Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[Quotatious]

LeBron didn't have no post game when he won two MVP's in Cleveland. He had a decent post game when he used it he just didnt use it often.

His 2013 Finals are more impressive than his 2014 finals. Ditto with the playoffs.





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

He had some moves in the post (particularly a turnaround/fadeaway jumper) even in '06 and '07. He just rarely used it.

I think what happens with LeBron is that people see him and say "he has such a big physical advantage over other players at his position, so why doesn't he take advantage of that all the time and post them up?"

I think that's a bit unfair. He's just more a face-up player, not a post-up player. He can go to the post and be effective with that when he wants to. He just relies on other things (drives, pick & roll) more than his post game. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Clyde Frazier]

A little more specific to the PC board than my earlier comments:

Some quick stats on ginobili

- In his 13 seasons, he’s only played 30+ MPG twice, and peaked at 31.1 MPG
- In 5 of those 13 seasons, he’s played less than 25 MPG
- He’s only played in 70+ games in 6 of those 13 seasons (this includes the lockout shortened season equivalent)

So while I have no problem giving him his due as a high impact per min / per possession player, I do take issue with extrapolating that impact as far as some people do.  Even with pop’s minutes management over the years, if ginobili could play more minutes and be healthier, he would have.  I just can’t give him as much credit as some others do for a theoretical impact he would have playing more minutes.  

That's the fundamental misunderstanding of people who value Manu: we are not saying with per 40 minute stats and per 100 possession stats that he can play that load with the same stats and with no new injuries.

It's a really easy translation from per X impact to some kind of value rating. The per X stats are very important here because scoring 20 points in 30 minutes is more valuable than 20 in 40 minutes is more valuable.

People don't rank him high because of some theoretical impact. It's based on what actually happened with the minutes he had.

I’m not misunderstanding anything. The “extrapolating minutes / theoretical impact” was only part of my point. There are definitely people who think if he was given a bigger role on another team, he’d still produce at the same rate, and put up “better numbers”. They think he’s been “held back” in san an, and that’s why he’s underrated to the average fan. You’re just not one of those people.

Simply referring to ginobili’s per min / possession impact, you can only impact the game so much when you play limited minutes relative to a typical "star" player, and have trouble staying on the court.  I don't discount his impact in his role at all.  However, if you're building a team from the ground up, that impact will only help you so much.

I do think the people who are super high on ginobili overvalue that overall impact.

[Purch]

Would it be unpopular to say that I belive Phil's implementation of the triangle during his championships was underrated? If you see breakdowns of some of the easy scoring actions that were created by the triangle it's hard to say he just benefited off talent. I really think the system allowed both Jordan and Shaq to take their playmaking to the next level

[magicmerl]

You can't build a defense around perimeter players.

.

The Jordan/Pippen Bulls certainly did. Especially that 2nd 3-peat with Harper/Rodman.

Do you really think that Jordan and Pippen were defense first players?

[Texas Chuck]

You can't build a defense around perimeter players.

.

The Jordan/Pippen Bulls certainly did. Especially that 2nd 3-peat with Harper/Rodman.

Do you really think that Jordan and Pippen were defense first players?

I believe your statement was you can't build a defense around perimeter players. And my example shows that in fact you can. Obviously it helps the overall team that they are also good offensive players, but there is no question that defense was built around those two along with Harper and Rodman.

And yeah I would say Pippen is very much a 2-way player, but I'd call him defense first for sure.

[magicmerl]

The Jordan/Pippen Bulls certainly did. Especially that 2nd 3-peat with Harper/Rodman.

Do you really think that Jordan and Pippen were defense first players?

I believe your statement was you can't build a defense around perimeter players. And my example shows that in fact you can. Obviously it helps the overall team that they are also good offensive players, but there is no question that defense was built around those two along with Harper and Rodman.

And yeah I would say Pippen is very much a 2-way player, but I'd call him defense first for sure.

My point was that of course you want great defense out of all of your players, but you have to get offense from your wings, they can't be a liability there in the same way that a great defensive center can.

The post I was responding to said that you couldn't build around perimeter players who were bad shooters but otherwise great. I disagreed with that, and your contribution is Jordan and Pippen?

[bondom34]

Oh, just thought of a general one, but I think there's too much of a negative stigma to SGs who aren't lights out shooters or even bad shooters who are elite elsewhere. Roberson is my guy on OKC but MKG comes to mind as well and is a guy you build a defense around IMO, and many seem to think he's just a guy as an overall player. He can't shoot, he can win.

