Golden State Warriors: Overrated or No?

[Denny Crane]

I never said he was, I was just naming a couple of guys. You tried making it seem like bosh has never played against anyone good... That's a ridiculous argument.

He didn't have to EVERY NIGHT.

That is true of all today's players at any position.

 

[Nate]

He didn't have to EVERY NIGHT.

That is true of all today's players at any position.

Ok.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

He didn't have to EVERY NIGHT.

That is true of all today's players at any position.

Are you saying that all players used to be stars?

 

[Denny Crane]

Are you saying that all players used to be stars?

No. Just there were few easy nights for players at any position.

More like the top 10 player were better than today's, and the 100th best player is probably as good as #50 today.

 

[Denny Crane]

MVP Voting 1987-88

1. Michael Jordan
2. Larry Bird
3. Magic Johnson
4. Charles Barkley
5. Clyde Drexler
6. Dominique Wilkins
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Karl Malone

MVP Voting 2015-16

1. Stephen Curry
2. Kawhi Leonard
3. LeBron James
4. Russell Westbrook
5. Kevin Durant
6. Chris Paul
7. Draymond Green
8. Damian Lillard

 

[BonesJones]

MVP Voting 1987-88

1. Michael Jordan
2. Larry Bird
3. Magic Johnson
4. Charles Barkley
5. Clyde Drexler
6. Dominique Wilkins
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Karl Malone

MVP Voting 2015-16

1. Stephen Curry
2. Kawhi Leonard
3. LeBron James
4. Russell Westbrook
5. Kevin Durant
6. Chris Paul
7. Draymond Green
8. Damian Lillard

8 Hall of Famers in the first list, at least 7 in the second list... The 2nd list has 5 guys still on the upswing of their careers

Its easy to say, "look at all the names in this list" and compare it to current players who are still building their names. You forget that in 87-88, most of those players were still building their legend, and weren't the player you view them today.

 

[Denny Crane]

8 Hall of Famers in the first list, at least 7 in the second list... The 2nd list has 5 guys still on the upswing of their careers

Its easy to say, "look at all the names in this list" and compare it to current players who are still building their names. You forget that in 87-88, most of those players were still building their legend, and weren't the player you view them today.

Maybe 3 in the second list.

Not only are those guys already in the hall of fame, they are among the 50 greatest of all time.

In fact:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/...rs-all-time/PfEGU89kJ71gAVjwz9SBSI/story.html

3 of the 5 MVP candidates among the 5 greatest ever.

LeBron checks in at 7, Bird at 9. Making it 4 of the top 10 ever.

ESPN has 3 of the 8 in their top 6 of all time.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarankalltime/greatest-players-ever

 

[BonesJones]

Maybe 3 in the second list.

Not only are those guys already in the hall of fame, they are among the 50 greatest of all time.

In fact:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/...rs-all-time/PfEGU89kJ71gAVjwz9SBSI/story.html

3 of the 5 MVP candidates among the 5 greatest ever.

LeBron checks in at 7, Bird at 9. Making it 4 of the top 10 ever.

ESPN has 3 of the 8 in their top 6 of all time.

http://espn.go.com/nba/scoreboard

Lebron, Westbrook, Durant, Paul, Curry, and Lillard will all be hall of famers.

Leonard could easily be as well.

Of course none of these active players are up there yet. They're still playing

 

[Denny Crane]

Lebron, Westbrook, Durant, Paul, Curry, and Lillard will all be hall of famers.

Leonard could easily be as well.

Of course none of these active players are up there yet. They're still playing

ESPN doesn't consider them among the greats. LeBron and Duncan made the list, so they are considering current players.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, is Golden State dominating, or what?

 

[BonesJones]

ESPN doesn't consider them among the greats. LeBron and Duncan made the list, so they are considering current players.

Based on what they've done in their careers...

You're missing the point

 

[Denny Crane]

Based on what they've done in their careers...

You're missing the point

No I'm not

Again, based on what they've done in their careers - playing against weaker competition!

 

[BonesJones]

No I'm not

Again, based on what they've done in their careers - playing against weaker competition!

The stars playing against stronger competition would make them look weaker.

The league is deeper.

 

[Denny Crane]

The starts paying against stronger competition would make them look weaker.

The league is deeper.

That simply doesn't make sense.

Consider when LMA left. Who's going to pick up the scoring and rebounding? By committee we did, but none of those players are as good as LMA. And we were able to win against "stronger competition, deeper league?"

It doesn't make sense.

 

[BonesJones]

That simply doesn't make sense.

Consider when LMA left. Who's going to pick up the scoring and rebounding? By committee we did, but none of those players are as good as LMA. And we were able to win against "stronger competition, deeper league?"

It doesn't make sense.

What are you saying?

The league is deeper because role players are better. Therefore it's harder for skilled guys and stars to dominate in the same way they did back in the day.

 

[blue9]

The level of play going down argument is bullshit.

