Just a thought... why does everyone think it takes so much time to compete for a title? - Page 3 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Dooby · 06-19-2002, 04:01 PM

You rock Murph.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-19-2002, 04:03 PM

<< I thought the point of this thread was that it took time to compete for a title. That you had to let your players play together. That you should not constantly shuffle the roster.

I think it is bunk and that you improve your team however and whenever possible because talent wins

Now we are talking about the greatness of Shaq, which I think proves my point. Team with best players=championship. >>

Best players? ok if Derek Fisher is better than Steve Nash or if Robert Horry are better than Dirk ok then. Even though Blazers have a team full of all stars cant even get passed the first round. Lakers have 1 position that is better than every other team in the league. Your acting as if Lakers dominated the Kings Lakers almost lost to the Kings and if they would have would u say that the team with the best players still won?

Murphy3 · 06-19-2002, 04:06 PM

other teams are catching up... the mavs and the kings especially are much closer to the lakers than they used to be...
the gap between the kings and the lakers is just about non existent.. sacramento has so much talent from 3-12 that they've pretty much completely eliminated the gap between the two teams in their #'s 1 and 2 spots

Dooby · 06-19-2002, 04:11 PM

<< Best players? ok if Derek Fisher is better than Steve Nash or if Robert Horry are better than Dirk ok then. Even though Blazers have a team full of all stars cant even get passed the first round. Lakers have 1 position that is better than every other team in the league. Your acting as if Lakers dominated the Kings Lakers almost lost to the Kings and if they would have would u say that the team with the best players still won? >>

Holy crap. I thought we were done with this.

Nellie · 06-19-2002, 04:21 PM

<< Even though Blazers have a team full of all stars cant even get passed the first round >>

This is a great point here and flaws your theory Dooby. It's not true in every single case.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-19-2002, 04:26 PM

<<

<< Even though Blazers have a team full of all stars cant even get passed the first round >>

This is a great point here and flaws your theory Dooby. It's not true in every single case. >>

Lol, thank you Nellie finally someone sees that talent isnt always the case.

Nellie · 06-19-2002, 04:45 PM

Based on dooby's theory, if I am understanding it correctly, upsets would not exist because the most talented team would always win. Although this happens less in the NBA than other sports, it has happened. A few examples of the best talent not always winning: NY beat Miami as an 8th seed in 99 and went on to the Finals. Denver beat Seattle as an 8th seed in 95. By the way, those Houston championship teams in the Jordanless years did not in fact have the best players in the league those two years.

Hoopsmeister · 06-19-2002, 05:07 PM

But you could certainly argue that Hakeem Olajuwan was the best player in the NBA in those years.

I think arguing it as talent vs. seasoning is simplifying too much in either direction. Yes talent does win it. But which talent? LA clearly has the most talented first 2 in the league, but after that they start to fall off quickly. Sacramento, otoh, has one of the, if not the, most talented 8-man rotation in the league. And after the two teams had gone a full 7 games what made the difference at the end was execution.

In the biggest game of their career, the Kings players got nervous--the Lakers had 'been there, done that' and kept their poise. The Lakers 5 also were the guys who had been there, done that for at least 3 years *together*. Sac-to has had good retention but Turkoglu (whose bobbled pass to Webber at the end was a major determining play) was only in his second year with the team and his first year as a major contributor, Bibby was in his first year, etc.

You have to have talent or experience isn't going to do anything. But if the talent doesn't have the experience of playing together under intense pressure, the talent is not going perform at its optimum.

Dooby · 06-19-2002, 05:18 PM

<< But you could certainly argue that Hakeem Olajuwan was the best player in the NBA in those years. >>

Amen brother.

That is kinda my point. I actually did state in another thread that the team with the best player in the NBA has won the NBA championship in each of the last 12 years (3 Jordan; 2 Hakeem; 3 Jordan; 1 Duncan; 3 shaq). I was dismissed.

Talent isn't quantitative and isn't a sum game. And I am not arguing such. The Blazers suck. having 15 guys that are top 10 at their position and none in the top 2 or 3 doesn't make you a more talented team than the Lakers with 2 of the top 5 players overall on the court at the same time.

TheKid · 06-19-2002, 05:40 PM

I can't keep up with whose making what point. So I'm going to state my point and I'll figure out later who I actually agree with or not.

Anyway, having one of the best players on your team can make a huge difference on a team and that's the reason I hate the taking lumps theory.

The ONLY time I've ever played on the same court with Jordan (this is a true story) he was in the Multiplex in Chicago. There were several games and everyone is of average talent, with a couple of people being better than the others, but no superstars by any stretch of the imagination. Anyway, you sign your name on a board and however your name is signed up on there, that's the five you play with. If it's a terrible team, you get beat and get off. Well there were these four guys who were all bad, and I mean bad. Only one of them were tall but they put there name on the list and they got some guy who was pretty good and they didn't score a point and they lost. Well those four guys put their name back on the list. Jordan was in the gym that day and everyone was watching him lift weights, well a few people saw his trainer come over to the court and watch but no one saw him sign his name on the list. All the name said was Mike. Well these four guys got on and all of a sudden Jordan walked over there with them.

He asked, "are you the four I'm playing with?" They said yes, and he said, "well let's do this."

Two of the guys who could barely walk a straight line looked like complete all-stars out there. Needless to say, they didn't lose another game. Now this may not be a fair comparison but my point is you take ONE dominating player and everyone around them looks good. When you can't stop that ONE player, you can't stop the team around him. These four CLOWNS who with an average player couldn't score ONE FREAKING BASKET before, now won 7 straight games against teams from person to person were better all around, but the ONE x factor cancelled all that out.

Now if the lumps theory was correct, those four players should have picked some other players up and tried to put together a better team and just gave it some time. So my point is.................
Well I forgot my point, i just thought this story went well with this thread [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Drbio · 06-19-2002, 06:45 PM

Kid shoots....kid scores.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-19-2002, 07:17 PM

<<

<< But you could certainly argue that Hakeem Olajuwan was the best player in the NBA in those years. >>

Amen brother.

That is kinda my point. I actually did state in another thread that the team with the best player in the NBA has won the NBA championship in each of the last 12 years (3 Jordan; 2 Hakeem; 3 Jordan; 1 Duncan; 3 shaq). I was dismissed.

Talent isn't quantitative and isn't a sum game. And I am not arguing such. The Blazers suck. having 15 guys that are top 10 at their position and none in the top 2 or 3 doesn't make you a more talented team than the Lakers with 2 of the top 5 players overall on the court at the same time. >>

Blazers may suck but u said that the team with the most talent wins championships. Now ur saying the team with teh best player wins championships. When Spurs won there championship Shaq was better than him so I wouldnt say that Duncan was the best player in that year. I remember a couple of years were u could have said that Malone was the best player in the NBA. Never got a ring. You can say that the team with the best player but the names u brought up were all dominated and big other than Jordan but he was dominate. Spurs took there lumps Lakers took theres and so forth. All of the teams u named took there lumps in the playoffs. Guyz like Ewing, Malone, Mourning have all not have championships. Some more names in the coming are T-MAC Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett.

Dooby · 06-20-2002, 07:58 AM

I am trying to stay focused here.

1) As I have already stated, talent is not quantitative; it is qualitative. You cannot add up the talent and derive the winner. You cannot do that with a 5 man roster; you for sure cannot do it with a twelve (or fifteen) man roster when only 5 on the court at any one time.

2) My point. My only point. Some people just want to go into next year with what we have. The theory being that this team hasn't played together for long and that it needs time to gel. Off-season moves should be kept to a minimum. Action through inaction.

I think this is stupid.

A more talented team will usually beat a less talented team, even though the less talented team has more experience playing together.

If you can improve your team talent-wise, you need to do so.

My question to you, FilthyFinMavs, is, "Do you disagree with this point?"

Murphy3 · 06-20-2002, 08:03 AM

<< 2) My point. My only point. Some people just want to go into next year with what we have. The theory being that this team hasn't played together for long and that it needs time to gel. Off-season moves should be kept to a minimum. Action through inaction. >>

this was/is also my point. I don't think you should give this group time to gel because I don't think it's necessarily the right group. The Mavs need to add a defensive presence on the inside before i would consider this team as a contender for the title. if this means moving your 4th/5th best player in NVE (probably 5th), then fine...a inside presence on defense is worth it if it's possible to get. Of course, the mavs would need to also acquire a back up PG that could eat up 10-15 minutes a game but the inside presence on defense needs to be the mavs first priority

Dooby · 06-20-2002, 08:13 AM

Murph, for once, we are in total agreement.

Murphy3 · 06-20-2002, 08:19 AM

<< Murph, for once, we are in total agreement. >>

then for once, dooby, you're point is totally correct.

and star wars is a bit overrated

Drbio · 06-20-2002, 08:26 AM

Uh Oh....everyone duck!

Dooby · 06-20-2002, 08:31 AM

<< and star wars is a bit overrated >>

Me and my army are going to kick your ass.

Drbio · 06-20-2002, 08:37 AM

Who didn't see that coming?[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Murphy3 · 06-20-2002, 08:38 AM

anyways, before the board was so rudely interrupted with that filth...
back on subject... the taking your lumps theory is overrated

Dooby · 06-20-2002, 08:41 AM

Or somesuch.

Usually Lurkin · 06-20-2002, 08:42 AM

I agree with Hoops, that you'll need talented players who know how to play together to win a championship. I also agree that the Mavs might be able to trade for better talent, and still have time to learn to play together.

You might argue that NVE has shown exactly what he has to offer, and doesn't make a good enough guard for us. But his role as backup guard was never solidified - so how can you argue that he settled into his role. You could only argue that his role in the 2 PG set solidified. But that set itself seems to have problems. I don't think you could argue that Reaf ever settled in. It seems he definitely could use more time to learn to utilize his talent.

Who else has trade value?

I think taking some playoff lumps is part of learning to play together under pressure. That doesn't mean losing, so maybe I'm misreading Murphy's "taking lumps". A team can take a couple lumps, and learn to play better and still win a series (Mavs v. Utah).

Usually Lurkin · 06-20-2002, 08:47 AM

<< That is kinda my point. I actually did state in another thread that the team with the best player in the NBA has won the NBA championship in each of the last 12 years (3 Jordan; 2 Hakeem; 3 Jordan; 1 Duncan; 3 shaq). I was dismissed.
>>

Two problems with your theory, Dooby:
1) Methodologically: It seems convenient that the players listed above were only the best players for exactly those years that they won a championship. Could you please send a reference to the thread where you fleshed out this argument?

2) Pragmatically: If LA is winning just because they have (arguably) the top 2 players in the league, and having the next 8 or 10 best players can not top that (sorry if I'm reading too much into your argument), then the only way for the mavs to win it all would be to trade for Shaq and Kobe. All else is vanity.

also,
I was expecting Episode I. I was pleasantly surprised.

Dooby · 06-20-2002, 08:58 AM

<< Two problems with your theory, Dooby:
1) Methodologically: It seems convenient that the players listed above were only the best players for exactly those years that they won a championship. Could you please send a reference to the thread where you fleshed out this argument?

2) Pragmatically: If LA is winning just because they have (arguably) the top 2 players in the league, and having the next 8 or 10 best players can not top that (sorry if I'm reading too much into your argument), then the only way for the mavs to win it all would be to trade for Shaq and Kobe. All else is vanity. >>

In this thread, I made a similar argument. I made the point, I hardly fleshed it out. Everybody thought I was an idiot.

I am not saying that that if I have the top two players in the league and your team has the no. 3-10 players, then my team will win. First, I don't need to because that will never happen. Second, only 5 guys on the court at the same time makes the argument rather futile. I will say that if I have the top two players in the league and you have 5 starters that are all top 10 at their position, I am going to win.

Usually Lurkin · 06-20-2002, 09:14 AM

<< Everybody thought I was an idiot.

