NBA Unpopular Opinion Thread

[Stark]

I've been working on making my top-50 players of all-time list, and I've noticed that I'm going to end up having a bunch of things that are different from the average fan, so I figured we could have this thread to throw our crazy and off-the-wall opinions out there. Here are some of mine:

• Chris Paul is far superior to John Stockton; not a knock on Stockton, but just goes to show how highly I regard CP3.
• David Robinson, Karl Malone, and Moses Malone are all top-15 players in NBA history. David Robinson is consistently criminally underrated.
• Tim Duncan was a better and more impactful player than Kobe Bryant.
• Larry Bird was a better and more impactful player than Magic Johnson. Johnson, despite all his length and ability to play "positionless" basketball, was an average defender on his best day. He was a better playmaker than Bird of course, but Bird had him in overall scoring, shooting, post play, defense, and leadership.
• VERY few players considered stars pre-1980 would still be considered a star in today's NBA. A few notable exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are guys like Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Lanier, Elgin Baylor, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. I feel like guys like Bob Cousy, Paul Arizin, and Gail Goodrich would be average NBA starters at best.
• On the contrary, I feel that your typical upper-level rotation player in today's NBA (mostly big men), would be superstars back in the 1960s/70s. Guys like Andre Drummond, Hassan Whiteside, and DeAndre Jordan would average 25/25/5 with relative ease in that era.
• Bill Russell is the most overrated player in NBA history and would be no more than Ben Wallace was should he have played in the 21st century. I'll be surprised if I have him anywhere near my top-40/45 players. He was a winner and a great leader, but he would be as run of the mill as can be in today's NBA.
• The top-end talent among each era is incredibly comparable (guys like Wilt vs. Shaq, Jordan vs. LeBron, and Bird vs. Durant), however, the average talent of a roster in 2018 is far higher than that of a roster in 1988. A lot of that has to do with international players being integrated into today's game.

Feel free to rip me apart or give your own unpopular opinions.

 

[Otsego Mar]

LeBron is the most selfish player to ever play the game.

He's also the greatest.

 

[K1rieIrving>AllOtherPG's]

LeBron is the most selfish player to ever play the game.

He's also the greatest.

Westbrook is the most selfish player I have ever see, dude chasing stats like nobody else in NBA history and he’s shameless about it too

 

[Cavatt]

I don't think those big men would be dominant forces just because they none of those you listed Drummond, Andre, and Whiteside have any touch around the rim. They put it up hard and can be guarded by guys that should not be able to guard them. I have seen Love stop Drummond for instance.

You can take a more extreme example and say Ryan Hollins would have never been good in any time because despite the athleticism and hops, he has no touch and even worse BBall IQ.

Which Superstar big man had awesome athleticism and no touch at all? Ben Wallace, Rodman, Dikembe? I mean, Ben and Rodman were so exceptional in other areas, and they were stars, but not superstars.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Westbrook is the most selfish player I have ever see, dude chasing stats like nobody else in NBA history and he’s shameless about it too

I don't know about that. He might have the highest motor this game has ever seen.

 

[Stark]

I don't think those big men would be dominant forces just because they none of those you listed Drummond, Andre, and Whiteside have any touch around the rim. They put it up hard and can be guarded by guys that should not be able to guard them. I have seen Love stop Drummond for instance.

You can take a more extreme example and say Ryan Hollins would have never been good in any time because despite the athleticism and hops, he has no touch and even worse BBall IQ.

Which Superstar big man had awesome athleticism and no touch at all? Ben Wallace, Rodman, Dikembe? I mean, Ben and Rodman were so exceptional in other areas, and they were stars, but not superstars.

You think a guy with more skill like Jokic or the Gasol bros. is a better candidate to go from star in today's NBA to superstar in the 1960s?

 

[Otsego Mar]

I don't know about that. He might have the highest motor this game has ever seen.

He's probably also on cocaine.

 

[Nathan S]

I've been working on making my top-50 players of all-time list, and I've noticed that I'm going to end up having a bunch of things that are different from the average fan, so I figured we could have this thread to throw our crazy and off-the-wall opinions out there. Here are some of mine:

• Chris Paul is far superior to John Stockton; not a knock on Stockton, but just goes to show how highly I regard CP3.
• David Robinson, Karl Malone, and Moses Malone are all top-15 players in NBA history. David Robinson is consistently criminally underrated.
• Tim Duncan was a better and more impactful player than Kobe Bryant.
• Larry Bird was a better and more impactful player than Magic Johnson. Johnson, despite all his length and ability to play "positionless" basketball, was an average defender on his best day. He was a better playmaker than Bird of course, but Bird had him in overall scoring, shooting, post play, defense, and leadership.
• VERY few players considered stars pre-1980 would still be considered a star in today's NBA. A few notable exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are guys like Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Lanier, Elgin Baylor, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. I feel like guys like Bob Cousy, Paul Arizin, and Gail Goodrich would be average NBA starters at best.
• On the contrary, I feel that your typical upper-level rotation player in today's NBA (mostly big men), would be superstars back in the 1960s/70s. Guys like Andre Drummond, Hassan Whiteside, and DeAndre Jordan would average 25/25/5 with relative ease in that era.
• Bill Russell is the most overrated player in NBA history and would be no more than Ben Wallace was should he have played in the 21st century. I'll be surprised if I have him anywhere near my top-40/45 players. He was a winner and a great leader, but he would be as run of the mill as can be in today's NBA.
• The top-end talent among each era is incredibly comparable (guys like Wilt vs. Shaq, Jordan vs. LeBron, and Bird vs. Durant), however, the average talent of a roster in 2018 is far higher than that of a roster in 1988. A lot of that has to do with international players being integrated into today's game.

Feel free to rip me apart or give your own unpopular opinions.

Here's an unpopular opinion back at you...if you give prime Ben Wallace Bill Russell's offensive skill, that's a top-5 player in the NBA today.

 

[Stark]

Here's an unpopular opinion back at you...if you give prime Ben Wallace Bill Russell's offensive skill, that's a top-5 player in the NBA today.

Interesting. I haven't watched a ton of tape on Bill because not much of it really exists, and watching a "highlight reel" of a player is going to show you all of the good and none of the average or bad.

I want to know why a guy that was supposedly one of the most "dominant" players of his era was only able to average 12.8 PPG/36 for his career on relatively low shooting percentages (44%).

Guy shot sub-40% in the playoffs four different times. I'm not knocking his rebounding/defense, because he was obviously elite at those for his time and in that brand of basketball that used to be played, but I just don't get why he was so underwhelming on the offensive end according to the stats.

His career PER (18.9), which mostly helps measure out offensive intangibles and is a biased stat towards big men, puts him below current centers like Drummond (22.9), Whiteside (24.2), D. Jordan (20.3), and Gobert (20.8).

Maybe it is stats not translating perfectly across eras, but guys like Drummond, Whiteside, Gobert, etc. are bigger, longer, and stronger than Russell were, and are playing statistically superior ball in a more physically dominating era.

If I was building a team for 2018/19 and I had a choice between Bill Russell at his absolute peak, or Hassan Whiteside (not considering his behavior problems), I feel like I'd be an idiot to choose Russell.

What do you think?

 

[Cavatt]

You think a guy with more skill like Jokic or the Gasol bros. is a better candidate to go from star in today's NBA to superstar in the 1960s?

Absolutely. Maybe I am wrong.

You just always get these guys with unbelievable athleticism that Flame out like Joe Alexander. Even Gerald Green has recently made himself into a useful player. Stars still always have a very high skill level. Like McGee has been useful to GS, but the Cavs still straight up exploited him. He has one of the best NBA bodies on paper.

You can say Shaq wasn't skilled because he can't shoot, but he was so accurate from a few feet, and his foot work, and passing skills were great.

Who is the least skilled superstar ever is a really good question.

https://www.foxsports.com/nba/gallery/ranking-the-25-greatest-players-in-nba-history-100716

LIke this list isn't complete or anything, but there is not an unskilled guy on that list. It would have happened if it was going to happen.

Superstars are usually high BBall IQ, good to great athleticism, and super high skills. I think the only one you don't absolutely have to have is the athleticism.

 

[Nathan S]

Interesting. I haven't watched a ton of tape on Bill because not much of it really exists, and watching a "highlight reel" of a player is going to show you all of the good and none of the average or bad.

I want to know why a guy that was supposedly one of the most "dominant" players of his era was only able to average 12.8 PPG/36 for his career on relatively low shooting percentages (44%).

Guy shot sub-40% in the playoffs four different times. I'm not knocking his rebounding/defense, because he was obviously elite at those for his time and in that brand of basketball that used to be played, but I just don't get why he was so underwhelming on the offensive end according to the stats.

His career PER (18.9), which mostly helps measure out offensive intangibles and is a biased stat towards big men, puts him below current centers like Drummond (22.9), Whiteside (24.2), D. Jordan (20.3), and Gobert (20.8).

Maybe it is stats not translating perfectly across eras, but guys like Drummond, Whiteside, Gobert, etc. are bigger, longer, and stronger than Russell were, and are playing statistically superior ball in a more physically dominating era.

If I was building a team for 2018/19 and I had a choice between Bill Russell at his absolute peak, or Hassan Whiteside (not considering his behavior problems), I feel like I'd be an idiot to choose Russell.

What do you think?

I'm not nearly qualified to give any intelligent analysis about how Russell's skillset would translate to the modern NBA, except to say that he'd probably be better than Ben Wallace, if only because he'd shoot solidly above 50% from the line.

My real point is that with Ben Wallace, you're talking about arguably the greatest defensive player of all time. Give him even a totally average offensive skillset and he's immediately one of the best players in the league in any era.

 

[MediumBaller]

Kobe was nothing more than a volume shooter.

 

[czvo]

Interesting. I haven't watched a ton of tape on Bill because not much of it really exists, and watching a "highlight reel" of a player is going to show you all of the good and none of the average or bad.

I want to know why a guy that was supposedly one of the most "dominant" players of his era was only able to average 12.8 PPG/36 for his career on relatively low shooting percentages (44%).

Guy shot sub-40% in the playoffs four different times. I'm not knocking his rebounding/defense, because he was obviously elite at those for his time and in that brand of basketball that used to be played, but I just don't get why he was so underwhelming on the offensive end according to the stats.

His career PER (18.9), which mostly helps measure out offensive intangibles and is a biased stat towards big men, puts him below current centers like Drummond (22.9), Whiteside (24.2), D. Jordan (20.3), and Gobert (20.8).

Maybe it is stats not translating perfectly across eras, but guys like Drummond, Whiteside, Gobert, etc. are bigger, longer, and stronger than Russell were, and are playing statistically superior ball in a more physically dominating era.

If I was building a team for 2018/19 and I had a choice between Bill Russell at his absolute peak, or Hassan Whiteside (not considering his behavior problems), I feel like I'd be an idiot to choose Russell.

What do you think?

Don't think FG% is a fair way to evaluate players in that era because no one shot well, and they played remarkably fast.

Bill was a super underrated passer.

 

[Jontibs]

I think as fans we worry far too much about stats and ranking lists. Especially cross generational.

3 ball dominant basketball can be quite dull and formulaic, and not the hip and sexy movement it is advertised as.

Iverson was a cultural force who paved the way for numerous mindless chuckers who uglied up the game.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Kendrick Perkins will be a fine asset for the Cavs during the playoffs.