Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 33 of 36 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 538
  1. #481
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,374
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Well this is again based off your entirely warped perspective that players today pale in comparison to players of yesteryear. It is not true. The idea that Embiid would be Charles Shackleford if he played in the 90's is ridiculous.

    Would Embiid struggle with Shaq? Of course. Newsflash: Hakeem, Ewing, and D-Rob struggled with Shaq. That isn't unique to Embiid.

    I lol'd because Shackleford once tried to punch a friend of mine at the stadium

    May he R.I.P, great memories from his time in Greece.

  2. #482
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46,296
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    The real question is here is why did the NBA come to the point where Nikola Jokic as MVP is something standard?

    Larry Johnson wouldn't have been MVP in this era. Divac would, because we've seen his type of player win it. And Divac could offer a lot more on the court, that's what you don't see.

    Toni Kukoc would be like Doncic. That's the consensus.

    Drazen Petrovic was Doncic. He just didn't wanna stick around and left the NBA shortly before his untimely death.

    None of these were considered the best players in the league. Today, they are. Not because they are better. That's nowhere near true.

    The only things that have changed are:
    1) International tolerance in the NBA: Foreign players get a lot more respect these days.

    2) Physicality difference: Europe was rather physical, but it was a playground compared to the 80s/90s NBA. Today, the opposite is true. The NBA has turned into a playground and Europe has much more physicality. This also means that players coming over are more prepared to face NBA defenses because they were used to worse treatment and there is no adjustment period necessary. It's the opposite that they have to care about, being overly physical themselves.

    3) Rules changed: You're allowed to play without having to fear that someone will shove you and force a turnover out of you. That's the biggest one. It allows Doncic to keep hold of the ball whereas Kukoc was rolled over quite frequently, especially at the beginning.

    4) Roles are different: NBA was very rigid in the 90s, today it's more fluid, far more similar to the European version of the sport than the 90s NBA. Makes transition easier. We've had "positionless" guards for 25-30 years and whenever they came to the NBA they were benched for an entire season because the coaches had no idea how and where to play them (ie Spanoulis, Navarro, Sasha Djordjevic, Jasikevicius etc). They did not fit the standardized NBA roles of Point Guard, Shooting Guard and so on.

    5) Internet and the Social media. Yes, this helps. Why? It makes adapting to a new country much easier. It also makes these guys more approachable to the NBA fanbase. Even guys like Yao were a mystery to other NBA players in the early 2000s, Shaq didn't even know the guy spoke English until 3 years later. Now you know everything about everyone, even fans. Helps immensely.

    And on top of everything, more and more international players are coming over to the NBA, it's easier for these players to move. Divac was one of 5 non-Americans to play in the NBA when he first came and he did just fine, but at the same time he had to think about his family being bombarded for 10 years. It's hardly the same period of time.

    You want to talk about nostalgia bias, yet here you are, king of recency bias, saying that players are better now, basketball is better now, when EVERYONE ELSE IS SAYING THE OPPOSITE! You don't even understand that they don't have to openly say it. NBA ratings are down, NBA interest is generally trending downwards all over the world, with a few small spikes in countries whenever there's a local player doing well in the league.

    Last two years, NBA playoffs audience down 25% apparently. Even during the bubble season where people had nothing else to do, nobody cared about the NBA. Worst ratings ever. And that's with the apparent "GOAT" playing for a championship. Isn't that odd? Would Jordan have such low tv ratings? Would Magic or Bird?
    And don't talk to me about other US sports, I don't care. Not part of the discussion. Want to talk basketball? Even the Euroleague saw a rise in TV ratings in the past two seasons and that's with a cancelled season (2020)!


    Do people watch the Regular Season anymore?

    Not as much I suppose. All the recent ones are at the bottom.
    1994-95 is what you don't see dead last, because it has N/A rating.

    So there's no 2010s season that's ahead of any 90s season.
    From the last 10 seasons, 8 of them are at the bottom 10. And that's the two first ones on the list, 2011-12 lockout season and 2012-13 season. So with this trend, in the next couple of years, it'll be 9/10 bottom seasons will be from the last 10 and since 2006-7 is the only thorn there, maybe in 6-7 years it'll be 10/10.

    How many people watch the first rounds of playoffs as opposed to previous years?

    All star games, how many people watch them anymore? The best of the best against one another:

    2008 is the bottom one.

    Does this trend show anything to you?
    I find it surprising that from the 2011 edition and on, none of them managed over 10m viewers. Yet we've had 12 of those from 1990 have such numbers, one even got over 20m.

    Isn't this worrying you? How many people do you expect to tell you that the NBA is lower quality now than it used to be? They usually say it with their remote control and their wallet, they don't yell I don't like it. You don't stand outside McDonalds and shout that you dislike their food, you simply become indifferent. You don't care, you don't voice opinions, you let them be. This is what's happening with the NBA now.

    Just check 6 year old threads.
    Check 10 year old threads.

    You will see names that just aren't here anymore.

    How many people participated on PSD in these threads? How many today? We're basically recycling the same discussions over the last 3 years between 10 of us...
    Only a handful of team forums are active. Knicks, Lakers and a few others.

    Why is that? Don't people think that the NBA is better? Shouldn't this show an uptrend in participation of NBA related discussion? Shouldn't more people flock in, even if forums aren't as hip as they once were? [hint, they never were].
    The absurdity of determining the quality of the NBA players with TV ratings aside, you made a litany of questionable statements.

    1. Toni Kukoc is Luka Doncic is not consensus. Sam Smith said it. There is definitely not a consensus that Kukoc is as good as Luka.

    2. Drazen is not Doncic. He had nowhere near the passing ability or vision, and as bad as Luka's defense is, Drazen is as close as a traffic cone as you are likely to see play in the NBA. They are vastly different players stylistically. That being said, Drazen was very good, he even made the All-NBA 3rd team and may have done even more had he stayed and not died.

    3. No, everyone is most certainly not saying players are not better today. Almost everyone is saying that the talent in the NBA today is just flat out better.

    Isiah said it.
    KG said it.
    Jerry West said it.
    Kerr said it.
    even Dwyane Wade said it.


    What sort of reality do you live in that you think the consensus is that the players aren't as talented today? Many players will talk about how the rules aren't as good and the physicality is gone (and they have a point), but they most certainly are not saying the players are inferior.

    I don't know who you're hanging out with, or where you are getting your information, but the idea that people think the players are worse now is just a complete fabrication.

  3. #483
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    22,936
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    The real question is here is why did the NBA come to the point where Nikola Jokic as MVP is something standard?

    Larry Johnson wouldn't have been MVP in this era. Divac would, because we've seen his type of player win it. And Divac could offer a lot more on the court, that's what you don't see.

    Toni Kukoc would be like Doncic. That's the consensus.

    Drazen Petrovic was Doncic. He just didn't wanna stick around and left the NBA shortly before his untimely death.

    None of these were considered the best players in the league. Today, they are. Not because they are better. That's nowhere near true.

    The only things that have changed are:
    1) International tolerance in the NBA: Foreign players get a lot more respect these days.

    2) Physicality difference: Europe was rather physical, but it was a playground compared to the 80s/90s NBA. Today, the opposite is true. The NBA has turned into a playground and Europe has much more physicality. This also means that players coming over are more prepared to face NBA defenses because they were used to worse treatment and there is no adjustment period necessary. It's the opposite that they have to care about, being overly physical themselves.

    3) Rules changed: You're allowed to play without having to fear that someone will shove you and force a turnover out of you. That's the biggest one. It allows Doncic to keep hold of the ball whereas Kukoc was rolled over quite frequently, especially at the beginning.

    4) Roles are different: NBA was very rigid in the 90s, today it's more fluid, far more similar to the European version of the sport than the 90s NBA. Makes transition easier. We've had "positionless" guards for 25-30 years and whenever they came to the NBA they were benched for an entire season because the coaches had no idea how and where to play them (ie Spanoulis, Navarro, Sasha Djordjevic, Jasikevicius etc). They did not fit the standardized NBA roles of Point Guard, Shooting Guard and so on.

    5) Internet and the Social media. Yes, this helps. Why? It makes adapting to a new country much easier. It also makes these guys more approachable to the NBA fanbase. Even guys like Yao were a mystery to other NBA players in the early 2000s, Shaq didn't even know the guy spoke English until 3 years later. Now you know everything about everyone, even fans. Helps immensely.

    And on top of everything, more and more international players are coming over to the NBA, it's easier for these players to move. Divac was one of 5 non-Americans to play in the NBA when he first came and he did just fine, but at the same time he had to think about his family being bombarded for 10 years. It's hardly the same period of time.



    You want to talk about nostalgia bias, yet here you are, king of recency bias, saying that players are better now, basketball is better now, when EVERYONE ELSE IS SAYING THE OPPOSITE! You don't even understand that they don't have to openly say it. NBA ratings are down, NBA interest is generally trending downwards all over the world, with a few small spikes in countries whenever there's a local player doing well in the league.

    Last two years, NBA playoffs audience down 25% apparently. Even during the bubble season where people had nothing else to do, nobody cared about the NBA. Worst ratings ever. And that's with the apparent "GOAT" playing for a championship. Isn't that odd? Would Jordan have such low tv ratings? Would Magic or Bird?
    And don't talk to me about other US sports, I don't care. Not part of the discussion. Want to talk basketball? Even the Euroleague saw a rise in TV ratings in the past two seasons and that's with a cancelled season (2020)!


    Do people watch the Regular Season anymore?



    Not as much I suppose. All the recent ones are at the bottom.
    1994-95 is what you don't see dead last, because it has N/A rating.

    So there's no 2010s season that's ahead of any 90s season.
    From the last 10 seasons, 8 of them are at the bottom 10. And that's the two first ones on the list, 2011-12 lockout season and 2012-13 season. So with this trend, in the next couple of years, it'll be 9/10 bottom seasons will be from the last 10 and since 2006-7 is the only thorn there, maybe in 6-7 years it'll be 10/10.

    How many people watch the first rounds of playoffs as opposed to previous years?

    All star games, how many people watch them anymore? The best of the best against one another:


    2008 is the bottom one.

    Does this trend show anything to you?
    I find it surprising that from the 2011 edition and on, none of them managed over 10m viewers. Yet we've had 12 of those from 1990 have such numbers, one even got over 20m.

    Isn't this worrying you? How many people do you expect to tell you that the NBA is lower quality now than it used to be? They usually say it with their remote control and their wallet, they don't yell I don't like it. You don't stand outside McDonalds and shout that you dislike their food, you simply become indifferent. You don't care, you don't voice opinions, you let them be. This is what's happening with the NBA now.

    Just check 6 year old threads.
    Check 10 year old threads.

    You will see names that just aren't here anymore.

    How many people participated on PSD in these threads? How many today? We're basically recycling the same discussions over the last 3 years between 10 of us...
    Only a handful of team forums are active. Knicks, Lakers and a few others.

    Why is that? Don't people think that the NBA is better? Shouldn't this show an uptrend in participation of NBA related discussion? Shouldn't more people flock in, even if forums aren't as hip as they once were? [hint, they never were].
    Well just my two cents. Viewership may have grown both domestic and international. keying in on tv ratings may not indicate how people view programs today. did you account for streaming or online tv? what about international TV? This web site is not the only sport platform and is out dated.
    Last edited by ldawg; 01-22-2022 at 06:42 PM.

  4. #484
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    22,936
    Basketball remains the 2nd most watched sport behind football and Baseball is 3rd but the sport have an older age of viewers.

  5. #485
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    18,458
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Yep, it's just insanity. Vlade Divac would be MVP. Larry Johnson would be MVP. Toni Kukoc would be MVP.

    I have never seen someone cling to their childhood nostalgia as hard as him. It's the strongest, most concentrated bias I have ever seen.

    And what's crazy is, Divac > Jokic isn't even his craziest take. He also thinks Dominique Wilkins is better than LeBron James.
    No, I think it's pretty clear the Divac take is worse. Wilkins was by far the best player on his team nearly every season of his career, was a multi all-star, and elite talent if his era. Divac WAS RARELY THE BEST PLAYER ON HIS OWN TEAM!

    I'm really and honestly struggling with the convoluted logic. Even clinically insane people make more sense.
    Last edited by beasted86; 01-22-2022 at 07:43 PM.

  6. #486
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,374
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    The absurdity of determining the quality of the NBA players with TV ratings aside, you made a litany of questionable statements.

    1. Toni Kukoc is Luka Doncic is not consensus. Sam Smith said it. There is definitely not a consensus that Kukoc is as good as Luka.
    I did not say that Kukoc = Doncic, I said that Kukoc in Europe > Doncic in Europe. And by the time Kukoc arrived in the NBA he was a more complete player.
    That's consensus. Your opinion doesn't really count because you're not really familiar with this side of the pond. Over here, that is consensus. You don't hear me talk to nuclear scientists about the quality of the plutonium they're using because I don't know squat about nuclear science. That's the level of knowledge you have about European basketball.


    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    2. Drazen is not Doncic. He had nowhere near the passing ability or vision, and as bad as Luka's defense is, Drazen is as close as a traffic cone as you are likely to see play in the NBA. They are vastly different players stylistically. That being said, Drazen was very good, he even made the All-NBA 3rd team and may have done even more had he stayed and not died.
    He was about to sign for my team in Greece, so it was game over NBA for him. He had his plans set out. Win in Europe, play for Real Madrid, go to the NBA for 4 years, then go back to the European elite for 2 years and finish his career with Cibona.


    Again, you're commenting on Drazen based on the NBA then, whereas your view of Luka is restricted to the modern NBA.

    One of the main concerns we had about Luka transitioning to the NBA was his laziness on D. It had no impact, he's not even average in terms of defensive laziness in the States. Drazen was actually very competitive and he was scratching people left and right, huge pest defensively.

    As for his passing ability You realize that both Drazen and Kukoc were called "Magic" due to their style's resemblance to Magic Johnson? Both had a killer shot as well, because you couldn't survive without it.
    Drazen Petrovic's own quote just 3 days before his death was: "I'll be playing with Nick Galis, imagine me playmaking, dishing the assists and him scoring, we'll tear everyone apart". Nick Galis is one of the greatest scorers in European basketball history and was also impactful on a collegiate and international level. Would have been a Celtic if it wasn't for an injury, Bill Fitch kept calling him every summer to convince him to play for the Celtics after that but was met with rejection.

    Drazen was actually considered the greatest playmaker in European history, while Kukoc was considered the best point forward at the time. Your lack of knowledge on this and you basing everything on a tougher NBA era and harder transition for international players is remarkable given how certain you are of the things you say.



    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    3. No, everyone is most certainly not saying players are not better today. Almost everyone is saying that the talent in the NBA today is just flat out better.

    Isiah said it.
    KG said it.
    Jerry West said it.
    Kerr said it.
    even Dwyane Wade said it.
    5 people without a quote or context in what they've said = almost everyone. Okay. You win.

    You say you watched all Open Court episodes. How many times did they say that the talent isn't as high? I've lost count. Maybe you did too, because they're not part of 'everyone


    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    What sort of reality do you live in that you think the consensus is that the players aren't as talented today? Many players will talk about how the rules aren't as good and the physicality is gone (and they have a point), but they most certainly are not saying the players are inferior.

    I don't know who you're hanging out with, or where you are getting your information, but the idea that people think the players are worse now is just a complete fabrication.
    I am not the one generalizing here. You're trying to put me in a corner to defend I position I do not have for years for some reason and every time I throw you a crumb you keep coming with more.

    There's no generalization of "more talent". Stop using that. You and I don't even use the same definition for talent.

    I said the players aren't as skilled nowadays. They are not. Every and I mean EVERY retired NBA player will say that. Now you have players "specializing" in some skills, excelling at those, whilst ignoring everything else.

    It is consensus that a player couldn't land a job if he wasn't at least solid on every aspect of the game. The only ones that could have a roster spot without this were those who were excellent at their defensive duties and they were a significant minority.
    Now there's a ton of players whose only excellent attribute is being able to shoot or being able to drive to the basket because of their leaping abilities rather than dribbling, stepping and movement skills because the lanes are wide open!

    The skill level is down. For me that's the equivalent of talent being down. I don't rate higher stamina levels or better conditioning as a talent because that's a technological advancement factor. You consider it talent, good for you.

    Everyone says that the post game is gone, everyone says that the bigs do not know how to play using their bodies, everyone says that the game is all about shooting threes now, everyone says that spacing is more important than having on the ball skills, everyone says that the game has transitioned to more outside play with whatever that brings (death of midrange, footwork, shielding ball etc), everyone says how the lack of hand checking allows ball handlers a lot more liberty and relieves them of defensive pressure, everyone talks about how much easier it is to score now (hence stats are inflated), everyone says that stats are misleading because you can pretty much write your own stat sheet if you're a star player, everyone says that the analytics frenzy has ruined basketball because players play for stats to gain contracts instead of wins. Also, everyone talks about tanking being a novel concept because we used to have teams that sucked, but we didn't have teams sucking on purpose. More and more of them.

    Maybe you'll name 5 people who are "everyone", without quoting them, to refute this of course.

    What reality do you live in where the NBA is better than it ever has been?

  7. #487
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    22,936
    The fact that no one calls OKC with Harden, Ibaka, Durant, and Westbrook a super team but calls Lebron, Love and Kyrie a super team is kind of a head scratcher. Back in the day had teams just as talented and was not considered a super team. But i get it it how the team was formed that made it a supper team i guess.

  8. #488
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    18,458
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    The problem lies mainly with C. You imagine that a certain correlation and trajectory exists.

    As for him rarely being the best player, that's another American-ism where it's all black or white. The Lakers trio in the 1991 Finals was Magic, Worthy and Divac. Byron Scott was completely shut off. Do you think he couldn't have led a playoff team in scoring in the early 90s?

    He was the 2nd best player in Sacramento. He hated it at Charlotte but he was still good enough. It's not as if he was some scrub. This was the starting center of the last Showtime Lakers team! Ask his teammates how valuable he was to the team...
    This was the 2nd best center in the West when he moved back and he was over 31 years old. That was when the West started to become a monopoly in the NBA and the East just had a guest star Finals appearance.

    As for your question in part C, of course Chris Webber could have been an MVP winner in this era. You doubt that? Everyone on the Open Court panel was telling him how he was born in the wrong era and how dominant he'd be in this one. I guess they were all not being candid?
    Ceballos of course couldn't.

    What makes you think that Webber wouldn't be an MVP candidate in today's game?




    Does Sam Smith not know what he's talking about when he says that Kukoc was better than Doncic in Europe and by the time they both came to the NBA? And in general, in terms of talent and projection. I don't see you caring much about that opinion, which was not said by me. Why would he say that a non-All star 6th man is as good as a recent MVP contender?

    Do you feel more qualified than someone who was following the Bulls and several international basketball stars from the late 80s until fairly recently?
    Nah, son.

    Not Webber "could" be an MVP. He would HAVE to be MVP because Webber was MUCH more talented than Divac. It wasn't close peak vs. peak.

    There were tons of players from all positions more talented, who were MUCH better than, and with a much greater impact than Divac during his prime+peak years. Not a little bit. I mean guys who made Divac look like a bench player in comparison. At minimum 20 players, not even remotely debatable, who by comparison put him to shame.

    Even if the advantage is not perfectly linear when translated to the current era, the gap was so bad back then to Divac that those players should be AUTOMATIC MVP currently. To say that 20 players from back then would hands-down be better than the current MVP is one of the most extreme cases of era bias it's really pathetic and I genuinely feel sorry for your delusion.

  9. #489
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,374
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Well just my two cents. Viewership may have grown both domestic and international. keying in on tv ratings may not indicate how people view programs today. did you account for streaming or online tv? what about international TV? This web site is not the only sport platform and is out dated.
    Would really love to see that if you can.

    International TV is hard to properly get since it's on cable or sat boxes and all that, they don't really catch viewership apart from having the channel on. And it's usually always on. If I were watching a soccer game at 21:00 and it ends at 23:00, turn off the tv and go to sleep, it will still keep playing that channel. It may show fishing, it may show NBA, it may show women's volleyball. Whatever it is, I ain't watching yet it says I am. So I wouldn't trust those much.
    The best method they have spotting these are checking how many people switched to that channel or changed a setting during the time and they say "an average of x viewers" between hours y and z. It's complicated to find out. And inflation doesn't really help us with the tv rights deals, but it's a good starting point.

    I can tell you as much as it's much cheaper to get the NBA rights than the Euroleague rights in several European countries, typically the basketball crazed ones. Larger markets don't have much Euroleague exposure, like Germany (growing though), France (similar to Germany but possibly the highest NBA interest across the continent) and the UK (non-existent) so the NBA has seen an increase there with aggressive marketing. For some reason the NFL is much bigger in the UK than the NBA is and it's gaining exposure all over the continent, being a sport we don't care about nor understand very much. Basketball on the other hand is a popular sport in Europe, but it's only the #1 sport in one small country (Lithuania), it's the #2 sport in a few other small countries (Croatia, Serbia, Greece, Slovenia), it's a distant #2 sport in some other countries (Turkey, Portugal, Spain) and distant #3 sport (ie Germany, France) or worse (ie Italy, Netherlands) everywhere else.

    The viewership pattern is an issue they have with paying tv rights for soccer tournaments. They just consider that people will get subscriptions due to the rights but they don't bother much checking out accurately how many watch the games as they're depended on ads based on rights and subscriptions rather than viewership per se. The ad companies know how much was paid for the broadcast rights, they know how the subscribers details and they act accordingly.


    Having the NBA rights is not a selling point in no European country, it's just an added bonus for their subscribers. Those who want to watch the NBA don't rely on their television provider, they just get the League Pass. It's also very late so it cannot be a strong selling point.

    NBA League Pass probably has the stats for its viewership around the world, is there a way to get that?

    China used to have a thing for the NBA but I'm not sure if it has stagnated as well.

    So any numbers on viewership/interest would be welcome. I suspect there's evident lack of growth in the last 3-4 years due to the superbro teams.

  10. #490
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,374
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    The fact that no one calls OKC with Harden, Ibaka, Durant, and Westbrook a super team but calls Lebron, Love and Kyrie a super team is kind of a head scratcher. Back in the day had teams just as talented and was not considered a super team. But i get it it how the team was formed that made it a supper team i guess.
    When did the term super team first surfaced and who did it apply for?

    I remember it as 'Big Three' for years. Then I think years after the 2010 Heat, the term was used to describe them.

    There's even a wiki page on it, pretty much suggests that the first modern super team was Boston 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supert...ll_Association

  11. #491
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,374
    Quote Originally Posted by beasted86 View Post
    Nah, son.

    Not Webber "could" be an MVP. He would HAVE to be MVP because Webber was MUCH more talented than Divac. It wasn't close peak vs. peak.

    There were tons of players from all positions more talented, who were MUCH better than, and with a much greater impact than Divac during his prime+peak years. Not a little bit. I mean guys who made Divac look like a bench player in comparison. At minimum 20 players, not even remotely debatable, who by comparison put him to shame.

    Even if the advantage is not perfectly linear when translated to the current era, the gap was so bad back then to Divac that those players should be AUTOMATIC MVP currently. To say that 20 players from back then would hands-down be better than the current MVP is one of the most extreme cases of era bias it's really pathetic and I genuinely feel sorry for your delusion.
    Dude, I didn't say that if you moved the entire 90s today that Divac would benefit the most and be considered MVP.
    I didn't even say he'd be automatic MVP, I said if Jokic managed to be MVP, a more talented Vlade Divac could definitely also be considered if he was born 25 years later.

    I did not say that 20 players from back then could be MVP, but the gap in top heavy talent is rather obvious. Otherwise we'd be hearing about another Golden Generation now (they tried to paint it as one in the mid 2000s shall I remind you, after the draft classes of 2002-2005) instead of how the NBA requires fixing because of superteams and whatnot...

    The game was different, hence why this is an intriguing discussion rather than a straight one. Being MVP doesn't depend on individual talent alone, it depends on your team, it's based on the team record. You cannot just be the MVP simply because you're the best player, otherwise Jordan would have had 5 more of those and Lebron would have had at least 2 more.

    You mention these 20 players. How many of them and which ones would you pick Jokic over them?

  12. #492
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46,296
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I did not say that Kukoc = Doncic, I said that Kukoc in Europe > Doncic in Europe. And by the time Kukoc arrived in the NBA he was a more complete player.
    That's consensus. Your opinion doesn't really count because you're not really familiar with this side of the pond. Over here, that is consensus. You don't hear me talk to nuclear scientists about the quality of the plutonium they're using because I don't know squat about nuclear science. That's the level of knowledge you have about European basketball.
    Ok, Kukoc > Doncic in Europe. I'll take your word for it because honestly, who cares? I'm talking about them at their best and in the NBA. Doncic is just a better player than Kukoc. Kukoc likely was a more complete player when he entered the league, but Doncic has improved since then. (I've noticed this about you, you seem to think that players don't ever improve and that who they are as rookies is essentially who they are their entire career. It is very odd).

