<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yankshater213 @ Jan 20 2007, 03:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Name me the last team who won a championship without a dominant big man.</div>The 2006 Heat. Shaq was far from dominant last season.More on how big men are over rated as to winning a ring, 20/38 finals MVPs aren't big men and a couple more certainly aren't dominant big men (Unseld, Worthy). I think that big men aren't as important as they get credit for. They're important, but the finals MVP awards show that they're really not much more important than guard to winning a ring. It's just the recent trend that makes people think dominant big men are a must. prior to duncan, 20 out of 25 previous finals MVPs weren't dominant big men. That seems to be evidence that dominant guards are just as important
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Jan 24 2007, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The 2006 Heat. Shaq was far from dominant last season.</div>Doesn't matter, he's still Shaq. Just because he didn't average 26 and 15 like he used to in the Finals doesn't mean that he still doesn't work wonders for the Heat. Just the presence of Shaq being on the floor is enough to give the Heat a great advantage. He makes the game easier for everybody around him. His size is obviously unbelievable, he attracts a lot of attention, he's an outstanding passer, etc. I shouldn't even have to be explaining this right now. The presence of Shaq on the floor is enough to consider a dominant factor, whether he puts up the numbers or not.On topic, I'd have to agree with Rok. You can't say one factor and call it the most dominant factor. Teams have won without a star big, teams have won with slightly above average defense, teams have won without a superstar scorer, teams have won without a star point guard, etc. You need a little bit of everything to balance it all out. You may not need a "dominant" Shaq-like big man, but you need serviceable bigs that get it done on the glass and/or defensively. You need to work together. You need to be able to defend the perimeter. You need some leadership. You need to bring a lot of energy. You need a clutch performer or two. I mean, you need a little bit of everything.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>More on how big men are over rated as to winning a ring, 20/38 finals MVPs aren't big men and a couple more certainly aren't dominant big men (Unseld, Worthy). I think that big men aren't as important as they get credit for. They're important, but the finals MVP awards show that they're really not much more important than guard to winning a ring. It's just the recent trend that makes people think dominant big men are a must. prior to duncan, 20 out of 25 previous finals MVPs weren't dominant big men. That seems to be evidence that dominant guards are just as important</div>First of all, for you to not recognize how good Wes Unseld and James Worthy (who was actually more of a SF, so shouldn't even be considered a big man) is just ridiculous. Second of all, you don't "need" a franchise big to win a title, but you do need serviceable bigs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Doesn't matter, he's still Shaq. Just because he didn't average 26 and 15 like he used to in the Finals doesn't mean that he still doesn't work wonders for the Heat. Just the presence of Shaq being on the floor is enough to give the Heat a great advantage. He makes the game easier for everybody around him. His size is obviously unbelievable, he attracts a lot of attention, he's an outstanding passer, etc. I shouldn't even have to be explaining this right now. The presence of Shaq on the floor is enough to consider a dominant factor, whether he puts up the numbers or not.</div>Shaq was serviceable but he was anything but dominant. So many people think the definition of dominant is "a big man who shoots a high fg%". Being dominant is being far superior than anybody on the court. It's being able to do what you want when you want. Shaq was not able to do that last year, hence he was not dominant.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>First of all, for you to not recognize how good Wes Unseld and James Worthy (who was actually more of a SF, so shouldn't even be considered a big man) is just ridiculous.</div>Once again, Unseld and Worthy were great players, but not dominant. Unseld, in the year he won finals MVP, put up 9-12. Now I know he was one of the greatest defensive players of all time, but any way you slice it he didn't dominate. Worthy was a very good player but to call him dominant is absurd. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Second of all, you don't "need" a franchise big to win a title, but you do need serviceable bigs.</div>All I was arguing was that you didn't need a franchise big to win a title. I'd also argue that you do need serviceable guards just as much.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Shaq was serviceable but he was anything but dominant. So many people think the definition of dominant is "a big man who shoots a high fg%". Being dominant is being far superior than anybody on the court. It's being able to do what you want when you want. Shaq was not able to do that last year, hence he was not dominant.</div>Who ever said a dominant big is someone who shoots a high percentage? Where did that come from? Also, I realize that Shaq's play was not dominant, but like I said - the presence is still there. He is a <u>dominant presence</u>, not a dominant player. You confused my words. The presence of Shaq is still impeccable.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Once again, Unseld and Worthy were great players, but not dominant. Unseld, in the year he won finals MVP, put up 9-12. Now I know he was one of the greatest defensive players of all time, but any way you slice it he didn't dominate. Worthy was a very good player but to call him dominant is absurd.</div>I never said they were "dominant," but Unseld WAS dominant on the defensive end. Ben Wallace is a dominant force in the paint, that doesn't have to mean he scores 25 ppg. Making a huge impact doesn't always mean scoring all the points. To say the Unseld/Worthy weren't damn good players is absurd. From your post, you made it sound like Unseld/Worthy weren't good enough to be key factors on a championship team, when in fact they most CERTAINLY were.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>All I was arguing was that you didn't need a franchise big to win a title. I'd also argue that you do need serviceable guards just as much.</div>And if you read my post, I agreed with that point to the fullest degree.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I never said they were "dominant," but Unseld WAS dominant on the defensive end. Ben Wallace is a dominant force in the paint, that doesn't have to mean he scores 25 ppg. Making a huge impact doesn't always mean scoring all the points. To say the Unseld/Worthy weren't damn good players is absurd. From your post, you made it sound like Unseld/Worthy weren't good enough to be key factors on a championship team, when in fact they most CERTAINLY were.</div>I said "unseld and worthy were great players". I said "unseld was one of the greatest defensive players of all time". I don't see where we disagree. Your arguing style is called setting up a straw man, where you attack a position that was never offered. I don't see where I have disagreed with you thus far.
