Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

Pablo Novi
Senior
Posts: 683
And1: 233
Joined: Dec 11, 2015
Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Contact:
   

Re: GOAT-Level Sex Yet Emotionally Even Better 

Post#781 » by Pablo Novi » Mon May 8, 2017 6:23 pm

trex_8063 wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:
Spoiler:
Pablo Novi wrote:GOAT-Level Sex Yet Emotionally Even Better
Hey MyUniBroDavis,
Certainly one could get the impression that I'm personally MOSTLY into the physical, sexual aspect of the relationship I have with my baby. But, actually, that couldn't be further from the truth - hard to believe at first look as that may seem.

This woman and I LOVE each other more now than we did at our very beginning 30.5 years ago (and we started off "blindingly" crazy for each other). Please permit me to attempt to convince you (and anybody and everybody else who's interested) ...

1) We Are Physically Inseparable
Let's forget about the sex for the moment (well, forgetting about it is pretty much impossible - but let's TRY to put it on the back burner for the moment).

I'm semi-retired and do most of my work (psychological counseling, coaching, translating, etc) over the net. This gives us the opportunity to be together LOTS. In addition to sleeping pressed-up-against-each-other in a tiny bed each night; when one of us goes out of the house (the other is ALWAYS alongside). We walk hand-in-hand; stop frequently (usually underneath a tree full of flowers) to kiss. We'll interrupt things for a hug. If we hear music; we ALWAYS stop to dance. We shop together, go to offices together and love crowded elevators because then no one can complain when we're sandwiched tight together.

2) As Professional Dancers
She is a professional dancer. I've noted that I make lists of "everything". So one day I started asking her to name the STYLES of dance that she had mastered. I listed over SIXTY STYLES!

As her partner (and we aren't comfortable dancing with any other partners), I FAKE being good at 60 styles lol.

We dance EVERY WEEKEND.

For the period, 2005-2012, we lived in a small town (5,000 people) in the northern State of Mexico, Sonora, and every weekend of the year we hitchhiked to one of the surrounding towns to dance at their "Fiesta Patronal" (Patron Saint's annual Festival). We'd dance a minimum of 3 nights, 6 hours each; plus dance at any other time we ran across music - out IN the street, in front of people's houses, in their yards, in their houses, at schools, etc.

Each year, as a minimum, we did 50 Fiestas, X 3 nights = 150 dances a year X 7 years = over 1,000 dances!

People in the small towns tend to be a bit shy at the beginning of a dance; so we'd make it a point to always be there BEFORE the dance actually was supposed to start; and as the technicians started to set up the speakers and test the music balance - we'd start dancing. This would really get the crew fired up - and everybody would get on "the horn" to let everybody (not just in THAT town, but in the entire region) that the dance was ON!

These 1,000 dances, each and all of them, would turn into near sexual-frenzies. My baby "dresses to kill". It is the ONLY thing that I "decide" - that she never cover those knock-out legs or that incredible "rack" - so she dresses "barely legal" - and that's when she's standing still.

Pretty much right before we go out to go to the dance, she'll say to me, "Pablo, how can I go out dressed like this?" And I always respond, "Babe, if it's not illegal, then it's legal." If you think of her ultra-micro-mini-skirts as little more than belts - then you're in the ball park. (Of course, anytime you look at a TV, you'll see ballerinas, skaters, gymnasts dressed as scantily - so it's not like she's being scandalous. It is simply part of being a female people's artist.)

Once on the dance floor, the ultra-micro-mini skirt begins to move and HYPNOTIZE. It's mind-boggling what it does. We all know that men can't resist a beautiful woman, particularly one who dresses like that and moves 100% sensually; but it's the WOMEN who really blow me away.

They'll catch a glimpse of her, see the mini-skirt do its thing - and as their faces start to change color (out of a combination of embarrassment and excitation), this beatific smile spreads across their faces and their eyes just lock on to the mini-skirt "begging" for more.

Of course, for the guys, they just love this reaction in the women. Patty does "all the work for them"; and the women are just dying for some guy to come up and ask them to dance.

At every dance, it becomes this utterly romantic scene - from all directions, riverlets of dancers pouring in to the center of the plaza (or dance hall) and then dancing pressed up against each other like their lives depended on it; each partner fully feeling what makes the other person so attractive.

For ourselves, because we are ALWAYS physically "on top of each other"; when we dance, we dance the opposite - hand in hand, but almost always slightly apart - so that everyone can see her in her full glory.

3) Identical Tastes In Just About Everything
She was born in Mexico City; I, just outside NYC in New Jersey (so we have the "big city" in common; but not much else). I started listening to, and loving, Rock-n-roll from the very beginning of Rock-n-roll in 1955 (my dad bought each of his kids their first radio). When we first met, what a surprise that she had been listening to and likeing rock also.

It turned out we liked the same styles of music, even the same bands (about the only exception was she, as do many Mexicans, loved Creedence Clearwater Revival; and while, I liked them, I got easily bored by them because it seemed to me that everytime they learned a new note, they put out another song; and everytime they learned a new cord, they put out a new album).

We felt/feel the same way about gods and religions (both being long-time atheists - though almost all of our friends are believers of one kind or another.)

We were completely united about how to raise our kids. And we home-schooled them for their first few years - with great success ... very independent-thinking adults they've turned into.

We feel virtually identically about politics. Sting: "The politicians all seem like game-show hosts to me!"

And, most important of all, we NEED a partner who is "encimoso" (on top of each other).

4) We WORK Together
In addition to being great at sex and dancing together, we also teach ESL together (using a super-efficient system I invented). We also are members of a Mariachi band (most of the members are older guys, life-long musicians; but when we travel far to some of the small towns, most or all of them can't handle that much travel and on-the-road hardships - so it's just the two of us). In every town, I do psychological-counseling - and she's always there for that - it builds tremendous confidence in people to know that we have made a relationship work this well.

5) We Ran Together
For the first decade, we ran together each day. She got pregnant about a half-hour after we first met (hmmm, lol); and we had one super-"interesting" race together some months after that. We did a half-marathon, and when she finished she was bloody "down there". My family was up in arms - "see, didn't we tell you a pregnant woman shouldn't be running, much less heavy mileage!" But, it turned out that her new shorts had just started chafing her inner thighs too much on that run. Phew!

Heck, she actually LOST weight during her first pregnancy - because she went from being out-of-shape into being a very good shape.

6) We TALK
We talk and talk and talk. About anything and everything. We ARE BEST FRIENDS - and never seem to get tired of sharing thoughts, impressions, convictions, questions, etc.
------
So, 100% contrary to the impression I may well have given that our relationship is pure sex - it is far, far, far from that. The sex is merely the icing on the cake - of course that icing just glazes the eyes!
-----
ABOUT DOING "IT" SO MUCH YOUR THING WIlTS OFF:
Imagine, if you will, this sexual "war". Our first night together, it was so hot and heavy that it was more like we slept in between going at it; than we went at it occasionally while mostly sleeping. And, what with my ultra-marathon conditioning; we just never let up. Seemingly, even that part of a man's anatomy, when TRAINED enough, can keep on keeping up!
-----
Jolly gee, this post has just taken me an hour+ to write!

Do I get "Bonus Points" for giving so much to RealGM?



oh lol no i wasnt implying that dont worry. im sure u guys have a great relationship lol, i was just saying i dont think of sex as the holy grail like some others do/am not like actively trying to lose my virginity

not gonna lie, ur relationship seems like the most adorable thing i ever read in alot of ways lol.

edit: this has gone so far off topic and i love it lol


Maybe you guys could move this conversation to the OT thread. Kinda derailing things here.

My sincerest apologies. We, mostly me, have definitely been "derailing things here".

Here's my main "excuse": I saw someone mention "OT thread" earlier in this thread. Until your post, I thought that meant: "Over-Time" Thread - the whereabouts of which I had no idea. Besides which, I was under the impression that only mods can move posts from one thread to another.

Again, my apologies.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,650
And1: 8,296
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: GOAT-Level Sex Yet Emotionally Even Better 

Post#782 » by trex_8063 » Mon May 8, 2017 8:27 pm

Pablo Novi wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:
Spoiler:
oh lol no i wasnt implying that dont worry. im sure u guys have a great relationship lol, i was just saying i dont think of sex as the holy grail like some others do/am not like actively trying to lose my virginity

not gonna lie, ur relationship seems like the most adorable thing i ever read in alot of ways lol.

edit: this has gone so far off topic and i love it lol


Maybe you guys could move this conversation to the OT thread. Kinda derailing things here.

My sincerest apologies. We, mostly me, have definitely been "derailing things here".

Here's my main "excuse": I saw someone mention "OT thread" earlier in this thread. Until your post, I thought that meant: "Over-Time" Thread - the whereabouts of which I had no idea. Besides which, I was under the impression that only mods can move posts from one thread to another.

Again, my apologies.


No worries. It's not necessary to "physically" (internet "physically") move the discussion into the OT ("Off-Topic") thread (though feel free to quote and/or copy/paste them if you want). Rather I simply meant if you guys are going to continue this particular discussion: do it there, not here.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
THKNKG
Pro Prospect
Posts: 994
And1: 368
Joined: Sep 11, 2016
 

Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#783 » by THKNKG » Mon May 8, 2017 8:53 pm

I'll add some more unpopular opinions to bring it back:

I'd take at least 2 Lebron seasons over Jordan's peak (though I think Jordan's lower seasons are mostly better, which kinda evens them out)

Wilt is higher on my GOAT list than Shaq

Mikan is top 20

Bill Russell's 64/65 seasons are more than worthy of top 10 peak consideration

The gap between Hakeem and DRob is overstated; it's pretty close

Dr. J pretty clearly has an argument for top 10 peak as well

I would take Moses and Pettit over Barkley

Dennis Rodman is a top 50 player ever (I think; haven't made it that far yet)

The 90's championship bulls teams may have all been better teams than any team Lebron has had (maybe - need to do more research)

Dr. J has an argument over Bird

Jordan was easily a better scorer than Lebron, LBJ easily better playmaker than MJ, and LBJ the highest defensive capabilities of the two


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
All-Time Fantasy Draft Team (90 FGA)

PG: Maurice Cheeks / Giannis
SG: Reggie Miller / Jordan
SF: Michael Jordan / Bruce Bowen
PF: Giannis / Marvin Williams
C: Artis Gilmore / Chris Anderson
User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,145
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#784 » by Quotatious » Mon May 8, 2017 10:32 pm

micahclay wrote:I'll add some more unpopular opinions to bring it back:

I'd take at least 2 Lebron seasons over Jordan's peak (though I think Jordan's lower seasons are mostly better, which kinda evens them out)

Wilt is higher on my GOAT list than Shaq

Mikan is top 20

Bill Russell's 64/65 seasons are more than worthy of top 10 peak consideration

The gap between Hakeem and DRob is overstated; it's pretty close

Dr. J pretty clearly has an argument for top 10 peak as well

I would take Moses and Pettit over Barkley

Dennis Rodman is a top 50 player ever (I think; haven't made it that far yet)

The 90's championship bulls teams may have all been better teams than any team Lebron has had (maybe - need to do more research)

Dr. J has an argument over Bird

Jordan was easily a better scorer than Lebron, LBJ easily better playmaker than MJ, and LBJ the highest defensive capabilities of the two


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Wilt over Shaq isn't unpopular, at all. Convincing case for Chamberlain is easy to make.

Russell's peak being top 10 is a very common concept here, too.

Moses over Barkley isn't unpopular by any means. Pettit over Barkley, I guess that counts as unpopular.

