# What the hell just happened in Detroit?



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

I'm speechless.

The final line:

Cleveland 86
Detroit 84



I'm still speechless.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

Basketball Gods want Ben Wallace in a Chicago Bulls uniform


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ben Wallace went 0-7 from the line, Rasheed Wallace has played like horse**** since "guaranteeing" Game 4, and LeBron James is an honest-to-goodness first-ballot Hall-of-Fame superstar. You want those on your side in the close ones.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

unBULLievable said:


> Basketball Gods want Ben Wallace in a Chicago Bulls uniform


Nice one.

And I hope so. :biggrin:


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

unBULLievable said:


> Basketball Gods want Ben Wallace in a Chicago Bulls uniform


Pistons lose only helps get Wallace in a Bulls uni. Although i still put the chances between Slim and none. Slim is still better than none.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

As much as this was a bad game for Detroit, I still see them pulling a Phoenix-Suns-upset-on-the-Lakers. Hey, remember, the Lakers had won 3 straight, and were up 3-1 in the series against Phoenix! Then Phoenix won the final 3 games to win the series. I believe Detroit has this type of run in them, and will win the final two games, because they are probably best when faced with elimination.

Although I still can't believe the best team in the league lost on their home court. Just absolutely mind-boggling.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Losing to the Cavaliers would be the last straw for Ben Wallace...

He hasn't been very happy all season


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

we're all witnesses...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

It'd be even to snaggle puss Ben Wallace if the Cavs won in a 300 to 0 blowout thriller, where Gooden hits 100 three pointers.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

the nba is fixed.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Who will be a better fit next to Wallace, Barnani or Thomas?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> Who will be a better fit next to Wallace, Barnani or Thomas?


Whoever's most capable of offsetting Ben's negative impact on our offense.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

During the end sequence somebody took a shot in the lane and there was a definite no-call on the goaltending. However, the Pistons have seemed uninterested really. If they lose, its because they seemingly lack the motivation necessary to advance.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

RoRo said:


> we're all witnesses...



damn i was kinda hoping the Cavs would lose, people mentioning LeBron for everything and praising him like if he has accomplished anything...and comparing him to Magic...is annoying......

comparing him to Magic??? .....stupid


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ElMarroAfamado said:


> comparing him to Magic??? .....stupid


It is stupid . . . LeBron didn't have the cushy nice-and-easy introduction to the league that Magic did.

Give LeBron the modern-day equivalent of Kareem and Jamaal Wilkes and Norm Nixon on his team, and he'd be gunning for his third ring right now.


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

ElMarroAfamado said:


> damn i was kinda hoping the Cavs would lose, people mentioning LeBron for everything and praising him like if he has accomplished anything...and comparing him to Magic...is annoying......
> 
> comparing him to Magic??? .....stupid


Comparing what?
Comparing level of talent? Not stupid
Comparing style of play? Perhaps
I think when people compare him to Magic thay are complimenting him on the way he can read game, not saying that they are identical in everything that they do. But maybe thats just me.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I don't think Lebron should get too much credit for this. The Detroits offense has been pathetic or Cleveland's defense has stepped up big (or both). If Detroit was scoring at their usual clip, they'd have won the series regardless of Lebron.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

I think I would take a pass with Ben Wallace in free agency.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

Never underestimate the heart of a champion.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Ben Wallace went 0-7 from the line, Rasheed Wallace has played like horse**** since "guaranteeing" Game 4, and LeBron James is an honest-to-goodness first-ballot Hall-of-Fame superstar. You want those on your side in the close ones.


They've been looking for the next Jordan since about 1994. I've gotten downright mad about every single one, even Kobe. Wade and James are the first ones that didnt infuriate me. Lebron may be the first one who I think can not only be as good, but better. And I'm the last guy to want to say that ever.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> I think I would take a pass with Ben Wallace in free agency.


Agreed, Tyson is already a poor man's Wallace (except that Wallace's free throws actually look worse), and even if we were to trade Tyson (not likely?), I still hate having an offensive liability


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The Pistons played like it was a regular season game. Cleveland didn't play all that well either, but they were in control most of the game.

And they did it mostly without Gooden. I haven't been following Cleveland that closely this season, but if Gooden is so good why doesn't he get any burn in a critical playoff game when Z is in foul trouble? Is Cleveland's third string center worth $7+ Million?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

BullSoxChicagosFinest said:


> Agreed, Tyson is already a poor man's Wallace (except that Wallace's free throws actually look worse), and even if we were to trade Tyson (not likely?), I still hate having an offensive liability


Ben Wallace can dunk the ball, thats one more move than Chandler has.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> If Detroit was scoring at their usual clip, they'd have won the series regardless of Lebron.


