Mazter wrote:I certainly did not mention Latrell as a "leader". But he does have a track record as someone who made an direct impact short term, but a negative one long term. Whether it was the Warriors, the Knicks or the T'Wolves they improved instantly after he joined before going sour.
You certainly seemed to hint at it. Like i said, maybe it was just a freudian slip or something.
Sprewell was a decent player at various stages of his career. But by the time he got to Minnesota, he was past his athletic prime and his game suffered on both ends because of it (he was never a highly skilled shooter/passer or particularly smart player). There was also a reason why he was out of the league 2 years after he came to Minnesota.
Hence, citing Sprewell as someone who individually moved the needle for Minnesota in 2004 in any significant way seems more like a stretch for me. I guess he was average, which made him notably better than Kendall Gill who played over 2000 minutes for the Wolves in 2003.
The biggest improvement Minnesota had in 2004 over 2003 was actually on the defensive side of the court. Most notably getting Trenton Hassell and Fred Hoiberg from Chicago, substituting Rasho Nesterovic for Earvin Johnson and Olowokandi, who were better rim protectors, and also Cassell was a better defender than Troy Hudson fwiw.
That's where the bulk of the improvement that year came from. Not Sprewell... Sprewell was a minor upgrade over Kendall Gill, and he certainly didn't bring no 'winning mojo' with him to the team, as your post was hinting at.
In 1998 the Nets reached the play offs for the first time in 4 seasons, they would miss it the next 3 seasons.
In 2001 the Bucks made it past the 1st round for the first time in 12 seasons, they reached the Conf Finals, they wouldn't make it past the 1st round again for 17 seasons.
In 2004 the T'Wolves made it past the first round of the play offs for their only time in history, they reached the Conference Finals
In 2006 the Clippers reached the play offs for the first time in 9 seasons, they reached the 2nd round, they would miss it again for 5 seasons.
Yes... Sam Cassell was a good player. Even at the tender age of 34... Nobody is denying that.
Your argument however was that Cassell and Sprewell should be credited as the main driving forces behind Minnesota's improvement as a team from 2003 to 2004.
And while i do agree they were upgrades at their respective positions in the backcourt, the main improvement the Wolves had in 2004 compared to 2003 was seen on the defensive end.
'03 Wolves:
relative Off. rating: +2.0, relative Def. rating: +0.2
'04 Wolves
relative Off. rating: +2.5, relative Def. rating: -3.2
So the offense improved by 0.5 and the defense improved by 3.0. Care to expound on your Cassell/Sprewell theory and how it relates to what the numbers say here?
I won't go too far to add the Celtics'08 winning their only title in 34 seasons to this bunch, but all those teams had one thing in common. I'm not a firm believer of superstars carrying the load just by scoring 25, 30, 35 points or grabbing rebounds or dishing assists. There is more to it to have a "successful campaign". Now the NBA and the media has tried to make it look like the superstars automatically are the leaders, but it's not always like that. Behind the curtains there are some players or even staff members who silently might be as important as the guy filling the stat sheet and making all the head lines. I mean, in 1999/00 Cuban turned the Mavericks around (started 9-23, ended 31-19 including a forgettable 3-9 stint with Rodman) just by changing circumstances within the organisation. In a world where superstars allegedly carry teams that shouldn't have been possible. Now whether Cassell was that guy I don't know, but those are quiet an accomplishments, and I don't think it's a coincidence.
I understand the sentiment, i'm just not sure how it relates to Garnett.
It seems to me that there are some discrepancies happening in the causation/correlation relationship here. Because the Wolves largely failed to be competitive from 1998 to 2007, that must mean their best player was not a good enough leader to rally the troops to victory!
Or it could be just that Garnett had less talent on his teams than other superstars at the time? Which is what most data seems to suggest anyway.
And i'm not saying Garnett was a great leader in Minnesota. Frankly, i don't know. But whatever the case was, it seems to me the whole leadership angle is a distant tertiary reason of why his teams lacked success... So it seems weird to be so heavily focused around it. Unless you can guaranteed me some other player in NBA history could have turned around that mess into a dynasty?
Btw, if Duncan was this paragon of leadership for NBA players, then why did he win less titles and generally had less team success than Garnett did from 2008 to 2012? Where did his 'leadership' go then? Did it disappear into thin air? Or were the Spurs just not good enough as a team?
Well, eventually, there will always be something...like it always only happened to Garnett. It's easy to find excuses but in the end it's about how you deal with it as a leader. I didn't hear the Suns'00 complaining about the Conference when they dropped Duncan/DRob in the first round after previously having 4 consecutive first round beat downs.
Does it now? I thought it happened to most NBA stars? Kareem won a title in his 2nd year, and then failed to do so again in the next 8 years, including missing the Playoffs somewhere in the middle... Where did his leadership go? You can go down that list... It reads Wilt, Oscar, West, Jordan, Hakeem, Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Hakeem, Payton, Garnett, Dirk, Kidd, Nash, LeBron, Wade, Paul, Durant, Harden...
All these guys were losers far more times than they were winners in their careers... But all these guys are among the Top 50 players of all-time... So what? Only Bill Russell, 2nd-half-career Jordan and, odd-year Tim Duncan are good leaders? Everyone else always has 'something'?
Now I would take a part back that Garnett's lack of leadership, I didn't necesarrily mean he was a bad leader, but as opposed to Duncan I don't see him as a great leader either. You inspire others to help you reach your goals. And maybe it was the circumstances in Minnesota, maybe not, but all the ATG's eventually found their way to success. He also did by joining Pierce and Allen, but for me in a lesser way than the others in the top 5.
Ok, and there's nothing wrong with making that claim. But if you're keen on selling it, i expect some better evidence here. Maybe a lengthy explanation covering Garnett's leadership weaknesses, and why they failed to carry over to his time in Boston. Maybe some news clip, articles, interviews...
Without this, i can't help but just chalk your claim up to winning bias. And when the lack of team success for Minnesota in the early 00's is so demonstratively tied to lack of talent and bad front office decisions, i'll be having these things in the front of my mind more often than the ''MINNESOTA LOST, MUST BE KG'S LACK OF LEADERSHIP AS BEST PLAYER'' rationale, especially when it's not supported by anything tangible.
