# Draymond Green: Top 10 NBA player?



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

Jerry West says he is.

I don't think if you looked at him as an individual player he can be considered a top 10 player or even close to it...but he is probably the best secondary player in the league right now..and one of the most unique. Maybe he wouldn't be as effective on another team...but to the warriors he is perfect for them. 

I don't know where that would rank him in the league. IMO he is easily far and away the 2nd best player on the Warriors and without him they would not be nearly as good.

IMO he is the new prototype power forward of this era...and new players will try to mold their games after him. 

It's weird that Draymond Green went from an unheralded 2nd round pick to one of the most ideal power forwards in the game. 

Big credit goes to Steve Kerr who saw his potential for his team. 

I think an argument can be made that he's top 25..just because of how unique his skill set is.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

jayk009 said:


> Jerry West says he is.
> 
> I don't think if you looked at him as an individual player he can be considered a top 10 player or even close to it...but he is probably the best secondary player in the league right now..and one of the most unique. Maybe he wouldn't be as effective on another team...but to the warriors he is perfect for them.
> 
> ...


Big credit goes to Draymond Green. Had Steve Kerr seen THIS potential in him, he wouldn't have been a second round pick. Draymond Green put in a hell of an incredible amount of work to completely change his body, build his jumper, continued to learn and became a ferocious defender... Big credit to Draymond.

As for whether or not he's a top 10 player in the league - he could be. There are numerous ways to evaluate a player, and no one can say they've got a perfect formula. Draymond does so very many things on the floor other than acting as a go-to-man - he reminds me of Al Horford in that way. Horford has legitimate superstar talent, but much of what he does that makes Atlanta great sits outside of the mainstream statbook. Draymond is definitely underrated for all of his various contributions. On evidence - I wouldn't give him top 10, but it is conceivable.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

He's a good player, does a great job in his role, great defender, versatile, etc. as we all know. 

But let's cut to the chase. Ten is not a very big number, if you say he's top ten you need to tell me who he's better than: 

LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Stephen Curry, Paul George, Anthony Davis, Blake Griffin, James Harden, Kawhi Leonard, Chris Paul, John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Marc Gasol. 

I need at least four names before we can even have the discussion.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

There are only two players who can have triple-double in a game in both NCAA Finals and NBA Finals: 

Magic Johnson from Michigan State U and Draymond Green from Michigan State U.

Nobody else can do it.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

Green has a lot of help.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

He would be great for any team.

If the goal is to win games, he's a better player than Cousins, Harden, Wall, Westbrook, Gasol, Griffin, and Chris Paul. And I wouldn't concede Paul George or Leonard easily.

The NBA just has a warped value system where winning isn't as important as important to fans as it is in other sports.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Mrs. Thang said:


> He would be great for any team.
> 
> If the goal is to win games, he's a better player than Cousins, Harden, Wall, Westbrook, Gasol, Griffin, and Chris Paul. And I wouldn't concede Paul George or Leonard easily.
> 
> The NBA just has a warped value system where winning isn't as important as important to fans as it is in other sports.


It's no different than the person naming John Wall a top ten player. Green does it all on the floor for the Warriors. People will always overlook the effort on defense and the glass for scoring. Griffin has amazing talent, but the most important side of the floor (defense) he's terrible.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Lebron
Steph
Harden
Cousins
AD
Durant
Westbrook
CP3
Blake
Aldridge
Kawhi Leonard
Paul George
Carmelo


...nah


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

Mrs. Thang said:


> He would be great for any team.
> 
> If the goal is to win games, he's a better player than Cousins, Harden, Wall, Westbrook, Gasol, Griffin, and Chris Paul. And I wouldn't concede Paul George or Leonard easily.
> 
> The NBA just has a warped value system where winning isn't as important as important to fans as it is in other sports.



He wins games because he has a lot of help. GS plays team ball too. Lets see him try to be a star of a team with less help.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

That just means the other players sucks more. He is still great.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

He's a great roleplayer, but being a great roleplayer doesn't make you a top ten player.

He is a lot like a worse version of Barkley with better D.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Green is not a top 10 nba player. He is somewhere between 11 and 15. He is top 3 defender.

Yes, defense account for something and win account for something.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

JT said:


> He is a lot like a worse version of Barkley with better D.


what? You mean Erick Barkley? nah that guy was a guard....


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

This is a Scottie Pippen versus Clyde Drexler type argument. Do you want the guy who is capable of dominating a game while playing next to a Michael Jordan? Or do you want the poor man's Michael Jordan? 

The Scottie Pippen type is much more valuable on a really great team because he doesn't get in the way of other great talents performing at maximum potential, while the Clyde Drexler is probably more valuable on a less than great team. 

Green is at 7.2 assists per game in only 33 minutes per game. Leading GS in both assists and rebounds, plus is their defensive anchor. His game really sets the table for Curry and Thompson to focus on scoring, which is what they're best at. Green's game is just ultra complimentary, and I mean that in a good way.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Green is at 7.2 assists per game in only 33 minutes per game. Leading GS in both assists and rebounds, plus is their defensive anchor. *His game really sets the table for Curry and Thompson to focus on scoring,* which is what they're best at. Green's game is just ultra complimentary, and I mean that in a good way.


True, it seems that you agree with Jerry West.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is a Scottie Pippen versus Clyde Drexler type argument. Do you want the guy who is capable of dominating a game while playing next to a Michael Jordan? Or do you want the poor man's Michael Jordan?
> 
> The Scottie Pippen type is much more valuable on a really great team because he doesn't get in the way of other great talents performing at maximum potential, while the Clyde Drexler is probably more valuable on a less than great team.
> 
> Green is at 7.2 assists per game in only 33 minutes per game. Leading GS in both assists and rebounds, plus is their defensive anchor. His game really sets the table for Curry and Thompson to focus on scoring, which is what they're best at. Green's game is just ultra complimentary, and I mean that in a good way.


This is a good analogy, the Pippen/Drexler one and the context of team needs. Carmelo Anthony can very well be a better player than Draymond Green, but he wouldn't benefit this Warriors team as great as Green does it. 

There's just one thing that Green doesn't do well: score. Sure, he is no Dennis Rodman/Bruce Bowen defensive spetialist. But he just can't consistently be an offensive force. Like Pippen was. Like, say, Jimmy Butler is. His rebounding is not that great also (13TRB% is kinda low for a PF).

I don't think Green is a Top-10 player TALENT in the NBA. But he can very well be one of the top-10 most VALUABLE players around.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is a Scottie Pippen versus Clyde Drexler type argument. Do you want the guy who is capable of dominating a game while playing next to a Michael Jordan? Or do you want the poor man's Michael Jordan?
> 
> The Scottie Pippen type is much more valuable on a really great team because he doesn't get in the way of other great talents performing at maximum potential, while the Clyde Drexler is probably more valuable on a less than great team.
> 
> Green is at 7.2 assists per game in only 33 minutes per game. Leading GS in both assists and rebounds, plus is their defensive anchor. His game really sets the table for Curry and Thompson to focus on scoring, which is what they're best at. Green's game is just ultra complimentary, and I mean that in a good way.


I agree with what you're saying, but that's a different argument to me. The question is is he a top 10 player? Is he one of the 10 best players in the league, all else being equal? To me, the answer is no with the caveat that I wouldn't necessarily want a "better" player in every situation. The Warriors would be crazy to trade Draymond Green for just about any player in the league straight up. Doesn't mean he's one of the best player in the league.

Defining "best" is a difficult task. I define it as the player who most impacts the game in a positive way, and who has the ability to do so in any situation or at least has the skills that are most transferable to create a substantially positive impact in any situation.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

hobojoe said:


> Defining "best" is a difficult task. I define it as the player who most impacts the game in a positive way, and who has the ability to do so in any situation or at least has the skills that are most transferable to create a substantially positive impact in any situation.


That's the main thing, defining your terms. Do you value rarity of the skillset into your rankings? If so, Draymond Green is certainly top 10. I think there is something to be said for how easy or how difficult it is to replace a guy. I'm not sure you can say that's less important than just looking at raw impact on a game in an abstract manner without context. And I'm not just talking about on one team. I think Green would be just as valuable on quite a few teams. He is one of those guys who you can throw on the court with just about anyone and he is going to be a huge plus.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Top 10 to me, means one of the 10 guys you can build a team around and be successful with it

The answer is no. 

Is Green better than Marion at his prime? Random. His numbers this year are quite impressive


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

The problem is when people talk about "best" offensive players they are usually just talking about 1-on-1 scoring ability. Green's not even close to a Top 10 scorer. But NBA basketball is a 5-on-5 game and he is a great 5-on-5 player. His passing and floor management is offense. He's a great offensive player.

Weather he's a top 10 player doesn't really matter because that's not a real thing. What is real is his team wins every game it plays and he's a very important part of that. As a player and as a leader - of which he might be #1 in the league. 

He's getting a lot of lip service right now, but the real tell of what teams really think will be if they change the way they draft and prove they value the things they claim to value. It's easy to say Green is a top 10 player, but are you willing to draft a guy like Denzel Valentine in the top 10 over the freshman mega-athlete de jour who may or may not be good at actually playing basketball?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Mrs. Thang said:


> The problem is when people talk about "best" offensive players they are usually just talking about 1-on-1 scoring ability. Green's not even close to a Top 10 scorer. But NBA basketball is a 5-on-5 game and he is a great 5-on-5 player. His passing and floor management is offense. He's a great offensive player.
> 
> Weather he's a top 10 player doesn't really matter because that's not a real thing. What is real is his team wins every game it plays and he's a very important part of that. As a player and as a leader - of which he might be #1 in the league.
> 
> He's getting a lot of lip service right now, but the real tell of what teams really think will be if they change the way they draft and prove they value the things they claim to value. It's easy to say Green is a top 10 player, but are you willing to draft a guy like Denzel Valentine in the top 10 over the freshman mega-athlete de jour who may or may not be good at actually playing basketball?


I was also thinking about Valentine when I saw this post. Solid college player, putting up nice numbers and his team is winning. Definitely the best player in college right now, but that's about as far as it goes. Not even sure he's a lottery player come draft time.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> That's the main thing, defining your terms. Do you value rarity of the skillset into your rankings? If so, Draymond Green is certainly top 10. I think there is something to be said for how easy or how difficult it is to replace a guy. I'm not sure you can say that's less important than just looking at raw impact on a game in an abstract manner without context. And I'm not just talking about on one team. I think Green would be just as valuable on quite a few teams. He is one of those guys who you can throw on the court with just about anyone and he is going to be a huge plus.


Rarity of skillset and/or statistical uniqueness is something I don't value and is actually something I feel like causes us to overrate players. It's easy to become enamored with something because it is different and because we haven't seen it before. Think Kevin Love in Minnesota. He combined rebounding and 3-point shooting in a way the NBA had never seen before. But different does not mean better, it just means different and that's sometimes easy to forget.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

Mrs. Thang said:


> The problem is when people talk about "best" offensive players they are usually just talking about 1-on-1 scoring ability. Green's not even close to a Top 10 scorer. But NBA basketball is a 5-on-5 game and he is a great 5-on-5 player. His passing and floor management is offense. He's a great offensive player.
> 
> Weather he's a top 10 player doesn't really matter because that's not a real thing. What is real is his team wins every game it plays and he's a very important part of that. As a player and as a leader - of which he might be #1 in the league.


great? are you sure about that? his last game, he scored 4 points. the Warriors blew out the Hornets. his last five games, he is shooting 21% from 3-pt range. the Warriors blew out every team except for Utah. he moves and pushes the ball well, and plays excellent D, but that's about it. teams still do not respect his shot. how does that help spacing? he is a great role-player, but nowhere near great on offense. West's intention in saying this is to bring more media focus to the intangibles of the game, which Green has in spades.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

If anything Golden State is getting great value for the contract they gave him


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

Look at where Draymond Green was when he had no help.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

every player needs the right type of player around him in order to succeed...whether you're Lebron James or a Draymond Green...that's up to having a good GM and a good coach..something that not every player is lucky enough to have.


I don't think warriors would trade him for any other player in the league outside of 3 or 4 players where even then they would hesitate but do it for sheer talent alone.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

jayk009 said:


> every player needs the right type of player around him in order to succeed...whether you're Lebron James or a Draymond Green...that's up to having a good GM and a good coach..something that not every player is lucky enough to have.
> 
> 
> I don't think warriors would trade him for any other player in the league outside of 3 or 4 players where even then they would hesitate but do it for sheer talent alone.



But imagine if Green had to carry a team like Westbrook. He couldn't do it. He would be a nobody.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> what? You mean Erick Barkley? nah that guy was a guard....


I was thinking more like...Gnarls Barkley


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

hobojoe said:


> Rarity of skillset and/or statistical uniqueness is something I don't value and is actually something I feel like causes us to overrate players. It's easy to become enamored with something because it is different and because we haven't seen it before. Think Kevin Love in Minnesota. He combined rebounding and 3-point shooting in a way the NBA had never seen before. But different does not mean better, it just means different and that's sometimes easy to forget.


Kevin Love is actually the antithesis of Green though, because what I'm talking about isn't necessarily combining skills not usually possessed by 1 player, but rather the ability to impact a game maximally while playing next to other great players. When Love had to play next to a superstar, his effectiveness took a huge hit. The guy who can dominate a game while still allowing for others to play at maximum potential is very rare and very valuable. Given that it's arguably harder to find that guy (player A), then find the superstar himself (player B), it becomes a legitimate question whether player A is actually "better" than player B, because he'd be harder to replace and maintain the same team success. But again, it goes back to how you define better. 

I'm not saying Draymond Green definitely is a top 10 player, but there are certainly quite a few situations (more often than not, possibly) where you rather have him than several of the guys thought to be top 10 without question.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Kevin Love is actually the antithesis of Green though, because what I'm talking about isn't necessarily combining skills not usually possessed by 1 player, but rather the ability to impact a game maximally while playing next to other great players. When Love had to play next to a superstar, his effectiveness took a huge hit. The guy who can dominate a game while still allowing for others to play at maximum potential is very rare and very valuable. Given that it's arguably harder to find that guy (player A), then find the superstar himself (player B), it becomes a legitimate question whether player A is actually "better" than player B, because he'd be harder to replace and maintain the same team success. But again, it goes back to how you define better.
> 
> I'm not saying Draymond Green definitely is a top 10 player, but there are certainly quite a few situations (more often than not, possibly) where you rather have him than several of the guys thought to be top 10 without question.


No, I agree. I used Love's name just to make the point that different or unique does not necessarily mean better. Perhaps a more appropriate comparison is Joakim Noah and the numbers he was putting up a couple years ago as a point center with Rose out. No doubt he was affecting the game greatly on both ends of the court without scoring a lot, much like Green does. 

I guess I just don't buy the notion that Draymond Green types are harder to find than more conventional superstar, franchise player types. No doubt he deserves credit for, as you put it, maximizing impact while playing next to other great players. To me, I think there are more players who would suddenly blossom into great complementary pieces playing next to Stephen Curry or LeBron James than there are situations Draymond Green would flourish in and be an all-star in.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Draymond Green may have become the most overrated player in the NBA. He's in a system that uniquely fits his talents while playing alongside an MVP having a historically efficient high-volume season, an all-star level shooting guard and several other complementary wings. Because Green plays on a team that won an NBA title and is such a high-profile team, he receives a lot of face time on national TV and benefits from a halo effect.

LeBron James, Anthony Davis and Kevin Durant are universally considered among the top 10 players in the NBA. No one in their right minds would say that trading Green for James, Davis or Durant straight-up is an even trade -- because that is what you're saying if you think Green is one of the top 10 players in the NBA.

Among other things, a top 10 player in the NBA would be the focal point of most teams if placed on that team. They are incredibly high performers (especially in offensive production) and have uniquely high value around the league. They are marquee players who would not only be the focal point on the team's offensive schemes but would be the face of the franchise from a marketing/branding standpoint. It's basically a superstar player who would have all aspects of the team built around his skills and presence.

Players like James, Durant, Davis, Russell Westbrook, Chris Paul, Kahwi Leonard, Stephen Curry, James Harden, Paul George, Blake Griffin, Jimmy Butler, LaMarcus Aldridge, DeMarcus Cousins, etc., are much more valuable than Green in a vacuum because you can build a team around their skills. 

Green basically is playing the same role Lance Stephenson played in Indiana two years ago: Bring the ball up the court, score occasionally as a No. 3 option and play defense on multiple players as a complementary piece on a strong playoff team. Another valid comparison is DeMarre Carroll with Atlanta in 2014-15. Atlanta's small-ball, open floor game made Carroll look more valuable than he was and combined with his late-season/postseason run Carroll was able to garner a big salary this past offseason.

Green is an excellent support player in the right situation, but saying he is one of the top 10 players in the NBA is a major stretch. What we saw Wednesday in Dallas is what Green is like without someone like Curry to draw attention from him: 4-of-15 from the field and few cheap assists while actually being a primary focus of the defense.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

JT said:


> He is a lot like a worse version of Barkley with better D.


A more apt comparison to Draymond Green would be Anthony Mason: A power forward who could handle the ball, be a secondary or even a primary distributor, a good rebounder and can guard multiple positions. Mason was more physical than Green, but Green is a better outside shooter. 

If you're looking for someone more contemporary, Green is a bigger version of the 2013-14 Lance Stephenson when Stephenson played a similar role in Indiana. In Indiana's halfcourt system, Stephenson did a lot of things Green does now: Be a secondary ball-handler, a primary distributor, guard multiple positions and give uncommon production in a statistical category for his position (in Stephenson's case, rebounding). Like Green is now, Stephenson was such a great fit for a unique system that he exceeded any production expectations (like Green is now, Stephenson led the NBA in triple-doubles that season).

And because Stephenson was doing this as a complementary player on a team that was a solid playoff contender and a fixture on national television, people started overvaluing Stephenson's value. Casual fans were making the same argument that Stephenson should have been named to the All-Star Game and was a rising star. The reality is that Stephenson was only impactful in Indiana's system and he played with Paul George, David West, Roy Hibbert and George Hill with a uniquely tailored role.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is a Scottie Pippen versus Clyde Drexler type argument. Do you want the guy who is capable of dominating a game while playing next to a Michael Jordan? Or do you want the poor man's Michael Jordan?


That argument would apply more to, say, choosing Klay Thompson versus James Harden to pair with Stephen Curry. Harden is the player capable of being a focal point for a team for a long period while Thompson is the better complement to Curry while occasionally being a primary contributor. Harden may be the better player overall, but Thompson is a better fit with Curry.

Draymond Green has never shown an inclination of being more than a complementary player. In your analogy, you're comparing two players capable of being top options for a franchise. Green never has shown that capacity, even in this recent overrating of his game. Green is more like the Horace Grant of the Warriors -- a complementary player who handles certain aspects the team needs better than an overall superior player (say, Charles Barkley) could in that set-up.

I'm not even going to mention that Clyde Drexler played shooting guard so it would have been a little more difficult to pair him with Michael Jordan.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sigh! Shoulda known he would have a big game after my post.

The guy is an all star, very good player. But when you say he is a top 10 player, I assume you mean he's one of the ten or so you can build a team around. 

How many games do you realistically think a Draymond Green led team can win? There are 30 teams in the league, how many GMs would pick him above their star players?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

HB said:


> Sigh! Shoulda known he would have a big game after my post.
> 
> The guy is an all star, very good player. But when you say he is a top 10 player, I assume you mean he's one of the ten or so you can build a team around.
> 
> How many games do you realistically think a Draymond Green led team can win? There are 30 teams in the league, how many GMs would pick him above their star players?


I don't know if he is top 10, mainly because I haven't thought about the top players in the league in a while, but I can't imagine him falling out of the top 15. Certainly an all star in the west which is saying something at forward, and 2nd best player on a 30-2 team. What ballpark of players would place him in? Top 10? 15? 30? 50?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't know if he is top 10, mainly because I haven't thought about the top players in the league in a while, but I can't imagine him falling out of the top 15. Certainly an all star in the west which is saying something at forward, and 2nd best player on a 30-2 team. What ballpark of players would place him in? Top 10? 15? 30? 50?


I don't even know if he is top 30. If there were do overs league wide and every team had a chance to pick a player to build around, do you honestly think he'd be picked by any GM? But I guess that's another criteria entirely.

Yes he's having a fantastic season and he's playing like one of the 20 best guys in the league. But even looking at his big game today, Klay had 38, Harden 30. Which of those guys is he better than?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

HB said:


> I don't even know if he is top 30. If there were do overs league wide and every team had a chance to pick a player to build around, do you honestly think he'd be picked by any GM? But I guess that's another criteria entirely.
> 
> Yes he's having a fantastic season and he's playing like one of the 20 best guys in the league. But even looking at his big game today, Klay had 38, Harden 30. Which of those guys is he better than?


I'd rather have Green than Klay. Klay does get hot from time to time though and becomes unguardable (and really fun to watch), but he disappears much more often. 

I think your question about starting a team from scratch maybe illustrates the difference between us. I don't think that's a great way to determine a player's value. I think being mindful of the situations where a player can be most effective is important. Sure, a guy can score 25ppg on a bad team, but he could never be the go to scorer on a contender, so how do you value that? His optimal situation is mediocrity. I can't favor that over a guy who can be maximally effective and dominant on a great team, even if scoring isn't his thing. I'll take super complimentary players over 2nd rate "franchise players" any day.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> I don't even know if he is top 30. If there were do overs league wide and every team had a chance to pick a player to build around, do you honestly think he'd be picked by any GM? But I guess that's another criteria entirely.
> 
> Yes he's having a fantastic season and he's playing like one of the 20 best guys in the league. But even looking at his big game today, Klay had 38, Harden 30. Which of those guys is he better than?


There aren't 30 guys in the league that are good enough for teams to be built around them. In most years (like this one) there are maybe 8-12 franchise level players and some of them (ex. Westbrook/Durant) play on the same team, most teams just have a bunch of good players and no superstar.

I think the value of Draymond Green comes from his unique skillset. He might be a support player but he's not someone that you can just go out and acquire. He's the basketball equivalent of a guy like Ben Zobrist who isn't a superstar but is extremely valuable to any team that he is on.

If I'm ranking players based on how good they are then I wouldn't rank Draymond Green in the top 30. I can find 30 players who can give you more production across the board. But if I am building a team using a fantasy draft style method I would definitely draft Draymond Green in the top 10. Perhaps Damian Lillard is a top 10 player right now or at least a top 5 point guard. But the drop off between Lillard and a guy like Kyle Lowry isn't as significant as the drop off between Green and the next guy that can do what Green can do. As a role player it is extremely rare to find someone like him and that rarity counts for some value imo.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Is Green the *best* second-banana?

