2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Like real basketball, as well as basketball video games? Talk about the NBA, NCAA, and other professional and amateur basketball leagues here.

What's gonna happen?

Warriors in 4 (16-0)
0
No votes
Warriors in 5
1
4%
Warriors in 6
6
24%
Warriors in 7
0
No votes
Cavs in 4
0
No votes
Cavs in 5
0
No votes
Cavs in 6
1
4%
Cavs in 7 (3-0 lead blown this time?)
3
12%
Kyrie discusses flat earth, vaccines and frogs on the Alex Jones podcast
2
8%
Refs you suck!
1
4%
The NBA is a sad joke
4
16%
FUCK KD
3
12%
FUCK LEBRON - he's not even top 20 tbh
1
4%
FUCK THE CELTICS
0
No votes
FUCK KOBE
1
4%
FUCK
2
8%
 
Total votes : 25

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:49 am

NovU wrote:So being simply bigger than Rondo would allow Magic to be able to average 30-35 points (or more) per game in today's league. But what do you know. :lol: That would make him a god over any legend, fuck off Jordumb and Wilt. That's the kind of things you are telling folks here to agree to.

Seriously I am not coming at you buddy. You are the one that keeps going off at people with 2x bigger absurdity like this one and you have audacity to claim they're NOT seeing it. Stop licking ex gen players' balls.

K, let's return to being one big happy family now.


NovU, you amuse me. So let's not ruin a good thing, eh?
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
NLSC Team Member
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 9673
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby air gordon on Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:58 am

Dee
The discussion was done. I don't know why you are adding analysis to the Rondo name drop and then claim Its done
Yeah sure Nov could've ignored it but I understand why he didn't

I barged in this discussion hoping to end the noise but I guess you just like it.
Jump.
Scott Skiles answer to the question on how Eddy Curry can become a better rebounder
User avatar
air gordon
 
Posts: 7867
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 4:06 pm
Location: windy city

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:01 am

air gordon wrote:Dee
The discussion was done. I don't know why you are adding analysis to the Rondo name drop and then claim Its done
Yeah sure Nov could've ignored it but I understand why he didn't

I barged in this discussion hoping to end the noise but I guess you just like it.


You wanna use Rondo a comparison, I absolutely will break it down.

The conversation wasn't over, clearly.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
NLSC Team Member
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 9673
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:06 am

Would you like to expand on your Rondo comparison, Air Gordon? Would you like to dispute the extra points Magic would get on offensive rebounds, free throws, post, as well as up and over the defense?

Would you like to retract that comparison?

Or are you going to be stubborn and not admit you are wrong? That the comparison of the two is actually a perfect example of what Magic could do in todays NBA?

Of course, you can't do that.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
NLSC Team Member
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 9673
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby air gordon on Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:20 am

Really- lighten up. The Rondo name drop was a joke
Jump.
Scott Skiles answer to the question on how Eddy Curry can become a better rebounder
User avatar
air gordon
 
Posts: 7867
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 4:06 pm
Location: windy city

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:22 am

air gordon wrote:Really- lighten up. The Rondo name drop was a joke


Oh... well that explains it....

..... can't have that one out there as taken seriously.

You are right, the conversation is done. Especially in light of that perfect comparison.

Psstt, might want to tell NovU it was a joke. He thinks you were being serious, because you were.

You guys crack me up.

Btw, you guys don't like my tone? You guys set the tone. This is the bi-product. You guys are ridiculous.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
NLSC Team Member
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 9673
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby hova- on Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:06 pm

Dee4Three wrote:
air gordon wrote:Interesting hypothetical regarding earvin magic Johnson

How would magics skill set translate into this game??!

His greatness has been mentioned but what about lack of perimeter shooting and his defense?

How would he function in the half court?

Can you consistently run pick n roll with him? How does he can contribute when he doesn't have the ball?!

Its fair to say teams would dare him to shoot on picks and play off him for help side



Defensively I have already made my case, he was an elite defender before, I think he would be an elite defender now. In the case of a smaller guard was on him (quicker?) not counting Westbrook, it would be the same thing they do with Roberson now, and other teams do now, they would put someone else on him and Magic could guard other positions.


So I rewatched a couple of games from the 89 and 91 Finals (I used video eye analytics just like you) and I cannot understand how you rate Magic as an elite defender. Actually even the media and the league did not rate him like that, although I am not a big fan of accolades like Defensive 1st or 2nd team. (Magic was twice in 2nd I guess).

I know that in 91 he is not in his prime anymore but what I saw was not good defense.

a) vs the Pistons he kind of backed of guarding Isiaiah, so he went with Dumars and had huge problems to contest his jumpers let alone protect the drive. Dumars was playing a hell of a series and it was definitely tough to guard him (he won Finals MVP iirc), but an elite-defender should be able to limit him.

b) vs the Bulls Magic was constantly forced to double team Michael and was not quick enough to recover for the kick out which resulted in John Paxson scoring 13.5 points on 63 percent from the field.
I don't want to argue that it is easy to defend against the Bulls and MJ, but an elite defender should do better.

c) Magic was a HUGE gambler. He was playing passing lanes because he had good anticipation and he had some success with it. But what I find really interesting to watch is how he many times does a bad close-out (i.e. being a tad late) and instantly runs to the board to grab the rebounds. He was favoring the rebounds and the quick fast break over the good closeout. That's okay, but not a defensive mind of thinking. Sometimes it resulted in an offensive board by the opponent leaving his man wide open on the perimetre. Kick-out, bucket.

I really watched a lot of vids and also read articles and nowhere Magic Johnson is described as an elite defender. Given the amount of quick point guards today, the way the handle the ball and the scoring mentality which did not exist as much in the 80ies for PGs, my thesis still stands: Magic would be a liability defending point guards. He would be better off to defend PFs (especially since the are exactly his size nowadays) which could cause some trouble defensively with mismatches. It's simply not ideal to be 6-9 230 PG these days.
User avatar
hova-
Two time Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 5160
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:33 am
Location: Augsburg, Germany

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby Sauru on Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:45 pm

the way i see it the game changes based on the players in the league. a hall of fame type of talent would change the way other teams play. right now its all about the 3 ball but if you put a guy like shaq into todays nba teams would stock pile bigs knowing they would have to go through shaq to win a ring. so a talent like barkley would be just fine in todays game and certainly magic fucking johnson would be fine in todays league. i am less concerned with how magic would guard someone than i would be how the other players would guard magic.
User avatar
Sauru
 
Posts: 7726
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 11:01 am

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby debiler on Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:19 pm

Sauru wrote:the way i see it the game changes based on the players in the league. a hall of fame type of talent would change the way other teams play. right now its all about the 3 ball but if you put a guy like shaq into todays nba teams would stock pile bigs knowing they would have to go through shaq to win a ring. so a talent like barkley would be just fine in todays game and certainly magic fucking johnson would be fine in todays league. i am less concerned with how magic would guard someone than i would be how the other players would guard magic.


Exactly. And this is why those comparisons are ultimately futile.
Confucius say: "Man go to bed with itchy butt wake up with smelly finger."
User avatar
debiler
 
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 8:35 am
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby air gordon on Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:45 pm

They're double teaming you. Who's open, MJ?
Paxson
So pass the ball to f*ucking Paxson

The alleged exchange between Phil and Jordan in a timeout in game 5 vs the lakers in the 1991 finals

Ah good times
Jump.
Scott Skiles answer to the question on how Eddy Curry can become a better rebounder
User avatar
air gordon
 
Posts: 7867
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 4:06 pm
Location: windy city

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby shadowgrin on Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:07 am

Sauru wrote:the way i see it the game changes based on the players in the league. a hall of fame type of talent would change the way other teams play. right now its all about the 3 ball but if you put a guy like shaq into todays nba teams would stock pile bigs knowing they would have to go through shaq to win a ring. so a talent like barkley would be just fine in todays game and certainly magic fucking johnson would be fine in todays league. i am less concerned with how magic would guard someone than i would be how the other players would guard magic.

old man sauru dropping knowledge.

What made great players is that they made good use of the talent or skillset available to them to be better than the 'average' player. We've seen talented and skilled players before that didn't have good NBA careers. The great players knew how to adapt or tweak their game to be better than the rest, and even take it to an extreme that would force the oher players to adapt to their game like sauru said.
HE'S USING HYPNOSIS!
JaoSming2KTV wrote:its fun on a bun
shadowgrin
Doesn't negotiate with terrorists. NLSC's Jefferson Davis. The Questioneer
 
Posts: 23230
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:21 am
Location: In your mind

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby 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.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
NLSC Team Member
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 9673
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby air gordon on Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:49 am

shadowgrin wrote:
Sauru wrote:the way i see it the game changes based on the players in the league. a hall of fame type of talent would change the way other teams play. right now its all about the 3 ball but if you put a guy like shaq into todays nba teams would stock pile bigs knowing they would have to go through shaq to win a ring. so a talent like barkley would be just fine in todays game and certainly magic fucking johnson would be fine in todays league. i am less concerned with how magic would guard someone than i would be how the other players would guard magic.

old man sauru dropping knowledge.