Possibly . . . the Pistons certainly are carrying around a lot of dead weight on offense. In 10 playoff games, their 36 mpg center is putting up 4 ppg on 35% shooting and is an appalling 8/32 from the line, including tonight's 0-fer.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

This is gonna sound funny, but Darko could really help them right about now.....:laugh:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

McBulls said:


> And they did it mostly without Gooden. I haven't been following Cleveland that closely this season, but if Gooden is so good why doesn't he get any burn in a critical playoff game when Z is in foul trouble? Is Cleveland's third string center worth $7+ Million?


Because Anderson Verejao is better and Donyell Marshall is a veteran who spreads the floor.

Gooden did hit the game winning bucket though. It's hard to find minutes for Z, Marshall and Verejao. Alan Henderson is back there too.


----------



## MiamiHeat03 (Mar 28, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> This is gonna sound funny, but Darko could really help them right about now.....:laugh:


you know Darko was the victory cigar for the Pistons now that they dont have him they will probably lose.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Game 4, and LeBron James is an honest-to-goodness first-ballot Hall-of-Fame superstar. You want those on your side in the close ones.


That's very true and very funny. Nicely put.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> I don't think Lebron should get too much credit for this. The Detroits offense has been pathetic or Cleveland's defense has stepped up big (or both). If Detroit was scoring at their usual clip, they'd have won the series regardless of Lebron.


Then who in the world do you give the credit to? The whole series is based on Lebron vs the Pistons and Lebron has gutted it out in the last 3 games even in supposedly 'Piston style' basketball


----------



## HonorAndStrength (May 7, 2006)




----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

mgolding said:


> Comparing what?
> Comparing level of talent? Not stupid
> Comparing style of play? Perhaps
> I think when people compare him to Magic thay are complimenting him on the way he can read game, not saying that they are identical in everything that they do. But maybe thats just me.


LeBron has almost every physical skill a guy could have. I mean, I haven't seen that much of a post game, but everything else. His strength and quickness and ballhandling at that size are unbelievable. However - heresy follows - I have to admit, having seen a few games in the playoffs I think his decisionmaking is questionable a little more often than I expected. Shot selection, some bad turnovers, etc. He's so young and there will be plenty of that kind of mental growth still to come, most likely. (Or, I could just be completely wrong to start with.) He will be unstoppable if/when it happens, like change the rules/change the refereeing to make it competitive, young Shaq but maybe moreso-type of unstoppable. What a combination of a skill set and a body. Can we trade Ben and our pick for him? OK, fine, Kirk and the Knicks pick, twist my arm. 

He's a much better slasher and finisher than Magic was when he was young, imho. Remains to be seen if he can run a team with the magic of Magic of course.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Can we trade Ben and our pick for him? OK, fine, Kirk and the Knicks pick, twist my arm.


Christ, I'd be willing to part with it all, Ben, Kirk, Luol, the pick, even the kitchen sink. That pretty much goes for Wade too, eventhough I'm not liking the way he keeps complaining about every non call to the refs.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Sideshow Bob at it again:










:banana:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

He's more dangerous to the Cavs than the Pistons! Keep him at least 10 feet from Lebron!


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

El Chapu said:


> Sideshow Bob at it again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That was rich!!!! Je does look like sideshow!!! Who did he hit?Looks like one of his own teamates!!!! :laugh: 

I'm just glad the Cavs are whipping the Pistons and LeBron is proving to everyone who the real MVP is!!! :yes:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Meanwhile, the Pistons are on the verge of being bounced out of the playoffs in the second round by the Cavaliers. Brown took Detroit to two straight Finals and one championship. If Detroit is eliminated, a slew of stories about the Pistons not missing Brown this season will have to be rewritten.
> 
> Player agent Keith Glass, a longtime friend of Brown's and the son of Joe Glass, has been irritated by the Pistons' comments.
> 
> "I always said, 'Wait 'til the playoffs," said Keith Glass, Brown's assistant coach at UCLA. "Once they started talking about the shackles being off, they're looser, they now have a player's coach, book it. I knew they were going to lose. It bothered me hearing it all year."


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/66280.htm


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hmmm....

Detroit is jib + talent


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

GB said:


> http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/66280.htm


Maybe they don't need Larry Brown's histrionics and double-crossing, but it's pretty clear that Flip Saunders and his perpetual glazed over dead mullet stare was going too far in the opposite direction.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> Detroit is jib + talent


What's funny was earlier in the year when people were saying that Lebron didn't have enough jib and that we shouldn't trade the whole house for Lebron. I'd trade our 3 best players for Lebron and not even think twice. Once you have Lebron, all you need to do is draft roleplayers.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> What's funny was earlier in the year when people were saying that Lebron didn't have enough jib and that we shouldn't trade the whole house for Lebron. I'd trade our 3 best players for Lebron and not even think twice. Once you have Lebron, all you need to do is draft roleplayers.


I would trade our entire team, $100 million in cash, Scott Skiles, the Jordan statue, and the Sears Tower for LeBron James. 

I say that not just because I think he's going to have an otherworldly career, but also because he's just so thoroughly fun to watch.

And as far as I'm concerned, his leadership in relation to the Larry Hughes situation and Game 5 was just off the charts, a modern-day "Win one for the Gipper."


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Once you have Lebron, all you need to do is draft roleplayers.


yes, that may be true, but i'm anxious to see how easily said role players are acquired for the cav and just how quickly they compete for a championship. the piston series ain't over; even if the cav wins, the current squad is unquestionably not championship quality, regardless of how well they've competed. if they lose, how (and who) do they address as adding said "role players"?

i'm not sure they've identified a core beyond lebron; ilgauskas is well over 30, as is marshall, murray is a career backup that thinks in starter's $$ terms, varajeo is a good role player and probably the only guy who's parallel with lebron, gooden may be gone, and hughes only plays 60-65 games a year. if they don't win, i'm interested to see how they upgrade; building a contender is no easy task, though some posters sound like they've got it down pat. (lol)

ferry= krause......(lol)


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> yes, that may be true, but i'm anxious to see how easily said role players are acquired for the cav and just how quickly they compete for a championship. the piston series ain't over; even if the cav wins, the current squad is unquestionably not championship quality, regardless of how well they've competed. if they lose, how (and who) do they address as adding said "role players"?
> 
> i'm not sure they've identified a core beyond lebron; ilgauskas is well over 30, as is marshall, murray is a career backup that thinks in starter's $$ terms, varajeo is a good role player and probably the only guy who's parallel with lebron, gooden may be gone, and hughes only plays 60-65 games a year. if they don't win, i'm interested to see how they upgrade; building a contender is no easy task, though some posters sound like they've got it down pat. (lol)
> 
> ferry= krause......(lol)


LeBron James is 21 years old. Even if they fail to hold the lead vs. Detroit, he's accomplished a ton in his first playoff run. If they close Detroit out, they've got a very realistic chance to advance to the NBA finals. IMO.

How quickly we forget Jordan gnashing his teeth, getting swept in the first round year after year after year, getting tossed aside like a rag doll by the Pistons year after year after year, and finally ascending the mountain at the ripe old age of 28.

Even if nothing the Cavs are currently doing pans out, they can completely wipe the slate and LeBron'll only be 24-25. That's a scary proposition -- what person who cares one iota about winning wouldn't want to play with LeBron James?

And imo, this playoff run erased whatever miniscule chance there might have been that LeBron would leave Cleveland. It's the playoffs where you grab your city's attention, and Cleveland is absolutely ape**** over its Cavs right now. It's a love affair.

The proof will all be in the pudding, but imo it just looks like sour grapes to downplay LeBron's chances of success or poo-poo what Cleveland's got going right now.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> LeBron James is 21 years old. Even if they fail to hold the lead vs. Detroit, he's accomplished a ton in his first playoff run. If they close Detroit out, they've got a very realistic chance to advance to the NBA finals. IMO.
> 
> How quickly we forget Jordan gnashing his teeth, getting swept in the first round year after year after year, getting tossed aside like a rag doll by the Pistons year after year after year, and finally ascending the mountain at the ripe old age of 28.
> 
> ...


We're all witnesses.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

We trade curry and barely make the playoffs.

They trade Darko and they're in deep doo doo


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> We trade curry and barely make the playoffs.
> 
> They trade Darko and they're in deep doo doo


Another convergence: Both Darko and Eddy went fishin' in April.

wwweeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiirrrrdddd.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> What's funny was earlier in the year when people were saying that Lebron didn't have enough jib and that we shouldn't trade the whole house for Lebron. I'd trade our 3 best players for Lebron and not even think twice. Once you have Lebron, all you need to do is draft roleplayers.


This year's lottery is full of teams with superstars surrounded by role players : 
Minnesota, Boston, Philadelphia,Orlando,Toronto,New York, Houston ...

The formula of having one or two superstars & leave the rest to chance is flawed. How much evidence is required? It has been noted that championship teams tend to have hof players on them. But the conundrum is that any championship team will have one or more of its players automatically promoted to superstar status by the press -- regardless of the relative merits of the case. This leads to post-hoc analysis circular reasoning, where Stockman and Malone are devalued, while relatively mediocre players like Rasheed Wallace or Robert Horry are celebrated.

