PDA

View Full Version : Dirk Nowitzki or Chris Paul: Who Has Had More Help in Their Careers?



Redrum187
04-27-2017, 02:19 PM
I saw a similarity with how people viewed Dirk before he won a championship in 2011 with Chris Paul. Both players have put up pretty incredibly playoff stats in spite of falling short and not having an elite supporting cast. It's obviously no secret that Dirk is the superior player with the superior career in that he has achieved everything CP3 hasn't (multiple WCF trips, MVP, FMVP, etc...), but that isn't the question.

The question is, which player do you think had more help throughout his career?

valade16
04-27-2017, 02:33 PM
Well for starters which duo would you rather have beside you:

Steve Nash
Michael Finley

or

Blake Griffin
DeAndre Jordan

Hawkeye15
04-27-2017, 02:52 PM
Dirk has had more help. Paul was on an island prior to getting to the Clips. Dirk has had contention help most of his career, outside the last few years. But he was no longer an alpha at that point anyways.

Chronz
04-27-2017, 02:57 PM
Look at the state of CP3's teams in the playoffs and you'll find either he or his best support were injured. I want to say just about every year this holds true.

Chronz
04-27-2017, 02:59 PM
Dirk has had more help. Paul was on an island prior to getting to the Clips. Dirk has had contention help most of his career, outside the last few years. But he was no longer an alpha at that point anyways.

His best team was in New Orleans, Blake and DJ weren't playoff ready for a long time (injuries to Blake didn't help). His best shot/team overall was the year he injured his hammy vs the defending champs and the team ran out of gas in the Houston series.

Hawkeye15
04-27-2017, 03:03 PM
His best team was in New Orleans, Blake and DJ weren't playoff ready for a long time (injuries to Blake didn't help). His best shot/team overall was the year he injured his hammy vs the defending champs and the team ran out of gas in the Houston series.

The only reason I will agree his best team was in NO, is because your Clips basically suffer a major injury every time the playoffs roll around to one of their top guys...

WaDe03
04-27-2017, 03:06 PM
CP3 has had more help. He needs to come to the Bulls or get the banana boat group together.

Quinnsanity
04-27-2017, 03:34 PM
I think Chris Paul has probably, on balance, had slightly better teammates, but I voted for Dirk because his prime came at a MUCH easier time in league history. Look the champions from 2003-2007: three really weak Spurs teams (at least relative to the current version, frankly the post-Kawhi Spurs have played far better basketball and had much better overall rosters than the three middle title teams), the '04 Pistons, a champion so weak they're used as justification for crappy teams sticking together without star power because "we can be like the '04 Pistons!" and the '06 Heat, a team that won on the strength of horrific officiating. Put any Finals team from 2012 on with full health against any of those champions and the champs get dominated. That Dirk was unable to come up with a title in that span, especially with two years of Steve Nash by his side, is kind of unforgivable. Stick the 2012 Clippers in 2003 and just make them play through the next five years and they probably win a title. The league is just harder now.

Also, I feel like this should be clear, but Chris Paul is a better basketball player than Dirk. I'm just throwing that out there.

kdspurman
04-27-2017, 04:07 PM
I think Chris Paul has probably, on balance, had slightly better teammates, but I voted for Dirk because his prime came at a MUCH easier time in league history. Look the champions from 2003-2007: three really weak Spurs teams (at least relative to the current version, frankly the post-Kawhi Spurs have played far better basketball and had much better overall rosters than the three middle title teams), the '04 Pistons, a champion so weak they're used as justification for crappy teams sticking together without star power because "we can be like the '04 Pistons!" and the '06 Heat, a team that won on the strength of horrific officiating. Put any Finals team from 2012 on with full health against any of those champions and the champs get dominated. That Dirk was unable to come up with a title in that span, especially with two years of Steve Nash by his side, is kind of unforgivable. Stick the 2012 Clippers in 2003 and just make them play through the next five years and they probably win a title. The league is just harder now.

Also, I feel like this should be clear, but Chris Paul is a better basketball player than Dirk. I'm just throwing that out there.

I'd have to disagree with the 05/07 Spurs teams being weak. You got a prime Duncan, Manu, almost TP, that's just not weak at all... I'd argue they had tougher routes to their titles then some of the recent ones you think would dominate them. Very different styles played recently than in the mid 2000s, so thats a factor, but both those Spurs teams showed they can win in a variety of ways.

Also, this current Spurs team is not as good as those IMO.

Quinnsanity
04-27-2017, 04:18 PM
Id have to disagree with the 05/07 Spurs teams being weak. You got a prime Duncan, Manu, almost TP, that's just not weak at all lol id argue they had tougher routes to their titles then some of the recent ones you think would dominate them. This current Spurs team is not as good as those either..

I'll grant you '07, because that's peak Manu and Parker, but '05 was not a great team relative to other champions. I can't take a team seriously that starts Rasho Nesterovic at center. Last year's Spurs team would beat the '05 version and I think 2012-2014 would too. Maybe not 2015, because the offense was clearly starting to slow down and they hadn't added Aldridge yet, and maybe not 2017 because Duncan's rim protection was gone and they don't really have good guard play, but if I were to rank the Spurs teams, I'd probably go:

1. 2016
2. 2014
3. 2012
4. 2013
5. 2007
6. 2017
7. 2006
8. 2011
9. 1999
10. 2005

And then after that I don't have a strong enough memory other than to say that the 2003 team was absolutely unspectacular. But those are the 10 best Spurs teams imo. I think people really forget how good they were even in 2011 and 2012, when they first implemented the new, faster paced offense coming off of those two "are the Spurs done?" years when they lost to Dallas and Phoenix. That was when TP was a legitimate MVP candidate, Manu was close to his peak and Duncan was still Duncan on defense at least. Like the 2012 team won 20 games in a row and looked totally unstoppable until Durant and Harden just morphed into top-five players in the league right before our eyes. Then you have the 2013 and 2014 teams when most of the other stuff is still humming, but Kawhi has really come into his own as a very good supporting piece (and Danny Green too). I just loved those groups.

Hawkeye15
04-27-2017, 04:55 PM
I'll grant you '07, because that's peak Manu and Parker, but '05 was not a great team relative to other champions. I can't take a team seriously that starts Rasho Nesterovic at center. Last year's Spurs team would beat the '05 version and I think 2012-2014 would too. Maybe not 2015, because the offense was clearly starting to slow down and they hadn't added Aldridge yet, and maybe not 2017 because Duncan's rim protection was gone and they don't really have good guard play, but if I were to rank the Spurs teams, I'd probably go:

1. 2016
2. 2014
3. 2012
4. 2013
5. 2007
6. 2017
7. 2006
8. 2011
9. 1999
10. 2005

And then after that I don't have a strong enough memory other than to say that the 2003 team was absolutely unspectacular. But those are the 10 best Spurs teams imo. I think people really forget how good they were even in 2011 and 2012, when they first implemented the new, faster paced offense coming off of those two "are the Spurs done?" years when they lost to Dallas and Phoenix. That was when TP was a legitimate MVP candidate, Manu was close to his peak and Duncan was still Duncan on defense at least. Like the 2012 team won 20 games in a row and looked totally unstoppable until Durant and Harden just morphed into top-five players in the league right before our eyes. Then you have the 2013 and 2014 teams when most of the other stuff is still humming, but Kawhi has really come into his own as a very good supporting piece (and Danny Green too). I just loved those groups.

are the Spurs rankings for the entire season? Because the 2014 Spurs team, come playoffs, could stand toe to toe with the 86' Celtics, or 96' Bulls imo..

kdspurman
04-27-2017, 05:13 PM
I'll grant you '07, because that's peak Manu and Parker, but '05 was not a great team relative to other champions. I can't take a team seriously that starts Rasho Nesterovic at center. Last year's Spurs team would beat the '05 version and I think 2012-2014 would too. Maybe not 2015, because the offense was clearly starting to slow down and they hadn't added Aldridge yet, and maybe not 2017 because Duncan's rim protection was gone and they don't really have good guard play, but if I were to rank the Spurs teams, I'd probably go:

1. 2016
2. 2014
3. 2012
4. 2013
5. 2007
6. 2017
7. 2006
8. 2011
9. 1999
10. 2005

And then after that I don't have a strong enough memory other than to say that the 2003 team was absolutely unspectacular. But those are the 10 best Spurs teams imo. I think people really forget how good they were even in 2011 and 2012, when they first implemented the new, faster paced offense coming off of those two "are the Spurs done?" years when they lost to Dallas and Phoenix. That was when TP was a legitimate MVP candidate, Manu was close to his peak and Duncan was still Duncan on defense at least. Like the 2012 team won 20 games in a row and looked totally unstoppable until Durant and Harden just morphed into top-five players in the league right before our eyes. Then you have the 2013 and 2014 teams when most of the other stuff is still humming, but Kawhi has really come into his own as a very good supporting piece (and Danny Green too). I just loved those groups.

