Lebron vs. His Airness

On a related note, who is the best shooting backcourt of all time? The current splash brothers? Hard to come up with a better tandem.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
no, actually it's not at all like that. But you can go on believing that you too have his formula that definitively proves which generation of players/game are better and it's somehow set in stone. You should go write a book since you have this all figured out. And at this somehow not being a 2 sided argument based on opinions. wow.

It's not a formula. It's 3 basic tenants that are common across a number of sports. It's not an argument at all. It's one side pointing to a blatant trend that is going on across many different sports and another side saying, "No, the players I grew up watching are the best".The generation of players 20 years from now will be better than the current generation too barring another league expansion. That doesn't mean there will be another Jordan who will stand out from his peers and win 6 championships, but the average player and the understanding of the game will continue to improve.

For not being a formula it sure sounds like a formula. From it you have come to the conclusion that today's players are unequivocally better than those from the 80's (or any other era). And that's fine, it's a totally valid opinion.

it's not an opinion though. they are better, at least from and athletic stand point.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

The fact that basketball players are better today is just math. It's a statistical impossibility for it to not be that way. There's a reason why D-1's play in different divisions than D-3's. If you want to get mad at math, knock yourself out.

And regarding 4ML's comment about Curry... http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2482473-is-stephen-curry-the-best-shooter-ever-yes-say-many-of-nbas-all-time-marksmen

This.

And, thanks for posting that link, Pete. Curry is such a great shooter - hard to deny the obvious.

Originally posted by 4ML:
This.

And, thanks for posting that link, Pete. Curry is such a great shooter - hard to deny the obvious.

I agree about Curry's shooting. I still don't think he stays healthy in the old game though

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by 4ML:
This.

And, thanks for posting that link, Pete. Curry is such a great shooter - hard to deny the obvious.

I agree about Curry's shooting. I still don't think he stays healthy in the old game though

and that's a good thing? basketball isn't meant to be football. it's not meant to be a physical sport.

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by 4ML:
This.

And, thanks for posting that link, Pete. Curry is such a great shooter - hard to deny the obvious.

I agree about Curry's shooting. I still don't think he stays healthy in the old game though

and that's a good thing? basketball isn't meant to be football. it's not meant to be a physical sport.

lol...you can say that about any sport...but if the game is about beating the guy in front of you..well its going to get physical

Originally posted by sacniner:

This year, I have personally never seen a shooter like Curry. I used to have Reggie as number one, but Steph was just an animal this year. If he keeps this up, I think he'll be the best shooter ever.

He is a great shooter...his dad was pretty phenomenal too. His release was so quick they called him machine gun Curry

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

no, actually it's not at all like that. But you can go on believing that you too have his formula that definitively proves which generation of players/game are better and it's somehow set in stone. You should go write a book since you have this all figured out. And at this somehow not being a 2 sided argument based on opinions. wow.

It's not a formula. It's 3 basic tenants that are common across a number of sports. It's not an argument at all. It's one side pointing to a blatant trend that is going on across many different sports and another side saying, "No, the players I grew up watching are the best".The generation of players 20 years from now will be better than the current generation too barring another league expansion. That doesn't mean there will be another Jordan who will stand out from his peers and win 6 championships, but the average player and the understanding of the game will continue to improve.

For not being a formula it sure sounds like a formula. From it you have come to the conclusion that today's players are unequivocally better than those from the 80's (or any other era). And that's fine, it's a totally valid opinion.

it's not an opinion though. they are better, at least from and athletic stand point.

Being more athletic is not what is being discussed

better swing players and s**ttier big men than yester year

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Being more athletic is not what is being discussed

Being better is and being more athletic is a piece of that. With a bigger pool of players, you're naturally going to get a more athletic and skilled group at the top. The change in athleticism is more obvious because of the physical training improvements in addition to the larger pool of athletes globally.

The one area that players in the 80's probably had an edge in is physical toughness because there were harder fouls and a little more physical contact allowed defensively. Curry would have had a tough time probing the lane like he does in today's game. The rules back then favored a certain type of players and the rules today favor a different type of player, but the overall talent level has risen and will continue to rise.

I think the way you have to think about it is:
In the 80's and 90's, you're starting with a weaker talent pool than today and the league is expanding so some teams are filled up with pretty weak players. The rules favored tough players which was useful in the 80's which results in some skilled players being bypassed.

In today's game, you have a much bigger talent pool thanks to the growth of the game, especially overseas (Canada is starting to produce some solid players too). Guards/wings are favored under the current rules and skilled players have an advantage over bruisers that dominated the 80's. Stretch 4's are now huge because teams are trying to get more efficient offensively.

