Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[Magic Boo]

- Playoffs are generally overvalued.
- 1995 Rockets are the worse title team since 1980 and had massive structural flaws. There playoff run to me is no different than that massive Hawks winning streak: a bunch of guys playing over their heads for a month and a half.
- 2009 and 2010 Magic were legitimate title contenders and are underappreciated because of Howard's behavior the last few years along with people reading too much into the 2010 ECF.
- Magic Johnson's peak was lower than KG and TD.
- The two best Spurs title teams (05 and 14) were as good or better than the best Showtime title team.
- Hakeem is closer to being out of the top 10 than a legitimate GOAT level player.
- RAPM is overvalued.
- Playoff on/off is of negligible value.

- playoffs are not overvalued. Thats where everyone gives his all. A lot of players coast in some RS games and teams dont really prepare for opponents like they do in a 7 game series. So PS is a better indicator of greatness.

-hawks RS was no fluke. They have a good coach, system and play a team oriented ball. They just lacked a true superstar in the ECF. And if the Rockets run was a fluke, how did they go back to back? Hakeem was simply the best player in the league at that time.

[MO12msu]

Id have to disagree on one point Jj Redick by most metrics balances out as a neutral defender because he never makes mistakes on defense while Nash didn't really sandbag he is nowhere as precise as Redick who has some how managed to be a decent defender despite his shortcomings



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

You're correct, I have no idea why I had it set in my mind that Jj had negative defensive rpm numbers without even looking. But my point does still stand about Nash because, like you said, I think Nash was more lackadaisical with regards to off ball defense and hitting his rotations.

I'll also add another one. The PC board is not immune to winning bias, just like everyone else. If CP3 ever wins a title, I'm about 80% sure he will receive a massive jump in his reputation here, similar to the way Dirk and Hakeem had there rankings elevated after finally getting over the hump. Similarly, I don't think 2011 would be called Dirk's peak on this board if he wins it all in 2006, or he falls short in 2011. Those were both very competitive 6 game series, so it's entirely possible that they each could've gone the other way, even if Dirk played at the exact same level he did in the actual series. I am not saying that strong arguments haven't been made for 2011 to be his peak, but I do think that people might view the end result and subconsciously conclude that Dirk's level of play HAD to be higher in 2011.

[Quotatious]

- Playoffs are generally overvalued.

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

[E-Balla]

Here's one: Lebron fans are just as annoying as Kobe fans were 5 years ago.

Here is one: Knicks are even worse than they were 5 years ago. And we thought that wouldn't be possible...

In what way is that unpopular or hard to believe? We lost a team record 65 games last year and 5 years ago the Knicks went 42-40.

Good job solidifying my point though.

[Purch]

I think Chris Paul is a tad overrated. I get that he has nice numbers, and he clearly does have a lot of impact on the baskletball court, but for whatever reason he's immune to advancing far in the playoffs, whether it's injuries, teammates, or his own underperformance it just doesn't happen. I noticed he's loved around here, so most are quick to come to his defense and discredit the CLippers's supoporting cast. Like having a top 10 player in Grffin, an all star caliber center in DJ, JJ Reddick etc isn't a good cast? I get that their bench isn't good but they aren't the first team to have a bad bench. Their starting lineup is fire. I'm not saying Paul should've won a ring, but i think it's abundantly clear he should've had more postsesaon success in his career than he has. There will be excuses in advance in case he has another early exit.

Paul is one of the Greats, but regardless of what his longevity ends up looking like i can't put him with or ahead of guys like Barkley, Moses, Dirk, Drob, Wade etc.

Oscar Robertson who is considered a top 15 player of all time only won 2 playoff series in his first 10 seasons. He was even more "immune to advancing far in the playoffs" than CP3 yet he's normally ranked over the players you mentioned.

And who says Paul doesn't have a good supporting cast? The problem is when you play your entire prime in the toughest conference in league history you need more than a good team to get to the finals or to be a serious threat to win it all.

If you play in 11 series and ALL of them are against teams with more than 51 wins you're gonna need your bench to at least give you
something, you're gonna need your teammates to get stops on defense. These are not "excuses", it's being realistic.

Paul's not the only player playing in the west. James Harden managed to go all the way to the conference finals with his starting point guard out the whole semi finals. They had very similar supporting cast, and Cp3 had better coaching. Yet you don't see the western conference limiting them from getting past the second round. In fact Blake Griffin at this point is definitly better than Dwight Howard.

It's getting old. First Paul doesn't have a good enough coach. He gets Doc Rivers and top assistants. Then he doesn't have a good enough 2nd option. Black Griffin turns into a top 5 player. Then he doesn't have a good enoug bench. Had arguably the best bench in the league from 13-14. Then he plays in too tough a conference. Despite everyone he's losing to playing in the exact same conference. What next ? His team is talented but had to many headcases? Every season it's the same thing. People pick Paul lead teams to be contenders and make it far because of their talent... Yet every time they lose apparently they don't have enough talent.

But yet a guy like Harden has never had as good a coach as Paul. Has a worst 2nd option. Had just as bad a bench (with Beverly out) and has played in the exact same conference.


So why dont these factors affect him?

It's like Paul is in his own little world, where anything that happends is just based on outside factors. Whiles other players exceed in the same situation.

The realityy is his impact on a game just doesn't match his stats. As people have been telling you guys for 6 year

[Hawk]

- Playoffs are generally overvalued.

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

Hmm...

There is something to the Playoffs though, just like there is something to the regular season games, compared to practice.

For instance, Howard is able to hit 1252 free throws out of 1532 during practice, 82%.

Spoiler:

This % plummets in real games. Obviously, there is something mental here. There is something in RS that doesn't allow him to hit free throws as well as he does during practice.

My point is, yes, the more games the better sample size, I agree with that, but Playoff games are not the same as RS games. There is more pressure.

I wouldn't change my mind on a players basketball ability if he plays worse in PO's compared to RS, but I would question his mental toughness who makes him play worse (could be that and/or could be that he plays against tougher teams compared to RS, there is that possibility as wel, as you pointed it out).

[bondom34]

- Playoffs are generally overvalued.

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

Agree the same. As for the mention of practice FTs, instead of comparing practice to playoffs, try RS to playoffs:

Dwight drops from 57 to 55 percent.

Kobe from 84 to 82.

Pau from 75 to 74. Its essentially negligible.

[E-Balla]

I think Chris Paul is a tad overrated. I get that he has nice numbers, and he clearly does have a lot of impact on the baskletball court, but for whatever reason he's immune to advancing far in the playoffs, whether it's injuries, teammates, or his own underperformance it just doesn't happen. I noticed he's loved around here, so most are quick to come to his defense and discredit the CLippers's supoporting cast. Like having a top 10 player in Grffin, an all star caliber center in DJ, JJ Reddick etc isn't a good cast? I get that their bench isn't good but they aren't the first team to have a bad bench. Their starting lineup is fire. I'm not saying Paul should've won a ring, but i think it's abundantly clear he should've had more postsesaon success in his career than he has. There will be excuses in advance in case he has another early exit.

Paul is one of the Greats, but regardless of what his longevity ends up looking like i can't put him with or ahead of guys like Barkley, Moses, Dirk, Drob, Wade etc.

Oscar Robertson who is considered a top 15 player of all time only won 2 playoff series in his first 10 seasons. He was even more "immune to advancing far in the playoffs" than CP3 yet he's normally ranked over the players you mentioned.

And who says Paul doesn't have a good supporting cast? The problem is when you play your entire prime in the toughest conference in league history you need more than a good team to get to the finals or to be a serious threat to win it all.

If you play in 11 series and ALL of them are against teams with more than 51 wins you're gonna need your bench to at least give you
something, you're gonna need your teammates to get stops on defense. These are not "excuses", it's being realistic.

Paul's not the only player playing in the west. James Harden managed to go all the way to the conference finals with his starting point guard out the whole semi finals. They had very similar supporting cast, and Cp3 had better coaching. Yet you don't see the western conference limiting them from getting past the second round. In fact Blake Griffin at this point is definitly better than Dwight Howard.

It's getting old. First Paul doesn't have a good enough coach. Then he doesn't have a good enough 2nd option. Then he doesn't have a good enoug bench. Then he plays in too touch a conference.

But yet a guy like Harden has never had as good a coach as Paul. Has a worst 2nd option. Had just as bad a bench (with Beverly out) and has played in the exact same conference.


So why dont these factors affect him?

It's like Paul is in his own little world, where anything that happends is just based on outside factors. Whiles other players exceed in the same situation.

The realityy is his impact on a game just doesn't match his stats

As a guy that was on the CP3 bandwagon for the longest (I remember having a ton of CP3 4 MVP convos back in 2012) I have to agree he is overrated. He's had good teams around him, he's had good supporting casts, and he's had seriously amazing teams but he cannot make the CF. Look at all the other WC guys that have been around and have been seen as great and they've all been more successful and all of them haven't consistently had better teams than CP.

[mtron929]

- Playoffs are generally overvalued.

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

I disagree with this. In the NFL, the regular season games are very important because (a) the season is short (16 games) and (b) few bad games and you miss the playoffs. Moreover, having a 1st round bye is such a killer advantage that it becomes important to have a good regular season record. However in the NBA, the regular seasons are not as important because most decent teams make the playoffs. Moreover, having the best record leads to pretty minimal advantage in the grand scheme of things. Thus, if we are evaluating a player's greatness, his level of play in the playoffs (aka the real season) should merit much more of consideration compared to regular season play.

Now having said that, I would not be surprised if a lot of the stat guys put a lot of emphasis on regular season games. One big reason is that the number of playoff games is relatively so small that many of the statistical arguments put forth to evaluate players become much less reliable if we just look a sample of playoff games.

Another example to illustrate the discrepancies in regular season play and playoff play is as follows. Let's say that there is a player, R, who plays at a level 98 (on a scale of 1 to 100) against bad teams, 90 against good teams, and 84 against great teams. Another player, P, plays at a level of 91 against bad teams, 91 against good teams, and 89 against great teams. On average, it is conceivable that player R has better overall stats. However, I would always take player P over R because in the real season (aka the playoffs), you are only going up against good/great teams.

[bondom34]

- Playoffs are generally overvalued.

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

I disagree with this. In the NFL, the regular season games are very important because (a) the season is short (16 games) and (b) few bad games and you miss the playoffs. Moreover, having a 1st round bye is such a killer advantage that it becomes important to have a good regular season record. However in the NBA, the regular seasons are not as important because most decent teams make the playoffs. Moreover, having the best record leads to pretty minimal advantage in the grand scheme of things. Thus, if we are evaluating a player's greatness, his level of play in the playoffs (aka the real season) should merit much more of consideration compared to regular season play.

Now having said that, I would not be surprised if a lot of the stat guys put a lot of emphasis on regular season games. One big reason is that the number of playoff games is relatively so small that many of the statistical arguments put forth to evaluate players become much less reliable if we just look a sample of playoff games.

Another example to illustrate the discrepancies in regular season play and playoff play is as follows. Let's say that there is a player, R, who plays at a level 98 (on a scale of 1 to 100) against bad teams, 90 against good teams, and 84 against great teams. Another player, P, plays at a level of 91 against bad teams, 91 against good teams, and 89 against great teams. On average, it is conceivable that player R has better overall stats. However, I would always take player P over R because in the real season (aka the playoffs), you are only going up against good/great teams.

Not sure how I'd do this, but someone mentioned on APBR a few days ago, that over half of all players over 380 career minutes have a better PO BPM than regular season, so it seems this is actually not common.

[Purch]

[Vine][YouTube][/YouTube][/Vine]

- Playoffs are generally overvalued.

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

Completely disagree. In the grand scheme of things regular seasons match ups are relatively irrelevant. Coaches have readily admitted to saving plays and defenses for when it matters in the post season. It doesn't matter if David Robinsn can outplay Hakeem in the regular season ..., if Hakeem out plays him in a 7 game series that has coaches game planning different defenses to limit them over the course of every game.. Has them increasing their minutes.. Has their role players being limited by tougher defenses... Then that's what's most relevant. The only thing the regular season is really significant for is determine seeding. And even then regardless of you seedlings, it's up to you to elevate your play despite facing tougher defenses, and evolving defenses over the course of the series.

When ranking players regular season performance barley factors in for me. When you ask me how I view a player the first thing I think about is how they perform in the post season.

[mysticOscar]

[Vine][YouTube][/YouTube][/Vine]

- Playoffs are generally overvalued.

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

Completely disagree. In the grand scheme of things regular seasons match ups are relatively irrelevant. Coaches have readily admitted to saving plays and defenses for when it matters in the post season. It doesn't matter if David Robinsn can outplay Hakeem in the regular season ..., if Hakeem out plays him in a 7 game series that has coaches game planning different defenses to limit them over the course of every game.. Has them increasing their minutes.. Has their role players being limited by tougher defenses... Then that's what's most relevant. The only thing the regular season is really significant for is determine seeding. And even then regardless of you seedlings, it's up to you to elevate your play despite facing tougher defenses, and evolving defenses over the course of the series.

When ranking players regular season performance barley factors in for me. When you ask me how I view a player the first thing I think about is how they perform in the post season.

I agree. RS, you have players and teams that coast...teams that experiment with line ups, strategies...you have a lot of player trades, coaching staff changes, some teams tanking etc..

PO teams are generally already settled on there line up, conditioned to play at there maximum with more rest and more at stake. PO is when the real season starts...so not sure why not put more value in it?

[mtron929]

With the way the playoff system is structured, it becomes important to excel against the same opponent. I suspect that certain superstars could do this better than others. Thus, a superstar who can sustain excellence against common opponents for 6-7 games in a row becomes much more valuable than a superstar who gets figured out more readily as the number of encounters increase.

Obviously, this is not something that can be easily measured but no doubt, it's important.

[Quotatious]

I totally expected people to disagree with me about the RS/PS thing, that's probably one of the first REALLY unpopular opinions in this thread.

My problem with the playoffs-heavy approach is - what do you guys think about players who missed postseason, but were undeniably great individually, sometimes even about as good as they were at their peaks?

I mean, players like 1963 Wilt, 1976 Kareem (these two were putting up their peak-like numbers, and didn't even miss a single game in those seasons), 1988 Barkley, 2005 KG (they also had peak-like numbers), 2005 LeBron (already more than 27/7/7/2 stl. on 55+% TS), 2014 Love (arguably the third best player in the league that year after LeBron and Durant), 2015 Westbrook (clearly his peak season, even with no playoffs). 1961, 1968 and 1969 Oscar, too.

These are just some of the best-ever seasons without a playoff appearance, but there are also some other seasons, such as 1973 Tiny Archibald, 1992 Hakeem, 2005 Kobe, 2006 and 2007 KG, 2006 Iverson, 2006 Pierce, 2014 Melo etc. All of those guys were superstars, and all played 65+ games, so they were pretty healthy. Even 1985 and 1987 Jordan would've missed the playoffs in most seasons, as would 2007 Kobe, or T-Mac in basically all of his Orlando seasons. They were just lucky to make it (MJ's teams had a losing record in both of those seasons, and he played all 82 games both times).

The way some of you guys are championing PS over RS, some of those seasons wouldn't even exist...I don't know how you can hold that against a superstar player if his team misses the playoffs. It's never because they didn't perform well, personally...

[Purch]

I totally expected people to disagree with me about the RS/PS thing, that's probably one of the first REALLY unpopular opinions in this thread.

My problem with the playoffs-heavy approach is - what do you guys think about players who missed postseason, but were undeniably great individually, sometimes even about as good as they were on their peaks?

I mean, players like 1963 Wilt, 1976 Kareem (these two were putting up their peak-like numbers, and didn't even miss a single game in those seasons), 1988 Barkley, 2005 KG (they also had peak-like numbers), 2005 LeBron (already more than 27/7/7/2 stl. on 55+% TS), 2014 Love (arguably the third best player in the league that year after LeBron and Durant), 2015 Westbrook (clearly his peak season, even with no playoffs).

These are just some of the best-ever seasons without a playoff appearance, but there are also some other seasons, such as 1973 Tiny Archibald, 1992 Hakeem, 2005 Kobe, 2006 and 2007 KG, 2006 Iverson, 2006 Pierce etc. All of those guys were superstars, and all played 65+ games, so they were pretty healthy. Even 1985 and 1987 Jordan would've missed the playoffs in most seasons, as would 2007 Kobe, or T-Mac in basically all of his Orlando seasons. They were just lucky to make it (MJ's teams had a losing record in both of those I seasons, and he played all 82 games both times).

The way some of you guys are championing PS over RS, some of those seasons wouldn't even exist...

I think they had a great regular seasons. Great regular seasons are good for establishing consistency and longevity. However, these seasons in no way compare to guys who put up great post seasons in addition to their great regular season play.

[mysticOscar]

I totally expected people to disagree with me about the RS/PS thing, that's probably one of the first REALLY unpopular opinions in this thread.

My problem with the playoffs-heavy approach is - what do you guys think about players who missed postseason, but were undeniably great individually, sometimes even about as good as they were on their peaks?

I mean, players like 1963 Wilt, 1976 Kareem (these two were putting up their peak-like numbers, and didn't even miss a single game in those seasons), 1988 Barkley, 2005 KG (they also had peak-like numbers), 2005 LeBron (already more than 27/7/7/2 stl. on 55+% TS), 2014 Love (arguably the third best player in the league that year after LeBron and Durant), 2015 Westbrook (clearly his peak season, even with no playoffs). 1961, 1968 and 1969 Oscar, too.

These are just some of the best-ever seasons without a playoff appearance, but there are also some other seasons, such as 1973 Tiny Archibald, 1992 Hakeem, 2005 Kobe, 2006 and 2007 KG, 2006 Iverson, 2006 Pierce, 2014 Melo etc. All of those guys were superstars, and all played 65+ games, so they were pretty healthy. Even 1985 and 1987 Jordan would've missed the playoffs in most seasons, as would 2007 Kobe, or T-Mac in basically all of his Orlando seasons. They were just lucky to make it (MJ's teams had a losing record in both of those seasons, and he played all 82 games both times).

The way some of you guys are championing PS over RS, some of those seasons wouldn't even exist...I don't know how you can hold that against a superstar player if his team misses the playoffs. It's never because they didn't perform well, personally...

It won't discount those players had great RS. But if you compare that players season against a player who had similar RS but also has a playoffs to show will ALWAYS have more weight.

I mean, if we can just use chunks of a season to evaluate a players success in a season...where does it stop? If a player has a great 40 game RS, then gets injured...would you hold his season high? If so, what happens if he only played 20 games then gets injured? and so forth?

[Mutnt]

[
Are you listening to yourself?

You are just jumping all over the place and now talking about 2014.

I specifically pointed out you saying that the supporting cast for the Heat in 2012 was "garbage" and you included Battier/Chalmers in that in your very first post in this thread. If that's not what you meant then we chalk this up to a misunderstanding. If not then your agenda is becoming clearer.

Any reasonable person would agree that the role players for the Heat were good in 2012 and stepped up pretty well during the playoffs. If you wanna be irrational here then that's on you.

There's a difference in me saying Chalmers was a good role player behind LeBron, Wade, and Bosh vs. talking about Gibson in 07. Obviously if Chalmers was the 2nd option on the team then he's not a "good option". Context matters and you failed miserably at trying to twist my words. Don't worry about my agenda when I'm simply correcting your lies about 2012 .

No, I was always talking about the whole tenure. You were the one who highlighted only a specific favorable year in order to quasi-debunk my claim which still stands.

Wade: 23/5/4, 52%TS, 106 ORtg, 3.1 WS, .165 WS/48, 4.1 BPM
Chalmers: 11/4/4 55%TS, 110 ORtg, 2.1 WS, .122 WS/48, 2.9 BPM
Battier: 7/3/1, 55%TS, 112 ORtg, 1.5 WS, .097 WS/48, 3.3 BPM
Bosh injured for most of the important games
Who else?

I used the term 'garbage' to sum up how the supporting cast mostly performed over the 4-year span. Maybe that term doesn't specifically apply to Chalmers and Battier exclusively in 2012, but the point still stands - which is that wasn't a stacked team, not even in 2012.

Take a look what your typical supporting cast of an NBA champion looks like.

2015 Warriors (Curry the best player): Green, Iguodala, Thompson, Bogut, Barnes, Livingston
2014 Spurs (Kawhi the best player): Duncan, Parker, Manu, Green, Splitter, Diaw, Belli, Mills
Even the freaking 2011 Mavs (Dirk best player): Kidd, Terry, Chandler, Marion, Stevenson, Haywood, Barea, Peja

The 2012 Heat had only 6 players with a positive BPM. LeBron with a massive 11.0, Wade with 4.1, Battier 3.3, Chalmers 2.9 and then the offensive black hole Joel Anthony whose defense is good but that means you're prepared to make a sacrifice of playing 4v5 on offense and Mike Miller who had to be spoon-fed by LeBron to do anything useful.

Sorry, that's not stacked. It's simply not, stop living in a fantasy. The 2015 Warriors were stacked, the 2014 Spurs were stacked along with the GOAT coach. The 2014 Spurs - Splitter 7.5 BPM, Green 7.3 BPM, Kawhi 6.6 BPM, Ginobili 6.6 BPM, Diaw 4.7 BPM, Duncan 4.4 BPM, Mills 3.8 BPM, Bonner 1.5 BPM. That's stacked homie. I'm using BPM here only for ilustration purposes because I'm not gonna cite all metrics, you have BBR for that if you want to do a comprehensive check yourself. Even someone like Parker, who had a negative BPM, you have to take into account he was the main playmaker for the team and his ability to break down the defense and pass to the perimeter was in a way key for enabling that deadly Spurs ball-movement, and he still scored 17 ppg on 53%TS. Parker had a big role for the Spurs, his efficiency just wasn't that good and he was sloppy on defense. Chalmers was very rarely the catalyst for anything in Miami. He drifted around the perimeter waiting for LeBron/Wade to feed him open looks. With two elite level playmakers and a bunch of spacing I'm actually surprised the dude managed to play this bad. And here's where the Boobie Gibson example comes in. It's not that Chalmers is a 'pretty good' player, it's just that LeBron has shown you can take any below average NBA guard who can shoot relatively well and he'll be a contributing factor on the team because of LeBron. It happened with Gibson, Chalmers and Delly. Those aren't good NBA players, They do the bare minimum of what is required of an NBA level guard, which is to shoot wide open shots. You get those types of players on ANY TEAM, ANY TEAM IN THE NBA. Same goes for other wing shooters. Yet, you're here talking about stacked teams... pathetic.

[Hawk]

I totally expected people to disagree with me about the RS/PS thing, that's probably one of the first REALLY unpopular opinions in this thread.

My problem with the playoffs-heavy approach is - what do you guys think about players who missed postseason, but were undeniably great individually, sometimes even about as good as they were on their peaks?

I mean, players like 1963 Wilt, 1976 Kareem (these two were putting up their peak-like numbers, and didn't even miss a single game in those seasons), 1988 Barkley, 2005 KG (they also had peak-like numbers), 2005 LeBron (already more than 27/7/7/2 stl. on 55+% TS), 2014 Love (arguably the third best player in the league that year after LeBron and Durant), 2015 Westbrook (clearly his peak season, even with no playoffs). 1961, 1968 and 1969 Oscar, too.

These are just some of the best-ever seasons without a playoff appearance, but there are also some other seasons, such as 1973 Tiny Archibald, 1992 Hakeem, 2005 Kobe, 2006 and 2007 KG, 2006 Iverson, 2006 Pierce, 2014 Melo etc. All of those guys were superstars, and all played 65+ games, so they were pretty healthy. Even 1985 and 1987 Jordan would've missed the playoffs in most seasons, as would 2007 Kobe, or T-Mac in basically all of his Orlando seasons. They were just lucky to make it (MJ's teams had a losing record in both of those seasons, and he played all 82 games both times).

The way some of you guys are championing PS over RS, some of those seasons wouldn't even exist...I don't know how you can hold that against a superstar player if his team misses the playoffs. It's never because they didn't perform well, personally...

I value RS games a LOT, but I just think there is something mental that can make you play consistently worse in PO's. For instance, what do you think about Karl Malone? I remember you saying that he might be a Top 10 RS players, but you don't have him in the Top 10 nor in the Top 15 right? Because his PO's performances don't allow you to do so. If I remember correctly...

[E-Balla]

I totally expected people to disagree with me about the RS/PS thing, that's probably one of the first REALLY unpopular opinions in this thread.

My problem with the playoffs-heavy approach is - what do you guys think about players who missed postseason, but were undeniably great individually, sometimes even about as good as they were on their peaks?

I mean, players like 1963 Wilt, 1976 Kareem (these two were putting up their peak-like numbers, and didn't even miss a single game in those seasons), 1988 Barkley, 2005 KG (they also had peak-like numbers), 2005 LeBron (already more than 27/7/7/2 stl. on 55+% TS), 2014 Love (arguably the third best player in the league that year after LeBron and Durant), 2015 Westbrook (clearly his peak season, even with no playoffs). 1961, 1968 and 1969 Oscar, too.

These are just some of the best-ever seasons without a playoff appearance, but there are also some other seasons, such as 1973 Tiny Archibald, 1992 Hakeem, 2005 Kobe, 2006 and 2007 KG, 2006 Iverson, 2006 Pierce, 2014 Melo etc. All of those guys were superstars, and all played 65+ games, so they were pretty healthy. Even 1985 and 1987 Jordan would've missed the playoffs in most seasons, as would 2007 Kobe, or T-Mac in basically all of his Orlando seasons. They were just lucky to make it (MJ's teams had a losing record in both of those seasons, and he played all 82 games both times).

The way some of you guys are championing PS over RS, some of those seasons wouldn't even exist...I don't know how you can hold that against a superstar player if his team misses the playoffs. It's never because they didn't perform well, personally...

I think they had a great regular season. IMO 76 is Kareem's best season but Kareem was consistently great in the postseason so I naturally assume he'd be great in the postseason if he made it. With players like 2014 Love who never really played much in the postseason before I reserve judgement for now and naturally assume their postseason performance would be neutral.

[mtron929]

I totally expected people to disagree with me about the RS/PS thing, that's probably one of the first REALLY unpopular opinions in this thread.

My problem with the playoffs-heavy approach is - what do you guys think about players who missed postseason, but were undeniably great individually, sometimes even about as good as they were on their peaks?

I mean, players like 1963 Wilt, 1976 Kareem (these two were putting up their peak-like numbers, and didn't even miss a single game in those seasons), 1988 Barkley, 2005 KG (they also had peak-like numbers), 2005 LeBron (already more than 27/7/7/2 stl. on 55+% TS), 2014 Love (arguably the third best player in the league that year after LeBron and Durant), 2015 Westbrook (clearly his peak season, even with no playoffs). 1961, 1968 and 1969 Oscar, too.

These are just some of the best-ever seasons without a playoff appearance, but there are also some other seasons, such as 1973 Tiny Archibald, 1992 Hakeem, 2005 Kobe, 2006 and 2007 KG, 2006 Iverson, 2006 Pierce, 2014 Melo etc. All of those guys were superstars, and all played 65+ games, so they were pretty healthy. Even 1985 and 1987 Jordan would've missed the playoffs in most seasons, as would 2007 Kobe, or T-Mac in basically all of his Orlando seasons. They were just lucky to make it (MJ's teams had a losing record in both of those seasons, and he played all 82 games both times).

The way some of you guys are championing PS over RS, some of those seasons wouldn't even exist...I don't know how you can hold that against a superstar player if his team misses the playoffs. It's never because they didn't perform well, personally...

Well, one can make an argument that some of these guys maxed out on their regular season statistics because they were fighting for the playoff births. And other players max out on regular season statistics because they are striving for a MVP award or wanting to sign a max contract and so forth. In 82 games where players have differing levels of motivations (e.g. need to win MVP, need to save my strengths and energy), the regular season stats should be taken with a grain of salt especially when used to compare players who have very similar statistical outputs.

But in the playoffs, the motivation is the same for all the players. Play well and win. In regular season, slacking off is forgivable. In the playoffs, it isn't. Also, all the teams are good so the ones that excel against good teams shine. With these factors in play, the ones who accumulate better statistics and have shown better play during the playoff seasons should be deemed to be greater than the ones who feast on weaker competitions in the regular season games.