RealGM Top 100 List #25

[Ryoga Hibiki]

As I see Durant is not an option, I change my vote to Steve Nash
Reasoning to follow.

Put your vote in the post where you have your reasoning please.

[G35]

When did volume scoring become a difference maker for PG's but defense is irrelevant? I don't understand why Nash is being propped up so much for his offense when that's all the Suns were known for. Why is Nash the only player that get's props for being such a one way player, but any other player is penalized?

It's not just some throwaway line that the Jazz played in a very structured offense and emphasized defense quite a bit.

Drtg's for the Jazz from 1985-2000

1985 1st
1986 3rd
1987 1st
1988 1st
1989 1st
1990 5th
1991 6th
1992 7th
1993 13th
1994 7th
1995 8th
1996 8th
1997 9th
1998 17th
1999 7th
2000 11th

13 out of those 16 years the Jazz had a top 10 defense. Looking at Nash's entire career he has never played on a defense that was in the top 10. This is basketball 101 but everyone should realize that a teams offense can dictate their offense and vice versa. It is very difficult to have an elite offense and defense at the same time. If for some reason Sloan took the shackles off the Jazz offense and allowed John to improvise I am sure he could have scored more than he did, but that was not Sloan's way and it's hard to deny that the Jazz were effective sticking with the tried and true. The Jazz stuck with their system and added Hornacek which got them to two finals. The Suns did not believe in the Nash oriented offense and tried to change it a couple of times adding a different coach, trading for Shaq, going back to letting Nash do whatever he wanted and it did not pan out. There is a reason why other teams do not try and recreate the Suns offense.......

[Doctor MJ]

With Stockton I'd say the question is what he could have done not what he would have done. Meaning, it's pretty clear how rigidly he played, and how that kept him from being anywhere near the scary scoring threat that someone like Nash was, it's just a question of whether he could have been comparable to Nash had he played different.

Of course he could. Look at his playoff series before Sloan's system was fully implemented.

People also have to remember that Stockton played in enviroment more difficult for perimeter players than Nash since '05. That matters a lot and it's reason why it's quite silly to just compare number of +30 or +25 games and come to conclusion who was better scorer.

You mean the thing I just got done pointing out was a 3 game sweep upset in which the Jazz were utterly humiliated as the team offense struggled? That one?

I've stated already that I think Stockton could have done more, but using a failure like that to trumpet Stockton's capabilities is so, so problematic.

Re: Era differences. Oh really? So you're telling me that if I look up Stockton's contemporaries they'll have 30 & 25 numbers that look like him? Challenge accepted, since all I have to do is go back to the exact same query as before.

Let's see. Isiah? KJ? Timmy? Price? Payton? Strickland? Iverson? Kidd? Marbury? Fat? Alvin? That's every single All-NBA point guard from every year in Stockton's entire career. All of them had more 30 point games than Stockton.

To be clear, as I've said volume isn't the goal, it's just something we should expect in the natural variance of things, and Stockton stands out because his ability in practice to rise above his averages is literally below every one else I've ever thought to compare him against. Maybe it's just Sloan's fault, but it ain't no era thing.

[lorak]

With Stockton I'd say the question is what he could have done not what he would have done. Meaning, it's pretty clear how rigidly he played, and how that kept him from being anywhere near the scary scoring threat that someone like Nash was, it's just a question of whether he could have been comparable to Nash had he played different.

Of course he could. Look at his playoff series before Sloan's system was fully implemented.

People also have to remember that Stockton played in enviroment more difficult for perimeter players than Nash since '05. That matters a lot and it's reason why it's quite silly to just compare number of +30 or +25 games and come to conclusion who was better scorer.

You mean the thing I just got done pointing out was a 3 game sweep upset in which the Jazz were utterly humiliated as the team offense struggled? That one?

1988 vs LAL, when John outplayed prime Magic (of course they didn't guard each other too often).

I've stated already that I think Stockton could have done more, but using a failure like that to trumpet Stockton's capabilities is so, so problematic.

Really? Aren't you the one who is using Nash's failures to show how great offensively he was? Of course in Nash's case it wouldn't be his fault, other factors are always analyzed in detail, but in Stockton's case everything is so obvious, so black and white, there's no need to look deeper at the context...

Re: Era differences. Oh really? So you're telling me that if I look up Stockton's contemporaries they'll have 30 & 25 numbers that look like him?

I'm not saying that, so stop with straw man.
The facts I'm saying are:
- SLoan's system limited Stockton
- Jazz lack of spacing didn't help Stockton
- rules were more difficult for perimeter player during Stockton's career than since '05
- rules change helped Nash
- spacing helped Nash
- no control freak coach helped Nash

[Doctor MJ]

When did volume scoring become a difference maker for PG's but defense is irrelevant?

No one is saying anything like that.

I don't understand why Nash is being propped up so much for his offense when that's all the Suns were known for. Why is Nash the only player that get's props for being such a one way player, but any other player is penalized?

Who do you suggest?

It's not just some throwaway line that the Jazz played in a very structured offense and emphasized defense quite a bit.

Drtg's for the Jazz from 1985-2000

1985 1st
1986 3rd
1987 1st
1988 1st
1989 1st
1990 5th
1991 6th
1992 7th
1993 13th
1994 7th
1995 8th
1996 8th
1997 9th
1998 17th
1999 7th
2000 11th

Man, that 1980s Stockton was amazing. He should have gotten DPOY!

I jest, but quite literally the gap between the '90s Jazz defense and the Suns defense isn't extreme. I say that and people are going to point to some ugly years, but I mean when the Suns were really a serious threat, they were basically an average defense. So we're talking about the difference between a 10-ish defense in Utah vs a 15-ish defense in Phoenix.

It's a difference sure, but enough to justify that extreme rhetoric people bandy about.

The Suns did not believe in the Nash oriented offense and tried to change it a couple of times adding a different coach, trading for Shaq, going back to letting Nash do whatever he wanted and it did not pan out. There is a reason why other teams do not try and recreate the Suns offense.......

You take the wrong lessons from this recent history my friend.

Phoenix gave up on their SSOL approach...and got worse. That means they were wrong to do so. So right there, why would use that against Nash. The lesson is that Nash was doing great things.

What's more of an issue: The reason they did this is because they listened to people who thought, well, like you. Management, the same folks who were selling off draft picks for beads, became convinced that they didn't have a serious contender on their hands despite how well the team played because of naysayers. The same types of naysayers who said the SSOL offense would fall apart in the playoffs in '05 and were comically wrong but typically too analytically inept to even understand they were wrong.

The lessons are there for the learning.

And as far as no one emulating the Suns, everyone emulates the Suns. The influence of the '05 Suns is huge and cited regularly. Pace continues to climb, 3's continue to climb. The current NBA landscape looks far more like the '05 Suns than it does the '05 Spurs.

You're thinking: Yeah, but they don't have anyone trying to do what Nash did, and I agree, but I don't see that as a knock against Nash. The league has emulated all those other things about the Suns, why wouldn't they emulate the team's most successful player if they could?

Forget about team decisions for a second. When you watch players today, who really reminds you of Nash? Who is the guy who you would say "He'd be just like Nash if a team let him, but they don't because they know it's a bad idea?"

I don't think there's anyone.

[Doctor MJ]

Of course he could. Look at his playoff series before Sloan's system was fully implemented.

People also have to remember that Stockton played in enviroment more difficult for perimeter players than Nash since '05. That matters a lot and it's reason why it's quite silly to just compare number of +30 or +25 games and come to conclusion who was better scorer.

You mean the thing I just got done pointing out was a 3 game sweep upset in which the Jazz were utterly humiliated as the team offense struggled? That one?

1988 vs LAL, when John outplayed prime Magic (of course they didn't guard each other too often).

Oh no you don't.

The words you used described the 1989 playoff run not the 1988. I asked the question rhetorically not suspecting you'd actually try to pivot.

I quite agree that the 1988 run was impressive from Stockton. If you want to elaborate on that do so, but that isn't what you talked about before.

I've stated already that I think Stockton could have done more, but using a failure like that to trumpet Stockton's capabilities is so, so problematic.

Really? Aren't you the one who is using Nash's failures to show how great offensively he was? Of course in Nash's case it wouldn't be his fault, other factors are always analyzed in detail, but in Stockton's case everything is so obvious, so black and white, there's no need to look deeper at the context...

Ahem, really?

You talked about a 3 game sample size in which Stockton's team was humiliated in a sweep by a crappy team, and you're saying it's analogous to me saying that Nash leading elite contenders who didn't quite win the title?

Sometimes you just need to take your lumps in an argument. It's not crazy to bring up Stockton's '89 series, it's just you have to acknowledge some things ahead of time or they'll come back to you in a rebuttal, and if you won't acknowledge that the rebuttal is right, then your whole credibility goes down in flames.

Re: Era differences. Oh really? So you're telling me that if I look up Stockton's contemporaries they'll have 30 & 25 numbers that look like him?

I'm not saying that, so stop with straw man.
The facts I'm saying are:
- SLoan's system limited Stockton
- Jazz lack of spacing didn't help Stockton
- rules were more difficult for perimeter player during Stockton's career than since '05
- rules change helped Nash
- spacing helped Nash
- no control freak coach helped Nash

You brought up the era differences, and I took what seemed to me to be the meaning of what you said and drilled down in the data to show you were wrong. If what I did was an incorrect interpretation, you should have been more clear from the start.

But let's just move on and accept the things you're saying:

From your perspective, did anyone else do what Nash did in this era? The stuff Nash was killing it with, was there someone else who did that?

If not, do you think Stockton would? What makes you so sure?

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Is anyone else troubled by this almost casual assertion that John Stockton of all people was not an intelligent player? Because the assumption that he should have played like Nash(a flawed assumption to begin with imo) but just chose not to because he was "rigid" is essentially saying he's a dumb player--or at the very least a stubborn one refusing to move outside of what he "wanted" to do.

I don't think anyone really suggests that he didn't make the right decisions, it would sound stupid.
It's more like a paradox conclusion bases on
1) he didn't have the scoring impact Nash had
2) the Jazz were really missing a shot creator in some playoff runs
so either
a) Stockton had the capability to do it, but decided (wrongly) to not call his number
b) Stockton didn't have the same capability of Nash of personally take over

[Warspite]

snipped

Just wondering...

I know you said it's time for some wings to come off the board, and I might agree with that. But who would your next five big men be in order?

Well everyones criteria is different but Reed, Gilmore, Thurmond, McAdoo and Zo seem to be it. Im a Pistons fan and maybe somewhat skewed but I prefer Ben Wallace to Deke and Zo at least peak wise. Sikma, Lanier and Hayes are going to a step behind and Ill be honest in that my George Mikan is Unseld. I just dont know what to do with Unseld. For the most part Ill defer to Penbeast who is a Bullets expert.


I think Hondo, Gervin, Barry, Drexler and Pippen are the wings I like

Frazier is the best PG on the board. As much as like Nash and respect his accomplishments his inability to impose his style/will in the playoffs leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Living in Phx since 06 I used to put on the Suns who would be playing some random team and just hit them with something they never seen and never practiced against it and be down 25 at half time and then the Suns cruised in the 2nd half. The Suns simply played a different game and if you were on a road trip coming into Phx or if you only saw them twice a yr you didnt even prepare for them. I believe the Suns were undefeated vs the EC 1 yr and lost like 6 games in 5.

[tsherkin]

As much as like Nash and respect his accomplishments his inability to impose his style/will in the playoffs leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

This is a patently incorrect statement. The Suns' offense ran just fine in the playoffs, that's not really a debatable issue. Nash forced the same pace and style as he'd run in the RS without much issue at all. this isn't an accurate assessment of why Phoenix lost when they did at all.

[penbeast0]

3 John Stockton - trex_8063, FJS, SactoKingsFan
3 Steve Nash - RSCD3_, Doctor MJ, ronnymac2

2 Walt Frazier -- penbeast0, GC Pantalones


1 Kevin Durant - Ryoga Hibiki
1 John Havlicek -- Chuck Texas
1 Isiah Thomas -- JordansBulls

[Texas Chuck]

so either
a) Stockton had the capability to do it, but decided (wrongly) to not call his number
b) Stockton didn't have the same capability of Nash of personally take over

Why are those the only possible options? Especially since several other factors have been gone into in detail since I made that post.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #25 - Stockton

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... kjo01.html

- 19 year career
- 11x all NBA (2 1st, 6 2nd, 3 3rd)
- 5x all defensive 2nd team
- 5x top 10 in MVP voting
- led league in APG for 9 straight seasons and AST% for 15 total
- 1st all time in career assists and steals

I know everyone values durability and longevity differently, but stockton was simply in a different stratosphere. In 17 of his 19 seasons, he played in 100% of possible games played. In the 2 seasons in which he missed games, he missed 4 and 18 respectively. While nash was pretty durable during his prime (played in 70+ games per season from 01-11), he really doesn't compare when looking at his career as a whole.

From 97-2000 and 2012-14 (7 seasons), Nash only played in 69% of possible games played. Given the length of their careers, I find this contrast to be significant. For those who point to the suns not being able to function without nash on the court, missing games could be thought of as more of a detriment than your average star player.

Nash is praised for his 50/40/90 seasons (that isn't to say people ignore stockton as an efficient scorer), yet both players are nearly identical in career TS% on similar output:

Stockton - 1504 games, 60.8% TS on 13.1 PPG, 21 PPG per 100
Nash - 1217 games, 60.5% TS on 14.3 PPG, 23.3 PPG per 100

Stockton is right there with nash, and the fact that he did this for nearly 300 more games and didn't fall off is really impressive.

On Stockton playing through injury and his standard for others:

“That was all it took,” former Jazz center Mark Eaton said. “A guy would come limping into the locker room and he would get that look from John. All the sudden, the limp would go away. He didn’t need to say anything. But you knew the way things were in John’s eyes. If you could walk, you could play, and if you could play, you were 100 percent.”

- - - - - - - - - -

He played through sore knees. He played through illness. He even played for the Dream Team in the 1992 Olympics despite a stress fracture in his leg.

“I will tell you, there was one year in the early’90s and we were playing Seattle in the playoffs,” said Jazz assistant coach Phil Johnson. “John had an elbow injury, and he could not lift his right arm. He spent most of the series dribbling with his left hand. He even considered shooting free throws with his left hand, but he did not want to let the Sonics know that he was hurt. He never told the press, never told anyone. After the season, he had surgery on his elbow. No one ever knew. We knew in the locker room only because he didn’t want to hurt the team.”

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2 ... ready-play

PRIME OFF/DEF RTG + WS/48 MIN:

Stockton (88-97)
Reg season - 122/104 (+18), .221 WS/48
Playoffs - 117/108 (+9), .163 WS/48

Nash (02-11)
Reg season - 120/111 (+9), .183 WS/48
Playoffs - 117/114 (+3), .142 WS/48

There's a lot of talk about nash's offense being other-worldly and his weak defense being relatively insignificant. Yet, stockton posts significantly higher net OFF/DEF ratings as well as WS/48 figures in both the reg season and playoffs. Does this tell the whole story? Of course not, but I think it's worth noting given the rather large sample sizes involved.

A few playoff series where PGs struggled against stockton and the Jazz (all series wins):

91 Kevin Johnson (4 games) - 12.8 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 9.8 APG, .5 SPG, 39% TS
Reg season - 22 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 10 APG, 2 SPG, 60% TS

94 Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf (7 games) - 15.7 PPG, 2 RPG, 2.9 APG, .4 SPG, 49% TS
Reg season - 18 PPG, 2 RPG, 4.5 APG, 1 SPG, 52% TS

94 Vinny Del Negro (4 games) - 7.3 PPG, 1 RPG, 4.5 APG, .3 SPG, 49.7% TS
Reg season - 10 PPG, 2 RPG, 4.2 APG, .8 APG, 54.5% TS

96 Avery Johnson (6 games) - 10.8 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 7 APG, 2.5 SPG 44% TS
Reg season - 13 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 9.6 APG, 1.5 SPG, 53% TS

I know we have to take these "hardest to guard" quotes from players with a grain of salt, but I think this is noteworthy. Payton on stockton:

Q: Did John Stockton ever talk trash back to you?

A: "Never. That is the reason I really respected him because you never could get in his head. He's the hardest person I ever had to guard. I tried to talk to him, try to do something and he'd just look at me, set a pick and cause me [to get mad and] get a tech. And then all of the sudden it was over. There was much respect to him doing that to me. It taught me a lot."

Q: You say Stockton was the hardest to guard, but what about guarding Michael Jordan?

A: "Those battles were a little easier. I would have Jordan get mad at me and go back at me. He knew he was really talented and could do whatever he wanted to. But [Stockton] was more of a challenge to me than guarding someone that would talk back to me. When you talk back to me and say something to me it made my game go to another level. John was one who wouldn't say nothing and you couldn't figure him out. He'd keep going in the pick and rolls and he and Karl Malone would score a big bucket. At times I would guard Jordan and get him mad and into other things."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--gary- ... 19084.html

This exemplifies stockton's style of play as a guy who couldn't be rattled and had excellent decision making. You weren't going to throw him off course by getting into his head.

[lorak]

^
To follow up on that Payton's quote: despite having so good defender as Gary, in 1996 Sonics constantly double teamed Stockton ABOVE three point line, sometimes even trapiing him in midcourt, because they wanted the ball away from his hands. Even Jordan in the 1996 finals didn't recive so much defensive attention and I'm not sure how many other PGs were defended that way over the course of whole series, when opposing team had DPOTY level defender at perimeter. That's how dangerous Stockton was.

[Jim Naismith]

It seems only point guards are getting traction in this round for some reason.

MVP Shares
20. Steve Nash 2.429
67. Isiah Thomas 0.318
76. John Stockton 0.161
79. Walt Frazier 0.151

RPoY Shares
25. Walt Frazier 2.061
31. Steve Nash 1.319
59. Isiah Thomas 0.246
71. John Stockton 0.120

The gap between Frazier's MVP rank (#79) and RPoY rank (#25) is huge.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

[Quotatious]

It seems only point guards are getting traction in this round for some reason.

MVP Shares
20. Steve Nash 2.429
67. Isiah Thomas 0.318
76. John Stockton 0.161
79. Walt Frazier 0.151

RPoY Shares
25. Walt Frazier 2.061
31. Steve Nash 1.319
59. Isiah Thomas 0.246
71. John Stockton 0.120

The gap between Frazier's MVP rank (#79) and RPoY rank (#25) is huge.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

I think it has a lot to do with pro-center bias that apparently existed during the 60s and early 70s (Willis Reed is 31st in all-time MVP shares, despite receving votes for just 3 seasons, compared to 5 seasons for Frazier, because Reed finished 2nd, 1st and 4th, compared to 4th, 7th, 6th, 15th and 17th). IMO the RealGM RPOY ranking is much better (Frazier is 25th, Reed 40th) - for 24 years between 1957 (when Bob Cousy won the MVP), and 1981 (when Dr. J won it), there was only one perimeter player who won it - Oscar Robertson in 1964 (obviously Doc was winning MVPs in the ABA, but I'm focusing only on the NBA). Basketball was seen as "big men game" at the time, a great center was considered by far the most important player that a team can have (and understandably so, considering Russell's, Chamberlain's and Abdul-Jabbar's dominance), but guys like Reed or Cowens (both obviously won MVPs) weren't even clearly better than their backcourt teammates like Frazier and Havlicek, they weren't even close to Wilt/Kareem/Russell level (Cowens/Hondo is basically the same as Reed/Frazier, in terms of MVP shares - at least the RealGM RPOY has it about right, with Cowens and Havlicek being almost even, with Hondo at 42 and Dave at 43).
The fact that Reed got all the credit for the 1969 and 1971 Knicks (in 1970 Reed won the MVP and Frazier finished 4th, so I'll leave that out), despite Frazier being arguably just as good, if not better, is pretty telling. Frazier didn't receive even a single MVP vote in 1972, which is probably his best season...Also, Reed winning the finals MVP in '73 is IMO clearly wrong (in 1970, they were both very deserving, although it can be easily argued that Clyde deserved it a bit more). Even Reed himself once said that "it's Walt's ball, sometimes he just lets us play with it". I'd love to know what Holzman thought about it, I'd really appreciate if someone could find anything about that.

So, I'd say that our RealGM voters did a much better job ranking these players fairly.

[penbeast0]

...

The gap between Frazier's MVP rank (#79) and RPoY rank (#25) is huge.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Doc also had a great post on this a couple of years ago about why Reed got the NBA accolades (MVP, FMVP,etc.) instead of Frazier. There was a marketing factor to it. The NBA was struggling and they felt that one of the issues was the "Ghetto/Street" persona of many of the stars -- remember this was the racially/socially divisive late 60s to early 70s. Reed was a clean cut, soft spoken, family man . . . the "good" black man; Frazier was aggressive, dressed like a gangster, and was the image that the NBA was trying to avoid, the "bad" black man. Thus the NBA powers that be promoted Reed and tended to underplay Frazier as much as possible.

[Quotatious]

Doc also had a great post on this a couple of years ago about why Reed got the NBA accolades (MVP, FMVP,etc.) instead of Frazier. There was a marketing factor to it. The NBA was struggling and they felt that one of the issues was the "Ghetto/Street" persona of many of the stars -- remember this was the racially/socially divisive late 60s to early 70s. Reed was a clean cut, soft spoken, family man . . . the "good" black man; Frazier was aggressive, dressed like a gangster, and was the image that the NBA was trying to avoid, the "bad" black man. Thus the NBA powers that be promoted Reed and tended to underplay Frazier as much as possible.

That's interesting - it basically makes Frazier look like Iverson in the early 2000s, with his ghetto/hip-hop image, and Reed like Mutombo (to stay with a pair of teammates), or Duncan.

[Jim Naismith]

...

The gap between Frazier's MVP rank (#79) and RPoY rank (#25) is huge.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Doc also had a great post on this a couple of years ago about why Reed got the NBA accolades (MVP, FMVP,etc.) instead of Frazier. There was a marketing factor to it. The NBA was struggling and they felt that one of the issues was the "Ghetto/Street" persona of many of the stars -- remember this was the racially/socially divisive late 60s to early 70s. Reed was a clean cut, soft spoken, family man . . . the "good" black man; Frazier was aggressive, dressed like a gangster, and was the image that the NBA was trying to avoid, the "bad" black man. Thus the NBA powers that be promoted Reed and tended to underplay Frazier as much as possible.

I'm not sure how much can be attributed to this dichotomy.

Islam is associated with black militancy, yet Kareem Abdul-Jabbar won the MVP in 1971, '72, and '74.

[G35]

Is anyone else troubled by this almost casual assertion that John Stockton of all people was not an intelligent player? Because the assumption that he should have played like Nash(a flawed assumption to begin with imo) but just chose not to because he was "rigid" is essentially saying he's a dumb player--or at the very least a stubborn one refusing to move outside of what he "wanted" to do.

I don't think anyone really suggests that he didn't make the right decisions, it would sound stupid.
It's more like a paradox conclusion bases on
1) he didn't have the scoring impact Nash had
2) the Jazz were really missing a shot creator in some playoff runs
so either
a) Stockton had the capability to do it, but decided (wrongly) to not call his number
b) Stockton didn't have the same capability of Nash of personally take over

I think the other option is Stockton generally followed Sloans directives and he believed in his ability to make plays i.e. pick and roll with Malone, get an open shot by running the offense was more conducive than him trying to play "hero ball". He shot the ball when he was open but he ran the offense until he had to make the play himself. This is unlike Nash who was told to take the first available shot, as well as the rest of the team. To me it was the coaching, Nash was told to shoot, shoot, and shoot again. Stockton was told to run the offense. Also, what people are ignoring is the talent on offense Stockton was working with, those Jazz teams had good players but nobody that was a difference maker until they got Hornacek. I know that people assume, "Well he had Karl Malone! That's all you need to make it to the finals!"

So why did KG have to have Ray Allen/Paul Pierce/Rondo/Tony Allen

Why was Kupchak always trying to find a 3rd player to complement Shaq/Kobe

Why did the Lakers need Worthy? Mychal Thompson? Bob McAdoo?

Why did the Celtics acquire Dennis Johnson when they already had Bird/Mchale/Parish? Why did they get Bill Walton?

Why did the 2004 Pistons have to acquire Rasheed Wallace when they had Billups/Hamilton/Prince/Ben Wallace as well as Okur and Lindsey Hunter.

Why is everyone saying the Heat needed to have other players to help Lebron when he had Wade/Bosh? Why does Lebron need Kevin Love when he had the #1 pick in the draft and a Kyrie Irving?

Why does the Houston Rockets need Carmelo when they have Harden/Dwight?

Why does Durant need more help when he has Westbrook/Ibaka/Jackson?

Because it is hard to win with only two players in a league that had great players. Matchups are always more important than talent alone. I doubt you could put Magic with Karl Malone and they would win championships with those same Jazz rosters. Especially when Magic would not have liked to play for Jerry Sloan in a controlled system......

[colts18]

I'm not sure how much can be attributed to this dichotomy.

Islam is associated with black militancy, yet Kareem Abdul-Jabbar won the MVP in 1971, '72, and '74.

Kareem got a lot of hate in the 70's. Even Bill Walton, hippie white guy, was getting more love than him in the late 70's. Dave Cowens did win an undeserved MVP over Kareem too