Robinson is certainly close to Olajuwon, based on the fact that David was a better regular season performer, and that's vast majority of the games they played throughout their careers (sheer quantity of games is an argument that I would never take lightly). I tend to think of Hakeem's playoff edge and his superior longevity (and overall peak) as more important than D-Rob's RS advantage, but I don't see how it's even debatable that Robinson was a better RS player than Olajuwon, and that alone makes it a close comparison. 1995 WCF really shouldn't represent that entire comparison, but unfortunately it does for many people.

Dr J having a case over Bird is something I totally agree with. I'm not saying that I have Julius over Larry or vice versa, but I think they're really close. Erving in his early 30s was arguably better than Bird all three years from 1980 to 1982, and Larry didn't make that big of an improvement from his rookie season to 1986 - pretty significant improvement offensively, but he was at his best defensively in early 80s. I know that for example ElGee doesn't think Bird's impact in his rookie season was much worse than it was in his 1986 season. Erving was also better in 1976 than he was in early 80s. Certainly 1976 ABA was much weaker than the NBA in early 80s, not only because of the merger, but also the fact that generational players like Moses, Magic and Bird entered the league, but on the other hand, Erving had the magnum opus of his career, 1976 finals, against a team that was undeniably very strong, 4 All-Star Nuggets with David Thompson, Dan Issel, Bobby Jones and Ralph Simpson. That particular team was certainly no joke, and Doc's team was an underdog in that series. To some extent it could be compared to LeBron beating the Warriors last year. Dr J had clearly better longevity than Bird, too (he was a superstar from his rookie season, and remained a borderline all-star or at least an above average starter right to the end of his career, so we're talking about really meaningful longevity, not just nearly irrelevant role player years late in his career, as is the case with a lot of former greats). I would say that Erving's 1976 finals should absolutely be in contention for GOAT finals performance, alongside 1991-93 Jordan, 2000-02 Shaq and 2016 LeBron.

If one wants to rank Mikan, then putting him in top 20 makes perfect sense, considering he dominated his era at least to the extent that Jordan, Shaq or LeBron dominated their eras (he just didn't have the same kind of longevity as they do, and his era was considerably weaker).

Overall, your post is definitely good food for thought.
KF10
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 25,434
And1: 5,537
Joined: Jul 28, 2006
 

Re: Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#785 » by KF10 » Mon May 8, 2017 10:36 pm

If DeMarcus Cousins is able to clean up and fine tune parts of his game, he is a top-5 player.
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#786 » by ThaRegul8r » Tue May 9, 2017 12:09 am

Quotatious wrote:Wilt over Shaq isn't unpopular, at all. Convincing case for Chamberlain is easy to make.


When Shaq retired, the consensus among the people writing about it at the time who are paid to do so was that Wilt was over Shaq. I specifically thought about this when acrossthecourt said during voting for the #5 spot in the last Top 100 project, "Sometimes with Shaq it feels like he's a top 5 play[er] without doubt. But the perception wasn't aligned with that during the end of his career." This was in contrast to the talk during Shaq's peak, when you had people who played with or against Wilt saying Shaq was better. But that illustrates the difference between peak vs. career, which I've said for a while now. That would be admissible evidence for someone who wanted to argue Shaq's peak over Wilt's, but once the entire body of work was complete people were no longer saying that.

As far as this board, Micahclay hasn't been here long enough so he isn't aware of it, but I have, and what he said was would have been true at one point. Based on how the board was trending going into the last Top 100 project, Shaq would have been voted in over Wilt (he was also ahead of Wilt on the pre-lists voters submitted that Doc MJ tallied before the official voting) had ardee not rallied Wilt supporters who felt the same way he did to vote to keep him ahead (which is why, as I commented in the recent now-locked thread, with that victory he was preemptively organizing like-minded people to halt Garnett's rise and preserve Kobe's position in the top 10 for the upcoming project). It was one of the few predictions I made before the fact that turned out incorrect (I was 8-3), as—as I said in my recap of my predictions in comparison with what actually happened, that was unforeseeable. In late 2013, Laimbeer made a post in this subforum about Wilt's stock being down. Micahclay wasn't here for all of that, but what he said isn't baseless.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
User avatar
SideshowBob
General Manager
Posts: 9,064
And1: 6,272
Joined: Jul 16, 2010
Location: Washington DC
 

Re: Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#787 » by SideshowBob » Tue May 9, 2017 12:43 am

I've got a few, I'll start with this:

1on1 defense is misunderstood and as a result, overrated. Lockdown iso defense and post-defense are the glamour side of defense, just as scoring is to offense (especially iso-scoring).

What's essential is how to value 1on1 and help D from a global floor impact perspective. What, in most general terms, makes a 1on1 defender valuable and the same for help. The key for the defense as a whole is not conceding open buckets, power plays, essentially 5on4 situations for the offense due to a defensive error. Late/inadequate help or late recovery from help, missed rotations, poor rotation (matchup advantage/disadvantage), etc., you want to minimize all of these as much as possible and keep the player movement and coverage disciplined.

Thus, generalized, the ideal 1on1 defender needs to above all need as little help as possible. If you have the tools/ability to single cover your man (with and without the ball) with as little need for additional defenders as possible, you're good to go. The problem, of course is that offenses are designed to disrupt this as much as possible, creating matchup advantages via player action/movement, thus defenders will never cover only a single player or even position, and it becomes highly difficult to stay in single coverage without help, even for a split seconds time

Spoiler:
The same thought process can be applied to help defense; be able to provide additional coverage for your teammates while covering your man. Essentially, you need the quickness for recovery, the awareness to know the positioning of both your man and your teammate's, the instinct/knowledge of player tendencies and your potential coverage options (remember this applies to on-ball AND off-ball help coverage), and the size/athleticism to be able to physically undertake this in just a split second.


