NBA - Bring on the Playoffs

[Calibandar]

In current news, the C's were able to lose the toilet bowl game to the Sixers, almost guaranteeing Milwaukee the most ping pong balls and getting to a solid change the East will have the worst 4 records. It's funny that as weak as the East is, you'd think the tops teams would be cruising with their records - Miami (east #1 right now) would be in 4th in the West.

I'm looking at these top teams in both conferences and I honestly have no idea who is going to win the NBA finals this year.

It just seems incredibly open right now. There's a story attached to every one of the top candidates that makes you think twice about calling them a clear favourite.

[Greywolf2375]

Worth pointing out that rebounding is a stat that was heavily inflated by the style of play back then. The lack of the three point line meant there was very little incentive to shoot from distance, so long rebounds were very rare. As a result, if you were a big man near the basket you were much more likely to get rebounds (as opposed to today's game where they are much more spread around the team because of the three point bombing). And when you were as athletic as Chamberlain was, that meant you could pretty much gobble up everything that came off the boards. The scoring records are more impressive to me.

From what I understand, one of the reasons why Robertson isn't more highly regarded is that he had what could be charitably described as a spiky personality. By all accounts he was very difficult to play with (though perhaps understandably so). Simmons put up an excerpt from his book about this a while back.

ST

oh, agreed - the rules changes absolutely impact some of the records that have been put up.

Yeah, that almost certainly has an impact to - his trade was in part based on that, though probably not a small part on Cousy's ego as well.

[AnotherCrannogman]

I'm looking at these top teams in both conferences and I honestly have no idea who is going to win the NBA finals this year.

It just seems incredibly open right now. There's a story attached to every one of the top candidates that makes you think twice about calling them a clear favourite.

Agree, I thiunk this year is much less predictable than average. That should make it fun though.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

That was just the game back then. More speed and endurance, less power and less physical.

Which is why I said that Chamberlain was the more athletic of Russell/Chamberlain. Although Russell was obviously a top top athlete, Chamberlain was like a force of nature.

I agree that a lot of people imagine the great centers of yesteryear to be like those uncoordinated, 230 pound 7 footers who were only dominant because they are tall. But they couldn't be more wrong.

I think what I find frustrating is that really, the only fair way to compare athletes of different eras is to say "how dominant were they against the best players of their time?" And I feel it is safe to say that Russell and Chamberlain were both dominant to a level that will never be replicated.

If you want to discuss "best NBA players of the past 40 years", that's fine, but you need to say that, otherwise you just sound like a fool when you leave off those two.

I think societal differences need to be considered as well. Both Russell and Chamberlain faced a degree of racism and ignorance that I don't think today's players can even conceive. I think that makes their accomplishments that much more impressive.

[Calibandar]

I was looking the massive draft for this year and comparing it to the last couple of years, trying to see if it means something when these guy make the top 10 of the draft, how good they are likely to become.

So at the moment the mock drafts for this year go sort of like this:

Wiggins, Parker, Embidd, Exum, Randle, Gordon, Smart, Vonleh, Saric, McDermott/Harris.


I was looking at this list for reference:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/results/top100/_/year/2011

So 2013 was a bad draft year, clearly.
In 2012 the top 10 included Davis, Beal, Lillard, Drummond, Waiters, Harrison Barnes, Henson, Ross, Terrence Jones, Lamb. That was one hell of a draft in comparson because pretty much all of those top 10 picks are doing very well in the NBA right now.

2011: Irving, Derrick Williams, Kanter, Valanciunas, Knight, Leonard, Thompson, Klay Thompson, Kemba Walker, Kenneth Faried

Pretty huge draft year again if you ask me. Not everyone has exploded here, but a couple of these guys have already come through big time.

Other top 10 picks from 2009 and 2010: Wall, Cousins, Monroe, George, Hayward, Bledsoe, Griffin, Harden, Evans, Curry, Holiday, De Rozan.

Conclusion: there's got to be a couple of huge diamonds in this draft if you look at the sheer amount of excellent players that have risen the last few years.

[sperry]

I've never heard anyone question whether Chamberlain or Russell would be great players today. They would. The issue is we can't compare them statistically or really even at all to modern players, because much of the competition consisted of guys who almost assuredly would not be in the league these days.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I've never heard anyone question whether Chamberlain or Russell would be great players today. They would. The issue is we can't compare them statistically or really even at all to modern players, because much of the competition consisted of guys who almost assuredly would not be in the league these days.

Eh, not so sure about that. A smaller league meant less jobs to go around, so I'm willing to bet the competition was comparable. I was born in '67 so I'm not terribly familiar with that era, but if you look at a list of allstars from the 60's and 70's there are plenty of recognizable names...

Cut and Paste from Yahoo Question related to the topic here...

Two of the NBA's greatest players, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, are often criticized for playing in a "weak" era. This is far from the truth, as the 1960s were a very good time for basketball. A much smaller league meant more competition for fewer spots. The fact that only the 121 best basketball players in the world could play in the NBA condensed the talent pool to nine teams. In the modern NBA, over half of the teams don't even have one all star player, nevertheless hall of famers. Examining the teams in the mid 1960s, all nine of them had Hall of Fame talents:

Boston Celtics: Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Tommy Heinsolm

Cincinnati Royals: Oscar Robertson, Jerry Lucas

Philadelphia 76ers: Hal Greer

New York Knicks: Willis Reed

San Francisco Warriors: Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond

St. Louis Hawks: Bob Pettit

Los Angeles Lakers: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor

Detroit Pistons: David Bing, Dave Debusschere

Baltimore Bullets: Walt Bellamy

Russell and Chamberlain faced various legends on a nightly basis, yet still were known as the best players of their generation. Throughout the decade, the two were subject to strong competition Some of the great players Russell and Chamberlain faced included:

1960-1964:

Dolph Schayes

Bob Pettit

Walt Bellamy

Jerry Lucas

1965-1968:

Willis Reed

Elvin Hayes

Wes Unseld

Nate Thurmond

1969-1972:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar

Bob Lanier

Artis Gilmore

Billy Cunningham

Dave Cowens

Article in total... https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100727234728AAZxTUR

ETA: Just wanted to add that a lot of posters have commented that these two played 48 minutes a game as if that was an obvious advantage. Yes, that gives them more time to compile stats, but you also have to consider that they had to play 48 minutes! And from what I understand, this was a faster paced game at the time. Most teams were looking to fast break off of every rebound. Guys weren't standing around while one superstar was playing iso. It takes a tremendous amount of stamina to go 4 quarters without taking a blow.

[sperry]

Eh, not so sure about that. A smaller league meant less jobs to go around, so I'm willing to bet the competition was comparable. I was born in '67 so I'm not terribly familiar with that era, but if you look at a list of allstars from the 60's and 70's there are plenty of recognizable names...

Cut and Paste from Yahoo Question related to the topic here...

Two of the NBA's greatest players, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, are often criticized for playing in a "weak" era. This is far from the truth, as the 1960s were a very good time for basketball. A much smaller league meant more competition for fewer spots. The fact that only the 121 best basketball players in the world could play in the NBA condensed the talent pool to nine teams. In the modern NBA, over half of the teams don't even have one all star player, nevertheless hall of famers. Examining the teams in the mid 1960s, all nine of them had Hall of Fame talents:

Boston Celtics: Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Tommy Heinsolm

Cincinnati Royals: Oscar Robertson, Jerry Lucas

Philadelphia 76ers: Hal Greer

New York Knicks: Willis Reed

San Francisco Warriors: Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond

St. Louis Hawks: Bob Pettit

Los Angeles Lakers: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor

Detroit Pistons: David Bing, Dave Debusschere

Baltimore Bullets: Walt Bellamy

Russell and Chamberlain faced various legends on a nightly basis, yet still were known as the best players of their generation. Throughout the decade, the two were subject to strong competition Some of the great players Russell and Chamberlain faced included:

1960-1964:

Dolph Schayes

Bob Pettit

Walt Bellamy

Jerry Lucas

1965-1968:

Willis Reed

Elvin Hayes

Wes Unseld

Nate Thurmond

1969-1972:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar

Bob Lanier

Artis Gilmore

Billy Cunningham

Dave Cowens

Russell and Chamberlain in particular played in an era where basketball wasn't evne close to fully integrated. When you consider how dominant blacks are in the game of basketball, that means their competition wasn't even close to up to snuff with today's league. Yes there were a handful of great players in the league that would stack up with the greats of today. But the overall quality of league wasn't even close to what it is today.

[Sir Thursday]

I was looking the massive draft for this year and comparing it to the last couple of years, trying to see if it means something when these guy make the top 10 of the draft, how good they are likely to become.

So at the moment the mock drafts for this year go sort of like this:

Wiggins, Parker, Embidd, Exum, Randle, Gordon, Smart, Vonleh, Saric, McDermott/Harris.

I was looking at this list for reference:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/results/top100/_/year/2011

So 2013 was a bad draft year, clearly.

In 2012 the top 10 included Davis, Beal, Lillard, Drummond, Waiters, Harrison Barnes, Henson, Ross, Terrence Jones, Lamb. That was one hell of a draft in comparson because pretty much all of those top 10 picks are doing very well in the NBA right now.

2011: Irving, Derrick Williams, Kanter, Valanciunas, Knight, Leonard, Thompson, Klay Thompson, Kemba Walker, Kenneth Faried

Pretty huge draft year again if you ask me. Not everyone has exploded here, but a couple of these guys have already come through big time.

Other top 10 picks from 2009 and 2010: Wall, Cousins, Monroe, George, Hayward, Bledsoe, Griffin, Harden, Evans, Curry, Holiday, De Rozan.

Conclusion: there's got to be a couple of huge diamonds in this draft if you look at the sheer amount of excellent players that have risen the last few years.

There are a few decent breakdowns that use historical data to predict how much value each pick is worth, if you're interested. (82games, Hardwood Paroxysm). The general theme (and something I've seen echoed by several GMs) is that most years the top 5 picks have a much higher concentration of star power than anywhere else (in the 82games one, for example, there's a very steep drop off from #5 to #6).

But having said that, every year it feels like there's a group in the 20-26 region that end up being really solid players (if not necessarily stars). I mean, check out this year's draft:

20. Tony Snell (The next in a line of lockdown defensive wings in Chicago, stepping up now Deng has been traded)

21. Gorgui Dieng (beasting right now, would be a RoY candidate if he'd been doing this a few months ago)

22. Mason Plumlee (now the Nets' starting centre in the absence of Lopez),

24. Tim Hardaway Jr. (basically the only good thing to happen for the Knicks this year)

26. Andre Roberson (starting right now for the Thunder, being groomed as a Sefolosha replacement)

Or last year:

20. Evan Fournier (Looked very promising in his rookie season, has developed into a solid bench guy)

21. Jared Sullinger (Every time I watch him play he looks fantastic)

23. John Jenkins (Had a very good rookie season, a bit under the radar. Sadly had a season ending injury early this year)

25. Tony Wroten (He's not exactly in a good environment right now, but every now and then he shows you something amazing)

26. Miles Plumlee (What a year he's had in Phoenix!)

It's weird - every year you can find several guys in this sort of area that turned into really good players (albeit not always the stars of the league). I think perhaps teams picking in this range are at a level where their roster isn't set from top-to-bottom but nevertheless have a winning environment for their players to develop in. Rookies on those teams get taught good habits and then get their chances when injuries strike. 2008 is possibly the best example of how stacked this area can be:

21. Ryan Anderson

22. Courtney Lee

23. Kosta Koufos

24. Serge Ibaka

25. Nic Batum

26. George Hill

Those are all starting calibre players! (except for maybe Courtney Lee, but he did start for the Magic in the NBA finals his rookie season...)

ST

[Greywolf2375]

Russell and Chamberlain in particular played in an era where basketball wasn't evne close to fully integrated. When you consider how dominant blacks are in the game of basketball, that means their competition wasn't even close to up to snuff with today's league. Yes there were a handful of great players in the league that would stack up with the greats of today. But the overall quality of league wasn't even close to what it is today.

If the players of the 50s and 60s had the training, etc of the current players, sure they would. Brian Scalabrine still made the NBA and is probably the least talented NBA player I have ever seen. It's not that there were a handful of great players and then scrubs. They had the same range of players then as there are today.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Russell and Chamberlain in particular played in an era where basketball wasn't evne close to fully integrated. When you consider how dominant blacks are in the game of basketball, that means their competition wasn't even close to up to snuff with today's league. Yes there were a handful of great players in the league that would stack up with the greats of today. But the overall quality of league wasn't even close to what it is today.

Now that I'd have to agree with, but I'd add that it also meant these two were probably dealing with a level of racism that todays players don't have to contend with.

[aeu]

Did anyone catch the Suns - Thunder game last night? I haven't enjoyed a game this much in a long, long time. It had playoff level intensity with bodies flying all over the place but it was also really fast paced. Suns seem to have only one speed anyway (really fast) and they suckered OKC into playing their game. And OKC did really well, Durant and Westbrook made shot after shot; just ridiculous, "I'm gonna bring the ball, just pull up and hit it over the defense" type shots. The shots stopped falling towards the very end, but they were awesome most of the game.

And Suns hit even more ridiculous shots. I had to check the box score afterwards since they seemed to make everything. Almost 60% overall and 50% on threes. Bledsoe was great. Dragic was ridiculous in the 2nd quarter. Gerald Green was ridiculous in the second half. P.J. Tucker was just ridiculous, period. These Suns probably drive fans crazy when those shots don't go in, but when they play like they did last night, they are probably the most enjoyable team in the NBA.

It's a shame that one of Phoenix, Dallas or Memphis will be left out of the playoffs.

[Ferrum Aeternum]

While the Suns & Mavs are surging, the Griz have played some of their worst basketball of the year the past couple of weeks, particularly on the defensive side where they've been uncharacteristically awful lately. The 8 spot is still a possibility, but the games at Phoenix and home to Dallas to close the season will likely be pivotal.

[sperry]

If the players of the 50s and 60s had the training, etc of the current players, sure they would. Brian Scalabrine still made the NBA and is probably the least talented NBA player I have ever seen. It's not that there were a handful of great players and then scrubs. They had the same range of players then as there are today.

Scalabrine was a last guy off the bench type, and was still talented. He was a 6'9" guy that could hit 3s. If he was a starter in the league or something you might have a point, but he was a journeyman backup.

And you are absolutely right about conditioning. But that's part of my point. Russell and Chamberlain would have been great players today, but they wouldn't have been averaging 30 rebounds a game.

I think Wilt's numbers would have looked about like Shaq's, and Russell's would have looked like Kevin Garnett's.

[Calibandar]

It's weird - every year you can find several guys in this sort of area that turned into really good players (albeit not always the stars of the league). I think perhaps teams picking in this range are at a level where their roster isn't set from top-to-bottom but nevertheless have a winning environment for their players to develop in. Rookies on those teams get taught good habits and then get their chances when injuries strike. 2008 is possibly the best example of how stacked this area can be:

21. Ryan Anderson

22. Courtney Lee

23. Kosta Koufos

24. Serge Ibaka

25. Nic Batum

26. George Hill

Those are all starting calibre players! (except for maybe Courtney Lee, but he did start for the Magic in the NBA finals his rookie season...)

ST

Serge Ibaka at 24, that's just crazy. Makes me wonder if Embiid is being rated so highly in part because people saw they hugely underrated Serge Ibaka, and Embiid offers even more height and is a true center.

Anyway I agree with your point, there's usually some players in the 20's range that turn into very good players, but what I also see is that the real top level stars of today's NBA, were already valued as such when they were drafted, virtually no one flew under the radar. They were pretty much all in the top 5 of that year's Draft anyway.

[Sir Thursday]

Serge Ibaka at 24, that's just crazy. Makes me wonder if Embiid is being rated so highly in part because people saw they hugely underrated Serge Ibaka, and Embiid offers even more height and is a true center.

Anyway I agree with your point, there's usually some players in the 20's range that turn into very good players, but what I also see is that the real top level stars of today's NBA, were already valued as such when they were drafted, virtually no one flew under the radar. They were pretty much all in the top 5 of that year's Draft anyway.

Yeah, I'd agree that the majority of the real stars of the league came from the top 5 spots. You can attribute a small amount of 'star power' to the fact that they were drafted top 5, but most of it is just that they are better players. If you go down ESPN's NBA rank (which IMO is a pretty awful way of ranking players all things considered but is the easiest thing to hand right now) and look for where they were drafted, you get:

1. Lebron James (1st)

2. Kevin Durant (2nd)

3. Chris Paul (4th)

4. James Harden (3rd)

5. Russell Westbrook (5th)

6. Stephen Curry (7th)

7. Dwight Howard (1st)

8. Kyrie Irving (1st) [He REALLY doesn't belong here though. In fact, he's probably only this high because of where he was drafted]

9. Derrick Rose (1st)

10. Marc Gasol (48th) [!!!!]

11. Kevin Love (5th)

12. Tony Parker (28th)

13. Paul George (10th)

14. Blake Griffin (1st)

15. Carmelo Anthony (3rd)

16. Tim Duncan (1st)

17. LaMarcus Aldridge (2nd)

18. Dwyane Wade (5th)

19. Al Horford (3rd)

20. Deron Williams (3rd)

So pretty conclusive that with a few exceptions, stars come from the subset of players that are picked top 5 in the draft.

ST

[Greywolf2375]

Forget the 100pt game. Forget 55 rebounds. 30 assists. None of that matters to the record that was set last night.

King James did not get the call in the last seconds on a questionable contact at home.

[Calibandar]

James should have had two free throws, it was a clear foul from Plumlee, who admitted as much.

It does say something about James that 7'0 Plumlee went into that duel with the intention to foul 6'8 LeBron and get him to the line. He must have thought he couldn't just block him.

But still, this means the Nets have officially swept the Miami Heat this season, which is a pretty astonishing performance. They've got their number. I'd still for Miami in a series but that would be an awful matchup for LeBron and co. Especially with Dwayne Wade missing his 26th game of the season last night. Surely Wade's state has to come into LeBron's mind when deciding what to do with his free agency.

[Jabronius Maximus]

I loved the moment when Lebron was standing there complaining when Brooklyn ran right past him. He could've fouled, extended the game, etc but chose to do that. I know these moments are very few and very far in between, but great to see nonetheless.

[Sir Thursday]

James should have had two free throws, it was a clear foul from Plumlee, who admitted as much.

It does say something about James that 7'0 Plumlee went into that duel with the intention to foul 6'8 LeBron and get him to the line. He must have thought he couldn't just block him.

But still, this means the Nets have officially swept the Miami Heat this season, which is a pretty astonishing performance. They've got their number. I'd still for Miami in a series but that would be an awful matchup for LeBron and co. Especially with Dwayne Wade missing his 26th game of the season last night. Surely Wade's state has to come into LeBron's mind when deciding what to do with his free agency.

What's interesting is that the Heat are going to have to play either the Nets or the Bulls in the second round if they get the #1 seed, but can avoid them if they drop to #2. Is it worth potentially losing home-court in the conference finals to avoid them?

ST