Rally Behind Boogie!

[Swaze]

THIS is the point of this particular thread, in case it's already getting lost in the shuffle. You can argue about his place within the top 10, but he's definitely in there and on the rise.

The fact that he's in the Top-10 of just about everybody's list despite being on a losing team and never winning anything should almost be a compliment to him. If he climbs the list that means the team is winning more. No way in hell though I am putting him Top-3 without some winning. If he was really a Top-3 player and his team's sucked this bad wouldn't that in fact be a bad sign that there was not much room for growth? If he improves his leadership ability and making others better his stature will be that much better and the team will win a lot more.

 

[Bricklayer]

"Winning" is never a lazy approximation when applied to a team's best player. On the contrary winning is almost everything.

On the contrary, ANY stat which can change dramatically for a player because he gets traded from a good team to a bad team, or vice versa, is a highly dubious one.

What you would like to find is not wins, not success, its wins ADDED. Its success ADDED. And even that can depend on things beyond a player's control. If a team puts complimentary personnel around you for instance. If they fire a coach who works well for you for instance.

 

[VF21]

The fact that he's in the Top-10 of just about everybody's list despite being on a losing team and never winning anything should almost be a compliment to him. If he climbs the list that means the team is winning more. No way in hell though I am putting him Top-3 without some winning. If he was really a Top-3 player and his team's sucked this bad wouldn't that in fact be a bad sign that there was not much room for growth? If he improves his leadership ability and making others better his stature will be that much better and the team will win a lot more.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with it.

 

[Swaze]

Aldridge, Duncan and probably Paul are not even the best players on their team at this point in time. You may be over thinking this a bit.

Aldridge is a better defender than Lillard and I did rank Alridge and Duncan both right around 7th. Those were two guys that I'd put DMC in front of with just a little more winning.

Duncan's leadership is everything to the Spurs over all these years. He's the guy that made the system go from the start and made everybody else buy in. He creates the chemistry, selfless attitude, and commitment to winning and everybody else followed suit.

Chris Paul is still the best player on the Clippers. Griffin doesn't make his teammates better the same way Paul does. People hate on Chris Paul because he's a prick but his numbers and leadership speak for themselves.

 

[Swaze]

On the contrary, ANY stat which can change dramatically for a player because he gets traded from a good team to a bad team, or vice versa, is a highly dubious one.

What you would like to find is not wins, not success, its wins ADDED. Its success ADDED. And even that can depend on things beyond a player's control. If a team puts complimentary personnel around you for instance. If they fire a coach who works well for you for instance.

We're not talking about just any players. We're talking about Top-10 guys and more importantly Top-3 guys which is where you want to put Cousins. Top-3 guys as a general rule don't play on crap teams. They just don't. On the contrary Top-3 guys make their teams winners at least eventually. Top-3 guys make too big of an impact for their teams to be losers. Go back every year the last 20 years in the NBA. How many Top-3 guys were playing on bad teams? The answer is almost none. Like it or not winning is also part of how you are perceived and it damn well should be. Only losers argue that winning doesn't matter.

Michael Jordan and Joe Montana didn't gain legend because of some good stats and being really good on the field. They won a lot and they won big......end of story.

And let's not pretend like the Kings were going to win 50+ games this year had they kept Malone. They were already starting to slide a little before DMC got sick. I do think they would have won 38 to 44 games which is a nice improvement but they weren't going to win 50+ and deep down everyone knows it. Granted I'd take 40 wins as it would be a great sign going forward and maybe DMC continues to build his leadership then to where they are a real and expected playoff contender next year.

 

[Livinthedream]

The poll is for best player, not best leader. I don't care who's the best teammate or the guy you want your daughter to marry. Who's the best players? Duncan doesn't belong.

 

[Swaze]

The poll is for best player, not best leader. I don't care who's the best teammate or the guy you want your daughter to marry. Who's the best players? Duncan doesn't belong.

Winning doesn't matter?

 

[Tetsujin]

Winning doesn't matter?

If winning mattered in player comparisons, Mitch would have never made the hall of fame.

 

[Swaze]

If winning mattered in player comparisons, Mitch would have never made the hall of fame.

And why isn't Mitch thought of the same way as Michael Jordan?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

If winning mattered in player comparisons, Mitch would have never made the hall of fame.

Nor Reggie Miller, nor John Stockton, nor Patrick Ewing, nor Chris Mullin, nor Dominique Wilkins, nor...

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And why isn't Mitch thought of the same way as Michael Jordan?

Because he wasn't as good, that's why. Why isn't Robert Horry thought of the same way as Charles Barkley? He won. Why don't you ever hear anybody say that Joe Dumars was better than Mitch Richmond? Joe won.

 

[Tetsujin]

And why isn't Mitch thought of the same way as Michael Jordan?

Because Michael was a once-in-a-generational talent and Mitch was only one of the best players of his generation. Don't be daft.

 

[Swaze]

Because Michael was a once-in-a-generational talent and Mitch was only one of the best players of his generation. Don't be daft.

So Michael was a better player then. Perhaps that had something to do with why he won more? Mitch was damn good player but he did lack that intangible effect of making his teammates better.

People really seem to underestimate leadership and making your teammates better. Steph Curry and Chris Paul are great examples of the current day. They make everyone on their team better.

Shaq and Hakeem were two of the last great big men to have that effect. They made everybody on their team better partly due to sheer talent and partly due to leadership.

 

[206Fan]

Demarcus is outproducing Aldridge in literally every category whist playing less minutes per game and recovering from a serious medical condition on a team led by the most mentally unstable front office in the NBA now playing a style completely uncomplimentary to Boogie's strengths.

Stats don't tell the entire story. Aldridge is the better overall offensive player because of his game away from the basket. He's also the better defensive player. Cuz struggles a lot as a man defender which is why we've seen guys his size Nurkic/JJ score easily over him. LMA is the same guy who shot 12-20 and held AD to 3-14.
He is more vocal and is a leader on the court. (Several people here have argued against me that Cousins is not a leader).

LMA is better overall than Cuz because he's the better offensive player AND defensive player. Cuz is more talented, no doubt.

 

[sdballer]

So Michael was a better player then. Perhaps that had something to do with why he won more? Mitch was damn good player but he did lack that intangible effect of making his teammates better.

People really seem to underestimate leadership and making your teammates better. Steph Curry and Chris Paul are great examples of the current day. They make everyone on their team better.

Shaq and Hakeem were two of the last great big men to have that effect. They made everybody on their team better partly due to sheer talent and partly due to leadership.

And you really seem to underestimate the importance of having other good players around you has on "being a leader and winner".

 

[Swaze]

Because he wasn't as good, that's why. Why isn't Robert Horry thought of the same way as Charles Barkley? He won. Why don't you ever hear anybody say that Joe Dumars was better than Mitch Richmond? Joe won.

I'm not just talking about championships. I'm talking about winning in general. Just about all of the guys you mentioned won a ton of games and at least made it well into the playoffs. DeMarcus doesn't even win regular season games.

 

[Swaze]

And you really seem to underestimate the importance of having other good players around you has on "being a leader and winner".

Shaq made guys like Dennis Scott, Brian Shaw, and Luc Walton into pretty good role-players.

Jordan made Bill Wennington, Horace Grant, Steve Kerr, etc. into good role players.

Do any of the Spurs other players who were mostly late first and second round picks (or cast offs) succeed as much without Tim Duncan?

 

[sdballer]

I'm not just talking about championships. I'm talking about winning in general. Just about all of the guys you mentioned won a ton of games and at least made it well into the playoffs. DeMarcus doesn't even win regular season games.

So, take a look at the western conference playoff teams he has been competing with and compare their lineups with ours the last few years.

 

[sdballer]

Shaq made guys like Dennis Scott, Brian Shaw, and Luc Walton into pretty good role-players.

Jordan made Bill Wennington, Horace Grant, Steve Kerr, etc. into good role players.

Do any of the Spurs other players who were mostly late first and second round picks (or cast offs) succeed as much without Tim Duncan?

They were "pretty good role players" because they played on good teams. Honestly, many of those guys and guys like them have had better years on worse teams. But get them on a championship roster and suddenly their stars "made them better". Its mostly a matter of playing on good, established teams with experienced coaches that can define roles.

Once a team is winning everything positive gets magnified and the reverse is true with teams/players that lose. But it isn't that black and white.

 

[Tetsujin]

Shaq made guys like Dennis Scott, Brian Shaw, and Luc Walton into pretty good role-players.

Jordan made Bill Wennington, Horace Grant, Steve Kerr, etc. into good role players.

Dennis Scott had several good seasons BEFORE Shaq was even drafted and had a bevy of issues after Shaq left that you can't even begin to credit Shaq for any of the guy's development. Brain Shaw's best season came when he was in Boston in 1991 before Shaq was even playing in college let alone on a roster with Shaw. Absolutely no one could make Luke Walton into a pretty good role player so I dunno what you're trying to say here.

Horace Grant was a pretty solid role player on his own and went on to have a decade long career AFTER his tenure with the Bulls. Steve Kerr was always a good shooter so unless your argument is that Michael Jordan somehow taught Kerr how to shoot I'm not sure what you're driving at. Bill Wennington's main talent is he's tall, which would have pretty much landed him on a roster somewhere regardless of whether or not MJ "made him" into a good role player (he didn't by the way).

 

[Tetsujin]

They were "pretty good role players" because they played on good teams. Honestly, many of those guys and guys like them have had better years on worse teams. But get them on a championship roster and suddenly their stars "made them better". Its mostly a matter of playing on good, established teams with experienced coaches that can define roles.

Once a team is winning everything positive gets magnified and the reverse is true with teams/players that lose. But it isn't that black and white.

No, obviously Michael Jordan invented a time machine, went back in time, and taught each of his role players how to play basketball. #leadership

 

[randymoss1881]

Malone not getting fired and boogie not get a virus and this conversation wouldn't happen. People would be calling you crazy for not putting him in the top 4.

 

[Swaze]

No, obviously Michael Jordan invented a time machine, went back in time, and taught each of his role players how to play basketball. #leadership

So who made them win? Doesn't your best player lead you to wins?

 

[sdballer]

So who made them win? Doesn't your best player lead you to wins?

They definitely help and having a star is a great thing. But the leadership thing gets tossed around too easily. Act like an butthead but win and you're touted as a push teammates to better heights leader. Act like an butthead and lose and you are a malcontent that alienates teammates and will never be a winner.

Doesn't mean that a combination of talent and personality can't be a huge contributor to team success but it's become more of a lazy way for fans to separate stars than anything that tangible.

 

[Swaze]

Well up until late last season, DeMarcus never showed any signs of being a leader. Instead he acted like said butt-head that you speak of only he didn't do it in a way to encourage his teammates either.

Early this season he did show signs of being more of a leader (the things like holding Malone back from a "T" were great) and sure enough it was translating into more winning. Once Malone got fired and DeMarcus came back he has shown signs of regressing. Like a week or two ago where he sulking and not giving great effort......when he does that sure enough they lose.

Granted the coach and front office turmoil does factor in but at the end of the day DeMarcus can still provide on-court leadership if and when he chooses to. When he does choose to the results are plain as day better. I've got a hard time anointing him a Top-3 player though when all the other guys in the Top-5 I never ever have to question that.

 

[Tetsujin]

So who made them win? Doesn't your best player lead you to wins?

If it was as clear cut as that then none of the "the Kings are better without Chris Webber" hooey would have ever happened.

 

[Glenn]

Who here put Anthony Davis as a Top-3? Paranoid much? Why do I get the feeling that if Tyreke Evans was still here he'd be Top-10 on a list made by Kings fans. This is why as a general rule you can't trust hometown fans opinions of their own players especially on bad teams. They over value the hell out of them. Minnesota fans thought Kevin Love was a Top-5 NBA Player too, how is that working out now?

Give me a break. What team do you follow? I have seen you tear down Kings fans or members of this forum and I don't like it. I presume you will ignore me or come up with comment that you think is witty but that's OK. There are ways of being civil and you don't have the hang of it.

 

[Sac.1989]

1. Hassan Whiteside
2. Demarcus Cousins
3. Lebron
4. KD

 

[Sac.1989]

do people remember what happened when boogie was out ?Hell he makes everyone on the dam team better. Rudy Gay is dam well a top 5 if not 3 SF in the league with Boogie on the team. Just because were not in the playoffs it dont mean the arguement is moot. Demarcus makes everyone on the team better

 

[Bricklayer]

do people remember what happened when boogie was out ?Hell he makes everyone on the dam team better. Rudy Gay is dam well a top 5 if not 3 SF in the league with Boogie on the team. Just because were not in the playoffs it dont mean the arguement is moot. Demarcus makes everyone on the team better

Indeed still running an insane +19.4pts per 100 possessions nearly halfway through the season.

To give you some idea, if these are the Top 15 or so guys:

LeBron, Durant, Cousins, Davis, Westbrook, Curry, Harden, Griffin, Aldridge, Melo, CP3, MGasol, Wall, Lowry, Lilard

Per 100 possesions points +/-
Curry +24.4
Cousins +19.4
Wall +15.0
Paul +14.5
Lillard +13.7
Davis +12.7
Durant +12.4
James +11.9
Westbrook +11.2
Harden +8.1
Griffin +8.0
Aldridge +6.9
Anthony +6.4
Gasol +3.5
Lowry +3.0


Cousins is as absolutely crucial to his team's success as anybody but the likely MVP at the moment. When he's on the court our effective FG% jumps from 46.7% to 52.5%. Our effective FG% allowed plummets from 51.4% to 47.4%. The sun just shines a little brighter on the whole franchise when he is out there.