NBA Season 2020 - RIP Mamba

[Rhom]

Kobe in the opening minutes if Ep 5 of The Last Dance was definitely bittersweet.

[KingintheNorth4]

Man, if Jerry Krause liked you, then that was a death sentence.

[Jaime L]

This is most compelling sports doc since what? I can't think of one better. If they want to make it 20 hours I'm on board. Let's do an hour deep dive on every single damn season of his career. Sign me up.

MJ is the most magnetic athlete of my lifetime. The guy is effortlessly cool in a way other superstars just aren't. Kobe tried to mirror Jordan but the difference was you could always see the effort and strain just under the surface. Magic's a big dork deep down. Larry Bird looks like Larry Bird. Tim Duncan has two facial expressions. Lebron's probably the closest but he actually lets us in and we see his humanity which both makes him more understandable, more human...but keeps him from feeling like some deity who exists on another plane the way MJ always did. Even getting these 6 hours of MJ behind the scenes doesn't really pierce that illusion. 

And yet it's undeniable he's a high functioning psychopath. I knew about him wanting to destroy Drexler for deigning to be compared to him and Kukoc because Krause loved him, but Thunder Dan Majerle? That's hilarious. That'd be like Lebron having this primal need to destroy Iggy for having the audacity to cover him in all those finals matchups. And then punching out teammates Will Perdue and Steve Kerr? Steve Kerr is like the nicest dude in America. How does that happen? His malevolence is part of what makes him so interesting. Don't think we're going to see any documentaries about Mike Trout anytime soon. 

Regardless, every week Jordan is just savaging some contemporary from the 90s and I'm here for it.  And love the way he couches his disdain. Drexler was a threat...but c'mon he isn't me. Isiah's the 2nd best PG ever...but he's a PoS. I hope 20 years from now we get a doc where Lebron is just as candid talking about Steph, Durant, Lance Stephenson and JR Smith. 

[Maithanet]

2 hours ago, Jaime L said:

MJ is the most magnetic athlete of my lifetime. The guy is effortlessly cool in a way other superstars just aren't. Kobe tried to mirror Jordan but the difference was you could always see the effort and strain just under the surface. Magic's a big dork deep down. Larry Bird looks like Larry Bird. Tim Duncan has two facial expressions. Lebron's probably the closest but he actually lets us in and we see his humanity which both makes him more understandable, more human...but keeps him from feeling like some deity who exists on another plane the way MJ always did. Even getting these 6 hours of MJ behind the scenes doesn't really pierce that illusion.

I do think that if we're talking about ability to just dominate your opposition, and make even all-stars look overmatched and weak*, Lebron is the only guy that I've seen even in the same room as Jordan. 

But in addition to their very different personalities, there's also just a matter of circumstance.  What was the best team that Jordan faced in the playoffs in his entire career?  The 62 win 1993 Suns?  The 64 win 1997 Jazz?  Those are good teams no doubt, but I wouldn't like their chances against the 2013/2014 Spurs, let alone the 2016-2018 Warriors.  The only real hole in the "look at the competition" argument is the 2011 Finals and to a lesser extent the 2010 Celtics series.  Because neither of those teams were better than pretty good, and failing to overcome "pretty good" competition is something that Jordan never ever did. 

* Shaq is in a totally different category alltogether, since he was so reliant on power over skill, and thus his dominance was totally at the mercy of the ref's interpretations of the rules.  I remember some writer said that if the refs really enforced the rules on Shaq, it would be a foul on him or his defender every single time down the court. 

[Wilbur]

50 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I do think that if we're talking about ability to just dominate your opposition, and make even all-stars look overmatched and weak*, Lebron is the only guy that I've seen even in the same room as Jordan. 

I think that you touch upon a key aspect of Jordan's success, and that was his ability to perform attractive basketball with strength in the face of brutality.  Lebron has this raw physicality as well.

After the 80s hegemony of the Celtics/Sixers/Lakers was broken by the fading health of their skilled stars, the league became much more willing to allow physically brutal basketball to occur on the courts.  As a result, you get the Riley-led New York Knicks, the Bad Boy Pistons, and other teams that relied upon physical intimidation in addition to basketball skill to earn wins in the late 80s and throughout the 90s.

Jordan was able to continue to shine and play his own brand of physical basketball despite the beatings he took against this sort of team.  And one of the reasons that the Bulls were so popular was that they still played basketball with Jordan, Pippen and some of their supporting cast demonstrating this elegant game in the face of a lot of unattractive competition in the 90s.

[Jaime L]

17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I do think that if we're talking about ability to just dominate your opposition, and make even all-stars look overmatched and weak*, Lebron is the only guy that I've seen even in the same room as Jordan. 

But in addition to their very different personalities, there's also just a matter of circumstance.  What was the best team that Jordan faced in the playoffs in his entire career?  The 62 win 1993 Suns?  The 64 win 1997 Jazz?  Those are good teams no doubt, but I wouldn't like their chances against the 2013/2014 Spurs, let alone the 2016-2018 Warriors.  The only real hole in the "look at the competition" argument is the 2011 Finals and to a lesser extent the 2010 Celtics series.  Because neither of those teams were better than pretty good, and failing to overcome "pretty good" competition is something that Jordan never ever did. 

* Shaq is in a totally different category alltogether, since he was so reliant on power over skill, and thus his dominance was totally at the mercy of the ref's interpretations of the rules.  I remember some writer said that if the refs really enforced the rules on Shaq, it would be a foul on him or his defender every single time down the court. 

Dominance is a different discussion than cool but I'm down. IMO the best teams Jordan beat were the '96 Magic, '96 Sonics and '93 Suns. Those were the 3 teams that were still up and coming during the Bulls run. That Magic team especially was the last one to ever beat MJ in a playoff series and they looked like they would become like what the '00-'02 Lakers were and the '96 Bulls swept 'em out of the building so bad they disbanded the next year. This is a running theme where MJ would wreck all challengers and alter careers. It's a little like that Game of Zones sketch with Lebron bored by the trash talk of each of the east contenders from 2012 on.

Are we sure Tim Duncan becomes Tim Duncan if he comes up in '92 instead? Lot of those Spurs title teams don't look all that different from the '93 Suns or '97 Jazz. Heck I'm not sure peak Kobe-Shaq overcome the '91-'98 Bulls. Think MJ warped the entire league by not letting anyone any chance taste even a little success. He destroyed all his rivals. 

That said, I agree the '13 Heat, '14 Spurs, '17 Warriors are still better than anyone Jordan faced. Two manufactured superteams and a third who lucked into another superstar at #15 in Kawhi. The only attempted superteam in the 90s was when two guys that Jordan ruined, Drexler and Barkley teamed up with the only other superstar champion left, Olajuwon, to try to get that elusive title but they were all too old by that point. 

I will say, before this I would've had the '17 Warriors edging out the '96 Bulls if both existed in the same era under the same rules. Now I think I go the other way. Just thinking about Pippen, Rodman, Jordan and Harper on the defensive end...good luck trying to manufacture a mismatch. And Jordan would score 40 a game with modern spacing, hand check rules and emphasis on 3 pointers. Heck the '92 Bulls also would give anyone this decade a run for their money...

[Proudfeet]

11 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

'14 Spurs, ' a third who lucked into another superstar at #15 in Kawhi.

Not sure that is fair. They traded a starter for him, developed his shot and Kawhi wasn't a superstar at that point. 

[Maithanet]

35 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

Are we sure Tim Duncan becomes Tim Duncan if he comes up in '92 instead? Lot of those Spurs title teams don't look all that different from the '93 Suns or '97 Jazz.

Depends which Spurs team we're talking about.  But the 2005 and 2013,14 Spurs were deeper with talent than either the Suns or the Jazz IMO.  Plus Popovich.  The 2014 Spurs have four hall of famers and a hall of fame HC.  The 93 Suns have Barkley, who is better than anyone on the '14 Spurs, but then Dan Majerle, Mark West, Kevin Johnson and Richard Dumas cannot hold a candle to Parker, Ginobili, Kawhi, and Danny Green.  Likewise the 97 Jazz are comparatively a two man show, whereas the Spurs are so much deeper.  And the 2013 + 2014 Spurs teams were the ones that Lebron needed to beat (and 2007 I guess, but that Cavs team never should have made it to the finals). 

Quote

I will say, before this I would've had the '17 Warriors edging out the '96 Bulls if both existed in the same era under the same rules. Now I think I go the other way. Just thinking about Pippen, Rodman, Jordan and Harper on the defensive end...good luck trying to manufacture a mismatch. And Jordan would score 40 a game with modern spacing, hand check rules and emphasis on 3 pointers. Heck the '92 Bulls also would give anyone this decade a run for their money...

I remain convinced that the proper answer to this is that the Bulls beat the Warriors if they're playing in the 90s and the Warriors beat the Bulls if they're playing in the teens.  While I'm sure that Jordan would indeed score a lot of points in today's NBA, the team as a whole is just not particularly well constructed for 2016 basketball.  Steve Kerr isn't (entirely) joking when he says that he wouldn't be able to get on the floor in today's NBA.  And Kerr wasn't the only weak defender on that Bulls team, even if they also had a lot of great defenders too.  I've no doubt that the Bulls would TRY and counter the Warriors offense with a no-switch style and thus allow them to leave Kerr on Iguodala (which is still a size/strength mismatch).  But then when the Warriors run the pick and roll with Curry/Iggy vs Kerr/Jordan (or Pippin or Harper), then you're still almost guaranteed to either give Curry an open 3 or open up a lane to the basket or both. 

If you're trying to find a "neutral" court and have the game played in 2006, then I would favor the Bulls, mostly just because the 1996 Bulls were battle tested veterans compared to the relatively young Warriors.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Jaime L said:

This is most compelling sports doc since what?

Try the OJ doc? It was so much better than this. 

Quote

And yet it's undeniable he's a high functioning psychopath.

Most people in elite positions are. 

That's probably why you run the Elite league. Doubt it will have a season, though.

[Jaime L]

8 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Not sure that is fair. They traded a starter for him, developed his shot and Kawhi wasn't a superstar at that point. 

There was definitely skill involved but I mean more that you're fortunate that anyone with the capability of being the best player in the NBA falls to you at 15. 

8 hours ago, Maithanet said:

While I'm sure that Jordan would indeed score a lot of points in today's NBA, the team as a whole is just not particularly well constructed for 2016 basketball. 

I think they'd be fantastic in the modern game. Their biggest weakness back then was always having to play stiffs at center to counter Ewing, Shaq and Olajuwon. Now you can stick Rodman at the 5 and do your own death lineup of Harper, Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, Rodman. Jordan's arguably the greatest jump shooter of all time. There's no reason to think he wouldn't become an excellent 3 point shooter if that was more of a focus back then. Pippen gets to be a poor man's Kawhi or rich man's Paul George. Kukoc is an ideal 3 point shooter and playmaker. Main question would be if Harper could make 3's if he came up in this era. Can guarantee he, Jordan and Rodman would still be nearer to their prime in their early 30s if they played now. 

Yeah their bench would suck but the Warriors had no-one beyond their starting 5 either. 

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Try the OJ doc? It was so much better than this. 

You could have Alexis Bledel playing OJ, I'm never gonna find his story more compelling than MJ's. 

[Proudfeet]

7 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

There was definitely skill involved but I mean more that you're fortunate that anyone with the capability of being the best player in the NBA falls to you at 15. 

No? This is very much hindsight. Its not like you're drafting LeBron / AD / KD consensus number one/two picks. Nor a throw away second round picked that panned out. He fell to Indiana, they traded George Hill to get him. Sequence of events might be more mixed, but he was a targeted pick that eluded other teams. Its not like this is Dallas with Luka Doncic who fell to what? 4? Gave up by Atlanta in favour of Trae Young?

Also, he was average offensively when he was finals MVP and even more so when drafted. 

Duncan and Ginobili you can make a case for luck. Not so for Parker and Kawhi.

[baxus]

I think that the biggest testament to Jordan's greatness is that he's the main reason so many other great players don't have the championship ring.

Barkley, Ewing, Malone, Stockton, Miller... Hell, even Hakeem had to wait for Jordan to go on a hiatus to get his rings.

LeBron's greatness is undeniable, but he can't really claim he's done that.

[Maithanet]

8 hours ago, Jaime L said:

There was definitely skill involved but I mean more that you're fortunate that anyone with the capability of being the best player in the NBA falls to you at 15. 

I think they'd be fantastic in the modern game. Their biggest weakness back then was always having to play stiffs at center to counter Ewing, Shaq and Olajuwon. Now you can stick Rodman at the 5 and do your own death lineup of Harper, Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, Rodman. Jordan's arguably the greatest jump shooter of all time. There's no reason to think he wouldn't become an excellent 3 point shooter if that was more of a focus back then. Pippen gets to be a poor man's Kawhi or rich man's Paul George. Kukoc is an ideal 3 point shooter and playmaker. Main question would be if Harper could make 3's if he came up in this era. Can guarantee he, Jordan and Rodman would still be nearer to their prime in their early 30s if they played now.

I can accept that Jordan almost assuredly would have been a good, and quite possibly a very good 3 point shooter if he played today.  But I'm not ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the other Bulls.  Rodman is a terrible shooter.  Pippin and Harper were career 31% and 29% 3 point shooters respectively.  If they had modern techniques maybe the improve that a bit, but I'm doubtful they could even get up to league average (36%).  If you have two good shooters in Jordan/Kukoc, two mediocre shooters in Pippen/Harper and one terrible shooter in Rodman, you have a floor spacing problem in today's NBA. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Jaime L said:

You could have Alexis Bledel playing OJ, I'm never gonna find his story more compelling than MJ's. 

So with this casting choice, is Michael B. Jordan going to be playing the role of Nicole Brown Simpson? Goldman clearly has to be played by Lupita Nyong'o.

A racy, but daring choice I must say.

Bravo.
 

9 hours ago, baxus said:

I think that the biggest testament to Jordan's greatness is that he's the main reason so many other great players don't have the championship ring.

Barkley, Ewing, Malone, Stockton, Miller... Hell, even Hakeem had to wait for Jordan to go on a hiatus to get his rings.

LeBron's greatness is undeniable, but he can't really claim he's done that.

Jordan denied a lot of great players rings, true, but Jordan did also have basically the best team in every Finals he was in. LeBron wasn't even favored in half of his appearances. 

Not saying LeBron is better, but let's not pretend like Jordan carried a bag of beans to championships. He did have a lot of help. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I can accept that Jordan almost assuredly would have been a good, and quite possibly a very good 3 point shooter if he played today.  But I'm not ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the other Bulls.  Rodman is a terrible shooter.  Pippin and Harper were career 31% and 29% 3 point shooters respectively.  If they had modern techniques maybe the improve that a bit, but I'm doubtful they could even get up to league average (36%).  If you have two good shooters in Jordan/Kukoc, two mediocre shooters in Pippen/Harper and one terrible shooter in Rodman, you have a floor spacing problem in today's NBA. 

But you have to account for modern training. I played PG most of my time growing up through HS, and all guards were trained to excel at some of the worst shots you can take by modern standards. We almost never practiced threes. It was all working to get layups and midrange shots, the latter which you don't even need to shoot anymore.

A lot of players from previous eras would look very different today had they come up at the same time, and that's what makes it hard to really compare them. For example, I think most NBA fans think Magic is better than Bird. I have him my top five, while Bird is just outside of it. But without changes, if you dropped them into today's game in their primes, Bird would be a lot better, but that's of course assuming Magic never learned to really shoot. Magic once went 0-33 in a season from three, after all. I doubt he'd shoot like that today.

Also, there's really no way to translate hand checking and the physical nature of the game as it progressed.

[Jaime L]

13 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

No? This is very much hindsight. Its not like you're drafting LeBron / AD / KD consensus number one/two picks. Nor a throw away second round picked that panned out. He fell to Indiana, they traded George Hill to get him. Sequence of events might be more mixed, but he was a targeted pick that eluded other teams. Its not like this is Dallas with Luka Doncic who fell to what? 4? Gave up by Atlanta in favour of Trae Young?

Also, he was average offensively when he was finals MVP and even more so when drafted. 

Duncan and Ginobili you can make a case for luck. Not so for Parker and Kawhi.

It's the very fact that he eluded other teams that is the lucky part. 14 separate teams passed on him. 15 if you count Indiana being willing to trade his potential for the sure thing of George Hill. Not saying there's not a massive skill component in recognizing his raw potential and then maximizing it once you got him, but you can't separate out the luck component either. 

I mean were the Warriors lucky or skilled to end up with an MVP in Steph Curry at #7? It's both, right? They had no control over another team being dumb enough to draft two PGs who weren't Steph Curry ahead of him (cc: @Tywin et al.). 

And if you look back at 2011 mock drafts they all had Kawhi going higher than 15. The Spurs deserve credit for locking in on their guy and making the rare move into the lottery to go and get him but the magic doesn't happen if other teams aren't drafting the Jimmers or Jan Veselys ( @Jaime L) of the world first.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

It's the very fact that he eluded other teams that is the lucky part. 14 separate teams passed on him. 15 if you count Indiana being willing to trade his potential for the sure thing of George Hill. Not saying there's not a massive skill component in recognizing his raw potential and then maximizing it once you got him, but you can't separate out the luck component either. 

I mean were the Warriors lucky or skilled to end up with an MVP in Steph Curry at #7? It's both, right? They had no control over another team being dumb enough to draft two PGs who weren't Steph Curry ahead of him (cc: @Tywin et al.). 

And if you look back at 2011 mock drafts they all had Kawhi going higher than 15. The Spurs deserve credit for locking in on their guy and making the rare move into the lottery to go and get him but the magic doesn't happen if other teams aren't drafting the Jimmers or Jan Veselys ( @Jaime L) of the world first.

You're welcome, basketball. 

[Wilbur]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

But you have to account for modern training. I played PG most of my time growing up through HS, and all guards were trained to excel at some of the worst shots you can take by modern standards. We almost never practiced threes. It was all working to get layups and midrange shots, the latter which you don't even need to shoot anymore.

A lot of players from previous eras would look very different today had they come up at the same time, and that's what makes it hard to really compare them. For example, I think most NBA fans think Magic is better than Bird. I have him my top five, while Bird is just outside of it. But without changes, if you dropped them into today's game in their primes, Bird would be a lot better, but that's of course assuming Magic never learned to really shoot. Magic once went 0-33 in a season from three, after all. I doubt he'd shoot like that today.

Also, there's really no way to translate hand checking and the physical nature of the game as it progressed.

I agree.  The three-point shot was viewed as a bad shot or a gimmick by coaches for decades, and taking a three was either a desperation move or a show-off move by most coaches at almost all levels.  It took the NBA more than three decades and the departure of two generations of coaches to get to the place they are today.

As Twyin et al, says, the shot chart of any high school or college team from 1980 would drive a coach in 2020 insane - the majority of the shots taken outside of the power slot would be the long two.  Watch any NBA game from 1980, and you will be amazed at the number of shots where top players jack up a long two instead of taking a half-step back for the three.  This includes Larry Bird, who constantly took what today we call "the worst shot in basketball", that shot within two feet of the three-point line.  He COULD shoot the three - he shot close to 38% from three as a pro - but his coaches weren't interested in those passed up threes.

Neither Magic nor Bird had classic shooting form, but Bird had a consistent motion, while Johnson's outside shooting action was all over the place.  A coach today would definitely have focused on their outside shooting.  Same thing with Pippen, Harper, etc. - modern coaches would have them working on the three rather than ignoring it.

If you enjoy laughing at outside shooting form, pick any game featuring Chris Ford and enjoy listening to the announcers marvel at someone taking a three and watch his motion:  

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Watching five minutes of that, you can see so many open and easy 3's.

It was simply a different game.

[Wilbur]

And listening to the color announcers, you would have thought that shooting open threes was only slightly more appropriate than smoking the reefer in church.