Mr. Big Shot Chauncey Billups Retires

Nobody's putting words in your mouth, you silly. Not one single person in this forum rely on FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE solely as their argument in discussion of shooting efficiency. It's just extremely stupid. People already evolved from that, making your point moot.


2 made freethrows results in 2 points produced. It is practically one field goal made. 2 made three pointers produce 6 points. That is equivalent to 3 field goals made. But it all takes same number of possession, 1 attempt/possession for all 3pts, 2pts, freethrows. Take that into consideration when it comes to how one's scoring ability impacted the game.

This is extremely elementary stuff but here I go once again. Making 2 out of 5 three pointers produce 6 points but depicts as .400FG%. Meanwhile hitting 3/5 two pointers rewards you with .600 FG%. But in both occasions, the result is same, 6 points in same amount of possession usage. FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE that you are proud is deceitful in many senses. It doesn't quite accurately measure the impact that players brought to the game.

Ever heard of TRUE SHOOTING PERCENTAGE?

I don't know what your standard is here. All depends on situations ala AI?



This is actually quite silly. We are never going to agree on anything. This entire discussion obviously aroused from you being defensive about Iverson, this isn't anything real about Billups. I just think your logic is farce and irrational. Clearly a double standard and no solid base, but it's mostly "SITUATIONAL" to praise AI.

This is really hilarious coming from the guy who first mentioned Iverson and the Sixers in this thread.

The standard was that I have no idea how Billups has any kind of case over any of them other than "he was on a championship team".

You give way too much credits to Leading/Volume scorer while entirely ignoring importance of efficiency. I told you this several times. # of possession is finite. Hey! Let's go praise Carmelo. What? Denver still was a winning team after he left? BS!

The thing about volume scoring is that, unless you're on an extremely balanced team, someone has to do it. When you're the volume scorer, the defense gameplans against you and makes your life harder by default. It's not an easy burden to carry, especially on a team of offensive scrubs. Going by your logic, Tyson Chandler is an elite scorer in this league while prime T-Mac is probably an overrated chucker.

The Nuggets got a very solid package for Melo. Billups went with him, by the way and - as you noticed - Denver was still a winning team.

It doesn't matter if Jeff Hornacek scored more and recorded higher usage consistently, John Stockton was the man on Jazz team.

Karl Malone was, actually.

Get your fact straight. Billups never dominated the ball whereas our hero AI was allowed to dominate it.

Anything to back this up or am I supposed to just take your word for it? Let's take a look at the important Pistons' assisted shots percentage from '04:

Billups 45.7% RS, 38.2% PO

Hamilton 59.1% RS, 59.7% PO
Sheed 74.8% RS, 75.4% PO
Prince 64.8% RS, 65.5% PO
Okur 58.6% RS, 58.1% PO
Big Ben 61.9% RS, 66.7% PO

Billups is the only one below 50% (significantly below in the playoffs), everyone else is at least around 60%, indicating that they're mostly catch and shoot guys.

Now, before you accuse me of bashing Billups for being capable of creating his own shots: it's commendable and valuable. But... you can't do it if you don't have the ball.

And, since you're hellbent of turning everything I say back on Iverson:

'01 AI 42.4% RS, 44.4% PO

Iverson obviously shot more, but Billups led Detroit in assists - another thing you can't do without the ball - and his own attempts were usually unassisted, so I'd say he had the ball in his hands quite a bit.

Actually I found it quite silly when you mentioned how Ben Wallace and Tayshaun was the backbone of great Pistons defensive team and that's how they won. This actually applied to Iverson's 76ers team as well, if not more. In case you didn't notice, great 76ers team in early 2k won with defense. Here you see, your double standard.

'04 Pistons: 18th ranked offense, 2nd ranked defense in the league
'01 Sixers: 13th ranked offense, 5th ranked defense in the league

While both teams are stronger on defense, the disparity is clearly larger in Detroit. And while the chucker, ballhog and cancer AI made Philly a slightly above average offense pretty much all by himself, the amazing and efficient floor general Billups with good offensive teammates were still slightly below average on offense.