If you match both eras up based on the rules today, it's no contest - players today are more athletic, more skilled, and more knowledgeable about the game. Physical toughness isn't as big of a factor and a lot of bruisers from the 80's/90's would struggle defending, especially against the pick and role and playing against skilled big men on the perimeter.

If you match up the eras based on the rules in the 80's/90's, I still think that players today come out ahead because they still have skill/athleticism/knowledge advantages compared to the physical toughness factor. Some of the traditional big men back then would be liabilities on defense because they couldn't defend on the perimeter.

Jordan vs. Lebron is an interesting debate because Jordan was more dominant in his era, but Lebron is playing against better competition (even though he's in the Eastern Conference which is much weaker right now). Wilt vs. Jordan is an interesting debate for the same reason.

That post is ridiculously too long. Such a post isn't really necessary I'm in such a silly topic. lol

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Being more athletic is not what is being discussed

Being better is and being more athletic is a piece of that. With a bigger pool of players, you're naturally going to get a more athletic and skilled group at the top. The change in athleticism is more obvious because of the physical training improvements in addition to the larger pool of athletes globally.

The one area that players in the 80's probably had an edge in is physical toughness because there were harder fouls and a little more physical contact allowed defensively. Curry would have had a tough time probing the lane like he does in today's game. The rules back then favored a certain type of players and the rules today favor a different type of player, but the overall talent level has risen and will continue to rise.

I think the way you have to think about it is:
In the 80's and 90's, you're starting with a weaker talent pool than today and the league is expanding so some teams are filled up with pretty weak players. The rules favored tough players which was useful in the 80's which results in some skilled players being bypassed.

In today's game, you have a much bigger talent pool thanks to the growth of the game, especially overseas (Canada is starting to produce some solid players too). Guards/wings are favored under the current rules and skilled players have an advantage over bruisers that dominated the 80's. Stretch 4's are now huge because teams are trying to get more efficient offensively.

If you match both eras up based on the rules today, it's no contest - players today are more athletic, more skilled, and more knowledgeable about the game. Physical toughness isn't as big of a factor and a lot of bruisers from the 80's/90's would struggle defending, especially against the pick and role and playing against skilled big men on the perimeter.

If you match up the eras based on the rules in the 80's/90's, I still think that players today come out ahead because they still have skill/athleticism/knowledge advantages compared to the physical toughness factor. Some of the traditional big men back then would be liabilities on defense because they couldn't defend on the perimeter.

Jordan vs. Lebron is an interesting debate because Jordan was more dominant in his era, but Lebron is playing against better competition (even though he's in the Eastern Conference which is much weaker right now). Wilt vs. Jordan is an interesting debate for the same reason.

You have managed to take an entire era of some of the best, most skilled players basketball has ever known and reduced it to a bunch of "bruisers", which is absurd.

And the highlighted parts above are total bs (minus the athleticism part, which i did not bold). Again, you seem to think the 80's NBA was comprised of nothing more than unathletic bruisers. Not sure if you ever watched 80's NBA, but the skill and basketball acumen was unparalleled.

Which team would win the most games against the other generations?

1985-1995 team:

Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Larry Bird
Charles Barkley
Hakeem Olajuwon
Isiah Thomas
Clyde Drexler
James Worthy
Karl Malone
Patrick Ewing

1996-2006 team

Jason Kidd
Kobe Bryant
Scottie Pippen
Kevin Garnett
Shaquille O'Neal
Gary Payton
Ray Allen
Vince Carter
Tim Duncan
Dikembe Mutombo

2007 - Present team:

Chris Paul
Stephen Curry
Lebron James
Kevin Durant
Dwight Howard
Derrick Rose
James Harden
Carmelo Anthony
Pau Gasol
Joaquim Noah

I wonder!?

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Which team would win the most games against the other generations?

1985-1995 team:

Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Larry Bird
Charles Barkley
Hakeem Olajuwon
Isiah Thomas
Clyde Drexler
James Worthy
Karl Malone
Patrick Ewing

1996-2006 team

Jason Kidd
Kobe Bryant
Scottie Pippen
Kevin Garnett
Shaquille O'Neal
Gary Payton
Ray Allen
Vince Carter
Tim Duncan
Dikembe Mutombo

2007 - Present team:

Chris Paul
Stephen Curry
Lebron James
Kevin Durant
Dwight Howard
Derrick Rose
James Harden
Carmelo Anthony
Pau Gasol
Joaquim Noah

I wonder!?

Let's wait until 2017 before we finalize who the best players are of this decade. Anthony Davis is certainly going to be one of them and will win an MVP soon if he stays healthy. That's an interesting selection of the 2007-present team omitting Anthony Davis, Dwayne Wade and Tim Duncan (I know you had Duncan on the 1996-2006 team, but he's been one of the best big men since 2007 too.

Curry/Rose/Paul
Wade/Westbrook/Harden
Durant/Anthony
Lebron/Griffin
Davis/Howard/Duncan

They could also go Lebron, Wade, Durant, Davis, Howard if they want to go big, but they'd probably be better off keeping Lebron as a mismatch at the 4. Barkley, Malone, KG, or Duncan aren't staying in front of him.

If we're talking head to head, I would take the 2007-2017 team and I don't care if that's not a popular choice. The other teams (especially 1985-1995) don't have enough shooters to space the floor half as well and they aren't going to be able to deal with Lebron on the perimeter. Anthony Davis is going to be a monster in this league and is developing a jump shot which would pull guys like Shaq and Hakeem out of the paint and make it harder for them to defend pick and rolls.

Larry Bird is the only 3 point shooter on that 1985-2005 team. Of the guards, Drexler was the best 3 point shooter averaging 2.4 attempts per his career and shooting 32%. Bird wasn't even a prolific 3 point shooter, shooting 38% for his career on only 1.9 attempts per game. Reggie Miller should be on that team if for no other reason than they desperately need shooting.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Being more athletic is not what is being discussed

Being better is and being more athletic is a piece of that. With a bigger pool of players, you're naturally going to get a more athletic and skilled group at the top. The change in athleticism is more obvious because of the physical training improvements in addition to the larger pool of athletes globally.

The one area that players in the 80's probably had an edge in is physical toughness because there were harder fouls and a little more physical contact allowed defensively. Curry would have had a tough time probing the lane like he does in today's game. The rules back then favored a certain type of players and the rules today favor a different type of player, but the overall talent level has risen and will continue to rise.

I think the way you have to think about it is:
In the 80's and 90's, you're starting with a weaker talent pool than today and the league is expanding so some teams are filled up with pretty weak players. The rules favored tough players which was useful in the 80's which results in some skilled players being bypassed.

In today's game, you have a much bigger talent pool thanks to the growth of the game, especially overseas (Canada is starting to produce some solid players too). Guards/wings are favored under the current rules and skilled players have an advantage over bruisers that dominated the 80's. Stretch 4's are now huge because teams are trying to get more efficient offensively.

If you match both eras up based on the rules today, it's no contest - players today are more athletic, more skilled, and more knowledgeable about the game. Physical toughness isn't as big of a factor and a lot of bruisers from the 80's/90's would struggle defending, especially against the pick and role and playing against skilled big men on the perimeter.

If you match up the eras based on the rules in the 80's/90's, I still think that players today come out ahead because they still have skill/athleticism/knowledge advantages compared to the physical toughness factor. Some of the traditional big men back then would be liabilities on defense because they couldn't defend on the perimeter.

Jordan vs. Lebron is an interesting debate because Jordan was more dominant in his era, but Lebron is playing against better competition (even though he's in the Eastern Conference which is much weaker right now). Wilt vs. Jordan is an interesting debate for the same reason.

You have managed to take an entire era of some of the best, most skilled players basketball has ever known and reduced it to a bunch of "bruisers", which is absurd.

And the highlighted parts above are total bs (minus the athleticism part, which i did not bold). Again, you seem to think the 80's NBA was comprised of nothing more than unathletic bruisers. Not sure if you ever watched 80's NBA, but the skill and basketball acumen was unparalleled.

I did not say that the era consisted of nothing but bruisers. I said there are a number of bruisers who would struggle in the game today because it is officiated differently and you can't play as physically on defense. A number of traditional big men would struggle adjusting to the modern game because of the growth in perimeter play. There's been a massive increase in the amount of 3 point attempts which has forced big men out of the paint and they have to be able to defend pick and rolls.

You can choose to believe that a bigger pool of players doesn't result in more skilled players and 30 years of basketball tape and innovation of offenses and defenses doesn't result in more knowledgeable players, but that's an interesting opinion to say the least. The skill and basketball acumen today is far ahead of where it was in the 80's. You can see evidence of the skill level in 3 point statistics - there are far more (and better) 3 point shooters today than there were 20 or 30 years ago. I've never seen a PG with Irving's handles either (Curry's handles are a little overrated because his shooting keeps defenders on a string). Big men today are also far more skilled on the perimeter than they were in the past.