Top 5 shooting guards in NBA history

[pjfootballer]

I cannot agree with this with regards to baseball.

the sport is purely driven by staitistics

you can build a winning team based on those advanced stats in baseball.

I'm not talking building a team, I'm talking when a career is said and done and the player is being considered for the HOF or just for having a great career.

[PeterMP]

I'm not talking building a team, I'm talking when a career is said and done and the player is being considered for the HOF or just for having a great career.

If there is a better way of doing something, why wouldn't you use it?

For any purpose, why would you say I'm purposely going to go out of my to use an inferior method?

[pjfootballer]

I'm not a big fan of advanced stats in any sports. When a player finishes his career, like it or not, all stats that are looked at are the regular stats of that sport. Baseball looks at average, home runs, RBIs, Doubles, Triples, Steals usually. Depending on the position in football, its about yards and scores. In basketball its about points, rebounds and assists usually. And hockey is about goals and assists. I'm not sure any HOF voter looks at advanced stats. I'm not saying they don't, but its more that its unlikely.

If there is a better way of doing something, why wouldn't you use it?

For any purpose, why would you say I'm purposely going to go out of my to use an inferior method?

See part of my post that I highlighted. Personally, as in me, I don't use advanced stats. I'm not a sportswriter and my opinion doesn't count. However, I just ventured to guess that other people (and here it is) "may or may not" use them.

I sweart to god we need the season to start, because the attitudes in here have really sucked lately. Everyone attacking and nitpicking every little thing anyone says or anything anyone disagrees with.

Go ahead and use them if YOU wish. I don't use them.

[CrypticVillain]

I sweart to god we need the season to start, because the attitudes in here have really sucked lately. Everyone attacking and nitpicking every little thing anyone says or anything anyone disagrees with.

So you think people are nicer and more rational while the season is going on?

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

I'm not talking building a team, I'm talking when a career is said and done and the player is being considered for the HOF or just for having a great career.

sportswriters are using it now tho

the old school types do not but a lot of hte middle career and younger writers are.

There are still the magical numbers like 500 HRs and 300 wins but wins over replacement, win share, and OPS are like holy grail stats.

In baseball, everything is statistic driven and there are ways to quantify the different variables (ie, left handed vs right handed pitching, day vs night, runners in scoring position, etc). In basketball you cannot account for bad teammates, bad coaching, a player not taking shots, etc. Or at least you cannot yet, thats why when folks try to base their arguments off those advanced stats I give them a sideways look because those numbers can be shown up when you look at x player vs. y player.

Its also why they are not that valuable in football for most positions. I think you can use it to look at offensive linemen tho because there is no way to statistically single out their performance like other positions except for the advanced stats. Same is sort of true with defensive backs too.

---------- Post added July-24th-2012 at 09:34 PM ----------

So you think people are nicer and more rational while the season is going on?

exactly

---------- Post added July-24th-2012 at 09:36 PM ----------

There is a significant difference between Shaq and McGrady even using PER.

The point is the fall off. Shaq is another good example. McGrady's best season was better than Shaq's third best season (the list would be Shaq, Shaq, McGrady). But then Shaq has 9 seasons between McGrady's #2 seson and his #1 season.

Shaq put up a large number of years with very similar stats.

McGrady didn't.

And you don't have to look at advanced stats to see it. His career high pts/36 minute is 29.3, and ahead of Shaq's best year.

But then Shaq put up 9 seasons better than McGrady's #2 season.

I'm assuming pts/36 minutes isn't an advanced stat to you.

PER is just a combination of box score stats and doesn't properly take into account defense, which is where Moncrief excelled.

If you look at WS/48, you get that.

the thing I just cant wrap my ahead around is how you can only say McGrady just had one great season. If he was the #3 PER player in the NBA (and his all time PER actually ranks in the top 20, which is elite) for those years, then were the players that were behind him not having great years? Did Kevin Garnett only have one great year in his career? Kobe? Duncan? Dirk? It makes no sense.

and my point originally was that McGrady had a greater offensive superiority over Moncrief vs. Moncrief's superiority on defense over Moncrief.

[Going Commando]

I'm not talking building a team, I'm talking when a career is said and done and the player is being considered for the HOF or just for having a great career.

Advanced stats are important and well grounded in basketball and baseball.

PER, efficiency rating, true shooting %, effective FG %, usage rating, rebound %, assist %, pure point raiting, win shares, turnover rate, per minute data on all the metrics. These are all advanced metrics that go beyond simply PPG, APG, RPG, BPG, and SPG metrics. They are all commonplace now and widely understood. The sports media is certainly fluent in them. I'd imagine the HoF selection committees (comprised of the media mostly) are fluent in them as well.

Advanced metrics are extremely well established in baseball. Something as simple and common as ERA or OBP are sabremetrics that are so established they're mistakenly thought of as conventional. Every baseball writer understands WAR, BABIP, wOBA, wRC+, K%, BB%, etc. We have statistical data tracking the success of individual pitches by situation for individual pitchers. The amount of data available is immense and baseball offers a tight control on variables (one ball, one player making a meaningful play on the ball at all times). Advanced statistical analysis is entrenched and it's place is well understood. Every person in the sport and in the media covering the sport is a sabremetrician nowadays. If you can't use them, then you're a dinosaur.

Our experience as fans with advanced metrics is not the same as for the people in the sport and the professionals writing about it. Even still, advanced metrics for baseball and basketball are highy accessible to laymen. Lots of fans understand them.

---------- Post added July-24th-2012 at 11:10 PM ----------

and my point originally was that McGrady had a greater offensive superiority over Moncrief vs. Moncrief's superiority on defense over Moncrief.

This is where I disagree.

T-Mac, for two seasons, was arguably the greatest scorer in the league. Not necessarily greatest offensive player, but I'd concede greatest scorer. For two seasons, Moncrieff was the best defensive player in the league. He won the first two DPOYs. So in a way, you could potentially argue those two seasons cancel each other out. Although offense obviously covers far more than just scoring. For the sake of argument, let's grant that position.

However, Moncrieff was a good scorer, and better offensive player. He could have been an All Star off his offensive ability alone. Would you argue that T Mac was even a good defender? Would you argue that he was as good a defender as Moncrieff was an offensive player?

Not only that, TMac was not a top player for much longer than those two or three years. Moncrieff remained a top player for longer than T-Mac did.

A large part of what makes a player great is his staying power. His ability to continuously adjust and grow his game as the league adjusts to him. I think this was something TMac never really achieved. As his athleticism faded, his effectiveness went down the tube.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

McGrady was a very good defender, he just had to score more because of how bad his teams were in Orlando.

Its like how Kobe is a great defender when he had players to take the load off for him in scoring.

Same is true for Lebron too. He has been a much better on the ball defender the last 3-4 years because he had others to take the scoring load.

[PeterMP]

=the thing I just cant wrap my ahead around is how you can only say McGrady just had one great seon. If he was the #3 PER player in the NBA (and his all time PER actually ranks in the top 20, which is elite) for those years, then were the players that were behind him not having great years? Did Kevin Garnett only have one great year in his career? Kobe? Duncan? Dirk? It makes no sense.

and my point originally was that McGrady had a greater offensive superiority over Moncrief vs. Moncrief's superiority on defense over Moncrief.

Why is this hard for you to understand?

Garnett has 4 season according to PER better than McGrady's 2nd best. Even if I was just looking at PER I could say that Garnett had 4 great season and McGrady only one.

And if you look win shares/48 min, it is 8 seasons for Garnett better than McGrady's 2nd best.

I'm comfortable with the idea that Garnett has had 8 or so truely great seasons in his career and several more that would qualify as good.

[Shabby]

who said Gasol wasnt a good big man?

Im just not buying this, "gasol was a dominant big man" or "best big man in the league" meme thats been sprouted the last few years. Gasol won zero playoff games in Memphis. ZERO. Made only one all star game, and never made an All NBA team. There was nothing dominant about Gasol until he arrived in LA to play with Kobe. But people will continue to give Gasol credit over Kobe despite all of that.

So youre saying that its just a coincidence that the lakers went to three straight finals immediately after aquiring pau gasol? I dont buy that at all.

[PeterMP]

Only 4 guards have won the defensive player of the year award. Moncrief is the only one that has won it more than once, and it was started after he was in the league.

[illone]

Gervin would make my list. That guy was so money,

Jordan

Kobe

Gervin

West

Ray Allen

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

So youre saying that its just a coincidence that the lakers went to three straight finals immediately after aquiring pau gasol? I dont buy that at all.

you need a great team to win, no? The Lakers had two 7 footers and Lamar Odom being the best mismatch in the league coming off the bench and a very complex offense to defend against.

I just think its not a coincidence that Gasol becomes "best big man in the NBA" after he arrives in LA after not even being fringe all star player in Memphis and not winning a single playoff game. Maybe, just maybe Kobe had something to do with that. Im not saying do not give Gasol credit, but instead saying lets not overrate the guy either. Its easy to do though since Kobe is a very polarizing player.

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 12:01 AM ----------

Why is this hard for you to understand?

Garnett has 4 season according to PER better than McGrady's 2nd best. Even if I was just looking at PER I could say that Garnett had 4 great season and McGrady only one.

And if you look win shares/48 min, it is 8 seasons for Garnett better than McGrady's 2nd best.

I'm comfortable with the idea that Garnett has had 8 or so truely great seasons in his career and several more that would qualify as good.

ok, so no perimeter player had great seasons those years McGrady was in the top 3? Just need you to confirm that.

[Shabby]

you need a great team to win, no? The Lakers had two 7 footers and Lamar Odom being the best mismatch in the league coming off the bench and a very complex offense to defend against.

I just think its not a coincidence that Gasol becomes "best big man in the NBA" after he arrives in LA after not even being fringe all star player in Memphis and not winning a single playoff game. Maybe, just maybe Kobe had something to do with that. Im not saying do not give Gasol credit, but instead saying lets not overrate the guy either. Its easy to do though since Kobe is a very polarizing player.

lol you say you need a great team to win, but then you say Pau wasnt dominant because he couldnt win a playoff game with Memphis. Do you remember how bad memphis was? Go look at Gasols numbers when he entered the league. Dude averaged at least 17 and 8, at least, every season he had been in the league. The season before he got traded he average 20 and 10 and shot 54%. The lakers had virtually the same team minus Pau, before aquiring Pau. So all of a sudden they trade for Pau and make it to the finals and it becomes "the lakers had two 7 footers and Lamar Odom being the best mismatch in the league." They had that same Odom and Bynum and they couldnt get out of the first round, and had trouble even making it to the playoffs with Kobe. But as soon as Pau is aquired, NOW they have the best mismatch in the league, and Bynum and Pau contributed, but its Kobe who led the team to championships and finals appearances? Give me a break. At the time, Pau was regarded as one of the most talented offensive big men in the league. If not, the best.

[pjfootballer]

So you think people are nicer and more rational while the season is going on?

The excitement of football starting up will have everyone in a good mood. Only if we go 1-4 to start, then things will get ugly. This is the time of the year when nothing is really going on besides baseball and Nascar. It's just my own observation, but things in the Tailgate have been more testy than usual. A bunch of know it alls that won't acknowledge another viewpoint and debate topics without being a smartass.

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 08:14 AM ----------

Our experience as fans with advanced metrics is not the same as for the people in the sport and the professionals writing about it. Even still, advanced metrics for baseball and basketball are highy accessible to laymen. Lots of fans understand them.

Good for those fans. I'm just not that deep into it. I actually think alot of those advanced metrics are over the top and unecessary. I'll just keep it on the surface with my tried and true stats and go by what I see when players play. These guys that come up with all these advanced stats just want you to buy their books, plug their overly complicated systems and create traffic to their websites where you can read their shoddy sports writing. I was a communication/journalism major in college and IMO sportswriting is garbage nowadays. No quality in their writing, just a bunch of nonsense, opinions and heresay. Covering sports should be unbiased and it isn't.

I know, I know, I sound like a cranky old man (Get off my lawn!!), but I'm just getting too old to keep up with all that extra stuff in sports. It's hard enough just keeping up with it in general. All you "Young-uns" enjoy your sabermetrics, WARs, share wins (WTF? What a stupid stat), etc., I'll stick to my own.

[Going Commando]

Good for those fans. I'm just not that deep into it. I actually think alot of those advanced metrics are over the top and unecessary. I'll just keep it on the surface with my tried and true stats and go by what I see when players play. These guys that come up with all these advanced stats just want you to buy their books, plug their overly complicated systems and create traffic to their websites where you can read their shoddy sports writing. I was a communication/journalism major in college and IMO sportswriting is garbage nowadays. No quality in their writing, just a bunch of nonsense, opinions and heresay. Covering sports should be unbiased and it isn't.

I know, I know, I sound like a cranky old man (Get off my lawn!!), but I'm just getting too old to keep up with all that extra stuff in sports. It's hard enough just keeping up with it in general. All you "Young-uns" enjoy your sabermetrics, WARs, share wins (WTF? What a stupid stat), etc., I'll stick to my own.

Just because you don't use them doesn't mean they don't have a place and a purpose. They're for quantifying pieces of what happens in a game. Take a whole bunch of them together and you start getting a picture of what's going on. They can be manipulated or be misleading because they are all a partial analysis of the total story. Games that have tremendous amounts of variables for analysis and most individual stats focus on only a few variables. That's why it's important to develop and use a very broad range of advanced statistics to get the most complete picture possible.

They become common knowledge over time anyway. Metrics like WAR and PER are commonplace.

Advanced metrics are useful in debate because it's pretty much impossible for most people to base all of their analysis on video evidence and/or support them with it. Who has a library of film and the means/time to compile it into a form of evidence? If you want to support a position without relying on self-evidency, "common knowledge", or the credibility of your own eye (which takes the audience actually knowing you and trusting you), you pretty much have to use some sort of metric. Especially if you're making general claims. Not everyone can synthesize all of their memories and impressions of a game into one big picture analysis. I have a really good memory and I often have trouble remembering many of my impressions from the past NBA season and properly contextualizing them, even though it just ended last month. For people with worse memories than me, it's even more true, and the further away you get from an event, the worse people remember it. That's why sports discourse is extremely prisoner of the moment. That's why statistics are needed to quantify things so that you don't have to totally rely on memory. When the day comes that everything is filmed and archived for easy access and use by anyone, then the role of statistics will change.

[CrypticVillain]

The excitement of football starting up will have everyone in a good mood. Only if we go 1-4 to start, then things will get ugly. This is the time of the year when nothing is really going on besides baseball and Nascar. It's just my own observation, but things in the Tailgate have been more testy than usual. A bunch of know it alls that won't acknowledge another viewpoint and debate topics without being a smartass.

I hear yah.

[China]

How about Javaris Crittenton?

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

lol you say you need a great team to win, but then you say Pau wasnt dominant because he couldnt win a playoff game with Memphis.

yes, that is exactly what I said. I dont see the problem with this statement.

Do you remember how bad memphis was? Go look at Gasols numbers when he entered the league. Dude averaged at least 17 and 8, at least, every season he had been in the league.

a team that makes the playoffs 3 straight years and has a 50 win season out of the West is bad? In what world? and what part of "Gasol was not dominant" is hard to understand? If he was your number one option, you were not going to win a playoff game.

The season before he got traded he average 20 and 10 and shot 54%. The lakers had virtually the same team minus Pau, before aquiring Pau. So all of a sudden they trade for Pau and make it to the finals and it becomes "the lakers had two 7 footers and Lamar Odom being the best mismatch in the league."

here is something people forget about the Lakers when they traded for Gasol... they had the best record in the Western Conference. Bynum was becoming a seriously good player before he got his first knee injury. There is no guarantee the Lakers trade for Gasol were it not for Bynum getting injured that year.

and yes, the Lakers had the two 7 footers and the league's best mismatch in Odom.

They had that same Odom and Bynum and they couldnt get out of the first round, and had trouble even making it to the playoffs with Kobe. But as soon as Pau is aquired, NOW they have the best mismatch in the league, and Bynum and Pau contributed, but its Kobe who led the team to championships and finals appearances? Give me a break. At the time, Pau was regarded as one of the most talented offensive big men in the league. If not, the best.

Bynum was 20 and not started for the first time in 2007-8

and Odom, as we saw in 2008-9, was a better player off the bench for them. thats when he became a mismatch.

This isnt to diss Gasol, but people feel the need to prop up Gasol to take away from Kobe's greatness and ignore that Gasol was not a considered a great player before he arrived in LA.

[Sticksboi05]

Only 4 guards have won the defensive player of the year award. Moncrief is the only one that has won it more than once, and it was started after he was in the league.

Moncrieff, His Airness, The Glove and who is the last?

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 10:04 AM ----------

This isnt to diss Gasol, but people feel the need to prop up Gasol to take away from Kobe's greatness and ignore that Gasol was not a considered a great player before he arrived in LA.

I disagree with this. He was a 20/8-9 player in Memphis. He was considered the face of their franchise. The Lakers downed the Celtics in the 2009 Finals be4cause after Perkins got hurt, Gasol had a field day inside.

[CrypticVillain]

Moncrieff, His Airness, The Glove and who is the last?

I had to cheat and google it because I had no idea. And I still don't know who :ninja: Alvin Robertson is.

[Going Commando]

Pau Gasol was a great player in Memphis, before he got to the Lakers. He was in his prime before he got to LA. He's been the same player more or less for years. He's no Shaq, but he's one of the best offensive big men in the NBA, and was so before he went to LA.

Using pre-Lakers All Star appearances against him doesn't mean much. The West was loaded at PF while he was in Memphis. He couldn't get in over Duncan, Garnett, and Dirk and Yao took up an automatic spot every year. Duncan, Garnett, and Dirk are first ballot HoFers. Even still, Gasol's level of play was only a slight drop down from theirs.

It's the simple truth that Kobe has gotten All Star caliber play out of a big whenever his teams have made deep post season runs. When he hasn't gotten it, his teams floundered, missing the playoffs, or were early outs.

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 10:25 AM ----------

I had to cheat and google it because I had no idea. And I still don't know who :ninja: Alvin Robertson is.

He was a bad dude. They talked about him on open court. Reggie singled him out as the guy he was most afraid of. He's one of the best defensive guards in NBA history. I actually thought about putting him on my revised Dream Team as the stopper but decided he was too old to be ideal in '92.

[RonArtest15]

GOtta respectfully agree w. SM. Gasol flew under the radar in Memphis (small market), but was putting up insane numbers for a PF. He was arguably the most well-rounded offensive 4 in the league. It was when he got to LA people really started to notice how good he was. This is why his trade to the Lakers will go down as one of the most lopsided in NBA history.

[Shabby]

yes, that is exactly what I said. I dont see the problem with this statement.

So lakers have a bad team, but kobe does well, then its the lakers fault they dont win. Memphis has a bad team, but gasol does well, but its gasol's fault that they dont win.

I dont see how you dont find anything wrong with that. But, its your opinion.

a team that makes the playoffs 3 straight years and has a 50 win season out of the West is bad? In what world? and what part of "Gasol was not dominant" is hard to understand? If he was your number one option, you were not going to win a playoff game.

Its not hard to understand, its just not true lol Gasol was a beast, face of the franchise in Memphis, regarded as one of, if not, the best offensive big man in the game at the time. Fair enough, if kobe was your number one option, and you dont have one or even two dominant big men, you were not going to make the playoffs.

here is something people forget about the Lakers when they traded for Gasol... they had the best record in the Western Conference. Bynum was becoming a seriously good player before he got his first knee injury. There is no guarantee the Lakers trade for Gasol were it not for Bynum getting injured that year.

I may be wrong, correct me If i am, but I dont think they had the best record before the trade. They went 22-5 once they aquired Gasol, by the way. And New Orleans and San Antonio finished only one game behind them.

and yes, the Lakers had the two 7 footers and the league's best mismatch in Odom.

Again, they had Odom's best mismatch for a couple of years. And bynum as well.

This isnt to diss Gasol, but people feel the need to prop up Gasol to take away from Kobe's greatness and ignore that Gasol was not a considered a great player before he arrived in LA.

Thats just crazy. He was the face of the franchise in memphis, and regarded as one of, if not the best offensive big man in the game at the time. Actually people like to put all the success in to Kobe when the team does well, and blames the team when they dont do well. Kobe cant even make the playoffs without a dominant big man, people fail to acknowledge this, first shaq (3 finals MVP), and Bynum and Gasol, you can throw Odom in there also cause dude is like 6'11.

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 10:44 AM ----------

Pau Gasol was a great player in Memphis, before he got to the Lakers. He was in his prime before he got to LA. He's been the same player more or less for years. He's no Shaq, but he's one of the best offensive big men in the NBA, and was so before he went to LA.

Using pre-Lakers All Star appearances against him doesn't mean much. The West was loaded at PF while he was in Memphis. He couldn't get in over Duncan, Garnett, and Dirk and Yao took up an automatic spot every year. Duncan, Garnett, and Dirk are first ballot HoFers. Even still, Gasol's level of play was only a slight drop down from theirs.

It's the simple truth that Kobe has gotten All Star caliber play out of a big whenever his teams have made deep post season runs. When he hasn't gotten it, his teams floundered, missing the playoffs, or were early outs.

GOtta respectfully agree w. SM. Gasol flew under the radar in Memphis (small market), but was putting up insane numbers for a PF. He was arguably the most well-rounded offensive 4 in the league. It was when he got to LA people really started to notice how good he was. This is why his trade to the Lakers will go down as one of the most lopsided in NBA history.

Exactly. Very well said, I dont get why its hard for people to understand and realize these points.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Using pre-Lakers All Star appearances against him doesn't mean much. The West was loaded at PF while he was in Memphis. He couldn't get in over Duncan, Garnett, and Dirk and Yao took up an automatic spot every year. Duncan, Garnett, and Dirk are first ballot HoFers. Even still, Gasol's level of play was only a slight drop down from theirs.

so he wasnt dominant, he wasnt the best big man in the world, and he wasnt considered a great player. THanks, you just proved me right.

[CrypticVillain]

He was a bad dude. They talked about him on open court. Reggie singled him out as the guy he was most afraid of. He's one of the best defensive guards in NBA history. I actually thought about putting him on my revised Dream Team as the stopper but decided he was too old to be ideal in '92.

Okay, now I remember who he is.