The best comparison would be Scottie Pippen. The only team we would like to compare is 96 Bulls.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

@seifer0406 and @Sir Patchwork

The thing is, guys like him can be found in pretty much every draft. Hybrid forwards that can play multiple positions, do different things on the court with varying success.

Stephen Curry was one of those 'second rate franchise players' Patchwork mentioned, up until they put the right players around him. His first big contract is testament to that.

I look at the 30 or so teams in the league, and I think the Sixers are probably the only franchise where you can make an argument as to if Green is better than any of their top draft picks.

You have a team like MN, are you going to pick Green over the likes of Wiggins, KAT, heck even Rubio?

Kudos to him for expanding his skillset beyond what he was known for at Michigan State. But I am not going overboard. If you put a Nerlens Noel on a Warriors team, they'd be in the finals as well.

What we've learned year after year in the league is that sometimes you need the right mix of players to get the best out of a situation and sometimes a talent. Zbo another fellow spartan was one of those second rate franchise players patchwork mentioned until he found his way to Memphis. Though age seems to have caught up with that team this year.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

You would take Rubio over Green?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Basel said:


> You would take Rubio over Green?


Based on his injury woes, no I wouldn't. But in a couple of years when the Wolves are dominating every one, this convo might look silly.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

HB said:


> Based on his injury woes, no I wouldn't. But in a couple of years when the Wolves are dominating every one, this convo might look silly.


You're right. It will look silly.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Green will be defensive player of the year 2016.

Silly, is silly now. HB thinks Rubio will be defensive player of the year?

*Defensive player of the year comparison, Green vs Rubio *


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I guess time will tell. I think it's absurd to believe that high IQ and highly competitive players with all the physical tools, best passing PF in the game, high percentage three point shooter and All-NBA 1st team caliber defender is something you can just draft easily in any given draft.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

@HB said guys like Green can be found in pretty much every draft. Name them.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Kawhi
Jimmy
Justice
MKG
Josh
Greg
Stanley
Giannis
Zach

Need I go on?

Even your boy Julius Randle is a 6'9 forward with a deft touch and nice handles, that will be a matchup nightmare for years to come, if he isnt right now.

As for this draft, you have a guy like Simmons and forwards like Alex Poythress that will come in and play multiple positions


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I guess time will tell. I think it's absurd to believe that high IQ and highly competitive players with all the physical tools, best passing PF in the game, high percentage three point shooter and All-NBA 1st team caliber defender is something you can just draft easily in any given draft.


Which he can exhibit and flourish in the 'right' system. All of that wouldn't matter on a team like the Sixers. He'd still be wracking up ls


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

HB said:


> Kawhi
> Jimmy
> Justice
> MKG
> ...



Kawhi is the only player you listed who I would put ahead of Green. Butler is good, Greek Freak is right there, too. The others? No.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Simply because they aren't in situations as good as Green's.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

HB said:


> Simply because they aren't in situations as good as Green's.



Even if they were, you can't know for a fact they'd be doing what he's doing now. We can only judge them based on what they are doing, not what they could be doing.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Basel said:


> Even if they were, you can't know for a fact they'd be doing what he's doing now. We can only judge them based on what they are doing, not what they could be doing.


You'd take Green over Randle?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> @seifer0406 and @Sir Patchwork
> 
> The thing is, guys like him can be found in pretty much every draft. Hybrid forwards that can play multiple positions, do different things on the court with varying success.


Name me one other player in the league that can average 9 rebounds and 7 assists, a block, a steal, shoots 40% from the 3, and can guard all the front court positions.

If someone like him can be found in every draft then we should have a bunch of these players. And don't give me the "oh he's averaging those numbers because he's in a certain situation that suits his game." Go ahead and name me any current player that can average these numbers in any given situation . 

The guy is a special player, I don't understand anyone who can't at least acknowledge that. Whether his specialty is worth him being a top 10 player is another discussion. But to say that players like him are everywhere is just crazy.



> You have a team like MN, are you going to pick Green over the likes of Wiggins, KAT, heck even Rubio?


You are in the wrong thread HB. This isn't a discussion about if Green has top 10 potential. If we are talking about this year only then hell ya give me Green over anyone on the T-Wolves, Nets, Suns, Nuggets, Jazz, Mavs, Bucks, Hornets, Celtics, and Orlando. The only reason I'm leaving some teams off this list is because like I said, I would have to consider how my team is constructed to see whether Green would be worth having over some of the other team's main player.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sir there are 6 players currently listed on the Warriors shooting over 40% from the perimeter. (including Draymond)

Harrison Barnes and Igoudala are a shade under 40%. I don't need to tell you, that this is one of the best shooting teams of our time, maybe historically, who knows?

Kudos to Green for knowing how to distribute the ball well, but he has excellent teammates who know how to put the ball in the Net as well. Again, all this special talk won't matter if he was stuck on a roster like the Sixers. The 9 points a game seem quite paltry by the way, but he was never a dominant not even college. 

There are special players all over the league, even on the list I put up, but I guess people want to see what they want. MKG before going down was averaging 11ppg and 8rpg from the small forward spot. Giannis is doing 16 and 7 right now as a 6'11 small forward.

Its cool if you want to call Green a special player, but to negate the fact he's on a great team, playing with some damn good players is being disingenuous.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

HB said:


> You'd take Green over Randle?


Right now? Yes.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Sir there are 6 players currently listed on the Warriors shooting over 40% from the perimeter. (including Draymond)
> 
> Harrison Barnes and Igoudala are a shade under 40%. I don't need to tell you, that this is one of the best shooting teams of our time, maybe historically, who knows?
> 
> ...


You haven't answered my question. Name me one player in the league that can put up Green's current numbers. Giving me a bunch of names that can give bits and pieces of what Green can do means very little. MKG has no reliable jumper and has very limited range. You want to just brush off the fact that the difference between the two is minimal but that lack of 3 point range is the reason why MKG will never be anything special in the league. He will never get anywhere close to a max contract because as it sits right now a small forward that can't shoot beyond 18 feet much less 3s is like a center who can't rebound. The guy's game is crippled by today's standard. The fact that you even bring MKG into this discussion just shows off your ignorance.

As for Giannis I'm a big fan of him and I believe he has legitimate top 10 potential and is definitely a special player and someone that down the road I would pick over Green. But as of now the guy hasn't put it together.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> *You haven't answered my question. Name me one player in the league that can put up Green's current numbers.* Giving me a bunch of names that can give bits and pieces of what Green can do means very little. MKG has no reliable jumper and has very limited range. You want to just brush off the fact that the difference between the two is minimal but that lack of 3 point range is the reason why MKG will never be anything special in the league. He will never get anywhere close to a max contract because as it sits right now a small forward that can't shoot beyond 18 feet much less 3s is like a center who can't rebound. The guy's game is crippled by today's standard. The fact that you even bring MKG into this discussion just shows off your ignorance.
> 
> As for Giannis I'm a big fan of him and I believe he has legitimate top 10 potential and is definitely a special player and someone that down the road I would pick over Green. But as of now the guy hasn't put it together.


Ugh, how the heck can I know this unless they play on the team? All the guys I mentioned are utilized differently on their teams. Since when has Green's skillset become so unique that he's the only one that can do what he does? There's a reason why he was drafted so low you know.

I do think Giannis, Kawhi, and Zach are versatile enough to play that role he does for the warriors. 

As for your point on MKG, boy are you off base. MKG doesn't need to develop a 3 point shot to be great. Shawn Marion had a pretty successful career defending multiple positions and being one of the more unique forwards we have ever seen. He was never a great shooter.

MKG is already special considering how well he rebounds the ball from the 3 spot. Don't know what games you have been watching, but this guy has been highly touted since his high school days. He's backed it up so far.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

HB said:


> Ugh, how the heck can I know this unless they play on the team? All the guys I mentioned are utilized differently on their teams. Since when has Green's skillset become so unique that he's the only one that can do what he does? There's a reason why he was drafted so low you know.
> 
> I do think Giannis, Kawhi, and Zach are versatile enough to play that role he does for the warriors.
> 
> ...


While you're right that Marion was never a great shooter, he was a 33% shooter from deep for his career. MKG? 16% for his career. I'd say that's a huge difference.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> As for your point on MKG, boy are you off base. MKG doesn't need to develop a 3 point shot to be great. Shawn Marion had a pretty successful career defending multiple positions and being one of the more unique forwards we have ever seen. He was never a great shooter.


MKG after 3 years in the league has attempted a total of 18 3s and made 3 of them.

Shawn Marion in his 4th year attempted 364 3s and made 141 of them which is about 39%.

Just shut the fuck up and move along dude. This discussion is over.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> MKG after 3 years in the league has attempted a total of 18 3s and made 3 of them.
> 
> Shawn Marion in his 4th year attempted 364 3s and made 141 of them which is about 39%.
> 
> Just shut the fuck up and move along dude. This discussion is over.


He hasn't even attempted a three this season. He knows he can't shoot.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Naming players on a first name basis doesn't mean you know them that well. I don't even know which Zach the dude is talking about. Zach Randolph? Zach Lavine? What the hell is the guy even talking about?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> MKG after 3 years in the league has attempted a total of 18 3s and made 3 of them.
> 
> Shawn Marion in his 4th year attempted 364 3s and made 141 of them which is about 39%.
> 
> Just shut the fuck up and move along dude. This discussion is over.


You always act like you've figured it all out. Yet your knowledge of these things is very paltry.

Marion played on a team that encouraged him to shoot the damn ball. I guarantee you if MKG were on that Suns team as well he'd be shooting a lot. Why am I even having this conversation with a guy who doesn't realize that a 6'7 small forward getting 8 rebounds per game with lock down defense is one of the guys you certainly want on your team?

This is the second post I have seen you try to discredit what the guy can do. So what if he can't shoot, he is one of the best perimeter defenders in the league (at least he was when healthy.) FOH with that he isn't special crap. 

Ben Simmons cannot shoot, he turns down shots. Yet there is not a single GM in the league that doesn't want him on their team. Would you pick 'special' Green over him as well?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> Naming players on a first name basis doesn't mean you know them that well. I don't even know which Zach the dude is talking about. Zach Randolph? Zach Lavine? What the hell is the guy even talking about?


Lavine. Though considering this board is as impromptu as it comes, your post is kinda baffling.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Basel said:


> While you're right that Marion was never a great shooter, he was a 33% shooter from deep for his career. MKG? 16% for his career. I'd say that's a huge difference.


Just so we are clear on one thing, Gilchrist is still on his rookie contract. There's room for improvement. If Rondo could become a decent shooter, anything is possible. 

Look at the jump in 3 point percentage between Marion's first two seasons and the third. Folks like seifer piss me off. He probably looked up MKG's stats instead of actually watching the kid play.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> You always act like you've figured it all out. Yet your knowledge of these things is very paltry.
> 
> Marion played on a team that encouraged him to shoot the damn ball. I guarantee you if MKG were on that Suns team as well he'd be shooting a lot. Why am I even having this conversation with a guy who doesn't realize that a 6'7 small forward getting 8 rebounds per game with lock down defense is one of the guys you certainly want on your team?
> 
> ...


No dude....The reason why MKG isn't shooting 3s is because his shot looks like this










The Hornets bought someone in to fix his shot but it's still a long way from being fixed. He just started shooting jumpers without the Chuck Hayes hitch and it'll take years for him to master his current form. Whether he'll ever be able to shoot 3s is anyone's guess but if I'm betting I'll say no.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> No dude....The reason why MKG isn't shooting 3s is because his shot looks like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why the heck are you harping on him shooting 3's? Who the heck cares? 

Shouldn't you be happy that he's not Josh Smith jacking up shots that aren't in his arsenal? He knows his limitations and he sticks to his strengths. The guy is still on a freaking rookie contract bro, hardly the death knell for his 'perimeter shot'. Give him time.

Meanwhile respect the fact that he's giving them very efficient numbers all across the board. Watch a game or two and stop acting like you know anything about him.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Just so we are clear on one thing, Gilchrist is still on his rookie contract. There's room for improvement. If Rondo could become a decent shooter, anything is possible.
> 
> Look at the jump in 3 point percentage between Marion's first two seasons and the third. Folks like seifer piss me off. He probably looked up MKG's stats instead of actually watching the kid play.


no...I looked at stats because you just compared MKG to Marion as if Marion can't shoot 3s either.

I'm glad that you're moving from he doesn't need to shoot 3s to be successful to he'll learn to shoot 3s eventually.

Brother. Sometimes in life when you encounter a L you just need to hold that. No need to wiggle your way out of every losing situation. You don't know what you're talking about and I told you that first time. You tried to correct me by saying that I was way off base and you end up giving up something that's even more wrong.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

LOL says the guy who said he isn't 'special'. Yet the first article I googled on Gilchrist and perimeter shot turned up this

Gilchrist ready to breakout

But I know you don't like to read these things so here are direct quotes so you don't miss it



> Lets start with the obvious. Kidd-Gilchrist is a monster on the defensive end, and is probably the second best perimeter defender in the NBA behind Kawhi Leonard. There aren't many players that can anchor a defense from the perimeter, but those two can. Some might go so far as to call Kidd-Gilchrist a better defender than Leonard, and that's honestly an argument worth making. After all, Leonard had terrific interior defenders like Tim Duncan and Tiago Splitter behind him. MKG on the other hand had Al Jefferson and Cody Zeller on the interior making what he did that much more difficult. Leonard is able to gamble on steals, while Kidd-Gilchrist has to make sure his man stays in front of him. Their games differ in this way, but they're both so important to turning an average or good defense into a great one.


Not special heh? 


DOOD, this little tidbit you'll definitely love



> *MKG in particular is the sole reason the Hornets even rank as a top 10 defense, or found themselves in the race for the playoffs last season. The Hornets were always worse when MKG wasn't on the floor whether he was out injured, or just sitting on the bench resting.* When off the floor, the Hornets defensive rating was a poor 104.1, and when he was on the floor it was an incredible 96.3. The most incredible part however was that MKG wasn't just an improvement on defense, but offense as well. The Hornets offensive rating improves from 96.1 to 99.4 when he's on the floor. Considering how awful Charlotte was on offense, last season, it's hard to ignore that any improvement is a great thing for Charlotte.
> 
> Of course, none of this matters if the Hornets can't win games, and MKG had plenty of impact in that department as well. Without Kidd-Gilchrist, the Hornets were 6-21, and with him they were 26-27, which is a major and obvious improvement.
> 
> So Kidd-Gilchrist is clearly a very good player, and someone that has an impact. The biggest question about his game however is how much better can he get on offense. Everybody talks about the often criticized jumpshot, but he really is improving in that category.


Again Marion came into the league a horrid shooter, he worked on it and became a decent one. MKG will get there. All you are doing is dancing around because for the life of me I can't imagine why you continue to hate on MKG. This has become a pattern.

And just so we are very clear, what Made Marion great wasn't his *'perimeter shot'. *


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

Draymind Green is the real deal mvp


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> And just so we are very clear, what Made Marion great wasn't his *'perimeter shot'. *












Nobody is saying that Draymond Green is great because of his ability to shoot 3s. Do you not understand what it means to have a complete package? If a girl has a perfect pair of boobs but got an ugly face then she's not going to be a 10. If a girl that has a great face but is flat as a board then she's not a 10 either. MKG is great at doing plenty of other things but because he lacks the ability to shoot from beyond 18 feet he'll always be limited. Marion was also great if not better at doing similar things but because he can also shoot the 3 he wasn't limited and thus was a very good player.

Just hold the L dude. Really.

Moreover, this is a discussion of a whether Green is a top 10 player NOW. Counting on MKG miraculous fixing one of the most ugly jumpshots of all time so that he can elevate his game to the next level is irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

HB, So you bumped this thread after Green had a bad game to prove that he's not an elite player.

Does this mean that he is actually an elite player now that he's had 2 good games?

Doesn't really make sense right? You're a joke.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Does Curry being in a perfect situation mean he isn't arguably the best player in the league, and is only merely a top 10 player (like before the Warriors took off)? 

Obviously not. 

Look, I can see comparisons to some of those players except for the fact that Green isn't just a jack of all trades master of none. He is a jack of all trades and master of defense. Dude is a really special defensive player. He is those players plus All NBA 1st team defense and DPoY candidate. He is Lamar Odom and Ron Artest hybrid, with a sharper focus and higher basketball IQ.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Just saw Draymond's game tonight. Jesus Christ.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Just saw Draymond's game tonight. Jesus Christ.



But a lot of players in the league can put up that stat line if they played on the Warriors, too. -_____-


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Just for fun. Draymond Green's game tonight (29 points, 17 rebounds, 14 assists) would do the following for the following players

Jimmy Butler would set his new career high rebounds and assists
Giannis would set his career high in rebounds and assists (and 4 steals, his previous high was 3)
Kawhi Leonard would set his career high in rebounds and assists
MKG would set his career high in points, rebounds, and assists.

But these players would all be capable of having a game like this if they played in the right situation.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

@HB, 3 days ago you didn't even think Green was capable of a 30/15 game without Curry. He did that plus tacked on 14 assists. So if nothing else, you'd have to admit you've grossly underrated him.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Just saw Draymond's game tonight. Jesus Christ.


He has a lot of help though.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> @HB, 3 days ago you didn't even think Green was capable of a 30/15 game without Curry. He did that plus tacked on 14 assists. So if nothing else, you'd have to admit you've grossly underrated him.


You obviously haven't caught on to HB's logic. Draymond Green was only able to produce those numbers because the moon was waxing a particular way that is to his favor. If other players had the opportunity to perform during that same time period they would've put up 60/30 but since those guys didn't have that chance we will never know.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

The problem is people like seifer aren't interested in talking basketball, rather they'd rather shout over you and beat their chests over trivial stuff. Who the heck is competing with you? The fuck I care about Ls and what not? That's on you bro, you take pride in such. 

I am willing to admit that Green is special and funny enough it wasn't because of his big game yesterday, it was simply from realizing by virtue of arguing in defense of what MKG is doing for the Hornets, that I needed to accept the uniqueness of Green's skills. The hornets are over .500. Why? MKG is having a stellar year amongst some other factors.

I noticed seifer didn't address the article. Not surprised though, you have this interesting habit of dodging the facts when you are presented with it. Funny how your point about MKG not being special suddenly looks so stupid when you realize he is even a better defender than the Green you've been hyping on here. You've said everything from MKG can't shoot 3s to why he isn't deserving of a max contract. Make no mistake about it, he's getting a similar contract to Green if not more. 22 year old prime defenders are rare.

On the whole talk of his lack of perimeter shot, I bet you didn't know Green spent 4 years in college playing for a HOFer. He's also been lucky enough to play for Kerr who has taken what he's learned from the Spurs and implemented it to perfection with the Ws. Why does it matter? Because a kid like MKG has not gotten that type of tutelage. His one year in Kentucky ended up in a national championship. None of you here will argue that the hornets are an ideal basketball situation. Have you seen their roster?

Anyhoo I have digressed way of the topic. If you are interested in talking basketball without the macho bs, step in, get your facts right and bring it.

As for jayk009, maybe if you actually scrolled through the thread, you'd realize Najee bumped this as he did a few other threads in the main.

I am just waking up to see Green's big game. Yes he is playing like a top 10 player but as a GM I ain't picking him over a lot of players in the league right now. We know his plateau. No ones talking about the fact they went OT with a poor nuggets squad or the fact the nuggets dropped 108 against a supposed 'great defensive squad'

What was that patchwork was saying about second rate franchise players padding stats?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> The hornets are over .500. Why? MKG is having a stellar year amongst some other factors.


What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> The hornets are over .500. Why? MKG is having a stellar year amongst some other factors.


This is almost sig worthy.

The number of games that MKG has played this year?






You on the other hand HB? You sir, are 0 and 2


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Apologies, I am typing this on my phone and I thought I had edited that portion out. This site is a pain to access on mobile. 

Oh well, the point stands. You can nitpick if you want, MKG is one of the best defenders and a pretty good ball player when healthy. That's what the 'hell' I am talking about.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

LOL see that's your shtick. You wait around looking for mistakes then start pounding your chest excitedly. Believe it or not I did think I edited that out, like I said woke up to see all the hoopla on here and just had to respond. I mean the very post we had the first back and forth on MKG was talking about his nasty injury no?

I know you won't or can't respond to the MKG points. LOL so yes, you can start the Ls talk now. Isn't that what you do?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I'll leave this last nugget on here.

I don't think it's possible to be a fan of Green's and not like what MKG brings to the table. People rave about intangibles, well these are two guys that personify that. If you consider one special and not the other, I question how much you've watched either.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

He is playing like a top 10 player and if he stays on the team he could continue. Now if he leaves is he that 3rd receiver in a super bowl year that benefits from talent? Maybe, but you can only judge by what is happening on the court IMO. So ya he is right now.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> I'll leave this last nugget on here.
> 
> I don't think it's possible to be a fan of Green's and not like what MKG brings to the table. People rave about intangibles, well these are two guys that personify that. If you consider one special and not the other, I question how much you've watched either.


You have some balls to go from declaring a player who hasn't played this season the reason Charlotte is over .500 to questioning how much basketball other people are watching.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

hobojoe said:


> HB said:
> 
> 
> > I'll leave this last nugget on here.
> ...


Bruh I have had numerous posts on this. This is becoming tiresome. 

Not trying to act like some basketball purist, but I saw Green as a freshman at state. I followed his college career. I didn't just pick up with the 'Warriors'. The same goes for MKG. Very few people arguing in this thread have watched both as much as I have. 

This didn't start off as a Green-MKG comparison thread, if you want to meaningfully contribute, go through the posts. If not, keep it moving. Y'all make this harder than it really is.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Btw the mobile experience here could do with some tweaks. Not trying to Ruffle anyone's feathers, just pointing it out


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

HB said:


> Btw the mobile experience here could do with some tweaks. Not trying to Ruffle anyone's feathers, just pointing it out



Which app are you using? There's two of them. One is far better than the other.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> Btw the mobile experience here could do with some tweaks. Not trying to Ruffle anyone's feathers, just pointing it out


The app told you that MKG is having a great season?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

He was having a good season 'Joe'

Good for you though, you can put that in your sig as well. I am sure it's worth some type of points 

@basel viewing through safari.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

He was having a good season 'Joe'

Good for you though, you can put that in your sig as well. I am sure it's worth some type of points 

@basel viewing through safari.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

HB said:


> He was having a good season 'Joe'
> 
> Good for you though, you can put that in your sig as well. I am sure it's worth some type of points
> 
> @basel viewing through safari.


