Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:08 pm Post subject: Re: Why are the Thunder so bad despite having three stars?
CandyCanes wrote:
Someone who has been following them, please explain.
Pretty simple. First, Carmelo is a big name, but he's pushing 34 and has been in decline for a few years. They would be more effective with a non-star who can do more. Give them, oh, Avery Bradley instead of Anthony and they'd be a lot better.
Second, the three stars don't fit well together -- they are three ball-dominant players who detract from rather than complement each other offensively.
While people focus on the "big three," their second most important player after Westbrook is actually Steven Adams. OKC is #2 in the league in defense and Adams is a big reason why.
Overall lesson: It's more important to build a team than to collect names.
Because just big names and big contracts don't win games. This is what I am most scared of with the Lakers FO, to chase some names. All this "two max contracts" talk is not always a good idea. I'D rather have three good and solid players that work together than 2 big names that don't.
None of those stars have ever won much in their careers. The guy that won the most is Westbrook when he played with Durant. I’ve never thought of them as guys that could lead a team to a title except for maybe Carmelo back around 2009.
I’m more curious why the Pelicans haven’t won more with Davis and Cousins.
How would you like to spend the rest of your NBA prime:
1. living in OKC
2. playing with WB...then an aging WB
3. playing with an aging Melo who thinks he's 2010 Melo. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35855 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:16 am Post subject:
Steve007 wrote:
None of those stars have ever won much in their careers. The guy that won the most is Westbrook when he played with Durant. I’ve never thought of them as guys that could lead a team to a title except for maybe Carmelo back around 2009.
I’m more curious why the Pelicans haven’t won more with Davis and Cousins.
I've always been of the opinion that Carmelo is not a guy who really has much impact on the game. Freezes ball movement, takes bad shots, and plays absolutely no defense. The Nuggets went nowhere until Chauncey Billups came in and instilled discipline and identity on that team, and then went right back to being irrelevant as soon as he left.
I honestly think that if you replaced Carmelo on the Thunder right now with a MLE-level player, you would see absolutely no loss and possibly even an improvement. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
How would you like to spend the rest of your NBA prime:
1. living in OKC
2. playing with WB...then an aging WB
3. playing with an aging Melo who thinks he's 2010 Melo.
George may actually be the #1 free agent in terms of guys who actually change teams.
I don't see him staying in OKC unless they pull it together, go on a streak, and make some noise in the playoffs. In the same way, I think it's important for our young guys to close out the year strong to show him there is something to come here for.
Even if he ends up staying, I think he'll do a free agent tour. He'll generate a lot of interest from both teams with cap space and teams that will try to do a sign-in-trade with OKC if he makes it clear he's leaving.
None of those stars have ever won much in their careers. The guy that won the most is Westbrook when he played with Durant. I’ve never thought of them as guys that could lead a team to a title except for maybe Carmelo back around 2009.
I’m more curious why the Pelicans haven’t won more with Davis and Cousins.
I've always been of the opinion that Carmelo is not a guy who really has much impact on the game. Freezes ball movement, takes bad shots, and plays absolutely no defense. The Nuggets went nowhere until Chauncey Billups came in and instilled discipline and identity on that team, and then went right back to being irrelevant as soon as he left.
I honestly think that if you replaced Carmelo on the Thunder right now with a MLE-level player, you would see absolutely no loss and possibly even an improvement.
Dr. Funkbot wrote:
Because one of the "stars" is Carmelo.
_________________ A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts!
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:48 pm Post subject:
simple of the surface, more complicated to fix.
-- The "Big 3" have not played well together on offense.
-- While everyone points at the "Big 3", the most unreported story is how bad the "Other 12" have been for most of the season.
-- Paul George has kind of proven people right that claimed he was more of a "star role player" instead of a "NBA Superstar". In the prime of his career, he is not projected to be an All Star this season.
My money is they figure it out enough to get into the playoffs....and they will be dangerous for any team in the playoffs.
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Posts: 22853 Location: La Jolla, San Diego
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:05 pm Post subject: Re: Why are the Thunder so bad despite having three stars?
CandyCanes wrote:
Someone who has been following them, please explain.
It seems I'm the resident FG% police. Nobody harps about FG% more than me. I'm not surprised they're struggling. The guy who leads his team to NBA titles... look it up. That guy is at least a career 45% + shooter. Lebron, Wade, Duncan, Curry, and even Kobe. The only reason Kobe is a tick below 45% is because of his last two terrible seasons.
That's why I don't care about PG13, RW, etc. Give me Lebron this summer.
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:11 pm Post subject: Re: Why are the Thunder so bad despite having three stars?
Runway8 wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
Someone who has been following them, please explain.
It seems I'm the resident FG% police. Nobody harps about FG% more than me. I'm not surprised they're struggling. The guy who leads his team to NBA titles... look it up. That guy is at least a career 45% + shooter. Lebron, Wade, Duncan, Curry, and even Kobe. The only reason Kobe is a tick below 45% is because of his last two terrible seasons.
That's why I don't care about PG13, RW, etc. Give me Lebron this summer.
There have certainly been successful teams that reached the finals with stars who didn't shoot 45% for their careers (Iverson and Jason Kidd come to mind). And below average shooting teams have won rings (the Pistons, the Lakers). So I don't think it's that simple.
To me, the real issue is why Westbrook, Carmelo and George are all shooting worse than last year, George significantly so. Theoretically, stars should take pressure off each allowing at least one of them to get easier shots.
So I think the issue is less about their intrinsic shooting ability than how they fit - the sum is much less than the parts,
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8352 Location: Santa Monica
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:03 pm Post subject:
I felt like Melo and PG wouldn't complement each other well because they are almost redundant, and they both need the ball to be effective. Neither of them is known as a guy who can play off ball, get the ball and make things happen. Plus they have almost no 3-point shooting around them.
I think Westbrook can lead a team to a title if he has the right team around him. He came close playing with Durant. I think this team will find a way to make the playoffs, but they will not go deep in the playoffs. _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Posts: 22853 Location: La Jolla, San Diego
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:04 pm Post subject: Re: Why are the Thunder so bad despite having three stars?
activeverb wrote:
Runway8 wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
Someone who has been following them, please explain.
It seems I'm the resident FG% police. Nobody harps about FG% more than me. I'm not surprised they're struggling. The guy who leads his team to NBA titles... look it up. That guy is at least a career 45% + shooter. Lebron, Wade, Duncan, Curry, and even Kobe. The only reason Kobe is a tick below 45% is because of his last two terrible seasons.
That's why I don't care about PG13, RW, etc. Give me Lebron this summer.
There have certainly been successful teams that reached the finals with stars who didn't shoot 45% for their careers (Iverson and Jason Kidd come to mind). And below average shooting teams have won rings (the Pistons, the Lakers). So I don't think it's that simple.
To me, the real issue is why Westbrook, Carmelo and George are all shooting worse than last year, George significantly so. Theoretically, stars should take pressure off each allowing at least one of them to get easier shots.
So I think the issue is less about their intrinsic shooting ability than how they fit - the sum is much less than the parts,
Honestly, I think it is that simple. If we can give it a %, wouldn't we say 90% of the time or something like that? That the team with a super star who shoots above 45% the entire year wins? You don't want to pin your hopes on the exceptions. Kidd and Iverson got to the finals, but they got there mainly because of a very weak conference. After MJ, it was wide open. And of course those finals with the Lakers in the early 2000's were always anti-climatic because the real finals back then was in the WCF.
Kobe doesn't shoot as well in the finals for some reason, but nevertheless, in his championship years, he shot above 45% in the regular season. The drop in the finals is offset by teammates like Shaq, Pau, Odom, Bynum.
These guys in OKC.. three wing players who are all DA MAN, who all shoot low 40's, they're going nowhere. I'm just saying in terms of THE GUY. You're in trouble if your guy is not an efficient super star. But if PG13 is paired with Lebron, then that's not a problem.
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:36 pm Post subject: Re: Why are the Thunder so bad despite having three stars?
Runway8 wrote:
[
These guys in OKC.. three wing players who are all DA MAN, who all shoot low 40's, they're going nowhere. .
I don't think we disagree. I'm saying part of the reason they are all shooting in the low 40s is because they don't fit well together. On other teams, with teammares who complemented them better, they each could and did shoot much better.
The LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Miami Heat were 9-8 before winning 21 of 22. Every team needs to have a pecking order and with multiple huge stars/egos it may take a while for the order to be established. Coaching is very important in such situations.
I hope they fail, but I am not writing them off yet.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35855 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:12 pm Post subject:
saetarubia wrote:
OKC are #2 in defensive rating. Big 3 not providing efficient offense.
Where are they getting all that defense from with Carmelo on the floor? Is Steven Adams really that impactful of a defender? _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum