PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics]

[trex_8063]

.

OK, lots to unpack here, and limited time to do it, as I’m leaving town/busy in mere hours.

I am sympathetic toward you to a degree, though more so I feel it is unfortunate in a general sense that you feel this way.

You may have a point that protecting the sensibilities of the tenured posters cultivates an environment where newcomers are required to “fit in” (or at least get along amicably), else they could be in trouble. And it’s something we’ll consider in the future.

Although, I wouldn’t say that mentality is particularly different from [almost] any other human community/ecosystem. This is somewhat a truth in a more broad sense of human societal evolution, no? One needs to learn to fit in (or at least get along) within their community (or they won’t remain part of that community for long).

And disagreeing is largely separate from “not getting along” [this is a concept many people on the internet seem to have difficulty wrapping their brains around, btw]. I’ve seen this dozens of times with people in your shoes: where a severe action has been taken against them, and they assert that it’s solely their opinions that has alienated them from our “clique”.
Certainly, relatively “hot” takes are going to get a lot of pushback, as well as demands by the community that the person making them substantiate those takes (with something OTHER than conjecture and logical fallacy). That’s generally REALLY hard to do with a hot(ish) take (that’s why they’re “hot”). And there was one broad take you were pushing that was perceived as a bit hot (I’ll get into that below).
And fwiw, this is going to be ESPECIALLY so for a newcomer, who perhaps the community doesn’t have any impression that they’ve done the work, as it were. A tenured poster with a history of in-depth analysis and data-mining, reasoning that follows a logical course, etc,, can perhaps state an unpopular take with limited explanation, and receive less pushback……because we who’ve been here for years KNOW this individual isn’t pulling an opinion like that out of the ether.

Right or wrong, a newcomer is not afforded that same benefit of the doubt; though this too I don’t think is unusual. The expression “proving ground” came into being for a reason. An unknown is going to be called to task more heavily.

But anyway……hot(ish) takes aside, it’s never the opinions themselves that cause the problem (more on that to follow, too).


On the notion that disagreement is disallowed, I certainly do not concur. There’s plenty of disagreement (with or without contrarian views from you); the disparate voting in the project should be ample enough proof of this. Though I’ll provide of few more centering on those I had myself….

I somewhat strenuously disagree with the high placement of George Mikan on the list; but it didn’t seem worth belabouring, nor would I try to tell everyone they’re wrong about it. Maybe I’m wrong. So I didn’t much voice my objection on that one.

I DID, however [also in the top 100 project, in one of the recent threads], voice considerable disagreement with a fellow [retired] mod; one whom I’ve had a number of spirited disagreements with in the past, for that matter.
I’ve had some spirited debates with the project chair Doctor MJ, too. He and I frequently do not see eye-to-eye on any number of players. Now that I’m thinking about it, I’m not sure there’s a ton he and I actually do agree on within the general hierarchy of all-time players.
And there have been times we reached a point where we both just had to walk away from the conversation a little frustrated (perhaps before it turned ugly). But I still like and have tremendous respect for Doc; I believe the forum would be a much lesser community without him.

So I’m sorry, no. I just do not agree that people are required to conform to some forum consensus or else get the boot.

As always, it comes down to the manner in which you engage.

So there is no confusion, let me see if I can make perfectly clear what it was in your manner of posting that became wearisome, and which was perceived by several to be “low calorie”.

First, to give you your due credit, your vote posts were usually reasonably solid, imo. You provided some valid talking points in support of your picks, and there’s really nothing there that I’d complain about (I’m sort of mailing it in on my vote posts this time around).

Within your other posting there were some issues…..

1) As an illustration of what was probably the most off-putting to several people, we can look at your statement here in this thread.

While I don’t doubt you feel all these things sincerely, I have to say that for someone who professes to not care at all about this outcome, the post is absolutely oozing condescension and passive-aggressiveness. You’re playing the victim and high-roading us all, casting a number of barely veiled insults at the bulk of the forum, while painting yourself as innocent of anything except having a contrarian opinion. We’re quite the pack of villains to your perfect innocence in the above: painted as a catty clique who will come down—with Draconian severity—upon the smallest disagreement with our supposed consensus opinion.

A similar condescension came up repeatedly within the top 100 project, by way of these laments over certain player rankings. These placements were repeatedly described as things that were “so unfortunate” for the project [subtext: so unfortunate that more people don’t see the obvious superiority and correctness of your opinion]. For as much as you’re casting most of us as villains for not liking your opinion, in these laments you labelled large chunks of forum as a bunch of know-nothing rubes for deigning to have a different opinion from you.

This passive-aggressive manner of insulting the opinion of a number of people occurred repeatedly; to the point that you were asked to give it a rest—because after more than a half-dozen repetitive statements to that effect, labouring the point any further was unnecessary to make your position perfectly clear to literally everyone participating.
I think you still did it once more after that.


2) You continuously engaged in pure conjecture, though always stating it in a sort of absolutist way, as though it’s an undeniable truth. This was pointed out to you (more than once). You kept doing it anyway.


2b) You disregarded Neil Johnston and Paul Arizin (and by proxy ALL of their contemporaries) by showing a photograph of them and basically saying they don’t “look like” top tier athletes.

Someone posted a photo of Steve Nash in response, asking if a 6’3” scrawny white guy looks like a top tier athlete (bringing race in because you did so yourself; he’d be even scrawnier in an era that neither facilitated or encouraged weight training, btw). I don’t recall if you replied, though I know you didn’t answer within the context of the aspersion you’d cast at Johnston/Arizin; because really, how could you? Imagine an even thinner/scrawnier version of Nash (or Kevin Love, or Alex Caruso, or pick the modern white player) with a 1950s haircut, the cheaply-tailored uniform and short shorts, and in a B&W photo……let’s not pretend any of them would look like world-class athletes to you if you didn’t KNOW who they were.

They get the benefit of the doubt only because you know them in a modern context. No one from prior gets any such benefit of the doubt; even someone like Bob Pettit, who certainly looks a better athletic/basketball specimen than any of the above.


