Western Conference Finals: The Los Angeles Clippers v. the Denver Nuggets
All-Time Draft Conference Finals: Judgement Day!
Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
All-Time Draft Conference Finals: Judgement Day!
-
penbeast0
- Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
- Posts: 30,361
- And1: 9,913
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
- Location: South Florida
-
All-Time Draft Conference Finals: Judgement Day!
Eastern Conference Finals: The Cleveland Cavaliers v. the Miami Heat
Western Conference Finals: The Los Angeles Clippers v. the Denver Nuggets
Western Conference Finals: The Los Angeles Clippers v. the Denver Nuggets
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Clippers vs. Nuggets
-
TrueLAfan
- Senior Mod - Clippers
- Posts: 8,255
- And1: 1,781
- Joined: Apr 11, 2001
Clippers vs. Nuggets
Clippers vs. Nuggets
Kareem vs. Wilt. The marquee matchup. Wilt will play more and rebound more. Kareem will score more and, likely, play slightly better D (Wilt's D in 1965, 1966, and 1969, although very good, was not as good as it was in 1967 and 1968, or when Sharman coached the Lakers.) Kareem had more range and could hit his free throws. Wilt got more assists...but that will end up hurting him on this particular team, as we will see. I remember the games when Kareem first came into the league, and they were competitive. But by 1972, Kareem was murdering Wilt. In the regular season and playoffs, he outscored Wilt 403 to 137 in 11 games. It's true that Wilt was focusing on defense at that time in his career...but Kareem averaged almost 37 a game on a Wilt that was primarily a defesnive stopper. Hmmm. But you have to give the Big Dipper his credit; he's one of the greatest to ever lace them up. And so is Kareem. It's a classic matchup; the classic matchup of big men, IMO.
Buck Williams vs. Dennis Rodman. Players that are similar is some ways, but different in others...including personality type. Rodman is the better rebounder (although Buck Williams is terrific there). And Rodman is the better defender (although, again Buck is great on the defensive end). But Rodman is substantially worse on offense...more efficient than you might expect, but way below Buck as a scorer. Rodman fouled a lot in his early years. Buck made it to a second team All-NBA and did slightly better in MVP voting. He was a more complete player...Rodman's 1992 and after attitude did not help him in that department.
Ah yes...how much will Rodman as a head case hurt the Nuggets here? He's got three years here where's a good solider and team player (1989-91), one (1992) where he's starting to go off the rails, and one (1994) where he fought continually with teammates and was a substantial distraction. And that was on a team whose leader, David Robinson, was a generous teammate and not ego driven. It will be a problem.
Bobby Jones vs. Rick Barry. First, Rick Barry is a SF. He is not a SG. He did not play at SG. He played at SF. When he played in an offense that spread the floor and had a three point in 1971...Bill Melchionni (a 6'1" PG) played 3326 minutes. John Roche (a 6'3" combo-ish guard) played a few of his 2593 minutes at the 1, and mainly at the 2 along with Oliver Taylor, who was 6'2" and played 1891 minutes. There were 4087 minutes available per position that year. Those three men played 7810 out of a possible 8164 minutes. And Barry didn't even fill in in those last minutes at G...that was done by Joe DePre (562 minutes) and Gary Zeller. Playing Rick Barry at SG because he has some of the skills of a SG would be like playing Larry Bird at SG (or PG). Bird had skills to play a guard position...but his deficiencies in other areas would have made it counter productive. Coaches saw that and did not play him there. The same is true with Barry. Rick Barry had top level coaches how saw him practice, saw him play...and played him at small forward. They did not play him at SG. And the fact is that I am not as smart as Alex Hannum or Bill Sharman or Al Attles or even Lou Carnesecca when it comes to basketball. And neither is myth-breaker. Playing a player at a position he never he played at when he was active is, essentially, saying that we know something that all the people around him didn't. It's wrong. If Rick Barry is played out of position, he will take substantial hits in his game play and be less valuable to his team. He did not do it in real life; he absolutely cannot and should not do it now.
So he's a SF...and a damn good one. But a miserable teammate and human being who carried bad teams, but didn't mesh well with good players (at least in his listed years here) and rarely was on great teams. Rick Barry was on one 60 win team. He missed the last 43 games of the season and the playoffs. The team won the championship without him. When Barry came back the next year, the team was a .500 team. Actually, taking out that ABA team where he got injured and the team won without him, Barry's teams were...pretty average. Prior to going to Houston in the twilight of his career, Barry's teams went 494-411. He carried a lousy team to a title...but when he had good players with him, he bickered and bothered teammates and management (and pretty much everybody). Only three of the teams that he played more than 35 games for won more than 45 games in his first 12 seasons. Barry needed to have the ball in his hands to play at his best...he led all the Warriors teams he played on (including the 1975 championship squad) in assists. That was how he liked it. That is going to be a problem.
Bobby Jones is the anti-Rick Barry. Barry was, at his best, a decent defender. Jones is absolutely elite on D. Barry irritated teammates and his teams largely underperformed. No team that Bobby Jones played on every missed the playoffs. Barry was on one team where he played a major role that won more than 48 games. Bobby Jones's teams averaged 57 wins a year, including four that won over 60 games a year. Everyone loved Bobby Jones. Pretty much every couldn't stand Rick Barry.
Does this mean Rick Barry is a worse basketball player than Bobby Jones? No. Barry is better. But on a team where he's got Wilt needing the ball in his hands and Rodman acting up, can Barry keep it together? Because his past record says no. And being guarded by Bobby Jones is not going to put him in a better mood either.
Joe Dumars vs. Reggie Miller. I think it's instructive to look at these two players when they matched up during some of the seasons that both of us have chosen to use. Between the 1990 and 1993 seasons, Joe Dumars and Reggie Miller faced off 19 times. Against the rest of the league Miller had better offensive numbers
Miller vs rest of league: 22.6 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 3.7 apg
Dumars vs. rest of league: 20.5 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 4.8 apg
But against one another, Joe D's defense made all the difference. He was a better player.
Dumars vs. Miller: 18.6 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 4.7 apg
Miller vs. Dumars: 16.7 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 2.7 apg
Which makes sense. At their peaks, Joe Dumars and Reggie Miller were similar players offensively. They both shot well and were outstanding three point shooters. Reggie had a longer peak, which is irrelevant to this league. Reggie was a better rebounder. Joe was a better passer.
But on defense, it's all Joe D. Dumars was a fantastic defender. Reggie...well, he was okay. Clutch play? Hey, Reggie hit some big game winners. No doubt about it. But which guy has the Finals MVP? Who made more All-NBA teams (in a shorter career)? Who did better in MVP voting? Who's the better player on both ends of the court? Who's the better player period? It's Joe D.
Gary Payton vs. Chauncey Billups. I would loved to have seen these two go at it at their peaks. Billups is the more efficient offensive player. Payton's the better passer...you forget what a really, really good passer Gary Payton. He suffers in comparison to someone like Stockton or Magic or even Isiah...but we are still talking about a guy who has almost 9000 career assists, whose career asisst percentage is better than Oscar's or Norm Nixon's. Payton was a terrific PG. Billups has more efficiency, but Payton is the better PG and scores more. So offense is kind of a push; maybe a lsight lead for Payton.
But on D...Billups is very good. Payton is elite, one of the greatest defenders at PG of all-time. So, again, we have a more complete player...one his does far better in MVP voting and All-NBA voting.
And Gary Payton is a terrific example of how to have an attitude and not to be like Rick Barry. Gary Payton's got a mouth on him. He's been known to pop off to teammates. But unlike Barry, his teams perform well. Leaving out the Lakers/Heat teams that were in the twilight of his career and focusing on the Sonics, we are talking about a team that never had a losing record when Payton was there at the end of the year, that won 60 games 3 times and won 55 3 other times. That had other good players (Vin Baker, Detlef Schrempf) and stars (Shawn Kemp) that he worked well with and led teams to high levels of success with. Billups is a very good player, but there's a reason why Gary Payton was in top 6 of MVP voting 6 times.
Offensive strategy
Already said it. We run, especially when we get what Larry Costello used to call "opportunity possessions" from turnovers. (And our defense can and will force a lot of those.) When that doesn't work, we've got the best halfcourt weapon of all time in the skyhook. Its range can and will pull Wilt of his comfort zone. We're on pace to take about 89 shots a game, an amount that is doable given the rules we're playing under.
A word about rebounding.
It's even.
"Not a chance," you think. "A team with Rodman and Wilt will dominate the boards!" But no! Let's compare the starting fives using rebound rates and the average minutes per season each player can play according to team writeups.
Dennis Rodman--2724 minutes, 22.8 rebound rate; Wilt Chamberlain--3769 minutes, 20.2 rebound rate (By year--1964: 19.56, 1966: 20.27, 1967: 20.78, 1968: 20.38, 1969: 20.08); Rick Barry--3204 minutes, rebound rate 8.6 (1967 rebound rate: 8.57); Reggie Miller--2884 minutes, rebound rate 5.0; Chauncey Billups--2721 minutes, rebound rate 5.4
Buck Williams--2869 minutes, rebound rate 18.9; Kareem Abdul-Jabbar--3304 minutes, rebound rate 18.6; Bobby Jones-- 2543 minutes, rebound rate 13.4; Gary Payton--3201 minutes, rebound rate 6.8; Joe Dumars--2818 minutes, rebound rate 3.6
It's easy to figure out how many rebounds a player would get in modern terms. Divide the minutes played by the player by 3960 (which is average amount of total player minutes in a season). Multiple that by 84 (42 rebounds per team times two). Multiply by the rebound rate as a percentage. That's the average rebound per game. Then multiply by 82 to figure out total rebounds. So, for these players, you get
Wilt Chamberlain--1324 rebounds, Dennis Rodman--1080 rebounds, Rick Barry--479 rebounds, Chauncey Billups--256 rebounds, Reggie Miller--251 rebounds
TOTAL--15302 minutes, 3390 rebounds
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar--1069 rebounds, Buck Williams--943 rebounds, Bobby Jones-- 593 rebounds
Gary Payton--379 rebounds, Joe Dumars--251 rebounds
TOTAL--14735 minutes, 3211 rebounds
So the Clippers are about 180 rebounds behind. But they've also played about 600 minutes less, and a lot of that comes from the C and SF positions. Let's say we plug in Brad Daugherty for 320 minutes...that's not all he'll play, of course, but it will even up the minutes between our frontcourts. His rebound rate is 15.6. That adds
Brad Daugherty--320 minutes, 87 rebounds
So now the Clippers have played about 275 less minutes and are about 90 rebounds behind. But my bench rebounds better. Horace Grant will be backing up Buck Williams; his rebound rate is 15.9. Both he and Daugherty are better rebounders than Amare (15.1 rebound rate) or Eaton (15.2 rebound rate) or Baker (14.2 rebound rate). So in the remaining 1400 or so minutes at PF and C, we'll pick up some boards.
We'll pick up a lot more at the guard positions. Don Buse has a rebound rate of 5.0. Raja Bell's is 5.8. Alvin Robertson is the best of the guard group; he's a great rebounder at 10.1. Unfortunately for the Nuggets in terms of rebounding, I'll be playing Fat Lever as a backup PG/SG (rebound rate 11.
. He'll split time at the 1 and 2 with Michael Cooper--rebound rate of 6.5. I'm slightly ahead across the board.
Marques Johnson is a terrific rebounder at the backup SF (rebound rate 12.3). He's well ahead of Jamaal (rebound rate 10.4) and Tsayshaun (rebound rate 8.2). I'll split my time with those two; I'll actually play Tayshaun more. Jamaal will only get spot minutes. But the Nuggets won't get a big gain...Barry takes up such a huge amount of time at the 3 that Marques can't get much run.
When it all shakes down, the total difference in rebounding between teams will be less than 50 boards. It surprised me too. You see a team with Wilt and Rodman and you figure they get all the boards. But the fact is that the Clippers have the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth best rebounders and better rebounding off the bench. This is why rebound rate is the best statistic available. It evens the playing field between eras. So don't let anything tell you or convince you that the Nuggets have any substantial rebounding edge...or, really, any measurable edge at all. They don't.
Defense
They say defense is where you win games. This is our trump card. Not that Wilt and Rodman anything less than elite on that end--they are. Buse is close to that level, and Chauncey is very good too. Robertson is terrific coming off the bench. Eaton is great...although he'll play something like 200 minutes. (Unless myth chooses to sit Wilt in favor of Eaton, which is fine with me). But Rick Barry? Meh. A little better than average, if that. Same with Reggie--nothing to write home about. That's over 6000 minutes of court time; over 30% of the team's total minutes. We don't have any weaknesses; our weakest defender is Brad Daugherty, who plays less than 650 minutes during the season. After that, it's waves of pain...Kareem and Bobby Jones and Gary Payton and Michael Cooper and Joe Dumars and Buck Williams and Horace Grant and Tayshaun Prince and Jamaal Wilkes and Fat Lever. We're simply stronger on that end. The 59 All-D teams say so.
And now we get to the head case/chemistry issue.
Somebody's got to say it. Wilt was a free spirit . Rodman was about two steps beyond that. And Rick Barry is a control freak who has no censor between his mouth and his brain, which led him to piss off teammates right and left. All of them are alpha dog strong personalities. All like to be the center of attention. (Rick Barry wanted to be an actor and took acting lessons while he was a player, for God's sake.) That's a recipe for disaster.
On the basketball side...Rick Barry wanted the ball in his hands, to run the offense. In Wilt's best year being used here (1967 and 1968), he ran the offense and had the ball in his hands most of the time. Even in his other years, we are talking about a guy whose usage was very high. Does anyone really see them functioning well together? This is not something a coach can just fix. You are telling two people that are famous for being proud of being dominant that someone has to take a back seat in terms of usage and running the offense. In most of the years that are being used for Barry, the C and PF were lucky to combine for four and a half assists. Even other backcourt players took a hit; Barry usually led the team in assists. It's one thing to tell Pork Chop Mullins or Clifford Ray or Billy Paultz that you're running the offense and they aren't going to get as many touches. It's another to say it to Wilt. Wilt didn't get along with Baylor because Elgin's playing and positioning cramped Wilt's style. What's going to happen here?
So it comes down to...
The Clippers are better. Smarter. Stronger D. A better team. We can exploit the defensive weaknesses of the Nuggets. And they are team that clearly will struggle with personality and chemistry problems. the type of team that will be frustrated at the pressure that solid D and efficient offense and players that play hard and know their roles and haven't had to change what they want to do and do best.
Kareem vs. Wilt. The marquee matchup. Wilt will play more and rebound more. Kareem will score more and, likely, play slightly better D (Wilt's D in 1965, 1966, and 1969, although very good, was not as good as it was in 1967 and 1968, or when Sharman coached the Lakers.) Kareem had more range and could hit his free throws. Wilt got more assists...but that will end up hurting him on this particular team, as we will see. I remember the games when Kareem first came into the league, and they were competitive. But by 1972, Kareem was murdering Wilt. In the regular season and playoffs, he outscored Wilt 403 to 137 in 11 games. It's true that Wilt was focusing on defense at that time in his career...but Kareem averaged almost 37 a game on a Wilt that was primarily a defesnive stopper. Hmmm. But you have to give the Big Dipper his credit; he's one of the greatest to ever lace them up. And so is Kareem. It's a classic matchup; the classic matchup of big men, IMO.
Buck Williams vs. Dennis Rodman. Players that are similar is some ways, but different in others...including personality type. Rodman is the better rebounder (although Buck Williams is terrific there). And Rodman is the better defender (although, again Buck is great on the defensive end). But Rodman is substantially worse on offense...more efficient than you might expect, but way below Buck as a scorer. Rodman fouled a lot in his early years. Buck made it to a second team All-NBA and did slightly better in MVP voting. He was a more complete player...Rodman's 1992 and after attitude did not help him in that department.
Ah yes...how much will Rodman as a head case hurt the Nuggets here? He's got three years here where's a good solider and team player (1989-91), one (1992) where he's starting to go off the rails, and one (1994) where he fought continually with teammates and was a substantial distraction. And that was on a team whose leader, David Robinson, was a generous teammate and not ego driven. It will be a problem.
Bobby Jones vs. Rick Barry. First, Rick Barry is a SF. He is not a SG. He did not play at SG. He played at SF. When he played in an offense that spread the floor and had a three point in 1971...Bill Melchionni (a 6'1" PG) played 3326 minutes. John Roche (a 6'3" combo-ish guard) played a few of his 2593 minutes at the 1, and mainly at the 2 along with Oliver Taylor, who was 6'2" and played 1891 minutes. There were 4087 minutes available per position that year. Those three men played 7810 out of a possible 8164 minutes. And Barry didn't even fill in in those last minutes at G...that was done by Joe DePre (562 minutes) and Gary Zeller. Playing Rick Barry at SG because he has some of the skills of a SG would be like playing Larry Bird at SG (or PG). Bird had skills to play a guard position...but his deficiencies in other areas would have made it counter productive. Coaches saw that and did not play him there. The same is true with Barry. Rick Barry had top level coaches how saw him practice, saw him play...and played him at small forward. They did not play him at SG. And the fact is that I am not as smart as Alex Hannum or Bill Sharman or Al Attles or even Lou Carnesecca when it comes to basketball. And neither is myth-breaker. Playing a player at a position he never he played at when he was active is, essentially, saying that we know something that all the people around him didn't. It's wrong. If Rick Barry is played out of position, he will take substantial hits in his game play and be less valuable to his team. He did not do it in real life; he absolutely cannot and should not do it now.
So he's a SF...and a damn good one. But a miserable teammate and human being who carried bad teams, but didn't mesh well with good players (at least in his listed years here) and rarely was on great teams. Rick Barry was on one 60 win team. He missed the last 43 games of the season and the playoffs. The team won the championship without him. When Barry came back the next year, the team was a .500 team. Actually, taking out that ABA team where he got injured and the team won without him, Barry's teams were...pretty average. Prior to going to Houston in the twilight of his career, Barry's teams went 494-411. He carried a lousy team to a title...but when he had good players with him, he bickered and bothered teammates and management (and pretty much everybody). Only three of the teams that he played more than 35 games for won more than 45 games in his first 12 seasons. Barry needed to have the ball in his hands to play at his best...he led all the Warriors teams he played on (including the 1975 championship squad) in assists. That was how he liked it. That is going to be a problem.
Bobby Jones is the anti-Rick Barry. Barry was, at his best, a decent defender. Jones is absolutely elite on D. Barry irritated teammates and his teams largely underperformed. No team that Bobby Jones played on every missed the playoffs. Barry was on one team where he played a major role that won more than 48 games. Bobby Jones's teams averaged 57 wins a year, including four that won over 60 games a year. Everyone loved Bobby Jones. Pretty much every couldn't stand Rick Barry.
Does this mean Rick Barry is a worse basketball player than Bobby Jones? No. Barry is better. But on a team where he's got Wilt needing the ball in his hands and Rodman acting up, can Barry keep it together? Because his past record says no. And being guarded by Bobby Jones is not going to put him in a better mood either.
Joe Dumars vs. Reggie Miller. I think it's instructive to look at these two players when they matched up during some of the seasons that both of us have chosen to use. Between the 1990 and 1993 seasons, Joe Dumars and Reggie Miller faced off 19 times. Against the rest of the league Miller had better offensive numbers
Miller vs rest of league: 22.6 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 3.7 apg
Dumars vs. rest of league: 20.5 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 4.8 apg
But against one another, Joe D's defense made all the difference. He was a better player.
Dumars vs. Miller: 18.6 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 4.7 apg
Miller vs. Dumars: 16.7 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 2.7 apg
Which makes sense. At their peaks, Joe Dumars and Reggie Miller were similar players offensively. They both shot well and were outstanding three point shooters. Reggie had a longer peak, which is irrelevant to this league. Reggie was a better rebounder. Joe was a better passer.
But on defense, it's all Joe D. Dumars was a fantastic defender. Reggie...well, he was okay. Clutch play? Hey, Reggie hit some big game winners. No doubt about it. But which guy has the Finals MVP? Who made more All-NBA teams (in a shorter career)? Who did better in MVP voting? Who's the better player on both ends of the court? Who's the better player period? It's Joe D.
Gary Payton vs. Chauncey Billups. I would loved to have seen these two go at it at their peaks. Billups is the more efficient offensive player. Payton's the better passer...you forget what a really, really good passer Gary Payton. He suffers in comparison to someone like Stockton or Magic or even Isiah...but we are still talking about a guy who has almost 9000 career assists, whose career asisst percentage is better than Oscar's or Norm Nixon's. Payton was a terrific PG. Billups has more efficiency, but Payton is the better PG and scores more. So offense is kind of a push; maybe a lsight lead for Payton.
But on D...Billups is very good. Payton is elite, one of the greatest defenders at PG of all-time. So, again, we have a more complete player...one his does far better in MVP voting and All-NBA voting.
And Gary Payton is a terrific example of how to have an attitude and not to be like Rick Barry. Gary Payton's got a mouth on him. He's been known to pop off to teammates. But unlike Barry, his teams perform well. Leaving out the Lakers/Heat teams that were in the twilight of his career and focusing on the Sonics, we are talking about a team that never had a losing record when Payton was there at the end of the year, that won 60 games 3 times and won 55 3 other times. That had other good players (Vin Baker, Detlef Schrempf) and stars (Shawn Kemp) that he worked well with and led teams to high levels of success with. Billups is a very good player, but there's a reason why Gary Payton was in top 6 of MVP voting 6 times.
Offensive strategy
Already said it. We run, especially when we get what Larry Costello used to call "opportunity possessions" from turnovers. (And our defense can and will force a lot of those.) When that doesn't work, we've got the best halfcourt weapon of all time in the skyhook. Its range can and will pull Wilt of his comfort zone. We're on pace to take about 89 shots a game, an amount that is doable given the rules we're playing under.
A word about rebounding.
It's even.
"Not a chance," you think. "A team with Rodman and Wilt will dominate the boards!" But no! Let's compare the starting fives using rebound rates and the average minutes per season each player can play according to team writeups.
Dennis Rodman--2724 minutes, 22.8 rebound rate; Wilt Chamberlain--3769 minutes, 20.2 rebound rate (By year--1964: 19.56, 1966: 20.27, 1967: 20.78, 1968: 20.38, 1969: 20.08); Rick Barry--3204 minutes, rebound rate 8.6 (1967 rebound rate: 8.57); Reggie Miller--2884 minutes, rebound rate 5.0; Chauncey Billups--2721 minutes, rebound rate 5.4
Buck Williams--2869 minutes, rebound rate 18.9; Kareem Abdul-Jabbar--3304 minutes, rebound rate 18.6; Bobby Jones-- 2543 minutes, rebound rate 13.4; Gary Payton--3201 minutes, rebound rate 6.8; Joe Dumars--2818 minutes, rebound rate 3.6
It's easy to figure out how many rebounds a player would get in modern terms. Divide the minutes played by the player by 3960 (which is average amount of total player minutes in a season). Multiple that by 84 (42 rebounds per team times two). Multiply by the rebound rate as a percentage. That's the average rebound per game. Then multiply by 82 to figure out total rebounds. So, for these players, you get
Wilt Chamberlain--1324 rebounds, Dennis Rodman--1080 rebounds, Rick Barry--479 rebounds, Chauncey Billups--256 rebounds, Reggie Miller--251 rebounds
TOTAL--15302 minutes, 3390 rebounds
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar--1069 rebounds, Buck Williams--943 rebounds, Bobby Jones-- 593 rebounds
Gary Payton--379 rebounds, Joe Dumars--251 rebounds
TOTAL--14735 minutes, 3211 rebounds
So the Clippers are about 180 rebounds behind. But they've also played about 600 minutes less, and a lot of that comes from the C and SF positions. Let's say we plug in Brad Daugherty for 320 minutes...that's not all he'll play, of course, but it will even up the minutes between our frontcourts. His rebound rate is 15.6. That adds
Brad Daugherty--320 minutes, 87 rebounds
So now the Clippers have played about 275 less minutes and are about 90 rebounds behind. But my bench rebounds better. Horace Grant will be backing up Buck Williams; his rebound rate is 15.9. Both he and Daugherty are better rebounders than Amare (15.1 rebound rate) or Eaton (15.2 rebound rate) or Baker (14.2 rebound rate). So in the remaining 1400 or so minutes at PF and C, we'll pick up some boards.
We'll pick up a lot more at the guard positions. Don Buse has a rebound rate of 5.0. Raja Bell's is 5.8. Alvin Robertson is the best of the guard group; he's a great rebounder at 10.1. Unfortunately for the Nuggets in terms of rebounding, I'll be playing Fat Lever as a backup PG/SG (rebound rate 11.
. He'll split time at the 1 and 2 with Michael Cooper--rebound rate of 6.5. I'm slightly ahead across the board.
Marques Johnson is a terrific rebounder at the backup SF (rebound rate 12.3). He's well ahead of Jamaal (rebound rate 10.4) and Tsayshaun (rebound rate 8.2). I'll split my time with those two; I'll actually play Tayshaun more. Jamaal will only get spot minutes. But the Nuggets won't get a big gain...Barry takes up such a huge amount of time at the 3 that Marques can't get much run.
When it all shakes down, the total difference in rebounding between teams will be less than 50 boards. It surprised me too. You see a team with Wilt and Rodman and you figure they get all the boards. But the fact is that the Clippers have the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth best rebounders and better rebounding off the bench. This is why rebound rate is the best statistic available. It evens the playing field between eras. So don't let anything tell you or convince you that the Nuggets have any substantial rebounding edge...or, really, any measurable edge at all. They don't.
Defense
They say defense is where you win games. This is our trump card. Not that Wilt and Rodman anything less than elite on that end--they are. Buse is close to that level, and Chauncey is very good too. Robertson is terrific coming off the bench. Eaton is great...although he'll play something like 200 minutes. (Unless myth chooses to sit Wilt in favor of Eaton, which is fine with me). But Rick Barry? Meh. A little better than average, if that. Same with Reggie--nothing to write home about. That's over 6000 minutes of court time; over 30% of the team's total minutes. We don't have any weaknesses; our weakest defender is Brad Daugherty, who plays less than 650 minutes during the season. After that, it's waves of pain...Kareem and Bobby Jones and Gary Payton and Michael Cooper and Joe Dumars and Buck Williams and Horace Grant and Tayshaun Prince and Jamaal Wilkes and Fat Lever. We're simply stronger on that end. The 59 All-D teams say so.
And now we get to the head case/chemistry issue.
Somebody's got to say it. Wilt was a free spirit . Rodman was about two steps beyond that. And Rick Barry is a control freak who has no censor between his mouth and his brain, which led him to piss off teammates right and left. All of them are alpha dog strong personalities. All like to be the center of attention. (Rick Barry wanted to be an actor and took acting lessons while he was a player, for God's sake.) That's a recipe for disaster.
On the basketball side...Rick Barry wanted the ball in his hands, to run the offense. In Wilt's best year being used here (1967 and 1968), he ran the offense and had the ball in his hands most of the time. Even in his other years, we are talking about a guy whose usage was very high. Does anyone really see them functioning well together? This is not something a coach can just fix. You are telling two people that are famous for being proud of being dominant that someone has to take a back seat in terms of usage and running the offense. In most of the years that are being used for Barry, the C and PF were lucky to combine for four and a half assists. Even other backcourt players took a hit; Barry usually led the team in assists. It's one thing to tell Pork Chop Mullins or Clifford Ray or Billy Paultz that you're running the offense and they aren't going to get as many touches. It's another to say it to Wilt. Wilt didn't get along with Baylor because Elgin's playing and positioning cramped Wilt's style. What's going to happen here?
So it comes down to...
The Clippers are better. Smarter. Stronger D. A better team. We can exploit the defensive weaknesses of the Nuggets. And they are team that clearly will struggle with personality and chemistry problems. the type of team that will be frustrated at the pressure that solid D and efficient offense and players that play hard and know their roles and haven't had to change what they want to do and do best.
-
LeQuitterNotMVP
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,699
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 06, 2007
- Location: Props to Trixx for the avy!
-
-
Myth_Breaker
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,122
- And1: 77
- Joined: Jun 26, 2006
- Location: Otwock, Poland
-
Wilt vs. Kareem
All talk about 1972 Wilt is highly irrelevant here considering I have Wilt in his most advanced, 1967 edition. Yet even 1972 Wilt was regularly outrebounding and outblocking young Kareem, scoring less points, but having considerably bigger impact on defense
All talk about 1972 Wilt is highly irrelevant here considering I have Wilt in his most advanced, 1967 edition. Yet even 1972 Wilt was regularly outrebounding and outblocking young Kareem, scoring less points, but having considerably bigger impact on defense
http://wiltfan.tripod.com
Read: Edward Lucas "The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West".
"So what, son, did your Poles help you?" YES, WE DID!
***** *** Kukiza i Konfederację!
Read: Edward Lucas "The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West".
"So what, son, did your Poles help you?" YES, WE DID!
***** *** Kukiza i Konfederację!
-
A.J.
- Banned User
- Posts: 12,072
- And1: 1
- Joined: Jul 25, 2007
- Location: Houston(University of Houston in 2009)
Heat vs Cavs ECF
Before I begin, I would like to say to Pen, may the best man win.
Matchups
PG- Magic Johnson vs Tiny Archibald
This is a tough matchup as Magic is clearly the better player of the 2. Magic can use his size and strength to post up Arch. Johnson has great playmaking abilities and Archibald be in a whole heap of trouble. On the flip side Arch is a great shooter from the outside which is why I think he complements Yao greatly. Arch is a great penetrator and passer in the open court. But I don't think he will give Magic fits.
Edge: Heat
SG- Dwayne Wade vs Michael Jordan
I think I dominate this matchup. MJ will school Wade. The only thing Wade has for him is his athleticsism and even that wont stop MJ. On defense, MJ will stop Wade if he tries to take it to the rack and Wade can not shoot well from the outside so MJ should be able to stop him.
Edge: Cavs
SF- LeBron James vs Dominique Wilkins
This is a good matchup on offense. Both players are highfliers and highlight reels. But I think LeBron has the edge clearly because he has the best all around talent of the 2.
Edge: Heat
PF- Bob McAdoo vs Kevin McHale
I think this matchup is about even with me having the edge a little.
McHale compliments Yao well and can shoot fairly well also. McAdoo does the same. But the main difference between the 2 is that McHale plays better D.
Edge- Cavs
C- Dikembe Mutombo vs Yao Ming
2 teammates battle. lol. I would have to give the edge to Deke simply because he is a monster on defense. Yao will have to bring every post game in his army to be successful agaisnt Deke
Edge- Mutombo.
Before I begin, I would like to say to Pen, may the best man win.
Matchups
PG- Magic Johnson vs Tiny Archibald
This is a tough matchup as Magic is clearly the better player of the 2. Magic can use his size and strength to post up Arch. Johnson has great playmaking abilities and Archibald be in a whole heap of trouble. On the flip side Arch is a great shooter from the outside which is why I think he complements Yao greatly. Arch is a great penetrator and passer in the open court. But I don't think he will give Magic fits.
Edge: Heat
SG- Dwayne Wade vs Michael Jordan
I think I dominate this matchup. MJ will school Wade. The only thing Wade has for him is his athleticsism and even that wont stop MJ. On defense, MJ will stop Wade if he tries to take it to the rack and Wade can not shoot well from the outside so MJ should be able to stop him.
Edge: Cavs
SF- LeBron James vs Dominique Wilkins
This is a good matchup on offense. Both players are highfliers and highlight reels. But I think LeBron has the edge clearly because he has the best all around talent of the 2.
Edge: Heat
PF- Bob McAdoo vs Kevin McHale
I think this matchup is about even with me having the edge a little.
McHale compliments Yao well and can shoot fairly well also. McAdoo does the same. But the main difference between the 2 is that McHale plays better D.
Edge- Cavs
C- Dikembe Mutombo vs Yao Ming
2 teammates battle. lol. I would have to give the edge to Deke simply because he is a monster on defense. Yao will have to bring every post game in his army to be successful agaisnt Deke
Edge- Mutombo.
-
JordansBulls
- RealGM
- Posts: 60,467
- And1: 5,348
- Joined: Jul 12, 2006
- Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)
-
JordansBulls
- RealGM
- Posts: 60,467
- And1: 5,348
- Joined: Jul 12, 2006
- Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)
Wow a truly great matchup here. On one hand you have the 2nd greatest IMO and the other hand you have the 3rd greatest IMO. So how will this battle turn out.
Well in the battle of the centers it seems their could be a lot of momentum shifts in this battle, but the fact that the Nuggets have a defensive Center in Eaton who can come in defend Kareem is huge. Daugherty is a great center for the Clippers however he would have more difficulty defending Wilt than Eaton defending Kareem. But that is a non issue as I expect both Wilt and Kareem to average over 40 mpg anyway in this series.
Moving to the PF position I believe the Clippers have the edge at that position. Buck Williams was a better PF than Rodman all around and could provide you scoring. Rodman was good if your team had no one to rebound in the frontcourt and with Wilt their it seems having Rodman would be pointless so to speak.
At SF Rick Barry is played by one of the better defenders in Bobby Jones, but isn
Well in the battle of the centers it seems their could be a lot of momentum shifts in this battle, but the fact that the Nuggets have a defensive Center in Eaton who can come in defend Kareem is huge. Daugherty is a great center for the Clippers however he would have more difficulty defending Wilt than Eaton defending Kareem. But that is a non issue as I expect both Wilt and Kareem to average over 40 mpg anyway in this series.
Moving to the PF position I believe the Clippers have the edge at that position. Buck Williams was a better PF than Rodman all around and could provide you scoring. Rodman was good if your team had no one to rebound in the frontcourt and with Wilt their it seems having Rodman would be pointless so to speak.
At SF Rick Barry is played by one of the better defenders in Bobby Jones, but isn
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan
-
penbeast0
- Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
- Posts: 30,361
- And1: 9,913
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
- Location: South Florida
-
McHale v. McAdoo. Outstanding defensive roleplayer v. the greatest outside scoring center of all time. Scoring, McHale is more efficient but that is mainly due to his scoring the great majority of his points from the low block while single covered due to the great teammates he had. McAdoo shot greater than 50% covered mainly by the opponent's best big and usually doubled or even tripled since his team in his peak Buffalo years was pretty average (some good players, no great ones). McAdoo is clearly the superior scorer both for volume and versatility/range and the efficiency difference is less than the numbers.
Defense, McHale was an outstanding man defender whereas McAdoo was a slender 6'9 who got overpowered trying to defend the Kareems and Lanier types. However, McAdoo was good enough that at the end of his career with bad knees hampering his mobility, Pat Riley used him on the Lakers as a defensive sub. And, his help defense was BETTER than McHale's. He averaged almost 2.3 blocks in his peak years with a top of 3.3; McHale average less than two with a top year of 2.3 blocks (in a year in his peak 5!). And McAdoo's quickness allowed him to average over a steal a game in each of his first 9 years, McHale in his career never averaged over 0.5 . . . McHale was a great post defender but not quick out in the open floor.
Finally, rebounding. McAdoo's peak years averaged over 13 boards a game; McHale averaged a bit over 8, less than 2/3 as many!! Even if you give him an extra 20% for playing next to Larry Bird at forward (a bit generous but . . . ) he still can't approach McAdoo's peak numbers and Yao isn't much of a rebounder either to cover for McHale's weakness.
So, in conclusion. McHale is a better man post defender and in the low post scores a bit more efficiently. McAdoo is a quicker, more skilled outside scorer who will score more often and open up the inside with his shooting while rebounding, shotblocking and playing the passing lanes better. McHale was a terrific role player, a good #2/3/4 option on a great team; McAdoo was an MVP over the likes of Kareem! McHale not only doesn't dominate this matchup, he loses it flat out.
Defense, McHale was an outstanding man defender whereas McAdoo was a slender 6'9 who got overpowered trying to defend the Kareems and Lanier types. However, McAdoo was good enough that at the end of his career with bad knees hampering his mobility, Pat Riley used him on the Lakers as a defensive sub. And, his help defense was BETTER than McHale's. He averaged almost 2.3 blocks in his peak years with a top of 3.3; McHale average less than two with a top year of 2.3 blocks (in a year in his peak 5!). And McAdoo's quickness allowed him to average over a steal a game in each of his first 9 years, McHale in his career never averaged over 0.5 . . . McHale was a great post defender but not quick out in the open floor.
Finally, rebounding. McAdoo's peak years averaged over 13 boards a game; McHale averaged a bit over 8, less than 2/3 as many!! Even if you give him an extra 20% for playing next to Larry Bird at forward (a bit generous but . . . ) he still can't approach McAdoo's peak numbers and Yao isn't much of a rebounder either to cover for McHale's weakness.
So, in conclusion. McHale is a better man post defender and in the low post scores a bit more efficiently. McAdoo is a quicker, more skilled outside scorer who will score more often and open up the inside with his shooting while rebounding, shotblocking and playing the passing lanes better. McHale was a terrific role player, a good #2/3/4 option on a great team; McAdoo was an MVP over the likes of Kareem! McHale not only doesn't dominate this matchup, he loses it flat out.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
-
Myth_Breaker
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,122
- And1: 77
- Joined: Jun 26, 2006
- Location: Otwock, Poland
-
I was writing an answer to TLA's rebuttal which then... mysteriously disappeared. My opponent admitted he was completely wrong and gave up? 
I don't want to waste paragraphs I've already written, so here they are - though it will be less clear what I refer to without that rebuttal.
Center
It's interesting you mention that Kareem won a nod in All-Defensive Team over Wilt in 1970. It would have some bearing if not 2 "minor" details: that 1969/70 season isn't in my reference period and Chamberlain missed majority of this season with injury anyway - hence no chance for any awards - what is hard to believe that as well-informed poster as you don't know about.
In 1969 Wilt lost to Russell and Thurmond, i.e. defensive GOAT and another of the best defensive centers to ever play the game. I'd love to see how many All-Defensive votes KAJ would get over Russell: probably not many, but fortunately for him these two never actually competed for awards. Jabbar competed mainly with Thurmond and Wilt. In 1971 he won over Chamberlain but lost to Nate, while in 1972 and 1973 lost to both Wilt and Thurmond, with Big Dipper registering two All-Defensive First Teams in LAST TWO seasons of his career. Aged Wilt was better in defense than prime Kareem! While defensive honors in other years of Jabbar's peak that you refer to are far less impressive simply because he didn't have to compete with Wilt and Thurmond anymore.
While I'll repeat once again: Wilt's improvement in defense meant improvement to level of Russell, i.e. level of defensive GOAT. But even before that he was a great defender, who never needed anyone's help to guard anyone. Look at Bellamy, who was 30/20 player and the best scoring C not named Wilt: Chamberlain shut him down in one game so completely that Bells didn't manage to make a shot in the whole half! I didn't see any similar story on Kareem... Chamberlain was also much more productive on the boards than Jabbar (data available only from his 3 last seasons, but he still registered 19,4 rebounding rate: Jabbar exceeded it in only one peak season, with career rebounding rate being mere 15,7) and far more intimidating shotblocker (his peers estimate that in his best seasons averaged double digits in blocks, with West claiming that Wilt would have 7,5 rpg career average! Compare this to Kareem who was in his prime when blocks became officially registered, yet never exceeded 4,1 rpg). So it
I don't want to waste paragraphs I've already written, so here they are - though it will be less clear what I refer to without that rebuttal.
Center
It's interesting you mention that Kareem won a nod in All-Defensive Team over Wilt in 1970. It would have some bearing if not 2 "minor" details: that 1969/70 season isn't in my reference period and Chamberlain missed majority of this season with injury anyway - hence no chance for any awards - what is hard to believe that as well-informed poster as you don't know about.
In 1969 Wilt lost to Russell and Thurmond, i.e. defensive GOAT and another of the best defensive centers to ever play the game. I'd love to see how many All-Defensive votes KAJ would get over Russell: probably not many, but fortunately for him these two never actually competed for awards. Jabbar competed mainly with Thurmond and Wilt. In 1971 he won over Chamberlain but lost to Nate, while in 1972 and 1973 lost to both Wilt and Thurmond, with Big Dipper registering two All-Defensive First Teams in LAST TWO seasons of his career. Aged Wilt was better in defense than prime Kareem! While defensive honors in other years of Jabbar's peak that you refer to are far less impressive simply because he didn't have to compete with Wilt and Thurmond anymore.
While I'll repeat once again: Wilt's improvement in defense meant improvement to level of Russell, i.e. level of defensive GOAT. But even before that he was a great defender, who never needed anyone's help to guard anyone. Look at Bellamy, who was 30/20 player and the best scoring C not named Wilt: Chamberlain shut him down in one game so completely that Bells didn't manage to make a shot in the whole half! I didn't see any similar story on Kareem... Chamberlain was also much more productive on the boards than Jabbar (data available only from his 3 last seasons, but he still registered 19,4 rebounding rate: Jabbar exceeded it in only one peak season, with career rebounding rate being mere 15,7) and far more intimidating shotblocker (his peers estimate that in his best seasons averaged double digits in blocks, with West claiming that Wilt would have 7,5 rpg career average! Compare this to Kareem who was in his prime when blocks became officially registered, yet never exceeded 4,1 rpg). So it
http://wiltfan.tripod.com
Read: Edward Lucas "The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West".
"So what, son, did your Poles help you?" YES, WE DID!
***** *** Kukiza i Konfederację!
Read: Edward Lucas "The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West".
"So what, son, did your Poles help you?" YES, WE DID!
***** *** Kukiza i Konfederację!
-
Myth_Breaker
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,122
- And1: 77
- Joined: Jun 26, 2006
- Location: Otwock, Poland
-
JordansBulls wrote:Wow a truly great matchup here. On one hand you have the 2nd greatest IMO and the other hand you have the 3rd greatest IMO. So how will this battle turn out.
Well in the battle of the centers it seems their could be a lot of momentum shifts in this battle, but the fact that the Nuggets have a defensive Center in Eaton who can come in defend Kareem is huge. Daugherty is a great center for the Clippers however he would have more difficulty defending Wilt than Eaton defending Kareem. But that is a non issue as I expect both Wilt and Kareem to average over 40 mpg anyway in this series.
Moving to the PF position I believe the Clippers have the edge at that position. Buck Williams was a better PF than Rodman all around and could provide you scoring. Rodman was good if your team had no one to rebound in the frontcourt and with Wilt their it seems having Rodman would be pointless so to speak.
At SF Rick Barry is played by one of the better defenders in Bobby Jones, but isnhttp://wiltfan.tripod.com
Read: Edward Lucas "The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West".
"So what, son, did your Poles help you?" YES, WE DID!
***** *** Kukiza i Konfederację!
-
penbeast0
- Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
- Posts: 30,361
- And1: 9,913
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
- Location: South Florida
-
Myth_Breaker wrote:I was writing an answer to TLA's rebuttal which then... mysteriously disappeared. My opponent admitted he was completely wrong and gave up?
I don't want to waste paragraphs I've already written, so here they are - though it will be less clear what I refer to without that rebuttal.
It was my fault Myth, I was attempting to quote TLA and edited his post instead . . . I told True and all the judges, didn't think to tell you also . . .ah well, hoping he reposts.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
-
LeQuitterNotMVP
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,699
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 06, 2007
- Location: Props to Trixx for the avy!
-
Cavs at Heat
While it's extremely hard to pick against MJ (and the newest Cavs fan on this board), I have to pick the Heat here. MJ's "non-supporting" supporting cast got him through 2 rounds, but it will fail him when the Cavs will have to keep up with the big 3 of the Heat. I also like the Heat's post slightly better - Mutombo, in his prime, would best Yao, while McHale vs. McAdoo would be a very intriguing matchup. All in all, MJ wins the Cavs maybe 2 games, but the Heat's big 3 will be too much even for the GOAT.
Nuggets at Lakers
This will be an excellent series, most likely going to 7 hard-fought games. Wilt vs. Kareem could quite possibly be the best matchup of all-time; slight adv. to Wilt. I also like Rodman a little more in this matchup of PFs, as he is more useful IMO with his grit next to Wilt, and with a bunch of scorers already on the Nuggets. I overall think that the Nuggets are built better around their C than the Clips are, with the shooting and scoring on the perimeter. For that reason, I pick the Nuggets to overcome being the visitors and to win this series.
While it's extremely hard to pick against MJ (and the newest Cavs fan on this board), I have to pick the Heat here. MJ's "non-supporting" supporting cast got him through 2 rounds, but it will fail him when the Cavs will have to keep up with the big 3 of the Heat. I also like the Heat's post slightly better - Mutombo, in his prime, would best Yao, while McHale vs. McAdoo would be a very intriguing matchup. All in all, MJ wins the Cavs maybe 2 games, but the Heat's big 3 will be too much even for the GOAT.
Nuggets at Lakers
This will be an excellent series, most likely going to 7 hard-fought games. Wilt vs. Kareem could quite possibly be the best matchup of all-time; slight adv. to Wilt. I also like Rodman a little more in this matchup of PFs, as he is more useful IMO with his grit next to Wilt, and with a bunch of scorers already on the Nuggets. I overall think that the Nuggets are built better around their C than the Clips are, with the shooting and scoring on the perimeter. For that reason, I pick the Nuggets to overcome being the visitors and to win this series.
-
TrueLAfan
- Senior Mod - Clippers
- Posts: 8,255
- And1: 1,781
- Joined: Apr 11, 2001
I'm sorry my rebuttal got deleted; it was quite long and detailed. Nothing I can do about that. Unfortunately, I'm traveling now because of a family issue. I'm not going to have time to recreate my original post, which took several hours to write. So I'll just have to note a couple of things very quickly...sorry to all.
--Wilt's defensive impact was, indeed considerable in 1967 and 1968. In 1969, however, for whatever reason, he seemed to lose some interest in defense...not to be regained until 72 and 73? How many All-D votes would Kareem get against prime Russell and Thurmond. Kareem got less votes than Thurmond in 1971, 1972, and 1973; more in 1970 and 1974. More than Wilt in 1971. And, like most Cs (including Wilt), Kareem's defense improved after starting from its high level. Wilt's defense in 1964 and 1966 (and 1969) was very good--but not as good as it was, as commentators noted when referring to his "improvements" in defense in his championship years. So how good was it in those other three years--60% of the time myth is using? As good as it was in 1971, when Kareem beat him out for the NBA All-D team? That seems to be a moderate point...unlikely it would be much better or worse (Wilt had too much pride to let his defense slip horribly in any year). But Kareem was one of the all-time greats on D and defended Wilt very well. They played against each other for four years...Wilt was injured once and did better in All-D team voting twice. Kareem did better once, if you don't count the injured year. I'm just not seeing a difference over the entire five year periods we've chosen. Which makes sense, as we are talking about two of the greatest players of all time (and, in Kareem, a guy who won the MVP 5 times in the 6 years I'm using...and finished second the other year.)
Actually, Buck Williams gets mentioned for the HOF often; he's a borderline HOF player. So, I imagine, is Dennis Rodman. They are not far apart in value. And Rodman does have more defensive impact...but Buck is still an excellent defender--and he excels in other areas. Which why he received more MVP votes, likely had more All-NBA votes, and had a higher peak in both. That is simply the way it is.
There's not much to choose from on paper between our teams; certainly not offensively...my offense, which myth describes as "pitiful" includes a 29 ppg starter (Kareem), two 19-20 ppg starters (Payton and Dumars), and two 14-16 ppg starters (Buck and Bobby Jones) and I shoot 52% as a team with a 1.6 to 1 ratio. I'd have to say that we're simply better on D; Rick Barry and Reggie Miller are average defenders, and that's over 30% of the Nuggets court time. We've got waves of D...Kareem and Jones and Payton and Dumars and Buck and Cooper and Grant and Prince and Wilkes and Lever. Even mt bench D is better...Eaton is not going to get off the bench for more than a couple of minutes a game. Unless, that is, myth chooses to play him over Wilt--which I'm fine with. Amare? Lousy defender. Marques? Good, not as good as any player in my rotation except (maybe) Brad Daugherty (who was a pretty good defender and will only play about 600 minute for me).
My trump card is character. Dennis Rodman's problems began some time in the 1991 season, and he was a full blown nightmare by 1994. (Not being able to get along with David Robinson is not a positive character trait.) Barry's finals teams had caveats--West was injured in 1967, which helped the Warriors immensely; no WC team had 50 wins in 1975. Barry's "championship" in the ABA was a fluke; he missed the last half of the season and his team won without him. When Barry returned, the team dropped ot a .500 level. The season after that, Barry had a unique trifecta...he managed to alienate teammates, management and fans all at once in refusing to go with the team when they moved to Carolina because he didn't want his children to grow up saying "Hi, y'all." Nice. And typical of Barry. Wilt's personality clashes with strong personality teammates (Baylor) and coaches (Van Breda Kopff, Johnston) are documented. You simply can't ignore all of that. It is going to be a problem, just as it was in the careers (and years cited) of the players chosen.
My team? Great offense--and a team with Payton, Dumars, Cooper, and Prince has plenty of perimeter play, thanks. Absolutely the best defense. Character. Yes, I like to pick teams that mesh together well. I've coached and done scouting and stat work for high school and college teams; in the real world, I find that's important. But the Clippers here have nothing to apologize for in terms of overall talent--two all-time greats at their positions (Kareem and Payton), a HOF SG (Dumars), a borderline HOF PF known for his toughness, rebounding, and character (Buck), and probably the greatest role player of all time (Bobby Jones). And a rotation that includes 12 titles and stellar all around play from Cooper, Grant, Prince, Daugherty, Wilkes, and Lever. We're a truly great team; best thing is we're a team. Win or lose, the Clippers have the type of players that would want to and would play together year after year after year. I'm proud of that. It's worth something.
--Wilt's defensive impact was, indeed considerable in 1967 and 1968. In 1969, however, for whatever reason, he seemed to lose some interest in defense...not to be regained until 72 and 73? How many All-D votes would Kareem get against prime Russell and Thurmond. Kareem got less votes than Thurmond in 1971, 1972, and 1973; more in 1970 and 1974. More than Wilt in 1971. And, like most Cs (including Wilt), Kareem's defense improved after starting from its high level. Wilt's defense in 1964 and 1966 (and 1969) was very good--but not as good as it was, as commentators noted when referring to his "improvements" in defense in his championship years. So how good was it in those other three years--60% of the time myth is using? As good as it was in 1971, when Kareem beat him out for the NBA All-D team? That seems to be a moderate point...unlikely it would be much better or worse (Wilt had too much pride to let his defense slip horribly in any year). But Kareem was one of the all-time greats on D and defended Wilt very well. They played against each other for four years...Wilt was injured once and did better in All-D team voting twice. Kareem did better once, if you don't count the injured year. I'm just not seeing a difference over the entire five year periods we've chosen. Which makes sense, as we are talking about two of the greatest players of all time (and, in Kareem, a guy who won the MVP 5 times in the 6 years I'm using...and finished second the other year.)
Actually, Buck Williams gets mentioned for the HOF often; he's a borderline HOF player. So, I imagine, is Dennis Rodman. They are not far apart in value. And Rodman does have more defensive impact...but Buck is still an excellent defender--and he excels in other areas. Which why he received more MVP votes, likely had more All-NBA votes, and had a higher peak in both. That is simply the way it is.
There's not much to choose from on paper between our teams; certainly not offensively...my offense, which myth describes as "pitiful" includes a 29 ppg starter (Kareem), two 19-20 ppg starters (Payton and Dumars), and two 14-16 ppg starters (Buck and Bobby Jones) and I shoot 52% as a team with a 1.6 to 1 ratio. I'd have to say that we're simply better on D; Rick Barry and Reggie Miller are average defenders, and that's over 30% of the Nuggets court time. We've got waves of D...Kareem and Jones and Payton and Dumars and Buck and Cooper and Grant and Prince and Wilkes and Lever. Even mt bench D is better...Eaton is not going to get off the bench for more than a couple of minutes a game. Unless, that is, myth chooses to play him over Wilt--which I'm fine with. Amare? Lousy defender. Marques? Good, not as good as any player in my rotation except (maybe) Brad Daugherty (who was a pretty good defender and will only play about 600 minute for me).
My trump card is character. Dennis Rodman's problems began some time in the 1991 season, and he was a full blown nightmare by 1994. (Not being able to get along with David Robinson is not a positive character trait.) Barry's finals teams had caveats--West was injured in 1967, which helped the Warriors immensely; no WC team had 50 wins in 1975. Barry's "championship" in the ABA was a fluke; he missed the last half of the season and his team won without him. When Barry returned, the team dropped ot a .500 level. The season after that, Barry had a unique trifecta...he managed to alienate teammates, management and fans all at once in refusing to go with the team when they moved to Carolina because he didn't want his children to grow up saying "Hi, y'all." Nice. And typical of Barry. Wilt's personality clashes with strong personality teammates (Baylor) and coaches (Van Breda Kopff, Johnston) are documented. You simply can't ignore all of that. It is going to be a problem, just as it was in the careers (and years cited) of the players chosen.
My team? Great offense--and a team with Payton, Dumars, Cooper, and Prince has plenty of perimeter play, thanks. Absolutely the best defense. Character. Yes, I like to pick teams that mesh together well. I've coached and done scouting and stat work for high school and college teams; in the real world, I find that's important. But the Clippers here have nothing to apologize for in terms of overall talent--two all-time greats at their positions (Kareem and Payton), a HOF SG (Dumars), a borderline HOF PF known for his toughness, rebounding, and character (Buck), and probably the greatest role player of all time (Bobby Jones). And a rotation that includes 12 titles and stellar all around play from Cooper, Grant, Prince, Daugherty, Wilkes, and Lever. We're a truly great team; best thing is we're a team. Win or lose, the Clippers have the type of players that would want to and would play together year after year after year. I'm proud of that. It's worth something.
-
penbeast0
- Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
- Posts: 30,361
- And1: 9,913
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
- Location: South Florida
-
True, just one correction . . . Barry forced a trade when the team moved from Washington to Richmond to become the Virginia Squires (we used to get in free after the 1st quarter in Washington) . . . and there were probably some other issues since Earl Foreman was notorious for paying late or short due to his chronic money problems.
Oh, and do you have any citation for Buck getting HOF consideration? I loved him but hadn't heard that.
Oh, and do you have any citation for Buck getting HOF consideration? I loved him but hadn't heard that.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
-
keepthenetsinnj
- Junior
- Posts: 445
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jul 21, 2006
Los Angeles Clippers vs. Denver Nuggets
This series would be perhaps the most watched NBA series of all time. Wilt vs. Kareem is an incredible matchup, and this can really go either way. Whichever team wins this matchup will not have won solely because of their centers, because they are perhaps the two greatest centers ever, and they will be under each other's skin. The other members of the frontcourt for each team are very talented. Rodman and Buck are very similar players, with Buck clearly being the more offensively gifted player. However, Rodman has the edge on the boards and on the defensive end. Buck may be asked to carry most of the scoring load, with the exception of Kareem. This will be a tough task for him with Worm defending him, and Rodman does not have the type of scoring responsibility that Buck will, with teammates like Barry, Miller, and even Billups. At the SF position, Rick Barry is a very gifted scorer for Denver, and Jones is an excellent defender. In the grand scheme of things, Barry is the superior player, and despite being bothered by Jones, he will have more options on his team to score the ball than Jones would, and the Nuggets would have the advantage at this position.
In the backcourt, Reggie and Dumars are similar players, and for me, this matchup is similar to the SF matchup in this series. Dumars will defend Reggie with all that he has, but will Reggie's scoring ability be too much to overcome this defense? There is one key difference though. Dumars is perhaps just as gifted at scoring as Reggie. He can shoot from virtually anywhere on the floor. However, the way Reggie moves his feet without the ball all over the floor could wear out Joe D. This matchup could really go either way, ultimately. Finally at the PG position, Payton and Billups are also similar, but the clear advantage goes to the Glove. He is a superior defender and the two players are very close on offense, perhaps the slight advantage going to Billups because of his range. Despite not having the ring and Finals MVP honors like Billups has, GP will really get under Chauncey's skin and make it difficult for him to perform offensively. Like I said earlier, however, Billups will have plenty of options to pass to for assists.
Each team's benches are quite talented. Denver has Amare and Eaton, who will add to the spectacular rebounding ability of the starting lineup. On the other side, LAC has strong players like Daugherty and Cooper, a guy who knows what it is like to win. Ultimately, I do not see the bench having a tremendous impact on the way this series goes, but they will certainly be important.
I am going to take the Nuggets to win the Western Conference. They seem to have a team that is more well-rounded and talented.
This series would be perhaps the most watched NBA series of all time. Wilt vs. Kareem is an incredible matchup, and this can really go either way. Whichever team wins this matchup will not have won solely because of their centers, because they are perhaps the two greatest centers ever, and they will be under each other's skin. The other members of the frontcourt for each team are very talented. Rodman and Buck are very similar players, with Buck clearly being the more offensively gifted player. However, Rodman has the edge on the boards and on the defensive end. Buck may be asked to carry most of the scoring load, with the exception of Kareem. This will be a tough task for him with Worm defending him, and Rodman does not have the type of scoring responsibility that Buck will, with teammates like Barry, Miller, and even Billups. At the SF position, Rick Barry is a very gifted scorer for Denver, and Jones is an excellent defender. In the grand scheme of things, Barry is the superior player, and despite being bothered by Jones, he will have more options on his team to score the ball than Jones would, and the Nuggets would have the advantage at this position.
In the backcourt, Reggie and Dumars are similar players, and for me, this matchup is similar to the SF matchup in this series. Dumars will defend Reggie with all that he has, but will Reggie's scoring ability be too much to overcome this defense? There is one key difference though. Dumars is perhaps just as gifted at scoring as Reggie. He can shoot from virtually anywhere on the floor. However, the way Reggie moves his feet without the ball all over the floor could wear out Joe D. This matchup could really go either way, ultimately. Finally at the PG position, Payton and Billups are also similar, but the clear advantage goes to the Glove. He is a superior defender and the two players are very close on offense, perhaps the slight advantage going to Billups because of his range. Despite not having the ring and Finals MVP honors like Billups has, GP will really get under Chauncey's skin and make it difficult for him to perform offensively. Like I said earlier, however, Billups will have plenty of options to pass to for assists.
Each team's benches are quite talented. Denver has Amare and Eaton, who will add to the spectacular rebounding ability of the starting lineup. On the other side, LAC has strong players like Daugherty and Cooper, a guy who knows what it is like to win. Ultimately, I do not see the bench having a tremendous impact on the way this series goes, but they will certainly be important.
I am going to take the Nuggets to win the Western Conference. They seem to have a team that is more well-rounded and talented.
-
keepthenetsinnj
- Junior
- Posts: 445
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jul 21, 2006
Cleveland Cavaliers vs. Miami Heat
We'll start with the backcourt. Magic Johnson is the greatest PG of all time. Michael Jordan is the greatest SG of all time, and the greatest player of all time. Now for their respective matchups, Tiny Archibald will pretty much get overwhelmingly outplayed by Magic. The size difference would be too great for Archibald to overcome. He needs to get the ball to MJ as quickly as possible for the Cavs offense to be effective. As for MJ's opposition, Wade will ultimately be owned by the GOAT. Wade is young and inexperienced, because we have not seen his prime yet. He has never played against anyone that is on the level that Jordan is on, and he will be seriously exploited in this series.
In the frontcourt, LeBron vs. Nique would be the marquee matchup for me in this series. Both are tremendous athletes and overall similar players. I think Miami has the slight edge in this matchup because LeBron has a better PG giving him the ball and setting up his plays, something that will be a tough task for Archibald and Nique. In the post, the battle at PF is very even and can go either way. Both Macs have shooting ability, although Bob has a bit more range, and they were both good defenders, with Kevin being more superior on that end. They matchup very well and compliment their centers very well. Speaking of the centers, I think Miami holds the edge at this position. Mutombo will not be asked to contribute greatly offensively, and his primary role will be to defend. He defends very well, and he will make it extremely tough for Yao to contribute offensively.
Aside from the starting lineups, the benches for each team are solid. The Cavs have Bowen and O'Neal, two very good defenders, but Iverson does not relieve Tiny very well seeing as he is also tiny. Miami has very good post players such as Larry Nance and Jack Sikma to replace Mac and Dikembe. Like the WCF, I do not see the bench playing a major role in the outcome of this series.
This was my toughest decision yet, but I am going to have to go with the Heat in a very hard-fought 7-game series. It was very tough to bet against Jordan, but Miami just seems to be the slightly better team.
We'll start with the backcourt. Magic Johnson is the greatest PG of all time. Michael Jordan is the greatest SG of all time, and the greatest player of all time. Now for their respective matchups, Tiny Archibald will pretty much get overwhelmingly outplayed by Magic. The size difference would be too great for Archibald to overcome. He needs to get the ball to MJ as quickly as possible for the Cavs offense to be effective. As for MJ's opposition, Wade will ultimately be owned by the GOAT. Wade is young and inexperienced, because we have not seen his prime yet. He has never played against anyone that is on the level that Jordan is on, and he will be seriously exploited in this series.
In the frontcourt, LeBron vs. Nique would be the marquee matchup for me in this series. Both are tremendous athletes and overall similar players. I think Miami has the slight edge in this matchup because LeBron has a better PG giving him the ball and setting up his plays, something that will be a tough task for Archibald and Nique. In the post, the battle at PF is very even and can go either way. Both Macs have shooting ability, although Bob has a bit more range, and they were both good defenders, with Kevin being more superior on that end. They matchup very well and compliment their centers very well. Speaking of the centers, I think Miami holds the edge at this position. Mutombo will not be asked to contribute greatly offensively, and his primary role will be to defend. He defends very well, and he will make it extremely tough for Yao to contribute offensively.
Aside from the starting lineups, the benches for each team are solid. The Cavs have Bowen and O'Neal, two very good defenders, but Iverson does not relieve Tiny very well seeing as he is also tiny. Miami has very good post players such as Larry Nance and Jack Sikma to replace Mac and Dikembe. Like the WCF, I do not see the bench playing a major role in the outcome of this series.
This was my toughest decision yet, but I am going to have to go with the Heat in a very hard-fought 7-game series. It was very tough to bet against Jordan, but Miami just seems to be the slightly better team.