Gary Payton has become insanely underrated

But yes that's just how it is with Payton. A PG you just don't want to face. He makes it very difficult for you to guard him with a very well rounded offensive game, where he can score in multiple ways and also a good passer/playmaker. And then on the other end you have to try and get your offensive game going against the greatest defensive PG of all-time.

It's not surprising that even HOFs like Stockton and Jordan have been outplayed head to head the worse in series against Gary Payton. Just a very difficult task to go against such a great PG.

[QUOTE=Premeditated]Payton is extremely underrated. Good lockdown defender. He completely tormented Jordan during the 96 Finals. lol @ getting lock down by a point guard.[/QUOTE]

The same PG who locked down Kobe from 2000-2002. Even Kobe said that nobody defended him better than a point guard (Eric Snow) in 2001-02 the same Snow that shut down Kobe in the 2001 NBA Finals.

PG's can lock down elite SG's. It happens.

[QUOTE=GP_20]I wouldn't quite agree he dominated the series.


Coming into the Finals, Jordan was averaging 36.3ppg, and had scored 30 or more points, 14 out of 17 games. Really amazing and what you expect from the GOAT in the biggest stage of the game. That's what you call dominating.

Then he met the [B]1996 DPOY Gary Payton[/B].

George Karl started the series out by playing Payton on Pippen, and throwing many double teams on Jordan. Jordan did pretty good against that, averaged 29ppg on 45%. Mid-way Game 3 Karl finally switched Payton to guard Jordan. For the rest of the series, Jordan was neutralized. Here were his #s for the rest of the series with Payton as the primary defender

[B]Games 3-6 (Payton primary defender)
33/83 39.8% 25.8ppg 4.8rpg 3.8apg 3.5tpg[/B]

Honestly, that's what you call dominating? He was averaging almost as many TOs as assists and was inefficient from the field.

His overall series numbers aren't much more impressive, and either way, I wouldn't call any of that dominating. But yes, Karl probably regret not putting Payton on Jordan from the start. Here is what NBA analyst Walton had to say about that


[B][I]Seattle coach George Karl would "rue" the decision to "hide [Payton] from 'the king'" in the early games of the series[/I][/B]




In fact, later on Harper got injured and Jordan had to guard Payton as well. And honestly, Payton outplayed him in their head to head matchups.

Bill Walton himself said
[B][I]


Bill Walton, commentating for NBC at the time, said Payton "outplayed" Jordan during the second half of the series[/I][/B]
-Bill Walton



Quite an accomplishment to outplay the GOAT in his prime in the NBA Finals head to head
:applause:[/QUOTE]
Jordan was definetly not in his prime during the 2nd 3-peat.

[QUOTE=GP_20]But yes that's just how it is with Payton. A PG you just don't want to face. He makes it very difficult for you to guard him with a very well rounded offensive game, where he can score in multiple ways and also a good passer/playmaker. And then on the other end you have to try and get your offensive game going against the greatest defensive PG of all-time.

It's not surprising that even HOFs like Stockton and Jordan have been outplayed head to head the worse in series against Gary Payton. Just a very difficult task to go against such a great PG.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree anymore with the statement. Peyton was under-rated.

[QUOTE=GP_20]And prior to the series, does anyone remember how bad Payton dominated John Stockton? Both these guys were around the same level coming in, All-Stars and All-NBA 2nd team members.


But the domination Payton exhibited on Stockton in the WCF was the PG equivalence to the dominance Hakeem displayed on Robinson in the WCF a year ago. It's this series that puts Hakeem over Robinson for good, and Payton over Stockton for good.


Here is how it went:

[B]
Game 1:[/B]
John Stockton
2/10 4pts 7ast 2reb 1stl

Gary Payton
8/16 21pts 7ast 4reb 3stl


[B]Game 2:[/B]
John Stockton
5/8 11pts 7ast 0reb 1stl

Gary Payton
7/16 18pts 8ast 2reb 4stl


[B]Game 3:[/B]
John Stockton
2/9 7pts 6ast 2reb 0stl

Gary Payton
11/21 25pts 3ast 6reb 1stl

[B]
Game 4:[/B]
John Stockton
3/9 7pts 8ast 3reb 3stl

Gary Payton
7/17 19pts 6ast 4reb 0stl


Game 5:
John Stockton
1/6 4pts 6ast 4reb 2stl

Gary Payton
11/17 31pts 6ast 5reb 2stl


[B]Game 6:[/B]
John Stockton
5/11 14pts 12ast 2reb 1stl

Gary Payton
3/7 10pts 7ast 9reb 0stl


[B]Game 7:[/B]
John Stockton
9/15 22pts 7ast 8reb 4stl

Gary Payton
9/17 21pts 5ast 6reb 1stl



TOTALS

[SIZE="4"][B]John Stockton
[/SIZE]
27/68 39.7% 9.8ppg 7.6apg 3.0rpg 1.7spg 3-4[/B]
[B]
[SIZE="4"]
Gary Payton
[/SIZE]
56/111 50.4% 20.7ppg 6.0apg 5.1rpg 1.6spg 4-3[/B]





The 15/11/53% shooting Stockton, was shut down. While Payton scored and shot at even a higher % than his season numbers. No excuse for Stockton here, Payton outplaying Stockton cost the Jazz a close series. He was doubled in the scoring department and even assists was close.
And both were looking for their 1st Final's App. at the time, so it was a very important series for both .[/QUOTE]
Why do you keep comparing a past his prime John Stockton to a peak Gary Payton? Especially since he got dominated in game 7 anyway. It's more accurate to say it was Hakeem dominating Robinson if it was 94 Hakeem vs 97 Robinson.
And why do you keep saying Seattle had anywhere near the best defense in 96?
Sonics-
102 defensive rating (2nd)
96.7 points allowed (8th)
playoffs defensive rating 104 (7th)
Bulls-
102 defensive rating (1st)
93 points allowed (3rd)
99 playoff defensive rating (1st)
They are the best in absolutely no defensive category. Not close.

