Bonn1997 wrote:Height is important but I think you're overrating it. The 3 best players in this years finals were 6'8", 6'4", and 6'9"

bonn1997 - this year? Once again, you are caught looking at things in miniature. A narrow view. Over the period of time described, starting with Wilt, perhaps you could compare the number of Lakers championship banners to the ones hanging inside Madison Square Garden.

The comparison is between the approaches of two franchises in their major transactions. In every case, the Lakers went for seven footers.

Read carefully - L o s A n g e l e s versus N e w Y o r k.

This is NOT a history of the NBA.

misterearl wrote:Bonn1997 - It is mind-boggling that you insist on being stubbornly mypoic.

The comparison is between the approaches of two franchises in their major transactions. In every case, the Lakers went for seven footers.

Read carefully - L o s A n g e l e s versus N e w Y o r k.

This is NOT a history of the NBA.

misterearl wrote:Wrong Again

Bonn1997 wrote:
You have expressed a theory here: Going big helps teams win.

bonn1997 - in your rush to judge your listening ears are covered with duct tape. Absolutely false. Your reading comprehension is so far out of left field it borders on silly putty. The theory is that dealing for big men in major transactions, and then adding a complimentary supporting cast, wins.

It is a construction story which the Lakers have replicated four times with success.

You got a problem with that?

4 replications? Small sample size.

misterearl wrote:In his lifetime The Answer Man has watched the Lakers maneuver complicated, yet brilliant, trades for seven footers - Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal and Dwight Howard. Notice a trend? When the Lakers go big, they go big.

Simultaneously, the Knicks "blockbusters" have included 6'10 Bob McAdoo (who did not mesh with Spencer Haywood), 6'9 Antonio McDyess (who cost us both the very long Marcus Camby and Brazil's starting center) and 6'9 Carmelo Anthony (who cost us Russia's starting center, a 6'10 sniper, a 6'8 Mayor and a point guard to be named a starter two years later).

With all due fairness, the one time we got it right and dealt big for smaller (Walt Bellamy for DeBusschere) was a beautiful thing. The positive karma of hitting the open man was rewarded with Lottery selection Patrick Ewing. It was a stroke of serendipity that only happens once a millenia. Thank you Dave DeBusschere.

The moral of the story?

Go big or stay with your homeys.

It's not just the fact that they're big it's that they're talented as well. Wilt, Kareem, and Shaq are 3 of the top 10 players of all time and Dwight Howard is probably going to end up in the Hall of Fame some day as well. Not every random 7-footer (Mozgov) has the ability to lead a team to a championship the way those guys can. You've also decided to ignore Kobe's, Magic's, and West's additions to those teams.

Bonn1997 wrote:You hit the nail on the head, Vcoug.

Thank you. There seems to be a tendency among some people to try and explain why teams win as something other than having great players who play well together and have solid role players to pick up the slack.

VCoug wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:You hit the nail on the head, Vcoug.

Thank you. There seems to be a tendency among some people to try and explain why teams win as something other than having great players who play well together and have solid role players to pick up the slack.

I think the thread was about trades and who and what size to trade for, not an explanation of why teams win

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

VCoug wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:You hit the nail on the head, Vcoug.

Thank you. There seems to be a tendency among some people to try and explain why teams win as something other than having great players who play well together and have solid role players to pick up the slack.

I think the thread was about trades and who and what size to trade for, not an explanation of why teams win

How can we discuss "who and what to trade for" without understanding why teams win? If you're saying "Trade for A" you're implying that "A" helps teams win.

That's a loaded question. If your best player is a big man with a good post game, you're going to want to surround him with a penetrating guard and guys who can shoot from the outside. It's simpy putting together the best team based together based on the strenghts and weaknesses of your team.

The super simple answer as to why teams win? Defense.