Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[ThaRegul8r]

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

This isn't an opinion though, it's your subjective preference. No one can reasonably take issue with what players someone likes to watch.

Is subjective preference not an opinion?

opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
preference: a greater liking for one alternative over another or others.

"I'd rather watch Player X than any other player in the league." Preference.
"Player X is the best player (one can replace "best" with any other adjective one wishes) in the league." Opinion.

Preferences are not arguable. If someone likes X over Y, that's solely a matter of individual taste.
Opinions are arguable. As Oxford says, they aren't necessarily (and frequently aren't) based on fact or knowledge.

If someone prefers Coke over Pepsi, I don't feel the same way, but I can't say that they're wrong since it's subjective. A preference is simply a liking. A preference is not an opinion. No one has an opinion that they like something, they either like it, they don't, or they're indifferent. I like this or that, and that's not open for debate. I like what I like. I may have an opinion about this or that, which may or may not be informed. If someone's of the opinion that Allen Iverson is the greatest player in NBA history (to take an example I've actually seen before), people can say that that opinion is false, as, contrary to popular belief, opinions can be wrong. Now in these such cases, people espouse views based on their subjective preferences, but they're two different things.

[mtron929]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are common personality traits amongst diehard fans of so-called selfish players like Kobe Bryant, Russell Westbrook, Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony, etc. This is just me being an armchair psychiatrist.

[rebirthoftheM]

Steve Nash, Kevin Garnett and Scottie Pippen are three of the most overrated players of all time
Shaq's peak was head and shoulders above anyone else, including MJ.
Tim Duncan's case for Top 5 ATG is non-existent. He ranks somewhere around 8-9 at best.
Kobe Bryant is underrated among basketball heads.
A player's ability to impact Team D is far far lower than the ability to impact on O.
Magic Johnson was clearly better than Larry Bird.

[70sFan]

1. I'd rather have Walt Frazier than Russell Westbrook on my team. I believe he's more portable and valuable player.

2. Adrian Dantley is better than Wilkins, Melo, Aguirre and King. He's not a ball stopper people like to call him.

3. With today spacing centers like Wilt, Shaq, Kareem or Hakeem would have more offensive impact than before.

4. It's easy for players to develop decent three point shot and most perimeter players from 60s-80s could be decent to good shooters.

5. Adrian Dantley was the best player on 1986-87 Pistons team.

6. Nate Archibald would be MVP candidate in today game. For comparison, I'm sure Derozan would be more valuable in late 90s for example.

7. Kareem peaked higher than Shaq and is better overall offensive player.

8. Cousins is less valuable player than Dikembe Mutombo, Wes Unseld and Dave Cowens.

9. Bill Russell is far more valuable defensively than any other player offensively.

10. I have Bob Pettit over Charles Barkley on all time list and I believe he's close in terms of peak to both Chuck and Maliman.

[Pachinko_]

I have many

I believe that defense, teamwork and coaching are by far the most important things in basketball,
I prefer the Euroleague to the NBA,
I think the coach should be the most powerful person on a team,
I think some schools of international basketball are the best at everything except athleticism,
I think American 19 year old players are way behind in their development curve because the system they come out of is broken,
I think the most interesting thing in basketball is watching a less talented team finding ways to beat a more talented team,
I find the most boring thing in basketball is watching someone forcing shots and his team winning because of it (or despite it).

[Brooklyn_34]

1. I'd rather have Walt Frazier than Russell Westbrook on my team. I believe he's more portable and valuable player.

2. Adrian Dantley is better than Wilkins, Melo, Aguirre and King. He's not a ball stopper people like to call him.

3. With today spacing centers like Wilt, Shaq, Kareem or Hakeem would have more offensive impact than before.

4. It's easy for players to develop decent three point shot and most perimeter players from 60s-80s could be decent to good shooters.

5. Adrian Dantley was the best player on 1986-87 Pistons team.

6. Nate Archibald would be MVP candidate in today game. For comparison, I'm sure Derozan would be more valuable in late 90s for example.

7. Kareem peaked higher than Shaq and is better overall offensive player.

8. Cousins is less valuable player than Dikembe Mutombo, Wes Unseld and Dave Cowens.

9. Bill Russell is far more valuable defensively than any other player offensively.

10. I have Bob Pettit over Charles Barkley on all time list and I believe he's close in terms of peak to both Chuck and Maliman.

1. Agreed. Better defense too. Clyde is underrated.
2. You're probably right about that.
3. Neutral.
4.Disagree
5.No opinion.
6. Interesting.
7. Could be right....early 70s Kareem was NO JOKE.
8. I definitely agree.
9.Could be right.
10. I agree...I actually have him as my #3 PF all-time (behind Duncan and Malone). He's incredibly overlooked. Years ago, I didn't think much of him until I looked at his career. He was a bad dude....

Here's mine:

I think Kevin Garnett is overrated by many. I can't believe he's in some top 15 lists....mind-boggling to me. Top 20-25, yes.

He was an extremely hard worker, but his offense wasn't dominant enough nor his individual defense dominant enough for him to be so high up in this rankings.

I think Hakeem Olajuwon is slightly overrated. Don't why he's default top 10....top 15-20 yes. Can't quite put him in the same level as the best of the best (Bird, Johnson, Jabbar, Chamberlain, Etc.) He's a great player, but just outside of those guys.

Bob Pettit is criminally underrated, and I'd take him over every PF except for Duncan and Malone.

Elgin Baylor is criminally underrated.

I'd take Jerry West over Kobe Bryant. Yes, I said it. West was more consistent on offense and defense.

[THKNKG]

1. I'd rather have Walt Frazier than Russell Westbrook on my team. I believe he's more portable and valuable player.

2. Adrian Dantley is better than Wilkins, Melo, Aguirre and King. He's not a ball stopper people like to call him.

3. With today spacing centers like Wilt, Shaq, Kareem or Hakeem would have more offensive impact than before.

4. It's easy for players to develop decent three point shot and most perimeter players from 60s-80s could be decent to good shooters.

5. Adrian Dantley was the best player on 1986-87 Pistons team.

6. Nate Archibald would be MVP candidate in today game. For comparison, I'm sure Derozan would be more valuable in late 90s for example.

7. Kareem peaked higher than Shaq and is better overall offensive player.

8. Cousins is less valuable player than Dikembe Mutombo, Wes Unseld and Dave Cowens.

9. Bill Russell is far more valuable defensively than any other player offensively.

10. I have Bob Pettit over Charles Barkley on all time list and I believe he's close in terms of peak to both Chuck and Maliman.

I think I agree with the majority of these.

[trex_8063]

3. With today spacing centers like Wilt, Shaq, Kareem or Hakeem would have more offensive impact than before.

I kinda think we already had a chance to see this with Hakeem in late '95. Most frequent line-ups after obtaining Clyde would be:
Hakeem
Robert Horry (PF)
Clyde Drexler
Vernon Maxwell or Mario Elie
Kenny Smith or Sam Cassell

Four shooters spacing the floor around Hakeem in the post; and with Hakeem's passing, made it nearly impossible to effectively double-team Dream [and no one can really contain him in single coverage]. See '95 WCF for reference.

[70sFan]

3. With today spacing centers like Wilt, Shaq, Kareem or Hakeem would have more offensive impact than before.

I kinda think we already had a chance to see this with Hakeem in late '95. Most frequent line-ups after obtaining Clyde would be:
Hakeem
Robert Horry (PF)
Clyde Drexler
Vernon Maxwell or Mario Elie
Kenny Smith or Sam Cassell

Four shooters spacing the floor around Hakeem in the post; and with Hakeem's passing, made it nearly impossible to effectively double-team Dream [and no one can really contain him in single coverage]. See '95 WCF for reference.

True and that makes me even more sure about my statement. When I look at spacing on 1964 Warriors for example I can't imagine how Wilt could score 37 ppg against strong defensive Hawks team without any decent shooter (maybe outside of Meschery). Then imagine him with a team like 1995 Rockets - he would be just as unstoppable as Hakeem.

[mischievous]

Chris Paul isn't as good as his advanced stats suggest, particularly in the playoffs and he's not blame free for his team's failures.

