I think this exagerates the margin of wins and loses. Fact was Portland had game 7 and the series, the Lakers were lucky to win. The Lakers were lucky to win last year too--a fluke ball doesn't land in Horry's hand at the right time or a shot or two falls for the Kings in game 7--the teams with dispersed, deep, talent beats the Lakers those years. Just as easily could have happened that way, as they way it did happen. Also, what about if Starks 3s fall in game 6 in 93, or Elie's Kiss of Death shot rims out like Horry's did a few weeks ago in SA. You can also go back to the Pistons. No Piston, not Thomas, not Dumars, was ever a league MVP or near the best player in the game. They had enough dispersed talent around stars (even if not megastars) to beat far greater individual players like Magic, Bird and Jordan. Usually the best player wins--but far from the slam dunk or guaranteed outcome many make it out to be.
Game 7 - Do you remember that Portland collapsed not only on defense, but offense too?? If they had gotten a lil bit more out of their offense, they would have won. Shaq and Kobe rose up and willed the Lakers to a win and Portland could not stop them because they did not have any players remotely close to those two in talent that could do the same for them. They didn't have the type of player who can carry a team on his back. Lets address Starks shot 1st. Regardless of whether the Rockets or Knicks won that series, NBA History would still hold true (because Ewing was an HOFer himself). Same theory applies to Elie's shot and Horry's shot because whether they won or lost, the team with an HOFer advanced. OK, you are just flat out wrong here. Thomas is/was an HOFer. That is a fact. You can say he wasn't the MVP, but next to Magic, he was the best PG in the NBA at that time. He made his teamates better. (The HOF seems to think he is also as he was a 20 pt/10 assist guy for most of this career, including his two championship years). The fact is, they had an HOFer in Thomas (no matter what you say) that beat a team with another HOFer. This happens all the time and I have never said it didn't. I said teams without HOFers do not beat teams that do have HOFers for titles. It has only happened once in the last 30 years. Actually, it usually is a slam dunk that a team without an HOFer will never beat a team with an HOFer for a title (29 out of the last 30 years). Anyway, you at least said "usually the best player wins". Did the team with the best players win the 00 WC Finals?? Yes they did (Shaq and Kobe both were better than any talent that Portland had). So how did Portland underachieve if, as you said, "usually the best player wins"? Why are you holding Dunleavy to the exception rather than the rule??
Riet, don't be immature. I thought we were having a discussiong about our views on bball and you wanna turn this into a bunch of name calling? I expected you to be a better man than that. No need to turn into a jerk because someone doesn't agree with your point of view. I think we have established this a while back. I agree with these statements. Actually, considering the fact that the likes of Todd Day and Erick Murdock were starting for them, they were lucky to win as many games as they did. That was a young team, yet no one from that team is even in the league anymore except for Robinson and Baker (actually, wasn't Baker released?). Considering that was 8-10 years ago, and that those players were young, if any of them were any good (besides Robinson and Baker), wouldn't you expect some of them to still be in the league?? (there may be 1 or 2 others from that team in the NBA, but none come to mind) Actually, no its not a myth. While there are a few exceptions to the rule, the cream always rises to the top. The team with the best talent (as in HOFers) will almost always be one of the best teams in the league and furthermore, those teams will amost always beat teams that have more depth, yet non equatable top talent. In the East, it is very possible. Let me ask you this though, considering the fact that Detroit was only 15-13 against the West, what would Carlisle's teams do in a much stronger conference (quick math, based on Detroits win% against the west and east says they go 47-35, good for the 7th seed and a 1st round matchup with Sacramento). I have noticed you keep calling Wallace 1 dimensional. Yet, you don't mention that in addition to being the rebounding king, he is the two time defensive player of the year. Do you know that in the 20 years that award has been kept, the team that has the DPY has made the playoffs 19/20 times??? Furthermore, do you know that they have made the finals or conference finals 6 times? I hope you now understand the value of Ben Wallace. Yet, if Carlisle is so great, why did he lose to a Nets team that didn't have an Iverson or McGrady as its best player or a Brown or a Rivers as its coach when his team had a) A better regular season record b) The home court advantage and c) Beat NJ 2-1 in the regular season? You are very good at looking at only one end of the spectrum in order to glorify Carlisle. I can't believe you are really going here. Comparing Detroit and Carlisle to the Bucks and Dunleavy, 8 years apart. Different eras, different levels of talent in their opponents, balance of power in the conference, etc. Would Carlisle still win 50 games if he had to play the Jordan led Bulls 6 times a year? Or the Mourning/Rice led Hornets 6 times a year? Again, you can't compare eras because the talent level in the conference and the division is completely different. The