EPTNBA 2010-2011 Season - Page 144
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
ilovejonn
Canada2548 Posts
| ||
|
blizzind
United States642 Posts
| ||
|
ilovejonn
Canada2548 Posts
| ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On March 30 2011 10:00 cLutZ wrote: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. To make my point, I would take the first team you listed (with significant playoffs/finals experience) over the second team you listed (with significantly less playoffs/finals experience) in a postseason, and definitely in a finals series, although probably replacing Paul in the first team with someone like Kidd, Billups, or even Deron to not reuse him and because those other guys have more playoffs experience. Both teams have great talent (as all great teams do), but, in my opinion, the first team would have an edge in the playoffs and in a finals series because of their advantage in experience in those circumstances. My argument has always been that experience is A factor, not THE factor or the SOLE factor, but AN important factor. Also, championship teams have historically had playoffs/finals experience not just with their most talented players, but with their role players and their coaching, so looking only at the top players of a contending team doesn't look at the whole picture. The Bulls don't have substantial playoffs/finals experience anywhere, from their best players to their role players to their coach, except with Boozer, Korver and Brewer (none of whom are particularly tough or leader-types who the younger guys can look to). Looking at the previous championship teams, that was not the case. | ||
|
Horse...falcon
United States1851 Posts
On March 30 2011 07:15 slyboogie wrote: 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. Oh yeah I remember that finals, felt so bad for Dirk and Cuban when Wade was getting a call every time down the lane. Not saying there was a conspiracy but the terrible refs made it hard to watch. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 30 2011 14:06 XaI)CyRiC wrote: To make my point, I would take the first team you listed (with significant playoffs/finals experience) over the second team you listed (with significantly less playoffs/finals experience) in a postseason, and definitely in a finals series, although probably replacing Paul in the first team with someone like Kidd, Billups, or even Deron to not reuse him and because those other guys have more playoffs experience. Both teams have great talent (as all great teams do), but, in my opinion, the first team would have an edge in the playoffs and in a finals series because of their advantage in experience in those circumstances. My argument has always been that experience is A factor, not THE factor or the SOLE factor, but AN important factor. Also, championship teams have historically had playoffs/finals experience not just with their most talented players, but with their role players and their coaching, so looking only at the top players of a contending team doesn't look at the whole picture. The Bulls don't have substantial playoffs/finals experience anywhere, from their best players to their role players to their coach, except with Boozer, Korver and Brewer (none of whom are particularly tough or leader-types who the younger guys can look to). Looking at the previous championship teams, that was not the case. I would also pick the first team because they are BETTER. Howard> Noah, Gasol>Horford, James>Durant, Wade> Ellis, only at PG (arguably the least important position) is the non-championship team better. | ||
|
FQD1911
83 Posts
:-/ these ESPN cronies man.... | ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
| ||
|
sixghost
United States2096 Posts
On March 31 2011 03:37 FQD1911 wrote: "when you go look at LeBron's record and take out the 9-8 start, the Heat have been the best team in the league." -Colin Cowherd. :-/ these ESPN cronies man.... Didn't the Bulls also start 9-8? lol | ||
|
DoomsVille
Canada4885 Posts
Anyways, couple more weeks til the playoffs start. It is pretty clear which teams are going to make it and which won't. So which teams do you guys see in the finals? Which teams do you see having the best chance to upset a big dog in the first round? Personally for me, I badly want to see one last lakers vs. celtics finals. I think both teams will be too old to make the finals 2 years from now. And next year there may be a lockout. So this could be the last chance to see these two awesome teams faceoff. That said, I don't see the celtics making the finals  . The lakers will get there pretty much unimpeded. The only team with a chance of beating them is OKC if they get all their ducks in a row (Perkins really has the lakers bigs figured out). Mavs and Spurs don't have much of a chance of beating the lakers. In the east, it's going to be chicago or boston. Miami doesn't have the size to compete with Chicago. And aside from those 3 teams, no one else really has much of a chance. I think the biggest question is how does Shaq do? If he can play at a high level for 25 minutes throughout the playoffs, Celtics can go all the way. If he can't, they won't get passed the bulls. Going to be an awesome postseason though. I can't wait. | ||
|
lolsixtynine
United States600 Posts
Bulls are 43-12 since their 10-8 start. | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
On March 31 2011 08:18 DoomsVille wrote: How is PG the least important position? Defensively, yes. Offensively, probably the most important (unless you have Dwight and your entire gameplan is get him in the post, clear space, repeat). I wouldn't say any 1 position is less important than any other. Regular season it's pretty important, but for some reason you can win championships with perfectly average players at point. | ||
|
manicsquare
176 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
But seriously, I highly suggest you go to www.nba.com. There's a regular season that is played to determine team rankings, and then the playoffs for the final tournament for the teams that qualified. They are seeded by their rankings, and the rest is self explanatory once you go to that site and click on standings. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 31 2011 08:18 DoomsVille wrote: How is PG the least important position? Defensively, yes. Offensively, probably the most important (unless you have Dwight and your entire gameplan is get him in the post, clear space, repeat). I wouldn't say any 1 position is less important than any other. On March 31 2011 09:16 igotmyown wrote: Regular season it's pretty important, but for some reason you can win championships with perfectly average players at point. Why is PG the least important position? 1. There are way more point guards that are "adequate" than players at any other position. The drop between #1 and #32 at the PG position is tiny compared to any other position. 2. Other positions can bring up the ball. Pretty much anyone who is not a center can potentially be your ball handler, be it Lebron at SF, Odom at PF, Wade at SG, etc. 3. On defense a PG is basically a liability. Any time you have to switch it is a bad mismatch, even the best PGs like Rondo and Paul can't stop good point guards from penetrating so you still need big guys to defend the rack. 4. History. I know I have been railing against history as far as needing playoff experience to win, but I think the relationship here is fundamentally different. You simply do not need a good PG to win championships, sure it helps (Tony Parker), but the last PG to be the best player on his team that won a championship was Isiah Thomas. Magic Johnson is who people point out when they say, "having a great PG can win you championships." The reality is that Magic is just an example of my second point, he played every position 1-5 at some time, he is/was closer to Lebron than to Steve Nash. | ||
|
TieN.nS)
United States2131 Posts
On March 31 2011 11:01 manicsquare wrote: I just recently started watching NBA basketball and was hoping someone could answer a question for me. When hearing talk about playoffs it mentions a team is so many games ahead of someone. I was wondering what that mean and how does that work? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_behind | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On March 31 2011 11:14 cLutZ wrote: Why is PG the least important position? 1. There are way more point guards that are "adequate" than players at any other position. The drop between #1 and #32 at the PG position is tiny compared to any other position. 2. Other positions can bring up the ball. Pretty much anyone who is not a center can potentially be your ball handler, be it Lebron at SF, Odom at PF, Wade at SG, etc. 3. On defense a PG is basically a liability. Any time you have to switch it is a bad mismatch, even the best PGs like Rondo and Paul can't stop good point guards from penetrating so you still need big guys to defend the rack. 4. History. I know I have been railing against history as far as needing playoff experience to win, but I think the relationship here is fundamentally different. You simply do not need a good PG to win championships, sure it helps (Tony Parker), but the last PG to be the best player on his team that won a championship was Isiah Thomas. Magic Johnson is who people point out when they say, "having a great PG can win you championships." The reality is that Magic is just an example of my second point, he played every position 1-5 at some time, he is/was closer to Lebron than to Steve Nash. We can't really use championships as the regular measuring stick. There is only 1 champion every year and Phil Jackson teams have won 11 of the last 20 with the triangle offense, which deemphasizes the point guard. A great player is a great player, regardless of position. We've seen strong point guard play carry teams to playoff appearances, and while I agree that it's rarer that we have a physically or stylistically "dominant" player at point guard, it doesn't mean they are the least important. I think we might have had this discussion already, but I still think you're penalizing the position of point guards for its current depth. Effectively, you're saying what? That there Chris Paul is not that valuable because....Ty Lawson is above average? Also, I can't believe your 2 and 3 points are meant totally seriously. A point guard doesn't just bring the ball up the floor. Even if they did, you listed 3 guys who are important for that ability, how many other non-point guards can really do it at a consistent and proficient level? Stephen Jackson, Kobe, Joe Johnson, Brandon Roy...it isn't a long list and it's mostly stars. I think PG defense is crucial, but I don't really want to have a defensive discussion, since it's all based on observation. I'll just say that there is huge win value when you have Chris Paul on defense instead of Mike Bibby (even young Mike Bibby.) | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
Chauncey Billups was probably the most important point guard on a championship team in recent years (Parker's more about penetration/shooting his teardrop), and he had a pretty balanced team. Chris Paul gets a lot of steals, but he's not a great defender (like AI). That's about playing for passes more than being a great on ball defender. I think you're selling Mike Bibby short from his more recent years. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On March 31 2011 15:50 igotmyown wrote: Winning championships usually requires good size and rebounding, so point guards, who are the shortest players in the nba, tend to get their penetrations taken away by true contenders. Also, few championship contenders lack a star small forward/guard who can bring the ball up/handle the ball a lot. Really good big men also have good passing skills, so they'll get the ball in the post a lot and reset it. Chauncey Billups was probably the most important point guard on a championship team in recent years (Parker's more about penetration/shooting his teardrop), and he had a pretty balanced team. Chris Paul gets a lot of steals, but he's not a great defender (like AI). That's about playing for passes more than being a great on ball defender. I think you're selling Mike Bibby short from his more recent years. Whoa. Chris Paul was the best defensive point guard in the game. Just because a guy gets a lot of steals, people somehow automatically associate this with riskiness and guessing. No no no. Chris Paul was an elite on the ball defender, even with his relative lack of size and wingspan. After the knee injury and subsequent knee brace sapped some of his mobility, he has not been as effective but is still probably a top 3 defensive point guard. I agree that CP3 is not as good as Allen Iverson from 1999 to about 2003, but he became a relatively average point guard soon thereafter. So no, Chris Paul will never be Gary Payton. He doesn't have Chauncey or Deron's size/strength and he doesn't have Rondo's lengthiness (only PG defender better than Paul), or Westbrook's freakydeaky athleticism. With above average speed, surgical ball-hawking hands, a really rare basketball IQ and terrific vision: he's just great. Mike Bibby was always terrible. Sorry for writing a hype piece for Chris Paul, you all already know he's good, but in the era of guys like Derrick Rose and Russell Westbrook, I can't believe that he is already underrated. Finally, please stop using championships as a measuring stick. Like 7 teams have won in the last 30 years. | ||
|
FQD1911
83 Posts
On March 31 2011 11:08 SK.Testie wrote: Like magnets, nobody knows. But seriously, I highly suggest you go to www.nba.com. There's a regular season that is played to determine team rankings, and then the playoffs for the final tournament for the teams that qualified. They are seeded by their rankings, and the rest is self explanatory once you go to that site and click on standings. ROOOOOFLMAO!!!! | ||
| ||
