NBA '17

[JWags85]

Just wondering. Could you cite one reference - just one - where someone said Bo only recruits 1-stars?

Your argument loses ALL credibility when you have to make things up to further it.

It was a purposefully exaggeration to highlight the absurdity of the argument.  In neither case is it quite as bleak as its made out to be.  Both are very good at what they do without amplification of the circumstances supposedly preventing success.

And respect MU82, appreciate your honesty.

[brewcity77]

Just wondering. Could you cite one reference - just one - where someone said Bo only recruits 1-stars?

Your argument loses ALL credibility when you have to make things up to further it.

It really doesn't, it was obvious hyperbole.

[Jockey]

It was a purposefully exaggeration to highlight the absurdity of the argument.  In neither case is it quite as bleak as its made out to be.  Both are very good at what they do without amplification of the circumstances supposedly preventing success.

And respect MU82, appreciate your honesty.

I accept that you were exaggerating for emphasis and apologize for missing your meaning, so let me go it it another way.

You said the following as a defense of Kyrie. "You called Kyrie a flea for gods sake.  This is the classic mantra of Lebron fans.  The need to denegrate everyone around him to pump his myth.  "Lebron's supporting cast is basically D-League" is the "Bo Ryan only recruits 1 stars and turns them into All Conference" nonsense of the NBA.


My response is to look at the record. In the past 3 years, LeBron has sat for 17 games that Irving started. And, Kevin Love only missed 2 of those games. The result? 4-13.

So with the same guys LBJ took to the Finals 3 years in a row, Irving lost over 3/4 of the games when James wasn't on the floor. 

[wadesworld]

I accept that you were exaggerating for emphasis and apologize for missing your meaning, so let me go it it another way.

You said the following as a defense of Kyrie. "You called Kyrie a flea for gods sake.  This is the classic mantra of Lebron fans.  The need to denegrate everyone around him to pump his myth.  "Lebron's supporting cast is basically D-League" is the "Bo Ryan only recruits 1 stars and turns them into All Conference" nonsense of the NBA.


My response is to look at the record. In the past 3 years, LeBron has sat for 17 games that Irving started. And, Kevin Love only missed 2 of those games. The result? 4-13.

So with the same guys LBJ took to the Finals 3 years in a row, Irving lost over 3/4 of the games when James wasn't on the floor.

Which is absolutely, positively meaningless in terms of whether Kyrie can be the man on his own teams. They've played 3 years together, their offense is designed around having 3 superstars, of course they're going to be horrible when the best of them is out. No matter what team it is there takes an adjustment period.

Take the Warriors for example. Early in the year people were saying, "Holy cow, they won a title 2 years ago, 73 games last year, and are struggling out of the gate. Does KD make them worse?!" (Which was absolutely laughable, but people make conclusions based on small, predictable sample sizes). Then they find their way, then KD gets hurt and they lose like 4 in a row. At that point did you think to yourself, "The Warriors can't win a game without KD!" Well, they won a title 2 years ago and set a record for the most wins in the history of the NBA a year ago. They then won 17 straight games or something, followed by 1 loss and then like 18-1 to close out the year.

When a star goes out teams' offenses change and need to adjust. When it's just one random game here or there (in LBJ's case) there's no time (or need) to adjust.

[MerrittsMustache]

That top-50 NBA team was selected in 1997. A lot of damn good players have come along since then, and I'm not sure Pippen would make the cut if the vote were taken again today. Off the top of my bald head: Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Duncan, Garnett, Nash - all no-brainers ahead of Pip. Dirk, probably. Pierce and Chris Paul, quite possibly. Maybe a few others. Now, of course Pip might still make it ahead of some others from his era and earlier who were chosen for that top-50 team, but there were more than a few folks back in '97 who thought he was a borderline choice to begin with. 

I do respect what Pippen brought to those Bulls, but I think I have a pretty good fix on where he fits on the Greatness Scale.

You're allowed to disagree. That's the whole idea of fun sports discussions!

I wasn't specifically referencing the Top 50 from 1997, but if re-done, Pippen would still be on there.

Dirk over Pippen? Definitely. Garnett? Doubtful. Steve Nash? No. Paul Pierce? If he didn't play in Boston, he'd be Adrian Dantley. Chris Paul? Maybe, but he's never come close to winning anything. I'd also put Durant ahead of Pippen even with a lot of years left in his career.

