NBA: you draft one player

[[censored]]

Here is the scenerio. Your goal is to win the NBA championship next year. You will be allowed to pick 1 player of your choosing, The rest of the team will be provided at random but will resemble the general make up of a current NBA roster, ie no super teams and no team of all scrubs.

Which 1 player gives you the best chance at winning a championship.

[pryor15]

Shaq

[Dan Rutter]

[ QUOTE ]
Shaq

[/ QUOTE ]

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Shaq

[/ QUOTE ]

My initial choice as well and if the question was for winning 1 game he would be my choice. However I think Shaq's possible dominance is not enough to overcome the injury concerns of an entire season as the gap between Shaq and #2 most dominant player is likely to be very small.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shaq

[/ QUOTE ]

My initial choice as well and if the question was for winning 1 game he would be my choice. However I think Shaq's possible dominance is not enough to overcome the injury concerns of an entire season as the gap between Shaq and #2 most dominant player is likely to be very small.

[/ QUOTE ]

he has a tendency to be much healtier come playoff time

[[censored]]

Basically what I am saying is this.

At his best let's assume that Shaq has a value rating 100 which is the highest in the league. However Shaq brings with him additional injury variance of an average player.

Thus his expected value actually looks something like this

Value * probability = EV
100 .60 60
75 .30 23
0 .10 0

Shaq's expected value = 83

I don't think the second best player with non additional injury concerns is a full 17% less dominant than Shaq.

[MoreWineII]

The answer is Duncan and I don't even think it's close.

Shaq? C'mon, maybe 5 years ago. He had a nice little supporting cast last year (and a bona-fide superstar with Wade) and still couldn't get it done. Hell, he couldn't even come out of the EAST for godsakes.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is Duncan and I don't even think it's close.

[/ QUOTE ]

[[censored]]

I think it is extremely close between him Garnett and perhaps a few others. Duncan is hot right now after winning another Championship but it is impossible to know if other players like Garnett, Bryant, Iverson, Stoudamire would have had the same success in Duncan's role.

What about Duncan makes it such a clear decision for you?

[kyro]

Two years ago I would have said Shaq. He hasn't been healthy for a while now, though, and I just wouldn't trust him.

So I go with Tim Duncan, though Garnett would be my second choice, and it's close.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Two years ago I would have said Shaq. He hasn't been healthy for a while now, though, and I just wouldn't trust him.

So I go with Tim Duncan, though Garnett would be my second choice, and it's close.

[/ QUOTE ]


I actually think the answer is reverse. I take Garnett because I think him and Duncan are most likely of equal talent and if there is a slight difference it is in Garnett's favor. But my choice was really decided because I think garnett's game has more versatility which is valuable when considering the surrounding players are choosen at random.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Duncan is hot right now after winning another Championship but it is impossible to know if other players like Garnett, Bryant, Iverson, Stoudamire would have had the same success in Duncan's role.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really think Kobe and AI belong in this conversation. The former is too damn selfish, and while I like Iverson and respect him a lot, he's just not capable of elevating an otherwise average team to a championship level. Among guards, I definitely think both Wade and Lebron would be better choices.

With Amare and Garnett, its closer but still not that close in my opinion. Amare is hard to judge because he puts up those wacky numbers in the Phoenix system. But I do know that the man does not play defense, and that is a huge minus. Both Duncan and Garnett are excellent defenders. Plus, Amare is young and inexperienced and we're talking about next year not 2009.

When comparing those last two, it comes down to two things. First, who would you rather want as your go-to guy down the stretch? Duncan might have pulled a few minor choke jobs in these playoffs, but he's gotten it done in high pressure spots many times before. Plus, he's just got a better and more rounded offensive game. Second, who do you really want as your team leader? Can you ever imagine Duncan punching a teammate in practice, or sulking over some imagined slight, or ever, ever, ever letting his team not make the playoffs, like Garnett did this year?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Duncan is hot right now after winning another Championship but it is impossible to know if other players like Garnett, Bryant, Iverson, Stoudamire would have had the same success in Duncan's role.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really think Kobe and AI belong in this conversation. The former is too damn selfish, and while I like Iverson and respect him a lot, he's just not capable of elevating an otherwise average team to a championship level. Among guards, I definitely think both Wade and Lebron would be better choices.

With Amare and Garnett, its closer but still not that close in my opinion. Amare is hard to judge because he puts up those wacky numbers in the Phoenix system. But I do know that the man does not play defense, and that is a huge minus. Both Duncan and Garnett are excellent defenders. Plus, Amare is young and inexperienced and we're talking about next year not 2009.

When comparing those last two, it comes down to two things. First, who would you rather want as your go-to guy down the stretch? Duncan might have pulled a few minor choke jobs in these playoffs, but he's gotten it done in high pressure spots many times before. Plus, he's just got a better and more rounded offensive game. Second, who do you really want as your team leader? Can you ever imagine Duncan punching a teammate in practice, or sulking over some imagined slight, or ever, ever, ever letting his team not make the playoffs, like Garnett did this year?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points, being a positive locker room force certainly has value, especially with a randomly constructed roster.

[pryor15]

but considering Garnett's track record in the playoffs, doesn't that indicate maybe he's not the best choice? the t-wolves have won, what, one series?

Duncan makes a lot of sense, though.

[Vince Young]

Duncan

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
but considering Garnett's track record in the playoffs, doesn't that indicate maybe he's not the best choice? the t-wolves have won, what, one series?

Duncan makes a lot of sense, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's the big question why hasn't Garnett won? And I don't mean just a championship but his overall playoff record.

Damn now I am swinging back over to Duncan.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but considering Garnett's track record in the playoffs, doesn't that indicate maybe he's not the best choice? the t-wolves have won, what, one series?

Duncan makes a lot of sense, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's the big question why hasn't Garnett won? And I don't mean just a championship but his overall playoff record.

Damn now I am swinging back over to Duncan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raw skill/raw talent, i think Garnett has the edge over Timmy D. But there's something there that makes Duncan win. And I don't buy the "supporting cast" theory. Parker/Ginobli/Barry/Horry are not that much better than Cassell/Spree/Wally.

I think the same ALMOST holds true for the debate between Manning/Brady. Manning is certainly a better QB, but how many NE fans would want Manning for Brady straight up? I don't think I would.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but considering Garnett's track record in the playoffs, doesn't that indicate maybe he's not the best choice? the t-wolves have won, what, one series?

Duncan makes a lot of sense, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's the big question why hasn't Garnett won? And I don't mean just a championship but his overall playoff record.

Damn now I am swinging back over to Duncan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raw skill/raw talent, i think Garnett has the edge over Timmy D. But there's something there that makes Duncan win. And I don't buy the "supporting cast" theory. Parker/Ginobli/Barry/Horry are not that much better than Cassell/Spree/Wally.



[/ QUOTE ]

2 points.

1) Perhaps we should be looking more closely at coaching as a reason for the vast difference in success as defined by wins and play-off wins.

2) Also I do think the Duncan has had a vastly superior supporting cast if you look beyond simple play ground basketball. To begin with Duncan had Robinson for the first part of his career while Garnett had no one close to the level. Additionally while Spree, Cassel, Wally look good on paper they are mostly the same type of score first type player. Also it is questionable IMO if winning is primary objective of those three which I think is extremely important in deciding NBA playoff success.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but considering Garnett's track record in the playoffs, doesn't that indicate maybe he's not the best choice? the t-wolves have won, what, one series?

Duncan makes a lot of sense, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's the big question why hasn't Garnett won? And I don't mean just a championship but his overall playoff record.

Damn now I am swinging back over to Duncan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raw skill/raw talent, i think Garnett has the edge over Timmy D. But there's something there that makes Duncan win. And I don't buy the "supporting cast" theory. Parker/Ginobli/Barry/Horry are not that much better than Cassell/Spree/Wally.



[/ QUOTE ]

2 good points.

1) Perhaps we should be looking more closely at coaching as a reason for the vast difference in success as defined by wins and play-off wins.

