Kevin Johnson video and some other things....

[Glove_20]

Kevin was more of a scorer, and neglected to get his team involved some of the time. Great player and all... Fantastic offensive game for a guard, while still being able to get guys involved, but sometimes he got into ballhog mode.

I think you are starting to over-rate him a bit.

Kevin Johnson and ballhog? I think you're confusing him with Tim Hardaway or someone.

How was he selfish? First time I heard someone shooting the ball 50+% and giving out 10-12apg called selfish. Thats Magic type numbers, and your calling him selfish? His teammates improved, and his teams posted winning numbers every year, thats selfish?


Here are his Shots to Assist Ratio. So how many times he shoots vs. gives an assist.

K.J.: 1.36:1.00
Nash: 1.39:1.00
Kidd: 1.40:1.00

I don't think you can call KJ selfish based on this.

[Chalkmaze]

They were about even at their Peaks...However, KJ domianted Stockton head to head...Just like Payton dominated Stockton defensively, KJ dominated Stockton offensively....And thats why I'd give the edge to KJ, he always got the better of Stockton Head to HEad

Stockton was always better at getting the rest of the team more involved... not just measured in assists either... he would set things up... get people in position etc... So I don't know about that... scoring wise... yeah Johnson was better... making the rest of the team better... Stockton almost always won that battle.

[Glove_20]

Monroe and Frazier were both drafted oin 67 so they played in Greers peak/prime for about 3 seasons as Greer was making All-Star teams untuil 1970.


Never said KJ didn't have a role in improving.


Well Bellamy over a span of four season put up over 27 ppg, 17 boards and 51%FG, not many over four years have done that, just Chamberlain I believe. That shouldn't make Walt Bellamy any better then he was. Hell, if wwe look hard enough we could find many players having similar stats over a long period time compared to other greats, that doesn't mean they're on that greats level or right below.


I'm pretty sure a not so great legend like a Spencer Haywood or someone put up some stats that are comparable with a Bob Pettit, Tim Duncan, Hakeem Olajuwon or something over a 5 year stretch but that doesn't mean that Spencer is on those players levels?


As I said many times, I'm with you on KJ being underrated but I think you are slightly overrating him.

1. Walt Bellamy?


A. First of all, he did it for 4 years, not 9 years. Magic is the only one who matches KJ's 4 years, and Oscar and Magic are the only ones who measure KJ's 9 years.

B. Part of the reason no one could measure Bellamy is becaue of the Era he played in. No Center or PF is going to put 17 rebounds in today's league, so its unfair from the start.

C. Bellamy did that without making it to the playoffs most of the years. Like I have said before, its easier to put up great stats on a bad team that can't even make playoffs. And its even more impressive if you can put up great stats on a team that actually wins. KJ and Magic did, Bellamy didn't.

D. Bob Pettit has done the same. Elgin Baylor has too. It also wasn't that hard for a Center to get that many rebounds in the 60s. It got tougher later on. Moses put on 30/15 over a some years, and that was in the late 70s to early 80s. That easily overrides Bellamy's performance. And you know there are a lot more who have done the same.


As you can see, those are 4 strong points to not look at Bellamy's performance too far.



2. Spencer Haywood has some of the same problems. He usually failed to make playoffs, and I can't tell you HOW many have put his statline throughout the years. And once again, 9 year span.

Those 4 points against Bellamy, can be made against Spencer.





However, against, KJ, he was the real deal so nothing can be said against him. You can try though. Remember, 9 years, playoffs every year, 20/10/50%, Oscar and Magic are the only ones in there. And not only that, we are talking about the most important stats for a PG. Scoring/Passing/Scoring efficiently. The most important characterists for a PG. Not just any old stats.
And Magic was the only one who compared with him on KJ's PEAK statline, not even Oscar




So yeah, Bellamy and Specner don't work...

[Chalkmaze]

Kevin Johnson and ballhog? I think you're confusing him with Tim Hardaway or someone.

How was he selfish? First time I heard someone shooting the ball 50+% and giving out 10-12apg called selfish. Thats Magic type numbers, and your calling him selfish? His teammates improved, and his teams posted winning numbers every year, thats selfish?


Here are his Shots to Assist Ratio. So how many times he shoots vs. gives an assist.

K.J.: 1.36:1.00
Nash: 1.39:1.00
Kidd: 1.40:1.00

I don't think you can call KJ selfish based on this.

I don't know how to explain what I saw... Perhaps the numbers would show that KJ was great at dishing assists the first 3 quarters and then had the ball 80% of the time in the fourth.. But I recall him holding the ball a lot, over-dribbling or something... I don't know how to describe it or make an argument for it. There's a formula out there somewhere that would explain it though.

I'm not calling him selfish exactly... But, when comparing him to Stockton (You neglected to show his ratio btw), he did look like a ballhog. I mean... that was more his game, and suited his style, but I also felt that Stockton would have got all of Johnson's teammates more involved and made them better. KJ didn't set screen's anywhere near as good as Stockton did, for example.

[L.Kizzle]

Spencer and Bellamy didn't work but Alex English will.


Alex English over a 8 year span averaged over 26 ppg/5.5 rebounds/4.5assist and shot around 50% from the field. Denver went to the playoffs every season during those 9 seasons. Larry Bird and Julius Erving are the only players to put up such numbers.


I think you know what I'm tryin' to say, a great all-time player like (Alex English) can put up similar numbers to Legends like (Doc and Bird) over a long period of time the same way an all-time great like (Kevin Johnson) can put up similar stats to (Magic and Oscar). Those numbers don't make Alex English any better then he was and shouldn't make Kevin Johnson any better then he was.


I told you if you look hard enough you could find a not so great legend (English) with similar stats to the best of the best (Julius and Bird).

[Glove_20]

I was gone, I am trying to decide to tackle which argument down first, I'll do the Stockton one first...

[Glove_20]

Stockton was always better at getting the rest of the team more involved... not just measured in assists either... he would set things up... get people in position etc... So I don't know about that... scoring wise... yeah Johnson was better... making the rest of the team better... Stockton almost always won that battle.

KJ was great at setting up his teammates as well...He would do it by dribble penetration, which attracted attention to him, and opened up his teammate...And of course, KJ made his teammates better as well...Here are their Head to Head matchups over a period of time, and the reason why I gave KJ the edge...



All meetings from 1989-1993



Kevin Johnson
4/11 19pts 12ast Win

John Stockton
5/13 12pts 11ast Loss



Kevin Johnson
5/12 12pts 6ast Loss

John Stockton
6/9 19pts 17ast Win



Kevin Johnson
8/12 32pts 7ast Win

John Stockton
8/16 23pts 16ast Loss




Kevin Johnson
12/21 34pts 14ast Win

John Stockton
8/10 20pts 16ast Loss



Kevin Johnson
6/17 29pts 13ast Win

John Stockton
7/16 18pts 21ast Loss


Kevin Johnson
7/16 37pts 8ast Win

John Stockton
3/12 8pts 11ast Loss



Kevin Johnson
12/18 29pts 10ast Win

John Stockton
4/9 16pts 12ast Loss



Kevin Johnson
7/22 28pts 4ast Loss

John Stockton
5/11 15pts 4ast Win




Kevin Johnson
11/21 30pts 7ast Loss

John Stockton Win
5/12 22pts 15ast



Kevin Johnson
13/21 37pts 20ast Win

John Stockton
12/16 28pts 10ast Loss




Kevin Johnson
16/29 44pts 10ast Win

John Stockton
5/6 14pts 12ast Loss



Kevin Johnson
8/16 28pts 18ast Loss

John Stockton
5/14 13pts 11ast Win



Kevin Johnson
10/19 32pts 14ast Win

John Stockton
5/16 14pts 18ast Loss



Kevin Johnson
4/11 10pts 14ast Loss

John Stockton
8/14 17pts 13ast Win



Kevin Johnson
10/19 29pts 9ast Win

John Stockton
7/13 16pts 7ast Loss



Kevin Johnson
9/15 26pts 3ast Win

John Stockton
3/5 6pts 9ast Loss










Totals:


Kevin Johnson
142/280 50.7% 28.5ppg 10.6apg 11-5


John Stockton
96/192 50.0% 16.3ppg 12.7apg 5-11



That is what "actually" happened between the two, not what we remember or anything.

As you can see, KJ dominated Stockton offensively. Putting up 28/11/50% shooting. Thats what I was talking about too. Stockton, was basically himself, but his FG% was actually lower than KJ's, which is not what you expect. The assist difference is only about 2.1apg as well, while the point total is around 12points. And even the win-loss column has huge edges.
Also look at some of the games for KJ, he had a 30/20 game, and also a 34/14 game.





Bottom line, at both of their peaks, I'd give KJ the edge, because they were close anyways, but Head to Head, KJ dominated Stockton on the offensive end.

[Glove_20]

Spencer and Bellamy didn't work but Alex English will.


Alex English over a 8 year span averaged over 26 ppg/5.5 rebounds/4.5assist and shot around 50% from the field. Denver went to the playoffs every season during those 9 seasons. Larry Bird and Julius Erving are the only players to put up such numbers.


I think you know what I'm tryin' to say, a great all-time player like (Alex English) can put up similar numbers to Legends like (Doc and Bird) over a long period of time the same way an all-time great like (Kevin Johnson) can put up similar stats to (Magic and Oscar). Those numbers don't make Alex English any better then he was and shouldn't make Kevin Johnson any better then he was.


I told you if you look hard enough you could find a not so great legend (English) with similar stats to the best of the best (Julius and Bird).

I think your still off.



1. First of all, interesting how you used "5.5" and "4.5" instead of straight up...



2. I am guessing the years you were talking about were 81-88

English's numbers:

26.9ppg
5.9rpg
4.6apg



And there are many players who have done that as long as the players you mentioned...


Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Elgin Baylor, and Rick Barry.


So yeah, you were off on how many players have done that...10 others players beside Alex English


While with KJ, Oscar and Magic are the only 2. And MAGIC is the only who has exactly produced the 20/10/50% in peak, no one else. Oscar is right there too, because he produced similar. So really, its only MJ and KJ



3. Lastly, I just want to remind you. For PGs, passing is an important category. Scoring is too. SFs aren't like PGs where they have a category (passing) that they really have to produce well...So it would've been better if you used PGs only...or similar

Remember, I am talking about the most important categories, and this is PGs we are talking about, you realize how important passing/efficiency is to PGs vs. rebounds/assists to SFs.




But yeah, English doesn't come close either. There are 10 other players who have done EXACTLY what he has. Magic is the only one who has done EXACTLY what KJ has done, and Oscar has come close

[Chalkmaze]

KJ was great at setting up his teammates as well...He would do it by dribble penetration, which attracted attention to him, and opened up his teammate...And of course, KJ made his teammates better as well...Here are their Head to Head matchups over a period of time, and the reason why I gave KJ the edge...

As you can see, KJ dominated Stockton offensively. Putting up 28/11/50% shooting. Thats what I was talking about too. Stockton, was basically himself, but his FG% was actually lower than KJ's, which is not what you expect. The assist difference is only about 2.1apg as well, while the point total is around 12points. And even the win-loss column has huge edges.
Also look at some of the games for KJ, he had a 30/20 game, and also a 34/14 game.





Bottom line, at both of their peaks, I'd give KJ the edge, because they were close anyways, but Head to Head, KJ dominated Stockton on the offensive end.

What's this 89-93 bull?
You are being selective... why not compare KJ's whole career, at least up until 96-97??? Go ahead... let's see the truth. You show that KJ was better offensively, and the FG% was close enough to be a wash, Stockton dominated in Assists and steals, and like I said... John did more to help the player's around him besides assists.

You've helped prove that KJ was a bit of a ball hog, even though he had good efficiency... I wonder what percentage Stockton's team mates shot in comparison to KJ's also, because John would play the percentages as well as anyone ever has. So KJ might have shot 50% and John might have shot 50%, but KJ shoots 10 more shots a game at 50% where John might have chosen to get the ball to someone who could have thrown in inside to Malone, who's shooting 55%. Anyway, those are unexplained things that are noticed when you watch games versus look at stat sheets.

Johnson scored and did great and all... but he was always looking to score the whole game, and only when he didn't have a clear look did he pass it out. He held and dribbled the ball a lot, while looking to score, where John would be looking to run the offense. John was better at letting other people get involved, and it wasn't just measured in assists.

Now, I'm not knocking KJ exactly, not in the grand scheme of things... but when you say he dominated Stockton head to head, there are a lot of things not shown on the stat sheet that went on. Stockton's role was to get his team mates involved, to let them touch the ball and work it around, KJ was looking to score, and while his stats went up, a portion of his teammates stats went down some. Stockton also played a lot of help defense and things, and helped his team get buckets off of screens, got a lot of deflections that went to his team mates that didn't count as part of his steals etc.

I watched the games, and I remember people thinking John got smoked because KJ had 30 points or whatever, while John would have 15 points on the same night, but someone else on the team would usually make up the difference. KJ took more shots is what it boiled down to, John could have shot more and got more points, but he always felt it was important to get everyone involved. I don't know about you, but I hate to hustle my ass off, playing defense, and rebounding, and then have someone else hogging the ball all the time, I become a lot more interested in playing hard when I get to be involved offensively in some manner, and have guys setting picks for me, and it motivates me to be more involved on defense.

Different type players, and while I sometimes questioned KJ's scoring first mentality, he also used that threat to get his team mates shots, and you had to respect his speed, quickness, and shooting... He was a tough player indeed... But he was a shoot first type player, while Stockton was a pass first type player, and while KJ may have better scoring stats, Stockton had better stats in assists, steals, and getting his teammates involved, and even during KJ's prime, it was still a pretty even matchup in my eyes.

[Glove_20]

What's this 89-93 bull?
You are being selective... why not compare KJ's whole career, at least up until 96-97??? Go ahead... let's see the truth. You show that KJ was better offensively, and the FG% was close enough to be a wash, Stockton dominated in Assists and steals, and like I said... John did more to help the player's around him besides assists.

You've helped prove that KJ was a bit of a ball hog, even though he had good efficiency... I wonder what percentage Stockton's team mates shot in comparison to KJ's also, because John would play the percentages as well as anyone ever has. So KJ might have shot 50% and John might have shot 50%, but KJ shoots 10 more shots a game at 50% where John might have chosen to get the ball to someone who could have thrown in inside to Malone, who's shooting 55%. Anyway, those are unexplained things that are noticed when you watch games versus look at stat sheets.

Johnson scored and did great and all... but he was always looking to score the whole game, and only when he didn't have a clear look did he pass it out. He held and dribbled the ball a lot, while looking to score, where John would be looking to run the offense. John was better at letting other people get involved, and it wasn't just measured in assists.

Now, I'm not knocking KJ exactly, not in the grand scheme of things... but when you say he dominated Stockton head to head, there are a lot of things not shown on the stat sheet that went on. Stockton's role was to get his team mates involved, to let them touch the ball and work it around, KJ was looking to score, and while his stats went up, a portion of his teammates stats went down some. Stockton also played a lot of help defense and things, and helped his team get buckets off of screens, got a lot of deflections that went to his team mates that didn't count as part of his steals etc.

I watched the games, and I remember people thinking John got smoked because KJ had 30 points or whatever, but while John would have 15 points on the same night, but someone else on the team would usually make up the difference. KJ took more shots is what it boiled down to, John could have shot more and got more points, but he always felt it was important to get everyone involved. I don't know about you, but I hate to hustle my ass off, playing defense, and rebounding, and then have someone else hogging the ball all the time, I become a lot more interested in playing hard when I get to be involved offensively in some manner, and have guys setting picks for me, and it motivates me to be more involved on defense.

Different type players, and while I sometimes questioned KJ's scoring first mentality, he also used that threat to get his team mates shots, and you had to respect his speed, quickness, and shooting... He was a tough player indeed... But he was a shoot first type player, while Stockton was a pass first type player, and while KJ may have better scoring stats, Stockton had better stats in assists, steals, and getting his teammates involved, and it was pretty even in my eyes.

1. ALmost every PG is shoot-first compared to John Stockton, thats what you were saying on the post before this one right? As you saw, KJ's Shot to Assist ratio is lower than Nash and Kidd's, meaining he shot less per assist.

So compared to Nash, yeah he is shoot first, but compared to others like Nash and Kidd, he is right there with them, and even shot less compared to every assist.


2. 1989-1993 was their Peaks. I said I'd compare thier Peaks.


3, You said a lot about Stockton setting up his teammates and passing instead of shooting and actually helping his team more.

Well first of all, there is no way in hell Stockton would average 28 at 50% against any team or player over a 4 year period. If he shot that much, his FG% and assists would drop rapidly.

2nd, well, if Stockton was passing instead of shooting as much, why'd he only get 2 more assists? Is that all he helped? Just getting 2 more assists?

And if you still think Stockton's helping was better....

KJ: 11-5
Stockton: 5-11


That goes into the things "not shown" in the box score. The WIN and the LOSS column still says KJ's game brought in more wins than Stocktons.



And its not suprise, honestly, putting 28/11/50% against a player is DOMINATION. Seriously, 28/11, read that.





Summary:


I don't know how much Stockton "helped" other teammates, and how much all the "extra" things he did, because in the end, 5-11 was his record. While KJ's domination led to a 11-5 record.

And most of the games were before Barkley was even there, so that is even more impressive in KJ's part, beating the Jazz with both Malone and Stockton.






Head to Head Winner: Kevin Johnson....easily

[IceMan2]

Totals:


Kevin Johnson
142/280 50.7% 28.5ppg 10.6apg 11-5


John Stockton
96/192 50.0% 16.3ppg 12.7apg 5-11

KJ > John

29/11 are some crazy numbers. And he even has the wins with him. I don't care how much John Helped, but numbers and wins are with KJ

[L.Kizzle]

I think your still off.



1. First of all, interesting how you used "5.5" and "4.5" instead of straight up...



2. I am guessing the years you were talking about were 81-88

English's numbers:

26.9ppg
5.9rpg
4.6apg



And there are many players who have done that as long as the players you mentioned...


Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Elgin Baylor, and Rick Barry.


So yeah, you were off on how many players have done that...10 others players beside Alex English


While with KJ, Oscar and Magic are the only 2. And MAGIC is the only who has exactly produced the 20/10/50% in peak, no one else. Oscar is right there too, because he produced similar. So really, its only MJ and KJ



3. Lastly, I just want to remind you. For PGs, passing is an important category. Scoring is too. SFs aren't like PGs where they have a category (passing) that they really have to produce well...So it would've been better if you used PGs only...or similar

Remember, I am talking about the most important categories, and this is PGs we are talking about, you realize how important passing/efficiency is to PGs vs. rebounds/assists to SFs.




But yeah, English doesn't come close either. There are 10 other players who have done EXACTLY what he has. Magic is the only one who has done EXACTLY what KJ has done, and Oscar has come close

I'm pretty sure all those players you named didn't put up those numbers shooting 50% (or damn near close to it) from the field. Only Wilt, Kareem, MJ, along with Doc and Bird I already named did that for an 8 year span. That actually put's him in even more exclusive company then just Doc and Bird.


-Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
-Larry Bird
-Wilt Chamberlain
-Alex English
-Julius Erving
-Michael Jordan


Who doesn't belong in that select group or does Alex Englsih just shoot up the All-Time rankings because he was consistant over an 8 season span?

[Chalkmaze]

Phoenix won more because they had a more talented team, so it's hard to measure that when doing a head to head matchup.

1992-1993 teams

Phoenix

Charles Barkley
Tom Chambers
Danny Ainge
Kevin Johnson
Dan Majerle
Cedric Ceballos
Mark West
Oliver Miller
Richard Dumas
(the rest don't matter)

Utah

Karl Malone
Jeff Malone
John Stockton
Tyrone Corbin
Jay Humphries
David Benoit
Mike Brown
Mark Eaton
(rest don't matter)

And I still think you need to show the stats up until 96-97... because they were still in their primes, and it's going to even the numbers more, like coin flip does if you flip it enough times.

[GMATCallahan]

Really how many times am I supposed to explain this? Pointing out that most wouldnt put him highly doesnt mean im saying the majority is always right. But if what im being given to support it is a few people saying he IS that high pointing out that most wouldnt say it is not only reasonable its pretty much the only thing that needs to be said. I am shown articles with a couple reporters and a couple players saying how great he is. The top 50 list is 37 legends and coaches and more than a dozen longtime media members. Point of mentioning them is the same as his point of showing me what Barkley, Riley, and whoever else said.

Neither opinion from either source proves it right. But he said it to show some people who believed one thing....I showed that a hell of a lot more(equally qialified) peoples combined opinions say otherwise.

Its the exact same thing just on a grander scale without the indidivual quote aspect.

Ive never said the top 50 list is actually the top 50 players. But when most of what I see to suggest KJ deserves to be ranked highly is a few peoples opinion showing 50 of the same kind of peoples combined opinion is relevant.

I dont think I could explain it clearer than that.

And that's just not true, not for the time period that I was referring to. Again, writers from across the country vote on the All-NBA Teams. Isiah Thomas last made one of those teams in 1987. In Thomas' last six seasons (1989-1994), during which time he played he played in three Eastern Conference Finals, played in two NBA Finals, won two NBA championships, and won an NBA Finals MVP, thus remaining a highly visible presence in the league, he did not make a single All-NBA Team. Kevin Johnson, conversely, made five All-NBA Teams during that time, including for All-NBA Second Teams. So obviously, the vast majority of basketball writers during that time believed that K.J. was more effective than Isiah Thomas, and I used a few quotations from prominent writers (or major players or coaches) in leadings publications to reflect that broader opinion.

Now of course, the writers are not always right, and K.J. proved underrated in many respects. For example, I believe that K.J. deserved a First Team guard slot over Latrell Sprewell in 1994. K.J. averaged 9.5 assists per game and shot .487 from the field and .819 from the free throw line (while averaging 20.0 points to lead all point guards that season), whereas Sprewell averaged 4.7 assists and shot .433 from the field and .774 from the free throw line (while averaging 21.0 points in sort of a "combination guard" role). And, sure enough, K.J. smoked Sprewell in the 1994 Western Conference First Round, averaging 26.7 points and 9.3 assists as the Suns swept the Warriors, 3-0 (Sprewell averaged 22.7 points and 7.0 assists, shooting .433 from the field). In that case, the regular season statistics didn't necessarily indicate that Sprewell was the superior guard, and the playoff matchup only affirmed the dubiety of the writers' selection.

But in the case of K.J. versus Thomas from 1989-1994, K.J. has the statistics on his side and it's frankly not even close. Over those six seasons combined, here are the respective averages, reflecting their mean season:

Kevin Johnson: 20.4 points, 10.5 assists, .498 field goal percentage, .837 free throw percentage (7.2 attempts), 3.4 rebounds, 1.7 steals, 3.5 turnovers, 2.96:1.00 assists-to-turnovers ratio, 36.9 minutes, 71.0 regular season games.

Isiah Thomas: 17.5 points, 8.3 assists, .438 field goal percentage, .766 free throw percentage, 3.3 rebounds, 1.5 steals, 2.27:1.00 assists-to-turnovers ratio, 35.8 minutes, 70.7 regular season games.

So in this particular case, the empirical evidence supports the writers' judgment and indicates that K.J. indeed played on Isiah Thomas' level (or actually a higher one) back then. And if you want popular affirmation of that indication, see the eight players that NBC selected for its original introduction video in '90-'91, its initial season of NBA coverage:

Michael Jordan
Larry Bird
Isiah Thomas
David Robinson
Charles Barkley
Kevin Johnson
Karl Malone
Magic Johnson

You can see an example here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYLhDC1mvJM

Again, a television video shouldn't be the final story, but it confirms the quotations, the All-NBA Teams, and most importantly, the statistics. Kevin Johnson was indeed a rival of Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and John Stockton back then (note that NBC did not bother to select Stockton for the video), and not "just" Tim Hardaway. And indeed, he was a top-ten player of the era, which might have been the richest in NBA history.

Now, history has remembered Thomas more vividly, and understandably so because he won two championships. Let's remember, though, that basketball is a team game, and teams wins titles. As "rikemaru" of the ESPN general NBA message board has shrewdly noted, one might wonder how a team would win two titles while led by a star (Thomas) who was not an especially efficient player, in terms of his shooting percentage and his turnovers (or assists-to-turnovers ratios, which did not measure up to those of K.J., Stockton, or Magic). After all, all of the stars who've led their respective clubs to multiple championships since the dawn of the eighties, namely Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Larry Bird, have been extremely efficient. The same was true, in fact, for other championship superstars such as Moses Malone, Bill Walton, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Willis Reed and Walt Frazier, and Wilt Chamberlain.

One must then contemplate why Thomas (career .452 field goal percentage, 3.8 turnovers per game) and Bob Cousy, who shot .375 from the field for his career and not once reached .400, combined for eight championships whereas K.J. and Stockton combined for zero despite being vastly more efficient from the field and free throw line and taking better care of the ball than "Zeke" (K.J. shot .493 from the field for his career and averaged 3.1 turnovers, while Stockton shot .515 from the field for his career and averaged 2.8 turnovers). K.J. (.841) and Stockton (.826) also shot much better from the free throw line than Thomas (.759), and K.J. and Thomas proved virtually equal in combining scoring and playmaking (from 1989-1997, K.J. averaged 19.8 points and 10.0 assists, and from 1983-1991, Thomas averaged 20.1 points and 9.9 assists). They were also similarly brilliant in the postseason, with The Sporting News naming both Thomas and K.J. as its All-Playoffs Second Team guards for the decade of the 1990s, behind Michael Jordan and Clyde Drexler on the First Team. So given that seeming equality, what put Thomas and Cousy over the top, especially in light of their relative inefficiency?

The answer, of course, lies with their teammates. Unlike Stockton and certainly K.J., Cousy and Thomas enjoyed tremendous defensive support behind them. Cousy had Bill Russell, the greatest shot-blocker and defender of all-time, and Thomas had the toughest defensive team of his era, one marked by a bedrock front line featuring Bill Laimbeer, James Edwards, Rick Mahorn (for the first title), John Salley, and Dennis Rodman. As "rikemaru" has correctly noted, you can afford to be more inefficient offensively if your team can stop the opposition consistently enough, and that helps explain the vast discrepancy in rings between Cousy and Thomas on the one hand and Stockton and K.J. on the other.

That irony brings me back to the original point about considering K.J. in the twenties among history's greatest players. As "Glove" stated, realistically, his injuries push him back into the thirties, but the point is the ambiguity of the matter. Basketball is a team sport, and the amount of factors necessary to win a championships is multitudinous. Henceforth, ranking players individually almost becomes a juvenile exercise, or at least a fallacious, artificial, and potentially misleading one. Now, there are some players, namely the top-ten in history, who proved so dominant and effective that they stand out dramatically and almost transcend their context. Indeed, you could use any as a franchise player and probably still be able to put together a championship-caliber club. For me, those top-ten are as follows in alphabetical order:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain
Tim Duncan
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Oscar Robertson
Bill Russell

However, even there, championships are not guaranteed unless the player is surrounded by the right supporting talent. Oscar Robertson missed the playoffs entirely in his last three seasons in Cincinnati and failed to lead his club to a winning season in the last four, even though he played with another Hall of Famer in Jerry Lucas and other talented guys such as Happy Hairston. He then won a championship with Lew Alcindor (soon Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) in Milwaukee in 1971, but Kareem wasn't invincible, either. When Robertson retired in 1974, Milwaukee instantly collapsed from 59 wins and Game Seven of the NBA Finals to 38 wins and missing the playoffs entirely. In fact, in Abdul-Jabbar's five seasons without either Robertson or Magic Johnson (1975-1979), his teams won 50 games just once, won one division title, and reached a conference final once. Once again, basketball is very much a team game and should largely be judged as such.

By the time that you move from the top-ten to the top-twenty, the matter of which players were most effective and would give you the best chance to win becomes extremely murky. For instance, I would probably place John Havlicek in the top-twenty and ahead of K.J., but one could make a case for K.J. if starting a virtual team. Sure, Havlicek won eight championships in his career, but one could argue that he was never the best player on any of those clubs. He won his championships with MVP centers in Bill Russell (in the sixties) and Dave Cowens (in the seventies), guys whose presence on defense and on the boards helped compensate for the fact that Havlicek was not a terribly efficient player (he shot .439 for his career). In the one season where Havlicek did not play with either Russell or Cowens (1970), he led the Celtics to all of 34 wins as they missed the playoffs and finished with the fourth-worst record in the NBA. So if you put him, instead of K.J., on the '88-'89 Suns as the team's leading playmaker, a team that was defensively soft across its front line, would they necessarily have been better? Could they not have been worse?

[GMATCallahan]

The bottom line is that because it's so ambiguous, uncertain, and close, once you reach beyond the top 15-20 players of all-time, you can go in any number of directions in determining who was the best. It may actually be impossible or implausible to render a "pure," isolated judgment, and it may become necessary to weight context and contingencies such as who the player's teammates might be, what kind of style the team will be running, and what kind of competition will emerge (head-to-head matchups), or whether you're looking more for a championship run or longevity (especially in the case of someone such as Bill Walton or George Mikan), scoring or defense, playmaking or rebounding, a guard or a big man.

The 11-31 players might look something as follows, again in alphabetical order.

Charles Barkley
Rick Barry
Elgin Baylor
Dave Cowens
Clyde Drexler
Julius Erving
Patrick Ewing
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
Elvin Hayes
Karl Malone
Moses Malone
George Mikan
Bob McAdoo
Bob Pettit
Scottie Pippen
Willis Reed
David Robinson
John Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Bill Walton
Jerry West

But even so, K.J. should have a great, safe case for the thirties, and the point is that one could start to consider him in the twenties. As I've revealed, it's really not clear that Isiah Thomas or John Havlicek was a more effective player than K.J., but they played with the kinds of teammates who gave them a better chance at a championship. And consider that until Tim Duncan arrived, David Robinson actually led a team to less success than K.J., even before Barkley arrived in Phoenix (and Robinson did play with talented teammates such as Dennis Rodman, Sean Elliot, Terry Cummings, and Rod Strickland). Nor was it ever clear that John Stockton would give you a better chance at a championship than Kevin Johnson, especially in light of their head-to-head competition. During a 14-game regular season stretch beginning in the spring of 1989 and ending in the fall of 1993, K.J. averaged 30 points and 11 assists per game (shooting 52% from the field) against Stockton as the Suns went 10-4 versus the Jazz (and two of those losses came by one point each, so it easily could have been 12-2). Here are the box scores for the 14 consecutive head-to-head matchups over that time period:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...O19890405.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...O19900214.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...A19900313.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...O19900409.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...A19901102.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...O19901103.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...A19910206.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...O19910402.html

http://www.basketballreference.com/t...9911130&tm=phx

http://www.basketballreference.com/t...9920131&tm=uta

http://www.basketballreference.com/t...9920301&tm=phx

http://www.basketballreference.com/t...9920403&tm=uta

http://www.basketballreference.com/t...9930411&tm=phx

http://www.basketballreference.com/t...9931127&tm=phx

Here are the final statistical tallies for that span of four-and-a-half years:

Kevin Johnson: 30.4 points, 10.8 assists, .518 field goal percentage (18.4 FGA), .881 free throw percentage (12.6 FTA), 2.1 rebounds, 1.8 steals, 4.4 turnovers, 2.44:1.00 assists-to-turnovers, 40.6 minutes, Suns 10-4

John Stockton: 16.4 points, 12.5 assists, .500 field goal percentage (12.1 FGA), .879 free throw percentage (4.1 FTA), 2.7 rebounds, 1.9 steals, 3.3 turnovers, 3.80:1.00 assists-to-turnovers, 37.6 minutes, Jazz 4-10

As "Bizzle" on ESPN's NBA board, a Lakers' fan since the 1960s who saw Bill Russell play live, has stated, he likes Stockton better, but he would take K.J. And of course, the reason is that K.J. could dominate the game with scoring in a way that Stockton simply could not. Indeed, it's thus hardly surprising that K.J. first reached the Western Conference Finals in his second NBA season and his first as a full-time starter, and the NBA Finals in his sixth NBA season and his fifth as a full-time starter, whereas Stockton first reached the Western Conference Finals in his eighth NBA season and his fifth as a full-time starter, and the NBA Finals in his thirteenth NBA season and his tenth as a full-time starter. Frankly, one could go either way, but for at least half the guys on that 11-32 list that I presented, it's not clear that they were more effective than K.J. or would be a better choice for your team, and the question would frankly depend on what you needed and other contextual factors.

You can think of a top-player of all-time list as being akin to a historical draft, and the idea in this situation is that you would draft based on the best player available, that that's what the list would represent. But once you reach the 15-20 range, it's really not clear who was the best, and many of the cases are so close than one could go either way, or in multiple ways. To pretend other wise is to falsify the situation in fallacious simplicity. Even if you look at K.J. versus Drexler, the answer to which player you should choose really ought to come down to whether you need a point guard or a shooting guard, a supreme playmaker or a supreme wing player. To say that one was simply superior to the other is incorrect and simplifies and the complexity of a team sport. Remember, we're talking five-on-five basketball, not tennis or golf. Likewise, the players in the Hall of Fame may not always be the most effective ones, or the ones who'll create the greatest winning impact. Dominique Wilkins is in the Hall of Fame, and Kevin Johnson is not, but Wilkins never played in a single conference finals, not once. I know that the competition was rough in the Eastern Conference of the 1980s, but Wilkins played fifteen NBA seasons. I believe that he deserves his Hall of Fame plaque, but I also know that if I'm starting a team with the hopes of making a championship run, I'm taking Kevin Johnson without question.

The point is that these questions and debates are complex, ambiguous, and worthy of various perspectives rather than simplistic standards or reactionary retorts. That's the nature of a team sport, and to not be open-minded would, as Charles Barkley might have said during his deodorant commercial days, be uncivilized.