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

[UK Cowboy]

I made similar arguments to them you just don't like how I clown you on the PF, so per usual I get you into pissy emoji mode.

That would definitely support your case, it's bizarre you are trying to say having smart people agree with me is bad for my argument. Let's see them...if I cared enough about this I could surely find experts who agree with our side of this too.

I've said multiple times now you are entitled to your differing opinion, we just think it's not correct. That's a big part of the fun of sports for us nerds, the arguing.

It is. But again with you. "We" lol

 

[tc1]

He did, but less so than Steph did

Another commonly-stated misconception. Curry had almost no effect on the league. Chart 3-point attempts per game since the arc's inception. Spoiler alert, you will find that it is almost completely a linear increase over 40 years -- with a bump when they shortened the line in the Nineties. No Curry-effect can be detected at all.

The Warriors were the Warriors not because of Curry, but because they had literally dozens of guys who could shoot 40% from the arc. Last time I counted them, several years ago, the Warriors had employed about 2 dozen different players who shot 40+% from the arc for a season __while playing for other teams__. So that list does not count Curry, Thompson (then still a Warrior), or Green. Nor were any of them effective due to Curry, since they demonstrated their shooting chops while playing elsewhere.

 

[msgkings322]

It is. But again with you. "We" lol

It saves a lot of time typing 'we' instead of trojan, tlance, etc.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Just an fyi, before you try this nonsense with me...I've been following the NBA since 1970. I remember being a kid and getting in trouble because I would sneak out to the living room to watch playoff and championship games at midnight because they were tape delayed.

Same. When I was a kid it was the Fish that saved Pittsburgh not Space Jam 2. Remember watching Goose Givens and Kyle Macy for my Cats and Bird vs Magic in the NCAA Championship game with my all time favorite Al McGuire on the call

 

[UK Cowboy]

It saves a lot of time typing 'we' instead of trojan, tlance, etc.

And I don't care that "we" disagree. Numbers don't win arguments, i think the we are wrong

 

[msgkings322]

Another commonly-stated misconception. Curry had almost no effect on the league. Chart 3-point attempts per game since the arc's inception. Spoiler alert, you will find that it is almost completely a linear increase over 40 years -- with a bump when they shortened the line in the Nineties. No Curry-effect can be detected at all.

Interesting info, thanks

The Warriors were the Warriors not because of Curry, but because they had literally dozens of guys who could shoot 40% from the arc. Last time I counted them, several years ago, the Warriors had employed about 2 dozen different players who shot 40+% from the arc for a season __while playing for other teams__. So that list does not count Curry, Thompson (then still a Warrior), or Green. Nor were any of them effective due to Curry, since they demonstrated their shooting chops while playing elsewhere.

As someone who has watched hundreds of Warriors games start to finish especially in the title winning decade, I assure you that you're wrong about Curry not having an effect on his teammates success. His on court gravity was a huge factor (less so now that he's old, which shows in their mediocrity)

But perhaps his effect on the whole sport is exaggerated per your stat above. I have to think bigs shooting 3s is somewhat attributable to him, but that's more likely about teams doing the math on expected points per shot from different parts of the floor.

 

[tlance]

Find another top pick whose team barely managed to improve, at all. There's about one, in the cohort of players who were supposed to be special.

The Spurs managed to be almost as bad with Wembanyama as they were the previous season when they were intentionally tanking to draft him. No other top pick has managed that ridiculously dubious feat.

Wemby’s rookie season is a lot closer to the best season of all time by a number 1 pick than it is the worst.

Calling him the worst because he didn’t improve?

Please.

Have any data to back that up?

Or just spewing BS per usual?

Wemby averaged 21 points a game on decent efficiency numbers and he was #2 in DPOY voting.

His defensive impact alone is good enough to make Wemby’s rookie season better that a lot of other #1s.

In fact, I would guess that probably close to half the #1 over all picks don’t have a season as good as Wemby’s rookie year in their entire career.

Cant wait to see how you justify this one.

Because you definitely 100% wrong on this one. Like not even close.

