Printable View
[QUOTE=aj1987]So you admit that you actually don't remember the season. Box-scores only tell you so much.
You do know that they beat 2 teams with ATG defenders, right?[/QUOTE]
They beat the Spurs, a very good defensive team, in large part because of their own defense.
They had roughly a 101 ortg in that series.
This is why I brought up how well the Pistons were scoring against the Lakers. The Spurs had a 96 ortg against the Lakers...the Pistons had over a 106 ortg.
See how logic works?
[QUOTE=aj1987]Jesus Christ. Now I know why tpols doesn't even bother with you anymore. I'm out.[/QUOTE]
You have been utterly destroyed and my logic/arguments are sound.
You have offered nothing...well, you've now tried arguing that the Lakers had an elite offense in 04...and, sorry, they did not.
I really don't get some people on here...why even start a discussion if you can't even offer up some form of a valid argument and/or are not willing to change your position?
Like...the discussion ends when someone makes the obvious point that the Lakers weren't a special offensive team to begin with, struggled offensively in the playoffs prior to the finals, and looked pretty bad in the finals. That is the first thing someone is going to say.
And you cry and resort to ad hominem? Grow up or go home please.
[QUOTE=aj1987]Shaq was 2nd in MVP voting the next season and was putting up 23/11/3 on 60% the next season.
How the years years change the status of teams. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
You're going to tell me 23-11 is prime shaq? I also never understood why people were wanting to call shaq mvp that year. It was a weak year at the top for MVP choices, I admit, but still I never got how shaq was in that conversation.
[QUOTE=90sgoat]I take Kidd>Payton>Paul.
Jason Kidd is a player you can't judge on boxscores. If they counted hockey assists Kidd would be the all time leader. I've never seen a player like Kidd with such a chess like ability to create offense just by passing, moving, passing, moving. Kidd was like a maestro thinking 3 moves ahead, being just as valuable off ball as on ball.
The only other player I've seen with that innate understanding of the game was Magic. And Kidd in the open floor was all time best level, almost at Magic level there too. Add to that he was a tripple double machine with very good D. He is underrated because you need to see how he dominated games, not just watch highlights or boxscores. Kidd had a massive part in that Mavs championship but doesn't get the credit, next year he is gone, Mavs don't do anything since that. He took the Knicks and made them into a playoff team, again did not get praise (Melo took it), but then he is gone and Knicks suck again, that's the story of Jason Kidd, making teams much better by doing stuff that doesn't show up fully in boxscores.
Payton is second because he is an all time great defender. The Sonics 96 was suffocating, I've never seen anything like it since and it was better than Knicks that I watched in the 90s too. Payton was the man behind it all, not your typical guard impact on defense, he could shut down point guards and shooting guards completely, even almost shutting down the GOAT.
Paul has the best overall talent of the 3. No weaknesses, the best scorer of the 3, but Paul imo lacks the kind of all time skill in one area that Payton (defense) and Kidd (running an offense) have. He is elite in all areas almost, but he does not have all time great ability in any particular area. That's why I think he really is mostly suited to be 1b and not 1a. He is Stockton to a Malone, but even then I still would pick Stockton over Paul.[/QUOTE]
Paul might be the best half court point guard of all time. He's rather weak next to the likes of Magic and Kidd in the open court.
[QUOTE=dhsilv]You're going to tell me 23-11 is prime shaq? I also never understood why people were wanting to call shaq mvp that year. It was a weak year at the top for MVP choices, I admit, but still I never got how shaq was in that conversation.[/QUOTE]
I think it's okay to call that end of prime Shaq...he obviously wasn't peak, but he was still an elite top 5 player in the league imo.
Kidd no contest
[QUOTE=90sgoat]I take Kidd>Payton>Paul.
Jason Kidd is a player you can't judge on boxscores. If they counted hockey assists Kidd would be the all time leader. I've never seen a player like Kidd with such a chess like ability to create offense just by passing, moving, passing, moving. Kidd was like a maestro thinking 3 moves ahead, being just as valuable off ball as on ball.
The only other player I've seen with that innate understanding of the game was Magic. And Kidd in the open floor was all time best level, almost at Magic level there too. Add to that he was a tripple double machine with very good D. He is underrated because you need to see how he dominated games, not just watch highlights or boxscores. Kidd had a massive part in that Mavs championship but doesn't get the credit, next year he is gone, Mavs don't do anything since that. He took the Knicks and made them into a playoff team, again did not get praise (Melo took it), but then he is gone and Knicks suck again, that's the story of Jason Kidd, making teams much better by doing stuff that doesn't show up fully in boxscores.
