Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[bondom34]

Oh and also not unpopular here but Westbrook 100 percent deserves the MVP this season and I don't see a good argument that can be made for Harden.

[Goudelock]

Millenials on this board are way too invested in their own generation's basketball players to the exclusion of anyone or anything else.

[Unpopular opinion, that is, for millenials.]

And non-millennials love nothing more than to crap on everything millennial-related. It cuts both ways.

And for what it's worth, the vast majority of people on this board are interested in the history of the game, so this really isn't the place to say stuff like that. The general board, on the other hand.......

[Goudelock]

Oh and also not unpopular here but Westbrook 100 percent deserves the MVP this season and I don't see a good argument that can be made for Harden.

Harden was just as good as WB on offense and they're a wash on defense? And that the Rockets pre-Lou Will really didn't have a secondary "star" who could help take pressure off of Harden to do playmaking. I think that Westbrook is MVP, but there's certainly a case that could be made for Harden.

[GeneralManager]

Millenials on this board are way too invested in their own generation's basketball players to the exclusion of anyone or anything else.

[Unpopular opinion, that is, for millenials.]

Didn't you make an entire account to troll LeBron on a basketball discussion board? That's real dedication.

Wrong.

But I knew my statement, while entirely true, would be unpopular.

I bring balance here to an otherwise over-millenial'd board.

Pointing out the man cannot shoot outside 3 feet is not trolling. It is speaking truth to power.

[bondom34]

Oh and also not unpopular here but Westbrook 100 percent deserves the MVP this season and I don't see a good argument that can be made for Harden.

Harden was just as good as WB on offense and they're a wash on defense? And that the Rockets pre-Lou Will really didn't have a secondary "star" who could help take pressure off of Harden to do playmaking. I think that Westbrook is MVP, but there's certainly a case that could be made for Harden.

Gordon and Bev both can. That team functioned totally fine pre-Lou without Harden on the court, and proclaiming his value from it wasn't actually anything more impactful than what Kawhi, Curry, Westbrook, or Lebron did. It was a story from the preseason that Harden was carrying some load that he really wasn't, his candidacy was based on a false narrative and it aided him that his play the year prior was so poor it set a low bar to break. Of the other 4 guys I just listed every one of them have better plus/minus numbers and when 3 of them leave court their team falls apart.

As well I'd dispute they're a wash defensively. And even if they are, then go Kawhi or Lebron.

[microfib4thewin]

KD was right in leaving the Thunder. If he was supposed to have enough help to win then OKC should still be a contender without him. OKC being a ~1-2 SRS team after a historic season from WB is proof.

[Goudelock]

Millenials on this board are way too invested in their own generation's basketball players to the exclusion of anyone or anything else.

[Unpopular opinion, that is, for millenials.]

Didn't you make an entire account to troll LeBron on a basketball discussion board? That's real dedication.

Wrong.

But I knew my statement, while entirely true, would be unpopular.

I bring balance here to an otherwise over-millenial'd board.

Pointing out the man cannot shoot outside 3 feet is not trolling. It is speaking truth to power.

How old are you? I have no idea if you're going to tell the truth or not, but I hope that you will.

[deezerweeze]

KD was right in leaving the Thunder. If he was supposed to have enough help to win then OKC should still be a contender without him. OKC being a ~1-2 SRS team after a historic season from WB is proof.

That makes zero sense.

[GeneralManager]

I think on/off has its merits, so I'd somewhat disagree there. I think over a larger sample at least its rather useful.

I respectfully disagree.

This type of metric (on/off, +/-) is so overly simplistic that it makes for lazy number-gazing without asking why.

I mean there are literally FOUR other players on the court, not one, not two, not three. FOUR. There is so much variability regarding players and events on the court that the on/off metric is almost entirely useless.

A sport with two players, like doubles tennis or Olympic beach volleyball, maybe.

A 5-player sport, useless.

My biggest pet peeve is lazy number-gazing. You don't even have to watch a single game to number-gaze and spout opinions. The on/off stat enables lazy number-gazers to sound like advanced sexy statistical geniuses when they have absolutely no clue about basketball other than number-gazing. "IMPACT!" My God, what a super pet peeve.

[Clyde Frazier]

Millenials on this board are way too invested in their own generation's basketball players to the exclusion of anyone or anything else.

[Unpopular opinion, that is, for millenials.]

