Mr. Big Shot Chauncey Billups Retires

[Retroswald13]

Today, 2004 NBA Finals MVP Chauncey Billups, who spent 17 years in the league retires.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/chauncey-b ... -013208928

[Andrew]

Not too surprising after 17 years, and quite a few injuries in recent times. His career was kind of rocky at times with the way he was seemingly traded here, there, and everywhere, especially early on, but nevertheless he had a career that I'm sure a lot of players would love to have. I remember that quite a few of us had him as one of the top ten point guards of the three point era when we had those discussions a few years back, and I think that assessment still holds up. Hats off to him, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Pistons look to retire his number at some point.

[NovU]

He's a HOF both on and off the court, one of the underrated players in our time in my book.

I wonder how it would have been like if the Celtics didn't trade him in the first place. The Celtics screwed up.

[2K Kobe]

Congratulations to Chauncey on retirement and hats off to one of my favorite players of all time for a spectacular career

[_Steve_]

I wouldn't be surprised too much to see Billups joining the coaching ranks more sooner than later.

[Spree#8]

Not sure if he's a HOF player, but a very good career nonetheless and the Pistons might think about retiring his jersey. A bit of a journeyman early in his career, but he had a great run in Detroit and did pretty well in his stint in Denver afterwards. After 2011 though, his body clearly gave out, he was only capable of playing about 20 games a season and likely shoud have retired a bit sooner. What I remember most about Billups is that he's probably one of the best of all-time at shooting threes off the dribble.

one of the underrated players in our time

How so? He's a 5-time All-Star and 3-time All-NBA member. He also has a Finals MVP that he only got because someone had to (playing for an extremely balanced team without a clear-cut best player, a lot like Leonard this year) and 2 All-Defense nods that he only got because he happened to play on a great defensive team - that was great defensively because of Wallaces and Prince, not Billups. I don't understand how exactly he's underrated.

[Alpha_]

What a great player and a great leader inside and off the court. Sad to see him retire. It makes me feel like I'm getting old.

[Lamrock]

Finally - playing for Detroit, he's pretty much been out of the league these last two seasons. Now we don't have to deal with him still being rated as a borderline all-star in the default 2K rosters.

I kid of course. Billups is one of my all-time favorite players, and he'd better make the HOF. He was incredible with the Pistons, and was by far the best player Carmelo Anthony ever played with. Classy guy on and off the court.

[NovU]

Lamrock, he's a HOF by any standard. In recent history, only a handful of point guards registered seasons with 125+ ORtg as a primary facilitator while remaining competent on defensive end. Actually CP3(twice) and John Stockton(3 times) are the only two that did it. That alone shows how crazy good Billups was. He's also done it twice.

Not sure if he's a HOF player, but a very good career nonetheless and the Pistons might think about retiring his jersey. A bit of a journeyman early in his career, but he had a great run in Detroit and did pretty well in his stint in Denver afterwards. After 2011 though, his body clearly gave out, he was only capable of playing about 20 games a season and likely shoud have retired a bit sooner. What I remember most about Billups is that he's probably one of the best of all-time at shooting threes off the dribble.

one of the underrated players in our time

How so? He's a 5-time All-Star and 3-time All-NBA member. He also has a Finals MVP that he only got because someone had to (playing for an extremely balanced team without a clear-cut best player, a lot like Leonard this year) and 2 All-Defense nods that he only got because he happened to play on a great defensive team - that was great defensively because of Wallaces and Prince, not Billups. I don't understand how exactly he's underrated.

You just self explained why he's underrated. That's how he's merely perceived by uninformed, a good PG that was lucky to be on a balanced team.

Ben Wallace was similar to Mutombo that AI had. AI was instrumental to Sixers' success. Billups also for the successful 200X Pistons team.

[Andrew]

I think it's fair to call him a tad underrated. As I said, there's a very good case for him being one of the top ten point guards of the three point era, yet he's probably not someone who would spring immediately to mind.

