PDA

View Full Version : TNT Debate: Is a better record really that important?



THE MTL
01-22-2009, 09:04 PM
I was watching TNT and Gary Payton and Chris Webber made some very convincing arguments. Basically they was saying how a better record is overrated and I have FELT that people are overvaluing a team's record for such awards like Allstar, Defensive Player of the Year, and MVP.

So I pose a question to you? Do you believe records are overvalued?

Who would have been worst last year? The Hornets without Paul or the Lakers without Bryant? Then shouldnt Paul have been MVP.

Take Wade off the Miami Heat. Wouldnt Miami have a record worse than the Thunder? Why isnt Wade higher in MVP standings?

Guys like Durant, Jefferson, Granger work just as hard if not harder than guys on winning teams. It is Durant's fault that he doesnt have Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Farmer, Walton, etc. to free up defense for him. It is Al Jefferson's fault that he doesn't have Parker, Ginobli, Mason, Pavolich (cause McHale is AWFUL). It is Granger's fault that he doesn't have Garnett, Rondo, Allen, DANNY ANIGE (cause Larry Bird is a crack GM).

I understand the importance of good teams, how much "a winning record" really should matter?

LAKERS 24/7
01-22-2009, 09:07 PM
Good point. Your a superstar no matter who plays around you. You are the defensive player of the year regardless of how the team you are on plays defense. I don't who decided that you have to have a good record to be considered for these awards, but thats just how its always been.

Joshtd1
01-22-2009, 09:13 PM
You also have to ask...would players like Durant and Al Jeff and all those guys...would they put up the same stats, and would the team they play on be alot better if they had other very good players with them?

what54!?
01-22-2009, 09:16 PM
hey camby won DPoY and we all remember how good the nuggets defense was.

DitchDat
01-22-2009, 09:17 PM
Gary Payton's laugh ****in annoys me

He's not a good analyst at all.

JordansBulls
01-22-2009, 09:19 PM
I was watching TNT and Gary Payton and Chris Webber made some very convincing arguments. Basically they was saying how a better record is overrated and I have FELT that people are overvaluing a team's record for such awards like Allstar, Defensive Player of the Year, and MVP.

So I pose a question to you? Do you believe records are overvalued?

Who would have been worst last year? The Hornets without Paul or the Lakers without Bryant? Then shouldnt Paul have been MVP.

Take Wade off the Miami Heat. Wouldnt Miami have a record worse than the Thunder? Why isnt Wade higher in MVP standings?

Guys like Durant, Jefferson, Granger work just as hard if not harder than guys on winning teams. It is Durant's fault that he doesnt have Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Farmer, Walton, etc. to free up defense for him. It is Al Jefferson's fault that he doesn't have Parker, Ginobli, Mason, Pavolich (cause McHale is AWFUL). It is Granger's fault that he doesn't have Garnett, Rondo, Allen, DANNY ANIGE (cause Larry Bird is a crack GM).

I understand the importance of good teams, how much "a winning record" really should matter?

No matter if you are on a good team or bad team you have to put up good numbers and be carrying the team.

GCOOKIE7
01-22-2009, 09:21 PM
Well I believe if you are good enough to win the NBA championship then it shouldn't matter who you play in the first round, but there are cases like GS vs Dallas a few years ago when that was possibly the worst matchup that they could have gotten that year.

stealth33
01-22-2009, 09:21 PM
The winning team argument is because it's one thing to put up stats and another thing to win games. It's a valid argument but people take it too far. When you have 2 stars next to you and you're a star on the celtics, you're going to win games. If you're a star alone as those 3 guys were how many games do you win? Does that mean they are better players now that they're in boston? Absolutely not, they're older and maybe more mature but not better. If two guys are performing equally well and one is winning games, sure take him. But you got guys who are doing phenomenal things but aren't winning, you have to evaluate the whole team well before you take in to consideration records.

Also arguments such as "he's putting up great numbers because he's the only one shooting" is valid sometimes but many times not valid. If he really is shooting ridiculous amounts and has as many shots as superstars but performing just around 20's...ok that might be because he's the focal point. If he's getting star amounts of shots and is putting up star numbers, then you can't really discredit that.

IndyRealist
01-22-2009, 09:22 PM
hey camby won DPoY and we all remember how good the nuggets defense was.

:clap:

But he was on a winning team. I personally don't think a winning record is overrated for these things. If you are winning, your team will get noticed more. They're more likely to get on national TV, more likely to get your opponent's -A- game, more likely to make noise in the playoffs. Kevin Garnett was a monster for YEARS, but it didn't matter because he was on the
'Wolves. Doesn't matter how good you are for awards if you don't get noticed.

stealth33
01-22-2009, 09:23 PM
I think you also have to consider the position in the pecking order that a guy is on his team. If he's the #1 option, he'll get #1 shots but also get #1 treatment from the defense. If you're a great offensive player and say the 2nd option on the team, you not only have a better player probably making you better, but you have a defense that is forced to relax on you a bit.

Chronz
01-22-2009, 09:24 PM
Nope, people have always overrated the importance of being surrounded by great players, it makes for more interesting stories I guess. When players are on winning teams all of their flaws are ignored for the sake of "hes making his team better" on a losing team everything is magnified for the sake of "hes a cancer/loser". Ive seen someone say Wade was at his best when he was with a low post player even though hes a better player now than he ever was. LeBron was a better player the year he DIDNT make the Finals. Tmac has made a few All-NBA 3rd teams just because he was on a team that was good enough to win 22 in a row without him half the time, Wally Sczerbiak made the All-Star team for being KG's teammate etc.... there are countless examples, winning obviously plays a part thats the point of the game, but usually people reach on how important it actually is.

Players are who they are, how many games a player can win depends on the contributions of everyone on the roster. The only thing we can do is isolate a single players contribution and how it effects his teammates and the outcome of the game, in other words their impact.

NYstateofMinD
01-22-2009, 09:29 PM
Well I have this argument to say...now that Kobe has Gasol, Bynum and a great team most people would say well..take Kobe off the Lakers and they still win more games than (blah blah). Does that mean Kobe can no longer be MVP? I believe MVP should be the best player in the league and should at least make the playoffs. MJ should have been MVP way more times instead of Malone. Shaq should have been at least a 3 time MVP.

I agree with Gary Payton and Webber but they are former players and their opinions are somewhat biased. I think it has to be a little bit of both, but in the end MVP, DPOY, All star selections are all INDIVIDUAL achievements.

Greaser1
01-22-2009, 09:29 PM
[quote=the mtl;8099379]i was watching tnt and gary payton and chris webber made some very convincing arguments. Basically they was saying how a better record is overrated and i have felt that people are overvaluing a team's record for such awards like allstar, defensive player of the year, and mvp.

So i pose a question to you? Do you believe records are overvalued?

Who would have been worst last year? The hornets without paul or the lakers without bryant? Then shouldnt paul have been mvp.

Take wade off the miami heat. Wouldnt miami have a record worse than the thunder? Why isnt wade higher in mvp standings?

Guys like durant, jefferson, granger work just as hard if not harder than guys on winning teams. It is durant's fault that he doesnt have gasol, bynum, odom, farmer, walton, etc. To free up defense for him. It is al jefferson's fault that he doesn't have parker, ginobli, mason, pavolich (cause mchale is awful). It is granger's fault that he doesn't have garnett, rondo, allen, danny anige (cause larry bird is a crack gm).

I understand the importance of good teams, how much "a winning record" really should matter?[/quo

Greaser1
01-22-2009, 09:31 PM
Sorry misunderstood the question.

stealth33
01-22-2009, 09:33 PM
I agree with Gary Payton and Webber but they are former players and their opinions are somewhat biased. I think it has to be a little bit of both, but in the end MVP, DPOY, All star selections are all INDIVIDUAL achievements.

Absolutely but that is the thing about the MVP award for example. Most valuable means something more than best. So taking team record into account is a MUST for that. For something like an all star I think that's much more about how well that individual is playing. At the same time, all star is much more loose and fun than the other awards. That's why the fans get a vote, wrong or not. It's about, who do the most people want to see playing in a game full of great players. It's a celebration, so I will accept anyone who gets voted in. The coaches and david stern(when he chooses injury replacements) are much more responsible with their choices, but the thing about voting of this sort is any individual can have their own credentials.

Shaq back 2 L.A
01-22-2009, 09:49 PM
if this was the case then kobe would by now have 3 to 4 mvps

The Prodigy
01-22-2009, 10:00 PM
granger deffinetly deserves all star. he is a capable 1st option on a team with a low post scoring threat. its not his fault that he is on a horrible team. theyre are differences in putting up big numbers on a bad team like the grizzlies like oj mayo and putting up good numbers on the pacers. Granger plays great defense and does it all on the court. now dont everyone start having their period when i say this "lebron,wade(favorite player),and kobe are all better players than granger by miles but they wouldnt do that much better than granger has done with the pacers. the pacers dont really have any starters on thier team but tj and danny, all th eother players are role players if theyer were on different teams." Granger also plays up to his competion. When the played celtics, lakers, etc he outshined all the top players on the other team. He is an amazing talent

THE MTL
01-22-2009, 10:20 PM
Seriously though I believe a winning record is OVERVALUED! Lebron James has always been good and his team has been decent. Winning in the high 40's. Making the playoffs with a respectable seed. But he was never truly considered as an MVP candidate. BUT NOW, that his team have a ridiculous record he is suddenly leading MVP candidate. His stats are worst, while his TEAMMATES are better.

THE MTL
01-22-2009, 10:23 PM
Kobe Bryant back when he averaged 35ppg. Should have been MVP. To make the playoffs in the West with NO ONE on ur team is a HUGE accomplishment and he never was really considered an MVP candidate that year. The highest I saw him on the rankings that year was 7th.

But if you took Kobe off that Laker team, the Lakers would have been looking at a nice draft pick. That would have been competing for the worst team in the West instead of competing for the playoffs.

Lakersfan2483
01-22-2009, 10:23 PM
No matter if you are on a good team or bad team you have to put up good numbers and be carrying the team.

Agreed.

JordansBulls
01-22-2009, 10:30 PM
Nope, people have always overrated the importance of being surrounded by great players, it makes for more interesting stories I guess. When players are on winning teams all of their flaws are ignored for the sake of "hes making his team better" on a losing team everything is magnified for the sake of "hes a cancer/loser". Ive seen someone say Wade was at his best when he was with a low post player even though hes a better player now than he ever was. LeBron was a better player the year he DIDNT make the Finals. Tmac has made a few All-NBA 3rd teams just because he was on a team that was good enough to win 22 in a row without him half the time, Wally Sczerbiak made the All-Star team for being KG's teammate etc.... there are countless examples, winning obviously plays a part thats the point of the game, but usually people reach on how important it actually is.

Players are who they are, how many games a player can win depends on the contributions of everyone on the roster. The only thing we can do is isolate a single players contribution and how it effects his teammates and the outcome of the game, in other words their impact.

Exactly. Players are measured by their overall impact on the team and throughout the league.

Wilson
01-22-2009, 10:35 PM
I agree. I've never understood how Kobe didn't get the MVP award when he was carrying the Lakers, but then when he got Fisher, Bynum started playing his *** off, and the bench matured enough to really contribute, and then the Lakers had Pau fall into their laps, then Kobe Bryant became the most valuable player in the league. Doesn't make sense to me.

I'm happy that he got one, I just don't think he deserved it last season as much as he did in the past :shrug:

Chronz
01-22-2009, 10:51 PM
Exactly. Players are measured by their overall impact on the team and throughout the league.
Its easier said than done, we all do this in our own way but to objectively put our thoughts into context is the hard part because we all differ in how we value various aspects of the game and the awards the NBA gives themselves.

bostncelts34
01-22-2009, 10:59 PM
I dont agree at all. A MVP or DPOY not only elevates his own play, but his teamates play IMO. Thats the definition of an MVP. And a DPOY elevates a teams defense. Who cares if u put up 25/10 on a team that has won 10 game the whole year?

JordansBulls
01-22-2009, 11:29 PM
if this was the case then kobe would by now have 3 to 4 mvps

Personally I would never award a player the title best in the league or mvp if they lose in round 1 unless they are statistically the most productive player in the league.

ARMIN12NBA
01-22-2009, 11:38 PM
I was watching TNT and Gary Payton and Chris Webber made some very convincing arguments. Basically they was saying how a better record is overrated and I have FELT that people are overvaluing a team's record for such awards like Allstar, Defensive Player of the Year, and MVP.

So I pose a question to you? Do you believe records are overvalued?

Who would have been worst last year? The Hornets without Paul or the Lakers without Bryant? Then shouldnt Paul have been MVP.

Take Wade off the Miami Heat. Wouldnt Miami have a record worse than the Thunder? Why isnt Wade higher in MVP standings?

Guys like Durant, Jefferson, Granger work just as hard if not harder than guys on winning teams. It is Durant's fault that he doesnt have Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Farmer, Walton, etc. to free up defense for him. It is Al Jefferson's fault that he doesn't have Parker, Ginobli, Mason, Pavolich (cause McHale is AWFUL). It is Granger's fault that he doesn't have Garnett, Rondo, Allen, DANNY ANIGE (cause Larry Bird is a crack GM).

I understand the importance of good teams, how much "a winning record" really should matter?

Webber and Payton were only arguing about all-star. They agreed that the MVP award deserves to go to the player on the best team.

Webber and Payton were basically saying that great players on bottom-feeders (Payton pointed out that if he played on the Clippers) shouldn't be affected and looked down upon because they play on bottom feeders.

Great debate though. It was very very heated between Webber/Payton and Smith/Ernie. It went on for a long time too.

DenButsu
01-22-2009, 11:47 PM
Winning isn't always rewarded. Sheer star power and the NBA's desire to promote its chosen ones trumps success at times. Case in point, the 2004 ROY.

lakers4sho
01-22-2009, 11:47 PM
Personally I would never award a player the title best in the league or mvp if they lose in round 1 unless they are statistically the most productive player in the league.

Isn't the MVP decided voted before the playoffs?

And you can't blame the player if the team sucks. If Jordan was surrounded by scrubs I doubt he would've fared better.

Draco
01-23-2009, 12:21 AM
Isn't the MVP decided voted before the playoffs?

And you can't blame the player if the team sucks. If Jordan was surrounded by scrubs I doubt he would've fared better.

MJ was surrounded by scrubs and he did fair better in '88. He won his first MVP when he was in his forth year in the league and when Horace and Pippen only had 1 year under their belt. Those two were inexperienced and the rest of the team were scrubs. And yet, Jordan was still considered the best player in the league that year. Winning records aren't necessarily overrated but since there are no standards for selecting an MVP, or any other NBA award.. players either need their team record to help make their case or they need to shine so brightly that they make themselves the obvious choice. You don't see players like MJ, Magic or Bird in todays league.. you see stars who are not as fundamentally skilled and rely on their physical gifts far more than they should. Case in point, Rick Barry's recent criticism of Lebron.. Rosen's criticism of Kobe last year. Long time fans know when they see how the league promotes their players prematurely (due to years of high school and college freshmen NBA draft enrollments) rather than letting the creme rise to the top in a natural fashion.. when you have this kind of modern day atmosphere around the league you have voters who rely more and more on records.

innovator
01-23-2009, 06:01 AM
kobe averaged 35 ppg with a bad team

cambovenzi
01-23-2009, 06:05 AM
i was following payton's logic perfectly.
im glad they have at least one intelligent person in the bunch.
a star player is still a star, even if he gets put on a bad team.

i love how he was basically calling them out to try and tell him to his face that he shouldnt have been an allstar if he was on a worse team.

Lost Art
01-23-2009, 06:21 AM
You also have to ask...would players like Durant and Al Jeff and all those guys...would they put up the same stats, and would the team they play on be alot better if they had other very good players with them?

Bingo. And would they be winning at as high of a clip even if they had all of that talent. Look what happened when EB was added to the sixers..........they sucked even though they had a tremendous amount of talent and are actually playing better without him. Look at the Houston Rockets, yes they've had a whole lot of injury problems but even when they were at full strength they weren't playing nearly as well as they should have been considering who's on that roster. Or look at the Washington Wizards, shouldn't they have been better over the years with Caron, Jaimeson, and Arenas? Bottom line, its easy to put up big numbers and lose on a mediocre team. It is very difficult to put up big numbers on a good team and lead them to victory. Put Smush Parker on the Timberwolves and give him the green light to do touch the ball every time down the floor and shoot at will.........I bet he could put up 20/3/5 a game.........but they'd still be the worst team in the NBA. Big stats on a team that's not contending for a playoff spot are pretty much meaningless IMO. Yes you need good players around you to win, no doubt about it, but its what you are able to do with those good players that really counts.

Lost Art
01-23-2009, 06:25 AM
kobe averaged 35 ppg with a bad team

..........but they made the playoffs. Put Kobe on any of the bottom feeder teams in the NBA and I bet they'd be playoff contenders at the very least. That's the difference between Kobe/Lebron/Duncan/Wade(healthy) and the "stars" of the teams putting up big numbers on teams in the cellar of the NBA. These guys would make their teams respectable through sheer will and wouldn't let their teams compete at such a low level.

cambovenzi
01-23-2009, 06:31 AM
its the all star game.
not the allworld HOF game.
and in any case, if kobe or anyone else was put on a bad enough team, they definitely wouldn't make the playoffs.

its very possible to be an allstar caliber player, on a team that doesnt make the playoffs.

Lost Art
01-23-2009, 06:34 AM
its the all star game.
not the allworld HOF game.
and in any case, if kobe or anyone else was put on a bad enough team, they definitely wouldn't make the playoffs.

its very possible to be an allstar caliber player, on a team that doesnt make the playoffs.

I disagree, but somehow I doubt we'll ever know :D

18colts29
01-23-2009, 07:58 AM
Records mean nothing when it comes to being a great player. Somone posted that to be a great player you have to at least lead you team to the playoffs, then why didn't Paul Peirce, Ray Allen, and KG have winning records before each other. Their teams were a combined 87- 159, in the year before the big 3, and they come together and become one of the best teams in league history. When you say a winning record is almost everything, thats like taking JJ Reddick over Danny Granger because the Magic are better.

cambovenzi
01-23-2009, 08:02 AM
Records mean nothing when it comes to being a great player. Somone posted that to be a great player you have to at least lead you team to the playoffs, then why didn't Paul Peirce, Ray Allen, and KG have winning records before each other. Their teams were a combined 87- 159, in the year before the big 3, and they come together and become one of the best teams in league history. When you say a winning record is almost everything, thats like taking JJ Reddick over Danny Granger because the Magic are better.

good example, KG and pierce are/were definitely all star players surrounded by awfulness.

not a big fan of using mah boy redick on the short end of the other example tho.:mad:;)

THE MTL
01-23-2009, 11:36 AM
Bingo. And would they be winning at as high of a clip even if they had all of that talent. Look what happened when EB was added to the sixers..........they sucked even though they had a tremendous amount of talent and are actually playing better without him. Look at the Houston Rockets, yes they've had a whole lot of injury problems but even when they were at full strength they weren't playing nearly as well as they should have been considering who's on that roster. Or look at the Washington Wizards, shouldn't they have been better over the years with Caron, Jaimeson, and Arenas? Bottom line, its easy to put up big numbers and lose on a mediocre team. It is very difficult to put up big numbers on a good team and lead them to victory. Put Smush Parker on the Timberwolves and give him the green light to do touch the ball every time down the floor and shoot at will.........I bet he could put up 20/3/5 a game.........but they'd still be the worst team in the NBA. Big stats on a team that's not contending for a playoff spot are pretty much meaningless IMO. Yes you need good players around you to win, no doubt about it, but its what you are able to do with those good players that really counts.

NO this is absolutely wrong. It takes skills to put up great numbers like this. It doesnt matter how much you get the ball, if you CANT shoot then you can make the points. Also it can be more difficult on a bad team cause teams are constantly double and triple teaming you because there are no other threats on the team.

I'll give Smush Parker 30 shots and I guarantee you that he doesnt get more 15ppg.

thesparky33
01-23-2009, 03:21 PM
I hate the fact that they use team's records for the All-star game.

Al Jefferson and Danny Granger are both guys that IMO should be locks to make the reserves in their respective conferences, but both are likely to be snubbed by less talented players just because they have a better team.

Are you telling me that Shaq is better than Al Jefferson, or has a bigger impact on his team than Al?

NYstateofMinD
01-23-2009, 04:51 PM
Bingo. And would they be winning at as high of a clip even if they had all of that talent. Look what happened when EB was added to the sixers..........they sucked even though they had a tremendous amount of talent and are actually playing better without him. Look at the Houston Rockets, yes they've had a whole lot of injury problems but even when they were at full strength they weren't playing nearly as well as they should have been considering who's on that roster. Or look at the Washington Wizards, shouldn't they have been better over the years with Caron, Jaimeson, and Arenas? Bottom line, its easy to put up big numbers and lose on a mediocre team. It is very difficult to put up big numbers on a good team and lead them to victory. Put Smush Parker on the Timberwolves and give him the green light to do touch the ball every time down the floor and shoot at will.........I bet he could put up 20/3/5 a game.........but they'd still be the worst team in the NBA. Big stats on a team that's not contending for a playoff spot are pretty much meaningless IMO. Yes you need good players around you to win, no doubt about it, but its what you are able to do with those good players that really counts.

Ok Smush can put up 20 3 and 5. What's his FG% like? What % of the time does he have the ball in his hands? Stats are overrated sometimes if you look at the wrong ones. Sometimes watching the games is very important because of players like Durant. I think he is very deserving and Al Jefferson too. Is it their faults they have no talent?

Kobe didn't make the playoffs the first year Shaq left, so is Kobe not an all-star? T-Mac won 18 games in his best years, is he not an all-star?

Chronz
01-23-2009, 07:51 PM
You also have to ask...would players like Durant and Al Jeff and all those guys...would they put up the same stats, and would the team they play on be alot better if they had other very good players with them?
I dont see why not, if your surrounded by better teammates it makes it harder for the defense to focus on you. What kind of good players we're talking about plays a part as well, obviously pairing Al with Duncan would limit his touches in the paint but pairing him with a player like Ray Allen in his prime would only open the game up for him. Would the team be better off adding Ray? Nope, but the difference in wins more than makes up for any subtle difference in numbers. In either case how big of a difference in his numbers could it be, examples would be easier to analyze than hypotheticals.


Bingo. And would they be winning at as high of a clip even if they had all of that talent. Look what happened when EB was added to the sixers..........they sucked even though they had a tremendous amount of talent and are actually playing better without him.
When that happens the players numbers actually go down, I thought we were talking about players who were proving themselves worthy of praise not criticism. But what if Brand never recovers, what if this really is the player he is now, then isnt this an example of perceived talent being suddenly more cancerous and less efficient than we originally thought. Thats not a good addition but Im not ready to close the book on Brands Philly career just yet, I specifically recall mentioning that the Sixers would take 1 step back in hope of taking 2 steps forward. The adjustment of going from a small to a more traditional lineup isnt easy. Combining the 2 means Brand has to play center but for some unknown reason they rarely try it (Showcasing Dalemburt?).



Look at the Houston Rockets, yes they've had a whole lot of injury problems but even when they were at full strength they weren't playing nearly as well as they should have been considering who's on that roster.
What are you talking about, when have the Rockets been full strength? The reason they are still winning is because of how deep and talented they are, Artest and Mac will both play better in the 2nd half barring any unforeseen injuries. Again this isnt adding talent if its not operating at full strength


Or look at the Washington Wizards, shouldn't they have been better over the years with Caron, Jaimeson, and Arenas?
Theyve pretty much achieved what Id expect of them given their circumstances, I think its why they are sucking so bad now that theyre missing Arenas, teams can only go so long without improvements.


Bottom line, its easy to put up big numbers and lose on a mediocre team. It is very difficult to put up big numbers on a good team and lead them to victory.
I think your confusing talent with cohesion, you need the right blend of talent. Teams that are winning have that right blend so their players numbers reflect that, if you look at all of the teams that are underachieving the players they picked up are struggling and showing signs of cancerous player or what Id like to call the Double-D's club, an offensive rating under 100 is the standard mark for cancerous play, especially if its compounded with high possession usage, its why Toronto is playing so well without him, the better blend of talent is working and Bargs numbers reflect that.

Think of Pau on the Lakers, the team became contenders, Pau's individual numbers seem less flashy because its not 20-10 but the rate at which hes finishing plays has improved just as much, hes never been this efficient.


Put Smush Parker on the Timberwolves and give him the green light to do touch the ball every time down the floor and shoot at will.........I bet he could put up 20/3/5 a game.........but they'd still be the worst team in the NBA. Big stats on a team that's not contending for a playoff spot are pretty much meaningless IMO.
Didnt Smush put up his best numbers on a team
This is my main complaint about your theory, how efficient would Smush be in an environment where he was the teams best offensive player. What you deem to be "big stats" are in actuality bad/cancerous stats. Those kind of players should never be rewarded.



Yes you need good players around you to win, no doubt about it, but its what you are able to do with those good players that really counts.
Agreed, but your accusations work both ways, players have played worse when surrounded by less talent and there are endless examples of great players being unable to win due to the lack of talent around them, when the addition of another star would help his cause (Both individually and collectively).

You cant really say there is one set direction, but in terms of recognizing All-Stars these players are usually so good that the difference in their numbers on a team where they are less of a priority is so slight or actually more impressive only in the different manner. Usage and Efficiency people, they go hand in hand, the decrease in one must mean an increase in another (for either yourself or your teammates) or else your doing all you can to improve the team. Think KG in Boston and Pau in LA.

S.J.Basketball
01-23-2009, 07:55 PM
Yes winning matters. Granger is on a bottom of the barrel team. No he shouldn't be an all-star.

borat
01-24-2009, 12:59 AM
This is all crap. All-star is all about individual performance. Should have nothing to do with winning. I laugh because Reggie Miller kept talking about being on a winning team. Well Reggie. Let's look at the basketball HALL OF FAME. Which is an individual career award. Plenty of guys in there that have won nothing. No championship. Now Reggie, should you be denied the Hall of Fame only because you never WON a championship and only made it to the finals ONCE?

GTFO.

ARMIN12NBA
01-24-2009, 01:14 AM
Bingo. And would they be winning at as high of a clip even if they had all of that talent. Look what happened when EB was added to the sixers..........they sucked even though they had a tremendous amount of talent and are actually playing better without him. Look at the Houston Rockets, yes they've had a whole lot of injury problems but even when they were at full strength they weren't playing nearly as well as they should have been considering who's on that roster. Or look at the Washington Wizards, shouldn't they have been better over the years with Caron, Jaimeson, and Arenas? Bottom line, its easy to put up big numbers and lose on a mediocre team. It is very difficult to put up big numbers on a good team and lead them to victory. Put Smush Parker on the Timberwolves and give him the green light to do touch the ball every time down the floor and shoot at will.........I bet he could put up 20/3/5 a game.........but they'd still be the worst team in the NBA. Big stats on a team that's not contending for a playoff spot are pretty much meaningless IMO. Yes you need good players around you to win, no doubt about it, but its what you are able to do with those good players that really counts.

He is not even averaging 18 PPG in the D-League and recently got in a huge argument with his coach during a game where he went 0'fer and had 8 turnovers. Smush can never do that in the NBA.

lakers4sho
01-24-2009, 01:17 AM
^^ You don't mess with the Smushcalade...

:pity:

twoearl
01-24-2009, 01:22 AM
In sports, winning is everything, period!

You dont play for stats, accolades, girls etc. You play to win.

Kenny was exactly right, its easy to score points when it dosent mean anything. it easy to score when teams are taking your for granted ala a team like indiana, oklahoma, memphis etc.

This is the exact reason that D. Rose will win the rookie of the year, because his team is winning more than the pathetic grizz.

Winning is all that matters.

thesparky33
01-24-2009, 04:44 AM
This is all crap. All-star is all about individual performance. Should have nothing to do with winning. I laugh because Reggie Miller kept talking about being on a winning team. Well Reggie. Let's look at the basketball HALL OF FAME. Which is an individual career award. Plenty of guys in there that have won nothing. No championship. Now Reggie, should you be denied the Hall of Fame only because you never WON a championship and only made it to the finals ONCE?

GTFO.

LOL, yeah I agree.

KB24PG16
01-24-2009, 02:40 PM
i dont get the question.

NYM09
01-24-2009, 02:45 PM
having the best record is only a yearly achievement.You are viewed as having the best record in one season, but if you don't win the NBA Championship that year, you are forgotten about the next year. I can tell you from experience from a Met Fan lol. We had the best record in 06 but it didn't matter because we didn't get a ring