Baron Davis on Appreciating the Current Era

[tsherkin]

Watch on YouTube

It's a little piece of a 10-minute clip, but he speaks on being positive about today's game, and building up the guys who are playing because of what it means when former players acknowledge him, etc.

It's an interesting listen, and a nice departure from old-heads crapping on the differences in today's game all the time.

EDIT: Starts at 5:31. Tried to post the link with the timestamp, but it didn't like that.

[Showtime 80]

Watch on YouTube

It's a little piece of a 10-minute clip, but he speaks on being positive about today's game, and building up the guys who are playing because of what it means when former players acknowledge him, etc.

It's an interesting listen, and a nice departure from old-heads crapping on the differences in today's game all the time.

EDIT: Starts at 5:31. Tried to post the link with the timestamp, but it didn't like that.

Prime Rodman and Pippen had nightmares guarding old Larry Bird and yet a scrub like Shumpert thinks he’s shutting him down while also making like difficult for MJ He would fit right in with Gilbert Arenas

[mastermixer]

This era is great for the playoffs. The competitiveness during each round the of the playoffs I would actually say is even be stronger than that of the early 2000s because of the parity that we have.

But this generation simply doesn’t try during the regular season and it’s really a shame and hurting the product as a whole. The regular season is pretty much unwatchable.

There are no marquee match ups, no rivalries, no big games. It’s just coasting

[tsherkin]

Prime Rodman and Pippen had nightmares guarding old Larry Bird and yet a scrub like Shumpert thinks he’s shutting him down while also making like difficult for MJ He would fit right in with Gilbert Arenas

We have known that Shump isn't the brightest bulb for a long time. And even Baron was all over him about it. xD

But this generation simply doesn’t try during the regular season and it’s really a shame and hurting the product as a whole. The regular season is pretty much unwatchable.

There are great games all the time. Watch more ball, watch different teams... it's there. It's hard to parse the full load of an NBA schedule.

There are no marquee match ups, no rivalries, no big games.

That's not really true at all, no.

[CarMalone]

Players from the 60's crapped on players like Jordan in the 80's (just Youtube videos of Wilt saying that Jordan wouldn't survive in the 60's and how 50 year old Wilt could average 30ppg), players from the 70's crapped on Shaq in the 90s, I still remember the 2000s being dismissed by players in the 1980s. I'm sure current players will criticize the 2040's regardless of what the league is like by then.

A lot of these players have spent most of their lives being the center of attention as well as being the best players at every stage of their careers so it's hard for them to accept that they are no longer the best or the game that they have devoted their lives to has changed.

[tsherkin]

Players from the 60's crapped on players like Jordan in the 80's (just Youtube videos of Wilt saying that Jordan wouldn't survive in the 60's and how 50 year old Wilt could average 30ppg), players from the 70's crapped on Shaq in the 90s, I still remember the 2000s being dismissed by players in the 1980s. I'm sure current players will criticize the 2040's regardless of what the league is like by then.

Sure, but they shouldn't, because it's crappy and insecure and douchebaggy. Which was basically Baron's point.

[Deathray]

As the pool of players talent is drawn from gets bigger, the overall talent will be better. The pool has definitely gotten larger during the time the NBA has been around with the population of black Americans continually increasing and the game becoming more international, and the NBA's African outreach programs could increase the size of the talent pool even more.

[Capn'O]

I could listen to Baron all day. The chillest dude.

[Yoshun]

As the pool of players talent is drawn from gets bigger, the overall talent will be better. The pool has definitely gotten larger during the time the NBA has been around with the population of black Americans continually increasing and the game becoming more international, and the NBA's African outreach programs could increase the size of the talent pool even more.

I agree and I think that's also what people kind of get confused. They confuse depth with more talent at the top. Teams are deeper than they used to be without question, but the top tier talent is still the top tier talent. The top 20 guys (roughly) of any era are competing at a high to elite level in any era.

[HotelVitale]

As the pool of players talent is drawn from gets bigger, the overall talent will be better. The pool has definitely gotten larger during the time the NBA has been around with the population of black Americans continually increasing and the game becoming more international, and the NBA's African outreach programs could increase the size of the talent pool even more.

I agree and I think that's also what people kind of get confused. They confuse depth with more talent at the top. Teams are deeper than they used to be without question, but the top tier talent is still the top tier talent. The top 20 guys (roughly) of any era are competing at a high to elite level in any era.

Hmm, think I might be one of those confused people. First there's no reason to suggest that in any era the top 20ish guys are about as good relative to other players as in any other era. Statistically speaking you'd expect that to vary quite a bit--one 5- or 8-year period might have like 4 ATG-level guys active in it and like 10 genuine elite all-NBA guys, and the next might have 2 ATG and like 7 elite dudes. Sort of like an extension of how the draft talent varies a ton year to year, you'd expect the same thing comparing any given relatively small sample with another sample of equal size. Uneven outcomes are the expectation, it'd be pretty odd statistically if they were all about even.

Second it also makes sense statistically that top tier talent would be better in a larger pool too. Increasing the possible player population means you're more likely to hit on great players too. This makes perfect sense statistically--more overall chances means more overall possible unusually great outcomes--but there are also easy examples of it that don't need any stats. E.g. the introduction of Euro guys starting for real in the late 90s--before that we just wouldn't have had guys like Luka, Giannis, Jokic, and other elites. In addition to many depth-y pieces. As the game expands now it's less obvious who might be left out, but if Embiid or Siakam were a few years younger they might not have made it onto HS/college radars.

Maybe I'm just missing the specific pt that youre saying people are getting wrong?

[HotelVitale]

Players from the 60's crapped on players like Jordan in the 80's (just Youtube videos of Wilt saying that Jordan wouldn't survive in the 60's and how 50 year old Wilt could average 30ppg), players from the 70's crapped on Shaq in the 90s, I still remember the 2000s being dismissed by players in the 1980s. I'm sure current players will criticize the 2040's regardless of what the league is like by then.

Sure, but they shouldn't, because it's crappy and insecure and douchebaggy. Which was basically Baron's point.

True though I didn't love how he was directing dudes more not to be haters and to be chill old heads, more so than he was actually saying/arguing that players now are as good as or better than his era. Probably because of his audience here (man does Shumpert show he needs that lesson), and probably because he knew that point would require hard sailing to get through (given that e.g. Shumpert was 1000% in on the myth at in the 90s players just shoved each other all over the place).

But still. I don't love that I only remember JJ Redick making that point comprehensively and with evidence and whatnot. JJ cannot be our champion!

[tsherkin]

True though I didn't love how he was directing dudes more not to be haters and to be chill old heads, more so than he was actually saying/arguing that players now are as good as or better than his era. Probably because of his audience here (man does Shumpert show he needs that lesson), and probably because he knew that point would require hard sailing to get through (given that e.g. Shumpert was 1000% in on the myth at in the 90s players just shoved each other all over the place).

But still. I don't love that I only remember JJ Redick making that point comprehensively and with evidence and whatnot. JJ cannot be our champion!

I mean, it's something, man. That's all. Just a positive note to share.

[benson13]

Baron mentioned Eldridge Recasner. I was a big basketball fan in the mid nineties. I remember the Houston Rockets put together what was essentially a CBA all-star team due to their injuries in 96, and Recasner was on that team.

Shump started to mention Jordan, and Baron and Ahrrii just

[Yoshun]

As the pool of players talent is drawn from gets bigger, the overall talent will be better. The pool has definitely gotten larger during the time the NBA has been around with the population of black Americans continually increasing and the game becoming more international, and the NBA's African outreach programs could increase the size of the talent pool even more.

I agree and I think that's also what people kind of get confused. They confuse depth with more talent at the top. Teams are deeper than they used to be without question, but the top tier talent is still the top tier talent. The top 20 guys (roughly) of any era are competing at a high to elite level in any era.

Hmm, think I might be one of those confused people. First there's no reason to suggest that in any era the top 20ish guys are about as good relative to other players as in any other era. Statistically speaking you'd expect that to vary quite a bit--one 5- or 8-year period might have like 4 ATG-level guys active in it and like 10 genuine elite all-NBA guys, and the next might have 2 ATG and like 7 elite dudes. Sort of like an extension of how the draft talent varies a ton year to year, you'd expect the same thing comparing any given relatively small sample with another sample of equal size. Uneven outcomes are the expectation, it'd be pretty odd statistically if they were all about even.

Second it also makes sense statistically that top tier talent would be better in a larger pool too. Increasing the possible player population means you're more likely to hit on great players too. This makes perfect sense statistically--more overall chances means more overall possible unusually great outcomes--but there are also easy examples of it that don't need any stats. E.g. the introduction of Euro guys starting for real in the late 90s--before that we just wouldn't have had guys like Luka, Giannis, Jokic, and other elites. In addition to many depth-y pieces. As the game expands now it's less obvious who might be left out, but if Embiid or Siakam were a few years younger they might not have made it onto HS/college radars.

Maybe I'm just missing the specific pt that youre saying people are getting wrong?

It's the bolded part that I don't necessarily agree with. I think it depends on what we mean by "better.". Do we mean a greater number of talented players or that current individual players at the top are better than other players at the top in previous eras?

Look at the league currently. There are definitely a greater number of talented players in that teams are deeper and there are more top-tier talents. The question is, are the guys at the top better than the guys 30, 35, 40 years ago? Are SGA, Jokic, Luka, Giannis, etc... better than MJ, Magic, Bird, Wilt, etc...? I'd say any of those guys are going to be top-tier talent in any era.

Maybe the mistake I made was giving a specific number (20). I was just tossing a number out there and that part of it I think was probably wrong. Maybe its more like the top 10-15 or something?

The overall talent pool is definitely better, I don't think that's disputable, it doesn't mean individual players at the top are better than previous players, which is something I often see people arguing here. Though I'll admit it's probably a relatively small number of people. Shump says it here though to some level.

[Lalouie]

Watch on YouTube

It's a little piece of a 10-minute clip, but he speaks on being positive about today's game, and building up the guys who are playing because of what it means when former players acknowledge him, etc.

It's an interesting listen, and a nice departure from old-heads crapping on the differences in today's game all the time.

EDIT: Starts at 5:31. Tried to post the link with the timestamp, but it didn't like that.

Prime Rodman and Pippen had nightmares guarding old Larry Bird and yet a scrub like Shumpert thinks he’s shutting him down while also making like difficult for MJ He would fit right in with Gilbert Arenas

players yap. that's what they like to do

[Capn'O]

I agree and I think that's also what people kind of get confused. They confuse depth with more talent at the top. Teams are deeper than they used to be without question, but the top tier talent is still the top tier talent. The top 20 guys (roughly) of any era are competing at a high to elite level in any era.

Hmm, think I might be one of those confused people. First there's no reason to suggest that in any era the top 20ish guys are about as good relative to other players as in any other era. Statistically speaking you'd expect that to vary quite a bit--one 5- or 8-year period might have like 4 ATG-level guys active in it and like 10 genuine elite all-NBA guys, and the next might have 2 ATG and like 7 elite dudes. Sort of like an extension of how the draft talent varies a ton year to year, you'd expect the same thing comparing any given relatively small sample with another sample of equal size. Uneven outcomes are the expectation, it'd be pretty odd statistically if they were all about even.

Second it also makes sense statistically that top tier talent would be better in a larger pool too. Increasing the possible player population means you're more likely to hit on great players too. This makes perfect sense statistically--more overall chances means more overall possible unusually great outcomes--but there are also easy examples of it that don't need any stats. E.g. the introduction of Euro guys starting for real in the late 90s--before that we just wouldn't have had guys like Luka, Giannis, Jokic, and other elites. In addition to many depth-y pieces. As the game expands now it's less obvious who might be left out, but if Embiid or Siakam were a few years younger they might not have made it onto HS/college radars.