I have got to go with team Chemistry. I think the year that the Pistons won it all was a clear example as to why team chemistry is so important. Sure, they had a very good lineup, but they didnt have much of a bench at all, and they were going up against a monstrous team in the Lakers. Anytime you can beat the Lakers 4-1 in a series is freaking ridiculous. It didnt look like the Lakers deserved to be out there with the Pistons that season. I think Defense is the next biggest thing. I know alot of people will disagree with me, but I dont see Phoenix winning a Championship as long as they play this way. Even though they are nearly unstoppable on the offensive end, they just give up too many points in a game, and their interior defense is definitely not great. And if the Suns play a team like the Spurs, Tony Parker would freaking dominate Steve Nash on the offensive end...I think that having a dominant big men definitely helps, but I think just having a dominant player in general is really what matters. Obviously it would be better to have a dominant big man than a dominant guard, but you can win with both. Detroit's best player was Billups the year they won it all....And you can say that they had a great inside duo, but Ben gave you nothing on offense, and Rasheed isn't your typical inside player.
definitely a lot of pieces are needed, not just 1. the most important things u need IMO is chemistry, better dan average players at all positions and a great coach. the coach pulls evry1 together and all championship teams have have had great coaches. from red auerbach (celtics) 2 pat riley.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I think Defense is the next biggest thing. I know alot of people will disagree with me, but I dont see Phoenix winning a Championship as long as they play this way. Even though they are nearly unstoppable on the offensive end, they just give up too many points in a game, and their interior defense is definitely not great. And if the Suns play a team like the Spurs, Tony Parker would freaking dominate Steve Nash on the offensive end...</div>The suns are actually a good defensive team, they just play with a lot of possessions.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>the coach pulls evry1 together and all championship teams have have had great coaches. from red auerbach (celtics) 2 pat riley.</div>While I agree with you to some extent, Auerbach was maybe the greatest GM and talent evaluator of all time but anybody could have coached that team to a lot of rings. It wasn't as if he "pulled evry1 together" when he had 8 hall of famers on his team every season.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>all championship teams have have had great coaches</div>I've always had the theory that a lot of coaches are considered great because they win championships, not the other way around. If Cassell didn't go down in 04 and Big Ben didn't fall apart in 06, we'd all be singing Flip Saunders' praises.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Jan 24 2007, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I said "unseld and worthy were great players". I said "unseld was one of the greatest defensive players of all time". I don't see where we disagree. Your arguing style is called setting up a straw man, where you attack a position that was never offered. I don't see where I have disagreed with you thus far.</div>Your quote:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>More on how big men are over rated as to winning a ring, 20/38 finals MVPs aren't big men and a couple more certainly aren't dominant big men (Unseld, Worthy).</div>All I was saying is that by this post, you made Unseld and Worthy sound like average players. I refuted that by saying Worthy was a VERY good player, and he wasn't even a big man... and I also said that Unseld WAS dominant. He was a dominant defensive player. Dominance doesn't only come on the offensive end.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jan 24 2007, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your quote:All I was saying is that by this post, you made Unseld and Worthy sound like average players. I refuted that by saying Worthy was a VERY good player, and he wasn't even a big man... and I also said that Unseld WAS dominant. He was a dominant defensive player. Dominance doesn't only come on the offensive end.</div>here's my quote<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Once again, Unseld and Worthy were great players, but not dominant. Unseld, in the year he won finals MVP, put up 9-12. Now I know he was one of the greatest defensive players of all time, but any way you slice it he didn't dominate. Worthy was a very good player but to call him dominant is absurd.</div>IMO, Unseld was dominant some years, but not by the time he won his finals MVP. When he won his finals MVP he wasn't a dominant rebounder anymore, and was averaging less than a block a game. Now I know as well as the next guy that defense isn't measured statistically, but more important than any stats, Unseld didn't make either all defense team at a time when defense was at an all time low. So he obviously wasn't that dominant defensively in 1978 (which was the only year I ever said he wasn't dominant, much like shaq wasn't dominant in 06). In fact, Unseld was never considered by the voters (who were the players and coaches at the time) to be one of the two best defensive centers in the league, as he never made an all defense team.I think I have a much higher standard for dominance than you do.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nba dogmatist @ Jan 24 2007, 11:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>that's 3. </div>Maturityexperiencechemistry. Now it's one. I don't think it's one thing, but the three I listed and obviously skill.
Wrong wrong and wrong. It's 2 words: Good Management.Think of the last number of chip winners. Pistons and Spurs have pretty damn good management, Heat had good enough to pull together washed up guys who they knew were all dying for a chip, hell even the lakers were smart enough to build up that team they had. It's certainly not superstars, because KG Pierce and AI were all thrown off. Why? Because of BAD MANAGEMENT. The Suns and Mavs are on their way. Why? GOOD MANAGEMENT.
