Mentally get Fish the **** outta that graphic….then answer.

[Kblaze8855]

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2410080607470106.jpeg

[SouBeachTalents]

Bibby
Van Exel
Stoudamire

[Carbine]

Van Exel is a classic example of someone that isn't good enough to be a #2 option on a championship team and likely not a #3 either. When he's your fourth guy his lack of impact without the ball is a problem.

Same with Stoudemire.

Fisher was not capable of being a #2 option on even a playoff team but his talents of these four were the best if he's your #4 or #5 guy. Scrappy as **** defender, clutch shooter, leader, etc.

I'd rank them

Bobby
Fisher
Van Exel
Stoudemire

At least I know I have a championship quality level #4 guy if I have Fisher. I don't know what I have with Van Exel or Stoudemire.

[Kblaze8855]

I don’t think being the fourth option on a championship team necessarily makes you the type to be a number four on a championship team if the team wins because the second best guy is one of the all-time greats and the best number two in the league aside from him is either Antoine Walker, Michael Finley, Glenn Robinson, or Peja.

If you put Steph and Lebron on the same team and they win with some role player third option does that really mean that guy is a “Third best on a champion” guy by ability?

Or does it mean 2 all timers can win you games without a traditionally great number 3?

[RRR3]

I don’t think being the fourth option on a championship team necessarily makes you the type to be a number four on a championship team if the team wins because the second best guy is one of the all-time greats and the best number two in the league aside from him is either Antoine Walker, Michael Finley, Glenn Robinson, or Peja.

If you put Steph and Lebron on the same team and they win with some role player third option does that really mean that guy is a “Third best on a champion” guy by ability?

Or does it mean 2 all timers can win you games without a traditionally great number 3?
Yeah exactly, who was the third option on the 2020 Lakers lol

[Kblaze8855]

Yeah exactly, who was the third option on the 2020 Lakers lol


https://www.hostpic.org/images/2410080739200098.jpeg

[Carbine]

Yeah exactly, who was the third option on the 2020 Lakers lol

Fisher was there for the Lakers back to back with Kobe and Gasol too. You could say the same thing you said about Horry, Draymond, Rodman, etc.

[RRR3]

Fisher was there for the Lakers back to back with Kobe and Gasol too. You could say the same thing you said about Horry, Draymond, Rodman, etc.
Grouping Horry and Fisher with Draymond and Rodman is crazy

[Carbine]

KCP is a pretty good example of a great #4. In this case he was a #3 on the best duo in the league. He was in a similar role with the Nuggets. They felt his loss, just as the Lakers did. These guys are winners and excel in their specified roles when surrounded by other players who fill the levels above them (#1, #2 options)

There's a reason Team USA doesn't just win by 50 every game even though their #10 option is the #1 option on the defending champions and a perennial first team all NBA guy. One basketball. What can you do without the basketball when you aren't good enough to fulfil the #1 or #2 option role on a championship team? That's the problem with Van Exel types.

[Carbine]

Grouping Horry and Fisher with Draymond and Rodman is crazy

Fisher isn't the quality of player overall as those other three but Horry definitely belongs next to the others. If I had to choose a "role player" #3 or #4 guy to surround my championship level #1 and #2 Horry would be on the short list of options for me. There is a reason he has so many titles. He was absolutely critical for the Spurs in 05. He was the best player for stretches of times in the finals well past his prime and with one good shoulder. That dude is a flat out winner

[RRR3]

I fully agree that some guys aren't useful unless they're a primary option but Fisher's role wasn't particularly complicated, he just had to space the floor and be a good teammate, I didn't watch Van Exel or Stoudamire but are we really sure they weren't able to do that?

[dankok8]

More talented guys can generally scale down their role just fine. Fisher is definitely last here and it's not very close.

I'd go Stoudamire first because he wasn't just a scorer but also a very good playmaker. Then Van Exel and Bibby are close but I'd go Bibby because I think his intangibles are better. Van Exel was a bit of a chucker. Thus #1 Stoudamire #2 Bibby #3 Van Exel #4 Fisher.

[RRR3]

More talented guys can generally scale down their role just fine. Fisher is definitely last here and it's not very close.

I'd go Stoudamire first because he wasn't just a scorer but also a very good playmaker. Then Van Exel and Bibby are close but I'd go Bibby because I think his intangibles are better. Van Exel was a bit of a chucker. Thus #1 Stoudamire #2 Bibby #3 Van Exel #4 Fisher.
Bibby was taking over playoff games when did Stoudamire do that.

[iamgine]

I think Fisher excelled in what you want out of a role player. He's mentally strong, which means you can trust him to be reliable in difficult situations. He added toughness, clutch, and was a really good leader. He also don't mind coming off the bench and rarely miss games. Also, he's a lot cheaper than these other guys!

[rawimpact]

If we're talking about individual performance
Bibby
Van Exel
Stoudamire
Fisher

[Real Men Wear Green]

There is no such thing as a "fourth option." You have 24 seconds in a shot clock, on any given play that's not just a fast break the team is running something for their main guy, attacking/creating a mismatch, or going to their second option. If that first plan doesn't work teams work the ball around until someone has a good opportunity or give it to one of their real stars and let them go to work for 4 seconds to make a shot for themself or give it to an open teammate. Any point guard that you want to call a "fourth option" is either an unathletic decent shooter or a good athlete with little skill unless the team he's on is unusually talented and then he's just going to be underused.

The greatest award any of those three players has gotten is Stoudamire's RotY but thats also something that says nothing about how a guy's career went. The most memorable ball of any of those guys is what Bibby did in the first playoff run with Sacramento nut NVE had some great playoff moments himself in Dallas. Van Exel also has the only All-Star selection of this group but the 14/7 season he had getting it doesn't show him to be better than Stoudamire or Bibby.

None of these guys was noteworthy defensively, they put in honest effort with the game on the line but were often average or worse.

I believe the top 3 are on the same level but rate them:

1. Bibby
2. Van Exel
3. Stoudamire

But that's more like a 3-way tie as I see them.

Not sure why Fish is in the convo.

