Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[Quotatious]

I generally rank Duncan lower than most around here. Not much but he's jumped from a fringe Top 10 player to Top 5 in many cases just over the last few years. I just don't value longevity to the extent he moves up that much over other goat candidates.

Where do you rank Kareem?

[mysticOscar]

I'm not really a stats person...but when i do i generally subtract a bit of weight in using the TS% of current perimeter players when comparing from previous era's. It favors todays perimeter players too much in comparison to yesteryears (more FT taken, easier driving lanes, greater 3pt shots)

[Purch]

I rank Isiah higher than most here. Probably 3rd/4th best pg.

[Notanoob]

Jerry West was at least as good as Kobe and is underrated on this board.

[Mutnt]

- Kobe not being in the Top 15.

- Kobe's peak being less impressive than the consensus.

- KG and Duncan had similar impact on the game in their prime; Outside factors were polar opposite pretty much.

- In the scope of an all-time ranking: Moses is overrated. West is overrated. Zeke is overrated. Dirk is underrated. D-Rob is underrated...

- Chris Paul is a better player than people give him credit and I'm coming to a point were I'd honestly only argue Magic over him as far as every PG ever.

- 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. Spo is not that good of a coach. '11 cast was pure garbage outside of Wade and Bosh, both of which weren't yet utilized properly. Pre-retirement Z, Bibby, House, Haslem, Joel Anthony... Seriously? Those aren't even NBA players. '12 cast, Bosh was injured in the playoffs, so he was basically a 14 ppg scorer against first round low tier playoff opponents, whoop dee doo. Wade was shooting 52%TS from the floor, still fit issues and no spacing with him. Still no adequate Center. Still the likes of Haslem, Chalmers, Battier, Mike Miller and Joel Anthony. That's straight up garbage. '13 cast was solid since the additions of Birdman, Ray Allen and Cole helped at least get something useful off the bench even 'tho Allen's defense a lot of times wasn't worth those couple of threes he'd hit. Then the playoffs rolled up and people started getting injured again or just playing bad in Bosh's case. Besides LeBron, the guys who played the most minutes were Bosh 52%TS, Chalmers 52%TS, Wade 49%TS. That's not even better than what Delladedova & Thompson did this year.

These were some off the top of my head.

[Owly]

Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were just generational(Wade, Bryant, Nowitzki, Curry)-type talents who happened to have stacked teams in the 80's, so their championship- count and accolades are a lot higher than the aforementioned players. People put their best years on par with the Shaq, Wilt, LeBron, Jordan mythic god-level peaks but they were never there.

I respect your opinion....however, since you have grouped Curry, Wade and Nowitzki on the same level as Bird and Magic...

Can I ask...how many seasons do you think Bird/Magic were considered top 3 players in the league? How many times do you think Wade, Novitzki and Curry? Now include there accomplishments.

Sure...you can compare stats across different era's and pretend its comparing apples to apples.

But I prefer to judge players on how dominant they were relative to there competition...just my opinon

The problem is there's an underlying assumption that "their competition" should be measured solely by the top 3 players in the league rather than any other method.

Whether or not other people are measuring relative to their competition, there are other ways of doing that. One example would be metrics which always set a baseline for the average minute played in the league (PER 15; WS/48 .100 etc). In this instance a ranking of said players over Magic and Bird, or rather on the same level as them, based on a notion of "relative to their competiton", would be justifiable

Curry: 28.0 PER, .288 WS/48 (2015)
Nowitzki: 28.1, .275 (2006) or 27.6, .278 (2007)
Wade: 30.4, .232 (2009)

Magic: 27.0, .263 (1987) or 26.9, .267 (1989)
Bird: 27.8, .243 (1988) or 26.5, .238 (1985)

Then too, your question "how many years ..." slightly misses the point of the post it perports to be in response to. It isn't about how well they sustained their apex level performance (though one could quibble somewhat with the 80s duo in this regard, what with injuries and AIDS) but rather specifically about "peaks" and "best years", suggesting a single apex season.

