Top Current NBA players

[IrishHand]

In keeping with the current flow of sports/athletes/coaches threads, I've decided to devote one to my personal favorite - the NBA. I think of it as my personal Dream Team for the 2002/03 season - with the idea being to choose the best starter and backup at each position. I've tried my best to ignore age, meaning that I tried to select the best players right now, regardless of future potential.

Starters
C - Shaquille O'Neal
Most dominant player in the NBA, easiest choice of the 10, should have had last 3 MVPs except that he's taken for granted, completely unstoppable inside, imposing defensive force, very good passer from the post.
PF - Chris Webber
Most complete post player in the NBA, great post-up game, good shooter from 15-18', very good defensively (but not stellar), incredible passer, doesn't finish games but wouldn't have to on a team like this.
SF - Tracy McGrady
Probably 2nd best wing player in NBA, explosive on offense, could be great defensively if he really wanted as shown in his last year with Toronto, plays more of a 3 than 2 otherwise he'd be the backup SG.
SG - Kobe Bryant
Unequalled combination of wing offense and defense in the NBA right now, closest thing to the "next Jordan" (which is a ridiculous concept, but anyway...) the NBA has to offer, my #1 choice if I was starting an NBA team from scratch today.
PG - Gary Payton
Toughest positional call, but one I feel confident in, Payton's better offensively and defensively than Kidd - he's just more of an idiot, depite that, Payton's still a winner, has 3-range, phenomenal post-up skills and can completely lock up opposing PGs - especially when he's pissed off, Kidd's arguably a better leader and certainly a better open-court passer, but I don't think that makes up the difference.

Backups
C - Tim Duncan
Arguably the starting PF, but he's pretty well a pure post player, excellent bank shot from 12-15', great post player, outstanding defensively, completely unselfish, my #2 choice if I was starting a team from scratch.
PF - Kevin Garnett
Defensive stopper, good shot from 12-15', insanely athletic for a 7-footer, excellent passer, would be better if he accepted that he's a post player.
SF - Paul Pierce
Great post-up player, very good shooter (although shooting awfully thus far this year), above-average defender.
SG - Ray Allen
Excellent shooter, excellent defender, sort of a mini-Jordan without the intangibles if that makes sense - does most of the same things, just not quite as well across the board and appars to lack the leadership abilities to drive his team, although Cassell may not be leadable.
PG - Jason Kidd
Incredible open-court player, pushes the ball like nobody has in at least 20 years, excellent defender and passer, if not for average shooting would be as good as Payton.

Coach
Phil Jackson
I'm always amused by "best coach in the NBA" debates. The numbers over the past 20 years aren't even close. Yes, he had Jordan and Pippen, and yes, he's got Shaq and Kobe - but none of those players won any titles before he showed up. There are a ton of great players in the NBA every year, but somehow Phil's are the ones who tend to win 60+ games and get the titles - wonder why that is? Also interesting that the two pre-eminent players in the past 15 years, Jordan and Shaq have at various times both declared that will never play for another coach. I'd argue that Jordan's sticking to this - it's tough to say that Collins is coaching him when (a) he was hired by Jordan, (b) he can be fired by Jordan, and (c) Jordan is clearly calling the shots both on the floor (his PT, the PT of the youngsters, the offense, etc) and off (the makeup of the team, drafting, trading, etc).

Other Notables:
Dirk Nowitsky - Beautiful offensively - in the process of defining the 7-foot wing player, but I can't do it until he learns to guard somebody...anybody...
Allen Iverson - If his comments about practicing hadn't disqualified him, his shooting percentage certainly would.
Vince Carter - Makes this list 1-2 years ago when he was gaining on Kobe for the "next Jordan" label, but recent collapse (partly health-related, but that's still an issue) kills him.
Antawn Jamison - Generally doesn't play defense, I'm also told he's a complete cancer.
Steve Francis - If he didn't have Payton and Kidd ahead of him, he'd be there, explosive offensive player, although still hasn't shown he can run a team - should have stayed with Grizzlies and played alongside Bibby so he wouldn't have had to.

[Josh W]

This is a joke, right?

Okay, so you are a huge L.A. fan, and like most (all?) L.A. fans, you are oblivious to reality.

There is no way Kobe is better than Tracy. Tracy has 3x the maturity, and every offensive weapon that Kobe has. Tracy is a better post defender, a little worse off the ball.

But leadership is the main difference. For the last 3 years, people have said "Take Shaq away from LA, and they are the same team as the Magic".

I used to agree. However, it's become obvious that the Magic is a far superior team to LA without Shaq. This is because Tracy can lead. It's not even close.

And, as far as coach goes....

The only thing that Phil Jackson has proved over his years is that he is a better coach than Del Harris. That's it. You introduce then discount the fact that he's had a tremendous team every year to work with.

A good coach would be able to do more with the Lakers sans Shaq than Phil has done. Yes, Jordan and Shaq have said they won't play for another coach, and we have no reason to believe them. Moreover, all this means is that Phil gives them an opportunity to shine.

If George Karl, Nate McMillian, Doc Rivers, or other coaches were the coach of the Lakers this year, they'd be much more successful.

Phil is notorious for not having answers. He didn't have an answer for AI two years ago or Kidd last year. In Chicago, he didn't have an answer for Kemp or Barkely. Instead, he just hopes that he can ride is stars' coattails to a ring. And, because his stars are just that damn good, he can.

But he's not the best coach. And it's not close. The only thing he's shown us is he's better than Del Harris.

Josh

[Clarkmeister]

First, when you list George Karl as one of the best coaches in the NBA you lose all credibility. He is without question one of the worst coaches in the NBA. That you prefer him over Phil shows a ridiculous lack of understanding about the game.

Kobe vs Tracy. I think its reasonably close as to not matter at this point. Lets all come back and talk about it at the end of next year.

"He didn't have an answer for AI"

Swept him.

"Or Kidd"

Oh yeah, swept him too.

"Or Kemp"

Would've swept him if they hadn't gotten bored after annihilating them to go up 3-0.

"Or Barkley"

Beat him too, and won all 3 games played on Phoenix' home court.

If riding all those players coattails was so easy, why weren't Del and Doug winning? In fact, Del had MORE talent than Phil did (that team had Elden Campbell and Eddie Jones the year preceding Phil).

Phils single greatest coaching season was the one WITHOUT Jordan or Shaq. The year Jordan left the Bulls, I lived in Chicago. The average Chicago newspaper prediction for season wins for the Bulls was about 35. He won freaking 55 games without Jordan. Then he goes on to come one truly awful call away from a likely trip to the NBA finals. Don't tell me that team was good, because it wasn't, though Pip could've (should've?) won league MVP that year. That was pure Phil, pure genius.

And, oh yeah, last years Lakers weren't anywhere near as talented as Sacramento. Yet somehow Phil finds a way again.

And in case you were wondering......Phil hasn't ever lost a playoff series as a one seed. Let alone in the first round like another coach you listed. [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

[IrishHand]

I agree with practically everything that Clarkmeister wrote. His comments about Phil are dead-on, so I won't bother rehashing the issue.

As for the Kobe/McGrady debate - you'll note that both made the 1st team, so I'm not sure what you're all excited about. However, the Kobe/McGrady debate was at the forefront of a few ESPN.com articles last week (I believe) prior to the Lakers/Magic game.

You'll discover what I suspected beforehand. Here's the key point: A month ago, the NBA polled its general managers on a variety of subjects, including the question, "Who are the five best players, regardless of position?" You know the only player other than Shaq to appear on all 29 ballots? It was Kobe.

Also: "You know why Bryant is better?" asked one Eastern Conference scout. "Just look at the defensive end. It ends there for me. McGrady is not a great one-on-one defender. But if you tell Kobe, "Go stop that guy,' he will stop him."

You've got a great point about McGrady's leadership. He can lead his team straight into 1st round playoff defeats. Takes a lot of leadership to do that. Kobe manages to win 3 championships in a row - and reserves his best performances for when his team needs him. I'm guessing you watched neither the Finals against the Pacers 3 years ago nor the San Antonio series he completely dominated.

You can't judge Kobe, Phil or the Lakers based on the first 20 games of this season. You (and a lot of others, I'd guess) seem to have forgotten that when the Lakers play hard, they completely dominate the NBA. Fortunately for me, they choose to do so around playoff time.

Irish

FYI - both those quotes are from http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/lawre...h/1467144.html if you get the urge to read up on why Kobe's better. [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] There's also a link on that page to another writer arguing in favor of McGrady, but at least he (unlike you) acknowledges that he's in the minority in favoring McGrady.

[adios]

Shaq said it best,"No coach ever led his team to an NBA title with bad players."

[Josh W]

You pointed out an enormous flaw....I should have specified George Karl in Seattle. Since then, he's bad.

In Seattle though, he did a better job of balancing egos than Phil is currently doing. He also outperformed expectations every year.

Thanks for reinforcing my point about Phil being better than Del Harris.

When Phil coached the MJ-less bulls, nobody knew what to expect. He still had Pippen and Kukoc (back when he could play). What he did, relative to expectations, means nothing.

And, you conveniently totally missed huge chunks of my arguements...why are they so bad this year, and overall without Shaq? Yeah, losing Shaq would hurt any team, but they are horrible...they are not Orlando-esque.

The Kobe vs. Tracy arguement is close if you look solely at stats. If you look at leadership, maturity, and other 'intangibles', it really isn't close.

And, again, you deftly avoid my points about Kidd, AI, and Kemp....he didn't sweep those players...those players (and Bibby), dominated the series. The fact that ESPN said that Kemp was the MVP of the 93 (?) series says enough right there. Jackson didn't have answers for those players. He hoped that they wouldn't inflict too much damage. The fact that those players had horrible supporting casts is why Jackson won, not because of his coaching ability.

As for George Karl losing a series as a 1 seed....in 94 everybody who followed basketball closely came forth and said Seattle would have a tough time in the playoffs. They won with suffocating, pressing "D". They had trapping schemes that were very complex on a game-to-game basis, but easy to crack in a series. Karl made a mistake, for sure, to create an awesome system and depth that works great in the regular season, but falters in the post season. This was shortsightedness on his behalf.

Every year that Jackson has coached, he has had an MVP (or near MVP) on his team. There is NO evidence to show he created those players, simply because he didnt' create those players. He used them better than Del Harris did. That's about it.

On this we agree. On everything else I've said, I really don't know...you've avoided that.

Josh W.

[Josh W]

I love debating with people.

I really love debating with people who know they are wrong, so they intermix personal remarks. I love it. They don't want to debate the issues and points, so they throw words into their 'opponents' mouths. Do they think that gives them credibility? I hope not. Moreover, I hope that others reading don't lend credibility to that. Now, onto what you wrote (you'll note I'm going to address what you actually wrote...something I'd suggest for future use for yourself)

You start by saying that you agree with Clarkemeister. That must mean you agree with ignoring a vast majority of my points regarding Jackson, his inability to lead a shaq-less team to victory this year, and, how, even though his team is similar to Orlando, he's way underperforming them. Okay. Ignore it. That's fine.

About the Kobe/McGrady debate...I'm not excited. You said you would have put Kobe in front, I disagreed. Their numbers are the same (or close). Tracy has much more maturity and leadership (which I'm not sure if you agree with or not). Kobe continually causes disrest in the lockerroom, and is often whining. Then, you say that Tracy leads Orlando to first round exits in the playoffs, whereas Koby leads the Lakers to rings.

Well, which is it? Does Kobe lead them? Or Shaq? Or Phil? Surely, you know that Kobe is not the 'leader'. Look at their performance with Kobe 'leading' the show. Kobe hasn't led them to a damn thing. Without Shaq, they wouldn't make the playoffs. First round exits are nothing to get excited about, but Tracy leads his team more than Kobe could possibly hope to (now....it may change in the future).

As for the quotes from the GM....I'll let the game do the talking. Kobe was begging off of Bibby last year. Don't tell me he's that great of a defender when he's pleading to not defend the #1 threat on the opposition (it's one thing if the #1 threat is a big guy like Duncan....it's something else entirely if it's another guard)...its one thing to not be that successful at defending another player, its something else entirely to plead to not to have to guard him in the biggest games of the year.


And, yes, we can judge the Lakers (sans Shaq, at least) on the first 20 games of the season...it all counts. You say they turn it on when it matters most, and history would suggest that is the case...but that makes me curious about the leadership qualities of the players and coaches. I'll be honest, I don't like the Lakers (no surprise, I'm sure). One of the big reasons is because of their total disrespect for the game (Phil being the biggest source...his comments about other cities, teams, and championships are appalling to any sports fan....Shaq is nearly equally as appalling).



You seem to have read quite a bit about the Kobe/Tracy debate on espn.com, as have I. Did you read Ralph Wiley's article? He was courtside at the latest Magic/Lakers game. After Tracy posted up Kobe, and Kobe drove the ball down the court, dunked (an impressive dunk) and slapped the backboard, Brian Shaw stated that he knew, as soon as Tracy posted up Kobe, that Kobe was about to do something selfish, immature, and ultimately harmful to the team. How true, how true.

Quite the leader, when your own teammates know that your immaturity is real close to shining through.

Lastly....you talk about another (unnamed) author who would pick Tracy of Kobe, then you state that he acknowledges he's in the minority. You then have the audacity to say I don't feel the same way (that I'm in the minority)....

Please. If I go by nothing other than the population of the respective cities where they play, I'd assume that Kobe is the more popular choice. Don't try to guess what I do and don't feel about issues. I'll lay it all out there.

It just seems that you'd rather create your own arguments to debate against, then throw up a few straw-mans than to debate what I actually say. Too bad....when I first read your post, I assumed you wanted some credibility.

Josh W.

[Clarkmeister]

"(George Karl) exceeded expectations every year"

Umm, just how do you do that when you "lose a series as a number 1 seed"

Also, your memory is suspect. They were the Western conference preseason favorite for 3 of 4 seasons and only advanced to the Finals once, and when they finally made it there, Karl had them so unprepared for the Bulls that by the time he made proper adjustments he was down 3-love.

Your contention that Kemp and Payton had horrible supporting casts is also ridiculous. Their supporting cast against the bulls was VASTLY superior to Chicago's.

Who do you want: Kerr, Longley, Rodman, Harper or Hawkins, Perkins, Schremph, McMillin? Are you kidding?

And did Karl suddenly forget to coach after leaving Seattle? Dude isn't even 60 yet. No, his performance in Milwaukee (taking the consensus preseason Eastern Conference favorite and missing the playoffs - almost impossible in the NBA) and his more recent job with Team USA just confirm his sorry pathetic Seattle track record. The guy is awful. Not overrated, but BAD. Bottom 10 coach in the league.

On to Phil:

"You've deftly avoided my arguments about Kidd, AI and Kemp"

Ummmm, how is that? Josh, he SWEPT two of those three. I'm sorry, I though coaching was about finding ways to WIN basketball games when it mattered (something Karl is the worst ever at). Is he supposed to doubleteam Kidd to make it "look pretty" at the expense of losing the series? Your arguement is so nonsensical I don't even know how to respond, so I'll say it again: He swept them. What more do you want a coach to do? You may not like the fact that his gameplan was to allow those players to get theirs, but shut down everyone else.....however it worked and he got the rings.

"What he did (with the Jordanless bulls) relative to expectations, means nothing"

Just how can you say that with a straight face? Those players all left the bulls later on and none other than Pip and Ho could crack a lineup anywhere. That team was awful and his coaching job there was IMO the single greatest coaching feat in the HISTORY of the NBA.

I mean...listen to your arguements. When he overachieves like he did with the Jordanless Bulls, his first Lakers team, or his most recent Lakers team, he gets no credit. But when he wins as the favorite..."well,anyone could have done that" Lets not forget that his first Laker team wasn't favored to do anything. And his most recent one beat a better, and deeper Sacramento team, and he beat them without home court.

"Every year that Jackson has coached (and by extension, every year he has won a title) he has had an MVP or near MVP on his team"

Are you familiiar with the NBA at all? I am starting to wonder if you watch games. Name me the last NBA champion that DIDN'T have an "MVP or close to an MVP on its team". Go on. Name one. Please. You can't. Why? Its never been done in the last 25 years. On the other hand, I can list literally dozens of coaches with "MVP's or close to an MVP" on their team who *didn't* win the league championship.

Including your boy Karl.

[M2d]

Suck. period. beyond the big two, their supporting cast is horrible. Horry and Fox aren't good enough to help carry a team through a full schedule. they're wily vets who can turn it up during crunch time, but, they're too old to do it night in and night out. d-Fish? not even a top ten point guard in the league. Slava Medvedenko? Mark Madson? that these two guys are getting minutes says a lot about the quality of the team. The fact that Kobe put up rediculous numbers when he had to and got the assist numbers when he had to says a lot about his game. that they lost those games really doesn't detract from him, since no one is going to win a one on five matchup.

[IrishHand]

Current Lakers are basically the same as the Lakers in each of the past three years with minor cosmetic changes. If the Lakers were 13-7 instead of 7-13, people would still be hailing them as the dominant team in the NBA. As it is, they seem to have slipped under the radar. Not a bad situation for a team that's manhandled the NBA the past 3 years. Does their 7-13 record mean the team's all of a sudden become mediocre? Of course not. It's about as relevant as the Dallas' phenomenal start - I still rank them behind both the Lakers and Kings in the end simply because their defense remains atrocious. Talk to me in June.

I agree though about the quality of the Lakers supporting cast. The non-Shaq/Kobe starters would have a tough time starting elsewhere, and some of the reserves probably wouldn't even make a lot of teams. (Brian Shaw was released by Golden State, and would be again if he were on the team today.) However, as you noted, they're gritty, play great team defense and play their roles. History has shown it's better in the long run to have a couple superstars and accepting supporters than multiple stars or outstanding players - see Kings, Blazers, Bucks in recent years.

Irish