Unpopular Basketball Opinions

Remove this Banner Ad

Scottie Pippen would not have been a top 50 player without MJ and should not have been. Dominique Wilkins is and always will be the better player and leaving him out of the top 50 in 96 was a discgrace.

Pippen is top 50 all time, was possibly leading the MVP when Jordan retired the first time.
I agree Nique' was top 50 all time easily though.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

What's controversial about this? :p
Simpletons (the casual fan) still think he's some kind of freak.

I'd almost argue that MJ is overrated but it's not really my opinion just a way of stirring the pot. I don't agree with the way people make it out as:

Jordan






Magic, Bird, Russell, Kareem etc





Shaq, Big O etc

Definitely a closer gap between Jordan, Magic, Russell, Bird, Kareem. Not Bird or Magic's fault that their careers were cut short. Plus the 90s was crippled by expansion.

I'll now see myself out before the jod meltdown.
 
Chandler owes his DPOY to Woody?
Woodson wasn't bad in 2012, and I'm guessing a Knicks assistant ran the defence anyway. The point I was making as that Chandler isn't some big intimidating guy on defence that can do it all like the older guys did and legitimately carry a defence.

Prime Chandler, Gasol, Hibbert and a few others don't come close to your Olajuwon's, Duncan's, Garnett's Russell's etc. And before you say those players are vastly superior I'm talking defensively, they were talked about as the best defenders in the league during their prime (and even a bit after) and they were far more intimidating and better.

They blocked shots, knew when to rotate, knew how to get their teammates fired up, got their hands in the lane and challenged lots of shots. Chandler, Gasol, Hibbert etc can only do one of those things well and even still do guys these days shit themselves when seeing any of those guys? No. Hibbert is especially overrated as his team is full of defenders.
 
Kevin Garnett is a top 20 player, arguments can be made for him being top 15.

From the modern NBA era (so roughly Magic/Bird onwards), who would you have above Garnett, and who would be roughly on a par? Just curious

Today's centers and defensive anchors are vastly overrated because of the great strategies coaches have come up with.

Noah isn't overrated, but I agree re. Hibbert, Gasol

Boston's inability to pull free agents is incorrect, we just haven't had chances to sign marquee players nor have we had any walk from Boston.

Tbh I haven't heard anyone argue that around here?..

Rubio is an average NBA player.

Doesn't everyone say that now? :p
 
Prime Chandler, Gasol, Hibbert and a few others don't come close to your Olajuwon's, Duncan's, Garnett's Russell's etc. And before you say those players are vastly superior I'm talking defensively, they were talked about as the best defenders in the league during their prime (and even a bit after) and they were far more intimidating and better.

They blocked shots, knew when to rotate, knew how to get their teammates fired up, got their hands in the lane and challenged lots of shots.

You left out Zo and David Robinson. Never leave out Zo and David Robinson. ;)
 
Simpletons (the casual fan) still think he's some kind of freak.

I'd almost argue that MJ is overrated but it's not really my opinion just a way of stirring the pot. I don't agree with the way people make it out as:

Jordan






Magic, Bird, Russell, Kareem etc





Shaq, Big O etc

Definitely a closer gap between Jordan, Magic, Russell, Bird, Kareem. Not Bird or Magic's fault that their careers were cut short. Plus the 90s was crippled by expansion.

I'll now see myself out before the jod meltdown.

Again agree 100%
 
Definitely a closer gap between Jordan, Magic, Russell, Bird, Kareem. Not Bird or Magic's fault that their careers were cut short. Plus the 90s was crippled by expansion.

I agree that with your anti - 'Jordan, then daylight' sentiment, but I'll quibble with the last part of your statement.

Jordan had 13 seasons in his prime (including his '45' comeback season), while Magic and Bird played 12 apiece - not much difference really. Of course Bird was restricted by the early 90s, but Magic was fit right up until the end.

I also disagree with the '90s crippled by expansion' argument - there was expansion throughout the 1970s plus the great coke epidemic in the 70s/80s - who is to say that Magic and Bird were not advantaged thus?

I don't think Jordan's six titles automatically makes him 'better' than those with five - that's as ridiculous as saying that Kobe is five times better than Dirk based on rings. However the argument that Jordan benefited from a diluted, weakened league compared to Magic and Bird is a myth - the Lakers benefited ENORMOUSLY from a weak Western Conference throughout Magic's career, but that is seldom ever discussed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

From the modern NBA era (so roughly Magic/Bird onwards), who would you have above Garnett, and who would be roughly on a par? Just curious



Noah isn't overrated, but I agree re. Hibbert, Gasol



Tbh I haven't heard anyone argue that around here?..



Doesn't everyone say that now? :p
Off the top of my head (so I may forget a big name) Shaq, Duncan, Jordan, Hakeem, and Kobe. LeBron will be clearly in front by the time he's done.

As for the free agency point, it's something I see around RealGM, on ESPN and in other NBA discussions about Boston.

They probably do (Rubio) but I was a doubter early. Loved his passing game but began to soon realise his jumper stunk and so did his finishing.
I agree that with your anti - 'Jordan, then daylight' sentiment, but I'll quibble with the last part of your statement.

Jordan had 13 seasons in his prime (including his '45' comeback season), while Magic and Bird played 12 apiece - not much difference really. Of course Bird was restricted by the early 90s, but Magic was fit right up until the end.

I also disagree with the '90s crippled by expansion' argument - there was expansion throughout the 1970s plus the great coke epidemic in the 70s/80s - who is to say that Magic and Bird were not advantaged thus?

I don't think Jordan's six titles automatically makes him 'better' than those with five - that's as ridiculous as saying that Kobe is five times better than Dirk based on rings. However the argument that Jordan benefited from a diluted, weakened league compared to Magic and Bird is a myth - the Lakers benefited ENORMOUSLY from a weak Western Conference throughout Magic's career, but that is seldom ever discussed.
Bird was screwed by an injury in '87 though (that was a title team when healthy) and Lewis/Bias were ready to extend his career. Yes they're pretty similar but Bird was in serious decline by in the late '80s, Magic not sure about.

Okay I'll give you the coke epidemic, but did that really screw the league badly? It ruined the Rockets one season (if I recall correctly) but it wasn't as though everyone was banned. The Sixers, Rockets, Pistons, Lakers and Celtics shit on the Suns, Lakers, Jazz and Sonics teams that Jordan faced. We all saw what the brutal '80s era did to MJ. Imagine some of his younger teammates playing back then?

I can agree on the Magic statement too, I'm not trying to argue that Magic or Bird are better, so my argument isn't all that convincing. It just annoys me when people talk about a gulf between Jordan and the absolute greats of the game (the ones that aren't doubted) Russell, Bird, Magic and Kareem (in my opinion)
 
Okay I'll give you the coke epidemic, but did that really screw the league badly? It ruined the Rockets one season (if I recall correctly) but it wasn't as though everyone was banned. The Sixers, Rockets, Pistons, Lakers and Celtics shit on the Suns, Lakers, Jazz and Sonics teams that Jordan faced. We all saw what the brutal '80s era did to MJ. Imagine some of his younger teammates playing back then?

I can agree on the Magic statement too, I'm not trying to argue that Magic or Bird are better, so my argument isn't all that convincing. It just annoys me when people talk about a gulf between Jordan and the absolute greats of the game (the ones that aren't doubted) Russell, Bird, Magic and Kareem (in my opinion)

I concur with the bolded.


As for the 1980s - the best five teams of (most of) the decade were the Celts, Lakers, Sixers, Pistons and Bucks - so yeah the East was tough, but the West most certainly wasn't.

Who was the second best team in the West during the 1980s? The Rockets would have been, but injuries/drugs set Houston and Hakeem back five years.

Dallas had a good team by 1988, but they dismantled it straight away (plus Tarpley, drugs).

Phoenix's team of the mid-80s was derailed by drug abuse (eg Walter Davis)

San Antoino and Seattle had good teams at the start of the 80s, but they aged pretty quickly and were a non-factor by 1983.

From Seattle's late 70s championship team, there was no other serious, consistent Western Conference title challenger besides the Lakers until Rick Adelman's Portland teams.


As for the teams Chicago beat ... they had to go through Detroit (91), New York (93), Orlando (96) and Indy (98) in the East, all of whom were legitimate threats at the time.

I think you do a disservice to the teams Chicago beat in the Finals as well - the Lakers, Portland, Phoenix, Seattle and Utah were all teams that were consistently good over a number of years. They all won 60 games (or near enough) in the seasons in which they made the Finals. The West was weak in the 80s, but it most certainly WASN'T during the 90s.

New York in 1999, Philly in 2001, New Jersey in 2002, Cleveland in 2007 - those are examples of teams who overachieved in even reaching the Finals. I don't think you can say the same about any of Chicago's Finals opponents.
 
I concur with the bolded.


As for the 1980s - the best five teams of (most of) the decade were the Celts, Lakers, Sixers, Pistons and Bucks - so yeah the East was tough, but the West most certainly wasn't.

Who was the second best team in the West during the 1980s? The Rockets would have been, but injuries/drugs set Houston and Hakeem back five years.

Dallas had a good team by 1988, but they dismantled it straight away (plus Tarpley, drugs).

Phoenix's team of the mid-80s was derailed by drug abuse (eg Walter Davis)

San Antoino and Seattle had good teams at the start of the 80s, but they aged pretty quickly and were a non-factor by 1983.

From Seattle's late 70s championship team, there was no other serious, consistent Western Conference title challenger besides the Lakers until Rick Adelman's Portland teams.


As for the teams Chicago beat ... they had to go through Detroit (91), New York (93), Orlando (96) and Indy (98) in the East, all of whom were legitimate threats at the time.

