Linball

[Dick Whitman]

Forgot about Darko.

Definitely people out there, though, that were lobbying for Carmelo at No. 1. And not just high school haters. It was a minority viewpoint, no doubt. But it was out there.

 

[JC]

I'm not arguing that that's an issue. I'm arguing against the idea that having multiple star players is a bad thing.

It definitely can be - particularly when you factor in the salary cap issues.

In these sports where there is only one ball for everyone - pretty much football and basketball and not hockey and baseball - chemistry is a really big component of winning games. I guess when you reduce it to its essence, my point was merely this: The notion that the Heat were automatically going to dominate the NBA because it is a "superstar" league has not played out that way. In hindsight, it was a grossly oversimplified analysis of how to win NBA basketball games. Stars, even multiple stars, are a necessary component of a championship NBA team. But they are not a sufficient component. And I think a lot of people thought the latter two summers ago.

Back to the Knicks: It's funny now to think back to the debates that occurred when LeBron and Camelo went 1-2 in the Draft. There were people out there, with straight faces, who lobbied for Carmelo to go No. 1 because he was already a proven "winner."

I agree with this but this is quite different than your original statement.
The systems that players play in are crucial to their success.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I'm not arguing that that's an issue. I'm arguing against the idea that having multiple star players is a bad thing.

It definitely can be - particularly when you factor in the salary cap issues.

In these sports where there is only one ball for everyone - pretty much football and basketball and not hockey and baseball - chemistry is a really big component of winning games. I guess when you reduce it to its essence, my point was merely this: The notion that the Heat were automatically going to dominate the NBA because it is a "superstar" league has not played out that way. In hindsight, it was a grossly oversimplified analysis of how to win NBA basketball games. Stars, even multiple stars, are a necessary component of a championship NBA team. But they are not a sufficient component. And I think a lot of people thought the latter two summers ago.

Back to the Knicks: It's funny now to think back to the debates that occurred when LeBron and Camelo went 1-2 in the Draft. There were people out there, with straight faces, who lobbied for Carmelo to go No. 1 because he was already a proven "winner."

I agree with this but this is quite different than your original statement.

I think it's fairly consistent with it, particularly in the context of the immediately clarifying follow-up post.

 

[Versatile]

Didn't the Heat win quite a bit?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Didn't the Heat win quite a bit?

They are less than the sum of their parts, though. Considerably less. I don't think you can evaluate their performance in a vacuum - that they won 58 games and made it to the Finals. You have to compare it against reasonable expectations for that roster.

 

[93Devil]

When's the last time a team without a top-5 player won an NBA championship?

I'm sure someone will argue last year's Mavs count, but if Dirk isn't top-5, it's close.

2004 Detroit is the only one in my lifetime, I know that much.

Sonics

Blazers only had one superstar.

 

[Versatile]

Isiah Thomas wasn't quite top-five (Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone), but he was comfortably top-10.

 

[93Devil]

Isiah Thomas wasn't quite top-five (Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone), but he was comfortably top-10.

Give me Thomas over Malone in the playoffs any day of the week.

 

[sgreenwell]

Isiah Thomas wasn't quite top-five (Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone), but he was comfortably top-10.

Give me Thomas over Malone in the playoffs any day of the week.

I think that is more of a criticism of Malone than an endorsement of Thomas though, right?

 

[sgreenwell]

Back to the Knicks: It's funny now to think back to the debates that occurred when LeBron and Camelo went 1-2 in the Draft. There were people out there, with straight faces, who lobbied for Carmelo to go No. 1 because he was already a proven "winner."

The people who wanted to pick Carmelo Anthony ahead of LeBron James were people who inherently hated high school players because Kwame Brown was terrible. That's it. And Anthony was taken third.

I think the NBA's age ban didn't really help the product all that much - the hit rate for high school players seems to be higher, at least from casual observation. I think the bigger thing that made the game more enjoyable was calling more fouls and allowing less open field tackles, basically, those Pat Riley Knick teams and Mike Fratello's slowdown ball. It's a minor difference, but I think the 8-second backcourt call helps as well.

 

[Versatile]

I looked over the numbers, and I'm not even sure Isiah Thomas was one of the 10 best players in the NBA by the time the Pistons won their two titles. Here are his per-game averages during the 1988-89 and 1989-90 seasons, combined: 18.3 points, 8.9 assists, 3.6 rebounds, 1.7 steals and 3.9 turnovers. He shot 45.0 percent from the field, 29.2 percent on 3-pointers and 79.5 percent on free throws. And he wasn't named to the all-NBA first, second or third teams either season.

His playoff numbers weren't much better: 19.4 points, 8.2 assists, 4.9 rebounds, 1.9 steals and 3.1 turnovers a game while shooting 43.9 percent from the field, 40.8 percent on 3-pointers and 76.8 percent on free throws.

Joe Dumars won the first NBA Finals MVP and made the all-NBA third team in 1989-90.

It's fairly clear from further analysis that Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Clyde Drexler, Karl Malone and Dominique Wilkins were better players by that point. Furthermore, very strong arguments could be made for Kevin Johnson, John Stockton, Chris Mullin and James Worthy, as well as 1989-90 rookie David Robinson.

Thomas' prime came when he was very young; his best seasons were from ages 22 through 25. By the end of his 20s, when his teams were best because the supporting cast had been built up so well, Thomas still was an excellent player but probably fell outside the top-10 range.

With that said, Thomas will go down as a player who stepped up his game at the key moments, and that's for good reason. I know many people don't like basketball's advanced statistics, but compare his Player Efficiency Rating in the playoffs (20.9) and regular season (19.4) for his prime (from 1983-84 to 1989-90). That's a substantial jump.

Malone was a better player than Thomas by that era in any circumstance, but until the late-1990s, he rightly was perceived as a player who struggled in the playoffs. He was still an outstanding player even in the playoffs, but he wasn't the superstar the Jazz needed him to be, like he was during the regular season. Malone's PER is lower for his career in the playoffs (21.1) than the regular season (23.9) despite his valient efforts against Jordan's Bulls in the late-1990s.

 

[Versatile]

Back to the Knicks: It's funny now to think back to the debates that occurred when LeBron and Camelo went 1-2 in the Draft. There were people out there, with straight faces, who lobbied for Carmelo to go No. 1 because he was already a proven "winner."

The people who wanted to pick Carmelo Anthony ahead of LeBron James were people who inherently hated high school players because Kwame Brown was terrible. That's it. And Anthony was taken third.

I think the NBA's age ban didn't really help the product all that much - the hit rate for high school players seems to be higher, at least from casual observation. I think the bigger thing that made the game more enjoyable was calling more fouls and allowing less open field tackles, basically, those Pat Riley Knick teams and Mike Fratello's slowdown ball. It's a minor difference, but I think the 8-second backcourt call helps as well.

I agree. The game is cleaner now than it was in the 1990s. The only reasons people who don't watch much NBA basketball anymore complain about how much worse the game has become are because a) they don't watch much NBA basketball anymore or b) they just love Michael Jordan.