The Unpopular Opinion thread

[dsallupinyaarea]

I think I've posted this before but the MVP award should go to the best player, every year. If you're the best player in the league, by definition, you're the most valuable.

[OkayC]

Ive never agreed with the opinion of best player in the league getting the award. because to me mvp is who is most valuable to your team. If the best player in the world plays on a stacked team that would be high seeded whether he was there or not, why should the dude get mvp. Especially when you have guys that singlehandedly carry their teams to postseason, and guys that are the offense for their team when their team can't find their offense, or just can't score period etc. Mvp to me in general is too broad of a description, which is why i often refrain from arguing who should or shouldn't be one in most cases. But to me there are some years when a guy is a clear cut mvp, even if his numbers are the absolute best.

[Taer]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

Then you account for advancements in what players TRY to do based ONLY on the fact they've watched other greats improve on their game in ways that weren't even imaginable in the 50's. Players see one guy do it, they work to duplicate and then improve on it... next generation does the same, rinse and repeat. Factor in the availability of games for kids to watch as the years went on, to break downs in youtube videos, and now even big guys doing the Mikan drill look different than in the 50's. I think it's really hard to say players of either era could/could not play in the other. How much are we assuming they've benefited over time? Are we assuming that today's players in the 50's have the basketball knowledge of the 50's players?

It is hard to say if either player could/could not but there are some things that make it easier/harder to succeed in one era or another.

Medical advances and the approach to health is a prime example. Mikan started to break down in his early 30's and suffered a large drop-off in his production as a result . Kobe's career has been highly productive in his late 30's. In my mind, this difference has to do with factors outside the control of the player and these factors are things that would benefit or hurt players regardless of their innate talent or inner fire.

Factors such as the fierce competitiveness within both Kobe and Mikan is something that will show through regardless of the era that players are in. Things like medical advances or shifts in attitudes of acceptable behavior during the off-season are specific to eras and it is these factors which would have the biggest impact on success.

I am trying to stick with the Kobe-Mikan example on purpose but perhaps there are other contrasting examples available such as Nash-Cousy where the latter's career might have been extended longer than it was if he was in the modern era.

[Streaky McFloorburn]

Quote: Originally Posted by Taer

It is hard to say if either player could/could not but there are some things that make it easier/harder to succeed in one era or another. Medical advances and the approach to health is a prime example. Mikan started to break down in his early 30's and suffered a large drop-off in his production as a result . Kobe's career has been highly productive in his late 30's. In my mind, this difference has to do with factors outside the control of the player and these factors are things that would benefit or hurt players regardless of their innate talent or inner fire. Factors such as the fierce competitiveness within both Kobe and Mikan is something that will show through regardless of the era that players are in. Things like medical advances or shifts in attitudes of acceptable behavior during the off-season are specific to eras and it is these factors which would have the biggest impact on success. I am trying to stick with the Kobe-Mikan example on purpose but perhaps there are other contrasting examples available such as Nash-Cousy where the latter's career might have been extended longer than it was if he was in the modern era.

I agree with your general premise, but just for clarification, Mikan's last productive season was at age 29 & Kobe's last productive games (to date) were at age 34.

Plus, athletes aren't really exempt from injuries any more these days than they were then, though recovery is better in most cases. Improved training techniques & medical advances can only do so much for joints/bones that aren't built to support the weight on top of them and bad luck is still the primary factor in most sports injuries.

I also think players then tended to be more pragmatic about retiring or accepting a reduced role because the money wasn't anywhere near what it is today. The average NBA player in 1955 earned less than twice what an average citizen did, while today even the rookie minimum is more than ten times the American average annual wage.

Athletes are highly motivated to get that "one last contract" for obvious reasons that simply didn't exist in Mikan's day.

[Taer]

Quote: Originally Posted by Streaky McFloorburn

I agree with your general premise, but just for clarification, Mikan's last productive season was at age 29 & Kobe's last productive games (to date) were at age 34. Plus, athletes aren't really exempt from injuries any more these days than they were then, though recovery is better in most cases. Improved training techniques & medical advances can only do so much for joints/bones that aren't built to support the weight on top of them and bad luck is still the primary factor in most sports injuries. I also think players then tended to be more pragmatic about retiring or accepting a reduced role because the money wasn't anywhere near what it is today. The average NBA player in 1955 earned less than twice what an average citizen did, while today even the rookie minimum is more than ten times the American average annual wage. Athletes are highly motivated to get that "one last contract" for obvious reasons that simply didn't exist in Mikan's day.

I stand corrected on the ages - that is what I get for relying on a hazy memory (in Mikan's case) and wishful thinking (in Kobe's case).

I also agree with what you say with both injury exemption and monetary motivation.

What I would like to point out a bit better is the attitudes and practices of coaching staff and players in regard to injury and health. Mikan often played through injury as does/did Kobe.

The main difference is in the expectations and practices of their respective era's coaching and medical staff. What Mikan did was expected of all the players throughout the early league. What Kobe does/did is considered extra-ordinary.

Today's staff is expected to control the usage of their players where back then, there was no such expectations. A Tim Duncan can survive and thrive as his role and played minutes change within today's game. I don't think Duncan would have been in the same situation in the 50's and I don't think the coaching philosophies and overall utilization of players would have allowed such a morph.

Today's major controversies are if MDA played Kobe too much before he got hurt or if the Bull players are being pushed too hard. That is something I don't remember being ever brought up as issues in the 1950's.

Wwhartom's point about basketball knowledge is relevant but if we are to entertain the idea of cross-era-comparison at all, we have to assume the knowledge would be what it is or was at the time. To assume a Kobe going back into the 1950s and keeping all his modern basketball knowledge would make him one heck of a player-coach that would be without compare.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Taer

It is hard to say if either player could/could not but there are some things that make it easier/harder to succeed in one era or another. Medical advances and the approach to health is a prime example. Mikan started to break down in his early 30's and suffered a large drop-off in his production as a result . Kobe's career has been highly productive in his late 30's. In my mind, this difference has to do with factors outside the control of the player and these factors are things that would benefit or hurt players regardless of their innate talent or inner fire. Factors such as the fierce competitiveness within both Kobe and Mikan is something that will show through regardless of the era that players are in. Things like medical advances or shifts in attitudes of acceptable behavior during the off-season are specific to eras and it is these factors which would have the biggest impact on success. I am trying to stick with the Kobe-Mikan example on purpose but perhaps there are other contrasting examples available such as Nash-Cousy where the latter's career might have been extended longer than it was if he was in the modern era.

All of this is a given. I accepted it as your side of the story in your original summary.

Quote: Originally Posted by Taer

I stand corrected on the ages - that is what I get for relying on a hazy memory (in Mikan's case) and wishful thinking (in Kobe's case). I also agree with what you say with both injury exemption and monetary motivation. What I would like to point out a bit better is the attitudes and practices of coaching staff and players in regard to injury and health. Mikan often played through injury as does/did Kobe. The main difference is in the expectations and practices of their respective era's coaching and medical staff. What Mikan did was expected of all the players throughout the early league. What Kobe does/did is considered extra-ordinary. Today's staff is expected to control the usage of their players where back then, there was no such expectations. A Tim Duncan can survive and thrive as his role and played minutes change within today's game. I don't think Duncan would have been in the same situation in the 50's and I don't think the coaching philosophies and overall utilization of players would have allowed such a morph. Today's major controversies are if MDA played Kobe too much before he got hurt or if the Bull players are being pushed too hard. That is something I don't remember being ever brought up as issues in the 1950's. Wwhartom's point about basketball knowledge is relevant but if we are to entertain the idea of cross-era-comparison at all, we have to assume the knowledge would be what it is or was at the time. To assume a Kobe going back into the 1950s and keeping all his modern basketball knowledge would make him one heck of a player-coach that would be without compare.

This is the other side I was getting at. So we will say Kobe (since he's the name we're using here) loses all basketball knowledge, then we have to assume Mikan gains the years of knowledge, experience, etc. If that's the case, I'm not sure the point of the comparison at all. Is it just to dispute the idea that the athletes in general are better today? It can't really even do that because we're saying the athletes have gotten better through advanced training, diet, etc.

It'd just be acknowledging that things have changed over time, no? I don't see how it can be attributed to specific players from the 50's or today... the comparison is usually saying something like drop Wilt in today's NBA and he's still dominate/be relevant/not compete. But if we're saying he's had the time to experience the changes in the game and take advantage of the advancements in training and technology, I'd say it's a no brainer he and most everyone else would be able to compete.

[ojandpizza]

I never liked the notion of taking away player development and evolution of the game itself when you try to compare players currently vs. player of the past. That's the point of moving forward in sports, to grow, change, and become better.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

I never liked the notion of taking away player development and evolution of the game itself when you try to compare players currently vs. player of the past. That's the point of moving forward in sports, to grow, change, and become better.

Then again, I think its too hard to make the comparison in general.