Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[MartinToVaught]

SA that year in the playoffs had more problems with Kobe than Shaq in that series.

That had nothing to do with Shaq. The Spurs' perimeter defense was very weak and slow back then, and it was exacerbated by their one good perimeter defender, Derek Anderson, missing half the series with a separated shoulder. Without him, they were relying on washed-up fossils. That's why they signed Bruce Bowen that offseason.

[Clyde Frazier]

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

What do you find overrated about him as a scorer?

[jaypo]

SA that year in the playoffs had more problems with Kobe than Shaq in that series.

That had nothing to do with Shaq. The Spurs' perimeter defense was very weak and slow back then, and it was exacerbated by their one good perimeter defender, Derek Anderson, missing half the series with a separated shoulder. Without him, they were relying on washed-up fossils. That's why they signed Bruce Bowen that offseason.

Agreed.

Fusheng- if they had so much more trouble with Kobe, then why did they stockpile big bodies in the offseason just to have fouls to give on Shaq? They signed 1 player to handle Kobe, but stockpiled multiple players to stop Shaq. And you're not factoring in defensive impact. Shaq was the defensive anchor who also had to put up 27 pts, 13 rebounds, and shoot 54% from the field. That team was built to handle Shaq, and they couldn't do it. Kobe scored a couple more points, but if Shaq's primary defender were out injured, it would have been pretty easy for Shaq to score 3 more buckets as well. You seem to think that because Kobe scored more points, he was better. You forget the thing called CONTEXT. Shaq still scored at will, but he did it against tougher defenders in a system designed to slow him down while pulling down more boards that TD, the player that you constantly say outplayed him. And he was responsible for anchoring the defense while Kobe got to hang out on the perimeter and guard second and third string players because his primary man was out! Imagine if all Shaq had to do was to stay on Malik Rose the entire game!

As for my unpopular opinion, I believe that if Kobe and Paul Pierce switched career arcs, Pierce would have more rings and a more impressive career than Kobe. Their career stats are fairly even with Kobe scoring a few ppg more, but everything else pretty much even. Pierce didn't have issues winning his way above the team. He was actually a lot more clutch than Kobe (IMHO). And I think that he would have meshed a lot better with the Lakers, and the offense would have been a lot more efficient. This would lead to more titles.

Along those same lines, I believe the same with KG and TD. I believe KG was more skilled and athletic. I believe that if they switched career arcs, we would be talking about KG as the best PF ever and TD as one of the best. Their career numbers are pretty similar as well. I believe that if KG had been paired from the beginning with DRob and become a part of the Spurs org., he would have had as much success as TD.

[GeneralManager]

SA that year in the playoffs had more problems with Kobe than Shaq in that series.

That had nothing to do with Shaq. The Spurs' perimeter defense was very weak and slow back then, and it was exacerbated by their one good perimeter defender, Derek Anderson, missing half the series with a separated shoulder. Without him, they were relying on washed-up fossils. That's why they signed Bruce Bowen that offseason.

Agreed.

Fusheng- if they had so much more trouble with Kobe, then why did they stockpile big bodies in the offseason just to have fouls to give on Shaq? They signed 1 player to handle Kobe, but stockpiled multiple players to stop Shaq. And you're not factoring in defensive impact. Shaq was the defensive anchor who also had to put up 27 pts, 13 rebounds, and shoot 54% from the field. That team was built to handle Shaq, and they couldn't do it. Kobe scored a couple more points, but if Shaq's primary defender were out injured, it would have been pretty easy for Shaq to score 3 more buckets as well. You seem to think that because Kobe scored more points, he was better. You forget the thing called CONTEXT. Shaq still scored at will, but he did it against tougher defenders in a system designed to slow him down while pulling down more boards that TD, the player that you constantly say outplayed him. And he was responsible for anchoring the defense while Kobe got to hang out on the perimeter and guard second and third string players because his primary man was out! Imagine if all Shaq had to do was to stay on Malik Rose the entire game!

As for my unpopular opinion, I believe that if Kobe and Paul Pierce switched career arcs, Pierce would have more rings and a more impressive career than Kobe. Their career stats are fairly even with Kobe scoring a few ppg more, but everything else pretty much even. Pierce didn't have issues winning his way above the team. He was actually a lot more clutch than Kobe (IMHO). And I think that he would have meshed a lot better with the Lakers, and the offense would have been a lot more efficient. This would lead to more titles.

Along those same lines, I believe the same with KG and TD. I believe KG was more skilled and athletic. I believe that if they switched career arcs, we would be talking about KG as the best PF ever and TD as one of the best. Their career numbers are pretty similar as well. I believe that if KG had been paired from the beginning with DRob and become a part of the Spurs org., he would have had as much success as TD.

Could Pierce create his own shot? I do not think so. Others had to create for him. I would actually go the other direction (Kobe/KG/Rondo win more than 1 title).

KG/Pierce/Rondo benefited from each other more than perhaps any other trio in history (maybe 2nd to Duncan/Ginobli/Parker). Great synergy. Sum of parts > parts alone.

[Goudelock]

That had nothing to do with Shaq. The Spurs' perimeter defense was very weak and slow back then, and it was exacerbated by their one good perimeter defender, Derek Anderson, missing half the series with a separated shoulder. Without him, they were relying on washed-up fossils. That's why they signed Bruce Bowen that offseason.

Agreed.

Fusheng- if they had so much more trouble with Kobe, then why did they stockpile big bodies in the offseason just to have fouls to give on Shaq? They signed 1 player to handle Kobe, but stockpiled multiple players to stop Shaq. And you're not factoring in defensive impact. Shaq was the defensive anchor who also had to put up 27 pts, 13 rebounds, and shoot 54% from the field. That team was built to handle Shaq, and they couldn't do it. Kobe scored a couple more points, but if Shaq's primary defender were out injured, it would have been pretty easy for Shaq to score 3 more buckets as well. You seem to think that because Kobe scored more points, he was better. You forget the thing called CONTEXT. Shaq still scored at will, but he did it against tougher defenders in a system designed to slow him down while pulling down more boards that TD, the player that you constantly say outplayed him. And he was responsible for anchoring the defense while Kobe got to hang out on the perimeter and guard second and third string players because his primary man was out! Imagine if all Shaq had to do was to stay on Malik Rose the entire game!

As for my unpopular opinion, I believe that if Kobe and Paul Pierce switched career arcs, Pierce would have more rings and a more impressive career than Kobe. Their career stats are fairly even with Kobe scoring a few ppg more, but everything else pretty much even. Pierce didn't have issues winning his way above the team. He was actually a lot more clutch than Kobe (IMHO). And I think that he would have meshed a lot better with the Lakers, and the offense would have been a lot more efficient. This would lead to more titles.

Along those same lines, I believe the same with KG and TD. I believe KG was more skilled and athletic. I believe that if they switched career arcs, we would be talking about KG as the best PF ever and TD as one of the best. Their career numbers are pretty similar as well. I believe that if KG had been paired from the beginning with DRob and become a part of the Spurs org., he would have had as much success as TD.

Could Pierce create his own shot? I do not think so. Others had to create for him.

KG, Pierce, and Rondo benefited from each other more than perhaps any other trio in history. Great synergy. Sum of parts > parts alone.

Wasn't Pierce's signature move his stepback from midrange? He was great at getting his own shot, and seemed like the only Celtic on the BIG3 who could take someone one on one and get himself a good look at times, especially after KG's knee injury.

[trex_8063]

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.

Yup.
Or more accurately I'm suggesting that one should----if comparing cross-era teams/players---mentally try to "level the playing field" by imagining the same conditions (training, mentoring, resources, etc) for all players involved.
Because training is extrinsic to the player(s) in question.

[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

What do you find overrated about him as a scorer?