    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    He was about to sign for my team in Greece, so it was game over NBA for him. He had his plans set out. Win in Europe, play for Real Madrid, go to the NBA for 4 years, then go back to the European elite for 2 years and finish his career with Cibona.

    Again, you're commenting on Drazen based on the NBA then, whereas your view of Luka is restricted to the modern NBA.
    Once again, no my view is not restricted to the modern NBA. There is that fictional person you are arguing against once again.

    I will reiterate:

    I AM NOT A MODERN NBA FAN. I AM A FAN OF THE LATE 90'S-EARLY 00'S. I watched far more basketball from 00-04 than I have 18-22.


    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    One of the main concerns we had about Luka transitioning to the NBA was his laziness on D. It had no impact, he's not even average in terms of defensive laziness in the States. Drazen was actually very competitive and he was scratching people left and right, huge pest defensively.

    As for his passing ability You realize that both Drazen and Kukoc were called "Magic" due to their style's resemblance to Magic Johnson? Both had a killer shot as well, because you couldn't survive without it.
    Drazen Petrovic's own quote just 3 days before his death was: "I'll be playing with Nick Galis, imagine me playmaking, dishing the assists and him scoring, we'll tear everyone apart". Nick Galis is one of the greatest scorers in European basketball history and was also impactful on a collegiate and international level. Would have been a Celtic if it wasn't for an injury, Bill Fitch kept calling him every summer to convince him to play for the Celtics after that but was met with rejection.

    Drazen was actually considered the greatest playmaker in European history, while Kukoc was considered the best point forward at the time. Your lack of knowledge on this and you basing everything on a tougher NBA era and harder transition for international players is remarkable given how certain you are of the things you say.
    No. Drazen was terrible defensively, he couldn't stay in front of anyone (and this was with handchecking). As for his playmaking, show me a single person that said he was Magic. Just one. You keep making these baseless generalities of what all Europeans think and you never back it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    5 people without a quote or context in what they've said = almost everyone. Okay. You win.

    You say you watched all Open Court episodes. How many times did they say that the talent isn't as high? I've lost count. Maybe you did too, because they're not part of 'everyone

    I am not the one generalizing here. You're trying to put me in a corner to defend I position I do not have for years for some reason and every time I throw you a crumb you keep coming with more.

    There's no generalization of "more talent". Stop using that. You and I don't even use the same definition for talent.
    5 players off the top of my head. But every NBA GM remarks on the talent level being superior nowadays. As for OpenCourt, obviously you did not in fact watch because not only did they not say the talent level isn't as good nowadays, they to a man have said it is superior...

    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I said the players aren't as skilled nowadays. They are not. Every and I mean EVERY retired NBA player will say that. Now you have players "specializing" in some skills, excelling at those, whilst ignoring everything else.

    It is consensus that a player couldn't land a job if he wasn't at least solid on every aspect of the game. The only ones that could have a roster spot without this were those who were excellent at their defensive duties and they were a significant minority.

    Now there's a ton of players whose only excellent attribute is being able to shoot or being able to drive to the basket because of their leaping abilities rather than dribbling, stepping and movement skills because the lanes are wide open!

    The skill level is down. For me that's the equivalent of talent being down. I don't rate higher stamina levels or better conditioning as a talent because that's a technological advancement factor. You consider it talent, good for you.
    You and all those who have this fetishized nostalgia of the older NBA exaggerate the completeness of player's games back then. I've listed tons of players who were far from well rounded players.

    Here's one we keep coming back to: Mark Eaton. He was atrocious offensively, near useless and a complete detriment. According to you he was a well rounded player. He was not. Are you gonna tell me Charles Shackleford possessed all the fundamentals?

    Anyone who says players back then were all well rounded and possessed all these skills is lying to you. Even other players will mock Chris Mullin's defense, and he was a Hall of Fame, All-NBA caliber player. No, they were not all great at everything. There were more one dimensional players in the league back then than today, and the number of big men who couldn't shoot the ball was astounding.

    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Everyone says that the post game is gone, everyone says that the bigs do not know how to play using their bodies, everyone says that the game is all about shooting threes now, everyone says that spacing is more important than having on the ball skills, everyone says that the game has transitioned to more outside play with whatever that brings (death of midrange, footwork, shielding ball etc), everyone says how the lack of hand checking allows ball handlers a lot more liberty and relieves them of defensive pressure, everyone talks about how much easier it is to score now (hence stats are inflated), everyone says that stats are misleading because you can pretty much write your own stat sheet if you're a star player, everyone says that the analytics frenzy has ruined basketball because players play for stats to gain contracts instead of wins. Also, everyone talks about tanking being a novel concept because we used to have teams that sucked, but we didn't have teams sucking on purpose. More and more of them.

    Maybe you'll name 5 people who are "everyone", without quoting them, to refute this of course.

    What reality do you live in where the NBA is better than it ever has been?
    Actually the post game isn't gone because people are no longer capable of posting up; it's gone because thanks to the introduction of the zone it became a very inefficient possession. That isn't an indictment on today's players, a team centered around a Ewing post-up today would not be very efficient. Because with the zone you can better deny the entry pass, you can better double team or throw backside defenders, and you have a better positioned help defender at the rim.

    This is zone and basketball 101.

  13. #493
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46,296
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Dude, I didn't say that if you moved the entire 90s today that Divac would benefit the most and be considered MVP.
    I didn't even say he'd be automatic MVP, I said if Jokic managed to be MVP, a more talented Vlade Divac could definitely also be considered if he was born 25 years later.

    I did not say that 20 players from back then could be MVP, but the gap in top heavy talent is rather obvious. Otherwise we'd be hearing about another Golden Generation now (they tried to paint it as one in the mid 2000s shall I remind you, after the draft classes of 2002-2005) instead of how the NBA requires fixing because of superteams and whatnot...

    The game was different, hence why this is an intriguing discussion rather than a straight one. Being MVP doesn't depend on individual talent alone, it depends on your team, it's based on the team record. You cannot just be the MVP simply because you're the best player, otherwise Jordan would have had 5 more of those and Lebron would have had at least 2 more.

    You mention these 20 players. How many of them and which ones would you pick Jokic over them?
    I listed ways in which I believed Jokic is more talented than Divac. Why do you think Divac is more talented and what is he more talented in?

  14. #494
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,374
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    how convenient, you ignore everything and then when you're called out you jump on a pedestal just to keep doing this

    Let's try with 15 new questions. Between Nikola Jokic and Vlade Divac, I'll go easy on you so we're going with both aged 21.

    Between the two, who was better at the following categories and by what margin? Or you could simply grade them.

    1) Athleticism

    2) Fast break attacking/filling lanes

    3) In traffic shooting

    4) Dunking

    5) Footwork

    6) Dribbling in transition

    7) Midrange shooting

    8) Three point shooting

    9) Help defense

    10) Blocking

    11) Man defense

    12) Boxing out

    13) Driving to the basket

    14) Passing vision

    15) Post moves
    still waiting, ignore the age factor if you're gonna nitpick about it

  15. #495
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46,296
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    still waiting, ignore the age factor if you're gonna nitpick about it
    As am I:

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I would take this Jokic over any version of Divac. He's a better passer (which is really impressive because Divac was one of the best passing bigs ever).

    certainly a better rebounder, stronger, a better post player.

    He's a better shooter (literally shoots better from every distance: 49% from 10-16ft and 45% from 16-23ft compared to 33% from 10-16ft and 39.8% from 16-23ft for Divac).
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    7) Midrange shooting - Jokic is superior and he shot better from every distance on the floor for the entirety of the time we have measures.

    8) Three point shooting - Jokic. Divac rarely took 3's (even internationally). Are you claiming Divac is the better shooter and just didn't take them?

    14) Passing vision - Jokic, though it's very close. Jokic may go down as the greatest passing big ever when all is said and done.

    15) Post moves - Jokic. Divac had a nice hook, but Jokic has a variety of moves and his passing out of the block makes him a nightmare. He decimated Nurkic when the Blazers guarded him one on one and he consistently has one of the highest points per possession out of the post of any player.


    Let's start with those. Do you disagree with any of those? If not, we can move on to the remaining question from your 15 question list.

Page 33 of 36 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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