Kevin Johnson video and some other things....

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]A great point being more valuable than a great player at most positions doesnt mean that when you compare the top players of all of them the points all belong over everyone but the centers. Too big a sample size from all of them. The best of the best from each position stand up to the best pointguards. And really only 2 points belong in the top 10-12 all time. All top 20 lists are are the best of the best. With 5 spots it wouldnt even take 5 players per position to put KJ below your highest estimates. There are about 11 people just as the 4 and 5 who were better than Kevin Johnson:

Wilt
Russell
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses
Ewing
Duncan
Malone
Barkley
Petitt

And there is only even one "Well maybe he accomplished more but you cant really prove hes better" on that list. All the rest are either no brainers or guys who played with KJ and were considered flat out better. KJ is getting a higher ranking in retrospect than he did in his prime. Kinda like Pistol Pete....though id take him over Pistol Pete....


Bird
Doc
Baylor
Hondo
Barry
Pippen
Jordan
West
Magic
Oscar
Isiah
Hayes

Plus you would have to put him over some of these guys.[/quote]

I don't disagree with you here, and I have no problem with putting any of these guys over K.J. In fact, I might do so myself. I was just speaking to the range at which a point guard of K.J.'s caliber and efficacy could begin to enter the conversation.

[quote]Thats putting KJ on a level with the best of the best of the best all time. And that no matter how stretched or well written simply cant be done for a guy who in his prime was considered a peer with Tim Hardaway,, Chris Mullin, and so on who wouldnt even crack top 50. Speaking of which...[/quote]

K.J. was also a peer of Isiah Thomas, John Stockton, and even Magic Johnson at times. He certainly wasn't as great as Magic overall, but in 1991, the [I]Sporting News [/I]debated whether Magic or K.J. was the better point guard and Charles Barkley later claimed in [I]Sports Illustrated [/I]that K.J. was the best point guard in basketball that year.

[B]He was the best point guard in basketball. He was unstoppable.[/B]

[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/1999/12/09/barkley_flashback1/[/url]

In 1989, long before they became teammates, Barkley offered similiar comments to the [I]Washington Post[/I].

[B]Phoenix' Johnson Is Suns' Rising Star; [FINAL Edition]
Chris Cobbs. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: May 16, 1989. pg. e.06

Johnson has needed only two pro seasons to establish himself as a legitimate NBA star. Some observers believe he's approaching an elite group, composed of Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley, that deserves consideration for most valuable player. Barkley himself has said that K.J. may be the league's premier point guard.[/B]

These viewpoints are supported by empirical evidence. K.J. and Magic are the only two players in NBA history to have averaged at least 20.0 points, 10.0 assists, and a .500 field goal percentage in the same season, and they each did it twice, with K.J. missing a third such season by .001 on his field goal percentage. Compare their individual and team performance on a yearly basis from 1989-1991.
[B]
1989:

Magic Johnson: 22.5 points, 12.8 assists, .509 field goal percentage, 57-25 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to NBA Finals (beat K.J.'s Suns 4-0 in Western Conference Finals

Kevin Johnson: 20.4 points, 12.2 assists, .505 field goal percentage, 55-27 regular season in Pacific Division , advanced to Western Conference Finals (lost to Magic's Lakers 4-0)

1990:

Magic Johnson: 22.3 points, 11.5 assists, .480 field goal percentage, 63-19 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to Western Conference Semifinals (lost to K.J.'s Suns 4-1)

Kevin Johnson: 22.5 points, 11.4 assists, .499 field goal percentage, 54-28 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to Western Conference Finals (beat Magic's Lakers 4-1)

1991:

Magic Johnson: 19.4 points, 12.5 assists, .477 field goal percentage, 58-24 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to NBA Finals

Kevin Johnson: 22.2 points, 10.1 assists, .516 field goal percentage, 55-27 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to Western Conference First Round[/B]

Now, Magic holds a slight edge based on that information, and obviously he enjoys a large advantage in basketball history. But in the late eighties and early nineties, K.J. was challenging him, playing in his ballpark (they started the 1991 All-Star Game together for the Western Conference), and was a definite rival. Consider the following quotation from [I]L.A. Times [/I]sportswriter Randey Harvey from May 1990:

[B]Suns Find a Forum to Show That They Have Come of Age; [Home Edition]
RANDY HARVEY. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: May 16, 1990. pg. 6

Kevin Johnson is the player that Isiah Thomas is supposed to be, the real Pocket Magic. He even has the right last name.

There is no doubting him now. After he played less than his best in the first two games, the Suns' coaches told him that he was thinking too much, that he was taking only what the Lakers gave him. They told him to take what he wanted.

He was the second-best Johnson on the court Tuesday night, but not by much. While the Lakers' Magic scored 43 points and had seven assists, the Suns' Kevin had 37 points and eight assists.[/B]

That excerpt also pretty much answers the question of whether K.J. was a rival of Isiah Thomas. If you need any more evidence, go back and read the [I]L.A. Times [/I]article that I posted earlier that compares K.J. and Thomas. If you want any more proof, consider the empirical evidence with an old post of mine:

[B]Actually, in terms of statistical efficacy, it's more like Isiah Thomas was a poor man's Kevin Johnson (more accurately, it's more that Tim Hardaway/Rod Strickland were a poor man's Isiah Thomas/Kevin Johnson). K.J. was much more efficient from the field (a career .493 field goal percentage to Thomas' .452), far more efficient from the foul line (a career .841 free throw percentage to Thomas' .759), and he took much better care of the basketball (3.1 turnovers per game for his career to Thomas' 3.8). K.J.'s career assists-to-turnovers ratio was 2.97:1.00, whereas Thomas' was just 2.46:1.00, and their points and assists averages were about the same. In K.J.'s nine prime seasons (1989-1997), he averaged 19.8 points and 10.0 assists (shooting .497/.839 with 3.3 turnovers); in Thomas' nine prime seasons (1983-1991), he averaged 20.1 points and 9.9 assists (shooting .462/.770 with 3.8 turnovers).

K.J. also proved similarly brilliant in the postseason, and in 1998, the Sporting News named both K.J. and Isiah Thomas as its All-Playoffs Second Team guards for the decade of the 1990s (behind Michael Jordan and Clyde Drexler on the First Team, with Gary Payton nowhere in sight). However, because "Zeke" won two rings, he will understandably be remembered more vividly in history. I'll certainly give him credit for twice reaching the top of the mountain, because that's what the game is all about (although as "rikemaru" has pointed out, Thomas enjoyed the team defensive support to compensate for his inefficiencies). [/B]

If you want more evidence, consider the following quotation from the [I]Washington Post[/I]'s Michael Wilbon in 1990.

[B]After Hours, It Was Showtime; [FINAL Edition]
MICHAEL WILBON. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: May 17, 1990. pg. d.01

The only point guard in the league better than Kevin Johnson is Magic.[/B]

Yes, that would include Isiah Thomas, as well as John Stockton. K.J. went through both Stockton and Magic in 1990 playoffs, and while these quotations don't represent the gospel, neither do MVPs and top-fifty lists that are determined by the same types of people offering these quotations. You can't choose to believe these people in some cases but not in others. Likewise, K.J. was the only guard to make the All-NBA Second Team each year from 1989-1991, while Magic and Jordan possessed a joint stranglehold on the First Team. Isiah Thomas last made any All-NBA Team in 1987, and K.J. finished higher than Stockton (Third Team) in 1991. The same writers who vote for MVPs and top-fifty lists also vote for All-NBA Teams, so if you're going to give yourself over to their supposedly holy judgment, then you must do so in this case as well and recognize that K.J. was very much a rival of Thomas and Stockton and that for awhile, many people considered him better than them.

Of course, I form my own conclusions irrespective of media analysis, and the fact that K.J. averaged 31 points and 11 assists (shooting 51% from the field) versus Stockton over a 14-game regular season stretch from 1989-1993 as the Suns went 10-4 versus the Jazz tells me that K.J. tended to dominate Stockton head-to-head and was very much a rival.

Obviously, I've proven that K.J. was as much a rival of Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and John Stockton as he was a rival of Tim Hardaway and Chris Mullin. These groupings are far more fluid than your rigid classifications allow for, especially since at times, some people justifiably considered K.J. superior to Thomas and Stockton and wondered just how close he was to Magic, and if he might not have even surpassed him.

All-NBA Teams aren't everything, and K.J. would be snubbed by them later in his career. However, that tells you that MVPs and top-fifty lists should be treated with the exact same grains of salt. Instead of letting awards and the bias of other individuals determine your thinking, the analyst should analyze objectively based on one's own interpretation and the available empirical evidence.

