John Stockton was named all NBA 1st team twice. Steve Nash has been named All NBA 1st team three times....probably going to be 4 after this season.
If you had the opportunity would you trade Hakeem and Jordan for Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen, Jermaine O'Neal? Case Closed
Stockton came into the league in 84/85 and had to compete with Isiah Thomas, Magic, Jordan, KJ, Drexler, Penny (when he was good) and Payton. The All-NBA team isn’t position specific when it comes to guard and forward spots (i.e. they take the best two guards, not necessarily the best SG and PG). I think that has a little bit to do with the discrepancy.
Most years (in fact all except 91-92) the 1st team guard is a 1. Even after Magic and Isiah retired in the early 90's, Stockton was only named 1st team ALL NBA two times getting beat regularly for that honor by guys like Mark Price, Gary Payton, Jason Kidd, Penny Hardaway, Tim Hardaway.
That has to do with the players, not with them choosing to take a PG. Before Stockton entered the league it was Magic & Isiah (two PG’s). Once Jordan got into the mix it was always him and Magic until 1992. They chose Magic because he was Magic...not because he was a PG. Drexler replaced Magic. I have no idea how Price got picked ahead of Stockton in 93, since most of his numbers were worse besides scoring. Stockton made the next two. He was 33 (i.e. past his prime) when Penny made it over him in 95…and Penny was no scrub. Stockton was on the second team from every season from 87 until his decline, except for one season where KJ beat him. Now do you honestly think Nash would have made the all-nba teams over Magic, Jordan, Drexler, etc all of those seasons? In comparison, Arenas and Billups have made the 2nd team the past two seasons...
Looks like you owe me your life then. Shaq is ready to retire. Wade hasn't been fully healthy. Its conceivable that he will miss a lot of time next season too. If that happens, ricky davis becomes their primary scorer. I asked you "Do you think Jordan's legacy would've been greater if he had stayed retired after 1998? " and you responded: "Nope every game he ever played only added to his legacy because its impossible to take away from what hes PROVEN." This means you think that jordan had a better legacy from 84-2003 compared to his years from 84-98. Which means you think he had a better career from 84-2003 as opposed to 84-1998. do you realize how far removed from his peak deke actually is? 15 years from now, when you talk about deke, you'll say "he was one of the best defensive centers ever in his prime" you have to quantify that description with the words "in his prime". thats because all the extra, unproductive years DOES diminish his legacy. I havent proven anything by mentioning toronto. i was just curious to see if you felt that hakeem's toronto year added to his legacy. i didnt do the math, but wouldnt nash's career numbers have to drastically improve in order for him to be the all-time leader in everything?
Even if he does and is surrounded by Eric Snow, Ira Newble, and the Collins twins, there is a Z E R O % chance of that happening. Nope because I dont measure players by the most idiotic of standards remember. What he did as a 40 year old doesnt negate what he did in his prime. Get it yet? Yes YUP Hence you dont measure players by your idiotic standards, a legacy cannot be tarnished simply because you played past your prime. Yea you did, what did Toronto have to do with anything? You couldve easily asked did you like seeing Hakeem play in his late 30's when he was no longer dominant? Every game Dream ever played added to his legacy because (this is getting tiresome) I dont measure his career by his per game averages, every individual season adds a chapter to the book that is "Dream's Career" Not if he plays for 188 seasons, now do you see why I laughed at your Ricky Davis notion? You measure a players career trend, and what they proved in each season.
1. John Stockton 15,806 2. Mark Jackson 10,334 3. Magic Johnson 10,141 4. Oscar Robertson 9,887 5. JASON KIDD 9,071 6. Isiah Thomas 9,061 7. Gary Payton 8,966 8. Rod Strickland 7,987 9. Maurice Cheeks 7,392 10. Len Wilkens 7,211 11. Terry Porter 7,160 12. Tim Hardaway 7,095 13. Bob Cousy 6,955 14. Guy Rodgers 6,917 15. Muggsy Bogues 6,726 16. Kevin Johnson 6,711 17. Derek Harper 6,577 18. Tiny Archibald 6,476 19. John Lucas 6,454 20. Reggie Theus 6,453 By 5000 assists, that is freakin ridiculous!
You do know that people are discussing Stockton vs. NASH, not KIDD right? Steve Nash has 6,424 assists which doesn't even place him in the top 20 list yet.
Sorry you feel that way. It just means you have a weak grasp of probability. Would you like me to explain it? Do you need help with multiplication too? Let me know. There are tables out there that make it simplicity itself. Maybe I'm assuming too much from you. If you're having trouble with addition too, I'll structure my questions so all you'll ever need are your fingers and toes. I get that you're contradicting yourself. It happens when you're r****ded. Maybe the words you used didnt adequately convey the message you intended. So you have a weak grasp on the english language as well as math... I hope you can spell your name right. Otherwise you would've had to go to clown college or something. Btw, thus far, I've been very polite in my posts whereas you've been insulting me nonstop. I figure if you cant beat them, join them. Before we continue, I want to know your definition of the word "legacy". If you think its a french, crescent-shaped pastry, the actual word you're looking for is "croissant". But nice try. That would've earned you a gold star on the short bus. I consider a player's legacy to be how he is remembered by future generations. In my Deke example, you agreed with the quantifier "in his prime". Based on your previous ramblings, you should've disagreed and stated that deke was one of the best defensive centers for his career. you know...since sitting on the bench right now adds to his legacy. But no...you choose "in his prime" because these last few years have detracted from his legacy and you want to make that distinction. Because up until then, he had spent his whole career with the rockets. Do you know how rare that is in the NBA? I think an extensive career spent entirely with one team adds to a player's legacy. No matter what you say, if he plays for 188 seasons and becomes the all-time leader in all stats, he's the GOAT. Btw, this is something that has a 0% chance of happening. Impressive. For a guy who has falsely accused me of using impossible scenarios, this is the example you choose to use. Everyone knows that Ricky Davis can score. But he's not the first option on the team. But if Wade goes down next year and shaq is retired, then ricky davis WILL be the first option (assuming no significant roster changes). He'll have the green light similar to what Durant has now. Therefore, its possible that he could avg 40 ppg. The heat might win 3 games that season, but its possible.
LOL So how much did Davis score tonight? 39??? ahaha ZERO % CHANCE of averaging 39 Show me the contradiction Whats so hard about understanding that what MJ did as a 40 year old in no way takes away from what he did in his prime, which is what your essentially doing by comparing a players career average. The least you could do is compare their career average on a per possession basis but seeing as how you just now heard about eFG% Im probably asking abit much arent I? I dont get booty hurt so go ahead, just dont go overboard and I dont think Ive been insulting you on a personal level, just insulting your logic. LOL Ok guy Why would I disagree that he was great in his prime? And he was one of the best defensive centers for his career because (SHOCK) nothing he does now can take away from what hes done in the past. Why do you keep assuming that I agree with your ridiculous logic? No it hasnt detracted from his legacy, him playing now only drops his career averages, remember I dont rate a player by his career averages I rate each individual season and a players career trend. In other words I dont hold it against a player for continuing to play the game he loves even if it lowers his career averages. If Deke is playing at a high level in limited minutes at an old age it should be recognized. Difference between you and me, I dont let things outside the court determine ones value on the court. Whether Hakeem had played for 5 teams or 1 makes no difference to me, because I focus solely on how he PLAYED THE GAME. Really? So your saying he cant live till past the age of 200? OK now that youve admitted that, how do you not see the contradiction of your post. If Nash had career averages of 4.4Pts, 2.2Ast, 1.1Reb or whatever the hell I said you would call him the goat? But earlier you were using Stocktons career averages as a barometer of his level of play? Seriously just answer me how you can continue to say without owning yourself that a player with those averages is the GOAT when a minute ago you were using career averages? Ive successfully accused you of using impossible scenarios, so I decided to play your game? Are you mad that I can expose your logic even when playing by your rules? Yea and give him a team with Eric Snow, Ira Newble, Collins twins (none of these guys can score by the way) and he still wont average the numbers you gave. THUS He has a ZERO % CHANCE Tell me what is Durant averaging?
I'm talking about next season; you're talking about tonight. thats bad logic on your part. I've already shown you...in fact, i even dug through your previous posts and quoted you verbatim. I have never said it takes away from his prime. Are you illiterate too? I said it takes away from his legacy. and for the last post, i even defined "legacy" to you. Yes, b/c so many announcers spew facts about "per possession basis" my logic is sound; i dont know why you cant fathom it. I've been talking about legacy. As were you. And then I told you what "legacy" means. And then you start using the word "prime". BIG DIFFERENCE When people talk about artest in the future, do you think they will remember his overall game or the piston fight? When you think about sprewell, dont you remember him choking his coach? Thats their legacies. You may say you disagree, but some of your previous statements have indicated otherwise. Very true. But he's not playing at a high level anymore. May not be his fault due to lack of playing time, but regardless, he's not playing at a high level. I would call him GOAT if he became the all-time leader in points, blocks, assists, steals, and rebounds. That was my response to your earlier contention. It had nothing to do with your hypothetical career average. Go back and learn to read. What contradiction? After learning to read, you should learn to remember. I was also using the fact that stockton is the all-time leader in steals/assists as a measuring stick. As such, his career averages and seasons played are also measuring sticks. You're making illogical assumptions based on what I said. I said that if he were the all-time leader in every stat, he'd be the GOAT. I've actually said this at least 5 times. But you interpret it as "if he averages paltry numbers for 200 years, he'll get those numbers, and wekko will consider him the GOAT." Its nice to see that in your self-proclaimed "logical" arguments, you have a player hypothetically playing for 200 years.. You've sucessfully shown your idiocy. You cant compare Ricky Davis scoring 39 ppg (on a Heat team with no other offense assuming wade is injured next year) to Nash playing 200 years in the NBA. How is that my logic? Actually, he has a chance. I'm sorry you cant understand this fairly basic fact of probability. Unless you're saying that those 5 players are incapable of scoring 50 a game for a full 48 minute game. Not sure. Tell me, does he have Ricky Davis's conditioning? Strength? Experience?
Wow, this thread got r****ded fast. If Nash is able to play for another 188 years and still be on a NBA roster, I'd give him GOAT person ever honors. Who cares about his averages. Either way, career averages should be counted when evaluating a player, not just best season average (or you could argue best game stats). If someone is truly great like MJ, even at age 40, he still produced good numbers.
Hes the first option on a team with no star scorers and he still cant get 30. Sorry if no player has ever averaged 39 since the pace of the game slowed down there is no way RICKY FREAKIN DAVIS is going to. There is no contradiction, show me and I will debunk it yet again Your taking away from his prime if your measuring his career averages, GET IT YET? Pity that your basketball knowledge is limited to what OTHER people tell you. LMAO I dont put much stock into r****ded logic, especially when the person who speaks about stats doesnt even know the importance of PACE. And youve been using career averages as a barometer to measure a players legacy. My way of evaluating a players legacy treats each individual season separately, I look at the entire body of work. I could care less if a player played past his prime because it doesnt take away from what hes done in the past. You "told" me, LMAO. Yea and Ive been laughing at your definition of a players legacy this entire thread if you havent noticed. If that person is you Im sure youll find an idiotic answer, but if the person is a sound basketball analyst they'll weigh the aspects that affect his play, not any single thing. Ill remember everything about him Thats part of his legacy yes, this has nothing to do with your idiotic standard of using career averages Show me one and Ill gladly re-inform you He was playing at a high level last year, but by your moronic standards we wont know that because it lowered his career averages. So now your backtracking? What ever happened to career averages being a barometer for ones level of play? ALLOW ME TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY I've been talking in terms of careers. in fact, this has been favorable for nash b/c stockton's stats have included his developing years as well as his declining years. thus far, nash's stats havent included his declining years. Your going by CAREER AVERAGES as the barometer of their level of play, but if Nash were to have career averages of 2.2 etc... then how would you still have him above Stockton? Measuring sticks to quantify what? Do you think having all-time assist record places him above Magic? Theyre nice milestones but theyre about as insignificant as scoring titles. Im trying to make sense of your logic, hed be the goat with pathetic averages? When a minute ago you were using career averages as the ultimate barometer. Even though a minute ago you were using career averages, man your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. You know nothing about quantifying statistical importance. I never said they were logical genius, I said I was using your logic against you. Remember the career averages being the barometer part. Your claiming Ricky has a good chance of averaging 39 in a much slower era when the greatest scorers in our league havent even come close and Im the idiot? LMFAO Keep em coming man this is getting ridiculously easy Z E R O % CHANCE. I say this because I know the probabilities and the trends that happen in the NBA. Ricky Davis averaging 39 has about as much chance as you giving birth to the next Michael Jordan You didnt know hes averaging 20? You really need to start watching the NBA.
Let it be known this is why Ive been clowning on wakko every day So MJ playing great at 40 should lower his career? His way of evaluating a players career is by looking at his CAREER stats. He says that MJ playing those extra 2 years lowers his legacy because his per game averages dipped after he retired. In other words what MJ did in his 40's somehow takes away from what he did earlier in his career, even though he contradicts this very statement by refusing to mention that his career TOTALS go up with every game MJ played. THAT IS WHY HIS LOGIC IS MORONIC
Still cant get 30? If his career high is over 30, you just lost this portion of the argument. Guess what? I already quoted you a few posts ago. If you didnt read it then, theres no point for me to search again. What i get is that I judge a player by what he has accomplished in his career. You judge players by what they accomplish during the most productive years of his career. Your way is better if you want to argue about individual seasons. My way is better if you want to judge players as a whole. Lets not forget this conversation started b/c of a nash vs stockton debate. Pity that you have to resort to using facts that arent commonly used in order to prove your point. If your contention were that strong, you'd be able to prove your point using stats everyone is familiar with. I know the importance of pace. Why do you bring it up? What bearing does it have on our current conversation? For a guy who looks at the entire body of work, you sure are quick to dismiss stockton's status of all-time steals and assists leader. and i havent been using career averages as a barometer. I've used stockton's all-time stats. its understandable that you're confused. stockton was the model of consistency, and being the all-time leader in these two areas is a testament to what he's been able to do for so many years. He who laughs last thinks slowest. But really, dont get upset b/c you confused "prime" with "legacy". i figure you answer the way you do just to argue with me. b/c no person with a shred of common sense will ignore artests involvement in the fight. in 10 years from now, that fight will be what defines ron artest. kind of like how kermit washington is only remembered for punching rudy t. You're right. But then again, i never said it did. Looks like you're getting confused again. It must happen a lot. Like i said, i've already quoted you before. I have no intention of searching through your drivel again. I can actually feel myself getting stupider just by trying to follow your logic. I guess this is what it feels like to be you. Exceptions can be made if a player lives to be over 200 years old and is still playing in the NBA. I guess you got me there. No offense, but I still cant believe how actively your pursuing this r****ded scenario. You must be running out of legs to stand on. In your scenario, you had him playing an additional 188 years and being the all-time leader in every category. In my book, that makes him the GOAT. Not quite. A scoring title measures a season. An all-time record measures a career. Its not reasonable to bring Magic into this. Who knows what he could've accomplished if he hadnt retired early. But if I must answer, then yes, it places him above magic on the all-time assist list. Everything goes out the window once a player plays more than 200 years in the league. From now on, whenever you reference your idiotic scenario, i'll just respond with "you're r****ded" You're r****ded. You're r****ded. If he has the ultimate green light, the heat are tanking the season, and he is the only scorer on the floor, then its possible. its only easy for you b/c you have no answer. as such, you avoid the question. what could be easier? Did I ever say I was a seattle fan? No i did not. I said I watched rocket games and the games that come on espn/tnt. why should I watch the other nba teams? why should i spend extra money to watch teams i dont care about? Your ignorance is amazing. I'm really impressed you're still alive and kicking. According to darwin's theory of natural selection, you should've never made it out of elementary school.