3) Later on you continued [repeatedly] to engage in hyperbole to disparage basically ALL players from prior to ~1972; statements that don't even feel tenable.
For instance you literally implied that Bob Pettit couldn’t be any better than a low-level G-league player [if even that]. This [relating to #2 above] extreme low opinion is the broad hot(ish) take that rankled a little. And it was never substantiated or given evaluation beyond vague “not athletic enough” explanations and further conjecture.
You didn’t bother to explore a size-of-player-pool type evaluation or any other truly cogent means to justify it.
You didn’t bother to explore factors that made the game look the way it did then. You offered brief conjecture, as though the truth of it was so self-evident that nothing more was needed, and then condescended to the “unfortunate” opinions of those who disagreed.

To do some of that exploration for you….
Pettit was still the 5th-best player in the league as late as ‘64 (past his physical peak, at age 32). Even from a size-of-player-pool type evaluation, I don’t see how it’s tenable to suggest he’d barely make the G-league, based on logical means. Let’s try a speculative mathematical model based on player pool size.

First, let’s define “Player Pool”. I’m not going to define it as the number of kids that ever pick up a basketball in the world, but rather as the number of even vaguely legit pro-prospects that take up the game. That is: the number of guys who have some combination of size/athleticism/natural aptitude to give them potential toward perhaps being a professional player on some level, and who actually then do pursue that goal.

In the modern era, from that pool is drawn the ~2000 or so best players in the world: this is everyone in the modern NBA, everyone in one of the better pro leagues overseas, most of the G-league, and the 100 or so best NCAA collegiate prospects. (I think it’s around 2000, not sure).

Everyone you suggested would be better than Bob Pettit, basically. And by proxy, basically no one else from that period (even Wilt) would be better than a mid-upper level G-league player either.

To start, how big do we think the player pool in the early-mid 60s was? The league was nearly 40% black by that point; so integration is underway (part of the trend toward a more black league was cultural shift, fwiw). It was a very popular professional sport (had been popular for more than a decade), and its popularity was growing fast. Player salaries were then to a point where even the scrubs made a livable annual salary (and the stars and better starters were at least somewhat wealthy).
It’s still not an international league, however (though this was true even of the league of the early 80s).

So how big is the player pool relative to today? I mean maybe it’s as big as 20% the size of today, though I’m doubtful. Could it be as big as 10% the size of today’s? Maybe, though I’d not be shocked to find it’s lower; perhaps even less than 5%.

Counterbalancing that, however, is the fact that we’re not looking to fill ~2000 pro/semi-pro positions (as we are in the modern context). We have just 9 rosters to fill (about 110 players); obviously it’s [mostly] going to be the 110 BEST that the player pool has to offer that fills those.

So even if we’re saying the player pool of the day is super-small, like just 3-4% of the modern one; and we say that the 96-97% we’ve plucked out of the picture were plucked out at random (that is: just as likely to be the high-end prospect as one of the lower end long-shots).......that still leaves us with 60-80 players from that ~2000 best players in the world from above [to put in our league of ‘64]; leaving only 30-50 guys who couldn’t even be G-league players.
If the player pool is 5% the size of today, that leaves us with 100 of these “best players in the world” [from above] to fill our league of ‘64.
If the player pool is 10% the size of today, that leaves 200 of the “best players in the world” to fill only 110 roster spots in ‘64…….that means some of the lower end [e.g. much of the G-league contingent, perhaps] is going to be left out; and the rosters will be filled with NBA level and other Euroleague/NCAA talents.

That’s plucking out the excess [from our ~2000 best players] at random. You might try to weight your argument by saying it’s WORSE than random, because we lack the overseas talent (again, did all the way into the 80s and beyond, really), and because integration isn’t at its utmost yet.
Perhaps a valid consideration, though one also would think (this is conjecture) that the VERY BEST [American, or at least white American] prospects would be the ones more inclined to pursue this glamorous and suddenly kinda lucrative career [and thus be in the player pool]; while the lower-end “long shot” prospects are the ones more likely to give it a pass and thus fall out of the player pool.

Either way…..even if we assume the player pool is only 3% the size of today (kinda hyperbolically low, imo), AND assume some of the better end talents are disproportionately removed due to incomplete integration, etc. That STILL means roughly half the league of ‘64 are legit pro/semi-pro level [by TODAY’S standards] players. Some of them may only be G-league or Euro-league level; but they’re pro.

Yet you assert—with cocksure confidence—that even the 5th-best player [out of ~110] isn’t that good. One must assume that literally ALL of the good prospects, for some reason, simply DON’T pursue basketball to arrive at this low opinion. I don’t know how we can logically justify or account for such a phenomenon.

But it’s either that, or only one other method to arrive at the conclusion: a belief that the humans of 60 years ago are wholly and entirely incapable of the things we humans are today. In the span of just over two generations we’ve apparently evolved into some manner of super-humans, capable of feats and abilities well beyond anyone who lived at that time.

No. I’m sorry, but no; that is not the case. As someone whose field of study was in biology and biological sciences, evolution does NOT move that fast. We’re the same basic animal we were 2-3 generations ago. Only the external influences have changed.

If you want to explore why the game looks so different, it requires taking an in-depth look at those external influences, and understanding that if Steph Curry, or James Harden, or Russell Westbrook, or whoever……had been born back in that time period, they would have been exposed to, shaped by those same external influences.

Let’s look at this photo that Doc had used in his vote post:

Spoiler:

See what Wade’s doing with the ball in both pics on the right? That is a carry anytime roughly pre-merger in the NBA. It succeeds in turning the ball over.
So does any cool crossover you saw by Allen Iverson, Steph, Paul, Nash, etc.

That lazy slow-dribble Chris Paul does when he’s walking the ball up the court (sort of scooping the ball up and then lazily pushing back toward the floor)? That also is a carry (committed like a dozen times just in the act of walking the ball up the court).

You know those explosive vertical moves toward the basket Russell Westbrook used to make? Pray tell how is he going to keep the ball with him if he cannot put his hand beside the ball to push/propell it forward to keep pace with his lightning-fast vertical speed? HOW? Because that also is a carry.
This is how the game was officiated back in the day. People today see the players spanking the top of the ball and think they look silly (“they can hardly even dribble”).
The reason they’re not doing Wade’s crossover, or Paul’s lazy dribble, or Westbrook’s explosive forward speed, is because those things were not allowed by the officiating of the time. Why WOULD they learn such skills? Why would they practice them at all, when all it achieves is a turnover? They wouldn’t and didn’t, of course.

But it doesn’t mean they can’t.

Shot mechanics certainly look less refined, yes. This is a product of conventional wisdom of the time, however. Conventional wisdom that Paul and Nash, and even Curry, would have fallen prey to, to some degree (had they been born in that era). Again: external influences SHAPING the eventual player.

Back-tracking to Westbrook’s explosive vertical speed…..
Let’s say he WOULD be allowed to push the ball forward to keep up (he wouldn’t, but just for argument’s sake).....let’s look at another photo:

Spoiler:

See the shoes Frazier, Chamberlain, and McMillian are wearing? Now imagine the court they’re playing on isn’t the finely manicured and waxed NBA courts of today, but is rather a court were people in street shoes are nightly allowed to walk all over (more like the court in the last rec centre or highschool gym you played in). Do you still think Westbrook is going to have the same explosive first step on THOSE courts with THOSE shoes?

And even if he was allowed to push the ball forward (he wouldn’t be), and he was still able to explode forward the same (doubtful)......again, wearing THOSE shoes, while also taking into account sports medicine of the 1960s and the fact that cheap shot fouls and undercutting a guy were not flagrants in this time (also consider the congested paint).

Do you STILL think Westbrook is going to be making those warp-speed high-flying attacks at the rim? And if so, just how long do you expect his career to last?

These are all factors that merit serious consideration, before making quick judgements on the era. You did none of this.


4) You repeatedly engaged in logical fallacy.
As a specific examples, there was the sort of ridiculous “league of 4’ dwarves” argument.

Somewhat less hyperbolic and silly was the time you said speculating on how a player would do in a far-separate era was the same as speculating on how Kevin Garnett would do with a different supporting cast. I expressed the opinion this is not true, given with the Garnett example the external influences to shape his game would be basically the same (because it’s in the same era and upbringing), and would obviously still have been engineered toward the league environment/rules/game philosophy of that time period; that his quality and capability as a player within said era is a literally known quantity (because of ample eye-test and measures we have of it); and likewise his precise attributes and “player-type” is known (so it’s easier to speculate on questions of portability).

All of these things are at least partially a mystery in the other variety of speculation (thus rendering it a very different mental exercise).

To say they are the same is rather like saying an apple is the same as a pumpkin, because they have some similarities: both are plants, both are largely edible, both are roundish, both have seeds inside and a stem on top. But that’s where the similarities end, and they’re quite obviously very different things. Same as with above.

You hand-waived this complaint aside, and in so many words said I was wrong, and you were still right.

Logical fallacy as a means of argumentation came up over and over. The SPECIFIC TYPES of logical fallacy you were utilizing were pointed out to you. You largely ignored this, and kept doing it anyway.


In summary:
*Condescending remarks (made SO MANY times, even after being asked to stop) which had the tangent effect of insulting others;
**Pure conjecture stated in absolutist tone (also SO MANY times), with minimal [if any] actual evidential support provided.
***Hyperbolic “hot”(ish) take, supported by nothing but conjecture and vague superficial observations, with no nuanced deep-dive consideration being demonstrated.
****Repeated use of blatant logical fallacies, even after it was pointed out.

So ^^^there are a handful of ways in which your contributions were seen as lacking [“low calorie”] and/or irritating to others.

I don’t expect you to take any of this to heart, and I’m genuinely sorry to be so brutally candid; but I just can’t let pass this notion that the ONLY thing you did was have a contrarian opinion, nor accusations that disagreement is not allowed.

And fwiw, you seemed to insinuate that you’ve encountered trouble on internet forums and discussion groups before (perhaps getting banned, suspended, or otherwise censored?). You said, in fact, that you EXPECT to be banned eventually; as though this is an inevitable outcome on internet forums.
I would suggest to you that perhaps this is a red flag that is trying to tell you something.

Because such outcomes are NOT inevitable.

[Doctor MJ]

I think what trex said here really summarizes the core of the matter well, and to be clear, I would co-sign on what he said.

I personally am going to try to extricate myself from further discussion on this beyond necessary, but I thought I should respond to this point:

On the notion that disagreement is disallowed, I certainly do not concur. There’s plenty of disagreement (with or without contrarian views from you); the disparate voting in the project should be ample enough proof of this. Though I’ll provide of few more centering on those I had myself….

I somewhat strenuously disagree with the high placement of George Mikan on the list; but it didn’t seem worth belabouring, nor would I try to tell everyone they’re wrong about it. Maybe I’m wrong. So I didn’t much voice my objection on that one.

I DID, however [also in the top 100 project, in one of the recent threads], voice considerable disagreement with a fellow [retired] mod; one whom I’ve had a number of spirited disagreements with in the past, for that matter.
I’ve had some spirited debates with the project chair Doctor MJ, too. He and I frequently do not see eye-to-eye on any number of players. Now that I’m thinking about it, I’m not sure there’s a ton he and I actually do agree on within the general hierarchy of all-time players.
And there have been times we reached a point where we both just had to walk away from the conversation a little frustrated (perhaps before it turned ugly). But I still like and have tremendous respect for Doc; I believe the forum would be a much lesser community without him.

So I’m sorry, no. I just do not agree that people are required to conform to some forum consensus or else get the boot.

As always, it comes down to the manner in which you engage.

Yup, trex and I disagree as a matter of course. I do think that the reality is that we mostly are pretty close to each other with rich schema that have more things common than different, but of course when we do projects like these, differences get magnified. So, once you've been at things in a community for a while, you come to know where other long-timers stand relative to you on this or that. And sometimes we get heated, and that's a time of danger.

trex's bold at the end of "manner" is really important, and I'll mention a few distinct things that both fit under this umbrella:

1. Tone - anything that can map to a particular emotive communication
2. Tolerance for Disagreement - can you agree to disagree without negativity?
3. Openness to Learning - do you want to learn? can you deal with being wrong?

How one approaches a given endeavor has a significant impact on what you get out of it, and part of what you 'get' are the social interactions and relationships that come with them.

Last thing I'll say about this being "just a message board", to me that's really incidental. In any social endeavor there are dynamics like this, and I'll say flat out that in my experience, experience in one medium - say, an internet message board - is often quite applicable to experience in another - working in a company, working on an event, working in a field, etc.

[OhayoKD]

As I've seen a number of posts discussing my removal from the project, I'll provide the reply I gave to Doc MJ mostly verbatim, but don't intend to comment on it further as I'll just get warned for daring to question the decision (even though a dozen other posters have been posting about it).

I am not shocked at all to be removed from the project, because I work on the assumption when I join an online forum that I will invariably be banned or blocked in some way, and I am not fussed. It’s a message board, and has nil impact on the rest of my life. I am not invested in the way the clique on the PC board are. I’m not here to make friends, I’m using this place as an outlet for intellectual discussion. That is why I generally don’t bother to reply to PMs, because it’s a waste of time. Forums like this are designed to protect the regulars happiness, and therefore the broad consensus they form (more on that below).

Doc described my comments as “negative”, but if you take a step back you will see that no particular thing I have written is more “negative” or “critical” than posts that most of the participants in the project make. The only reason they strike some that way is because of their priors, and so anything which is contrary to that is “provocative”. But if the exact same words were used to express a position that the majority of the project agreed with, they would not be regarded as such (and indeed the exact same words frequently are used).

I am glad Doc at least has the self-awareness to realise this on some level, as he has more or less admitted that his main motivation for removing me is to prevent other people leaving the project. That’s fine. It’s an internet forum, not a democracy, I honestly couldn’t care less. But posters here should be honest in recognising that the project is not really an open forum for different views. It is the consensus that emerges from a mostly like minded group of people who are ultimately unwilling to have their views challenged consistently.

If I had posted once per thread in the exact same way, nobody would have cared. Heck, the mods let one guy I won't name, who was barely able to form a coherent thought, participate. Why? Because he barely posted. But if someone persistently disagrees, they are booted because the people involved don’t like having their preconceptions challenged repeatedly. Disagreement is fine, provided you say it once or twice and move on. Ironically, the posters who disagree with me have usually been the ones refusing to let go of an argument and replying to me non-stop with walls of text. It may not seem that way, when you examine the post totals per thread, but you have to remember there are alot of different people disagreeing with me. Indeed, one of the things that has so infuriated some posters is me drawing a line under some arguments and saying 'yeh, look, we disagree. I'm not replying to this further'.

In effect, the posters who have questioned whether this is a double standard are on point. Something is 'disruptive', because it annoys the majority, but that approach inevitably favours the incumbent views of this board. Doc MJ and others have repeatedly talked about not wanting to lose the many 'great' and 'well respected' long time posters on this board. That assumes that their ways of thinking and posting are better. Other viewpoints may not care for statistical models, or lived experience watching the game, or long excerpts from books, but when you operate from the assumption that stuff is great your natural assumption is alternative perspectives like per 100 stats or award voting or the eye test or inferred impact based on circumstances is automatically less valid. That is not so.

There has been a reference to my posts being 'low calory', but I think most have been sensible enough to recognise that is not the case. Sure, sometimes I make a brief one to two line reply. Most everyone does. But I have also explained at length my views about advance stats, era differences, etc, and there are plenty of 'reasons' to back up my views. They're just not the views a clique who is invested in this board cares to hear.

I could of course recognise that people don’t agree with me, and write in a very deferential and insecure manner, but I don’t feel I should have to. People on the other side of the argument certainly don’t.

It's not like I was asked to post 3 times per thread, because then it would have looked like censorship. Instead I've been asked to leave because I was 'disruptive'. I certainly was, but to who is another matter.

honestly you overthink this.

you dont actually have to alter the subtance of what you argue to alter your tone. nicer tone means people will be more receptive to what you argue, and you don't have to get into elongated battles with mods. If you want the forum to be less gatekeepy, having a good reputation helps and its not very hard to do.

At the very least, take time to offer positive feedback when it's merited just as you offer negative feedback when you think it's warranted, then you make friends, and then you can argue more "fringe" whatever without being unfairly ridiculed/derailed

[OhayoKD]

I don't disagree with the gist("how you disagree is problematic"), but I can't help but nitpick a little

While I don’t doubt you feel all these things sincerely, I have to say that for someone who professes to not care at all about this outcome, the post is absolutely oozing condescension and passive-aggressiveness. You’re playing the victim and high-roading us all, casting a number of barely veiled insults at the bulk of the forum, while painting yourself as innocent of anything except having a contrarian opinion. We’re quite the pack of villains to your perfect innocence in the above: painted as a catty clique who will come down—with Draconian severity—upon the smallest disagreement with our supposed consensus opinion.

Frankly, them offering a single post after everyone else was discussing their removal(some casting aspersions themselves) would indicate to me he cares less than the community does at the very least.

I agree the tone is annoying, and there are way too many words being used to simply say "i think there is an unhealthy bias towards the status quo", but one and done talking as they naturally do for a single extended post doesn't really strike me as evidence they are misrepresenting their level of concern.

I also don't really agree with how you've framed aspects of certain discussions. For example 

You know those explosive vertical moves toward the basket Russell Westbrook used to make? Pray tell how is he going to keep the ball with him if he cannot put his hand beside the ball to push/propell it forward to keep pace with his lightning-fast vertical speed? HOW? Because that also is a carry.
This is how the game was officiated back in the day. People today see the players spanking the top of the ball and think they look silly (“they can hardly even dribble”).
The reason they’re not doing Wade’s crossover, or Paul’s lazy dribble, or Westbrook’s explosive forward speed, is because those things were not allowed by the officiating of the time. Why WOULD they learn such skills? Why would they practice them at all, when all it achieves is a turnover? They wouldn’t and didn’t, of course.

But it doesn’t mean they can’t.

It means they can't as they were with the skills they had developed which has, i think, been well argued as a completely legitimate way you should be looking at players and for era-translation specifically, I'd say it was successfully argued as a better way to assess players than having them "redevelop" hypothetically which

a. increases the degree of "conjecture"
and
b. is done to serve an arbitrary definition of "fairness"

Does it merit consideration? That depends on what specifically is being argued and what frame is being used to evaluate players. Not everyone subscribes to the build-a-player approach. assuming you're not just saying modern translation trumps everything, It is worth considering how well they translate back, but thar is separate from worrying about what they happened to practice and how they might develop.

Unless I missed something, One and Done is a straight up modernist who doesn't care about "well if they developed this way" and prefers forward translation. In such a lense, it really doesn't merit consideration and it is not fallacious for OandD to ignore this.

I also feel I should point out that there was a frequently made point that "only OandD was violating era-relativity" effectively to ridicule this "novel"(not really) method of playerr evaluation even though simply reading voting posts would make it very clear that a large chunk of the project was violating this to a degree. There are also multiple voters who straight up favor forward translation explicitly. Yet, the position was treated as a one-man crusade by some and then is that bit of language trickery where "time-machine" does not include approaches where a player is being transported through time or the root justification is that x time period had better players than y time period. Convenient, because if we were not so narrow, that would mean most posters were using variations of what one and done was using.


OneandDone happened to be the most fervent arguer, but this was a debate that started from the pre-project threads with posts of very similar tone being used to defend strict era-relativity and emphatically dismiss any deviation from it. When you are on an island against a false consensus, things tend to escalate. At the very least, greater volume would be a natural byproduct, and i really do think this comes down to volume, because if we forget extent and focus on b]kind[/b], I do not think one and done's posts even had the most abolitionist tone, nor was his conduct the most aggressive. The projects opening flurry of threads was an order of magintude higher in aggressiveness and oneanddone was hardly a factor there.

Somewhat less hyperbolic and silly was the time you said speculating on how a player would do in a far-separate era was the same as speculating on how Kevin Garnett would do with a different supporting cast. I expressed the opinion this is not true, given with the Garnett example the external influences to shape his game would be basically the same (because it’s in the same era and upbringing), and would obviously still have been engineered toward the league environment/rules/game philosophy of that time period; that his quality and capability as a player within said era is a literally known quantity (because of ample eye-test and measures we have of it); and likewise his precise attributes and “player-type” is known (so it’s easier to speculate on questions of portability).

[/quote]
Did he argue it was "exactly", the same, or that it was similar, because what I remember from that discussion is the specific assertion that transporting a player across casts is not speculation at all and reflects something that was actually possible(and that is just wrong).

They are both similar in that they are speculative, the degree of speculation is different, but taking an absolutist "only what players could actually do" as if it was magically possible for that player to play with a different set of teammates is fallacious.

When you argue making love to an apple is stupid because they're a fruit but then go home with an orange, people might call that out.

I again agree the tone did not help things, but you don't have to look far to see there is absolutely a bias towards long tenured posters here. As in, you can check the last post of the previous page we can see "contributed a lot to the board" as justification that it is in fact someone else's responsibility they "threw a fit" and proceeded to leave of their own volition.

I'd say if you're looking for the root of the toxicty as opposed to the symptoms, that's a great place to start

[MyUniBroDavis]

As I've seen a number of posts discussing my removal from the project, I'll provide the reply I gave to Doc MJ mostly verbatim, but don't intend to comment on it further as I'll just get warned for daring to question the decision (even though a dozen other posters have been posting about it).

I am not shocked at all to be removed from the project, because I work on the assumption when I join an online forum that I will invariably be banned or blocked in some way, and I am not fussed. It’s a message board, and has nil impact on the rest of my life. I am not invested in the way the clique on the PC board are. I’m not here to make friends, I’m using this place as an outlet for intellectual discussion. That is why I generally don’t bother to reply to PMs, because it’s a waste of time. Forums like this are designed to protect the regulars happiness, and therefore the broad consensus they form (more on that below).

Doc described my comments as “negative”, but if you take a step back you will see that no particular thing I have written is more “negative” or “critical” than posts that most of the participants in the project make. The only reason they strike some that way is because of their priors, and so anything which is contrary to that is “provocative”. But if the exact same words were used to express a position that the majority of the project agreed with, they would not be regarded as such (and indeed the exact same words frequently are used).

I am glad Doc at least has the self-awareness to realise this on some level, as he has more or less admitted that his main motivation for removing me is to prevent other people leaving the project. That’s fine. It’s an internet forum, not a democracy, I honestly couldn’t care less. But posters here should be honest in recognising that the project is not really an open forum for different views. It is the consensus that emerges from a mostly like minded group of people who are ultimately unwilling to have their views challenged consistently.

If I had posted once per thread in the exact same way, nobody would have cared. Heck, the mods let one guy I won't name, who was barely able to form a coherent thought, participate. Why? Because he barely posted. But if someone persistently disagrees, they are booted because the people involved don’t like having their preconceptions challenged repeatedly. Disagreement is fine, provided you say it once or twice and move on. Ironically, the posters who disagree with me have usually been the ones refusing to let go of an argument and replying to me non-stop with walls of text. It may not seem that way, when you examine the post totals per thread, but you have to remember there are alot of different people disagreeing with me. Indeed, one of the things that has so infuriated some posters is me drawing a line under some arguments and saying 'yeh, look, we disagree. I'm not replying to this further'.

In effect, the posters who have questioned whether this is a double standard are on point. Something is 'disruptive', because it annoys the majority, but that approach inevitably favours the incumbent views of this board. Doc MJ and others have repeatedly talked about not wanting to lose the many 'great' and 'well respected' long time posters on this board. That assumes that their ways of thinking and posting are better. Other viewpoints may not care for statistical models, or lived experience watching the game, or long excerpts from books, but when you operate from the assumption that stuff is great your natural assumption is alternative perspectives like per 100 stats or award voting or the eye test or inferred impact based on circumstances is automatically less valid. That is not so.

There has been a reference to my posts being 'low calory', but I think most have been sensible enough to recognise that is not the case. Sure, sometimes I make a brief one to two line reply. Most everyone does. But I have also explained at length my views about advance stats, era differences, etc, and there are plenty of 'reasons' to back up my views. They're just not the views a clique who is invested in this board cares to hear.

I could of course recognise that people don’t agree with me, and write in a very deferential and insecure manner, but I don’t feel I should have to. People on the other side of the argument certainly don’t.

It's not like I was asked to post 3 times per thread, because then it would have looked like censorship. Instead I've been asked to leave because I was 'disruptive'. I certainly was, but to who is another matter.

You should posted this in the general top 100 discussion no one checks the OT thread lol

Leave shaqattack alone lol

Well, since I told him not to post in the project any further, he’s actually posting in precisely the right place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is the top 100 general different from the voting specific threads tho

[MyUniBroDavis]

Not super interested in rehashing any 60s vs today talk because those convos get super tiring, but just to say something

1. It is true it would be impossible to execute some moves with stricter palming rules in place, at the same time it is also true that the level of ball handling isn’t remotely the same. People hilariously overstate how hard it is to dribble without palming a basketball. Dribbling at the level of a decent 60s guard isn’t hard. Idk why it sounds like people think “dribbling was different” and “modern guys are way better at dribbling” are mutually exclusive. I hope no one seriously thinks a decent nba guard would have trouble at all not palming the ball if they were forced to, under the context that ball handlers were what they were like in the 60s. It’s a skill cap, it’s not a different skill. Honestly it sounds more like and whenever watching the games it’s more palm on top half of the ball than completely flat on top, watching some later 60a games where there was some moves that weren’t called,although maybe that changed throughout the 60s, if not makes the entire palming thing completely dead if it’s true though lol

2. There are legitimate reasons why some guys wouldn’t look as impressive athletically in some ways or be able to do certain things but the shoes are overblown lol, have y’all never played in trashy slides? It’s different but ur not jumping half a foot lower and it doesn’t feel like ur playing on an oil spill

Certain things translate better throughout eras and certain things don’t, but it’s a bit different going from 2000s to 2020s and going from 1960s to 2020s, imo

It feels some of y’all think OandD is objectively wrong with his modernist take, it’s fair to say he could have approached it better or not be repetitive with it, but not thinking players are comparable in an absolute sense doesn’t mean someone is uneducated in these regards. I get that the way he approached it maybe made it felt like that but I can’t help but think if he had either supported the other way around it would have been received differently, or even if he had not like shown pictures of guys or something as evidence.

It’s basically like this with a bunch of opinions on the board which I get the idea of “yeah we’ve been down this road before” for certain topics if someone’s like “nash was carried on offense he was just a role player!” (Idk I couldn’t think of anything imagine a more heinous take than this lol) But for some topics there absolutely is not enough evidence to make conclusions here either way for some of the way older eras, we have like a few games of footage knowledge of the rules being different and newspaper articles, and incomplete box score data. we can all make our opinions on it and think the other side is delusional for theirs, it is what it is

[70sFan]

1. It is true it would be impossible to execute some moves with stricter palming rules in place, at the same time it is also true that the level of ball handling isn’t remotely the same. People hilariously overstate how hard it is to dribble without palming a basketball. Dribbling at the level of a decent 60s guard isn’t hard. Idk why it sounds like people think “dribbling was different” and “modern guys are way better at dribbling” are mutually exclusive. I hope no one seriously thinks a decent nba guard would have trouble at all not palming the ball if they were forced to, under the context that ball handlers were what they were like in the 60s. It’s a skill cap, it’s not a different skill.

I don't think anyone really argues that today guards would be unable to adjust for stricter, but simpler ball-handling (though I don't think they'd do that on a fly, it would take time to clean off bad habits from modern game) but it's about the effectiveness of perimeter game under that rules. Modern guards would do fine in that era (after adjustment) but they wouldn't do things they do now and it would reduce their effectiveness by a lot. That's the thing - guards wouldn't be unstoppable in isolations and P&Rs anymore. Bigs wouldn't handle the ball with similar consistency. We wouldn't see all these "OMG look at these 7 feet man with guard skills". It's a different game that would affect how players use their advantages today.

So no, I don't think anyone says that Chris Paul wouldn't be able to handle the ball in 1960s way. People are just afraid that Paul handling the ball that way wouldn't be nearly as impactful as he is now.

[MyUniBroDavis]

1. It is true it would be impossible to execute some moves with stricter palming rules in place, at the same time it is also true that the level of ball handling isn’t remotely the same. People hilariously overstate how hard it is to dribble without palming a basketball. Dribbling at the level of a decent 60s guard isn’t hard. Idk why it sounds like people think “dribbling was different” and “modern guys are way better at dribbling” are mutually exclusive. I hope no one seriously thinks a decent nba guard would have trouble at all not palming the ball if they were forced to, under the context that ball handlers were what they were like in the 60s. It’s a skill cap, it’s not a different skill.

I don't think anyone really argues that today guards would be unable to adjust for stricter, but simpler ball-handling (though I don't think they'd do that on a fly, it would take time to clean off bad habits from modern game) but it's about the effectiveness of perimeter game under that rules. Modern guards would do fine in that era (after adjustment) but they wouldn't do things they do now and it would reduce their effectiveness by a lot. That's the thing - guards wouldn't be unstoppable in isolations and P&Rs anymore. Bigs wouldn't handle the ball with similar consistency. We wouldn't see all these "OMG look at these 7 feet man with guard skills". It's a different game that would affect how players use their advantages today.

So no, I don't think anyone says that Chris Paul wouldn't be able to handle the ball in 1960s way. People are just afraid that Paul handling the ball that way wouldn't be nearly as impactful as he is now.

There would be certain things and skills that transfer better for sure, but my points never been “the ball handling would carry modern guards to all score 100 a game” or anything it’s that the decent or good ball handlers would have the best ball handling skill when you translate them back 60 years to the past, and getting rid of palming skills removed a skill cap rather than changed it

I also absolutely think guys like KD could dribble without palming if they wanted too to be honest, although KD probably isn’t who your talking about

Anyway I feel we prolly shouldn’t rehash this now that we’ve talked normally lmao we never get anywhere with this I just wanted to talk more about the one and done stuff + the attitude towards the general take he had, although the dislike of how he approached it is more fair I’d think

[MyUniBroDavis]

I will say saying you enter assuming ur gonna get banned is a crazy mindset when ur not trolling lol

[70sFan]

I also absolutely think guys like KD could dribble without palming if they wanted too to be honest, although KD probably isn’t who your talking about

Have you ever seen him doing that? I don't think I have.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I also absolutely think guys like KD could dribble without palming if they wanted too to be honest, although KD probably isn’t who your talking about

Have you ever seen him doing that? I don't think I have.

I’m confused do you think KD wouldn’t be one of or the best ball handler(s) if you transport him to the 60s because of palming rules, or even considered a “7 footer” with guard level handles?

[Dutchball97]

Funny coincidence I just happen to be lurking on the board and my exit is being brought up again. Tbh I did not expect there to still be so much drama going on.

Either way, the board was simply moving in a direction that wasn't for me. I value advanced stats highly as a guiding tool but as a former history major I didn't want these stats to be leading my evaluations over contextual analysis. While trying to pull back from statistical analysis I got challenged on that extensively, which is fine but when people keep calling your personal interpretations unsubstantiated there isn't much I could do outside of just taking it, adapting to the "popular" approach or taking a big step back and I chose the latter.

These discussions on the board were impacting my mood and instead of having a fun time discussing one of my hobbies with likeminded people, I was getting mad at people I didn't even know outside of some made up internet usernames. I don't want to advise anyone to stop being a regular poster and only pop in every few months like I did but if you feel like the drama/discussions here are having a negative effect on your mood, taking a break for a couple of days can really help put things in perspective. Life is too short to spend it arguing with strangers about things you have no control over.

[70sFan]

I also absolutely think guys like KD could dribble without palming if they wanted too to be honest, although KD probably isn’t who your talking about

Have you ever seen him doing that? I don't think I have.

I’m confused do you think KD wouldn’t be one of or the best ball handler(s) if you transport him to the 60s because of palming rules, or even considered a “7 footer” with guard level handles?

I don't think Durant has legit "guard handles" and I don't think he'd be one of the best ball-handlers in the 1960s.

[WestGOAT]

Funny coincidence I just happen to be lurking on the board and my exit is being brought up again. Tbh I did not expect there to still be so much drama going on.

Either way, the board was simply moving in a direction that wasn't for me. I value advanced stats highly as a guiding tool but as a former history major I didn't want these stats to be leading my evaluations over contextual analysis. While trying to pull back from statistical analysis I got challenged on that extensively, which is fine but when people keep calling your personal interpretations unsubstantiated there isn't much I could do outside of just taking it, adapting to the "popular" approach or taking a big step back and I chose the latter.

These discussions on the board were impacting my mood and instead of having a fun time discussing one of my hobbies with likeminded people, I was getting mad at people I didn't even know outside of some made up internet usernames. I don't want to advise anyone to stop being a regular poster and only pop in every few months like I did but if you feel like the drama/discussions here are having a negative effect on your mood, taking a break for a couple of days can really help put things in perspective. Life is too short to spend it arguing with strangers about things you have no control over.

Hope you come back eventually! Your posts stood out, in a good way.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Have you ever seen him doing that? I don't think I have.

I’m confused do you think KD wouldn’t be one of or the best ball handler(s) if you transport him to the 60s because of palming rules, or even considered a “7 footer” with guard level handles?

I don't think Durant has legit "guard handles" and I don't think he'd be one of the best ball-handlers in the 1960s.

Yeah let’s just agree to disagree here I doubt we’re gonna end up having a different convo about this than we usually do lol

[tsherkin]

I’m confused do you think KD wouldn’t be one of or the best ball handler(s) if you transport him to the 60s because of palming rules, or even considered a “7 footer” with guard level handles?

I don't think Durant has legit "guard handles" and I don't think he'd be one of the best ball-handlers in the 1960s.

Yeah let’s just agree to disagree here I doubt we’re gonna end up having a different convo about this than we usually do lol

I will add my voice to 70sFan's on that one. Durant has some turnover issues relative to some other high-end volume scorers, leastwise under certain types of defensive pressure, because he doesn't handle at the top tier level. It isn't super egregious most of the time, but while he can do crossovers and behind the backs and stuff, I think his height/length get in the way for him at times and his handles are visibly not as tight as guard peers. He's at Julius Randle-levels of turnovers in isolation, something like double what we see from Doncic (12.3% vs. 5.9%) or James Harden (6.7%) and higher than Lillard (9.1%) and Kyrie (5.7%, 3.1 with Dallas). Tatum was at 8.6%, Lebron was at 6.4%. Westie was at 8.9%.

I could go on, but he loses the ball a lot in isolation. His TOV% jumps to 17.9% as the ball-handler in the PnR. Luka's at 14.5%. Brunson's at 9.1%. Derozan's at 10.4%. Donovan Mitchell at 11.2%. DeAaron Fox at 11.8%. Even Zach Lavine is at 11.2%. SGA was at 14.0%. I'm loosely trailing down a list ordered by possession frequency per game, so I'm not highlighting one-off dudes who never do it. Durant himself didn't use the PnR that much but you get the idea.

18.8% on his few post-ups. 15.2% off screens.

He uses a lot of cuts, hand-offs, and spot-ups, which helps drops his overall TOV%, but when he's actually handling, he doesn't look especially good relative to guard-level peers, and it relates directly to his ball-handling ability and to his late recognition on skip passes and stuff.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I don't think Durant has legit "guard handles" and I don't think he'd be one of the best ball-handlers in the 1960s.

Yeah let’s just agree to disagree here I doubt we’re gonna end up having a different convo about this than we usually do lol

I will add my voice to 70sFan's on that one. Durant has some turnover issues relative to some other high-end volume scorers, leastwise under certain types of defensive pressure, because he doesn't handle at the top tier level. It isn't super egregious most of the time, but while he can do crossovers and behind the backs and stuff, I think his height/length get in the way for him at times and his handles are visibly not as tight as guard peers. He's at Julius Randle-levels of turnovers in isolation, something like double what we see from Doncic (12.3% vs. 5.9%) or James Harden (6.7%) and higher than Lillard (9.1%) and Kyrie (5.7%, 3.1 with Dallas). Tatum was at 8.6%, Lebron was at 6.4%. Westie was at 8.9%.

I could go on, but he loses the ball a lot in isolation. His TOV% jumps to 17.9% as the ball-handler in the PnR. Luka's at 14.5%. Brunson's at 9.1%. Derozan's at 10.4%. Donovan Mitchell at 11.2%. DeAaron Fox at 11.8%. Even Zach Lavine is at 11.2%. SGA was at 14.0%. I'm loosely trailing down a list ordered by possession frequency per game, so I'm not highlighting one-off dudes who never do it. Durant himself didn't use the PnR that much but you get the idea.

18.8% on his few post-ups. 15.2% off screens.

He uses a lot of cuts, hand-offs, and spot-ups, which helps drops his overall TOV%, but when he's actually handling, he doesn't look especially good relative to guard-level peers, and it relates directly to his ball-handling ability and to his late recognition on skip passes and stuff.

^ I don’t think KD is one of the best ball handlers in the world right now and I do think it’s a weakness in aspects compared to some top offensive guys in the league

We’re comparing him to 60s years ago. We’re saying he wouldn’t have “guard level handles” 60 years ago lol.

Playmaking now vs back then is an entire can of worms I’m not interested to get into because these convos honestly always end up being a pain with how everything always turns out, but like, durant absolutely would be seen as a tall dude with guard skills in the 60s if you’re talking about his ball handling lol

[tsherkin]

^ I don’t think KD is one of the best ball handlers in the world right now and I do think it’s a weakness in aspects compared to some top offensive guys in the league

We’re comparing him to 60s years ago. We’re saying he wouldn’t have “guard level handles” 60 years ago lol.

Playmaking now vs back then is an entire can of worms I’m not interested to get into because these convos honestly always end up being a pain with how everything always turns out, but like, durant absolutely would be seen as a tall dude with guard skills in the 60s if you’re talking about his ball handling lol

I realize, but there are also major rules changes to consider. If he's not able to employ today's techniques to maximal effectiveness, how do you think he'll look in the 60s when he can't carry/palm every possession?

Like, could he move around the court like Walt Bellamy? Sure. Could he handle successfully to cross the timeline or in transition? Yeah. Is he going to have anything like the same east-west action he pulls now? No, not even close. Being that high up and dribbling, he's going to get picked more frequently in a league where gambling for steals was more common. They probably wouldn't blitz him as much, for sure, but it's still going to be a challenge and he's still at a disadvantage compared to guys closer to the ground.

[MyUniBroDavis]

^ I don’t think KD is one of the best ball handlers in the world right now and I do think it’s a weakness in aspects compared to some top offensive guys in the league

We’re comparing him to 60s years ago. We’re saying he wouldn’t have “guard level handles” 60 years ago lol.

Playmaking now vs back then is an entire can of worms I’m not interested to get into because these convos honestly always end up being a pain with how everything always turns out, but like, durant absolutely would be seen as a tall dude with guard skills in the 60s if you’re talking about his ball handling lol

I realize, but there are also major rules changes to consider. If he's not able to employ today's techniques to maximal effectiveness, how do you think he'll look in the 60s when he can't carry/palm every possession?

Like, could he move around the court like Walt Bellamy? Sure. Could he handle successfully to cross the timeline or in transition? Yeah. Is he going to have anything like the same east-west action he pulls now? No, not even close. Being that high up and dribbling, he's going to get picked more frequently in a league where gambling for steals was more common. They probably wouldn't blitz him as much, for sure, but it's still going to be a challenge and he's still at a disadvantage compared to guys closer to the ground.

I think his ball handling would look worse than today and better than the majority of guards 60 years ago lol

But they didn’t do this back then either lol, I why saying they won’t do harder things they do right now that literally no one else did is brought up so much. Honestly there are some crossovers and in and outs with palming rules in place but they’re done differently and look a more stiff for obvious reasons

In terms of getting picked more, you’re confusing them gambling for steals more with them being better at it. It’s all fine in theory but when you actually see the defensive pressure and level perimeter defense that was actually played in more full clips older games the idea that Durant would struggle to not get picked loses a ton of weight

[tsherkin]

I think his ball handling would look worse than today and better than the majority of guards 60 years ago lol

But they didn’t do this back then either lol, I why saying they won’t do harder things they do right now that literally no one else did is brought up so much. Honestly there are some crossovers and in and outs with palming rules in place but they’re done differently and look a more stiff for obvious reasons

In terms of getting picked more, you’re confusing them gambling for steals more with them being better at it. It’s all fine in theory but when you actually see the defensive pressure and level perimeter defense that was actually played in more full clips older games the idea that Durant would struggle to not get picked loses a ton of weight

With the larger number of possessions and larger number of attempts, and him being taller, my expectation is that he would get picked more often. Not just because they went for it more regularly. I don't think he would dribble as effectively under the pressure even from then trying to get past, is what I'm saying. The taller you are, the harder it is, and he palms so much in order to control (as do basically all modern players) that the entire approach to dribbling was to change. If he's solo on the break, it's one thing. Trying to drive into the tighter interior defenses would be a problem. I don't see his primary defender picking him all that often because he's probably going to dribble at maybe, maybe Jerry West's level, but that's assuming he learns how to turn and use his back more. Which is as much an assumption as him being good at it to begin with.

Obviously, this is time-machine stuff we can't resolve. I don't expect to convince you, I was more articulating the legitimacy of the opposite position.