# Will Marbury lead a team to championship?



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

I've been really thinking about this, and I personally do not think he will ever lead a team to an NBA championship. I think the only way he wins a title is if he is the #2 or #3 guy in the offense. I just don't think he can win if he is the #1 option.

What say you, BBB.net?


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RebelSun</b>!
> I've been really thinking about this, and I personally do not think he will ever lead a team to an NBA championship. I think the only way he wins a title is if he is the #2 or #3 guy in the offense.<b>I just don't think he can win if he is the #1 option.</b>
> 
> What say you, BBB.net?


I agree and for the same reason.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

Could a Mod please delete the other thread like this - double post. Thanks.


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

I think Marbury can LEAD his team to a championship, as in be a vocal leader and play a pivotal role, but this is a game dominated by big men. Look at the teams left with the greatest chance to win: Duncan, KG, Shaq, Sheed, B-Dub, J'Neal.

If Marbury hooks up with a good big man (KG) and finds the right system (controlled break) I think he can be a leader on a championship team.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Hell no, I've said it before. Guys like Marbury, Iverson, etc will never lead you to a title and are extremely overrated. They need the ball in their hands to be effective so they wouldnt work well as 2nd options (not to mention they have the mentality of a franchise player) but they will never lead you there. 

I would much rather have a catch and shoot SG like Redd over Marbury or AI. Guys who know how to have impact on a game without the ball in their hands a lot are underrated and very valuable in this league. 

When it comes down to it, it takes a Duncan/KG/Shaq type player to lead you to a title. The rest of your roster needs to be filled with guys who dont control the ball too much or else they are taking away from the team. 

Thats why Elton Brand is so underrated, hes not a franchise player but hes probably the best 2nd option type guy in the league because of his ability to impact games without the ball in his hands and create opportunities for himself (led league in offensive rebounds) and also is a great post passer and has a nice post game on top of it. 

Thats also why the Kings are successful with or without Webber. Their whole team (Peja especially because of his stroke and off the ball ability) can impact the game without controlling the ball.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Did you see Malbury in the playoffs? He was basically ineffective. IMO Malbury doesn't have the passion or the drive to take a team to a Championship. He was basically nonchalant in the Nets series and refused to take over the game.


The problem with Malbury is that he dominates the ball so much that the offense relies too much on him scoring or getting an assist. I'm not sure if his style of play fits with another superstar. 

JTCK, it's not like Micheal Redd is going to take a team to a championship either. Catch n shoot SG's are good, but T-Mac and Kobe are both guys who I would rather have holding the ball and doing what they want.


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

Marbury can definetely lead a team to an NBA championship. Marbury simply needs the right players on his team. If this current Knicks team had a good big man then you would see what I mean. If you watched the Knicks-Nets series you could see what I mean. Marbury is really a completely unselfish player, but he has always been in situations where he is forced to score. The first two games of the series he was really trying to get others involved and ofcourse it didnt work. In the last two games he was forced to take the game into his own hands, and the game was alot closer. IM not saying that he should take the game into his own hands but with what he had he had to. Marbury's ideal situation would be one where he is the third scoring option on a team, his scoring might drop to 15 - 18 ppg, but his assists would go up and his team would win more, and if he had the right people to play for he would definetely sacrafice a few extra points inorder for his team to win. 

On the Knicks this season he constantly tried to get teammates involved but these current knicks are offensively challaenged, therefore marbury has been forced at times to shoot the ball way more than he wants to. Also Marbury was second in the league in assists while passing to who? Kurt Thomas, KVH, Michael Doleac, Tim Thomas, Penny Hardaway, Allan Houston (a good option when not injured which he was for a good portion of the season), and NAzr Mohamad (I know your saying who?). His best bigman scorer was Kurt Thomas who is hardly what I had in mind. 

So I think that Marbury is 100% able to lead a team to an NBA championship, but like I said he needs the right help. ON any given night he is the best pg on the court (or at least close, J.kidd, Baron Davis), so the key isnt what marbury is doing its what his teammates arent doing.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> JTCK, it's not like Micheal Redd is going to take a team to a championship either. Catch n shoot SG's are good, but T-Mac and Kobe are both guys who I would rather have holding the ball and doing what they want.


Yea, but if neither Redd or Marbury are going to lead you to a title, what does that make them? Roleplayers. I'd rather have a roleplayer who can be effective without dominating the ball because it contributes to the team game much more. Roleplayers who dominate the ball are only going to take away from the team game. 

Would you rather have Redd playing next to a true franchise player or Marbury? Redd is a better roleplayer IMO. 

McGrady and Kobe are different, because they are good enough to dominate the ball. They are true franchise players, which is why I never said anything about them.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

It takes a little something extra to take a team to the finals. It takes something extra and being the best to take a team and win a championship.

Marbury just flat out doesn't have either. I don't see him taking a team to the Finals. Let alone winning one once he's there.

He's a really good point guard, and a terrific regular season player. But he's not really "special". Nobody is going to confuse him for Jason Kidd. Hell. Nobody is going to confuse him for Sam Cassell.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Hell no, I've said it before. Guys like Marbury, Iverson, etc will never lead you to a title and are extremely overrated. They need the ball in their hands to be effective so they wouldnt work well as 2nd options (not to mention they have the mentality of a franchise player) but they will never lead you there.
> 
> When it comes down to it, it takes a Duncan/KG/Shaq type player to lead you to a title. The rest of your roster needs to be filled with guys who dont control the ball too much or else they are taking away from the team.


I disagree with that. The best teams have always had at least two offensive superstars. The only teams since the 80's to win titles without more than one superstar have been Tim Duncan's Spurs and Hakeem Olajuwon's Rockets (first of their repeat) - which is a huge testament to both players. I think Marbury at least has the ability to share a secondary superstar type role with a great big man..

In the early 80's, the Celtics teams that were perenially 65~ win teams, had Bird, McHale, and Parrish. Philly had Moses Malone and Julius Erving. Lakers had Magic, Kareem, and Worthy and later Kobe and Shaq. The Pistons had Isiah and Joe D, Houston had Hakeem and Clyde the second time, the Bulls had Mike and Scottie..

Besides that, neither Marbury or Iverson have ever had the luxury of playing with a dominant big man. The only time Steph got to play with a legit big man (unless you count Amare in his rookie season, I certainly don't) he helped a team that was 16 games under .500 with Isaiah Rider to a playoff team without him when he was just 19 years old. If their ego's hadn't bumped into eachother, Marbury and Garnett would have been a championship combo in my opinion.


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

Marbury does donimate the ball but every possision he is creating for others on the team. IF he had a dominate big man to play with like Duncan or KG who could create for themselves then all he would have to do is dump it in and let them do all the work, and at the same time he could score when teams sleep on him and he could still penetrate and dish it out with the pick and roll (imagine who much duncan would love the pick and roll with that lovely midrange jump shot). But arent pg's supposed to dominate the ball, and set up the offense, and bring hte ball up the court? What am I missing? SOme make it sound like he just holds the ball the whole time, when he passes just as much as anyone else in the league.


----------



## VCHighFly (May 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> Houston had Hakeem and Clyde the second time,


Horry was a star the first time.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

whoa. How did Iverson get into this discussion? Totally diffrent player from Marbury. Iverson has taken a team to the big game. You think Iverson would have gone out as pathetically as Marbury did for the Knicks this year? He would have gone out firing. At least one 50 point game.