None of which is to say X is better than Y, that any one statistic is definitative or that you aren't (of course) fully entitled to your opinion. Just that there appeared to be an implication that Bird and Johnson were necessarily superior when compared to their peers (relative to the modern players advantage over their league), and I don't think that's necessarily the case. It can be argued for certainly, and it depends on definition of terms, but it is not a given.

[E-Balla]

Oh, and one more - I'd take Billups over Isiah. Comparable team success, clearly better advanced numbers, more portable.

Meeeeeehhh. Not really... Chauncey's RS PER is 18.8, IT's is 18.1. Chauncey dusts Isiah in regular season WS/48 (.109 vs .176) but barely edges him in BPM which is much better IMO (2.2 vs 2.5). Then in the PS Isiah tops Chauncey easily. Chauncey's PER is 19.1 to Isiah's 19.8, his WS/48 a .186 to IT's .143, and his BPM a 4.2 to IT's 6.4 (which is one of the top 10 all time and only under Paul, Magic, Curry, and Baron Davis).

To answer the thread... Umm... Well I think Rudy T's system can still work in the modern NBA?

EDIT: Wow good one I clearly overlooked. D-Rob is worse than D-Wade, Ewing, and Nash all time.

[mysticOscar]

Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were just generational(Wade, Bryant, Nowitzki, Curry)-type talents who happened to have stacked teams in the 80's, so their championship- count and accolades are a lot higher than the aforementioned players. People put their best years on par with the Shaq, Wilt, LeBron, Jordan mythic god-level peaks but they were never there.

I respect your opinion....however, since you have grouped Curry, Wade and Nowitzki on the same level as Bird and Magic...

Can I ask...how many seasons do you think Bird/Magic were considered top 3 players in the league? How many times do you think Wade, Novitzki and Curry? Now include there accomplishments.

Sure...you can compare stats across different era's and pretend its comparing apples to apples.

But I prefer to judge players on how dominant they were relative to there competition...just my opinon

The problem is there's an underlying assumption that "their competition" should be measured solely by the top 3 players in the league rather than any other method.

Whether or not other people are measuring relative to their competition, there are other ways of doing that. One example would be metrics which always set a baseline for the average minute played in the league (PER 15; WS/48 .100 etc). In this instance a ranking of said players over Magic and Bird, or rather on the same level as them, based on a notion of "relative to their competiton", would be justifiable

Curry: 28.0 PER, .288 WS/48 (2015)
Nowitzki: 28.1, .275 (2006) or 27.6, .278 (2007)
Wade: 30.4, .232 (2009)

Magic: 27.0, .263 (1987) or 26.9, .267 (1989)
Bird: 27.8, .243 (1988) or 26.5, .238 (1985)

Then too, your question "how many years ..." slightly misses the point of the post it perports to be in response to. It isn't about how well they sustained their apex level performance (though one could quibble somewhat with the 80s duo in this regard, what with injuries and AIDS) but rather specifically about "peaks" and "best years", suggesting a single apex season.

None of which is to say X is better than Y, that any one statistic is definitative or that you aren't (of course) fully entitled to your opinion. Just that there appeared to be an implication that Bird and Johnson were necessarily superior when compared to their peers (relative to the modern players advantage over their league), and I don't think that's necessarily the case. It can be argued for certainly, and it depends on definition of terms, but it is not a given.

I was responding to this statement....

Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were just generational(Wade, Bryant, Nowitzki, Curry)-type talents who happened to have stacked teams in the 80's, so their championship- count and accolades are a lot higher than the aforementioned players.

I think it's quite clear that its implied there talent is not much greater than those group specified and using the peak seasons as his justification.

I'm merely stating is that anyone can score a 40pt game, but only the real talented ones can sustain a MVP season. Same goes for a career. Don't you agree?

[ceiling raiser]

This may not be hugely unpopular, but the Celtics (with prime Bird/Parish/McHale, and other parts), Lakers (especially after picking up talent like Worthy and others, and before Kareem declined), and the Sixers (with Moses and while Dr. J was in his prime) were all unbelievably stacked with talent, more so than any other team since. Now they didn't lose very often to teams outside of that triumverate, I think there were 5 losses total (potential justification/reasons for loss in parentheses):

81 - LAL lost to HOU in 1st round (coaching turnover maybe, Magic also missed a lot of time, and it was a three game series)
83 - BOS lost to MIL in 2nd round (Bird had a flu, missed G2 as well; this one might be more of a reason to credit Don Nelson than to take away from Boston; Fitch was also fired after the season)
84 - PHI lost to NJN in 1st round (fatigue was cited in writeups; after speaking with lorak, he noted that off-court disputes between players, mainly because of money, might have been a factor)
86 - LAL lost to HOU in WCF (Rockets looked like the team of the future at the time, I don't have the quote handy but I think Kareem worked out a ton that summer in preparation for a rematch)
88 - BOS lost to DET in ECF (lost to a team that might have been underpaid based on the talent on its roster, and which played a new style of defense; I don't know much about either situation, but injuries to McHale to start the year and potential bone spurs for Bird if they began to be an issue in the playoffs could have been factors)

But realistically, these are teams that should not have existed. Before the players on these teams declined, the cap actually helped protect their advantages, since other teams could not sign talent (though those three teams, and seemingly the Knicks/Nets too, had advantages signing players). Some teams have been extraordinarily talented in the past couple decades, but it does appear that these franchises were at least a cut above anybody else since them.

[Shot Clock]

I generally rank Duncan lower than most around here. Not much but he's jumped from a fringe Top 10 player to Top 5 in many cases just over the last few years. I just don't value longevity to the extent he moves up that much over other goat candidates.

Where do you rank Kareem?

Higher. Based on my view of peak and prime. Also the was an offensive force even at an old age. I mean at 37 years old he put up 25.7p/9r/5.2a/1.5b/1s .629 TS% in the Finals against one of the best front lines ever. Just imagine if someone did that today? I guarantee you if Duncan did that the overreaction would have him immediately in GOAT contention.

It's not just longevity. I have a host of other reasons I don't value Duncan as a Top 5'ish player. Not going into it here.

[MO12msu]

1. Prime Chauncey Billups is better than prime Isiah Thomas and is completely underrated in most all-time PG threads

2. Nash was a great offensive point guard but his defensive shortcomings are very understated by this board. I've recently been watching some old Suns games and paying close attention to his defense, and I noticed that he is very similar to JJ Redick in his defensive shortcomings. Short, lacking length, not very laterally quick, slower defensive reaction time, and usually tries hard. It's great that he tried hard and drew a charge every now and then, but all those weaknesses really are hard to make up. And I'm not in the camp that believes Nash was on an entirely different planet offensively from the rest of great PGs that his peak would be enough to surpass those of Magic, Curry, and Paul.

3. Kinda playing off the Nash point, if we're gonna give Nash all this credit for being an all-time great offensive player while giving him a pass for his many defensive shortcomings, shouldn't we be doing the same thing for Ben Wallace? All-time great defensive impact, probably the best player on a championship team, but a pretty big net negative on the other end. On the top 100 list, Wallace comes in at 77 while Nash is 25, if we really value both sides of the ball equally, that disparity seems a little bit much to me.

[Prez]

I think Bird gets more preferential treatment in basketball analysis than any other player in history. Whether it's the severe lack of scrutiny surrounding his flaws and career failures unlike with guys like Lebron, Kobe, Wilt, etc. Or hyping up his intangibles to mythical status to the point of, again, elevating parts of his game beyond where they were in reality. Or him getting zero acknowledgement for playing on some of the most stacked teams in NBA history at the absolute peak of his powers, giving him essentially the perfect platform dominate on both an individual and team level...while no one seems to factor in guys like Duncan winning it all with a super weak cast in '03, and also give guys like Wade and Kobe flack for not achieving more when they had borderline D-league casts at their peaks.

I think if Bird played today, with constant in-your-face scrutiny analyzing every game and every play he makes, media attention at every corner, and not nearly as loaded teams...he would not be viewed as the same god-like figure he's viewed as right now. Don't get me wrong, I think peak Bird would easily be the best player in the world right now with Lebron slipping a bit...but I do think his status historically would not be nearly on the same level.

[Dr Spaceman]

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.

[ceiling raiser]

I think Bird gets more preferential treatment in basketball analysis than any other player in history. Whether it's the severe lack of scrutiny surrounding his flaws and career failures unlike with guys like Lebron, Kobe, Wilt, etc. Or hyping up his intangibles to mythical status to the point of, again, elevating parts of his game beyond where they were in reality. Or him getting zero acknowledgement for playing on some of the most stacked teams in NBA history at the absolute peak of his powers, giving him essentially the perfect platform dominate on both an individual and team level...while no one seems to factor in guys like Duncan winning it all with a super weak cast in '03, and also give guys like Wade and Kobe flack for not achieving more when they had borderline D-league casts at their peaks.

I think if Bird played today, with constant in-your-face scrutiny analyzing every game and every play he makes, media attention at every corner, and not nearly as loaded teams...he would not be viewed as the same god-like figure he's viewed as right now. Don't get me wrong, I think peak Bird would easily be the best player in the world right now with Lebron slipping a bit...but I do think his status historically would not be nearly on the same level.

Other than the historically stacked teams thing, I think Bird's shooting is something I don't quite understand well enough. He was nearly an outlier shooter in the 80s, when the shot was first introduced, and with his first coach (Fitch) discouraging it.

If one is to rate Bird super highly, since he's mostly an off-ball guy, then from what we know about him, I'd guess it needs to be on the basis of one of two factors:

(1) having all-time playmaking ability, to the point that even playing off-ball, it was more of a boon for the team offense than that of a lot of all-time ball-dominant playmakers

(2) having a "gravity"/"distraction" effect on opposing defenses that we haven't seen from many players (like is/was the case with a Dirk, Curry, Shaq, etc.), due to his shooting ability (or maybe scoring ability in general)

Maybe both of these are only partially true, and maybe that could still justify an incredible stature for Bird. But I think at that point, we'd have to saying both that we're comfortable projecting him as a near-GOAT shooter today if he grew up with the shot and had the green light in the NBA, or that he had near-GOAT scoring ability (EDIT: had originally said GOAT offensive ability, but that's redundant given that it's what we're discussing) in the half-court when he actually had the ball (I guess it's possible for someone to hold his defense in very, very, very high regard as well).

[Clyde Frazier]

Heh, depends on the crowd… the average fan or the PC board?

Just off the top of my head…

- With dirk coming up a few times on choosing peaks in the discussion thread, people tend to think he peaked in 06, 07 or 2011. I actually think he peaked in 08. My argument is essentially that 2011 dirk had been around since at least 08, yet 2011 was the first time his teammates stepped up. Post 07 dirk changed his game to not let smaller defenders irritate him anymore. He essentially became an unstoppable offensive force, relatively speaking. Check out his 08 and 09 playoffs. He was destroying the competition. He just didn’t get the support necessary to advance further.

- Peak wade was a fantastic player. His resurgence in 09 was extremely impressive. However, his fans have trouble acknowledging his injury history and that playing a role in his ranking all time. It’s especially true now that he’s been a part time player the last few seasons. It gets tiresome.

- Watch footage of Dr. J in 76 and it’s fairly obvious to me that he would’ve been about as successful in the NBA at that time. He was just a phenomenal talent. I also think his role simply changed once he got to the NBA at the request of his coach, or he would’ve been more dominant statistically those next few seasons.

- I tend to give players who performed well on bad teams the benefit of the doubt as far as their abilities are concerned. You can usually tell the difference between “empty stats on a bad team” and a guy just being in a bad situation. Basketball is a team sport. If you’re a talented player who doesn’t have talent around them, you aren’t going to win many games. And if you're good enough to get your team to the playoffs, you aren't going to get far as a 1 man show.

- I’m not really a fan of the phrase “playing the right way”. It’s somewhat elitist and too all inclusive.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Well I can see not every unpopular thought I have had is uniquely unpopular:

I generally rank Duncan lower than most around here. Not much but he's jumped from a fringe Top 10 player to Top 5 in many cases just over the last few years. I just don't value longevity to the extent he moves up that much over other goat candidates.

and

Also, Oscar was IMO probably just as good as Magic and Bird, he just wasn't nearly as lucky as they were in terms of team situation, and doesn't have nearly as much team success, but individually, I think he's about as good as they were

Couldn't go with the conclusions of the whole statement, but at this point I think Oscar might be the most overlooked/underrated all timer on this board.

and

I might get banned for this.

I can't put Russell in my Top 10. I can't. I have think about this over and over, but I can't. I don't think he is a better player than (no order):

Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, Magic, Bird, Duncan, LeBron, Garnett, Kobe, Dirk, West, Oscar.

I still can't quite bring myself to chase him from the Top 5, but there is no doubt that Russell is the one Top 10er I believe in the least. A true throwback. Too small for today's game. And how good was he really on an all time level? He was surrounded by HOFs constantly on the all time GOAT dynasty team. He won titles in an 8-10 team league. I have more doubts on that front than any other, and largely have him in my Top 5 just because everybody else does/I am supposed to.


Others more unique to me:

1) FInals MVPs are almost meaningless. Comically overrated. As Lebron showed a few months ago all FMVP means is that you were on the team that win the title. So its an interteam award amongst maybe 4-5 guys on a single team each year.

2) The game didn't evolve away from offensive big men, and that's why there aren't any. There weren't any offensive big men, and so the game evolved away from them. I have asked before, if the first was the case, then you would expect to see the same steady stream of great offensive bigs entering the league...and the league just not wanting them anymore. Name them. It was the drought that caused the change in tactics, not the change in tactics that caused the drought. If the drought ends, suddenly they will be in style again.

3)

[Owly]

I respect your opinion....however, since you have grouped Curry, Wade and Nowitzki on the same level as Bird and Magic...

Can I ask...how many seasons do you think Bird/Magic were considered top 3 players in the league? How many times do you think Wade, Novitzki and Curry? Now include there accomplishments.

Sure...you can compare stats across different era's and pretend its comparing apples to apples.

But I prefer to judge players on how dominant they were relative to there competition...just my opinon

The problem is there's an underlying assumption that "their competition" should be measured solely by the top 3 players in the league rather than any other method.

Whether or not other people are measuring relative to their competition, there are other ways of doing that. One example would be metrics which always set a baseline for the average minute played in the league (PER 15; WS/48 .100 etc). In this instance a ranking of said players over Magic and Bird, or rather on the same level as them, based on a notion of "relative to their competiton", would be justifiable

Curry: 28.0 PER, .288 WS/48 (2015)
Nowitzki: 28.1, .275 (2006) or 27.6, .278 (2007)
Wade: 30.4, .232 (2009)

Magic: 27.0, .263 (1987) or 26.9, .267 (1989)
Bird: 27.8, .243 (1988) or 26.5, .238 (1985)

Then too, your question "how many years ..." slightly misses the point of the post it perports to be in response to. It isn't about how well they sustained their apex level performance (though one could quibble somewhat with the 80s duo in this regard, what with injuries and AIDS) but rather specifically about "peaks" and "best years", suggesting a single apex season.

None of which is to say X is better than Y, that any one statistic is definitative or that you aren't (of course) fully entitled to your opinion. Just that there appeared to be an implication that Bird and Johnson were necessarily superior when compared to their peers (relative to the modern players advantage over their league), and I don't think that's necessarily the case. It can be argued for certainly, and it depends on definition of terms, but it is not a given.

I was responding to this statement....

Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were just generational(Wade, Bryant, Nowitzki, Curry)-type talents who happened to have stacked teams in the 80's, so their championship- count and accolades are a lot higher than the aforementioned players.

I think it's quite clear that its implied there talent is not much greater than those group specified and using the peak seasons as his justification.

I'm merely stating is that anyone can score a 40pt game, but only the real talented ones can sustain a MVP season. Same goes for a career. Don't you agree?

Well that's a clipped version of their quote, as such I'm not sure that peak was just "reasoning" rather than a point in and of itself, and I'm not sure your original response was clear that this was about longevity.

