All-Time NBA Draft: Discussion

[beanfigger]

I know my next guy's going to be (99% sure he won't be snapped up in the next two picks) - deciding on a pic is tough though. How hard my life is.

 

I wonder if it's my guy...

[Inqui]

I wonder if it's my guy...

Looking over your depth chart, I doubt it.

[gabefergy]

If you consider Oscar Robertson a point guard, then it will take more than a couple titles to move into the top two. I've always liked Paul, so he has a chance to finish top three or four in my eyes for sure. Magic, Oscar, Kidd, Thomas, Stockton, a couple that haven't been drafted yet... Paul is getting into that conversation. If we're talking pure skills, then he's already near the top, but it takes more than that.

I don't consider Oscar a PG, but I would put him ahead of Paul if I did. The numbers Paul puts up are at an elite level that hasn't really been seen at the PG position before, but the question is whether or not he will continue to do so and if he can get over the championship hump. I don't think Kidd was a better PG than Paul, and neither was Isiah imo from a statistical standpoint. Thomas gets a leg up for winning a couple titles though.  Magic, Stockton, maybe Payton are all ahead of him in my eyes. 

[beanfigger]

I don't consider Oscar a PG, but I would put him ahead of Paul if I did. The numbers Paul puts up are at an elite level that hasn't really been seen at the PG position before, but the question is whether or not he will continue to do so and if he can get over the championship hump. I don't think Kidd was a better PG than Paul, and neither was Isiah imo from a statistical standpoint. Thomas gets a leg up for winning a couple titles though. Magic, Stockton, maybe Payton are all ahead of him in my eyes.

Don't know how I left out Payton. He's elevated because of his defense, but Paul is a better offensive player than him for sure. Jason Kidd is very underrated for what he did in the league, both statistically and in terms of winning. I don't know how you can find fault in his game.

[gabefergy]

Don't know how I left out Payton. He's elevated because of his defense, but Paul is a better offensive player than him for sure. Jason Kidd is very underrated for what he did in the league, both statistically and in terms of winning. I don't know how you can find fault in his game.

Kidd's career 40% FG shooting is a pretty glaring fault. He was a very good player for a really long time, but even at his best he wasn't as good as Paul's career averages. Paul's best season ranks up there as the best ever season from a PG.

[CalvinSmoke]

I needed another go to player on my wing, I had enough defense, and Bernard King was one of the best scorers left. If not the best in his prime.

[Inqui]

Last few picks: I was halfway through typing Barry's name when I switched my pick to Pettit. I want to go small, but I didn't want to be ridiculous about it and not even have a center (though if we are discussing Magic's position, didn't he switch to center in the finals when Kareem got hurt and dominate?). The first point forward was appealing, but I went instead with the first MVP.

Tracy McGrady was a surprise, but not a bad pick by any stretch. He once scored 10 points in the last 35 seconds of a game with the Rockets to win a game, and that was the greatest thing I've seen in the last decade of NBA play.

Pistol Pete! Awesome player, and fantastic gif. So sad that he passed away so soon in his retirement. If I remember correctly, he was the only player named to the "Top 50" years ago during the league's 50th anniversary celebration that wasn't alive to come be recognized.

This actually raises an interesting question. If we're talking about the best stretch of their career, how long can that stretch be? If you get legalistic you could say guys like McGrady or Reggie Miller deserved to go in the first round.

 

Appreciate the Maravich love too. His scoring and ball movement would be incredible to pair with Larry Bird. I'll take 67% career stats from the three-point line any day, and the rings can go [use your imagination] themselves.

[-Truth-]

This actually raises an interesting question. If we're talking about the best stretch of their career, how long can that stretch be? If you get legalistic you could say guys like McGrady or Reggie Miller deserved to go in the first round.

 

Appreciate the Maravich love too. His scoring and ball movement would be incredible to pair with Larry Bird. I'll take 67% career stats from the three-point line any day, and the rings can go [use your imagination] themselves.

 

I'm thinking at least three or four years. It would deter members from choosing players who were lights out for one or two seasons but otherwise fizzled and comparing them at the same level as other players whose stretches were significantly longer. Longevity should always count in favor of a player, so if somebody was consistently good for a decade or even longer, it shouldn't be discounted.

Edited September 1, 2014 by -Truth-

[beanfigger]

Kidd's career 40% FG shooting is a pretty glaring fault. He was a very good player for a really long time, but even at his best he wasn't as good as Paul's career averages. Paul's best season ranks up there as the best ever season from a PG.

