Barkley: Lebron needs more help (3peat Lakers) [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

ShaqAttack3234

05-20-2012, 03:10 AM

Barkley is awesome, was one of my favorite players as a kid and I like him now, but.....he's dead wrong on this one. Even before the Bosh injury, he was saying Lebron had to play incredible for Miami to win, and says outside of their top 3, nobody can create their own shot, and meanwhile with the best player in the league, another top 5 player(well, whether Wade still is might be questionable, but he was no less than top 4 last year), and a 7-time all-star as the 3rd option.

Does he forget about the 3peat Lakers? Particularly 2000.

Shaq at his peak is in the conversation for GOAT peaks, Kobe had emerged as a top 9 player and the best shooting guard, imo, the lowest you could argue is top 12, but was not an MVP candidate. And after those guys? There was not a 3rd guy NEAR all-star level or Bosh's level, and '00 Kobe was not the player '11 Wade was.

And regarding other flaws attributed to Miami(3 point shooting and bench scoring). Well, the lakers were the 5th worst 3 point shooting team at 32.9%. Glen Rice was their only solid 3 point shooter, and his shooting had diminished by 32/33 years old after the '98 elbow surgery to the point where even he averaged just 1.1 made 3s at 36.7%, while shooting a then career low 43% from the field.

And while Glen could still score, he dropped to a 12/4/2, 41% player in the playoffs, and never once scored 30 in the regular season despite having 16 games as the second option while Kobe was out, and 2 more when Shaq was out. He reached his playoff high of 21 twice, and those were his only two 20+ playoff games that season. And beyond the numbers.

They wanted to know why Glen hadn't played much. "Maybe he doesn't deserve to play," I told them. "He doesn't seem capable of playing without the ball, so he's just not doing the job."

Glen was still not comfortable moving without the ball. He also continued to vacate those spaces on the court where he'd historically scored his points.

And this...from various newspaper articles.

Rice is angry about being benched by Jackson during critical parts of the Finals including most of the fourth quarter in Game 3. Jackson, who largely used defense-minded Rick Fox is Rice's place, apparently sees him as a defensive liability.

"Glen had a real struggle that third quarter . . . I just went to Rick Fox because we needed some defense and change of venue, and with that group out there on the floor we got back in the game," he said. "So you stay with who plays."

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/13/sports/sp-40569

Rick Fox is Rice's place, apparently sees him as a defensive liability.

The Lakers were also the 5th worst team in bench scoring and 3rd worst in bench FG% at 40.2%.

Continuing on, the Lakers started two year old players who were mediocre shooters and incapable scorers in Ron Harper and AC green, who were both 36.

What did having 2 players in the lineup who simply weren't threats as scorers do? Ask the Zen Master. The quotes I'll be using during this post are from Phil's book more than a game.

Because A.C. and Harp were subpar shooters, Portland was ganging up on Shaq with quick triple-teams

And as a result, Shaq received more defensive attention in the 2000 WCF than I've ever seen a player receive. Not only was their a 7'3", 320 pound wall in Sabonis who could prevent him from getting position right near the basket before the catch, which forced him to put the ball on the floor for his move. But because of Harper's subpar shooting, Portland assigned Scottie Pippen to Harper so he could instantly double Shaq on the catch without worrying about teams making them pay. And keep in mind that Pippen was still one of the best defenders in the game and the best help defender on the perimeter at 6'8" with a 7'2" wingspan. And because AC Green was even less of a threat, Rasheed Wallace, another elite defender at 6'11" with a massive wingspan and a terrific wingspan could also double Shaq on the catch whenever he wanted.

Harper did provide a smart player who knew the triangle, knew when to cut and where to be in the offense, and he could defend.

But how many teams would Harper have been a starting guard on with that team. And AC Green? Well, he was there for experience, I guess. I'm not sure there was another team he'd have started on. And the more talented Western Conference power forwards just annihilated him. Whether it was Webber in the first round who destroyed LA's power forwards, and that along with Sacvramento's vastly superior bench(4th in bench scoring, 6th in bench FG%) extended that series to the maximum 5. And Rasheed Wallace had the series of his life averaging 23 ppg on 50% shooting with some huge games, exploiting that other glaring weakness.

So we're supposed to believe that the Lakers can beat Portland who were widely regarded as not only more talented than the Lakers, but more talented than anyone in the NBA in 2000, certainly more talented than the 2011 Mavs. Yet Lebron doesn't have doesn't have enough help?

And you know what? I can give Lebron somewhat of a pass if he loses to Indiana because he doesn't have Bosh and Wade is playing like shit, though Lebron's play deserves criticism.

But now I'll move on to the 2000 finals. Indiana had a pretty stacked and extremely well rounded starting lineup who fit together perfectly as well as a couple of good bench scorers as well as tremendous experience. they were the best offensive team in the league and the best 3 point shooting team in the league.

But not only did Shaq not have a 3rd all-star to get injured in the first place, or a 3rd guy remotely near all-star level. But his 2nd option Kobe, who the Lakers relied HEAVILY on considering their glaring weaknesses, got injured and couldn't produce much.

Kobe had a quiet game 1 with 14/3/5 on 6/13 shooting. He played just 2 minutes in game 9, missed game 3 altogether. Did come back for a fantastic 28 performance with 8 points in OT after Shaq fouled out, but returned shooting performances of 4/20 in game 5 and 8/27 in game 6.

I guess Shaq REALLY didn't have enough help then because he didn't have a 3rd all-star though his second option did get injured in a key series. And beyond that, their bench was equally mediocre to Miami's, and Miami has vastly superior shooters. And Miami's role players are certainly no worse.

He responded with averages of 38/17/3 on 61% including 11.5 ppg in the 4th quarters to win an extremely close 6 game series and a very winnable series for Indiana.

I can give other examples, but if Lebron is the player many say he is, and the player he often looks like, this "not enough help" excuse should NEVER come into play with a 3 star team, and in reality, they do have some capable role players.

Wade also needs to step up, but this post was more motivated by Barkley's comments.

I will add that the difference is coaching, Phil did one of his top 3 or so coaching jobs in 2000 in my opinion, as well as Phil's opinion, and was flat out robbed of coach of the year.

Spoelstra on the other hand....eh... :facepalm

Kurosawa0

05-20-2012, 03:21 AM

keepinitreal

05-20-2012, 03:30 AM

ShaqAttack3234

05-20-2012, 03:31 AM

It's not the talent on paper. This Heat team probably won't ever win it all unless they get their center position figured out. How many teams have ever had a player like Pittman start in a playoff game and go on to win a title?

And 2000 AC Green was any better? The inside/outside combo is a more natural fit. But the '00 Lakers had a A LOT of holes with the lack of a consistent 3rd guy much less anyone near all-star level as their 3rd guy(who did nothing when he wasn't scoring nand bitched about his role to add to it), horrible 3 point shooting, weak bench and a player beyond their top 3 who was any sort of threat either creating their shot or shooting, and unlike Miami, did face and beat a team more talented than themselves(Portland).

Like I said, I give Lebron somewhat of a pass with Bosh's injury if he loses, not a pass for his level of play, but a pass for not winning...to some extent.

I agree with you on many points.. and I think if LeBron is so great, then he should be able to take over this series vs the Pacers despite Bosh being out.

Though, which player (besides probably Jordan) had a better peak than 2000 Shaq? I don't think either this season or last season's LeBron > 2000 Shaq.

Thank you, and yeah 2000 and 2001 Shaq>any version of Lebron, arguably 1998 and 2002 as well. But that's part of my point because whenever Lebron looks on the verge of a title, or anything, the top 5 talks start or in rare occasions, GOAT talks. In fact, on a number of occasions he's been talked about him higher than Shaq has.

I could use examples other than Shaq, it just sprung to mind because, for 1, I'm obviously a Shaq fsn, and 2, I noticed Shaq seeming to get kind of annoyed at Barkley's comment.

Odinn

05-20-2012, 03:37 AM

I agree with you on many points.. and I think if LeBron is so great, then he should be able to take over this series vs the Pacers despite Bosh being out.

Though, which player (besides probably Jordan) had a better peak than 2000 Shaq? I don't think either this season or last season's LeBron > 2000 Shaq.
2003 Duncan
2000 Shaq
1994 Hakeem
1991 Jordan
1987 Magic
1986 Bird
1980 Kareem (He didn't win the title in 1977 but he was at his absolute best.)
1967 Wilt

You can not go wrong with one of them.:cheers:

But Shaq in 2000 had the greatest season imo.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=253355

Kurosawa0

05-20-2012, 03:37 AM

And 2000 AC Green was any better? The inside/outside combo is a more natural fit. But the '00 Lakers had a A LOT of holes with the lack of a consistent 3rd guy much less anyone near all-star level as their 3rd guy(who did nothing when he wasn't scoring nand bitched about his role to add to it), horrible 3 point shooting, weak bench and a player beyond their top 3 who was any sort of threat either creating their shot or shooting, and unlike Miami, did face and beat a team more talented than themselves(Portland).

Like I said, I give Lebron somewhat of a pass with Bosh's injury if he loses, not a pass for his level of play, but a pass for not winning...to some extent.

Asking LeBron to make up for the team not having a real center is a bit much to ask. Even Luc Longley could get you 10 points. It's not about star power, but fundamental basketball.

As Riley said no rebounds, no rings. Miami's too small and that's not LeBron's fault.

bdreason

05-20-2012, 03:47 AM

Are you comparing Shaq to Wade or LeBron? Because neither are in his league IMO.

It's also different having two star perimeter players, as opposed to having a star bigman and a star wing. LeBron and Wade are redundant, and without Bosh there to add some balance, it's painfully obvious.

bdreason

05-20-2012, 03:49 AM

And LeBron doesn't need more help. He needs both Wade and Bosh to be healthy and performing at an All-Star level. I personally don't like the combination, and haven't since the day it was announced... but they proved last year that they are certainly capable of competing for a title with this particular combination.

cteach111

05-20-2012, 03:52 AM

i think we'll need another year to properly judge Miami should they fall short again this year.

These discussions are all premature at this point.

SCdac

05-20-2012, 03:57 AM

which big man on the Heat is going to average 15-17 rebounds and block 2-3 shots a game while playing all but about 4 minutes of the match? ...

It's hard to compare any team with that Heat front court (particularly minus Bosh) to any Lakers front court of the early 2000's.

Look at the Knicks when Ewing was injured for the 99 Finals:

Sprewell - 26 PPG
Houston - 21.6 PPG

you'd think "wow, that is amazing getting that from 2 players"

even that wasn't enough to beat a Spurs team that was more balanced and lead by a big man no one could stop. It's not necessarily that the current Heat are facing a big man like that now, but the point is big men matter. At least have to get somebody better than Joel Anthony.. (old Zydrunas, Dampier, etc)

ILLsmak

05-20-2012, 04:18 AM

I agree that the Heat have enough talent to win, but you need some big bodies.

Shaq was like two big bodies. AC Green was trash, but he knew what to do and when. He really gave them momentum at times. Old vets are always good to have.

The Lakers DID suck at 3s, though. The odd thing about Glen is he wasn't a good spot up shooter. Or not nearly as good as he should have been. I guess some people can't just switch to being a spot up shooter. Looking at him, you'd think he could have done it.

Shaq is just that much better than LeBron in terms of influencing a game. And Kobe can score. I think a lot of things are overrated... like perimeter defense. If your defense is good inside, you don't need elite perimeter defenders.

The Heat are too soft inside. They don't need "more help", but they should trade some people.

Haslem should be starting IMO. They ****ed up signing people on name alone without thinking of how they fit. They are stacked, but they need to get calls to win. LeBron Driving isn't the same as dumping it in to Shaq. LeBron will get tired. LeBron doesn't physically punish the defense in the way a true big would.

That's why it's funny when people say THE AGE OF BIG MEN IS OVER. It's like word? Looks like big men are winning to me. Even Tyson Chandler is an essential piece.

-Smak

brahmabull117

05-20-2012, 04:22 AM

OP I totally agree

Replace Lebron with Jordan and he would just score 40 PPG and easily win this series and next series as well

pauk

05-20-2012, 04:23 AM

Lebron just needs COMPLEMENTARY players...

Lebron & Bosh are very complementary players to their games... but Lebron & Wade is just the worst thing ever... they do a good job of doing the best out of it, but hell no.... i hate that combo, its like starting Chris Paul & Rajon Rondo together.....

What Lebron needs from a star SG is something like a Ray Allen... or how bout just throw in Mike Miller at SG and trade Wade for a Dwight Howard or something like that..... that would improve Miami dramatically as they all would be complementing eachother EXTREMLY well.....

Sarcastic

05-20-2012, 04:24 AM

ITT: Shaq >>> Lebron

Sarcastic

05-20-2012, 04:25 AM

pauk

05-20-2012, 04:25 AM

OP I totally agree

Replace Lebron with Jordan and he would just score 40 PPG and easily win this series and next series as well

Jordan didnt have a balldominant perimeter player who is almost as good as him grabbing away his offensive possessions and simply not complementing his game well because basically that other player is identical in gamestyle....

brahmabull117

05-20-2012, 04:26 AM

ILLsmak

05-20-2012, 04:29 AM

Jordan didnt have a balldominant perimeter player who is almost as good as him grabbing away his offensive possessions and simply not complementing his game well because basically that other player is identical in gamestyle....

That's true, but one of them needs to truly step up and take the reigns. LeBron still won't do it, but he also won't be a sidekick. So, that situation is still ruining them.

Pippen was an amazing player capable of being a superstar go to guy, but he played his role. One of them has to play the role. One has to be like you get yours... I'll get the left-overs. And even though Wade came out and acted like he thought that, you could tell by the stupid shots he took in the last game that he doesn't really feel that way.

-Smak

cteach111

05-20-2012, 04:31 AM

pauk

05-20-2012, 04:32 AM

Lebron made the "Decision" to play with Wade. He has no one to blame but himself.

Exactly... i am huge Lebron fan, everybody knows this here.... but i NEVER liked him teaming up with Wade... thats HORRIBLE complementary players, they do the best out of it because they are unselfish, but still.... Like i said, it makes as much sense as starting Chris Paul & Rajon Rondo at PG/SG..... two balldominant star perimeter players that bring the exact same thing even tho one of them might be better at it... it just confuses the player...

It would make more sense if one of them came out of the bench... that way there is always equal pressure on the opposing team.... but they dont do that, they play together and basically make themselves most of the time look like confused STATUES when the other has the ball, especially when the game is on the line, there is only one ball afterall.......

But if one of them simply was a Pure shooter then that would make them complement eachothers games dramatically.... that way even when the other guy has the ball you as a pure shooter is always a threat hitting the shots when your teammate is double teamed and kicks it to you...... but in lebrons/wades case those open perimeter jumpshots they pass to eachother are mostly TURNED DOWN (or bricked) by them....

Lebron / Wade needs to be replaced with either something like a Ray Allen or not even that but replace one of them with Dwight Howard or something like that.... that would improve Miami dramatically, all of those players would now complement eachothers games....

ILLsmak

05-20-2012, 04:33 AM

Lebron still wins this year even if the Heat lose in the playoffs. Dude's got 3 MVP's now and a legit excuse for presumably losing in the playoffs this season.

It's all good. He's still in good position.

Nah, it will bring him more hate. REmember when Dirk won and his team was amazing then they lost in the first round. People were like SEE HE DIDNT DESERVE THAT SHIT.

Like they always show the list of players who have won MVPs but not rings. They will always bring that up.

-Smak

cteach111

05-20-2012, 04:37 AM

Nah, it will bring him more hate. REmember when Dirk won and his team was amazing then they lost in the first round. People were like SEE HE DIDNT DESERVE THAT SHIT.

Like they always show the list of players who have won MVPs but not rings. They will always bring that up.

-Smak

hate is a personal feeling. that has nothing to do with the facts when judging players against the all-time greats.

he's got 3 MVPs and is assumed to lose out on a chance at a title because Bosh got injured early. Hate on him if you feel you have to, but it doesn't change his ability/impact as a player.

pauk

05-20-2012, 04:43 AM

Westbrook & Durant is a fine example... notice why they complement eachothers games? Because Durant can shoot the ball with the best of them... he creates space and is always a threat without the ball because of his shooting ability when Westbrook has the ball....

But Lebron & Wade.... none of them are pure shooters... and Wade is even worse than Lebron in that department.... hell Wade is actually playing worse than Westbrook anyways right now.... they just dont complement eachother so well, especially not when Wade cant even get over 5 points in a game and Bosh being injured and the roleplayers/bench being pure scrubs.... i would be surprised if they get to the Finals like this... Lebron will need to drop 50 point quadruple doubles or something...

blacknapalm

05-20-2012, 04:54 AM

sure, wade/lebron's games overlap but the thing is...lebron chose to go to miami. he could have chosen to go to a deeper, more balanced team. they're supposed to make it work. when they signed, the three knew they were going to eat up most of the salary cap and limit potential player moves. they should have also known a new CBA was upcoming.

that said, he doesn't need more help. the team just needs tweaks. they could be better constructed. without bosh, they seriously lack size. miller isn't the shooter or player he was before. the rest of the team just isn't versatile so when they're not shooting well...they have no real aspects of their game to positively impact the game on

Big#50

05-20-2012, 05:44 AM

Shaq's travels, elbows, shoulders, three seconds>third option

magnax1

05-20-2012, 06:12 AM

I<3NBA

05-20-2012, 06:22 AM

why would Shaq need a 3rd all-star player when he is 2 all star players in one? so the lakers had 3 all-star players. 2 in Shaq and 1 in Kobe.

unless you are arguing Lebron is equal to Shaq both in impact and importance in the team.

does it take a genius to realize that Center>any other position in the NBA?

the only player to ever buck this trend was the GOAT. the real GOAT MJ. all the others needed a capable center at least to win a ring. anything else on the level of Pittman and you would need Jordan to return and play for your team.

jrong

05-20-2012, 07:40 AM

Barkley, other than for comedic value, is the most worthless basketball analyst on TV, which is saying something (seriously, name a good one besides Hubie Brown and that lesbian chick on ESPN (I'm assuming, "not that there's anything wrong with that" TM Seinfeld) who provide any actual analysis). But, Chuck is just mule-headed. He gets an idea in his head for which he has no evidence, and he just keeps on repeating it.

The Heat are unlikely to win a championship in the LeBron-era unless they trade Wade. And the era isn't that far from over. Fail to win by next year, and James will be looking at the exit in the summer of 2014, which means the Heat will have to consider trading him ahead of time. And the Heat are indeed unlikely to win a title under their current construction. As Simmons said, with Miami, nothing ever changes but the excuses made for them on TV.

But, what also has to be looked at is the fact that the way LeBron plays makes championships less likely. It is now beyond argument James's comprehensive dominance, ball and otherwise, produces attrition in his teammates' games (the one exception: Wade 2011, ultimately caused attrition in James's own game when Wade went into Finals mode, and LeBron became confused as to where he fit in).

The reason for this is that James's style leaves little margin for error for either him or his teammates in the playoffs. Either he has to be nearly perfect to lift his "inferior cast" (which he's been far from in this series-- Wade has been execrable, but LeBron hasn't exactly been great), or they have to manage to be both consistently efficient and productive, despite having inconsistent opportunity to get in and stay in their own individual rhythms.

Nash

05-20-2012, 08:06 AM

Bosh is not there, why do people not get that. Bosh is very important. Miami are built in a unique way and probably the most top heavy team in the history of the game.

Now, with no Bosh, there is nothing. Especially the front court, Bron and Wade are in the backcourt. Thats why they're struggling.

pmj

05-20-2012, 08:21 AM

kurple

05-20-2012, 09:30 AM

i wasnt even close to reading all that

jrong

05-20-2012, 10:08 AM

If this were beyond argument, wouldn't the data show the role players playing much better when James was off the floor or not playing?

Now that's not to suggest having ball dominant stars doesn't hurt role players rhythm (double that for 2 of them), but in this current Heat team's case, I think there are other reasons, namely a poor offensive system with limited movement, and frankly, these "proven" role players are on the downside of their careers.

Drew Gooden. Donyell Marshall. Larry Hughes. Mike Bibby (see the Knicks series?). Mike Miller. Shane Battier. And now mother****ing Dwyane Wade (again, I ask, are the Heat better since Wade turned over the reins? 2011: 58-22; 2012: 46-20).

The debate throughout James's career has been is he Michael or Magic? The problem is that LeBron unbridled tries to be both. Once upon a time, Michael tried to be both himself and Magic. When he moved to PG, he played arguably the most brilliant individual basketball in history. Didn't come close to winning a ring.

As far as coaching, last year I faulted Spo in the Finals second only to Bron. This year, I can't blame him that much. Even if he weren't mediocre, I question what else he could do when he has two players who are just going to do what they want anyway. But, what would any other coach do? How are you going to put LeBron in a structured offensive system? He wouldn't be LeBron then. We've already seen this year what happens to Wade's game when he's not as free to be Wade (granted, the continuous string of injuries haven't helped). Are you going to compound the problem, by not letting James be James?

And that's the paradox. You can't seem to win with LeBron being himself, but, it's doubtful you can win without LeBron playing like LeBron, because he can't help himself. Put him on any team in the league, and I'd wager the same thing will happen-- he will gradually reduce them to the newest incarnation of the Cavs. LeBron's only chances to win championships amount to slipping in small windows that present themselves, and so far, he's missed them.

Really, the buck for the debacle that are the Heat lies with Riley, and the Decision-makers (all three of them) who were the architects of this monstrosity.

coin24

05-20-2012, 10:08 AM

We've all seen LeBron blow teams out by himself, physically he can do it.
If he comes out looking to kill in game 4 the Heat can win and probably go on to take the series...

If he plays like game 3 they are fu*ked:facepalm

I want to see Cavs LeBron, but dont take the foot off the gas when they get a lead and start padding his assists... FU*K THE ASSISTS, score the damn ball LeBron.. If hes so concerned about his haters and the media etc etc, shut them up by showing up for a change.

jrong

05-20-2012, 10:32 AM

Lebron still wins this year even if the Heat lose in the playoffs. Dude's got 3 MVP's now and a legit excuse for presumably losing in the playoffs this season.

It's all good. He's still in good position.

Nominated for worst post ever.

James: "Not 1. Not 2. Not 3. Not 4. Not 5. Not 6. Not 7...."

Try 0, more likely.

Wade: "...arguably the best trio ever."

The Heat are heading for joke status, and on their way to the candidacy for biggest failures in sports history, and you are a damn fool if you don't think it's going to reflect on the primary players involved, no matter how much the media's level of LeBron-apologism.

Rose

05-20-2012, 10:47 AM

I agree with your post entirely well written. In fact, that's what I thought of too last night particularly when Shaq started tapping his pen.:oldlol:

Rockets(T-mac)

05-20-2012, 11:14 AM

He doesn't need more help. Wade and Lebron should be enough to beat Indiana and if Wade wasn't playing like trash and Lebron actually hit those free-throws they might not be in this situation.

And I'm getting tired of this they have 3 great players and then trash argument. Most teams with 3 great players don't have much else. I will agree that team is structured in the wrong way, Wade and Lebron don't fit together.

Barkley doesn't seem to give Lebron much criticism ever, and I'm not saying there isn't something wrong with the team, but Lebron has to take some of the heat. I have yet to see him take over a game this playoffs and he needs to do that when the team is playing like it is.

cteach111

05-20-2012, 11:42 AM

Nominated for worst post ever.

James: "Not 1. Not 2. Not 3. Not 4. Not 5. Not 6. Not 7...."

Try 0, more likely.

Wade: "...arguably the best trio ever."

The Heat are heading for joke status, and on their way to the candidacy for biggest failures in sports history, and you are a damn fool if you don't think it's going to reflect on the primary players involved, no matter how much the media's level of LeBron-apologism.

There's actually a thread about this on other forums too. Just check out RealGM.

Lebron will be excused this year and he's got another MVP under his belt

Kurosawa0

05-20-2012, 11:44 AM

If LeBron gets a ring all of his past sins will be forgiven. Ask Dirk. How many people mention 2007 now? It's how it works.

rodman91

05-20-2012, 11:45 AM

Why it's related with 3 peat Lakers? Prime Shaq makes Lebron look like Grant Hill on streoids.

It's unfair for Lebron.

SCdac

05-20-2012, 11:47 AM

The 00 Lakers were loaded with great role players, and the 01 Lakers had some good role players too. This Heat team really just has the big three, Chalmers and Haslem. Their perimeter depth is awful, and their interior depth is even worse. It's not really even close to the same situation to me.

I agree, what Miami is lacking is strong depth.. and just a well rounded roster... to an extent they lacked it last year too, had a bunch of bit-pieces and veterans for cheap but nothing long lasting.

They have some players coming off the bench who were really great... about 4 years ago (Mike Miller, Shane Battier) as their main picks ups since becoming a "Big 3".

The lack of depth is showing up in the numbers too...

bench scoring (playoffs):

2012 Heat vs. Knicks: 17.4 ppg
2012 Heat vs. Pacers: 16.3 ppg (3 games)

2000 Lakers vs. Suns: 27.6 ppg
2000 Lakers vs Pacers: 22 ppg
2000 Lakers vs. Kings: 20.8 ppg
2000 Lakers vs Trailblazers: 19 ppg

2005 Spurs vs. Nuggets: 38.6 ppg
2005 Spurs vs. Sonics: 29.5 ppg
2005 Spurs vs. Suns: 23 ppg
2005 Spurs vs. Pistons: 19 ppg

I threw in the Spurs of 05 because they (like the Heat) were lead by primarily two scorers, Duncan (23. 6 ppg) and Ginobili (20.8 ppg), then a third guy in Parker who averaged 17 ppg and 14 ppg in the Finals.

Of the 4 championship Spurs teams, they likely had the shortest / weakest bench, yet even their bench is probably better than the current Heat. Had Rasho, Manu (at times), Barry, Horry, Devin Brown all coming off the bench.

The Heat, from top to bottom, don't stack up to the Lakers of the early 2000's or the Spurs of the mid-2000's. Lebron and Wade, with Bosh out, will have to play up to their averages or better every single game, I don't see how it get's done collectively. I personally thought they were one of the strongest teams, but once one of their big 3 goes down they quickly become weak (particularly when it's the best big man on the team and one of the best in the East). I agree with Kenny Smith, Chris Bosh is "integral" just like Tim Duncan is integral to the current Spurs. Replacing a big man is harder than replacing a wing player IMO.

pmj

05-20-2012, 11:48 AM

Drew Gooden. Donyell Marshall. Larry Hughes. Mike Bibby (see the Knicks series?). Mike Miller. Shane Battier. And now mother****ing Dwyane Wade (again, I ask, are the Heat better since Wade turned over the reins? 2011: 58-22; 2012: 46-20).

Seriously? It's Lebron's fault?

And Bibby? You act like he had a good series for the Knicks. He averaged 5 ppg. He had a good game here and there last playoffs as well, and was actually pretty good in the regular season, but ask Knicks fans how they feel about him and if he excelled without Lebron. Dude's just old.

Ditto Battier and Miller. Miller's been shooting great all season, he's just falling apart, can't stay healthy, can't create off the dribble like he used to.

Lastly, Wade hasn't looked like himself all year, and missed what, 20% of the season? Who knows if it's age or what, but it sure as hell isn't Lebron's fault. The guy is taking 17 shots in 33 minutes, while Lebron takes 18 in 37. The "turning over the reins" is greatly overstated, Wade still gets the ball whenever he wants and usually in the clutch.

And btw, I've been saying these role players suck all season, and gotten into many debates on this forum about it, so I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone. Pretty much only me and IndianGuy have been saying it's not good enough. I think that Riley's failure tbh.

Kurosawa0

05-20-2012, 11:52 AM

If Miami does lose this series it won't be either Wade (even as horrible as he was) or LeBron's fault. This team's best 4-7 players are either solely there for rebounding or making threes. They're doing neither right now and that's the difference in the series.

Eat Like A Bosh

05-20-2012, 12:41 PM

Great post Shaqattack! Completely agreed. Yeah Inside the NBA, could tell Shaq disagreed after Barkley's comments.

But a simple Peak Shaq > Peak LeBron would've been sufficient.

jrong

05-20-2012, 01:13 PM

Seriously? It's Lebron's fault?

And Bibby? You act like he had a good series for the Knicks. He averaged 5 ppg. He had a good game here and there last playoffs as well, and was actually pretty good in the regular season, but ask Knicks fans how they feel about him and if he excelled without Lebron. Dude's just old.

Ditto Battier and Miller. Miller's been shooting great all season, he's just falling apart, can't stay healthy, can't create off the dribble like he used to.

Lastly, Wade hasn't looked like himself all year, and missed what, 20% of the season? Who knows if it's age or what, but it sure as hell isn't Lebron's fault. The guy is taking 17 shots in 33 minutes, while Lebron takes 18 in 37. The "turning over the reins" is greatly overstated, Wade still gets the ball whenever he wants and usually in the clutch.

And btw, I've been saying these role players suck all season, and gotten into many debates on this forum about it, so I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone. Pretty much only me and IndianGuy have been saying it's not good enough. I think that Riley's failure tbh.

It goes back to the rhythm/ touches issue we were on before. As far as Wade, there's unique psychologies to assertion and deference, and I would make the case that Wade can't play anywhere close to his max level unless he's co-alpha. And, yes, he hasn't been healthy outside of February and March. But beyond that, I won't defend him, because if he's playing, the onus is on him to make shots, and I've already stated that the Heat's best play is to move him this summer.

Pointguard

05-20-2012, 01:58 PM

Miami isn't doing much of anything right. The players, the coach, the game strategy all suck now. No player wins if support drops out of existence in the second round and the team is struggling to compensate for a player of Bosh magnitude and you don't know what a top player in the game is doing. Not Jordan, not Shaq, not anybody just trumps all problems of team implosion this late in the playoffs. Its a team sport with other super teams in existence. That OKC team has five starters that are all very good at something and a sixth man that is a practical allstar.

In 2000 the Lakers had some great breaks. Portland absolutely folded, it was a team looking to beat themselves. The Blazers are the classic example of players needing to step up rather than down and away. The Sacramento series was one of the most disgraceful displays of reffing ever and they definitely affected a game or two in a seven game series (and didn't Rasheed get ejected for just looking at the ref in the fourth quarter of the greatest meltdown in game 7). If Lebron gets those type of breaks then I think he wins it all. Well, no matter what anybody says you need players stepping up to win it all.

Vertical-24

05-20-2012, 02:04 PM

Dwight for Wade. Get it done.

PleezeBelieve

05-20-2012, 02:19 PM

The LeBron excuses continue on...haha. Ya'll never stop.

Blue&Orange

05-20-2012, 02:35 PM

I clearly remember Lebron saying that the Heat would win multiple championships, 6,7,8, and how he was being totally serious, and how it was going to be easy, Pat Riley would be the PG.

What happened?

rodman91

05-20-2012, 04:27 PM

Sarcastic

05-20-2012, 04:33 PM

Lebron, without a shadow of a doubt, needs more help.

DMAVS41

05-20-2012, 04:37 PM

Barkley is awesome, was one of my favorite players as a kid and I like him now, but.....he's dead wrong on this one. Even before the Bosh injury, he was saying Lebron had to play incredible for Miami to win, and says outside of their top 3, nobody can create their own shot, and meanwhile with the best player in the league, another top 5 player(well, whether Wade still is might be questionable, but he was no less than top 4 last year), and a 7-time all-star as the 3rd option.

Does he forget about the 3peat Lakers? Particularly 2000.

Shaq at his peak is in the conversation for GOAT peaks, Kobe had emerged as a top 9 player and the best shooting guard, imo, the lowest you could argue is top 12, but was not an MVP candidate. And after those guys? There was not a 3rd guy NEAR all-star level or Bosh's level, and '00 Kobe was not the player '11 Wade was.

And regarding other flaws attributed to Miami(3 point shooting and bench scoring). Well, the lakers were the 5th worst 3 point shooting team at 32.9%. Glen Rice was their only solid 3 point shooter, and his shooting had diminished by 32/33 years old after the '98 elbow surgery to the point where even he averaged just 1.1 made 3s at 36.7%, while shooting a then career low 43% from the field.

And while Glen could still score, he dropped to a 12/4/2, 41% player in the playoffs, and never once scored 30 in the regular season despite having 16 games as the second option while Kobe was out, and 2 more when Shaq was out. He reached his playoff high of 21 twice, and those were his only two 20+ playoff games that season. And beyond the numbers.

And this...from various newspaper articles.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/13/sports/sp-40569

Rick Fox is Rice's place, apparently sees him as a defensive liability.

The Lakers were also the 5th worst team in bench scoring and 3rd worst in bench FG% at 40.2%.

Continuing on, the Lakers started two year old players who were mediocre shooters and incapable scorers in Ron Harper and AC green, who were both 36.

What did having 2 players in the lineup who simply weren't threats as scorers do? Ask the Zen Master. The quotes I'll be using during this post are from Phil's book more than a game.

And as a result, Shaq received more defensive attention in the 2000 WCF than I've ever seen a player receive. Not only was their a 7'3", 320 pound wall in Sabonis who could prevent him from getting position right near the basket before the catch, which forced him to put the ball on the floor for his move. But because of Harper's subpar shooting, Portland assigned Scottie Pippen to Harper so he could instantly double Shaq on the catch without worrying about teams making them pay. And keep in mind that Pippen was still one of the best defenders in the game and the best help defender on the perimeter at 6'8" with a 7'2" wingspan. And because AC Green was even less of a threat, Rasheed Wallace, another elite defender at 6'11" with a massive wingspan and a terrific wingspan could also double Shaq on the catch whenever he wanted.

Harper did provide a smart player who knew the triangle, knew when to cut and where to be in the offense, and he could defend.

But how many teams would Harper have been a starting guard on with that team. And AC Green? Well, he was there for experience, I guess. I'm not sure there was another team he'd have started on. And the more talented Western Conference power forwards just annihilated him. Whether it was Webber in the first round who destroyed LA's power forwards, and that along with Sacvramento's vastly superior bench(4th in bench scoring, 6th in bench FG%) extended that series to the maximum 5. And Rasheed Wallace had the series of his life averaging 23 ppg on 50% shooting with some huge games, exploiting that other glaring weakness.

So we're supposed to believe that the Lakers can beat Portland who were widely regarded as not only more talented than the Lakers, but more talented than anyone in the NBA in 2000, certainly more talented than the 2011 Mavs. Yet Lebron doesn't have doesn't have enough help?

And you know what? I can give Lebron somewhat of a pass if he loses to Indiana because he doesn't have Bosh and Wade is playing like shit, though Lebron's play deserves criticism.

But now I'll move on to the 2000 finals. Indiana had a pretty stacked and extremely well rounded starting lineup who fit together perfectly as well as a couple of good bench scorers as well as tremendous experience. they were the best offensive team in the league and the best 3 point shooting team in the league.

But not only did Shaq not have a 3rd all-star to get injured in the first place, or a 3rd guy remotely near all-star level. But his 2nd option Kobe, who the Lakers relied HEAVILY on considering their glaring weaknesses, got injured and couldn't produce much.

Kobe had a quiet game 1 with 14/3/5 on 6/13 shooting. He played just 2 minutes in game 9, missed game 3 altogether. Did come back for a fantastic 28 performance with 8 points in OT after Shaq fouled out, but returned shooting performances of 4/20 in game 5 and 8/27 in game 6.

I guess Shaq REALLY didn't have enough help then because he didn't have a 3rd all-star though his second option did get injured in a key series. And beyond that, their bench was equally mediocre to Miami's, and Miami has vastly superior shooters. And Miami's role players are certainly no worse.

He responded with averages of 38/17/3 on 61% including 11.5 ppg in the 4th quarters to win an extremely close 6 game series and a very winnable series for Indiana.

I can give other examples, but if Lebron is the player many say he is, and the player he often looks like, this "not enough help" excuse should NEVER come into play with a 3 star team, and in reality, they do have some capable role players.

Wade also needs to step up, but this post was more motivated by Barkley's comments.

I will add that the difference is coaching, Phil did one of his top 3 or so coaching jobs in 2000 in my opinion, as well as Phil's opinion, and was flat out robbed of coach of the year.

Spoelstra on the other hand....eh... :facepalm

Great post.

My take is not that he needs "more help"...but "different help"

You and I disagree on those Lakers teams a little, but I think we would both agree that from a chemistry and coaching standpoint they destroy this current version of the Heat.

Also, they had 2 stars that could play together at an optimal level....and had a great big on both ends.

Honestly after watching these last two years unfold just even more solidifies MJ as the GOAT for me. What he did by winning as a perimeter player without a great bigs just seems even more impressive to me.

Part of that is on the holes that exist on the games of Wade and Lebron, but part of it is just because it's a bad pair.

triangleoffense

05-20-2012, 04:40 PM

Barkley is awesome, was one of my favorite players as a kid and I like him now, but.....he's dead wrong on this one. Even before the Bosh injury, he was saying Lebron had to play incredible for Miami to win, and says outside of their top 3, nobody can create their own shot, and meanwhile with the best player in the league, another top 5 player(well, whether Wade still is might be questionable, but he was no less than top 4 last year), and a 7-time all-star as the 3rd option.

Does he forget about the 3peat Lakers? Particularly 2000.

Shaq at his peak is in the conversation for GOAT peaks, Kobe had emerged as a top 9 player and the best shooting guard, imo, the lowest you could argue is top 12, but was not an MVP candidate. And after those guys? There was not a 3rd guy NEAR all-star level or Bosh's level, and '00 Kobe was not the player '11 Wade was.

And regarding other flaws attributed to Miami(3 point shooting and bench scoring). Well, the lakers were the 5th worst 3 point shooting team at 32.9%. Glen Rice was their only solid 3 point shooter, and his shooting had diminished by 32/33 years old after the '98 elbow surgery to the point where even he averaged just 1.1 made 3s at 36.7%, while shooting a then career low 43% from the field.

And while Glen could still score, he dropped to a 12/4/2, 41% player in the playoffs, and never once scored 30 in the regular season despite having 16 games as the second option while Kobe was out, and 2 more when Shaq was out. He reached his playoff high of 21 twice, and those were his only two 20+ playoff games that season. And beyond the numbers.

And this...from various newspaper articles.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/13/sports/sp-40569

Rick Fox is Rice's place, apparently sees him as a defensive liability.

The Lakers were also the 5th worst team in bench scoring and 3rd worst in bench FG% at 40.2%.

Continuing on, the Lakers started two year old players who were mediocre shooters and incapable scorers in Ron Harper and AC green, who were both 36.

What did having 2 players in the lineup who simply weren't threats as scorers do? Ask the Zen Master. The quotes I'll be using during this post are from Phil's book more than a game.

And as a result, Shaq received more defensive attention in the 2000 WCF than I've ever seen a player receive. Not only was their a 7'3", 320 pound wall in Sabonis who could prevent him from getting position right near the basket before the catch, which forced him to put the ball on the floor for his move. But because of Harper's subpar shooting, Portland assigned Scottie Pippen to Harper so he could instantly double Shaq on the catch without worrying about teams making them pay. And keep in mind that Pippen was still one of the best defenders in the game and the best help defender on the perimeter at 6'8" with a 7'2" wingspan. And because AC Green was even less of a threat, Rasheed Wallace, another elite defender at 6'11" with a massive wingspan and a terrific wingspan could also double Shaq on the catch whenever he wanted.

Harper did provide a smart player who knew the triangle, knew when to cut and where to be in the offense, and he could defend.

But how many teams would Harper have been a starting guard on with that team. And AC Green? Well, he was there for experience, I guess. I'm not sure there was another team he'd have started on. And the more talented Western Conference power forwards just annihilated him. Whether it was Webber in the first round who destroyed LA's power forwards, and that along with Sacvramento's vastly superior bench(4th in bench scoring, 6th in bench FG%) extended that series to the maximum 5. And Rasheed Wallace had the series of his life averaging 23 ppg on 50% shooting with some huge games, exploiting that other glaring weakness.

So we're supposed to believe that the Lakers can beat Portland who were widely regarded as not only more talented than the Lakers, but more talented than anyone in the NBA in 2000, certainly more talented than the 2011 Mavs. Yet Lebron doesn't have doesn't have enough help?

And you know what? I can give Lebron somewhat of a pass if he loses to Indiana because he doesn't have Bosh and Wade is playing like shit, though Lebron's play deserves criticism.

But now I'll move on to the 2000 finals. Indiana had a pretty stacked and extremely well rounded starting lineup who fit together perfectly as well as a couple of good bench scorers as well as tremendous experience. they were the best offensive team in the league and the best 3 point shooting team in the league.

But not only did Shaq not have a 3rd all-star to get injured in the first place, or a 3rd guy remotely near all-star level. But his 2nd option Kobe, who the Lakers relied HEAVILY on considering their glaring weaknesses, got injured and couldn't produce much.

Kobe had a quiet game 1 with 14/3/5 on 6/13 shooting. He played just 2 minutes in game 9, missed game 3 altogether. Did come back for a fantastic 28 performance with 8 points in OT after Shaq fouled out, but returned shooting performances of 4/20 in game 5 and 8/27 in game 6.

I guess Shaq REALLY didn't have enough help then because he didn't have a 3rd all-star though his second option did get injured in a key series. And beyond that, their bench was equally mediocre to Miami's, and Miami has vastly superior shooters. And Miami's role players are certainly no worse.

He responded with averages of 38/17/3 on 61% including 11.5 ppg in the 4th quarters to win an extremely close 6 game series and a very winnable series for Indiana.

I can give other examples, but if Lebron is the player many say he is, and the player he often looks like, this "not enough help" excuse should NEVER come into play with a 3 star team, and in reality, they do have some capable role players.

Wade also needs to step up, but this post was more motivated by Barkley's comments.

I will add that the difference is coaching, Phil did one of his top 3 or so coaching jobs in 2000 in my opinion, as well as Phil's opinion, and was flat out robbed of coach of the year.

Spoelstra on the other hand....eh... :facepalm

Great points, the saint of reason as always ShaqAttack.

People are saying Wade + Lebron isn't enough to get it done (even though they also have Bosh), when Kobe + Shaq was enough to freaking three-peat, and had the potential to win 4 or 5 if the feud wouldn't have happened.

Shaq was a top3 player at the time and Kobe was about top5-7.

Lebron is a three-time MVP and what most would call the best player in the league (by far the most talented/athletic), while Wade is also top5 easily.

The Heat essentially have much talent than the 2000-2004 Lakers yet still can't get it done.

madmax

05-20-2012, 04:51 PM

Lebron, without a shadow of a doubt, needs more help.

no, he just needs ONE quality rebounding and defending bigman, who would make
Heatles life against big teams so much easier...you can't beat the size in the playoffs without throwing your own size to equate the things. Indiana is beasting on the boards and it reflects on the scoreboard too.

Phong

05-20-2012, 04:55 PM

Shaq + Kobe threepeated while having to go through the Spurs, Blazers and Kings but LeBron + Wade + Bosh can't deal with the Pacers. :facepalm

ShaqAttack3234

05-20-2012, 10:12 PM

First of all, credit to Lebron for his performance today, I was unconscious during the game so I'll have to watch the rebroadcast or download it if I miss that.

which big man on the Heat is going to average 15-17 rebounds and block 2-3 shots a game while playing all but about 4 minutes of the match? ...

It's hard to compare any team with that Heat front court (particularly minus Bosh) to any Lakers front court of the early 2000's.

Look at the Knicks when Ewing was injured for the 99 Finals:

Sprewell - 26 PPG
Houston - 21.6 PPG

you'd think "wow, that is amazing getting that from 2 players"

even that wasn't enough to beat a Spurs team that was more balanced and lead by a big man no one could stop. It's not necessarily that the current Heat are facing a big man like that now, but the point is big men matter. At least have to get somebody better than Joel Anthony.. (old Zydrunas, Dampier, etc)

It still hurts to think of that series without Ewing. :oldlol: I'll never forget the twin towers just overwhelming our frontcourt with Camby in foul trouble, LJ way too small for the two 7 footers, and Chris Dudley doing the best job on Duncan, but being too much of an offensive liability to keep out there.

But actually, that's a good example of a duo carrying a team without a lot of talent around them, particularly on the perimeter.

They won because Tim was the best player in the league during that lockout year, David was still a big man capable of 20/10, but deferred. Both were mobile, top 5 defensive players/anchors, good passers, could hit mid-range shots, could execute terrific high/low plays. And Tim handled more of the low post scoring, though David could take advantage and shoot right over LJ when they were matched up.

It was a tremendous mismatch, the best big man duo ever, imo. But they were a mediocre 3 point shooting team(19th out of 29 teams), didn't have great creators off the dribble, but a few solid role players and defenders.

Avery was an aging point guard who was never a very good shooter, though he did step up, and could run an offense well. Elliott was past his prime, but a decent scorer and good defender. Elie was a good clutch role player.

But they really were about 5-6 deep. The twin towers plus a few role players. They only had 3 double figure scorers during the regular season(though Avery and Elie were both at 9.7 ppg).

They won because of Duncan's dominance, their phenomenal defense, and match up problems as well as coaching. Certainly not having the most talent in the league. And their team first approach which allowed Avery to lead them in scoring during the 1st round vs Minnesota and D-Rob to lead them in the WCF vs Portland.

Miami has much more talent than them, but lack the chemistry, lack a leader like Duncan, and lack a coach like Pop.

The 00 Lakers were loaded with great role players, and the 01 Lakers had some good role players too. This Heat team really just has the big three, Chalmers and Haslem. Their perimeter depth is awful, and their interior depth is even worse. It's not really even close to the same situation to me.
It's really on the Heat's management for making awful signings. Mike Miller seemed like a good decision, but he definitely isn't the player he once was. Battier was a stupid choice from the get go, and he's played like complete shit all season. No clue why he gets so much playing time either. Their Frontcourt rotation is Bosh/Haslem/Lebron and Anthony/Bosh/Turiaf. That has to be one of the worst in the league, even though Bosh is an all star. Yeah, they have three all stars, but that's really it. They are not at all an extremely talented team.
That's not an excuse for last year though. Wade played just as well as Lebron in the playoffs, and if he didn't collapse they surely would have won. This year, it's not quite the same, especially if Wade continues to shit bricks all playoffs. Though Lebron needs to play better then that last game regardless of what Wade does.

The '00 Lakers being "loaded" with "great" role players is an exaggeration to say the least.

Horry, Harper, and to a lesser extent Shaw are what I'd call solid role players on that 2000 team. Rice is more difficult to classify as he was somewhat of a 3rd option, but gave them role player production in the postseason. He was an average starting SF, but resisted the role Phil wanted him in, and didn't really learn the system.

Certainly nowhere near what Miami has in terms of pure talent. With big 3, and then their role players are no worse than the Lakers.

Chalmers, Haslem, Battier and Miller are certainly right there.

The '01 team is different. They're basically 2 different teams from regular season to the playoffs.

I'll use the playoff team. Peak Shaq, Kobe who emerged as a top 3 player(top 2 in the playoffs) and then role players. Their role players did play extremely well. Fisher was a spot up shooter who got red hot and defended well, Fox was the glue guy who also defended well and did a bit of everything, Horry was still solid, and Grant was a post defender and rebounder at that stage of his career.

Those are solid role players, but not a single scorer among them. Horace helped a lot because of the Lakers facing Sheed, Webber and Duncan all in their primes, and did an excellent job vs them.

But they go 15-1 in the playoffs going through one of the toughest Western Conferences ever with their one loss coming to Philly in OT, with their duo surrounded by 3-4 solid role players.

Wade has clearly stepped down this year from being comparable to 2001 Kobe, who despite not being as skilled as he'd become, was already more skilled than Wade and more athletic than current Wade.

But that's why the '01 Lakers make for a better comparison to the '11 Heat.

Both teams are the ones that you can make the best case for having the 2 best players in the league on. Not sure about LA because I'd put Duncan at 2nd over Kobe. But many use to call Shaq and Kobe the 2 best players in the game, just like they did with Lebron and Wade last year. Though there was just Howard and Dirk(no disrespect to those players) standing in the way of Lebron and Wade being the top 2 rather than prime Duncan, so the '11 Heat are imo, the team you can make the best case for having the top 2 players in the game.

Then there's Bosh as the 3rd option, a 7-time all-star coming off a 24/11, 52% season as the man where he led a 20 win team to a .500 record, and putting up 19/8 on 50% as Miami's 3rd option on a slow-paced team. And Bosh was at 19/9 as the 3rd option in the '11 playoffs including a 23/8, 60% ECF vs Chicago and a pretty solid finals series. Miami was also 7th in 3P% in '11.

When you have 2 superstars, it's difficult to put a lot around them, much less 3. Shaq and Kobe dealt with that without a 3rd star, and even in '00 before Kobe was a legitimate MVP-caliber player/franchise player like '11 Wade was.

There are advantages and disadvantages of multi-star teams and balanced teams.

And no, I don't think Lebron is as good as '98-'02 Shaq, but it wouldn't surprise me if he gets hyped as better with a ring or 2 the way things are heading. And the only version of Wade that I think was definitely better than '01 Kobe was '09 Wade, maybe '06. And '02 Kobe is roughly equal to Wade's usual prime level, imo.

jlauber

05-20-2012, 10:29 PM

I was HORRIFIED to find out that Glen Rice could not dribble for his life. Virtually everytime he put the ball on the floor, it was a turnover. He was a HUGE disappointment to the Lakers.

jlauber

05-20-2012, 10:32 PM

BTW, Fisher was a HUGE pickup for the Lakers in their early 00's runs.

RidonKs

05-20-2012, 10:36 PM

like i'm sure somebody (or everybody) has already said, the heat are a poorly assembled team that are where they are strictly as a result of their talent. the role players and bench they have is underused and stacked at all the wrong positions. similar to the clippers. those two teams are solid proof that stacking talent does not guarantee success, though the heat may still be so talented enough to overcome those odds... i still doubt it.

seriously, forget comparing position to position, bench to bench. look at how the players fit around one another. the lakers were dynamic because their 1-2 punch didn't come from the exact same spots on the floor.

chips93

05-20-2012, 10:57 PM

seriously, forget comparing position to position, bench to bench. look at how the players fit around one another. the lakers were dynamic because their 1-2 punch didn't come from the exact same spots on the floor.

thats what was so impressive about the heat win today, lebron and wade playing well together

obviously, they didnt just learn overnight how to play well together, but its a good sign, that they are learning how to benefit from playing alongside one another

Kingwillball

05-20-2012, 11:04 PM

ShaqAttack3234

05-20-2012, 11:07 PM

I was HORRIFIED to find out that Glen Rice could not dribble for his life. Virtually everytime he put the ball on the floor, it was a turnover. He was a HUGE disappointment to the Lakers.

Rice was actually a good post player, even with the Lakers, though he rarely used it then. He was still a good shooter, and a capable scorer, but wasn't what he was in those aspects, and those are the things that got him in the league in the first place. Averaging 1 made three per game considering he was their only 3 point shooter is unacceptable.

And amazingly, Rice had the balls to complain about a lack of touches with peak Shaq, and an emerging Kobe who imo, was already a top 9 player and the best SG in the league in '00.

As a Knick fan, I remember when Rice got traded to NY and complained about coming off the bench when 2 all-stars were at the SG and SF positions in Sprewell and Houston. He actually shot marginally better than he had in 2000, but Rice looked out of shape to me when he was in NY, and certainly had no legitimate complaints about his role at that stage of his career. Some players can't accept declining.

Though in LA, the triangle was a huge issue, as Phil said, you can't stand around without the ball. Other veterans have struggled too. Payton tried to push the ball at every opportunity because he also didn't fit in the offense, and he failed to fully take advantage of his ability as a cutter, like Phil wanted. And the reason Mitch Richmond didn't get any playing time was also because he couldn't learn the triangle.

They actually got more out of Rick Fox in the '01 playoffs than Rice despite being a considering less capable scorer. Rice had given them 12/4/2, 41% during the '00 run while making 1 three per game and struggled defensively. Rick gave them almost as much offense at 10/5/4, 45% while actually making as many 3s as Glen did, and playing good defense unlike Glen, particularly on Peja who had emerged as an all-star caliber player and one of the premier shooters.

The problem was Fox was underutilized and less effective in 2000, though here's a quote on Phil that can perhaps shed some light on that.

Rick told me about how erratic his play had been, not only this season but ever since he'd been in the league. Some of the things he did on the court were absolutely nonsensical, and the players had a name for it-"Rick Ball." Rick believed that he could trace the source of his difficulties to his final game as a collegian at North Carolina against Kansas in the Hoosier Dome during the NCAA tournament. Rick had felt primed for the ball game-this would be his opportunity to establish himself as one of the best college players in the country, and all of his dreams would be fulfilled. But he was unnerved when his coach, the legendary Dean Smith, had a disagreement with a referee and was thrown off the bench. Anyway, Rick shot poorly, and UNC had basically fumbled the game away. Rick believed that this game created some sort of mental block that he still needed to overcome.

Anyway, Rick really grew in the 2001 season and had a career year. I believe Phil stopped pulling him as quickly after mistakes, and another turning point was apparently during a team meeting when Rick was calling out the team, and Tex Winter was trying to tell Phil to get him to be quiet, and I'm a paraphrasing, but Phil said something like "no it needs to be said, and it's important for Rick to say it".

He became an essential role player on the '01 and '02 teams, and his injury during the '03 playoffs may have been one of the bigger factors, if not the biggest factor that prevented them from winning a 4th straight championship.

BTW, Fisher was a HUGE pickup for the Lakers in their early 00's runs.

He was a big key to their '01 dominance. He had missed the entire season until the final 20 games, and by that point, Harper had gone down after 47 games or so, and his career was basically over. But Fish got hot and gave them a much needed shooter and shot lights out during the '01 run.

Though Fisher's contributions during the 3peat are somewhat overstated. He was a non-factor during the '00 run. He shot under 35% from the field during the regular season and was demoted to their 4th guard during the playoffs behind Kobe, Harper and Shaw.

In '02, he shot under 36% from the field during the playoffs, and the Lakers had gone 11-1 without him during the regular season.

So in all honesty, I can only credit him for the '01 run, though he was fantastic then.

like i'm sure somebody (or everybody) has already said, the heat are a poorly assembled team that are where they are strictly as a result of their talent. the role players and bench they have is underused and stacked at all the wrong positions. similar to the clippers. those two teams are solid proof that stacking talent does not guarantee success, though the heat may still be so talented enough to overcome those odds... i still doubt it.

seriously, forget comparing position to position, bench to bench. look at how the players fit around one another. the lakers were dynamic because their 1-2 punch didn't come from the exact same spots on the floor.

Well, these are valid points. Last season, with a roster less talented than this current one, they would've won on sheer talent had Lebron not choked, and Miami not blown that game 2 lead.

The loss of Bosh makes it more acceptable if they do lose to me.

I believe that most involved have none a poor job of adjusting their games, and I really don't think very much of Spoelstra at all. The thing I liked initially about this team was how well they were forcing turnovers leading to guaranteed baskets. that was the defining quality of their team to me.

Out of all of the players, I thought Bosh eventually settled in as the best fit late last season and in the playoffs after calling for more touches, iirc. This year, he really stepped up when Wade was out, averaging 24/8 on 58% shooting in 13 games without Wade, so he remains underutilized, imo.

Bigsmoke

05-21-2012, 06:08 PM

SCdac

05-21-2012, 06:18 PM

Shaq and Kobe were a center/perimeter duo. Having that kind of a duo can cover more mistakes than just having LeBron and Wade. Shaq dominates the game inside, get rebounds and pretects the rim and Kobe does what Wade does.

yeah, I don't see the comparison between Lebron and Shaq at all. Two completely different positions and roles. Two different body types and qualities. This thread seems like one big device to say Shaq > Lebron... but that should be obvious to any basketball enthusiast.

No big man, or swingman, on the Heat can compensate for what prime Shaq brought to a team.

Going back to my earlier posts, the Heat's bench still sucks. They're 8 deep for the most part. They finally get contributions from Haslem... but will Lebron and Wade have to combine for 70 points every game? that seems unlikely, and asking alot from them.

Bigsmoke

05-21-2012, 06:43 PM

yeah, I don't see the comparison between Lebron and Shaq at all. Two completely different positions and roles. Two different body types and qualities. This thread seems like one big device to say Shaq > Lebron... but that should be obvious to any basketball enthusiast.

No big man, or swingman, on the Heat can compensate for what prime Shaq brought to a team.

Going back to my earlier posts, the Heat's bench still sucks. They're 8 deep for the most part. They finally get contributions from Haslem... but will Lebron and Wade have to combine for 70 points every game? that seems unlikely, and asking alot from them.

The Heat's bench at least looked good on paper. Battier played a huge role on the Grizzlies hitting that game winner in game 1 in that Spurs series and playing good D one Durant to stretch that series to 7 games. Mike Miller and Haslum are or at least were good enough to start on many teams but of course they been through injuries.

magnax1

05-21-2012, 07:45 PM

I agree, what Miami is lacking is strong depth.. and just a well rounded roster... to an extent they lacked it last year too, had a bunch of bit-pieces and veterans for cheap but nothing long lasting.

They have some players coming off the bench who were really great... about 4 years ago (Mike Miller, Shane Battier) as their main picks ups since becoming a "Big 3".

The lack of depth is showing up in the numbers too...

bench scoring (playoffs):

2012 Heat vs. Knicks: 17.4 ppg
2012 Heat vs. Pacers: 16.3 ppg (3 games)

2000 Lakers vs. Suns: 27.6 ppg
2000 Lakers vs Pacers: 22 ppg
2000 Lakers vs. Kings: 20.8 ppg
2000 Lakers vs Trailblazers: 19 ppg

2005 Spurs vs. Nuggets: 38.6 ppg
2005 Spurs vs. Sonics: 29.5 ppg
2005 Spurs vs. Suns: 23 ppg
2005 Spurs vs. Pistons: 19 ppg

I threw in the Spurs of 05 because they (like the Heat) were lead by primarily two scorers, Duncan (23. 6 ppg) and Ginobili (20.8 ppg), then a third guy in Parker who averaged 17 ppg and 14 ppg in the Finals.

Of the 4 championship Spurs teams, they likely had the shortest / weakest bench, yet even their bench is probably better than the current Heat. Had Rasho, Manu (at times), Barry, Horry, Devin Brown all coming off the bench.

The Heat, from top to bottom, don't stack up to the Lakers of the early 2000's or the Spurs of the mid-2000's. Lebron and Wade, with Bosh out, will have to play up to their averages or better every single game, I don't see how it get's done collectively. I personally thought they were one of the strongest teams, but once one of their big 3 goes down they quickly become weak (particularly when it's the best big man on the team and one of the best in the East). I agree with Kenny Smith, Chris Bosh is "integral" just like Tim Duncan is integral to the current Spurs. Replacing a big man is harder than replacing a wing player IMO.
Not just the scoring, but the 00 Lakers bench and role players were chalked full of intangibles. Horry and Rick Fox were among the best entry passers in the league (I can't see Shaq playing as well as he did without them), Harper and Shaw did everything well except for scoring, and Glen Rice was still among the better shooters in the league. As a scorer, Rice was almost as productive as Bosh. Of course he's not anywhere near the player Bosh is, but that doesn't mean much when Bosh is forced into such an awful role.
I just don't think comparing the two teams is fair at all. The 00 Lakers were just better, plain and simple. They're one of the best teams of the Decade, and not just because Shaq played so well. That was a complete and deep team.

magnax1

05-21-2012, 08:07 PM

The '00 Lakers being "loaded" with "great" role players is an exaggeration to say the least.

Horry, Harper, and to a lesser extent Shaw are what I'd call solid role players on that 2000 team. Rice is more difficult to classify as he was somewhat of a 3rd option, but gave them role player production in the postseason. He was an average starting SF, but resisted the role Phil wanted him in, and didn't really learn the system.
Fox was a great role player too, and Fisher did a good job in the playoffs. That Lakers team was really deep, and their only real hole was front court depth.

Certainly nowhere near what Miami has in terms of pure talent. With big 3, and then their role players are no worse than the Lakers.
I couldn't disagree more, because excluding Chalmers and Haslem, their role players are awful. You pointed out Battier as being "right up there." With the Lakers role players, but I just don't see how. Here's a guy who's getting 28 minutes a game shooting 40TS%, while playing what is basically average defense. He would not get any playing time on almost every other team in the league, and does not deserve playing time over Jones. In no way can you categorize Battier as a capable player at this point.
Miller is alright, but he's a shadow of his former self in every way. He's really just a good spotup shooter who gets some boards, but not particularly special in either of those categories anymore.
Then on top of that you have Joel Anthony and Turiaf as their centers, neither of whom are very productive, and neither of whom would (or were) getting any playing time on any other team. Anthony is a good backup center, and I'd be glad if he was in that role on my team, but as a starter with all the holes in his game like his rebounding and complete lack of offense, it's hard to say he's very good/
I just don't understand how you can say that the 00 team and this heat team are comparable in terms of depth. Of course, the big three is great, but they're surrounded by nothing of value.

Replay32

05-21-2012, 08:20 PM

Shaq and Kobe were a center/perimeter duo. Having that kind of a duo can cover more mistakes than just having LeBron and Wade. Shaq dominates the game inside, get rebounds and pretects the rim and Kobe does what Wade does.

This!!! There's a lot of ignorance in this thread. Basketball is a big man's game. At the very least, you need bigs who can rebound and protect the paint. Shaq was all that and then some by himself. The Heat don't match up well with bigger teams period.

You can't compare Shaq to Lebron James. One is a wing player the other was a big man. And those lakers teams had role players, who hit big time shots, despite the quotes and stats. Not only that, the lakers had a waayyy better offensive system that allowed the bench players to flourish. In 2000, the Lakers won a finals game without Kobe.

In 2006 wade was great, but they still had and effective shaq at center and Zo Mourning (a great defensive center) backing him up.

The Heat's offense and their coaching staff haven't done a good job of developing their bench. That's why...

Phil jackson has 11 rings (as a coach) and Phil is >>>>>> than Spo.

And those Lakers teams >>>>>> than this Heat team. Size matters. lol We all know that Shaq was an absolute beast in the early 2000's and was more dominant than Lebron James is now. Come on now. Even if the Heat had a players like Mozgov and Camby in their center rotation this year, I think they could easily win a title this year.

But this heat team is flawed and they ain't winning a title as constructed. Even if Bosh was healthy they ain't beating anybody who comes out of the West.

ShaqAttack3234

05-22-2012, 01:18 AM

Fox was a great role player too, and Fisher did a good job in the playoffs. That Lakers team was really deep, and their only real hole was front court depth.

That is absolute revisionist history at it's finest. That Laker team was not known as deep, and Fisher really didn't do anything in '00. He was demoted to 4th guard behind aging Ron Harper and Brian Shaw after a disastrous regular season when Fisher shot 34.7% from the field. He didn't become a good shooter until he worked on it when he was out in '01.

Fox was erratic in '00, read the quote from Phil. I don't remember Fox really doing anything on the '00 team. He was good in '01 and '02, though.

How can you say their only hole is frontcourt depth when the 2000 Lakers were among the bottom 5 in 3P%, bench scoring, and FG%.

They had 2 players starting who were disregarded by defenses because they were not shooting or scoring threats. Rice was the only other average starter, and even he didn't provide the consistent 3rd option he was supposed, and certainly didn't fit into the team.

The Lakers were being called a 2 man team during the playoffs, and everyone was talking about the massive difference in depth between LA and Portland.

I couldn't disagree more, because excluding Chalmers and Haslem, their role players are awful. You pointed out Battier as being "right up there." With the Lakers role players, but I just don't see how. Here's a guy who's getting 28 minutes a game shooting 40TS%, while playing what is basically average defense. He would not get any playing time on almost every other team in the league, and does not deserve playing time over Jones. In no way can you categorize Battier as a capable player at this point.
Miller is alright, but he's a shadow of his former self in every way. He's really just a good spotup shooter who gets some boards, but not particularly special in either of those categories anymore.
Then on top of that you have Joel Anthony and Turiaf as their centers, neither of whom are very productive, and neither of whom would (or were) getting any playing time on any other team. Anthony is a good backup center, and I'd be glad if he was in that role on my team, but as a starter with all the holes in his game like his rebounding and complete lack of offense, it's hard to say he's very good/
I just don't understand how you can say that the 00 team and this heat team are comparable in terms of depth. Of course, the big three is great, but they're surrounded by nothing of value.

Miami has the 3rd all-star that the '00 Lakers did not, and they actually do have better shooters. Both had some good defensive-minded role players.

Haslem's mid-range game mysteriously disappeared, but he's still a solid rebounder and defender. Joel Anthony is no worse than 2000 AC Green was.

Look at the difference in the Lakers shooters. Glen Rice was the only Laker to average 1 made three per game at 1.1 3PM. And the only Laker rotation player to shoot at least 33%.

For comparison, Marion Chalmers averaged 1.6 made threes and shot 38.8%. Mike Miller averaged 1.4 made threes in just 19 mpg and shot 45.3%. Shane Battier still shot 33.9% and averaged 1 made three per game in just 23 mpg. And James Jones only averaged 13 mpg, but averaged 0.9 made threes and shot 40.4%.

That's why Miami shot 35.9% on 3s, while the Lakers shot 32.9%.

Miami's bench, and role players aren't great, but it's clear to me that they're every bit as good as the Lakers, if not better. Clearly better shooters, and a few good defensive-minded role players.

Not just the scoring, but the 00 Lakers bench and role players were chalked full of intangibles. Horry and Rick Fox were among the best entry passers in the league (I can't see Shaq playing as well as he did without them), Harper and Shaw did everything well except for scoring, and Glen Rice was still among the better shooters in the league. As a scorer, Rice was almost as productive as Bosh. Of course he's not anywhere near the player Bosh is, but that doesn't mean much when Bosh is forced into such an awful role.
I just don't think comparing the two teams is fair at all. The 00 Lakers were just better, plain and simple. They're one of the best teams of the Decade, and not just because Shaq played so well. That was a complete and deep team.

Rice dropped to 12/4/2 on 41% in the playoffs. Rice was still a very good shooter, but not among the best in the league after the elbow surgery in '99. He shot 36.7% on them, his lowest since his rookie year, and his 43% from the field was a career low, and he made just 1.1 threes per game, his lowest since his 3rd season.

Rice could still score, but he was inconsistent, couldn't go off much anymore, and was declining rapidly all while not fitting into the offense. Despite getting to be the 2nd option for 16 games when Kobe was out and 2 more when Shaq was out, he never once went for 30 points in the 2000 season. And he had just two 20 point playoff games in 2000, 1 of them was game 2 when Kobe went down in the finals, and his high in the playoffs was just 21.

As I said, Fox was really a non-factor in '00, he didn't get many key minutes, he only did at times late in some games when Rice was getting destroyed defensively and not moving without the ball. Other than that, he played a lot of garbage minutes.

I'll give you Horry, though, he was a very solid role player who could pass, defend and rebound, and didn't score/shoot much or well that year, but was enough of a threat that he could make the defense think and stretch the defense a bit. But it's a hilarious statement to say that Shaq wouldn't have played as well without him.

They were nowhere near a complete and deep team, you have no idea what you're talking about here. They had clear holes that were exposed throughout the playoffs and had them in dangerous positions vs Portland, Indiana and even Sacramento to some extent.

With Sacramento it was the Kings superior bench, and Webber taking advantage of the Lakers weak PF position. With Portland, it was the Blazers doubling Shaq constantly on the catch, and taking advantage of the Lakers lack of shooters.

In Phil's own words "We won 67 games on Shaq's back".

It was probably the least talented team Shaq was on from about his '95 on when he was still a star.

magnax1

05-22-2012, 03:22 AM

He was demoted to 4th guard behind aging Ron Harper and Brian Shaw after a disastrous regular season when Fisher shot 34.7% from the field. He didn't become a good shooter until he worked on it when he was out in '01.
He played 15 minutes a game in the 00 playoffs. Pointing out Fisher's regular season is like pointing out Haslem was injured in 11. Doesn't really matter because he came back and he played fine. Shot 55 TS% in the playoffs.

Fox was erratic in '00, read the quote from Phil. I don't remember Fox really doing anything on the '00 team. He was good in '01 and '02, though.
He played about 20 minute a game, and I don't know why you think there is such a big difference between 01 and 00 Fox. He was really the same player from when he joined LA in 98 until 02 and 03 when he started to show signs of decline. He was inconsistent through that whole stretch.

How can you say their only hole is frontcourt depth when the 2000 Lakers were among the bottom 5 in 3P%, bench scoring, and FG%.
I don't get why you're stuck on 3p% so much when they were still a top offensive team. They had no issues scoring at all during the regular season, and were actually the top ranked offense during the playoffs.
Yeah, Kobe and Shaq took most of the scoring load. So do Bosh/Wade/James. Difference is that Kobe and Shaq had guys who did other stuff. Guys like Fox and Horry who made it easier for Shaq, and defenders like Harper. It's not like I think Lebron is as good as Shaq or anything either.

They had 2 players starting who were disregarded by defenses because they were not shooting or scoring threats.
I've already said Green wasn't very good, but Harper's job wasn't to shoot. He was still a good passer, and rebounder, and he was a big part of the defensive difference between the 00 and 01 Lakers.

The Lakers were being called a 2 man team during the playoffs, and everyone was talking about the massive difference in depth between LA and Portland.
The 00 Lakers were just not a two man team. The 01 Lakers, maybe, but you can't make a case that the first team was.

Mike Miller averaged 1.4 made threes in just 19 mpg and shot 45.3%.
You just seem really caught up on three point shooting for some reason. Yeah Miller is a good shooter, but what else? He doesn't get to use his passing ability, and he's not as good of a rebounder as he used to be. His offense isn't nearly as productive as it used to be either.

Battier still shot 33.9% and averaged 1 made three per game in just 23 mpg.
But Battier is an outright awful player. 34% isn't even very good. Teams just ignore him offensively, he doesn't do much productive defensively, he can't pass, can't rebound.

Miami's bench, and role players aren't great, but it's clear to me that they're every bit as good as the Lakers, if not better. Clearly better shooters, and a few good defensive-minded role players.
I just don't get how you're coming to this conclusion at all. At least compare them straight up
LA-
Fisher-good backup PG, good shooter, good defender
Harper-Good defender, rebounder, alright passer, and poor scorer
Shaw-Somewhat similar to Harper, good backup SG
Rice-Good shooter/scorer overall, but not good defender or much of anything else
Fox-Good passer alright shooter
Horry-Stretch 4, good passer, good defender in some situations
Green-Good rebounder, poor defender, and offensive player
Miami-
Chalmers-Good defender, good shooter, not a very smart point guard
Miller-Good shooter, good rebounder, poor defender
Haslem-Good defender, good rebounder, poor offensive player
Battier-Very poor offensive player, average defender
Anthony-Good defender, very poor rebounder, very poor offensive player.

Not only does LA have more players to throw out there, but almost all of them are just better then Miami's. The only role players Miami has that would get playing time in LA are Haslem and Chalmers.

Rice dropped to 12/4/2 on 41% in the playoffs. Rice was still a very good shooter, but not among the best in the league after the elbow surgery in '99. He shot 36.7% on them, his lowest since his rookie year, and his 43% from the field was a career low, and he made just 1.1 threes per game, his lowest since his 3rd season.
He averaged 16 ppg on 55 TS%. I'm not really interested in seeing his averages over 20 games, uness he consistently fell apart. Which, he did not. He had good playoffs in NO, and it looks like he played fine with New York statistically.
Really the only thing I'm hearing from you is about three point shooting. You're ignoring that Horry, Fox, Rice, Harper, Shaw, and Fisher were all good at what they did. You can say that about Chalmers, Haslem and Miller for Miami, and then Battier have been way worse then anyone LA threw out there in 01, and he's playing nearly 30 minutes a game these playoffs.

But it's a hilarious statement to say that Shaq wouldn't have played as well without him.
Why is that? You don't think the fact that he was probably the best entry passer in the league made a difference? You don't think someone like Dwight would play better if he had team mates who could get it down to him? Of course it makes a difference.

ShaqAttack3234

05-22-2012, 04:04 AM

He played 15 minutes a game in the 00 playoffs. Pointing out Fisher's regular season is like pointing out Haslem was injured in 11. Doesn't really matter because he came back and he played fine. Shot 55 TS% in the playoffs.

15 minutes per game...that's barely anything, especially when you consider some of the blowouts that were both wins and losses, or when Kobe was basically out 2 games.

He wasn't a part of their regular rotation, and he did nothing of note.

He played about 20 minute a game, and I don't know why you think there is such a big difference between 01 and 00 Fox. He was really the same player from when he joined LA in 98 until 02 and 03 when he started to show signs of decline. He was inconsistent through that whole stretch.

There was a big difference between Fox in '01, when he was a solid regular contributor, emerged as a leader and '00 when he didn't get much playing time, was erratic and again, I don't remember him doing anything of note outside of hitting a shot or 2(which were wide open) in game 1 of the finals in the 4th when the Lakers pulled away.

He played 14 mpg in the playoffs, and keep in mind some of the huge blowouts.

I don't get why you're stuck on 3p% so much when they were still a top offensive team. They had no issues scoring at all during the regular season, and were actually the top ranked offense during the playoffs.

Shooters are extremely important....are you kidding me? Portland couldn't have nearly gotten away with defending Shaq like they had good shooters.

Shooters are an essential part of a team, especially when you have the most doubled player in the league, as well as Kobe who could beat his man off the dribble and force the help.

What's your point about them being an elite offensive team? That's primarily because Shaq had a GOAT level season and was the best offensive player in the league, and because Kobe was the best SG in the league.

Their duo and coach were responsible for the vast majority of their success. They had a few nice role players, but were weak outside of their duo and coach.

Yeah, Kobe and Shaq took most of the scoring load. So do Bosh/Wade/James. Difference is that Kobe and Shaq had guys who did other stuff. Guys like Fox and Horry who made it easier for Shaq, and defenders like Harper. It's not like I think Lebron is as good as Shaq or anything either.

:oldlol: at Fox in '00 making it easier for Shaq, many of the limited minutes he did get weren't even with Shaq on the floor

I've already said Green wasn't very good, but Harper's job wasn't to shoot. He was still a good passer, and rebounder, and he was a big part of the defensive difference between the 00 and 01 Lakers.

Harper was solid at what he did, knew the triangle, knew when to cut, could pass and help run the offense, and he still defended well. But he was really a bench player by that point on most teams. Solid role player, but you don't want him playing as much as he did ideally.

The biggest difference in the regular season between the teams defensively was chemistry with the feud, plus Isaiah Rider being a cancer, Shaq being lazier to start, Kobe focusing on offense a bit more and going outside the offense a lot more to "get his" which also compromised them getting back on defense. And injuries.

The 00 Lakers were just not a two man team. The 01 Lakers, maybe, but you can't make a case that the first team was.

The '01 Lakers were a much more complete team than the '00 Lakers. Fisher gave them much needed shooting(some of it was a fluke because of how hot he was in the playoffs), Grant gave them a defender vs star PF(and he did a great job vs Sheed, Webber and Duncan in the playoffs) and Fox emerged as a solid all around starter.

You just seem really caught up on three point shooting for some reason. Yeah Miller is a good shooter, but what else? He doesn't get to use his passing ability, and he's not as good of a rebounder as he used to be. His offense isn't nearly as productive as it used to be either.

3 point shooting is extremely important, that's why. When you have guys who will get doubled, you need that, you need it to space the floor and run an effective offense. The Lakers got by because of their duo, but they really struggled at times in the playoffs.

I never said Miami had a great bench, but they're definitely no worse than LA was in '01.

But Battier is an outright awful player. 34% isn't even very good. Teams just ignore him offensively, he doesn't do much productive defensively, he can't pass, can't rebound.

Battier is a fine defender, and you say 34% isn't very good? Well, again, guess how many Laker rotation players shot that % on 3s in '00? 1....Glen Rice. Guess how many averaged as many 3s? 1....and that's Glen Rice too, and even he barely made more in far more minutes.

I just don't get how you're coming to this conclusion at all. At least compare them straight up
LA-
Fisher-good backup PG, good shooter, good defender
Harper-Good defender, rebounder, alright passer, and poor scorer
Shaw-Somewhat similar to Harper, good backup SG
Rice-Good shooter/scorer overall, but not good defender or much of anything else
Fox-Good passer alright shooter
Horry-Stretch 4, good passer, good defender in some situations
Green-Good rebounder, poor defender, and offensive player
Miami-
Chalmers-Good defender, good shooter, not a very smart point guard
Miller-Good shooter, good rebounder, poor defender
Haslem-Good defender, good rebounder, poor offensive player
Battier-Very poor offensive player, average defender
Anthony-Good defender, very poor rebounder, very poor offensive player.

Even with your analysis(which is incomplete), I don't see the edge to LA at all.

Fisher was not a good shooter in '00 and Battier is an above average defender.

And the funny thing is, Rice was a role player level guy, but he was LA's 3rd option, meaning he should be compared to Bosh, which is so lopsided it's not even funny. And you forgot to add the negative, which is completely failing to fit in to their offense.

Not only does LA have more players to throw out there, but almost all of them are just better then Miami's. The only role players Miami has that would get playing time in LA are Haslem and Chalmers.
He averaged 16 ppg on 55 TS%. I'm not really interested in seeing his averages over 20 games, uness he consistently fell apart. Which, he did not. He had good playoffs in NO, and it looks like he played fine with New York statistically.

You're showing your completely embarrassing lack of knowledge of the team again. And Rice wasn't particularly good in NY either, I know, because I watched that team a lot too. He shot a bit better than in LA, but complained about his role just like LA and still sucked defensively, except Van Gundy's offense sucked anyway, so not fitting in wasn't as much of a problem. Of course you're not interested in the playoffs...it's only the most important time of the year. And funny how you say that, and then ignore that Fisher shot under 35% from the field for an entire season, which is horrible. Shows a huge double standard.

Rice was an average starting SF who didn't fit into the team, nothing more, nothing less. Never said he was a scrub, just rapidly declining and not a real asset. Good shooter, and still a capable scorer, but a bad defender, didn't rebound and wasn't much of a playmaker. I'd say average passer.

I'll only list the LA players who actually mattered, were rotation players and contributed.