[benji]

Finally - playing for Detroit, he's pretty much been out of the league these last two seasons. Now we don't have to deal with him still being rated as a borderline all-star in the default 2K rosters.

You shut up, I needed a decent backup point guard with a cheap contract.

[Lamrock]

You must play with player roles off, then.

[benji]

I never said he was happy about it.

[Spree#8]

You just self explained why he's underrated. That's how he's merely perceived by uninformed, a good PG that was lucky to be on a balanced team.

Ben Wallace was similar to Mutombo that AI had. AI was instrumental to Sixers' success. Billups also for the successful 200X Pistons team.

This comparison is way off and I find it hard to believe you don't notice that.

Billups was likely their best offensive player, but was carrying half the load AI was and had good offensive teammates. Rip was their leading scorer and in his prime, he was one of the best off-ball scorers ever. He had Sheed who was a threat from inside and outside - and the best two-way player on that Pistons team. He had Prince shooting corner threes and two bigmen with 3-point range in Sheed and Okur to space the floor. How can you possibly compare that to the '01 Sixers? The only similarity is a shot-blocking defensive anchor in the middle who is strong on the glass and pretty inept on offense.

Billups was indeed a good point guard who succeeded when he had really nice pieces around him, both in Detroit and Denver. He deserves credit for it, but don't make him out to be more than he was. He didn't single-handedly elevate the offense from horrible to mediocre (or from mediocre to elite, in a better situation) like Iverson could or single-handedly turn his team around - just a good player whose contributions can be extremely valuable in the right situation. He was an efficient, moderate volume scorer and a good, smart floor general, facilitator type, but a rather mediocre playmaker who also happened to play on a great defensive team in his prime and thus many people wrongly assume he was an impressive defender (the two All-Defense nominations). Top 5 PG in the league for a few years, but never seriously considered for #1 in the league and not a superstar by any stretch of imagination.

So... no, I don't think I had just answered my own question.

I think it's fair to call him a tad underrated. As I said, there's a very good case for him being one of the top ten point guards of the three point era, yet he's probably not someone who would spring immediately to mind.

Could also make a case he's closer to 20 than 10. By what measures do you consider him underrated? Like I said, he's a 5-time All-Star and has 3 All-NBA appearances. How many do you think he deserved?

Accolades aren't gospel of course, but they do give a pretty good idea of how a player is perceived/rated by the mainstream, so I think it's a good place to start when talking about how over/underrated someone is.

[Andrew]

I still think he makes a good case for top ten, but he's certainly top twenty. But again, is he a player that would necessarily immediately spring to mind when that discussion comes up? When we were having that discussion here, I have to admit that I didn't immediately think of him as being a candidate for the top ten, but when I went back and looked at his numbers, it became more difficult to argue that he didn't belong on that list.

"Underrated" and "overrated" are admittedly pretty subjective terms, frequently used to justify a personal opinion rather than state an objective point of view. In online discussions in particular, "underrated" tends to mean "I hold (whatever) in high regard, but most people don't", usually with the implication that "and that makes me smarter than most people". Conversely, "overrated" tends to mean "most people think (whatever) is really good, but I don't think so/I think it actually sucks", generally carrying the same unspoken assertion. When it comes to something or someone being underrated or overrated, the question is, "by whom?".

In Billups' case, I think it's possible that he is somewhat underrated among NBA/basketball fans. Yes, he has those accolades, but they're not really a reflection of fan opinion. His All-NBA selections and Finals MVP are accolades that are voted on by the media. NBA coaches were the ones selecting him to those All-Star teams, not the fan voting. I don't think many people would have objected to him receiving those accolades, but is he really spoken of that frequently in historical debates, such as the top ten point guards of the three point era? When discussions of the top five point guards in the league came up during the best seven year stretch of his career, was his name mentioned enough? And even though members of the media appreciated his accomplishments enough to award him with those honours, did his name come up enough when they were debating those subjects?

