How good was Mark Price

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Guy was a master at splitting doubles. Great handle too.

You think big defensive bigs "camped out in the lane" more back then than now?

Is that a rhetorical question?

[ZenMaster]

Guy was a master at splitting doubles. Great handle too.

Is that a rhetorical question?

Wasn't the rule before defensive 3 seconds that you always had to be an arms length within the guy you where guarding or going for a rotation or double team while moving?

[hateraid]

Basically

Take away the hanchecking, the big men camping out in the lane, the overall physical play and this dude is top 3 PG with ease.

One thing we must remember when comparing him with Nash....

This lil f*ck was tough as hell. He'd get in your face and would't back down, he'd go back at you just as hard. Dude was a combination of Nash and CP3.

That is a bold statement. Considering in his era I don't think he was even top 5. By that definition players like KJ and Tim Hardaway would be the best pg's today, because I felt they were clearly better than Price.
Price was more on the tiers with Derek Harper, Mark Jackson, Alvin Robertson, Mookie Blaylock.....
I'll give you the toughness. He was also a silent competitor and very steady. But being realistic Price was never really outstanding at anything except for ft. He was never amongst the leaders in other major pg categories like steals, 3 point percentage, assists...
I think Price tends to get overrated due to not getting the recognition, but at the same time being one of the more likeable players and a true blue collar hero.
Like I said before he' s more like Jameer Nelson than Steve Nash.

[houston]

The rules today really help small, quick guards. Back then small guards used to get beat up which is a big reason why they didn't have much longevity (Price, Isiah, KJ, etc).

My guess is that Price would be a top 3 pg today.

Zeke didn't have longevity?? KJ what lol


Man Price would probably be a top5 if he played today but that a stretch. PG is deep as hell in todays NBA.

[fandarko]

But being realistic Price was never really outstanding at anything except for ft. He was never amongst the leaders in other major pg categories like steals, 3 point percentage, assists...

Like I said before he' s more like Jameer Nelson than Steve Nash.

You must be joking, right?

Not outstanding at anything? Flat out one of the best shooters ever.
Jameer Nelson?
Price was a four time All Star.

[andgar923]

That is a bold statement. Considering in his era I don't think he was even top 5. By that definition players like KJ and Tim Hardaway would be the best pg's today, because I felt they were clearly better than Price.
Price was more on the tiers with Derek Harper, Mark Jackson, Alvin Robertson, Mookie Blaylock.....
I'll give you the toughness. He was also a silent competitor and very steady. But being realistic Price was never really outstanding at anything except for ft. He was never amongst the leaders in other major pg categories like steals, 3 point percentage, assists...
I think Price tends to get overrated due to not getting the recognition, but at the same time being one of the more likeable players and a true blue collar hero.
Like I said before he' s more like Jameer Nelson than Steve Nash.

He was a better shooter than everybody you mentioned from his era. Harper, Robertson, Mookie are not on his level because they're basically defensive specialists. They couldn't create, pass nor shoot like him

Mark Jackson couldn't create like him, couldn't shoot like him, break down the defense like him etc.etc.

He was a better shooter than both KJ and Tim, more athletic than Hardaway, better passer than KJ.

Also, his game is better suited for today's free flowing era. Mookie Blaylock would have a harder time playing in this era than Mark. This tempo and style of game is molded for his style. The main reason he wasn't THE best pg or a top 3 is because the physical defense hindered his play more than the players you mentioned. He was either smaller or less athletic so he faced more opposition. Put him in a less physical era and he flourishes.

As far as never one of the leaders in major categories
Are you serious dude?

One quick look http://www.basketball-reference.com/...pricema01.html and he's a top 10 in and higher in different categories.

[hateraid]

You must be joking, right?

Not outstanding at anything? Flat out one of the best shooters ever.
Jameer Nelson?
Price was a four time All Star.

I use the comparison to Jameer in terms of style of play, not impact. There are too many comparisons to Nash which I don't agree with. I'm not knocking him at all. I realize he was an all-star. But does being an all-star dictate how good of a shooter you are?
And being one of the best shooters? I said he was great but not outstanding. I don't ever remember him hitting it at clip compared to guys like Kerr, Les, Hawkins or the great 3 point shooters of that time. He was good enough to keep his defender close, but didn't impact the game in those regards.

[andgar923]

I use the comparison to Jameer in terms of style of play, not impact. There are too many comparisons to Nash which I don't agree with. I'm not knocking him at all. I realize he was an all-star. But does being an all-star dictate how good of a shooter you are?
And being one of the best shooters? I said he was great but not outstanding. I don't ever remember him hitting it at clip compared to guys like Kerr, Les, Hawkins or the great 3 point shooters of that time. He was good enough to keep his defender close, but didn't impact the game in those regards.

Did you ever watch him play?

[chocolatethunder]

I use the comparison to Jameer in terms of style of play, not impact. There are too many comparisons to Nash which I don't agree with. I'm not knocking him at all. I realize he was an all-star. But does being an all-star dictate how good of a shooter you are?
And being one of the best shooters? I said he was great but not outstanding. I don't ever remember him hitting it at clip compared to guys like Kerr, Les, Hawkins or the great 3 point shooters of that time. He was good enough to keep his defender close, but didn't impact the game in those regards.

You must not have seen him play. Kerr? Kerr got cut by Cleveland when Price was there.

[FatComputerNerd]

I use the comparison to Jameer in terms of style of play, not impact. There are too many comparisons to Nash which I don't agree with. I'm not knocking him at all. I realize he was an all-star. But does being an all-star dictate how good of a shooter you are?
And being one of the best shooters? I said he was great but not outstanding. I don't ever remember him hitting it at clip compared to guys like Kerr, Les, Hawkins or the great 3 point shooters of that time. He was good enough to keep his defender close, but didn't impact the game in those regards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50%E2%8...2%80%9390_club

[Miller for 3]

Imagine an HGH filled Price allowed to travel/carry all over the place with no handchecking and defensive 3 seconds in place Game over NBA.

He would be best player in modern NBA easy. 25/15 at least on 55/50/90 shooting, leading the GOAT offense (118 ORTG at worst)

[SHAQisGOAT]

I've never liked the comparison to Steve Nash. Really the similarities start and end at the are both short, white, can shoot, and play pg.
First off Nash is far more creative, better vision, and a much more effictive scorer. He's far superior athletically and a much more efficient penatrator.

Price was more gritty and heady. Although a great ft shooter I didn't think he was as deadly a 3 point shooter. He's good, but I didn' t find him a threat. Nash is more a threat from 3.
I find Price more like a more efficient Jameer Nelson.

Nash got him on the playmaking/passing side of things, no doubt about it, but Price was not far behind by any means. As far as overall shooting I'd give it to Nash also but it's really close and again Price had a quicker release. Far superior athletically? Price was a bit smaller but clearly a better overall athlete. Price could penetrate the defense just as well as Steve and was a better finisher.

More gritty and could actually play defense. I don't know your definition of deadly from 3 but in my book he was, clearly. You don't find him a threat probably because you never saw much from him. Dude is in the 50-40-90 club, shot many times over 40%, even after major injuries, has the 2nd best mark in the 3pt contest (no money-ball rack either lol).

Seriously, at their best I think I'd go with Nash but it's an extremely tough choice, can go either way and it depends on different aspects.

[SHAQisGOAT]

I use the comparison to Jameer in terms of style of play, not impact. There are too many comparisons to Nash which I don't agree with. I'm not knocking him at all. I realize he was an all-star. But does being an all-star dictate how good of a shooter you are?
And being one of the best shooters? I said he was great but not outstanding. I don't ever remember him hitting it at clip compared to guys like Kerr, Les, Hawkins or the great 3 point shooters of that time. He was good enough to keep his defender close, but didn't impact the game in those regards.

Underrating like a mother****er

[SHAQisGOAT]

Wasn't the rule before defensive 3 seconds that you always had to be an arms length within the guy you where guarding or going for a rotation or double team while moving?

Maybe that's what was written in the book but it wasn't as "strict" as that and there were ways to bend it let's say, and it was different when regarding the ball-handler. Plus you had most centers playing like center so they stayed near the lane offensively. And of course you had hand-checking which helps a lot, mostly/especially when you can't really play defense.
And to answer your question, the lane was more packed back then, on average, I mean it's not the norm and there were/are exceptions to the "rule" but again, on average.

Here's some quick examples of it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLv2F33snCE

[ZenMaster]

Maybe that's what was written in the book but it wasn't as "strict" as that and there were ways to bend it let's say, and it was different when regarding the ball-handler. Plus you had most centers playing like center so they stayed near the lane offensively. And of course you had hand-checking which helps a lot, mostly/especially when you can't really play defense.
And to answer your question, the lane was more packed back then, on average, I mean it's not the norm and there were/are exceptions to the "rule" but again, on average.

Here's some quick examples of it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLv2F33snCE

I always thought hand checking was a bigger change than the defensive 3 seconds.

I started watching ball around 96, I might have noticed it more because it's not a rule here, but I just seem to remember a lot of illegal defense calls there in the late 90's.
Also checked a few block numbers and they blocked around the same ammount of shots that they do today. I'm not putting too much into this though.

I'd say the majority of centers today play as close to the hoop as centers always have. I've heard a lot here how the centers now are soft and want to shoot 3 pointers, but from the top of my head I couldn't mention a single center in the league right now who shoots 3's at any regularity.

The Jordan rules clip is a bit extreme, I've read one of PJs books and he talks about that series and on how ALL their defensive focus was on catching Jordan, Pistons on top of that was an excellent defensive team.
When I see that video I don't just see a lane that's blocked because those where the rules. I see a great defensive team hustling their ass to follow the game plan on how to guard a single very good player.

Today they load the strong side up with an extra defender when good players have it below the foul line, that makes up for quite a bit.

Another theory of mine is that players took more tough shots back then because there wasn't a culture of using the 3pt line like they do today.

And just to clarify I'm not saying the lane wasn't more packed then than now, just that I though the hand checking was a quite bigger part than the defensive 3 seconds.