116 replies to this topic

[RudyT1995]

Just to play a little Devil's advocate....Am I the only one that thinks Dirk was one of the best players in the league during that championship run?  The guy was unstoppable.  He was Larry Bird Good.  He was Larry Bird Wishes He Was More Like Me Good.  Dirk may not have been the best player in the league that year, but in the playoffs I think the argument could be made.

 

You could certainly make that argument.  He was so clutch that post season.  And LeBron just wasn't himself.

Edited by RudyT1995, 07 January 2014 - 12:17 AM.

[areteejay789]

Dirk was definitely the best player in that finals series. I don't remember how everyone else played throughout the playoffs, but I do remember JJ Barea and Dirk destroying the lakers, and then dirk being unstoppable (except for the final game) against miami. Having a player who can get off a good shot in any situation is so important in the playoffs because the Defences have more time to prepare, but dirk's one legged fadeaway off a post up just cannot be schemed against.

[thejohnnygold]

For those interested in reliving it HERE is a nice article about it.

[PKM]

Dirk was definitely the best player in that finals series. I don't remember how everyone else played throughout the playoffs, but I do remember JJ Barea and Dirk destroying the lakers, and then dirk being unstoppable (except for the final game) against miami. Having a player who can get off a good shot in any situation is so important in the playoffs because the Defences have more time to prepare, but dirk's one legged fadeaway off a post up just cannot be schemed against.

I'll note that Dirk was actually one of my 3 maybes ( Garnett in 08 and Duncan in 07 were my other two, and Lebron in 12 and 13 are my two yes's).  However, I also don't think Dirk was the best player in the 2011 NBA Finals - Wade was.  That didn't matter because the Mavericks were the better team. 

[rocketrick]

I think some believe that simply having the best player in any particular year results in a NBA Title. I happen to believe, as I suspect others on this board do, that it takes a TEAM to win the NBA Title. Having the best player certainly does not hurt, but a really good TEAM can overcome the skills of the best player in the league.

Watching franchises grow into becoming a true team is what has always attracted me to this sport, much moreso than individual players. I admit, I very much enjoy watching spectacular individual plays, but it is the drama of which franchise in any particular season can become the best team possible that is the most enjoyable part of this game for me.

Also, I just don't believe that any team in recent history that makes it to the NBA Finals can ever be described in any way, shape or form as being "dysfunctional". Sure, there may be some shortcomings that particular teams have to overcome and compensate for, but winning 4/7 games against another group of professional players in my eyes makes that team the better team no matter what, when they do so. Some teams are able to overcome their shortcomings and others are not as the eventual Champion usually figures out a way to attack the opposing team's weaknesses and should get credit for doing so.

Edited by rocketrick, 07 January 2014 - 10:53 AM.

[RudyT1995]

Again, it's funny how people read things in the narrowest possible way.  I know I can be guilty of it too, but geez.

 

I think it's obvious that I meant that having the best player wins you championships within a team context.  My statements stemmed from the idea that I would rather trade Harden for  Anthony Davis if given a chance and build around Davis.  It was about building a team around a 2 way player and not a 1 way player.  It was about building a team first and foremost.

 

I didn't mean that throwing the best player on a team with 10 stiffs gets you a title, which is what Cleveland tried and failed to do with LeBron, and which is how some people seem to be reading my statements.  You still have to build a team around the best guy to win.  If you read the other stuff that I wrote aside from the bold "you need the best guy to win" statements, it's obvious that I was talking about the building a championship team around a complete player, one that could be the best, to give yourself the best chance to win, and not around a player with deficiencies like Harden.  I even mentioned that due to the cap, it's hard to pay an entire team of good players, and that one of your max guys needs to seriously out perform his deal, kind of the way Durant and Lebron do.   Some people don't seem to be reading it that way, but that's what I meant.

 

I keep reading claims that the team with the best player doesn't win the title, that the best built team does.  But when has that actually happened?  Maybe it's not always the #1 guy because he's stuck on a crappy team in Cleveland or stuck carrying Smush Parker in LA, but the #1 or #2 guy has won 8 of the last 10, and 28 of the last 30 titles.  

 

In 2013, the Spurs clearly had the best team.  They were the best "team".  And they still couldn't beat the Heat.  In 2012, the Spurs had the best "team", and they couldn't beat OKC.  In 2011, the Spurs again had the best "team" and they got bounced in the first round.  Just because the best "team" happened to win a couple titles in 10 years doesn't make that the best way to win championships.  I could go on and on.  Nash's Suns, Webber's Kings, the post championship Pistons were all "best teams" that couldn't overcome a team built around a better player.  And the most extreme example, the '00 Blazers who had a great team loaded with role playing all-stars.  And yet they couldn't overcome a two man team of Shaq and Kobe.  The whole idea of building the "best team" without having a guy that can be the best just has not worked very often.  History says so.  

 

The best way, the way that has worked throughout history is to build around a guy that can be the best.  Be it the #1 guy or the #2 guy, he needs to be a guy that can be the best at a given snippet of time.  

 

rocketrick, it's clear that your definition of dysfunctional differs from what I meant.  Maybe if you would be more flexible and try to understand people's meaning instead of being rigid and enforcing your definition on them, you would understand a little more.  I told you what I meant by dysfunctional - a team that doesn't get along and doesn't know their roles.  It doesn't matter what the word means to you in this context.  I used the term first, I explained what I meant by it.  If you don't understand what I meant even after I provided an explanation, then what can I say.

Edited by RudyT1995, 07 January 2014 - 06:51 PM.

[RudyT1995]

By they way, this idea of  building around a guy who has the potential to be the best isn't something that I came up with.  I borrowed it from the late great Dr. Jerry Buss who is the only owner to win titles with two different core sets of players in the last thirty years.  In the words of Jeannie Buss, "Dr. Buss believed in star power".  He believed that you need a guy that is either the best or can be the best to build a championship team. 

 

All of us, I assume, are keyboard GMs.  None of us actually knows what it takes to build a championship team.  Dr. Buss built two multiple champions.  So I'm going to listen to him.

[Sir Thursday]

@Rudy: I understand your argument and overall I think I agree with you. I would much prefer to have Davis to Harden too. But I think Davis' trade value is just so much higher than Harden's that there's no way New Orleans would say yes.

 

As to your general point, I would agree that having the best player gives you a lot more margin for error. Maybe you have some bad luck with injuries, maybe your bench isn't so great, but having the best player on the court paper over a lot of cracks if you do it right. If you start from that basis, you don't have to get perfect fit with your other players, just good fit.

 

Having said that, it's still non-trivial to field a championship team even when you've got the best player, and there's no guarantee that the team in possession of one of these giants will actually have done so in any given year. LeBron's Cavs are the shining example of this. And when that happens, there is a much wider window of opportunity for teams who are lead by players who aren't quite in the same stratosphere but are nevertheless excellent. Winning a championship depends as much on the quality of your competition as it does your own team, and that is completely out of your control.

 

Given that, to me it makes more sense to try to be in a position to compete for as many years as possible rather than to go all out for a short window. A big part of that is having a settled, consistent team. The more recently a team has come together, the more that has to go right. There comes a point at which it makes sense to stick with what you have rather than go chasing for something better, just so that when that precious opportunity arises, you're there to strike.

 

ST

[rocketrick]

Who determines who is the absolute best player in any particular season in the NBA? Is it the player who wins the regular season MVP? Or perhaps the player who wins the NBA Finals MVP? Sometimes both awards are presented to the same player, sometimes not.

Additionally, in any particular season, there are almost always several players that could be considered as the top player of the league and that designation tends to be awarded to the player who winds up on the winning team in the NBA Finals at the end of a long season.

Lastly, eventual MVP's typically end up on the losing team before helping his team make the final step to become Champion in later seasons. The key being some roster stability, that player being in the same system for awhile and not jumping teams and immediately winning a ring.

I believe Morey and the Rockets have done an outstanding job in bringing James Harden and Dwight Howard to Houston and have begun surrounding them with quality players like Chandler Parsons. I for one am looking forward to watching this iteration of the Rockets continue to grow and compete for rings the next few seasons while no doubt making more improvement to the roster. I just don't see a need to trade away Harden or D12 until they have been given ample opportunity to prove themselves as Rockets.

[Steven]

Who determines who is the absolute best player in any particular season in the NBA? Is it the player who wins the regular season MVP? Or perhaps the player who wins the NBA Finals MVP? Sometimes both awards are presented to the same player, sometimes not.

Additionally, in any particular season, there are almost always several players that could be considered as the top player of the league and that designation tends to be awarded to the player who winds up on the winning team in the NBA Finals at the end of a long season.

Lastly, eventual MVP's typically end up on the losing team before helping his team make the final step to become Champion in later seasons. The key being some roster stability, that player being in the same system for awhile and not jumping teams and immediately winning a ring.

I believe Morey and the Rockets have done an outstanding job in bringing James Harden and Dwight Howard to Houston and have begun surrounding them with quality players like Chandler Parsons. I for one am looking forward to watching this iteration of the Rockets continue to grow and compete for rings the next few seasons while no doubt making more improvement to the roster. I just don't see a need to trade away Harden or D12 until they have been given ample opportunity to prove themselves as Rockets.

We the people do
Jordan 91-93
Hakeem 94-95
Jordan 96-98
Shaq 99-2003
Kobe 2004-07
LeBron 07- Present

[timetodienow1234567]

Where is Duncan?

[Steven]

Where is Duncan?

Was Duncan ever the best player in the league? He was always in the top 3, but was he ever the very best? That was just how I would rate the best players over the last 20 years.

[RudyT1995]

Who determines who is the absolute best player in any particular season in the NBA?

 

Are you replying to me? 

 

cuz I wrote this in an earlier post:

 

I should clarify what I meant by THE BEST player.  What I mean by that is the best player at a given moment in time.  I don't mean historically great or the best ever or even the best over multiple seasons or even one season.  I just mean the best in the league in a snippet of time.  

 

Maybe you're starting a new topic?

[rocketrick]

My point was really just stating the fact that most consider the best player in any particular year in the NBA as either the MVP or the Finals MVP. And that is awarded after the fact.

I think I'm even more confused with your train of thought of your definition of the best player in the league in a "snippet of time". What does that mean exactly? A 5 minute stretch of Game 7 of the Finals? The 3rd quarter of Game 35 of the regular season?

Usually, most consider the best NBA player in any particular year as the best that particular season. Same with the NBA Finals MVP, that award goes to the player who clearly was the best and pretty much always ends up going to a player on the winning team.

I believe that is the best methodology of determining who is the best player in the NBA. Rather than a "snippet of time" as that would mean many, many players would qualify as there are special moments that all good NBA players enjoy but I wouldn't consider that as a meaningful definition of being the absolute best player in the NBA unless your "snippet in time" means over the entire season or the MVP of the playoffs, etc. For a time, Linsanity was awesome but it didn't end up with the NY Knicks having any success in the playoffs, much less winning a title.

In any particular season including the present one, there are a number of players that could end up being anointed as the best player this season depending if their team wins the title and/or is on one of the top teams in the NBA (regular season MVP). Right now it looks like Lebron or KD. If the Clippers win it all, Chris Paul could be anointed the best player this year, etc.

Edited by rocketrick, 09 January 2014 - 11:54 AM.

[timetodienow1234567]

Duncan over Kobe almost every year .

[RudyT1995]

I think I'm even more confused with your train of thought of your definition of the best player in the league in a "snippet of time". 

...

 

I believe that is the best methodology of determining who is the best player in the NBA. 

 

There you go again enforcing your narrow definition of terms onto others.  What you believe to be the "best methodology of determining who is the best" is irrelevant, because that was never the question.   It's funny how you filter everything through your narrow definitions even when people tell you what they meant when they used a term.

 

Instead of misinterpreting my statements by using your narrow definitions and misreading what I was trying to say, and disagreeing with me based on your misreading, you could have just asked for more clarification or told me that I was being too vague, too imprecise.  I put up my definition of the best player early in our conversation.  If you didn't understand what it meant, it made no sense for you to continue arguing without getting further clarification.  

 

The funny part in all this is that you probably don't even disagree with my idea.  You just don't really understand what my idea is.  And I take responsibility for my share of the blame in that.  The post of mine that introduced the idea of the best player (#76) was written when I was worked up and it was poorly written, imprecise.  I have spent subsequent posts to trying to clarify what I meant in that post, which you seem to have ignored.  Bottom line is, I should have been clearer in that first post.

 

Anyway, I'm done talking about this.  I'm not going to look at this thread again.  

[rocketrick]

There you go again enforcing your narrow definition of terms onto others.  What you believe to be the "best methodology of determining who is the best" is irrelevant, because that was never the question.   It's funny how you filter everything through your narrow definitions even when people tell you what they meant when they used a term.
 
Instead of misinterpreting my statements by using your narrow definitions and misreading what I was trying to say, and disagreeing with me based on your misreading, you could have just asked for more clarification or told me that I was being too vague, too imprecise.  I put up my definition of the best player early in our conversation.  If you didn't understand what it meant, it made no sense for you to continue arguing without getting further clarification.

If my definition of the "Best" Player in the NBA in any particular season (or playoff period) is by your words "narrow" when in my mind it clearly means who the regular season MVP and/or Finals MVP is awarded to, then what does that make your definition of the "Best" Player mean, in your precise words, within a "snippet in time" ??? Does "snippet" in your mind, then, mean longer than a season? I just don't understand at all what you mean here. Snippet to me can mean many things and time periods but for sure I believe most would consider "snippet" to mean a time period of less than 1 full season and probably much shorter than that to be honest.

NBA regular season MVP or NBA Finals MVP is pretty conclusive to me as clearly meaning the best player in the NBA at that particular period of time as voted on by all the experts.

You lost me a long time ago in your arguments about the importance of having the absolute best player on the Rockets team going forward for the best chance of winning Titles.

I was simply pointing out that the "Best" player in the NBA is pronounced AFTER the season and playoffs have concluded, not before.

Edited by rocketrick, 10 January 2014 - 11:20 AM.