That's what I'm talking about when I suggest that he may have been slightly underrated; not that his play and accomplishments went completely unnoticed, but that he was sometimes overlooked, or that there was sometimes a lack of appreciation for his abilities. I don't know that I'd agree with NovU that he's one of the most underrated players in our time, but as far as being a little underrated, or at times overlooked...yeah, I'd say that's possible.

[NovU]

Billups was likely their best offensive player, but was carrying half the load AI was and had good offensive teammates.

That good offensive teammate you speak of is Richard Hamilton who was slightly above average player in terms of offense. (League avg shooting with bit of ast%) That's also the same guy who hated Iverson that refused to high five AI(coming back to bench during timeouts) and was a part of crew that isolated Iverson in Detroit. Well, his decline was significant with AI's arrival and departure of Billups. So I guess he had a good excuse for sudden stinker, Figures,

Btw carrying more load on offense doesn't mean always 'good' for the team. Number of possession is finite. You have one great efficient player, it allows you to get away with not so efficient player (aka need ball in hands to be effective aka Nick Young, Larry Hughes). Billups was a great efficient player at moderate usage, is part of reason why many others liked playing alongside him.





You are also overlooking the fact that Billups had years when he played both with and without Ben, Sheed, and Okur in his career and yet the team was always successful.

[shadowgrin]

Iverson was isolated by a crew of players in Detroit?
Sheed loved Iverson. Hamilton even agreed with Iverson that Michael Curry is a terrible coach.
Then there's Prince and McDyess, don't know their stance but those 4 players were the ones that mattered during Iverson's stay in Detroit.
The rest are young players or just scrubs that don't mean a thing if they did shun Iverson.

[NovU]

I have to rephrase, isolated by management.

[_Steve_]

I think the perception of Billups as an All Star / MVP took a hit due to his injuries and his reduced role over the last couple of seasons. He deserved those accolades well, but declined heavily recently.

[Mandich]

I think the perception of Billups as an All Star / MVP took a hit due to his injuries and his reduced role over the last couple of seasons. He deserved those accolades well, but declined heavily recently.

MVP ? He was never the best player on a team.

[Spree#8]

I still think he makes a good case for top ten, but he's certainly top twenty. But again, is he a player that would necessarily immediately spring to mind when that discussion comes up? When we were having that discussion here, I have to admit that I didn't immediately think of him as being a candidate for the top ten, but when I went back and looked at his numbers, it became more difficult to argue that he didn't belong on that list.

I agree on him being top twenty, not so much top ten. In any order, I consider the 9 following PGs no-brainers over Billups: Magic Johnson, Steve Nash, John Stockton, Jason Kidd, Chris Paul, Gary Payton, Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway, Isiah Thomas. If I haven't forgotten someone, the tenth spot could be for Billups, but I don't know what exactly makes him better than Mark Price, Terry Porter, Tony Parker or even Sam Cassell, to be honest. I'd probably lean towards Parker to round up the top10. Penny Hardaway should also get consideration - despite obvious longevity issues, before his injuries he was a better player than Billups ever was, with Billups being more consistent and dependable long-term.

In Billups' case, I think it's possible that he is somewhat underrated among NBA/basketball fans. Yes, he has those accolades, but they're not really a reflection of fan opinion. His All-NBA selections and Finals MVP are accolades that are voted on by the media. NBA coaches were the ones selecting him to those All-Star teams, not the fan voting. I don't think many people would have objected to him receiving those accolades, but is he really spoken of that frequently in historical debates, such as the top ten point guards of the three point era? When discussions of the top five point guards in the league came up during the best seven year stretch of his career, was his name mentioned enough? And even though members of the media appreciated his accomplishments enough to award him with those honours, did his name come up enough when they were debating those subjects?

