Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[Quotatious]

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

1. I'd say they are on the same tier but I don't think there is a big gap between the two like some imply.
2. I agree
3. Very true on the PC board. If you are talking to a casual fan many of them will overrate him a bit but here its as if he was Brandon Knight.
4. There are lot of good seasons to pick from Kobe. I sorta just put 01, 03, 06 and 08 in any order depending on my mood.
5. This is funny because a few years ago these two were underrated by many. Never underestimate nostalgia.

Allow me to explain in shorthand just how un-overrated Lebron James is.

Carrer PER:
#1 Michael Jordan 27.9
#2 LeBron James 27.7
#3 Shaquille O'Neal 26.4
#4 David Robinson 26.2
#5 Wilt Chamberlain 26.1

Also, career playoff PER:

#1 Michael Jordan 28.6
#2 George Mikan 28.5
#3 LeBron James 27.4
#4 Shaquille O'Neal 26.1
#5 Hakeem Olajuwon 25.7

So, LeBron is almost as good of a playoff performer as he is in the RS. Can't see how he's overrated.

It's not just PER, but basically any advanced stat has LeBron in the top 3 or 5, all-time.

[Texas Chuck]

Thanks Owly. All that makes sense.

And to reiterate I don't think the 11 Mavs are a top 5 team myself so I won't be attempting to make a case for it.

[fuzzy_dunlop]

^
yeah the "lol" thing was in response to your joke about my typo...

[ceiling raiser]

Maybe this one isn't too unpopular here, but I mourn the fact that I was first introduced to a lot of old players from before I started watching via their box scores (and box score derived stats). I feel like when I'm introduced to a player that way, it creates an inherent bias in my perception of said player. That is to say, if I encounter a guy via his box score numbers, and hadn't seen much (or any) tape of him first, there's a good chance that I'll have an unshakeable (or difficult to shake, at least) idea of how I feel about him, and watching tape, reading scouting reports, or looking at available impact data (though for the 60s-80s, we don't have too much, ElGee's spreadsheet is a damned good starting point) may not be enough to move me from my initial stance.

EDIT: This doesn't read as clearly as it seemed to sound in my head before typing. To clarify, this doesn't necessarily have to do with the fact that I don't use box score stats in my evaluation, but rather that it's hard for me to get past the initial impression created by seeing a guy's box score stat line, even if my eye test and available impact data disagree with it.

[JordansBulls]

Unpopular opinions are:

1. Losing with HCA matters.
2. Taking an organization that never won as the man is very significant when comparing players near the same level.

[penbeast0]

Maybe this one isn't too unpopular here, but I mourn the fact that I was first introduced to a lot of old players from before I started watching via their box scores (and box score derived stats). I feel like when I'm introduced to a player that way, it creates an inherent bias in my perception of said player. That is to say, if I encounter a guy via his box score numbers, and hadn't seen much (or any) tape of him first, there's a good chance that I'll have an unshakeable (or difficult to shake, at least) idea of how I feel about him, and watching tape, reading scouting reports, or looking at available impact data (though for the 60s-80s, we don't have too much, ElGee's spreadsheet is a damned good starting point) may not be enough to move me from my initial stance.

EDIT: This doesn't read as clearly as it seemed to sound in my head before typing. To clarify, this doesn't necessarily have to do with the fact that I don't use box score stats in my evaluation, but rather that it's hard for me to get past the initial impression created by seeing a guy's box score stat line, even if my eye test and available impact data disagree with it.

Oddly enough, I think I'm the opposite. If I see a guy, even if I only see him 2 or 3 times, I will get a picture in my head of what he supposedly can and can't do and every box score I see is interpreted through that filter. Then, even if his numbers or impact data or all other available info is presented to me, I sort of reinterpret it to fit the mental impression I have of a player. This might work well for a Bullets/Wizards player from the 70s to 90s where I was watching a large percentage of their games and had big sample size, but works poorly for a player from a team that I see 2 to 3 times a year and those game he might not play a lot or might play in an atypical manner. I don't ignore box scores by any means, but my eye test is an interpretative filter for how I think those box scores were generated and there have been several times where I've found my eye test was just not a good filter.

[Jim Naismith]

Unpopular opinions are:

1. Losing with HCA matters.

A major example of HCA-amnesia is the "2009 LeBron is the #1 peak" school of thought.

[PaulieWal]

Unpopular opinions are:

1. Losing with HCA matters.

A major example of HCA-amnesia is the "2009 LeBron is the #1 peak" school of thought.

Or most people simply don't put that much any weight on winning or losing with HCA.

[Jim Naismith]

Unpopular opinions are:

1. Losing with HCA matters.

A major example of HCA-amnesia is the "2009 LeBron is the #1 peak" school of thought.

Or most people simply don't put that much any weight on winning or losing with HCA.

Losing with HCA usually means a star was subpar in a couple of games in the series.

If a star meets expectations, his team would have "held serve" and avoided the upset.

[PaulieWal]

A major example of HCA-amnesia is the "2009 LeBron is the #1 peak" school of thought.

Or most people simply don't put that much any weight on winning or losing with HCA.

Losing with HCA usually means a star was subpar in a couple of games in the series.

No, it doesn't. Where the evidence for that? That's just something you are making up.

HCA is determined by a whole bunch of factors. Teams can overachieve in the RS. Injuries can cost good teams wins. Older, experienced teams usually rest players or not take the RS as seriously etc.

Losing with HCA doesn't mean you under-performed or that the star was subpar in a couple of games. You can have HCA and lose by playing your best (just in the last few years you have examples like KD in 2012, 2013, Wade in 2011, Chris Paul in 2013 and these are just of the top off my head).

Sure, stars can under-perform WITH HCA but that also happens without HCA and is far more dependent on the quality of opposition, your own team and other external factors. There's nothing to indicate that losing with HCA somehow indicates that the star player wasn't up to the task. That's hogwash. You are trying to draw a correlation between the two when it doesn't exist and performance of the star is way down on that list (in relation to HCA that is).

Usually in the NBA the better team wins WITH or WITHOUT HCA. It's as simple as that. Trying to form a correlation between HCA and losing/winning due to the performance of your star is an incredibly naive way of looking at the game (sorry if that sounds harsh or disrespectful).

[Jim Naismith]

Or most people simply don't put that much any weight on winning or losing with HCA.

Losing with HCA usually means a star was subpar in a couple of games in the series.

No, it doesn't. Where the evidence for that? That's just something you are making up.

HCA is determined by a whole bunch of factors. Teams can overachieve in the RS. Injuries can cost good teams wins. Older, experienced teams usually rest players or not take the RS as seriously etc.

Losing with HCA doesn't mean you under-performed or that the star was subpar in a couple of games. You can have HCA and lose by playing your best (just in the last few years you have examples like KD in 2012, 2013, Wade in 2011, Chris Paul in 2013 and these are just of the top off my head).

Sure, stars can under-perform WITH HCA but that also happens without HCA and is far more dependent on the quality of opposition, your own team and other external factors. There's nothing to indicate that losing with HCA somehow indicates that the star player wasn't up to the task. That's hogwash. You are trying to draw a correlation between the two when it doesn't exist and performance of a the star is way down on that list.

Usually in the NBA the better team wins WITH or WITHOUT HCA. It's as simple as that. Trying to form a correlation between HCA and losing/winning due to the performance of your star is an incredibly naive way of looking at the game (sorry if that sounds harsh or disrespectful).

I'm not saying external factors don't matter, but ceteris paribus, losing with HCA means the onus is on the star, especially on a single-star team.

The examples you cited (Durant, Wade, Paul) all have major all-star teammates (Westbrook/Harden, LeBron, Griffin).

[Moonbeam]

Very fun thread.

I'll post some here that aren't about specific players.

1. I think a "reasonable" range of all-time ranks for players is a lot wider than it may seem on here. There are so many incomplete portraits that we get when looking at various tools, and I think a sound argument can be made on both sides of most comparisons you'll find here. For instance, I think it shouldn't raise too many eyebrows if a guy who averages out here at a rank of 75 appears anywhere between 40 and 150 on someone's list.

2. I am very wary of most time-machine/portability arguments. Perhaps I'm just too lacking in my knowledge to be able to apply these techniques, but the circumstances are so different when looking at players playing even a decade apart that it is hard for me to map them into a new era and see how they would perform.

3. Related to this, I think there is an innate quality to the truly elite players of each era that would give them an edge in any era. yeah, Mikan may have been a lumbering beast, but he also separated himself from his peers with mental toughness that wouldn't just wash away if placed in another era. It's impossible to know whether Bob Pettit would put up 50 in a Game 7 of the Finals in 2005, but the fact he did it speaks a lot to me about his ability to succeed in other eras than what the average height of his opponents was or something like that.

4. All statistics used to compare players are fuzzier than we acknowledge. I think things like coaching, offensive/defensive sets, chemistry, etc., play a significant role in how a player performs/produces.

5. Impact != goodness. I like the use of +/- or WOWY stats, but there are underlying assumptions that are very likely violated (independence for one, as a consequence of things listed in the previous point). I think there is the potential to overrate guys like Manu and KG because of this (not saying they are necessarily overrated). I'd put a lot more credence into RAPM and its cousins if I could see confidence bounds, etc. Even if we had the potential to account for all of these things in a single stat, heuristically, it's certainly possible for there to be a non-negligible discrepancy between a player's measured impact and his actual goodness.

[PaulieWal]

I'm not saying external factors don't matter, but ceteris paribus, losing with HCA means the onus is on the star, especially on a single-star team.

The examples you cited all have major all-star teammates.

Except all things are never the same either in life or in the game of basketball. All 30 teams approach the RS differently, playoff match-ups can be good or bad regardless of which teams has the HCA.

You still haven't presented any good rationale for why losing with HCA means the onus is on the star (as if somehow losing without HCA wouldn't mean the onus is on your star)? And if you are especially looking at a single-star team it's easier to stop or mitigate his impact when you don't have to worry about other stars. Orlando would have won that series with or without HCA, for example. Peak Dwight was going HAM and the Cavs had no one to guard him. They also all went ballistic from the 3. I know you have made a thread before regarding the 09 ECF but all it shows is that Orlando was the better team and even if I agree with you that LeBron could have done more, it's really unrealistic to put more burden on your lone star and then relate it to HCA somehow. Even if the Cavs didn't have HCA I think LeBron would have performed the same and lost.

Once again I say there is no correlation between losing with HCA and the performance of your star. If you can show me something logical here I will start taking this logic and JB more seriously when it comes to basketball analysis on this board.

When you are trying to establish a correlation between two completely unrelated events you have to be able to prove that it exists. Merely repeating it doesn't establish the correlation.

If you are really looking to form connections between losing and winning a better place to start with analyzing which was the better team, whether or not it was a good or bad match-up, coaching, performance of role players etc. etc. And way down that list you can get to HCA which is pretty much irrelevant to it somehow being some sort of indicator of a star's performance or somehow proving that winning or losing with HCA means something.

[RxMidnight]

Prime Shaq's dominance is overrated. While he's been an elite player pretty much from the first time he stepped on the court, notice how he didn't start dominating the NBA until the other great centers of the 90's were old and washed up. The starting centers Shaq faced in his 3 finals MVP campaigns were: 33 year old Rik Smits in his final season, 34 year old Dikembe, and Todd MacCulloch who was completely out of the league by '04.

[sp6r=underrated]

Other unpopular opinions with some

i) Hybrid (on/off box score stats) are woefully undervalued on this board.
ii) Video tracking stats are part of the same family of stats as the traditional box score stats.
iii) It is deranged not to use box score stats somewhat in your analysis.
iv) Coaches have career arcs. They develop as their career goes on until they eventually enter a period of decline.
v) Flip Saunders was a very good coach who did a great job in Detroit. The Pistons would have been worse if Brown stuck around.
vi) Intangibles do matter to a degree. The media overplays it so it has become a term of derision on this board.
vii) On offense, the major difference between Kobe and MJ is athletic ability.
viii) MJ's leadership skills are vastly overrated and were probably harmful at times.
ix) AI was a great player who peaked at the absolute worse time for his skill-set. He would have been a lot better if he had been ten years earlier or later.
x) The era of heavy contacting at the perimeter was the late 90s early 00s not the 80s.
xi) The NBA's unofficial decision to loosen up the rules against moving screens is probably as important as the handchecking change in 05.
xii) Marion was better than Amar'e.

[PaulieWal]

vi) Intangibles do matter to a degree. The media overplays it so it has become a term of derision on this board.

I don't even think it's an exaggeration but we can blame Skip Bayless for single-handedly ruining sports discussion in the media in the last few years. He's reduced sports coverage to being a troll and talking about the "clutch gene, getting it done, and killer instinct".

[mysticOscar]

Other unpopular opinions with some

i) Hybrid (on/off box score stats) are woefully undervalued on this board.
ii) Video tracking stats are part of the same family of stats as the traditional box score stats.
iii) It is deranged not to use box score stats somewhat in your analysis.
iv) Coaches have career arcs. They develop as their career goes on until they eventually enter a period of decline.
v) Flip Saunders was a very good coach who did a great job in Detroit. The Pistons would have been worse if Brown stuck around.
vi) Intangibles do matter to a degree. The media overplays it so it has become a term of derision on this board.
vii) On offense, the major difference between Kobe and MJ is athletic ability.
viii) MJ's leadership skills are vastly overrated and were probably harmful at times.
ix) AI was a great player who peaked at the absolute worse time for his skill-set. He would have been a lot better if he had been ten years earlier or later.
x) The era of heavy contacting at the perimeter was the late 90s early 00s not the 80s.
xi) The NBA's unofficial decision to loosen up the rules against moving screens is probably as important as the handchecking change in 05.
xii) Marion was better than Amar'e.

A few items i disagree here...

MJ's athletic ability was not the major difference with Kobe on offense. It was the bball iq and fundamentals.

MJ's leadership, although you don't like it, was successful. There is no one correct way to be a elite leader. Steve Jobs was also an a**hole, but you can't say his leadership was overrated. you don't need to be mother teresa to be a good leader, as a matter of fact many times its the opposite.

You are half right about AI....if his whole prime career were after 2005...he would have had better effeciency. In fact, his best TS% were on 2005 and later. You can say the same thing about Kobe. The part you got wrong is covered in the next item...

The era of heavy contacting at the perimeter might SEEM like it was the late 90s...but it just because the offense was heavy perimeter oriented at that time. One of the main reasons it got accelerated towards perimeter offense in the 90s was due to the shortening of the 3pt line in from 95-97 seasons and also the domination of the Bulls in the 90s via dominant guard which teams wanted to replicate. There was also the "I want to be like Mike effect" where players growing up wanted to be like Mike. So what happened is you had an influx of high volume shooting perimeter players coming into the league, wanting to be like Mike and teams encouraging it. But in reality, these new perimeter players could not replicate Mike instead making the whole leagues offense ineffecient.

[eminence]

Not sure how unpopular, but I feel Rodman is pretty easily the GOAT rebounder. I see arguments for Wilt/Russell, but in my opinion it's not particularly close. I believe that rebounding has the single biggest skill-gap between it's leader (Rodman) and everyone else.

[DreDay]

Bill Russell is closer to Ben Wallace all-time than Shaq/Hakeem/Kareem and the like.

[Quotatious]

I think people overrate the impact that one player can have. Yes, a truly dominant player (especially the Jordan, LeBron, Shaq category) can have a bigger impact in basketball than in soccer or hockey or football, but it's still not nearly high enough that you can say (I'll give a concrete example) - "Suns beat the Lakers in the 1990 WCSF in 5 games, so Magic Johnson's 30/6/12 on 62% TS is not a great series" or "Magic beat the Cavs in the 2009 ECF in 6 games so LeBron's 39/8/8 on 59% TS is not a great series".

I really hate equating individual performance with team success. It's the most primitive, simpleton way of analyzing basketball that I can think of. Sure, team success should be a factor in player analysis, to a certain degree, but not nearly to the degree that many people (even some people on this board) think. One thing I really like about stats like RAPM or on/off court splits is that they try to isolate a player's impact from the rest of his team.

Seriously, I think some people really lack common sense, if they think that a series like LeBron's 2009 ECF or even Magic's 1990 WCSF was anything short of phenomenal. Their teams would lose in 20-30 point blowouts in every game during those series if not for LeBron and Magic.