The best way to build a championship team is to have the luck to land two superstars. Barring two lightening strikes, one can win by adding players that provide complementary ingredients to a team that plays better than the sum of their parts. The interesting thing about the Bulls is that they have positioned themselves nicely to take advantage of both possibilities. They have high draft choices this year and next. They could take a chance on an unproven, athletic free agent. While at the same time acquiring and developing players whose main asset is "jib".

Who knows, lightening might strike twice. But once is not enough. Lebron cannot bring a championship to Chicago or Cleveland by himself anymore than Jordan could. And I'm not yet convinced that James is anywhere near as good as Jordan.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Who knows, lightening might strike twice. But once is not enough. Lebron cannot bring a championship to Chicago or Cleveland by himself anymore than Jordan could. And I'm not yet convinced that James is anywhere near as good as Jordan.


great post.

seems from the tone of posts, the consensus is "the bull need a superstar"....well doesn't everybody? but as stated above, a superstar does not a championship guarantee. a high degree of luck in the draft is involved, however, smart, visionary drafting and FA acquisitions are an important ingredient as well.
james may yet have a legacy that rivals jordan, but the cavs will have to perform at a higher level than currently before that happens.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

LeBron needs Jerry Krause...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> This year's lottery is full of teams with superstars surrounded by role players :
> Minnesota, Boston, Philadelphia,Orlando,Toronto,New York, Houston ...


Who is the "superstar" on Orlando, Toronto, or New York? A 20-year-old Dwight Howard? A 22-year-old Chris Bosh? Stephon Marbury? 

Houston had McGrady and Yao healthy at the same time for only a handful of games this year (and did very well in those games). I won't disagree with your premise regarding Pierce, Garnett, and Iverson, but I would like to point out that those guys have made trips to the Finals/conference Finals, which is something we can only dream of at this point, and their current surrounding casts are pretty wretched.



> The formula of having one or two superstars & leave the rest to chance is flawed. How much evidence is required? It has been noted that championship teams tend to have hof players on them. But the conundrum is that any championship team will have one or more of its players automatically promoted to superstar status by the press -- regardless of the relative merits of the case. This leads to post-hoc analysis circular reasoning, where Stockman and Malone are devalued, while relatively mediocre players like Rasheed Wallace or Robert Horry are celebrated.
> 
> The best way to build a championship team is to have the luck to land two superstars. Barring two lightening strikes, one can win by adding players that provide complementary ingredients to a team that plays better than the sum of their parts. The interesting thing about the Bulls is that they have positioned themselves nicely to take advantage of both possibilities. They have high draft choices this year and next. They could take a chance on an unproven, athletic free agent. While at the same time acquiring and developing players whose main asset is "jib".


I agree that it takes more than one superstar, but I would argue that the best way to build a team is to land one superstar who is so good, his presence greatly increases the likelihood of a subsequent player becoming a superstar. 

I am the biggest Scottie Pippen fan alive. I am pretty sure that Jordan would have been hard-pressed to win more than a ring or two if Scottie hadn't come along, even if you'd replaced Scottie with a high-quality small forward of his era, someone like, I don't know, Derrick McKey. But I fully acknowledge that Scottie wouldn't have become Scottie if he hadn't been fortunate enough to end up in the situation he did in Chicago. Jordan was hugely instrumental in making Scottie the best possible player he could be. 



> Who knows, lightening might strike twice. But once is not enough. Lebron cannot bring a championship to Chicago or Cleveland by himself anymore than Jordan could. And I'm not yet convinced that James is anywhere near as good as Jordan.


I agree that once isn't enough. It's better than zero, however, and outside of the megastar post players like Hakeem, Duncan, Walton, Shaq, etc., I can't think of a guy whose game and overall talent level could better increase the likelihood of his team drafting a complementary player who'll blossom into a star. Remember, there is one area where LeBron is inarguably well ahead of Jordan's pace -- making his teammates better. Jordan was regarded in many circles as a selfish gunner right up until the first championship.

You're right in that there's a chicken/egg, 20-20 hindsight relationship between megastars and championship teams. But if you look at all the NBA champions, what jumps out at you is that 99% of them carried on its roster a player who was arguably the league's best at that time. It's hard for me to imagine LeBron NOT being one of the league's best players for the next 15 years or so, regardless of how he stacks up vs. Jordan.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I agree that once isn't enough. It's better than zero, however, and outside of the megastar post players like Hakeem, Duncan, Walton, Shaq, etc., I can't think of a guy whose game and overall talent level could better increase the likelihood of his team drafting a complementary player who'll blossom into a star. Remember, there is one area where LeBron is inarguably well ahead of Jordan's pace -- making his teammates better. Jordan was regarded in many circles as a selfish gunner right up until the first championship.


excellent point. :clap:


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I like Lebron, but I'm not sure about the idea that Lebron makes his teamates better quite yet. I really can't think of anyone on the Cavs who has been able to take their game to a higher level by playing with Lebron. In fact, I'd say that many of his teamates such as Hughes, Marshall, and Damon Jones(who last year was a prime example of a player being made better by superior teammates), have played well below their previous levels of play while with Lebron.

Thats not to say that I blame Lebron for that though, or wanna take anything away from what he has accomplished.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Remember, there is one area where LeBron is inarguably well ahead of Jordan's pace -- making his teammates better. Jordan was regarded in many circles as a selfish gunner right up until the first championship.


Interesting that MJ had more assists than Bron in Sam Smith's stats from today's column.

As i recall, most of the talk of MJ being a "selfish gunner" were in the context of "Is or will be MJ the greatest player of all-time?"

And isn't playing great D a way of making your teammates better, too? MJ and Pip certainly allowed guys like Pax, Kerr and BJ to be on the floor.

p.s. with all of that said, I do think LeBron's floor vision is superior to MJ's.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Interesting that MJ had more assists than Bron in Sam Smith's stats from today's column.


True . . . but consider sample sizes. Could Jordan have maintained that pace for 11 games?



> As i recall, most of the talk of MJ being a "selfish gunner" were in the context of "Is or will be MJ the greatest player of all-time?"


Where I lived in the mid-80s, you'd have been laughed out of the room if you suggested MJ was the greatest ever. I remember the selfish gunner argument more in the sense of "When is MJ ever going to make a Finals?" and "he's a slightly more accomplished Dominique/Alex English/Purvis Short" (it made me madder than hell).



> And isn't playing great D a way of making your teammates better, too? MJ and Pip certainly allowed guys like Pax, Kerr and BJ to be on the floor.


Absolutely -- but couldn't you say the exact same thing about Jordan and Pippen's offense as well? What other teams could withstand 6-2 shooting guards who couldn't defend, couldn't dribble, couldn't create, or do anything but hit spot-up Js?

When I looked up LeBron's PER differential today, it was another reminder that being a great offensive player can really help your D. LeBron's covers are so focused on stopping him, it leaves their tank empty on the other end.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Who is the "superstar" on Orlando, Toronto, or New York? A 20-year-old Dwight Howard? A 22-year-old Chris Bosh? Stephon Marbury?


If any of those teams experience success next year, guess which players will miraculously be described as superstars. 



> Houston had McGrady and Yao healthy at the same time for only a handful of games this year (and did very well in those games).


This is one of the problems of relying on superstars rather than a balanced, deep team composed of quality players.



> I agree that once isn't enough. It's better than zero, however


Tell that to Minnesota.



> But if you look at all the NBA champions, what jumps out at you is that 99% of them carried on its roster a player who was arguably the league's best at that time.


It's not inconceivable that Hinrich will become one of the best point guards in the NBA, or than Ben Gordon will become a premier scorer. Loul Deng is probably not flashy enough to capture the media's eye as the next Havlechek, but Nocioni has the capability of reaching Ginobolli status, whatever that is... 

Superstardom is more a media phenomenon than anything else. And some superstars are more special than others. This year Wade is an undisputed superstar (as he plays with two of the better centers in NBA history), even though players like Arenas, Marbury and Pierce probably have as much skill. In talent terms, or in terms of contributing to a winning team, I see a very fine line between Wade, Gordon and Hinrich. Next year or the year after, the comparison will look a bit different when the Bulls acquire interior players capable of playing the pick and roll -- or simply capable of setting a good screen. Hinrich and Gordon are both better shooters than Wade. The ability to drive to the middle and act like you're fouled every time is not as difficult to learn as three point shooting if you have teammates who can clear the way for you. 

One has to wonder how effective James would be without the bevy of quality big men he has to play off. Big men are sort of like offensive linemen in football. They do the dirty work so some little guy can look like a hero. The heroism has a way of disappearing when the big guys have an off night.

What jumps out at me about championship teams is that they invariably play good defense. 
They have players who have played together for several years. 
They are well coached, and lucky enough not to have significant injuries to key players.
They always play both ends of the court-- usually with an emphasis on the defensive end. 
They rebound well, don't make too many mistakes and tend to force the other team to make mistakes. 
They tend to get the benefit of the doubt from referees because of their smooth play.
They usually have an outstanding point guard, and a man in the middle who controls the paint.
They have one or two players like Ben Gordon who have ice in their veins when it comes time to make a key shot.

In this regard Cleveland comes up a little short in several respects; and I'll be surprised if they win it all or even go on to beat Detroit.