I guess it's unfair looking at his stats, but I always found him more guardable in the playoffs than other all time great scorers because of lacking that one unstoppable area. He is a good ballhandler but not as dominant one as someone like Paul or Harden. He is a great 3pt shooter but not Splash Brother level. He's not so good in the post that if you put a smaller player on him you're dead like Lebron or Dirk. He doesn't have that Kobe or Pierce level footwork. The thing he's probably best at compared to others in history statistically is midrange shooting, which for a wing player is one of the things I care about the least, I definitely don't value it as much as Harden's all time ability to get to the rim and FT line or Curry's 3pt shooting. Durant's regular season volume+efficiency is bananas but it's a little bit of a David Robinson situation for me where in the playoffs the problems come out more. I think Lebron is a better scorer than Durant and was during Durant's MVP year too, in the same way Hakeem was a better scorer than Robinson. As scorers I would rate Curry, Harden, Lebron and Isaiah above him to begin with.

Like I said Durant has a lot more off ball value than players like Harden or Isaiah so it ends up balancing out, but if he was really best scorer in the league level like Curry or Lebron while providing one of the game's best spacing+defense non boxscore wings, I would be pushing him as probably the best guy in the league right now

[ShotCreator]

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

What do you find overrated about him as a scorer?

I guess it's unfair looking at his stats, but I always found him more guardable in the playoffs than other all time great scorers because of lacking that one unstoppable area. He is a good ballhandler but not as dominant one as someone like Paul or Harden. He is a great 3pt shooter but not Splash Brother level. He's not so good in the post that if you put a smaller player on him you're dead like Lebron or Dirk. He doesn't have that Kobe or Pierce level footwork. The thing he's probably best at compared to others in history statistically is midrange shooting, which for a wing player is one of the things I care about the least, I definitely don't value it as much as Harden's all time ability to get to the rim and FT line or Curry's 3pt shooting. Durant's regular season volume+efficiency is bananas but it's a little bit of a David Robinson situation for me where in the playoffs the problems come out more. I think Lebron is a better scorer than Durant and was during Durant's MVP year too, in the same way Hakeem was a better scorer than Robinson. As scorers I would rate Curry, Harden, Lebron and Isaiah above him to begin with.

Like I said Durant has a lot more off ball value than players like Harden or Isaiah so it ends up balancing out, but if he was really best scorer in the league level like Curry or Lebron while providing one of the game's best spacing+defense non boxscore wings, I would be pushing him as probably the best guy in the league right now

I thin Kawhi could be thrown in there as well at this point. More portable, and resilient to me.

[70sFan]

I've said it many, many times before but it's still not popular opinion - Adrian Dantley is the greatest scorer in NBA history in my opinion.

What hurts him as an offensive player is his weak off the dribble playmaking ability. He was very good passer out of the double teams, I'd call him even great one but he lacked dynamics in his game. Nobody could guard him and he scored at will in single coverage but he didn't create for the others. He waited for double teams and then he just passed out the ball to shooters. It's a good but predictable way of constructing team's offense. He had great handles, he was inteligent player but he couldn't pass the ball off the dribble like other great perimeter stars. His style is just a bit too "static" compared to the greatests. Still, he was very impactful and I'd say he was the best offensive player on 1986-87 Pistons team (over Thomas).

It doesn't change the fact that he's the best scorer I've ever seen and stats prove my opinion. He could make great defenders like McHale, Pippen, Nance look embarassing. Even Jordan couldn't do that in my eyes.

[Bruh Man]

As for my unpopular opinion, I believe that if Kobe and Paul Pierce switched career arcs, Pierce would have more rings and a more impressive career than Kobe. Their career stats are fairly even with Kobe scoring a few ppg more, but everything else pretty much even. Pierce didn't have issues winning his way above the team. He was actually a lot more clutch than Kobe (IMHO). And I think that he would have meshed a lot better with the Lakers, and the offense would have been a lot more efficient. This would lead to more titles.

My unpopular opinion is if Shaq and Dwight Howard switched career arcs Howard would have more rings, sure Shaq scored a little more but Howard is better at everything else especially on defense. He would mesh better and makes all the teams better defensively while being in much better shape. Plus he would get to play with prime Kobe, Wade,Lebron, Nash. Am I doing this right?

[SamSepiol]

Doc Rivers being a fraud. Have had this opinion for a while and it's getting less "unpopular" by the days.

[GeneralManager]

Responding to Dr. Positivity:

I think Durant's best analogy is Dirk. The height advantage just kills defenders, he'll just shoot in your face over the top of you. The height advantage is his "scoring niche." Hasn't KD been working on his own "Dirk shot" (knee out)?

