Top 10 most overrated list which exists just to farm engagement.

Imagine thinking Magic is the most overrated player in NBA history...that's a whole 'nother level of stupid

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14845617]% aren't everything I look at. I watch them play. Was a Stockton fan from day 1 when he was shooting 46%. BB IQ, playing both ends, playing unselfishlessly... Gunners, one way players, low IQ aren't for me[/QUOTE]

among the several issues there is that I don’t think everyone you call low IQ is low IQ. It also isn’t necessarily high IQ to be unselfish at the expense of your team which John Stockton absolutely was. I love his game, but the jazz flat out lost games often important ones because he would not do what he finally did down the stretch in 1997. The basketball IQ and unselfish thing are often tied together, regardless of results, and it should be far more case by case.

plenty of people are selective with taking shots when they need to be aggressive and that isn’t playing intelligently. It’s playing timidly.

Jason Kidd for example had plenty of 20% shooting games but I would like to think even you don’t believe Jason Kidd did not have elite basketball IQ.

Would you call Jason Kidd an intelligent player?

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14845662]among the several issues there is that I don’t think everyone you call low IQ is low IQ. It also isn’t necessarily high IQ to be unselfish at the expense of your team which John Stockton absolutely was. I love his game, but the jazz flat out lost games often important ones because he would not do what he finally did down the stretch in 1997. The basketball IQ and unselfish thing are often tied together, regardless of results, and it should be far more case by case.

plenty of people are selective with taking shots when they need to be aggressive and that isn’t playing intelligently. It’s playing timidly.

Jason Kidd for example had plenty of 20% shooting games but I would like to think even you don’t believe Jason Kidd did not have elite basketball IQ.

Would you call Jason Kidd an intelligent player?[/QUOTE]

Kidd taking the most shots on his team when he couldn't shoot is not smart basketball. Garnett was similar to Stockton. Too unselfish. Put enough talent around him and he got a ring

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14845663]Kidd taking the most shots on his team when he couldn't shoot is not smart basketball. Garnett was similar to Stockton. Too unselfish. Put enough talent around him and he got a ring[/QUOTE]

Jason Kidd played for 19 seasons and led 4 teams in shots. Two of them because he was playing lead leading type minutes and the guy who was actually the first option was playing about 30. He was playing more than 41 minutes a game. Per minute four players were taking more shots than he was. He was only really shooting the most on the team for two seasons, and one of them was the best season that team had in the last 45 years and the other one they lost in game seven of the conference finals… when he only took eight shots in 42 minutes.

He wasn’t playing like the first option for about 17 seasons, at least. And when he did, his teams hit franchise peak success. Why do you care about the statistical specifics of a successful approach? Especially one that was almost never employed throughout his career.

feels like a really weird thing to hold against the basketball intellect of someone universally praised for basketball IQ.

Also, if you’re saying John Stockton was too unselfish(which I agree with) isn’t that in fact, a criticism of his decision making and basketball IQ? Or does making the wrong decisions not count when that wrong decision is to pass and let your team be worse than it would be otherwise?

is being unselfish to the detriment of your teams potential a high IQ decision? And if so, what the **** is the point of being high IQ?

Passing up a shot you can make doesn’t make you smart just because it results in better numbers. Making the right play makes you smart. Sometimes the right play is shooting the ball and Stockton too often would not make it.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14845679]Jason Kidd played for 19 seasons and led 4 teams in shots. Two of them because he was playing lead leading type minutes and the guy who was actually the first option was playing about 30. He was playing more than 41 minutes a game. Per minute four players were taking more shots than he was. He was only really shooting the most on the team for two seasons, and one of them was the best season that team had in the last 45 years and the other one they lost in game seven of the conference finals… when he only took eight shots in 42 minutes.

He wasn’t playing like the first option for about 17 seasons, at least. And when he did, his teams hit franchise peak success. Why do you care about the statistical specifics of a successful approach? Especially one that was almost never employed throughout his career.

feels like a really weird thing to hold against the basketball intellect of someone universally praised for basketball IQ.

Also, if you’re saying John Stockton was too unselfish(which I agree with) isn’t that in fact, a criticism of his decision making and basketball IQ? Or does making the wrong decisions not count when that wrong decision is to pass and let your team be worse than it would be otherwise?

is being unselfish to the detriment of your teams potential a high IQ decision? And if so, what the **** is the point of being high IQ?

