You guys act like I'm saying you have to have LESS talent to win. I'm not. What I'm saying is that the team with the MOST talent doesn't always win.

quote:

---

From 1991 until 2003 the team that won the NBA championship.......was the team with the best player.

---

I don't think this is a very good argument, for two reasons: 1) It is circular. Anyone will tell you that players will be measured by the postseason success. Now you're saying postseason success depends on how good your players are. 2) It is entirely subjective. You're telling me Tim Duncan was the best player in the league in '99 and '03, but not in '00 - '02? That's pretty miraculous that he took a 3-year hiatus from being the game's best player, and then all of a sudden he was the best player again and it won them a championship.

quote:

---

Explain the 2007 Spurs. Not a super talented team, but 1 superstar, 2 guys who have made all-star teams and lots of good role players

---

3 all star caliber players IS a lot of talent in the NBA. No 2 ways about it. The Spurs play with GREAT chemistry, but make no mistake about it... they have been for a long time probably a team with top 5 or 6 talent. This season is the exception to that and also why I'm not super Bull-ish on the Spurs' chances come playoff time. My theory is talent overtakes chemistry much more in a 7 game series.

quote:

---

Explain the 2004 Pistons. Not a single superstar player but a great coach and a very solid team concept.

---

Rasheed Wallace had superstar talent. And Billups and Hamilton were both top 30 players at the time. Combo that with Ben Wallace being elite defensively and I'll let you in on a secret nobody talks about with that team: YES! They had crapload of talent.

The other 2 examples are from a different era.

Role players and having 'well defined roles' is so much easier when you have stars who require so much attention from the opposing team on the floor. If Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker were all 80% of the players that they are now, the Spurs are a bottom of the West team the last 10 years and the great role players the Spurs have had and the 'chemistry' they've had would never be spoken of.

quote:

---

You're acting like I'm saying you don't need talent. You DO need talent.

---

Yeah... that's frustrating isn't it? Sort of how you act like I've said chemistry is garbage?

All I'm saying is that great chemistry in the NBA is ushered in by great talent. Great talent opens the doors for role players and others to have the opportunities to do their thing.

[This message has been edited by ATM9000 (edited 3/10/2011 8:54a).]

quote:

---

they are and have been for a long time probably a team with top 5 or 6 talent

---

Top 5 or 6. That's interesting. So you are saying there were 4-5 MORE talented teams in the league that didn't win those titles?

Wonder why.

No... not necessarily... to be honest, I'd have to look back year by year... some of those years I'd say the Spurs had the MOST talent in the league. Last few seasons, they've had top 5 or 6 talent, but the Lakers, Celtics, and maybe even the Suns have had more talented teams than the Spurs. Past that, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better top 3 than the Spurs... or top 2 than the Lakers. And those were the teams to beat for a while.

Like most people speak of chemistry as a magical elixer and in vague generalities, I have the right to do so about league talent flow over the past decade too.

[This message has been edited by ATM9000 (edited 3/10/2011 9:03a).]

I don't think the Spurs had the top talent in 03 - remember that Parker and Ginobili were both very young then. I don't think the Spurs had more talent than the Lakers or Jailblazers in 99, but they swept them both.

It would be hard to argue that anyone had more talent in 05 than the Suns:
Nash, Amare, Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, QRich, Barbosa, Paul Shirley. The 05 Spurs had 3 guys that averaged over 8.2 points. The Spurs' 5th best scorer was Devin Brown. Ouch.

Would anyone really make the argument that the 07 Spurs were the most talented team in the NBA? Didn't the Mavs have ten more wins than they did? Hell, they started Francisco Elson for half the season!

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 3/10/2011 9:49a).]

quote:

---

It would be hard to argue that anyone had more talent in 05 than the Suns:
Nash, Amare, Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, QRich, Barbosa, Paul Shirley.

---

lolwhut.

I said it this summer, but Bron would have been much better off if he had gone to Chicago over Miami - especially if he went with Boozer rather than Bosh.

