GOAT NBA Discussion: Biggest fraud poster: fallguy. Super AIDS Containment thread
Actually thinking he would be able to score in the NBA after not being able to score in D3 College Ball.
If I was repeatedly fed the ball for clear-outs on the elbow (so NOT five-man basketball - just feeding me every possession), I could score 20 points on 40% true shooting (that's like 30% FG and 75% FT)...... EASILY.... And probably 75% of D1 players could - that's how easy the format is .. Anyone with remotely viable skills can get shots off AND get to the line ... I was a 74% FT shooter.
75% of D1 players could score that much in the NBA, that's why only c. 80 out of 5k+ even make it to the NBA out of any given class for any length of time
International competition is tougher now than it was in the 90s.Players today have 30+ years of incremental knowledge and scienceNobody is saying if Barkley was born in 2000 he wouldn't be an NBA player today, but if the Barkley of the 90s was dropped in to today's game he would be, at best, a middle of the pack player.Jordan's defenders may be shorter but they'd also be MUCH b
Quite simply, you're fabricating the idea that today's defenses are tougher because every player, coach and media (even Rich Paul) says today's format would allow MJ to average 40 for several seasons.
Silver removed hand-checking and impeding, while emptying the paint with defensive 3 (see Luka's comments previously itt)... And of course having teammates shoot 30 threes per game (spacing) would further open up the game for MJ ..
It's literally a joke and the only question is whether MJ would average 50.
Btw, you simply don't realize that there have been more "next barkleys" then "next MJs"... Barkley was a unique talent that isn't matched by anyone in today's game... He was capable of averaging 30 ppg in the paint against Shaq, Hakeem and company, so why would he be ordinary with an open paint, tiny frontcourts, and vastly inferior bigs of today's game?.. Makes no sense.
75% of D1 players could score that much in the NBA, that's why only c. 80 out of 5k+ even make it to the NBA out of any given class for any length of time
20 points on 40% TS (in just 1 game) while being repeatedly fed ISN'T good.
It's horrible and couldn't sniff making a single NBA team... M
And maybe I could average 13 ppg on 40% TS if I was repeatedly fed every game, and obviously the team would always lose... Again, this caliber doesn't sniff even a tryout for any teams.
I'm just pointing out that today's format allows anyone to go 1-on-1 with help defenders far away and an empty paint.. This 1-on-1 ability thrives in the NBA beginner format, but it struggles internationally where the rules are tougher and don't allow as much space
If I was repeatedly fed the ball for clear-outs on the elbow (so NOT five-man basketball - just feeding me every possession), I could score 20 points on 40% true shooting (that's like 30% FG and 75% FT)...... EASILY.... And probably 75% of D1 players could - that's how easy the format is .. Anyone with remotely viable skills can get shots off AND get to the line ... I was a 74%
I was an 80% free throw shooter. I would be murdered in the NBA even if the defender had one hand tied behind his back.
Pat Spenser would lock you up. Defenders have never been better. Being tall and standing in the paint is not good defense.
People don't even think MJ is the the best pure scorer
wingspan and standing reach factor into defense more than pure height also. but fallguy would never grasp that basketball nuance.
I was an 80% free throw shooter. I would be murdered in the NBA even if the defender had one hand tied behind his back.
Pat Spenser would lock you up. Defenders have never been better. Being tall and standing in the paint is not good defense.
You don't understand how 1-on-1 works, most likely because you had no moves and never played above a pee-wee level.. You were one of those guys that liked to say "I'm a good defender", aka "I cannot score"
The reality about 1-on-1 is that a really good junior higher could legitimately score on various NBA players if they were to play 1-on-1... The junior higher would lose 11-3 or something, but they would hit a few contested shots along the way.. That's how 1-on-1 works.
Obviously, if you took prime Kawhi Leonard or something and got him to play like it's life or death, he could obviously get 11 straight stops against a good junior higher... But what about Luka Walton??... And what about when Luke isn't playing like life or death??? (just regular - like regular season defense)... And what about Luka, Curry, Kyle Anderson and many more?
See, you don't know what you're talking about... Look at John Rogers busting 40-year MJ three times in a row - that's how 1-on-1 works... Obviously, prime MJ shuts down Rogers, but what about BJ Armstrong or Kerr?.. I think Jon could score 20 points on 40 TS against them, don't you?.. Again, the game would have to be "rigged" to just feed Rogers the ball.
And regarding myself, I've scored on tons of NBA guys, and even dunked on a couple... I played Luke Walton and Richard Jefferson in 2 on 2 during the summer that Richard got drafted... It was me and Luke's brother (Chris) versus Luke and Richard - they won 9 of 11 games and all were competitive... I dunked with 2 hands over Luke on the baseline off a pass from Chris... I carried us because Chris actually stunk - I scored nearly all of our points.. At one point, Luke got on Richard because I was hot and busting his a**.. I've also dunked on 2 McDonald's All-Americans - Evan Burns and Zach Randolph.... In Zach's case, he was just a 6'7" sophomore in HS at the time but a big up-and-comer - we played 1-on-1 a bunch when I was back from college during Thanksgiving break - at one point, I dunked on him 4 times in a row... On the last dunk, my rib literally collided with his rib... It's wild, but I can honestly say that Zach cut his teeth on me!! (among others).
I also have endless stories from playing with Raja Bell and Carlos Arroyo... I still laugh every time I think about Raj making All-NBA defense - again, BS media awards.... Then I scratch my beard when I hear Kobe say "I appreciate Raja's competitive fire, but I could do anything I wanted with him".. I think "Pfff.. of course ".. I can go on and on.. I played against most NBA players from Miami in the late 90's, aka Udonis Haslem, James Jones, John Salmons, etc.. I also played with Anthony Parker at Bradley.. I can go on forever but that'll have to do for now
People don't even think MJ is the the best pure scorer
None of the media or fans know what pure scoring is, let alone ranking them.. It's a the biggest joke ever..
Pure scoring is something that only a player can understand, and certainly not the media or couch bums that never played.
The reality is that 3-point shooting is mostly OPEN, while also being more PREDICTABLE, so it lacks the pure aspect.. KD takes one neat jumper after another with his baby hands, and therefore lacks the real scoring touch and ad-hoc, off-the-cuff instinct of the top pure scorers.. He's so tall that he doesn't need contested shot-making ability, and that's why he often struggles in physical playoff matchups or 90's style basketball.. They don't let you take a bunch of neat open jumpers, so Durant's lack of pure scoring gets exposed.
Pure scoring has more to do with contested shot-making, which requires things like scoring touch (shown in the 2 gifs above), great scoring instinct upon the catch, diversity, trickiness, and also physicality.
Ultimately, people don't understand how great Jordan's scoring instinct was upon the catch, or how great his moves were .. Scoring in the mid-range isn't just about shooting efficiency, it's about moves and maneuverability amongst defenders, and also instinct and touch - that's what 2-point scoring is all about, so no one is anywhere near Jordan at pure scoring ability... Jordan's instinct and scoring touch was unmatched (shown above).
People don't even think MJ is the the best pure scorer
Jordan's first scoring title was in 87', and his last one was in 98'.
do you realize how insane that is?.. Scoring titles from 87' through 98'???
And it's not like he played 40 years before Durant - it was barely a 10-year gap between 1998 and Durant's rookie year, so Durant faced some of the same players like KG, Duncan, Kidd and Kobe... The only difference was Durant enjoyed easier rules like a hand-check ban and defensive 3.
wingspan and standing reach factor into defense more than pure height also. but fallguy would never grasp that basketball nuance.
Wingspan and standing reach are strongly correlated with height.
Since previous eras were taller, we can be assured that they were longer too
This is basic stuff
I was just pointing up the uncanny nature of the stat: 23 straight years with 1000 points. There's been nothing remotely close to that, has there?
Anyway, it doesn't define my GOAT list, which always in the works, goes something like:
Alcindor/Kareem (because college counts)
Chamberlain (because 50 pts. per game, playing virtually every minute career, and the two GOAT teams up to that time counts)
Jordan
LeBron
Magic/Bird/Olajuwon/Duncan/Karl Malone, Durant and Curry knocking on door?
Evolution in Scouting: Recent studies indicate that a long wingspan relative to height (a high ratio) is a better predictor of elite NBA success than height alone, as noted on the University of California....
Evolution in Scouting: Recent studies indicate that a long wingspan relative to height (a high ratio) is a better predictor of elite NBA success than height alone, as noted on the University of California....
So the shorter the better - got it... So kindergarteners have the best potential.. Got it
That's absurd of course.. More dumbness from today's weak era.
Regardless, no one was longer at 6'6" than someone like Jordan, or the guys at 6'7" (McKey, Pippen, tons of guys), and so forth.
Again, 4 of 5 positions in today's game are the shortest they've ever been.. This means that we have a bunch of soft, non-caring, load- managing midgets in today's NBA with zero rim protection, toughness or physicality compared to prior eras.. "Impeding", aka defending is literally banned in the rulebook, in addition to the midgets.
Ultimately, all starting SG's today are 6'3" to 6'5", but they were 6'6" or 6'7" in the 90's, so Jordan's defenders would be a full 2-4 inches shorter today.
Instead of being mean to little people, have you ever been nice to one?
They might actually lead you to the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
Instead of being mean to little people, have you ever been nice to one?
They might actually lead you to the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
My advice for you is to follow a sport that you understand, instead of a sport that requires an almanac and TV hacks to provide every thought you have about the game.. The latter has resulted in a thorough trouncing for 1k pages and a complete exposure of a so-called great's caliber and career
Reaves is no longer a 40 and 50-point threat, aka All-NBA or top 10 caliber
Only Luka is
Clearly, the Lakers are better with 2 fifty-point threats and top 10 guys, versus drastically lowering team ceiling by propping up an old guy (so gullibles can keep complimenting him)
The Lakers' trajectory and potential is entirely different with Lebron (barely a 3 seed) than without (Luka/Reaves dynasty).
Suddenly Luka and Reaves is a guaranteed dynasty, when neither have ever won before and Luka couldn't win with Kyrie?
Suddenly Luka and Reaves is a guaranteed dynasty, when neither have ever won before and Luka couldn't win with Kyrie?
Luka got to the finals thats pretty good.
This thread is pretty ridiculous. Fallyguy liking Jordan so somehow Lebron sucks.
And some of you saying just because this guy didn't win and that guy didn't win they aren't
that great.
All the guys you guys talk about are great. There's no debating that. You can debate whos better
amongst the greats. But to say Lebron, SGA, Luka aren't great players is absurd.
I'm sort of feeling a Boston vs San Antonio Finals. Boston is the easy pick imop.
But picking against OKC is tough. Maybe Wemby is there kyrptonite.
Fallguy saying LeBron isn't an all time great, and ranking him outside the top 10, is the only thing that applies to any of what you said.
Everyone else is being reasonable.
Fallguy saying LeBron isn't an all time great, and ranking him outside the top 10, is the only thing that applies to any of what you said.
Everyone else is being reasonable.
I really want that pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Is that unreasonable?
.
.
Prior to Wade:
2004 - lottery
2005 - lottery
2006 - 2nd Rd
2007 - worst-ever performance (22 on 35% with 6 TO's)*
2008 - worst-ever performance (26 on 35% with 5 TO's)*
2009 - historically upset (-700 favorite)
2010 - goat meltdown (-500 favorite)
* no one ever shot 35% and 6 TO's in a series except Lebron (aka historically locked up)
^^^ Perennial trainwreck (prior to Wade)
Suddenly Luka and Reaves is a guaranteed dynasty, when neither have ever won before and Luka couldn't win with Kyrie?
Luka didn't have a 3rd superstar like Lebron did or a preseason favorite, and Luka's opponent didn't get suspended or injured either.
Everyone knows how lucky the 16' ring was, which is why all the Cavs were crying afterwards.. They weren't beating their chest like a true champion, aka "we're the best"... Instead, they were like "omg I can't believe that happened (as tears streamed down)"..
The luck required to win the 13' and 16' rings is further evidence of Lebron being a fraud, since he's a couple bounces away from being a 2 for 10 bum and laughing stock.. To smart people, he already is.
Suddenly Luka and Reaves is a guaranteed dynasty, when neither have ever won before and Luka couldn't win with Kyrie?
Guys like Kyrie, Love, Bosh and Luka sacrificed their primes for Bron-ball, so that's why they didn't win without Lebron - the league was rigged FOR LEBRON, not Love, Bosh and company, lol...
And the same argument works against Lebron, since Lebron was a perennial trainwreck in the playoffs (above) until Wade showed him how to win.. Meanwhile, AD and Hughes taught Lebron how to make the playoffs in the West and East, respectively - he was lottery in each conference before joining playoff veterans.
No, the point is that primary ballhandling is a custodial position - it isn't THAT important to be a custodian of the ball, aka any decent ballhandler and role player can bring the ball up.
Accordingly, it isn't surprising that turning this custodial function into a high-scoring one (ball-dominance) proves suboptimal - it requires more to win and wins less.
Specifically, high-scoring primary ball-handlers (ball-dominators) score mostly on their own and unassisted by teammates, which leaves teammates standing in spot-up roles (more assisted buckets).. These spot-up roles crater teammates' assists, thus producing low assist teams over time.. This is all statistical fact.
Ultimately, the skillset of turning everyone into spot-up shooter produces weaker chemistry and brand of ball, which is why primary ballhandlers never produced the best basketball as the 1st option (dynasty or dominant title run).
Specifically, in the play-by-play era, there have been 4 dynasties (3 chips in 5 years) and 8 dominant title runs where the team averages 1 loss per round (4 losses max)... These 12 instances of the best basketball never had a primary ballhandler as the 1st option (0 for 12) - it turns out that having high volume of unassisted buckets that impose spot-up roles isn't good basketball... Accordingly, bigs or jumpshooters were the 1st option for the best basketball 12 of 12 times.
Since primary ballhandlers can't produce the best basketball as 1st option, they can't be in the top 10, which means the top 10 is a subjective mix of the best bigs and jumpshooters (superior skillsets).. i.e. MJ, Kobe, Curry, Bird, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Duncan, Shaq, Jokic.
Essentially, when the 1st option has a high volume of scoring on their own/unassisted buckets, aka "ball-dominance", the best basketball isn't possible (dynasties or dominant title runs).. It's simply suboptimal to have a primary ballhandler as 1st option, which is why they can't be in the top 10 all-time.
Btw, we know that previous eras produced better chemistry and teams because players fit together, aka PF's fit with PG's, whereas today's game has redundant, ball-dominant skillsets, aka "position-less" basketball, which really means "the worst fits ever and therefore the most underperforming rosters ever"... This underperformance includes our rosters of 12 All-NBA'ers routinely squeaking by 1-man teams in international competition, or even losing.. This contrasts with the 5 positions of prior eras that FIT TOGETHER, thereby producing optimal chemistry and maximum win margins.. Previous eras were simply better at basketball.
.
.
From Backpicks:
People don't even think MJ is the the best pure scorer
I went ahead and read the article.
It analyzes a player's pace-adjusted scoring rate while also looking at their efficiency compared to league average.
However, it also includes a low FT rate as a BAD indication of pure scoring, which is entirely wrong.. Drawing FT's is part of being a tricky and crafty scorer, which are aspects of pure scoring ability.. Unfortunately, the media can't differentiate between abusing the rules and being a skilled foul-getter.. Essentially, by saying that drawing fouls isn't pure scoring, then you're saying that various fundamentals aren't pure scoring, such as the head fake - aka faking a guy out of his shoes isn't pure scoring - this is obviously wrong.
Since they're obviously wrong about FT rate, lets focus on the other 2 factors that define pure scoring, according to them: 1) pace-adjusted scoring rate and 2) relative efficiency to the league (rTS).
Based on these metrics (scoring rate and relative efficiency), Jordan is the most "pure" scorer ever... BY FAR.
According to Backpicks (shown above), there have only been 11 seasons where someone averaged 30 points per 75 possessions while also having 6 points above league average TS... Jordan has 4 of them, while Curry, Lebron, Durant and Shaq have 1 each (Malone has 2).
Furthermore, out of the top 20 all-time leaders for possessons used (usage), Jordan has the highest efficiency per possession (ortg)... Jordan is the ONLY player to win titles as the league leader in usage (5 times) - let that sink in.. Essentially, MJ is the only player that could use the most possessions in the league and still win (titles)... It's like being the biggest lag in poker (playing the most hands) and STILL having the highest win rate/winning the title... And this is done when no one has ever done it before - and it's done 5 times.
