Those number even with dirks 3s do it for me see steals and assist
"see steals and assist"...thanks, those are more relevant, because you say so. See playoff numbers while you're at it.
I think it's close enough that it can go either way. They are different players. Both top 10 players this decade. I take Dirk. You take KG. It's not unanimous either way. Let's just leave it at that.
I think this topic has run its course.
Chauncey is top 10.
of those that have commented on KG or Dirk in this forum alone: 9 take KG, 1 takes Dirk. its not close at all. Chauncey is not top 15. lol
7. D Wade
12. The Truth
I am from Texas and Dirk is not even in the same league with KG. The onl thing Dirk has over KG is shooting. That's not a very important part of a power forward's game and Billups may not be top 10 but he is def top 15
The best criteria for this ranking is "best player on a championship level team", MVP, and championship rings.
1. Tim Duncan - if you count the 00-01 season as the start of the decade, than he has more rings than Shaq
2. Shaq - will go down as a better player than duncan because he dominated two decades
3. Kobe - look I hate the guy as much as all of the Kobe haters, but 3 rings, 1mvp. I know he played with Shaq, but he had a chance to win another ring last year and is a favorite to win it this year. Also could be the most clutch. I think all of the arguments for Lebron and Wade ahead of him are justified because they are better team players and ultimately will end up as a better player from an historical standpoint. But for the body of work for this decade, which was the criteria, Kobe.
4. Kevin Garnett - MVP, 1 championship, and 1 defensive player of the year (underrated criteria). Great teammate, leader, and makes everyone better. And just as importantly, the best defensive player besides duncan on the list. Accomplished a lot on a horrible franchise, lead by Kevin Mchale! Was the best player on the championship team last year, not by a lot.
5. Lebron James - MVP, 1 championship game, could win one this year. Will be the best for the next decade for sure, but isn't higher because he started his career in 2003.
6. Dirk Nowitzki - MVP, 1 championship game (that was a close 7 game series that slipped away). Remember the Mavs before him....Horrible defensive player though.
7.Jason Kidd - like was earlier stated, best pg after John Stockton retired. 2 championship games with sub-par teammates
8.Dwayne Wadd -1 championship, finals mvp (the best finals performance since Jordan), would be higher, but started in 03
9. Steve Nash - 2 MVPs, 1 unjustified. And no D whatsoever.
10. Paul Pierce - 1 championship, 1 finals mvp, and Bob Ryan from the boston globe pronounced him as the best offensive weapon in celtics history. He said it, not me.
Allen Iverson should be on the list. He has been to 1 finals just like Dirk, but his team was much more horrible. As much as I hate Iverson, you can't discount his impact on the game.
Iverson is not worthy of a top 25. What does he offer? He's a guy who averages 1pt per fg attempt, the NBA is full of guys who can do this. Not to mention he BLOWS on defense (don't mention steals- that doesn't translate to good D), horrible teammate, and an LOW BBALL IQ. You Iverson lovers get to caught up in his highlights to remember how he affected an entire game.
I don't like Iverson either but he is better than Billups
is that why before biillups the nuggest were gonna sneek into the playoffs but now they are the number two seed??
you dont have a top 5 scoring average in league history and not be one of the 10 best players in your best decade. you cant be a 10 time all star, 7 time all NBA, 3 time steals leader, 2 time all star MVP, regular season MVP, former ROY, and a 4 time scoring champ, and not be one of the top 10 players of your most productive decade. i'm not an Iverson fan myself, but lets give credit where credit's due. and nthegoodlife, its funny that you of all people would criticize anyone for loving a player so much that they lose objectivity. given your undying affection towards Kobe and all.
WOW..to not be an Iverson fan you are really blowing him there...
those are facts homie, not opinion. thats not blowing him. thats evidence.
Yea but you did some extra work to find that out and you are defending him to the bitter end. Sounds like somebody has a man crush..
are you serious with this? i did the same for KG earlier in this forum & i would do the same for any player who is not getting his due. it's much easier to get your point across when you have indisputable evidence. what are you even trying to accomplish by calling me out?
would you prefer that i said he belongs in the top 10 because his crossover is sick and i liked his intricate cornrows?
Nah man...you say what you want...but if you dont like Chauncy, just say so. Oh by the way, Iverson has no ring. You don't need to comment on that because I know you will just defend him till you are blue in the face. But ya know what, he is good. There. Is that better?? Sorry if I hurt your feelings... I mean, everyone is going to defend there favorite player to the bitter end. Right??
Again i am not an Iverson fan. It's not even about removing Billups. Fact is Iverson has had a great NBA career and has established himself as one of the marquee players of his era. You have turned this into some kind of Iverson v. Billups battle. There are a lot of guys who have been great players that I am not a fan of, but I will always give a great player his due. You are coming across as the one defending his fave player. You arent hurting my feelings, but you are very annoying.
Isn't this a forum on best players of the decade, and not who we like ?
Fact: Chauncey Billups finished 6th in MVP voting this year.
Fact: Allen Iverson did not.
Fiction: Chauncey Billups has had a better cumulative decade than Allen Iverson.
I posted the other day about this, and also noted that people on here are focusing too much on rings when so many greats do not have any and countless others do. The argument that so many guys could put up the same numbers as Iverson with as many shots is ignorant. Yes he has shot a lot over his career but no one accuses him of being a great shooter. He is a great scorer. He has been able to get to the line because he's probably the quickest player ever and is willing to get knocked down. Billups played on a great team that beat the Lakers and should be credited for it. But let's not forget he had all-star caliber players around him. Why has no one mentioned Rip Hamilton as one of the 10 best of the decade? How bout 4-time DPOY Ben Wallace? Because they AREN"T. Neither is Chauncey, don't let this past year distort your thinking.
Ya'll all forgot about THE HIBACHI GRILL aka Zero-to-hero aka Gilbert Arenassss !!!!!!!!!!!!
You just want to get yelled at Aminu. I hope you're just saying that as a joke.
Ya know, I have to say I do like Billups more than Iverson but he is not my favorite. To me, a great player makes the people around him (or her) better along with having individual tallent. Iverson is a great player but I have to pick Billups over him any day. Everyone on the original list made their teammates better except Kobe and Iverson. Kobe has the right to be up there because he has a few rings along with everything that Iverson has. Billups is the better player and has shown it by taking the same team that Iverson had and making them one of the best in the NBA. What did Iverson do with Billups team? Nothing. Made a fuss because he wasn't getting his shots, made the alstar team because he is AI, cut his hair, then "hurt" his back and quit. Does that sound like a top ten player in this era?? Not to me. However, you have a right to your opinion and I have a right to disagree. Lets not get personal. And the comment about Billups playing on a great team. He made them great. Without a great point guard, what would that team have been?
You sure do know a lot of info about a guy you don't care about. Anyways, I'll admit I like Kobe and Wade more than any other player. I love there killer instinct, and how far each of their games has came since joining the league. With Iverson, he's the same since day 1, a scoring first point who jacks up bad shots. You call him a two, I say he can't guard anybody. You call him a one, I say he can't distribute. His game has to many flaws to be considered top ten. TEAM CANCER!!!!
AGREED!!! But he is good at taking shots...
Well can you explain how he took a team with guys like Matt Geiger, Todd McCullough, Aaron McKie, and a whole bunch of other whack players to the Finals and actually win a game vs. Lakers, which I don't believe any other team had done during the Laker 3 peat . I truly don't believe Billups could do that. He wouldn't even have came close. Although I do agree Billups makes good teams a lot better, he can't make a horrible team look decent like Iverson did for so many years.
Idk...your prolly right about that.
Can't take away what he has accomplished. He did single-handedly take a very mediocre team (albeit, through a very bad conference) to the NBA Finals. He has also been one of the best pure scorers in the game over the past decade.
That being said, he is a one-trick pony who's never been able to lead a team to any type of sustainable success, and I'd take Chauncey over him any day of the week.
"I'm not sure everyone understands quite what a devastating offensive player Billups is. He only played 32.4 minutes per game last year and Detroit was the league's slowest-paced team, so he averaged just 17.0 points per game.
But look at how efficient he was. Billups got his points on just 11.2 field-goal attempts per game because he was so good at both drawing fouls and making 3-pointers."
Give Iverson the edge in pure scoring ability, give Chauncey the edge just about anywhere else.
The East wasn't near as weak as it is now, and if Chauncey is such a devastating player please explain why he was a journeyman his first 5 seasons. Chauncey is only good if he has good guys around him, he can't do much by himself.
That's a humorous statement: "The East wasn't near as weak as it is now." I'd like to hear your explanation for that. The Eastern conference didn't have a team even remotely capable of competing for an NBA championship from 1999 through 2003.
Come on, we all know the story about Chauncey's first 5 years in the league: Pitino gave up on him too early and he had injury troubles his first 3 years in the league. Check Stockton and Payton's first three years in the league and stop making such a meaningless argument.
Nobody in the league wins a title by themselves, but great players can make good, or even mediocre teams into a great teams. Chauncey did that.
"Chauncey is only good if he has good guys around him, he can't do much by himself."
I totally agree with michaelds911, not only that he is not the top 10 best for the past decade, there is also no way that he'll become a hall of famer.
Billups is no good when his does not play with good players. Unlike CP3 and Wade, he can NEVER carry a team on his own.
Can somebody name one player who has carried a TEAM on his OWN, success in basketball has lot to do with how successful your supporting cast is.....
like Michaelds911 said, Chauncey makes a good team better. You dont build around a guy like Chauncey. Do you really think he could win anything as a team's franchise player? Has he ever seen a double team? Do other teams design game plans to contain him? You ask, what has Billups done with AI's team and vise versa? Well, Iverson is a terrible fit with the Pistons. I dont think anyone would argue that. I think that was a move geared towards freeing up money for 2010 as much as it was to win if not more so. Iverson WAS a cancer for the Pistons, but one season does not a decade make. The Nuggets won 54 games this year. Last year they won 50. Let's not act as though they won the championship just yet. We're in the second round. Also, last years West was much tougher than this years. This year San Antonio has been hammered with injuries, the Hornets have been without Chandler and are down considerably, the Rockets have suffered from injury as well, the Warriors have dismantled their roster, we all saw what happened to the Suns, and Utah was without a healthy Boozer pretty much all year. This is the worst the Western Conference has been in years. Only the Lakers and Blazers really improved. I know every team deals with injury etc...but this year was to the extreme. I will, however, give Chauncey a great deal of credit for changing the attitude of an underachieving team and giving them the leadership that they have lacked. But lets not act like he resucitated a dying franchise. also, realize that AI has a higher career FG% than Chauncey, and has a higher career avg. in pts, rebs, asts, and stls.
Iverson didn't single handily take any team anywhere. He was a piece to hard nosed defensive minded team. That team played great D and kept other teams scoring down. He was important because that 76er team needed SCORING, so thats what he did. You guys act like he did that solo, do any of you actually watch bball. We know what Iverson brought to that team, scoring, horrible fg%, even worse shot selcection, and steals. The same sh*t he has always brought. Those pieces weren't that bad for East at that time. You guys act like he was some kind of GOD and just started pulling down boards, blocking shots, actually guard the other teams 2, and facilitated the O. Single handily, haha!!! Good One
Comparing AI to Chauncy is like comparing Me to my brother
first off, i do watch b-ball. second, i think calling Iverson "a piece" is selling him a little short. my main issue is this. you get on Iverson for his shot selection and fg% when your fave player is Kobe Bryant, who is hardly known for taking high percentage shots. Iverson's career fg% is 43. Kobe's is 45%. Is that a huge difference? We've all seen Kobe shoot over triple teams. Hold the ball, fake, fake, fake then shoot while his teammates stand around. I dont think you're being fair. You praise Kobe for that "killer instinct". Isn't that a trait that AI and Kobe share? Isn't that what makes them great scorers? I'm not for one second saying AI is as good as Kobe, because clearly he is not, but dont pretend that The Mamba hasn't had his share of 7-24 nights? Furthemore, if KB24 was on the 76ers all those years and AI was a Laker, what would this debate look like? Shaq has a funny way of making guys winners. Sorry to bring Kobe into this. All i'm saying is, just be objective for once.
1. George Karl criticized Iverson for jacking up shots and demanded to trade him for C-Bill, and look at what's happening !!! Denver is playing its best b-ball in many years.
2. When IGGY started to play for the the 6ers, Iverson rarely gave the ball to him and played bad team b-ball, and that's why he got traded to Denver, and look, ever since Iverson got left, the 6ers have been making the playoffs.
So what does The Answer's history tell you? He is not a good team player, and that's what seperats him the most from Kobe24...
george carl criticizes everyone, and i hardly think he went to the front office and said "i demand that you trade Allen Iverson for Chauncey Billups!" & like i said, the west is down. if they win the title, i stand corrected. i would not dispute that AI is not great for team ball. but if you read my post, my issue is with praising a guy for something, and then bashing another guy for the same thing. And suddenly Kobe is a great teammate? Are we talking about the same guy who ran Shaq outta town, tried to get rid of Bynum, demanded a trade not so long ago, and quit on his team in the playoffs. The same guy who has never even thrown a pass in the 4th quarter of any game? Get outta here with that crap! Am i arguing with the same guy who thinks Dwight Howard plays like Hakeem Olajuwon?
One year ago there is no debate whatsoever. This is the last year of the decade. On the whole over the past 10 years, if you take players A, B, C, and D at the 2-5 spots, Allen Iverson gives your team a better shot at winning than Chauncey Billups does. I'm not saying he will make those other players better than Billups would make them, but he gives all 5 the better chance at winning. This debate needs to end now. Allen Iverson is an all-time great. This is like saying Joe Dumars was a better player than Dominique Wilkins b/c 'Nique never played in a finals and Dumars has 2 rings and a Finals MVP.
And I dont know if anyone here has actually compared Dwight to Hakeem, but if Dwight ever develops 1/2 the post moves Hakeem had then you could lock him in for about 45ppg.
Chauncey's TrueShooting% is exponentially better than Iverson's because he shoots threes so much better. Basically, he's a much more efficient scorer (and overall player.) Chauncey's understanding of the team game is light years beyond Iverson's (and most of the NBA's, for that matter.)
Iverson's a great pure scorer. That's about all the credit I will give him. That being said, he's a 6-foot tall scorer with a bad outside shot who loves to shoot and either can't or won't pass.
Chauncey was the best player and leader on one of the best teams of the decade. Name a situation where Iverson could have done the same thing. I don't think you can find one (Cue the response: "Detroit was a bad situation, George Karl hates everyone, etc." Except Chauncey succeeded in both situations. Iverson did not. Hmmmm...coincidental). Iverson just never learned how to play unless the ball was in his hands.
Kobe's a mediocre team player at best, too. He was more effective as the second option, and has yet to prove he can carry a team to the title. He would rather shoot contested 3's than use his physical tools to drive to the hoop to open up the floor and create for his teammates...something that seems to come more naturally to guys like D-Wade, Lebron, C-Paul.
I would say this debate is more like comparing Scottie Pippen to Dominique Wilkens.
Chauncey has the stats to back up the winning...you guys seem to ignore that.
Player A: 16.1 ppg, 4.5 apg, 2.2 rpg, .9 spg, 46%FG, 85%FT, 6 All-Star Games
Player B: 15.1 ppg, 5.6 apg, 2.9 rpg, 1.0 spg, 42%FG, 89%FT, 4 All-Star Games
Both Dumars and Billups are considered excellent defensive guards and team leaders. Joe Dumars is in the HOF, Billups is borderline and will probably fall short. FYI: Dumars is Player A.
** Also, Scottie Pippen is one of the top 30 or so players ever and probably a top 5 defensive player of all-time. I love Wilkins but he's not the player Pippen was.
espn365 is doing Billups a favor by comparing him to Joe Dumars who was a better defender, scorer, and winner than Chauncey. how is this even a debate when Billups was non-existent the first three years of the decade?
Check PER numbers since he joined the Pistons. If you are going to ignore stats like that, then I'm not going to debate statistical issue with you. The 1990 Pistons scored 102ppg, the 2004 Pistons scored 90ppg. That was a pace issue, which you can't/should not ignore. Chauncey's PER numbers are better than Isiah's as well.
Chauncey's been an excellent player for the past 7 years. That's more than enough evidence.
He is one of the ten best players of the last decade.
I almost don't know what to say alpha, almost, Kobe does so many things well. So you CAN LIVE with it. I know he takes bad shots, but I also know when the Lakers meet the Cavs he WILL BE GUARDING KING JAMES (unless in foul trouble) from the tip. I don't know many STARS in the league who always WANT TO GUARD the other stars of the league. Kobe's a 2, Iverson's a 2, which one seems like a defensive mismatch EVERY game. Theirs no comparison between the two, so don't even try weak arguments on this topic. Fact is BILLUPS is more important than Iverson, Billups defines TEAM and WINNER, something Iverson does not.
I know PER is a solid barometer of players, but you can't use it as the be all and end all of statistics. FT% is a part of PER, as it should be, but Iverson makes 2 more fts/g than Billups attempts in his career. FG% will be skewed b/c Billups has taken a lot more open shots than Iverson in his career. PER is also based on 40mpg. So Iverson is one of a handful of players in the history of the league who gets hurt in that department because he has led the league in mpg more than half the years he's been in the league. I never said Chauncey was not an excellent player, he's just not one of the top 10 of the decade. Forget pace of play and all that and just look at games. Chanucey has never in his career been guarded by the opponent's best defensive player, whereas Iverson has had to deal with that since coming into the league and he still has managed to put up numbers. The idea that other people could score as many points as him with the same number of shots is an argument that is laughable. People are brainwashed by this past year. Try and be objective, stats will not back up Billups and neither will game film.
This is to nthegoodlife, ch15, and whoever thinks Billups is better. Who would you pick if you were starting a franchise from scratch, and had to choose between the two?
First off, I was comparing the PER's of Dumars and Billups. There is no comparison there...Dumars never hit the 20's...Isiah rarely did either.
Now, I realize comparing Iverson and Billups is apples and oranges, at best. They are absolutely different players.
Billups is a 6'3-200lb combo guard who can play with the ball or off the ball, and prefers the halfcourt game.
Iverson is a 6'0-170lb combo guard who needs to have the ball, and prefers a faster-speed game.
Given the two different styles of play, you can't just look at pure pts/game, FG%, asts/game, etc. That's where PER evens things out. AI's PER numbers compare favorably to Billups in many seasons, but to simply look at the counting stats and say that Iverson is a better player is just not fair to anyone. Over the course of the past 7 years, (or compare Iverson's best 7-year stretch to Billups) the two are pretty evenly matched when you break it down to PER.
Now, here's the difference, in my opinion, and why I would say that Chauncey has been the better player over the past decade: With Iverson, he is at his best when he can play as an individual, and is given the freedom to create and shoot at will. That makes him an easier matchup, because an individual might beat you on occassion, but he will not beat you consistently, especially when he's only shooting 42% overall, 30% from 3, and turning the ball over 3+ times a game. Billups, on the other hand, is a more efficient offensive player who can control the tempo of a game, and demands attention from the outside and off the dribble, but also doesn't need to take 75% of his team's shots to be effective. This creates more matchup problems for the other team, because now you can't just focus on one player.
You just can't prove to me that Iverson, despite his God-given natural talent ever developed the ability to lead a team, make teammates better, or win anything significant.
I would take Billups any and every day of the week. Ask the Denver Nuggets or the Detroit Pistons first, though.
And you would feel pretty confident that he could get you a championship? If so you're a funny guy.