How does Tyreke stack up against past ROY winners?

[FaStRmAn]

Saying Roy is better than Durant is like saying Clyde the Glide was better than Jordan. Not comparing the players, just the comparison level

Clyde the Glide was a pretty damn good player....but he was no Jordan. Not by a long shot..

I'm not sure what was really said here, but I am certain it must have been in jest.

OMG I thought It was just me!!

 

[Kingsguy881]

I'm not sure what was really said here, but I am certian it must have been in jest.

I hope it was, anyway.

 

[LWP777]

Very interesting poll in that it's pretty much divided three ways equally.

 

[Spike]

I voted Lebron James since there is no Lebron< Tyerke option. Lets be honest here Lebron James isn't really that good of a player, if he was well he would have an NBA title, which he is missing. Tim Duncan> Lebron James and thats final or is it the finals. I would put Tyreke in that little equation with Tim and Lebron, but it would put Tyreke at a level that is like comparing Jason williams(Lebron) to Chris Paul(Tyreke).

Lebron is < Tyreke means "less than." If NBA titles are the barometer, then Jordan was a worthless NBA player as well, until his 7th year. Your logic means:

Robert Horry > Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar >Magic Johnson.

If you're OK with that, then I'm OK with your flawed logic.

 

[kingsnation]

lol no he's definitely not on similar to Roy's level yet. That's why some ppl call him underrated, see Brandon play in playoffs.

You can't really mention postseason play yet since Reke's never been there. I'd like to believe that Reke is going to be a beast in the playoffs as well in a couple of seasons.

 

[kingsnation]

Lebron is < Tyreke means "less than." If NBA titles are the barometer, then Jordan was a worthless NBA player as well, until his 7th year. Your logic means:

Robert Horry > Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar >Magic Johnson.

If you're OK with that, then I'm OK with your flawed logic.

Does this mean that there should be a poll option for Robert Horry?

 

[Chupacabra]

While Tyreke is big, he isnt as big as Lebron. 6'8 250lbs moving about as fast as anyone in the NBA is currently an impossible combination to stop. This is a huge advantage for Lebron that seperates him from other elite players. I believe he is the best to ever play his position. Tyreke will end up on an MVP candidate level much like Durant.

 

[rhythmless]

Lebron is < Tyreke means "less than." If NBA titles are the barometer, then Jordan was a worthless NBA player as well, until his 7th year. Your logic means:

Robert Horry > Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar >Magic Johnson.

If you're OK with that, then I'm OK with your flawed logic.

Really stretching the word logic arent you?

Tyreke, barring ANY improvement, is already comparable to Roy. I understand that Roy is usually underrated, and is a great leader to his team. He is of the Duncan ilk, effective leading by example. Check the stats, and Reke is already producing like Brandon. Tyreke has not been tested in the playoffs yet, but has produced some very clutch moments this season.

For any that think Tyreke > Lebron, LBJ is doing 30/7/8.5/1.7/1. He's shooting 50/34/77, respectively. Are you saying that Tyreke can put those numbers up for an entire season? Keep in mind that this is one of the most statistically dominating seasons EVER in the history of the NBA. Nevermind the "no ring no greatness" b/c Tyreke may never get a ring either (knock on wood).

Lebron as a superstar is in a class of his own. After that, I'm willing to listen to discussion on whether Tyreke can best the likes of CP3/Durant/Melo/Wade et al. He's definitely got a good chance.

 

[Superman]

For any that think Tyreke > Lebron, LBJ is doing 30/7/8.5/1.7/1. He's shooting 50/34/77, respectively. Are you saying that Tyreke can put those numbers up for an entire season? Keep in mind that this is one of the most statistically dominating seasons EVER in the history of the NBA.

I don't know how many anticipated that LeBron would do what he's doing in his rookie year. I haven't voted in this poll because it seems silly to do so. I think Tyreke is unique as a player, and while I can hope and dream that he becomes a dominant force in the NBA for years to come, I think it's a pipe dream to expect him to become as good as LeBron. I think he'll wind up in the Dwayne Wade/Chris Paul pool in a few years, and that's pretty doggone good, when you think about it. It's still early, but I think Durant is going to be above that group, but below the LeBron level, at which I think LeBron stands in rare territory by himself at this point as the best, most dominant player in the NBA. I think in 2030, people are going to be talking about LeBron the same way we were talking about Jordan in 2000, assuming he wins a few 'ships.

