Printable View
[QUOTE=Odinn]Wrong again.
01-01-2011, Butler got hurt. Butler completed 28 games. In those 28 games, Mavs were 21-7. That means 61-62 win team.
Before Butler's injury, the Mavs completed 31 games, their record was 24-7. 63 win team.
Also, when Butler was healthy, nobody expected a 65W Mavs. Did you expect?[/QUOTE]
of course he didn't. hes just making stuff up.
[QUOTE=Fazotronic]lol of course. he made it in the playoffs the last 10 years without chandler.
whats your point?
dirks easily is the most important factor. they had like the worst record in the nba without him even with chandler.
jordan wouldn't have won without pippen yet he is way more important then him.
you also just look at the finals. the series he played the worst in the playoffs (even though he was clutch as ****).
everybody is always talking about the team effort which is just flatout stupid beacause every freaking championship team in the history of the nba won the title beacause of the team effort.
don't know why you're making it such a big deal when its about dirk.
the mavs wouldn't even come out of the first round against portland without dirk.
watch this video and than you maybe change your opinion.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oENZ33_ZTkY[/url][/QUOTE]
First, we are talking about this mavs team that won the championship. The restt of the team is totally different from the mavs past teams.
And I'm not really making this about dirk. I've already said he's kinda a bad expample because he gives you more than just scoring.
And havinng to stress that basketball is a team effort wouldn't be needed if certain people wouldn't try to act as if the best players win championships by themselves.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol a player like chandler makes it easy for dirk to shoot 42% in a finals and win convincingly. And truth be told, it wasn't just chandler or nowitzki. That championship was a team effort. They don't win without marion or terry contributions either.
Basketball is a team sport. Trying to dismiss players roles and determine order of importance is and always has been silly.
When we say who would you build a team around, pick whoever, but you know to build a winner, your gonna need to add to key pieces. Just think about a pies with no filling and sugar.
What you really are asking, is on a bad team, who would put up the better stats? And the real answer to that is who gives a shit.[/QUOTE]
you are either not understanding my points or you are choosing to not answer the questions. i have been preaching "team" here since I got here. i have never given one player all the credit.
but if you think for a second that tyson chandler is even close to as valuable as dirk you have ****ing lost your mind. the mavs winning was absolutely a team effort. it took great performances at times from terry, chandler, kidd, marion, barea...etc.
that isn't what this is about. this is about individual players. and dirk is so much more valuable to any team....great or awful....than tyson chandler its not even funny.
again, this is about individual players. tyson chandler as your best player? probably won't make the playoffs. dirk as your best player? lock for the playoffs and close to 50 wins year after year. its not even close.
[QUOTE=Odinn]Wrong again.
01-01-2011, Butler got hurt. Butler completed 28 games. In those 28 games, Mavs were 21-7. That means 61-62 win team.
Before Butler's injury, the Mavs completed 31 games, their record was 24-7. 63 win team.
Also, when Butler was healthy, nobody expected a 65W Mavs. Did you expect?[/QUOTE]
Lol so I'm off 3 games.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol so I'm off 3 games.[/QUOTE]
So, you expected a 62-63W Mavs at the beginning of the season(or when Butler was healthy)?:banana:
[QUOTE=97 bulls]I think even without dirk the mavs have enough talent to make the playoffs. Maybe even make the second round. They have a lot of depth
Kidd
Butler
Marion
Chandler
Haywood
Terry as the 6th man
Stevenson
Berrea[/QUOTE]
Holy shit. Are you serious? That team wins anywhere from 35 to 40 games without Dirk. Butler only played 30 games. The idea of trying to watch those specialist players win games without Dirk out there is laughable. The difference between the Mavs with Dirk on the floor (on both ends I might add) this year was outstanding. Not just in terms of stats, but also wins.
Do you realize how absurd you are being? A team that went 2-7 without Dirk and crumbled statistically is somehow going to not only make the playoffs, but win a round? If they did manage to make the playoffs...which is doubtful, they aren't beating anyone. They are going out in 4 or 5.....
Hilarious how absurd you are being.
And I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of a case other than using Bill Russell (a top 5 player ever and probably the best defensive player ever)....