Passing up a shot you can make doesn’t make you smart just because it results in better numbers. Making the right play makes you smart. Sometimes the right play is shooting the ball and Stockton too often would not make it.[/QUOTE]

Easy to say now. At the time Stockton was growing up point guards looked to pass to the open man. That's how I played the game. They weren't expected to score points. If he was coming into the league now he'd likely be a different player or he'd be playing in Spain.

Not a fan of Kidd or Iverson. I know it's difficult for you but that's just the way it's always been and it's not going to change

What if Larry Nance was top 30 all-time? Wouldn't he be on the list?

Because that's what Pippen was - a Larry Nance-level player that was inflated to top 30 all-time by the winning spotlight

And Pippen developed into a Larry Nance-level player - he didn't enter the league anywhere near that and needed to be in the perfect situation to grow into that player - this makes him even more overrated

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14845682]Easy to say now. At the time Stockton was growing up point guards looked to pass to the open man. That's how I played the game. They weren't expected to score points. If he was coming into the league now he'd likely be a different player or he'd be playing in Spain.

Not a fan of Kidd or Iverson. I know it's difficult for you but that's just the way it's always been and it's not going to change[/QUOTE]

I’m not a fan of Karl Malone, but you won’t catch me saying he couldn’t run the floor which is pretty equivalent to you talking about Jason Kidds basketball IQ as a problem. It’s like not liking Stockton because he wasn’t a good enough playmaker.

if you don’t like a guy just don’t like him. You don’t need to act like his celebrated primary attribute is a weakness.

The extreme extreme vast majority of his career he was not leading his team in shots, and when he did briefly it was the most successful that franchise ever was.

Acting like he wasn’t a smart player because of it is just being contrarian.

everybody is allowed to hate whoever they want. But youre acting like a guy hating on Vince Carter because of a lack of athleticism. What you’re saying just doesn’t compute.

Oh, and the greatest point guards before the time of Stockton were Bob Cousy who led the NBA in shot attempts on worse shooting than Jason Kidd, Oscar who scored over 30 points a game, Tiny Archibald who scored 34 points a game, Walt Frazier who was a 22/6 combo guard type, and then Magic and Isiah. And Magic was a wing before Stockton came along. The only elite points pre Stockton who were not prone to shoot a lot were…Lenny Wilkens aaaaand…who? Dave Bing was a 27ppg guy. I know you know all about Pistol Pete. Earl Monroe sure as shit wasn’t passing.

The idea that old-school point guards weren’t prone to shoot a lot is nothing but a myth born of a lack of information. Cousy was the prototype and he was first or second in the league in field goal attempts for 4 years in a row.

The great non-shooting Stockton like traditional point guard, people romanticize never actually existed. Every great point guard before Stockton, who wad as talented as he was….scored a great deal. He broke the trend of great point guards the scorers. He wasn’t following some trend.

The points who didn’t score…were the bad ones and role players.

Stockton isn’t a traditional great point. He’s a great point who pioneered playing like he wasn’t.

He isn’t anything close to the old school great points. He’s the better version of old school middling points who couldn’t score. Those who could always did. Because it was the right thing to do.

There is no group of all time elite points before Stockton who didn’t shoot a lot. There is a group of guys like Kevin Porter.

The greats were all bigtime scorers. The other guys were the tier or two below.

Stockton was a tier 1 all time talent who played like a tier 3 Mark Jackson, Rondo, or Kevin Porter and his team would’ve been better if he didn’t.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14845693]I’m not a fan of Karl Malone, but you won’t catch me saying he couldn’t run the floor which is pretty equivalent to you talking about Jason Kidds basketball IQ as a problem. It’s like not liking Stockton because he wasn’t a good enough playmaker.

if you don’t like a guy just don’t like him. You don’t need to act like his celebrated primary attribute is a weakness.

The extreme extreme vast majority of his career he was not leading his team in shots, and when he did briefly it was the most successful that franchise ever was.

Acting like he wasn’t a smart player because of it is just being contrarian.

everybody is allowed to hate whoever they want. But youre acting like a guy hating on Vince Carter because of a lack of athleticism. What you’re saying just doesn’t compute.[/QUOTE]

He shot too much for a guy that couldn't shoot. No amount of triple doubles changes that

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14845700]He shot too much for a guy that couldn't shoot. No amount of triple doubles changes that[/QUOTE]


so if he shoots less a team whos first option is Keith Vanhorn is going to defeat a team that has both Shaq and Kobe in their primes? No. Of course not. So what is the tangible real world result of him playing the way you suggest he should have?

I don’t think you actually have anything. I think you just don’t like him. And that I can get behind. He was kind of an asshole. But let’s just leave it at that because you’re complaining about bullshit that I don’t believe even you thinks would’ve changed any significant result.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14845702]so if he shoots less a team whos first option is Keith Vanhorn is going to defeat a team that has both Shaq and Kobe in their primes? No. Of course not. So what is the tangible real world result of him playing the way you suggest he should have?

I don’t think you actually have anything. I think you just don’t like him. And that I can get behind. He was kind of an asshole. But let’s just leave it at that because you’re complaining about bullshit that I don’t believe even you thinks would’ve changed any significant result.[/QUOTE]

they didn't beat Shaq and Kobe with him shooting under 40%. I don't like him or the way he played. If you can't shoot pass. Pretty simple. Would work for The Bum but he can't pass either

Even melting down about Clarkson in non related threads. :biggums:

Nobody was gonna do it passing to Van Horn. Luckily for Stockton he had an all timer to drop it off to for like 1200 games in a row. Kidd didn’t play with anyone better than him till he was approaching washed. Hell he didn’t play with as good a scorer as Thurl Bailey from like 96 to 05. Bit tougher to pull a champion caliber offense out of Kerry Kittles and KVH instead of Hornacek and Karl Malone.

Kidd absolutely maximized the one team he did the thing you’re most critical of on. It’s clearly just personal. Which as I said is fine. But let’s leave out any basketball based explanations about the intelligence of one of the best basketball minds the game has ever seen.

38 % on 16 shots says otherwise

Kidd is definitely an overrated scorer. Him taking his team to the Finals and dominating bad teams when the East was at its alltime worst doesnt change that.

Funny thing is if his Nets team were in the West they probably lose in the first round both times because they wouldnt have home court advantage.

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14845732]Kidd is definitely an overrated scorer. Him taking his team to the Finals and dominating bad teams when the East was at its alltime worst doesnt change that.

Funny thing is if his Nets team were in the West they probably lose in the first round both times because they wouldnt have home court advantage.[/QUOTE]

probably don't make the playoffs in the west

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14845597]Being great in any era under any coach with any teammates is a problem?[/QUOTE]

No, playing the same way and putting up a 13/11 on 55 statline on let's say the Nets doesn't yield the same team results. At some point the best player has to take over.

Stockton being efficient, but having no take over mentality would've been an issue on teams without a top dog scorer.

I love the disrespect to a guy that gave great numbers to Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey, and Jeff Hornacek. The fact that people still can't deal with John Stockton's greatest 25 years later is a testament to how underrated he was.

Anywho...top ten overrated players in my eyes

1. Shaq
2. Kevin Durant
3. Dwayne Wade
4. Robert Parish
5. Steve Nash
6. Ray Allen
7. Paul Pierce
8. Paul George
9. Yao Ming
10. Scottie Pippen

Paul george.

[QUOTE=John8204;14845859]I love the disrespect to a guy that gave great numbers to Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey, and Jeff Hornacek. The fact that people still can't deal with John Stockton's greatest 25 years later is a testament to how underrated he was.

Anywho...top ten overrated players in my eyes

1. Shaq
2. Kevin Durant
3. Dwayne Wade
4. Robert Parish
5. Steve Nash
6. Ray Allen
7. Paul Pierce
8. Paul George
9. Yao Ming
10. Scottie Pippen[/QUOTE]

no better than the Bum. Efficiency means nothing!

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14845724]38 % on 16 shots says otherwise[/QUOTE]

16 shots on 38% shooting(ignoring for now he only shot 16 times per game in one of 19 seasons, but you seem determined to pretend it was the standard) says he did not maximize those net teams? Meaning they were supposed to do what instead of make back to back finals and a game seven of an eastern conference finals? They were supposed to beat the Lakers or Spurs with those teams? You already said no. So…what are you even talking about?

[QUOTE]
Kidd is definitely an overrated scorer.

[/QUOTE]


How when you have never heard him called a scorer? He was called Ason Kidd even in his prime. This is another DeRozan situation. You can’t be overrated when everybody says the same thing. At no point of his career was he a highly rated scorer. He played 19 years as a starter and averaged 11 shots a game. He took the same shots per minute as Rajon Rondo. In two different All-Star seasons, he took less shots per minute then Ben Wallace did on the 2004 pistons. At one point Dale Davis shot more per minute than Jason Kidd did in five of his all Star seasons. Dennis Rodman’s peak per minute shot attempts is higher than seven seasons of prime Jason Kidd. Ben Simmons for his career takes more shots per minute than Jason Kidd did…

The man simply did not shoot a lot he just played heavy minutes and was never considered a scorer, despite this downright baffling conversation.

when he was shooting the most he ever did his team had its most success in the last 49 years. Seriously. What the **** are we even talking about right now? We are arguing about someone who shoots as much as Rajon rondo shooting too much when the only time he was leading his team in shot attempts, was that teams peak success of half a century immediately following them winning 26 games led by a much better scorer.

this has to be one of the most ridiculous conversations I’ve ever been in and also a weird one, considering I was here while this was going on and not a single person was complaining about it. Even the many haters he had who felt he was overrated relative to Duncan and shouldn’t have been in the MVP conversation warrant, claiming he was shooting too much or doing anything, but getting the most out of that team. Which by the way nobody even disagrees with unless they feel he should have won the title. And nobody does.

this is an exceptionally meritless argument, even by our standards.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14845913]How when you have never heard him called a scorer? He was called Ason Kidd even in his prime. This is another DeRozan situation. You can’t be overrated when everybody says the same thing. At no point of his career was he a highly rated scorer. He played 19 years as a starter and averaged 11 shots a game. He took the same shots per minute as Rajon Rondo. In two different All-Star seasons, he took less shots per minute then Ben Wallace did on the 2004 pistons. At one point Dale Davis shot more per minute than Jason Kidd did in five of his all Star seasons. Dennis Rodman’s peak per minute shot attempts is higher than seven seasons of prime Jason Kidd….

The man simply did not shoot a lot he just played heavy minutes and was never considered a scorer, despite this downright baffling conversation.

when he was shooting the most he ever did his team had its most success in the last 49 years. Seriously. What the **** are we even talking about right now? We are arguing about someone who shoots as much as Rajon rondo, and a little more than Ben Wallace, shooting too much when the only time he was leading his team in shot attempts, was that teams peak success of half a century immediately following them winning 26 games live by a much better scorer.

this has to be one of the most ridiculous conversations I’ve ever been in and also a weird one, considering I was here while this was going on and not a single person was complaining about it. Even the many haters he had who felt he was overrated relative to Duncan and shouldn’t have been in the MVP conversation warrant, claiming he was shooting too much or doing anything, but getting the most out of that team. Which by the way nobody even disagrees with unless they feel he should have won the title. And nobody does.

this is an exceptionally meritless argument, even by our standards.[/QUOTE]

He was called a scorer those 2 years they made the finals dominating flawed teams some with weak guards allowing him to look better than he actually was.

Reggie Miller was called a scorer yet Kidd isnt yet he shot more than Miller for any extended playoff run. Imagine having your team guard him with an oft injured Tinsley and Kevin fkn Ollie. The praise that he got was sickening.

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14845919]He was called a scorer those 2 years they made the finals dominating flawed teams some with weak guards allowing him to look better than he actually was.

Reggie Miller was called a scorer yet Kidd isnt yet he shot more than Miller for any extended playoff run. Imagine having your team guard him with an oft injured Tinsley and Kevin fkn Ollie. The praise that he got was sickening.[/QUOTE]


At no point in his life was Jason Kidd ever considered a scorer. He was considered a player who did whatever his team needed him to do. If Reggie Miller had been a better basketball player, you wouldn’t need to complain about weak defenders on kidd because Reggie would step up and provide excellent defense. But he wasn’t capable of it because he wasn’t a good all-around basketball player. He was an incredible shooter and a good scorer. The difference between those players who are largely useless when they can’t score and Jason Kidd was pointed out all the time during that run before it and after it. Funny enough, Reggie Miller is one of the players most prone to point out how hard it is to make such people ineffective.

Even if Reggie and Kidd both score 31 as they did in that double OT game that probably has you so salty Kidd is likely to do a lot more for his team than Reggie because Reggie can barely dribble, was a marginal passer, and defender.

Reggie could just shoot. And was obviously clutch. Like when Reggie hit the miracle three that replay showed shouldn’t have counted and along with a similar one by Baron Davis forced the adoption of replay checks. That’s what he did.

Jason Kidd did everything but that…except for a while he made the big shots too. Didn’t make him a scorer in the eyes of anyone paying attention or virtually anyone talking about it though.

But he didn’t have to be.

Most scorers were worse at basketball. Like Reggie was.

That said the long bank shot game was the same game Reggie inexplicably dunked on the whole population of New Jersey two handed right? I think that was my favorite play of his career. That was in my old man Reggie fan era. I think I annoyed some Net fans discussing it here at the time.

I don’t think I was pro nets at the time. I feel like I was heavy on the “Duncan or KG for mvp” thing when Kidd was getting that talk.

I remember Miller actually being the best defender on Kidd in that playoff series but at 36 years old he didnt have the stamina to guard him fulltime while scoring 24 a game. Imagine what he would have done to them in his prime...

In what world is a guy scoring 20ppg at his playoff peak not a scorer?

The same one where Bill Russell scored 20 a game in the playoffs. Nobody is calling him a scorer. Scoring a lot in massive minutes because your team doesn’t have a go to scorer doesn’t mean that’s your play style.

Unrelated but annoying…

Why doesn’t Starbucks have Apple Pay on its app? I assume they want you to buy gift cards which make you return when you have change but…shit. This has to be the company with the most mobile food orders in the world and they have me typing in card numbers like it’s 2008…

The only one on that list I see as actually overrated is Rondo.

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14845585]Kidd took the most shots on his team despite not being able to shoot. He was hyped because of triple doubles. Getting a triple double while shooting 5-19 from the floor never did much for me. If you shot less than 40% and took a lot of shots you aren't my type[/QUOTE]


If your next best offensive option is Kerry kittles you're gonna have to take some extra shots.

Once Kidd got Vince Carter he wasn't taking as many and on Dallas as well. He knew when to defer to better offensive players. Nets didn't have any in the early 2000s. Iverson never deferred even on the stacked Nuggets or Olympic teams. That's the difference.

Would you seriously say Rudy gobert is better than prime Jason Kidd?

:biggums:

That's a ban able offense.

Didn't notice earlier that the cocky prick morant is also on the list. Deserved. :roll:

Anyway i think kyrie should be up there as well, being hyped up as uncle drew in the pepsi commercials before lebron came back to the cavaliers in 2014.

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14845732]Kidd is definitely an overrated scorer. Him taking his team to the Finals and dominating bad teams when the East was at its alltime worst doesnt change that.

Funny thing is if his Nets team were in the West they probably lose in the first round both times because they wouldnt have home court advantage.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about that. The Nets used to sweep the Pistons in the early 2000s and were even a hair away from beating the 2004 version that destroyed the Lakers. They were a tough team. And Kidd was totally dominant out there.

I respect the old time greats and I think they could play in any era but that is such a weird time numbers wise. Russells playoff high scoring (22ppg)he was playing 48 mins a game while also grabbing 30 rebs, same season Wilt goes for 50ppg. How would those translate in the modern era (80s to present)?

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14845895]no better than the Bum. Efficiency means nothing![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14845913]How when you have never heard him called a scorer? He was called Ason Kidd even in his prime. This is another DeRozan situation. You can’t be overrated when everybody says the same thing. At no point of his career was he a highly rated scorer. He played 19 years as a starter and averaged 11 shots a game. He took the same shots per minute as Rajon Rondo. In two different All-Star seasons, he took less shots per minute then Ben Wallace did on the 2004 pistons. At one point Dale Davis shot more per minute than Jason Kidd did in five of his all Star seasons. Dennis Rodman’s peak per minute shot attempts is higher than seven seasons of prime Jason Kidd. Ben Simmons for his career takes more shots per minute than Jason Kidd did…

The man simply did not shoot a lot he just played heavy minutes and was never considered a scorer, despite this downright baffling conversation.

when he was shooting the most he ever did his team had its most success in the last 49 years. Seriously. What the **** are we even talking about right now? We are arguing about someone who shoots as much as Rajon rondo shooting too much when the only time he was leading his team in shot attempts, was that teams peak success of half a century immediately following them winning 26 games led by a much better scorer.

this has to be one of the most ridiculous conversations I’ve ever been in and also a weird one, considering I was here while this was going on and not a single person was complaining about it. Even the many haters he had who felt he was overrated relative to Duncan and shouldn’t have been in the MVP conversation warrant, claiming he was shooting too much or doing anything, but getting the most out of that team. Which by the way nobody even disagrees with unless they feel he should have won the title. And nobody does.

this is an exceptionally meritless argument, even by our standards.[/QUOTE]

I had someone tell me they didn't like chris paul on the Warriors the other day because of his poor decisions making and I got put on an ignore list for disagreeing vehemently. That might top this.

[QUOTE=tpols;14845958]I don't know about that. The Nets used to sweep the Pistons in the early 2000s and were even a hair away from beating the 2004 version that destroyed the Lakers. They were a tough team. And Kidd was totally dominant out there.[/QUOTE]

Was Kidd dominant scoring just 10 ppg on 28%fg in 2004 against the Pistons?

He looked good in 2002 and 2003 but when the competition and his teammates got better they didnt win as much and he was scoring less

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14845972]Was Kidd dominant scoring just 10 ppg on 28%fg in 2004 against the Pistons?

He looked good in 2002 and 2003 but when the competition and his teammates got better they didnt win as much and he was scoring less[/QUOTE]

That series had games ending in the 50s and 60s point totals. It was a true slugfest. If Kidd wasn't the best defensive and rebounding point guard of all time and a brilliant passer and floor general I would agree with you.

If he was just known as a pure scorer like Iverson or Reggie and produced like that I would agree with you. But he was literally everything outside of that. He could shoot 30% and take over a game.

[QUOTE=tpols;14845955]If your next best offensive option is Kerry kittles you're gonna have to take some extra shots.

Once Kidd got Vince Carter he wasn't taking as many and on Dallas as well. He knew when to defer to better offensive players. Nets didn't have any in the early 2000s. Iverson never deferred even on the stacked Nuggets or Olympic teams. That's the difference.

Would you seriously say Rudy gobert is better than prime Jason Kidd?

:biggums:

That's a ban able offense.[/QUOTE]

Gobert knows his strengths and weaknesses. He's not taking a bunch of shots he's going to make only 40% of the time

Gobert certainly might have went to a couple conference finals if he'd been playing in the east and he might win a ring as a role player still. Gobert has a higher offensive and defensive rating all time. Higher defensive Box +/-. More win shares per 48 minutes(Believe that was one where he's ahead of a statue as well). Player efficiency rating goes to Gobert(surprise, surprise!). More DPOTY. Obviously rebounding, blocks, %'s...

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14845977]Gobert knows his strengths and weaknesses. He's not taking a bunch of shots he's going to make only 40% of the time[/QUOTE]

If Kidd played with Donovan Mitchell and KAT and Anthony Edward's he wouldn't have had to take shots like that. And if Gobert played on those 20 win net teams he wouldn't even win 30 games. Whether he shot 5 times a game or 20. They'd be lotto. With Kidd they won the whole conference back to back.

The thing that really blows my mind though is how you hate him despite the fact he took a bottom rank defense and turned them #1 overall literally... immediately when he got there. You're a defense guy. No doubt about it. Yet you're here shitting on one of the best defensive players ever. It's incredible, astounding, and perplexing and probably some other words in the English language all at the same time. You're creating a dent in the time space continuum with your hypocrisy here.

[QUOTE=tpols;14845990]If Kidd played with Donovan Mitchell and KAT and Anthony Edward's he wouldn't have had to take shots like that. And if Gobert played on those 20 win net teams he wouldn't even win 30 games. Whether he shot 5 times a game or 20. They'd be lotto. With Kidd they won the whole conference back to back.

The thing that really blows my mind though is how you hate him despite the fact he took a bottom rank defense and turned them #1 overall literally... immediately when he got there. You're a defense guy. No doubt about it. Yet you're here shitting on one of the best defensive players ever. It's incredible, astounding, and perplexing and probably some other words in the English language all at the same time. You're creating a dent in the time space continuum with your hypocrisy here.[/QUOTE]
He also loves Chris Webber and says he didn't shoot enough despite Chris Webber being relatively average efficiency wise in his prime (and well below average efficiency wise past his prime). You'd think he'd say Webber should have been passing to the hyper efficient Peja more but nope he was too unselfish according to Xiao. Absolutely zero consistency. He also loves Adrian Dantley and considers him better than Anthony Davis despite supposedly being a defense guy. He just has his favorites and tries to justify it with on court stuff but it's all bullshit.

If Xiao says "can't quit me here", he admits he eats boogers.