+2800 roster and sidekick < Hornacek, so 73 wins means CURRY is goat-like, not lebron

[Phoenix]

Love was All-NBA with 26 wins in 2012.

Tons of guys were All-NBA with 20-something wins, such as Mitch Richmond in 94' or 98'.

1st options can make All-NBA with bad teams because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight because they don't dominate.

How are you defining tons? Because I named Tmac. You named Richmond and Love. That's not enough cases to establish it as a standard in the way you are.

[Phoenix]

You're avoiding the differentiating factor that keeps being thrown in your face - 1st options get All-NBA because they dominate, regardless of the caliber of their team, while 2nd options don't dominate, so they need winning spotlight to get All-NBA, and often all-star as well.

And again, Love was All-NBA with 26 wins in 2012, or Tmac was All-NBA with 21 wins in 2002.. Tons of guys were All-NBA with 20-something wins, such as Mitch Richmond in 94' or 98'.

So again - 1st options can make All-NBA with bad teams because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight because they don't dominate.

And again, 3 guys isn't enough to say 'tons' of guys'. Tmac, Mitch Richmond and Kevin Love are outlier examples. Still waiting on an explanation for why Joe Dumars made the team in 93. No, it's not because he won the title in 1990 not dominant stats.

[3ba11]

How are you defining tons? Because I named Tmac. You named Richmond and Love. That's not enough cases to establish it as a standard in the way you are.

You picked a 20-win criteria that I already busted up, but the reality is that I'm struggling to find any 2nd options that made All-NBA with even like 40 wins.. Otoh, tons and tons of 1st options have been All-NBA with 20-40 wins.. Tons and tons...

So again - 1st options can make All-NBA with bad teams because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight because they don't dominate.

[Phoenix]

You picked a 20-win criteria that I already busted up, but the reality is that I'm struggling to find any 2nd options that made All-NBA with even like 40 wins.. Otoh, tons and tons of 1st options have been All-NBA with 20-40 wins.. Tons and tons...

So again - 1st options can make All-NBA with bad teams because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight because they don't dominate.

Actually I asked you how many guys have gotten all-nba, whether it be first or second options, on a 20 win team. There is a huge gap between 20 and 40 wins. That's literally the difference between like the worst team in the league and a borderline/8th seed. Citing Richmond, Love and TMac are outlier cases and not busting up anything with 'tons' of examples. You're saying you're struggling to find any 2nd options that made it with 40. Willis in 1992 on a 36 win Hawks team, Strickland in 1998( he was technically a third option) on a 42 win Bullets off the top of my head. Hell Tim Hardaway made third team in 93 on a 34 win Warriors team.

[SouBeachTalents]

There were 66 games in the 2012 season, so the Love example isn't legitimate. If they played 82 games they're likely winning 32-35 games, debunking the 20 win criteria.

And the fact Richmond was making All-NBA on multiple 20 win teams shows how pathetically weak the league was in the 90's.

[Phoenix]

There are numerous 1st options that made All-NBA with 20-29 wins, but zero 2nd options that made All-NBA with these "basement" teams.

This shows that 2nd options require winning spotlight more, since they never made All-NBA with basement teams like 1st options have.. 2nd options simply never dominate enough to make All-NBA with basement teams.

Now when we look at 30-49 win teams, Kevin Willis and Rod Strickland appear to be the only 2nd options to make All-NBA, while dozens of 1st options made it... And it's important to note that Tim Hardaway was never considered a "2nd option" like Klay or Pippen because the 90's had several teams with 2 franchise players that shared the load, such as Kemp/Payton, Mullin/Hardaway, or Alonzo/Hardaway... So Hardaway was a 1st option or 1a/1b for the majority of his career and a major go-to player.. Therefore, Willis and Strickland are your only real examples of 2nd options at 30-49 wins, while dozens of 1st options made All-NBA at that level of wins.

TLDR: outside of defensive bigs, 2nd options need winning spotlight of around 50+ wins to make All-NBA, since the only examples of 2nd options making All-NBA at less than that are Strickland and Willis.... Again, aside from defensive centers, All-NBA players are 1st options, except a few 2nd options that get winning spotlight of generally 50+ wins (Klay, Pippen, Pau, Manu, etc).

Going back to 85, here's some 2nd options on teams that won 40 or less games:

86 Spurs 35 wins- Alvin Robertson 2nd team
87 Nuggets 35 wins- Fat Lever 2nd team
92 Hawks 38 wins- Kevin Willis 3rd team
96 Bullets 39 wins- Juwan Howard 3rd team
97 Bucks 33 wins- Vin Baker 3rd team
06 Rockets 34 wins- Yao Ming 3rd team


You also have guys like Derrick Coleman(1993), Mutumbo (2002, more like 4th option), Andrew Bogot( 2010), David Lee( 2013), Andre Drummond( 2016), KAT( 2018 behind Butler), D. Sabonis( 2023 and 2024) and Al Horford who made the third team on 43-48 win teams. There's no taking the league by storm 'winning spotlight' in these cases, the players were simply deemed worthy of all-nba on the merits of their play.

Tim Hardaway was a 2nd option by how it's always defined. In fact, at one point he was third option behind Mullin and Richmond until the latter left for the Kings.

Now, beyond Tmac, Kevin Love( who SBT added the context that 2012 was a short year), and Richmond, I want to see the dozens of first options who made all-NBA winning 20 games or thereabouts. Because I'm not arguing that plenty of first options have made all-NBA with 40 wins, that's a low seed playoff seed. I want to see the tons of first option all-nba guys. I've provided a list of the 2nd option/40 win all-nba guys, now lets see your list of first option/20-25 win all-NBA guys.

Oh BTW, for your convenience I've bolded the players who wouldn't come under the definition of 'defensive big' ( not that this distinction matters).

[SouBeachTalents]

Damn bro, made him delete his post

[Phoenix]

Damn bro, made him delete his post

how unfortunate that I quoted him then

All I want to see is this 'tons' of first option All-nba guys who won 20-30 games. Richmond on the Kings, Love (with the caveat that 2012 was shortened season), and I spotted him 2004 TMac.

[Phoenix]

Its a valid point though. SGA isn't better than a bunch of guys who never won MVP talent wise. Hes a shorter, softer tmac. Which leads credence to the winning spotlight theory inflating peoples reps through whatever accolades. SGA just had a MJ level accolade run... but eye test it really wasnt on that level at all.

Well yeah, but he was first team all-NBA and 5th in MVP voting in 2023 on a 40 win OKC team. Seems he was on his way before the 'winning spotlight' kicked in.

[1987_Lakers]

3ball wanted no smoke

3ball's ego got the best of him once he saw this post and decided to respond.

It did not end well for him.

[3ba11]

Going back to 85, here's some 2nd options on teams that won 40 or less games:

86 Spurs 35 wins- Alvin Robertson 2nd team
87 Nuggets 35 wins- Fat Lever 2nd team
92 Hawks 38 wins- Kevin Willis 3rd team
96 Bullets 39 wins- Juwan Howard 3rd team
97 Bucks 33 wins- Vin Baker 3rd team
06 Rockets 34 wins- Yao Ming 3rd team


You also have guys like Derrick Coleman(1993), Mutumbo (2002, more like 4th option), Andrew Bogot( 2010), David Lee( 2013), Andre Drummond( 2016), KAT( 2018 behind Butler), D. Sabonis( 2023 and 2024) and Al Horford who made the third team on 43-48 win teams. There's no taking the league by storm 'winning spotlight' in these cases, the players were simply deemed worthy of all-nba on the merits of their play.

Tim Hardaway was a 2nd option by how it's always defined. In fact, at one point he was third option behind Mullin and Richmond until the latter left for the Kings.

Now, beyond Tmac, Kevin Love( who SBT added the context that 2012 was a short year), and Richmond, I want to see the dozens of first options who made all-NBA winning 20 games or thereabouts. Because I'm not arguing that plenty of first options have made all-NBA with 40 wins, that's a low seed playoff seed. I want to see the tons of first option all-nba guys. I've provided a list of the 2nd option/40 win all-nba guys, now lets see your list of first option/20-25 win all-NBA guys.

Oh BTW, for your convenience I've bolded the players who wouldn't come under the definition of 'defensive big' ( not that this distinction matters).

Derrick Coleman, Yao, Juwan Howard, Tim Hardaway, Vin Baker., and KAT were all 1st options or 1a/1b during their primes and when they got All-NBA - they weren't considered "pippens" or career 2nd options like Klay, Pippen, Manu and other 2nd options that required winning spotlight to get All-NBA.

And 47 wins alongside an upward-moving Curry is winning spotlight.. So the David Lee example supports my argument, not yours... 43 to 48 wins and playoff appearance is considered winning spotlight for young or surprise teams.

So your tiny handful of examples used 1st options, defensive centers, and winning teams.. You only found 4 examples over 40 seasons of real 2nd options that made All-NBA with weak teams (Willis, Strickland, Robertson, Lever)... Meanwhile, it's standard for 1st options to make All-NBA with weak teams of 30-40 wins, and they've even made it with 20-wins... So again, All-NBA status is reserved for 1st options regardless of team strength because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight to make it because they don't dominate.. It's intuitive.

[Phoenix]

Derrick Coleman, Yao, Juwan Howard, Tim Hardaway, Vin Baker., and KAT were all 1st options or 1a/1b during their primes and when they got All-NBA - they weren't considered "pippens" or career 2nd options like Klay, Pippen, Manu and other 2nd options that required winning spotlight to get All-NBA.

And 47 wins alongside an upward-moving Curry is winning spotlight.. So the David Lee example supports my argument, not yours... 43 to 48 wins and playoff appearance is considered winning spotlight for young or surprise teams.

So your tiny handful of examples used 1st options, defensive centers, and winning teams.. You only found 4 examples over 40 seasons of real 2nd options that made All-NBA with weak teams (Willis, Strickland, Robertson, Lever)... Meanwhile, it's standard for 1st options to make All-NBA with weak teams of 30-40 wins, and they've even made it with 20-wins... So again, All-NBA status is reserved for 1st options regardless of team strength because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight to make it because they don't.

Derrick Coleman was 2nd option to Petrovic in 93. Yao to Tmac, Howard to Webber, Baker to Robinson and KAT to Butler for the years I said. Because they were first option in other years doesn't negate that they were 2nd during the years they made the all-NBA team. How could Tim Hardaway be 1B in 1991 when both Chris Mullin and Mitch Richmond scored more than him? In 1996 Mourning was 23ppg to Hardaways 17. In what world is that '1B'? By 2000 Mourning was 20ppg and Tim 13ppg. Tim was never the first option whether he played with Mullin and Richmond, Sprewell or Mourning.

43-47 win teams does not constitute 'winning spotlight' at all. There are some years where 43 wins doesn't even get you into the playoffs. Oh wait, like this years playoffs in the West. You clearly used that term in reference to like the 2015 Warriors winning 67 games. You're now stretching the 'winning spotlight' down into the 40's That's never NOT been considered a middle of the road team. So no, the David Lee example doesn't support your opinion but you know what's even funnier. You said an upward moving Curry in the same breadth, Curry didn't make all-NBA that year.

Still waiting for your 'tons' of first options made all-NBA on 20-30 win teams' list.

Even you trying to dismiss some of my list I still have more examples. And since you said before you couldn't think of ANY 2nd options on lower level teams getting all-NBA, I've already made my point because you were trying to argue that it was more or less non-existent.

Here's this years all-nba teams with team record

First:

Giannis Antetokounmpo (48)
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (67)
Nikola Jokić (50)
Donovan Mitchell (64)
Jayson Tatum (61)

Second:

Jalen Brunson (51)
Stephen Curry (48)
Anthony Edwards (49)
LeBron James (50)
Evan Mobley (67)

Third:

Cade Cunningham (44)
Tyrese Haliburton (50)
James Harden (50)
Karl-Anthony Towns (51)
Jalen Williams (67)

3ball: "Meanwhile, it's standard for 1st options to make All-NBA with weak teams of 30-40 wins"

[3ba11]

Derrick Coleman was 2nd option to Petrovic in 93. Yao to Tmac, Howard to Webber, Baker to Robinson and KAT to Butler for the years I said. Because they were first option in other years doesn't negate that they were 2nd during the years they made the all-NBA team. How could Tim Hardaway be 1B in 1991 when both Chris Mullin and Mitch Richmond scored more than him? In 1996 Mourning was 23ppg to Hardaways 17. In what world is that '1B'? By 2000 Mourning was 20ppg and Tim 13ppg. Tim was never the first option whether he played with Mullin and Richmond, Sprewell or Mourning.

43-47 win teams does not constitute 'winning spotlight' at all. There are some years where 43 wins doesn't even get you into the playoffs. Oh wait, like this years playoffs in the West. You clearly used that term in reference to like the 2015 Warriors winning 67 games. You're now stretching the 'winning spotlight' down into the 40's That's never NOT been considered a middle of the road team. So no, the David Lee example doesn't support your opinion but you know what's even funnier. You said an upward moving Curry in the same breadth, Curry didn't make all-NBA that year.

Still waiting for your 'tons' of first options made all-NBA on 20-30 win teams' list.

Even you trying to dismiss some of my list I still have more examples. And since you said before you couldn't think of ANY 2nd options on lower level teams getting all-NBA, I've already made my point because you were trying to argue that it was more or less non-existent.

Here's this years all-nba teams with team record

First:

Giannis Antetokounmpo (48)
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (67)
Nikola Jokić (50)
Donovan Mitchell (64)
Jayson Tatum (61)

Second:

Jalen Brunson (51)
Stephen Curry (48)
Anthony Edwards (49)
LeBron James (50)
Evan Mobley (67)

Third:

Cade Cunningham (44)
Tyrese Haliburton (50)
James Harden (50)
Karl-Anthony Towns (51)
Jalen Williams (67)

3ball: "Meanwhile, it's standard for 1st options to make All-NBA with weak teams of 30-40 wins"

Again, all those guys are 1st options.. None of them are 2nd options like Klay or Pippen, so I'm fine taking the win on that... Ultimately, you provided 4 examples of 2nd options getting All-NBA with 20-40 win teams, while it's common for 1st options to get All-NBA with weak teams.. It's happened dozens of times for 1st options, but only 4 times for 2nd options.

So the point remains that 2nd options like Klay and Pippen need winning spotlight to get All-NBA - they wouldn't get anything if they were barely scraping 20 ppg and losing on the Wizards... They'd be like any bum 20 ppg scorer that doesn't get any accolades (i.e. Kuzma, tons of guys).

[ShawkFactory]

Again, all those guys are 1st options.. None of them are 2nd options like Klay or Pippen, so I'm fine taking the win on that... Ultimately, you provided 4 examples of 2nd options getting All-NBA with 20-40 win teams, while it's common for 1st options to get All-NBA with weak teams.. It's happened dozens of times for 1st options, but only 4 times for 2nd options.

So the point remains that 2nd options like Klay and Pippen need winning spotlight to get All-NBA - they wouldn't get anything if they were barely scraping 20 ppg and losing on the Wizards... They'd be like any bum 20 ppg scorer that doesn't get any accolades (i.e. Kuzma, tons of guys).

You're welcome for the facepalm response. But..Jesus dude.

I respect your lack of shame I guess.

[1987_Lakers]

So the point remains that 2nd options like Klay and Pippen need winning spotlight to get All-NBA - they wouldn't get anything if they were barely scraping 20 ppg and losing on the Wizards... They'd be like any bum 20 ppg scorer that doesn't get any accolades (i.e. Kuzma, tons of guys).

Pippen as a 1st option made All-NBA First Team and finished 3rd in MVP voting.