balance power in the conferences were different. Would Detroit still be a winning team if they had to play an in his prime Michael Jordan 6 times a year? What about a team in Atlanta that had the 3 time defending DPY on their team?? Or a team in Charlotte that had a core of Alonzo Mourning and Glen Rice?? Someone mentioned earlier that you just like to look at resumes and don't want to go deeper (who was that?? i forgot). The roster of the Bucks was almost completely overhauled after the season before Dunleavy took over. The season afterwards, Ray Allen was drafted. Allen has had a better career than both Robinson and Baker. Regardless, the Bucks were a losing team before AND after Dunleavy. That is a fact. If you feel the need to get into semantics about specific losing % when the talent levels of those 6 teams changed from year to year, then go ahead. It is a waste of your time and has no bearing on Dunleavy's legacy as he has no control over how coaches coached players the did not play for him and vice versa. Current talent or potential talent? This depends on how the talent is developed. Will Yao develop into a 20/10 guy or will he level off at 15/9? Will Steve keep up his 6 assist/3 TO a game pace or will he improve to 8/2?? Too many unknowns right now to accurately say how far they should advance with the talent they have now, because that will no doubt change, even if only slight, in the coming years. Again, this is dependent upon what their talent level is. If Yao and Steve fulfill their potential, then they should be able to compete with anybody. If Steve and Yao develop into two of the top 6 or 7 players in the league, then the Rockets don't need to play above their talent leve. Actually, yes he has. He took the youngest team in the NBA from a .560%, to a .700% and then to a 720% (this is when some of the vets were added). In Dunleavy's 1st year, he took the youngest team in the NBA and won 46 games. Pretty impressive. He took over a playoff team in Portland that was completely changed over when he got there. The team that was there the season before he took over was not nearly the same team that they he actually took over (out: Robinson, Rider and Anderson In: Grant, Stoudamire and Williams). I again will not hold it against Dunleavy for losing in Milwaukee because he didn't have the talent to work with. Yet, there is no question the necessary talent was in place for for him to have a winning record: SA (Robinson (was drafted before Brown arrived even though he didn't play until Brown's 2nd year)), LA (Manning, Harper), Indiana (Miller, Smits, Davis boys). Regardless, I never said Dunleavy was a better coach than Brown. Not sure why you posted this. You like to waste your time on posting irelevant information don't ya?
MIKE D. = Uptempo JVG = Half-court set I thought we wanted a change for the better guys? I VOTE 4 MIKE D. = uptempo itzIce
I can't agree with your logic. Not all HOFers won championships, but Championship title makes HOFers. Take Pippen for example, if Pippen didn't win 6 rings, I'd have a hard time imagining his being even considered for HOF selection. To say a team must have a HOF to win a title is kind of like going around logic because it's their rings that add weight to their HOF selection. If Jason Kidd wins this finals, he'd have a much better chance at being a HOFer in the future. The same goes for Rasheed Wallace etc... The fact that you are treating Tim Duncan as HOFer without official selection is because he won a ring. See the inconsistency? So weren't the Blazers a great team for "come back and win despite being backed into a corner"? Doesn't winning two elimination games and forcing the Lakers with two HOFers to the very edge of elimination count as a great comeback? The Blazers were a great team. Can't say that about their coach. Not true. The Blazers didn't need some HOFers to carry the team on its back in game 7. The led the Lakers with nearly 20 points into the 4th quarter. All they needed to do is to play like an average team for one quarter and the Lakers would be gone. They didn't need no HOFers to play like an average team for one quarter. Yeah, everyone should get credit for winning 2 elimination games, but credit doesn't come free. Giving MD credit for winning those 2 games means blaming him for losing 1-3 and a great choke in the end. Pick your poison. Still, it's pretty obvious that facing ELIMINATION brought out the best of the Blazers. They went 2 and 3/4 games beatin the Lakers up after being 1-3. I thought it's the head coach who were supposed to bring the best out of the team? Not to mention that going 1-3 due to underpreparation is what caused their underperformance. Yeah of course I would take Shaq and Kobe, if I can play a two men game, but last time I checked at least 5 players and a bench were needed to play the game. How about telling me whether you'd choose between one HOFer with better supporting cast and two HOFers with crappy supporting cast, in a nutshell, the Spurs and the Lakers to win an NBA title? and if there is no Timmy but two all stars on the Spurs, who's to say the Spurs were gonna lose against the Lakers? The Kings have not a single HOFer and they are picked as the most probable championship team by many. It's also quite obvious that had Webber not going down, the Kings would proabably get past the Mavs and give the Spurs fit. The same damn thing goes for Mavs and Dirk, who isn't even considered as an MVP candidate! and guess what, if either Mavs or Kings won it all then Webber or Dirk would be considered by people as HOFers.
You can be a half-court team and still run the break from time to time. When you have a low post presence (see Lakers, San Antonio). I think it's better to be more of a half-court team 1st.
Championship titles do not make HOFers. You will find very few players in the Hall who don't have the stats that alone justify their induction. That is why players like Robert Horry will never make the hall or why every single member of the 1960s celtics aren't in there. That is why players like Malone, Ewing, Barkley and Stockton will make the Hall because their production, by itself, justified their induction. In the last 10-20 years, take the best HOFer off of each title winner and just look at their career stats (or projected stats in some cases): Duncan, at his pace, based on stats alone will be in the HOF and that is why I am treating him as an HOFer. (considering the fact that he is only 27 and already has 10,000+ points and 5,000+ rebounds, if he just maintains that pace for no less than 6 or 7 more seasons, he will be a lock based on stats alone) Pippen would make the HOF regardless of his rings (all you have to do is look at his stats, 19,000 pts, 7,500 rebs, 6,100 assists, 2,300 steals). You will find players in the HOF with far less impressive stats than this (including players who never won a ring). Shaq, based on pure stats alone, will make the HOF. (1 time MVP; 20,000+ points and 9,000+ rebounds) Hakeem, even without his two rings, makes the HOF. (1 time MVP; all time leader in shot blocks; 20,000+ points and 10,000+ rebounds) Jordan, without rings, makes the HOF. (3rd leading scorer in NBA history; 5 time MVP winner) Magic, without rings, makes the HOF. (#3 all time in assists, 3 time MVP winner) Bird, without rings, makes the HOF (3 time league MVP). Moses, without rings, makes the HOF (27,000 pts; 16,000 rebs). Thomas, without rings makes the HOF (#5 all time in assists and #9 in steals). Kidd will make the HOF because hes on pace to end up #2 behind Stockton in assists (assuming he plays 7 more seasons (till he is 37) and keeps up his current pace) and probably anywhere from #3 - #6 in steals. Wallace is not really on a HOF pace and is not even in those other players league as far as talent goes. So we are now giving credit to the team and not the coach?? Are you insinuating that they pushed the Lakers to the limit despite their coach?? By this, it appears that you are saying that coaching does not matter then. Interesting theory. Its absolutely true. Not sure why you don't see that. Yes, they were up by 20. Having a proven go to guy/HOFer would have made all the difference in the world, especially given their depth. The Lakers two studs stepped up and the Blazers had no one to counteract that. No one to try to negate even one of their studs, much less two. If the Blazers had Jordan instead of Smith, would they probably have held onto that lead?? If they had Hakeem instead of Wallace, would they probably have held onto that lead?? Depends on your point of view. In the 3 losses were the Lakers simply the better team or was Portland?? Based on the fact that the Lakers finished 8 games ahead of Portland and had the home court advantage and the fact that they had 2 of the top 6 or 7 players in the league at that time, I would say the Lakers were the better team and should have won ALL of the games. Yet, Dunleavy's team won 3 and almost won a 4th. Its the chicken and the egg theory. To try and judge whether the Blazers brought out the best in themselves or whether Dunleavy brought out the best in the Blazers is almost impossible. Losing 3 out of 4 games to a team that is much better than you are can hardly be classified as underperformance. Based on this logic, then every team that has ever been in the playoffs and lost to a clearly better team has underperformed also. Does not make sense. Who would you rather have: Shaq Kobe Rice Harper Green or Wallace Pippen Smith Stoudamire Sabonis How is this even relevant?? History proves that either of those options can win a title. I think we have established that that Portland team did not have an HOFer, period. History says they more than likely would when it comes to competing with a team for a title. Thanks for brining up the Kings. 1) Whether or not they would have beat the Mavs had Webber stayed healthy, is debatable. 2) In 5-6 years (Webber will be 35 or so), assuming he stays relatively healthy, he will break 20,000 pts and 10,000 rebs (in comparsion, Wallace would have to play into his late 30s/early 40s to get these #s) and should be a solid candidate for the hall sans rings (certainly not a lock). Even when Webber was healthy, they were knocked out by the better team (Lakers). Yet, Adelman is considered a very good coach. Why is that? His team was much deeper than the Lakers right? The Portland and Sacramento teams are VERY comparable and in fact, Sac probably has slightly better talent than Portland did. Not considered a candidate? He finished #7 in the balloting and was mentioned all year long. No one would have even voted for him if he wasn't one. Dirk, at his pace and age (assuming he stays healthy), will put up enough stats in his career to make the hall even if he doesn't win a ring. He is only 25 and already has 7,000 pts and 3,000 rebs under his belt. All he has to do is average 20 pts and 10 rebs until he is 33 or 34 and he will be almost a lock based on his production alone. Webber, maybe, maybe not. However, if we consider him not HOF, this might explain why Sacramento couldn't ever beat the Lakers. In the end, you still have not come close to explaining why a team with no HOFers, the 2nd best record in the league (8 full games behind #1) and no home court advantage should be expected to beat a team with 2 HOFers, the best record in the league, the best home record in the league and the home court advantage. Portland winning that series would have been an upset. A full 8 games separated them in the regular season. That Laker team was in a class by itself. Yet, Portland pushed them to the 4th quarter of the 7th game. In your opinion, this is a black mark on Dunleavy's coaching record. We will have to agree to disagree here my friend.
Geez, is this long list of stats necessary? So the stats machines in the NBA get HOFer status, thank you for proving that. Rings make HOFers.Take Bill Walton for example. 6000 points 5000 rebounds 1000 blks in 13 years. Walton was a special player, but it's his ring and intangibles not his stats that inducted him into the hall of fame. Now, you are assuming too many things here.Provided that X player play X years at X rate, then he will have nice stats to be an HOFer. So he is definitely a HOFer. Injuries and aging are like non factors in your formula. Unless you are that future telling girl from the Minority Report, I'm not taking some assumptions into account. I think the Blazers had an amazing collection of players, hence a great team. MD helped and hurt, that's where it ends. MD is by no means a great coach to the majority of people, but of course, maybe except only you. Yes, having a HOFer would make a difference in the world. However, logically, that doesn't mean an HOFer was a must have condition for the Blazers to play like an average team or even a subpar team in the fourth quarter, which were the condition for the Blazers to win the game 7. The Blazers lost because they dug too deep a hole at first due to underpreparation on their coaches part, then proving their best facing elimination,nearly drove the Lakers back to home, but unfortuntely ran out of gas at the last minute, during which their head coach sat there without effective adjustment but looked like a deer in headlight. Look at your own words in the following passage. "To try and judge whether the Blazers brought out the best in themselves or whether Dunleavy brought out the best in the Blazers is almost impossible." Yet you are trying to make it out to be that MD was the savior of the Blazers.
Ahhhh, yet conveniently leave out Walton's college career which was storied and was a big factor in deciding whether they deserve to be in the HOF (it is the BASKETBALL hall of fame, not the NBA hall of fame). Then based on this, no one should ever call a player a future Hall of Famer or say that they were on a Hall of Fame pace. And how can injuries and aging be a factor? Player like Stockton play at a high level into their 40s, yet come cap out in their mid 30s. Stat projection is objective. When you start considering how all humans age differently and what injuries they may or may not have, that is highly subjective. All you are doing with this statement is cowering from the fact no team in the last 30 years (except 1). Dismissing my projections as flawed does not change the fact that those teams had players that were either already a lock to be a HOFer based on their production alone or on pace to be a HOFer based on their production. I think the Blazers had had were deep in talent and a very good team, but not as good as the teams they lost to. MD helped more than he hurt, that's where it ends. Yet, the Blazers played like a great team in beating the Lakers in 3 of those games. You single out 1 quarter (albeit, a vitale quarter) and base Dunleavy's career with Portland on that one quarter without giving him one ounch of credit for taking a better Lakers team to that 4th quarter in 7 games in the 1st place. Please elaborate on how the Blazer's underprepared. You automatically make the assumption that when a lesser team loses to a better team with an advantage on their own home court, that is due to underpreparedness. This is not true and you know its not. Ill again ask the question since you are stuck in 1st career on the 4th quarter collapse. Is it logical to assume that if Portland had the type of player who was capable of carrying the team on its back, that they would have held on? And yet, you are saying the the Blazers should have done better and that MD was the cause of that. I never said he was the savior. I have maintained that he did the best with what he was given and in a few instances, did better than what normally should be expected. Well if people were smart, they wouldn't pick the Blazers or the Kings and instead, would pick the Spurs or the Lakers. Funny how when those Blazer AND King teams (two teams that don't have that one special talent) were favored in the media, they were ultimately defeated by teams that did have that talent. I wonder why that is. 1-8, they probably were the most talented. But have good players at 5 positions doesn't mean you can beat a team with great players at 2 positions. [/quote] This was per your choosing, not mine. You didn't want to compare the top two superstars from each team and instead, you wanted to compare 5 so I offered you that comparison. Geez, I ask you about 2, then you want 5. I give you 5 and now you want 7 more. How many players are on the court at one time? Do both teams usually not have their best 5 on the court when it counts? We have already agree that Portland was deeper, yet you stand by your opinion that depth matters more than top talent. Its your opinion that you have to live with I guess. I can't believe I am going to have to say this once again. Pippen was 34 years old when he joined the Blazers and was almost half the player he was in his prime. You are really going to try and equate Pippen at that level to Shaq and Kobe? You are really reaching. See, in this you are admitting a clear prejudice against Dunleavy. We are talking about historical trends which can not be disputed, yet, you don't want to apply those trends to Dunleavy and instead, proclaim that he should have done something that no other coach in the last 30 years has done (except the Seattle coach). Wallace has very little chance to be an HOFer and how on earth you got the impressiong that I insinuated that, I have no clue. I clearly stated that Wallace is not on a HOF pace production wise and is clearly not in those other players category, talent wise (not to mention the fact the the guy's cancerous attitude and play will keep him off the ballot). Is a guy that averages 16 pts, 7 rebs, 20 technical fouls or so and 5 games a season due to suspensions really HOF criteria?? But you can clearly watch a player and know that he his playing at HOF level and that he will be in the HOF based on his pace. Before Shaq won his 1st ring, was he on pace to be in HOF without a ring? Yes he was. So in that, yes there is a guarantee based on projection. What do you think the term "hall of fame caliber player" is so popular?? The talent level in the league has never been grossly out of balance where it affected and/or favored one player's induction over the others since the 50s/60s. In the last 30 years, every player in the league played with other players who were HOFers. Looking at the players in the HOF, it does not appear to me that one era has had a disproportionate amount of HOFers when compared to another. Unfortunately, you are one of the few that feel this way. When Duncan won his 1st title, was everyone in agreement that despite it being only his 2nd year, that he was already playing at a HOF pace and at a HOF level? It was very clear from the start that Duncan was going to be a HOFer one day if he kept up his pace. The same can be said for Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Magic, etc. Likewise.
Sorry, hit return by mistake. Above quote one few that have made sense on this board. Not many top flight coaches want to come in here and carry water for RudyT. Maybe a good young coach would be a good choice. It worked for the Oilers, oops Titans.
No, you are flat wrong. I never said Thomas, or even Dumars or perhaps Aguire were not Hall of Famers. What I did say is no Pistons was near the caliber of player of Magic, Bird or Jordan, to argue against this is silly. Of course teams that advance late in playoffs have a HoF player, it takes outstanding to great players to get that far. BTW all of Dunleavy's good teams have had a minimum of 1 future HoFs plus at least 2-3-4 additional all-stars, so if they won those series your HoF logic still holds true. But again there is a big difference between HoFs or future HoFs like Ewing, Thomas, Dumars, Drexler, Pippen and Webber to elite HoF's like Hakeem, Bird, Magic and Jordan. Usually it takes the former to win the title--but the Pistons showed it isn't necc. if you are deeper and better everywhere else. Key word there is "usually". Two times in the last 3 years the team with dispersed talent and no "elite" HoF seemed to have the Lakers and their "elite" HoFamer (Shaq) beat. 1 time the Lakers got unbelievable breaks (Horry lap shot, Kings tighting in game 7), the other time the team blew a sizable late 4th quarter lead. Shaq and Kobe did seize the oppertunity once the Lakers got close--but it was only there because the Blazers' choked a sizable late lead. If the Blazers play "average" in the 4th quarter Kobe and Shaq never get a chance, but they collapsed on both ends and the coach did nothing to keep them focused.
Mike Dunleavy is the perfect coach for Houston, he'll do a lot better than Larry B who would leave us crashing and burning. If David McDavid gets approved as Hawks owner, Dunleavy will go to Atlanta. But honestly, Dunleavy has reached the pinnacle before, he can effectively harness this young talent, and most importantly, will effectively utilize Yao. This guy knows that YAO MING is the future of this team, not Steve Francis.
