Start a thread on the subject. Build your own pulpit instead of hijacking. You can flog the same old dead horse to your heart's content.
Just put me on ignore if it bothers you so much. My comment didn't derail anything and it's not like this is a busy thread.
http://www.nba.com/knicks/video/2013/11/26/dropboxnba8vidprod01nykamare1125-3054082 I get the feeling that Amare has thoughts about ball movement.
You can certainly get away with it during the regular season, but if you look at the championship teams throughout history, they've always had that guy that you can just give the ball to and he will find a way to score. The only exception to this rule in the last decade+ have been the 2004 Detroit Pistons, but they had multiple players who could take over a game (Billups aka 'Phillip,' lol, and Sheed come to mind).
That is a somewhat manufactured definition, though. Every good team is going to have capable scorers and guys will step up if the top scorer goes down. For example, on the 80s Lakers, when Magic was injured, suddenly Worthy-- normally the defacto complimentary player-- was their go-to shot-creator. On the 90s Bulls, when MJ was out for two seasons, Pippen showed he was capable of being "the man". The point is that these guys wouldn't be in the NBA if they didn't have game. But when one guy is taking all of the shots, it negates this effect-- not just because there are less usable threats but also because it takes players out of rhythm and lowers morale. Certainly there are times when it's great to have a guy who can get a shot off against any defense, but for the most part these times are overplayed and don't lead to really good results anyway.
Well, the Heat was up by like 17 and the Suns had cut it to 9 when they brought LeBron in to seal the deal (I only know this because I was sweating the 2nd half line which required the Heat to win by 11!) LeBron has become a really good post-player; he hit I think four tough fadaways to kill the Suns' comeback.
Of course Pippen as the man didn't win a title. Your point is stupid. Having the best player on the floor is always better than not having him. A defense will adjust over time against a team without its star player. No team wins titles with a bunch of role players distributing shots. Your premise is debunked by history.
Pippen as the man didn't win a title but you could certainly argue that had the Bulls traded Jordan for complementary pieces, they would have been the favorites. That is, that Jordan wasn't nearly as irreplaceable as people would make him out to be, since his team won 50+ games and competed well without him. Volume scorers are the easiest players to replace. The Rockets are fine without Harden just as the Lakers have historically been fine without Kobe. But lose a Hakeem, a Shaq, even a Marc. Gasol and see teams struggle, because they aren't replaceable. Plenty of teams can win with balanced scoring. Usually they will have a guy averaging more than the rest because he is a more capable scorer, but that doesn't mean he has to be a centerpiece ballhog. Just last year, the Spurs were a miracle shot away from accomplishing this. This year, the Pacers could very well win with a balanced attack. The Pistons already did it.
A balanced attack of all stars. Paul George is an elite player, Hibbert is an all-star. Tony Parker is an elite player, Tim Duncan is an all-star. You can talk about what you think can work in theory but in practice teams that don't have elite scorers don't win titles. Hakeem and Shaq are elite scorers. Of course an elite scoring big man has more value than an elite scoring guard/forward unless that player is an all time great like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Lebron. Teams that play a team style offense where there are four or five players that could lead the team in scoring any given night don't go far in the playoffs because defenses lock down and a good scorer can't beat great defense. It takes a great scorer to do that. A great scorer opens up the floor for others and makes the tough shots or creates good shots for others with the game on the line. It's the history for a reason.
You are contradicting yourself though. Teams without elite scorers can contend for and won titles, unless you are saying Tony Parker and Chauncey Billups are elite scorers (in which case every team in the league has elite scorers). This idea that defenses can shutdown anyone except the elite is horse****. If anything, overconfident scorers are easier to shutdown since the defense can focus on them when there aren't other options. I am hoping the iso era that MJ really popularized is finally coming to an end and we'll see more balanced teams like the Pacers and Spurs become the model, as they are obviously quite competitive already. I would not label anyone on the Pacers as an elite scorer-- George is quite good but he's basically the second coming of Pippen. Same with the Spurs, but ******* do they have a beautiful balanced attack.
More teams have won the lottery with less than 2% chance than have won the nba title with roleplayers over the last 30 years (and even then, it required a bunch of events to occur that weren't "won by being the best team", from malone's injury, to kobe going all world chucker, to artest going all world chucker of a different object) It's not that it can't happen, it's just that it's really unlikely and poor design from a management perspective if you have access to the alternative. Also comparing the Pacers offense to San Antonio's offense is amusing, Indiana haven't played a single team currently above 500 (viva la least) and they're middle of the road (it's also really boring to watch such putrid offense), now their defense on the other hand.....
You play who you play. We will find out plenty about the Pacers, very soon. Sun, Dec 1 @ Los Angeles Clippers Mon, Dec 2 @ Portland Wed, Dec 4 @ Utah (one breather) Sat, Dec 7 @ San Antonio Sun, Dec 8 @ Oklahoma City Tue, Dec 10 home vs. Miami
