The Unpopular Opinion Thread

[jeffx]

I don't go with the majority opinion that Michael Jordan is the greatest NBA player of all time. Bill Russell - the greatest winner in American team sports(11 titles) and no one had a higher IQ on the court. Wilt Chamberlain - the most dominant force there ever was. So dominant the league changed the rules on him. Oscar Robertson - the NBA's first 'big' guard, could do anything he wanted to on the court. Averaged a triple-double for an ENTIRE season -sick! Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - won 6 six titles before Jordan, 3-time NCAA champion, changed the face of college basketball, revolutionized the center position and had the most unstoppable weapon in the game.

I can't put Jordan above those cats - it's not fair. To me, they all share the title equally. Just my .02.

 

[MrBill]

I think Tim Duncan is also getting close to that discussion. He has 5 NBA titles in 6 finals appearances and is still going strong for at least 1-2 more seasons.

 

[buckeye]

I can't disagree with those. I guess its all in what you are looking for.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[jeffx]

MrBill, Duncan is my best PF of all time, and is on my top 10 NBA greatest list. He's a throwback - could've easily played back in the day. His basketball IQ is close to Bill Russell's.

 

[Senser81]

the level of Jordan's competition was miles ahead of Russell's and Chamberlain's.

 

[MrBill]

the level of Jordan's competition was miles ahead of Russell's and Chamberlain's.

I wouldn't disagree with that, Jordan's competitive drive was a big part of what made him the player he was during his career.

Would it be an unpopular opinion to say that LeBron might have had lesser impact on the league if he had played during Jordan's era where defenders could be much more physical? Not saying that LeBron couldn't overpower defenders from any era, of course, but would it have trimmed his stats enough to make him just a really good player instead of a great player.

 

[jeffx]

The great Lakers & Celtics teams of the 80s were better than any of the teams the Bulls faced in the Finals.

Are the 96 Bulls better than the 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers or 83 Sixers? I don't think so.

As for physical play, the 70s were pretty damn rough. Paul Silas and Dave Cowens should be arrested for what they did to opposing ballplayers.

 

[Senser81]

The great Lakers & Celtics teams of the 80s were better than any of the teams the Bulls faced in the Finals.

Those two teams were stacked, but I think overall the NBA was much tougher in Jordan's era than in the Magic/Bird era, especially in the late-80's and early-90's. I remember watching a 1st round Western Conference playoff series in the early 90's between the Stockton/Malone Jazz and Kevin Johnson's Suns...either of those teams would have been the 3rd best team in the NBA in the Bird/Magic era, but they were like the 4/5 matchup in their conference.

In regards to the Chamberlain, Russell, Robertson stuff...one of the most enlightening things I've ever seen is actual game footage of those players. It really lessened my opinion of those guys. I used to wonder how Chamberlain and Russell would average 20 points and 20 rebounds a game, or how awesome Robertson must have been to average a triple-double for a season. Watching the game footage, pro basketball back then was almost completely stationary. The center would stand under the basket, the forwards would on either side of the center on the baseline, and the guards would be split wide behind the FT line. The players never moved from these positions. So on missed shots, the center more often than not got the rebound, because no one else was near the basket and no one ever "crashed the boards". Chamberlain and Russell would wage their little war, but one of them was always going to get the rebound. There was very little double-teaming on defense. Robertson was the only guy to actually move around the entire court, so you could see how he would average a triple-double.

 

[the Brain]

It's a myth the competition wasn't as good back in the day. There were only 8 teams. So the competition to make the NBA was much more fierce. Therefore, the teams had deeper talent.

However, it was easier to win a string of titles because you only had to win 2 rounds. And you could restock talent alot easier. Especially since the draft was region based. Not on W-L record.

I've always said I would never argue against anyone who said the best was either the Big O, the Stilt, or Air. Jordan came as close as anyone to virtually single-handedly winning titles. The Big O averaged a triple double over 5 seasons. Wilt averaged 50+ one year then led the league in assists just to prove a point.

Those saying Bill Russell was the best is an example of people overrating the team accomplishment as a measure of individual worth.

 

[jeffx]

It's considered the forgotten decade, but I loved the NBA during the 70s. The league had its issues, but there was some great basketball being played, especially by the Knicks from 1970-74 (a terrific rivalry with the Bullets). And you had the '71 Bucks, '72 Lakers, '74 Finals, Rick Barry in '75, Dr. J & the ABA, Game 5 of the '76 Finals (most incredible playoff game I've ever seen), Portland's championship run in '77, and those fun Seattle teams in '78 & '79.