If Marbury had Iverson's heart, my answer to this question might be a little diffrent. But he doesn't.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Yea, but if neither Redd or Marbury are going to lead you to a title, what does that make them?


So the NBA only has three non-roleplayers? You just said only 3 current players could lead a team to a title. Calling everyone else roleplayers seems overboard.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> whoa. How did Iverson get into this discussion? Totally diffrent player from Marbury. Iverson has taken a team to the big game. You think Iverson would have gone out as pathetically as Marbury did for the Knicks this year? He would have gone out firing. At least one 50 point game.
> 
> If Marbury had Iverson's heart, my answer to this question might be a little diffrent. But he doesn't.





> Originally posted by *John The Cool Kid*!
> Hell no, I've said it before. Guys like Marbury, Iverson, etc will never lead you to a title and are extremely overrated.


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> whoa. How did Iverson get into this discussion? Totally diffrent player from Marbury. Iverson has taken a team to the big game. You think Iverson would have gone out as pathetically as Marbury did for the Knicks this year? He would have gone out firing. At least one 50 point game.
> 
> If Marbury had Iverson's heart, my answer to this question might be a little diffrent. But he doesn't.


What kind of logic is that? First off AI didnt even make the playoffs to have that oppurtunity, why did he go down the way he did during the season, let alone the post season. Its not AI's fault and its not Marbury's falut, they both arent playing with great talent. IF marbury could get a healthy Housotn back next season and a better bigman than what he has now then he could very well make the KNicks a very competetive team. But according to you MArbury should just try to put up 50 and go out like that? I almost think your joking but im not sure, please tell me your playing around.


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> whoa. How did Iverson get into this discussion? Totally diffrent player from Marbury. Iverson has taken a team to the big game. You think Iverson would have gone out as pathetically as Marbury did for the Knicks this year? He would have gone out firing. At least one 50 point game.
> 
> If Marbury had Iverson's heart, my answer to this question might be a little diffrent. But he doesn't.


There's a difference between Marbury and Iverson though. Where Iverson will come off a pick into three people and try to drop a shot over them, no matter how tall, Marbury will try to set up someone else when he encounters a double or triple team. Can he REALLY help it if against the Nets Tim Thomas was killed by Collins, Kurt Thomas shot 42% on layups and open jumpers, Nazr Mohammed bricked any shot that wasn't a layup, Penny was playing 42 MINUTES A GAME! and he can barely come up the court every possession (he managed to shoot all of 36%).

Marbury played excellent basketball, despite being the focus of the entire scheme of the Nets (who also did a good job of executing). But the Nets wanted the other players to beat them, and as expected, the rest of the Knicks crapped out. The Knicks shot 38% from the floor, 29% from 3-land, and really couldn't play transition defense. 

Marbury averaged 21.3/6.5/4.3/1.8, basically playing 2 on 5.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> So the NBA only has three non-roleplayers? You just said only 3 current players could lead a team to a title. Calling everyone else roleplayers seems overboard.


Well, not every team is a winning team. Some teams have to settle for calling Marbury their franchise player. When I look at a players status, I look at what role they would play on a championship calibur team. 

Whats the difference between a mediocre team calling Marbury a franchise player and a bottomfeeder team calling Rahim their franchise player? Sure Marbury is better, but either they arent leading you to a title. To me, the only true franchise players are ones good enough to be a franchise player on a championship calibur team. 

Theres probably only 5-6 players that are true franchise players. The three I mentioned are the ones you have the best chance with because you dont have to be so exact when building a team around them. I never said they were the only three, but I think the only 5 are those three plus Tmac and Kobe. Although with Tmac and Kobe, you'd need to be much more precise with filling the positions around them to create a good balance and chemistry.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Fair enough I suppose.. I don't see the logic in denigrating Marbury as a roleplayer and vaunting T-Mac as a franchise player though. You could make the same argument for Marbury that you make for McGrady.. put the right players around him and you will have a successful team, you just have to have the right combination of players.

Do you think if the Suns had Elton Brand instead of a rookie Amare Stoudemire they could have beaten the NBA Champion Spurs? Marbury would still be considered the main man on a team like that.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

When it became obvious that the Knicks didn't have the talent to beat the Nets, Steph should have forced his game more. Yeah Iverson would shoot over a triple team. Maybe when his team is looking directionless and weak out there, Marbury should do the same.

It seemed like he was trying too hard to not seem like a ballhog, when being a ballhog is often how a weaker team wins in the playoffs. The superstar has to take over. Marbury never took over.

And Iverson can hardly be blamed for a season in which he mostly didn't play in. His record when he actually is on the court playing in the games instead of having to war with his coach from the training table, is much better than Marbury's.

I was very unimpressed with Marbury this year. Last year for the Suns I thought he had a little more fire. And it was disapointing to see him basically roll over and take it from Kidd and the Nets. There was no pride on that Knicks team.

Has an Iverson team ever been swept out of the playoffs?


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

^^^ same arguement could be made for KG right? espcailly if his team doesnt win it this year. Doesnt mean he isnt capable of leading a team to a championship just means he doesnt have the right peices. A team could also have good players and still not have the right peices, or maybe there are just a few teams that are that good enough (with another Franchise player) that can beat you. Ewing in his prime wasnt good enough to lead a team to a championship? He almost did it single handley. What about Charles Barkley he wasnt good enough to lead a team to a championship, sure he was he just needed the right peices around him. The same goes for marbury he just needs the right players around him to get there. I like the comparison to T-mac.


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> When it became obvious that the Knicks didn't have the talent to beat the Nets, Steph should have forced his game more. Yeah Iverson would shoot over a triple team. Maybe when his team is looking directionless and weak out there, Marbury should do the same.
> 
> It seemed like he was trying too hard to not seem like a ballhog, when being a ballhog is often how a weaker team wins in the playoffs. The superstar has to take over. Marbury never took over.
> ...


Did you really watch that series? Marbury was always double teamed and sometimes tripple teamed. Its was hard enough for him to bring the ball up the court let alone score. He tried to score but its impossible to really take over a game when the whole focal point of the opposing teams defnese is to stop marbury. The nets said screw KT, Penny and anyone else, let them shoot all they want, just keep the ball away from marbury. Thats why he didnt put up 50, he didnt even have the room to jack up walker shots.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> Fair enough I suppose.. I don't see the logic in denigrating Marbury as a roleplayer and vaunting T-Mac as a franchise player though. You could make the same argument for Marbury that you make for McGrady.. put the right players around him and you will have a successful team, you just have to have the right combination of players.


Well besides the huge height difference between Marbury and McGrady, he also has a more well rounded offensive game. He can post up, catch and shoot, create for his teammates, and this season improved in moving off the ball. Hes also the better rebounder. He can just do more things on the court and have a bigger impact on the game. 

I dont think any combination of players you put with Marbury will be good enough to be a championship team, because I think he controls the ball too much and actually takes away from his teammates getting better. 



> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> Do you think if the Suns had Elton Brand instead of a rookie Amare Stoudemire they could have beaten the NBA Champion Spurs? Marbury would still be considered the main man on a team like that.


No, they couldnt have beat the Spurs. I think Brand is the better impact player than Marbury as well.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

No, their is a huge difference between KG, Barkley, and Malbury.

And when it comes down to it, that difference is that Malbury is NOT on that level. He is not ever going to be an MVP in the league.

Malbury has been in the league, what, 8 years? And he's never won a playoff series. He's never proven to be a great leader, or somebody who is going to will you to victory.

