Could Dallas have competed in 2012 if they kept the title team together?

[Im Still Ballin]

Do you think they could've made a run at the title again if the same team returned?

Cuban tried to chase big free agents Dwight Howard and Deron Williams, effectively gutting the 2011 championship team. They lost Tyson Chandler and JJ Barea, as well as lesser players DeShawn Stevenson and Corey Brewer. Chandler would go on to win DPOY in New York the next season. He was definitely the biggest loss.

Looking at the team stats, it appears it was the offense that fell off. A -3.7 rORtg decrease while the rDRtg stayed the same. Obviously, this is only a regular season average, so it doesn't include the postseason nor does it account for injuries. If anyone has full-strength and/or playoff rORtg + rDRtg numbers please share them.

2011 Mavericks: +2.4 rORtg; -2.3 rDRtg
2012 Mavericks: -1.3 rORtg; -2.3 rDRtg

Here's a deeper look at the four factors on offense and defense. The biggest difference was a 3.6% decrease in eFG%, which can be attributed to a relatively equal decline in 2PT%, 3PT%, and FTr (free-throw rate.)

2011 Four Factors:

https://i.ibb.co/nQ3gVpB/8ZXO8WK.png

2012 Four Factors:

https://i.ibb.co/H20Yvqw/qsnJ4Nh.png

I wonder if they missed Tyson Chandler's pick-and-roll scoring and gravity. He was a 10.1 ppg, 9.4 rpg (2.8 offensive), 65.4% FG, 69.7% TS guy in the 2011 regular season. In only 27.8 minutes per game mind you. All these numbers are made to look better when you consider this was the 2010-11 season. His 2PT+ and TS+ were 134 and 129, respectively.

His 2012 numbers with NYK were even better: 68.3% FG (heaves/threes removed), 70.8% TS, 143 2PT+, and 134 TS+.

Perhaps Dallas' half-court offense suffered due to worse shot quality. But I'm sure there were some other factors at play, such as aging and injuries. But losing Tyson was definitely a big blow. Any Dallas fans with more insight?

[iamgine]

They could but very unlikely. In 2011, almost everybody in Dallas uniform stepped up big in the playoff compared to regular season. It's very rare that this happens.

[ArbitraryWater]

I think so.


2012 they should have won the first 2 games in Oklahoma, they got screwed in not just one but both iirc.

Peak OKC whistle times.

[Im Still Ballin]

Chandler was a ferocious PnR roll and cut man. He had an interesting career trajectory. Was initially somewhat of a disappointment in Chicago if I recall correctly. He and Eddy Curry. Ended up finding his niche in New Orleans with Chris Paul. The early '00s wasn't a great period of time for his roll and cut skill set he'd later specialize in.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1fRx_VbW5Y

[Neal Romer]

Yeah, Chandler was a guy who affected winning just as much or more than a Dilbert Arenas or Carmelo or Stoudamire, but nobody would ever dare rank him with those guys bc of "ppgz."

[beasted]

Yeah, Chandler was a guy who affected winning just as much or more than a Dilbert Arenas or Carmelo or Stoudamire, but nobody would ever dare rank him with those guys bc of "ppgz."

Nostalgic hyperbole.

Chandler was an elite role player, but a role player nonetheless. Averaged more TOs than assists every year of his career, terrible FT shooter and useless outside of 6 feet from the basket.

We regularly roast Rudy who's better at nearly every category of basketball than Chandler for his very narrow focused ability to impact the game, and yet you're suggesting Chandler, a much lesser player has the same impact of a Carmelo who absorbed half of the opposing coaching staff's game planning to scheme around?

No, let's just praise him for who he was. A great defender and finisher, but a limited player who couldn't shoot, and needed to be assisted on 74% of his FGs otherwise you were playing 4 on 5 offense.

[beasted]

Also there's a huge divide between Anthony and Gilbert, and it's disingenuous to categorize them together.

[Neal Romer]

Nostalgic hyperbole.

Chandler was an elite role player, but a role player nonetheless. Averaged more TOs than assists every year of his career, terrible FT shooter and useless outside of 6 feet from the basket.

We regularly roast Rudy who's better at nearly every category of basketball than Chandler for his very narrow focused ability to impact the game, and yet you're suggesting Chandler, a much lesser player has the same impact of a Carmelo who absorbed half of the opposing coaching staff's game planning to scheme around?

No, let's just praise him for who he was. A great defender and finisher, but a limited player who couldn't shoot, and needed to be assisted on 74% of his FGs otherwise you were playing 4 on 5 offense.


Teams did not need to scheme for Carmelo. He was a middling efficiency scorer who couldnt get his teammates involved and gave back points defensively.

The "scheme" was let Carmelo just be himself, and any good team will beat his team.

I'm not someone who sees role players and "stars" as a linear progression, as tho the best role player is still lower in value than the worst star. Stars are players who attract fans. It's not a measure of quality.

For instance defense, rebounding, and rim running are never "caveat assets." Theres never, to my knowledge, a trade off to having an edge there. Individual scoring does not necessarily create an edge, if it comes at the expense of maximizing the team's offensive opportunity as a whole. It's just that because the result of the game is measured in points scored, and not rebounds grabbed or loose balls won or opponent fatigue generated by offball movement, people assume "the guy who scored most, helped most." I dont believe that to be automatically true.

Ofc scoring is helpful, but a guy who understands how to use his scoring talents as a tool for uplifting the team is not the same as a guy who's just going out there to score.

My opinion is that if you put prime Melo and prime Chandler on two different teams and are tasked with building each a winner from there, the team with Chandler is in no way at some kind of disadvantage.

[warriorfan]

I can accept the answer that Melo is overrated for the statistics he does put up but it’s getting taken too far when he’s being portrayed as a net negative player. At least in his prime that is.

Tyson Chandler is on the other end of the spectrum where his value is probably more than you would expect if you just looked at his box score.

There was a good point earlier about how Tyson Chandler is sort of like a poor man’s Rudy Gobert, and how it’s funny because the common rap about Gobert is he is a unskilled loser who tanks his teams ceilings, where Tyson has the rep of a solid player who plays winning basketball. It really does come down to the lense we view these guys in. And also simply likability plays a big factor in how we evaluate players. Melo and Arenas can simply be gigantic asses, Gobert seems to have trouble everywhere he goes, and as much as we like to think we are good at separating our biases on things like that, we really aren’t.

[dankok8]

I doubt it because Dallas just wasn't as motivated afterwards. Winning that ring was what drove them. Like a post above said, all the veterans on that team gave it 110% in the 2011 playoffs. Their luck was also going to run out at some point. I hate to say it but LA and Miami both imploding had a lot to do with them winning in 2011. Dallas was certainly not the weakest champ ever but they were definitely on the weaker side ranking 46th out of 70 title teams in rNet since the shot clock and the majority of the teams below them are from 40+ years ago.

[SouBeachTalents]

Imo no, a couple of role players doesn't change the outcome from a first round sweep in the first round to contending for a championship. Plus, I felt like all the contenders from the year before like Miami, San Antonio & OKC all improved from the year before.

Best case scenario maybe they replace on of the L.A. teams in the 2nd round if they ran it back in 2012.

[beasted]

My opinion is that if you put prime Melo and prime Chandler on two different teams and are tasked with building each a winner from there, the team with Chandler is in no way at some kind of disadvantage.

Unless you begin to put the money : impact ratio into this calculation, there's no scenario from a purely basketball decision which says under the most ideal teammate formula for success that Chandler produces similar or better impact to Anthony.

For example if we're doing a thought exercise where we are building a series of all time Olympic teams (as this negates the money aspect), and where we can choose any player from any era at the peak of their prime to pair woth any other 4 teammates, but only allowed to use each all-time player once as part of a 5-man unit, Carmelo would always get selected before Chandler. Agree or disagree?

[beasted]

I can accept the answer that Melo is overrated for the statistics he does put up but it’s getting taken too far when he’s being portrayed as a net negative player. At least in his prime that is.

Tyson Chandler is on the other end of the spectrum where his value is probably more than you would expect if you just looked at his box score.

There was a good point earlier about how Tyson Chandler is sort of like a poor man’s Rudy Gobert, and how it’s funny because the common rap about Gobert is he is a unskilled loser who tanks his teams ceilings, where Tyson has the rep of a solid player who plays winning basketball. It really does come down to the lense we view these guys in. And also simply likability plays a big factor in how we evaluate players. Melo and Arenas can simply be gigantic asses, Gobert seems to have trouble everywhere he goes, and as much as we like to think we are good at separating our biases on things like that, we really aren’t.

Nobody would be a harsh on Gobert if he didn't constantly cry about accolades and recognition, and if he didn't make the max. Chandler never made the max, I don't even think ever was more than 20% of the team's cap.

[beasted]

My opinion is that if you put prime Melo and prime Chandler on two different teams and are tasked with building each a winner from there, the team with Chandler is in no way at some kind of disadvantage.

If this exercise can use any selection of teammates, I think Carmelo's team wins. The crux of it comes down to simply evaluating their deficiencies vs strengths.

As evidenced by his seasons with Billups and Olympic play, it's clear there are scenarios where Anthony can be very efficient if used in the right capacity. We've also seen spots here and there where he's played decent enough system defense.

But even under the most ideal scenarios, Chandler will be a liability outside of 6 feet, needing to get assisted on roughly 70%+ of his shots, will be incapable of passing in any capacity (even if he's screening well, the dribble handoff is non- existent), will be a terrible FT shooter exposing you in the clutch, and even for all of his great impact defensively, needs to play in a drop.

Under the most ideal scenario Caremelo has the size and strength to defend more positions than Chandler, and has less deficiencies

[tpols]

Chandler was an elite role player, but a role player nonetheless. Averaged more TOs than assists every year of his career


This has got to be the most asinine analysis for a player of his archetype that I've ever seen on this forum.

