Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[Quotatious]

Again, I'd hope you'd expound on this as well. His minutes were down for sure, but I don't know that its because he couldn't play 36-37 mpg or if Rick was trying to rest him more in games out of hand one way or the other Pop-style. He had no problems at all with the increased minutes in the PS--tho of course you have easier travel and more time off between games so its possible.

Anyway its not something I remember being concerned about in real-time so any more light you can shed would be helpful.

Well, I'll probably just take your word for it, as you saw a lot more of Dirk's games than I did.

The way I see it, is that my theory about Dirk not being able to handle heavy minutes anymore is overstated, and so is the idea that Dirk made a huge improvement in terms of post game in '11, compared to '06. I remember him being quite adept in this regard in '06, particularly in the WCSF series against the Spurs.

[Hawk]

I understand and agree more with those who have Russell as the GOAT than with those who have Russell at #2 or #3. Might sound weird, being that I don't even have him in my Top 15, but I see it this way: either you think that Russell is the ultimate winner (ultimate winner meaning, the best basketball player of all time and so dominant defensively that he is the one who gives your team the most chances to win, 11 times in his case), or you think of him as a not that great of a player who was the best and most impactful player of a great team.

I think of him as the later. I think that, for instance, Wilt was a better player than him, and that if he were to play for the Celtics and coached by Auerbach, I think the Celtics would have been even more dominant.

If someone has Russell at #2 or #3, they must think he was a really great, tremendously impactful player who dominated the league and won 11 times, mostly thanks to him. If that is the case, I don't know why they don't have him as the GOAT.

[Texas Chuck]

Well, I'll probably just take your word for it, as you saw a lot more of Dirk's games than I did.

The way I see it, is that my theory about Dirk not being able to handle heavy minutes anymore is overstated, and so is the idea that Dirk made a huge improvement in terms of post game in '11, compared to '06. I remember him being quite adept in this regard in '06, particularly in the WCSF series against the Spurs.

Q,

Let me do some research. I think 2011 actually might be the first year Rick went to the substitution pattern of pulling Dirk at the 6 minute mark and inserting JET. If that's the case, Dirk's stamina might actually have been a small issue because I think Rick went to that for 2 reasons: 1. To have Dirk come in and play with most of the bench rather than having JET try and carry the offense. 2. To keep Dirk from playing long stretches. He would come back in with a couple minutes left in the 1st/3rd Q's then get another break at the Q and then take a seat on the bench again for a few minutes in the 2nd Q coming back to close out the half/game. I didn't think they went to that full time until 2012, but maybe it did start the year before. So maybe you are right and I am mistaken? I may just not have fully realized that 2nd reason until they continued to do it after JET moved on.

The post game was definitely better. What Dirk did a lot of in 06 was get the ball a bit higher up on the court, typically a little higher than the FT line and take guys off the dribble a lot more. The one step fade and other moves off of that shot weren't nearly as big a part of his arsenal. Locally in Dallas we spent a ton of time talking about the need for Dirk to spend more time in the post. And the other portion that's different from 2006 to 2011 is how much better of a passer Dirk became. Not a playmaker like Webber or KG, but consistently making the right pass and making it at the right time. Part of that credit has to go to Rick Carlisle of course for designing an offense light years better than what Avery was throwing down, but I definitely think Dirk improved.

Like I replied to hte other guy--I don't have an issue with the idea of Dirk peaking 05-07 vs 2011. But I do think there is some real truth to the further refinement of his offensive toolbox. Much like we see out of current KD, every year Dirk seemed to add another move for defenses to worry about.

He did spend time in the post in 2006 against the Spurs, but as I touched on in some previous discussions with drza, this was the first PS matchup against the Spurs where San Antonio guarded Dirk with a wing--mainly Bowen, but also quite a bit of Finley and Dirk was clearly trying to exploit that.

[Texas Chuck]

I understand and agree more with those who have Russell as the GOAT than with those who have Russell at #2 or #3. Might sound weird, being that I don't even have him in my Top 15, but I see it this way: either you think that Russell is the ultimate winner (ultimate winner meaning, the best basketball player of all time and so dominant defensively that he is the one who gives your team the most chances to win, 11 times in his case), or you think of him as a not that great of a player who was the best and most impactful player of a great team.

