Reply With Quote
sometimes nostalgia gets the better of us all.
sometimes nostalgia gets the better of us all.
No hand checking, hardly any rim protectors, way more ticky tac fouls, more travelling and especially carries allowed now but massive difference in strength and athleticism on the perimeter and much better coaching now. Really tough to compare
The 80's? I said the 90's. And no, again, it doesn't undercut my point at all. It reinforces my point that the league now is sparse in the talent department. Every era had multiple LeBron's except this one. Players are faster but less skilled. It's all about jacking up threes and crashing into the paint for FTAs.
The rest of your first paragraph is a bunch of nonsense that in no way enhances your point or hurts mine. The players we're talking about were all NBA players who put those stats up in the NBA. The D League and college is irrelevant. So literally your entire point is based entirely around your opinion (unaccompanied by facts) that the 90's was worse.
I mentioned more players than Durant; it's in the post you just quoted. Feel free to provide me with a huge list of these strong powerful players if you expect me to make a list of weak ones. Since you originally made the point and I countered it with a few players, you now have the burden of proof to make your point, not me.
So far you still haven't made a point, we just know your opinion, and all your arguments are centered around how you can twist perception of what wording means (poorly too I might add). As if multiple players putting up LeBron-like numbers somehow undercuts the point that the league was better at the time. With that awful, horrendous logic, you're literally saying there's no way to argue a previous era is better since you're throwing positive stats out the window as somehow a negative, LOL. Horrible logic dude. What the ? I hope you have an excuse for this like being drunk.
I'm sorry you're struggling to understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat. You made an argument that the other era (sure, 90s. Who cares? It doesn't matter to me which era you pick, since it wouldn't change the argument from my end) was superior to this era because there were many players who dominated the league the way that only James can do now. I responded by saying that that is a poor argument. Multiple players being able to dominate an era implies the era as a whole wasn't very good, not that it was tougher. It takes a superhuman with the size of a power-forward and the skills of a point-guard to put up great numbers now. (Not true, obviously since there are others who put up great numbers. You just dismiss them.) That's a credit to this era's strength, not its weakness.
You then changed the nature of the argument to focus on the talent level. (I don't particularly care if you meant this all along; I'm not calling you out on it regardles.) It's funny how you listed only bigs besides Jordan. Does it not surprise you that all the "more talented" wings and guards fell by the wayside to the premier centers? It shouldn't, as it doesn't surprise me. I said in my first response to you that basketball has slowly evolved from a big-oriented game to a perimeter-oriented game. The most dominant bigs of all time were Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain. We all know their greatness was in large part a product of their era, which besides lacking talent also lacked many of the rules in place to day which made a big's job harder for them.
Essentially, as far as impact goes, I feel that all superstars are the products of their eras. That's not to say their talent doesn't transcend era at all, but rather it's to say that the players who can most take advantage of the conditions of their eras will succeed most in it. Players like Russell would not have dominated nearly as much in the 90s with other dominant bigs to match up against. In turn the dominant bigs of the 90s would not have dominated this era, since the rule changes in their era limits what they could do. They may well have still been star players, but they would not have been any better than the Shaqs, Duncans, Gasols and Nowitskis we saw the next decade.
You seem to think I'm arguing that today's era is superior as far as compe ion is concerned. I'm not, and I have said so three times now. If you spent more time reading what I wrote instead of dismissing it, you'd've understood that. What I have said is that physically, today's NBA players are better than those in eras past.
I'm sorry I missed your mentions of Lin and Lee, you know, because I didn't think you'd consider comparing HoFers from one era to journeymen from other to be intellectually honest.I mentioned more players than Durant; it's in the post you just quoted. Feel free to provide me with a huge list of these strong powerful players if you expect me to make a list of weak ones. Since you originally made the point and I countered it with a few players, you now have the burden of proof to make your point, not me.