I thought Stevie Francis was much better in the first round than Malbury was. 

And Baron Davis, he really did what Malbury should of done. He did everything he could offensively to will his team to victory. Malbury just looked like he didn't care most of the series.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Matt85163</b>!
> There's a difference between Marbury and Iverson though. *Where Iverson will come off a pick into three people* and try to drop a shot over them, no matter how tall, Marbury will try to set up someone else when he encounters a double or triple team. Can he REALLY help it if against the Nets Tim Thomas was killed by Collins, Kurt Thomas shot 42% on layups and open jumpers, Nazr Mohammed bricked any shot that wasn't a layup, Penny was playing 42 MINUTES A GAME! and he can barely come up the court every possession (he managed to shoot all of 36%).


The difference between Iverson and Marbury is in the bold, Iverson can run off of screens and operate off ball, Marbury really can't do that. If he could, he'd be a much more effective player.

Also, when it comes to the end of the day the real question might be can Marbury lead his team to a playoff series win?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

*Ma*r*bury


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Well, I agree with you about T-Mac.

That Suns team, as it was, was 2 points away from forcing a game 7. Having an Elton Brand vs. a rookie Amare Stoudemire on that team would have swayed the balances in favor of Phoenix, just because of how well they matched up with San Antonio.. 

I think Marbury has the ability to make his teammates better, and does (KVH played his best stretch of basketball while Marbury was there, Thomas played better than he did in Milwaukee as well), but if he does dominate the ball too much it's because he doesn't have any choice.. with the teams he has been on, he hasn't ever had someone to take those burdens off of him.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jmonty580</b>!
> ^^^ same arguement could be made for KG right? espcailly if his team doesnt win it this year. Doesnt mean he isnt capable of leading a team to a championship just means he doesnt have the right peices. A team could also have good players and still not have the right peices, or maybe there are just a few teams that are that good enough (with another Franchise player) that can beat you. Ewing in his prime wasnt good enough to lead a team to a championship? He almost did it single handley. What about Charles Barkley he wasnt good enough to lead a team to a championship, sure he was he just needed the right peices around him. The same goes for marbury he just needs the right players around him to get there. I like the comparison to T-mac.


Since you mention, I was going to continue my point in my first response to include, T-Mac and KG in that group of talented do-nothings, that are lacking the special something that makes a champion, or even a contender.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Kidd is an example of a player who I think has a team built around him that compliments his game perfectly and I dont consider the Nets a championship calibur team. 

So if Marbury had a team built around him perfectly, I think they would be a very good team, but still not championship calibur. 

Then you have Duncan, KG and Shaq who have teams that arent even close to being built perfectly around them, but they still have their teams up there. 

Thats not to say a team cant win without a true franchise player, I think a good balanced team that doesnt rely on one player (Kings, Pistons) can also win titles. Its just that I wouldnt give anyone credit for being a franchise player on those type of teams. Its just a good balanced effort based around chemistry and teamwork.


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

So now you think that T-mac and KG lack what it takes to get a championship? T-mac's team flatout sucks. And KG is unfortunate to play in a conference full of talent, and Duncan and Shaq. KG should atleast get this team to the conference finals this year, but he as got to pull off a tough feat in getting by the kings. All in All I think KG is just cursed to have to play in a time with so many other very very talented team, but that doesnt mean that he wont lead a team to the a Championship.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> whoa. How did Iverson get into this discussion? Totally diffrent player from Marbury. Iverson has taken a team to the big game. You think Iverson would have gone out as pathetically as Marbury did for the Knicks this year?


No, he wouldn't have even made the playoffs. Because he has no heart? Well, if we're going to base "heart" on team accomplishment, then yes...Iverson couldn't even make the playoffs in the weak East...therefore he has zero heart. Right? 

Marbury was leading a team with far less talent than his opponent *and* lacking his best teammate, Alan Houston. Marbury tried to get his teammates involved and had very good games, in both points and assists. The Knicks lost because Marbury had no talent around him, not because he played badly.

And what does Iverson taking a team to the big game have to do with anything? Really, futuristxen, you really waffle on the "evaluating individuals by team accomplishments" issue based on what's convenient for the player you're defending. Marbury has never led a team as good (compared to the conference he was in) as Iverson.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Until KG or T-Mac get with another star they most likely won't win one on their own. That's my feel of it. The diffrence in KG and Tim Duncan is that special something that says "I'm going to dominate this game". KG is too content to pass the buck to his teammates sometimes.

I would like to see T-Mac with a better team though.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> whoa. How did Iverson get into this discussion? Totally diffrent player from Marbury. Iverson has taken a team to the big game. You think Iverson would have gone out as pathetically as Marbury did for the Knicks this year? He would have gone out firing. At least one 50 point game.
> 
> If Marbury had Iverson's heart, my answer to this question might be a little diffrent. But he doesn't.


Do you guys understand how decimated the Knicks roster was come playoff time? They were without Allan Houston who is their second scoring option and for 3 of the last 4 games they were either without Tim Thomas or he was severely limited, and he happens to be their 2nd option. Marbury was doubled team the whole series, nobody could carry a team when that team is forced to use their 4th option as their 2nd. Let Marbury go to the playoffs with a healthy team before you judge him. How many titles does Kidd have? How many series did a West team win with Kidd in the lineup? 

The Nets have never had injuries come playoff time which obviously was a big factor in their success. Now imagine if the Nets played without Martin and Jefferson how much woudl they win?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

As to the question of the thread, *will* Marbury lead a team to a championship, the odds are always stacked against a player doing it. Plenty of true greats have never won a championship or just barely got one after they were past their prime. One player cannot *make* championships happen...there has to be a confluence of great player with great partner or great supporting cast.

The real question is: Is Marbury *capable* of leading a talented team to a championship and I believe the answer to that is unquestionably, yes.

He's not a selfish player. He was trying to involve his teammates in the Knicks-Nets series, knowing that was the only way they had a hope of winning. Of course, those determined to criticize Marbury no matter what he does then claimed he was passive and had no heart. Had he gone for 40 ppg in that series and lost (as the Knicks *should* have lost, being less talented and short-handed), those same people would have claimed he was selfish and a ballhog.

Marbury is a top play-maker for others in the league as well as one of the league's most talented scorers. He's equally capable of setting up teammates for baskets as taking the mantle of go-to guy when his team needs it. That's very much a player who can win a championship, because he's capable of filling either key role: facilitator or go-to guy. It just depends on what his team needs.

The Knicks needed both, especially with Alan Houston out. Marbury tried to be both, scoring 20+ a game and handing out a lot of assists...but, in the end, even Marbury can't produce like *two* top players. He'll actually need another top player to help him win.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Really, futuristxen, you really waffle on the "evaluating individuals by team accomplishments" issue based on what's convenient for the player you're defending.


I know. I should just stop talking about players I care about, or talk only about them. I do feel a diffrence between the KGs, T-Macs, and Marburys compared to the Iversons, Duncans and Kobes. And when I talk about Iverson now, I'm more referring to the great Iverson closer to his MVP days. Last year was kind of a disaster. And the year before that was unremarkable.

When I watch KG and T-Mac and Marbury, there seems like there is something lacking. All three are very very talented. But they don't have that aura about them that the great ones do.

I mean, I get annoyed when I'm watching the Knicks play and I wanted them to beat New Jersey, and Marbury was just giving the ball up, when he was the only one on the team who could really create his own shot. And his team needed him to take over. Take bad shots even. Just take the shot.

And I get the same feeling when at the end of a game KG shoots a fadeaway, when he could just put his head down and drive to the basket and dunk it.

Or seeing T-Mac settle for Jumpers too often.

Meanwhile, you see Duncan take it right at Shaq for big shots in big games. You see Kobe going to the basket, making the critical 3 point play. Or you see Iverson put his head down and go and get a 3 point play.

Marbury, KG, and T-Mac are players who too often just take what they are given, because they are so talented.

Whereas Kobe, Duncan, and AI TAKE what they want. Shaq too.

I don't know what else to call that but heart or competitive desire.

Even Tony Parker does this.

But yeah, I'm still not sure where I stand in factoring in success with individual ability. I probably weight playoff performance more than anything. But I don't really hold it against a player if they don't make the playoffs, because that's a team thing. But when you see a player in the playoffs you really learn a lot about how they operate.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Or seeing T-Mac settle for Jumpers too often.


Thats his biggest problem. Kobe gets to the hoop and only settles for jumpers sometimes. Tmac hardly gets to the hoop anymore, I remember he used to do that and throw down some nasty dunks. Now hes way too content chucking up three pointers. Baron Davis has the same exact problem.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> I know. I should just stop talking about players I care about, or talk only about them. I do feel a diffrence between the KGs, T-Macs, and Marburys compared to the Iversons, Duncans and Kobes.


This is why I love you. You're real, you don't try to explain away what you also see as a contradiction.

I do understand that sometimes our opinions are contradictory. I'm sure it happens to me, too.



> I mean, I get annoyed when I'm watching the Knicks play and I wanted them to beat New Jersey, and Marbury was just giving the ball up, when he was the only one on the team who could really create his own shot. And his team needed him to take over. Take bad shots even. Just take the shot.


But then they may lose by more. Marbury going 1 on 5 might be the best chance in any one possession...but for the game, the *only* chance they had at winning was if his teammates played well, and he got them involved.

It almost got them one win against the odds. And what does he lose trying to get others involved in a desperate attempt to win? He's just risking prettier stats for himself. I think that's cool, that he's not hung up on his ppg, but rather in taking the only hope for victory.



> Marbury, KG, and T-Mac are players who too often just take what they are given, because they are so talented.
> 
> Whereas Kobe, Duncan, and AI TAKE what they want. Shaq too.
> 
> I don't know what else to call that but heart or competitive desire.


I think you're misinterpreting their motivations (KG, McGrady, and Marbury). They all know they can TAKE what they want...individually. They've done it, put up sick stat lines, etc. They want to *win*, though, so they stop just taking individual numbers and start trying to get teammates involved. Yeah, they keep getting let down (until this year for KG, when he finally got some good teammates), but what else can they do?

And if you think McGrady settles for too many perimeter shots, why do you laud Allen Iverson? He's not going 3-21 by missing 18 layups. Iverson is the #1 culprit (challenged by Baron Davis this season) for firing up one perimeter shot after another.

And why does he do that? Because the entire defense is set up to stop him from slashing. Same as it is for McGrady. Same as it *would be* for Bryant, if he didn't have this other guy who defenses have to gameplan for, Shaquille O'Neal.



> When I watch KG and T-Mac and Marbury, there seems like there is something lacking. All three are very very talented. But they don't have that aura about them that the great ones do.


That lack of aura is due to losing. Which is due to weak supporting casts. I guarantee that if McGrady, this same guy, had played his career with O'Neal and in Phil Jackson's offense and Bryant had played for mediocre to poor teams his whole career, everyone would making the same arguments but for the other guy. Bryant would have no "heart" or "aura" and McGrady would have that undefinable greatness.


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

I hope he can, praying he can....


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> That lack of aura is due to losing. Which is due to weak supporting casts. I guarantee that if McGrady, this same guy, had played his career with O'Neal and in Phil Jackson's offense and Bryant had played for mediocre to poor teams his whole career, everyone would making the same arguments but for the other guy. Bryant would have no "heart" or "aura" and McGrady would have that undefinable greatness.


My theory that I've been thinking about a lot this season is that the NBA has been without a great dominating guard since Jordan left. I don't think any of these perimeter oriented players are proving dominating enough to win it all without a lot of help.(And by that I don't mean they need Pippen and Grant...I mean they need Jordan).

I think the best players in the league are in the power forward position. But we hold up the guards because it's a glamor position. But isn't it possible that none of these guys, Kobe, T-Mac, Iverson, Pierce or Carter are actually all that special?

And then dealing with point guards, that after Jason Kidd, there really isn't much there.

Because I think watching these guys, there's not the same excitement and awe that I remember from Jordan.

And the reason I noticed it this year especially, is because watching Lebron, and occasionaly Melo, and sometimes Wade, there seems like a special balance of mental toughness and special ability.

Do you think when all is said and done that T-Mac and Kobe and Iverson and Marbury are going to go down as great ones? Or are they just the best at their position right now? I feel like they've been acting more as placeholders until something truly great comes along. Maybe it's the fact that none of these players really brought something new and unique to the game like the great ones always seem to do.

I think Shaq is a great one. Duncan is around there. I'm still waiting for KG to play up to his potential. But after that it seems like you get into a slippery slope. If you say something good about Kobe, then you have to say it about T-Mac, and then you have to include Iverson from a few years ago, then you have to talk about Pierce...and on and on. Whereas you could potentially just begin and end the conversation with Duncan, KG, Shaq.

But that might just be me.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> Do you think when all is said and done that T-Mac and Kobe and Iverson and Marbury are going to go down as great ones? Or are they just the best at their position right now? I feel like they've been acting more as placeholders until something truly great comes along. Maybe it's the fact that none of these players really brought something new and unique to the game like the great ones always seem to do.



i been feeling like this for a long time now... this is the first time i ever seen anyone express the same feelings...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> My theory that I've been thinking about a lot this season is that the NBA has been without a great dominating guard since Jordan left. I don't think any of these perimeter oriented players are proving dominating enough to win it all without a lot of help.(And by that I don't mean they need Pippen and Grant...I mean they need Jordan).


So, in other words, we have some Pippens in the league, but no Jordans. I felt the same way about Grant Hill and Penny Hardaway.

A Michael Jordan is special and almost never comes along. I would argue that only Jordan, Magic, Robertson and *maybe* West were good enough guards to be the dominant force for a champion.

But there are always exceptions. Isaiah Thomas was not at that level, but had a deep enough team to still win titles. Pippen, himself, may have had a shot in 1993-94 had he had another star alongside him.



> I think the best players in the league are in the power forward position. But we hold up the guards because it's a glamor position. But isn't it possible that none of these guys, Kobe, T-Mac, Iverson, Pierce or Carter are actually all that special?


It's possible. I think we have a couple of Hall of Famers in that bunch of perimeter players, maybe as many as three, but no top-ten all-time candidates.



> And the reason I noticed it this year especially, is because watching Lebron, and occasionaly Melo, and sometimes Wade, there seems like a special balance of mental toughness and special ability.


James, I agree. He *could* be, and I did get a sense of specialness at times from him. I don't think Anthony or Wade, good as they are, are even as talented as Bryant and McGrady. I certainly wouldn't project Anthony or Wade as potential legends.



> Do you think when all is said and done that T-Mac and Kobe and Iverson and Marbury are going to go down as great ones? Or are they just the best at their position right now? I feel like they've been acting more as placeholders until something truly great comes along.


