Your unpopular takes? (PC Board Edition)

[OhayoKD]

Had to scroll to find where this duncan discussion originated. We should be able to apply context (especially on this board) to duncan being in a great situation for his entire career. That A) doesn't make his longeivty overrated and B) that "great situation" was a 2 way street. His temperment, skillset and ability to play that long was as integral as the surrounding support he had.

I agree with all of this though I do think Pop is generally underrated when it comes to all of that as are coaches in general on here. I think individuals can win rings but when you have a team that is great for a space of 5-10 or even 20 years its a huge reflection on the franchise as a whole. Meaning ownership, front office, coaches and players all being on the same page and doing what it takes to win. Duncan was a great individual talent on a great franchise for almost his entire career. Same as it worked out for Russell getting to play under Red.

Not really the "same" considering Boston's most impressive campaign came with Russell, not red, as the coach

[Cavsfansince84]

Not really the "same" considering Boston's most impressive campaign came with Russell, not red, as the coach

I think its subjective which would be the most impressive and even then it was using players Red had acquired and for the most part coached for years. I give Russell a lot of credit for being able to be a player/coach but idk if he could have succeeded as a hc beyond that had he wanted to and of course he did try to with Seattle and had mediocre results with a team that did much better after he left but I don't think coaching was really in his blood.

[iggymcfrack]

Parker was at 104 TS+ and 2.3% ABOVE league-average TS that year, though... He was not "woefully inefficient" by any stretch of the imagination. He was shooting a shade over 50% from inside the arc and was, for the era, a sufficiently competent 3pt threat (particularly since his attempts didn't feature a huge proportion of corner shots). Not sure what you're on about with this one.

Bowen shot 44% from 3 that season and the Spurs as a whole led the league in 2FG% en route to the 7th-best O in the league...

Well Parker had a TS% of .468 and a BPM of -2.4 over 24 playoff games that year where he played the second most minutes and was the second leading scorer.

Can't ignore the regular season, man. You can't dismiss a dude broadly who contributed for 82 games against the PS sample. Particularly since he was a big performer when he wasnt in his second season.

It's true that Parker struggled come the playoffs but his RS performance still matters.

If the point is that “Duncan can carry a garbage supporting cast” and his #2 played like garbage through the playoffs over a 24 game sample and Duncan still beat prime Shaq and Kobe to win a ring, I think my point is made.

[tsherkin]

If the point is that “Duncan can carry a garbage supporting cast” and his #2 played like garbage through the playoffs over a 24 game sample and Duncan still beat prime Shaq and Kobe to win a ring, I think my point is made.

Mmmm. But even that misses some context, because that edition of Shaq and Kobe wasn't operating at peak efficacy. And in that particular series, Manu played very well, D-Rob was very useful (as he was the whole postseason), Bowen shot the lights out (as he did all postseason), Speedy Claxton was effective off the bench and the team was good defensively, not just Duncan. So it's not really the whole picture to say "Parker shot poorly in the playoffs, so Duncan lifted a crap cast." San Antonio shot over 47% from 3 on around 6 attempts per game in that series.

Duncan certainly didn't benefit from a major offensive star alongside of him in that postseason run, but there's a lot of hyperbole over 2003 that mostly overlooks everything else the cast did. And again, Bruce Bowen in particular. Surely, Parker and Manu got better in later years and Duncan was amazing, but there's something to be said for what they did bring, particularly in-era.

[ShaqAttac]

steph way better at middies than kd is at trips and > at ft's too

I think you underestimate the difference in their mid-range shooting. From 17-23, Durant has taken fully 41% of his shots (or almost 7.4 per game) from 10-23 feet, shooting 52.0% from 10-16 and 53.1% from 16-23. That's... absurd.

Steph over the same time frame has taken about 15% of his shots (or just under 3 per game, shooting 49.8% and 47.1% from 10-16 and 16-23 respectively. Add to that Durant shooting a shade over 39% from 3 and over 89% from the FT line during this time frame while generating more FTA/g than Steph and you don't really have an argument about Steph's FT shooting being relevant.

Yes, Steph is the ultimate 3pt shooter in terms of range, volume and raw percentage. He's the best 3pt shooter we've ever seen, to an outlier degree and he's better at that than Durant. But KD leverages the mid-range very, very effectively and he's noticeably better at it on more than double Steph's volume... and that's not considering 3-10 feet, where he takes another 12.5% of his shots at 52.7% FG compared to Steph taking 11.5% (quite similar) and shooting 50.6%. So again, another evident advantage for Durant over a large block of time.

I'm not saying that that you can't make a good pro-Steph argument, I'm saying your incredulity over the idea that the comparison should be made is misplaced. There's a very good pro-KD argument in terms of total shooting ability. Whether that's enough that lots of people will accept it or not is another story, because Steph's 3pt shooting is wild stuff, to be sure. But there's no sense wailing at the basic premise that someone drew the comparison and has the dissenting opinion, because Durant is better at shooting from everywhere under the arc and that does matter to some extent.

is kd closah to steph as a 3-pt shooter than steph is to kd as a middy merchant?

[tsherkin]

is kd closah to steph as a 3-pt shooter than steph is to kd as a middy merchant?

Yes.

[Owly]

steph way better at middies than kd is at trips and > at ft's too

I think you underestimate the difference in their mid-range shooting. From 17-23, Durant has taken fully 41% of his shots (or almost 7.4 per game) from 10-23 feet, shooting 52.0% from 10-16 and 53.1% from 16-23. That's... absurd.

Steph over the same time frame has taken about 15% of his shots (or just under 3 per game, shooting 49.8% and 47.1% from 10-16 and 16-23 respectively. Add to that Durant shooting a shade over 39% from 3 and over 89% from the FT line during this time frame while generating more FTA/g than Steph and you don't really have an argument about Steph's FT shooting being relevant.

Yes, Steph is the ultimate 3pt shooter in terms of range, volume and raw percentage. He's the best 3pt shooter we've ever seen, to an outlier degree and he's better at that than Durant. But KD leverages the mid-range very, very effectively and he's noticeably better at it on more than double Steph's volume... and that's not considering 3-10 feet, where he takes another 12.5% of his shots at 52.7% FG compared to Steph taking 11.5% (quite similar) and shooting 50.6%. So again, another evident advantage for Durant over a large block of time.

I'm not saying that that you can't make a good pro-Steph argument, I'm saying your incredulity over the idea that the comparison should be made is misplaced. There's a very good pro-KD argument in terms of total shooting ability. Whether that's enough that lots of people will accept it or not is another story, because Steph's 3pt shooting is wild stuff, to be sure. But there's no sense wailing at the basic premise that someone drew the comparison and has the dissenting opinion, because Durant is better at shooting from everywhere under the arc and that does matter to some extent.

is kd closah to steph as a 3-pt shooter than steph is to kd as a middy merchant?

Maybe this is oversimplified but career-wise ...

Steph is better at the line ...
Steph is better from three ...
and
Steph is better from 16ft to 3pt.

And if one were to kick out Durant's first two years so it's an identical timeframe (and doing Durant a favor) it's more or less still true (16ft to to 3pt now a tie to 3dp per Reference).

Then throw in Steph's average shot distance is further out.
and
Durant got to play with Curry who is a great playmaker and whose offball movement and shooting threat means huge gravity ... that works both ways but given what's highlighted, it would seem Durant is getting the better boost.

Durant of course has a substantial advantage in terms of free throw draw within the more general remit of scoring game that might make him the more efficient scorer overall.

A list of shooters will always depend on what you mean by it ... for instance I think Ben Taylor's list skewed towards 3pters (exemplified for instance where Dirk fell) and seemed, at a glance, to not weight creation a great deal beyond a minimum threshold to qualify (which cut out Novak, Morrow) and Durant's last couple of seasons push him up the rankings on long-midrange but I'm struggling to see the shooting case for Durant here, though perhaps I'm missing something (playoffs seem to follow similar trends, KD opens up a small 16 to 3pt advantage - and in the last couple of years has opened up an advantage in the shorter midrange (10-16ft) though even here we're starting to skew pro-bigger guys who can more easily get shots off at this range). Per above it depends what one means and Durant has made progress on shooting leaderboards lately.

[IdolW0rm]

McGrady is the most talented wing player ever.
McMillan was a better defender than GP.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Kobe top 5 lol

[rk2023]

is kd closah to steph as a 3-pt shooter than steph is to kd as a middy merchant?

Yes.

I might be in agreeament with Shaqattac here (atl I think what he's alluding to wiith the original got take). I think a good way to answer / frame this is which one is more 'outlier-ish', as they're 99.9th or higher percentile in each given aspect. Steph is the GOAT 3-P shooter bar none. Durant is arguably the GOAT MR guy (excluding West bc we don't have tracking, I take Dirk and Jordan myself). But (say) in terms of how much they disperse from the median point or by standard deviation, who separates themselves from the pack more? that's what I think is the best assessment to this topic.

[iggymcfrack]

Here’s a hot take that’s an unpopular opinion. I feel like for the playoffs, Tim Duncan was better than Larry Bird purely as an offensive player even if you don’t account for defense at all. His ‘03 and ‘06 blow away any Bird playoffs and he never had a bad playoffs until about the age Bird was washed while Bird absolutely had choky playoffs in his prime.

[tsherkin]

I might be in agreeament with Shaqattac here (atl I think what he's alluding to wiith the original got take). I think a good way to answer / frame this is which one is more 'outlier-ish', as they're 99.9th or higher percentile in each given aspect. Steph is the GOAT 3-P shooter bar none. Durant is arguably the GOAT MR guy (excluding West bc we don't have tracking, I take Dirk and Jordan myself). But (say) in terms of how much they disperse from the median point or by standard deviation, who separates themselves from the pack more? that's what I think is the best assessment to this topic.

I'm not direly invested in the idea that Durant is a better overall shooter. I'm just working against the idea that one can't even have the discussion. I object to the idea that there isn't space to MAKE the pro-KD argument in that context, which is his position. Steph is clearly the GOAT 3pt shooter, but it's a little different below the arc, and volume matters for middies and FTs. Ultimately, it's probably Steph, but Durant is a ridiculous enough shooter that not considering the conversation possible is mostly non-sensical to me.

[70sFan]

Here’s a hot take that’s an unpopular opinion. I feel like for the playoffs, Tim Duncan was better than Larry Bird purely as an offensive player even if you don’t account for defense at all. His ‘03 and ‘06 blow away any Bird playoffs and he never had a bad playoffs until about the age Bird was washed while Bird absolutely had choky playoffs in his prime.

As the biggest Duncan fan on this board, I just can't see that. Scoring numbers aren't everything unfortunately.

[homecourtloss]

McMillan was a better defender than GP.

Though this make sense from the standpoint of NBA narratives, e.g., “The Glove,” etc., all the data that we have suggests heavily that not only McMillan was a much more impactful defender than Payton, but also one of the most impactful non-big defenders ever.

[Colbinii]

The Warriors should be clear favorites this year.

I don't see how they aren't better than last year--they added DDV, Kuminga + Moody are a year further in development, Klay has returned to form pre-injury [offensively].

[tsherkin]

The Warriors should be clear favorites this year.

I don't see how they aren't better than last year--they added DDV, Kuminga + Moody are a year further in development, Klay has returned to form pre-injury [offensively].

They should be clear favorites,but they haven't been playing like it, so they aren't considered that way. Their defense dropped off of a relative cliff.

[AEnigma]

The Warriors should be clear favorites this year.

I don't see how they aren't better than last year--they added DDV, Kuminga + Moody are a year further in development, Klay has returned to form pre-injury [offensively].

They have been my western pick pretty much all year (fully healthy Memphis had my attention, but that is a moot idea now); however, I think the healthy Bucks are better (unsure about Middleton on that front) and that the Celtics should have beat them last year with better coaching, so I would still side with the east winner.

[iggymcfrack]

The Warriors should be clear favorites this year.

I don't see how they aren't better than last year--they added DDV, Kuminga + Moody are a year further in development, Klay has returned to form pre-injury [offensively].

This isn’t a young team where “another year” is a good thing. Steph, Dray, and Klay are all a year older and it’s hard for an older team to get through the grind of a long postseason 2 years in a row. Wiggins isn’t in game shape. Payton’s not 100%. Porter’s gone which makes up for DiVincenzo. Moody’s not even gonna be in the playoff rotation so that doesn’t really matter much. Basically you have negatives all over the roster and a plus of “Kuminga improved”.

[iggymcfrack]

Here’s a take I 100% believe:

If all the favorites in the East win in the first round, the Cavs have a better chance to upset the Bucks than the Sixers have of upsetting the Celtics. Celtics and Cavs have the 2 best point differentials in the league and if anyone has question marks about their ability to get it done in the playoffs, it’s Embiid and Harden. I just don’t buy that Milwaukee’s better than Boston or that Philly’s better than Cleveland.

[Colbinii]

Here’s a take I 100% believe:

If all the favorites in the East win in the first round, the Cavs have a better chance to upset the Bucks than the Sixers have of upsetting the Celtics. Celtics and Cavs have the 2 best point differentials in the league and if anyone has question marks about their ability to get it done in the playoffs, it’s Embiid and Harden. I just don’t buy that Milwaukee’s better than Boston or that Philly’s better than Cleveland.

The Cavaliers players have far more question marks of getting it done in the post-season than Harden and Embiid