Download the VerticalSports app.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

This thread is hilarious.

I'm on board with any and all superlative praise people want to throw at Green. He's fantastic and I don't think he's being overrated in any way. People wanting to minimize what he does as being the product of a system are missing the boat entirely. Green IS the system. He's a talent amplifier that makes everybody on the floor (including Curry) better because of the way he demands that scorers work for good shots and then helps to get them. You can put him on any team in the league and they would immediately see a dramatic improvement because he doesn't put up with bullshit offense. For all his offensive and defensive talent, the true source of his basketball genius is that he's probably the league's premier locker room alpha dog and he translates that command and irrational leadership confidence into getting things done on the floor.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

*triple double this season*

*Green = 6

James + James + Paul + Paul = 0*
(LeBron + Harden + Chris Paul + Paul George= 0)

Those James and Pauls are superstars?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Its too bad the thread got derailed, but there is something to be said about a guy who stayed four years at college and was taught by one of the best teachers in the game. There's also something to be said that 3 of the teams that move the ball the best in the league all have 'Pop' in common.

In college ball, its not unheard of to see 6'8 players playing center and guarding multiple positions. And I guess that's what I was trying to say about MKG. Some of these guys never get the chance to play for these top coaches or with the type of talent that allows them to excel. Green was already quite mature when he came into the league, it shows in his game. Its no knock on him when I say he isn't a top 10 player, simply because I dont think he can put up the type of production required from those players on a night in, night out basis. But he is a fine player that is playing some pretty fine basketball right now.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Late to the party, but no Green is not a Top 10 Player in the league. Top 10 MVP may be a better designation.

Honestly, he's basically Shawn Marion.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

*Shawn Marion is the worst comparison ever. Why?

Marion has never has more than 2.7 assists per game in any season.

I have no idea you guys always compare Green to the players who have terrible court vision and passing skills.*


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

I'm going to regret responding to a BS post but, I didn't say Marion and Green were the exact player. I said he's basically Marion. As in Marion on the Suns was a do it all, always in motion, fighting for the ball, rebounding, shooting, cutting, defending all 5 positions, etc. Yes Marion can't create worth a shit, but my point was his role on the team is very similar. Nash and Amare were the 'stars' and got most of the attention, just like Curry and Klay can be looked at as those roles. Though that opinion seems to quickly be changing with how Green is playing.

Christ.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I think Kevin Garnett in Boston is my favorite comparison. Pierce and Allen act as Curry and Klay. Garnett acts as a 15ppg guy, hits jumpers, sets hard screens and makes great passes. Defensively, he anchored the defense not through being an elite shot blocker, but by being vocal and outspoken, competing hard, being able to switch onto anyone 1 through 5, and having great active hands. Both hovered around 1.5 steals and blocks. Plus they both are incredible low post defenders. Offensively had similar numbers, with KG being the better scorer and Green being the better passer.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

l0st1 said:


> Late to the party, but no Green is not a Top 10 Player in the league. Top 10 MVP may be a better designation.
> 
> Honestly, he's basically Shawn Marion.


top10 MVP, but not top10 player...I'd agree with that. much like how Dennis Rodman or Ben Wallace used to dominate games but none would call them top10. he is better than Shawn Marion however, but to the extent of *BEING* the system? outrageous. you are not the system when you have the best shooter to ever play playing on your team. period.

that said, he's balling and balling hard. he's actually been making three point shots recently.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I think Kevin Garnett in Boston is my favorite comparison. Pierce and Allen act as Curry and Klay. Garnett acts as a 15ppg guy, hits jumpers, sets hard screens and makes great passes. Defensively, he anchored the defense not through being an elite shot blocker, but by being vocal and outspoken, competing hard, being able to switch onto anyone 1 through 5, and having great active hands. Both hovered around 1.5 steals and blocks. Plus they both are incredible low post defenders. Offensively had similar numbers, with KG being the better scorer and Green being the better passer.


a more portly version of Garnett? without the consistent jump-shot...seems like a workable comparison.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

HB said:


> Apologies, I am typing this on my phone and I thought I had edited that portion out. This site is a pain to access on mobile.
> 
> Oh well, the point stands. You can nitpick if you want, MKG is one of the best defenders and a pretty good ball player when healthy. That's what the 'hell' I am talking about.


This doesn't really make sense.

Why did you type that sentence out in the first place? It has nothing to do with forgetting to edit...or the "mobile experience"

You just have no idea what you're talking about and talk out of your ass. Even when you watch a lot you're not capable of processing what you even watch.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

jayk009 said:


> This doesn't really make sense.
> 
> Why did you type that sentence out in the first place? It has nothing to do with forgetting to edit...or the "mobile experience"
> 
> You just have no idea what you're talking about and talk out of your ass. Even when you watch a lot you're not capable of processing what you even watch.


Since HB returned-

Ndu Ebi, Troy Hudson and Fred Hoiberg were KGs best teammates on the 04 wolves (none of them were starters)

Vince Carter has a "bunch" of 50 point games (he has 3)

MKG is the reason for the hornets being over 500 right now (he hasn't played a game)

I miss this guy.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Its too bad the thread got derailed, but there is something to be said about a guy who stayed four years at college and was taught by one of the best teachers in the game. There's also something to be said that 3 of the teams that move the ball the best in the league all have 'Pop' in common.
> 
> In college ball, its not unheard of to see 6'8 players playing center and guarding multiple positions. And I guess that's what I was trying to say about MKG. Some of these guys never get the chance to play for these top coaches or with the type of talent that allows them to excel. Green was already quite mature when he came into the league, it shows in his game. Its no knock on him when I say he isn't a top 10 player, simply because I dont think he can put up the type of production required from those players on a night in, night out basis. But he is a fine player that is playing some pretty fine basketball right now.


The reason why the Warriors are having a stellar season is because Latrell Sprewell is having a tremendous year.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> The reason why the Warriors are having a stellar season is because Latrell Sprewell is having a tremendous year.


*sigh* watch some basketball games. Anyhoo, the mobile feature on this site needs work. I don't really care to check facts and research stats to feel good about myself on this site.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> *sigh* watch some basketball games. Anyhoo, the mobile feature on this site needs work. I don't really care to check facts and research stats to feel good about myself on this site.


Even though Dwight Howard's post up game sucks it shouldn't limit his chance of becoming an all time great. There are plenty of all time greats that couldn't post up. Guys like Charles Barkley and Hakeem Olajuwon were never good post up players and they had tremendous careers.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

seifer0406 said:


> Even though Dwight Howard's post up game sucks it shouldn't limit his chance of becoming an all time great. There are plenty of all time greats that couldn't post up. Guys like Charles Barkley and Hakeem Olajuwon were never good post up players and they had tremendous careers.


That's because there were other things on offense they were great at. Howard wasn't.

Also, Olajuwon wasn't a good player in the post? Huh??

Edit: Didn't see what was going on in the conversation here. My bad.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> Since HB returned-
> 
> Ndu Ebi, Troy Hudson and Fred Hoiberg were KGs best teammates on the 04 wolves (none of them were starters)
> 
> ...


And probably will be gone again soon. I mean after all, this forum is absolutely buzzing with activity.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

jayk009 said:


> This doesn't really make sense.
> 
> Why did you type that sentence out in the first place? It has nothing to do with forgetting to edit...or the "mobile experience"
> 
> You just have no idea what you're talking about and talk out of your ass. Even when you watch a lot you're not capable of processing what you even watch.


And at the end of the day, does it change the fact that MKG is a special player? Its kinda annoying seeing that no one is taking seifer up on that, seeing as he has said these numerous times and in different threads as well. 

This is pointless though. Happy new year. At least BS is still populating this place with stellar posts.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> And at the end of the day, does it change the fact that MKG is a special player? Its kinda annoying seeing that no one is taking seifer up on that, seeing as he has said these numerous times and in different threads as well.
> 
> This is pointless though. Happy new year. At least BS is still populating this place with stellar posts.


I'll be glad to discuss whether MKG is a special player. I just don't like to discuss it with people who obviously doesn't have a clue on what he's talking about.

You tried to compare MKG to a good player that played in the past that in your mind also can't shoot (although he can and was actually a decent shooter). You tried to give credit to MKG for the Hornets current success although MKG hasn't played a single game this year. By the way, in the 3 years that MKG did play, the Hornets were something like 40 games under .500. I don't see why you don't attribute that to MKG not delivering as a #2 pick, ahead of guys like Lillard and Drummond.

If you look up threads back in 12' or 13' I said it at the time that I don't see Kidd-Gilchrist ever becoming anything more than a role player. He's yet another player that doesn't have a game that suits his body. When you have a wing player's body but doesn't have wing player skillset it's hard to become a star in this league. As it stand right now MKG's best comparison is a better rebounding version of Tony Allen. If he makes it back from his injury 100% he'll be a decent role player but nothing more.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> And probably will be gone again soon. I mean after all, this forum is absolutely buzzing with activity.


Don't forget that the mobile aspect needs work.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> I'll be glad to discuss whether MKG is a special player. I just don't like to discuss it with people who obviously doesn't have a clue on what he's talking about.
> 
> You tried to compare MKG to a good player that played in the past that in your mind also can't shoot (although he can and was actually a decent shooter). You tried to give credit to MKG for the Hornets current success although MKG hasn't played a single game this year. By the way, in the 3 years that MKG did play, the Hornets were something like 40 games under .500. I don't see why you don't attribute that to MKG not delivering as a #2 pick, ahead of guys like Lillard and Drummond.
> 
> If you look up threads back in 12' or 13' I said it at the time that I don't see Kidd-Gilchrist ever becoming anything more than a role player. He's yet another player that doesn't have a game that suits his body. When you have a wing player's body but doesn't have wing player skillset it's hard to become a star in this league. As it stand right now MKG's best comparison is a better rebounding version of Tony Allen. If he makes it back from his injury 100% he'll be a decent role player but nothing more.


I wonder if he'll ever be as good as Lance Stephenson. Or hell, Reggie Jackson (that guy you didn't even know existed 2 years ago). It's funny a guy who basically proclaimed Joel Emiid the president of the basketball universe is trying to flout his draft prospect prowess. 

And before you mention Perry Jones, you're right, I was wrong as **** about him. I've been wrong about a lot on the site. That's what happens when faceless nobodies come together to discuss and predict. Glad to see my boy Jeremy Lamb is finally coming around into a decent NBA player though. One of my favorites. 

Jesus. Chances are no one has noticed I've only made like 1 post in the last month or two, but it's because the large majority of you are ****ing idiots. You talk endlessly about what you were right about and harp on other posters, all while never admitting to being wrong at any point in time. 

At best, you're pathetic wastes of time. Here we have you and a couple of complete idiots high fiving, and I mean complete ridiculous bro out dick on dick high fiving no less as they try to pick on HB. Are you stupid, pathetic lives more fun now? Do you and the internet nobody you just fist bumbed your cock with feel better about yourselves?


We all complained about how this place lost posters. But where's the new ones? Shouldn't there be some influx? It's pieces of shit like you who tell everyone who posts they're wrong and then throws an unglodly pathetic hissy fit when someone disagrees with your opinion why there's only like 14 regular posters.


Hey... enjoy your website idiots. I'll post in another few months when I'm looking to see if there's a thread on the latest Pacers news (this time about fake tough guy Macus Morris pretending his twin brother was around to protect him). 

I can whole heartedly say my time on here was a complete waste of time.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

R-Star said:


> I wonder if he'll ever be as good as Lance Stephenson. Or hell, Reggie Jackson (that guy you didn't even know existed 2 years ago). It's funny a guy who basically proclaimed Joel Emiid the president of the basketball universe is trying to flout his draft prospect prowess.
> 
> And before you mention Perry Jones, you're right, I was wrong as **** about him. I've been wrong about a lot on the site. That's what happens when faceless nobodies come together to discuss and predict. Glad to see my boy Jeremy Lamb is finally coming around into a decent NBA player though. One of my favorites.
> 
> ...


Here comes another dude that have tried to wiggle out of bad situations instead of admitting that he was wrong.

Like I said, I'm always up for a nice discussion. Just be prepared to man up when people call out your bullshit.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

this place has no posters because the marketing sucks


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

R-Star said:


> Jesus. Chances are no one has noticed I've only made like 1 post in the last month or two, but it's because the large majority of you are ****ing idiots. You talk endlessly about what you were right about and harp on other posters, all while never admitting to being wrong at any point in time.


Actually I have. Hell I even joked about it with one of the new comers in another thread when I asked if he met you yet. 

Why did I notice it? Because the site has been significantly better since you stopped posting here. Hell we're getting new comers now. Coincidence?

In all seriousness, please do us a favor and just don't come back at all. You've shown that you know what you're talking about at times but for the most part, you're spending 90% of your time on here doing a terrific job of making yourself look like an asshole. And I know you've admitted on countless occasions that you come off as one, but none the less, you're a problem that this site for what ever reason doesn't want to get rid of. 

And lol at the second part of this quote. Are you kidding me? You're actually telling us you admit to being wrong all the time, or even on some occasions? Do you realize that doing it here and now doesn't count? If by that you mean you choose to just ignore other peoples arguments when they're flat out pointing why what you're saying is bullshit? Then yes, you do admit when you are wrong. Because before you became inactive, for the past two or so years, that was basically a common trend with you. 

Please, don't ever come back. Spend your life doing better things. You're no good on here at this point. And I hope you see this post and I really hope it pisses you off to the point where you make a response post. I'll have a great time reading it, just like I did your other rants about me. Which, by the way, only made me want to stay on the site even more, because seeing your butt hurt induced tirades were always a joy to read.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

LOL that's not very nice


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I didn't realize that people posted here thinking it _wasn't_ a complete waste of time.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

The weird thing about these forums is how many different seperate communities there are

There's the division 1 basketball crowd, wrestling crowd, mpt crowd, basketball sim crowd, and then lastly nba crowd. (within that there's the old geezers that only post in the nba history section or only post in threads that mention any player up to the 90s and and then the 20-30 old guys that grew up on this site.)

Most members never cross over into the other forums.
..and weirdly the nba portion of the website is the least active.

Anyways....I used to hate how diminished the site has become when compared to the old days but I've grownto still appreciate the site for what it is. Also, the existing members posting in the nba section it's more of a community feel and we all can make digs at each other and we generally don't get too offended. 

Other then HB, the majority of posters are fine in my books. 

R-star I think maybe is being a little emotional, but everyone has their own quirks...some people like to think of themselves as a guru when they're actually not..some can never admit mistakes but that is just the way they are.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

jayk009 said:


> The weird thing about these forums is how many different seperate communities there are
> 
> There's the division 1 basketball crowd, wrestling crowd, mpt crowd, basketball sim crowd, and then lastly nba crowd. (within that there's the old geezers that only post in the nba history section or only post in threads that mention any player up to the 90s and and then the 20-30 old guys that grew up on this site.)
> 
> ...


But here's the incredibly weird and annoying thing, I have no idea whatsoever who you are. Nor do I care.

That's what really baffles me at the end of the day about this place. Just like when GNG kept nitpicking my posts, as if there was some type of familiarity between both of us.

For goodness sakes folks, we are using monikers on here. No one has an idea who these folks are off this place. Some I have had the pleasure of keeping up with beyond this medium, but for the rest of you I have no clue if you are typing from basements or a cave, and guess what it shouldn't matter. 

But when folks like the one above start taking it personal, over some guy or girl you don't know. It really baffles the shit out of me.

Why do you have a problem with me? Because I made a mistake on an internet forum? LOL really?

I dont even mind being called out on that. I understand the bants and rants aspect of the online world, but guess what? I can easily detach from all this.

JT is right, amongst one of the problems this place has is marketing but there's also the fact that for a basketball forum, very little basketball discussions actually go on.

This thread is perfect example. You have posters who have made no contribution to the overall thread, but are on here looking for mistakes. The sad part is, I assume some of these folks have kids. Peep the NBA general and its pretty much the same. For someone who used to pretty much live on this site, it just feels like traipsing through an abandoned amusement park. The rides still work but the crowds are long gone. 

Man I have already said more than I should. Maybe what we all need is a chill pill. Its a shame though, was really hoping we could actually talk about Green and what makes him special. His skillset, how he is utilized and what not. Oh well

:baseldance:


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

jayk009 said:


> The weird thing about these forums is how many different seperate communities there are
> 
> There's the division 1 basketball crowd, wrestling crowd, mpt crowd, basketball sim crowd, and then lastly nba crowd. (within that there's the old geezers that only post in the nba history section or only post in threads that mention any player up to the 90s and and then the 20-30 old guys that grew up on this site.)
> 
> ...


R-star does the "everyone here is a idiot, I'm done posting here" routine yearly. Hell look at my signature. He said almost the exact same thing two years ago.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> This thread is perfect example. You have posters who have made no contribution to the overall thread, but are on here looking for mistakes. The sad part is, I assume some of these folks have kids. Peep the NBA general and its pretty much the same. For someone who used to pretty much live on this site, it just feels like traipsing through an abandoned amusement park. The rides still work but the crowds are long gone.
> 
> Man I have already said more than I should. Maybe what we all need is a chill pill. Its a shame though, was really hoping we could actually talk about Green and what makes him special. His skillset, how he is utilized and what not. Oh well


You know how sometimes a police makes you walk a straight line and if you can't do it they take your keys away? Saying ridiculous shit like comparing MKG's outside shot to Marion's outside shot and attributing team success to an injured player is kind of like falling off the line.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> You know how sometimes a police makes you walk a straight line and if you can't do it they take your keys away? Saying ridiculous shit like comparing MKG's outside shot to Marion's outside shot and attributing team success to an injured player is kind of like falling off the line.


I find it funny when posters write dumb shit and don't want to be called on it. 
Except when it comes to posters like HB. He is notorious for posting dumb shit and still tries to shrug it off.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

HB is the only person on this forum that could write paragraphs and paragraphs about a guy and it turns out he doesn't even watch the dude, let alone know that the guy is out for the year.....yet he makes a deep argument based on complete shit and attributes the team's success on that player despite them never even playing.

I'm starting to wonder if you've even watched Draymond Green play at all this year or are basing it on your delusion and highlight clips that you watched on youtube.

You are a shit poster and therefore make shitty posts. I could care less about you as a person and honestly I'm not even that great of a poster...but I can tell you that 99% of the posts on here are better then the crap you spew out constantly.

Spam threads and that dude that posts those shit youtube videos are still better content than whatever you post.

If you think people are judging you on a personal level then you are wrong...you are just a shitty poster..no one gives a shit about your personal life...they only care because you are constantly making shitty posts on this website...not just 1 line here or there..paragraphs and paragraphs of it...worst part about you is...you don't admit when you talk out of your ass and continue to act like you know what you're talking about when it's clear you don't.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I have watched more college basketball than anyone that has posted in in this thread. I saw Draymond as a freshman at State. Following his four year stint there. That's what happens when you are a basketball junkie. (Random but Brice Johnson just had a 39points, 23 rebound game ... I watched that.)

Yes I did slip up on MKG, but guess what genius, I watched that dude as a high school player. I pretty much watched every game he played on that championship Kentucky squad. 

I guarantee I know more about these guys than pretty much anyone that has posted in this thread. There are college ball games going on right now including the number one team in the country playing the number 2 team, how many of y'all are watching? You are so smart you can't even realize that not once did I say anything bad about Green. Highlight clips my ass LOL. What highlights? 

Look bottom line, I dont take this seriously. For all you know, HB could be some blue haired, six tentacled alien posting from God knows where. Your opinion of me and my posts mean diddly squat in the grand scheme of things


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> I find it funny when posters write dumb shit and don't want to be called on it.
> Except when it comes to posters like HB. He is notorious for posting dumb shit and still tries to shrug it off.


I dont know why I am even responding to this, but if you guys actually read the article I posted up on MKG, they were attributing the success of the Hornets to MKG's stellar defense. I am going to guess neither of you read that article.


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

He is not a top ten player imo. While he's an integral part of what GSw do thanks to his ability to space the floor and defend opposing big men his strengths are only allowed to flourish thanks to the personnel and system around him. If he didn't have two of the best three ball shooters in the league around him plus Barnes and iggy in their small ball death lineup, let's say four average three ball shooters, then draymonds emphasis is more limited as the opposing team is less scared of the back court players. As it is they sort of need to double who ever out of Steph and klay is hot and that allows draymonds to sort of move around as he pleases whether it b to shoot or decoy for someone else to get a shot or drive the lane.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Trying my best not to respond to seifer but what the heck, might as well. The guy said MKG is a taller version of Tony Allen, but I am the one that talks shit. Gotcha

You'll probably still be on this board when the guy cashes in on his new contract or when that non-existent 'jumper' becomes respectable. Yes he has an ugly form, but so did Rondo (currently shooting 35% from 3). 

You feel like you've made some type of legitimate argument because Marion shot 34% in his third year. Whoop de damn doo! How about his first two years? There are tons of players who come into the league with little to no jumper, yet improve as the years go by. 

The guy (MKG) has won on pretty much every level. People have been raving about Green's intangibles in this thread. Well there's a guy that has plenty of it. 

I tried to explain to you, but it just can't through to you, that MKG spent a year in college, hasn't really gotten the type of tutelage needed to work on the rudimentary aspects of his game. Give the kid some time, he's only 22.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Chris K said:


> He is not a top ten player imo. While he's an integral part of what GSw do thanks to his ability to space the floor and defend opposing big men his strengths are only allowed to flourish thanks to the personnel and system around him. *If he didn't have two of the best three ball shooters in the league around him plus Barnes and iggy in their small ball death lineup*, let's say four average three ball shooters, then draymonds emphasis is more limited as the opposing team is less scared of the back court players. As it is they sort of need to double who ever out of Steph and klay is hot and that allows draymonds to sort of move around as he pleases whether it b to shoot or decoy for someone else to get a shot or drive the lane.


But they said I am a shitty poster for pointing this stuff out lol


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

HB said:


> But they said I am a shitty poster for pointing this stuff out lol


I'm new here so I don't know what beef ppl have with u but my point is completely valid as the supporting cast changes how opposing teams scheme a player which then determines what level of freedom that player has. If draymond played for phila then he'd b the focus of the defence but the fact he's the third focus means his numbers have to b taken with a grain of salt, thus not a top ten player


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

HB said:


> But they said I am a shitty poster for pointing this stuff out lol


Because you think a ton of people can be plugged into his spot and do the same thing and you're wrong. You think he's a product of the system. I think he's an impact player regardless of what system he's in.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Basel said:


> Because you think a ton of people can be plugged into his spot and do the same thing and you're wrong. You think he's a product of the system. I think he's an impact player regardless of what system he's in.


