TMC wrote:

coltraning wrote:Finally, about that Jazz team, Hornacek, Stockton and Malone would have been starters about any player in Phoenix, but the other two starting spots and the whole bench would have been players from this Phoenix team. That's 9 players out of 12. That Jazz team had two top 10 players and a very good player in Hornacek, but no depth at all. The rest of the team were scrubs just enjoying the ride. And still went to two finals.

You keep making general statements, but not naming names
The suns start nash, bell, jones, marion, diaw
the jazz started stockton, bryon russel, hornacek, malone, ostertag
Bell is an extremely comparable player to russell in his heyday. Both can shoot very well from three and lock down on defense. Bell scores a couple more points but that's because there are more shots to go around and he plays less minutes. Hornacek was definitely better than james jones. Malone was obviously better than marion. Ostertag was not as good as Diaw but do you really think diaw would play center in sloan's system? And he hasn't proved he'd be good without the matchup advantages. Phoenix probably has a better bench, but the reality is that Leandro Barbosa and Eddie House (along with diaw and jones) couldn't get close to what they're getting if they were on another team. Probably marion too. Phoenix may be better top to bottom but the difference there are very few players on phoenix that anybody else in the league would have any use for.

The thing you and TMC are forgetting is that several players on the Jazz had their best years in the lineup next to John Stockton.

Shandon Anderson, Howard Eisley, Bryon Russell, Adam Keef, and several other players had surged stats because Stockton gave them the Nash-effect that bennefits players (nowadays) like Barbosa, Diaw, and Bell.

The reason nobody brings this up is because all of those Jazz players fell off once they were separated from Stock. Ergo, when you look at the lineup and see players like Russell and Anderson, you don't really take them for what they were on the Jazz; most of us just remember their post-Jazz career flops. But Russell was a danger on the perimeter in his heyday. Anderson and Eisley also seemed like a decent backup duo. The Jazz players (albiet, next to John Stockton) aren't getting enough credit here because of their sorry reputations. I'm not saying they were superstars in Utah; but it sounds like the Jazz aren't getting their dues here.

I imagine the same will happen to future Suns players who've been traded away. Hell, it's already beginning. Did anybody hear ONE damn thing about Quentin Richardson last season...? The only players that can stand on their feet without Steve Nash in the game are Amare (when he's 100%) and Marion (because he's a straight savage). Everyone else is playing their best basketball next to the MVP. Hell, I respect the hell out of what he's done lately, but I'm still not completely sold on Diaw yet. Next to Nash, he's great. But I wonder what'll happen when Nash retires... or Boris gets traded... or Nash gets injured...

That's why this whole Jazz-vs-Suns thing will never be solved. Stockton and Nash improve players, so their values are haphazardly decided, game by game. This little experiment can never be controlled with wild cards like John and Steve in it. It'll remain opinion in the end, regardless of whatever facts people can come up with along the way.

#32 wrote:The thing you and TMC are forgetting is that several players on the Jazz had their best years in the lineup next to John Stockton.

How am I forgetting that?. That's exactly what I'm saying. Stock, Malone, Hornacek (he still played pretty well for Philly and Phoenix) and scrubs.

About names, as I'm not giving names, comparing both teams completely healthy, the starters would be:

Stockton
Hornacek
Marion
Malone
Stoudemire

And now look at Utah's bench:

Shandon Anderson
Adam Keefe
Greg Foster
Antoine Carr (a wasted Antoine Carr)
Howard Easley (Phoenix bought him out last season)
Chris Morris (this one had talent, but was too lazy to bother playing basketball)
Jacque Vaughn

And then compare that bench with Phoenix's one (I suppose that, with Stoudemire healthy, Tim Thomas, and not Diaw, would come from the bench):

Barbosa
Kurt Thomas
Tim Thomas
James Jones
Eddie House (who, even if you don't think he's any good, is a great scorer, and perfectly suited to provide a spark from the bench. Hell, he'd be the sixth man in that Utah team).
Burke sucks and Brian Grant is also wasted, so don't bother with them.

And now, can you honestly say that you would pick any player of Utah's bench above another on Phoenix?

What Stockton and Malone (and Sloan) did with that team was nothing short of a miracle.

Again, I don't think you can compare. I think Utah had better big men on their bench and Phoenix has better little men.

Antoine Carr (though washed up by that time) was still a player capable of providing defense and rebounding. Chris Morris (when he got minutes) was a major wildcard. More often than not, you'd be disappointed with him... but he had the odd-Dunleavy game every now and then that made you wonder. And Greg Foster was a better backup center than Kurt Thomas. I'd take Carr, Morris, and Foster over James Jones, Kurt Thomas, and Brian Grant.

Likewise, the smaller players on the Jazz (Eisley, Anderson, and Vaughn) would probably not fair too well against the likes of House and Barbosa (but not by much). Shandon Anderson was a scorer in his days for Utah... and the Jazz really tried hard to make Eisley a good PG (ultimately, failing... but he still played the best ball of his life in Salt Lake City). In the grand scheme of things, Utah's lineup looks a lot weaker nowadays than it did 8 years ago... but so will Phoenix' in the same timeframe. I doubt any of us will be speaking fondly of Eddie House and James Jones in 5-8 years. The league is different and the competition is different (less defense, more whistles these days). I really don't think you can compare these two teams.

#32 wrote: And Greg Foster was a better backup center than Kurt Thomas.

It's not like comparing teams from different eras. It's been a while, but some of those players still play (sort of). I would agree that '60s teams cannot be compared with teams nowadays, but these two are close enough in time.

I don't think Kurt Thomas is any good. He's a decent PF, but I think the center idea is a joke.

And the only reason I say you can't compare is because of just that; some of these guys are still playing. The Shandon Anderson of today (who rides the bench and does nothing for the Heat) is not the player he was on the Jazz. I just think you might be too harsh on the Utah players because of their image nowadays.

I never said that Kurt Thomas was a center. If Phoenix uses him like that, it's their problem. He's a pf. Problem is that Phoenix doesn't really have a center.

I don't think I'm too harsh on those Utah players. Anderson went straight from his best pro season to be unable to crack the rotation in Houston.

It's more admiration for Stockton and Sloan than being harsh on them.

Ok, than I guess I misunderstood.

I just don't buy that Phoenix's bench is overwhelmingly better than what Utah's was. I think their team (aside from Marion and Stoudamire) is mediocre without Nash; same as Utah's was without Stockton. Once these players start leaving Phoenix, their true talent will be shown.

Amen #32

TMC, The thing you're missing is that almost none of phoenix' players could play in another system. Diaw, James Jones, TiTho, Barbosa, and House especially would languish on the bench in utah. Marion on a team besides phoenix would probably get a couple points less and 2-4 rebounds less per game. Still not bad numbers but he wouldn't be an allstar in most places. And as for Diaw, he was the worst player on the worst team in the league last year, he hasn't proven he can excel as anything but a matchup problem for centers. Phoenix with amare is more talented than Utah but phoenix with a healthy amare will probably win the championship next year.

tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:TMC, The thing you're missing is that almost none of phoenix' players could play in another system.

That I give you. They look considerably better thanks to the system and the fact that they play with the best pg of the league. And some of them would be fringe NBA players in other teams.

But... that holds true for most players in the NBA (not the stars, obviously). It's just a matter of finding the best place for them. Sometimes the talent is so close that just fitting into the right system changes how we perceive a player.

#32 wrote:Ok, than I guess I misunderstood.

I just don't buy that Phoenix's bench is overwhelmingly better than what Utah's was. I think their team (aside from Marion and Stoudamire) is mediocre without Nash; same as Utah's was without Stockton. Once these players start leaving Phoenix, their true talent will be shown.

yup - think Kurt Rambis on a team besides the Lakers in the 80s...not a pretty sight. like real estate, it's all about location, location. location

tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:Marion on a team besides phoenix would probably get a couple points less and 2-4 rebounds less per game. Still not bad numbers but he wouldn't be an allstar in most places.

Whoa, maybe a spot of overkill there, dIsEaSe. Shawn Marion is one of three players on the Suns with legit talent. You can tell because (a) he put up big numbers in the pre-Nash era... and (b) he plays defense like a stud (something you can't say for any other player on the roster). Offensively, Steve Nash can help players increase their scoring, their assists, their 3-point %, and their FG%. But I don't think he has much to do with their rebounding, shot-blocking, and stealing stats. Marion is one of the few players in the league who can do absolutely everything... and one of the fewer who can do everything well. Call me crazy, but I think he'd do just as well (if not better) anywhere. That includes being the franchise on a sorry team like Portland... or taking Tayshaun's spot on the Pistons. I still believe Marion would put up 16 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 blocks, and 1 steal wherever he went.

TMC wrote:But... that holds true for most players in the NBA (not the stars, obviously). It's just a matter of finding the best place for them. Sometimes the talent is so close that just fitting into the right system changes how we perceive a player.

This is true... but it also means that you can't assume players like Boris Diaw would outrank players on the old-school Jazz bench purely because Diaw's game might become crippled the second he releases his suckle on Steve Nash's teet.

But I agree with this point. Players like Chauncey Billips in Detroit, Kenyon Martin back in Jersey, Larry Johnson in Charlotte... even Joe Smith on the Warriors. Several "above-average" to "great" players live and die by the system. In fact, all players above have proven to be damn-near helpless without their proper scenary. I don't think this idea discriminates; I believe stars are sometimes just as prone to this as role players.

A few players I believe would prove to be dependent on the system (should they ever leave their current homes): Tony Parker, Mehmet Okur, and Al Harrington. These three put up decent numbers standing next to Hall-of-Famers or playing in desperately hopeless cities, but I doubt they'd be much of a threat in a different surrounding.

#32 wrote:

tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:Marion on a team besides phoenix would probably get a couple points less and 2-4 rebounds less per game. Still not bad numbers but he wouldn't be an allstar in most places.

Whoa, maybe a spot of overkill there, dIsEaSe. Shawn Marion is one of three players on the Suns with legit talent. You can tell because (a) he put up big numbers in the pre-Nash era... and (b) he plays defense like a stud (something you can't say for any other player on the roster). Offensively, Steve Nash can help players increase their scoring, their assists, their 3-point %, and their FG%. But I don't think he has much to do with their rebounding, shot-blocking, and stealing stats. Marion is one of the few players in the league who can do absolutely everything... and one of the fewer who can do everything well. Call me crazy, but I think he'd do just as well (if not better) anywhere. That includes being the franchise on a sorry team like Portland... or taking Tayshaun's spot on the Pistons. I still believe Marion would put up 16 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 blocks, and 1 steal wherever he went.

Nash doesn't increase Marion's rebounding, the number of available rebounds and the lack of other good rebounders makes his rebound numbers inflated. And I actually didn't suggest as sharp an overall decline as you did btw. As for Marion's defense, he plays D a lot like larry hughes, he's not a bad defender but he's more of an oppurtunist who gets lots of blocks and steals.

I wouldn't call my numbers for Marion a sharp decline. You gotta believe he probably wont average 12 boards next season... and his drop in points purely comes from the idea of getting less shots on a more capable team (ie, if he was traded to the Pistons or Cav's, who have more scoring options).

#32 wrote:and his drop in points purely comes from the idea of getting less shots on a more capable team (ie, if he was traded to the Pistons or Cav's, who have more scoring options).

hmm - the part of this that confuses me is, since the Suns lead the league in scoring by a substantial number, how do you figure the pistons and especially the cavs have more scoring options?