G35 wrote:Teams win based on their best players and no sport emphasizes that more than basketball. Teams win in the playoff's because of the performance of their star players. Your best player typically is your leader on the court. I can't think of too many champions where that is not a fact. Only the 2004 Pistons can I say that the best player was not the leader. Imo Rasheed was the Pistons best player but it is debateable amongst any of the starting five.
Well let's look at the 1989 Championship run. Game 3.
Wikipedia wrote:Dennis Rodman, despite suffering from painful back spasms, pulled down 19 rebounds between trips to the sideline for rubdowns. But, the main effort came from the guards. Joe Dumars scored 31, including a remarkable third quarter in which he scored 17 consecutive points (21 in all for the period). Vinnie Johnson added 17, including 13 points in the fourth. Isiah Thomas pitched in with 26 points and eight assists, including six and three in the final period.
The Pistons led 113-108 with 15 seconds left, when Thomas allowed A. C. Green to tie him up and steal the ball. Thomas then fouled Lakers rookie point guard David Rivers, who made both free throws, pulling Los Angeles to within three at 113-110 with 13 seconds left. Dumars then lost the ball out of bounds with nine seconds left, giving the Lakers a shot at the tie.
The Lakers then ran a play where Rivers got free for an open three-pointer in the corner. From about eight feet to Rivers' right, Dumars wheeled and lunged at the shot. Not only did he block it, he landed and saved the ball from going out of bounds. The Pistons then ran out the clock to close the game with a 114-110 win and got on the verge of an unexpected sweep.
Now does this say to you that Isiah was the key factor in this game, and that how well he played was the primary reason the Pistons won? Dumars clutch defense? Was it Rodman's control of the boards? Vinnie Johnson's clutch scoring?
(Let's ignore for a moment that the Lakers were without Byron Scott against a collectively fearsome backcourt and also without Magic for pretty much the whole game)
or the crucial Game 3 the following year?
Wikipedia wrote:Two things were stacked against the Pistons. One, they hadn't won in Portland in 17 years. Two, they would be without Dennis Rodman, whose ankle had stiffened. But, Vinnie Johnson found his range for the first time, making 9 of 13 shots for 21 points. The consummate professional Dumars was the most potent, however, leading Detroit with 33 points on an array of shots. One such shot was a three-pointer that stifled a Blazer run after they had cut the Piston lead to 68-60 in the third.
Once again, was it the performance of Isiah which determined the fate of this game?
Now you can (quite properly) say that I've taken these games out of context, and that
overall Isiah was the best player (despite him not winning the 89 FMVP). But might it also be that the performance of a single player (yes, even Isiah) wasn't the determining factor in the wins.
G35 wrote:Nash is being claimed to be amongst the best ever at impacting a team. How do you measure that? Through stats? Wins and losses? Rings? I agree with you that the best player doesn't always win. As I said before I think Kobe played better than anyone in 2006 when the Lakers almost upset the Suns. Does that mean he was more valuable than Nash? That he had greater impact than Nash?
I will say that it is not even close that Nash was ever a better player than Duncan in any year or any series with Steve Nash. I would also say that there have been quite a few individuals that overcame teams that were better than them. They are called UPSETS. It's what makes sports so intriguing. A player that leads him team against the odds and beats them. Nash only wins when he is suppose to. If there is a reason to lose Nash has found it.
MVPs are a strange beast, and I don't think the final decision is always a good one (Rose over Lebron? Really?). They're always in love with a good sportswriter narrative more than actual analysiss. But what they do well is to give a general indication of who is considered the better players in the league. I try not to use the MVPs argument, because there's so much context left unsaid in that final, binary decision. I also try not to use Championships, for exactly the same reason.
G35 wrote:It use to be that a team had to lose a few times in the playoff's and then they would break through. The 83 Sixers, Bad Boy Pistons, MJ's Bulls all had reasons to say they lost but eventually they all broke through.
I profoundly disagree. All those teams improved their personnel and (in some cases) changed their coaches. The idea that there's a natural, inevitable, evolutionary manifest destiny to championship teams is one I find deeply false and misleading.
G35 wrote:For someone that is getting all this credit dismissing his lack of team success just shows how biased Nash fans are. If he had won a championship then you would hear a different tune...
That's a pretty insulting statement to a lot of posters in this thread, as well as one that ignores the fact that the Suns teams were actually very successful teams which lost to better teams (usually Finalists, sometimes Champions) in the playoffs.
Out of interest, which Finalist Detroit teams do you feel beat better teams on their runs to the Finals?
good debate tho.