I never said that a ton of people can be plugged into his spot and fit like him. I said, guys like him can be found in every draft. Hybrid forwards that can do multiple things on the court with varying success. Why do people think that's some type of slight against him? 

You then asked me to name guys like that, which I gave you my list. All the guys I mentioned are hybrid forwards who will all bring something to the table if placed on that team. They might not replicate his numbers, but they all have what makes them unique.

Lets not get carried way and act like Green is some once in a life time talent. Right now on Michigan State, they have a guard who is pretty much a triple double threat every time he steps on the court. Ironically also a four year player.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Nobody is acting like he's a once in a lifetime talent. You're just underrating him, that's all. Guys like him can absolutely not be found in every draft, and most of the guys you mentioned are not the same type of "hybrid forward" that he is.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Basel said:


> Nobody is acting like he's a once in a lifetime talent. You're just underrating him, that's all. Guys like him can absolutely not be found in every draft, and most of the guys you mentioned are not the same type of "hybrid forward" that he is.


Its a testament to how good he is, that some of the guys I compared him to are some of the top players at their position.


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

HB said:


> guys like him can be found in every draft.
> .


I completely disagree with that man, u see what makes draymond so good is the drive he has from being drafted in the second round. While u think there may b many players similar to him in every draft ( which is debatable) how many of them, 6'6 studs wld b willing or able to defend opposing 5s. The answer is hardly any he realised that being the ultimate team player was the only way he wld stick in the league


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Chris K said:


> I completely disagree with that man, u see what makes draymond so good is the drive he has from being drafted in the second round. While u think there may b many players similar to him in every draft ( which is debatable) how many of them, 6'6 studs wld b willing or able to defend opposing 5s. The answer is hardly any he realised that being the ultimate team player was the only way he wld stick in the league


I think the phrasing of that is what has got people upset, but as I told Basel, the guys I compared him to are some of the best players in their position.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Trying my best not to respond to seifer but what the heck, might as well. The guy said MKG is a taller version of Tony Allen, but I am the one that talks shit. Gotcha


Better rebounding version of Tony Allen. Learn to read k?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> Better rebounding version of Tony Allen. Learn to read k?


Oh yeah, absolutely brilliant clarification.

Take it from someone who also watched Allen in college, and yes has followed his career, especially with Memphis. They are different players with different drives.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Oh yeah, absolutely brilliant clarification.
> 
> Take it from someone who also watched Allen in college, and yes has followed his career, especially with Memphis. They are different players with different drives.


I think at this point the more games that you list that you've watched, the dumber a fan it makes you look. You're like that dude that goes to college for 8 years and still can't earn no degree. You watch a ton of games yet you don't understand any of it.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Says the genius who doesn't realize that MKG and Tony Allen have nothing in common besides both being black.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Lebron 
KD
Curry
Westbrook
Anthony Davis
Melo 
Harden 
Curry 
Paul George
Jimmy Butler 
Dirk 
Kawhi
Lamarcus
Harden 
John Wall
Marc Gasol

Man at first I was playing along but you guys have to be shitting me. Which of these guys is Green better than? Which of them can he replace on their teams and do a better job? I didn't even mention Blake or the young rookies with inesteemable value, my biggest problem is thinking everyone reasons these things through but this thread is proof that it's not so.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

3rd straight triple double tonight for Green. Not bad.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Chris K said:


> I'm new here so I don't know what beef ppl have with u but my point is completely valid as the supporting cast changes how opposing teams scheme a player which then determines what level of freedom that player has. If draymond played for phila then he'd b the focus of the defence but the fact he's the third focus means his numbers have to b taken with a grain of salt, thus not a top ten player


1) Do you take Curry's numbers with a grain of salt as well, since the whole supporting cast and system thing? What about Klay? Or does that just apply exclusively to Green?

2) Tell me how teams loading up on Curry and Klay would lead to Green having high _assists_? That doesn't follow.


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

Sir Patchwork said:


> 1) Do you take Curry's numbers with a grain of salt as well, since the whole supporting cast and system thing? What about Klay? Or does that just apply exclusively to Green?
> 
> 2) Tell me how teams loading up on Curry and Klay would lead to Green having high _assists_? That doesn't follow.


Considering the way Steph plays I feel he wld score regardless of what system he was in, but it's to do with the supporting cast as otherwise he wld have two men on him as soon as he crosses half court if teams weren't scared of him then dishing to other open shooters.
Draymonds assists aren't to do with teams loading up on curry and klay as much as they r to do with the level of ball movement which the warriors have when they r playing their best team ball. But I'm not hating on draymond who as I have said is key to the Warriors success, just I don't think he's that key in his own.


----------



## AllRim (Jun 19, 2012)

I like your posts, and you seem smart. But is it too much to ask to add some vowels to your text?


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

AllRim said:


> I like your posts, and you seem smart. But is it too much to ask to add some vowels to your text?


I assume that's intended for me....
I'll make an effort


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Says the genius who doesn't realize that MKG and Tony Allen have nothing in common besides both being black.


I know more about Tony Allen than you. I saw Tony Allen play basketball when he was in grade 6.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I saw Tony Allen's mom's ultrasound - I could tell right away that he was going to be a great perimeter defender


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Chris K said:


> Considering the way Steph plays I feel he wld score regardless of what system he was in, but it's to do with the supporting cast as otherwise he wld have two men on him as soon as he crosses half court if teams weren't scared of him then dishing to other open shooters.
> Draymonds assists aren't to do with teams loading up on curry and klay as much as they r to do with the level of ball movement which the warriors have when they r playing their best team ball. But I'm not hating on draymond who as I have said is key to the Warriors success, just I don't think he's that key in his own.


1) Curry would probably score a ton in any system, just like Draymond Green would be a great defender and passer in any system. Do they, along with Klay, inflate each others numbers with their different but unique skillsets? Maybe, but I feel like that's only something people are accusing of Draymond Green without realizing that everybody benefits from Green as much as he benefits from them. If Green's numbers are inflated, so are the other guys. 

2) If Draymond's assists are a product of ball movement, then you have to explain why he averages so many more than the other guys on the team. Wouldn't they all be putting up high assist numbers? Klay averages 2 (5 less than Green) and he plays nearly as many minutes.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> I have watched more college basketball than anyone that has posted in in this thread. I saw Draymond as a freshman at State. Following his four year stint there. That's what happens when you are a basketball junkie. (Random but Brice Johnson just had a 39points, 23 rebound game ... I watched that.)
> 
> Yes I did slip up on MKG, but guess what genius, I watched that dude as a high school player. I pretty much watched every game he played on that championship Kentucky squad.
> 
> ...


Draymond isn't a college freshman anymore and nobody said draymond was a top ten NBA player as a college freshman. Watch him play today, maybe watch less college so that you know which players are actually injured without having to edit a post.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)




----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

Sir Patchwork said:


> 1) Curry would probably score a ton in any system, just like Draymond Green would be a great defender and passer in any system. Do they, along with Klay, inflate each others numbers with their different but unique skillsets? Maybe, but I feel like that's only something people are accusing of Draymond Green without realizing that everybody benefits from Green as much as he benefits from them. If Green's numbers are inflated, so are the other guys.
> 
> 2) If Draymond's assists are a product of ball movement, then you have to explain why he averages so many more than the other guys on the team. Wouldn't they all be putting up high assist numbers? Klay averages 2 (5 less than Green) and he plays nearly as many minutes.


Yeah in regards to assists numbers I agree in the sense that draymond just is a playmaker. But I do feel that klays numbers aren't inflated as we saw the other night when he went for 38 without Steph in the lineup. I kno draymond also has had a big game in that one vs Denver with Steph out, which I explain as he is a good player when someone else is hot, in that case it was klay. when klay played bad vs dallas green really struggled, 4-15 shooting. Thus proving my point that I believe like Kevin love he can b the second best player on a very good team, third best on a title team but only the best player on a team like loves Timberwolves team. 30-35 win teams. Thus draymond can not b a top ten player in the league, who is expected to carry a team. While we're on the topic I believe that the same applies for kyrie


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

In the nba history, Green leads all the PF in assists per game.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

HB said:


> Lebron
> KD
> Curry
> Westbrook
> ...


Take out those ringless and over age of 30, then we can start to discuss.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ballscientist said:


> Take out those ringless and over age of 30, then we can start to discuss.


Take out the black guys too. Also the guys that are American.

If you do all that Draymond is the best player in the history of the current NBA.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Chris K said:


> Yeah in regards to assists numbers I agree in the sense that draymond just is a playmaker. But I do feel that klays numbers aren't inflated as we saw the other night when he went for 38 without Steph in the lineup. I kno draymond also has had a big game in that one vs Denver with Steph out, which I explain as he is a good player when someone else is hot, in that case it was klay. when klay played bad vs dallas green really struggled, 4-15 shooting. Thus proving my point that I believe like Kevin love he can b the second best player on a very good team, third best on a title team but only the best player on a team like loves Timberwolves team. 30-35 win teams. Thus draymond can not b a top ten player in the league, who is expected to carry a team. While we're on the topic I believe that the same applies for kyrie


You'll have to be more specific when you say "carry a team" because that's a bit ambiguous. Do you mean offensively? Is it possible to carry a team without being a scorer? What are the ways a player can carry his team? 

Welcome to the forum, by the way.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Topic is about building around a great player to win the championship.

Dirk is too old. 

HB put too much losers in the list.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

My list of guys to put over Green at this point would be: Curry, Westbrook, Paul, Wall, Harden, LeBron, Durant, George, Leonard, Griffin, AD, Butler, Cousins. After that I guess there are some debates to be had, but that puts Green in the top 15 in my estimation.


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You'll have to be more specific when you say "carry a team" because that's a bit ambiguous. Do you mean offensively? Is it possible to carry a team without being a scorer? What are the ways a player can carry his team?
> 
> Welcome to the forum, by the way.


Thanks, glad I found it.
I do mean offensively, like being the guy who you give the ball to when u really need a bucket. But I get what ur saying about mayb not having not b a scorer to carry a team but I feel that you really do have to be a scorer to carry a team as I perceive the phrase. A player can carry a team by basically being the guy who gets the tough bucket to stop a 10-2 run on the road in a hostile environment.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Honestly, I put Green ahead of stats guys Griffin and Cousins (both players win nothing).

In other words, Green is the best player of all the PF and C this season.

Give me list of PF/C that play better defense and have better court vision than Green so that we can discuss.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> Lebron
> KD
> Curry
> Westbrook
> ...


I think Green is better than the people I just bolded. Hell I don't even know why you mentioned Carmelo. I think it goes without saying that Green's more valuable than he is. 

Also, you listed the same name twice on two different occasions.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Chris K said:


> Thanks, glad I found it.
> I do mean offensively, like being the guy who you give the ball to when u really need a bucket. But I get what ur saying about mayb not having not b a scorer to carry a team but I feel that you really do have to be a scorer to carry a team as I perceive the phrase. A player can carry a team by basically being the guy who gets the tough bucket to stop a 10-2 run on the road in a hostile environment.


If that's how you carry a team, I agree that Green is not the guy. I just think there are a variety of ways one can carry a team.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I think Green is better than the people I just bolded. Hell I don't even know why you mentioned Carmelo. I think it goes without saying that Green's more valuable than he is.
> 
> Also, you listed the same name twice on two different occasions.


LOL I was going to leave this thread be, but I had a chuckle reading this. Carmelo is carrying a team with a bunch of role players night in, night out. You must be deluded to think Green is on the same level or even better. The Knicks won't even pick Green over KP. All the guys you mentioned are all go to players. They are required to put up big numbers every year. Dirk is still a franchise player at 37.

I forgot to add Andre Drummond and Damien Lillard on to that list. KAT and Wiggins as well. Heck when your guy Irving is healthy, he's also better. I am sure there are more that are escaping my mind right now. Even trouble center in Sacramento is better and more valuable than Green.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> Draymond isn't a college freshman anymore and nobody said draymond was a top ten NBA player as a college freshman. Watch him play today, maybe watch less college so that you know which players are actually injured without having to edit a post.


Personally I don't get how anyone who claims they love the game doesn't watch it. That triple overtime game yesterday was primetime viewing.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

HB said:


> I forgot to add Andre Drummond and Damien Lillard on to that list. KAT and Wiggins as well. I am sure there are more that are escaping my mind right now. Even trouble center in Sacramento is better and more valuable than Green.


You continue to list the players with no defense and no win to compare with Green.

Great players always think about championship. Your guys think about Shit.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Ballscientist said:


> You continue to list the players with no defense and no win to compare with Green.
> 
> Great players always think about championship. Your guys think about Shit.


:twoguns:


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If that's how you carry a team, I agree that Green is not the guy. I just think there are a variety of ways one can carry a team.


What other ways do U have in mind?


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

HB said:


> LOL I was going to leave this thread be, but I had a chuckle reading this. Carmelo is carrying a team with a bunch of role players night in, night out. You must be deluded to think Green is on the same level or even better. The Knicks won't even pick Green over KP. All the guys you mentioned are all go to players. They are required to put up big numbers every year. Dirk is still a franchise player at 37.
> 
> 
> > Completely agree, this is the point I've been trying to make.,Draymond is the third best player on his team and thus can not b put ahead of any players who are as you say 'go to players' I would almost guarantee that a team with draymond as its best player would not win more than Kevin loves Minnesota teams. So like 35 games at most
> ...


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Chris K said:


> HB said:
> 
> 
> > LOL I was going to leave this thread be, but I had a chuckle reading this. Carmelo is carrying a team with a bunch of role players night in, night out. You must be deluded to think Green is on the same level or even better. The Knicks won't even pick Green over KP. All the guys you mentioned are all go to players. They are required to put up big numbers every year. Dirk is still a franchise player at 37.
> ...


You're missing the / in the second quote part. So the


> box at the end of his post needs a / between the [ and q. I just did it for you.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> LOL I was going to leave this thread be, but I had a chuckle reading this. Carmelo is carrying a team with a bunch of role players night in, night out. You must be deluded to think Green is on the same level or even better. The Knicks won't even pick Green over KP. All the guys you mentioned are all go to players. They are required to put up big numbers every year. Dirk is still a franchise player at 37.


I don't want to be that guy and join in on this crusade everyone's doing against you. But I don't agree at all with your logic here. 

Carmelo is a terrific scorer but what else is he good at? He's a careless defender, he doesn't make others better, he's decent at best when it comes to rebounding. If he's having an off night from the field, then he's most likely not going to do anything else for you. He doesn't inspire other Knicks players with his effort. 

A guy who defends at an elite level is always going to be more valuable than a guy who scores at an elite level. The thing with Green is that he isn't just an elite defender. He's a great all around talent who seems to be adding to his game every year.

So, with all of that considered, if it's between Carmelo and Green in the first round of an all star draft, it would be pretty stupid on the Knicks part to pick Carmelo. You have a lot less options in regards to the type of talent you want to surround Carmelo with, where as with Green, there's so many options in regards to the type of players you could have around him because he does so many things at an elite level. In other words, I'm not really sure how anyone with decent knowledge of the game could pick Carmelo over Green at this point. And this applies to every team, not just the Knicks.


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

Chris K said:


> HB said:
> 
> 
> > LOL I was going to leave this thread be, but I had a chuckle reading this. Carmelo is carrying a team with a bunch of role players night in, night out. You must be deluded to think Green is on the same level or even better. The Knicks won't even pick Green over KP. All the guys you mentioned are all go to players. They are required to put up big numbers every year. Dirk is still a franchise player at 37.
> ...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Chris K said:


> What other ways do U have in mind?


Defensive anchors and great playmakers can carry a team. Think Ben Wallace on the Pistons, Garnett on the Celtics. A great playmaker and ball handler can also carry a team through game management. Scoring is an important part of basketball, but it's possible to be a superstar without being a great scorer. Green is not a guy you throw the ball and get a bucket, but he anchors their defense and is their primary distributor, which allows Curry and Klay to do what they do best, which is score. If not for Draymond, their defense suffers a great deal and their offense becomes jumbled as Curry goes back to trying to juggle point guard distributing responsibilities with being a truly elite scorer.


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Defensive anchors and great playmakers can carry a team. Think Ben Wallace on the Pistons, Garnett on the Celtics. A great playmaker and ball handler can also carry a team through game management. Scoring is an important part of basketball, but it's possible to be a superstar without being a great scorer. Green is not a guy you throw the ball and get a bucket, but he anchors their defense and is their primary distributor, which allows Curry and Klay to do what they do best, which is score. If not for Draymond, their defense suffers a great deal and their offense becomes jumbled as Curry goes back to trying to juggle point guard distributing responsibilities with being a truly elite scorer.


Ok that's valid, but wld u disagree with me saying that the emotional leader/ effort and D guy is not always the same as the guy who carries the team, I would say is rarely. Think Noah with Bulls, clearly jimmys team. Or someone like A tony Allen who was the heart and soul of Memphis vs GSw in playoffs last yr but could not even crack crunch time rotation. Would u disagree with saying Steph carries them at times. There could almost be an argument to make about how iggy is the key to their offencse not being jumbled and their D, finals game 4-6. I'm not making that argument but just saying that it is there to be made.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Only 5 players are better than Green:

Curry
LeBron (only scoring is better than Green)
Kawhi: 7.0 rebs, 2.7 Assists per game
Durant: 7.4 rebs, 4.6 assists per game
Westbrook

The rest is disputable. Defense = 40, Offense = 40, Win = 20%

Win has to be account for something.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Ugh, if you were a GM who picked Green over Melo, then you should be fired on the spot. Melo came into the league as a national champion. One of the best scorers we've ever seen. When he's actually surrounded by talent, he excels (see the Olympics for reference)

Weird how the Warriors best player is a guy who can't guard anyone yet it's not hindered them from dominating the league. Maybe it's because they've surrounded him with talent that negates his weaknesses.

FWIW melo is doing better this season involving teammates. The problem with that squad is that their second best player is still a year or two away from being a legit star. Their offense on most nights simply isn't good enough. Which gets back up Mr. Green, a lot of you it seems don't understand the difference between a feature player and a role player. No offense to you, I appreciate you being civil.

But realize this, Green as a feature player would be a disaster. Where would you run the isos for him? On the perimeter where he can't blow by quicker small forwards or in the post where he has to shoot over taller bigs? Where are the post moves? Come on man do you realize how many possessions go by when the Knicks need a bucket especially with clock dying down and they look for Melo to bail them out. That applies to pretty much every guy I put up cept maybe Drummond. 

Like I said earlier I was toying around and now I am engaged. Notice the folks who've been doing the bashing have not explained or cared to delve into Green's skill set or why that system is ideal for him. Stats watchers who can't break down a game if needed, but hey I am the joker heh? LOL

I mean every feature player has a go to move, what's that unstoppable move Mr. green would use if his team needed a timely bucket from him?


We are talking about the third or fourth banana on offense, depending on how you view Barnes and folks have the nerve to call him a top 10 player. Elite defender? Sure, but let's not forget that Andre and Barnes were the ones sent out to stop Bron in the finals. Andre especially saved their season. How many are calling him a top 10 player, after all he's a great defender, shoots efficiently and he is a heck of a ball player.

My first reaction to hearing that Jerry West quote was to laugh. See we are so used to seeing these basketball players with poor fundamentals that when a guy like Green who's been well coached actually plays like a basketball player, people go overboard with the superlatives. Calm down, solid player, all star no doubt. Top 20? Hell no.


So let's talk basketball. I'm in.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jimmy just exploded for 21 points in one quarter the other night and he plays stellar defense. You think Green can do that? 

You guys need to watch games and see what happens when Curry garners attention leaving someone inevitably open. How many teams can afford to guard him one on one?

Credit Green for making that key pass when Curry draws in the Defense, but don't act like there aren't players who can do that.

Maybe I should start using more cuss words. Should spice things up more no?


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Dray Green's best comparison is Magic Johnson. Both of them can play every position.

Read the article. DrayMagic

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...en-magic-johnson-warriors-draymagic/78237606/

*USA Today*


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

LOL I changed my mind. Y'all can have this thread


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

HB said:


> Ugh, if you were a GM who picked Green over Melo, then you should be fired on the spot. Melo came into the league as a national champion. One of the best scorers we've ever seen. When he's actually surrounded by talent, he excels (see the Olympics for reference)
> 
> Weird how the Warriors best player is a guy who can't guard anyone yet it's not hindered them from dominating the league. Maybe it's because they've surrounded him with talent that negates his weaknesses.
> 
> ...


Preach


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

When Mr. Green was boning Mrs. Green back in the early 90s I was in the room with him. Please respect my opinion on Green no matter how dumb or ridiculous those opinions may sound.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Salute @Chris_K


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> Ugh, if you were a GM who picked Green over Melo, then you should be fired on the spot. Melo came into the league as a national champion. One of the best scorers we've ever seen. When he's actually surrounded by talent, he excels (see the Olympics for reference)
> 
> Weird how the Warriors best player is a guy who can't guard anyone yet it's not hindered them from dominating the league. Maybe it's because they've surrounded him with talent that negates his weaknesses.
> 
> ...


I don't feel like pointing out everything wrong with this post. I really don't. It would be an obnoxiously long post and I'm too tired at the moment to point it all out. So I'm just going to say this. And I'm probably going to sound like a dick, but here it goes.

What you are saying right now is basically on par with Vegan Gain's logic from the Warriors thread in terms of...well, stupid. You're actually trying to argue that because Green isn't an elite scorer, he's not better than Carmelo. Despite the fact that Green is better than Carmelo in every other important aspect of the game, whether it be defending, rebounding, passing, or just being a better teammate overall, Carmelo is better because he's better in one aspect, an aspect of his game that, due to his playing style, causes his teammates to be worse. That's very dumb logic. 

Please, PLEASE, watch the Warriors play. Watch basketball. Right now I'm having a hard time believing you watch it on a regular basis because the logic you're trying to use here is something a person who knows nothing about the sport would probably use. It's laughable and hard to take seriously. Once you learn something about the sport, and trust me when I say you have a lot you need to learn, then we can talk basketball.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Looks like HB took your advice Irving. He's off to the neighborhood nursery looking for the next NBA all time great.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

WHAT??

LOL. Wait, am I reading that right? You actually believe Draymond Green is better than Carmelo Anthony? 

