Who are the winners and losers in the NBA?

Elton is one of my favorite players. The man is a workhorse on the boards and he doesn't back down from pressure situations like Chris Webber. Not the most talented PF in the league, Elton still puts up enough double doubles to earn my respect.

Can you really blame Brand for what happened in Chicago and L.A.?

Kandi was a soft little b****, Odom was sniffing his chronic, Maggette was only brilliant in spurts, and Andre Miller was only a shadow of his Cavalier self. More importantly, none of the players had faith in Sterling to keep the team together. Who would play 100% in that type of situation?

I can't comment too much on Chicago since I never watched that team play. But I'm guessing Chicago didn't have much of a bench.

 

Grant Hill made everyone around him better in Detroit. The problem was everyone around him was just horrible.

Detroit's good now because there was something that happened the same time Hill decided to leave. Joe Dumars took over the front office. Dumars created the winning team that exists now.

If you want to find reasons to call Hill a loser then look at his history of not showing up strong in the 4th quarter. He was the best player in the league for 3 quarters and an average one for the 4th.

 

I don't get calling Grant Hill a loser. He was a phenomenal player whose career was cut short by injury. Also SAR: I think he's just overpaid. If he made $7 instead of $14, everyone would think he was great. He's never been in a situation where he was positioned to succeed.

The loser tag is overused in general. How much of a player's success (or lack thereof) can be attributed to him and how much to his circumstance? It's a team sport and you really can't tell. There are some guys who can carry a whole team on their backs. To not be one of those guys doesn't really make you a loser.

 

I think the all-time standard for this should be Mitch Richmond. Great numbers every year (career 21 PPG) and 5-time all-star, but played only 23 playoff games over his 14 years. Only time he won was when he signed with the Lakers for a charity ring before retiring.

I'd immediately knock guys like Webber, Iverson, etc off, since if you get to your conference finals more than twice, you're doing something right. Can you really say Barkley or Malone were career losers? Can you honestly call a league MVP a loser? HoFs that retire without a ring are a separate category in my book.

Even those that are annual first-round-and-out guys are a tough call.

My picks:
-Stephon Marbury
-Elton Brand (though this pick doesn't feel right for some reason)
-Shareef Abdur-Rahim
-Antwan Jamison
-Keith Van Horn (lone exception to my playoff rule, since he sinks his squads like a stone come April/May)
-Corey Maggette
On the bubble:
-Steve Francis, Baron Davis, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Antoine Walker

 

Tim Duncan - 2* rings, 2 MVPs, 2 Finals MVPs

* lockout season

 

games


Do you know what the laker's record was when Shaq was injured 2 seasons ago? Kobe would have been lucky to win 25 games even with his incredible stretch of 40 point games. Jordan only won 38, 30, and 40 games his first 3 seasons in the league. Jordan and Kobe wouldn't have done much better with that crappy Magic team.

In regards to Francis, he only had 2 losing seasons as a rocket and both were because of injuries to himself and other stars of the team. The only thing that having the best record not to make the playoffs is that the west was stacked that year.

I think Jason Kidd is the most overrated player in the NBA but he does make those around him better. Kidd has consistently made the playoffs and made good player look great. I wouldn't pay him max money because of his age but I do see why some teams would.

 

I think thats pretty tough to label people in that way.. to me a winner and loser would be players in winning situations vs. losing situations. This list should be limited to max paid players that have been healthy.. (tragic injuries shouldnt be counted against them)

example -

JKidd (winner) consistently made his team a contender and playoff regular.

SAR (loser) I feel bad for him since his team wasnt that hot but he didnt bring his team to the next level (just making playoffs)

Webber (winner) main cog of his team making the playoffs so often being perennial title contenders. *he just cant take it to the next level (championships)

EBrand (loser) I like his game but he has always been surrounded by talent but cant make the playoffs.

Shaq (winner) took 2 different teams to the finals (LA/Orlando)

 

Yes, Elton Brand was surrounded with some talent, but that does not necessarily mean the team's failure rests squarely on his shoulders.

The Trailblazers had lots of talent, but that team never went anywhere. And yet, when Rasheed Wallace went to Detroit, he blossomed and helped them win a championship. Are the players in Detroit THAT much talented than the players in Portland?

Some organizations are just pure poison, and no amount of talent could save it.

If Kobe went to the Clippers, he will never make it out of the first round of playoffs.

 

There were just alot of other better teams than Detroit in the late 90's, and I'd say its harder to make your team great from the 3 spot than it is from other positions. He did a good job though. Definitely not a loser.

 

Or maybe Kobe would've brought them to a new level as an organization. More fans, FA's, exposure, etc.

 

dharocks, I could go over every player on that list (most were way past their primes-ex. Dumars- or way before it-ex. Ratliff), but that'd be tedious. Hill made each one of them better than they were at the time. Lindsey Hunter was a starting point guard for nearly a decade based entirely on the fact that Hill did his entire job for him.

Those teams were horribly soft and badly put together. Trust me, I watched every single game. It wasn't Hill's fault no one could guard anyone over 6'8", that no one else could rebound, and that no one else could make a pass. He led them in points, assists, rebounds, and was the best defender by far. The fact they made the playoffs on occasion was miraculous. The playoffs are made to expose one man teams too, so it's no surprise they couldn't win their either (and I notice you didn't bother mentioning the players on the teams that beat them).

 

Look at the players on each of his teams. Every one of those teams lacked a good inside presence. Also, he had Dumars past his prime, Houston before his prime, and Stackhouse on a down year as notable backcourt players. The East wasn't that weak back then either, with Indiana, Miami, New York, Orlando, and Chicago. Atlanta was simply a more balanced team with Mookie Blaylock and Steve Smith on the perimeter and Mutombo patrolling the paint. There's only so much one player can do- see Kevin Garnett.

Of course, then you have players like Tim Duncan who can carry an entire team of basically role players on his back. But just because a player can't do that doesn't mean he's a loser.

Jordan's teams had made the playoffs every single year until he made his ridiculous comeback with Washington. That 30 win second year you pointed out was when he missed 60 games due to a broken foot. His early Chicago teams were horribly untalented. The Bulls were a 27-win team before he arrived.

Anyway, my point is that McGrady had a bad season, teamwise, last year, no doubt about it. I love Tracy, but talking about retirement while starting the season 0-19 isn't the best thing to do. He could've done better than 21-61, especially since that team was a 42-win team the year before and added Juwan Howard. They did lose Darrell Armstrong, but I don't think he's worth 21 wins. I also want to point out though, McGrady's track record does NOT show that he's a loser. He had one bad year. The two years before that, he single-handedly carried the Magic to the playoffs and almost knocked out the top seed as an 8th seed. He's proven that he can carry a team and win.

 

I'd hesitate to call Carmelo a winner just yet. He did carry Syracuse to a national championship, but the majority of NBA players have collegiate success. And though Carmelo was an integral part to Denver making the playoffs last year, you can't ignore the fact that they also added Andre Miller, strengthed their bench, and had Marcus Camby finally healthy.

 

Using team record to judge a player as "winner" or "loser" is questionable at best. There are so many factors (to name a few: team talent level, coaching, chemistry, organizational morale) in team success that tagging it to one player is grossly unfair, especially for those who are not "franchise players."

Kidd wasn't considered a winner until he got to NJ and turned the Clippers East into a championship finalist. KG was tagged the "can't win big games" label until this last season when he finally got the talents around him. (BTW, if Cassell didn't get injured, they might have gone all the way.) These two are franchise players, MVP candidates. Even they got the loser stigma until the circumstances changed.

If you count only team success, these guys should be in the "winners HOF": Pippen, Rodman, Kerr, Horry

 

Does Kobe really attract all star free agents? Unless you are a defensive specialist who hates to be involved in offense, I don't see why playing with Kobe would appeal to you.