So I guess these would be my strata, if I were grading these players:

1) LeBron (by himself)
2) Superstars who need no testimony by virtue of their accomplishments: Kobe, Dwight, Nash, Garnett, Duncan, Kidd (from five years ago), and I am projecting and putting Durant here, although he's not proven like these guys are
3) Players a half step below Group 2, but still superstars: Chris Paul, Paul Pierce, Dwayne Wade, Carmelo Anthony, Dirk, Bosh, Roy
4) Bonafide all-stars who aren't able to carry a team to contention: Boozer, Joe Johnson, Deron Williams, David West, Danny Granger, Derrick Rose?, Gasol, Stoudemire, Rondo, Aldridge, Tony Parker, etc.

This is by no means comprehensive, and certainly isn't gospel. Just how I would grade these players. And in Tyreke's case, I think it's unreasonable to expect him to ever reach LeBron status. I don't know if he'll reach that next level either, but to put him in the Dwayne Wade/Chris Paul/Brandon Roy group is probably about right, although I think that he'll be as unique a player as those three are right now, which is why it's hard to box him in to that group.

 

[captain bill]

I don't know how many anticipated that LeBron would do what he's doing in his rookie year. I haven't voted in this poll because it seems silly to do so. I think Tyreke is unique as a player, and while I can hope and dream that he becomes a dominant force in the NBA for years to come, I think it's a pipe dream to expect him to become as good as LeBron. I think he'll wind up in the Dwayne Wade/Chris Paul pool in a few years, and that's pretty doggone good, when you think about it. It's still early, but I think Durant is going to be above that group, but below the LeBron level, at which I think LeBron stands in rare territory by himself at this point as the best, most dominant player in the NBA. I think in 2030, people are going to be talking about LeBron the same way we were talking about Jordan in 2000, assuming he wins a few 'ships.

So I guess these would be my strata, if I were grading these players:

1) LeBron (by himself)
2) Superstars who need no testimony by virtue of their accomplishments: Kobe, Dwight, Nash, Garnett, Duncan, Kidd (from five years ago), and I am projecting and putting Durant here, although he's not proven like these guys are
3) Players a half step below Group 2, but still superstars: Chris Paul, Paul Pierce, Dwayne Wade, Carmelo Anthony, Dirk, Bosh, Roy
4) Bonafide all-stars who aren't able to carry a team to contention: Boozer, Joe Johnson, Deron Williams, David West, Danny Granger, Derrick Rose?, Gasol, Stoudemire, Rondo, Aldridge, Tony Parker, etc.

This is by no means comprehensive, and certainly isn't gospel. Just how I would grade these players. And in Tyreke's case, I think it's unreasonable to expect him to ever reach LeBron status. I don't know if he'll reach that next level either, but to put him in the Dwayne Wade/Chris Paul/Brandon Roy group is probably about right, although I think that he'll be as unique a player as those three are right now, which is why it's hard to box him in to that group.

I like this break down, by tier rather than player, which is why I didn't vote in the poll- I don't think it works to compare player to player. Although I would change up groups 2 and 3 as follows:

2a: players who are top-tier caliber AND have led their teams to championships: Kobe, Duncan, Garnett, Wade
2b: players who should be 2a but came up just a lil short: Dirk, Nash, Kidd Dwight

3: the superstar-caliber players who never became the great leaders and MVP-players they should have, and the players who might get their yet but its still too soon to tell: Melo, Pierce, Paul, Roy, Durant

4: Perennial all-stars


I think its a near-lock that Tyreke will get up to level 3. If he becomes a consistent shooter he will explode and probably reach 2b. Whether he gets to 2a depends on whether he can get a good team around him and how he shows up in the playoffs. Getting to the top tier is a pipe dream, but outside of Lebron, Dwight and Durant, the top talent in the league is getting old fast, and in 5 years I could see Tyrekes name tossed in that mix. Whether he's the top dog depends on (a) how fast Lebron declines and (b) what kind of playoff success the Kings have.

 

[est.1999]

Ok, Derron Williams is better than Chris Paul. And you can't put Dwight and Nash ahea of Carmelo and Dirk. That's crazy talk.

 

[Tetsujin]

Ok, Derron Williams is better than Chris Paul. And you can't put Dwight and Nash ahea of Carmelo and Dirk. That's crazy talk.

You can't compare any of those players too each other. Each of them does something different, though I would agree that Melo should be in the same category as Nash and Dwight, I think Dirk still remains lower than them.

 

[Superman]

I like this break down, by tier rather than player, which is why I didn't vote in the poll- I don't think it works to compare player to player. Although I would change up groups 2 and 3 as follows:

2a: players who are top-tier caliber AND have led their teams to championships: Kobe, Duncan, Garnett, Wade
2b: players who should be 2a but came up just a lil short: Dirk, Nash, Kidd Dwight

I refuse to separate players based on whether they've won championships or not. If that were the case, LeBron would be in 2b, and the only thing Dwayne Wade had that LeBron never has is Shaq before he completely eroded. Kobe would have been in 2b until last season. Kevin Garnett until two years ago. Historically, Karl Malone and Charles Barkley. I think for the purposes of determining how good a player is, you have to ignore the championships angle.

3: the superstar-caliber players who never became the great leaders and MVP-players they should have, and the players who might get their yet but its still too soon to tell: Melo, Pierce, Paul, Roy, Durant

4: Perennial all-stars

And until this year, I would have agreed on Melo, but he has had a really good year, and has assumed a leadership role on his team, and they have a solid chance to go to the Finals.

I think its a near-lock that Tyreke will get up to level 3. If he becomes a consistent shooter he will explode and probably reach 2b. Whether he gets to 2a depends on whether he can get a good team around him and how he shows up in the playoffs. Getting to the top tier is a pipe dream, but outside of Lebron, Dwight and Durant, the top talent in the league is getting old fast, and in 5 years I could see Tyrekes name tossed in that mix. Whether he's the top dog depends on (a) how fast Lebron declines and (b) what kind of playoff success the Kings have.

I separated LeBron from everyone else, not just because he's the best in the NBA, but because he's going to be in the discussion for best ever when it's all said and done, assuming he continues to play at a high level and wins a couple titles (LeBron is only 25 ). I don't think Reke, even if he is at one point the best in the game, is going to be that good. Maybe he'll be a 2a/b level player, but like you, I think it's reasonable to expect him to at least be a top 10 or 15 star in a couple three years.

 

[Superman]

Ok, Derron Williams is better than Chris Paul. And you can't put Dwight and Nash ahea of Carmelo and Dirk. That's crazy talk.

I love Deron Williams, but it's pretty much general consensus* that Chris Paul is better. Paul is an MVP-level player.

Dwight has led his team to the Finals, beating a pretty dominant-looking Cavs team in the process. I have never been that much of a fan of Dirk, but if you want him to be higher, that's fine. Nash is a two-time MVP, and has probably been the most important player to his team in the NBA for the last five years.

Before this season, Melo was just an All-Star caliber player. He's taken a huge step this season, but I'm not putting him on Nash/Dwight/Dirk level. Not yet. Let's see what he does in the playoffs this year.

Edit: I'm gonna step back from my "general consensus" comment and just say that I think Chris Paul is better than Deron Williams. It's certainly arguable.

 

[captain bill]

I refuse to separate players based on whether they've won championships or not. If that were the case, LeBron would be in 2b, and the only thing Dwayne Wade had that LeBron never has is Shaq before he completely eroded. Kobe would have been in 2b until last season. Kevin Garnett until two years ago. Historically, Karl Malone and Charles Barkley. I think for the purposes of determining how good a player is, you have to ignore the championships angle.

Like it or not, championships define how a player is remembered. Malone and Barkeley are remembered in a different category than Olajuan, Jordan and Magic because they could never get that big one.

The only reason Lebron is 1 and not 2b, as of right now, is that he is an insane talent who has a track record of overachieving in the playoffs (until last year). Now that you mention it, I would give him a 1*- which is to say, he is the #1 now, but if he doesn't win a ring his reputation will be diminished to a 2b status and compared more to Malone than Jordan. If he only wins 1 or 2 he will be back in the pack along with Duncan and Kobe but below Shaq. But I'll keep him at 1 because I think he starts winning rings very very soon.

I separated LeBron from everyone else, not just because he's the best in the NBA, but because he's going to be in the discussion for best ever when it's all said and done, assuming he continues to play at a high level and wins a couple titles (LeBron is only 25 ). I don't think Reke, even if he is at one point the best in the game, is going to be that good. Maybe he'll be a 2a/b level player, but like you, I think it's reasonable to expect him to at least be a top 10 or 15 star in a couple three years.

Yeah this makes sense. I suppose what I meant by 1 was unanimous best player in the league, which while is a very small probability for Tyreke to ever be its not impossible, but no, he will never, I think, be remember on par with Lebron unless some major changes happen in the next 5 years.

 

[est.1999]

Dwight didn't beat the cavs. The biggest mismatch nightmare beat the cabs. It was the guard play. They were too big for cle to contain with their small guards. Dwight didn't do much and when they played the lakers it showed why he really shouldn't be considered a superstar. He couldn't score if his life depended on it. He's all Defense, superstars have to to be 2 way players or at least take over a game offensively when their team needs them to. And to say there's a general consensus that Paul is better than williams or that he is a MVP candidate is nonsense too. Cause the NBA markets Paul completely different than they do williams.

 

[Kingster]

Tyreke could be in the same company as Lebron and Durant. But he's got a lot of improving to do before he gets there. He needs the intermediate runner and the outside shot. I think he could be as good defensively as any guard in the league, and his passing skills are outstanding for someone so young. His basketball IQ is very high. I think he's going to have a lot of triple doubles in a couple of years.

 

[Superman]

Dwight didn't beat the cavs. The biggest mismatch nightmare beat the cabs. It was the guard play. They were too big for cle to contain with their small guards. Dwight didn't do much and when they played the lakers it showed why he really shouldn't be considered a superstar. He couldn't score if his life depended on it. He's all Defense, superstars have to to be 2 way players or at least take over a game offensively when their team needs them to. And to say there's a general consensus that Paul is better than williams or that he is a MVP candidate is nonsense too. Cause the NBA markets Paul completely different than they do williams.

I don't mind to just agree to disagree on this, because there really isn't a whole lot separating them, but I dont care how they are marketed. Chris Paul is a better point guard. Mike Bibby used to outperform Steve Nash back in the day, but Nash was alway the better point guard. I backed off the general consensus part, but there's really no doubt in my mind that Paul is better.

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't have a problem jumping in this fray: Paul is >> Deron. At least two >. Its not even really that close, and I'm not even sure how this myth got started that they were comparable players. Paul is an MVP caliber guy who only needs to stay healthy to reach the HOF. He is good at basically everything on the court, and can even shoot a little anymore. Good rebounder for his size. Right there with Rondo as a thief. That's before we get to the points and rebounds.

Deron is really good, but he finally just made his first All Star team, he's a poor rebounder, a worse defender. He's got the floor generalship thing down, but there is a greatness gap there....and its the one that somehow people miss. Not really sure how, but it happens quite a bit with various players.

Now we'll have to see because this has been an injury plagued year for CP3 and his numbers are down closer to Deron's range, but last year he put up:

22.8pts (.503 shooting) 5.5rebs 11.0ast 2.8stl

And that's just a historically great statline. Better than anything Nash ever put up, or Kidd, or Payton, or KJ or Tim Hardaway. You've got to head back to the HOF guys from the 80s (Magic, Zeke) to find that sort of thing. Its extrememly unlikely Deron ever gets close in all those categories. He's a great floor general. But he's not a Great.

 

[est.1999]

I'm not even basing this off head to head competitions. I watch them both play. I love Paul. Been following him since HS. But Derron just shows me more tenacity. More of a will to win. I think he attacks the basket better as well.

 

[Tetsujin]

I'm not even basing this off head to head competitions. I watch them both play. I love Paul. Been following him since HS. But Derron just shows me more tenacity. More of a will to win. I think he attacks the basket better as well.

Will to win is great and all but unfortunately in the NBA sheer talent beats most anything.

 

[est.1999]

You guys really believe the talent level between Paul and Williams is that much apart? Wow

 

[Sparky6string]

On the stat sheet Paul can keep up with Williams but that's it, and only if the stats are being kept in NO. Myth my ***.

 

[Superman]

Like it or not, championships define how a player is remembered. Malone and Barkeley are remembered in a different category than Olajuan, Jordan and Magic because they could never get that big one.

The only reason Lebron is 1 and not 2b, as of right now, is that he is an insane talent who has a track record of overachieving in the playoffs (until last year). Now that you mention it, I would give him a 1*- which is to say, he is the #1 now, but if he doesn't win a ring his reputation will be diminished to a 2b status and compared more to Malone than Jordan. If he only wins 1 or 2 he will be back in the pack along with Duncan and Kobe but below Shaq. But I'll keep him at 1 because I think he starts winning rings very very soon.

This is a philosophical and ideological debate that will probably never be settled. Championships aren't what make a player great. They can immediately and substantially enhance one's resume, but I don't place as much weight on championships as most other people do. If you're going to put Dwayne Wade above Steve Nash, I'm going to argue with you. I am happy that Kevin Garnett finally won a championship, but I don't think any more of him now than I did two years ago.

And as for guys like Dirk and Dwight who very well might still lead their teams to championships, I am not going to downgrade them simply because they haven't yet. Same thing for Jason Kidd, who took the Nets from worst to first overnight, and to the Finals two years in a row.

I just think the whole championships debate can get incredibly superficial. It's not the be-all and end-all to me.

 

[Sparky6string]

This is a philosophical and ideological debate that will probably never be settled. Championships aren't what make a player great. They can immediately and substantially enhance one's resume, but I don't place as much weight on championships as most other people do. If you're going to put Dwayne Wade above Steve Nash, I'm going to argue with you. I am happy that Kevin Garnett finally won a championship, but I don't think any more of him now than I did two years ago.

And as for guys like Dirk and Dwight who very well might still lead their teams to championships, I am not going to downgrade them simply because they haven't yet. Same thing for Jason Kidd, who took the Nets from worst to first overnight, and to the Finals two years in a row.

I just think the whole championships debate can get incredibly superficial. It's not the be-all and end-all to me.

I agree to a point. With Wade I just never saw anyone put their team on their back like that and will a championship. Wade is a great player in my book, better than Nash because of the greatness he exhibited in the finals. I agree with you on Garnett though because he was great already, and he played a lesser role IMO than did Wade for their respective titles.

The guys that came up short during Jordan's reign I'm less critical of whether that be right or wrong. I often hear "...and he would have had a ring too if not for Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls...".

A title places a player's status higher in my mind to some degree but just how much can vary I guess.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I just think the whole championships debate can get incredibly superficial. It's not the be-all and end-all to me.

To be honest I'm kind of on both sides of the fence. I do think championships should reasonably be expected of great players to reach greatest status when all the pieces are in place but you make certain exceptions for guys who are loyal to a terrible organization or guys who are clearly #2 for a decade that just can't get past #1. And by the same token there are some guys who are very-very-very good but not great who were key components of multiple championship teams and you don't elevate them just because of that.

 

[Superman]

I agree to a point. With Wade I just never saw anyone put their team on their back like that and will a championship. Wade is a great player in my book, better than Nash because of the greatness he exhibited in the finals. I agree with you on Garnett though because he was great already, and he played a lesser role IMO than did Wade for their respective titles.

The guys that came up short during Jordan's reign I'm less critical of whether that be right or wrong. I often hear "...and he would have had a ring too if not for Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls...".

A title places a player's status higher in my mind to some degree but just how much can vary I guess.

Absolutely how I feel. And I'm not knocking Dwayne Wade, but I don't see a need to knock Steve Nash, either. Anyone who has watched him play the last five years understands that he belongs in that upper strata. I think he was slowing down last year, but he is right back where he was before this year, and his team is ready to contend again.

And yeah, most of the guys who lost to the Bulls, like Stockton and Malone, Gary Payton, Barkley and KJ, Clyde, even Ewing, it's kind of hard to dog them out, and in the same breath praise Olajuwan and Duncan and Robinson, who just missed the Jordan buzzsaw.

 

[Superman]

To be honest I'm kind of on both sides of the fence. I do think championships should reasonably be expected of great players to reach greatest status when all the pieces are in place but you make certain exceptions for guys who are loyal to a terrible organization or guys who are clearly #2 for a decade that just can't get past #1. And by the same token there are some guys who are very-very-very good but not great who were key components of multiple championship teams and you don't elevate them just because of that.

Yeah, I'm not trying to be dogmatic about it. I just can't separate players solely because one has a ring and the other doesn't. Steve Nash > Chauncey Billups, you know? Regardless of rings.

And of course, as a Pats fan, you have to hold on to the rings argument...

 

[pdxKingsFan]

And of course, as a Pats fan, you have to hold on to the rings argument...

Yeah well I resisted the urge to cheap shot you there

I am torn on the Jordan era guys because frankly I think the biggest knock on the Jordan era is the level of competition, but that's basically holding it against the other guys for not playing on teams as loaded as the Bulls were.

 

[Superman]

Yeah well I resisted the urge to cheap shot you there

Well it's all you have anymore...

I am torn on the Jordan era guys because frankly I think the biggest knock on the Jordan era is the level of competition, but that's basically holding it against the other guys for not playing on teams as loaded as the Bulls were.

Agreed.