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

[QUOTE=red1;14845558]1. kobe
2. chris bosh
3. durant

underrated:

1. wade
2. kawhi
3. pierce[/QUOTE]
my opinions:

kobe is top 7 some people have him top 3 or as their GOAT which IMO is overrating him. the real top 5 players are all big men or hyper athletes like lebron mj kareem wilt and shaq

bosh is a great player some people argue he was top 5 in the league which is overrating

durant is the best scorer of his era but brings zero leadership and little intangibles to his team



wade is the second best shooting guard ever IMO

kawhi is second best player of his era. yes - better than curry and kd.

pierce was a big game player. his stats and accolades dont do him justice. people used to argue that melo was better which I disagree with.

[QUOTE=tpols;14845564]Most of what you said was off the court stuff. And acting like Iverson didn't beat his wife and throw her out on the front lawn.

I generally don't bring that stuff up though. I don't care what these guys did in their personal lives, a lot of them are on some power hungry scumbag shit.

On the court though? Kidd is by far the most elite defensive and rebounding player at his position and a brilliant passer. There's a reason he won way more basketball games than Iverson did.

It's kind of wierd Xiao hates him though. He wasn't a gunner and played elite defense. That seems to be his "type". But apparently not lol.[/QUOTE]


I didn’t act like anything about Iverson. Iverson’s issues were heavily publicized. Kidd went around beating women drinking and driving, telling his teammates to ignore multiple coaches and getting them fired. Refusing to play and demanding trades more than anybody short of James Harden. He was just a bad person to have on your team outside the 48 minutes of the game and he would routinely go and shoot one for 12 or something in a close playoff loss. He was as a matter of fact, hugely inefficient, and did more cancerous activities than almost anybody who has the reputation for it.

he’s somewhat like Karl Malone, with obviously different transgressions. Somehow maintained a great reputation while being an absolute piece of shit. Far as I can, tell, malone wasn’t a bad teammate though. Jason Kidd ruined three teams, and demanded to be traded from two after refusing to play hard.

I knew all that even then. I’ve repped Jason Kidd and Iverson and John Stockton for the last 30 years. I don’t care about most of the things that a persons haters won’t let go of. I respect greatness in all its forms and pretty much everyones haters take it too far.

in their primes, they’re all pretty similarly accomplished, and Stockton is definitely the one who did the least with the most. But that isnt a way to seriously evaluate a player to me. It’s just funny how selective people are about it.

none of them really lead a team to true victory and Stockton is the only one who consistently had anyone who probably should have been able to do it with him.

I don’t think you could give Jason kidd Kevin Garnett, or Dirk for a 15 year prime and not win. I’d also imagine prime Kevin Garnett on the 76ers would’ve been quite helpful. Stockton had what neither of them did. An MVP caliber running mate for his entire professional career with a hugely respected coach and a rotation of good third players and decent If not great role players depending on the year.

his career great as it was really doesn’t do much to suggest there is one ultimately effective way to play. You figure a great defensive, tough as nails, 55% shooting point guard who has maybe two peers in basketball history as a floor general would get more done given arguably his ideal running mate for a healthy near 20 year run.

But as the old saying goes….that’s why they play the games.

Reggie Miller and Magic Johnson quite easily.

Not sure why Payton is on there. Or some of the current crop of players...

[QUOTE=tpols;14845564]Most of what you said was off the court stuff. And acting like Iverson didn't beat his wife and throw her out on the front lawn.

I generally don't bring that stuff up though. I don't care what these guys did in their personal lives, a lot of them are on some power hungry scumbag shit.

On the court though? Kidd is by far the most elite defensive and rebounding player at his position and a brilliant passer. There's a reason he won way more basketball games than Iverson did.

It's kind of wierd Xiao hates him though. He wasn't a gunner and played elite defense. That seems to be his "type". But apparently not lol.[/QUOTE]

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=Kblaze8855;14845565]The “who cares” kind of throws out the meat of the argument about what the right way is. If the supposed right way doesn’t lead to any more success, despite greater resources? The “rightness” is a bit questionable.

John Stockton wouldn’t do a single ****ing thing worth talking about if he were in the place of Jason Kidd. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest it.

When being too unselfish brings about the same result as being too selfish, the difference doesn’t much matter.

Unselfishly watching your team score less than the opponent as you get knocked out of the playoffs isn’t the right way to play anymore than shooting your team out of the game is. You might prefer to play with the overly unselfish guy, but it’s the guy with a balance who is closer to playing the right way. And even he’s going to lose almost all the time as well.

A lot of this right way. Wrong way shit is just people keeping up for their favorite players regardless of what evidence they are use. People just like who they like. Do you like John Stockton. You don’t like Allen Iverson. I like both of them because I can appreciate pretty much any style of greatness.

Give me Stockton or Iverson or Kidd. I’m happy. And all 3 are probably gonna lose 15 years in a row.[/QUOTE]

Stockton would have been the same player regardless of where he was. I can guarantee he wouldn't have shot under 40% under any circumstance. You can have your low IQ gunners. I'll take the other guys

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14845572]I didn’t act like anything about Iverson. Iverson’s issues were heavily publicized. Kidd went around beating women drinking and driving, telling his teammates to ignore multiple coaches and getting them fired. Refusing to play and demanding trades more than anybody short of James Harden. He was just a bad person to have on your team outside the 48 minutes of the game and he would routinely go and shoot one for 12 or something in a close playoff loss. He was as a matter of fact, hugely inefficient, and did more cancerous activities than almost anybody who has the reputation for it.

he’s somewhat like Karl Malone, with obviously different transgressions. Somehow maintained a great reputation while being an absolute piece of shit. Far as I can, tell, malone wasn’t a bad teammate though. Jason Kidd ruined three teams, and demanded to be traded from two after refusing to play hard.

I knew all that even then. I’ve repped Jason Kidd and Iverson and John Stockton for the last 30 years. I don’t care about most of the things that a persons haters won’t let go of. I respect greatness in all its forms and pretty much everyones haters take it too far.

in their primes, they’re all pretty similarly accomplished, and Stockton is definitely the one who did the least with the most. But that isnt a way to seriously evaluate a player to me. It’s just funny how selective people are about it.

none of them really lead a team to true victory and Stockton is the only one who consistently had anyone who probably should have been able to do it with him.

I don’t think you could give Jason kidd Kevin Garnett, or Dirk for a 15 year prime and not win. I’d also imagine prime Kevin Garnett on the 76ers would’ve been quite helpful. Stockton had what neither of them did. An MVP caliber running mate for his entire professional career with a hugely respected coach and a rotation of good third players and decent If not great role players depending on the year.

his career great as it was really doesn’t do much to suggest there is one ultimately effective way to play. You figure a great defensive, tough as nails, 55% shooting point guard who has maybe two peers in basketball history as a floor general would get more done given arguably his ideal running mate for a healthy near 20 year run.

But as the old saying goes….that’s why they play the games.[/QUOTE]

A highly respected coach that went from 1st to 3rd in his division with two of the greats and again with the legendary Carlos Boozer. A team having loyalty towards you doesn't make you a great coach. They had a cheap owner. They were playing 4 on 5 at the offensive end with Eaton. There were always huge holes on their teams even when they won 60 games. Who were all these great role players they had other than Horny? I mean the ones that Sloan would actually play over the scrubs he often preferred? Jeff Malone? Bobby Hansen? Delaney Rudd? Jarron Collins? :roll:

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14845587]Stockton would have been the same player regardless of where he was.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly the problem.

[QUOTE=Overdrive;14845596]That's exactly the problem.[/QUOTE]

Being great in any era under any coach with any teammates is a problem?

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14845587]Stockton would have been the same player regardless of where he was. I can guarantee he wouldn't have shot under 40% under any circumstance. You can have your low IQ gunners. I'll take the other guys[/QUOTE]


That’s just a field goal percentage version of rooting for stats regardless of success. You rep guys with numbers you desire, and others are out for numbers they desire. Must’ve loved bum ass Jason Kapono, who absolutely stopped shooting, trying to maintain a record percentage toward the end of the season.

Percentages are all you seem to require as if shooting 54% with fewer points than the other team scored gives you a W. It doesn’t. It’s just a stat nerd approved L of no consequence.

Losing is losing.

Stockton shooting 55% doesn’t matter in a big loss any more than the more traditionally clowned empty stats do.

Just L after L regardless of how each of them get there.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14845610]That’s just a field goal percentage version of rooting for stats regardless of success. You rep guys with numbers you desire, and others are out for numbers they desire. Must’ve loved bum ass Jason Kapono, who absolutely stopped shooting, trying to maintain a record percentage toward the end of the season.

Percentages are all you seem to require as if shooting 54% with fewer points than the other team scored gives you a W. It doesn’t. It’s just a stat nerd approved L of no consequence.

Losing is losing.

Stockton shooting 55% doesn’t matter in a big loss any more than the more traditionally clowned empty stats do.

Just L after L regardless of how each of them get there.[/QUOTE]

% 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

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