 

[the Brain]

I was 7 when the Doctor lost to Portland. I cried.

 

[Senser81]

It's a myth the competition wasn't as good back in the day. There were only 8 teams. So the competition to make the NBA was much more fierce. Therefore, the teams had deeper talent.

I guess, but thats only if you are assuming the talent pool of basketball players has remained unchanged since the 1950's. I would disagree with that thought. There are more kids playing basketball now than in the 1950's.

 

[Tailback U]

I guess, but thats only if you are assuming the talent pool of basketball players has remained unchanged since the 1950's. I would disagree with that thought. There are more kids playing basketball now than in the 1950's.

Average height and weight of NBA/ABA players from 1945-2013:

http://i.imgur.com/EmtQ7s1.png

I found this on reddit so don't sue me if it's incorrect.

This graph on wikipedia shows that there has been very little change in height and weight for the average player since 1985:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing_experience

That said, I know that height and weight don't automatically equate to increased talent but I think it's worth bringing up.

 

[Senser81]

Average height and weight of NBA/ABA players from 1945-2013:

http://i.imgur.com/EmtQ7s1.png

I found this on reddit so don't sue me if it's incorrect.

This graph on wikipedia shows that there has been very little change in height and weight for the average player since 1985:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing_experience

That said, I know that height and weight don't automatically equate to increased talent but I think it's worth bringing up.

What is your point?

 

[the Brain]

I guess, but thats only if you are assuming the talent pool of basketball players has remained unchanged since the 1950's. I would disagree with that thought. There are more kids playing basketball now than in the 1950's.

So you think that would offset the fact there are 4x's as many pro teams today? I think more people today see making a career in basketball as more attainable thanks to more teams & international leagues as well. I think you had to be more than exceptional to make the NBA a viable option in the 50's & 60's.

 

[Senser81]

I think you had to be more than exceptional to make the NBA a viable option in the 50's & 60's.

I'm not understanding what you are saying here. Please make sense.

 

[the Brain]

W/less potential to make a living in basketball, you had to be more than exceptional to make that a career choice in the 50's & 60's. Only the elite of the elite were in the NBA. The league, in comparison, is watered down now. There are guys starting now that wouldn't get a camp invite back then.

 

[Senser81]

W/less potential to make a living in basketball, you had to be more than exceptional to make that a career choice in the 50's & 60's. Only the elite of the elite were in the NBA. The league, in comparison, is watered down now. There are guys starting now that wouldn't get a camp invite back then.

Completely disagree. With less potential to make a living in basketball, you would have great college players choosing to go into other professions simply because they couldn't make a career out of playing professional basketball. Pro basketball players in the 50's and 60's made peanuts.

 

[shag773]

Completely disagree. With less potential to make a living in basketball, you would have great college players choosing to go into other professions simply because they couldn't make a career out of playing professional basketball. Pro basketball players in the 50's and 60's made peanuts.

A good example, although it was the NFL in the late 30's, was Davey O'Brien. He was drafted by the the Eagles in 1939, played for two years, and became an FBI agent. He was considered one of the greatest college QBs of all time and was well on his way to being a top pro QB.

Three years before Jay Berwanger won the heisman, got drafted and didn't even sign a pro contract.

Most of those guys who played in the 50s and 60s had offseason jobs. These guys didn't work out year round like they did back in Jordan's day.

 

[the Brain]

Completely disagree. With less potential to make a living in basketball, you would have great college players choosing to go into other professions simply because they couldn't make a career out of playing professional basketball. Pro basketball players in the 50's and 60's made peanuts.

There were fewer teams in baseball & football as well. So the proportions would remain the same. The other leagues also made less as well. It was not unusual for all-stars to have an off season job. Some baseball players went to the Mexican Leagues.

If you were on the Knicks in '65, you played the Lakers (West/Baylor) 10 times. You played Oscar Robertson 10 times. You played Russel's C's (w/5 HOF's) 10 times. You played Wilt 10 times. You played the Hawks (4 HOF's) 10 times. That's 50 of 80 games vs teams loaded w/all-time greats.

The teams were deeper in the 60's. In comparison, the NBA talent is diluted. We look @ teams w/3 superstars as loaded. Hawks had 4 headed to Springfield & finished 2nd in their division.