Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

The 2014 NBA Finals


Dolfan in NYC

Recommended Posts

I don't know. I think most people realize it's much more difficult establishing that team philosophy and having superstars buy in than taking the easy route. I hope you're right, but I'm skeptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I mean the counter to what I said would be...Spurs being Spurs isn't exactly new, so how come everyone hasn't bought in already. But I think you do see some teams playing that way today. Just not as efficiently. Even Lebron buys into that style of play, with the way he starts games trying to get everyone involved, his problem is...you know...pick someone not named Ray Allen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck getting many to buy into that philosophy.  It's another residual effect of Jordan-itis.  Because if a superstar doesn't win all the championships and MVP trophies by himself, we label him a chump.  Never mind that it works for the Spurs.  Never mind that the league's best player does it that way, and hauls his goofball team up mountains as a result.  It's not how Jordan did it, so eff it.  Hero ball it is for everyone!

 

Nostalgia can be a terrible burden.

 

Not to mention you need a strong coach who's fundamentally sound himself and knows how to truly lead his team.  Pop is a rare gem.  Doc can do it.  Carlisle can do it. Stan Van Gundy?  Maybe.  That's 4 out of 30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, though, Shaq's career worst fg% is better than Timmy's best. That kinda kills any efficiency argument.

No it doesn't. I am not saying you can stop a 400 lb bulldozer. I am saying that Duncan did what he did within a team context. If Duncan wanted to score 30 a game, he would have. Duncan only shot 1500 attempts in a season once in his career. Shaq did it multiple times. Duncan never lead the league in scoring. He may have led it in blocks or rebounds, I don't know. However, I do know his team has been a winner every year since he came in the league regardless of his role on the team. He didn't go around chasing all stars like Shaq did on his way out. He stayed with one team, won every year he was on the team and is still collecting jewelry 15 years later.

Which has nothing to do with the point I am making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think all these players looking to hook up to form "super-teams" is a rejection of post-Jordan era basketball. Pierce/Garnett/Allen, Parker/Manu/Duncan, Wade/Bosh/James all champions because they knew together they would be better off. Then you have other groups that didn't make it but were formed for the same puprose like the Kobe/Pau/Nash/Howard superteam failure. Howard/Lin(Lol)/Harden. Now Carmelo is looking to team up with some real fucking players. Kevin Love too. 

 

OKC illustrates the change quite well when you look at what they were when it was Harden/Westbrook/Durant vs. Durant/Westbrook now. 

 

And the kids coming in today are growing up on Lebron, The Celtics Big 3 era, and The Spurs. And now they can only look at what Jordan did through the lens of history. This draft class was born in 1995. They were three when Jordan won his last title, they've probably only seen him play in youtube clips.... OR as a Wizard....yikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of you are misremembering the 80s/90's. You did have awful low scoring brawls between the Knicks and Heat but teams like the Bulls and Pistons or Celtics and Lakers were tremendous passing teams...  You go back and watch the Bulls on the fastbreak and it s beautiful basketball. Just watch the play where Pippen dunks on Ewing and then talks shit to Spike Lee. It all started with a great block on one end of the court and there were at least two incredible passes that setup Pippen for the monster thrown down. Then Pippen walks over and tells Spike to shut the fuck up and sit down because winning and losing MEANT EVERYTHING to those teams.. 

 

I'm not saying everyone in the NBA is soft or none of the players care. That's not true at all. I just don't see it as much as I once did..

 

I agree with Swayzee. There should be a nice balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that first Bad Boys team averaged 107 a game - while playing at the slowest pace in the NBA.  That's a relative term though - just 6 years later, their same pace would have been like 3rd fastest.  You watch the 1990 NBA Finals and the execution is just awesome - super-crisp passing and a very fast pace.  Granted, at least some of that is attributable to teams still not generally playing great defense but a lot of is also just that an effort was made to be faster with better execution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, the later half of the 90's did see the pace of the game slow down a lot.

 

And the rules changes have opened the pace back up a lot, and made something like the Spurs offense the best approach in the modern game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Again, though, Shaq's career worst fg% is better than Timmy's best. That kinda kills any efficiency argument.

No it doesn't. I am not saying you can stop a 400 lb bulldozer. I am saying that Duncan did what he did within a team context. If Duncan wanted to score 30 a game, he would have. Duncan only shot 1500 attempts in a season once in his career. Shaq did it multiple times. Duncan never lead the league in scoring. He may have led it in blocks or rebounds, I don't know. However, I do know his team has been a winner every year since he came in the league regardless of his role on the team. He didn't go around chasing all stars like Shaq did on his way out. He stayed with one team, won every year he was on the team and is still collecting jewelry 15 years later.

Which has nothing to do with the point I am making.

 

 

I don't like going in circles on these things so to make sure... your point is that Shaq at his peak is better than Timmy at his peak. My argument is that Timmy at his peak could have been a ball hog, could have scored 30+ a game, He could have broken a ton of individual stat sheets. Instead, he chose the path of being the ultimate teammate. It has allowed the Spurs to maintain a level of consistency that they are just now finally being praised for. It has allowed the Spurs to stay out of TMZ. It has allowed guys to stay humble and professional when the franchise player sets the standard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying he was a better basketball player at his peak than Shaq?

 

Because, 1, that's the only argument I'm making here and 2, it's a completely absurd idea.  Shaq doesn't just dominate him in scoring, he dominates him in rebounding, shot blocking, and fg%, pretty much every important category for a big man.

 

Duncan unquestionably has had the better overall career.  Which gets back to my point that this all actually flowed from:  The length of Duncan's prime and how good he has continued to be after it ended, is what sets his place amongst the all-time best, not his individual peak years. 

 

I don't think there is a single season where Tim Duncan was clearly and unquestionably the best player in the NBA.   You can certainly make the argument for both his MVP seasons, but "hands down, no doubt"?  But he's had a better career than a lot of people who have been just that.

 

Look, I'm not attacking the guy.  He's an all-time great player, I called him in this thread "one of the very best interior defenders who ever lived", and has had arguably the best overall career in the history of the sport, given production, team success, and longevity.  All I'm saying is his peak isn't a top 5, or probably top 10 all-time, but his career is.

 

 

And I stand by my earlier point.  If you were given the choice between a fully healthy and in shape Duncan or Shaq from their absolute peak for one single season, only a fucking idiot would take Duncan.  But if you had the chance to draft either of them for the entire career, only an idiot would take O'Neal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lakers came out on top 3-2 in the head to head and championship count but the huge difference between the Spurs and Lakers is their response to adversity. When the Spurs encountered defeat, like in 2001/2002, 2004, 2006 and 2013, most teams (like the Lakers) would blow the whole thing up and try to lure big time free agents to the team as a response. The Spurs stayed the course, made minor tweaks and believed in their core group. Hell, we beat the Lakers last year with Dwight Howard (and no Kobe) and Dwight ran away from his team. He ran away. The Spurs lost to the Heat in most devastating fashion in Game 6 last year. There was no discussion of blowing the team up. We replace Gary Neal and move on. This year, after the Spurs beat the Heat, a team that went to 4 freaking Finals in a row, the fanbase wants to blow everything up instead of believing in the group that got you there in the first place! 

 

Okay, fair enough, though the Lakers did re-tool and beat the Spurs again in 2008. The point I was trying to make was that the 2001 sweep was brutal and then Kobe closed the Alamo in 2002, but Duncan and the Spurs escaped the type of scrutiny that most superstars face. Can you imagine what it would be like for Lebron if one of his teams was swept or lost in the first round? Granted, the Spurs had already won a championship (at the Lakers' expense), but the only real criticism the Spurs ever got was that they were boring and more recently that they're old. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Lakers came out on top 3-2 in the head to head and championship count but the huge difference between the Spurs and Lakers is their response to adversity. When the Spurs encountered defeat, like in 2001/2002, 2004, 2006 and 2013, most teams (like the Lakers) would blow the whole thing up and try to lure big time free agents to the team as a response. The Spurs stayed the course, made minor tweaks and believed in their core group. Hell, we beat the Lakers last year with Dwight Howard (and no Kobe) and Dwight ran away from his team. He ran away. The Spurs lost to the Heat in most devastating fashion in Game 6 last year. There was no discussion of blowing the team up. We replace Gary Neal and move on. This year, after the Spurs beat the Heat, a team that went to 4 freaking Finals in a row, the fanbase wants to blow everything up instead of believing in the group that got you there in the first place! 

 

Okay, fair enough, though the Lakers did re-tool and beat the Spurs again in 2008. The point I was trying to make was that the 2001 sweep was brutal and then Kobe closed the Alamo in 2002, but Duncan and the Spurs escaped the type of scrutiny that most superstars face. Can you imagine what it would be like for Lebron if one of his teams was swept or lost in the first round? Granted, the Spurs had already won a championship (at the Lakers' expense), but the only real criticism the Spurs ever got was that they were boring and more recently that they're old. 

 

 

They deflect criticism because they aren't a soap opera. They blame themselves. They don't blame each other or the coach or the fans or their agent. They are accountable for their failings. The more important thing is that when they do fail, they roll up their sleeves and respond which is the much bigger point. They redeem themselves. It's hard to criticize a team that has won 50+ games for 15 straight years. It's also hard to criticize a team for the sake of being critical when they had plenty of trophies to make them stand out from most teams in NBA history. I have mentioned the spectacular ways in which the Spurs have failed. 

The 2001 embarassment. 

.4

Manu's foul in 2006

last years game 6

 

They break hearts in dramatic fashion. Then they respond and give San Antonio River Parades. Fuck yeah. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how LeBron could possibly escape criticism, not for his play on the court.. but there's the narrative that he needs more help. I mean, it was his idea to put this dream team together and now the parts are falling apart around him. He also embraced the idea that they were a can't miss dynasty and while their run has been very good.. you could still make a case that it is disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

“I didn’t do enough,” LeBron James said, he who scored nearly a third of the Heat’s total points in the Finals, on percentages better than his regular-season averages. LeBron thinks this. And he’ll continue to think this through the summer and through next season. It will continue to run through his mind, like 2011 before this, and 2007 before that. He’s the best player on earth and a two-time champion. He’s a winner. But even winners dwell in the loser’s reality.

 

Yeah, that's a guy who doesn't hold himself accountable and blames others.  That's a guy who doesn't work on some aspect of his game every summer.  That's a guy who doesn't do everything to be better and redeem any shortcomings in his game/career.  That's a guy who hasn't grown up and taken stock of who he is.

 

What an asshole.

 

Yeah, superstars win on their own.  They don't need help--like a 6'7" front court guy with octupus limbs for arms who could lock down players just as well as said superstar and who also set the offense and got 1-2 steals per game that often won championships more than people want to admit.

 

Yeah, superstars should re-sign with crappy teams with stupid owners who go on to write letters basically screaming I OWN YOU, DAMNIT! Yeah, be loyal to someone who sees you as property.

 

No, he shouldn't parlay the power he has into going into the best situation possible.  Don't use the free agency avenue you have, no! Yeah, he should just play for his so-called hometown team until he's retired with no championships and become this generations's Barkley/Ewing/Malone/Stockton all rolled up into one.  At least you'd be see as loyal!  A loyal loser is all.

 

If you have the chance to create your own destiny, don't stand there and pretend that you wouldn't do it.  You don't wait to see if some crackpot will help you with it.  You tried that and it didn't work.  So move on and try something else.  Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.  But there's no point in trying the same thing again.  It's built on a foundation of failure.  Build yourself a new house.

 

Yeah, going to four straight championships is only 'very good.'  If it's easy, why has it only been done three times in almost 70 years?

 

The bottom line is you need drama--but you also need peace.  Right and left.  Black and white. Yin and yang.

 

The NBA needs the Spurs.  The NBA also needs the Heat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with the NBA is that there aren't that many players that matter.  There are legit 5-10 guys in the entire league that can take you from a lottery team to a playoff team, and even then it doesn't make you a contender.  The secret, that Bill Simmons learned from Isiah Thomas and wrote a 700 page book on is that even if you have all the talent in the world it doesn't matter if you don't have the team.  The total of a basketball team can either be much more or much less than the sum of it's parts based on so many different factors it is just plain dumb to ever blame an individual player for wins and loses.  The Heat were put together in a way that should have been impossible to defeat on paper, but having role players you can depend on is just as important as having superstars.  If you don't have a single player you can depend on to get rebounds, you can't win.  The Thunder are the biggest example of this in the league, they have four guys they can depend on and everyone else is a liability.  Durant and Westbrook are two of the most talented players in the league, but they have to do so much in order for them to be competitive.  Ibaka and Jackson do their parts, but no one else on the team pulls their weight.  So they play against the Spurs who doesn't have a single player on the level of Durant or Westbrook, but they also have 8 guys they can count on to do their jobs.  How do you beat 8 players with 4 players?  Popovich should win coach of the year every year, because no one else has figured out how to build a team of 8-9 complimentary parts.  The Spurs realized a couple of years ago when the Thunder ran them out of the gym that they couldn't compete with them athletically they'll have to do it with matchups.  Most teams are going to war with one or two guys and a pupu platter of dudes that will take low dollars in order pay those one or two stars.  The Spurs decided to not overpay anyone and go out to the Brazillian steak house and instead of getting a side of plain white rice, they got beef, chicken, and pork chops.  The Heat needed their big 3 to play like the future hall of famers they are to win, and when Wade and Bosh couldn't perform they stood absolutely no chance.  There weren't any other options, everyone else on the team were basically the equivalent of the stray dogs that followed LeBron, Wade, and Bosh home. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...