Seems to me the Bulls also have some of these ingredients, but not others. But it would be a bad idea to give up the progress they've made so far in return for James and a new status as Timberwolves II.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> If any of those teams experience success next year, guess which players will miraculously be described as superstars.


Make no mistake about -- Howard and Bosh ARE superstars, and we will be hearing from them in the future. But they're babies, for crying out loud. If you're going to knock them for missing the playoffs, doesn't that make what LeBron is doing even more special?



> This is one of the problems of relying on superstars rather than a balanced, deep team composed of quality players.


There isn't a team in the league that wouldn't suffer a big dropoff if it lost its best player. Some are better equipped to handle it than others, but if the Bulls lost Hinrich or Deng for 60 games, they'd be sunk.



> Tell that to Minnesota.


Tell that to Kevin McHale and his series of disastrous decisions. No player in NBA history has been good enough to win a ring without help from the front office. 



> It's not inconceivable that Hinrich will become one of the best point guards in the NBA, or than Ben Gordon will become a premier scorer. Loul Deng is probably not flashy enough to capture the media's eye as the next Havlechek, but Nocioni has the capability of reaching Ginobolli status, whatever that is...


None of these things are inconceivable. Hinrich already probably is one of the best point guards in the NBA. Gordon already is a premier scorer. I'm not as sanguine about your hopes for Deng or Nocioni, but it doesn't really matter. Do you think there is a current Bull destined to be one of the ten best players in the NBA, period? I don't. And with very few exceptions, NBA champions have a top-10 (really more like top-5) player on the roster.



> Superstardom is more a media phenomenon than anything else. And some superstars are more special than others. This year Wade is an undisputed superstar (as he plays with two of the better centers in NBA history), even though players like Arenas, Marbury and Pierce probably have as much skill. In talent terms, or in terms of contributing to a winning team, I see a very fine line between Wade, Gordon and Hinrich. Next year or the year after, the comparison will look a bit different when the Bulls acquire interior players capable of playing the pick and roll -- or simply capable of setting a good screen. Hinrich and Gordon are both better shooters than Wade. The ability to drive to the middle and act like you're fouled every time is not as difficult to learn as three point shooting if you have teammates who can clear the way for you.


I don't know where a Wade/Gordon/Hinrich comparison entered all this, but since you asked -- yup, Gordon and Hinrich are much better spot-up shooters than Wade. Wade is better at every single other aspect of the game. He doesn't parade to the free throw line every game because a magazine or TV show is putting him there. He goes because he attacks the basket with abandon and finishes plays with dunks, not teardrops and layups and flip shots.



> One has to wonder how effective James would be without the bevy of quality big men he has to play off. Big men are sort of like offensive linemen in football. They do the dirty work so some little guy can look like a hero. The heroism has a way of disappearing when the big guys have an off night.


The nerve of Cleveland to assemble a corps of solid big men to complement and protect LeBron! 



> What jumps out at me about championship teams is that they invariably play good defense.
> They have players who have played together for several years.
> They are well coached, and lucky enough not to have significant injuries to key players.
> They always play both ends of the court-- usually with an emphasis on the defensive end.
> ...


Again, given the overwhelming tendency of NBA champions to have one of the premier players in the league on the roster, and in championship play, for the title to go to the team with the superior individual player, at the present time I would trade our entire roster for LeBron James. Even if we're doing our utmost to put together a great team in the absence of that sort of player. And "Timberwolves II" might be a sensible way to describe the Cavs if Kevin Garnett had led his team to the cusp of a conference finals in his first trip to the playoffs, but that's not how it happened.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Here's the scenario that nobody here really wants to see, but it's not unlikely.

LeBron and the Cavs go to the finals and maybe even win it this year.

No matter how much cap space and lotto picks we get over the next 10 seasons, we're still going to have to go through LeBron and the Cavs to make the finals, let alone win a championship.

Wait.

In 10 seasons, LeBron will only be 31.

Make it 12-15 seasons.

By then, Kirk will be 37


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Here's the scenario that nobody here really wants to see, but it's not unlikely.
> 
> LeBron and the Cavs go to the finals and maybe even win it this year.
> 
> ...


This is disturbing. I was under the illusion that basketball was a team game. Guess I'll have to reconsider my fundamental assumptions.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Cavs off to a hot start, goodbye detroit, hello Ben Wallace.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> This is disturbing. I was under the illusion that basketball was a team game. Guess I'll have to reconsider my fundamental assumptions.


We probably won't reach agreement on many of the issues raised in this thread, but I'm hoping you can conclusively answer at least one question: in your mind, does Cleveland have a quality corps of big men who do LeBron's heavy lifting (and thus provide at least one essential facet of a "team game"), or not? 

On the one hand, you seem eager to use the play of their bigs as a means of discrediting LeBron's accomplishments, yet on the other you imply the Cavs will fail because they don't know how to build a team for the "team game."


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

LeBron makes his teammates better primarily by being such an offensive force, at least in this series. In crunch time (although I haven't seen tonight's game yet), I've never seen a more repetitive offense - high screen and roll LeBron, high screen and roll LeBron, high screen and roll LeBron... The other three guys are almost literally spectators. When enough people collapse on him, a Flip Murray, Larry Hughes or Donyell can get an open three, and shoot a very high percentage doing it, and Z can get some dunks. If that's making your teammates better, then I guess he does, but other than that, I haven't really seen it either. He's a good passer, but not yet a great decision maker, imho, if that makes sense. He makes some bad turnovers and shoots some ugly shots, I think - which is to be expected given his age, of course, but I don't want to pretend whatever faults he has don't exist... I think he's pretty great at almost everything else. Well, I also haven't seen much back-to-the-basket post offense from him. Not saying he can't do it, I just haven't seen it.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Well, the one man team (for whom all members of the Bulls team should be traded) came up a little short against Detroit tonight, in spite of some nice help up front from his unnecessary teamates.

LJ just has to find a way to bounce the ball off the rim on the last freethrow so that it comes back to him instead of one of his supporting cast.

Actually, I thought LJ had another great, if not perfect, game; and Cleveland played well--just not well enough. Detroit threw everything but the kitchen sink at him on defense without much effect. Cleveland's front line controlled the boards until Varejo got into foul trouble in the fourth. I can see why they like him more than Gooden (who also played very well in the first half).

In the fourth quarter, the excellent teamwork of the apparently aging Pistons was on full display. Yet is was barely enough to grab the game.

I agree with those who say that Cleveland will be a force to be reckoned with in the eastern conference for the next few years. Hughs can only help the backcourt; but it will be difficult to replace Z and Marshall when they begin to decline in the not so distant future. For that reason, I think they will match any offer to Gooden that the Bulls choose to make.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

LeBron James is great, but he isn't going to be the only player to win a title in the next 15 years. There are so many good players in the league nowadays, and basketball is still a team sport. Hell, Gilbert Arenas played LeBron James to a complete standstill in round one, it was the supporting cast that made the difference. 

Having a top player does make things a lot easier, but Dallas is better than the Timberwolves because they have talent around Dirk Nowitzki. Not because Dirk is better than Garnett. The Heat are better than the Lakers, not because Wade is better than Kobe, but because the Heat have talent around Wade. 

I think having a top 10 player is majorly helpful in building a great team. You need a guy to build around and run the offense through, plus a guy to look to in those stretches where everything runs dry. Not to mention leadership and confidence that rubs off on the rest of the team. 

However, I don't think building around a top 10 player (like Wade, for example) is much harder than building around a top 3 player (like LeBron, for example). As soon as you get that player, whether top 10 or top 3, the success of your team is more dependant on the guys you put around him. Great teams are headed by great players, but there are plenty of great players. It becoms a matter of support and chemistry after that.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Here's the scenario that nobody here really wants to see, but it's not unlikely.
> 
> LeBron and the Cavs go to the finals and maybe even win it this year.
> 
> ...


The Bulls are going to have to "go through" LeBron for the next 14 or so years no matter what Cleveland does this year. Thats a given.

Is your assumption that it can't be done?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The Bulls are going to have to "go through" LeBron for the next 14 or so years no matter what Cleveland does this year. Thats a given.
> 
> Is your assumption that it can't be done?


Sure. The two seasons in the middle where LeBron "retires" and plays minor league baseball.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Sure. The two seasons in the middle where LeBron "retires" and plays minor league baseball.


Seriously though. I agree with you that basically every team in the East will need to go through him. Same with Bird in the 80's. But teams did beat the Celtics in the playoffs. 

I'm just not sure if you are saying he's going to run the table for 12-14 years or if you are just saying he will be the primary obstacle. I agree with the latter. I think the former is absurdly unlikely.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Seriously though. I agree with you that basically every team in the East will need to go through him. Same with Bird in the 80's. But teams did beat the Celtics in the playoffs.
> 
> I'm just not sure if you are saying he's going to run the table for 12-14 years or if you are just saying he will be the primary obstacle. I agree with the latter. I think the former is absurdly unlikely.


If people are making the MJ/LBJ comparisons and saying LBJ may be even better, then running the table is hardly questionable - MJ did it. The scary thing is that LBJ might not start winning his championships until he's 27 or 28 like MJ did.

So let's talk about the celtics. From 1980-1988, the Celtics or Lakers won every title. With the exception of one season the 76ers did it behind Erving and Moses Malone (and a stellar supporting cast). 

