HeartBreakKid wrote:Dr Spaceman wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:
Sure, there are players who still play 36 minutes, which is dumb as hell (You think James, Lowry and Harden benefit from playing that many minutes?), but there are still plenty who play 34 or below. You left out guys like Gobert, Thomas, Millsap, Conley.
If we're using James Harden as an example who is the most relevant candidate, his team would have made the playoffs even if he had played only 32 minutes a game. If anything there is speculation that him playing so many minutes might have hurt him in the playoffs.
Are we still really in this idea that minutes and games played in the regular season greatly affect your chances at winning the title? Manu isn't literally made out of glass. People talk like Manu is Bill Walton, most of the guys relevant career he has played over 70 games, a team has to be really bad for them to not be able to make the playoffs if their star player has played that many games.
Right so about half of those stars are clustered around 33-34 MPG, and the other half play 35-38. Manu's career high is 31.1. That's a huge difference.
Making the playoffs is not the only goal. Seeding and draws absolutely matter in terms of title odds. Sure Houston could make the playoffs and then get blown away by GSW or SAS in the first round. And Manu played low minutes even in the playoffs compared to all these stars.
No it doesn't. I've never seen a rational argument for causation of seeding netting you a better chance at a title, only correlations.
Just to pick on what you said. You do realize that Houston merely got blown away in the second round, as opposed to the first round. Losing in either round gives you the same odds of winning the title.
The biggest, and most significant factor in winning the title is talent. Talent matters so much more that humoring seeding or home court advantage seems trivial. Just going based on forum posts, I gather that most people give the first seed Boston Celtics the same odds against the Cavs as the 7th seed Indiana Pacers.
The Rockets were beaten by a clear margin by the Spurs, I'd imagine they would get swept by the Warriors. What difference would it have made if they had been 8th seed or 6th seed, or 4th seed if we're talking championship aspirations? You need to be able to beat Golden State if you want to win the championship, and a team like Houston isn't even good enough to beat the Spurs - so how much impact do you think Harden playing 37 minutes per game actually had in retrospect?
Since this is only a run year one, let's say Manu can match his career high which is 31.5 minutes per game - that is the same amount that CP3 played for the Clippers - CP3 played only 60 something games this season, and his team still made the playoffs (and it's not like Blake Griffin helped a lot either). Not only did the Clippers make the playoffs, but they got a relatively decent seeding as well.
It had quite a lot of impact because the Rockets won 55 games. They wouldn't have won that many without Harden playing those minutes. How else do you propose we judge players than what they contribute to their team?
Your argument would hold water if Manu was simply coasting but could play with Harden-level endurance/durability when the postseason came. He never did, and there's no evidence he could. Just as he was a worse player in the regular season, he was a worse player in the postseason for the same reasons.
