last night and couldn't figure out how to click a simple link to show you all the stats.

[warriorfan]

You were high on crack last night and couldn't figure out how to click a simple link to show you all the stats.

You are a midget beaner who doesn’t know anything about basketball.

You told us you were obese as a child and obviously never played

If you can’t put it the point you are trying to make in your own words, then too bad.

I’m not watching garbo low iq youtube videos from a nerd who has KG in his top 10 of all time.

There is no evidence Klay Thompson is an elite defender.

[1987_Lakers]

You are a midget beaner who doesn’t know anything about basketball.

If you can’t put it in the point you are trying to make in your own words, then too bad.

I’m not watching garbo low iq youtube videos from a nerd who has KG in his top 10 of all time.

There is no evidence Klay Thompson is an elite defender.

You are a hillbilly junkie who doesn't know anything about basketball

If you can't click a simple video that shows you exactly what you were asking for (I put a specific time stamp), then too bad

You can't watch the video because you simply can't handle the truth, you have been in meltdown mode ever since I posted that vid

There is great evidence of how Klay Thompson was an elite man defender.

[tpols]

Are there any metrics DRAPM or DRTG that actually have Klay is a great defender?

Just looking at the 2016 team, Bogut and Dray had by far the best DRTG at 99 and 100 respectively. Iggy and Curry had the next best at 103 and 105. Klay was tied for 5th with Harrison Barnes at 107. Those two had the worst DRTG for Golden State.

Thats on his own team! :lol

I'm curious what his DRAPM ranking was those years. It was probably mediocre rank league wide maybe slightly above average? I'll have to check.

[warriorfan]

Are there any metrics DRAPM or DRTG that actually have Klay is a great defender?

Just looking at the 2016 team, Bogut and Dray had by far the best DRTG at 99 and 100 respectively. Iggy and Curry had the next best at 103 and 105. Klay was tied for 5th with Harrison Barnes at 107. Those two had the worst DRTG for Golden State.

Thats on his own team! :lol

I'm curious what his DRAPM ranking was those years. It was probably mediocre rank league wide maybe slightly above average? I'll have to check.

There is literally zero evidence that Klay is an elite defender.

It’s legit a thing Lebron stans invented out of thin air.

These are the same guys who said Kobe is a terrible defender and him being all defense is some sort of conspiracy. :lol

The only thing 87Lakers has is “I remember watching the playoffs 7 years ago and Klay was elite!”

[1987_Lakers]

These are the same guys who said Kobe is a terrible defender and him being all defense is some sort of conspiracy. :lol


Klay actually made all-defense as well. I'm sure in your mind it's some sort of conspiracy.

Curry's defense is one of the reasons they lost in 2016, constantly getting hunted and let Kyrie hit the game winner right over him. If it was Klay contesting that shot, it wouldn't have gone in.

[ShawkFactory]

Klay defensive metrics were never as high as his actual impact I don't think because he never racked up stocks like some others. I certainly wouldn't call him elite but he was a very sound man defender and would often guard the other team's best perimeter scorer before his injury.

[tpols]

Klay actually made all-defense as well. I'm sure in your mind it's some sort of conspiracy.

Curry's defense is one of the reasons they lost in 2016, constantly getting hunted and let Kyrie hit the game winner right over him. If it was Klay contesting that shot, it wouldn't have gone in.

That doesn't mean shit.

Kobe made All Defensive teams he didn't deserve too especially later in his career. The difference is Kobe was a beast athlete and actually did have defensive metrics to back it up back in early 2000s.

Klay doesn't. His DRTG, DRAPM, any metrics want to use hes never been close to elite. Like... ever. Pull the numbers dude. Because for someone like Dray? We could pull numbers to show hes an elite defender big time. Can't do it for Klay though. Why not?

[warriorfan]

Klay actually made all-defense as well. I'm sure in your mind it's some sort of conspiracy.

Curry's defense is one of the reasons they lost in 2016, constantly getting hunted and let Kyrie hit the game winner right over him. If it was Klay contesting that shot, it wouldn't have gone in.

Klay made one defensive second team in his entire career. :roll:

You got nothing that shows Klay was an elite defender.

[1987_Lakers]

That doesn't mean shit.

Kobe made All Defensive teams he didn't deserve too especially later in his career. The difference is Kobe was a beast athlete and actually did have defensive metrics to back it up back in early 2000s.

Klay doesn't. His DRTG, DRAPM, any metrics want to use hes never been close to elite. Like... ever. Pull the numbers dude. Because for someone like Dray? We could pull numbers to show hes an elite defender big time. Can't do it for Klay though. Why not?

I wouldn't even call his overall defense elite, if you go to my very first reply on page 1, I said he was an elite man defender then followed it up by saying he wasn't the greatest off-ball and team/help defender which limited his overall defensive impact. I even posted data which supported my man defender claim, but warriorfan is too scared to click because it would destroy his argument. I actually think he already clicked the video and saw it, but doesn't want to admit it because it would confirm everything I said about Klay's defense in this thread was right.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VgbqvM_1ts

This is the 2017 defense I was talking about in page 1. Elite man defense right there, playing stick glue defense on a prime Kyrie.

[1987_Lakers]

Klay made one defensive second team in his entire career. :roll:

One more than Curry.

[warriorfan]

One more than Curry.

Meltdown

[Phoenix]

You all are just talking across yourselves at this point. Klay's probably the best defender( that I've seen anyway) out of anyone who could shoot at this level. He wasn't an elite overall defensive player but he was a more than capable man defender before his injuries. This seems like a fairly understood and commonly held view during the peak of the Warriors run in the mid-late 2010s. In fact, his man to man defensive drop-off was the first observable thing I noticed( not staring at advanced metrics on basketball reference, actually watching him on the floor) after his injuries.

[1987_Lakers]

You all are just talking across yourselves at this point. Klay's probably the best defender( that I've seen anyway) out of anyone who could shoot at this level. He wasn't an elite overall defensive player but he was a more than capable man defender before his injuries. This seems like a fairly understood and commonly held view during the peak of the Warriors run in the mid-late 2010s. In fact, his man to man defensive drop-off was the first observable thing I noticed( not staring at advanced metrics on basketball reference, actually watching him on the floor) after his injuries.
Yup. It was a common fact back in the 2010’s that Klay was one of the better man defenders in the league and some were even calling him the GOAT 3 and D player. Now you have Curry stans and Bron haters trying to re-write history.

Very sad.

[tpols]

Klay didn't shoot as well in the playoffs as you guys think he did. He produced on 56 TS as a 3pt shooter in a video game era. Jeff produced on 57+ TS in a much uglier setting. This is over huge sample size in the playoffs. And Klay saved his worst for last usually as he never had a great Finals.

His slight advantage in man defense doesn't give him an edge over guys who out rebound him, out playmake him, and outshoot him. Like Jeff. But Hornacek isn't half as decorated accolade wise because he never enjoyed the winning spotlight Klay did.

[SouBeachTalents]

Klay didn't shoot as well in the playoffs as you guys think he did. He produced on 56 TS as a 3pt shooter in a video game era. Jeff produced on 57+ TS in a much uglier setting. This is over huge sample size in the playoffs. And Klay saved his worst for last usually as he never had a great Finals.

His slight advantage in man defense doesn't give him an edge over guys who out rebound him, out playmake him, and outshoot him. Like Jeff. But Hornacek isn't half as decorated accolade wise because he never enjoyed the winning spotlight Klay did.
Sounds like Kobe.

If you want to peep bad Finals, don't look at Hornacek's.

[tpols]

Sounds like Kobe.

If you want to peep bad Finals, don't look at Hornacek's.

Hornacek was going up against GOAT Bulls defense as end prime. Klay was in a perfect spot to light Cleveland up... who didn't even have a good defense... average rank. But he shit bed. Fully at his peak.

[Tavr]

I mean, Klay was a pretty good defender but never lockdown or anything. Not sure I would call him "elite" either. His DRAPM splits even during his prime years were barely positive and actually hovered around a net negative. I understand there's regression in defensive rapm, but this is MULTIPLE seasons so its less noisy.

Unlike Draymond, Klay's impact on that end is grossly exaggerated.

[sdot_thadon]

Klay didn't shoot as well in the playoffs as you guys think he did. He produced on 56 TS as a 3pt shooter in a video game era. Jeff produced on 57+ TS in a much uglier setting. This is over huge sample size in the playoffs. And Klay saved his worst for last usually as he never had a great Finals.

His slight advantage in man defense doesn't give him an edge over guys who out rebound him, out playmake him, and outshoot him. Like Jeff. But Hornacek isn't half as decorated accolade wise because he never enjoyed the winning spotlight Klay did.

Slight advantage in man defense is an all defense selection. Thats not slight at all, thats being one of the top defenders in the league for a season. Klay has had 16 30 point games in his playoff career, one 40 point game. Jeff has 6 30 point games in his playoff career. Cmon man this is getting more ridiculous by the second. Winning spotlight my ass. You've further downgraded yourself just repeating that nonsense.

[3ba11]

Slight advantage in man defense is an all defense selection. Thats not slight at all, thats being one of the top defenders in the league for a season. Klay has had 16 30 point games in his playoff career, one 40 point game. Jeff has 6 30 point games in his playoff career. Cmon man this is getting more ridiculous by the second. Winning spotlight my ass. You've further downgraded yourself just repeating that nonsense.


Hornacek destroys Klay in the regular season and playoffs, across the board, and by wide margins - PER, BPM, WS/48, VORP.

Klay's inferiority to Hornacek is why the Warriors had +2800 odds in the 15' preseason and no one thought they had a good roster... So the 67 and 73 wins means that Curry did a goat thing, not Lebron.. Lebron doesn't deserve props for beating a 1-man team with the only "big 3" super-team in the league and the preseason favorite. Lebron shouldn't get credit for beating a 1-man team with the only big 3 super-team in the league and the preseason favorite.

[Lebron23]

Klay Thompson is better than Hornacek. He puts up better numbers as a 3rd option than Hornacek as a 2nd offensive option.

[3ba11]

Klay Thompson is better than Hornacek.

He puts up better numbers





Stahp it



Regular Season

Hornacek (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hornaje01.html)'.... 17.7 PER.. 2.9 bpm.. 0.153 ws/48.. 42.1 vorp.. 15/3/5 on 58.2 ts
Klay (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01.html)............ 16.4 PER.. 0.7 bpm.. 0.110 ws/48.. 14.4 vorp.. 19/3/2 on 57.5 ts


Playoffs

Hornacek (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hornaje01.html)'.... 16.5 PER.. 3.1 bpm.. 0.145 ws/48.. 14.1 vorp.. 15/4/4 on 57.5 ts
Klay (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01.html)............ 14.4 PER.. 0.7 bpm.. 0.091 ws/48.... 3.1 vorp.. 19/3/2 on 56.0 ts

[Axe]

Stahp it



Regular Season

Hornacek (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hornaje01.html)'.... 17.7 PER.. 2.9 bpm.. 0.153 ws/48.. 42.1 vorp.. 15/3/5 on 58.2 ts
Klay (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01.html)............ 16.4 PER.. 0.7 bpm.. 0.110 ws/48.. 14.4 vorp.. 19/3/2 on 57.5 ts


Playoffs

Hornacek (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hornaje01.html)'.... 16.5 PER.. 3.1 bpm.. 0.145 ws/48.. 14.1 vorp.. 15/4/4 on 57.5 ts
Klay (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01.html)............ 14.4 PER.. 0.7 bpm.. 0.091 ws/48.... 3.1 vorp.. 19/3/2 on 56.0 ts
https://i.ibb.co/XZ5qVsYf/Screenshot-20250703-235925.jpg (https://i.ibb.co/JmpGnKz/IMG-20230528-095117.jpg)

[1987_Lakers]

Klay Thompson is better than Hornacek. He puts up better numbers as a 3rd option than Hornacek as a 2nd offensive option.

This

[warriorfan]

This

You are quoting lebron 23

you lost my little bro

[1987_Lakers]

You are quoting lebron 23

you lost my little bro

He knows more ball than you.

[warriorfan]

He knows more ball than you.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?507104-Have-any-of-you-guys-heard-the-theory-that-the-Moon-is-a-Spaceship

[1987_Lakers]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?507104-Have-any-of-you-guys-heard-the-theory-that-the-Moon-is-a-Spaceship

Seems like most people in that thread enjoyed the content I brought to their attention. I’m about to make a thread about Saturn next.

[Hey Yo]

You're forgetting that true franchise players like Curry or Love are dominant elite producers, so they make All-NBA without any playoff success... Otoh, secondary producers like Klay or Pippen needed titles to make All-NBA, similar to Manu, Parker, Pau, Dumars or Worthy - they needed winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA.. And no one got more winning spotlight than Klay - he never produced anywhere near Jeff Hornacek, but the winning spotlight inflated him to all-time status and media accolade.. Contrastingly, Jeff didn't get this benefit of getting carried to titles early in his career like Klay, and making All-NBA thereafter.. If Klay was barely scraping 20 ppg while losing on the Wizards, he might not make a single all-star game - the numbers show that he's a 1-dimensional player on offense that doesn't get to the line or pass.
You've called Bosh a franchise player many times and he had zero playoff success in Toronto but only named to one All-NBA team his first 7yrs. Then had the most playoff success in his career with Miami and never made All-NBA.

Your theories are dumb.

[3ba11]

You've called Bosh a franchise player many times and he had zero playoff success in Toronto but only named to one All-NBA team his first 7yrs. Then had the most playoff success in his career with Miami and never made All-NBA.

Your theories are dumb.


It's common knowledge that Bosh was 3rd option in Miami, so they almost never make All-NBA, while Lebron's skillset always destroys 3rd options like Love, Jamison, Kuzma or Bosh.

Secondly, the fact that Bosh made All-NBA as 1st option without playoff success shows that he's dominant, so the playoff success aspect didn't matter.... Franchise players like Curry, Bosh or Love are dominant producers, so they make All-NBA without any playoff success... Otoh, secondary producers like Klay or Pippen needed titles to make All-NBA, similar to Manu, Parker, Pau, Dumars or Worthy - they needed winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA.. And no one got more winning spotlight than Klay - he never produced anywhere near Jeff Hornacek, but the winning spotlight inflated him to all-time status and media accolade..

