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

[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.