[bledredwine]

1. Paul George, Steph Curry, Jimmy Butler were going to be superstars (very unpopular opinion when they were coming out of college. 2. Joakim Noah was overrated in late Bulls years and we should have traded him at that value. 3. The league is the weakest it's been and being athletic is no longer a requirement to be a franchise player. 4. Chris Paul has a cult following and continues to be overrated even despite being a second option on a championship team at best. 5. Shaq and Hakeem are underrated in GOAT debates. 6. Lebron MJ is not as close as the media+PC board would have you believe, and like Kobe, will fade with time into his rightful positioning.

[trex_8063]

I have another potentially unpopular (or at least "insufficiently considered") opinion: the value of a good screen-setter is widely unappreciated, not only by casual fans but also by many posters here.

[GeneralManager]

I have another potentially unpopular (or at least "insufficiently considered") opinion: the value of a good screen-setter is widely unappreciated, not only by casual fans but also by many posters here.

Indeed, Karl Malone is undervalued in this regard.

[microfib4thewin]

I have another potentially unpopular (or at least "insufficiently considered") opinion: the value of a good screen-setter is widely unappreciated, not only by casual fans but also by many posters here.

That I agree with. I noticed that Nash seems to set a lot of weakside screens to prevent his shooters from getting contested. Whether that is true or if that had any influence on their league best offense I have no idea.

[70sFan]

I have another potentially unpopular (or at least "insufficiently considered") opinion: the value of a good screen-setter is widely unappreciated, not only by casual fans but also by many posters here.

That's why Unseld is so valuable.

[trex_8063]

I have another potentially unpopular (or at least "insufficiently considered") opinion: the value of a good screen-setter is widely unappreciated, not only by casual fans but also by many posters here.

That's why Unseld is so valuable.

Yeah, he appears to be "the standard" for this skill. But there are several other players I've noted do a really good job of this: David Robinson and Kevin Garnett pop immediately to mind. Bill Russell was pretty good, Rudy Gobert is very good, Joakim Noah is generally pretty good, Cody Zeller is very good, DeAndre Jordan is reasonably good in this......I'm sure there are many others we could mention.

And interestingly, I wonder if because a) high pnr/pnp is such a huge part of modern offenses, and b) organizations are more aware [by tangible means/metrics] than ever of the value of certain "intangible" skills, that we'll see this skillset nurtured to the degree that the "league-average" screen setter improves over time (actually, the average has perhaps already been improving over the last few years).......Thus, what we would have called a "very good" screen setter just 5 years ago will maybe look merely average to our eyes circa-2020 or so (because EVERYONE will be setting decent screens by then----it will be seen as an essential big-man skill).

[Dr Positivity]

Lebron's 2016 supporting cast is worse than Dirk's in 2011, possibly anyone's since Rick Barry

The hot hand is real

[BasketballFan7]

I have another potentially unpopular (or at least "insufficiently considered") opinion: the value of a good screen-setter is widely unappreciated, not only by casual fans but also by many posters here.

Agreed. Blocking out is very undervalued as well.

[Texas Chuck]

Lebron's 2016 supporting cast is worse than Dirk's in 2011, possibly anyone's since Rick Barry

The hot hand is real

Can't see how this is unpopular. I think most people here see the 2011 Mavs as being perfectly built around Dirk. They lacked star power in comparison with other championship teams, but that was a very good supporting cast around Dirk.

[Daddy 801]

I have another potentially unpopular (or at least "insufficiently considered") opinion: the value of a good screen-setter is widely unappreciated, not only by casual fans but also by many posters here.

I agree with this soooooooo much.

It is why I have argued Gobert is more important to the Jazz offense than Hayward. Gobert sets 2-4 screens on an average play. I see a good screen as no different than a good pass/assist. Creating movement and space is so important and a good screen is the one of the best ways to do that(arguably the most important). If that player can then roll to the basket as a threat he is going to make a HUGE difference.

It is also one of the key reasons the Duncan Spurs and KG Celts were so good. Also one aspect of Stockton many people forget about.