Gooner wrote:It's hard to rank players from different eras, with different positions, roles etc. I would say LeBron is like top 15.
You're certainly the GOAT of stupid uncorroborated posts.
Moderators: PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0, trex_8063
Gooner wrote:It's hard to rank players from different eras, with different positions, roles etc. I would say LeBron is like top 15.
Gooner wrote:Dutchball97 wrote:Gooner wrote:
People get mad, but it's not an insult at all to put someone in top 15 players of all time. There have been many great players in the history of this game.
It's not an insult but anyone can see it's weak. You can't even make the longevity argument to keep him down like people still do with Curry for example since LeBron has already been playing for longer than some All-Time greats.
Thing is, there are not 14 other players who have been as good as LeBron for as long as him.
I don't know if there is 14, I don't have a list, but I would put 10 guys ahead of him, and then LeBron somewhere between 11-15. Longevity is not that important to me. It's a nice feat, but it doesn't show who is the better player, and it was never really the criteria until LeBron started to age...
Gooner wrote: If longevity was that important, then KAJ is the undisputed goat.
70sFan wrote:I don't think that James is clear GOAT, there is no clear NBA GOAT., Wilt,
SNPA wrote:KTM_2813 wrote:LKN wrote:
Most of the bolded isn't true - if you think it is you need to read a book about MJ. (I'd recommend playing for keeps by Halberstam - which also covers the Bulls and has interesting detours on guys like Magic as well).
Good to know. I certainly didn't intend to take credit from Jordan. I guess I'm just trying to poke some holes in the whole "you can only be the GOAT if your innate basketball ability is greater than X" thing. Seems like a bit of a dumpster fire, if I'm being honest.
I don’t expect everyone to get it. Especially in the age where quantitative measurements are seen as object truth to high to be questioned.
This is isn't close to true, no social scientist would agree with this.
Stats tell what happened (to some degree), sometimes when and where it happened (to some degree), occasionally how but they don't tell why it happened. And the why is the most important part. What people do to get to the why is speculate, which is subjective. Thus the objective stat becomes the subjective speculation as to why that stats is the way it is.
And the social sciences can tell you massive amounts (maybe even more) about how a player and team work than quantitative stats.
How anyone can argue it doesn't is beyond me. If innate qualities didn't exist we'd all have equal chance at being the best drummer in the world. Every try to play a set of drums? You can tell if someone doesn't have innate qualities real quick.
SNPA wrote:Lol. You seem mad.
I hold several science degrees.
freethedevil wrote:SNPA wrote:Lol. You seem mad.
Concession accepted.I hold several science degrees.
freethedevil wrote:70sFan wrote:I don't think that James is clear GOAT, there is no clear NBA GOAT., Wilt,
So you mention wilt, but not duncan, garnett, shaq, hakeem, ect, ect. Is there a reason for that?
70sFan wrote:freethedevil wrote:70sFan wrote:I don't think that James is clear GOAT, there is no clear NBA GOAT., Wilt,
So you mention wilt, but not duncan, garnett, shaq, hakeem, ect, ect. Is there a reason for that?
This is an old post, I don't remember what werr my thoughts. I agree that you can include even more options if you want to.
I have Duncan ahead, but I rank Wilt higher than Garnett, Shaq and Hakeem.
freethedevil wrote:70sFan wrote:freethedevil wrote:So you mention wilt, but not duncan, garnett, shaq, hakeem, ect, ect. Is there a reason for that?
This is an old post, I don't remember what werr my thoughts. I agree that you can include even more options if you want to.
I have Duncan ahead, but I rank Wilt higher than Garnett, Shaq and Hakeem.
What makes you pick wilt over shaq?
SNPA wrote:Lol. You seem mad.
Do you expect everyone to write a full dissertation for each post? Your points are rubbish. I hold several science degrees. Stop drinking. It’s late.
SNPA wrote:KTM_2813 wrote:LKN wrote:
Most of the bolded isn't true - if you think it is you need to read a book about MJ. (I'd recommend playing for keeps by Halberstam - which also covers the Bulls and has interesting detours on guys like Magic as well).
Good to know. I certainly didn't intend to take credit from Jordan. I guess I'm just trying to poke some holes in the whole "you can only be the GOAT if your innate basketball ability is greater than X" thing. Seems like a bit of a dumpster fire, if I'm being honest.
I don’t expect everyone to get it. Especially in the age where quantitative measurements are seen as object truth to high to be questioned. FYI - stats are subjective too in which one you pick and how you value them.
Dr. MJ has it right IMO. It’s about biology in how the brain is wired. That’s why we say some guys can see two or three moves ahead, they are processing input differently. Bird could pass and shoot before he picked up a ball just like a baby giraffe knows intuitively to stand up after birth, it’s not learned it’s naturally there.
This innate ability is a factor just like height, length or running and jumping. It’s a fundamental part of how a player plays the game. And if you look for it, you’ll know when you see a player that has it. It was has no associated statistic so lots of people miss it or discount it.
sansterre wrote:The success of a star's season is:
Individual performance + Teammate performance - Opposition +/- Luck
KTM_2813 wrote:SNPA wrote:KTM_2813 wrote:
Good to know. I certainly didn't intend to take credit from Jordan. I guess I'm just trying to poke some holes in the whole "you can only be the GOAT if your innate basketball ability is greater than X" thing. Seems like a bit of a dumpster fire, if I'm being honest.
I don’t expect everyone to get it. Especially in the age where quantitative measurements are seen as object truth to high to be questioned. FYI - stats are subjective too in which one you pick and how you value them.
Dr. MJ has it right IMO. It’s about biology in how the brain is wired. That’s why we say some guys can see two or three moves ahead, they are processing input differently. Bird could pass and shoot before he picked up a ball just like a baby giraffe knows intuitively to stand up after birth, it’s not learned it’s naturally there.
This innate ability is a factor just like height, length or running and jumping. It’s a fundamental part of how a player plays the game. And if you look for it, you’ll know when you see a player that has it. It was has no associated statistic so lots of people miss it or discount it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I don't doubt that some people are more natural at basketball than others, and in order to be the greatest player of all-time, it's very fair to assume that guy has innate qualities that lend themselves to basketball. Nature matters, not just nurture.
The "dumpster fire" part is figuring out exact levels of innateness based on random observation. At the end of the day, I just don't think it's possible, or at least possible to do with a high level of certainty, because we don't know how much work guys are putting in off the court, where they started their journeys from, what their goals are, etc. There are too many variables we just don't know.
The irony here is that the reason I am saying these things is partly because of my own social science degree (only one for me though, although I don't really use it). I'm not saying I'm a super smart dude or anything - far from it - but just that your approach feels strange based on my similar experience. When I was learning how to do research, a big part of that training was learning how to isolate variables and get to the heart of the subject matter, and then how to best measure everything. If I said to my professor, "I think that basketball skills are innate", he would have said "Cool. Review the literature. Do some research." He would not have said, "Watch a few games and trust your feelings."
TL;DR - It's probably fair to assume that basketball skills have a significant "nature" component, but figuring out specific levels of innateness is a complicated task, and doing so based on observation alone is a dumpster fire.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
SNPA wrote:KTM_2813 wrote:SNPA wrote:
I don’t expect everyone to get it. Especially in the age where quantitative measurements are seen as object truth to high to be questioned. FYI - stats are subjective too in which one you pick and how you value them.
Dr. MJ has it right IMO. It’s about biology in how the brain is wired. That’s why we say some guys can see two or three moves ahead, they are processing input differently. Bird could pass and shoot before he picked up a ball just like a baby giraffe knows intuitively to stand up after birth, it’s not learned it’s naturally there.
This innate ability is a factor just like height, length or running and jumping. It’s a fundamental part of how a player plays the game. And if you look for it, you’ll know when you see a player that has it. It was has no associated statistic so lots of people miss it or discount it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I don't doubt that some people are more natural at basketball than others, and in order to be the greatest player of all-time, it's very fair to assume that guy has innate qualities that lend themselves to basketball. Nature matters, not just nurture.
The "dumpster fire" part is figuring out exact levels of innateness based on random observation. At the end of the day, I just don't think it's possible, or at least possible to do with a high level of certainty, because we don't know how much work guys are putting in off the court, where they started their journeys from, what their goals are, etc. There are too many variables we just don't know.
The irony here is that the reason I am saying these things is partly because of my own social science degree (only one for me though, although I don't really use it). I'm not saying I'm a super smart dude or anything - far from it - but just that your approach feels strange based on my similar experience. When I was learning how to do research, a big part of that training was learning how to isolate variables and get to the heart of the subject matter, and then how to best measure everything. If I said to my professor, "I think that basketball skills are innate", he would have said "Cool. Review the literature. Do some research." He would not have said, "Watch a few games and trust your feelings."
TL;DR - It's probably fair to assume that basketball skills have a significant "nature" component, but figuring out specific levels of innateness is a complicated task, and doing so based on observation alone is a dumpster fire.
I agree with all of this. I don’t have time or desire to do a research project and literature deep dive review to post on a message board. Hell, read my post, I don’t even proof read them and they are full of typos.
I was just making a point that there is some natural affinity at play and that, if we did have access to a coequal amount of social science data and insight as we do quantitative statistics, there would be a ton of valuable information in it. The game is played by humans, the sciences that study humans seem a good fit for understanding what happens and why. All of this seems totally uncontroversial to me.
sansterre wrote:The success of a star's season is:
Individual performance + Teammate performance - Opposition +/- Luck
KTM_2813 wrote:SNPA wrote:KTM_2813 wrote:
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I don't doubt that some people are more natural at basketball than others, and in order to be the greatest player of all-time, it's very fair to assume that guy has innate qualities that lend themselves to basketball. Nature matters, not just nurture.
The "dumpster fire" part is figuring out exact levels of innateness based on random observation. At the end of the day, I just don't think it's possible, or at least possible to do with a high level of certainty, because we don't know how much work guys are putting in off the court, where they started their journeys from, what their goals are, etc. There are too many variables we just don't know.
The irony here is that the reason I am saying these things is partly because of my own social science degree (only one for me though, although I don't really use it). I'm not saying I'm a super smart dude or anything - far from it - but just that your approach feels strange based on my similar experience. When I was learning how to do research, a big part of that training was learning how to isolate variables and get to the heart of the subject matter, and then how to best measure everything. If I said to my professor, "I think that basketball skills are innate", he would have said "Cool. Review the literature. Do some research." He would not have said, "Watch a few games and trust your feelings."
TL;DR - It's probably fair to assume that basketball skills have a significant "nature" component, but figuring out specific levels of innateness is a complicated task, and doing so based on observation alone is a dumpster fire.
I agree with all of this. I don’t have time or desire to do a research project and literature deep dive review to post on a message board. Hell, read my post, I don’t even proof read them and they are full of typos.
I was just making a point that there is some natural affinity at play and that, if we did have access to a coequal amount of social science data and insight as we do quantitative statistics, there would be a ton of valuable information in it. The game is played by humans, the sciences that study humans seem a good fit for understanding what happens and why. All of this seems totally uncontroversial to me.
This is all well and good, but IMO you seem to shift gears between "I don't expect everyone to understand these complicated points I'm making because I have multiple social science degrees!" and "I know they're a bit lazy sometimes but I don't actually care enough about this message board to proof read my posts!" Sorry... I know I'm exaggerating a bit for effect, but there's just this weird bouncing around from one side to the other that has me super confused.
Anyhow, it's probably time for me to stop derailing this thread. Cheers.
KTM_2813 wrote:SNPA wrote:KTM_2813 wrote:
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I don't doubt that some people are more natural at basketball than others, and in order to be the greatest player of all-time, it's very fair to assume that guy has innate qualities that lend themselves to basketball. Nature matters, not just nurture.
The "dumpster fire" part is figuring out exact levels of innateness based on random observation. At the end of the day, I just don't think it's possible, or at least possible to do with a high level of certainty, because we don't know how much work guys are putting in off the court, where they started their journeys from, what their goals are, etc. There are too many variables we just don't know.
The irony here is that the reason I am saying these things is partly because of my own social science degree (only one for me though, although I don't really use it). I'm not saying I'm a super smart dude or anything - far from it - but just that your approach feels strange based on my similar experience. When I was learning how to do research, a big part of that training was learning how to isolate variables and get to the heart of the subject matter, and then how to best measure everything. If I said to my professor, "I think that basketball skills are innate", he would have said "Cool. Review the literature. Do some research." He would not have said, "Watch a few games and trust your feelings."
TL;DR - It's probably fair to assume that basketball skills have a significant "nature" component, but figuring out specific levels of innateness is a complicated task, and doing so based on observation alone is a dumpster fire.
I agree with all of this. I don’t have time or desire to do a research project and literature deep dive review to post on a message board. Hell, read my post, I don’t even proof read them and they are full of typos.
I was just making a point that there is some natural affinity at play and that, if we did have access to a coequal amount of social science data and insight as we do quantitative statistics, there would be a ton of valuable information in it. The game is played by humans, the sciences that study humans seem a good fit for understanding what happens and why. All of this seems totally uncontroversial to me.
This is all well and good, but IMO you seem to shift gears between "I don't expect everyone to understand these complicated points I'm making because I have multiple social science degrees!" .