PDA

View Full Version : How knowledgeable are fans of NBA?



JordansBulls
06-30-2009, 10:43 AM
How knowledgeable are fans of NBA?

I'm wondering this because you got people who constantly say stuff like so and so played in a weak era or they say outrageous stuff when giving production of a player if they played 40-50 years ago.

Is MLB the same or are posters more knowledgeable? Do they say stuff like Babe Ruth would have a batting average .153 and would hit 4 HR for the season in this era and that Bonds would hit 105 HR in the 20's?

king4day
06-30-2009, 11:12 AM
Less teams back in the day, so less competition and you know your opponents more.
That's the only real argument I could see for anyone saying the olden days were weak.

kingkobe
06-30-2009, 11:13 AM
I don't think Bonds would hit 105 HR for the season in that era - simple - No steroids back then.

Also, Ruth would most likely hit 150+ HR for the season in this era - again, simple - with steroids.

WSU Tony
06-30-2009, 11:15 AM
The NBA is so "star happy" right now it is rediculous. Most people would rather see a guy have 3 dunks in a game rather than 10 assists. Are fans knowledgeable? Some of them, sure. Most just recognize the big names.

I have Wolves fans saying we should trade Rubio for Amare. Sounds great until they are informed Amare has a year on his contract and would then walk away from Minnesota the following year. That's my point.

Macken
06-30-2009, 11:19 AM
The NBA is so "star happy" right now it is rediculous. Most people would rather see a guy have 3 dunks in a game rather than 10 assists. Are fans knowledgeable? Some of them, sure. Most just recognize the big names.

I have Wolves fans saying we should trade Rubio for Amare. Sounds great until they are informed Amare has a year on his contract and would then walk away from Minnesota the following year. That's my point.

very well said.

S-Dot
06-30-2009, 11:25 AM
the game has deifinitely evolved so people think the past era were weaker, but i think it's the common mistake of accidental ignorance. people werent around to witness it so they take it for granted. 10 years from now the next generation will have their different opinion about the greatest player of all time because they weren't fortunate enough to witness His Airness Michael Jordan play...it's accidental ignorance, thats all

D_Rose1118
06-30-2009, 11:36 AM
the game has deifinitely evolved so people think the past era were weaker, but i think it's the common mistake of accidental ignorance. people werent around to witness it so they take it for granted. 10 years from now the next generation will have their different opinion about the greatest player of all time because they weren't fortunate enough to witness His Airness Michael Jordan play...it's accidental ignorance, thats all

exactly i was in a debate with a younger family member about whether lebron is better than jordan, as stupid as it sounds

he kept saying that these are all different athletes now days they are bigger stronger and all this stuff. and that jordan played with no competition then i asked him how many times have you seen jordan play, he said never a full game just some mixes on youtube

they just were not fortunate enough to see jordan, bird or magic play the game that they think lebron, wade and kopbe have surpassed them already

Blah Blah Blah
06-30-2009, 11:40 AM
It seems like many ppl who witnessed wut happened in the past never really want to let it go. about 10-15 years from now, i wuldn't be suprised if many ppl consider LBJ as possibly the greatest player ever, especially since they wud not have witnessed MJ's greatness. Us on the other hand prolly won't go as far to crown LBJ tat title but the new generation will and just like wut S-Dot said, it's just accidental ignorance. In terms of bball knowledge now, many ppl think they kno more than they actually do and that amare and rubio example was a good one.

S-Dot
06-30-2009, 11:42 AM
exactly i was in a debate with a younger family member about whether lebron is better than jordan, as stupid as it sounds

he kept saying that these are all different athletes now days they are bigger stronger and all this stuff. and that jordan played with no competition then i asked him how many times have you seen jordan play, he said never a full game just some mixes on youtube

they just were not fortunate enough to see jordan, bird or magic play the game that they think lebron, wade and kopbe have surpassed them already

I think LBJ is a freak of nature and has the potential to be the greatest, but I saythat because I have seen MJ, who I feel is the greatest....but you are right, I was extremely young at the end of Bird and Magic's career so for me to truly claim MJ as the best, I had to watch ESPN Classic and NBA TV to make sure.

Tblaze
06-30-2009, 11:42 AM
the game has deifinitely evolved so people think the past era were weaker, but i think it's the common mistake of accidental ignorance. people werent around to witness it so they take it for granted. 10 years from now the next generation will have their different opinion about the greatest player of all time because they weren't fortunate enough to witness His Airness Michael Jordan play...it's accidental ignorance, thats all

Well you can't really judge players from the past if you haven't experienced them. I was unfortunate enough to only start following the nba from 2000 and on, so I never will be able to compare MJ to a future star. It's just not possible unless you've been through both eras.

S-Dot
06-30-2009, 11:45 AM
Well you can't really judge players from the past if you haven't experienced them. I was unfortunate enough to only start following the nba from 2000 and on, so I never will be able to compare MJ to a future star. It's just not possible unless you've been through both eras.

thats exactly what i said

Hustla23
06-30-2009, 11:48 AM
No.

Most NBA fans are media driven drones.

JordansBulls
06-30-2009, 11:50 AM
I use the Babe Ruth example because the guy literally played 80 years ago, so you can imagine how he can be viewed with modern technology. I just wonder are Baseball fans the same when it comes to players thinking they would fare much worse in the current era?

DenButsu
06-30-2009, 11:53 AM
Depends on the fan.

Hustla23
06-30-2009, 11:55 AM
I use the Babe Ruth example because the guy literally played 80 years ago, so you can imagine how he can be viewed with modern technology. I just wonder are Baseball fans the same when it comes to players thinking they would fare much worse in the current era?

I don't know if this is off topic but I doubt Babe Ruth could do **** right now.

80 years ago there were few breaking pitches if any. Alot easier to bat back then.

arkanian215
06-30-2009, 12:10 PM
depends on how much espn they watch and how much individual thinking they do.

Chronz
06-30-2009, 01:24 PM
Baseball fans tend to be more knowledgeable about their sport because its by far the easiest sport of the Big3 to quantify. But yes they do say that about baseball, and they would be right, there were several factors throughout the ages that made baseball a weaker sport in Babe Ruth's era. Im not a huge fan, but Ive heard the debates and had nothing to add.

Basketball is trickier but all people have to do is toss out their way of thinking when it comes to stats. Thats asking alot I suppose but its the only way you can realistically compare the era's. Aside from that you have the fools who think basketball players grew inches throughout the decades or that players werent as athletic. They fall in love with the flash and flair and think that because players didnt do it back then, that they couldnt.

Draco
06-30-2009, 01:44 PM
I'm wondering this because you got people who constantly say stuff like so and so played in a weak era or they say outrageous stuff when giving production of a player if they played 40-50 years ago.

People on PSD? Where the average age is probably 18 years old and many of the fans haven't even seen one complete era of basketball let alone two or more. I wouldn't trust that these fans have a whole lot of NBA knowledge when they're making such speculations about who would have done what some odd years ago. Especially considering a lot of fans have trouble confusing fact and rumor and what really happened with a team just one or two years ago let alone 20 or 30 years ago.

FaceDown91
06-30-2009, 01:50 PM
its a shame really. most people now don't really care about the team anymore. Take laker fans for example, before the lakers won a championship, they would not take shaq back because it would have "kobe never winning a championship without shaq".

Or even Cavs fans with lebron.

What happened to the good old days where people actually cared about having their favorite teams winning a tittle?

DCSportsIsPain
06-30-2009, 02:04 PM
Era is not a qualification for comparison since players don't get to choose which "era" they play in. The only way any player can be measured is against the competition he plays or played against in his career. Chamberlain has the records. Russell has the rings. Shaq has neither the records of Wilt, nor the rings of Russell. Jordan had Pippen. Erving had nobody. Bird and Magic had each other and good teammates. Mikan had no competition at all. Robertson averaged a triple-double for an entire season while scoring 40 PPG.

Define "knowledge." Are we talking stats or sense or simply knowing one's own team?
In baseball, since it was mentioned, the bats and the balls used to be heavier, the fences were longer, and the mounds were lower. Season records were also in fewer games.

Attempts to compare players of different "eras" show how little those who would make the comparisons know.

DJ CHACH
06-30-2009, 02:33 PM
knicks fans know everything..everyone else likes the nba the way it is now...knick fans kno talent, knick fans remember, and knick fans never forget...thats all u could ask for, and im proud to be a knick fan...

if u aint down w the orange and the blue, then u fall under the title of incompetent

Westbrook36
06-30-2009, 02:33 PM
I don't know if this is off topic but I doubt Babe Ruth could do **** right now.

80 years ago there were few breaking pitches if any. Alot easier to bat back then.

It's not even worth thinking about how Babe Ruth would do in this era. It's just not fair..People were not as athletic as they were back then and thats why it's called a different era. Albert Pujols would destroy back then since he's so much stronger, athletic, faster, and just a all around better athlete. It's nearly impossible to compare eras..

That doesnt work at all because batters were slower and not as strong as now. It's not easier to bat at all considering they were much less physically built.

TopsyTurvy
06-30-2009, 03:51 PM
knicks fans know everything..everyone else likes the nba the way it is now...knick fans kno talent, knick fans remember, and knick fans never forget...thats all u could ask for, and im proud to be a knick fan...

if u aint down w the orange and the blue, then u fall under the title of incompetent

More of this! (... and I'm a Bulls fan! - No one's perfect, eh?) ;)

Perspective is the key to everything. Among NBA fans there are fans of the players, fans of the game, and fans of the franchise - none are wrong and none are 'less knowledgeable.' The problem with the argument is based upon its comparative nature.

It's hard to classify fans into any category other than 'fans.' In Chicago, you will have those that remember losing the coin toss for the rights to draft Magic Johnson, those that remember the Ehlo shot and a plethora of titles, and there are those who know the Bulls under Skiles. All of them will bleed red along with the rest of us...

The trend of individual player loyalty has been pretty constant though the culture surrounding the players may have changed.

mavwar53
06-30-2009, 03:58 PM
It's not even worth thinking about how Babe Ruth would do in this era. It's just not fair..People were not as athletic as they were back then and thats why it's called a different era. Albert Pujols would destroy back then since he's so much stronger, athletic, faster, and just a all around better athlete. It's nearly impossible to compare eras..

That doesnt work at all because batters were slower and not as strong as now. It's not easier to bat at all considering they were much less physically built.

How about playing with all races not just the athletic abilities, with all races there would have been a lot better talent. If chase utley was playing against just all the best white people he'd be killing the weak pitchers, and lincecum vs the only white hitters would be lights out. Cy Young who?

DenButsu
06-30-2009, 06:26 PM
Baseball fans tend to be more knowledgeable about their sport because its by far the easiest sport of the Big3 to quantify.

And here I was thinking it was only because baseball fans are bigger geeks. :rolleyes:

BRICKCITYPIMP12
06-30-2009, 06:41 PM
it depends i mean in every sport u got people that know there stuff then people that dont have a dam clue as to what they are talking about and then there is people in the middle . they know there stuff but dont know like every stat for dam near every player..lol
i think some nba fans thow there stuff and others jus want kobe vs. james bcuz thats all hyped up by puppet commercials and by the rest of the world.

Rome
06-30-2009, 09:17 PM
the game has deifinitely evolved so people think the past era were weaker, but i think it's the common mistake of accidental ignorance. people werent around to witness it so they take it for granted. 10 years from now the next generation will have their different opinion about the greatest player of all time because they weren't fortunate enough to witness His Airness Michael Jordan play...it's accidental ignorance, thats all

Well said. Alot of us can only compare what we've seen. I only got to see Jordan really play when he was with the wiz. Obviously he wasnt the same player, but still was putting up numbers at an old age.

Depends on the fan. Also, depends if they use their brain or not. PSDers seem alot more knowledgeable than your "average" fan who's always asking questions.

asandhu23
06-30-2009, 09:45 PM
depends. there are those who think then there those who don't.