Posted by oohah:



The current Pistons are the exception to the rule, and it only worked for them once so far, last year Duncan was the best player and it showed and he was the difference.



oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 04-11-2006 9:28 PM]

Oohah, I don't think you're understanding the point I'm making. I'm not debating that past championship teams have had great players or even the "best" player. I'm claiming that the best team wins 90% of the time, regardless of whether that team has the best player. Not coincidentally, the best team will have the best player a given number of times. In the context of winning in the NBA today, you cannot determine the best team by simply looking at which team has the best player, which itself is a contestable accolade. I'd say Kobe Bryant is the best player in the NBA currently. Lebron is in the discussion. Garnett is perenially outstanding. Their teams will not come close to winning the title. Having the best player is not a requirement for winning, having the best team is. And both can coincide.

Especially since you appeared to agree with me earlier that Detroit is probably the better team, whether Kidd and Carter are the best players is irrelevant. Its irrelevant in overcoming the bottom line that their team is worse.

Now, you can contest the fact that the Pistons are a better team, but Ive outlined extensively why, match-up wise, it does not bode well for NJ. But, you'd have to specifically weigh the pros and cons - specifically what sets Carter and Kidd would be successful in against Tayshaun and Chauncey.

The other argument you can make is that the Nets might get lucky and win in 7 games even though they would otherwise lose if they played a large enough sample size of games. I, however, don't think the Nets are good enough to even get lucky in 7.

Posted by oohah:

Oohah, I don't think you're understanding the point I'm making. I'm not debating that past championship teams have had great players or even the "best" player. I'm claiming that the best team wins 90% of the time, regardless of whether that team has the best player. Not coincidentally, the best team will have the best player a given number of times. In the context of winning in the NBA today, you cannot determine the best team by simply looking at which team has the best player, which itself is a contestable accolade. I'd say Kobe Bryant is the best player in the NBA currently. Lebron is in the discussion. Garnett is perenially outstanding. Their teams will not come close to winning the title. Having the best player is not a requirement for winning, having the best team is. And both can coincide.

I get what you are saying. And I am not saying that any bunch of schmoes and a "Best player" will win a championship. Here is what I am saying: Detroit is the exception, not the rule. Usually the top flight teams have at least one elite level player and a bunch of good players. That is the recipe for success in the past 20 years. And the thing that makes the real difference between those top level teams will be the best player(s). For example, the Lakers recent three-peat team: Robert Horry was pretty good, and he made some game winning plays, but he is not the indispensible part, he is not what made them championship caliber, that was Shaq and Kobe. Horry/Fisher/George, etc. can be replaced, Shaq cannot, as Kobe is learning.

As for who is the best player in the game, it might be Kobe, he certainly is prolific. But I still vote for Tim Duncan, what he does for his team contributes more to true success. And speaking of Kobe, that is a great example of how important a top-level best player is; put Michael Redd or even Ray Allen on that squad and they are probably worse than the Knicks. If Kobe can get a couple more good players on the team they will have to reckoned with, they don't need the smorgasbord of talent that Detroit has to be a contender because they have Kobe. Will that get them a title? I hope not.

Especially since you appeared to agree with me earlier that Detroit is probably the better team, whether Kidd and Carter are the best players is irrelevant. Its irrelevant in overcoming the bottom line that their team is worse.

It's not irrelevant. I think Detroit is better, but not by leaps and bounds. Being that NJ has the two best players, explosive players at that, I think they have a far better chance than what you are giving them. At the very least I see NJ giving them the what-for, not the 1 win by NJ crushing that you see. I think that is overrating Detroit a bit and underrating NJ a bit.

I still see the Spurs as the eventual champion. As good an all-around team that Detroit is, there is that one guy they can't handle, and his name is Tim Duncan. The pieces keep changing around Duncan and he is what put them at the top level year after year.

Now, you can contest the fact that the Pistons are a better team, but Ive outlined extensively why, match-up wise, it does not bode well for NJ. But, you'd have to specifically weigh the pros and cons - specifically what sets Carter and Kidd would be successful in against Tayshaun and Chauncey.

If Detroit's success comes down to Kidd/Carter Vs. Billups/Prince, Detroit is toast. I have a very high opinion of Prince's defense, but Carter would eat him alive if Prince didn't have the best defensive front line behind him. After Carter is done breaking Prince down, and he will, will he be able to beat the Wallaces? There is nobody on Detroit who can even attempt to shut down Carter, but the team defense can make things very hard for him.

But if Carter is in the zone a couple of games, it doesn't really matter about the defense. He cannot be stopped, and that give NJ a punchers chance at any game. Same for Kidd.

And here is where the best player effect comes in: Even if Carter isn't in the zone, but merely playing well, the defense has to help and Krstic can knock down shots all day, and RJ is not exactly a sap either. This does not equal easy victories for Detroit. The series will be hard fought, whoever wins.

Billups/Kidd? The only thing Billups does better than Kidd is shoot. Billups will need help with Kidd, but I would not hesitate to put Kidd on Billups solo. Billups will have some good games against Kidd, but I see Kidd winning a solo matchup over the stretch.

The other argument you can make is that the Nets might get lucky and win in 7 games even though they would otherwise lose if they played a large enough sample size of games. I, however, don't think the Nets are good enough to even get lucky in 7.

A seven game series takes a lot of the luck out of things, usually the better team wins. I think a 7 game series is the only sample size that counts because that is the series.

Like I said, I am not claiming the Nets will win, but I think they have a better chance than you are giving them, and barring injury, the Nets will give them all they can handle.

oohah

As for past team formations and what is the rule or the exception, I don't disagree with you regarding the history. Just to probe you further, however, I'd be interested in knowing how many players in this league hve an elite player? If every team has one, its no longer so simple to construct a team. In terms of creating a team now, I think I could construct a championship team without any of the top 10 players in the game easily.

Again, maybe you're lost in the semantics of what I'm trying to get across but, if you think Detroit is better (albeit marginally), Kidd and Carter being the best players is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because that should have been considered when you made the initial statement that Detroit is better. I realize that is not profound but its important because underneath it lies the assumption that my evaluation of the players has less "X factor" involved. To exaggerate a little bit, Vince Carter won't turn superhuman and score 80 (only Kobe can). His range is 15-45 generally. Against Detroit, I'd say 15-30, with an average at around 21. And I base my prediction on that as well as the efficiency I deduce. Thus, Kidd and Carter being the best players is irrelevant because every player has a range of production and I took their's into account. There is no magical "best player" effect, there are only matchups, advantages and disadvntages. Regardless, their upper bounds won't be enough to steer a win in my estimation.

Detroit vs. NJ comes down to team vs. team, granted some individuals have more of an effect on the game. Either Hamilton or Chauncey will score heavily and Rasheed will be the focal point. I like Billups vs. Kidd as well - in a half-court back-and-forth Chauncey's shooting will be quite problematic. Carter will need to explode off the pick and roll - thats his best bet - but he will be trapped and neither of NJ's starting big men can hit from 3. I see Prince causing major problems otherwise.

As for having a 7 game series, I agree that is the reason they have it - because it is a good yardstick of who would win given a larger sample size.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by McK1:

I don't think you realize just how much a force Carter is.

Lets see if NJ can get to the Pistons. NJ/Indy is going to come down to the wire. I'd say 7-game series, with a slight edge to NJ due to homecourt.

If Indy grabs game 1, I think they'll win the series.

Posted by McK1:

no they won't. they are playing their A game and Carter is stinking presently and its a 5 point game.