Really though, all love aside. Nate.

We have gone around on this already. While his team was 15th in pace, the teams actual offensive numbers were only up slightly. 87.9 to 89.9.

Portland under Nate has gone 87.6, 88.3, 87.9, 86.6


Hollinger actually has the Blazers at 89.9 for this last season. The same pace that Nate had at Seattle when his team was 15th. Portland this last year was 30th

 

I love Clyde. I have always loved Clyde. I believe his one of the 50 best players of all time.

He is not, nor has he ever been the 2nd best player in the NBA. He has never been the 5th best player in the NBA. When he was in the league, so were Barkley, Shaq, Robinson, The Dream, Jordan, the Mailman, Stockton, Magic, Abdul Jabbar, Isiah Thomas, Dominique Wilkins, Larry Bird, Pippen, etc... Clyde was awesome in an era of the NBA where the talent was absolutely off the charts. Unfortunately, I don't think he was the fifth best player on this list.

This has a whole lot more to do with the other players then it has to do with Clyde.

 

Fast and slow are relative terms - or at least this is my car-racing background that comes into play. You want to get there first as slow as you can... (or go only as fast as you need to get to first place). If the team is 15th in the league - it is not slow. Is 100MPH fast or slow? Fast for a Model T, Slow for a 757...

Actually, he has them at 29th - but since offensive rebounds make a possession longer - Portland's fantastic offensive rebounding skews their pace - let's look at it:

Portland had 12.9 OR/G
NOH - 9.7
SAS - 8.9
....

Memphis - 10.3

I got tired of looking after Memphis - which was, in theory - 21st in the league in pace. Their pace was 92.5 compared to the Blazer's 89.9 - but since the Blazers had 2.6 more offensive rebounds per game than Memphis - they had, in theory - the same amount of possessions as Memphis did if they rebounded, offensively, only as good as Memphis did.

Portland is not a fast running team and they should play faster - but were not, this year, as slow as you paint them.

 

Must be that I am not the savant you are, but I don't get it.

 

I did, and Drexler was just as effective a 2 as they were at their pos.

Was runner up in MVP voting. I'm pretty sure that means he was the 2nd best player in the league that year... when they lost in the finals with Adleman as coach.

 

Jesus Christ.

have a word with yourself.

The original argument was that Adelman never had a top 5 player. According to MVP voters he was top 2 for at least 1 season. CD was a top 5 player for 3 seasons.

Larry bird was not as good as Drexler in the early 90's. Drexler was better than john fvcking stockton thats for sure.

Some of you are embarrassing.

 

I don't think ranking at one's position is what matters. What matters is a player's total value. There were seasons that Mark Price was arguably the second-best point guard in the NBA, that didn't make him equivalent in value to the second-best center in the league (someone like David Robinson).

I'm pretty sure it means nothing of the sort. Steve Nash was not the best player in basketball the seasons he won MVP. Jordan was best player in basketball more than five years, despite winning only five MVP awards.

 

No of course not





Exactly what are you using to gauge "top 5" status? Commercials?


To say over that 3 years stretch when the Blazers went to 2 finals and a WCF that Drexler was not a top 5 player is ridiculous.

 

Production on the court plus defense.

You're welcome to that opinion. I'd rather have had Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Karl Malone, David Robinson or Charles Barkley over that time frame.

 

It is interesting that none of those players won when Jordan played though, so what does it really matter? Clyde was a great talent who couldn't beat Jordan. Same for the others.

 

Honestly. How old are you?

 

A. Hakeem Olajuwon, Karl Malone, David Robinson couldn't beat Clyde.

B. It matters because the subject is if Adleman had a top 5 player. You should read the thread.

 

I didn't say Barkley was good defender. I said player value is based on their on-court production and their defense. In Barkley's case, it is obviously not his defense that elevates him.

 

Then why would you take Barkley or Drexler?

CB got more REB's. Drexler Got more assts. It's basically a offensive push with Drexler being the better defender.

 

Over the three seasons you referred to, Drexler put up the following PERs: 22.2, 22.1, 23.6

Over those seasons, Barkley put up the following PERs: 27.1, 28.9, 24.5

The disparity in their production (Barkley was a dominating rebounder and scored as much as Drexler but at a much higher efficiency, which isn't evened out by Drexler's edge in assists) is greater than their disparity in defense, IMO. Drexler wasn't a great defender, he was about an average one. Barkley was a poor one. I don't think that that overwhelms an average difference of 4.2 PER over those three seasons, which is a large difference in the PER system.

I will admit that it was pretty close in Drexler's MVP runner-up year. So you could say that Adelman had a player that was around top-five for one season. Of course that was the season (1991-92) that the Blazers lost to the Bulls and the #1 player. Adelman failing to beat those Bulls in the one season that he had a near top-five player isn't a black mark against him, to me.