I think you do a disservice to the teams Chicago beat in the Finals as well - the Lakers, Portland, Phoenix, Seattle and Utah were all teams that were consistently good over a number of years. They all won 60 games (or near enough) in the seasons in which they made the Finals. The West was weak in the 80s, but it most certainly WASN'T during the 90s.

New York in 1999, Philly in 2001, New Jersey in 2002, Cleveland in 2007 - those are examples of teams who overachieved in even reaching the Finals. I don't think you can say the same about any of Chicago's Finals opponents.
I'm not saying they weren't deserving just that they probably weren't as good as the teams the Lakers, Celtics or Pistons faced in the finals.
 
I'm not saying they weren't deserving just that they probably weren't as good as the teams the Lakers, Celtics or Pistons faced in the finals.

The Pistons beat the Blazers (essentially the exact same team who Chicago beat two years later) and a weakened Lakers team in 1990 - certainly not tougher than opponents than Chicago faced. IMO the Lakers were much better team in 1991 when Chicago beat them (added Vlade & Sam Perkins) than in 1990.

Boston/LA in the mid 80s were genuine heavyweight contests, no argument. I wouldn't exactly say that the 1981 Finals were a classic match-up though...

Seattle were bloody good in 1996, ditto Portland in 1992 - I think you underestimate how loaded those teams were. Chicago had to beat five different opponents to win six championships, but just because the 90s lacked a Lakers/Celtics rivalry it doesn't stand to reason that the teams that won the West during the 1990s were inferior - the Rockets, Blazers, Suns, Spurs, Sonics & Jazz were all legit contenders for a number of years. It just so happened that no one team dominated the West during those years, they kinda took it in turns.
 
The 93 Suns team and the 96 Sonics team were absolutely legit teams in an extremely strong Western conference.

Wait, no they weren't they were ****ing shit (unpopular opinion thread)
 
The 96 Supersonics were great, prime Payton and Kemp at his peak both physically and mentally. Hawkins was a deadeye, Mcmillian was like another Payton on defence and their double teams are fabled, Schrempf was a jack of all trades SF and they had one of the most notable stretch 4's in existence in Sam Perkins coming off the bench.
 
Here's a few - some will be controversial others not so much:

The modern equivalent of Wilt Chamberlain is Dwight Howard - great rebounders, limited offensive arsenals and poor free-throw shooters. Dwight actually averages more points per 36 minutes in the playoffs - despite the game being played at a much faster pace during Wilt's era.

The NBA prior to the 70s was mostly trash and didn't become an elite competition until the likes of Magic, Larry and Michael (and David Stern) brought fans, sponsorship and financial interest to the sport. Like most sports it didn't reflect the best-of-the-best until there was enough money involved to make people choose basketball over other pursuits (sport or otherwise).

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was the first modern day basketball superstar. His game dominated the 70s - which was admittedly watered down - but didn't deteriorate when the quality of the league rose during the 1980s. The same could be said of Julius Erving though he started a few years after KAJ and was in the ABA.

Oscar Robertson's triple double season is not that impressive when you consider that almost every game was played at faster than All-Star game pace and with about as much defense. Both Magic Johnson and LeBron James have had more impressive all-round statistical seasons.

Kobe Bryant's 81 point game is the best scoring performance in the history of the league but not necessarily the best game.

Today's centres are not necessarily worse than those from previous generations. The increased use of the three point shot has meant that centres are no longer the most efficient scorers in the game - their role has shifted towards defense and second chance points. The average number of three point attempts has climbed 45 per cent since the 1999/2000 season and 200 per cent since 1989/1990. The change in game styles also reduced the usefulness of centres on the defensive end. Guys like Dwight Howard, Brook Lopez and DeMarcus Cousins would be among the highest scoring players in the league if they had debuted in the 80s or 90s.

David Robinson is the most underrated player in NBA history. Isiah Thomas is the most overrated player.

LeBron James is already either the second or third best player in NBA history (before Jordan and possibly Abdul-Jabbar).

At no point during his career was Kobe Bryant ever the best player in the league.

The only power forward I'm convinced was better than Charles Barkley is Tim Duncan.

Blake Griffin is a much better basketballer than LaMarcus Aldridge - the latter is an extremely inefficient scorer.

Scottie Pippen is easily in the top 50 players of all time and one of the best perimeter defenders in history.
 
The change in game styles also reduced the usefulness of centres on the defensive end.

Can't say I agree with this at all. The best defensive teams in the league recently have been Chicago, Indy, Memphis .... all with dominant big men.

Guys like Dwight Howard, Brook Lopez and DeMarcus Cousins would be among the highest scoring players in the league if they had debuted in the 80s or 90s.

Dwight Howard would not have scored more points in the 90s. Hakeem, David Robinson and Shaq could average 25-30 ppg - Dwight? Nope.

Blake Griffin is a much better basketballer than LaMarcus Aldridge - the latter is an extremely inefficient scorer.

The bolded is a myth. I'd disagree with the Griffen >> Aldridge summation too, but that's a matter of opinion.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Unpopular Basketball Opinions

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top