[QUOTE=magnax1]Why do you keep comparing a past his prime John Stockton to a peak Gary Payton? Especially since he got dominated in game 7 anyway. It's more accurate to say it was Hakeem dominating Robinson if it was 94 Hakeem vs 97 Robinson.
And why do you keep saying Seattle had anywhere near the best defense in 96?
Sonics-
102 defensive rating (2nd)
96.7 points allowed (8th)
playoffs defensive rating 104 (7th)
Bulls-
102 defensive rating (1st)
93 points allowed (3rd)
99 playoff defensive rating (1st)
They are the best in absolutely no defensive category. Not close.[/QUOTE]

Past prime Stockton? Based on what? Don't say age because Stockton aged like wine, kind of like Steve Nash. Both were very much in their primes, and Stockton was just 33. Kidd, Nash, and even Payton were in their "primes" at that age. Are you saying Stockton, known for his longevity, fell faster than all 3 of them?

In fact, he was All-NBA 2nd, and putting upt 15/11 on 54%. Just last year he was considered the best PG in the NBA at 15/12. There was not a huge drop at all. Stop trying to make excuses here.

I agree he wasn't at his peak, but neither was Payton. His best years were yet to come.

Bottom-line, both were at around the same level, All-NBA 2nd.


But the matchup [B]wasn't even close[/B]. It was like watching Smush vs. Tony Parker. The difference between how they played was that great. Not what you would expect out of 2 HOF PGs in their Prime at around the same level (All-NBA 2nd)

That's just how bad Payton dominated John Stockton.

And LOL at the Game 7 remark. 1st of all, the stats were close but Payton came out with the W. 2nd of all, there would have been no Game 7 if Stockton hadn't been outplayed so bad. Stockton being dominated by Payton cost the Jazz the series. Malone did his part, but Prime Payton was just so much better than Prime Stockton here.




Defensive Rating (Points Allowed per 100 possessions) is the greatest indicator of a team's defense. Obviously Seattle was up-tempo so they would allow more points overall, and playoffs is what 4 opponents lol?
Both not good indicators.


I said Seattle was the 2nd best team on defense that year, and they were according to the best measure. That's all. And virtually tied with 1st (0.3ppg away), with 1st being Jordan/Rodman/Pippen. Payton though himself took his team to that level.


:applause:

[QUOTE]Past prime Stockton? Based on what? Don't say age because Stockton aged like wine, kind of like Steve Nash. Both were very much in their primes, and Stockton was just 33. Kidd, Nash, and even Payton were in their "primes" at that age. Are you saying Stockton, known for his longevity, fell faster than all 3 of them?[/QUOTE]

In fact, he was All-NBA 2nd, and putting upt 15/11 on 54%. Just last year he was considered the best PG in the NBA at 15/12. There was not a huge drop at all. Stop trying to make excuses here. [/QUOTE]
How about based on statistics, or watching a shitload of his games over the years. He'd gone from 17-14 and 3 steals to 15-11 with 2 steals. Is that not an obvious decline? On top of that he wasn't a very good man to man defender at that point, and wasn't near as good of a team defender which was what he was great at on defense. Mostly because he didn't have near the stamina, he couldn't run on all cylinders for 40 minutes.
And was Kareem in his prime at 33? Just because you're known for longevity doesn't mean you're in your prime into your mid 30's.
I[QUOTE] agree he wasn't at his peak, but neither was Payton. His best years were yet to come. [/QUOTE]
96 was definitely Payton's best year. The only change he would go through the next 5 years is playing more minutes, taking worse shots, and slowly becoming a worse defender.

[QUOTE]Bottom-line, both were at around the same level, All-NBA 2nd.[/QUOTE]
No, Payton was better in 96, but it's a stupid comparison because Stockton wasn't in his prime.

[QUOTE]But the matchup [B]wasn't even close[/B]. [B]It was like watching Smush vs. Tony Parker.[/B] The difference between how they played was that great. Not what you would expect out of 2 HOF PGs in their Prime at around the same level (All-NBA 2nd)[/QUOTE]
Exaggeration of the century. First off, Stockton outplayed Payton in the 7th game by a pretty large margin, and Payton was playing 46 minutes a game in that series, and still [I]barely[/I] met his season average. That's what you call dominating?


[QUOTE]And LOL at the Game 7 remark. 1st of all, the stats were close but Payton came out with the W. 2nd of all, there would have been no Game 7 if Stockton hadn't been outplayed so bad. Stockton being dominated by Payton cost the Jazz the series. Malone did his part, but Prime Payton was just so much better than Prime Stockton here.
[/QUOTE]
Stockton
22-8-7 4 steals 3 turnovers
Payton
19-4-7 2 steals 5 turnovers



[QUOTE]Defensive Rating (Points Allowed per 100 possessions) is the greatest indicator of a team's defense. Obviously Seattle was up-tempo so they would allow more points overall, and playoffs is what 4 opponents lol?
Both not good indicators.[/QUOTE]
Either way, They weren't as good as the bulls, and Payton had two good perimeter defenders in Hawkins and McMillan, and Beyond that, they weren't near as good on defense in the playoffs, where it really matters.

[QUOTE=magnax1]
How about based on statistics, or watching a shitload of his games over the years. He'd gone from 17-14 and 3 steals to 15-11 with 2 steals. Is that not an obvious decline? On top of that he wasn't a very good man to man defender at that point, and wasn't near as good of a team defender which was what he was great at on defense. Mostly because he didn't have near the stamina, he couldn't run on all cylinders for 40 minutes.
And was Kareem in his prime at 33? Just because you're known for longevity doesn't mean you're in your prime into your mid 30's. [/quote]

The league was more up-tempo back then, teams scored more, and statistics overall were inflated. So it's no surprise that Stockton averaged more than.

But I think you are mixing prime and peak. I agree he wasn't in his PEAK in 96. But he was still good enough to be called in his prime. Primes for players last about 10-15 years depending on the player, peaks are more 2-4 years.

96 still was Stockton's prime, but not peak. And once again this is obvious. Even Payton was in his prime (not peak) at age 33.

Though some would argue that 95-97 was his peak, including a poster named G.O.A.T. and others as well.


[QUOTE]


96 was definitely Payton's best year. The only change he would go through the next 5 years is playing more minutes, taking worse shots, and slowly becoming a worse defender. [/QUOTE]

It was arguably his defensive peak, but Payton actually did get better over the years. He became a better playmaker and overall scorer as his shot got better.

[QUOTE]
No, Payton was better in 96, but it's a stupid comparison because Stockton wasn't in his prime.[/QUOTE]

Once again, NEITHER were in their peaks. But both were in their primes. Primes last 10-15 years. Peaks last 2-4. I'd say Payton's peak was like 98-02, while Stockton's was probably late 80s to early 90s. But they were both in their primes.


[QUOTE]
Exaggeration of the century. First off, Stockton outplayed Payton in the 7th game by a pretty large margin, and Payton was playing 46 minutes a game in that series, and still [I]barely[/I] met his season average. That's what you call dominating?[/QUOTE]

:roll:
Payton played 42mpg. And his efficiency and overall scoring was higher as he abused Stockton. But the main story is his defense. Stockton, 9.8ppg on under 40% shooting, with his assists very low as well. [B]Completely shut down and dominated. [/B]

[QUOTE]

Stockton
22-8-7 4 steals 3 turnovers ]
Payton
19-4-7 2 steals 5 turnovers
[/QUOTE]

This is where I know you are trolling. You called THAT domination, when their stats were nearly identical But you are asking me is THIS domination?
[QUOTE]
Game 5:
John Stockton
1/6 4pts 6ast 4reb 2stl

Gary Payton
11/17 31pts 6ast 5reb 2stl[/QUOTE]
:facepalm

^^^^

I've never seen a HOF PG in his prime get outplayed Head to Head in the playoffs as much as Stockton did here. Please someone prove me wrong.




[quote]

Either way, They weren't as good as the bulls, and Payton had two good perimeter defenders in Hawkins and McMillan, and Beyond that, they weren't near as good on defense in the playoffs, where it really matters.[/QUOTE]

Do you even have a brain? Playoffs you face FOUR TEAMS. And the Sonics faced some of the best offenses in the league (Houston/Utah/Chicago). Don't you that skews the results




Please practice LOGIC





And you've ignored that since they both were All-Star PGs, and All-NBA 2nd team members, we should've seen a close matchup. But it ended up being like Brevin Knight vs. Tony Parker instead (this one better ?)
[QUOTE]
John Stockton

27/68 39.7% 9.8ppg 7.6apg 3.0rpg 1.7spg 3-4


Gary Payton

56/111 50.4% 20.7ppg 6.0apg 5.1rpg 1.6spg 4-3
[/QUOTE]

Yeah about what you would except seeing Brevin Knight vs. Tony Parker. Not seeing 2 HOF PGs in their primes.


Stockton being dominated so bad against Payton cost hist team the biggest series of his life.



And just like Hakeem > Robinson because of the 95 Series, Payton > Stockton because of the 96 series.

As far as the thread goes, 1st of all great thread D.J. :applause:



But as we can see in this thread, there are only a few that don't think he is underrated. The vast majority agree he is underrated. The few that don't, and I'm being completely frank here, are a little messed up in the head. I don't know if you have been reading this thread and these guy's arguments post for post, but if you have, you would know what I'm talking about. I'm mainly referring to magnax and teannet. If they want to act and believe in stupid, they can continue to doing so. But anyone with any rationality just has to do this :facepalm

[QUOTE]Do you even have a brain? Playoffs you face FOUR TEAMS. And the Sonics faced some of the best offenses in the league (Houston/Utah/Chicago). Don't you that skews the results




Please practice LOGIC[/QUOTE]
You claim to practice logic, but center your whole argument around one series, but on the other side, completely ignore the dropoff of the Sonics during the playoffs. How about you practice logic and compare Stockton vs Payton during their careers? Or how about looking at their stats so that it encompasses something more then one matchup?
Really, you're one of the most pointless people to argue with on here. Every time I point out something, all you do is go back and say "But Payton played better then Stockton in 96" Well no duh, he was in his best year (or at least one of since you contest that) and Stockton was 5+ years removed from his best year. Then you say stuff like "prime is 15 years long" when that would basically count all but 2 or 3 years of Payton's career, and 5 of Stockton's.
On top of that you continue to say that Payton better then Kobe, which is blatantly idiotic. I should just realize you're a big Payton Homer and leave you alone, but for some reason I don't.

[QUOTE=magnax1]You claim to practice logic, but center your whole argument around one series, but on the other side, completely ignore the dropoff of the Sonics during the playoffs. How about you practice logic and compare Stockton vs Payton during their careers? Or how about looking at their stats so that it encompasses something more then one matchup?
Really, you're one of the most pointless people to argue with on here. Every time I point out something, all you do is go back and say "But Payton played better then Stockton in 96" Well no duh, he was in his best year (or at least one of since you contest that) and Stockton was 5+ years removed from his best year. Then you say stuff like "prime is 15 years long" when that would basically count all but 2 or 3 years of Payton's career, and 5 of Stockton's.
On top of that you continue to say that Payton better then Kobe, which is blatantly idiotic. I should just realize you're a big Payton Homer and leave you alone, but for some reason I don't.[/QUOTE]
Coming from the guy who I've seen rank Stockton higher than Magic or on par with Magic? :roll:
Wow. I don't even take Payton that far.

I'm comparing primes here. Not career. So why should I look at careers?

I said 10-15 years. Payton's prime was from 94-03. Stockton's was a little longer, he has the longevity edge over Payton. Obviously in some years of Payton's prime were better than others, same with Stockton's. But 96 was a year where both were All-NBA 2nd thus at a similar level.

But like I said, it was the PG equivalence of Hakeem on Robinson. People bring up that series in comparing the 2 Cs all the time. Same reason I bring up this series for Payton vs. Stockton. Both at same level (All-NBA 2nd), yet the results it felt like watching a bench PG playing an All-Star (Think Knight vs. Parker)

To me Payton had a Top 3 Prime for a PG All-Time. He just impacted a basketball game in so many ways, scoring, passing, and defending exceptionally well.


Stockton, though I have him high All-Time, is overrated overall. Mainly his prime. There are probably at least 7-8 PGs I'd take over a prime Stockton. He just was never a dominant PG that could take over games like all the other greats.

You should really watch that series Glove, and see how it was more of Seattle's team defense (traps, getting ball out of his hand) than GP individually shutting Stockton down. But watching games and seeing what really happened isn't really important I guess. LOL @ anyone who believes GP shut down MJ. This has been discussed so many times, and anyone who has actually seen the series can see that MJ was getting to his spots at will but not converting shots that otherwise were automatic for him (unless you want to believe GP broke MJ down mentally into missing these shots...which we know is next to impossible). Great example of people misusing stats instead of watching games.

[QUOTE=Fatal9]You should really watch that series Glove, and see how it was more of Seattle's team defense (traps, getting ball out of his hand) than GP individually shutting Stockton down. But watching games and seeing what really happened isn't really important I guess. LOL @ anyone who believes GP shut down MJ. This has been discussed so many times, and anyone who has actually seen the series can see that MJ was getting to his spots at will but not converting shots that otherwise were automatic for him (unless you want to believe GP broke MJ down mentally into missing these shots...which we know is next to impossible). Great example of people misusing stats instead of watching games.[/QUOTE]

Says the guy who posts Nash's stats for a playoff series yet chooses not to watch him being a total defensive liability at the same time.


I've watched the series MANY times. There definitely is that mental pressure Payton puts on all the players he guards with his trash talk. He gets into your head, making you miss so called "easy" shots, but credit goes to Payton for that as well.

But I've watched the series many times. Besides for the mental edge, Payton's ball denying defense on Jordan was excellent too. So by the time Jordan got the ball, he was already a little tired, and he has to shoot his jump shots with less energy than usual, causing misses. Besides for excellent ball denying defense, he also contained Jordan well.



Recently I watched Game 3, the 1st game Karl decided to put Payton on Jordan mid-way. Before he put Payton on Jordan, Jordan was lighting it up. As soon as he put Gary on Michael, Jordan and the entire Bulls offense started collapsing. Even knowing the fact you are being guarded by the [B]1996 DPOY[/B] gets into a player's head, even the GOAT's head.

I got this from another forum.

Nash sure has been a defensive liability lately. Lol

Going in reverse order of last Phoenix opponents:

Warriors - Curry - (7-17)
Thunder - Westbrook (7-17)
Bucks - Jennings (2-10)
Hornets - Paul (7-14)
Celtics - Rondo (1-6)
Bobcats - Augustin (5-11)
Sixers - Holliiday (4-9)
Pistons - Stuckey (3-15)
Wizards - Wall (4-13)
Cavaliers - Gibson (6-13)
Knicks - Felton (3-13)
Trailblazers - Miller (7-15)
Nets - Harris (5-12)
Nuggets - Billups (1-5)
Cavaliers - Williams (2-11)
Knicks - Felton (8-20)
Lakers - Fisher (2-7)
Kings - Evans (2-12)
Pistons - Gordon (8-19)

Nash is no defensive stopper but during this stretch where not one PG shot over 50% against Nash, he himself shot about 54% combined. That's domination.

GP 20 is dropping some knowledge :cheers:

Isn't it just because the franchise was moved to OKC from Seattle so Paytons legacy died.

[QUOTE=NauruDude]Isn't it just because the franchise was moved to OKC from Seattle so Paytons legacy died.[/QUOTE]
:wtf:

Steve Nash will always score and distribute, but he is a horrible defender, and Gary Payton would abuse him....

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]I got this from another forum.

Nash sure has been a defensive liability lately. Lol

Going in reverse order of last Phoenix opponents:

Warriors - Curry - (7-17)
Thunder - Westbrook (7-17)
Bucks - Jennings (2-10)
Hornets - Paul (7-14)
Celtics - Rondo (1-6)
Bobcats - Augustin (5-11)
Sixers - Holliiday (4-9)
Pistons - Stuckey (3-15)
Wizards - Wall (4-13)
Cavaliers - Gibson (6-13)
Knicks - Felton (3-13)
Trailblazers - Miller (7-15)
Nets - Harris (5-12)
Nuggets - Billups (1-5)
Cavaliers - Williams (2-11)
Knicks - Felton (8-20)
Lakers - Fisher (2-7)
Kings - Evans (2-12)
Pistons - Gordon (8-19)

Nash is no defensive stopper but during this stretch where not one PG shot over 50% against Nash, he himself shot about 54% combined. That's domination.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure if you're serious. Are you making an argument that the 37 year old Nash is in any way a good defender? 1st of all, many times when the Suns are facing a star PG, Nash is switched from guarding the PG to guarding the 2 who isn't that known for his offense. 2nd, if he has to guard someone good, the Suns will give him extra help throughout the whole game. I haven't watched many Sun's game recently, but I'm assuming he hasn't turned into a All-Defensive defender in the past month at age 37.
But back in the past, I've seen coaches and players just attack Nash continuously. Call isos on whoever Nash is guarding, and just go right at him. And of course score many points and so on. The Sun's therefore over the years have had to counter and try hard to hide the liability Nash is on defense in multiple ways. Looks like they have gotten good at it lately.

[QUOTE=Bigsmoke]GP 20 is dropping some knowledge :cheers:[/QUOTE]

Just have to set the record straight here. Most agree with me, the ones that don't, try reading their posts and not hitting your head against the wall, because it's clear that they have a very weak case and just "believe" in whatever they believe.

[QUOTE=GP_20]Coming from the guy who I've seen rank Stockton higher than Magic or on par with Magic? :roll:
Wow. I don't even take Payton that far.

I'm comparing primes here. Not career. So why should I look at careers?

I said 10-15 years. Payton's prime was from 94-03. Stockton's was a little longer, he has the longevity edge over Payton. Obviously in some years of Payton's prime were better than others, same with Stockton's. But 96 was a year where both were All-NBA 2nd thus at a similar level.

But like I said, it was the PG equivalence of Hakeem on Robinson. People bring up that series in comparing the 2 Cs all the time. Same reason I bring up this series for Payton vs. Stockton. Both at same level (All-NBA 2nd), yet the results it felt like watching a bench PG playing an All-Star (Think Knight vs. Parker)[/QUOTE]
Stockton's prime was from 88-92 or so, and Payton's was from 95-01 or so. And I haven't said Stockton was equal to Magic in like a year and a half. At that point I hadn't watched many games from Magic. You however, will still claim that Payton was as good as Kobe is.
No one's prime is 10-15 years. Peak is their best individual season (as in single highest point, like the dictionary definition) and Prime is the seasons that are reasonably close to the peak in terms of level of play. That's what basically everyone sees it at, and you're justing twisting it so you can make it out that prime Payton and prime Stockton played each other and Stockton was outplayed, when in reality Stockton was 7 years removed from his best season, and Payton was playing the most well rounded season of his career.
And like I said before, you continue to talk about one series like it defines two players entire careers. Nobody but an idiot like you thinks Hakeem was better then Robinson because of that one series. Hakeem was better then Robinson because Robinson consistently didn't play as good in the playoffs, and Hakeem consistently played better.
I bet I can predict that you're answer to this is more about one series in 1996 instead of their level of play though.

[QUOTE=magnax1]Stockton's prime was from 88-92 or so, and Payton's was from 95-01 or so. And I haven't said Stockton was equal to Magic in like a year and a half. At that point I hadn't watched many games from Magic. You however, will still claim that Payton was as good as Kobe is.
[/quote]

So you admit you had Stockton equal to Magic? :roll:
Big insult to Magic Johnson 1st of all. I would never even dream of putting Payton next to Magic. And you call me the homer. Magic > Kobe too, so that's worse than putting Stockton or GP next to Kobe.

Kid you still got more learning to do. Watch some more Payton games like you wathced more Magic and then you figured it out. :oldlol:


[QUOTE]No one's prime is 10-15 years. Peak is their best individual season (as in single highest point, like the dictionary definition) and Prime is the seasons that are reasonably close to the peak in terms of level of play. That's what basically everyone sees it at, and you're justing twisting it so you can make it out that prime Payton and prime Stockton played each other and Stockton was outplayed, when in reality Stockton was 7 years removed from his best season, and Payton was playing the most well rounded season of his career.
[/QUOTE]

So let me get this straight, from 94 and 95, Stockton was arguably considered the best PG in the NBA. For the 1st time in his career might I add. Yet you say he wasn't even in his prime? :facepalm So is there any difference between a 94 Stockton and say a 2002 Stockton? Both were out of prime right? Do you have a different label for a 94-97 Stockton vs. a 00-02 Stockton? For me 1 is prime, and 1 is out of prime.

I call all the years a player playing at a "All-Star" level their "prime" years. Otherwise, the years out of their prime are the ones where they are actually out of their primes, Payton would be 2004-2007, that is an out of prime Payton (when he went to the Lakers and so on). In Seattle, it was still a prime Payton, maybe not a peak Payton though.

And peak is just 1 year? A lot of players you can't pick just ONE year for their peak. You have to give a range. What are you going to say about Jordan? His peak was ____ year. Does that mean 88, 87, 89, 90, and 91 he wasn't as good as he was in that one year? How about Nash, what's his peak. And does that mean the other years around that he wasn't as good?

See there are many flaws with your definition. Peak is not 1 year because it's impossible to say "yes this was this player's best year period". You have to give a little years range where they were at their best. Stockton's is 88-92, Payton's 98-02, and their primes overlapped.
[B]
This is the most consistent and logical way to define peaks and primes and out of primes. Every player can be broken down in those 3 ranges for their careers. [/B]

But the point is, imo both Payton and Stockton weren't at their "very best" (Peaks), but during 96 were at the same level (All-NBA 2nd), yet we saw what looked like Brevin Knight vs. Tony Parker. All-Star vs. Scrub. Some of the most ONE SIDED games of All-Time between 2 HOF PGs both playing at a good level. I'm still waiting to see a more 1 sided game than the one I posted above for 2 HOF PGs in their "All-Star" (or Prime) days.


[quote]

And like I said before, you continue to talk about one series like it defines two players entire careers. Nobody but an idiot like you thinks Hakeem was better then Robinson because of that one series. Hakeem was better then Robinson because Robinson consistently didn't play as good in the playoffs, and Hakeem consistently played better.[/QUOTE]

But what is the 1 series everyone always brings up in their argument. I'm not saying that series alone makes Payton better. But its always a relevant argument to this discussion just like Hakeem's series is always a relevant argument to the discussion.

[QUOTE]So you admit you had Stockton equal to Magic? :roll:
Big insult to Magic Johnson 1st of all. I would never even dream of putting Payton next to Magic. And you call me the homer. Magic > Kobe too, so that's worse than putting Stockton or GP next to Kobe.

Kid you still got more learning to do. Watch some more Payton games like you wathced more Magic and then you figured it out. :oldlol: [/QUOTE]
No, it's really not any worse then putting GP next to Kobe. GP is no where near a top 30 all time player.
And it matters that at one point I said that.... why? Do I still say it? No. Do you still say Kobe isn't as good as Payton? Yes.
:cheers:



[QUOTE]So let me get this straight, from 94 and 95, Stockton was arguably considered the best PG in the NBA. For the 1st time in his career might I add. Yet you say he wasn't even in his prime? :facepalm [B]So is there any difference between a 94 Stockton and say a 2002 Stockton? Both were out of prime right? Do you have a different label for a 94-97 Stockton vs. a 00-02 Stockton?[/B] For me 1 is prime, and 1 is out of prime. [/QUOTE]
You make very little sense. Because he was the best point guard in the league, he had to be in his prime? And what player in 92 and 93 was a better point guard then him? I'll even say Payton was probably equal to him in 95, and better in 96, but He's not that terribly close to Stockton in 90 or 91.
And bolded is just retarded rambling that doesn't make any sense, not that I'd expect much better.

[QUOTE]I call all the years a player playing at a "All-Star" level their "prime" years. Otherwise, the years out of their prime are the ones where they are actually out of their primes, Payton would be 2004-2007, that is an out of prime Payton (when he went to the Lakers and so on). In Seattle, it was still a prime Payton, maybe not a peak Payton though. [/QUOTE]
Well you're in the minority. Just because they're an all star doesn't mean they were prime. I guess by your definition Kareem in 87-89 was still in his prime
:lol
Don't worry, I understand you're just manipulating reality to try to make Payton sound better then he is, you don't really need to explain any more.

A[QUOTE]nd peak is just 1 year? A lot of players you can't pick just ONE year for their peak. You have to give a range. What are you going to say about Jordan? His peak was ____ year. Does that mean 88, 87, 89, 90, and 91 he wasn't as good as he was in that one year? How about Nash, what's his peak. And does that mean the other years around that he wasn't as good?

See there are many flaws with your definition. Peak is not 1 year because it's impossible to say "yes this was this player's best year period". You have to give a little years range where they were at their best. Stockton's is 88-92, Payton's 98-02, and their primes overlapped. [/QUOTE]
No, there aren't any flaws. Just because there are a couple years that are arguable, doesn't mean that their is a flaw but your definition of a 15 year prime is still idiotic.



[QUOTE]But what is the 1 series everyone always brings up in their argument. I'm not saying that series alone makes Payton better. But its always a relevant argument to this discussion just like Hakeem's series is always a relevant argument to the discussion[/QUOTE]
It's not really relevent because it's one series. Oh, I guess that Tony Parker is better then Steve Nash because he outplayed him in 2008, right? How about you look at their careers, where it's blatantly obvious Stockton is better. Or their peaks? Or their career head to heads?
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=paytoga01&p2=stockjo01[/url]
Not very close, now is it?

[QUOTE=GP_20]I'm not sure if you're serious. Are you making an argument that the 37 year old Nash is in any way a good defender? 1st of all, many times when the Suns are facing a star PG, Nash is switched from guarding the PG to guarding the 2 who isn't that known for his offense. 2nd, if he has to guard someone good, the Suns will give him extra help throughout the whole game. I haven't watched many Sun's game recently, but I'm assuming he hasn't turned into a All-Defensive defender in the past month at age 37.
But back in the past, I've seen coaches and players just attack Nash continuously. Call isos on whoever Nash is guarding, and just go right at him. And of course score many points and so on. The Sun's therefore over the years have had to counter and try hard to hide the liability Nash is on defense in multiple ways. Looks like they have gotten good at it lately.[/QUOTE]


Then use some stats or footage to prove your point.

So now it's switching and in the past he got torched? Than let's look at the head to head match ups. Whether PHX switched or not isn't the point. It's that he or PHX ain't getting torched as bad as you say. I got this from another forum as well.

"Okay, some better numbers:

Head to head against Paul, Williams, Rondo, Kidd, Billups and Parker, this is how Nash compares on average:

0.83 more wins than opponent

.040 higher shooting percentage

.052 higher 3pt percentage

.115 higher free throw percentage

0.97 fewer points per game

0.57 fewer rebounds per game

2.4 more assists per game

0.9 fewer steals per game

To me, this shows that where he's better, he's significantly better. And where he's worse, he's not that much worse (save for steals, where 0.9 is pretty significant).

He's not shutting those guys down, but great defenders like Paul, Rondo and Kidd aren't breaking Nash's stride, either. Head to head, the disparity on defense simply isn't showing up."

payton was the only guard besides jordan who won defensive player of the year. he also outplayed jordan in the finals several times.

WAR PAYTON!!

[QUOTE=magnax1]No, it's really not any worse then putting GP next to Kobe. GP is no where near a top 30 all time player.
And it matters that at one point I said that.... why? Do I still say it? No. Do you still say Kobe isn't as good as Payton? Yes.
:cheers:

[/quote]

Payton is definately Top 30 All-Time. And the fact you ever said that really shows you've had some mental problems. The problem is they still haven't cleared up.

[QUOTE]
You make very little sense. Because he was the best point guard in the league, he had to be in his prime? And what player in 92 and 93 was a better point guard then him? I'll even say Payton was probably equal to him in 95, and better in 96, but He's not that terribly close to Stockton in 90 or 91.
And bolded is just retarded rambling that doesn't make any sense, not that I'd expect much better.
[/QUOTE]

How doesn't it make sense? You stupid? English not your 1st language? Let me dumb it down.

You call 94 Stockton [I]"out of prime"[/I]. And he was the best PG in 94. You call 02 Stockton [I]"out of prime"[/I]. Do you think a 94 Stockton and 02 Stockton played at the same level? You give them the same label [I]"out of prime"l[/I] after all. Please tell me there was a difference to you in making a comparison of the 94-97 Stockton and using that as an example between using the 00-02 Stockton and using that as an example.

For my definition, there is. 88-92 Stockton => Peak Stockton. 88-98 Stockton => Prime Stockton. 99-03 Stockton => Out of Prime Stockton.

See how everything is more complete. Do you not have any different lablel for the 93 Stockton and the 03 Stockton? Or any comparisons made to them are both invalid because "he was out of prime" in your case. :oldlol:

[QUOTE]

Well you're in the minority. Just because they're an all star doesn't mean they were prime. I guess by your definition Kareem in 87-89 was still in his prime
:lol
Don't worry, I understand you're just manipulating reality to try to make Payton sound better then he is, you don't really need to explain any more.
[/QUOTE]

Of course there are exceptions. But I meant played at an "All-Star" caliber level. Kareem was just getting in the All-Star game even though he didn't deserve it. Maybe All-NBA should solidify "Prime".

[QUOTE]
No, there aren't any flaws. Just because there are a couple years that are arguable, doesn't mean that their is a flaw but your definition of a 15 year prime is still idiotic.[/QUOTE]

What's so idiotic? Prime is basically when that player was considered "good". Not at their very best. That is Peak. It's just hilariously stupid that "Peak" is ONE YEAR LONG for you, when they were just as good the year after or year before. It's not that "there are a couple of years that are arguable", it's that there is no significant drop, if any drop, for most players between their best and 2nd best year. And based on your stupid definition, one of those years is PEAK, the other PRIME. :roll:

So tell me, what was Stockton's PEAK year? I guess the year you don't name was his prime, and worse than his peak year? In other words, he was ACTUALLY a worse player? :roll: Nash? What was his Peak year and prime years? Was he actually a worse player in any year between 05-07 than he was at 1 of those years?

The reasons go on on how stupid your definition is. But I can't expect much out of you.


[quote]
It's not really relevent because it's one series. Oh, I guess that Tony Parker is better then Steve Nash because he outplayed him in 2008, right? How about you look at their careers, where it's blatantly obvious Stockton is better. Or their peaks? Or their career head to heads?
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=paytoga01&p2=stockjo01[/url]
Not very close, now is it?[/QUOTE]


He didn't just outplay Stockton. He [B]DOMINATED[/B] him. Like I said, it's the PG version of Hakeem and Robinson. Payton's outplayed a lot of PGs in series before, but this was complete domination. Like I said, I don't think I've ever seen 2 HOF PGs go at it when they were both considered very good ("All-NBA 2nd") yet one gets just completely dominated as much as Stockton did against Payton.

[QUOTE=gxL][B]payton was the only guard besides jordan who won defensive player of the year.[/B] he also outplayed jordan in the finals several times.

WAR PAYTON!![/QUOTE]
Sidney Moncrief says hi, actually he says hi twice.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Sidney Moncrief says hi, actually he says hi twice.[/QUOTE]

Michael Cooper as well. Plenty of of others if you look down the list.

[QUOTE]Payton is definately Top 30 All-Time. And the fact you ever said that really shows you've had some mental problems. The problem is they still haven't cleared up. [/QUOTE]
I think the fact that you think Payton and Kobe are equals, and he's top 30 all time is enough reason for me to quit arguing with you over the same one series, especially since you just continue to say the same thing, despite me agreeing that Stockton was outplayed. The only thing you've even said is that it was Stockton's prime because any year a player make the all star team, they're still in their prime.
:lol



[QUOTE]How doesn't it make sense? You stupid? English not your 1st language? Let me dumb it down. [/QUOTE]
It doesn't make sense, in that it's stupid and unrelated to our argument. Because Stockton was better in 94 then 03 doesn't mean he's still in his prime in 94. You're pretty much the only person who thinks primes last 15 years.

[QUOTE=magnax1]I think the fact that you think Payton and Kobe are equals, and he's top 30 all time is enough reason for me to quit arguing with you over the same one series, especially since you just continue to say the same thing, despite me agreeing that Stockton was outplayed. The only thing you've even said is that it was Stockton's prime because any year a player make the all star team, they're still in their prime.
:lol

[/quote]

1st of all I don't think they are equal All-Time or Career-Wise. Kobe is Top 10, Payton is Top 30. And please Stockton wasn't just outplayed, he was dominated. The fact you actually had Stockton on par with Magic Johnson a year ago shows you have some mental issues.

And I said if they play at an All-Star level they are still in their prime.


[quote]

It doesn't make sense, in that it's stupid and unrelated to our argument. Because Stockton was better in 94 then 03 doesn't mean he's still in his prime in 94. You're pretty much the only person who thinks primes last 15 years.[/QUOTE]

I was just wondering what your label for the 94 season for Stockton was compared to the 03 season. I label 1 as a "Prime Stockton" and the other as a "Out of Prime" Stockton. Because there is a clear differnece between a 94 Stockton and a 03 Stockton.

At least in my book. But for you I guess they are both out of prime and about the same. Thus comparing the 94-97 Stockton is as invalid as comparing the 00-03 Stockton.


And I still can't understand how a Peak is only 1 year. this definition fails fast because it implies that one year you were better than all of your other years. However, for MANY players there is not 1 big year they had. In fact, what was Stockton's peak? What year was he clearly better than all of his other years? Can you really say that that was his "year". And it's not a RANGE of years (88-92) he played at about the same level, at the top of his game?

So many flaws in your definitions, from Peak to Prime.





But all that is irrelevant anyways. Bottomline is, Stockton was still at least "near his best" (not going to use "Prime") in 96, and so was Payton. Neither were at their best (Not using "Peak"), Stockton that was 88-92, Payton 98-02. Yet Payton absolutely DOMINATED Stockton in the series.


[B]I think it would make a good discussion to if this was the most 1 Sided playoff battle between 2 HOF PGs "Near their best" (Not going to say Prime) or "Playing at a high level" (Not highest level)?
[/B]

Ever?

Could it be?


And maybe this is the most 1 sided game?
[QUOTE]
Game 5:
John Stockton
1/6 4pts 6ast 4reb 2stl

Gary Payton
11/17 31pts 6ast 5reb 2stl
[/QUOTE]

Honestly, that is total abuse on BOTH ENDS. :roll:

Prime Shaq 98-03 peak 00
Prime Jordan 88-93 peak 89/90
Prime Nash 05-08 peak 07
Prime TMac 00-05 peak 03
That's how basically everyone does it. You're the exception, not me. Just because player's get worse after they leave their prime, does not mean that it doesn't make any sense. Except maybe to you, but once again you're the exception.

[QUOTE=magnax1]Prime Shaq 98-03 peak 00
Prime Jordan 88-93 peak 89/90
Prime Nash 05-08 peak 07
Prime TMac 00-05 peak 03
That's how basically everyone does it. You're the exception, not me. Just because player's get worse after they leave their prime, does not mean that it doesn't make any sense. Except maybe to you, but once again you're the exception.[/QUOTE]

So [I]clearly [/I]"[B]you think[/B]" that Nash was "[B]for sure[/B]" better in 07 than both of his 2 MVP years.

Read that statement carefully. There is no "arguable" written. It's what "you think" and you have already stated your choices. So you clearly think Nash was a better player in 07 than he has ever been.

And you named some easy player's peaks. How about Stockton which is who I asked about. Russell? Bird? I'd love to hear the "Peak" year for those players, the year which they FOR SURE were better than any other year "according to you".

And funny you couldn't name a year for Jordan. Hmmm...




Obviously, your definition has some major flaws. While my definition, it's smooth and ACCURATE.





I'm still waiting on the label you give 94-97 Stockton, and seeing if it's different from the 00-03 Stockton. Or were they both just "out of prime" lol? Is comparing 94 Stockton to a player just as invalid as comparing a 03 Stockton to a player? :oldlol:

This is a really stupid thing to argue, and I'm arguing it with a guy who obviously can't understand what a consensus is. So really, GP_20, just stop.

[QUOTE=magnax1]This is a really stupid thing to argue, and I'm arguing it with a guy who obviously can't understand what a consensus is. So really, GP_20, just stop.[/QUOTE]

I'm not really sure where you got this "consensus" anyways. :rolleyes:

But yeah, there are multiple flaws with your definition that just aren't logical in the basketball world.




But you're right, all this is besides the point. Payton dominated Stockton at a time both were playing at a level "Near their best" and were still considered "Great" PGs.


And it was the biggest series of both of their lives

Bump

Not to me hasn't. I just think its this generation. They are not as familiar with what he did in Seattle and instead just remember seeing him coming off the bench for Miami for a ring.

I feel Magic is the best point guard of all time. But GP (along with Clyde Frazier) is the premier point guard of all time in terms of scoring, defense, and passing as a package. That's a hell of a statement! And on top of it, GP could defend PG, SG, and many SFs. GP is even the second leading PG scorer of all time with like 21,000 points, just trailing the Big O. U don't look for PG's to be great rebounders like Magic, Kidd, and Big O were. That's a bonus. But for all other facets as a package, GP is as good as it gets at PG.