Stacked teams always win the NBA Championship

[CanYouDigIt]

It's nothing new :lebroncry:

2012: Lebron, Wade, Bosh
2011: Dirk, Terry, Butler, Marion, Kidd, Chandler
2010: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, MWP, Fisher
2009: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, Fisher
2008: Pierce, Garnett, Allen
2007: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2006: Wade, Shaq
2005: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2004: Billups, Rasheed, Rip, Big Ben, Prince
2003: Duncan, Parker, Manu, Robinson
2002: Shaq, Kobe
2001: Shaq, Kobe
...

Bron Bron getting that 2nd Ring :applause:

[tikay0]

And which of those teams were formed in the prime of their careers, with each of their players being bonafide franchise players?

I'll give you a hint? They all dress like queers, one of them is a closet homosexual, the other one has self confidence issues with his hairline, and the oldest of the big 3 is a ref baiting whore.

[Sharmer]

It's nothing new :lebroncry:

2012: Lebron, Wade, Bosh
2011: Dirk, Terry, Butler, Marion, Kidd, Chandler
2010: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, MWP, Fisher
2009: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, Fisher
2008: Pierce, Garnett, Allen
2007: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2006: Wade, Shaq
2005: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2004: Billups, Rasheed, Rip, Big Ben, Prince
2003: Shaq, Kobe
2002: Shaq, Kobe
2001: Shaq, Kobe
...

Bron Bron getting that 2nd Ring :applause:

Go through the 80s and 90s and you find the same phenomena.

[DMAVS41]

It's nothing new :lebroncry:

2012: Lebron, Wade, Bosh
2011: Dirk, Terry, Butler, Marion, Kidd, Chandler
2010: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, MWP, Fisher
2009: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, Fisher
2008: Pierce, Garnett, Allen
2007: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2006: Wade, Shaq
2005: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2004: Billups, Rasheed, Rip, Big Ben, Prince
2003: Shaq, Kobe
2002: Shaq, Kobe
2001: Shaq, Kobe
...

Bron Bron getting that 2nd Ring :applause:

Besides Butler not playing....that isn't stacked...:roll:

[toxicxr6]

I'm looks at 2003 :facepalm

[buddha]

so Why didn't the stacked Heat beat the Mavs in 2011?

[tikay0]

Which of those teams had 3 superstars that were the bonafide studs of their team join up and form one of the most top heavy teams in the NBA.

They took 3 franchise players from different teams, and joined.

Yes, on paper they all look similar, but use your common sense, and you'll see that one's different from the others.

P.S. Bynum was injured for all the Lakers championships, and Odom does not constitute a big 3, and please get Artest off that list.

[9erempiree]

It's nothing new :lebroncry:

2012: Lebron, Wade, Bosh
2011: Dirk, Terry, Butler, Marion, Kidd, Chandler
2010: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, MWP, Fisher
2009: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, Fisher
2008: Pierce, Garnett, Allen
2007: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2006: Wade, Shaq
2005: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2004: Billups, Rasheed, Rip, Big Ben, Prince
2003: Shaq, Kobe
2002: Shaq, Kobe
2001: Shaq, Kobe
...

Bron Bron getting that 2nd Ring :applause:

Not stacked at all when it's only 2 players. It just shows you how great Shaq and Kobe were together.

No surprise since it's two of top 10 players of all time.

[Straight_Ballin]

so Why didn't the stacked Heat beat the Mavs in 2011?

/thread

[outbreak]

anyone who says they thought the mavs team was stacked at the time that season happened is a liar

[9erempiree]

To someone that mentioned that Lebron would pass Kobe with 2 rings is wrong. Kobe has 5 rings already and Lebron also needs more individual accomplishments to pass Kobe. MVP awards are great and all but they are voted.

Lebron needs to accomplish more statistically. We don't know if he's going to break 30k or not or how his body is.

[9erempiree]

anyone who says they thought the mavs team was stacked at the time that season happened is a liar

Mavs were always a stacked team since Cuban owned them.

Just look at the past teams with all the stars and former stars that Cuban would sign on to the team.

That championship team was a culmination of everything pieced together and a good coach in Carlisle.

[DMAVS41]

Mavs were always a stacked team since Cuban owned them.

Just look at the past teams with all the stars and former stars that Cuban would sign on to the team.

That championship team was a culmination of everything pieced together and a good coach in Carlisle.

:applause:

[outbreak]

Mavs were always a stacked team since Cuban owned them.

Just look at the past teams with all the stars and former stars that Cuban would sign on to the team.

That championship team was a culmination of everything pieced together and a good coach in Carlisle.
going into the play offs noone was saying they were the stacked team in the league. No one.

[9erempiree]

going into the play offs noone was saying they were the stacked team in the league. No one.

They were use to it. Mavs were always loaded.

Cuban would "woo" stars from other team to his team. They were no longer stars since Cuban favored his boy, Dirk.

[shady6121]

going into the play offs noone was saying they were the stacked team in the league. No one.

This. Dirk just had one the GOAT playoffs runs in 2011 and led the Mavericks to a championship.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Are you trying to argue that the 11 and 04 teams were stacked? Seriously?

[buddha]

going into the play offs noone was saying they were the stacked team in the league. No one.

Yeah, It was pretty much Dirk Nowitzki carrying the team too.

Jason Kidd, J.J. Barrea
DeShawn Stevenson, Jason Terry
Shawn Marion
Dirk Nowitzki
Tyson Chandler, Brendan Haywood

Stacked? lol..

not only did the stacked Heat lose to this team, the Kobe, Bynum, Gasol, Odom lakers were swept by them and the Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka Thunder lost to them.. or Dirk Nowitzki I should say.

[Remix]

OP doesn't even know who won the title in 03

thread sucks

[tikay0]

Yeah, It was pretty much Dirk Nowitzki carrying the team too.

Jason Kidd, J.J. Barrea
DeShawn Stevenson, Jason Terry
Shawn Marion
Dirk Nowitzki
Tyson Chandler, Brendan Haywood

Stacked? lol..

not only did the stacked Heat lose to this team, the Kobe, Bynum, Gasol, Odom lakers were swept by them and the Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka Thunder lost to them.. or Dirk Nowitzki I should say.

He's trying to justify why the Heat lost to a cinderella team.

[9erempiree]

2011 team killed the champions Lakers.

2004...they had a streak of where they held teams under 70 points for like x amount of games. I forget the exact number but they were very good. 4 out the 5 starters were eventually on the same floor in the allstar game plus Lebron.

Very good teams. I don't know why people don't want to admit it.

I'm actually giving credit to these teams.

[tikay0]

2011 team killed the champions Lakers.

2004...they had a streak of where they held teams under 70 points for like x amount of games. I forget the exact number but they were very good. 4 out the 5 starters were eventually on the same floor in the allstar game plus Lebron.

Very good teams. I don't know why people don't want to admit it.

I'm actually giving credit to these teams.

11' Mavs didn't kill the Lakers. They won every 4th quarter, but they didn't kill the Lakers.

[bmulls]

11' Mavs didn't kill the Lakers. They won every 4th quarter, but they didn't kill the Lakers.

They swept the Lakers, get the fck outta here :lol

[Remix]

thread still sucks

[iamgine]

It's nothing new :lebroncry:

2012: Lebron, Wade, Bosh
2011: Dirk, Terry, Butler, Marion, Kidd, Chandler
2010: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, MWP, Fisher
2009: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, Fisher
2008: Pierce, Garnett, Allen
2007: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2006: Wade, Shaq
2005: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2004: Billups, Rasheed, Rip, Big Ben, Prince
2003: Duncan, Parker, Manu, Robinson
2002: Shaq, Kobe
2001: Shaq, Kobe
...

Bron Bron getting that 2nd Ring :applause:
Some of those aren't stacked.

Thread premise false.

[9erempiree]

11' Mavs didn't kill the Lakers. They won every 4th quarter, but they didn't kill the Lakers.

They went 16-5 in the playoffs. Losing 2 games the most in a series. Swept the Lakers in which the Lakers had no answer for Barea and Terry.

They pretty much were toying with the Lakers. After game 2, I knew the Lakers had no chance.

[tikay0]

They swept the Lakers, get the fck outta here :lol

Each game is it's own series. Sweep or not, killing a team, means you're running them outta the building in each game.

The Lakers were in every game, except they couldn't execute down the stretch.

Pau was also being a major ******.

[bmulls]

Each game is it's own series. Sweep or not, killing a team, means you're running them outta the building in each game.

The Lakers were in every game, except they couldn't execute down the stretch.

Pau was also being a major ******.

They won game 4 by like 40 points or something.

[tazb]

To someone that mentioned that Lebron would pass Kobe with 2 rings is wrong. Kobe has 5 rings already and Lebron also needs more individual accomplishments to pass Kobe. MVP awards are great and all but they are voted.

Lebron needs to accomplish more statistically. We don't know if he's going to break 30k or not or how his body is.

Not sure if serious or retarded. If he wins this year he's most likely going to win the Finals MVP. 2x Finals MVP, 4x MVP >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2x Finals MVP, 1 MVP.

Also, LeBron is on pace to finish his career with 30,000+ points, 10,000+ assists, 10,000+ rebounds. I myself, don't think he'll accomplish this, but if he does, it'll be the most remarkable stat in NBA history IMO.

[SamuraiSWISH]

2012 Heat were STACKED

2011 Mavs were not stacked

2010 Lakers were STACKED

2009 Lakers were not stacked

2008 Celtics were STACKED
2007 Spurs were STACKED

2006 Heat were not stacked

2005 Spurs were STACKED

2004 Pistons were not stacked

2003 Spurs were STACKED

2002 Lakers were not stacked
2001 Lakers were not stacked

2000 Lakers were STACKED

1998 Bulls were not stacked

1997 Bulls were STACKED
1996 Bulls were STACKED
1995 Rockets were STACKED

1994 Rockets were not stacked

1993 Bulls were not stacked
1992 Bulls were not stacked
1991 Bulls were not stacked

1990 Pistons were STACKED
1989 Pistons were STACKED

[TheBigVeto]

And which of those teams were formed in the prime of their careers, with each of their players being bonafide franchise players?

I'll give you a hint? They all dress like queers, one of them is a closet homosexual, the other one has self confidence issues with his hairline, and the oldest of the big 3 is a ref baiting whore.

The Lakers. They dress like queers and Kobe met all the above criteria.

[9erempiree]

Not sure if serious or retarded. If he wins this year he's most likely going to win the Finals MVP. 2x Finals MVP, 4x MVP >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2x Finals MVP, 1 MVP.

Also, LeBron is on pace to finish his career with 30,000+ points, 10,000+ assists, 10,000+ rebounds. I myself, don't think he'll accomplish this, but if he does, it'll be the most remarkable stat in NBA history IMO.

On pace and doing it are 2 different things. If "on pace" makes you pass someone than Kobe has already passed several players in his 3rd season as he was the youngest to accomplish this and that.

Like I said, the only individual accomplishments that are worth a damn is what actual statistics. I really could careless for FMVP, MVP and those all NBA teams. These are voted accomplishments where scoring 30k was actually done without votes.

You can take away the opinion based awards but you can't take away something that is certain such as stats.

[tikay0]

The Lakers. They dress like queers and Kobe met all the above criteria.

:applause: :oldlol:

[tikay0]

They won game 4 by like 40 points or something.

Bynum and Pau were playing like ******s.

[ripthekik]

how the hell were the Mavs stacked, in comparison with the Heat, and even teams like Thunder and Lakers that year :roll:

what a failure, 2nd team on the list and thread already overthrown:roll: :roll: :roll:

heat/lebron "fans" never fail to impress with their stupidity:applause:

[DMAVS41]

2012 Heat were STACKED

2011 Mavs were not stacked

2010 Lakers were STACKED

2009 Lakers were not stacked

2008 Celtics were STACKED
2007 Spurs were STACKED

2006 Heat were not stacked

2005 Spurs were STACKED

2004 Pistons were not stacked

2003 Spurs were STACKED

2002 Lakers were not stacked
2001 Lakers were not stacked

2000 Lakers were STACKED

1998 Bulls were not stacked

1997 Bulls were STACKED
1996 Bulls were STACKED
1995 Rockets were STACKED

1994 Rockets were not stacked

1993 Bulls were not stacked
1992 Bulls were not stacked
1991 Bulls were not stacked

1990 Pistons were STACKED
1989 Pistons were STACKED

I seriously hope you didn't mean to say the 03 spurs were stacked. Otherwise...ROFL

[Mr. Incredible]

Damn Tikay0, I LOVE seeing you so salty...

Keep it up kid :applause:

[The-Legend-24]

How were those Laker teams stacked? It was pretty much Kobe and Shaq, and then it was Kobe and Pau.

[tazb]

'00-'03 OP should've added Phil Jackson & Refs. :applause:

[DMAVS41]

The notion that someone could call the 11 Mavs stacked is absurd. Just ****ing absurd.

And to those using the 16-5 record as evidence.

16 of the Mavs 21 games in the playoffs entered crunch time...meaning that 16 of those games were within 5 points with 5 minutes or less left.

The Mavs, mainly Dirk, just happened to come through with clutch play after clutch play to win.

Dirk went for 48/8/3 on 54/60/97 shooting splits per 36 minutes of crunch time in the 11 playoffs. That is why the Mavs won the title...that and a few insane games against the Thunder.

[ripthekik]

'00-'03 OP should've added Phil Jackson & Refs. :applause:
'11 should've added shortened season
'13 should've added refs, injuries
:applause:

[D-Wade316]

The Lakers. They dress like queers and Kobe met all the above criteria.
Kobe's sense of style is unrivaled in the NBA. :pimp:

[SamuraiSWISH]

I seriously hope you didn't mean to say the 03 spurs were stacked. Otherwise...ROFL
So besides that you totally disagree, or what exactly are you on my tip trying to express here, Gino?

Also, I kind of short formed this because to me there is a difference between being stacked and talented. Some teams have both. If that's the case then I have to re-do the list entirely.


How were those Laker teams stacked? It was pretty much Kobe and Shaq, and then it was Kobe and Pau.
2000 Lakers had Glenn Rice, and Ron Harper. 2010 Lakers had a healthier Bynum, and newly added Ron Artest (the guy who won them game 7 of the Finals)

The rest, I agree with you. The 2001, 2002, 2009 squads weren't stacked.

[DMAVS41]

So besides that you totally disagree, or what exactly are you on my tip trying to express here, Gino?

Also, I kind of short formed this because to me there is a difference between being stacked and talented. Some teams have both. If that's the case then I have to re-do the list entirely.


2000 Lakers had Glenn Rice, and Ron Harper. 2010 Lakers had a healthier Bynum, and newly added Ron Artest (the guy who won them game 7 of the Finals)

The rest, I agree with you. The 2001, 2002, 2009 squads weren't stacked.

Just trying to understand how one of the worst supporting casts ever to win a title was stacked.

Please explain.

[97 bulls]

The 11 Mavs werent "stacked" relative to what we consider stacked teams historically. But for 11? Absolutely they were stacked.

They had a top 5 pf in Dirk, a top 5 center in Chandler, the best Sixthman in Terry, arguably the best bench. They were a strong team.

[tazb]

'11 should've added shortened season
'13 should've added refs, injuries
:applause:

Nothing beats having the Zen Master, the G.O.A.T. coach - Phil Jackson.:applause:

[DMAVS41]

The 11 Mavs werent "stacked" relative to what we consider stacked teams historically. But for 11? Absolutely they were stacked.

They had a top 5 pf in Dirk, a top 5 center in Chandler, the best Sixthman in Terry, arguably the best bench. They were a strong team.

No...just no.

Just in the playoffs alone they played 3 teams with more talent in the Lakers, Thunder, and Heat.

That isn't stacked.

[9erempiree]

The notion that someone could call the 11 Mavs stacked is absurd. Just ****ing absurd.

And to those using the 16-5 record as evidence.

16 of the Mavs 21 games in the playoffs entered crunch time...meaning that 16 of those games were within 5 points with 5 minutes or less left.

The Mavs, mainly Dirk, just happened to come through with clutch play after clutch play to win.

Dirk went for 48/8/3 on 54/60/97 shooting splits per 36 minutes of crunch time in the 11 playoffs. That is why the Mavs won the title...that and a few insane games against the Thunder.

Just becaue the games went into crunch time doesn't mean the teams aren't stacked.

Games will still be close especially they are playing another stacked team. It didn't matter they were both very formidable teams.

I find it funny that you can't acknowledge the only team the that won a championship for the franchise, is good.

[DMAVS41]

Just becaue the games went into crunch time doesn't mean the teams aren't stacked.

Games will still be close especially they are playing another stacked team. It didn't matter they were both very formidable teams.

I find it funny that you can't acknowledge the only team the that won a championship for the franchise, is good.

Good? They were great. But they weren't stacked. The 11 Mavs simply were not stacked in any sense of the word.

They just happened to catch fire and ride one of the best playoff performances and maybe the best clutch playoff performance of all time en route to the title.

They had 1 all nba player and 1 all star. And were not true favorites to even get out of the first round. Were huge underdogs in the 2nd round. Slightly favored in the WCF...and then huge underdogs again in the Finals.

If the 11 Mavs were "stacked"...then every team to ever play well in the playoffs is stacked.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Just trying to understand how one of the worst supporting casts ever to win a title was stacked.

Please explain.
The 2003 Spurs? Maybe when I was typing this out I confused them for the 2005 Spurs. The 2005 and 2007 Spurs were most certainly stacked.

2003? Not so much. But like I said, there is a difference between talent and great role players and pieces IE stacked.

This year's Heat team is stacked and talented. The 2011 team in comparison just talented.

