what do you think are some overblown/exxagerated common narratives

[McBubbles]

Losing in the NBA Finals is somehow worse for a players legacy than never reaching the Finals at all.

This one take alone is enough to judge someone's critical thinking skills, and the fact it's such a prevalent thought process is so depressing to me.

Imagine saying that winning 6 gold medals is better than winning 6 gold medals and 4 silver medals, or that 3 golds and 2 silvers is better than 4 golds and 6 silvers "because you have a better 1st place percentage" -_-

[falcolombardi]

fwiw i think very few people really believe being second is worst than being last

is more like people use it as an argument since it favor their favorite player (jordan when compared with lebron mostly) and lebron fans would use it too if he was 4-0 while jordan was the 4-6 one

people pick a "side" first then use or criticize rings arguments depending on if it favors their side

[ty 4191]

Re: what do you think are some overblown/exaggerated common narratives

Everything and anything to do with Michael Jordan and/or Lebron James.

[70sFan]

Thank you for this data. Does this include a lot of longer range skyhooks? I'm not going to penalize Kareem for shooting from ranges at which jumpers are not incredibly effective. Also, Kareem's lefty hook was less effective, so if you have that breakdown I would be interested.

Based on the figures you provided, it sounds like right-handed skyhooks in and around the post might be a similar efficiency to my estimate.

You made me go deeper than I thought I could

3-6 feet: 71.5%
6-10 feet: 56.8%
10-16 feet: 46.9%

Also, Kareem's left handed skyhook was quite efficient, but he didn't shoot it often. He took it less often than once per game, but he made them at very impressive 70% efficiency. It's because defenders usually tried to take right handed skyhooks away, so left handed skyhook was basically a counter move taken from close to the basket.

I don't disbelieve Kareem would translate. My point is that while within their eras, Hakeem is clearly the inferior scorer, I think Hakeem would translate that much better since this era is tailor made for players like him.

Fair enough, although I'm not sure if Hakeem's game translates as well, given his mediocre passing ability.

Soft doubles I don' t disagree. Do you have any data on how often they were hard doubled for context?

Unfortunately, I don't have them compiled. I have this data in my notes, but it would require a lot of work for me to calculate them. I may do it at some point.

I think we are arguing two different things. Illegal defense was definitely used, but the Rockets didn't use it with nonshooters. Since our sample is 93 and 94 this point is irrelevant though, I meant more late 80s/early 90s when there wasn't spacing (very few teams exploited illegal defense with nonshooters).

Yeah, 1988-92 Rockets certainly weren't great for creating Hakeem enough space. That said, I don't think he had less space than Kareem in 1977 for example.

I wouldn't say he's Dirk, but I think he is comparable to if not superior to other bigs with range. Garnett, Malone seem to be peers, I think?

My shooting data has Hakeem at:

10-16 feet: 43.4% on 7.0 FGA
16-3P feet: 41.5% on 1.9 FGA

It's good, but not on par to KG or Malone.

(1) Shaq has superior gravity, since posting with position he is probably the closest player to a sure thing scoring. Hakeem and Kareem were doubled, but I can't think of a single starter who would deny him position in the present NBA (I can see Embiid, Nurkic doing a serviceable job).

I'm not really sure that Shaq had superior inside gravity than Kareem. Both demanded a lot of attention from defense and Kareem was also extremely good at establishing inside position (though Shaq was probably the best ever at that). On top of that, Shaq wasn't super efficient post player - he's less efficient than both Kareem and Hakeem actually.

(2) I believe Shaq and Kareem are similar in terms of passing ability. Both are superior to Hakeem in that regard, obviously.

I agree here. I think that Kareem was more creative passer who made more high quality passess (including outlet passes), but Shaq was very consistent at finding open teammates.

For the record, despite favoring Shaq/Dirk and possibly Hakeem over him offensively, I think Kareem defensively would be even better in the modern NBA. He had the perfect body and athleticism early in his career, and could conceivably be better than a guy like Garnett on that end.

I don't think Kareem would ever reach KG level on defense, but I agree that he was perfectly suited to translate across eras. Bucks Kareem was a defensive monster.

[ceiling raiser]

You made me go deeper than I thought I could

3-6 feet: 71.5%
6-10 feet: 56.8%
10-16 feet: 46.9%

Also, Kareem's left handed skyhook was quite efficient, but he didn't shoot it often. He took it less often than once per game, but he made them at very impressive 70% efficiency. It's because defenders usually tried to take right handed skyhooks away, so left handed skyhook was basically a counter move taken from close to the basket.

Thank you for this breakdown. From <=10 feet it looks like Kareem is about as effective as I expected. Also very cool that the lefty hook was effective, too.

My shooting data has Hakeem at:

10-16 feet: 43.4% on 7.0 FGA
16-3P feet: 41.5% on 1.9 FGA

It's good, but not on par to KG or Malone.

This is a bit surprising. These figures are lower than Dipper 13's tracking, and also lower than the data from nba.com from 96-97 on. Did you guys track a different set of games?

On top of that, Shaq wasn't super efficient post player - he's less efficient than both Kareem and Hakeem actually.

This is surprising. Was he doubled that much more often? Or is he less efficient even without double teams do you think?

[Colbinii]

My shooting data has Hakeem at:

10-16 feet: 43.4% on 7.0 FGA
16-3P feet: 41.5% on 1.9 FGA

It's good, but not on par to KG or Malone.

This is a bit surprising. These figures are lower than Dipper 13's tracking, and also lower than the data from nba.com from 96-97 on. Did you guys track a different set of games?

Dippers games overrate Hakeem.

He had Hakeem shooting 57.34% on 2 PT FG's.

(RS / PS)

Hakeem 2P% 1993: 53.2% / 51.9%
Hakeem 2P% 1994: 52.9% / 52.0%
Hakeem 2P% 1995: 52.0% / 53.1%
Hakeem 2P% 1996: 51.7% / 51.4%
Hakeem 2P% 1997: 51.2% / 59.8%

Essentially Dipper has Hakeem shooting 10-12% higher than he actually did, which is a result of sample size. Did Dipper routinely pick good games? Are good games the games he could access?

[ceiling raiser]

Dippers games overrate Hakeem.

He had Hakeem shooting 57.34% on 2 PT FG's.

(RS / PS)

Hakeem 2P% 1993: 53.2% / 51.9%
Hakeem 2P% 1994: 52.9% / 52.0%
Hakeem 2P% 1995: 52.0% / 53.1%
Hakeem 2P% 1996: 51.7% / 51.4%
Hakeem 2P% 1997: 51.2% / 59.8%

Essentially Dipper has Hakeem shooting 10-12% higher than he actually did, which is a result of sample size. Did Dipper routinely pick good games? Are good games the games he could access?

Good observation. In this case, I'm less sure about my assessment. It looks like the numbers from 96-97 through 01-02 (regular season) as a whole are similar to 70sfan's data. Though in his last three seasons it appears Hakeem dropped off from 16-3P.

[70sFan]

Thank you for this breakdown. From <=10 feet it looks like Kareem is about as effective as I expected. Also very cool that the lefty hook was effective, too.

Yeah, he used it in a smart way. Most of his left handed hooks were from shorter distance on average than the right handed ones.

My shooting data has Hakeem at:

10-16 feet: 43.4% on 7.0 FGA
16-3P feet: 41.5% on 1.9 FGA

It's good, but not on par to KG or Malone.

This is a bit surprising. These figures are lower than Dipper 13's tracking, and also lower than the data from nba.com from 96-97 on. Did you guys track a different set of games?[/quote]
Well, I didn't track 1995 season so there might be some differences. That said, the numbers aren't that different:

My sample: 43.0% from midrange
Dipper's sample: 44.1% from midrange

The difference isn't massive and Dipper's sample looks a bit less representative for Hakeem averages due to massive influence of 1995 playoff games on averages.

Even by Dipper's sample, Hakeem isn't KG level of shooter.

This is surprising. Was he doubled that much more often? Or is he less efficient even without double teams do you think?

Of course he was doubled a lot, but his lack of shooting touch might be the bigger factor. Shaq took around 4.6 fadeaways/one handers per game and he made it at only 39.4% efficiency, which is much worse than Kareem and Hakeem. He also took a lot of hook shots (5.4 per game on 50.0 FG%) and even though he made them on a solid efficiency, it's not close to Kareem's skyhook and even Olajuwon's jumphook was slightly more efficient (3.2 per game on 50.4 FG%).

Another thing is that Shaq was far less efficient on the right block than on the left block (53 FG% vs 48 FG%) and unlike Hakeem, he was willing to post up on both sides (basically 50/50 ratio of shots).

The next two players I will track are David Robinson and Wilt Chamberlain, so we'll see how he compares to them.

[70sFan]

My shooting data has Hakeem at:

10-16 feet: 43.4% on 7.0 FGA
16-3P feet: 41.5% on 1.9 FGA

It's good, but not on par to KG or Malone.

This is a bit surprising. These figures are lower than Dipper 13's tracking, and also lower than the data from nba.com from 96-97 on. Did you guys track a different set of games?

Dippers games overrate Hakeem.

He had Hakeem shooting 57.34% on 2 PT FG's.

(RS / PS)

Hakeem 2P% 1993: 53.2% / 51.9%
Hakeem 2P% 1994: 52.9% / 52.0%
Hakeem 2P% 1995: 52.0% / 53.1%
Hakeem 2P% 1996: 51.7% / 51.4%
Hakeem 2P% 1997: 51.2% / 59.8%

Essentially Dipper has Hakeem shooting 10-12% higher than he actually did, which is a result of sample size. Did Dipper routinely pick good games? Are good games the games he could access?

I think that there was considerably less amount of games available on YT back then when Dipper did his work. I certainly don't think it was his intention - just the big part of his sample includes 1995 playoffs when Hakeem scored unusally well.

[ceiling raiser]

Even by Dipper's sample, Hakeem isn't KG level of shooter.

So how would you rank big men shooters?

Dirk has to be in his own tier I assume. Then KG/Malone. Then Hakeem? Which other first PF/C had good shooting range?

Of course he was doubled a lot, but his lack of shooting touch might be the bigger factor. Shaq took around 4.6 fadeaways/one handers per game and he made it at only 39.4% efficiency, which is much worse than Kareem and Hakeem. He also took a lot of hook shots (5.4 per game on 50.0 FG%) and even though he made them on a solid efficiency, it's not close to Kareem's skyhook and even Olajuwon's jumphook was slightly more efficient (3.2 per game on 50.4 FG%).

Another thing is that Shaq was far less efficient on the right block than on the left block (53 FG% vs 48 FG%) and unlike Hakeem, he was willing to post up on both sides (basically 50/50 ratio of shots).

The next two players I will track are David Robinson and Wilt Chamberlain, so we'll see how he compares to them.

This is fascinating, thank you for the data.

I might have to drop Shaq down a bit, and consider moving Kareem up offensively. How does Duncan compare?

[penbeast0]

So how would you rank big men shooters?

Dirk has to be in his own tier I assume. Then KG/Malone. Then Hakeem? Which other first PF/C had good shooting range?

Ranked in terms of just shooting range? 3 point range or is high post range or longer twos (face up) what you are looking for? Are you only looking for top 25 players or do guys like Terry Mills count?

[70sFan]

So how would you rank big men shooters?

Dirk has to be in his own tier I assume. Then KG/Malone. Then Hakeem? Which other first PF/C had good shooting range?

Yeah, something like that. Hakeem is a very good shooter, but not on the level of top tier bigs. He's certainly better than the other top 5 centers ever though.

This is fascinating, thank you for the data.

I might have to drop Shaq down a bit, and consider moving Kareem up offensively. How does Duncan compare?

Haven't tracked Duncan yet, but I have him in plans as well.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Even by Dipper's sample, Hakeem isn't KG level of shooter.

So how would you rank big men shooters?

Dirk has to be in his own tier I assume. Then KG/Malone. Then Hakeem? Which other first PF/C had good shooting range?

Of course he was doubled a lot, but his lack of shooting touch might be the bigger factor. Shaq took around 4.6 fadeaways/one handers per game and he made it at only 39.4% efficiency, which is much worse than Kareem and Hakeem. He also took a lot of hook shots (5.4 per game on 50.0 FG%) and even though he made them on a solid efficiency, it's not close to Kareem's skyhook and even Olajuwon's jumphook was slightly more efficient (3.2 per game on 50.4 FG%).

Another thing is that Shaq was far less efficient on the right block than on the left block (53 FG% vs 48 FG%) and unlike Hakeem, he was willing to post up on both sides (basically 50/50 ratio of shots).

The next two players I will track are David Robinson and Wilt Chamberlain, so we'll see how he compares to them.

This is fascinating, thank you for the data.

I might have to drop Shaq down a bit, and consider moving Kareem up offensively. How does Duncan compare?

Towns has to be in the top 5 ever I would imagine

Watch on YouTube

[Djoker]

A commonly overblown narrative is that championship team X is overrated because their playoff opponents were injured. The truth is most champions in league history benefited from opponents injuries.

[ceiling raiser]

So how would you rank big men shooters?

Dirk has to be in his own tier I assume. Then KG/Malone. Then Hakeem? Which other first PF/C had good shooting range?

Ranked in terms of just shooting range? 3 point range or is high post range or longer twos (face up) what you are looking for? Are you only looking for top 25 players or do guys like Terry Mills count?

I was thinking in terms of midrange and long twos. The two categories 70sfan included in his breakdowns were 10-16ft and 16ft-3pt.

Hm, not necessarily top 25 all-time. It's a bit subjective but maybe any guy who could be the number one option on a contender?

[Owly]

A commonly overblown narrative is that championship team X is overrated because their playoff opponents were injured. The truth is most champions in league history benefited from opponents injuries.

Assuming sentence two is correct ...

why would this make sentence one overblown. (Unless the position was "Only specific championship team X is overrated ...")

Would it not just mean that injuries play a significant role in deciding all titles and therefore that titles are a flawed measure of the best overall team (and likely those champs are still overrated).

[G35]

A commonly overblown narrative is that championship team X is overrated because their playoff opponents were injured. The truth is most champions in league history benefited from opponents injuries.

Assuming sentence two is correct ...

why would this make sentence one overblown. (Unless the position was "Only specific championship team X is overrated ...")

Would it not just mean that injuries play a significant role in deciding all titles and therefore that titles are a flawed measure of the best overall team (and likely those champs are still overrated).

Injuries do determine all titles...but it seems you raise a point about the "best overall team".

Imo, withstanding injuries is a part of determining who is the best. We all recognize speed, strength, agility, quickness...but we also are recognizing hand-eye coordination, flexibility, timing and balance are just as important. But I think we should recognize endurance, ability to withstand pain/discomfort should also be in the equation.

This is why players like Greg Oden, Bill Walton, Yao Ming, and Anthony Davis are considered great talents but being able to stay on the court might be the ultimate contribution a player can make by being available......

[McBubbles]

A very subtle one that annoys me - "Knowing how to win".

All time greats are only capable of winning championships at their peak, after some ambiguous mental metamorphosis.

You hear it all the time. 2020 Giannis "wasn't ready to win", but 2021 Giannis, who was basically exactly the same and who actually played less playoff games was ready.

LeBron James wasn't ready to win in 2011, but some mystical mamba mentality + meh post game adding = he was ready to win a championship in 2012, even though he peaked in 2009

Kevin Garnett in 2007 missed the playoffs in his prime, proving he was a fake franchise player who could stuff the stat sheet but who didn't know how to win and could never lead a team to a championship, until he moved to a better team and won a championship immediately.

It's almost if basketball is a team game, almost as if a teams success is not 100% attributable to a single players performance and that better teammates and better circumstances also affect championship odds

You see it on a smaller scale as well with outmatched vet team vs great young team. When asked who'll win the answer is obviously the fuggin sick team of young players but someone will always say "But what about veteran experience and leadership, do the youngsters know how to win " as if all players under the age of 27 have panic attacks come playoff time or something.

[prolific passer]

70s NBA is/was the worst decade in the NBA's history due to no dynasties.

[Djoker]

A commonly overblown narrative is that championship team X is overrated because their playoff opponents were injured. The truth is most champions in league history benefited from opponents injuries.

Assuming sentence two is correct ...

why would this make sentence one overblown. (Unless the position was "Only specific championship team X is overrated ...")

Would it not just mean that injuries play a significant role in deciding all titles and therefore that titles are a flawed measure of the best overall team (and likely those champs are still overrated).

Well.. when people make these arguments it's pretty much always a specific team.