The Unpopular Opinion thread

[Scofield]

When you make these kinds of comparisons I think its best to just take the player skill sets for what they are/were and leave it at that. The best of the best (which are usually the ones we're comparing) will be fine in most any era. Just have to hash out to what degree. Secondary players are usually more enslaved to the era they played in so things would probably get more interesting when comparing them. Anyway, when you have to start factoring things no one can really know (how someone would respond to better/worse training, nutrition ect) then you're going to box your self into a purely subjective corner. Skill sets are much more stable and easily comparable.

[ojandpizza]

My thoughts on the Beasley topic.

I honestly have no idea how his drive, work ethic, attitude, etc would translate. If I were to just base it off of how he currently carries himself I would say he wouldn't have the character to make it in the 50's.. However I think a lot of that has to do with millions of dollars being immediately thrown at him. Back then basketball didn't pay much, in comparison to the average higher paying job. He would have to stay on the right path, work hard, etc just to keep himself from having to get a working job. I also believe that being the a stud in high school, dominating college, and then being just average in the league somewhat hurt his confidence and his desire to put in the work to become a good/great player. To this day he still has the physical tools, but he doesn't seem to have the drive to bring them together or the work ethic to improve.

But his skills, athleticism, and intangibles should all carry over, IMO.. If you look at Beasley in college he was a stud, pretty much dominated because he was normal size for a PF. Once he hit the league he was too small for a PF but his athletic ability and skills allow him to play the SF position, though he's technically a "tweener". In contrast he would be a very large player by the standards of that time. For comparison, the other dominant big men of the era not named Mikan were guys classified as "PF/C" guys like: Schayes, Gallatin, Risen, Groza, Foust, Johnston, Pettit, etc.. These guys ranged from 6'6" - 6'9" and 195lbs - 215lbs. Beasley is 6'9 235, with what I would assume at least slightly more athletic ability.

While size alone might not just automatically make him a good player I think his skill set would definitely translate. If you look at someone like Bill Russell what made him one of the greatest ever was obviously his defense and his leadership. But what made him offensively gifted is most just because he was quick. He could dribble the ball the length of the court, dribble past his man for a dunk, out run his man up the court for a dunk, etc. He was one of the first players to really be able to do all that as a big man. Beasley can do all of that similarly. With the addition of being able to crossover and change directions better. Probably even quicker while dribbling the ball, I would imagine him being a coast to coast nightmare..

Similarly you look at someone like Bob McAdoo. Only 6'9" and 210 playing center he was really one of the first big men to pull his defender out and shoot jumpers. He proved to be an instant success winning a MVP and scoring titles. This coming in the early 70's, 20 years later with more talent, more size, etc.

Also note worthy, Beasley per 40 minutes in college averaged 33 and 16. Considering stars from the 50's-60's were used to playing over 40 minutes per game and at a much faster pace than players currently play I would assume he could put up some big numbers at that stage as well.. Obviously going from college, even now, to the professional level is quite a big jump. But for the jump in talent I think the slack could be taken up by being among the biggest players on the court and being superior athletically rather than around average at both like he was even at the college level.

Not saying he would be nearly as good as guys like Bill, Mikan, Pettit, because nobody can really know. But he would be an extremely rare anomaly compared to nearly everyone in the league. First big man to shoot with range, first big man with a guards athleticism, first big man going coast to coast, etc.. The other areas I'm not sure how they would translate, because rebounding and defense is just as much effort as it is skill.. But just being among the tallest players in the league, among the highest jumpers, and playing 40+ minutes at that pace should at least yield quite a few blocks and rebounds statistically, even without him giving max effort.

[OSUFan_88]

I hope Kevin Durant leaves OKC for Washington.

Not because I want to see Durant go home or any nonsense like that. I don't want Kevin Durant stuck playing for a cheap *** owner who doesn't want to pay players to play with Durant.

That being said, I hope he does it in the best possible way so he doesn't piss off OKC fans. I would feel really bad for those people, but a great talent like Durant shouldn't be stuck on a team with that poor of ownership.

[ojandpizza]

Is their management that bad?

[BringTheHeat]

Quote: Originally Posted by OSUFan_88

I hope Kevin Durant leaves OKC for Washington. Not because I want to see Durant go home or any nonsense like that. I don't want Kevin Durant stuck playing for a cheap *** owner who doesn't want to pay players to play with Durant. That being said, I hope he does it in the best possible way so he doesn't piss off OKC fans. I would feel really bad for those people, but a great talent like Durant shouldn't be stuck on a team with that poor of ownership.

Don't worry, they'll get over it as long as they have the Boomer Sooners and Dallas Cowboys to cheer for

I hope he leaves too.

[OSUFan_88]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

Is their management that bad?

Well, considering they should be in Seattle with James Harden still on the team and repeatedly running their head into the wall with Scott Brooks as HC, yes it is.

[redsrule]

Wall/Beal/KD would be a ton of fun to watch. I hope that happens as well.

[OkayC]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

Is their management that bad?

In retrospect no. Because there a small market with no money, james harden didnt wanna stay even though they offered him something like 55 mil ( which was reasonable at the time)and he turned it down. They have no money to make moves this year, and there only real bad decision was to let brooks stay hc, even though in a way its not that bad, because hiring and firing coaches shows instability. And when you have championship expectations, you cant have instability(tho brooks really should be gone). Imo these next two years are crucial for okc tho, if kd and russ dont have a championship i think we'll see the break up of a great duo. Mark my words westbrook will probably end up a laker. I know laugh at what i got to say now, but in 2-3 years from now, dont be surprised to see both kd and russ go home for a ring if they cant get one here.