It really isn't. And I can't believe this hasn't been brought up by anyone, but players are drafted after a single year of college. THAT is why the level of play has decreased. Nobody is learning fundamental, team-based basketball anymore. They're the star of their team in HS, where they're coddled by everyone around them. Then it's off to college for 7 months of basketball where they do the best they can to get noticed by scouts. And that's the extent of their basketball education.

To those who think it's "anti-change" that's behind the argument that the top talent level has fallen off - that's just stupid. The league is constantly changing. We, as sports fans, are constantly clamoring FOR change so our team gets better. You don't have an actual solid case to make, so you deflect.

 

[blue9]

What are you saying?

The league is deeper because role players are better. Therefore it's harder for skilled guys and stars to dominate in the same way they did back in the day.

LOL! You're really stretching! You mean back in the day when defenders could bump and hand-check? Yeah, it's SO MUCH harder to play against a defender that isn't allowed to touch you. Also, stars dominate - period. They don't allow low-level bench players (who they rarely play against) hold them in check.

Just give up. There isn't an argument to be made that today's top talent is equal to the top talent of past decades. Give. It. Up.

 

[BonesJones]

LOL! You're really stretching! You mean back in the day when defenders could bump and hand-check? Yeah, it's SO MUCH harder to play against a defender that isn't allowed to touch you. Also, stars dominate - period. They don't allow low-level bench players (who they rarely play against) hold them in check.

Just give up. There isn't an argument to be made that today's top talent is equal to the top talent of past decades. Give. It. Up.

It's impossible to argue with people like you because yall always resort to "Hand Checking" and "Look at how good they were over their full career "

 

[BBert]

So, how bout those GSW, huh?

Dominant.

 

[blue9]

It's impossible to argue with people like you because yall always resort to "Hand Checking" and "Look at how good they were over their full career "

I believe it was Nate that brought up hand-checking.

What's "full career" have to do with it? The fact is there were a TON of great players all playing at the same time back then. Now? Barely any. The fact that guys like DeRozan and Beard are considered stars is hard proof that today's top talent doesn't hold a candle to past decades.

There may be a couple young players that haven't broken out yet that will grow to be equal to past greats - but we've seen enough from the players that are considered today's best players to know that they aren't going to take another leap.

 

[BonesJones]

I believe it was Nate that brought up hand-checking.

What's "full career" have to do with it? The fact is there were a TON of great players all playing at the same time back then. Now? Barely any. The fact that guys like DeRozan and Beard are considered stars is hard proof that today's top talent doesn't hold a candle to past decades.

Sure, bring up the 2 most overrated players in the game.

Theres still the same amount of great players (that are way better shooters but not quite as fundamental), but there's also more teams, so you have more teems that don't have a great player.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I believe it was Nate that brought up hand-checking.

What's "full career" have to do with it? The fact is there were a TON of great players all playing at the same time back then. Now? Barely any. The fact that guys like DeRozan and Beard are considered stars is hard proof that today's top talent doesn't hold a candle to past decades.

There may be a couple young players that haven't broken out yet that will grow to be equal to past greats - but we've seen enough from the players that are considered today's best players to know that they aren't going to take another leap.

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

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

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

Yes, Drexler was a star.

 

[blue9]

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

Did Drexler make a mockery of the game?

 

[blue9]

Theres still the same amount of great players (that are way better shooters but not quite as fundamental), but there's also more teams, so you have more teems that don't have a great player.

Then name them. You and Nate keep trying to make this argument but have yet to give us any evidence to support your claim. Provide the names of all of today's great players.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

What are you saying?

The league is deeper because role players are better. Therefore it's harder for skilled guys and stars to dominate in the same way they did back in the day.

This is an interesting point that is basically being ignored. If the talent level of the top 50 guys is basically comparable, but the ability of the next 200 is significantly less in one era than in the other, then it will make the top 50 in the era with lesser role players look better by comparison because of the talent gap between the stars and the bourgeoisie. I think there's absolutely a valid argument to make that the Kurt Rambis's and Jon Koncack's of yesteryear made the Kevin McHale's look better then than they would now.

 

[blue9]

This is an interesting point that is basically being ignored. If the talent level of the top 50 guys is basically comparable, but the ability of the next 200 is significantly less in one era than in the other, then it will make the top 50 in the era with lesser role players look better by comparison because of the talent gap between the stars and the bourgeoisie. I think there's absolutely a valid argument to make that the Kurt Rambis's and Jon Koncack's of yesteryear made the Kevin McHale's look better then than they would now.

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, is Golden State dominating, or what?

So, how bout those GSW, huh?

Dominant.

Uh huh!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

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.

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is an interesting point that is basically being ignored. If the talent level of the top 50 guys is basically comparable, but the ability of the next 200 is significantly less in one era than in the other, then it will make the top 50 in the era with lesser role players look better by comparison because of the talent gap between the stars and the bourgeoisie. I think there's absolutely a valid argument to make that the Kurt Rambis's and Jon Koncack's of yesteryear made the Kevin McHale's look better then than they would now.

Jon Koncack is starting at C for the Knicks.