Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[Quotatious]

2017 Harden and Westbrook > peak Kobe

[LA Bird]

I enjoy reading GeneralManager's posts. Always unbiased and plenty of in-depth analysis when it comes to topics about LeBron.

[Fadeaway_J]

I enjoy reading GeneralManager's posts. Always unbiased and plenty of in-depth analysis when it comes to topics about LeBron.

This is definitely an unpopular opinion.

[Fadeaway_J]

Not sure how unpopular (or even relevant) this is, but I would still rather have a healthy Chris Paul than Russell Westbrook.

[Goudelock]

Here's another unpopular opinion:

Kobe was the most talented passer of any SG and had the talent to average 10 APG. He just wasn't the most willing passer, and was somewhat stifled by the Triangle for most of his career when it came to assist opportunities.

That is an unusual opinion. Though I'm interested to hear more about why you think this. I've argued for Kobe's passing ability in the past, but I haven't seen as much of Kobe's career as I would like, so I must concede a degree of uncertainty. Any seasons or series where Kobe's passing was on full display? Summer's approaching and I'll actually have time to start watching games again.


My unpopular opinion: There's over 10 legitimate GOAT candidates.

Watch his 2012-13 season, where there was a stretch where he was assist hunting in the most blatant way possible. That was a D'antoni system being run too. Anyways, he showed some absolutely awesome passing skills that he could've utilized more.

[Senior]

I think luck has way less to do with playoff runs than we think it does. The only thing I can really attribute to luck are major, freak injuries to contenders (like 09 KG) - everything else is the responsibility of a team and its players. And after that, for every instance of luck you can point to in a given title run, there were many more things that had to do with how the players themselves played.

Winners make the big plays, win in the face of bad matchups, and generally make the most of their few chances when they get them. Favored teams lose all the time. All this talk about "stacked conferences", "tough matchups", etc are simply irrelevant if your team just plays better. They don't need to handwave failures by discussing luck because they make their own.

For example, last year's Finals. We can go on and on about Bogut's and Iggy's injuries, but it's Green's own fault he got suspended and the Warriors had two chances after that including the trump card of a Game 7 at home to close them out and didn't get it done. There were chances for GS to win the series and they didn't take them. Even for the last minute of Game 7 with Kyrie making his three and Curry missing - GS could've made their three after the Lebron FT, or not gone scoreless for 4.5 minutes in the 4th, or a ton of other things. They were in that game until the final seconds and didn't get it done. They didn't even give themselves a chance in Game 6 - they were down 31-11 after the first quarter and spent the entire game trying to come back.

How about the 95 Rockets? Pretty underwhelming RS, worst seed to win the title, beat insanely good teams along the way. We can talk about Seattle and MJ all we want, but nobody cares that Houston lost Herrera and Maxwell before the playoffs, nobody cares that Clyde got ejected for literally no reason in Game 1 of the Suns series or that he was terribly sick before an elimination Game 5 vs the Suns. Nobody cares because the Rockets won the title anyway, in part because their team overcame their obstacles. Rockets faced 5 elimination games that year and won all of them. The Magic were supposed to destroy the Rockets. How did that turn out?

Another controversial pick - the 02 Lakers. Again, Peja was hurt and Game 6 is still under suspicion, but nobody cares that Game 5 was just as bad, that Kobe got food poisoning before Game 2 (Lakers lost both Games 2/3), that Sacramento had the chance to go up 3-1 and threw it away, and that Sacramento had the Game 7 at home and threw it away. Those are pretty unfriendly circumstances, but none of them matter because LA won anyway i.e. they overcame them. You could argue that LA matched up poorly with SA and SAC. Didn't matter.

At the end of the day, it's about overcoming adversity. Title runs aren't easy, and the losers aren't the only ones with difficult obstacles to overcome. The winners are the reason most of these luck discussions have to come down to luck and hypotheticals. They take care of business, and it's the losers who are left wondering what could have been.

[HeartBreakKid]

Here's another unpopular opinion:

Kobe was the most talented passer of any SG and had the talent to average 10 APG. He just wasn't the most willing passer, and was somewhat stifled by the Triangle for most of his career when it came to assist opportunities.