Eh.. I'd have the 1999 team higher. I think you have to factor the time in which they played. That was a historic level defense, with a prime TD and still very good D-Rob. The 2011 team was good, but that's pre-Kawhi (Richard Jefferson failed experiment) and Duncan had a down year. He was battling the knee issue, and made his strong resurgence the following season. They were good, but there was something missing from that team... Def think 99 team is better than them, and the 05 team.

The 2012-2014 teams were very good, I agree. I think the 2014 is arguably one of the best of all time, so they'd be easily # 1 on my list, with 07 probably #2, but I'd have to really think about it.

This 2017 team is still TBD.. Right now, it looks much like the 03 Spurs where it was Duncan carrying the team on both ends, and hoping other guys step up at the right time.

Any who, I don't mean to derail this thread with how I rank the Spurs championship and/or teams in general, but it's something I would probably enjoy doing :) That's probably a thread idea in it of itself. But I do think you undersold those teams just a bit in trying to make the case Dirk should've won something in that time

Shlumpledink
04-27-2017, 07:21 PM
Chris Paul didn't have bad teams in New Orleans. He had David West, Stojakovic, Tyson Chandler, James Posey, Carl Landry, Trevor Ariza, Marcus Thornton, Emeka Okafor, Rasual Butler, etc.

Then he had super teams at the clippers with all sorts of talented veterans coming in at the cheap.

I think one of the main differences between them is the coaching talent. I don't think Byron Scott or Doc Rivers are good coaches. Vinnie Del Negro?

mngopher35
04-27-2017, 07:34 PM
That Spurs 14 team would be at the top for me as well, it was unreal in the playoff run (I think after like 1st round though).

As to the thread topic I think people have made a good point on the playoff help/situations for Paul. I think if you just look name value he probably wins but if you mean help towards championships then that probably leans it toward Dirk.

JasonJohnHorn
04-27-2017, 07:34 PM
I'm hesitant to engage in this conversation, because I don't want to make it sound like I'm ripping on either player given that I like both of them a great deal.

So let me say this first: CP3 impacts the game more and is, in my eyes, as better player (as far as you can asertain such a subjective matter, most especially between two people who play drastically different positions and different styles).


That said: who has had more help? I'd say Dirk more often than not, and pretty easily.


CP3 had Blake who is injured every year in the post season, so it is essentially the same as not having him. You can put his name down and it sounds like something, but they guy has been a walking injury every year. What has CP3 had after that? DAJ? Chandler was a better player when he was with Dallas than DAJ was.

Dirk has also been on a team featuring Steve Nash the year before his MVP season while he was in his prime (CP3 never played with an MVP calibre player), Michael Finley (who had just had an All-Star year the year before and was one of the best shooting guards in the league on both sides of the ball), Antoine Walker (coming off an All-Star year), Antwan Jamison (year before an All-Star season), as well as Scott Williams (solid vet role player) and Josh Howard. Marquis Daniels, who played well that year, was also on the team, and Danny Fortson gave them good rebounding off the bench.

I don't fault Dirk for not winning, because I think there were some chemistry (read coaching) issues that year, but that was the year a hobble Lakers squad who was only four deep got blasted by the Pistons. Minny had a great team that year too. But CP3 never had a team so stacked on paper. Certainly not in NO.

Dirk had a franchise player in Finely (IMO, Finley was a franchise player) and Nash. But only one deep run with them? I think that was more of a coaching issue (Nelson was a $#!t coach in my opinion: grossly overrated). Had a better coach had that team, they would have done more. But the West was also competitive then. Also... the GM (Donnie Jr.) was unable to get them a legit post defender, which was all they really needed, even with a bad coach.

Dirk made two finals with, what I think on paper, were weaker roster,s but that championship team was still better than anything that CP3 has had: Kidd, Chandler, Marion, Butler and Terry.. with JJ and Peja and Stevenson and Haywood giving some nice minutes off the bench? Pretty solid roster I think.


The thing is, it isn't just about who you have, but who other people have. Dirk got farther in 06 with one of his weakest teams, and likely would have won the title if the officials weren't so busy performing fellatio on Dwyane Wade. Why? Because the West saw a significant dip in competition, so it became easier to win there.

CP3 had a much better team with the Clippers in 2014, but I think the West was so much stronger that year than in 2006. The Warriors, Thunder, and Spurs were likely all better than any team Dirk played in the West in 2006. I think that team was as deep as Dirk's championship team, but the competition was stiffer that year.

That team had Blake, DAJ, Barnes, JJ, Crawford, Collison, and several quality vets sitting on the bench (Davis, Granger and Turk, who were sut 'names' by then, but still great guys to have as the 9th or 10th guy in the rotation).




In the end, I think both Dirk and CP3 have won as much as can fairly be expected of either player, and that both are great, but both have been saddled with bad coaches, and bad timing as their best teams came to them in years where the league was excessively competitive. Dirk finally hit the nail on the head and the stars aligned for him. Hopefully that happens for CP3.


Still bummed it never happened for Nash....

FlashBolt
04-27-2017, 07:55 PM
CP3 but relative to what exactly? The teams in West are stronger now than during Dirk's time.

flea
04-27-2017, 09:06 PM
1. 2016
2. 2014
3. 2012
4. 2013
5. 2007
6. 2017
7. 2006
8. 2011
9. 1999
10. 2005

And then after that I don't have a strong enough memory other than to say that the 2003 team was absolutely unspectacular. But those are the 10 best Spurs teams imo. I think people really forget how good they were even in 2011 and 2012, when they first implemented the new, faster paced offense coming off of those two "are the Spurs done?" years when they lost to Dallas and Phoenix. That was when TP was a legitimate MVP candidate, Manu was close to his peak and Duncan was still Duncan on defense at least. Like the 2012 team won 20 games in a row and looked totally unstoppable until Durant and Harden just morphed into top-five players in the league right before our eyes. Then you have the 2013 and 2014 teams when most of the other stuff is still humming, but Kawhi has really come into his own as a very good supporting piece (and Danny Green too). I just loved those groups.

Yeah there's no way the 05 or 07 Spurs aren't strong championship teams. I'd put the 07 Spurs against any championship team and feel pretty good about it. 06 was the beginning of Parker's offensive brilliance, Manu was still in his prime, and Duncan was at the tail-end of his prime but was still plenty good enough to be the best player on the court in every series. They only lost 4 games in the playoffs and even though that featured the Diaw/Stat suspensions I think they would've pulled out that series anyway - and that Suns team was arguably worse than the 05 one that the Spurs beat handily. The Spurs just had the Suns number and if it weren't for their defensive strength and veteran pacing I'm pretty sure the Suns win a ring.

And yeah you're way underrating the '99 one. Statistically it's one of the best teams of all time. They lost 2 games in the whole playoffs and swept the Shaq and young Kobe Lakers that would start its 3peat the following year. Arguably best defensive team of all time - IMO it is. Sure Ewing was hurt and the Finals had a damper put on them and sure it was a lockout year (this is a favorite of excuses among Lakers/Shaq fans) but Lebron won a ring during a lockout year and you never hear a peep about that. Plus it was only Duncan's 2nd year in the league and he was the featured star so it's not like the team had had so much longer than other teams to gel.

Looking at your list I kind of question whether you even watched the NBA before 2009, especially since you seem to think the 04-05 Pistons weren't that good. 2007 and 2005 teams were way better than every Spurs team after except maybe the 2014. 2014 had a great playoffs run but a lot of things went right for that team, and even though they wiped the floor with the Heat it wasn't like that against the Mavs or the Thunder. It took some Duncan late-career heroics to win that Thunder series. I think they stick out in peoples' minds because their offense was so cohesive and of course they won 3 of their 4 Finals games before halftime - but overall it wasn't as good of a playoffs run as the '99 Spurs.

flea
04-27-2017, 09:20 PM
As to the question, it's CP3.

His Hornets teams weren't that bad - they just weren't deep and were often injured in the playoffs. West/Chandler is a great bigs tandem for CP3's talents because one is an inside out guy with good hands and the other is a rim runner. The problem was how often Chandler was hurt, and then West broke a leg or something one season. They could have used a wing that was quicker or not as broken down as Butler/Stojakovic but I don't think they were a Raja Bell away from a ring. They needed an older CP3 or a healthier frontcourt to run through what they had to in the West.

And the best chance they had they ran into the Spurs. That's what happens to good teams in the NBA - they match up with dynasties and lose. MJ did it in the 90s, the Lakers did in in the early 00s, and Spurs did it through the middle of the decade. There are a lot of great Western Conference teams that never won in the 00s - the Suns, the Jazz, the Blazers, the Mavs, and yes the Hornets (you could say one or two years of the Melo Nuggets too if you want and I wouldn't argue).

I think people overrate teammates honestly. You can isolate years and talk about that but over the course of their career most stars have similar role player talent. Dirk had some great guards early, then it kind of dried up and was the Dirk/Terry show - and he was good enough to carry a team like that. We joke about Josh Howard but he was a good player, just not a star and not a guy that could create his own shot. IMO the biggest problem with post-Nash Mavs was the weaknesses of their centers. If you didn't have a guy who could challenge Duncan on both ends and fatigue him a bit then you didn't have a prayer. Even when the Mavs did beat the Spurs in 06 Duncan shredded them putting up 41/15/6 in game 7. Dirk was just having the playoffs of his career (similar to Duncan's 2003) and his guards played better.

europagnpilgrim
04-27-2017, 10:00 PM
I think Chris Paul has probably, on balance, had slightly better teammates, but I voted for Dirk because his prime came at a MUCH easier time in league history. Look the champions from 2003-2007: three really weak Spurs teams (at least relative to the current version, frankly the post-Kawhi Spurs have played far better basketball and had much better overall rosters than the three middle title teams), the '04 Pistons, a champion so weak they're used as justification for crappy teams sticking together without star power because "we can be like the '04 Pistons!" and the '06 Heat, a team that won on the strength of horrific officiating. Put any Finals team from 2012 on with full health against any of those champions and the champs get dominated. That Dirk was unable to come up with a title in that span, especially with two years of Steve Nash by his side, is kind of unforgivable. Stick the 2012 Clippers in 2003 and just make them play through the next five years and they probably win a title. The league is just harder now.

Also, I feel like this should be clear, but Chris Paul is a better basketball player than Dirk. I'm just throwing that out there.

Those early Mavs/Dirk squads could put up 120 a game on a given night back then, that series(in 03' I think) vs Sac town was in the 130's some times, I don't think a young West/Chandler were top notch scorers but they complimented CP3 well enough with the pick and pop/alley oop style but weren't really legit contenders and only was in the talks because of CP3 playing at mvp level, this current Spurs squad is not as strong as those older ones because from what I have watched when the old version Spurs got you down by double digits it wouldn't be a chance you would come back but this current team blows all types of big leads and struggle at home when back then and even in recent years with Duncan they were strong and feared at home, teams hated coming to SA, those past champs muddied up the game more and played insane team defense, similar to how the Utah/Clipps series this year has been some what a drag out dog fit but it was even more worse back in those so called weak champion era, even in Jordan 2nd three peat those games were 88-90 pts scored, defense was more intense back then, rules helped curve it back to the offensive side of the game, which in turn attracts more viewers

you could nitpick about any Finals champ, Warriors beat Lebron/Delly in 15' to win, that's about as weak as a title you could ever win, Iggy getting Finals MVP is worse than Billups getting it because at least Billups was the starter/known big shot maker for that Pistons squad, and they had star power/high lottery picks with Rip/Billups/Sheed(aged star), Wallace was a defensive superstar and Larry Brown HOF'er/superstar coach(one of the best coaches ever), that's plenty of star power especially when you play as one and for each other like they did, it wasn't your typical Superstar power team but they had plenty and they would just wear you down with that team defense

that same 06' Heat would get all the fouls that Wade got or no? that slows the game down a lot, Dirk was unable to come up with a title in that span because he ran into the better teams of that stacked West but he was a legit contender to come out the West way more than CP3 has ever been, it wasn't until CP3 went to Clippers that we would say they are legit and then injuries derailed all of that talk ever since it basically started

I would draft CP3 over Dirk if I were building a team from scratch

Quinnsanity
04-28-2017, 12:38 PM
are the Spurs rankings for the entire season? Because the 2014 Spurs team, come playoffs, could stand toe to toe with the 86' Celtics, or 96' Bulls imo..

It's a combination of both. The best playoff team of all time is the '01 Lakers. But they tend not to get much credit in "best team of all time" arguments. If you did just want to go best playoff teams of all time though, I'd probably have the 2014 Spurs 5th after the '01 Lakers, the two teams you mentioned and the '83 Sixers.


Eh.. I'd have the 1999 team higher. I think you have to factor the time in which they played. That was a historic level defense, with a prime TD and still very good D-Rob. The 2011 team was good, but that's pre-Kawhi (Richard Jefferson failed experiment) and Duncan had a down year. He was battling the knee issue, and made his strong resurgence the following season. They were good, but there was something missing from that team... Def think 99 team is better than them, and the 05 team.

The 2012-2014 teams were very good, I agree. I think the 2014 is arguably one of the best of all time, so they'd be easily # 1 on my list, with 07 probably #2, but I'd have to really think about it.

This 2017 team is still TBD.. Right now, it looks much like the 03 Spurs where it was Duncan carrying the team on both ends, and hoping other guys step up at the right time.

Any who, I don't mean to derail this thread with how I rank the Spurs championship and/or teams in general, but it's something I would probably enjoy doing :) That's probably a thread idea in it of itself. But I do think you undersold those teams just a bit in trying to make the case Dirk should've won something in that time

I'd be down for that thread. Even if I did undersell those teams though, I don't think the '05 or '07 Spurs, much less the '03 Spurs, stand up to the Miami or Golden State juggernauts that stood in Chris Paul's way during his peak (even if he never even got to those teams in the later rounds). Ultimately the point remains valid.

kdspurman
04-28-2017, 01:45 PM
It's a combination of both. The best playoff team of all time is the '01 Lakers. But they tend not to get much credit in "best team of all time" arguments. If you did just want to go best playoff teams of all time though, I'd probably have the 2014 Spurs 5th after the '01 Lakers, the two teams you mentioned and the '83 Sixers.



I'd be down for that thread. Even if I did undersell those teams though, I don't think the '05 or '07 Spurs, much less the '03 Spurs, stand up to the Miami or Golden State juggernauts that stood in Chris Paul's way during his peak (even if he never even got to those teams in the later rounds). Ultimately the point remains valid.

I still respectfully disagree :), I think the 05 or 07 would match up just fine against either of them. Top notch defensive units, capable of playing big/small ball, and neither would have any prayer at guarding TD.

Hawkeye15
04-28-2017, 01:45 PM
CP3 but relative to what exactly? The teams in West are stronger now than during Dirk's time.

During Dirk's peak, there were a few years where you needed to win 50 games just to make the playoffs out west. I actually think the west is down now, compared to the late 00's.

kdspurman
04-28-2017, 01:46 PM
During Dirk's peak, there were a few years where you needed to win 50 games just to make the playoffs out west. I actually think the west is down now, compared to the late 00's.

Agreed

IKnowHoops
04-28-2017, 02:00 PM
Dirk.

Dirk plays on well constructed teams that usually run close to 10 players deep who can play and contribute. Dirk could always rest while his bench outplayed the other teams bench. CP3's teams in LA have always been 3 guys and 8 bums, and one of the top 3 get hurt every single year. Coaching counts as well. Dirks coaching has been much better as well.

IKnowHoops
04-28-2017, 02:03 PM
During Dirk's peak, there were a few years where you needed to win 50 games just to make the playoffs out west. I actually think the west is down now, compared to the late 00's.

100% this.

00's Lakers, Spurs, Sacremento, Blazers...only team in the west beating any of those teams are the Dubs.

IKnowHoops
04-28-2017, 02:04 PM
CP3 but relative to what exactly? The teams in West are stronger now than during Dirk's time.


Nah...no way, rethink this immediately.

LA4life24/8
04-28-2017, 02:05 PM
Dirk. Cp3 had almost 0 help in NOLA.

PowerHouse
04-28-2017, 02:09 PM
To me the head coach plays a crucial role in how good a team is going to be and that favors Dirk by a landslide. Rick Carlisle>Doc/B Scott/Monty Williams

IKnowHoops
04-28-2017, 02:11 PM
I'll grant you '07, because that's peak Manu and Parker, but '05 was not a great team relative to other champions. I can't take a team seriously that starts Rasho Nesterovic at center. Last year's Spurs team would beat the '05 version and I think 2012-2014 would too. Maybe not 2015, because the offense was clearly starting to slow down and they hadn't added Aldridge yet, and maybe not 2017 because Duncan's rim protection was gone and they don't really have good guard play, but if I were to rank the Spurs teams, I'd probably go:

1. 2016
2. 2014
3. 2012
4. 2013
5. 2007
6. 2017
7. 2006
8. 2011
9. 1999
10. 2005

And then after that I don't have a strong enough memory other than to say that the 2003 team was absolutely unspectacular. But those are the 10 best Spurs teams imo. I think people really forget how good they were even in 2011 and 2012, when they first implemented the new, faster paced offense coming off of those two "are the Spurs done?" years when they lost to Dallas and Phoenix. That was when TP was a legitimate MVP candidate, Manu was close to his peak and Duncan was still Duncan on defense at least. Like the 2012 team won 20 games in a row and looked totally unstoppable until Durant and Harden just morphed into top-five players in the league right before our eyes. Then you have the 2013 and 2014 teams when most of the other stuff is still humming, but Kawhi has really come into his own as a very good supporting piece (and Danny Green too). I just loved those groups.

:speechless: GTFOH

:confused: TF you talking about

:facepalm: Just stop

FlashBolt
04-28-2017, 02:19 PM
During Dirk's peak, there were a few years where you needed to win 50 games just to make the playoffs out west. I actually think the west is down now, compared to the late 00's.

I'm not disagreeing with the record but those teams weren't that top heavy. The first seed was hovering around 56 wins as well so it meant the field was more even whereas today, only a few teams really dominate. If we're comparing Dirk's roster to comparable rosters of that time, it's more even. Now, if you're comparing CP3's roster to the Warriors, Spurs, or even OKC a year back, there's more of a disparity.

IKnowHoops
04-28-2017, 02:23 PM
Yeah there's no way the 05 or 07 Spurs aren't strong championship teams. I'd put the 07 Spurs against any championship team and feel pretty good about it. 06 was the beginning of Parker's offensive brilliance, Manu was still in his prime, and Duncan was at the tail-end of his prime but was still plenty good enough to be the best player on the court in every series. They only lost 4 games in the playoffs and even though that featured the Diaw/Stat suspensions I think they would've pulled out that series anyway - and that Suns team was arguably worse than the 05 one that the Spurs beat handily. The Spurs just had the Suns number and if it weren't for their defensive strength and veteran pacing I'm pretty sure the Suns win a ring.

And yeah you're way underrating the '99 one. Statistically it's one of the best teams of all time. They lost 2 games in the whole playoffs and swept the Shaq and young Kobe Lakers that would start its 3peat the following year. Arguably best defensive team of all time - IMO it is. Sure Ewing was hurt and the Finals had a damper put on them and sure it was a lockout year (this is a favorite of excuses among Lakers/Shaq fans) but Lebron won a ring during a lockout year and you never hear a peep about that. Plus it was only Duncan's 2nd year in the league and he was the featured star so it's not like the team had had so much longer than other teams to gel.

Looking at your list I kind of question whether you even watched the NBA before 2009, especially since you seem to think the 04-05 Pistons weren't that good. 2007 and 2005 teams were way better than every Spurs team after except maybe the 2014. 2014 had a great playoffs run but a lot of things went right for that team, and even though they wiped the floor with the Heat it wasn't like that against the Mavs or the Thunder. It took some Duncan late-career heroics to win that Thunder series. I think they stick out in peoples' minds because their offense was so cohesive and of course they won 3 of their 4 Finals games before halftime - but overall it wasn't as good of a playoffs run as the '99 Spurs.

You know your hoops.

I agreed with ever single word you said.

It will never happen again.

valade16
04-28-2017, 02:26 PM
Yeah there's no way the 05 or 07 Spurs aren't strong championship teams. I'd put the 07 Spurs against any championship team and feel pretty good about it. 06 was the beginning of Parker's offensive brilliance, Manu was still in his prime, and Duncan was at the tail-end of his prime but was still plenty good enough to be the best player on the court in every series. They only lost 4 games in the playoffs and even though that featured the Diaw/Stat suspensions I think they would've pulled out that series anyway - and that Suns team was arguably worse than the 05 one that the Spurs beat handily. The Spurs just had the Suns number and if it weren't for their defensive strength and veteran pacing I'm pretty sure the Suns win a ring.

And yeah you're way underrating the '99 one. Statistically it's one of the best teams of all time. They lost 2 games in the whole playoffs and swept the Shaq and young Kobe Lakers that would start its 3peat the following year. Arguably best defensive team of all time - IMO it is. Sure Ewing was hurt and the Finals had a damper put on them and sure it was a lockout year (this is a favorite of excuses among Lakers/Shaq fans) but Lebron won a ring during a lockout year and you never hear a peep about that. Plus it was only Duncan's 2nd year in the league and he was the featured star so it's not like the team had had so much longer than other teams to gel.

Looking at your list I kind of question whether you even watched the NBA before 2009, especially since you seem to think the 04-05 Pistons weren't that good. 2007 and 2005 teams were way better than every Spurs team after except maybe the 2014. 2014 had a great playoffs run but a lot of things went right for that team, and even though they wiped the floor with the Heat it wasn't like that against the Mavs or the Thunder. It took some Duncan late-career heroics to win that Thunder series. I think they stick out in peoples' minds because their offense was so cohesive and of course they won 3 of their 4 Finals games before halftime - but overall it wasn't as good of a playoffs run as the '99 Spurs.

I do wonder how effective they'd be in today's NBA with so many small ball 4's shooting 3's. Could D-Rob or Duncan chase them out on the perimeter or how would that work?

kdspurman
04-28-2017, 02:38 PM
I do wonder how effective they'd be in today's NBA with so many small ball 4's shooting 3's. Could D-Rob or Duncan chase them out on the perimeter or how would that work?

I think young TD could for sure. Im not sure 99 D-Rob could, effectively at least for long stretches. Prime D-Rob would be a diff story

Hawkeye15
04-28-2017, 03:21 PM
I'm not disagreeing with the record but those teams weren't that top heavy. The first seed was hovering around 56 wins as well so it meant the field was more even whereas today, only a few teams really dominate. If we're comparing Dirk's roster to comparable rosters of that time, it's more even. Now, if you're comparing CP3's roster to the Warriors, Spurs, or even OKC a year back, there's more of a disparity.

well, GS for example gets to whip up on mediocre west teams now. Not saying they aren't pushing 60 wins in any era, just that life gets a lot tougher for them over the course of the regular season in the late 00's, compared to now. Much tougher.

FlashBolt
04-28-2017, 03:30 PM
well, GS for example gets to whip up on mediocre west teams now. Not saying they aren't pushing 60 wins in any era, just that life gets a lot tougher for them over the course of the regular season in the late 00's, compared to now. Much tougher.

that's my point, though. CP3 had more help but it doesn't seem like more help would be enough relative to what he has to go through. Like, did Dirk had to deal with this many injuries with his roster and a lack of bench? I think Mavs had one of the best benches in those years. CP3 might have the bigger names but realistically, his team isn't THAT great.

Quinnsanity
04-28-2017, 04:47 PM
:speechless: GTFOH

:confused: TF you talking about

:facepalm: Just stop

'16 Spurs ORtg: 110.3 (4th)
'16 Spurs DRtg: 99 (1st)
Net Rating: +11.3

'99 Spurs ORtg: 104 (11th)
'99 Spurs DRtg: 95 (1st)
Net Rating: +9

The '99 Spurs lost 13 games. Two fewer than the '16 Spurs, who lost 15. The '99 Spurs won 37 games. 30 Fewer than the '16 Spurs, who won 67.

If you're into top-heavy rosters, Kawhi had more WS/48 than Duncan and Aldridge had more than Robinson (keep in mind it was a lockout year, so we need to use per minute stats rather than things like total WS and VORP).

If you're into depth, the '16 Spurs had (http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/teamstats/16/7/diffeff/1-1) the best bench in basketball by a country mile, the '99 Spurs were (http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/teamstats/99/7/diffeff/1-1) 10th.

The 2016 Spurs were an absolute juggernaut. They were a championship caliber team that existed in a year with the greatest regular season team ever, then found themselves in a playoff series against a horrible matchup that they lost largely because of bad officiating at the end of Game 2 (which the NBA has admitted (http://www.nba.com/2016/news/05/03/nba-on-spurs-thunder-game-2-non-calls.ap/)). Had they rightfully won that game, they would have hosted Game 7 at their arena where they had the best home record in NBA history (40-1). This was the best Spurs team overall even if it didn't reach the heights the 2014 team did in the Finals or the 2012 team did during the 20 game winning streak. It just happened to be in a year where winning the championship was particularly difficult. They were better than the 2015 Warriors, for example, in almost every respect. They won the same number of games, but had a higher net rating (GSW was +10.2), SRS (10.28 for the Spurs, 10.01 for the Warriors), and obviously with those numbers had a higher Pythagorean expectation. Had they played a terrible New Orleans team, an offensively deficient Memphis team and two very injured opponents in the last two rounds (Houston and Cleveland), this Spurs team would have walked to a title. But they couldn't control that. Winning a championship does not automatically make you better than every team that didn't win the title. Last year's Warriors are still arguably the greatest team of all time. Just because the '99 team won the title doesn't make them better than last year's group when we have full regular season sample sizes to show how good at basketball a team actually is.

Quinnsanity
04-28-2017, 05:07 PM
Yeah there's no way the 05 or 07 Spurs aren't strong championship teams. I'd put the 07 Spurs against any championship team and feel pretty good about it. 06 was the beginning of Parker's offensive brilliance, Manu was still in his prime, and Duncan was at the tail-end of his prime but was still plenty good enough to be the best player on the court in every series. They only lost 4 games in the playoffs and even though that featured the Diaw/Stat suspensions I think they would've pulled out that series anyway - and that Suns team was arguably worse than the 05 one that the Spurs beat handily. The Spurs just had the Suns number and if it weren't for their defensive strength and veteran pacing I'm pretty sure the Suns win a ring.

And yeah you're way underrating the '99 one. Statistically it's one of the best teams of all time. They lost 2 games in the whole playoffs and swept the Shaq and young Kobe Lakers that would start its 3peat the following year. Arguably best defensive team of all time - IMO it is. Sure Ewing was hurt and the Finals had a damper put on them and sure it was a lockout year (this is a favorite of excuses among Lakers/Shaq fans) but Lebron won a ring during a lockout year and you never hear a peep about that. Plus it was only Duncan's 2nd year in the league and he was the featured star so it's not like the team had had so much longer than other teams to gel.

Looking at your list I kind of question whether you even watched the NBA before 2009, especially since you seem to think the 04-05 Pistons weren't that good. 2007 and 2005 teams were way better than every Spurs team after except maybe the 2014. 2014 had a great playoffs run but a lot of things went right for that team, and even though they wiped the floor with the Heat it wasn't like that against the Mavs or the Thunder. It took some Duncan late-career heroics to win that Thunder series. I think they stick out in peoples' minds because their offense was so cohesive and of course they won 3 of their 4 Finals games before halftime - but overall it wasn't as good of a playoffs run as the '99 Spurs.

The '05 Pistons had a net rating of +4.2. They won 54 games. They had the 6th best SRS in basketball and the 17th ranked offense (and don't say they made up for it by having some historically great defense, they were 3rd in the league). That essentially makes them this year's Clippers. And hey, if this year's Clippers were in the league in 2005 they might have won their conference or even the championship because it was a weaker league and because the best overall roster, Indiana, was knocked out by the Artest melee (the '04 team had won 61 games, Artest and O'Neal were a year closer to their primes and they added Stephen Jackson). I don't know if the Pacers could've beaten the Spurs, that would've been a really tough series either way, but Detroit was better in '04 than they were in '05 and I imagine a fully loaded Indiana team probably beats them (especially after seeing them throttle the Pistons at Auburn Hills during the Artest melee game).

Put a gun to my head and I'd probably say the Spurs beat the '07 Suns even if Amar'e and Diaw don't get suspended. You're right about the '05 team being better. That was peak Amar'e, Joe Johnson and QRich were both vital and both were traded after the season, and somehow I'm pretty sure that was one of their better benches (**** Sarver for not spending). But I've never been a huge SSOL person as far as them being a team that should've won a title. The Spurs were frankly better than them for that entire run, and had they gotten past Dallas in '06 they would've beaten the Suns as well. When I say the Spurs were weak as champions, what I really mean is that they were relative the champions that came immediately before and after them. I don't need to go into how good the Bulls were. You could argue that any of their title teams, except the '98 team, was a top-10/15 team ever. On the other end, I believe the 2013 Heat were statistically better than any Spurs champion and the Warriors were as well.

As far as the '99 team against the '14 team, yes, the '99 team had a more impressive body of work in the entire playoff run, but the level that 2014 team reached in the Finals is something we've only seen a handful of times in NBA history. If you look at the other Spurs championship teams, they were all obviously very good, but none of them had anything that made them stand out from a historical standpoint. The way they beat down the Heat, that's how we're going to remember the Spurs 20 years from now. We're going to remember the beautiful offense and the ball movement, even if that didn't come until later. That's why I tend to favor the more modern Spurs teams. There are statistical indicators I could get into, but mainly, their offense before 2011 actually was boring. It was plodding, dump the ball into Duncan. They made the switch after two straight humiliating defeats early in the playoffs and it was a huge reason for the Spurs renaissance. Most people thought they were done after losing to Phoenix and Dallas in 2009 and 2010. The faster offense made a huge difference for them, and as their defense tended to remain excellent throughout, I'm going to favor the team whose offense I have more faith in.

But when it comes to evaluating teams overall, I tend to favor regular season success. It's just a much better indicator. The sample is much bigger and opponent quality is much more stable. We can learn a lot more from 82 games than we can from 20-25. Now, when a team like the 2014 Spurs just totally annihilates a two-time defending champ, I'm much more willing to take the heights of that team into consideration. But the total body of work for the 2016 team is better than any other a Popovich Spurs team put up.

JasonJohnHorn
04-28-2017, 05:25 PM
Agreed

Yeah... but would you rather play 3 50-win teams to get to the finals, or a .500 team, and 50-win team, and the Warriors?

You can have parity and a high level of play and still have an easier route to the finals than a league with fewer 50-win teams but more championship calibre team.

So which era is stronger?

It's hard to quantify.

flea
04-28-2017, 05:28 PM
But when it comes to evaluating teams overall, I tend to favor regular season success. It's just a much better indicator. The sample is much bigger and opponent quality is much more stable. We can learn a lot more from 82 games than we can from 20-25.

Yeah again, you must be new to the NBA. You could have just led with this because I couldn't disagree more and the entirety of your post is about regular season team ratings - something I think is a curiosity but certainly not very meaningful. The NBA is about matchups, it's not baseball. The Clips and Thunder have put up some gaudy net ratings in recent years, they'd still get blasted by either 05 or 07 and especially the 99 Spurs championship teams in a 7 game series.

2016 Spurs just weren't anything close to as good as you think. They were the definition of a regular season team, like the 2013 Nuggets. Very deep with a still raw scorer who couldn't push his team over the top when it counted. I'd know because I watched probably 90% of Spurs games until Duncan retired. Kawhi is different this year, but even still I don't know if he's good enough to carry an offense - which he and Aldridge are clearly going to have to do because the team is still old and slow.

Regular season NBA is the least meaningful of any major sport, including college sports.

Heediot
04-28-2017, 05:40 PM
Yeah Regular season and first round of the playoffs to a certain extent, can be by passed. The deeper you get into the playoffs the more you should throw away regular season metrics. It's all about which team plays the best defense and which team can close out the best. Two big choke jobs last year might have change a lot, what if OKC beats gS and what if GS beats Cle?

Refereeing and defenses tighten up the deeper things go into the playoffs.

flea
04-28-2017, 05:45 PM
I do wonder how effective they'd be in today's NBA with so many small ball 4's shooting 3's. Could D-Rob or Duncan chase them out on the perimeter or how would that work?

They would still feast on teams. A young Duncan would have no problem, one of the reasons he was such a good defender was his agility for a guy his size. You'd take some rim protection away maybe but the team had two elite rim protectors, and standing around the elbows against Draymond Green is essentially just giving your big man rest.

Plus it's not like there are any stretch 4s that really kill you with the jumper - Love and Anderson are the only ones I can think about. A team can live with Ibaka, Morris, Milsap, Draymond, Horford, etc. shooting 3s all day - none of them will shoot well enough to hurt you and you'd be guaranteed to lose on the glass. The idea of small ball isn't to have a big man shoot you to a win - it's just to get more hands out of the paint so your slashing guards can go 1v1 vs. a big once he beats his man. Duncan's teams for years ranked among the top in defense by playing exactly that way - chasing back 3s and relying on Duncan to shut anything down in the paint. Every year they had among the least amount of shots at the rim, among the most in the 3-10 but with among the lowest percentage, and among the worst and lowest 3 point percentage by rate and percent of shots.

Quinnsanity
04-28-2017, 06:41 PM
Yeah again, you must be new to the NBA. You could have just led with this because I couldn't disagree more and the entirety of your post is about regular season team ratings - something I think is a curiosity but certainly not very meaningful. The NBA is about matchups, it's not baseball. The Clips and Thunder have put up some gaudy net ratings in recent years, they'd still get blasted by either 05 or 07 and especially the 99 Spurs championship teams in a 7 game series.

2016 Spurs just weren't anything close to as good as you think. They were the definition of a regular season team, like the 2013 Nuggets. Very deep with a still raw scorer who couldn't push his team over the top when it counted. I'd know because I watched probably 90% of Spurs games until Duncan retired. Kawhi is different this year, but even still I don't know if he's good enough to carry an offense - which he and Aldridge are clearly going to have to do because the team is still old and slow.

Regular season NBA is the least meaningful of any major sport, including college sports.

Regular season NBA is the least meaningful of any major sport? What the hell? The NBA's regular season is BY FAR the most predictive of playoff success of any of the four major sports. This has been proven by dozens of studies, here's a recent one from Harvard (http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2013/09/undeserving-champions-examining-variance-in-the-postseason/), for example. Going back to Magic Johnson and Larry Bird's rookie year of '79-80 (because the 70's were a mess and the 60's was just all Celtics), the team with the best record has won 18 of 38 championships. Of the last 43 teams to win titles, 36 have been top-two seeds and six have been No. 3 seeds. The only team below that to win a title in that span is the '95 Rockets, who added Drexler mid-season and had some injury issues. Compare that with the other major sports. The NFL is single elimination, so weird **** happens every year. The team with the best record has only won six of the past 20 Super Bowls despite there being fewer teams in the NFL playoffs in total than the NBA playoffs and the best teams getting byes. MLB playoffs are a total crapshoot because of the short five-game series in the first round and the expanded role of great pitching (i.e, a team with two great starters can be worse everywhere else but win because those gives pitch five of the seven games). Since the Wild Card era started in 1995, the team with the best record has won only five out of 22 times, for most of that era there were half as many playoff teams in baseball as there were in basketball. And hockey, well, go look up how often No. 8 seeds beat No. 1 seeds. It's totally random. Saying that basketball has the least important regular season in sports is factually wrong. It is a totally incorrect statement that can be and has been disproven extremely easily.

Yes, matchups are going to impact playoff series quite a bit. But just because one team has a matchup advantage over another doesn't mean that they're a BETTER team than the other. Matchups are unique to the specific teams involved. Why do you think the '07 Warriors were able to beat the Mavs as a No. 1 seed, then get beaten pretty soundly by the weaker No. 4 seeded Jazz? Because the matchup advantages that allowed them to beat the Mavs didn't exist against Utah.

Metrics derived from a full regular season are far more meaningful in deriving a team's actual quality, independent of opponent, because the sample is greater and they're playing the same opponents as everyone else. That's kind of the beauty of the NBA regular season. In the NFL, two teams can have the same exact record but share only a few opponents. Strength of schedule is a real problem in the NFL because of the small 16-game sample. But two NBA teams in the same conference are going to play virtually identical schedules. Obviously it's imperfect, because you're going to catch different teams with different amounts of rest and injuries, but it's far closer to equal than it is in any other sport. If one team puts up far better numbers than another, it's pretty safe to say that team is better. They won't always beat them in a playoff series because the best team doesn't ALWAYS win. That's where matchups come into play. But, as evidenced above, the best team wins a lot more often in basketball than in any other sport, and the way to judge which team is best is in its ability to beat every team, not one specific team.

flea
04-28-2017, 06:53 PM
All those studies show is that the NBA is a star league. I didn't need Harvard to tell me that. Every year there are anywhere from 2 to 6 or 7 teams that can win it all. That doesn't mean the regular season is predictive, it means that if you have stars you compete and if you don't you won't. It doesn't mean that the NBA regular season, where guys don't play defense and even don't bother playing sometimes, is enormously illuminating - and certainly not from the standpoint of net ratings (which are reliant on depth and quality of competition as much as anything your top 7 does).

NFL and MLB have much smaller playoffs than the NBA, that's part of why lower seeded teams win more often - over half the team isn't making the playoffs like it is in the NBA. The other part of the reason is the NFL and MLB actually have parity - the NBA has zero parity. Honestly the NHL and NBA should just eliminate the first round or at least do a first round bye for top 2 seeds but money talks.

The fact that the NBA is a star's league doesn't mean its regular season stats measure quality across eras. I even made a thread on this topic a few years ago when the West was deeper, comparing regular season team ratings amongst champions to predict who would win. IIRC all champs but 1 were top 5 in either O or D rating but in net rating they were everywhere in the top 10. In any case the point is it was a fun forum exercise but not particularly enlightening - everyone knows one of the best 5 or 6 teams by record is going to win an NBA title.

IKnowHoops
04-28-2017, 09:43 PM
'16 Spurs ORtg: 110.3 (4th)
'16 Spurs DRtg: 99 (1st)
Net Rating: +11.3

'99 Spurs ORtg: 104 (11th)
'99 Spurs DRtg: 95 (1st)
Net Rating: +9

The '99 Spurs lost 13 games. Two fewer than the '16 Spurs, who lost 15. The '99 Spurs won 37 games. 30 Fewer than the '16 Spurs, who won 67.

If you're into top-heavy rosters, Kawhi had more WS/48 than Duncan and Aldridge had more than Robinson (keep in mind it was a lockout year, so we need to use per minute stats rather than things like total WS and VORP).

If you're into depth, the '16 Spurs had (http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/teamstats/16/7/diffeff/1-1) the best bench in basketball by a country mile, the '99 Spurs were (http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/teamstats/99/7/diffeff/1-1) 10th.

The 2016 Spurs were an absolute juggernaut. They were a championship caliber team that existed in a year with the greatest regular season team ever, then found themselves in a playoff series against a horrible matchup that they lost largely because of bad officiating at the end of Game 2 (which the NBA has admitted (http://www.nba.com/2016/news/05/03/nba-on-spurs-thunder-game-2-non-calls.ap/)). Had they rightfully won that game, they would have hosted Game 7 at their arena where they had the best home record in NBA history (40-1). This was the best Spurs team overall even if it didn't reach the heights the 2014 team did in the Finals or the 2012 team did during the 20 game winning streak. It just happened to be in a year where winning the championship was particularly difficult. They were better than the 2015 Warriors, for example, in almost every respect. They won the same number of games, but had a higher net rating (GSW was +10.2), SRS (10.28 for the Spurs, 10.01 for the Warriors), and obviously with those numbers had a higher Pythagorean expectation. Had they played a terrible New Orleans team, an offensively deficient Memphis team and two very injured opponents in the last two rounds (Houston and Cleveland), this Spurs team would have walked to a title. But they couldn't control that. Winning a championship does not automatically make you better than every team that didn't win the title. Last year's Warriors are still arguably the greatest team of all time. Just because the '99 team won the title doesn't make them better than last year's group when we have full regular season sample sizes to show how good at basketball a team actually is.

Then I guess the 2016 Thunder are better than any Spurs team in history because they beat the best spurs team in history in 7.

That 2016 Spurs team lost 4 games in the second round. That 99 team lost 2 times in the whole playoffs and swept a Shaq/Kobe lakers.

Drob and Duncan would eat this spurs team alive. Unstoppable domination.

In this era, that 99 team would truck this league

Quinnsanity
04-28-2017, 11:56 PM
Then I guess the 2016 Thunder are better than any Spurs team in history because they beat the best spurs team in history in 7.

That 2016 Spurs team lost 4 games in the second round. That 99 team lost 2 times in the whole playoffs and swept a Shaq/Kobe lakers.

Drob and Duncan would eat this spurs team alive. Unstoppable domination.

In this era, that 99 team would truck this league

So the '94 Nuggets were better than the '94 Sonics? The '07 Warriors were better than the '07 Mavs? Just clarify for me, is your official stance that if one team beats another in a playoff series, they are automatically better than them, regardless of context? Where's the line then? If the Warriors had been swept in their two regular season games by the Magic would Orlando be better than them?

The Thunder were a horrible matchup for San Antonio, and they lost a game they shouldn't have due to poor officiating. A lot of weird **** can happen in a seven-game series. The best team wins a pretty high percentage of the time, but not 100% of the time. An 82-game sample says a lot more about a team's overall quality than a seven-game sample. The weird **** that happens in a playoff series gets parsed out over a full season. How you fare against one specific opponent only matters in the context of that specific opponent. It has very little to do with how you'd fare against the other 28 potential teams you could've been playing.

Mr.B
05-06-2017, 03:15 AM
I'm hesitant to engage in this conversation, because I don't want to make it sound like I'm ripping on either player given that I like both of them a great deal.

So let me say this first: CP3 impacts the game more and is, in my eyes, as better player (as far as you can asertain such a subjective matter, most especially between two people who play drastically different positions and different styles).


That said: who has had more help? I'd say Dirk more often than not, and pretty easily.


CP3 had Blake who is injured every year in the post season, so it is essentially the same as not having him. You can put his name down and it sounds like something, but they guy has been a walking injury every year. What has CP3 had after that? DAJ? Chandler was a better player when he was with Dallas than DAJ was.

Dirk has also been on a team featuring Steve Nash the year before his MVP season while he was in his prime (CP3 never played with an MVP calibre player), Michael Finley (who had just had an All-Star year the year before and was one of the best shooting guards in the league on both sides of the ball), Antoine Walker (coming off an All-Star year), Antwan Jamison (year before an All-Star season), as well as Scott Williams (solid vet role player) and Josh Howard. Marquis Daniels, who played well that year, was also on the team, and Danny Fortson gave them good rebounding off the bench.

I don't fault Dirk for not winning, because I think there were some chemistry (read coaching) issues that year, but that was the year a hobble Lakers squad who was only four deep got blasted by the Pistons. Minny had a great team that year too. But CP3 never had a team so stacked on paper. Certainly not in NO.

Dirk had a franchise player in Finely (IMO, Finley was a franchise player) and Nash. But only one deep run with them? I think that was more of a coaching issue (Nelson was a $#!t coach in my opinion: grossly overrated). Had a better coach had that team, they would have done more. But the West was also competitive then. Also... the GM (Donnie Jr.) was unable to get them a legit post defender, which was all they really needed, even with a bad coach.

Dirk made two finals with, what I think on paper, were weaker roster,s but that championship team was still better than anything that CP3 has had: Kidd, Chandler, Marion, Butler and Terry.. with JJ and Peja and Stevenson and Haywood giving some nice minutes off the bench? Pretty solid roster I think.


The thing is, it isn't just about who you have, but who other people have. Dirk got farther in 06 with one of his weakest teams, and likely would have won the title if the officials weren't so busy performing fellatio on Dwyane Wade. Why? Because the West saw a significant dip in competition, so it became easier to win there.

CP3 had a much better team with the Clippers in 2014, but I think the West was so much stronger that year than in 2006. The Warriors, Thunder, and Spurs were likely all better than any team Dirk played in the West in 2006. I think that team was as deep as Dirk's championship team, but the competition was stiffer that year.

That team had Blake, DAJ, Barnes, JJ, Crawford, Collison, and several quality vets sitting on the bench (Davis, Granger and Turk, who were sut 'names' by then, but still great guys to have as the 9th or 10th guy in the rotation).




In the end, I think both Dirk and CP3 have won as much as can fairly be expected of either player, and that both are great, but both have been saddled with bad coaches, and bad timing as their best teams came to them in years where the league was excessively competitive. Dirk finally hit the nail on the head and the stars aligned for him. Hopefully that happens for CP3.


Still bummed it never happened for Nash....

Antoine Walker was garbage when he was in Dallas. Jamison was good but he just didn't fit. With Jamison, Walker and Dirk the Mavs had three guys that basically played the same position.

I do agree that coaching was a huge reason why they didn't win. Big Nellie was hilarious and his teams were always fun to watch. If they were not built for playoff basketball, at least not during that time period. He would literally bench you if you played defense. Finley was a very good defensive player until Nellie got to Dallas.

And speaking of Finley, he's one of my all time favorite Mavs but Finley wasn't one of the elite of the elite. By that time Kobe, McGrady, and Vince were on a whole other level. Finley was right there in the same class as Stackhouse. Still a very good player but not in that best of the best level.

LOb0
05-06-2017, 04:32 AM
His best team was in New Orleans, Blake and DJ weren't playoff ready for a long time (injuries to Blake didn't help). His best shot/team overall was the year he injured his hammy vs the defending champs and the team ran out of gas in the Houston series.

You're the worst Chris Paul apologist I've ever seen. They ran out of Gas. Yeah as Chris Paul watched them blow a 3-1 lead when they were up double digits in the 4th. Then you got the OKC series where he completely choked.

Chris Paul is overrated. Stop giving him a pass for failing in crucial moments, just because you're a stat monkey that loves his statistics.

JasonJohnHorn
05-06-2017, 10:42 PM
Antoine Walker was garbage when he was in Dallas.

He wasn't garbage the year before. We he playing with CP3 instead of Dirk, would his game have devolved like that? Walker was an All-Star the year before, and would go onto be an important role player in Miami a few seasons later.


Jamison was good but he just didn't fit. With Jamison, Walker and Dirk the Mavs had three guys that basically played the same position.

Great players make this work. Jamison was more of a SF, Walker played both PF and Sf, Dirk was a PF. Sounds like a great rotation between those two position. Coaching was certainly an issue.




And speaking of Finley, he's one of my all time favorite Mavs but Finley wasn't one of the elite of the elite. By that time Kobe, McGrady, and Vince were on a whole other level. Finley was right there in the same class as Stackhouse. Still a very good player but not in that best of the best level.

I'll have to disagree about lumping Finley in with Stackhouse. Stackhouse was a high-usage/low-efficiency scorer. He didn't play D. Finley was a strong defender, and an efficient scorer, and even if he wasn't the best at his position, he was one of the best, and he was in his prime. If Duncan played all that time with Nash and Finley, there would have been deeper playoff runs for certain. It's not too often you get an instances like GSW, where three guys (Curry, Klay and KD) are all arguably the best at their position. So you get Dirk, who is among the three best PF in the league and you say: I give him an All-Star (and soon-to-be MVP) point guard, an All-Star SG who is a strong defender who is in his prime, and a couple of other All-Star front court players like Walker and Jamison and let's see what he can do.

I don't fault Dirk for not winning with that team, but if the question is who has had the more talent: Dirk or CP3? I have to say Dirk. CP3 has never had an owner put that much around him.

Yes... it was partly the GM and partly the coaching that led to a team with that much talent not really accomplishing anything, and part poor timing (the West was really competitive), but he still had the talent there.

Dirk is great. This isn't a knock on him.

CP3 has had seasons where he had a strong team on paper, but he's also been without his best player in the post season several times now. You can't hold a lack of playoff success against him when he's only had a healthy team once.

JasonJohnHorn
05-06-2017, 10:45 PM
Chris Paul is overrated. Stop giving him a pass for failing in crucial moments, just because you're a stat monkey that loves his statistics.

How has he failed in crucial moments? His personal stats are great in the playoffs.

You can't fault CP3 because Doc Rivers gives his kid too many minutes and doesn't make the right adjustments in crucial games because he things he has a series wrapped up.


If CP3 was playing in Boston instead of IT, they would have swept the Bulls and would be up 3-0 over Washington.

LOb0
05-07-2017, 12:32 AM
How has he failed in crucial moments? His personal stats are great in the playoffs.

You can't fault CP3 because Doc Rivers gives his kid too many minutes and doesn't make the right adjustments in crucial games because he things he has a series wrapped up.


If CP3 was playing in Boston instead of IT, they would have swept the Bulls and would be up 3-0 over Washington.

Stats are great, till he falls apart and does nothing to stop the bleeding when Houston was on a run. Then those turnovers against OKC.

When the best player on the team is in position to win and fails. Its on him regardless of his stats.

Mr.B
05-07-2017, 01:38 PM
He wasn't garbage the year before. We he playing with CP3 instead of Dirk, would his game have devolved like that? Walker was an All-Star the year before, and would go onto be an important role player in Miami a few seasons later.



Great players make this work. Jamison was more of a SF, Walker played both PF and Sf, Dirk was a PF. Sounds like a great rotation between those two position. Coaching was certainly an issue.





I'll have to disagree about lumping Finley in with Stackhouse. Stackhouse was a high-usage/low-efficiency scorer. He didn't play D. Finley was a strong defender, and an efficient scorer, and even if he wasn't the best at his position, he was one of the best, and he was in his prime. If Duncan played all that time with Nash and Finley, there would have been deeper playoff runs for certain. It's not too often you get an instances like GSW, where three guys (Curry, Klay and KD) are all arguably the best at their position. So you get Dirk, who is among the three best PF in the league and you say: I give him an All-Star (and soon-to-be MVP) point guard, an All-Star SG who is a strong defender who is in his prime, and a couple of other All-Star front court players like Walker and Jamison and let's see what he can do.

I don't fault Dirk for not winning with that team, but if the question is who has had the more talent: Dirk or CP3? I have to say Dirk. CP3 has never had an owner put that much around him.

Yes... it was partly the GM and partly the coaching that led to a team with that much talent not really accomplishing anything, and part poor timing (the West was really competitive), but he still had the talent there.

Dirk is great. This isn't a knock on him.

CP3 has had seasons where he had a strong team on paper, but he's also been without his best player in the post season several times now. You can't hold a lack of playoff success against him when he's only had a healthy team once.

I just remember that Mavs team with Walker and Jamison being a very unbalanced team. Talented but unbalanced. Nellie's system also wasn't man for the playoffs so I fault Dirk for not winning that year either. Nellie also took the ball out of Nash's hands a lot that year too because he was obsessed with Walker being his point forward.

I personally think Chris Paul has played with better talent but Dirk has played with better coaching (Rick Carlisle). Injuries do also play a factor but player for player Paul has had more talented teammates.

Chronz
05-07-2017, 07:42 PM
You're the worst Chris Paul apologist I've ever seen. They ran out of Gas. Yeah as Chris Paul watched them blow a 3-1 lead when they were up double digits in the 4th.
Well yeah, is it more honorable to lose to a superior team without winning the most amount of games possible before losing? Im not seeing your argument, I know the team and I know how different their energy levels was after their epic 1st round battle+injuries to an already shallow team.


Then you got the OKC series where he completely choked.
Nah, he overachieved and isolating an entire series to a few moments of a game isn't my style.


Chris Paul is overrated. Stop giving him a pass for failing in crucial moments, just because you're a stat monkey that loves his statistics.
Hes underrated and Im not giving him a pass, I just know isolated moments do not discount entire series worth of play. I've seen far too many inferior players win to think 1 player can completely determine the fate of his team. CP3 overachieved yet again this year.

Chronz
05-07-2017, 07:50 PM
He wasn't garbage the year before. We he playing with CP3 instead of Dirk, would his game have devolved like that?
Walker was always garbage relative to his role. He was a HIGHLY flawed All-Star and he was a flawed role player as well.



Great players make this work. Jamison was more of a SF, Walker played both PF and Sf, Dirk was a PF. Sounds like a great rotation between those two position. Coaching was certainly an issue.

Cuban wanted to experiment after what was their best season in history and they could have legitimately won the
title had Dirk not gotten injured. When they should have built around what made them so successful, they chose to radically alter the chemistry/heirarchy of the team, they had no idea how influential spacing and leaving the ball in the hands of your best player would become in the coming years. Its why after that second experiment failed, Cubes thought going traditional would be the smart thing. I sort of fell for it too assuming they would still be contenders with the moves but I had a lasting suspicion that Walker was over hyped, for example I think Lamar Odom is a FAR superior player despite the lack of raw production and all-star births.

Chronz
05-07-2017, 07:54 PM
I just remember that Mavs team with Walker and Jamison being a very unbalanced team. Talented but unbalanced. Nellie's system also wasn't man for the playoffs so I fault Dirk for not winning that year either. Nellie also took the ball out of Nash's hands a lot that year too because he was obsessed with Walker being his point forward.

I personally think Chris Paul has played with better talent but Dirk has played with better coaching (Rick Carlisle). Injuries do also play a factor but player for player Paul has had more talented teammates.

Unbalanced is a nice way of putting it. They replaced their best C who made them an incredibly modern 5-out team in an era where defenses were dominating the middle with an inefficient chucker who made them smaller, whats the point? I have a feeling this was the era before Cuban invested into the emerging stats that better quantified what many experts were arguing before, that there are only so many shots to go around. A move like that would not be made today, Cubes would have built around his Big-3 and if anything, finds better defensive compliments instead of thinking he could top a historically efficient offense with inefficient players that made him worse defensively.

LOb0
05-07-2017, 10:07 PM
Well yeah, is it more honorable to lose to a superior team without winning the most amount of games possible before losing? Im not seeing your argument, I know the team and I know how different their energy levels was after their epic 1st round battle+injuries to an already shallow team.


Nah, he overachieved and isolating an entire series to a few moments of a game isn't my style.


Hes underrated and Im not giving him a pass, I just know isolated moments do not discount entire series worth of play. I've seen far too many inferior players win to think 1 player can completely determine the fate of his team. CP3 overachieved yet again this year.

So basically you're saying as long as he plays great, then chokes, its fine.

The most absurd statement you've ever said in bold. 1 player means everything, especially when its your best player. Inferior players argument is a laughable excuse to deflect blame.

rhino17
05-07-2017, 10:24 PM
Dirk has had more help. Paul was on an island prior to getting to the Clips. Dirk has had contention help most of his career, outside the last few years. But he was no longer an alpha at that point anyways.

The Mavs were in contention because he put them in contention. He won a championship with JET as his #2 player. Hakeem is the only other player I can think of that won a ring without a bonafide #2 next to him.

True ALPHAS, all time greats, can carry a team on their back, its the only sport where a single player can make such a substantial difference. Paul isn't in that category.

Chronz
05-07-2017, 10:34 PM
So basically you're saying as long as he plays great, then chokes, its fine.

The most absurd statement you've ever said in bold. 1 player means everything, especially when its your best player. Inferior players argument is a laughable excuse to deflect blame.
If choking means your team overachieves and gets as close as possible to winning then yes, if my team has to lose then I'd rather they "choke" the game away.

1 player doesn't mean everything, sorry Im not dumb enough to fall for such an inane cliche. I dont care if you call it an excuse, so long as it remains a fact, thats good enough for me.

LOb0
05-07-2017, 11:12 PM
If choking means your team overachieves and gets as close as possible to winning then yes, if my team has to lose then I'd rather they "choke" the game away.

1 player doesn't mean everything, sorry Im not dumb enough to fall for such an inane cliche. I dont care if you call it an excuse, so long as it remains a fact, thats good enough for me.

Doctor you did great for 99% of the surgery. Too bad he died at the end when you messed up.

Chronz: He did great, he got close. The death doesn't matter.

Your logic is hilariously awful. Also randomly making things fact when they're not. You've been known to give players passes because you're a stat monkey. Its just like when you made the LeBron excuse for the 2010 east finals blaming his "Arm injury" then he did the same thing in the 2011 finals without the arm injury

You are blinded by statistics and you completely and utterly overrate and over complicate with them.

Redrum187
05-08-2017, 05:42 AM
Doctor you did great for 99% of the surgery. Too bad he died at the end when you messed up.

Chronz: He did great, he got close. The death doesn't matter.

Your logic is hilariously awful. Also randomly making things fact when they're not. You've been known to give players passes because you're a stat monkey. Its just like when you made the LeBron excuse for the 2010 east finals blaming his "Arm injury" then he did the same thing in the 2011 finals without the arm injury

You are blinded by statistics and you completely and utterly overrate and over complicate with them.

lol I think you make a pretty good point honestly. You can't argue that the doctor "overachieved" when ultimately the patient died.

Dirk had no business taking his 2011 squad to the Finals (Charles Barkley was the only commentator that said the Mavericks were legit contenders that year) and running over the Blazers, Lakers (2x defending champs), OKC (Durant/Harden/Westbrook/Ibaka), and then the Heat (LeBron/Bosh/Wade).

I could make the case that even if Dirk lost in the Finals that year, he still "overachieved" because no one had the Mavericks getting passed the Lakers in round 2. But I can't say Dirk "overachieved" specifically relating to the finals if he ended up losing it. To "achieve" something, you must obtain something. The only thing Chris Paul has obtained (or achieved) are early round exits. I'm not saying it's ALL his fault, I'm just saying that is the reason why Chris Paul is a tier or two below Dirk... Both put up great playoff stats, but one player has proven to overcome what many thought was unthinkable in 2011.

YAALREADYKNO
05-08-2017, 09:34 AM
After Nash and Finley left Dirk's best teammates were josh Howard and Jason terry. Really good players in there primes but they don't come to mind when you think of great sidekicks.

Mr.B
05-08-2017, 10:38 AM
Unbalanced is a nice way of putting it. They replaced their best C who made them an incredibly modern 5-out team in an era where defenses were dominating the middle with an inefficient chucker who made them smaller, whats the point? I have a feeling this was the era before Cuban invested into the emerging stats that better quantified what many experts were arguing before, that there are only so many shots to go around. A move like that would not be made today, Cubes would have built around his Big-3 and if anything, finds better defensive compliments instead of thinking he could top a historically efficient offense with inefficient players that made him worse defensively.

That was also the year that Cuban had those HORRIBLE pewter colored uni's made for the team. They wore them once and got so much hell from the fans that they never wore them again.

Ebbs
05-08-2017, 11:30 AM
Dirk never had another superstar in their prime. Nash just missed and Kidd was way past his best days.

Griffin/Jordan for 5 years...