Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[HeartBreakKid]

I meant more from like a team building way, like I'd rather have LeBron than Jordan. I just think nobody brings as much all-around two way impact as LeBron at his best. He's proven he's probably the greatest team-carrier of all time, just single handedly elevating teams and making something good out of crap. And the longevity of him doing that is becoming borderline hilarious, he's blowing past ATGs in longevity like they're jokes. Although I guess I did say prime for prime, so meh. I think Jordan is likely a better ceiling raiser, but LeBron isn't that far off imo given how well his off-ball game has developed since Miami and how well he's functioned in some of Cleveland's motion sets. And defensively I think at his absolute best his versatility just puts him a bit above Jordan on that end. Like for huge stretches in the finals, especially games 5-7, dude was playing GOAT tier defense and not just man defense but a one man wrecking crew of a team defender as well. Another scary thing about LeBron imo is that he could've been even better, like if he had been developed under a guy like Pop or Riley from the start, ****.

Oh and yea originally Milbuck. Had to change the username to honor the GOAT and future POTUS Malcolm Brogdon

Well-put, especially when it comes to the point about longevity. Honestly, I figured that he would've started his steep decline by now, but LeBron seems to have adapted very well and is now passing legends statistically left and right.

And the more I see of Jordan, the more i'm convinced that LeBron is just as good a player as MJ. Like you said, his defensive versatility is a huge point in LeBron's favor, as is his passing vision, his screening, and his rebounding. MJ was a better scorer, but it's not like LeBron is a scrub in this regard either.

And Malcolm Brogdon is proof that sometimes it's better to go after the 'low-upside' and polished senior rather than the high-upside and raw freshman.

I'm a big Brogdon fan and thought he should have been a mid first rounder, but isn't this premature by nature? How can you say that Brogdon is proof that polished seniors are better than raw freshmen, obviously raw freshmen are not taken for how good they will be in their first year.

[ronnymac2]

It was a pretty unpopular opinion that Toronto might be the team to defeat the Cleveland Cavaliers, especially after Milwaukee took HCA over Toronto in GM1 and everybody was saying Toronto sucks in the playoffs and isn't even going to face Cleveland. I said calm down, it's one game. Sure enough, we've got Toronto vs. Cleveland now.

It's 50/50 man. Lowry is going to continue improving, especially since instead of the super long, chaotic defense he faced w/ the Bucks, he gets Kyrie Irving and an at times porous Cleveland defense. Not sure if I can officially call an upset yet, but I'm getting close.

[Clyde Frazier]

I enjoy watching Jamal Crawford as much as any player in the NBA.

I'm a big fan of Crawford the person. Seems like a genuinely good guy, and he's a basketball lifer. Runs the seattle pro-ams in the summer, and he's said himself he'll be the guy at the YMCA playing until he can't anymore. He's just a huge fan of the game, which I appreciate.

From 2010 to 2015, he was actually a pretty productive player. If they'd only figured out that a lesser role was best for him in NY, he might've had more success there. I've always liked his lanky frame and unique style as a playmaker. The chucking we could all do without, heh.

[ronnymac2]

Hmmm...Not sure if these are unpopular opinions still on the P.C. Board, but let's see:

1. Michael Jordan is the GOAT scorer, and Kobe Bryant is the second greatest scorer ever.
2. KAJ is the GOAT.
3. Making shots isn't that important for offensive superstars, particularly offensive superstars who volume score.
4. Hakeem Olajuwon from 1986-1992 is a truly great player. He is not two levels below 93-97 Olajuwon. He is a level below.
5. Blake Griffin at his best might be as good or better than Charles Barkley at his best.
6. Dirk Nowitzki's peak is 2009 and 2010, not his MVP 2007 or Finals appearances in 2006 and 2011.
7. Draymond Green is the most portable player ever. He is also unique (though his uniqueness is partially resulting from era).
8. DeAndre Jordan is deserving of his accolades.
9. Russell Westbrook was a top-5ish player from 2012-2014 when healthy (so pretty much pre-popular GOATbrook).
10. Specialists with auxiliary skills (Such as an elite 3-point shooter who can also post up) are underappreciated relative to slightly superior specialist who lack such auxiliary skills.

[SkyHookFTW]

Rebounding has a less to do with luck than some people believe. If one looks at the consistency of the top rebounders in NBA history, one may find that these players had the following in common:
1. Good positioning. These players had a knack for knowing where the ball was most likely to end up, often tracking a shot and getting near the spot where the ball would most likely end up.
2. High motor/willingness to get nasty in the post. When Charles Barkley was famously asked how a guy his height got so many rebounds, his replay was "I go get the damn ball." Guys like Wilt, Russell, Rodman, Moses, and Barkley were relentless, physical players who wanted that ball.
3. Decent vertical. While most rebounds are taken below the rim, a surprising number are available above the rim. Those players who can leap and have the will get those boards.

Knowing how to position yourself, having the will to fight for every ball, and being a good athlete is not luck. It's being a damn good basketball player. There will always be a bit of luck involved, but a good player can minimize the luck factor and be a good rebounder. Guys like Wilt, Rodman, Barkley, and Russell didn't get rebounds because they we're lucky. They got rebounds because they busted their ass on the court and knew how to play the game in a way that maximized their chances at rebounds.

[trex_8063]

OK, here's a potentially unpopular one: I'm not convinced '17 Harden is actually any better [or perhaps even as good???] as '15 Harden.

[Doctor MJ]

1. Dirk was better than Kobe.
2. If you believe Nash was better offensively than Kobe you should rank Nash well above Kobe from 05-10.
3. Wilt wasn't as bad mentally as people believe. His primary problem mentally was the NBA really was a minor league for parts of the 60s.

Could you elaborate on #2?

Also, I think you may be right about the others.

[Senior]

Hmmm...Not sure if these are unpopular opinions still on the P.C. Board, but let's see:

1. Michael Jordan is the GOAT scorer, and Kobe Bryant is the second greatest scorer ever.
2. KAJ is the GOAT.
3. Making shots isn't that important for offensive superstars, particularly offensive superstars who volume score.
4. Hakeem Olajuwon from 1986-1992 is a truly great player. He is not two levels below 93-97 Olajuwon. He is a level below.
5. Blake Griffin at his best might be as good or better than Charles Barkley at his best.
6. Dirk Nowitzki's peak is 2009 and 2010, not his MVP 2007 or Finals appearances in 2006 and 2011.
7. Draymond Green is the most portable player ever. He is also unique (though his uniqueness is partially resulting from era).
8. DeAndre Jordan is deserving of his accolades.
9. Russell Westbrook was a top-5ish player from 2012-2014 when healthy (so pretty much pre-popular GOATbrook).
10. Specialists with auxiliary skills (Such as an elite 3-point shooter who can also post up) are underappreciated relative to slightly superior specialist who lack such auxiliary skills.

I'd say the bolded are pretty unpopular.

I actually kind of agree with 3 - whether a shot goes in on any given attempt isn't as important as being able to create an overall team offense/force defensive adjustments. Even if Dirk was shooting 1/16 I still have to play his mid-range shot honestly, and that makes life a lot easier for the rest of his team.

Same on the flip side - a relatively limited scorer could be on fire for a certain game, but his teammates might be left with tougher shots which hurts the overall offense. It's part of the reason why I think efficiency is overrated.

[ronnymac2]

I actually kind of agree with 3 - whether a shot goes in on any given attempt isn't as important as being able to create an overall team offense/force defensive adjustments. Even if Dirk was shooting 1/16 I still have to play his mid-range shot honestly, and that makes life a lot easier for the rest of his team.

Same on the flip side - a relatively limited scorer could be on fire for a certain game, but his teammates might be left with tougher shots which hurts the overall offense. It's part of the reason why I think efficiency is overrated.

This really hit me during the 2016 postseason when people were crapping on Durant because he wasn't making his 3-point attempts at a high rate. Offensively, he was still a floor-spacer, took on high USG% (including creation of own shot), and was secondary playmaker.

The Dirk example you brought up is of course a great example. I estimate that an offensive anchor's scoring efficiency is maybe 15% of that player's total offensive goodness. I think a role player's scoring efficiency being consistent is a bit more important. You want the guys who play off the pressure the superstars create to be highly efficient at completing the play. Because in the end, those finishers are without a shadow of a doubt going to combine for a far, far greater USG% than any one single offensive superstar. Even Westbrook this year, with his insane motor and coaching tactics today being able and willing to optimize around a single player's ball-handling and creative ability, couldn't get above a 42 USG%. He isn't even finishing 50% of his team's plays when he is on the court.

[Texas Chuck]

David Robinson is better than Dream--and more than held his own when they played each other outside of that one series.
Tim Duncan deserves serious GOAT consideration---I'd take him over Kareem right now.
Jason Kidd was an incredible basketball player. The best PG drafted from 1990 forward.
Kevin Garnett in Minnesota provided more offensive value than defensive value. And I don't know that it's all that close either.
Phil Jackson is not a top 5 all-time coach
Boogie Cousins isn't a top ten center in the game right now.

[Senior]

This really hit me during the 2016 postseason when people were crapping on Durant because he wasn't making his 3-point attempts at a high rate. Offensively, he was still a floor-spacer, took on high USG% (including creation of own shot), and was secondary playmaker.

The Dirk example you brought up is of course a great example. I estimate that an offensive anchor's scoring efficiency is maybe 15% of that player's total offensive goodness. I think a role player's scoring efficiency being consistent is a bit more important. You want the guys who play off the pressure the superstars create to be highly efficient at completing the play. Because in the end, those finishers are without a shadow of a doubt going to combine for a far, far greater USG% than any one single offensive superstar. Even Westbrook this year, with his insane motor and coaching tactics today being able and willing to optimize around a single player's ball-handling and creative ability, couldn't get above a 42 USG%. He isn't even finishing 50% of his team's plays when he is on the court.

To me, a role player is by definition worse than your star. That means that he's probably going to see a greater offensive decline as teams face better playoff defenses lurking in May and June. Generating consistently easier shots such as open threes and layups/putbacks/dunks for those role players is necessary for an offense to stay afloat against stronger defenses. Oh sure, Dirk might get stuck with some below-average efficiency shots that he could miss, but he's getting his teammates easier shots that they can convert on a much better rate over the course of the game.

We kinda rip on role players/supporting cast for not scoring that well late in the playoffs...but part of it has to be on the star to consistently create easier shots for their team because you're not winning 1 v 5. And it's kind of odd to see posters rip on a star through their supporting cast's "help" because there's a pretty good chance that the star increased a shot conversion rate, regardless of whether it was assisted or not. This isn't baseball where each individual batter is at the plate and none of his teammates can do anything but shout encouraging words at him. It's basketball with 10 guys all interacting on the court.

[sp6r=underrated]

1. Dirk was better than Kobe.
2. If you believe Nash was better offensively than Kobe you should rank Nash well above Kobe from 05-10.
3. Wilt wasn't as bad mentally as people believe. His primary problem mentally was the NBA really was a minor league for parts of the 60s.

Could you elaborate on #2?

Also, I think you may be right about the others.

Nash's problems defensively were athletic limitation that weakened his ability as a man defender. He made proper rotations and was willing to stay in a defensive system. I think his defensive stats relative to the situation he was in explain why he should be above Kobe.

I am not with your opinion that the 07 suns were the best team. I think there was a trifecta that season and no club was the best. There limitation was on the defensive end. At the Center position, the most important defensive position in basketball, maybe the worst sleeve in the last 20 years of prominent players. Their Head Coach during those years was D'Antoni who is very weak and disinterested defensively. Nash was in a really bad spot defensively. With that his defensive stats were right on par with Kobe.

Kobe by 05 combined two awful traits which were only partially mitigated by his athleticism: generally lazy defensive rotations along with a propensity to gamble. That tendency would increase when the team was in trouble. Those weaknesses placed a greater cap on a team's defense than Nash's individual defensive failings.

[Dr Positivity]

- Individual rebounding is the most overrated stat in the sport. The ambiguity about who's boxing out or not, or taking rebounds from teammates instead of the other team makes it not close to the value that the media puts on it right now. I'm not convinced using rebounds to measure impact on team rebounding is any better than using steals and blocks to measure defense.

- In and out numbers from when players miss a section of the season for injury time means nothing to me. Considering raw +/- from a player's full season is almost useless on its own, I don't know how some people get suckered into the far smaller sample size than even that of raw +/- in and out numbers. There is a lag in adjusting to a team without its stars and there's an emotional effect on the team without its star either good or bad that has a lot of variance.

- Moses Malone is one of the more overrated all time greats, partly from my opinion on rebound stats, partly because I have some issues with big men with a mediocre defense/floor spacing combo. Would consider putting some players as low as Stockton, Havlicek, Pippen, Barry, etc. over him

- Gobert has the upside to get to the same level of MVP contending superstar that Kawhi is right now

[Homer38]

David Robinson is better than Dream--and more than held his own when they played each other outside of that one series.
Tim Duncan deserves serious GOAT consideration---I'd take him over Kareem right now.
Jason Kidd was an incredible basketball player. The best PG drafted from 1990 forward.
Kevin Garnett in Minnesota provided more offensive value than defensive value. And I don't know that it's all that close either.
Phil Jackson is not a top 5 all-time coach
Boogie Cousins isn't a top ten center in the game right now.

I'd like to know why you think Phil Jackson is not a top 5 coach of all-time.

I know he had a lot of talent but 11 rings in 20 years is very impressive.

[Young_Star11]

James Harden 2016/17 MVP

[sp6r=underrated]

James Harden 2016/17 MVP

that's not an unpopular opinion. it isn't consensus but it isn't unpopular

[picc]

Tim Duncan deserves serious GOAT consideration---I'd take him over Kareem right now.
Jason Kidd was an incredible basketball player. The best PG drafted from 1990 forward.
Kevin Garnett in Minnesota provided more offensive value than defensive value. And I don't know that it's all that close either.
Phil Jackson is not a top 5 all-time coach
Boogie Cousins isn't a top ten center in the game right now.

Mind elaborating?

To be clear, I think Phil Jackson is easily the most overrated coach of all time, in any sport. But in terms of greatness, all-time, I have a hard time seeing how his resume/accolades doesn't warrant a top 5.

Open to arguments though.

[Narigo]

Billups was better offensive player than Nash in 2006 and 2008

[mikejames23]

I don't understand the obsession with TS%. Truly. I use it myself to measure efficient scoring... but it has gone to determining a player's true worth. This shouldn't be happening.

I mean, this really just goes back to looking at 1 metric as a poor way of evaluating players. It does answer the question, “how efficiently did this person score?” It’s then up to the person looking at it to understand context of that efficiency and that there are obviously other skills that go into a good player.

To elaborate, I feel there's the urge to eliminate a player from a discussion or downgrade his series because it was at a lower TS%. I actually feel you can be shooting at sub 50 TS% in a playoff series as a volume scorer and have a very good series. There are a number of superstars that went through this - Westbrook, Kobe, '15 LeBron, etc. I don't know if this is actually making as large of a difference as even a good analyst would say it does.

[HeartBreakKid]

I don't understand the obsession with TS%. Truly. I use it myself to measure efficient scoring... but it has gone to determining a player's true worth. This shouldn't be happening.

I mean, this really just goes back to looking at 1 metric as a poor way of evaluating players. It does answer the question, “how efficiently did this person score?” It’s then up to the person looking at it to understand context of that efficiency and that there are obviously other skills that go into a good player.

To elaborate, I feel there's the urge to eliminate a player from a discussion or downgrade his series because it was at a lower TS%. I actually feel you can be shooting at sub 50 TS% in a playoff series as a volume scorer and have a very good series. There are a number of superstars that went through this - Westbrook, Kobe, '15 LeBron, etc. I don't know if this is actually making as large of a difference as even a good analyst would say it does.

Well, of course you can have a good series because there is more to ball than just scoring, but it is inaccurate to say that they had a great scoring run with sub 50 TS%, and TS% is ultimately there to help evaluate scoring ability not overall ability. Lebron James would have been much more effective if his jumper wasn't broken in 2015, I don't think it's hard to deny that.