Top 40 Players for the 2019 NBA Season

[trojanfan12]

In his eight-year career, he has played in 70 games just two times. Unacceptable for a player of his caliber. For his flaws (outside shooting) I'd still take Giannis over a guy who could get injured at an inopportune time.

lol

You sound older than I do.

I'm inclined to agree re: the number of games, but that's just not how it's done anymore.

I remember the '72 Lakers winning 69 games, having a 33 game win streak and winning the title with the fewest games any of their starters playing in being 77, the fewest number of minutes per game being 34. Wilt was 35, played in all 82 games and averaged 42.3 minutes per game.

Oh, and they used to play back to back to back games fairly often back then too.

But today, it's about "load management" and getting to the playoffs "rested and healthy".

NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!!

 

[trojanfan12]

Chris Paul is old, injury prone and expensive, but i saw some stat where he had some of the best defensive metrics in the league, and he can still shoot and distribute.

I would hate--- HATE- to take that contract- but if you arent looking at the contract- Chris Paul is still a very very good NBA player.

Yeah, the problem certainly isn't that he can't still play. I wouldn't be all that surprised to see a playoff team or near playoff team take on that contract if they think he can make a difference for them.

Of course, that's assuming anyone can find a way to fit him under the cap without giving up too much. Which could be tough.

 

[WiggyRuss]

 

[Bart]

I agree it is close. Been saying that all year.

Not much separating the top 7 or 8.

But penalizing Kawhi for resting during meaningless regular season games so he could dominate the playoffs is a bit silly.

I agree it is close. Been saying that all year.

Not much separating the top 7 or 8.

But penalizing Kawhi for resting during meaningless regular season games so he could dominate the playoffs is a bit silly.

For the record, I do have Kawhi as my current #1 but I can’t honestly overly criticize anyone who doesn’t with the level of talent out there. Kawhi isn’t a clear cut best player in the game yet, and him playing a full season would help a bit to maintain his spot at the top.

 

[Sir Robin Of Camelot]

Here’s one who won’t be on this list.

 

[dtgold88]

Also known as "Wiggy's Theme"

for one guy who was missing you think should be in there? Though no list of yours to compare.

All seriousness, I thought the list was fair. I'm sure some I'd have higher and some lower, but nothing jumped out as being crazy high or low.

 

[dtgold88]

He does have a point. If the Raptors can get the 2nd best record when Kawhi misses over 25% of the games then his team was a lot better than it appears. Maybe the problem with the Raptors in prior years was more about Casey than about the players. Not saying Kawhi isn't a top 3 player but he may not be as great as you might think considering how good his team was without him.

Casey didn't have Kawhi...maybe that was the problem? Or perhaps the Lebron fellow that always seemed to be in his way?

 

[Bart]

Kawhi sat out 22 games last season. Of those games, 13 were against teams that missed the playoffs and another 3 were against teams that had the 7 or 8 seed in the playoffs (Clips, Pistons, Magic). They went 4-5 against playoff teams.

For the most part, the Raptors picked great times to keep Kawhi out and were fortunate that a lot of back-to-backs had at least one crappy team. The Raptors were also without Lowry for 17 games (only a handful of which coincided with games Kawhi missed), Siakam's best run of play didn't come until after the new year and were also without Valanciunas for 2 months before they traded him which left them even thinner. Kawhi made up for all of that when he played during the season. Their record is far closer to .500 without his contributions.

Like I told Tlance, I have Kawhi at #1 currently so it’s not like I don’t see his value but you still can’t ignore that compiling a 77% win record without your star is impressive even if a good portion of those wins were against inferior teams. The Raps also beat some pretty good teams along the way (GSW, LAL {pre Lebron injury}, Jazz, Pacers, and LAC) The Cavs between 2014-15 and 2017-18 had a record of 4-23 without Lebron. The Cavs were putrid without Lebron. The Cavs would have loved a .500 win record, not to mention a nearly .800 win record without him. Even you estimated that the Raptors were a .500 team without Kawhi which is essentially a playoff team in the East. I have serious doubts that the Bucks would be a playoff team without Giannis. With that said, Kawhi deserves to be ranked in the top 3 currently and should be the favorite to be the#1 on most fans list.

 

[Bart]

Casey didn't have Kawhi...maybe that was the problem? Or perhaps the Lebron fellow that always seemed to be in his way?

When Lebron didn't have Kyrie and he still beat them in the ECF that told me a lot. The talent was there to beat Lebron but the Raptors had a mental block which Casey did nothing to remove.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Like I told Tlance, I have Kawhi at #1 currently so it’s not like I don’t see his value but you still can’t ignore that compiling a 77% win record without your star is impressive even if a good portion of those wins were against inferior teams. The Raps also beat some pretty good teams along the way (GSW, LAL {pre Lebron injury}, Jazz, Pacers, and LAC) The Cavs between 2014-15 and 2017-18 had a record of 4-23 without Lebron. The Cavs were putrid without Lebron. The Cavs would have loved a .500 win record, not to mention a nearly .800 win record without him. Even you estimated that the Raptors were a .500 team without Kawhi which is essentially a playoff team in the East. I have serious doubts that the Bucks would be a playoff team without Giannis. With that said, Kawhi deserves to be ranked in the top 3 currently and should be the favorite to be the#1 on most fans list.

I never said they wouldn't be better than other teams would be without their star, just pointed out some things that went in their favor (or, more likely, that their management analyzed and took into consideration when managing Kawhi's off-days).

Bad teams beat good ones sometimes - the Warriors lost to the Pistons 3 days after losing to Toronto, the Jazz loss to the Raptors capped a 4 game losing streak that included losses to Memphis and Minny, the Clippers were playing the second half of a back-to-back a night after needing overtime to beat the Suns. Doesn't mean it's indicative of a squad's abilities as a whole.

 

[Bart]

I never said they wouldn't be better than other teams would be without their star, just pointed out some things that went in their favor (or, more likely, that their management analyzed and took into consideration when managing Kawhi's off-days).

Bad teams beat good ones sometimes - the Warriors lost to the Pistons 3 days after losing to Toronto, the Jazz loss to the Raptors capped a 4 game losing streak that included losses to Memphis and Minny, the Clippers were playing the second half of a back-to-back a night after needing overtime to beat the Suns. Doesn't mean it's indicative of a squad's abilities as a whole.

Yes, bad teams beat good teams. That’s why winning 77% of your games with a nice sample size like 22 games is impressive. All NBA teams are dangerous, on any given night and circumstances can be the cause of increased obstacles. When the Lakers were gunning for the playoffs after Lebron came back from his injury, they lost to the Suns. It’s beating the teams you are suppose to beat is one of the traits of a good team.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Yes, bad teams beat good teams. That’s why winning 77% of your games with a nice sample size like 22 games is impressive. All NBA teams are dangerous, on any given night and circumstances can be the cause of increased obstacles. When the Lakers were gunning for the playoffs after Lebron came back from his injury, they lost to the Suns. It’s beating the teams you are suppose to beat is one of the traits of a good team.

Except as I pointed out earlier, they went 4-5 against teams that can even remotely be classified as good so that 22 game sample size is misleading.

 

[Mecca]

Booker is def a hard guy to rank.

Murray is a tough guy to rank too. He is def. the 2nd best player on a Nuggets team that won a TON of games last year and will likely win a TON of games this year too. Like Middleton- if you are the 2nd best player on a team that is going to win 60 games or close to it- i gotta give you some extra points.

Simmons is probably too low- but you gotta knock guys that cant shoot in todays league where it is so important.

100% agree on all 3 points.

 

[Bart]

Except as I pointed out earlier, they went 4-5 against teams that can even remotely be classified as good so that 22 game sample size is misleading.

Did you even read my post?

 

[buckalis]

this... it's heart me... to watch this!

 

[flyerhawk]

Simmons is probably too low- but you gotta knock guys that cant shoot in todays league where it is so important.

If Simmons could shoot he would be a Top 10 player in the league.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Tobiha over Bensi?

 

[dtgold88]

When Lebron didn't have Kyrie and he still beat them in the ECF that told me a lot. The talent was there to beat Lebron but the Raptors had a mental block which Casey did nothing to remove.

Kawhi a bit better than Derozan. Also added Danny Green and Gasol.

Just sayin'.

 

[dumbledore]

Curry should be top 5 IMO, top 3 even.

Totally agree

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Totally agree

Oh god, who’s alt are you ?