The Unpopular Opinion thread

[ojandpizza]

The Unpopular Opinion thread

Unpopular opinion:

I feel that the MVP award is based far too much on team record. I do think winning should play a role in the voting process. Because basically nobody wants to vote for someone who just puts up great numbers on a bad team, for example: Kevin Love should not win the MVP award..

But I do strongly feel that making the playoffs is "good enough".. I don't think being a 1 seed should hold a higher MVP voting status than say a 5th seed team. Once the playoffs begin higher seeding means nothing other than home court. I feel that if you lead your team to the playoffs you've done your job, after that it's a fresh start..

Obviously the conferences as they currently stand are unbalanced.. For example a 8th seed in the West is basically equivalent to a middle seed in the East. So I could see voting in the East being limited for teams that finished closer to the 8th seed, where as in the West position wouldn't matter as much.

Now if you dominated the regular season and took the best record in the league, and someone similar to you in numbers finished 5th or something, then I could see it going to the highest seed player.. But if a player outplayed you all year long you should not be rewarded the MVP award just because your team reached a slightly higher playoff seeding.. Since the award comes before the playoffs even start, if both players made the playoffs technically they have the same amount of regular season success.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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.

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]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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.

[ojandpizza]

The Unpopular Opinion thread

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]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

... 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]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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]

Re: The Unpopular Opinion thread

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.