Billups was the best point guard of the 2000s, people talk about Nash or Iverson but Chauncey was the only one to win a ring as the best player on his team. Advanced stats had him peaking as the 3rd best player in the NBA fwiw.
Chauncey was the face of an NBA championship team, Finals MVP, and perennial contender. Vince was a cultural icon in the early 2000s and played for parts of 4 decades, changing his role substantially every few seasons. Both are easy HOFers
Vince is HOF worthy just by jumping over that French dude. If he played today, he'd jump over Wemby too.
Vince is easy IMO. But Chauncey? Nah Was Chauncey Billups even the best player on that team? Ben Wallace, Rasheed, Hamilton - you could argue he was the best. You could also argue he was the 4th best. Also his college career was pretty meh. 18 ppg, 22-10 Colorado team that lost in the 2nd round Pretty middling team USA career. One FIBA world cup in a tournament that KD dominated Not impressed by his selection. I know he was selected as a player but like, was he really that much better than Deron Williams or Andre Miller?
Yes, he was considered the best player on that team, particularly during their finals run, he was Finals MVP. Yes, they were a 5 strong starting lineup, but Billups was the unquestionable leader of the team. Billups and Ben are the 2 players from that team that are clear HOFers imo. Billups also helped lead the Nuggets to the most success in their franchise history to that point, back to back 50 win seasons and a trip to the WCF. Easy choice.
I don't consider him the best player on the team. And I was around them. He averaged 16 points and 6 assists the year they won the finals That's ****ing meh as hell. Upped it to 20 in a 4-1 finals sweep. He was fine - it was a boring team in a boring era. At no time was anybody up there saying "oh wow this makes Chauncey Billups a first ballot HOF player" . Mostly people were just laughing at the Lakers.
Chauncey is one of the best arguments you can make for the utilization of advanced stats over basic counting stats. The man simply contributed to winning at a rate disproportionate to his box score numbers. At his peak if you like WS and WS/48, he was the 2nd or 3rd best player in the NBA, and was the best point guard in the NBA prior to CP3's emergence, bolstered by demolishing Chris in their one playoff matchup. If Billups doesn't belong in the hall, than neither do Iverson or Nash.
Of course Billups would not make it on stats alone, guess what, those guys were scoring 95 or 96 points per game...... How much stats can you squeeze out of that? And they were holding teams to under 89 or 90 pts per game Detroit at that time had balanced attack but that leader was clearly Chauncey. Even a non Offense guy like Tayshaun Prince was averaging 11 or 12 per game. IIRC Rip Hamilton was scoring the most with 17 or 19 ppg. Sheed was up there as well.
I'm sure Chauncey was a fine point of attack defender compared to like - idk, Steve Nash or Francis at the time ? - but he's not remotely close to Ben Wallace or Rasheed Wallace's impact. Was he even better than Tayshaun Prince? I doubt it. That's just life. He's a mediocre at best HOF even by the lower standards of Springfield I don't care, mind you, but he's definitely on the lower stratum of recent inductees
The league has watered down.......at some point you get people like Jamal Murray in.....also not that stats friendly. It is just coming......... If you compare Billups to Mike or even Isiah Thomas.....he is not that obviously. Billups is more iconic because of his Big Shot Chauncey abilities, Defense and Utility......and because he has that mean 90s mug..... Yao Ming was voted HOF because of his global charisma and not 100% basketball reasons either because it was pretty short career.
That's very revisiony. He was not that good in 2006, his peak - that 1 year he posted an elite win share # - because he played the most minutes as the Pistons laid waste tona weak sauce EC. That's just not that good. I mean, it is good in the context of that season, but all time? I don't see it. sure he was a top 10 quality player that one year - but that's all it shows. Frankly I think it's the opposite - Chauncey Billups - - in his very brief peak - is the poster boy for how WS/48 falls short and things like PER or counting stats are useful metrics. Doesn't hold a candle to Iverson or Nash, even via a statistic lense (and the contribution of those 2 as Vince goes way, way beyond WS or VORP or BPM)
