The Last Dance

[Kliq]

This is like Tom Brady vs Joe Montana. You're awarding greater credit to losing before the Finals than you are to making it to the Finals and then losing to the champs. Jordan went 6-0 in the Finals but failed to make it there on another 7 occasions. Montana went 4-0 in super bowls, but had plenty of other uglier, earlier losses.

I've said this before, but the 2011 Finals are very different. The Heat were big favorites, LeBron was in his prime and they got beaten convincingly by a team of Dirk, Jason Terry and Tyson Chandler. Not only did they get beat, but LeBron was TERRIBLE in the Finals, like almost unfathomably bad given how great he has been since. 17-7-7 as the best player in the world, and getting legitimately outplayed by Terry in the last few games. LeBron scored 8 points in Game 4, a game he played 45 minutes in and the Heat lost by three.

Jordan never lost a series his team was heavily favored in. Even if you want to talk about the 1995 playoff loss to Orlando, Jordan played really well even though he had only returned to the NBA with 17 games left in the regular season, going for 31-6-4, and Orlando was a more well-rounded team and the Bulls had to guard Shaq with Luc Longley.

When comparing 6-0 in the Finals to 3-6 in the Finals, and comparing 6-3 in the Super Bowl to 4-0. In both cases, the obvious choice is the person who won more titles, which is why Jordan and Brady are the superior options.

 

[InstaFace]

Were the 2011 Finals all that different from the 2007 Super Bowl? 2017 Super Bowl? Patriots favored by 12 and 4, respectively. Which translates to underdog moneylines of +800* and +170, respectively. Meanwhile, the 2011 Mavs won as +155 underdogs, but that is not all that special a number. Just this century, you have:
- 2004 Pistons (+500)
- 2008 Celtics (+160, despite being the home team!)
- 2012 Heat (+155)
- 2016 Cavs (+180)

The 2011 Mavs were an underdog, certainly, but not to any historical degree like the 2018 Cavs.

* don't get me started

 

[bankshot1]

If my fingers calculated correctly, LBJ's team were u-dogs (and big dogs) in 7 of his 9 Final series, while MJ's Bulls were favorites in all 6 of his Finals series. Its not a fair comp. Too often LBJ was carrying an under-manned team against a clearly better opponent.

 

[Vegas Sox Fan]

This conversation - especially now that Joe Montana's name has been brought in - gets me thinking. Rank in order which player affects his team's chances more:

1. NFL - QB
2. MLB - starting pitcher
3. NHL - goalie
4. NBA - star player (position may not matter as much as long as you're great)

Only one of those plays 2 ways, NL pitchers not withstanding.

 

[67YAZ]

Krause did a great job building the cast around Jordan. But that team had more championships left in them, or at least an excellent shot as more championships. Deciding to blow it up in the name of getting a head start on rebuilding was unpardonable.

But bullying and belittling people at work is ok if you’re really, really good at your job?

You know, Reinsdorf could have fired Krause and kept the team together. But again, Reinsdorf let the egos overtake the organization. He should have run a much healthier, productive workplace. I mean, you really think that Krause’s “problem was that he loved people who sometimes didn’t love him back?”

 

[djbayko]

Krause did a great job building the cast around Jordan. But that team had more championships left in them, or at least an excellent shot as more championships. Deciding to blow it up in the name of getting a head start on rebuilding was unpardonable.

I don't understand how an owner can put up with that. You have a franchise raking in the dough with the biggest star in the world still winning championships, and you allow your GM to blow it up?

 

[moondog80]

But bullying and belittling people at work is ok if you’re really, really good at your job?

You know, Reinsdorf could have fired Krause and kept the team together. But again, Reinsdorf let the egos overtake the organization. He should have run a much healthier, productive workplace. I mean, you really think that Krause’s “problem was that he loved people who sometimes didn’t love him back?”

No, bullying was not OK. But that doesn't change the fact that Krause should have done all he could to keep the team in place. You blow it up when you are the 2012-13 Celtics and coming off a first round defeat and an aging core, when the run is clearly over.

 

[j-man]

Krause tryed to bolw it up earlyer i have a book by sam smith when jordan came back in 1994 i think he wrote pippen to sea for kemp and pippen to L A Clips for like 2 num 1 picks

 

[lovegtm]

This conversation - especially now that Joe Montana's name has been brought in - gets me thinking. Rank in order which player affects his team's chances more:

1. NFL - QB
2. MLB - starting pitcher
3. NHL - goalie
4. NBA - star player (position may not matter as much as long as you're great)

NBA star player is so far ahead that the rest of the conversation becomes boring imo.

 

[johnmd20]

Krause tryed to bolw it up earlyer i have a book by sam smith when jordan came back in 1994 i think he wrote pippen to sea for kemp and pippen to L A Clips for like 2 num 1 picks

That's not blowing it up.

 

[67YAZ]

No, bullying was not OK. But that doesn't change the fact that Krause should have done all he could to keep the team in place. You blow it up when you are the 2012-13 Celtics and coming off a first round defeat and an aging core, when the run is clearly over.

I agree with you & Jordan - the core of the team should have stayed together until they no longer defended the title. Everyone was robbed of more greatness and a juicy potential ‘99 finals against Robinson, Duncan, & the Spurs.

 

[BigSoxFan]

I agree with you & Jordan - the core of the team should have stayed together until they no longer defended the title. Everyone was robbed of more greatness and a juicy potential ‘99 finals against Robinson, Duncan, & the Spurs.

Definitely would have been fun to see the aging Bulls take on the emerging Lakers dynasty as well, a complete 180 from the early 90s.

 

[67YAZ]

Definitely would have been fun to see the aging Bulls take on the emerging Lakers dynasty as well, a complete 180 from the early 90s.

The big alternate universe question is - who does Phil coach? Do we assume he stays in Chicago to keep that core together...and then who is in LA?

 

[BigSoxFan]

The big alternate universe question is - who does Phil coach? Do we assume he stays in Chicago to keep that core together...and then who is in LA?

Absolutely. Does Kobe/Shaq ever get going without Phil or are they more OKC/PHX with a bunch of close calls as they battle Bulls and prime Spurs?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

NBA star player is so far ahead that the rest of the conversation becomes boring imo.

Not to derail the thread, but the hyperbole here is astounding. Even if you have no interest in the other sports, posing any of these as "so far ahead" is pretty laughable.

 

[The Social Chair]

Not to derail the thread, but the hyperbole here is astounding. Even if you have no interest in the other sports, posing any of these as "so far ahead" is pretty laughable.

He's not wrong though. These 11 players were on 32 out of the last 35 title teams.

Bird
Magic
Isaiah
Jordan
Hakeem
Duncan/Kawhi
Shaq/Kobe
Lebron
Curry

 

[kfoss99]

A few observations:
1. Jordan's story isn't very interesting. I read a biography on Jimi Hendrix and got the same feeling. Jordan was maniacal about basketball. Jimi was maniacal about the guitar and drugs. There's not much else to say.
2. I think Krause is the most interesting character and he can't defend himself. I wonder if he would do the Belichick routine of saying "we're just trying to win the next game," he'd have acclimated himself better. He seemed to want accolades when no one wanted to give them. Also, he was a baseball guy and came in and put together a great team for a decade; really amazing!
3. You realized how much power management had when you look at those contracts. I feel Jordan should earn a big royalty every year from the NBA owners. It certainly wouldn't be the league, now, without him. He's the Babe Ruth of the game.
4. Pippen's story was intriguing, but they'd cut away to Jordan. I like that Jordan said Pippen was being selfish when MJ was making 30x as much. MJ very much comes away sounding like a owner in his interview.
5. Drunk Jordan is sadly fun to watch. Like Kraft, do you get so much wealth you're just sloshed all the time? I met Sam Koch from Sam Adams, once, and he was the same way.

 

[jsinger121]

People talk that Krause was a baseball guy but before he was a baseball guy he was a scout for a handful of NBA teams. Its not like he came into this blind knowing nothing about the NBA.

 

[johnmd20]

He's not wrong though. These 11 players were on 32 out of the last 35 title teams.

Bird
Magic
Isaiah
Jordan
Hakeem
Duncan/Kawhi
Shaq/Kobe
Lebron
Curry

You are right. He's not wrong. It's not even close. An NBA player can have direct impact on 60-70% of the game. Or more. A QB doesn't play defense, so he's at 50% out of the gate and even then, there are 10 other players on offense. A starting pitcher is 10%, at best, assuming they are going every 5 games. Individual players in baseball, in general, can't have that much of an impact if the team sucks.(the Mike Trout Theorem) A hockey goalie can have a pretty dramatic impact, but hockey is so random, even a goalie can't do that much if his team isn't great in front of him or he gets like 5 bad bounces.

No sport requires stars more than the NBA. And it is literally not close.

 

[Kliq]

You are right. He's not wrong. It's not even close. An NBA player can have direct impact on 60-70% of the game. Or more. A QB doesn't play defense, so he's at 50% out of the gate and even then, there are 10 other players on offense. A starting pitcher is 10%, at best, assuming they are going every 5 games. Individual players in baseball, in general, can't have that much of an impact if the team sucks.(the Mike Trout Theorem) A hockey goalie can have a pretty dramatic impact, but hockey is so random, even a goalie can't do that much if his team isn't great in front of him or he gets like 5 bad bounces.

No sport requires stars more than the NBA. And it is literally not close.

Which is why the NBA Draft is so interesting and that trades and free agency are such a big deal in the NBA in comparison to other sports.

 

[johnmd20]

Which is why the NBA Draft is so interesting and that trades and free agency are such a big deal in the NBA in comparison to other sports.

Exactly. The Rams have some of the best players in the NFL, including the best defensive player in the game. And they traded for Jalen Ramsey, another one who is one of the best at his position. (although seemingly a clubhouse cancer)

They didn't even make the playoffs.

By the numbers, Mike Trout is one of the best players in the history of baseball. His team is horrendous and they never win anything important.

 

[BaseballJones]

Trout isn't part of the equation because I listed starting pitchers, not position players. And I suppose I'm thinking of one game, not an entire season or postseason run. Obviously starting pitchers only participate in one out of every five games, though they can impact other games by going long (or short) in the game they pitch.

There's a reason that ace pitchers command so much money. They have SUCH an enormous impact on their sport, and in any one game, are the primary factor in keeping another team from scoring.

I am sure that the star player in basketball is the correct answer. So what's the right order?

1. NBA star
2. NHL goalie?
3. MLB starting pitcher?
4. NFL QB?

How do they rank after NBA star?

 

[InstaFace]

NBA star player is so far ahead that the rest of the conversation becomes boring imo.

Is it that far ahead of NFL QB? Off the top of my head, I can think of roughly equal numbers of NBA teams who won a title without a top star as I can NFL teams who won without a top QB.

The others, though, yeah, sure.

 

[Marceline]

Is it that far ahead of NFL QB? Off the top of my head, I can think of roughly equal numbers of NBA teams who won a title without a top star as I can NFL teams who won without a top QB.

The others, though, yeah, sure.

On the flip side, though, one NBA star can bring a 20-win team to playoff level, but the same can't be said of an NFL QB. I don't think the Hue Jackson-era Browns make the playoffs with Tom Brady, for example.

 

[lexrageorge]

Trout isn't part of the equation because I listed starting pitchers, not position players. And I suppose I'm thinking of one game, not an entire season or postseason run. Obviously starting pitchers only participate in one out of every five games, though they can impact other games by going long (or short) in the game they pitch.

There's a reason that ace pitchers command so much money. They have SUCH an enormous impact on their sport, and in any one game, are the primary factor in keeping another team from scoring.

I am sure that the star player in basketball is the correct answer. So what's the right order?

1. NBA star
2. NHL goalie?
3. MLB starting pitcher?
4. NFL QB?

How do they rank after NBA star?

I think we can agree the NBA star is by far the most critical item.

An NHL goalie can turn an individual game, or even an entire playoff series on its head. However, a great goalie on a bad team still nets you a bad team, especially if the team's defensemen are bad. And goalies cannot score goals, so they are impacting only half of the game.

MLB starting pitcher works half the game 20% of the time. Now, on the margins, such a player is incredibly important. Divisions are won or lost based on a couple of games in the standings over a 162 game season, and a couple of strong games in the playoffs can also turn a series.

NFL QB is my #2. The Denver team with Tim Tebow of a number of years ago is about as high as you can get with a bad QB. A good offense helps the defense, as an even an unsuccessful drive could pin the opposing team's offense deep in their own territory. Yeah, I know, Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. But Cam Ward won a Stanley Cup. Sometimes, weird things happen.

 

[Kliq]

I think we can agree the NBA star is by far the most critical item.

An NHL goalie can turn an individual game, or even an entire playoff series on its head. However, a great goalie on a bad team still nets you a bad team, especially if the team's defensemen are bad. And goalies cannot score goals, so they are impacting only half of the game.

MLB starting pitcher works half the game 20% of the time. Now, on the margins, such a player is incredibly important. Divisions are won or lost based on a couple of games in the standings over a 162 game season, and a couple of strong games in the playoffs can also turn a series.

NFL QB is my #2. The Denver team with Tim Tebow of a number of years ago is about as high as you can get with a bad QB. A good offense helps the defense, as an even an unsuccessful drive could pin the opposing team's offense deep in their own territory. Yeah, I know, Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. But Cam Ward won a Stanley Cup. Sometimes, weird things happen.

You are forgetting about the Denver team a few years later, with end of the line Peyton and his amazing 9:17 TD:INT ratio that somehow won a Super Bowl.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Is it that far ahead of NFL QB? Off the top of my head, I can think of roughly equal numbers of NBA teams who won a title without a top star as I can NFL teams who won without a top QB.

The others, though, yeah, sure.

Exactly. It's not the slam dunk (no pun intended) it was made out to be, laughable to the point of not even entertaining the discussion.

Eli
McMahon
Flacco
Foles
Hostetler
Brad Johnson
Dilfer
Doug Williams

Non of these guys were top QBs.

As to the list provided by Social, I'd argue Thomas has any place in that group and everyone else had a HoF sidekick, if not more than one. I'm not even saying I disagree with the premise that NBA is #1 on that list, but I don't think it's absurd to have a debate on it vs. a QB, which my only point.

 

[lovegtm]

Exactly. It's not the slam dunk (no pun intended) it was made out to be, laughable to the point of not even entertaining the discussion.

Eli
McMahon
Flacco
Foles
Hostetler
Brad Johnson
Dilfer
Doug Williams

Non of these guys were top QBs.

As to the list provided by Social, I'd argue Thomas has any place in that group and everyone else had a HoF sidekick, if not more than one. I'm not even saying I disagree with the premise that NBA is #1 on that list, but I don't think it's absurd to have a debate on it vs. a QB, which my only point.

Wait, isn't this QB list extremely strong evidence of how far ahead NBA stars are in terms of being necessary to title-winning?

I feel like I'm missing something here, no sarcasm at all.

When I said the discussion would be boring, I didn't mean laughable. I meant that I could think of a similar QB list off the top of my head in a few seconds, and assumed most here would be able to as well, and so we'd just be like "oh yeah, NBA stars have the biggest impact on winning, especially at the highest level, and it's not even really close."

Like in the NBA, what are the counter-examples in the past 40 years? It's pretty much the '04 Pistons, and then maybe the '12-14 Spurs run, depending on how you view Duncan and Parker at that point. If you expand to finalists and not champions, it doesn't get much different, and probably widens the disparity even further with the NFL (hi, Rex Grossman, Super Bowl participant!)

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

You can win a SB with a below average QB. Partly because of the "sudden death" NFL playoffs and SB. Even the bottom 1/4 of NFL QBs are still treeeeemendously talented.

A Warrior team sans Curry and Thompson can certainly beat a LeBron/Davis lead Laker team some random night in January. But will they take 4 of 7 in a playoff series? Never.

Could Nick Foles have the game of his life against the Patriots and beat them? Obviously yes. Could he do it more than a couple times? No...and he doesn't have to. He only has to do it one night.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Wait, isn't this QB list extremely strong evidence of how far ahead NBA stars are in terms of being necessary to title-winning?

I feel like I'm missing something here, no sarcasm at all.

When I said the discussion would be boring, I didn't mean laughable. I meant that I could think of a similar QB list off the top of my head in a few seconds, and assumed most here would be able to as well, and so we'd just be like "oh yeah, NBA stars have the biggest impact on winning, especially at the highest level, and it's not even really close."

Like in the NBA, what are the counter-examples in the past 40 years? It's pretty much the '04 Pistons, and then maybe the '12-14 Spurs run, depending on how you view Duncan and Parker at that point. If you expand to finalists and not champions, it doesn't get much different, and probably widens the disparity even further with the NFL (hi, Rex Grossman, Super Bowl participant!)

You're right, I'm an idiot there. Cabin fever.

I mistook your "boring" for, yes, laughable. Then I botched the retort lol. I'll take my lumps for that

 

[slamminsammya]

I am with the its not even debatable side here. Basketball is so star reliant just by virtue of the number of players.

 

[Kliq]

If it is just one game, I would probably say pitcher. If you are getting just a nails start from someone, you are essentially throwing a shutout meaning that one hitter on your team just needs to capitalize on one bad pitch by the other team to win. If this was the 1800s and you only had two starting pitchers, starting pitcher in baseball would probably be the best answer period, which is why the best WAR seasons in history were done by the Tim Keefe's and Old Hoss Radbourn's of the world.

Basketball also stands out because all the players are doing basically the same job, they are all being asked to score, play defense, rebound and pass the ball. Yeah, some players are asked to do a little bit more or less of each, but one dominant player can really sway things in that kind of scenario. In football, you can have an awesome QB, but if you have wideouts who drop everything, an O-line that can't block and a defense that can't tackle it doesn't matter.

 

[snowmanny]

Re: Krause, I wish I could find the exact quote but he had some snide comment about how the Celtics had fallen apart after their run but that was never going to happen to the Bulls. They were just going to move on to the next championship Bulls team instead of keeping aging stars like the C’s did.

Really annoyed me. And of course he couldn’t have been more wrong.

 

[djbayko]

Re: Krause, I wish I could find the exact quote but he had some snide comment about how the Celtics had fallen apart after their run but that was never going to happen to the Bulls. They were just going to move on to the next championship Bulls team instead of keeping aging stars like the C’s did.

Really annoyed me. And of course he couldn’t have been more wrong.

If true, he learned the correct lesson from the 80s Celtics. But terrible execution. Completely dismantling a team with the greatest player in the world in the middle of a 3-peat seems ill advised.

 

[jaytftwofive]

This conversation - especially now that Joe Montana's name has been brought in - gets me thinking. Rank in order which player affects his team's chances more:

1. NFL - QB
2. MLB - starting pitcher
3. NHL - goalie
4. NBA - star player (position may not matter as much as long as you're great)

Hockey isn't my favorite but I think a hot goalie can be just as important as the top two. Remember ughhh! 1971? Ken Dryden? 2011-Tim Thomas?? And others, Roy 86 and a few other times. And many believe Defense wins football games not the QB.And QB's also get too much credit for winning Super Bowls and too much criticism when they lose. If you made me pick I'd say its starting pitching. Look at the Braves record and avg wins from 1991 to 2005. Maybe the best starting pitching in our lifetime and they must have averaged 95-97 wins a year. Yes they only won one WS but look how good they were and it was because of their starting pitching.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

All I know is that '86 playoff sequence that shows Jordan going off, intercut with Bird and Ainge, accompanied by L.L. was brilliant.

This series is really well done and greatly appreciated in a time where we are missing the best basketball.

 

[lovegtm]

If true, he learned the correct lesson from the 80s Celtics. But terrible execution. Completely dismantling a team with the greatest player in the world in the middle of a 3-peat seems ill advised.

Yeah, it was a bad idea in hindsight and foresight, but I guess he was yolo-ing for that alternate universe where he picks the next Tim Duncan and is the greatest GM ever.

The fact that he was able to decide "we're all in on Mike" and immediately draft both Pippen and Grant probably contributed to the hubris.

Until a successful person fails once, there is no evidence for him that he's NOT a living god among mortals. This thought pattern is the norm, not the exception.

 

[johnmd20]

Hockey isn't my favorite but I think a hot goalie can be just as important as the top two. Remember ughhh! 1971? Ken Dryden? 2011-Tim Thomas?? And others, Roy 86 and a few other times. And many believe Defense wins football games not the QB.And QB's also get too much credit for winning Super Bowls and too much criticism when they lose. If you made me pick I'd say its starting pitching. Look at the Braves record and avg wins from 1991 to 2005. Maybe the best starting pitching in our lifetime and they must have averaged 95-97 wins a year. Yes they only won one WS but look how good they were and it was because of their starting pitching.

The fact that the Braves only won 1 WS actually proves the opposite of your point.

Whereas, in the NBA, as Social Chair Wrote:

He's not wrong though. These 11 players were on 32 out of the last 35 title teams.

Bird
Magic
Isaiah
Jordan
Hakeem
Duncan/Kawhi
Shaq/Kobe
Lebron
Curry

 

[johnmd20]

Point being, the best players in the NBA win almost every title. In MLB, it doesn't matter that much.

The Sox had Pedro's peak for a bunch of years. By many measures, Pedro was the best pitcher of all time. They never came close to the WS. When Pedro was on the downswing, the team around him got much better and they won in 2004.

 

[jaytftwofive]

The fact that the Braves only won 1 WS actually proves the opposite of your point.

Whereas, in the NBA, as Social Chair Wrote:

Starting pitching gets you though 162 games. In the playoffs and WS many teams with not as talented starting pitching have won. Bullpens fail(Mark Wohlers to Letritz 96) and others. Jose Mesa 97. In the playoffs and WS anything can happen. Other pitchers get hot. Tim Belcher over a better Mets team in 88 etc...You throw it out the window. It's a new season.

 

[Red Right Ankle]

Starting pitching gets you though 162 games. In the playoffs and WS many teams with not as talented starting pitching have won. Bullpens fail(Mark Wohlers to Letritz 96) and others. Jose Mesa 97. In the playoffs and WS anything can happen. Other pitchers get hot. Tim Belcher over a better Mets team in 88 etc...You throw it out the window. It's a new season.

Why are you talking about groups of players? They aren't talking about units. Just a single player. No one pitcher will ever be more valuable than an NBA team's star player.

 

[johnmd20]

Starting pitching gets you though 162 games. In the playoffs and WS many teams with not as talented starting pitching have won. Bullpens fail(Mark Wohlers to Letritz 96) and others. Jose Mesa 97. In the playoffs and WS anything can happen. Other pitchers get hot. Tim Belcher over a better Mets team in 88 etc...You throw it out the window. It's a new season.

You're literally lost in a sea of your own words. Everything you say proves the opposite of what you are alleging.

 

[TiredParent]

He's not wrong though. These 11 players were on 32 out of the last 35 title teams.

Bird
Magic
Isaiah
Jordan
Hakeem
Duncan/Kawhi
Shaq/Kobe
Lebron
Curry

I am not sure what this is proving, except for that there is less parity in the NBA. If do not limit it to goalies, it is not that different in the NHL, where
Gretzky
Messier
Roy
Lemieux
Brodeur
Yzerman
Hull
Hasek
Crosby
Kane
Quick

have won 28 of the last 35 titles. If you add Mike Bossy's Islanders teams, you get 32 of the last 39.

 

[jaytftwofive]

Why are you talking about groups of players? They aren't talking about units. Just a single player. No one pitcher will ever be more valuable than an NBA team's star player.

I agree one star NBA player is better then one pitcher. I meant starting pitching(You're 4 or 5) starters can get you through a whole season. Michael Jordan and other stars didn't do it on their own. They all had help. It's a team game. I guess what we were looking at is the most important positions in the 4 major sports and what the most important positions are. In the NBA it used to be the big man, you're center. Not anymore that has changed. The 3 point has helped and hurt the game in many ways. In college I think it 's hurt it more then helped. The list of the 4 were all important. I just had to pick one and it was hard but starting pitching is what i chose. I think the poster meant to say Starting pitching, not starting pitcher.

 

[jaytftwofive]

A few of these views will change when you see the doc. Particulaly about Oakley. Jordan says in the piece that trading Oakley was the right move.

Krause should get a lot of credit for building the roster, but he should absolutely get excoriated for demolishing it. This isn't the Pats being a step ahead and retooling before they needed to. This was Bob Kraft, playing the role of Krause, and telling Belichick he's got one year left coming off 5 championships...

Remember Pippen was drafted by Portland I think then traded to Bulls. But still a brilliant trade.

 

[bankshot1]

He's not wrong though. These 11 players were on 32 out of the last 35 title teams.

Bird
Magic
Isaiah
Jordan
Hakeem
Duncan/Kawhi
Shaq/Kobe
Lebron
Curry

Lies damn lies and statistics.

I think SC's #s only tell part of the story.

These same players were also on the losing team in the finals 20 times (if I counted correctly, no guarantee, and if we used the same timeline-I went back to 1980, when Magic/Bird came into the league, I wasn't quite sure when you started counting). Which means this universe of great players were 32-20 in Finals, or .615% winning percentage. Pretty good, but not earth shattering.

If it was just the best guy wins, LBJ wouldn't be 3-6 in the Finals. I think the real take away is generally you NEED several stars to get through the gaunlet to get to the NBA Finals and hope your stars outplay the other teams stars. Its still a team game.

And for fun and I wanted some fresh fruit, (apples and oranges) I looked at NFL top ten QBs and their winning %

footballref is the source

Brady .774
Manning .705
Brees .595
Favre .619
Elway .644
Montana .713
Unitas .652
Marino . 613
Staubach .745
Graham .814


ave of % (I'm lazy) .687

and I went through the same exercise with starting pitchers

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/win_loss_perc_career.shtml
top 10 averages about 70%

 

[jaytftwofive]

This conversation - especially now that Joe Montana's name has been brought in - gets me thinking. Rank in order which player affects his team's chances more:

1. NFL - QB
2. MLB - starting pitcher
3. NHL - goalie
4. NBA - star player (position may not matter as much as long as you're great)

I think you really meant starting pitching not just one pitcher I assume. Obviously one pitcher isn't as important as these other 3 so I assume that's what you meant. You're starting pitching roatation.

 

[Marciano490]

Lies damn lies and statistics.

I think SC's #s only tell part of the story.

These same players were also on the losing team in the finals 20 times (if I counted correctly, no guarantee, and if we used the same timeline-I went back to 1980, when Magic/Bird came into the league, I wasn't quite sure when you started counting). Which means this universe of great players were 32-20 in Finals, or .615% winning percentage. Pretty good, but not earth shattering.

If it was just the best guy wins, LBJ wouldn't be 3-6 in the Finals. I think the real take away is generally you NEED several stars to get through the gaunlet to get to the NBA Finals and hope your stars outplay the other teams stars. Its still a team game.

And for fun and I wanted some fresh fruit, (apples and oranges) I looked at NFL top ten QBs and their winning %

footballref is the source

Brady .774
Manning .705
Brees .595
Favre .619
Elway .644
Montana .713
Unitas .652
Marino . 613
Staubach .745
Graham .814


ave of % (I'm lazy) .687

and I went through the same exercise with starting pitchers

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/win_loss_perc_career.shtml
top 10 averages about 70%

I don’t think this is super complete. When Bird would lose in the Finals, it was to Magic. When Brady lost, it was to Eli or Foles. That seems another point for the NBA being more star driven. It’s not just the team that wins has the best player, the team that loses the Finals usually has 1A.

Peyton won against Rex Grossman. Curry and LeBron were winning or losing against each other.

 

[bankshot1]

I don’t think this is super complete. When Bird would lose in the Finals, it was to Magic. When Brady lost, it was to Eli or Foles. That seems another point for the NBA being more star driven. It’s not just the team that wins has the best player, the team that loses the Finals usually has 1A.

Peyton won against Rex Grossman. Curry and LeBron were winning or losing against each other.

It wasn't meant to be super-complete. It was meant to show the folly and misleading use of "these NBA stars have won 32 of the last 35 rings" as being indicative of anything. I could have said these all-time greats have lost 20 of the past 35 championships. The point was stars usually win or lose in the last dance. And yes the NBA is and has been a star-driven league for a very long time. But going back to the first team that scared the shit out of me, the '69 Lakers with Wilt, Baylor and West, they got beat, it took 7 games, but they lost to a smarter, if less talented team.

 

[Smokey Joe]

Way long ago the OPs contention (or question) was who effects their teams chances the most". The consensus seems to be that the NBA star does and that was illustrated by "These NBA stars have won 32 of the last 35 rings". The fact that they have also lost the finals 20 times reinforces the original idea. An NBA super star is necessary to even get to the finals and have a chance to win. I think you will find the same in the NFL, MLB and NHL. The great players end up dueling with other great players at the end, but more so in the NBA.