My theory on NBA/Rocket's championships

Im not sure Yao will ever become a top 5 player in his career, but will win a ring. Right now yao doesnt seem like he has that killer insticnt and is too humble. I dont know how to explain it, but his demeanor on and off the court doesnt seem very mvp like. Other then that I think if he is paired with another star like tmac they will eventually win a title. Yao has the ability to effect the game on both end of he floor and his presence will always create open shots for people. He automatically makes a team that much better since he requires a double team and just him standing in the paint intimadates people. But he himself will not lead this team all the way. Yao will need a player like tmac or van exel who is willing to take the big shots and when the game is on the line put the team on his back.

Dont get me wrong, I think yao will turn out to be a very good player and maybe average 25/11 in his prime, but it just doesnt seem like he has that competitive spirit or killer instinct that all the superstars have.

I know its only his 2nd season, but from what ive seen about his dameanor I could never picture him with the intensity and hunger KG or any great player has.

 

I think Yao does have a fiery spirit in him, but he just doen't let it out much. I mean he has shown incidents of emotion in the NBA e.g. after his spin move on Shaq, his technical on Ratliff etc. And in the Asian Championships last year he showed a lot of emotion against Korea. It was subpar competition yes, but the question is whether Yao has the intensity to become a great player? I think he does have a fire in his belly, but he doesn't have a confidence yet to bring it out. When he gets some more experience in his game and learns how to have success in the NBA, he'll realize that he can dominate in the NBA just like he dominates back in Asia. Then I think we'll see that fighting spirit that seems to lurk just under the surface.

 

Agreed. I am pretty positive about it. Yao is just too old school Chinese. He feels humble because he is new to the team and environment, and he does need time to adapt and to improve conditioning.

He'll show his true face when he feels comfortable.

 

Is there any player in recent history (last 20 years) to average 25/11 and NOT win a ring?

Chances are, if you're the type of player who can average 25/11 at any point in your career, you'll win a ring at some point in your career.

As for the Dirk vs. McGrady argument - if none of them improve, T-Mac is the better player right now. It's not one big factor, he just happens to be better, and few people will disagree that T-Mac is better than Dirk.

Seriously SJC, who would you rather have? What can Dirk POSSIBLY improve? T-Mac can get into better shape, he can improve his 3-pter, he can improve his defense.

Which is more likely, that Dirk will improve his defense and post moves, or that T-Mac will improve his range and defense?

I know what you're saying, but I think T-Mac is just slightly better overall. It's not one thing that sets him apart, just a better overall game I guess, although it's difficult to compare because their games are so different.

 

My only counter to this theory, with which I am generally in agreement, is that players are often defined as being 'top 3', better than others, etc. based on having won a championship. We forget the players who played at a level of an Isiah or a Kobe etc. who didn;t win rings, and as such it's easier to afirm that they were a 'top 3' player.

Would Dominique Wilkens, putting up the same numbers, but with better support, have been a 'top 3' player during the mid-80's had that support afforded him a ring or two? I'd say so. Look at Dream's years; you had Dream, Jordan, Pippen, etc. but you also had Barkley, David Robinson, etc. Hakeem's winning titles and Robinson's not ( at the time) soldified the iea that Hakeem was better than Robinson, but had the Admiral won the rings, would Hakeem still be remembered as 'top 3' outside Houston? How potential top 3'ers were there, at any given time, distinguished in latter days by virtue of having won rings? 5? 7? 10?

So there is a bit of chicken and egg to this theory, IMO.

 

Well, for Indiana or Detroit to win, someone on one of these teams will have to make a MONUMENTAL effort, which will mean he will be knows as top 3 after this season.

So we're back to Macbeth's theory. For example, if J O'Neal puts on a 30ppg/14reb/3blk average in the Finals out of nowhere, everyone will forget the season, and say he was a top 3 player.

But you know what, J O'Neal was 3rd in MVP voting, so it would'nt be thatf ar off.

 

Agreed, but look at how many ( Barkley, Malone, Iverson, Robinson-then, etc.) didn't. In retrospect, will they be regarded as having been top 3? If so, it'll get pretty crowded up there.

 

There must always be two, Houston Cougars.

 

Wilkins was one-dimensional. I don't think he really deserves mention here. I think he was top 50, but not legendary.

In the case of Hakeem and Robinson, the two went head-to-head, and Olajuwon outplayed him and won. There's no debate there. Robinson even had the better team in the regular season and still lost. There is no 'had Robinson won the rings' - he had the chance to do that, and didn't.

Also Barkley went head-to-head with Jordan and Hakeem, was outplayed by both, and lost. Same with Jordan/Hakeem and Karl Malone.

 

I think you're proving my point.

 

That Hakeem, Jordan, Bird, etc. only won because they had more 'support'? Gosh, I hope not.

 

I agree that there is a sort of chicken and egg scenario in this discussion, but in pro basketball, unlike any other sport, the greatest are almost guaranteed to win a ring.

Chamberlain
Jordan
Kareem
Bird
Magic

those are five of the top ten players I think you would get on anyone's list of the top 10 players in history. They all have rings. The same can't be said for other sports.

Ted Williams. He's probably one of the top five hitters in baseball. No ring

Barry Sanders, one of the best running backs ever. No ring

Basketball is a little different. Yes David Robinson would be considered better than Hakeem if he was the winner of those head to head match ups, but the way he was abused by Hakeem makes it no doubt. The way he was outplayed is a direct link to them losing to the Rockets. Individual performances have less impact in other sports.

 

No, you reaffirmed the idea that post applied status depends on how they perform in specific instances, thus negating the pre-championship distinction as 'top 3'...You yourself cited head to head matchups on the way to championsips as rationale for establishing a player's level.

 

I would say that, historically, basketball's best center rivals football's best quarterback in having a disproportionate effect on team success.

Re: Hakeem/Robinson; but the theory is contingent upon how they are viewed prior to the championship, no? Prior to his ring, many would have taken Robinson over Hakeem; in fact, if I'm not mistaken, until that point Robinson had usually finished higher than Dream in All NBA teams. To say that

A) Whoever plays better during a championsip run is a better player.

and

B) The teams that win have the best players.

Is sort of a circular argument, no? Imagine the argument this way: You knew Montana would beat Marino, because the better quarterback always wins. How do you know Montana was better? Because he won, and whoever wins is the better quarterback.

 

Isn't that necessary in a historical analysis such as this? Isn't the champion also determined after the fact? Isn't every award given dependent upon how someone plays throughout the year? Doesn't who wins the championship depend on how the teams perform in the playoffs? Nothing is decided until all the games are played ... 'pre-championship' distinction? Please help me out here Mac.

 

For a theoy like this to have any validity, aside from an observance, it must reveal a pattern which can be used to determine future events. As such, how they performed winning their champiuonship vs. those they opposed doesn't really have any effect on how they were perceived, relative to their opponents, before that.

Otherwise this 'theory' is reduced to the better players who win championships are the better players who win championships.

That seems pretty self-evident. If we agree that, if Jermaine O'Neal goes insane and carries his team to a championship this year, his status as a top player will be confirmed. SO later we can say 'Indiana won because it had one of the top players.' But right now...or at the beginning of the year, would that mean that you should get Jermaine O'neal because he's one of the top 3 players, and they're the ones who win championships? No. Had Garnett won, you could have said the same thing. Or Shaq. Or McGrady. Or Kidd. Etc. etc.

 

I agree. Hakeem was not regared as a top 5 player until he
won the first championship.

 

Before the playoffs started, I would have said either LA, SA, or Minnesota was going to win the championship. If Indiana wins and J.O. plays well, that most likely would be an exception.