There are several other active players with a good chance to be all-timers as well - Davis, Curry, Leonard, Harden, Giannis, Westbrook, Towns.

[Jockey]

Which is absolutely, positively meaningless in terms of whether Kyrie can be the man on his own teams. They've played 3 years together, their offense is designed around having 3 superstars, of course they're going to be horrible when the best of them is out. No matter what team it is there takes an adjustment period.

Maybe - but do you think that the Cavs with James and without Kyrie would go 3-14?

Kyrie is a really great scorer. That is pretty much the extent of his game.

[MerrittsMustache]

Maybe - but do you think that the Cavs with James and without Kyrie would go 3-14?

Kyrie is a really great scorer. That is pretty much the extent of his game.

For comparison, Cleveland went 20-9 without Kyrie in the 2015-16 regular season and 4-3 in the 2014-15 Playoffs without him.

If Cleveland can get Bledsoe, Jackson and a (protected) #1 from Phoenix, they should jump on it. Jared Dudley could be a good fit in Cleveland as well.

[wadesworld]

Maybe - but do you think that the Cavs with James and without Kyrie would go 3-14?

Kyrie is a really great scorer. That is pretty much the extent of his game.

Probably not 3-14 no.  But I really don't think those records mean anything.

[GB Warrior]

It was a purposefully exaggeration to highlight the absurdity of the argument.  In neither case is it quite as bleak as its made out to be.  Both are very good at what they do without amplification of the circumstances supposedly preventing success.

And respect MU82, appreciate your honesty.

Can't we all just agree that talking about the Badgers in a thread about NBA-level talent is a bit off topic?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Can't we all just agree that talking about the Badgers in a thread about NBA-level talent is a bit off topic?

Subtle.  Bravo sir

[JWags85]

For comparison, Cleveland went 20-9 without Kyrie in the 2015-16 regular season and 4-3 in the 2014-15 Playoffs without him.

If Cleveland can get Bledsoe, Jackson and a (protected) #1 from Phoenix, they should jump on it. Jared Dudley could be a good fit in Cleveland as well.

Supposedly the Suns wont include Jackson in any deals.  So there's that.

[MerrittsMustache]

Supposedly the Suns wont include Jackson in any deals.  So there's that.

Cleveland wasn't going to include Wiggins in a trade for Kevin Love either.

[MU82]

I wasn't specifically referencing the Top 50 from 1997, but if re-done, Pippen would still be on there.

Dirk over Pippen? Definitely. Garnett? Doubtful. Steve Nash? No. Paul Pierce? If he didn't play in Boston, he'd be Adrian Dantley. Chris Paul? Maybe, but he's never come close to winning anything. I'd also put Durant ahead of Pippen even with a lot of years left in his career.

There are several other active players with a good chance to be all-timers as well - Davis, Curry, Leonard, Harden, Giannis, Westbrook, Towns.

The good news for Scottie is that the next time they do this exercise in 2022, it will be the NBA's 75th anniversary and they'll choose their All-Time 75!

Not sure why you would so casually dismiss a 2-time MVP and 8-time All-Star who carried his teams (Nash) and a 1-time MVP and 15-time All-Star who averaged 20-10-4 for 9 straight seasons (Garnett) vs a 0-time MVP and 7-time All-Star who was a career second fiddle (Pip), but we could quibble about any number of these.

Good call on Durant, who already has had a better career than Pip, and Curry, who is close if not already more impactful.

[GGGG]

I think a lot of people dismiss Garnett for some odd reason. He was a phenomenal player on largely marginal teams. Better than Pip?  No doubt. And I'm a Pip fan.

[wadesworld]

KG might be the second best power forward ever to play the game behind Duncan.  Certainly others have an argument, but KG is right up there.  Only one I can say without a doubt is better is Duncan.

[MU82]

Sultan and wades, we are in agreement. KG was a freakin' stud. Or a studly freak. One of the two best high school players I ever saw in person (LeBron was the other), and obviously a tremendous pro for a long time.

Once he FINALLY got on a team that had a legit chance to win, he won - and he was the driving force behind it.

The more I think about it, he was quite a bit better than Scottie. And yes, I appreciated Scottie's talent very much.