Payton is second because he is an all time great defender. The Sonics 96 was suffocating, I've never seen anything like it since and it was better than Knicks that I watched in the 90s too. Payton was the man behind it all, not your typical guard impact on defense, he could shut down point guards and shooting guards completely, even almost shutting down the GOAT.
Paul has the best overall talent of the 3. No weaknesses, the best scorer of the 3, but Paul imo lacks the kind of all time skill in one area that Payton (defense) and Kidd (running an offense) have. He is elite in all areas almost, but he does not have all time great ability in any particular area. That's why I think he really is mostly suited to be 1b and not 1a. He is Stockton to a Malone, but even then I still would pick Stockton over Paul.[/QUOTE]This isn't a bad post but how is Kidd an all time great in running an offense but Paul isn't? It's the other way around if anything.
Paul might have the best combination of ballhandling and passing/court vision out of any player. And unlike Kidd who was a bad scorer and shooter, he's also a scoring threat that can shoot well from anywhere on the court on top of that. He plays faaar more efficient basketball than Kidd.
Pretty much all of the offenses Kidd ran in his prime were either below average or terrible.
On the other hand, Paul has ran two #1 offenses and on average ran better offenses over his career than Kidd even if you go back to his Hornets days.
If I wanted an efficient offense, I'd easily choose Paul and Payton over Kidd.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I think it's okay to call that end of prime Shaq...he obviously wasn't peak, but he was still an elite top 5 player in the league imo.[/QUOTE]
Dirk, Duncan, and KG imo were clearly better imo.
Then you have Amare, Tmac, Lebron, and if we're just stat following Mario was really great that year. And we could add in the guy who won the MVP in Nash.
I'd agree shaq was still great that year but other than a high PER, he didn't finish well in VORP or PER. If we go by RAMP he's 3rd but then we have to look at Manu as a contender that year.
I agree elite by the league's standards that year, but not by Shaq's standards and at least imo that wasn't a great year at the top.
[QUOTE=dhsilv]Dirk, Duncan, and KG imo were clearly better imo.
Then you have Amare, Tmac, Lebron, and if we're just stat following Mario was really great that year. And we could add in the guy who won the MVP in Nash.
I'd agree shaq was still great that year but other than a high PER, he didn't finish well in VORP or PER. If we go by RAMP he's 3rd but then we have to look at Manu as a contender that year.
I agree elite by the league's standards that year, but not by Shaq's standards and at least imo that wasn't a great year at the top.[/QUOTE]
There are always going to be guys battling for a top 5 spot...and one can argue it.
Shaq was in that range of player though...still one of the best players in the league. I think that is what people mean...nobody actually is arguing, I'd guess, that 04/05 Shaq were as good as 00 Shaq or something.
[QUOTE=Young X]This isn't a bad post but how is Kidd an all time great in running an offense but Paul isn't? It's the other way around if anything.
Paul might have the best combination of ballhandling and passing/court vision out of any player. And unlike Kidd who was a bad scorer and shooter, he's also a scoring threat that can shoot well from anywhere on the court on top of that. He plays faaar more efficient basketball than Kidd.
Pretty much all of the offenses Kidd ran in his prime were either below average or terrible.
On the other hand, Paul has ran two #1 offenses and on average ran better offenses over his career than Kidd even if you go back to his Hornets days.
If I wanted an efficient offense, I'd easily choose Paul and Payton over Kidd.[/QUOTE]
Your point guard doesn't have to be a scorer to be effective. If Kidd had even Magic's jumpshot he'd be counted as the greatest point guard ever.
Paul is not close to the mastery of Kidd in setting up teammates, there is no one except Magic to match that, yes I count him as better than Stockton too.
You're probably confusing scoring ability with offensive ability, have you actually watched Kidd in his prime full games? Kidd is on another planet in getting teammates involved and finding their spots. It was a thing of beauty and honestly something only Magic did as good.
Kerry Kittles, Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin, what did they do without Kidd? Nothing. Paul in Hornets played with David West who is far superior to any of those 3. Kenyon Martin had the offensive arsenal of Deandre Jordan.
[QUOTE=90sgoat]Your point guard doesn't have to be a scorer to be effective. If Kidd had even Magic's jumpshot he'd be counted as the greatest point guard ever.
Paul is not close to the mastery of Kidd in setting up teammates, there is no one except Magic to match that, yes I count him as better than Stockton too.
You're probably confusing scoring ability with offensive ability, have you actually watched Kidd in his prime full games? Kidd is on another planet in getting teammates involved and finding their spots. It was a thing of beauty and honestly something only Magic did as good.
