Kevin Johnson video and some other things....

[GMATCallahan]

LOL, I'm talking about talent wise not doping wise. You had Erving/Moses/Gervin who were 3 of the top players before Magic/Larry and after they entered the league.

The league went through some doping during the Magic/Larry years with Micheal Ray and Roy Tarply among others.

Okay, I was interpreting your use of the term "impact" in a broader sense. Certainly, the ABA introduced an incredible influx of talent into the NBA, but the larger resonance proved limited until Magic and Bird arrived.

[Kblaze8855]

K.J. was one of the best point guards in history, and I think that most of the great point guards in history start to fall into place in the 20-range. Indeed, a great point guard is more valuable and important than a great player at most other positions aside from center, because he leads an offense, catalyzes baskets, and directly effects the performance of his teammates.

A great point being more valuable than a great player at most positions doesnt mean that when you compare the top players of all of them the points all belong over everyone but the centers. Too big a sample size from all of them. The best of the best from each position stand up to the best pointguards. And really only 2 points belong in the top 10-12 all time. All top 20 lists are are the best of the best. With 5 spots it wouldnt even take 5 players per position to put KJ below your highest estimates. There are about 11 people just as the 4 and 5 who were better than Kevin Johnson:

Wilt
Russell
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses
Ewing
Duncan
Malone
Barkley
Petitt

And there is only even one "Well maybe he accomplished more but you cant really prove hes better" on that list. All the rest are either no brainers or guys who played with KJ and were considered flat out better. KJ is getting a higher ranking in retrospect than he did in his prime. Kinda like Pistol Pete....though id take him over Pistol Pete....


Bird
Doc
Baylor
Hondo
Barry
Pippen
Jordan
West
Magic
Oscar
Isiah
Hayes

Plus you would have to put him over some of these guys.

Thats putting KJ on a level with the best of the best of the best all time. And that no matter how stretched or well written simply cant be done for a guy who in his prime was considered a peer with Tim Hardaway,, Chris Mullin, and so on who wouldnt even crack top 50. Speaking of which...

KJ wasnt voted top 50 all time in 1996. Im sure you agree nothing after 96 made his legacy. Even with all these coaches and players talking him up that you post(you dedicate yourself enough damn near every great player has similar quotes on him). Got a list of legends, long long time media members who covered 30+ years, coaches, and so on voting and KJ did not crack top 50. Yet 12 years later having done nothing to add to his legacy he jumps from below 50 to arguably #21? He might be underrated...but hes not that underrated.

This is strictly a fan made thing by his supporters to put him as highly as possible. It isnt and wouldnt be supported by any non biased group of fans(even thosel ike me who remember and loved KJs game). It wouldnt be supported by coaches. Not by players. No group of people could you poll and get KJ nearly this high and id bet anything on it.

Only his own fans.

Now, I'm not saying that K.J. should necessarily rank that high, but once you reach the twenties, the discussion becomes extremely ambiguous and invites varying possibilities. That's all that I'm saying.

Well yea I mentioned that. The non elites is a long long list that gives fans of borderline elites a lot of ammo to put guys higher than they deserve due to the flaws of the people on that level. That doesnt mean its right to do it. Or thats its accurate. It would take too much conflicting logic player to player to put him over as many legends as one would need to.

As for the statistical combinations, what separates K.J. in many of those cases is also field goal percentage. He was not just extremely prolific but also extremely efficient (and steals also separates him at one point). Aside from Magic Johnson, no one combined points, assists, and field goal percentage (the three most important statistical catgeories for a star point guard) better than K.J. did. And the point about points and assists is that K.J. is pretty close to the top of the mountain in NBA history in terms of combining them. In many ways, he epitomized the 20-10 point guard.

Considering the fact that a few non 20/10 points are still considered btter(and with good reason) that isnt that major. Its impressive. But im pressive in the way Steve Francis being on a list with Magic, Oscar, and Grant Hill as the only 15/5/5 players over their first 3 years players. Or arenas being the only player with 2000 points and 200 threes and 500FTs in a season(that not exactly it but he has one of those records similar to it). Those stat minimum records will bring up some odd players if you look across the board.

I don't think that being an MVP necessarily means everything, especially since the award is only pertinent in the context of one's era, and not all eras are created equal. Did Bob McAdoo, Allen Iverson, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, or even Steve Nash lead their respective teams closer to a championship or to more overall success than K.J.?

Cmon now. Did KJ himself lead a team closer to a title than Ray Allen, Rasheed Wallace, or Paul Pierce who all went to conference finals? Paul Westphal who went to the finals and made more than one all nba first team? Gus Williams who won a title? Plenty of guys not on KJs level all time managed to win on his level or close to it. And plenty of guys above KJs level didnt win beyond what he was able to. Doesnt make him their equal anymore than it makes Gus Williams KJs equal. Take 20-30 teams over 60 years(I know there were not hat many team for the whole 60) a lot of guys who dont deserve high rank will win as much or more than guys who do. Sideeffect of being a team sport.

Was their level of play necessarily higher? McAdoo later won a couple championships, but only as a role player off the bench on the eighties Lakers, not as a star.

Bob Mcadoo was for a time considered the equal of Kareem. Kevin Johnson at his peak was ranked as the equal of Tim Hardaway. I think we are overrating the level KJ reached when we question if MVPs hit a higher level of play.

Likewise, not everyone who "led" a team to a title was superior to K.J. Was Chauncey Billups better? Who was really the leader on the '79 Sonics?

Billups was who I meant when I mentioned exceptions. But there would need to be a hell of a lot more than there are. Its basically Billups, Gus Williams or Dennis Johnson, and 2-3 guys before 1956. Not nearly enough.

