In his lifetime The Answer Man has watched the Lakers maneuver complicated, yet brilliant, trades for seven footers - Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal and Dwight Howard. Notice a trend? When the Lakers go big, they go big.
Simultaneously, the Knicks "blockbusters" have included 6'10 Bob McAdoo (who did not mesh with Spencer Haywood), 6'9 Antonio McDyess (who cost us both the very long Marcus Camby and Brazil's starting center) and 6'9 Carmelo Anthony (who cost us Russia's starting center, a 6'10 sniper, a 6'8 Mayor and a point guard to be named a starter two years later).
With all due fairness, the one time we got it right and dealt big for smaller (Walt Bellamy for DeBusschere) was a beautiful thing. The positive karma of hitting the open man was rewarded with Lottery selection Patrick Ewing. It was a stroke of serendipity that only happens once a millenia. Thank you Dave DeBusschere.
The moral of the story?
Go big or stay with your homeys.
Height is important but I think you're overrating it. The 3 best players in this years finals were 6'8", 6'4", and 6'9"
Banners Are Not Over Rated
Bonn1997 wrote:Height is important but I think you're overrating it. The 3 best players in this years finals were 6'8", 6'4", and 6'9"
bonn1997 - this year? Once again, you are caught looking at things in miniature. A narrow view. Over the period of time described, starting with Wilt, perhaps you could compare the number of Lakers championship banners to the ones hanging inside Madison Square Garden.
misterearl wrote:Banners Are Not Over RatedBonn1997 wrote:Height is important but I think you're overrating it. The 3 best players in this years finals were 6'8", 6'4", and 6'9"
bonn1997 - this year? Once again, you are caught looking at things in miniature. A narrow view. Over the period of time described, starting with Wilt, perhaps you could compare the number of Lakers championship banners to the ones hanging inside Madison Square Garden.
This year was just an example, not the sole evidence. You can find many championship teams where the best player was not a 7'0" big. I'd say about 1/3 of the time it is a guy who's at least 6'11" and 2/3 it isn't.
Bonn1997 - It is mind-boggling that you insist on being stubbornly mypoic.
The comparison is between the approaches of two franchises in their major transactions. In every case, the Lakers went for seven footers.
Read carefully - L o s A n g e l e s versus N e w Y o r k.
This is NOT a history of the NBA.
Miami was small but the game was still win inside. Lebron dominated the paint against okc.....
The lakers don't want to see the knicks...kobe is Kobe still but i think the knicks have enough length and perimeter defenders now to challenge him out there....
Ron Artest ain't dominating melo, unless he starts a fight our something. I think melo is mature enough to not give into that. Gasol vs A'mare is interesting...both players have question marks. Dwight vs Tyson i think the knicks own that.
Nash vs Felton would be interesting....considering the talent around both players, their stats will probably be the same. Felton plays defense though.....
would be a dope series on paper at least
misterearl wrote:Bonn1997 - It is mind-boggling that you insist on being stubbornly mypoic.The comparison is between the approaches of two franchises in their major transactions. In every case, the Lakers went for seven footers.
Read carefully - L o s A n g e l e s versus N e w Y o r k.
This is NOT a history of the NBA.
I'm looking at what has worked across all NBA teams. You are looking at two teams. If you think I am the one being myopic, you do not understand the word.
You have expressed a theory here: Going big helps teams win. If your theory is right, it should work for teams that play in cities not named "Los Angeles" and "New York City." In contrast, if you are making a conclusion from just a random coincidence, we would expect your theory to not to work within the NBA more broadly.
Wrong Again
Bonn1997 wrote:
You have expressed a theory here: Going big helps teams win.
bonn1997 - in your rush to judge your listening ears are covered with duct tape. Absolutely false. Your reading comprehension is so far out of left field it borders on silly putty. The theory is that dealing for big men in major transactions, and then adding a complimentary supporting cast, wins.
It is a construction story which the Lakers have replicated four times with success.
You got a problem with that?
misterearl wrote:Wrong AgainBonn1997 wrote:
You have expressed a theory here: Going big helps teams win.
bonn1997 - in your rush to judge your listening ears are covered with duct tape. Absolutely false. Your reading comprehension is so far out of left field it borders on silly putty. The theory is that dealing for big men in major transactions, and then adding a complimentary supporting cast, wins.
It is a construction story which the Lakers have replicated four times with success.
You got a problem with that?
4 replications? Small sample size.
Earl, you did not contradict what I said. You just added more details.
I said your theory was that bigs win championships.
Your new reply merely adds two pieces of information:
A) how to get the bigs (you now say trades/transactions are the way to go) and
B) it's important to have a good supporting cast (which is obvious)
misterearl wrote:In his lifetime The Answer Man has watched the Lakers maneuver complicated, yet brilliant, trades for seven footers - Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal and Dwight Howard. Notice a trend? When the Lakers go big, they go big.Simultaneously, the Knicks "blockbusters" have included 6'10 Bob McAdoo (who did not mesh with Spencer Haywood), 6'9 Antonio McDyess (who cost us both the very long Marcus Camby and Brazil's starting center) and 6'9 Carmelo Anthony (who cost us Russia's starting center, a 6'10 sniper, a 6'8 Mayor and a point guard to be named a starter two years later).
With all due fairness, the one time we got it right and dealt big for smaller (Walt Bellamy for DeBusschere) was a beautiful thing. The positive karma of hitting the open man was rewarded with Lottery selection Patrick Ewing. It was a stroke of serendipity that only happens once a millenia. Thank you Dave DeBusschere.
The moral of the story?
Go big or stay with your homeys.
It's not just the fact that they're big it's that they're talented as well. Wilt, Kareem, and Shaq are 3 of the top 10 players of all time and Dwight Howard is probably going to end up in the Hall of Fame some day as well. Not every random 7-footer (Mozgov) has the ability to lead a team to a championship the way those guys can. You've also decided to ignore Kobe's, Magic's, and West's additions to those teams.
You hit the nail on the head, Vcoug.
Bonn1997 wrote:You hit the nail on the head, Vcoug.
Thank you. There seems to be a tendency among some people to try and explain why teams win as something other than having great players who play well together and have solid role players to pick up the slack.
Bonn1997 wrote:Earl, you did not contradict what I said. You just added more details. I said your theory was that bigs win championships.
Your new reply merely adds two pieces of information:
A) how to get the bigs (you now say trades/transactions are the way to go) and
B) it's important to have a good supporting cast (which is obvious)
Did u bother to read the first post, cause ur take on what was stated is flat out wrong.
VCoug wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:You hit the nail on the head, Vcoug.
Thank you. There seems to be a tendency among some people to try and explain why teams win as something other than having great players who play well together and have solid role players to pick up the slack.
I think the thread was about trades and who and what size to trade for, not an explanation of why teams win
martin wrote:VCoug wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:You hit the nail on the head, Vcoug.
Thank you. There seems to be a tendency among some people to try and explain why teams win as something other than having great players who play well together and have solid role players to pick up the slack.
I think the thread was about trades and who and what size to trade for, not an explanation of why teams win
How can we discuss "who and what to trade for" without understanding why teams win? If you're saying "Trade for A" you're implying that "A" helps teams win.
Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:VCoug wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:You hit the nail on the head, Vcoug.
Thank you. There seems to be a tendency among some people to try and explain why teams win as something other than having great players who play well together and have solid role players to pick up the slack.
I think the thread was about trades and who and what size to trade for, not an explanation of why teams win
How can we discuss "who and what to trade for" without understanding why teams win? If you're saying "Trade for A" you're implying that "A" helps teams win.
That's a loaded question. If your best player is a big man with a good post game, you're going to want to surround him with a penetrating guard and guys who can shoot from the outside. It's simpy putting together the best team based together based on the strenghts and weaknesses of your team.
The super simple answer as to why teams win? Defense.
I don't see how that contradicts anything I said.
The Knicks have had winning big men over the year. Willis, Cartwright, Ewing & Camby were all top big men for their time. It's not like this team hasn't tried but Due to a few decades of incompetence the Knicks haven't been in position to land THE TOP CENTER at the time. They've had to take big risks. They thought Eddy would develop into a franchise Center and he certainly had the physical talent, just not the winning drive. Now they've added STAT, Tyson and Camby, which given the timing is a very valid attempt to address the big man needs of a title team. There have been gaps for the Knicks, but they have actually tried to have winning big men. They just haven't been as competent, focused nor aggressive as the Lakers who only go after THE top guy in the league at a given time.
Bonn1997 wrote:I don't see how that contradicts anything I said.
Just making a satement. No contradiction intended.
Well I don't see how it established that I made a loaded question.