[1987_Lakers]

This has got to be the most asinine analysis for a player of his archetype that I've ever seen on this forum.

Not as crazy as your Siakam > Giannis claim.

[tpols]

Not as crazy as your Siakam > Giannis claim.

You're a petty little **** aren't ya? :lol

[1987_Lakers]

You're a petty little **** aren't ya? :lol

If I see an opening I'm taking it. You leave yourself open alot.

[ArbitraryWater]

If I see an opening I'm taking it. You leave yourself open alot.

Hahahaha damn

[beasted]

This has got to be the most asinine analysis for a player of his archetype that I've ever seen on this forum.

Hey, not my fault you don't know ball.

If a guy was assisted at a 70%+ rate throughout his career, it means he lacks basic foot work, dribbling skills, and the touch needed to create his own offense. If he averages under an assist and a 1:2 assist to turnover ratio for his career, it tells us that he's incapable of passing. And, finally, as evidenced by his putrid FT percentage and garbage shooting distance splits, which indicates he rarely ever attempted shots outside of 5 feet and when he did he missed a high percentage them, this illustrates he cannot shoot.

So here we have a player who cannot perform the most rudimentary of skills needed to play basketball at any level, let alone professional ball: dribble, pass, and shoot. And you're trying to sell me that this player is more than a role player?

No, I refuse to buy that. He made a career out of being 7 ft tall and extremely athletic for his size. But there was barely an ounce of skill in his play. His defensive timing and instincts were good, but would you even put them top 50 all-time? I wouldn't, not even close.

[Im Still Ballin]

Unless you begin to put the money : impact ratio into this calculation, there's no scenario from a purely basketball decision which says under the most ideal teammate formula for success that Chandler produces similar or better impact to Anthony.

For example if we're doing a thought exercise where we are building a series of all time Olympic teams (as this negates the money aspect), and where we can choose any player from any era at the peak of their prime to pair woth any other 4 teammates, but only allowed to use each all-time player once as part of a 5-man unit, Carmelo would always get selected before Chandler. Agree or disagree?

Opportunity cost, homie! Didn't Denver play better post-trade in 2010-11?

[Im Still Ballin]

Denver was 32-25 when Carmelo Anthony and Chauncey Billups were traded.

The Nuggets actually beat Memphis (a team that beat 61-win #1 seed San Antonio and took OKC 7 games in the 2nd round in the playoffs that year) when they had neither the traded players (Carmelo, Billups) nor the acquired players (Wilson Chandler, Raymond Felton, Danilo Gallinari, Timofey Mozgov).

So, Denver was 32-25 (56.1%) pre-trade and 18-7 (72.0%) post-trade.

What's also interesting is Denver's offenses became better after trading Melo and Chauncey. Take a look at the offensive ratings and relative offensive ratings:

https://i.ibb.co/yfRyzH9/Denver-Nuggets-Carmelo-Karl-Eras.png

Here's the full Carmelo trade details: (It acquired Denver Jamal Murray!)


February 22, 2011: As part of a 3-team trade, traded by the Denver Nuggets with Renaldo Balkman, Chauncey Billups, Anthony Carter, Shelden Williams and a 2016 1st round draft pick (Jakob Pöltl was later selected) to the New York Knicks;

the Denver Nuggets traded a 2015 2nd round draft pick (Richaun Holmes was later selected) to the Minnesota Timberwolves;

the Minnesota Timberwolves traded Kosta Koufos to the Denver Nuggets;

the Minnesota Timberwolves traded Corey Brewer to the New York Knicks;

the New York Knicks traded Wilson Chandler, Raymond Felton, Danilo Gallinari, Timofey Mozgov, cash, a 2012 2nd round draft pick (Quincy Miller was later selected), a 2013 2nd round draft pick (Romero Osby was later selected), a 2014 1st round draft pick (Dario Šarić was later selected) and a 2016 1st round draft pick (Jamal Murray was later selected) to the Denver Nuggets;

and the New York Knicks traded Eddy Curry, Anthony Randolph and cash to the Minnesota Timberwolves. (Nuggets acquired right to swap 2016 1st-Rd picks with Knicks) (Nuggets acquired right to swap 2016 1st-Rd picks with Knicks)

[3ba11]

yes but for some reason cuban let chandler go

[1987_Lakers]

Back to the OP, I don't see Dallas going too far even if they kept Chandler.

By 2012, Dirk was starting to show signs of slowing down while you had teams like OKC & San Antonio getting better.

[1987_Lakers]

On a side note, I thought for sure the Spurs were at least making the Finals that year, they were absolutely smoking teams. Even got up 2-0 vs OKC in the conference finals, them losing 4 straight was pretty shocking to me.

[3ba11]

maybe but chandler was like the draymond role that keeps the engine running smoothly and gives the team a tough front - we know what happens when the engine gets cut off and suspended suddenly - it can take a little too long to get back up to a well-oiled running machine again

[Im Still Ballin]

Chemistry and continuity are underrated. Removing one key player from a team can have seismic effects that appear greater than the player themself. Eg: Jrue Holiday and Milwaukee.

