I have a basketball theory, and I'm sure many will think it's a fairly obvious observation, but I want to raise the topic anyway. Theory No NBA team in the modern era can win a championship without having a top three player. If you look back at the last twenty championship teams, every single one of them had a top three player, with maybe Detroit being a possible exception, but that's debatable. So using my theory, we know that whichever teams comes out of the West will win a chapionship, because KG, KB, and TD were the three best players this season. Now the Rockets have YM and SF. As good as SF is (or isn't), he'll never be a top three or even top five player. YM might become a top three player, but it's not written in stone. This is why I now think the Rockets should pursue TM, because he at least has the potential to be a top three player. This would give the Rockets two players who have the potential of become MVPs, which would effectively double their chances of becoming title contenders. BTW, if you buy into my theory, it means that the current version of the Mavs, Kings, and Pacers will never win a title, even though their overall talent level is huge.
I would agree and started a similar thread a few months ago about almost the same topic. You need that one guy that both teams know will dominate a game on both ends of the court consistently. That opens up so much for the other guys that it really is a challenge to beat that team. Of course those other players must compliment him well otherwise it will not work (ala McGrady in ORL.). You need that guy that the whole team trusts that will come through succesfully. I looked at the current Rockets team and thought that this was what they really lacked this year. They didnt have a guy that would take over in clutch situations on both ends of the floor to carry his team to victory. I think thats why they would faulter down the stretch of games. I believe McGrady can be this guy. We all know his offensive ability and his ability to dominate at that end of the court, but I believe with his length and athleticism he can be a guy who can bring it defensively as well.
I would modify it slightly- To drop a few cliches, teams need a "go-to" player who will deliver when the pressure is on. Note that the Pacers, Kings, Mavs have not proven they have this. It just so happens that the first place to look for these players is among the top in the league. I think this is basically saying the same thing, but without putting a number (like "top 3") on it. You need a player who everyone on the team will look to (and who will deliver) when the time comes. I don't think they necessarily have to be in the top 3 in scoring, or rebounds or whatever. They just have to be the undisputed "man" on the team. Of course, a "top 3" player would be the man on his team. It also depends on how you define a "top" player- what contributions do offense, defense, and intangibles make? I would argue that the player in question needs to be able to take control of a game BOTH offensively and defensively (not necessarily at the same time, but of course it would help). By this logic, I would put my money on Yao before McGrady, since Yao is more likely to be a defensive force. This also highlights why the top players in Dallas (Nowitzki) and Sacramento (Peja? CWebb? take your pick) will never (in my opinion) lead their teams to a title. Do you suppose a team could have a "go-to" (or top 3) defensive guy and a separate "go-to" offensive guy (i.e. Ben Wallace and a hypothetical scorer) and win a championship? I think so. In that case, it's entirely possible that the team would not have a top 3 or even top 10 overall player.
Superstars win championships. Everybody knows that. Depth won't win you championships and chemistry (without a superstar) won't win you championships. Unless your team has the best player in basketball or has two top 5 players, chances are they’re not winning the championship. Right now, I’d say the chances of Steve becoming a superstar are zero and the chances of Yao developing into a top 5 player are 50-50. The Rockets need Mcgrady in a bad, bad way.
I can't think of much to add to Raven's post. That's pretty much what i see when I analyze past NBA champions. The only other noteable is that most, not all, but most champions are built around a top 3 player at the 4 or th 5. I do not think Steve Francis will ever be a top 3 player even if he improves and I agree that in McGrady I see the potential for a top 3 player (hell, he might be top 3 right now and he just hasn't had enough talent around him to show it ala Garnett, the counter argument being that top 3 players are so good that they win in spite of the talent around them). If Francis and some throw ins the asking price, I say you make the trade, sign McGrady to as long a term contract as you can and then do the same with Yao Ming the following off season. The same risk that existed when the Rockets gave Francis franchise money exists with Yao as he has only shown signs of greatness without establishing greatness. But I take the risk on a big man in Ming that I wouldn't have taken with regards to Francis based on the FACT that it is harder to find a solid 5 than it is a solid 1 or 2. Onto some of the teams Raven mentioned (Dallas, Sacramento, and Indiana). Sacramento and Dallas: I think the Mavs have an owner that has proved he is willing to put together so much all star talent that I wouldn't be overly surprised to see this team some day become the exception to Raven's rule. To add to Raven's championship recipe, I've always said you have to play tough defense to win it all and the Mavericks certainly don't play that brand of defense. But is it too much of a stretch to think that the Mavs could eventually mold into a team that is simply so great offensively that they can outscore their opponents to the championship? I know it hasn't happened since the Pistons showed the league how to play defense in the late 80's, but the Mavs were damn close to doing just that a season ago as were the Kings two or three seasons ago. Indiana: Here I would ask whether or not Jermaine O'Neal qualifies as a top 3 player. I think he seems very close, but then again you have to factor in the eastern conference factor. I would say O'Neal has shown the potential to be the MVP of this league and he has a GM and owner that have proven that they are very smart personel wise and can surround him with the types of players that can help O'Neal reach this level of play.
Totally agreed. I' am willing to give this team a season or two to find the rest of the pieces if it means giving up Mobley, Francis, Cato, filler, etc. for McGrady. This is the Rockets best chance of finding a potential MVP type of player, and opportunities like that don't happen that often.
Based upon a quote I read in one of his books about 20 years ago, I have always subscribed to the Red Auerbach theory. Paraphasing.... "NBA Championships are won by two great players and three very, very good players". IMHO, Francis will never be HOF great. Yao may never be either, but the probability factor is much higher than for Francis. McGrady, if he stays healthy can easily be HOF great. With or without Francis (without IMO), next season will be one that will yield a lot of insight into Yao's upside potential.
i don't know about that... if steve keeps putting up 20-5-5 or 18-6-6 for the rest of his career, maybe he'll get in the hall. but yes. i totally, 200% agree with what's being said in this thread. if you can trade a borderline all star for a top 5 player. why the FRICK wouldn't you do it. "player loyalty over team success?" uh... no.
While I agree that one should normally go for the player with the higher ceiling, I am just wondering what exactly the belief is based on that T-Mac has more potential to be a top 3 guy than, e.g., Nowitzki. The team's success certainly does not warrant that assertion, and neither do the stats, really...
dude man... Nowitzki peaked already. that 25/10 season. that was his peak. an awesome peak. but top 3? no way. top 5? borderline. A) how about developing ONE low post move? B) how about learning to play some defense and blocking a shot or two. you're seven feet tall! SJC... Dirk is one of my favorites in the NBA... but last season he really disappointed me.
Nowitzki is only 11 months older than T-Mac and does not have a bad back. What makes you think one of them peaked and the other one has not? BTW, Blocks per game last season: Dirk: 1.4 T-Mac: 0.6
I agree. You need that foundation of top-star players first. Then, start building the chemistry in offense and defense. Role player are also important too. But that's based on your most pressing needs at the time; defense? shooters? shock blocking? It's interesting how top-3 players seems to change each year. For example, Duncan was NOT considered the "best in the league" two years ago until he knocked off the Lakers. After that, his legendary status was uplifted. Same with Garnett. He's an MVP. But has yet to catapult himself into legendary status. Not until he does something great. Like knock off the Lakers. That's how legends are born. They do something you don't expect. McGrady, was seen as one of the top-3 players about 3 years ago. His record this year combined with his injuries has dampened that spirt a bit. But all he needs is a new lease on life. A new team with another superstar: Yao.
He won the championship in his second year he won back to back mvps and has been all-nba every year he has been in the league. Tim Duncan has been a top 5 player pretty much since he got into the league. And kenvin garnett has been putting up 20-10-5 for the last 3 or 4 seasons. The top 5 or so players has remained pretty stable over that past 3-4 years.
Absolutely! He's been considered the top 5 players back then. But not THE TOP PLAYER. Not like after last year. He was considered even more valuable than Shaq and Kobe. THE BEST (forget top 5). Why? Because he knocked off the champs. That does something for ones legendary status. Garnett is in the same boat this year. MVP, but Shaq is still considered better than Garnett. Until Garnett knocks off Shaq's team, that is. I mean, MVP is nice. But if you get beat by someone else...I kinda defeats the purpose of "the most valuable." Just ask David Robinson. P.S. Even when Duncan won his 1st title. It was kinda soured because of the shortened season and the Lakers were maturing (after Phil took over). Beating the defending champs had more weight than beating the leaderless Knicks in a shortened season.
He's way off ... the Rockets, Spurs ... even the Lakers, if you consider Bryant 'great', didn't have '3 very, very good players'. Neither did Chicago. Really only Boston did, in '86. Even the '83 Sixers probably didn't have 2 GREAT players. Moses; the rest were very good probably; not 'very, very good'.
TheFreak, think "dynasty." Not just a one ring...think like Red or Phil. Your definition of "very, very, good" is probably a little off for other teams. And your expectation of our past Rockets role players is low. If you don't think that Rice, Toni_Kukoc, Harper, Grant, Paxton, Kerr, Fisher where very, very good role players...well...I'd think you're not recognizing how good they were. Those players were very balanced players...very smart. Your defintion of "very, very, good" in the Rockets case is a little low. It's something that we've never experienced during our champ days. Just because the Rockets did it the hard way, doesn't mean that there isn't a better way. I mean, all that Red Auerbach is saying that it's a good model to follow. Where "very good" and "very, very good" drop off is defined by your own perspective. Yours and Reds. I'll pick Reds. P.S. You don't consider Julius Erving a "great" player? What about the Lakers of the 80's? They had three 1st round picks: Kareem, Magic and Worthy. Green, Scott and Cooper were "very, very good" role players." Again, I just think that your idea of "very, very, good role" players is low because of the Rockets past.
You guys are so funny. If there was no McGrady talk, you all would say that Yao will be a top three player, but now that we can get McGrady, we have to do this deal because we don't know if Yao is a future top three player.
I'm still sticking with Auerbach.... 81 Celts =Bird / Parish + Cedric Maxwell / Nate Archibald / Kevin McHale / Rick Robey / Chris Ford / Gerald Henderson / M.L. Carr 82 Lakers = Abdul-Jabbar / Jamaal Wilkes + Magic Johnson / Norm Nixon / Mitch Kupchak / Michael Cooper / Bob McAdoo 83 Sixers = Moses Malone / Julius Erving + Andrew Toney / Maurice Cheeks / Bobby Jones 84 Celts = Bird / Parish + Kevin McHale + Dennis Johnson + Cedric Maxwell / Gerald Henderson / M.L. Carr / Danny Ainge 85 Lakers = Abdul-Jabbar / Magic + James Worthy / Byron Scott / Bob Mcadoo / Mike McGee / Michael Cooper / Jamaal Wilkes 86 Celts = '84 team less Maxwell + Walton + Wedman 87 Lakers = 85 Lakers less McAdoo + AC Green 88 Lakers = above + Mychal Thompson 89 Pistons = Dantley / Thomas + Joe Dumars / Vinnie Johnson / Bill Laimbeer / Dennis Rodman / James Edwards / Rick Mahorn / John Salley / Darryl Dawkins 90 Pistons = above less Dantley + Mark Aguirre 91 - 92 - 93 Bulls = MJ / Pippen + Horace Grant / Bill Cartwright / B.J. Armstrong / John Paxson / Stacey King / Scott Williams (93) 94 Rockets = Dream / Thorpe + Vernon Maxwell / Kenny Smith / Chris Jent / Robert Horry / Mario Elie / Sam Cassell / Scott Brooks / Carl Herrera / Matt Bullard 95 Rockets = above less Thorpe + Drexler 96 Bulls = MJ / Pippen + Toni Kukoc / Luc Longley / Steve Kerr / Ron Harper / Dennis Rodman / Bill Wennington 97 Bulls = above + Jason Caffey + Bison Dele 98 Bulls = see above 99 Spurs = Tim Duncan / David Robinson + Sean Elliott / Mario Elie / Avery Johnson / Jaren Jackson / Malik Rose / Antonio Daniels / Steve Kerr 00 Lakers = Shaq / Kobe + Glen Rice / Ron Harper / Rick Fox / Derek Fisher / Robert Horry / A.C. Green / Brian Shaw I'm not going to arm wrestle anyone over the definition of a " very, very good" player. It's surely not HOF career and it doesn't even have to be a very good career. It's the players with a portion of a career that is played at an untra-high level. That's all it has to be when two players are "great".
When you think about it, the theory is kind of a bummer, because it shreds away any mystery, as to what teams will win championships.