What made great players is that they made good use of the talent or skillset available to them to be better than the 'average' player. We've seen talented and skilled players before that didn't have good NBA careers. The great players knew how to adapt or tweak their game to be better than the rest, and even take it to an extreme that would force the oher players to adapt to their game like sauru said.

I can see your points there. Athletic freaks with skills like Shaq would be killing it. Even someone like a prime Larry Johnson. Thanks but overall I agree but just not agree 100% (Y)

I won't be as heavy handed with my stance, just enough to let you know ;)
Jump.
Scott Skiles answer to the question on how Eddy Curry can become a better rebounder
User avatar
air gordon
 
Posts: 7867
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 4:06 pm
Location: windy city

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby Dee4Three on Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:53 am

air gordon wrote:
shadowgrin wrote:
Sauru wrote:the way i see it the game changes based on the players in the league. a hall of fame type of talent would change the way other teams play. right now its all about the 3 ball but if you put a guy like shaq into todays nba teams would stock pile bigs knowing they would have to go through shaq to win a ring. so a talent like barkley would be just fine in todays game and certainly magic fucking johnson would be fine in todays league. i am less concerned with how magic would guard someone than i would be how the other players would guard magic.

old man sauru dropping knowledge.

What made great players is that they made good use of the talent or skillset available to them to be better than the 'average' player. We've seen talented and skilled players before that didn't have good NBA careers. The great players knew how to adapt or tweak their game to be better than the rest, and even take it to an extreme that would force the oher players to adapt to their game like sauru said.

I can see your points there. Athletic freaks with skills like Shaq would be killing it. Even someone like a prime Larry Johnson. Thanks but overall I agree but just not agree 100% (Y)

I won't be as heavy handed with my stance, just enough to let you know ;)


You bringing up Larry Johnson, won me over. Larry Johnson was so freaking talented, it was scary.

Every time I start questioning your opinions, you completely redeem yourself. Name dropping grandmama is the way to my heart. I'm all emotional now.

I need a tissue.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
NLSC Team Member
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 9673
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby hova- on Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:01 am

I would never question how players like Larry or Magic could adapt - they definitely could. Mindest, talent, no problem. But adapt on the fly? Like what if tomorrow the 91 Lakers play the 2015 Thunder? That's what I am asking myself. Maybe you are even right then. Maybe they had the IQ to find the errors of their opponents even in that one game after a few plays, a quarter. If they use it to their advantage an win the game (i.e. overcoming some physical limitations I feel they have compared to today), then my whole argument is dead. But it is tough to proove nevertheless - no matter which direction you are arguing.

And to be honest the whole point why I started this stuff is, that these so called TV experts who happened to be good players really started to irritate me. There were news like "XY claims his team of year XY would easily beat the Warriors". I really hate that because I feel like these oldschool players really find themselves superior to today's players, whom they call "soft" in sense of mindset and physical style of play.

The Warriors are a team that has not existed before and has a capability of scoring that everybody would have problems with. I mean, most of these oldschool players have not even taken a shot more than 1 foot behind the three point line. Today guys are going 4-5 feet outside, off the dribble. They would not have even picked them up from where they are shooting it now.
It seems like this shooting is degenerated to being a "trend" rather than also an extraordinary skill.

The fact that players shoot the ball like this today also makes it way harder to defend them on the perimetre. Whenever I play myself my toughest struggle on the court is finding the right mixture of closing out and not getting faked out or passed by my opponent. This is what shooters do to you. I think this is something that even when you have great athletic gifts makes it tough to stay in front of your opponent. And correct me on that if I am wrong, but in the 80ies and 90ies you did not have to close out on 50% or more of the players because they were no threats from outside. There were a lot of mid-range experts who were also tough to guard, but then the help comes quicker.
User avatar
hova-
Two time Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 5160
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:33 am
Location: Augsburg, Germany

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby Dee4Three on Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:11 am

hova- wrote:I would never question how players like Larry or Magic could adapt - they definitely could. Mindest, talent, no problem. But adapt on the fly? Like what if tomorrow the 91 Lakers play the 2015 Thunder? That's what I am asking myself. Maybe you are even right then. Maybe they had the IQ to find the errors of their opponents even in that one game after a few plays, a quarter. If they use it to their advantage an win the game (i.e. overcoming some physical limitations I feel they have compared to today), then my whole argument is dead. But it is tough to proove nevertheless - no matter which direction you are arguing.