Contrastingly, Jeff didn't get this benefit of getting carried to titles early in his career like Klay, and making All-NBA thereafter.. If Klay was barely scraping 20 ppg while losing on the Wizards, he might not make a single all-star game - the numbers show that he's a 1-dimensional player on offense that doesn't get to the line or pass.

[Phoenix]

Otoh, secondary producers like Klay or Pippen needed titles to make All-NBA, similar to Manu, Parker, Pau, Dumars or Worthy - they needed winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA.. And no one got more winning spotlight than Klay



You're arguing that these guys got all-nba nods specifically because of titles won granting them a 'winning spotlight' , but here's some interesting nuggets of info showing all-nba voting patterns for these players:

Klay made his first all-nba third team for the 2015 season, which is determined before the champion is crowned in June. So in essence, the Warriors could have not won that title and Klay still would have made the third team, ergo his first selection wasn't dependent on winning a title. He made it again in 2016 and then lost in the finals, but not in 2017 or 18 while GS was winning and Klay's production was virtually identical even with Durant's addition. So why didn't the 'winning spotlight' apply when the Warriors were going back to back? In 2015 as 2nd option he was 22/3/3 59%. in 2017 he was 22/4/2 59% and in 2018 20/4/3 60% TS. The 'winning' spotlight *while he was actually winning* couldn't get him in over guys like Derozan and Jimmy Butler those years who hadn't then and still haven't won a title? The 'winning spotlight' didn't work in 2023 after he won a title in 2022, averaging virtually the same 22/4/2 58% numbers he was dropping between 2015 and 2018? You say the 'winning spotlight' inflated Klay to all-time status; perhaps you'll be good enough to point out his name on the top 75 list because I seem to have missed it.

Joe Dumars made his first all-nba in 1990 after winning in 89.... he also made it in 93, three years after the last Pistons title and Detroit went 40-42 that years. So you're arguing that Dumars winning a title in 1990 was still carrying 'winning spotlight' cache three years later on a Pistons team that couldn't even break .500?

That Pau Gasol getting 2nd team on the Bulls in 2015 was residual 'winning spotlight' for titles he last won on the Lakers in 2010?

That Tony Parker's first all-nba nod in 2009 was a 'winning spotlight' perk for a title he last won in 2007? Did the voters give him preemptive 'winning spotlight' selections in 2012 and 2013 because they anticipated he'd next win in 2014? Why wasn't he all-nba in 2006 when his numbers were comparable to 2012-2014( his 2014 numbers were actually worse than 2006, especially scoring), and he had already won titles in 2003 and 2005? Winning spotlight didn't apply then?

James Worthy has two all-nba selections, in 1990 and 91. Why didn't the 'winning spotlight' get him selected in 1989 right after winning in 1988( WITH the finals MVP to boot)?

Manu has two all-nba nods. The first was in 2008 which you'll correlate with him winning in 2007( this actually coincided with an increase in role and minutes, but you'll ignore that). His 2nd selection came in 2011, 4 years after his last title and 3 years before his next and final one in 2014. So what would the 2011 all-nba selection be as far as 'winning spotlight'? Residual from his 2007 title, or preemptive for his 2014 one? Why didn't he get 'winning spotlight' all-nba nods for 2006 and 2007 coming off the 2005 title, especially given how well he played in the finals?

It's almost like these awards are handed out moreso based within the context of how good a player was in a given season as compared to other players, and winning a title as a 'secondary producer' doesn't carry the weight you think it does as far as these selections, especially when many of the selections fall well outside of a range where a player would reasonably get some kind of residual effect from winning a title. Gasol wasn't getting 'winning spotlight' all-nba picks in 2015 for shit he was doing in 2010 on a different team.The fact that Klay was winning in 2017 and 2018 averaging basically the same numbers as 2015 and 2016, and didn't sniff the all-NBA team, means the 'winning spotlight' didn't prevent the voters from concluding that Demar Derozan and Jimmy Butler were better that year at the guard spot and more deserving. And the reality is that Klay getting voted to his first all-NBA team in 2015 before the season concluded with the Warriors winning, but then doesn't get voted in for 2017, 2018 and 2023 proves 'winning spotlight' has sweet fukk all to do with it, or else he'd have 4-5 all-nba selections on his resume.

[sdot_thadon]

You're arguing that these guys got all-nba nods specifically because of titles won granting them a 'winning spotlight' , but here's some interesting nuggets of info showing all-nba voting patterns for these players:

Klay made his first all-nba third team for the 2015 season, which is determined before the champion is crowned in June. So in essence, the Warriors could have not won that title and Klay still would have made the third team, ergo his first selection wasn't dependent on winning a title. He made it again in 2016 and then lost in the finals, but not in 2017 or 18 while GS was winning and Klay's production was virtually identical even with Durant's addition. So why didn't the 'winning spotlight' apply when the Warriors were going back to back? In 2015 as 2nd option he was 22/3/3 59%. in 2017 he was 22/4/2 59% and in 2018 20/4/3 60% TS. The 'winning' spotlight *while he was actually winning* couldn't get him in over guys like Derozan and Jimmy Butler those years who hadn't then and still haven't won a title? The 'winning spotlight' didn't work in 2023 after he won a title in 2022, averaging virtually the same 22/4/2 58% numbers he was dropping between 2015 and 2018? You say the 'winning spotlight' inflated Klay to all-time status; perhaps you'll be good enough to point out his name on the top 75 list because I seem to have missed it.

Joe Dumars made his first all-nba in 1990 after winning in 89.... he also made it in 93, three years after the last Pistons title and Detroit went 40-42 that years. So you're arguing that Dumars winning a title in 1990 was still carrying 'winning spotlight' cache three years later on a Pistons team that couldn't even break .500?

That Pau Gasol getting 2nd team on the Bulls in 2015 was residual 'winning spotlight' for titles he last won on the Lakers in 2010?

That Tony Parker's first all-nba nod in 2009 was a 'winning spotlight' perk for a title he last won in 2007? Did the voters give him preemptive 'winning spotlight' selections in 2012 and 2013 because they anticipated he'd next win in 2014? Why wasn't he all-nba in 2006 when his numbers were comparable to 2012-2014( his 2014 numbers were actually worse than 2006, especially scoring), and he had already won titles in 2003 and 2005? Winning spotlight didn't apply then?

James Worthy has two all-nba selections, in 1990 and 91. Why didn't the 'winning spotlight' get him selected in 1989 right after winning in 1988( WITH the finals MVP to boot)?

Manu has two all-nba nods. The first was in 2008 which you'll correlate with him winning in 2007( this actually coincided with an increase in role and minutes, but you'll ignore that). His 2nd selection came in 2011, 4 years after his last title and 3 years before his next and final one in 2014. So what would the 2011 all-nba selection be as far as 'winning spotlight'? Residual from his 2007 title, or preemptive for his 2014 one? Why didn't he get 'winning spotlight' all-nba nods for 2006 and 2007 coming off the 2005 title, especially given how well he played in the finals?

It's almost like these awards are handed out moreso based within the context of how good a player was in a given season as compared to other players, and winning a title as a 'secondary producer' doesn't carry the weight you think it does as far as these selections, especially when many of the selections fall well outside of a range where a player would reasonably get some kind of residual effect from winning a title. Gasol wasn't getting 'winning spotlight' all-nba picks in 2015 for shit he was doing in 2010 on a different team.The fact that Klay was winning in 2017 and 2018 averaging basically the same numbers as 2015 and 2016, and didn't sniff the all-NBA team, means the 'winning spotlight' didn't prevent the voters from concluding that Demar Derozan and Jimmy Butler were better that year at the guard spot and more deserving. And the reality is that Klay getting voted to his first all-NBA team in 2015 before the season concluded with the Warriors winning, but then doesn't get voted in for 2017, 2018 and 2023 proves 'winning spotlight' has sweet fukk all to do with it, or else he'd have 4-5 all-nba selections on his resume.

I.mentioned this earlier a few pages back, but you took a sledgehammer to it.:applause:

Also I supposed the winning spotlight made Scottie an all star in 90 and made him all defense in 91, before rhey ever won too.....stupid narratives always get torpedoed once someone can be bothered to give facts.

[Phoenix]

I.mentioned this earlier a few pages back, but you took a sledgehammer to it.:applause:

Also I supposed the winning spotlight made Scottie an all star in 90 and made him all defense in 91, before rhey ever won too.....stupid narratives always get torpedoed once someone can be bothered to give facts.

Exactly. He's engineered this whole 'winning spotlight' thing to discredit Pippen's all-NBA nods. And even then, if he wanted to argue that Pippen was all-nba in 94 because of the 'winning spotlight' from the 91-93 titles and not based on his play that season, then why was he also all-NBA in 95 coming off 94 when he lost in the 2nd round? Why didn't he make a single all-NBA team in 93 coming off the 92 title? How did he make the third team in 98 playing 44 games and a worse overall season than 93? How does this 'winning spotlight' work, exactly?

Why was Kevin Willis on the third team in 92? He hadn't won a NBA title at that point( and he wouldn't win one until he was a 40 year old roleplayer on the Spurs in 2003, so the voters really did him a solid voting him in on the 'winning spotlight' premise 11 years later). Why was Gary Payton on the 94 third team as a secondary producer? Guess the voters were getting ahead of him winning a title in 2006 coming off the bench for Miami? Detlef Scrempf on the 95 third team? Juwan Howard on the 96 third team? Rod Strickland on the 98 second team? What 'winning spotlight' was being applied to Anthony Mason being voted onto the 97 third team averaging 16/11 on a Hornets team that got swept in the first round, while Horace Grant doesn't get the same accolade winning titles in 92 averaging 14/10, or coming off a title in 93 averaging 15/11?

EDIT: I just realized, the same way Klay's first all-NBA was decided right before winning the title in June 2015, Gasol's first all-NBA was in the 09 season. The Lakers won that year, but had also lost in the finals the year before, so Gasol getting voted onto the 09 third team( as with Klay) happened a few months before he would win his first title. At best you could say playing for the Lakers raised his profile, but just like Bosh with the Raptors, Gasol was the best player on a middle of the road team. Pau's scoring( something 3ball cherishes) was actually higher on the Grizzlies than on the Lakers. So what was really the difference between Bosh making 2nd team in 07 dropping 23/11 on a 47 win Raptors team, and Gasol dropping 20/9 on a 49 win Grizz squad in 06 and getting nothing? There's a small stat difference but I doubt that was the deciding factor. I can point to one very obvious difference, and that's Bosh playing in the east with Jermaine Oneal as the only real all-star level PF dropping those kinds of numbers, while Gasol was in the west playing prime Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Amare, Elton Brand, Zach Randolph 4 times a year. I'd bet good money that if Gasol was in the east back then he'd have at least made all-NBA third team before he even got to the Lakers, and Bosh in the west wouldn't have sniffed it.

[3ba11]

I.mentioned this earlier a few pages back, but you took a sledgehammer to it.:applause:

Also I supposed the winning spotlight made Scottie an all star in 90 and made him all defense in 91, before rhey ever won too.....stupid narratives always get torpedoed once someone can be bothered to give facts.


Winning spotlight can be a lot of things, such as a team taking the league by storm, which allowed Mo to make all-star in 2009, or Wiggins in 2022, or Klay in 2015... Mo doesn't make jack-shit if he's losing on the Bucks, or barely winning 40 games like the 08' Cavs... Similarly, Klay's "worse than Jeff Hornacek" stats wouldn't make a single all-star game without the winning spotlight, or Wiggins in 2022 is another great example of winning spotlight inflation.

In addition to allowing Wiggins, Mo, and Klay to make all-star games, winning spotlight is also needed to get secondary producers All-NBA status, especially winning sidekicks like Klay, Pippen, Pau, Manu, Parker, Worthy or Dumars... In contrast to secondary producers needing winning spotlight, elite producers don't need winning spotlight or any playoff success to make All-NBA, such as Love, Bosh, AD, Curry, Jokic, KAT and more - dominant producers don't need winning spotlight or playoff success to make All-NBA, but secondary producers like Klay or Pippen do...

This historical record has been explained many times, yet guys with bad reading comp like Phoenix miss it, so they post a bunch of garbage above.. But you should get the gist of it with this post... And the reason that Kevin Willis can make All-NBA is because dominant producers don't need winning spotlight to make All-NBA, and 16 rebounds is dominant (18/16).. Otoh, secondary producers don't have elite stats in ppg, rpg or apg, so they need winning spotlight to make All-NBA, or even all-star in many instances..

[Axe]

Zenmaster > doug collins

Fight me.

https://i.ibb.co/JmpGnKz/IMG-20230528-095117.jpg

[3ba11]

https://i.ibb.co/JmpGnKz/IMG-20230528-095117.jpg


Zenmaster > doug collins

Fight me.






Jordan's shot attempts, usage and scoring rate increased in the triangle as shown below:




Regular Season

85-89' Jordan (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1985-1989-sum:per_poss)........ 41.5 pts per 100.... 29.5 FGA per 100..... 33.8 (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1985-1989-sum:advanced) usage
90-93' Jordan (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1990-1993-sum:per_poss)........ 42.0 pts per 100.... 31.1 FGA per 100..... 33.2 (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1990-1993-sum:advanced) usage


Playoffs

85-89' Jordan (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1985-1989-sum:per_poss_post)........ 42.9 pts per 100.... 29.7 FGA per 100..... 35.1 (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1985-1988-sum:advanced_post) usage
90-93' Jordan (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1990-1993-sum:per_poss_post)........ 44.4 pts per 100.... 33.4 FGA per 100..... 36.1 (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1990-1993-sum:advanced_post) usage


Finals

91-93' Jordan (https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=michael+jordan+averages+in+the+1990-91+to+1992-93%27+finals)........ 36.3 PPG...... 35.9 (https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=michael+jordan+usage+rate+in+1990-91+to+1992-93+finals) usage



The Pistons were 22-1 in the 89' and 90' Playoffs against other teams, but only 8-5 against the Bulls..

So Jordan had already developed the Bulls to the 2nd or 3rd-best team in the league by the end of the 89' Playoffs despite Pippen being bad and Phil yet to arrive.. Phil inherited a team on the cusp of the Finals and the steepest trajectory in the league.

