2018 NBA offseason thread

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,474
Probably doesn’t need to be mentioned, but we’re also evaluating guys who didn’t have the luxury of growing up in today’s environment. Big men valued a completely different skill set back then. Sure, Walton’s knees would have made an outside game more difficult, but it’s not like he’s be the only one facing that challenge.
Walton's problem wasn't his knees, it was his feet.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
1,829
He's hard to comp but probably a hybrid of Love, Embiid and Marc Gasol.
Walton is surely hard to comp. Great defender, strong rebounder at both ends whose big frame and reach seemingly covered a good part of the entire backboard when he sprung for a rebound, amazing at outletting the ball to start the fast break, preternatural passer in the halfcourt, solid mid-range shooter, great finisher. Incredibly smart player, whose team filtered both the offense and defense through him. Fiery competitor, something a lot of giants of that era weren't.

Arvydas Sabonis was somewhat of a comp, even in career arc, first as a do it all young big, and then in the NBA as a plodding center. basketball savant.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
9,799
Is there a difference between Bynum and Greg Oden at this point? Oden would at least be a good teammate.

Has there been a trade for a superstar that has turned out to be as bad for all teams involved as the Howard to LA deal?
Oden would be incredibly bad PR.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
440
48
Brooklyn by way of Orono
Walton in today's pick and roll sets would destroy defenses with his passing. He's valuable in any age because he could do so many different things at an elite level.
Yes, absolutely he would bring value in today's game. I don't think he would have shied away from developing a three point shot either.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,474
Sports Illustrated top100 (100-30)
Rozier comes in at #82, not bad.
Brown #47
Tatum #39
I haven't seen the top 30 yet, but there are quite a few guys in the 31-38 range that no rational person's taking over Tatum. Even in terms of 2019 production.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
5,340
51
NYC
Isn't Walton a better defending Jokic?
I'm not quite old enough to remember prime pre-injury Walton, but IIRC the '86 version had nothing resembling the Joker's shooting, scoring, ballhandling, or passing skills. (Walton was the better rebounder and post defender, though).

Jokic's a Top 5-10 NBA player next season, imho — closer to the current late-career, defensively-challenged LeBron James than he is to '86 Walton.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,322
I'm a bit too young to remember prime pre-injury Walton, but IIRC the '86 version had nothing resembling the Joker's shooting, scoring, ballhandling, or passing skills. (Walton was the better rebounder and post defender, though).

Jokic's a Top 5-10 NBA player next season, imho — closer to the current late-career, defensively-challenged LeBron James than he is to '86 Walton.
Check this article out: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/the-52/sdut-bill-walton-ncaa-championship-memphis-state-2016sep16-story.html.

Walton could score when he was younger but his best attribute was court vision and passing. I mean he took a team consisting of Maurice Lucas; Bob Gross; Lionel Hollins; Johnny Davis; Lloyd Neal; Dave Twardzik; Herm Gilliam; Corky Calhoun (yes real name); Larry Steele; Wally Walker; and Robin Jones to the NBA Championship.

Ever hear of any of them except Lucas and Hollins?

BTW, as good as Jokic might be I just used him as a comp. He's nowhere near as good as the 1970s Walton when he wasn't injured.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
5,340
51
NYC
He's nowhere near as good as the 1970s Walton when he wasn't injured.
Oh, no doubt; I was talking exclusively about the '86 version.

As far as the peak '70s version: Just glancing at the stats (assist rate, scoring rate, scoring efficiency, e.g.), I think I could still argue that Jokic is the marginally better offensive player of the two, but of course peak Walton was an absolute historic monster on D and on the glass; and in terms of impact on wins those things are typically more important for a big man than offense (Bill Russell, Ben Wallace, et al. say hi).
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,695
50
around the way
Jokic is far far better than 86 version of Walton.
Without question. However, Walton's passing was still ridiculous then. As good as Jokic is at passing, Walton was a treasure, albeit in far fewer minutes.

Old Walton's role in 86 was to not give up leads when chief sat. The scoring and circus passes were gravy.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,474
Again, besides the bigger part, it is certainly debatable.
Green is a superior passer, a more versatile defender, and 4 years younger
Horford sets better screens, shoots the three better, and isn't a complete tool.
The Dre Green of a couple of years ago is gone. He seems to be saving himself for a contract year push. So, yeah, Horford is better these days.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,843
Lisbon, PT
Walton could definitely find a role; if Andrew Bogut could be playing recently, 86 Walton could find a limited role. An expert passing big man with a great IQ that can rebound and block some shots is still valuable.
Take away the "block some shots" (admittedly extremely important), and you just described Greg Monroe.

It's pretty bleak out there for trad centers.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,113
44
Saint Paul, MN
No one who saw both Walton and Monroe play would ever write such a thing.
If all you saw was the hobbled 1987 version of Walton, one certainly could. It wouldn't matter how good of a passer or interior defender Walton was. In today's game, he would get absolutely toasted on switches and would be useless defending on the perimeter (just as Monroe is). His lack of outside shooting would be highly problematic for floor spacing (just like Monroe).
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
15,739
68
where I was last at
Bill Walton without injuries was a brilliant low-post center, offense and defense and he was a great passer. Bad wheels was the only reason which prevented him from climbing NBA's Mt Rushmore and taking his place with the all-time NBA centers.

He was Russell, Chamberlain, Kareem great, but he had it in one package.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,474
Walton could operate out of the high post, too. Like Garnett he was a legitimately great mid range shooter. And he was certainly very mobile for the size. Yes, by 1987 he was Greg Monroe slow, but that's not really the guy those of us that watched him play are talking about.
 

Bunt4aTriple

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,815
41
North Yarmouth, ME
SI dropped their Top 10. Pretty much as expected (though Embiid and Westy in particular strike me as too high).

1. LeBron
2. KD
3. Curry
4. Harden
5. AD
6. Giannis
7. Westbrook
8. CP3
9. Embiid
10. Butler

https://www.si.com/nba/2018/09/10/top-100-nba-players-2019-lebron-james-stephen-curry-dirk-nowitzki

I'd go more like...

1. LeBron
2. Curry
3. KD
4. Kawhi
5. Harden
6. AD
7. CP3
8. Giannis
9. Draymond
10. Butler
I admire your restraint in not replacing Butler with Klay!
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,037
SI dropped their Top 10. Pretty much as expected (though Embiid and Westy in particular strike me as too high).

1. LeBron
2. KD
3. Curry
4. Harden
5. AD
6. Giannis
7. Westbrook
8. CP3
9. Embiid
10. Butler

https://www.si.com/nba/2018/09/10/top-100-nba-players-2019-lebron-james-stephen-curry-dirk-nowitzki

I'd go more like...

1. LeBron
2. Curry
3. KD
4. Kawhi
5. Harden
6. AD
7. CP3
8. Giannis
9. Draymond
10. Butler
Breaking news: Sam Ray Not thinks Russell Westbrook is overrated :)
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
9,799
Westbrook is overrated. Jimmy Butler at 10 seems really high too. Embiid as well and I can understand leaving Kawhi out of the top 10. He has to prove he's there again.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,843
Lisbon, PT
Walton could operate out of the high post, too. Like Garnett he was a legitimately great mid range shooter. And he was certainly very mobile for the size. Yes, by 1987 he was Greg Monroe slow, but that's not really the guy those of us that watched him play are talking about.
Seemed like we were talking about the 1986 and onward version, in which case I stand by the comp. People forget Monroe got paid $80M not long ago, and it was considered a win for the Bucks.

Obviously younger Walton would be a total star in any version of the league.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,474
Boston overused Walton in '87, which is part of the reason he broke down then. Also, Monroe signed that deal before the worm turned on old fashioned centers.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
9,475
There is also a difference between Monroe, a good passing center, and Walton, one of the greatest passers of all time.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,590
Oh, no doubt; I was talking exclusively about the '86 version.

As far as the peak '70s version: Just glancing at the stats (assist rate, scoring rate, scoring efficiency, e.g.), I think I could still argue that Jokic is the marginally better offensive player of the two, but of course peak Walton was an absolute historic monster on D and on the glass; and in terms of impact on wins those things are typically more important for a big man than offense (Bill Russell, Ben Wallace, et al. say hi).
Walton in 1986 was a better defender and passer than Jokic is today. Jokic was a vastly better shooter, and his ability to play 30+ minutes makes him a much better player. But you are misremembering Walton's passing ability (or overestimating Jokic's) if you think he's a signficiant better passer than Walton. The 1986 Celtics probably had the two best passing big men in history on the same roster...and there's plenty of highlights out there showing what that looks like.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,590
Boston overused Walton in '87, which is part of the reason he broke down then. Also, Monroe signed that deal before the worm turned on old fashioned centers.
Walton played a total of 112 minutes in 1987, the problem wasn't overuse...he was just broken by then. Did you mean overused him in 1986? By Walton's standards, 19 minutes a game for 80 games sadly was indeed overuse.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,474
Yeah, sorry, the vagaries of a soon-to-be-senior citizen typing on his small phone (because he despises phablets, they’re phucking phugly). I should really just not forum unless I’m using my tablet.

In ‘87 it was McHale that Bosto rode into the ground. That Bias death killed them in oh so many ways. Not the least of which was their inability to let McHale get the foot taken care of without sacrificing their record.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,590
Yeah, sorry, the vagaries of a soon-to-be-senior citizen typing on his small phone (because he despises phablets, they’re phucking phugly). I should really just not forum unless I’m using my tablet.

In ‘87 it was McHale that Bosto rode into the ground. That Bias death killed them in oh so many ways. Not the least of which was their inability to let McHale get the foot taken care of without sacrificing their record.
Totally agree there, sadly.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
2,731
35
Imaginationland
Visit site
Walton was really good, but I agree that Jokic is being underrated here. Walton never averaged over 5 apg, Jokic averaged 6.1 last year. Walton averaged 4.3 assists per 36 minutes, Jokic is averaging 5.8 assists per 36 minutes. Walton also averaged 3.8 turnovers per 36 minutes, to just 2.8 per 36 for Jokic. The advanced stats (assist percentage and turnover percentage) are ugly, with Jokic having massive advantages in both.

Memory is fuzzy, and no one is watching Jokic in Denver. Guy is a phenomenal passer.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
5,340
51
NYC
Walton in 1986 was a better defender and passer than Jokic is today. Jokic was a vastly better shooter, and his ability to play 30+ minutes makes him a much better player. But you are misremembering Walton's passing ability (or overestimating Jokic's) if you think he's a signficiant better passer than Walton. The 1986 Celtics probably had the two best passing big men in history on the same roster...and there's plenty of highlights out there showing what that looks like.
There are plenty of highlights showing what Jokic’s absurd passing skills look like, too. But more tellingly: last year’s Jokic averaged 6.7 assists and 3.1 turnovers per 36 minutes, to Walton’s 3.8 assists and 3.5 turnovers in 1986.

I was more inclined to think Jokic was the marginally better passer, but after seeing Walton’s poor turnover rate (at pretty low usage) I’m pretty comfortable with “significantly better.”

No argument with Larry being (probably) the best passing big man in history.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
9,799
I think people just forget how much better the players are today.
They are way more well rounded than they were back in the day. Brad Lohaus was punished for being able to shoot the 3. In today's game, he'd be rich.