Golden State Warriors: Overrated or No?

[Denny Crane]

.

Third, stars almost exclusively play against the other team's stars/starters - not their scrubs.

Unless those "scrubs" are starters on today's rosters.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Jon Koncack is starting at C for the Knicks.

You go ahead and continue to tell yourself that.

 

[Denny Crane]

You go ahead and continue to tell yourself that.

C'mon. Robin Lopez? He always was a scrub.

 

[Denny Crane]

Was Clyde Drexler a star? His stats are extremely similar to Harden's across the board.

If you think Harden is as good as Drexler, then this player must be way better than either:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/wnba/players/t/tauradi01w.html

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If you think Harden is as good as Drexler, then this player must be way better than either:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/wnba/players/t/tauradi01w.html

That's the second time you've brought out Diana Taurasi's stats. I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove with that. That one of the greatest WNBA players ever was better in her league than 2nd-tier stars are in the NBA?

 

[Denny Crane]

That's the second time you've brought out Diana Taurasi's stats. I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove with that. That one of the greatest WNBA players ever was pretty good in her league?

You compare stats of players of different eras, regardless of the competition. Why not hers?

My point is you're doing the equivalent.

 

[blue9]

First, there hasn't been any evidence to support which initial premise? The arguments in this thread are so widespread, it's tough to know which of the myriad points any individual person is arguing.

Second, hand-checking isn't the only difference in physicality. Offensive role-players were also allowed to set much harder/more vicious screens back in the 80s/90s than they are now, so one could be freed from hand-checking more easily. Not to mention that much more sophisticated team defensive schemes are available and permissible now than were then. It's easy to shout "hand-checking!", but let's not ignore recent defensive advancements.

Third, stars are playing against other teams stars and role players, unless you somehow believe that there are 150 stars in the league. Most team's starting 5 contains 3 or more role-players; these are the players I would contend are of higher caliber now than in the 80s.

The initial premise is that today's top talent is as good as it was in the 80s/90s. Anything that follows is moot because the initial premise is wrong.

The secondary premise (that role players are better now) also hasn't been substantiated with any evidence.

If you, Nate, or Bones really want to continue to argue the point list up today's stars and today's role players. Let's see how they stack up.

There's been plenty of evidence (names) to support the fact that the top talent of the 80s/90s was better. And a strong theory (1-year rule) has put forth to explain why this is. To this point the other side of the argument has relied only on conjecture and deflection. I'm done with this until someone can actually make a compelling argument...I won't be holding my breath.

 

[blue9]

Unless those "scrubs" are starters on today's rosters.

And there are a lot of starting scrubs in today's NBA...which kinda flies in the face of the idea that today's lesser players are better than those of the past.

 

[Denny Crane]

And there are a lot of starting scrubs in today's NBA...which kinda flies in the face of the idea that today's lesser players are better than those of the past.

Exactly my point.

 

[Denny Crane]

The CBA kind of forces teams to settle for lesser talent, especially in the starting lineups.

The Celtics lineup of McHale, Bird, Parrish, DJ, and Ainge would have put them over the LT by a lot. So they'd have shed two or three of those guys and used their bench players instead. Like OKC did when they got rid of Harden and Reggie Jackson.

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

Did Drexler make a mockery of the game?

He's certainly making a mockery of calling games.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The initial premise is that today's top talent is as good as it was in the 80s/90s. Anything that follows is moot because the initial premise is wrong.

The secondary premise (that role players are better now) also hasn't been substantiated with any evidence.

If you, Nate, or Bones really want to continue to argue the point list up today's stars and today's role players. Let's see how they stack up.

There's been plenty of evidence (names) to support the fact that the top talent of the 80s/90s was better. And a strong theory (1-year rule) has put forth to explain why this is. To this point the other side of the argument has relied only on conjecture and deflection. I'm done with this until someone can actually make a compelling argument...I won't be holding my breath.

Your claim of the initial premise being objectively wrong is also nothing more than conjecture. It's a subjective argument on both sides. The problem is that you and others on your side of the fence won't accept any argument as compelling. Even if someone were to "list up the names", it would still result in nothing more than a subjective opinion-based argument of "I think this player is better than that player because..." with no real objective basis for a definitive answer.

A response to the "names" evidence has been provided (that those "names" are players who've already completed their careers, so it's unreasonable to expect current players' careers to appear comparable since they're presently incomplete), but that response was dismissed. I could point out significant advancements in training, nutrition, and analytics as counters to the early-entry influx, but you'll likely simply dismiss that as deflection as well. The role-player disparity is put forth as a possible explanation for yesteryear's stars numbers looking better--oh, that's just conjecture.

You demand a compelling argument that the players of today are as good as the players in the 80s, but it's not as though you've provided any real evidence that the players of the 80s are as good as the players of today. It goes both ways.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The CBA kind of forces teams to settle for lesser talent, especially in the starting lineups.

The Celtics lineup of McHale, Bird, Parrish, DJ, and Ainge would have put them over the LT by a lot. So they'd have shed two or three of those guys and used their bench players instead. Like OKC did when they got rid of Harden and Reggie Jackson.

So are you claiming that the best players in the 80s are better than the best players today, or that because of the current CBA environment, the best teams from the 80s are better than the best teams from today?

 

[Denny Crane]

So are you claiming that the best players in the 80s are better than the best players today, or that because of the current CBA environment, the best teams from the 80s are better than the best teams from today?

There are multiple reasons why the caliber of play in the league has declined. Several have been mentioned already.

Guys don't finish college
CBA
Hand check rule
Focus on skills (3pt shooting) at the expense of all around fundamentals
Zone defense (hides poor defenders)
Influx of international players
Dilution of talent through expansion

 

[PtldPlatypus]

There are multiple reasons why the caliber of play in the league has declined. Several have been mentioned already.

Guys don't finish college
CBA
Hand check rule
Focus on skills (3pt shooting) at the expense of all around fundamentals
Zone defense (hides poor defenders)
Influx of international players
Dilution of talent through expansion

Guys get better instruction/training/nutrition from an early age.
CBA doesn't make the overall play less--just limits "super teams"; actually would allow for more parity.
Removing the hand check forces defensive players to actually move their feet on defense, improving actual defensive fundamentals
Focus on skills/specialization increases the overall level of execution of those skills
More defensive options result in improved/increased offensive scheming.
Increased talent pool (including INTL players) offsets dilution.

What a shock--every argument on one side has a counter-argument on the other side. It's as though it's a subjective discussion with no clear answer. Nah, couldn't be...

 

[Denny Crane]

Bring in the girls. It will offset dilution, too.

A lot of those counterarguments aren't arguments at all.

For example, Focus on skills - it can only mean the rest of the skills are not polished. There are more than one skill to the game.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

For example, Focus on skills - it can only mean the rest of the skills are not polished. There are more than one skill to the game.

Yep, you're right. My car would function a lot better if my brakes also steered the car and provided air conditioning.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yep, you're right. My car would function a lot better if my brakes also steered the car and provided air conditioning.

An analogy? Not particularly a good rhetorical tool, but...

Your car would function a lot better if it started, stopped, and you can steer it, versus one of those working super well and the others not so much.

 

[Schilly]

Dilution due to expansion does not explain away that individual players are better or worse. If you say the Celtics were so stacked in the 80's that McHale could come off the bench, keep in mind that there are 105 more players in the league now than then. So as I mentioned before you are dropping the bottom 105 players out of the overall talent pool and moving 35 starters onto existing teams. Each team would get an additional starting caliber player and 12 teams would be getting an additional starter, so 2 starters. Let's take Oklahoma City for example and lets add Demar Derozen from Expansion Toronto and let's add Ryan Anderson from the Pelicans. So new lineup of

PG Westbrook
SG Derozen
SF Durant
PF Ibaka
C Adams

Then Ryan Anderson and Roberson who are both starters in this league now move to 6th and 7th men. So like I said if you want to say overall teams were better then, then there you go thats a big part why, but that doesn't prove that individuals were better then vs now. Take Kobe in his Prime was he really that much less athletic or less talented than Jordan? Was he worse than Clyde?

 

[Denny Crane]

Dilution due to expansion does not explain away that individual players are better or worse. If you say the Celtics were so stacked in the 80's that McHale could come off the bench, keep in mind that there are 105 more players in the league now than then. So as I mentioned before you are dropping the bottom 105 players out of the overall talent pool and moving 35 starters onto existing teams. Each team would get an additional starting caliber player and 12 teams would be getting an additional starter, so 2 starters. Let's take Oklahoma City for example and lets add Demar Derozen from Expansion Toronto and let's add Ryan Anderson from the Pelicans. So new lineup of

PG Westbrook
SG Derozen
SF Durant
PF Ibaka
C Adams

Then Ryan Anderson and Roberson who are both starters in this league now move to 6th and 7th men. So like I said if you want to say overall teams were better then, then there you go thats a big part why, but that doesn't prove that individuals were better then vs now. Take Kobe in his Prime was he really that much less athletic or less talented than Jordan? Was he worse than Clyde?

I think you are making my case for me.

Guys who should be 6th and 7th men are starting.

Every team in the East back then had to play that stacked Celtics team (and Philly, and Detroit and Chicago...), 4 times. Every team in the West today gets to play against NOP with a 6th or 7th caliber player in the starting lineup, ~4 times.

As an aside: https://www.netflix.com/title/80097532

 

[blue9]

Your claim of the initial premise being objectively wrong is also nothing more than conjecture. It's a subjective argument on both sides. The problem is that you and others on your side of the fence won't accept any argument as compelling. Even if someone were to "list up the names", it would still result in nothing more than a subjective opinion-based argument of "I think this player is better than that player because..." with no real objective basis for a definitive answer.

A response to the "names" evidence has been provided (that those "names" are players who've already completed their careers, so it's unreasonable to expect current players' careers to appear comparable since they're presently incomplete), but that response was dismissed. I could point out significant advancements in training, nutrition, and analytics as counters to the early-entry influx, but you'll likely simply dismiss that as deflection as well. The role-player disparity is put forth as a possible explanation for yesteryear's stars numbers looking better--oh, that's just conjecture.

You demand a compelling argument that the players of today are as good as the players in the 80s, but it's not as though you've provided any real evidence that the players of the 80s are as good as the players of today. It goes both ways.

Sure arguing Player A vs Player B is still subjective, but at least it's an argument worth having and consensus leads to what we consider objective reality. Jordan proves this - he is objectively known as the best player ever despite the fact that it can't be truly proven. If you (or the others) really believe that today's best players and as good as the greats from past decades let's see the names and compare. I'm positive that group consensus will prove you wrong - it's not conjecture, it's simply consensus-based reality.

 

[mook]

I've never understood the dilution argument in the long term.

There were 27 teams in 1990, fed by a US population of 248 million people. So 1 out of every 612k Americans played in the NBA.

Today there are 30 teams, fed by a US population of 312 million people. 1 out of every 551k Americans now plays in the NBA.

So there's a 9% shrinkage in the US population talent pool relative to expansion.

So the league is watered down by 9%, right? Wrong. 25% of the NBA is fed by players from overseas. You water down the league with expansion by 9% and import 25% of players from overseas. Seems like a net growth in talent.

Then you have to figure that a massive number of players in 80's and 90's had seriously limited careers thanks to poor injury management. Think Arvydas and Walton would've seen such a short career if they had modern sports medicine? Maybe, maybe not. But it's undeniable that guys are playing longer than ever. LeBron has never missed a playoff game, and Bill Simmons mentioned last week that LeBron spends over $1 million/year just on keeping his body healthy (trainers, gyms, chefs, etc). This is not a coincidence. Guys are investing in their bodies more than ever, so they play longer, so they expand the talent pool.

 

[Pinwheel1]

In 1988 the Laker's 3peat championship year, they went 7 games against Houston, Utah, and Detroit. And were blown out in some of those road games. And the Lakers that year were considered one of the best teams ever.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yao Ming was a hugely valuable NBA property and modern player management didn't extend his career.

Derrick Rose's career crippled by knee injury.
&c

Most of the superstars back then played well over 40 MPG and had long and mostly healthy careers. See Jordan and Kareem.

 

[mook]

Yao Ming was a hugely valuable NBA property and modern player management didn't extend his career.

Derrick Rose's career crippled by knee injury.
&c

Most of the superstars back then played well over 40 MPG and had long and mostly healthy careers. See Jordan and Kareem.

Just keep cherry picking individuals and extrapolate from there. Whatever makes you happy.

If you don't agree that injuries aren't managed far better now, well, I feel silly even replying.

 

[Denny Crane]

Just keep cherry picking individuals and extrapolate from there. Whatever makes you happy.

If you don't agree that injuries aren't managed far better now, well, I feel silly even replying.

You named Sabonis and Walton. Isn't that your own cherry picking?

From what I've seen, injuries are injuries. Some guys play massive minutes and don't get hurt. Especially the superstars. There are guys, like Walton and Ming and Ilgauskas, who are big men who suffer from foot problems, and there are guys who are just prone to injury and suffer repeated ones.

What modern medicine does is provide less invasive and destructive treatments of the injuries. But some are so bad that not even modern medicine helps. See Oden.

Guys like Joakim Noah might not have had a continued career after their injuries. But guys like Raef LaFrentz weren't helped at all by any sort of modern handling of player health.

 

[BonesJones]

First, there hasn't been any evidence to support the initial premise.

Second, even if we're to believe that the lesser role players are better today than they were in the 80s/90s (I'm not so quick to believe that) the fact that hand-checking was allowed back then and isn't allowed now is a pretty good equalizer to negate the idea that offensive players had it easier back then.

Third, stars almost exclusively play against the other team's stars/starters - not their scrubs.

I assume the offensive player could swipe the hand away and lower the shoulder a bit more. To go along with what Platy said, it was a lot different on both sides of the ball. The hand checking argument isnt valid.

 

[BonesJones]

You compare stats of players of different eras, regardless of the competition. Why not hers?

My point is you're doing the equivalent.

Wow you are stretching now... Lmao

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow you are stretching now... Lmao

How?

Since the players of two eras didn't play against the same teams and other players, comparing their stats is meaningless.

 

[BonesJones]

How?

Since the players of two eras didn't play against the same teams and other players, comparing their stats is meaningless.

Comparing two NBA males isn't the same as comparing an NBA male to a WNBA female. If you can't see that then I can't help you.