[Phoenix]

Winning spotlight can be a lot of things, such as a team taking the league by storm, which allowed Mo to make all-star in 2009, or Wiggins in 2022, or Klay in 2015... Mo doesn't make jack-shit if he's losing on the Bucks, or barely winning 40 games like the 08' Cavs... Similarly, Klay's "worse than Jeff Hornacek" stats wouldn't make a single all-star game without the winning spotlight, or Wiggins in 2022 is another great example of winning spotlight inflation.

In addition to allowing Wiggins, Mo, and Klay to make all-star games, winning spotlight is also needed to get secondary producers All-NBA status, especially winning sidekicks like Klay, Pippen, Pau, Manu, Parker, Worthy or Dumars... In contrast to secondary producers needing winning spotlight, elite producers don't need winning spotlight or any playoff success to make All-NBA, such as Love, Bosh, AD, Curry, Jokic, KAT and more - dominant producers don't need winning spotlight or playoff success to make All-NBA, but secondary producers like Klay or Pippen do...

This historical record has been explained many times, yet guys with bad reading comp like Phoenix miss it, so they post a bunch of garbage above.. But you should get the gist of it with this post... And the reason that Kevin Willis can make All-NBA is because dominant producers don't need winning spotlight to make All-NBA, and 16 rebounds is dominant (18/16).. Otoh, secondary producers don't have elite stats in ppg, rpg or apg, so they need winning spotlight to make All-NBA, or even all-star in many instances..

Lol this little bitch thought he'd sneak in a dig at me in a post addressed to someone else instead of quoting my posts directly. Bitch behavior, just like you running away from the post the first time. I understood exactly what you said before, and it's garbage. First, you're just now adding all this mental gymnastics garbage like 'taking the league by storm' because your prior 'winning spotlight' arguments didn't have that context. Here's the FACTS after which I'll strip down your narratives to again show how full of shit you are:

FACTS are Klay Thompson was voted onto his first all-nba team averaging 22/3/3 in 2015 before the Warriors won the title. His scoring jumped from 18 in 2014 to 22 in 2015, which will tend to get you in line for possible All-NBA especially if your team has a good/great record. The voters considered that his performance played enough of a role in the Warriors season to warrant all-NBA before they won two months later. That's how voters think, not your drug-induced thought patterns.

FACTS are that Joe Dumars was voted all-nba in 1993 THREE YEARS after winning a title averaging 24/4/2 on a team that won 40 games. Those aren't dominant numbers, and 40 wins isn't taking the league by storm individually or team-wise. The voters weren't going in 1993 "you see Joe Dumars? Let's reward him for the 1990 title. Wait, Pistons only won 40 games? Not a problem, WINNING SPOTLIGHT from 3 years ago!"

FACTS are Jimmy Butler was voted all-nba in 2018 averaging 22/5/4, that is neither dominant production nor taking the league by storm( Wolves won 47 games and the 8th seed). That's the same 'secondary' production PPG you shit on Scottie for in 94, except Scottie averaged 9 rebound and 6 assists (both firsts among small forwards that year) and 2nd overall in steals.

FACTS are Anthony Mason made all NBA averaging 16/11 on a 54 win Hornets team, that's not taking the league by storm nor the 'dominant' production of 16 rebounds you tried to apply to Kevin Willis, and is weak 'secondary' scoring production. By the way, Willis didn't make the all-NBA team in 94 averaging 19/12 on a 57 win Hawk team. You really think the voters thought more of him dropping 18/16 on a 38 win team in 92, than 18/13 on a 45 win team in 93, or 19/12 on a 57 win team in 94? How fortunate for us that you aren't a decider of these things with your retarded takes.

FACTS are Detlef made all-nba averaging 19/6/4 in 95, secondary production on a 57 win Sonics team that had already won 63 games the year before( and he didn't get voted in all-nba that season). They were already a known factor, so there was no 'taking the league by storm' team-wise nor were his stats dominant.

FACTS are Rod Strickland made all-nba on 18/11/5, non-dominant production except for assists which wasn't that out of the park for him because he had prior years averaging 10 and not taking all-NBA, on a 42 win Bullets team( not taking the league by storm).

FACTS are James Worthy made all-NBA in 1990 and 1991 coming off seasons where the Lakers didn't win a title. If 'winning spotlight' had that much credence he would have made all-nba in 1989 immediately coming off the 1988 chip, especially when they added the third team that year and he was decisively the 2nd best Laker after Magic at this point. 'Winning spotlight' would have gotten him onto one of the all-NBAs earlier in his career, if that was actually a thing, when the Lakers were winning titles in 85 or 87 and he was averaging the same 20-21ppg 'secondary production' that got him in for 90 and 91.

Those are historical record FACTS of WHAT happened. WHY it happened with your winning spotlight narratives are just that, narratives that you can spin and twist to obfuscate and ultimately mean nothing. There's too many examples that counter your 'winning spotlight' narrative to take all-NBA voting patterns as anything but subjective year to year. At the least, they don't follow the logic of some glue-sniffing retard like you who gets out on day release frothing at the mouth to create agendas for the express purpose of discrediting certain players.

Now go back to pretending like you didn't see my post originally before I get formally charged with assault.

[sdot_thadon]

Winning spotlight can be a lot of things, such as a team taking the league by storm, which allowed Mo to make all-star in 2009, or Wiggins in 2022, or Klay in 2015... Mo doesn't make jack-shit if he's losing on the Bucks, or barely winning 40 games like the 08' Cavs... Similarly, Klay's "worse than Jeff Hornacek" stats wouldn't make a single all-star game without the winning spotlight, or Wiggins in 2022 is another great example of winning spotlight inflation.

In addition to allowing Wiggins, Mo, and Klay to make all-star games, winning spotlight is also needed to get secondary producers All-NBA status, especially winning sidekicks like Klay, Pippen, Pau, Manu, Parker, Worthy or Dumars... In contrast to secondary producers needing winning spotlight, elite producers don't need winning spotlight or any playoff success to make All-NBA, such as Love, Bosh, AD, Curry, Jokic, KAT and more - dominant producers don't need winning spotlight or playoff success to make All-NBA, but secondary producers like Klay or Pippen do...

This historical record has been explained many times, yet guys with bad reading comp like Phoenix miss it, so they post a bunch of garbage above.. But you should get the gist of it with this post... And the reason that Kevin Willis can make All-NBA is because dominant producers don't need winning spotlight to make All-NBA, and 16 rebounds is dominant (18/16).. Otoh, secondary producers don't have elite stats in ppg, rpg or apg, so they need winning spotlight to make All-NBA, or even all-star in many instances..

You kinda shine sometimes under this thing we call "retard spotlight" your content here is so terrible, that its rare anyone takes you serious.

[3ba11]

You kinda shine sometimes under this thing we call "retard spotlight" your content here is so terrible, that its rare anyone takes you serious.


Winning spotlight is real, which is why secondary producers like Klay, Mo and Pippen don't get media accolade until they get winning spotlight first, while dominant producers like Love or AD don't need winning teams or playoff success to get media accolade

This is the historical record

[warriorfan]

Winning spotlight is real, which is why secondary producers like Klay, Mo and Pippen don't get media accolade until they get winning spotlight first, while dominant producers like Love or AD don't need winning teams or playoff success to get media accolade

This is the historical record

+1 tbh

[1987_Lakers]

Lol this little bitch thought he'd sneak in a dig at me in a post addressed to someone else instead of quoting my posts directly. Bitch behavior, just like you running away from the post the first time. I understood exactly what you said before, and it's garbage. First, you're just now adding all this mental gymnastics garbage like 'taking the league by storm' because your prior 'winning spotlight' arguments didn't have that context. Here's the FACTS after which I'll strip down your narratives to again show how full of shit you are:

FACTS are Klay Thompson was voted onto his first all-nba team averaging 22/3/3 in 2015 before the Warriors won the title. His scoring jumped from 18 in 2014 to 22 in 2015, which will tend to get you in line for possible All-NBA especially if your team has a good/great record. The voters considered that his performance played enough of a role in the Warriors season to warrant all-NBA before they won two months later. That's how voters think, not your drug-induced thought patterns.

FACTS are that Joe Dumars was voted all-nba in 1993 THREE YEARS after winning a title averaging 24/4/2 on a team that won 40 games. Those aren't dominant numbers, and 40 wins isn't taking the league by storm individually or team-wise. The voters weren't going in 1993 "you see Joe Dumars? Let's reward him for the 1990 title. Wait, Pistons only won 40 games? Not a problem, WINNING SPOTLIGHT from 3 years ago!"

FACTS are Jimmy Butler was voted all-nba in 2018 averaging 22/5/4, that is neither dominant production nor taking the league by storm( Wolves won 47 games and the 8th seed). That's the same 'secondary' production PPG you shit on Scottie for in 94, except Scottie averaged 9 rebound and 6 assists (both firsts among small forwards that year) and 2nd overall in steals.

FACTS are Anthony Mason made all NBA averaging 16/11 on a 54 win Hornets team, that's not taking the league by storm nor the 'dominant' production of 16 rebounds you tried to apply to Kevin Willis, and is weak 'secondary' scoring production. By the way, Willis didn't make the all-NBA team in 94 averaging 19/12 on a 57 win Hawk team. You really think the voters thought more of him dropping 18/16 on a 38 win team in 92, than 18/13 on a 45 win team in 93, or 19/12 on a 57 win team in 94? How fortunate for us that you aren't a decider of these things with your retarded takes.

FACTS are Detlef made all-nba averaging 19/6/4 in 95, secondary production on a 57 win Sonics team that had already won 63 games the year before( and he didn't get voted in all-nba that season). They were already a known factor, so there was no 'taking the league by storm' team-wise nor were his stats dominant.

FACTS are Rod Strickland made all-nba on 18/11/5, non-dominant production except for assists which wasn't that out of the park for him because he had prior years averaging 10 and not taking all-NBA, on a 42 win Bullets team( not taking the league by storm).

FACTS are James Worthy made all-NBA in 1990 and 1991 coming off seasons where the Lakers didn't win a title. If 'winning spotlight' had that much credence he would have made all-nba in 1989 immediately coming off the 1988 chip, especially when they added the third team that year and he was decisively the 2nd best Laker after Magic at this point. 'Winning spotlight' would have gotten him onto one of the all-NBAs earlier in his career, if that was actually a thing, when the Lakers were winning titles in 85 or 87 and he was averaging the same 20-21ppg 'secondary production' that got him in for 90 and 91.

Those are historical record FACTS of WHAT happened. WHY it happened with your winning spotlight narratives are just that, narratives that you can spin and twist to obfuscate and ultimately mean nothing. There's too many examples that counter your 'winning spotlight' narrative to take all-NBA voting patterns as anything but subjective year to year. At the least, they don't follow the logic of some glue-sniffing retard like you who gets out on day release frothing at the mouth to create agendas for the express purpose of discrediting certain players.

Now go back to pretending like you didn't see my post originally before I get formally charged with assault.

3ball wanted no smoke

[warriorfan]

3ball wanted no smoke

Where are the facts of klay being an elite defender?

Lol.

[1987_Lakers]

Where are the facts of klay being an elite defender?

Lol.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y589G84w03E

[warriorfan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y589G84w03E

Dude is some nerd who never played basketball and says KG is top 10 of all time

Invalidates anything he says. Not even gonna listen to any of that nonsense. Also funny you have such a low ball iq and normal iq you can’t even articulate your own ideas in your own words.

Yikes.

[1987_Lakers]

Dude is some nerd who never played basketball and says KG is top 10 of all time

Invalidates anything he says. Not even gonna listen to any of that nonsense. Also funny you have such a low ball iq and normal iq you can’t even articulate your own ideas in your own words.

Yikes.

We have already been through this. I already stated my ideas and provided proof with the vid, that has actual data. Almost everyone in this thread agrees with my assessment. The only people who don't are you and 3ball, you know it's bad when you side with 3ball. If you want to keep talking in circles like a woman on her period, go for it.

[warriorfan]

We have already been through this. I already stated my ideas and provided proof with the vid, that has actual data. Almost everyone in this thread agrees with my assessment. The only people who don't are you and 3ball, you know it's bad when you side with 3ball. If you want to keep talking in circles like a woman on her period, go for it.

You watched a half baked low iq youtube video and then interpreted it as it was your own idea, because you are low iq and susceptible to such nonsense.

You have low iq and even lower ball iq.

[Axe]

No klay, no slay.


If you want to keep talking in circles like a woman on her period, go for it.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/image.php?u=827668&dateline=1624237688&type=thumb (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPZqPRPHIF2xVI5uiUFQ7DcZyo3SNqM MQAlw&usqp=CAU)

[1987_Lakers]

You watched a half baked low iq youtube video and then interpreted it as it was your own idea, because you are low iq and susceptible to such nonsense.

You have low iq and even lower ball iq.

I actually found the vid right after I posted my analysis in the first page. Vid just supported everything I said, which means we are both high IQ.

[3ba11]

3ball wanted no smoke


I saw no need to go point for point with him because nothing he said refuted the original point that winning spotlight is real, which is why secondary producers like Klay, Mo and Pippen don't get media accolade until they get winning spotlight first... Meanwhile, true franchise players and dominant producers like Love, KAT, or AD don't need winning teams or playoff success to get media accolade.

Ultimately, the stats tell the story - Klay and Pippen were carried, which means that the original point stands, i.e. Klay was a lower producer than Hornacek and the Warriors had a trashy +2800 preseason roster, so the 73 wins means Curry is goat-like, not that the roster was stacked - aka Lebron beat a 1-man team with a "big 3" preseason favorite.

[warriorfan]

I actually found the vid right after I posted my analysis in the first page. Vid just supported everything I said, which means we are both high IQ.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

just like you weren’t a legit obese child who never played ball :roll:

ya, okay

[1987_Lakers]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

just like you weren’t a legit obese child who never played ball :roll:

ya, okay

I have no reason to lie. My eye test is strong, my analysis was even confirmed by most posters in this thread and Ben Taylor aka "thinking basketball" who is by far the best NBA analyst out there.

Edit: Notice in my first post I brought up my memory about his defense in 2017, I then looked up his defense on YouTube that year and immediately saw a vid of him playing great man D on Kyrie in the Finals. I have exceptional memory.