I think all four are probably going to go into the Hall of Fame, if they all finish their careers on their current paths. If by "great ones," you mean game-changing immortals, no.



> Maybe it's the fact that none of these players really brought something new and unique to the game like the great ones always seem to do.


I don't think O'Neal or Duncan brought anything new to the game. They just play really, really well. And they are surely greats.

Garnett, I think, brings something new to the game, as such a versatile athlete with such a varied skillset. A seven-footer who can guard point guards as well as centers and not only post up but drive and dish like a guard...that's pretty new to this game. But I think he may be the first of a new wave. In 20 years, we may not regard Garnett as such a freak.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VCHighFly</b>!
> 
> Horry was a star the first time.


He was a great role player, not an extremely dangerous offensive threat. Remember, he only averaged 10 ppg during the Rockets first championship.



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Garnett, I think, brings something new to the game, as such a versatile athlete with such a varied skillset. A seven-footer who can guard point guards as well as centers and not only post up but drive and dish like a guard...that's pretty new to this game. But I think he may be the first of a new wave. *In 20 years, we may not regard Garnett as such a freak.*


The NBA is becoming based on alot more athleticism than skill. Defenses have become tougher, players are stronger, more durable, and this is why it is amazing Garnett can still play like he does every night with his body. It's not like he has an array of low post moves he can resort to, or a huge frame to bang around in the post. The guy is just an athletic freak, who can actually shoot the ball unlike so many others out there. He has to work so hard for most of his baskets. The NBA has never seen such a combination of skill and athleticism from a big man, and that is why Garnett will go down as such a unique and remembered player... whether he wins a title or not.

In 20 years, even though we will see the emergence of alot more KG like players, you can bet the players around them are going to be that much more athletic and tougher. Just like Wilt Chamberlain was able to use his athleticism to dominate basketball back in the day when basketball was centered around skill, Garnett's height and athleticism gives him a big advantage over today's NBA players that are making that transition into the athletic era of the NBA.


----------



## Idunkonyou (Feb 23, 2003)

Like you could say for any great player in the league, not with out help he won't.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

A lot of people setting imaginary standards for players. So Marbury is *magically* supposed to take a team with its 2nd & 3rd option out, and beat a fully healthy 2-time EC champ. 

If I were a computer, I'd be screaming out "DOES NOT COMPUTE". With the two other scorers out, the Knicks weren't any better than Orlando. And we know how well Orlando did this year. Even though I don't like Tmac's crying ***, wait till Grant Hill starts playing again or just the addition of their draft pick to help him out. Then I bet everyone here will be on the McGriddle bandwagon again, saying "ah yeah I knew he could do it!".

:idea: 
Put a quality bigman around Marbury, then judge him on what he does then. Until that happens, everybody here needs to stop talking out of their ***. People here are quick to forget that even Magic needed Kareem. Teams win together, and teams lose together. And right now Marbury's team sucks.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> So, in other words, we have some Pippens in the league, but no Jordans. I felt the same way about Grant Hill and Penny Hardaway.


Exactly. It is how I felt about Grant Hill and Penny as well.



> A Michael Jordan is special and almost never comes along. I would argue that only Jordan, Magic, Robertson and *maybe* West were good enough guards to be the dominant force for a champion.


I agree. But got kind of spoiled having Magic and Michael run right into each there in the 80's and early 90's.



> James, I agree. He *could* be, and I did get a sense of specialness at times from him. I don't think Anthony or Wade, good as they are, are even as talented as Bryant and McGrady. I certainly wouldn't project Anthony or Wade as potential legends.


Yeah I was being more polite than anything. Though I am intrigued by Anthony's demeanor. But that may just put him at a Charles Barkley level. James has done things on a basketball court that I didn't even know were possible. And on a rate of about once or twice a game, sometimes more. He still has to develop. So it remains to be seen.



> I don't think O'Neal or Duncan brought anything new to the game. They just play really, really well. And they are surely greats.


I disagree. Shaq brought a physicallity to his play. He was a rare combination of size agility and skill in his prime. Even though I didn't much care for his style. It's hard to deny him. Though it's a shame he never really got a real foe to challenge him like Chamberlain got. When Shaq first got into the league, he was doing things that people weren't supposed to be doing. He was pulling apart backboards, and just dunking people into the basket with shear force. He brought the next progression of the power center. I don't know if we'll ever see another like him as finesse as most players are. But like him or not, and I don't, he is one of the greats.

Duncan is a little trickier. And I think we need to see about two more years of dominance from Duncan to really get a strong grasp on what he brings to the table. He's not going to ever throw himself into a top 5 conversation I don't think. But he's probably at a Larry Bird level.


> Garnett, I think, brings something new to the game, as such a versatile athlete with such a varied skillset. A seven-footer who can guard point guards as well as centers and not only post up but drive and dish like a guard...that's pretty new to this game. But I think he may be the first of a new wave. In 20 years, we may not regard Garnett as such a freak.


KG's interesting because I think he did change a little bit how a 7 footer is viewed in terms of what they can do on the basketball court. Now it's not at all rare to have these guys 6-10--7 foot who can do everything on a basketball court. He still hasn't really put it all together yet though, IMO. KG for all of his setting the new trend for 7 footers, hasn't shown yet, why a 7 footer should be able to play like a guard. Because we have Tim Duncan who has a lot of the same skills, but who goes down on the block and gets business done, who seems like the more effective and dominant player. So even though he has started a trend, I don't think it's a trend that he has fully justified just yet.(And you are starting to see a bit of a backlash, I think, Coaches are starting to get sick of 7 foot utitlity men who won't go down on the block and do the dirty work. Too many Tim Thomas types and not enough Tim Duncans). Frankly, I question whether KG can win it on his own, without getting a Jordan type(which as we've said is not a dime a dozen). I still hold the popular view that KG is a REALLY good Scottie Pippen, surrounded by subpar talent. Lack of a go-to move really hurts him.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> A lot of people setting imaginary standards for players. So Marbury is *magically* supposed to take a team with its 2nd & 3rd option out, and beat a fully healthy 2-time EC champ.
> 
> If I were a computer, I'd be screaming out "DOES NOT COMPUTE". With the two other scorers out, the Knicks weren't any better than Orlando. And we know how well Orlando did this year. Even though I don't like Tmac's crying ***, wait till Grant Hill starts playing again or just the addition of their draft pick to help him out. Then I bet everyone here will be on the McGriddle bandwagon again, saying "ah yeah I knew he could do it!".
> ...


What's a quality Big man? He was on a Phoenix team with Amare and Marion...surely those two together adds up to something close to a quality big man. At least enough that you wouldn't be in the western conference cellar.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Amare was definitely a quality big man in Pheonix, and they had balance at all positions. If you put too good of a big man next to Marbury, he becomes the 2nd option, which is realistically where he would belong on a champion calibur team.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Yeah, good posters here guys. Decent thoughts


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I agree that the guards of todays league arent as good as we like to say they are. Thats why for the past year or so I've made an effort to make a seperation between Duncan, Shaq and KG and Kobe/Tmac. I think theres a huge gap there, although KG doesnt play down low as much, so hes not on the same level with Duncan and Shaq but his defense, shotblocking and rebounding ability as well as his lengthy frame and athletic ability put him ahead of Kobe and Tmac still by a good margin. 

Shaq comes to play every now and then, and slacks off other times. Like in game 2, that Shaq was the Shaq that will keep him in my top 3 for awhile.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> What's a quality Big man? He was on a Phoenix team with Amare and Marion...surely those two together adds up to something close to a quality big man. At least enough that you wouldn't be in the western conference cellar.


And not to mention that the 2 games the Suns won against the Spurs game 1 hit hitted a flukely blank 3 point shot, and game 3 Hardaway took over as the playmaking role since Marbury was ineffective because of the shoulders.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Frankly, I question whether KG can win it on his own, without getting a Jordan type(which as we've said is not a dime a dozen). I still hold the popular view that KG is a REALLY good Scottie Pippen, surrounded by subpar talent. Lack of a go-to move really hurts him.


You type a lot of words and it suits you, but you haven't actually said anything meaningful at all. Frankly, I question whether futuristxen is as knowledgeable about basketball as he *thinks* he is. I still hold the popular view that futuristxen is a good poster but not great like Minstrel or whiterhino. Lack of a decisive position on any issue being discussed really hurts him. He has potential though.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> I agree that the guards of todays league arent as good as we like to say they are. Thats why for the past year or so I've made an effort to make a seperation between Duncan, Shaq and KG and Kobe/Tmac. I think theres a huge gap there, although KG doesnt play down low as much, so hes not on the same level with Duncan and Shaq but his defense, shotblocking and rebounding ability as well as his lengthy frame and athletic ability put him ahead of Kobe and Tmac still by a good margin.
> 
> Shaq comes to play every now and then, and slacks off other times. Like in game 2, that Shaq was the Shaq that will keep him in my top 3 for awhile.


I don't think there's nearly that large of a talent gap between #3, and McGrady/Bryant. Both have top shelf talent, and personally, I believe their primes are comparable or better than Drexler's, who is often considered the second greatest SG of all time. They aren't merely good SG's in a weak guard league, but rather all-time talents at their position.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> I don't think there's nearly that large of a talent gap between #3, and McGrady/Bryant. Both have top shelf talent, and personally, I believe their primes are comparable or better than Drexler's, who is often considered the second greatest SG of all time. They aren't merely good SG's in a weak guard league, but rather all-time talents at their position.


I dont think they impact the game in nearly as many ways as Duncan, KG and Shaq. They are primarily one on one players. They dont have nearly the same rebounding or defensive presence as the three I mentioned. The top three do the dirty work and still manage to do a lot of stand out things, Kobe and Tmac seem to just do the stand out stuff.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>
> 
> I dont think they impact the game in nearly as many ways as Duncan, KG and Shaq. They are primarily one on one players. They dont have nearly the same rebounding or defensive presence as the three I mentioned. The top three do the dirty work and still manage to do a lot of stand out things, Kobe and Tmac seem to just do the stand out stuff.


Hmm, I don't know, maybe its because those guys are all 6'11" and above. I could be guessing though.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I dont think they impact the game in nearly as many ways as Duncan, KG and Shaq. They are primarily one on one players. They dont have nearly the same rebounding or defensive presence as the three I mentioned. The top three do the dirty work and still manage to do a lot of stand out things, Kobe and Tmac seem to just do the stand out stuff.


How much of that is due to their position? Jordan didn't have the same rebounding or defensive presence of those players either. Was he inferior as well? McGrady and Bryant are just as dominant at the shooting guard position, as the aforementioned three are at their positions.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> Hmm, I don't know, maybe its because those guys are all 6'11" and above. I could be guessing though.


Maybe, I just judge impact, not inch for inch. Otherwise Earl Boykins would be among the elite. 



> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> How much of that is due to their position? Jordan didn't have the same rebounding or defensive presence of those players either. Was he inferior as well? McGrady and Bryant are just as dominant at the shooting guard position, as the aforementioned three are at their positions.


They dont score, rebound, pass or defend as well as Jordan did. They also arent close to being the competitor Jordan was. They also arent close to being the athlete that Jordan was. 

Yea, some of it is due to position though. Jordan was one of a kind, so hes a bad example IMO. But even in an era dominated by Jordan, who won 6 titles, it was still a big man era. Shaq, Hakeem and Duncan led their teams to a combined 7 titles, and could be going on 8 this year.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> Maybe, I just judge impact, not inch for inch. Otherwise Earl Boykins would be among the elite.


Maybe, you don't know what you're [barkley] talking about. Obviously if you are taller you are going to impact more [exception: his airness].


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> They dont score, rebound, pass or defend as well as Jordan did. They also arent close to being the competitor Jordan was. They also arent close to being the athlete that Jordan was.


Obviously they don't fare as well compared to Jordan, but so far they are the guards that have come closest to equaling his production, past or present. I wouldn't really agree that neither are the passer or rebounder that he was either. McGrady is most likely Jordan's equal in rebounding, while both are comparable in passing ability. Jordan never was amazing at the skill. He just knew when and where to find the open man on the perimeter. Both McGrady and Bryant have that skill down pat. 


> Yea, some of it is due to position though. Jordan was one of a kind, so hes a bad example IMO. But even in an era dominated by Jordan, who won 6 titles, it was still a big man era. Shaq, Hakeem and Duncan led their teams to a combined 7 titles, and could be going on 8 this year.


I do agree that big man are more important than guards in general. They are easier to build around and have a greater defensive presence, although using Shaq in your title count is a bit unfair, since Byrant had a fair share to do with that. 

Regardless, I was merely pointing out what I believed to be a flaw in your reasoning suggesting that there was a "good margin" between #3 and #4. There's a gap yes, but I don't believe it's as large as you make it out to be.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> Maybe, you don't know what you're [barkley] talking about. Obviously if you are taller you are going to impact more [exception: his airness].


Then you proved my point. Those three impact the game more, like I said, players arent judged on how well they do for their height, they are judged on how well they do, period. 

So if height is the reason that those three are better rebounders and defenders, then so be it. Bottom line is, they are better.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> What's a quality Big man? He was on a Phoenix team with Amare and Marion...surely those two together adds up to something close to a quality big man.


Amare was a rookie, a 13 ppg scorer. He's a good big man *now*, but last season he was not. He was only a player with tremendous potential.

Marion is not a big man. He's a perimeter player who rebounds well.



> At least enough that you wouldn't be in the western conference cellar.


Actually, they made the playoffs and took the eventual world champion Spurs to six games. So you were *way* off since we know you wouldn't use less than half a season, much of which Stoudemire was injured, as your sample for Marbury.  You're much too fair to do that.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> Obviously they don't fare as well compared to Jordan, but so far they are the guards that have come closest to equaling his production, past or present. I wouldn't really agree that neither are the passer or rebounder that he was either. McGrady is most likely Jordan's equal in rebounding, while both are comparable in passing ability. Jordan never was amazing at the skill. He just knew when and where to find the open man on the perimeter. Both McGrady and Bryant have that skill down pat.


Fair enough. Kobe and Tmac are equal to Jordan in a couple aspects, but really not even close in others, and really not better than him at anything. Thats not really an insult though, since we are talking about MJ. 



> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> I do agree that big man are more important than guards in general. They are easier to build around and have a greater defensive presence, although using Shaq in your title count is a bit unfair, since Byrant had a fair share to do with that.


Shaq diesel was the driving force behind those teams. Theres no way around it to me, The Lakers played inside out, Shaq obviously drew more attention from defenses in those years and impacted the game in more ways. Kobe was great as the sidekick and the 2nd best player on those teams by far, but Shaq was the biggest reason they won those titles. 



> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> Regardless, I was merely pointing out what I believed to be a flaw in your reasoning suggesting that there was a "good margin" between #3 and #4. There's a gap yes, but I don't believe it's as large as you make it out to be.


Well, to me, 3 is either KG or Shaq. Shaq finally got some decent passes to him in game 2, and ended up having a huge game. They fed him, and he answered. That Shaq is way more valuable than Kobe or Tmac. Then you have KG, I dont think Kobe impacts the game nearly as much as KG. They are comparable scorers and passers, but KG is the far better rebounder and defender.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> They dont score, rebound, pass or defend as well as Jordan did. They also arent close to being the competitor Jordan was. They also arent close to being the athlete that Jordan was.


Like Yyzlin, I disagree that McGrady and Bryant fare poorly in comparison with Jordan in terms of passing and rebounding.

I also take exception with the claim that they "aren't close to being the athlete that Jordan was." I would give Jordan the edge there, but Bryant and McGrady are *incredible* athletes. Jordan wasn't some alien...if he was a better athlete than Bryant and McGrady, it wasn't by a large amount.

Perhaps you're going by Jordan's stronger frame, but bear in mind that that was later in his career. As a young player, as Bryant and McGrady are currently, he had a much thinner frame. He added muscle over time, and Bryant and McGrady are also adding muscle.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Shaq diesel was the driving force behind those teams. Theres no way around it to me, The Lakers played inside out, Shaq obviously drew more attention from defenses in those years and impacted the game in more ways. Kobe was great as the sidekick and the 2nd best player on those teams by far, but Shaq was the biggest reason they won those titles.


I'm not disagreeing with that. I've always advocated O'Neal as the main driving force of those Lakers teams, but when you give the title count to O'Neal as part of the "big men" group, and not any to Byrant in the "guards" group, you seem to be bending the argument to fit your purpose. 



> Well, to me, 3 is either KG or Shaq. Shaq finally got some decent passes to him in game 2, and ended up having a huge game. They fed him, and he answered. That Shaq is way more valuable than Kobe or Tmac. Then you have KG, I dont think Kobe impacts the game nearly as much as KG. They are comparable scorers and passers, but KG is the far better rebounder and defender.


Is O'Neal way more valuable than Byrant at this point? Maybe three years ago, but right now, the difference is very slight.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> I'm not disagreeing with that. I've always advocated O'Neal as the main driving force of those Lakers teams, but when you give the title count to O'Neal as part of the "big men" group, and not any to Byrant in the "guards" group, you seem to be bending the argument to fit your purpose.


Nah its not bending the argument as much as it is believing that Bryant didnt have close to the same impact that Shaq had. Every big man led team will have guards on the team, doesnt mean they had the same impact as the driving force of the team which was obviously Shaq/Hakeem/Duncan, etc. 



> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> Is O'Neal way more valuable than Byrant at this point? Maybe three years ago, but right now, the difference is very slight.


Depends. Notice I said the O'Neal of game 2. I agree that Bryant is probably the better player consistently, but when Shaq actually gets up to play, he plays at a level that Kobe will most likely never be able to reach.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Nah its not bending the argument as much as it is believing that Bryant didnt have close to the same impact that Shaq had. Every big man led team will have guards on the team, doesnt mean they had the same impact as the driving force of the team which was obviously Shaq/Hakeem/Duncan, etc.


I think the point can be made that championships require great big men *and* great perimeter players. Big men may have a bit more impact, but Kobe Bryant was absolutely necessary to those titles he won with Shaq.

You don't win with big men or perimeter players. In general, you win with both.

Ewing never got the dominant perimeter player. McGrady, so far in his young career, hasn't had the dominant big man.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I think the point can be made that championships require great big men *and* great perimeter players. Big men may have a bit more impact, but Kobe Bryant was absolutely necessary to those titles he won with Shaq.
> 
> You don't win with big men or perimeter players. In general, you win with both.
> ...


I think its kind of just dancing around the point. Of course Kobe was necessary, but so was Glen Rice. So since they were both necessary in that first title, they should be viewed as equals right? Wrong. Shaq was most necessary, Kobe was 2nd, Rice was 3rd. Not everyone who is necessary in the play of a great team should be viewed as equals. 

If you think Shaq and Kobe were equals in those titles, then I disagree whole heartedly. If you think Shaq was the biggest impact player, then I agree but think its irrelevant to point out that Kobe was necessary. That much should be obvious.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I think its kind of just dancing around the point. Of course Kobe was necessary, but so was Glen Rice. So since they were both necessary in that first title, they should be viewed as equals right? Wrong. Shaq was most necessary, Kobe was 2nd, Rice was 3rd. Not everyone who is necessary in the play of a great team should be viewed as equals.
> ...


They shouldn't be viewed as equals, but there is obviously a level of "necessity". Rice obviously ranks far behind in that category. They won it the next year, with virtually the same roster minus Rice. He wasn't an intergral part, and his production could easily be replaced. Whereas on the part of O'Neal's and Bryant, neither of their production could be duplicated. O'Neal was the more vital part, but Byrant wasn't far behind. 

Regardless, the entire thing simply came because of your distribution of the championships. If you create two distinct groups of players, and yet distribute all the championships that were won by two seperate players in each group solely to one side, it seems unfair to the other group considering both were almost equally important in those titles.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I think its kind of just dancing around the point. Of course Kobe was necessary, but so was Glen Rice. So since they were both necessary in that first title, they should be viewed as equals right? Wrong. Shaq was most necessary, Kobe was 2nd, Rice was 3rd. Not everyone who is necessary in the play of a great team should be viewed as equals.


I didn't say they were equals, but if it were something like Shaq was 40% of the accomplishment, Kobe was 30% and Rice was 10%, which I think is very likely, then I think it's safe to say that giving O'Neal the full credit (saying the championships the Lakers won vindicate "big men" over "little men") is unfair.

In reality, I think the importances changed over each title. Shaq went from much more important to almost equal in importance with Kobe.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> They shouldn't be viewed as equals, but there is obviously a level of "necessity". Rice obviously ranks far behind in that category. They won it the next year, with virtually the same roster minus Rice. He wasn't an intergral part, and his production could easily be replaced. Whereas on the part of O'Neal's and Bryant, neither of their production could be duplicated. *O'Neal was the more vital part, but Byrant wasn't far behind.*


He wasnt far behind, but he was distinctly behind. 



> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> Regardless, the entire thing simply came because of your distribution of the championships. If you create two distinct groups of players, and yet distribute all the championships that were won by two seperate players in each group solely to one side, it seems unfair to the other group considering both were almost equally important in those titles.


Shaq was distinctly the most important part of those Laker titles, so I dont think its unfair to use it as more proof that big men are the bigger impact players and history has proven that on the majority of champions, the biggest impact player was a big man. If you wanted to sidestep that even more, you could say that some of those teams had elite guards, but the bottom line is the big man was the biggest impact player. Mikan, Russell, Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan and Shaq make up for about half the titles in NBA history. All dominate big men in the time they played in or are playing in.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I didn't say they were equals, but if it were something like Shaq was 40% of the accomplishment, Kobe was 30% and Rice was 10%, which I think is very likely, then I think it's safe to say that giving O'Neal the full credit (saying the championships the Lakers won vindicate "big men" over "little men") is unfair.