Well hey Green is a better all round player than Dirk, it must mean he is a better player. Heck why not go as far as saying he's better than KD and Harden as well, after all none are as well rounded as Green. Blake's not a great two way player, add him to the least as well. 

Did you for one second think, if Green were playing on the Knicks, would they be doing better? Or maybe you did and actually believe that'd be the case. Are you even familiar with usage rate?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

And Irving, I know the dude isn't a great defender but 7.5rpg and 3.6apg is far from a one dimensional player. He doesn't have the luxury of playing with dead eye shooters. Sheesh!


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> I have watched more college basketball than anyone that has posted in in this thread. I saw Draymond as a freshman at State. Following his four year stint there. That's what happens when you are a basketball junkie. (Random but Brice Johnson just had a 39points, 23 rebound game ... I watched that.)


Because only "basketball junkies" watch obscure mid-majors like Michigan State.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

hobojoe said:


> HB said:
> 
> 
> > I have watched more college basketball than anyone that has posted in in this thread. I saw Draymond as a freshman at State. Following his four year stint there. That's what happens when you are a basketball junkie. (Random but Brice Johnson just had a 39points, 23 rebound game ... I watched that.)
> ...



You ever check out the division 1 forum on here? They'd love your input


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> You ever check out the division 1 forum on here? They'd love your input


Brice Johnson was good yesterday, but the only reason UNC is in the top 10 is because of J.P. Tokoto's all-around contributions.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

hobojoe said:


> HB said:
> 
> 
> > You ever check out the division 1 forum on here? They'd love your input
> ...


Lol thumbs up on that one, at least your jabs are funny. I'll give you credit on that.

I do miss JP though. Great athlete


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> Personally I don't get how anyone who claims they love the game doesn't watch it. That triple overtime game yesterday was primetime viewing.


I played D1 college basketball for four years.

I dont watch it anymore. Its usually on the same time as NBA and my time is finite. The players arent as talented. 98% of the big men have no talent and even most guards only do maybe 1-2 skills at a elite level. Just like you dont have time to research facts before you put your foot in your mouth, I don't have time to watch 10 hours of bball a day anymore.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> Lol thumbs up on that one, at least your jabs are funny. I'll give you credit on that.
> 
> I do miss JP though. Great athlete


Dont give him too much credit, you're a very easy target.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> HB said:
> 
> 
> > Lol thumbs up on that one, at least your jabs are funny. I'll give you credit on that.
> ...


That's fine. Same cast of characters, same monotonous routine


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> I played D1 college basketball for four years.
> 
> I dont watch it anymore. Its usually on the same time as NBA and my time is finite. The players arent as talented. 98% of the big men have no talent and even most guards only do maybe 1-2 skills at a elite level. Just like you dont have time to research facts before you put your foot in your mouth, I don't have time to watch 10 hours of bball a day anymore.


HB played on his elementary school basketball team for 5 years so you should shut your mouth.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

1 Question for HB

Can Warriors win 50 games if Melo were a Warrior instead of Green?

Melo would have taken away Curry and Klay's 3-pt shots and take those shots from 18 feet, then miss.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Carmelo just isn't that good anymore. But that NCAA tournament though!


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> WHAT??
> 
> LOL. Wait, am I reading that right? You actually believe Draymond Green is better than Carmelo Anthony?
> 
> Well hey Green is a better all round player than Dirk, it must mean he is a better player.


Right now? Yes. Green is definitely a better player than Dirk. 



HB said:


> Heck why not go as far as saying he's better than KD and Harden as well, after all none are as well rounded as Green. Blake's not a great two way player, add him to the least as well.


Thanks for missing my point completely. Him being a better all around player isn't why he's a better player. He's a better player because he makes a much bigger impact on his team than Carmelo does. And guess what? It's a positive one. He makes a positive impact on his team. 

Carmelo on the other hand joins a team that has Amare Stoudemire on it. How did that work out? It didn't. They were never able to adjust to playing alongside each other, because Amare was a PF who thrived off of having a Steve Nash on his team to give him those opportunities to score. Carmelo on the other hand was so used to having the ball in his hand, you would think he would learn how to become a better teammate, right?

Simply put, Carmelo is not a top 10 player. He's not even a great player. He's a great offensive player. And he's a top 10 scorer in the league, hell I'd argue for top 5. But that's it. Draymond isn't a top ten player in the league either, but he's much closer to that point than Carmelo ever was. 



HB said:


> Did you for one second think, if Green were playing on the Knicks, would they be doing better? Or maybe you did and actually believe that'd be the case. Are you even familiar with usage rate?


My answer to both questions is yes.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

This guy keeps taking shots and no one is even paying attention to him. He's like that annoying fly buzzing around your ears, needing to get swatted away. Poor guy

...

Melo is a more mature player now. Look at some of their wins this year and look at his numbers. About a minute or so left in this game and he has 21/10/7. They may or may not win the game but the Knicks are certainly headed in the right direction.


----------



## -James- (Apr 27, 2004)

@HB is bringing forth some legitimate points, I think. If you can get past the hipster "I watched him in college", and the laughable MKG tangents, there's definitely some substance to what he's saying. I mean without having had a chance to actually list the guys ahead of him, I'd think he's closer to top 25 than top 10.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

XxIrvingxX said:


> My answer to both questions is yes.


Doubt I can change your mind on this. Once I saw the stoudemire thing, it just seems pointless arguing this. 

I'll say this though, this is the first season I feel like Melo actually gets it. His all round game has improved a ton. They just beat a very good Hawks team. He's without a doubt their 'star' player, playing with the suicide squad version of a basketball team. They are overachieving at 17-19. You are underselling Melo by thinking Green can step in and do better. Even Green will laugh at the notion of that.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Thanks James.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Ballscientist said:


> 1 Question for HB
> 
> Can Warriors win 50 games if Melo were a Warrior instead of Green?
> 
> Melo would have taken away Curry and Klay's 3-pt shots and take those shots from 18 feet, then miss.


Probably the best post Ballscientist has ever had.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> Doubt I can change your mind on this. Once I saw the stoudemire thing, it just seems pointless arguing this.
> 
> I'll say this though, this is the first season I feel like Melo actually gets it. His all round game has improved a ton. They just beat a very good Hawks team. He's without a doubt their 'star' player, playing with the suicide squad version of a basketball team. They are overachieving at 17-19. You are underselling Melo by thinking Green can step in and do better. Even Green will laugh at the notion of that.


There's nothing to change my mind on. Green is a better player and it's not even arguable. If it is, then I'm waiting for a compelling argument from you because so far you haven't given me one. Being a better scorer doesn't make you a better player, especially not one the person you're being compared with is miles above you in all other aspects of the game.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Police: Sir, do you know how fast you were driving back there?
HB: I was driving no faster than 40.

Police: This radar gun clearly indicates that you were driving more than 75.
HB: You don't know what you're talking about officer. Do you know that back in 05' I remember I always drove under the speed limit. My memory is immaculate.

Police: What does that have to do with anything?
HB: Of course it does! Moreover, I remember a couple of my friends also drove under the speed limit back in 2005. I saw them with my own eyes. I also wrote it down on this notebook.

Police: Sir, I'm afraid I'll have to give you a ticket.
HB: Wait! The reason why I was driving so fast is because of a tornado that was chasing me, amongst some other factors.

Police: I don't know what you're talking about sir, there hasn't been a tornado in the area for more than 82 years. That can't possibly be the reason to why you were speeding.
HB: You're just a racist. You are giving me a hard time because of my skin color.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

I like how now nobody watched Green at Michigan State where the argument is what? His true nature was revealed? He was the NPOY runner up to Anthony Davis as a senior. He dragged a team that had no other NBA rotation players to a #1 seed while leading them in scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, and steals. He was the undisputed feature player on those teams and was still slinging the ball all over the court to get marginal players wide open shots. The only difference then was he was about 50 lbs heavier so it stood out even more that this big fat guy was controlling games like an elite point guard.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

seifer0406 said:


> Looks like HB took your advice Irving. He's off to the neighborhood nursery looking for the next NBA all time great.





seifer0406 said:


> When Mr. Green was boning Mrs. Green back in the early 90s I was in the room with him. Please respect my opinion on Green no matter how dumb or ridiculous those opinions may sound.





seifer0406 said:


> Police: Sir, do you know how fast you were driving back there?
> HB: I was driving no faster than 40.
> 
> Police: This radar gun clearly indicates that you were driving more than 75.
> ...


We get it, HB's posts are stupid. You can stop now.


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

I'm finding this whole melo draymond argument ridiculous. Imo the thing that makes draymond as gd as he is, is the fact that no one else in the league has the skill set which he has, his versatility his ability to guard the opposing 5 etc. that cldnt b any further from what Melos description is ( as a Knicks fan I kno all to well what I'm talking about) which is a shoot first scorer with an inconsistent jumpshot and a penchant for taking bad pull up mid rangers and threes who decided this year for the first time to actually play a modicum of D or try to involve his teammates at all. That all being said I wld still take melo or someone of that mold over draymond if I was starting a team based on the very specific and unique lineup u wld have to assemble around green in order to see his true value, one which they have assemembled in Oakland. While with melo he can thrive (to what ever level melo can thrive) with a team of relative misfits around him. And by thrive just to clarify I'm not talking about wins necessarily I'm talking as an individual player while I feel draymond wld not b able to reach his potential in a team which doesn't suit him.
Now I'm not sure who's side of this argument this places me on but I just wanted to get my two cents out.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

AllRim said:


> I like your posts, and you seem smart. But is it too much to ask to add some vowels to your text?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

let's see better defender, better rebounder, better facilitator but the other guy takes a ton more shots (inefficiently)... what's the debate here?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

How hard is to understand that if Melo were playing with better teammates his numbers would not only be better, but would be more efficient as well. 4apg on a team with a bunch of no name players is telling. His biggest mistake was going to New York.

I even tried to explain that when you flip roles Green can't do that on the team. Not when teams know you are the one guy they need to stop to win.

Jimmy butler can explode for 20 points in a half and still guard the opposing team's best wing player. 

Man I am beginning to sound like a broken record. No point even trying to use an advanced stats argument in this thread, it'd be lost on so many.

Has Draymond Green seen a single double team this season?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> How hard is to understand that if Melo were playing with better teammates his numbers would not only be better, but would be more efficient as well. 4apg on a team with a bunch of no name players is telling. His biggest mistake was going to New York.
> 
> I even tried to explain that when you flip roles Green can't do that on the team. Not when teams know you are the one guy they need to stop to win.
> 
> ...


You're sounding like a broken record player because you keep repeating yourself with the same argument that's already been debunked by many here already. Hell even Ballscientist was able to point out what was wrong with your argument. 

Here, respond to e-monk's post. It's short and sweet and pretty easy to understand. So explain why despite Draymond being better in basically every aspect of the game by a pretty wide margin, the idea of him being a better player than Carmelo is ridiculous. 



e-monk said:


> let's see better defender, better rebounder, better facilitator but the other guy takes a ton more shots (inefficiently)... what's the debate here?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

XxIrvingxX said:


> HB said:
> 
> 
> > How hard is to understand that if Melo were playing with better teammates his numbers would not only be better, but would be more efficient as well. 4apg on a team with a bunch of no name players is telling. His biggest mistake was going to New York.
> ...


Ugh, but that's because that's what is needed of Green on the Warriors. You guys over simplify this issue my goodness. 

Green is better than Dirk in all those facets you mentioned, so I am guessing if Green were on the Mavs, they'd be doing just as well now? 

Like this is so tiresome. No one was complaining about efficiency when Melo was lights out in the Olympics. 

Can you not understand, your facilitating means squat when the Seraphims, Galloways of the league can't convert. 

Can you not understand if Green were the Knicks best player that team would such badly because he can't create not only for himself but when defenses are geared to stop you, how will he create for others?

My goodness, you watch Bron run an offense and see how he is constantly relied upon to carry that team and you think Green can do that? Wow


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Does any of this logic carry? No team that relied on Green as its best player would ever be a team that featured Carmelo-style isolation play. They would look like the Warriors, Spurs, and Hawks. The style of basketball that Carnelo plays is for losers. Big f'ing deal if Green can't do what Carmelo does. Green's style wins games. Carmelo is an anachronism from a league that doesn't exist anymore.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

But when has Carmelo ever been surrounded by the type of players that'd allow him to play that way? 

So Carmelo can't play the 4 on GS, where he'd be one of the quicker guys at the position? Or heck even at the 3. It's not like he's a guy you can't play off the ball, in fact I am guessing that's probably what suits his game the most at this stage of his career.

Is it Carmelo's fault that the Knicks are one of the worst run teams in the league? Weren't the Warriors going through phases of dysfunction as well until they put the right pieces in place?

There's still value for high volume shooters and scorers in the league. There is no such thing as a bad player just bad situations


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

From what I have learned from this forum is that this is a dangerous position but I completely agree with @HB in this argument 
With the current construction of New York, Melo is better for them. All you who have been campaigning draymond irrationally through this thread think how would draymonds versatility as previously mentioned actually help New York? New York need skill players who can score draymonds passing for example wld have found open guys like it does in golden state (if I ignore the fact that passing lanes are often open due to double teams on Steph) but bloody Langston Galloway, Calderon or God help me Jernian grant are most definitely not hitting the same number of threes regardless of how good the pass is. So right there those of u who have been just saying how draymond has the most assists ever by a PF can stop right there cos put him on the Knicks for example you can just kiss 2-3 assists per game away due to only missed shots. Melo is what Knicks need as an iso scorer who doesn't need teammates to score, I guarantee draymond on the Knicks works about as well as lance in Charlotte. I don't feel that anyone can deny that, but I'm sure some draymond fanboy will....... So lemme hear why I'm wrong


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> Ugh, but that's because that's what is needed of Green on the Warriors. You guys over simplify this issue my goodness.
> 
> Green is better than Dirk in all those facets you mentioned, so I am guessing if Green were on the Mavs, they'd be doing just as well now?


let's flip that because it presupposes a team built around one player - would the Warriors be just as good with Dirk? no, not even close

further regardless of age or past achievement and just looking at where they are right now every GM in the league would take Green over Dirk



> Like this is so tiresome. No one was complaining about efficiency when Melo was lights out in the Olympics.


WT(actual)F does this have to do with Melo taking 18 shots a game this season at a 42% clip?




> Can you not understand if Green were the Knicks best player that team would such badly because he can't create not only for himself but when defenses are geared to stop you, how will he create for others?


Melo creates shots for himself, yes, but not quality shots - he's shooting 42% from the field - you call that a good thing?

and again if Phil could rebuild the Knicks right now he'd take Green in a heart beat - guys who can score are less rare than what Draymond brings to the table



> My goodness, you watch Bron run an offense and see how he is constantly relied upon to carry that team and you think Green can do that? Wow


now you're bringing Bron into the conversation? Dude, you're scrabbling at blades of grass as you go over the cliff


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Chris K said:


> From what I have learned from this forum is that this is a dangerous position but I completely agree with @HB in this argument
> With the current construction of New York, Melo is better for them.


let me be clear, no one wants to be New York so why bring this up? They suck, this is not a good thing. It's not like what Melo is doing is changing that


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> HB said:
> 
> 
> > Ugh, but that's because that's what is needed of Green on the Warriors. You guys over simplify this issue my goodness.
> ...


Bron was only brought into emphasize the difference between a feature player and a role player. I am not sure Irving gets that so why not use a player I am sure he has watched a ton


You say melo is taking 18 shots at 42% but ignore the fact he's their best scorer, most times forced to take bad shots because his teammates can't do anything with the rock. How hard is it to understand, the Knicks usually look for melo to bail them out, often times late in the shot clock. Those are bad shots, and it's not his fault. Jeez

You cannot play efficient basketball without good teammates period.

And there is such a thing as eFG% you know.


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

e-monk said:


> and again if Phil could rebuild the Knicks right now he'd take Green in a heart beat - guys who can score are less rare than what Draymond brings to the table


Yes scorers r more common, cos draymond is one of a kind. BUT disagree that Phil would start a team with him I mean come on, what about what you have seen from him the last year and a half tells you that he is ready or even capable of being the number one player on a team. 4/15 vs Dallas with Steph out and klay playing bad. He cannot lead a team as his skill set is useless when given to guys who are worse than him, it's really pretty simple


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Chris K said:


> From what I have learned from this forum is that this is a dangerous position but I completely agree with @HB in this argument
> With the current construction of New York, Melo is better for them. All you who have been campaigning draymond irrationally through this thread think how would draymonds versatility as previously mentioned actually help New York? New York need skill players who can score draymonds passing for example wld have found open guys like it does in golden state (if I ignore the fact that passing lanes are often open due to double teams on Steph) but bloody Langston Galloway, Calderon or God help me Jernian grant are most definitely not hitting the same number of threes regardless of how good the pass is. So right there those of u who have been just saying how draymond has the most assists ever by a PF can stop right there cos put him on the Knicks for example you can just kiss 2-3 assists per game away due to only missed shots. Melo is what Knicks need as an iso scorer who doesn't need teammates to score, I guarantee draymond on the Knicks works about as well as lance in Charlotte. I don't feel that anyone can deny that, but I'm sure some draymond fanboy will....... So lemme hear why I'm wrong


Voice of reason


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Chris K said:


> e-monk said:
> 
> 
> > and again if Phil could rebuild the Knicks right now he'd take Green in a heart beat - guys who can score are less rare than what Draymond brings to the table
> ...


Thanks and salute.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Chris K said:


> Yes scorers r more common, cos draymond is one of a kind. BUT disagree that Phil would start a team with him I mean come on, what about what you have seen from him the last year and a half tells you that he is ready or even capable of being the number one player on a team. 4/15 vs Dallas with Steph out and klay playing bad. He cannot lead a team as his skill set is useless when given to guys who are worse than him, it's really pretty simple


you don't get it - the team you build 'around' Draymond would be radically different than the one you have to build 'around' Melo (as Mrs Thang pointed out) - and the fact is that you don't want to build a team around Melo because that's not a good team, the ISO/Hero ball model isn't conducive to winning these days (not to mention Melo is past his prime) why do I want to build a team around an inefficient volume shooter? Who would do that?


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

e-monk said:


> you don't get it - the team you build 'around' Draymond would be radically different than the one you have to build 'around' Melo (as Mrs Thang pointed out) - and the fact is that you don't want to build a team around Melo because that's not a good team, the ISO/Hero ball model isn't conducive to winning these days (not to mention Melo is past his prime) why do I want to build a team around an inefficient volume shooter? Who would do that?


I'm not saying that the iSo way is the way to go but I'm just saying that in building a normal team u don't want a player like green, he needs a very specific lineup to flourish. Who wld u put with him? U wld rather have a more conventional star like durant or say


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)




----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

You can't use the "Carmelo is carrying his whole team without any help" argument unless the team is any good (even then, it's a bit suspect). I, playing alongside my friends, could carry an NBA team to a shitty record (0-82 certainly). Carrying a team in itself means nothing.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

e-monk said:


> let's flip that because it presupposes a team built around one player


This is the point I've been trying to put into words, but have failed apparently. All of this "Can you build a team _around_ him" talk presupposes that teams are supposed to be built around one player. If I'm picking 5 guys to play together, I would want Green as one of those 5 guys with the exception of the 10-12 players I posted earlier. 

It's not that I'd be building _around_ Green if he was my first pick, and expecting him to average 25ppg. It's that I'm building a 5 man unit and Green brings more to the table than most others.


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is the point I've been trying to put into words, but have failed apparently. All of this "Can you build a team _around_ him" talk presupposes that teams are supposed to be built around one player. If I'm picking 5 guys to play together, I would want Green as one of those 5 guys with the exception of the 10-12 players I posted earlier.
> 
> It's not that I'd be building _around_ Green if he was my first pick, and expecting him to average 25ppg. It's that I'm building a 5 man unit and Green brings more to the table than most others.



Ok but who would you pick them to fill out the lineup? By taking draymond you seriously limit your potential players who would fit


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Chris K said:


> Ok but who would you pick them to fill out the lineup? By taking draymond you seriously limit your potential players who would fit


How do you figure? Defense, three point shooting and swift passing skills translate whether you're the 1st or 5th best player on your team. It's the guys who need 20 shots to get 25 points and aren't really committed to anything else that limit your teams potential.


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

Sir Patchwork said:


> How do you figure? Defense, three point shooting and swift passing skills translate whether you're the 1st or 5th best player on your team. It's the guys who need 20 shots to get 25 points and aren't really committed to anything else that limit your teams potential.



I don't disagree with that I am just saying in my opinion I just believe that these skills you talk about will be diminished in another team where the quality of players around him is less than it is at gsw. I'm not a fan of inefficient shooters like a melo or rudy gay but I feel that they also have his place. Draymond a three shooting isn't reliable enough either to really count as a strength. Think finals when he was jacking 4 a game and missing most. That's not exactly efficient although to his credit he has the knowledge to kno that when his shooting is off that he needs to contribute extra on D,, I am a fan of his but just don't think his skills will b the same in a less talented team


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> Bron was only brought into emphasize the difference between a feature player and a role player. I am not sure Irving gets that so why not use a player I am sure he has watched a ton


You're not sure I get that? Based on what?



HB said:


> You say melo is taking 18 shots at 42% but ignore the fact he's their best scorer, most times forced to take bad shots because his teammates can't do anything with the rock. How hard is it to understand, the Knicks usually look for melo to bail them out, often times late in the shot clock. Those are bad shots, and it's not his fault. Jeez


And yet you completely ignored my point regarding a time when Carmelo DID have good teammates, including a 20+ PPG all star PF, and they both ended up playing worse. Do you want me to bring up Jeremy Lins struggles playing alongside Carmelo?

A great player learns how to adjust to playing on a team where he's not the only great offensive weapon. Carmelo never did this, because he's not a great player. He's a great offensive weapon. That's it. It took Amare coming off the bench permanently for him and Carmelo being on the same team to finally work. That says a lot in regards to just how bad of an affect a player like Melo can have on a team.



HB said:


> You cannot play efficient basketball without good teammates period.


One of the biggest lies I've ever heard.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Chris K said:


> I'm not saying that the iSo way is the way to go but I'm just saying that in building a normal team u don't want a player like green, he needs a very specific lineup to flourish. Who wld u put with him? U wld rather have a more conventional star like durant or say


There's a lot of different players you could put him with, it's actually not that difficult.


----------



## Chris K (Jan 5, 2016)

XxIrvingxX said:


> There's a lot of different players you could put him with, it's actually not that difficult.