Kidd may not have ever been a feared shooter, but that wasn't his game (though he has made the third most three point shots in the history of the NBA). He's one of the best rebounding point guards ever, and fantastic defender and a true floor general and playmaker who could set up anyone. He ranks amongst the best players ever in terms of total assists and steals. He led a Nets team to the finals a couple times, and then teamed up with Dirk to help push him over the top. Paul has the makings of getting to his level someday, but it will take a very long period of sustained elite numbers to get there, and some success in the postseason wouldn't hurt. I think he'll get there, but I cannot put him on Kidd's level, yet, unless we're talking about athletic skills and potential, which mean little without the end gain.

[beanfigger]

I'm thinking at least three or four years. It would defer members from choosing players who were lights out for one or two seasons but otherwise fizzled and comparing them at the same level as other players whose stretches were significantly longer. Longevity should always count in favor of a player, so if somebody was consistently good for a decade or even longer, it shouldn't be discounted.

What about ten games? Lin-sanity!

[Inqui]

What about ten games? Lin-sanity!

All he does is Lin.

[-Truth-]

What about ten games? Lin-sanity!

 

lol That was a good one.

[gabefergy]

Kidd may not have ever been a feared shooter, but that wasn't his game (though he has made the third most three point shots in the history of the NBA). He's one of the best rebounding point guards ever, and fantastic defender and a true floor general and playmaker who could set up anyone. He ranks amongst the best players ever in terms of total assists and steals. He led a Nets team to the finals a couple times, and then teamed up with Dirk to help push him over the top. Paul has the makings of getting to his level someday, but it will take a very long period of sustained elite numbers to get there, and some success in the postseason wouldn't hurt. I think he'll get there, but I cannot put him on Kidd's level, yet, unless we're talking about athletic skills and potential, which mean little without the end gain.

You can't just ignore the fact that Kidd shot 40% from the field. That's a glaring fault for any basketball player. Kidd had a very good career and he played for a really long time at a high level, but Paul has been a considerably better performer on the court, albeit for a shorter stretch.

 

Paul has had considerably higher assist numbers throughout his career, and he is no slouch on the boards or on defense either. Paul has been tops in the league in generating steals a number of times. I don't know what you mean by true floor general, but I think it's safe to say Paul has that covered as well.

 

The shooting and scoring numbers are significantly better for Paul which is why I can't put Kidd ahead of him.

[beanfigger]

You can't just ignore the fact that Kidd shot 40% from the field. That's a glaring fault for any basketball player. Kidd had a very good career and he played for a really long time at a high level, but Paul has been a considerably better performer on the court, albeit for a shorter stretch.

Paul has had considerably higher assist numbers throughout his career, and he is no slouch on the boards or on defense either. Paul has been tops in the league in generating steals a number of times. I don't know what you mean by true floor general, but I think it's safe to say Paul has that covered as well.

The shooting and scoring numbers are significantly better for Paul which is why I can't put Kidd ahead of him.

I never said Paul can't do any of the things I mentioned for Kidd. I leave that stuff up to you as our resident legend basher on here. I guess if you are going back to the "stretch of a career" and disregard the importance of postseason succes (both things you consistently argued against on our last debate), then Paul is right up there. I'm not ignoring anything. Shooting is one aspect of an all-around game, and it is something Kidd did improve upon though it was the weakest part of his very impressive overall game.

[gabefergy]

I never said Paul can't do any of the things I mentioned for Kidd. I leave that stuff up to you as our resident legend basher on here. I guess if you are going back to the "stretch of a career" and disregard the importance of postseason succes (both things you consistently argued against on our last debate), then Paul is right up there. I'm not ignoring anything. Shooting is one aspect of an all-around game, and it is something Kidd did improve upon though it was the weakest part of his very impressive overall game.

Kidd only won a championship as a role player. He has had more postseason success, but he was also on far more talented teams in a terrible conference when he got to the championships as the best player on his team.

 

I'm not bashing Kidd. I have repeatedly said he was a very good player for a long time, but I wouldn't say he is a legend. If you take his best stretch in Phoenix and NJ it just doesn't stand up to Paul's career. There isn't anything Kidd ever did that Paul didn't do better in their careers except rebound.

 

Kidd played a long time, but he wasn't an elite player for most of his career.