[MerrittsMustache]

As "the man," KG got out of the 1st Round one time in 7 playoff appearances over 12 seasons. He put up amazing numbers in the process but they didn't result in much. Not only couldn't he carry a team close to a title, he could barely get out of the 1st Round and his postseason success didn't come until he was the #3 option.

[wadesworld]

As "the man," KG got out of the 1st Round one time in 7 playoff appearances over 12 seasons. He put up amazing numbers in the process but they didn't result in much. Not only couldn't he carry a team close to a title, he could barely get out of the 1st Round and his postseason success didn't come until he was the #3 option.

3rd option?  Who was 1 and 2 on the C's?

• KG: 18.8 points, 9.2 rebounds, 3.4 assists, 53.9% eFG, 1.4 steals, 1.3 blocks,
   5.5 Value Over Replacement, 12.9 Win Shares
• Paul Pierce: 19.6 points, 5.1 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 52.9% eFG, 1.3 steals, 0.5 blocks, 4.9 VORP, 12.4 WS
• Ray Allen: 17.4 points, 3.7 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 53.7% eFG, 0.9 steals, 0.2 blocks, 3.4 VORP, 9.7 WS
• Rajon Rondo: 10.6 points, 4.2 rebounds, 5.1 assists, 49.6% eFG, 1.7 steals,
   0.2 blocks, 2.7 VORP, 7.2 WS

KG was the best player on that team.  But even if he wasn't, that argument is as lame as it gets when comparing 2 players.  I consider Giannis far better than DeMar DeRozan even though Giannis has never been out of the first round of the Playoffs and DeRozan has been "the man" on a team that has made a Conference Finals.  You could come up with thousands of examples of this in sports.

[MU82]

3rd option?  Who was 1 and 2 on the C's?

• KG: 18.8 points, 9.2 rebounds, 3.4 assists, 53.9% eFG, 1.4 steals, 1.3 blocks,
   5.5 Value Over Replacement, 12.9 Win Shares
• Paul Pierce: 19.6 points, 5.1 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 52.9% eFG, 1.3 steals, 0.5 blocks, 4.9 VORP, 12.4 WS
• Ray Allen: 17.4 points, 3.7 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 53.7% eFG, 0.9 steals, 0.2 blocks, 3.4 VORP, 9.7 WS
• Rajon Rondo: 10.6 points, 4.2 rebounds, 5.1 assists, 49.6% eFG, 1.7 steals,
   0.2 blocks, 2.7 VORP, 7.2 WS

KG was the best player on that team.  But even if he wasn't, that argument is as lame as it gets when comparing 2 players.  I consider Giannis far better than DeMar DeRozan even though Giannis has never been out of the first round of the Playoffs and DeRozan has been "the man" on a team that has made a Conference Finals.  You could come up with thousands of examples of this in sports.

You're right, of course, but folks will believe whatever "facts" support their arguments.

[GGGG]

Garnett had a bunch of nothing as teammates in Minnesota.  In his 10 years there, he only had three teammates to make the All Star game:  Tom Gugliota, Wally Szerbiak and Sam Cassell. 

Unless I am missing something, Pippen never was without an All Star teammate.  And Pippen himself didn't make the All Star game once after Chicago.

[MerrittsMustache]

3rd option?  Who was 1 and 2 on the C's?

Stats are nice but the Celtics offense didn't run through Garnett. It was Pierce's team with Allen as the second option. KG was great, don't get me wrong, but he wasn't the focal point. Much like Pippen in Portland, he was one of the stars, but was past his prime in terms of being "the man."

KG was the best player on that team.  But even if he wasn't, that argument is as lame as it gets when comparing 2 players.  I consider Giannis far better than DeMar DeRozan even though Giannis has never been out of the first round of the Playoffs and DeRozan has been "the man" on a team that has made a Conference Finals.  You could come up with thousands of examples of this in sports.

This is a ridiculous example. DeRozan has played twice as many seasons as Giannis and Giannis has been "the man" for basically one season. If both retired tomorrow, DeRozan would have had a better career. If we're talking in terms of all-time greats, a category neither of those players is in (yet), then wins and titles matter. That's why Tracy McGrady is typically downgraded.

Garnett had a bunch of nothing as teammates in Minnesota.  In his 10 years there, he only had three teammates to make the All Star game:  Tom Gugliota, Wally Szerbiak and Sam Cassell. 

Unless I am missing something, Pippen never was without an All Star teammate.  And Pippen himself didn't make the All Star game once after Chicago.

Pippen didn't play with an All-Star in 1994-95.

For some reason, it seems to be held against Pippen that he was the #2 behind the greatest player in history but it's some sort of a badge of honor for KG to have put up big numbers on average teams. If Seattle kept Pippen on draft night, and he put up monster numbers for some average late-80s Sonics teams would that have made him a better player? I, personally, am just not overly impressed with big numbers that don't result in anything significant for the team. You guys are welcome to disagree...and clearly you do! 

[Spotcheck Billy]

Garnett's lack of post season success reminds me of Dominique's career.

[wadesworld]

Stats are nice but the Celtics offense didn't run through Garnett. It was Pierce's team with Allen as the second option. KG was great, don't get me wrong, but he wasn't the focal point. Much like Pippen in Portland, he was one of the stars, but was past his prime in terms of being "the man."

This is a ridiculous example. DeRozan has played twice as many seasons as Giannis and Giannis has been "the man" for basically one season. If both retired tomorrow, DeRozan would have had a better career. If we're talking in terms of all-time greats, a category neither of those players is in (yet), then wins and titles matter. That's why Tracy McGrady is typically downgraded.

Pippen didn't play with an All-Star in 1994-95.

For some reason, it seems to be held against Pippen that he was the #2 behind the greatest player in history but it's some sort of a badge of honor for KG to have put up big numbers on average teams. If Seattle kept Pippen on draft night, and he put up monster numbers for some average late-80s Sonics teams would that have made him a better player? I, personally, am just not overly impressed with big numbers that don't result in anything significant for the team. You guys are welcome to disagree...and clearly you do! 

Yeah we're definitely going to disagree on that one.  KG's usage % that season was first on the C's at 25.5%, Pierce's was third at 24.8%, and Ray's was 6th at 21.6%.  If there was a guy who was "the man" on that team, it was KG.

If you don't like that example that's fine.  Then it'd be like listing Dirk ahead of Karl Malone because Dirk proved he could be "the man" on a title team while Karl could never win a title, whether he was "the man" or not.  The list could go on and on and on and on.  The list would also be entirely useless.  Basing an individual player's place in the rankings of best individual players on how their team of 12 did in Playoffs against other groups of 12 guys is silly.  If KG was on the MJ Bulls rosters and Scottie wasn't KG has 6 rings instead.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Nash is overrated.  How he won two MVPs is beyond me.  Amare, the Matrix, Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson...hell of a team around him...don't think these guys got enough credit.

Compare that to the Heat '05 roster with Eddie Jones, Udonis Haslem, and Damon Jones starting.  The only problem was Wade and Shaq both played at MVP level and cancelled each other out.

In '06, Kobe and Lebron were both more deserving.  Phoenix only won 54 games that year, not that many more than the Lakers 45 or the Cavs 50.  But (this my theory) combine Kobe hate, Lebron being a bit too young in the minds of voters, and wanting to validate Nash's '05 MVP, Nash gets a 2nd MVP in '06.  Maybe even a little subconscious "let's vote for the white guy" mixed in.

[wadesworld]

Nash is overrated.  How he won two MVPs is beyond me.  Amare, the Matrix, Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson...hell of a team around him...don't think these guys got enough credit.

Compare that to the Heat '05 roster with Eddie Jones, Udonis Haslem, and Damon Jones starting.  The only problem was Wade and Shaq both played at MVP level and cancelled each other out.

In '06, Kobe and Lebron were both more deserving.  Phoenix only won 54 games that year, not that many more than the Lakers 45 or the Cavs 50.  But (this my theory) combine Kobe hate, Lebron being a bit too young in the minds of voters, and wanting to validate Nash's '05 MVP, Nash gets a 2nd MVP in '06.  Maybe even a little subconscious "let's vote for the white guy" mixed in.

Quentin Richardson played one season with Nash.  Amare and Marion made a combined 10 All Star games between them, and 9 of those came when they were playing next to Nash.  Joe Johnson is the only one who played better (or, for the rest of them, didn't take a significant decline after moving on from playing next to Nash) after playing with Nash, and I feel pretty confident in saying that had more to do with the fact that it was his first 4 years in the league as a 20-23 year old player.  It's not a coincidence that most players Nash played with had better than average years when they played with him.