That's what I'm talking about when I suggest that he may have been slightly underrated; not that his play and accomplishments went completely unnoticed, but that he was sometimes overlooked, or that there was sometimes a lack of appreciation for his abilities. I don't know that I'd agree with NovU that he's one of the most underrated players in our time, but as far as being a little underrated, or at times overlooked...yeah, I'd say that's possible.

Well, the people who only watch highlight reels and PPG stats and make their judgments based on that wouldn't know about Billups as he wasn't very flashy nor was he ever mentioned in the same sentence with legit superstars of the league (and rightfully so). On the other hand, the people who truly follow the NBA are probably well aware of Billups and the player he was, especially with all the rather powerful and mainstream narrative he received after the 2004 playoffs and Finals MVP (and how he gained his nickname and an overrated clutch reputation based on hitting ONE clutch shot) and after he magically "elevated" the Nuggets in 2009. The fact that he was never voted in as a starter for the ASG is hardly surprising. Voting for Billups - even in his prime - over Wade/Iverson/Carter/Kidd (Detroit) or Bryant/Paul/Nash (Denver) is a pretty tough sell, especially in a popularity contest. He was getting some votes though and ended up playing in the ASG five times in his best 7 years, which automatically recognizes him as a top5 PG of that stretch. Can't say I remember exactly what fans were saying back then, but I believe the narrative did its job.

That good offensive teammate you speak of is Richard Hamilton who was slightly above average player in terms of offense. (League avg shooting with bit of ast%)

The consistent leading scorer of a perennial contender and the closest thing they had to a volume scorer was "slightly above average"? Prime Hamilton was an elite off-screen scorer who was dependable, required constant attention from the defense and - as already mentioned - didn't need the ball in his hands to be effective, allowing Billups to dominate it.

If you're willing to give so much credit to Billups for leading the offense of an extremely balanced team, you can't just dismiss the guy who was always the #1 scoring option for that same team. There's more to being a scorer than TS%, you know.

That's also the same guy who hated Iverson that refused to high five AI(coming back to bench during timeouts) and was a part of crew that isolated Iverson in Detroit. Well, his decline was significant with AI's arrival and departure of Billups. So I guess he had a good excuse for sudden stinker, Figures,

'09 Rip is obviously a different story. Dumars tricked him into signing a 3-year extension without telling him that his besty bud Billups would get traded 2 hours later. Guy got pissed, so did Dice, Sheed didn't give a shit anymore, AI soon realized he was brought there to expire, toxic team chemistry ensued.

BTW, a big part of the drop in Rip's advanced stats in that '09 season is trying to play like Iverson towards the end of the regular season (after Iverson already got "injured") which made him a turnover machine. We talked about this.

Hamilton even agreed with Iverson that Michael Curry is a terrible coach.

That's true. Both Iverson and Hamilton also openly accused Curry of lying to them on multiple occasions.

The Detroit crew may not have hated Iverson himself, but they were pissed about the entire front office/coaching staff situation and AI was caught in the middle of that. All in all, blaming Iverson for the Pistons falling apart and having bad chemistry (which the mainsteam media has been doing ever since 09) is ignorant, though helped by him eventually bailing on the team after everything already got messed up and AI already knew he wasn't even wanted there.

Btw carrying more load on offense doesn't mean always 'good' for the team.

Clearly, it depends on the situation. With Iverson on the Sixers, taking the amount of shots he did was the best thing to do. With Billups on the Pistons, taking that many shots would be stupid, because - again - the team was very balanced with many scoring threats and Billups not even being the biggest one of them.

The point was that it's easier to be efficient on smaller usage than on higher usage. Therefore, comparing the TS% of someone with 15% USG to someone with 30% USG, taking it at face value and using it to decide who's the better scorer isn't likely to yield truthful results. If the 30% USG guy wasn't good at scoring, nobody sane would allow him to be a 30% USG guy, especially if there are better options on the team.

You are also overlooking the fact that Billups had years when he played both with and without Ben, Sheed, and Okur in his career and yet the team was always successful.

Because when he no longer had pieces such as Ben, Rip, Sheed, Okur etc., they were replaced by pieces like McDyess, Melo, Nene, K-Mart and so on. The team was successful with Billups, not entirely because of Billups. Switch out good pieces for other good pieces and you should be fine, as long as the new pieces aren't a terrible fit to you and each other.

[NovU]

I agree on him being top twenty, not so much top ten. In any order, I consider the 9 following PGs no-brainers over Billups: Magic Johnson, Steve Nash, John Stockton, Jason Kidd, Chris Paul, Gary Payton, Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway, Isiah Thomas. If I haven't forgotten someone, the tenth spot could be for Billups,

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.

Just for a taste here are obvious ones:

The consistent leading scorer of a perennial contender and the closest thing they had to a volume scorer was "slightly above average"?

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!

It doesn't matter if someone else is a leading scorer over CP3 and puts up bigger numbers. CP3 is the best player on any team he's been to. It doesn't matter if Jeff Hornacek scored more and recorded higher usage consistently, John Stockton was the man on Jazz team.

didn't need the ball in his hands to be effective, allowing Billups to dominate it.

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

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.

Clearly, it depends on the situation. With Iverson on the Sixers, taking the amount of shots he did was the best thing to do. With Billups on the Pistons, taking that many shots would be stupid, because - again - the team was very balanced with many scoring threats and Billups not even being the biggest one of them.

This is the problem. It's all situational, isn't it.

Interpretation is simply too subjective and biased. Taking the amount of shots was the best thing to do but this also largely benefited AI. 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. Just ask Melo's teammates.

The point was that it's easier to be efficient on smaller usage than on higher usage. Therefore, comparing the TS% of someone with 15% USG to someone with 30% USG, taking it at face value and using it to decide who's the better scorer isn't likely to yield truthful results. If the 30% USG guy wasn't good at scoring, nobody sane would allow him to be a 30% USG guy, especially if there are better options on the team.

As a matter of fact, highly efficient and productive players at moderate usage like Billups is indeed a rare commodity.

The team benefits a lot from having efficient players as much as having players that can score on higher usage. John Stockton is a career 18.9% usage player and only near 20% in his prime. But he's arguably the second best PG historically. Carmelo is a historical ball hog just like Iverson (by needs whatever) but significantly less of player when it comes to winning. The point you are trying to make is less solid than notion that some players need ball in their hands to be truly effective.





Reality is that Billups was exceptional in what he did, thus benefiting the team greatly. Any team in this league is going to benefit from having a player that can do 17+ ppg on high percentage, 7 ast on low TO ratio, while maintaining moderate usage rate(around 22%) and still being a competent defensive player. This is regardless the situation, you just fucking put him on the floor unconditionally.(if one of your player can do 20+ PER on 21 usage rate, put the guy in that position and milk it! If you don't, you are in-fucking-competent regardless that fucking situations) Because there is nobody else you want to award his usage to and replace his productivity level(CP3 exception). His moderate usage was great because players that can score at moderate rate are not too hard to find in this league. 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. Again possessions are finite. AI cried about ball going through him 1 in 6 times during some stretch. But he still recorded 26% usage rate, lol.

[Mandich]

Any team in this league is going to benefit from having a player that can do 17+ ppg on high percentage,

For a guy who is so high on the usage on stats (which I mostly agree), you should know that Billups was a career .415% shooter.
Iverson was .425.

I'll just jump in and say that Billups was a very good player. His Pistons team was clearly more evenly balanced with more offensive firepower than Iversons finals Sixers, thus Spree saying that Iverson had to take more offensive responsibility. If Iverson didn't score on that team, who would ? If you can't see something as clear as this, maybe your discussion with Spree is in fact meaningless.

[_Steve_]

If you want to compare shooting, look at how many of Billups' shots came from 3pt range and check AI's numbers.

[Mandich]

Who said I was comparing them as long distance shooters ? Jesus why do people always put words in your mouth.

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE.