I have a debate for you guys. Do you guys think that in the last 10 years (maybe more) the team that had the best player in the league that year has always won the Championship? I think that it is true. What do you guys think?
Let's see.... Chicago (91-93, 96-98): Michael Jordan. Definately. Houston (94, 95): Hakeem Olajuwon. Quite possibly, though not as high above everyone else as Jordan. San Antonio (99): Tim Duncan. Here's where the debate is: was Duncan the best player in the league that year? I'm not sure you can say one way or the other. LA Lakers (00-02): Shaquille O'Neal. Most dominating, that's for sure. Having Kobe doesn't hurt his case either.
Do you imply that the best player carries his team to championship? I think it could be the other way around. Championship teams make the best players. If the Bulls didn't win all those rings, do you think MJ would still be considered "the best ever"? If the Rockets didn't win, would Dream be recognized as the best player in the league then? It's hard to say which is the cause and which is the effect. We do tend to see those players who win it all better than those who don't.
I think every year there are about 5 "best" players...then the one that ends up winning the championship is considered the best out of them, because of the success that he has achieved.
I am not really trying to imply anything. I am just wondering if you guys feel the same way I do. I don't think anyone will argue with me about Jordan being the best in his championship years and Shaq being the most dominant player in the game in his championship years. I also don't expect much argument on this board about Hakeem's years. Some will argue that Tim Duncan wasn't the best player in his year, I wouldn't but some would. I just wanted to see if you guys thought they were the best player in the league in the year that they won. If I was trying to imply something it would probably be that the teams without a top three star don't have a chance at the Championship. The Kings are the only team that I can think of that has even gotten close to a championship (in the last ten years) without a top three player and they didn't even get to the championship.
I see what you mean. I agree that had the Kings won, they would be a very special team for not having a top 3 (or make it top 5) player. But then again, if the Kings had beaten the Lakers, they might still lose to the Nets. Then Jason Kidd would be dubbed the best player of the year.
Ooh, ooh, me! I'd argue that point! Except I've been doing that a lot recently, and I don't feel like getting into another long debate. I'll just say that that statement is, in fact, highly debatable, and leave it at that.
At the very least they all had one of the 3 best players. MJ was obviously the best. Olajuwon was probably the best, but not clearly. Duncan, is pretty debateable. Shaq, more than likely is the best, at worst a top 3. I've noticed this trend too. The last team that won without one of the best players in the NBA was prob Det. Zeke was great, but far from being the best in the NBA at the time.
I don't think it's necessarily the best player... but one of the top four or five, as someone said. It was true with Jordan, and Hakeem, but the media has really tried to stretch it in the last few years to continue this analogy. Shaq hasn't really improved since '99, and Duncan hasn't really declined. If anything, Duncan's gotten better. They're the same players. The winner of the championship has been determined by the level of the play around them, not those players themselves. The trend definitely shows that you need a definite superstar talent to win, but I don't think it's required that he be far and away the best in the game.
Olajuwon was clearly the best in '94-'95; the guy made defenders look like high school players in the post, and swatted shots left and right. He should have been a back to back MVP, and he made David Robinson believe by making him look like a middle schooler in the '95 WCF. Duncan was more than likely the best in '99. Shaq was still lazy then, and Malone won a MVP he didn't deserve. But I agree, it can be debatable. Shaq's been the best player in the league the past 3 years, no question. He's not anywhere near as lazy as he used to be. He's just so dominant that you'd be crazy not to make Shaq the #1 player to build a team around (assuming age is not in the equation). In my book, that makes him the best (doesn't necessarily mean the most skilled).
No, I don't necessarily think Drexler was better than Jordan. I am known on another site as Emmittfan22. Do I think Smith is the best RB in the NFL? No. Do I think he's the best of all time? No. Do I even think he's the best back of the 90s? No. This is exactly why I'm burned out on arguing right now. It gets heated, and people resort to insults instead of arguing the actual issue. As I said before, I don't think it's indisputable that Jordan was the best player in the early 90s, and I don't feel like arguing it again. I've done it too often recently. Try me in a few months.
Yes. I think you can go back to about '80 and say this was true for at least 20 of the last 23 champions as well.