[warriorfan]

I have no reason to lie. My eye test is strong, my analysis was even confirmed by most posters in this thread and Ben Taylor aka "thinking basketball" who is by far the best NBA analyst out there.

Edit: Notice in my first post I brought up my memory about his defense in 2017, I then looked up his defense on YouTube that year and immediately saw a vid of him playing great man D on Kyrie in the Finals. I have exceptional memory.

This is the most low iq shit i’ve ever read.

lmfao

[1987_Lakers]

This is the most low iq shit i’ve ever read.

lmfao

Truth hurts

[warriorfan]

Truth hurts

Yeah, you were an obese kid who never hooped and have a room temp iq level who literally thinks the moon is a spaceship

[SouBeachTalents]

Dude is some nerd who never played basketball and says KG is top 10 of all time

Invalidates anything he says. Not even gonna listen to any of that nonsense. Also funny you have such a low ball iq and normal iq you can’t even articulate your own ideas in your own words.

Yikes.
Tbf though you were genuinely arguing for a while Chris Bosh was better than still prime/FMVP Kobe, that's worse than claiming KG is top 10 all time.

[1987_Lakers]

Yeah, you were an obese kid who never hooped and have a room temp iq level who literally thinks the moon is a spaceship

I was referring to your crack use.

[1987_Lakers]

Tbf though you were genuinely arguing for a while Chris Bosh was better than still prime/FMVP Kobe, that's worse than claiming KG is top 10 all time.

:roll:

Low IQ

[3ba11]

Ben Taylor aka "thinking basketball" who is by far the best NBA analyst out there.





Bro please stop with the debunked Ben Taylor - he was debunked when he said that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 75th percentile (better than 75% of casts) - this is still worse than 1 in 4 casts (7 of 28 teams), which is all 2nd Round opponents, aka 1st Round caliber... TLDR: Ben Taylor said that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber (timestamp to 75th percentile remark here (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGDLV-do9c&t=12m00s))

Btw, Taylor's claim is that Jordan's impact isn't that high, except Taylor's numbers use different casts and guys that MJ never played with - Kukoc was the leader in Box Plus minus (BPM) for the 94' Playoffs, so he impacted differentials the most, but Jordan never played with him, which makes Taylor's numbers completely bogus - Kukoc wasn't some tiny role player that barely impacted the game - he was the team leader in BPM and closer, while every other position had been upgraded with guys that MJ never played with (Longley, Kerr, Harper, etc).. So Taylor is a buffoon and amateur with bogus "analysis".. aka sophistry to fool the nascent.. Again, Taylor says that MJ's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber, while the 88-90' and 2nd three-peat casts are actually among the worst in the league - this is what his own (bogus) numbers show, even with the Kukoc/new cast issue.

[warriorfan]

Bro please stop with the debunked Ben Taylor - he was debunked when he said that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 75th percentile (better than 75% of casts) - this is still worse than 1 in 4 casts (7 of 28 teams), which is all 2nd Round opponents, aka 1st Round caliber... TLDR: Ben Taylor said that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber (timestamp to 75th percentile remark here (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGDLV-do9c&t=12m00s))

Btw, Taylor's claim is that Jordan's impact isn't that high, except Taylor's numbers use different casts and guys that MJ never played with - Kukoc was the leader in Box Plus minus (BPM) for the 94' Playoffs, so he impacted differentials the most, but Jordan never played with him, which makes Taylor's numbers completely bogus - Kukoc wasn't some tiny role player that barely impacted the game - he was the team leader in BPM and closer, while every other position had been upgraded with guys that MJ never played with (Longley, Kerr, Harper, etc).. So Taylor is a buffoon and amateur with bogus "analysis".. aka sophistry to fool the nascent.. Again, Taylor says that MJ's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber, while the 88-90' and 2nd three-peat casts are actually among the worst in the league - this is what his own (bogus) numbers show, even with the Kukoc/new cast issue.

I used to ether his ass on realgm well over 10 years ago

He is a clown

[1987_Lakers]

Bro please stop with the debunked Ben Taylor - he was debunked when he said that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 75th percentile (better than 75% of casts) - this is still worse than 1 in 4 casts (7 of 28 teams), which is all 2nd Round opponents, aka 1st Round caliber... TLDR: Ben Taylor said that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber (timestamp to 75th percentile remark here (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGDLV-do9c&t=12m00s))

Btw, Taylor's claim is that Jordan's impact isn't that high, except Taylor's numbers use different casts and guys that MJ never played with - Kukoc was the leader in Box Plus minus (BPM) for the 94' Playoffs, so he impacted differentials the most, but Jordan never played with him, which makes Taylor's numbers completely bogus - Kukoc wasn't some tiny role player that barely impacted the game - he was the team leader in BPM and closer, while every other position had been upgraded with guys that MJ never played with (Longley, Kerr, Harper, etc).. So Taylor is a buffoon and amateur with bogus "analysis".. aka sophistry to fool the nascent.. Again, Taylor says that MJ's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber, while the 88-90' and 2nd three-peat casts are actually among the worst in the league - this is what his own (bogus) numbers show, even with the Kukoc/new cast issue.

The funny thing is, Ben Taylor still had MJ #1 in his all-time peaks project, but that still isn't good enough for you weirdos.

[1987_Lakers]

I used to ether his ass on realgm well over 10 years ago

He is a clown

Only person you ethered is yourself in that "Curry wins 2015 FMVP thread".

[warriorfan]

Only person you ethered is yourself in that "Curry wins 2015 FMVP thread".

Yah man, Iguodala was more irreplaceable than Steph Curry

:roll: :roll: :roll:

You will always be a low iq fat kid at heart

[1987_Lakers]

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Pq_Z-7g-lt5X4_7j9Ch3RrITNC0=/0x179:3427x2107/1600x900/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/46573820/usa-today-8638745.0.jpg

[3ba11]

The funny thing is, Ben Taylor still had MJ #1 in his all-time peaks project, but that still isn't good enough for you weirdos.

Taylor's a weirdo - he puts out a video that is meant to boost Jordan's cast, yet it actually takes a dump on them and uses bogus numbers/different casts (guys that MJ never played with)

[1987_Lakers]

Taylor's a weirdo

You have literally made hundreds of threads about the same topics for a decade now.

Where is the self awareness?

[3ba11]

You have literally made hundreds of threads about the same topics for a decade now.

Where is the self awareness?


That's not weird

Otoh, it's weird to put out a video that is meant to boost Jordan's cast, yet it actually takes a dump on them and uses bogus numbers/different casts (guys that MJ never played with)

[1987_Lakers]

That's not weird

:oldlol:

[RRR3]

That's not weird
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[sdot_thadon]

Taylor's a weirdo - he puts out a video that is meant to boost Jordan's cast, yet it actually takes a dump on them and uses bogus numbers/different casts (guys that MJ never played with)

Bwhahahah Bro, you been running around on the net more than a decade solid spewing hundreds of thousands of posts like a deranged chap gpt that answers questions nobody asks about only one subject.

[1987_Lakers]

LeBron fam wins again.

[Phoenix]

I saw no need to go point for point with him because nothing he said refuted the original point that winning spotlight is real, which is why secondary producers like Klay, Mo and Pippen don't get media accolade until they get winning spotlight first... Meanwhile, true franchise players and dominant producers like Love, KAT, or AD don't need winning teams or playoff success to get media accolade.

Ultimately, the stats tell the story - Klay and Pippen were carried, which means that the original point stands, i.e. Klay was a lower producer than Hornacek and the Warriors had a trashy +2800 preseason roster, so the 73 wins means Curry is goat-like, not that the roster was stacked - aka Lebron beat a 1-man team with a "big 3" preseason favorite.

The historical record shows you go back and forth with people regardless of whether you think they 'refuted' your point or otherwise because you're an attention seeking whore. The reality is you have no real counters to what I'm saying so you retreat into 'I don't need to reply' bitch mode, yet you're replying to Sdot_Thadon who agrees with me and hoping I'm not observant enough to notice. :oldlol:

[sdot_thadon]

The historical record shows you go back and forth with people regardless of whether you think they 'refuted' your point or otherwise because you're an attention seeking whore. The reality is you have no real counters to what I'm saying so you retreat into 'I don't need to reply' bitch mode, yet you're replying to Sdot_Thadon who agrees with me and hoping I'm not observant enough to notice. :oldlol:

Oh nah, you sent him running to start 5 more threads in hopes that this one disappears :oldlol:

[ShawkFactory]

The historical record shows you go back and forth with people regardless of whether you think they 'refuted' your point or otherwise because you're an attention seeking whore. The reality is you have no real counters to what I'm saying so you retreat into 'I don't need to reply' bitch mode, yet you're replying to Sdot_Thadon who agrees with me and hoping I'm not observant enough to notice. :oldlol:

I don't think he's of the opinion that crushing supporting arguments for a main point constitutes as crushing the point. He'll always bring the main thing up to hold onto.

Just basic logic not being followed :lol

But you're right, it's not really about that but about the responses in general.

[3ba11]

The historical record shows you go back and forth with people regardless of whether you think they 'refuted' your point or otherwise because you're an attention seeking whore. The reality is you have no real counters to what I'm saying so you retreat into 'I don't need to reply' bitch mode, yet you're replying to Sdot_Thadon who agrees with me and hoping I'm not observant enough to notice. :oldlol:


I appreciate your vetting and here's what I've come up with in response to your questions:

Aside from defensive centers (i.e. Gobert) and 8+ APG point guards (Rod Strickland or Stockton), every All-NBA selection since the play-by-play era began was a 1st option for the vast majority of their career and known as a 1st option.

The only exceptions are 2nd options like Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, Draymond and Kyrie, so they were simply propped up by winning spotlight... Lowry in 2016 is another exception (Raptors surprised everyone with 56 wins in 16').

So again - Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, Wiggins, Mo, and Dumars are examples of 2nd options that needed winning spotlight to attain All-NBA or all-star, which are normally reserved for 1st options..

[SouBeachTalents]

I appreciate your vetting and here's what I've come up with in response to your questions:

Aside from defensive centers (i.e. Gobert) and 8+ APG point guards (Rod Strickland or Stockton), every All-NBA selection since the play-by-play era began was a 1st option for the vast majority of their career and known as a 1st option.

The only exceptions are 2nd options like Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, Draymond and Kyrie, so they were simply propped up by winning spotlight... Lowry in 2016 is another exception (Raptors surprised everyone with 56 wins in 16').

So again - Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, Wiggins, Mo, and Dumars are examples of 2nd options that needed winning spotlight to attain All-NBA or all-star, which are normally reserved for 1st options..
All-NBA usually goes to players on winning teams, that's some groundbreaking insight there.

MVP usually goes to players on winning teams as well.

[Phoenix]

I appreciate your vetting and here's what I've come up with in response to your questions:

Aside from defensive centers (i.e. Gobert) and 9 APG point guards (Rod Strickland or Stockton), every All-NBA selection since the play-by-play era began was a 1st option for the vast majority of their career and known as a 1st option.

The only exceptions are 2nd options like Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, and Kyrie, so they were simply propped up by winning spotlight... Ben Simmons in 2020 and Lowry in 2016 are also exceptions (Raptors surprised everyone with 56 wins in 16').

So again, 2nd options like Pippen, Klay, Pau, Parker, Manu, Wiggins, Mo, and Dumars are examples of 2nd options that needed winning spotlight to attain All-NBA or all-star, which are normally reserved for 1st options..

I didn't ask anything, I set the record straight and you're farting in the wind. Winning to some degree is going to play a role in all-NBA selections in general. How many guys have made the all-NBA, first or second option, on a 20 win team?

[Phoenix]

All-NBA usually goes to players on winning teams, that's some groundbreaking insight there.

MVP usually goes to players on winning teams as well.

Exactly lol. That's like arguing SGA won MVP this year because of the winning spotlight winning 67 games. Yeah, no shit.

[3ba11]

I didn't ask anything, I set the record straight and you're farting in the wind. Winning to some degree is going to play a role in all-NBA selections in general.

How many guys have made the all-NBA, first or second option, on a 20 win team?





Tons of guys make All-NBA on weak teams that are barely .500 or worse, but it requires dominant 1st options like 2005 Lebron or 85' Jordan, or 2014 Love, or AD's years in New Orleans...

Otoh, 2nd options generally don't dominate, and therefore need winning spotlight to make All-NBA..

History proves this (that 2nd options need winning spotlight), since all the 2nd options that made All-NBA since the play-by-play era started required winning spotlight (Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, Kyrie, Draymond, Lowry).. This excludes defensive centers and floor generals that average 8+ APG.

So again, 2nd options like Pippen, Klay, Pau, Parker, Manu, Wiggins, Mo, and Dumars are examples of 2nd options that needed winning spotlight to attain All-NBA or all-star, which are normally reserved for 1st options..

[Phoenix]

Tons of guys make All-NBA on weak teams that are barely .500 or worse, but it requires dominant 1st options like 2005 Lebron or 85' Jordan, or 2014 Love, or AD's years in New Orleans...

Otoh, 2nd options generally don't dominate, and therefore need winning spotlight to make All-NBA..

History proves this (that 2nd options need winning spotlight), since all the 2nd options that made All-NBA since the play-by-play era started required winning spotlight (Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, Kyrie, Draymond, Lowry).. This excludes defensive centers and floor generals that average 8+ APG.

So again, 2nd options like Pippen, Klay, Pau, Parker, Manu, Wiggins, Mo, and Dumars are examples of 2nd options that needed winning spotlight to attain All-NBA or all-star, which are normally reserved for 1st options..

Barely .500 and 20 win teams are leagues apart. Dominant first options can make all-NBA on middle of the road teams, but 20 wins? Rarely if ever and the way voters vote changes over time. Nobody on this years all-NBA won less than 44 games( Cade Cunningham). Basically if you weren't on a 'winning team' this year you weren't getting on any all-NBA, first or second option, dominant stats or 'secondary producers'. It's why Devin Booker can drop 26/7/4 and not touch all-NBA because the Suns couldn't even crack 40 wins this year. 20 years ago he'd have made the team. You had Tracey Mcgrady make 2nd team in 2004 on a 21 win Magic squad, the voters today wouldn't put him in. Trae Young has one all-NBA team on his resume in a six year career averaging 25/10, and averaged 24/12 this year. Didn't sniff the team.

