PDA

View Full Version : Disparity on this board in arguments



JordansBulls
07-11-2008, 12:02 AM
This was a thread started over a year ago and I think it is a good time to bring it up again.


This board seems to have a lot of disparity and one of the favorite things on this board, along with the following arguments are:

- Posters who refuse to compare a white player to a black player even if their very similar (some say guys like Larry Bird and Bob Cousy would be terrible in the league nowadays because they are too slow for today's pace.)

- The percentage of posters who argue that the golden era in NBA history is when they were growing up.

- Posters who believe there are these massive differences in talent between the eras. They say one era is weaker than another because of athleticism but don't realize that sports is probably just as much mental as it is physical.

- People who don't understand pace

- When your comparing two great players (Example: Kobe and Lebron) and you mention that one player has more rings than the other.
Another poster chimes in with "So you think Robert Horry is better than Karl Malone."

- The amount of posters who say one player is better than another and can never support it unless they use a few games.

AllTheWay
07-11-2008, 12:05 AM
I dont think Cousy would be terrible, but he wouldnt be a superstar either

Wilson
07-11-2008, 12:12 AM
I do find it irritating when people say players from past era's couldn't play in todays game...

cmellofan15
07-11-2008, 12:13 AM
i think u shuld compare by wat they did in their era b/c thats wat madde them great

Jambox5000
07-11-2008, 12:28 AM
Well rings do matter, but only if you're discussing player's who were the primary option/leader of the team when discussing greatness and comparing him to another player of the same stature, obviously Robert Horry should never be brought up in discussions about "The Greatest" that's just lame.

Iodine
07-11-2008, 12:32 AM
Who is Lebrpm :p

and can we sticky this?

JordansBulls
07-11-2008, 12:38 AM
Well rings do matter, but only if you're discussing player's who were the primary option/leader of the team when discussing greatness and comparing him to another player of the same stature, obviously Robert Horry should never be brought up in discussions about "The Greatest" that's just lame.

Yeah but people use it all the time. My idea is that if your only argument for someone being better is because of rings then you don't really have much of an argument.

Cracka2HI!
07-11-2008, 12:43 AM
I think if anything todays NBA player would struggle in the NBA where everyone had fundamentals and played with heart.

lavis
07-11-2008, 12:44 AM
I think everyone has noticed those things.. Bid deal, this thread wont stop them.

I'm sorry I grew up on the MJ era cause nothing was more golden than that.

ink
07-11-2008, 12:48 AM
Yeah but people use it all the time. My idea is that if your only argument for someone being better is because of rings then you don't really have much of an argument.

Another couple of arguments that don't hold up:

Going through entire rosters and deciding which teams are better by comparing players ... Player x > Player y.

That's not much of an argument.

Another is: 15 points > 5 rebounds

A warning sign is when anyone uses this symbol ">" in their argument. It's basically the same thing as giving an OPINION that "he's better than him" without any proof or reasoning.

superkegger
07-11-2008, 12:49 AM
The Golden era started with Magic/Bird and I would say it ended with the Jordan retired for the first time.

But I think we're about to enter another era of incredible basketball. I think the parity and talent level in the NBA now is leading to another "golden era" if you will.

And talent is talent, regardless of era. Your stars back then, would be stars today. Period.

ink
07-11-2008, 12:53 AM
The Golden era started with Magic/Bird and I would say it ended with the Jordan retired for the first time.

But I think we're about to enter another era of incredible basketball. I think the parity and talent level in the NBA now is leading to another "golden era" if you will.

And talent is talent, regardless of era. Your stars back then, would be stars today. Period.

I bet there are a few posters on these boards who would say that the golden era were the Oscar Robertson / Bill Russell / Willis Reed years. Or at least they were the early Celtics dynasty years when Russell dominated. I think a golden era totally depends on your perspective. There are probably hundreds of posters on these boards who are too young to remember Shaq and Kobe playing on the same team.

superkegger
07-11-2008, 12:56 AM
I bet there are a few posters on these boards who would say that the golden era were the Oscar Robertson / Bill Russell / Willis Reed years. Or at least they were the early Celtics dynasty years when Russell dominated. I think a golden era totally depends on your perspective. There are probably hundreds of posters on these boards who are too young to remember Shaq and Kobe playing on the same team.

I only say the period I did, because before that, the NBA was in financial trouble and other leagues were legit. Bird Magic revived interest in the NBA, and Stern and his marketing elevated the NBA to new heights.

JordansBulls
07-11-2008, 08:03 AM
Another couple of arguments that don't hold up:

Going through entire rosters and deciding which teams are better by comparing players ... Player x > Player y.

That's not much of an argument.

Another is: 15 points > 5 rebounds

A warning sign is when anyone uses this symbol ">" in their argument. It's basically the same thing as giving an OPINION that "he's better than him" without any proof or reasoning.

:nod:

Faneik
07-11-2008, 08:38 AM
15 points > 5 rebounds

A warning sign is when anyone uses this symbol ">" in their argument. It's basically the same thing as giving an OPINION that "he's better than him" without any proof or reasoning.

This is about the : "Who would you prefer a 20pts/10rebs or a 25pts/5rebs/5ast?" thread.

I used that reference and it's false what ink is saying.
Here was my reasoning:

25/5/5

The 5 assists means more 10 points to the team + 5 extra scored points = 15 points

I prefer 15 pts in the scoreboard rather than 5 extra rebounds that the 20/10 guy provides...

The way I see it:
15 pts > 5 rebs

If you agreed with it or not, honestly I don't care, but I worked the numbers a little bit and came to my conclusion. Some other posters quoted me agreeing with my logic.

Now let's see what ink posted about the same question:

No question, the 20/10 F/C.

No question? Look at that poll results...
Ohh, and btw, where was your proof/reasoning?

mgthompson
07-11-2008, 09:35 AM
Everyone will take the stats, and facts, filter what they need, then come to a conclusion.

In the end most will state there opinion and try to find some logical reasoning to back it up.

hockeyplaya97
07-11-2008, 10:12 AM
Almost everything on any of these forums is strictly opinion. No one can say fo sure what is more important or who is a better player. Everyone has their own opinions.

ink
07-11-2008, 10:19 AM
This is about the : "Who would you prefer a 20pts/10rebs or a 25pts/5rebs/5ast?" thread.

I used that reference and it's false what ink is saying.
Here was my reasoning:


If you agreed with it or not, honestly I don't care, but I worked the numbers a little bit and came to my conclusion. Some other posters quoted me agreeing with my logic.

Now let's see what ink posted about the same question:


No question? Look at that poll results...
Ohh, and btw, where was your proof/reasoning?

You conveniently ignored the other posts that followed it. lol. Well that shows how fair your reasoning is doesn't it? ;) And the posters that agreed with your "logic" also like to use the ">" false argument. It doesn't mean much. Saying something is ">" without working much out to explain or prove it is pretty much the same as saying "I like Player X because he's better". It's just masking opinion, rather than making a case for how it is better.


25/5/5

The 5 assists means more 10 points to the team + 5 extra scored points = 15 points

I prefer 15 pts in the scoreboard rather than 5 extra rebounds that the 20/10 guy provides...

The way I see it:
15 pts > 5 rebs

Since you brought it up, let's break it down ...

"The 5 assists means more 10 points to the team" - I'm assuming you mean the 5 assists mean 10 more points to the team. How do you know the 5 extra rebounds don't mean 10 more points? How do you know how those extra 5 rebounds affects the other team's ability to function in the paint? Or how those 5 extra rebounds affect which team controls the tempo of the game? How do you know what that 20/10 means to the defense of the team? And how it establishes the identity of the team? Makes them impossible to score against. No sport is so simplistic or black and white that someone can just say X > Y. For example, the scorer may end up dominating the offense to such a degree that he gets 25 points, leads to an additional 10 (as you state), but the team isn't nearly as effective after those 35 points.

We saw in the NBA finals this year how KG averaged 20/10 (exactly 20.4 PPG and 10.5 RPG), and we saw how dominant his TEAM was against a team built around a high scoring wing player. I'd take the team that won that series 100 times out of 100. Without restarting debates that have already had lots of threads, I'd say that series made the point of this thread for us. I stand behind my earlier comment. When we see posters using ">" signs in arguments it's a red flag that the argument hasn't been proven or thought through. Maybe in your case, Faneik, you put some thought into it, but not enough to make a conclusive statement.

SHONIE
07-11-2008, 10:43 AM
you're choosing an entire team... not a player. You're saying you'd take the team with a 20/10 player on it over the team with the 25/5/5 player on it. And Pau's career numbers flirt with 20/10 so both teams have a player of the type you're describing. Also, the question was not specific to the player. It wasn't asking "would you take this specific 20/10 guy over this specific 25/5/5 guy", it was asking about generally who would you take, which stats would help your team out more. Once you put a name to the stats and say "well 20/10 basically means KG", you're bringing immeasurables and intangibles up which can greatly change things in either direction.

At the same time, as I stated earlier in that thread, a 20/10 guy is NOT just a 20/10 guy. Every 20/10 guy in the league is a focal point of his team at both ends of the floor. This means that he is getting touches. Prove me wrong but I can almost gaurantee that any 20/10 guy averages at least 1 assist per game, I'd say generally around 1-3 for a 20/10 big. He also likely has 1-2 blocks and 1-2 steals per game. You're really looking at a 20/10/2/2/1 player vs. a 25/5/5/1/1 in my opinion.

Also, CP3 is a 20/10 player :D

ink
07-11-2008, 10:47 AM
you're choosing an entire team... not a player. You're saying you'd take the team with a 20/10 player on it over the team with the 25/5/5 player on it. And Pau's career numbers flirt with 20/10 so both teams have a player of the type you're describing. Also, the question was not specific to the player. It wasn't asking "would you take this specific 20/10 guy over this specific 25/5/5 guy", it was asking about generally who would you take, which stats would help your team out more. Once you put a name to the stats and say "well 20/10 basically means KG", you're bringing immeasurables and intangibles up which can greatly change things in either direction.

At the same time, as I stated earlier in that thread, a 20/10 guy is NOT just a 20/10 guy. Every 20/10 guy in the league is a focal point of his team at both ends of the floor. This means that he is getting touches. Prove me wrong but I can almost gaurantee that any 20/10 guy averages at least 1 assist per game, I'd say generally around 1-3 for a 20/10 big. He also likely has 1-2 blocks and 1-2 steals per game. You're really looking at a 20/10/2/2/1 player vs. a 25/5/5/1/1 in my opinion.

Also, CP3 is a 20/10 player :D

I agree with a lot of your post. Well said. But that's the fallacy in so many of our discussions on these boards - you can't isolate player on player definitively and compare them. An entire team is going to be involved when talking about the impact of any player. I'm not choosing an entire team; I'm underlining the impact he has on that team. And I'm especially saying that we can't SIMPLIFY our view of a team game by comparing a couple of stat columns from one player. It isn't that simple ... as you've pointed out yourself in your post by showing the greater range of stats that you do.

Dirty Dirk41
07-11-2008, 10:56 AM
good thread....alot of points your making ive wondered to myself or thought about on these boards...some people r just crazy when arguing

SHONIE
07-11-2008, 11:01 AM
I agree with you. It really is an impossible arguement to have. A stat line only tells a part of the story.

If the question were:

You are given player x, he is 6'9 and can develop into either a PF or SF. He will average either 20 points 10 rebounds on exactly 50% shooting with 0 assists, 0 blocks, 0 turnovers, 0 steals, 0 everything else, or he will average 25/5/5/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0 on 45% shooting. He will be silent and have no affect in the locker room. Which would you choose?

In that case it would be a more tangible arguement, but inevitably stupid and irrelevant.

SHONIE
07-11-2008, 11:01 AM
good thread....alot of points your making ive wondered to myself or thought about on these boards...some people r just crazy when arguing

I love your sig pic.

Faneik
07-11-2008, 11:56 AM
It's just masking opinion, rather than making a case for how it is better.

Were was your case when you voted that poll?


"The 5 assists means more 10 points to the team" - I'm assuming you mean the 5 assists mean 10 more points to the team.

English is not my natural language.


We saw in the NBA finals this year how KG averaged 20/10 (exactly 20.4 PPG and 10.5 RPG), and we saw how dominant his TEAM was against a team built around a high scoring wing player.

Maybe in your case, Faneik, you put some thought into it, but not enough to make a conclusive statement.

So I'll make my conclusive statement now:

Paul Pierce Finals Stats
Pts:21.8
Rbs:4.5
Asts: 6.3
FG%: 43%

If Garnett was so dominant why wasn't he crowned Finals MVP?
You didn't agree when Pierce was chosen?

Lets just agree to disagree...

You prefer the strong inside presence scorer/rebounder...
I prefer the versatile scorer/facilitator...

JordansBulls
07-11-2008, 12:27 PM
Were was your case when you voted that poll?



English is not my natural language.



So I'll make my conclusive statement now:

Paul Pierce Finals Stats
Pts:21.8
Rbs:4.5
Asts: 6.3
FG%: 43%

If Garnett was so dominant why wasn't he crowned Finals MVP?
You didn't agree when Pierce was chosen?

Lets just agree to disagree...

You prefer the strong inside presence scorer/rebounder...
I prefer the versatile scorer/facilitator...

Pierce was better in the finals but as a whole in the playoffs KG was better.

Faneik
07-11-2008, 12:30 PM
Pierce was better in the finals but as a whole in the playoffs KG was better.

All of this talk is b/c members don't back their posts...

Care to make your case why you consider Garnett had a better overall playoff performance than Pierce?

JordansBulls
07-11-2008, 02:44 PM
All of this talk is b/c members don't back their posts...

Care to make your case why you consider Garnett had a better overall playoff performance than Pierce?

Sure

Kevin Garnett
20.4 ppg / 10.5 rpg / 3.3 apg / 1.35 spg / 1.12 bpg / 49.5% FG / 25% 3pt / 81.0% ft / 23.08 PER


Paul Pierce
19.7 ppg / 5.00 rpg / 4.6 apg / 1.08 spg / 0.31 bpg / 44.1%FG/ 36.1% 3pt / 80.2% ft / 17.41 PER


As you can see KG beats Pierce is virtually every category save 3 pt shooting and assists.

ink
07-11-2008, 03:03 PM
Were was your case when you voted that poll?

I rarely vote right away on polls. Don't pretend my first post was my only post. I usually get involved in a thread with several posts. All of those have my case. After that I voted.

As for the Pierce point you make, I see your preference and I acknowledge it, but I think JB illustrates quite clearly how KG had the better overall playoffs. To be honest, it doesn't matter at all to me. KG and Pierce are teammates and neither would have a ring without the other and the rest of their teammates. That's always my point of view.