EPTNBA Playoffs 2013-2014 - Page 122
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On May 17 2014 05:34 Ace wrote: + Show Spoiler + Championship teams have historically needed either two dominant two-way wings, or just one paired with another dominant two-way center/big PF. There have been few other teams constructed in different ways that have won also, but not many revolving around a relatively-short PG for it's offensive production, whether it be scoring or assists. Tony Parker and Isaiah Thomas are the ones that come to mind (as has been discussed before), but they also had well-built teams at just the right time. Thomas had his right after the magic/bird era and just before the MJ era. And Parker could be credited to have led the Spurs in 2007, even with Duncan, but they caught a break with the abrupt end of the Shaq/Kobe era and a too-young LBJ that didn't have another dominant two-way player on his Cavs team. Not to mention that they beat the Suns (the other best team in a rather weak league that season), that was also led by a relatively-short MVP Steve Nash, to get to the finals that year. Team construction is the key here as you mentioned. I think our disagreement largely comes from "how much offense is the PG really worth?" For me - it's worth a ton, and the best ORTG teams of all time are led by All Time level PGs. It's also a red herring to say 2 wings/wing-big combos won most of the championships in league history without going into depth *why* this is. It's no coincidence that the 04+ era saw the reduction in low post iso offense and more Pick N Roll play - the rules changed. We've also seen these same superstar PGs in Nash/CP3/Kidd lose to superior teams while putting up All Time level performances that few can match. Again - the argument for PG based failure should at least point out where these guys are failing. I'd expect some argument of the offense dropping to levels so bad the PG is just not worth spending money on. However I have yet to see any point that references the play or performance of them. I could just as easily say it's impossible to win a championship with a high usage shooting guard that's under 6'4. It doesn't tell us anything about the actual players at all. We could always go in depth on Steve Nash being a suspension and a broken face away from winning at least one title - and neither of those things reference his play on the court. A PG is just a name of the position (I know you agree with that), so what I think the posters here are really saying is how inefficient it is, from a salary cap standpoint, to make a smaller wing(like CP3) one of your two star players in this case. When you go up against two other star players that are taller than you, collectively, then you are in trouble. Height matters in basketball, it is a fact. It is not that you can't build a championship team around a smaller PG, but why not stack the deck in your favor? This would only be true if you could find an abundance of replaceable talent. Chris Paul is at worst the third best player in a sport where superstar players don't grow on trees. If you can get one, you keep him. There is no combination of players you can fit under the cap for CP3s salary and get the same production. If there is, I challenge anyone here to find it. We're talking about one of the greatest offensive peaks of All Time and above average defense, that just put up historically absurd numbers yet again and his team lost. I'm interested in where this idea of him going up against two taller players even stems from when A.) it's a 5 on 5 game and B.) the height of Durant and Westbrook didn't affect his performance at all. How is that even relevant? And you can't say Magic being 6'8 hurt him more than it helped him, that's nonsense. He could play defense against 1-4 and play offense from 1-5..that's way more valuable than being "short enough to stay in front of the opposing PG". No he could not. Magic could survive on defense for a short time if the match up was correct, but he couldn't guard 1-4. This was why Michael Cooper and Byron Scott were so valuable Also, who said Magic being 6'8 hurt him more than it helped? I guess we are breaking stuff up now? You don't even quote the stuff that directly answers your posts you just typed.. Obviously team construction matters, as I said that myself, but I said I am using championships as a measuring stick, so all those teams were well constructed. And if they weren't, then they beat the "well constructed" ones. I agree the game has changed recently (starting with D'Antoni and the Suns like I have said so myself) but none of the teams to incorporate that style led exclusively by a relatively-short PG have won a championship yet have they? So until then... As for your CP3 argument I don't really get where it is coming from. I myself was in the minority here when I argued for CP3 as the 3rd best player in the league next to Paul George. I said it was really close between them. But that doesn't mean you can't say he is at a disadvantage because of his height when it comes down to going against a team that is evenly-matched against them? As for my point about that not being efficient salary-cap wise, I think you misunderstood. I said everything being equal. If your argument is you can't find someone who can replace him at his salary, then obviously. That's not my point. We both agree it is about the team construction, did we not? So it doesn't matter if the opponent can do the same offensive things Paul does, if he is taller, more physical, and is able to defend Paul... I never once used WB/Durant as examples to anything I said by the way, so don't see why you mentioned them. I was only trying to clear up what the posters were getting at. And as a side-note, one of the things that is also changing is that the average PG has gotten better and better. They are the deepest position by far. That makes the production CP3 brings to the table, marginally less effective. Specially when compared to the salary-cap. It isn't that someone can replace what he does at his salary, it's that you can also get value from a solid PG for a fraction of the cost and then have the money to spend elsewhere when constructing your team. Again, I am not saying a PG-led team (or even CP3) can't win it. I am just saying that historically, they have not shown it to be the most efficient way of building your team in order to win a championship. So the facts seem to show that it is harder to do. And you are right about the other players on Magic's lakers being key on defense. I digress on that part about his game. edit: misspelling/clarity | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On May 17 2014 05:45 Ace wrote: Wonder what would have happened if Hakeem kept failing and didn't have a legendary role player barrage of 3s in his first playoff run and got eliminated. These narratives you guys come up have little basis in what actually happens on the court. Narratives don't matter when we are explicitly using championships as a barometer...that's the point. Narratives does matter in things like PER though like I've been telling you, which is the argument you are kind of trying to use against me now I think. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Please, make a list of the top 5 players at each position over the last 20 years. Then we will see what we see. Also, I realize that your point probably is, that it is better to have CP3 for a max deal than to not have CP3 for a max deal. Which I agree with, because its unlikely that you will be able to spend that money in a better way, which is really just an indictment of the player-max-contract system within a salary capped league. So it really cuts against players that are at a talent rich position (Point Guard). | ||
|
TwoToneTerran
United States8841 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
Well that does put a damper on things. | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
| ||
|
hootsushi
Germany3468 Posts
| ||
|
TwoToneTerran
United States8841 Posts
Kind of the opposite for Miami. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On May 17 2014 07:51 TwoToneTerran wrote: Thunder have really had some bad injury luck. Kind of the opposite for Miami. Hater. | ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
TwoToneTerran
United States8841 Posts
I'm not even sure what you're calling me a hater of. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On May 17 2014 08:05 TwoToneTerran wrote: I'm not even sure what you're calling me a hater of. Clearly trying to besmirch the greatest dynasty of the modern era. | ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
On May 17 2014 08:01 Jerubaal wrote: I wasn't super confident for the Spurs, but seeing the Clogged Toilet offense the last few series made me feel like the Spurs could take advantage of it better than Memphis or LAC. You'd think, but somehow OKC has fucking owned SA a bunch of times in a row now. The athleticism/length advantage that OKC has, plus general goodness, seems to be enough of a matchup problem to offset the obvious coaching/strategy advantage the Spurs have. Without Ibaka, I don't know that Durant and WB can win 4 without some miracle bench games. | ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
 | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On May 17 2014 08:08 Haiq343 wrote: You'd think, but somehow OKC has fucking owned SA a bunch of times in a row now. The athleticism/length advantage that OKC has, plus general goodness, seems to be enough of a matchup problem to offset the obvious coaching/strategy advantage the Spurs have. Without Ibaka, I don't know that Durant and WB can win 4 without some miracle bench games. I don't put a lot of stock in those games. Besides 2 of them the Spurs were playing their 4th game in 5 nights and in a 3rd the 4th in 6. The Spurs looked plenty athletic for big chunks of those games. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
| ||
