NBA top 40- Bill Simmons style

[Case Closed]

Also Kobe has the advantage of playing today, where excersise science is better. I am sure he is being taken care of better than the players of yesteryear.

[kidcolin]

I think most the pro-Kobe people are right. He should be in the top 5 somewhere. Maybe like LBJ, Bosh, Wade, Kobe...

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Paul P - Homer vote?

[/ QUOTE ]I actually think hes ranked too low. I don't know why, but he never gets the credit he deserves. Go look at his numbers for a second and then tell me what you think. In a recent thread I got into a debate about him vs McGrady....his numbers are definitely better than McGradys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like you to point out which numbers are "definitely" better than T-Mac's, because I'm not seeing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

For their careers, Pierce averages more points, more rebounds, more steals, shoots a better FG%, shoots a better FT%, and shoots a better 3pt %.

TMac does have the advantage of more blocks and more assists.

Or lets do this: Lets go back to each of the last full(or very close to it) years that they played. For Pierce that was last year(79 games played) and for TMac it was two years ago:78 games played). I would think that this would give us an idea of these players' current abilities when NOT hampered by injuries(which btw, being less injury prone is another advantage for Pierce).


Paul Pierce(05-06)/TMac(04-05)

Games: 79/78
PPG: 26.8/25.7
APG: 4.8/5.7
RPG: 6.7/6.2
Shooting %: 47.1/43.1
3pt %: 35.4/32.6
Steals: 1.4/1.7
Blocks: .4/.9



I'm not trying to say that its not close. It is. But Pierce scores more points and shoots a better percentage. Pierce rebounds slightly better, while McGrady has slightly more assists so we can call that a wash.

But when you factor in durability, Pierce pulls ahead by a clear(albeit close) margin imo.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Your "state of team" list is not entirely consistent. You rank SA high for their current status, and Toronto for their potential largely and LA I'm not sure what for. Utah can't be below all of them. It has two guys in your top 15, plus one borderline top 40 in Okur, and a max-contract who contributed nothing this year in Kirilenko (trade bait? recovery from coma in the future? can't get worse at any rate), plus a promising rookie in Milsap. Either they should be higher on potential or higher because of what they already are. Definitely higher than both Toronto and LA either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have Utah below them because I think they have a less chance of winning a title. I'll admit that they have a greater chance of making the playoffs every year, but I just don't see that "superstar" that could carry them to a title.

Basically my list is this: If I had to set odds on whether or not each team would win a title within the next 10-15 years, who would be the favorite.

I simply think the Lakers and Raptors are more likely to win a title simply because Kobe and Bosh are special players, while Utah has a bunch of good players.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
assani,

cleveland has a far better chance of winning a title in the next 3 years than chicago and toronto. dunno, why everyone belittles the cavs, they won 50 last year and should win between 46 and 52 this year.

thats 2 solid years and they should be very good next year as varejao, sasha, gibson should continue to improve.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've thought about it a bit, and I agree with you regarding Chicago. Maybe I'm just higher on Bosh/Bargnani than the rest of you, but I'm going to need a bit more convincing regarding putting them over Toronto. Updated list:


1. Dallas
2. Phoenix
3. SA
4. Houston
5. LA
6. Detroit
7. Toronto
8. Utah
9. Cleveland
10. Chicago
11. Miami
12. Orlando
13. Washington
14. Denver
15. Portland
16. New Orleans
17. Clippers
18. Milwuakee
19. Golden State
20. New York
21. Atlanta
22. Boston
23. Minnesota
24. Charlotte
25. Sacramento
26. New Jersey
27. Indiana
28. Seattle
29. Memphis
30. Philly

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Paul P - Homer vote?

[/ QUOTE ]I actually think hes ranked too low. I don't know why, but he never gets the credit he deserves. Go look at his numbers for a second and then tell me what you think. In a recent thread I got into a debate about him vs McGrady....his numbers are definitely better than McGradys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know if youre talking about all time or what but heres this seasons numbers.

PP 36mpg 25p/6r/4a ft%=80 3pt%=40 fg%=44

TM 36mpg 24p/5r/6a ft%=70 3pt%=33 fg%=43

Look Ill be honest I wasnt big on Tmac until I moved to Houston last year and I pretty much watch all the rockets games now. He is a pretty complete player and will share the ball. I honestly dont think he cares about filling up the stat sheet (although he does), but he really wants to win IMO. I cant comment on PP bc I havent seen him play much, no offense Celtics fans but your team never gets nationwide coverage and I dont have nbatv. McGrady brings it every night.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I'm sure that you do watch him a lot more than I do. However, I will mention that TMac has never won a playoff series while Pierce has made(and came pretty close to winning) the Eastern Conference Finals. Also, when you look at how poor the Celtics did without Pierce(18 game losing streak), its tough to critisize his ability to make his team win.


I'm not trying to bash TMac at all here. I do NOT think hes overrated at all; I just think Pierce is underrated a bit by the average fan.

[Assani Fisher]

You really have Charles Barkely over Shaq as one of your top 5 players since you started watching? I'd be interested in hearing why.

Btw...this thread rocks, it keeps producing new arguments and tangents, and so far everyone has been prettty good with presenting well thought out arguments and not just insulting those they disagree with.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As you can see, none of these guys were declining at age 30. There's no reason to think Kobe will either.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's good stuff, but none of those players were playing 80 game seasons of pro ball at 18 either.

[/ QUOTE ]

true, but he only played 15 minutes per game as a rookie and 26 minutes per game as a 2nd year player.

What do you guys think is harder: 71 games of 15 minutes and 79 games of 26 minutes or back to back seasons of 30-35 games with about 35 minutes per game?

Also, I'm sure the facilities and trainers are a lot better on the NBA level so they help one recover a bit better.

[Jack of Arcades]

Assani,

Yeah, I was just making the point that it's far from "definitive." I also think T-Mac's peak was higher.

[iggymcfly]

Just a quick reminder, since those stats are all for turning 30. Kobe's 28 right now. He's the same age MJ was when he won his first title, and four years younger than Olajuwon was when he won his first. Would anyone really give up a good 7 years of peak performance like that for Chris Paul or Amare Stoudemire? I think the argument that Kobe's a group 2 guy is pretty much over, and he's at worst #5 behind LeBron, D-Wade, Dirk, and Bosh.