Kerry Kittles, Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin, what did they do without Kidd? Nothing. Paul in Hornets played with David West who is far superior to any of those 3. Kenyon Martin had the offensive arsenal of Deandre Jordan.[/QUOTE]
paul is so much better at shooting off the dribble and scoring with live dribble, which allows his teams ortg to always be so high.. but I agree, Kidd got guys going. An alley oop is just 2 points but it gets the big man pumped.. and ready for defense on the other end. Just hitting guys in their spots to give them confidence and make them play harder.. its hard to quantify.
[QUOTE=tpols]paul is so much better at shooting off the dribble and scoring with live dribble, which allows his teams ortg to always be so high.. but I agree, Kidd got guys going. An alley oop is just 2 points but it gets the big man pumped.. and ready for defense on the other end. Just hitting guys in their spots to give them confidence and make them play harder.. its hard to quantify.[/QUOTE]
I should say that its hard to qualify who is actually the better player, because none of them have multiple rings or MVPs. Kidd is the only one with a ring and he has the most finals (3 to 1 and 0) which really should count for something. Besides that it's about which game you like to watch more and Kidd is on top for me, because all his teams were exciting to watch.
Again, I simply can't see how you can put Paul over either of the others when you factor in all skills and see Paul's lack of playoff success. Losing to the Rockets last year was a massive scratch on his resume. They beat the Spurs and then lose to Harden and Dwight, that's just not elite, whether it's mental or something else.
As for Kidd even as an old man he made Melo a scoring leader and in the running for MVP, which again was ignored but Melo's play since Kidd left shows the impact clearly. Kidd really does make his teammates play to their best.
You can't just ignore the huge gap in scoring ability because they're PG's. Scoring is still the most important part of the game no matter what position at the end of the day.
If we're comparing 2 players offensively. The bottom line is who helps their team score more points. Who is better at turning possessions into points.
Paul is definitely better than Kidd at this. If you gave them the same teammates under the same circumstances, Paul's team would easily be more efficient.
And if you really think Paul isn't close to Kidd at setting up teammates then I don't know what to say. You either don't watch him play or are extremely biased. He's one of the best distributors/passers/playmakers to ever play (as is Kidd). There's no one he's "not close to" in this area.
For someone so good at setting up his teammates, his assist averages are fairly low.
He also got a ring at 37... and you know if Paul doesn't get one until 32 or later that WILL be held against him as everyone will say he was "carried" etc etc.
Kidd was a taller Rajon Rondo, only scored when forced into it, 40% career fg and 38% playoff fg tell you why.
Yes he was a good rebounder and assist turret.. but he had to be coz he didn't/wouldn't score.
Agree that he was a better defender though.
imo - Paul-Kidd-Payton
Payton doesn't really belong in the conversation though, great defender, but his story seems to grow with every year he's retired. In his prime he was an erratic malcontent that thought his offense was a lot better than it was. Amazing defender though.
Scoring is not the most important thing necessarily. It can be, but every facet of the game is important. I do agree that given equal offensive talent Paul will lead a better regular season offense than kidd. But his team will still be paper soft come playoff time due to no leadership being provided in every other area of basketball.. kidd provided A+ leadership in defense rebounding and passing that made his teams much tougher and better than they should've been. Paul's game is sexier individually, but it doesn't have as much substance
Kidd's game didn't seem to have much "substance" either when he didn't play in the eastern conference...
Kidd and CP3 are interchangeable IMO. Payton was no slouch but I also don't think he had the impact the other two did. Close enough though.
[QUOTE=Young X]Kidd's game didn't seem to have much "substance" either when he didn't play in the eastern conference...[/QUOTE]
He was the starting pointguard for a western conference team who won their first and ONLY title in their franchises history. :oldlol:
[QUOTE=Young X]You can't just ignore the huge gap in scoring ability because they're PG's. Scoring is still the most important part of the game no matter what position at the end of the day.
If we're comparing 2 players offensively. The bottom line is who helps their team score more points. Who is better at turning possessions into points.
Paul is definitely better than Kidd at this. If you gave them the same teammates under the same circumstances, Paul's team would easily be more efficient.
And if you really think Paul isn't close to Kidd at setting up teammates then I don't know what to say. You either don't watch him play or are extremely biased. He's one of the best distributors/passers/playmakers to ever play (as is Kidd). There's no one he's "not close to" in this area.[/QUOTE]
I don't disrespect Paul, but here's the thing, it's about how many points your team score compared to how many they allow. Not how many points your point guard scores. It doesn't matter who scores as long as the points are scored.
Spurs don't even have a 20 point scorer, they have a couple of guys scoring 17.
Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Melo, they score and their teams are crap.
And if Paul was really a top 3 point guard of all time then he would have sniffed a finals, all the other great point guards did:
Magic
Kidd
Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Oscar Robertson
Steve Nash had godly stats that didn't translate and he was twice MVP, no one in their mind picks Nash over any of the above.
He has the team good enough, they beat the former champs Spurs for gods sake. Then they go and meltdown and lose to James Harden.
There's something missing with Paul and you won't like it if I tell you what I think it is, but I will say it anyway, Paul is too focused on pick and roll game and taking the big shots. He dribbles in the same spot for too long and does too much iso. He flops too much, doesn't have the warrior's heart like Isiah and Stockton.
Losing to Rockets last year can't be excused it was simply bad and it falls on Paul who played great against Spurs.
He is still an all time great in terms of skill but he can't translate it to a fully effective playstyle.
Kidd has 107 tripple doubles, that's 3rd all time and that's more than TWICE as many Lebron James. Think about that. Kidd is 6'5'' and 205lbs. That's only behind Magic and Oscar Robertson ALL TIME.
People gush over the trip dub impact of Lebron, but Kidd has TWICE as many as Lebron.
He averages almost 9apg and 2spg over an 18 year career.
Jason Kidd won that Mavs championship:
wagesofwins.com/2011/05/26/jason-kidd-is-an-all-time-great-point-guard/
[QUOTE]There
[QUOTE=Young X]Kidd's game didn't seem to have much "substance" either when he didn't play in the eastern conference...[/QUOTE]
it did though.. he revitalized Tyson chandlers career, pretty much made him a max level player out of nowhere. Kidd is the most under appreciated part of the 2011 Mavs title team. It was his defense along with Marions that locked down all the "stars" they faced. It was him that pushed the pace and always dictated proper flow.
90% of kidd's prime was spent in the east.. so be it, he did the absolute best with what he was given. When given a chance in the west, he of course, also produced.
[QUOTE=tpols]it did though.. he revitalized Tyson chandlers career, pretty much made him a max level player out of nowhere. Kidd is the most under appreciated part of the 2011 Mavs title team. It was his defense along with Marions that locked down all the "stars" they faced. It was him that pushed the pace and always dictated proper flow.
90% of kidd's prime was spent in the east.. so be it, he did the absolute best with what he was given. When given a chance in the west, he of course, also produced.[/QUOTE]
Look above, Kidd had the most winshares on that team.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]There are always going to be guys battling for a top 5 spot...and one can argue it.
Shaq was in that range of player though...still one of the best players in the league. I think that is what people mean...nobody actually is arguing, I'd guess, that 04/05 Shaq were as good as 00 Shaq or something.[/QUOTE]
That is what has to be implied if kobe just had to throw the ball to shaq more to win in 04 against t he pistons, at least that's what it sounds like.
[QUOTE=dhsilv]That is what has to be implied if kobe just had to throw the ball to shaq more to win in 04 against t he pistons, at least that's what it sounds like.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it would have mattered much throwing it to shaq more, or kobe somehow playing better.. tayshaun bothered kobe the same way Durant or sefolosha did in 2012. That super length to contest a midrange shooter is kobe's kryptonite. Plus if kobe was able to get around he would have to face a crowded, stacked paint.. just a terrible matchup. Combined with all the extracurricular stuff, there was just no chance. 04 pistons upsetting the lakers was like the seahawks beating the bronco's.. they just smashed them in the face and dominated at every non-star position first
[QUOTE=90sgoat]I should say that its hard to qualify who is actually the better player, because none of them have multiple rings or MVPs. Kidd is the only one with a ring and he has the most finals (3 to 1 and 0) which really should count for something. Besides that it's about which game you like to watch more and Kidd is on top for me, because all his teams were exciting to watch.
Again, I simply can't see how you can put Paul over either of the others when you factor in all skills and see Paul's lack of playoff success. Losing to the Rockets last year was a massive scratch on his resume. They beat the Spurs and then lose to Harden and Dwight, that's just not elite, whether it's mental or something else.
As for Kidd even as an old man he made Melo a scoring leader and in the running for MVP, which again was ignored but Melo's play since Kidd left shows the impact clearly. Kidd really does make his teammates play to their best.[/QUOTE]
Paul got injured against the spurs...not sure he gets a pass but I'll give him half of one.
Paul also never had a team as deep or talented as that 96 seatle team. That team was loaded.
FYI, Payton made the finals 3 times and has a ring just like Kidd....assuming you give him credit for being a much less important role player on 2 of those finals trips and the ring. But you didn't add a qualifier so it should be pointed out.
