Our Self Serving Biases

[The Main Event]

I've come to realize that everybody has got self serving biases in life and are quite evident when talking ball.

We constantly see Homerism toward individuals home teams/players, a disregard toward other peoples opinions that don't parallel with their own, making reference to stats that reflect our opinions and don't necessarily give an objective representation of a given issue being discussed, etc.

From what i've read, a vast majority of the younger generation seem to disbelieve that ballers of the 50's, 60's and even 70's generations are comparable (athletically) to our modern day ballers. They tend to refute any claims that elite ballers of the 50's and 60's era could play in todays game.
The old schoolers counter this argument by citing quotes, relative stats, and other information that supports the idea that the ballers of those eras were in fact elite athletes, even by todays standard.

Until recently, i've been supportive of the younger generations argument, which admittedly, is founded on ignorance and a general lack of knowledge.

I find myself getting into arguments with friends regarding whether or not elite ballers of the past are comparable (athletically) to modern day ballers. I've come to realize that basketball is similar to music. Since the 50's, 60's, and 70's, music has undoubtedly progressed in many regards; however, that is not to say that the Bob Marleys, Elvis Presleys, and Jim Morrisons wouldn't be just as relevant and successful by todays standards.
If the musical greats from back then can stay relevant, then why is it so hard to believe that athletes from those eras could not do the same?

[G35]

Yep. People typically can't see things from more than one POV. That's why we have history classes so we remember what happened before us. But we still repeat our mistakes. Human nature I suppose......

[jman3134]

Wait to characterize my struggle against basketball ignorance.....I've been debating such matters with my friends for a couple of years.

(people who cannot fathom a player more dominant than Shaq)

[He Hate Me]

starting at power forward... George Mikan!

... don't think so.

Many of the 50/60s players dominated because they were so physically superior to their counterparts. Mikan was 6'10 posting up guys thatd barely meet todays SF requirements. That edge would be entirely gone today.

[The Main Event]

starting at power forward... George Mikan!

... don't think so.

Many of the 50/60s players dominated because they were so physically superior to their counterparts. Mikan was 6'10 posting up guys thatd barely meet todays SF requirements. That edge would be entirely gone today.

Right but you're comparing George Mikan to today's centers. He would surely be a 4 by today's standards. Not to mention, you're talking about a guy who started his career in '46. Let's use a bigger sample size before even thinking about making generalizations.

[Razzputin]

Overall, I strongly believe that the players today are more athletic on average. That doesn't mean that the best athletes of yore couldn't compete, it just means I think that the average NBA athlete today is better than in the 50s or 60s.

That isn't based on ignorance, it's based on logic. There are a variety of reasons to believe that.

- a lot more is known about nutrition and training now
- there are more people in USA, meaning a bigger talent pool from which to draw players
- the world market has grown, greatly increasing the talent pool
- there is more money available now if you make the NBA encouraging players to work harder to make it

Many world records are set at each Olympics because the athletes are getting better. The same factors apply to basketball.

[CircleCitysportsfan]

I think great players would be great in any era. A guy like writerman will tell you that Wilt would average 56 points and 27 rebounds a HALF in today's game. I think MJ would average 35 plus with today's sissy offensive bias rules. I think Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, hell even Rik Smits would be more dominate in today's game with the lack of centers. Speaking of centers...Sabonis is in the top 5 of all time. Don't know why i mention that but it just came to mind. If he was with Portland in his prime they have more rings than Saturn.

[pr0nny]

Fans are irrational biased morons?

Thanks, Freud.

[jman3134]

Overall, I strongly believe that the players today are more athletic on average. That doesn't mean that the best athletes of yore couldn't compete, it just means I think that the average NBA athlete today is better than in the 50s or 60s.

That isn't based on ignorance, it's based on logic. There are a variety of reasons to believe that.

- a lot more is known about nutrition and training now
- there are more people in USA, meaning a bigger talent pool from which to draw players
- the world market has grown, greatly increasing the talent pool
- there is more money available now if you make the NBA encouraging players to work harder to make it

Many world records are set at each Olympics because the athletes are getting better. The same factors apply to basketball.

You must also remember that athleticism does not always translate into basketball talent. While it is a prominent feature of most players in today's game, there are plenty examples of super athletic players who lacked the basketball skills to make it in the league. Sure, the opposite is true moreso, but it does not negate my point.

Also, when evaluating these guys, you must assume that they received similar physical training as was available today. Because if such and such played in this era, he would be endowed with the same advantages of said era. If you are simply looking at film, you are not going to get an accurate reading because the styles played are entirely different. No three point line, no three second rule, etc makes it a completely different game. So maybe some era-centric people believe that these guys were incapable of shooting beyond today's three point line. The truth of the matter is that it was completely unnecessary without a differentiation between two and three points. Let's assume that football changes their rules to where running the ball in for a touchdown garners 5 points, while throwing a touchdown achieves 6. Normally, wouldn't it simply be easier to just run it in for the touchdown? But, an extra point certainly would increase the incentive to throw the ball. Likewise, there was no motivation to shoot so far out, with no distinction made and no line drawn.

Also, the athleticism of players in today's game would speak to the average as well. By no means does this indicate that the top of the 60's players such as Wilt were somehow less athletic. This actually can be compared through Wilt's track feats and his dunking on a 12 ft hoop. One has to recognize that there are athletic marvels whose achievements span generational gaps. To think anything else would be a grand display of arrogance.

[sweet daddy]

An exact comparison of today's players to the players from 50 years ago is pretty much impossible. Today's players are all multi-million dollar investments for their teams and have access to the latest and greatest training tools and methods, and train year-round for basketball. The players from 50 years ago, at least many of them, held regular jobs on the off-season and only trained during the pre-season and season. The teams didn't have state of the art gyms, and weight trainers, and nutritional experts working for them. It was a totally different environment.

Don't think of Mikan in terms of what he looked like then ... think of him in terms of what he would look like today. Can you imagine what Wilt would have looked like in today's game?? Even late in his career, he held his own against the likes of Jabbar, and Gilmore (my gosh, what a physical specimen he would be today), and Cowens, who were all 10 years younger than him. He had better stats than all of them as late as '72 (well, Jabbar's offense was a little better, but ...)

Anyway, it is fun to try and imagine, but we have to be honest, folks. Human physiology hasn't changed so much in the past 50 years that anyone could make an argument that the best athletes from 50 years ago, playing in today's environment, wouldn't be capable of matching up very well with today's athletes.

[ballerblogger]

I've come to realize that everybody has got self serving biases in life and are quite evident when talking ball.

We constantly see Homerism toward individuals home teams/players, a disregard toward other peoples opinions that don't parallel with their own, making reference to stats that reflect our opinions and don't necessarily give an objective representation of a given issue being discussed, etc.

From what i've read, a vast majority of the younger generation seem to disbelieve that ballers of the 50's, 60's and even 70's generations are comparable (athletically) to our modern day ballers. They tend to refute any claims that elite ballers of the 50's and 60's era could play in todays game.
The old schoolers counter this argument by citing quotes, relative stats, and other information that supports the idea that the ballers of those eras were in fact elite athletes, even by todays standard.

Until recently, i've been supportive of the younger generations argument, which admittedly, is founded on ignorance and a general lack of knowledge.

I find myself getting into arguments with friends regarding whether or not elite ballers of the past are comparable (athletically) to modern day ballers. I've come to realize that basketball is similar to music. Since the 50's, 60's, and 70's, music has undoubtedly progressed in many regards; however, that is not to say that the Bob Marleys, Elvis Presleys, and Jim Morrisons wouldn't be just as relevant and successful by todays standards.
If the musical greats from back then can stay relevant, then why is it so hard to believe that athletes from those eras could not do the same?

Very interesting.

But I disagree that players of the 50's and 60's could compete in today's NBA. And I have my doubts about most of the players from the 70's.

It's evolution. Today's players are bigger, stronger, and more skilled than players of yesteryear.

Of course, I have no way to prove this.

But I would suggest looking at the world records in track and field in the 50's and 60's and compare them to the world records of today.

Skill can trump athleticism from time to time. (See Larry Bird)

But how many truly skilled, unathletic players have made it in today's NBA?

Not very many.

[kooldude]

I think great players would be great in any era. A guy like writerman will tell you that Wilt would average 56 points and 27 rebounds a HALF in today's game. I think MJ would average 35 plus with today's sissy offensive bias rules. I think Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, hell even Rik Smits would be more dominate in today's game with the lack of centers. Speaking of centers...Sabonis is in the top 5 of all time. Don't know why i mention that but it just came to mind. If he was with Portland in his prime they have more rings than Saturn.

When you combine the best traits of Shaq, Tim Duncan, and KG, you would essentially get Wilt:

- Shaq: his power, overwhelming size and strength, explosive style of play with quickness
- Duncan: great fundamentals and footwork, calm but uber-deadly instinct, tremendous man-defense and rotational skills, able to adjust his game to fit his team
- KG: ability to hit jumpers away from the rim, dominant rebounding and passing for a big-man while fluid enough to run the floor with ease and defend the perimeter

Wilt would still do things better over the combination of these guys. He easily has more endurance and can fit various style of play from fast-paced to half-court schemes with his great individual offensive and defensive abilities and superior passing.

