Finals GM3: Miami at Dallas (Series Tied 1-1)

[ballorama]

LMAO of course I was joking. Just saying what would've been said had it been LBJ missing instead of Dirk.

 

 

haha ight makes sense.. I would've expected that too.

[kingfish]

Wade will probably win Finals MVP if they win. Wonder how Lebron will handle it. Ive noticed Wade is getting the ball most in the 4th quarter.

 

The reporters were also really tough on Lebron. I heard one of them ask why Lebron dissappears in the 4th quarter. :

[Nitro]

Wade will probably win Finals MVP if they win. Wonder how Lebron will handle it.

 

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii73/mootz4/lebron.gif

 

Edited June 6, 2011 by Nitro

[Sħãlïq™]

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii73/mootz4/lebron.gif

 

Yeah, thought about it too - how Wade won All-Star MVP honors in Dallas... Will history repeat iteslf and we see him win Finals MVP in Dallas?

Edited June 6, 2011 by Shalïq

[Oliver P]

anyways, refs were inconsistent with their calls, first they gave miami some bad calls, then some shitty calls against the mavs.. bad offciating. dallas had more ft attempts because miami got in the penalty early on.

 

Yes exactly, the officiating wasn't great indeed but the refs didn't favor any team.. It's not because a team had more free throw attempts than the other that it means that the refs advantaged the other team on purpose, let's not get carried away.. Miami got in the penalty early on as you said, and besides their defense is more agressive than the Mavs' so it's pretty logical that they had more fouls.

 

game 4= MUST win.

 

Yep definitely. If Dallas loses the next one the Finals will be other. This because of a simple NBA Finals fact : no team has ever came back from a 3-1. Besides only eight teams came back from a 3-1 in the playoffs... So Dallas HAS to win the next game.

 

 

Anyway Miami leads now 2-1 and the least that we can say is that they deserve it. They have been the better team so far. Not as much as some people make it to be though, Dallas has been very good defensively and Dirk has been terrific, the Mavs definitely wouldn't deserve to be led 0-3, they earned their win fair and square. However it's true that Miami has been overal slighty better so far. So they deserve to lead 2-1, we can't say the opposite.

 

Honestly I had my doubts about this team all year long. This for a simple reason, teams of stars usually doesn't work. Most of the best teams on paper haven't succeeded in the history of the NBA. Besides it happened many times that three superstars join forces in the history of the game and so far only the Celtics managed to get a ring. Yes Chamberlain, Baylor and West didn't win a ring together (the Lakers won the year Baylor retired), Olajuwon, Barkley, Drexler failed too, same for Olajuwon, Barkley, Pippen. The 2004 Lakers with Shaq, Bryant, Malone and Payton (so four superstars !) didn't win as well, the 04 Mavs with Dirk, Nash, Jamison and Walker (okay Jamison and Walker ain't superstars but they were both stars at the time) failed too...

 

So I know that having three superstars just ain't enough to have a ring. The best team on paper ain't always the better team. That's a fact. The Heat have had some troubles this year, they've had ups and downs, but so far they've always gotten out of every tough situations, they've been quite impressive. Especially defensively. They showed many times during the season that they had the potential to have a fantastic defense. Even if they lacked of regularity... And they've been at their best in the playoffs. But they didn't play against great offensive teams at the same time in the East... Which is why I still had some doubts. But now they're playing against one of the best offenses in the league and they're doing a hell of a job. Proving that their defense is truly fantastic, there is no doubt about that any longer. This is clearly the best defense in the league. I give credit when credit is due. Congrats to Miami for taking this important game 3.

 

However the series ain't over yet... I have to admit that i'm not very confident now though. I still hope and think that Dallas can get back to its best level.But it's now or never. Carlisle said that the Mavs will give all what they got in the next game, they better for sure. Hopefully they'll get back to their true level. I certainly hope so. Dirk definitely can't win it all by himself. .. Terry, Barea, Stojakovic.. They all need to wake up. Same for Kidd who's been quite disappointing as well. Seems that he's not very comfortable in the Finals. I remember that in 2003 Parker owned him in the first three games of the Finals... Before Kidd suddenly woke up in game 4 and owned Parker in the last three games (the Spurs won nonetheless...). Let's hope same thing will happen this time and that Kidd will wake up in game 4 again !

 

Can't wait for tomorrow.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Oliver P

[Nitro]

Honestly I had my doubts about this team all year long. This for a simple reason, teams of stars usually doesn't work. Most of the best teams on paper haven't succeeded in the history of the NBA. Besides it happened many times that three superstars join forces in the history of the game and so far only the Celtics managed to get a ring. Yes Chamberlain, Baylor and West didn't win a ring together (the Lakers won the year Baylor retired), Olajuwon, Barkley, Drexler failed too, same for Olajuwon, Barkley, Pippen. The 2004 Lakers with Shaq, Bryant, Malone and Payton (so four superstars !) didn't win as well, the 04 Mavs with Dirk, Nash, Jamison and Walker (okay Jamison and Walker ain't superstars but they were both stars at the time) failed too...

 

Those aren't the greatest comparisons. All those teams (except the Mavs, who didn't have a 3rd star, 'nor a player the caliber of Wade or James) had superstars at the very end of their careers. Those Rockets teams had players at the tail-end of their careers, and that first team was only a Stockton GW away from the Finals. By the time the second team came around, Olajuwon was on a steep decline, and Pippen and Barkley weren't the same players either. The 2004 Lakers suffered a similar fate, although one of the things about that team that gets severely overlooked is Malone got injured in the WCF and wasn't even 50% for the first few games of the Finals, and missed the last few altogether...people forget how huge he was in defending Duncan in the semi's that year. Mix that in with Payton's decline, Kobe's injuries and the Kobe/Shaq feud, and it's clear why they weren't able to meet the expectations.

 

This Heat team is different. You have arguably the two best players in the league in their physical prime, who have the capabilities to be 30PPG scorers as well as lockdown defenders and strong in the ballhandling/passing/rebounding departments. Mix that in with a PF who averaged 25/11 last season, and a few quality role players and a defensive minded philosophy from the top of the organization to the bottom (something I stressed all last summer but people doubted), and it shouldn't be a surprise that this team is this good. My only question was if a frontcourt with Haslem and Anthony playing C would work against teams with strong rebounding, like Chicago and Dallas, and so far they've done just enough to get by.

[Oliver P]

All those teams (except the Mavs, who didn't have a 3rd star, 'nor a player the caliber of Wade or James) had superstars at the very end of their careers. Those Rockets teams had players at the tail-end of their careers, and that first team was only a Stockton GW away from the Finals. By the time the second team came around, Olajuwon was on a steep decline, and Pippen and Barkley weren't the same players either. The 2004 Lakers suffered a similar fate, although one of the things about that team that gets severely overlooked is Malone got injured in the WCF and wasn't even 50% for the first few games of the Finals, and missed the last few altogether...people forget how huge he was in defending Duncan in the semi's that year. Mix that in with Payton's decline, Kobe's injuries and the Kobe/Shaq feud, and it's clear why they weren't able to meet the expectations.

 

First of all the 97 Rockets big three was at the end of his career right, but they were still playing at an All Star level nonetheless.. And yes they were a Stock game winner away from the Finals, I never said that they sucked or anything.. They were quite good but the fact remains that they didn't win.

 

Second, about the 99 big three, well it's true that Olajuwon and Barkley were starting to really decline that year (they were not done nonetheless) but it's certainly totally wrong about Pippen. Pippen was still clearly at his prime in his Rockets days. Just like he was in his first couple of years in Portland.