This is hyperbole. Every generation overrates the generation they grew up watching to some degree. Even if it's subconsciously.

[DoubleO8]

Marc Gasol is the best big

[COSBY]

Karl Malone > Hakeem Olajuwon

[GeneralManager]

Millenials on this board are way too invested in their own generation's basketball players to the exclusion of anyone or anything else.

[Unpopular opinion, that is, for millenials.]

subconsciously.

And I'm just trying to make them conscious of it so they can possibly re-calibrate.

[rebirthoftheM]

Bill Russell is not a top 15 player of all time

[Goudelock]

Bill Russell is not a top 15 player of all time

This has to be the ultimate unpopular opinion. What's your reasoning for holding such an unpopular opinion?

[THKNKG]

I think on/off has its merits, so I'd somewhat disagree there. I think over a larger sample at least its rather useful.

I respectfully disagree.

This type of metric (on/off, +/-) is so overly simplistic that it makes for lazy number-gazing without asking why.

I mean there are literally FOUR other players on the court, not one, not two, not three. FOUR. There is so much variability regarding players and events on the court that the on/off metric is almost entirely useless.

A sport with two players, like doubles tennis or Olympic beach volleyball, maybe.

A 5-player sport, useless.

My biggest pet peeve is lazy number-gazing. You don't even have to watch a single game to number-gaze and spout opinions. The on/off stat enables lazy number-gazers to sound like advanced sexy statistical geniuses when they have absolutely no clue about basketball other than number-gazing. "IMPACT!" My God, what a super pet peeve.

Please try to actually understand what on/off stats mean and how people use them before you condescend like that.

If you are going to hold "stat-gazers" to the standard of actually watching games, hold yourself to the standard of actually understanding what those stats are for and how people use them.

[THKNKG]

Karl Malone > Hakeem Olajuwon

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning (Malone is a guy I have trouble placing).

[bondom34]

I think on/off has its merits, so I'd somewhat disagree there. I think over a larger sample at least its rather useful.

I respectfully disagree.

This type of metric (on/off, +/-) is so overly simplistic that it makes for lazy number-gazing without asking why.

I mean there are literally FOUR other players on the court, not one, not two, not three. FOUR. There is so much variability regarding players and events on the court that the on/off metric is almost entirely useless.

A sport with two players, like doubles tennis or Olympic beach volleyball, maybe.

A 5-player sport, useless.

My biggest pet peeve is lazy number-gazing. You don't even have to watch a single game to number-gaze and spout opinions. The on/off stat enables lazy number-gazers to sound like advanced sexy statistical geniuses when they have absolutely no clue about basketball other than number-gazing. "IMPACT!" My God, what a super pet peeve.

This isn't what on/off is.

[trex_8063]

Millenials on this board are way too invested in their own generation's basketball players to the exclusion of anyone or anything else.

[Unpopular opinion, that is, for millenials.]

Didn't you make an entire account to troll LeBron on a basketball discussion board? That's real dedication.

Wrong.

But I knew my statement, while entirely true, would be unpopular.

I bring balance here to an otherwise over-millenial'd board.

Pointing out the man cannot shoot outside 3 feet is not trolling.

One
As I've pointed out previously, Lebron collectively for nearly his whole career ('05-present) has been well above average from 3-10 feet, including claim to the single-best efficiency season that I've yet found from that range. I know, I know....you're going to say you're not saying "bad" compared to the average player, but "bad" compared to top 10 players. But actually, that isn't true either.

Compared to top 10(ish) players, he more or less holds his own in this range (for reference, Lebron collectively in the rs----from '05-present, so I can't be accused of cherry-picking years----was 43.6% from 3-10 ft)........
You'd posted some numbers for Michael Jordan (I think it was like a 3 or 5 year sample??, and I didn't question the source) as 50% from 3-10 feet......so he's clearly better than LEbron.
I don't have any shooting stats for Larry Bird, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say he's better during his prime, likely by a similar margin as Jordan. Ditto Kareem; with that sky-hook, I'm going to assume he's significantly better in this range (probably the GOAT, actually).
Kobe (I don't have him in my top 10, but some do) from '01-'13 was 45.2% from this range....so he's just a slightly better.
I have no numbers, but I'll speculate (for the sake of argument, if for no other) that Magic is maybe a little better too (probably in similar range as Kobe); though this is unproven. EDIT: And Kevin Garnett '01-'12 was 44.6% from this range (so, slightly better).

And that's basically it for top 10(ish) players who are clearly better from this range. Tim Duncan from '01-'13 was 44.0% from 3-10 ft. I speculate that Hakeem was roughly similar to Duncan from this range, considering that outside of his rookie season (53.8% FG's), he was <53% FG's every year of his career (and avg 51.4% from '86-'96).....so unless his finishing % from <3 ft is actually really pedestrian, it's reasonably safe to assume that he wasn't any higher than maybe 45% from 3-10 ft (was 37.9% from this range in his final two seasons, for whatever that's worth).

Shaquille O'Neal was 42.5% ('01-'05) from 3-10 ft; so Lebron appears at least equal if not marginally better than Shaq in this range. Based on watching film, total FG% and assumed finishing % at the rim, etc, it's a reasonable assumption that Wilt's conversion rate in the 3-10 ft range was no better than Shaq.

And based on watching some film, his total FG% and assumed finishing %'s at the rim, it's a VERY easy assumption that Bill Russell was significantly worse from this range.

So actually still not bad, even compared to top 10 company; more or less middle of the pack here.


Two
I've asked previously (and not received a reply) if you hold various aspects of other top 10(ish) players to similar standards, or if this is simply a double-standard you hold to Lebron alone.
Example: Magic was a mediocre to poor defender. And not mediocre to poor compared to his top 10 competition; mediocre to poor relative to a league-average guard. But this is apparently totally cool, yes?


Three
For the sake of argument, let's just assume the hyperbolic "cannot shoot" statement were true.....I'd previously asked (and again not received an answer) why it matters when he nonetheless manages to be an all-time great level scorer?

For example, let's make a statistical comparison of him to Larry Bird (whom I think we can all agree was an amazing shooter from all ranges) as a scorer (using per 100 possession numbers btw).....
Larry Bird '86-'88 (best 3-year span)
34.4 pts @ 60.0% TS, 3.8 tov in rs
29.5 pts @ 57.6% TS. 3.3 tov in playoffs

Lebron James '12-'14
37.8 pts @ 63.3% TS, 4.6 tov in rs
37.4 pts @ 60.4% TS, 4.3 tov in playoffs

Larry Bird '82-'88 (solidly in prime, 7 years)
32.2 pts @ 58.0% TS, 3.8 tov in rs
29.2 pts @ 56.2% TS, 3.6 tov in playoffs

Lebron James '06-present (solidly in prime, 12 years)
37.7 pts @ 59.4% TS, 4.7 tov in rs
36.4 pts @ 56.8% TS, 4.6 tov in playoffs


I mean, this "inability" to shoot would really only effect his game as a scorer......and yet he's clearly managed to be a better scorer [and for a longer period of time] than Larry Bird (a fantastic shooter). So I ask again, why does it matter? When the very thing it pertains to is something he's still elite at (in an all-time sense), why does it matter?

[GeneralManager]

No, I am correct. You are wrong. The definition of the on/off +/- stat was wholly assumed and subsumed within my analysis.

On/off or +/- is a metric that looks at how teams perform with a certain player on the court, how they perform with a certain player off the court, and calculates the overall impact that player has on team success.

And my answer to this flawed metric is there are FOUR other players on the court when the player is ON THE COURT, and FIVE other players on the court when that player is OFF THE COURT. Actually, check that, it's actually more than that. If you count the other team's players, it's NINE other players on the court when the player is ON THE COURT, and TEN other player on the court when that player is OFF THE COURT.

There is so much variability regarding players and events on the court that the on/off metric is almost entirely useless.

I gave the example of 2-player sports. If a doubles tennis Player A plays 10 games (or minutes, or whatever) alongside Player B, and then another 10 games (or minutes, or whatever) alongside Player C, and all of those games were played against Players D & E, you may be able to measure the impact of Player B versus Player C based on the success they had playing with Player A. In this context, the impact statistic may hold some degree of weight.

You don't know that what happens when Player X is ON THE COURT is due whatsoever to the presence of Player X, because there are NINE OTHER PLAYERS and lots of random events which also impact that statistic. You also don't know that what happens when Player X is OFF THE COURT is due whatsoever to the absence of Player X, because there are TEN OTHER PLAYERS and lots of random events which also impact that statistic.

I stand by my comment. It is a useless metric.