Top 3 realgm consensus mistakes

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Where do you think the Majority of realgm members are making a mistake.
What has you scratching your head wonderring how everybody get's it wrong.

Overall I think realgm posters are pretty good, better than the hypothetical guys in the bar that I don't actually know because I don't go to bars. I say 1/4 of you are more knowledgeble than the average professional sports writer, 1/4 of you as good as the sports writer and 1/2 of you worse than the sports writers. Now 1/2 being worse than the sports writer is OK for a group that contains a lot of very young people when we are talking about knowledge of basketball history. Also I am not counting the sports writers annoying obvious clickbait hot takes where I am pretty sure that the sports writer just wants attention and is willing to make a fool out of himself to get attention. And yet I am counting realgmers when they are just trolling.


My top 3 consensus realgm mistakes where I think the Majority here are wrong
1 overrating Duncan
2 not knowing that Bird's natural position was power forward.
3 underrating Bernard King.

I can't think of a 4th mistake at this time. If the Majority are only making 3 mistakes then I think we are doing very well.

4th mistake but I think it is only 1/3 of you making the mistake is to believe that the improvement of NBA players in areas other than 3 point shooting since the 1980s is a larger improvement then it really was. There has been a huge improvement in 3 point shooting. Some of the dribbling improvement is actually the legalization of traveling rather than a real dribbling improvement. In everything else the improvements since the 1980s have been small. Some things like low post back to the basket skills have actually gotten worse since the 1980s. I think some of the young people really want to believe in a mythical improvement so that they can feel like their favorites are the best there ever were. The league publicity also pushes the idea these are the best ever.

Each generation always pushes the idea that these are the best ever. . Music might have been better when the people making the music actually knew how to play instruments. Your parents did have sex

What is yor opinion about the 3 biggest mistakes that the majority on RealGM make?

[falcolombardi]

Where do you think the Majority of realgm members are making a mistake.
What has you scratching your head wonderring how everybody get's it wrong.

Overall I think realgm posters are pretty good, better than the hypothetical guys in the bar that I don't actually know because I don't go to bars. I say 1/4 of you are more knowledgeble than the average professional sports writer, 1/4 of you as good as the sports writer and 1/2 of you worse than the sports writers. Now 1/2 being worse than the sports writer is OK for a group that contains a lot of very young people when we are talking about knowledge of basketball history. Also I am not counting the sports writers annoying obvious clickbait hot takes where I am pretty sure that the sports writer just wants attention and is willing to make a fool out of himself to get attention. And yet I am counting realgmers when they are just trolling.


My top 3 consensus realgm mistakes where I think the Majority here are wrong
1 overrating Duncan
2 not knowing that Bird's natural position was power forward.
3 underrating Bernard King.

I can't think of a 4th mistake at this time. If the Majority are only making 3 mistakes then I think we are doing very well.

4th mistake but I think it is only 1/3 of you making the mistake is to believe that the improvement of NBA players in areas other than 3 point shooting since the 1980s is a larger improvement then it really was. There has been a huge improvement in 3 point shooting. Some of the dribbling improvement is actually the legalization of traveling rather than a real dribbling improvement. In everything else the improvements since the 1980s have been small. Some things like low post back to the basket skills have actually gotten worse since the 1980s. I think some of the young people really want to believe in a mythical improvement so that they can feel like their favorites are the best there ever were. The league publicity also pushes the ide these are the best ever. Each generation always pushes the idea that these are the best ever. Your parents did have sex.

Damn, those are very specific categories lol

Why do you think we overate duncan? What makes you think duncan is overated?

I think most people here know bird played as a power forward and would do so today, but since he played with two bigs bigger than him he got designated a sf. Like duncan being a pf when he was for all intents and purposes a center jusr because he played with a bigger guy (robinson)

I am unfamiliar with bernard king and he has some impressivr scoring series against boston in 84 no doubt, what about the rest of his game?

[Narigo]

Danny green being better than Demar Derozan

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Where do you think the Majority of realgm members are making a mistake.
What has you scratching your head wonderring how everybody get's it wrong.

Overall I think realgm posters are pretty good, better than the hypothetical guys in the bar that I don't actually know because I don't go to bars. I say 1/4 of you are more knowledgeble than the average professional sports writer, 1/4 of you as good as the sports writer and 1/2 of you worse than the sports writers. Now 1/2 being worse than the sports writer is OK for a group that contains a lot of very young people when we are talking about knowledge of basketball history. Also I am not counting the sports writers annoying obvious clickbait hot takes where I am pretty sure that the sports writer just wants attention and is willing to make a fool out of himself to get attention. And yet I am counting realgmers when they are just trolling.


My top 3 consensus realgm mistakes where I think the Majority here are wrong
1 overrating Duncan
2 not knowing that Bird's natural position was power forward.
3 underrating Bernard King.

I can't think of a 4th mistake at this time. If the Majority are only making 3 mistakes then I think we are doing very well.

4th mistake but I think it is only 1/3 of you making the mistake is to believe that the improvement of NBA players in areas other than 3 point shooting since the 1980s is a larger improvement then it really was. There has been a huge improvement in 3 point shooting. Some of the dribbling improvement is actually the legalization of traveling rather than a real dribbling improvement. In everything else the improvements since the 1980s have been small. Some things like low post back to the basket skills have actually gotten worse since the 1980s. I think some of the young people really want to believe in a mythical improvement so that they can feel like their favorites are the best there ever were. The league publicity also pushes the ide these are the best ever. Each generation always pushes the idea that these are the best ever. Your parents did have sex.

Damn, those are very specific categories lol

Why do you think we overate duncan? What makes you think duncan is overated?

I think most people here know bird played as a power forward and would do so today, but since he played with two bigs bigger than him he got designated a sf. Like duncan being a pf when he was for all intents and purposes a center jusr because he played with a bigger guy (robinson)

I am unfamiliar with bernard king and he has some impressivr scoring series against boston in 84 no doubt, what about the rest of his game?

Bird gets listed as a small foward. I can't fault people for not realizing that the listing is wrong or for taking one look at McHale and knowing that McHale is not a small forward. But for example somebody recenty made thread about pree 2,000 team vs post 2,000 team and they put Bird at small forward playing with Karl Malone at power forward and then talk about how Bird can't guard LeBron. Early 1980s Celtics would have Maxwell on LeBron and Late 1980s Celtics would put McHale on LeBron. Bird will guard Donyell Marshal or Verajao or Chris Bosh or Tristan Thompson or whatever front court player is not LeBron or Anthony Davis. Bird woulddo fine on defense against any of those guys. Even if Bird had to guard Anthony Davis, Bird would be OK on Davis.

In a 7 game series McHale would bother LeBron for the first 3 games and then LeBron figure McHale out and go off on McHale for the last 4 games.

Tim Duncan, I Just think Duncan in the top 5 is crazy. I am not a longevity guy. I just think peak Hakeem and peak young pre-Duncan Robinson are better than peak Duncan on both offense and defense and Duncan's small advantage in passing is not that impressive to me. I also prefer Bird and Magic to Duncan. Also, Karrem, Wilt and Shaq. I understand that Shaq is toast if switched onto a small while Duncan has a chance of slowing down the small long enough for help to arrive. I think Shaq's possitives outweigh his weaknesses in a comparison to Duncan.

Then, Jordan and LeBron, so I have 9 guys that I am putting above Duncan but we have people claiming Duncan is the GOAT and the Majority are putting Duncan in their top 5. There is nobody else in the top 20 GOAt lists that is placing 4 spots higher on consensus GOAT lists than I think they belong.

Bernard King is different then Jordan and LeBron but also has similarities to them. Bernard often did not play defense but stars often don't play defense on horrible teams. Berard mostly played on horrible teams. His drug use did not help. One of 70sFan or Penbeast is unwilling to forgive Bernard King for his lack of defensive effort on bad teams and therefore won't rank Bernard King above Dantley, Marquess Johnson and Alex English. They all were playing at the same time. Dantly and English were probably better scorers than Carmelo Anthony and Marquess Johnson a better all arround player than Carmelo. To me Kings peak is super high and clearly above Dantley, English and Marquess Johnson and Carmelo.

The question was the peak too short? Another problem King has is that he came back from a castrophic injury that robbed him of his athletism that he needed to get quality shots but did not rob him of his shooting touch. So older King had a second career with the Washington Bullets that people can't get out of their heads. King was still a 20 point a game scorer with the Bullets but now in addition to not wanting to play defense he was also a cripple and could not play defense even if he wanted to. Sometimes forgetting something is not easy. To see the Bernard King that is like Jordan they must get Bullets version of King out of their minds. Also get the early Warriors version of King out of their minds. We only want mid season 1984 to mid season 1985 in our minds.

In 1984 playoffs when his team was mediocre but competitive thanks mainly to King's unstoppable scoring, King played OK defense despite having to carry the team on offense.

King was athletic enough to play good defense but he may have been a little inexperienced at trying to play good defense. He was no defensive genious like he was an offensive genius. He was only an avefage passe. I like that he was quick hitting on offense and did not burn shot clock or dominate the ball. His assists in 1984 look a little better when you realize that he did not have the ball that much for such a high scorer.

Look at the film. Look at the way he finishes. Broken play, no problem he still scorers. He got easy points but the hard points are impressive. Even his accuracy on the easy points is impressive. He just doesn't miss.

Add 1984 Bernard King to any of last year's 16 playoff teams and I think they become the championship favorite.

King was not as athletic as Jordan or LeBron but his finnishes were probably better than Jordan and LeBron. So take a little bit lessor version of of a cross between Jordan abd LeBron and then take the lesser Jordan/LeBron's shooting touch half way to Curry's shooting touch. You know how Curry can be driving away from the hoop on the baseline and then flip something in of the backboard with the perfect spin, better than LeBron or Jordan could do that. Give this Lesser version of LeBron Jordan some of that Curry shooting touch magic. Maybe some Bird or Nash ability to find the one hole between the defenders arms that a ball might be able to fit through on the way to the hoop.

The 1984 film is out there and impressive. Bernard King is fast but just a mortal on his way to the hoop but in the last foot before he shoots he becomes a god for a split second. Watch the finishes.

[homecourtloss]

Where do you think the Majority of realgm members are making a mistake.
What has you scratching your head wonderring how everybody get's it wrong.

Overall I think realgm posters are pretty good, better than the hypothetical guys in the bar that I don't actually know because I don't go to bars. I say 1/4 of you are more knowledgeble than the average professional sports writer, 1/4 of you as good as the sports writer and 1/2 of you worse than the sports writers. Now 1/2 being worse than the sports writer is OK for a group that contains a lot of very young people when we are talking about knowledge of basketball history. Also I am not counting the sports writers annoying obvious clickbait hot takes where I am pretty sure that the sports writer just wants attention and is willing to make a fool out of himself to get attention. And yet I am counting realgmers when they are just trolling.


My top 3 consensus realgm mistakes where I think the Majority here are wrong
1 overrating Duncan
2 not knowing that Bird's natural position was power forward.
3 underrating Bernard King.

I can't think of a 4th mistake at this time. If the Majority are only making 3 mistakes then I think we are doing very well.

4th mistake but I think it is only 1/3 of you making the mistake is to believe that the improvement of NBA players in areas other than 3 point shooting since the 1980s is a larger improvement then it really was. There has been a huge improvement in 3 point shooting. Some of the dribbling improvement is actually the legalization of traveling rather than a real dribbling improvement. In everything else the improvements since the 1980s have been small. Some things like low post back to the basket skills have actually gotten worse since the 1980s. I think some of the young people really want to believe in a mythical improvement so that they can feel like their favorites are the best there ever were. The league publicity also pushes the idea these are the best ever.

Each generation always pushes the idea that these are the best ever. . Music might have been better when the people making the music actually knew how to play instruments. Your parents did have sex

What is yor opinion about the 3 biggest mistakes that the majority on RealGM make?

I’d argue that Duncan is underrated by everyone else but correctly rated on RealGM PC board.

It’s weird that you’re advocating for King who was a very good scorer but didn’t do anything else, i.e., zero defense, marginal playmaking . Additionally, as efficient as his volume scoring was in New York, the Knicks had a below or way below average from 1983 to 1985 with King doing his King things.

Also, your opinion does not equal “consensus.”

[penbeast0]

... I am unfamiliar with bernard king and he has some impressivr scoring series against boston in 84 no doubt, what about the rest of his game?

No King was pretty much a pure scorer; didn't focus on defense, indifferent passer, average offensive rebounder, but really he was all about the scoring. He wasn't as efficient as Dantley (who also did nothing but scoring well), not as versatile as English, not as spectacular as Marques or Nique, though more efficient than Nique. He also came across as a me guy though I did see him do press and off court stuff more in Washington than New York; he was also a bit injury prone. Even in New York, he only averaged 67 games over his 3 full years there and had a 17 game year in Golden State before going to the Knicks.

But other than playing in New York, don't really see how he is better than prime Dantley as a scorer. He had one great playoff stretch in 84 (12 games over a career) and people remember him for that but let's look at his 3 years (plus 6 games) with the Knicks:

34.7 min, 5.2 reb, 2.8 ast, 26.5 pts, .591ts%. That's a truly great scorer and that's what people see in King.

Compare to Dantley's 7 season stretch in Utah with more than twice as many games played where he averaged:

38.8 min, 6.2 reb, 3.7 ast, 29.6 pts, .632 ts%. That's a clearly superior statistical player across the board.

Basically people that claim King was better are basically looking at the 12 playoff games in 84 and assuming that was what he was really like rather than he had a torrid hot streak at a key time.

[penbeast0]

The 3 things I see here frequently; all of which are minority opinions on this board but they crop up a lot:

(a) The 60s were a weak era. They were a top heavy era with 4 guys who were just head and shoulders above all their peers more than almost any other era in history (though there were other good players of course) and an era with relatively few teams until right at the end when expansion started diluting average talent . . . a trend that would accelerate into the 70s and 80s when there was expansion probably outpaced the growth in potential player pool making the 60s probably a more competitive era than the two that followed it (my opinion and one not widely share about the 80s).
(2) Offense matters more than defense and great scorers are much more important than being great at anything else.
(3) The key to the strength of the modern era is the magical power of the stretch offenses; I would argue that while that is important, the real key is the growth of international ball creating a much greater pool of potential players.

Again, these are my opinions, and I'm both a frequent poster and one that's been around a long time so you have probably read them here often. There are also other posters that agree with me (or that I agree with because they taught me about these things) and that post here regularly so these "consensus mistakes" aren't really consensus but rather just common strands of the conversation we have on this board.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

... I am unfamiliar with bernard king and he has some impressivr scoring series against boston in 84 no doubt, what about the rest of his game?

No King was pretty much a pure scorer; didn't focus on defense, indifferent passer, average offensive rebounder, but really he was all about the scoring. He wasn't as efficient as Dantley (who also did nothing but scoring well), not as versatile as English, not as spectacular as Marques or Nique, though more efficient than Nique. He also came across as a me guy though I did see him do press and off court stuff more in Washington than New York; he was also a bit injury prone. Even in New York, he only averaged 67 games over his 3 full years there and had a 17 game year in Golden State before going to the Knicks.

But other than playing in New York, don't really see how he is better than prime Dantley as a scorer. He had one great playoff stretch in 84 (12 games over a career) and people remember him for that but let's look at his 3 years (plus 6 games) with the Knicks:

34.7 min, 5.2 reb, 2.8 ast, 26.5 pts, .591ts%. That's a truly great scorer and that's what people see in King.

Compare to Dantley's 7 season stretch in Utah with more than twice as many games played where he averaged:

38.8 min, 6.2 reb, 3.7 ast, 29.6 pts, .632 ts%. That's a clearly superior statistical player across the board.

Basically people that claim King was better are basically looking at the 12 playoff games in 84 and assuming that was what he was really like rather than he had a torrid hot streak at a key time.

What would King have been if he and the other Knicks did not get injured in 85.
The Knicks team got wiped out by injury in 1984-1985 season not just King.

Hakeem in the late 1980s elevated his game statistically in evrery one and done playoff series after less impressive regular seasons. Could Bernard King have done that? We will never know because of that injury that took away his athleticism. Wasid it a torrid hot streak for 12 games or was it the new baseline for King? King was still on fire for the gutted Knicks team during the 1984-85 regular season prior to his injury. Considdering that defenses could focus on King the King regular season in 1984-85 was pretty impressive but perhaps the Knicks were so bad that opposing teams did not need to play defense until the 4th quarter which coukd have inflated King's numbers.

Knicks lost 3 starter and their 7th man from their 84 playoff team without real replacements. Now maybe losing drigged up Ray Williams was addition by subtraction because Ray Williams had been shooting the Knicks out of many games. Sure was a talented guy and I am not sure how cocaine addiction ruins a shooting stroke but it seemed to ruin Ray Williams shooting stroke. Cocaine addiction did not seem to ruin Williams ability to steel the ball or his ability to pass the ball.

[penbeast0]

If you looked at every player in the history of the NBA that had already played 5 years in the league, you won't see that level of improvement from very many. Nor does King have a history, outside of that one 12 game stretch, of elevating his game in the playoffs. Hakeem, Havlicek, a few others moved to a new level, but a much larger percentage will actually deteriorate at that point. I think regression to the mean is the norm and King hadn't changed his game or developed any new skills so I would take him to be an unlikely candidate to be the exception.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

If you looked at every player in the history of the NBA that had already played 5 years in the league, you won't see that level of improvement from very many. Nor does King have a history, outside of that one 12 game stretch, of elevating his game in the playoffs. Hakeem, Havlicek, a few others moved to a new level, but a much larger percentage will actually deteriorate at that point. I think regression to the mean is the norm and King hadn't changed his game or developed any new skills so I would take him to be an unlikely candidate to be the exception.

Nash is one. To a lessor degree McHale as a scorer. I think there a bunch of other late bloomers that I am forgetting.
Havlicek in terms of shooting percentage but the whole league was improving their shooting percentage at that for some mysterious reaaon like perhaps they were finally being paid enough to bother with practing shooting.

Steph Curry had a big late improvement. Steph's ankles stopped being a problem. Maybe Bernard King's drug use stopped being a problem.

It may not mean anything but King elevated his scoring in 1981 playoffs from the regular season.
King elevated his regular season scoring from 21 points per game in 1982-83 to 26 points per game in in 1983-84 to 32 points a game on the depleted 1984-85 Knicks but his 1984-85 shooting percentage went down. Then he lost 2 years to injury.
I would not rule out Bernard being close to his 1984 playoff level of play for a few years if he had not had that injury. King was going to need some decent teammates if he was ever going to repeat his 1984 playoffs TS% 62% shooting percentage. Even in 1984 his teammates were a little worse than mediocre offensively but they were good on defense.

[henshao]

I don't know if it's an "everybody's wrong" kind of thing but good golly some players got lucky compared to others in terms of the talent they played with in their careers and I don't know how much we really discuss it. Shaq comes into the league with Penny, then goes to play with Kobe, then goes to play with Wade. Duncan comes into the league with Robinson, then gets Ginobili and Parker, then later on Kawhi. Kareem comes into the league with Oscar and Dandridge, then gets Magic and the showtime Lakers. Now I'm not taking anything away from such guys, because iron sharpens iron, but damn. Like how poorly could for instance KG really have done with such fortune? Or Hakeem? Ewing? And the other edge of the sword...Barkley

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Bernard King 1984 playoffs 12 games. Took the Champion cetics to 7 games with below average teamates.
34 pointsper game at TS% 62 over 12 games.
Up their with Jordan and LeBron but below Wilt for a playoff season.


Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

;ebc=ANyPxKrlf6YumoXlaQXE9GgDbpYZf0hIhY82hUtbj6p4RiRi3zuW_suWAbCjJTvtWI5dVMvzJnp37kIhrytri4bEBkHZ4grZ1w&feature=emb_imp_woyt

He became the first player to average at least 27 PPG/75 possessions on 62% TS in a season, and until 2008, only Adrian Dantley and Karl Malone could join him.

From an all-time perspective, King ranks 18th for most PPG in a postseason, and 3rd among players with at least 62% TS

[70sFan]

To prove that these are mistakes, it would be nice to show the argumentation why they are mistakes.

We all are well aware of King's scoring ability, but he did little else on the court and there were better scorers in history than him.

Basically nobody cares about positions on PC Board. Sometimes, people call Bird a SF due to lazyness, but nobody build his Bird evaluation about him being a SF.

With Duncan... well, let's just say that we have better arguments than your eye-test.

[70sFan]

He became the first player to average at least 27 PPG/75 possessions on 62% TS in a season, and until 2008, only Adrian Dantley and Karl Malone could join him.

Actually, King never averaged 62 TS% in a season. Dantley was the first one who did that in 1984 in a full season, unlike King.

[Dutchball97]

Obviously these are all going to be subjective but it's not a bad thing for people to have a few takes where they deviate from the majority. We're not a hivemind after all.

Three things I find myself diagreeing with most often are:

1 - Too much emphasis on the regular season:
This is mostly about KG, Robinson, Oscar and Nash. I find myself being consistently lower on players with all-time impact in the regular season that can't quite keep up that level in the post-season. Sometimes it seems to me people would rather have a +10 in the regular season and +6 in the play-offs than a +8 in both.

2 - Longevity getting priority over prime:
It's understandable that you have to draw the line somewhere but to me longevity mainly comes into play with players of a similar level. If you're MVP/All-NBA 1st team level for a couple seasons, I think that's more valuable than having 15 seasons of fringe All-NBA play. A good example would be that I have Kawhi significantly higher than guys like Pau Gasol and Paul Pierce but not everyone seems to agree with that.

3 - Because bigs used to be the alpha and omega for NBA teams, they'll always be:
Perimeter players have been getting more and more agency the longer the NBA exists but I think some people might be overlooking this. It's not nearly as big of a pet peeve as the first two points but it's nontheless something I seem to be in the minority for. Especially defensively bigs used to be able to carry their team, while now they can't do it all without good perimeter defenders anymore. When a multiple time DPOY like Gobert gets played off the floor in the play-offs because his perimeter players didn't even bother trying to defend shows the impact a big can have on the game is significantly less now than in the 60s or even the 90s.

I wouldt call any of these mistakes though as these takes are just as valid as my own, I'm just not on the same page as most on these points.

[Jaivl]

2 - Longevity getting priority over prime:
It's understandable that you have to draw the line somewhere but to me longevity mainly comes into play with players of a similar level. If you're MVP/All-NBA 1st team level for a couple seasons, I think that's more valuable than having 15 seasons of fringe All-NBA play. A good example would be that I have Kawhi significantly higher than guys like Pau Gasol and Paul Pierce but not everyone seems to agree with that.

I mean, without even getting over why that's pretty much objectively irrational, it still sounds pretty weird. You don't have Penny Hardaway over John Stockton on your GOAT list, or do you?

Kawhi has much more than a couple seasons at All-NBA 1st level play, and Gasol/Pierce don't even come close to 15 seasons of fringe All-NBA play.

[AEnigma]

1 - Too much emphasis on the regular season:
This is mostly about KG, Robinson, Oscar and Nash. I find myself being consistently lower on players with all-time impact in the regular season that can't quite keep up that level in the post-season. Sometimes it seems to me people would rather have a +10 in the regular season and +6 in the play-offs than a +8 in both.

How are Oscar and Nash notably failing to maintain their level in the postseason?

Especially defensively bigs used to be able to carry their team, while now they can't do it all without good perimeter defenders anymore.

Who was doing this? What elite defensive big carried a postseason defence with comparably bad perimetre defence as what the Jazz have been providing?

[Dr Positivity]

- Overvaluing raw +/-

- Using a team's point differential when someone is injured as a reflection of that player (kind of the same thing as the first) - the height of this being citing the absurdly flawed ElGee WOWY stat that not just goes all in on this method, but is then adjusted by him subjectively hand picking which injuries to teammates are important enough to not use those games in the sample.

- Acting like basketball is like football in terms of offense and defense being separate instead of each end being fluidly connected

[70sFan]

1 - Too much emphasis on the regular season:
This is mostly about KG, Robinson, Oscar and Nash. I find myself being consistently lower on players with all-time impact in the regular season that can't quite keep up that level in the post-season. Sometimes it seems to me people would rather have a +10 in the regular season and +6 in the play-offs than a +8 in both.

How are Oscar and Nash notably failing to maintain their level in the postseason?

That's my first thought as well. Oscar and Nash certainly didn't fail to maintain their RS level in the playoffs. These two examples are basically equal to "players who didn't win a ring as the best player" to me.

Especially defensively bigs used to be able to carry their team, while now they can't do it all without good perimeter defenders anymore.

Who was doing this? What elite defensive big carried a postseason defence with comparably bad perimetre defence as what the Jazz have been providing?

Yeah, that's also quite strange. Great defenders can't carry a good defense surrounded by horrible perimeter defense. The same is true for offensive players by the way.

I guess Mutombo in Denver was the closest to that?

[falcolombardi]

I don't know if it's an "everybody's wrong" kind of thing but good golly some players got lucky compared to others in terms of the talent they played with in their careers and I don't know how much we really discuss it. Shaq comes into the league with Penny, then goes to play with Kobe, then goes to play with Wade. Duncan comes into the league with Robinson, then gets Ginobili and Parker, then later on Kawhi. Kareem comes into the league with Oscar and Dandridge, then gets Magic and the showtime Lakers. Now I'm not taking anything away from such guys, because iron sharpens iron, but damn. Like how poorly could for instance KG really have done with such fortune? Or Hakeem? Ewing? And the other edge of the sword...Barkley

Duncan benefitted from having robinson, ginobili, parker and kawhi but you should mention the nadir point between robinson decline and before ginobili rise where duncan won a ring for the spurs with relatively low talent (2003)

Kareem definetely benefitted from a great team at the start of his career and his post prime years. But you should mention oscar aging and weaker lakers teammates later. By 74 oscar was past his prime by far and from 75-79 kareem talent was wasted on mediocre rosters