Around the NBA: Playoff Edition #2

[kingkirk]

For me the the difference is this:

If you're trying to be the best, your goal should be to beat the best. If you're colluding with the best, you're basically saying you're unsure that you could beat the best. Again, I'm not saying the rings don't count, but it's part of the discussion with ranking players.

If they were drafted together, it was organic and out of his control. To win with those guys, meant they grew together. But to join them when they're all in the middle of their primes is well... it's a short cut.

So to be clear, if LeBron and Wade were both drafted by Cleveland and both went onto having similar careers, LeBron would be viewed as beating the best in that scenario despite playing with another top 5 player, but isn't when he goes to Miami to join Wade?

Wouldn't he still be playing with the best even if he was drafted to the same team as Wade?

Sucks for LeBron his legacy is going to be tainted because he didn't get the privilege of having Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant brought in by his front office.

[HomoSapien]

For me the the difference is this:

If you're trying to be the best, your goal should be to beat the best. If you're colluding with the best, you're basically saying you're unsure that you could beat the best. Again, I'm not saying the rings don't count, but it's part of the discussion with ranking players.

If they were drafted together, it was organic and out of his control. To win with those guys, meant they grew together. But to join them when they're all in the middle of their primes is well... it's a short cut.

So to be clear, if LeBron and Wade were both drafted by Cleveland and both went onto having similar careers, LeBron would be viewed as beating the best in that scenario despite playing with another top 5 player, but isn't when he goes to Miami to join Wade?

Sucks for LeBron his legacy is going to be tainted because he didn't get the privilege of having Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant brought in by his front office.

I understand, what you're saying.... but are you completely unable to understand my view point at all? If so, let's just agree to disagree. I don't see the point of continuing this.

[kingkirk]

I understand, what you're saying.... but are you completely unable to understand my view point at all? If so, let's just agree to disagree. I don't see the point of continuing this.

I've understood your point from the start. I just think it's wrong and inconsistent.

[HomoSapien]

I understand, what you're saying.... but are you completely unable to understand my view point at all? If so, let's just agree to disagree. I don't see the point of continuing this.

I've understood your point from the start. I just think it's wrong and inconsistent.

Let's start over. What importance does level of competition have to you in the discussion of greatness?

[kingkirk]

Let's start over. What importance does level of competition have to you in the discussion of greatness?

I want to say none, but that may not be right. Whatever it is, it's barely something I would personally consider.

Had LeBron, Wade and Bosh been drafted together, they would've played longer together and may have had more than 2 titles and 4 Finals runs. If the argument for competition is that LeBron circumvented it by joining the Heat, what would competition actually look like he the Cavs actually given him quality teammates? They would have dominated for years (like OKC was meant to) and there would have been no competition. We wouldn't be talking about competition as a narrative in that example, so I give it little to no thought at all.

If you want to reduce LeBron because he choked in 2011, then that's fine. I support that. To me, that's differently because he played like crap.

I'm not going to put an asterisks against his titles in Miami at all because he joined them in free agency. We don't do it for other players so we shouldn't do it for James.

[GetBuLLish]

I've understood your point from the start. I just think it's wrong and inconsistent.

If Lebron, Irving, Durant, Curry, Klay Thompson, Paul George, Anthony Davis, Butler, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, Derozan, James Harden, and Russel Westbrook somehow, someway managed to collude together and figure out a way to all get on, say, the Raptors next year and won the championship, would you view their championship as equally impressive as any other championship?

[GetBuLLish]

I've understood your point from the start. I just think it's wrong and inconsistent.

If Lebron, Irving, Durant, Curry, Klay Thompson, Paul George, Anthony Davis, Butler, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, Derozan, James Harden, and Russel Westbrook somehow, someway managed to collude together and figure out a way to all get on, say, the Raptors next year and won the championship, would you view their championship as equally impressive as any other championship?

[HomoSapien]

Let's start over. What importance does level of competition have to you in the discussion of greatness?

I want to say none, but that may not be right. Whatever it is, it's barely something I would personally consider.

With all due respect, if none is your answer then I don't even know how to begin this discussion. We're talking about the greatness of players in a competition. If the level of competition holds no value, then I'm going to have to echo you sentiment of thinking you're just wrong. I actually find this to be a mind blowing statement to be honest. This is sports we're talking about.

Had LeBron, Wade and Bosh been drafted together, they would've played longer together and may have had more than 2 titles and 4 Finals runs. If the argument for competition is that LeBron circumvented it by joining the Heat, what would competition actually look like he the Cavs actually given him quality teammates? They would have dominated for years (like OKC was meant to) and there would have been no competition. We wouldn't be talking about competition as a narrative in that example, so I give it little to no thought at all.

There's so many hypotheticals here, that I don't think it's that germane. I agree there's a double standard about players drafted or traded to the team. I just think it's cheaper when you leave your situation to join forces with the best in the league.

I'm not going to put an asterisks against his titles in Miami at all because he joined them in free agency. We don't do it for other players so we shouldn't do it for James.

I want to be very specific here as I think others have mixed my argument a bit. Leaving in free-agency isn't the issue. Leaving for better teammates isn't the issue. Leaving to join, arguably the 2nd best player in the league is.

We don't do it for other players, because it had never happened before. The next example is Durant, and he's experiencing the same criticism.

[HomoSapien]

I've understood your point from the start. I just think it's wrong and inconsistent.

If Lebron, Irving, Durant, Curry, Klay Thompson, Paul George, Anthony Davis, Butler, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, Derozan, James Harden, and Russel Westbrook somehow, someway managed to collude together and figure out a way to all get on, say, the Raptors next year and won the championship, would you view their championship as equally impressive as any other championship?

Great example. The correct answer to this is of course not, but some here are arguing that all titles are equal. They're not.

[kingkirk]

If Lebron, Irving, Durant, Curry, Klay Thompson, Paul George, Anthony Davis, Butler, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, Derozan, James Harden, and Russel Westbrook somehow, someway managed to collude together and figure out a way to all get on, say, the Raptors next year and won the championship, would you view their championship as equally impressive as any other championship?

I don't think the Cavs have the cap space required to get it done.

[kingkirk]

With all due respect, if none is your answer then I don't even know how to begin this discussion. We're talking about the greatness of players in a competition. If the level of competition holds no value, then I'm going to have to echo you sentiment of thinking you're just wrong. I actually find this to be a mind blowing statement to be honest. This is sports we're talking about.

Would you disagree with me if I said LeBron and Wade were the equivalents of Jordan and Pippen relative to the league in 2011? Or put another way, the best player in the league and another top 5 guy?

If you agree, then I don't see why one example is considered as fine when the other is weakening the competition.

There's so many hypotheticals here, that I don't think it's that germane. I agree there's a double standard about players drafted or traded to the team. I just think it's cheaper when you leave your situation to join forces with the best in the league.

And I hate double standards, hence my position on this.

[HomoSapien]

With all due respect, if none is your answer then I don't even know how to begin this discussion. We're talking about the greatness of players in a competition. If the level of competition holds no value, then I'm going to have to echo you sentiment of thinking you're just wrong. I actually find this to be a mind blowing statement to be honest. This is sports we're talking about.

Would you disagree with me if I said LeBron and Wade were the equivalents of Jordan and Pippen relative to the league in 2011? Or put another way, the best player in the league and another top 5 guy?

If you agree, then I don't see why one example is considered as fine when the other is weakening the competition.

I love Pippen to death, but at initial glance I don't think I would consider him a top five player over prime Malone, Hakeem, Ewing, Shaq, Barkley, and Robinson.

Also behind Bird, Magic, and Nique depending on the era we're talking about.

[DanTown8587]

I've understood your point from the start. I just think it's wrong and inconsistent.

If Lebron, Irving, Durant, Curry, Klay Thompson, Paul George, Anthony Davis, Butler, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, Derozan, James Harden, and Russel Westbrook somehow, someway managed to collude together and figure out a way to all get on, say, the Raptors next year and won the championship, would you view their championship as equally impressive as any other championship?

The vast difference is those guys would have to all take massive paycuts to do it; the Warriors were able to afford their stars due to an excellent contract they gave to Curry + how well they drafted + the weird cap rising to the point that they signed them to all fair market deals.

I mean, should the Warriors have NOT signed Durant? They gave him a max deal, I don't get the issue with how they acted.

Hypothetical two: would you be mad at the Warriors instead of signing Durant they had acquired say Gobert and Butler in the draft? So if their starting five was all homegrown but Curry - Thompson - Butler - Green - Gobert, you'd say "well they did it the right way?"

[BrooklynBulls]

With all due respect, if none is your answer then I don't even know how to begin this discussion. We're talking about the greatness of players in a competition. If the level of competition holds no value, then I'm going to have to echo you sentiment of thinking you're just wrong. I actually find this to be a mind blowing statement to be honest. This is sports we're talking about.

Would you disagree with me if I said LeBron and Wade were the equivalents of Jordan and Pippen relative to the league in 2011? Or put another way, the best player in the league and another top 5 guy?

If you agree, then I don't see why one example is considered as fine when the other is weakening the competition.

I love Pippen to death, but at initial glance I don't think I would consider him a top five player over prime Malone, Hakeem, Ewing, Shaq, Barkley, and Robinson.

Also behind Bird, Magic, and Nique depending on the era we're talking about.

What's most upsetting about this argument is that when you draft talent, even if its a superb talent, then that superstar has a role in developing that talent and allowing that talent to grow on the court. To an extent, it adds to Jordan's greatness that we could draft guys like Grant and Pippen and have them internally develop enough to be centerpieces for the team. Joining already assembled teams has led to LeBron losing upon getting to his new destination...twice. I think he's already paying the price for his decision, its just not easy to win a title with a new team in their first year. Even Jordan felt that sting after his retirement. Underrated factor.

[kingkirk]

I love Pippen to death, but at initial glance I don't think I would consider him a top five player over prime Malone, Hakeem, Ewing, Shaq, Barkley, and Robinson.

Also behind Bird, Magic, and Nique depending on the era we're talking about.

Yeah, perhaps he wasn't top 5, but he was on the outside looking in, no? He was one of the best players in the league during the first three-peat.

If we're focusing strictly on competition, which seems to be your issue here, then isn't LeBron and Wade and Jordan and Pippen being on the same team essentially the same thing?

Wouldn't it have been better for competition if he Pippen were on another team, say the Nuggets with Mutumbo?

[kingkirk]

The vast difference is those guys would have to all take massive paycuts to do it; the Warriors were able to afford their stars due to an excellent contract they gave to Curry + how well they drafted + the weird cap rising to the point that they signed them to all fair market deals.

I mean, should the Warriors have NOT signed Durant? They gave him a max deal, I don't get the issue with how they acted.

Hypothetical two: would you be mad at the Warriors instead of signing Durant they had acquired say Gobert and Butler in the draft? So if their starting five was all homegrown but Curry - Thompson - Butler - Green - Gobert, you'd say "well they did it the right way?"

Stick to hypothetical one: Lebron, Irving, Durant, Curry, Klay Thompson, Paul George, Anthony Davis, Butler, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, Derozan, James Harden, and Russel Westbrook all are on the same team, and got their by being drafted by the greatest GM known to man.

I'm assuming no one would have any issues with competition even though all these elite players are on the same team? It would be 'organic' and natural, right?

[BrooklynBulls]

Stick to hypothetical one: Lebron, Irving, Durant, Curry, Klay Thompson, Paul George, Anthony Davis, Butler, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, Derozan, James Harden, and Russel Westbrook all are on the same team, and got their by being drafted by the greatest GM known to man.

I'm assuming no one would have any issues with competition even though all these elite players are on the same team? It would be 'organic' and natural, right?

Why can't you separate the two issues being discussed: competitive spirit (which i think is BS, people do what is easiest and in their best interest, it is the very nature of humanity) and lack of parity. You DONT think there would be issues with competitive balance with that team? And if you do, you think that when LeBron wins 15 titles in a row, that those would count to the same extent as others? Explain your position on this, its unclear.

[kingkirk]

Why can't you separate the two issues being discussed: competitive spirit (which i think is BS, people do what is easiest and in their best interest, it is the very nature of humanity) and lack of parity. You DONT think there would be issues with competitive balance with that team? And if you do, you think that when LeBron wins 15 titles in a row, that those would count to the same extent as others? Explain your position on this, its unclear.

It's an absurd example with no way in hell of being remotely plausible, so no, I'm not addressing the lunacy of competitive spirit in the example of the Toronto Raptors forming a Big 13.

[BrooklynBulls]

Why can't you separate the two issues being discussed: competitive spirit (which i think is BS, people do what is easiest and in their best interest, it is the very nature of humanity) and lack of parity. You DONT think there would be issues with competitive balance with that team? And if you do, you think that when LeBron wins 15 titles in a row, that those would count to the same extent as others? Explain your position on this, its unclear.

It's an absurd example with no way in hell of being remotely plausible, so no, I'm not addressing the lunacy of competitive spirit in the example of the Toronto Raptors forming a Big 13.

The example is meant to be absurd to get you to back off your equally absurd stance that parity plays no role in the significance of titles. Of course it does, given extreme enough circumstance. Having 3 top 10 players on your team is a fairly extreme circumstance, one that simply has not occurred much if at all in the modern NBA.

[HomoSapien]

Why can't you separate the two issues being discussed: competitive spirit (which i think is BS, people do what is easiest and in their best interest, it is the very nature of humanity) and lack of parity. You DONT think there would be issues with competitive balance with that team? And if you do, you think that when LeBron wins 15 titles in a row, that those would count to the same extent as others? Explain your position on this, its unclear.

It's an absurd example with no way in hell of being remotely plausible, so no, I'm not addressing the lunacy of competitive spirit in the example of the Toronto Raptors forming a Big 13.

But there's a difference between what you're saying and what was proposed to you.

Example 1: 13 all-stars decide to take pay cuts with the goal of circumventing competition, easily winning a ring, and possibly challenging the 60s Celtics for titles.

Example 2: Players are drafted together and grow together like Brooklyn alluded to earlier. Those 13 players develop differently together though. They don't turn into 13 HOFers if they're all drafted together and expected to take on different roles.