Noah/Kurt Thomas
Boozer/Taj
Bron/LOL Deng
Bogans/Brewer/Korver
Rose/Watson

That is a team much better built for a championship run than

Dampier/Z
Bosh/Haslem
Bron/James Jones
Wade/Miller
Chalmers

But making millions and effing women from Miami has got to be more attractive than making millions and effing women from Illinois and living in Jordan's shadow.

quote:

---

Like most people speak of chemistry as a magical elixer and in vague generalities

---

This is where I'm saying we also disagree. I think most people think like you do, that if you stockpile talent it will give you the best chance to win. If that isn't what you're saying, then I suggest we agree to agree.

quote:

---

This is where I'm saying we also disagree. I think most people think like you do, that if you stockpile talent it will give you the best chance to win. If that isn't what you're saying, then I suggest we agree to agree.

---

I'm saying that talent begats chemistry as most fans define and look at it, not the other way around. If you take the Celtics, Spurs, or Lakers and replace their key guys with players who aren't quite as good, all of a sudden chemistry doesn't mean so much as role players don't have the space or help they need to do their jobs. There are lesser teams that also play with great chemistry in the league, but you'll never hear about them, because they just aren't that good.

I'll 100% acknowledge that the Spurs have phenomenal chemistry. But Gregg Poppovich isn't Gene Hackman and Duncan's not Jimmy Chitwood... they've had loads of talent this past decade to make it all come together.

quote:

---

I'm saying that talent begats chemistry as most fans define and look at it, not the other way around.

---

We're close, very close. My position is that chemistry itself is somewhat of a "talent". Go read a few articles about how coach Pop and Duncan started their relationship. They spent time getting to know one another long before they ever picked up a basketball. Duncan is one of the most coachable players in the league, and one of those "lead by example" types inside and outside the locker room.

For all his talent, I don't think Lebron has that. And my point is I'd rather have the one than the other.

There's no doubt that Lebron is athletically more gifted than Duncan. And he has more sheer basketball talent. Period. But it is also his 8th year in the league. By his 8th year, Duncan had already won 3 titles. And you ABSOLUTELY cannot tell me that the '99 team in Duncan's sophomore season, which started Avery Johnson and an aging Mario Elie, and which relied VERY heavily on Jarren Jackson and Malik Rose and Sean Elliot on an ailing kidney who couldn't even finish a game without vomiting....you CANNOT tell me that was team was more talented that some of Lebron's Cleveland teams.

Earlier somebody said that all the teams between 92 and 2003 had the best player on them. Well, if we're going to go ahead and say Lebron's been the best player in the NBA for a few years now, then where the hell are the trophies?

quote:

---

Earlier somebody said that all the teams between 92 and 2003 had the best player on them. Well, if we're going to go ahead and say Lebron's been the best player in the NBA for a few years now, then where the hell are the trophies?

---

Let me stress somebody DID say that... but it wasn't me.

quote:

---

My position is that chemistry itself is somewhat of a "talent". Go read a few articles about how coach Pop and Duncan started their relationship. They spent time getting to know one another long before they ever picked up a basketball. Duncan is one of the most coachable players in the league, and one of those "lead by example" types inside and outside the locker room.

---

This is where I sort of disagree. I think that a lot of that comes from the fact that Duncan spent 4 seasons in college and probably had a better upbringing. That said, Kobe was a turd as well until in most people's eyes about 2 or 3 seasons ago... the only difference is that he played alongside the most dominating center in the league for a bunch of those seasons. I think the chemistry 'talent' is a learned one that happens with experience. I think a big reason Duncan is and is known as a consummate team guy is that fact that in his first season and sort of his second season at Wake Forest, he wasn't THE guy.

The 'chemistry' talent is something that can and usually is learned throughout a career.

quote:

---

And you ABSOLUTELY cannot tell me that the '99 team in Duncan's sophomore season, which started Avery Johnson and an aging Mario Elie, and which relied VERY heavily on Jarren Jackson and Malik Rose and Sean Elliot

---

You conveniently left out Duncan's second guy on that team... only probably one of the best 7 or 8 centers to ever play the game who, while not at his best, was still DAMN good and one of the 3 or 4 best centers in the league. In that respect, you tell me which of Lebron's Cleveland teams you'd take over what the Spurs had in 99?

quote:

---

only probably one of the best 7 or 8 centers to ever play the game who, while not at his best, was still DAMN good and one of the 3 or 4 best centers in the league.

---

So like Shaq last year then?

quote:

---

In that respect, you tell me which of Lebron's Cleveland teams you'd take over what the Spurs had in 99?

---

None. That '99 Spurs team had amazing chemistry and a bunch of guys who wanted to do whatever it took to win.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 3/11/2011 7:59a).]

quote:

---

So like Shaq last year then?

