Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:28 pm
Heej, I thought your post was very eloquent.
Where I think you run into problems is when you start saying because ____ was player archetype ____ then we know he can only be ____. That kind of stuff serves purpose as a general guide but ultimately it has to be about what actually happened on the court. We don't get to wash away the performances because we're "historians of the game" who have modelled what we think certain guys looked like in terms of impact in relation to other guys who sort of fit the same profile that we maybe know a little more about.
Also, if we're saying Steph's "gambler-style" offensive game is a valid comparison to MJ's "gambler-style" defense then we're effectively saying MJ is in the conversation for greatest defenders ever, which I don't agree with btw, but all that example proves is you can play the game in a fashion that isn't deemed technically sound and still have an impact greater than virtually everyone else.
I'll take lead from sansterre and try a cross sport comparison. Bobby Orr was the greatest defenseman in NHL history. Few would dispute that. He was the first defenseman who'd routinely lead the rush past the opposing blue line and into enemy territory. Guys generally didn't do that back then (and still don't) because it can get everyone out of position and open you up to rush advantages in the other direction. He was the biggest gambler in the game; except, he was so brilliant as an offensive defenseman that he not only overcame those risks but became the most impactful player in the league precisely because he was taking and hitting on them. Sadly, Orr blew out his knee and sports medicine just wasn't the same back then. But no one is saying "well actually Orr really wasn't that effective and all those MVPs and wins weren't really a good representation because he was a gambler and we've simulated vs. other defenseman gamblers and so we know no one is as good as they seem playing that style." You'd get laughed out of the room. Sometimes we just have to accept that some guys are different and don't work in conventional models.
Where I think you run into problems is when you start saying because ____ was player archetype ____ then we know he can only be ____. That kind of stuff serves purpose as a general guide but ultimately it has to be about what actually happened on the court. We don't get to wash away the performances because we're "historians of the game" who have modelled what we think certain guys looked like in terms of impact in relation to other guys who sort of fit the same profile that we maybe know a little more about.
Also, if we're saying Steph's "gambler-style" offensive game is a valid comparison to MJ's "gambler-style" defense then we're effectively saying MJ is in the conversation for greatest defenders ever, which I don't agree with btw, but all that example proves is you can play the game in a fashion that isn't deemed technically sound and still have an impact greater than virtually everyone else.
I'll take lead from sansterre and try a cross sport comparison. Bobby Orr was the greatest defenseman in NHL history. Few would dispute that. He was the first defenseman who'd routinely lead the rush past the opposing blue line and into enemy territory. Guys generally didn't do that back then (and still don't) because it can get everyone out of position and open you up to rush advantages in the other direction. He was the biggest gambler in the game; except, he was so brilliant as an offensive defenseman that he not only overcame those risks but became the most impactful player in the league precisely because he was taking and hitting on them. Sadly, Orr blew out his knee and sports medicine just wasn't the same back then. But no one is saying "well actually Orr really wasn't that effective and all those MVPs and wins weren't really a good representation because he was a gambler and we've simulated vs. other defenseman gamblers and so we know no one is as good as they seem playing that style." You'd get laughed out of the room. Sometimes we just have to accept that some guys are different and don't work in conventional models.