#10 Best Defensive Shooting Guard of all time - The ten best defenders in each position project

[AEnigma]

I think Duncan fans would have been more likely to argue the Earth was flat.

Yeah Duncan fans notoriously hate data, yet another mystery solved.

Or perhaps... the type of retrospective statistical evaluation that some Duncan fans use... is just like when Flat-Earthers of ancient times used the data they had at the time to come up with the theory that the Earth was flat and then stuck with it. They did not consider that they may not know everything there is to know about the wonders of the universe, which is kind of similar to how they ignore the depth of Kobe's basketball talents compared to Duncan's.

Beyond that analogy immediately collapsing in on itself if you know literally anything about the “historical debate”, it is only “retrospective” in the sense that it looks back on what random couch eye test or gut feeling might have been the common sentiment.

It's a matter of perspective. Everyone likes to relate to the heroes in a movie or show, even when they might not be.

You mean like developing a cult of personality behind a guy who put ball in hoop gud?

[LAL1947]

Yeah Duncan fans notoriously hate data, yet another mystery solved.

Or perhaps... the type of retrospective statistical evaluation that some Duncan fans use... is just like when Flat-Earthers of ancient times used the data they had at the time to come up with the theory that the Earth was flat and then stuck with it. They did not consider that they may not know everything there is to know about the wonders of the universe, which is kind of similar to how they ignore the depth of Kobe's basketball talents compared to Duncan's.

It's a matter of perspective. Everyone likes to relate to the heroes in a movie or show, even when they might not be.

This analogy is horrible on so many accounts, that's insulting for me as a physicist...

You mean like developing a cult of personality behind a guy who put ball in hoop gud?

I think the analogy is just perfect, on all counts... including the comment on AEnigma fancying himself as a hero who has not developed a cult of personality behind a guy who "put ball in hoop less gud" than my guy did.

[AEnigma]

What exactly do you think constitutes the Tim Duncan personality cult.

[LAL1947]

What exactly do you think constitutes the Tim Duncan personality cult.

What exactly do you think constitutes the Kobe Bryant personality cult.

[Tim Lehrbach]

Some people (i.e., Lebron fans, including those who are interested in making statistical arguments for having him #1 all-time) seem to be trying to downplay Jordan's ability and/or effort as a defender.

They are also doing the same with Kobe, in order to make a false case for Duncan being better. You'll find that most of those who argue Lebron is #1 on all-time list are also those who argue Duncan should be #5, there's a connection.

I, for one, have zero interest in elevating LeBron as high as #1, nor in dropping Duncan as low as #5.

[AEnigma]

What exactly do you think constitutes the Tim Duncan personality cult.

What exactly do you think constitutes the Kobe Bryant personality cult.

Mamba mentality.

I mean there is no true guiding principle beyond “Kobe is great” — that is what makes it a personality cult. Voter perception is what matters in the case of all-defence… but not when it comes to MVP. Winning matters… but not if someone like Tim Duncan wins more. Scoring matters… but not when someone like James Harden scores even more. Defence matters… but only abstractly based on a sense of hypothetical ability to play man defence “when it matters”. Teammates matter when Kobe loses, but not when Kobe wins, but they do matter when other players win, but not when they lose. Clutchness matters independent of any evil data on what happens in the clutch. Eye test matters, unless people’s eye tests say something that goes against the gospel of Kobe. Public perception matters, unless the public starts to change their minds. Etc.

What is the term… ah, right, “non-falsifiable orthodoxy”. That is the personality cult.

[kcktiny]

Similarly, an astute observer will find that most of those who argue the earth is billions of years old are also those who argue for the theory of evolution.

Who argues what is factual? The earth is 4.5 billions of years old. That is not up for argument.

And evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. Where is the argument?

This analogy is horrible on so many accounts, that's insulting for me as a physicist...

What is your expertise/love as a physicist? Quantum mechanics, the Higgs boson, astrophysics, LIGO and gravitational waves?

This can lead to some very scientific basketball discussion.

[70sFan]

This analogy is horrible on so many accounts, that's insulting for me as a physicist...

What is your expertise/love as a physicist? Quantum mechanics, the Higgs boson, astrophysics, LIGO and gravitational waves?

This can lead to some very scientific basketball discussion.

I'm into atomic physics mostly, which of course includes a lot of quantum mechanics. I'm also trying to learn the basics of general relativity theory, but I'm just at the beginning of the journey.

[AEnigma]

Similarly, an astute observer will find that most of those who argue the earth is billions of years old are also those who argue for the theory of evolution.

Who argues what is factual? The earth is 4.5 billions of years old. That is not up for argument.

And evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. Where is the argument?

Hold on, let me try something.

I'm also trying to learn the basics of general relativity theory

Uhhhhhhhhh excuse me relativity is a fact not a theory, are you arguing about facts???

[kcktiny]

Uhhhhhhhhh excuse me relativity is a fact not a theory, are you arguing about facts???

If - and I said if - you are a non-scientist, and if you chose to use as the definition of the word theory "an unproved assumption", that is your prerogative.

But to a "theoretical" physicist, and most scientists, a theory is defined as "the general principal of a body of fact, of science".

I'm into atomic physics mostly, which of course includes a lot of quantum mechanics.

This is really cool. As a scientist but not a physicist I love the field, just wish I had the advanced math background (never got past differential equations and linear algebra). Have read many popular books on it, and am still fascinated to this day.

I'm also trying to learn the basics of general relativity (theory), but I'm just at the beginning of the journey.

I've read that there are like not even 500 people on the planet that can solve Einstein's field equations for general relativity, but there are some really good books on it for the non-expert. Try the book The Perfect Theory (2018) by Pedro G. Ferreira, very clear and concise explanations.

As John Wheeler said, "...spacetime tells matter how to move, matter tells spacetime how to curve...".

[AEnigma]

Uhhhhhhhhh excuse me relativity is a fact not a theory, are you arguing about facts???

If - and I said if - you are a non-scientist, and if you chose to use as the definition of the word theory "an unproved assumption", that is your prerogative.

But a "theoretical" physicist, and most scientists, define theory as "the general principal of a body of fact, of science".

Oh wow, that sure is interesting, I had absolutely no idea. If you do not mind, I think there is this other guy who probably needed to be informed about this too, so hold on one moment…

Similarly, an astute observer will find that most of those who argue the earth is billions of years old are also those who argue for the theory of evolution.

Who argues what is factual? The earth is 4.5 billions of years old. That is not up for argument.

And evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. Where is the argument?

If you are a non-scientist, and if you chose to use as the definition of the word theory "an unproved assumption", that is your prerogative. But a "theoretical" physicist, and most scientists, define theory as "the general principal of a body of fact, of science".

Ah, that felt good. Wait… oh, wow, that guy has the same name as you!? That is pretty crazy, you might want to report that to the mods, should not be possible for someone to steal your name like that.

[Tim Lehrbach]

Well, this went unexpectedly meta.