.

I think that makes a ton of sense. I see him in the way opposite from you, but it certainly makes sense taking your stance on him to rank him much lower than 3. Well stated.

[tone wone]

any version of DIrk from 06-10 would've won a title that year.

The gospel of 2011 Dirk is based on how bad that team was when he sat, despite being so awesome with him...and of course winning the title. Well, 2011 was the first time Dirk had minutes limited. 06-10 Dirk would made that team better by virtue of spending more time on the court.

You cant be the best version of yourself while with your minutes being limited.

As someone who has watched every minute of Dirk's career I strongly disagree with the bolded. I think going through what he went through in 2006 and then the following year in GSW followed by several years where his team's window had appeared closed is a huge part of why Dirk and the Mavs had the playoff run they had. Dirk could look around at all the guys on that team who were going to be free agents and the age of that core and see it was now or never in a way he couldn't possibly have thought with that young core they had in 2006.

I know these sorts of unmeasurables are frowned upon here, but I think they can matter, and matter a lot.


As to those who see his peak from 05-07 as opposed to 2011--I won't argue. Those are certainly his best individual statistical years as well as the end of his athletic prime. But I strongly disagree that you can plug and play a previous version in 2011 and automatically assume the same results. It essentially suggests no growth from Dirk over that time period which just doesn't match the reality.

He did miss what 8 games with the knee. Afterwards his minutes were reduced on a team that was kinda awful with him on the bench. That matters to me. Dallas was running some funky lineups treading water so Dirk could get some rest. This doesn't happen with a younger Dirk (if im not mistaken they went into that season consciously watching his minutes). I think thats important.

Now, the end results still lead to them holding the trophy but I would've loved to have seen 06 Dirk with Chandler instead of Dampier/Diop combo. I think Carlise offense would've been even more devastating with a more nimble Dirk. You still get the Jet/Dirk high pick n roll but with much more movement, better transition game and overall a healthier/more sophisticated scheme than Avery's iso heavy contested mid-range j scheme. That offense had no counters...a pick n roll with Dirk or he, Howard and Stackhouse taking turns iso/post ups.

[acrossthecourt]

A little more specific to the PC board than my earlier comments:

Some quick stats on ginobili

- In his 13 seasons, he’s only played 30+ MPG twice, and peaked at 31.1 MPG
- In 5 of those 13 seasons, he’s played less than 25 MPG
- He’s only played in 70+ games in 6 of those 13 seasons (this includes the lockout shortened season equivalent)

So while I have no problem giving him his due as a high impact per min / per possession player, I do take issue with extrapolating that impact as far as some people do.  Even with pop’s minutes management over the years, if ginobili could play more minutes and be healthier, he would have.  I just can’t give him as much credit as some others do for a theoretical impact he would have playing more minutes.  

That's the fundamental misunderstanding of people who value Manu: we are not saying with per 40 minute stats and per 100 possession stats that he can play that load with the same stats and with no new injuries.

It's a really easy translation from per X impact to some kind of value rating. The per X stats are very important here because scoring 20 points in 30 minutes is more valuable than 20 in 40 minutes is more valuable.

People don't rank him high because of some theoretical impact. It's based on what actually happened with the minutes he had.

[mischievous]

- The Los Angeles Clippers are legitimate contenders and have been the most unlucky team in NBA history when you evaluate PS opponents after factoring in RS performance.
-

This is just a myth. They haven't advanced further than the 2nd round the past 2 seasons simply because they don't know how to close series out. As others have pointed out, Paul made costly mistakes in a few games of those games against the Thunder. The collapse against Houston was just totally inexcusable and inexplicable. Paul getting hurt and missing a few of those games certainly didn't help, but he will get a pass for it.

The Clippers haven't advanced far, not because they are unlucky that narrative is silly. It's because Paul isn't as great as people like to think he is.

[Leslie Forman]

If someone has Russell at #2 or #3, they must think he was a really great, tremendously impactful player who dominated the league and won 11 times, mostly thanks to him. If that is the case, I don't know why they don't have him as the GOAT.

I agree with this. If you think highly enough of Russell's ability to put him over so many far more offensively capable players who have also won titles, then why wouldn't he be your #1 guy? What would possibly justify you putting him behind, say, Kareem, but not Wilt, Hakeem or Shaq?

Some of mine:
1. Jordan was an overrated gambling heavy defender and Pippen was easily more valuable at that end
2. Isiah Thomas is really overrated and those stacked Pistons team could have won with plenty of other PGs in his place
3. Mark Price is the most underrated player ever

[mtlraps]

- 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.

I fully agree. I tend to put a lot more weight on peak ability when ranking players so for me hes already about a top 15 guy but its really a shame he had such bad injuries.. Unbelievable talent.

[magicmerl]

Paul isn't lacking anything other than an extra 3in that would make it easier for him to get his shot off.

That's BS. I could have played in the NBA for 12 years if I'd been a foot taller than I am.

Height is absolutely an aspect of what makes up a player and 'if he'd been taller' is a lame copout.

I mean, if you want me to give CP3 a certificate for trying hard against players who are taller than him, sure. But let's not pretend that his height isn't an integral part of the player and not something you can handwave away.

[RSCD3_]

LeBron didn't have no post game when he won two MVP's in Cleveland. He had a decent post game when he used it he just didnt use it often.

His 2013 Finals are more impressive than his 2014 finals. Ditto with the playoffs.





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Dr Positivity]

Winning a championship is as much to do with who has the elite front offices as it does who has the superstars. Winning a title with a GM like Dell Demps with a superstar, is no easier than a team like Memphis trying to win without a superstar but with sharp management

The usable evidence that a superstar is needed to win a title barring a fluke is too minimal a sample size to trust. Even going back as late as the mid 90s and early 2000s the CBA rules, style of play and analytics resources, nerds running teams instead of getting the coffee, makes the NBA an entirely different environment and task to win a title in. Let alone many decades back and into the era without 3s, etc. Knowing you needed a superstar to win a title 1950-1999 is not necessarily reflective of 2015 considering those changes. Furthermore a handful of atypical champions such as 2000 Blazers, 2002 Kings, 2005 Pistons, 2010 Celtics, 2013 Spurs should all count as much as the real champions because they lost by effectively 1 quarter going the other team's way which shouldn't mean anything, after proving for the other 6.75 games they were just as good as the champion. Putting those teams into the mix changes the perception of how much a true MVP candidate is needed to win. There could be a 10-15 year stretch of more ensemble like champions like the 70s, that happens for no other reason than that the next versions of the 00 Blazers, 02 Kings, 05 Pistons, 10 Celtics, 13 Spurs end up on the right side of the dice instead and next versions of 00 and 02 Lakers, 05 Spurs, 10 Lakers and 13 Heat on the wrong side

Curry and Thompson in 14-15 is the greatest season ever for a starting backcourt and is in the ballpark of having Tim Duncan and David Robinson in 99 in value

[tone wone]

Paul isn't lacking anything other than an extra 3in that would make it easier for him to get his shot off.

That's BS. I could have played in the BNA for 12 years if I'd been a foot taller than I am.

Height is absolutely an aspect of what makes up a player and 'if he'd been taller' is a lame copout.

I mean, if you want me to give CP3 a certificate for trying hard against players who are taller than him, sure. But let's not pretend that his height isn't an integral part of the player and not something you can handwave away.

No one is handwaving his size, except those who think his Clipper squads haven't been notably flawed.

When your pg is 6'0 dont pair him with a 6'3 none athlete SG. Why is Paul guarding James Harden? Because Matt Barnes was their perimeter stopper. These are fundamental issues that aren't easy to overcome but are consistently glossed over when the subject of Pauls playoff success is discussed.

[magicmerl]

Paul isn't lacking anything other than an extra 3in that would make it easier for him to get his shot off.

That's BS. I could have played in the BNA for 12 years if I'd been a foot taller than I am.

Height is absolutely an aspect of what makes up a player and 'if he'd been taller' is a lame copout.

I mean, if you want me to give CP3 a certificate for trying hard against players who are taller than him, sure. But let's not pretend that his height isn't an integral part of the player and not something you can handwave away.

No one is handwaving his size, except those who think his Clipper squads haven't been notably flawed.

When your pg is 6'0 dont pair him with a 6'3 none athlete SG. Why is Paul guarding James Harden? Because Matt Barnes was their perimeter stopper. These are fundamental issues that aren't easy to overcome but are consistently glossed over when the subject of Pauls playoff success is discussed.

Eh, in that case I think that his rosters are flawed then. I think that a second round exit is on the cards for them again this year. They are going to run into OKC/GSW/SAS and unless one of those teams has a nagging injury to a key player like Splitter on the Spurs this year, I don't see the Clippers advancing past any of the real contenders. I think they are stuck in playoff purgatory with HOU/MEM as teams that would make the conference finals in the East, but have no chance in the West.

[Dr Positivity]

In 2013 Finals too much is made of the Spurs 5 point collapse as bad luck, because getting 8 points in a row before was just as much luck/Miami collapsing. The story is as much the greatness of Lebron creating 4th quarter comeback, Pop putting in questionable lineup at starting of 4th and Lebron's Game 7 statline.

[Lost92Bricks]

- Jordan's 97 finals against Utah is better than his '92 series against Portland.

- Same way how bigs are more impactful defensively than guards, I think it's vice versa on offense. Yes, bigs are closer to the basket and shoot higher %'s but it's usually the guards getting them alot of those easy buckets along with handling the ball, running the offense, and being able to shoot from anywhere (especially at the line).

I think the ability to get wherever you want on the court and create is an extremely important advantage that guards have. Like I don't think their was any real gap offensively between Shaq and Kobe or Malone and Stockton in some of those years.

- Dirk should've won the '06 MVP, not Nash or Kobe.

- Lebron is legitimately one of the greatest scorers in NBA history and is NOT a pass first player. No f*cking pass first player shoots 20 times a game for their career, nor do they shoot as much as he did in the last season's finals.

[bondom34]

Oh, just thought of a general one, but I think there's too much of a negative stigma to SGs who aren't lights out shooters or even bad shooters who are elite elsewhere. Roberson is my guy on OKC but MKG comes to mind as well and is a guy you build a defense around IMO, and many seem to think he's just a guy as an overall player. He can't shoot, he can win.

[magicmerl]

Oh, just thought of a general one, but I think there's too much of a negative stigma to SGs who aren't lights out shooters or even bad shooters who are elite elsewhere. Roberson is my guy on OKC but MKG comes to mind as well and is a guy you build a defense around IMO, and many seem to think he's just a guy as an overall player. He can't shoot, he can win.

You can't build a defense around perimeter players.

They need to be decent at offense too, since you generally want offense from your wings.

[Texas Chuck]

You can't build a defense around perimeter players.

.

The Jordan/Pippen Bulls certainly did. Especially that 2nd 3-peat with Harper/Rodman.

[Quotatious]

This one is going to be really unpopular, I guess, but as we are approaching the peaks project, I have to ask - what separates '87 Magic and '86 Bird from this year's Stephen Curry?

I mean, Curry has better advanced stats in the RS, Magic/Bird have better advanced stats in PS, but the gap is about the same both ways. All of them played at least 80 games in the RS, and about 20 in the playoffs, so even if we assume that the playoffs are more important, let's say the importance is 50% RS and 50% PS. I think that's pretty reasonable.

Curry's team won 67 games with a higher SRS than Bird's and Magic's teams. Bird's team also won 67, Magic's won 65. Curry played in a historically stacked conference, and he didn't have as many stars on his team as Magic/Bird had. Not to mention he played for a rookie coach, instead of veteran coaches with championship experience like Pat Riley and KC Jones.

Curry is a GOAT level offensive talent just like they were. He's at least as good of a shooter as Bird, excellent playmaker, and better defensively than Magic/comparable with Bird. He also won the RS MVP against very strong competition (Harden, CP3, LeBron, Davis, Westbrook all had MVP caliber seasons - that's easily comparable with the competition that Bird and Magic had, for the MVP in '86 and '87 - well, I would say Bird's competition was definitely weaker, with Jordan out for almost the entire '85-'86 season).

I think he has a strong case. Curry has all of the things you could expect from an all-time great peak player. Yet, some people will probably think I'm insane for saying that, despite all of the objective evidence in Steph's favor...