Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[Jim Naismith]

Basketball players are not a totally ordered set:

Sometimes:

1) Player A > Player B, Player B > Player C, and Player C > Player A

2) Neither Player X > Player Y nor Player Y > Player X holds

[JLei]

I have quite a few, but the ones I took by far the most flak for this season:

1. Kawhi is a top 6 player in the league right now and has league MVP-potential
2. Draymond Green is better than any PF not named Davis and ranks probably in the top 10 league-wide
3. Subjective evaluations (the eye test) are far more important and useful than any stat we've ever used. The problem is that most just aren't good at it for a variety of reasons, most of the time because they see what they want to see or simply don't know what to look for.

I'm in the same boat for the most part (maybe top 7 for KL since I think KD will be heathy again this year).

Point (3) is huge for me. I think a lot on this board, the "eye test" is unfortunately claimed as the evidence fueling one's biases. But for the most part, if someone is asked why his/her eye test tells something, and is asked to elaborate in detail, the argument will fall apart. So I think it's chiefly used as a cop-out.

If posters on the other hand can identify specifically what they are looking for from watching tape, and can actually break down (qualitatively and/or quantitatively) what they see and do/don't like from a player, I agree that's more valuable than any data we have or probably will have in the near future.

Who are you leaving out of Bron, Curry, AD, Harden, Westbrook, Paul and KD to have Kawhi top 7? I have Kawhi 8 or 9 depending on how I feel about Blake who I have quite a high regard for.

I'm big on number 3 as well. However it depends on who's eyes. Most fans are not knowledgeable enough about basketball to really understand what is going on in a game. Someone like Zach Lowe who while uses analytics most of his articles are breaking down film and dissecting plays and big picture stuff at a strategic level. This person's eyes I trust over statistics almost every time. Most fans here sorry to say just don't analyze basketball at that level and even miss the basic stuff that permeates the game. Pick and Roll coverages on both O and D/ HORNS/ Floppy action. Very few people in real life and on this message board can identify while the play is going on (or even in replay) what set any team is running.

Why was this guy wide open? Was it because his guy got pasted on a screen or because they can't help off of this guy and he made a smart read to go to this area? Why did this guy slide over? And why was it a dumbass play to cut vs. clear out? People don't ask the questions in general. Understanding why a guys performance is the way it is by watching the game and trying to understand his role and context is much more important than the numbers/ individual game. 15 Lebron is so misunderstood on this board it drives me crazy. Same with Draymond even though I'm not all the way there on him. I see some exploitable stuff in his game that teams could adjust to and the fact that he is in absolutely the perfect conditions to succeed while acknowledging he had tremendous impact last season. The other one is people not all the way in on Steph Curry and why he almost breaks modern basketball.

[The-Power]

If posters on the other hand can identify specifically what they are looking for from watching tape, and can actually break down (qualitatively and/or quantitatively) what they see and do/don't like from a player, I agree that's more valuable than any data we have or probably will have in the near future.

I tend to agree here, but it's more of an issue for earlier NBA seasons because of the lack of data to me. With the new stats we have, be it based on plus-minus or the new stats the NBA gathers (shot-types and/or play-types in 2015, hustle-stats in 2016, hopefully reliable and accessible gravity-data soon), it's much easier to elaborate on a player without even watching him - and that's no endorsement for not watching players anymore of course, I'm overdrawing here - as long as one understands the data, i.e. what it's made for, how it's created and what are the deficiencies; knows how to combine different data logically and knows what to look for when evaluating certain players.

However, to me the best approach to evaluate a player is to go by observations and logical conclusions substantiating it by appropriately applied empirical evidence. This is necessary to make the whole reasoning as objective and unbiased as possible and also to provide proof (if one wants to use this expression here) - it can also lead to change in one's view of what was initially believed to be true by pure observation because nobody's immune to being fooled by his/her eyes. To be informative and respected, however, it's necessary to try to figure out what makes a player impactful and provide explanation first. It's only natural to not trust other people's eyes when you don't know how much knowledge these people have, what they value and which agenda they possibly follow. Not until people earned my trust in their judgement I tend to put much stock into their observations and in order to do so they need to convince me with rational reasoning which includes the application of empirical evidence.