Who then? Keep in mind it's a 30 team league so you can't just take allstars


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

it is possible for one team's role player to be a better basketball player than another team's lead dog (especially if by lead dog we just mean primary scoring option)


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Yes, teams like the Hawks, Warriors and Spurs are ideal basketball teams. Somewhat negating the need of a guy who takes a ton of shots and spreads out the offense and what not more efficiently.

Unfortunately its folly thinking that any GM would pick a Denzel Valentine over a Simmons because the senior is a better all around player. Its easier to find guys like that in every draft than phenoms like Simmons. 

This notion that Carmelo plays inefficient basketball, as if the guy would not love the luxury of playing on a team like the Warriors where he'd get open looks all day and score as efficiently as possible.

I also want to point out, all this talk about defense, when the likes of Dirk and Curry were the best players on championship teams seems odd to me.

The Hawks are not going to beat the Cavs. No matter how pretty their offense looks or how many players are willing to share the ball, as long as they don't have a player like Bron who can make something out of nothing, the results will always be the same. If Carmelo had joined the Heat or the Bulls, all this backlash against his game would look silly.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You can't use the "Carmelo is carrying his whole team without any help" argument unless the team is any good (even then, it's a bit suspect). I, playing alongside my friends, could carry an NBA team to a shitty record (0-82 certainly). Carrying a team in itself means nothing.


The Knicks at 17-19 this season are actually overachieving. I have mentioned it more than a few times.

They are moving in the right direction, they just need a few more tweaks. I can tell most people don't even bother watching them, but give it a try. Carmelo is having a good season playing the type of basketball people on here claim they want from their stars.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

FWIW Carmelo Anthony's TS% is .523

Draymond's is .568


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

A great pass to a teammate that bricks a shot is still a great pass.

What makes teams like Golden State and San Antonio great is they understand that the ability to generate easy shots is much more important than the ability to make hard ones, which seems obvious but its a concept many NBA players find impossible to square because the ability to make hard shots is what got them into the NBA. 

You see it all the time in the college where vastly inferior basketball players are able to hang with teams full of NBA prospects simply because they move the ball better and take better shots. Some NBA teams are starting to figure out that if you take the talented players and make them run an offense like a mid-major college team you get fantastic results. Draymond Green is a best of both worlds guys.

Also I'm 100% positive if you swapped Green for Carmelo the Knicks would have a better record and the Warriors much worse.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I bet the Knicks would even be able to run the triangle properly


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Mrs. Thang said:


> A great pass to a teammate that bricks a shot is still a great pass.
> 
> What makes teams like Golden State and San Antonio great is they understand that the ability to generate easy shots is much more important than the ability to make hard ones, which seems obvious but its a concept many NBA players find impossible to square because the ability to make hard shots is what got them into the NBA.
> 
> ...


This is fallacy.

When your best player cant beat anyone off the dribble, cant create shots for himself or for others, how or where are points going to come by?

What happens when one of the Knicks no name point guards brings the ball across the court, calls out a play and they pass the ball around ever so often without being able to create anything. They'll have no one who can suck defenses in, or even draw doubles. 

Occasionally one of them will take a WTF shot, sometimes they'll get the ball to Kristaps who may or may not take a good shot. They have no low post options, their big guy is too weak to really bang down low. So where's the offense going to come from? 

I dont think the Warriors will be 30-2 if you flipped roles. But I do think they can win a championship with Melo playing small ball. Their offense is already hard enough to stop now, it'd be near impossible to stop with someone like Melo.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Mr monk, out of curiosity would you also take Draymond Green over Paul George?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

probably not but Paul George is a significantly better player than Melo is at this point in their respective careers, it's not an apt comparison, there's the whole question of defense for instance


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> This is fallacy.
> 
> When your best player cant beat anyone off the dribble, cant create shots for himself or for others, how or where are points going to come by?


ask Greg Popovich


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> probably not but Paul George is a significantly better player than Melo is at this point in their respective careers, it's not an apt comparison, there's the whole question of defense for instance


Fair enough though I am surprised you don't have any issues with his *FGA* or his paltry *FG%*

Neither of which truthfully say much about a player. Melo isn't a bad defender btw, I am okay with players who give effort on that end. Its not a make or break thing for me.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> ask Greg Popovich


Lol their team is full of guys who can create for themselves and others. When they need timely buckets Kawhi, LMA can easily fill in. Not to mention the old big three who have been doing that pretty much their whole career.

Lets give NBA athletes some credit, these guys make it hard on you to score. The Spurs do have possessions when hero ball is required.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> Fair enough though I am surprised you don't have any issues with his *FGA* or his paltry *FG%*


his EFG/TS% numbers are significantly better than Melo's (like 4 to 5 percentage points higher on similar volume)



> Neither of which truthfully say much about a player.


they say whether that person is taking good shots and/or scoring efficiently



> Melo isn't a bad defender btw,


Melo is at best an average defender, George is an elite defender one of those things is superior to the other



> I am okay with players who give effort on that end. Its not a make or break thing for me.


There hasn't been an NBA titlist in the last 10 years (I'm too lazy to check beyond that but I'm pretty sure it's ever) that didn't have a top 10 and more typically top 5 defense - it's kind of a big deal


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> *his EFG/TS% numbers are significantly better than Melo's (like 4 to 5 percentage points higher on similar volume)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. Which we have been going back and forth on their roles and how or why Melo's numbers are the way they are. Shot clock, bad shots, the works ... surely you don't think teams play both the same do you. I only wanted to point out, whilst you keep harping on Melo's FG%, his TS numbers are decent. He's above 50%

2. LOL how the heck does FGA and FG% tell you whether a player is taking a good or bad shot? Can you deduce from that when those shots are coming, how often in the shot clock, if they are open shots, within the flow of the offense or just a WTF shot. Come on man. You need advanced stats, not this basic stuff on NBA.com

3. Fine, George elite defender, Melo average defender. Cool beans. Mr Curry just won a championship being one of the worst defenders in the league. Chances are he'll be repeating again this year. You surround your best players with capable athletes, and his weaknesses can be negated which pretty much answers your last point about title winning teams.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

You guys are absolutely going to hate this *list*. Guess where Hollinger has Green ranked?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> 1
> 
> Cool beans. Mr Curry just won a championship being one of the worst defenders in the league.


you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and I'm wasting my time, Steph Curry has a Drtg of 100 this season which puts him at near elite level, last year his Drtg was 101... worst defender in the league, shaking my head, walking away...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

That's always the response when folks know they have no valid points to make. 

You don't even understand the concept of advanced stats, yet you are the one wasting time?

Gotcha!


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Why are we saying Green can't create for himself or others again? He just had a 16 assist game without Curry on the floor. And then 29 points and 14 assists the next night. That seems like a creator to me. It's hard to watch him play and not be struck by how many easy shots he creates.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

HB said:


> The Knicks at 17-19 this season are actually overachieving. I have mentioned it more than a few times.
> 
> They are moving in the right direction, they just need a few more tweaks. *I can tell most people don't even bother watching them, but give it a try.* Carmelo is having a good season playing the type of basketball people on here claim they want from their stars.


I haven't busted your chops at all in this thread, like others have. I have merely disagreed and argued against your points. However, playing the "you need to actually watch the games" card is lame for anyone, and especially so for you after demonstrating pretty clearly in this thread that you haven't watched nearly enough NBA games to merit your opinions. It's just kind of comical really. Maybe that's what you're going for.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I haven't busted your chops at all in this thread, like others have. I have merely disagreed and argued against your points. However, playing the "you need to actually watch the games" card is lame for anyone, and especially so for you after demonstrating pretty clearly in this thread that you haven't watched nearly enough NBA games to merit your opinions. It's just kind of comical really. Maybe that's what you're going for.


In that particular quote I was specifically talking about the Knicks

Lets be honest, why would anyone outside of New York want to actually watch the Knicks? They arent a great team, they don't have great players (and going by this thread, Melo isn't one). For the past few years, its arguably been the most dysfunctional team in the league. Unless you have a vested interest in that particular team, why would you watch it?

The only reason I tune in for their games is because of Kristaps.

Read the criticisms of Melo, its the same tired ones from past seasons, when in fact the guy seems more invested in the team getting better this year.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> There hasn't been an NBA titlist in the last 10 years (I'm too lazy to check beyond that but I'm pretty sure it's ever) that didn't have a top 10 and more typically top 5 defense - it's kind of a big deal


I think the Lakers at one point during their three peat with Kobe and Shaq were out of the top ten in defense but I'm not sure. 



Chris K said:


> Who then? Keep in mind it's a 30 team league so you can't just take allstars


Could ask the same thing in regards to Carmelo. 

I'll explain what players would work alongside Draymond later. Too tired right now.



HB said:


> The Knicks at 17-19 this season are actually overachieving. I have mentioned it more than a few times.


Considering we're this far into Carmelo's career, that's pretty terrible for the most part. Kobe was able to carry a bad roster almost to the playoffs in three different seasons. Hell he actually did get to the playoffs.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

HB said:


> FWIW Carmelo Anthony's TS% is .523
> 
> Draymond's is .568


Carmelo's is below league average.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> That's always the response when folks know they have no valid points to make.
> 
> You don't even understand the concept of advanced stats, yet you are the one wasting time?
> 
> Gotcha!


Dude, just stop already. Stephen Curry is a great defender. 

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12648764/how-stephen-curry-developed-top-flight-defender



> Thanks to some clever new defensive principles, and despite his spindly frame, Curry has blossomed to become one of the NBA's most effective defenders -- ranking fifth among point guards in defensive real plus-minus. According to Synergy Sports, the opponents he guards have shot just 36.8 percent on the season. He's averaging a career high in steals and a career low in fouls.
> 
> He's even frustrating top-caliber opponents. Who knew that the stronger-looking Russell Westbrook struggled with Curry defending him this season? In three games against Curry, Westbrook shot far below his averages, at 32.9 percent from the field and 26.3 percent from deep.


You want your advanced stats? Here.

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/20...y-mvp-candidate-defense-golden-state-warriors



> ESPN's Real Plus-Minus loves Curry's defense -- he's currently #3 after Bledsoe and Rubio, and notably far ahead of #8 Chris Paul, with a 1.82 DRPM over Pauls' 0.82 DRPM.
> 
> NBA SportVU likes Curry too. If you look at guards with a reasonable amount of defensive action, out of 72 guards ranked by opponent's FG %, Curry is: #9 (less than 5ft); #4 (5-9 ft); #46 (10-14 ft); #12 (15-19 ft); #21 (20-24 ft); #11 (25-29 ft). That is somewhere between very good and elite.
> 
> ...


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I think the Lakers at one point during their three peat with Kobe and Shaq were out of the top ten in defense but I'm not sure.


good call, 00-01


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Dude, just stop already. Stephen Curry is a great defender. This is common knowledge.
> 
> http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12648764/how-stephen-curry-developed-top-flight-defender
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I never thought of him as a 'great' defender. He doesn't have the physique or the foot work to keep up with certain players. Often times players get by him easily. Its why the likes of Ty Lawson made that comment about him 'chillin' on defense. If there's one guy you want to go at on that team defensively, its Curry. 

Interesting how the Cavs Irving relishes playing against him and I am sure a lot of points in the league feel that way.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

HB said:


> You guys are absolutely going to hate this *list*. Guess where Hollinger has Green ranked?


I like PER, like any advanced statistic, but context is kind of important. It's pretty well known that PER underrates passers, overvalues rebounders, and doesn't account at all for defense. It's adjusted for minutes. Hollinger himself would concede these things. 

Enes Kanter is top 10. He comes in the game, gets a shit ton of rebounds and scores really efficiently. He doesn't pass, he doesn't play defense (two things almost completely invisible to PER). This doesn't mean he is a top 10 player (or that Hollinger even believes he is).


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

HB said:


> Fair enough. I never thought of him as a 'great' defender. He doesn't have the physique or the foot work to keep up with certain players. Often times players get by him easily. Its why the likes of Ty Lawson made that comment about him 'chillin' on defense. If there's one guy you want to go at on that team defensively, its Curry.
> 
> Interesting how the Cavs Irving relishes playing against him and I am sure a lot of points in the league feel that way.


About to watch:




while I eat... lets refresh myself on how Irving goes at Curry.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> Interesting how the Cavs Irving relishes playing against him and I am sure a lot of points in the league feel that way.


You mean in the games where Klay Thompson is the one guarding him?

Edit: Probably should have watched the video Chris posted before commenting...beat me to the punch.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

XxIrvingxX said:


> You mean in the games where Klay Thompson is the one guarding him?







In this clip it starts off with Curry guarding Irving, to no avail I should mention. Even Klay who plays excellent D cant guard Kyrie. He's too quick

And this


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> You mean in the games where Klay Thompson is the one guarding him?
> 
> Edit: Probably should have watched the video Chris posted before commenting...beat me to the punch.


I wouldn't say I beat you to the punch. I honestly couldn't remember exactly how Irving did play him. I assumed a lot of post play, but didn't see any there. I actually just now watched it because work got in my way (I gotta learn to leave that shit where it belongs). One thing becomes apparent - the Warriors do indeed keep him off of Irving, taking advantage of the situation. But all things considered, the fact is that there are NO highlights from that game, despite Kyrie having a fantastic night prior to the injury, where Irving really burns Curry. What that makes clear is the fact that when Curry DOES get switched onto Irving, for the most part he's playing good containment. If you're not getting put on a highlight reel on a strong night from Irving, count yourself lucky - but it simply didn't happen out there, if Curry was on him at all.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

HB said:


> Duel: Stephen Curry vs. Kyrie Irving - YouTube
> 
> In this clip it starts off with Curry guarding Irving, to no avail I should mention. Even Klay who plays excellent D cant guard Kyrie. He's too quick
> 
> ...


Two things...

1. I agree with you regarding Irving, and how hard he is of a cover. Totally. I'm sure if we dug we'd find some instances in the past few years of Irving dusting Curry. But those videos, speaking neutrally, do nothing to convince me. For the most part both of those videos show Kyrie taking advantage of his quickness to gain a sliver of separation for a fading long-two. A couple of times he uses it to get into Curry's body, hence my agreement with you - Irving can dominate Curry with his quickness, and should. Those videos are more a testament to Irving's supreme body control and precision from the mid-range than anything when he's shown covered by Curry.

2. Your videos are both completely worthless in this discussion. The discussion purely speaks regarding the progress Curry has made defensively. I didn't go with those options because they don't speak to what has happened since Steve Kerr was hired before the fall-2014 quarter. Your videos are from spring-2013, and thus utterly without merit in the discussion, especially considering they didn't show him getting wasted athletically which is Irving's primary advantage. 

Clearly, all aspects considered, Kyrie doesn't have a field day with Curry. Does Curry need help for this to happen? Yes. But this is a team that has been consistently beating Cleveland, a consensus top 5 team, clearly the help is more team-strategy than team-detriment. Every single player in the league has weaknesses that can be exploited. Defense is clearly Curry's weakness, especially with regards to his size and quickness. But he's obviously more than made up for it.

He'll be a liability again before it is all said and done. He's 28 years old, and only a few years out from losing a step. He's going to be tough to put on the floor defensively once he loses a few steps. But until then - he's a more than competent defensive point guard, and clearly is no detriment to his team's strategy when opposing star guards are switched onto him.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Purely side tangent re: Irving: anyone else think he sounds hilarious when he tries to sound like an urban kid? "no ill-beef" Silly Aussie.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

nope, he's one of the worst defenders in the league


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

HB said:


> In that particular quote I was specifically talking about the Knicks
> 
> Lets be honest, why would anyone outside of New York want to actually watch the Knicks? They arent a great team, they don't have great players (and going by this thread, Melo isn't one). For the past few years, its arguably been the most dysfunctional team in the league. Unless you have a vested interest in that particular team, why would you watch it?
> 
> ...


I like watching any team if they look like they've got an intriguing matchup. Knicks in a battle against any other team on the edge of the EC playoffs? I'll watch it! I like seeing NBA teams compete. It's the most fun I get watching TV. And with the advent of the web and pirate streams I've got that access to just fan out. I'm sure I'm far from unique in this aspect among people here, we're NBA idiots. Among the gen-pop I agree with you, who watches the Knicks? But really look at how few people post here - a higher percentage of this group of die hards is going to have seen that team than you'd usually assume.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

I agree that HB is a dick. Name of HB needs to change to 

*Dick*

His post is dicky, and others feel dicky too.

I watched 30 Dray Green's game, I don't believe Dick watched 3.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> nope, he's one of the worst defenders in the league


So good they dont have him guarding the opponent's best points heh?

On a more serious note, fun thread, did get out of hand a few times but at least we talked about basketball.

Not to harp on the whole watch games thing, but the Knicks were just on ESPN, one of the few times you'll see them on TV. That was as convincing a win as you'll see from that team and also speaks to how much Melo has come.

Nothing against Green, really good player, but the difference between him and a Melo is that when the game is on the line, you give it your best player and expect them to get something for you. 

Curry does it all the time, Melo did it tonight. Some believe Green can do it, I beg to differ. Pretty much that whole fourth quarter involved the Knicks putting the ball in Melo's hands, expecting him to beat doubles, score or find the open man. They won.

Until next time ... Peace!


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> So good they dont have him guarding the opponent's best points heh?
> 
> On a more serious note, fun thread, did get out of hand a few times but at least we talked about basketball.
> 
> ...


So does this mean Kyrie Irving is a better player than LeBron since Kyrie had the better late game performance of the two tonight?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

XxIrvingxX said:


> HB said:
> 
> 
> > So good they dont have him guarding the opponent's best points heh?
> ...


Sigh you still don't get it. 

Trying to make this as simple as it gets. In CLOSE games, when opposing teams tighten up their defense, you need the ball in your best players hand(s) to create for others.

Interesting you mention Irving though you probably thought you were making some slick comment, but the fact is that's a guy who can create his shot any time, any day. You guys see the triple doubles and it wows you, but make no mistake about it, Green needs others to make life easy for him. Do you realize pretty much the whole 4th quarter yesterday the Knicks gave the ball to Melo and told him go do your thing? That level of repetitiveness only happens with the very best players in the league. Here take the ball, the other team knows you are going to get it, they even know what you'll do, but they have no way of stopping it.

If you think you can do that with Green, then hey I don't know what else to say. Maybe we need to see how possessions work on here. Why do you think the likes of Dirk are still so valuable in today's game? When the going gets tough you know he can still get you a timely bucket when needed.

This is just a simple ability thing, Dray can't beat most forwards on the wings. Where's the first step or the handles? There's a reason why Butler, Kawhi and Paul are better scorers & players than he is.

Neither does he have the great footwork in the post to play there successfully. He's a good shooter, when others are creating for him. 

Hopefully this repetitive stuff ends with this post.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jose Calderon
Aaron Afflalo
Draymond Green
Kristaps Porzingis
Robin Lopez

The team some believe would be better than 18-19

Man, I need a drink


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

like did you only read every 4th post or something?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I thought a like was good enough. Tired of posting the same thing over and over again.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> Sigh you still don't get it.
> 
> Trying to make this as simple as it gets. In CLOSE games, when opposing teams tighten up their defense, you need the ball in your best players hand(s) to create for others.


No dude, YOU still don't get it. 

When opposing teams tighten up their defense, you need to run the best offensive plays you got that will allow you to get those opportunities. You don't just give it to your best player and say "alright, go ahead and do whatever", especially if it's someone such as Carmelo. 



HB said:


> Interesting you mention Irving though you probably thought you were making some slick comment, but the fact is that's a guy who can create his shot any time, any day. You guys see the triple doubles and it wows you, but make no mistake about it, Green needs others to make life easy for him.


Interesting, didn't you JUST say before that Carmelo needs to be surrounded by talent to thrive? Now you're suddenly telling me that's a negative for Green? 

You are now presenting logic that is in fact on par with Vegan Gain's logic. 



HB said:


> Do you realize pretty much the whole 4th quarter yesterday the Knicks gave the ball to Melo and told him go do your thing? That level of repetitiveness only happens with the very best players in the league. Here take the ball, the other team knows you are going to get it, they even know what you'll do, but they have no way of stopping it.
> 
> If you think you can do that with Green, then hey I don't know what else to say.


And this right here just about sums up your main problem and why you don't get it.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

LOL I give up


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> LOL I give up


You should have given up after the first time your argument you tried using six more times got debunked.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Marc J. Spears: If NBA All-Star balloting were final today, Warriors forward Draymond Green would be starting for the West as the third front court player.
> 
> – via Twitter SpearsNBAYahoo


west all star


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> Jose Calderon
> Aaron Afflalo
> Draymond Green
> Kristaps Porzingis
> ...


I didn't even notice this post before. 

Damn. Looking at it now, this is actually a really good line up. Calderon, Afflalo and Porz would all benefit greatly from having a Draymond Green in the line up. I would probably change the line up though and have Green play at PF. Who I would put at SF and C though I'm not sure of.

But yeah, this line up would definitely be doing better than 18-19, without question. Much better defense and you can cause a lot of match up problems for opposing teams.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

HB said:


> So good they dont have him guarding the opponent's best points heh?
> 
> On a more serious note, fun thread, did get out of hand a few times but at least we talked about basketball.
> 
> ...


This depends entirely on the definition that you choose for doing "it" so to speak - When it is referenced purely as making the move that gets the team the highest percentage chance at the W, you may be able to say that Green is a better player. I have no idea myself, I'm not going to say I could gauge it. Green's impact in those situations is tough to gauge. In general I'd say if someone could find a Win Probability Added (WPA) in tight-late situations statistic out there that'd answer it for me. 

The guy I want the ball going through is the guy who is getting my team the best shot to win the game, even if that shot means someone else taking it. 

I think, should Lebron win 2-3 more championships, the defining of what doing "it" is. I'd rather have it in Melo's hands in a tight late situation if the only opportunity available is scoring, period. But.... what if it turns out Dray's decisions lead to the team being considerably more likely to win?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

"Mike sucks at defense because they always have Scottie guard the other team's best perimeter scorer" - HB


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

ChrisWoj said:


> This depends entirely on the definition that you choose for doing "it" so to speak - When it is referenced purely as making the move that gets the team the highest percentage chance at the W, you may be able to say that Green is a better player. I have no idea myself, I'm not going to say I could gauge it. Green's impact in those situations is tough to gauge. In general I'd say if someone could find a Win Probability Added (WPA) in tight-late situations statistic out there that'd answer it for me.
> 
> The guy I want the ball going through is the guy who is getting my team the best shot to win the game, even if that shot means someone else taking it.
> 
> I think, should Lebron win 2-3 more championships, the defining of what doing "it" is. I'd rather have it in Melo's hands in a tight late situation if the only opportunity available is scoring, period. But.... what if it turns out Dray's decisions lead to the team being considerably more likely to win?