So yeah, the Sixers were a top5 defensive team, but holding your opponent to 80 points won't do you much good if you can't top 79. Iverson made sure that didn't happen, more effectively than Billups it would seem.

Taking the amount of shots was the best thing to do but this also largely benefited AI.

Benefited his accolades and recognition? Definitely. It surely didn't benefit his TS% though.

You want entire credits to AI for the success? Well, kudos to his teammates as well. It's not the easiest thing to play alongside a superstar that records historic ball hoggery at mediocre efficiency and still win games.

I'm not giving Iverson the entire credit for the team's success (though a lot of it, yeah). I'm giving Iverson close to the entire credit for the team not being worst in the league on offense. Don't remember ever denying the defensive contributions of Mutombo (Ratliff pre-trade), McKie, Snow, Hill and Lynch, which clearly means they had a hand in the team being successful. McKie was even kinda useful on offense, but you know the team isn't stacked on that end when he's your second best offensive player.

The team benefits a lot from having efficient players as much as having players that can score on higher usage.

Both types of players have value, but it won't be the same in every environment. An efficient, mid-usage guy is great for either a very balanced team or one that already has a volume scorer. If you need someone to carry the heavy load on offense because either your team sucks on offense or you already have mid-usage guys, you take the player who can handle higher usage. Pretty simple concept.

John Stockton is a career 18.9% usage player and only near 20% in his prime.

Yeah, textbook example of someone who got his nice TS% numbers by not shooting a whole lot. As great a playmaker as he was, perhaps the Jazz would have won a couple more playoff series if he was capable of stepping up as a scorer sometimes.

AI with 35% usage rate, players like Rip weren't going to be as effective as a teammate, not being able to play to their strength and not enough possessions to go around. It's a simple math.

AI co-existing fine with another volume scorer and historical ballhog (and not running out of possessions in the process) should put an end to this kind of babbling, really.

You've done this several times already in this forum, diminishing Billups's value in defense of Iverson. This occasion wasn't different. The debate started as you had problem me stating that Billups is underrated which actually is very true in a lot of sense especially statistically which you always defy as you like to stick to your creative narratives.

There have been tons of players that could score with high usage. Even Meeks, Nick Young, Monta Ellis are among those names. Iverson was more effective scorer but you see, point you are making is bleak at its best. List of players that scored at high usage is endless. Simply by needs or not is a second issue. In regards to low-usage-highly-efficient players are actually quite rare at star level. This is a simple fact that you are conveniently ignoring.

What's amazing about Iverson actually is not that complicated. He was a historical ball hog that led a successful team. The thing is we've seen a lot of teams like that. Vince Carter, T-Mac in deadball era with Iverson, and list again goes on endlessly. One thing I recognize though is that they were instrumental to the team success in their own ways by providing scoring needs mostly. (I am not going to deny that it's one way to build a successful team just as having players like Billups helps, a lot.)



The assisted percentage stats you provided is meaningless. Assists actually is component of USG%. It does NOT mean Billups dominated the ball. It's utterly stupid to be suggesting he was a ballhog, when he rather was an unselfish player which he actually was. I don't even know what you are trying to prove here, a mere excuse to put up any stats to negate Billup's value, that's how I take it. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT HOW MANY PERCENTAGE OF BILLUP'S SHOTS WERE ASSISTED? Chris Paul gets his shots assisted well under 20% projectile, is he a frigging ball dominating cancer? Garbage/desperate theory you are trying to impose.

Assists actually is component of USG%

No, it isn't.
The b-r formula anyway.
Unless I'm mistaken with the understanding of the formula.

EDIT: You are right. B-R usage rate doesn't take assists into count. It's Hollinger's that does. I think Hollinger's goal is to have the most complete picture possible, therefore assists must be taken into account.



Either way(hollinger or b-r) it makes zero difference in this discussion though, Billups was a player with moderate usage rate.




