Your unpopular takes? (PC Board Edition)

[Owly]

The Warriors should be clear favorites this year.

I don't see how they aren't better than last year--they added DDV, Kuminga + Moody are a year further in development, Klay has returned to form pre-injury [offensively].

This isn’t a young team where “another year” is a good thing. Steph, Dray, and Klay are all a year older and it’s hard for an older team to get through the grind of a long postseason 2 years in a row. Wiggins isn’t in game shape. Payton’s not 100%. Porter’s gone which makes up for DiVincenzo. Moody’s not even gonna be in the playoff rotation so that doesn’t really matter much. Basically you have negatives all over the roster and a plus of “Kuminga improved”.

Yeah ...
If the queestion is do they have upside on their RS performance ... of course. Curry still Curry, Draymond is still Draymond ..., tighter rotations, Payton back ... they could be dangerous.
But clear favourite ... not seeing the downside on a team where the best players are older and at an age where the expectation to decline is real.
There's no great teams in the way but it's not like last year was a fait acompli, destined to happen, if the idea is last year's playoff success is supposed to be a baseline for this roster.

I remember many people liked their depth at the start of the year and tended to disagree with some deferment to maybe being closer to it, watching them specifically more ... they might know better.

Honestly I think Porter for Donte is a downgrade ... Porter after the first couple of years has been a pretty great shooter and trended at first glance healthily positively impactful. The production was a bit down in the playoffs versus his GS rs, but the impact appeared to be signigicantly positive.

Payton might be in a worse health place? He was important last year.

At a glance Kuminga looks to have been less productive this season by the Reference composites, whilst his on-off as crude impact signal is in around the same place (-5.3 down to -5, but from a lower off so the on is now them getting beat with him on) and last year in the playoffs he was poor and at the fringes of the rotation, playing less than Bjelica, who they no longer have.

I'd guess Poole is less hot than he was this time last year (maybe less motivated?).

As stated they have a chance. The strongest SRS in the west is 3.6 and they have some injuries, and the weakest (and weakest in the play-in) is circa zero. Anyone could come of the West.


Tangenting now ...
Homecourt will help teams ... but matchups, health and luck could be big factors.

Maybe someone shows something amazing in the playoffs but for me, with the (possible) exception of Boston, I wouldn't be too happy retroactively deciding that whichever team won was some great powerhouse (heck, even Boston...).

[iggymcfrack]

Here’s a take I 100% believe:

If all the favorites in the East win in the first round, the Cavs have a better chance to upset the Bucks than the Sixers have of upsetting the Celtics. Celtics and Cavs have the 2 best point differentials in the league and if anyone has question marks about their ability to get it done in the playoffs, it’s Embiid and Harden. I just don’t buy that Milwaukee’s better than Boston or that Philly’s better than Cleveland.

The Cavaliers players have far more question marks of getting it done in the post-season than Harden and Embiid

OK, I guess you’re right that with most of the Cavs players we don’t know if they’ll play above or below their regular season level in the playoffs whereas with Harden and Embiid we already know they’re not gonna be as good in the postseason.

[Colbinii]

Here’s a take I 100% believe:

If all the favorites in the East win in the first round, the Cavs have a better chance to upset the Bucks than the Sixers have of upsetting the Celtics. Celtics and Cavs have the 2 best point differentials in the league and if anyone has question marks about their ability to get it done in the playoffs, it’s Embiid and Harden. I just don’t buy that Milwaukee’s better than Boston or that Philly’s better than Cleveland.

The Cavaliers players have far more question marks of getting it done in the post-season than Harden and Embiid

OK, I guess you’re right that with most of the Cavs players we don’t know if they’ll play above or below their regular season level in the playoffs whereas with Harden and Embiid we already know they’re not gonna be as good in the postseason.

Even if Harden and Embiid are their normal playoff level it is still miles ahead of what we should expect from Cleveland offensively.

[OhayoKD]

Here’s a take I 100% believe:

If all the favorites in the East win in the first round, the Cavs have a better chance to upset the Bucks than the Sixers have of upsetting the Celtics. Celtics and Cavs have the 2 best point differentials in the league and if anyone has question marks about their ability to get it done in the playoffs, it’s Embiid and Harden. I just don’t buy that Milwaukee’s better than Boston or that Philly’s better than Cleveland.

The Cavaliers players have far more question marks of getting it done in the post-season than Harden and Embiid

Yeah, I'd say Jokic, Durant, and CP3 have as big "question marks" tbh

[Colbinii]

Here’s a take I 100% believe:

If all the favorites in the East win in the first round, the Cavs have a better chance to upset the Bucks than the Sixers have of upsetting the Celtics. Celtics and Cavs have the 2 best point differentials in the league and if anyone has question marks about their ability to get it done in the playoffs, it’s Embiid and Harden. I just don’t buy that Milwaukee’s better than Boston or that Philly’s better than Cleveland.

The Cavaliers players have far more question marks of getting it done in the post-season than Harden and Embiid

Yeah, I'd say Jokic, Durant, and CP3 have as big "question marks" tbh

I will say this--and I am currently watching the Cavs/Knicks game--Donovan Mitchell is such a refined offensive weapon. He looks in full control offensively as a lethal scoring weapon. It is a joy to watch his mastery as a 3-level scorer.

[rk2023]

The Cavaliers players have far more question marks of getting it done in the post-season than Harden and Embiid

Yeah, I'd say Jokic, Durant, and CP3 have as big "question marks" tbh

I will say this--and I am currently watching the Cavs/Knicks game--Donovan Mitchell is such a refined offensive weapon. He looks in full control offensively as a lethal scoring weapon. It is a joy to watch his mastery as a 3-level scorer.

Pull up three right as I +1 this

[iggymcfrack]

The Cavaliers players have far more question marks of getting it done in the post-season than Harden and Embiid

Yeah, I'd say Jokic, Durant, and CP3 have as big "question marks" tbh

I will say this--and I am currently watching the Cavs/Knicks game--Donovan Mitchell is such a refined offensive weapon. He looks in full control offensively as a lethal scoring weapon. It is a joy to watch his mastery as a 3-level scorer.

He’s been silky smooth. He‘ll be in the air going 100 miles an hour and it will still feel like he has complete control over every atom of his body. Incredible to watch in that first half.

[sp6r=underrated]

Thought this could be a fun thread here. I’ve seen one or two of these over the years on RealGM, but I don’t believe any on this particular subforum.

A few of mine to kick this off:

• I don’t believe we should grade players in-era. The game is clearly evolving (for better or for worse) toward a particular steady state, and it makes more sense to grade players who can thrive in that setting on a curve.

• Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan should be side-by-side on the GOAT list. Similar longevity. Approximately the same offense, and any superior defense (Magic is underrated on this end) by Jordan is offset by Magic peaking higher offensively.

• Playoff impact metrics should be taken with a grain of salt. Given platooning, different goals (winning 4/7 rather than maximizing health/seeding)), and unrepresentative opposition, I prefer a qualitative playoff analysis *informed by* regular season impact metrics.

Positions aren’t necessarily out of touch with the NBA fandom in general, but I think they’re minority opinions here.

What are some of your own unpopular takes?

My most unpopular takes have more to do with how the sport is set up.
1. The Players' Draft is an abomination. 30 teams have formed a cartel that monopolizes professional basketball in the US. And it says your only choice is to play for a team that drafts you. If basketball players careers lasted as long as doctors, this wouldn't have been killed in courts years ago.

It also severely degrades the quality of basketball in the US. If the draft didn't exist we'd likely have a much deeper talent pool.

2. Max individual salaries, max contract lengths and rookie scale contracts also degrade the quality of basketball in the NBA.

3. Small markets don't and shouldn't have the same shot of winning a title as big markets teams. All that matter is they have a sufficient shot to win a title. A soft salary cap is all you need for that.

4. There are only 2 big markets NY/LA that have significant structural advantages. That only one of those clubs have taken advantage of it historically shows the whining about the poor, helpless small markets is divorced from reality. And also the claim that big markets have enormous advantage just isn't accurate.

5. Franchises should move a lot more than they do. And they shouldn't have to get the permission of the other owners to move to a specific city. Why the hell should Reinsdorf be able to block another team in Chicago?

[Owly]

Thought this could be a fun thread here. I’ve seen one or two of these over the years on RealGM, but I don’t believe any on this particular subforum.

A few of mine to kick this off:

• I don’t believe we should grade players in-era. The game is clearly evolving (for better or for worse) toward a particular steady state, and it makes more sense to grade players who can thrive in that setting on a curve.

• Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan should be side-by-side on the GOAT list. Similar longevity. Approximately the same offense, and any superior defense (Magic is underrated on this end) by Jordan is offset by Magic peaking higher offensively.

• Playoff impact metrics should be taken with a grain of salt. Given platooning, different goals (winning 4/7 rather than maximizing health/seeding)), and unrepresentative opposition, I prefer a qualitative playoff analysis *informed by* regular season impact metrics.

Positions aren’t necessarily out of touch with the NBA fandom in general, but I think they’re minority opinions here.

What are some of your own unpopular takes?

My most unpopular takes have more to do with how the sport is set up.
1. The Players' Draft is an abomination. 30 teams have formed a cartel that monopolizes professional basketball in the US. And it says your only choice is to play for a team that drafts you. If basketball players careers lasted as long as doctors, this wouldn't have been killed in courts years ago.

It also severely degrades the quality of basketball in the US. If the draft didn't exist we'd likely have a much deeper talent pool.

2. Max individual salaries, max contract lengths and rookie scale contracts also degrade the quality of basketball in the NBA.

3. Small markets don't and shouldn't have the same shot of winning a title as big markets teams. All that matter is they have a sufficient shot to win a title. A soft salary cap is all you need for that.

4. There are only 2 big markets NY/LA that have significant structural advantages. That only one of those clubs have taken advantage of it historically shows the whining about the poor, helpless small markets is divorced from reality. And also the claim that big markets have enormous advantage just isn't accurate.

5. Franchises should move a lot more than they do. And they shouldn't have to get the permission of the other owners to move to a specific city. Why the hell should Reinsdorf be able to block another team in Chicago?

My opinions not looking to change your mind here, or say I'm right, just giving my view of the other side

Pretty hard disagree on 5. Franchises moving helps money men get richer. It changes(?) focus of teams from teams/ball clubs into very literal franchises that can be moved anywhere. Long term, then, why get invested in teams whose location and identity are transitory. I understand sports fandom isn't rational. And maybe it's just about players now and teams don't matter. Maybe local investment (not monetary) just isn't there in the same way as other sports in other places (maybe is/was for NCAA sports?) and so nothing's lost but it just seems like trashing fan affection in one area and damaging history in the hope of creating new ones elsewhere. Also don't love that doing so enhances the use of the threat to move, oft used as a means of teams [read: billionaires?] getting more civic money (now that's a choice on both sides, but tend to think it's a bad thing).

1 is much too strong for me. Agree that it's rough there's such long term team control and present players aren't likely to fight for future ones (arguably that's how it got to where it is). Don't know if teams' monopsony(?) power severely degrades standards, would need to see evidence. Don't know that it's so bad for players overall, if they thought it were I would have thought there would have been more attempts to form own league in lockouts, play abroad etc. Maybe they think the stability is worth the cost?

2 Hmm. Depends on the alternative. Don't like max salaries. Don't generally like owners restricting choice of others to protect themselves from own incompetence (though do see that a team locked into being bad hurts more than just owner so... it gets complicated) but have heard it argued max length improves the league by stopping teams keeping ... Travis Knight, Michael Stewart etc ... from sticking around or overplaying overpaid players that the team are stuck as long-term "invested" in. This may depend on other other changes.

Just my first glance reactions.

[OhayoKD]

Thought this could be a fun thread here. I’ve seen one or two of these over the years on RealGM, but I don’t believe any on this particular subforum.

A few of mine to kick this off:

• I don’t believe we should grade players in-era. The game is clearly evolving (for better or for worse) toward a particular steady state, and it makes more sense to grade players who can thrive in that setting on a curve.

• Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan should be side-by-side on the GOAT list. Similar longevity. Approximately the same offense, and any superior defense (Magic is underrated on this end) by Jordan is offset by Magic peaking higher offensively.

• Playoff impact metrics should be taken with a grain of salt. Given platooning, different goals (winning 4/7 rather than maximizing health/seeding)), and unrepresentative opposition, I prefer a qualitative playoff analysis *informed by* regular season impact metrics.

Positions aren’t necessarily out of touch with the NBA fandom in general, but I think they’re minority opinions here.

What are some of your own unpopular takes?

My most unpopular takes have more to do with how the sport is set up.
1. The Players' Draft is an abomination. 30 teams have formed a cartel that monopolizes professional basketball in the US. And it says your only choice is to play for a team that drafts you. If basketball players careers lasted as long as doctors, this wouldn't have been killed in courts years ago.

It also severely degrades the quality of basketball in the US. If the draft didn't exist we'd likely have a much deeper talent pool.

2. Max individual salaries, max contract lengths and rookie scale contracts also degrade the quality of basketball in the NBA.

3. Small markets don't and shouldn't have the same shot of winning a title as big markets teams. All that matter is they have a sufficient shot to win a title. A soft salary cap is all you need for that.

4. There are only 2 big markets NY/LA that have significant structural advantages. That only one of those clubs have taken advantage of it historically shows the whining about the poor, helpless small markets is divorced from reality. And also the claim that big markets have enormous advantage just isn't accurate.

5. Franchises should move a lot more than they do. And they shouldn't have to get the permission of the other owners to move to a specific city. Why the hell should Reinsdorf be able to block another team in Chicago?

Do nba franchises get taxpayer money from the cities they inhabit? I know sports teams in another leagues do. Would say that should come with an immediate "you're not allowed to leave on a whim and if you want to sell, you have to sell to an owner located in the city in question"

[rk2023]

The Warriors should be clear favorites this year.

I don't see how they aren't better than last year--they added DDV, Kuminga + Moody are a year further in development, Klay has returned to form pre-injury [offensively].

Are both teams to advance into the second round, I think the Lakers match up the best out West for GSW. At least if James / Davis are who I speculate they are.

[ShaqAttac]

Here’s a hot take that’s an unpopular opinion. I feel like for the playoffs, Tim Duncan was better than Larry Bird purely as an offensive player even if you don’t account for defense at all. His ‘03 and ‘06 blow away any Bird playoffs and he never had a bad playoffs until about the age Bird was washed while Bird absolutely had choky playoffs in his prime.

how bout shaq

[rk2023]

Here’s a hot take that’s an unpopular opinion. I feel like for the playoffs, Tim Duncan was better than Larry Bird purely as an offensive player even if you don’t account for defense at all. His ‘03 and ‘06 blow away any Bird playoffs and he never had a bad playoffs until about the age Bird was washed while Bird absolutely had choky playoffs in his prime.

how bout shaq

Shaq and Bird on Offense is a good discussion to have, I feel like. Personally lean Bird, but welcome any pro-Shaq arguments.