Try hard to think of a word that begins with A.
Unpopular Basketball Opinions
- Thread starter djrossie16
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Try hard to think of a word that begins with A.
- Oct 14, 2009
- 1,151
- 1,537
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- East Fremantle, The Exers
While I watch the NBA as often as I can style wise I prefer the NBL now days. As, other than the difference in talent and athleticism, it is much closer in style to the way the game was played in the NBA in the late 80's to mid 90's.
peternorth
Moderator
- May 6, 2005
- 127,331
- 75,490
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #2,078
seeing benny simmons slice and dice his way through defences is great. got me thinking, why is it that in the nba there's so much space on the floor. contrast that with the nbl where there's no room to maneouvere!
PVF
Call Me?
I believe the three point line is shorter so that's probably why it looks more cramped.
- Oct 14, 2009
- 1,151
- 1,537
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- East Fremantle, The Exers
I remember when Gleeson was the coach of Townsville he was tech fouled quite often when they visited Challenge Stadium.
........ and sit down so the people behind you can see.
ESPN linking to a video of her 'explaining' that OKC should make some moves or risk losing Paul George for nothing in free agency.
- Apr 2, 2000
- 74,771
- 25,000
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Chicago Bulls.
It is. But he will never change. All those American shows used to be fun to watch, now they are all very samey, two blokes shouting at each other with clearly opposite opinions on a topic. Yawn.
NBL play defence. NBA put on a show.
- Apr 2, 2000
- 74,771
- 25,000
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Chicago Bulls.
Surely he's the leader in the MVP at the moment??
I'd have LeBron leading the way from Harden and Giannis.
It's much harder to play defence in the NBA because of how ridiculously athletic most players are.
- Apr 2, 2000
- 74,771
- 25,000
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Chicago Bulls.
Yeah pretty much. The NBL would never be able to defend a player like Westbrook or Giannis or LeBron etc...Too big, too quick, too athletic.
Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 22, 2010
- 19,533
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Banned
- #2,092
Wilt Chamberlain is the outright greatest of all time.
Bill Russell's Celtics are the greatest ever team.
Oscar Robertson was a better point guard than Magic.
Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan are not best 10 all-time players.
Hakeem is top 10 all time and was better than Shaq.
LeBron does not feature on my NBA Mount Rushmore with Wilt, Russell, MJ and Kareem still clearly ahead and unlikely to get passed by LeBron.
Russell Westbrook is not a top ten point guard in the NBA today.
Donovan Mitchell is overrated and is likely to have a career trajectory not dissimilar to ex-Bull Ben Gordon. Ben Simmons, Jordan Bell, Jayson Tatum and Lauri Markkanen should all be better with Kyle Kuzma, Dennis Smith Jr, John Collins, Markelle Fultz and Lonzo Ball some others I wouldn't be surprised to also see have stronger careers.
Trae Young is the best in the 2018 NBA Draft class with Luka Doncic the next best.
Bill Russell's Celtics are the greatest ever team.
Oscar Robertson was a better point guard than Magic.
Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan are not best 10 all-time players.
Hakeem is top 10 all time and was better than Shaq.
LeBron does not feature on my NBA Mount Rushmore with Wilt, Russell, MJ and Kareem still clearly ahead and unlikely to get passed by LeBron.
Russell Westbrook is not a top ten point guard in the NBA today.
Donovan Mitchell is overrated and is likely to have a career trajectory not dissimilar to ex-Bull Ben Gordon. Ben Simmons, Jordan Bell, Jayson Tatum and Lauri Markkanen should all be better with Kyle Kuzma, Dennis Smith Jr, John Collins, Markelle Fultz and Lonzo Ball some others I wouldn't be surprised to also see have stronger careers.
Trae Young is the best in the 2018 NBA Draft class with Luka Doncic the next best.
Bill Russell's Celts team would be dream teamed by the current Warriors.
Only people caught in the moment would have Kobe in the Top 10 of all time.
A lot of people have Hakeem Top 10. And for a career I can see having him ahead of Shaq. But peak Shaq was a lot better than Hakeem. Peak Shaq is almost MJ dominate.
I'm struggling to come up with 10 better point guards than Westbrook (and I don't like him).
You value 60-70s basketball a lot. Stick LeBron in that league and he would be unstoppable.
Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 22, 2010
- 19,533
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Banned
- #2,094
I suspect most would agree with you on the Warriors beating Russell's Celtics. The Warriors without the 3pt line I don't believe would be competitive with the Celtics pre 3pt line. Under current rules with the three point line, I still like the Celtics. The 3pt line is such an essential part of the game now and you'd need to give the Celtics time to adjust to the line and look at current tape. If they had that, I'd back them in to beat the Warriors. They've got the perimeter pace to prevent 3s, they'd win the battle of the boards and the Warriors wouldn't be quick enough on defence to stop the Celtics on the fast breaks with the way they ran out so early before defenses could get back.
Hakeem I favour to Shaq for his defence as a clearly better defender who by contrast to Shaq applied himself on that end of the floor. His shooting, conversion from the line are bonuses and not clogging up the lane are bonuses. They're in the same conversation, but at their best, I'd against popular opinion take Hakeem.
As for 10 ahead of Westbrook - LeBron, Giannis, Curry, Harden, CP3, Irving, Wall, Lillard, K.Walker and Lowry all are better. With Westbrook the reasons for a position outside the top 10 are - his absurdly high usage rate, poor fg%, 3pt%, ft%, turnover numbers and worst in the game movement off-ball as a point guard you can't win a championship with.
LeBron would go great in any era, as any great would, and he would be great in the 60s and 70s. His impact and numbers would be similar in that time to Oscar Robertson, or a more efficient Elgin Baylor.
With no 3 point line the Warriors would still dream team the Celtics team. I'd actually be surprised if a 500 team from today wouldn't beat the Celtics in 5 games in a 7 game series. The game has come so far since the 60s. Everyone talks about Russel being this man mountain in the middle. Dude was 6 foot 9. He'd be a SF in today's game. Only one other guy was over 6 foot 6. The skill level was lol bad. Here's Game 7 of the Finals of that year. It's played at the intensity of a meaningless game in March in today's game. Skill level is right there with two lottery teams. Defense is pretty terrible. Outside a couple of players, jump shots are terrible. Over half the dudes out there are white. And these are the best two teams in the league playing a Game 7 in the Finals.
Warriors are better than them in every aspect of the game. And that's just a time thing. I have no doubt in 50 years the Warriors would fair the same against a team from 2070.
I have no issues with picking Hakeem. Peak Shaq was a lot more dominate though. He was unstoppable.
In your assessment of point guards, you've included two guys that aren't point guards.
LeBron would have been the best player in the game if he had played in the 60s.
Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 22, 2010
- 19,533
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Banned
- #2,096
What the players did in the 60s that they don't today is they run it up rather than walk it up, they played the fast break much more soundly, they moved much better off the ball rather than isolating, the rim and interior defence was stronger and post moves were of a much greater standard entirely. Every game, you're playing against historically great players, there were no cakewalks during that time. Players didn't have the shooting range then or the handles they do now and it was a below the rim game during that time. Otherwise it was still a very solid era of basketball. Today's teams if entered in the NBA with the rules of the 60s would struggle to compete without the 3pt line outside of the better few teams. With the Celtics unlike many teams from that era while they had Cousy, Ramsey and Heinsohn who are white, you had Russell, Jones, Sanders and K.C. Jones complimenting them. That team added Havlicek through the draft the following year which only made them greater.
Shaq on offense was more unstoppable at his best, it's just his defense sees him overall place worse than Hakeem.
On point guards. LeBron and Giannis while they prefer not to list themselves as point guards, they are both the primary handlers and highest usage players for their respective teams and are both in my view are best suited to the point guard position.
In any era Wilt would be the most dominant by a considerable margin, as he was during the 60s when he was given the opportunity to carry an offense. LeBron through the 60s could have been a 32 point, 10 rebound, 9 assist player, playing him in the Oscar Robertson conversation, though marginally ahead with his FG% to be higher due to the way he gets to the rim (though not easy during that era with the way the lane was clogged and harder fouls were allowed). But that's not keeping up with Wilt who averaged 34.5ppg, 24.31rpg, an estimated 9bpg (career estiamted based on tv games 8.8bpg) while leading the NBA in assists for a season and Wilt is in a world of his own with only Russell coming close in rpg and bpg.
This is just so wrong. 60s ball was so bad. The offensive systems were terrible and their team defense was basically hope Wilt/Russel blocks them. You know teams back in the day use to shoot 40%? Warriors shoot 40% from 23 feet away from the basket. And defense is so much better today. Lightyears better. If today's team teleported back in time would take apart the 60s teams because the game has evolved. LeBron is stupidly dominate today. Back then he would have just destroyed everyone. You know he weighs 35 pounds more than Russel? And athletically would leave everyone for dead.
60s ball is, in comparison, pickup ball.
I'm not sure why you think Wilt would be the most dominate by a considerable margin. You know if he played in today's game and played 35 minutes per game or so. At today's pace. His most dominate season, when he scored 50ppg, is about the same as scoring 30ish points today. He'd be pretty good though.
You know why there were so many rebounds to be had back then? Teams couldn't shoot. Rodman's 17rpg were just as dominate as Wilt when he was averaging 30 rebounds per game.
btw I have no issues with calling that Boston team the most dominate NBA team.
Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 22, 2010
- 19,533
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Banned
- #2,098
Wilt was a far superior athlete to LeBron. He was not only significantly stronger (strongest ever to play in the NBA), but he also had a greater vertical and was also faster runner. *Look up Wilt Chamberlain archive on youtube for evidence.
Don't sleep on Russell athletically either. He doesn't have the size and strength of LeBron, but he was just as fast. He didn't need size to be a great defender. He has the speed, smarts defending you different ways, getting in your head - and critically having the most perfect timing and technique blocking shots in NBA history, blocking shots from underneath and consistently directing them to teammates - rather than the modern - just block it out of bounds and allow the offense to retain possession. He's all-time special and someone you win games as a result of the play of in any era. *Again Wilt Chamberlain archive on youtube will tell you all this and provide evidence.