Is this a joke anyway? Somebody actually is comparing Iverson to players like Billups on ball-dominance issues. I don't know, this is to prove what point? Billups took moderate amount of shots and made good number of assists at low TO ratio. Ball dominance actually would have been a great thing if done at this pace. It would have increased his face value much more. Instead this is exactly the reason why people sleep on him now days. Someone's obviously confused with his own ideology. One day, he claims Billups did too little and only remained efficient which is an easy thing to do, next day he complains about ball dominance issue. LoL, seriously?

You've done this several times already in this forum, diminishing Billups's value in defense of Iverson.

What I've done is disprove the untrue theory that Billups made the Nuggets an amazing team and Iverson was holding them back. But to the mainstream media and the magician Billups belivers, I guess I am diminishing his value by paying attention to the real causes of them going two rounds further in the playoffs.

This occasion wasn't different.

Unbelievable. I never mentioned Philly or Iverson's name in my first post in this thread. You bring him and the Sixers up, liken Iverson's role in Philly to Billups' in Detroit, then I explain how off base that comparison is, then you blame me for derailing the thread by talking about Iverson's Sixers. I mean, what the fuck?

The debate started as you had problem me stating that Billups is underrated

I asked a question, not "had a problem" and explained my point of view by saying that his accolades sure make it look like he got proper recognition in his prime - something you still haven't addressed and just stick to saying how underrated Billups is because of course he is and I'm stupid for suggesting otherwise.

especially statistically which you always defy as you like to stick to your creative narratives.

The narratives that stats need context? I'm not sure that it's so creative or groundbreaking - I've always considered it common sense - but I'll take the compliment.

low-usage-highly-efficient players are actually quite rare at star level. This is a simple fact that you are conveniently ignoring.

What you're ignoring is that players at star level usually can't afford to be low-usage-highly-efficient.

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT HOW MANY PERCENTAGE OF BILLUP'S SHOTS WERE ASSISTED?

In case I haven't made it obvious enough, self-created shots require that the shooter has the ball in their hands before getting in a position to shoot. Getting assists also requires the passer to have the ball in their hands. By the way, I never called Billups a ballhog. Just proving that he did indeed handle the ball quite a bit and suggesting that he wasn't handling the ball a lot is absurd when he was actually surrounded by off-ball players. If Billups wasn't their ball handler a vast majority of the time, who was?

Chris Paul gets his shots assisted well under 20% projectile, is he a frigging ball dominating cancer?

That's the crux of the problem, I see. In your world, having the ball a lot of the time automatically makes you a cancer and ballhog.

To answer your question - Chris Paul is easily one of the most ball-dominant players in the NBA right now. It's obvious to the eyetest and the stats test (<20% Ast'd shots, a lot of assists). Doesn't mean he's a cancer or not a good point guard, no idea where you're taking this shit from.

One day, he claims Billups did too little and only remained efficient which is an easy thing to do, next day he complains about ball dominance issue. LoL, seriously?

I just provided evidence that he did indeed handle the ball a lot of the time. I never "complained" about Billups dominating the ball or suggested that him handling the ball was detrimental to the team. If you can't use my actual words to ridicule me wihout anything to back up your point, you're just going to make stuff up now? Is that how this works?

Actually in my world, winning matters the most. I find statistics most reliable and unbiased in contrast to subjective eye test/stupid-narratives you extremely are in love with. CP3 and Stockton were ball dominant for simply doing their job superbly? It's not true but it'd be a good thing as proven, at their productivity rate, teams actually benefit and win. This is evidenced through both eye test and decades of accumulated data. AI was ball dominant, ending possessions mostly via taking shots. Just because PGs carry the ball up the court, it doesn't mean they were/are ball dominant.

