***2021-2022 NBA Season Thread***

[Predicto]

So far this year, Curry really is the best player in the NBA.  He is playing out of his mind.  

 

Last year, dunno.   LeBron took his team to the finals for the fifth straight year, and made a good run beating the Warriors in the finals despite losing Kevin Love in the first round of the playoffs and Kyrie Irving for the finals and with a very shallow roster.   He carried that team in a why that no other NBA player could do.  

 

I'm not saying Curry didn't deserve the MVP.   He had a fantastic year.   He's a superstar.  I'm saying that LeBron remains the overall best player in the NBA, and he has been that guy for a decade straight now.   Even in years where Michael Jordan didn't win MVP, like in 1989 when Magic got it or in 1992 when Barkley got it or 1997 when Malone got it, Jordan was still the best player in the NBA and everyone knew it.    Same with LeBron now.

[Going Commando]

I go away for a week, and McQueen responds by listing all time greats again.

 

I just assume he sits in front of Excel spreadsheets all day moving Joe Dumars name up and down...up and down.....

The Warriors are going to lose to the Nets. You will all pay me a dollar when it happens.

How can you love the NBA and not love All Time hierarchies? They are central to the league's mythos. The players obsessively compare and rank themselves--it's the most hierarchical sport in the world. NBA teams are like bands of rival apes, where the Kobe Bryants of the league build harems and the Joel Anthonys and Quincy Acys are forced to roam around in bachelor troops, desperately scrapping for opportunities to mate when the alphas are away.

I've been watching a lot of nature documentaries recently.

Speaking of ranking Dumars, I want to ask the room these questions:

1.) Joe Dumars > Dennis Rodman: true or false?

2.) Kevin McHale > Robert Parish: true or false?

[The Evil Genius]

Walton wins NBA Coach of the Month.

 

I'm sure Kerr will the get the official credit for it.

[Predicto]

Paul George bout to be mentioned in the same company as Curry. Dudes taken his game to the next level.

 

 

He's a beast.   I was worried that he wasn't ever going to be the same after his injury, but he is actually much better than he was.  

[Predicto]

1.) Joe Dumars > Dennis Rodman: true or false?

2.) Kevin McHale > Robert Parish: true or false?

 

1)  Probably true.  Rodman was amazing at some things, but horrible at others.  Dumars was a six time all star, and a complete player on both sides of the ball.  

 

2) Definitely true.  McHale was better than Parish.  A much better scorer, probably a better defender, and very close in rebounding.  Parish was really good, but his only truly standout quality was his longevity.    

[Destino]

Lebron picked the wrong supporting cast. Paul George was his Pippen, but they never found eachother. It's a tragedy.

That's a fun topic as well, the ideal pairings that never were. The Stockton and Malone's that could have been but were not. The stars that languished in the wrong places.

Basketball's version of "what if Barry Sanders ran behind Emmit Smith's offensive line."

[PeterMP]

How can you love the NBA and not love All Time hierarchies? They are central to the league's mythos. The players obsessively compare and rank themselves--it's the most hierarchical sport in the world. NBA teams are like bands of rival apes, where the Kobe Bryants of the league build harems and the Joel Anthonys and Quincy Acys are forced to roam around in bachelor troops, desperately scrapping for opportunities to mate when the alphas are away.

I've been watching a lot of nature documentaries recently.

Speaking of ranking Dumars, I want to ask the room these questions:

1.) Joe Dumars > Dennis Rodman: true or false?

2.) Kevin McHale > Robert Parish: true or false?

 

 

Dumars was a first rate defensive guard and could score and pass.  Rodman was only clearly a better rebounder and rebound numbers are over rated.

 

Parish clearly had the better career.  He played a lot longer.  McHale at his (very very short) peak though was probably the better player.

Edited December 1, 2015 by PeterMP

[Predicto]

Dumars was a first rate defensive guard and could score and pass.  Rodman was only clearly a better rebounder and rebound numbers are over rated.

 

Parish clearly had the better career.  He played a lot longer.  McHale at his (very very short) peak though was probably the better player.