Lakers had Magic. Celtics had Bird. We have.... Go ahead and make the case for ANY of our guys being in that class (or Erving's).

Since 1980, only 7 teams have won the championship. Teams with Stockton and Malone (two all-time top 50 players) couldn't break in. Go ahead and make the case for any of our guys being even in that class.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I'm not as concerned about Lebron as I would be about a young Duncan or Oden. Big men will always have more impact than guards or small forwards because they can affect the game so much more on defense. Great post players like Duncan or Shaq have never been on losing teams because they impact the game so much offensively *and *defensively. Oppositely, great guards like Kobe and McGrady have been on losing teams partly because it's impossible to have a huge defensive impact as a perimeter player (compared to post players), despite being amazing offensive players.

Lebron might be the one to break this trend, like Jordan. After all, he has much better teammates than Kobe or McGrady. Still, I'm more concerned about Duncan, or whoever gets Oden, or maybe even Orlando's frontcourt.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:



> If people are making the MJ/LBJ comparisons and saying LBJ may be even better, then running the table is hardly questionable - MJ did it. The scary thing is that LBJ might not start winning his championships until he's 27 or 28 like MJ did.
> 
> So let's talk about the celtics. From 1980-1988, the Celtics or Lakers won every title. With the exception of one season the 76ers did it behind Erving and Moses Malone (and a stellar supporting cast).
> 
> ...


There's no question that once a championship basketball team is constructed they have a tendency to be a force for a longer time than their counterparts in baseball or football. In large part this is because the team is smaller in size, so changes due to attrition or aging are slower. One player, e.g., Jordan or LBJ can be as much as 20% of a basketball team and so can affect the outcome more dramatically than one player in team sports with more players.

That said, even a great player can be injured or decide he wants to play minor league baseball.
Even a great player cannot cause his team to win in the NBA without quality teamates.
And even a great team can find itself confronted with another team that is its equal. 

At this point in time, Cleveland has a great player but they are not a great team. Their regular season record supports that case. Great teams don't have to play 7th games in a playoff series on an opponents floor. Cleveland rightly was not favored in this series against Detroit, and they will not be favored in the next series if they somehow manage to beat them.

Cleveland/LBJ is likely to improve a bit over the next two or three years if they manage to hold on to people like Gooden. But the improvement will not be dramatic, and after Z and Marshall decline, they will be worse.

The Bulls don't need an LBJ to be contenders in the eastern conference. They are already good enough to compete with the best. They just need to keep playing great team ball and to add a couple of good frontline players to get to the next level.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> If people are making the MJ/LBJ comparisons and saying LBJ may be even better, then running the table is hardly questionable - MJ did it. The scary thing is that LBJ might not start winning his championships until he's 27 or 28 like MJ did.
> 
> So let's talk about the celtics. From 1980-1988, the Celtics or Lakers won every title. With the exception of one season the 76ers did it behind Erving and Moses Malone (and a stellar supporting cast).
> 
> ...


I'm not making the case that we have LeBron talent, Larry talent, or Magic talent. 

I'm saying that LeBron running the table is an absurdity. MJ didn't "do it". MJ/Scottie and Grant/Rodman "did it". 

Cleveland might have a long term solution of the Grant/Rodman type with Verajeo. But I'm not sweating it until LeBron gets a Jabbar/Scottie/McHale/Worthy/Parrish/Johnson etc. to run with. That might happen. And it might not. 

But to "go dynastic" takes more than one elite player if you are going for the "elite and scrubs" model. 

Don't get me wrong. He is public enemy #1 and I think its fair to say that *at minimum* he'll win a championhship or two - or maybe even 3 like Duncan and Shaq. But I'm not panicing yet about him pitching shut-outs against the rest of the league like MJ/Scottie did. 

The Detroit series is 3/3 and the Pistons have played like absolute dog**** the last 4 games.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm not making the case that we have LeBron talent, Larry talent, or Magic talent.
> 
> I'm saying that LeBron running the table is an absurdity. MJ didn't "do it". MJ/Scottie and Grant/Rodman "did it".
> 
> ...


I'm not willing to concede even one championship to the Cavs unless they get it together very soon.

It's easy to be blinded by LBJ's dominance of the ball on offense and to ignore the fact that he has the luxury of playing with a top 5 center in the NBA. But Z is aging rapidly, and unless the Cav's get it together next season, I don't think they'll be particularly threatening for the rest of the decade.

The center position is, and has been, the most important position in NBA basketball. Minus Z, Lebron is just a taller Iverson. Last I looked Philly didn't make the playoffs, even though they had a quite good aging center.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Sure. The two seasons in the middle where LeBron "retires" and plays minor league baseball.


Nah, LeBron will play football.


----------