Pippen fits this scenario perfectly. And you know it. And deep down you also know that guys like magic, dirk, and barkley were simply better players. And that shuts down your argument right there. The best perimeter defender ever (or at least one of them) simply wasn't the player those offensive specialists were. And furthermore, Pippen was a great offensive player as well. So its not like he was just a defender.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]you are either not understanding my points or you are choosing to not answer the questions. i have been preaching "team" here since I got here. i have never given one player all the credit.
but if you think for a second that tyson chandler is even close to as valuable as dirk you have ****ing lost your mind. the mavs winning was absolutely a team effort. it took great performances at times from terry, chandler, kidd, marion, barea...etc.
that isn't what this is about. this is about individual players. and dirk is so much more valuable to any team....great or awful....than tyson chandler its not even funny.
again, this is about individual players. tyson chandler as your best player? probably won't make the playoffs. dirk as your best player? lock for the playoffs and close to 50 wins year after year. its not even close.[/QUOTE]
I understand what your saying perfectly. Is dirk a better player than chandler? Yes can the mavs win with one of them missing? No. Would the mavs have a better record with dirk and without chandler? Yes. But who cares? Noone remembers 2nd place finishers much less the teams that are put out in the 1st or 2nd round.
A perfect example is the human body. You cant function normally without a heart, brain, lungs etc. So how can you list which of those is the most important. They all play a vital role in being a living human
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Holy shit. Are you serious? That team wins anywhere from 35 to 40 games without Dirk. Butler only played 30 games. [B] The idea of trying to watch those specialist players win games without Dirk out there is laughable.[/B] The difference between the Mavs with Dirk on the floor (on both ends I might add) this year was outstanding. Not just in terms of stats, but also wins.
Do you realize how absurd you are being? A team that went 2-7 without Dirk and crumbled statistically is somehow going to not only make the playoffs, but win a round? If they did manage to make the playoffs...which is doubtful, they aren't beating anyone. They are going out in 4 or 5.....
Hilarious how absurd you are being.
And I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of a case other than using Bill Russell (a top 5 player ever and probably the best defensive player ever)....
Pippen fits this scenario perfectly. And you know it. And deep down you also know that guys like magic, dirk, and barkley were simply better players. And that shuts down your argument right there. The best perimeter defender ever (or at least one of them) simply wasn't the player those offensive specialists were. And furthermore, Pippen was a great offensive player as well. So its not like he was just a defender.[/QUOTE]
Yea. Marion was like the at best the second best player in phx, irrelevant in Miami and than going downhill in toronto. now all of the sudden he is a star player again.
He was just a key piece in that dallas team.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]I understand what your saying perfectly. Is dirk a better player than chandler? Yes can the mavs win with one of them missing? No. Would the mavs have a better record with dirk and without chandler? Yes. But who cares? Noone remembers 2nd place finishers much less the teams that are put out in the 1st or 2nd round.
A perfect example is the human body. You cant function normally without a heart, brain, lungs etc. So how can you list which of those is the most important. They all play a vital role in being a living human[/QUOTE]
Horrible analogy. Dirk is more important...therefore he matters more. Would the Mavs have won without Chandler? Nope. But he's replaceable. Dirk isn't. That is the difference.
And Dirk makes players so much better than they actually are. Terry trying to score without the Dirk pick and roll or Dirk drawing a big to the three point line is unlikely. Kidd getting wide open 3 point shots doesn't happen. Barea doesn't get open lanes to the basket. Peja and Stevenson don't get great looks from 3. Chandler and Haywood would actually have to play offense.
Dirk, along with other great players, allow those secondary players to play their roles. Take that away and you'd be laughing at how bad guys like Kidd and Terry are on their own.
This is about individuals....and are you really making the point that how they perform doesn't matter? What do you mean that nobody cares about 2nd place?
Here is the actual point:
You can win a championship with Dirk as your best player
You probably can't make the playoffs with Chandler as your best player
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Holy shit. Are you serious? That team wins anywhere from 35 to 40 games without Dirk. Butler only played 30 games. The idea of trying to watch those specialist players win games without Dirk out there is laughable. The difference between the Mavs with Dirk on the floor (on both ends I might add) this year was outstanding. Not just in terms of stats, but also wins.
Do you realize how absurd you are being? A team that went 2-7 without Dirk and crumbled statistically is somehow going to not only make the playoffs, but win a round? If they did manage to make the playoffs...which is doubtful, they aren't beating anyone. They are going out in 4 or 5.....
Hilarious how absurd you are being.
And I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of a case other than using Bill Russell (a top 5 player ever and probably the best defensive player ever)....
Pippen fits this scenario perfectly. And you know it. And deep down you also know that guys like magic, dirk, and barkley were simply better players. And that shuts down your argument right there. The best perimeter defender ever (or at least one of them) simply wasn't the player those offensive specialists were. And furthermore, Pippen was a great offensive player as well. So its not like he was just a defender.[/QUOTE]
Like I answered the other poster. I was including butler being healthy. Without dirk and Butler, they're at best a 500 team. I've now said this at least three times. Id also like to add that 9 games is too small a sample size to really get an indication of what the mavs would do without dirk.
I believe dwight howard was used. Jason kidd, gary payton, But if you want to use pippen, fine. How about tim duncan? He wasn't gonna drop 30 a night in his prime.
Kevin Garnett is another player. That's about 5 players right there.
But you seem stuck on pippen. So fine, let's use him. I realize your gripe with pippen was that he didn't score in the clutch. Even though I've stated instances where he did take over games. He did a better job or just as good a job as any other player that was in his situation. He just didn't have a team good enough to win a championship in 94 and 95.
Now let me ask you a question.... what do you think pippen would do with the best team in the league with him as the best player? Let's say he had 5 years with a core roster that included
Himself
Nick Young
Shawn Marion (prime)
Undonis Haslem (prime)
Dikembe Mutombo
Bruce Bowen
Taj Gibson
That's a defensive version of the 80s lakers. I don't see how a team could get 80 ppg vs a team like this. And pippen would be the best player on this team.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Horrible analogy. Dirk is more important...therefore he matters more. Would the Mavs have won without Chandler? Nope. But he's replaceable. Dirk isn't. That is the difference.
[B]Lol everybodies replceable. Come on [/B]
And Dirk makes players so much better than they actually are. Terry trying to score without the Dirk pick and roll or Dirk drawing a big to the three point line is unlikely. Kidd getting wide open 3 point shots doesn't happen. Barea doesn't get open lanes to the basket. Peja and Stevenson don't get great looks from 3. Chandler and Haywood would actually have to play offense.
[B]And replace those shooters with guys that can't shoot, and diks life would be made miserable. Look at kobe in 05- 07, jordan in the mid 80s, wilt in the 60s according to jlauber. Players like peja and terry are there to make teams pay for how they play dirk.[/B]
Dirk, along with other great players, allow those secondary players to play their roles. Take that away and you'd be laughing at how bad guys like Kidd and Terry are on their own.
This is about individuals....and are you really making the point that how they perform doesn't matter? What do you mean that nobody cares about 2nd place?
[B]This isn't about individuals cuz basketball isn't an individual sport. And what I mean by nobody remember 2nd place is just that. Nobody remembers the losers. In this offense/defense debate, the mavs have shown you can't win games trying to outscore teams. This is by no mean the best offensive team the mavs have had since dirk been there. But they got smart. They got rid of all that firepower in exchange for some defender and what do you know? They win a championship. That's not a coincidence[/B]
Here is the actual point:
You can win a championship with Dirk as your best player
You probably can't make the playoffs with Chandler as your best player[/QUOTE]
But what are you putting around dirk? Thats the point. All I've ever said is on a championship team, how can you determine order of importance when if one of the key pieces are removed, you don't have a championship team? Isn't that why the game is played?
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Like I answered the other poster. I was including butler being healthy. Without dirk and Butler, they're at best a 500 team. I've now said this at least three times. Id also like to add that 9 games is too small a sample size to really get an indication of what the mavs would do without dirk.
I believe dwight howard was used. Jason kidd, gary payton, But if you want to use pippen, fine. How about tim duncan? He wasn't gonna drop 30 a night in his prime.
Kevin Garnett is another player. That's about 5 players right there.
But you seem stuck on pippen. So fine, let's use him. I realize your gripe with pippen was that he didn't score in the clutch. Even though I've stated instances where he did take over games. He did a better job or just as good a job as any other player that was in his situation. He just didn't have a team good enough to win a championship in 94 and 95.
Now let me ask you a question.... what do you think pippen would do with the best team in the league with him as the best player? Let's say he had 5 years with a core roster that included
Himself
Nick Young
Shawn Marion (prime)
Undonis Haslem (prime)
Dikembe Mutombo
Bruce Bowen
Taj Gibson
That's a defensive version of the 80s lakers. I don't see how a team could get 80 ppg vs a team like this. And pippen would be the best player on this team.[/QUOTE]
I'd actually take the 80s Lakers over them pretty easily.
[QUOTE=Fazotronic]Yea. Marion was like the at best the second best player in phx, irrelevant in Miami and than going downhill in toronto. now all of the sudden he is a star player again.
He was just a key piece in that dallas team.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, he was probably the only good defender in phoenix.
[QUOTE=Odinn]So, you expected a 62-63W Mavs at the beginning of the season(or when Butler was healthy)?:banana:[/QUOTE]
When the mavs got chamdler and haywood, I believed they were the one team that could matchup and beat the lakers cuz they had the size.
[QUOTE=guy]I'd actually take the 80s Lakers over them pretty easily.[/QUOTE]
Lol sure you would. That team would beat the lakers 4-1. They can score, they're far and away the better defensive team and the much better reebounding team. Which prohibits the lakers fast break. As well as being big and super athletic.
But I wouldn't expect anything less from you.