These players I praise share one thing in common. Their success is easily explained through stats and team achievement through and through history, rather more methodically and soundly. Narratives or excuses like "OH AI teammates sucked and others had better teammates" can be done by anyone with over IQ 50. Unfortunately your so called evidence(ie. Billups ball dominance) are entirely your fake narratives. I find it less entertaining now that you've been exposed. You say you provided evidence but none of it made much sense and cases were simply weak. AI was ball dominant, this is a given, not Billups. And even if Billups did dominate ball(which he clearly didn't, it was RIP that led usage, his touch meant end of possession each time), it was a good thing.

One proof is there actually. Historically those that had such statistical excellence were able to both, win a lot of games and enjoy their own shares of individual success. It'll be the same in the future. Anyone that's put to register such statistical excellence will be a great addition to any team under any situation. I don't care if you are Meeks, Oladipo, or MCW. If you are put into a perfect position to do so and pull it off, you are still fucking awesome as you are contributing to actual winning rather than posting good raw numbers for yourself.

The Pistons offense wasn't as bad in 2004 after the Sheed trade. (Would have been top ten for the year.) In fact that changed everything about that team so the season stats are misleading. Pre-Trade the team was on mark to settle into a 48-50 win landing. The Post-Trade Pistons eviscerated everyone including the playoffs at a rate of 68-70 wins.

Billups under Carlisle/Brown and under Saunders are almost two separate players other than their very smart shot distribution (negating their low FG%) and it's under the latter that Billups explodes offensively. Saunders allowed Billups to run the offense, Brown had Billups run his offense (which included things like post-up clear-outs for Ben Wallace), which is why the same roster turns into an offensive juggernaut under Saunders. (And why both Wallaces disliked Saunders' offense because it didn't have dumb setups for favorite but bad shots.)

It's somewhat silly to compare the 2001 and 2004 teams alone regarding the player as Iverson played on everything from a lottery team to a Finals doormat. Billups, after his emergence with the Wolves, played on nothing but 50+ win teams until the Knicks and reached seven straight conference finals.

Iverson didn't work as well in Denver because the team already had one high-usage player in Melo. You can only get away with two, if one of them is also high-efficiency. Thus Melo thrived more when surrounded by more efficient players like Billups and Nene.

Iverson didn't work in Detroit for a whole host of reasons only some of which are related to his style of play. He was, in fact initially willing to sacrifice usage but he didn't have the game to increase his efficiency and since Curry had no coaching experience he couldn't do anything with the players just like Kuester couldn't with the last remaining veterans. What he wasn't willing to do was become the sixth man which is why he got "injured" and had to spend all his time getting banned from all the Detroit casinos instead of playing for the team.

Billups on the 2001 Sixers would not have worked better. Nor would Iverson have on the Six-Straight Pistons.

everyone else is at least around 60%, indicating that they're mostly catch and shoot guys.

Just want to note that both good AND bad offensive teams/players have bubbled assist rates. The Nets and Kings of the 2002-2004 era for example had similar assisted rates, but the Nets were garbage on offense so they only "created" shots in transition or Kidd/MacCulloch-Collins handed them something. The Kings on the other hand were so good offensively that most every pass made led to somebody scoring.

It's a chicken and egg thing in some respects.

Rip for example goes up to 76% assisted in the Pistons franchise best offensive year (2006) as the entire teams shooting and offense in general increases under Saunders.

Now that's more conceivable.


It's interesting to hear about Billups under different coaches. He made a transition from a pretty good player to an incredible player right away under Saunders. That was at age of 29(and he peaked for 3 seasons). That was by far the best season for both Billups and the Pistons in 2k era. Otherwise for Wade and Shaq somehow stopping them in ECF, they surely were the best team in the East led by Billups. They won 64 games that season, quite a marginal lead from 2nd seed Heat with 52 wins. One should wonder what it'd have been like if Billups was put to use in the right direction from young years of his career.

The Pistons, like the Suns the year before, basically only played seven players all season.

I don't think the 2006 team would have beat the 2004 team though. 2008 might, and despite Sheed and Prince seemingly giving up might be the best Pistons team of the era even if they came up short because they ran into the 2008 Celtics.

Actually in my world, winning matters the most. I find statistics most reliable and unbiased in contrast to subjective eye test/stupid-narratives you extremely are in love with.

Your only individual stat for Billups is TS%. Other than that:

one of the underrated players in our time

Billups never dominated the ball

many others liked playing alongside him.

he rather was an unselfish player

The only things missing from the classic Billups narratives are that he had out-of-this-world leadership and was the most clutch player ever (well, maybe after Kobe).

You keep confusing narrative with context. By having TS% and team results as end-all arguments you're judging a player in large part for the quality of his teammates, coaches and GMs. Not all that different from judging players by a ring count. Winning bias at its finest.

By the way, I still don't know why Billups is so criminally underrated.

CP3 and Stockton were ball dominant for simply doing their job superbly? It's not true but it'd be a good thing as proven, at their productivity rate, teams actually benefit and win.

They did their job by dominating the ball, so yeah. I seriously don't know how you can deny that Chris Paul handles the ball an overwhelming majority of the time with a straight face. Hate to repeat myself, but I need to ask again: can you prove in any way that Paul and Billups never dominated the ball? Preferably in a way other than saying "it's not true, get your facts straight" or using their USG as USG has nothing to do with being ball dominant.

Just because PGs carry the ball up the court, it doesn't mean they were/are ball dominant.

No idea what bringing the ball up the court has to do with any of that. If your shots are mostly unassisted and you have a lot of assists yourself, you're most likely ball dominant. Again - I never said that dominating the ball is always a bad thing for the team, which is what you seem to believe. Why wouldn't you want your best ball handler to handle the ball?

Narratives or excuses like "OH AI teammates sucked and others had better teammates" can be done by anyone with over IQ 50. Unfortunately your so called evidence(ie. Billups ball dominance) are entirely your fake narratives. I find it less entertaining now that you've been exposed. You say you provided evidence but none of it made much sense and cases were simply weak.

Billups having a better team than Iverson is my fake narrative? Sure.

I've been exposed by your "not true, fake narrative" responses to anything I say? Sure.

A "narrative" that you need the ball in your hands to create a shot for yourself and/or get an assist makes no sense? Sure.

even if Billups did dominate ball(which he clearly didn't, it was RIP that led usage, his touch meant end of possession each time), it was a good thing.

Wow.

So let me get this straight... you're saying that an off-screen catch-and-shoot guy was dominating the ball for those Pistons because he had the highest usage on the team?

The team's primary scorer leading the team in usage is expected. No big discovery there.

Usage has nothing to do with dominating the ball. Theoretically, it would be possible to dominate the ball with a 0% USG. Not realistically possible even without ever shooting the ball, because never committing any turnovers is an extremely tall order, but... do you get it now?

If you are put into a perfect position to do so and pull it off, you are still fucking awesome as you are contributing to actual winning rather than posting good raw numbers for yourself.

Further proof that you're into rating individuals entirely by team success.

Billups, after his emergence with the Wolves, played on nothing but 50+ win teams until the Knicks

Good to see someone else notice it as well. When I say it, it's diminishing Billups' value and creating fake narratives.

Just want to note that both good AND bad offensive teams/players have bubbled assist rates. The Nets and Kings of the 2002-2004 era for example had similar assisted rates, but the Nets were garbage on offense so they only "created" shots in transition or Kidd/MacCulloch-Collins handed them something. The Kings on the other hand were so good offensively that most every pass made led to somebody scoring.

It's a chicken and egg thing in some respects.

Right. The point I was making there is that when a vast majority of your shots are assisted, it's very unlikely that you're dominating the ball, that's all.

Iverson didn't work as well in Denver because the team already had one high-usage player in Melo. You can only get away with two, if one of them is also high-efficiency. Thus Melo thrived more when surrounded by more efficient players like Billups and Nene.

Billups was totally a better fit for Melo, but I still slightly disagree that Iverson didn't work as well there.

The '08 team was an 8th seed despite winning 50 games in the RS. They lost in the first round due to playing the Lakers, the 1st seed, there.

The '09 team was a 2nd seed after winning 54 games in the RS - a year earlier, that would have been only the 6th best record in the West. They get the HCA over any West team except LAL, they get through two rounds and lose to the Lakers, just like the year before.

Long story short, Billups led them to 4 more RS wins against a weaker West with a better bigman rotation (Nene/Martin/Andersen instead of 08's Camby/Martin/Najera) and eventually, to a PO loss to the same exact team - they just played the Lakers later.

The Nuggets' ORTG:

'08 110.0
'09 110.4

Better by a very small margin in '09. The Iverson-led offense was pretty much identical in terms of efficiency to the Billups-led one.

The Nuggets' SRS:

'08 3.74
'09 3.13

Actually better in 2008, but rated only 11th in the league while the '09 team was 8th. Further evidence of '08 being just a brutal year, especially in the West.

Billups "transforming" that team has to be one of the most overblown narratives ever. He didn't seem to help them a whole lot in 2010 when they lost to the Jazz in the first round despite having HCA.

I don't really understand what you are crying about if you aren't disagreeing to benji's post. It's clear Billups played integral part for the successful Pistons entire time. And It's also safe to say 50+ wins team was largely his due(backed by stats) and he's a win-first media-second guy.


Issue with you really is simple. The point you keep trying to evade is that you can't replace Billups with just about anyone and expect the same result they had(CP3 exception). (By efficiency, why you pretending to be an idiot and it all means only the TS%? Grow out of it dude.) This is just because your brain is incompetent to process what readily available metrics measure and mean both in individual and team context. Or else you live in a fantasy world of your own narrative.

Preferably in a way other than saying "it's not true, get your facts straight" or using their USG as USG has nothing to do with being ball dominant.

The term ball dominance belong to players like Kobe, Iverson, and Tmac.

USG captures essence of 'ball dominance' very well, at least much better than your eye test and biased memory/theory. I'd rather rely on it on concrete data than selective/deceptive memory and mere eye test on couple games of team/player. It's funny Eye Test people claim they watch a lot of games but each team play at least 82 games a season, how those eye test people are superior than stat people is beyond me. Heck, I watch more teams in variety than those liars and still look to stats for support and conclusion.

You are seriously mistaken. Kobe and Iverson pound the ball to earth and end the possession via taking shot(or TO/FT/etc). John Stockton, CP3, Magic Johnson, Billups are facilitators. They carry the ball up the court and encourage ball movement thus rest of team get their touches. Their shots are selective, dribbling has purpose, maintaining low TO ratio is key. See which category of players fit the 'ball dominance' better. One that takes a shot 1 out of 3 times(actually more poss used by them if you also consider ft/ast/TO) or one that allows teammates their touches usually before getting their own.

But this entire discussion about ball dominance is actually stupid as it serves no purpose at all. I am not sure why you brought this up. (perhaps in effort to elude a point that AI was a ball thug? Good try bud.) You will say anything.

Billups, after his emergence with the Wolves, played on nothing but 50+ win teams until the Knicks

Good to see someone else notice it as well. When I say it, it's diminishing Billups' value and creating fake narratives.

Stop being deluded and translate wording to your liking. His emergence largely contributed to those 50+ win teams. Man, what are you thinking really? This only helps my argument, not yours brain defecto.



His career actually would have taken a different route if Boston, Denver, and ultimately the Wolves properly recognized his talent. His potential/talent was underrated by these teams despite showing glimpse of capability within limited role. Later the Wolves cried about not having to retain him and ended up losing KG, and Celtics would have been obviously better off with Billup/Pierce duo than Fattoine chucking 3s everywhere. It's only in Pistons days where he really started seeing some light unlike in previous years with Terrell Brandon and Nick Van Exel who were by far bigger names at the time. He was Mr. Unknown pretty much till that point.

) This is just because your brain is incompetent to process what readily available metrics measure and mean both in individual and team context.

Where's shadow when you need him

I believe that Billups has stated that he didn't really learn how to fit in the NBA game and become comfortable until he got to Minny and was mentored by Terrell Brandon. (And Sam Mitchell who did something similar for KG. Who was one of Billups friends from high school summers.)

So it was also 'thanks' to Terrell's knee injury that his talent was put on display at large scale, which actually got him paid in Detroit though it was a bargain deal for the team.


BTW, I know Pitino just screwed up badly but why did so many previous teams give up on him so early? His young career was entirely as an underdog, not seeing much consistency until he landed in Detroit.

It's also safe to say 50+ wins team was largely his due

His emergence largely contributed to those 50+ win teams. Man, what are you thinking really?

I'm thinking that it's also safe to say he had quite a bit of help in taking those teams to 50+ wins. Ever noticed how I never claimed he was a non-factor on those teams? What I claim is that it's pretty stupid to "prove" his supremacy over someone else by using just team success.

The point you keep trying to evade is that you can't replace Billups with just about anyone and expect the same result they had

Funny. When Billups was replacing Iverson he didn't improve the team's offense (or improved it by 0.4 ORtg, to be precise) or their SRS. The better team results are a product of weaker competition, Nene being healthy and Andersen replacing Najera as the first bigman off the bench - which is proved by objective measures.

USG captures essence of 'ball dominance' very well

Nope. Rip Hamilton leading the Pistons in USG is a prime example. You only increase USG if you end the possession. If you dribble the ball for 20 seconds and pass to someone for a last-second shot, your USG goes down as it is a possession you didn't end, but you sure as hell dominated the ball during it. If you come off a screen for a catch-and-shoot, you are in no way, shape or form dominating the ball, but you increase your USG as you did end the possession. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

I'd rather rely on it on concrete data than selective/deceptive memory and mere eye test on couple games of team/player. It's funny Eye Test people claim they watch a lot of games but each team play at least 82 games a season, how those eye test people are superior than stat people is beyond me. Heck, I watch more teams in variety than those liars and still look to stats for support and conclusion.

No idea where I said eye test is more reliable than stats. Unfortunately, I don't know of any stats that tell us for how long each player held the ball. That's why, as the next best thing, I resorted to stats that require having the ball in your hands (assists, unassisted shots) which seem to confirm the eyetest in this case. But you can also keep using USG to prove that Rip Hamilton was dominating the ball for the Pistons, I don't really care.

John Stockton, CP3, Magic Johnson, Billups are facilitators. They carry the ball up the court and encourage ball movement thus rest of team get their touches. Their shots are selective, dribbling has purpose, maintaining low TO ratio is key. See which category of players fit the 'ball dominance' better. One that takes a shot 1 out of 3 times(actually more poss used by them if you also consider ft/ast/TO) or one that allows teammates their touches usually before getting their own.

And how does any of this change that they dominated the ball? In case I need to remind you yet another time: I never suggested that them dominating the ball was detrimental to their teams. Hell, Steve Nash dominated the ball in Phoenix and it led to some of the greatest offenses of all time.

This is just because your brain is incompetent to process what readily available metrics measure and mean

This only helps my argument, not yours brain defecto.

You are seemingly incapable of having a discussion with someone who doesn't share your point of view without starting to throw cheap insults around to... feel cool, I guess. Truly sad and pathetic.

I like how all I wanted to find out was why Billups is supposedly so underrated despite receiving his fair share of accolades and recognition. It's a question that remains unanswered in any kind of sensible way as you spend your days raving about his TS% and narrative-driven legendary leadership and facilitating, giving him most of the credit for success of a remarkably balanced team, ignoring (after you brought him into this discussion) that Iverson led very similarly efficient offenses with similar ('08) or lesser ('01) offensive help and using USG to figure out who handled the ball more.