Like a more athletic Dirk who is great in transition.

[Dr Positivity]

Mike Woodson possibly should have two COYs as he coached two of the most overperforming teams in modern history and there are 5-10 teams that would be better off firing their coach and hiring him, such as the Timberwolves and Pelicans

[DoubleO8]

That had nothing to do with Shaq. The Spurs' perimeter defense was very weak and slow back then, and it was exacerbated by their one good perimeter defender, Derek Anderson, missing half the series with a separated shoulder. Without him, they were relying on washed-up fossils. That's why they signed Bruce Bowen that offseason.

Agreed.

Fusheng- if they had so much more trouble with Kobe, then why did they stockpile big bodies in the offseason just to have fouls to give on Shaq? They signed 1 player to handle Kobe, but stockpiled multiple players to stop Shaq. And you're not factoring in defensive impact. Shaq was the defensive anchor who also had to put up 27 pts, 13 rebounds, and shoot 54% from the field. That team was built to handle Shaq, and they couldn't do it. Kobe scored a couple more points, but if Shaq's primary defender were out injured, it would have been pretty easy for Shaq to score 3 more buckets as well. You seem to think that because Kobe scored more points, he was better. You forget the thing called CONTEXT. Shaq still scored at will, but he did it against tougher defenders in a system designed to slow him down while pulling down more boards that TD, the player that you constantly say outplayed him. And he was responsible for anchoring the defense while Kobe got to hang out on the perimeter and guard second and third string players because his primary man was out! Imagine if all Shaq had to do was to stay on Malik Rose the entire game!

As for my unpopular opinion, I believe that if Kobe and Paul Pierce switched career arcs, Pierce would have more rings and a more impressive career than Kobe. Their career stats are fairly even with Kobe scoring a few ppg more, but everything else pretty much even. Pierce didn't have issues winning his way above the team. He was actually a lot more clutch than Kobe (IMHO). And I think that he would have meshed a lot better with the Lakers, and the offense would have been a lot more efficient. This would lead to more titles.

Along those same lines, I believe the same with KG and TD. I believe KG was more skilled and athletic. I believe that if they switched career arcs, we would be talking about KG as the best PF ever and TD as one of the best. Their career numbers are pretty similar as well. I believe that if KG had been paired from the beginning with DRob and become a part of the Spurs org., he would have had as much success as TD.

Could Pierce create his own shot? I do not think so. Others had to create for him. I would actually go the other direction (Kobe/KG/Rondo win more than 1 title).

KG/Pierce/Rondo benefited from each other more than perhaps any other trio in history (maybe 2nd to Duncan/Ginobli/Parker). Great synergy. Sum of parts > parts alone.

Come on now dude

[Homer38]

Mike Woodson possibly should have two COYs as he coached two of the most overperforming teams in modern history and there are 5-10 teams that would be better off firing their coach and hiring him, including the Timberwolves

when?...2010 and 2013?

[Dr Positivity]

Yes, neither Hawks or Knicks had any business winning 53-54 Gs imo

[GeneralManager]

Agreed.

Fusheng- if they had so much more trouble with Kobe, then why did they stockpile big bodies in the offseason just to have fouls to give on Shaq? They signed 1 player to handle Kobe, but stockpiled multiple players to stop Shaq. And you're not factoring in defensive impact. Shaq was the defensive anchor who also had to put up 27 pts, 13 rebounds, and shoot 54% from the field. That team was built to handle Shaq, and they couldn't do it. Kobe scored a couple more points, but if Shaq's primary defender were out injured, it would have been pretty easy for Shaq to score 3 more buckets as well. You seem to think that because Kobe scored more points, he was better. You forget the thing called CONTEXT. Shaq still scored at will, but he did it against tougher defenders in a system designed to slow him down while pulling down more boards that TD, the player that you constantly say outplayed him. And he was responsible for anchoring the defense while Kobe got to hang out on the perimeter and guard second and third string players because his primary man was out! Imagine if all Shaq had to do was to stay on Malik Rose the entire game!

