I love it!
What about the SG position makes it more important than SF? I just don't understand your theory. How was Rip Hamilton the difference maker on Detroit's championship squad?
Also, does your theory mean that Lebron is incapable of winning a championship in real life, at least as Cleveland is constituted? Because, as much as I love our 7th man Delonte West, he's not a dominant SG, either.
Why do you guys keep trying to read more into the facts than what is there. Did I say LeBron was incapable of winning a championship? No, I did not so stop trying to twist what is being discussed. Did I say that the SG position was more important than any other position? No I did not, so again stop trying to twist the conversation around.
What I said is that a team needs to HAVE a dominant SG to win it all in today's NBA. Does that mean it is impossible for a team without a dominant SG to win it all? Of course not and you know that. I am not talking absolutes and never said I was.
But the facts are since Michael transform the style of the game and transformed the biggest threat on the court to his SG position the SG position has won the MOST Finals MVPs and Most NBA MVPs. Since 1988 the champs and their SGs:
Lakers Byron Scott
Pistons Joe Dumars
Bulls Michael jordan
Rockets Clyde Drexler and Kenny Smith(not dominant)
Bulls Michael Jordan
Spurs Mario Elle/Steve Kerr combo(not dominant)
Lakers Kobe
Spurs Jackson/Manu conbo
Pistons Rip Hamilton
Spurs Manu
Heat Wade
Spurs Manu
Celtics Ray Allen
Lakers Kobe
These are just facts and it's where I get my theory. In today's game a team with a dominant(not most dominant but dominant) will win the title 90% of the time or more.
Two things: Adding in Michael changes everything. You originally said "for the past decade", which would start in 1999. There's another team without a dominant 2. Yes, if you count Michael's years into the equation, two guards outnumber the rest of the NBA in finals and regular MVPs. But thats the best player in the history of the game, a man who is the exception to many rules. Yes if you include the greatest player of all time it does prove your point. However, with the exception of 2006 and 2009 championships, none of the players you mentioned were the best player on their team, let alone the most dominant.
Lakers- SG Byron Scott. There is no way he was etter than Magic and Worthy. Even kareem on one leg.
Pistons- SG- Joe Dumars. While he had a magnificent series, Arguing that he is a more dominant player than Issiah is like arguing Pierce is a more dominant player than KG.
Bulls- No Argument
Lakers 3 peat- While Kobe was great, Shaq was easily the most dominant player in the league.
Spurs- You can say what you want about the Manu/Jackson combo, but Tim Duncan was the dominant player on that team.
Pistons- Rip had nice numbers, but there's a reason Chauncey won the Finals MVP
Spurs- Duncan again
Heat- No Argument
Spurs- Tp dominated that series, and the second best player was TD
Celtics- While Ray was very good, the two times he scored over 20 points were in blowouts when the Lake show stopped playing defense. Pauls clutch scoring and defense truly dominated the series.
Lakers- No argument.
I think you're picking the wrong constant. Over the past decade, it has been much harder for an NBA team to win without their best player being a dominant big.
Topic: CB Draft '09 Mock Press Conference: Atlantic Divison (Read 66853 times)