The Greatest NBA Player: 5 on 5 Clone Game

[_Markk]

You don't appear to be able to read what eFG% means in context. There are clues in the post you are quoting. A low volume post player who only takes and makes easy shots around the basket is going to score a high % of the time. This is not particularly valuable because you cannot generate reliable offense from this. That's not what Steph Curry is doing. That Steph Curry scores with an efficiency comparable to a player who scores a few points a game on put-backs around the basket is extremely impressive.

. In other words the stat is meaningless. The context you created was steph is the greatest shooting guard ever because of the eFG...which is just not true, by that logic LaVale McGee is better than Dirk, far better.

[_EAllusion]

Thomas was a great defender and averaged about 9 assists a game and 18 or 19 points...that is elite. He was a scorer.

Peak Thomas is a little better than this description, but what you are missing is how holes in his game make him easy to defend when he's facing a team filled with all-time greats. 20ish points on an eFG% of around .47 and a usage rate of around 25%, which is what he did in his best seasons, is not that good at the point. All a team needs to do to defend him is lay off him at distance and dare him to drive into the best interior defenders ever. All he's left with are contested midrange twos that he hit at a middling rate. That's a garbage outcome for a team that is trying to keep pace with players like Steph Curry, Micheal Jordan, Larry Bird, etc. doing what they do.

His advanced statistical comparisons are players like Jason Terry in terms of wins over replacement. That's not bad, but it's also not anywhere near the reputation you think he deserves.

[_Markk]

Rings are very important in my view...especially with a point guard and leader on the Court. You picked player because they were winners, so did I.

Reggie Miller, Barkley and others are the exception for all time greats that I would put on my team, that do not have a ring.

And in context with why I brought up rings, you are some how saying Isaiah Thomas was over rated, when in fact he I one of 50 deemed the greatest ever...period, by many of his peers.

How many rings does Curry have?

[_EAllusion]

In other words the stat is meaningless. The context you created was steph is the greatest shooting guard ever because of the eFG...which is just not true, by that logic LaVale McGee is better than Dirk, far better.

No, the stat is not meaningless. It's just a better version of FG% because it takes into account what a shot is worth. What you are doing is declaring FG% meaningless because DeAndre Jordan has a higher FG% than Giannis. You have to be able to put that number into the context of what they are doing on the floor. This is why I specifically mentioned volume of scoring in the post you quoted. It appears you cannot do this. This helps explain why you evaluate players by who you feel comfortable calling a pussy.

What Curry's eFG% tells you is that he is a hyper-efficient scorer. When you also realize that he's scoring a lot at that efficiency in positions that weaken the overall defense of the team he is playing, you appreciate that the dude is a special offensive weapon.

[_EAllusion]

Rings are very important in my view...especially with a point guard and leader on the Court. You picked player because they were winners, so did I.

I don't place any premium on winning championships. Good players tend to win because basketball is a 5 on 5 sport and one great player significantly ups the odds of winning. But good players aren't always surrounded by enough talent or coaching to overcome what other teams have and that's not their fault.

Judging players by their championships, especially in sports with even larger teams than basketball, is one of those really stupid aspects of bar room / Skip Bayless style sports commentary.

I picked Michael Jordan because the dude could ball, not because he was on a team that won 6 championships.

[_EAllusion]

And in context with why I brought up rings, you are some how saying Isaiah Thomas was over rated, when in fact he I one of 50 deemed the greatest ever...period, by many of his peers.

Why do you think peers are the ultimate experts on player rankings? You seem to put a lot of stock in it. You are aware that many of his peers have sucked at things related to basketball evaluation, right? Isiah Thomas himself was a historically terrible General Manager who absolutely sucked at player evaluation.

We're looking at the same objective facts. Thomas couldn't shoot from range. This is a liability. Saying, "Nah, he's great. His peers said so" doesn't refute this basic fact. He still can't shoot and that's still a liability.

[_EAllusion]

How is being voted as one of the 50 best basketball players ever...overrated?

Seems straightfoward to me. Some people think he's one of the best 50 best players ever, but he's actually not that good. So he's overrated.

Thomas benefits from having been on a memorable team who won championships in runs where he had memorable games. He also benefits from playing in an era where the value of certain skills were misjudged in a way that favors him. He also benefits from being media friendly. This distorts people's perception of how good he was. He wasn't bad player by any stretch. He was very good, but not quite in the inner circle of all time.

[_Markk]

Seems straightfoward to me. Some people think he's one of the best 50 best players ever, but he's actually not that good. So he's overrated.

Thomas benefits from having been on a memorable team who won championships in runs where he had memorable games. He also benefits from playing in an era where the value of certain skills were misjudged in a way that favors him. He also benefits from being media friendly. This distorts people's perception of how good he was. He wasn't bad player by any stretch. He was very good, but not quite in the inner circle of all time.

He is one of the best 50 players in the world, but not that good!...LOL...Okaaay. He won championships, and had memorial Games, including 12x allstar, MVP of the playoffs, MVP of the NC Indian Hoosiers...but overrated?

Did you watch him play? How old were you when he played?

If he is not quite in the inner circle...LOL, why is he in the inner circle?

[_Markk]

And in context with why I brought up rings, you are some how saying Isaiah Thomas was over rated, when in fact he I one of 50 deemed the greatest ever...period, by many of his peers.

Why do you think peers are the ultimate experts on player rankings? You seem to put a lot of stock in it. You are aware that many of his peers have sucked at things related to basketball evaluation, right? Isiah Thomas himself was a historically terrible General Manager who absolutely sucked at player evaluation.

We're looking at the same objective facts. Thomas couldn't shoot from range. This is a liability. Saying, "Nah, he's great. His peers said so" doesn't refute this basic fact. He still can't shoot and that's still a liability.

Because they played against them, and beat most of them...As as GM he did not play against those he drafted...he did pick . That is a Dumb comparison.

Not shooting for range is not a liability, Michael Jordan was a horrible 3 point shooter, and is considered the GOAT by most folks. Isaiah averaged 4 more assists per game that Steph,plays better defense, and that is what I want on my team. I chose a running team, that can play a half court game if the have to. You chose a puss, that cries when he is covered man to man, that is your choice. And your team is slow and big, with no role players to compliment a system.

[_moksha]

Importing older guards into the modern NBA is tough, ...

They would pick up their game by necessity. If Bob Cousy showed up for freshman high school basketball in 2013, he would still be a star.