[QUOTE=tpols]I don't think it would have mattered much throwing it to shaq more, or kobe somehow playing better.. tayshaun bothered kobe the same way Durant or sefolosha did. That super length to contest a midrange shooter is kobe's kryptonite. Plus if able to get around having to face a crowded, stacked paint.. just a terrible matchup. Combined with all the extracurricular stuff, there was just no chance. 04 pistons upsetting the lakers was like the seahawks beating the bronco's.. they just smashed them in the face and dominated at every non-star position.[/QUOTE]
Agree. The pistons just destroyed the role players in ways you rarely ever see.
[QUOTE=90sgoat]I don't disrespect Paul, but here's the thing, it's about how many points your team score compared to how many they allow. Not how many points your point guard scores. It doesn't matter who scores as long as the points are scored.
Spurs don't even have a 20 point scorer, they have a couple of guys scoring 17.
Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Melo, they score and their teams are crap.
And if Paul was really a top 3 point guard of all time then he would have sniffed a finals, all the other great point guards did:
Magic
Kidd
Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Oscar Robertson
Steve Nash had godly stats that didn't translate and he was twice MVP, no one in their mind picks Nash over any of the above.
He has the team good enough, they beat the former champs Spurs for gods sake. Then they go and meltdown and lose to James Harden.
There's something missing with Paul and you won't like it if I tell you what I think it is, but I will say it anyway, Paul is too focused on pick and roll game and taking the big shots. He dribbles in the same spot for too long and does too much iso. He flops too much, doesn't have the warrior's heart like Isiah and Stockton.
Losing to Rockets last year can't be excused it was simply bad and it falls on Paul who played great against Spurs.
He is still an all time great in terms of skill but he can't translate it to a fully effective playstyle.
Kidd has 107 tripple doubles, that's 3rd all time and that's more than TWICE as many Lebron James. Think about that. Kidd is 6'5'' and 205lbs. That's only behind Magic and Oscar Robertson ALL TIME.
People gush over the trip dub impact of Lebron, but Kidd has TWICE as many as Lebron.
He averages almost 9apg and 2spg over an 18 year career.
Jason Kidd won that Mavs championship:
wagesofwins.com/2011/05/26/jason-kidd-is-an-all-time-great-point-guard/
[url]http://nesn.com/2011/05/jason-kidd-must-be-considered-greatest-point-guard-in-nba-history-if-mavericks-win-championship/[/url]
Read more at: [url]http://nesn.com/2011/05/jason-kidd-must-be-considered-greatest-point-guard-in-nba-history-if-mavericks-win-championship/[/url]
[B]In the 2001-2002 against Lakers NBA finals Kidd averaged:
21-10-7-2 on 44% FG[/B]
That's an all time great Finals statline.
Let me know when Paul puts up such a statline in the finals.
You simply can't speak on behalf of Jason Kidd if you're not able to use your eyes and understand what you are seeing, like the guys I quoted above were able to.[/QUOTE]Let's not act like Dirk and the rest of the Mavs had nothing to do with that title in 2011. Kidd contributed alot to that team but he didn't win them that championship. He was 38 years old and at the end of his career. Let's be real.
I never said Paul was a top 3 PG all time (neither is Kidd). There's also nothing wrong with picking Nash over Stockton, Kidd, or Thomas.
Not everybody is as impressed with team success amongst individual players as you guys. Circumstances play too much of a factor in that.
The Nets getting to the finals doesn't necessarily make him better than someone like Nash or Paul. If Kidd hadn't gotten traded to the east he also likely doesn't get to the finals either and he wouldn't have been any worse a player for it.
[QUOTE=Young X]Let's not act like Dirk and the rest of the Mavs had nothing to do with that title in 2011. Kidd contributed alot to that team but he didn't win them that championship. He was 38 years old and at the end of his career. Let's be real.
I never said Paul was a top 3 PG all time (neither is Kidd). There's also nothing wrong with picking Nash over Stockton, Kidd, or Thomas.
[B][U]Not everybody is as impressed with team success amongst individual players as you guys.[/U][/B] Circumstances play too much of a factor in that.
The Nets getting to the finals doesn't necessarily make him better than someone like Nash or Paul. If Kidd hadn't gotten traded to the east he also likely doesn't get to the finals either and he wouldn't have been any worse a player for it.[/QUOTE]
Its only impressive when it fits an argument. Basketball is a team sport, unless Derek Fisher is a top 3 pg that is.
[QUOTE=Young X]Let's not act like Dirk and the rest of the Mavs had nothing to do with that title in 2011. Kidd contributed alot to that team but he didn't win them that championship. He was 38 years old and at the end of his career. Let's be real.