 

Third I definitely didn't forget about Malone's injury. It's definitely true that he did a great job against the Spurs in the semis, I clearly remember that. And that with an healthy Karl the Lakers would have had a better chance to win a ring, there is no doubt about that. But the fact is that he was injured and we will never know how they would have played with him. Just like we will never know what the Wolves would have done if Sam Cassell wasn't injured in the WCF (many people think that they were truly the best Western team that year).. So it's a moot point. The fact is that they failed. Besides even with a healthy Malone they had a lot of trouble against the Spurs nonetheless, and if the guy who takes care of the clock had done his job in game 5 (we all know that Fisher shot in more than 0.4 seconds), well the Spurs would have probably beaten them. So this team did not do as expected anyway.

 

 

Those aren't the greatest comparisons.

 

Well in fact those ain't even comparisons at all... I wasn't comparing the Heat with those teams, I just picked those teams cause they are some of the best teams on paper ever and yet they failed. So my only point here was to show that it's not because you have the best team on paper that you will win it all for sure.

 

And so that's why I said at the beginning of the season that, yes the Heat are the best team "on paper" this season, but it's not because of that that they will win for sure (a lot of people considered them as the champs before the season even started which was totally asinine). That's all.

 

 

This Heat team is different. You have arguably the two best players in the league in their physical prime, who have the capabilities to be 30PPG scorers as well as lockdown defenders and strong in the ballhandling/passing/rebounding departments. Mix that in with a PF who averaged 25/11 last season, and a few quality role players and a defensive minded philosophy from the top of the organization to the bottom (something I stressed all last summer but people doubted), and it shouldn't be a surprise that this team is this good. My only question was if a frontcourt with Haslem and Anthony playing C would work against teams with strong rebounding, like Chicago and Dallas, and so far they've done just enough to get by.

 

This Heat is not that different, the 72 Lakers big three was even more impressive than this one (three players who are arguably in the top ten best players ever) yet they did not win. And age is certainly not the reason why they didn't win as they won TWO YEARS after Chamberlain joined Baylor and West in LA, this without Baylor... So if they were not too old two years after without Elgin, they certainly were not too old to win two years earlier.

 

Well who said that it was a surprise that this team is so good ? Not me anyway... I said that I had my doubts about them, for the reasons I stated. Which is not the same thing at all... Cause if I said all year long that I had doubts about this team, I also said, and this before the season even started, that I wouldn't be surprised if the Heat won it all. Cause first after all they're still the best team on paper (so it's quite logical that having more talents means having a best chance to win it all) and second the Celtics did it in their first year together so they definitely could do it.

 

Basically all I said before the season started was that this team has a huge potential, they can win it all but I just want to wait and see before I make any conclusions. And so far they've been terrific indeed and I'm in no way surprised by this.

 

The only thing I was sure of before the season started is that, contrary to what many people said, there was no way that they would beat the Bulls records. And I was right about that.

 

But again I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see them winning it all. IF they win it all by the way, cause as good as they've been, the Finals is FAR from being over.

[Nitro]

First of all the 97 Rockets big three was at the end of his career right, but they were still playing at an All Star level nonetheless.. And yes they were a Stock game winner away from the Finals, I never said that they sucked or anything.. They were quite good but the fact remains that they didn't win.

 

Second, about the 99 big three, well it's true that Olajuwon and Barkley were starting to really decline that year (they were not done nonetheless) but it's certainly totally wrong about Pippen. Pippen was still clearly at his prime in his Rockets days. Just like he was in his first couple of years in Portland.

 

Third I definitely didn't forget about Malone's injury. It's definitely true that he did a great job against the Spurs in the semis, I clearly remember that. And that with an healthy Karl the Lakers would have had a better chance to win a ring, there is no doubt about that. But the fact is that he was injured and we will never know how they would have played with him. Just like we will never know what the Wolves would have done if Sam Cassell wasn't injured in the WCF (many people think that they were truly the best Western team that year).. So it's a moot point. The fact is that they failed. Besides even with a healthy Malone they had a lot of trouble against the Spurs nonetheless, and if the guy who takes care of the clock had done his job in game 5 (we all know that Fisher shot in more than 0.4 seconds), well the Spurs would have probably beaten them. So this team did not do as expected anyway.

 

1) The '97 Rockets trio were still All-Stars, but not in their prime like the Heat are, and didn't really have. And keep this in mind with that team....of the 8 players who played in all 16 of their post-season games, including the Big 3, 7 of those 8 players were 33 years or older. That's a major disadvantage. Also keep in mind that Drexler and Barkley both missed 20+ games that season.

 

2) Pippen wasn't in his prime. He was on the downside of his career; he was still a very good player, but not nearly as explosive on either side of the ball as he used to be. In that '99 post-season he shot a dismal 33% from the floor as well.

 

3) I don't think it's fair to judge how good that Lakers team was unless they were remotely healthy for the Finals, but they did take out the reigning champs (who happened to be the same team that would win the following season) when they did have their health. Also, as I said, neither Payton 'nor Malone were the caliber player that Bosh currently is.

 

This Heat is not that different, the 72 Lakers big three was even more impressive than this one (three players who are arguably in the top ten best players ever) yet they did not win. And age is certainly not the reason why they didn't win as they won TWO YEARS after Chamberlain joined Baylor and West in LA, this without Baylor... So if they were not too old two years after without Elgin, they certainly were not too old to win two years earlier.

 

First off, I don't like comparing teams from 40 years ago to modern NBA teams...the league is far too different. With that said, Chamberlain played only like 10 games for the Lakers that first season (for comparison, the Heat were a .500 team about 20 games into this season) and were defeated by a Knick team with mutliple stars as well. The second, and last, season that Big 3 was together Baylor missed virtually the entire season and didn't play a game in the playoffs. Lastly, even though you say age wasn't a factor, Baylor was a shell of his former self by then, and Chamberlain and West were in their mid-'30's as well.

 

Basically what I am trying to say is no team has ever gotten 3 stars together, in the middle of their prime, like the Heat have. A lot of those trio's had all-time greats, but they weren't the same players when those teams were built, and a few of those teams, like both the '70's and '04 Lakers, had severe injuries in the post-season which prevented them from reaching their goal. I know you weren't comparing them necessarily, but I think your logic in using them as examples of how this Heat team may not work was flawed.

[Oliver P]

1) The '97 Rockets trio were still All-Stars, but not in their prime like the Heat are, and didn't really have. And keep this in mind with that team....of the 8 players who played in all 16 of their post-season games, including the Big 3, 7 of those 8 players were 33 years or older. That's a major disadvantage. Also keep in mind that Drexler and Barkley both missed 20+ games that season.

 

Yes this is true but being older is not necessarily a disadvantage... They weren't as young as the Heat's players but at least they had more experience. Also Drexler and Barkley had some injury troubles but the fact is that they were perfectly healthy and ready in the playoffs. And that's all what matters.

 

Besides they played eye to eye with the Jazz that year, this Jazz team which is, in my opinion, the best team that the Bulls ever faced in the Finals. So if age was really the problem here they would have never been able to do that. 33 and 34 is not that old anyhow (I'm 33 PLEASE ! ), Jordan was still, and BY FAR, the best player in the world at that age for example.

 

2) Pippen wasn't in his prime. He was on the downside of his career; he was still a very good player, but not nearly as explosive on either side of the ball as he used to be. In that '99 post-season he shot a dismal 33% from the floor as well.

 

Pippen was still in his prime. He started to slowly decrease that year but he was still in his prime nonetheless. It's only in his second year in Portland that we can say that he wasn't in his prime any longer.. Now it's true that Pippen was quite disappointing in Houston. But that's not because of his age, he just never adapted to the Rockets. Both as a player and as a person... He's still very hated in Houston.

 

3) I don't think it's fair to judge how good that Lakers team was unless they were remotely healthy for the Finals, but they did take out the reigning champs (who happened to be the same team that would win the following season) when they did have their health. Also, as I said, neither Payton 'nor Malone were the caliber player that Bosh currently is.

 

Yes but again the problem is that they were not healthy... So we just can't know. Besides, once again, I think that many people do not realize how great the Wolves were that year, and if Cassell (he was clearly playing at the best level of his career that year) wasn't injured I'm not sure that the Lakers would have eliminated them... Many people even think that the 2004 Wolves should have won the ring that year.

 

Also Payton and Malone were at the end of their career but the fact is that they still were playing at the same level they played their whole career the year before. Payton was not particularly good in his Laker season, he was heavily criticized (especially by Magic), but it's not because of his age. It's because he never managed to adapt to the triangle offense. He was totally lost in this offense. Which shows once again that, no matter how good you are, there's no guarantee that you'll fit well in a team...

As for Malone it's like this guy never got out of his prime... Besides he fitted perfectly in LA. I honestly would take the old Malone over the young Bosh any day.

 

First off, I don't like comparing teams from 40 years ago to modern NBA teams...the league is far too different. With that said, Chamberlain played only like 10 games for the Lakers that first season (for comparison, the Heat were a .500 team about 20 games into this season) and were defeated by a Knick team with mutliple stars as well. The second, and last, season that Big 3 was together Baylor missed virtually the entire season and didn't play a game in the playoffs. Lastly, even though you say age wasn't a factor, Baylor was a shell of his former self by then, and Chamberlain and West were in their mid-'30's as well.

 

The league is different that's true but not as different as most people make it to be though... I've always noticed that the people who said that the league from the old days was very different from what it is now are usually young people who never watch that league at the time. While the people who actually watched the game in the 60's always claim that it wasn't that different and never use the difference of era excuse. I wasn't watching the NBA at that time (I'm obviously not that old..) but I watched all the 90's and 2000's. And what strikes me a lot is the vision that most people who didn't watch the 90's have about that era. It seems that for them it was like the prehistory... Yet I know that the vision they have of it is totally false and that the game was basically the same as it is today. So I definitely gives more weight to the people who watched the league at the time.

 

Now I don't know where you saw that Chamberlain played only 10 games the first season... Cause it's false. The first year the three players were healthy the entire season (West missed a few games here and there but that's it..). And they didn't play the Knicks but the Celtics. And they lost.

 

It's their second year that Chamberlain was injured for most of the season (even if he was injured he was fully healthy in the playoffs, so if anything this injury was only positive as it allowed him to rest for the entire season... Besides they reached the Finals that year, and if they reached the Finals they could have win a ring). And that they played the Knicks in the Finals. And the Knicks didn't have multiple stars... They had Willis Reed and Walt Frazier, who were stars and very good players, but not superstar calibers like Ewing (clearly the best Knicks ever so far). After that they had DeBusschere who was a defensive specialists and a bunch of above average, and average role players (like Barnett or Senatory Bradley).. Good team but definitely not as good as the Lakers on paper.

 

And no age wasn't a factor at all, cause Chamberlain and West were able to win together in their mid 30's. So again if they weren't too old to win in their mid 30's, they certainly were not too old to win in their EARLY 30's, this with Baylor in the team.

 

Basically what I am trying to say is no team has ever gotten 3 stars together, in the middle of their prime, like the Heat have. A lot of those trio's had all-time greats, but they weren't the same players when those teams were built, and a few of those teams, like both the '70's and '04 Lakers, had severe injuries in the post-season which prevented them from reaching their goal. I know you weren't comparing them necessarily, but I think your logic in using them as examples of how this Heat team may not work was flawed.

 

Well it is true that it's the first time that a team has 3 stars together IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR PRIME, I agree with that. That's an advantage for them I don't deny it. The stars of the teams I mentioned were older it's true. However, even if they were older, I certainly don't think that they were TOO old to win, I just showed why in this post anyhow.

 

I can give you a lot of other examples to prove my point though (I already did in my other post at the beginning of the season anyhow, I just didn't want to repeat myself here at first..)

 

First there's another example of a team of stars whose players were under 30 though, it was the Run TMC. They never accomplished anything together. And got immediately better after Richmond's departure.

 

Then you got the 2000 Blazers.They didn't have three superstars like the Heat, but had A LOT of stars, like Pip, Sheed (at the time he was a superstar), Sabonis, Mighty Mouse, Wells, Schrempf, Steve Smith, Brian Grant, etc... It is for me even the best team "on paper" EVER. Just an amazing squad. And I clearly remember how people got crazy about this team this season. Everyone thought that they would win it all, breaking the Bulls record, Steve Smith himself even said that he was sure that this team could win 82 games ! Result ? They didn't have the best record, won 59 games and failed to win a ring... They were very close to win though, that's for sure. We all remember the LA miracle.. But still the result is the same, the fact is that they didn't win.

 

I could mention many other teams that were the best on paper but eventually failed to win it all, like the 95 Magic, 02 Kings, etc... But I think that you get my point by now.

 

I could talk also about Team USA. It's an even better example. Those teams were full of NBA stars and faced team that AT BEST had only a COUPLE of NBA PLAYERS !! Yet they failed three times against them... The best example for me was in 2006. Best example cause first of all... They had Wade, James and Bosh. Yes the very same that are now together in Miami. And had much better teammates at the time (Dwight, Anthony, Paul... Need I go on ?). Yet they lost against Greece, a team that not only didn't have a single NBA star, but didn't even have ONE NBA PLAYER ! Team USA was just by far better. BY FAR. But they lost... Yet Team USA trained for the first time ever that year, it was supposed to be the year of redemption.. They took that event very seriously for the first time ever. And they failed...

The redemption happened two years later (fortunately) in 2008. Let's talk about that year. Sure they won it all this time but honestly... First they had trouble to beat an Argentina team, who's only star (Ginobili) got injured in the game, then they had Scola but the rest of the team were not even FIBA STARS ! Yet they had trouble to beat them... Until a last run.

And in the Finals they almost lost to a Spanish team who had one NBA star, Gasol, then an NBA player, Fernandez, and the rest of them were all playing in the FIBA. So again Team USA was by far better on paper. They had the same stars as two years ago, plus Bryant and Williams... Even more impressive... Yet they barely won... All of this is definitely not impressive.

 

So basically all I want to say here is that it's not because you have the best team on paper that you will win for sure. That's a fact. I just showed it over and over again. And that's all I said all season long. Yes the Heat clearly have the best team on paper but they will not win for sure. We still had to wait and see. And it was totally asinine to say that this team was already champ before even playing... That's what I said all year long. Well as I said in my previous post, they did quite alright. But contrary to what most people think they didn't end the season with the best record, were FAR from beating the 72 wins Bulls record (that's the most absurd thing I heard this season to be honest, how a team whose players have never been together could beat the Bulls record in their first year... Totally ludicrous).

Also, if they've been quite impressive in the playoffs so far, it's important to take in consideration the fact that the Celtics and Lakers were not even close to what they were last year... Would have they been that impressive last year ? I'm not so sure... Especially that, if their defense is very good, they're not as great offensively, they've have had many scoring droughts... And honestly the Mavs could easily lead 3-0, this despite the fact that Nowitzki has been the only Mavs to be really good so far..

 

So anyway again I give credit to the Heat, they've been quite good all season, congrats to them for winning this last game, but the Finals are certainly not over yet. You can be sure of that.

[Nitro]

There was simply too much to respond to in your post, so I'll just reply to a few things I have not touched on before...

 

Well it is true that it's the first time that a team has 3 stars together IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR PRIME, I agree with that. That's an advantage for them I don't deny it. The stars of the teams I mentioned were older it's true. However, even if they were older, I certainly don't think that they were TOO old to win, I just showed why in this post anyhow.

 

I never said those teams were too old to win, but those specific Big 3's (NOT teams) were not comparable to the Heat's trio because of their age. I am not necessarily talking about physical playing ability, either, but also the ability to stay healthy as well. I mean, look at Karl Malone in his year with the Lakers...the previous 20 seasons or so he had missed no more than 2 games in a season. With the Lakers? Missed half the season (which [expletive]s up team chemistry with that kind of project) and got hurt once again in the playoffs. You brush off the Barkely/Drexler injuries in '97, but 60 games into this season the Heat were on a 5 game losing streak and couldn't close out a game. Injuries from being older is a major factor, especially for these trio's that were only together a year.

 

First there's another example of a team of stars whose players were under 30 though, it was the Run TMC. They never accomplished anything together. And got immediately better after Richmond's departure.

 

Richmond and Hardaway were drafted onto that team, which only had 3 years together...they were not in their prime. And in those 3 seasons, Richmond never even made the All-Star team. Also, that team had no player the caliber of Wade or James, and arguably Bosh either. So, once again, it's not a good comparison.

 

Then you got the 2000 Blazers.They didn't have three superstars like the Heat, but had A LOT of stars, like Pip, Sheed (at the time he was a superstar), Sabonis, Mighty Mouse, Wells, Schrempf, Steve Smith, Brian Grant, etc... It is for me even the best team "on paper" EVER. Just an amazing squad. And I clearly remember how people got crazy about this team this season. Everyone thought that they would win it all, breaking the Bulls record, Steve Smith himself even said that he was sure that this team could win 82 games ! Result ? They didn't have the best record, won 59 games and failed to win a ring... They were very close to win though, that's for sure. We all remember the LA miracle.. But still the result is the same, the fact is that they didn't win.

 

A lot of stars? Only one player from that team was an All-Star that season, and that was Sheed. Pippen hadn't been an All-Star the previous few seasons, Schrempf was 37 and a role player, Sabonis didn't even get to the NBA until he was on the decline, and the rest of those guys were essentially glorified role players. They were a lot more like the current Mavs, with one star and a few former stars who are now role players.

 

I could talk also about Team USA. It's an even better example. Those teams were full of NBA stars and faced team that AT BEST had only a COUPLE of NBA PLAYERS !! Yet they failed three times against them... The best example for me was in 2006. Best example cause first of all... They had Wade, James and Bosh. Yes the very same that are now together in Miami. And had much better teammates at the time (Dwight, Anthony, Paul... Need I go on ?). Yet they lost against Greece, a team that not only didn't have a single NBA star, but didn't even have ONE NBA PLAYER ! Team USA was just by far better. BY FAR. But they lost... Yet Team USA trained for the first time ever that year, it was supposed to be the year of redemption.. They took that event very seriously for the first time ever. And they failed...

The redemption happened two years later (fortunately) in 2008. Let's talk about that year. Sure they won it all this time but honestly... First they had trouble to beat an Argentina team, who's only star (Ginobili) got injured in the game, then they had Scola but the rest of the team were not even FIBA STARS ! Yet they had trouble to beat them... Until a last run.

And in the Finals they almost lost to a Spanish team who had one NBA star, Gasol, then an NBA player, Fernandez, and the rest of them were all playing in the FIBA. So again Team USA was by far better on paper. They had the same stars as two years ago, plus Bryant and Williams... Even more impressive... Yet they barely won... All of this is definitely not impressive.

 

Not a good example at all. The 2006 squad was imbalanced and only had about 15 games together before they had to face Greece, who had been together for years. They also had to adapt to an entirely different set of rules as well as how the refs call the games. The reason the 2008 team did so well was because most of the team had 2-3 years of international experience together before that run to the Gold. And they struggled against Argentina? They beat them by 20. They destroyed Spain by over 30 the first game they played them, and every other game besides the Gold Medal game was a huge blowout.

 

Even with those 3 years international experience, that team only had about 30-40 games played together. This Heat team has had training camp, preseason, an 82 game regular season and a long post-season to get it all together. Remember, it took them literally the entire regular season and a few games of the playoffs to get to the point where they are at now. That USA team did not have that same luxory, even though they had a bigger pool of talent.

 

So basically all I want to say here is that it's not because you have the best team on paper that you will win for sure. That's a fact. I just showed it over and over again. And that's all I said all season long. Yes the Heat clearly have the best team on paper but they will not win for sure. We still had to wait and see. And it was totally asinine to say that this team was already champ before even playing... That's what I said all year long. Well as I said in my previous post, they did quite alright. But contrary to what most people think they didn't end the season with the best record, were FAR from beating the 72 wins Bulls record (that's the most absurd thing I heard this season to be honest, how a team whose players have never been together could beat the Bulls record in their first year... Totally ludicrous).

Also, if they've been quite impressive in the playoffs so far, it's important to take in consideration the fact that the Celtics and Lakers were not even close to what they were last year... Would have they been that impressive last year ? I'm not so sure... Especially that, if their defense is very good, they're not as great offensively, they've have had many scoring droughts... And honestly the Mavs could easily lead 3-0, this despite the fact that Nowitzki has been the only Mavs to be really good so far.

 

All my posts were not to refute your idea that the best teams on paper don't win it all...I didn't even think the Heat had the best team on paper before this season, I thought the Lakers did. All my posts did were showing how past "Big 3's" were not comparable to this current Heat trio.

 

Also, you could make a much better case for saying the Heat should be up 3-0 as opposed to the Mavs. They beat the Mavs convincingly enough the first game, they had the biggest meltdown in Finals history in the second game, and almost blew another lead in the third game but pulled the thing out.

[Oliver P]

I never said those teams were too old to win, but those specific Big 3's (NOT teams) were not comparable to the Heat's trio because of their age. I am not necessarily talking about physical playing ability, either, but also the ability to stay healthy as well. I mean, look at Karl Malone in his year with the Lakers...the previous 20 seasons or so he had missed no more than 2 games in a season. With the Lakers? Missed half the season (which [expletive]s up team chemistry with that kind of project) and got hurt once again in the playoffs. You brush off the Barkely/Drexler injuries in '97, but 60 games into this season the Heat were on a 5 game losing streak and couldn't close out a game. Injuries from being older is a major factor, especially for these trio's that were only together a year.

 

I didn't say the opposite, I agreed that being older was a disadvantage because they were more injury prone indeed... I just added that it was not ENTIRELY a disavantadge, that it had its good sides too as the players were more experienced...

 

And I will not agree that it is a MAJOR fact, it is important, but it's not that important, because young players can get injured too... The fact is that the Rockets Big Three were all fine during the playoffs so they didn't lose because of that. If anything the injuries they had were a good thing as it allowed them to rest a bit during the season. The 97 Rockets didn't fail because of age and injury. I agree that it was a factor for the 04 Lakers, but still we'll never know what they would have done if Malone was healthy.

 

 

Richmond and Hardaway were drafted onto that team, which only had 3 years together...they were not in their prime. And in those 3 seasons, Richmond never even made the All-Star team. Also, that team had no player the caliber of Wade or James, and arguably Bosh either. So, once again, it's not a good comparison.

 

And again it's not a comparison at all... I didn't mention those teams to compare them with Miami, you totally misunderstood my point...

 

But anyway I never said that they were in their prime. I said that there was another team who had 3 stars together under the age of 30... And I mentioned it. They were not in their prime yet, that's true. And none of the player were of the caliber of Wade and James, I agree. But not of Bosh... I'm sorry but Tim Bug were definitely better players than Bosh could ever dream of. A case could even be made for Mullin and Mitch... It's very hard to compare players who do not play the same position but Tim Bug was one of the three best PGs of the 90's (with Payton and Stock), one of the best defenders ever, and definitely a top 10 PG ever.

 

Anyway I mentioned this team because they had a very impressive team on paper as well, three players that became later all stars, and yet the team was better IMMEDIATELY after Richmond's departure. So it shows that a less good team on paper can be better overall...

 

 

A lot of stars? Only one player from that team was an All-Star that season, and that was Sheed. Pippen hadn't been an All-Star the previous few seasons, Schrempf was 37 and a role player, Sabonis didn't even get to the NBA until he was on the decline, and the rest of those guys were essentially glorified role players. They were a lot more like the current Mavs, with one star and a few former stars who are now role players.

 

I can't believe you said that... I seriously hope this is a joke ? Comparing the Mavs with the 00 Blazers is totally asinine and, no offense, but I think that you've never seen that team play, you wouldn't say that otherwise...

 

Sheed was a superstar indeed. But no the other players were not "glorified role players"... Certainly not. It's not because you're not All Star that you're not a star. I already mentioned Aldridge case for example, he played at an All Star level this year yet wasn't All Star, because they were too many players to choose from and everyone couldn't be picked.. So in the future they certainly won't look at him as an All Star, yet we all know that he was truly one this year.

So it's not because you're not an All Star that you're not a star. Only Sheed was All Star this year, well of course, it's totally logical, when you have a team with multiple talents your stats will decline it's pretty obvious... There's only one ball for so many players... And as stats are very important to be All Star, it's totally logical to have one All Star in such a great team.

 

And no Scottie Pippen wasn't all star the previous years, you wanna know why ? First because there was just NO ALL STAR game in 99 (because of the lock out), and he was injured in 98... So he wasn't all because he just COULDN'T BE ALL STAR. His stats, especially his PPG, were not as good because he had to share the ball more, but his other stats were the same as it always was and he was just as good as during his entire career. As I said before it's the following year that Pip got out of his prime.

 

Steve Smith was certainly not a role player, before his arrival in Portland he had been the leader of a very good Hawks team for quite some years. And was considered at the time as one of the best NBA guards. He was a true star. Stoudamire was a terrific PG, he's had some fantastic seasons in Toronto before his arrival in a much better Blazers team, in which, again, he had to share the ball more.. But he was clearly one of the best PGs in the league at the time and was a star as well. Brian Grant is one of my favorite players ever, he already showed a terrific potential in Sac Town but truly became one of the best PFs in the league with Portland. Schrempf, Sabonis and Augmon were not in their prime any more in Portland, that is true. But Sabonis was still a fantastic player nonetheless, he body was totally injured but he could dominate a game only with his magic hands... He was definitely a star in his NBA days.

 

This team was just fantastic, which is why everybody was so high on them at the time and that everyone thought that they would win it all for sure.

 

 

 

 

Not a good example at all. The 2006 squad was imbalanced and only had about 15 games together before they had to face Greece, who had been together for years. They also had to adapt to an entirely different set of rules as well as how the refs call the games. The reason the 2008 team did so well was because most of the team had 2-3 years of international experience together before that run to the Gold. And they struggled against Argentina? They beat them by 20. They destroyed Spain by over 30 the first game they played them, and every other game besides the Gold Medal game was a huge blowout.

 

It is definitely a good example. Firs this team was not imbalanced (the 2004 one was, not the 2006), they had talents in every position (best PG, best SF, best C in the world and second best SG in the world plus one of the best PFs) and all the players were complementary.

And yeah they didn't have a lot of games to play together before and had to adapt to new rules but i's always been the case for Team USA. Hell in the 90's the players didn't even practice together... Yet they blew out all the opponents. Now it's true that International players have improved since, but certainly not not as much as some people think... I was a fan in the 90's and I can tell you that there were at the time international teams that were MUCH better than this Greece team... Like the Yugaslavian teams for example, full with amazing talent. Yet Team USA always destroyed them.

So the rules and lack of practice is not an excuse at all.

 

I am perfectly aware that they beat them by 20 but I take it that you didn't watch teh game right ? Cause they struggled during three quarters indeed, which was very surprising... until, as I said in my other post, a late run that allowed them to win by a large margin. They shouldn't have struggled during such a long time...

 

And I never said anything about the other games. They were a huge blowout indeed. Just like it was supposed to be. And just like they were supposed to do against Argentina and Spain in the Finals.

 

 

All my posts were not to refute your idea that the best teams on paper don't win it all...I didn't even think the Heat had the best team on paper before this season, I thought the Lakers did. All my posts did were showing how past "Big 3's" were not comparable to this current Heat trio.

 

In that case it just confirms that you didn't get my point then... Because that's the only thing I tried to say here. The only thing I wanted to say was that it's not because you have the best team on paper that you will win for sure. That and only that. Again, as I already said, I never ever tried to compare the Heat to all those teams...

 

The fact is that you can try as hard you can to find some good reasons to explain why those teams didn't win, and you may find some indeed, the fact is that those teams didn't win. And that's all I wanted to say here, that no matter how good your roster is, anything can happen (players who don't get along, injuries, players that don't fit in the system, troubles offensively or defensively, etc, etc, ETC....). Nothing comes with a guarantee. And it's not because the Heat got this terrific Big Three that this team would win for sure. That is why I wanted to wait and see for myself. That is the ONLY thing I said in my posts. So I guess that we agree about that after all...

 

 

Also, you could make a much better case for saying the Heat should be up 3-0 as opposed to the Mavs. They beat the Mavs convincingly enough the first game, they had the biggest meltdown in Finals history in the second game, and almost blew another lead in the third game but pulled the thing out.

 

I never said the opposite. Actually I even said that the Heat deserved to lead 2-1, and that they've been the better team so far. They could lead 3-0 it's true. But, as good as they've been, they haven't outclassed the Mavs at the same time and the games were won in the money time. So the Mavs could lead 3-0 either. No one can say the opposite.

[Nitro]

And I will not agree that it is a MAJOR fact, it is important, but it's not that important, because young players can get injured too... The fact is that the Rockets Big Three were all fine during the playoffs so they didn't lose because of that. If anything the injuries they had were a good thing as it allowed them to rest a bit during the season. The 97 Rockets didn't fail because of age and injury. I agree that it was a factor for the 04 Lakers, but still we'll never know what they would have done if Malone was healthy.

 

As I said before, that Rockets team was OLD, and yes injuries did hurt them...Drexler and Barkley missed a combined 50 games. If they played those games, don't you think there is a good chance they catch Utah for best record in the West? If they had HCA against Utah that post-season, a Finals appearance would have been likely. As mentioned before, 7 of their top 8 players that post-season were 33 year or older...that is extremely old.

 

But anyway I never said that they were in their prime. I said that there was another team who had 3 stars together under the age of 30... And I mentioned it. They were not in their prime yet, that's true. And none of the player were of the caliber of Wade and James, I agree. But not of Bosh... I'm sorry but Tim Bug were definitely better players than Bosh could ever dream of. A case could even be made for Mullin and Mitch... It's very hard to compare players who do not play the same position but Tim Bug was one of the three best PGs of the 90's (with Payton and Stock), one of the best defenders ever, and definitely a top 10 PG ever.

 

Anyway I mentioned this team because they had a very impressive team on paper as well, three players that became later all stars, and yet the team was better IMMEDIATELY after Richmond's departure. So it shows that a less good team on paper can be better overall...

 

Once again, there is no point in bringing that trio up because A) they weren't at their best when they joined up, and B) 2/3 of Miami's trio are much better players than that trio's best, and Bosh is comparable to, or even better than each player in the Warriors' trio (I agree about Tim, but Bosh is comparable or better than Mullin and Richmond).

 

 

I can't believe you said that... I seriously hope this is a joke ? Comparing the Mavs with the 00 Blazers is totally asinine and, no offense, but I think that you've never seen that team play, you wouldn't say that otherwise...

 

Sheed was a superstar indeed. But no the other players were not "glorified role players"... Certainly not. It's not because you're not All Star that you're not a star. I already mentioned Aldridge case for example, he played at an All Star level this year yet wasn't All Star, because they were too many players to choose from and everyone couldn't be picked.. So in the future they certainly won't look at him as an All Star, yet we all know that he was truly one this year.

So it's not because you're not an All Star that you're not a star. Only Sheed was All Star this year, well of course, it's totally logical, when you have a team with multiple talents your stats will decline it's pretty obvious... There's only one ball for so many players... And as stats are very important to be All Star, it's totally logical to have one All Star in such a great team.

 

And no Scottie Pippen wasn't all star the previous years, you wanna know why ? First because there was just NO ALL STAR game in 99 (because of the lock out), and he was injured in 98... So he wasn't all because he just COULDN'T BE ALL STAR. His stats, especially his PPG, were not as good because he had to share the ball more, but his other stats were the same as it always was and he was just as good as during his entire career. As I said before it's the following year that Pip got out of his prime.

 

Steve Smith was certainly not a role player, before his arrival in Portland he had been the leader of a very good Hawks team for quite some years. And was considered at the time as one of the best NBA guards. He was a true star. Stoudamire was a terrific PG, he's had some fantastic seasons in Toronto before his arrival in a much better Blazers team, in which, again, he had to share the ball more.. But he was clearly one of the best PGs in the league at the time and was a star as well. Brian Grant is one of my favorite players ever, he already showed a terrific potential in Sac Town but truly became one of the best PFs in the league with Portland. Schrempf, Sabonis and Augmon were not in their prime any more in Portland, that is true. But Sabonis was still a fantastic player nonetheless, he body was totally injured but he could dominate a game only with his magic hands... He was definitely a star in his NBA days.

 

This team was just fantastic, which is why everybody was so high on them at the time and that everyone thought that they would win it all for sure.

 

You are SEVERELY overrating that 99-00 Blazers team...well, not so much the team as much as the individual talent. Besides Sheed and maybe Pippen, not a single player on that team was a star. Between Smith, Stoudamire, Grant and Sabonis, they have only 1 All-Star appearance in their entire CAREERS between them (Smith in 1998). Smith was an amazing shooter, but didn't offer much else, especially in Portland when Pippen and Stoudamire were taking care of all the ballhandling/playmaking duties. Stoudamire was a low percentage scorer who stat-stuffed on the Toronto Raptor expansion teams...he did very little in his career after those teams. Also, much like Smith, he was below average defensively as well. Grant is one of my all-time favorite players, but one of the best PF's in the game? Off the top of my head, I can name at least 8 PF's who were decisively better at the time...Duncan, KG, Malone, Sheed, Coleman, Webber, Brand (he was a 20/10 rookie), and Kemp. There are probably a few others I am forgetting. And Sabonis was a solid player for the Blazers, probably a perfect fit with his passing ability and craftiness, but he was in no way a star at age 35 (I can think of probably at least 10 C's who were better at the time).

 

As for Pippen, he simply was not the same player by the time he reached the Blazers (or Rockets) that he was a few years prior. He lost a good deal of explosiveness and couldn't get to the rim or defend elite perimeter players (or play the passing lanes) like he used to be able to. Thus, his efficiency plummeted offensively, and defensively he wasn't quite the same. Don't get me wrong, he was still a very good player, but to say he was still in his prime is a joke...it's like saying Duncan is still in his prime.

 

Also, as far as comparing them to the Mavs, I think it's a fair comparison. Dirk is a much, MUCH better player than Sheed was in 99-00, and while Pippen was a better 2nd option than what the Mavs offer, the Mavs have a few former, yet still productive All-Stars...Kidd, Marion and Peja, with a former 6th man of the year Terry, and a DPOY candidate in Chandler. The Mavs are proficient on both sides of the floor like the Blazers were, have great team passing and are primarily a jumpshooting team as well.

 

It is definitely a good example. Firs this team was not imbalanced (the 2004 one was, not the 2006), they had talents in every position (best PG, best SF, best C in the world and second best SG in the world plus one of the best PFs) and all the players were complementary.

And yeah they didn't have a lot of games to play together before and had to adapt to new rules but i's always been the case for Team USA. Hell in the 90's the players didn't even practice together... Yet they blew out all the opponents. Now it's true that International players have improved since, but certainly not not as much as some people think... I was a fan in the 90's and I can tell you that there were at the time international teams that were MUCH better than this Greece team... Like the Yugaslavian teams for example, full with amazing talent. Yet Team USA always destroyed them.

So the rules and lack of practice is not an excuse at all.

 

I am perfectly aware that they beat them by 20 but I take it that you didn't watch teh game right ? Cause they struggled during three quarters indeed, which was very surprising... until, as I said in my other post, a late run that allowed them to win by a large margin. They shouldn't have struggled during such a long time...

 

And I never said anything about the other games. They were a huge blowout indeed. Just like it was supposed to be. And just like they were supposed to do against Argentina and Spain in the Finals.

 

First off, don't throw the "I'm guessing you didn't watch those games" line at me...I stayed up until 3-7am (which is when those game were broadcasted live in the US) EVERY SINGLE GAME in 2006 and 2008, and I watched the 2007 FIBA's as well (also the Team USA White vs. Blue exhibition where Kobe hit the GW). I almost take that as an insult because of how much endurance it took while I was juggling work and school around with it. If you go on BBW's old website, I have analysis of each game somewhere in there.

 

1) Either you believe the '90's had a much, much greater talent pool than the '00's squad, or those teams were built with better balance, because that can only explain the phenomenon you are talking about in that first paragraph. It's either the world quickly caught up with us (which is what EVERY respectable analyst who know the international game well)says), or we did a severe 180 and plummeted big time in terms of talent and capability.

 

2) We still beat Argentina (the defending Olympic champs) by 20...20!!! It doesn't matter if the team had a few lulls and the game was close for awhile, we still ended up blowing them out.

 

3) As I said before, I think you are severely undermining the importance of team chemistry. The main reason the Olympic team was so much better than the 02 WC, 04 Olympic and 06 WC teams was because they had a lot more experience playing with each other, and were able to build an identity, which was ridiculously good defense. And I don't even know why we are arguing this because the US still beat Spain in the Final game, and essentially blew everyone else out convincingly.

 

 

In that case it just confirms that you didn't get my point then... Because that's the only thing I tried to say here. The only thing I wanted to say was that it's not because you have the best team on paper that you will win for sure. That and only that. Again, as I already said, I never ever tried to compare the Heat to all those teams...

 

The fact is that you can try as hard you can to find some good reasons to explain why those teams didn't win, and you may find some indeed, the fact is that those teams didn't win. And that's all I wanted to say here, that no matter how good your roster is, anything can happen (players who don't get along, injuries, players that don't fit in the system, troubles offensively or defensively, etc, etc, ETC....). Nothing comes with a guarantee. And it's not because the Heat got this terrific Big Three that this team would win for sure. That is why I wanted to wait and see for myself. That is the ONLY thing I said in my posts. So I guess that we agree about that after all...

 

Here's what you wrote that I initially responded to....

 

"Honestly I had my doubts about this team all year long. This for a simple reason, teams of stars usually doesn't work. Most of the best teams on paper haven't succeeded in the history of the NBA. Besides it happened many times that three superstars join forces in the history of the game and so far only the Celtics managed to get a ring. Yes Chamberlain, Baylor and West didn't win a ring together (the Lakers won the year Baylor retired), Olajuwon, Barkley, Drexler failed too, same for Olajuwon, Barkley, Pippen. The 2004 Lakers with Shaq, Bryant, Malone and Payton (so four superstars !) didn't win as well, the 04 Mavs with Dirk, Nash, Jamison and Walker (okay Jamison and Walker ain't superstars but they were both stars at the time) failed too..."

 

I was responding to the first line I bolded, and then to your comparisons of how those other "Big 3's" didn't work out. My whole entire point is that many of those teams, specifically Big 3's, were too old at that point to do what the Heat are doing now (whether the age showed up in their level of play or injuries, they are both huge factors).

[Oliver P]

As I said before, that Rockets team was OLD, and yes injuries did hurt them...Drexler and Barkley missed a combined 50 games. If they played those games, don't you think there is a good chance they catch Utah for best record in the West? If they had HCA against Utah that post-season, a Finals appearance would have been likely. As mentioned before, 7 of their top 8 players that post-season were 33 year or older...that is extremely old.

 

Too many ifs here... we can go very far with ifs. If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle...

 

But anyway all jokes aside we just can't know what would have happened if Charles and Clyde had played those games. I agree that they would have had more chances to catch the Jazz for best record in the West, but first we can't know that it would have happened for sure and second HCA is not as important as people make it to be. Sure it's better to have HCA but if you're really the better team you will win despite that fact. Frankly HCA is a bit overrated... I'll always remember this astounding series between the Rockets and Spurs in 95, in which every team won away... Until the Rockets won game 6 at home. It clearly shows that it's not that important... I mean, again I agree that it's still better to have it but I believe that the better team will win no matter what.

 

Oh and I'm glad to know that you think that 33 is extremely old by the way...

 

Well anyway I will not agree with you that age was the reason why the Rockets didn't win that year. The following year yes, but not this year.

 

 

Once again, there is no point in bringing that trio up because A) they weren't at their best when they joined up, and B) 2/3 of Miami's trio are much better players than that trio's best, and Bosh is comparable to, or even better than each player in the Warriors' trio (I agree about Tim, but Bosh is comparable or better than Mullin and Richmond).

 

Actually there is a point to bring that trio up. I clearly said it in my post, I mentioned that team because, even if they weren't at their prime yet, this team had to star and got IMMEDIATELY BETTER right after one of them (Richmond) left. And so it shows that having the more stars in your team does not necassarily means that your team will be better, sometimes it's even the opposite.

 

 

You are SEVERELY overrating that 99-00 Blazers team...well, not so much the team as much as the individual talent. Besides Sheed and maybe Pippen, not a single player on that team was a star. Between Smith, Stoudamire, Grant and Sabonis, they have only 1 All-Star appearance in their entire CAREERS between them (Smith in 1998). Smith was an amazing shooter, but didn't offer much else, especially in Portland when Pippen and Stoudamire were taking care of all the ballhandling/playmaking duties. Stoudamire was a low percentage scorer who stat-stuffed on the Toronto Raptor expansion teams...he did very little in his career after those teams. Also, much like Smith, he was below average defensively as well. Grant is one of my all-time favorite players, but one of the best PF's in the game? Off the top of my head, I can name at least 8 PF's who were decisively better at the time...Duncan, KG, Malone, Sheed, Coleman, Webber, Brand (he was a 20/10 rookie), and Kemp. There are probably a few others I am forgetting. And Sabonis was a solid player for the Blazers, probably a perfect fit with his passing ability and craftiness, but he was in no way a star at age 35 (I can think of probably at least 10 C's who were better at the time).

 

Again the All Star appearance is unrelevant here. I clearly explained why in my last post so I will not repeat myself. I will never agree with you that Smith or Stoudemire were not stars, they were clearly the best players of their team before they joined Portland. That defiitely means something. Also Mighty Mouse was a low percentage scorer because he was too lonely in those Raptors teams. He had to do it all by himself, I think that's a pretty good reason why his FG% was not higher.. He changed his game once he joined Portland (something that many players are not able to do) and managed to adapt to better teammates. He became a more efficient player, even if that doesn't show on his stats. The fact is that he could dominate a game all by himself, I don't know how many times he did it for Portland, I clearly remember that. And that's the definition of a star for me.

Smith was not the best defender ever but he was better defensively than you make it sound... Besides he was much more than just a shooter, this guy was also a great ball handler and passer. He played PG at his beginning with Miami. And played PG several times again during all his career. He was even a member of the Dream Team II. In Portland he didn't have to do all what he did in Atlanta and Miami because he had Pip and Mighty Mouse to take care of ball handling and playmaking as you said, that's pretty logical as he had stars around him by this time. Which is why you're not as noticed when you play in a team of stars... But he was still the same player nonetheless.

 

I agree with you about Duncan, Sheed, Malone, KG and Webber but certainly not with Brand and DC... Brand was just a rookie at the time, there is no way that I would put a rookie ahead of a veteran... Except if that veteran is a scrub.. Besides Brand was the kind of player that had great stat but never had a great impact on his teams.. Brian Grant was a much better hustler and always gave all what he got to make his team wins. Which is why I'd take him over Brand any day. Even over DC, who was one of the best talents to ever play the game (could have been the best PF ever) but didn't care about working on his game, practicing... And he was a terrible defender (especially because he didn't care). I'd pick Grant over him any day as well. As for Kemp he wasn't the same player that he used to be after the lock out... No doubt that Grant was better than him that year as well.

 

As I said Sabonis was not the player that he used to be, that's true but he still could dominate a game and make his team win by himself, he did it several time in Portland. Which is the definition of a star to me. Not a superstar (he would have been if he arrived in the NBA at his prime) but a star. He couldn't play many minutes as his body was entirely broken... But if you look at his stats per 36 minutes for example : 17 PPG, 11 RPG, 1.7 BPG. This with his hand ONLY... If you add to this that he was a clutch and a true leader you have the very definition of star.

 

 

As for Pippen, he simply was not the same player by the time he reached the Blazers (or Rockets) that he was a few years prior. He lost a good deal of explosiveness and couldn't get to the rim or defend elite perimeter players (or play the passing lanes) like he used to be able to. Thus, his efficiency plummeted offensively, and defensively he wasn't quite the same. Don't get me wrong, he was still a very good player, but to say he was still in his prime is a joke...it's like saying Duncan is still in his prime.

 

Well as I said I agreed that Pip started to slow down in his first Rockets year but no he was not out of his prime yet... I'll say it again he really started to get out of his prime in his second year in Portland...

 

Anyway I said it myself, I agree that he started to slow down in Houston, but saying that he was not the same player is definitely going way too far... He was the same player. Just a little less efficient but he didn't slow down enough to consider him a different player..

 

 

Also, as far as comparing them to the Mavs, I think it's a fair comparison. Dirk is a much, MUCH better player than Sheed was in 99-00, and while Pippen was a better 2nd option than what the Mavs offer, the Mavs have a few former, yet still productive All-Stars...Kidd, Marion and Peja, with a former 6th man of the year Terry, and a DPOY candidate in Chandler. The Mavs are proficient on both sides of the floor like the Blazers were, have great team passing and are primarily a jumpshooting team as well.

 

Mmh... That's a good point, I can agree TO SOME EXTENT that the two teams can be compared, but still, the Blazers were clearly a better team on paper.

 

First of all, Dirk is a better player than Sheed, I agree with this, but I definitely do not agree with your "MUCH better"... I think that many people do not remember how terrific Sheed was at the time. This guy was amazingly talented, he could play C, PF and C just AS efficiently... Had fantastic post moves, a great outside jump shot, and was a very good defender as well. It's simple this dude could do just about anything. In terms of pure talent he was even better than Dirk (this is coming from a Dirk Nowitzki fan). The only reason why I agree that Dirk is better is simply because Dirk is better in the clutch (Sheed was clutch as well though) and he's definitely a better leader than Rasheed ever was (Sheed didn't even want to be a leader anyway, which is too bad for him..).

Then you said it yourself Pip is a much better second option than what Dirk got. Dirk doesn't even have a true second option in fact... But many players who can be that second option at times. While Pip is IMO the best second option ever.

Now Kidd, Marion and Peja were All Stars in the past, but that was honestly a long time ago... Marion kept on struggling since his Suns days and never reached the level at which he played when he was in Phoenix. Even he's having his best season for a while right now... It's still not near the All Star level at which he played in Phoenix. And let's face it he will never play at this level again. Peja has only been efficient in the Lakers series and he's not even close to the player he was in his Kings days, when he even had a MVP season in 2003. As for Kidd, well he got better those past two years. He had some troubles at first to adapt to Dallas but he finally managed to adapt to this team. However the dude is clearly past his prime and is, ironically, first of all a shooter now.

 

While in Portland you had all the stars I mentioned... Plus Bonzi Wells who was the big surprise of the year, no one expected him to be that good...

 

Frankly you may say that I overrate this team as much as you want, well you can be sure that I'm not the only one... Besides so far you're the only one I meet who is not impressed by this roster. No disrespect intended, you're entitled to you opinion, I'm just saying that I find that weird that's all.

 

Especially that I clearly remember how everyone was high on this team at the time... All the hype. Just as much as for today's Heat in the summer.

 

 

First off, don't throw the "I'm guessing you didn't watch those games" line at me...I stayed up until 3-7am (which is when those game were broadcasted live in the US) EVERY SINGLE GAME in 2006 and 2008, and I watched the 2007 FIBA's as well (also the Team USA White vs. Blue exhibition where Kobe hit the GW). I almost take that as an insult because of how much endurance it took while I was juggling work and school around with it. If you go on BBW's old website, I have analysis of each game somewhere in there.

 

Lol don't you think you're overreacting a bit here ? I mean I just said that because you only mentioned the score of the Argentina-USA game, bypassing totally the rest of the game. Which is why I wondered if you even watched the game.. That was pretty legit...

 

Sorry if you felt insulted, it is not my intention at all to insult you. It's even the opposite, I think that you're a very good poster, with a great knowledge of the game and I respect you for that. I've enjoyed this little debate that we've had, even if we don't entirely agree lol, but that's a good thing, if we all agreed about everything it would be totally boring and it would be pointless to even be a member of a forum... I respect eveyone here anyhow, I think that overall this forum is very mature and the posters are very knowledgeable, it's definitely the best forum I've been on since the RST days (and by far). I'm really enjoying the discussions here. So again I'm sorry if I offended you and I hope that there's no hard feeling.

 

And I know what you're saying about having to get up at 3 AM to watch a game... The NBA Finals games are broadcasting live at that time here in France... I don't know how many times I had to wake up at 3 AM to watch a game, I did it during the whole 90's while having school the following day... I don't do it any longer, I record the game and watch it the next morning. But I still have to get up early, for example I work today and there's no way I would have waited till 5 PM to watch last night's game.. So I woke up at 5:30 AM this morning to watch the game right after it ended... And now I'm exhausted (I am at work right now, I hope that my boss won't notice that I'm posting on OTR lol). So... welcome to the club lol.

 

 

1) Either you believe the '90's had a much, much greater talent pool than the '00's squad, or those teams were built with better balance, because that can only explain the phenomenon you are talking about in that first paragraph. It's either the world quickly caught up with us (which is what EVERY respectable analyst who know the international game well)says), or we did a severe 180 and plummeted big time in terms of talent and capability.

 

Well actually it's a bit of both. Yes the rest of the world is overall better, I'm not denying that, but not as much better as many people make it to be. Again I was a basketball fan in the 90's and I can tell you that there were many great international teams and players at the time... The late 80's early 90's Yugoslavia team is even probably the best international team I ever seen.. They had Kukoc, Divac, Petrovic, Radja, Paspalj, Danilovic, Savic, etc... An amazing squad. Or teams like Lithuania in the 90's, with Sabonis, Marciulonis, Karnisovas, Kurtinaitis, Einikis, Stombergas, etc... for example. There were already fantastic players at the time. There even was arguably the best international player ever, I definitely consider him as the best player to never play in the NBA, I'm talking about the Brazilian Oscar. I could on like this for days... Honestly it's gotten better but not as much as people make it to be.

 

Because yes, overall the Team USA were not as good as in the 90's. Which is a reason why I always say that the NBA was better at the time... In fact Larry Bird and Jordan said it over and over again from the late 90's on, "young players doesn't work on the fundamentals as hard as they should do". The fact is that a lot of the NBA superstars in the 2000's didn't master the fundamentals as much as the legends from the past. Very few players use the backboard or master the mid range jump shot any longer for example... A lot of stars (like Carter or example) were obsessed with dunks or 3 pters... Which explained why, at least in part, even with the very best, Team USA struggled against international players who mastered the fundamentals of basketball.

 

Besides if this 2006 Team USA wasn't built with great balance well I don't see how the Heat can then... Cause we got the same three players, James, Wade and Bosh, with Dwight at C instead of Anthony, and Paul instead of Chalmers.. And of course a much, MUCH better bench... So I don't see how this team wasn't well balanced (contrary to the 2004 one who wasn't well balanced indeed for sure).

 

 

2) We still beat Argentina (the defending Olympic champs) by 20...20!!! It doesn't matter if the team had a few lulls and the game was close for awhile, we still ended up blowing them out.

 

Well that's the problem : this Argentina team was not the same as the one who won the Olympics. First of all, as I said, Ginobili got injured rightaway. Which was a huge problem as Manu is definitely THE superstar of the team, the team is nothing without him. Even if it was the same team as in the Olympics. Yet it wasn't as many key players weren't there any longer, like Herrmann or Sanchez for example. Besides the team had struggled during the whole tournament and wasn't close to play at the same as they did in 2002 and 2004. It was a much weaker team, only Scola played at a great level. Yet all the stars struggled during two quarters and a half against that team... I'd say that it's not impressive.

 

By the way I'm not trying to diss or hate on Team USA on any way. I always root for them (yeah that's right even when they play against France... especially when they play against France lol) and was the first one to be disappointed when they lost in 2002, 04 and 06. And I clearly remember about this game against Argentina, cause I was really scared during those two quarters and a half... and pissed off to see them not dominating as they should have.

 

 

3) As I said before, I think you are severely undermining the importance of team chemistry. The main reason the Olympic team was so much better than the 02 WC, 04 Olympic and 06 WC teams was because they had a lot more experience playing with each other, and were able to build an identity, which was ridiculously good defense. And I don't even know why we are arguing this because the US still beat Spain in the Final game, and essentially blew everyone else out convincingly.

 

I am not undermining the importance of Team chemistry in any way. I have said it myself many, many times, any team with a great team chemistry can have some success. And this is definitely one of the main reasons why Team USA wasn't great this past decade. In the 90's, all those superstars who matered the fundamantaled didn't need time to develop a team chemistry and destroyed their opponent. In the 2000's, we had stars who didn't master the fundamentals of teh game and were overall more individualist and now needed some time to develop a team chemistry.

 

And we're talking about that cause, it's definitely great that they beat Spain, but it wasn't a convincing win, especially compared to what Team USA did to their opponent in the 90's. With all the superstars that they had Team USA SHOULD HAVE LITERALLY DESTROYED Spain.

 

 

Here's what you wrote that I initially responded to....

 

"Honestly I had my doubts about this team all year long. This for a simple reason, teams of stars usually doesn't work. Most of the best teams on paper haven't succeeded in the history of the NBA. Besides it happened many times that three superstars join forces in the history of the game and so far only the Celtics managed to get a ring. Yes Chamberlain, Baylor and West didn't win a ring together (the Lakers won the year Baylor retired), Olajuwon, Barkley, Drexler failed too, same for Olajuwon, Barkley, Pippen. The 2004 Lakers with Shaq, Bryant, Malone and Payton (so four superstars !) didn't win as well, the 04 Mavs with Dirk, Nash, Jamison and Walker (okay Jamison and Walker ain't superstars but they were both stars at the time) failed too..."

 

I was responding to the first line I bolded, and then to your comparisons of how those other "Big 3's" didn't work out. My whole entire point is that many of those teams, specifically Big 3's, were too old at that point to do what the Heat are doing now (whether the age showed up in their level of play or injuries, they are both huge factors).

 

Well that's fine, I understand what you mean, but still I didn't compare the Heat to those teams.. I agree the Heat are a different team than all those teams but the fact is that... All those teams are also very different from each other. And none of them can't be compared with another one as well. Some had players who were too young, others too old, others suffered team chemistry issues, others had players who didn't fit the system, etc...

 

But they all got something in common : they are all among the best teams ever "on paper". But all failed to win it all. Which shows that it's not because you have a great team on paper that it means you will win it all. No matter the reason (again players who don't get along, injuries, players that don't fit in the system, troubles offensively or defensively, etc...).

 

My point, and my only point is that a great team on paper is not a guarantee to win it all. And apparently we both agree about that.