You can't build a defense around perimeter players.

They need to be decent at offense too, since you generally want offense from your wings.

I'd disagree, see MKG and the Hornets and as Chuck said Jordan/Pippen.

[penbeast0]

Oh, just thought of a general one, but I think there's too much of a negative stigma to SGs who aren't lights out shooters or even bad shooters who are elite elsewhere. Roberson is my guy on OKC but MKG comes to mind as well and is a guy you build a defense around IMO, and many seem to think he's just a guy as an overall player. He can't shoot, he can win.

You can't build a defense around perimeter players.

They need to be decent at offense too, since you generally want offense from your wings.

I'd disagree, see MKG and the Hornets and as Chuck said Jordan/Pippen.

Because Jordan/Pippen weren't "decent at offense too?"

[bondom34]

You can't build a defense around perimeter players.

They need to be decent at offense too, since you generally want offense from your wings.

I'd disagree, see MKG and the Hornets and as Chuck said Jordan/Pippen.

Because Jordan/Pippen weren't "decent at offense too?"

Touche. Though the defense was largely dependent on them which was what I meant, my bad. The Hornets still stand.

[Dr Spaceman]

A little more specific to the PC board than my earlier comments:

Some quick stats on ginobili

- In his 13 seasons, he’s only played 30+ MPG twice, and peaked at 31.1 MPG
- In 5 of those 13 seasons, he’s played less than 25 MPG
- He’s only played in 70+ games in 6 of those 13 seasons (this includes the lockout shortened season equivalent)

So while I have no problem giving him his due as a high impact per min / per possession player, I do take issue with extrapolating that impact as far as some people do.  Even with pop’s minutes management over the years, if ginobili could play more minutes and be healthier, he would have.  I just can’t give him as much credit as some others do for a theoretical impact he would have playing more minutes.  

That's the fundamental misunderstanding of people who value Manu: we are not saying with per 40 minute stats and per 100 possession stats that he can play that load with the same stats and with no new injuries.

It's a really easy translation from per X impact to some kind of value rating. The per X stats are very important here because scoring 20 points in 30 minutes is more valuable than 20 in 40 minutes is more valuable.

People don't rank him high because of some theoretical impact. It's based on what actually happened with the minutes he had.

I’m not misunderstanding anything. The “extrapolating minutes / theoretical impact” was only part of my point. There are definitely people who think if he was given a bigger role on another team, he’d still produce at the same rate, and put up “better numbers”. They think he’s been “held back” in san an, and that’s why he’s underrated to the average fan. You’re just not one of those people.

Simply referring to ginobili’s per min / possession impact, you can only impact the game so much when you play limited minutes relative to a typical "star" player, and have trouble staying on the court.  I don't discount his impact in his role at all.  However, if you're building a team from the ground up, that impact will only help you so much.

I do think the people who are super high on ginobili overvalue that overall impact.

I certainly am not one who gives credit for something that didn't actually happen. That said, I have come to believe that Manu, in his minutes, was more effective than pretty much any guard in the modern game.

I mean just for a quick perusal, look at his on-court ORTG during his prime years. It's staggering. Nash-esque. I believe the Spurs were running a 120 ORTG with him on the court in the 05 playoffs.

And that's the thing. He's proven against top defenses and top teams in a way no other bench player has been. There's not doubt that he has the skill set to lead an elite offense as the #1 guy, because he's literally done it. The only thing to doubt is whether his body could hold up.

So yeah, penalizing him for his health is totally reasonable. Penalizing him for playing a smaller role is not IMO.

[Jim Naismith]

I think people overrate the impact that one player can have. Yes, a truly dominant player (especially the Jordan, LeBron, Shaq category) can have a bigger impact in basketball than in soccer or hockey or football, but it's still not nearly high enough that you can say (I'll give a concrete example) - "Suns beat the Lakers in the 1990 WCSF in 5 games, so Magic Johnson's 30/6/12 on 62% TS is not a great series" or "Magic beat the Cavs in the 2009 ECF in 6 games so LeBron's 39/8/8 on 59% TS is not a great series".

I really hate equating individual performance with team success. It's the most primitive, simpleton way of analyzing basketball that I can think of. Sure, team success should be a factor in player analysis, to a certain degree, but not nearly to the degree that many people (even some people on this board) think. One thing I really like about stats like RAPM or on/off court splits is that they try to isolate a player's impact from the rest of his team.

Seriously, I think some people really lack common sense, if they think that a series like LeBron's 2009 ECF or even Magic's 1990 WCSF was anything short of phenomenal. Their teams would lose in 20-30 point blowouts in every game during those series if not for LeBron and Magic.

But citing summary statistics can be simplistic as well.

For example LeBron's 39/8/8 is a great "series", but if you look at a game-by-game breakdown, it's not as rosy.

LeBron was 11/28 in Game 3 and 8/20 in Game 6.

Both games were Cleveland losses. Ranked by plus-minus, these were LeBron's worst games of the playoffs. And they would have been among his 5 worst games of the regular season.

You might not call it "choking," but it's not exactly clutch either.

[Quotatious]

But citing summary statistics can be simplistic as well.

For example LeBron's 39/8/8 is a great "series", but if you look at a game-by-game breakdown, it's not as rosy.

LeBron was 11/28 in Game 3 and 8/20 in Game 6.

Both games were Cleveland losses. Ranked by plus-minus, these were LeBron's worst games of the playoffs. And they would have been among his 5 worst games of the regular season.

You might not call it "choking," but it's not exactly clutch either.

You know that he had 41/7/9 in game 3, right? (yes, he only shot 11/28 from the field, which is only 39.3%, but he had 53.2% TS, which is still decent, because he shot 75% on 24 free throw attempts).

In game 6, which was his worst game of that series, he still had 25/7/7. He could've played better in that game, but it's hard to criticize him because he had to do so much on offense in every game to give his team a chance to win. He had the right to be exhausted, and it still wasn't really a bad game.

None of the games in that series was a blowout in Cavs favor where LeBron would pad his stats in garbage time, so I don't know why looking at his series averages (38.5/8/8 on 59% TS) would be a wrong way to analyze it.

[Joao Saraiva]

But citing summary statistics can be simplistic as well.

For example LeBron's 39/8/8 is a great "series", but if you look at a game-by-game breakdown, it's not as rosy.

LeBron was 11/28 in Game 3 and 8/20 in Game 6.

Both games were Cleveland losses. Ranked by plus-minus, these were LeBron's worst games of the playoffs. And they would have been among his 5 worst games of the regular season.

You might not call it "choking," but it's not exactly clutch either.

You know that he had 41/7/9 in game 3, right? (yes, he only shot 11/28 from the field, which is only 39.3%, but he had 53.2% TS, which is still decent, because he shot 75% on 24 free throw attempts).

In game 6, which was his worst game of that series, he still had 25/7/7. He could've played better in that game, but it's hard to criticize him because he had to do so much on offense in every game to give his team a chance to win. He had the right to be exhausted, and it still wasn't really a bad game.

None of the games in that series was a blowout in Cavs favor where LeBron would pad his stats in garbage time, so I don't know why looking at his series averages (38.5/8/8 on 59% TS) would be a wrong way to analyze it.

If we're going to blame superstars for putting 41/7/9 in one series at 53%ts or less, in a single game, I believe we're going to blame every superstar for every loss. And in many times they won't even get credit for any win.

[Quotatious]

If we're going to blame superstars for putting 41/7/9 in one series at 53%ts or less, in a single game, I believe we're going to blame every superstar for every loss. And in many times they won't even get credit for any win.

Yeah, it seems like Jim's post, which he intended to be a criticism of LeBron, turned out to be praise.

[Jim Naismith]

None of the games in that series was a blowout in Cavs favor where LeBron would pad his stats in garbage time, so I don't know why looking at his series averages (38.5/8/8 on 59% TS) would be a wrong way to analyze it.

Sometimes the series averages conceal as much as reveal.

For example, over the last 4 games of that series, LeBron shot .426 from the field.

That's not abysmal, but it's not what you expect from Mr. #1 Peak of All Time.

[Gus Fring]

May not be too unpopular on this sub but I get a lot of flak for saying Kawhi Leonard is currently better than Carmelo Anthony, Paul George, and John Wall.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Texas Chuck]

What's interesting to me about the Lebron conversation happening above is that in real-time I was about the only guy on the PC board defending Lebron. Most everyone else was killing him over his efficiency. I'm glad to see much of that has changed. And just deciding he shot poorly without looking at the context of that series where the offense was Lebron seems lacking to me. There wasn't a plan B. And the other team knew that. It's not as simple as Lebron shot bad. It's more like---Lebron had to score or the Cavs couldn't win and so the opposing coach, you know, game-planned for that.

[Joao Saraiva]

None of the games in that series was a blowout in Cavs favor where LeBron would pad his stats in garbage time, so I don't know why looking at his series averages (38.5/8/8 on 59% TS) would be a wrong way to analyze it.

Sometimes the series averages conceal as much as reveal.

For example, over the last 4 games of that series, LeBron shot .426 from the field.

That's not abysmal, but it's not what you expect from Mr. #1 Peak of All Time.

Averages are not good: then uses averages cherry picking 4 games of one series to determine one year.

That's the 1st poor thing about your post.

Then I have to say: FG% is a bad way to measure efficiency. If a player is 3-10 FG, 3-3 3P, 16-16 FT he scored at godly efficient level. Yet he was at 30 FG%. That's why people use ts%, and not FG%.

If you don't want averages, let's look at game by game.

Game 1:
49 pts, 6 rebs, 8 ast on 71.2ts%. This is elite raw production in every single department with elite efficiency. This is one of the best playoff performances of all time. And yes, it came in a loss. What else did you expect LeBron to do?

Game 2:
35 pts, 4 rebs, 5 ast on 61.9 ts%. Again, fantastic raw production and very good efficiency. Was it as good as game 1? No. But it's still a fantastic game. He turned the ball over 6 times, and that hurts his efficiency a bit, but this is, again, a very good game.

Game 3:
41 points, 9 rebounds, 7 assists on 53.2ts%. The raw stats are elite once more. And with 2 TOs it is absolutely fantastic. His efficiency was not fantastic, but it was still very good. LeBron was able to get to the line a lot and have a good efficiency (on 41 points it's good to have 53.2ts%, even if not elite). This was still a very good game from LeBron, and you can say whatever you want about his FG%. It's just cherry picking to try to turn a very good game into a bad one.

Game 4:
44 points, 12 rebounds, 7 assists on 59.6 ts%. He turned the ball 8 times, but given his raw production and efficiency on his scoring it's not a major problem. This was again a very good game from him.

Game 5:
37 points, 14 rebounds, 12 assists on 57.2ts%. Again, a game for the ages. Raw production, efficiency, all at elite level while facing elimination. He had a fantastic 4th quarter and nearly (or did really) score or assisted every basket from Cleveland in the 4th.

Game 6:
25 points, 7 rebounds, 7 assists on 50.3ts%. Not great scoring at efficient level, but after six games of brutal raw production this guy is allowed to have one single game where he can't deliver at god mode. It's just normal.

Add to it all that LeBron did this against the #1 DRTG team in the league and there you have it.

Let's stop the madness. This guy was close to averaging a 40 point triple double on great efficiency against the #1 DRTG team in the league, and after 5 fantastic games he had a good game only. Of course this is a fantastic series from LeBron and one of the best series of all time by any player.

Tell me about palyers that had such raw production on such efficient levels against the #1 DRTG team in the league...

[Joao Saraiva]

What's interesting to me about the Lebron conversation happening above is that in real-time I was about the only guy on the PC board defending Lebron. Most everyone else was killing him over his efficiency. I'm glad to see much of that has changed. And just deciding he shot poorly without looking at the context of that series where the offense was Lebron seems lacking to me. There wasn't a plan B. And the other team knew that. It's not as simple as Lebron shot bad. It's more like---Lebron had to score or the Cavs couldn't win and so the opposing coach, you know, game-planned for that.

Really? People blamed LeBron after a loss? I'm surprised.

[bondom34]

What's interesting to me about the Lebron conversation happening above is that in real-time I was about the only guy on the PC board defending Lebron. Most everyone else was killing him over his efficiency. I'm glad to see much of that has changed. And just deciding he shot poorly without looking at the context of that series where the offense was Lebron seems lacking to me. There wasn't a plan B. And the other team knew that. It's not as simple as Lebron shot bad. It's more like---Lebron had to score or the Cavs couldn't win and so the opposing coach, you know, game-planned for that.

Really? People blamed LeBron after a loss? I'm surprised.

Not for the loss, for not playing "team ball". Which to Chuck (and I was and am with him as well as PaulieWal) was BS because his team was so decimated he didn't have much choice. It was the argument against Westbrook all year as well as well as others, which was why I was familiar with it.