I am not saying that that if I have the top two players in the league and your team has the no. 3-10 players, then my team will win. First, I don't need to because that will never happen. Second, only 5 guys on the court at the same time makes the argument rather futile. I will say that if I have the top two players in the league and you have 5 starters that are all top 10 at their position, I am going to win. >>

I wouldn't worry about what everyone else says. Your only as big an idiot as you think you are. (or is that "as old as you think?&quot

Thanks for the link. In that statement (the linked one), are you making the argument that the team with the best player next year will win the championship, or just pointing out an interesting fact?

Are kobe and shaq the top two players? If yes: we have no hope. If no, do we have to trade for the number two player, and still fill our starting lineup with top ten players?

The argument might seem futile, but goes directly to "how important is talent".

Murphy3 · 06-20-2002, 09:51 AM

<< so maybe I'm misreading Murphy's "taking lumps >>

usually lurkin.. merely stating that the theory that you have to take your knocks for 3-4-5 years, however long...taking your lumps in the playoffs before you can compete for a title..well, that's ridiculous.

There's a reason why the bulls and the lakers..and several other teams took their knocks in the playoffs before winning a title... it's usually because they didn't have the talent in place yet..or the talent they had was very young and not playing at near the level they would in the future (kobe, pippen)..

that's all.. it's not about taking your lumps..it's about using your talent, about meshing, about bringing in the pieces you need..and sometimes it's about being lucky.

this is why I'm not "patient"
the mavs have a window with this core that will only last 2-4 more years before we notice a considerable drop from one or two of the core members from where they are at now.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-20-2002, 12:26 PM

<< I am trying to stay focused here.

1) As I have already stated, talent is not quantitative; it is qualitative. You cannot add up the talent and derive the winner. You cannot do that with a 5 man roster; you for sure cannot do it with a twelve (or fifteen) man roster when only 5 on the court at any one time.

2) My point. My only point. Some people just want to go into next year with what we have. The theory being that this team hasn't played together for long and that it needs time to gel. Off-season moves should be kept to a minimum. Action through inaction.

I think this is stupid.

A more talented team will usually beat a less talented team, even though the less talented team has more experience playing together.

If you can improve your team talent-wise, you need to do so.

My question to you, FilthyFinMavs, is, "Do you disagree with this point?" >>

Yes I do disagre with this point and I can no longer post how much I disagree. WHen I do post u somehow get passed it and give some kind of excuse. Lakers arent more talented than the Kings or Mavs. Lakers have Shaq and thats why they are champs. If Mavs traded Dirk and Finley for Shaq Mavs would be a championship squad also.

Drbio · 06-20-2002, 12:55 PM

If the mavs didn't have Dirk, Finley and Nash, but had Shaq...this team would NOT be an automatic contender. That is totally rediculous.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-20-2002, 12:58 PM

<< If the mavs didn't have Dirk, Finley and Nash, but had Shaq...this team would NOT be an automatic contender. That is totally rediculous. >>

First off I said without Finley and Dirk. And if Mavs traded Finley and Dirk for Shaq what team would beat the Mavs? The only team probaly would be the Kings and Mavs would still be better than them. Because the team with the most talent wins right?

Dooby · 06-20-2002, 03:14 PM

I have just lost all heart for this argument. I don't know what to say.

You disagree. Fine.

I am still not convinced that you know what Murph and I are talking about. I give up.

The only F'ing real issue in this thread is whether it is worth it to stand pat so a team can play together or whether you should improve the talent on this team. You can pick one of two courses of action.

If you can't address the issue, then stop posting.

Saying the Mavs and Kings are more talented but the Lakers win because they have Shaq (whether true or not) doesn't F _ C K I N G address the issue. What does address the issue is saying "the Lakers win because they have played together for four years" or "the lakers win because they have more dominant players".

FilthyFinMavs · 06-20-2002, 03:42 PM

<< I have just lost all heart for this argument. I don't know what to say.

You disagree. Fine.

I am still not convinced that you know what Murph and I are talking about. I give up.

The only F'ing real issue in this thread is whether it is worth it to stand pat so a team can play together or whether you should improve the talent on this team. You can pick one of two courses of action.

If you can't address the issue, then stop posting.

Saying the Mavs and Kings are more talented but the Lakers win because they have Shaq (whether true or not) doesn't F _ C K I N G address the issue. What does address the issue is saying "the Lakers win because they have played together for four years" or "the lakers win because they have more dominant players". >>

But see ur reading what u want to read. I said that I think Kings and Mavs are more talented then the Lakers regardless of who the Lakers have. I wasnt adressing the "issue" I was just saying that I disagreed with u about the Lakers having a more talented team then the Mavs or Kings.

Usually Lurkin · 06-20-2002, 04:14 PM

<< Saying the Mavs and Kings are more talented but the Lakers win because they have Shaq (whether true or not) doesn't F _ C K I N G address the issue. What does address the issue is saying "the Lakers win because they have played together for four years" or "the lakers win because they have more dominant players". >>

But both are true.

you seem to want to make it simple. You seem to want to ask who's for Mavs making a trade, and who's for Mavs not making a trade. (correct?) But that's a simple yes/no poll. Any discussion on whether either choice will result in a championship will necessarily concern arguments on the relative merits of talent and team continuity (barring prescient knowledge regarding mavs choices and outcomes).

Hoopsmeister · 06-20-2002, 04:32 PM

<< you seem to want to make it simple. You seem to want to ask who's for Mavs making a trade, and who's for Mavs not making a trade. (correct?) But that's a simple yes/no poll. Any discussion on whether either choice will result in a championship will necessarily concern arguments on the relative merits of talent and team continuity (barring prescient knowledge regarding mavs choices and outcomes). >>

You've pinpointed it UL. Dooby, I don't disagree with the core point of your posting--that talent is the single most important thing for winning a championship. At the same time, I am one of those who think that the fact that the Mavs, with their two consecutive mid-year trades, were the least cohesive among Lakers, Kings, Mavs is one important reason the Mavs were clearly behind the first two teams this year and a reason why a largely 'stand-pat' off-season does not spell doom for next year but could actually be a good thing.

I don't think anyone is saying the Mavs shouldn't trade 'period' just for the sake of letting this group gel. But some of us are saying the Mavs shouldn't be making big trades just to make minor upgrades or taking big risks. A team should always be looking to upgrade their talent--and if Indiana wants to trade Jermaine O'neal for NVE or the Clippers want to trade Olowakandi for Wang, the Mavs should be all over it.

But at the same time, most of the trades being discussed so far are either a) minor upgrades in talent, b) highly implausible, or c) major risks. An upgrade on our 6th man position is a good thing. But the very talent issue you have been arguing means it is not that big a deal. A change in our 6th man, or even our 5th man is not going to get us past the Kings or the Lakers--Its the top talent (Dirk followed by Nash & Finley) who will do that. So unless we are talking a change in the top talent, allowing this team to learn how to play together is just as relevant as changing out the 6th man. Protecting Nash's legs is just as important as adding a 7th guy on the bench to bang in the paint. Etc.

Drbio · 06-20-2002, 04:32 PM

The only F'ing real issue in this thread is whether it is worth it to stand pat so a team can play together or whether you should improve the talent on this team.

This team needs to tinker..not stand pat. Thanks for the refocus!

FilthyFinMavs · 06-20-2002, 04:36 PM

<<

<< you seem to want to make it simple. You seem to want to ask who's for Mavs making a trade, and who's for Mavs not making a trade. (correct?) But that's a simple yes/no poll. Any discussion on whether either choice will result in a championship will necessarily concern arguments on the relative merits of talent and team continuity (barring prescient knowledge regarding mavs choices and outcomes). >>

You've pinpointed it UL. Dooby, I don't disagree with the core point of your posting--that talent is the single most important thing for winning a championship. At the same time, I am one of those who think that the fact that the Mavs, with their two consecutive mid-year trades, were the least cohesive among Lakers, Kings, Mavs is one important reason the Mavs were clearly behind the first two teams this year and a reason why a largely 'stand-pat' off-season does not spell doom for next year but could actually be a good thing.

I don't think anyone is saying the Mavs shouldn't trade 'period' just for the sake of letting this group gel. But some of us are saying the Mavs shouldn't be making big trades just to make minor upgrades or taking big risks. A team should always be looking to upgrade their talent--and if Indiana wants to trade Jermaine O'neal for NVE or the Clippers want to trade Olowakandi for Wang, the Mavs should be all over it.

But at the same time, most of the trades being discussed so far are either a) minor upgrades in talent, b) highly implausible, or c) major risks. An upgrade on our 6th man position is a good thing. But the very talent issue you have been arguing means it is not that big a deal. A change in our 6th man, or even our 5th man is not going to get us past the Kings or the Lakers--Its the top talent (Dirk followed by Nash & Finley) who will do that. So unless we are talking a change in the top talent, allowing this team to learn how to play together is just as relevant as changing out the 6th man. Protecting Nash's legs is just as important as adding a 7th guy on the bench to bang in the paint. Etc. >>

agreed.

Dooby · 06-20-2002, 05:19 PM

OK, we are all back on track now. Hoops, you made great points. But I think you underrate the sixth man. That aside, you are right in hte grand scheme of things.

Standing pat, though, to me, makes little sense with this group of guys. We were a player away. I think we still are a player away.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-20-2002, 05:29 PM

<< OK, we are all back on track now. Hoops, you made great points. But I think you underrate the sixth man. That aside, you are right in hte grand scheme of things.

Standing pat, though, to me, makes little sense with this group of guys. We were a player away. I think we still are a player away. >>

So if we get this player somehow this will make us a better team than the Lakers and the Kings is this what ur saying?

Hoopsmeister · 06-20-2002, 05:30 PM

<< Standing pat, though, to me, makes little sense with this group of guys. We were a player away. I think we still are a player away. >>

I agree we're 'a player away'. The difference is that I think that player could well be:
a) Dirk--who did not play as well in Sacramento as he did against Minnesota. He certainly didn't play as well a lot of us think he will eventually play. Most importantly, he didn't play like one of the 5 best players in the league and that's the minimu where he needs to get to for this team to win it all.
or b) Nash--who was playing hurt and not playing as well as he did in the first half of the season. Give me the Nash who went to the all-star game and that series goes 7 games.
or c) Raef--who can be a shot-blocking force, and has the physical talent to be Divac if he can learn the mental game, but was still adjusting to the Mavericks patchwork defensive scheme.

Admittedly, the last is a stretch, but combined with a or b could make a significant differenc

David · 06-20-2002, 06:35 PM

<<

<< Standing pat, though, to me, makes little sense with this group of guys. We were a player away. I think we still are a player away. >>

I agree we're 'a player away'. The difference is that I think that player could well be:
a) Dirk--who did not play as well in Sacramento as he did against Minnesota. He certainly didn't play as well a lot of us think he will eventually play. Most importantly, he didn't play like one of the 5 best players in the league and that's the minimu where he needs to get to for this team to win it all.
or b) Nash--who was playing hurt and not playing as well as he did in the first half of the season. Give me the Nash who went to the all-star game and that series goes 7 games.
or c) Raef--who can be a shot-blocking force, and has the physical talent to be Divac if he can learn the mental game, but was still adjusting to the Mavericks patchwork defensive scheme.

Admittedly, the last is a stretch, but combined with a or b could make a significant differenc >>

Every team in the league except the Lakers is one player away from the championship. That one player is Shaq.

For the Mavs to get another player who will make a difference, is the issue. What do the Mavs do to get a difference maker? Is that player a PG not named NVE? A full time SF? A banger who would, of necessity, take minutes from the C/PF position? Can the Mavs trade NVE+end-of-the-bench players for said difference maker?

On the whole, the current group jelling together is VERY important and shouldn't be under-rated.

Murphy3 · 06-20-2002, 06:43 PM

<< On the whole, the current group jelling together is VERY important and shouldn't be under-rated. >>

i think we all agree that "jelling together" is important. However, I think that many of us agree that this group isn't necessarily the group you want to jell together.

alot of us believe that a banger is more important to the mavs than NVE.