The 2011 Mavs? Excellent depth and quality at all positions. Not a whole lot of superstar talent, but the right pieces surrounding their best player to cover all his glaring deficiencies as a player.

1994 Rockets? Not ultra talented, but very well built around Hakeem. One could call them stacked. They were deep, had a bench, and good pieces all around him. Same goes for the 2004 Pistons.

[DMAVS41]

The 2003 Spurs? Maybe when I was typing this out I confused them for the 2005 Spurs. The 2005 and 2007 Spurs were most certainly stacked.

2003? Not so much. But like I said, there is a difference between talent and great role players and pieces IE stacked.

This year's Heat team is stacked and talented. The 2011 team in comparison just talented.

The 2011 Mavs? Excellent depth and quality at all positions. Not a whole lot of superstar talent, but the right pieces surrounding their best player to cover all his glaring deficiencies as a player.

1994 Rockets? Not ultra talented, but very well built around Hakeem. One could call them stacked. They were deep, had a bench, and good pieces all around him. Same goes for the 2004 Pistons.

Yea. The 03 Spurs were simply not stacked. They are probably the weakest supporting cast around a star to ever win.

I'll just ignore your "glaring deficiencies" comment because you are butthurt about not knowing anything about the 03 Spurs.

The 11 Mavs were deep and some guys stepped up...but still one of the weakest supporting casts around a star to win in the last 30 years. Guess all those glaring deficiencies don't matter too much when said player can accomplish something very few other stars have ever done.

I just love the revisionist history on here. A team at least half of the people in the basketball world picked to lose to the Blazers...and 99 percent of the world picked the Lakers....and virtually 100 percent picked the Heat....is now stacked looking back.

ROFL....

[97 bulls]

Good? They were great. But they weren't stacked. The 11 Mavs simply were not stacked in any sense of the word.

They just happened to catch fire and ride one of the best playoff performances and maybe the best clutch playoff performance of all time en route to the title.

They had 1 all nba player and 1 all star. And were not true favorites to even get out of the first round. Were huge underdogs in the 2nd round. Slightly favored in the WCF...and then huge underdogs again in the Finals.

If the 11 Mavs were "stacked"...then every team to ever play well in the playoffs is stacked.
You seem to be comparing the Mavs to historically alltime great type teams. In that case Id agree with you. The 11 Mavs werent stacked. But in relation to the teams in 11? How many centers would you take over Chandler? How many PFs are you taking over a Nowitzki? How many sixthmen over Terry? How many benches?

Theres basically Eight slots you can compare teams to. The five starting spots, the sixthman, the bench, and the Coach. The Mavs were top 5 in half those spots. How is that not stacked?

[DMAVS41]

You seem to be comparing the Mavs to historically alltime great type teams. In that case Id agree with you. The 11 Mavs werent stacked. But in relation to the teams in 11? How many centers would you take over Chandler? How many PFs are you taking over a Nowitzki? How many sixthmen over Terry? How many benches?

Theres basically Eight slots you can compare teams to. The five starting spots, the sixthman, the bench, and the Coach. The Mavs were top 5 in half those spots. How is that not stacked?

Dude. They played 3 teams in the playoffs with more talent. 2 of those series they were huge underdogs in.

You aren't "stacked" if you are huge underdogs in multiple series in the playoffs...playing teams with more talent.

You guys just don't know the definition of the word if you think the 11 Mavs were stacked.

[tikay0]

You seem to be comparing the Mavs to historically alltime great type teams. In that case Id agree with you. The 11 Mavs werent stacked. But in relation to the teams in 11? How many centers would you take over Chandler? How many PFs are you taking over a Nowitzki? How many sixthmen over Terry? How many benches?

Theres basically Eight slots you can compare teams to. The five starting spots, the sixthman, the bench, and the Coach. The Mavs were top 5 in half those spots. How is that not stacked?

It doesn't work like that. You could say the same thing about the 00'-01' 76ers, but no one would tell you that team was stacked.

[ripthekik]

we seriously arguing here about the definition of stackedness.. comparing a team that came together with the league's best player, top 3, top 5 pf all in their primes.. to a team with one legit all-star.. a good sixth-man.. and a defensive big man that can't create for himself?

We serious? :facepalm

[DMAVS41]

You seem to be comparing the Mavs to historically alltime great type teams. In that case Id agree with you. The 11 Mavs werent stacked. But in relation to the teams in 11? How many centers would you take over Chandler? How many PFs are you taking over a Nowitzki? How many sixthmen over Terry? How many benches?

Theres basically Eight slots you can compare teams to. The five starting spots, the sixthman, the bench, and the Coach. The Mavs were top 5 in half those spots. How is that not stacked?

Having a top 5 team in the league is not stacked. WTF are you talking about? That would be like calling the Grizzlies stacked.

You can't do this looking back just because the Mavs won the title. They could have easily lost many times...and could have easily lost to the Heat if Dirk and Terry had just been good and not great in crunch time....or they could have lost to the Thunder if Dirk had just been great and not legendary.

Stacked means you actually have a margin for error...like the Heat currently. It's completely different.

Are the Grizzlies stacked? Please answer.

[SamuraiSWISH]

I'll just ignore your "glaring deficiencies" comment because you are butthurt about not knowing anything about the 03 Spurs.
Nah, not butthurt at all. Easy to confuse the one season the Spurs weren't stacked with the three other rings they won while being absolutely stacked and talented ('99, 2005, 2007)

The glaring deficiencies was just in reference the pieces Cuban surrounded Dirk with to help him finally get the job done. Interior defense, toughness, rim protection, rebounding (something a 7 footer like Dirk should be providing) ... and shooters / great floor generals to surround him with made the Mavericks a very stacked and deep roster.

They had scorers, clutch playmakers, shooters, defenders, and big men to protect the paint. Not uber talented by any means. But one could make the case they were stacked. They even had a nice bench. A bench surely better than the team they faced in the Finals.

[tikay0]

How is there any argument for the Mavs being stacked? :confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

we seriously arguing here about the definition of stackedness.. comparing a team that came together with the league's best player, top 3, top 5 pf all in their primes.. to a team with one legit all-star.. a good sixth-man.. and a defensive big man that can't create for himself?

We serious? :facepalm

it's pathetic. terry is a lousy 2nd best player on a title team and chandler couldn't even average a double double.

the mavs won because Dirk went nuts and finally had enough support to win a few games in the playoffs in which he wasn't great. Something he never had since 03 and 06....the two other years the Mavs could have easily won the title.

Shocking how that works. But yea....I have to listen to morons prop up these other teams and players and talk about "glaring deficiencies"...people should go back and watch Dirk trounce the 06 Spurs as an underdog...and I guess they already forgot the 11 playoffs.

Comparing the 11 Mavs to the Heat in any sense is a ****ing joke. Even this beat up and injured version of Wade is probably as valuable as Terry. Considering Wade actually defends, rebounds, and passes....

[DMAVS41]

Nah, not butthurt at all. Easy to confuse the one season the Spurs weren't stacked with the three other rings they won while being absolutely stacked and talented ('99, 2005, 2007)

The glaring deficiencies was just in reference the pieces Cuban surrounded Dirk with to help him finally get the job done. Interior defense, toughness, rim protection, rebounding (something a 7 footer like Dirk should be providing) ... and shooters / great floor generals to surround him with made the Mavericks a very stacked and deep roster.

They had scorers, clutch playmakers, shooters, defenders, and big men to protect the paint. Not uber talented by any means. But one could make the case they were stacked. They even had a nice bench. A bench surely better than the team they faced in the Finals.

But that is no different than every other team to ever win with a single superstar. In fact, the 11 Mavs are one of the worst teams in terms of talent to win the title in NBA history.

And Dirk does rebound. You don't average over 10 boards a game for your career in the playoffs without rebounding.

Dirk also plays much better defense than he gets credit for. But yea...lets credit Chandler for everything. Chandler...the guy that had to let Dirk check Aldridge in round 1 because he was getting torched.

Revisionist history.

So I'm assuming you think the Grizzlies are stacked then...because they certainly have everything above and more. In fact, remove Dirk and Gasol and play the two teams and the Grizzlies would trounce the Mavs.

But the notion that this Grizzlies team is "stacked" is a ****ing joke and everyone knows that.

[FKAri]

Yeah, It was pretty much Dirk Nowitzki carrying the team too.

Jason Kidd, J.J. Barrea
DeShawn Stevenson, Jason Terry
Shawn Marion
Dirk Nowitzki
Tyson Chandler, Brendan Haywood

Stacked? lol..

not only did the stacked Heat lose to this team, the Kobe, Bynum, Gasol, Odom lakers were swept by them and the Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka Thunder lost to them.. or Dirk Nowitzki I should say.

That didn't really happen did it? I thought this was confirmed to be a global hallucination? It was a crazy playoffs.

[SamuraiSWISH]

But that is no different than every other team to ever win with a single superstar. In fact, the 11 Mavs are one of the worst teams in terms of talent to win the title in NBA history.
That goes without saying ... they're won of the worst Finals winners ever.


Dirk also plays much better defense than he gets credit for.
No he doesn't, stop making shit up. Irk is atrocious on defense.

[DMAVS41]

That goes without saying ... they're won of the worst Finals winners ever.


No he doesn't, stop making shit up. Irk is atrocious on defense.

No...he actually isn't.

He just isn't a great defender and he struggles in certain areas. But he actually plays really solid man to man defense. Which is why you rarely see any team actually go at him. Which is why you saw Carlisle pull Chandler off of Aldridge in round 1 and have Dirk check him.

Why do that with an atrocious defender? Shouldn't Aldridge just kill Dirk then?

Stop making shit up. You say he can't rebound...but that isn't based in reality. You say he's atrocious on defense...just take it too far. And then....

You can't call a team one of the worst teams to ever win....STACKED. Do you not see how ****ing moronic that is?

[SamuraiSWISH]

You can't call a team one of the worst teams to ever win....STACKED. Do you not see how ****ing moronic that is?
In comparison to their contemporaries, and not the history of Finals winners, it makes perfect sense.

They had a slew of great role players, and solid pieces around Dirk. Deep, stacked, same difference. They weren't loaded with top heavy superstar talent, but they had more than enough to win with.

I already explained this. And yes, the 2011 Mavericks aren't in the realm of the all-time great teams in history. Not even close, actually. That's why they are one of the worst teams to ever win.

They should've lost the damn series if LeBron played just close to his regular averages. The guy completely wet the bed, beat themselves and lost to the Mavericks in the process.

That to me isn't the Mavericks going out there and completely handing the Heat their ass on a silver platter or something. Your asshole is too spread for the Mavericks.

To the point you're making shit up. "Dirk isn't a bad defender, he just isn't a great one" ... GTFO here with that shit. They acquired Tyson Chandler for a very specific reason. They revamped their interior defense with just cause. And they were more successful because of it.

Get off Dirk's nuts. You're still talking about a guy who had a cast talented enough to win 67 games, lose to a #8 seed and he couldn't take advantage of a guy he had 5 - 6 inches on in the post. MVP? Absolutely. Decent defender? Obviously. STFU and get the german ===D out your mouth.

No one will forget LeBron's epic collapse in the 2011 Finals, the same way we shouldn't forget Dirk's pathetic showing with a 67 win team in the 2007 playoffs, getting booted in the 1st round when they should've been going to the Finals for the second straight season.

BTW, weren't you a Spurs fan on your original username? Stop flip flopping.

[DMAVS41]

In comparison to their contemporaries, and not the history of Finals winners, it makes perfect sense.

They had a slew of great role players, and solid pieces around Dirk. Deep, stacked, same difference. They weren't loaded with top heavy superstar talent, but they had more than enough to win with.

I already explained this. And yes, the 2011 Mavericks aren't in the realm of the all-time great teams in history. Not even close, actually. That's why they are one of the worst teams to ever win.

They should've lost the damn series if LeBron played just close to his regular averages. The guy completely wet the bed, beat themselves and lost to the Mavericks in the process.

That to me isn't the Mavericks going out there and completely handing the Heat their ass on a silver platter or something. Your asshole is too spread for the Mavericks.

To the point you're making shit up. "Dirk isn't a bad defender, he just isn't a great one" ... GTFO here with that shit. They acquired Tyson Chandler for a very specific reason. They revamped their interior defense with just cause. And they were more successful because of it.

Get off Dirk's nuts. You're still talking about a guy who had a cast talented enough to win 67 games, lose to a #8 seed and he couldn't take advantage of a guy he had 5 - 6 inches on in the post. MVP? Absolutely. Decent defender? Obviously. STFU and get the german ===D out your mouth.

No one will forget LeBron's epic collapse in the 2011 Finals, the same way we shouldn't forget Dirk's pathetic showing with a 67 win team in the 2007 playoffs, getting booted in the 1st round when they should've been going to the Finals for the second straight season.

BTW, weren't you a Spurs fan on your original username? Stop flip flopping.

I"m not making anything up. You are.

The Mavs faced 3 teams with more talent the year they won. They were huge underdogs in 2 of those series.

Dirk isn't a bad defender. Just the truth. You have no evdience for it..you just want to say it. Just like your comment about rebounding. When Dirk has actually been a very good rebounder his entire career in the playoffs at 10.3 per game and at 11 for his prime. You know...facts. I know they don't fit in with made up BS narratives.

Never a spurs fan. Just a username.

What does 07 have to do with anything? It was an anomaly. Just a terrible match up and Dirk playing a shit series. Happens to everyone....literally every star player in the modern era has faced a bad match up and performed poorly and been upset in the playoffs.

I guess we should focus on that 1 series instead of his entire career. That makes sense.

And that 67 win team? Easily the worst roster to ever win 67 or more...and the best player? Dirk...but yea...doing something no other star has ever done isn't special because he has "glaring deficiencies"

Crazy. You need a decent center around Dirk to win. Shocking. That is like saying Shaq has glaring deficiencies in his game because he needed Wade/Kobe. But Dirk needed....wait for it....a 8/9 cast off center that nobody wanted. ROFL....

[97 bulls]

It doesn't work like that. You could say the same thing about the 00'-01' 76ers, but no one would tell you that team was stacked.
In relation to 01. That Sixer team was stacked. But consider that they played in a weak conference as well. That team probably ends up being a fifth seed if they played in the west. But again, they were the best team in the East

[DMAVS41]

In relation to 01. That Sixer team was stacked. But consider that they played in a weak conference as well. That team probably ends up being a fifth seed if they played in the west. But again, they were the best team in the East

Can you please answer whether or not you think the Grizzlies are stacked...

[josh99]

The lakers were stacked this year but they had a lot of injuries and didn't gel the best together and so they got ousted in the first round :confusedshrug:.

Also your "stock" rises a lot once you win a championship which makes all championship teams seemed stacked. See James Posey.

[DMAVS41]

bump. still waiting 97 Bulls.

Are the current Grizzlies stacked?

[HoopsFanNumero1]

It's nothing new :lebroncry:

2012: Lebron, Wade, Bosh
2011: Dirk, Terry, Butler, Marion, Kidd, Chandler
2010: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, MWP, Fisher
2009: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, Fisher
2008: Pierce, Garnett, Allen
2007: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2006: Wade, Shaq
2005: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2004: Billups, Rasheed, Rip, Big Ben, Prince
2003: Duncan, Parker, Manu, Robinson
2002: Shaq, Kobe, refs
2001: Shaq, Kobe
...

Bron Bron getting that 2nd Ring :applause:

Fixed

[guy]

I've said it a million times but this argument is completely stupid. Yes more talented teams win titles, but that shouldn't be a knock on the superstar players. How stacked a team is usually a reflection of how difficult or easy it is to build around a superstar player and because almost all superstar players at some point of their career get talent around them for a significant amount of time anyway (and if its not for as long of a time its usually because they weren't successful enough before that to make it worth keeping together.)

[DMAVS41]

I've said it a million times but this argument is completely stupid. Yes more talented teams win titles, but that shouldn't be a knock on the superstar players. How stacked a team is usually a reflection of how difficult or easy it is to build around a superstar player and because almost all superstar players at some point of their career get talent around them for a significant amount of time anyway (and if its not for as long of a time its usually because they weren't successful enough before that to make it worth keeping together.)

Part of this is true, but there have been plenty of teams and superstars that just have less help for no reason other than they have less help.

Lebron is probably one of the easiest players to build a team around of all time and he got nothing fro 7 years of his career...and that would have continued had he not formed his own team and done it on his own.

The notion that Lebron is to blame or hard to build around is absurd.

[LikeABosh]

Bulls with Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, Rodman, Lakers with Magic, Kareem, Norm nixon, Jamal Wilkes, Bob McAdoo. Celtics with Bird, Johnson, Mchale, Parish. But oh yea, the Heat are the team that is so unfairly stacked :rolleyes:

[97 bulls]

bump. still waiting 97 Bulls.

Are the current Grizzlies stacked?
Stacked when compared against the great teams of the past? No. Today? Yes.

Im still baffled at how you can continue to try to argue hiw great the teams the 11 Mavs beat were. The Blazers were missing a healthy Brandon Roy. The Lakers barely beat a bad Hornets squad. And the Heat were top heavy. After James, Wade, and Bosh they really sucked.

[DMAVS41]

Stacked when compared against the great teams of the past? No. Today? Yes.

Im still baffled at how you can continue to try to argue hiw great the teams the 11 Mavs beat were. The Blazers were missing a healthy Brandon Roy. The Lakers barely beat a bad Hornets squad. And the Heat were top heavy. After James, Wade, and Bosh they really sucked.

So we just have clear differences in the definition of the word.

The notion that the Memphis Grizzlies are stacked is just absurd to me.

So basically any top 8 team in the league is stacked according to you. And perhaps more.

Stacked to me means a cut above the competition or at least every other team but one...something like that. Stacked to me means a team that has a large margin for error to win in the playoffs. The only stacked team in the league right now is the Heat. The Thunder when healthy would be close to it as well...

But we just have different things we are talking about if in your mind the Memphis Grizzlies are stacked.

And I'm not saying everyone the Mavs beat in 11 were great. But 3 of the 4 teams the Mavs beat had more talent. And the margin of error for the Mavs was incredibly small. 16 games of the 21 they played were close with 5 minutes to go. And it took both Dirk and Terry playing the best basketball of their careers to squeak by in those situations. That just isn't a stacked team...especially when the best ball of Terry's career still lands him as one of the worst 2nd options to win a title.

Just not stacked.

[guy]

Part of this is true, but there have been plenty of teams and superstars that just have less help for no reason other than they have less help.

Lebron is probably one of the easiest players to build a team around of all time and he got nothing fro 7 years of his career...and that would have continued had he not formed his own team and done it on his own.

The notion that Lebron is to blame or hard to build around is absurd.

He didn't get "nothing". I really wouldn't say his team during his last year there was bad. Either way, 7 years isn't relatively that long. I would apply what you're saying to someone like KG in Minnesota, and even with that being said, I could give reasons for him and other players being harder to build around then some of their peers who are usually considered better. And what makes you think he wouldn't have gotten his help? Depending on who you ask, they could've easily gotten Amare Stoudemire. I could easily see them somehow possibly get CP3 due to him being Lebron's best friend and having a great relationship with Byron Scott. The way they got Kyrie Irving could've still happened even with Lebron there.

Lebron does deserve some blame. I wouldn't say a whole lot, but definitely some. Not because of how good he is, but more about his mentality. If he actively tried to recruit players to Cleveland the way he does for Miami, there's a good chance they would've gotten better players around them. In general, had he been more committed to Cleveland and trusted their front office more, more players would've signed there feeling less fearful of Lebron leaving, and the Cavs wouldn't have felt the need to take on bad contracts or certain players in order to make a quick fix that will keep Lebron happy before his impending free agency.

Don't get me wrong, markets like Cleveland and Minnesota are clearly at a disadvantage, but they aren't the norm.

[DMAVS41]

He didn't get "nothing". I really wouldn't say his team during his last year there was bad. Either way, 7 years isn't relatively that long. I would apply what you're saying to someone like KG in Minnesota, and even with that being said, I could give reasons for him and other players being harder to build around then some of their peers who are usually considered better. And what makes you think he wouldn't have gotten his help? Depending on who you ask, they could've easily gotten Amare Stoudemire. I could easily see them somehow possibly get CP3 due to him being Lebron's best friend and having a great relationship with Byron Scott. The way they got Kyrie Irving could've still happened even with Lebron there.

Lebron does deserve some blame. I wouldn't say a whole lot, but definitely some. Not because of how good he is, but more about his mentality. If he actively tried to recruit players to Cleveland the way he does for Miami, there's a good chance they would've gotten better players around them. In general, had he been more committed to Cleveland and trusted their front office more, more players would've signed there feeling less fearful of Lebron leaving, and the Cavs wouldn't have felt the need to take on bad contracts or certain players in order to make a quick fix that will keep Lebron happy before his impending free agency.

This takes way too many leaps to talk about things you can't possibly know like what Lebron was doing behind the scenes. LOL...he got nothing in terms of legit championship help. Hell, the Cavs lost Boozer after 1 years....ROFL.

Blaming Lebron or KG is just pointless. They could have done everything the same and had the luck to get drafted to the Knicks, Bulls, Lakers, Celtics...etc. and had a ton more help.

Too much of what you are talking about is simply where you get drafted and what the owner/gm are capable of.

Lebron's best guy they gave him in 7 years was Mo Williams. KG's best guy in Minny was who? Sprewell? Cassell? If you want to keep believing that wouldn't change in other markets go right ahead...but you'd just be dead wrong.

Cuban did a fantastic job bringing as much talent as possible for Dirk...but even with Dirk and Dirk staying loyal etc...they still only could bring in Jason Terry as his 2nd guy for his entire prime essentially after they lost Nash. That just isn't on Dirk and it's simply not the kind of historic help needed to win titles.

The Mavs almost got Kobe in the summer of 07. It was pretty much a done deal until the Lakers backed out. Getting Kobe or not getting him had nothing to do with Dirk. And if they got Kobe. That duo changes NBA history. How many titles do they win with an owner like Cuban surrounding Dirk and Kobe with talent? Putting that on a player is just silly.

[DirkNowitzki41]

LOL @ Mavs stacked. They were a good team with one superstar.. by no means were they stacked.

Butler didnt even play and he was the second best player.

It was a combination of great team effort and Dirk having one of the GOAT playoff run

and lol at Mavs always having stacked teams... ridiculous

[ShaqAttack3234]

OP doesn't know the definition of a stacked team. I'm amazed at how frequently people misuse this word on this board.



2000 Lakers had Glenn Rice, and Ron Harper. 2010 Lakers had a healthier Bynum, and newly added Ron Artest (the guy who won them game 7 of the Finals)

The rest, I agree with you. The 2001, 2002, 2009 squads weren't stacked.

Rice was no more than a decent starting small forward by 2000 and a bad fit on that team. Stood around when he didn't have the ball a lot of the time(something you can't do in the triangle), was regularly torched defensively, really didn't create off the dribble and despite being primarily a shooter, didn't shoot as well as he use to or have anything more than a solid 3 point shooting season(1.1 3PM, 36.7%) Could still post up, but the 1-2 post ups a game didn't make much of a difference, and it was easy to forget he was even on the court during the playoffs(averaged 12/4/2 on 41%) He declined rapidly after that '99 elbow surgery since he was no longer the shooter he was before and in his 30's. That's why he didn't last like Ray Allen, Dale Ellis and Reggie Miller did.

Harper was a valuable role player, but almost done in the league, and not a threat at all offensively by that point. Teams regularly used Harper's man as the player who would double the post. That's exactly why Mike Dunleavy put Pippen on Harper. Valuable for his defense, intelligence, leadership and familiarity with the offense. But not a guy you could hold up as a reason for them being stacked.

The 2001 Lakers were more well rounded than the 2000 Lakers. The 2000 Lakers were already being referred to as a two man team. They were one of the 5 worst 3 point shooting teams in the league at 32.9%, one of the 5 lowest scoring benches and only had 2 above average starters. Rice was an average starting small forward as far as talent(though Fox had a greater impact when he took over as a starter), Ron Harper was a below average starting guard by that point, and AC Green was arguably the worst starting PF in the league by 2000.

I don't see any way the 2001 and 2002 teams weren't stacked, but the 2000 team was. Or the 2009 Lakers who had more overall talent with better 3rd/4th guys than the 2000 Lakers.

[guy]

This takes way too many leaps to talk about things you can't possibly know like what Lebron was doing behind the scenes. LOL...he got nothing in terms of legit championship help. Hell, the Cavs lost Boozer after 1 years....ROFL.

Blaming Lebron or KG is just pointless. They could have done everything the same and had the luck to get drafted to the Knicks, Bulls, Lakers, Celtics...etc. and had a ton more help.

Too much of what you are talking about is simply where you get drafted and what the owner/gm are capable of.

And it takes too many leaps to say if one player was in another player's situation, he would've automatically been in a better or worse situation. From what's been reported, its pretty clear that Lebron wasn't recruiting as much in Cleveland as he has been in Miami, and potential FAs were afraid to go to Cleveland because of Lebron possibly leaving.

I never said the owner/gm doesn't matter.



Lebron's best guy they gave him in 7 years was Mo Williams. KG's best guy in Minny was who? Sprewell? Cassell? If you want to keep believing that wouldn't change in other markets go right ahead...but you'd just be dead wrong.

Huh? Didn't you just say they would've been luckier to get drafted in a big market? Markets don't matter now?



Cuban did a fantastic job bringing as much talent as possible for Dirk...but even with Dirk and Dirk staying loyal etc...they still only could bring in Jason Terry as his 2nd guy for his entire prime essentially after they lost Nash. That just isn't on Dirk and it's simply not the kind of historic help needed to win titles.

I never said they needed historical help, and not every superstar that's won titles did it with historical help (at least relative to the rest of the league).

Thats not on Dirk. You know what is on Dirk? Not playing like the traditional frontcourt player that wins titles who spends more time in the post (PRE-TITLE) and/or is an elite defender. Those are usually key ingredients for a title, and if Dirk was a SG or SF or if he played more like what I just described, it wouldn't have been as hard to get those ingredients because he wouldn't have taken up one of the two available positions for that or he would've been the one providing it. Now obviously he ended up winning a title and I'm not saying he wasn't by far the most important piece to that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't harder to build around him then if he was lets say Tim Duncan instead. Not to mention it also took an unusual collapse from who was considered the best player in the league.



The Mavs almost got Kobe in the summer of 07. It was pretty much a done deal until the Lakers backed out. Getting Kobe or not getting him had nothing to do with Dirk. And if they got Kobe. That duo changes NBA history. How many titles do they win with an owner like Cuban surrounding Dirk and Kobe with talent? Putting that on a player is just silly.

They did? News to me. Either way, I wouldn't call that "building around Dirk" if that happened.

I'm not saying there is no luck involved. All I'm saying is that its no coincidence that the superstar players who are usually called "lucky" for the teams around them are usually the players who even if you strip them of their circumstances and resume, are quite clearly more impactful then everyone else, who's overall play is greater then everyone else's and who's deficiencies aren't as glaring because of what else they provide.

[JMT]

So teams with better players win titles? And it's taken 6 pages of discussion to address that? :applause:

Only on ISH.

[97 bulls]

So we just have clear differences in the definition of the word.

The notion that the Memphis Grizzlies are stacked is just absurd to me.

So basically any top 8 team in the league is stacked according to you. And perhaps more.

Stacked to me means a cut above the competition or at least every other team but one...something like that. Stacked to me means a team that has a large margin for error to win in the playoffs. The only stacked team in the league right now is the Heat. The Thunder when healthy would be close to it as well...

But we just have different things we are talking about if in your mind the Memphis Grizzlies are stacked.

And I'm not saying everyone the Mavs beat in 11 were great. But 3 of the 4 teams the Mavs beat had more talent. And the margin of error for the Mavs was incredibly small. 16 games of the 21 they played were close with 5 minutes to go. And it took both Dirk and Terry playing the best basketball of their careers to squeak by in those situations. That just isn't a stacked team...especially when the best ball of Terry's career still lands him as one of the worst 2nd options to win a title.

Just not stacked.
I think the Grizzlies have evolved into a top 3 team in the league. Im not going by their record. The talent is there. Both Miami and San Antonio are gonna be in for a dog fight if Memphis gets past OKC. They have the best center in the league, a top 5 pf, the best perimeter defender in the league, a damn good PG, one of the leagues best benches. What makes them not stacked?

[97 bulls]

All I'm saying is that its no coincidence that the superstar players who are usually called "lucky" for the teams around them are usually the players who even if you strip them of their circumstances and resume, are quite clearly more impactful then everyone else, who's overall play is greater then everyone else's and who's deficiencies aren't as glaring because of what else they provide.Read more at*http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8584726#WLFZTmjSDHk1GbyV.99*


I gotta disagree with this Guy. How often do we hear a players failures being excused of lack of support talent-wise? I think again too much credit is given to one player for their teams success.

[eklip]

Nah, not butthurt at all. Easy to confuse the one season the Spurs weren't stacked with the three other rings they won while being absolutely stacked and talented ('99, 2005, 2007)

The glaring deficiencies was just in reference the pieces Cuban surrounded Dirk with to help him finally get the job done. Interior defense, toughness, rim protection, rebounding (something a 7 footer like Dirk should be providing) ... and shooters / great floor generals to surround him with made the Mavericks a very stacked and deep roster.

They had scorers, clutch playmakers, shooters, defenders, and big men to protect the paint. Not uber talented by any means. But one could make the case they were stacked. They even had a nice bench. A bench surely better than the team they faced in the Finals.
Dirk is 13th all-time in DRB% in the playoffs.

[FLDFSU]

anyone who says they thought the mavs team was stacked at the time that season happened is a liar

Well they had one of the League's highest pay roles and had a former league MVP, and had just run through the "vast superior West conference" and swept the reigning champs along with the GOAT Coach...so stacked is not out of the question.

[FLDFSU]

Yeah, It was pretty much Dirk Nowitzki carrying the team too.

Jason Kidd, J.J. Barrea
DeShawn Stevenson, Jason Terry
Shawn Marion
Dirk Nowitzki
Tyson Chandler, Brendan Haywood

Stacked? lol..

not only did the stacked Heat lose to this team, the Kobe, Bynum, Gasol, Odom lakers were swept by them and the Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka Thunder lost to them.. or Dirk Nowitzki I should say.

This is carrying a team http://espn.go.com/nba/team/stats/_/name/cle/year/2010/cleveland-cavaliers

This is not:
http://espn.go.com/nba/team/stats/_/name/dal/year/2012/dallas-mavericks

[chips93]

This is carrying a team http://espn.go.com/nba/team/stats/_/name/cle/year/2010/cleveland-cavaliers

This is not:
http://espn.go.com/nba/team/stats/_/name/dal/year/2012/dallas-mavericks

apart from jet, nobody else on that mavs team could generate offense. plenty of good shooters, but when dirk went to the bench, the mavs offense went to shit.

both guys carried their respective teams in those two years

[NumberSix]

Which of those teams had 3 superstars that were the bonafide studs of their team join up and form one of the most top heavy teams in the NBA.

They took 3 franchise players from different teams, and joined.

Yes, on paper they all look similar, but use your common sense, and you'll see that one's different from the others.

P.S. Bynum was injured for all the Lakers championships, and Odom does not constitute a big 3, and please get Artest off that list.
Your season gonna end tonight, huh?

[FLDFSU]

apart from jet, nobody else on that mavs team could generate offense. plenty of good shooters, but when dirk went to the bench, the mavs offense went to shit.

both guys carried their respective teams in those two years


But there are other things that go into win besides scoring.

I am not even sure Dirk lead his team in minutes played.

Compared to Lebron or even K. Irving this year, Dirk in his championship run was not carrying anybody.

[DMAVS41]

And it takes too many leaps to say if one player was in another player's situation, he would've automatically been in a better or worse situation. From what's been reported, its pretty clear that Lebron wasn't recruiting as much in Cleveland as he has been in Miami, and potential FAs were afraid to go to Cleveland because of Lebron possibly leaving.

I never said the owner/gm doesn't matter.



Huh? Didn't you just say they would've been luckier to get drafted in a big market? Markets don't matter now?



I never said they needed historical help, and not every superstar that's won titles did it with historical help (at least relative to the rest of the league).

Thats not on Dirk. You know what is on Dirk? Not playing like the traditional frontcourt player that wins titles who spends more time in the post (PRE-TITLE) and/or is an elite defender. Those are usually key ingredients for a title, and if Dirk was a SG or SF or if he played more like what I just described, it wouldn't have been as hard to get those ingredients because he wouldn't have taken up one of the two available positions for that or he would've been the one providing it. Now obviously he ended up winning a title and I'm not saying he wasn't by far the most important piece to that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't harder to build around him then if he was lets say Tim Duncan instead. Not to mention it also took an unusual collapse from who was considered the best player in the league.



They did? News to me. Either way, I wouldn't call that "building around Dirk" if that happened.

I'm not saying there is no luck involved. All I'm saying is that its no coincidence that the superstar players who are usually called "lucky" for the teams around them are usually the players who even if you strip them of their circumstances and resume, are quite clearly more impactful then everyone else, who's overall play is greater then everyone else's and who's deficiencies aren't as glaring because of what else they provide.

Getting good players and building around certain players is different.

It's clearly easier to win a title with a guy like Duncan over Dirk. It is not, however, easier to get good players around a guy like Duncan over Dirk.

It is pure luck that Parker and Ginobili turned out to be the players that they are from Ducan's standpoint. Simple as that. Or...I'll put it in a different way because obviously Duncan and Pop helped those guys along. It is pure luck that Manu and Parker had the capability to turn into the players they did from a Duncan standpoint.

Take Beaubois for example. He could have turned into Parker. And it would not have anything to do with Dirk or anyone else. That is just luck. The Mavs could have landed any number of great players to help Dirk out and they just didn't...has nothing to do with a player.

People like you keep on this narrative with certain guys...but it never adds up. KG is the prototypical everything and he didn't have a good team at all. Lebron as well. You can't have two more all around players that can fit in with just about any team you put around them.

The idea that it is harder to put a decent defensive center and some quality role players around Dirk....than it is to get Shaq an all time great sg...or Kobe the most dominant big of the modern era...or phil jackson and elite front courts with 20/10 big man...pierce/kg/allen....lebron/wade/bosh

I mean...look at the championship teams. The notion that Dirk needs more than the average champion is just complete and utter non sense. If anything, history has proven he needs less than the average championship star player.

It's not hard to build around Dirk. That is just non sense. You need a quality defensive minded center and quality role players that can shoot threes and defend. Again...nothing more than the average or below average championship rosters throughout NBA history.

That is my problem with people like you. You act like it's easier to build a team around Zach Randolph or something. Or maybe you actually believe that. Imagine the Grizzlies with Dirk instead of Randolph. It would be by far the best team Dirk ever played with. So what are you saying? That Dirk did something to prevent the Mavs from ever getting a team that good? Total and utter bull shit.

[Goldrush25]

Of course "stacked" teams win championships. Any semi-intelligent observer can come to this conclusion.


Of course, the hate for the Miami Heat is predicated on special pleading created by a certain segment of the basketball community. They want to stipulate that championships only count if the team was assembled "organically." There has never before been any objection to superstars joining together until them.

Also, if the players choose to come together on their own, somehow it invalidates their accomplishments, which is the most foolish criteria I've ever heard of.

People would rather the players be "good lil boys" and do/go what their owners tell them, rather than take charge of their own careers.

[guy]

I gotta disagree with this Guy. How often do we hear a players failures being excused of lack of support talent-wise? I think again too much credit is given to one player for their teams success.

I've been through this argument with you before and you were ignorant and provided nothing to the topic. Like I said, if you strip those players of their circumstance and resume, they still clearly look like the GOAT players if all you measure them by is impact/skill/intangibles/etc. Prove to me that it isn't a coincidence and then we can discuss more.

[All Net]

Besides Butler not playing....that isn't stacked...:roll:

Balanced not stacked.

[DMAVS41]

I've been through this argument with you before and you were ignorant and provided nothing to the topic. Like I said, if you strip those players of their circumstance and resume, they still clearly look like the GOAT players if all you measure them by is impact/skill/intangibles/etc. Prove to me that it isn't a coincidence and then we can discuss more.

And what you fail to see is that Dirk is one of those guys. You don't just average 26/10/3 for your career in the playoffs on elite scoring efficiency without being great.

That is your fundamental flaw. Along with the fact that some players are better suited to carry bad teams...while others might be worse on bad teams...but fit with great teams even better.

I swear it's like people just want to ignore Dirk's entire career and pretend like people only think he's good because of 2011.

If you ignore all results and circumstances....Dirk's playoff performances are some of the best all time.

Do you really think it's harder to get Dirk a guy like Tyson Chandler than it is to get KG a Paul Pierce. Kobe a Pau Gasol. Shaq a Wade/Kobe. Lebron a Wade. Duncan a Parker/Manu....

Seriously. Please tell me why it is harder to get Chandler/Terry and some quality role players than it is to get all the stuff above. It's not...not at all.

I just love the logic.

[97 bulls]

I've been through this argument with you before and you were ignorant and provided nothing to the topic. Like I said, if you strip those players of their circumstance and resume, they still clearly look like the GOAT players if all you measure them by is impact/skill/intangibles/etc. Prove to me that it isn't a coincidence and then we can discuss more.
Ill give you two. Wilt Chamberlain should be considered the greatest player ever bar none. He had the physical abilities etc. And was considered a loser by many.

The same applies for Michael Jordan. Before he won his first champiinship, he was viewed as a ballhog.

Ill take it a step further. Compare Scottie Pippen and what he did in leading the Bulls in 94 to Michael Jordan and what he did in leading the Bulls in 98. Before Pippen came back mind you. When put in similar situations, they both faired the same basically.

Now I feel Jordan is hands down the greatest that ever played. But I m not foolish to acknowledge that alot of his sucess fringed on the players around him.

[DMAVS41]

I think the Grizzlies have evolved into a top 3 team in the league. Im not going by their record. The talent is there. Both Miami and San Antonio are gonna be in for a dog fight if Memphis gets past OKC. They have the best center in the league, a top 5 pf, the best perimeter defender in the league, a damn good PG, one of the leagues best benches. What makes them not stacked?

Because you wouldn't be saying that if they lost in the first round. That is the point.

Stacked teams are the ones that have huge margins of error and can win playing not their best ball. Stacked teams are title favorites that have the best players and team on paper.

You can't retroactively call a team stacked. You just are either ignorant to what the word means....or you just think there are 8 stacked teams a year.

[97 bulls]

And what you fail to see is that Dirk is one of those guys. You don't just average 26/10/3 for your career in the playoffs on elite scoring efficiency without being great.

That is your fundamental flaw. Along with the fact that some players are better suited to carry bad teams...while others might be worse on bad teams...but fit with great teams even better.

I swear it's like people just want to ignore Dirk's entire career and pretend like people only think he's good because of 2011.

If you ignore all results and circumstances....Dirk's playoff performances are some of the best all time.

Do you really think it's harder to get Dirk a guy like Tyson Chandler than it is to get KG a Paul Pierce. Kobe a Pau Gasol. Shaq a Wade/Kobe. Lebron a Wade. Duncan a Parker/Manu....

Seriously. Please tell me why it is harder to get Chandler/Terry and some quality role players than it is to get all the stuff above. It's not...not at all.

I just love the logic.
You cant see the logic because you keep comparing Chandler players like Jabaar, Shaq, Olajuwan, Wilt, Russell, etc. As opposed to.comparing him to his peers today.

[Magic 32]

At least this worthless thread shows that Lebron fans are thinking about it.

If all these teams were stacked, why didn't they all have a pre-celebrations? :rolleyes:


http://roundballdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/f.jpg

[FLDFSU]

At least this worthless thread shows that Lebron fans are thinking about it.

If all these teams were stacked, why didn't they all have a pre-celebrations? :rolleyes:


http://roundballdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/f.jpg


:facepalm

Not this again.

The Heat ALWAYS have pre-celebrations. I remember going to a Championship Celebration when SHAQ arrived and he had not played a single game in a Heat uniform.

If we get Durant in 5 years...guess what the Heat are going to do....

[DMAVS41]

You cant see the logic because you keep comparing Chandler players like Jabaar, Shaq, Olajuwan, Wilt, Russell, etc. As opposed to.comparing him to his peers today.

What do you mean?

Chandler is at best a top 5 center in the league. Not even sure if he's that.

He's maybe a top 35 or 40 player in the league...and no harder to get than any of the other guys that played the role of 2nd or 3rd best player on the title teams of the last decade.

In fact, he was probably the easiest of them all to get considering literally no other team in the league actually wanted him. He was a cast off.

The idea that is is harder to get a combo of Terry/Chandler than it is all the other combos around stars that have won is nonsense. And pretending otherwise is just a joke.

[97 bulls]

Because you wouldn't be saying that if they lost in the first round. That is the point.

Stacked teams are the ones that have huge margins of error and can win playing not their best ball. Stacked teams are title favorites that have the best players and team on paper.

You can't retroactively call a team stacked. You just are either ignorant to what the word means....or you just think there are 8 stacked teams a year.
You dont think the Grizzlies have the best Center, a top 3 pf, top 3 bench, and the best perimeter defender on paper? If you took that exact team and put them in LA or NY, theyd get much more recognition.

[guy]

Wow, so was your whole desire to turn this into a Dirk thing?


And what you fail to see is that Dirk is one of those guys. You don't just average 26/10/3 for your career in the playoffs on elite scoring efficiency without being great.

A lot of great players put up great numbers. Its not like I said only 10 players ever have ever put up great numbers in the playoffs.

Dirk isn't as impactful as at least most of the 11 best players ever. Sorry. Its not like that's saying something earth shattering or something insulting. He just doesn't have the all around game nor is he elite enough at any 1 or 2 aspects to be put on that level.



Do you really think it's harder to get Dirk a guy like Tyson Chandler than it is to get KG a Paul Pierce. Kobe a Pau Gasol. Shaq a Wade/Kobe. Lebron a Wade. Duncan a Parker/Manu....

Seriously. Please tell me why it is harder to get Chandler/Terry and some quality role players than it is to get all the stuff above. It's not...not at all.

I just love the logic.

Well are we just going to ignore that he played with Steve Nash, who afterwards won the next 2 MVPs? Not to mention Jason Kidd who just before was averaging near triple double numbers? Not to mention numerous other all-star level players? How unlucky :oldlol: No one is saying he played with the Dream Team but stop trying to revise history and act like he's been surrounded by scrubs his whole career.

I'm not putting KG on a level above Dirk. I'm not even sure I'd put Kobe on a level above Dirk. But Shaq, Duncan, and Lebron? What are you trying to say? That the only reason they're better is cause of their teams? You're an idiot if you think that. This is a perfect example of my point. Strip them of their circumstance and resume, and Shaq, Duncan, and Lebron are still CLEARLY better then someone like Dirk overall.

[TheMarkMadsen]

And what you fail to see is that Dirk is one of those guys. You don't just average 26/10/3 for your career in the playoffs on elite scoring efficiency without being great.

That is your fundamental flaw. Along with the fact that some players are better suited to carry bad teams...while others might be worse on bad teams...but fit with great teams even better.

I swear it's like people just want to ignore Dirk's entire career and pretend like people only think he's good because of 2011.

If you ignore all results and circumstances....Dirk's playoff performances are some of the best all time.

Do you really think it's harder to get Dirk a guy like Tyson Chandler than it is to get KG a Paul Pierce. Kobe a Pau Gasol. Shaq a Wade/Kobe. Lebron a Wade. Duncan a Parker/Manu....

Seriously. Please tell me why it is harder to get Chandler/Terry and some quality role players than it is to get all the stuff above. It's not...not at all.

I just love the logic.


Lebron stans will begin to claim that any decent team who made the playoffs is "stacked" to defer attention from their hero playing on the most stacked team in the past 10 years.

It's so ironic how they used to bag on Kobe for playing on "stacked" teams, it burns their soul now that their hero was only able to win a title or titles on a SUPER stacked team

[guy]

Ill give you two. Wilt Chamberlain should be considered the greatest player ever bar none. He had the physical abilities etc. And was considered a loser by many.

The same applies for Michael Jordan. Before he won his first champiinship, he was viewed as a ballhog.

Ill take it a step further. Compare Scottie Pippen and what he did in leading the Bulls in 94 to Michael Jordan and what he did in leading the Bulls in 98. Before Pippen came back mind you. When put in similar situations, they both faired the same basically.

Now I feel Jordan is hands down the greatest that ever played. But I m not foolish to acknowledge that alot of his sucess fringed on the players around him.

Ummm, Wilt is considered by many as one of the greatest players ever and its been proven many times that his quality of teammates isn't nearly as bad as people have made it out to be and in many years it wasn't any worse then the eventual champions, who were Russell's Celtics most of the time. Horrible example.

And Jordan? Really? I never said great players have great teams around them for their whole career, but just that eventually they will and usually for a long time. He's arguably the greatest player ever. HORRIBLE EXAMPLE AGAIN.

You don't seem to comprehend very well man. Give me an example of a player that is right up there with the greatest players ever and they just never had great teammates so they could never compete for a significant amount of time. But if you strip them down of their circumstance i.e. quality of teams and resume (which kinda goes hand in hand with circumstance) they are equal to the likes of Jordan, Magic, Bird, Lebron, Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, etc. You couldn't. In pretty much every case they have some glaring deficiency that stops them from that level.

[97 bulls]

What do you mean?

Chandler is at best a top 5 center in the league. Not even sure if he's that.

He's maybe a top 35 or 40 player in the league...and no harder to get than any of the other guys that played the role of 2nd or 3rd best player on the title teams of the last decade.

In fact, he was probably the easiest of them all to get considering literally no other team in the league actually wanted him. He was a cast off.

The idea that is is harder to get a combo of Terry/Chandler than it is all the other combos around stars that have won is nonsense. And pretending otherwise is just a joke.
Why does the difficulty in how a player is aquired matter? I mean, teams werent beating down the Lakers door to take Odom off their hands, Gasol was traded for what was regarded as scraps at the time. NOBODY wanted Ron Artest. But you routinely considered that team stacked.

[97 bulls]

Because you wouldn't be saying that if they lost in the first round. That is the point.

Stacked teams are the ones that have huge margins of error and can win playing not their best ball. Stacked teams are title favorites that have the best players and team on paper.

You can't retroactively call a team stacked. You just are either ignorant to what the word means....or you just think there are 8 stacked teams a year.
Then the 80s Lakers and Celtics werent stacked. They had more than their share of slip ups and close calls during their reign. And were eliminated by teams that on paper people felt probably had no business even being in the same gym with them.

[Mr. Jabbar]

It's nothing new :lebroncry:

2012: Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Allen, Cole, Battier, Chalmers, Andersen

...



the only team overly stacked along with with duncan parker manu spurs.

LOL @ mentioning bynum on those laker chips, dude played "bynum" minutes :roll:

[Goldrush25]

Lebron stans will begin to claim that any decent team who made the playoffs is "stacked" to defer attention from their hero playing on the most stacked team in the past 10 years.

It's so ironic how they used to bag on Kobe for playing on "stacked" teams, it burns their soul now that their hero was only able to win a title or titles on a SUPER stacked team

I don't know how anyone is able to gradate "stackedness." There is no super-stacked, or super-duper-stacked. Players either win by being the single star on their team or they don't.

I never had a problem with teams "stacking" because every team has the same means. Free agency exists to give players the option of going where they want.

For the owners part, they either want a winning team and are willing to pay the price for one or they care about turning a sure profit. I don't begrudge the Lakers for going out and getting the players they wanted, because they paid a price for that. Just the same, no one should begrudge the Heat for essentially doing the same thing. I don't understand where people make a distinction.

You sign the players that will tip the scales in favor of your team winning the championship. If Lakers fans want to take solace in the fact that it only took Shaq joining forces with Kobe to win championships rather than a third player, then you can say that Lebron+Bosh < Prime Shaq. But it's the exact same thing, just a different number of players joining a team in free agency.

[Fiasco]

Rewriting history, are we.

[CanYouDigIt]

It's nothing new :lebroncry:

2013: Lebron, Cole, Bosh
2012: Lebron, Wade, Bosh
...

Bron Bron getting that 2nd Ring :applause:

Fixed

[97 bulls]

Ummm, Wilt is considered by many as one of the greatest players ever and its been proven many times that his quality of teammates isn't nearly as bad as people have made it out to be and in many years it wasn't any worse then the eventual champions, who were Russell's Celtics most of the time. Horrible example.

And Jordan? Really? I never said great players have great teams around them for their whole career, but just that eventually they will and usually for a long time. He's arguably the greatest player ever. HORRIBLE EXAMPLE AGAIN.

You don't seem to comprehend very well man. Give me an example of a player that is right up there with the greatest players ever and they just never had great teammates so they could never compete for a significant amount of time. But if you strip them down of their circumstance i.e. quality of teams and resume (which kinda goes hand in hand with circumstance) they are equal to the likes of Jordan, Magic, Bird, Lebron, Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, etc.
Basically any player thats top 25. Attach 3-4 MVPs and championships and theyd all be top 10. Take away the proverbial top 10 players accomplishments and theyre rankings drop like a rock.

[guy]

Basically any player thats top 25. Attach 3-4 MVPs and championships and theyd all be top 10. Take away the proverbial top 10 players accomplishments and theyre rankings drop like a rock.

Yea, this isn't about accomplishments. This is just about actual ability. Impact. Skills. Intangibles. Forget MVPs and championships. Take out the accomplishments of everyone and the rankings wouldn't change much, if at all. Like I said, you don't comprehend well. Or you just can't think of any player that falls under that criteria so you're stalling instead of admitting you are wrong.

[Overdrive]

I don't get why the '11 are labeled stacked by anybody. They were well rounded not stacked.
Aside from that nobody picked them to be champions at the start of the playoffs.

A stacked team has more than one elite level talent for that position. Chandler was an defensive anchor of some sort, but only in retrospective. If the Mavs get ousted by the Blazers and Dirk can't give Chandler credit for the chip he doesn't get max money anywhere, not even speaking about the elite defender tag. Some people started to act like he's prime Mutombo/Wallace/Zo after the '11 Finals. 5 weaks before you'd have been called out for that.
Stacked teams, aside from those 2 or 3 elite talents, also consist of so called glue guys and above average role players. The Mavs had everything but the 2nd and 3rd elite level talent, but their sole star went crazy those playoffs.

I wonder if some of you guys saying the Mavs were stacked, because they were a better team than x or y, would call teams stacked if there was just one star and a comparable sidecast on every team. The differencemaker would be the star.

[DMAVS41]

Wow, so was your whole desire to turn this into a Dirk thing?



A lot of great players put up great numbers. Its not like I said only 10 players ever have ever put up great numbers in the playoffs.

Dirk isn't as impactful as at least most of the 11 best players ever. Sorry. Its not like that's saying something earth shattering or something insulting. He just doesn't have the all around game nor is he elite enough at any 1 or 2 aspects to be put on that level.



Well are we just going to ignore that he played with Steve Nash, who afterwards won the next 2 MVPs? Not to mention Jason Kidd who just before was averaging near triple double numbers? Not to mention numerous other all-star level players? How unlucky :oldlol: No one is saying he played with the Dream Team but stop trying to revise history and act like he's been surrounded by scrubs his whole career.

I'm not putting KG on a level above Dirk. I'm not even sure I'd put Kobe on a level above Dirk. But Shaq, Duncan, and Lebron? What are you trying to say? That the only reason they're better is cause of their teams? You're an idiot if you think that. This is a perfect example of my point. Strip them of their circumstance and resume, and Shaq, Duncan, and Lebron are still CLEARLY better then someone like Dirk overall.

You are truly a moron if you can't follow this conversation.

I'd actually rank Dirk lower than you do. LOL

This isn't about Dirk really. My point was that you act like Dirk is only good because he won a title. Which just isn't true.

And I just got done saying it's definitely easier to win a title with Duncan.

Here is my point...putting good players around a star is not any easier or harder based on that player. It's about the owner, the gm, the market, luck, draft picks...etc.

So I'll try to again explain this clearly with Duncan and Dirk. Duncan is without a doubt the better player. However, it is not easier to surround Duncan with better players than it is Dirk.

And the was what started this. You and your idiocy going on about how it's the player to blame for not getting championship level help. Which is just not true.

[DMAVS41]

Then the 80s Lakers and Celtics werent stacked. They had more than their share of slip ups and close calls during their reign. And were eliminated by teams that on paper people felt probably had no business even being in the same gym with them.

What are you talking about?

Please learn to think and use the english language properly. Now the Lakers and Celtics of the 80's aren't stacked if the Grizzlies aren't? WTF are you going on about?

You can't retroactively make a team stacked based on results. Nobody...and I mean nobody...was claiming the Grizzlies were stacked just 2 weeks ago when they were down to the Clippers.

You have to be stacked in comparison to your competition. Lets say the Grizzlies win the title. They would have had to beat Clippers, Thunder, Spurs, and Heat.

They would have been favored in 1 of those series. You just don't get what the word "stacked" means if you think the ****ing memphis grizzlies are stacked.

Are the Pacers stacked?

[willds09]

2013: NOT STACKED- Melo, smith, stoudamire, chandler, felton

[97 bulls]

Yea, this isn't about accomplishments. This is just about actual ability. Impact. Skills. Intangibles. Forget MVPs and championships. Take out the accomplishments of everyone and the rankings wouldn't change much, if at all. Like I said, you don't comprehend well. Or you just can't think of any player that falls under that criteria so you're stalling instead of admitting you are wrong.
Lol. Wilt Chamberlain, for all his talents and stats, was considered a loser by many because he couldnt lead a team past the Celtics. The same applied to Jordan, Lebron James, you name it. I understand youre premise perfectly. Hell James still receives flack for the Heat losing to the Mavs in 11.

And again, as I stated, take away the rings and MVPs etc from the top 10 players and there status would drop like a rock. Give Karl Malone 4 MVPs and 4 Championships and he goes from top 20 to top 5.

Impact? Compare the Scottie Pippen led Bulls of 94 and the Michael Jordan led Bulls of 98. I see no difference. They impacted their team the same friggn way. Take Dominique Wilkins, and give him talent equal to what Jordan had, and hed have multioke championship teams as well. Maybe not 6 but hed have a lot.

[97 bulls]

What are you talking about?

Please learn to think and use the english language properly. Now the Lakers and Celtics of the 80's aren't stacked if the Grizzlies aren't? WTF are you going on about?

You can't retroactively make a team stacked based on results. Nobody...and I mean nobody...was claiming the Grizzlies were stacked just 2 weeks ago when they were down to the Clippers.

You have to be stacked in comparison to your competition. Lets say the Grizzlies win the title. They would have had to beat Clippers, Thunder, Spurs, and Heat.

They would have been favored in 1 of those series. You just don't get what the word "stacked" means if you think the ****ing memphis grizzlies are stacked.

Are the Pacers stacked?
Sure I do. Im just trying to show you how you can compare players based on the past in this instance.

I dont feel the Pacers are stacked. They have a good team, but thats it. They dont have a position that top 5. Theyre deep. They have a good bench. Maybe their bench is top 5. But thats it. Not to mention they pkay in the East

[DMAVS41]

Sure I do. Im just trying to show you how you can compare players based on the past in this instance.

I dont feel the Pacers are stacked. They have a good team, but thats it. They dont have a position that top 5. Theyre deep. They have a good bench. Maybe their bench is top 5. But thats it. Not to mention they pkay in the East

But you can't do that. You can't look back and say the Heat weren't stacked in 2011 because they didn't win.

They were still a ****ing stacked team...they just got upset. This is not something you can just start claiming based on results.

If the Grizzlies had lost to the Clippers you'd probably be sitting here claiming the Clippers are stacked and not mentioning the Grizzlies.

It doesn't work that way.

The OP might as well have just said..."Good teams always win the title"

Because that is essentially what you are doing. Any top 5 team in the league is stacked.

[97 bulls]

But you can't do that. You can't look back and say the Heat weren't stacked in 2011 because they didn't win.

They were still a ****ing stacked team...they just got upset. This is not something you can just start claiming based on results.

If the Grizzlies had lost to the Clippers you'd probably be sitting here claiming the Clippers are stacked and not mentioning the Grizzlies.

It doesn't work that way.

The OP might as well have just said..."Good teams always win the title"

Because that is essentially what you are doing. Any top 5 team in the league is stacked.
A lot of people believed the Heat werent stacked, but top heavy. And thus believed they werent gonna even make it to the finals. Especially after that start they had. Just think. They had a suspect coach, no bench, a suspect PG, no sixthman, a terrible Center.

[DirkNowitzki41]

samurai swoosh be like :mad: :mad:

:oldlol:

[RRR3]

That must be why the Heat won in 2011

[RRR3]

This. Dirk just had one the GOAT playoffs runs in 2011 and led the Mavericks to a championship.
LeBron turning into Evan Turner in the finals helped.

[RRR3]

How were those Laker teams stacked? It was pretty much Kobe and Shaq, and then it was Kobe and Pau.
I believe your answered your own question. Having two of the absolute greatest players of all time is pretty special.

[Nevaeh]

I don't get why the '11 are labeled stacked by anybody. They were well rounded not stacked.
Aside from that nobody picked them to be champions at the start of the playoffs.

A stacked team has more than one elite level talent for that position. Chandler was an defensive anchor of some sort, but only in retrospective. If the Mavs get ousted by the Blazers and Dirk can't give Chandler credit for the chip he doesn't get max money anywhere, not even speaking about the elite defender tag. Some people started to act like he's prime Mutombo/Wallace/Zo after the '11 Finals. 5 weaks before you'd have been called out for that.
Stacked teams, aside from those 2 or 3 elite talents, also consist of so called glue guys and above average role players. The Mavs had everything but the 2nd and 3rd elite level talent, but their sole star went crazy those playoffs.

I wonder if some of you guys saying the Mavs were stacked, because they were a better team than x or y, would call teams stacked if there was just one star and a comparable sidecast on every team. The differencemaker would be the star.

Good points. Teams don't usually get called "stacked" until after they win it all. Even the fabled "96 Bulls" weren't considered stacked at the time, because it was so many new guys on the team, and nobody knew how Rodman would fit in. Add the fact that MJ was out of his prime, relying more on his jumpshot, and that the Bulls had just got knocked out of the Playoffs the year before, and it was obvious that nobody saw their record setting run coming.

And if anybody say they saw 72-10, or anything close to it, coming from that group, they are straight lying to you. The team that steps up when they need to the most are usually the Champions. It doesn't mean that they're "stacked" tho. I mean really, who the hell saw what Paxon, Kukoc, Fisher, Horry or Jason Terry did coming before they actually did it? That's right, NOBODY!!

[Bandito]

It's nothing new :lebroncry:

2012: Lebron, Wade, Bosh
2011: Dirk, Terry, Butler, Marion, Kidd, Chandler
2010: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, MWP, Fisher
2009: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, Fisher
2008: Pierce, Garnett, Allen
2007: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2006: Wade, Shaq
2005: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2004: Billups, Rasheed, Rip, Big Ben, Prince
2003: Duncan, Parker, Manu, Robinson
2002: Shaq, Kobe
2001: Shaq, Kobe
...
Bron Bron getting that 2nd Ring :applause:2004 nor 2011 teams were considered stacked dipsh1t. In fact they were the underdogs the whole time.

[Coffee Black]

Shaq, Kobe, Gary Payton, and Karl Malone say hello...

[Bandito]

Shaq, Kobe, Gary Payton, and Karl Malone say hello...
If you are responding to me, I was talking about The Pistons the teams that won it in 2004:facepalm

[Coffee Black]

If you are responding to me, I was talking about The Pistons the teams that won it in 2004:facepalm

I was responding to the OP.

[Deuce Bigalow]

It's nothing new :lebroncry:

2012: Lebron, Wade, Bosh
2011: Dirk, Terry, Butler (0/0/0), Marion, Kidd, Chandler
2010: Kobe, Pau, Bynum (9/7) , Odom, MWP, Fisher (8 ppg)
2009: Kobe, Pau, Bynum (6/4) , Odom, Fisher (10 ppg)
2008: Pierce, Garnett, Allen
2007: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2006: Wade, Shaq
2005: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2004: Billups, Rasheed, Rip, Big Ben, Prince
2003: Duncan, Parker, Manu, Robinson
2002: Shaq, Kobe
2001: Shaq, Kobe
...

Bron Bron getting that 2nd Ring :applause:
fixed

[LAZERUSS]

Ummm, Wilt is considered by many as one of the greatest players ever and its been proven many times that his quality of teammates isn't nearly as bad as people have made it out to be and in many years it wasn't any worse then the eventual champions, who were Russell's Celtics most of the time. Horrible example.

And Jordan? Really? I never said great players have great teams around them for their whole career, but just that eventually they will and usually for a long time. He's arguably the greatest player ever. HORRIBLE EXAMPLE AGAIN.

You don't seem to comprehend very well man. Give me an example of a player that is right up there with the greatest players ever and they just never had great teammates so they could never compete for a significant amount of time. But if you strip them down of their circumstance i.e. quality of teams and resume (which kinda goes hand in hand with circumstance) they are equal to the likes of Jordan, Magic, Bird, Lebron, Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, etc. You couldn't. In pretty much every case they have some glaring deficiency that stops them from that level.

Chamberlain's teams were outgunned in EVERY post-season..especially in the first half of his career. Russell's Celtics enjoyed an overwhelming edge in both quality and quantity up until the '66 post-season (and even then they had much more depth.)

Wilt's teammates alos generally played considerably worse in their post-seasons, as well (take a look at how they performed in the '66 ECF's...when they collectively shot .352...which was one of six post-seasons in which Wilt's teammates shot less than .383.)

And his '68 Sixers would surely have bown Boston away...except for the small matter of injuries. They lost HOFer Cunningham before the series even began, and still forged a 3-1 lead. Then, in game five, both Luke Jackson and Wali Jones went down with injuries, and were worthless the rest of the series. And, Wilt himself, was nursing an assortment of injuries, including a tear in his quad (and even Russell commented that a "lessor man would not have played.")

And his '69 Laker team had virtually no depth (thanks to the trade for Wilt, and the expansion draft taking Goodrich), and an incompetent coach who cost his team a title by keeping Wilt on the bench in the waning minutes of game seven. And '69 is really the only post-season in which you could argue that they had more talent than their opponents.

Even in his last post-season, and with an injured West just a shell, the Lakers lost four close games to a Knick's team that had six HOF players.

And how about his '62 post-season series? He took a team with a core of players that had been a last-place team the year before he arrived, but only older and worse, thru the first round of the playoffs, and then to a game seven, two point loss against a Celtic team that had seven HOFers and had gone 60-20...all with his teammates collectively shooting .354 (and his two "HOF" teammates, Arizin and Gola, shooting .375 and .271, respectively.)

Or his '65 Sixers...whom he was traded to at mid-season, and which had gone 34-46 the year before? He single-handedly carried that 40-40 team past a loaded 48-32 Royals team, and then to a game seven, one point loss, against a stacked 62-18 Celtic team, at the peak of their dynasty, and with a 30-31 .555 series.

You sound like a "Simmons-ite"...who claimed that Wilt played with as many HOFers as Russell. Except that Russell received 71 full-seasons from his HOF teammates, while Chamberlain managed to get 27 from his. And, one more time, while Russell's teammates were generally elevating their play in the post-season, Chamberlain's routinely choked.

[DMAVS41]

A lot of people believed the Heat werent stacked, but top heavy. And thus believed they werent gonna even make it to the finals. Especially after that start they had. Just think. They had a suspect coach, no bench, a suspect PG, no sixthman, a terrible Center.

????

People before the finals on here were already saying things like..."this title doesn't count because the Heat are so good it's unfair for the rest of the league"

So let me get this straight. The current Grizzlies are stacked, but the 11 Heat weren't. Am I really hearing this shit from people on a basketball message board?

Wow...just wow.

[Soundwave]

Lakers have had the most stacked or the 2nd or 3rd most stacked rosters for basically the last 15 years straight.

They can go kiss the rear end of every other fan from every other fanbase before complaining about Miami.

Bunch of freaking cry babies can't deal with the fact that they're no longer the big franchise in the league and their big moves to get Dwight and Nash blew up in their faces this year.

[guy]

You are truly a moron if you can't follow this conversation.

I'd actually rank Dirk lower than you do. LOL

This isn't about Dirk really. My point was that you act like Dirk is only good because he won a title. Which just isn't true.

And I just got done saying it's definitely easier to win a title with Duncan.

Here is my point...putting good players around a star is not any easier or harder based on that player. It's about the owner, the gm, the market, luck, draft picks...etc.

So I'll try to again explain this clearly with Duncan and Dirk. Duncan is without a doubt the better player. However, it is not easier to surround Duncan with better players than it is Dirk.

And the was what started this. You and your idiocy going on about how it's the player to blame for not getting championship level help. Which is just not true.

Ummm no you're the moron that can't follow here. When the **** did I say Dirk was only good cause of a title? Obviously from what I've said, I obviously think there are not many that are better.

And you are clearly a moron if you think certain players aren't easier to build around then others. Clearly Duncan is easier to build around then Dirk regardless of owner/GM, and you should stop acting like a smartass if you really can't see how that's the case.

What's next? It's just as easy to build around AI as Jordan? Zo as Shaq? Melo as Lebron? :oldlol:

Keep in mind, it's not necessarily about better players, but also how good certain players perform with certain superstars over others. That dynamic usually overrates or underrates a players' supporting cast.

[DMAVS41]

Ummm no you're the moron that can't follow here. When the **** did I say Dirk was only good cause of a title? Obviously from what I've said, I obviously think there are not many that are better.

And you are clearly a moron if you think certain players aren't easier to build around then others. Clearly Duncan is easier to build around then Dirk regardless of owner/GM, and you should stop acting like a smartass if you really can't see how that's the case.

What's next? It's just as easy to build around AI as Jordan? Zo as Shaq? Melo as Lebron? :oldlol:

Keep in mind, it's not necessarily about better players, but also how good certain players perform with certain superstars over others. That dynamic usually overrates or underrates a players' supporting cast.

It's easier to win a title with a guy like Duncan than Dirk. For example...Dirk could never have won a title in 03 like Duncan did.

But no, it is not easier to put good players around Duncan than it is Dirk.

Your argument would make more sense honestly if you were using Kobe instead of Dirk...as Kobe needed much more help to win his titles.

But if Kobe is hard to build around using your logic...then how many guys in history are easy to build around? MJ, Kareem, Hakeem, Duncan...is that it?

And to your last point. Dirk is one of the easiest superstars to ever play with. He can play virtually any style and can impact the game offensively in many ways without even touching the ball.

[guy]

Lol. Wilt Chamberlain, for all his talents and stats, was considered a loser by many because he couldnt lead a team past the Celtics. The same applied to Jordan, Lebron James, you name it. I understand youre premise perfectly. Hell James still receives flack for the Heat losing to the Mavs in 11.

And again, as I stated, take away the rings and MVPs etc from the top 10 players and there status would drop like a rock. Give Karl Malone 4 MVPs and 4 Championships and he goes from top 20 to top 5.

Impact? Compare the Scottie Pippen led Bulls of 94 and the Michael Jordan led Bulls of 98. I see no difference. They impacted their team the same friggn way. Take Dominique Wilkins, and give him talent equal to what Jordan had, and hed have multioke championship teams as well. Maybe not 6 but hed have a lot.

Umm how many damn times do I have to say to ignore accomplishments? Accomplishments in reality and hypothetically. As I said, you either don't comprehend or you have no argument so you're bullshitting.

[DMAVS41]

Umm how many damn times do I have to say to ignore accomplishments? Accomplishments in reality and hypothetically. As I said, you either don't comprehend or you have no argument so you're bullshitting.

But if you stripped all of that away you'd see certain guys way overvalued and guys way undervalued.

How players perform in certain circumstances when the game actually matter is the best evidence for how good said player is.

Kobe would actually be pretty under-valued in my opinion is you stripped away his 5 rings. A guy like Karl Malone would be over-valued in my opinion.

I think the basketball world has done a really good job of ranking players historically based on everything.

The new generation of Kobe and Lebron fans are the ones that started using rings as such a main factor when ranking players with no context.

[guy]

It's easier to win a title with a guy like Duncan than Dirk. For example...Dirk could never have won a title in 03 like Duncan did.

But no, it is not easier to put good players around Duncan than it is Dirk.

Your argument would make more sense honestly if you were using Kobe instead of Dirk...as Kobe needed much more help to win his titles.

But if Kobe is hard to build around using your logic...then how many guys in history are easy to build around? MJ, Kareem, Hakeem, Duncan...is that it?

It's easier to build around like 10 other players in history then it is to build around someone like Kobe and about the same or just a little more then someone like Dirk or KG. That's it. I didn't say its just as hard to build around Dirk as it is to build around someone like Carlos Boozer. Don't be so damn sensitive.

[guy]

But if you stripped all of that away you'd see certain guys way overvalued and guys way undervalued.

How players perform in certain circumstances when the game actually matter is the best evidence for how good said player is.

Kobe would actually be pretty under-valued in my opinion is you stripped away his 5 rings. A guy like Karl Malone would be over-valued in my opinion.

I think the basketball world has done a really good job of ranking players historically based on everything.

The new generation of Kobe and Lebron fans are the ones that started using rings as such a main factor when ranking players with no context.

You don't need there accomplishments to see how Kobe is a better player then Malone. If you do, then you clearly aren't as knowledgeable as you seem to think you are.

[Legends66NBA7]

You don't seem to comprehend very well man. Give me an example of a player that is right up there with the greatest players ever and they just never had great teammates so they could never compete for a significant amount of time. But if you strip them down of their circumstance i.e. quality of teams and resume (which kinda goes hand in hand with circumstance) they are equal to the likes of Jordan, Magic, Bird, Lebron, Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, etc.