As for my unpopular opinion, I believe that if Kobe and Paul Pierce switched career arcs, Pierce would have more rings and a more impressive career than Kobe. Their career stats are fairly even with Kobe scoring a few ppg more, but everything else pretty much even. Pierce didn't have issues winning his way above the team. He was actually a lot more clutch than Kobe (IMHO). And I think that he would have meshed a lot better with the Lakers, and the offense would have been a lot more efficient. This would lead to more titles.

Along those same lines, I believe the same with KG and TD. I believe KG was more skilled and athletic. I believe that if they switched career arcs, we would be talking about KG as the best PF ever and TD as one of the best. Their career numbers are pretty similar as well. I believe that if KG had been paired from the beginning with DRob and become a part of the Spurs org., he would have had as much success as TD.

Could Pierce create his own shot? I do not think so. Others had to create for him. I would actually go the other direction (Kobe/KG/Rondo win more than 1 title).

KG/Pierce/Rondo benefited from each other more than perhaps any other trio in history (maybe 2nd to Duncan/Ginobli/Parker). Great synergy. Sum of parts > parts alone.

Come on now dude

You're right, I concede the point, Pierce did have a step-back jumper. I guess what I meant was not close to the level of Kobe in creating his own shot. Rondo and KG had a lot to do with creating shots for Pierce. Kobe never had a teammate close to Rondo or KG's playmaking skills (let alone 2 teammates as such).

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Fusheng- if they had so much more trouble with Kobe, then why did they stockpile big bodies in the offseason just to have fouls to give on Shaq? They signed 1 player to handle Kobe, but stockpiled multiple players to stop Shaq. And you're not factoring in defensive impact. Shaq was the defensive anchor who also had to put up 27 pts, 13 rebounds, and shoot 54% from the field. That team was built to handle Shaq, and they couldn't do it. Kobe scored a couple more points, but if Shaq's primary defender were out injured, it would have been pretty easy for Shaq to score 3 more buckets as well. You seem to think that because Kobe scored more points, he was better. You forget the thing called CONTEXT. Shaq still scored at will, but he did it against tougher defenders in a system designed to slow him down while pulling down more boards that TD, the player that you constantly say outplayed him. And he was responsible for anchoring the defense while Kobe got to hang out on the perimeter and guard second and third string players because his primary man was out! Imagine if all Shaq had to do was to stay on Malik Rose the entire game!
titles

Feel free to post all these multiple players SA "stockpiled" to deal with peak Shaq for the 2001-02 season/playoffs after they got swept in 01? Only a overrated team like "stacked" Portland was running out to grab a overweight aging unmotivated drug abuser like Kemp to help deal with Shaq.

I dont see anybody SA signed or drafted to matchup with Shaq as impactful or good as Bruce Bowen.....or Manu Ginobili in Kobe Bryants sphere of influence.

Robinson's body couldn't hold up large minutes anymore at his age.....note he missed half the 2002 series and Duncan STILL thoroughly outperformed Shaq in every facet save FG% in that series. So naturally something had to be done about that.

Why shouldn't I think Kobe Bryant was better than Shaq in those LA/SA series on the basis of scoring? I mean.....we saw what happened the 1 times with LA when Shaq was the offensive focal point and leading scorer vs SA didn't we?

A under 50% fg series for Shaq, a resounding SA sweep en route to a NBA title is what happened.

Of course vs those aging cupcake Centers like Sabonis, Rik Smits and even Mutombo (no threat to any elite C at that stage of his career despite winning DPOY on the basis of Shaq's laziness that year in the regular season) Shaq had no problems taking it to another level.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

That had nothing to do with Shaq. The Spurs' perimeter defense was very weak and slow back then, and it was exacerbated by their one good perimeter defender, Derek Anderson, missing half the series with a separated shoulder. Without him, they were relying on washed-up fossils. That's why they signed Bruce Bowen that offseason.

Relying on washed up fossils?

Sounds like nearly all of the guys 3peat Shaq encountered outside of SA those years.

[MartinToVaught]

They signed 1 player to handle Kobe

It wasn't even just for Kobe. They had trouble containing Derek Fisher, Michael Finley and an aging Terrell Brandon that postseason.