Maybe I'm just missing the specific pt that youre saying people are getting wrong?

It's the bolded part that I don't necessarily agree with. I think it depends on what we mean by "better.". Do we mean a greater number of talented players or that current individual players at the top are better than other players at the top in previous eras?

Look at the league currently. There are definitely a greater number of talented players in that teams are deeper and there are more top-tier talents. The question is, are the guys at the top better than the guys 30, 35, 40 years ago? Are SGA, Jokic, Luka, Giannis, etc... better than MJ, Magic, Bird, Wilt, etc...? I'd say any of those guys are going to be top-tier talent in any era.

Maybe the mistake I made was giving a specific number (20). I was just tossing a number out there and that part of it I think was probably wrong. Maybe its more like the top 10-15 or something?

The overall talent pool is definitely better, I don't think that's disputable, it doesn't mean individual players at the top are better than previous players, which is something I often see people arguing here. Though I'll admit it's probably a relatively small number of people. Shump says it here though to some level.

I think what he's saying is that there are more guys at the top too. Not necessarily that the top is a better top.

Look at the mvp winners recently. All international.

[Biff]

I'm honestly kind of astonished how bad so many current and former players are at judging talent.

[Showtime 80]

As the pool of players talent is drawn from gets bigger, the overall talent will be better. The pool has definitely gotten larger during the time the NBA has been around with the population of black Americans continually increasing and the game becoming more international, and the NBA's African outreach programs could increase the size of the talent pool even more.

There’s no team in the NBA right now that I would put at the level of the 90’s Suns, Jazz, Magic and Sonics to name a few, I mean compare the Halliburton/Siakam and Shai/Holmgren duos leading the present Finals teams and they’re a solid level below Shaq/Penny, Malone/Stockton, Payton/Kemp or Barkley/KJ.

The top Euros now can’t hold a candle to the top American players of the 80’s/90’s and yet that era saw the two greatest international players of all time in Olajuwon and Duncan.

That’s the other point, it doesn’t matter how large or small the talent pool is if you have negatively altered the way you develop players (USA’s AAU takeover). Take Brazil for example, it’s the richest and largest population wise it has ever been yet the last 15 years have seen possibly the worst national soccer teams they’ve had since the mid 70’s with a barren landscape coming in the next few years but like the US they altered the way they develop players to fit the needs of the European market instead of focusing on grass roots home base development.

[Showtime 80]

Players from the 60's crapped on players like Jordan in the 80's (just Youtube videos of Wilt saying that Jordan wouldn't survive in the 60's and how 50 year old Wilt could average 30ppg), players from the 70's crapped on Shaq in the 90s, I still remember the 2000s being dismissed by players in the 1980s. I'm sure current players will criticize the 2040's regardless of what the league is like by then.

A lot of these players have spent most of their lives being the center of attention as well as being the best players at every stage of their careers so it's hard for them to accept that they are no longer the best or the game that they have devoted their lives to has changed.

Not entirely true, those 60’s guys loved and respected the 80’s guys because it was the last generation to come through the ranks like they did, from the playgrounds, high school and college to the pros before the AAU poisoning began taking hold in the early 90’s.

Listen to Wilt and Russ’s top 5/6 players of all time lists at the end of the video:

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUhQWhtbWFkZCByYWhzaGFmIEJpbGwgUnVzc2VsbCBXaWx00gcJCd4JAYcqIYzv

They have Jordan, Magic, Bird, Olajuwon and Barkley!

On the other hand NO player from the 80’s has anybody from the modern game in their top five lists, I wonder why is that?

[The Servant]

Shumpert was a decent defensive player, but I am trying to think of what elite defences he was a part of. I never feared my team's best player being guarded by Shump. I thought oh, Shump he is decent defensively.

Wild claims though, typical old man yells at cloud delulu.