NBA Offseason: The Draft, Free Agency and Trade Rumors Oh My!

[sperry]

KD also leaves his boy Russ hanging if he leaves this year. Again, something he isn't going to want to do, nor something he needs to do.

[Jace, Extat]

3 hours ago, sperry said:

KD also leaves his boy Russ hanging if he leaves this year. Again, something he isn't going to want to do, nor something he needs to do.

Um, men have been known to use bombs to try and get out of Oklahoma. No action Durant could take would be unnecessary to escape.

[sperry]

1 minute ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Um, men have been known to use bombs to try and get out of Oklahoma. No action Durant could take would be unnecessary to escape.

 

The commonly cited alternatives are Oakland and San Antonio, so it's clear most people don't think this is a lifestyle decision.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, sperry said:

The commonly cited alternatives are Oakland and San Antonio, so it's clear most people don't think this is a lifestyle decision.

 He himself has said this will be a "Basketball" decision, but if you don't consider the Bay Area to be a more attractive place to live than Oklahoma City or San Antonio I have to imagine you've never been here. Or perhaps your not familiar with the other two? 

[sperry]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 He himself has said this will be a "Basketball" decision, but if you don't consider the Bay Area to be a more attractive place to live than Oklahoma City or San Antonio I have to imagine you've never been here. Or perhaps your not familiar with the other two? 

 

I was making an Oakland joke.

[briantw]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 He himself has said this will be a "Basketball" decision, but if you don't consider the Bay Area to be a more attractive place to live than Oklahoma City or San Antonio I have to imagine you've never been here. Or perhaps your not familiar with the other two? 

I think the city you spend your season in is overrated.  These guys spend half their time during the regular season on the road, and the rest practicing.  And they can live wherever they want in the offseason.  If a guy is basing his decision on which city has the best night life, he's probably not helping you win a title there anyway.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, briantw said:

I think the city you spend your season in is overrated.  These guys spend half their time during the regular season on the road, and the rest practicing.  And they can live wherever they want in the offseason.  If a guy is basing his decision on which city has the best night life, he's probably not helping you win a title there anyway.

Yeah, that's a fair point. Still, all things being equal I'd SOONER spend most of that 6-8 months in the greater Bay Area than in Oklahoma City or San Antonio.

 

/That was an Oklahoma City joke.  

[Jace, Extat]

Y'all are harsh on San Antone! I used to live down there. Wasn't so bad, the opioids were cheap and the weed was alright.

[DireWolfSpirit]

People in that income bracket can pretty easily maintain homes for each season (as in spring, summer, winter and fall) in multiple locations and such, so the teams locale isnt a paramount factor for the typical All Star level player. I take Durant at his word when he says the decision will be primarily "Basketball" influenced (as in who the GM, coach and teammates would be).

I mean lets be real, the dudes getting 100+ gazillion dollars wherever he ends up, so he's weighing things like legacy, endorsements, title chances, etc. They have the bank to own residences that they forget where they are. Wasn't that a Joe Walsh song er sumtn?

[StefCurry]

It will be very interesting to see D. Rose and maybe Jamal Crawford with Noah in NY...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 hours ago, briantw said:

I think the city you spend your season in is overrated.  These guys spend half their time during the regular season on the road, and the rest practicing.  And they can live wherever they want in the offseason.  If a guy is basing his decision on which city has the best night life, he's probably not helping you win a title there anyway.

As a Minnesotan, I'm obligated to support this sentiment.

 

[Jaime L]

So if Lebron retired tomorrow, where does he rank historically?

Simmons was saying he's already clearly surpassed Bird, whom he had #5 all time in his Basketball Book, and basically considers a God. And it does feel like his superhuman effort in beating a 73 win Warriors team represents him reaching a new level in his career (like Jordan in '96). Lebron's always been great - he's been clearly the best player in the NBA for almost the entire last decade and sheer ability wise it's hard to argue anyone has ever been greater...but he never seemed to be the level of cold-blooded killer he was here. That was some Jordanesque "I'm not gonna fucking let this team lose" for 3 straight games. 

It's also now his 3rd title coming off 6 straight Finals appearances. The old arguments about why this force of nature shouldn't rank higher all seem to be fall away. He has the rings, he's proven how badly he wants it, he mentally broke the toughest opponent he could've ever faced. Outside of Jordan and Russell, I don't know anyone I'd rank higher...and his career isn't close to done. 

[DunderMifflin]

I think his career is sort of close to being done. I have a -child prodigies fizzle out faster than normal- theory.

I'd rank him right around wherever you put Magic. Ahead of Bird and Kareem etc

[Fez]

Jordan's clearly still higher. I'm not sure who else is, everyone at that level is so undeniably great that actually ranking them is near impossible.

My controversial opinion: I wouldn't put Russell second. He was clearly incredible and the amount of titles he won is insane, but at the same time there were what, six other Hall of Famers on his teams? With a minimum of three on the team every single year? It's something like that. Also there were only eight teams in the league for most of his career as a player, making it a lot easier to win a title.

So I'd put Russell above Wilt Chamberlin (who had the physical gifts to be the greatest ever and didn't do it), but I'd put both them behind Kareem, who played against tougher competition and stayed at the top of his game for an absurd amount of time and was still at least very good for an even more insane amount of time. I might put Magic Johnson above them too, but have Larry Bird behind them. I think my top-10 (without Lebron) would be:

1. Jordan

2. Kareem

3. Magic

4. Russell

5. Wilt

6. Bird

7. Tim Duncan

8, 9, 10. Some combo of Oscar Roberston, Jerry West, and Shaq. Although I could probably be persuaded to put someone else in there instead.

If Lebron retired today, I think he'd basically be tied with Magic. A few more peak years and at least staying good past that for a while, and he'll eventually pass Kareem. It's technically possible he could pass Jordan, but he's still awfully far away from that.

[DunderMifflin]

I never liked penalizing guys for playing in a era long ago because the tendency is to always superimpose the older player into the modern game and say "he wouldn't be doing all that if he played today"

It's never - put the modern guy back in the old era and see how they do.

Almost any human activity is going to progress exponentially over time as new generations observe and build upon the previous generations.

So if you put Lebron in Russells era, he's not going to be using modern day training, he won't have the benefit of watching film of guys like Magic and Jordan. They didn't start grooming 10 year olds for pro level back then. Etc etc

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I never liked penalizing guys for playing in a era long ago because the tendency is to always superimpose the older player into the modern game and say "he wouldn't be doing all that if he played today"

It's never - put the modern guy back in the old era and see how they do.

Almost any human activity is going to progress exponentially over time as new generations observe and build upon the previous generations.

So if you put Lebron in Russells era, he's not going to be using modern day training, he won't have the benefit of watching film of guys like Magic and Jordan. They didn't start grooming 10 year olds for pro sports back then. Etc etc

This is true, but it does seem fair to say that Russell's gaudy championship total is somewhat inflated by the fact that the league was much smaller.  That's not the result of changes in training and tactics, that's just math. 

[Jaime L]

20 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I think his career is sort of close to being done. I have a -child prodigies fizzle out faster than normal- theory.

I'd rank him right around wherever you put Magic. Ahead of Bird and Kareem etc

I mean for a 31 year old he has an unprecedented number of miles on him. Dude has played 40 or so minutes a game, 100+ games a year (including playoff) for over a decade. 

But he's been absolutely indestructible thus far. Can't even recall a time he's been injured. 

9 minutes ago, Fez said:

Jordan's clearly still higher. I'm not sure who else is, everyone at that level is so undeniably great that actually ranking them is near impossible.

My controversial opinion: I wouldn't put Russell second. He was clearly incredible and the amount of titles he won is insane, but at the same time there were what, six other Hall of Famers on his teams? With a minimum of three on the team every single year? It's something like that. Also there were only eight teams in the league for most of his career as a player, making it a lot easier to win a title.

So I'd put Russell above Wilt Chamberlin (who had the physical gifts to be the greatest ever and didn't do it), but I'd put both them behind Kareem, who played against tougher competition and stayed at the top of his game for an absurd amount of time and was still at least very good for an even more insane amount of time. I might put Magic Johnson above them too, but have Larry Bird behind them. I think my top-10 (without Lebron) would be:

1. Jordan

2. Kareem

3. Magic

4. Russell

5. Wilt

6. Bird

7. Tim Duncan

8, 9, 10. Some combo of Oscar Roberston, Jerry West, and Shaq. Although I could probably be persuaded to put someone else in there instead.

If Lebron retired today, I think he'd basically be tied with Magic. A few more peak years and at least staying good past that for a while, and he'll eventually pass Kareem. It's technically possible he could pass Jordan, but he's still awfully far away from that.

Two thoughts:

1) I get where you're coming from on Russell and don't have a problem with it. Hard to know where to rank a guy who mainly played in the 60s against primarily white, stiff centers. So yeah I think there is a strong case Kareem was better. But 10 titles is 10 titles so I leave him up there with an asterisk.

2) The thing about Magic is he sucked defensively. Hard to put him up there with Lebron who's 5x All-Defensive team. Magic was a guy you had to hide on the opposing team's weakest player whereas Lebron can be deployed as the counter to the opposing team's star as needed. I do think Magic did more to make his teammates better (through his personality and passing) but it's not enough to counter Lebron's ability at both ends. 

[DunderMifflin]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This is true, but it does seem fair to say that Russell's gaudy championship total is somewhat inflated by the fact that the league was much smaller.  That's not the result of changes in training and tactics, that's just math. 

You could say similar things about Jordan too. When he dunked from the free throw line it was mindblowing. Now every team has like 2 or 3 dudes that can dunk from the free throw line.

To not entertain that some of those older era guys might just be destined for greatness and could raise their level of play to dominate any era seems to omit a part of what made them great.

[Maithanet]

19 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

To not entertain that some of those older era guys might just be destined for greatness and could raise their level of play to dominate any era seems to omit a part of what made them great.

Good thing no one is arguing that. 

[Fez]

14 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

To not entertain that some of those older era guys might just be destined for greatness and could raise their level of play to dominate any era seems to omit a part of what made them great.

I think most of the all-time greats from the past would have just as much trouble adapting to the current game as the all-time greats of today would have adapting to the way the game used to be (and that's assuming stuff like training and conditioning is normalized; without that, its basically no contest). Its not just that there is a 3-point line and that its so important, they'd also be getting called for fouls on defense every other possession. Its the flipside to the fact that someone from today playing under the old rules would get hipchecked into oblivion.

So I don't think we can really think about how these guys might play against each other; we can only compare against how they played their competition at the time.