[quote]KJ wasnt voted top 50 all time in 1996. Im sure you agree nothing after 96 made his legacy. Even with all these coaches and players talking him up that you post(you dedicate yourself enough damn near every great player has similar quotes on him). Got a list of legends, long long time media members who covered 30+ years, coaches, and so on voting and KJ did not crack top 50. Yet 12 years later having done nothing to add to his legacy he jumps from below 50 to arguably #21? He might be underrated...but hes not that underrated.[/quote]

What you don't realize is that that top-fifty list was as much a popularity contest crafted for entertainment purposes as much as anything. Do you actually believe that the people who vote on such matters are archival basketball scholars in possession of Ph.D.s? How do you explain Shaq making the list after just four NBA seasons and having won no games in the NBA Finals while being swept out of the playoffs three years in a row? How about Dominique Wilkins not making it but now a member of the Hall of Fame? There were all kinds of questionable and debatable selections on a list derived from popularity and notoriety and for entertainment. The people who voted on the matter are just as biased as you or I, and you shouldn't bow down to the establishment like that. Question authority with a critical eye and penetrate the ideological scaffolding that imprisons your independent thought.

[quote]This is strictly a fan made thing by his supporters to put him as highly as possible. It isnt and wouldnt be supported by any non biased group of fans(even thosel ike me who remember and loved KJs game). It wouldnt be supported by coaches. Not by players. No group of people could you poll and get KJ nearly this high and id bet anything on it.

Only his own fans.[/quote]

Again, have you considered that everyone is potentially biased, and that people in the public spotlight feel greater pressure to conform to dogma and act in politically correct and fallacious manners? You're making a huge mistake by assuming that I am biased, but that these other groups are perfectly objective and scholarly. They're not, and they're more suscpetible to the sway of reputation and less inclined toward objective analysis.


[quote]Well yea I mentioned that. The non elites is a long long list that gives fans of borderline elites a lot of ammo to put guys higher than they deserve due to the flaws of the people on that level. That doesnt mean its right to do it. Or thats its accurate. It would take too much conflicting logic player to player to put him over as many legends as one would need to.[/quote]

Again, you're basing your analysis on slipshod mythology rather than objective inquiry. Who defines a "legend'? What is a "legend"? Might not a "legend" be a chimera and as much a product of reputation as reality?



[quote]Considering the fact that a few non 20/10 points are still considered btter(and with good reason) that isnt that major. Its impressive. But im pressive in the way Steve Francis being on a list with Magic, Oscar, and Grant Hill as the only 15/5/5 players over their first 3 years players. Or arenas being the only player with 2000 points and 200 threes and 500FTs in a season(that not exactly it but he has one of those records similar to it). Those stat minimum records will bring up some odd players if you look across the board.[/quote]

I'm talking about more cystal-clear statistical standards. 15/5/5 is pretty meaningless; in 1992, Jeff Hornacek did 20/5/5, so what? As for the Arenas numbers, that just a sign that he's a gunner, nothing more. You're using feckless measures as opposed to major standards in points, assists, and field goal percengtage.



[quote]Cmon now. Did KJ himself lead a team closer to a title than Ray Allen, Rasheed Wallace, or Paul Pierce who all went to conference finals? Paul Westphal who went to the finals and made more than one all nba first team? Gus Williams who won a title? Plenty of guys not on KJs level all time managed to win on his level or close to it. And plenty of guys above KJs level didnt win beyond what he was able to. Doesnt make him their equal anymore than it makes Gus Williams KJs equal. Take 20-30 teams over 60 years(I know there were not hat many team for the whole 60) a lot of guys who dont deserve high rank will win as much or more than guys who do. Sideeffect of being a team sport.[/quote]

A) Ray Allen made one conference finals in an extremely weak Eastern Conference, and it wasn't even clear that he was the leader of that 2001 Milwaukee team. Instead, there was no dominant star among him, Sam Cassell, and Glenn Robinson.

B) Likewise, Paul Pierce made one conference finals in an extremely weak Eastern Confernce in 2002.

C) It was certainly never clear that Rasheed Wallace was the leader of the 2000 Trail Blazers, who featured the virtual defintion of an ensemble cast.

D) K.J. played in three conference finals and actually reached the NBA Finals. You could suggest that he didn't "lead" the Suns in '93, but consider that he was just as vital to the franchise's championship chances as his more famous teammate. Although Charles Barkley was Phoenix's best player that season, K.J. was just as vital to the team's championship chances. First, let's remember that Barkley needed K.J. and the Suns as much as vice-versa. In the spring of 1992, the Western Conference championship was going through perennial contender Phoenix for the third time in four years, whereas Barkley wasn't in the playoffs, period. In the four seasons prior to Sir Charles' arrival in Arizona, the Suns won 217 regular season games (the fifth-most in the NBA) and advanced to two Western Conference Finals and three Western Conference Semifinals. Barkley pushed them over the top in the West, but the Suns were actually doing just fine without him.

Second, consider the start of the 1993 playoffs. After the following regular season victory in late April 1993 in Portland, Barkley raised K.J. off the ground in celebration.

[url]http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1992&b=19930422&tm=POR[/url]

Predictably, K.J. received the worst of the collision, suffering a sprained MCL that was supposed to keep him out for most, if not all, of the Suns' First Round series with the 39-win, eighth-seeded Lakers. Well, considering the quality of the opponent and Barkley's presence, there should have been no problem, even without K.J., right? But without Johnson in Game One, the Suns lost at home, with the Lakers shutting down Barkley in the fourth quarter. K.J. returned well ahead of schedule for Game Two but was limited my a mechanical knee brace, and again the 62-win Suns lost at home to the 39-win Lakers, as again Barkley disappeared down the stretch (he regularly tired late in games because his conditioning was subpar).

[url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=6yogMKQbNCU[/url]

With the Suns now having to go to Los Angeles and face elimination in the best-of-five series, the prognosis appeared bleak. However, Phoenix head coach Paul Westphal offered a daring prognostication. At his press conference after Game Two, he said that the Suns would come back to win each of the next three games, and that afterward, everyone would say what a great series it had been. Sure enough, they did just that, with K.J. going for 24 points and 13 assists in the overtime victory in winner-take-all Game Five. Afterwards, Westphal revealed the reason for his confidence after Game Two, saying that he had seen that K.J.'s knee was improving and that the Suns would have something more like the real Kevin Johnson for the remainder of the series. Without K.J., Barkley and the 62-win Suns would have been swept out of the playoffs by a 39-win eighth seed (Game Three in L.A. had been extremely close), and Sir Charles would have received his MVP trophy on the golf course. And as Seattle's Eddie Johnson said about Game Seven of the 1993 Western Confernce Finals, "Everybody talks about Barkley, but Kevin Johnson won them the game today" (see my post earlier in the thread).

E) You see, I don't think that Garnett, Iverson, Nowitzki, and Nash were better players than K.J., regardless of the team factor. And if they were so much better, than they should have clearly led their teams to greater success, which they have failed to do. Just because they won MVP awards in a relatively weak era does not make them better.

It's important to look beyond subjective judgments such as awards and honors, which, after all, are just a reflection of other people's bias. What's amusing is that you seem to believe that sportswriters are somehow holy and perfectly objective when they are just as biased as the average person behind a computer and possibly more so because their opinions are public and thus engender a sense of political correctness.

Iverson is woefully inefficient compared to K.J., he is a far inferior playmaker, and he cannot elevate the performance of his teammates or run an offense anywhere near as well as K.J. Garnett has historically struggled to take over games and has made it out of the First Round once in a dozen NBA seasons. Nowitzki is prone to folding in clutch moments and is a subpar defender and merely an adequate passer, and Nash is similar to K.J. but his numbers are no better and he has not led a team to greater success (nor has he made the Finals). Again, it's imperative to analyze based on what occurs between the white lines rather than with biased judgments made off the field, ones that are only pertinent in terms of shifting historical contexts.

Put it this way, if KJ would have won a championship during his career, we would be talking about him being a hall of famer right now. If the Suns would have beat the bulls, he would have been elevated a few notches.

[quote]Bob Mcadoo was for a time considered the equal of Kareem. Kevin Johnson at his peak was ranked as the equal of Tim Hardaway. I think we are overrating the level KJ reached when we question if MVPs hit a higher level of play.[/quote]

I think that you are worrying too much about how players may or may not have been "ranked" (which is just as much a source of bias as any that you or I might hold) rather than examining the matter more comprehensively. McAdoo was never Kareem's overall equal (looking beyond points and rebounds to defense, and not just blocked shots) and he never led the Buffalo Braves to a single 50-win season or the Eastern Conference Finals. That wasn't necessarily his fault, but he didn't elevate his teammates to any great degree and he was soft. Read the analysis of longtime basketball writer, author, and historian Charley Rosen, and check out some of the other players that he deems overrated:

[B]Bob McAdoo

Here's all anyone needs to know about McAdoo's game: When he played against the Celtics, McAdoo was usually defended by Dave Cowens. Now Cowens was a legitimate tough guy who always played with intensity, power, and courage, and whose rough-house tactics on defense would often approach minor felonies. At the start of McAdoo's matchups with Cowens, B-Mac would assume his favorite position on the left box. Perhaps he'd even get a shot off. Perhaps he'd even get fouled. But Cowens would definitely assault him with elbows, knees, hips, forearms, and fists. By the middle of the first quarter, McAdoo would post-up five feet beyond the box. By the end of the fourth quarter, he'd be looking to receive the ball near the 3-point line. Anything to avoid contact. In other words, McAdoo was nothing more than a big, quick, soft, jump-shooter deluxe. [/B]

[url]http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=100850[/url]

Now, I'm not saying that K.J. should necessarily be ranked above McAdoo, but McAdoo was hardly Abdul-Jabbar's overall equal, especially when you go beyond points and rebounds and examine defense (and not just blocked shots, either). Likewise, Tim Hardaway was hardly K.J.'s equal. For his career, K.J. shot .493 from the field and averaged 9.1 assists to Hardaway's .431 field goal percentage and 8.3 assists, and for his career, K.J. attempted 6.4 free throws per game (shooting .841) to Hardaway's 3.8 FTA (shooting .782). And regarding cross-over dribbles, consider the following quotation from Hakeem Olajuwon on page 282 of the Dream's 1996 autobiography, Living the Dream:

[B]K.J. finishes better than almost any guard in the league. He has one of the best crossover dribbles in the NBA. Tim Hardaway crosses over but then he has to hit his jump shot, K.J. crosses over and beats you and goes to the basket. That's different. He's coming full speed, then all of a sudden he changes direction and sees a clear path to the basket. When he's on his game, by the time I come over to block him I'm always a second too late, he's putting it on the glass before I get there. If I go too soon he draws the foul as well. He knows how to get you to foul him and how to make the basket at the same time.[/B]

I also recall that [I]Inside Sports [/I] magazine rated the NBA's point guards in its February 1993 edition, and its "insiders" (a collection of about ten executives, assistant coaches, and scouts) placed K.J. second (behind John Stockton) and Hardaway third. The blurb on K.J. mentioned that originally, the "insiders" had seen him as more of a runner, but that he'd learned to slow down his thinking really well (i.e. in the half-court). The blurb on Hardaway, meanwhile, noted that the "insiders" saw Hardaway as an even stronger and more aggressive version of K.J. in some ways, but also as less of a team leader (which is obviously what you need from a star point guard).

Aside from three-point shooting over the course of a career, I can't think of anything that Hardaway did better or as effectively as K.J. It's telling that Hardaway played in zero NBA Finals, one conference finals (and even that one was due to a brawl that wiped out half the Knicks' team in 1997), and two conference semifinals, whereas K.J. played in one NBA Finals, three conference finals, and seven conference semifinals. K.J. was so much more efficient and consistent, but Hardaway received more buzz because he ran his mouth more and Nike featured him in some supposedly hip "I Got Skillz" commercials.

[quote]Billups was who I meant when I mentioned exceptions. But there would need to be a hell of a lot more than there are. Its basically Billups, Gus Williams or Dennis Johnson, and 2-3 guys before 1956. Not nearly enough.

Ive been saying the same thing for years. glove has argued with me over that for at least a few months whenever it comes up just because id take Steve Nash, Payton, Kidd, Isiah, and most modern points who proved themselves over him. KJ included. I just dont trust the skill set of a guy who predates the modern jumper. Not in a pointguard.

Hes also my second favorite player ever(Bulls fan since 83). But I cant let my bias blind me to reality. I refuse to be one of the fans propping up my favorite more than they justify just because I feel they are underrated. More often than not a non fan of th guy has a more accurate rating than a hardcore fan. We tend to overrate our guys more than non fans underrate them. Need the disconnect to rank it fairly. I think youre a reasonable guy who probably knows the game but really....nothing but bias could make one think Kevin Johnson is that high. There is just no other way.[/QUOTE]

I am thinking objectively here, but what I'm not doing is just going by reputation and image, which is the basis for way too much so-called analysis. As I've proven with detailed empirical evidence in this thread, K.J.'s level of statistical performance in the most vital areas for a star playmaker was extremely rare and frankly has only been mirrored, approached, or exceeded by Magic Johnson and possibly Oscar Robertson. He was one of the greatest point guards of all-time, and I think that many of the great point guards in history begin to enter the equation in the twenties.

I think that you made too much of a loose, conceptual comment regarding 21-40 for K.J. I was not thinking specifically but philosophically, and more directly, I'd say something in the 26-40 range.

The bottom line is that you need to realize that bias floats all-around. It's not about me liking Kevin Johnson or Scottie Pippen, because I've liked other players as well. It's about analyzing independently based on empirical evidence (meaning statistical data and team success within relative contexts), plus visual information available via video. It's not about complying with mythic and predefined notions of legends and legacies and holy scribes who determine other people's opinions. It's not about letting go of one's own bias only to bow down to the bias of others who subjectively vote on lists and MVP awards, nor is it about adding up championships irrespective of era and other temporally fickle factors. Instead, it's about gathering all the available information and statistical data, weighing the various factors, and determining which players could offer the most. It's about independent judgments rather than submitting to politically correct dogma for the purposes of entertainment, and realizing that specific lists are inherently fallacious and that there is no clear standard. And if after all that, I deem Scottie Pippen one of the twenty-five greatest players ever, and Kevin Johnson one of the 26-40 best, then so be it (personally, I don't know where exactly I'd place K.J., especially since I don't even believe in such lists). What's important, though, is to think inductively rather than adhering to deductive and chimerical standards of what constitutes a legend or the most effective players, especially when that constitution is often nothing more than the bias inherent in a writer's MVP vote.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Another thing about Kev, in his prime he probally was never a 10 player of his era (late 80's to early 90's)

[B]He sure wasn't a top 5 player fighting against these guys:[/B]

Jordan
Magic
Dream
Chuck
Glide
Robinson
Pat Ew
Stockton
Malone
Zeke Thomas
'Nique

Then you have players maybe closer to his level (above or below-you decide)


Worthy
McHale
Timmy Hardaway
Mullin
Joe D
Terry Porter
Pippen
Mitch Richmond
Kemp
Alvin Robertson (yes him)
Rodman


So I think it's very hard to put Kevin Johnson as a top 21 player ever, when he sometimes wasn't even a top 10 player. This is not any hate towared KJ as he was one of my faves.[/QUOTE]

If K.J. was never a top-ten player in the late eighties and early nineties, then how do you explain his four All-NBA Second Teams (1989, 1990, 1991, 1994), in an absolutely loaded era where the two greatest guards in history (Magic and Jordan) owned the First Team? How do you explain a level of statistical performance for his position that only Magic Johnson has touched in history? How do you explain the quotes that I've just posted above? K.J. was most certainly in the same league as Stockton, Thomas, Drexler, and possibly even Magic during those years. That's proven in the numbers, the "honors" (as gingerly as you have to treat them, because K.J. would often be snubbed later in his career), and the journalistic obersvations that I've just quoted. Again, one [I]L.A. Times [/I]writer claimed that "Kevin Johnson is the player that Isiah Thomas is supposed to be, the real pocket Magic."

I don't think that I'd put K.J. in the top 21 either. However, 26-40 is worthy of contemplation. To me, he's certainly a top-five-to-top-ten all-time point guard.

:applause:
Well done


I wasn't lying when I said GMAT is the best debator ever.

[QUOTE=GMATCallahan]If K.J. was never a top-ten player in the late eighties and early nineties, then how do you explain his four All-NBA Second Teams (1989, 1990, 1991, 1994), in an absolutely loaded era where the two greatest guards in history (Magic and Jordan) owned the First Team? How do you explain a level of statistical performance for his position that only Magic Johnson has touched in history? How do you explain the quotes that I've just posted above? K.J. was most certainly in the same league as Stockton, Thomas, Drexler, and possibly even Magic during those years. That's proven in the numbers, the "honors" (as gingerly as you have to treat them, because K.J. would often be snubbed later in his career), and the journalistic obersvations that I've just quoted. Again, one [I]L.A. Times [/I]writer claimed that "Kevin Johnson is the player that Isiah Thomas is supposed to be, the real pocket Magic."

I don't think that I'd put K.J. in the top 21 either. However, 26-40 is worthy of contemplation. To me, he's certainly a top-five-to-top-ten all-time point guard.[/QUOTE]
Yeah KJ did make 4 al-2nd teams, but those don't really tel lthe whole story. Hell, Rod Stricklnd made an All-NBA 2nd squad in 97 ot 98 and he wasn't a top
10 player, ever.


KJ was probally a top 10 player in 1990 or very close to it around 11 or 12.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]By the number(eff) this was the top 20 in his best overall season. Im not saying it proves anything but its a little interesting to see.

