Rob Diaz wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:Rob Diaz wrote:
How is this not a legitimate argument? Do you want me to break down the %s?
The biggest casualty of the increase of the global talent pool has been the white American player. It should be considered when discussing players of the past, the same way we discuss MLB players prior to integration.
What...? Not a single thing in this sentence makes sense. I'm not even talking about the ethics, but literally it does not compute. I don't know if this is a logic thing or a vocab thing or what.
It’s not that complicated. As organizations began searching outside of America for talent, the white American player evidently couldn’t keep up with the competition that was brought in.
We can pretend like this is some type of controversial statement, but it isn’t. The numbers speak for themselves.
Okay so just on the logic of it ...
Do you agree with the box metrics and (late career, all that's available) impact numbers (and defensive contemporary reporting) that John Stockton was very effective in his era?
If no ... there's nothing further to discuss (no point debating from different starting premises).
If yes ...what's the issue? His genetics or skin tone don't change the player he is then to now (assuming we are talking time machining him across). Is the argument (based on a time travel or "absolute standard" interpretation of the question) simply that the league was weaker for talent pool reasons back then? That certainly could be true (and the least odd possible line of reasoning, and reading post 10 closely I think the most likely) but then an odd manner to make that point - in a Stockton vs Paul thread with the line "pretending that white American players would still be as effective in the same capacity as they were back then" with the apparent implication that it is only the "white American" player that benefited from a lower standard. Or is your contention that the rules have changed in a way that specifically disadvantages?
