by Dee4Three on Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:36 am
Sauru and Shadowgrin... you guys are saying what I am saying, that talent is talent! No matter which decade. Exactly. And when the athletes are still amazing athletes, to combine with that talent, YES they would still be amazing. Not decent, not "just an all star", they would be great because they had all the tools to be great. Sauru is summarizing what I've been defending the whole time, and Shadowgrin is confirming it. My Andre Miller example is perfect, he wasn't a legend, but he had a fine NBA career because he had the talent, and he adapted.
Shadowgrin, your "adapt" statement is perfect. Do you guys realize how good these players were? Do you think a couple of rule changes, or some new players coming in would stop these guys from being legends?
Hopefully you guys see my point here. I get called nostalgic or biased, when I can see both sides of the coin. I KNOW that many players now would be good or great in any decade, and that many past players would be good or great now. You can't pick n choose when a comparison is okay. If I said Doug McDermott was as good as Larry Bird, you guys would rip me a new asshole, and lose respect. You accept that comparison across decades, and will take a stance on it, but it's "you can't compare across decades, because the game has changed" when you feel uncomfortable about a comparison? I see people on here comparing Phil Jackson when he coached the Bulls to now NBA coaches, and what he would do coaching in todays NBA, some of you guys are comfortable commenting and taking a stance on that (a cross decade comparison), but when it makes you uncomfortable you say it can't be measured? Same with teams, if I said the now Houston Rockets were better than the 95-96 Bulls, I would get murdered in here, and people would lose respect for me, which means you accepted that comparison.... but if I say I think Clyde Drexler would be better than James Harden in the now NBA, it would be "you can't compare between decades", or "its impossible to know". I saw NovU make a decision on who he would take Bosh or Shawn Kemp (it was just a place your pick in bold thing), so it's okay to make that comparison, even making a choice, but saying nothing around it, but the minute someone gets passionate about it and trys debating If a player is better across decades, or defends a player or his own stance, it's not okay or can't be measured? The guy with the strong stance and plenty of reasons he gives for his stance is the one chastised and told he can't compare? Do you guys see how that makes no sense and is contradictory?
Sauru and Shadowgrin summed up what I've been contesting. Talent is talent, skill is skill, mental game is mental game. They would adapt to any new changes.
I'm not in here defending for the sake of defending, I am in here combating some pretty crazy outlandish statements made about past players, I would do the same if they were made about many current ones. If someone comes on here and says that Magic is too slow for the now NBA, or Larry Bird is fragile, or Hakeem would be less dominant because of the now length, or comparing Dirk to Anthony Tolliver, you bet your ass I'll be in here contesting that.
Debiler, it doesn't make the comparisons futile. Many of the players skillsets are different, the way height, etc was distributed across the league was different. So it is okay to make a statement like "because of the new pace and space offense today, I believe Magic Johnson would even thrive more, and with less contest at the rim, and with the rule changes of less hand checking, he would be even more dominant based on more freedom on the floor". That is an okay statement or opinion to have. It's okay to compare. It's 100% acceptable to sat "with what seems to be less talented big men in the league today, with less length than the Mutombos, Robinsons, Ewings, etc. I believe that Hakeem Olajuwon who dominated against those guys, and was double teamed constantly, would even be more dominant in todays NBA, even factoring in the pace and space offenses, and that fact that defenses wouldn't be able to manhandle him as much". That is perfectly acceptable. Those conversations CAN BE had.
I made a case on the other thread why I believe that 90's basketball was the peak of the NBA. I can and will make that statement and comparison, and will defend it. My reasons aren't due to nostalgia. I want you guys to keep something in mind, I am the same age as Lebron James. I could see if I was 40+, but I'm being called nostalgic even though the now NBA is really my age bracket? Why wouldn't I just be supporting the NBA? It's because it's not about being nostalgic, it's looking at all decades and forming an opinion.
Air Gordon/NovU, You guys obviously love basketball, and have been around here for a long time. Don't ignore what I said above, please stop using the nostalgia or biased stance against me. That is not the case.
Btw, these last couple pages on both these threads where the discussions have been taking place, outside of the name calling, is what it's all about. I mod NBA video games and spend time on those sections, but nothing is a substitute for good old fashioned basketball talk with other people who are on a forum for that reason.