[Reggie43]

Bibby was easily the better player but if you let those guys play freely under modern rules then
Van Exel and Stoudamire could potentially be much better.

[Xiao Yao You]

Bibby easily.

[tpols]

Kings Bibby easily for this imo. He was arguably the best scorer on those teams that almost won a title.

But I agree with the sentiment that Fisher is more valuable to a team than van exel or Damon. Both of the latter are huge defensive liabilities and are only really effective in primary ball handling roles. It's like IT on the Celtics. It looked pretty, but was a disaster in the playoffs when teams schemed.

Fisher was always extremely reliable in the lesser role.

[Kblaze8855]

I’m trying to remember what disaster you referring to with Thomas on the Celtics. Only remember a couple runs. That year he got hurt but they were in the conference finals and he missed the last few games of that series versus Cleveland and the other year they lost to the Hawks, I don’t remember being a particularly good team. Not expectations wise at least. Am I forgetting a disaster?

[tpols]

IT was terrible in the playoffs compared to what he showed in his borderline MVP regular season. I remember teams were picking on him so bad defensively he was almost unplayable. Van Exel was also really bad in the playoffs with Shaq. Fisher pretty much always did his job. His ceiling and talent were lower but he simply executed better in a lesser role when it mattered.

[Kblaze8855]

And far as Nick versus Bibby that matchup could swing wildly. Bibby had better numbers in 2002 when they had Nick shackled but in 03 when they just let him go?


He cooked everyone on the Kings. I remember on here a lot of the Bibby hype died down when Webber hurt his knee and people were wondering where he was while Nick was doing legendary shit.


https://youtu.be/wm5YkSQnyNA?si=yHM-UjzyjGJTMz7U


Nick cooked Bibby, Christie, and everyone else.


https://www.hostpic.org/images/2410091830420325.jpeg


He was better that series than Bibby ever was vs anyone despite everyone feeling like Mike was god on earth for a couple series which if you look back on…he didn’t exactly dominate.

He hit several big shots. You can see Nick hitting the shot to tie in that game alone. And he hit quite a few more.


that’s the good and the bad of borderline All-Stars who have superstar talent. There are times it might be for the greater good to have somebody with less talent because you focus more on your actual best player who should have the ball. Like the Lakers getting rid of Nick and Eddie Jones and adding a spot up shooter in Glen Rice and going full Shaq and Kobe.

Concentrated the touches. So in that way it can help. But for most teams that won’t have such a tandem…Nick is gonna get you more wins than Fisher ever would.

People just do the “If you wanna win a championship” Thing when you know that almost everybody isnt going to win because you need unbelievably special best players to win in the first place. Or like seven really good ones.

So people speak from the perspective of already having legendary talent and trying to build from there when most NBA teams can’t look that way.

If you have Nick, you need a couple more good pieces to be competitive. Just one might make you decent night to night. If you have Fisher, you might as well have nobody at all. Fisher is a blank slate, who doesn’t even change your thoughts about talent acquisition.

Nick and Damon are “Ok what else can we add?” players. Fisher is a “We have nothing……” level player.

Not bad of course. Just not someone to talk about till you have the rest. He’s a “We don’t really need a good point with this much talent” guy not a “Ok…we have a point…now what?”.

Hes a Charlie Ward. Which is fine. You need one of those. You just don’t have one and factor it into who else you get.

[Carbine]

The goal is to win championships. Not win 35-45 games a year and win a series or two in a decade.

Under that microscope of "how do I build a title" of course you need "that guy" and only a handful of them exist unless it's a 2004 Pistons kind of thing. Either way, Van Exel doesn't fit in the Pistons mold (defensive slanted big time) and he doesn't fit under championship #2 options either. So where is he value ultimately under the lens of building a title team? He has to be viewed through a #3 guy AT BEST and in my opinion I still don't know if he is that guy. I would say not considering his stint with the Lakers when he got to play with THAT guy and talent around them when Nick was in his peak. It was a borderline disaster for the most part results wise.

So if you're a GM and you view him as my #4 then it becomes less about his best ability (ball in his possession) and more about what he can do the other 30 minutes he doesn't have the ball. This is where Fisher is the better more impactful fit.

I know why you like Van Exel. He played ball like you play 2K. So there is this connection between you two spiritually but we trying to build champions, not borderline playoff teams

[Kblaze8855]

The main disconnect is fans thinking all teams are built to win a championship. A good 20 at a time are absolutely positive they aren’t going to win. They’re just building a competitive lineup or trying to keep fans showing up until the situation is right to go for it. That situation might be brought on by developing youth or tanking or waiting for a good free agent class while you have money to spend. But most teams are in fact, not built with the intention of winning the championship.

Depending on marching orders at the moment, you could have any number of goals. Plenty of teams in the midst of a rebuild are just trying to show enough progress so a GM and coach can stay employed.

The idea that every move is made for the goal of immediately winning a championship it’s just not realistic.

And on 2K I only ever had 2 players. A 6’7” wing and a 7 foot forward who both posted up and had no dribbling skills. I don’t recall NVE doing a lot of Sabonis/Karl Malone special over the shoulder dump offs.

Not that I would expect you to commit much of that time to memory when you were constantly being destroyed but being allowed to play purely for “Got to….this is America” reasons.




https://youtu.be/AAg7AmyG2Ys?si=PU1GOgNpr4ZASHzX

[RRR3]

That series was a pretty extreme outlier for Van Exel. Dillon Brooks had a similar series once. It happens.

[Kblaze8855]

At a glance I would say 11 teams are trying to win the championship with the players they have right now. 10-11 just want to compete every night and show progress or that they are respectable. Most of the rest are tanking or have the pieces to be good but need a couple years.

most NBA teams have never had the luxury of deciding to pass on the borderline All Star in favor of someone who would ideally be the eighth man because they have one of the all-time elites and have decided to go heliocentric and don’t need anybody else getting the ball.

Teams sign guys to contracts over $100 million covering a period of time they have no intention of even trying to contend.

Who I can sign and win the championship with immediately is absolutely not foremost in the mind of most people involved in the game. And a lot of the people who are in that position get there through dumb luck. The nuggets don’t have Jokic because they’re smart. They let him fall to the second round. The Warriors were well run, but they gave Milwaukee the choice between Steph Curry and Monta Ellis for Bogut and got lucky they chose the wrong one.

A great many teams… even the really successful ones? They just stack talent and hope they hired a coach smart enough to make it work. Sometimes you back into an all-time great and that job is easier. But if you were setting out to fill your lineup with scrappy back ups as desired starters with no knowledge of who else you can bring in you probably aren’t gonna be working long. People talk about teambuilding from a position of an incredibly secured job on a team that already has a legend or two, so you have the luxury of making decisions to win the championship immediately.

That just isn’t reality. Most people building teams have short-term contracts and are entirely at the mercy of an ownership group that is constantly in flux and hates having a boring franchise the local fans don’t support.

I think merely not sucking is the realistic goal from most teams and if you can find a way to be great along the way? Even better. Then you would adjust your standard.

You go in acting like youre Pat Riley and your team already has Lebron and Wade on it when you’re actually the Blazers you’re gonna have a bad time.

[Kblaze8855]

That series was a pretty extreme outlier for Van Exel. Dillon Brooks had a similar series once. It happens.

You mean when they got swept by the Jazz? Dozens of people had a statistically nice few losses.

I wouldn’t call that the same as outplaying two MVPs on your team and winning.

It also wasn’t a one time thing. Nick pretty well destroyed Gary Payton and upset the 95 Sonics who won 57 games



https://youtu.be/1MDr1ey-pL8?si=NCloJBKk2CZ-CFlZ



He was up and down as his player type usually is.

But he didn’t have just one “Up”.

He might give you 36 one game and then 9 on 35% shooting.

It wasn’t shocking either way.

It’s shocking when Fisher has a big game.

If Fisher outplayed prime Payton or like….Jason Kidd for a series? It would be noteworthy. It might be remembered as “The fisher series” like people fondly remember Mike Bibby hitting big shots versus the Lakers.

But Nick out playing various legends isn’t really remembered that fondly and barely at all because the question it makes you ask is why he didn’t do it more often.

When Nick has 12 on bad shooting, we all agree he wasn’t doing enough. Nobody asked what fish was doing when they lose because he isn’t really supposed to be doing anything but being competent if somebody else is going to get double teamed and leave him wide open.

Much lower bar to leap.

And like I said, you can certainly make a case that somebody like Fisher or a Mario Chalmers or a Charlie Ward is better when you already have a LeBron Jordan or Kobe or whoever.

But there are only a few of them per generation.

Youre way more likely to be building a Team that knows it isn’t going to win, but needs to stay respectable and show progress.

As unrealistic as the entire concept of one of us being handed and NBA team to build the heels, it’s even more realistic if we are, we’re gonna have Larry Bird or Giannis on it already.

It’s fine to sign Earl Watson. It really is. It just isn’t smarter than signing Damon or Nick when you have no idea who else you’re gonna be able to get.

If you get Lebron dropped into your lap…ok. Maybe trade Damon or Nick for someone who makes more sense.

But you’re probably gonna get Corey Maggette Evan Fornier and Nick and Damon make it a lot easier to sell to ownership and fans that you have something to work with.

A lot of you guys would be fired by year two signing people who peak as role players to teams full of other role players.

[tpols]

Well yea without a healthy Webber and van exel is playing with Steve Nash, dirk, and Finley? That's lopsided help. Defenses were keyed in on bibby while van exel was open.

[RRR3]

You mean when they got swept by the Jazz? Dozens of people had a statistically nice few losses.

I wouldn’t call that the same as outplaying two MVPs on your team and winning.

It also wasn’t a one time thing. Nick pretty well destroyed Gary Payton and upset the 95 Sonics who won 57 games



https://youtu.be/1MDr1ey-pL8?si=NCloJBKk2CZ-CFlZ



He was up and down as his player type usually is.

But he didn’t have just one “Up”.

He might give you 36 one game and then 9 on 35% shooting.

It wasn’t shocking either way.
Well he was a better offensive player than Brooks obviously but the point is single series don't really mean that much, it's a tiny sample size. His career playoff numbers aren't particularly impressive.

[SouBeachTalents]

In the playoffs Van Exel definitely seemed to have more bad series than good. You can chalk these up to small sample sizes, but he had some astonishingly bad series.

12 ppg on 39%TS
9 ppg on 38%TS
9 ppg on 38%TS
9 ppg on 37%TS
10 ppg on 39%TS

[RRR3]

In the playoffs Van Exel definitely seemed to have more bad series than good. You can chalk these up to small sample sizes, but he had some astonishingly bad series.

12 ppg on 39%TS
9 ppg on 38%TS
9 ppg on 38%TS
9 ppg on 37%TS
10 ppg on 39%TS
Those aren't quite as bad as they look due to it coming during a "deadball era" of offense but yeah really awful performances. I believe Lakers fans got on him for that.

[Kblaze8855]

Well he was a better offensive player than Brooks obviously but the point is single series don't really mean that much, it's a tiny sample size. His career playoff numbers aren't particularly impressive.

None of them are. Bibby was only 29 when he was shooting 34% in the playoffs for the Hawks…which would have been shocking if he didn’t shoot 35% in the playoffs his last year on the Kings.

None of these players were consistent. Bibby did 12 a game on 42% and 26 from 3 the series in question.

Damon the same way.

Fisher has less “Wtf…” shooting lines because he wasn’t talented enough to play a bigger role.

Being worse does have its benefits. Nobody expects you to do much.

You just don’t get the top end where they can personally win a playoff series you shouldn’t.

Balancing act.

[Kblaze8855]

Those aren't quite as bad as they look due to it coming during a "deadball era" of offense but yeah really awful performances. I believe Lakers fans got on him for that.


They definitely did. And here is the funny thing….

Derek Fisher was also on the Lakers one of those series….was the starter…averaged 5.5 ppg…shot under 35%….17% from 3….and 56% from the free throw line.

And the only reason nobody cared or bothered to remember….

He wasn’t good enough to care or to hold accountable.

Talent is a gift and a curse.

People will talk you up for decades and ignore the down because they don’t really expect anything of you.

[Carbine]

I'll let the great Kobe Bryant speak on Fisher...

"That doesn't happen by accident," Bryant told ESPN. "There's a reason why players that have multiple championships have multiple championships. There's a certain characteristic and an understanding and knowledge and that's not something that's easily taught. You kind of have to go through it and it kind of has to be part of your DNA from the beginning. So, that's something that's obviously tough to replace."

[ILLsmak]

None of them are. Bibby was only 29 when he was shooting 34% in the playoffs for the Hawks…which would have been shocking if he didn’t shoot 35% in the playoffs his last year on the Kings.

None of these players were consistent. Bibby did 12 a game on 42% and 26 from 3 the series in question.

Damon the same way.

Fisher has less “Wtf…” shooting lines because he wasn’t talented enough to play a bigger role.

Being worse does have its benefits. Nobody expects you to do much.

You just don’t get the top end where they can personally win a playoff series you shouldn’t.

Balancing act.

I put nick last because he sold vs Jazz. Sure it’s stockton, but he is the worst shoot first of the three and the mentally weakest. Fish is 3 because he could probably benefit most teams, just a winner. I think I have good memories of Bibby killing with sac, and I would say beyond that he was not in his ideal situation. I remember damon killing the bulls, and i believe he could have been a championship starter. He was good on portland too imo. I wouldn’t worry about shooting splits.

But even tho nick has some crazy shots, he is not a winner. People talk about shaq getting flopped on the pick and roll, but nick ****ing up the game flow as primary ball handler mattered, too. I’d have to think all 3 other guys would have handled a tough situation better. Nick defaults to shoot.

-Smak

[Kblaze8855]

From the day he was traded. The entire quote is:




"That doesn't happen by accident," said Bryant. "There's a reason why players that have multiple championships have multiple championships. There's a certain characteristic and an understanding and knowledge and that's not something that's easily taught. You kind of have to go through it and it kind of has to be part of your DNA from the beginning. So, that's something that's obviously tough to replace but we believe that (Ramon) Sessions has that DNA.




Ramon Sessions.

Thats the caliber of player he brought up in comparison.

Which is fair. You lose a Fish…gotta find a Ramon Sessions immediately.

[Carbine]

How'd that turn out? Just goes to show finding Fisher type players is not easy whatsoever. Fisher was also a culture setting in a good way. These things cannot be understated.

It's why Manu Ginobili would be my choice 100/100 times over a guy like Arenas. On the surface Gilbert is better but in a team setting Gilbert is an awful culture guy, no intangibles, won't sacrifice for the better of the team and isn't good enough to be a #1 guy on a champ.

Manu can be your #3 or #2 guy and even #1 for stretches and he's good with all roles. Ultimate team guy, ultimate culture guy.

Caruso is going to have such an impact on the Thunder for this reason. He might average 8/4/4 and be the most impactful fourth guy in the league

[Kblaze8855]

I put nick last because he sold vs Jazz.




I don’t care about you hating Nicks performance vs the Jazz. My point is you remember it…and not the fact that Fisher started all 4 of those games over Nick and averaged 5.5 on 35/17/56ft shooting.

Fisher wasn’t good enough for you to care when he didn’t do anything. You didn’t expect anything so nothing was fine…and nobody talks about it for 25 years.

Fisher can give you 5 points on 20% as the starter and you won’t remember. Nick gets ominous music in a tv special for 12 on 30 off the bench. And the reason is clear.

Fisher wasn’t good enough to expect anything. Youve seen Nick take apart Hall of Famers. When he doesn’t do it, he gets shit on. Derek gets love for showing up and being scrappy during a 35 point loss.

Its the difference between “Meh” and “Maybe”.

Nick was a maybe. Fish was a “Meh”. Theres a place for a “Meh” if you have a gang of legends.

Most of the time you don’t.

[Kblaze8855]

How'd that turn out? Just goes to show finding Fisher type players is not easy whatsoever. Fisher was also a culture setting in a good way. These things cannot be understated.

It's why Manu Ginobili would be my choice 100/100 times over a guy like Arenas. On the surface Gilbert is better but in a team setting Gilbert is an awful culture guy, no intangibles, won't sacrifice for the better of the team and isn't good enough to be a #1 guy on a champ.

Manu can be your #3 or #2 guy and even #1 for stretches and he's good with all roles. Ultimate team guy, ultimate culture guy.

Caruso is going to have such an impact on the Thunder for this reason. He might average 8/4/4 and be the most impactful fourth guy in the league


It went the same way it went the previous year with Fisher. Second round exit. Funny enough it was to the team Fisher was traded to. I’m sure them winning was due to Derek’s 4ppg on 32% as opposed to sessions 7 on 35.

They were the real deciding factors.


Im not even gonna go into a Manu/Arenas comparison on the subject of Fisher. That just…isn’t useful.

[Carbine]

It's the same argument just for levels above.

Why don't you talk about the crucial games where Fisher went off relative to expectations? Every role player has a bad series, especially when they're young like Fisher was back then. He was still on his rookie contract.

Talk about the times Fisher was a huge difference. Talk about those Kev, just to keep it consistent. You're consistent, right?

[Kblaze8855]

It’s not the same argument just levels above because Manu and Arenas are both all stars and the one you’re putting in the fisher role had people on here at the time calling him better than Kobe And the number of people saying he was the best player on a team with prime Tim Duncan. Wrong as they were nobody ever talked about Fisher like that. All 3 of these people are all stars and had the burden of being go to guys at times in the playoffs….but not Fisher. This is more like um….post injury Shaun Livingston vs Hawks Jeff Teague.


and there is very little to talk about Fisher wise that wouldn’t apply to a hundred role players.

guys like Fisher or Boobie Gibson or Mario Chalmers, or any number of people who would never be in position to have their names mentioned after they retired have been put on a big enough stage due to star teammates so that a 25 point game gets talked about like it was amazing.

He no doubt had plenty of games nobody would give a **** about Jerret Jack having.

The issue is he can have a five points per game series shooting like garbage where he starts over Nick and the only memory anyone has is Nick not playing well. And the reason for that is…. Nick was talented enough to criticize when he didn’t do shit. Derek Fisher not doing shit is just him being Derek Fisher.

The different standards they are held to is all we need to know. People have been talking for 25 years about what Nick didn’t do in a series they don’t even remember Derek Fisher was on the same team starting and shooting 17% from three.

When you peak at “He had a hot game 3” and not “He outplayed *insert legend* the whole series” you don’t get the notoriety that generates haters.

Nick and Fish can both play 25 minutes and have 8 points on 35%.

Nick gets roasted in Shaq/Kobe breakup documentaries about why he wasn’t helping more and nobody remembers Fish was there.

Because one of them….was better.

[dankok8]

Van Exel was definitely better than Fisher. What are we even talking about?!?

[ShawkFactory]

Van Exel was definitely better than Fisher. What are we even talking about?!?

Yea I mean he was. I do understand the argument that if you replace Fish with him during that 3peat that the Lakers aren't any better, but that's a separate argument to me.

[Carbine]

Blaze you're not being consistent in your overall arguments here.

How many times have I heard you talk about there are so many things that go into winning basketball that the 10 seconds it takes to shoot 7 shots making 2 of them do NOT tell in the story of winning.

Now when you're talking about Fisher it's all about shooting poorly for a series....that means he didn't do well. I remember Duncan shooting like shit in the finals in '05 and doing so many things that helped the team win in the other 37 minutes he wasn't shooting that it matters. Larry Brown marveled at his impact even with Duncan shooting like shit.

There's a reason why Derrick White played just as much as Anthony ****ing Edwards (he was getting Jordan comps a month prior) because White is a master of making an impact in the 19:40 of the 20 minutes he isn't attempting a shot. Edwards beat Jokic as "the man" something White could never ever ever dream of doing, but in team building it makes perfect sense that White would be a better role player than Anthony Edwards even though one is superior as an individual.

[Real Men Wear Green]

The Olympic team is an irrelevant example of "team-building." No real NBA team could decide they have no use for Jaylen Brown and have an allstar and an AllNBA player that they don't even use. Real NBA teams normally need better players first and foremost.

Fisher was OK for his role but he was most definitely not the reason why the Lakers won. He wasn't a particularly good defender (the Lakers series everyone remembers Bibby for he was being defended by Fisher) and never showed the ability to create offense. He was a reliable shooter and his defense was OK. That's it. He didn't make many mistakes but with Kobe Shaq and the triangle taking the ball out of his hands he didn't have much opportunity to make mistakes. He just hit open shots at a solid level and have reasonable defensive effort. He shouldn't be compared to Derrick White, White has the ability to create offense and its a much better defender. He would likely admit himself that he wasn't as good as Bibby, Van Exel or Stoudamire if you asked him.

[ILLsmak]

I don’t care about you hating Nicks performance vs the Jazz. My point is you remember it…and not the fact that Fisher started all 4 of those games over Nick and averaged 5.5 on 35/17/56ft shooting.

Fisher wasn’t good enough for you to care when he didn’t do anything. You didn’t expect anything so nothing was fine…and nobody talks about it for 25 years.

Fisher can give you 5 points on 20% as the starter and you won’t remember. Nick gets ominous music in a tv special for 12 on 30 off the bench. And the reason is clear.

Fisher wasn’t good enough to expect anything. Youve seen Nick take apart Hall of Famers. When he doesn’t do it, he gets shit on. Derek gets love for showing up and being scrappy during a 35 point loss.

Its the difference between “Meh” and “Maybe”.

Nick was a maybe. Fish was a “Meh”. Theres a place for a “Meh” if you have a gang of legends.

Most of the time you don’t.

Was talking more about when fish didn’t play. Then him starting over nick is meaningful if only because they played him 4 games at 5 ppg and did not try to switch in nick. Shaq played better with fish. I remember watching it and nick is one of my least favorite. He is a terrible pg next to my favorite player. There is some bias. It’s true I hold him to a decent standard but if you give me a choice between a more vetted fish and nick, i’d take fish. You posted nick 25ppg but remember the year (01?) fish was just wet from three. He played his role and more. Remember when danny green went ape (altho he went cold in the end,) you don’t need everyone to be aiming for 20 esp when you are getting mad and jacking instead of passing to shaq. With nicks skill he should have been able to look for shaq in post sometimes and others get to rim and dump off or score. He should have played well with shaq, and he did not. And that was the time he was on a good team. Bibby did well on a good team as did damon. Pg is a different position. But miami bibby is something i try not to think about haha.

-Smak

[Carbine]

Bibby went off because Shaq was awful defending the pick and roll, often times leaving Bibby open for a jumper. It had little to do with Fisher.

[Kblaze8855]

Blaze you're not being consistent in your overall arguments here.

How many times have I heard you talk about there are so many things that go into winning basketball that the 10 seconds it takes to shoot 7 shots making 2 of them do NOT tell in the story of winning.

Now when you're talking about Fisher it's all about shooting poorly for a series....that means he didn't do well. I remember Duncan shooting like shit in the finals in '05 and doing so many things that helped the team win in the other 37 minutes he wasn't shooting that it matters. Larry Brown marveled at his impact even with Duncan shooting like shit.

There's a reason why Derrick White played just as much as Anthony ****ing Edwards (he was getting Jordan comps a month prior) because White is a master of making an impact in the 19:40 of the 20 minutes he isn't attempting a shot. Edwards beat Jokic as "the man" something White could never ever ever dream of doing, but in team building it makes perfect sense that White would be a better role player than Anthony Edwards even though one is superior as an individual.


There is no inconsistency. If you think I’m a shooting numbers guy you haven’t been paying attention despite being around me for 20 years. I mention Fish numbers because we see people like Nicks listed….hilariously including numbers from a series he played with Nick and did 5 a game on tragic shooting himself. And the reason is simple.

The difference in criticism is a reflection of the true evaluation of what each is capable of.

You know the reason you have to bring up names that absolutely aren’t fitting in comparison to Derek Fisher? Like Duncan, Manu, and even White(who is definitely two tiers above fish)?


Because you can’t use apt comparisons to make a point because people like Fish dont have much that stands the test of time to be referenced and recognized.

Fish isn’t these people. Fish isn’t even Ainge from the Celtics. Ainge was an all star. He isn’t Kenny Smith on the Rockets. He’s Jerry Sichting on the Celtics. He’s Mario Ellie on the Rockets(and Spurs).

People of the right age remember Jerry never missing an open 15 footer. Younger people may remember Mario with his scrappy play and “Kiss of death” big shot(s).

But there aren’t real breakdowns.

What happens with guys like this is a combo of two really prevalent things in sports culture.

Winners automatically being credited as the reason for it individually…and fans trying to look smarter than they are.

The winning thing is easy. You win enough…you get praised. That’s the point of the game and all. It makes it easy for people who don’t really have much else to say. Fine.

The fan issue is different.

Fans need to feel superior. They spend a lifetime fighting other fans and people like us have well used and boiled down responses to usual arguments.

Whole arguments play out near word for word over and over and it’s just a script.

One of them is the “If you wanna win a championship” and all the related nonsense.

It gives know it all types a platform to be contradictory to normal lines of thinking and they take joy propping up weird takes as if it shows some deeper understanding.

As a result we get winning role players constantly talked about in comparison to clearly superior guys deemed worse for winning. Feeeeels like a high level discussion and it’s usually just….deep sounding foolishness.

The reason worse players are “Better for winning” is almost all the examples playing with monumental talents who are more effective with teammates who aren’t good enough for the coaches or they themselves to feel like they should get the ball.

Jerry, Mario, Fisher, and Warriors Livingston types aren’t….better…than low end all stars. They simply aren’t capable of enough to justify taking the ball out of the hands of Bird, Hakeem/Duncan, Kobe/Shaq, and Curry/Kd.

The addition by subtraction is real. But people convince themselves that means the “Subtraction” is actually a better player.

What it means is….a borderline star getting the ball out of the hands of a certified GOAT tier talent can make a team worse than a much worse player doing nothing but spacing the floor.

So can that make the worse player “Better” for a great team?

Sure.

But being usefully limited isn’t being “Better”.

It relies on already playing with god tier talent. That’s the part ignored by people who fancy themselves great hypothetical team builders. A good 25 teams at a time won’t have anyone good enough to justify a usefully untalented scrappy role player being taken over a borderline star.

Yea you take Fish, Kerr, or CJ Watson or whoever if you have Hakeem and Kobe both.

Why take the ball from some GOATs so Jeff Teague, NVE, or Damon can have plays run for them that are less effective?

And that has never been more the trend than these days where coaches will run a star into the ground because analytics back a heliocentric approach that leans on doing the same thing over and over.

Issue is….that doesn’t make you better at basketball.

It makes being worse less tempting to lean away from greatness to support.

If you have a guy you’ve seen eat up Gary Payton or outscore Dirk in a series you’re tempted to give that guy a potentially fatally long leash. You wanna take pressure off your star. You know he could step up and do it.

But in the process you go away from a more reliable option.

A guy like Fish will NEVER make you feel you need to spread the ball around. Post up Shaq…35 times. ISO Kobe 25 times. Less talented teammates keep you from outsmarting yourself.

Doesnt make them better at basketball in most realistic situations…because realistically….the team you’re building won’t stumble into having one of the 10 best players ever.

The entire argument is based on an unlikely premise to begin with.

It’s only better to have Elie when you already have Hakeem and Drexler.

If you’re the majority of teams in history….starting Elie or Fish gets you fired.

You start guys like that to tank…and draft people who justify playing them in prominent roles.

You can lose with anyone. Legends have led terrible teams. But with Fish and company types make it a lot more likely.

You wanna win games…you don’t start with championship role players. You end with them when everyone else is in place. Seeking them out instead of more talent is just outsmarting yourself.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Bibby went off because Shaq was awful defending the pick and roll, often times leaving Bibby open for a jumper. It had little to do with Fisher.

What makes Fisher a great or good defender? I don't but for a second that Bibby going odd read just about Shaq getting caught on picks having seen the series myself I recall the Lakers trying different defenders and eventually multiple defenders to just get the ball out of his hands and make someone else make a play. But I'll move out of that for the moment and just ask how Fisher had ever showed himself to be special as a defender?

[Carbine]

He was a good defender. Strong body, effort level was high, good wingspan for his height. He was solid.

I never said anything about Derek being "better" than Van Exel. Skill for skill and if they both had to be a #1 option on a team going head to head Van Exel would be better... They would both be absolutely losers in this regard overall though.

I just think Fisher is a better player for a title team. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that. Grayson Allen was a better fit on the Sun's last year than Bradley Beal. Doesn't mean he's better, but you need players that don't distort the offense or defense and embrace their role around the stars - something Grayson did exceptionally well. You could argue he was one of the very best 3 and D players in the league last year.

I'm not even sure what we are arguing here. I've already said Van Exel is a better #1 or #2 guy, but at the end of the day winning is what matters and you won't with him in that role. If you asked me who I want on the 1999, 2003 Spurs I'll take Fisher absolutely without hesitation over Van Exel.

If I'm the Detroit Pistons of right now and my only goal is to win 35 games I would take Van Exel easily.

[Kblaze8855]

Better for a title team is just a smart sounding way of saying less talented players don’t take touches from the caliber of legend you need in the first place to win.

Patrick Beverley is not better at basketball than peak Antoine Walker. But the 2017 Warriors would be better adding Patrick Beverley then adding prime Antoine Walker to take shots from better players on a team that’s going to contend without him.

you weren’t talking about better and worse. It’s an issue of diminished returns which in 90% of situations will not be relevant because most teams are not good enough to take a worse player because he is a better supplement to a legend. A great many franchises will only have a player good enough to consider such things, two or three times century.

better is better. Even when better is the worse choice to add to a team that contends without either of them.

It’s entirely possible that if you switch Darko Milicic with Stephon Marbury The 2004 Pistons are worse. Doesn’t mean Darko contributed to them being as good as they were. It means adding a much better player to a situation that worked by emphasizing traits not present in the game of that best player doesn’t necessarily make the team better.

it is two entirely different discussions that depends entirely on the other players already present on the team. What it absolutely is not a question of who is better at basketball.

but people really have trouble with that for some reason.

Better fit for a team that doesn’t need either isn’t the same as better. Better is a question of how good you are. Being more valuable in a considerably lesser role often hinges on being worse enough at basketball that the team doesn’t feel obligated to consider your potential contribution.

I don’t think they have even been 30 cores that have won a title in 75 years. Probably a good bit less, considering the dynasty teams that take three or more themselves.

Most teams are not going to win. Most aren’t even going to get close. And the ones that are aren’t generally prioritizing forgettable scrappy players over all stars just in case they luck into a generational talent.

[Charlie Sheen]

What is going on here...

A repeat of mighty mouse and the little general conversation from 25 years ago with fish and nick the quick? :lol

[Carbine]

Your Marbury Darko theory is interesting. I believe being able to play with other great players is a big part of what a winner is. It's why Steph could be put on any team and help improve them. Bird same thing. Duncan, Manu... Just to name a few off the top of my head. Rodman.

If you end up making a great team worse by your presence, like you suggest is entirely possible with Marbury.... That says a lot about you.

Bill Russell was asked who he would start a franchise with and he said "You would take Bill Russell. He would not do anything to distort your offense or your defense. The way I play, my team wins"

That sentiment has always stuck with me. It goes towards franchise players as well as role players.

It would make sense. Marbury was the definition of non culture, poor shot selection cancer. It's not a surprise he was one of the main guys involves in the awful bronze winning Olympic team in 2004. They had arguably the best player of his era in Duncan and surrounded him with a bunch of poor fits but ultra talented players. This is a great example of team building gone wrong.

[iamgine]

Better for a title team is just a smart sounding way of saying less talented players don’t take touches from the caliber of legend you need in the first place to win.

Patrick Beverley is not better at basketball than peak Antoine Walker. But the 2017 Warriors would be better adding Patrick Beverley then adding prime Antoine Walker to take shots from better players on a team that’s going to contend without him.

you weren’t talking about better and worse. It’s an issue of diminished returns which in 90% of situations will not be relevant because most teams are not good enough to take a worse player because he is a better supplement to a legend. A great many franchises will only have a player good enough to consider such things, two or three times century.

better is better. Even when better is the worse choice to add to a team that contends without either of them.

It’s entirely possible that if you switch Darko Milicic with Stephon Marbury The 2004 Pistons are worse. Doesn’t mean Darko contributed to them being as good as they were. It means adding a much better player to a situation that worked by emphasizing traits not present in the game of that best player doesn’t necessarily make the team better.

it is two entirely different discussions that depends entirely on the other players already present on the team. What it absolutely is not a question of who is better at basketball.

but people really have trouble with that for some reason.

Better fit for a team that doesn’t need either isn’t the same as better. Better is a question of how good you are. Being more valuable in a considerably lesser role often hinges on being worse enough at basketball that the team doesn’t feel obligated to consider your potential contribution.

I don’t think they have even been 30 cores that have won a title in 75 years. Probably a good bit less, considering the dynasty teams that take three or more themselves.

Most teams are not going to win. Most aren’t even going to get close. And the ones that are aren’t generally prioritizing forgettable scrappy players over all stars just in case they luck into a generational talent.

It entirely depends on how we describe what's "better at basketball" means. Is it entirely about skill? Role? Contribution? Or what?

For example, can Horace Grant be better than any 1st or 2nd option?

[Kblaze8855]

Of course Bill Russell saying that is reasonable. He’s one of the five greatest players ever and perhaps the greatest winner in American sports history. By accolades winning or just watching the impact on the floor he is one of the greatest ever. And as I said, you have to go 20 tiers up from Derek Fisher to make those points because when you try to make them with people like Fisher or Mario Elie, you look ridiculous.

Elie can give the Suns the kiss of death and have 20 something to sweep the Magic in the finals. Later on the spurs he hit a big 3 in the playoffs to down the Rockets and had big shots in the finals vs the Knicks and a big game 4. Played hard. Played D. Veteran “winner” type who takes nothing off the table.

As long as he’s playing with Hakeem or Tim Duncan.

put him on a team that isn’t going to be capable of winning without him even showing up and it stops looking like he’s a winner.

Thats when he looks like a poor mans Bob Sura.

is he good at basketball? Of course he is. He was a longtime NBA player and a starter Or key contributor on three champions for two franchises.

He is a local legend to this day.

But you dont rank him over Baron Davis because Baron is a bit of a knucklehead gunner who might not mesh on a team that already has Charles Barkley and Luka on it.

he is not better. He’s a better selection for a team that could use a player who is worse because they have players too good to defer to a middling star, when they can do what needs to be done themselves and have a role-player space the floor.

need to just get words like better and worse out of there because they aren’t the issue when talking about who you would put around some legends.

and who fits better with legends is generally the real question when the assumption is the team has what it takes to win a championship in the first place

[tpols]

What makes Fisher a great or good defender? I don't but for a second that Bibby going odd read just about Shaq getting caught on picks having seen the series myself I recall the Lakers trying different defenders and eventually multiple defenders to just get the ball out of his hands and make someone else make a play. But I'll move out of that for the moment and just ask how Fisher had ever showed himself to be special as a defender?


Everybody that ever watched Derek Fisher play saw he was a good defender.

Quick feet, very strong upper body, and most of all it was the main thing he was tasked with energy wise on since Shaq and Kobe and Pau and Odom and others covered everything else.

He was a much better defender than Van Exel and and Damon Stoudamire. Both of which were below average defensively.

[Kblaze8855]

It entirely depends on how we describe what's "better at basketball" means. Is it entirely about skill? Role? Contribution? Or what?

For example, can Horace Grant be better than any 1st or 2nd option?


Horace Grant was better than some first and second options.

It just isn’t because of how he fit perfectly on the teams he was on. He was better because he could shoot a bit he was a tremendous on and off ball defender. He could rebound his ass off, especially on offense. Playing his game naturally he could give you 14 to 18 in an era where plenty of first options would have an offense tailored to them to only give you 18-19.

you can look a little deeper when you compare him to somebody who might have some playmaking responsibility, but generally talking about players like himself?

Horace could be called better than some who had larger offensive roles.

A lot of people can. And you can make the case without going into how they fit somewhere.

The fit argument is pre rigged by the parameters the asker sets. There have been plenty of teams with existing redundant skill sets where a Hall of Fame caliber scoring wing would be of less use than a well rounded defender, who barely even looks at the basket like Derek McKey, Shane Battier, or Bruce Bowen.

Doesn’t make them better at basketball than George Gervin. It means the 2012 heat don’t need another wing getting the ball. But they could sure use someone to put on an opposing star wing to keep Lebron and Wade out of foul trouble.

You can find many situations where a worse player is a better fit. There is only one basketball. Not all situations can properly deploy every players total skill set at once. But how good he is is a matter of that skill set with some consideration given to personality and an awful lot given to health.

[tpols]

Better for a title team is just a smart sounding way of saying less talented players don’t take touches from the caliber of legend you need in the first place to win.


And that's extremely important. The current Lakers were better with someone like KCP over Westbrook. Chemistry and fit matter. It's literally a team game. If you can't fit, your talent doesnt matter.

[iamgine]

Horace Grant was better than some first and second options.

It just isn’t because of how he fit perfectly on the teams he was on. He was better because he could shoot a bit he was a tremendous on and off ball defender. He could rebound his ass off, especially on offense. Playing his game naturally he could give you 14 to 18 in an era where plenty of first options would have an offense tailored to them to only give you 18-19.

you can look a little deeper when you compare him to somebody who might have some playmaking responsibility, but generally talking about players like himself?

Horace could be called better than some who had larger offensive roles.

A lot of people can. And you can make the case without going into how they fit somewhere.

The fit argument is pre rigged by the parameters the asker sets. There have been plenty of teams with existing redundant skill sets where a Hall of Fame caliber scoring wing would be of less use than a well rounded defender, who barely even looks at the basket like Derek McKey, Shane Battier, or Bruce Bowen.

Doesn’t make them better at basketball than George Gervin. It means the 2012 heat don’t need another wing getting the ball. But they could sure use someone to put on an opposing star wing to keep Lebron and Wade out of foul trouble.

You can find many situations where a worse player is a better fit. There is only one basketball. Not all situations can properly deploy every players total skill set at once. But how good he is is a matter of that skill set with some consideration given to personality and an awful lot given to health.

George Gervin is a legend. How about a lower guy like say...Toronto Damon Stoudemire. Any of those better at basketball than him? If so what exactly makes em better?

[Charlie Sheen]

George Gervin is a legend. How about a lower guy like say...Toronto Damon Stoudemire. Any of those better at basketball than him? If so what exactly makes em better?

Similar to the players blaze listed.. Rick Fox was at least mighty mouse's peer in talent and his skillset could complement winning teams in more ways.

[Charlie Sheen]

Horace Grant was better than some first and second options.

It just isn’t because of how he fit perfectly on the teams he was on. He was better because he could shoot a bit he was a tremendous on and off ball defender. He could rebound his ass off, especially on offense. Playing his game naturally he could give you 14 to 18 in an era where plenty of first options would have an offense tailored to them to only give you 18-19.

you can look a little deeper when you compare him to somebody who might have some playmaking responsibility, but generally talking about players like himself?

Horace could be called better than some who had larger offensive roles.

A lot of people can. And you can make the case without going into how they fit somewhere.

The fit argument is pre rigged by the parameters the asker sets. There have been plenty of teams with existing redundant skill sets where a Hall of Fame caliber scoring wing would be of less use than a well rounded defender, who barely even looks at the basket like Derek McKey, Shane Battier, or Bruce Bowen.

Doesn’t make them better at basketball than George Gervin. It means the 2012 heat don’t need another wing getting the ball. But they could sure use someone to put on an opposing star wing to keep Lebron and Wade out of foul trouble.

You can find many situations where a worse player is a better fit. There is only one basketball. Not all situations can properly deploy every players total skill set at once. But how good he is is a matter of that skill set with some consideration given to personality and an awful lot given to health.

I get where you were going but Bowen breaks the continuity. Yes he will add value, but the difference between him and the two names before him is similar to the difference between Rondo and Fisher ... Rondo is just more gifted.

[Kblaze8855]

And that's extremely important. The current Lakers were better with someone like KCP over Westbrook. Chemistry and fit matter. It's literally a team game. If you can't fit, your talent doesnt matter.


Thing is…these teams you refer to?

Most of them don’t have and may never acquire a single player good enough to pass on better players to support your title hopes.

look at the Warriors. At any point between Wilt Chamberlain and prime Steph was anybody on that team who justified not bringing in an immensely talented person at a similar position because you take the ball out of their hands?

The closest you can get is an obviously pretender run TMC. And they broke them up voluntarily.

About the entire history of Charlotte. Consider the Charlotte Hornets the bobcats whatever. Throwing the pelicans as well.

How many teams have they had that pass on an immense talent because whatever they had was going too well to risk the chemistry of that acquisition instead of getting a fisher or a Mario Elie to play a smaller role?

The bulls have been around since the civil rights movement. In 60 years, how many of them would it be prudent to take a hard-nosed role-player over someone who has proven they can win you a playoff series and also shoot you out of games? Some random low end maybe maybe not all star.

How often?

88 to 98. 2010 to 2012 maybe? At best?

It is an uncommon for teams to go decades without approaching a situation they are better off with someone who ideally would be your eighth man.

fans are just so obsessed with championships they don’t accept that if you were actually building a team you are way more likely to have three years until an ownership group fires you than you are to luck into having Giannis and Kobe at the same time so you can afford to make these luxury decisions.

you better be the owners son-in-law to actually do that tank until you get a legend shit. In the real world? Where fans are calling for your head the second year some pick doesn’t look as good as somebody you could’ve taken?

You take NVE or Damon and sell the fans and ownership group on your eye for talent And talk about being two pieces from the playoffs.

Try that “We are sticking with KCP instead of Lamelo Ball” shit in the real world. You’d be right back on here talking about what you would do in the unlikely event your team was a ready-made contender from the jump.