1 Michael Jordan CHI 34.57 1989-90
2 Hakeem Olajuwon HOU 32.38 1989-90
3 Patrick Ewing NYK 32.34 1989-90
4 Karl Malone UTA 31.88 1989-90
5 Charles Barkley PHI 31.67 1989-90
6 David Robinson SAS 30.56 1989-90
7 Magic Johnson LAL 30.49 1989-90
8 Larry Bird BOS 29.27 1989-90
9 John Stockton UTA 27.10 1989-90
10 Kevin Johnson PHO 26.34 1989-90
11 Chris Mullin GSW 25.82 1989-90
12 Clyde Drexler POR 25.52 1989-90
13 Lafayette Lever DEN 24.53 1989-90
14 Tom Chambers PHO 24.47 1989-90
15 Kevin Mchale BOS 24.21 1989-90
16 Dominique Wilkins ATL 23.58 1989-90
17 Roy Tarpley DAL 22.71 1989-90
18 Mark Price CLE 22.42 1989-90
19 James Worthy LAL 22.29 1989-90
20 Reggie Miller IND 22.18 1989-90


In his best season going just by numbers:

1 Michael Jordan CHI 36.99 1988-89
2 Magic Johnson LAL 33.31 1988-89
3 Charles Barkley PHI 32.68 1988-89
4 Hakeem Olajuwon HOU 31.02 1988-89
5 Karl Malone UTA 29.53 1988-89
6 Clyde Drexler POR 28.87 1988-89
7 Lafayette Lever DEN 27.48 1988-89
8 Patrick Ewing NYK 27.46 1988-89
9 John Stockton UTA 27.40 1988-89
10 Kevin Johnson PHO 27.06 1988-89
11 Robert Parish BOS 26.10 1988-89
12 Chris Mullin GSW 26.01 1988-89
13 Tom Chambers PHO 24.11 1988-89
14 Moses Malone ATL 23.84 1988-89
15 Kevin Mchale BOS 23.68 1988-89
16 Dominique Wilkins ATL 22.84 1988-89
17 Larry Nance CLE 22.66 1988-89
18 Terry Porter POR 22.42 1988-89
19 Brad Daugherty CLE 22.37 1988-89
20 Mark Price CLE 22.33 1988-89



He ended up 10th right behind Stockton both years.[/QUOTE]

EFF is grossly skewed toward rebounds, which are less rare and less valuable than assists (which lead directly to baskets, whereas rebounds just grant you possession). There's no way that Fat Lever was better than Stockton and K.J., and it obviously cannot measure defense beyond blocks and steals.

EFF can retain a little value in comparing players of a similar position or type. However, if you wish to employ the metric, it does indicate K.J.'s career greatness among all-time guards (I'm counting Paul Pierce as a small forward at this point).

[B]1. Oscar Robertson 31.61
2. Michael Jordan 29.19
3. Magic Johnson 29.10
4. Jerry West 27.10
5. Clyde Drexler 22.42
6. Dwyane Wade 22.23
7. Kevin Johnson 21.56 [/B]

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Yeah KJ did make 4 al-2nd teams, but those don't really tel lthe whole story. Hell, Rod Stricklnd made an All-NBA 2nd squad in 97 ot 98 and he wasn't a top
10 player, ever.


KJ was probally a top 10 player in 1990 or very close to it around 11 or 12.[/QUOTE]
I doubt Rod Strickland was around the time where Jordan, Drexler, Magic, Isiah, Stockton, and more were all around their primes/peaks.

There is a huge difference.



I remember you saying Gary Payton is a better 90s PG than Kevin Johnson. I am a huge Gary Payton fan, but I think there is another place you underrate Kevin Johnson. Even though I am a big Payton fan, I'd put KJ over Payton in the 90s anyday.

The problem is, your just underrating KJ a bit.

The 90s PG goes:

Stockton
Kevin Johnson
Gary Payton

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Yeah KJ did make 4 al-2nd teams, but those don't really tel lthe whole story. Hell, Rod Stricklnd made an All-NBA 2nd squad in 97 ot 98 and he wasn't a top
10 player, ever.


KJ was probally a top 10 player in 1990 or very close to it around 11 or 12.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think that Strickland had a case for being the game's best point guard in 1998. He led the NBA in assists average that season by a wide margin.

[url]http://www.basketballreference.com/leaders/leadersbyseason.htm?stat=apg&lg=n&yr=1997[/url]

I know that All-NBA Teams don't reveal the whole story, because K.J. received the shaft later in his career (finishing behind Latrell Sprewell for a First Team guard slot in 1994, not making it entirely in 1997 when he had a great case for the First Team). Even in 1996, he deserved more consideration. But when K.J. did make it, his statistics supported his case and to the larger point, people did consider him a top-ten player.

Your final analysis about K.J. in the nineties is fair enough.

[QUOTE=Glove_20]I doubt Rod Strickland was around the time where Jordan, Drexler, Magic, Isiah, Stockton, and more were all around their primes/peaks.

There is a huge difference.



I remember you saying Gary Payton is a better 90s PG than Kevin Johnson. I am a huge Gary Payton fan, but I think there is another place you underrate Kevin Johnson. Even though I am a big Payton fan, I'd put KJ over Payton in the 90s anyday.

The problem is, your just underrating KJ a bit.

The 90s PG goes:

Stockton
Kevin Johnson
Gary Payton[/QUOTE]

Yes, I would agree with that, even though I would take K.J. head-to-head against Stockton (for the reasons that I explained earlier) and for peak value. Stockton's durability, however, just cannot be ignored.

[QUOTE]K.J. was also a peer of Isiah Thomas, John Stockton, and even Magic Johnson at times. He certainly wasn't as great as Magic overall, but in 1991, the Sporting News debated whether Magic or K.J. was the better point guard and Charles Barkley later claimed in Sports Illustrated that K.J. was the best point guard in basketball that year.

He was the best point guard in basketball. He was unstoppable.

[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...ey_flashback1/[/url]

In 1989, long before they became teammates, Barkley offered similiar comments to the Washington Post.

Phoenix' Johnson Is Suns' Rising Star; [FINAL Edition]
Chris Cobbs. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: May 16, 1989. pg. e.06

Johnson has needed only two pro seasons to establish himself as a legitimate NBA star. Some observers believe he's approaching an elite group, composed of Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley, that deserves consideration for most valuable player. Barkley himself has said that K.J. may be the league's premier point guard.

These viewpoints are supported by empirical evidence. K.J. and Magic are the only two players in NBA history to have averaged at least 20.0 points, 10.0 assists, and a .500 field goal percentage in the same season, and they each did it twice, with K.J. missing a third such season by .001 on his field goal percentage. Compare their individual and team performance on a yearly basis from 1989-1991.

1989:

Magic Johnson: 22.5 points, 12.8 assists, .509 field goal percentage, 57-25 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to NBA Finals (beat K.J.'s Suns 4-0 in Western Conference Finals

Kevin Johnson: 20.4 points, 12.2 assists, .505 field goal percentage, 55-27 regular season in Pacific Division , advanced to Western Conference Finals (lost to Magic's Lakers 4-0)

1990:

Magic Johnson: 22.3 points, 11.5 assists, .480 field goal percentage, 63-19 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to Western Conference Semifinals (lost to K.J.'s Suns 4-1)

Kevin Johnson: 22.5 points, 11.4 assists, .499 field goal percentage, 54-28 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to Western Conference Finals (beat Magic's Lakers 4-1)

1991:

Magic Johnson: 19.4 points, 12.5 assists, .477 field goal percentage, 58-24 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to NBA Finals

Kevin Johnson: 22.2 points, 10.1 assists, .516 field goal percentage, 55-27 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to Western Conference First Round

Now, Magic holds a slight edge based on that information, and obviously he enjoys a large advantage in basketball history. But in the late eighties and early nineties, K.J. was challenging him, playing in his ballpark (they started the 1991 All-Star Game together for the Western Conference), and was a definite rival. Consider the following quotation from L.A. Times sportswriter Randey Harvey from May 1990:

Suns Find a Forum to Show That They Have Come of Age; [Home Edition]
RANDY HARVEY. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: May 16, 1990. pg. 6

Kevin Johnson is the player that Isiah Thomas is supposed to be, the real Pocket Magic. He even has the right last name.

There is no doubting him now. After he played less than his best in the first two games, the Suns' coaches told him that he was thinking too much, that he was taking only what the Lakers gave him. They told him to take what he wanted.

He was the second-best Johnson on the court Tuesday night, but not by much. While the Lakers' Magic scored 43 points and had seven assists, the Suns' Kevin had 37 points and eight assists.

That excerpt also pretty much answers the question of whether K.J. was a rival of Isiah Thomas. If you need any more evidence, go back and read the L.A. Times article that I posted earlier that compares K.J. and Thomas. If you want any more proof, consider the empirical evidence with an old post of mine:

Actually, in terms of statistical efficacy, it's more like Isiah Thomas was a poor man's Kevin Johnson (more accurately, it's more that Tim Hardaway/Rod Strickland were a poor man's Isiah Thomas/Kevin Johnson). K.J. was much more efficient from the field (a career .493 field goal percentage to Thomas' .452), far more efficient from the foul line (a career .841 free throw percentage to Thomas' .759), and he took much better care of the basketball (3.1 turnovers per game for his career to Thomas' 3.8). K.J.'s career assists-to-turnovers ratio was 2.97:1.00, whereas Thomas' was just 2.46:1.00, and their points and assists averages were about the same. In K.J.'s nine prime seasons (1989-1997), he averaged 19.8 points and 10.0 assists (shooting .497/.839 with 3.3 turnovers); in Thomas' nine prime seasons (1983-1991), he averaged 20.1 points and 9.9 assists (shooting .462/.770 with 3.8 turnovers).

K.J. also proved similarly brilliant in the postseason, and in 1998, the Sporting News named both K.J. and Isiah Thomas as its All-Playoffs Second Team guards for the decade of the 1990s (behind Michael Jordan and Clyde Drexler on the First Team, with Gary Payton nowhere in sight). However, because "Zeke" won two rings, he will understandably be remembered more vividly in history. I'll certainly give him credit for twice reaching the top of the mountain, because that's what the game is all about (although as "rikemaru" has pointed out, Thomas enjoyed the team defensive support to compensate for his inefficiencies).

If you want more evidence, consider the following quotation from the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon in 1990.

After Hours, It Was Showtime; [FINAL Edition]
MICHAEL WILBON. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: May 17, 1990. pg. d.01

The only point guard in the league better than Kevin Johnson is Magic.

Yes, that would include Isiah Thomas, as well as John Stockton. K.J. went through both Stockton and Magic in 1990 playoffs, and while these quotations don't represent the gospel, neither do MVPs and top-fifty lists that are determined by the same types of people offering these quotations. You can't choose to believe these people in some cases but not in others. Likewise, K.J. was the only guard to make the All-NBA Second Team each year from 1989-1991, while Magic and Jordan possessed a joint stranglehold on the First Team. Isiah Thomas last made any All-NBA Team in 1987, and K.J. finished higher than Stockton (Third Team) in 1991. The same writers who vote for MVPs and top-fifty lists also vote for All-NBA Teams, so if you're going to give yourself over to their supposedly holy judgment, then you must do so in this case as well and recognize that K.J. was very much a rival of Thomas and Stockton and that for awhile, many people considered him better than them.

Of course, I form my own conclusions irrespective of media analysis, and the fact that K.J. averaged 31 points and 11 assists (shooting 51% from the field) versus Stockton over a 14-game regular season stretch from 1989-1993 as the Suns went 10-4 versus the Jazz tells me that K.J. tended to dominate Stockton head-to-head and was very much a rival.

Obviously, I've proven that K.J. was as much a rival of Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and John Stockton as he was a rival of Tim Hardaway and Chris Mullin. These groupings are far more fluid than your rigid classifications allow for, especially since at times, some people justifiably considered K.J. superior to Thomas and Stockton and wondered just how close he was to Magic, and if he might not have evern surpassed him.

All-NBA Teams aren't everything, and K.J. would be snubbed by them later in his career. However, that tells you that MVPs and top-fifty lists should be treated with the exact same grains of salt. Instead of letting awards and the bias of other individuals determine your thinking, the analyst should analyse objectively based on one's own interpretation and the available empirical evidence.[/QUOTE]

Let me see if I understand...because someone somewhere believed it I should consider it a widespread opinion? Or important? SI ranked Terrell Brandon as the best point in the league over Kidd and Payton at one point. just last year there were huge discussions on if Arenas was better than Kobe or not. Shaq has said AI is one of the 5 greatest players of all time. Kareem said Earl the goat was the best player he ever saw. Wilt chamberlain ranked harlem globetrotter teammate Meadowlark Lemon as a starter on his all time team with Michael Jordan as the 6th man. Barkley said Mchale was the best player he ever played against yet I notice people dont rank him over Malone and Duncan. Bird said Dennis Johnson was the best player he ever played with yet it seems most give Mchale and Parish more credit. Magic Johnson said Michael Ray Richardson was the best player he ever played against at one point in the 80s.

Point? anyone dedicated enough to find articles from years past or looking just to find someone propping a guy up is probably gonna get a lot of crazy things in the process. The mere fact that someone says something doesnt make it true or even credible. Hell it doesnt even always mean they believe it since so many people will later contradict themselves.

Some old article where a reporter makes a statement is of no importance to me. I didnt mention the players, media, and coaches votes to say they are infallible. I mentioned them because you quoted some of the people who voted on the top 50 list so I mentioned the list to show that it doesnt seem many of those types did consider Kevin so good.

You clearly have a thing with Kevin Johnson and probably articles saved in some little folder for the express purpose of defending or propping him up at every chance. Those types who go to those lengths just dont change theirs minds or begin to see things the way the rest of the world do. So I have no intention of changing your opinion(or belief that I could).

But quotes just dont do much. Any great player has people spouting hyperboles and media members writing articles. Because you have a KJ thing and therefore keep track of it doesnt mean hes the only one it exists for.

Common sense it all it takes to tell Magic was flat better than Kevin Johnson and that Isiah historically is on another level. As I said earlier it takes too many conflicting points to put him over this level of guys or even equal to them.

The quotes just dont matter much. making my Tim Hardaway video a while back an old NBA action episode had similar comments about him. Magic calling him unstoppable, Isiah talking about how great he is, Don Nelson comparing him to super heroes, and all that. Its what people do when great players come up.....exaggerate.

If someone in 15 years posts articles including the greatest praise ever lavished upon Tracy Mcgrady, Chris Webber, and Gilbert Arenas im sure people would oooo and aaah if they were the types to be impressed by such things. Ato ne time or another ive seen Tmac=Jordan articles, Webber>Duncan articles, and Arenas>Kobes ones too.

Doesnt make them accurate nor doesnt it mean the majority of the fanbase believed it at the time. Just means someone might.

I dont care what Michael Wilbon thinks on Isiah/KJ more than what he thought on Wade/Duncan(he ranked Wade as the best player in the league for some time). Its a good read and nothing more.

By the way, here's the abstract for the [I]Sporting News [/I]story about K.J. possibly surpassing Magic by 1991:

[B]Changing of the Guard
McManis, Sam. Sporting News. St. Louis: Feb 11, 1991. Vol. 211, Iss. 6; pg. 6
Abstract (Summary)
Earvin "Magic" Johnson has been named the NBA's Most Valuable Player for the last two seasons, but now Kevin Johnson, point guard for the Phoenix Suns, may supplant Magic as the best player on the court.[/B]

Do I agree with that analysis? Not necessarily, but that viewpoint should be viewed just as (if not more) seriously as a marketing stunt like that top-fifty list.

Thats strange KBlaze, you care a lot what the 50 greatest Player Voters say, however, you don't care about the people that say KJ is great.

Strange...

Caring about some, yet not caring about others....strange...

After a quick scan I see about 20 paragraphs on this issue directed to me. Im just not up to responding to 20 more paragraphs worth of information. Especially considering the fact there is no chance of changing anyones mind and the only people who consider KJ this high have to have a level of bias impossible to really do anything with. Some people rank Kobe top 20, some Dirk, some Nash, and some want to throw KJ higher than can be justified. I suppose KJ just isnt so often discussed that ive come to ignore the arguments like those other guys.

I like the guy. Decided he needed a little attention and praise since hes often underrated or flat out forgotten. But a 10 page 20 paragraph at a time argument on something maybe .01 percent of the basketball world would ever believe anyway?

That would take me caring waaaaaaaay more than I do about the issue. And I dont feel like getting to the point KJ annoys me because of people overrating him(like Dirk, Kobe, nash, and a few others have reached now and then). Carry on.....

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Let me see if I understand...because someone somewhere believed it I should consider it a widespread opinion? Or important? SI ranked Terrell Brandon as the best point in the league over Kidd and Payton at one point. just last year there were huge discussions on if Arenas was better than Kobe or not. Shaq has said AI is one of the 5 greatest players of all time. Kareem said Earl the goat was the best player he ever saw. Wilt chamberlain ranked harlem globetrotter teammate Meadowlark Lemon as a starter on his all time team with Michael Jordan as the 6th man. Barkley said Mchale was the best player he ever played against yet I notice people dont rank him over Malone and Duncan. Bird said Dennis Johnson was the best player he ever played with yet it seems most give Mchale and Parish more credit. Magic Johnson said Michael Ray Richardson was the best player he ever played against at one point in the 80s.

Point? anyone dedicated enough to find articles from years past or looking just to find someone propping a guy up is probably gonna get a lot of crazy things in the process. The mere fact that someone says something doesnt make it true or even credible. Hell it doesnt even always mean they believe it since so many people will later contradict themselves.

Some old article where a reporter makes a statement is of no importance to me. I didnt mention the players, media, and coaches votes to say they are infallible. I mentioned them because you quoted some of the people who voted on the top 50 list so I mentioned the list to show that it doesnt seem many of those types did consider Kevin so good.

You clearly have a thing with Kevin Johnson and probably articles saved in some little folder for the express purpose of defending or propping him up at every chance. Those types who go to those lengths just dont change theirs minds or begin to see things the way the rest of the world do. So I have no intention of changing your opinion(or belief that I could).

But quotes just dont do much. Any great player has people spouting hyperboles and media members writing articles. Because you have a KJ thing and therefore keep track of it doesnt mean hes the only one it exists for.

Common sense it all it takes to tell Magic was flat better than Kevin Johnson and that Isiah historically is on another level. As I said earlier it takes too many conflicting points to put him over this level of guys or even equal to them.

The quotes just dont matter much. making my Tim Hardaway video a while back an old NBA action episode had similar comments about him. Magic calling him unstoppable, Isiah talking about how great he is, Don Nelson comparing him to super heroes, and all that. Its what people do when great players come up.....exaggerate.

If someone in 15 years posts articles including the greatest praise ever lavished upon Tracy Mcgrady, Chris Webber, and Gilbert Arenas im sure people would oooo and aaah if they were the types to be impressed by such things. Ato ne time or another ive seen Tmac=Jordan articles, Webber>Duncan articles, and Arenas>Kobes ones too.

Doesnt make them accurate nor doesnt it mean the majority of the fanbase believed it at the time. Just means someone might.

I dont care what Michael Wilbon thinks on Isiah/KJ more than what he thought on Wade/Duncan(he ranked Wade as the best player in the league for some time). Its a good read and nothing more.[/QUOTE]

Hey, I fully agree with your about Terrell Brandon on the cover of [I]S.I.[/I] (although that judgment was based on a completely contrived ratings system rather than real intellectual analysis), and I agree that Magic was superior to K.J. (I never said anything different, except that they were rivals late in Magic's career), but now you're just being hypocritical. On the one hand, you cite MVP awards and top-fifty lists that are determined by writers like Michael Wilbon, but then you censure those same writers when they produce judgments that you don't care for. You can't have it both ways, clinging to journalistic observations when they match your tastes but derideing them when they contradict your deductive notions. That was my point, to show you that such standards break both ways and also to reveal that people back then did consider K.J. a rival of Magic/Thomas/Stockton, and not just Hardaway/Mullin. But most of all, the statistical evidence supports many of those observations.

And, no, I don't have any articles stored up. I just find them and post the quotes.

(By the way, Wilbon wasn't the only one saying that K.J. was better than Thomas at that time. I also quoted another writer, Randy Harvey, and look at the All-NBA Teams, determined by writers. Look at the statistics, too.)

If I really thought that K.J. was on Magic's historical plane, then I would put him in the top-ten all-time. Instead, I'm thinking 26-40, so I'm hardly delusional. But at one point, yes, they were rivals of a stripe and they went toe-to-toe at the top of the Western Conference, with each winning a series from the other and posting highly similar numbers.

[QUOTE]Thats strange KBlaze, you care a lot what the 50 greatest Player Voters say, however, you don't care about the people that say KJ is great.

Strange...

Caring about some, yet not caring about others....strange...[/QUOTE]

Not really. I dont even think the top 50 was exactly accurate and ive said already id take him over a few guys on the list(Pistol Pete and Cousy for examples). I explained the top 50 list mention already. Just went to show that even if a select number of guys choose to rank KJ very high it either wasnt enough of them to matter in voting or those who said it then had changed their minds by the time they voted(a few guys he mentioned were on the voting panel).

Nobody has ever seen me say the top 50 list was 100% accurate. However....nobody on the list off the top of my head just pales in comparison to Kevin Johnson unless youre the "Everyone in the 50s sucked" type. Well actually I think Cousy is far below KJ but...thats a whole other discussion.

[QUOTE=Glove_20]I doubt Rod Strickland was around the time where Jordan, Drexler, Magic, Isiah, Stockton, and more were all around their primes/peaks.

There is a huge difference.



I remember you saying Gary Payton is a better 90s PG than Kevin Johnson. I am a huge Gary Payton fan, but I think there is another place you underrate Kevin Johnson. Even though I am a big Payton fan, I'd put KJ over Payton in the 90s anyday.

The problem is, your just underrating KJ a bit.

The 90s PG goes:

Stockton
Kevin Johnson
Gary Payton[/QUOTE]
I remember that thread, I did it about 2-3 months or so ago.


KJ's best seasons (stat wise anyway) were 88-89 and 89-90, so those I considered 1980's seasons. GP's best seaons' were probally in the early part of this decade (stat wise). Looking back at it now, it's a tough choice to make as to who had the best career in the 90's out of the two. GP has way more awards and what not like All-Star games/All-NBA Games/All-D teams .

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]After a quick scan I see about 20 paragraphs on this issue directed to me. Im just not up to responding to 20 more paragraphs worth of information. Especially considering the fact there is no chance of changing anyones mind and the only people who consider KJ this high have to have a level of bias impossible to really do anything with. Some people rank Kobe top 20, some Dirk, some Nash, and some want to throw KJ higher than can be justified. I suppose KJ just isnt so often discussed that ive come to ignore the arguments like those other guys.

I like the guy. Decided he needed a little attention and praise since hes often underrated or flat out forgotten. But a 10 page 20 paragraph at a time argument on something maybe .01 percent of the basketball world would ever believe anyway?

That would take me caring waaaaaaaay more than I do about the issue. And I dont feel like getting to the point KJ annoys me because of people overrating him(like Dirk, Kobe, nash, and a few others have reached now and then). Carry on.....[/QUOTE]

The December 2006 edition of [I]SLAM[/I] magazine stated that K.J. might be the most underrated player of his era. He's extremely underrated, not overrated.

Hey, you jumped all over me just because I suggested that one could start considering K.J. in the twenties. That's all I said, and your went nuts with it, when I'm just saying that that's where I'd start to look at many of the great point guards after Magic and Oscar. What's wrong with that, especially after I carefully support my arguments and don't comply with the brainwashing of the mainstream media?

[QUOTE=Glove_20]Thats strange KBlaze, you care a lot what the 50 greatest Player Voters say, however, you don't care about the people that say KJ is great.

Strange...

Caring about some, yet not caring about others....strange...[/QUOTE]


It's not a sign you won the argument, you guys were just more persistent.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Not really. I dont even think the top 50 was exactly accurate and ive said already id take him over a few guys on the list(Pistol Pete and Cousy for examples). I explained the top 50 list mention already. Just went to show that even if a select number of guys choose to rank KJ very high it either wasnt enough of them to matter in voting or those who said it then had changed their minds by the time they voted(a few guys he mentioned were on the voting panel).

Nobody has ever seen me say the top 50 list was 100% accurate. However....nobody on the list off the top of my head just pales in comparison to Kevin Johnson unless youre the "Everyone in the 50s sucked" type. Well actually I think Cousy is far below KJ but...thats a whole other discussion.[/QUOTE]

And I'm not saying that they paled in comparison next to K.J., either, but don't you realize that there's room for differing opinions? Don't you realize that the top-fifty list was a promotional venture, not a scholarly study? How do you explain Shaq there after just four years in the NBA?

And doesn't your point about Cousy prove my point about making objective judgments rather than just following the conventional mythology? Why is it that you make an exception for Cousy but no one else? Couldn't that pattern hold up elsewhere, not with everyone or even the majority but quite a few others?

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]I remember that thread, I did it about 2-3 months or so ago.


KJ's best seasons (stat wise anyway) were 88-89 and 89-90, so those I considered 1980's seasons. GP's best seaons' were probally in the early part of this decade (stat wise). Looking back at it now, it's a tough choice to make as to who had the best career in the 90's out of the two. GP has way more awards and what not like All-Star games/All-NBA Games/All-D teams .[/QUOTE]

'89-'90 is considered the "1990 season," which means the nineties. Anyway, K.J.'s best statistical season might have actually been '91, when he shot a career-high .516 from the field and averaged a career-high 2.1 steals, in addition to 22.2 points (his second-highest scoring average) and 10.1 assists. That year, K.J. became the only player in NBA history to have averaged at least 20.0 points, 10.0 assists, a .500 field goal percentage, and 2.0 steals in one season.

And again, Kblaze, as I noted, I actually agreed with most and possibly all of those guys that you listed who you would place above K.J.! In many ways, we're on the same page, and yet you chose to censure me just because I casually stated that I'd start considering K.J. in the twenties-range.

[QUOTE=GMATCallahan][B]'89-'90 is considered the "1990 season," which means the nineties.[/B] Anyway, K.J.'s best statistical season might have actually been '91, when he shot a career-high .516 from the field and averaged a career-high 2.1 steals, in addition to 22.2 points (his second-highest scoring average) and 10.1 assists. That year, K.J. became the only player in NBA history to have averaged at least 20.0 points, 10.0 assists, a .500 field goal percentage, and 2.0 steals in one season.[/QUOTE]
LOL, sure is.

[QUOTE]On the one hand, you cite MVP awards and top-fifty lists that are determined by writers like Michael Wilbon, but then you censure those same writers when they produce judgments that you don't care for. You can't have it both ways, to cling to journalistic observations when they match your tastes but to deride them when they contradict your deductive notions.[/QUOTE]

For one thing....a large group of people are almost always more likely to come closer to the widespread opinion than a single person writing an article. One person might call Webber better than Duncan or KJ better than Isiah. An entire fanbase is almost sure not to. If the discussion is about where most people had these guys put the more people asked the more accurate the answer. And I dont think you would disagree that if the entire basketball world were asked at the time.....Magic and Isiah are ognna be over KJ.

Secondly...most of the top 50 voters were players and coaches. About 37 of the 50 voters.


[QUOTE]That was my point, to show you that they break both ways and also to reveal that people back then did consider K.J. a rival of Magic/Thomas/Stockton, and not just Hardaway/Mullin. But most of all, the statistical evidence supports many of those observations.[/QUOTE]

"People back then" doesnt mean "most people back then". There are people in every era that have unusual opinions. There are people who would put Arenas on the level of Kobe and Lebron right now. And in the future one could honestly say "People believed Arenas was as good as Kobe." That doesnt make it the norm nor does it mean its really being honest to act like a lot of people thought it.

When it comes right down to it...you look hard enough....someone thinks just about everything.

[QUOTE]And again, Kblaze, as I noted, I actually agreed with most and possibly all of those guys that you listed who you would place above K.J.! In many ways, we're on the same page, and yet you chose to censure me just because I casually stated that I'd start considering K.J. in the twenties-range.[/QUOTE]

"Censure" you? I also saw you mentioned I "went nuts". Which kinda amuses me. I suppose you would have to be around me longer than you have to see how I am. Im almost never as outraged as my "matter of fact" tone might suggest. Im just a confrontational bastard when I even sorta disagree about something. But I can still say KJ being argued in the 20s is among the most "out there" things ive ever read. Im not as concerned about you thinking itas my tone might suggest. But I do find it bordering on insanity.

You caught me like 2 years too late for this. Used to have these looooong drawn out things but I just dont have it in me anymore. I expected to if anything need to defend KJ. I'll read whatever it is you have to say I just dont feel like writing another few thousand words on the matter right now.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]For one thing....a large group of people are almost always more likely to come closer to the widespread opinion than a single person writing an article. One person might call Webber better than Duncan or KJ better than Isiah. An entire fanbase is almost sure not to. If the discussion is about where most people had these guys put the more people asked the more accurate the answer. And I dont think you would disagree that if the entire basketball world were asked at the time.....Magic and Isiah are ognna be over KJ.

Secondly...most of the top 50 voters were players and coaches. About 37 of the 50 voters.




"People back then" doesnt mean "most people back then". There are people in every era that have unusual opinions. There are people who would put Arenas on the level of Kobe and Lebron right now. And in the future one could honestly say "People believed Arenas was as good as Kobe." That doesnt make it the norm nor does it mean its really being honest to act like a lot of people thought it.

When it comes right down to it...you look hard enough....someone thinks just about everything.

You caught me like 2 years too late for this. Used to have these looooong drawn out things but I just dont have it in me anymore. I expected to if anything need to defend KJ. I'll read whatever it is you have to say I just dont feel like writing another few thousand words on the matter right now.[/QUOTE]

I quoted more than one writer. Instead, I noted two of them, Michael Wilbon and Randy Harvey, from two of the nation's most prominent newspapers, the [I]Washington Post [/I]and the [I]L.A. Times[/I], respectively. I also quoted Byron Scott and Michael Cooper talking as if K.J. was a tougher matchup for them than Isiah Thomas in a long [I]L.A. Times [/I]article from '89, earlier in the thread. I've also quoted the [I]Sporting News[/I] pertaining to Magic and K.J., and here's another quote, this one from David Aldridge of the [I]Washington Post[/I]:

[B]Johnson: Lakers Out of Gear;Guard Says Playoff Mode Not Reached in Loss to Suns; [FINAL Edition]
David Aldridge. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: May 17, 1990. pg. d.01

They can beat the Lakers in transition. And they have someone who can can out-Showtime Showtime: Kevin Johnson.

"Kevin Johnson is a unique player," Lakers Coach Pat Riley said. "We tried to do everything we could with him. He just rose to the occasion."[/B]

These were leading sportswriters in the nation's premier publications, not just a couple of crazies. But, hey, I agree that writers don't always make the correct assessment. However, they do tend to shape and reflect the common viewpoints of the day, and you can't support their perspective in the MVP balloting but ignore it elsewhere. After all, the writers vote for the All-NBA Teams, too. They last selected Isiah Thomas in 1987, whereas K.J. made one of the All-NBA Teams in five of six years from 1989-1994 (the last six seasons of Thomas' career). Plenty of writers were voting for K.J. and not Thomas, and with sound statistical reason (as I explained earlier).

As for players and coaches, they're subject to the same bias, political correctness, and possible ineptitude as anyone else. In 1999, American League managers gave Rafael Palmerio the Gold Glove for first base even though he spent nearly the enitre season as a designated hitter. There is no "safe," bias-free group at work here, but again, if you want to take the word of coaches, look at Pat Riley's quote about K.J. He'd seen plenty of star players and point guards in his NBA career as a player and coach, but he termed K.J. "unique." Also see Archibald's quote on K.J. from earlier in the thread, or how players, coaches, and executives from around the league said that he could penetrate like Magic Johnson, was as quick with the ball as John Stockton, and had a left-hand like Larry Bird (again, it's all in one of the articles that I posted). See my quote from Olajuwon on K.J., too. I've cited players, coaches, executives, writers, statistics, team success, head-to-head competition, everything. I've covered all the angles here.

Anyway, I still thank you for compiling the video.

With the exception of having a left hand like Larry Bird(Larry was able to play entire games left handed for fun...and did a few times in 86 and 87)...I dont disagree much with anything I see there.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]With the exception of having a left hand like Larry Bird(Larry was able to play entire games left handed for fun...and did a few times in 86 and 87)...I dont disagree much with anything I see there.[/QUOTE]

And remember, that's the opinion of those players, coaches, and executives surveyed around the NBA, not my statement.

[QUOTE=ScottStuart]Put it this way, if KJ would have won a championship during his career, we would be talking about him being a hall of famer right now. If the Suns would have beat the bulls, he would have been elevated a few notches.[/QUOTE]

Late in his career, teammates felt that K.J. was a Hall of Famer. It hasn't turned out that way so far, but ...

Jason Kidd on K.J., March 1998:

[B]When you have a future Hall-of-Famer in KJ, you have to believe in him. He kept everybody composed and took charge, and that's what we've been lacking. [/B]

[url]http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1997&b=19980327&tm=PHO[/url]

Rex Chapman on K.J., February 1998:

[B]In the fourth quarter when everything we did ran dry, we get a Hall-of-Famer off the bench. He was able to break down their defense at will when he wanted to. [/B]

[url]http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1997&b=19980202&tm=PHI[/url]

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]I remember that thread, I did it about 2-3 months or so ago.


KJ's best seasons (stat wise anyway) were 88-89 and 89-90, so those I considered 1980's seasons. GP's best seaons' were probally in the early part of this decade (stat wise). Looking back at it now, it's a tough choice to make as to who had the best career in the 90's out of the two. GP has way more awards and what not like All-Star games/All-NBA Games/All-D teams .[/QUOTE]
1989-1990 is considred part of the 90s. Otherwise, 99-00 would need to be considered part of the 90s, and since seasons are said by the year when the Finals are played, 89-90 is part of the 90s. The Lakers are the 00 Champoins, so 99-00 is part of the 00s.

KBlaze, one thing I still haven't understood, and were you haven't made sense.

[QUOTE=KBlaze]
KJ wasnt voted top 50 all time in 1996. Im sure you agree nothing after 96 made his legacy. Even with all these coaches and players talking him up that you post(you dedicate yourself enough damn near every great player has similar quotes on him). Got a list of legends, long long time media members who covered 30+ years, coaches, and so on voting and KJ did not crack top 50. Yet 12 years later having done nothing to add to his legacy he jumps from below 50 to arguably #21? He might be underrated...but hes not that underrated.[/QUOTE]


This was your number one argument why KJ doesn't deserve Top 40. You argued some other points as well, but GMAT rebuted them and then you didn't argue them back.