Shaq is probably a top 5 center of all time, and Kobe is probably a top 5 SG of all time. If Shaq is 40%, and Kobe is 30% then wouldnt that kind of prove "big men over little men" to be true in a sense?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Shaq is probably a top 5 center of all time, and Kobe is probably a top 5 SG of all time. If Shaq is 40%, and Kobe is 30% then wouldnt that kind of prove "big men over little men" to be true in a sense?


I've never denied that, for the same level of talent, big men are more impactful than perimeter players. But divying up all the Lakers titles to the "big men," in your comparison of who wins titles, is distorting the difference in impact enormously.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I've never denied that, for the same level of talent, big men are more impactful than perimeter players. But divying up all the Lakers titles to the "big men," in your comparison of who wins titles, is distorting the difference in impact enormously.


So by stating championship teams that have had big men as the driving force and biggest impact player is distorting the difference in impact? You must have assumed the difference because I never actually went into detail about the difference besides stating that I think the top 3 players in the NBA have much bigger impact than the next 2 who are guards. Thats based on those individuals though, and the gap might not always be that big, and hasnt been in the past. 

I think the gap between a big man and a guard of the same calibur is larger than you think it is, but atleast we agree that big men do have bigger impact on the game in general. They can dominate aspects of the game that are the most important such as defense, rebounding and efficient scoring.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> So by stating championship teams that have had big men as the driving force and biggest impact player is distorting the difference in impact?


No. I said "divying up all the Lakers titles to the 'big men,' in your comparison of who wins titles, is distorting the difference in impact enormously."



> You must have assumed the difference because I never actually went into detail about the difference


I was referring to this statement of yours: 

_Shaq, Hakeem and Duncan led their teams to a combined 7 titles, and could be going on 8 this year._

You're giving all the credit for the Lakers three titles to "big men" in that statement, which doesn't accurately represent the fact that Bryant was almost as responsible for those three titles.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> No. I said "divying up all the Lakers titles to the 'big men,' in your comparison of who wins titles, is distorting the difference in impact enormously."


You assumed the difference, I never stated the difference. 



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I was referring to this statement of yours:
> 
> _Shaq, Hakeem and Duncan led their teams to a combined 7 titles, and could be going on 8 this year._
> ...


Where am I giving them all the credit? Is saying "Jordan led his team to 6 titles" giving him all the credit? Obviously Pippen had a part of it, but even if you said "Jordan and Pippen led their team to 6 titles" that would be giving them all the credit right? Well obviously they probably wouldnt have won without Rodman, Kukoc, Harper and two solid 7 footers. Jordan LED that team, he was the best impact player. By saying he led the team, its not out of line or distorting the difference between Jordan and Pippen unless you are making assumptions.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> Obviously Pippen had a part of it, but even if you said "Jordan and Pippen led their team to 6 titles" that would be giving them all the credit right? Well obviously they probably wouldnt have won without Rodman, Kukoc, Harper and two solid 7 footers.


Evidently you missed these words of mine: "...doesn't accurately represent the fact that *Bryant was almost as responsible* for those three titles."

Thus, people like Kukoc or Harper or whoever are hardly relevant.

By saying Olajuwon, O'Neal and Duncan "led" their teams to seven titles, it creates the impression that "big men won" those titles, when Bryant was highly responsible for three of them.

Anyway, maybe we're just arguing over sematics. I just think you're undervaluing the importance of great perimeter players. They're *essential* to championship teams (there are exceptions, but there are also champions you can find without great big men) and almost as important. Just slightly less so.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Evidently you missed these words of mine: "...doesn't accurately represent the fact that *Bryant was almost as responsible* for those three titles."


I think that even though Kobe was easily the 2nd best impact player in the three titles, he still wasnt "almost as responsible"...The offense ran through Shaq, he scored more efficiently, provided more defensive presence, drew more attention and created more opportunities for his teammates (including Bryant). If I had to put a percentage on it, it would be something like 45% to 25%. Thats most likely where we disagree. 



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> By saying Olajuwon, O'Neal and Duncan "led" their teams to seven titles, it creates the impression that "big men won" those titles, when Bryant was highly responsible for three of them.


he was highly responsible(compared to the rest of the players on the team), but not the most responsible. Shaq led those Lakers, theres really no way around that unless you feel Kobe was the equal or better player, in which case I strongly disagree. 



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Anyway, maybe we're just arguing over sematics. I just think you're undervaluing the importance of great perimeter players. They're *essential* to championship teams (there are exceptions, but there are also champions you can find without great big men) and almost as important. Just slightly less so.


Good perimeter players are essential, you're right about that. They are also easier to come by.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> 
> 
> You type a lot of words and it suits you, but you haven't actually said anything meaningful at all. Frankly, I question whether futuristxen is as knowledgeable about basketball as he *thinks* he is. I still hold the popular view that futuristxen is a good poster but not great like Minstrel or whiterhino. Lack of a decisive position on any issue being discussed really hurts him. He has potential though.


:laugh: Brilliant!


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Anyway, maybe we're just arguing over sematics. I just think you're undervaluing the importance of great perimeter players. They're *essential* to championship teams (there are exceptions, but there are <b>also champions you can find without great big men)</b> and almost as important. Just slightly less so.


I really cannot think of <i>even one </i>NBA team champion that won without a "big man"/enforcer. Even Little Wes Unseld had the BIG "E", and Jack Sikma & Paul Silas were vital to the Sonic's title.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> 
> I really cannot think of <i>even one </i>NBA team champion that won without a "big man"/enforcer. Even Little Wes Unseld had the BIG "E", and Jack Sikma & Paul Silas were vital to the Sonic's title.


Well, every team has *some* big man. But unless you count Dennis Rodman (6'6''-6'7'') as a "big man," I'd say the Bulls never had a "great" big man.

I'd say that the Pistons didn't have a *great* big man. They had good big men, in guys like Laimbeer and Mahorn.

I suppose it depends on where you draw the line for greatness.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

No question that Dennis Rodman was a great big man. Without him the Bulls wouldn't have won any of their last three titles. People tend to forget what a smart player he was because of how much of an idiot he was off the court. He was the smartest rebounder I've ever seen. For a guy that short to rebound that well is astonishing.

If he doesn't make the Hall of Fame, I'll be pissed.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

its very difficult for a point guard to lead a team to a championship when every single play on offense he is option number 1 on offense. Marbury is a very very gifted player, on any level but the nba i could see his style working. He reminds me of the best player at a basketball camp for teenagers who plays point guard because hes an excellent ball handler, he can take it to the hoop, he can shoot, and he can pass. Just a very skilled basketball player all around. If he was about 6'6-6'8" there is no doubt in my mind that you could build a championship calibre team around him.

If he stayed on the t-wolves we would never hear about garnett or marbury not winning anything.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> No question that Dennis Rodman was a great big man. Without him the Bulls wouldn't have won any of their last three titles. People tend to forget what a smart player he was because of how much of an idiot he was off the court. He was the smartest rebounder I've ever seen. For a guy that short to rebound that well is astonishing.
> 
> If he doesn't make the Hall of Fame, I'll be pissed.


I agree entirely that he was *great*. My question was do you consider a player of his size a "big man?" He wasn't taller than Jordan and Pippen, though he certainly did a great job rebounding and defending big men and perimeter players. As a Piston, when he still played offense, he played more like a perimeter player, as I recall.

Either way. I think he's a fairly borderline case as to whether he's a "big man" or not.

And I also want him in the Hall.


----------