TL;DR: To generalize good 1on1 defense (on or off the ball) is about needing as little help as possible and not conceding open baskets for your teammate's man over the course of your 60-70 possessions played in a game. Focusing on the few possessions where a guy is trying to lock down the guy in front of him is focusing on too small a piece of the pie. Just not as important.
But in his home dwelling...the hi-top faded warrior is revered. *Smack!* The sound of his palm blocking the basketball... the sound of thousands rising, roaring... the sound of "get that sugar honey iced tea outta here!"
User avatar
THKNKG
Pro Prospect
Posts: 994
And1: 368
Joined: Sep 11, 2016
 

Re: Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#788 » by THKNKG » Tue May 9, 2017 4:00 am

Quotatious wrote:
micahclay wrote:

Robinson is certainly close to Olajuwon, based on the fact that David was a better regular season performer, and that's vast majority of the games they played throughout their careers (sheer quantity of games is an argument that I would never take lightly). I tend to think of Hakeem's playoff edge and his superior longevity (and overall peak) as more important than D-Rob's RS advantage, but I don't see how it's even debatable that Robinson was a better RS player than Olajuwon, and that alone makes it a close comparison. 1995 WCF really shouldn't represent that entire comparison, but unfortunately it does for many people.

Dr J having a case over Bird is something I totally agree with. I'm not saying that I have Julius over Larry or vice versa, but I think they're really close. Erving in his early 30s was arguably better than Bird all three years from 1980 to 1982, and Larry didn't make that big of an improvement from his rookie season to 1986 - pretty significant improvement offensively, but he was at his best defensively in early 80s. I know that for example ElGee doesn't think Bird's impact in his rookie season was much worse than it was in his 1986 season. Erving was also better in 1976 than he was in early 80s. Certainly 1976 ABA was much weaker than the NBA in early 80s, not only because of the merger, but also the fact that generational players like Moses, Magic and Bird entered the league, but on the other hand, Erving had the magnum opus of his career, 1976 finals, against a team that was undeniably very strong, 4 All-Star Nuggets with David Thompson, Dan Issel, Bobby Jones and Ralph Simpson. That particular team was certainly no joke, and Doc's team was an underdog in that series. To some extent it could be compared to LeBron beating the Warriors last year. Dr J had clearly better longevity than Bird, too (he was a superstar from his rookie season, and remained a borderline all-star or at least an above average starter right to the end of his career, so we're talking about really meaningful longevity, not just nearly irrelevant role player years late in his career, as is the case with a lot of former greats). I would say that Erving's 1976 finals should absolutely be in contention for GOAT finals performance, alongside 1991-93 Jordan, 2000-02 Shaq and 2016 LeBron.

If one wants to rank Mikan, then putting him in top 20 makes perfect sense, considering he dominated his era at least to the extent that Jordan, Shaq or LeBron dominated their eras (he just didn't have the same kind of longevity as they do, and his era was considerably weaker).

Overall, your post is definitely good food for thought.


I clipped out the stuff I'm not responding to just for the sake of ease.

Something I am interested in knowing/researching is how much the team construction of DRob/Hakeem's teams played a part in their playoff differences. Like, Hakeem's team during his championship runs were perfectly designed for his playstyle; I don't know enough to know about DRob's team to say the same. I wonder if (possibly) his team around him made it easier to stop him. That would explain the drastic difference in RS/PS. I know he's an inferior offensive player than Hakeem, but I haven't found the "he's just not a #1 offensive player on the same level. That may be the whole case, but I'm interested in seeing how much the team around them affected that.

Larry vs. Dr. J is something I want to look into more. Most prefer Bird's portable playstyle/the fact that it would translate to different eras better. Something I've noticed is that those who were stylistically similar to Jordan (Elgin, Dr. J, Thompson, etc.) are considered less portable than Jordan (granted they were much less talented. I wonder what separates him from those guys in terms of portability. Just thinking out loud.

Yeah with Mikan, I'm learning he's a good tool to edit my criterion. I'm a big impact guy, but I can't place him in my top 10. So there must be other things I value. He's helpful for me to further hone in on those criterion.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app
All-Time Fantasy Draft Team (90 FGA)

PG: Maurice Cheeks / Giannis
SG: Reggie Miller / Jordan
SF: Michael Jordan / Bruce Bowen
PF: Giannis / Marvin Williams
C: Artis Gilmore / Chris Anderson
User avatar
SactoKingsFan
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,236
And1: 2,760
Joined: Mar 15, 2014
       

Re: RE: Re: Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#789 » by SactoKingsFan » Tue May 9, 2017 4:27 am

KF10 wrote:If DeMarcus Cousins is able to clean up and fine tune parts of his game, he is a top-5 player.

The talent is there but I'll believe it when it happens. I've seen too much of Cousins over the last 7 seasons to think he'll put it all together. He would have to control the on court behavior, improve shot selection, limit the stupid fouls and turnovers, set consistently good screens and focus more on defense.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
KF10
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 25,434
And1: 5,537
Joined: Jul 28, 2006
 

Re: RE: Re: Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#790 » by KF10 » Tue May 9, 2017 4:43 am

SactoKingsFan wrote:
KF10 wrote:If DeMarcus Cousins is able to clean up and fine tune parts of his game, he is a top-5 player.

The talent is there but I'll believe it when it happens. I've seen too much of Cousins over the last 7 seasons to think he'll put it all together. He would have to control the on court behavior, improve shot selection, limit the stupid fouls and turnovers, set consistently good screens and focus more on defense.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


Yeah, it's a big task for sure.

I think, even if he manages to fulfill only half of what you have proposed, he's right up there with the best of them, imo.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,850
And1: 16,408
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#791 » by Dr Positivity » Fri May 12, 2017 6:10 am

Curry is the Russell of offense
Liberate The Zoomers
Dr Spaceman
General Manager
Posts: 8,575
And1: 11,211
Joined: Jan 16, 2013
   

Re: Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#792 » by Dr Spaceman » Fri May 12, 2017 7:20 am

SideshowBob wrote:I've got a few, I'll start with this:

1on1 defense is misunderstood and as a result, overrated. Lockdown iso defense and post-defense are the glamour side of defense, just as scoring is to offense (especially iso-scoring).

What's essential is how to value 1on1 and help D from a global floor impact perspective. What, in most general terms, makes a 1on1 defender valuable and the same for help. The key for the defense as a whole is not conceding open buckets, power plays, essentially 5on4 situations for the offense due to a defensive error. Late/inadequate help or late recovery from help, missed rotations, poor rotation (matchup advantage/disadvantage), etc., you want to minimize all of these as much as possible and keep the player movement and coverage disciplined.

Thus, generalized, the ideal 1on1 defender needs to above all need as little help as possible. If you have the tools/ability to single cover your man (with and without the ball) with as little need for additional defenders as possible, you're good to go. The problem, of course is that offenses are designed to disrupt this as much as possible, creating matchup advantages via player action/movement, thus defenders will never cover only a single player or even position, and it becomes highly difficult to stay in single coverage without help, even for a split seconds time

Spoiler:
The same thought process can be applied to help defense; be able to provide additional coverage for your teammates while covering your man. Essentially, you need the quickness for recovery, the awareness to know the positioning of both your man and your teammate's, the instinct/knowledge of player tendencies and your potential coverage options (remember this applies to on-ball AND off-ball help coverage), and the size/athleticism to be able to physically undertake this in just a split second.


TL;DR: To generalize good 1on1 defense (on or off the ball) is about needing as little help as possible and not conceding open baskets for your teammate's man over the course of your 60-70 possessions played in a game. Focusing on the few possessions where a guy is trying to lock down the guy in front of him is focusing on too small a piece of the pie. Just not as important.


Agree here, but I'd even take it a little further with regard to the bolded. The entire point of defensive schemes is to find the best way to find help. There's no such thing as a defensive scheme that tries to minimize help, just those that find different ways of helping.

The true best defenders in a 1 on 1 sense are not those who get beat least frequently, they are those who minimize the damage when they get beat by taking a good angle, staying on the offensive player´s hip, and forcing them into a help defender. If people are wondering how the Spurs can remain so goddamn effective with 67 year old Pau Gasol and David Lee, it's for exactly this reason. Those guys can do their jobs incredibly well when Green and Kawhi are so unreasonably effective at funneling and not fouling.

To be honest, I think I'd rather have a defender who gets beat more consistently but knows how to funnel into the help than a guy who takes a lot of pride in being a "lockdown" guy. Because the truth is NBA stars are uncontainable off the dribble and putting too much stock into trying to do it all yourself tends to get you beat in ways that seriously compromise a defense. You can actually be better defensively by looking worse most of the time.
“I’m not the fastest guy on the court, but I can dictate when the race begins.”
ShotCreator
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,825
And1: 2,537
Joined: May 18, 2014
Location: CF
     

Re: Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#793 » by ShotCreator » Sat May 20, 2017 6:44 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
ShotCreator wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:I wonder why I am the only person who remembers Chicago's rotations during those years. Jordan always went out with the other starters and Pippen stayed in and played with the 2nd unit and then sat when Jordan and the other starters returned. So judging Pippen's defense by on/off numbers is a flawed approach without understanding the context of the numbers.

There's 1994. A year without Jordan entirely. And it's missed games Not on-court splits.



Then why quote Lorak?


[/quote]with/without

1994 (10G missed) -0.8 drtg (so he improved drtg by 0.8)
1998 (38G missed) +3.9 drtg (so Bulls defense was worse by 3.9 with him in lineup)[/quote]

It's in/out, not on-court on/off. I don't get the confusion. There's two separate years, one where he missed nearly half the season and they had a better defense w/o him, and another where he missed 10 games and they stayed afloat. Rotations have nothing to do with these.

Both absences, the Bulls offenses fell off a cliff. That was where Pippen made his impact.


Longley, Grant, Oakley(rookie year), Rodman, and Jordan all carried Chicago's defenses if in/out and on/off is to be believed.


I also see Longley as a very similar player to Andrew Bogut. High energy, low minutes, lots of fouls and great rebounding/rim protection. Statistically and in terms of impact very similar. Longley's last year in the league, he was still a force on D.
Swinging for the fences.
User avatar
Prez
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 27,253
And1: 44,436
Joined: Jan 26, 2015
 

Re: Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#794 » by Prez » Sat May 20, 2017 7:23 pm

Kevin Durant is a tiny bit overrated and isn't a top 4 player, probably #5.
Pablo Novi
Senior
Posts: 683
And1: 233
Joined: Dec 11, 2015
Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Contact:
   

Pablo's Thoughts On: "NBA" "Era's", & "Decades" & Players Within Them 

Post#795 » by Pablo Novi » Thu May 25, 2017 2:05 am

Pablo's Thoughts On: "NBA" "Era's", & "Decades" & Players Within Them

A. MIKAN'S CAREER:

Mikan's first "year" was the last part of the '46 season, playing for the Chicago Gears of the NBL - they won the NBL Chip that year. From the next year onwards, he played for the Minneapolis Lakers - they won the NBL Chip in 1947 and 1948. They then switched to the BAA and won the BAA Chip in 1949; and continued winning Chips in the NBA from 1950 onwards.

Mikan's Play-Off Record:
1. 1947 NBL Chicago Gears ..... - Chip (Chicago American Gears)
2. 1948 NBL Minneapolis Lakers - Chip
4. 1949 BAA Minneapolis Lakers - Chip
5. 1950 NBA Minneapolis Lakers - Chip
6. 1951 NBA Minneapolis Lakers - Lost in the round before the Finals to the Finals winner (Rochester Royals)
7. 1952 NBA Minneapolis Lakers - Chip
8. 1953 NBA Minneapolis Lakers - Chip
9. 1954 NBA Minneapolis Lakers - Chip

In other words his teams won 7 Chips in 8 years; and he was probably the (unofficial) MVP of all of those years except the first - due to him joining the League after the half-way mark of that season. In other words, he utterly dominated that almost-decade.
-----
EDIT: N.B. I made three mistakes in this list (one pointed out by other posters in another thread):
1. It was not the Chicago Gears but the Chicago American Gears;
2. Mikan wasn't in the NBL for the 1946 season so couldn't have won a Title (thus he had 7 Chips in 8 years, not 8 in 9 yrs);
3. It was 1951 not 1952 when he "lost in the round before the Finals ..."; and in 1952 he/they DID win the Chip.

Above, I've now corrected all these mistakes and put them in italics and underlines to make that as clear as possible.
-----
I'd claim that since the 1938 season (in other words over the last 70 years) no player was even close to as Era-dominant as he was.
My strong suggestion would be to INCLUDE his entire career (if not the entirety of the NBL) in the coming discussion.

B: NBL VS BAA COMPARISON:

In terms of comparing the NBL vs the BAA during their 3 years of co-existence:
It is beyond doubt that the NBL was the superior League the first TWO of those three years; and the BAA was the superior League for the last of the three years.

The key reasons for this were:
a) The NBL was the established League, the BAA was the upstart League - so the NBL had the better teams and players AT FIRST;

b) The NBL was mostly in small mid-west towns; the BAA was in mostly (NHL) bigger cities - so the BAA had the much stronger financial base and, "inevitably", would out-compete the NBL were they to have remained separate;

c) For the 1949 season, most of the top NBL teams * switched to the BAA; and became most of the top teams of the BAA.
N.B. This third season, 1949, was dominated by ex-NBL teams; and the All-League selections were dominated by ex-NBL players.
The following season, 1950, after the NBL-BAA merger into the NBA, the NBA was again dominated by the ex-NBL teams & and All-League selections were dominated by ex-NBL players.

N.B. The NFL respects the AFL's history; the NBA does NOT respect either the NBL nor ABA histories - which is an historical travesty of significant importance.

My main point here: If we're going to discuss either a would-be "NBA" GOAT Top 50 OR "NBA" player era-dominance; Mikan's entire career should be included in the discussion.

C: NBL-NBA-ABA: THREE "ERAs": i) "Pre-Mikan" (1938-1947 seasons); ii) "Mikan Era" (1948-1959); iii) "Modern Era" (1960-2017+)

I'd actually argue for the entirety of the NBL's history (1938 season - 1949 season) being included - because then we'd be covering the "entirety" of serious/organized pro basketball in the US. But I could "live with" just starting with the 1946 season, Mikan's first.

My biggest reason for compromising to just Mikan being included is that, imo, no "Pre-Mikan Era" player had a great enough career to merit being on anybody's GOAT TOP 50 List.

Lastly, imo, the very-approximate AVERAGE level-of-play* of the pre-Mikan years (1938-1947 included (seeing as he came in late that year and his presence had not yet forced upwards the general level of play)) was equal to about 25% of the "modern era" (which I define as 1960 (Wilt's first season) onwards.

I call the 1948 thru 1959 seasons, the "Mikan Era"; and would guess that the approximate AVERAGE level-of-play* of that Era was 50% of the level of the "Modern Era".

*So, within the "Pre-Mikan Era", 1938-1947, a period of ten years, IF the AVERAGE level-of-play was approximately 25% (of the "Modern Era"'s level of play); then it was definitely lower than that in 1938, increasing gradually; with the later years higher than 25%.

Similarly, within the "Mikan Era", 1948-1959, a period of 12 years, IF the AVERAGE level-of-play was approximately 50% (of the "Modern Era"'s level of play); then it was definitely lower than that in 1948, increasingly gradually; with the later years higher than 50%.

In terms of the "gradual" rate of improvement during those Eras, I'd definitely say that the single biggest leap upwards was in 1948 (as a reaction to Mikan's play during the last part of the previous season).

Likewise, I'd say that there was a leap upwards in 1960, which I define as the first year of the "Modern Era" (as a reaction to Wilt's play with the Harlem Globetrotters the previous year PLUS Russell and Baylor PLUS increasing NBA League-wide integration).

D: A FAIR WAY TO TREAT THE: "ERAs","DECADES" & "GOAT Top-50~" PLAYERS:

In terms of how best to divide up the three "ERAs"; I'd suggest we do it by "DECADES":
"DECADE" ... Number Of GOAT "Top 50~" Players:
1938-1959: 5 GOAT Players (NBL, BAA, NBA);
1960-1969: 6 GOAT Players (NBA & ABA);
1970-1979: 7 GOAT Players (NBA & ABA);
1980-1989: 8 GOAT Players;
1990-1999: 9 GOAT Players;
2000-2009:10 GOAT Players;
2010-2017: 9 GOAT Players (so far; with two more being added by the end of the decade).

For a Grand Total of 54~ GOAT "Top 50" Players.

The GREAT ADVANTAGE of this way of looking at decades is that it COMBINES two "competing" claims:
a) That the All-Time Players of any Era would be approximately All-Time Players in any other Era;
b) That the over-all level of players and play keeps improving - so the more-recent the decade; the more All-Time Players it gets allotted.

While no age-group (old, tweener, young) fans; nor fans of specific teams; nor fans of specific players ... will find this "perfect"; I believe it is THE FAIREST way to BUILD THE POOL of GOAT TOP 50~ PLAYERS - neither slighting the earlier "decades"; nor over-emphasizing them; neither under- nor over- emphasizing the more recent "decades". And, conveniently, it produces a list of about 50 or so GOAT "Top 50~" Players (and SUGGESTS that the coming decade, 2020-2029 will be allotted 12 GOAT 'Top 60~" Players).

IF I'm correct in this (and what follows) this would also TEND to result in at least a lessening of the flame-warring between fans of different "eras", "decades", teams and players - there'd be a relatively fair share of spots for ALL the All-Time Great Players across all periods, teams and fan-favorite-players.

E: THE NUMBER OF ALL-LEAGUE 1st-Team, 2nd-Team & 3rd-Team Selections Each Player Got IS THE BEST WAY TO JUDGE THE GREATNESS OF CAREERS:
We all know that no single stat nor group of them, whether regular or advanced, is good enough to truly reflect a player's greatness. I SUGGEST that there is a "stat" that does exactly that; and that "stat" is the All-League selections. The All-League selections tell us which FOUR-to-SIX Guards, FOUR-to-SIX Forwards and TWO-to-THREE Centers were the best players that season at their position.

The size of the voting pool, plus the relationship the voters have with the League(s) - being paid to report on it/them - TENDS to reflect, (far) better than any other factor; who the best players really were that season - and, due to that large number of voters, it TENDS to screen out the "homers" and such (much as the throwing out of the highest and lowest scores from a diving competition - TENDS to produce (far) better results).

In other words, IMO, the basic "GOAT-evaluation" UNIT should be the number of "Great Years" each player accumulated; and I define "Great Years" as seasons in which the given player was voted: All-League 1st-Team, 2nd-Team or 3rd-Team.

MY way to "translate" those yearly selections is:
5 "Points" for each All-League 1st-Team selection **;
3 "Points" for each All-League 2nd-Team selection **;
2 "Points" for each All-League 3rd-Team selection (for all the years since the creation of the ABA, 1968 season).***

For a total of 8 "Points" per season for each position (for the first 30 years 1938-1967);
and a total of 10 "Points" per season for each position (for the last 50 years 1968-2017, and onwards).

Add up the total "Points" during each player's career and you have their REGULAR SEASON "Points" totals.

** For the dual-League years of 1947-1949; Mikan was the #1 Center each year so the #1 Center from the other League would be placed on the COMBINED 2nd-Team. For the other 4 positions, judgements would have to be made about the comparative rankings of players from each League. Generally, as mentioned earlier, because the NBL was decidedly better than the BAA the first two of these three years, players from the NBL would probably get the majority of the COMBINED 1st-Team selections; and players from the BAA would probably get the majority of the COMBINED 2nd-Team selections - with the reverse being true for the third dual-League year, 1949.

In other words, for the four non-Center positions, 1st-Teamers from the stronger League would get the COMBINED "1st-Team" selection (5 "Points"; while 1st-Teams from the weaker League would get the COMBINED "2nd-Team" selection (3 "Points").

*** Similarly, for the dual-League years of 1968-1976, the majority of the COMBINED "1st-Team" selections would go to NBA players (especially for the first two years of the ABA when it was decidedly the weaker League). AFTER those first two years, The GENERAL exception to the above would be that the ABA Forwards would TEND to rank higher than the NBA Forwards (the ABA was called a "Forward's League" for good reason. For example, the ABA-version of Dr J, Julius Erving, was probably better those years than was the 1st-Team NBA Small Forward.

N.B. After the first couple of years, we "KNOW" that the quality of the ABA's top players was about-equal to that of the NBA's top players because:
i) The ABA won a higher and higher percent of the hotly-contested inter-League exhibition games (and more than half overall);
ii) Ex-ABA players got their "fair share" of All-NBA 1st-Team and 2nd-Team honors after the merger;
iii) Three of the four ex-ABA teams more than held their own after the merger (averaging more than 50% wins, collectively); while the fourth team, the Nets did poorer (due to having been "raped" by the NBA).

Again, MY BIGGEST GRIPE AGAINST THE NBA: It should treat the ABA and NBL with the same respect that the NFL treats the former AFL; but it does the opposite - it basically erases their existence! Heck, a number of current NBA teams began as NBL teams; and four current NBA teams began as ABA teams - imo, there's ZERO moral justification for "erasing" that!

btw, I place MUCH LESS significance on the Regular Season MVP voting because:
i) The number of players receiving votes is FAR smaller than do for the All-League selections; and
ii) The MVP voting HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN MORE FLAWED than the All-League voting.

For example, in EVERY CASE where the MVP was NOT voted All-League 1st-Team; I agree much more with the All-League selection than the MVP selection. (For the four years involving two Centers: I say that the All-League 1st-Team selection should have been instead of the All-League 2nd-Team selection who WAS voted MVP;

My four (early-years) examples; I agree with the All-NBA 1st-Team selections that:
Pettit was better than Bill Russell (in 1958);
Wilt was better than Russell twice (1961 & 1962!);
KAJ was better than Cowens (1973).

In other, more recent years, there have been MVPs who, imo, should not have been MVP (though the player who I think should have been MVP did not play the same position). PERHAPS the most flawed of these are: Nash's two MVPs and Rose's MVP.

F: RANK ALL-TIME PLAYERS BY-POSITION FIRST; THEN BUILD A 1ST-DRAFT "GOAT 'TOP-50~' LIST:
It is FAR easier to compare same-position players across "Eras" and "Decades" than it is to compare players from different positions.
So, I SUGGEST building a "universal" First-Draft "GOAT Top-50~" List in TWO STEPS:

1) STEP ONE: Rank (by All-League selection "Points") all the players at EACH position separately;
2) STEP TWO: Build a "1st-Draft" "GOAT TOP-50~" LIST BY DESCENDING SETS OF 5 PLAYERS EACH (one from each position).
In other words, the Top ranked player from each POSITION would be in the 1st-Draft GOAT TOP 5; the 2nd-ranked player from each position would be in the 1st-Draft GOAT Top 10 (spots #6-#10); etc.

Examples: at their respective positions: KAJ, Magic, & LeBron all have the most Regular Season career "Points" at their POSITION: so they would be in the "1st-Draft" GOAT TOP 5. The other two "1st-Draft" "GOAT TOP 5" spots would go to Kobe and Karl Malone. (Again based on this "Points" system, based in turn, on the number of "Great Years" each player accumulated.

G: EACH FAN THEN MAKES (LIMITED) ADJUSTMENTS TO THE "1ST-DRAFT" "GOAT TOP-50~" LIST:
A couple of examples: (in each case due to having had more "Great Years":) Kobe has decidedly more "Points" than does MJ; and Karl Malone has a few more "Points" than does Tim Duncan. So, in this personal-adjustment phase of the process, taking into account Post-Season play and other factors, most fans (including myself) may move MJ ahead of Kobe at the SG position; and TD ahead of K.Malone at the PF position.

It's my SUGGESTION that each fan, AT MOST, only move any player up or down ONE SPOT on their BY-POSITION GOAT rankings. So, for example, if a fan moves MJ up over Kobe, then Kobe, at worst, will be GOAT SG #2. Same for TD and Karl Malone. For those fans who move TD past K. Malone, TD is then in THEIR GOAT Top 5; while K. Malone can not be lower than in THEIR GOAT Top 10 (somewhere between #6 and #10).

This "restriction" is suggested so that fans don't get "overly subjective" and, thru moving players up and down by a lot; "over-rule" the basic point here: that GOAT rankings should be based PRIMARILY on the total number of "Great Years" accumulated for each player.

LAST STEP: Now that each fan has ranked the All-Time Great Players BY POSITION; there only remains to compare THEIR FIVE Top-Ranked Players (one: PG, SG, SF, PF, Center). As an example, in my GOAT list, my GOAT Top 5 is: Magic, MJ, LBJ, TD & KAJ. I sort them out as follows:
#1 KAJ
#2 Magic
#3 MJ
#4 LBJ
#5 TD.

Each fan then moves on to rank the next (descending) set of 5 players (i.e., comparing THEIR #2 PG, #2 SG, #2 SF, #2 PF, #2 Center.

In my case, my #2s are: Oscar Robertson, Kobe, Dr. J, K.Malone & Wilt; and I, in my final GOAT List I rank them:
#6 Wilt
#7 Dr J
#8 Kobe
#9 Big "O"
#10 K. Malone

Then, repeat. Comparing this time, YOUR #3 at EACH position to end up with YOUR GOAT List for positions: 11-15.
etc.
-------------------------
WHY IS THIS POST SO DARNED LONG?
a) I'm not sure whether I'll be able to participate (and if so, to what extent) in the upcoming discussion - so, in case I can't participate much; at least I'm making my contribution now.

b) This MAY (who knows?) actually contribute to other people's thinking PRIOR to the upcoming discussion; and

c) This THREAD IS TITlED: "... Metathinking"
This post probably (LOL) qualifies as metathinking.

btw, I'm much more interested in a GOAT-discussion thread than either a "Greatest Peak" or "Most Era-Dominant" discussion thread.
------------------
One thing I left out:
H: Deductions For Early-Years Short Seasons:
For all the early-years seasons having less than 80 games that season; I reduce the number of "Points" awarded correspondingly.
So, if they played 41 games one season; then each All-Time Player's "Points" (as explained above) would be reduced by half. In other words, instead of an All-League 1st-Team selection being worth 5 "Points"; during a 41-game season, it would be worth 2.5 "Points"; similarly an All-League 2nd-Team selection instead of being worth 3 "Points"; during a 41-game season, it would be worth 1.5 "Points".

I make no such deductions for the recent two years when they played less than 82 games.

N.B. I am not here including my ACTUAL calculations / totals for "Points" - it'd make this post utterly unweildingly long AND I haven't yet added in this season's All-NBA selections results. Please give me a week or two to update it and organize it in a form which is legible in this realGM format.
-----
N.B. This is an exact copy-and-paste from "theRealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking" thread, post #662: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328924&p=55731500#p55731500

Why did I copy-and-paste it to here? Well, it's certainly NOT to rack up my post count - LOL.
Instead, it is because it's basically almost completely composed of unconventional (and therefore "Unpopular") thoughts / points.
And rather than ask people to go to some other thread (when, probably, most people won't do that); it seems more righteous to just post it here too.
Pablo Novi
Senior
Posts: 683
And1: 233
Joined: Dec 11, 2015
Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Contact:
   

I made my first "NBA" GOAT List back in 1960 

Post#796 » by Pablo Novi » Thu May 25, 2017 2:09 am

I made my first "NBA" GOAT List back in 1960

Where the "bleep" did the thinking come from upon which is based my previous post?

For better or for worse, I was born "half-boy, half-calculator"; and since the moment I could first count, I've been making Ranking lists all my life.

I made my first "NBA" GOAT List back at the end of the 1960 season. (After his FIRST season, Wilt was already Honorable Mention!).

Unfortunately, ages ago I lost my copy of it (there was this storm that came in and soaked most of my papers in our basement - but I didn't realize until years later - by then everything was too moldy to read / save). By the next time I made a newer version - I had forgotten most of what had been in that earlier list - so all the info and thinking that went into my first, 1960, GOAT list was gone.

(Violins please!) lol

In any event, I've been thinking about the best / fairest way to make an NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT list for 57 years. It was a little over 5 years ago that I first hit upon the idea of using the All-League selections as THE fairest / most-objective basic "unit" to use to "measure" "Great Years"; and, based on that "unit" ... THE fairest / most-objective way to make 1st-Draft GOAT lists.

I've been critiqueing it; adjusting it; updating it ... ever since.
-----
N.B. This post too is a copy-and-paste from that same thread; from the very next post, #663.

My excuse this time?

My first GOAT list from 1960 wasn't popular back then (I don't remember anybody making GOAT lists back than!)
And it MAY help explain HERE the "wtf" regarding my previous post.
TheProfessor
Veteran
Posts: 2,608
And1: 1,176
Joined: May 01, 2010

Re: Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition] 

Post#797 » by TheProfessor » Thu May 25, 2017 8:38 am

KF10 wrote:If DeMarcus Cousins is able to clean up and fine tune parts of his game, he is a top-5 player.

Completely disagree, Talented no doubt. But Cousins isnt a freak,to reach the top 5 you need to be a freak. 1.LBJ (basically a TE playing basketball) 2. Durant (Realistically a 7ft SG with elite rim protection) 3. Curry (He changed the game) 4. Kawhi (Essentially a robot with hands 3x normal) 5. Giannis/Westy/Harden (ones a 7ft pg, another just averaged 30/10/10 and the last one set the record for points created)

Bigs just generally cannot have the impact to be top 5 anymore unless they have guard skills. Unfortunately as much Cousins believes he does, his middling efficiency and high TOV rate prove otherwise.

Return to Player Comparisons