My post above has a bit piece of unintelligible where I didn't finish my thought... I almost went on a tangent about how that's going to be the key to the Mike v Lebron debate if Lebron gets 2-3 more rings, the question of how you define what "it" is. And then I forgot what I was saying. And then the post went back to Dray v Melo.

Apologies for that. I was sleepy.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> My post above has a bit piece of unintelligible where I didn't finish my thought... I almost went on a tangent about how that's going to be the key *to the Mike v Lebron debate if Lebron gets 2-3 more rings,* the question of how you define what "it" is. And then I forgot what I was saying. And then the post went back to Dray v Melo.
> 
> Apologies for that. I was sleepy.


There will never be such a debate.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> There will never be such a debate.


If Lebron James picks up another 3 rings, gets to 5... maybe he gets 4-5 chances... and we can say that Lebron has 5 rings in 8-10 chances... he isn't a part of the debate? Why on earth not? If he wins 4 and achieve 8-10 chances, he isn't a part of the debate? What disqualifies him?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> If Lebron James picks up another 3 rings, gets to 5... maybe he gets 4-5 chances... and we can say that Lebron has 5 rings in 8-10 chances... he isn't a part of the debate? Why on earth not? If he wins 4 and achieve 8-10 chances, he isn't a part of the debate? *What disqualifies him?*


Three things, really:
1- Mike was the better offensive player;
2- Mike was the better defensive player;
3- Mike never pursued jumping to SuperTeams to win championships.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Mike and Olajuwon won the first championship without another all-star in his team. Kobe needs Paul Gasol. LeBron needs Wade and Bosh. Curry needs Klay Thompson.

I still think Curry is that good because he needs another all-star in his team to win the first championship.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Um Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong all played in at least one All Star game and Scottie is in the Hall of Fame and a top 50 player all time (not to mention a member of the first dream team) - and Hakeem had Otis Thorpe and Sam I Am on that first title winning squad both of whom had been or were later named All Stars - your science is a little off


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

clarification

no all-star at the time of *first *Championship.

in 1994 Sam Car-sell was not an all-star, he was named all-star in 2024. That is the different story.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

a trivial distinction regarding an honor of questionable merit determined by biased and less than knowledgeable constituency - for instance Pippen was an all star the season before that first title run and then for many seasons after and was certainly a better player than a number of the members of east squad in that given year - I would attribute him not being named to that particular squad to fan caprice and to the fact the East was coached by Chuck Daly who was certainly not Pippen fan by that point


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Three things, really:
> 1- Mike was the better offensive player;
> 2- Mike was the better defensive player;
> 3- Mike never pursued jumping to SuperTeams to win championships.


Stick to the first 2. The 3rd thing is simply a reason why you don't like him.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Stick to the first 2. The 3rd thing is simply a reason why you don't like him.


ChrisWoj said "If Lebron James picks up another 3 rings, gets to 5...", so the championships were put into the equation. And i believe the WAY Lebron won their two championships will be seen as, let's say... "different". Fairly or not.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Mike lived in a different time under a different CBA


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I didn't even notice this post before.
> 
> Damn. Looking at it now, this is actually a really good line up. Calderon, Afflalo and Porz would all benefit greatly from having a Draymond Green in the line up. I would probably change the line up though and have Green play at PF. Who I would put at SF and C though I'm not sure of.
> 
> But yeah, this line up would definitely be doing better than 18-19, without question. Much better defense and you can cause a lot of match up problems for opposing teams.


Sir, this is the NBA we are talking about, not NBA 2k16. What matchup problems? Right now they play Kristaps at PF and Lopez at C every night. NBA teams are prepared for it. 

They have no player in that lineup that can break down anybody one on one. A lot of people are simply thinking just because Draymond gets a lot of assists, it makes him a great creator.

FALSE!

There's a difference between a good passer, a smart passer and someone who runs an offense and creates for his teammates. Green makes the right pass, his high bball IQ means he understands when to give up the ball, especially when defenses have to send an extra man to cover Curry. I can't begin to tell you how many possessions go by where the Warriors have one of their shooters wide open. 

You looked at that team above and you thought to yourself, that's a good team? 

Are you being serious?

What kind of offense would you run on that team?

How would Green being their best player score when they need a timely bucket?

You would play him as a PF on the perimeter with who as center? Robin Lopez or Kristaps? Regardless of which you stick with both have glaring weaknesses. Kristaps is too weak to bang down low and once teams figured out he can shoot from long range, they started covering him better. 

This is what I've been trying to highlight for a while now, you guys are not giving Melo enough credit for his offense. Its not that he is better, its the array of moves he has on offense. People are complaining about his FG%, but no one acknowledges the quality of his teammates, and the fact that they force him to take so many bad shots with the shot clock winding down. 

I tried to use Bron because that's an example of a guy who needs to dominate the ball because his teammates need someone to create for them. 

Make no mistake about it, Green has neither the handles or the first step to beat anyone one on one consistently. Do you guys realize most of his points are assisted? How many times do you think he is scoring against anyone one on one?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

ChrisWoj said:


> This depends entirely on the definition that you choose for doing "it" so to speak - When it is referenced purely as making the move that gets the team the highest percentage chance at the W, you may be able to say that Green is a better player. I have no idea myself, I'm not going to say I could gauge it. Green's impact in those situations is tough to gauge. In general I'd say if someone could find a Win Probability Added (WPA) in tight-late situations statistic out there that'd answer it for me.
> 
> The guy I want the ball going through is the guy who is getting my team the best shot to win the game, even if that shot means someone else taking it.
> 
> I think, should Lebron win 2-3 more championships, the defining of what doing "it" is. I'd rather have it in Melo's hands in a tight late situation if the only opportunity available is scoring, period. But.... what if it turns out Dray's decisions lead to the team being considerably more likely to win?


Chris I wasnt referring to a last shot situation. I am talking about close games, little room for error. Every possession, every shot counts type scenarios. You see a ton of this in the playoffs, in fact you've seen it a lot this year with the Warriors when they need hero ball from Curry. 

I mentioned a few posts back, that the Knicks pretty much fed Melo all throughout the fourth, expecting him to create for himself and for others. From the 9 minute mark of that game in the fourth it was pretty much the Melo show. 

Some of you must really think highly of Green, to think that a player who doesn't have great handles, has no go to move, and literally no first step is going to not only beat defenders one on one, but he'll also be able to suck in defenders to be cognizant enough to make a pass to an open teammate.

And then to keep running this same play over and over again for a span of 9 or so minutes (which is even longer in NBA time), and not expect defenses to shut him down?

Man!

The guy is golden where he is right now. Great shooters, great defenders, pass the ball around and all that Jazz. That's cool, but I will go back to the point Mrs. Thang made not too long ago about Melo being an anachronism of modern basketball. The more I think about it, the more I don't think that's true. 

Even the Warriors need that highly skilled scorer that can get his shot off at anytime when they need timely baskets.

What happens when the Knicks need to stem a run or those end of shot clock situations I have mentioned so many times? What happens when defenses tighten up as they so often do in playoffs and every shot is highly contested?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

so much wrongness in one post is almost unprecedented


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

As of last season, 82% of Green's shots were assisted, do you understand what that means? I couldn't find any current ones, I think they only accumulate those stats after the season is over


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Here's one writer who thinks Carmelo is playing like Lebron this year



> This year, there are only three forwards qualifying for the scoring title that get more than 30 percent usage while assisting on better than 20 percent of their team’s baskets: Anthony, LeBron James and Blake Griffin. Griffin has been sidelined with a quad injury, which may whittle this list down to two.
> 
> The similarities between James and Anthony stop there, but there is no denying Anthony’s on-court impact this season. When he is on the court, the Knicks score 107.9 points per 100 possessions, which drops to 99.2 when he is on the bench. The good news is that the Knicks have improved by four points per 100 without Anthony on the court.
> 
> “I was the guy that always had to go out there and score 30, score 40 points to even try to be in a close game,” Anthony said after beating the Hawks. “With the makeup of this team, I don’t really have to do that. I feel a lot more comfortable now with only taking 10 shots on certain nights and letting somebody else have a breakout game and let other guys get involved and get their confidence up. The vibe is totally different. It’s night and day.”


Man, thank goodness there are others who see these things.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*NBA's stats on players with the most ISOS*

Number 2 and 8 look familiar

Interestingly enough, Draymond Green isn't on here. I wonder why


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Top 50 statistical players in the league, please take a look at the NBA's very own EFFiciency (their own formula for measuring a player's impact on court)

Some of those players I mentioned earlier that are undoubtedly better than Green. Remember when I said he isn't even a top 30 player and people thought I was crazy? He's not even in the top 50 on that list. I certainly wouldn't go that far, but folks simply don't understand that this guy is a system player. Meh, never mind. Believe what you want


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

was Paul Pierce the best player on the Wizards last season?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Nope


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

HB said:


> As of last season, 82% of Green's shots were assisted, do you understand what that means?


*Nobody understands you and you don't understand you!!*


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Ballscientist said:


> *Nobody understands you and you don't understand you!!*


:nono:
:baseldance:
:twoguns:


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Ballscientist said:


> *Nobody understands you and you don't understand you!!*


*
There is difference between guy who gets spoon fed his meal and a guy who has to hustle for his meal

Kapish?*


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> Nope


so then there goes your argument about being that key guy in the clutch who you want to take the big shot - as the Truth said "I call game"


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

From what I watch the game, Green feed his teammates, not his teammate feed him.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> so then there goes your argument about being that key guy in the clutch who you want to take the big shot - as the Truth said "I call game"


Wow. I feel like I am in the twilight zone


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Ballscientist said:


> From what I watch the game, Green feed his teammates, not his teammate feed him.


*
When green score, who feeding him?*


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

another question for you - does the triangle generate shots out of isolations or does it generate shots out of spacing and motion?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> Wow. I feel like I am in the twilight zone


I know it's weird that you just totally negated what you had previously said isn't it: "being the guy who can get that shot doesn't necessarily make you the best player on the team" - HB


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> I know it's weird that you just totally negated what you had previously said isn't it: "being the guy who can get that shot doesn't make you the best player on the team" - HB


Because you haven't been following what I have been saying like at all.

We are talking about that team, the New York Knicks, and what that player does for the team.

Personally I'd rather have the ball in John Wall or Bradley Beal's hands than Pierce. But his reputation as a clutch shooter in such situations supersedes my opinion.

When I mentioned the guy they need to stem a run, or the guy they need to bail them out when the shot clock is winding down, or the guy they need to create for them in close games, you ignored that but zeroed in on the clutch shot point. I even clarified with Chris' post that I wasn't talking about a last shot type scenario. Again, in the game that was shown on ESPN just a few days ago. From the 9 minute point of the fourth, the Knicks kept giving the ball to Melo, sometimes even having him bring the ball up. 

I have put up all sorts of stats on here, I dont know if you guys are bothering to check them out, its either that or you don't get it. That's also fine, but the numbers are there for a reason.

By most metrics, Draymond Green is nowhere near a top 30 player talk less a top 10 player.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

no that's just a digression - no one wants to be the Knicks, they suck

Draymond Green is a better basketball player than Carmelo Anthony is the actual subject


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> another question for you - does the triangle generate shots out of isolations or does it generate shots out of spacing and motion?


From what I see the Knicks trying to do nowadays, they are trying to generate shots out of spacing and isolation. Unfortunately they just don't have the personnel. I wouldn't exactly call what they are running now the triangle though


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> no that's just a digression - no one wants to be the Knicks, they suck
> 
> Draymond Green is a better basketball player than Carmelo Anthony is the actual subject


There's no statistical evidence to back this up. This is simply opinion


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> There's no statistical evidence to back this up. This is simply opinion


in your view is defense an important ingredient to winning?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> in your view is defense an important ingredient to winning?


It is very important. 

But what aspect of defending are you talking about? Man to man, help defense, rebounding, steals per game, awareness on court etc

Team defense or individual defense?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*This article is how to use advanced stats to make a point. *

That's how you break down a player's strengths and perceived weaknesses. If I had found that article earlier, maybe it'd have saved me all the extra pages I have written on here.




> It's not that he can't do it. He can be a really good defensive player. He can defensive rebound, he can keep guys in front, he can pressure the ball. So when you see him [give up], you become a little disappointed because you know he can do that. He can do anything on the basketball floor. He sort of cheats the game a little bit in that regard.


This is Carmelo on defense, and like I've said on this board, at least this year he's putting more effort in it. The notion that Carmelo can't go to the warriors or any legit contender and make them better because you think he isn't a good defender is absolute BS


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> *This article is how to use advanced stats to make a point. *
> 
> That's how you break down a player's strengths and perceived weaknesses. If I had found that article earlier, maybe it'd have saved me all the extra pages I have written on here.
> 
> ...


Lol.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> It is very important.
> 
> But what aspect of defending are you talking about? Man to man, help defense, rebounding, steals per game, awareness on court etc
> 
> Team defense or individual defense?


Green is manifestly and significantly better in all of those categories and in fact there is statistical evidence that shows this

another question, if you were building a team and had a choice between Bill Russell in his prime and (let's say...) Alex English in his prime who would you take?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> Green is manifestly and significantly better in all of those categories and in fact there is statistical evidence that shows this
> 
> another question, if you were building a team and had a choice between Bill Russell in his prime and (let's say...) Alex English in his prime who would you take?


He's not and yes there are even stats to prove this. Did you know they track how much the opposing guy you are guarding is putting up and how efficiently he is doing so? Besides I wouldn't call the difference in rebounding 'significant'.

As for English and Russell, I am going with Russell. But what does this have to do with Melo - Green though? We are talking about certified franchise players, Green isn't in that caliber.

Russell, English, Anthony, Green ... guess which guy isn't a HOFer?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Two of them aren't hall of famers given that they're active. 

But to monk's point, if Bill Russell played in today's game you'd be dismissing him as a product of the system who is just a role player.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Man, it's like you guys are trying to be dense on purpose, no offense. 

We've been doing this dance for a while now. The stats are all of a sudden not good enough so now we are using historically great players.

Maybe patchwork and e-monk should take a minute or two to check out basketball reference.com and see who these players are being compared to. They even do a historical comparison to save you time. 

At this point y'all are just looking for anything that will stick.

I'll say this once more. Draymond green is nowhere close to being a top 10 player. You are stretching it if he's even a top 30 player. Even on the very NBA site where you go check out basic stats, their PIE which is supposed to be a statistical aggregate of a players production shows he's not this player some are making him out to be. 

Believe what you want just know there's no statistical basis for it.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Two of them aren't hall of famers given that they're active.
> 
> But to monk's point, if Bill Russell played in today's game you'd be dismissing him as a product of the system who is just a role player.


There is no way Carmelo isn't making the HOF. Meanwhile can you say with such conviction that Green is in? Based on what. 

English and Russell are two of the best players to ever grace the game. You have no clue how I'd judge Russell if he'd play in today's game. Neither of us were around to watch him, we are only going by recorded videos and stats. Maybe you should check who his game compares to in today's game before making such comments. I am going to guess its not Draymond Green


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Three things, really:
> 1- Mike was the better offensive player;
> 2- Mike was the better defensive player;
> 3- Mike never pursued jumping to SuperTeams to win championships.


Mike was better at many aspects of offense, Lebron is better at others. Could Mike defend up and down 1-5 as well as Lebron? No. Was Mike a better perimeter defender than Lebron? Oh yeah. And didn't Mike threaten to leave the Bulls if they didn't acquiesce to his demands, forcing them to pay him 5 million above the next best offer, and 18 million above the next highest paid player? He was going to leave for the Knicks for 25 million if the Bulls didn't go all the way up to 30 million. Fuck his "loyalty."


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

HB said:


> Chris I wasnt referring to a last shot situation. I am talking about close games, little room for error. Every possession, every shot counts type scenarios. You see a ton of this in the playoffs, in fact you've seen it a lot this year with the Warriors when they need hero ball from Curry.
> 
> I mentioned a few posts back, that the Knicks pretty much fed Melo all throughout the fourth, expecting him to create for himself and for others. From the 9 minute mark of that game in the fourth it was pretty much the Melo show.
> 
> ...


I think that the idea of having that go-to player, while not necessarily overrated within the league - is within fanbases. To say that an individual taking a lower percentage shot, one that for him tends to result in fewer points per possession, is better for a team over a period of time, whether its the final possession or the final nine minutes close - well I don't know what to say. Having a guy that has a particular knack for low percentage shots is OF COURSE valuable, because there are times when a defense tightens up particularly well. But over a span of time, I want the guy that is going to get my team the best chances. 

In a last-moments situation I am actually more on your side - the less time there is on the clock the more likely that you're going to need to rely on someone with particular body control and wrist control, basically scoring ability.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

HB said:


> There is no way Carmelo isn't making the HOF. Meanwhile can you say with such conviction that Green is in? Based on what.
> 
> English and Russell are two of the best players to ever grace the game. You have no clue how I'd judge Russell if he'd play in today's game. Neither of us were around to watch him, we are only going by recorded videos and stats. Maybe you should check who his game compares to in today's game before making such comments. I am going to guess its not Draymond Green


A) HOF probability means nothing in terms of who is the better player now. You wouldn't use this argument for Kobe being better than Anthony Davis in 2016.

B) You're comparing players 6 years apart. Green is just entering his prime, has a championship and likely more on the way, currently slated to start for the west all stars at forward. If this is a sign of things to come in his prime career, he'll certainly be in the HOF too. Carmelo is exiting his prime. 

C) Why is Russell so great anyways? Anyone can get a bunch of rebounds and focus on defense when they don't have to carry their team on their back offensively by taking a bunch of low percentage shots in the 4th, of which 1 or 2 might go in, giving us shallow fans reasons to believe that kind of offense is necessary ... because muh bad supporting cast! 

D) I admire your endurance. Your points have been rebutted, facts corrected, and stats properly contextualized over and over in this thread by multiple users, and yet you keep firing them out without any lack of confidence. You are truly the king of the gish gallop.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

Green's never made the All Star Team. And if somehow he does, that only makes Curry look worse.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> HB said:
> 
> 
> > There is no way Carmelo isn't making the HOF. Meanwhile can you say with such conviction that Green is in? Based on what.
> ...


Notice that I am not the one who brought up the historical comparisons but wouldn't it make sense to compare 'similar' caliber type players?

The sad part is at some point I used to look at you as a poster who understood the game. Understood how plays run and understood the stats beyond simplistic numbers.

You are on here defending Green being a better player using all star votes as a criteria? A freaking popularity contest. If the guy was picked by coaches it has more legitimacy. At least that way it's from people who know a thing or two about how the game works. Where's Kawhi on the current ballot?

As for Russell, man never mind. We are not even comparing players with similar skill sets. Folks are just pulling all sorts of crap outta their behinds now. Maybe you should check where he predominantly played most of his career. At least with Carmelo and Alex English there's a basis for comparison. 

You are probably in your late 20s if not early 30s, acting like you know a damn thing about how Russell's game would translate in this era, based on what? The telecasts you time traveled to watch? Or the lore your elders told you about him?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

And the bit about Green's chances of making the HOF. I chuckled.

The guy is already 25. Who knows how many titles they may or may not win but I'd think he'd need to start creeping his way up some statistical lists to even be in the conversation. Merely winning championships isn't good enough. Not when everyone knows Curry is the best player on that team.

Next thing you guys are going to tell me is that he's Pippen-esque


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> Mike was better at many aspects of offense, Lebron is better at others.


That would be expected, since one is a 6'6, 195 SG and the other a 6'8, 250 SF.
But are you disputing my claim that, overall, Joran is the better offensive player of the two?



> Could Mike defend up and down 1-5 as well as Lebron?


Off course not. Nor can Lebron. That's an urban myth of sorts. 



> No. Was Mike a better perimeter defender than Lebron? Oh yeah.


IF we are willing to compare players of different positions, it's the global evaluation that should matter. And, globaly, Mike was (easily) the better defender. Does Lebron defend the post better? Sure. 



> And didn't Mike threaten to leave the Bulls if they didn't acquiesce to his demands, forcing them to pay him 5 million above the next best offer, and 18 million above the next highest paid player? He was going to leave for the Knicks for 25 million if the Bulls didn't go all the way up to 30 million. Fuck his "loyalty."


Many great players threatened to leave teams. Magic demanded to be traded, Kobe flirted with the idea of becoming a Sun when he was a FA, etc., etc.. That's not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about a (great) player handpicking a team to join because he wasn't winning (or not winning enough).
You could have a case had Jordan left the Bulls for the Knicks to play with P-Ew and, let's say, Chris Mullin.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> \
> The guy is already 25...


duh duh de duh duh, duhn duh...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> HB said:
> 
> 
> > \
> ...


At least you continue to enlighten with the gems of wisdom


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

This is tedious. I guess some people just aren't able to appreciate players who aren't primarily scorers. I'll have to accept that.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

But that's not even true. The problem is so many have an issue with me saying this particular guy ISN'T a top 10 player. Whereas I have said numerous times he's a very good player and should be an all star this year.

Conversely from this thread it seems we are dismissing how important it is to be an efficient scorer and also be a great defender. Klay has had a very good season by pretty much every standard but no one's calling him a top 10 player. Even when the shots aren't going down, the defense is still top notch.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Green's never made the All Star Team. And if somehow he does, that only makes Curry look worse.


What do you mean "if somehow he does"? He's in the top five in votes in the Western Conference. Not only is he going to make the all star team, he's going to be starting.

And how the hell does that make Curry look worse? 



HB said:


> As for English and Russell, I am going with Russell. But what does this have to do with Melo - Green though? We are talking about certified franchise players, Green isn't in that caliber.





HB said:


> We've been doing this dance for a while now. The stats are all of a sudden not good enough so now we are using historically great players.
> 
> Maybe patchwork and e-monk should take a minute or two to check out basketball reference.com and see who these players are being compared to. They even do a historical comparison to save you time.


Jesus christ dude. 

E-Monk brought up Alex English and Bill Russell because the arguments being used regarding why Russell is better than English can be applied to why Green is better than Anthony. If you pick Russell over English then it doesn't make any sense that you would pick Anthony over Green. No one is suggest that Anthony and Green are on their level in terms of skill or individual greatness. The point being made is that Russell, while not being a better scorer, was better in many other areas of the game than English, assuming that's why you picked him of course. Same exact thing can be applied to why Green is better than Anthony.

He's pointing out why your logic doesn't work in about as simple a way as he possibly can. Do we really have to spell it out for you?



