You are missing my point. My rules are the common make-up of a championship team but simply acheiving those rules don't guarentee you a championship ...there can only be one winner. Often luck plays a big role in who wins for various reasons (injuries, refs, seedings, etc.) But, as I've said multiple times, acheiving Rules 1 and 2 most likely means you'll be a CONTENDER (or generally considered as having a legit shot at a championship). Those two guys weren't just the best at the time, they are generally regarded as the best EVER at their position. Isiah was still a stud. Put him in the NBA today and he'd easily be the best PG right now. Actually you said that to be a champion you need to be elite offense and defensive team. I was simply pointing our that the Rockets, by some measures, were not elite offensively. Those are the troubles you run into trying to categorize championship teams with statistics. Nearly all basketball experts regularly claim the Rockets championship teams were among the least talented teams ever. Don't shoot the messenger. That's all I'm really saying. I'm not saying this team mirrors the '93-'95 Rockets (as we have two superstars and that team only had one). I'm just saying that before '93, nobody thought the Rockets were going to seriously contend despite being a strong team. I can see shades of that here given that we have two stars capable of carrying the team. WILL they carry the team remains to be seen. But they NEED to for us to be successful. Simply adding a Robert Horry prototype will not immediately make us contenders. We will be a contender when Yao/TMac take it to the next level. That's all I'm saying.
He would be right there, but I wouldn't say for sure he is better than Nash. I think both are really close in their total impact on the floor. Great players both--more impact than Stockton, Kidd, and probably Payton too, the other PGs competing for the distant #2 spot behind Magic from the late 80s through today. The Rockets were underestimated offensively. Their efficiency was close to elite if not elite, certainly way above average. It was a majar reason they started off like 15-0 and 23-1, or something like that. When the Rockets hit there 3s and Hakeem played his regular game, nobody stopped them. They lose their creditability as "experts" if they trully believe this. I would take the 93-95 era Rockets over any NBA champions since them except perhaps the best Bulls squads and the middle year of the Lakers 3 peat team. They were far more talented, with better role players through 8 or so spots, than the Spurs, Pistons, Heat winners, and probably 2 of the 3 Laker teams.
I'll give you that. But you were suggesting Isiah was simply a cog (ie role player) on that Pistons team. He wasn't. Yes, I agree they were underestimated ...probably because of the lack of pure talent at positions 1-5. They made up for that lack of talent by being efficient which was ONLY possible because they had the most dominant player in the game. Without a guy that demanded such respect, our shooters wouldn't have gotten as many open looks. I'll tend to agree because I'm a fan. But the reality of it is prior to the start of the 1993 season, our team was made up of a bunch of UNPROVEN and/or UNKNOWN players. That is my point. I'm not trying to bash the '94 team. I'm pointing to them as hope that we can see it again in 2006 ...that's all.
I wasn't saying just a cog, but on any given day he wasn't the 1st option. Often he was the 1st option, but they could just as often turn to Dumars or Aguire, and sometimes even run the O through Edwards or even Vinny J. I make the distinction between teams where there is clearly a #1 option (MVP type dominant player) regardless of opponent--MJ, Hakeem, Duncan, Oneal, Wade--versus teams that were strong all over and play towards different guys depending on matchups (5 Piston finals reps, 3 winners, very formidable Knicks, Kings, Blazers, Pacers, Mavs, Seattle, etc,). Doesn't mean the latter teams didn't have great players in guys like Isiah, Dumars, Clyde, Pippen, Webber, Bibby, Ewing, Reggie, Dirk, Payton, Kemp, but their offenses were less centered on any one guy. But OT, Kenny and Elie were not unknowns. They usually played for sucky teams so they were not noticed by the causal fan, but they were solid NBA players. OT and KS especially, they were top 10 draft picks who had seasons like 20 & 10rbs (OT) and 18 & 8 (KS) before they came to the Rockets. The Rockets bringing OT and KS to play with Hakeem was more like bringing in Bibby or Billips at PG + Brand or Gasol at PF when those players were on their sucky teams and undervalued relative to their production. If the Rockets added at PF no worse than Al Harrington or David West and a PG no worse than Mike James or Jason Terry this offseason I would like the comparison to the 93 era Rockets team a lot better. Then we would only need VSpan to be the next Cassel and the athletic Snyder to find a productive place for him a la Maxwell and we have a comparable squad.
You think of those Piston's as a "team" because their best player was a PG. Take Isiah off that team and they were lottery bound. The Steve Nash comparison is relevant. Point guards, by defintion, aren't really going to be 1st options. Steve Nash DECIDES who will be the 1st option and if he can't get it out of one of his players then he'll do it himself ...just like Isiah. Isiah was absolutely MVP dominant ...or at least deserves to be mentioned. He received at least one MVP vote for TEN STRAIGHT years between '82 to '92. You aren't giving him enough credit. Time has skewed your reality. He is 4th all-time NBA assist leader PLUS he is the leading scorer in Pistons history. He scored more points in NBA finals history in one quarter during game 6 of the '88 finals (25 pts) In '90, Isiah averaged over 27ppg in the finals and won finals MVP. The dude was dominant BY ANY DECENT analysis. Yes, the Piston's were strong all around BECAUSE of Isiah. Yes, they had good players around him but they would have all been forgotten memories without Isiah. Same could be said for Juwan Howard and Rafer Alson. I'll grant you that neither was as good as OT or KS but that team didn't have two superstars like this team. The '93 team only had one stud. We've got two. We don't need to be quite as strong in the off positions. So IMO it isn't a perfect comparison to '93. But my comparison is, if BOTH Yao and TMac step it up, our role players will be good enough to allow us to be contenders. Will we win it all this season? ...doubtful (since only one team can win). But we can put some hurt into teams...assuming the rest of our guys gel into their roles. A stretch ...maybe ...but I'm not discounting it. It's possible. Mark my words: IF Yao from last season re-emerges AND TMAC of old rejoins the team THEN the remaining team will settle into their roles and play good enough. AT THAT POINT, this team may go down but they will go down fighting in the playoffs. That's a lot of 'ifs' but they are centered around Yao and TMac ...not the magical signing or trade of another player.
Actually what I think makes Nash and Isiah more dominant players than say Stockton, Kidd and Payton is they both were terrific leaders of their team/ make other players better, AND could pick their spots to score with the ball in their hands. I think I am in agreement with you. I don't believe I underrate Isiah at all, I am on record saying at his peak he was better than Stockton (who others were trying to say was #2 in recent memory behind Magic). But there is a big gap between any of the above from Magic Johnson or Oscar Robertson. Noone really considered Isiah the best player at his time, or even the best at his position. That mantle was clearly Magic's. Isiah is to Magic what Ewing was to Hakeem or Clyde was to Jordan. All those players are great, but few are legendary dominant forces. Also, without Isiah that Detroit team is at least a EC finalist. Without Dumars the Bad Boys don't have a ring either--they would not have gotten by the Bulls/Celts/Lakers of those years. I don't think you remember how good the team was through like 8 or 9 deep. Except Tmac was in supreme form, Yao effective, and we had better/more experienced role players (James, Barry, Wesley, younger Sura) than the current team and that team lost to an inferior version of the Mavs now huanting our division. If Tmac and Yao play great & Battier good, we still need 3 more players (particularly guards and shooters) to be able to hold there own versus the likes of the Mavs, Spurs and Suns, just to make the WC finals. Personally I think we must have another big wing who can shoot and be athletic emerge as a legit high minute NBA player--most likely this is Snyder, or perhaps Abuz. This is needed so we can go athletic with Tmac and Batt in the forward spots with this big athletic wing helping--and I think then we are in good shape versus the Mavs and Suns. We also need a PG who shoots a high % and can give us 28MPG without getting killed versus the likes of Terrys, Parkers, & Nashs. The candidates are Alston, JL3, Head, or VSpan. Not saying they have to match their counterparts, just keep them honest and not be a zero (unlike the 97 team with the CBAers and brocken down vets we threw at Stockton). I am hopefull, but not confident, either thing happens. (Had we gotten Mike James we would have been 50% there, oh how that hurt.)
BTW, I just did a little digging of Nash and Isiah because you said that Isiah may not be the best PG in the leauge today. Regarding assists, it took Nash 8 years to match Isiah's rookie #'s. Regarding points, it took Nash 6 years to match the rookie Isiah. Nash's best assist season (in '05, his 9th season) at 11.5, Isiah nearly exceeded that (11.1) in his 3rd season. Not even a close, if Isiah were in the league today by his 3rd season Isiah would easily be regarded as the best PG in the league. Think about that. Nash got MVP honors for putting up 15.5pt and 11.5 assists. Isiah exceeded Nash's #'s in his 3rd season in the league and sustained #'s >= Nash's for the remaineder of his career (except his last injury plagued season). Isiah simply got overshadowed because he played in the golden era of the NBA. He was easily a dominant player and was CLEARLY the best player on the team (look at the 1990 finals). So PG's dominate games but do it a little differently than other positions.
In 1990, Isiah Thomas was the best player on the court when they defeated Portland scoring over 27.6 ppg, 7 assists, 5.2 rebounds per game. The Pistons beat Chicago to get to the finals. Those are Hakeem, Jordan, Bird type of #'s. You can't deny that. Isiah absolutely DOMINATED in the playoffs that year. Without him, they were 1st round fodder ...at best. EXACTLY!!!!! Yao was effective but he wasn't dominating. We need the Yao that we saw at the end of last season. Not just a guy putting up decent #'s but a guy that dictates the flow of the game. TMac was good but in crunch time TMac couldn't figure out how to deliver. Wade delivered in crunch time this season. TMac didn't that year. It's not a knock on him as this is a learning process. Hopefully TMac and Yao learned. Wade also had the benefit of Shaq ...a seasoned vet. Tmac and Yao are both inexperienced so they're learning together. If Yao and TMac raise their game to the next level, we can be successful. If they don't raise their game, regardless of what players we add, we won't be successful ...unless in the outside chance we make some moves and suddenly get stacked 1-8 (but few teams win simply because they have a stacked team ...most win because they rode on the shoulders of their stud player and their role players did their jobs.)
2002 Lakers Starting Lineup season averages: Rick Fox: 7.9 ppg, 4.7 rpg Robert Horry: 6.8 ppg, 5.9 rpg D Fisher: 11.2 ppg, 2.6 ast, 41.3% 3pt Remainder: S. Walker D. George B. Shaw M. Richmond Game - Set - Match. Juwan Howard > Rick Fox. (Even Juwan can do better than 4.7 rpg and certainly scores better) Battier > Robert Horry (Granted, Horry is clutch. On paper, Battier looks better) Rafer = D. Fisher (Rafer is a better assist guy and Rafer is not too far behind at 3pters) The Laker's bench was nothing to write hope about but they managed. If Yao and TMac raise the level of their play, they can contend WITH THIS SQUAD.
but u gotta think that shaq was the most dominant player in the league back then! NO ONE CAN STOP HIM! and Kobe was one of the best guard and the only person that could be compared to him was Tmac
Maybe in bizzaro opposite world Howard, Battier and Rafer are better role players than Horry, Fox and Fisher. All 3 Lakers are solid defensive players and all three have 3 balls that keep you honest--critical to opening the floor for Shaq abnd Kobe. All 3 have also proven to be focused playoff performers and clutch under pressure. Only Battier has the well rounded and consistent game comparable of any Rocket role player, but he doesn't have the playoff/clutch pedigree. You also really understimate Fox as a role player. Judging him on points alone is like judging Bruce Bowen during some Spurs ring years solely on his points or Mario Elie for the Rockets/Spurs runs. Fox was an excellent defender who did a lot of dirty work for them, and was good with the open 3. His injury and Horry falling off as high minute players in 03 were major reasons the Spurs finally could squeak by them in the playoffs. Finally, the best Laker team had not just Fox, Horry and Fisher, but Grant Harper and Shaw too. You think we have 6 vets like that to support Yao and Tmac? The 02 team that had to almost solely rely on Horry, Fox and Fisher in support of the big 2 doesn't make in the finals if not a fluke bounce going to Horry in game 4, the team was just barely good enough even with some fortunate plays going their way and everybody but Bibby for Sac playing tight in game 7. (Note I don't go by the theory the refs stole the series, I think Sac lost it fair and square, but the Lakers were certainly lucky and if they replayed that series Sac wins 3 out of 4).
...and all three have had the benefit of playing with Shaq and Kobe. Or in Horry's situation, the benefit of playing with Hakeem (MVP), Duncan (MVP) and Shaq (MVP). They are "proven" vets because they rode the coat-tails of their stud players (which is their job, btw). Had those three not been on a team w/ an MVP, you wouldn't even know their names right now. By no means are they "high-profile" players particularly before they had the benefit of playing with Shaq/Kobe. (same argument for Horry but his extends beyond Shaq/Kobe) So that is my point. If TMac and Yao can play MVP caliber basketball, I beleive our guys can rally around and fill their roles ...just like in '93 (with unproven vets) and just like in '02 (with low profile but proven vets). I think you underestimate how much of an impact playing with an MVP caliber player has on the rest of the team.
If you think your Foxs, Horrys, Elies, Fishers, Bruce Bowens, and S Jacks are no different than your Alstons and Howards we just have to agree to disagree. Remember lots of MVP players don't win. Shaq and Kobe didn't win when they were both MVP caliber but they had to count on your Medevenkos, Georges, Madsens and Pargos filling in major roles. Duncan lost in years when they had your Jarren Jacksons, Antonio Daniels, and Del Negros in more key roles instead of your Elie's, S Jacks, Bowens, or until Manu and Parker emerged as his supporting cast (and Nazr was key versus the Pistons too). The Heat didn't win until they upgraded their supporting cast with Walker, Williams, Posey & Payton. So yes, of course the Lakers, Spurs and Heat don't win their recent titles without their superstars. But there were years those superstars lost, and having inferior roles players those years (or their better role players injured and worn down al la Horry/Fox in 03)--guys not as good defensively and/or who weren't consistent enough in something offensively--is a big part of the story.
Again, I'm not claiming we will win. I'm claiming we have a shot at contending ...BIG difference. Looking at the top 3 vote getters for the past few years ...they were all on contending teams too: 2000-'01: 1. AI (beat in finals) 2. TD (beat in conference semi's) 3. Shaq (champion) '99-'01: 1. Shaq (eliminated conference semi's) 2. Garnett (eliminated 1st round - got crushed by Spurs) 3. Alonzo (eliminated conference semi's) '98-'99: 1. Malone (conference semi's) 2. Zo (1st round - but took series to 5 games) 3. Duncan (champion) '97-'98: 1. Jordan (champion) 2. Malone (beat in finals) 3. Payton (conf. semi's) I could continue but it's too repetative. Only Garnett would I say was outright disappointing from that bunch in terms of results. But he just seems to be snake bit. Hakeem got an MVP and led his team to a championship that season and the next. Once Hakeem's name came off the MVP radar, so goes the team. So, again ...if Yao and TMac can have stellar years, I like our chances at contending. Will we win? Probably not.
Contending, yes. But except for 01 where the Lakers steamrolled, the play of role players had a major impact on whether Shaq, Kobe, Duncan and Wade earned rings. In particular the relative strengths of the supporting cast largely determined the Lakers-Spurs winner and eventual NBA champion from like 99 through 03.
That's all I'm saying ...contending. If you can contend ...then at least you are in the game if the ball bounces your way. Back to my original statement: With a healthy TMac and the new/improved Yao Ming, this team can contend. If TMac and Yao fall flat this season, we won't be contenders REGARDLESS of what role players we add. (unless we pull off some miracle trade where we suddenly are strong 1-7) Teams are built around stars. We got two. I remain hopeful.
And I'll add this: If Yao and Tmac play great AND the rest of the players simply do an efficient job with the offensive oppertunnities they have and play good defense, the Rockets can earn championship #3. But right now even if Yao and Tmac form the most outstanding duo in the league, or even Battier with them as the best trio, we could lose a ring because we get outplayed in spots 4-8 by teams with lesser duo/trios. I don't want to lose because our role players sucked too much compared with their competitors, and it looks like a not so remote possibility even if Tmac/Yao are healthy and dominant.
ill be cheering - but i cant stand van gundy. ive got no faith in him and i think the rockets are doomed with him as coach.
Our future is in the hands of TMac and Yao first and foremost. Until they start playing MVP caliber ball, all this other talk is basically irrelevant. Good news is that it is forseeable. I think we should be actively looking to upgrade but I'm on a wait and see attitude with our current role players. They are ALL consimate professionals (Snyder being a ?) and if Yao and TMac step up their play, I've got a feeling this group will end up looking like hero's rather than goats ...just like Horry, Elie, D. Fisher and Fox ...whom were all underestimated players of their time prior to their championships. After they ride the coat-tails of their MVP, now everybody thinks they are gods gift to basketball. They are professionals capable to doing their job to the best of their own ability ...and I feel our group of players given the chance could prove themselves worthy too. ...or I could be wrong.