[red1]

heat would've got them that year



2012 heat would beat the 2011 mavs

[SouBeachTalents]

On a side note, I thought for sure the Spurs were at least making the Finals that year, they were absolutely smoking teams. Even got up 2-0 vs OKC in the conference finals, them losing 4 straight was pretty shocking to me.
The Spurs were on a 20 game winning streak, and had won 31 of 33, it's honestly a very underrated feat OKC was able to come back from 2-0 down against team on a tear like that.

[beasted]

Opportunity cost, homie! Didn't Denver play better post-trade in 2010-11?

That's the only way to get an edge in this conversation. They got back multiple players including one of the better upcoming players still on a rookie contract in Gallo.

[Doomsday Dallas]

No.

2011 was the last window of opportunity for Dirk & the Mavs.

[Im Still Ballin]

That's the only way to get an edge in this conversation. They got back multiple players including one of the better upcoming players still on a rookie contract in Gallo.

The opportunity cost extends not only to player salary but on-court play. A player like Carmelo will use up a significant amount of offensive possessions. Is that high usage to the detriment of teammates? Is he making teammates better? Or is he robbing them of opportunity and simply putting up stats for stats' sake?

The answer isn't always clear. But we know Anthony wasn't much of a playmaker or off-ball threat. At least not until his three-point shot developed in New York.

[beasted]

The opportunity cost extends not only to player salary but on-court play. A player like Carmelo will use up a significant amount of offensive possessions. Is that high usage to the detriment of teammates? Is he making teammates better? Or is he robbing them of opportunity and simply putting up stats for stats' sake?

The answer isn't always clear. But we know Anthony wasn't much of a playmaker or off-ball threat. At least not until his three-point shot developed in New York.

And yet he contributed massively to winning an NCAA title and multiple gold medals. There's obviously a winning formula that includes Carmelo.

My argument is that just because the winning formula wasn't realized in Denver or New York that a Tyson Chandler caliber player is not suddenly a more valuable replacement player. .

[Im Still Ballin]

And yet he contributed massively to winning an NCAA title and multiple gold medals. There's obviously a winning formula that includes Carmelo.

My argument is that just because the winning formula wasn't realized in Denver or New York that a Tyson Chandler caliber player is not suddenly a more valuable replacement player. .

They're not replacing each other, are they? They play different positions and different roles. Chandler's game is more portable and basketball is ultimately a five-on-five team sport. I'm not someone who believes in the false narratives regarding what winning basketball teams look like. You can win with a defensively-slanted, offensively-slanted, or balanced team.

And an effective offense can look any number of ways. There are roughly 90 to 115 points a game (depending on the era) that a team needs to score. These can be accounted for in a variety of distributions, like a pizza that can be sliced two, three, four, five, or six ways to Sunday.

The 2014 Spurs had six guys averaging double-digit points per game, the highest being 16.7. Nine guys in the rotation, 8.2 ppg the lowest and 16.7 the highest. The 2010s Spurs had very democratic/by-committee offenses up until Kawhi took on a larger burden. Which didn't lead to much improvement in team offense mind you.


2010: +2.4 rORtg
2011: +4.5 rORtg
2012: +6.3 rORtg
2013: +2.4 rORtg
2014: +3.8 rORtg
2015: +2.9 rORtg
2016: +3.9 rORtg
2017: +2.3 rORtg
2018: -0.7 rORtg
2019: +2.5 rORtg
2020: +1.8 rORtg

The Flip Saunders Detroit Pistons had a four-pronged approach: four players between 14.1 and 20.1 ppg.


2006: +4.6 rORtg
2007: +2.4 rORtg
2008: +3.9 rORtg

I could go on about George Karl's SuperSonics and post-Carmelo Denver teams but I think you get the picture. Hell, Magic's Lakers were spread as hell in their points distribution. Better regular season relative offensive ratings than the Kobe-Shaq Lakers. The '98 young Lakers and Kobe-Pau Lakers beat out the Kobe-Shaq Lakers too.

Offensive advantages can be attained through great teamwork and more players than you think can create and hit a tough shot in the clutch. Not that every clutch bucket has to be an isolation pullup jump shot off the dribble... The three-peat Lakers played better with Shaq sans Kobe than the opposite. And O'Neal certainly wasn't taking the shots down the stretch.


From their first championship year(99/00) to their final year together(03/04), Kobe played 48 games without Shaq, with the Lakers' record being 23-25. Shaq played 41 games without Kobe, with the Lakers' record being 31-10.

Goes back to those false narratives about the game. Winning teams come in a variety of formats. Great offenses and defenses can look any number of ways. A high-impact player can look any number of ways. The false dichotomy of "role players" and "stars" that Neal Romer alluded to. Or "floor raisers" and "ceiling raisers."

Chandler's game is more portable and basketball is ultimately a five-on-five team sport. What role is Carmelo playing on my team? Because his value is far more limited to a select number of circumstances. It's not about Carmelo vs. Chandler. It's about Chandler's team vs. Carmelo's.

Hell, I don't know what team would be better:

- 2011 Carmelo + [Nene, Aaron Afflalo, Al Harrington, Ty Lawson, JR Smith, Wilson Chandler, Raymond Felton, Danilo Gallinari, Timofey Mozgov]
- 2011 Tyson Chandler + [Nene, Aaron Afflalo, Al Harrington, Ty Lawson, JR Smith, Wilson Chandler, Raymond Felton, Danilo Gallinari, Timofey Mozgov]

I honestly think Tyson Chandler's team would be better. He brings a flexible skill set that fits with these players. He'd function as a better Chris Andersen. Portable offensive value from screening, rolling, cutting, and offensive rebounding. Portable defensive value from rim and paint protection, as well as stout pick-and-roll defense and competent defensive rebounding.

But Carmelo? He distorts the offense and most likely doesn't improve it to any measurable degree. If at all. He limits what the other guys can do because he'll use up so many of the offensive possessions. And he sure as hell isn't providing value on defense.

[beasted]

They're not replacing each other, are they? They play different positions and different roles. Chandler's game is more portable and basketball is ultimately a five-on-five team sport. I'm not someone who believes in the false narratives regarding what winning basketball teams look like. You can win with a defensively-slanted, offensively-slanted, or balanced team.

And an effective offense can look any number of ways. There are roughly 90 to 115 points a game (depending on the era) that a team needs to score. These can be accounted for in a variety of distributions, like a pizza that can be sliced two, three, four, five, or six ways to Sunday.

The 2014 Spurs had six guys averaging double-digit points per game, the highest being 16.7. Nine guys in the rotation, 8.2 ppg the lowest and 16.7 the highest. The 2010s Spurs had very democratic/by-committee offenses up until Kawhi took on a larger burden. Which didn't lead to much improvement in team offense mind you.



The Flip Saunders Detroit Pistons had a four-pronged approach: four players between 14.1 and 20.1 ppg.



I could go on about George Karl's SuperSonics and post-Carmelo Denver teams but I think you get the picture. Hell, Magic's Lakers were spread as hell in their points distribution. Better regular season relative offensive ratings than the Kobe-Shaq Lakers. The '98 young Lakers and Kobe-Pau Lakers beat out the Kobe-Shaq Lakers too.

Offensive advantages can be attained through great teamwork and more players than you think can create and hit a tough shot in the clutch. Not that every clutch bucket has to be an isolation pullup jump shot off the dribble... The three-peat Lakers played better with Shaq sans Kobe than the opposite. And O'Neal certainly wasn't taking the shots down the stretch.



Goes back to those false narratives about the game. Winning teams come in a variety of formats. Great offenses and defenses can look any number of ways. A high-impact player can look any number of ways. The false dichotomy of "role players" and "stars" that Neal Romer alluded to. Or "floor raisers" and "ceiling raisers."

Chandler's game is more portable and basketball is ultimately a five-on-five team sport. What role is Carmelo playing on my team? Because his value is far more limited to a select number of circumstances. It's not about Carmelo vs. Chandler. It's about Chandler's team vs. Carmelo's.

Hell, I don't know what team would be better:

- 2011 Carmelo + [Nene, Aaron Afflalo, Al Harrington, Ty Lawson, JR Smith, Wilson Chandler, Raymond Felton, Danilo Gallinari, Timofey Mozgov]
- 2011 Tyson Chandler + [Nene, Aaron Afflalo, Al Harrington, Ty Lawson, JR Smith, Wilson Chandler, Raymond Felton, Danilo Gallinari, Timofey Mozgov]

I honestly think Tyson Chandler's team would be better. He brings a flexible skill set that fits with these players. He'd function as a better Chris Andersen. Portable offensive value from screening, rolling, cutting, and offensive rebounding. Portable defensive value from rim and paint protection, as well as stout pick-and-roll defense and competent defensive rebounding.

But Carmelo? He distorts the offense and most likely doesn't improve it to any measurable degree. If at all. He limits what the other guys can do because he'll use up so many of the offensive possessions. And he sure as hell isn't providing value on defense.

This still looks past the real world evidence where teams won with Carmelo as the highest usage player. Chandler has contributed to less winning from a ultimate goal (title, medal, etc.), and has won less from a game by game basis (has a sub .500 career win record). Basically by bypassing the actual results, we're hypothesizing which player could perform better in the most optimal situation.

Which brings us to the fit argument. Fit has never surpassed talent. Magic as a 6'9" ball dominant PG means he is much more difficult to fit than Klay. But any person who chooses Klay over Magic from a pure basketball impact on winning perspective is just stupid.

Chandler being a run of the mill rim running Center who plays great defense makes him easier to fit on a number of rosters. Doesn't mean he would contribute greater to winning than Carmelo nor my example of Magic.

[Im Still Ballin]

This still looks past the real world evidence where teams won with Carmelo as the highest usage player. Chandler has contributed to less winning from a ultimate goal (title, medal, etc.), and has won less from a game by game basis (has a sub .500 career win record). Basically by bypassing the actual results, we're hypothesizing which player could perform better in the most optimal situation.

Which brings us to the fit argument. Fit has never surpassed talent. Magic as a 6'9" ball dominant PG means he is much more difficult to fit than Klay. But any person who chooses Klay over Magic from a pure basketball impact on winning perspective is just stupid.

Chandler being a run of the mill rim running Center who plays great defense makes him easier to fit on a number of rosters. Doesn't mean he would contribute greater to winning than Carmelo nor my example of Magic.

Nobody is saying you can't win with Carmelo. Denver was six wins from it in 2009. Just that his value falls within a narrower set of circumstances. And his impact in a primary role wasn't all that impressive to tell you the truth. And if I don't value him in the circumstance that best suits his game, why would I want him? His lack of portability means his value falls off a steep cliff outside of that ideal role.

Sometimes guys are just putting up stats without moving the needle as much as their box score numbers would indicate.

The 28-year RAPM database has T. Chandler at +3.3 per 100 possessions impact (+0.4 off; -2.9 def) and C. Anthony at +1.4 per 100 possessions impact (+3 off; +1.6 def). This covers their entire careers; it accounts for every role that they played. When Melo was the primary scoring option (DEN, NYK), when he was the secondary/tertiary option (OKC), and when he was playing more of a role (HOU, POR, LAL).

Sure, RAPM is just one stat. But it's interesting how damn near all of Melo's primary scoring option contemporaries rank far higher in it than him. Even many of his teammates from Denver do too.

My general suspicion is that his team's success in Denver had more to do with his teammates, depth, and coaching than it did with him. Hence why they continued to play well despite replacing him and Chauncey. George Karl's teams were known for deeper rotations and multiple offensive contributors.

The bottom line for me is this: I like Chandler in his optimal role more than I like Carmelo in his. I'd rather have a better primary offensive player than Melo. Hell, I'd take two high-quality, lesser-volume/secondary/tertiary offensive players over him and go for more of a balanced team offense. Like Danilo Gallinari and Ty Lawson.

And this all is without considering player salary. Just basketball. But TBH, it's stupid not to consider player salaries because this is professional basketball, not a pickup game.

[Im Still Ballin]

Being a Sacramento fan, I'm reminded of DeMarcus Cousins. Huge counting stats, All-Star appearances, and a general perception of "star" status. But woeful team results.

George Karl tried to trade him and looking back he would've been right to. When they did eventually trade him two years later Sacramento, within one-and-a-half seasons, would go on to have its most winningest season in 13 years, when Rick Adelman still coached the team.

Sometimes a guy putting up big numbers doesn't mean as much as many want it to.

[beasted]

Being a Sacramento fan, I'm reminded of DeMarcus Cousins. Huge counting stats, All-Star appearances, and a general perception of "star" status. But woeful team results.

George Karl tried to trade him and looking back he would've been right to. When they did eventually trade him two years later Sacramento, within one-and-a-half seasons, would go on to have its most winningest season in 13 years, when Rick Adelman still coached the team.

Sometimes a guy putting up big numbers doesn't mean as much as many want it to.

This is an unfair comparison because rookie Carmelo instantly created a winner. Rookie to prime Melo won consistently.

Cousins was a perennial loser who underachieved even on a stacked roster (Davis, Holiday, Rondo, Mirotic). This comparison is total hyperbole of the volume scorer archetype.

[Im Still Ballin]

This is an unfair comparison because rookie Carmelo instantly created a winner. Rookie to prime Melo won consistently.

Cousins was a perennial loser who underachieved even on a stacked roster (Davis, Holiday, Rondo, Mirotic). This comparison is total hyperbole of the volume scorer archetype.

My impression was that Melo had relatively strong supporting casts. Higher-end offensive options in Iverson and Billups. But it was the depth of quality impact guys that stood out to me. Names like Andre Miller, JR Smith, Ty Lawson, Al Harrington, Arron Aflalo, Marcus Camby, Nene, Chris Andersen, and Kenyon Martin. Najera and Kleiza weren't too bad for role players either.

Kenyon wasn't worth his contract but they had a number of guys whose impact numbers jumped off the page. Andre Miller and Nene for instance.

Between 2004-05 and 2010-11, Denver had a 51-41 record (55.4%) without Carmelo Anthony. Removing 2010-11, it's 30-30. In a murderously tough '00s Western Conference mind you.

[dankok8]

Melo is a good floor raiser. Put him on a woeful 20-win team and his offense will raise them to respectability and some playoff births. Chandler won't help them much at all. In this situation Melo might be worth 20 wins and Chandler might be worth 5 wins. Because a 20-win cast won't have enough scoring, good playmakers to set up Chandler, or other good defenders to mesh with him.

But put Melo on a 50-win team and he might improve them 5 wins only. Why? Because he doesn't pass well so the other good scorers on that team won't benefit from the defensive attention he attracts, he isn't a deadeye shooter (like say KD) to play off-ball and he brings little in other areas of the game like defense. That's why someone like Chandler can actually be more valuable on many rosters that can win a championship. Chandler is a better ceiling raiser and can be worth 10 wins to that 50-win team and push them into contender territory whereas Melo won't.

[beasted]

Melo is a good floor raiser. Put him on a woeful 20-win team and his offense will raise them to respectability and some playoff births. Chandler won't help them much at all. In this situation Melo might be worth 20 wins and Chandler might be worth 5 wins. Because a 20-win cast won't have enough scoring, good playmakers to set up Chandler, or other good defenders to mesh with him.

But put Melo on a 50-win team and he might improve them 5 wins only. Why? Because he doesn't pass well so the other good scorers on that team won't benefit from the defensive attention he attracts, he isn't a deadeye shooter (like say KD) to play off-ball and he brings little in other areas of the game like defense. That's why someone like Chandler can actually be more valuable on many rosters that can win a championship. Chandler is a better ceiling raiser and can be worth 10 wins to that 50-win team and push them into contender territory whereas Melo won't.

This was an artfulway of putting it, and I agree, but what you just described was a good role player who provides a critical component that every championship team needs, which is defense, rebounding, and players who can perform well without needing the ball.

To use the Harden trope "I am the system" apllies to Carmelo as well. He's a core component of a team's entire offense. Like it or dislike it , the guys who get all the criticism just because they haven't won like Harden, Carmelo, Westbrook, etc. are still so clearly more valuable from a pure positive impact measure than great role players like Chandler.

A you stated, Chandler is a great piece once you've figured out the most important pieces first.

[Im Still Ballin]

Melo is a good floor raiser. Put him on a woeful 20-win team and his offense will raise them to respectability and some playoff births. Chandler won't help them much at all. In this situation Melo might be worth 20 wins and Chandler might be worth 5 wins. Because a 20-win cast won't have enough scoring, good playmakers to set up Chandler, or other good defenders to mesh with him.

But put Melo on a 50-win team and he might improve them 5 wins only. Why? Because he doesn't pass well so the other good scorers on that team won't benefit from the defensive attention he attracts, he isn't a deadeye shooter (like say KD) to play off-ball and he brings little in other areas of the game like defense. That's why someone like Chandler can actually be more valuable on many rosters that can win a championship. Chandler is a better ceiling raiser and can be worth 10 wins to that 50-win team and push them into contender territory whereas Melo won't.

That's basically what I and Neal Romer were getting at. The goal is to win a championship, not lead a subpar supporting cast to a bottom-four or play-in seed, and get bounced in round one of the playoffs.

[Im Still Ballin]

This was an artfulway of putting it, and I agree, but what you just described was a good role player who provides a critical component that every championship team needs, which is defense, rebounding, and players who can perform well without needing the ball.

To use the Harden trope "I am the system" apllies to Carmelo as well. He's a core component of a team's entire offense. Like it or dislike it , the guys who get all the criticism just because they haven't won like Harden, Carmelo, Westbrook, etc. are still so clearly more valuable from a pure positive impact measure than great role players like Chandler.

A you stated, Chandler is a great piece once you've figured out the most important pieces first.

But how valuable is that "system" of Melo's? Because he's not much of a playmaker, unlike Westbrook and Harden. He didn't show a consistent ability to elevate teammates with their high-usage play.

It's not about Carmelo vs. Chandler. It's a team with Carmelo on it versus a team with Chandler on it. There are many ways for me to match or surpass what Anthony offers. I could get a superior high-volume creator or two or three moderate-volume offensive players. We saw the latter in Denver; Carmelo (and Chauncey) were replaced effectively by guys like Gallinari and Lawson. The relative offensive ratings improved if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not in a position of scarcity that I have to take Carmelo. The market presents several alternative pathways that don't limit the number of high-end team outcomes. And that's just basketball. You add in player salaries, personalities, off-court stuff and the juice just ain't worth the squeeze.

[ILLsmak]

I can accept the answer that Melo is overrated for the statistics he does put up but it’s getting taken too far when he’s being portrayed as a net negative player. At least in his prime that is.

Tyson Chandler is on the other end of the spectrum where his value is probably more than you would expect if you just looked at his box score.

There was a good point earlier about how Tyson Chandler is sort of like a poor man’s Rudy Gobert, and how it’s funny because the common rap about Gobert is he is a unskilled loser who tanks his teams ceilings, where Tyson has the rep of a solid player who plays winning basketball. It really does come down to the lense we view these guys in. And also simply likability plays a big factor in how we evaluate players. Melo and Arenas can simply be gigantic asses, Gobert seems to have trouble everywhere he goes, and as much as we like to think we are good at separating our biases on things like that, we really aren’t.

Chandler is different than Gobert. I agree with Gobert being a bitch. I dunno how it works out, but he just is haha. He plays good D a lot of the time inside, but he also does some strange shit. Chandler was a great finish guy and lob threat. I don't think Gobert is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1fRx_VbW5Y That's really all you need on offense from your defensive center. Look at Gobert's oops. He is so much less mobile.

To answer the question, imo no. It was a magical run, but they knew and that's why they didn't. It's kinda like people acting like the Cs have a chance of repeating, haha. Oh oops. But yea I'll eat that if I'm wrong.

Edit: Re: Melo. He'd be great on a team with a great PG who could decide when he got the ball. If he got Melo touches and could just jack then they ran the offense normal, it would work. His problem is he got the ball too much. He's not high IQ in regards to game flow, but his game and motor are really nice. He's a legit competitor. He's just got flaws. They could be mitigated, though.

-Smak

[beasted]

But how valuable is that "system" of Melo's? Because he's not much of a playmaker, unlike Westbrook and Harden. He didn't show a consistent ability to elevate teammates with their high-usage play.

It's not about Carmelo vs. Chandler. It's a team with Carmelo on it versus a team with Chandler on it. There are many ways for me to match or surpass what Anthony offers. I could get a superior high-volume creator or two or three moderate-volume offensive players. We saw the latter in Denver; Carmelo (and Chauncey) were replaced effectively by guys like Gallinari and Lawson. The relative offensive ratings improved if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not in a position of scarcity that I have to take Carmelo. The market presents several alternative pathways that don't limit the number of high-end team outcomes. And that's just basketball. You add in player salaries, personalities, off-court stuff and the juice just ain't worth the squeeze.

Like it or not, you're never winning with some score by committee grouping of moderate scorers. You need a player of Carmelo's offensive ability to play in absolute peak form or you simply need a player better than him.

The only times a team has won with score by committee is with all time great level defense. And even if I was going that route, Chandler is not even in the top 30 Centers that first come to mind to anchor a poor offensive team that needs to extract every single drop of defense.

This is why I say if I'm picking from an all- time draft, Carmelo is more valuable and gets picked before Chandler does. I have no shot to win if Chandler is the best guy available. I at least have a puncher's chance that I can pair a mediocre efficiency volume scorer with a #1 ranked defense with the role players I drafted after Carmelo, and a coach who can get him to be slightly more efficient as the closest chance at a winning formula.

[Im Still Ballin]

Like it or not, you're never winning with some score by committee grouping of moderate scorers.

San Antonio in 2014.


You need a player of Carmelo's offensive ability to play in absolute peak form or you simply need a player better than him.

False dichotomy. All I need is a better team offense, which I can accomplish in a number of ways. And Carmelo's offensive ability isn't something I value as highly as you seem to. He doesn't create many opportunities for teammates and his scoring stagnates the offense.

Better and more efficient scorers have put up bigger numbers and led their teams to mediocre offenses. See: early-career Wilt, Adrian Dantley, Bernard King.


The only times a team has won with score by committee is with all time great level defense.

Incorrect. And please define "score by committee" and "all-time great level defense." At what point do these terms apply? Because obviously there's a spectrum at play here. When does a defense become all-time great? When does a team's offense become by committee?

'14 Spurs, '90 Pistons, '89 Pistons, '88 Lakers, '87 Lakers, '84 Lakers, '82 Lakers, '81 Celtics, '79 SuperSonics, '78 Bullets, '77 Blazers, '76 Celtics, '74 Celtics, '73 Knicks, '72 Pacers (ABA), '71 Stars (ABA), '70 Pacers (ABA), '67 Sixers, and the '55 Nationals...

There were a handful of other teams I could've added depending on the definitions of the terms above.


And even if I was going that route, Chandler is not even in the top 30 Centers that first come to mind to anchor a poor offensive team that needs to extract every single drop of defense.

And why would Chandler's team have a poor offense? We're not building around him. You need to get these false narratives about basketball out of your head.

For the millionth time, it's not Carmelo vs. Chandler. It's a team with Carmelo on it versus a team with Chandler on it. Basketball. Team sport. Five on five.


This is why I say if I'm picking from an all- time draft, Carmelo is more valuable and gets picked before Chandler does. I have no shot to win if Chandler is the best guy available. I at least have a puncher's chance that I can pair a mediocre efficiency volume scorer with a #1 ranked defense with the role players I drafted after Carmelo, and a coach who can get him to be slightly more efficient as the closest chance at a winning formula.

Carmelo would be lucky to be picked in an all-time draft. One that's being run seriously, by people actually considering team performance. All participants will already have their primary pieces by the time he's picked. And what good is Anthony to me in a lesser role? Anyone with a brain would rather pick a versatile, two-way player in that circumstance.

I'd pick Shane Battier before Carmelo Anthony in an all-time draft. Because value and impact are heavily influenced by circumstance. You know, the role someone is playing. The team they're playing on. The coach they're playing for. The scheme they're playing in. The players they're playing with.

For the millionth time, it's not Carmelo vs. Chandler. It's a team with Carmelo on it versus a team with Chandler on it. Basketball. Team sport. Five on five.