I never said Paul was a top 3 PG all time (neither is Kidd). There's also nothing wrong with picking Nash over Stockton, Kidd, or Thomas.
[B]Not everybody is as impressed with team success amongst individual players as you guys. Circumstances play too much of a factor in that. [/B]
The Nets getting to the finals doesn't necessarily make him better than someone like Nash or Paul. If Kidd hadn't gotten traded to the east he also likely doesn't get to the finals either and he wouldn't have been any worse a player for it.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
And looking at the circumstances, I definitely can't say Paul has gotten the most out of his. He's had plenty of opportunities with good squads. I can't look at Paul's circumstances and say he's gotten the most out of those squads. He's never even been a threat.
And the same goes for Nash. He was more of a threat, but at the end of the day he was a regular season champ who couldn't push great, incredibly talented squads over the edge.
Payton and Kidd both did more with less, but lets jerk off over stats some more.
[QUOTE=LJJ]I agree.
And looking at the circumstances, I definitely can't say Paul has gotten the most out of his. He's had plenty of opportunities with good squads. I can't look at Paul's circumstances and say he's gotten the most out of those squads. He's never even been a threat.
[B]And the same goes for Nash. He was more of a threat, but at the end of the day he was a regular season champ who couldn't push great, incredibly talented squads over the edge.[/B]
Payton and Kidd both did more with less, but lets jerk off over stats some more.[/QUOTE]
In '07 without that suspension he has a Title.
[QUOTE=Wade's Rings]In '07 without that suspension he has a Title.[/QUOTE]
Or the spurs still come back and win that series...honestly still don't think the suns win that series without the suspensions.
[QUOTE=LJJ]I agree.
And looking at the circumstances, I definitely can't say Paul has gotten the most out of his. He's had plenty of opportunities with good squads. I can't look at Paul's circumstances and say he's gotten the most out of those squads. He's never even been a threat.
And the same goes for Nash. He was more of a threat, but at the end of the day he was a regular season champ who couldn't push great, incredibly talented squads over the edge.
Payton and Kidd both did more with less, but lets jerk off over stats some more.[/QUOTE]
What did payton do with LESS?
[QUOTE=dhsilv]What did payton do with LESS?[/QUOTE]
Deandre Jordan >> Ervin Johnson
Blake > Kemp
Barnes << Schrempf
JJ = Hawkins
Supporting casts are about comparable imo.
[QUOTE=DaOldLion]for me this is between Kidd vs Payton for first, hard to choose. Probably go with GP[/QUOTE]
I agree with this. Payton was the better defender but that was when handchecking was allowed.
I guess i would choose Kidd cause he has a better shot at a triple double.
[QUOTE=90sgoat]Deandre Jordan >> Ervin Johnson
Blake > Kemp
Barnes << Schrempf
JJ = Hawkins
Supporting casts are about comparable imo.[/QUOTE]
I am 45 years old & i disagree. Hawkins was a way better defender then JJ. & Kemp was a monster in his prime, so i would say he was even with Blake.
No PG did more with less than Kidd. He was the main reason why Nets turn around as a franchise. His all around game what separate him from Payton and CP3. Even in 2011 Kidd was clearly the Mavs only playmaker that ran the offense plus he was they 3&D guy. Cats act like Curry was the only lightskin PG that was a great 3pt shooter that won a championship lol.
Truth be told Payton was overrated. People have revisionist about Payton. Dude was a underachiever and a headcase. He was on a team where they lost to a clearly inferior team in 94 and 95. Heck in 04 he was clearly one of main problem why the Lakers underachieve that year.
Cp3 is just a black Nash who plays defense. He don't have offensive game to take over like he should. Truth be told it hard for a PG to win as the game unless they have some offensive prowness with their game. But he is better than Payton cause he at least more of a pure PG than him.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]You have been utterly destroyed and my logic/arguments are sound.
You have offered nothing...well, you've now tried arguing that the Lakers had an elite offense in 04...and, sorry, they did not.
I really don't get some people on here...why even start a discussion if you can't even offer up some form of a valid argument and/or are not willing to change your position?
Like...the discussion ends when someone makes the obvious point that the Lakers weren't a special offensive team to begin with, struggled offensively in the playoffs prior to the finals, and looked pretty bad in the finals. That is the first thing someone is going to say.
And you cry and resort to ad hominem? Grow up or go home please.[/QUOTE]
:roll: :roll:
Again, whatever helps you sleep better at night. You really are as delusional as 3ball.
Since you're just too stupid to understand my points, I'll repost.
Yeah, if the Heat were healthy the Pistons do not make the Finals. [B]IF[/B] Kobe left his ego, he'd have 6 rings. It's not a 'fact'. Hypothetical scenario. The Pistons were an elite defensive squad, but not even close to being an ATG team. If you think that they're an ATG team, you simply haven't watched enough basketball.
You keep bringing up Rasheed and how he changed the offense, but the Pistons were still a garbage offense the next season. Somewhere around the 20th, IIRC.
[QUOTE=aj1987]:roll: :roll:
Again, whatever helps you sleep better at night. You really are as delusional as 3ball.
Since you're just too stupid to understand my points, I'll repost.
Yeah, if the Heat were healthy the Pistons do not make the Finals. [B]IF[/B] Kobe left his ego, he'd have 6 rings. It's not a 'fact'. Hypothetical scenario. The Pistons were an elite defensive squad, but not even close to being an ATG team. If you think that they're an ATG team, you simply haven't watched enough basketball.
You keep bringing up Rasheed and how he changed the offense, but the Pistons were still a garbage offense the next season. Somewhere around the 20th, IIRC.[/QUOTE]
Those aren't points...those are just baseless statements with no arguments or evidence behind them.
I disagree with everything above....so defend what you say. Explain how the Lakers are improving their offense against an all time great defensive team.
Explain why the Lakers still needed OT to win when Kobe was dominant and fed Shaq frequently throughout the game.
I'll be waiting for another terrible response...
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Those aren't points...those are just baseless statements with no arguments or evidence behind them.
I disagree with everything above....so defend what you say. Explain how the Lakers are improving their offense against an all time great defensive team.[/quote]
Do I have to teach you basketball now? Sigh! The Lakers' offense was stagnant for long stretches because Kobe was hogging the ball. Their role-players were completely out of it and Shaq himself was completely useless. If Kobe passes the ball more whenever he gets doubled, that would've kept the defense on its toes. Involving the role-players more would've helped a ton as well.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Explain why the Lakers still needed OT to win when Kobe was dominant and fed Shaq frequently throughout the game.[/quote]
Why did an ATG team like this season's Warriors, who are the #1 offense, need OT to beat the garbage ass Nets. 2OT against the mediocre Celtics as well.
As I said, watch the series. Was it Billups or RIP who scored 30 that game. I think it was both. Lets also not forget about their edge in rebounding as well.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I'll be waiting for another terrible response...[/QUOTE]
Well, 3ball lite. When you brush aside all arguments and cherrypick yours, everything might seem terrible.
[QUOTE=aj1987]Do I have to teach you basketball now? Sigh! The Lakers' offense was stagnant for long stretches because Kobe was hogging the ball. Their role-players were completely out of it and Shaq himself was completely useless. If Kobe passes the ball more whenever he gets doubled, that would've kept the defense on its toes. Involving the role-players more would've helped a ton as well.
Why did an ATG team like this season's Warriors, who are the #1 offense, need OT to beat the garbage ass Nets. 2OT against the mediocre Celtics as well.
As I said, watch the series. Was it Billups or RIP who scored 30 that game. I think it was both. Lets also not forget about their edge in rebounding as well.
Well, 3ball lite. When you brush aside all arguments and cherrypick yours, everything might seem terrible.[/QUOTE]
It's not cherry picking at all.
You are claiming the Lakers win if Kobe plays "like Kobe"...but what you are failing to realize is that the Lakers offense simply was not elite even when Kobe was playing "like Kobe"...
Here is some evidence.
The Lakers didn't have an elite offense all year.
When the Lakers played the Spurs, another elite defense, their offensive rating was 101.
Kobe definitely played..."like Kobe" in that series with 26 points on 53% TS
When the Lakers played the Rockets, a good defense, their offensive rating was 101.
Kobe played alright...put up 24 points on 51% TS
So...I'll keep asking. What makes you think Kobe is playing better than he did against the Spurs or Rockets? The Pistons defense was better equipped to make life harder on Kobe than either of those teams.
In addition to that, even if Kobe were to play as well or better than he had all playoffs, why do you think the Lakers offense as a team would jump up, quite considerably, over the level it was against the Spurs and Rockets?
It's not about the team struggling to win game 2. It's a direct example that contradicts what you said. Kobe played well above any realistic expectations for an entire series in game 2...and fed Shaq the ball. And yet, the Pistons were still right there in a game that could have gone either way.
Maybe you aren't grasping this...that matters because the Lakers played better than they could over the course of any stretch...and yet the Pistons still were just as good.
So not only do you have almost no evidence that Kobe is capable of playing like you claim, but even if he does...the game is a coin flip at best when he's playing as good as he possibly can.
The Lakers would have needed Kobe or Shaq to do something special consistently....combined with playing better defense than they proved capable in the finals.
Long story short, there is no justifiable reason to think the Lakers, a team that wasn't elite offensively all year, couldn't crack a 101 ortg against the Spurs/Rockets, and wasn't elite defensively either...was going to all of a sudden improve their offense against one of the best defenses ever.
Once again you provide no arguments other than stating the obvious that Kobe played poorly. LOL...we know he played poorly. The question isn't that...it's whether or not him playing like himself is rising their ortg at least 10 points better than it was in that series.
And the answer is obviously no. You probably realize that at this point, but you'll keep trying dig your way out of a hole that, unfortunately, you can't get out of.
And we are all just laughing at the stupid shit you say...:coleman:
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]It's not cherry picking at all.
You are claiming the Lakers win if Kobe plays "like Kobe"...but what you are failing to realize is that the Lakers offense simply was not elite even when Kobe was playing "like Kobe"...
Here is some evidence.
The Lakers didn't have an elite offense all year.
When the Lakers played the Spurs, another elite defense, their offensive rating was 101.
Kobe definitely played..."like Kobe" in that series with 26 points on 53% TS
When the Lakers played the Rockets, a good defense, their offensive rating was 101.
Kobe played alright...put up 24 points on 51% TS
So...I'll keep asking. What makes you think Kobe is playing better than he did against the Spurs or Rockets? The Pistons defense was better equipped to make life harder on Kobe than either of those teams.
In addition to that, even if Kobe were to play as well or better than he had all playoffs, why do you think the Lakers offense as a team would jump up, quite considerably, over the level it was against the Spurs and Rockets?
It's not about the team struggling to win game 2. It's a direct example that contradicts what you said. Kobe played well above any realistic expectations for an entire series in game 2...and fed Shaq the ball. And yet, the Pistons were still right there in a game that could have gone either way.
Maybe you aren't grasping this...that matters because the Lakers played better than they could over the course of any stretch...and yet the Pistons still were just as good.
So not only do you have almost no evidence that Kobe is capable of playing like you claim, but even if he does...the game is a coin flip at best when he's playing as good as he possibly can.
The Lakers would have needed Kobe or Shaq to do something special consistently....combined with playing better defense than they proved capable in the finals.
Long story short, there is no justifiable reason to think the Lakers, a team that wasn't elite offensively all year, couldn't crack a 101 ortg against the Spurs/Rockets, and wasn't elite defensively either...was going to all of a sudden improve their offense against one of the best defenses ever.
Once again you provide no arguments other than stating the obvious that Kobe played poorly. LOL...we know he played poorly. The question isn't that...it's whether or not him playing like himself is rising their ortg at least 10 points better than it was in that series.
And the answer is obviously no. You probably realize that at this point, but you'll keep trying dig your way out of a hole that, unfortunately, you can't get out of.
And we are all just laughing at the stupid shit you say...:coleman:[/QUOTE]
Read this, you literal retard:
Do I have to teach you basketball now? Sigh! The Lakers' offense was stagnant for long stretches because Kobe was hogging the ball. Their role-players were completely out of it and Shaq himself was completely useless. If Kobe passes the ball more whenever he gets doubled, that would've kept the defense on its toes. Involving the role-players more would've helped a ton as well.
Why did an ATG team like this season's Warriors, who are the #1 offense, need OT to beat the garbage ass Nets. 2OT against the mediocre Celtics as well.
As I said, watch the series. Was it Billups or RIP who scored 30 that game. I think it was both. Lets also not forget about their edge in rebounding as well.
[QUOTE=aj1987]Read this, you literal retard:
Do I have to teach you basketball now? Sigh! The Lakers' offense was stagnant for long stretches because Kobe was hogging the ball. Their role-players were completely out of it and Shaq himself was completely useless. If Kobe passes the ball more whenever he gets doubled, that would've kept the defense on its toes. Involving the role-players more would've helped a ton as well.
Why did an ATG team like this season's Warriors, who are the #1 offense, need OT to beat the garbage ass Nets. 2OT against the mediocre Celtics as well.
As I said, watch the series. Was it Billups or RIP who scored 30 that game. I think it was both. Lets also not forget about their edge in rebounding as well.[/QUOTE]
WHY WOULD THE LAKERS PLAY BETTER OFFENSE AGAINST THE PISTONS THAN THEY DID ALL YEAR AND IN THE PLAYOFFS?
You stupid ****ing moron....I'm referencing other series and the entire year....
Explain yourself you ****ing idiot.