2) Also I do think the Duncan has had a vastly superior supporting cast if you look beyond simple play ground basketball. To begin with Duncan had Robinson for the first part of his career while Garnett had no one close to the level. Additionally while Spree, Cassel, Wally look good on paper they are mostly the same type of score first type player. Also it is questionable IMO if winning is primary objective of those three which I think is extremely important in deciding NBA playoff success.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

But yeah, I agree with you on both counts. Which coincidentally is the reason Brady has 3 rings. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Still, both of them are winners, and that counts for so much.

[MarkL444]

its really hard to pick anybody besides duncan or shaq...i guess maybe nash

[holeplug]

I would take Duncan since Shaq is at the stage in his career where his body is breaking down little by little and his health isn't a sure thing come playoff time anymore.

Garnett needs to win more first to be ahead of Duncan imo.

[battschr]

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaq
3. KG
4. Lebron
5. Wade

[The Armchair]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the scenerio. Your goal is to win the NBA championship next year. You will be allowed to pick 1 player of your choosing, The rest of the team will be provided at random but will resemble the general make up of a current NBA roster, ie no super teams and no team of all scrubs.

Which 1 player gives you the best chance at winning a championship.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amare Stoudamire.

Nash gets all the credit for that team, but Stoudamire was simply incredible all year. If you play him at PF, he's dominant.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
its really hard to pick anybody besides duncan or shaq...i guess maybe nash

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve Nash are you serious? Would you have picked him last year when he was on the Mavs, who btw didn't drop off much by replacing him with basically Jason Terry?

I like Nash but IMO he does not belong is this conversation

[MEbenhoe]

1. Shaq
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. Duncan
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Everyone Else

Arguing anyone else is just plain stupid.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but considering Garnett's track record in the playoffs, doesn't that indicate maybe he's not the best choice? the t-wolves have won, what, one series?

Duncan makes a lot of sense, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's the big question why hasn't Garnett won? And I don't mean just a championship but his overall playoff record.

Damn now I am swinging back over to Duncan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raw skill/raw talent, i think Garnett has the edge over Timmy D. But there's something there that makes Duncan win. And I don't buy the "supporting cast" theory. Parker/Ginobli/Barry/Horry are not that much better than Cassell/Spree/Wally.



[/ QUOTE ]

2 points.

1) Perhaps we should be looking more closely at coaching as a reason for the vast difference in success as defined by wins and play-off wins.

2) Also I do think the Duncan has had a vastly superior supporting cast if you look beyond simple play ground basketball. To begin with Duncan had Robinson for the first part of his career while Garnett had no one close to the level. Additionally while Spree, Cassel, Wally look good on paper they are mostly the same type of score first type player. Also it is questionable IMO if winning is primary objective of those three which I think is extremely important in deciding NBA playoff success.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main point as I see it:
Go back in time and trade Duncan for Garnett at the start of this past season. Do the Spurs still win the championship? maybe. Do the Twolves collapse and miss the playoffs? absolutely not.

[battschr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is the scenerio. Your goal is to win the NBA championship next year. You will be allowed to pick 1 player of your choosing, The rest of the team will be provided at random but will resemble the general make up of a current NBA roster, ie no super teams and no team of all scrubs.

Which 1 player gives you the best chance at winning a championship.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amare Stoudamire.

Nash gets all the credit for that team, but Stoudamire was simply incredible all year. If you play him at PF, he's dominant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, forgot about Stoudamire, he dominated the playoffs, and he's what..20...21?

[battschr]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Shaq
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. Duncan
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Everyone Else

Arguing anyone else is just plain stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

5 years ago this was true....now I think Duncan has to be #1, with Shaq 2 and falling.

[Phoenix1010]

Arguing for Shaq in this coming season is just plain stupid.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Shaq
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. Duncan
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Everyone Else

Arguing anyone else is just plain stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

5 years ago this was true....now I think Duncan has to be #1, with Shaq 2 and falling.

[/ QUOTE ]

In any event the space between Duncan & Shaq regardless of order is no where close to being that large and neither is the space between 2 & 3. It is absurd to believe so.

[battschr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Shaq
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. Duncan
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Everyone Else

Arguing anyone else is just plain stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

5 years ago this was true....now I think Duncan has to be #1, with Shaq 2 and falling.

[/ QUOTE ]

In any event the space between Duncan & Shaq regardless of order is no where close to being that large and neither is the space between 2 & 3. It is absurd to believe so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

[MoreWineII]

I got sucked into this argument on another post, so I'll just repost this here as my answer to your question:

[ QUOTE ]
Garnett is a better athlete than Duncan, but Duncan has....something... that I don't think KG has. Leadership, the ability to make other players better, whatever name you want to put to it, Duncan seems to have it and KG doesn't. If you put KG on this year's Spurs team, do they win the thing? I'm not so sure.

I love KG as a player and as a person, but until he proves he can take a team past the first round I just can't say he's better than Duncan. Or even equal to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously though, I don't think you could go wrong with either KG or Duncan. Both excellent players and excellent people.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaq
3. KG
4. Lebron
5. Wade

[/ QUOTE ]

Amare needs to be on there somewhere, but those are the 6 that I can see being the correct answers. Kinda depends on how your team gets filled out..if this were say a fantasy-style draft where you get to fill out the team, you probably want one of of the 4 big guys because guards are substantially more plentiful.

[Phoenix1010]

Amare doesn't belong in the top 5 for one season, although he is right at the top if you're talking about building a dynasty. At this point he's not great at creating his own shots, he doesn't demand a double team in the post, and he's not a dominant defender. He will not carry a random team to a championship, or even the playoffs.

Also, for anyone who hasn't realized it yet, Kobe and KG do not belong on this list. They both had decent teams last year, have already reached their primes, and they both failed to make the playoffs. They've already proven they can't do it. Allen Iverson belongs here much more than either of them.

You can hold out hope that Lebron will have another leap in ability this coming year and be able to shoulder the load better than he did this year.

This comes down to the sure choice: Duncan; and some speculative choices: Lebron or Wade.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Amare doesn't belong in the top 5 for one season, although he is right at the top if you're talking about building a dynasty. At this point he's not great at creating his own shots, he doesn't demand a double team in the post, and he's not a dominant defender. He will not carry a random team to a championship, or even the playoffs.

Also, for anyone who hasn't realized it yet, Kobe and KG do not belong on this list. They both had decent teams last year, have already reached their primes, and they both failed to make the playoffs. They've already proven they can't do it. Allen Iverson belongs here much more than either of them.

You can hold out hope that Lebron will have another leap in ability this coming year and be able to shoulder the load better than he did this year.

This comes down to the sure choice: Duncan; and some speculative choices: Lebron or Wade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that you brought up Iverson. While obviously not worthy of being chosen he was the player I thought of who would likely be the most underrated.

[tolbiny]

Horry.

[tolbiny]

"While obviously not worthy of being chosen"

Iverson in his prime deserves to be on this list. He has (vey slightly) started to slow down. But the year they lost to the lakers he basically took a random assortment of NBA players to the finals.
And we ain't talkin about practice here.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
The main point as I see it:
Go back in time and trade Duncan for Garnett at the start of this past season. Do the Spurs still win the championship? maybe. Do the Twolves collapse and miss the playoffs? absolutely not.

[/ QUOTE ]

bingo.

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is Duncan and I don't even think it's close.

Shaq? C'mon, maybe 5 years ago. He had a nice little supporting cast last year (and a bona-fide superstar with Wade) and still couldn't get it done. Hell, he couldn't even come out of the EAST for godsakes.



[/ QUOTE ]

What a silly thing to say. Is there anyone here that thinks the Heat wouldn't have won the East if not for Wade's injury? The Spurs/Pistons series goes to 7? Would you take the Spurs without Duncan or the Heat without Shaq?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the scenerio. Your goal is to win the NBA championship next year. You will be allowed to pick 1 player of your choosing, The rest of the team will be provided at random but will resemble the general make up of a current NBA roster, ie no super teams and no team of all scrubs.

Which 1 player gives you the best chance at winning a championship.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duncan. Why? Because [ QUOTE ]
The rest of the team will be provided at random but will resemble the general make up of a current NBA roster

[/ QUOTE ] very closely resembles the Spurs of the last several years.

[battschr]

[ QUOTE ]
"While obviously not worthy of being chosen"

Iverson in his prime deserves to be on this list. He has (vey slightly) started to slow down. But the year they lost to the lakers he basically took a random assortment of NBA players to the finals.
And we ain't talkin about practice here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a little off subject, but every eligible MVP has been elected to the Hall of Fame, or at least I think that's the case. Here's my question, does Iverson belong in the Hall. I say yes. And, if he does, does that mean that Nash will become the first MVP not to be a HOF'er?

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
its really hard to pick anybody besides duncan or shaq...i guess maybe nash

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve Nash are you serious? Would you have picked him last year when he was on the Mavs, who btw didn't drop off much by replacing him with basically Jason Terry?

I like Nash but IMO he does not belong is this conversation

[/ QUOTE ]

eh, i just pulled a name outta my ass

[ClassicBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
its really hard to pick anybody besides duncan or shaq...i guess maybe nash

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve Nash are you serious? Would you have picked him last year when he was on the Mavs, who btw improved by replacing him with basically Jason Terry?

I like Nash but IMO he does not belong is this conversation

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[The Armchair]

[ QUOTE ]


Which 1 player gives you the best chance at winning a championship.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duncan. Why? Because [ QUOTE ]
The rest of the team will be provided at random but will resemble the general make up of a current NBA roster

[/ QUOTE ] very closely resembles the Spurs of the last several years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Parker and Ginobli only resemble that remark because of the Spurs' excellent international scouting. The best example of motley crew and All Star is the 76ers, but Iverson is not as good as he was a few years back. But that team, star player aside, is and was much worse than any Spurs team that won a title.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of the team will be provided at random but will resemble the general make up of a current NBA roster, ie no super teams and no team of all scrubs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's take Duncan off of the Spurs and take Lebron from the Cavs at the end of last year then compare the rosters. Spurs are much better IMO. Take off the Pistons best player and compare the Cavs and Pistions rosters. Not picking on the Cavs but I don't agree with your premise. Duncan on other teams would probably make them strong competitors for a title but not all teams.

[lil_o]

Active: Tim Duncan
Retired: Magic Johnson (prolly should pick Jordan but thats too obvious)

[lil_o]

Robert Horry only plays well with superstars. If he was on a team like the Hawks he would be a wallflower.

[lil_o]

Big difference between Duncan and KG:

Duncan is a big game player.

[Drac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The main point as I see it:
Go back in time and trade Duncan for Garnett at the start of this past season. Do the Spurs still win the championship? maybe. Do the Twolves collapse and miss the playoffs? absolutely not.

[/ QUOTE ]

bingo.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would Duncan have saved the Wolves? That team is pretty darn bad. Sprewell didn't care, Casell didn't care, Wally is pissed because he wants to start, their best center was ERVIN JOHNSON for cripes sakes. Duncan would post guys up and Casell and THud would just pop contested 3's and never give him the ball. Nobody can fix that team.

[morello]

50 replies to a thread that should begin and end with "Duncan".

Ask this question 4 years ago, and Shaq would be the answer. Ask four years from now, and the answer will not be Duncan (Amare?Lebron?).

[tolbiny]

Obviously it was a joke.

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaq
3. KG
4. Lebron
5. Wade

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a very good list, but it makes me wonder why the heat couldn't win a title this year. According to you they had 2 of the top 5 players in the league.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaq
3. KG
4. Lebron
5. Wade

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a very good list, but it makes me wonder why the heat couldn't win a title this year. According to you they had 2 of the top 5 players in the league.

[/ QUOTE ]

both of them being hurt in the playoffs would doom them, yes?

[oneeye13]

4 years ago? What about 2 years ago when Shaq was getting 27 points, 15 rebounds, 4 assists and 3 blocks per game while shooting 54%?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
4 years ago? What about 2 years ago when Shaq was getting 27 points, 15 rebounds, 4 assists and 3 blocks per game while shooting 54%?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are those playoff numbers, because they certainly aren't regular season stats.

[UOPokerPlayer]

Duncan, just barely before kobe.

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4 years ago? What about 2 years ago when Shaq was getting 27 points, 15 rebounds, 4 assists and 3 blocks per game while shooting 54%?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are those playoff numbers, because they certainly aren't regular season stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes they are playoff numbers. also, anyone remember the "one lucky shot deserves another" shot where duncan was barely able to get any sort of shot off and somehow still made it? did anyone think that he could summon old shaq's lateral movement for a defensive poss.?

[[censored]]

It seems there is some general consesus of the top 3 consisting of Duncan, Garnett, Shaq in varying order.

Under the same stpulation as above, assuming those three are not avaliable, who would your number 4 be? number 5?

I think it comes down to how far along you think Lebron is and whether or not you think Kobe can be a team player. Iverson has to get some real consideration as probably does McGrady as well. Where does D Wayde fit in?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems there is some general consesus of the top 3 consisting of Duncan, Garnett, Shaq in varying order.

Under the same stpulation as above, assuming those three are not avaliable, who would your number 4 be? number 5?

I think it comes down to how far along you think Lebron is and whether or not you think Kobe can be a team player. Iverson has to get some real consideration as probably does McGrady as well. Where does D Wayde fit in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Amare, Wade, James.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems there is some general consesus of the top 3 consisting of Duncan, Garnett, Shaq in varying order.

Under the same stpulation as above, assuming those three are not avaliable, who would your number 4 be? number 5?

I think it comes down to how far along you think Lebron is and whether or not you think Kobe can be a team player. Iverson has to get some real consideration as probably does McGrady as well. Where does D Wayde fit in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lebron, Iverson, Kidd, Wade, Bryant, in that order. McGrady gets zero consideration. Anyone who "leads" his team to a 21 and 61 record is eternally banished from this contest.

[holeplug]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems there is some general consesus of the top 3 consisting of Duncan, Garnett, Shaq in varying order.

Under the same stpulation as above, assuming those three are not avaliable, who would your number 4 be? number 5?

I think it comes down to how far along you think Lebron is and whether or not you think Kobe can be a team player. Iverson has to get some real consideration as probably does McGrady as well. Where does D Wayde fit in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lebron, Wade, Iverson, Kidd

[battschr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems there is some general consesus of the top 3 consisting of Duncan, Garnett, Shaq in varying order.

Under the same stpulation as above, assuming those three are not avaliable, who would your number 4 be? number 5?

I think it comes down to how far along you think Lebron is and whether or not you think Kobe can be a team player. Iverson has to get some real consideration as probably does McGrady as well. Where does D Wayde fit in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lebron, Wade, Iverson, Kidd

[/ QUOTE ]

Kidd doesn't belong on this list anymore, IMO. He's not the player he was two years ago. Also, I think it's just a matter of time before we are discussing Lebron James as one of the greatest players of all time.

[Aytumious]

You do all realize Amare is basically unguardable, correct?

[battschr]

[ QUOTE ]
You do all realize Amare is basically unguardable, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, correct. Good point. He has to be in the top 6 at worst.

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
Lebron, Iverson, Kidd, Wade, Bryant, in that order. McGrady gets zero consideration. Anyone who "leads" his team to a 21 and 61 record is eternally banished from this contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

so kidd and bryant are considered ahead of mcgrady? lakers/nets won't trade straight up?

[maxsick]

Amare, LeBron, Dwayne, Kobe, T-Mac, Iverson, Nowitzki. 4-10.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lebron, Iverson, Kidd, Wade, Bryant, in that order. McGrady gets zero consideration. Anyone who "leads" his team to a 21 and 61 record is eternally banished from this contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

so kidd and bryant are considered ahead of mcgrady? lakers/nets won't trade straight up?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Lakers would be foolish to trade the best 2guard in the league for the second best 2 guard in the league. The Nets would probably go through with such a trade, but I'd be against it. Either way, this isn't the question. There's another thread a few pages down about the Sports Guy article where he ranks the trade value of all the best players in the league. The question we're discussing is which one player would give you the best chance of winning a championship if you were to assemble a random team around him. T-Mac has already failed miserably in that situation in his young career as a superstar.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
Kidd doesn't belong on this list anymore, IMO. He's not the player he was two years ago. Also, I think it's just a matter of time before we are discussing Lebron James as one of the greatest players of all time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the same Kidd who was a triple double machine when he finally shook off his injury last year? He may or may not have lost a step, but the simple fact is that Jason Kidd is still the number 1 point guard in the league. He controls the court on defense and offense, has a large impact on the game in nearly every category, and most important of all, makes every player on his team better. That is the kind of player you build a championship team around, not the stats whore.

I agree on Lebron though.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
You do all realize Amare is basically unguardable, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I didn't watch enough Suns games, but he didn't seem to be such a huge threat on his own. A lot of his points seemed to be Nash-generated. I don't think I ever saw him get the attention in the post that Duncan and Shaq get in the post, or that Iverson or Bryant get on the perimeter and in the lane. Add that to the fact that he couldn't even lead his own team in rebounds (a skinny 6-7 "power" forward did that), and the fact that he anchored one of the worst defenses I've ever seen, and I just have to say he's not ready to take a team very far by himself.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
T-Mac has already failed miserably in that situation in his young career as a superstar.

[/ QUOTE ]

So did a young Jordan. So did a young Shaq. So did a young Kobe. Players develop and change. If you don't think TMac has, then you haven't been paying attention.

Yeah, he led a team to 21-61. But it wouldn't happen again, given how he's improved.

Josh

p.s. I am in no way saying he's better than Kidd, Kobe, AI, etc. I'm just pointing out wickedly large flaws in your "he's banished forever" argument.

[Phoenix1010]

Good point. Unfourtunately, McGrady was 26 and in his 7th season that year (last year!) that he led the Magic to 21 wins. Maybe all that "improvement" has more to do with Yao Ming, Jeff Van Gundy, and a fairly strong supporting cast than it does with T-Mac. Let me stress again, this was 2004, it isn't a long time ago when McGrady was young and a completely different player. He led the league in scoring that year. Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant were both winning championships by their seventh seasons, it does not compare. I agree that everyone who fails shouldn't be banished forever, but T-Mac is certainly banished for this coming year at least.

[holeplug]

[ QUOTE ]
Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant were both winning championships by their seventh seasons, it does not compare. I agree that everyone who fails shouldn't be banished forever, but T-Mac is certainly banished for this coming year at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean Shaq was winning championships and Kobe was along for the ride /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[holeplug]

It tough to compare Kobe and T-Mac imo cause Kobe had possibly the greatest center of all time in his prime. If they switched teams during that time period T-Mac would easily have 3 rings and we probably would be saying the same things about Kobe as we are about T-Mac.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant were both winning championships by their seventh seasons, it does not compare. I agree that everyone who fails shouldn't be banished forever, but T-Mac is certainly banished for this coming year at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean Shaq was winning championships and Kobe was along for the ride /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Yeah I knew someone would bring that up. The fact is that Kobe was already one of the premier players in the league by his third and fourth year, but he had to play second banana for the better part of his career. Even if it ends up that he can't create a winning team on his own, which may be the case, he gets consideration over McGrady because he's just plain better.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do all realize Amare is basically unguardable, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I didn't watch enough Suns games, but he didn't seem to be such a huge threat on his own. A lot of his points seemed to be Nash-generated. I don't think I ever saw him get the attention in the post that Duncan and Shaq get in the post, or that Iverson or Bryant get on the perimeter and in the lane. Add that to the fact that he couldn't even lead his own team in rebounds (a skinny 6-7 "power" forward did that), and the fact that he anchored one of the worst defenses I've ever seen, and I just have to say he's not ready to take a team very far by himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you missed the playoffs. Also, that skinny 6-7 forward you mentioned has been one of the best rebounders in the league since he was drafted. It's no knock on Amare that he only finished at 9 boards a game.

[wsop21]

SHAQ!!!!!

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
So did a young Shaq.

[/ QUOTE ]

like when the magic were .500 his first year? or made the playoffs the next year? or made it to the finals the next year?