Pick your all-time starting-5 (today's rules)

[Manocad]

I think I go with:

PG: Steph Curry
SG: Michael Jordan
SF: Kawhi Leonard
PF: Kevin Durant
PF: Lebron James

I liked the idea of having someone like Hakeem to scoop up boards but the reality is in today's NBA that many of those shots are going to have long rebounds anyway. All of these starting 5 are respectable at getting a fair share of boards and the days of requiring a bona-fide post presence are over.

Remember, it's today's rules and in today's rules it's much more beneficial to hoist 3s.

I see Steph as too much of a liability defensively. I'd do everything I could to get him one-on-one against Hakeem, LeBron, MJ, Durant.. even Kawhi. Anyone on my team lol. If you double or help, a deadly scorer's wide open.

Shaq, Kareem, Duncan, Hakeem.. any of those guys isolated in the low-post against LeBron could be the end of your dynasty.

The other team has to spend the effort and energy to guard Steph as well. Let them stretch their defense 4 feet beyond the 3-point arc to compensate and see where that gets them.

If they spend their time isolating down low on offense then they aren't passing the ball around or shooting 3s.
I'll take that trade against my 5's ball movement and shooting all day; every day.

Shaq, Kareem, Duncan and Hakeem are basically pointless on the defensive end against my 5. None of them need to be close to the rim to be deadly. Those bigs would be eaten alive having to guard the perimeter.

Thanks for the change of pace topic blue!

And all four of those players would eat Lebron and Durant alive in the low post on offense, which is where your dangerous perimeter forwards would have to guard them. Durant trying to guard any of those four in the post? That's actually laughable. And last time I checked centers typically have higher shooting percentages than guys shooting from outside, so that kinda sounds like a net win for the centers to me.

[Manocad]

On a general note, basketball is still a game of putting the ball through the hoop. That is most easily done the closer you are to the basket, and that's inarguable. That's why centers always have the highest shooting percentages. So to think that "today's" NBA teams can't be successful with a great true back to the basket low post center is ridiculous. The math is simple. A center shooting 55% guarding a guy shooting outside at 45% or even 50%...not that tough to see who has the overall advantage.

[Snakebites]

On a general note, basketball is still a game of putting the ball through the hoop. That is most easily done the closer you are to the basket, and that's inarguable. That's why centers always have the highest shooting percentages. So to think that "today's" NBA teams can't be successful with a great true back to the basket low post center is ridiculous. The math is simple. A center shooting 55% guarding a guy shooting outside at 45% or even 50%...not that tough to see who has the overall advantage.

True if a 3 point line doesn't exist.

[Manocad]

On a general note, basketball is still a game of putting the ball through the hoop. That is most easily done the closer you are to the basket, and that's inarguable. That's why centers always have the highest shooting percentages. So to think that "today's" NBA teams can't be successful with a great true back to the basket low post center is ridiculous. The math is simple. A center shooting 55% guarding a guy shooting outside at 45% or even 50%...not that tough to see who has the overall advantage.

True if a 3 point line doesn't exist.

There's a guy guarding centers in the low post and shooting 45-50% from three, shooting nothing but threes? This isn't a theoretical argument.

[blueadams]

I forgot why I didn't contribute to these threads for a while and tried again. oops.

Enjoy your dogma, blue. Asking for opinions and then crapping on them is no bueno. Critiquing my choices for weaknesses I'd already pointed out is annoying. And I don't need to watch Lew on tape -- I watched him play. You are wrong.

Sounds like your memory’s fading. Watch a 1970 bucks game. Immediately follow it with a 2020 bucks game. Then talk to me about Kareem’s athleticism. Brook Lopez makes him look slow..

There's a reason Kareem holds the record for most points scored in a career--the skyhook, which no one shoots anymore and Kareem was an absolute master of, shooting it even from outside--is indefensible. He's third all time in blocks even though blocks weren't recorded until his fourth year in the NBA. He was no slouch on defense. Brook Lopez being "faster" doesn't count for squat. Kareem would eat him alive in the post on both offense and defense.

This another subject skewed by what I'll call the "recency" effect. Are today's NBA players better athletes than in the 50's, 60's, etc.? Sure. But the idea that Kareem's skill level doesn't apply to today's NBA because he played 35 years ago is ridiculous. He was scoring 25 points a game on a team with two other 20 PPG scorers in Magic and Worthy. Stick him on a crappy team with no other serious scoring options and he'd have probably averaged 40+ a game.

Babe Ruth smoked, drank, and was fat. But he hit 60 home runs in a time when ENTIRE TEAMS DIDN'T HIT THAT MANY, literally. The first year he hit 60 he hit more homers than every other team in the league but THREE. Would anyone suggest that if Babe Ruth were alive today he couldn't still be a great hitter? It's not like pitchers could only throw 50 mph at that time; by all accounts pitchers have been throwing 80-100 mph pretty much during baseball's entire history. Or that Wilt Chamberlain couldn't still be a great player in today's NBA when in his peak year he shot 73 freaking percent from the field in a time where shooting percentages were typically lower than they are now? Oh yeah, and there's that 100 point game too. That wasn't played against middle schoolers.

Yeah, humans evolve. We're getting better organically, we have better training, medicine, diets, etc. than in the past. But greatness in any sport isn't solely a function of being a better athlete than your competition. It's more about being a great PLAYER, i.e. a master of the game. And the game of basketball, outside of some rule changes, hasn't changed. It's still just putting a ball through the hoop against a defending player.

I don’t.... I don’t understand this.. I don’t understand any aspect of this rant or its purpose at all.

I didn’t say Kareem sucked, or wasn’t great. I said watch his old game tapes. Even as a young Buck...in those incredibly slow-paced games...he’s almost always the last down the court to join the offense, sometimes as late as 5-10 seconds after the offense is set up...he never gets back on defense in time to be a defensive factor in fast-break situations...he covers his face like a little girl whenever men around him are going for a rebound...for every milk man’s shot he challenges, there’s 3 or 4 that he doesn’t even bother to. I don’t think he’d have a chance in hell switched against someone like MJ on the perimeter.

Hakeem was always 110% effort. First down the floor, first back. A leader by example with his effort. Challenged every shot. Went for every rebound. Was never.. and never looked.. scared or girly. And he was a much more fluid and agile athlete around the perimeter; probably due primarily to his soccer background.

Also.. Durant.. at almost 7ft tall.. with his length, his hops, and his high-release point. When he pulls up for a mid-range jumper all you can do is foul him or hope he misses.. just like Kareem’s sky-hook. And Durant’s pull-up might miss more than Kareem’s hook... but a lot of the times it goes in its for 3pts.

[blueadams]

I see Steph as too much of a liability defensively. I'd do everything I could to get him one-on-one against Hakeem, LeBron, MJ, Durant.. even Kawhi. Anyone on my team lol. If you double or help, a deadly scorer's wide open.

Shaq, Kareem, Duncan, Hakeem.. any of those guys isolated in the low-post against LeBron could be the end of your dynasty.

The other team has to spend the effort and energy to guard Steph as well. Let them stretch their defense 4 feet beyond the 3-point arc to compensate and see where that gets them.

If they spend their time isolating down low on offense then they aren't passing the ball around or shooting 3s.
I'll take that trade against my 5's ball movement and shooting all day; every day.

Shaq, Kareem, Duncan and Hakeem are basically pointless on the defensive end against my 5. None of them need to be close to the rim to be deadly. Those bigs would be eaten alive having to guard the perimeter.

Thanks for the change of pace topic blue!

And all four of those players would eat Lebron and Durant alive in the low post on offense, which is where your dangerous perimeter forwards would have to guard them. Durant trying to guard any of those four in the post? That's actually laughable. And last time I checked centers typically have higher shooting percentages than guys shooting from outside, so that kinda sounds like a net win for the centers to me.

Are you saying that Steph Curry would be more effective when switched into low-post defense against an all-time great center than 6-9 270 lb LeBron James or 6-11 250lb Kevin Durant?

Just stop embarrassing yourself, dude.

[blueadams]

On a general note, basketball is still a game of putting the ball through the hoop. That is most easily done the closer you are to the basket, and that's inarguable. That's why centers always have the highest shooting percentages. So to think that "today's" NBA teams can't be successful with a great true back to the basket low post center is ridiculous. The math is simple. A center shooting 55% guarding a guy shooting outside at 45% or even 50%...not that tough to see who has the overall advantage.

True if a 3 point line doesn't exist.

[blueadams]

On a general note, basketball is still a game of putting the ball through the hoop. That is most easily done the closer you are to the basket, and that's inarguable. That's why centers always have the highest shooting percentages. So to think that "today's" NBA teams can't be successful with a great true back to the basket low post center is ridiculous. The math is simple. A center shooting 55% guarding a guy shooting outside at 45% or even 50%...not that tough to see who has the overall advantage.

True if a 3 point line doesn't exist.

There's a guy guarding centers in the low post and shooting 45-50% from three, shooting nothing but threes? This isn't a theoretical argument.

I’m for real worried about your mental health now, pops.

If Shaq goes 3 for 6...50% from the field....that’s 6pts.

if Durant goes 2 for 6 from 3.....33% from the field....that’s 6pts in the same amount of shots.

Fortunately Durant hits about 40% from 3 and doesn’t miss half his free throws.

[Snakebites]

I’m going to give Manocad the benefit of the doubt here and assume he understands the magnitude of mathematical difference between the different field goals even though his response to me does not adequately address it.

I hope he explains his point better.

[Pharaoh]

Format/Rules:

-You and the 29 greatest nba minds of all-time (from 1946 to now) are going to be selecting ‘all-time starting-5s’ to compete against each other for 10 nba seasons. The on-court rules are today’s. Everyone gets the same ‘replacement-level’ bench. No trades, FA, holdouts, etc. after the initial selections. Put players at any positions you’d like (i.e. LeBron at C). Clones exist (i.e. MJ can be on all 30 teams). And players are what they were in their primes — nothing more, nothing less (no.. “MJ would’ve been a great 3pt shooter if he practiced it”...“Bird would’ve been a great athlete with modern training”...etc.).

My advice: 1) Be prepared for anything. There’ll be teams that go super-high speed, 5-out, LeBron at C. There’ll be teams that go Shaq-Duncan in the front court. Anyone (any weakness) can knock you out. 2) It’s a marathon. Do you want Shaq coming in overweight every training camp. Do you want MJ pushing everyone to be better. Do you want Kobe alienating teammates. Do you want Rodman dissapearing?

My Team:

C: Hakeem. I want a ‘switch-everything’ defense. Who else can A) handle shaq in the low-post; B) handle MJ on the perimeter; and C) *Demand* a double-team in the low-post?

PF: LeBron. If you’re looking for a true stretch-4 who won’t get killed inside by Ducan/KG/Dirk/Malone/etc.. search begins and ends with one name.

SF: Durant. He’s right there with Kareem, MJ, etc. as one of the greatest scorers to ever live. He’s actually a great defender when he turns it on in the post-season, with switch-everything ability. And like LeBron.. he’s cooperated very well with other superstars.

SG: Kawhi. He may be the most obvious pick of the whole team. 2x F-MVP. 2x D-MVP. 41% career 3pt shooter in the playoffs (better than Steph). Drama-free, dirty-work, team-first-guy.

PG: Jordan. Jordan operating as a Harden-like point-man in today’s penetrate-and-dish league.. with no hand-checking.. and touch fouls. It’d be completely unfair. In fact.. they’d probably even have to roll some rule changes back. If there was one guy you wanted to push your team for 10yrs...IMO, it’d be Zeke or Russell...but I can’t put either in the modern game so I’m going MJ.

So egos aren't part of the equation here?

MJ as the absolute alpha, Lebron plays the super Pippen role, Hakeem highly likely to put his ego aside for the betterment if the team.

Kawhi might not be. Worked his way out of SA in murky circumstances, left the Raptors after winning a ring despite never attempting to defend it and held 3 teams in the palm of his hand for as long as he liked...Is he the type of guy NOW to put his ego aside for the greater good?

Then we've got Durant! The most sensitive dude there is. And you're gonna put him on a team with Jordan? Ummm ok

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

[Invictus88]

I see Steph as too much of a liability defensively. I'd do everything I could to get him one-on-one against Hakeem, LeBron, MJ, Durant.. even Kawhi. Anyone on my team lol. If you double or help, a deadly scorer's wide open.

Shaq, Kareem, Duncan, Hakeem.. any of those guys isolated in the low-post against LeBron could be the end of your dynasty.

The other team has to spend the effort and energy to guard Steph as well. Let them stretch their defense 4 feet beyond the 3-point arc to compensate and see where that gets them.

If they spend their time isolating down low on offense then they aren't passing the ball around or shooting 3s.
I'll take that trade against my 5's ball movement and shooting all day; every day.

Shaq, Kareem, Duncan and Hakeem are basically pointless on the defensive end against my 5. None of them need to be close to the rim to be deadly. Those bigs would be eaten alive having to guard the perimeter.

Thanks for the change of pace topic blue!

And all four of those players would eat Lebron and Durant alive in the low post on offense, which is where your dangerous perimeter forwards would have to guard them. Durant trying to guard any of those four in the post? That's actually laughable. And last time I checked centers typically have higher shooting percentages than guys shooting from outside, so that kinda sounds like a net win for the centers to me.

The thing is it goes both ways. Any of those four having to be drawn to the outside to guard a deadly outside threat is laughable as well. The lower shooting percentages from the outside are countered by the fact that you get 3 points out there instead of the two in the paint.

Like it or not in today's game there really isn't a dominant true center that is controlling the game. Outside shooting of threes has prevailed instead. We've had teams without true centers winning NBA championships. Are the non-true centers at a disadvantage on the defensive end? Sure. But that hasn't mattered when it comes to getting rings as of late.

P.S. Appreciate the feedback Monocad; even if we disagree.

[Manocad]

I’m going to give Manocad the benefit of the doubt here and assume he understands the magnitude of mathematical difference between the different field goals even though his response to me does not adequately address it.

I hope he explains his point better.

Try it this way...Durant, being guarded by Shaq, shoots nothing but 3’s at a 40% rate, goes 8-20 and scores 24 points from the floor. And how many fouls is he drawing if he’s shooting nothing but pull up 3’s? Shaq, being guarded by Durant in the post who he would absolutely eat alive, probably shoot 60+% against and gets the ball in the post at every opportunity, goes 15-25 and scores 30 from the floor. Throw in a handful of made free throws to boot.

Like I said, we have a lot of younger guys who suffer from the recency effect; if they didn’t see something it can’t be as good as what they have seen. I get that. But arguing that because teams have won a championship without a dominant center means there’s no reason to have a dominant center or that there’s no use for a dominant center is laughable.

[Snakebites]

I’m going to give Manocad the benefit of the doubt here and assume he understands the magnitude of mathematical difference between the different field goals even though his response to me does not adequately address it.

I hope he explains his point better.

Try it this way...Durant, being guarded by Shaq, shoots nothing but 3’s at a 40% rate, goes 8-20 and scores 24 points from the floor. And how many fouls is he drawing if he’s shooting nothing but pull up 3’s? Shaq, being guarded by Durant in the post who he would absolutely eat alive, probably shoot 60+% against and gets the ball in the post at every opportunity, goes 15-25 and scores 30 from the floor. Throw in a handful of made free throws to boot.

Like I said, we have a lot of younger guys who suffer from the recency effect; if they didn’t see something it can’t be as good as what they have seen. I get that. But arguing that because teams have won a championship without a dominant center means there’s no reason to have a dominant center or that there’s use for a dominant center is laughable.

Sorry, all I can think about here is how much fun Durant would have being guarded by Shaq.

You do realize peak Durant is a more efficient scorer than peak Shaq even with all those extra trips to the line, right? And that it's not even close?

And what's with this "shooting nothing but threes" straw-man?

I'll take Durant as my number one option over Shaq any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Manocad]

I’m going to give Manocad the benefit of the doubt here and assume he understands the magnitude of mathematical difference between the different field goals even though his response to me does not adequately address it.

I hope he explains his point better.

Try it this way...Durant, being guarded by Shaq, shoots nothing but 3’s at a 40% rate, goes 8-20 and scores 24 points from the floor. And how many fouls is he drawing if he’s shooting nothing but pull up 3’s? Shaq, being guarded by Durant in the post who he would absolutely eat alive, probably shoot 60+% against and gets the ball in the post at every opportunity, goes 15-25 and scores 30 from the floor. Throw in a handful of made free throws to boot.

Like I said, we have a lot of younger guys who suffer from the recency effect; if they didn’t see something it can’t be as good as what they have seen. I get that. But arguing that because teams have won a championship without a dominant center means there’s no reason to have a dominant center or that there’s use for a dominant center is laughable.

Sorry, all I can think about here is how much fun Durant would have being guarded by Shaq.

You do realize peak Durant is a more efficient scorer than peak Shaq even with all those extra trips to the line, right? And that it's not even close?

And what's with this "shooting nothing but threes" straw-man?

I'll take Durant as my number one option over Shaq any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

You're the one who brought up the advantage of the three point line, so if it provides such an advantage, wouldn't shooting nothing but 3's be the ultimate advantage? Maybe you should have explained that advantage better because now it seems you're waffling.

And I'd take Kareem over Durant any day and three times on Sunday.

[Manocad]

True if a 3 point line doesn't exist.

There's a guy guarding centers in the low post and shooting 45-50% from three, shooting nothing but threes? This isn't a theoretical argument.

I’m for real worried about your mental health now, pops.

If Shaq goes 3 for 6...50% from the field....that’s 6pts.

if Durant goes 2 for 6 from 3.....33% from the field....that’s 6pts in the same amount of shots.

Fortunately Durant hits about 40% from 3 and doesn’t miss half his free throws.

And Shaq would shoot 60+% from the floor if guarded by Durant. Shaq shot 56% from the field while being guarded by true centers.

[Manocad]

The other team has to spend the effort and energy to guard Steph as well. Let them stretch their defense 4 feet beyond the 3-point arc to compensate and see where that gets them.

If they spend their time isolating down low on offense then they aren't passing the ball around or shooting 3s.
I'll take that trade against my 5's ball movement and shooting all day; every day.

Shaq, Kareem, Duncan and Hakeem are basically pointless on the defensive end against my 5. None of them need to be close to the rim to be deadly. Those bigs would be eaten alive having to guard the perimeter.

Thanks for the change of pace topic blue!

And all four of those players would eat Lebron and Durant alive in the low post on offense, which is where your dangerous perimeter forwards would have to guard them. Durant trying to guard any of those four in the post? That's actually laughable. And last time I checked centers typically have higher shooting percentages than guys shooting from outside, so that kinda sounds like a net win for the centers to me.

Are you saying that Steph Curry would be more effective when switched into low-post defense against an all-time great center than 6-9 270 lb LeBron James or 6-11 250lb Kevin Durant?

Just stop embarrassing yourself, dude.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that today's stretch forwards can't guard true centers. You're embarrassing yourself with your lack of reading comprehension.

[Manocad]

You kids crack me up. Open up a topic, suggest an idea, say "What do you think?" then throw hissy fits when someone challenges your idea.

Concerned about my mental health? LOL.

[Snakebites]

Try it this way...Durant, being guarded by Shaq, shoots nothing but 3’s at a 40% rate, goes 8-20 and scores 24 points from the floor. And how many fouls is he drawing if he’s shooting nothing but pull up 3’s? Shaq, being guarded by Durant in the post who he would absolutely eat alive, probably shoot 60+% against and gets the ball in the post at every opportunity, goes 15-25 and scores 30 from the floor. Throw in a handful of made free throws to boot.

Like I said, we have a lot of younger guys who suffer from the recency effect; if they didn’t see something it can’t be as good as what they have seen. I get that. But arguing that because teams have won a championship without a dominant center means there’s no reason to have a dominant center or that there’s use for a dominant center is laughable.

Sorry, all I can think about here is how much fun Durant would have being guarded by Shaq.

You do realize peak Durant is a more efficient scorer than peak Shaq even with all those extra trips to the line, right? And that it's not even close?

And what's with this "shooting nothing but threes" straw-man?

I'll take Durant as my number one option over Shaq any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

You're the one who brought up the advantage of the three point line, so if it provides such an advantage, wouldn't shooting nothing but 3's be the ultimate advantage? Maybe you should have explained that advantage better because now it seems you're waffling.

And I'd take Kareem over Durant any day and three times on Sunday.

Ah okay. Easy answer there. The answer to that question is no, because there's also a value to unpredictability. If everyone shot nothing but threes there would be less incentive to guard anything else.

Ironically Kevin Durant is a prime example of this- he's been absolutely feasting in the mid range (in addition to his outside shooting) because most defensive strategies emphasize guarding the paint and the perimeter for efficiency reasons. The mid range will never be the primary way a team or player scores again because in vacuum it's objectively less efficient, but it'll always exist at some level, as well scoring in the paint, of course.

Still, a high end scorer that prominently uses the 3 point shot and does so effectively is going to be more efficient than the player who tries to score closer to the basket- those shots are by definition more efficient per attempt. That'll be true for any player who is a focal point of the offense. There will always, of course, be roles for guys like Clint Capela who only take a shot attempt when they have a point blank dunk, usually gotten either off an offensive rebound or a setup from a more talented big man.

[Manocad]

Sorry, all I can think about here is how much fun Durant would have being guarded by Shaq.

You do realize peak Durant is a more efficient scorer than peak Shaq even with all those extra trips to the line, right? And that it's not even close?

And what's with this "shooting nothing but threes" straw-man?

I'll take Durant as my number one option over Shaq any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

You're the one who brought up the advantage of the three point line, so if it provides such an advantage, wouldn't shooting nothing but 3's be the ultimate advantage? Maybe you should have explained that advantage better because now it seems you're waffling.

And I'd take Kareem over Durant any day and three times on Sunday.

Ah okay. Easy answer there. The answer to that question is no, because there's also a value to unpredictability. If everyone shot nothing but threes there would be less incentive to guard anything else.

Ironically Kevin Durant is a prime example of this- he's been absolutely feasting in the mid range (in addition to his outside shooting) because most defensive strategies emphasize guarding the paint and the perimeter for efficiency reasons. The mid range will never be the primary way a team or player scores again because in vacuum it's objectively less efficient, but it'll always exist at some level, as well scoring in the paint, of course.

Still, a high end scorer that prominently uses the 3 point shot and does so effectively is going to be more efficient than the player who tries to score closer to the basket- those shots are by definition more efficient per attempt. That'll be true for any player who is a focal point of the offense. There will always, of course, be roles for guys like Clint Capela who only take a shot attempt when they have a point blank dunk, usually gotten either off an offensive rebound or a setup from a more talented big man.

Unless it's Wilt Chamberlain shooting 70% from the field and averaging 50 points a game.

[Snakebites]

You're the one who brought up the advantage of the three point line, so if it provides such an advantage, wouldn't shooting nothing but 3's be the ultimate advantage? Maybe you should have explained that advantage better because now it seems you're waffling.

And I'd take Kareem over Durant any day and three times on Sunday.

Ah okay. Easy answer there. The answer to that question is no, because there's also a value to unpredictability. If everyone shot nothing but threes there would be less incentive to guard anything else.

Ironically Kevin Durant is a prime example of this- he's been absolutely feasting in the mid range (in addition to his outside shooting) because most defensive strategies emphasize guarding the paint and the perimeter for efficiency reasons. The mid range will never be the primary way a team or player scores again because in vacuum it's objectively less efficient, but it'll always exist at some level, as well scoring in the paint, of course.

Still, a high end scorer that prominently uses the 3 point shot and does so effectively is going to be more efficient than the player who tries to score closer to the basket- those shots are by definition more efficient per attempt. That'll be true for any player who is a focal point of the offense. There will always, of course, be roles for guys like Clint Capela who only take a shot attempt when they have a point blank dunk, usually gotten either off an offensive rebound or a setup from a more talented big man.

Unless it's Wilt Chamberlain shooting 70% from the field and averaging 50 points a game.

He never did both. Not even by half. That's just disingenuous.