NBA - Rochambeau Playoffs

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

You're the one who wanted to make it about top players ever.  That list may be wrong - we all have our preferences - but it's not THAT wrong.

They didn't put Howard on the list while keeping guys on it who might not even be D1 college players today. That's how janky it is. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They didn't put Howard on the list

I don't think Howard belongs on the list.  Maybe on the backend I guess.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think Howard belongs on the list.  Maybe on the backend I guess.

Idk, I'd take him over a lot of guys in the 50-75 range.

Kind of surprising Harden was at 50. Peak Harden is close to a top 25 guy in my book. I'd rather have him than Stockton or Malone today (ignoring how both guys off the court are garbage humans). 

[DMC]

Frankly if we're talking about former Magic players left off that list I'd go with McGrady over Howard.  As for Harden, yeah, I think he should be significantly higher.  Not sure I'd take him over Stockton or Malone though, all things considered.  (Albeit, yeah, just talking on court.  Both of them are yeesh.  Can't imagine what that locker room was like.)

[Relic]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

No, they weren't.

Name a better team, then. You can't, because you're wrong. 

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Relic said:

Name a better team, then. You can't, because you're wrong. 

I wouldn't say "better," but I named plenty of teams that are demonstrably on the same level.  If you can't accept you're wrong about that, c'est la vie.

[BigFatCoward]

Stats can say anything, but the teams Jordan went 6-0 in averaged 61 wins, the 6 teams that Lebron lost to averaged 61 wins.  Also Jordan had a lot less help, and didn't go running to his mates like a big baby.  That being said Lebron is a physical masterpiece.  

Any comparison of the past on quality is stupid, the top 250 golfers in the world would wipe the floor with Jack Nicholas in his prime.  You rank based on what was in front of them. 

Anyway, the 2 best teams in the playoffs are playing in the next round (i'm discounting Philly until i know how Embiid's injury is).  Seems a waste.  

[Relic]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I wouldn't say "better," but I named plenty of teams that are demonstrably on the same level.  If you can't accept you're wrong about that, c'est la vie.

ok, well, let's compare. Name one team you would like to use to support your claim?

[baxus]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

You're not that much older than me. I watched a lot of 90's hoops at it sucked compared to today's game.

It most definitely didn't suck. It was much more physical and defending superstars was actually allowed. It was DIFFERENT from today's game but there's definitely a case for it being more enjoyable to watch. Both teams scoring over 130 points in a playoff game was unheard of then and nowadays no one even blinks when seeing that scoreline.

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The quality of talent in the 2000s and beyond is a lot better than the 90s.

Quality of talent is the same - best in the world at their respective moments. Game has changed and evolved, Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing etc. couldn't play in today's game the way they did back then. That doesn't mean their talent was not as good. Jokic and Embiid, the two dominant centres of today would've been dismantled in that era, just as today's shooters would never get as many shots back in the '90s.

Prime Jordan facing defending of today would embarrass the league.

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Stats can say anything, but the teams Jordan went 6-0 in averaged 61 wins, the 6 teams that Lebron lost to averaged 61 wins.  Also Jordan had a lot less help, and didn't go running to his mates like a big baby.  That being said Lebron is a physical masterpiece.  

Let's be honest and say that Jordan also had help on his team. Pippen was great all along but when Rodman joined them later, Bulls were really dominant. And it's not that their opposition was weak, it's that Bulls made them look like that.

On the other hand LeBron, Wade and Bosh never managed to replicate that with Wayde and Bosh, despite all three being top 5 draft picks in their prime. LeBron missed a great opportunity to catch up to Jordan in that period, when it comes to rings won.

Edited April 26, 2023 by baxus

[BigFatCoward]

25 minutes ago, baxus said:

 

Let's be honest and say that Jordan also had help on his team. Pippen was great all along but when Rodman joined them later, Bulls were really dominant. And it's not that their opposition was weak, it's that Bulls made them look like that.

 

Pippen was an all time great, but people forget Rodman was a bit past his best by then.  Not an all star and didn't make the all defensive team (first or second) in 97 or 98.  He was still a rebounding machine, but his performance had dropped off a bit.  

[DanteGabriel]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Shit, they won? HOW?!?!?!?

 

Trae Young took over in a pretty amazing way, including that last killing long-distance 3 that put them ahead for good.

Of course, he was helped along by a rash of unforced turnovers, dumb fouls, poorly selected shots, and a T for Tatum whining at the refs. All very familiar to those of us who have seen multiple of these collapses.

I've never thought of Tatum as a serious MVP contender, and games like this are why. He was abysmal from 3 and looked out of sorts all night. At times like that he often finds ways to contribute, with playmaking, rebounds, or defense, and that's great. But when the Celtics needed just one bucket to stop the bleeding, he couldn't do it. Most of the time lately it seems Brown is way more efficient on offense.

I'm just really pissed they fucked up this chance to finish off the Hawks and gave the Sixers more rest.

Sorry for interrupting another sparkling Jordan-LeBron/basketball eras debate with discussion of an actual game though.

Edited April 26, 2023 by DanteGabriel

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Relic said:

ok, well, let's compare. Name one team you would like to use to support your claim?

See above.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Stats can say anything, but the teams Jordan went 6-0 in averaged 61 wins, the 6 teams that Lebron lost to averaged 61 wins.  Also Jordan had a lot less help, and didn't go running to his mates like a big baby.  

Pippen was seen by many as a top 5 player and Jordan constantly was on his front office to add more and more talent to the team. 

3 hours ago, baxus said:

It most definitely didn't suck. It was much more physical and defending superstars was actually allowed. It was DIFFERENT from today's game but there's definitely a case for it being more enjoyable to watch. Both teams scoring over 130 points in a playoff game was unheard of then and nowadays no one even blinks when seeing that scoreline.

I think people make too much of the defense of yesteryear. Yes the game was more physical, but players also were terrible shooters. Games would go several minutes without any buckets and it was because guys could not hit wide open shots.

Quote

Quality of talent is the same - best in the world at their respective moments. Game has changed and evolved, Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing etc. couldn't play in today's game the way they did back then. That doesn't mean their talent was not as good. Jokic and Embiid, the two dominant centres of today would've been dismantled in that era, just as today's shooters would never get as many shots back in the '90s.

Nah, the talent is not the same at all. If we compared the top 50 players from that era to the top 50 now it would be night and day.

Quote

Prime Jordan facing defending of today would embarrass the league.

It would probably look like Ant teleporting past defenders.

[Relic]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Sorry for interrupting another sparkling Jordan-LeBron/basketball eras debate with discussion of an actual game though.

No debate, really. Don't see the need to compare them. All I'm saying is that LeBron has had a one of a kind career, he's still amazing, and I'm in awe. 

[BigFatCoward]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Pippen was seen by many as a top 5 player and Jordan constantly was on his front office to add more and more talent to the team. 

Nah, the talent is not the same at all. If we compared the top 50 players from that era to the top 50 now it would be night and day.

And, isn't that like the whole point of any sport?  He didn't fuck off to LA to hang with Magic and Worthy though did he?  

As to your second point I've already covered this, its a stupid comparison. It happens in all sports that training/science etc move on. 

There was 1 sub 10 second 100m, in 1990 (mid ish point of Jordan's career), there were 30 last year.  In track cycling the team pursuit world record dropped from 4m10s to 3m42s.  

 

[DanteGabriel]

28 minutes ago, Relic said:

No debate, really. Don't see the need to compare them. All I'm saying is that LeBron has had a one of a kind career, he's still amazing, and I'm in awe. 

Absolutely agree. I just wish he wasn't doing all this for the thrice-damned Lakers.

[DMC]

29 minutes ago, Relic said:

All I'm saying is that LeBron has had a one of a kind career, he's still amazing, and I'm in awe. 

No argument there.  I've been a fan of LeBron since my - and his - sophomore year of high school.  Playing high school basketball at the same time, even if at ludicrously lesser levels, we heard about him probably earlier most reading this.

[Rhom]

The game changed entirely.  So its impossible to compare teams from today against teams from the 90s.

That said, I will take minor issue about one point with the big men... I absolutely believe Hakeem could still play today.  I also believe that 21 year old Shaq who first entered the league could play today.  Now, after he was forced to bulk up because he was being constantly murdered under the basket and consistently had to finish a dunk with a 240 lb power forward hanging from him?  No.  That guy can't get up and down the court with today's game.  But when he entered the league, Shaq was actually really nimble and athletic.

[Relic]

10 minutes ago, Rhom said:

 

That said, I will take minor issue about one point with the big men... I absolutely believe Hakeem could still play today. 

Hakeem might be even better now than he was back then. Add 3 point range and he'd be straight up balling. I like to think Ewing would be great too. 

[Relic]

14 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Absolutely agree. I just wish he wasn't doing all this for the thrice-damned Lakers.

The pain of being a Celtics fan, i guess. I dont mind him playing for the Lakers, since we have zero history with them, really. Actually, kind of thank the Lakers for Riley.