And to be honest the whole point why I started this stuff is, that these so called TV experts who happened to be good players really started to irritate me. There were news like "XY claims his team of year XY would easily beat the Warriors". I really hate that because I feel like these oldschool players really find themselves superior to today's players, whom they call "soft" in sense of mindset and physical style of play.

The Warriors are a team that has not existed before and has a capability of scoring that everybody would have problems with. I mean, most of these oldschool players have not even taken a shot more than 1 foot behind the three point line. Today guys are going 4-5 feet outside, off the dribble. They would not have even picked them up from where they are shooting it now.
It seems like this shooting is degenerated to being a "trend" rather than also an extraordinary skill.


Keep in mind, it goes both ways. You have Kevin Durant saying Irving is better than AI, and other now players making those comparisons. And, the media is constantly asking the past players those questions, so they would answer them, as would I if I was in the position. It goes both ways, you can't get frustrated with past players claims without getting frustrated with the current players claims, that would mean you are favoring a certain generation.
Last edited by Dee4Three on Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
NLSC Team Member
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 9673
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby hova- on Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:17 am

I think nobody ever argued that they were better than the 72 wins Bulls whilst the Warriors in my opinion did not get their fair share of props.

You are right that I should not favor anyone, but the new gen rarely talks derogatively about the old gen - they rather praise the Legends and form their game after them.

But the legends imho often make the new gen look bad, worse than they are and especially in a respectless demeanor. Accept greatness, even if it happens during an evolution that is hard to understand for you (talking to the legends, not you).

I just cannot imagine how the level of play should really have become worse as human natures tells you everything is getting better by scientific progress etc.

Maybe that is my problem and after thinking about it for longer I give you more props for your arguments, Dee - still I find some of my points are accurate, too. It is a discussion that has no true winner but two sides with good points here and there.
User avatar
hova-
Two time Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 5160
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:33 am
Location: Augsburg, Germany

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby Dee4Three on Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:19 am

hova- wrote:I think nobody ever argued that they were better than the 72 wins Bulls whilst the Warriors in my opinion did not get their fair share of props.

You are right that I should not favor anyone, but the new gen rarely talks derogatively about the old gen - they rather praise the Legends and form their game after them.

But the legends imho often make the new gen look bad, worse than they are and especially in a respectless demeanor. Accept greatness, even if it happens during an evolution that is hard to understand for you (talking to the legends, not you).

I just cannot imagine how the level of play should really have become worse as human natures tells you everything is getting better by scientific progress etc.

Maybe that is my problem and after thinking about it for longer I give you more props for your arguments, Dee - still I find some of my points are accurate, too. It is a discussion that has no true winner but two sides with good points here and there.


I think it was a good discussion overall. Props to you as well.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
NLSC Team Member
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 9673
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 2017 NBA Finals: Warriors vs. Cavs part 3

Postby Sauru on Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:19 am

hova- wrote:I would never question how players like Larry or Magic could adapt - they definitely could. Mindest, talent, no problem. But adapt on the fly? Like what if tomorrow the 91 Lakers play the 2015 Thunder? That's what I am asking myself. Maybe you are even right then. Maybe they had the IQ to find the errors of their opponents even in that one game after a few plays, a quarter. If they use it to their advantage an win the game (i.e. overcoming some physical limitations I feel they have compared to today), then my whole argument is dead. But it is tough to proove nevertheless - no matter which direction you are arguing.



i keep saying the rule set would matter the most. would the old team suddenly be playing in todays nba or would the new team play in the old school nba. for example if the warriors of today went back in time they would be all sorts of fucked up by hand checking and good luck trying to flop to get a call. then what would happen when someone punched draymond in the face without getting ejected? the ruleset would matter the most in my opinion. if it was an on the fly situation with no time to prepare then honestly the team with the "home year" advantage would win.
User avatar
Sauru
 
Posts: 7726
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 11:01 am

Previous

Return to NBA & Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests