Ok so give the 76ers a better player in whatever positions they were lacking. the point remains the same.
Correct.
These players win or lose titles based on the teammates.
well yes, but that wasnt the point i was arguing, or at least trying to. Im afraid we have gotten off topic, my point is just that the championship experience factor doesnt come into play until the player actually wins it. At least in my book.
It's an interesting question.
Here's how I look at it: I think future titles a player wins are relevant. In determining how relevant, you ask "how similar was this player to the player who eventually won?"
In the case of somebody like Paul Pierce, you might argue that younger Pierce didn't have the maturity to be a cog on a championship squad. (I'm not saying I agree, but it's arguable). In the case of Ray Allen, on the other hand, he didn't necessarily change all that much from his best years to his time in Boston.
It's a lot of tea leaf reading, and it's certainly objective, but in evaluating teams I'll be looking at their future careers almost as much as their years prior to the year selected.
Rays game changed significantly his skill set and personality didnt but his game did. In boston he has been primarily a shooter coming off picks whereas, in seattle, (I didnt see much of him with the bucks) he handled the ball a great deal more and created for himself off the dribble.
Right. His personality didn't change. So, you've got the same Ray who won a championship, just more skilled / athletic / versatile. That play, when playing with proven teammates, can win a title. We know this, because it's happened.
I think Milwaukee Bucks Ray Allen can be a second or third guy on a Championship team but not the main guy. He needs someone else to lead. I thought Ray grew up a lot as a leader on those Sonics teams. Personally, I would have taken the year he led Seattle to fifty something wins (54?).
In Seattle, Ray had the whole locker room behind him. Ray was the undisputed leader and he led that team very well. There was a pecking order. Ray's unselfishness and team-orientated ways spilled through the rest of the roster. His teammates fought for him. They gave him everything they had.
Not like Milwaukee. Ray was too young. He couldn't take control of that locker room. He wasn't ready. He tried, he just wasn't able to. And his inability to do so caused instability for that team and played a pretty big part in that Bucks' team's collapse over the next year and a half.
I know Ray's stat line looks better in Milwaukee but there is no way I take Milwaukee Ray over Seattle Ray. He was just so much more mature as a leader there.
Topic: How's my Historical Team? (Awesome right!) (Read 160995 times)