Owly wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:AEnigma wrote:Fair counter for Ben, and it was unfair for me to group him with Dikembe and Mourning without commenting on how he was a step above. I should have said more willing playmaker — which is a function of Ben’s own inability.
With Ben what it comes down to is that I am substantially more impressed by what Thurmond achieved in bringing his team to the 1967 Finals (and seriously threatening to upset the Lakers in the 1969 playoffs) than I am by Ben winning a title and nearly another on an incredible team. I agree he was their “best” player in 2004, but I think Thurmond would have been even more clear in Ben’s place. You rightly praise how Shaq was handled, but Thurmond is the singular figure most famous for his ability to disrupt opposing bigs. I am willing to defer a bit to proven success, but a supporting lineup of Billups/Rip/Tayshaun/Rasheed is better than anything Thurmond ever saw in his prime (there may be an argument for the 1975 Bulls in his post-prime… but seeing how close they were to upsetting the Warriors, I feel pretty confident that prime Thurmond on that team produces a title as well).
I really do not see “the 1975 Warriors moved on from an old and frequently injured Thurmond for a younger and healthier centre while also adding the rookie of the year, and then they won the title,” as being the sort of argument which should convince anyone. Are we going to argue Eddie Jones was some deleterious figure because the Lakers threepeated after he was traded away and the Heat won their first title the year after he left?
And as for the “Jerry West was injured” argument… Doc, that is also complete narrativising. Nothing in that season or West’s own career should give you any confidence in the Lakers that year even with a hypothetically healthy West.
First, the 1967 Warriors with Thurmond would have been by far the best team West ever beat pre-1972 Bucks. West’s own legacy is pretty much wholly tied to beating up on a weak conference and then losing narrowly to any good team, with the one exception also being one of West’s own individual worst series and overall postseasons.
Second, Thurmond’s Warriors directly outperformed the 8-time defending champion Celtics in their respective matchups against the best team the league had ever seen. They were a legitimately excellent team when Thurmond was playing.
Third, in contrast, those Lakers were the worst of West’s entire career. It was the only year they had a losing record with him, and while they did have a positive point differential when he played, that was also a career-low mark. That team was not good or serious even with him, but somehow you want to argue they would have gone on the road (West had a 40% playoff win rate outside of Los Angeles and had the only road series win of his career in 1970 against a 0.3 SRS Hawks team) to face a +4.5 team (again, substantially better than any he ever beat pre-1972 Bucks)… and won? That is not realistic.
So no, his injury is not a remotely relevant consideration to me, especially when two years later a Warriors team without Barry won the first two games in Los Angeles before their only legitimate source of offence went down with injury. I could just as easily argue the Warriors were primed to be the new conference dynasty had Barry stayed and Thurmond not been so frequently injured himself. They lost two of the next three postseasons to Thurmond’s injuries, and then the third was similarly derailed by injury to their only functional offensive weapon. None of these names ever overcame something like that, so why penalise Thurmond for it?
Re: Was Jones deleterious because traded away before title? In the case of Jones what you have are situations where another player at his same position was stronger at his strengths than he was, so I wouldn't call Jones deleterious simply because he was weaker than someone very strong.
Thurmond though I don't think was replaced by a better defender, so we're talking about improving the offense by having a bad, aka deleterious, offensive player be relegated and eventually removed.
Not sure Rice was stronger at his strengths (or net better) than Jones was. Jones and Kobe were both starting in '99.
Across year stuff can be hazardous and generalizing from it too. What does one make of Lee, Russell, Barnett. What of Smith, Wilkes, Dudley (and latterly Bridges at the margins) [PF is definitely more offensively tilted, spaced now Wilkes in for Lee]. How close was Thurmond to his best in the last year in GS? How good does one think Ray is? How much does one think holdovers got net better/worse? There's probably a lot of cumulative wiggle room there. Not saying it's wrong doing things this way but people could come to very different opinions.
So to be clear I was thinking of Kobe & Wade when I was thinking of teams moving on from Eddie.
Just because Kobe & Eddie started together for 20 games doesn't mean that they played different positions, nor that Eddie & Glen played the same position. I would suggest that if Eddie had Rice's size they probably don't make that trade.
I would also suggest that if not for Kobe, they wouldn't even consider trading Eddie.
I'd also say it's a mistake to think that the Lakers "made the right move by getting in Rice a guy with a better fit" as one might think. The team got worse as they moved from Eddie to Glen. Yes they improved the year after with Rice and won a title, but he was soon moved on from because he never really gave them what they were after.
.