During the 60s it's not like Wilt and Russell were the only shot-blocking presences either. Nate Thurmond was another all-time great. Bob Pettit, Willis Reed, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Walt Bellamy. Those guys would kick the butts of today's bigs and you're playing against those guys every game, rather than playing a team with a good big man every third game as happens today with few genuine great bigs since this time.
The FG% during the 60s was much lower due to no 3pt line and all players on defence playing inside - allowing no straight-line drives to the basket as are plentiful in today's game with the floor spacing we see today. Shooting a higher % in the 60s was far more impressive than it is today as a result, regardless of the weaker perimeter defence that was seen during that time.
The difference between Rodman by contrast to Wilt or Russell as rebounders is Rodman didn't contest shots like Wilt or Russell did. Wilt averaged 8.8bpg on televised games for his career and Russell likely somewhere in the 7-8bpg range. So if Rodman played during that time, he could well have comparable or plausibly even slightly better rebound numbers given the less contests on shots and greater focus on looking after the boards to get rebounds.
Wilt could play 48 minutes per game today. The pace isn't as high as in the 60s and the wear and tear would be much lower with so much less contact allowed, so he'd be playing 40+ minutes per game every season and would only be taken off if his team had a considerable lead. His conditioning was much better than any of today's athletes. If he was featured on offense, he would average 40ppg at 60% every season comfortably with less numbers packing the paint and with today's floor spacing. He gets to the rim at will, finger roles, has a fade-away jumper that was unstoppable and he could hook shot it in from 2pt and 3pt range at will consistently. There has never been on offensive force like Wilt, he would humble anyone in any era. Even if not featured on offense and focus on defence and rebounding as he was later in his career with many viewing during his time Russell's way of playing the only way to win with, he would still be good for 20ppg+ at 70% each season and get his 5-6 assists per game while leading the NBA in rebounds and blocks by the length of Flemington.
- Jun 23, 2008
- 33,485
- 27,225
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
How often did Wilt play against someone with comparable size and/or athletic ability? No doubt he was a great, dominant player, but he also had the benefit of being a freakish physical specimen and outlier, who was relied upon by some otherwise-mediocre teams in a small league to "do it all" for many years.
And if anyone thinks LeBron is averaging "only" 10rpg in '60s basketball, they're dreaming. With his size and athleticism and BBIQ, along with the pace and shooting percentages of the day, he'd comfortably average 20 boards a game throughout the '60s, along with probably 40 points and 10 assists as well.
And if anyone thinks LeBron is averaging "only" 10rpg in '60s basketball, they're dreaming. With his size and athleticism and BBIQ, along with the pace and shooting percentages of the day, he'd comfortably average 20 boards a game throughout the '60s, along with probably 40 points and 10 assists as well.
Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 22, 2010
- 19,533
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Banned
- #2,100
There is no one of comparable size or athletic ability, from any era to Wilt. Not even Shaq had close to the strength comparable to Wilt and no one has ever moved like Wilt with that sheer end-to-end speed, or that same leap with Wilt the only guy I'm aware of who could touch the top of the backboard.
Of 6'11 or taller during Wilt's career he played against:
Ray Felix 6-11
Chuck Share 6-11
Walter Dukes 7-0
Swede Halbrook 7-3
Walt Bellamy 6-11
Nate Thurmond 6-11
Reggie Harding 7-0
Mel Counts 7-0
Walt Wesley 6-11
Hank Finkel 7-0
Craig Spitzer 7-0
Craig Raymond 6-11
Otto Moore 6-11
Rich Niemann 7-0
Tom Boerwinkle 7-0
Dave Newmark 7-0
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 7-2
Greg Fillmore 7-1
George Johnson 6-11
Bob Lanier 6-11
Elmore Smith 7-0
Tom Payne 7-2
Vic Bartolome 7-0
Jim McDaniels 6-11
William Smith 7-0
George Johnson 6-11
LaRue Martin 6-11
Other than Wilt; Bellamy, Thurmond, Abdul-Jabbar, Lanier would all be best 10 bigs in the NBA today, just of those who were 6'11 or taller during the Wilt years.
In the 60s' with LeBron, it depends when you would have him play with regard to rebounds. If he is a point guard or small forward, he wouldn't need to get 20 rebounds, you'd have him playing higher. If he played power forward, he could get you 15/16/17 rebounds per game given the pace of the game at that time. If LeBron wanted to average 40 points in the 60s, his FG% would be sub 500 and his assists would drop, as he would be unable to get to the rim with all the numbers preventing him from getting to the basket. He'd be achieving Elgin Baylor numbers and FG% if he wanted to score that much in that era. LeBron would be forced into a lot of jump shots with such limited spacing with no 3 point line and everyone playing inside on defence. Assisting he would find more difficult in that era without the three point line or any space to drive and kick with the ball to be in his hands much less on offence due to necessity.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
