Would you trade Rondo for Griffin straight up?

[BballTim]

  In this conversation, though, you've completely reversed your argument. Finals MVP has gone from a major measuring stick of dominance to meaningless. Leading a team to the title also seems to have declined in importance.

Lol, I see that, but I think I am alluding to the fact that the voting for Finals MVP is now a farce.

Who was more valuable in the 2007 Finals, Duncan or Parker?
Who was more valuable in the 2010 Finals, Gasol or Kobe?
Ben and Rasheed stopping Shaq and a hobbled Malone were more instrumental to knocking the Lakers off (Kobe chucking sure helped too) than Billups in 2004, IMHO.

I still maintain that the only thing that matter is the rings. And I believe a big provides a better chance at that than a PG.

  So finals mvp voting is a farce when a big doesn't win it? Gasol averaged 19/12 against us, Kobe averaged 29/8. Shaq was "held" to 27/11 on about 63% shooting against the Pistons and, as you say, Malone was hobbled.

As I've said before, the Finals MVP basically goes to the guy who got hot in the final week. Does that mean they are more valuable to the team? Absolutely not. 27/11 for Shaq isn't even that good compared to his previous Finals, but true, "stopped" wasn't the correct word lol.

  Well, doing silghtly better against Shaq than the Pacers, Nets or Sixers isn't a very high standard.

[GreenEnvy]

  In this conversation, though, you've completely reversed your argument. Finals MVP has gone from a major measuring stick of dominance to meaningless. Leading a team to the title also seems to have declined in importance.

Lol, I see that, but I think I am alluding to the fact that the voting for Finals MVP is now a farce.

Who was more valuable in the 2007 Finals, Duncan or Parker?
Who was more valuable in the 2010 Finals, Gasol or Kobe?
Ben and Rasheed stopping Shaq and a hobbled Malone were more instrumental to knocking the Lakers off (Kobe chucking sure helped too) than Billups in 2004, IMHO.

I still maintain that the only thing that matter is the rings. And I believe a big provides a better chance at that than a PG.

  So finals mvp voting is a farce when a big doesn't win it? Gasol averaged 19/12 against us, Kobe averaged 29/8. Shaq was "held" to 27/11 on about 63% shooting against the Pistons and, as you say, Malone was hobbled.

As I've said before, the Finals MVP basically goes to the guy who got hot in the final week. Does that mean they are more valuable to the team? Absolutely not. 27/11 for Shaq isn't even that good compared to his previous Finals, but true, "stopped" wasn't the correct word lol.

  Well, doing silghtly better against Shaq than the Pacers, Nets or Sixers isn't a very high standard.

Indeed, but in his 70 playoffs games from 2000-2003, he averaged 29.5 and 14.5.

[Moranis]

Rondo is putting up stats similar to Kidd and Nash, two future HOFers.

Griffin, in his rookie season, is putting up stats similar to Duncan and Shaq, two of the most dominant players ever.

Rondo already has a ring, but the other two PG's don't.

The bigs have 6 Finals MVP's between them.

  Has Shaq ever been on a team with a losing record? I wouldn't rush to put Griffin in that class. Maybe after he leads teams to 3-4 titles, not while he's putting up big numbers on a losing team.

I didn't say Grifin can impact a game like Shaq or Duncan. He is putting up the same (or better) rookie numbers though.

My point being that he appears to be a special talent, as only a handful of players had similar rookie seasons (Duncan, Shaq, and Robinson in the last 25 years).

The Magic won 41 games Shaq's rookie season. The Clips can still finish .500 the way they have been currently playing.

Like I said, those guys win Finals MVP's. The Nash's and Kidd's and Stockton's and Kevin Johnson's make All-Star games and the playoffs. And Rondo is closer to them than Magic Johnson.

Bottom line: I'd take a dominant PF over a dominant PG.

But again, this C's team would basically have to be blown up if they made a Griffin for Rondo swap. For that reason alone I say NO.

  Yes, guys that Griffin can't impact the game like win finals mvps. But it's not the case that only centers and pfs win finals mvps. In fact you can look at it from the opposite view. Only 5 pf/c types have won finals mvps in the last 30 years. Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem and Moses. Some of them won multiple mvps, but you seem to be unlikely to win the finals mvp as a big unless you're aruably top 5 or so all time at your spot. Look at the guards that have won in that time: Billups, Parker, Magic, Isaiah, Dumars, Wade, Kobe, MJ. Not only have the guards won more mvps than the pf/c types (16-10) but guards that are good but not great (such as Billups, Parker and Dumars) have been able to wim mvps.

  Rondo might be closer to Stockton, Nash and Kidd than to Magic, just like Griffin is no Shaq. But How does Rondo stack up to Billups, Parker and Dumars? I don't know that you can really make a case that Griffin is tremendously more likely than Rondo to win a finals mvp.

I've noticed the trend that guards are getting the Finals MVP's. But that 16-10 number includes Jordan, which really shouldn't count lol. If Jordan, the GOAT, wasn't playing, guys like Hakeem, Ewing, Malone would have taken those awards. And other guys, like Parker, are not the best players on their championship teams, they simply got hot in the final week.

I would not be surprised in the lease bit if Rondo got the Finals MVP this year (or last). But if you look at the Conference champs over just the last few seasons, they all have one thing in common (sans Cleveland), a dominant big (KG, Gasol, Howard, Duncan, Shaq, Ben+'Sheed, and so on).

I wouldn't rule out Griffin dominating the League like Shaq did. MVP's are definitely in his future, and depending on the right players around him (unlikely in LA lol), the Finals MVP's can follow.

  Excuses, excuses.

Who would you build your team around, a potentially dominant PG or a potentially dominant PF/C?

  Haha. Probably the big. But don't overlook the use of the word "potentially". There's no guarantee that a team built around Griffin will ever have a better chance of winning a title than the Celts will the next year or two with Rondo.

I've stated multiple times doing this trade would hinder our immediate chance at a title, and I wouldn't risk that, especially with this core.

I was debating which position presents a bigger impact, and even though the PG is the "quarterback" of the NBA, the bigs are probably the most important.

By "potentially" I mean both players look like they can be future hall-of-famers. Right now they are both All-Stars. One has a championship team and coach around him. The other has young players and a young coach.

In fact, I think we shouldn't overlook me using the word "dominant" when referring to a PG. Other than Magic Johnson, can you name another PG to dominate the League? We've had Nash nab back-to-back MVP's, yet he never made the Finals. Payton and Stockton have some impressive stats and accolades, but they too never won it all.

Bigs dominate. PG's generally do not.


That said, I still can't do Griffin for Rondo.

  Other than Duncan, can you name any power forwards that have dominated the league more than players like Nash, Kidd, Thomas or Stockton? Bet you can't. Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, most of the dominant bigs have been centers. Lumping Griffin in with them is like lumping Rondo in with MJ, Kobe and Wade as well as Magic and claiming that, yes, "smalls" are as dominant as "bigs".

Considering Malone was the best player on the Jazz and by far a more dominant player then Stockton, I think it is much easier then you believe.  Garnett was a beast in his prime.  Barkley was a monster in his prime.  Rodman changed the way teams thought of rebounders and made a niche out of that field (paving the way for guys like ben wallace).

  You're just lowering the standards. If Magic is the only PG to be considered dominant, then being a beast (like Kidd, Payton or Chris Paul), a multiple time league MVP (like Nash) or the best player on a team to win the Finals (Isaiah) doesn't cut the mustard.

what are you talking about?  You asked me to name PF's aside from Duncan that dominated the league like Nash, Kidd, Stockton, and Thomas.  I did that.

[KCattheStripe]

Dominant PF's of the last 30 years:

Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Dennis Rodman
Shawn Kemp ( If Payton counts Kemp has to)

You cannot win a title in the NBA with out an all NBA 4 or 5 unless your team has Michael Jordan. You can, however win with Derek Fischer, a young Rajon Rondo, Sean Elliot, Kenny Smith.

[BballTim]

  In this conversation, though, you've completely reversed your argument. Finals MVP has gone from a major measuring stick of dominance to meaningless. Leading a team to the title also seems to have declined in importance.

Lol, I see that, but I think I am alluding to the fact that the voting for Finals MVP is now a farce.

Who was more valuable in the 2007 Finals, Duncan or Parker?
Who was more valuable in the 2010 Finals, Gasol or Kobe?
Ben and Rasheed stopping Shaq and a hobbled Malone were more instrumental to knocking the Lakers off (Kobe chucking sure helped too) than Billups in 2004, IMHO.

I still maintain that the only thing that matter is the rings. And I believe a big provides a better chance at that than a PG.

  So finals mvp voting is a farce when a big doesn't win it? Gasol averaged 19/12 against us, Kobe averaged 29/8. Shaq was "held" to 27/11 on about 63% shooting against the Pistons and, as you say, Malone was hobbled.

As I've said before, the Finals MVP basically goes to the guy who got hot in the final week. Does that mean they are more valuable to the team? Absolutely not. 27/11 for Shaq isn't even that good compared to his previous Finals, but true, "stopped" wasn't the correct word lol.

  Well, doing silghtly better against Shaq than the Pacers, Nets or Sixers isn't a very high standard.

Indeed, but in his 70 playoffs games from 2000-2003, he averaged 29.5 and 14.5.

  Not sure what the point of this is, but in 2004 Shaq averaged 22/13 for the playoffs but 27/11 against the Pistons, so they "held" him to about 6 points higher than he'd been averaging up to that point and they also "held" him to a higher FG%.

[BballTim]

Rondo is putting up stats similar to Kidd and Nash, two future HOFers.

Griffin, in his rookie season, is putting up stats similar to Duncan and Shaq, two of the most dominant players ever.

Rondo already has a ring, but the other two PG's don't.

The bigs have 6 Finals MVP's between them.

  Has Shaq ever been on a team with a losing record? I wouldn't rush to put Griffin in that class. Maybe after he leads teams to 3-4 titles, not while he's putting up big numbers on a losing team.

I didn't say Grifin can impact a game like Shaq or Duncan. He is putting up the same (or better) rookie numbers though.

My point being that he appears to be a special talent, as only a handful of players had similar rookie seasons (Duncan, Shaq, and Robinson in the last 25 years).

The Magic won 41 games Shaq's rookie season. The Clips can still finish .500 the way they have been currently playing.

Like I said, those guys win Finals MVP's. The Nash's and Kidd's and Stockton's and Kevin Johnson's make All-Star games and the playoffs. And Rondo is closer to them than Magic Johnson.

Bottom line: I'd take a dominant PF over a dominant PG.

But again, this C's team would basically have to be blown up if they made a Griffin for Rondo swap. For that reason alone I say NO.

  Yes, guys that Griffin can't impact the game like win finals mvps. But it's not the case that only centers and pfs win finals mvps. In fact you can look at it from the opposite view. Only 5 pf/c types have won finals mvps in the last 30 years. Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem and Moses. Some of them won multiple mvps, but you seem to be unlikely to win the finals mvp as a big unless you're aruably top 5 or so all time at your spot. Look at the guards that have won in that time: Billups, Parker, Magic, Isaiah, Dumars, Wade, Kobe, MJ. Not only have the guards won more mvps than the pf/c types (16-10) but guards that are good but not great (such as Billups, Parker and Dumars) have been able to wim mvps.

  Rondo might be closer to Stockton, Nash and Kidd than to Magic, just like Griffin is no Shaq. But How does Rondo stack up to Billups, Parker and Dumars? I don't know that you can really make a case that Griffin is tremendously more likely than Rondo to win a finals mvp.

I've noticed the trend that guards are getting the Finals MVP's. But that 16-10 number includes Jordan, which really shouldn't count lol. If Jordan, the GOAT, wasn't playing, guys like Hakeem, Ewing, Malone would have taken those awards. And other guys, like Parker, are not the best players on their championship teams, they simply got hot in the final week.

I would not be surprised in the lease bit if Rondo got the Finals MVP this year (or last). But if you look at the Conference champs over just the last few seasons, they all have one thing in common (sans Cleveland), a dominant big (KG, Gasol, Howard, Duncan, Shaq, Ben+'Sheed, and so on).

I wouldn't rule out Griffin dominating the League like Shaq did. MVP's are definitely in his future, and depending on the right players around him (unlikely in LA lol), the Finals MVP's can follow.

  Excuses, excuses.

Who would you build your team around, a potentially dominant PG or a potentially dominant PF/C?

  Haha. Probably the big. But don't overlook the use of the word "potentially". There's no guarantee that a team built around Griffin will ever have a better chance of winning a title than the Celts will the next year or two with Rondo.

I've stated multiple times doing this trade would hinder our immediate chance at a title, and I wouldn't risk that, especially with this core.

I was debating which position presents a bigger impact, and even though the PG is the "quarterback" of the NBA, the bigs are probably the most important.

By "potentially" I mean both players look like they can be future hall-of-famers. Right now they are both All-Stars. One has a championship team and coach around him. The other has young players and a young coach.

In fact, I think we shouldn't overlook me using the word "dominant" when referring to a PG. Other than Magic Johnson, can you name another PG to dominate the League? We've had Nash nab back-to-back MVP's, yet he never made the Finals. Payton and Stockton have some impressive stats and accolades, but they too never won it all.

Bigs dominate. PG's generally do not.


That said, I still can't do Griffin for Rondo.

  Other than Duncan, can you name any power forwards that have dominated the league more than players like Nash, Kidd, Thomas or Stockton? Bet you can't. Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, most of the dominant bigs have been centers. Lumping Griffin in with them is like lumping Rondo in with MJ, Kobe and Wade as well as Magic and claiming that, yes, "smalls" are as dominant as "bigs".

Considering Malone was the best player on the Jazz and by far a more dominant player then Stockton, I think it is much easier then you believe.  Garnett was a beast in his prime.  Barkley was a monster in his prime.  Rodman changed the way teams thought of rebounders and made a niche out of that field (paving the way for guys like ben wallace).

  You're just lowering the standards. If Magic is the only PG to be considered dominant, then being a beast (like Kidd, Payton or Chris Paul), a multiple time league MVP (like Nash) or the best player on a team to win the Finals (Isaiah) doesn't cut the mustard.

what are you talking about?  You asked me to name PF's aside from Duncan that dominated the league like Nash, Kidd, Stockton, and Thomas.  I did that.

  No, he's saying that a point guard has to be on a Magic Johnson level to be dominant. None of the players you named were on that level.

[BballTim]

Dominant PF's of the last 30 years:

Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Dennis Rodman
Shawn Kemp ( If Payton counts Kemp has to)

You cannot win a title in the NBA with out an all NBA 4 or 5 unless your team has Michael Jordan. You can, however win with Derek Fischer, a young Rajon Rondo, Sean Elliot, Kenny Smith.

  First of all, in the last 30 years, you've listed one power forward that was the undisputed best player on his team, two if you count KG. Magic and Isaiah match that. Secondly, you're grouping two positions and comparing to one to make your argument. How many teams won without a good-great 1 or 2 on their teams? We've seen fewer of those teams than teams that have won without a dominant power forward. Doesn't that prove a good guard is more important than a goof pf?

[nba is the worst]

Well, being late to this thread, I have to say yes - because Bradley and Nate could take Rondo's minutes, and Griffin is an unbelievable talent.

[KCattheStripe]

Dominant PF's of the last 30 years:

Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Dennis Rodman
Shawn Kemp ( If Payton counts Kemp has to)

You cannot win a title in the NBA with out an all NBA 4 or 5 unless your team has Michael Jordan. You can, however win with Derek Fischer, a young Rajon Rondo, Sean Elliot, Kenny Smith.

  First of all, in the last 30 years, you've listed one power forward that was the undisputed best player on his team, two if you count KG. Magic and Isaiah match that. Secondly, you're grouping two positions and comparing to one to make your argument. How many teams won without a good-great 1 or 2 on their teams? We've seen fewer of those teams than teams that have won without a dominant power forward. Doesn't that prove a good guard is more important than a goof pf?

Duncan, KG, Barkley were all undisputedly the best player on every team they played on with the exception of the the teams at the tail end of their careers. ( KG and Duncan now, Barkley on the Rockets)

I added in the four because as the game has gotten more athletic in the past 30 years, great PFs have become an interchangeable with great centers in importance.  But the history, and the present, of the NBA tells us that All NBA calibre bigs are infinitely more important to winning championships than All NBA calibre Point Guards.

yes, Tony Parker won a finals MVP, but would that team have made it without Duncan? No. Could they have done it without Parker, probably.

[BballTim]

Dominant PF's of the last 30 years:

Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Dennis Rodman
Shawn Kemp ( If Payton counts Kemp has to)

You cannot win a title in the NBA with out an all NBA 4 or 5 unless your team has Michael Jordan. You can, however win with Derek Fischer, a young Rajon Rondo, Sean Elliot, Kenny Smith.

  First of all, in the last 30 years, you've listed one power forward that was the undisputed best player on his team, two if you count KG. Magic and Isaiah match that. Secondly, you're grouping two positions and comparing to one to make your argument. How many teams won without a good-great 1 or 2 on their teams? We've seen fewer of those teams than teams that have won without a dominant power forward. Doesn't that prove a good guard is more important than a goof pf?

Duncan, KG, Barkley were all undisputedly the best player on every team they played on with the exception of the the teams at the tail end of their careers. ( KG and Duncan now, Barkley on the Rockets)

I added in the four because as the game has gotten more athletic in the past 30 years, great PFs have become an interchangeable with great centers in importance.  But the history, and the present, of the NBA tells us that All NBA calibre bigs are infinitely more important to winning championships than All NBA calibre Point Guards.

yes, Tony Parker won a finals MVP, but would that team have made it without Duncan? No. Could they have done it without Parker, probably.

  You listed 6 power forwards that you considered to be dominant in the last 30 years. Four of them never led their team to a title and another of them (KG)never got to the Finals until he was getting into the tail edge of his prime. Rodman won titles, but was never considered the best player on those teams. So, again, 2 power forwards have won titles in the last 30 years as one of the two best players on their teams. An equal number if pgs have done this, more if you like Billups.

[KCattheStripe]

Dominant PF's of the last 30 years:

Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Dennis Rodman
Shawn Kemp ( If Payton counts Kemp has to)

You cannot win a title in the NBA with out an all NBA 4 or 5 unless your team has Michael Jordan. You can, however win with Derek Fischer, a young Rajon Rondo, Sean Elliot, Kenny Smith.

  First of all, in the last 30 years, you've listed one power forward that was the undisputed best player on his team, two if you count KG. Magic and Isaiah match that. Secondly, you're grouping two positions and comparing to one to make your argument. How many teams won without a good-great 1 or 2 on their teams? We've seen fewer of those teams than teams that have won without a dominant power forward. Doesn't that prove a good guard is more important than a goof pf?

Duncan, KG, Barkley were all undisputedly the best player on every team they played on with the exception of the the teams at the tail end of their careers. ( KG and Duncan now, Barkley on the Rockets)

I added in the four because as the game has gotten more athletic in the past 30 years, great PFs have become an interchangeable with great centers in importance.  But the history, and the present, of the NBA tells us that All NBA calibre bigs are infinitely more important to winning championships than All NBA calibre Point Guards.

yes, Tony Parker won a finals MVP, but would that team have made it without Duncan? No. Could they have done it without Parker, probably.

  You listed 6 power forwards that you considered to be dominant in the last 30 years. Four of them never led their team to a title and another of them (KG)never got to the Finals until he was getting into the tail edge of his prime. Rodman won titles, but was never considered the best player on those teams. So, again, 2 power forwards have won titles in the last 30 years as one of the two best players on their teams. An equal number if pgs have done this, more if you like Billups.

A) Thomas wasn't undisputedly the best player on any of his championship teams, not with Joe D playing right next to him. It wasn't until the last few titles that Magic was even the best player on his team.

B) I don't understand what KG being at the tail end of his prime has to do with anything. He was still the best player on a championship team.

C) If you narrow it down to the past 20 years, in which the interchangableness of PFs and Cs has taken place, no PG has been the best player on a championship team ( I don't like Billups as much) Meanwhile, every guy I mentioned has played as the best player on an NBA finals team, and they account for 5 rings 4 of which they were the best player on.

Look at the championship teams this past 20 years:
Bulls
Bulls
Bulls (Jordan the best player)
Rockets
Rockets ( Hakeem)
Bulls x3
Spurs ( Robinson Duncan tie)
Lakers X3 ( Shaq)
Spurs ( Duncan)
Pistons ( up in the air who the best player was, but they needed Sheed to get over the hump)
Spurs (Duncan)
Heat ( DWade, but  needed 20/10 from Shaq)
Spurs (Duncan)
Celtics ( KG)
Lakers x 2( Kobe, but that was a lottery team before the development of Bynum and the arrival of Gasol)

The point gets even more profound when you look at the teams they beat. You can mix and match all sorts of talent as long as you have an all NBA big, or Michael Jordan.

The PGs on those teams
BJ Armstrong
Kenny smith
Steve Kerr
Avery Johnson
Derek Fischer
20 year old Tony Parker
Chauncey Billups
Slightly better Tony Parker
Jayson William/ Gary Payton
Prime Tony parker
Young Rondo
Derek Fischer

[BballTim]

Dominant PF's of the last 30 years:

Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Dennis Rodman
Shawn Kemp ( If Payton counts Kemp has to)

You cannot win a title in the NBA with out an all NBA 4 or 5 unless your team has Michael Jordan. You can, however win with Derek Fischer, a young Rajon Rondo, Sean Elliot, Kenny Smith.

  First of all, in the last 30 years, you've listed one power forward that was the undisputed best player on his team, two if you count KG. Magic and Isaiah match that. Secondly, you're grouping two positions and comparing to one to make your argument. How many teams won without a good-great 1 or 2 on their teams? We've seen fewer of those teams than teams that have won without a dominant power forward. Doesn't that prove a good guard is more important than a goof pf?

Duncan, KG, Barkley were all undisputedly the best player on every team they played on with the exception of the the teams at the tail end of their careers. ( KG and Duncan now, Barkley on the Rockets)

  Sorry, I meant to say the undisputed best player on a title winning team.

  Look at it this way: when was the last time a team led by an elite power forward won the title when that forward wasn't an all-time great defender?  And if Griffin doesn't meet this level of play on the defensive end, why would he be more likely to lead his team to a title than a point guard?

[Moranis]

Dominant PF's of the last 30 years:

Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Dennis Rodman
Shawn Kemp ( If Payton counts Kemp has to)

You cannot win a title in the NBA with out an all NBA 4 or 5 unless your team has Michael Jordan. You can, however win with Derek Fischer, a young Rajon Rondo, Sean Elliot, Kenny Smith.

  First of all, in the last 30 years, you've listed one power forward that was the undisputed best player on his team, two if you count KG. Magic and Isaiah match that. Secondly, you're grouping two positions and comparing to one to make your argument. How many teams won without a good-great 1 or 2 on their teams? We've seen fewer of those teams than teams that have won without a dominant power forward. Doesn't that prove a good guard is more important than a goof pf?

Duncan, KG, Barkley were all undisputedly the best player on every team they played on with the exception of the the teams at the tail end of their careers. ( KG and Duncan now, Barkley on the Rockets)

I added in the four because as the game has gotten more athletic in the past 30 years, great PFs have become an interchangeable with great centers in importance.  But the history, and the present, of the NBA tells us that All NBA calibre bigs are infinitely more important to winning championships than All NBA calibre Point Guards.

yes, Tony Parker won a finals MVP, but would that team have made it without Duncan? No. Could they have done it without Parker, probably.

  You listed 6 power forwards that you considered to be dominant in the last 30 years. Four of them never led their team to a title and another of them (KG)never got to the Finals until he was getting into the tail edge of his prime. Rodman won titles, but was never considered the best player on those teams. So, again, 2 power forwards have won titles in the last 30 years as one of the two best players on their teams. An equal number if pgs have done this, more if you like Billups.

well he didn't list Gasol who was the second best player on the last two title teams.  He didn't list Sheed who was the best player on the Pistons title team.  In fact 7 of the 8 last champions have had a PF be the first or second best player on the team.  While just Tony Parker (1 arguably 2 times) was the first or second best player on his team as a PG (billups despite being the finals MVP was the Pistons 4th best player throughout that season after Sheed joined the team).

[BballTim]

Dominant PF's of the last 30 years:

Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Dennis Rodman
Shawn Kemp ( If Payton counts Kemp has to)

You cannot win a title in the NBA with out an all NBA 4 or 5 unless your team has Michael Jordan. You can, however win with Derek Fischer, a young Rajon Rondo, Sean Elliot, Kenny Smith.

  First of all, in the last 30 years, you've listed one power forward that was the undisputed best player on his team, two if you count KG. Magic and Isaiah match that. Secondly, you're grouping two positions and comparing to one to make your argument. How many teams won without a good-great 1 or 2 on their teams? We've seen fewer of those teams than teams that have won without a dominant power forward. Doesn't that prove a good guard is more important than a goof pf?

Duncan, KG, Barkley were all undisputedly the best player on every team they played on with the exception of the the teams at the tail end of their careers. ( KG and Duncan now, Barkley on the Rockets)

I added in the four because as the game has gotten more athletic in the past 30 years, great PFs have become an interchangeable with great centers in importance.  But the history, and the present, of the NBA tells us that All NBA calibre bigs are infinitely more important to winning championships than All NBA calibre Point Guards.

yes, Tony Parker won a finals MVP, but would that team have made it without Duncan? No. Could they have done it without Parker, probably.

  You listed 6 power forwards that you considered to be dominant in the last 30 years. Four of them never led their team to a title and another of them (KG)never got to the Finals until he was getting into the tail edge of his prime. Rodman won titles, but was never considered the best player on those teams. So, again, 2 power forwards have won titles in the last 30 years as one of the two best players on their teams. An equal number if pgs have done this, more if you like Billups.

A) Thomas wasn't undisputedly the best player on any of his championship teams, not with Joe D playing right next to him. It wasn't until the last few titles that Magic was even the best player on his team.

  I'm on a conference call and I still chuckled out loud when I read this. Pierce was closer to better than KG than Dumars was to Isaiah, in fact Ray Allen probably was as well.

  Haha, re-reading it, I just noticed the "Magic wasn't the best player on his team" part. I stopped when I saw the Joe D part earlier. Wow.

[BballTim]

Dominant PF's of the last 30 years:

Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Dennis Rodman
Shawn Kemp ( If Payton counts Kemp has to)

You cannot win a title in the NBA with out an all NBA 4 or 5 unless your team has Michael Jordan. You can, however win with Derek Fischer, a young Rajon Rondo, Sean Elliot, Kenny Smith.

  First of all, in the last 30 years, you've listed one power forward that was the undisputed best player on his team, two if you count KG. Magic and Isaiah match that. Secondly, you're grouping two positions and comparing to one to make your argument. How many teams won without a good-great 1 or 2 on their teams? We've seen fewer of those teams than teams that have won without a dominant power forward. Doesn't that prove a good guard is more important than a goof pf?

Duncan, KG, Barkley were all undisputedly the best player on every team they played on with the exception of the the teams at the tail end of their careers. ( KG and Duncan now, Barkley on the Rockets)

I added in the four because as the game has gotten more athletic in the past 30 years, great PFs have become an interchangeable with great centers in importance.  But the history, and the present, of the NBA tells us that All NBA calibre bigs are infinitely more important to winning championships than All NBA calibre Point Guards.

yes, Tony Parker won a finals MVP, but would that team have made it without Duncan? No. Could they have done it without Parker, probably.

  You listed 6 power forwards that you considered to be dominant in the last 30 years. Four of them never led their team to a title and another of them (KG)never got to the Finals until he was getting into the tail edge of his prime. Rodman won titles, but was never considered the best player on those teams. So, again, 2 power forwards have won titles in the last 30 years as one of the two best players on their teams. An equal number if pgs have done this, more if you like Billups.

well he didn't list Gasol who was the second best player on the last two title teams.  He didn't list Sheed who was the best player on the Pistons title team.  In fact 7 of the 8 last champions have had a PF be the first or second best player on the team.  While just Tony Parker (1 arguably 2 times) was the first or second best player on his team as a PG (billups despite being the finals MVP was the Pistons 4th best player throughout that season after Sheed joined the team).

  You're overrating Sheed. And, ok, if Griffin is your second best player you have a decent shot at winning the title. I could easily say the same thing about Rondo, Paul Williams, Rose and others.