The Unpopular Opinion thread

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

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

I actually don't mind comparisons all that much, especially ones after the ABA merger since the game has been relatively the same and the 3 point line has been around.

But I do dislike the "throw this player into this era" arguments. Like if someone says Jordan is the greatest ever, that's fine. If someone says Wilt is the greatest ever, that's fine too.. But trying to say what either of them would do swapping eras I don't like that.. It really doesn't matter anyways what they would do in opposite eras.

But if there was a swapping era argument I would rather it be a "time machine" type of discussion.. For example, I wouldn't throw LeBron back to the 50's era and expect to see him dribbling around with one hand while looking at the ground and shooting a set shot with one arm that looks like he's trying to do the shot put. Same as if I was bringing Elgin Baylor into the current era. I wouldn't expect him dropping Iverson crossovers and hitting pull up threes like Durant. That no longer becomes LeBron compared to Baylor, but rather watered down LeBron vs. enhanced Baylor.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you are going to compare players and do the whole era swap thing I don't think it's fair to be taking away or adding to their strengths and weaknesses.. Because that defeats the point of showing how the game has changed and developed, and how players have grown and improved.

But like I said, I don't like the whole era swap comparison anyways.. I do however think some players were better suited for certain eras, and I do think you can somewhat look at their lack of competition or abundance of competition. I don't think you can base an entire argument off of it, but it can definitely play a role IMO.

Not trying to argue with anything that's been said in here, just giving my opinion on it all.

[Taer]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

... 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.

This brings us back full circle to the statement that I disagreed with: Yeah, I think it's safe to say that people who had their primes in the 50's would not transcend eras.

It is my belief (which I think is unpopular) that a Mikan from the 50's would be able to transcend eras. I further believe that the advances in every aspect of the game would make that possibility easier than Kobe transcending eras back into the 50's.

In my original post, I tried to show that Mikan had many of the tools necessary to do so: physical size, a brilliant basketball mind and a drive and determination on the level that Kobe possesses today.

The point of the comparison here is to show that even if a player did not possess the tools available to today's super-stars, today's game (in all aspects from medicine to attitudes towards player usage) would facilitate the transcending of past players into the modern era. While the opposite may not hold as true.

I personally think a Kobe would succeed in transcending eras but I do think it would be harder going back than forward.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Taer

This brings us back full circle to the statement that I disagreed with: Yeah, I think it's safe to say that people who had their primes in the 50's would not transcend eras. It is my belief (which I think is unpopular) that a Mikan from the 50's would be able to transcend eras. I further believe that the advances in every aspect of the game would make that possibility easier than Kobe transcending eras back into the 50's. In my original post, I tried to show that Mikan had many of the tools necessary to do so: physical size, a brilliant basketball mind and a drive and determination on the level that Kobe possesses today. The point of the comparison here is to show that even if a player did not possess the tools available to today's super-stars, today's game (in all aspects from medicine to attitudes towards player usage) would facilitate the transcending of past players into the modern era. While the opposite may not hold as true. I personally think a Kobe would succeed in transcending eras but I do think it would be harder going back than forward.

And I'll go back to my original response... I agree that if we take all of that into consideration, someone like Mikan would be fine . I guess the discussion started bc I don't think that's an unpopular opinion if he has the ability to advance his game to the current era.

I disagree about the Kobe aspect you just posted though, and I'm not really sure what that's based on. Kobe's 6'7 and athletic, has a high basketball IQ (even if we dumb it down to match what "high" means in the 50's) and incredible drive and work ethic. Even considering the limitations you put into place, I don't see how he wouldn't be one of the best players in the league in the 50's.

[Taer]

If I gave the impression that I thought Kobe would not be a star on Mikan's level in the 1950's I'm sorry. I believe he would because of all of his tools he possesses. Mikan was named one of the best ever at the time and
kobe would reach that level as well.

I believe that Mikan and Kobe are mirrors of the other in many aspects, especially the drive and work ethic mentioned. Which is why I like to use them both - they are two examples in their respective eras that I believe can transcend each-other's eras.

I just think that all of the outside factors would influence the chances of success, especially on lesser players than either Kobe or Mikan.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Taer

If I gave the impression that I thought Kobe would not be a star on Mikan's level in the 1950's I'm sorry. I believe he would because of all of his tools he possesses. Mikan was named one of the best ever at the time and kobe would reach that level as well. I believe that Mikan and Kobe are mirrors of the other in many aspects, especially the drive and work ethic mentioned. Which is why I like to use them both - they are two examples in their respective eras that I believe can transcend each-other's eras. I just think that all of the outside factors would influence the chances of success, especially on lesser players than either Kobe or Mikan.

Okay so we agree on that then (I originally didn't respond to debate, just to say I don't think your opinion is all that uncommon).

Good discussion so I'd like to dig more into your next point. I would say the outside factors would trickle down in both cases as well. If I've read you correctly, you believe that lesser players would do better in today's game than vice versa? Can you give an example? At least one from today since that'd probably be easier than naming an average player from the 50's.

[ojandpizza]

Idk if I agree with that, that it's easier to go forward than backwards..

Just using Mikan as the example since he's already on topic. Mikan was dominate in his era, basically what Wilt and Shaq were in theirs. Rules were made and changed because of him. Basically the first superstar the league has had, and somewhat became the backbone to the idea that great teams can be built around a star.

What hurts Mikan moving forward is physical limitations.. In his time he was a physically imposing monster, compared to his competition and other big guys around the league.. At 6'10 and 245 now he's tiny compared to centers, around average for even power forwards. The only positions he could play that would give him the same physical advantages now that he had then would be playing PG, SG, SF..

Even brining Mikan forward, giving him modern doctors, modern equipment, and the ability to have learned from each generation, none of that would make him grow taller, or change the fact that he was relatively unatheltic, didn't have a great scoring touch, doesn't have the ability to step away and hit a jump shot, etc.

I don't doubt at all his desire to win, his amazing work ethic, etc.. But even brining that paired with what his strengths vs. weaknesses are, I see him ending up like a Kurt Rambis or a modern Tyler Hansbrough maybe? Nick Collison, Reggie Evans, etc.

I think you could take an average player from now and send him backwards and the transition would be quite a bit smoother. Idk who to use as my example, Kobe is far to extreme.. But the majority of these guys will still be much, much larger than their opponents, more athletic, better shooters with more range, and can handle the ball the length of the court, etc.

Plus the game back then was far less structured. More up and down taking quick shots. Would really play right into the strengths of how players have evolved athletically.

There would definitely be tweaks, learning not to palm the ball as bad, how to play off the man in the pivot spot, etc.. But it's far easier to learn minor habits than it would be to adjust going from huge to average, and having an athletic disadvantage to even benchwarmers.

[Taer]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwhartom

Okay so we agree on that then (I originally didn't respond to debate, just to say I don't think your opinion is all that uncommon). Good discussion so I'd like to dig more into your next point. I would say the outside factors would trickle down in both cases as well. If I've read you correctly, you believe that lesser players would do better in today's game than vice versa? Can you give an example? At least one from today since that'd probably be easier than naming an average player from the 50's.

First, just so this post stays on topic for the thread: Today's unpopular opinion - Both Jordan Hill and Wesley Johnson will pan out this year and turn out to be good signings.

2nd: welcome ojandpizza to the discussion. I'm going to combine things here and try to address both you and wwhartom with my example today.

Back to the good discussion we are having: I believe that a player from the second or third tier in today's NBA would have a harder time transcending the 50's era than a second or third tier player of the 50's would have in transcending today's era.

I'll use Michael Beasley as my example today. I chose this player because he individually highlight key points I want to make while he possessed the initial attributes that gave him the potential to be a superstar on draft night.

He is also a player that ojandpizza, I think, will agree could dominate the 50's if time-machined into that era. Heck, Beasley even has the same general build that Mikan had, so that alone, if I am understanding ojandpizza correctly, should allow him to dominate or transcend that era.

The biggest flaw in the pro-Beasley transcending argument would be the motivation. In my humble opinion, Beasely does not have the same level of internal drive that both Kobe and Mikan has/had so he relies on other motivation to excel and transcend the game. He has been given opportunities (such as working with Norm Nixon in the off-season) and even responded well in the short-run to these opportunities. Despite everything done to help him rise to the potential he showed in college, he has not succeeded. All of this, I hope is something we can agree on.

Addressing wwhartom: Lacking this internal drive, what other factors can influence his motivation and help propel him into a transcendent or dominate position in the 50's? One of the biggest motivators available to today's players (the contract year) is not available. He also would not have the disciplinary regime of the NBA that exists in today's game nor such basic resources like drug rehab centers. Can you come up with motivating factors in the 50's I can't?

Addressing ojandpizza's view: Unlike ojandpizza, I don't think a player of today could succeed on physicality alone. Mikan and the sport's reaction to him is exactly why this is not enough. Let us take ojandpizza's position for a moment - Beasely is transported during his college year into the 4th year of a 1950's college career as is. So, using his superior basketball knowledge and IQ, he stands under the basket and swipes everything away from the rim (just as Mikan did). The NCAA is not going to sit there and do nothing, they are going to come out and design a goal-tending rule just like they did for Mikan. Same deal with every other exploitable situation from the baseline adjustments made to the formation of the shot-clock.

ojandpizza would argue that this means that Beasely would still have the transcendent impact that Mikan did. I disagree. Beasely would not have worked with the Lakers in the first place in getting to the position to have that impact; he would have succumbed to the erroneously held view of the day that big men are awkward not nimble enough to play and not desirable. Or he would have burned out on the marijuana addiction as many did without the resources, knowledge and medical advances available today.

[wwharton]

He's just an example, but I don't know that I'd agree that Beasley mentally represented the majority of the league, which would have to be the case for him to be a good example for your overall point. But sticking with him for the time being, in the 50's he'd be no worse than the player he is today. He'd still be a physical freak, so even if he never "got it" and adjusted as the league did around him (which I agree, he probably wouldn't), his physical advantage would be big enough in the 50's that he'd still likely start on any team.

The drugs aspect doesn't really play here. Today, the difference between him and most of the league is he's not smart enough to realize how to do it and stay out of trouble. That's not an addiction thing. Back in the 50's it'd be even easier to get away with so we wouldn't even know.

Back to the comparisons, Mikan was not the most athletically gifted player and his success was largely due to his size, work ethic, intelligence and willingness to adjust. There are plenty of players like that today, Beasley just doesn't happen to be one of them. He has been the best his entire life and his failure in the NBA is likely because he assumed he'd just come in and dominate like he always has. Let's look at someone like Kyle Korver. He's an average player with limited skills, but lasts in the league bc he's become one of the best at what he does well, and good enough to not hurt in other areas. Ryan Anderson could be another example. James Jones. Posey. Tony Allen. All of these guys would have height advantages over players they'd go up against (something that isn't effected by modern technology, training, etc) and would definitely make whatever necessary adjustments to their game to be successful.

Even if we assumed that most of the guys in the 50's had the same mental make up as Mikan, most of the PFs and C just wouldn't have the physical big to make much of the modern tools to play the same role. Some guards could probably be relevant, but even PG/SGs these days are so much bigger it'd be hard to say many would do too much damage.