Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[PCProductions]

In almost any discussion about a theoretical matchup between team X from way in the past vs. team Y from recent/this year, I'm almost always taking the recent team no matter the rules that they play under. I think we are way too kind to the teams of the past when in reality the training is just better now and the rule changes could very easily be made up for by pure ability to dribble/shoot/defend that the recent team has a gigantic advantage in. Even in the event of calling more palming and whatnot, it is almost certainly the case that the new team just has learned how to play the game better than the older crew with the wisdom obtained over the years. It's why computers run faster and guns shoot straighter than at any point in history.

If we're talking "genius of their time" types of arguments, that's very different. But if we take two teams as is and pit them against each other, I'm taking team recent almost every time.

[Colbinii]

LeBron has dominated his era just as much as Michael Jordan, but neither of them dominated their Era's as much as Russell.

We will never see another big man enter the top 10 all-time.

[ceiling raiser]

Not sure how unpopular this is, but if the 05 draft was held again, I probably would take Bogut 2nd behind CP3 (and over everyone else).

[The-Power]

Not sure how unpopular this is, but if the 05 draft was held again, I probably would take Bogut 2nd behind CP3 (and over everyone else).

Shouldn't be an unpopular opinion, I'd reckon.

[eminence]

Not sure how unpopular this is, but if the 05 draft was held again, I probably would take Bogut 2nd behind CP3 (and over everyone else).

Shouldn't be an unpopular opinion, I'd reckon.

Ehh, I'd bet most would lean D-Will.

[Senior]

Yeah i did say i don't have much against that point. Kobe was a phenomenal player. I'm not trying to nitpick his accomplishments or anything. I just feel that he is not exactly the ideal role model when it comes to shot selection, because despite maintaining good efficiency, he ranks low among the other ATGs, which for me takes away from your argument against the efficiency gods, at least those we rank as truly elite.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood you. I guess the shot selection thing is confounding my point about offensive versatility impacting overall efficiency.

How about someone like Hakeem? His teams were relying on him to take on huge volume in their title runs, and he was able to put up 29/33 ppg in 94/95, with about the same TS% as the RS. But he was taking a lot of shots. 22 FGA/game in 94, then 26 FGA/game in 95. There were several games where he was taking 30 or more shots a game. His efficiency was never as good as D-Rob's in the RS like I said before, but D-Rob never showed the offensive consistency that Hakeem did in the playoffs, because he was a much more limited scorer. He still did fine when he got to his comfortable spots, but there were less spots and therefore lower volume. It wasn't uncommon for D-Rob's volume to see huge drops in his elimination series. Hakeem could make plays from anywhere 18 feet in, and that's why he was able to scale up his volume. A good example of what I mean is Game 5 in 95 vs the Suns. They got nothing from Drexler as he was sick, so other guys had to take on his volume. Hakeem took 31 FGA and made 14, which isn't that great, but considering the cold shooting nights from everyone else (team outside of Hakeem shot 35% FG), that ability to take on more volume helped as HOU won in OT.

[trex_8063]

In almost any discussion about a theoretical matchup between team X from way in the past vs. team Y from recent/this year, I'm almost always taking the recent team no matter the rules that they play under. I think we are way too kind to the teams of the past when in reality the training is just better now and the rule changes could very easily be made up for by pure ability to dribble/shoot/defend that the recent team has a gigantic advantage in. Even in the event of calling more palming and whatnot, it is almost certainly the case that the new team just has learned how to play the game better than the older crew with the wisdom obtained over the years. It's why computers run faster and guns shoot straighter than at any point in history.

If we're talking "genius of their time" types of arguments, that's very different. But if we take two teams as is and pit them against each other, I'm taking team recent almost every time.

Don't disagree with the enlarged; ALL elements of training (facilities, resources, diet recommendations, sophistication of training principles and exercises, coaching, bball education, etc) are better. But do you know what I'm going to point out next?

[GeneralManager]

"Mileage" is a bad concept, which cannot and should not be used as if the context is an automobile.

Muscles, etc. naturally repair themselves. Car parts don't.

[Goudelock]

"Mileage" cannot and should not be used in the same sense as an automobile. Especially in a player's 20s years.

Muscles naturally repair themselves. Car parts don't.

Yeah, but as people get older, muscles start repairing themselves more and more slowly. And mileage is a thing, especially when you talk about the knees.

[GeneralManager]

"Mileage" cannot and should not be used in the same sense as an automobile. Especially in a player's 20s years.

Muscles naturally repair themselves. Car parts don't.

Yeah, but as people get older, muscles start repairing themselves more and more slowly. And mileage is a thing, especially when you talk about the knees.

Agreed. I still think it a bad and improper analogy.

A different analogy I might agree with. The "car mileage" analogy is not proper.

[trex_8063]

"Mileage" i s a bad concept, which cannot and should not be used as if the context is an automobile.

Muscles, etc. naturally repair themselves. Car parts don't.

It has some relevance with certain conditions:
*if a player has actual arthritis (or a certain "imperfect orthopedic conformation" which predisposes one to arthritis somewhere in their knees or hips)
**if a player has fallen arches
***if a player has something like degenerative disc disease

The "mileage" or "wear and tear" certainly matters for those conditions at least.
As a general principle, I do agree "mileage" is overstated.

[GeneralManager]

"Mileage" i s a bad concept, which cannot and should not be used as if the context is an automobile.

Muscles, etc. naturally repair themselves. Car parts don't.

It has some relevance with certain conditions:
*if a player has actual arthritis (or a certain "imperfect orthopedic conformation" which predisposes one to arthritis somewhere in their knees or hips)
**if a player has fallen arches
***if a player has something like degenerative disc disease

The "mileage" or "wear and tear" certainly matters for those conditions at least.
As a general principle, I do agree "mileage" is overstated.

Agreed.

Father time would still catch players even if their "mileage" was close to zero. Father time has a lot more to do with declining athleticism than "mileage."

But people talk about "mileage" now like it's some type of religious principle.

[PCProductions]

In almost any discussion about a theoretical matchup between team X from way in the past vs. team Y from recent/this year, I'm almost always taking the recent team no matter the rules that they play under. I think we are way too kind to the teams of the past when in reality the training is just better now and the rule changes could very easily be made up for by pure ability to dribble/shoot/defend that the recent team has a gigantic advantage in. Even in the event of calling more palming and whatnot, it is almost certainly the case that the new team just has learned how to play the game better than the older crew with the wisdom obtained over the years. It's why computers run faster and guns shoot straighter than at any point in history.

If we're talking "genius of their time" types of arguments, that's very different. But if we take two teams as is and pit them against each other, I'm taking team recent almost every time.

Don't disagree with the enlarged; ALL elements of training (facilities, resources, diet recommendations, sophistication of training principles and exercises, coaching, bball education, etc) are better. But do you know what I'm going to point out next?

PEDs? If so, it's too much speculation to me to factor that in. It's not as if the NBA had a clean history of drugs, either.

[Dr Positivity]

Durant is an overrated scorer but his combination of defense and floor spacing is so good that he ends up about properly rated

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Shaq's peak was head and shoulders above anyone else, including MJ.
Tim Duncan's case for Top 5 ATG is non-existent. He ranks somewhere around 8-9 at best.

2000 Shaq was fortunate not to have to go through TD in the playoffs. SA were the defending champs that'd swept he and LA the previous year.....not that overhyped Portland team.

In 2001 Tim Duncan led SA to a better regular season record than Shaq did in LA who btw the way anchored a lousy defense that year. SA that year in the playoffs had more problems with Kobe than Shaq in that series.

2002 TD was flat out better than Shaq in the regular season and the playoffs when their teams met.

Shaq didn't really prove to be above Duncan those years much less "head and shoulders" above anyone else that ever played.

Not even factoring in 99 & 03 where TD was clearly the best player in both series en route to titles.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Karl Malone > Hakeem Olajuwon

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning (Malone is a guy I have trouble placing).

Objectively, I understand how Hakeem is better. The rings, versatility, etc. However my reason stems from extensively watching the NBA in the 90s. Malone's big number consistency and Jazz winning culture seemed so dominate. Malone never got hurt and never had a bad season. He was remarkable. His only fault was losing to Jordan's Bulls. Meanwhile, Olajuwon had some subpar seasons and some injury plagued seasons that hurt his legacy IMO. Plus he had the luxury of bypassing Jordan in the finals. I think those 97 and 98 Jazz teams could beat the Championship Rocket teams.

Olajuwon outperformed Malone in 3 out of their 4 series. He had Stockton finish 1st team all NBA in 93-94 and his Utah squad was abused by Hakeem and a band of role players in only 5 games.

Hakeem made it to 2 Finals when Jordan was in the NBA.....winning in 95 vs the team that ousted Jordans Bulls so he didn't have the luxury of bypassing anybody.

[mtron929]

In almost any discussion about a theoretical matchup between team X from way in the past vs. team Y from recent/this year, I'm almost always taking the recent team no matter the rules that they play under. I think we are way too kind to the teams of the past when in reality the training is just better now and the rule changes could very easily be made up for by pure ability to dribble/shoot/defend that the recent team has a gigantic advantage in. Even in the event of calling more palming and whatnot, it is almost certainly the case that the new team just has learned how to play the game better than the older crew with the wisdom obtained over the years. It's why computers run faster and guns shoot straighter than at any point in history.

If we're talking "genius of their time" types of arguments, that's very different. But if we take two teams as is and pit them against each other, I'm taking team recent almost every time.

Agreed. And I think this not just extends to teams but individual players. I truly believe that if some of the greats were somehow resurrected and you saw them against the current NBA players, it would be shocking how average they would look against today's players. And this is because compared to 40-50 years ago, the number of people around the world who strive to make it in the NBA is so much larger. As such, the pool of candidates who do make it to the NBA are much superior to the quality of players from the past. So on top of the advancements in modern technology, better nutrition, etc. there has been a shift in the distribution curve of quality players to the such an extent that the extreme tails of the modern games are much superior to the players that lie on the extreme tails of the past.

[Senior]

Objectively, I understand how Hakeem is better. The rings, versatility, etc. However my reason stems from extensively watching the NBA in the 90s. Malone's big number consistency and Jazz winning culture seemed so dominate. Malone never got hurt and never had a bad season. He was remarkable. His only fault was losing to Jordan's Bulls. Meanwhile, Olajuwon had some subpar seasons and some injury plagued seasons that hurt his legacy IMO. Plus he had the luxury of bypassing Jordan in the finals. I think those 97 and 98 Jazz teams could beat the Championship Rocket teams.

It is impossible for me to consider the Jordan point for Malone when Malone had his chance with MJ out of the way in 99 and lost to a worse Portland team, and that the Rockets beat the Jazz twice on their way to the titles in 94 and 95. Had the Jazz defeated the Rockets those years i.e. played better, they'd have the same luxury the Rockets did, but they didn't. Malone lost to MJ's Bulls twice out of 19 years. What happened to the other 17? It's not as if he was playing like an MVP in those Finals, and the Jazz were keeping it pretty close anyway. Doesn't seem like their winning culture or consistency helped when it came to winning the title.

Frankly, Hakeem was just a better player. He had less chances than Malone and took them when he could. Those Jazz teams might've been better than those Rockets, doesn't mean Malone is better than Hakeem. In fact I think the 94/95 Jazz that the Rockets beat were comparable to the 97/98 Jazz. Core was younger, comparable RS success with better competition, and their playoff runs were all ended by the title winner.

[kayess]

Board lacks a lot of nuance recently, especially on volume scoring, stat usage, Westbrook...

For some people, the approach to valuing volume scoring is so obviously skewed to prop up their favorite player it's ridiculous.

The box score is almost useless for determining impact, but people still quote it all the time like it's gospel; likewise, simply quoting RAPM without understanding how/why it works is just repeating the same mistake

Westbrook is self explanatory.

A great litmus test for determining a poster's quality is how they treat winning, and team accolades. It enables one to see whether some basic facts (team vs individual, circumstance, etc) are taken into account, whether there are agendas at play, etc

[Xherdan 23]

In almost any discussion about a theoretical matchup between team X from way in the past vs. team Y from recent/this year, I'm almost always taking the recent team no matter the rules that they play under. I think we are way too kind to the teams of the past when in reality the training is just better now and the rule changes could very easily be made up for by pure ability to dribble/shoot/defend that the recent team has a gigantic advantage in. Even in the event of calling more palming and whatnot, it is almost certainly the case that the new team just has learned how to play the game better than the older crew with the wisdom obtained over the years. It's why computers run faster and guns shoot straighter than at any point in history.

If we're talking "genius of their time" types of arguments, that's very different. But if we take two teams as is and pit them against each other, I'm taking team recent almost every time.

Don't disagree with the enlarged; ALL elements of training (facilities, resources, diet recommendations, sophistication of training principles and exercises, coaching, bball education, etc) are better. But do you know what I'm going to point out next?

PEDs? If so, it's too much speculation to me to factor that in. It's not as if the NBA had a clean history of drugs, either.

I'm pretty sure he's saying that given the same conditions, today's teams won't necessarily beat the past team.