|
Everysince I was younger, Theres always been some teams I've cheering for,
Boston- Because of Bird + legacy
Indiana- Because of Reggie
Dallas- Because of Nowitzki
Suns- Because of sir Charles
And as I watch games this season im extremely surprised in all of the teams in a positive way, to me, they are all playing great basketball
Boston for obvious reasons, but to contend for the championship they need the 5guy, as Perkins has been traded, I prey and hope Shaq gets better. He's really needed since they probably will be playing 2of the best centers in the league, Howard and Bynum (Bynum has really been tearing it up lately!) and I really dont think Krstich has what it takes.
As for Indiana im so glad the McRoberts trade didnt happen, hes been playing great, and the team represents aggressive hustle basketball apart from when Granger flips. Tyler has adapted so greatly to the NBA and the way he and McRoberts crash the boards is awsome for the league and the game.
Dallas is back, when nowitzki was out they went 2-7, if that wouldnt had happen, who knows if they could even be fighting for the nr1 spot in the west. Chandler is the guy im most impressed with, his hustle, rebounding and dunking is a great agile complement to Kidd's passingability.
Suns when healthy is sick good, I think they are among the most underrated teams in NBA. Hill is a superb defender and hustles harder then most, he runs these your quick guys out the gym in breaks, Carter has much potential, and next year I think he will blossom, Nash.. well what to say about him, in my book hes the best PG in the league, and it proves when the team get about 30-40p per game on simple isolation pick n rolls with Gortat, and Frye has been clutch this year. Suns is top 5 west next year if they are healthy and nobody quits.
|
On March 29 2011 08:39 XaI)CyRiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 03:25 cLutZ wrote:I would contradict your point by saying that teams with better players are the teams that have playoff and championship experience. Thus, playoff experience is a self-fulfilling prophesy: Great players get drafted to shitty teams, said shitty team makes the playoffs because they drafted said great player, shitty team gets bounced because it is shitty + 1 guy, smart general manager surrounds his guy with complements (getting boozer for the Bulls this year, Shaq for the Heat a few years back) and you get a good team.
Look at the wealth of "championship experience" and playoff experience on the 2003 Lakers had, its not all that great.
The team with the best players and the best scheme will win unless there are some serious matchup problems. I don't see how the statement that teams with better players are teams that have playoff and championship experience, since it seems to imply that playoff and championship experience makes players better (which is generally true IMO). I don't believe any part of that contradicts my post. As for the whole cycle/process you described, it doesn't always, or even often, work that way. If we look at the recent champions, you have the Spurs who were able to draft Duncan despite already having a solid team featuring a HOFer (Robinson) through a fluke injury. So that was adding a great player to an already good team, which later made great draft picks in Parker and Ginobili by being the first team to recognize a whole pool of untapped talent in international basketball. During that time, they recruited veteran players who had playoffs experience like Horry, Kerr, etc. For the Lakers, they traded for Shaq, then drafted Kobe, then surrounded them with veteran players again, like Horry, Grant, Fox, etc. With the Celtics, they traded for three HOFers with playoff experience and got cheap veteran talent who had some as well, i.e. Brown and Posey. I can't recall a recent championship team that started off with nothing, drafted a superstar, and then surrounded that superstar with better players who got playoff experience together and eventually win a championship. The only example is MIA, but they didn't just get better players, they got a HOF Center who had led a team to the Finals just two seasons prior, along with HOFer Payton and playoff-tested Mourning. Each of those three were leaders for their respective teams who had been battle-tested in multiple postseasons, two of whom had Finals experience. The Bulls, on the other hand, have only Boozer, Korver, Brewer, Thomas, and Scalabrine who have significant postseason experience. Of all of them, Boozer is the only non-role player and he wasn't the leader of any of his postseason teams either (Deron was). They're being led by a young PG who hasn't made it out of the first round, and a rookie coach who in his first year as a head coach. You have to admit that there are at least some significant concerns as to their experience when assessing them as a championship team.
Tim Duncan is the perfect example, his 2nd year in the league (after Robinson had continually been torched in the playoffs) Duncan wins the Finals MVP. Under the playoff experience logic, if somehow the Bobcats make the playoffs as an 8-seed and ride a string of injury luck (Say Rose/Noah get injured in a first round series, then Howard goes down in round 2, then Garnett and Pierce go down in East Finals) they will somehow be a better team next year? No.
The reason good teams have playoff experience is because #1. Good players tend to make the playoffs and #2. Good teams build around their elite talent with solid role-players, said role-players tend to be veterans. You logic somehow says that the bulls would be better off with Eddie House on the team instead of Kyle Korver, that it would be better to have Derrik Fisher instead of Derrik Rose. This is absurd. The Pistons were never a better team after 2004 in spite of all their experience.
Why did teams want Robert Horry? Because he was an amazing 3-point shooter, same with Steve Kerr. Did the Bulls need more playoff experience when they went out and got Dennis Rodman? No, they needed rebounding and defense. The real reason you haven't seen the career arc I described (Jordan, Bird) as much anymore is because the quality owners are concentrated in a few cities that have been able to monopolize championships.
|
so many sick games toniteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/gyyWx.jpg)
|
On March 29 2011 10:59 cLutZ wrote:
Tim Duncan is the perfect example, his 2nd year in the league (after Robinson had continually been torched in the playoffs) Duncan wins the Finals MVP. Under the playoff experience logic, if somehow the Bobcats make the playoffs as an 8-seed and ride a string of injury luck (Say Rose/Noah get injured in a first round series, then Howard goes down in round 2, then Garnett and Pierce go down in East Finals) they will somehow be a better team next year? No.
The reason good teams have playoff experience is because #1. Good players tend to make the playoffs and #2. Good teams build around their elite talent with solid role-players, said role-players tend to be veterans. You logic somehow says that the bulls would be better off with Eddie House on the team instead of Kyle Korver, that it would be better to have Derrik Fisher instead of Derrik Rose. This is absurd. The Pistons were never a better team after 2004 in spite of all their experience.
Why did teams want Robert Horry? Because he was an amazing 3-point shooter, same with Steve Kerr. Did the Bulls need more playoff experience when they went out and got Dennis Rodman? No, they needed rebounding and defense. The real reason you haven't seen the career arc I described (Jordan, Bird) as much anymore is because the quality owners are concentrated in a few cities that have been able to monopolize championships.
Championships have ALWAYS been "monopolized" in the NBA. The Lakers and Celtics share 33 NBA championships. In the last 3 decades, who has won championships? Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Rockets, Bulls, Knicks and Heat? That's around 6-7 teams for 30 years worth of Championship series.
|
United States4471 Posts
On March 29 2011 10:59 cLutZ wrote:Tim Duncan is the perfect example, his 2nd year in the league (after Robinson had continually been torched in the playoffs) Duncan wins the Finals MVP. Under the playoff experience logic, if somehow the Bobcats make the playoffs as an 8-seed and ride a string of injury luck (Say Rose/Noah get injured in a first round series, then Howard goes down in round 2, then Garnett and Pierce go down in East Finals) they will somehow be a better team next year? No.
I don't see how Duncan winning the Finals MVP in his second season in the league relates to the issue we're talking about. He was on a team with experienced players, including a HOF big in Robinson to be mentored and guided by. Again, I just don't see how it relates, but maybe I'm just missing it.
As for the Bobcats hypothesis, if you are comparing two hypothetical Bobcats rosters: (a) one that makes the playoffs and never makes it past the first round versus (b) one that makes the playoffs and somehow manages to make it past the first round, then, yes, I would definitely argue that the latter team (b) would be a better team in the following season than (a) would be. I think that would be a widely held opinion, but apparently you disagree. I'm interested to see what your rationale is.
The reason good teams have playoff experience is because #1. Good players tend to make the playoffs and #2. Good teams build around their elite talent with solid role-players, said role-players tend to be veterans. You logic somehow says that the bulls would be better off with Eddie House on the team instead of Kyle Korver, that it would be better to have Derrik Fisher instead of Derrik Rose. This is absurd. The Pistons were never a better team after 2004 in spite of all their experience.
I think we all agree that you need good players to win a championship. However, my argument is that good players with playoffs experience (the more the better) are better than good players without playoffs experience in reaching that goal. I don't see why that is so objectionable.
I disagree with your version of my "logic", as you describe it, as it's not what I'm saying at all. While House would arguably be preferable based purely on playoffs experience, he's also a SG stuck in a PG body, which causes all sorts of problems in terms of how he fits onto any team. He's not really comparable to Korver, who is a prototypical sharpshooting SG/SF. Comparing Fisher to Rose is just absurd as you're comparing a franchise superstar PG to a career role player. Nowhere in anything I've posted have I said that playoffs experience is the only factor that should be used to measure a player or a team's ability to win a championship. You're taking my position an extreme that goes way beyond the scope of what I'm arguing.
Why did teams want Robert Horry? Because he was an amazing 3-point shooter, same with Steve Kerr. Did the Bulls need more playoff experience when they went out and got Dennis Rodman? No, they needed rebounding and defense. The real reason you haven't seen the career arc I described (Jordan, Bird) as much anymore is because the quality owners are concentrated in a few cities that have been able to monopolize championships.
Frankly, I don't think we're even arguing the same points anymore. All I'm saying is that playoffs experience is a significant factor to be considered when assessing whether a team is going to make it to the Finals and/or win a championship. I've never argued that it's the only factor, or that it's the most important factor. Obviously, talent is the primary factor, as no amount of playoffs experience is ever going to turn a Derek Fisher into a Derrick Rose. However, if you're comparing a Rose with playoffs experience that goes no further than the first round to a Rose with playoffs experience going beyond the first round, then I believe that the latter has a significantly greater chance of making it to the Finals and possibly winning the whole thing than the former.
My concerns with this year's Bulls roster making it to the Finals and/or winning the championship are (1) this is their head coach's first season ever as a head coach, regular and postseason; (2) this is the first season this roster has played together, only Rose, Deng, Noah, and Gibson were on the team last year, everyone else is brand new to the team; (3) even with this season, Rose has not had that many games where he's played with both Boozer and Noah on the court together; (4) of the key players on the roster, only Boozer has ever made it past the first round of the playoffs, and he's never been the leader type and has not shown any signs of it this season either; (5) their leader, Rose, has never won a playoff series; and (6) they'll be going up against some impressive teams in the Celtics, Heat and Magic, all of whom are led by one or more HOF-caliber players with extensive playoffs experience that goes past the first round and into the conference finals or finals themselves, and have head coaches who have extensive playoffs experience as well. The Bulls' full roster, its leader and its head coach have not been battle-tested or been through deep playoffs runs. I have a hard time believing that that lack of experience won't come to haunt them once the playoffs start and they're going up against teams that have a lot more of it from top to bottom.
|
My argument is that the correlation is not indicative of causation. Better players have playoff experience because they are better players, and better players make the playoffs. Better teams have better management who continue to draft better players and build better teams.
My theory: Good players win regardless of experience. That teams with playoff experience tend to win is a side effect of better players creating playoff teams. Hell, look at the Cavs this year. They have tons of playoff experience, half their team has even been to the Finals. THEY SUCK.
Also, good young players are not usually available because of how the NBA draft works. You can't just draft a solid role player because getting a player who will contribute after the 15th pick in the Draft is a rarity (basically only the Spurs are able to do it). So you go out and get a mid-level veteran, to fill those roles. This guy has probably been on 5 different teams so its likely he has been on a playoff team.
|
Yeah, but every team that makes it to the conference finals and the Finals has good players on it.
What's typically the difference between winning and losing? Experience.
Why? Because the margins of advantage between two good teams are generally slim.
|
|
|
On March 30 2011 06:38 A3iL3r0n wrote:
Yeah, but every team that makes it to the conference finals and the Finals has good players on it.
What's typically the difference between winning and losing? Experience.
Why? Because the margins of advantage between two good teams are generally slim.
What recent nba finals was won because of experience, outside of having a better team?
Lakers finals: won because of Shaq in his prime
Spurs: nets had more experience
Pistons: less experience
Spurs: even (defending champions lost)
Miami: TIm Donaghy
Spurs: maybe experience, but the Spurs were a much better team
Celtics: both surprisingly unexperienced teams
Lakers: Lakers front line
Lakers: even
|
On March 30 2011 07:04 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 06:38 A3iL3r0n wrote:
Yeah, but every team that makes it to the conference finals and the Finals has good players on it.
What's typically the difference between winning and losing? Experience.
Why? Because the margins of advantage between two good teams are generally slim. What recent nba finals was won because of experience, outside of having a better team? Lakers finals: won because of Shaq in his prime Spurs: nets had more experience Pistons: less experience Spurs: even (defending champions lost) Miami: TIm Donaghy Spurs: maybe experience, but the Spurs were a much better team Celtics: both surprisingly unexperienced teams Lakers: Lakers front line Lakers: even
Tim Donaghy did not referee any Finals games in 2006. A simple Google search will show that. We all get that you're trying to say that the referees helped the Heat win it, but please, don't be so facetious.
EDIT: Changed "damn facetious" to just "facetious." Didn't sound good.
|
On March 30 2011 07:04 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 06:38 A3iL3r0n wrote:
Yeah, but every team that makes it to the conference finals and the Finals has good players on it.
What's typically the difference between winning and losing? Experience.
Why? Because the margins of advantage between two good teams are generally slim. What recent nba finals was won because of experience, outside of having a better team? Lakers finals: won because of Shaq in his prime Spurs: nets had more experience Pistons: less experience Spurs: even (defending champions lost) Miami: TIm Donaghy Spurs: maybe experience, but the Spurs were a much better team Celtics: both surprisingly unexperienced teams Lakers: Lakers front line Lakers: even
To answer the first part of your post: none. Experience helps a team play up to its talent level. Experience alone doesn't do it. Talent alone doesn't do it.
You're right though, I was conflating a generality with a specific. In general, young teams don't win it all because they lack experience. But, usually the team with more talent, and sufficient experience, win it all.
|
Ya the point is that in the NBA playoffs, experience > talent usually. It is just the way the history of the game has gone. There are young, talented teams that have a breakout year all the time but they usually do not get to the championship without first experiencing some growing pains.
The playoffs are a grind, where everything slows down, every minute counts, the games become more physical, and every possession and ball is magnified. The teams that have learned to master that have an advantage over teams where their players are all bug-eyed because of being in a situation they haven't been in before. In fact, when experts(or ppl who know the NBA) discuss experience in the NBA, the only games that matter are playoff games...
On March 30 2011 07:04 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 06:38 A3iL3r0n wrote:
Yeah, but every team that makes it to the conference finals and the Finals has good players on it.
What's typically the difference between winning and losing? Experience.
Why? Because the margins of advantage between two good teams are generally slim. What recent nba finals was won because of experience, outside of having a better team? Lakers finals: won because of Shaq in his prime Spurs: nets had more experience Pistons: less experience Spurs: even (defending champions lost) Miami: TIm Donaghy Spurs: maybe experience, but the Spurs were a much better team Celtics: both surprisingly unexperienced teams Lakers: Lakers front line Lakers: even
The problem is all those teams you listed did have/had considerable experience, which helped them get to the championship. You don't compare the two contenders for the title but to the rest of the other teams in the league. All those teams you listed had playoff experiences.
|
On March 30 2011 08:01 MassHysteria wrote:Ya the point is that in the NBA playoffs, experience > talent usually. It is just the way the history of the game has gone. There are young, talented teams that have a breakout year all the time but they usually do not get to the championship without first experiencing some growing pains. The playoffs are a grind, where everything slows down, every minute counts, the games become more physical, and every possession and ball is magnified. The teams that have learned to master that have an advantage over teams where their players are all bug-eyed because of being in a situation they haven't been in before. In fact, when experts(or ppl who know the NBA) discuss experience in the NBA, the only games that matter are playoff games... Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 07:04 igotmyown wrote:On March 30 2011 06:38 A3iL3r0n wrote:
Yeah, but every team that makes it to the conference finals and the Finals has good players on it.
What's typically the difference between winning and losing? Experience.
Why? Because the margins of advantage between two good teams are generally slim. What recent nba finals was won because of experience, outside of having a better team? Lakers finals: won because of Shaq in his prime Spurs: nets had more experience Pistons: less experience Spurs: even (defending champions lost) Miami: TIm Donaghy Spurs: maybe experience, but the Spurs were a much better team Celtics: both surprisingly unexperienced teams Lakers: Lakers front line Lakers: even The problem is all those teams you listed did have/had considerable experience, which helped them get to the championship. You don't compare the two contenders for the title but to the rest of the other teams in the league. All those teams you listed had playoff experiences.
Please show me an elite player in this league without playoff experience. There is only one I can think of: Blake Griffin, and the rest of his team is so awful. Look, the best player at every position in the league has playoff experience:
Center: Howard
PF: Gasol
SF: Lebron
SG: Bryant/Wade
PG: Paul (No finals, this is simply because PG is the least important position, which is the real reason you should question the Bulls)
Championship teams always(almost) have elite players. Elite players are almost never rookies because talent != skill (if it was then Steve Nash would not have 2 MVPs), but talented players still make the playoffs while they develop into stars. Teams like Dallas have tons of experience, yet they always manage to lose in the playoffs because the team is poorly constructed. I would take a team made up of all the best players who have never been to the finals over any other team.
PG: Paul/Rose
SG: Ellis/Curry
SF: Durant/Carmello
PF: Horford/Stoudemire
C: Noah/Nene
Hey look, a 10-Man rotation that would be odd-on favorites to win the title WITHOUT ANY CHAMPIONSHIP EXPERIENCE. Throw in Westbrook, Eric Gordon, Granger, and the ugly Gasol and your team is injury-proof.
IMO if the Bulls simply added Gordon they would be beyond scary.
|
I am not sure if your post was meant to support mine or contradict it, but I think you meant it to support since I agree with what you are saying... All of those players you listed are talented, and have all paid their dues when it comes to playoff experience (except maybe Chris Paul).
I don't think anyone is saying that you can gather a bunch of role players from the playoffs and make a contending team, but the fact is experience supercedes talent in the playoffs, and it is backed up through history. All talented players have to go through the playoffs in order to become legends of their time, and most of them won't become champions on their first time trying (exception Duncan who had a crazy team  ).
On your second list btw I would disagree with Carmelo, Stoudemire, and Durant not having playoff experience. They don't have championship experience, but they definitely have playoff experience. Durant probably has the least of the 3, but his team made a great series against the Lakers last year.
|
Experience will make a difference for the Bulls getting past the second round, but it won't be an issue if they can get to the finals.
Durant has less experience than Derrick Rose/Deng/Noah/Boozer?
|
On March 30 2011 10:32 igotmyown wrote:
Experience will make a difference for the Bulls getting past the second round, but it won't be an issue if they can get to the finals.
Ya I think so too, with Boston kind of being the only team in the East that has been truly playoff tested as a team, Chicago has a good chance to make it to Finals. Orlando has changed a lot of its key players since their finals run, and MIA is going on their first playoff run with "the big 3", although Wade and Lebron have been to the Finals before.
I would be surprised if the Bulls can pull it off in the finals though, specially if it comes to be against the Lakers.
Durant has less experience than Derrick Rose/Deng/Noah/Boozer?
I think you misread what I wrote. I said that Durant has the least experience compared to Carmelo and Stoudemire, only those 3 players.
|
cleveland played a damn good game tonight. baron davis is the man.
|
is this even a question? hell yea Durant does.
D-Rose has at least been to the playoffs in the 2 years he's been in the league (even knows what a Game 7 feels like). Boozer from his Utah days, and Noah = same as Rose.
KD's been to the playoffs 1 time (which was last year).
EDIT: ahhhh ok...see what you meant there. gotcha.
|
On March 30 2011 10:15 MassHysteria wrote:I am not sure if your post was meant to support mine or contradict it, but I think you meant it to support since I agree with what you are saying... All of those players you listed are talented, and have all paid their dues when it comes to playoff experience (except maybe Chris Paul). I don't think anyone is saying that you can gather a bunch of role players from the playoffs and make a contending team, but the fact is experience supercedes talent in the playoffs, and it is backed up through history. All talented players have to go through the playoffs in order to become legends of their time, and most of them won't become champions on their first time trying (exception Duncan who had a crazy team ). On your second list btw I would disagree with Carmelo, Stoudemire, and Durant not having playoff experience. They don't have championship experience, but they definitely have playoff experience. Durant probably has the least of the 3, but his team made a great series against the Lakers last year.
If you say those players have enough EXP than so do Boozer, Noah, and Rose so the point is then moot because then no "contender" doesn't have enough EXP to win using your system.
In any case, there is no team in the past 20 years (that I can think of) that was good enough to win a title but did not also have playoff experience. Great teams always have playoff experience because they were always good teams before they became great.
|
On March 30 2011 12:16 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 10:15 MassHysteria wrote:I am not sure if your post was meant to support mine or contradict it, but I think you meant it to support since I agree with what you are saying... All of those players you listed are talented, and have all paid their dues when it comes to playoff experience (except maybe Chris Paul). I don't think anyone is saying that you can gather a bunch of role players from the playoffs and make a contending team, but the fact is experience supercedes talent in the playoffs, and it is backed up through history. All talented players have to go through the playoffs in order to become legends of their time, and most of them won't become champions on their first time trying (exception Duncan who had a crazy team ). On your second list btw I would disagree with Carmelo, Stoudemire, and Durant not having playoff experience. They don't have championship experience, but they definitely have playoff experience. Durant probably has the least of the 3, but his team made a great series against the Lakers last year. If you say those players have enough EXP than so do Boozer, Noah, and Rose so the point is then moot because then no "contender" doesn't have enough EXP to win using your system. In any case, there is no team in the past 20 years (that I can think of) that was good enough to win a title but did not also have playoff experience. Great teams always have playoff experience because they were always good teams before they became great.
experience is a relative term depending on who you are comparing...and I guess you are agreeing with me b/c that's exactly what I mean...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