So yes, Duncan has the high Bball IQ to focus on the ballhandler and make defensive rotations, contest shots, and blocks many attempts but Wilt could do it better because of he is bigger, faster, overall more athletic. (the only player that is close to Wilt at his defensive peak, is Russell) Shaq had some of that elite man defense too bc of his great size but even at his best, he is only 83% as competent as Wilt. (The Big Dipper's quicker feet, better lateral movement, instincts for the ball, end-to-end speed, blocking ability allows him to dominate more). These guys combined is pretty much what Wilt was like in his era.

I repeat: take this era's best big men at their absolute peak with all their best physical and impact traits and that was Wilt.

[tkb]

He had better stats than all of them as late as '72 (well, Jabbar's offense was a little better, but ...)

I'm sorry, but I have to nitpick a little on this statement. In the 1972 season, Wilt averaged 14.8 points on .649 fg shooting and .422 ft shooting (tsp at .610) with 4.0 assists. Kareem averaged 34.8 points on .574 and .689 (tsp at .603) with 4.6 assists. Usually the gap will be that big because the older player played way less minutes, but when you consider that Wilt only played 1.9 mpg less, and that offensive gap wasn't little, it was enormous.

Wilt was still the best rebounder in the league with an average of 19.2 and a rebound percentage of 20.1, but Kareem was no slouch at 16.6 rebounds per game and a rebound percentage of 18.1.

Kareem's PER was 29.9, while Wilt's was 18.5. Statistically, at that point, they weren't even close.

[Duiz]

Tracy McGrady > Magic Johnson + Isaiah Thomas

[JimmyTD3]

As a Psychology major I cringe when people butcher/misuse terms.

A self-serving bias is when we attribute good stuff to ourselves (I won because I have a lot of skill), while attributing bad stuff to others (I lost because he cheated).

The psychological phenomenon you're talking about, where we only take in information that serves our purposes (such as I only pay attention to Nellie's strengths, not weaknesses) is called "confirmation bias".

Other than that, I don't know what to say. You've come to realize that sports fans are biased...someone alert the presses.

[Point forward]

Basketball rears some strange fans. In soccer, nobody doubts that Maradona is better than Messi, Eusebio is better than Ronaldo, Pele better than Kaka, Beckenbauer better than Ballack or Cruyff better than Van Nistelrooy. Nobody says that soccer of the 1970s suck in comparison to today and that Maradona would not even make Real Madrid II today.

:scratchhead:

[NO-KG-AI]

The thing that kills me about athleticism arguments, is that it seems all the super premier athletes aren't terribly great defenders. Who is the best defensive big right now? I might disagree, but most would say Duncan right? What about perimeter defenders? Kobe, Artest, Bowen, Battier? that would be common answers, and Kobe is slower than he was, and neither of the other three are terribly quick or long, and none of the 3 are great leapers, though Artest is very strong.

Hell, even the DPOY KG isn't nearly the athlete he was, he's still impressive, but he's not at a stage in his career where he is head and shoulders above the crowd....

Point is, the argument that defense is better now than ever because of athletic ability is stupid.

[JimmyTD3]

Basketball rears some strange fans. In soccer, nobody doubts that Maradona is better than Messi, Eusebio is better than Ronaldo, Pele better than Kaka, Beckenbauer better than Ballack or Cruyff better than Van Nistelrooy. Nobody says that soccer of the 1970s suck in comparison to today and that Maradona would not even make Real Madrid II today.

:scratchhead:

I think this is because soccer relies way more on skill than it does athleticism. You look at the best players of the past, and the best players now, there isn't much difference in athleticism.

[mysticbb]

I think this is because soccer relies way more on skill than it does athleticism. You look at the best players of the past, and the best players now, there isn't much difference in athleticism.

No, that isn't true. Players from the 70's with their respective athleticism don't have any chance to compete nowadays at the highest level of soccer. The game is so much faster today, that's not even funny. I know what I'm talking about, because I played soccer. In the 70's the best players ran about 7 to 8 km in a game. Michael Ballack for example ran nearly 12 km per game during his games in the European Championship, that's a huge difference. The mileages from the 70’s are similar to that in today’s 3rd or 4th league games; maybe even lower.

But that's the reason we shouldn't compare players from different eras only by trying to evaluate how they could compete in today’s game. We should look at how they done against their own opponents. That's the reason why Chamberlain is better than Olajuwon, because he was more dominant. If you put the 60's Chamberlain in today’s game, he couldn't compete like that, because he isn't that physical dominant like he was in his era. Maybe he would, if he had the same training methods like the Bynums, Howards or Stoudemires from today, but in fact he hadn't. So, don't try to do compare players from different eras in this way. It makes no sense for me.

[Point forward]

Technically, soccer before 1993 (backpass illegal to goalie rule, 2 yellow cards equals red) is unwatchable. In the 1970s, ppl ran 5 miles per game, now it is 8. In the 1970s, ppl had 3 seconds to pass the ball, now thet have 1.8. Still, Pele / Maradona are GOATs.