Nice to see you're one of those folks who turns into an asshole whenever someone disagrees with you.So far you still haven't made a point, we just know your opinion, and all your arguments are centered around how you can twist perception of what wording means (poorly too I might add). As if multiple players putting up LeBron-like numbers somehow undercuts the point that the league was better at the time. With that awful, horrendous logic, you're literally saying there's no way to argue a previous era is better since you're throwing positive stats out the window as somehow a negative, LOL. Horrible logic dude. What the ? I hope you have an excuse for this like being drunk.
I already replied to most of your childish critique above, but to add further information to it, I just looked up the stats for the so-called "LeBron-like" players. Ewing was a 22/10/2 guy. Nothing wrong with that, but he shouldn't be in the discussion. Malone was a 25/10/4 guy. Pretty obvious why he's second behind Duncan on GOAT PF lists. Barkley was a 22/12/4 guy. Third on GOAT PF list, so not bad. Robinson was a 21/11/3 guy. I loved seeing him play in his prime and he was more talented that the numbers he put up.
James is a 28/7/7 guy. Griffin is a 21/10/4 guy. Howard is at 18/13/2. Durant is at 27/7/4. Dirk is 22/8/3. That doesn't mention all the dominant (statistically) guards like Paul, Curry, Westbrook or Wade. It also doesn't include the old guard of bigs like Duncan and Garnett who belong in two eras. It also doesn't include Kobe, who was statistically dominant in this era, or Shaq and Bynum, who are done now but who played well in this era.
It all goes back to what I said at the beginning: There are always going to be dominant players in any era. Using their stats to compare eras is ludicrous. We're going to see a lot of all-time greats come through these years by the time the next era begins.
I can't think of a single player from OKC who matches that description. Not a one.
It doesn't matter how many words you use to explain a ty point. It's still a ty point. If an era isn't considered to have greater stars because it has multiple good players in it, then what the is? You're moving the goalposts. It's a ty, weak, illogical point to explain away the massive hole in your argument.
Look at your point at face value. You are literally saying: "Since that era had more great players, it's a worse era." It's an incredibly stupid point (as well as a logical fallacy) and I'm ignoring it and your opinion on it from now on. I will not debate with people who ignore facts or use logical fallacies to argue them away.
I don't know how you could have missed me saying Lee and Lin when I literally said: "Durant, Lee, Lin" all together.
I don't turn into an asshole when someone disagrees, but I may when some dip uses multiple logical fallacies to explain away facts. Disagree all you want, but at least make a in point and don't act like someone is wrong when all you're armed with is broken logic and a hard head.
I see you're just looking to have a pissing match. I don't particularly care to play. So I won't really respond to all the ad homenim stuff you keep throwing out. I'll stop responding to you entirely if you keep insisting on going down that road.
I'll repeat the argument a final time, since you're struggling with it. First, the 90s didn't have more great players. We have plenty now. We have fewer dominant bigs, which is because the league's different now. But we have more dominant perimeter players. Even so, we still have a handful of future HoF bigs out there, and we're probably about to see three more rise with Davis, Drummond and Embiid. Meanwhile, the 90s doesn't really compare when it comes to dominant perimeter players. Do I use that to say this era has more-impactful players now? Nope. I think both sets of players are products of their eras.
Secondly, the argument isn't to say the 90s were worse because they had great players. It's not say that if so many elite players dominate an era, that speaks to them having favorable conditions to dominate. The extension I made from is that the overall level of compe ion of the era was weaker relative to its stars. If it takes the greatest physical specimen in NBA history to dominate this era, it's because the level of compe ion is so high that the slightly lesser talents can't break through. That whole part of the argument is strictly logical, since this era does indeed have its share of elite talent who are indeed dominating.
As I said before, I didn't think you were actually using Lee and Lin to compare with Jordan and Hakeem, since it would make no sense to compare superstars to one era to journeymen of another era. Durant's the only one of those "weaklings" who's a future HoFer and a superstar. He's also a guy who's as tall as a center but who shoots like a guard and can handle the ball. He's a physical freak in his own right. But that's neither here nor there. If you look at all the other potential HoFers who were drafted after 2003 (the beginning of this current era as far as drafts are concerned, in my opinion), you won't find too many "weak" looking players outside of Durant and maybe Davis.
Again, simply listing the past HoFers and talking about them out of context isn't making a point. Not only were they NOT statistically superior to the players today, but they were a product of having favorable rules to them as much as today's players are. I already listed their numbers to show they weren't really in Lebron's category. Even with having less-favorable rules, players like Griffin and Howard put up great numbers. Obviously, Duncan, Shaq and KG made HoF careers over the last two eras. Those are the actual facts. The rest is all subjective or speculatory. That's fine on a message board, so long as other posters don't come up acting like assholes because someone disagrees with them and can't make successive arguments without continuing to be an asshole.
You can sit there in your own head and think the 90s were so much better and that no Spur defender can touch Bowen's memory all you want. But there's no point in having any sort of discussion with you if this is how you're going to act.
I don't care if they do, if their game was TRANSCENDENT enough. Tim Duncan could play in any era and dominate. Wilt Chamberlain, if he was 30 and playing today, he'd be the highest paid player in the league and leading in points and rebounds. Certain players have the type of game with a certain set of skills, that would allow them to play in any era.
You can't say that athletes of today are automatically better because of training methods and proper nutrition. For everyone that tells me that there are studs in today's NBA, I remind you all that there are players like Ryan Kelly, Hasheem Thabeet, and Jon Brockman who are in today's NBA. Since they play in this era, does that mean they're better than say Jon Koncak or Will Perdue or Lorenzen Wright? The game is hoops and some moves are old classics, everyone knows that old classics, sometimes work best.
I was actually looking to have a debate, but not with a clown who centers his entire argument around logical fallacies. Did not even read your post after the first line. Next time I'll debate with you if you don't use logical fallacies for the entirety of your points.
What I noticed? Today's players are bigger, stronger, faster but a very bunch of whiners when it comes to physicality where in 90's they really played a lot of physicality.
Yeah, I'm done. Had you read the post, you'd've seen that I still gave your argument the light of day and answered them seriously and without name-calling. You would have seen that I clarified what I mean (again) and answered you point for point.
I really thought you were a decent poster. I even defended you after I kept catching you being disingenuous in the Bowen debate. But I was wrong, obviously.
I agree in general.
But the 1999 Spurs 2003 Spurs and 2005 Spurs would demolish this Heat team because of the sole level of Tim Duncan. The Heat donīt have a player able to contain him, this was shown last year with all the problems they had defending hibbert.
And last yearīs Hibbert doesnīt even come close to Duncanīs Prime.
The way the big men are today, Duncan would own the league had he been in his prime now.
I don't think it's honest to use career numbers of past players who played way past their prime and then compare their numbers to players who are currently in or near their prime. I think it's safe to say that guys who played until 36-40 years of age are going to see their career numbers dip quite a bit than when they were playing at the ages of 24-30. David Robinson averaged 14 points in the last 5 seasons of his career which took his career numbers down. That's far from the 24-30 point scorer he was in his prime.
Only Dirk and Wade are fully past their peaks (and maybe not even James). Blake isn't even in his prime yet. Durant isn't at his peak yet. There are players like DeMarcus Cousins who seem to just be figuring it out. I agree that it's hard to compare retired player's to current ones. But it cuts both ways.
It doesn't really matter what you think of me dude. Thanks for defending me whenever (I'll take your word for it), sorry for name-calling (yeah I overreacted a bit), but I still don't like arguments built solely around logical fallacies. like that makes it pointless to even have a discussion about anything much less basketball.
Yes todays players would Murder NBA players from the 50s 60s and 70s, TBH a top 3-5 kid in high school would Murder a star player in the NBA that played in the 60s and it wouldnt even be close.
One of the things that I find particularly humorous is the idea that 90's basketball was so much more physical all the time. I guess those people didn't watch Michael Jordan go up against the Knicks year after year in the playoffs where late in the game if you looked at him Cross eyed they were blowing the whistle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions