Originally Posted by tpols
DMAVs agreed on your overall premise..
But.. I want you to apply that same logic to Michael Jordan.
Did Michael have a better supporting cast than his adversaries?
Who was ewing's second option in the early 90s? John Starks? Ewing had the equivalent of what 2011 Derrick Rose had.. a bunch of defensive role players and one offensive talent except Patrick was the one who made their defense and rebounding elite, on TOP of being the guy they leaned on offensively.
Ewings second option was basically JR Smith.
Charles Barkley? He had the pieces for 1 or 2 years and gave jordan one of his most competitive Finals series. Still never had a second option on Scotties level, nor the coaching, nor the overall teams over a signifigant time span
Hakeem? Not much even has to be said..
Shaq? Had some good talent, but again didnt have near the depth, as good a number two, or coaching to glue it all together.
David Robinson? Again nothing has to be said.
If you switch MJ out to the knicks and make him have to work with John Starks while Ewing gets pippen.. I dont see how the knicks lose there. Ewing had much less to work with but still led his team to wins and competitive series. You swap pieces and the odds are greatly in his favor.
These are literally the points I've been trying to make since joining this site. Totally agree that in a lot of cases it's the team/coaching that is the most important.
But we have to distinguish between a guy like Kobe and Melo for example. That wouldn't work if you switched them...the Kobe led team would just almost always win unless the gap was just huge. But switch Kobe and Wade or Lebron...I think the guy with the better supporting cast and coaching wins most of the time.
Which is why I always defended Dirk for not winning. I never thought he had a team on par with the 10 Lakers or 11 Heat or 08 Celtics...etc. I still don't think he's ever had that.
So we agree. Glad it only took 4 years.