I addressed those players before and showed you that the whole 'winning spotlight' thing doesn't make sense for alot of those guys based on the timelines of them winning anything and being selected. You couldn't begin to explain, for example, how 'winning spotlight' applies to why Joe Dumars would make all-NBA in 93 because his stats weren't dominant and the Pistons were too far removed from winning titles for the 'winning spotlight' to apply by then. You also can't explain why Klay would get voted onto the team in 2015 two months before winning his first title, but not in 2018 and 2023 coming off titles when the 'winning spotlight' would have been brightest and his production was the same. Nor could you explain why Kevin Willis would make third team in 92 dropping 18/16 on a 38 win team, but not averaging 19/12 on a 57 win one, because 'dominant stats' would apply in both cases but he was awarded in the losing team scenario, not the winning one. Or why James Worthy wouldn't get 'winning spotlight' recognition in 89 coming right off the 88 title, but got voted on in 90 when his stats and level of play were identical( and wasn't getting all-NBA nods in the mid 80s when the Lakers were winning titles). You can repeat yourself and I'm going to simply repeat that those cases and others I mentioned earlier don't align with what you're saying.

[warriorfan]

Barely .500 and 20 win teams are leagues apart. Dominant first options can make all-NBA on middle of the road teams, but 20 wins? Rarely if ever and the way voters vote changes over time. Nobody on this years all-NBA won less than 44 games( Cade Cunningham). Basically if you weren't on a 'winning team' this year you weren't getting on any all-NBA, first or second option, dominant stats or 'secondary producers'. It's why Devin Booker can drop 26/7/4 and not touch all-NBA because the Suns couldn't even crack 40 wins this year. 20 years ago he'd have made the team. You had Tracey Mcgrady make 2nd team in 2004 on a 21 win Magic squad, the voters today wouldn't put him in. Trae Young has one all-NBA team on his resume in a six year career averaging 25/10, and averaged 24/12 this year. Didn't sniff the team.

I addressed those players before and showed you that the whole 'winning spotlight' thing doesn't make sense for alot of those guys based on the timelines of them winning anything and being selected. You couldn't begin to explain, for example, how 'winning spotlight' applies to why Joe Dumars would make all-NBA in 93 because his stats weren't dominant and the Pistons were too far removed from winning titles for the 'winning spotlight' to apply by then. You also can't explain why Klay would get voted onto the team in 2015 two months before winning his first title, but not in 2018 and 2023 coming off titles when the 'winning spotlight' would have been brightest and his production was the same. Nor could you explain why Kevin Willis would make third team in 92 dropping 18/16 on a 38 win team, but not averaging 19/12 on a 57 win one, because 'dominant stats' would apply in both cases but he was awarded in the losing team scenario, not the winning one. Or why James Worthy wouldn't get 'winning spotlight' recognition in 89 coming right off the 88 title, but got voted on in 90 when his stats and level of play were identical( and wasn't getting all-NBA nods in the mid 80s when the Lakers were winning titles). You can repeat yourself and I'm going to simply repeat that those cases and others I mentioned earlier don't align with what you're saying.

Warriors took the league by storm in 2015. They were the talk of the town even before playoffs started.

Klay got a recognition boost because of this.

[3ba11]

Barely .500 and 20 win teams are leagues apart. Dominant first options can make all-NBA on middle of the road teams, but 20 wins? Rarely if ever and the way voters vote changes over time. Nobody on this years all-NBA won less than 44 games( Cade Cunningham). Basically if you weren't on a 'winning team' this year you weren't getting on any all-NBA, first or second option, dominant stats or 'secondary producers'. It's why Devin Booker can drop 26/7/4 and not touch all-NBA because the Suns couldn't even crack 40 wins this year. 20 years ago he'd have made the team. You had Tracey Mcgrady make 2nd team in 2004 on a 21 win Magic squad, the voters today wouldn't put him in. Trae Young has one all-NBA team on his resume in a six year career averaging 25/10, and averaged 24/12 this year. Didn't sniff the team.

I addressed those players before and showed you that the whole 'winning spotlight' thing doesn't make sense for alot of those guys based on the timelines of them winning anything and being selected. You couldn't begin to explain, for example, how 'winning spotlight' applies to why Joe Dumars would make all-NBA in 93 because his stats weren't dominant and the Pistons were too far removed from winning titles for the 'winning spotlight' to apply by then. You also can't explain why Klay would get voted onto the team in 2015 two months before winning his first title, but not in 2018 and 2023 coming off titles when the 'winning spotlight' would have been brightest and his production was the same. Nor could you explain why Kevin Willis would make third team in 92 dropping 18/16 on a 38 win team, but not averaging 19/12 on a 57 win one, because 'dominant stats' would apply in both cases but he was awarded in the losing team scenario, not the winning one. Or why James Worthy wouldn't get 'winning spotlight' recognition in 89 coming right off the 88 title, but got voted on in 90 when his stats and level of play were identical( and wasn't getting all-NBA nods in the mid 80s when the Lakers were winning titles). You can repeat yourself and I'm going to simply repeat that those cases and others I mentioned earlier don't align with what you're saying.


Love was All-NBA with 26 wins in 2012.

Tons of guys were All-NBA with 20-something wins, such as Mitch Richmond in 94' or 98'.

1st options can make All-NBA with bad teams because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight because they don't dominate.

[tpols]

Exactly lol. That's like arguing SGA won MVP this year because of the winning spotlight winning 67 games. Yeah, no shit.

Its a valid point though. SGA isn't better than a bunch of guys who never won MVP talent wise. Hes a shorter, softer tmac. Which leads credence to the winning spotlight theory inflating peoples reps through whatever accolades. SGA just had a MJ level accolade run... but eye test it really wasnt on that level at all.

[Phoenix]

Warriors took the league by storm in 2015. They were the talk of the town even before playoffs started.

Klay got a recognition boost because of this.

Yes but the Warriors improving to 'taking the league by storm' status and Klay's improvement ( from 18 to 22ppg) aren't mutually exclusive. If he was the same player in 2015 that he was in 2014 the Warriors are a worse team. The voters would have rewarded his improvement as a player within the context of the Warriors ascension.

[3ba11]

Exactly lol. That's like arguing SGA won MVP this year because of the winning spotlight winning 67 games. Yeah, no shit.


You're avoiding the differentiating factor that keeps being thrown in your face, which is the correlation of All-NBA to 1st options, unless a 2nd option has sufficient winning spotlight...

1st options get All-NBA because they dominate, regardless of the caliber of their team, while 2nd options don't dominate, so they need winning spotlight to get All-NBA, and often all-star as well.

And again, Love was All-NBA with 26 wins in 2012, or Tmac was All-NBA with 21 wins in 2002.. Tons of guys were All-NBA with 20-something wins, such as Mitch Richmond in 94' or 98'.

So again - 1st options can make All-NBA with bad teams because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight because they don't dominate.

[Phoenix]

Love was All-NBA with 26 wins in 2012.

Tons of guys were All-NBA with 20-something wins, such as Mitch Richmond in 94' or 98'.

1st options can make All-NBA with bad teams because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight because they don't dominate.

How are you defining tons? Because I named Tmac. You named Richmond and Love. That's not enough cases to establish it as a standard in the way you are.

[Phoenix]

You're avoiding the differentiating factor that keeps being thrown in your face - 1st options get All-NBA because they dominate, regardless of the caliber of their team, while 2nd options don't dominate, so they need winning spotlight to get All-NBA, and often all-star as well.

And again, Love was All-NBA with 26 wins in 2012, or Tmac was All-NBA with 21 wins in 2002.. Tons of guys were All-NBA with 20-something wins, such as Mitch Richmond in 94' or 98'.

So again - 1st options can make All-NBA with bad teams because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight because they don't dominate.

And again, 3 guys isn't enough to say 'tons' of guys'. Tmac, Mitch Richmond and Kevin Love are outlier examples. Still waiting on an explanation for why Joe Dumars made the team in 93. No, it's not because he won the title in 1990 not dominant stats.

[3ba11]

How are you defining tons? Because I named Tmac. You named Richmond and Love. That's not enough cases to establish it as a standard in the way you are.


You picked a 20-win criteria that I already busted up, but the reality is that I'm struggling to find any 2nd options that made All-NBA with even like 40 wins.. Otoh, tons and tons of 1st options have been All-NBA with 20-40 wins.. Tons and tons...

So again - 1st options can make All-NBA with bad teams because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight because they don't dominate.

[Phoenix]

You picked a 20-win criteria that I already busted up, but the reality is that I'm struggling to find any 2nd options that made All-NBA with even like 40 wins.. Otoh, tons and tons of 1st options have been All-NBA with 20-40 wins.. Tons and tons...

So again - 1st options can make All-NBA with bad teams because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight because they don't dominate.

Actually I asked you how many guys have gotten all-nba, whether it be first or second options, on a 20 win team. There is a huge gap between 20 and 40 wins. That's literally the difference between like the worst team in the league and a borderline/8th seed. Citing Richmond, Love and TMac are outlier cases and not busting up anything with 'tons' of examples. You're saying you're struggling to find any 2nd options that made it with 40. Willis in 1992 on a 36 win Hawks team, Strickland in 1998( he was technically a third option) on a 42 win Bullets off the top of my head. Hell Tim Hardaway made third team in 93 on a 34 win Warriors team.

[SouBeachTalents]

There were 66 games in the 2012 season, so the Love example isn't legitimate. If they played 82 games they're likely winning 32-35 games, debunking the 20 win criteria.

And the fact Richmond was making All-NBA on multiple 20 win teams shows how pathetically weak the league was in the 90's.

[Phoenix]

There are numerous 1st options that made All-NBA with 20-29 wins, but zero 2nd options that made All-NBA with these "basement" teams.

This shows that 2nd options require winning spotlight more, since they never made All-NBA with basement teams like 1st options have.. 2nd options simply never dominate enough to make All-NBA with basement teams.

Now when we look at 30-49 win teams, Kevin Willis and Rod Strickland appear to be the only 2nd options to make All-NBA, while dozens of 1st options made it... And it's important to note that Tim Hardaway was never considered a "2nd option" like Klay or Pippen because the 90's had several teams with 2 franchise players that shared the load, such as Kemp/Payton, Mullin/Hardaway, or Alonzo/Hardaway... So Hardaway was a 1st option or 1a/1b for the majority of his career and a major go-to player.. Therefore, Willis and Strickland are your only real examples of 2nd options at 30-49 wins, while dozens of 1st options made All-NBA at that level of wins.

TLDR: outside of defensive bigs, 2nd options need winning spotlight of around 50+ wins to make All-NBA, since the only examples of 2nd options making All-NBA at less than that are Strickland and Willis.... Again, aside from defensive centers, All-NBA players are 1st options, except a few 2nd options that get winning spotlight of generally 50+ wins (Klay, Pippen, Pau, Manu, etc).

Going back to 85, here's some 2nd options on teams that won 40 or less games:

86 Spurs 35 wins- Alvin Robertson 2nd team
87 Nuggets 35 wins- Fat Lever 2nd team
92 Hawks 38 wins- Kevin Willis 3rd team
96 Bullets 39 wins- Juwan Howard 3rd team
97 Bucks 33 wins- Vin Baker 3rd team
06 Rockets 34 wins- Yao Ming 3rd team


You also have guys like Derrick Coleman(1993), Mutumbo (2002, more like 4th option), Andrew Bogot( 2010), David Lee( 2013), Andre Drummond( 2016), KAT( 2018 behind Butler), D. Sabonis( 2023 and 2024) and Al Horford who made the third team on 43-48 win teams. There's no taking the league by storm 'winning spotlight' in these cases, the players were simply deemed worthy of all-nba on the merits of their play.

Tim Hardaway was a 2nd option by how it's always defined. In fact, at one point he was third option behind Mullin and Richmond until the latter left for the Kings.

Now, beyond Tmac, Kevin Love( who SBT added the context that 2012 was a short year), and Richmond, I want to see the dozens of first options who made all-NBA winning 20 games or thereabouts. Because I'm not arguing that plenty of first options have made all-NBA with 40 wins, that's a low seed playoff seed. I want to see the tons of first option all-nba guys. I've provided a list of the 2nd option/40 win all-nba guys, now lets see your list of first option/20-25 win all-NBA guys.

Oh BTW, for your convenience I've bolded the players who wouldn't come under the definition of 'defensive big' ( not that this distinction matters).

[SouBeachTalents]

Damn bro, made him delete his post :lol

[Phoenix]

Damn bro, made him delete his post :lol

:oldlol: how unfortunate that I quoted him then :lol

All I want to see is this 'tons' of first option All-nba guys who won 20-30 games. Richmond on the Kings, Love (with the caveat that 2012 was shortened season), and I spotted him 2004 TMac.

[Phoenix]

Its a valid point though. SGA isn't better than a bunch of guys who never won MVP talent wise. Hes a shorter, softer tmac. Which leads credence to the winning spotlight theory inflating peoples reps through whatever accolades. SGA just had a MJ level accolade run... but eye test it really wasnt on that level at all.

Well yeah, but he was first team all-NBA and 5th in MVP voting in 2023 on a 40 win OKC team. Seems he was on his way before the 'winning spotlight' kicked in.

[1987_Lakers]

3ball wanted no smoke

3ball's ego got the best of him once he saw this post and decided to respond.

It did not end well for him.

[3ba11]

Going back to 85, here's some 2nd options on teams that won 40 or less games:

86 Spurs 35 wins- Alvin Robertson 2nd team
87 Nuggets 35 wins- Fat Lever 2nd team
92 Hawks 38 wins- Kevin Willis 3rd team
96 Bullets 39 wins- Juwan Howard 3rd team
97 Bucks 33 wins- Vin Baker 3rd team
06 Rockets 34 wins- Yao Ming 3rd team


You also have guys like Derrick Coleman(1993), Mutumbo (2002, more like 4th option), Andrew Bogot( 2010), David Lee( 2013), Andre Drummond( 2016), KAT( 2018 behind Butler), D. Sabonis( 2023 and 2024) and Al Horford who made the third team on 43-48 win teams. There's no taking the league by storm 'winning spotlight' in these cases, the players were simply deemed worthy of all-nba on the merits of their play.

Tim Hardaway was a 2nd option by how it's always defined. In fact, at one point he was third option behind Mullin and Richmond until the latter left for the Kings.

Now, beyond Tmac, Kevin Love( who SBT added the context that 2012 was a short year), and Richmond, I want to see the dozens of first options who made all-NBA winning 20 games or thereabouts. Because I'm not arguing that plenty of first options have made all-NBA with 40 wins, that's a low seed playoff seed. I want to see the tons of first option all-nba guys. I've provided a list of the 2nd option/40 win all-nba guys, now lets see your list of first option/20-25 win all-NBA guys.

Oh BTW, for your convenience I've bolded the players who wouldn't come under the definition of 'defensive big' ( not that this distinction matters).


Derrick Coleman, Yao, Juwan Howard, Tim Hardaway, Vin Baker., and KAT were all 1st options or 1a/1b during their primes and when they got All-NBA - they weren't considered "pippens" or career 2nd options like Klay, Pippen, Manu and other 2nd options that required winning spotlight to get All-NBA.

And 47 wins alongside an upward-moving Curry is winning spotlight.. So the David Lee example supports my argument, not yours... 43 to 48 wins and playoff appearance is considered winning spotlight for young or surprise teams.

So your tiny handful of examples used 1st options, defensive centers, and winning teams.. You only found 4 examples over 40 seasons of real 2nd options that made All-NBA with weak teams (Willis, Strickland, Robertson, Lever)... Meanwhile, it's standard for 1st options to make All-NBA with weak teams of 30-40 wins, and they've even made it with 20-wins... So again, All-NBA status is reserved for 1st options regardless of team strength because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight to make it because they don't dominate.. It's intuitive.

[Phoenix]

Derrick Coleman, Yao, Juwan Howard, Tim Hardaway, Vin Baker., and KAT were all 1st options or 1a/1b during their primes and when they got All-NBA - they weren't considered "pippens" or career 2nd options like Klay, Pippen, Manu and other 2nd options that required winning spotlight to get All-NBA.

And 47 wins alongside an upward-moving Curry is winning spotlight.. So the David Lee example supports my argument, not yours... 43 to 48 wins and playoff appearance is considered winning spotlight for young or surprise teams.

So your tiny handful of examples used 1st options, defensive centers, and winning teams.. You only found 4 examples over 40 seasons of real 2nd options that made All-NBA with weak teams (Willis, Strickland, Robertson, Lever)... Meanwhile, it's standard for 1st options to make All-NBA with weak teams of 30-40 wins, and they've even made it with 20-wins... So again, All-NBA status is reserved for 1st options regardless of team strength because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight to make it because they don't.

Derrick Coleman was 2nd option to Petrovic in 93. Yao to Tmac, Howard to Webber, Baker to Robinson and KAT to Butler for the years I said. Because they were first option in other years doesn't negate that they were 2nd during the years they made the all-NBA team. How could Tim Hardaway be 1B in 1991 when both Chris Mullin and Mitch Richmond scored more than him? In 1996 Mourning was 23ppg to Hardaways 17. In what world is that '1B'? By 2000 Mourning was 20ppg and Tim 13ppg. Tim was never the first option whether he played with Mullin and Richmond, Sprewell or Mourning.

43-47 win teams does not constitute 'winning spotlight' at all. There are some years where 43 wins doesn't even get you into the playoffs. Oh wait, like this years playoffs in the West. You clearly used that term in reference to like the 2015 Warriors winning 67 games. You're now stretching the 'winning spotlight' down into the 40's :roll: That's never NOT been considered a middle of the road team. So no, the David Lee example doesn't support your opinion but you know what's even funnier. You said an upward moving Curry in the same breadth, Curry didn't make all-NBA that year. :lol

Still waiting for your 'tons' of first options made all-NBA on 20-30 win teams' list.

Even you trying to dismiss some of my list I still have more examples. :lol And since you said before you couldn't think of ANY 2nd options on lower level teams getting all-NBA, I've already made my point because you were trying to argue that it was more or less non-existent.

Here's this years all-nba teams with team record

First:

Giannis Antetokounmpo (48)
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (67)
Nikola Jokić (50)
Donovan Mitchell (64)
Jayson Tatum (61)

Second:

Jalen Brunson (51)
Stephen Curry (48)
Anthony Edwards (49)
LeBron James (50)
Evan Mobley (67)

Third:

Cade Cunningham (44)
Tyrese Haliburton (50)
James Harden (50)
Karl-Anthony Towns (51)
Jalen Williams (67)

3ball: "Meanwhile, it's standard for 1st options to make All-NBA with weak teams of 30-40 wins"
:oldlol:

[3ba11]

Derrick Coleman was 2nd option to Petrovic in 93. Yao to Tmac, Howard to Webber, Baker to Robinson and KAT to Butler for the years I said. Because they were first option in other years doesn't negate that they were 2nd during the years they made the all-NBA team. How could Tim Hardaway be 1B in 1991 when both Chris Mullin and Mitch Richmond scored more than him? In 1996 Mourning was 23ppg to Hardaways 17. In what world is that '1B'? By 2000 Mourning was 20ppg and Tim 13ppg. Tim was never the first option whether he played with Mullin and Richmond, Sprewell or Mourning.

43-47 win teams does not constitute 'winning spotlight' at all. There are some years where 43 wins doesn't even get you into the playoffs. Oh wait, like this years playoffs in the West. You clearly used that term in reference to like the 2015 Warriors winning 67 games. You're now stretching the 'winning spotlight' down into the 40's :roll: That's never NOT been considered a middle of the road team. So no, the David Lee example doesn't support your opinion but you know what's even funnier. You said an upward moving Curry in the same breadth, Curry didn't make all-NBA that year. :lol

Still waiting for your 'tons' of first options made all-NBA on 20-30 win teams' list.

Even you trying to dismiss some of my list I still have more examples. :lol And since you said before you couldn't think of ANY 2nd options on lower level teams getting all-NBA, I've already made my point because you were trying to argue that it was more or less non-existent.

Here's this years all-nba teams with team record

First:

Giannis Antetokounmpo (48)
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (67)
Nikola Jokić (50)
Donovan Mitchell (64)
Jayson Tatum (61)

Second:

Jalen Brunson (51)
Stephen Curry (48)
Anthony Edwards (49)
LeBron James (50)
Evan Mobley (67)

Third:

Cade Cunningham (44)
Tyrese Haliburton (50)
James Harden (50)
Karl-Anthony Towns (51)
Jalen Williams (67)

3ball: "Meanwhile, it's standard for 1st options to make All-NBA with weak teams of 30-40 wins"
:oldlol:


Again, all those guys are 1st options.. None of them are 2nd options like Klay or Pippen, so I'm fine taking the win on that... Ultimately, you provided 4 examples of 2nd options getting All-NBA with 20-40 win teams, while it's common for 1st options to get All-NBA with weak teams.. It's happened dozens of times for 1st options, but only 4 times for 2nd options.

So the point remains that 2nd options like Klay and Pippen need winning spotlight to get All-NBA - they wouldn't get anything if they were barely scraping 20 ppg and losing on the Wizards... They'd be like any bum 20 ppg scorer that doesn't get any accolades (i.e. Kuzma, tons of guys).

[ShawkFactory]

Again, all those guys are 1st options.. None of them are 2nd options like Klay or Pippen, so I'm fine taking the win on that... Ultimately, you provided 4 examples of 2nd options getting All-NBA with 20-40 win teams, while it's common for 1st options to get All-NBA with weak teams.. It's happened dozens of times for 1st options, but only 4 times for 2nd options.

So the point remains that 2nd options like Klay and Pippen need winning spotlight to get All-NBA - they wouldn't get anything if they were barely scraping 20 ppg and losing on the Wizards... They'd be like any bum 20 ppg scorer that doesn't get any accolades (i.e. Kuzma, tons of guys).

:facepalm

You're welcome for the facepalm response. But..Jesus dude.

I respect your lack of shame I guess.

[1987_Lakers]

So the point remains that 2nd options like Klay and Pippen need winning spotlight to get All-NBA - they wouldn't get anything if they were barely scraping 20 ppg and losing on the Wizards... They'd be like any bum 20 ppg scorer that doesn't get any accolades (i.e. Kuzma, tons of guys).

Pippen as a 1st option made All-NBA First Team and finished 3rd in MVP voting.

[Phoenix]

Again, all those guys are 1st options.. None of them are 2nd options like Klay or Pippen, so I'm fine taking the win on that... Ultimately, you provided 4 examples of 2nd options getting All-NBA with losing teams, while it's common for 1st options to get All-NBA with 20-40 win teams.. It's happened dozens of times.

So the point remains that 2nd options like Klay and Pippen need winning spotlight to get All-NBA - they wouldn't get anything if they were barely scraping 20 ppg and losing on the Wizards... They'd be like any bum 20 ppg scorer that doesn't get no accolades (i.e. Kuzma).

Again, those players were 2nd options the years I mentioned for those all-NBA selections, so I'm fine taking the win as well. Ultimately you've only provided 1 example, Richmond, of first option all-NBA teamers on 20-30 wins teams so you saying there are tons of players and happened 'dozens of times' isn't anything you've substantiated. I spotted you Tmac, because you needed the boost. Love's all-nba on the Wolves in 2012 came during a lockout year so doesn't really count. So your list is only two as of now with 'dozens' or 'tons' of other examples you can't provide despite being asked multiple times, so I win simply by default. It doesn't matter if I had 4 examples, 10 examples, or 1 example, because you said this:


but the reality is that I'm struggling to find any 2nd options that made All-NBA with even like 40 wins



Even with your flaccid attempts to discredit some of my list, 4 is still more than you've provided. Ultimately whats a 'real' 2nd option ain't up to you or what legitimizes someone on the all-NBA team that doesn't adhere to your 'first option' narrative. You can slice it anyway you like, defensive players, 2nd options...it doesn't matter. Guys like Bogut and Drummond were among the scoring leaders on their teams so being a 'defensive' big doesn't disqualify them. And don't' think I didn't notice your sleight of hand not mentioning Sabonis.

Oh by the way, since I showed above that every single member of the 2025 all-NBA team won at least 44 games this year, tomorrow I"m going to start dropping all-NBA teams going back several years. Let's see how 'common' first options getting all-NBA on sub 40 teams really is, per your comments.

[Phoenix]

2024 All NBA teams


1st Team

Giannis Antetokounmpo (49)
Luka Dončić (50)
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (57)
Nikola Jokić (57)
Jayson Tatum (64)

2nd Team

Jalen Brunson (50)
Anthony Davis (47)
Kevin Durant (49)
Anthony Edwards (56)
Kawhi Leonard (51)

3rd Team

Devin Booker (49)
Stephen Curry (46)
Tyrese Haliburton (47)
LeBron James (47)
Domantas Sabonis (46)

[Phoenix]

2023 All-NBA


Giannis Antetokounmpo (58)
Luka Dončić (38) played 66 games
Joel Embiid (54)
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (40)
Jayson Tatum (57)

2nd Team

Jaylen Brown (57)
Jimmy Butler (44)
Stephen Curry (44)
Nikola Jokić (53)
Donovan Mitchell (51)

3rd Team

De'Aaron Fox (48)
LeBron James (43)
Damian Lillard (33) played 58 games
Julius Randle (47)
Domantas Sabonis (48)

[ShawkFactory]

2024 All NBA teams


1st Team

Giannis Antetokounmpo (49)
Luka Dončić (50)
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (57)
Nikola Jokić (57)
Jayson Tatum (64)

2nd Team

Jalen Brunson (50)
Anthony Davis (47)
Kevin Durant (49)
Anthony Edwards (56)
Kawhi Leonard (51)

3rd Team

Devin Booker (49)
Stephen Curry (46)
Tyrese Haliburton (47)
LeBron James (47)
Domantas Sabonis (46)

That only happened because of the winning spotlight.

And before you try to refute me...a second option CANNOT play the game in such a way, regardless of stats, that makes a team better. They're all garbage dudes getting carried.

[Phoenix]

That only happened because of the winning spotlight.

And before you try to refute me...a second option CANNOT play the game in such a way, regardless of stats, that makes a team better. They're all garbage dudes getting carried.

:lol

[Phoenix]

2022 All-NBA team


1st Team

Giannis Antetokounmpo (51)
Devin Booker (64)
Luka Dončić (52)
Nikola Jokić (48)
Jayson Tatum (51)

2nd Team

Stephen Curry (53)
DeMar DeRozan (46)
Kevin Durant (44)
Joel Embiid (51)
Ja Morant (56)

3rd Team

LeBron James (33) played 56 games
Chris Paul (64)
Pascal Siakam (48)
Karl-Anthony Towns (46)
Trae Young (43)

[Phoenix]

2021 all-nba ( 72 game season)

1st Team

Giannis Antetokounmpo (46)
Stephen Curry (39) played 63 games
Luka Dončić (42)
Nikola Jokić (47)
Kawhi Leonard

2nd Team

Joel Embiid (49)
LeBron James (42)
Damian Lillard (42)
Chris Paul (51)
Julius Randle (41)

3rd Team

Bradley Beal (34) played 60 games
Jimmy Butler (40)
Paul George (47)
Rudy Gobert (52)
Kyrie Irving (46)

[Phoenix]

So of the last 5 all-NBA teams, the only players first option, second option, defensive player, whatever....who didn't win 40 games were:

2023:
Luka who missed 16 games and won 38
Dame who missed 24 games and won 33

2022:
Lebron who missed 26 games and won 33


2021( 72 game season):
Steph who missed 9 games but the final record was 39-33 so a winning season regardless
Beal who missed 12 games and won 34, averaged 31.3 so no way he's not getting voted in


Suffice to say, Richmond playing 78 games and winning 27 like he did in 94 ain't getting an all-NBA nod nowadays. 2004 Tmac winning 21 ain't cutting it either.

Oh BTW, can someone please give Jamal Murray some winning spotlight love FFS? Dude averages 20+ every season, 26 on a title run, team wins 50 games practically every year and he can't even get into the all-star game?:confusedshrug:

[3ba11]

.
.
All-NBA selections that won 20-40 games since 1980 (2nd options in bold)



1980 Dantley - 24 wins
1981 Dantley - 28 wins
1982 Dantley - 25 wins
1983 Isiah - 37 wins
1985 Jordan - 37 wins
1986 Robertson - 35 wins
1987 Lever - 37 wins
1990 Mullin - 37 wins
1991 King - 30 wins
1992 Willis - 34 wins
1993 Hardaway - 34 wins
1994 Dominique - 27 wins
1994 Richmond - 27 wins
1998 Richmond - 28 wins
1995 Richmond - 39 wins
1996 Richmond - 39 wins
1997 Richmond - 34 wins
2000 Marbury - 31 wins
2004 McGrady - 21 wins
2005 Lebron - 35 wins
2012 Chandler - 36 wins
2012 Melo - 36 wins
2012 Love - 26 wins
2012 Dwight - 37 wins
2015 Cousins - 29 wins
2016 Cousins - 33 wins
2017 AD - 34 wins
2019 Kemba - 39 wins
2020 Lillard - 35 wins
2023 Luka - 38 wins


CONCLUSION: 2nd options need winning teams to make All-NBA, with only 4 exceptions in 40 years.. They need winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA because their dominance isn't enough on it's own.. Otoh, 1st options routinely dominate enough to make All-NBA with losing teams... Essentially, All-NBA is reserved for 1st options, unless a secondary option has sufficient winning spotlight.

[Phoenix]

.
.
All-NBA selections that won 20-40 games since 1980 (2nd options in bold)


1980 Dantley - 24 wins Didn't make all-nba team that year
1981 Dantley - 28 wins
1982 Dantley - 25 wins Didn't make all-nba team that year
1983 Isiah - 37 wins 2nd option at 22.9ppg, first option was Kelly Tripucka at 26.5ppg. Argument for me :bowdown:
1985 Jordan - 37 wins
1986 Robertson - 35 wins
1987 Lever - 37 wins
1990 Mullin - 37 wins
1991 King - 30 wins missed 18 games
1992 Willis - 34 wins
1993 Hardaway - 34 wins
1994 Dominique - 27 wins played 49 games for Hawks, and 25 games for the Clippers, won 42 between the two teams. :oldlol:
1994 Richmond - 27 wins
1998 Richmond - 28 wins
1995 Richmond - 39 wins
1996 Richmond - 39 wins
1997 Richmond - 34 wins
2000 Marbury - 31 wins
2004 McGrady - 21 wins
2005 Lebron - 35 wins ]Cavs won 42 games in 2005[/SIZE]
2012 Chandler - 36 wins lockout year,thanks for including him as a defensive big, argument for me
2012 Melo - 36 wins lockout year
2012 Love - 26 wins lockout year
2012 Dwight - 37 wins missed 28 games, would have easily won 40+ otherwise
2015 Cousins - 29 wins missed 23 games
2016 Cousins - 33 wins
2017 AD - 34 wins
2019 Kemba - 39 wins
2020 Lillard - 35 wins lockdown, suspended season
2023 Luka - 38 wins missed 16 games or would have won 40+


CONCLUSION: 2nd options need winning teams to make All-NBA, with only 4 exceptions in 40 years.. They need winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA because their dominance isn't enough on it's own.. Otoh, 1st options routinely dominate enough to make All-NBA with losing teams... Essentially, All-NBA is reserved for 1st options, unless a secondary option has sufficient winning spotlight.

So let's see:

- You lied about Adrian Dantley, he didn't make all-NBA in 80 and 82. Off the list those years
- Isiah was 2nd option to Tripucka in 83, so that argument works for me thanks
- Dominique won 42 wins in 94 per basketball reference, playing 25 for the Clips and 49 for ATL. Nice try, he's off the list.:oldlol:
- Lebron won 42 games in 2004-2005. The 35 wins you're giving his is for his rookie year. Off the list :oldlol:
- 2012 Chandler is a defensive big,so since you count him you've legitimized guys like Bogut, Drummond, Mutumbo, Horford, thanks
- 2012 is also a asterisk year due to lockout, 66 game season but the Knicks were 36-30 so Melo/Chandler had a winning season that year. Nice try
- Dwight missed 28 games and missed out on 40 wins by 3 games.
- 2020 was a shortened season due to lockdowns, asterisk
- Luka missed out on 40 wins by 2 wins, missing 16 games

CONCLUSION: You lied about Adrian Dantley in 1980 and 82 being all-NBA those years, Isiah was 2nd option to Tripucka in 83, lied about 94 Nique who got 42 total wins playing for both the Hawks( 49) and the Clippers( 25) and you sneakily gave him the Clips 27 win total when he didn't even play that many games for LA :oldlol:, lied about Lebron giving his rookie win total of 35 wins instead of 42 in 2005 when he made 2nd team, ignore that 2012 was a 66 game lockout year and then pretend like Melo and Chandler didn't have a winning record at 36/30, 2020 was pandemic year shortened season, and Luka wins 40+ if he didn't miss 16 games.

So, your actual list of first options for which you didn't lie( 80 and 82 Dantley, 94 Wilkins, 05 Lebron), not note legit asterisks for why a player wouldn't have easily broke 40 wins( Luka 2023) if not for serious time missed to injury or shortened seasons( Melo 2012, Dame 2020), meaning the player played the majority of the year and wouldn't have gotten 40 wins because the team just was that bad/mediocre:

- Adrian Dantley 82
- Jordan 85
- Mullin 90
- Richmond 94-98( which is actually one player just getting in multiple times instead of multiple players, but I'll play along)'
- Maybury 2000
- Tmac 2004
- Cousins 2015
- Cousins 2016 won 33 whlle missing 17, but we'll let that one slip
- AD 2017
- Kemba 2020

That's very far from there being 'tons' of first options who made all-nba with 20-40 wins, and that's if you include players who missed 16-28 games and act like they wouldn't have won 40 games in some cases,weren't impacted by lockout, or ignore that a few players happened to benefit from periods of weak positional competition ( Richmond winning 27 games, for example) that largely wouldn't fly today. Heaps of context needed here that you conveniently omit.

OTOH 83 Isiah can now be added to my list of non-first option players so you'll appreciate me bolding him, who made all-NBA without 'winning spotlight' inflation like 85 Alvin Robertson,87 Fat Lever, 92 Kevin Willis, 93 Derrick Coleman, 93 Hardaway( bolded him as well for your convenience),96 Juwan Howard,97 Vin Baker, 98 Rod Strickland, 02 Mutumbo( defensive centric big like CHandler), 06 Yao Ming, 2013 David Lee, 2016 Andre Drummond( defensive big like Chandler), 2018 KAT, 2011 Horford( defensive big like CHandler), 2023/2024 Sabonis. These players were either 2nd option/scorer for the years I listed, or 2nd/3rd best player like a Mutumbo or Strickland type BUT more specifically, were not the defacto first options for those years. If they were definitive first option in other years, like Coleman in 94, doesn't dismiss that he was 2nd option to Petrovic in 93. Furthermore the lists provided here by both of us, regardless of how certain players are described for the purpose of our respective arguments, show recent voting patterns clearly indicating that players getting all-NBA whether they be first or 2nd option on sub 40 win teams is becoming even less common in recent years, let alone over history. The historical record of the past 5 seasons as I listed shows that outside of Luka in 2023 getting 38 wins while missing 16 games, Kemba in 2019, and 2020 Dame in a lockout year, the voters aren't handing out all-NBA awards like candy to sub 40 win players. There's no Mitch Richmonds getting all-nba for 27 wins in the year 2025, not when over the past 5-6 years Devin Booker has seasons averaging 26-28 on 50 win teams and doesn't touch all-NBA.

[1987_Lakers]

Can't believe 3ball really used 2012, does he not know it was a lockout year?

And lying about Dantley making All-NBA in '80 & '82.

This is why nobody takes him seriously.

[Phoenix]

Can't believe 3ball really used 2012, does he not know it was a lockout year?

And lying about Dantley making All-NBA in '80 & '82.

This is why nobody takes him seriously.

Of course he knows. He also knows 2020 was the suspended covid year. And he knows Nique played for both the Hawks and Clippers in 94, but thought he'd use the Clippers win total of 27( hilarious because he didn't even play that many games for the Clippers that year) and hoped no-one would notice. These aren't errors, they're blatant lies or just disingenuous trolling.

[sdot_thadon]

His threads all go to shit with even low effort fact checking. Theres wrong numbers and claims in every single post. Who' the hell signs up to look like such an idiot for such a high volume of posts?

[SouBeachTalents]

Of course he knows. He also knows 2020 was the suspended covid year. And he knows Nique played for both the Hawks and Clippers in 94, but thought he'd use the Clippers win total of 27( hilarious because he didn't even play that many games for the Clippers that year) and hoped no-one would notice. These aren't errors, they're blatant lies or just disingenuous trolling.
There are a number of reasons 3ball is a fakkit, but besides the repetitiveness of the topic, it's the fact he just shamelessly lies in so many of his posts. It's bitch made behavior.

[tpols]

2024 All NBA teams


1st Team

Giannis Antetokounmpo (49)
Luka Dončić (50)
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (57)
Nikola Jokić (57)
Jayson Tatum (64)

2nd Team

Jalen Brunson (50)
Anthony Davis (47)
Kevin Durant (49)
Anthony Edwards (56)
Kawhi Leonard (51)

3rd Team

Devin Booker (49)
Stephen Curry (46)
Tyrese Haliburton (47)
LeBron James (47)
Domantas Sabonis (46)

All of the perimeter players on this list are clearly better than prime Klay. I would've said it was close with Haliburton but after his playoff run hell nah. Klay never came close to doing the shit he did over and over and over. So he wouldn't have made All NBA in that year.

[Phoenix]

All of the perimeter players on this list are clearly better than prime Klay. I would've said it was close with Haliburton but after his playoff run hell nah. Klay never came close to doing the shit he did over and over and over. So he wouldn't have made All NBA in that year.

Is that something you felt the need to just say for your sake :confusedshrug:? Because Klay has nothing to do with why I dropped that list.

[SouBeachTalents]

All of the perimeter players on this list are clearly better than prime Klay. I would've said it was close with Haliburton but after his playoff run hell nah. Klay never came close to doing the shit he did over and over and over. So he wouldn't have made All NBA in that year.
And Pippen was without question a top 10 player throughout the 90's, making 3ball's entire premise moot. Considering Richmond was making All-NBA multiple times on sub 30 win teams, it's safe to say Pippen would've been a perennial All-NBA player regardless of where he played.

[3ba11]

Can't believe 3ball really used 2012, does he not know it was a lockout year?

And lying about Dantley making All-NBA in '80 & '82.

This is why nobody takes him seriously.


^^^ Impact-less oversights, so the point stands that 2nd options need winning teams to make All-NBA, with only 4 exceptions in 40 years..

2nd options need winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA because their performance isn't enough on it's own.. Otoh, 1st options routinely make All-NBA with losing teams because they dominate... Essentially, All-NBA is reserved for 1st options and their dominance, unless a secondary option has sufficient winning spotlight

[1987_Lakers]

^^^ Impact-less oversights, so the point stands that 2nd options need winning teams to make All-NBA, with only 4 exceptions in 40 years..

2nd options need winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA because their performance isn't enough on it's own.. Otoh, 1st options routinely make All-NBA with losing teams because they dominate... Essentially, All-NBA is reserved for 1st options, unless a secondary option has sufficient winning spotlight
You got caught lying son. You lost.

[3ba11]

You got caught lying son. You lost.


Yeah I'm not 5 so that's not going to work.. I won the argument regarding 2nd options needing winning teams to make All-NBA - it's the historical record.. And thanks for summarizing 'Phoenix's edits (to the list of All-NBA players that won 20-40 games)

[Phoenix]

Yeah I'm not 5 so that's not going to work.. I won the argument regarding 2nd options needing winning teams to make All-NBA - it's the historical record.. And thanks for summarizing 'Phoenix's edits (to the list of All-NBA players that won 20-40 games)

Um,no. Me arguing with you over what's a first or 2nd option isn't a lie. You putting Adrian Dantley on all-NBA teams he was never on, or using Lebron's rookie season win total are not 'impactless' oversights. You lied, multiple times, and it's all there for everyone to see. So you haven't won anything, neither the basis of your content or the fact that you tried to extend your list with blatantly false info and trying pass it off as 'harmless oversight'. You're just a straight up bitch.

[3ba11]

Um,no. Me arguing with you over what's a first or 2nd option isn't a lie. You putting Adrian Dantley on all-NBA teams he was never on, or using Lebron's rookie season win total are not 'impactless' oversights. You lied, multiple times, and it's all there for everyone to see. So you haven't won anything, neither the basis of your content or the fact that you tried to extend your list with blatantly false info and trying pass it off as 'harmless oversight'. You're just a straight up bitch.


Four 2nd options in 45 years made All-NBA with losing teams... That's what matters - 2nd options need winning spotlight to make All-NBA.

And Isiah is a 1st option by virtue of being one for his entire career - he isn't a "pippen" or "klay", and this is common knowledge..

Infact, Klay and Pippen needed 67-win teams and league favorite to make their first All-NBA - the subsequent titles gave them the permanent winning spotlight that Parker, Ginobili and Pau enjoyed to get their All-NBA selections as well.. The idea is to trick the dumb media by landing alongside a goat 1st option that can carry you to titles - the historical and statistical record shows that this is what these winning 2nd options did to make All-NBA.

[3ba11]

.
.
.
REVISED LIST of All-NBA selections w/ losing teams (40 wins or less), since 1980 (2nd options bolded



1981 Dantley - 28 wins
1983 Isiah - 37 wins
1985 Jordan - 37 wins
1986 Robertson - 35 wins
1987 Lever - 37 wins
1990 Mullin - 37 wins
1991 King - 30 wins
1992 Willis - 34 wins
1993 Hardaway - 34 wins
1994 Richmond - 27 wins
1998 Richmond - 28 wins
1995 Richmond - 39 wins
1996 Richmond - 39 wins
1997 Richmond - 34 wins
2000 Marbury - 31 wins
2004 McGrady - 21 wins
2004 Lebron - 35 wins
2015 Cousins - 29 wins
2016 Cousins - 33 wins
2017 AD - 34 wins
2019 Kemba - 39 wins
2020 Lillard - 35 wins
2023 Luka - 38 wins


CONCLUSION: 2nd options need winning teams to make All-NBA, with only 4 exceptions in 40 years..

2nd options need winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA because their performance isn't enough on it's own.. Otoh, 1st options routinely make All-NBA with losing teams because they dominate... Essentially, All-NBA is reserved for 1st options and their dominance, unless a secondary option has sufficient winning spotlight.

Finally, if we run the numbers for 40-50 win teams, there are only a half dozen examples of 2nd options getting All-NBA with these records - infact, Klay and Pippen needed 67-win teams and league favorite to make their first All-NBA - the subsequent titles gave them the permanent winning spotlight that Parker, Ginobili and Pau enjoyed to get their All-NBA selections as well.. The idea is to trick the dumb media by landing alongside a goat 1st option that can carry you to titles - the historical and statistical record shows that this is what these winning 2nd options did to make All-NBA

[Phoenix]

Four 2nd options in 45 years made All-NBA with losing teams... That's what matters - 2nd options need winning spotlight to make All-NBA.

And Isiah is a 1st option by virtue of being one for his entire career - he isn't a "pippen" or "klay", and this is common knowledge..

Infact, Klay and Pippen needed 67-win teams and league favorite to make their first All-NBA - the subsequent titles gave them the permanent winning spotlight that Parker, Ginobili and Pau enjoyed to get their All-NBA selections as well.. The idea is to trick the dumb media by landing alongside a goat 1st option that can carry you to titles - the historical and statistical record shows that this is what these winning 2nd options did to make All-NBA.

Nah my list is in the dozens, and I invalidated multiple parts of yours with your lying. You're a conniving little bitch who needs to validate yourself with self-congratulatory 'I won something' rhetoric. If you weren't micro-dicked I'm sure you'd suck yourself off and then claim it as sex.

[Phoenix]

.
.
.
REVISED LIST of All-NBA selections w/ losing teams (40 wins or less), since 1980 (2nd options bolded



1981 Dantley - 28 wins
1983 Isiah - 37 wins
1985 Jordan - 37 wins
1986 Robertson - 35 wins
1987 Lever - 37 wins
1990 Mullin - 37 wins
1991 King - 30 wins
1992 Willis - 34 wins
1993 Hardaway - 34 wins
1994 Richmond - 27 wins
1998 Richmond - 28 wins
1995 Richmond - 39 wins
1996 Richmond - 39 wins
1997 Richmond - 34 wins
2000 Marbury - 31 wins
2004 McGrady - 21 wins
2004 Lebron - 35 wins
2015 Cousins - 29 wins
2016 Cousins - 33 wins
2017 AD - 34 wins
2019 Kemba - 39 wins
2020 Lillard - 35 wins
2023 Luka - 38 wins


CONCLUSION: 2nd options need winning teams to make All-NBA, with only 4 exceptions in 40 years..

2nd options need winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA because their performance isn't enough on it's own.. Otoh, 1st options routinely make All-NBA with losing teams because they dominate... Essentially, All-NBA is reserved for 1st options and their dominance, unless a secondary option has sufficient winning spotlight.

Finally, if we run the numbers for 40-50 win teams, there are only a half dozen examples of 2nd options getting All-NBA with these records - infact, Klay and Pippen needed 67-win teams and league favorite to make their first All-NBA - the subsequent titles gave them the permanent winning spotlight that Parker, Ginobili and Pau enjoyed to get their All-NBA selections as well.. The idea is to trick the dumb media by landing alongside a goat 1st option that can carry you to titles - the historical and statistical record shows that this is what these winning 2nd options did to make All-NBA

So let's see:

- You lied about Adrian Dantley, he didn't make all-NBA in 80 and 82. Off the list those years
- Isiah was 2nd option to Tripucka in 83, so that argument works for me thanks
- Dominique won 42 wins in 94 per basketball reference, playing 25 for the Clips and 49 for ATL. Nice try, he's off the list.
- Lebron won 42 games in 2004-2005. The 35 wins you're giving his is for his rookie year. Off the list
- 2012 Chandler is a defensive big,so since you count him you've legitimized guys like Bogut, Drummond, Mutumbo, Horford, thanks
- 2012 is also a asterisk year due to lockout, 66 game season but the Knicks were 36-30 so Melo/Chandler had a winning season that year. Nice try
- Dwight missed 28 games and missed out on 40 wins by 3 games.
- 2020 was a shortened season due to lockdowns, asterisk
- Luka missed out on 40 wins by 2 wins, missing 16 games

CONCLUSION: You lied about Adrian Dantley in 1980 and 82 being all-NBA those years, Isiah was 2nd option to Tripucka in 83, lied about 94 Nique who got 42 total wins playing for both the Hawks( 49) and the Clippers( 25) and you sneakily gave him the Clips 27 win total when he didn't even play that many games for LA , lied about Lebron giving his rookie win total of 35 wins instead of 42 in 2005 when he made 2nd team, ignore that 2012 was a 66 game lockout year and then pretend like Melo and Chandler didn't have a winning record at 36/30, 2020 was pandemic year shortened season, and Luka wins 40+ if he didn't miss 16 games.

So, your actual list of first options for which you didn't lie( 80 and 82 Dantley, 94 Wilkins, 05 Lebron), not note legit asterisks for why a player wouldn't have easily broke 40 wins( Luka 2023) if not for serious time missed to injury or shortened seasons( Melo 2012, Dame 2020), meaning the player played the majority of the year and wouldn't have gotten 40 wins because the team just was that bad/mediocre:

- Adrian Dantley 82
- Jordan 85
- Mullin 90
- Richmond 94-98( which is actually one player just getting in multiple times instead of multiple players, but I'll play along)'
- Maybury 2000
- Tmac 2004
- Cousins 2015
- Cousins 2016 won 33 whlle missing 17, but we'll let that one slip
- AD 2017
- Kemba 2020

That's very far from there being 'tons' of first options who made all-nba with 20-40 wins, and that's if you include players who missed 16-28 games and act like they wouldn't have won 40 games in some cases,weren't impacted by lockout, or ignore that a few players happened to benefit from periods of weak positional competition ( Richmond winning 27 games, for example) that largely wouldn't fly today. Heaps of context needed here that you conveniently omit.

OTOH 83 Isiah can now be added to my list of non-first option players so you'll appreciate me bolding him, who made all-NBA without 'winning spotlight' inflation like 85 Alvin Robertson,87 Fat Lever, 92 Kevin Willis, 93 Derrick Coleman, 93 Hardaway( bolded him as well for your convenience),96 Juwan Howard,97 Vin Baker, 98 Rod Strickland, 02 Mutumbo( defensive centric big like CHandler), 06 Yao Ming, 2013 David Lee, 2016 Andre Drummond( defensive big like Chandler), 2018 KAT, 2011 Horford( defensive big like CHandler), 2023/2024 Sabonis. These players were either 2nd option/scorer for the years I listed, or 2nd/3rd best player like a Mutumbo or Strickland type BUT more specifically, were not the defacto first options for those years. If they were definitive first option in other years, like Coleman in 94, doesn't dismiss that he was 2nd option to Petrovic in 93. Furthermore the lists provided here by both of us, regardless of how certain players are described for the purpose of our respective arguments, show recent voting patterns clearly indicating that players getting all-NBA whether they be first or 2nd option on sub 40 win teams is becoming even less common in recent years, let alone over history. The historical record of the past 5 seasons as I listed shows that outside of Luka in 2023 getting 38 wins while missing 16 games, Kemba in 2019, and 2020 Dame in a lockout year, the voters aren't handing out all-NBA awards like candy to sub 40 win players. There's no Mitch Richmonds getting all-nba for 27 wins in the year 2025, not when over the past 5-6 years Devin Booker has seasons averaging 26-28 on 50 win teams and doesn't touch all-NBA.

[tpols]

And Pippen was without question a top 10 player throughout the 90's, making 3ball's entire premise moot. Considering Richmond was making All-NBA multiple times on sub 30 win teams, it's safe to say Pippen would've been a perennial All-NBA player regardless of where he played.

The problem is Pippen didn't play like a top 10 player in the playoffs in any year except 1991. He was getting outplayed in series by guys like Xavier McDaniels and Detlef Shremph and other not even close to top 10 players in his prime peak in playoff series.

He is better than Klay though I'll give you that because when his shot wasnt falling his defense actually was on GOAT tier and its measurable unlike Klay. Pippen is the only player to lead league in DRTG in the 90s that wasnt a center ~ Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson.

[3ba11]

The problem is Pippen didn't play like a top 10 player in the playoffs in any year except 1991. He was getting outplayed in series by guys like Xavier McDaniels and Detlef Shremph and other not even close to top 10 players in his prime peak in playoff series.

He is better than Klay though I'll give you that because when his shot wasnt falling his defense actually was on GOAT tier and its measurable unlike Klay. Pippen is the only player to lead league in DRTG in the 90s that wasnt a center ~ Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson.


In addition to defense and ballhandling, Pippen's strength was that he ran the court like a deer.

Normally, a player doesn't have to worry about running the court - it's something that is done naturally.. But when a defender has to actually focus on not getting beat down the court on every possession, it takes a toll and their offense - that's what Pippen did to guys - he destroyed them in transition and secondary breaks.. And his IQ was excellent - he learned the triangle to absolute perfection, which was necessary for him because his halfcourt offense otherwise struggled.

All that being said, there are many ways to skin a cat defensively... An upgrade from Paxson to Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell would improve the playmaking and defense at that position, thereby allowing Pippen to be "downgraded" to Horry... Essentially, give MJ the same cast Hakeem had, and he would win pretty much the same way.. Of course, Horry was an excellent defender that provided the clutch and spacing that Pippen couldn't, which culminated in a 95' Finals performance and gamescore that Pippen never matched in 6 tries.

[SouBeachTalents]

The problem is Pippen didn't play like a top 10 player in the playoffs in any year except 1991. He was getting outplayed in series by guys like Xavier McDaniels and Detlef Shremph and other not even close to top 10 players in his prime peak in playoff series.

He is better than Klay though I'll give you that because when his shot wasnt falling his defense actually was on GOAT tier and its measurable unlike Klay. Pippen is the only player to lead league in DRTG in the 90s that wasnt a center ~ Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson.
As you know All-NBA isn't based off the playoffs, so even if his play did drop off in the postseason, that doesn't change the fact he would've been a perennial All-NBA player regardless of the team that he played for.

And here's where context is important, even if you believe his level of play dropped in the postseason, he still outscored the opposing teams 2nd option in 18 of 24 playoff series during their title runs, so factoring in his GOAT tier defense and playmaking, he was still very often at worst the 3rd best player on the floor in the vast majority of these series.

[ShawkFactory]

In addition to defense and ballhandling, Pippen's strength was that he ran the court like a deer.

Normally, a player doesn't have to worry about running the court - it's something that is done naturally.. But when a defender has to actually focus on not getting beat down the court on every possession, it takes a toll and their offense - that's what Pippen did to guys - he destroyed them in transition and secondary breaks.. And his IQ was excellent - he learned the triangle to absolute perfection, which was necessary for him because his halfcourt offense otherwise struggled.

All that being said, there are many ways to skin a cat defensively... An upgrade from Paxson to Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell would improve the playmaking and defense at that position, thereby allowing Pippen to be "downgraded" to Horry... Essentially, give MJ the same cast Hakeem had, and he would win pretty much the same way.. Of course, Horry was an excellent defender that provided the clutch and spacing that Pippen couldn't, which culminated in a 95' Finals performance and gamescore that Pippen never matched in 6 tries.

Whoa! The rare Pippen compliment :lol

[3ba11]

It's funny how opposing SG's always gush about MJ's defense - they say things like "if MJ didn't want you to score - you didn't score"... But why don't SF's say that about Pippen??... It's because they all destroyed Pippen and scored on him at will.. There are videos of Schrempf, Mullin, Glenn Robinson, Mashburn and Grant Hill making Pippen look like he's in high school - Pippen couldn't BEGIN to stop opposing SF's... They all had their way with him - even a hobbled Worthy was scoring on Pippen like he wasn't even there in the 91' Finals.

[3ba11]

As you know All-NBA isn't based off the playoffs, so even if his play did drop off in the postseason, that doesn't change the fact he would've been a perennial All-NBA player regardless of the team that he played for.

And here's where context is important, even if you believe his level of play dropped in the postseason, he still outscored the opposing teams 2nd option in 18 of 24 playoff series during their title runs, so factoring in his GOAT tier defense and playmaking, he was still very often at worst the 3rd best player on the floor in the vast majority of these series.


It took 67 wins and league favorite status for Pippen or Klay to get All-NBA - this is very telling... Unlike 1st options, 2nd options don't get All-NBA with losing records, so they rely on winning spotlight to appear worthy to the media.

Pippen scored automatic system points and usually shot much worse than any of the main scoring options on either team, so his scoring was usually inferior and less impactful than the opposing 2nd and 3rd options.

And the only guys that Pippen outscored in the playoffs were opposing guards that were underperforming against MJ, otherwise he was outscored by the majority of SF's in his playoff career - this includes Aguirre, Nance, Johny Newman, X-Man, Dominique, Larry Johnson, Penny, Schrempf, Juwan Howard, Rice twice, and many more..

Pippen's true shooting was below league average for every year of his playoff career, except 89', 90', and 01-03' (no burden) or 91'.. 91' was his only viable run where he was a reliable 2nd option, and it was still a pedestrian run compared to the best sidekick runs in history.

The reality is that MJ won his first title with 17.8 ppg from Pippen, which is the same as Mo Williams in 2009, except the Cavs had much better team defense than the Bulls.. So the 09' Cavs had more help on both sides of the ball than the 91' Bulls.

Btw, the only people that compliment Pippen's defense are the media, which includes ex-players in the media - NONE of his SF matchups praise his defense because they all destroyed Pippen... Mashburn dropped 50 in Pippen, while Glenn Robinson, Worthy, X-Man, Rice and virtually every SF in the league scored on Pippen at will - no one was shut down by him.. It's telling because opposing SG's always said things like "if MJ didn't want you to score - you didn't score", but opposing SF's never say anything like that about Pippen... Pippen was a good defender, but his defense got overrated, i.e. the media couldn't compliment his offense, so they got really good at complimenting his defense.