And then later you argued more about why what "others" think, matter nothing to you. Hypocritical. I understand that there were more people on the Top 50, than a journal article, but how many time has the "Majority" been wrong? Not just basketball, but in real life. And are you saying you just believe what the "Majority" believes.

The same "coaches" and everything voted Larry Hughes to All-Defensive. The "Majority" did. Does that mean he deserved it?



And then you just kept on arguing how there is "No way" KJ can be that high, and just held that stance. Way too narrow minded. Just didn't believe it because "There is no way it could be true".

Well its not always like that, and its a very ignorant way of thinking. Just because a large majoriity doesn' think so, once you actually start throwing "real" arguments, and giving KJ a chance and a look, you'll come to a different conclusion.

KJ was just as good as Isiah, and better than Stockton at his peak (they played around the same time). I don't see how its "so" unbelievablle.



But yeah, bottom line, you're WAY too narrow minded.
"KJ can't be that high, he just can't, I am not going to even try reading"
You sound ignorant

Really how many times am I supposed to explain this? Pointing out that most wouldnt put him highly doesnt mean im saying the majority is always right. But if what im being given to support it is a few people saying he IS that high pointing out that most wouldnt say it is not only reasonable its pretty much the only thing that needs to be said. I am shown articles with a couple reporters and a couple players saying how great he is. The top 50 list is 37 legends and coaches and more than a dozen longtime media members. Point of mentioning them is the same as his point of showing me what Barkley, Riley, and whoever else said.

Neither opinion from either source proves it right. But he said it to show some people who believed one thing....I showed that a hell of a lot more(equally qialified) peoples combined opinions say otherwise.

Its the exact same thing just on a grander scale without the indidivual quote aspect.

Ive never said the top 50 list is actually the top 50 players. But when most of what I see to suggest KJ deserves to be ranked highly is a few peoples opinion showing 50 of the same kind of peoples combined opinion is relevant.

I dont think I could explain it clearer than that.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Really how many times am I supposed to explain this? Pointing out that most wouldnt put him highly doesnt mean im saying the majority is always right. But if what im being given to support it is a few people saying he IS that high pointing out that most wouldnt say it is not only reasonable its pretty much the only thing that needs to be said. I am shown articles with a couple reporters and a couple players saying how great he is. The top 50 list is 37 legends and coaches and more than a dozen longtime media members. Point of mentioning them is the same as his point of showing me what Barkley, Riley, and whoever else said.

Neither opinion from either source proves it right. But he said it to show some people who believed one thing....I showed that a hell of a lot more(equally qialified) peoples combined opinions say otherwise.

Its the exact same thing just on a grander scale without the indidivual quote aspect.

Ive never said the top 50 list is actually the top 50 players. But when most of what I see to suggest KJ deserves to be ranked highly is a few peoples opinion showing 50 of the same kind of peoples combined opinion is relevant.

I dont think I could explain it clearer than that.[/QUOTE]

Ok so, KJ not being one of the Top 50, or not being there, or not being here don't prove anything. So then why did you post it to start out with?

Thats the only reason GMAT posted all his articles, was because you made it sound like

1. He wasn't in the 50 greatest, so he isn't that great
2. He was compared to lesser players like Hardaway, not greats.


And thats why all the articles were posted.







So basically, him not making 50 greatest doesn't prove anything, and I guess to "you" the articles don't prove anything either. But it does show, the comparisoin is legit, its not something totally off the mark. It proves that it is "believable", not true or false, but has a shot of being true.



So really, you haven't shown anything to say he isn't Top 40, and I guess all the articles posted didn't do anything either.




Quick Question:


Jason Kidd or Kevin Johnson? Tell me career and prime/peak

[QUOTE]Ok so, KJ not being one of the Top 50, or not being there, or not being here don't prove anything. So then why did you post it to start out with?[/QUOTE]

Didnt you just ask that?

[QUOTE]Thats the only reason GMAT posted all his articles, was because you made it sound like

1. He wasn't in the 50 greatest, so he isn't that great
2. He was compared to lesser players like Hardaway, not greats.


And thats why all the articles were posted.[/QUOTE]


Articles were posted before I said anything to him and not all of them were in response to me even then.

[QUOTE]So basically, him not making 50 greatest doesn't prove anything, and I guess to "you" the articles don't prove anything either. But it does show, the comparisoin is legit, its not something totally off the mark. It proves that it is "believable", not true or false, but has a shot of being true.[/QUOTE]

Not really. Someone believing something doesnt make it generally believable. You more than most will dismiss an opinion you dont like and go as far as to claim you can prove things are or arent true. You shouldnt be one speaking on the greatness of an open mind.



[QUOTE]Quick Question:


Jason Kidd or Kevin Johnson? Tell me career and prime/peak[/QUOTE]

I dont consider the difference big enough to bother arguing over it. Tossup.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Didnt you just ask that?




Articles were posted before I said anything to him and not all of them were in response to me even then.



Not really. Someone believing something doesnt make it generally believable. You more than most will dismiss an opinion you dont like and go as far as to claim you can prove things are or arent true. You shouldnt be one speaking on the greatness of an open mind.




[/quote]

Come on, I have a open mind. I'll be honest, I went in with Payton over Reed. A little biased, but mostly just without thinking too much becaues Payton was already 3-4 spots behind Stockton. But quickly the arguments made me change my mind, becaues I realized thats what I would be sayiing...Though its still close. I kept on arguing, because the list wasn't about accuracy anymore, it was about who you like. But anyways, at least it shows I have an open mind.

[quote]
I dont consider the difference big enough to bother arguing over it. Tossup.[/QUOTE]


EXACTLY what I wanted to hear. I remember you calling KJ NOT Top 50.


So either you consider Jason Kidd not Top 50, or your mind has changed because of this thread....


Your call....

Actually the problem is the divide between peak and career. Its hard to decide who ranks higher in those situation. There is the "Who would I rather have" question and the "Who had the btter career" question. On one its a tossup and on the other the answer is clear. Not being able to decide myself which id rather use at the moment it wouldnt be right to argue with someone who has the same opinion I might if asked on a different day.

There is no major difference between how good the two players were and ill leave it at that. should be enough anyway.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Actually the problem is the divide between peak and career. Its hard to decide who ranks higher in those situation. There is the "Who would I rather have" question and the "Who had the btter career" question. On one its a tossup and on the other the answer is clear. Not being able to decide myself which id rather use at the moment it wouldnt be right to argue with someone who has the same opinion I might if asked on a different day.

There is no major difference between how good the two players were and ill leave it at that. should be enough anyway.[/QUOTE]

Now your trying to back off from what you said...

[QUOTE=Glove_20]Jason Kidd or Kevin Johnson? Tell me career and prime/peak [/QUOTE]

Thats what I said. I asked for career AND peak.

Your answer:

[QUOTE=KBlaze8855]I dont consider the difference big enough to bother arguing over it. Tossup. [/QUOTE]


You called it a tie on both.


And now your changing because I questioned your previous calls on KJ
:oldlol:

Someone is back pedaling...

[QUOTE=KBlaze8855]
There is the "Who would I rather have" question and the "Who had the btter career" question. On one its a tossup and on the other the answer is clear. [/QUOTE]

I am trying to figure out which one is a tossup and which one is clear. Because I can't see it. Because even career, is mostly who was better, with slight additions to longevity. Accomplisments can really go into both, but yeah, they go mostly with career as well.



But anyways KBlaze, nice backpedal, I asked for Career AND Peak, and you called it a toss up. But now, you change up...:applause:

You really think I look that deeply into such a question? I told you its a tossup the first time you asked then explained why its a tossup. That isnt a backpedal...its just an explanation. I dont even know what id be backing off of if I were. Do you have some point that I missed and dont know that im supposed to be arguing with?

Oh I see. Since you said peak/career my one response is supposed to have covered both? I just figured you meant in general. Had you asked 2 seperate questions you would have been given two seperate answers. Didnt think it needed two answers at the time.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]
Oh I see. Since you said peak/career my one response is supposed to have covered both? I just figured you meant in general. Had you asked 2 seperate questions you would have been given two seperate answers. Didnt think it needed two answers at the time.[/QUOTE]

Finally you see.

When someone says

[QUOTE=Glove_20]Jason Kidd or Kevin Johnson? Tell me career [B]and[/B] prime/peak [/QUOTE]

And puts a "and" in there, that usually means 2 answers. And you gave it all in 1, so that probably meant that its tossup for both. But then later, after I questioned it, you started to change and seperate the 2 answers...Thats where backpedaling came


2nd, really, the main difference between prime/peak and career is there is a "slight" addition on how long the player played and longevity. Most of career also is how good the player was.