So, this player would be considered as the #1 option and focal point ?

[DMAVS41]

It's easier to build around like 10 other players in history then it is to build around someone like Kobe and about the same or just a little more then someone like Dirk or KG. That's it. I didn't say its just as hard to build around Dirk as it is to build around someone like Carlos Boozer. Don't be so damn sensitive.

Okay. Then you should never go after Dirk or Lebron about the help they had...because if those guys are in the top 15 all time in terms of building a franchise...which I agree with....

Neither of those guys got the help that their place in history demands. Certainly not Lebron on the Cavs.

Just take the current Grizzlies for example like I have before in this thread. Zach Randolph is not easier to build around than Dirk. Yet this current Grizzlies team is perfectly suited for Dirk and would easily be the best team Dirk ever had....maybe not in terms of raw talent...but certainly in the type of team you want around Dirk. Great defensively with an elite defensive center...who happens to be able to play offense as well.

It's not Dirk's fault Cuban/Nellie could never really give him that until 2011. That is all I've said.

I've never implied that Dirk was as good as Duncan or some of the guys you mention. All I said was that getting good players around star players is pretty much equal. What they do with those players is a different story.

[Legends66NBA7]

A guy like Karl Malone would be over-valued in my opinion.


He's over-valued as it is, by most.

[DMAVS41]

You don't need there accomplishments to see how Kobe is a better player then Malone. If you do, then you clearly aren't as knowledgeable as you seem to think you are.

I never said you did.

But without accomplishments with context...you'd get into a very subjective area with guys like Bird vs Magic vs Duncan vs Kobe vs KG vs Shaq vs Lebron...etc.

The only guy of the modern era that really separated himself from everyone else is MJ. After that it would just be opinions from people that might value different things.

I could totally see people saying KG is better than Kobe or Magic or Bird because of KG's all time great defense...etc.

It's all about balance and context. Of course how good a player actually was should be the most important factor, but the impact of said player in terms of winning games.

Lebron in 2011 is a perfect example of this. Without the 11 Finals..you had people comparing him to MJ...etc. But an obvious flaw in his game came out in a pressure packed series against tough competition.

How players perform when the games matter most in the playoffs in context is lost in your analysis if you strip away things like that.

If Malone, in your world, never failed in the playoffs to lead his team to the title...then its just an entirely subjective area of what people value.

[Poetry]

How were those Laker teams stacked? It was pretty much Kobe and Shaq, and then it was Kobe and Pau.

I'd argue that having Prime Shaq + Kobe in his early prime, two top 10 elite scoring GOATs constitutes stacked.

Prime Shaq + (any other top 10 GOAT) = 99.9% chance of an eventual championship.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I believe your answered your own question. Having two of the absolute greatest players of all time is pretty special.

Special, yes, but special doesn't automatically mean stacked. Stacked requires a certain amount of depth. Out of those 3peat teams, the one that I think could you could make the best argument for being stacked is 2001. Although even then, I think it was more of a case of Shaq/Kobe combining for 60 ppg, 23 rpg and 9 apg, Fisher knocking down his shots at an usual rate and Grant being ideal for their playoff opponents since they faced Sheed, Webber and Duncan. A great team, but still not sure about stacked since they didn't have a 3rd option at all, and 3 of their 7 rotation players shot below 40% during the playoffs(Grant at 38.5%, Shaq at 37.5% and Horry at 36.8%)

[I.R.Beast]

It's nothing new :lebroncry:

2012: Lebron, Wade, Bosh
2011: Dirk, Terry, Butler, Marion, Kidd, Chandler
2010: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, MWP, Fisher
2009: Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, Fisher
2008: Pierce, Garnett, Allen
2007: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2006: Wade, Shaq
2005: Duncan, Parker, Manu
2004: Billups, Rasheed, Rip, Big Ben, Prince
2003: Duncan, Parker, Manu, Robinson
2002: Shaq, Kobe
2001: Shaq, Kobe
...

Bron Bron getting that 2nd Ring :applause:

If you think those teams are stacked you need to have your head examined

[No_Look604]

Miami Heats fans:facepalm you guys are so f'n obvious...

[I.R.Beast]

Part of this is true, but there have been plenty of teams and superstars that just have less help for no reason other than they have less help.

Lebron is probably one of the easiest players to build a team around of all time and he got nothing fro 7 years of his career...and that would have continued had he not formed his own team and done it on his own.

The notion that Lebron is to blame or hard to build around is absurd.d mavs...lebron is hard to build around... Ball dominat players are the hardest to build around...It would be much easier building around durant than it would be to build around lebron. You can fit durant withany kind of great player because his offensive game doesn't require him to dominate the ball. When building around lebron you generally gotta get good pick and pop and spot up shooter guys. His game really doesnt leave any room for other players to contribute outside of spot up shooting and cutting etc. Durant makes it possible for his help to contribute to the team with their full skillset, James makes players one dimensional

[ShaqAttack3234]

If you think those teams are stacked you need to have your head examined

Some of those are as stacked as most of the teams listed.

2004 Pistons actually were pretty stacked. Very good starting 5 and quite a few quality bench players such as Corliss Williamson, Mehmet Okur, Lindsey Hunter and Mike James. That was a pretty deep team.

If you don't object to the '03 Spurs being called stacked, I don't know why you'd object to the Pistons. And the '03 Spurs were no more stacked than the '11 Mavs.

As far as the Kobe/Pau Lakers and the Shaq/Wade Heat, I'm not sure I consider either stacked, but I'd argue they have a better case than the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

Shaq and Wade also had Zo as a backup center, who was better than most starters, and actually averaged 12/9 with 4 bpg in the 20 or so games he started, iirc. Antoine Walker was not a guy I was a fan of, but he's pretty talented for a 3rd option and did his part on that team. Jason Williams was a talented PG who was effective at that time since he had toned his game down. James Posey was an excellent role player for his defense and 3 point shooting and Udonis Haslem was also a good role player for his mid-range shooting, toughness and rebounding.

I'm not sure I'd consider these teams stacked or not(well, I'd call the '04 Pistons stacked at least) but it seems odd to take exception to some of them, but not others.

[DMAVS41]

If you think those teams are stacked you need to have your head examined

WTF are you on?

How are the 03 Spurs stacked?

[ShaqAttack3234]

WTF are you on?

How are the 03 Spurs stacked?

I'm guessing he saw names like Manu, Parker and Robinson and didn't bother to think about what kind of players they actually were in '03. The Spurs were deep that year and pretty well-built, but relied on Duncan A LOT, and I have a hard time considering a team stacked without a 2nd, much less a 3rd all-star caliber player.

[DMAVS41]

I'm guessing he saw names like Manu, Parker and Robinson and didn't bother to think about what kind of players they actually were in '03. The Spurs were deep that year and pretty well-built, but relied on Duncan A LOT, and I have a hard time considering a team stacked without a 2nd, much less a 3rd all-star caliber player.

They didn't have a 2nd or 3rd option and pretty much everyone on the team that played legit minutes was incredibly inefficient except Duncan and Robinson.

Easily the worst supporting cast to win the title since 94.

Yet somehow they are now stacked...I give up.

[tgan3]

wade shaq in 2006 wasnt stack. Their other players were mediocre.

[ThaRegul8r]

Chandler was an defensive anchor of some sort, but only in retrospective.


Mavs lucky Chandler's on their side
Defensive anchor was on his way to Thunder in 2009 until trade was called off
Updated: May 17, 2011, 10:25 AM ET
By Tim MacMahon | ESPNDallas.com

DALLAS -- The question was always asked with a smile and a laugh, but there was a lot of truth being told in this jest.

"How good would you guys be if you had me?" Chandler occasionally asked Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook during their time together on Team USA last summer.

The Oklahoma City Thunder had the big man for one day in February 2009, only to decide they didn't want Chandler.

How big of a mistake did the Thunder make then? They might find out in the Western Conference finals, when they face a Dallas Mavericks squad that suddenly has a dominant defense anchored by the athletic, 7-foot-1 Chandler.

Not that Chandler needs any extra incentive with an NBA Finals berth at stake, but he doesn't deny that playing the Thunder tends to bring out the best in him. He put up 12.7 points and 15.3 rebounds per game against Oklahoma City this season, numbers boosted significantly from his season averages of 10.1 points and 9.4 rebounds.

"There's always going to be some motivation," Chandler said, breaking into a wide grin that indicated he'd just made a massive understatement.

The trade with the New Orleans Hornets was rescinded a day later. Chandler can vividly recall getting a phone call telling him to go home as he was preparing to board a plane to Oklahoma City. He learned a few hours later that he failed his physical.

Chandler assumed that it was due to the injured left ankle that had sidelined him almost a month at the time. That wasn't the case. Oklahoma City team doctor Carlan Yates flunked Chandler due to the left toe that Yates himself had surgically repaired a year and a half earlier. It was a suspicious ruling, especially considering that Chandler had the best season of his career immediately after undergoing the operation.

It certainly wasn't a basketball decision by Oklahoma City, which was giving up little-used forwards Joe Smith and Chris Wilcox in the deal. It's hard to believe that finances weren't the primary factor, as the Thunder likely had second thoughts about paying Chandler the $24.6 million he was due over the two years that remained on his contract at the time.

"I honestly don't know why he didn't pass my physical, still to this day," Chandler said. "It just never seemed right. It just never seemed right."

Chandler's fit with the Mavericks, on the other hand, seemed perfect from the second he arrived in Dallas. Well, at least to Chandler and the men who decided to bring him to Dallas.

It was actually considered a letdown when the Mavs pulled the trigger on the trade July 13, days after the Charlotte Bobcats' deal to send Chandler to the NBA Siberia known as Toronto fell through. There had been so much hype, fueled by owner Mark Cuban's vow to swing for the free-agency fences, that the Mavs would use Erick Dampier's expiring contract as a chip in a sign-and-trade deal to land a superstar to pair with Dirk Nowitzki.

Chandler, a nine-year veteran who had never been an All-Star and was coming off two injury-plagued seasons, didn't fit that bill. However, with the ankle that had caused him to sit 68 games the previous two years completely healed, he did fill a major void for the Mavericks as a defensive-minded, athletically gifted big man with strong emotional and vocal leadership qualities.

"We knew he was capable," Mavs president of basketball operations Donnie Nelson said. "We knew that he was almost the perfect fit. It's just, could he stay healthy? Once we got comfort with that this summer, and then he did the USA piece and that was another confidence builder, he just hit the ground running in training camp and never looked back."

Chandler gets the bulk of the credit for transforming the Mavs, who had been a mediocre defensive team under coach Rick Carlisle, into the league's eighth-ranked squad in terms of efficiency on that end of the floor. He finished third in voting for defensive player of the year and was the first Maverick to earn NBA all-defensive team recognition in two decades.

Plus, Chandler's intangibles are invaluable to the Mavs. He added major doses of toughness and passion to a team wounded by its recent history of horrific playoff disappointments.

"I think we were a little lucky," Nowitzki said. "If you get a guy who was basically hurt for two years, that's tough. I mean, we didn't really know what to expect from him. Is he going to be as athletic as he was before? But, I said it all year, he's been our MVP."

Nowitzki, a self-professed "slow-twitch muscle kind of guy," has never had a better big man complement than Chandler. And it's not just that Chandler's quickness and leaping ability allow him to cover up Nowitzki's defensive weaknesses. Chandler is also a rock-solid pick setter -- no wonder Nowitzki shot a career-best percentage -- and phenomenal finisher around the hoop.

"I think it's definitely a great combination because he picks up for the slack that I'm not capable to do out there and I pick up for the slack that he's not capable to do out there," Chandler said. "It's just a good basketball relationship. Sometimes you get two players that just work real well together."



Just as Jason Garrett changed the culture of the Cowboys in 2010, Tyson Chandler transformed the Mavericks' defense. After a decade in which the team tried to out-offense opponents as its only path to victory, the Mavericks suddenly won games 91-89 instead of 121-119. In the middle of the identity switch was the Mavericks' defensive anchor, a free-agent center who blocked shots, took charges and barked instructions to teammates en route to earning third place in the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year voting. Dirk was Dirk and Jason Kidd was almost better than ever, but the Mavs don't win a championship without Chandler in the middle.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/bestof/2011/award/best-sports-acquisition-2400693/

It wasn't said in retrospect, it was being said at the time. Statements such as this further confirm that people don't pay much attention to what goes on outside of the team their favorite player is on.


Some people started to act like he's prime Mutombo/Wallace/Zo after the '11 Finals.

Didn't know they were the only players who could anchor a defense.

[ShaqAttack3234]

They didn't have a 2nd or 3rd option and pretty much everyone on the team that played legit minutes was incredibly inefficient except Duncan and Robinson.

Easily the worst supporting cast to win the title since 94.

Yet somehow they are now stacked...I give up.

I don't know where they rank, I just can't call a team stacked without a 3rd player at least close to all-star caliber, much less without a 2nd player close to that level, which the Spurs didn't have. I'd call them a good cast with Duncan, but a team that I couldn't see winning even 30 games without Duncan and a team I couldn't see most superstars getting past the second round with at best.

Stacked to me is really a mix of depth and some star power(at least more than 1 all-star) That team was pretty much Duncan and role players. For a team to be stacked, I'd say the minimum would be at least a 3rd player whose borderline all-star level and no less than 7-8 deep with quality players.


wade shaq in 2006 wasnt stack. Their other players were mediocre.

I'm not sure I'd call them stacked myself, just no less stacked than a number of the teams getting that label.

[ThaRegul8r]

I'm guessing he saw names like Manu, Parker and Robinson and didn't bother to think about what kind of players they actually were in '03.

I've seen this frequently over the years. That's how you can tell whether people were actually watching basketball then or not. People who weren't just assume that Parker and Gin

[R.I.P.]

It wasn't said in retrospect, it was being said at the time. Statements such as this further confirm that people don't pay much attention to what goes on outside of the team their favorite player is on.



Didn't know they were the only players who could anchor a defense.

In retrospective the only thing that was proven was that Haywood, Dirk, Marion, Kidd and Stevenson significantly contributed to making Chandler look this good. He doesn

[Bandito]

wade shaq in 2006 wasnt stack. Their other players were mediocre.
if peop le don't consider the 06 heat stacked there are no way you could consider the 00 -02 Lakers stacked for the same reason. They even had worst role players than 06 heat.

[Jacks3]

There's nothing "stacked" about the 09/10 Lakers. Those teams won with essentially Kobe/Pau/Odom and a bunch of average role-players. 06 Heat weren't stacked. Neither were the 11 Mavs or 03 Spurs or 00-02 Lakers.

Face it...LeBron has by far the best supporting cast of any superstar over the last 2 decades or so.

I mean, imagine if the 00-02 Lakers 3rd best player was a top 15 player in the league instead of Derek freaking Fisher. :oldlol:

[RRR3]

Special, yes, but special doesn't automatically mean stacked. Stacked requires a certain amount of depth. Out of those 3peat teams, the one that I think could you could make the best argument for being stacked is 2001. Although even then, I think it was more of a case of Shaq/Kobe combining for 60 ppg, 23 rpg and 9 apg, Fisher knocking down his shots at an usual rate and Grant being ideal for their playoff opponents since they faced Sheed, Webber and Duncan. A great team, but still not sure about stacked since they didn't have a 3rd option at all, and 3 of their 7 rotation players shot below 40% during the playoffs(Grant at 38.5%, Shaq at 37.5% and Horry at 36.8%)
True. But if my team was Shaq+Kobe+13 Scalabrines I'd still like our chances lol

[ShaqAttack3234]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I've seen this frequently over the years. That's how you can tell whether people were actually watching basketball then or not. People who weren't just assume that Parker and Gin

[rmt]

But no, it is not easier to put good players around Duncan than it is Dirk.

DMAVS41, I respectfully disagree with your statement because given the constraint of salary, Duncan anchors the rim/paint defensively and therefore money does not need to be spent on an elite rim/paint protector (who are very expensive because they're rare) the way it would be with Dirk as the franchise player. Since that rim/paint protection is already in TD, more money can be spent on better players.

For instance, Chandler and Haywood cost $12.6m and $6.9m for a total of $19.5m in 2011. Meanwhile, Horry ($3.3m), Oberto ($2.5m) and Elson ($3m) in 07 cost a total of $8.8m. That difference of $10.7m would be used to pay for better players. Even in 2013, Splitter/Diaw/Bonner cost $12m total - less than Chandler in '11.

[DMAVS41]

DMAVS41, I respectfully disagree with your statement because given the constraint of salary, Duncan anchors the rim/paint defensively and therefore money does not need to be spent on an elite rim/paint protector (who are very expensive because they're rare) the way it would be with Dirk as the franchise player. Since that rim/paint protection is already in TD, more money can be spent on better players.

For instance, Chandler and Haywood cost $12.6m and $6.9m for a total of $19.5m in 2011. Meanwhile, Horry ($3.3m), Oberto ($2.5m) and Elson ($3m) in 07 cost a total of $8.8m. That difference of $10.7m would be used to pay for better players. Even in 2013, Splitter/Diaw/Bonner cost $12m total - less than Chandler in '11.

You are just saying it's easier to build a good team around Duncan than Dirk...which I totally agree with.

But it is not easier to get good players. You guys are just confusing the two. For example, you could say the exact same thing about Duncan vs Kobe. Obviously it's easier to build around Duncan for all the reasons you say.

But look at the level of talent and help Kobe has had compared to Duncan. Kobe has clearly had more.

Getting good players on a team has far more to do with market and the owner/gm..etc.

[guy]

Okay. Then you should never go after Dirk or Lebron about the help they had...because if those guys are in the top 15 all time in terms of building a franchise...which I agree with....

Neither of those guys got the help that their place in history demands. Certainly not Lebron on the Cavs.

Just take the current Grizzlies for example like I have before in this thread. Zach Randolph is not easier to build around than Dirk. Yet this current Grizzlies team is perfectly suited for Dirk and would easily be the best team Dirk ever had....maybe not in terms of raw talent...but certainly in the type of team you want around Dirk. Great defensively with an elite defensive center...who happens to be able to play offense as well.

It's not Dirk's fault Cuban/Nellie could never really give him that until 2011. That is all I've said.

I've never implied that Dirk was as good as Duncan or some of the guys you mention. All I said was that getting good players around star players is pretty much equal. What they do with those players is a different story.

I think you're confusing my point a little. When I say that certain players are harder to build around then others, that isn't solely about the player's ability to recruit and get players around them. It isn't solely about just getting a second star. If that were the case, then a GM's job is basically useless.

Duncan is clearly easier to build around then Dirk. You basically admit that yourself when you say Dirk couldn't do what Duncan did in 2003. Dirk would've needed more then Duncan had that year to pull that off. That means Duncan is easier to build around cause it doesn't take as much.

And like I said, stop acting like Dirk never had help before 2011. No one is saying he was the most fortunate player ever or his help was ever as good as 2011, but your bias is clearly showing here. He had Steve Nash. Sure, it wasn't Dirk's decision to not bring back Steve Nash, but had they looked like stronger championship contenders before, they would've been much more reluctant to break them up. That goes back to what I said where how long a player has a certain quality of teammates has alot to do with how successful that team is because FOs are more reluctant to break them up the more successful they are. On top of that, keeping a team together for longer usually makes them better as time goes by due to the continuity (after you take into account their age). For example, this year's Heat is not as good as they are if this was Lebron/Wade/Bosh's first year together as opposed to their third.

As I said, recruiting players isn't solely what I mean about building around players, but it does have something to do with it. Ray Allen and Shane Battier are probably going to New York if Lebron is there instead of Miami for example. And even if they are actively trying to get players there or not, role players in general, and other star players actually, want to play with the best players that gives them the best chance of winning. Bottom line is better players are more attractive teammates, so I'm just saying its not really about "luck" when thats the case. I say a huge difference between Lebron in Miami and Lebron in Cleveland is because he was so non-committal to Cleveland, players were afraid to go to Cleveland in case he left, but thats not the case with Miami. Thats not an opinion, thats been reported and documented. Not saying that it was discouraging all-star players from going there, but solid players that would've made them better.

Just to add to everything else, besides my point of it being easier to build around certain players then others, the general perception of the supporting cast of many star players is many times overvalued or undervalued depending on how successful they are. For example, if Lebron and Melo switched places, there's no doubt in my mind that the Knicks would've been the first seed and make the Finals this year while the Heat would lose to the Pacers in the 2nd round, and so many people would be talking about how stacked the Knicks are and how much help Lebron has with JR/Felton/Chandler/K-Mart while Melo is less fortunate with an old broken down Wade, a soft big in Chris Bosh, and old ass veterans like Ray, Battier, Miller, etc. Thats what the narrative would be as opposed to what it is now, when in reality its probably somewhere in the middle.



I never said you did.

But without accomplishments with context...you'd get into a very subjective area with guys like Bird vs Magic vs Duncan vs Kobe vs KG vs Shaq vs Lebron...etc.

The only guy of the modern era that really separated himself from everyone else is MJ. After that it would just be opinions from people that might value different things.

I could totally see people saying KG is better than Kobe or Magic or Bird because of KG's all time great defense...etc.

When it comes to players like Bird, Magic, Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe, those players are so accomplished at this point that most reasonable people don't rank them based on accomplishments, since none of them really separate themselves from the other when it comes to accomplishments. So I don't understand whats your point here? And either way, those players are on another tier. I'm not comparing them to each other. I'm comparing them to the likes of Malone, Barkley, Drexler, Ewing, Robinson, KG, Dirk, etc. and saying that you can strip them of their accomplishments and compare them and still conclude that the first group is better just by analyzing their overall game. You don't need context for that.

KG's biggest issue is mentality and his reluctance to lead the way at the end of games. Magic, Bird, Kobe are great all around players as well but didn't have that issue. Sure, they don't have the defense but we know individual defense is a bit overrated and they could still affect the game in multiple ways even if it didn't include defense. IMO that makes him harder to build around then at least Magic and Bird.



Lebron in 2011 is a perfect example of this. Without the 11 Finals..you had people comparing him to MJ...etc. But an obvious flaw in his game came out in a pressure packed series against tough competition.

How players perform when the games matter most in the playoffs in context is lost in your analysis if you strip away things like that.

If Malone, in your world, never failed in the playoffs to lead his team to the title...then its just an entirely subjective area of what people value.
Read more at http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=299959&page=10#2RqRbJB331UoAfbU.99

Okay. I don't understand how me saying strip them of their accomplishments is the same thing as saying ignore certain moments of their career. Sure, certain moments of their career reveal aspects of them as players. Lebron historically choked in the Finals. You can ignore the fact that he's a 1x champ, 4x MVP and still recognize that. And by the way, it was obvious before 2011 and even today that Lebron doesn't handle pressure as well as Jordan did.

I never said Malone in my world didn't fail in the playoffs. All I'm saying is I don't need to read on a piece of paper that Malone never won a title and Kobe won 5 titles to say that Malone was a historical choker in the playoffs while Kobe is one of the clutchest players of all-time. You do realize that when people call Malone a choker, its not just due to the simple fact that he never won a title right? Its cause he choked many times when he lost. We don't call Charles Barkley a choker despite the fact that he never won either.

[Ne 1]

The 3-peat Lakers were not stacked. Who was the 3rd best player on those team? Glen Rice in '00 and Fisher in '01 and '02? Those teams were not very talented outside of Shaq and Kobe, they had below average role players at each position outside of them. They relied HEAVILY on Shaq and Kobe as a duo. Even in the Conference Finals against Portland in 2000 the Blazers were called "too deep" due to their ridiculous depth and talent, while the Lakers were called "two deep", a reference to them having 2 stars and then a MASSIVE drop off after that to the point of NOTHING worth mentioning beyond Shaq/Kobe. Just a few solid role players who each did maybe 1 or 2 things well, and flat out couldn't do other things.

In the past 30 years no team has emulated the "no superstar" model of championship success even close to how the Pistons did it in 2004/2005. The 2005/2007 Spurs, 2006 Heat, and 2009/2010 Lakers were the basic, traditional style championship teams, with one superstar, a great All-Star 2nd option, and varied contributions from solid role players in the playoffs. Nothing more, nothing less.

The 2011 Mavs were a well rounded/complete team, but not stacked. Chandler as a defensive presence and finisher. Three 7 footers that could all give you good defense and rebounding. A smart and productive point guard core with Kidd and Barea. Knock down shooters in Peja and Terry. A lock down defender, great transition player, and versatile scorer in Marion. And of course a superstar who's a great, unselfish closer and scorer in Dirk. Just a well balanced team on both sides of the ball, but not stacked at all. Similar to the 2003 Spurs, a well balanced/complete team, but not stacked at all.

[guy]

You are just saying it's easier to build a good team around Duncan than Dirk...which I totally agree with.

But it is not easier to get good players. You guys are just confusing the two. For example, you could say the exact same thing about Duncan vs Kobe. Obviously it's easier to build around Duncan for all the reasons you say.

But look at the level of talent and help Kobe has had compared to Duncan. Kobe has clearly had more.

Getting good players on a team has far more to do with market and the owner/gm..etc.

Kobe wasn't the one they were building around until 2005, and I really wouldn't say Kobe's best teams after that have been that much better, if better at all, then Duncan's best teams i.e. 99, 05-07.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The 3-peat Lakers were not stacked. Who was the 3rd best player on those team? Glen Rice in '00 and Fisher in '01 and '02? Those teams were not very talented outside of Shaq and Kobe, they had below average role players at each position outside of them. They relied HEAVILY on Shaq and Kobe as a duo. Even in the Conference Finals against Portland in 2000 the Blazers were called "too deep" due to their ridiculous depth and talent, while the Lakers were called "two deep", a reference to them having 2 stars and then a MASSIVE drop off after that to the point of NOTHING worth mentioning beyond Shaq/Kobe. Just a few solid role players who each did maybe 1 or 2 things well, and flat out couldn't do other things.

I wouldn't call Fisher the third best player on the '02 team either. Averaged 10/3/3 on 36% shooting and was badly outplayed by opposing point guards, particularly Mike Bibby who had the series of his life vs him, and became virtually an overnight star while Fisher took 9.4 FGA to get 7.7 ppg in that series while shooting 29% and 6/31 on 3s(19%)

I'd go with Horry for 3rd best player on the '02 Lakers. For the 2000 team, I'd say Rice was the 3rd most talented, at least offensively, but not the 3rd most valuable by any stretch.

[DMAVS41]

I think you're confusing my point a little. When I say that certain players are harder to build around then others, that isn't solely about the player's ability to recruit and get players around them. It isn't solely about just getting a second star. If that were the case, then a GM's job is basically useless.

Duncan is clearly easier to build around then Dirk. You basically admit that yourself when you say Dirk couldn't do what Duncan did in 2003. Dirk would've needed more then Duncan had that year to pull that off. That means Duncan is easier to build around cause it doesn't take as much.

And like I said, stop acting like Dirk never had help before 2011. No one is saying he was the most fortunate player ever or his help was ever as good as 2011, but your bias is clearly showing here. He had Steve Nash. Sure, it wasn't Dirk's decision to not bring back Steve Nash, but had they looked like stronger championship contenders before, they would've been much more reluctant to break them up. That goes back to what I said where how long a player has a certain quality of teammates has alot to do with how successful that team is because FOs are more reluctant to break them up the more successful they are. On top of that, keeping a team together for longer usually makes them better as time goes by due to the continuity (after you take into account their age). For example, this year's Heat is not as good as they are if this was Lebron/Wade/Bosh's first year together as opposed to their third.

As I said, recruiting players isn't solely what I mean about building around players, but it does have something to do with it. Ray Allen and Shane Battier are probably going to New York if Lebron is there instead of Miami for example. And even if they are actively trying to get players there or not, role players in general, and other star players actually, want to play with the best players that gives them the best chance of winning. Bottom line is better players are more attractive teammates, so I'm just saying its not really about "luck" when thats the case. I say a huge difference between Lebron in Miami and Lebron in Cleveland is because he was so non-committal to Cleveland, players were afraid to go to Cleveland in case he left, but thats not the case with Miami. Thats not an opinion, thats been reported and documented. Not saying that it was discouraging all-star players from going there, but solid players that would've made them better.

Just to add to everything else, besides my point of it being easier to build around certain players then others, the general perception of the supporting cast of many star players is many times overvalued or undervalued depending on how successful they are. For example, if Lebron and Melo switched places, there's no doubt in my mind that the Knicks would've been the first seed and make the Finals this year while the Heat would lose to the Pacers in the 2nd round, and so many people would be talking about how stacked the Knicks are and how much help Lebron has with JR/Felton/Chandler/K-Mart while Melo is less fortunate with an old broken down Wade, a soft big in Chris Bosh, and old ass veterans like Ray, Battier, Miller, etc. Thats what the narrative would be as opposed to what it is now, when in reality its probably somewhere in the middle.



When it comes to players like Bird, Magic, Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe, those players are so accomplished at this point that most reasonable people don't rank them based on accomplishments, since none of them really separate themselves from the other when it comes to accomplishments. So I don't understand whats your point here? And either way, those players are on another tier. I'm not comparing them to each other. I'm comparing them to the likes of Malone, Barkley, Drexler, Ewing, Robinson, KG, Dirk, etc. and saying that you can strip them of their accomplishments and compare them and still conclude that the first group is better just by analyzing their overall game. You don't need context for that.

KG's biggest issue is mentality and his reluctance to lead the way at the end of games. Magic, Bird, Kobe are great all around players as well but didn't have that issue. Sure, they don't have the defense but we know individual defense is a bit overrated and they could still affect the game in multiple ways even if it didn't include defense. IMO that makes him harder to build around then at least Magic and Bird.



Okay. I don't understand how me saying strip them of their accomplishments is the same thing as saying ignore certain moments of their career. Sure, certain moments of their career reveal aspects of them as players. Lebron historically choked in the Finals. You can ignore the fact that he's a 1x champ, 4x MVP and still recognize that. And by the way, it was obvious before 2011 and even today that Lebron doesn't handle pressure as well as Jordan did.

I never said Malone in my world didn't fail in the playoffs. All I'm saying is I don't need to read on a piece of paper that Malone never won a title and Kobe won 5 titles to say that Malone was a historical choker in the playoffs while Kobe is one of the clutchest players of all-time. You do realize that when people call Malone a choker, its not just due to the simple fact that he never won a title right? Its cause he choked many times when he lost. We don't call Charles Barkley a choker despite the fact that he never won either.

I will try to clear this up because it is not complicated.

Duncan clearly needs less help than Dirk to win. As I have repeated now a number of times.

It is not, however, easier to put good players around Duncan than it is Dirk. Or...if it is...it's like 1% or something non existent.

It's all about franchise, market, luck, gm, owner...etc.

I never said Dirk didn't have help. I simply said that he didn't have championship level help most of his career. The 3 years he had supporting casts good enough to win were 03, 06, and 11. And even then...not one of those years did he have a team favored to win the title or overwhelming talent.

Duncan also never had historical amounts of help...he's just so good that he was able to win titles anyway.

Also, your point about Nash actually proves my point. It actually had nothing to do with Dirk. Dirk and Nash were best friends and of course Dirk wanted him to stay. Nellie and Cuban decided to go in a different direction...again, had nothing to do with Dirk. They had just made the WCF in 03 and had a great shot at winning the title if Dirk doesn't get hurt.

The reason Nash was let go was because he had chronic back issues and he wasn't worth the risk for Cuban as an aging player that was struggling with his health. If Nash never had back problems...he stays on the Mavs and Dirk's career is no doubt more successful. Just pure luck. That would be like blaming Duncan if Parker had chronic injury problems and the Spurs didn't sign him one year. It's absurd.

It's easier to win a title with a guy like Duncan and many other superstar players in NBA history than Dirk. But it is not easier to put good players around them.

If Dirk was drafted to the Lakers, he'd have played with infinitely more help than he did on the Mavs and Duncan did with the Spurs. So would we credit Dirk with that? Of course not...just the nature of being drafted to a certain team.

You keep confusing the two. It's easier to win with Duncan...not easier to put good players around him.

Again...look at the current Grizzlies. Is Randolph easier to build around than Dirk? Because Randolph has a team around him right now that is perfectly built for Dirk. Perfect...it would be the best team Dirk ever had. It's just a better version than the 11 Mavs...with a center that can actually contribute on offense as well.

So is it Dirk's fault he never had a team like that...or that in his prime he had Terry as his 2nd guy? Of course not. Just a bit of bad luck when it came to getting free agents and management.

You see a perfect example of this with Parker vs Beaubois...if Roddy becomes Parker 2.0...the Mavs are in an amazing position...but he became a bust instead. Is that on Dirk? Of course not...just didn't happen the way it happened with Parker in SA. Or Harris could have become a great pg...but he didn't and he's clearly not.

I guess I would understand your point if a bunch of players that played with Dirk left and had great success elsewhere and struggled in Dallas. But really that is the exact opposite. The Mavs just whiffed on a lot of guys. Lafrentz, Dampier, Daniels, Howard, Diop, Butler (injured), Harris...it's not like those guys were good and just couldn't fit in Dallas. They just turned out to be players that weren't that good.

I would get your point if the Mavs had brought in blue chippers all the time and just nothing worked or something like that. But this is a team that essentially had Terry and some quality role players for Dirk's entire prime. That simply isn't the kind of help that historically wins titles.

[DMAVS41]

Kobe wasn't the one they were building around until 2005, and I really wouldn't say Kobe's best teams after that have been that much better, if better at all, then Duncan's best teams i.e. 99, 05-07.

The point is not to debate that.

It's that playing for the Lakers franchise gives you more money and help than SA...nearly every time.

It doesn't even matter what type of player is there. You talked about KG's faults earlier. What does that matter? He still got shit in Minny...and we all know if he had played for a different franchise in a better position...he would have gotten more help.

Just look at Dirk's help compared to KG's....is Dirk easier to build around than KG?

[guy]

I will try to clear this up because it is not complicated.

Duncan clearly needs less help than Dirk to win. As I have repeated now a number of times.

It is not, however, easier to put good players around Duncan than it is Dirk. Or...if it is...it's like 1% or something non existent.

It's all about franchise, market, luck, gm, owner...etc.

I never said Dirk didn't have help. I simply said that he didn't have championship level help most of his career. The 3 years he had supporting casts good enough to win were 03, 06, and 11. And even then...not one of those years did he have a team favored to win the title or overwhelming talent.

Duncan also never had historical amounts of help...he's just so good that he was able to win titles anyway.

Also, your point about Nash actually proves my point. It actually had nothing to do with Dirk. Dirk and Nash were best friends and of course Dirk wanted him to stay. Nellie and Cuban decided to go in a different direction...again, had nothing to do with Dirk. They had just made the WCF in 03 and had a great shot at winning the title if Dirk doesn't get hurt.

The reason Nash was let go was because he had chronic back issues and he wasn't worth the risk for Cuban as an aging player that was struggling with his health. If Nash never had back problems...he stays on the Mavs and Dirk's career is no doubt more successful. Just pure luck. That would be like blaming Duncan if Parker had chronic injury problems and the Spurs didn't sign him one year. It's absurd.

It's easier to win a title with a guy like Duncan and many other superstar players in NBA history than Dirk. But it is not easier to put good players around them.

If Dirk was drafted to the Lakers, he'd have played with infinitely more help than he did on the Mavs and Duncan did with the Spurs. So would we credit Dirk with that? Of course not...just the nature of being drafted to a certain team.

You keep confusing the two. It's easier to win with Duncan...not easier to put good players around him.

Again...look at the current Grizzlies. Is Randolph easier to build around than Dirk? Because Randolph has a team around him right now that is perfectly built for Dirk. Perfect...it would be the best team Dirk ever had. It's just a better version than the 11 Mavs...with a center that can actually contribute on offense as well.

So is it Dirk's fault he never had a team like that...or that in his prime he had Terry as his 2nd guy? Of course not. Just a bit of bad luck when it came to getting free agents and management.

You see a perfect example of this with Parker vs Beaubois...if Roddy becomes Parker 2.0...the Mavs are in an amazing position...but he became a bust instead. Is that on Dirk? Of course not...just didn't happen the way it happened with Parker in SA. Or Harris could have become a great pg...but he didn't and he's clearly not.

I guess I would understand your point if a bunch of players that played with Dirk left and had great success elsewhere and struggled in Dallas. But really that is the exact opposite. The Mavs just whiffed on a lot of guys. Lafrentz, Dampier, Daniels, Howard, Diop, Butler (injured), Harris...it's not like those guys were good and just couldn't fit in Dallas. They just turned out to be players that weren't that good.

I would get your point if the Mavs had brought in blue chippers all the time and just nothing worked or something like that. But this is a team that essentially had Terry and some quality role players for Dirk's entire prime. That simply isn't the kind of help that historically wins titles.


Okay, let me try to simplify this again. Its not Dirk's fault they gave up Nash. But if Dirk was a better player then he was and the Mavs had more success those years with Nash, the opportunity cost of the Mavs giving up on Dirk+Nash formula would've been greater. Look at it this way. I could easily see Duncan on the Mavs in 03 winning it all with Nash as his best teammate, and then the next year losing in WCSF or WCF as opposed to the first round like what happened. If that happened, the Mavs would've been much more reluctant about giving up Nash back even with the back issue and I'm definitely sure they don't waste all that money on Dampier since they already had an inside presence in Duncan. Its not really Dirk's fault cause he can't change who he is, but who a team builds around does have a ripple effect.

And 1% is ridiculous. A lot of players are attracted to SA because of the culture and organization. Duncan has A LOT to do with that. Not everything, but a lot.



The point is not to debate that.

It's that playing for the Lakers franchise gives you more money and help than SA...nearly every time.

It doesn't even matter what type of player is there. You talked about KG's faults earlier. What does that matter? He still got shit in Minny...and we all know if he had played for a different franchise in a better position...he would have gotten more help.

Just look at Dirk's help compared to KG's....is Dirk easier to build around than KG?

I never said a player's help has absolutely everything to do with the player and nothing else.

[DMAVS41]

Okay, let me try to simplify this again. Its not Dirk's fault they gave up Nash. But if Dirk was a better player then he was and the Mavs had more success those years with Nash, the opportunity cost of the Mavs giving up on Dirk+Nash formula would've been greater. Look at it this way. I could easily see Duncan on the Mavs in 03 winning it all with Nash as his best teammate, and then the next year losing in WCSF or WCF as opposed to the first round like what happened. If that happened, the Mavs would've been much more reluctant about giving up Nash back even with the back issue and I'm definitely sure they don't waste all that money on Dampier since they already had an inside presence in Duncan. Its not really Dirk's fault cause he can't change who he is, but who a team builds around does have a ripple effect.

And 1% is ridiculous. A lot of players are attracted to SA because of the culture and organization. Duncan has A LOT to do with that. Not everything, but a lot.



I never said a player's help has absolutely everything to do with the player and nothing else.

But you are just talking about luck then. Like when Duncan was hurt in 04...just like Dirk got hurt in 03.

Unless Duncan can magically heal Nash's back...it's not changing that decision.

Of course Duncan has a lot to do with it...so does Dirk. The point is that the Spurs were not out there attracting all these big name players. They grew Parker and Manu...it's a credit to everyone...but mainly the organization and quite honestly just luck that Parker and Manu turned into the players they are. Because if not, then the Spurs would have had to make more moves like the Jefferson signing...and that didn't work out at all.

It's just not the factor you want it to be. Durant's team last year was better than any team Dirk ever had. By far....and it had nothing to do with Durant. Just Presti hitting home run after home run in the draft with Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka...other than being a great player...Durant plays no role in that.

Just like it wasn't Lebron's fault that the Cavs lost Boozer...and on and on and on.

Almost all of what type of team you have around you as a star player is based on things outside the control of said player.

[guy]

But you are just talking about luck then. Like when Duncan was hurt in 04...just like Dirk got hurt in 03.

Unless Duncan can magically heal Nash's back...it's not changing that decision.

Of course Duncan has a lot to do with it...so does Dirk. The point is that the Spurs were not out there attracting all these big name players. They grew Parker and Manu...it's a credit to everyone...but mainly the organization and quite honestly just luck that Parker and Manu turned into the players they are. Because if not, then the Spurs would have had to make more moves like the Jefferson signing...and that didn't work out at all.

It's just not the factor you want it to be. Durant's team last year was better than any team Dirk ever had. By far....and it had nothing to do with Durant. Just Presti hitting home run after home run in the draft with Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka...other than being a great player...Durant plays no role in that.

Just like it wasn't Lebron's fault that the Cavs lost Boozer...and on and on and on.

Almost all of what type of team you have around you as a star player is based on things outside the control of said player.

As I said before, I'm not talking about every single year a great player has great teammates. Basically what I'm saying is almost every great player gets the opportunity to have help and make the most of it at some point in their career, and get it for a long time and alot of that, not everything, is based on how easy or difficult it is to build around that superstar. So the whole supporting cast argument being about luck is basically stupid.

As I said multiple times now, its not a coincidence that even if you strip the the greatest players of their circumstance and resume, and just judge them by everything else like ability and intangibles, the top 10 players wouldn't differ much if at all.

[DMAVS41]

As I said before, I'm not talking about every single year a great player has great teammates. Basically what I'm saying is almost every great player gets the opportunity to have help and make the most of it at some point in their career, and get it for a long time and alot of that, not everything, is based on how easy or difficult it is to build around that superstar. So the whole supporting cast argument being about luck is basically stupid.

As I said multiple times now, its not a coincidence that even if you strip the the greatest players of their circumstance and resume, and just judge them by everything else like ability and intangibles, the top 10 players don't differ much if at all.

But it's all connected. Maybe KG becomes more comfortable taking over games offensively with more help or a different coach.

With Dirk it's very easy to see...he played no defense at all early on in his career playing run and gun Nellie ball. If that never happened and Dirk was coached by Larry Brown early on in his career...you might have seen Dirk develop faster..etc. I'd bet my life that the Mavs win the title in 06 with a guy like Larry Brown or Popovich coaching. I'd bet a lot of money that the 07 Warriors series doesn't happen with either of those guys as well.

Now, you can't separate the results with how players play. Too much of it all is connected.

And...ummm...just no. There are clear cut disparities in the amount of help certain players have. And when talking about winning titles...those differences are paramount to the results.

Just look at Durant in this series right now. You don't think it's all connected? You think he struggles like that late in games if Westbrook is healthy? That is the problem with your stripped down version of things with no context....and that is the problem with pretending that every situation is roughly the same. It isn't.

Playing with Wade and Bosh is simply different than playing with Mo and Jamison.

[guy]

As I said multiple times now, its not a coincidence that even if you strip the the greatest players of their circumstance and resume, and just judge them by everything else like ability and intangibles, the top 10 players don't differ much if at all.


So is this a coincidence or what? Because none of what you said proved that it is.

There's certain disparities, and I never said there wasn't. I would say Jordan only had championship level help around him for like 6-7 years out of his 15 season career while Magic had it for basically all 12 of his seasons. I don't think that means Magic was easier to build around then Jordan. Most, if not all of the reason for that was because of the franchise, GM, owner, etc. and all of those things you allude to. However, Jordan still went a SIGNIFICANT CHUNK OF HIS CAREER with talent around him. In both cases, some of it had to do with them making their teammates better either through actually helping them get better or utilizing them to their strengths which probably caused an overvalued perception of them, and in other cases it just had to with good signings/trades.

Either way, Jordan doesn't have much to complain about, but he also wasn't just "lucky" in comparison to someone like Ewing, Barkley, or Clyde either. Like I said, rarely does a great player never get a good amount of opportunities to win titles. And if they don't, rarely would it have nothing to do with how hard it is to build around that player.

I never said that every situation is roughly the same.

[creepingdeath]

Okay, let me try to simplify this again. Its not Dirk's fault they gave up Nash. But if Dirk was a better player then he was and the Mavs had more success those years with Nash, the opportunity cost of the Mavs giving up on Dirk+Nash formula would've been greater. Look at it this way. I could easily see Duncan on the Mavs in 03 winning it all with Nash as his best teammate, and then the next year losing in WCSF or WCF as opposed to the first round like what happened. If that happened, the Mavs would've been much more reluctant about giving up Nash back even with the back issue and I'm definitely sure they don't waste all that money on Dampier since they already had an inside presence in Duncan. Its not really Dirk's fault cause he can't change who he is, but who a team builds around does have a ripple effect.
The decision to let go of Nash would not have changed had Dirk been a better player. In fact, he's had some of his best runs those years. It was a stupid front office decision, done because Nash has looked like shit in the playoffs and had lingering back injuries. Now, had Duncan played on the Mavs, how would that have changed anything? Dirk put up 31 points, 14 rebounds, 1 steal and 4 blocks in the elimination game against the Kings, and averaged 27/12/2 for the series on a horribly put together team. And the year before, he got hurt. So I don't see any way you could put this on Dirk or his level of play in the postseason. And I don't think that, had the Mavs had Duncan (as in a Dirk version that is on par with him), who is obviously the better player than Dirk, anything would have gone any differently. Dirk still gets hurt in the WCFs against the Spurs, and the year after, the roster would still be a mess, and his teammates will still f*ck up the series against the Kings. A slightly better version of Dirk doesn't prevent the Nash departure from happening.

[insomniac]

Stacked teams always win the NBA Championship

...or the NBA Champions are always a stacked team? Big difference.

[Flush]

so Why didn't the stacked Heat beat the Mavs in 2011?
According to this thread, Mavs had 6 stacked players, Heat had 3.

[Goldrush25]

The 3-peat Lakers were not stacked. Who was the 3rd best player on those team? Glen Rice in '00 and Fisher in '01 and '02? Those teams were not very talented outside of Shaq and Kobe, they had below average role players at each position outside of them. They relied HEAVILY on Shaq and Kobe as a duo. Even in the Conference Finals against Portland in 2000 the Blazers were called "too deep" due to their ridiculous depth and talent, while the Lakers were called "two deep", a reference to them having 2 stars and then a MASSIVE drop off after that to the point of NOTHING worth mentioning beyond Shaq/Kobe. Just a few solid role players who each did maybe 1 or 2 things well, and flat out couldn't do other things.

In the past 30 years no team has emulated the "no superstar" model of championship success even close to how the Pistons did it in 2004/2005. The 2005/2007 Spurs, 2006 Heat, and 2009/2010 Lakers were the basic, traditional style championship teams, with one superstar, a great All-Star 2nd option, and varied contributions from solid role players in the playoffs. Nothing more, nothing less.

The 2011 Mavs were a well rounded/complete team, but not stacked. Chandler as a defensive presence and finisher. Three 7 footers that could all give you good defense and rebounding. A smart and productive point guard core with Kidd and Barea. Knock down shooters in Peja and Terry. A lock down defender, great transition player, and versatile scorer in Marion. And of course a superstar who's a great, unselfish closer and scorer in Dirk. Just a well balanced team on both sides of the ball, but not stacked at all. Similar to the 2003 Spurs, a well balanced/complete team, but not stacked at all.

Where's the rule that says you need 3 players for a team to be "stacked?" More criteria being created for special pleading.

Shaq had absolutely no problem carrying that load for the Lakers, because he was that dominant vs his competition. "Stacked" shouldn't be determined simply by how many talented teammates someone has. It should depend on the perceived weighted average of the talent level of the star(s) relative to other team's stars. Shaq was the best player on the Lakers, but he was so much better than the best player on the other teams that his margin of dominance has to be taken into account. That early 2000s Shaq likely could've won without Kobe, that's how good Shaq was at that time. You can't just say "Oh, they only had two superstars." Shaq was too dominant at that time to simply dismiss the individual impact that he had on his team.

If we're talking about stacked this and stacked that, let's not be lazy, and instead actually look at a superstars competition and how he stacked up against his contemporaries individually, not just at how many stars played on each team.

It's very concievable to have a stacked team with two superstars if they're good enough. Put Kevin Durant and Lebron James on a team, that's stacked to me. Put 3 lesser All-Stars on a team (say CP3, Kevin Love, and Russell Westbrook), that's less stacked IMO. Individual talent level matters.

[DMAVS41]

As I said multiple times now, its not a coincidence that even if you strip the the greatest players of their circumstance and resume, and just judge them by everything else like ability and intangibles, the top 10 players don't differ much if at all.


So is this a coincidence or what? Because none of what you said proved that it is.

There's certain disparities, and I never said there wasn't. I would say Jordan only had championship level help around him for like 6-7 years out of his 15 season career while Magic had it for basically all 12 of his seasons. I don't think that means Magic was easier to build around then Jordan. Most, if not all of the reason for that was because of the franchise, GM, owner, etc. and all of those things you allude to. However, Jordan still went a SIGNIFICANT CHUNK OF HIS CAREER with talent around him. In both cases, some of it had to do with them making their teammates better either through actually helping them get better or utilizing them to their strengths which probably caused an overvalued perception of them, and in other cases it just had to with good signings/trades.

Either way, Jordan doesn't have much to complain about, but he also wasn't just "lucky" in comparison to someone like Ewing, Barkley, or Clyde either. Like I said, rarely does a great player never get a good amount of opportunities to win titles. And if they don't, rarely would it have nothing to do with how hard it is to build around that player.

I never said that every situation is roughly the same.

So basically you are saying;

The best players are the best players because they are the best players. No shit.

What I took issue with is your assertion that somehow if Dirk had been Duncan...the Mavs would have kept Nash or somehow gotten better players. That just isn't true. The Mavs no doubt would have been better with Duncan, but this notion that a Duncan led Mavs team was going to bring in better players just is non sense.

You keep talking about this ripple effect...but you are just giving way too much credit to singular players. Way too much of this is out of the control of a player.

Again I bring up the Grizzlies this year and you continue to ignore it. That team around Randolph is literally the ideal Dirk team. It's ****ing perfect for him. He never had that...not once in his prime. And unless you want to somehow claim that Randolph is easier to build around then Dirk....then it kind of blows your whole assertion out of the water.

It's very closely connected. The problem of removing everything, like I said before, is that teammates and coaching impacts players a ton. And luck is just too big of a factor as well.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Again I bring up the Grizzlies this year and you continue to ignore it. That team around Randolph is literally the ideal Dirk team. It's ****ing perfect for him. He never had that...not once in his prime. And unless you want to somehow claim that Randolph is easier to build around then Dirk....then it kind of blows your whole assertion out of the water.

Eh, the Grizzlies don't really revolve around Randolph in the same way. I'd argue that Gasol is their best player, and in general, as far as value and role, their top 3(Gasol, Randolph and Conley) have probably the smallest difference between all 3 compared to any really good team in quite some time.

I would like to see prime Dirk with this Memphis team, though.

[guy]

So basically you are saying;

The best players are the best players because they are the best players. No shit.

What I took issue with is your assertion that somehow if Dirk had been Duncan...the Mavs would have kept Nash or somehow gotten better players. That just isn't true. The Mavs no doubt would have been better with Duncan, but this notion that a Duncan led Mavs team was going to bring in better players just is non sense.

You keep talking about this ripple effect...but you are just giving way too much credit to singular players. Way too much of this is out of the control of a player.

Again I bring up the Grizzlies this year and you continue to ignore it. That team around Randolph is literally the ideal Dirk team. It's ****ing perfect for him. He never had that...not once in his prime. And unless you want to somehow claim that Randolph is easier to build around then Dirk....then it kind of blows your whole assertion out of the water.

It's very closely connected. The problem of removing everything, like I said before, is that teammates and coaching impacts players a ton. And luck is just too big of a factor as well.

You still didn't really provide any insight to what I said. Is it just a coincidence that the best players who are the best players because they are the best players just so happen to be considered the ones with the greatest help? But even if you remove them from their circumstance and just judge them off everything else, they would still be considered the greatest players? Its not a coincidence. Its cause they're easier to build around. Sure some luck is involved, and other people need to do their jobs, but bottom line is its not a coincidence and those players are just easier to build around then lower tier superstars.

I really don't think there's anything that special about these Grizzlies so I don't really see your point. They've obviously benefited greatly from other teams' injuries and I'm not sure they'd beat the Spurs, and if they did I highly doubt they'd beat the Heat barring injury or a Lebron meltdown. And if it was Dirk in ZBo's place, I don't think that really changes. I definitely don't think this team is better then the 2011 Mavs.

[K Xerxes]

The only thing guaranteed each year is that the best team will win the championship (major injuries notwithstanding). Is that your definition of a stacked team, though? Or is it just the team with the most star talent? The deepest team on the league? Both?

People here are debating with different definitions of stacked. Set your definition and believe me the discussion will be more productive.