The biggest problem for me is to evaluate players from the '60s, '70s and even '80s from whom I see only limited footage and for whom we don't have the reliable and broad data of today. In this case, I only care what users who convince with what they wrote have to say and unfortunately there are not many - and understandably so, since most of us face the same problem and it's not like extremely thoughtful and knowledgeable basketball-minds are a dime a dozen anyway. But those who know what to look for and watch tons of film on top can argue without using much data and I tend to trust them, although not blindly, regardless. Especially in this case I love me some good eyes of others.

[Jim Naismith]

2015 LeBron > 2015 Curry

[acrossthecourt]

I'm not really a stats person...but when i do i generally subtract a bit of weight in using the TS% of current perimeter players when comparing from previous era's. It favors todays perimeter players too much in comparison to yesteryears (more FT taken, easier driving lanes, greater 3pt shots)

This sounds like someone has a bias against the modern era and maybe doesn't even watch or pay attention to the games.

How are there more free throws taken?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

The last four years have been a drought in terms of free throws per field goals. And go look at Jerry West's stats. He was a free throw machine.

Oh, and one more - I'd take Billups over Isiah. Comparable team success, clearly better advanced numbers, more portable.

I could agree with that.

- Playoffs are generally overvalued.
- 1995 Rockets are the worse title team since 1980 and had massive structural flaws. There playoff run to me is no different than that massive Hawks winning streak: a bunch of guys playing over their heads for a month and a half.
- 2009 and 2010 Magic were legitimate title contenders and are underappreciated because of Howard's behavior the last few years along with people reading too much into the 2010 ECF.
- The two best Spurs title teams (05 and 14) were as good or better than the best Showtime title team.
- Hakeem is closer to being out of the top 10 than a legitimate GOAT level player.
- Playoff on/off is of negligible value.

I agree with these. I have no idea why people think the 1995 Rockets were one of the best title teams. I've heard people say that before. It's bizarre. By any reasonable standard they're a weak champion.

KG over Kobe and Kobe/Dirk about equal (Bryant getting only a slight edge), is a pretty unpopular opinion, I guess. Maybe not so much on the PC board, but outside of it, most people would think I'm insane if I told them that

Peak Wade/Dr. J over peak Bird/Magic (that's an idea I'm toying with right now) would be another.

Also, Oscar was IMO probably just as good as Magic and Bird, he just wasn't nearly as lucky as they were in terms of team situation, and doesn't have nearly as much team success, but individually, I think he's about as good as they were (I currently have them 9th, 10th and 11th on my all-time list).

Dr. J over Magic/Bird IMO makes sense, too (because of his great longevity, and arguably higher peak - I certainly don't dismiss the ABA or think that it was a "joke" league, like some people do, and I think his finals performance against Denver in the '76 finals was on par with the first three-peat MJ and three-peat Shaq, it was absolutely GOAT level).

I would strongly consider putting Gilmore over Ewing, too (better longevity, more consistent playoff performer).

Oh, and as far as Jordan's peak - if I had to choose a year other than '91, I'd probably go with '88 or '89 (because of insane boxscore and motor, two-way play). Granted, me and you have a different approach to analyzing basketball, I tend to take boxscore into account pretty heavily. 1990 would be ahead of '92 for me, as well. I'd probably go with '93 over '92, as well.
That's similar to '09 vs '12/'13 LeBron.

I agree more with you than should be allowed. Oscar had a Garnett like career of being on the wrong team for a while and then creating a superteam as his prime faded.

I disagree with Jordan because I've been looking at Magic again and I think his 1990 and 1991 seasons are undervalued. That's post-Kareem, his team wasn't stacked at all, he didn't have a ton of high level help, and yet they were still great teams while Magic is doing just about everything on offense, including hitting three-pointers.

And I agree strongly with the "playoffs are overvalued" argument. That's not to say the regular season is more valuable, exactly. It's just that people throw out entire seasons because of 5-10 game sets in the playoffs, and that's just ridiculous. From what I've seen of all the smartest people in the NBA ... no one judges players like that, pinning everything on a playoff series or two. It makes no sense. (Not to mention from a predictive point of the view that's like driving in reverse.)


One of my most unpopular opinions was that Draymond > Klay and that Wes Matthews = Klay, but given what happened in the playoffs and to Portland that's not completely crazy anymore.

[whitehops]

i think the way the majority of fans view, evaluate and compare players just doesn't make sense. talking "peak player x" vs. "player y in year z" like they're trading cards or something.

[Clyde Frazier]

One of my most unpopular opinions was that Draymond > Klay and that Wes Matthews = Klay, but given what happened in the playoffs and to Portland that's not completely crazy anymore.

Heh, this is something (in bold) I had been pushing since before last season. I really hope wes comes back fully healthy this season, because I think he’ll be even better as a slightly higher usage player.

[ceiling raiser]

jlei- Probably would go with KL over WB (high on his offense but last year defense was an issue and I think I value PG D more than most) and BG (I think a give a lot more credit to CP3 than most for the offense). There was a big discussion over it in the POY thread though so no need to revisit it. I'm going to watch all three players closely next year to see how comfortable I am maintaining that stance.

Great posts by you and The-Power overall. Thread has been really fun so far, hope we can keep it going for awhile.

[The-Power]

One of my most unpopular opinions was that Draymond > Klay and that Wes Matthews = Klay, but given what happened in the playoffs and to Portland that's not completely crazy anymore.

I agree wholeheartedly with this and it became more popular among Warriors' fans recently, although there are still some people who don't even think it's close and that Klay is way superior to Green (mainly because he can score, quite frankly). Most fans consider it to be close I'd say, while I - and a few others - have Green ahead in terms of impact and importance by a solid margin. I still believe that Klay is the third most important player on the team and an all-star level player (or slightly below in the West), though.

Bottom line: at least the first part isn't really that unpopular anymore. I'm glad Green finally gets the love he deserves from more and more fans and also from some respected analysts (both here on the board and those working for the media like Lowe IIRC).

[Clyde Frazier]

RS play has taken a hit through out the years , Take curry for example he played his 3rd lowest minutes in season in his whole career at 2613. Thats 233 minutes less than the year before. Yet this did not affect his MVP chances. He only avg 32.3 MP this past season. Overall RS will look less impressive unless the NBA changes the amount of games played.

Except curry had a better season in 14-15 than 13-14 by plenty of metrics: TS%, eFG%, ORTG, WS, WS/48, OBPM and VORP

This all came at about the same usage, too.

[Purch]

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

Hmm...

There is something to the Playoffs though, just like there is something to the regular season games, compared to practice.

For instance, Howard is able to hit 1252 free throws out of 1532 during practice, 82%.

Spoiler:

This % plummets in real games. Obviously, there is something mental here. There is something in RS that doesn't allow him to hit free throws as well as he does during practice.

My point is, yes, the more games the better sample size, I agree with that, but Playoff games are not the same as RS games. There is more pressure.

I wouldn't change my mind on a players basketball ability if he plays worse in PO's compared to RS, but I would question his mental toughness who makes him play worse (could be that and/or could be that he plays against tougher teams compared to RS, there is that possibility as wel, as you pointed it out).

Firstly this assumes playoffs is to RS as RS is to practice. Which it isn't.

Free throws in particular are a dubious example. Free throws in practice are take within a consistent routine with immediate feedback. People have made thousands of free throws in a row. They do not do so in game situations as such players (a) are not in a routine, (b) are likely more fatigued and (c) have probably just been fouled. Further free throws are an aspect of the game uniquely vulnerable to psychological influence (due to the individual nature and the amount of time available).

Whether or not Dwight's practice FT% was legit, the two relationships are not analogous.

I'm with Q; RS is a way, way larger sample. If I saw evidence that playoff performance variations, on the whole were more than you'd expect by luck (accounting for the change in circumstance), I might be more persuaded. My other problem is some of the people who are into playoff performance, are so, selectively and/or unsystematically.

Another example to illustrate the discrepancies in regular season play and playoff play is as follows. Let's say that there is a player, R, who plays at a level 98 (on a scale of 1 to 100) against bad teams, 90 against good teams, and 84 against great teams. Another player, P, plays at a level of 91 against bad teams, 91 against good teams, and 89 against great teams. On average, it is conceivable that player R has better overall stats. However, I would always take player P over R because in the real season (aka the playoffs), you are only going up against good/great teams.

The assumption here seems to be that players perform differently against different calibre teams (and that differing team calibre is either the primary or only difference between RS and playoffs) if this were true records versus "good" (playoff or >.500) teams would be more indicative of playoff success and from what I recall they aren't.

[Vine][YouTube][/YouTube][/Vine]

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

Completely disagree. In the grand scheme of things regular seasons match ups are relatively irrelevant. Coaches have readily admitted to saving plays and defenses for when it matters in the post season. It doesn't matter if David Robinsn can outplay Hakeem in the regular season ..., if Hakeem out plays him in a 7 game series that has coaches game planning different defenses to limit them over the course of every game.. Has them increasing their minutes.. Has their role players being limited by tougher defenses... Then that's what's most relevant. The only thing the regular season is really significant for is determine seeding. And even then regardless of you seedlings, it's up to you to elevate your play despite facing tougher defenses, and evolving defenses over the course of the series.

When ranking players regular season performance barley factors in for me. When you ask me how I view a player the first thing I think about is how they perform in the post season.

Role players limited by tougher defenses? Isn't it typically the reverse, coaches will plan to stop the key man (or men) and dare/force role players to beat them. And if so doesn't that make the typically renowned playoff dropoffs from unipolar offenses (Robinson, K Malone, Chamberlain) more explicable via context and, if one does seek to look into the playoffs heavily, make the playoff dropoffs of say a Robert Parish (and other tertiary options) more pertinent.

[Vine][YouTube][/YouTube][/Vine]
Completely disagree. In the grand scheme of things regular seasons match ups are relatively irrelevant. Coaches have readily admitted to saving plays and defenses for when it matters in the post season. It doesn't matter if David Robinsn can outplay Hakeem in the regular season ..., if Hakeem out plays him in a 7 game series that has coaches game planning different defenses to limit them over the course of every game.. Has them increasing their minutes.. Has their role players being limited by tougher defenses... Then that's what's most relevant. The only thing the regular season is really significant for is determine seeding. And even then regardless of you seedlings, it's up to you to elevate your play despite facing tougher defenses, and evolving defenses over the course of the series.

When ranking players regular season performance barley factors in for me. When you ask me how I view a player the first thing I think about is how they perform in the post season.

I agree. RS, you have players and teams that coast...teams that experiment with line ups, strategies...you have a lot of player trades, coaching staff changes, some teams tanking etc..

PO teams are generally already settled on there line up, conditioned to play at there maximum with more rest and more at stake. PO is when the real season starts...so not sure why not put more value in it?

Because there's much less data, because there's vast discrepancies in quality of competion faced (iirc 80s Lakers were routinely facing a route of roughly league -RS- average quality opponents, whereas the East then, or the West now likely means running a gauntlet of plausible champions -- right now Cleveland are considered the favourites to win the title, not because they are the best team but because the teams with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th best odds all play in the same conference so only one can get to the final) because an 82 game season doesn't leave teams or players well rested and because (due to small samples and the role of luck) playoffs are (as I recall) a poor indicator of future performance in future RS and PS, whereas RS is better (at team and individual levels) and this is because playoff performance is less reliably indicative of (team or player) quality which in turn is because of aforementioned small samples, disparity in quality of competition, matchups etc. The reason American sports have playoffs (apart from travel distances making equal schedules a massive pain) is the anyone can win, keep you watching to the end, which is fine but you can't pretend it doesn't significantly increase the role of luck.

With the way the playoff system is structured, it becomes important to excel against the same opponent. I suspect that certain superstars could do this better than others. Thus, a superstar who can sustain excellence against common opponents for 6-7 games in a row becomes much more valuable than a superstar who gets figured out more readily as the number of encounters increase.

Obviously, this is not something that can be easily measured but no doubt, it's important.

This much is true. The question is then whether players do do so better than others, and whether (and to what degree) it is a matter of luck and various contextual factors (luck, coaching, quality of opponents, quality of teammates, matchups etc); or whether (and to what degree) it is intrinsic to the player. I do chafe somewhat at the use of superstars though because I think players roughly 3-8 become important in the playoffs (and are typically less subject to the planning stars might face, though over their careers they might have smaller playoffs samples).

There's two ways defenses really seem to deal with star players/role players.

A. Teams will focus mostly on limiting a star, and let the role players try and besat them

Or

B. Teams will let stars go 1-1 against a good defender, and limit all the role players.

[Purch]

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

Hmm...

There is something to the Playoffs though, just like there is something to the regular season games, compared to practice.

For instance, Howard is able to hit 1252 free throws out of 1532 during practice, 82%.

Spoiler:

This % plummets in real games. Obviously, there is something mental here. There is something in RS that doesn't allow him to hit free throws as well as he does during practice.

My point is, yes, the more games the better sample size, I agree with that, but Playoff games are not the same as RS games. There is more pressure.

I wouldn't change my mind on a players basketball ability if he plays worse in PO's compared to RS, but I would question his mental toughness who makes him play worse (could be that and/or could be that he plays against tougher teams compared to RS, there is that possibility as wel, as you pointed it out).

Firstly this assumes playoffs is to RS as RS is to practice. Which it isn't.

Free throws in particular are a dubious example. Free throws in practice are take within a consistent routine with immediate feedback. People have made thousands of free throws in a row. They do not do so in game situations as such players (a) are not in a routine, (b) are likely more fatigued and (c) have probably just been fouled. Further free throws are an aspect of the game uniquely vulnerable to psychological influence (due to the individual nature and the amount of time available).

Whether or not Dwight's practice FT% was legit, the two relationships are not analogous.

I'm with Q; RS is a way, way larger sample. If I saw evidence that playoff performance variations, on the whole were more than you'd expect by luck (accounting for the change in circumstance), I might be more persuaded. My other problem is some of the people who are into playoff performance, are so, selectively and/or unsystematically.

Another example to illustrate the discrepancies in regular season play and playoff play is as follows. Let's say that there is a player, R, who plays at a level 98 (on a scale of 1 to 100) against bad teams, 90 against good teams, and 84 against great teams. Another player, P, plays at a level of 91 against bad teams, 91 against good teams, and 89 against great teams. On average, it is conceivable that player R has better overall stats. However, I would always take player P over R because in the real season (aka the playoffs), you are only going up against good/great teams.

The assumption here seems to be that players perform differently against different calibre teams (and that differing team calibre is either the primary or only difference between RS and playoffs) if this were true records versus "good" (playoff or >.500) teams would be more indicative of playoff success and from what I recall they aren't.

[Vine][YouTube][/YouTube][/Vine]

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

Completely disagree. In the grand scheme of things regular seasons match ups are relatively irrelevant. Coaches have readily admitted to saving plays and defenses for when it matters in the post season. It doesn't matter if David Robinsn can outplay Hakeem in the regular season ..., if Hakeem out plays him in a 7 game series that has coaches game planning different defenses to limit them over the course of every game.. Has them increasing their minutes.. Has their role players being limited by tougher defenses... Then that's what's most relevant. The only thing the regular season is really significant for is determine seeding. And even then regardless of you seedlings, it's up to you to elevate your play despite facing tougher defenses, and evolving defenses over the course of the series.

When ranking players regular season performance barley factors in for me. When you ask me how I view a player the first thing I think about is how they perform in the post season.

Role players limited by tougher defenses? Isn't it typically the reverse, coaches will plan to stop the key man (or men) and dare/force role players to beat them. And if so doesn't that make the typically renowned playoff dropoffs from unipolar offenses (Robinson, K Malone, Chamberlain) more explicable via context and, if one does seek to look into the playoffs heavily, make the playoff dropoffs of say a Robert Parish (and other tertiary options) more pertinent.

[Vine][YouTube][/YouTube][/Vine]
Completely disagree. In the grand scheme of things regular seasons match ups are relatively irrelevant. Coaches have readily admitted to saving plays and defenses for when it matters in the post season. It doesn't matter if David Robinsn can outplay Hakeem in the regular season ..., if Hakeem out plays him in a 7 game series that has coaches game planning different defenses to limit them over the course of every game.. Has them increasing their minutes.. Has their role players being limited by tougher defenses... Then that's what's most relevant. The only thing the regular season is really significant for is determine seeding. And even then regardless of you seedlings, it's up to you to elevate your play despite facing tougher defenses, and evolving defenses over the course of the series.

When ranking players regular season performance barley factors in for me. When you ask me how I view a player the first thing I think about is how they perform in the post season.

I agree. RS, you have players and teams that coast...teams that experiment with line ups, strategies...you have a lot of player trades, coaching staff changes, some teams tanking etc..

PO teams are generally already settled on there line up, conditioned to play at there maximum with more rest and more at stake. PO is when the real season starts...so not sure why not put more value in it?

Because there's much less data, because there's vast discrepancies in quality of competion faced (iirc 80s Lakers were routinely facing a route of roughly league -RS- average quality opponents, whereas the East then, or the West now likely means running a gauntlet of plausible champions -- right now Cleveland are considered the favourites to win the title, not because they are the best team but because the teams with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th best odds all play in the same conference so only one can get to the final) because an 82 game season doesn't leave teams or players well rested and because (due to small samples and the role of luck) playoffs are (as I recall) a poor indicator of future performance in future RS and PS, whereas RS is better (at team and individual levels) and this is because playoff performance is less reliably indicative of (team or player) quality which in turn is because of aforementioned small samples, disparity in quality of competition, matchups etc. The reason American sports have playoffs (apart from travel distances making equal schedules a massive pain) is the anyone can win, keep you watching to the end, which is fine but you can't pretend it doesn't significantly increase the role of luck.

With the way the playoff system is structured, it becomes important to excel against the same opponent. I suspect that certain superstars could do this better than others. Thus, a superstar who can sustain excellence against common opponents for 6-7 games in a row becomes much more valuable than a superstar who gets figured out more readily as the number of encounters increase.

Obviously, this is not something that can be easily measured but no doubt, it's important.

This much is true. The question is then whether players do do so better than others, and whether (and to what degree) it is a matter of luck and various contextual factors (luck, coaching, quality of opponents, quality of teammates, matchups etc); or whether (and to what degree) it is intrinsic to the player. I do chafe somewhat at the use of superstars though because I think players roughly 3-8 become important in the playoffs (and are typically less subject to the planning stars might face, though over their careers they might have smaller playoffs samples).

There's two ways defenses really seem to deal with star players/role players.

A. Teams will focus mostly on limiting a star, and let the role players try and besat them

Or

B. Teams will let stars go 1-1 against a good defender, and limit all the role players.

[Ballerhogger]

RS play has taken a hit through out the years , Take curry for example he played his 3rd lowest minutes in season in his whole career at 2613. Thats 233 minutes less than the year before. Yet this did not affect his MVP chances. He only avg 32.3 MP this past season. Overall RS will look less impressive unless the NBA changes the amount of games played.

Except curry had a better season in 14-15 than 13-14 by plenty of metrics: TS%, eFG%, ORTG, WS, WS/48, OBPM and VORP

This all came at about the same usage, too.

Right he had better year BUT his mvp season by minutes is lower than typical mvp winners due to his stacked roster and how the game has changed during the regular season. Your seeing more and more star players resting in the RS

[NinjaSheppard]

The impressive thing about Curry's season was how dominant the Warriors were during the minutes that Curry played. His impact was a large part of the reason he only had to play 32 minutes.

This isn't the Derrick Rose MVP where the Bulls crushed teams when Rose sat also. Warriors played mediocre ball without Curry on the court

[Texas Chuck]

Let's remember to use spoiler tags when quoting long posts please. Some great discussion in here, but too many nested quotes makes it a little unwieldy.

And yeah I don't hold Curry's mpg against him. As Ninja points out the Warriors dominated with Curry on the court allowing them to not over-extend him. In the playoffs he bumped it up to nearly 40 and was still very productive. It's one thing if his body can't handle more minutes to where it costs his team---that clearly isn't the case here.

[Dr Spaceman]

Spoiler:

Bill Russell would still be a dominant player if he was born in 1990.

co-sign.

Bill Russell is teh GOAT.

co-sign.

David Robinson is better than Dream. In fact among centers I'd only take Russell, Kareem, and Shaq ahead of him.

co-sign.

Tim Duncan finally being recognized as good as anyone past the big 3 of Russell, Jordan, and Kareem is NOT recency bias. And yes being a dominant player still on championship caliber teams should be credited to him regardless of his biological age.

co-sign. Also just to note: Ducna's longevity!=typical longevity. Too often I see people kind of say "well there's nothing special about just playing a long time." Ahem. When you play like Duncan has, you're damn right there's something special about it.

Robert Horry was a really good basketball player, not a punchline lucky enough to play on some great teams.

co-sign. In particular he was a tremendous fit next to dominant centers (Duncan, Shaq, Olajuwon) with his 3 point threat and his underrated defense (it was actually pretty excellent). Teams targeted him specifically for this reason.

The whole idea of KG as a "middle linebacker" is more than a bit contrived and does not mean he's a superior defender to many of the players he gets compared against.

This strikes me as a case of posters trying to fit a narrative onto the data. Maybe it's something, maybe it isn't. But there have been plenty of dominant defenders who did not have that quality and it worked fine.

Good stuff Chuck.

[mischievous]

- Dwyane Wade is a borderline top 10 player and the 2nd best SG of all time.

If he didn't have his meniscus removed in college, and also avoided all the other injuries that he endured, then yeah i think he'd be an easy top 15. And in this scenario, he'd have 4-6 rings instead of 3.

[mischievous]

I'm also in the camp that is lower on Russell than most. I do have him in my top 10 based on legacy, but if i were just throw out accomplishments and accolades, i'm not sure he would make my top 10. But i don't ignore those things so he is in my 7-9 range.

I can respect those that have Russell as top 5, but i think it's a little silly when people think he's a surfire concrete top 3 GOAT. I don't see it. I haven't really seen a good argument for Russell over Tim Duncan other than "ringzzzz", and about how good his D was, well guess what? Duncan is also a top 5 or so defender ever in his own right, has rings of his own, better longevity and a much better offensive player than Russell.

[Matt15]

1. Peak Duncan over Peak Lebron.
2. Kobe was the best player in the NBA from 2006-08
3. Isiah Thomas gets underrated
4. 2001 was Kobe's Peak
5. Lebron/KG get overrated

[magicmerl]

- Playoffs are generally overvalued.

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

Sample size is one thing, but the importance of the games matters too.

If there's a difference between 80 RS games and 20 PO games, I would say that the 20 PO games matter more. So I think that the playoffs are AT LEAST 4 times more valuable than RS game, maybe 5 or 6 times as important.

If RS and PO games are weighted evenly then Karl Malone is easily a top5 player of all time.