---

Come on now... you and I both know that '99 D-Rob was still a very god defender and was capable of putting up a lot of points when he needed to. You'd take 99 D-Rob over 2010 Shaq so many times over and you know this. The comparison isn't even close. Shaq wasn't still a top notch center last season... Robinson still was in 99.

As a Bulls fan I have mixed feelings on Lebron.

Obviously a lineup of Rose/Bogans/James/Boozer/Noah would be incredible, especially with Deng and Taj off the bench.

But part of me is also glad he signed in Miami. We all knew Rose had potential, but I don't think he would have acheived it if he had to defer to Lebron. One thing is for sure, he wouldn't be frontrunner MVP at age 22. And honestly, I want D-Rose as my best player. Sans Kobe, there's no one else I'd rather have with the ball in the final seconds.

As a fan, there's just something satisfying about organically building a championship team. And I love what the Bulls have done.

Regarding the Heat, what about this hypothetical trade?

To New Jersey:
Dwyane Wade

To Miami:
Deron Williams
Brook Lopez

I think NJ would do it because they want to add a star by any measure. I doubt Miami would do it from a business standpoint because Wade is responsible for the trio signing there and he means alot to that city. But from a basketball standpoint, I think it makes sense. You can't trade Lebron because he's Lebron. Bosh can still be good as a No. 2 but hes severely miscast as a No. 3. Wade seems to be the odd man out personnel-wise.

As a Bulls fan, I'd be more scared of this...

PG) D. Williams
SG) Miller
SF) James
PF) Bosh
C) Lopez

...than their current lineup. That team would have a clearly defined leader (Lebron), two very good No. 2 options who will know their roles (Bosh/Williams), Williams/Miller are deep threats so they can space the floor for Lebron and the parts seem like they fit together better as a whole.

Obviously Miami wouldn't do this for a variety of non-basketball reasons. Just wanted to throw it out there.

^LAWL.

quote:

---

Come on now... you and I both know that '99 D-Rob was still a very god defender and was capable of putting up a lot of points when he needed to. You'd take 99 D-Rob over 2010 Shaq so many times over and you know this. The comparison isn't even close. Shaq wasn't still a top notch center last season... Robinson still was in 99.

---

Alright then. How about that '98 Cleveland team where they went out and got the "elite" Ben Wallace (your words). Also Mo Williams, Ilgauskas, Delonte West, Varejao, Szczerbiak, Gibson, Pavlovic. That is some very good talent to go around Lebron, certainly comparable to the '99 Spurs team in overall talent.

LAWL because it would never happen? I agree.

LAWL because the Heat wouldn't be better off? Explain.

NJ would never make that deal.

quote:

---

How about that '98 Cleveland team where they went out and got the "elite" Ben Wallace (your words).

---

We're getting into the 'obtuse' range of things when you make statements like this. Ben Wallace 08 was about half the player he was in 04 defensively. 99 Robinson, though not near mid-90's caliber Robinson was still capable of putting up 20 and 10 on any given night. In other words, he was still a game-changer... a player opposing coaches had to really plan to stop. Outside of Lebron, the 98 Cavs, or any other Cavs team really, didn't have anybody like that.

^Swish. No GM in their right mind would give up both Deron Williams and Brook Lopez for Dwyane Wade.

Ben Wallace was pretty much the same guy in '08 as he was in '04/'05. The difference was that the Pistons were a GREAT defensive team overall, and the '08 Lebrons were relying on Wallace to come in and make them into a great defensive team all by himself, and it just wasn't going to happen.

The '04/'05 Pitons had amazing defensive chemistry that comes when a good coach can spell out each player's niche, and each player then personally buys in. That team and a few others are the only reason guys like Ben Wallace ever see the light of day as an NBA player. He was great at playing his part in team defense (a la Bruce Bowen), but when all the other parts are broken he's not a very valuable NBA player.

We're getting into the chicken/egg realm, so I think I'll bow out.

Thanks for the discussion ATM. It is nice to have one every once in a while without somebody getting butthurt over the other guy's opinion and then playing internet tough guy or throwing around insults.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 3/11/2011 11:34a).]

'98 cavs? You sure you guys aren't thinking of Shawn Kemp?

[This message has been edited by ItalAggie (edited 3/11/2011 11:46a).]