Just for fun: if you could see any player from past eras play in today's NBA, who would you want to see?

[tlance]

Who? Picking a random year, 2000, when O'Neal led the league in scoring, the only other centers in the top 20 in scoring were Alonzo Mourning and Elton Brand.

Talking about the 90s and before.

Rosters were still built inside out well into the 2000s because that was the entire history of basketball. Had to have big depth.

 

[tlance]

Over and over again, it has.



For generational players, 1 player makes a huge difference in the team's record. Even for just very good rookies, 1 player makes a huge difference.




How much does Wembanyama suck that they need to tank multiple seasons back-to-back? They didn't even do that Duncan, one of the most overrated bigs in history.




You say this like no other team has ever developed players. To put it mildly, that is wrong.

Also, at least half of the Spurs top 10 in minutes were veterans, despite having a few younger guys that didn't play much.



First of all, I qualified that statement, so read it again. Secondly, Bargnani and Carroll actually had large positive effects on their team! Which is my point. Wembanyama was worse than even guys that no one would ever suggest are great players.

Your original statement was not qualified.

And you claim to never write something that is incorrect.

This is a wild and outlandish opinion that is most definitely not backed up by anything but 1 team stat.

Duncan?

You realize Duncan was drafted onto a team with another HOF center who was injured the season they were bad enough to draft Duncan

Just a ridiculously dumb thing to say. Almost as bad to try to use Duncan as an example.

You can’t attribute team wins and losses to one player. Rosters change every year. Players miss games. And many other variables impact win loss totals also.

When you use BS logic like that to form your opinions, it is no wonder you are so horribly backwards.

 

[tc1]

Your original statement was not qualified.

You do know that comments here are not ephemeral, right?

I wrote "That he thinks he does probably explains a lot about why he had one of the worst rookie seasons that a highly-rated #1 pick has ever had.".

And you claim to never write something that is incorrect.

Exactly because I do not -- unless I am speculating about the future.

This is a wild and outlandish opinion that is most definitely not backed up by anything but 1 team stat.

The only stat that really matters.

You realize Duncan was drafted onto a team with another HOF center who was injured the season they were bad enough to draft Duncan

Yes, I know all about Duncan's career. He is one of the most overrated players in basketball history right now. I will explain this to you in painful detail, if need be, as I've done it dozens of times before. If not for a goofy rule, he gets drafted by Vancouver, and no one even remembers him 6 months after his retirement. He was a loser everywhere else he ever played, and would've been in Vancouver as well.

You can’t attribute team wins and losses to one player. Rosters change every year. Players miss games. And many other variables impact win loss totals also.

Again, top draft picks are top draft picks precisely because they are supposed to help the team win games. That's the whole point of the operation. And generational players are supposed to make a big difference, immediately. And they all have. Even most of the rest of #1 picks have made a big difference, if healthy.

One guy stands almost alone on the other side of the equation. Make all the excuses that you want for him, but the fact that you need to make those excuses is the point. No one else needs those excuses.

 

[msgkings322]

Now finish the sentence -- "with respect to winning games". And that's been demonstrated by his very team.

That's just dumb wordplay. You're undervaluing the kid, but don't let me stop you.

 

[tc1]

Talking about the 90s and before.

So let's look at '93. The only centers in the top 30 were Olajuwon, Ewing, rookie O'Neal, Robinson, Mourning and Daugherty. So again, not every team running their offense on their center -- very far from it.

How about '88? Olajuwon (10th), Ewing, Malone (24th) are the only ones in the top 30. Ibid.

Care to adjust again?

 

[tlance]

You do know that comments here are not ephemeral, right?

I wrote "That he thinks he does probably explains a lot about why he had one of the worst rookie seasons that a highly-rated #1 pick has ever had.".



Exactly because I do not -- unless I am speculating about the future.



The only stat that really matters.



Yes, I know all about Duncan's career. He is one of the most overrated players in basketball history right now. I will explain this to you in painful detail, if need be, as I've done it dozens of times before. If not for a goofy rule, he gets drafted by Vancouver, and no one even remembers him 6 months after his retirement. He was a loser everywhere else he ever played, and would've been in Vancouver as well.



Again, top draft picks are top draft picks precisely because they are supposed to help the team win games. That's the whole point of the operation. And generational players are supposed to make a big difference, immediately. And they all have. Even most of the rest of #1 picks have made a big difference, if healthy.

One guy stands almost alone on the other side of the equation. Make all the excuses that you want for him, but the fact that you need to make those excuses is the point. No one else needs those excuses.

Nope

21.4, 10.6, 3.9 assists, 1.2 steals, 3.6 blocks

Led the league in block rate and had a solid 56.5% true shooting rate despite his struggles from 3

Any reasonable metric says Wemby had a good rookie season. Team was never built to win last year.

 

[tlance]

So let's look at '93. The only centers in the top 30 were Olajuwon, Ewing, rookie O'Neal, Robinson, Mourning and Daugherty. So again, not every team running their offense on their center -- very far from it.

How about '88? Olajuwon (10th), Ewing, Malone (24th) are the only ones in the top 30. Ibid.

Care to adjust again?

Did not say every team.

Not even close.

Dominant big men were thought to be a prerequisite to winning until Jordan really broke the narrative.

You look at the best teams in the league throughout its history and most of them had all star caliber centers.

And all teams had big bodied depth. 7 foot stiffs often made it to the league.

Not the case anymore. Priorities in roster building have changed.

 

[tc1]

That's just dumb wordplay.

I suppose it would seem that way to someone who doesn't read very many of the words at all.

You're undervaluing the kid, but don't let me stop you.

Who is the current best player that didn't even exceed .500 in their first two healthy seasons as a starter? Wembanyama hasn't quite managed this dubious feat yet, but time is running out for him to start winning games.

Curry would be on the list for many, as he had very little effect on the Warriors early in his career. Durant -- arguably the king of empty statistics -- did not get his team to .500, but at least had the excuse of having a terrible coach. As soon as that was fixed, his team went 50-32 in his 3rd season. Kevin Garnett didn't quite make .500 in his second year, but did make the playoffs. Allen Iverson didn't come close, but at least his team improved -- from 18 to 22 to 31 wins ( with 3 different coaches ). Willis Reed took 3 seasons to get the Knicks into the playoffs ( again, 3 coaches ).

That's it, that's everyone who has ever won an NBA MVP award and didn't at least drag his team to a .500 record in one of his first two healthy seasons as a starter. That's Wembanyama's current cohort -- without the excuse of having a bunch of coaches. Only Iverson was a #1 overall pick.

Like I said, maybe he will get better, but he needs to. Maybe De'Aaron Fox can salvage his season.

 

[tc1]

Nope

21.4, 10.6, 3.9 assists, 1.2 steals, 3.6 blocks

Who cares, if they were just as bad as when they were trying to lose?

Any reasonable metric says Wemby had a good rookie season.

Wins is a reasonable metric, and it profoundly disagrees.

Team was never built to win last year.

"To win" and "Being as bad as when we tanked" are two wildly different states.

How much help does he need to escape the League's basement? Last year he had Vassell, who has put up close to All-star numbers for a couple seasons, Keldon Johnson who has done the same, Jeremy Sochan a solid lottery pick from a couple years ago, and a bunch of decent veterans like Collins, Jones, Osman, and others -- plus a Hall of Fame coach.

Despite that significant help, they won 16 games against teams that were actually trying to beat them.

That is horrifically bad. Unprecedented for a player of Wembanyama's alleged talent.

 

[tc1]

Not even close.

Yeah, I know, like all of your other comments. "Not even close".

Dominant big men were thought to be a prerequisite to winning until Jordan really broke the narrative.

Detroit had already won back-to-back titles without a dominant big man before Jordan was considered much more than a high-scoring sideshow. No one would consider Abdul-Jabbar dominant in '87 and '88. Boston did not have a dominant big man, but rather front-court-by-committee. I doubt many would consider Sikma a dominant center for the '79 champs.

Etcetera. As with most claims related to Jordan, his legend outweighs reality by an order of magnitude or more.

And, as per usual, you are talking completely out of your rear end.

 

[tlance]

Yeah, I know, like all of your other comments. "Not even close".



Detroit had already won back-to-back titles without a dominant big man before Jordan was considered much more than a high-scoring sideshow. No one would consider Abdul-Jabbar dominant in '87 and '88. Boston did not have a dominant big man, but rather front-court-by-committee. I doubt many would consider Sikma a dominant center for the '79 champs.

Etcetera. As with most claims related to Jordan, his legend outweighs reality by an order of magnitude or more.

And, as per usual, you are talking completely out of your rear end.

I said all star caliber and I said most teams. Way to cut off my very next line.

Bill Laimbeer was definitely that. Was a 4 time all star.

At least I don’t try to measure individual players strictly by team win record.

That would be incredibly stupid

 

[trojanfan12]

Nope

21.4, 10.6, 3.9 assists, 1.2 steals, 3.6 blocks

Led the league in block rate and had a solid 56.5% true shooting rate despite his struggles from 3

Any reasonable metric says Wemby had a good rookie season. Team was never built to win last year.

If memory serves, they limited his minutes for much of the season as well.

 

[tlance]

If memory serves, they limited his minutes for much of the season as well.

They absolutely did.

They still are

Because they prioritize development over winning at this stage. And he needs to get stronger

 

[tc1]

Bill Laimbeer was definitely that. Was a 4 time all star.

Are you actually joking, and just wasting my time? Laimbeer had precisely zero post game, and was effectively a shooting guard on offense.

At least I don’t try to measure individual players strictly by team win record.

And yet this is how players are valued by most. Otherwise, Dominique Wilkins and Adrian Dantley were just as good as Michael Jordan.

 

[tc1]

If memory serves, they limited his minutes for much of the season as well.

He averaged 30 minutes, that's not very limited.

 

[tlance]

Are you actually joking, and just wasting my time? Laimbeer had precisely zero post game, and was effectively a shooting guard on offense.


And yet this is how players are valued by most. Otherwise, Dominique Wilkins and Adrian Dantley were just as good as Michael Jordan.

Laimbeer was an all star center.

My comment was that all the best teams had all star caliber centers before Jordan’s Bulls.

You keep moving the goal posts and changing the conversation.

Laimbeer could absolutely defend the other team’s star center which was what mattered for those Piston teams.

 

[trojanfan12]

He averaged 30 minutes, that's not very limited.

He averaged under 30 minutes until later in the season. Additionally, a top starter on most teams averages closer to 35+ minutes depending on their depth, etc.

Btw...

For the first 4 games of the season he averaged 27.3 minutes per game.
For the month of November, he averaged 30.9 mpg.
For December he averaged 28.6 mpg.
For January it was 26.7 mpg.
For February it was 28.9 mpg.
For March it was 31.7 mpg
For April it was 35.8 mpg and the Spurs only played 5 games.

So yes, they limited his minutes.

 

[tc1]

Laimbeer was an all star center.

He was an injury replacement half the time, for the record.

My comment was that all the best teams had all star caliber centers before Jordan’s Bulls.

And you remain wrong.

You keep moving the goal posts and changing the conversation.

Laimbeer could absolutely defend the other team’s star center which was what mattered for those Piston teams.

You have forgotten your own argument, unsurprisingly. It was "Back then teams played through the center position and you needed bodies and fouls."

Detroit did not play through Lainbeer as a center, since he had no post game at all, and was a spot-up shooter -- which you ought to know.

Then it became "Dominant big men were thought to be a prerequisite to winning until Jordan really broke the narrative."

But that was shown to wildly wrong as well, as dominant big men had not won many titles at all in the preceding 15 years. Hell, Golden State won with a perimeter-oriented team as early as '75.

See if you can decide what position you'd like to defend, and then do your homework, and try again.

 

[tc1]

He averaged under 30 minutes until later in the season.

And he averaged 30 for the season -- which means he went over 30 later, because that is how an average works.

Wembanyama was 79th in MPG last year -- ahead of Holmgren, Nurkic, Duren, Turner, and most of the league.

Additionally, a top starter on most teams averages closer to 35+ minutes depending on their depth, etc.

Only 22 players in the league average over 35, and 4 of them are Knicks.

So again, no. Do your homework.

 

[tlance]

He was an injury replacement half the time, for the record.



And you remain wrong.


You have forgotten your own argument, unsurprisingly. It was "Back then teams played through the center position and you needed bodies and fouls."

Detroit did not play through Lainbeer as a center, since he had no post game at all, and was a spot-up shooter -- which you ought to know.

Then it became "Dominant big men were thought to be a prerequisite to winning until Jordan really broke the narrative."

But that was shown to wildly wrong as well, as dominant big men had not won many titles at all in the preceding 15 years. Hell, Golden State won with a perimeter-oriented team as early as '75.

See if you can decide what position you'd like to defend, and then do your homework, and try again.

Literally each example you gave (Pistons, Lakers, Bucks)

Had all star centers.

You can twist away all you want

But you are still wrong.

Wrong about Wemby, wrong about this and just about every opinion you have put out on this site.