Reply With Quote
How being the clear number 2 vs being the top dog is a semantics issue now?
Aldridge has been on teams that good. You want to argue semantics on who led them. But that has nothing to do with LMA. He's been a top-two player on all of those teams.
Not every question can be satisfied with the at-a-glance analysis you like citing.
How being the clear number 2 vs being the top dog is a semantics issue now?
Because Aldridge can't help that folks like you want to give the credit to Lillard or Leonard. It's not like the dude was the first option than then ring-chased ala Davis. Even going to SA was supposed to be him as the clear best player on the team.How being the clear number 2 vs being the top dog is a semantics issue now?
Who was the number one option in the Spurs, Kawhi or Aldridge?
This doesn't matter.
It's draft day my friend, stop spamming about harden
How am I spamming? I'm just engaging in an argument. In any case we would both be "spamming".
Yes it does. Harden can win 65 games and be a quarter away from probably ringing as the top dog. Aldridge can't.
It really doesn't. Harden and Paul almost beat GS and didn't because of Paul's injury. LMA and a hobbled Leonard looked to be a match for GS before Leonard went down. That you want to insist on arguing that Harden was the top dog over Paul and that Leonard was over LMA couldn't matter less.
I don't want to insist anything. That is a verifiable fact by anyone that isn't being intentionally dishonest, tbh.
It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you think it's true or even if it could be verified as being true. It still wouldn't matter.I don't want to insist anything. That is a verifiable fact by anyone that isn't being intentionally dishonest, tbh.
Because whether Harden ball is winning ball isn't about him being technically top dog over Paul the only year that they seriously threatened for a le or whatever. It's a philosophical question about whether a team built around a player taking iso threes from the perimeter and hoping for foul calls is a sustainable way to play. My stance is that it's not because it's far too easy to gamplan around and depends on Harden himself not being fickle like he often becomes when he feels a series turning against him. Harden basically has the same temperament as DeRozan. You depend on him to carry you through adversity at your own peril. The thing that sucks is that you basically have nothing to fall back on since Harden ball removes most off-ball movement. That one time with Paul it worked because D'Antoni worked in more Paul-ball concepts to add variety. The friction between Harden-ball and team ball is probably what killed their relationship. Clearly, he's awful to play with.
Harden-Ball is in its design highly inconsistent (see variance) and excludes most of the non-ballhandlers (=everyone except Harden) from doing anything but spot up. It's not by accident that they almost dethroned Golden State when they had an elite midrange shot creator.
It's not really possible to compare Aldridge-Ball with Harden-Ball over the years, as the Rockets had a way better supporting cast hand-tailored for their style of play and the Spurs were a team dealing with some personell turmoil. It still does say something though that the only meaningful game between evenly matched Spurs and Rockets teams with Aldridge and Harden as the respective top dogs was a total obliteration.
Sorry for chiming in out of the blue, but the discussion was too interesting to resist.
Aldridge beat Harden H2H twice. And yes, that had a Lillard who was just breaking out. But it also had Howard who was still a marquee player. The first two games of that series were incredible play by Aldridge.
But yeah, that Warriors series was lucky for them too. People always talk about Houston being unfortunate to have their shots dry up. But the reality is that when you take so many low-percentage shots, you are going to have games where it just isn't going. High variance, as you said. That Houston had so many "good rolls" against the Warriors is unusual, whereas them dropping a couple of games to inferior teams in a series is what usually happens. Then in crunch time, Harden falls apart. This isn't close a new aspect of Harden-ball.
Harden is the same guy that accepted comig off the bench without ing. He's also arguably the best pick and roll player in the league. Just because D'antoni had him playing gimmick ball it doesn't mean he can't play proper ball. He is without a question a top 5 player in the league and any reasonable person would have him as the clearly better player over Aldridge, even if all the things you assume about Harden are true, because Mr "mah touches" isn't any better on that department.
I seriously think the Spurs could be serious Harden suitors if they put their efforts into making it happen. They have two expiring contracts (in DeRozan and Aldridge) to easily make a trade for Harden work. They also have a handful of interesting young prospects. It's just a matter of how many 1st round picks the Spurs are willing to give.
I hope not.
Just don’t wanna root for dribble dribble flop.
If the Spurs can work a trade around DeRozan, Aldridge, Murray (maybe Walker and/or Samanic) and a couple of 1st for Harden, Gordon and Tucker, the Spurs would become instant contenders.
Harden
White
Keldon
Tucker
Poeltl
Mills
Vassell
Gordon
Gay
Drew
Murray + DDR + Gay for Harden + House
How many 1st would we give?
Just easier to get Westbrook. I don't think we would even have to give up a first.
Kawhi also agreed to do a lot of stuff when he was younger that he wouldn't do now.
So at this point, I think you've moved the goal posts pretty far. You used Aldridge ball to mean playing the style of ball he likes to play. You trying to shunt LMA's success to "Well Leonard was the main option" suggests that as well. It's clear that if that same standard applies, this ty iso routine is what Harden-ball is. MDA never ran that type of offense with his other guards. He didn't even start running with with Harden initially. That came out later once Harden was good enough to assert himself. This explosion that Harden had was the result of running Harden ball. It's the reason why he's so efficient. It's the reason why Houston has won so many games. You can't separate it from him just because forever ago he used to play like a human instead of a machine trying to simulate a human.He's also arguably the best pick and roll player in the league. Just because D'antoni had him playing gimmick ball it doesn't mean he can't play proper ball.
So yeah, Harden ball isn't winning ball. Harden if he could somehow be brought back to Earth, could probably be a if not then main contributor to a championship team, in the same way that Aldridge could be a main contributor to a championship team, even as an old man but letting offense come to him rather than creating it with iso-ball. Difference between the two is that Aldridge has clearly accepted the challenge to adapt his game in a way Harden has, your ty attempt to bring up "muh touches" notwithstanding.
I dislike Harden about 50% of the time, but I dislike DeRozan 80% of the time, so yeah I'd support that if it meant keeping White, KJ, and Vassell. I just wonder if Harden could be forced to move away from so much iso-ball. But , if not, he's still tradable-- something DeRozan doesn't seem to be. The difference between DeRozan and Harden is DeRozan's play is not winning basketball because of his shortcomings, which can't be changed. I think Harden doesn't maximize his abilities due to style of play, which is changeable.
Dude, Aldridge and Harden aren't even comparable. It's a laughable argument the one you are trying to make here. It's not even worth replying to, tbh.
But why whould we want to add Westbrook though?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
