CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: KG Living Legend on September 12, 2017, 02:44:25 PM
-
According to ESPN.
#61 Avery Bradley
#63 Lonzo Ball
#64 Carmelo
#65 Smart
#66 Batum
Not a perfect list, but hey I'll take our super sub Utility knife as a top 65 player in basketball.
-
I don't understand how he's in the same range as Bradley. I see them as roughly-equivalent defenders - both are good, though both are a bit overrated on this site. But Bradley is a MUCH better offensive player. It isn't even a contest.
I'd buy Bradley being around #60. That makes sense to me. But I'm honestly surprised Smart is in the top 100.
-
I don't understand how he's in the same range as Bradley. I see them as roughly-equivalent defenders - both are good, though both are a bit overrated on this site. But Bradley is a MUCH better offensive player. It isn't even a contest.
I'd buy Bradley being around #60. That makes sense to me. But I'm honestly surprised Smart is in the top 100.
How much value can really be put into a list that ranks Lonzo Ball at #63 when he hasn't played a professional game yet? that would mean that in a 30 team league, if each team's roster was cleared out and they all had a chance to repick players, Lonzo would be picked in the 3rd round over hundreds of veteran players. I can't see that happening by any GM not named Sam Hinkie.
-
I don't understand how he's in the same range as Bradley. I see them as roughly-equivalent defenders - both are good, though both are a bit overrated on this site. But Bradley is a MUCH better offensive player. It isn't even a contest.
I'd buy Bradley being around #60. That makes sense to me. But I'm honestly surprised Smart is in the top 100.
How much value can really be put into a list that ranks Lonzo Ball at #63 when he hasn't played a professional game yet? that would mean that in a 30 team league, if each team's roster was cleared out and they all had a chance to repick players, Lonzo would be picked in the 3rd round over hundreds of veteran players. I can't see that happening by any GM not named Sam Hinkie.
Granted.
-
Ball didn't even play a single game yet and he's already on top of Melo...joke
-
According to ESPN.
#61 Avery Bradley
#63 Lonzo Ball
#64 Carmelo
#65 Smart
#66 Batum
Not a perfect list, but hey I'll take our super sub Utility knife as a top 65 player in basketball.
Who's #62?
-
This list makes no sense. They have Dion Waiters and Ginobli ranked the same. I love Ginobli but he is a shell of what he was and can play about 15 minutes a night...
-
Way too high for Ball and Smart, way too low for Melo and Batum. This list is suppose to be the top 100 players in the NBA right now. It looks like whoever made the list also took potential into consideration.
-
According to ESPN.
#61 Avery Bradley
#63 Lonzo Ball
#64 Carmelo
#65 Smart
#66 Batum
Not a perfect list, but hey I'll take our super sub Utility knife as a top 65 player in basketball.
Who's #62?
Eric Gordon
-
I like Smart, but he's not better than Nic Batum.
I'd only want him in utility role where any offense he provides is a bonus.
Defense typically gets underrated when evaluating players, but this seems like too high a ranking to me.
-
This list makes no sense. They have Dion Waiters and Ginobli ranked the same. I love Ginobli but he is a shell of what he was and can play about 15 minutes a night...
I have a feeling this is based on RPM ....
-
A ranking of #65 means he's supposed to be a #3 on a team in a league with 30 of them. He's our sixth man. It definitely doesn't add up. Now, if he starred shooting 45% from the field, 35% from 3...
-
LOL, Lonzo over Melo ?? This list is insanely bad.
I wouldn't even rank Lonzo ahead of Nic Batum, and it's not close.
-
On the Lonzo Ball debate, I have no problem with a rookie being ranked that high, but Fultz is #86 and Ben Simmons is #84 (and was ranked #120 last year), Dennis Smith Jr is #75.
To be fair though, the list is supposed to only be about who will perform best in the 2018 season only, and Lonzo seemingly has full control of the reigns in LA and may have a better opportunity to put up better stats than others. Still think it's too high for Lonzo though.
And since nobody shared the actually links:
#76-100 (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank76100/nbarank-players-76-100)
#51-75
(http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank5175/nbarank-players-51-75)
-
The rankings are stupid, they're always stupid, they're almost intentionally stupid for the purposes of generating the attention+discussion content providers feed on. This is not news.
That said, what this indicates isn't that Smart IS the #63 player in the league, but that the voter panel collectively CONSIDERS him #63. Right or wrong, by a little or a lot, that shows that Marcus is highly respected among people who follow the league. Look at it from that perspective and it's a great compliment to one of the hardest working, toughest guys to wear green in recent years.
-
I would take Lonzo 100 out of 100 times over Melo.
Lonzo is a winner who makes everyone on his team better. Melo is a selfish loser and his game is limited at this point.
-
Lonzo is a winner who makes everyone on his team better. Melo is a selfish loser and his game is limited at this point.
It will depends on if he can get off that goofy shot of his, I have heard a lot of guys say he is going to have issue in the NBA with that shot.
-
I would take Lonzo 100 out of 100 times over Melo.
Lonzo is a winner who makes everyone on his team better. Melo is a selfish loser and his game is limited at this point.
No chance. Lonzo is a worse defender than Melo (even at this stage, which is an achievement in itself), while Melo has an offensive game that has not just been proven to work, but proven to be elite. Jury is still out on whether Lonzo will succeed at the NBA level, with his combination of a horrible shot technique, no mid-range game, weak free throw shooting and a weak PnR game.
Melo 100/100 times
-
SI and ESPN both out with click-bait lists vying to get some action in the NBA dead zone that is September.
Can't wait for the first exhibition game.
-
I would take Lonzo 100 out of 100 times over Melo.
Lonzo is a winner who makes everyone on his team better. Melo is a selfish loser and his game is limited at this point.
No chance. Lonzo is a worse defender than Melo (even at this stage, which is an achievement in itself), while Melo has an offensive game that has not just been proven to work, but proven to be elite. Jury is still out on whether Lonzo will succeed at the NBA level, with his combination of a horrible shot technique, no mid-range game, weak free throw shooting and a weak PnR game.
Melo 100/100 times
Ok enjoy never making the playoffs because Melo doesn't make anyone on his team better.
-
I would take Lonzo 100 out of 100 times over Melo.
Lonzo is a winner who makes everyone on his team better. Melo is a selfish loser and his game is limited at this point.
No chance. Lonzo is a worse defender than Melo (even at this stage, which is an achievement in itself), while Melo has an offensive game that has not just been proven to work, but proven to be elite. Jury is still out on whether Lonzo will succeed at the NBA level, with his combination of a horrible shot technique, no mid-range game, weak free throw shooting and a weak PnR game.
Melo 100/100 times
Ok enjoy never making the playoffs because Melo doesn't make anyone on his team better.
Right. That must be why all those teams where Melo was the best player never made the playoffs.
Except for the fact that that never happened. He's lead teams to multiple 50+ win seasons, yet gets hated for never heating Kobe's Lakers, TD's Spurs or LeBron's Heat.
Did Paul Pierce make anyone on his team better prior to acquiring KG and Ray?
-
Melo been in the league a long time and has had plenty of chance to get somewhere. He made it to the WCF once.... then demaded a trade.
Melos game is not good for a winning team. He is an isolation mid range player. It's antiquated and ineffective.
-
And back to Smart...
I'm encouraged by his physique and selfless play.
He's a winner.
-
I don't understand how he's in the same range as Bradley. I see them as roughly-equivalent defenders - both are good, though both are a bit overrated on this site. But Bradley is a MUCH better offensive player. It isn't even a contest.
I'd buy Bradley being around #60. That makes sense to me. But I'm honestly surprised Smart is in the top 100.
http://bkref.com/tiny/gZMOQ
Avery is clearly a better shooter but beyond that they are very close in everything, with Smart putting up better defensive stats.
-
It is hilarious that they based everything on Lonzo being ranked so high based on SUMMER LEAGUE stats. Based on that Tatum should have been in the top 100. So should Jaylen Brown.
-
I would take Lonzo 100 out of 100 times over Melo.
Lonzo is a winner who makes everyone on his team better. Melo is a selfish loser and his game is limited at this point.
No chance. Lonzo is a worse defender than Melo (even at this stage, which is an achievement in itself), while Melo has an offensive game that has not just been proven to work, but proven to be elite. Jury is still out on whether Lonzo will succeed at the NBA level, with his combination of a horrible shot technique, no mid-range game, weak free throw shooting and a weak PnR game.
Melo 100/100 times
Ok enjoy never making the playoffs because Melo doesn't make anyone on his team better.
Right. That must be why all those teams where Melo was the best player never made the playoffs.
Except for the fact that that never happened. He's lead teams to multiple 50+ win seasons, yet gets hated for never heating Kobe's Lakers, TD's Spurs or LeBron's Heat.
Did Paul Pierce make anyone on his team better prior to acquiring KG and Ray?
For the record, Melo has noticed his ranking:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BY9BP8gBD0k/
-
I would take Lonzo 100 out of 100 times over Melo.
Lonzo is a winner who makes everyone on his team better. Melo is a selfish loser and his game is limited at this point.
Both of those guys spent 1 year in college as the #1 guy on a major team. Melo won a championship and Lonzo got bounced in the Sweet Sixteen. It might be a good idea to wait for an actual track record of more success before throwing those labels around.
-
Quote
It is hilarious that they based everything on Lonzo being ranked so high based on SUMMER LEAGUE stats. Based on that Tatum should have been in the top 100. So should Jaylen Brown.
Building him up so they can tear him down.
-
I had him at #64 on my board.
-
Lonzo being ranked ahead of Melo is easily the most ridiculous sports take I have seen this summer. Totally asinine.
-
I had him at #64 on my board.
Homer :-)
-
Did they completely change the way they do the rankings?
-
This would place Marcus as an elite third man on a roster, if teams were distributed evenly. It seems quite high to me.
What's particularly weird to me is, if we assume that the rankings take an average of various panelists, that means that some probably ranked Marcus significantly higher than 65th. I'd love to hear how people came to that conclusion.
-
This would place Marcus as an elite third man on a roster, if teams were distributed evenly. It seems quite high to me.
What's particularly weird to me is, if we assume that the rankings take an average of various panelists, that means that some probably ranked Marcus significantly higher than 65th. I'd love to hear how people came to that conclusion.
Does seem high, but if you made a list of best defenders, he's top 5-10 right?
-
This would place Marcus as an elite third man on a roster, if teams were distributed evenly. It seems quite high to me.
What's particularly weird to me is, if we assume that the rankings take an average of various panelists, that means that some probably ranked Marcus significantly higher than 65th. I'd love to hear how people came to that conclusion.
I was thinking the same thing. Like was there two moronic outliers that had Marcus in their top ten and everyone else had him down at around 120. If so, please send whatever those guys are smoking to my house. I need a smoke before rewatching Harold and Kumar go to White Castle.
-
This would place Marcus as an elite third man on a roster, if teams were distributed evenly. It seems quite high to me.
What's particularly weird to me is, if we assume that the rankings take an average of various panelists, that means that some probably ranked Marcus significantly higher than 65th. I'd love to hear how people came to that conclusion.
There are enough teams where he would be the 3rd guy, and some even maybe 2 on the really bad teams like the Nets, Kings etc.
These rankings do seem a little wacky though.
-
See stuff like this is why I don't really believe in elite abilities in the same way any more. Do you think you could do a better job as an NBA GM? Uh....I think a drunk elephant suffering from seizures could do better than Isaiah Thomas, so yeah. Do you think a guy off a fan board could do a better job of covering the NBA? Uh....well.....assuming ESPN doesn't fire Roy Hobbes here for not being a flaming liberal his first 15 minutes on the job....yeah I definitely definitely think he could do better without any doubt whatsoever. None.
It's just the way it is now.
-
This would place Marcus as an elite third man on a roster, if teams were distributed evenly. It seems quite high to me.
What's particularly weird to me is, if we assume that the rankings take an average of various panelists, that means that some probably ranked Marcus significantly higher than 65th. I'd love to hear how people came to that conclusion.
There are enough teams where he would be the 3rd guy, and some even maybe 2 on the really bad teams like the Nets, Kings etc.
These rankings do seem a little wacky though.
I'm not sure he's even #3 on the Kings
DeArron Fox, Skal Labisierre, Willy Cauley Stein, Buddy Hield
If Smart was traded for any of them straight up I don't think I'd be too worried or nervous, money issues aside.
-
See stuff like this is why I don't really believe in elite abilities in the same way any more. Do you think you could do a better job as an NBA GM? Uh....I think a drunk elephant suffering from seizures could do better than Isaiah Thomas, so yeah. Do you think a guy off a fan board could do a better job of covering the NBA? Uh....well.....assuming ESPN doesn't fire Roy Hobbes here for not being a flaming liberal his first 15 minutes on the job....yeah I definitely definitely think he could do better without any doubt whatsoever. None.
It's just the way it is now.
Ha...Roy a liberal...hehehe. Thats funny.
-
Melo been in the league a long time and has had plenty of chance to get somewhere. He made it to the WCF once.... then demaded a trade.
Melos game is not good for a winning team. He is an isolation mid range player. It's antiquated and ineffective.
Way to tapdance around your assertion that Melo's been a negative player his whole career was awful, as well as ignoring the very valid Paul Pierce reference.
-
This would place Marcus as an elite third man on a roster, if teams were distributed evenly. It seems quite high to me.
What's particularly weird to me is, if we assume that the rankings take an average of various panelists, that means that some probably ranked Marcus significantly higher than 65th. I'd love to hear how people came to that conclusion.
There are enough teams where he would be the 3rd guy, and some even maybe 2 on the really bad teams like the Nets, Kings etc.
These rankings do seem a little wacky though.
I'm not sure he's even #3 on the Kings
DeArron Fox, Skal Labisierre, Willy Cauley Stein, Buddy Hield
If Smart was traded for any of them straight up I don't think I'd be too worried or nervous, money issues aside.
The list is based off how good these guys are right now though, not in the future. If the league ended after this year and we traded Smart for any of them, I’d be pretty p---ed.
-
Lots of insanity. Malcolm Brogdon at #56? Ahead of all those players mentioned and also Teague, Wiggins, Devin Booker, and Harrison Barnes.
-
If only Smart could, you know, score the ball.
-
I think Melo is overrated, but despite that and regardless how you feel about him, the fact that he's #64 and one spot before Lonzo Freakin' Ball is an absolute joke.
ESPN is becoming garbage lately. Some of the reporters are alright but the rest are just trash. These rankings are a joke too. It's too bad they scooped up Woj too because I loved him before, but now it seems obvious he's stirring up drama whenever he can to generate clicks. The ESPN way ::)
-
This would place Marcus as an elite third man on a roster, if teams were distributed evenly. It seems quite high to me.
What's particularly weird to me is, if we assume that the rankings take an average of various panelists, that means that some probably ranked Marcus significantly higher than 65th. I'd love to hear how people came to that conclusion.
There are enough teams where he would be the 3rd guy, and some even maybe 2 on the really bad teams like the Nets, Kings etc.
These rankings do seem a little wacky though.
I'm not sure he's even #3 on the Kings
DeArron Fox, Skal Labisierre, Willy Cauley Stein, Buddy Hield
If Smart was traded for any of them straight up I don't think I'd be too worried or nervous, money issues aside.
The list is based off how good these guys are right now though, not in the future. If the league ended after this year and we traded Smart for any of them, I’d be pretty p---ed.
You'd be p---ed if we traded Marcus Smart for De'Aaron Fox?
-
Wow what a dumb list. #65 is high for Smart but I do think he's top 100. He's far from the most overrated player on that list.
-
Is offense a factor in determining these rankings?
-
According to ESPN.
#61 Avery Bradley
#63 Lonzo Ball
#64 Carmelo
#65 Smart
#66 Batum
Not a perfect list, but hey I'll take our super sub Utility knife as a top 65 player in basketball.
I think that somebody at ESPN didn't take on their drug testing duties this year.
-
The list was already pretty horrible to start.
Then they put Melo at 64 and lost all credibility in one shot.
-
That list is pretty silly and is rooted more in opinion that basketball stats. Oh wait, that is pretty much ESPN in a nutshell.
-
Jae crowder - 38th best player in NBA???
-
I'm not sure he's even #3 on the Kings
DeArron Fox, Skal Labisierre, Willy Cauley Stein, Buddy Hield
If Smart was traded for any of them straight up I don't think I'd be too worried or nervous, money issues aside.
You're right. If we were playing a game tomorrow, Smart might be No. 1 on the Kings, probably No. 2 behind George Hill (if he's healthy).
-
I'm not sure he's even #3 on the Kings
DeArron Fox, Skal Labisierre, Willy Cauley Stein, Buddy Hield
If Smart was traded for any of them straight up I don't think I'd be too worried or nervous, money issues aside.
You're right. If we were playing a game tomorrow, Smart might be No. 1 on the Kings, probably No. 2 behind George Hill (if he's healthy).
I forgot George Hill. That makes him 5th. I had to think about Justin Jackson for a minute
-
This would place Marcus as an elite third man on a roster, if teams were distributed evenly. It seems quite high to me.
What's particularly weird to me is, if we assume that the rankings take an average of various panelists, that means that some probably ranked Marcus significantly higher than 65th. I'd love to hear how people came to that conclusion.
There are enough teams where he would be the 3rd guy, and some even maybe 2 on the really bad teams like the Nets, Kings etc.
These rankings do seem a little wacky though.
I'm not sure he's even #3 on the Kings
DeArron Fox, Skal Labisierre, Willy Cauley Stein, Buddy Hield
If Smart was traded for any of them straight up I don't think I'd be too worried or nervous, money issues aside.
The list is based off how good these guys are right now though, not in the future. If the league ended after this year and we traded Smart for any of them, I’d be pretty p---ed.
that isn't exactly right.
We asked, "Which player will be better in 2017-18?" To decide, voters had to consider both the quality and the quantity of each player's contributions to his team's ability to win games.
-
I'm not sure he's even #3 on the Kings
DeArron Fox, Skal Labisierre, Willy Cauley Stein, Buddy Hield
If Smart was traded for any of them straight up I don't think I'd be too worried or nervous, money issues aside.
You're right. If we were playing a game tomorrow, Smart might be No. 1 on the Kings, probably No. 2 behind George Hill (if he's healthy).
I forgot George Hill. That makes him 5th. I had to think about Justin Jackson for a minute
He's dropping off but Z-Bo's also on the Kings now. If the trial goes well at least.
-
According to ESPN.
#61 Avery Bradley
#63 Lonzo Ball
#64 Carmelo
#65 Smart
#66 Batum
Not a perfect list, but hey I'll take our super sub Utility knife as a top 65 player in basketball.
First of all look at the source ESPN, and then realize at times a sports writer has absolutely nothing of value to say, and then goes about demonstrating it, all for the simple reason of, that's his job.
-
This would place Marcus as an elite third man on a roster, if teams were distributed evenly. It seems quite high to me.
What's particularly weird to me is, if we assume that the rankings take an average of various panelists, that means that some probably ranked Marcus significantly higher than 65th. I'd love to hear how people came to that conclusion.
There are enough teams where he would be the 3rd guy, and some even maybe 2 on the really bad teams like the Nets, Kings etc.
These rankings do seem a little wacky though.
I'm not sure he's even #3 on the Kings
DeArron Fox, Skal Labisierre, Willy Cauley Stein, Buddy Hield
If Smart was traded for any of them straight up I don't think I'd be too worried or nervous, money issues aside.
The list is based off how good these guys are right now though, not in the future. If the league ended after this year and we traded Smart for any of them, I’d be pretty p---ed.
that isn't exactly right.
We asked, "Which player will be better in 2017-18?" To decide, voters had to consider both the quality and the quantity of each player's contributions to his team's ability to win games.
So I’m exactly right...
They’re only rating guys on how they will do this upcoming year. Would you be happy if we traded 1 year of Smart for 1 year of Fox, WCS, Buddy Hield, Lab, or Justin Jackson?? I know I wouldn’t.
-
This would place Marcus as an elite third man on a roster, if teams were distributed evenly. It seems quite high to me.
What's particularly weird to me is, if we assume that the rankings take an average of various panelists, that means that some probably ranked Marcus significantly higher than 65th. I'd love to hear how people came to that conclusion.
There are enough teams where he would be the 3rd guy, and some even maybe 2 on the really bad teams like the Nets, Kings etc.
These rankings do seem a little wacky though.
I'm not sure he's even #3 on the Kings
DeArron Fox, Skal Labisierre, Willy Cauley Stein, Buddy Hield
If Smart was traded for any of them straight up I don't think I'd be too worried or nervous, money issues aside.
The list is based off how good these guys are right now though, not in the future. If the league ended after this year and we traded Smart for any of them, I’d be pretty p---ed.
that isn't exactly right.
We asked, "Which player will be better in 2017-18?" To decide, voters had to consider both the quality and the quantity of each player's contributions to his team's ability to win games.
So I’m exactly right...
They’re only rating guys on how they will do this upcoming year. Would you be happy if we traded 1 year of Smart for 1 year of Fox, WCS, Buddy Hield, Lab, or Justin Jackson?? I know I wouldn’t.
it is more how they will perform not how good they are if you look at how they define better. "quality and the quantity of each player's contributions to his team's ability to win games".
Smart should be pretty highly ranked based on that criteria as he is pretty valuable to wins and losses and will have plenty of minutes and opportunity. It doesn't mean Smart is better than some of the players he is ahead of though.
-
Smart is a coaches player and fan favorite . There is not a team in the NBA that would not want him on their squad. Very few players do what he does as well. Cause his team to win games without scoring.
-
ESPN ranked crowder higher than Horford...
-
ESPN ranked crowder higher than Horford...
There were three small forwards who ranked inside the top 15 at the position in both offensive and defensive RPM. The Cavaliers now have two of them, with Jae Crowder joining LeBron James. (The other is Milwaukee's Giannis Antetokounmpo.)
Here's the reasoning.
It is one of the most absurd things I have ever read.
-
This thing is a master's class in how to misuse statistics to support ridiculous player comparisons:
Rubio is a viable tip of the spear on both ends of the floor, as he's one of just three point guards in NBA history with career averages of eight assists and two steals per game, alongside Chris Paul and John Stockton.
Myles Turner is one of just five players in history to average 14 points, seven rebounds and two blocks per game by the age of 20. The others: Anthony Davis, Kevin Garnett, Chris Webber and Shaquille O'Neal.
[Embiid] shot better from 3-point range than Reggie Miller did as a rookie...
On a per-possession basis, Batum has filled it up in each of his two seasons in Charlotte, as he's one of just three players to average at least 20 points, eight rebounds and eight assists per 100 possessions in each of the last two seasons. The others? LeBron James and Russell Westbrook.
The only players in NBA history to average at least 20 points per game in each of their first 15 seasons are Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, a club Carmelo Anthony could join in 2017-18.
Only four players in NBA history -- LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Shaquille O'Neal and Kyrie Irving -- averaged more points as a 20-year-old than Devin Booker did last season as he pumped in 22.1 points per game.
There were three small forwards who ranked inside the top 15 at the position in both offensive and defensive RPM. The Cavaliers now have two of them, with Jae Crowder joining LeBron James. (The other is Milwaukee's Giannis Antetokounmpo.)
Someone is getting paid to write this stuff. Think about that for a minute.
-
This thing is a master's class in how to misuse statistics to support ridiculous player comparisons:
Rubio is a viable tip of the spear on both ends of the floor, as he's one of just three point guards in NBA history with career averages of eight assists and two steals per game, alongside Chris Paul and John Stockton.
Myles Turner is one of just five players in history to average 14 points, seven rebounds and two blocks per game by the age of 20. The others: Anthony Davis, Kevin Garnett, Chris Webber and Shaquille O'Neal.
[Embiid] shot better from 3-point range than Reggie Miller did as a rookie...
On a per-possession basis, Batum has filled it up in each of his two seasons in Charlotte, as he's one of just three players to average at least 20 points, eight rebounds and eight assists per 100 possessions in each of the last two seasons. The others? LeBron James and Russell Westbrook.
The only players in NBA history to average at least 20 points per game in each of their first 15 seasons are Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, a club Carmelo Anthony could join in 2017-18.
Only four players in NBA history -- LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Shaquille O'Neal and Kyrie Irving -- averaged more points as a 20-year-old than Devin Booker did last season as he pumped in 22.1 points per game.
There were three small forwards who ranked inside the top 15 at the position in both offensive and defensive RPM. The Cavaliers now have two of them, with Jae Crowder joining LeBron James. (The other is Milwaukee's Giannis Antetokounmpo.)
Someone is getting paid to write this stuff. Think about that for a minute.
It's really talented writing when you think about it. Misinformative, but well done.
-
This thing is a master's class in how to misuse statistics to support ridiculous player comparisons:
Rubio is a viable tip of the spear on both ends of the floor, as he's one of just three point guards in NBA history with career averages of eight assists and two steals per game, alongside Chris Paul and John Stockton.
Myles Turner is one of just five players in history to average 14 points, seven rebounds and two blocks per game by the age of 20. The others: Anthony Davis, Kevin Garnett, Chris Webber and Shaquille O'Neal.
[Embiid] shot better from 3-point range than Reggie Miller did as a rookie...
On a per-possession basis, Batum has filled it up in each of his two seasons in Charlotte, as he's one of just three players to average at least 20 points, eight rebounds and eight assists per 100 possessions in each of the last two seasons. The others? LeBron James and Russell Westbrook.
The only players in NBA history to average at least 20 points per game in each of their first 15 seasons are Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, a club Carmelo Anthony could join in 2017-18.
Only four players in NBA history -- LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Shaquille O'Neal and Kyrie Irving -- averaged more points as a 20-year-old than Devin Booker did last season as he pumped in 22.1 points per game.
There were three small forwards who ranked inside the top 15 at the position in both offensive and defensive RPM. The Cavaliers now have two of them, with Jae Crowder joining LeBron James. (The other is Milwaukee's Giannis Antetokounmpo.)
Someone is getting paid to write this stuff. Think about that for a minute.
It's really talented writing when you think about it. Misinformative, but well done.
Oh no it isn't. All this requires is typing numbers into "NBA Player Season Finder" on basketball-reference.com.
It is the sports equivalent of a bad term paper written by someone who has no command of the English language and went crazy with the Microsoft Word "thesaurus" feature.
-
This thing is a master's class in how to misuse statistics to support ridiculous player comparisons:
Rubio is a viable tip of the spear on both ends of the floor, as he's one of just three point guards in NBA history with career averages of eight assists and two steals per game, alongside Chris Paul and John Stockton.
Myles Turner is one of just five players in history to average 14 points, seven rebounds and two blocks per game by the age of 20. The others: Anthony Davis, Kevin Garnett, Chris Webber and Shaquille O'Neal.
[Embiid] shot better from 3-point range than Reggie Miller did as a rookie...
On a per-possession basis, Batum has filled it up in each of his two seasons in Charlotte, as he's one of just three players to average at least 20 points, eight rebounds and eight assists per 100 possessions in each of the last two seasons. The others? LeBron James and Russell Westbrook.
The only players in NBA history to average at least 20 points per game in each of their first 15 seasons are Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, a club Carmelo Anthony could join in 2017-18.
Only four players in NBA history -- LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Shaquille O'Neal and Kyrie Irving -- averaged more points as a 20-year-old than Devin Booker did last season as he pumped in 22.1 points per game.
There were three small forwards who ranked inside the top 15 at the position in both offensive and defensive RPM. The Cavaliers now have two of them, with Jae Crowder joining LeBron James. (The other is Milwaukee's Giannis Antetokounmpo.)
Someone is getting paid to write this stuff. Think about that for a minute.
It's really talented writing when you think about it. Misinformative, but well done.
Oh no it isn't. All this requires is typing numbers into "NBA Player Season Finder" on basketball-reference.com.
It is the sports equivalent of a bad term paper written by someone who has no command of the English language and went crazy with the Microsoft Word "thesaurus" feature.
Yeah but imagine you have to write a few hundred of these blurbs in a couple weeks along with a bunch of other duties, and you're not getting paid much (or at all).
I think the mistake is treating this like an intellectual exercise and not just "here's some sorta interesting factoids and a list to talk a bunch about and build anticipation while you wait for the season to arrive"
-
This thing is a master's class in how to misuse statistics to support ridiculous player comparisons:
Rubio is a viable tip of the spear on both ends of the floor, as he's one of just three point guards in NBA history with career averages of eight assists and two steals per game, alongside Chris Paul and John Stockton.
Myles Turner is one of just five players in history to average 14 points, seven rebounds and two blocks per game by the age of 20. The others: Anthony Davis, Kevin Garnett, Chris Webber and Shaquille O'Neal.
[Embiid] shot better from 3-point range than Reggie Miller did as a rookie...
On a per-possession basis, Batum has filled it up in each of his two seasons in Charlotte, as he's one of just three players to average at least 20 points, eight rebounds and eight assists per 100 possessions in each of the last two seasons. The others? LeBron James and Russell Westbrook.
The only players in NBA history to average at least 20 points per game in each of their first 15 seasons are Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, a club Carmelo Anthony could join in 2017-18.
Only four players in NBA history -- LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Shaquille O'Neal and Kyrie Irving -- averaged more points as a 20-year-old than Devin Booker did last season as he pumped in 22.1 points per game.
There were three small forwards who ranked inside the top 15 at the position in both offensive and defensive RPM. The Cavaliers now have two of them, with Jae Crowder joining LeBron James. (The other is Milwaukee's Giannis Antetokounmpo.)
Someone is getting paid to write this stuff. Think about that for a minute.
ESPN :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
To be fair to ESPN, when it's [your player] who's the subject of the inane player comparison trivia, it always seems a little more interesting. Seeing them one after another does accentuate the inanity, though.
-
@fairweatherfan
I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.
One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.
Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.
The third is that they 'adapt' the data to fit a narrative. A recent example: there are five players who averaged 20ppg or more in every season they played in the NBA: MJ, LBJ, KD, Melo and Bob Petitt. This was posted a couple of days ago by /u/Morezingis on reddit.
(https://i.gyazo.com/ee37e655786786cdbfd6289b35531119.png)
Shortly afterwards, this made its way to "Basketball Forever". Petitt however was omitted. They wrote instead "since 1965" (the year of Petitt's retirement).
(https://i.gyazo.com/ff028596351f5a4b3b6a41d3dda44ef1.png)
(https://i.gyazo.com/5c484e983e7d7c8f0d88f6e0f465fac7.png)
This post was in its turn recycled by BR which did not even bother to write "since 1965" they just put an asterisk.
(https://gyazo.com/23ca96e298208a435b5b1808dc31a9cf.png)
For the full story: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zwysl/bob_petitt_is_being_left_out_of_posts_about/
EDIT: added the images
-
ESPN ranked crowder higher than Horford...
lol. Yup.
Horford at 40, Demar Derozan at 39, and Crowder at 38. What do you think Toronto would do if Cleveland called up and offered Crowder for Derozan, straight up? What a joke.
-
@fairweatherfan
I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.
One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.
Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.
The third is that they 'adapt' the data to fit a narrative. A recent example: there are five players who averaged 20ppg or more in every season they played in the NBA: MJ, LBJ, KD, Melo and Bob Petitt. This was posted a couple of days ago by /u/Morezingis on reddit.
(https://i.gyazo.com/ee37e655786786cdbfd6289b35531119.png)
Shortly afterwards, this made its way to "Basketball Forever". Petitt however was omitted. They wrote instead "since 1965" (the year of Petitt's retirement).
(https://i.gyazo.com/ff028596351f5a4b3b6a41d3dda44ef1.png)
(https://i.gyazo.com/5c484e983e7d7c8f0d88f6e0f465fac7.png)
This post was in its turn recycled by BR which did not even bother to write "since 1965" they just put an asterisk.
(https://gyazo.com/23ca96e298208a435b5b1808dc31a9cf.png)
For the full story: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zwysl/bob_petitt_is_being_left_out_of_posts_about/
EDIT: added the images
But the data is not how they came up with the rankings. The rankings are based on what their experts think (some of them may use data, some of them may not). They used the data after the fact to support the rankings that the experts came up with.
-
ESPN ranked crowder higher than Horford...
lol. Yup.
Horford at 40, Demar Derozan at 39, and Crowder at 38. What do you think Toronto would do if Cleveland called up and offered Crowder for Derozan, straight up? What a joke.
Crowder was so underrated that he became incredibly overrated.
While I think he's still a bit overrated on this blog by some, most of us on here have a much better perspective of Crowder than the rest of the league due to watching him extensively the last two and a half years.
The rest of the league greatly exaggerates how good Crowder was, especially last year.
-
@fairweatherfan
I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.
One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.
Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.
The third is that they 'adapt' the data to fit a narrative. A recent example: there are five players who averaged 20ppg or more in every season they played in the NBA: MJ, LBJ, KD, Melo and Bob Petitt. This was posted a couple of days ago by /u/Morezingis on reddit.
(https://i.gyazo.com/ee37e655786786cdbfd6289b35531119.png)
Shortly afterwards, this made its way to "Basketball Forever". Petitt however was omitted. They wrote instead "since 1965" (the year of Petitt's retirement).
(https://i.gyazo.com/ff028596351f5a4b3b6a41d3dda44ef1.png)
(https://i.gyazo.com/5c484e983e7d7c8f0d88f6e0f465fac7.png)
This post was in its turn recycled by BR which did not even bother to write "since 1965" they just put an asterisk.
(https://gyazo.com/23ca96e298208a435b5b1808dc31a9cf.png)
For the full story: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zwysl/bob_petitt_is_being_left_out_of_posts_about/
EDIT: added the images
I think the funny thing is, Bleacher Report who stole content from Basketball Forever who stole the content from Reddit, was the only one to actually get it right.
The reddit post is wrong as it excludes Alex Groza and Joel Embiid.
Basketball Forever tweet is wrong because they also exclude Embiid.
And then Bleacher Report comes along and is the only one to put the appropriate qualifiers in their tweet, making their's the only one that's 100% accurate.
-
@fairweatherfan
I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.
One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.
Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.
The third is that they 'adapt' the data to fit a narrative. A recent example: there are five players who averaged 20ppg or more in every season they played in the NBA: MJ, LBJ, KD, Melo and Bob Petitt. This was posted a couple of days ago by /u/Morezingis on reddit.
Shortly afterwards, this made its way to "Basketball Forever". Petitt however was omitted. They wrote instead "since 1965" (the year of Petitt's retirement).
This post was in its turn recycled by BR which did not even bother to write "since 1965" they just put an asterisk.
For the full story: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zwysl/bob_petitt_is_being_left_out_of_posts_about/
Cut the pics out to trim the space a bit.
I think misuse of data is a major problem, but only in contexts that matter. I don't think ranking sports players matters, so I have a hard time taking anything about it very seriously. The possible intellectual property theft may be an issue for the people creating it but that's awfully hard to prove bc the source of those stats is publicly available.
I am kinda bummed about the exclusion of Pettit though - he's a sort of old-timey binky for me because he seems to be the most forgotten great in league history.
-
I'm surprised to see Smart in the top 75. He is an amazing defender but the rest of his game needs a lot of work, in particular his offense and shot selection. Big question, answer honestly, will Marcus Smart EVER shoot over 40% from the field in his career?
-
@fairweatherfan
I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.
One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.
Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.
The third is that they 'adapt' the data to fit a narrative. A recent example: there are five players who averaged 20ppg or more in every season they played in the NBA: MJ, LBJ, KD, Melo and Bob Petitt. This was posted a couple of days ago by /u/Morezingis on reddit.
Shortly afterwards, this made its way to "Basketball Forever". Petitt however was omitted. They wrote instead "since 1965" (the year of Petitt's retirement).
This post was in its turn recycled by BR which did not even bother to write "since 1965" they just put an asterisk.
For the full story: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zwysl/bob_petitt_is_being_left_out_of_posts_about/
Cut the pics out to trim the space a bit.
I think misuse of data is a major problem, but only in contexts that matter. I don't think ranking sports players matters, so I have a hard time taking anything about it very seriously. The possible intellectual property theft may be an issue for the people creating it but that's awfully hard to prove bc the source of those stats is publicly available.
I am kinda bummed about the exclusion of Pettit though - he's a sort of old-timey binky for me because he seems to be the most forgotten great in league history.
They didn't misuse data though as the ranking isn't based on data, it is based on their experts opinions. The little snippets are just interesting things that help support the ranking.
-
For the record, SI did their top 100 and Smart was not ranked.
https://www.si.com/nba/2017/09/12/top-100-nba-players-2018-dwyane-wade-dirk-nowitzki-dwight-howard
SI's rankings make a lot more sense overall. The Celtics had 3 players ranked all in the top 30.
Horford was 30
Irving was 21
Hayward was 16
-
@fairweatherfan
I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.
One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.
Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.
The third is that they 'adapt' the data to fit a narrative. A recent example: there are five players who averaged 20ppg or more in every season they played in the NBA: MJ, LBJ, KD, Melo and Bob Petitt. This was posted a couple of days ago by /u/Morezingis on reddit.
Shortly afterwards, this made its way to "Basketball Forever". Petitt however was omitted. They wrote instead "since 1965" (the year of Petitt's retirement).
This post was in its turn recycled by BR which did not even bother to write "since 1965" they just put an asterisk.
For the full story: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zwysl/bob_petitt_is_being_left_out_of_posts_about/
Cut the pics out to trim the space a bit.
I think misuse of data is a major problem, but only in contexts that matter. I don't think ranking sports players matters, so I have a hard time taking anything about it very seriously. The possible intellectual property theft may be an issue for the people creating it but that's awfully hard to prove bc the source of those stats is publicly available.
I am kinda bummed about the exclusion of Pettit though - he's a sort of old-timey binky for me because he seems to be the most forgotten great in league history.
They didn't misuse data though as the ranking isn't based on data, it is based on their experts opinions. The little snippets are just interesting things that help support the ranking.
I know - though the rankings are based on data in the aggregated choices of the panel, they're not based on the factoids, no.
But I didn't take that as the intent of greece's post, or Boris'. Rather they're talking about the secondary issue of misrepresenting info in the blurbs attached to the rankings.
-
@fairweatherfan
I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.
One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.
Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.
The third is that they 'adapt' the data to fit a narrative. A recent example: there are five players who averaged 20ppg or more in every season they played in the NBA: MJ, LBJ, KD, Melo and Bob Petitt. This was posted a couple of days ago by /u/Morezingis on reddit.
Shortly afterwards, this made its way to "Basketball Forever". Petitt however was omitted. They wrote instead "since 1965" (the year of Petitt's retirement).
This post was in its turn recycled by BR which did not even bother to write "since 1965" they just put an asterisk.
For the full story: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zwysl/bob_petitt_is_being_left_out_of_posts_about/
Cut the pics out to trim the space a bit.
I think misuse of data is a major problem, but only in contexts that matter. I don't think ranking sports players matters, so I have a hard time taking anything about it very seriously. The possible intellectual property theft may be an issue for the people creating it but that's awfully hard to prove bc the source of those stats is publicly available.
I am kinda bummed about the exclusion of Pettit though - he's a sort of old-timey binky for me because he seems to be the most forgotten great in league history.
They didn't misuse data though as the ranking isn't based on data, it is based on their experts opinions. The little snippets are just interesting things that help support the ranking.
I know - though the rankings are based on data in the aggregated choices of the panel, they're not based on the factoids, no.
But I didn't take that as the intent of greece's post, or Boris'. Rather they're talking about the secondary issue of misrepresenting info in the blurbs attached to the rankings.
but it isn't misrepresented. Those things are actually true.
-
@bmd860
Groza is a good one.
The OP had addressed this issue in a comment, although IMO it's clear why Groza doesn't fit with the rest of the bunch.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zhcpt/only_5_players_in_history_have_never_averaged/dmv814v/
@fairweatherfan
Your post doesn't address any of the points I raised. Instead, you put in my mouth words that I never said.
-
It's interesting to see both SI and ESPN rank Hayward higher than Irving. That definitely doesn't seem to be the feeling amongst most Celtics fans.
-
@fairweatherfan
I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.
One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.
Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.
The third is that they 'adapt' the data to fit a narrative. A recent example: there are five players who averaged 20ppg or more in every season they played in the NBA: MJ, LBJ, KD, Melo and Bob Petitt. This was posted a couple of days ago by /u/Morezingis on reddit.
Shortly afterwards, this made its way to "Basketball Forever". Petitt however was omitted. They wrote instead "since 1965" (the year of Petitt's retirement).
This post was in its turn recycled by BR which did not even bother to write "since 1965" they just put an asterisk.
For the full story: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6zwysl/bob_petitt_is_being_left_out_of_posts_about/
Cut the pics out to trim the space a bit.
I think misuse of data is a major problem, but only in contexts that matter. I don't think ranking sports players matters, so I have a hard time taking anything about it very seriously. The possible intellectual property theft may be an issue for the people creating it but that's awfully hard to prove bc the source of those stats is publicly available.
I am kinda bummed about the exclusion of Pettit though - he's a sort of old-timey binky for me because he seems to be the most forgotten great in league history.
They didn't misuse data though as the ranking isn't based on data, it is based on their experts opinions. The little snippets are just interesting things that help support the ranking.
I know - though the rankings are based on data in the aggregated choices of the panel, they're not based on the factoids, no.
But I didn't take that as the intent of greece's post, or Boris'. Rather they're talking about the secondary issue of misrepresenting info in the blurbs attached to the rankings.
but it isn't misrepresented. Those things are actually true.
Yeah, I think misrepresentation is the wrong word. Maybe they're using the facts suggestively, but they're still facts.
-
Jae crowder - 38th best player in NBA???
And he's #44 on SI's list (only 4 spots behind IT).
I mean, I like Jae and wish him the very best, but does anybody in the world think that he is a solid #2 guy on the average NBA team? Because according to ESPN and SI, Jae would go early in the 2nd round if you took all NBA players, put them in a pool, and re-drafted them.
-
Jae crowder - 38th best player in NBA???
And he's #44 on SI's list (only 4 spots behind IT).
I mean, I like Jae and wish him the very best, but does anybody in the world think that he is a solid #2 guy on the average NBA team? Because according to ESPN and SI, Jae would go early in the 2nd round if you took all NBA players, put them in a pool, and re-drafted them.
No. He's a great 4th or 5th guy to have.
-
Jae crowder - 38th best player in NBA???
And he's #44 on SI's list (only 4 spots behind IT).
I mean, I like Jae and wish him the very best, but does anybody in the world think that he is a solid #2 guy on the average NBA team? Because according to ESPN and SI, Jae would go early in the 2nd round if you took all NBA players, put them in a pool, and re-drafted them.
No. He's a great 4th or 5th guy to have.
SI even said that, so I have no idea why they ranked him 44th.
"Regardless, Crowder is an ideal fifth starter or lead reserve on a team with championship aspirations, and he should find a clean fit with the Cavaliers, who could have desperately used his services in the 2017 Finals"
-
Jae crowder - 38th best player in NBA???
And he's #44 on SI's list (only 4 spots behind IT).
I mean, I like Jae and wish him the very best, but does anybody in the world think that he is a solid #2 guy on the average NBA team? Because according to ESPN and SI, Jae would go early in the 2nd round if you took all NBA players, put them in a pool, and re-drafted them.
No. He's a great 4th or 5th guy to have.
SI even said that, so I have no idea why they ranked him 44th.
"Regardless, Crowder is an ideal fifth starter or lead reserve on a team with championship aspirations, and he should find a clean fit with the Cavaliers, who could have desperately used his services in the 2017 Finals"
How many teams realistically have championship aspirations? I agree that he is probably ranked too high but he could easily be a 3 guy on several subpar teams maybe even 2 on some bad ones.
-
@fairweatherfan
Your post doesn't address any of the points I raised. Instead, you put in my mouth words that I never said.
? ? ?
@fairweatherfan
I disagree. IMO this is a serious issue.
One issue is what Boris Badenov already talked about. This is thoughtless use of data without context.
I think misuse of data is a major problem, but only in contexts that matter. I don't think ranking sports players matters, so I have a hard time taking anything about it very seriously.
Another is that they often recycle stuff posted on reddit or elsewhere from fans without giving credit to the people who originally posted them. A good number of the tweets and fan facts you see from 'reputable' sources is the uncredited work of other ppl.
The possible intellectual property theft may be an issue for the people creating it but that's awfully hard to prove bc the source of those stats is publicly available.
I'm so confused. Didn't mean to offend regardless but I definitely thought I was responding directly to what you said your issues were.
-
For the record, SI did their top 100 and Smart was not ranked.
https://www.si.com/nba/2017/09/12/top-100-nba-players-2018-dwyane-wade-dirk-nowitzki-dwight-howard
SI's rankings make a lot more sense overall. The Celtics had 3 players ranked all in the top 30.
Horford was 30
Irving was 21
Hayward was 16
He did make their 25 biggest snubs list, so I guess he's top 125.
https://www.si.com/nba/2017/09/11/biggest-snubs-top-100-nba-players-derrick-rose-jeremy-lin-malcolm-brogdon
-
Jae crowder - 38th best player in NBA???
And he's #44 on SI's list (only 4 spots behind IT).
I mean, I like Jae and wish him the very best, but does anybody in the world think that he is a solid #2 guy on the average NBA team? Because according to ESPN and SI, Jae would go early in the 2nd round if you took all NBA players, put them in a pool, and re-drafted them.
No. He's a great 4th or 5th guy to have.
SI even said that, so I have no idea why they ranked him 44th.
"Regardless, Crowder is an ideal fifth starter or lead reserve on a team with championship aspirations, and he should find a clean fit with the Cavaliers, who could have desperately used his services in the 2017 Finals"
How many teams realistically have championship aspirations? I agree that he is probably ranked too high but he could easily be a 3 guy on several subpar teams maybe even 2 on some bad ones.
True but who would you rather have next year Jae Crowder or Andre Drummond? Or Otto Porter? Or Avery Bradley? Heck who is more valuable to Cleveland next year, Jae Crowder or Tristan Thompson? Those 4 guys are ranked 51-54 (I didn't mention them in order) by SI and I pretty confident that most everyone would take at least 2 and many would probably take all 4 ahead of Jae Crowder.
I really don't get the love affair being shown Crowder. He is no better than a 4th starter on all of the top level teams (and he will come of the bench in Cleveland and would in Golden State as well). That isn't a guy that will have the 44th best season next year (or a top 40 season as ESPN predicts).
I do think SI's list is a lot better than ESPN. It just makes a lot more sense overall.
-
I thought Crowder was a top 50 player and a quality choice at #38 a year ago but given the drop-off in his defense last season I do not see Crowder on that level anymore.
More somewhere in the 60-75 range.
-
ESPN's top 10 is out
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank110/nbarank-players-1-10
James
Durant
Leonard
Curry
Westbrook
Davis
Paul
Harden
Antetokounmpo
Green
Pretty similar to SI
James
Durant
Curry
Leonard
Harden
Westbrook
Paul
Davis
Antetokounmpo
Green
Identical set of players (still am surprised both have Draymond Green as the 10th best player) with some pretty clear lines of delineation between them both
James
Durant
Curry/Leonard
Westbrook/Harden/Davis/Paul
Antetokounmpo
Green
Sirius XM NBA radio also put together a list
http://blog.siriusxm.com/2017/09/11/carmelo-anthony-dwyane-wade-snubbed-from-siriusxm-nba-radios-top-25-players/
Their top 10 in order
James
Durant
Leonard
Curry
Westbrook
Harden
Davis
Antetokounmpo
Wall
Paul
They have Draymond at 13 and obviously added Wall at 9. Butler and George were 11 and 12 on their list. Irving came in at 16 and Hayward at 24. They still had Isaiah pretty high, comparatively, at 19.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Could have?
Bill Russell, Wilt, LeBron, Pippen and Jordan come to mind. Kawhi perhaps. In 2 of the 100 perfect worlds Marcus could do it.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
That’s a testament to how great of a situation Draymond is in though. If I had Curry, Thompson, and Durant to pass to I’d probably drop 7 assists a game. I mean that’s 3 of the best shooters in history. So to answer your question of guys who could have won DPOY and led the best team in the league in assists, would basically be every legit DPOY candidate who had just solid playmaking ability.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Draymond Green is certainly a fantastic player, but he might very well be the most overrated player in the league. There is no way Green has any business being ranked in the top 15.
The top 15 players should be guys you can count on to be your team's best player. No team that has Green as their best player is getting anywhere, he's not that type of player. Green is the ultimate "glue guy", and that's great, but he can't lead a team so he can't be considered a top 15 player.
-
For the record, SI did their top 100 and Smart was not ranked.
https://www.si.com/nba/2017/09/12/top-100-nba-players-2018-dwyane-wade-dirk-nowitzki-dwight-howard
SI's rankings make a lot more sense overall. The Celtics had 3 players ranked all in the top 30.
Horford was 30
Irving was 21
Hayward was 16
Now that's more like it! :laugh:
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Draymond Green is certainly a fantastic player, but he might very well be the most overrated player in the league. There is no way Green has any business being ranked in the top 15.
The top 15 players should be guys you can count on to be your team's best player. No team that has Green as their best player is getting anywhere, he's not that type of player. Green is the ultimate "glue guy", and that's great, but he can't lead a team so he can't be considered a top 15 player.
I disagree completely. I think if Green was ever made the number 1 scoring option on a team he would thrive in that role. Add to that his defensive versatility and prowess, his playmaking ability and his rebounding and I think he could easily be an alpha, #1 guy on 2/3s of the teams in the NBA. The players he is playing with are holding him back from being a 25/9/7 type of player.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Draymond Green is certainly a fantastic player, but he might very well be the most overrated player in the league. There is no way Green has any business being ranked in the top 15.
The top 15 players should be guys you can count on to be your team's best player. No team that has Green as their best player is getting anywhere, he's not that type of player. Green is the ultimate "glue guy", and that's great, but he can't lead a team so he can't be considered a top 15 player.
I disagree completely. I think if Green was ever made the number 1 scoring option on a team he would thrive in that role. Add to that his defensive versatility and prowess, his playmaking ability and his rebounding and I think he could easily be an alpha, #1 guy on 2/3s of the teams in the NBA. The players he is playing with are holding him back from being a 25/9/7 type of player.
Green is not that type of player
-
Why do I have literally zero interest in Chris Paul?
The guy is a human clinic, but I'd probably go with the myopic ginger kid before him in a pickup game..
AND there is literally no way in any dimension ever, you can or should compare him with Anthony Davis.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Draymond Green is certainly a fantastic player, but he might very well be the most overrated player in the league. There is no way Green has any business being ranked in the top 15.
The top 15 players should be guys you can count on to be your team's best player. No team that has Green as their best player is getting anywhere, he's not that type of player. Green is the ultimate "glue guy", and that's great, but he can't lead a team so he can't be considered a top 15 player.
I disagree completely. I think if Green was ever made the number 1 scoring option on a team he would thrive in that role. Add to that his defensive versatility and prowess, his playmaking ability and his rebounding and I think he could easily be an alpha, #1 guy on 2/3s of the teams in the NBA. The players he is playing with are holding him back from being a 25/9/7 type of player.
Green is not that type of player
Says you. I say differently. Will just have to agree to disagree
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Draymond Green is certainly a fantastic player, but he might very well be the most overrated player in the leag 8)ue. There is no way Green has any business being ranked in the top 15.
The top 15 players should be guys you can count on to be your team's best player. No team that has Green as their best player is getting anywhere, he's not that type of player. Green is the ultimate "glue guy", and that's great, but he can't lead a team so he can't be considered a top 15 player.
I disagree completely. I think if Green was ever made the number 1 scoring option on a team he would thrive in that role. Add to that his defensive versatility and prowess, his playmaking ability and his rebounding and I think he could easily be an alpha, #1 guy on 2/3s of the teams in the NBA. The players he is playing with are holding him back from being a 25/9/7 type of player.
Outside of hitting open threes, Green isn't a great offensive player. In fact, he's a downright terrible one.
For instance, the only starter who had a lower FG% on drives was Luke Babbit. Green shot 26.1% while driving to the hoop.
Green ranked in the bottom 5.4% of all players on iso plays, averaging an anemic .44 points per possession.
He ranked in the bottom 9.5% in points per possession on post ups.
He was in the bottom 15.1% as the pick and roll finisher.
Heck, he's even below average (46.8th percentile) on spot ups.
Green is a great defender and passer. If he was a team's #1 scorer, that team would struggle to win 10 games.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Could have?
Bill Russell, Wilt, LeBron, Pippen and Jordan come to mind. Kawhi perhaps. In 2 of the 100 perfect worlds Marcus could do it.
I would knock Kawhi off the list. Only once has he averaged more than 2.6 apg and had a career high of just 3.5 this season. Otherwise, that's pretty good company for Green to be in.
EDIT: Also, it's worth noting that none of those guys actually did what Draymond just did.
That’s a testament to how great of a situation Draymond is in though. If I had Curry, Thompson, and Durant to pass to I’d probably drop 7 assists a game. I mean that’s 3 of the best shooters in history. So to answer your question of guys who could have won DPOY and led the best team in the league in assists, would basically be every legit DPOY candidate who had just solid playmaking ability.
There was a video going around twitter a while ago that showed all the plays where Draymond was on the floor without any of those other guys. He was running the show. He was effectively playing pg on offense and protecting the rim on defense. He's not just a product of the greats he plays with, he's a product of his own amazing versatility and work.
Also, your logic doesn't make any sense. Curry has Thompson and Durant, Durant has Curry and Thompson. If it's so easy to rack up assists with these guys on your team why are the Warriors putting the ball in Draymond's hands so much? The answer is because he's the best playmaker on the team.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Could have?
Bill Russell, Wilt, LeBron, Pippen and Jordan come to mind. Kawhi perhaps. In 2 of the 100 perfect worlds Marcus could do it.
I would knock Kawhi off the list. Only once has he averaged more than 2.6 apg and had a career high of just 3.5 this season. Otherwise, that's pretty good company for Green to be in.
EDIT: Also, it's worth noting that none of those guys actually did what Draymond just did.
That’s a testament to how great of a situation Draymond is in though. If I had Curry, Thompson, and Durant to pass to I’d probably drop 7 assists a game. I mean that’s 3 of the best shooters in history. So to answer your question of guys who could have won DPOY and led the best team in the league in assists, would basically be every legit DPOY candidate who had just solid playmaking ability.
There was a video going around twitter a while ago that showed all the plays where Draymond was on the floor without any of those other guys. He was running the show. He was effectively playing pg on offense and protecting the rim on defense. He's not just a product of the greats he plays with, he's a product of his own amazing versatility and work.
Also, your logic doesn't make any sense. Curry has Thompson and Durant, Durant has Curry and Thompson. If it's so easy to rack up assists with these guys on your team why are the Warriors putting the ball in Draymond's hands so much? The answer is because he's the best playmaker on the team.
First off, the ball is not in Draymond’s hands that much. His usage is 16%, 8th highest on the team behind Curry, Thompson, Durant and other bench guys. So the Warriors clearly don’t think he’s the best playmaker, otherwise he would have the ball more.
And yes my logic does make sense. Curry has Klay and KD, but Curry can’t get an assist to Curry. Draymond has 3 of the best shooters of all time to pass to. The others have 2.
And also, it’s easier to get assists when you’re not looking to score for yourself. Look at the numbers Roy posted above. Draymond is a dreadful scorer. So when he has the ball and he has the choice between trying to score himself, or passing to one of 3 amazing shooters, you already know he’s going to be looking to pass.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Draymond Green is certainly a fantastic player, but he might very well be the most overrated player in the leag 8)ue. There is no way Green has any business being ranked in the top 15.
The top 15 players should be guys you can count on to be your team's best player. No team that has Green as their best player is getting anywhere, he's not that type of player. Green is the ultimate "glue guy", and that's great, but he can't lead a team so he can't be considered a top 15 player.
I disagree completely. I think if Green was ever made the number 1 scoring option on a team he would thrive in that role. Add to that his defensive versatility and prowess, his playmaking ability and his rebounding and I think he could easily be an alpha, #1 guy on 2/3s of the teams in the NBA. The players he is playing with are holding him back from being a 25/9/7 type of player.
Outside of hitting open threes, Green isn't a great offensive player. In fact, he's a downright terrible one.
For instance, the only starter who had a lower FG% on drives was Luke Babbit. Green shot 26.1% while driving to the hoop.
Green ranked in the bottom 5.4% of all players on iso plays, averaging an anemic .44 points per possession.
He ranked in the bottom 9.5% in points per possession on post ups.
He was in the bottom 15.1% as the pick and roll finisher.
Heck, he's even below average (46.8th percentile) on spot ups.
Green is a great defender and passer. If he was a team's #1 scorer, that team would struggle to win 10 games.
I was too lazy to do this, and didn't know it would work out quite this way statistically, but watching Green this is the impression I got. He isn't a guy that can be an offensive #1 player.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Draymond Green is certainly a fantastic player, but he might very well be the most overrated player in the leag 8)ue. There is no way Green has any business being ranked in the top 15.
The top 15 players should be guys you can count on to be your team's best player. No team that has Green as their best player is getting anywhere, he's not that type of player. Green is the ultimate "glue guy", and that's great, but he can't lead a team so he can't be considered a top 15 player.
I disagree completely. I think if Green was ever made the number 1 scoring option on a team he would thrive in that role. Add to that his defensive versatility and prowess, his playmaking ability and his rebounding and I think he could easily be an alpha, #1 guy on 2/3s of the teams in the NBA. The players he is playing with are holding him back from being a 25/9/7 type of player.
Outside of hitting open threes, Green isn't a great offensive player. In fact, he's a downright terrible one.
For instance, the only starter who had a lower FG% on drives was Luke Babbit. Green shot 26.1% while driving to the hoop.
Green ranked in the bottom 5.4% of all players on iso plays, averaging an anemic .44 points per possession.
He ranked in the bottom 9.5% in points per possession on post ups.
He was in the bottom 15.1% as the pick and roll finisher.
Heck, he's even below average (46.8th percentile) on spot ups.
Green is a great defender and passer. If he was a team's #1 scorer, that team would struggle to win 10 games.
I was too lazy to do this, and didn't know it would work out quite this way statistically, but watching Green this is the impression I got. He isn't a guy that can be an offensive #1 player.
It's pretty remarkable. Is there another starter in the league who falls into the bottom 15% league wide on drives, isolation, pick-and-roll, and Post-ups?
And yet, he's rightly seen as a great player because he plays to his strengths. He's almost Rodman-esque in that way.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Could have?
Bill Russell, Wilt, LeBron, Pippen and Jordan come to mind. Kawhi perhaps. In 2 of the 100 perfect worlds Marcus could do it.
I would knock Kawhi off the list. Only once has he averaged more than 2.6 apg and had a career high of just 3.5 this season. Otherwise, that's pretty good company for Green to be in.
EDIT: Also, it's worth noting that none of those guys actually did what Draymond just did.
Well they didn't have the DPOY award until the 82/83 season and the award has most often been given to shot blocking and rebounding big men. Those players don't tend to be great passers.
That said, Gary Payton did win DPOY and lead his team in assists. The Sonics also won 64 games that year, of course that was the year the Bulls won 72. And of course unlike Green, Payton was actually his team's best player and the player most responsible for those 64 wins (11.5 WS to be exact). Green this past season was 3rd on the 67 win Warriors with just 8.2 WS. Durant in just 62 games had WS of 12 and Curry led the way with 12.6.
Going back to the 60's, Chamberlain led the league in assists one year and if they had the award and not for Russell, Chamberlain would have won multiple DPOY awards. He also would have led his team in scoring, rebounding, and blocked shots in addition to assists. Russell was likely never going to have enough assists to pass up guys like Cousy, KC Jones, and Hondo, but he was certainly capable of getting those assist numbers. I'm sure there are players in the 70's that also could have done it. Moncrief nearly did in the 80's (though the Bucks being the best team would have been a stretch). Artest had that sort of talent before the Malice. Jordan obviously won a DPOY and led his team in assists and was the best player on multiple teams that were the league's best team. He just never did all 3 in the same season.
Most of the guys were their teams best player, not a glorified role player like Green, which is why this really is a meaningless debate.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Draymond Green is certainly a fantastic player, but he might very well be the most overrated player in the leag 8)ue. There is no way Green has any business being ranked in the top 15.
The top 15 players should be guys you can count on to be your team's best player. No team that has Green as their best player is getting anywhere, he's not that type of player. Green is the ultimate "glue guy", and that's great, but he can't lead a team so he can't be considered a top 15 player.
I disagree completely. I think if Green was ever made the number 1 scoring option on a team he would thrive in that role. Add to that his defensive versatility and prowess, his playmaking ability and his rebounding and I think he could easily be an alpha, #1 guy on 2/3s of the teams in the NBA. The players he is playing with are holding him back from being a 25/9/7 type of player.
Outside of hitting open threes, Green isn't a great offensive player. In fact, he's a downright terrible one.
For instance, the only starter who had a lower FG% on drives was Luke Babbit. Green shot 26.1% while driving to the hoop.
Green ranked in the bottom 5.4% of all players on iso plays, averaging an anemic .44 points per possession.
He ranked in the bottom 9.5% in points per possession on post ups.
He was in the bottom 15.1% as the pick and roll finisher.
Heck, he's even below average (46.8th percentile) on spot ups.
Green is a great defender and passer. If he was a team's #1 scorer, that team would struggle to win 10 games.
I was too lazy to do this, and didn't know it would work out quite this way statistically, but watching Green this is the impression I got. He isn't a guy that can be an offensive #1 player.
It's pretty remarkable. Is there another starter in the league who falls into the bottom 15% league wide on drives, isolation, pick-and-roll, and Post-ups?
And yet, he's rightly seen as a great player because he plays to his strengths. He's almost Rodman-esque in that way.
He has that nasty that Rodman had as well (Ben Wallace also comes to mind). Green is obviously more well rounded than Rodman or Wallace was (though he will never be the rebounder or overall defender). The difference is that no one ever really perceived Rodman/Wallace the way Green is perceived i.e. a top ten player in the league.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Draymond Green is certainly a fantastic player, but he might very well be the most overrated player in the leag 8)ue. There is no way Green has any business being ranked in the top 15.
The top 15 players should be guys you can count on to be your team's best player. No team that has Green as their best player is getting anywhere, he's not that type of player. Green is the ultimate "glue guy", and that's great, but he can't lead a team so he can't be considered a top 15 player.
I disagree completely. I think if Green was ever made the number 1 scoring option on a team he would thrive in that role. Add to that his defensive versatility and prowess, his playmaking ability and his rebounding and I think he could easily be an alpha, #1 guy on 2/3s of the teams in the NBA. The players he is playing with are holding him back from being a 25/9/7 type of player.
Outside of hitting open threes, Green isn't a great offensive player. In fact, he's a downright terrible one.
For instance, the only starter who had a lower FG% on drives was Luke Babbit. Green shot 26.1% while driving to the hoop.
Green ranked in the bottom 5.4% of all players on iso plays, averaging an anemic .44 points per possession.
He ranked in the bottom 9.5% in points per possession on post ups.
He was in the bottom 15.1% as the pick and roll finisher.
Heck, he's even below average (46.8th percentile) on spot ups.
Green is a great defender and passer. If he was a team's #1 scorer, that team would struggle to win 10 games.
I was too lazy to do this, and didn't know it would work out quite this way statistically, but watching Green this is the impression I got. He isn't a guy that can be an offensive #1 player.
It's pretty remarkable. Is there another starter in the league who falls into the bottom 15% league wide on drives, isolation, pick-and-roll, and Post-ups?
And yet, he's rightly seen as a great player because he plays to his strengths. He's almost Rodman-esque in that way.
He has that nasty that Rodman had as well (Ben Wallace also comes to mind). Green is obviously more well rounded than Rodman or Wallace was (though he will never be the rebounder or overall defender). The difference is that no one ever really perceived Rodman/Wallace the way Green is perceived i.e. a top ten player in the league.
I wouldn't put Wallace in the same camp as Green and Rodman in terms of having "that nasty", as Big Ben was never a dirty player like those two clowns. Honestly, he might never have won a DPOY award - although you could certainly make a case for him, at the very least, imo - but I believe that a watered-down version of Anthony Mason is probably the best comparison for Green, with the only differences being that while Draymond is more athletic and a better shooter, Mason was an excellent ball handler and developed into a solid post player, and I'd also venture to say that Mase was the better passer, as well, and lead the 95-96 Knicks in assists, just edging Derek Harper.
Come to think of it idk how he never managed to win a single DPOY award given that he could guard so many different kinds of players like Shaq, Hakeem, Malone, Barkley, Jordan, Pippen, and Mark Aguirre, for example. Ugh. Why couldn't we have taken him and Starks over Brian Shaw? Screw that guy, lol. Mason and Starks would have been great Celtics, imo, plus it would have been fun to see Mason beat the crap out of Rodman, Mahorn, Laimbeer, and Salley, not to mention Aguirre and punks like Chuck Person, lol. He probably could have done a great job on Magic, as well. Sigh.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Could have?
Bill Russell, Wilt, LeBron, Pippen and Jordan come to mind. Kawhi perhaps. In 2 of the 100 perfect worlds Marcus could do it.
I would knock Kawhi off the list. Only once has he averaged more than 2.6 apg and had a career high of just 3.5 this season. Otherwise, that's pretty good company for Green to be in.
EDIT: Also, it's worth noting that none of those guys actually did what Draymond just did.
Well they didn't have the DPOY award until the 82/83 season and the award has most often been given to shot blocking and rebounding big men. Those players don't tend to be great passers.
That said, Gary Payton did win DPOY and lead his team in assists. The Sonics also won 64 games that year, of course that was the year the Bulls won 72. And of course unlike Green, Payton was actually his team's best player and the player most responsible for those 64 wins (11.5 WS to be exact). Green this past season was 3rd on the 67 win Warriors with just 8.2 WS. Durant in just 62 games had WS of 12 and Curry led the way with 12.6.
Going back to the 60's, Chamberlain led the league in assists one year and if they had the award and not for Russell, Chamberlain would have won multiple DPOY awards. He also would have led his team in scoring, rebounding, and blocked shots in addition to assists. Russell was likely never going to have enough assists to pass up guys like Cousy, KC Jones, and Hondo, but he was certainly capable of getting those assist numbers. I'm sure there are players in the 70's that also could have done it. Moncrief nearly did in the 80's (though the Bucks being the best team would have been a stretch). Artest had that sort of talent before the Malice. Jordan obviously won a DPOY and led his team in assists and was the best player on multiple teams that were the league's best team. He just never did all 3 in the same season.
Most of the guys were their teams best player, not a glorified role player like Green, which is why this really is a meaningless debate.
I'm not sure why you think it's meaningless when we can only come up with one other player in the 35 years the DPOY award has existed that has shown this kind of versatility. And the other guys who we talk about being capable of doing it (or having done it across multiple seasons) are all first ballot hall of fame guys.
Green might be a role player but if he's "glorified" it's because he's one of the best role players ever.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Could have?
Bill Russell, Wilt, LeBron, Pippen and Jordan come to mind. Kawhi perhaps. In 2 of the 100 perfect worlds Marcus could do it.
I would knock Kawhi off the list. Only once has he averaged more than 2.6 apg and had a career high of just 3.5 this season. Otherwise, that's pretty good company for Green to be in.
EDIT: Also, it's worth noting that none of those guys actually did what Draymond just did.
That’s a testament to how great of a situation Draymond is in though. If I had Curry, Thompson, and Durant to pass to I’d probably drop 7 assists a game. I mean that’s 3 of the best shooters in history. So to answer your question of guys who could have won DPOY and led the best team in the league in assists, would basically be every legit DPOY candidate who had just solid playmaking ability.
There was a video going around twitter a while ago that showed all the plays where Draymond was on the floor without any of those other guys. He was running the show. He was effectively playing pg on offense and protecting the rim on defense. He's not just a product of the greats he plays with, he's a product of his own amazing versatility and work.
Also, your logic doesn't make any sense. Curry has Thompson and Durant, Durant has Curry and Thompson. If it's so easy to rack up assists with these guys on your team why are the Warriors putting the ball in Draymond's hands so much? The answer is because he's the best playmaker on the team.
First off, the ball is not in Draymond’s hands that much. His usage is 16%, 8th highest on the team behind Curry, Thompson, Durant and other bench guys. So the Warriors clearly don’t think he’s the best playmaker, otherwise he would have the ball more.
And yes my logic does make sense. Curry has Klay and KD, but Curry can’t get an assist to Curry. Draymond has 3 of the best shooters of all time to pass to. The others have 2.
And also, it’s easier to get assists when you’re not looking to score for yourself. Look at the numbers Roy posted above. Draymond is a dreadful scorer. So when he has the ball and he has the choice between trying to score himself, or passing to one of 3 amazing shooters, you already know he’s going to be looking to pass.
I hate to say it but I think this is a "You have to actually watch the games" situation. Draymond leads the offense for the Warriors a ton. How else could a guy be top 10 in assists in the league 2 years in a row if he didn't have the ball in his hands?
As for the "it's easy with great shooters" thing, if it's so easy why has Andre Iguodala never come close to Draymond's assist numbers (raw or percentage)? Why was Draymond's assist average 0.4 higher the year before Durant joined the team? Clint Capela and Rudy Gobert played with a lot of good shooters around them, why does Draymond average 7 times their number of assists? It's because Draymond has playmaking skills that are rare.
-
I don't understand how he's in the same range as Bradley. I see them as roughly-equivalent defenders - both are good, though both are a bit overrated on this site. But Bradley is a MUCH better offensive player. It isn't even a contest.
I'd buy Bradley being around #60. That makes sense to me. But I'm honestly surprised Smart is in the top 100.
How much value can really be put into a list that ranks Lonzo Ball at #63 when he hasn't played a professional game yet? that would mean that in a 30 team league, if each team's roster was cleared out and they all had a chance to repick players, Lonzo would be picked in the 3rd round over hundreds of veteran players. I can't see that happening by any GM not named Sam Hinkie.
Agreed on all points.
-
SB Nation's Top 100
https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/18/16175476/nba-player-rankings-top-100-2017-lebron-james
Some names of note discussed in this thread. Crowder 88. Bradley 47. Horford 40. Isaiah 20. Irving 19. Hayward 18. Draymond 14. They have both Towns and Butler in the top 10. Top 5 in order James, Durant, Curry, Leonard, Harden.
-
According to ESPN.
#61 Avery Bradley
#63 Lonzo Ball
#64 Carmelo
#65 Smart
#66 Batum
Not a perfect list, but hey I'll take our super sub Utility knife as a top 65 player in basketball.
Who's #62?
Eric Gordon
lol wow
A inefficient ball hogging chucker who plays no defence and offers zero use to a team aside from volume scoring (Gordon)
Over a better inefficient ball hogging chucker who plays no defence and offers zero use to a team aside from volume scoring (Melo)
I partially understood ranking Melo so low if the guys placed above him were winning types who played hard, team first ball. But Gordon is basically Carmelo in a smaller guards body, and he's probably EVEN MORE injury prone - so seeing that ranking just makes it blatantly obvious that whoever made this list has some serious personal bias against Carmelo for whatever reason.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Could have?
Bill Russell, Wilt, LeBron, Pippen and Jordan come to mind. Kawhi perhaps. In 2 of the 100 perfect worlds Marcus could do it.
Lets not forget our very own Kevin Garnett!
In 02-03 he led the Timberwolves in:
- Points (23.0 PPG)
- Rebounds (13.4 RPG)
- Assists (6.0 APG)
- Steals (1.4 SPG)
- Blocks (1.6 BPG)
In 03/04 he did the same, and led the Wolves in:
- Points (24.2 PPG)
- Rebounds (13.9 RPG)
- Assists (5.0 APG)
- Steals (1.5 SPG)
- Blocks (2.2 BPG)
He was a legit DPOTY candidate in both years.
People are always so quick to put Tim Duncan above KG when ranking All-Time PFs, but I really don't think the decision is that clear cut. It's incredibly rare to see a man who is good enough to lead a Playoff team (Wolves made the playoffs both years) in all 5 major statistical categories. That is crazy and off the top of my head I can't think of anybody else in the last 20 years who has done that. I don't even think Lebron has put up enough rebounds / blocks to pull that off.
Is there anybody?
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Could have?
Bill Russell, Wilt, LeBron, Pippen and Jordan come to mind. Kawhi perhaps. In 2 of the 100 perfect worlds Marcus could do it.
Lets not forget our very own Kevin Garnett!
In 02-03 he led the Timberwolves in:
- Points (23.0 PPG)
- Rebounds (13.4 RPG)
- Assists (6.0 APG)
- Steals (1.4 SPG)
- Blocks (1.6 BPG)
In 03/04 he did the same, and led the Wolves in:
- Points (24.2 PPG)
- Rebounds (13.9 RPG)
- Assists (5.0 APG)
- Steals (1.5 SPG)
- Blocks (2.2 BPG)
He was a legit DPOTY candidate in both years.
People are always so quick to put Tim Duncan above KG when ranking All-Time PFs, but I really don't think the decision is that clear cut. It's incredibly rare to see a man who is good enough to lead a Playoff team (Wolves made the playoffs both years) in all 5 major statistical categories. That is crazy and off the top of my head I can't think of anybody else in the last 20 years who has done that. I don't even think Lebron has put up enough rebounds / blocks to pull that off.
Is there anybody?
Giannis did last year. He was actually the first player in NBA history to be top-20 in every one of the "big 5" categories. I'm not sure if that was per game or season totals, though.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Could have?
Bill Russell, Wilt, LeBron, Pippen and Jordan come to mind. Kawhi perhaps. In 2 of the 100 perfect worlds Marcus could do it.
Lets not forget our very own Kevin Garnett!
In 02-03 he led the Timberwolves in:
- Points (23.0 PPG)
- Rebounds (13.4 RPG)
- Assists (6.0 APG)
- Steals (1.4 SPG)
- Blocks (1.6 BPG)
In 03/04 he did the same, and led the Wolves in:
- Points (24.2 PPG)
- Rebounds (13.9 RPG)
- Assists (5.0 APG)
- Steals (1.5 SPG)
- Blocks (2.2 BPG)
He was a legit DPOTY candidate in both years.
People are always so quick to put Tim Duncan above KG when ranking All-Time PFs, but I really don't think the decision is that clear cut. It's incredibly rare to see a man who is good enough to lead a Playoff team (Wolves made the playoffs both years) in all 5 major statistical categories. That is crazy and off the top of my head I can't think of anybody else in the last 20 years who has done that. I don't even think Lebron has put up enough rebounds / blocks to pull that off.
Is there anybody?
Giannis did last year. He was actually the first player in NBA history to be top-20 in every one of the "big 5" categories. I'm not sure if that was per game or season totals, though.
My guess is that Wilt Chamberlain did it the 3 years he played for the Sixers. He led them in points, rebounds, assists, FG%, and minutes played. Blocks and steals weren't recorded then but I am 100% positive he led his team in blocks and he could easily have led the team in steals, too.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Could have?
Bill Russell, Wilt, LeBron, Pippen and Jordan come to mind. Kawhi perhaps. In 2 of the 100 perfect worlds Marcus could do it.
Lets not forget our very own Kevin Garnett!
In 02-03 he led the Timberwolves in:
- Points (23.0 PPG)
- Rebounds (13.4 RPG)
- Assists (6.0 APG)
- Steals (1.4 SPG)
- Blocks (1.6 BPG)
In 03/04 he did the same, and led the Wolves in:
- Points (24.2 PPG)
- Rebounds (13.9 RPG)
- Assists (5.0 APG)
- Steals (1.5 SPG)
- Blocks (2.2 BPG)
He was a legit DPOTY candidate in both years.
People are always so quick to put Tim Duncan above KG when ranking All-Time PFs, but I really don't think the decision is that clear cut. It's incredibly rare to see a man who is good enough to lead a Playoff team (Wolves made the playoffs both years) in all 5 major statistical categories. That is crazy and off the top of my head I can't think of anybody else in the last 20 years who has done that. I don't even think Lebron has put up enough rebounds / blocks to pull that off.
Is there anybody?
Giannis did last year. He was actually the first player in NBA history to be top-20 in every one of the "big 5" categories. I'm not sure if that was per game or season totals, though.
My guess is that Wilt Chamberlain did it the 3 years he played for the Sixers. He led them in points, rebounds, assists, FG%, and minutes played. Blocks and steals weren't recorded then but I am 100% positive he led his team in blocks and he could easily have led the team in steals, too.
in 68 Wilt actually led the league in total rebounds and total assists. He was 3rd in total points.
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Could have?
Bill Russell, Wilt, LeBron, Pippen and Jordan come to mind. Kawhi perhaps. In 2 of the 100 perfect worlds Marcus could do it.
Lets not forget our very own Kevin Garnett!
In 02-03 he led the Timberwolves in:
- Points (23.0 PPG)
- Rebounds (13.4 RPG)
- Assists (6.0 APG)
- Steals (1.4 SPG)
- Blocks (1.6 BPG)
In 03/04 he did the same, and led the Wolves in:
- Points (24.2 PPG)
- Rebounds (13.9 RPG)
- Assists (5.0 APG)
- Steals (1.5 SPG)
- Blocks (2.2 BPG)
He was a legit DPOTY candidate in both years.
People are always so quick to put Tim Duncan above KG when ranking All-Time PFs, but I really don't think the decision is that clear cut. It's incredibly rare to see a man who is good enough to lead a Playoff team (Wolves made the playoffs both years) in all 5 major statistical categories. That is crazy and off the top of my head I can't think of anybody else in the last 20 years who has done that. I don't even think Lebron has put up enough rebounds / blocks to pull that off.
Is there anybody?
Giannis did last year. He was actually the first player in NBA history to be top-20 in every one of the "big 5" categories. I'm not sure if that was per game or season totals, though.
Indeed he did!
Though to be fair, even though Giannis did lead his team in rebounding technically, he wasn't their best rebounder - that would be Greg Monroe. But Monroe's odd playing arrangements in Milwaukee worked in Gianis' favour so he gets the milestone regardless! And the fact he did it at such a young age really is unbelievable.
I do still consider KG's case more impressive though, as he was CLEARLY the best passer, rebounder, scorer and defender on those two Minnesota teams, and he did it two years in a row (maybe more - they are just the only two I've confirmed).
Still super impressive that Giannis achieved that though, I suspect he and KG must be the only players who have done that in the past 30 years (that would take it back to 1987).
I've taken a look at all kinda of stat stuffers (Clyde Drexler, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Dominique Wilkins, Larry Bird, etc) and from what I can see none of those guys have ever led their team in more than 3 categories.
Funnily enough one of the guys who came the closest was Carmelo Anthony - in 15/16 he actually led the Knicks in points (21.8 ), rebounds (7.7), assists (4.2) and tied for first in steals (0.9) - but he came well short in blocks, ranking 5th on the team at 0.5 BPG and clearly is not making any all defensive teams lol
-
Draymond is incredible. How many other players in the history of the game could've led the best team in the league in assists and won a defensive player of the year?
Could have?
Bill Russell, Wilt, LeBron, Pippen and Jordan come to mind. Kawhi perhaps. In 2 of the 100 perfect worlds Marcus could do it.
Lets not forget our very own Kevin Garnett!
In 02-03 he led the Timberwolves in:
- Points (23.0 PPG)
- Rebounds (13.4 RPG)
- Assists (6.0 APG)
- Steals (1.4 SPG)
- Blocks (1.6 BPG)
In 03/04 he did the same, and led the Wolves in:
- Points (24.2 PPG)
- Rebounds (13.9 RPG)
- Assists (5.0 APG)
- Steals (1.5 SPG)
- Blocks (2.2 BPG)
He was a legit DPOTY candidate in both years.
People are always so quick to put Tim Duncan above KG when ranking All-Time PFs, but I really don't think the decision is that clear cut. It's incredibly rare to see a man who is good enough to lead a Playoff team (Wolves made the playoffs both years) in all 5 major statistical categories. That is crazy and off the top of my head I can't think of anybody else in the last 20 years who has done that. I don't even think Lebron has put up enough rebounds / blocks to pull that off.
Is there anybody?
Giannis did last year. He was actually the first player in NBA history to be top-20 in every one of the "big 5" categories. I'm not sure if that was per game or season totals, though.
Indeed he did!
Though to be fair, even though Giannis did lead his team in rebounding technically, he wasn't their best rebounder - that would be Greg Monroe. But Monroe's odd playing arrangements in Milwaukee worked in Gianis' favour so he gets the milestone regardless! And the fact he did it at such a young age really is unbelievable.
I do still consider KG's case more impressive though, as he was CLEARLY the best passer, rebounder, scorer and defender on those two Minnesota teams, and he did it two years in a row (maybe more - they are just the only two I've confirmed).
Still super impressive that Giannis achieved that though, I suspect he and KG must be the only players who have done that in the past 30 years (that would take it back to 1987).
I've taken a look at all kinda of stat stuffers (Clyde Drexler, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Dominique Wilkins, Larry Bird, etc) and from what I can see none of those guys have ever led their team in more than 3 categories.
Funnily enough one of the guys who came the closest was Carmelo Anthony - in 15/16 he actually led the Knicks in points (21.8 ), rebounds (7.7), assists (4.2) and tied for first in steals (0.9) - but he came well short in blocks, ranking 5th on the team at 0.5 BPG and clearly is not making any all defensive teams lol
In Wilt's days they didn't record blocks and steals. He most assuredly led his team in blocks and because that era was so inside the paint oriented, its a pretty good guess to say he led them in steals too. And he probably did what KG did 3 years in a row.
-
Garnett didn't lead the Wolves in assists in back to back years. He only did it in 02-03. In 03-04 Cassell was on the team and usurped KG by over 2 apg.
-
According to ESPN.
#61 Avery Bradley
#63 Lonzo Ball
#64 Carmelo
#65 Smart
#66 Batum
Not a perfect list, but hey I'll take our super sub Utility knife as a top 65 player in basketball.
Who's #62?
Eric Gordon
lol wow
A inefficient ball hogging chucker who plays no defence and offers zero use to a team aside from volume scoring (Gordon)
Over a better inefficient ball hogging chucker who plays no defence and offers zero use to a team aside from volume scoring (Melo)
I partially understood ranking Melo so low if the guys placed above him were winning types who played hard, team first ball. But Gordon is basically Carmelo in a smaller guards body, and he's probably EVEN MORE injury prone - so seeing that ranking just makes it blatantly obvious that whoever made this list has some serious personal bias against Carmelo for whatever reason.
Uh, I think you've confused Eric Gordon with Lou Williams. Yes, Gordon has been injury prone over the course of his career which robbed him of his athleticism that he displayed in college and early on in the NBA, but to say that he's a chucker who plays no defense, offers nothing besides scoring, and is basically the guard version of Carmelo Anthony is just hilariously inaccurate, imo.
Yes, he's a prolific three point shooter, but he also has an excellent midrange game and can get to the basket, plus, and more importantly, he's an excellent defender at both backcourt spots and even served as a stopper for Team USA when he played in the Olympics, iirc, although I can't remember which year it was off the top of my head. Trust me, you're really underrating his defense. It's not like he's Jason Terry, lol :laugh:.
On another front, I was really hoping that Bird would bring him back to Indiana last year when the former Pelican was a free agent in some kind of sign-and-trade involving Monta Ellis for Gordon, but that obviously never happened, which is really too bad, because he would have been a great addition to the Pacers, imo.