Gary Payton has become insanely underrated

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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



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

I got this from another forum.

Nash sure has been a defensive liability lately. Lol

Going in reverse order of last Phoenix opponents:

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

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

GP 20 is dropping some knowledge :cheers:

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

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

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

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

Nash sure has been a defensive liability lately. Lol

Going in reverse order of last Phoenix opponents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


[quote]

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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


Then use some stats or footage to prove your point.

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

"Okay, some better numbers:

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

0.83 more wins than opponent

.040 higher shooting percentage

.052 higher 3pt percentage

.115 higher free throw percentage

0.97 fewer points per game

0.57 fewer rebounds per game

2.4 more assists per game

0.9 fewer steals per game

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

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