And take a legend such as Bob Cousy, who shot .375 from the field for his career and never reached .400 in a single season. Yes, he won six championships with Bill Russell, but Russell won five more championships after Cousy retired. Cousy revolutionzed the game, but frankly, the record indicates that he was not indispensable in the least. He never led a team to elite status before Russell arrived, and Russell won nearly as many championships without Cousy as he won with him.

Ive been saying the same thing for years. glove has argued with me over that for at least a few months whenever it comes up just because id take Steve Nash, Payton, Kidd, Isiah, and most modern points who proved themselves over him. KJ included. I just dont trust the skill set of a guy who predates the modern jumper. Not in a pointguard.

As for Scottie Pippen, he'd probably make my top twenty-five. He was arguably the greatest all-around small forward in history (taking into account both sides of the ball).

Hes also my second favorite player ever(Bulls fan since 83). But I cant let my bias blind me to reality. I refuse to be one of the fans propping up my favorite more than they justify just because I feel they are underrated. More often than not a non fan of th guy has a more accurate rating than a hardcore fan. We tend to overrate our guys more than non fans underrate them. Need the disconnect to rank it fairly. I think youre a reasonable guy who probably knows the game but really....nothing but bias could make one think Kevin Johnson is that high. There is just no other way.

[L.Kizzle]

A great point being more valuable than a great player at most positions doesnt mean that when you compare the top players of all of them the points all belong over everyone but the centers. Too big a sample size from all of them. The best of the best from each position stand up to the best pointguards. And really only 2 points belong in the top 10-12 all time. All top 20 lists are are the best of the best. With 5 spots it wouldnt even take 5 players per position to put KJ below your highest estimates. There are about 11 people just as the 4 and 5 who were better than Kevin Johnson:

Wilt
Russell
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses
Ewing
Duncan
Malone
Barkley
Petitt

And there is only even one "Well maybe he accomplished more but you cant really prove hes better" on that list. All the rest are either no brainers or guys who played with KJ and were considered flat out better. KJ is getting a higher ranking in retrospect than he did in his prime. Kinda like Pistol Pete....though id take him over Pistol Pete....


Bird
Doc
Baylor
Hondo
Barry
Pippen
Jordan
West
Magic
Oscar
Isiah
Hayes

Plus you would have to put him over some of these guys.

Thats putting KJ on a level with the best of the best of the best all time. And that no matter how stretched or well written simply cant be done for a guy who in his prime was considered a peer with Tim Hardaway,, Chris Mullin, and so on who wouldnt even crack top 50. Speaking of which...

KJ wasnt voted top 50 all time in 1996. Im sure you agree nothing after 96 made his legacy. Even with all these coaches and players talking him up that you post(you dedicate yourself enough damn near every great player has similar quotes on him). Got a list of legends, long long time media members who covered 30+ years, coaches, and so on voting and KJ did not crack top 50. Yet 12 years later having done nothing to add to his legacy he jumps from below 50 to arguably #21? He might be underrated...but hes not that underrated.

This is strictly a fan made thing by his supporters to put him as highly as possible. It isnt and wouldnt be supported by any non biased group of fans(even thosel ike me who remember and loved KJs game). It wouldnt be supported by coaches. Not by players. No group of people could you poll and get KJ nearly this high and id bet anything on it.

Only his own fans.


Well yea I mentioned that. The non elites is a long long list that gives fans of borderline elites a lot of ammo to put guys higher than they deserve due to the flaws of the people on that level. That doesnt mean its right to do it. Or thats its accurate. It would take too much conflicting logic player to player to put him over as many legends as one would need to.


Considering the fact that a few non 20/10 points are still considered btter(and with good reason) that isnt that major. Its impressive. But im pressive in the way Steve Francis being on a list with Magic, Oscar, and Grant Hill as the only 15/5/5 players over their first 3 years players. Or arenas being the only player with 2000 points and 200 threes and 500FTs in a season(that not exactly it but he has one of those records similar to it). Those stat minimum records will bring up some odd players if you look across the board.


Cmon now. Did KJ himself lead a team closer to a title than Ray Allen, Rasheed Wallace, or Paul Pierce who all went to conference finals? Paul Westphal who went to the finals and made more than one all nba first team? Gus Williams who won a title? Plenty of guys not on KJs level all time managed to win on his level or close to it. And plenty of guys above KJs level didnt win beyond what he was able to. Doesnt make him their equal anymore than it makes Gus Williams KJs equal. Take 20-30 teams over 60 years(I know there were not hat many team for the whole 60) a lot of guys who dont deserve high rank will win as much or more than guys who do. Sideeffect of being a team sport.


Bob Mcadoo was for a time considered the equal of Kareem. Kevin Johnson at his peak was ranked as the equal of Tim Hardaway. I think we are overrating the level KJ reached when we question if MVPs hit a higher level of play.


Billups was who I meant when I mentioned exceptions. But there would need to be a hell of a lot more than there are. Its basically Billups, Gus Williams or Dennis Johnson, and 2-3 guys before 1956. Not nearly enough.


Ive been saying the same thing for years. glove has argued with me over that for at least a few months whenever it comes up just because id take Steve Nash, Payton, Kidd, Isiah, and most modern points who proved themselves over him. KJ included. I just dont trust the skill set of a guy who predates the modern jumper. Not in a pointguard.


Hes also my second favorite player ever(Bulls fan since 83). But I cant let my bias blind me to reality. I refuse to be one of the fans propping up my favorite more than they justify just because I feel they are underrated. More often than not a non fan of th guy has a more accurate rating than a hardcore fan. We tend to overrate our guys more than non fans underrate them. Need the disconnect to rank it fairly. I think youre a reasonable guy who probably knows the game but really....nothing but bias could make one think Kevin Johnson is that high. There is just no other way.

Another thing about Kev, in his prime he probally was never a 10 player of his era (late 80's to early 90's)

He sure wasn't a top 5 player fighting against these guys:

Jordan
Magic
Dream
Chuck
Glide
Robinson
Pat Ew
Stockton
Malone
Zeke Thomas
'Nique

Then you have players maybe closer to his level (above or below-you decide)


Worthy
McHale
Timmy Hardaway
Mullin
Joe D
Terry Porter
Pippen
Mitch Richmond
Kemp
Alvin Robertson (yes him)
Rodman


So I think it's very hard to put Kevin Johnson as a top 21 player ever, when he sometimes wasn't even a top 10 player. This is not any hate towared KJ as he was one of my faves.

[Kblaze8855]

By the number(eff) this was the top 20 in his best overall season. Im not saying it proves anything but its a little interesting to see.

1 Michael Jordan CHI 34.57 1989-90
2 Hakeem Olajuwon HOU 32.38 1989-90
3 Patrick Ewing NYK 32.34 1989-90
4 Karl Malone UTA 31.88 1989-90
5 Charles Barkley PHI 31.67 1989-90
6 David Robinson SAS 30.56 1989-90
7 Magic Johnson LAL 30.49 1989-90
8 Larry Bird BOS 29.27 1989-90
9 John Stockton UTA 27.10 1989-90
10 Kevin Johnson PHO 26.34 1989-90
11 Chris Mullin GSW 25.82 1989-90
12 Clyde Drexler POR 25.52 1989-90
13 Lafayette Lever DEN 24.53 1989-90
14 Tom Chambers PHO 24.47 1989-90
15 Kevin Mchale BOS 24.21 1989-90
16 Dominique Wilkins ATL 23.58 1989-90
17 Roy Tarpley DAL 22.71 1989-90
18 Mark Price CLE 22.42 1989-90
19 James Worthy LAL 22.29 1989-90
20 Reggie Miller IND 22.18 1989-90


In his best season going just by numbers:

1 Michael Jordan CHI 36.99 1988-89
2 Magic Johnson LAL 33.31 1988-89
3 Charles Barkley PHI 32.68 1988-89
4 Hakeem Olajuwon HOU 31.02 1988-89
5 Karl Malone UTA 29.53 1988-89
6 Clyde Drexler POR 28.87 1988-89
7 Lafayette Lever DEN 27.48 1988-89
8 Patrick Ewing NYK 27.46 1988-89
9 John Stockton UTA 27.40 1988-89
10 Kevin Johnson PHO 27.06 1988-89
11 Robert Parish BOS 26.10 1988-89
12 Chris Mullin GSW 26.01 1988-89
13 Tom Chambers PHO 24.11 1988-89
14 Moses Malone ATL 23.84 1988-89
15 Kevin Mchale BOS 23.68 1988-89
16 Dominique Wilkins ATL 22.84 1988-89
17 Larry Nance CLE 22.66 1988-89
18 Terry Porter POR 22.42 1988-89
19 Brad Daugherty CLE 22.37 1988-89
20 Mark Price CLE 22.33 1988-89



He ended up 10th right behind Stockton both years.

[Glove_20]

Why is everybody stuck on KJ being 21st?

I said 30-40 from the beggining, you could make a case for the 20s, but in the end, the injuries are going to push him back in the 30s.

I don't see how Stockton was better than KJ in his prime, or even Clyde.




And KBlaze, I never said I'd take Cousy over Nash at his peak either. I just saying Nash was "way" better than Cousy ever was off, and thats what I was arguing. And I still stand by that statement.

All players shot low %s back then, so the % isn't as bad as it really is. Not only that, he was Top 3 in the league in scoring twice, not 100% sure on that, but I am pretty sure, even finished 2nd in the league in scoring as well.

And passing/playmaking, I don't think I neeed to explain anymore on that. He was just as good as Magic and Stockton.



So based on all that, there is no way you can say Nash is WAY better than Cousy ever was. Cousy also won a MVP, and would've probably had 2 if the award existed before.

[GMATCallahan]

A great point being more valuable than a great player at most positions doesnt mean that when you compare the top players of all of them the points all belong over everyone but the centers. Too big a sample size from all of them. The best of the best from each position stand up to the best pointguards. And really only 2 points belong in the top 10-12 all time. All top 20 lists are are the best of the best. With 5 spots it wouldnt even take 5 players per position to put KJ below your highest estimates. There are about 11 people just as the 4 and 5 who were better than Kevin Johnson:

Wilt
Russell
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses
Ewing
Duncan
Malone
Barkley
Petitt

And there is only even one "Well maybe he accomplished more but you cant really prove hes better" on that list. All the rest are either no brainers or guys who played with KJ and were considered flat out better. KJ is getting a higher ranking in retrospect than he did in his prime. Kinda like Pistol Pete....though id take him over Pistol Pete....


Bird
Doc
Baylor
Hondo
Barry
Pippen
Jordan
West
Magic
Oscar
Isiah
Hayes

Plus you would have to put him over some of these guys.

I don't disagree with you here, and I have no problem with putting any of these guys over K.J. In fact, I might do so myself. I was just speaking to the range at which a point guard of K.J.'s caliber and efficacy could begin to enter the conversation.

Thats putting KJ on a level with the best of the best of the best all time. And that no matter how stretched or well written simply cant be done for a guy who in his prime was considered a peer with Tim Hardaway,, Chris Mullin, and so on who wouldnt even crack top 50. Speaking of which...

K.J. was also a peer of Isiah Thomas, John Stockton, and even Magic Johnson at times. He certainly wasn't as great as Magic overall, but in 1991, the Sporting News debated whether Magic or K.J. was the better point guard and Charles Barkley later claimed in Sports Illustrated that K.J. was the best point guard in basketball that year.

He was the best point guard in basketball. He was unstoppable.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...ey_flashback1/

In 1989, long before they became teammates, Barkley offered similiar comments to the Washington Post.

Phoenix' Johnson Is Suns' Rising Star; [FINAL Edition]
Chris Cobbs. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: May 16, 1989. pg. e.06

Johnson has needed only two pro seasons to establish himself as a legitimate NBA star. Some observers believe he's approaching an elite group, composed of Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley, that deserves consideration for most valuable player. Barkley himself has said that K.J. may be the league's premier point guard.

These viewpoints are supported by empirical evidence. K.J. and Magic are the only two players in NBA history to have averaged at least 20.0 points, 10.0 assists, and a .500 field goal percentage in the same season, and they each did it twice, with K.J. missing a third such season by .001 on his field goal percentage. Compare their individual and team performance on a yearly basis from 1989-1991.

1989:

Magic Johnson: 22.5 points, 12.8 assists, .509 field goal percentage, 57-25 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to NBA Finals (beat K.J.'s Suns 4-0 in Western Conference Finals

Kevin Johnson: 20.4 points, 12.2 assists, .505 field goal percentage, 55-27 regular season in Pacific Division , advanced to Western Conference Finals (lost to Magic's Lakers 4-0)

1990:

Magic Johnson: 22.3 points, 11.5 assists, .480 field goal percentage, 63-19 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to Western Conference Semifinals (lost to K.J.'s Suns 4-1)

Kevin Johnson: 22.5 points, 11.4 assists, .499 field goal percentage, 54-28 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to Western Conference Finals (beat Magic's Lakers 4-1)

1991:

Magic Johnson: 19.4 points, 12.5 assists, .477 field goal percentage, 58-24 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to NBA Finals

Kevin Johnson: 22.2 points, 10.1 assists, .516 field goal percentage, 55-27 regular season in Pacific Division, advanced to Western Conference First Round

Now, Magic holds a slight edge based on that information, and obviously he enjoys a large advantage in basketball history. But in the late eighties and early nineties, K.J. was challenging him, playing in his ballpark (they started the 1991 All-Star Game together for the Western Conference), and was a definite rival. Consider the following quotation from L.A. Times sportswriter Randey Harvey from May 1990:

Suns Find a Forum to Show That They Have Come of Age; [Home Edition]
RANDY HARVEY. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: May 16, 1990. pg. 6

Kevin Johnson is the player that Isiah Thomas is supposed to be, the real Pocket Magic. He even has the right last name.

There is no doubting him now. After he played less than his best in the first two games, the Suns' coaches told him that he was thinking too much, that he was taking only what the Lakers gave him. They told him to take what he wanted.

He was the second-best Johnson on the court Tuesday night, but not by much. While the Lakers' Magic scored 43 points and had seven assists, the Suns' Kevin had 37 points and eight assists.

That excerpt also pretty much answers the question of whether K.J. was a rival of Isiah Thomas. If you need any more evidence, go back and read the L.A. Times article that I posted earlier that compares K.J. and Thomas. If you want any more proof, consider the empirical evidence with an old post of mine:

Actually, in terms of statistical efficacy, it's more like Isiah Thomas was a poor man's Kevin Johnson (more accurately, it's more that Tim Hardaway/Rod Strickland were a poor man's Isiah Thomas/Kevin Johnson). K.J. was much more efficient from the field (a career .493 field goal percentage to Thomas' .452), far more efficient from the foul line (a career .841 free throw percentage to Thomas' .759), and he took much better care of the basketball (3.1 turnovers per game for his career to Thomas' 3.8). K.J.'s career assists-to-turnovers ratio was 2.97:1.00, whereas Thomas' was just 2.46:1.00, and their points and assists averages were about the same. In K.J.'s nine prime seasons (1989-1997), he averaged 19.8 points and 10.0 assists (shooting .497/.839 with 3.3 turnovers); in Thomas' nine prime seasons (1983-1991), he averaged 20.1 points and 9.9 assists (shooting .462/.770 with 3.8 turnovers).

K.J. also proved similarly brilliant in the postseason, and in 1998, the Sporting News named both K.J. and Isiah Thomas as its All-Playoffs Second Team guards for the decade of the 1990s (behind Michael Jordan and Clyde Drexler on the First Team, with Gary Payton nowhere in sight). However, because "Zeke" won two rings, he will understandably be remembered more vividly in history. I'll certainly give him credit for twice reaching the top of the mountain, because that's what the game is all about (although as "rikemaru" has pointed out, Thomas enjoyed the team defensive support to compensate for his inefficiencies).

If you want more evidence, consider the following quotation from the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon in 1990.

After Hours, It Was Showtime; [FINAL Edition]
MICHAEL WILBON. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: May 17, 1990. pg. d.01

The only point guard in the league better than Kevin Johnson is Magic.

Yes, that would include Isiah Thomas, as well as John Stockton. K.J. went through both Stockton and Magic in 1990 playoffs, and while these quotations don't represent the gospel, neither do MVPs and top-fifty lists that are determined by the same types of people offering these quotations. You can't choose to believe these people in some cases but not in others. Likewise, K.J. was the only guard to make the All-NBA Second Team each year from 1989-1991, while Magic and Jordan possessed a joint stranglehold on the First Team. Isiah Thomas last made any All-NBA Team in 1987, and K.J. finished higher than Stockton (Third Team) in 1991. The same writers who vote for MVPs and top-fifty lists also vote for All-NBA Teams, so if you're going to give yourself over to their supposedly holy judgment, then you must do so in this case as well and recognize that K.J. was very much a rival of Thomas and Stockton and that for awhile, many people considered him better than them.

Of course, I form my own conclusions irrespective of media analysis, and the fact that K.J. averaged 31 points and 11 assists (shooting 51% from the field) versus Stockton over a 14-game regular season stretch from 1989-1993 as the Suns went 10-4 versus the Jazz tells me that K.J. tended to dominate Stockton head-to-head and was very much a rival.

Obviously, I've proven that K.J. was as much a rival of Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and John Stockton as he was a rival of Tim Hardaway and Chris Mullin. These groupings are far more fluid than your rigid classifications allow for, especially since at times, some people justifiably considered K.J. superior to Thomas and Stockton and wondered just how close he was to Magic, and if he might not have even surpassed him.

All-NBA Teams aren't everything, and K.J. would be snubbed by them later in his career. However, that tells you that MVPs and top-fifty lists should be treated with the exact same grains of salt. Instead of letting awards and the bias of other individuals determine your thinking, the analyst should analyze objectively based on one's own interpretation and the available empirical evidence.

[GMATCallahan]

KJ wasnt voted top 50 all time in 1996. Im sure you agree nothing after 96 made his legacy. Even with all these coaches and players talking him up that you post(you dedicate yourself enough damn near every great player has similar quotes on him). Got a list of legends, long long time media members who covered 30+ years, coaches, and so on voting and KJ did not crack top 50. Yet 12 years later having done nothing to add to his legacy he jumps from below 50 to arguably #21? He might be underrated...but hes not that underrated.

What you don't realize is that that top-fifty list was as much a popularity contest crafted for entertainment purposes as much as anything. Do you actually believe that the people who vote on such matters are archival basketball scholars in possession of Ph.D.s? How do you explain Shaq making the list after just four NBA seasons and having won no games in the NBA Finals while being swept out of the playoffs three years in a row? How about Dominique Wilkins not making it but now a member of the Hall of Fame? There were all kinds of questionable and debatable selections on a list derived from popularity and notoriety and for entertainment. The people who voted on the matter are just as biased as you or I, and you shouldn't bow down to the establishment like that. Question authority with a critical eye and penetrate the ideological scaffolding that imprisons your independent thought.

This is strictly a fan made thing by his supporters to put him as highly as possible. It isnt and wouldnt be supported by any non biased group of fans(even thosel ike me who remember and loved KJs game). It wouldnt be supported by coaches. Not by players. No group of people could you poll and get KJ nearly this high and id bet anything on it.

Only his own fans.

Again, have you considered that everyone is potentially biased, and that people in the public spotlight feel greater pressure to conform to dogma and act in politically correct and fallacious manners? You're making a huge mistake by assuming that I am biased, but that these other groups are perfectly objective and scholarly. They're not, and they're more suscpetible to the sway of reputation and less inclined toward objective analysis.

Well yea I mentioned that. The non elites is a long long list that gives fans of borderline elites a lot of ammo to put guys higher than they deserve due to the flaws of the people on that level. That doesnt mean its right to do it. Or thats its accurate. It would take too much conflicting logic player to player to put him over as many legends as one would need to.

Again, you're basing your analysis on slipshod mythology rather than objective inquiry. Who defines a "legend'? What is a "legend"? Might not a "legend" be a chimera and as much a product of reputation as reality?

Considering the fact that a few non 20/10 points are still considered btter(and with good reason) that isnt that major. Its impressive. But im pressive in the way Steve Francis being on a list with Magic, Oscar, and Grant Hill as the only 15/5/5 players over their first 3 years players. Or arenas being the only player with 2000 points and 200 threes and 500FTs in a season(that not exactly it but he has one of those records similar to it). Those stat minimum records will bring up some odd players if you look across the board.

I'm talking about more cystal-clear statistical standards. 15/5/5 is pretty meaningless; in 1992, Jeff Hornacek did 20/5/5, so what? As for the Arenas numbers, that just a sign that he's a gunner, nothing more. You're using feckless measures as opposed to major standards in points, assists, and field goal percengtage.

Cmon now. Did KJ himself lead a team closer to a title than Ray Allen, Rasheed Wallace, or Paul Pierce who all went to conference finals? Paul Westphal who went to the finals and made more than one all nba first team? Gus Williams who won a title? Plenty of guys not on KJs level all time managed to win on his level or close to it. And plenty of guys above KJs level didnt win beyond what he was able to. Doesnt make him their equal anymore than it makes Gus Williams KJs equal. Take 20-30 teams over 60 years(I know there were not hat many team for the whole 60) a lot of guys who dont deserve high rank will win as much or more than guys who do. Sideeffect of being a team sport.

A) Ray Allen made one conference finals in an extremely weak Eastern Conference, and it wasn't even clear that he was the leader of that 2001 Milwaukee team. Instead, there was no dominant star among him, Sam Cassell, and Glenn Robinson.

B) Likewise, Paul Pierce made one conference finals in an extremely weak Eastern Confernce in 2002.

C) It was certainly never clear that Rasheed Wallace was the leader of the 2000 Trail Blazers, who featured the virtual defintion of an ensemble cast.

D) K.J. played in three conference finals and actually reached the NBA Finals. You could suggest that he didn't "lead" the Suns in '93, but consider that he was just as vital to the franchise's championship chances as his more famous teammate. Although Charles Barkley was Phoenix's best player that season, K.J. was just as vital to the team's championship chances. First, let's remember that Barkley needed K.J. and the Suns as much as vice-versa. In the spring of 1992, the Western Conference championship was going through perennial contender Phoenix for the third time in four years, whereas Barkley wasn't in the playoffs, period. In the four seasons prior to Sir Charles' arrival in Arizona, the Suns won 217 regular season games (the fifth-most in the NBA) and advanced to two Western Conference Finals and three Western Conference Semifinals. Barkley pushed them over the top in the West, but the Suns were actually doing just fine without him.

Second, consider the start of the 1993 playoffs. After the following regular season victory in late April 1993 in Portland, Barkley raised K.J. off the ground in celebration.

http://www.basketballreference.com/t...9930422&tm=POR

Predictably, K.J. received the worst of the collision, suffering a sprained MCL that was supposed to keep him out for most, if not all, of the Suns' First Round series with the 39-win, eighth-seeded Lakers. Well, considering the quality of the opponent and Barkley's presence, there should have been no problem, even without K.J., right? But without Johnson in Game One, the Suns lost at home, with the Lakers shutting down Barkley in the fourth quarter. K.J. returned well ahead of schedule for Game Two but was limited my a mechanical knee brace, and again the 62-win Suns lost at home to the 39-win Lakers, as again Barkley disappeared down the stretch (he regularly tired late in games because his conditioning was subpar).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6yogMKQbNCU

With the Suns now having to go to Los Angeles and face elimination in the best-of-five series, the prognosis appeared bleak. However, Phoenix head coach Paul Westphal offered a daring prognostication. At his press conference after Game Two, he said that the Suns would come back to win each of the next three games, and that afterward, everyone would say what a great series it had been. Sure enough, they did just that, with K.J. going for 24 points and 13 assists in the overtime victory in winner-take-all Game Five. Afterwards, Westphal revealed the reason for his confidence after Game Two, saying that he had seen that K.J.'s knee was improving and that the Suns would have something more like the real Kevin Johnson for the remainder of the series. Without K.J., Barkley and the 62-win Suns would have been swept out of the playoffs by a 39-win eighth seed (Game Three in L.A. had been extremely close), and Sir Charles would have received his MVP trophy on the golf course. And as Seattle's Eddie Johnson said about Game Seven of the 1993 Western Confernce Finals, "Everybody talks about Barkley, but Kevin Johnson won them the game today" (see my post earlier in the thread).

[GMATCallahan]

E) You see, I don't think that Garnett, Iverson, Nowitzki, and Nash were better players than K.J., regardless of the team factor. And if they were so much better, than they should have clearly led their teams to greater success, which they have failed to do. Just because they won MVP awards in a relatively weak era does not make them better.

It's important to look beyond subjective judgments such as awards and honors, which, after all, are just a reflection of other people's bias. What's amusing is that you seem to believe that sportswriters are somehow holy and perfectly objective when they are just as biased as the average person behind a computer and possibly more so because their opinions are public and thus engender a sense of political correctness.

Iverson is woefully inefficient compared to K.J., he is a far inferior playmaker, and he cannot elevate the performance of his teammates or run an offense anywhere near as well as K.J. Garnett has historically struggled to take over games and has made it out of the First Round once in a dozen NBA seasons. Nowitzki is prone to folding in clutch moments and is a subpar defender and merely an adequate passer, and Nash is similar to K.J. but his numbers are no better and he has not led a team to greater success (nor has he made the Finals). Again, it's imperative to analyze based on what occurs between the white lines rather than with biased judgments made off the field, ones that are only pertinent in terms of shifting historical contexts.

[ScottStuart]

Put it this way, if KJ would have won a championship during his career, we would be talking about him being a hall of famer right now. If the Suns would have beat the bulls, he would have been elevated a few notches.

[GMATCallahan]

Bob Mcadoo was for a time considered the equal of Kareem. Kevin Johnson at his peak was ranked as the equal of Tim Hardaway. I think we are overrating the level KJ reached when we question if MVPs hit a higher level of play.

I think that you are worrying too much about how players may or may not have been "ranked" (which is just as much a source of bias as any that you or I might hold) rather than examining the matter more comprehensively. McAdoo was never Kareem's overall equal (looking beyond points and rebounds to defense, and not just blocked shots) and he never led the Buffalo Braves to a single 50-win season or the Eastern Conference Finals. That wasn't necessarily his fault, but he didn't elevate his teammates to any great degree and he was soft. Read the analysis of longtime basketball writer, author, and historian Charley Rosen, and check out some of the other players that he deems overrated:

Bob McAdoo

Here's all anyone needs to know about McAdoo's game: When he played against the Celtics, McAdoo was usually defended by Dave Cowens. Now Cowens was a legitimate tough guy who always played with intensity, power, and courage, and whose rough-house tactics on defense would often approach minor felonies. At the start of McAdoo's matchups with Cowens, B-Mac would assume his favorite position on the left box. Perhaps he'd even get a shot off. Perhaps he'd even get fouled. But Cowens would definitely assault him with elbows, knees, hips, forearms, and fists. By the middle of the first quarter, McAdoo would post-up five feet beyond the box. By the end of the fourth quarter, he'd be looking to receive the ball near the 3-point line. Anything to avoid contact. In other words, McAdoo was nothing more than a big, quick, soft, jump-shooter deluxe.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=100850

Now, I'm not saying that K.J. should necessarily be ranked above McAdoo, but McAdoo was hardly Abdul-Jabbar's overall equal, especially when you go beyond points and rebounds and examine defense (and not just blocked shots, either). Likewise, Tim Hardaway was hardly K.J.'s equal. For his career, K.J. shot .493 from the field and averaged 9.1 assists to Hardaway's .431 field goal percentage and 8.3 assists, and for his career, K.J. attempted 6.4 free throws per game (shooting .841) to Hardaway's 3.8 FTA (shooting .782). And regarding cross-over dribbles, consider the following quotation from Hakeem Olajuwon on page 282 of the Dream's 1996 autobiography, Living the Dream:

K.J. finishes better than almost any guard in the league. He has one of the best crossover dribbles in the NBA. Tim Hardaway crosses over but then he has to hit his jump shot, K.J. crosses over and beats you and goes to the basket. That's different. He's coming full speed, then all of a sudden he changes direction and sees a clear path to the basket. When he's on his game, by the time I come over to block him I'm always a second too late, he's putting it on the glass before I get there. If I go too soon he draws the foul as well. He knows how to get you to foul him and how to make the basket at the same time.

I also recall that Inside Sports magazine rated the NBA's point guards in its February 1993 edition, and its "insiders" (a collection of about ten executives, assistant coaches, and scouts) placed K.J. second (behind John Stockton) and Hardaway third. The blurb on K.J. mentioned that originally, the "insiders" had seen him as more of a runner, but that he'd learned to slow down his thinking really well (i.e. in the half-court). The blurb on Hardaway, meanwhile, noted that the "insiders" saw Hardaway as an even stronger and more aggressive version of K.J. in some ways, but also as less of a team leader (which is obviously what you need from a star point guard).

Aside from three-point shooting over the course of a career, I can't think of anything that Hardaway did better or as effectively as K.J. It's telling that Hardaway played in zero NBA Finals, one conference finals (and even that one was due to a brawl that wiped out half the Knicks' team in 1997), and two conference semifinals, whereas K.J. played in one NBA Finals, three conference finals, and seven conference semifinals. K.J. was so much more efficient and consistent, but Hardaway received more buzz because he ran his mouth more and Nike featured him in some supposedly hip "I Got Skillz" commercials.

Billups was who I meant when I mentioned exceptions. But there would need to be a hell of a lot more than there are. Its basically Billups, Gus Williams or Dennis Johnson, and 2-3 guys before 1956. Not nearly enough.

Ive been saying the same thing for years. glove has argued with me over that for at least a few months whenever it comes up just because id take Steve Nash, Payton, Kidd, Isiah, and most modern points who proved themselves over him. KJ included. I just dont trust the skill set of a guy who predates the modern jumper. Not in a pointguard.

Hes also my second favorite player ever(Bulls fan since 83). But I cant let my bias blind me to reality. I refuse to be one of the fans propping up my favorite more than they justify just because I feel they are underrated. More often than not a non fan of th guy has a more accurate rating than a hardcore fan. We tend to overrate our guys more than non fans underrate them. Need the disconnect to rank it fairly. I think youre a reasonable guy who probably knows the game but really....nothing but bias could make one think Kevin Johnson is that high. There is just no other way.

I am thinking objectively here, but what I'm not doing is just going by reputation and image, which is the basis for way too much so-called analysis. As I've proven with detailed empirical evidence in this thread, K.J.'s level of statistical performance in the most vital areas for a star playmaker was extremely rare and frankly has only been mirrored, approached, or exceeded by Magic Johnson and possibly Oscar Robertson. He was one of the greatest point guards of all-time, and I think that many of the great point guards in history begin to enter the equation in the twenties.

I think that you made too much of a loose, conceptual comment regarding 21-40 for K.J. I was not thinking specifically but philosophically, and more directly, I'd say something in the 26-40 range.

The bottom line is that you need to realize that bias floats all-around. It's not about me liking Kevin Johnson or Scottie Pippen, because I've liked other players as well. It's about analyzing independently based on empirical evidence (meaning statistical data and team success within relative contexts), plus visual information available via video. It's not about complying with mythic and predefined notions of legends and legacies and holy scribes who determine other people's opinions. It's not about letting go of one's own bias only to bow down to the bias of others who subjectively vote on lists and MVP awards, nor is it about adding up championships irrespective of era and other temporally fickle factors. Instead, it's about gathering all the available information and statistical data, weighing the various factors, and determining which players could offer the most. It's about independent judgments rather than submitting to politically correct dogma for the purposes of entertainment, and realizing that specific lists are inherently fallacious and that there is no clear standard. And if after all that, I deem Scottie Pippen one of the twenty-five greatest players ever, and Kevin Johnson one of the 26-40 best, then so be it (personally, I don't know where exactly I'd place K.J., especially since I don't even believe in such lists). What's important, though, is to think inductively rather than adhering to deductive and chimerical standards of what constitutes a legend or the most effective players, especially when that constitution is often nothing more than the bias inherent in a writer's MVP vote.

[GMATCallahan]

Another thing about Kev, in his prime he probally was never a 10 player of his era (late 80's to early 90's)

He sure wasn't a top 5 player fighting against these guys:

Jordan
Magic
Dream
Chuck
Glide
Robinson
Pat Ew
Stockton
Malone
Zeke Thomas
'Nique

Then you have players maybe closer to his level (above or below-you decide)


Worthy
McHale
Timmy Hardaway
Mullin
Joe D
Terry Porter
Pippen
Mitch Richmond
Kemp
Alvin Robertson (yes him)
Rodman


So I think it's very hard to put Kevin Johnson as a top 21 player ever, when he sometimes wasn't even a top 10 player. This is not any hate towared KJ as he was one of my faves.

If K.J. was never a top-ten player in the late eighties and early nineties, then how do you explain his four All-NBA Second Teams (1989, 1990, 1991, 1994), in an absolutely loaded era where the two greatest guards in history (Magic and Jordan) owned the First Team? How do you explain a level of statistical performance for his position that only Magic Johnson has touched in history? How do you explain the quotes that I've just posted above? K.J. was most certainly in the same league as Stockton, Thomas, Drexler, and possibly even Magic during those years. That's proven in the numbers, the "honors" (as gingerly as you have to treat them, because K.J. would often be snubbed later in his career), and the journalistic obersvations that I've just quoted. Again, one L.A. Times writer claimed that "Kevin Johnson is the player that Isiah Thomas is supposed to be, the real pocket Magic."

I don't think that I'd put K.J. in the top 21 either. However, 26-40 is worthy of contemplation. To me, he's certainly a top-five-to-top-ten all-time point guard.

[Glove_20]

Well done


I wasn't lying when I said GMAT is the best debator ever.

[L.Kizzle]

If K.J. was never a top-ten player in the late eighties and early nineties, then how do you explain his four All-NBA Second Teams (1989, 1990, 1991, 1994), in an absolutely loaded era where the two greatest guards in history (Magic and Jordan) owned the First Team? How do you explain a level of statistical performance for his position that only Magic Johnson has touched in history? How do you explain the quotes that I've just posted above? K.J. was most certainly in the same league as Stockton, Thomas, Drexler, and possibly even Magic during those years. That's proven in the numbers, the "honors" (as gingerly as you have to treat them, because K.J. would often be snubbed later in his career), and the journalistic obersvations that I've just quoted. Again, one L.A. Times writer claimed that "Kevin Johnson is the player that Isiah Thomas is supposed to be, the real pocket Magic."

I don't think that I'd put K.J. in the top 21 either. However, 26-40 is worthy of contemplation. To me, he's certainly a top-five-to-top-ten all-time point guard.

Yeah KJ did make 4 al-2nd teams, but those don't really tel lthe whole story. Hell, Rod Stricklnd made an All-NBA 2nd squad in 97 ot 98 and he wasn't a top
10 player, ever.


KJ was probally a top 10 player in 1990 or very close to it around 11 or 12.

[GMATCallahan]

By the number(eff) this was the top 20 in his best overall season. Im not saying it proves anything but its a little interesting to see.

1 Michael Jordan CHI 34.57 1989-90
2 Hakeem Olajuwon HOU 32.38 1989-90
3 Patrick Ewing NYK 32.34 1989-90
4 Karl Malone UTA 31.88 1989-90
5 Charles Barkley PHI 31.67 1989-90
6 David Robinson SAS 30.56 1989-90
7 Magic Johnson LAL 30.49 1989-90
8 Larry Bird BOS 29.27 1989-90
9 John Stockton UTA 27.10 1989-90
10 Kevin Johnson PHO 26.34 1989-90
11 Chris Mullin GSW 25.82 1989-90
12 Clyde Drexler POR 25.52 1989-90
13 Lafayette Lever DEN 24.53 1989-90
14 Tom Chambers PHO 24.47 1989-90
15 Kevin Mchale BOS 24.21 1989-90
16 Dominique Wilkins ATL 23.58 1989-90
17 Roy Tarpley DAL 22.71 1989-90
18 Mark Price CLE 22.42 1989-90
19 James Worthy LAL 22.29 1989-90
20 Reggie Miller IND 22.18 1989-90


In his best season going just by numbers:

1 Michael Jordan CHI 36.99 1988-89
2 Magic Johnson LAL 33.31 1988-89
3 Charles Barkley PHI 32.68 1988-89
4 Hakeem Olajuwon HOU 31.02 1988-89
5 Karl Malone UTA 29.53 1988-89
6 Clyde Drexler POR 28.87 1988-89
7 Lafayette Lever DEN 27.48 1988-89
8 Patrick Ewing NYK 27.46 1988-89
9 John Stockton UTA 27.40 1988-89
10 Kevin Johnson PHO 27.06 1988-89
11 Robert Parish BOS 26.10 1988-89
12 Chris Mullin GSW 26.01 1988-89
13 Tom Chambers PHO 24.11 1988-89
14 Moses Malone ATL 23.84 1988-89
15 Kevin Mchale BOS 23.68 1988-89
16 Dominique Wilkins ATL 22.84 1988-89
17 Larry Nance CLE 22.66 1988-89
18 Terry Porter POR 22.42 1988-89
19 Brad Daugherty CLE 22.37 1988-89
20 Mark Price CLE 22.33 1988-89



He ended up 10th right behind Stockton both years.

EFF is grossly skewed toward rebounds, which are less rare and less valuable than assists (which lead directly to baskets, whereas rebounds just grant you possession). There's no way that Fat Lever was better than Stockton and K.J., and it obviously cannot measure defense beyond blocks and steals.

EFF can retain a little value in comparing players of a similar position or type. However, if you wish to employ the metric, it does indicate K.J.'s career greatness among all-time guards (I'm counting Paul Pierce as a small forward at this point).

1. Oscar Robertson 31.61
2. Michael Jordan 29.19
3. Magic Johnson 29.10
4. Jerry West 27.10
5. Clyde Drexler 22.42
6. Dwyane Wade 22.23
7. Kevin Johnson 21.56

[Glove_20]

Yeah KJ did make 4 al-2nd teams, but those don't really tel lthe whole story. Hell, Rod Stricklnd made an All-NBA 2nd squad in 97 ot 98 and he wasn't a top
10 player, ever.


KJ was probally a top 10 player in 1990 or very close to it around 11 or 12.

I doubt Rod Strickland was around the time where Jordan, Drexler, Magic, Isiah, Stockton, and more were all around their primes/peaks.

There is a huge difference.



I remember you saying Gary Payton is a better 90s PG than Kevin Johnson. I am a huge Gary Payton fan, but I think there is another place you underrate Kevin Johnson. Even though I am a big Payton fan, I'd put KJ over Payton in the 90s anyday.

The problem is, your just underrating KJ a bit.

The 90s PG goes:

Stockton
Kevin Johnson
Gary Payton