Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[Quotatious]

Dr. J over Magic/Bird IMO makes sense, too (because of his great longevity, and arguably higher peak - I certainly don't dismiss the ABA or think that it was a "joke" league, like some people do, and I think his finals performance against Denver in the '76 finals was on par with the first three-peat MJ and three-peat Shaq, it was absolutely GOAT level).

Well, I suggest you do more research then:

Many argue as to the veracity of ABA stats due to the fact it played a more wide open game than the NBA as well whether it was as strong as the NBA.

Yet even if the NBA was stronger at any given time, it doesnt negate the fact that there was still another league splitting the professional talent pool regardless. Not only was the professional talent pool split between 1968 and 1976, but there was a TREMENDOUS increase in the amount of teams.

In 1968, the NBA had 10 teams. By 1972, it had 17. In 1972, the ABA had 11 teams. So in the 4 year span between 1968 and 1972, the amount of professional teams increased by 18. So not only were the leagues splitting the talent pool and not competing against each other, but in 1972 you had 28 professional teams, and in 1977 the first year after the merger you actually had LESS, with 22.

For perspective, many say the 90's were diluted because 4 teams were added at the end of the 80's and then 2 more teams in 95.

To clarify, we are not comparing the NBA and ABA but we are comparing the period of 1968-1976 to combined NBA pre ABA and post merger.

Rick Barry is a good example of the situation at the time. Not in terms of stats, but the fact that he played 2 years in the NBA, then jumped to the ABA for 4 years, then went back to the NBA.

Now, this doesnt change the fact that guys like Kareem, Dr. J, Rick Barry, Elvin Hayes etc. weren't great because they were still the best players out there, but whether players would have had the numbers they had, whether teams that were champions would have been champions in a combined league, and whether players would have won as many awards as they did in a combined league is certainly, IMO up for debate. I mean, would Dr J have snatched another MVP or two, some All-NBA teams, or won another championship if he was in the NBA during his ABA years? Obviously, very real possibilities.

So in a 4 year span professional basketball split into two leagues and added a total number of 18 teams.........the definition of dilution.

His opponent in the 1976 finals scored 122 a game in the 1976 ABA and allowed 116 a game.

In the NBA they scored 112 a game and allowed 107.

Clearly the ABA had more inflated stats relative to the post-merger league.

Not to mention it's a little too convenient his Finals stats in 1977(the first year of the merger) are quite inferior to his 1976 Finals stats.

Honestly, all I need to know about '76 Doc is how he destroyed the Nuggets team (which was clearly better than his own team, on paper), and how that Nuggets team went on to have the second best record (and #1 SRS) in the NBA the following year, even without one of the stars they had in '76 (Ralph Simpson).

There's no way the Nuggets (especially a bit weaker than they were in '76, because of Simpson's departure) would've been an absolutely elite team in the NBA in '77, if the ABA was as weak in '76, as many people think.

Also, here's how '76 Erving and '86 Bird compare statistically:

Per 100 possessions, '76 Erving averaged 34.4/ 12.9/ 5.9/ 2.9/ 2.2, 28.7 PER, 56.9% TS, 26.2 WS/48, 10.4 BPM (in the regular season), and +19 ORtg/DRtg differential

'86 Bird averaged 32.2/ 12.3/ 8.5/ 2.5/ 0.8, 25.6 PER, 58.0% TS, 24.4 WS/48, 9.1 BPM, and +18 ORtg/DRtg differential

In the playoffs, Erving averaged 37.4/ 13.6/ 5.3/ 2.1/ 2.2, 32.0 PER, 61.0% TS, 32.1 WS/48, 12.5 BPM, +25 ORtg/DRtg differential

Bird averaged 29.5/ 10.6/ 9.4/ 2.3/ 0.7, 23.9 PER, 61.5% TS, 26.3 WS/48, 10.3 BPM, +24 ORtg/DRtg differential

Both guys led their teams to a title, but Erving did that as an underdog, while Bird's team was a heavy favorite over the Rockets.

Erving made All-Defense 1st team, Bird didn't even make the second team.

Doc's advanced playoff numbers are right there with peak MJ and LBJ (even if we don't take those at face value because of weaker competition, they are still at least as good as Bird's).

I think Erving has a VERY reasonable case against Bird (and Magic) as far as peak (and he had clearly better longevity).

I usually disagree with Warspite, but I'm inclined to agree with him when he says that '67 Wilt and '76 Dr. J had the best peaks ever (I mean, I disagree that Wilt had the best peak ever, or especially that Doc had the second best, but I agree with him in the sense that Erving was phenomenal, and he's getting seriously disrespected by many people).

Also, as far as Doc's 1977 finals performance - it was one of the best-ever finals performances by a guy who's team lost. 30/7/5 and almost 3 steals and over a block per game, on 60.4% TS is a fantastic statline, and Doc was at his best when his team needed him the most. He scored 40 in the last game, and if Gene Shue didn't make a mistake and got the ball to him instead of McGinnis on that last play in game 6, Philly could've stayed alive.

To be fair, his 1 on 1 defense against Bob Gross (who averaged over 17 ppg on 69% TS) was really poor, but his help defense was excellent, he was a real menace in passing lanes (not to mention that you couldn't stop him on the break if he got a steal).

I've just uploaded all of the games from the '77 finals in the Game Footage thread, a few days ago. You can check for yourself how well he played, if you don't remember. Especially when you see how much McGinnis and Bibby struggled, you can appreciate Doc's play even more (and Doug Collins was very good, as well, but they were the only guys on their team who consistently played well).

Doc's '77 finals remind me of '14 LeBron (but Doc IMO had a better series).

Also, Erving played very well in the '80 and '82 finals against the Lakers.

[PaulieWal]

No, I was always talking about the whole tenure. You were the one who highlighted only a specific favorable year in order to quasi-debunk my claim which still stands.

Your inability to comprehend simple sentences is beyond comical at this point. You came in with an agenda to prop up LeBron and for the record I'd agree that the supporting cast wasn't up to par in 2014 and even the 2013 PS for the most part. I specifically pointed out YOU calling out the supporting cast garbage in 2012.

If you weren't so focused on proving your point right and actually having an honest discussion then you could have simply pointed out that you didn't mean 2012 was bad and that was a good/okay/fine supporting cast. I have said as much in my last reply to you.

Wade: 23/5/4, 52%TS, 106 ORtg, 3.1 WS, .165 WS/48, 4.1 BPM
Chalmers: 11/4/4 55%TS, 110 ORtg, 2.1 WS, .122 WS/48, 2.9 BPM
Battier: 7/3/1, 55%TS, 112 ORtg, 1.5 WS, .097 WS/48, 3.3 BPM
Bosh injured for most of the important games
Who else?

As is your style and MO, this is a quite an intellectualy lazy way of dissecting supporting casts and a poor attempt at revisionist history. No matter how you slice it Wade was a good 2nd option in 2012 and had huge games against the Pacers when it was most needed. Against the Celtics he was a bit more inconsistent but the Celtics were also double teaming him and making LeBron beat them with KG playing center field ignoring Haslem/Turiaf before Bosh came back. Against the Thunder he was a consistent 22/5/5. Bosh was huge in the game 7 against Celtics and against Thunder he was as good as you could ask a 3rd option to be playing behind 2 ball dominant wings.

Yet, you're here talking about stacked teams... pathetic.

The rest of your post is irrelevant drivel which no one has argued against. Maybe you should read people's replies clearly before your hit reply because I am certain by this point you not only did not read my replies to you but didn't even remember what you posted when I called you out for your agenda from your OWN post. All it takes is one line to say that's a misunderstanding and move on. I know I have from this exchange in which you have traveled the entire world without saying anything useful. First you doubled down on your take re: 2012 Heat and now you are trying to say you were talking about the entire 4 years.

[Owly]

- Playoffs are generally overvalued.

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

Hmm...

There is something to the Playoffs though, just like there is something to the regular season games, compared to practice.

For instance, Howard is able to hit 1252 free throws out of 1532 during practice, 82%.

Spoiler:

This % plummets in real games. Obviously, there is something mental here. There is something in RS that doesn't allow him to hit free throws as well as he does during practice.

My point is, yes, the more games the better sample size, I agree with that, but Playoff games are not the same as RS games. There is more pressure.

I wouldn't change my mind on a players basketball ability if he plays worse in PO's compared to RS, but I would question his mental toughness who makes him play worse (could be that and/or could be that he plays against tougher teams compared to RS, there is that possibility as wel, as you pointed it out).

Firstly this assumes playoffs is to RS as RS is to practice. Which it isn't.

Free throws in particular are a dubious example. Free throws in practice are take within a consistent routine with immediate feedback. People have made thousands of free throws in a row. They do not do so in game situations as such players (a) are not in a routine, (b) are likely more fatigued and (c) have probably just been fouled. Further free throws are an aspect of the game uniquely vulnerable to psychological influence (due to the individual nature and the amount of time available).

Whether or not Dwight's practice FT% was legit, the two relationships are not analogous.

I'm with Q; RS is a way, way larger sample. If I saw evidence that playoff performance variations, on the whole were more than you'd expect by luck (accounting for the change in circumstance), I might be more persuaded. My other problem is some of the people who are into playoff performance, are so, selectively and/or unsystematically.

Another example to illustrate the discrepancies in regular season play and playoff play is as follows. Let's say that there is a player, R, who plays at a level 98 (on a scale of 1 to 100) against bad teams, 90 against good teams, and 84 against great teams. Another player, P, plays at a level of 91 against bad teams, 91 against good teams, and 89 against great teams. On average, it is conceivable that player R has better overall stats. However, I would always take player P over R because in the real season (aka the playoffs), you are only going up against good/great teams.

The assumption here seems to be that players perform differently against different calibre teams (and that differing team calibre is either the primary or only difference between RS and playoffs) if this were true records versus "good" (playoff or >.500) teams would be more indicative of playoff success and from what I recall they aren't.

[Vine][YouTube][/YouTube][/Vine]

- Playoffs are generally overvalued.

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

Completely disagree. In the grand scheme of things regular seasons match ups are relatively irrelevant. Coaches have readily admitted to saving plays and defenses for when it matters in the post season. It doesn't matter if David Robinsn can outplay Hakeem in the regular season ..., if Hakeem out plays him in a 7 game series that has coaches game planning different defenses to limit them over the course of every game.. Has them increasing their minutes.. Has their role players being limited by tougher defenses... Then that's what's most relevant. The only thing the regular season is really significant for is determine seeding. And even then regardless of you seedlings, it's up to you to elevate your play despite facing tougher defenses, and evolving defenses over the course of the series.

When ranking players regular season performance barley factors in for me. When you ask me how I view a player the first thing I think about is how they perform in the post season.

Role players limited by tougher defenses? Isn't it typically the reverse, coaches will plan to stop the key man (or men) and dare/force role players to beat them. And if so doesn't that make the typically renowned playoff dropoffs from unipolar offenses (Robinson, K Malone, Chamberlain) more explicable via context and, if one does seek to look into the playoffs heavily, make the playoff dropoffs of say a Robert Parish (and other tertiary options) more pertinent.

[Vine][YouTube][/YouTube][/Vine]

I agree. Common sense tells me that if a player has 1000-1200 regular season games played, and only about 100-200 playoff games, the former is a much better sample (not only because it's 10 times bigger, but also because it's more much more evenly-matched, in terms of competition).

Completely disagree. In the grand scheme of things regular seasons match ups are relatively irrelevant. Coaches have readily admitted to saving plays and defenses for when it matters in the post season. It doesn't matter if David Robinsn can outplay Hakeem in the regular season ..., if Hakeem out plays him in a 7 game series that has coaches game planning different defenses to limit them over the course of every game.. Has them increasing their minutes.. Has their role players being limited by tougher defenses... Then that's what's most relevant. The only thing the regular season is really significant for is determine seeding. And even then regardless of you seedlings, it's up to you to elevate your play despite facing tougher defenses, and evolving defenses over the course of the series.

When ranking players regular season performance barley factors in for me. When you ask me how I view a player the first thing I think about is how they perform in the post season.

I agree. RS, you have players and teams that coast...teams that experiment with line ups, strategies...you have a lot of player trades, coaching staff changes, some teams tanking etc..

PO teams are generally already settled on there line up, conditioned to play at there maximum with more rest and more at stake. PO is when the real season starts...so not sure why not put more value in it?

Because there's much less data, because there's vast discrepancies in quality of competion faced (iirc 80s Lakers were routinely facing a route of roughly league -RS- average quality opponents, whereas the East then, or the West now likely means running a gauntlet of plausible champions -- right now Cleveland are considered the favourites to win the title, not because they are the best team but because the teams with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th best odds all play in the same conference so only one can get to the final) because an 82 game season doesn't leave teams or players well rested and because (due to small samples and the role of luck) playoffs are (as I recall) a poor indicator of future performance in future RS and PS, whereas RS is better (at team and individual levels) and this is because playoff performance is less reliably indicative of (team or player) quality which in turn is because of aforementioned small samples, disparity in quality of competition, matchups etc. The reason American sports have playoffs (apart from travel distances making equal schedules a massive pain) is the anyone can win, keep you watching to the end, which is fine but you can't pretend it doesn't significantly increase the role of luck.

With the way the playoff system is structured, it becomes important to excel against the same opponent. I suspect that certain superstars could do this better than others. Thus, a superstar who can sustain excellence against common opponents for 6-7 games in a row becomes much more valuable than a superstar who gets figured out more readily as the number of encounters increase.

Obviously, this is not something that can be easily measured but no doubt, it's important.

This much is true. The question is then whether players do do so better than others, and whether (and to what degree) it is a matter of luck and various contextual factors (luck, coaching, quality of opponents, quality of teammates, matchups etc); or whether (and to what degree) it is intrinsic to the player. I do chafe somewhat at the use of superstars though because I think players roughly 3-8 become important in the playoffs (and are typically less subject to the planning stars might face, though over their careers they might have smaller playoffs samples).

[Owly]

To be fair, his 1 on 1 defense against Bob Gross (who averaged over 17 ppg on 69% TS in 27.66666667 mpg - i.e. roughly 2 points every 3 minutes-) was really poor, but his help defense was excellent, he was a real menace in passing lanes (not to mention that you couldn't stop him on the break if he got a steal).

[Lost92Bricks]

Paul's not the only player playing in the west. James Harden managed to go all the way to the conference finals with his starting point guard out the whole semi finals. They had very similar supporting cast, and Cp3 had better coaching. Yet you don't see the western conference limiting them from getting past the second round. In fact Blake Griffin at this point is definitly better than Dwight Howard.

It's getting old. First Paul doesn't have a good enough coach. He gets Doc Rivers and top assistants. Then he doesn't have a good enough 2nd option. Black Griffin turns into a top 5 player. Then he doesn't have a good enoug bench. Had arguably the best bench in the league from 13-14. Then he plays in too tough a conference. Despite everyone he's losing to playing in the exact same conference. What next ? His team is talented but had to many headcases? Every season it's the same thing. People pick Paul lead teams to be contenders and make it far because of their talent... Yet every time they lose apparently they don't have enough talent.

But yet a guy like Harden has never had as good a coach as Paul. Has a worst 2nd option. Had just as bad a bench (with Beverly out) and has played in the exact same conference.


So why dont these factors affect him?

It's like Paul is in his own little world, where anything that happends is just based on outside factors. Whiles other players exceed in the same situation.

The realityy is his impact on a game just doesn't match his stats. As people have been telling you guys for 6 year

Dude, all I said was when you face the level of competition that he has you need your teammates to step up in order for them to become serious threats to win it all. I didn't say the Clippers weren't talented, they just have holes that get exposed in the playoffs that CP3 has little control over.

You're talking about impact when he's led the Clippers to the #1 offense in the past 2 seasons. What else is he supposed to do? Be their wing defender? Interior defender? Is he supposed to prevent the team from collapsing when he sits on the bench?

Why do you think some people still think highly of Paul despite his lack of team success in the postseason? Because they realize that he does what he's supposed to do (run his team's offense and defend) at a high level consistently.

[70sFan]

I have another one: Oscar Robertson at his peak would outplay any guard in history of the game. (let's say they'd have similar supporting cast).

[Mutnt]

''The Heatles era teams weren't as stacked as people wanted to remember them as and I don't know how many other all-time greats had enough hole-patching potential to carry those teams to the title.''

This is the claim I made in the opening statement. Then I dissected every year and said the '12 Heat were garbage, as they were. And if your brain hasn't made the necessary adjustment yet, I'm taking about garbage in relation to other championship teams, other teams that are considered ''stacked'' in NBA history. NOT GARBAGE IN RELATION TO LAST YEAR NEW YORK KNICKS. Is that too hard to understand?

Sorry, ''Wade had big games against Indiana, and Bosh had a big game 7 against xy'' are no arguments. Wade also had bad games in which he had to be carried by LeBron, Bosh also missed half of the playoffs and played injured when he returned, but you won't mentioned that, because why would you. At the end of the day, Wade was still comfortably the 2nd best Heat player and no one said he was bad, but this wasn't prime Wade performance and there were ample amounts of 2nd options on championship teams that performed better than Wade throughout the NBA history. This year Draymond Green was way better than Wade in any of the '12,'13,'14 postseasons. Iguodala was better than Bosh.

You don't mentioned the extreme one-dimensonality of the team, you don't mention there were no Big men on the team, you don't mentioned LeBron had to play with lineups like Joel Anthony, Battier/Haslem, Mike Miller and Chalmers out there when Bosh was out and Wade limited. Irrelevant Joel Anthony and Haslem on offense, Wade with zero spacing, and campers on the corners.

The '12 cast was a garbage championship cast and hugely flawed. You can take 3/4 of your post and argue about me, my style, my posts, semantics, agendas and everything else but what the claim was focusing on, but the point still remains. That cast was garbage that needed to be glued together by someone who could basically do it all for 48 minutes. And there aren't many players in NBA history that could do that, if any.

Anyway, this is pointless. All you do is cling to some fictional agenda notion (which you wouldn't do, if I didn't have a LeBron avy) and never or really poorly argue any of the points. Come back when you manage to get your head out of your arse.

[Purch]

Paul's not the only player playing in the west. James Harden managed to go all the way to the conference finals with his starting point guard out the whole semi finals. They had very similar supporting cast, and Cp3 had better coaching. Yet you don't see the western conference limiting them from getting past the second round. In fact Blake Griffin at this point is definitly better than Dwight Howard.

It's getting old. First Paul doesn't have a good enough coach. He gets Doc Rivers and top assistants. Then he doesn't have a good enough 2nd option. Black Griffin turns into a top 5 player. Then he doesn't have a good enoug bench. Had arguably the best bench in the league from 13-14. Then he plays in too tough a conference. Despite everyone he's losing to playing in the exact same conference. What next ? His team is talented but had to many headcases? Every season it's the same thing. People pick Paul lead teams to be contenders and make it far because of their talent... Yet every time they lose apparently they don't have enough talent.

But yet a guy like Harden has never had as good a coach as Paul. Has a worst 2nd option. Had just as bad a bench (with Beverly out) and has played in the exact same conference.


So why dont these factors affect him?

It's like Paul is in his own little world, where anything that happends is just based on outside factors. Whiles other players exceed in the same situation.

The realityy is his impact on a game just doesn't match his stats. As people have been telling you guys for 6 year

Dude, all I said was when you face the level of competition that he has you need your teammates to step up in order for them to become serious threats to win it all. I didn't say the Clippers weren't talented, they just have holes that get exposed in the playoffs that CP3 has little control over.

You're talking about impact when he's led the Clippers to the #1 offense in the past 2 seasons. What else is he supposed to do? Be their wing defender? Interior defender? Is he supposed to prevent the team from collapsing when he sits on the bench?

It doesn't matter how efficent the clippers were in the regular season. If you're not producing at the same level in the postseason it doesn't matter. The Clippers had a better ranked offense than the Spurs in 2014, yet the Spurs took it to another level in the postseason. Holes? Every team has holes, the Rockets had plenty of holes, including missing their starting point.

[PaulieWal]

''The Heatles era teams weren't as stacked as people wanted to remember them as and I don't know how many other all-time greats had enough hole-patching potential to carry those teams to the title.''

This is the claim I made in the opening statement. Then I dissected every year and said the '12 Heat were garbage, as they were. And if your brain hasn't made the necessary adjustment yet, I'm taking about garbage in relation to other championship teams, other teams that are considered ''stacked'' in NBA history. NOT GARBAGE IN RELATION TO LAST YEAR NEW YORK KNICKS. Is that too hard to understand?

Sorry, ''Wade had big games against Indiana, and Bosh had a big game 7 against xy'' are no arguments. Wade also had bad games in which he had to be carried by LeBron, Bosh also missed half of the playoffs and played injured when he returned, but you won't mentioned that, because why would you. At the end of the day, Wade was still comfortably the 2nd best Heat player and no one said he was bad, but this wasn't prime Wade performance and there were ample amounts of 2nd options on championship teams that performed better than Wade throughout the NBA history. This year Draymond Green was way better than Wade in any of the '12,'13,'14 postseasons. Iguodala was better than Bosh.

You don't mentioned the extreme one-dimensonality of the team, you don't mention there were no Big men on the team, you don't mentioned LeBron had to play with lineups like Joel Anthony, Battier/Haslem, Mike Miller and Chalmers out there when Bosh was out and Wade limited. Irrelevant Joel Anthony and Haslem on offense, Wade with zero spacing, and campers on the corners.

The '12 cast was a garbage championship cast and hugely flawed. You can take 3/4 of your post and argue about me, my style, my posts, semantics, agendas and everything else but what the claim was focusing on, but the point still remains. That cast was garbage that needed to be glued together by someone who could basically do it all for 48 minutes. And there aren't many players in NBA history that could do that, if any.

Anyway, this is pointless. All you do is cling to some fictional agenda notion (which you wouldn't do, if I didn't have a LeBron avy) and never or really poorly argue any of the points. Come back when you manage to get your head out of your arse.

You continue to expose yourself here. Hey, be my guest.

Even if you think that the 12 supporting cast was "garbage" relative to other title teams that's still an idiotic statement.

And in 2012 the year we are not talking about there was no LeBron "carrying" Wade.

Look I could get into a deeper discussion with you but you have shown that you are incapable of making coherent points and carrying on a meaningful discussion where I could learn something or we could exchange information.

And BTW I am not the only who called you out on your agenda, Sp6r thought the same.

And for the record, LeBron is still one of my favorite players in this league though obviously I don't root for the Cavs at all. I just have a problem with your analysis and fudging of facts. One thing that you don't seem to understand is that the 2012 Heat were not the 2011 Heat and your analysis of no spacing, Wade being carried is beyond laughable. Have a good day.

[Ballerhogger]

RS play has taken a hit through out the years , Take curry for example he played his 3rd lowest minutes in season in his whole career at 2613. Thats 233 minutes less than the year before. Yet this did not affect his MVP chances. He only avg 32.3 MP this past season. Overall RS will look less impressive unless the NBA changes the amount of games played.

[Ballerhogger]

To me winning a RS MVP looks less impressive post 2012

[Lost92Bricks]

It doesn't matter how efficent the clippers were in the regular season. If you're not producing at the same level in the postseason it doesn't matter. The Clippers had a better ranked offense than the Spurs in 2014, yet the Spurs took it to another level in the postseason. Holes? Every team has holes, the Rockets had plenty of holes, including missing their starting point.

The Clippers were extremely efficient in the playoffs when CP3 was playing.


Against OKC with Paul on the floor: 119.1 ORtg (+9.0 overall)

Against Houston with Paul on the floor: 112.9 ORtg (+5.9 overall)


In those 11 games combined the Clippers have a 116.3 ORtg and are +7.9 overall. This is with teams intentionally hacking Jordan.

CP3 averaged 22/11/4 on 61 TS% with 2.1 TO's in those games.


So CP3 did have them producing at the same level in the playoffs. They lost because they completely collapsed as soon as he sat on the bench just as I said. And that's losses to 2 teams with higher seeds and HCA.

[Quotatious]

To be fair, his 1 on 1 defense against Bob Gross (who averaged over 17 ppg on 69% TS in 27.66666667 mpg - i.e. roughly 2 points every 3 minutes-) was really poor, but his help defense was excellent, he was a real menace in passing lanes (not to mention that you couldn't stop him on the break if he got a steal).

Should it really overshadow all of the positive things Erving was doing, though? I don't think so, certainly not.

It was very similar to Kawhi's finals against LeBron in 2014. James was great, but Leonard was scoring very efficiently against him, too. Same with Erving and Gross.

[Owly]

To be fair, his 1 on 1 defense against Bob Gross (who averaged over 17 ppg on 69% TS in 27.66666667 mpg - i.e. roughly 2 points every 3 minutes-) was really poor, but his help defense was excellent, he was a real menace in passing lanes (not to mention that you couldn't stop him on the break if he got a steal).

Should it really overshadow all of the positive things Erving was doing, though? I don't think so, certainly not.

It was very similar to Kawhi's finals against LeBron in 2014. James was great, but Leonard was scoring very efficiently against him, too. Same with Erving and Gross.

Well I was just kidding about with that.

As far as how far it neutralises Erving or lessens our evaluation of his performance ... I don't know. He is giving away away points at a very efficient clip. As to performance (whether it's both players doing well or neither defending well) I'll have to get round to watching it, one issue seems to be Gross getting a lot of offensive boards (so whether that's a team thing or an Erving thing could be looked at).

And it should be noted Gross was an All-D player too (making the 2nd team the following year).

With regard to the broader discussion you were having, whilst others were correct to say expansion was an issue with the ABA era, the ABA then contracted towards the end whilst maintaining it's talent base (which itself was up substantially from the early ABA), so with regard to '76 that's not so much of an issue. '77-'79 for Erving is odd but mitigating contextual factors should at least be mentioned (injuries, gunning of Free, McGinnis even Collins -- whether Erving could have asserted himself more, I don't know). How good Erving's peak was? I guess there's a decent range of possibilities depending on how one rates the ABA (and competition on the wing, I think one of the ABA's relative strengths) and where one falls on Erving's D (the numbers are very positive, and I recall he has his backers on here at least for his peak, and I think David Friedman is, fwiw, a fan; on the other hand some contemporary reports from his down years are less complementary suggesting he was just a gambler and Bill Simmons is, fwiw, critical of this aspect of his game).

[NinjaSheppard]

Biggest one I have relates to POTY project:

I think people put way too much emphasis in playoff performance. The sample size is way too small and it often rewards basketball players who mail in the regular season or take time off. For example LeBron James finishing above Harden and CP3 this year was a complete joke given the level of effort he put in for half of the regular season. Blake Griffin got a lot of love for what he did in the postseason but his level of play in the regular season combined with the amount of games missed was a large reason the rest of the starters were so exhausted and I think that played a large part in the team losing to Houston.

Also playoff injuries where a guys play declines tend to result in that player's season being punished but I don't think that is necessarily fair. For example look at the 2010 Lakers. Kobe really struggled in the first round because he was hurt and if he had a bad team around him they would have lost. The rest of the team stepped up with monster series from guys like Artest (he neutered Durant) and the team advanced. Kobe then got his knee drained and was incredible the rest of the way. Small sample sizes and external factors affect narratives.

Paul George was called the third best player in the league in 2013/14 at the start of the season because over a full playoff level stretch of games (20-30) he was shooting midrange jumpers like peak Dirk Nowitzki. He obviously wasn't that kind of player and the decline came. If people are not willing to use small samples to anoint players in the regular season it seems silly in the playoffs.

[Dr Spaceman]

Here's one I don't share on the forum often: I think Manu Ginobili peaked as the best per-minute SG since Jordan. Obviously Kobe and Wade were better overall players, but if Manu could've matched their minutes while staying healthy IMO he's superior to both guys.

[NinjaSheppard]

Here's one I don't share on the forum often: I think Manu Ginobili peaked as the best per-minute SG since Jordan. Obviously Kobe and Wade were better overall players, but if Manu could've matched their minutes while staying healthy IMO he's superior to both guys.

Can you post your top 10 players in the NBA list?

You had Green top 10 and Kawhi 6th so I'd like to see how the rest plays out

[ceiling raiser]

I have quite a few, but the ones I took by far the most flak for this season:

1. Kawhi is a top 6 player in the league right now and has league MVP-potential
2. Draymond Green is better than any PF not named Davis and ranks probably in the top 10 league-wide
3. Subjective evaluations (the eye test) are far more important and useful than any stat we've ever used. The problem is that most just aren't good at it for a variety of reasons, most of the time because they see what they want to see or simply don't know what to look for.

I'm in the same boat for the most part (maybe top 7 for KL since I think KD will be heathy again this year).

Point (3) is huge for me. I think a lot on this board, the "eye test" is unfortunately claimed as the evidence fueling one's biases. But for the most part, if someone is asked why his/her eye test tells something, and is asked to elaborate in detail, the argument will fall apart. So I think it's chiefly used as a cop-out.

If posters on the other hand can identify specifically what they are looking for from watching tape, and can actually break down (qualitatively and/or quantitatively) what they see and do/don't like from a player, I agree that's more valuable than any data we have or probably will have in the near future.

[Clyde Frazier]

To me winning a RS MVP looks less impressive post 2012

Why?

[Texas Chuck]

Despite his scoring woes Jason Kidd is a better basketball player than Steve Nash, Gary Payton, Chris Paul, Walt Frazier, Isaiah Thomas and Steph Curry(among many others)

Bill Russell would still be a dominant player if he was born in 1990.

Bill Russell is teh GOAT.

David Robinson is better than Dream. In fact among centers I'd only take Russell, Kareem, and Shaq ahead of him.

Tim Duncan finally being recognized as good as anyone past the big 3 of Russell, Jordan, and Kareem is NOT recency bias. And yes being a dominant player still on championship caliber teams should be credited to him regardless of his biological age.

Robert Horry was a really good basketball player, not a punchline lucky enough to play on some great teams.

The whole idea of KG as a "middle linebacker" is more than a bit contrived and does not mean he's a superior defender to many of the players he gets compared against.

We need to slow down on the anointing of Anthony Davis.

Kyle Korver and Draymond Green are more valuable than casual fans think, but not nearly as valuable as their champions here think, in particular Korver.

Time machine analysis is worthless.

Looks like I have a lot.....