Harper- Good defender, helped run the triangle, good cutter, and solid passer. Was a mediocre shooter and scorer though, that's why Portland assigned Pippen to Harper so he could double Shaq all game long.

Green- Still a pretty good rebounder, got killed by a lot of younger 4s, though, and he was a non-factor offensively.

Horry- Solid passer, pretty solid rebounder, and good team defender. He did stretch the defense, but wasn't a good or productive offensive player by that point.

Shaw- A big guard who could handle the ball, not a good offensive player and turnover prone, but a pretty solid defender.

Yeah...that's much better than what Miami has. :facepalm

Really the only thing I'm hearing from you is about three point shooting. You're ignoring that Horry, Fox, Rice, Harper, Shaw, and Fisher were all good at what they did. You can say that about Chalmers, Haslem and Miller for Miami, and then Battier have been way worse then anyone LA threw out there in 01, and he's playing nearly 30 minutes a game these playoffs.

Yes, because when you're bottom 5 in 3P% it's a major problem, LA's role players were mostly good defenders, just like Miami's, except Miami has shooters too. It's not difficult, and Miami has a 3rd all-star. It's not hard to understand.

Why is that? You don't think the fact that he was probably the best entry passer in the league made a difference? You don't think someone like Dwight would play better if he had team mates who could get it down to him? Of course it makes a difference.

Because he wasn't spoonfeeding him. Shaq was going to score regardless, he did so when Green was on the floor, or when Horry was. It's nice to have an entry passer, but it doesn't make Shaq a better player, it just means he has a teammate who does a very simple fundamental skill well.

magnax1

05-22-2012, 04:48 AM

15 minutes per game...that's barely anything, especially when you consider some of the blowouts that were both wins and losses, or when Kobe was basically out 2 games.

He wasn't a part of their regular rotation, and he did nothing of note.
That's just not true though. It's not like he came in for garbage time. He played in almost every single game, and played big minutes in some, and no, not all of them were blowouts.

Shooters are an essential part of a team, especially when you have the most doubled player in the league, as well as Kobe who could beat his man off the dribble and force the help.
Shooters are not an essential part of an offense if you're capable of scoring down low, and their offense did not struggle at all.

Their duo and coach were responsible for the vast majority of their success. They had a few nice role players, but were weak outside of their duo and coach.
I already said their duo was responsible for most of their success, especially offensively.

:oldlol: at Fox in '00 making it easier for Shaq, many of the limited minutes he did get weren't even with Shaq on the floor
Also 100% untrue. Shaq played almost every minutes after the conference finals started, and that's when fox started playing his biggest minutes.

The '01 Lakers were a much more complete team than the '00 Lakers. Fisher gave them much needed shooting
Fisher played in 00

Grant gave them a defender vs star PF
True

Fox emerged as a solid all around starter.
Fox played in 00

3 point shooting is extremely important, that's why. When you have guys who will get doubled, you need that, you need it to space the floor and run an effective offense.
It's not extremely important, because tons of teams work fine without it. There are tons of teams that are among the top in the league without a top 3p%. Obviously you're better off with some good three point shooters, but it's a luxury, not a necessity at all.

I never said Miami had a great bench, but they're definitely no worse than LA was in '01.
I thought we were talking about 00?

Battier is a fine defender
Fine? Yes, but he's no longer much above average, if he's even above it at all. He had 0 effect on Carmelo, and his only real impact is being a good help defender.

, and you say 34% isn't very good? Well, again, guess how many Laker rotation players shot that % on 3s in '00? 1....Glen Rice. Guess how many averaged as many 3s? 1....and that's Glen Rice too, and even he barely made more in far more minutes.
Glen Rice shot 55TS%. Battier shot 50.

And the funny thing is, Rice was a role player level guy, but he was LA's 3rd option, meaning he should be compared to Bosh, which is so lopsided it's not even funny. And you forgot to add the negative, which is completely failing to fit in to their offense.

I'm not comparing the all stars, I'm comparing the help they have. I'm fine with you saying Shaq and Kobe is more productive then Wade and Lebron.

Of course you're not interested in the playoffs...it's only the most important time of the year.
Sorry to say, it's just not logical to compare 20 game stretches that often come off skewed because of matchups to a whole regular season. If you want to do it over multiple playoff runs, and there is a consistent difference, fine, but for 1 15-20 game stretch, it just isn't logical. Players go on hot and cold streaks for 20 games all the time.

Shows a huge double standard.
There's a difference between an injured player who came back to the form he had played at for years beforehand and just a guy who had a bad streak.

Rice was an average starting SF who didn't fit into the team, nothing more, nothing less. Never said he was a scrub, just rapidly declining and not a real asset. Good shooter, and still a capable scorer, but a bad defender, didn't rebound and wasn't much of a playmaker. I'd say average passer.
I already said all this stuff. He's a good scorer, that's it, but don't try and tell me he could score when he averaged 16 points for the season.

I'll only list the LA players who actually mattered, were rotation players and contributed.
I don't know why you keep coming back to this Fisher and Fox didn't play thing. They did. There is no way around it.

Because he wasn't spoonfeeding him. Shaq was going to score regardless, he did so when Green was on the floor, or when Horry was. It's nice to have an entry passer, but it doesn't make Shaq a better player, it just means he has a teammate who does a very simple fundamental skill well.
Of course it makes him better when he gets the ball with 15 seconds instead of 10. It makes the team better as a whole.

ShaqAttack3234

05-22-2012, 07:46 AM

That's just not true though. It's not like he came in for garbage time. He played in almost every single game, and played big minutes in some, and no, not all of them were blowouts.

Yes it is, he wasn't a key part of their team yet, and didn't see many key minutes, only when Rice really struggled in the playoffs. Sometimes, the Lakers played a lineup without either Fox or Rice at the SF.

Shooters are not an essential part of an offense if you're capable of scoring down low, and their offense did not struggle at all.

They almost lost to Portland because of it.

Because A.C. and Harp were subpar shooters, Portland was ganging up on Shaq with quick triple-teams

You can get by without shooters, but it's a glaring weakness. Look at the '00 Indiana team and '01 Bucks team, best offensive teams in the league. '00 Pacers were 1st in 3P% and 3 pointers made, Bucks were 5th in 3P% and 2nd in 3 pointers made. Look at those Suns teams in the mid 00's, or '10 for that matter. Dirk/Finley/Nash Mavs, '02-'04 Kings.

Look at the Spurs this season. Best offensive team, and they had the best 3P%, 2nd in 3s made.

I already said their duo was responsible for most of their success, especially offensively.

And that's my point, they relied as heavily on 2 players as any really successful team has.

Outside of Phil's phenomenal coaching(one of his top 3 coaching jobs in his opinion and mine), the team simply didn't have much talent.

we were far from being the most talented team in the league. Indiana, Portland, Phoenix, Sacramento, and New York were all ball whose top eight or nine players had more talent than we had in our regular rotation.

Miami isn't particularly deep either so I'm torn on whether to call them stacked, but how much more do you need with that big and role players of Chalmers, Haslem, Battier and Miller. Those are legit NBA guys and all except Haslem can shoot, and Haslem use to be able to shoot. All except Miller are above average defenders.

But I do know that Miami is widely regarded as the most talented team in the league, the Lakers were not considered the most talented team in '00.

Also 100% untrue. Shaq played almost every minutes after the conference finals started, and that's when fox started playing his biggest minutes.

Game 1 of the finals is one of the few I remember him doing anything. Look at game 2 vs Portland, Fox plays 22 minutes in a 29 point loss. Part of the reason he did get more minutes as the playoffs went on was because of how much Rice disappeared later in the playoffs.

Fisher played in 00

Yeah, and played like shit. He had never established himself as a shooter until he returned from the injury, which makes sense because Phil said he worked on it when he was out. Check the numbers.

Fox played in 00

Rick told me about how erratic his play had been, not only this season but ever since he'd been in the league. Some of the things he did on the court were absolutely nonsensical, and the players had a name for it-"Rick Ball." Rick believed that he could trace the source of his difficulties to his final game as a collegian at North Carolina against Kansas in the Hoosier Dome during the NCAA tournament. Rick had felt primed for the ball game-this would be his opportunity to establish himself as one of the best college players in the country, and all of his dreams would be fulfilled. But he was unnerved when his coach, the legendary Dean Smith, had a disagreement with a referee and was thrown off the bench. Anyway, Rick shot poorly, and UNC had basically fumbled the game away. Rick believed that this game created some sort of mental block that he still needed to overcome.

It's not extremely important, because tons of teams work fine without it. There are tons of teams that are among the top in the league without a top 3p%. Obviously you're better off with some good three point shooters, but it's a luxury, not a necessity at all.

How many are in the bottom 5?

I thought we were talking about 00?

Sorry, I meant '00.

Fine? Yes, but he's no longer much above average, if he's even above it at all. He had 0 effect on Carmelo, and his only real impact is being a good help defender.

And help defense is a real asset. He's still a good 1 on 1 defender, Carmelo is just a great scorer. Lebron was so effective because he's bigger and stronger than Carmelo, and he's just about the only SF who is. Who on the '00 Lakers is slowing down Carmelo?

Glen Rice shot 55TS%. Battier shot 50.

And he was making 1.1 threes per game and shooting 43 FG%. By the way, '00 Rice was obviously a better scorer than Battier ever was, I know that. Rice could shoot from all areas better and had the post game(though it wasn't used that much) which Battier did not. I've called Rice in '00 an average starting SF, above average offensively, but a poor fit in the triangle. You can't get away with not moving without the ball in that offense. Rice had been considered a disappointment in '99 when he played better, shot better and put up better numbers than he did in '00, and the problems with the triangle weren't even a factor in '99.

Even so, numbers make him look a bit better than he was.

They wanted to know why Glen hadn't played much. "Maybe he doesn't deserve to play," I told them. "He doesn't seem capable of playing without the ball, so he's just not doing the job."

Glen was still not comfortable moving without the ball. He also continued to vacate those spaces on the court where he'd historically scored his points.

Rice is angry about being benched by Jackson during critical parts of the Finals including most of the fourth quarter in Game 3. Jackson, who largely used defense-minded Rick Fox is Rice's place, apparently sees him as a defensive liability.

"Glen had a real struggle that third quarter . . . I just went to Rick Fox because we needed some defense and change of venue, and with that group out there on the floor we got back in the game," he said. "So you stay with who plays."

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/13/sports/sp-40569

I rest my case about Rice. Average starting SF, above average offensive ability, didn't provide all around play, wasn't the offensive player he once was or near all-star level anymore, and absolutely didn't fit in the offense or accept his role like a team player.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

It's a problem when you don't fit in the triangle. Look at Payton in '04, he was still a pretty good player, and put up nice enough numbers.

I'm not comparing the all stars, I'm comparing the help they have. I'm fine with you saying Shaq and Kobe is more productive then Wade and Lebron.

Well, that's entirely fair because of Bosh. That's something Shaq and Kobe didn't have, the 3rd all-star. Bosh has proven essential to Miami, even the solid role players on the '00 Lakers were not what I'd call essential, Rice included, who despite being better, was less valuable to me for that particular team than Harper, or perhaps even Horry.

Sorry to say, it's just not logical to compare 20 game stretches that often come off skewed because of matchups to a whole regular season. If you want to do it over multiple playoff runs, and there is a consistent difference, fine, but for 1 15-20 game stretch, it just isn't logical. Players go on hot and cold streaks for 20 games all the time.

To some extent, but 23 games is a significant sample size, and it's much more of a test to play in the playoffs. But you're simply not following this logic with Fisher in 2000, and ignoring Fisher's 35 FG% because he shot decently on a small amount of attempts in a very small 4th guard role in the playoffs.

There's a difference between an injured player who came back to the form he had played at for years beforehand and just a guy who had a bad streak.

Who are you referring to?

I already said all this stuff. He's a good scorer, that's it, but don't try and tell me he could score when he averaged 16 points for the season.

I said that Rice was still a capable scorer, but that he was one of only 3 capable scorers, and the only guy you could truly call a good shooter on the roster, and that Rice was simply an average player and a bad fit on the team. I never denied that he could score.

I don't know why you keep coming back to this Fisher and Fox didn't play thing. They did. There is no way around it.

I said they weren't key parts or really rotation players. Which they weren't. They weren't really productive, I don't care what they did the following year, and I have explained that anyway. Basing it off other years, Miller, Battier and Haslem would be phenomenal supporting players. As it is, they're not bad and at least on the level of the Laker bench players, and imo, better.

Of course it makes him better when he gets the ball with 15 seconds instead of 10. It makes the team better as a whole.

Horry could perform a basic entry pass well, and was a good passer in general. It's not something I'm going to go nuts over. It's embarrassing when players can't do it. He passed the ball to Shaq, and Shaq made his move, it didn't allow Shaq to do something he couldn't have done on any team.

SCdac

05-22-2012, 10:34 AM

Ron Harper and Robert Horry were 2nd and 3rd on the Lakers in Steals, both in the regular season and post season. For a team that was 1st in defensive rating, that's not insignificant. Horry was #3 in defensive rating on that team and #2 in defensive win shares. He was somebody who had been a part of previous championship teams (Houston) and wasn't an unproven commodity by any means. Maybe not the most efficient shooter in that run, but really I'd probably take him over anybody on the Heat's bench (for all we know he could become the 4th leading scorer on the Heat). Joel Anthony is averaging freaking 3 and 4 for gods sake, for a big man in 20 mpg that is horrible.

It's still never been explained how, outside of both being great scorers, Lebron is supposed to be in any way comparable to the 7'1 shot blocking and rebounding Shaq. Lebron is supposed to player the part of a center now? ... talk about unreasonable.

ShaqAttack3234

05-22-2012, 12:16 PM

Ron Harper and Robert Horry were 2nd and 3rd on the Lakers in Steals, both in the regular season and post season. For a team that was 1st in defensive rating, that's not insignificant

I said both were good defenders(not that steals, particularly 1.1 spg is the best evidence of that), but role players, not a luxury, every team that contends gets them.

Though the primary reason the Lakers were the best defensive team was because of Shaq.

we were funneling guys baseline and sideline, and overplaying everybody so they'd be forced to deal with Shaq in the lane.

Horry was #3 in defensive rating on that team and #2 in defensive win shares.

:rolleyes: You actually think these are valid statistics? I mean really, I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt anyone who actually reads basketball-reference's explanations for defensive rating(assigned to individuals) and defensive win shares(as if win shares weren't bad enough), could think they're valid. They're estimates that aren't even based on actual data, except defensive rating for individuals is usually based on teams.

He was somebody who had been a part of previous championship teams (Houston) and wasn't an unproven commodity by any means. Maybe not the most efficient shooter in that run, but really I'd probably take him over anybody on the Heat's bench (for all we know he could become the 4th leading scorer on the Heat). Joel Anthony is averaging freaking 3 and 4 for gods sake, for a big man in 20 mpg that is horrible.

Horry was not the same player who played on those mid 90's Rocket teams. He was much more athletic and as a result, more of a threat in transition as well as attacking the basket in general. He also benefited from the shorter 3 point line.

Horry became a different player in the late 90's when he bulked up to play the 4. Still solid for the reasons stated, though he did have trouble guarding some 4s, and simply wasn't really an offensive option or a consistent shooter like he was with Houston.

Joel Anthony was really no worse than AC Green was by 2000. 5/6, 45 FG% in 24 mpg. Better rebounder than Anthony, but a worse defender. Neither were/are big factors. Green was basically there for experience.

It's still never been explained how, outside of both being great scorers, Lebron is supposed to be in any way comparable to the 7'1 shot blocking and rebounding Shaq. Lebron is supposed to player the part of a center now? ... talk about unreasonable.

I'm comparing their help. Lebron starts getting all of this all time great talk whenever he approaches a title. So I'm comparing the help he has with another all-time great, and the last time there was a duo as high profile as Lebron/Wade.

The way Lebron's talked about, you wouldn't think most people would find it unreasonable to compare him to Shaq, or the duo to the Shaq/Kobe duo. In fact, if you did a poll, quite a few casual fans might say Lebron is better in fact.

I could use the Jordan/Pippen Bulls too, Duncan's Spurs(different kind of team, more based on defense, but not even the most talented title teams from '05 and '07 compete with the Heat in terms of talent, imo). '11 Mavs were considered less talent, but beat them.

He could've used better teams, or at least more guys stepping up in Cleveland. Though if the complaint is that this Heat team doesn't complement him, the '09 Cavs complemented him extremely well. I don't blame him for that because he played great, Orlando was just a bad match up, and Mo Williams didn't play at the level he had all season. And that cast did seem to give him less help than most greats.

SCdac

05-22-2012, 01:25 PM

Joel Anthony was really no worse than AC Green was by 2000. 5/6, 45 FG% in 24 mpg. Better rebounder than Anthony, but a worse defender. Neither were/are big factors. Green was basically there for experience.

That's the whole point.

Joel Anthony is supposed to be, and for all intensive purposes has been counted on to be a big factor. That's why this comparison is off.

He's the only true center on the roster, and it would not be going out on a limb to say he's the best shot blocker on the Heat... think about that... The center position a sore spot the Heat desperately need to patch up.

Outside of Shaq, pretty much every position on the Lakers had a back up worth giving minutes to.

Joel Anthony:

27 MPG - so far in the Heat vs. Pacers series
2012 - 51 starts (career high)
2011 - started in the ECF and Finals

27 MPG is about 10 more minutes than AC Green played in any series outside the first round.

All in all, that is relying on basically a bench player (if you put him on most teams) to be playing a big role. Especially since they lost Big Z, Dampier, etc, etc.... that left Joel.

The way Lebron's talked about, you wouldn't think most people would find it unreasonable to compare him to Shaq, or the duo to the Shaq/Kobe duo. In fact, if you did a poll, quite a few casual fans might say Lebron is better in fact.

Considering their different skill sets, where they do most of their damage, what they can provide to a team if neither is scoring the ball, their different position... Yes, I find it unreasonable to expect Lebron to do the things that Shaq did.

And why are you bringing up casual fans? are we casual fans? Give me a break Shaqattack, you and I both know Shaq is a better player back then and a better player all time. Didn't need this thread to prove that, did you?

You aren't just comparing rosters in this thread, you're comparing what the best player is getting done with said rosters. Isn't that the bottom line?

Even the numbers show, despite how you view the Lakers bench/depth, they averaged more PPG than Lebron is currently getting from his bench (see my earlier posts). That is a fact. Take from that fact what you will. To me, it says the Heat's depth for a contending team is lacking big time, especially if their bench is averaging less than this Lakers team (and the 05 Spurs who also had a short bench).

Also, I think you're confusing "talent" with being a cohesive, hard working, reciprocal, well-coached team.

2004 Lakers had all the "talent" in the world, but they just weren't a great team relative to the "less talented" Pistons. A great team is a great team. Lebron, minus Bosh (considering you made this thread around the time he went down), does not have a great team, let alone a 67 win team like the 2000 Lakers. If the Heat win the championship without Bosh, I'd be relatively surprised. With Bosh, they are a much better team because, let's face it, he's their only noteworthy big man and basically completes them.

You of all people should know the importance of a solid big man. Which is why I don't understand why you're expecting Lebron to suddenly be that.

The two best players on the Heat had to combine for 70 points last game. Good luck trying to repeat that 8+ more times. It's unrealistic considering they don't have the paint protection Shaq provided for a whopping 44 minutes a game.

This is far from a black and white comparison. Like I said in a previous post, this reminds me more of Spre and Allan Houston when Ewing went down. Two gunners on a team lacking their central force in the paint.

ShaqAttack3234

05-22-2012, 01:56 PM

That's the whole point.

Joel Anthony is supposed to be, and for all intensive purposes has been counted on to be a big factor. That's why this comparison is off.

He's the only true center on the roster, and it would not be going out on a limb to say he's the best shot blocker on the Heat... think about that... The center position a sore spot the Heat desperately need to patch up.

Outside of Shaq, pretty much every position on the Lakers had a back up worth giving minutes to.

Joel Anthony:

27 MPG - so far in the Heat vs. Pacers series
2012 - 51 starts (career high)
2011 - started in the ECF and Finals

27 MPG is about 10 more minutes than AC Green played in any series outside the first round.

All in all, that is relying on basically a bench player (if you put him on most teams) to be playing a big role. Especially since they lost Big Z, Dampier, etc, etc.... that left Joel.

Yeah, and even a solid role player like 2000 Ron Harper is a bench player on most teams, same with Green.

I never hear anyone say the Heat will go as far as Joel Anthony takes them, everyone knows their center position sucks, again, you typically won't have depth when you have multiple superstars.

They have 1 really bad position(C), 1 great position(w/ Bosh, or mediocre without him), arguably the best SG and SF, and a decent PG, but definitely below average for a starter. More of a glaring weakness at C then the Lakers had at PG or PF because of the back up. But factor in the lack of shooters and we're not talking about a different level.

Considering their different skill sets, where they do most of their damage, what they can provide to a team if neither is scoring the ball, their different position... Yes, I find it unreasonable to expect Lebron to do the things that Shaq did.

Big men make up the vast majority of the top 10 players(Russell, Chamberlain, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan). The big question is if Lebron will end up with that status along with Magic, Bird, MJ, Kobe. If he can't have the same impact on the game then fine. But some obviously feel that he can.

And why are you bringing up casual fans? are we casual fans? Give me a break Shaqattack, you and I both know Shaq is a better player back then and a better player all time. Didn't need this thread to prove that, did you?

I don't believe that Lebron doesn't belong in the same breath as the greats, he shows signs of it. But if a complaint is going to be help then I'll make the comparison. The reality with multiple star teams is often that you don't have the same depth, it's just reality. It's up for debate what's more effective whether it's Dallas vs Miami 2011, LA vs Portland 2000, Spurs vs Clippers this year, Detroit vs LA 2004 ect.

It's not the end of the world if he loses, he does have a flawed roster, but most elite players, much less the best player in the league for what? the past 4 years...will have the expectation to win with another star.

Barkley was going on about how well Lebron had to play for Miami to win even with Bosh, so this isn't exclusively about a Bosh-less Heat.

You aren't just comparing rosters in this thread, you're comparing what the best player is getting done with said rosters. Isn't that the bottom line?

No, I'm comparing rosters to. Without Bosh, they're left with a 2 star team with a few good role players, just like the 2000 Lakers. I'll concede the coaching advantage.

Even the numbers show, despite how you view the Lakers bench/depth, they averaged more PPG than Lebron is currently getting from his bench (see my earlier posts). That is a fact. Take from that fact what you will. To me, it says the Heat's depth for a contending team is lacking big time, especially if their bench is averaging less than this Lakers team (and the 05 Spurs who also had a short bench).

Are you using playoff numbers or regular season numbers? Because the Heat have barely had any blowouts or games where they pulled the starters early.

I was aware that the Heat bench ranked a bit lower, though. They were bottom 3 in bench scoring this year at 23.8 ppg, and bottom 5 in bench FG% at 41%, but while the Lakers were bottom 5 in bench scoring at 24.5 ppg, they had an even lower bench FG% at 40.2%, and ranked even lower in the league int hat category than Miami as the 3rd worst.

Also, I think you're confusing "talent" with being a cohesive, hard working, reciprocal, well-coached team.

I know they're not an ideal fit, but a lot of teams haven't been. I will concede that it's often been the coach that's made it work, and Spoelstra is, imo, mediocre.

2004 Lakers had all the "talent" in the world, but they just weren't a great team relative to the "less talented" Pistons. A great team is a great team. Lebron, minus Bosh (considering you made this thread around the time he went down), does not have a great team, let alone a 67 win team like the 2000 Lakers. If the Heat win the championship without Bosh, I'd be relatively surprised. With Bosh, they are a much better team because, let's face it, he's their only noteworthy big man and basically completes them.

The 2004 comparison becomes more deceptive when you consider Malone might as well have not been playing considering how injured he was, and Detroit had an excellent starting 5, perhaps the best defense ever, and a great bench. It is somewhat similar if you call Malone the '04 Lakers Chris Bosh, though Detroit was obviously a much better team than Indiana, even though Indiana is a good team.

Do you know why the Lakers were a great team in 2000? Shaq was the closest ever to a unanimous MVP, his own coach said "we won 67 games on Shaq's back".

They'd have had zero shot at the playoffs without Shaq, particularly with the team being in their first year of the triangle, Kobe missing 16 games(and the first 15 of the year), bottom 5 in 3 point shooting, 2 players who were not offensive threats and below average starters in their lineup, and in the bottom 5 in bench scoring.

Having a teammate like 2000 Kobe is a luxury, but Lebron still has that with Wade. The 2000 Lakers "should've" won around 55 even with Shaq, they overachieved in the regular season, partially due to Shaq's dominance and Phil's coaching.

He had a cast he could contend with, and so does Lebron if he's as great as many say he is(and I do hear him talked about as if he's better than Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem ect.)

You of all people should know the importance of a solid big man. Which is why I don't understand why you're expecting Lebron to suddenly be that.

I'm talking about a players help, that's a positive Shaq brought to a team, and part of what made him an all-time great. He didn't provide 3 point shooting, and could've used it on his team, but they were a terrible 3 point shooting team.

The two best players on the Heat had to combine for 70 points last game. Good luck trying to repeat that 8+ more times. It's unrealistic considering they don't have the paint protection Shaq provided for a whopping 44 minutes a game.

Shaq's paint protection wasn't help he was getting from anyone else obviously, it was what he brought to a team. And that type of offensive output wasn't unusual for Shaq and Kobe because they didn't have Bosh in the first place.

Shaq didn't have the 3 point shooting he sure as hell could've used with those double teams, he still got it done.

This is far from a black and white comparison. Like I said in a previous post, this reminds me more of Spre and Allan Houston when Ewing went down. Two gunners on a team lacking their central force in the paint.

I like Houston and Sprewell as much as the next guy, but they don't belong in the same sentence as Lebron and Wade.

SCdac

05-22-2012, 02:22 PM

DMAVS41

05-22-2012, 03:16 PM

I feel like this would be a far better comparison of it was Lebron and Howard instead of Lebron and Wade.

I have to say I agree with much of what ShaqAttack is saying, but the whole Wade / Lebron chemistry issue isn't being looked at as what it is. They simply can't play at an optimal level together night in night out.

With Kobe and Shaq they could...and one of them filled that ever important role of interior scoring/rebounding/dominance to a level that only a handful of players, if any, have ever done.

And the coaching point is a big one.

For example, how many titles do Shaq / Kobe win with a guy like Spo instead of Phil? I'd say 1. I think they lose in both 00 and 02 for sure. Clearly win in 01.

I don't want to say the Lakers got "lucky" in 00 or 02, but it was tight. Very fragile. Down 15 in the 4th to Blazers and 02 Kings series could have...and probably should have gone a different way.

I don't like throwing out hypotheticals a lot because they can be argued to death, but I think given how close the Lakers came to losing in both 00 and 02 that if you just merely give them a coach like Spo instead of Phil that you would have seen most likely only 1 title in those 8 years.

That coaching thing alone kind of trumps all these arguments. Anyone think the Heat still lose last year if Riley was coaching? I sure as hell don't.

ShaqAttack3234

05-22-2012, 05:00 PM

Mediocre coach, mediocre center, when Bosh is out mediocre PF... I just don't see how Lebron and Wade are supposed to compensate for some of the most important positions in basketball, including rebounding and shot blocking. The Lakers in 2000 were the best rebounding team and the 4th best shot blocking team, stark contrast to this Miami Heat team.

Uh, yeah...and who was top 2 in rebounding at 14 per game and top 3 in blocks per game at 3 per game? So it's not about the cast, and the other biggest standout in that regard was Kobe averaging 6+ rpg from the guard position and 0.9 bpg. So again, more to do with the star duo than anything. Green and Horry were still pretty good rebounders, though, not elite for 4s. Horry was a solid shot blocker, though not elite either.

A three point basket will always be a low-% shot, but when you have a bulldozer like Shaq it doesn't quite matter as much because he's scoring on you either way. We're talking about the most dominant big man of all time (imo). I'll take an elite front court over an elite back court all day. The Heat barely having any blowouts says alot, every game is a struggle for them. Lebron had to play a post-season high 44 minutes to win the last game, and notch a near triple double with 18 rebounds.

You're talking about what Shaq brought to a team vs what Lebron does. I'm talking about their casts and how much help.

3 point shooting is extremely important for spacing and to make teams pay for double teaming, it's basic basketball.

And as I showed, the Lakers bench scoring numbers/production were damn near identical to Miami's for the season.

A team like the '95 Rockets had less depth than either team. A much better bench player than either wirth Cassell, but he was literally about it. No front court depth, Horry was then playing out of position at the 4, and that along with their 1 in and 4 out system to space the floor for Hakeem made them a weak rebounding team(-2.8 rpg in the season and -1.3 rpg in the playoffs).

The '94 team had Thorpe, but still didn't rebound very well because of the system. Granted, I know the system got the most out of the team and complemented Hakeem, so I give Rudy T credit for that, but it had it's negatives. And it didn't help that Carl Herrera was pretty much their only backup big man. Mad Max was also there instead of Clyde and while he could defend, he could shoot you in and a game and out of a game. They didn't really have a reliable 2nd option since Thorpe was a finisher and Mad Max was an erratic chucker. Though they had better depth than the '95 team, they certainly didn't have some incredible bench.

I can point out key flaws on many teams that won titles. And they had to beat better teams than Indiana to do it, and I like Indiana's team.

I feel like this would be a far better comparison of it was Lebron and Howard instead of Lebron and Wade.

I have to say I agree with much of what ShaqAttack is saying, but the whole Wade / Lebron chemistry issue isn't being looked at as what it is. They simply can't play at an optimal level together night in night out.

With Kobe and Shaq they could...and one of them filled that ever important role of interior scoring/rebounding/dominance to a level that only a handful of players, if any, have ever done.

And the coaching point is a big one.

For example, how many titles do Shaq / Kobe win with a guy like Spo instead of Phil? I'd say 1. I think they lose in both 00 and 02 for sure. Clearly win in 01.

I don't want to say the Lakers got "lucky" in 00 or 02, but it was tight. Very fragile. Down 15 in the 4th to Blazers and 02 Kings series could have...and probably should have gone a different way.

I don't like throwing out hypotheticals a lot because they can be argued to death, but I think given how close the Lakers came to losing in both 00 and 02 that if you just merely give them a coach like Spo instead of Phil that you would have seen most likely only 1 title in those 8 years.

That coaching thing alone kind of trumps all these arguments. Anyone think the Heat still lose last year if Riley was coaching? I sure as hell don't.

I actually don't know if the Lakers win a single title with Spoelstra, that's perhaps Miami's biggest problem, imo. Not the roster, which imo, has enough talent to overcome not being the most cohesive team.

The '01 Lakers probably explode with that feud. Anyone think Spoelstra is stopping it? And you could say they got lucky. A lot of championship teams do to win. Whether it's injuries to their toughest potential rivals('09 Lakers, '03 Spurs), or extraordinary situations(blowing a 15 point 4th quarter lead in game 7). Now, part of what made the Lakers a better team than Portland is that they handled adversity better and were the mentally tougher team, so that's a factor as well. It can be the difference between the better team and more talented team. Portland was more talented, but they were pretty evenly matched, and I think the better team won. Sacramento was also more talented than LA, and also had a great coach, though they struck me as a softer team, and more mentally fragile minus Bibby(and it started with their franchise player C-Webb). Webber was as big of a choker as any superstar I've seen, and I really liked his game. And of course, Peja was an all-star and elite shooter who wasn't 100%.

I personally believe that in most cases, there are several teams with a legitimate chance to win each year, but only one of them can, luck is part of what separate them, particularly when it comes to injuries.

To back up the Lakers potentially not winning a single title with Phil. The '98 Lakers clearly had more talent than any team Phil coached, imo, yet lost to a less-talented, but more mature, well coached and well built Jazz team. Part of that was that the Laker supporting cast played at a level they should be ashamed of. But I'd also say the '97 Lakers had more talent than the championship teams, and also lost to Utah. And again they underachieved, and unlike '98, Shaq also struggled. And Del Harris was a better coach than Spoelstra, but didn't have much control over that talented, but immature team.

I like Miami much better with Riley, though I don't think Riley is as good as Phil or Pop. They look great when they're forcing turnovers, but it's a real struggle in the half court still, and I think they have a lot more potential than they've shown offensively.

The thing about Lebron/Wade is, I wonder if Lebron's style is more of the problem. Wade was very ball-dominant out of necessity in recent years before the signings, but when Miami won in '06, Wade played fine without the ball, whether it was when the offense went to Shaq in the post, or when their PG Jason Williams and Gary Payton had the ball.

madmax

05-22-2012, 05:13 PM

ShaqAttack3234

05-22-2012, 05:50 PM

it's really downright silly to compare that 00' Lakers team with current Heat squad...
First of all, those LA dynasty teams were constructed and coached properly, without redundant pieces in the rosters. Everyone did what they were supposed to do, even if they were not the most talented bunch in the league.
Secondly, they were damn lucky to overcome Blazers in 00 (thanks to Portland chokejob in the 4th quarter of the Game 7, which I still remember vividly as if I've watched it yesterday:rant ) and then came the infamous 02 series against Kings with all the refereeing issues and accusations. Luck plays a big part in any sport and no one can deny that LA were damn lucky to win in those seasons...

I think this is a solid post.

My one problem with how they were constructed was the lack of shooters, though it got a bit better in '01 and '02. I think that's the best way to build around a dominant big man, like Orlando had with Shaq, Houston did with Hakeem, Orlando did with Dwight(not that he's really dominant offensively...closest was '11).

Though I'll add that to some extent they construct the team with the triangle in mind bringing in Ron Harper who knew the offense, and I believe helped the very difficult transition. Shaq wanted Brian Shaw because of their chemistry in Orlando with the "Shaw/Shaq Redemption" plays, and like Harper, he was a big defensive-minded guard, players that Phil always liked. He was actually a last minute replacement when Kobe broke his hand in the preseason, iirc. Actually, most of the team was in place, so it was really filled out/finished with the triangle in mind.

Though the triangle was as Phil put it "essentially a shooters offense", so again that's a bit of an issue for me when talking about how they were constructed. And their 2 stars were scorers first and foremost which did lead to some problems, even if they were an inside/outside duo, which is the ideal duo, imo.

I agree they were lucky in some ways to get by Portland. But Portland was absolutely loaded. They had an embarrassment of riches, were phenomenal at both ends, the preseason title favorites, and widely regarded as the most talented team in the league. If Miami is the current "superteam" Portland was that team in '00. And I really doubt Miami would beat them, or even take them to 7.

I won't get into the accusations in the Sacramento series, I don't agree with them other than it was a poorly officiated series all around. Though that Kings team was incredibly talented. 7 guys averaging double figures in the early 00's, underrated defense, terrific ball movement, shooting and execution. Post players, perimeter players, a superstar and two 20+ ppg scorers, plus a 20-8 record without their best player.

But a big difference between the '00 Lakers and these past 2 Heat teams is that the '00 Lakers at least overachieved, while Miami are seen by many as underachievers. Prior to Phil arriving, the Lakers were also seen as underachievers in Shaq's era, so it does back up the coaching argument more.

Owl

05-22-2012, 07:48 PM

I think this is a solid post.

My one problem with how they were constructed was the lack of shooters, though it got a bit better in '01 and '02. I think that's the best way to build around a dominant big man, like Orlando had with Shaq, Houston did with Hakeem, Orlando did with Dwight(not that he's really dominant offensively...closest was '11).

Though I'll add that to some extent they construct the team with the triangle in mind bringing in Ron Harper who knew the offense, and I believe helped the very difficult transition. Shaq wanted Brian Shaw because of their chemistry in Orlando with the "Shaw/Shaq Redemption" plays, and like Harper, he was a big defensive-minded guard, players that Phil always liked. He was actually a last minute replacement when Kobe broke his hand in the preseason, iirc. Actually, most of the team was in place, so it was really filled out/finished with the triangle in mind.

Though the triangle was as Phil put it "essentially a shooters offense", so again that's a bit of an issue for me when talking about how they were constructed. And their 2 stars were scorers first and foremost which did lead to some problems, even if they were an inside/outside duo, which is the ideal duo, imo.

I agree they were lucky in some ways to get by Portland. But Portland was absolutely loaded. They had an embarrassment of riches, were phenomenal at both ends, the preseason title favorites, and widely regarded as the most talented team in the league. If Miami is the current "superteam" Portland was that team in '00. And I really doubt Miami would beat them, or even take them to 7.

I won't get into the accusations in the Sacramento series, I don't agree with them other than it was a poorly officiated series all around. Though that Kings team was incredibly talented. 7 guys averaging double figures in the early 00's, underrated defense, terrific ball movement, shooting and execution. Post players, perimeter players, a superstar and two 20+ ppg scorers, plus a 20-8 record without their best player.

But a big difference between the '00 Lakers and these past 2 Heat teams is that the '00 Lakers at least overachieved, while Miami are seen by many as underachievers. Prior to Phil arriving, the Lakers were also seen as underachievers in Shaq's era, so it does back up the coaching argument more.
I was surprised looking back at how poorly LA shot. I guess its a function of Fisher being less a part of the rotation than he would later be and maybe also the fact that when your top two guys use 58% of the offense (added their usage rates for that number) its hard for other players to get enough shots to stay in rythm.
Still the Lakers team was deep with leaders, with veterans who knew their role and with defenders. Defense (a function of cohesion, individual players especially in shape Shaq but basically everyone except Rice and coaching) would also seem key. LA had the leagues best defense that year (a year in which the Spurs still had their twin towers. This seems to be one area which that LA team has over Miami (Lakers league best 5.9 points better than league mean, Miami 4th best 4.4 points better than league mean)

I would still say that team was much better constructed than Miami.

With regard to your opening post I'm not quite sure what your argument is.

That Barkley is incorrect that LeBron does need more help? (I think you're saying this)
That LeBron shouldn't need more help? (Again I think yes)
That he does actually need more help? (I'm not sure because we're getting "if he's the player many say he is", I don't think this is the point but their does seem to be an undercurrent maligning LeBron, particularly the suggestion that "Lebron's play deserves criticism" which unless relating to a specific game bears little resemblance to statistical suggestions that he is the playoffs most productive player http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=Y&year_min=2012&year_max=2012&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=per)

I don't think the argument, from most fans if not Barkley whose mouth is faster than his brain, has ever been that Miami need more talent, nor that Miami as presently constituted is not good enough to win. Last year they were favourites, and beaten finalists (and yes that was LeBron's fault), and were one of 4 teams this year good enough to win (though by regular season performance they were narrowly 4th). There have been suggestions that Riley has done a poor job fleshing out the rest of the roster (failure to get impact buyouts, bad contracts to Miller and especially Joel Anthony, reliance on very old known but washed up players rather than taking a chance on youth e.g. Stackhouse, Dampier, Ilgauskas, Magloire, Howard, Curry), that Spoelstra isn't an elite coach (something you seem to be in agreement with) and that the two stars are far too alike (slashers who need the ball, one with limited ability from three significantly, improved from earlier in his career, and one with no ability three point range at all) which makes them significantly less than the sum of their abilities/talents especially in halfcourt sets.
I think all these criticisms of the Heat are legitimate.

ShaqAttack3234

05-22-2012, 08:32 PM

I was surprised looking back at how poorly LA shot. I guess its a function of Fisher being less a part of the rotation than he would later be and maybe also the fact that when your top two guys use 58% of the offense (added their usage rates for that number) its hard for other players to get enough shots to stay in rythm.

Well, it's a combination of things for Fisher, imo. One is that Phil mentioned Fisher improving his shooting when he was out with the injury in '01 in "More Than A Game", and he also mentioned that Fisher shot worse in '04 because he was playing with bench players, just like in '00. He also shot 35% from the field in the '04 season. Which makes sense, you'll obviously get much better looks playing primarily with Shaq and Kobe than a lot of your time with bench players who aren't real scoring threats.

Still the Lakers team was deep with leaders, with veterans who knew their role and with defenders. Defense (a function of cohesion, individual players especially in shape Shaq but basically everyone except Rice and coaching) would also seem key. LA had the leagues best defense that year (a year in which the Spurs still had their twin towers. This seems to be one area which that LA team has over Miami (Lakers league best 5.9 points better than league mean, Miami 4th best 4.4 points better than league mean)

Yeah, other than Rice, and Green at that point, everyone was good defensively in their rotation. In general, I think that team was much hungrier than other Laker teams during the season.

And I will say that Harper, Green, Shaw and Horry were veterans who had been around a while and played in big games and seemed to provide leadership. Shaq also emerged as a leader that year, contrary to what many believe now, Phil said Shaq made a good leader back then because his teammates liked him, and that he actually did work hard in '99-'00 and got tendinitis as a result of working much harder than he was used to.

I would still say that team was much better constructed than Miami.

With the inside/outside duo, yeah. With the lack of a reliable 3rd guy who fits into the team and the lack of shooters? It makes it closer in that regard, those are things I consider really important.

The Heat were the team that were celebrating right after the signing, that's where a lot of my criticism is coming from. They clearly have a ton of talent, much more than LA, and have been underachievers to me.

That Barkley is incorrect that LeBron does need more help? (I think you're saying this)

Yeah, you're correct.

That LeBron shouldn't need more help? (Again I think yes)

Correct again.

That he does actually need more help? (I'm not sure because we're getting "if he's the player many say he is", I don't think this is the point but their does seem to be an undercurrent maligning LeBron, particularly the suggestion that

I don't think he needs more help if he plays like he's capable of playing as he did in games 1 and 4, but he didn't in games 2 and 3. Wade has been far worse of course, but Lebron is now widely regarded as the better player(and I thought he was better last year too for that matter).

If you look at Lebron's performances on average throughout the playoffs, they've been quite good, but games 2 and 3 just weren't up to his standard and it put them in a dangerous situation. If he wins and plays somewhere near or between games 1 and 4, I'll give him credit. If he's closer to games 2 and 3 and they lose, then I'll criticize him for a blown opportunity because despite Indiana's depth, this is certainly a winnable series.

I don't think the argument, from most fans if not Barkley whose mouth is faster than his brain, has ever been that Miami need more talent, nor that Miami as presently constituted is not good enough to win. Last year they were favourites, and beaten finalists (and yes that was LeBron's fault), and were one of 4 teams this year good enough to win (though by regular season performance they were narrowly 4th). There have been suggestions that Riley has done a poor job fleshing out the rest of the roster (failure to get impact buyouts, bad contracts to Miller and especially Joel Anthony, reliance on very old known but washed up players rather than taking a chance on youth e.g. Stackhouse, Dampier, Ilgauskas, Magloire, Howard, Curry), that Spoelstra isn't an elite coach (something you seem to be in agreement with) and that the two stars are far too alike (slashers who need the ball, one with limited ability from three significantly, improved from earlier in his career, and one with no ability three point range at all) which makes them significantly less than the sum of their abilities/talents especially in halfcourt sets.
I think all these criticisms of the Heat are legitimate.

They show so much potential at times, yet fail to maintain that level with championship consistency. They find a way to beat themselves, and often don't go to their strength enough(they need to commit even more to their running game as long as they're this incapable of becoming an elite half court team), or address their weaknesses, which I do think they have the ability to do despite overlapping skill sets.

Lebron isn't the one I blame the most for their inconsistent play. Spoelstra and Wade come first.

DMAVS41

05-23-2012, 01:17 AM

Uh, yeah...and who was top 2 in rebounding at 14 per game and top 3 in blocks per game at 3 per game? So it's not about the cast, and the other biggest standout in that regard was Kobe averaging 6+ rpg from the guard position and 0.9 bpg. So again, more to do with the star duo than anything. Green and Horry were still pretty good rebounders, though, not elite for 4s. Horry was a solid shot blocker, though not elite either.

You're talking about what Shaq brought to a team vs what Lebron does. I'm talking about their casts and how much help.

3 point shooting is extremely important for spacing and to make teams pay for double teaming, it's basic basketball.

And as I showed, the Lakers bench scoring numbers/production were damn near identical to Miami's for the season.

A team like the '95 Rockets had less depth than either team. A much better bench player than either wirth Cassell, but he was literally about it. No front court depth, Horry was then playing out of position at the 4, and that along with their 1 in and 4 out system to space the floor for Hakeem made them a weak rebounding team(-2.8 rpg in the season and -1.3 rpg in the playoffs).

The '94 team had Thorpe, but still didn't rebound very well because of the system. Granted, I know the system got the most out of the team and complemented Hakeem, so I give Rudy T credit for that, but it had it's negatives. And it didn't help that Carl Herrera was pretty much their only backup big man. Mad Max was also there instead of Clyde and while he could defend, he could shoot you in and a game and out of a game. They didn't really have a reliable 2nd option since Thorpe was a finisher and Mad Max was an erratic chucker. Though they had better depth than the '95 team, they certainly didn't have some incredible bench.

I can point out key flaws on many teams that won titles. And they had to beat better teams than Indiana to do it, and I like Indiana's team.

I actually don't know if the Lakers win a single title with Spoelstra, that's perhaps Miami's biggest problem, imo. Not the roster, which imo, has enough talent to overcome not being the most cohesive team.

The '01 Lakers probably explode with that feud. Anyone think Spoelstra is stopping it? And you could say they got lucky. A lot of championship teams do to win. Whether it's injuries to their toughest potential rivals('09 Lakers, '03 Spurs), or extraordinary situations(blowing a 15 point 4th quarter lead in game 7). Now, part of what made the Lakers a better team than Portland is that they handled adversity better and were the mentally tougher team, so that's a factor as well. It can be the difference between the better team and more talented team. Portland was more talented, but they were pretty evenly matched, and I think the better team won. Sacramento was also more talented than LA, and also had a great coach, though they struck me as a softer team, and more mentally fragile minus Bibby(and it started with their franchise player C-Webb). Webber was as big of a choker as any superstar I've seen, and I really liked his game. And of course, Peja was an all-star and elite shooter who wasn't 100%.

I personally believe that in most cases, there are several teams with a legitimate chance to win each year, but only one of them can, luck is part of what separate them, particularly when it comes to injuries.

To back up the Lakers potentially not winning a single title with Phil. The '98 Lakers clearly had more talent than any team Phil coached, imo, yet lost to a less-talented, but more mature, well coached and well built Jazz team. Part of that was that the Laker supporting cast played at a level they should be ashamed of. But I'd also say the '97 Lakers had more talent than the championship teams, and also lost to Utah. And again they underachieved, and unlike '98, Shaq also struggled. And Del Harris was a better coach than Spoelstra, but didn't have much control over that talented, but immature team.

I like Miami much better with Riley, though I don't think Riley is as good as Phil or Pop. They look great when they're forcing turnovers, but it's a real struggle in the half court still, and I think they have a lot more potential than they've shown offensively.

The thing about Lebron/Wade is, I wonder if Lebron's style is more of the problem. Wade was very ball-dominant out of necessity in recent years before the signings, but when Miami won in '06, Wade played fine without the ball, whether it was when the offense went to Shaq in the post, or when their PG Jason Williams and Gary Payton had the ball.

I agree with everything other than Lebron's style being the problem. If this Heat team had a less ball dominant sg that could shoot...it wouldn't be an issue at all.