Forgot Nash, either Nash, Dirk or Billups. Kobe's team isn't good enough (been a while since a less than 50 win team had an MVP), Lebron has the same problem although he's putting up great numbers as well, TD hasn't been very dominant and Shaq's team hasn't been very good either (Wade can't win MVP when Shaq is on the team).
Mike Bibby: Are the Numbers Misleading?
- Thread starter 1kingzfan
- Start date
P
Keep deluding yourself.
Duncan has ALWAYS had talent around him that are willing to do the dirty work without much credit.
He's a great player - but he'd have no success.
The only players that can control a team like that are guys that can control the ball. He might change the wins and losses marginally and make them a 30-40 win team, but they aren't a force. A PG/SG has the best chance of impacting a team's wins and losses.
Duncan has ALWAYS had talent around him that are willing to do the dirty work without much credit.
He's a great player - but he'd have no success.
The only players that can control a team like that are guys that can control the ball. He might change the wins and losses marginally and make them a 30-40 win team, but they aren't a force. A PG/SG has the best chance of impacting a team's wins and losses.
Wow you obvious don't follow the NBA. Who won the in the Shaq vs Kobe trade? I think I'd be Shaq. Shaq was the common place. In a similar fashion, Wilt dominated no matter what team he was on.
Hasn't TD won with 3 different swing players starting with him. I believe he won with Elliott, he won with Jackson (Stephen) and he won with Manu. Obviously the swing players don't matter.
The only real example we have of a swing player moving and having success (not really much more than he had in his previous location) is Ray Allen. Nash has had success moving, so has Kidd I guess. But that's about it. T-Mac still hasn't lead anyone anywhere. VC, eh, he's good but the same thing.
Shaq moves, Shaq's previous team goes to the crapper, his new team does better. Yes Shaq's new team has better pieces but still.
I'm pretty sure you get the same thing with TD.
Move Nash to Atlanta? They still have no post presence, and other than Jordan, what was the last team to not have a post presence and win a title? I can't think of one of the top of my head. Spurs-TD, Detroit-Sheed/Big Ben, Lakers-Shaq, Houston-Hakeem, Celtics-Parrish. You get the point. You can't win in the NBA without a dominant big man unless your name is MJ. Magic didn't win without Kareem, MJ didn't win without Rodman or Grant. You need big men to win in the NBA, it's a fact. Just like you need D to win.
The more underlying factor is you need a post defender to win. All of these teams, even the Bulls had a great post defender or two. Just think before you spew.
Hasn't TD won with 3 different swing players starting with him. I believe he won with Elliott, he won with Jackson (Stephen) and he won with Manu. Obviously the swing players don't matter.
The only real example we have of a swing player moving and having success (not really much more than he had in his previous location) is Ray Allen. Nash has had success moving, so has Kidd I guess. But that's about it. T-Mac still hasn't lead anyone anywhere. VC, eh, he's good but the same thing.
Shaq moves, Shaq's previous team goes to the crapper, his new team does better. Yes Shaq's new team has better pieces but still.
I'm pretty sure you get the same thing with TD.
Move Nash to Atlanta? They still have no post presence, and other than Jordan, what was the last team to not have a post presence and win a title? I can't think of one of the top of my head. Spurs-TD, Detroit-Sheed/Big Ben, Lakers-Shaq, Houston-Hakeem, Celtics-Parrish. You get the point. You can't win in the NBA without a dominant big man unless your name is MJ. Magic didn't win without Kareem, MJ didn't win without Rodman or Grant. You need big men to win in the NBA, it's a fact. Just like you need D to win.
The more underlying factor is you need a post defender to win. All of these teams, even the Bulls had a great post defender or two. Just think before you spew.
P
I meant to mention Shaq. He's an anomoly. There isn't a player CLOSE to what Shaq is.
Duncan is nowhere NEAR the game changer that Shaq is. Shaq is UNSTOPPABLE when he wants to be. He's the best ever when you factor in domination between eras.
For the most part the quickest impact players are guys that can control the ball.
Who would I start my team with? A Nash or a TD? Duncan, without question. You can build around him. But a PG or a guy that controls the ball can have the quickest impact.
The reason is that teams can zone out Duncan and let the rest of the Hawks continue to suck. You can double/triple Duncan and basically render him as out-of-the-game on offense. On defense, he's only one man and not athletic enough to keep everyone out of the paint. He'd make them win more - no question, but he wouldn't make them a contender for anything other than worse lottery position.
Duncan is nowhere NEAR the game changer that Shaq is. Shaq is UNSTOPPABLE when he wants to be. He's the best ever when you factor in domination between eras.
For the most part the quickest impact players are guys that can control the ball.
Who would I start my team with? A Nash or a TD? Duncan, without question. You can build around him. But a PG or a guy that controls the ball can have the quickest impact.
The reason is that teams can zone out Duncan and let the rest of the Hawks continue to suck. You can double/triple Duncan and basically render him as out-of-the-game on offense. On defense, he's only one man and not athletic enough to keep everyone out of the paint. He'd make them win more - no question, but he wouldn't make them a contender for anything other than worse lottery position.
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't Duncan a 3 time finals MVP. Isn't he a 2 time MVP? Hasn't he been on the All-NBA first or Second team every year in his career? All defensive team in just about every year. He might not be flashy, but he's the best. Until a team unseats them, they are the best. I've never been a big fan of TD. He's quite boring, he doesn't do anything interesting, but he is still the best player in the NBA. His role has diminished, but he's still dominant when he has to be.
On the Hawks, you might have an argument since they don't really have a PG. But on any team with a decent PG, I'd chalk up a big man over a guard any time. There are a lot of great swing players in the NBA, there are only 5 really great big men (you can include Ben Wallace if you want), 4 of which play in the post. Amare, Duncan, Shaq, and KG. Dirk is also great but he's more of an outside player as we all know. Jermaine, I'm a little lackadasical about but he's still damn good.
There are few great PG in the league but there are way too many above average / great swing men. Swing men are a dime a dozen, a great PG or a great big men are a rare commodity.
Forgot Brand as well, but he hasnt' been that great for a good team until this year.
On the Hawks, you might have an argument since they don't really have a PG. But on any team with a decent PG, I'd chalk up a big man over a guard any time. There are a lot of great swing players in the NBA, there are only 5 really great big men (you can include Ben Wallace if you want), 4 of which play in the post. Amare, Duncan, Shaq, and KG. Dirk is also great but he's more of an outside player as we all know. Jermaine, I'm a little lackadasical about but he's still damn good.
There are few great PG in the league but there are way too many above average / great swing men. Swing men are a dime a dozen, a great PG or a great big men are a rare commodity.
Forgot Brand as well, but he hasnt' been that great for a good team until this year.
P
In the long-term: yes.
In the short-term: no.
A big man relies on people to get him the ball and to play off of him. If you don't have those pieces and aren't able to completely dominate (ala' Shaq) ... you can be rendered irrelevant.
Again, I'd take younger Duncan over younger Kidd if I was starting a team ... but younger Kidd makes the Hawks win more games immediately.
In the short-term: no.
A big man relies on people to get him the ball and to play off of him. If you don't have those pieces and aren't able to completely dominate (ala' Shaq) ... you can be rendered irrelevant.
Again, I'd take younger Duncan over younger Kidd if I was starting a team ... but younger Kidd makes the Hawks win more games immediately.
I dunno what you are talking about, but I think the people rely on the big man to make everything easier, NOT the other way around. Also, in the short term, NO ONE can save the hawks lol...it's the atlanta hawks.....If we're talking about next season, then Duncan can lead them to the playoffs. Duncan is no Shaq, but then again, Duncan is ONLY a 3 time Finals MVP, 2 time NBA MVP, and the ONLY player in NBA history to be on the All-NBA Team and All-Defensive Team each of his first 8 seasons in the NBA. Yeah, that isn't 'dominant'......
Uh, I don't know who said Bibby doesn't play defense because he is surrounded by less talent... but it wasn't me. Bibby is just not a good defender, but neither are most of the PGs on your list. Two way PGs are actually rather rare.
When You don't have people that can make You look good - You true value comes out.
And how good would Billups look without the talent around him? He had career games against Bibby? How many career games has Bibby had against Nash? Dear god, Phoenix better get rid of him right now! Bibby is clearly the better player!
When You don't have people that can make You look good - You true value comes out.
And how good would Billups look without the talent around him? He had career games against Bibby? How many career games has Bibby had against Nash? Dear god, Phoenix better get rid of him right now! Bibby is clearly the better player!
jonnny10 said:
yeah I think Nash would work on any team. what team would he not work on? what else does he have to do on the suns? he's already playing without amare, do u want him to win without shawn marion too?
thanks for backin me up on the TD argument tho
thanks for backin me up on the TD argument tho
He needs a team that runs the break to win. I can't think of a great example, but he's not going to work everywhere. He's not bring the Knicks from junk to title town.
Nash right now has the right surroundings, all his best players are essentially swing players who run the break perfectly and can hit the 3. If the Suns couldnt hit the 3 like they did, they wouldnt win like they did.
P
It's not that Duncan isn't a dominating PF - it's that he doesn't change the flow of a game the way Shaq does. He can't dominate the ball like a PG/SG.
Duncan and Reef are my two favorite players in the league, followed up by Webber, but none of those players have an impact on the game like a Shaq.
Duncan makes the Hawks team better, but they aren't instantly a contender. They become the Minnesota of last year or possibly worse.
A guy that can dominate the ball makes the most "instant" impact to a scrub team. Does he make them good? Not really. But he'd make the most instant impact.
Duncan and Reef are my two favorite players in the league, followed up by Webber, but none of those players have an impact on the game like a Shaq.
Duncan makes the Hawks team better, but they aren't instantly a contender. They become the Minnesota of last year or possibly worse.
A guy that can dominate the ball makes the most "instant" impact to a scrub team. Does he make them good? Not really. But he'd make the most instant impact.
HMMmm... Shaq = 3 Finals MVPS = Duncan. Duncan is a periennel all-nba first teamer and all-nba defensive first teammer. Offensively, Duncan has never been as dominating as Shaq but it doesn't mean his impact isn't any less. Defensively, I think Duncan is more sound than Shaq. Shaq is one hell of a player, arguably a top 5 Center ever. Duncan is probally the best PF ever (arguably, with Barkley, and Malone, and I guess others), although he is really a center (I guess). Duncan might not be the most dominating player ever, but sadly he is one of the best.
Hawks per say have alot of young, quality talent. JJ, Marvin, and the rest of their youngings won't be struggling with last place for long. If they can get themselves a real pg (some are available in the draft), they could be very strong in about 2 years. Marvin is starting to turn it around and they've given some quality teams a run for their money b/c they cause matchup problems.
Hawks per say have alot of young, quality talent. JJ, Marvin, and the rest of their youngings won't be struggling with last place for long. If they can get themselves a real pg (some are available in the draft), they could be very strong in about 2 years. Marvin is starting to turn it around and they've given some quality teams a run for their money b/c they cause matchup problems.
P
I'm not saying Duncan isn't good. He's awesome. But, Shaq is a force. You cannot stop him. There is really no defense that can negate Shaq or keep him from the boards.
Duncan is not the defender that Shaq is. He may be a smarter defender - but Shaq changes a team's strategy whereas Duncan requires little alteration.
None of this is a knock on Duncan. I think he's about as good as they come, but he's not a one man force like Shaq.
Duncan is not the defender that Shaq is. He may be a smarter defender - but Shaq changes a team's strategy whereas Duncan requires little alteration.
None of this is a knock on Duncan. I think he's about as good as they come, but he's not a one man force like Shaq.