The Starters predict honor for Cousins

[kingsboi]

You can't have it both ways. The text of your post indicates that you agree with the premise of winning mattering, whether that's what you meant or not. If you do agree with the premise that winning matters, you can't just say, "Cousins shouldn't be first team, because the Kings didn't win... but it shouldn't be Gasol, either." You've got to provide a third option.

Now, if you don't agree with the premise, well... that post could probably stand to be re-worded.

I don't necessarily agree with Gasol being there, regardless of winning. But, I do understand what the NBA does or should I say the media since they are the culprits of all these rewards and accolades. Name me a all-star that was named on the first team while being on a losing team.

 

[kingsboi]

Yawn.

Shaq never played on a squad as bad as any of the ones Cousins has been on. He always had a solid PG like Skiles or Van Exel when the teams weren't as "stacked" as you may like. Those teams were better and Shaq himself was better.

Let's not forget....their front office had a vision and stuck with what was going to win them a title. The front office since Cousins and even before he arrived? actions say it all, no words need be said on their behalf.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Yawn.

Shaq never played on a squad as bad as any of the ones Cousins has been on. He always had a solid PG like Skiles or Van Exel when the teams weren't as "stacked" as you may like. Those teams were better and Shaq himself was better.

Quit moving the goalposts. I didn't say that those teams were equivalent, I said they were bad. And, sans Shaq, they were. And it doesn't really change the fact that most of the good teams were good because he made them good.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't necessarily agree with Gasol being there, regardless of winning. But, I do understand what the NBA does or should I say the media since they are the culprits of all these rewards and accolades. Name me a all-star that was named on the first team while being on a losing team.

I wouldn't, and that's my point. You agree that it can't be Cousins, but then turn around and say that it shouldn't be Gasol. But it has to be somebody. It's not like the baseball HOF voters, where they're just going to be, like, "Sorry, we're just not going to name a center to the first team this year, because we can't vote in a guy on a losing team, and nobody else deserves it." Somebody is going to get it; if not Cousins, and not Gasol, then who?

 

[Bricklayer]

The 92-94 Magic were stacked? That 96-97 lakers squad with Eddie Jones, a rookie Kobe and the ghost of Byron Scott was stacked? The 04-05 Heat, with Wade, Mourning and the ghost of Christian Laettner was stacked?

You and I may not be working with the same definition of "stacked."

We may indeed. Aside from his rookie year Shaq spent a dozen straight years playing for stacked teams full of talent and future HOFs.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Who was the 'talent' on that 93-94 team, besides Shaq and Penny? Who was the 'talent' on the 96-97 lakers, besides Shaq and Kobe (fine, I'll give you Eddie Jones? That 04-05 Heat team, besides Shaq and Wade was only 'stacked' in the same way that the 14-15 Cavs are 'stacked', because they have Mike Miller and James Jones and Shawn Marion. Which is, to say, not really.

 

[Gilles]

The 92-94 Magic were stacked? That 96-97 lakers squad with Eddie Jones, a rookie Kobe and the ghost of Byron Scott was stacked? The 04-05 Heat, with Wade, Mourning and the ghost of Christian Laettner was stacked?

You and I may not be working with the same definition of "stacked."

Orlando got 20 more wins in Shaq's rookie season compared to previous, but in 91/92 season Magic had 15 guys, who got to start, with 11 of them getting more than 10 starts - if that's not tanking/ridiculous injury bug, I don't know, what is. In 92/93 of their 8 best players only Dennis Scott played less than 72, they signed 3 role players, who all somehow managed to get arguably best seasons of their careers. They were right at .500 team. Then they add Penny, who was an equivalent of Westbrook, Rose or Irving with two years of NBA experience, had another ridiculously healthy season with 5 of their top minutes guys playing 81 or 82 games.

4 starters of 96/97 Lakers team together with Divac were in WCSF in 94/95 and ran into Rockets in the first round the next year. Then you replace Vlade with young, but experienced Shaq. Why wouldn't they get to WCSF again?

Health and vets are much more important than talent for regular season success.

 

[Bricklayer]

Who was the 'talent' on that 93-94 team, besides Shaq and Penny? Who was the 'talent' on the 96-97 lakers, besides Shaq and Kobe (fine, I'll give you Eddie Jones? That 04-05 Heat team, besides Shaq and Wade was only 'stacked' in the same way that the 14-15 Cavs are 'stacked', because they have Mike Miller and James Jones and Shawn Marion. Which is, to say, not really.

1) Shaquille O'neal
Horace Grant
Dennis Scott
Nick Anderson
Penny Hardaway

was possibly the most talented starting 5 in the league. Just too young, and doomed.

the year before it was only the 4 of them minus Grant.

2) the 96-97 Lakers were RIDICULOUSLY talented. Just got the least out of it.

Shaquille O'Neal
Eddie Jones
Nick Van Exel
Cedric Ceballos
Elden Campbell
Robert Horry
some rook named Kobe
and a whole fistful of saavy old vets to provide the experience/leadership. Byron Scott, Jerome Kersey, etc. Derek Fisher was already there too. Just young again.

3) as for the 04-05 Heat, if you need more than a fellow Top 25 player all time to be called stacked, you've got problems. But it was more than that. Just absolutely loaded with Riley style defensive roleplayers, shooters, and old vet experience Eddie Jones and Udonis Haslem and Damon Jones and Zo Mourning, Steve Smith, Wesley Person etc.

The bottom line would be that every single team Shaq played for into his dotage had more talent or was better constructed than anything Cuz has yet been surrounded by, never mind the coaching and general front office nonsense. Put Cuz on all those teams, give him Shaq's career, and he may or may not have done quite as well, but he sure as hell isn't going to be below .500 with very many of them.

 

[IfAt1st]

What is with this addiction to comparing Boogie with Shaq?
They are incomparable. Can't do it.

Shaq came into the NBA instantly annointed as The Next Big Thing.
They literally changed the way they officiated the game because of him. If they hadn't, Shaq would have fouled out every game before halftime (or, I don't know, maybe Shaq could have learned to play differently and get more skills than plowing through people?)

Shaq played in a time when Centers had full run of the paint. There was no flopping to stop a guy from plowing through your position. If he was stronger, he'd keep slamming into you until he got to the basket. That was thought of as Good Play.

The NBA is SO different right now - a dominant center can't dominate the game they way they did in the 90's.

That is not Demarcus' fault.

 

[VF21]

For a lot of NBA fans, when you say dominant center the image of Shaquille O'Neal comes to mind. I think it's perfectly okay to compare DMC to Shaq... especially as DMC rewrites the definition of "dominant center".

DMC made 2nd team with little to no help, a losing team he had to carry way too often, and a coaching carousel. Imagine what he'll start to do with a real coach, and some decent help. It truly boggles the mind.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You and I remember Budapest Anderson and Scott very differently; also, Horace Grant was still on the Bulls in 93-94.

I never cease to be impressed by how great mediocre players become, whenever the conversation turns to how much more help Player A had than Player B.

 

[Bricklayer]

You and I remember Budapest Anderson and Scott very differently; also, Horace Grant was still on the Bulls in 93-94.

I never cease to be impressed by how great mediocre players become, whenever the conversation turns to how much more help Player A had than Player B.

The year before Shaq arrived both Anderson and Scott averaged 19.9ppg each. They actually had 4 20ppg scorers in their starting lineup. And Anderson's 19.9 was part of a very complete package of one of the best postup guards of his era. He didn't start going downhill util after the FT disaster. Before that he had a couple of near All Star seasons. And Shaq could hardly ask for a better spacer than Scott, who was one of if not the best and most prolific three point bombers of his era.

 

[Chupacabra]

Be that as it may, I think we all understand that you can't justify putting a guy with twenty-nine wins on the first team. Wins shouldn't count for everything but, god damn it, they ought to count for something. Shaq had his share of bad coaches and bad teammates, and somehow managed to never have a sub-.500 season in his career.

I'm compelled to believe that second team is as high as a guy on a losing team should be allowed to get. So, to me, the question isn't so much does Gasol deserve to be on the first team over Cousins, as it is, what center from a winning team deserves to be first team over Gasol?

Winning, the result of the teams effort, should never be rewarded by handing out individual awards to individuals on said team. We shouldnt be limited to only seeing winning teams being chosen from when it comes to handing out awards to individual players. Is it not entirely possible that the kings organization is horrible? If the answer is yes, the Kings are a horrible organization, then what is the logic behind giving Marc Gasol, a very good player, an award instead of Demarcus Cousins, an even better player? Why would an inferior player be rewarded over a better player? Its all reasoning for the casual fan.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Winning, the result of the teams effort, should never be rewarded by handing out individual awards to individuals on said team. We shouldnt be limited to only seeing winning teams being chosen from when it comes to handing out awards to individual players. Is it not entirely possible that the kings organization is horrible? If the answer is yes, the Kings are a horrible organization, then what is the logic behind giving Marc Gasol, a very good player, an award instead of Demarcus Cousins, an even better player? Why would an inferior player be rewarded over a better player? Its all reasoning for the casual fan.

I'll repeat myself, since you apparently ignored me the first time: I don't think that winning should count for everything, but it has to count for something. Your mileage obviously varies as to how much it should count for.

 

[IfAt1st]

Why doesn't crapty teammates count for something?
If the other team can double and triple team Demarcus with little in-game drawback, shouldn't that "count for something"?
Marc Gasol had Conley, Z-Bo, and Courtney Lee to take attention off him AND to feed him easy layup/dunks.

Who does DMC have? JT and the combined 3-pt prowess of Rudy and Collison RayMac/BMac/Stauskas?

The "Good player on a bad team" argument really doesn't hold much water if any of these national pundits actually WATCHED the Kings this year. For the most part, Boogie got his numbers against the best the other team had to offer, despite their entire team defense swarming on him and focusing on his passes.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Why doesn't poopooty teammates count for something?

How much do you think they should count for? Where do you draw the line between, "He's held back by his teammates" and "He's not good enough to elevate his teammates"?

 

[hrdboild]

The "Good player on a bad team" argument really doesn't hold much water if any of these national pundits actually WATCHED the Kings this year. For the most part, Boogie got his numbers against the best the other team had to offer, despite their entire team defense swarming on him and focusing on his passes.

I think you pretty much nailed it right there. Even in a good year nobody is watching the Kings except Kings fans and most of us had a hard time watching this season throughout the darkest stretch of the interim coach fiasco. DeMarcus is putting up All-NBA numbers in relative obscurity which he will continue to do until this team makes some kind of playoff run and starts to generate a little buzz on the national stage. National media types didn't noticed Marc Gasol or Joakim Noah either until their teams made the playoffs. That's just the way it is. Not to worry though, a whole heap of accolades are coming to Cousins in his age 26-34 seasons if our front office can put together a halfway decent supporting cast these next couple years. Cousins is rapidly approaching the level at which he's too good not to make the playoffs barring injury or complete coaching incompetence or, sigh, both. San Antonio is going to be re-building in a couple years and OKC and Dallas might be too. Patience my friends, our time is coming.

 

[LPKingsFan]

The year before Shaq arrived both Anderson and Scott averaged 19.9ppg each. They actually had 4 20ppg scorers in their starting lineup. And Anderson's 19.9 was part of a very complete package of one of the best postup guards of his era. He didn't start going downhill util after the FT disaster. Before that he had a couple of near All Star seasons. And Shaq could hardly ask for a better spacer than Scott, who was one of if not the best and most prolific three point bombers of his era.

I see you've carefully avoided citing the team record, and for good reason: Those 4 20ppg scorers barely managed 20 wins among them! Not sure what this debate is about, but Shaq took a 21-61 team and won 41 games the next season.

 

[Bricklayer]

I see you've carefully avoided citing the team record, and for good reason: Those 4 20ppg scorers barely managed 20 wins among them! Not sure what this debate is about, but Shaq took a 21-61 team and won 41 games the next season.

I think you misread me.

They didn't have 4 20pt scorers in that 21 win season. They had 2 19.9pt scorers (Anderson and Scott), and Scott was a sophomore putting up his worst shooting season without anybody for whom to create space.

They had 3 20pt a game type scorers the next year when Shaq arrived to turn things.

They had 4 20pt type scorers two years later when Shaq, Penny, Anderson and Scott were all united in an explosive starting unit.

 

[rainmaker]

As much as I think Cuz is an All-NBA 1st team level player and the best center in the game, it also wouldn't sound good or come across well for him to be 1st team All-NBA on a team which can't win 30 games.

Just not a good look.

But it's a unique situation as he is the best center in the game and the reason we're stuck arguing such a unique situation is because no other teams have wasted such an elite talent as our FO and owner has. That's the disturbing part. No other HOF talent has been wasted to this extent for this long. We're not talking just missing out on the playoffs, we're talking out of the conversation altogether by the AS break, every single season.

Doesn't matter which other young HOFers you look at, from Hakeem to Garnett to Barkley to Shaq to Lebron to Dirk to Malone, they haven't been wasted nearly to this extent. It's atrocious management. Even Pierce after not getting into the playoffs his first three years, made them the next four and the ECF his 4th year.

 

[Albatros]

It might help if cuz had a single player capable of hitting a shot to kick out too.

 

[Gilles]

This "single player capable of hitting a shot" is getting tiresome - everyone was hitting shots, and Kings still lost. "Someone capable to defend his position" should be the complaint!

 

[Albatros]

That can be your complaint if you like.