Well, it doesn't matter. After this post, I won't continue the exchange anymore as it really is a waste of my time and at this point, it surely looks like you don't intend on answering my initial question. Not interested in any more of your retarded affronts.

It's obvious you're more of a stuck up idiot than I initially thought. So you again went on another rant to prove that John Stockton and all PGs in fact are BALL DOMINANT for just doing job as primary ball carrier. By default, PGs get to touch the ball most almost on any team. Don't you really see it's use of possession that actually suits the term 'ball dominance'? But just for fun stupid sake, let's just say you are right. But for a 5th fucking time, WHY? How does this help your case? You keep dodging the real question. Why did you go 5 pages of stupid essays to convince anyone?

I will tell you why, it's only because I said Iverson was a ball thug. You can't handle the truth.



Problem is not me. It's you diverting discussion to something ridiculous and nonsensical as this on almost every subject. Common sense doesn't apply.



This isn't really about accolades and recognition that Billups received. If any, he rightfully deserved them all. It's only you that was saying he didn't while there are literally hundreds others received despite deserving much much less. It's ignorant uninformed general perception like yours that underrates Billups as they did in his young career. He always has been an underdog in contrast to AI who was handed team on a plate from day 1. Notice how you attempt to deteriorate Billups's contribution by simply stating he was on a balanced team as if he was just 1 out 5 good players and everyone was equal level players The Pistons were mostly balanced in a sense that ball distribution and scoring role were divided among more players than 1 or 2 stars oriented teams. It does not mean every player was equally important and equally impacted the game.

And you can also shut the fuck up about stats. You use team ORtg as your argument on team success yet conveniently ignores means of individual ORtg. Selective much? AI was a great player in his own right but you suck his cock way too much. Difference is that I don't make Billups what he wasn't, but mostly judge solely on what he did and what happened, rather than sticking to fantasy theories, what could have been, fake/biased narratives, and so on.

I will tell you why, it's only because I said Iverson was a ball thug. You can't handle the truth

LOL when did someone say he wasn't one ? He is.

Problem is not me. It's you diverting discussion to something ridiculous and nonsensical as this on almost every subject. Common sense doesn't apply.

The Pistons were mostly balanced in a sense that ball distribution and scoring role were divided among more players than 1 or 2 stars oriented teams.

Yes because spreading the offense between Billups, Hamilton, R.Wallace, Prince and Okur is equal to Iverson, Ratliff, Mutombo, Mckie and Snow.

And you can also shut the fuck up about stats..

I find statistics most reliable and unbiased in contrast to subjective eye test/stupid-narratives

I lold so hard motherfuckers wanna find me.

I'm not going to get further involved in the Billups-Iverson discussion, because having an argument with you is equal to having unwanted buttsex with a BBC.

The thing is, you're so fucking sophist it's sickening. When you use stats, it's objective and fair and the right way to go (not just on this argument), when someone else uses stats, it's a stretch and unreasonable.

sometimes i think to myself "this guy cannot be that fucking stupid" but you insist on proving me wrong

I sense someone here has some strong sexual interest in our Canadian fellow...

Forum joke mandick to the rescue.

Great, quoting out of context, go on. Make your point now. Like you did with Field Goal Percentage and Efficiency, mind blowing!

I'm not going to get further involved in the Billups-Iverson discussion,

Still flattering yourself much? You were never really considered involved in any discussion happened in this forum, you just don't know enough.

Still flattering yourself much? You were never really considered involved in any discussion happened in this forum, you just don't know enough.

Lol this was an idiotic statement even for you. Considered involved by you ? You just shattered my world.

Silly Steve, NovU only likes big white males.

When did Sauru said that?

When did Sauru said that?

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=95748&p=1731141&hilit=can%27t+be+this+fucking+stupid#p1731141

Sauru and I have quite the history together. At the end of the day, I like the man actually. He speaks bold and from experience, which I can relate to and understand even in disagreement.


Now mandich, are you done with your exceptional braindead entertainment? That's where your value's at in this forum.