HB said:


> English and Russell are two of the best players to ever grace the game.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> But that's not even true. The problem is so many have an issue with me saying this particular guy ISN'T a top 10 player.


No, the problem is you think being a primary scorer makes player A better than player B, the guy who is better than him at every other aspect of the game, some aspects of which are more important than scoring. Your logic doesn't make any sense and you're going as far as to claim the people who are disagreeing with you in reasonable and non hostile fashion are being dense.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I really really tried my best not to go into the whole Russell thing. I will just walk away from this one. 

The whole Russell point has been nagging me for a while now. The more I look at his stats the more I see holes in that line of argument. 

You are right though Green is sooooo much better than Anthony. He's the bestest SF/PF combo forward in the game


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

https://www.whatifsports.com/nba-l/profile_player.asp?pid=2480&view=4

Mr Irving, or any one for that matter, considering none of us were around when Russell played. What can you infer from those stats in that link?


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

In my humble opinion Green would probably be just outside my top 10. What HB said about not being top 30 is ludicrous.

Green likely could never be a primary scorer but he's so good in other areas that shouldn't matter. I wouldn't build a team around him but if I had one or two other good players I'd love him on my team. 

I'd take him over Melo in just about any case. Melo has never embraced being a real leader or really making his teammates better whereas Green is always being called the heart and soul of this Warriors team. That's an intangible that doesn't show in the stats. A lot of the Warriors edge and confidence certainly comes from Green.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> You are right though Green is sooooo much better than Anthony. He's the bestest SF/PF combo forward in the game


No one's claiming he's the best at his position in the league. Of course at this point anyone who is top five at their position is better than Carmelo so there's that.



HB said:


> I really really tried my best not to go into the whole Russell thing. I will just walk away from this one.
> 
> The whole Russell point has been nagging me for a while now. The more I look at his stats the more I see holes in that line of argument.





HB said:


> https://www.whatifsports.com/nba-l/profile_player.asp?pid=2480&view=4
> 
> Mr Irving, or any one for that matter, considering none of us were around when Russell played. What can you infer from those stats in that link?


What exactly am I supposed to infer here? I don't get it. What do these stats have to do with our original point? Hell, how are the stats creating holes here? Are you implying that Alex English was a better defender, rebounder, passer and all around better teammate than Russell? If not, then what's the point of this?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

It's been nagging me all night especially when patchwork said I'd consider Russell a role player in this era judging by my previous arguments.

At first I was swayed by Bill's numbers but the more I think about it the more I am not buying. Yes for you simpe stats users Russell has better numbers but one thing is certain he couldn't do that in this era not even close. English's game is better suited for today's NBA

As much as I'd like to delve into it, the mere fact you saw those stats and couldn't infer anything simply suggests me going any further is a waste of time.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> https://www.whatifsports.com/nba-l/profile_player.asp?pid=2480&view=4
> 
> Mr Irving, or any one for that matter, considering none of us were around when Russell played. What can you infer from those stats in that link?


that you are using whatifsports to support your argument which means that the stats you are looking at are nerfed and incorrect (they change certain advanced stats to suit their sim-engine, I was a beta user btw) - also whatifsports rates Bill Russell as a 70 defender in all but his last season because they hinge rating on All D and DPoY awards that didn't exist for most of his career - I've won more NBA sim titles on that site than any other person. (that's a period as in period as in fact) don't show me shit on WIS it's a game site and the stats used aren't complete or necessarily accurate and in any event there are no stats extent (except maybe at Elias) for a number of important categories for players before the mid 70s


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> that you are using whatifsports to support your argument which means that the stats you are looking at are nerfed and incorrect (they change certain advanced stats to suit their sim-engine I was a beta user btw) - also whatifsports rates Bill Russell as a 70 defender in all but his last season because they hinge rating on All D and DPoY awards that didn't exist for most of his career - I've won more NBA sim titles on that site than any other person. (that's a period as in period as in fact) don't show me shit on WIS it's a game site and the stats used aren't complete or necessarily accurate and in any event there are no stats extent (except maybe at Elias) for a number of important categories for players before the mid 70s


And this, is this also nerfed and incorrect? Whatif was the first thing that popped up on my phone when I searched for Russell btw. Should have just used basketball reference, my point still stands

*Bill Russell*


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> It's been nagging me all night especially when patchwork said I'd consider Russell a role player in this era judging by my previous arguments.
> 
> At first I was swayed by Bill's numbers but the more I think about it the more I am not buying. Yes for you simpe stats users Russell has better numbers but one thing is certain he couldn't do that in this era not even close. English's game is better suited for today's NBA
> 
> As much as I'd like to delve into it, the mere fact you saw those stats and couldn't infer anything simply suggests me going any further is a waste of time.







eye test


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> And this, is this also nerfed and incorrect? Whatif was the first thing that popped up on my phone when I searched for Russell btw. Should have just used basketball reference, my point still stands
> 
> *Bill Russell*


how many blocks did Russell have in the 1966-67 season? how many steals? what was his offensive RBD%? etc

also what's your point anyway?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> Bill Russell jumps OVER a guy from near the FT Line - INSANE speed and hang time! - YouTube
> 
> shut up


LOL so this is definitive proof that his game translates to the current NBA. Because of that one move. No doubt impressive, but come on man, that's just one highlight. 

It takes more than being able to jump to play in this current league.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> LOL so this is definitive proof that his game translates to the current NBA. Because of that one move. No doubt impressive, but come on man, that's just one highlight.
> 
> It takes more than being able to jump to play in this current league.


one move? the dude takes the entire court in 5 steps and jumps over a guy on the way to Gervinesque finger roll - at this point you're being delusional


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> how many blocks did Russell have in the 1966-67 season? how many steals? what was his offensive RBD%? etc
> 
> also what's your point anyway?


I dont see any records for blocks or rebounds. What I do know is that in his 12 or so seasons his FG%, eFG% were average for a big man. I'd even say poor.

As for my point, really simple, he dominated in an era when the players weren't so good. I'd even say weak.

Not to mention the fact that there were fewer teams in the league and also playoffs were shorter. 

Here's the *1956* draft by the way. You could get away with a 6'8 - 6'9 center.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> one move? the dude takes the entire court in 5 steps and jumps over a guy on the way to Gervinesque finger roll - at this point you're being delusional


I am sorry, that's really great for that era but in this era, that's not a rarity. LOL did you bother to look around at the players around him? He's a man amongst boys.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> I am sorry, that's really great for that era but in this era, that's not a rarity. LOL did you bother to look around at the players around him? He's a man amongst boys.


when was the last time you saw a 6'10" do that? seriously show me video of this common phenomenon, please


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I see you guys actually debated this BBf on Russell


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

HB said:


> I dont see any records for blocks or rebounds. What I do know is that in his 12 or so seasons his FG%, eFG% were average for a big man. I'd even say poor.
> 
> As for my point, really simple, he dominated in an era when the players weren't so good. I'd even say weak.
> 
> ...


all of this is dumb and ignorant - in an 8 team league he had to play Wilt Chamberlain 8-10 times a season, Walt Bellamy 8-10 times, Willis Reed 8-10 times etc

and if anything the game was faster and the players were more "skilled" (if only because they didn't get to carry, palm, add extra steps etc)

and the Warriors just won a title with a 6'9" center lest you forget - average height in the league hasn't changed more than an inch in 40 years


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> when was the last time you saw a 6'10" do that? seriously show me video of this common phenomenon, please


I can't find the exact highlights of Ben Simmons I want, but I am pretty sure he can do that and 'more.'

Here's 



 who will be a lottery pick in this year's draft.

I am not a big fan of using highlights to prove a player's athleticism. But these guys aren't even in the NBA yet. 

The Knicks have a 7'3 'athletic' power forward right now. We've been blessed to see the likes of Lamar Odom, the Blake Griffins, Anthony Davis', the Durants and the Antetokoumpos' of the league. Heck remember when Amare was going posterizing everything in sight. He and Dwight Howard would have loved to play in that era.

If you haven't seen athletic 6'10 and above type players, then you aren't watching the league enough.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> all of this is dumb and ignorant - in an 8 team league he had to play Wilt Chamberlain 8-10 times a season, Walt Bellamy 8-10 times, Willis Reed 8-10 times etc
> *
> and if anything the game was faster and the players were more "skilled" (if only because they didn't get to carry, palm, add extra steps etc)*
> 
> and the Warriors just won a title with a 6'9" center lest you forget - average height in the league hasn't changed more than an inch in 40 years


Am I reading this right? The guy we are arguing about was shooting sub 50s for most of his career as a big man. I am not sure I get what skill(s) you are talking about. I dont recall there being a 3 point arc when he got into the league. Guards could pound the ball to oblivion and get away with it. And correct me if I am wrong but couldn't the big men camp in the paint? 

So how bad does he have to be (offensively), to be shooting that poorly when he towers above most opponents?

As for the Warriors, Green plays most of his time at PF. Its going to be interesting what they intend on doing with a fully healthy Cavs team this year. Those guys are going to destroy them on the boards.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> It's been nagging me all night especially when patchwork said I'd consider Russell a role player in this era judging by my previous arguments.


You probably would be. Because apparently if you're not a primary scorer at PF/C you're just a role player according to your previous arguments. 



HB said:


> At first I was swayed by Bill's numbers but the more I think about it the more I am not buying. Yes for you simpe stats users Russell has better numbers but one thing is certain he couldn't do that in this era not even close. English's game is better suited for today's NBA


...and you see nothing wrong with going entirely off of stats and not taking into account Russell's athleticism, leadership, and the fact that there aren't many great centers right now in the NBA? (although the number is growing)



HB said:


> As much as I'd like to delve into it, the mere fact you saw those stats and couldn't infer anything simply suggests me going any further is a waste of time.


I didn't look at the stats. I looked at your link, saw what it was and immediately went back to this page, hence why I was asking what I was supposed to infer. In most cases I would still at least read through it, but considering how useless the last two links you tried giving us were, I assumed the same with this.

Turns out I was right.

Oh and fyi, don't give me the "waste of time" crap. Even if you were somehow making a cohesive point that we're all missing (which you're not), this is about the fifth time or so that you said you give up or you're just gonna stop now because you think something that's too smart for you to understand is stupid. And yet you keep coming back to post because for what ever reason you seem to forget the things you say after two posts, which would explain your tendency to repeat your arguments in this thread.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> Here's the *1956* draft by the way. You could get away with a 6'8 - 6'9 center.


You could still get away with a 6'8-6'9 center today. It all depends on how the team is built up and that particular center. 

Hell, it wasn't too long ago that a team with a 6'8 center dominated a Kobe/Shaq led Lakers in the finals (which they did through defense and rebounding and a well balanced run offense. Sound familiar?)


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

It doesnt even matter. Could Russell thrive in this current era ... probably. From the few clips I have seen of him, he's athletic, great timing on the blocks, good positional defender. The offense is really raw. Granted that was probably the norm back then, but in today's game its not going to fly.

There are going to be a lot of aspects of his game that needs to be refined. The athletes playing today are simply too good and simply too athletic


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

XxIrvingxX said:


> You could still get away with a 6'8-6'9 center today. It all depends on how the team is built up and that particular center.
> 
> Hell, it wasn't too long ago that a team with a 6'8 center dominated a Kobe/Shaq led Lakers in the finals (which they did through defense and rebounding and a well balanced run offense. Sound familiar?)


Dominated Shaq? You mean Ben Wallace? Shaq was 27/11 in that series.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

HB said:


> Dominated Shaq? You mean Ben Wallace? Shaq was 27/11 in that series.


Are you fucking kidding me?



XxIrvingxX said:


> Hell, it wasn't too long ago that a team with a 6'8 center dominated a Kobe/Shaq led Lakers in the finals


Please read through this part again. AND THINK.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> Please read through this part again. AND THINK.


Oh, great! XxIrvingxX is arguing with HB. All we need now is Vegan Gains to chime on.... F!


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> Oh, great! XxIrvingxX is arguing with HB. All we need now is Vegan Gains to chime on.... F!


Congrats, you're just now realizing that something that started about eight pages ago is happening. You catch on quick.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Congrats, you're just now realizing that something that started about eight pages ago is happening. You catch on quick.


Yeah. Goes to show how much attention i pay to your posts....


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> Yeah. Goes to show how much attention i pay to your posts....


Don't lie to me. You love my posts and you know it.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> That would be expected, since one is a 6'6, 195 SG and the other a 6'8, 250 SF.
> But are you disputing my claim that, overall, Joran is the better offensive player of the two?


I'm not willing to say I know, but I am willing to say that it's a conversation worth having. Lebron James dictates the course of a game on the offensive end in a way no one from his generation has. Steph Curry has begun to do some special things, but Lebron proved for some time that he was capable of getting more for both himself AND his teammates than anyone in the sport. 

That alone puts them in the same conversation, as the same could be said about Jordan. I think that one thing is clear - Lebron put more of a focus on his playmaking abilities as a teammate than Jordan did. Jordan proved time after time that he could facilitate every bit as well as anyone - but he chose to play more for his own shot more often. Right or wrong decisions, with a player of Mike's caliber its never a bad decision (and the same could be said about Lebron).

Whether you think Jordan is on another level - if Lebron comes down with some more rings, by virtue of who he is within his generation he completely belongs in the conversation.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Oh, great! XxIrvingxX is arguing with HB. All we need now is Vegan Gains to chime on.... F!


F! LOL. That's a memory I never thought I'd have.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

HB said:


> It's been nagging me all night especially when patchwork said I'd consider Russell a role player in this era judging by my previous arguments.
> 
> At first I was swayed by Bill's numbers but the more I think about it the more I am not buying. Yes for you simpe stats users Russell has better numbers but one thing is certain he couldn't do that in this era not even close. English's game is better suited for today's NBA
> 
> As much as I'd like to delve into it, the mere fact you saw those stats and couldn't infer anything simply suggests me going any further is a waste of time.


So monk pretty much nailed it by asking you about Russell vs. English. You scoffed at first because it's absurd (and it really is), but then when you ran the comparison through your HB filter (where points count triple, and anything but points are just situational accidents) you realized that you actually do favor English over Bill Russell. 

And that's fine. The root of your undervaluing of Green is that you favor guys who score a lot (even if inefficiently and/or to the detriment of the team) and don't give much thought to other aspects of the game. Or think anyone can rebound, defend and pass because it's just dirty work. This is why you think you can find a Draymond Green in any draft. When you say that, you mean a guy who rebounds a bit, plays a little defense, and hustles. These are not things you believe take talent. This is how you've conveyed your argument anyways.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> I'm not willing to say I know, but I am willing to say that it's a conversation worth having. Lebron James dictates the course of a game on the offensive end in a way no one from his generation has. Steph Curry has begun to do some special things, but Lebron proved for some time *that he was capable of getting more for both himself AND his teammates than anyone in the sport.
> 
> *That alone puts them in the same conversation, as the same could be said about Jordan. I think that one thing is clear - Lebron put more of a focus on his playmaking abilities as a teammate than Jordan did. Jordan proved time after time that he could facilitate every bit as well as anyone - but he chose to play more for his own shot more often. Right or wrong decisions, with a player of Mike's caliber its never a bad decision (and the same could be said about Lebron).
> 
> Whether you think Jordan is on another level - if Lebron comes down with some more rings, by virtue of who he is within his generation he completely belongs in the conversation.


You do know we are comparing the second (Wilt) best scorer in league history (Curry is climbing the charts) and on of it's own best go-to scorers and clutch players to Lebron James, right? 

Lebron has good playmaking skills, no doubt, where Jordan looked for his own shot more, but from a pure offensive perspective, Jordan has the clear advantage. The stats show it, the eye-test proves it.

Now, i'm not trying to be a dick, here. Lebron is a great offensive player. Scoring + passing considered, he may very well be a top-10 offensive player in league history. But Jordan's the clear second best ever.

About the bolded part: Magic Johnson.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> You do know we are comparing the second (Wilt) best scorer in league history (Curry is climbing the charts) and on of it's own best go-to scorers and clutch players to Lebron James, right?
> 
> Lebron has good playmaking skills, no doubt, where Jordan looked for his own shot more, but from a pure offensive perspective, Jordan has the clear advantage. The stats show it, the eye-test proves it.
> 
> ...


There's a reason Magic is my choice for GOAT, and a reason I elevate Lebron to a place some don't. I believe more in a player's ability to find the best opportunity to score for his team, period. I consider that a superior form of offensive brilliance. For a guy like Mike, when you're THAT incredible the equation changes, but there are still plenty of times when (considering, especially, the talent around him) he took it upon his back to rely on his greatness and score in a fashion that the percentages said was a worse option. He'd do it, he was Jordan. The numbers were in his favor more so than any other.

And again: I'd never deny Jordan's all around offensive brilliance, as I said before - I believe he possessed the court vision to be a brilliant distributor. He proved it time and time again, but I think that at times he would go with the worse option because the worse option was him and he could do it anyway. I'm not faulting him for it. I'm just saying that I prefer the way that Magic did things when I consider basketball greatness. And with his rings and trips to the finals, can you really fault me for it?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So monk pretty much nailed it by asking you about Russell vs. English. You scoffed at first because it's absurd (and it really is), but then when you ran the comparison through your HB filter (where points count triple, and anything but points are just situational accidents) you realized that you actually do favor English over Bill Russell.
> 
> *And that's fine. The root of your undervaluing of Green is that you favor guys who score a lot (even if inefficiently and/or to the detriment of the team) and don't give much thought to other aspects of the game. Or think anyone can rebound, defend and pass because it's just dirty work.* This is why you think you can find a Draymond Green in any draft. When you say that, you mean a guy who rebounds a bit, plays a little defense, and hustles. These are not things you believe take talent. This is how you've conveyed your argument anyways.


But this is BS if you dont mind me saying. I mentioned a bunch of players I thought was better than Green, for some reason it devolved into a Carmelo - Green argument.

The thing that's actually grinding my gears is that you guys continue to emphasize this notion that Carmelo is a chucker.

Tonight the dude had 24pts, 10 rebounds and 8 assists on very efficient shooting numbers. They are up 17 points on the Bucks right now.

Its not that I value scorers, I just believe if you are a top 10 player, that's a value position reserved for the top tier players of the league.

The other day, the Knicks almost beat San Antonio in Texas. Has anyone looked at their squad recently? In this stretch they beat the Hawks twice (one of the best teams in the league) and also Miami another playoff team in the East if I might add.

All this won't change any minds. But I have been trying to harp for a while now, stop looking at Carmelo has simply an inefficient scorer. This year more than ever he's playing the team ball a lot of you harp about on here. The most important thing is that he is making his teammates BETTER. Look at their next crop of games, the Knicks may be a couple of games over .500 going into the all star break. That's incredible.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> There's a reason Magic is my choice for GOAT, and a reason I elevate Lebron to a place some don't. I believe more in a player's ability to find the best opportunity to score for his team, period. I consider that a superior form of offensive brilliance. For a guy like Mike, when you're THAT incredible the equation changes, but there are still plenty of times when (considering, especially, the talent around him) he took it upon his back to rely on his greatness and score in a fashion that the percentages said was a worse option. He'd do it, he was Jordan. The numbers were in his favor more so than any other.
> 
> And again: I'd never deny Jordan's all around offensive brilliance, as I said before - I believe he possessed the court vision to be a brilliant distributor. He proved it time and time again, but I think that at times he would go with the worse option because the worse option was him and he could do it anyway. I'm not faulting him for it. I'm just saying that I prefer the way that Magic did things when I consider basketball greatness. And with his rings and trips to the finals, can you really fault me for it?


Magic Johnson was one of a kind player and should not be used as a blue print for great all-around offensive players. There have been PGs who passed almost as great as him; there have been PGs who scored better than him. But there hasn't been a PG who had his complete offensive package (which included demolishing post scoring).

For the purpose of this discussion, Jordan was what he was: a great, great scorer. I've always followed the train of thought that if you are a really dominant scorer, and if that's the main stuff you bring to the game, all other things (like passing, rebounding, etc.) should be considered secondary.
Why would i want Jordan to pass up shots when he is the main scorer from all over the court in good percentages?

When people compare Lebron with Durant, Lebron's passing is often used as the one-upper. But why should Durant play point forward, when he is able to score 30ppg on .500FG%/.4003P%/.900FT%?
And so on, and so on... 

That to say Lebron James' "playmaking" hability nor is THAT superior to Jordan's nor makes a relevant impact while comparing both players. The case would be different if one was talking about a guy like Kobe Bryant, who although was a great scorer, wasn't an efficient one.

Btw, it's interesting to note that although Lebron has a couple of inches to Jordan and plays closer to the rim, they are very comparable rebounders...


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Magic Johnson was one of a kind player and should not be used as a blue print for great all-around offensive players. There have been PGs who passed almost as great as him; there have been PGs who scored better than him. But there hasn't been a PG who had his complete offensive package (which included demolishing post scoring).
> 
> For the purpose of this discussion, Jordan was what he was: a great, great scorer. I've always followed the train of thought that if you are a really dominant scorer, and if that's the main stuff you bring to the game, all other things (like passing, rebounding, etc.) should be considered secondary.
> Why would i want Jordan to pass up shots when he is the main scorer from all over the court in good percentages?
> ...


You see - I agree with you to some extent about Jordan, I'm not saying he killed his teams. And I understand the idea that great scorers need more shots to try to catch a rhythm. Jordan was so singularly GREAT that he covered up for quite a bit, but on the teams he was on... well if you put the Lebronless Heat in the East of the `90s against the Jordanless Bulls - the Jordanless Bulls have an upper-hand, and I'd dare say they'd still have one today. Jordan wasn't taking shots from typical role players, he had a hell of a supporting cast, and a 55% spot for Jordan from 18 feet may not have held as much value as putting it through Kukoc to Kerr for a shot from his sweet spot beyond the arc hitting at around 50% worth three points.

That's why I put Magic ahead of him. And remember you responded to my comment regarding how I thought scoring style would define the MJ v Lebron discussion for GOAT. Not other aspects of the conversation. Magic Johnson isn't being used as a blueprint here for anything. I simply consider him the greatest player. And I prefer that style of distributing player over a player like Jordan, and I consider it more complete basketball.

And again - I never stated that it was ability that I was bumping Jordan for. He demonstrated the ability to be THAT GUY. You don't run off triple-double strings like he did without having preternatural court vision, which Jordan did. He chose to be that guy. And I agree that you can't say it didn't work out for him. I just prefer Magic, and I prefer a different style of basketball all around. This is comparing greatness to greatness, I prefer a different form of it.


----------

