Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 32 of 46 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 466 to 480 of 680
  1. #466
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Bay
    Posts
    16,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Even without threats or racist comments if he was talking about family, or even swearing at kids nearby ... there are a lot of cases where someone should be removed for the enjoyment of everyone else around them that makes sense.

    If it was Steph Curry asking security to remove him it would be seen very differently I suspect.

    We just don't know why it happened at all.
    I donít think talking ish about family is off limits unless their dead or kids. He wasnít swearing at kids because Rondo said it was about them exchanging words.

    I also donít think Steph would make a finger gun in someoneís face like that either. Rondo could have had them removed without escalating it like that. But likely did what he did to elicit that reaction because I doubt what he was saying otherwise would have been enough to get kicked out.

    The lakers got rocked by the suns and the fan was probably fairly giving him **** about it. We donít know what happened but as it stands with the info we have it comes off as a negative for Rondo.

  2. #467
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,085
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Be honest, youíd have left him off the 75th Anniversary team wouldnít you.
    Of course not.

    That doesn't mean he's not overrated.

    Dude does not deserve to be in contention for greatest of all time, yet due to recency bias and his marketing/propaganda machine in action, we're always listening to this stupid non-sensical debate.

    When people start paying attention to basketball over the useless fanfare, Lebron falls behind the bigger legends.

  3. #468
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,786
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Of course not.

    That doesn't mean he's not overrated.

    Dude does not deserve to be in contention for greatest of all time, yet due to recency bias and his marketing/propaganda machine in action, we're always listening to this stupid non-sensical debate.

    When people start paying attention to basketball over the useless fanfare, Lebron falls behind the bigger legends.
    Bigger legends like Nique?

    It really shows how biased your are against modern NBA that you think LeBron James still suffers from recency bias. Dude has been in the league 19 years, thereís nothing recent about him.

    When you say recency bias, do you mean anything in the last 25 years?

  4. #469
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,786
    LeBron is the 3rd oldest player in the league. Obviously people only like him because heís the new guy

  5. #470
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    17,562
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Bigger legends like Nique?

    It really shows how biased your are against modern NBA that you think LeBron James still suffers from recency bias. Dude has been in the league 19 years, thereís nothing recent about him.

    When you say recency bias, do you mean anything in the last 25 years?
    I think he means that people in general don't care about anything that happened historically.

    "My Tesla Model 3 is the most revolutionary car ever" **ignorantly discards how the Ford Mustang has inspired a gagillion cars**

    That's what he means by recency bias.

  6. #471
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,786
    Quote Originally Posted by beasted86 View Post
    I think he means that people in general don't care about anything that happened historically.

    "My Tesla Model 3 is the most revolutionary car ever" **ignorantly discards how the Ford Mustang has inspired a gagillion cars**

    That's what he means by recency bias.
    What heís trying to say is not that those older cars were more revolutionary, but that they were faster. To use your analogy, despite technology advancing to where modern cars are safer, faster, more efficient, etc. heíd have you believe older cars are still safer, faster, more efficient, etc.

  7. #472
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    17,562
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    What heís trying to say is not that those older cars were more revolutionary, but that they were faster. To use your analogy, despite technology advancing to where modern cars are safer, faster, more efficient, etc. heíd have you believe older cars are still safer, faster, more efficient, etc.
    But that inherently characterizes recency bias.

    If I say my 2021 Toyota Supra is "better" than a 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 because it's faster, handles better, is more fuel efficient and safer, that's a stupid argument. A better "better" comparison is how many Fords sold relative to other cars in it's segment at that time vs Supra in this time. How many other manufacturers copied design elements to add to their own car. How much faster was the Mustang to it's competitors vs Supra to current competitors. What's the value/cost affordability relative to the time?

    But a lot of fans have a recency bias that only looks at the discussion in the former rather than any of the latter.

  8. #473
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,786
    Quote Originally Posted by beasted86 View Post
    But that inherently characterizes recency bias.

    If I say my 2021 Toyota Supra is "better" than a 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 because it's faster, handles better, is more fuel efficient and safer, that's a stupid argument. A better "better" comparison is how many Fords sold relative to other cars in it's segment at that time vs Supra in this time. How many other manufacturers copied design elements to add to their own car. How much faster was the Mustang to it's competitors vs Supra to current competitors. What's the value/cost affordability relative to the time?

    But a lot of fans have a recency bias that only looks at the discussion in the former rather than any of the latter.
    That depends on how you want to frame the argument. If youíre arguing better as relative to peers you have a point. NYK is not arguing that.

    Heís not saying the older guys were better because they were better relative to their peers, heís quite literally saying they were better. As in Dominique Wilkins was a better player than Bron, and if they swapped eras Nique would do better than Bron today and Bron would do worse than Nique back then.

    So when you say itís a stupid argument; why do you think itís stupid?

  9. #474
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    17,562
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    That depends on how you want to frame the argument. If youíre arguing better as relative to peers you have a point. NYK is not arguing that.

    Heís not saying the older guys were better because they were better relative to their peers, heís quite literally saying they were better. As in Dominique Wilkins was a better player than Bron, and if they swapped eras Nique would do better than Bron today and Bron would do worse than Nique back then.

    So when you say itís a stupid argument; why do you think itís stupid?
    It's a stupid argument to say that the Supra is automatically better than the Mustang in a fashion that's dismissive to all of the things that made the Mustang special. It's relatively inherent with the change in technology that a 51 year newer car should be faster, safer, more efficient, and better handling.

    Getting back to a sports application. "Players are shooting a higher percentage today = automatically better than older eras". "Players are playing at a high level longer today = automatically better than older eras." These are textbook foundations for stupid arguments that make up the logic of a lot of posters today.

    There is also a trending recency bias among a lot of posters that think that all things get better with time. Because the original Planet of the Apes doesn't have the CGI of the current new reboot, the new movies are inherently better. FALSE!
    Last edited by beasted86; 10-27-2021 at 02:52 PM.

  10. #475
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,163
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Of course not.

    That doesn't mean he's not overrated.

    Dude does not deserve to be in contention for greatest of all time, yet due to recency bias and his marketing/propaganda machine in action, we're always listening to this stupid non-sensical debate.

    When people start paying attention to basketball over the useless fanfare, Lebron falls behind the bigger legends.
    maybe if LeBron wins another ring you'll put him ahead of Pistol Pete

  11. #476
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,163
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Bigger legends like Nique?

    It really shows how biased your are against modern NBA that you think LeBron James still suffers from recency bias. Dude has been in the league 19 years, thereís nothing recent about him.

    When you say recency bias, do you mean anything in the last 25 years?
    Nique making the second round 3 times in his career>LeBron's 4 championships + 10 finals appearances

  12. #477
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,786
    Quote Originally Posted by beasted86 View Post
    It's a stupid argument to say that the Supra is automatically better than the Mustang in a fashion that's dismissive to all of the things that made the Mustang special. It's relatively inherent with the change in technology that a 51 year newer car should be faster, safer, more efficient, and better handling.

    Getting back to a sports application. "Players are shooting a higher percentage today = automatically better than older eras". "Players are playing at a high level longer today = automatically better than older eras." These are textbook foundations for stupid arguments that make up the logic of a lot of posters today.

    There is also a trending recency bias among a lot of posters that think that all things get better with time. Because the original Planet of the Apes doesn't have the CGI of the current new reboot, the new movies are inherently better. FALSE!
    First Bolded: NYK disagrees

    Second Bolded: No one is doing that, in fact, NYK is doing the exact opposite. Heís saying modern players are worse than older players because they play in the modern era.

    And beyond those generalities, we are talking about specifically LeBron. Do you think Dominique Wilkins is a better player than LeBron?
    Last edited by valade16; 10-27-2021 at 04:17 PM.

  13. #478
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,085
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    That depends on how you want to frame the argument. If youíre arguing better as relative to peers you have a point. NYK is not arguing that.

    Heís not saying the older guys were better because they were better relative to their peers, heís quite literally saying they were better. As in Dominique Wilkins was a better player than Bron, and if they swapped eras Nique would do better than Bron today and Bron would do worse than Nique back then.

    So when you say itís a stupid argument; why do you think itís stupid?
    It's funny how you assume that an argument is silly because you don't understand it and then keep saying how stupid it is. That's your entire posting style. Talking to yourself by pretending you're responding to someone else.

    What's stupid is assuming that because Lebron puts some nice stats against his peers, it means that he could pull the same thing across all eras. Especially when you keep ignoring that Lebron's entire career has been in what former players label as "the cupcake era" or "the snowflake era".

    Do you think that a player like Nique (no idea why you're stuck on him) would not be a top top player in the late 2000s and throughout the 2010s? Or Bernard King? You think because they didn't beat Larry Bird's super Celtics they were some sort scrubs that only hipsters recall?

    You keep ignoring that Lebron lacked fundamental skills until much later in his career, which means that he doesn't really translate to other eras for the majority of his career. We're not talking about polishing his game, we're talking about non-existent aspects.

    Yes, he is overrated by a generation that has not witnessed anyone else and a generation that has forgotten players that retired before him like Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal to name a few.
    And yes, you're one of these people. You keep saying you're not, but everything about your views is manipulated by this environment whether you want to realize it or not.

    That's without even considering how Lebron pretty much cried his way into forming super teams when there was no such thing in the NBA during the time, pretty much eliminating competition, yet he failed 50% of the time to clinch the league... Any other player pulling this off and he's considered an enemy of the sport. Heck, poor Kevin Durant followed Lebron's path when he had done this for a 2nd time in 5 years and all he did was simply join a great side rather than form one from scratch and he's the villain because he torched him in his own game...
    You're telling me there's no pro-Lebron sentiment in the media for 15 years now? No other player would have survived this sad attempt of a career. If Kobe pulled this off somewhere between 2011 and 2013 he'd be butchered...

    And sure, I'd take Larry Bird over Lebron James any day of the week. How can I consider him the best ever if he's not even the best in his position?

    What you fail to understand is that time progresses things. That also skews your view on people.
    Better hardwood on the courts, better shoes, better treatments, less injuries and less time out injured as a result. The faster, stronger argument is non-existent, draft combines show that rookies are actually not as strong as older classes, but some more recent classes do jump higher.

    Skillset doesn't really vary, but physicality does. Players have more means to develop their athleticism. You assume that players from the 70s and 80s would not improve on those aspects. You also ignore that a 2000s player would not be as physically strong if he was around in the 70s.

    There's so many other things that keep evading you, but it can be summarized with just these two words: recency bias.

  14. #479
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,786
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    It's funny how you assume that an argument is silly because you don't understand it and then keep saying how stupid it is. That's your entire posting style. Talking to yourself by pretending you're responding to someone else.

    What's stupid is assuming that because Lebron puts some nice stats against his peers, it means that he could pull the same thing across all eras. Especially when you keep ignoring that Lebron's entire career has been in what former players label as "the cupcake era" or "the snowflake era".

    Do you think that a player like Nique (no idea why you're stuck on him) would not be a top top player in the late 2000s and throughout the 2010s? Or Bernard King? You think because they didn't beat Larry Bird's super Celtics they were some sort scrubs that only hipsters recall?

    You keep ignoring that Lebron lacked fundamental skills until much later in his career, which means that he doesn't really translate to other eras for the majority of his career. We're not talking about polishing his game, we're talking about non-existent aspects.

    Yes, he is overrated by a generation that has not witnessed anyone else and a generation that has forgotten players that retired before him like Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal to name a few.
    And yes, you're one of these people. You keep saying you're not, but everything about your views is manipulated by this environment whether you want to realize it or not.

    That's without even considering how Lebron pretty much cried his way into forming super teams when there was no such thing in the NBA during the time, pretty much eliminating competition, yet he failed 50% of the time to clinch the league... Any other player pulling this off and he's considered an enemy of the sport. Heck, poor Kevin Durant followed Lebron's path when he had done this for a 2nd time in 5 years and all he did was simply join a great side rather than form one from scratch and he's the villain because he torched him in his own game...
    You're telling me there's no pro-Lebron sentiment in the media for 15 years now? No other player would have survived this sad attempt of a career. If Kobe pulled this off somewhere between 2011 and 2013 he'd be butchered...

    And sure, I'd take Larry Bird over Lebron James any day of the week. How can I consider him the best ever if he's not even the best in his position?

    What you fail to understand is that time progresses things. That also skews your view on people.
    Better hardwood on the courts, better shoes, better treatments, less injuries and less time out injured as a result. The faster, stronger argument is non-existent, draft combines show that rookies are actually not as strong as older classes, but some more recent classes do jump higher.

    Skillset doesn't really vary, but physicality does. Players have more means to develop their athleticism. You assume that players from the 70s and 80s would not improve on those aspects. You also ignore that a 2000s player would not be as physically strong if he was around in the 70s.

    There's so many other things that keep evading you, but it can be summarized with just these two words: recency bias.
    First Bolded: I have never not once said LeBron is better solely because he puts up better stats. I have said the better stats he puts up is supporting evidence he is better (among other things).

    That you still fail to understand this distinction and reduce anyone who uses stats to think thatís all they look at shows what a Luddite you are.

    Second Bolded: Never once have I said Nique isnít as good as Bron because he couldnít get past Larryís Celtics. Heís not as good because heís not as talented and does not impact the game like Bron.

    Third Bolded: I have certainly not forgotten that generation, that was my generation. My favorite players are Hakeem and Dirk, I think Shaq is the third best player ever. Whatís funny is you weíre claiming that generation sucked compare to the 80ís back when they were recent, now that theyíre older itís OK for you to respect them.

    Fourth Bolded: Kobe tried his best, he failed to do that. Not only is he not as good as Bron on the court, heís apparently not even as good as him off the court.


    That you think someone who talks about 2011 is recency bias despite it being 10 years old shows how ridiculous your argument is.

    Whatís sad and funny is in 20 years youíre gonna be talking about how amazing Bron is simply because heís no longer playing and talking about how much worse that generation is than his was. All I have to do is wait for Bron to retire and become a historical player, then youíll idolize him every bit as much as you do everyone else.

    Because of all your talk of skill sets, you donít care about them at all (if you did youíd realize LeBron was an excellent passer even when tou claimed he had no skills), you donít care about that at all. You donít like Nique because of his skill set, you like him because he played 40 years ago. If he played today, the exact same way, youíd be crapping on him every bit as much as Bron.

    Thereís so many other things that keep evading you, but it can be summarized with just these three words: bitter old man.

  15. #480
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,786
    Quote Originally Posted by VCaintdead17 View Post
    Nique making the second round 3 times in his career>LeBron's 4 championships + 10 finals appearances
    Heís literally the least knowledgeable person Iíve ever met who thinks heís an expert at something.

Page 32 of 46 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •