Offseason Boredom: Top 20 edition
by rosewood on Aug 6, 2009 1:11 PM MDT
81 comments
So being that it's the OFFseason, I've been doing some idle basketball speculation. Most recently, I've been trying to come up with a list of the Top 20 most valuable players (as in current + potential future value) in the NBA. I've found that it's pretty much ridiculously difficult. I mean, to me, it seems that there are 11 players that would be on almost everyone's list even if they're not necessarily the top 11. They are (in no particular order):
- Kobe
- Lebron
- Chris Paul
- Dwight Howard
- Kevin Garnett
- Tim Duncan
- Kevin Durant
- Brandon Roy
- Chris Bosh
- Dwyane Wade
- Derrick Rose
After these eleven though, I get pretty lost. I mean, there's a number of candidates but that's why it's so hard to choose. They're not really that distinct. So I guess my question is if you had to choose the 10 most valuable players excluding the above eleven players, which players would you pick? Warning: it's much harder than picking the top 11.
My list looks like (once again in no particular order):
- Danny Granger
- Tony Parker
- Blake Griffin
- Manu Ginobili
- Amare
- Pau Gasol
- Andre Iguodala
- Rajon Rondo
- Al Horford
- Gerald Wallace
I know you can certainly disagree with some of those picks or the exclusion of others, and I'm not even sure that I agree with myself. But it's hard, you know?
Anyone else want to try? It's a great way to kill time and make you look up stats for no reason.
0 recs |
81 comments
Email
Print
Comments
It may be to early to put Griffin there
Maybe Al Jefferson, or Brook Lopez, Ellis, B. Gordon and Maybe Redd. But not a bad list.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
by dubzfan on Aug 6, 2009 3:17 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d go (no order):
Amar’e
Joe Johnson
Danny Granger
Tony Parker
Pau Gasol
Al Jefferson
Deron Williams*
Chauncey Billups
Dirk Nowitzki*
STEVE NASH (this’ll be become obvious once the sun WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP this season) :P
The guys with * are the ones I think were key misses on your list, and could be top 11.
"If you're a Yankee fan, or if you're not a Yankee fan - you have to admit, we're winners." - #21
"Once the Hack-a-Shaq works once, you know I’m going to see it again. The only thing worse for basketball than that defense is the Lack-a-Shaq offense, where I have to go to the bench because of foul trouble. There is no fun in that." - The Big Aristotle
"Pressure is something you feel when you don't know what the hell you're doing." - Peyton
by J-Gao on Aug 6, 2009 3:48 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, damn
Deron was just an oversight. I think I just forgot about the Jazz generally. So yeah, certainly he would be on my second ten.
And as far as the first 11 goes, I’m not sure they’re the top 11 players necessarily, I just thought they were the 11 players no one would leave out of the Top 20 (or I guess 21 here).
But yeah, Deron should be up there. No doubt.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 6, 2009 4:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. Kobe
2. Lebron
3. Garnett
4. Howard
5. Wade
6. Duncan
7. Paul
8. Deron
9. Pau Gasol
10. Amare
11. Roy
12. Durant
13. Pierce
14. Nowitzki
15. Bosh
16. Carmelo
17. Randolph, Anthony
18. Parker, Tony
19. Rose, Derrick
20. Sessions
by matrix7 on Aug 6, 2009 3:50 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Damn,
Ramon Sessions. That’s bold.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 6, 2009 4:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
very, very bold.
i wouldn’t even include him in my top 50, at this point. at least i don’t think so.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 6, 2009 7:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
and anthony randolph?
you’ve got to really be going for potential, here.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 6, 2009 7:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
my top twenty.
would look something like this.
first tier
1. lebron james.
2. kobe bryant.
3. dwayne wade.
4. dwight howard.
5. tim duncan.
6. kevin garnett.
7. chris paul.
8. carmelo anthony.
9. deron williams.
10. dirk nowitzki.
second tier (which includes a few more “potential” guys, but still…not a bad list.)
11. amaré stoudemire.
12. kevin durant.
13. brandon roy.
14. tony parker.
15. derrick rose.
16. chris bosh.
17. danny granger.
18. al jefferson.
19. steve nash.
20. andre iguodala.
honorable mention
1. rajon rondo.
2. pau gasol.
3. brook lopez.
4. paul pierce.
5. manu ginobili.
6. joe johnson.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 6, 2009 7:31 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I apparently
have a lot less love for Dirk and Carmelo than other folks around here.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 6, 2009 8:09 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sabonis???
April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?
by Hawk42 on Aug 12, 2009 4:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
say what you will about melo.
but, in my eyes, i have him above roy…for now.
remember, this isn’t only a potential thing. it’s also taking into account their current impact on the team, their status as an NBA player right now, and, combined with those things, potential.
at least that’s how i did my list.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 13, 2009 5:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am reading you right..
In that you said current plus POTENTIAL value? In that case a lot of mistakes are made in most of the replies to this post. That said, here is my list (in no particular order)
1. Amare
2. Durant
3. Rose
4. Brook Lopez
5. D. Howard
6. Al Jefferson
7. Granger
8. Roy
9. Iguogala
10. and (im going out on a limb here) Dragic!!
Yeah I know that last one should get some responses and I want to hear them. I think the guy has some serious potential if he can get some court time and a great personal coach. Imagine Parker+Rondo…whistle
Im with you rosewood about Dirk and Carmelo. They are good but aren’t going to get much better. That said, I dont think Gasol, Ginobili, Pierce, Parker deserve to be on the list. They are good, but their potential for getting better is really small.
Go read a book!
by N8lol on Aug 6, 2009 9:01 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think
Ginobili is certainly questionable because of his injury history, but I think I just have too much respect for his game not to include him.
As far as potential value goes, I definitely was supposed to be part of the equation but I would assign less value to it than to current, because, well, it’s speculative.
For instance, regarding Gasol and Lopez, I’d take Gasol over Lopez just because Lopez may top out at his current level or decline while Gasol is already an All-star and only 28.
I guess the idea is I consider potential to be ~ 50% as valuable as current production.
All that said, Lopez definitely has to be in the conversation. True centers with his skill level are a rare commodity these days.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 6, 2009 9:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
True story
I am interested to see how much of what he did last year carries into this year. Man is Robin could develop into only part of the player Brook is now then we would be set.sigh
Go read a book!
by N8lol on Aug 7, 2009 7:57 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
we didn't really get a good gauge last season.
after all, brook was essentially their starting center for the whole season. he got the minutes (as well as he should’ve, he deserved them). i just think robin didn’t really get a chance to do much (or develop much on court) with shaq logging most of the minutes.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 7, 2009 4:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pierce and Parker are finals MVPs
They might not come up in our top however-many players list, but those are two guys that are truly scary in the clutch. Durant, Rose, Lopez, Iggy, they all have a ton of talent and potential, but guys like Pierce, Parker, and Ginobli are proven killers on the biggest stage.
by hcblankscreen on Aug 7, 2009 12:47 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not solely their potential.
but their value to the team. potential plays a factor, but if you’ve got a player like kobe, there’s no doubt that he’s one of the most valuable players of the past twenty years. he might not have much more potential that’s untapped, but his significance to his team, the NBA, and the world of basketball can’t be overlooked.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 7, 2009 12:47 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you just gave watdogg an aneurysm.
by Azreous on Aug 7, 2009 10:12 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting...
Nothing is more than stacking up names to form a list. And since I’m such an anal person, I’m going to arbitrarily assume that current + potential = “which 20 guys you’d have for the next FIVE years, regardless of salary.”
But then even easy things get really hard. Would you rather have the next 5 years of Duncan or Al Jefferson? The answer probably depends on what kind of team you have. The Spurs who are contending would rather have Duncan, while the T’Wolves would prefer Al Jeff ‘cause they’re rebuilding.
So yeah, either I have to make 5 additional assumptions (like, “assuming it’s the Suns team and we can make any non-Suns player play for us for free for the next 5 years. Who’d you go with?”), or I can’t do it. I’m so anal, I know.
According to John Hollinger's analysis,
it's possible to go 98 and -16 with Goran Dragic as your backup PG.
by gadogry on Aug 7, 2009 5:00 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
BTW
Even I’m from near Toronto, I don’t like Chris Bosh on the 1st tier. He might not even be in my top 20. I’d take Pau Gasol before him. I’d also take Amar’e and Al Jeff before him if they weren’t so injury prone.
According to John Hollinger's analysis,
it's possible to go 98 and -16 with Goran Dragic as your backup PG.
by gadogry on Aug 7, 2009 5:06 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a note
The first tier isn’t meant to say that those guys are the Top 11. It’s just meant to say that those 11 guys are the 11 guys I didn’t think anyone would actually leave out of the Top 20. For me, Bosh would probably be closer to the 15-18 range.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 7, 2009 11:09 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
From my point of view, the only NBA players who can be regarded as franchise players are:
Lebron
Kobe
Dwight Howard
Wade
Current NBA players with past but neither present nor future:
Sacq
Iverson
Kidd
Elton Brand
Tracy McGrady
Wallace, Rasheed
Current NBA players with present but no future:
Duncan
Nowitzki
Garnett
Carter, Vince
Players who have the potential to be considered in the future franchise player
Durant
Derrick Rose
I know some will say that Blake Griffin has the potential to be a franchise player, but I prefer to wait to see him play a full season.
There are many examples of players who have not achieved what people thought. The latest example is Greg Oden
All Star players but no franchise player
Pau Gasol
Amare
Bosh
Carmelo
Chris Paul
Paul Pierce
Deron
Joe Johnson
Arenas
Randolph, Anthony
and others …………
My personal weakness:
Ramon Sessions (I would like to see him in the Suns uniform)
by matrix7 on Aug 7, 2009 7:57 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Really? `
I like that reply. Good stuff. Whats the deal with Sessions? Everyone is on his bandwagon. I haven’t watched him much but he was on my fantasy team so I know his stats. Good player but not great. Are there some intangibles that I am missing?
Go read a book!
by N8lol on Aug 7, 2009 8:00 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're into Dave Berri
his analysis would show that Sessions was the third most underpaid PG in the league last year behind Paul and Rondo but ahead of Williams. In fact, his analysis would show Sessions to be a roughly equivalent player to Williams.
Take that as you will, but Sessions has fans.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 7, 2009 8:37 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The things with stats
like that is that they don’t account for how bad the team is…that is to say it is easier to put up good numbers on a bad team. The question is how that translates when the situation changes and the team is better and the role is bigger…
That said, I do like Sessions but no more than I like Raymond Felton at this point and certainly not as much as I like Flynn or Rubio or E Gordon or several other young PG’s that will be better then Sessions five years from now (if that long)
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on Aug 7, 2009 9:49 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
I always take this advanced stats with a grain of salt, though I have more faith in Berri than I do in Hollinger, who I just think is ridiculous.
As far as the team effect goes, Berri more or less states the same thing. He doesn’t say it’s easier to put up good stats on a bad team, but he does say it’s harder to put good stats on a good team, which more or less reaches the same result you were going for.
Regarding Sessions: I’m reasonably interested in the guy too, and I’d take him over Felton and Gordon. Actually, I’d take Sessions over Westbrook since a) I think he’s an equivalent if not better player and b) he’s always going to be cheaper. That may be more the result of my not understanding the hype surrounding Gordon and Westbrook than my interest in Sessions though.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 7, 2009 10:12 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
the hype surrounding gordon and westbrook makes sense.
they had terrific rookie seasons, and have bright futures ahead of them, if they can continue working at it. future all-stars in the making.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 7, 2009 4:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess
I just didn’t think either play had that great of a season.
Westbrook shot 39% and turned the ball over like 3.5 per game. And while Gordon scored effectively he offered nothing else.
I mean, I wouldn’t say either player was necessarily bad, especially for a rookie, but I don’t see either player as especially promising based on their first years. To me, they just got a lot of minutes, which creates more but not necessarily good stats.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 7, 2009 4:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gordon
I love Eric Gordon. He’s not the passer that Sessions is but he’s a MUCH better scorer and FAR more explosive. He’s also a very good defender and has a great head on his shoulders.
Westbrook for some reason I am not sold on yet but I don’t have anything against him either. I just don’t get any good vibes from him.
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on Aug 7, 2009 5:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
i was with you on westbrook for the first half of the season.
when he shot something like, 29% from the field. but he seemed to start putting it together toward the end of the year.
i agree with gordon. but, he’s not really a PG…he’s going to be playing the SG slot for his career, if i’m not mistaken.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 7, 2009 6:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no doubt
Gordon is explosive. He was the second best athlete in that draft behind Joe Alexander. But his inability to play PG kind of mutes his explosiveness since he lacks size for a SG. And he can definitely score. He just doesn’t do a lot else at this point. And though he does play hard on D, he’s always going to be somewhat limited on that end unless he plays with a big PG.
Sessions also gets more steals and rebounds that Gordon as well. And Sessions is a great defender as well but since he can actually play PG, he doesn’t suffer a size disadvantage.
They’re both great prospects though. I’d just rather have Sessions since PGs are harder to find than scorers.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 7, 2009 6:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gasol´s numbers were 20-10 (or so) playing in a bad team (Memphis) and are 20-10 (or so) playing in a good team (Lakers). If a player is good, is good, regardless of what team is playing.
I think Sessions could be compared with Kidd in a few years.
by matrix7 on Aug 7, 2009 10:33 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
CP3 is not a franchise player? If you take him off the Hornets, that team would have won about 2 games last season.
And I think Kobe is closer to the Duncan/KG/Dirk catergory than the LeBron/Dwight/Wade catergory.
According to John Hollinger's analysis,
it's possible to go 98 and -16 with Goran Dragic as your backup PG.
by gadogry on Aug 7, 2009 11:00 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that he is one of the best point guards in the league, but that doesn´t mean he is a franchise player. A good team, a good PF, a good center, etc. etc.
What has CP3 get? Has he made his teammates better?
by matrix7 on Aug 7, 2009 11:42 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
he absolutely made tyson chandler last season.
without paul feeding him the rock, chandler would have been chop suey. the same goes for steve nash…you can’t really judge how well a player makes his teammates better until you see them play with another point guard. they just know how to get the ball to them in their spots and set them up for success.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 7, 2009 4:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kobe is the best player after Jordan. How can you compare with Dirk?
by matrix7 on Aug 7, 2009 11:46 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would probably
put Garnett, Duncan, and Shaq all before Kobe.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 7, 2009 11:53 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
As far as
best player after Jordan, I mean.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 7, 2009 11:53 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
you'd put garnett ahead of kobe?
i strongly disagree with that.
i can agree with the duncan and shaq, to a certain degree, but i still think kobe is the best post-jordan player.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 7, 2009 4:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garnett's
production has been astounding since Jordan. In fact, the only two things that Kobe does better than Garnett is:
a) Shoot threes, which Kobe isn’t even very good at
and
b) Take shots
They each get roughly the same amount of assists (4.6 for Kobe and 4.3 for Garnett) and steals (1.5. for Kobe and 1.4 for Garnett). But Garnett gets far more rebounds (11.1 to 5.2 for Kobe), blocks more shots (1.6 to .6 for Kobe), and shoots a better percentage (.501 eFG% to .488 for Kobe).
I mean, I suppose you can say that Kobe scores more (24.8 to 20.2 for Garnett) but scoring in itself isn’t good for anything. It only helps if you do it efficiently and Garnett is more efficient and then does everything else as well if not better than Kobe.
So I just don’t see it. Of course, as good as Kobe is, I think he’s generally overrated and doesn’t really belong in the same conversation as guys like current Lebron or 02-03 – 06-07 Garnett. Kobe simply cannot match the overall production of those players. He’s very, very good but he’s never put up stats like Lebron or Garnett.
He’s just not that kind of all around player.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 7, 2009 5:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kobe
also shoots FTs better than KG. Forgot to mention that. Doesn’t really change things for me, but it is true.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 7, 2009 5:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kobe's role
I do think there’s something to be said for Kobe having to score alot but I agree in general with your rankings…bigs by their nature can impact the game in more ways and Shaq, Duncan and KG all have done that
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on Aug 7, 2009 5:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not necessarily about stats and production.
it’s the on court presence. you can’t raise a single argument that the second kobe takes the floor, he is on a mission. occasionally, he may take a game off, but what professional athlete doesn’t?
KG is a beast, i won’t argue that. but you can’t equate stats with the intangible aspects that kobe brings. and maybe that’s because he’s established himself as kobe bryant, but either way, it’s worked.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 7, 2009 6:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess
i just don’t really get into intangibles. And from an intangible standpoint (and from a statistical one), I’d take Ginobili over Kobe any day.
Ginobili is a geniune team player, fearless, clutch, and cares about nothing except winning. Plus, he’s ridiculously efficient, a great defender, and runs the pick and roll better than anyone in the league not named Steve Nash.
Don’t get me wrong. i’ve got respect for Kobe, and he’s great. And he does have a certain Alpha-ness to him that can be imposing. But his inefficiency and his selfishness I would say make him less appealing than Ginobili, who I really think that when healthy is the best SG in the NBA.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 7, 2009 6:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
Im going to say I disagree with most of that. 1) Garnett is a bigman, PF/C, of course he will get more rebounds than Kobe. 2) Its fairly obvious given each years stats that big men have a higher FG% than anyone else. Its actually rare to see someone who is not a big man in the top 5. 3) Concerning blocks: refer back to 3. I will say that Garnett is an awesome defensive player, but then again so is Kobe when he wants to be. And the point differential should be much higher because he was the only guy that scored in Minnesota so much of his stats are skewed because of that. Kobe on any team is going to be great, Garnett on a good team is simply a solid, All-Star player.
Go read a book!
by N8lol on Aug 8, 2009 7:51 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assists and Steals
are guard statistics and Bryant barely exceeds Garnett.
The only thing Kobe does well is score a lot of points. But he doesn’t do it efficiently.
As far as big man statistics go, sure Garnett should get more But he doesn’t just get more, he’s an exceptional rebounder even for a big man.
Garnett in 2002-03: 23.0 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 1.4 spg, 1.6 bpg, 50% shooting. Kobe has never produced a line remotely as productive.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 8, 2009 12:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
who else was on his team at that point?
the timberwolves weren’t exactly stellar…which relates back to the whole good player on a bad team getting the benefit of the doubt with stats. if garnett is the only person doing anything, of course he’s going to have a line like that. look at stephen curry in college, why do you think he had the best scoring average in the nation?
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 8, 2009 2:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
true enough...
But I still maintain that (aside from steals and assists which indeed are guard stats to a degree) it is easier to but up gaudy stats as a big man than as a guard. Simply from the standpoint of where you are normally positioned on the court it is easier. If we are going to count Garnett’s stat line lets find someone else who has produced a similar one.
01-02 Duncan: 25ppg 12.7rpg, 3.7ast, 2.5blks, 51%.
99-00 Shaq: 29.7; 13.7; 3.7;3;58%.
05-06 Kobe wasn’t bad. or 02-03 Kobe.
However, notice Garnett’s statistics and how amazing they were in Minnesota but how sharply they dropped in Boston. Pretty significant. Now, you could indeed argue that its becasue he doesn’t need the ball as much because of his surroundings (i.e. he doesn’t have to do all the work) but the Celtics showing in the playoffs this year proves that he is, indeed, a vital piece. Perhaps this proves that when Garnett is not the only player his production goes down. Then look at Kobe. His stats went down some when Gasol and Bynum arrived but not that much. An average of 1 pt per category (except points) whereas Garnett’s dropped substantially in the categories that you mentioned.
Go read a book!
by N8lol on Aug 8, 2009 7:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is why stats don't tell you everything..
There’s no way anyone would say that Garnett became a worse player after moving to Boston, in fact one might say he improved in some key areas, because he didn’t have to shoulder the load of carrying a team, and could focus on his role. But his Minnesota numbers were definitely a case of gaudy stats on a crappy team.
Players aren’t great because they have good stats.. they have good stats because they are great.
And the truly great players don’t care about their box scores. Sometimes, players can have crappy box scores, but still completely dominate a game. I’ve seen Bird, Nash, Duncan and Rodman do that, amongst others.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on Aug 11, 2009 4:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scoring helps you win
“scoring in itself isn’t good for anything”
The team with the most points at the end of the game wins.
Just sayin…
April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?
by Hawk42 on Aug 8, 2009 10:02 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll rephrase
PPG in itself isn’t good for anything.
Because if you score your points inefficiently, you hurt your team more than help it.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 8, 2009 12:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
which is why
big men are always more valuable than wings…
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on Aug 9, 2009 2:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
and also why...
the suns’ success hinges on the play of amaré stoudemire, not any other wing players.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 9, 2009 6:02 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Lou Amundson.
"If you're a Yankee fan, or if you're not a Yankee fan - you have to admit, we're winners." - #21
"Once the Hack-a-Shaq works once, you know I’m going to see it again. The only thing worse for basketball than that defense is the Lack-a-Shaq offense, where I have to go to the bench because of foul trouble. There is no fun in that." - The Big Aristotle
"Pressure is something you feel when you don't know what the hell you're doing." - Peyton
by J-Gao on Aug 9, 2009 7:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
so true
I said that in my preview to last season and it remains true for this season…
the Suns will go as far as Amare can take them (which is why Suns fans are understandably skittish about the season)
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on Aug 10, 2009 12:02 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
And lonesome
is downright panicking
April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?
by Hawk42 on Aug 12, 2009 4:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Paul
How is Chris Paul not a franchise player..hes the best point guard in the NBA..Carmelo is too and I even think Amare..we had our best seasons when he was the focal point of our offense..What does it take to be a franchise player???
by Lebrontophx2010 on Aug 7, 2009 11:04 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Paul
There was a FoxSports article that tried to show why Chris Paul isn’t a franchise player.
Most importantly, his defense.
The article argues all he can do is steal, making him not too different from Iverson.
He is too small, and opposing guards can just go straight to their favorite spot and shoot.
On offense, he is limited in the half-court offense and, because of his size, easily and effectively double-teamed.
"If you're a Yankee fan, or if you're not a Yankee fan - you have to admit, we're winners." - #21
"Once the Hack-a-Shaq works once, you know I’m going to see it again. The only thing worse for basketball than that defense is the Lack-a-Shaq offense, where I have to go to the bench because of foul trouble. There is no fun in that." - The Big Aristotle
"Pressure is something you feel when you don't know what the hell you're doing." - Peyton
by J-Gao on Aug 9, 2009 7:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
hm.
don’t know that i believe that, too much.
chris paul is much better at distributing the ball than iverson ever was, and while yes, he does go for the steals, i don’t think comparing him to iverson is a very good comparison.
AI has always been concerned with scoring, and above all, making AI look good.
chris paul seems to be looking out for just the opposite, and his frustration with the team’s direction this summer seem to prove just that. he wants to win, but he wants to do it with his team.
if for no other reason than the one right above, that makes chris paul a franchise player. a player with talent, a player with desire, and above all, a player that wants to help his team out rather than boosting his own image.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 9, 2009 7:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is...
that the Fox article was about his defense. As far as his defense is concerned he is like Iverson. Thats why he wont be a franchise player. Now I will agree that his desire to win with his team is a big push in that direction that often gets overlooked in a player. But Paul simply isn’t good enough to be a franchise player. He doesn’t do enough intangibles to get him there. Maybe for a team like the Hornets who are sinking like the Titanic, but not on any other team.
Go read a book!
by N8lol on Aug 10, 2009 7:34 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
you completely forgot Roy
"shaq and zach randolph have the same trainer... "
best one liner i ever heard.
by bowdown on Aug 7, 2009 9:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn good thread..I was with you almost until you threw Gerald Wallace up there..and why doesnt anybody hve any love for LaMarcus Aldridge or Josh Smith..
by Lebrontophx2010 on Aug 7, 2009 9:06 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
LMA is great...
and so is josh smith, but only when they want to be. LMA has potential to be another chris bosh/amaré type player, but i just don’t know if he’s all there. i don’t know if he wants it bad enough. it seems like he’s a bit too sensitive at times, being frustrated by all the attention being given to brandon roy.
and as far as josh smith is concerned, the guy is an absolute stud on defense. he’s athletic as all get out, but there are too many deficiencies in his game to call him a top 20 player. he’s not a great 3 point shooter, a terrible free throw shooter, and in general, just isn’t very consistent on the offensive end.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 7, 2009 4:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
and I see Amare didnt get much love but I still think and im going out on a limb here that if Amare ever played defense every night he could be the Lebron James of Bigs..there is no other big in the league with his skill set he can do everything offensively but he defense is whats holding him back..hopefully he plays on the next olympic team all those guys played good this yr
by Lebrontophx2010 on Aug 7, 2009 9:08 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
To rephrase
I think most people agree that Amar’e on his best day is better than most people’s best days. But most people also agree that he is seldom on his best day.
According to John Hollinger's analysis,
it's possible to go 98 and -16 with Goran Dragic as your backup PG.
by gadogry on Aug 7, 2009 11:05 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
he was on his best day against the pacers last season.
i haven’t seen a domination like that from a big man in a very, very long time.
by iamtrevorpaxton on Aug 7, 2009 4:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's mine (in no particular order)
1.Kobe
2.Lebron
3.Chris Paul
4. Deron Williams
5. Steve Nash
6. Amar’e
7.Paul Pierce
8. Kevin Garnett
9. Dwight Howard
10. Tony Parker
11. Tim Duncan
12. Wade
13. Barbosa
14. Manu
15. Roy
16. Gasol
17. Al Jefferson
18. Joe Johnson
19. Rondo
20. DJ MBENGA (I kid I kid!!)
20. Yao
"Basketball doesn't build character. It reveals it"
by PanamaSun on Aug 7, 2009 11:57 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Homer!!
According to John Hollinger's analysis,
it's possible to go 98 and -16 with Goran Dragic as your backup PG.
by gadogry on Aug 7, 2009 11:58 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guilty as charged!
"Basketball doesn't build character. It reveals it"
by PanamaSun on Aug 7, 2009 1:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barbosa?
Damn.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 7, 2009 12:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love that kid, man!
"Basketball doesn't build character. It reveals it"
by PanamaSun on Aug 7, 2009 1:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
No kidding.
and I can say he would make my Top 20 list of favorite players.
Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.
by rosewood on Aug 7, 2009 1:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha fair enough
1. Lebron James
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Dwight Howard
4. Dwayne Wade
5. Chris Paul
6. Kevin Garnett
7. Tim Duncan
8. Brandon Roy
9. Steve Nash
10. Deron WIlliams
11. Kevin Durant
And just a side note, I don’t think Amare’s injury history hurts his value. Sure he’s had two major injuries. But he’s recovered from microfracture without a hitch and the other was just a freak accident no one could have predicted and had nothing to do with some weakness in his physique. In fact I’d consider it a plus, we know that Amare can recover from even the most serious injuries and continue to destroy in the paint.
"Check out progressive stats and the latest Suns news at ifiredterryporter.com
by ifiredterryporter.com on Aug 7, 2009 12:22 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Great post!
Haven’t had time to work up a list though.
by Mike Lisboa on Aug 7, 2009 1:36 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
