bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

The modern NBA is the most efficient way to play under the current rules. It's not like there's been some collusion against traditional post players. It's just not as efficient of a way to score.

There are people paid millions of dollars to figure this out. Complaining about it is big-time "old man yells at cloud" energy.

---

And yet, the team that just won the title has the best, most efficient post scorer in the entire NBA.

Analytics are great, but they have limitations. And there are a minimum of 20 teams in the NBA currently relying way too heavily on the 3-point shot. If that style of play were so efficient, we wouldn't have 10 godawful teams in the league every year and 10 others that are thoroughly mediocre playing that way.

I'm not going to listen to the Detroit Pistons or San Antonio Spurs tell me that traditional post play is outdated while winning 17 and 22 games. Nor do I want to hear from the 10 teams that are hovering around .500 all year about how great their style of play is.

I've seen enough elite NBA teams over the past 30 years to know there is more than one way to build a championship roster. This current philosophy and the steadfast defense by those who champion it is the definition of hubris.

---

Or, it's the style of play that best fits the current rule book.

Look, the NBA could incentivize the return of low post play. Reinstate hand checking as a form of legal defense, allow zone defense where a big defender can freely roam the paint, any number of other changes.

The fact of the matter is that they don't need to make sweeping rule changes like baseball did, because the product has not declined meaningfully - particularly not commercially. The NBA is more valuable and popular now than at any point in its history.

If you disagree, great. I look forward to your career as an NBA GM or president of basketball ops. And surely you're not intending to compare Nikola Jokic to Patrick Ewing, or Kofi effing Cockburn, or Drew Timme. The former played nothing like Jokic, and the latter two couldn't even hold his jock.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

The modern NBA is the most efficient way to play under the current rules. It's not like there's been some collusion against traditional post players. It's just not as efficient of a way to score.

There are people paid millions of dollars to figure this out. Complaining about it is big-time "old man yells at cloud" energy.

---

And yet, the team that just won the title has the best, most efficient post scorer in the entire NBA.

Analytics are great, but they have limitations. And there are a minimum of 20 teams in the NBA currently relying way too heavily on the 3-point shot. If that style of play were so efficient, we wouldn't have 10 godawful teams in the league every year and 10 others that are thoroughly mediocre playing that way.

I'm not going to listen to the Detroit Pistons or San Antonio Spurs tell me that traditional post play is outdated while winning 17 and 22 games. Nor do I want to hear from the 10 teams that are hovering around .500 all year about how great their style of play is.

I've seen enough elite NBA teams over the past 30 years to know there is more than one way to build a championship roster. This current philosophy and the steadfast defense by those who champion it is the definition of hubris.

---

Or, it's the style of play that best fits the current rule book.

Look, the NBA could incentivize the return of low post play. Reinstate hand checking as a form of legal defense, allow zone defense where a big defender can freely roam the paint, any number of other changes.

The fact of the matter is that they don't need to make sweeping rule changes like baseball did, because the product has not declined meaningfully - particularly not commercially. The NBA is more valuable and popular now than at any point in its history.

If you disagree, great. I look forward to your career as an NBA GM or president of basketball ops. And surely you're not intending to compare Nikola Jokic to Patrick Ewing, or Kofi effing Cockburn, or Drew Timme. The former played nothing like Jokic, and the latter two couldn't even hold his jock.

---

The vast majority of NBA GMs and presidents of basketball ops are abject failures, but that's a fine appeal to authority fallacy.

I'm just a basketball fan who will continue to vote with his eyeballs. This was the first year ever that I didn't watch a single NBA game, and I didn't miss it at all. I just don't enjoy the current product. If you do, good for you.

And I wasn't comparing Nikola Jokic to anyone directly. Just merely illustrating that efficient post scoring still has a ton of value, despite what fans of the current five-out game would suggest.

Tim Duncan was highly skilled shooting from mid range. He would have easily expanded his game out to 3 point range in the modern game. Would have been an elite perimeter shooter. Think Karl Anthony Towns.

Joker is really like a point center who can also shoot 3s, the farthest thing from a traditional center only capable of scoring in the paint.

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

The modern NBA is the most efficient way to play under the current rules. It's not like there's been some collusion against traditional post players. It's just not as efficient of a way to score.

There are people paid millions of dollars to figure this out. Complaining about it is big-time "old man yells at cloud" energy.

---

And yet, the team that just won the title has the best, most efficient post scorer in the entire NBA.

Analytics are great, but they have limitations. And there are a minimum of 20 teams in the NBA currently relying way too heavily on the 3-point shot. If that style of play were so efficient, we wouldn't have 10 godawful teams in the league every year and 10 others that are thoroughly mediocre playing that way.

I'm not going to listen to the Detroit Pistons or San Antonio Spurs tell me that traditional post play is outdated while winning 17 and 22 games. Nor do I want to hear from the 10 teams that are hovering around .500 all year about how great their style of play is.

I've seen enough elite NBA teams over the past 30 years to know there is more than one way to build a championship roster. This current philosophy and the steadfast defense by those who champion it is the definition of hubris.

---

Or, it's the style of play that best fits the current rule book.

Look, the NBA could incentivize the return of low post play. Reinstate hand checking as a form of legal defense, allow zone defense where a big defender can freely roam the paint, any number of other changes.

The fact of the matter is that they don't need to make sweeping rule changes like baseball did, because the product has not declined meaningfully - particularly not commercially. The NBA is more valuable and popular now than at any point in its history.

If you disagree, great. I look forward to your career as an NBA GM or president of basketball ops. And surely you're not intending to compare Nikola Jokic to Patrick Ewing, or Kofi effing Cockburn, or Drew Timme. The former played nothing like Jokic, and the latter two couldn't even hold his jock.

---

The vast majority of NBA GMs and presidents of basketball ops are abject failures, but that's a fine appeal to authority fallacy.

I'm just a basketball fan who will continue to vote with his eyeballs. This was the first year ever that I didn't watch a single NBA game, and I didn't miss it at all. I just don't enjoy the current product. If you do, good for you.

And I wasn't comparing Nikola Jokic to anyone directly. Just merely illustrating that efficient post scoring still has a ton of value, despite what fans of the current five-out game would suggest.

---

Man, the only thing more predictable than you wholesale rushing to Joey McGuire's defense any time his name is even whispered around these parts is you invoking the "appeal to authority fallacy" line. That's not what this is at all. This is a clear evolution of the game away from lumbering bigs, and towards skilled, three-level scorers. You don't like it, and that's fine, but you're raging against inevitable progress, not standing up for some vestiges of a beautiful game now lost.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Tim Duncan was highly skilled shooting from mid range. He would have easily expanded his game out to 3 point range in the modern game. Would have been an elite perimeter shooter. Think Karl Anthony Towns.

Joker is really like a point center who can also shoot 3s, the farthest thing from a traditional center only capable of scoring in the paint.

---

Tim Duncan was a 17 percent 3-point shooter for his career. It's a massive assumption that his mid-range prowess would have translated to a passable 3-point shot by necessity.

And no one said that Jokic is only a post scorer. But he is statistically the most efficient post scorer in the game, and he does the vast majority of his scoring from inside the paint.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

The modern NBA is the most efficient way to play under the current rules. It's not like there's been some collusion against traditional post players. It's just not as efficient of a way to score.

There are people paid millions of dollars to figure this out. Complaining about it is big-time "old man yells at cloud" energy.

---

And yet, the team that just won the title has the best, most efficient post scorer in the entire NBA.

Analytics are great, but they have limitations. And there are a minimum of 20 teams in the NBA currently relying way too heavily on the 3-point shot. If that style of play were so efficient, we wouldn't have 10 godawful teams in the league every year and 10 others that are thoroughly mediocre playing that way.

I'm not going to listen to the Detroit Pistons or San Antonio Spurs tell me that traditional post play is outdated while winning 17 and 22 games. Nor do I want to hear from the 10 teams that are hovering around .500 all year about how great their style of play is.

I've seen enough elite NBA teams over the past 30 years to know there is more than one way to build a championship roster. This current philosophy and the steadfast defense by those who champion it is the definition of hubris.

---

Or, it's the style of play that best fits the current rule book.

Look, the NBA could incentivize the return of low post play. Reinstate hand checking as a form of legal defense, allow zone defense where a big defender can freely roam the paint, any number of other changes.

The fact of the matter is that they don't need to make sweeping rule changes like baseball did, because the product has not declined meaningfully - particularly not commercially. The NBA is more valuable and popular now than at any point in its history.

If you disagree, great. I look forward to your career as an NBA GM or president of basketball ops. And surely you're not intending to compare Nikola Jokic to Patrick Ewing, or Kofi effing Cockburn, or Drew Timme. The former played nothing like Jokic, and the latter two couldn't even hold his jock.

---

The vast majority of NBA GMs and presidents of basketball ops are abject failures, but that's a fine appeal to authority fallacy.

I'm just a basketball fan who will continue to vote with his eyeballs. This was the first year ever that I didn't watch a single NBA game, and I didn't miss it at all. I just don't enjoy the current product. If you do, good for you.

And I wasn't comparing Nikola Jokic to anyone directly. Just merely illustrating that efficient post scoring still has a ton of value, despite what fans of the current five-out game would suggest.

---

Man, the only thing more predictable than you wholesale rushing to Joey McGuire's defense any time his name is even whispered around these parts is you invoking the "appeal to authority fallacy" line. That's not what this is at all. This is a clear evolution of the game away from lumbering bigs, and towards skilled, three-level scorers. You don't like it, and that's fine, but you're raging against inevitable progress, not standing up for some vestiges of a beautiful game now lost.

---

Not all change is progress. And once these teams realize that these 7-foot stick men, while certainly skilled, aren't actually elite players, you'll start to see the pendulum swing back toward skilled post scoring.

I'm not anti-progress at all. But I am very much against the hubris of the spreadsheet analytics community, which are doing to basketball what they did to baseball -- creating a less entertaining product in the name of questionable statistical analysis.

For every championship team built on a "positionless" paradigm, there are more than a dozen chucking 3s at poor percentages and playing objectively bad basketball. To suggest that is the only way to win is absurd and flies in the face of decades of evidence to the contrary.

TD only attempted a small handful of 3s each season. That 3pt % is misleading and says very little about his skill level and potential to adapt to the modern game if needed. TD would dominate in any era, as would Jokic.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

TD only attempted a small handful of 3s each season. That 3pt % is misleading and says very little about his skill level and potential to adapt to the modern game if needed. TD would dominate in any era, as would Jokic.

---

I'm not arguing Tim Duncan wouldn't be dominant. I just don't think his skill set would be valued in today's game.

And if you think he would have to develop range to the 3-point line to be a first-round pick, a proposition that is not a given by any stretch of the imagination, you're essentially agreeing with me.

TD is a generational talent who would fit right in with modern bigs like AD, Joker, Embiid, KAT and be a perennial MVP candidate. Great players would dominate in any era.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

TD is a generational talent who would fit right in with modern bigs like AD, Joker, Embiid, KAT and be a perennial MVP candidate. Great players would dominate in any era.

---

Tim Duncan isn't like any of those players skill-set wise. He's much, much closer in build and skill set to the traditional post players who are going undrafted currently.

I think Tim Duncan would be great in the modern NBA. I also think he would be lucky to be drafted in the mid- to late-second round.

I also think guys like Kofi Cockburn, Oscar Tshiebwe and Zach Edey, who would have been top-five picks a generation ago would also be really good NBA players. Unfortunately, they can't even get the opportunity in today's NBA.

Interesting topic and discussion and we can agree to disagree. TD had an elite faceup and midrange game which would be even more developed if he were a modern high school or college player. I have no doubt he would go #1 overall.

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

TD is a generational talent who would fit right in with modern bigs like AD, Joker, Embiid, KAT and be a perennial MVP candidate. Great players would dominate in any era.

---

Tim Duncan isn't like any of those players skill-set wise. He's much, much closer in build and skill set to the traditional post players who are going undrafted currently.

I think Tim Duncan would be great in the modern NBA. I also think he would be lucky to be drafted in the mid- to late-second round.

I also think guys like Kofi Cockburn, Oscar Tshiebwe and Zach Edey, who would have been top-five picks a generation ago would also be really good NBA players. Unfortunately, they can't even get the opportunity in today's NBA.

---

We owned Kofi Cockburn and we didn't have a single NBA-level big on that roster (save for maybe pre-injury EJ). If he couldn't do anything against us, any NBA player worth their salt would have abused him as well. Let's not make the guy into something more than he was, which was a good college big man.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

TD is a generational talent who would fit right in with modern bigs like AD, Joker, Embiid, KAT and be a perennial MVP candidate. Great players would dominate in any era.

---

Tim Duncan isn't like any of those players skill-set wise. He's much, much closer in build and skill set to the traditional post players who are going undrafted currently.

I think Tim Duncan would be great in the modern NBA. I also think he would be lucky to be drafted in the mid- to late-second round.

I also think guys like Kofi Cockburn, Oscar Tshiebwe and Zach Edey, who would have been top-five picks a generation ago would also be really good NBA players. Unfortunately, they can't even get the opportunity in today's NBA.

---

We owned Kofi Cockburn and we didn't have a single NBA-level big on that roster (save for maybe pre-injury EJ). If he couldn't do anything against us, any NBA player worth their salt would have abused him as well. Let's not make the guy into something more than he was, which was a good college big man.

---

We didn't own Cockburn. As a sophomore, he got into foul trouble against us and only got to play 18 minutes. He was 3 of 4 from the field that game, finishing with seven points, four rebounds and one block.

It was one of two games in his final two years as a college player where he failed to score in double figures, and he had nine points in the other.

Kofi Cockburn was an awesome college player and would have made a really good pro 20 years ago. Trying to downplay his ability ain't it. That dude was an absolute beast.

If you want to see what a Kofi Cockburn post-up would look like against the baby **** soft bigs in the modern NBA, here's a pretty good clip.

Kofi Cockburn overpowers Chet Holmgren and Kofi hits the hook shot pic.twitter.com/7kRfAJr0lD

— Hoop Informatics 🏀📊🎥 (@HoopInformatics) July 6, 2022

I never watch NBA, seldom watch NFL or MLB. Professional sports just isn't my thing. Give me college sports any day.

The only thing I know for sure is Artis Gilmore had a bad ass Afro.