 

 

McHale played 13 years.  That's not a short career.  He was in 7 all star games, 6 all NBA defense teams, and probably had the best collection of low post moves of any player ever.  

 

Parish played 21 seasons, which was extraordinary, but he was not as notable a player otherwise.  

[Going Commando]

McHale vs Parish is the quintessential longevity vs peak quality debate.

[Fergasun]

Let me be the first in here to congratulate the 76ers in joining the rankings of "basketball teams that win a game".

That crowd was dead in the radio - believe at one point they said Kobe started 3-4 but was 6-20 at that time. This Kobe better show up tomorrow...

[PeterMP]

McHale played 13 years.  That's not a short career.  He was in 7 all star games, 6 all NBA defense teams, and probably had the best collection of low post moves of any player ever.  

 

Parish played 21 seasons, which was extraordinary, but he was not as notable a player otherwise.  

Yeah, but he played a bunch of years as the 6th man (behind Parrish) at the start of his career and then on bad ankles at the end.

 

McHale was a great player and starter in 1986-1987.  He also broke a bone in his ankle the spring of that year.  He was never the same player.

 

He's a 3.7 better win share player in 86-87 than any other year in his career.

 

I went looking for people with that big of a difference and the only person that I can find that can match that is Penny Hardway.

 

If McHale puts up 3 or 4 years with his 86/87 production, it is a different story.

[Going Commando]

I think the real question is about how we value a player's career, not about who was actually better.

I agree with Predicto that there is no question McHale was a better player than Parish. He was much more skilled and versatile, a much better offensive player. But his career wasn't as good or valuable as Parish's because his period of his peak level of play was so much shorter.

I think this is actually germane to the Kobe discussion, for when you compare him to greats like Oscar, Magic, and Bird. Or even KG and Dirk for that matter. At their peak, each were better and more valuable than Kobe at his peak. But Kobe has 14 seasons of superstar caliber play. Dirk has about 11 and KG has about 12. So who had the better career? And that's really what we're asking when we attempt to rank the All Time Greats.

[RonArtest15]

It's painful as hell watching Kobe. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

McHale was better by leaps and bounds. The Celtics had a tradition of keeping one of their best players on the bench and the roster depth to do it when McHale came into the league. McHale was also the rare personality who was perfectly happy with this situation. Had he gone to any other team, he would have been an immediate starter and all-star.

 

Parish had the chance to be a star player on another team and either couldn't do it or didn't want to do it. Coming to the Celtics where he had no offensive responsibilities but could still score 20 points because Bird and later DJ understood his game and personality so well was a necessity. He may have flamed out in 7 or 8 years otherwise. Parish was sometimes the fourth or fifth most important Celtic during those glory years and had the personality to pull it off.

 

Seriously, how may 32 year old All Stars would be told, "This year, you are going to lose 400 minutes and basically be the forgotten man in The Bill Walton Comeback Story" and be perfectly okay with that?

 

Parish was odd. But he was extremely lucky with injuries and very ahead of his time in terms of conditioning and yoga and such. McHale played on a broken foot which led to a ton of other injuries which shortened his career (though not as dramatically as you are all making it).. There is no reason that McHale shouldn't have played to his late 30s based on his skill set.

[PeterMP]

McHale was better by leaps and bounds. The Celtics had a tradition of keeping one of their best players on the bench and the roster depth to do it when McHale came into the league. McHale was also the rare personality who was perfectly happy with this situation. Had he gone to any other team, he would have been an immediate starter and all-star.

 

Parish had the chance to be a star player on another team and either couldn't do it or didn't want to do it. Coming to the Celtics where he had no offensive responsibilities but could still score 20 points because Bird and later DJ understood his game and personality so well was a necessity. He may have flamed out in 7 or 8 years otherwise. Parish was sometimes the fourth or fifth most important Celtic during those glory years and had the personality to pull it off.

 

Seriously, how may 32 year old All Stars would be told, "This year, you are going to lose 400 minutes and basically be the forgotten man in The Bill Walton Comeback Story" and be perfectly okay with that?

 

Parish was odd. But he was extremely lucky with injuries and very ahead of his time in terms of conditioning and yoga and such. McHale played on a broken foot which led to a ton of other injuries which shortened his career (though not as dramatically as you are all making it).. There is no reason that McHale shouldn't have played to his late 30s based on his skill set.

 

Parish was odd because he was willing to give up minutes to Walton, but McHale wasn't odd for being the 6th man for years?

 

Where Parish was still the starter and easily got more minutes than Walton.

 

It isn't like McHale came off the bench, but then actually played more minutes than the other people.

 

You have to go to 1986-87 until McHale plays more minutes than Parish.

 

McHale realistically gave up hundreds of minutes through the prime years of his career to come off the bench.

 

There's no doubt that McHale was a better player (at his peak), but realistically McHale's real value was limited because he was the 6th man, and then his injuries limited his peak.

 

Oh and another guy that showed a huge change in WS is Tracy McGrady.  He put a 16.1 one year, and his next best season he put up a 12.2.

Edited December 2, 2015 by PeterMP

[Going Commando]

Another one:

Manu Ginobli > Tony Parker: true or false?

[daveakl]

Another one:

Manu Ginobli > Tony Parker: true or false?

NBA only or international also?

[StillUnknown]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/76ers--jahlil-okafor-allegedly-got-in-a-second-fight-in-boston--and-there-s-video-190952697.html

 

2nd video of the Okafor mess

 

their GM has been strangely silent on this whole situation. Trust the process I guess

[RonArtest15]

Okafor is an idiot, but he's just an immature/bonehead 19 year old.  I don't think these incidents are any cause for major concern, but he's got to get his stuff together. 

[Predicto]

Another one:

Manu Ginobli > Tony Parker: true or false?

 

 

False with regard to their NBA careers.  

 

Ginobli has a more memorable highlight reel and maybe for a short time was more dominant, but Tony Parker had a much better overall career.   Better scorer, almost as good a rebounder despite being a guard, more consistent.  Parker is one of the smartest players in the league and was the facilitator for that incredible (and complicated) Spurs offense for years.  Parker has been all-NBA, Manu never has.   

 

I may be biased, because it seemed like Parker was always the guy who stuck the dagger into the Warriors.  The Spurs went something like 37-3 against the Warriors over a decade or so, and Parker was always the biggest reason why.  

[Destino]

Parker is a strange player.  He seemed to develop and then lose parts of his offense frequently.  There was a time when he had a great pull up midrange shot.  It vanished at some point and he was attacking the rim more aggressively.  He developed a nearly unstoppable tear drop shot, which also diapered. At least that's how I remember it anyway. 

 

I agree with Predicto, that he is the better player between him and Manu. 

 

The question I have is this, how different would their careers have been had they not landed in San Antonio?  I'm not sure either of them would have been big name stars. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I'd rank Parker well ahead of Manu.

[Going Commando]

NBA only or international also?

Both I guess.

[daveakl]

Both I guess.

You could probably make a case for Manu if you include his time in Argentina and Italy plus international tournaments but even with all that I'd still lean Parker.

[Going Commando]

The reason I'm asking these is because someone on RealGM posited these comparisons as tough to answer questions about which teammate was better/more valuable. Of course we immediately tried to answer the questions. And I was surprised at how different the responses were. My immediate thought was Parker, McHale, Dumars duh. But good arguments can be made for the others.

I thought it was interesting because most of the time there is a pretty clear hierarchy of players within a great team.

For instance, there is no question for me that the Big 3 Celtics go 1. KG, 2. Pierce, and 3. Allen. And the Heat go 1. LeBron, 2. Wade, 3. Bosh. Or that the early showtime Lakers went 1. Kareem, 2. Magic, 3. Worthy, whereas mid-decade it went 1. Magic, 2. Kareem, 3. Worthy. And that the Lakers went 1. Kobe, 2. Pau, 3. Odom/Bynum.

But the hierarchies of those other situations are strange. There is a clear top guy (Bird, Duncan, Zeke), and then it's nebulous. There was a long stretch of the Spurs run where Manu was definitely better than Parker. But towards the end, but around 2011-2012, Parker was a serious MVP candidate and was the best and most valuable player on the Spurs. Did Manu ever reach that stature?