[beanfigger]

Kidd only won a championship as a role player. He has had more postseason success, but he was also on far more talented teams in a terrible conference when he got to the championships as the best player on his team.

 

I'm not bashing Kidd. I have repeatedly said he was a very good player for a long time, but I wouldn't say he is a legend. If you take his best stretch in Phoenix and NJ it just doesn't stand up to Paul's career. There isn't anything Kidd ever did that Paul didn't do better in their careers except rebound.

 

Kidd played a long time, but he wasn't an elite player for most of his career.

 

This all begs to differ:

• NBA Champion: 2011
• 10-time NBA All-Star: 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2010
• 6-time All-NBA:
  • First Team: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004
  • Second Team: 2003
• 9-time All-Defensive Selection:
  • First Team : 1999, 2001, 2002, 2006
  • Second Team: 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007
• NBA co-Rookie of the Year: 1995 (with Grant Hill)
• NBA All-Rookie First Team: 1995
• NBA All-Star Skills Challenge champion: 2003
• 5-time NBA regular-season leader, assists per game: 1999 (10.8), 2000 (10.1), 2001 (9.8), 2003 (8.9), 2004 (9.2)
• 3-time NBA regular-season leader, total assists: 1999 (539), 2001 (753), 2003 (711)
• NBA regular-season leader, total steals: 2002 (175)

You don't make first team all NBA five times without being the best at your position, not to mention four times first team all defense. This doesn't even take in to account the fact that he is way up on the list in career triple doubles, including second all time in the postseason triple doubles (until LeBron someday passes him).

[SecretAgentMan]

Kidd was a better fit for my team. I needed a smart PG who was a good distributor and an excellent defender. Kidd, at the end of his career, was trusted with guarding LEBRON JAMES in the finals. I have Wilkins, Kobe, and Duncan. Kidd is a good guy to run that offense. Paul would be too, but Kidd didn't need to score to be super effectivex

[Birdest]

Wow, I really need a point guard.

[gabefergy]

This all begs to differ:

• NBA Champion: 2011
• 10-time NBA All-Star: 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2010
• 6-time All-NBA:
  • First Team: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004
  • Second Team: 2003
• 9-time All-Defensive Selection:
  • First Team : 1999, 2001, 2002, 2006
  • Second Team: 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007
• NBA co-Rookie of the Year: 1995 (with Grant Hill)
• NBA All-Rookie First Team: 1995
• NBA All-Star Skills Challenge champion: 2003
• 5-time NBA regular-season leader, assists per game: 1999 (10.8), 2000 (10.1), 2001 (9.8), 2003 (8.9), 2004 (9.2)
• 3-time NBA regular-season leader, total assists: 1999 (539), 2001 (753), 2003 (711)
• NBA regular-season leader, total steals: 2002 (175)

You don't make first team all NBA five times without being the best at your position, not to mention four times first team all defense. This doesn't even take in to account the fact that he is way up on the list in career triple doubles, including second all time in the postseason triple doubles (until LeBron someday passes him).

He played for almost twenty years, and he made all- NBA 5 of them. I specifically stated he wasn't elite for most of his career. 

 

Here is Paul's resume, and he is still in the prime of his career:

 

• 7× NBA All-Star (2008–2014)
• NBA All-Star Game MVP (2013)
• 4× All-NBA First Team (2008, 2012–2014)
• All-NBA Second Team (2009)
• All-NBA Third Team (2011)
• 4× NBA All-Defensive First Team (2009, 2012–2014)
• 2× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (2008, 2011)
• NBA Rookie of the Year (2006)
• NBA All-Rookie First Team (2006)
• 3× NBA assists leader (2008–2009, 2014)
• 6× NBA steals leader (2008–2009, 2011–2014)

 

He has garnered nearly the same accolades in half the time, while posting better per game averages in every category but rebounds. 

 

If you want to see the disparity more clearly:

 

Chris Paul career PER is 25.6 and he has been worth 115.2 Win Shares in 9 seasons.

 

Jason Kidd career PER is 17.9 and he has been worth 138.6 Win Shares in 17 seasons.

 

Even during Kidd's best year's in NJ, he never posted a PER greater than 22.2, and his average PER in NJ was 19.4.

 

 

Paul's career numbers: 18.6 PPG | 9.9 APG | 4.4 RPG | 2.4 SPG | .472/.357/.857 shooting

 

Kidd's peak numbers in NJ: 14.6 PPG | 9.1 APG | 7.2 RPG | 1.9 SPG | .397/.342/.807 shooting

[CalvinSmoke]

Can someone explain Reggie Miller to me, never got to appreciate his career.

[Gordo52]

About time Miller went. A couple other guys need to go too.

[Birdest]

Can someone explain Reggie Miller to me, never got to appreciate his career.

He probably wanted him because he is one of the greatest shooters of all time and can arguably space the floor better than anybody.

[beanfigger]

Can someone explain Reggie Miller to me, never got to appreciate his career.

 

Miller was a great scorer and feared opponent for most of his career. His true value was in his shooting ability, specifically in the clutch. If you couldn't have Jordan taking your last second shot for you during the 90s, it'd be hard to find another name more coveted than Miller.

 

He played for almost twenty years, and he made all- NBA 5 of them. I specifically stated he wasn't elite for most of his career. 

 

Here is Paul's resume, and he is still in the prime of his career:

 

• 7× NBA All-Star (2008–2014)
• NBA All-Star Game MVP (2013)
• 4× All-NBA First Team (2008, 2012–2014)
• All-NBA Second Team (2009)
• All-NBA Third Team (2011)
• 4× NBA All-Defensive First Team (2009, 2012–2014)
• 2× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (2008, 2011)
• NBA Rookie of the Year (2006)
• NBA All-Rookie First Team (2006)
• 3× NBA assists leader (2008–2009, 2014)
• 6× NBA steals leader (2008–2009, 2011–2014)

 

He has garnered nearly the same accolades in half the time, while posting better per game averages in every category but rebounds. 

 

If you want to see the disparity more clearly:

 

Chris Paul career PER is 25.6 and he has been worth 115.2 Win Shares in 9 seasons.

 

Jason Kidd career PER is 17.9 and he has been worth 138.6 Win Shares in 17 seasons.

 

Even during Kidd's best year's in NJ, he never posted a PER greater than 22.2, and his average PER in NJ was 19.4.

 

 

Paul's career numbers: 18.6 PPG | 9.9 APG | 4.4 RPG | 2.4 SPG | .472/.357/.857 shooting

 

Kidd's peak numbers in NJ: 14.6 PPG | 9.1 APG | 7.2 RPG | 1.9 SPG | .397/.342/.807 shooting

 

Paul's numbers are great, but during the best stretch of Kidd's career, his numbers translated into great playoff success. That is the big difference I see. I don't see Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson being any better than Tyson Chandler and David West in New Orleans with Paul, and certainly not more than what he is playing with now. I'd rather have Paul on my team, honestly, for something like this, but there is not way I see him being above Kidd in terms of all time ranking at the moment.

[gabefergy]

Miller was a great scorer and feared opponent for most of his career. His true value was in his shooting ability, specifically in the clutch. If you couldn't have Jordan taking your last second shot for you during the 90s, it'd be hard to find another name more coveted than Miller.

 

 

Paul's numbers are great, but during the best stretch of Kidd's career, his numbers translated into great playoff success. That is the big difference I see. I don't see Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson being any better than Tyson Chandler and David West in New Orleans with Paul, and certainly not more than what he is playing with now. I'd rather have Paul on my team, honestly, for something like this, but there is not way I see him being above Kidd in terms of all time ranking at the moment.

Well, I don't see anyway that Kidd is better when you look at the numbers, so it's pretty easy for me to say that Paul is better.

 

FWIW Jefferson and Martin were definitely better players than Chandler and West, and Kerry Kittles was a pretty good player too for the Nets. When you consider the state the EC that Kidd played in compared to the WC that Paul has been in, the reason for their playoff success or lack there-of is easy to see.

[beanfigger]

Well, I don't see anyway that Kidd is better when you look at the numbers, so it's pretty easy for me to say that Paul is better.

 

FWIW Jefferson and Martin were definitely better players than Chandler and West, and Kerry Kittles was a pretty good player too for the Nets. When you consider the state the EC that Kidd played in compared to the WC that Paul has been in, the reason for their playoff success or lack there-of is easy to see.

 

Longevity plays a big role in my all time rankings, though that may not affect this type of draft as much. Jefferson and Martin definitely better than Chandler and West? That's far from how I see it, especially since the former duo did very, very little without the aid of Kidd, and the latter had success in their careers post-Paul. What did Kittles do without Kidd leading him?

[gabefergy]

Longevity plays a big role in my all time rankings, though that may not affect this type of draft as much. Jefferson and Martin definitely better than Chandler and West? That's far from how I see it, especially since the former duo did very, very little without the aid of Kidd, and the latter had success in their careers post-Paul. What did Kittles do without Kidd leading him?

Well Kittles retired before Kidd left NJ, so he didn't do anything. Jefferson was a guy who put up 20 points a night, and Martin was good for 15 and 8. West was a good player, but Chandler has never been a significant offensive contributor. The supporting cast around Paul was clearly inferior. 

 

Once again, Paul was playing in the WC that was absolutely stacked, while Kidd played in a historically awful EC. 

[beanfigger]

Well Kittles retired before Kidd left NJ, so he didn't do anything. Jefferson was a guy who put up 20 points a night, and Martin was good for 15 and 8. West was a good player, but Chandler has never been a significant offensive contributor. The supporting cast around Paul was clearly inferior.

Once again, Paul was playing in the WC that was absolutely stacked, while Kidd played in a historically awful EC.

I didn't say after Kidd; I said without Kidd. And are you giving the numbers those guys have with Kidd? Look at without him. He inflated their numbers, whereas, West and Chandler were still all-stars without Paul. Anyway, it doesn't matter. You're a walking contradiction between debates. Wilt's numbers should be looked at with a grain of salt, but Paul's are the determining factor. Nowitzki's playoff success helps put him over the top of Malone, but Kidd's are misleading and and shouldn't be weighted as heavily. Whatever point helps your side of the debate.

[gabefergy]

I didn't say after Kidd; I said without Kidd. And are you giving the numbers those guys have with Kidd? Look at without him. He inflated their numbers, whereas, West and Chandler were still all-stars without Paul. Anyway, it doesn't matter. You're a walking contradiction between debates. Wilt's numbers should be looked at with a grain of salt, but Paul's are the determining factor. Nowitzki's playoff success helps put him over the top of Malone, but Kidd's are misleading and and shouldn't be weighted as heavily. Whatever point helps your side of the debate.

 

Context matters, and every debate is different, but I guess that is a difficult concept to grasp for some people. You also like putting words in my mouth because you can't win your argument without getting testy.

 

You are trying to make black and white arguments, but there is nothing black and white here. Of course it's impossible to just look at Wilt's numbers and compare them to other players when he played in a completely different ERA. Anyone with a modicum of NBA knowledge understands that.

 

Dirk and Malone are two players that played in a more similar generation, so their accomplishments can be more easily compared. Winning a championship matters, there's not denying that, but Jason Kidd only won a Championship when he was maybe the 4th or 5th best player on his team. It's still an accomplishment, but he never won one when he was the best or even close to being the best player on his team. If Kidd's numbers were close to what Paul has done, than maybe that Championship would weigh heavier in my mind, but the numbers are pretty obvious who is the better player.

[Inqui]

Will anyone be up in about 12 hours or so? I'll be around for a while, but looking at the time in Texas I'd say baltimoreflacco won't be online until after I'm asleep so I'm happy to send my board on if need be.

[beanfigger]

Context matters, and every debate is different, but I guess that is a difficult concept to grasp for some people. You also like putting words in my mouth because you can't win your argument without getting testy.

You are trying to make black and white arguments, but there is nothing black and white here. Of course it's impossible to just look at Wilt's numbers and compare them to other players when he played in a completely different ERA. Anyone with a modicum of NBA knowledge understands that.

Dirk and Malone are two players that played in a more similar generation, so their accomplishments can be more easily compared. Winning a championship matters, there's not denying that, but Jason Kidd only won a Championship when he was maybe the 4th or 5th best player on his team. It's still an accomplishment, but he never won one when he was the best or even close to being the best player on his team. If Kidd's numbers were close to what Paul has done, than maybe that Championship would weigh heavier in my mind, but the numbers are pretty obvious who is the better player.

Except you were comparing Wilt to Russel from the same era, never mind. Not starting that again. You were crushed in that debate by Truth. I've won all the debates we've had, at least by popular opinion, and the only one I remember having with you that was actually proven is when you (and others) and I kept telling me about the short, cheap deal Pitta was going to be lucky to get. I'm not getting testy. I actually enjoy being the Stephen A. to your uncanny Skip Bayless.

And I'm going to bed now and forgetting about this, so you're free to tell your friends you won this one, too.

Edited September 1, 2014 by beanfigger