That is an unusual opinion. Though I'm interested to hear more about why you think this. I've argued for Kobe's passing ability in the past, but I haven't seen as much of Kobe's career as I would like, so I must concede a degree of uncertainty. Any seasons or series where Kobe's passing was on full display? Summer's approaching and I'll actually have time to start watching games again.


My unpopular opinion: There's over 10 legitimate GOAT candidates.

Watch his 2012-13 season, where there was a stretch where he was assist hunting in the most blatant way possible. That was a D'antoni system being run too. Anyways, he showed some absolutely awesome passing skills that he could've utilized more.

He was turning the ball over like crazy, let's not get carried away - the whole Magic Bryant thing was largely a failure.

[Texas Chuck]

Speaking of Cousins, I may as well drop this one: I'm not sure he was one of the best 20 players in the league this season and I think giving him a 30% max will set your franchise back a long way.

I've been beating this drum for awhile now.

[sp6r=underrated]

I think luck has way less to do with playoff runs than we think it does. The only thing I can really attribute to luck are major, freak injuries to contenders (like 09 KG) - everything else is the responsibility of a team and its players. And after that, for every instance of luck you can point to in a given title run, there were many more things that had to do with how the players themselves played.

Winners make the big plays, win in the face of bad matchups, and generally make the most of their few chances when they get them. Favored teams lose all the time. All this talk about "stacked conferences", "tough matchups", etc are simply irrelevant if your team just plays better. They don't need to handwave failures by discussing luck because they make their own.

For example, last year's Finals. We can go on and on about Bogut's and Iggy's injuries, but it's Green's own fault he got suspended and the Warriors had two chances after that including the trump card of a Game 7 at home to close them out and didn't get it done. There were chances for GS to win the series and they didn't take them. Even for the last minute of Game 7 with Kyrie making his three and Curry missing - GS could've made their three after the Lebron FT, or not gone scoreless for 4.5 minutes in the 4th, or a ton of other things. They were in that game until the final seconds and didn't get it done. They didn't even give themselves a chance in Game 6 - they were down 31-11 after the first quarter and spent the entire game trying to come back.

How about the 95 Rockets? Pretty underwhelming RS, worst seed to win the title, beat insanely good teams along the way. We can talk about Seattle and MJ all we want, but nobody cares that Houston lost Herrera and Maxwell before the playoffs, nobody cares that Clyde got ejected for literally no reason in Game 1 of the Suns series or that he was terribly sick before an elimination Game 5 vs the Suns. Nobody cares because the Rockets won the title anyway, in part because their team overcame their obstacles. Rockets faced 5 elimination games that year and won all of them. The Magic were supposed to destroy the Rockets. How did that turn out?

Another controversial pick - the 02 Lakers. Again, Peja was hurt and Game 6 is still under suspicion, but nobody cares that Game 5 was just as bad, that Kobe got food poisoning before Game 2 (Lakers lost both Games 2/3), that Sacramento had the chance to go up 3-1 and threw it away, and that Sacramento had the Game 7 at home and threw it away. Those are pretty unfriendly circumstances, but none of them matter because LA won anyway i.e. they overcame them. You could argue that LA matched up poorly with SA and SAC. Didn't matter.

At the end of the day, it's about overcoming adversity. Title runs aren't easy, and the losers aren't the only ones with difficult obstacles to overcome. The winners are the reason most of these luck discussions have to come down to luck and hypotheticals. They take care of business, and it's the losers who are left wondering what could have been.

Well I completely disagree with the thesis that luck isn't that important and most of the examples you cite for reasons we've gone over before but this is an unpopular opinion thread so nice job.

My only quivel that I'll make in this thread is I don't think most people consider luck at all so I'm not sure it is really unpopular.

[mischievous]

I think luck has way less to do with playoff runs than we think it does. The only thing I can really attribute to luck are major, freak injuries to contenders (like 09 KG) - everything else is the responsibility of a team and its players. And after that, for every instance of luck you can point to in a given title run, there were the time.

The luck thing is just an excuse made up for people to defend the fact that one of their favorite players or teams didn't win. Cp3 is the posterboy for this, but i know you tend to lean more in my direction with that debate along with Picc.

[Dr Positivity]

I understand what Senior is saying but I also think it's not either or. The Clippers losing to Houston for example falls a lot on the Clippers, you don't blow a 3-1 lead in 1 quarter, the rest of that game and three others they lost matters. That they got beat easily in Game 5 and 7 of that series says a lot about the Clips that year to me. However Josh Smith getting hot from 3 to kill them WAS luck.

Likewise in series like 2010 or 2013 Finals I don't think the difference between the teams is that reflective of one of team being championship caliber and the other not. If you beat a team 3 times and have a double digit lead in second half of the fourth game you're good enough to beat them, just sometimes it doesn't work out

[IG2]

2012 is not one of LeBron's top 5 seasons. Still had some notable athletic limitations. 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017 are all better.

[menace2society]

If lebron did not have the god-given natural freakish speed and strength, he would not be a top 20 player of all time.

[HeartBreakKid]

If lebron did not have the god-given natural freakish speed and strength, he would not be a top 20 player of all time.

This isn't exactly saying much, is it?

[SideshowBob]

2012 is not one of LeBron's top 5 seasons. Still had some notable athletic limitations. 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017 are all better.

Same.

[Dr Spaceman]

Speaking of Cousins, I may as well drop this one: I'm not sure he was one of the best 20 players in the league this season and I think giving him a 30% max will set your franchise back a long way.

I've been beating this drum for awhile now.

Another reminder that we should all listen to you more often.

[eminence]

Speaking of Cousins, I may as well drop this one: I'm not sure he was one of the best 20 players in the league this season and I think giving him a 30% max will set your franchise back a long way.

I've been beating this drum for awhile now.

Another reminder that we should all listen to you more often.

Outside of Winsome nobody is real high on him, and the majority seem to go back half of the teens and agree that he seems one of the tougher players to build around due to personality/play-style. I wouldn't go so far as to say it'll actively set a franchise back (it really depends on where he goes), so I guess that part could be pretty unpopular.

[Senior]

I understand what Senior is saying but I also think it's not either or. The Clippers losing to Houston for example falls a lot on the Clippers, you don't blow a 3-1 lead in 1 quarter, the rest of that game and three others they lost matters. That they got beat easily in Game 5 and 7 of that series says a lot about the Clips that year to me. However Josh Smith getting hot from 3 to kill them WAS luck.

Likewise in series like 2010 or 2013 Finals I don't think the difference between the teams is that reflective of one of team being championship caliber and the other not. If you beat a team 3 times and have a double digit lead in second half of the fourth game you're good enough to beat them, just sometimes it doesn't work out

Yeah, it's not either or, it's that the stuff decided by luck isn't nearly as big or meaningful as the stuff decided by the players. Did Josh Smith get hot/lucky in that quarter? Sure, but there were plenty of other things that the Rockets did and the Clippers did not do to lose the game and series. Josh Smith's outburst wouldn't even mattered had LAC won Games 5 or 7, had they prevented Corey Brewer from scoring 15 in the 4th, had they scored a few more points to put the game away.

In those Finals, you're right that the Celtics and Spurs were title-caliber teams, but LA and Miami were a tiny bit better. Boston and SA had plenty of chances to make the game-sealing plays and take the title. They did not take them, and that let LA and Miami take the title instead. Doesn't mean they weren't title caliber teams - I mean, the same cores WON titles in years near the Finals in question, but they weren't better than either title winner those years. It didn't work out because LA and Miami made the big plays in Games 6/7 whereas Boston and SA did not.

The luck thing is just an excuse made up for people to defend the fact that one of their favorite players or teams didn't win. Cp3 is the posterboy for this, but i know you tend to lean more in my direction with that debate along with Picc.

Kind of, I agree that CP got shafted with injuries a lot but he didn't take his chances in 2014 or 2015. Those iterations of LAC probably weren't better than the 14 Spurs or 15 Warriors, but you never know until you play the series. Who knows what could've happened? But LAC didn't take their chances to advance.

[PaulieWal]

Not sure how unpopular (or even relevant) this is, but I would still rather have a healthy Chris Paul than Russell Westbrook.

Except a "healthy Chris Paul" doesn't exist in the real world.

[Fadeaway_J]

Not sure how unpopular (or even relevant) this is, but I would still rather have a healthy Chris Paul than Russell Westbrook.

Except a "healthy Chris Paul" doesn't exist in the real world.

Stick around, you can catch him in a couple of hours or so.