With regard to the question, yes longevity matters a great deal, though I wouldn't phrase it in those terms, specifically with regard to "MVP seasons" which, whether one likes it or not (I don't), is not about the best player, but tilts heavily on circumstance.

Oh, and one more - I'd take Billups over Isiah. Comparable team success, clearly better advanced numbers, more portable.

Meeeeeehhh. Not really... Chauncey's RS PER is 18.8, IT's is 18.1. Chauncey dusts Isiah in regular season WS/48 (.109 vs .176) but barely edges him in BPM which is much better IMO (2.2 vs 2.5). Then in the PS Isiah tops Chauncey easily. Chauncey's PER is 19.1 to Isiah's 19.8, his WS/48 a .186 to IT's .143, and his BPM a 4.2 to IT's 6.4 (which is one of the top 10 all time and only under Paul, Magic, Curry, and Baron Davis).

To answer the thread... Umm... Well I think Rudy T's system can still work in the modern NBA?

EDIT: Wow good one I clearly overlooked. D-Rob is worse than D-Wade, Ewing, and Nash all time.

Some context on those numbers. Chauncey has a worse (PER) lower end to his career, but in terms of greatness how much do sub-18 PER seasons (without great defense) mean when measuring players that (Isiah especially) are supposedly elite. 18 is somewhat arbitary here, but the point stands. Which isn't to diminish the importance of good productive supporting players but in the years where a serious impact is being had on RS team performance are there many sub 18 ones (by non-elite defenders)? Is being "merely" above average a signifcant boon? As such one could argue Isiah's career PER is somewhat "padded" (in terms of productive minutes, - obviously these years bring the career PER down) relative to Chauncey's 9 year significant impact spell (with only a couple of seasons on the periphery and a few roughly average or sometimes worse seasons.

Then with regard to playoffs Thomas didn't make it in the years he had his worse numbers (first year, last two years), meanwhile Billups has a (larger) playoff career for which the numbers are damaged by years outside his prime in a manner which Isiah's aren't. Eliminate the years outside Chauncey's RS prime (so still including 2011, a very small sample down year) and you still have a playoff career larger than Isiah's and PER becomes a push (CB: 19.6 v IT: 19.8), the WS gap opens further (.197 v .143) and BPM closes (4.6 to 6.4). Now obviously how one weights specific metrics (and BPM's stance on Thomas is interesting) and regular season versus playoff but, I'd say yes those are clearly better numbers for Chauncey in the RS and about equal in the playoffs.

And that's without even discussing how wonky DBPM (and DWS for that matter) is in distributing credit for Detroit's defense, particularly among guards (DBPM consistently calls Dumars a negative in the playoffs).

[chrismikayla]

1. Scottie Pippen being arguably a top 20 player.

2. David Robinson being neck and neck with Hakeem.

[SactoKingsFan]

1. KG in the top 10 over Bird and in the same tier as Hakeem.

2. Mikan shouldn't be in top 50 due to poor longevity and playing in weak era.

3. Billups over Isiah, Iverson and KJ.

[PaulieWal]

I generally rank Duncan lower than most around here. Not much but he's jumped from a fringe Top 10 player to Top 5 in many cases just over the last few years. I just don't value longevity to the extent he moves up that much over other goat candidates.

I get your point about Duncan moving to Top 5 for many people but I don't see how he was a "fringe Top 10 player" before that. I have had Duncan comfortably in my Top 10 way before the Spurs' last title and his resurgence after 2012.

- Peak wade was a fantastic player. His resurgence in 09 was extremely impressive. However, his fans have trouble acknowledging his injury history and that playing a role in his ranking all time. It’s especially true now that he’s been a part time player the last few seasons. It gets tiresome.

Funny how people can see things differently .

I think it's the opposite. Some here act like what he has been since 2013 playoffs for the last 2 years is what he always has been when he has multiple top 5 seasons (06, 09, 10, 11) and 2012 (top 10) before declining rapidly due to injuries.

I think most of his fans do rate him properly (around top 25).