 

[msgkings322]

And I don't care that "we" disagree. Numbers don't win arguments, i think the we are wrong

Nothing wins arguments here LOL

 

[msgkings322]

Wemby’s rookie season is a lot closer to the best season of all time by a number 1 pick than it is the worst.

Calling him the worst because he didn’t improve?

Please.

Have any data to back that up?

Or just spewing BS per usual?

Wemby averaged 21 points a game on decent efficiency numbers and he was #2 in DPOY voting.

His defensive impact alone is good enough to make Wemby’s rookie season better that a lot of other #1s.

In fact, I would guess that probably close to half the #1 over all picks don’t have a season as good as Wemby’s rookie year in their entire career.

Cant wait to see how you justify this one.

Because you definitely 100% wrong on this one. Like not even close.

His whole argument is the Spurs record didn't improve much his rookie year. Kind of a stretch.

 

[tc1]

If his dunking couldn't be stopped why was his shooting % significantly less than 100%? And why weren't his teams basically undefeated when he played?

Because players would literally jump on him, to stop him. There was no reason not to foul him as often and as hard as you could. Usually, it went uncalled, and even if it didn't, O'Neal would probably miss at least one FT of a pair.

This is why O'Neal bulked up to three-hundred-whatever pounds in the first place. To survive. This is why teams rostered multiple big, slow guys without a whole lot of basketball skills -- just to pound on O'Neal.

This is why O'Neal occasionally snapped -- like all talented big guys eventually do, when the officials refuse to protect them by calling the game according to the rules.

 

[tlance]

Because players would literally jump on him, to stop him. There was no reason not to foul him as often and as hard as you could. Usually, it went uncalled, and even if it didn't, O'Neal would probably miss at least one FT of a pair.

This is why O'Neal bulked up to three-hundred-whatever pounds in the first place. To survive. This is why teams rostered multiple big, slow guys without a whole lot of basketball skills -- just to pound on O'Neal.

This is why O'Neal occasionally snapped -- like all talented big guys eventually do, when the officials refuse to protect them by calling the game according to the rules.

Guess what?

You don’t think teams are smart enough to employ the hack a Shaq today? Of course they are.

Like I said, he would have to adapt.

 

[tc1]

Not sold, Wemby is and will be a fantastic player IMO.

He might eventually be -- but the fact remains that he's been among the worst the league has yet seen in terms of helping his team win games. Among the cohort of allegedly "generational" players, he has been by-far the worst -- despite possessing a number of advantages that the others lacked.

Also he's like 20 years old, hardly an 'adult age' for the NBA.

That was with respect to asking about how it is possible for a great player to lose as often as his team did when it was trying to lose. Of course, that would've been possible for, say, LeBron James as a ten year-old. But for any adult, that ought to be impossible.

Again, how on earth did the Spurs add Wembanyama and still lose as many games as they did the previous year, when they were intentionally tanking?

How on earth were the Spurs slightly better last year when Wembanyama sat?

Those are events that should not happen.

 

[msgkings322]

He might eventually be -- but the fact remains that he's been among the worst the league has yet seen in terms of helping his team win games. Among the cohort of allegedly "generational" players, he has been by-far the worst -- despite possessing a number of advantages that the others lacked.

This is a disingenuous argument. It's a team sport and it's just that one year, they've stepped up significantly this year. Again, you have not made your case.

That was with respect to asking about how it is possible for a great player to lose as often as his team did when it was trying to lose. Of course, that would've been possible for, say, LeBron James as a ten year-old. But for any adult, that ought to be impossible.

Again, calling a 19 year old rookie an 'adult' is also disingenuous.

Again, how on earth did the Spurs add Wembanyama and still lose as many games as they did the previous year, when they were intentionally tanking?

How on earth were the Spurs slightly better last year when Wembanyama sat?

Short sample size, slightly better means nothing over 11 games.

Those are events that should not happen.

I guess we'll see if he becomes as great as expected.

 

[trojanfan12]

Same. When I was a kid it was the Fish that saved Pittsburgh not Space Jam 2. Remember watching Goose Givens and Kyle Macy for my Cats and Bird vs Magic in the NCAA Championship game with my all time favorite Al McGuire on the call

That buildup to the Bird/Magic game was crazy for the time. Yep, remember the Fish That Saved Pittsburgh.

The first time my parents let me stay home alone for the day while they and my sister went somewhere was when Kareem and the Bucks ended the Lakers 33 game win streak.

I hated Kareem until he became a Laker for that one...lol

 

[tc1]

His whole argument is the Spurs record didn't improve much his rookie year.

Didn't improve __at all__. Compared to a season when they were intentionally tanking.

And it took a couple late-season wins over teams that were tanking just for the Spurs with Wembanyama to match their record __that they compiled while tanking__. They were very nearly worse with Wembanyama then they were while tanking.

That is completely unprecedented in NBA history, and probably in all of sport.

 

[UK Cowboy]

That buildup to the Bird/Magic game was crazy for the time. Yep, remember the Fish That Saved Pittsburgh.

The first time my parents let me stay home alone for the day while they and my sister went somewhere was when Kareem and the Bucks ended the Lakers 33 game win streak.

I hated Kareem until he became a Laker for that one...lol

I hated Kareem as well, but I loved Magic. I'll never forget Magics first pro win, he runs over and jumps KAJ and is losing his shit hugging everyone and Kareem was like, calm the fuck down young fella, it's a long season. That's just who Magic was though

 

[tc1]

This is a disingenuous argument. It's a team sport and it's just that one year

Again, no other player allegedly in this cohort has come close to this ridiculously dubious feat.

, they've stepped up significantly this year. Again, you have not made your case.

"Significantly"? They are still missing the play-ins right now. Despite having an allegedly great player, and a raft of other high picks and talented players and an alleged All-time great coach ( somewhat ).

Again, calling a 19 year old rookie an 'adult' is also disingenuous.

Again, read the context. Attempt to understand it.

He was also 20 as a rookie, officially.

Short sample size, slightly better means nothing over 11 games.

There should be no comparison at all! They ought to be clearly better with a generational player. They were worse. They were worse in his rookie year than they were __while intentionally losing__ until a couple late wins over tanking teams enabled them to match that 22 win total.

I guess we'll see if he becomes as great as expected.

We will -- but that will not change his horrific rookie season, that will quite likely be the worst for decades, maybe always.

 

[msgkings322]

I hated Kareem as well, but I loved Magic. I'll never forget Magics first pro win, he runs over and jumps KAJ and is losing his shit hugging everyone and Kareem was like, calm the fuck down young fella, it's a long season. That's just who Magic was though

I presume you watched the HBO series Winning Time? If not you should check it out (first season only)

Some facts are changed around but not so much as to ruin it, and the casting is perfect.

 

[msgkings322]

Again, no other player allegedly in this cohort has come close to this ridiculously dubious feat.



"Significantly"? They are still missing the play-ins right now. Despite having an allegedly great player, and a raft of other high picks and talented players and an alleged All-time great coach ( somewhat ).


Again, read the context. Attempt to understand it.

He was also 20 as a rookie, officially.



There should be no comparison at all! They ought to be clearly better with a generational player. They were worse. They were worse in his rookie year than they were __while intentionally losing__ until a couple late wins over tanking teams enabled them to match that 22 win total.



We will -- but that will not change his horrific rookie season, that will quite likely be the worst for decades, maybe always.

If you want me to agree that his rookie season didn't show much improvement in his team's record and that's strange for a much hyped rookie, I'd agree. That's all it signifies though. Says very little about Wemby's potential and current value.

 

[tc1]

Guess what?

You don’t think teams are smart enough to employ the hack a Shaq today? Of course they are.

I'm not actually sure -- I see a lot of dumb things happening in the NBA. But assuming they are, most would need to revamp their roster to do so -- exactly as we saw happen last time around.

Like I said, he would have to adapt.

It's more likely the league would have to adapt to him, again, as we have already seen.