Jerry West vs Kevin Durant

[tsherkin]

What it's actually demonstrating is that modern players are punished, because we have more evidence to hold against them, whereas past players are always given favourable assumptions because of nostalgia.

That's not clear at all, no.

A superior likelihood based on shooting form or FT% doesn't always correlate to whether you can develop a 3pt shot.

No, but that's irrelevant. We're talking about the probability, not a guarantee. So the chance that it doesn't work out is immaterial.

Drawing a parallel between the likelihood of the one guy and the other developing the shot isn't the same because it's much MORE likely that the clearly superior shooter will do it. Again, it isn't a guarantee, but it IS very clearly more likely as a possibility.

[One_and_Done]

What it's actually demonstrating is that modern players are punished, because we have more evidence to hold against them, whereas past players are always given favourable assumptions because of nostalgia.

That's not clear at all, no.

A superior likelihood based on shooting form or FT% doesn't always correlate to whether you can develop a 3pt shot.

No, but that's irrelevant. We're talking about the probability, not a guarantee. So the chance that it doesn't work out is immaterial.

Drawing a parallel between the likelihood of the one guy and the other developing the shot isn't the same because it's much MORE likely that the clearly superior shooter will do it. Again, it isn't a guarantee, but it IS very clearly more likely as a possibility.

I personally think it's more likely West develops a 3pt shot than Duncan. However, since it's just speculative, I think the fairest thing to do is to rate guys off the skillset they actually had.

[tsherkin]

I personally think it's more likely West develops a 3pt shot than Duncan. However, since it's just speculative, I think the fairest thing to do is to rate guys off the skillset they actually had.

So, remember how this conversation began, before you get into your usual shtick.

An Unbiased Fan said "imagine if West had a 3pt line" and you countered with "imagine if Tim Duncan could shoot 3s."

That sparked this debate. The root of which you just conceded. It was about likelihood. West was a demonstrably superior shooter compared to Duncan; it's obviously more likely that he'd develop a 3 than Duncan, as you just admitted. The post to which you responded literally began with the word "imagine," and you got off on your usual tangent of "let's ignore all of the limiting factors of the older eras and ignore all of the enabling factors of the later eras so we can punish older players instead of evening the playing field," which is the hypocritical conceit of your stance. Particularly when you start to kvetch that we are punishing newer players by affording older players any concessions to the LARGE differences in environment. Medical science, equipment, access to private travel, training regimens, team and individual strategy.... decades and decades of sport evolution from which modern guys benefit and by which the older guys are shafted.

So no, this isn't really a comparable scenario at all. Things are different. They were worse for the older players, and it made things harder. That cannot be ignored. Especially when you're looking at a talent like Jerry West.

[One_and_Done]

I personally think it's more likely West develops a 3pt shot than Duncan. However, since it's just speculative, I think the fairest thing to do is to rate guys off the skillset they actually had.

So, remember how this conversation began, before you get into your usual shtick.

An Unbiased Fan said "imagine if West had a 3pt line" and you countered with "imagine if Tim Duncan could shoot 3s."

That sparked this debate. The root of which you just conceded. It was about likelihood. West was a demonstrably superior shooter compared to Duncan; it's obviously more likely that he'd develop a 3 than Duncan, as you just admitted. The post to which you responded literally began with the word "imagine," and you got off on your usual tangent of "let's ignore all of the limiting factors of the older eras and ignore all of the enabling factors of the later eras so we can punish older players instead of evening the playing field," which is the hypocritical conceit of your stance. Particularly when you start to kvetch that we are punishing newer players by affording older players any concessions to the LARGE differences in environment. Medical science, equipment, access to private travel, training regimens, team and individual strategy.... decades and decades of sport evolution from which modern guys benefit and by which the older guys are shafted.

So no, this isn't really a comparable scenario at all. Things are different. They were worse for the older players, and it made things harder. That cannot be ignored. Especially when you're looking at a talent like Jerry West.

The point is I can imagine anything, but that's not what actually happened. Whether one thing is slightly more likely than the other is neither here nor there. I don't think rating players by what we can 'imagine' is a sensible approach. If I had said 'I think these 2 things are equally likely' then you'd have a 'gotcha', but that's not what I said.

[tsherkin]

The point is I can imagine anything, but that's not what actually happened. Whether one thing is slightly more likely than the other is neither here nor there. I don't think rating players by what we can 'imagine' is a sensible approach. If I had said 'I think these 2 things are equally likely' then you'd have a 'gotcha', but that's not what I said.

Yes, but we're not rating players. We're having a discussion about a theoretical possibility, and you've actually already conceded the point. You're just still arguing you're usual shtick on top of it. We were discussing the probability of West developing the 3, which you have now admitted is much more likely than Duncan. Which means this line of discussion is concluded.

[One_and_Done]

The point is I can imagine anything, but that's not what actually happened. Whether one thing is slightly more likely than the other is neither here nor there. I don't think rating players by what we can 'imagine' is a sensible approach. If I had said 'I think these 2 things are equally likely' then you'd have a 'gotcha', but that's not what I said.

Yes, but we're not rating players. We're having a discussion about a theoretical possibility, and you've actually already conceded the point. You're just still arguing you're usual shtick on top of it. We were discussing the probability of West developing the 3, which you have now admitted is much more likely than Duncan. Which means this line of discussion is concluded.

It's only a concession if you have different criteria to mine. By my criteria that is no concession at all, because I only rate guys on the skillset they actually had.

[tsherkin]

It's only a concession if you have different criteria to mine. By my criteria that is no concession at all, because I only rate guys on the skillset they actually had.

Right, but you also don't ever like to admit when you're wrong, or being unreasonable, so this is about as close as we ever get to that. So at this point, I'm going to disengage, because this whole conversation has been exhausting.

[One_and_Done]

It's only a concession if you have different criteria to mine. By my criteria that is no concession at all, because I only rate guys on the skillset they actually had.

Right, but you also don't ever like to admit when you're wrong, or being unreasonable, so this is about as close as we ever get to that. So at this point, I'm going to disengage, because this whole conversation has been exhausting.

I don't disagree that this is as close as you'll get to proving I'm wrong. My position hasn't changed at all though.

[Ol Roy]

The point is I can imagine anything, but that's not what actually happened. Whether one thing is slightly more likely than the other is neither here nor there. I don't think rating players by what we can 'imagine' is a sensible approach. If I had said 'I think these 2 things are equally likely' then you'd have a 'gotcha', but that's not what I said.

Yes, but we're not rating players. We're having a discussion about a theoretical possibility, and you've actually already conceded the point. You're just still arguing you're usual shtick on top of it. We were discussing the probability of West developing the 3, which you have now admitted is much more likely than Duncan. Which means this line of discussion is concluded.

It's only a concession if you have different criteria to mine. By my criteria that is no concession at all, because I only rate guys on the skillset they actually had.

You engage with hypothetical discussions, introduce your provocative opinion, get refuted, then decry the concept of hypothetical discussions.

Instead of just accepting that nobody else is ever going to agree with your unique & flawed criteria for comparing players, you choose to apply it inconsistently just to get others to engage with it.

After exhausting everyone with a multipage derailment, the thread dies. Rinse, repeat. You used to start more of your own threads, but you'd get destroyed in your polls, so hijacking other people's threads seems to be a better strategy for you.

If I was going to spend all my time proselytizing or selling something, it would be a heck of a lot more important than basketball rankings. And if I had to be intellectually dishonest to do it...I wouldn't. At some point, a "no soliciting" sign needs to go up on behalf of the annoyed masses.

[One_and_Done]

If you're finding it exhausting to disagree with me, just stop doing it. Alternatively there is an ignore button right there.

I don't personally find my thesis of 'comparing players is subjective, but granting them new skillsets is too subjective' to be particularly confusing.

[penbeast0]

It's only a concession if you have different criteria to mine. By my criteria that is no concession at all, because I only rate guys on the skillset they actually had.

Actually, you only rate guys on the skillset they actually used when moving forward in time and often ignore some of those because you don't think the older players are athletic enough to do them moving forward. But, when moving backward, you assume modern players can easily learn the earlier era's differing skillsets.

And, you tend to do it in often in a dismissive fashion without explanation. It's a shame because you are capable of reasoned posts when you choose to engage rather than just be dismissive.

[Ol Roy]

If you're finding it exhausting to disagree with me, just stop doing it. Alternatively there is an ignore button right there.

I don't personally find my thesis of 'comparing players is subjective, but granting them new skillsets is too subjective' to be particularly confusing.

I have a better solution, since an ignore button doesn't fix thread derailment.

If you don't like hypothetical discussions, don't participate in them and then complain that they are being had.

Can you resist turning nearly every thread into a referendum on you and the ideas you desperately want to promote?

I have no illusions about that whatsoever. No inch of leash given will be unused.

[tsherkin]

So. Circling back to Kevin Durant and Jerry West.

I entered this thread talking about KD by a small margin. But there are some things about West which are worth discussing. His defense is one of them. We know that his scoring efficiency was quite strong in-era as well. His development as a playmaker is another consequential factor because, APG notwithstanding, KD is a bit dim as a playmaker and not really a master at reading the game in that way.

So if one WERE to author an argument for West, it would probably center around his ability to do those things with Durant does not, which is to say driving broader team offense more effectively than just individual volume scoring provides. And that would be an interesting angle to consider.

[One_and_Done]

If you're finding it exhausting to disagree with me, just stop doing it. Alternatively there is an ignore button right there.

I don't personally find my thesis of 'comparing players is subjective, but granting them new skillsets is too subjective' to be particularly confusing.

I have a better solution, since an ignore button doesn't fix thread derailment.

If you don't like hypothetical discussions, don't participate in them and then complain that they are being had.

Can you resist turning nearly every thread into a referendum on you and the ideas you desperately want to promote?

I have no illusions about that whatsoever. No inch of leash given will be unused.

Almost every thread on this board is hypothetical. What you're really demanding is that everyone use your criteria, which is not appropriate or realistic.

I also find it ironic that when I go onto a thread and post a single sentence like 'KD and it's not close' that is 'provocative', but when I post a longer explanation about my criteria which explains my thinking then that is me 'derailing the thread'. I dunno man, it sounds like you just don't like alternative view points at all.

[One_and_Done]

It's only a concession if you have different criteria to mine. By my criteria that is no concession at all, because I only rate guys on the skillset they actually had.

Actually, you only rate guys on the skillset they actually used when moving forward in time and often ignore some of those because you don't think the older players are athletic enough to do them moving forward. But, when moving backward, you assume modern players can easily learn the earlier era's differing skillsets.

And, you tend to do it in often in a dismissive fashion without explanation. It's a shame because you are capable of reasoned posts when you choose to engage rather than just be dismissive.

This is not a shift in criteria, it's a disagreement about what a skillset includes (the disagreement extends to exactly one aspect of basketball, which is dribbling).

To bring it back to KD vs West, I don't think whether KD could dribble much 60s style would even matter, because in the circumstances of KD playing in the 60s he'd barely need to dribble, just like Klay barely dribbled in his hey day. Conversely, West would be in big trouble without a modern handle or 3pt shot today, because of how different today's superior league is

But then over the majority of league history KDs skills would translate better too.

KD is bigger, more athletic, more talented, better on D, and better on O. I don't see the comparison as terribly close. West is the bigger legend though, with more of a legacy. I wish more fans could he happy with that, instead of trying to argue West could really stand up to KD today. I follow other sports where most fans don't have a problem distinguishing between these 2 things. In Rugby League everyone venerates the teams of the past, while recognising the differences in the game mean that today's players are far superior.

[70sFan]

It's only a concession if you have different criteria to mine. By my criteria that is no concession at all, because I only rate guys on the skillset they actually had.

Actually, you only rate guys on the skillset they actually used when moving forward in time and often ignore some of those because you don't think the older players are athletic enough to do them moving forward. But, when moving backward, you assume modern players can easily learn the earlier era's differing skillsets.

And, you tend to do it in often in a dismissive fashion without explanation. It's a shame because you are capable of reasoned posts when you choose to engage rather than just be dismissive.

This is not a shift in criteria, it's a disagreement about what a skillset includes (the disagreement extends to exactly one aspect of basketball, which is dribbling).

To bring it back to KD vs West, I don't think whether KD could dribble much 60s style would even matter, because in the circumstances of KD playing in the 60s he'd barely need to dribble, just like Klay barely dribbled in his hey day. Conversely, West would be in big trouble without a modern handle or 3pt shot today, because of how different today's superior league is

But then over the majority of league history KDs skills would translate better too.

KD is bigger, more athletic, more talented, better on D, and better on O. I don't see the comparison as terribly close. West is the bigger legend though, with more of a legacy. I wish more fans could he happy with that, instead of trying to argue West could really stand up to KD today. I follow other sports where most fans don't have a problem distinguishing between these 2 things. In Rugby League everyone venerates the teams of the past, while recognising the differences in the game mean that today's players are far superior.

I don't think rugby fans talk about how much inferior Jonah Lomu is in comparison to modern wings.

[One_and_Done]

That's Rugby Union, so I won't speak to it, but there are always outliers.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Actually, you only rate guys on the skillset they actually used when moving forward in time and often ignore some of those because you don't think the older players are athletic enough to do them moving forward. But, when moving backward, you assume modern players can easily learn the earlier era's differing skillsets.

And, you tend to do it in often in a dismissive fashion without explanation. It's a shame because you are capable of reasoned posts when you choose to engage rather than just be dismissive.

This is not a shift in criteria, it's a disagreement about what a skillset includes (the disagreement extends to exactly one aspect of basketball, which is dribbling).

To bring it back to KD vs West, I don't think whether KD could dribble much 60s style would even matter, because in the circumstances of KD playing in the 60s he'd barely need to dribble, just like Klay barely dribbled in his hey day. Conversely, West would be in big trouble without a modern handle or 3pt shot today, because of how different today's superior league is

But then over the majority of league history KDs skills would translate better too.

KD is bigger, more athletic, more talented, better on D, and better on O. I don't see the comparison as terribly close. West is the bigger legend though, with more of a legacy. I wish more fans could he happy with that, instead of trying to argue West could really stand up to KD today. I follow other sports where most fans don't have a problem distinguishing between these 2 things. In Rugby League everyone venerates the teams of the past, while recognising the differences in the game mean that today's players are far superior.

The bolded is what bothers me. I'm not sure anyone in this thread has argued that West would be superior to Durant in the present league. If someone really has argued that West would be better than KD today, then I'll stand corrected. But most if not all of the arguments in favor of West, I believe, have been era-relative in nature.

It's not "West wouldn't be as good in today's game vs West would be as good in today's game", it's "It matters that West wouldn't be as good in today's game vs It doesn't matter that West wouldn't be as good as in today's game".

[One_and_Done]

Actually, you only rate guys on the skillset they actually used when moving forward in time and often ignore some of those because you don't think the older players are athletic enough to do them moving forward. But, when moving backward, you assume modern players can easily learn the earlier era's differing skillsets.

And, you tend to do it in often in a dismissive fashion without explanation. It's a shame because you are capable of reasoned posts when you choose to engage rather than just be dismissive.

This is not a shift in criteria, it's a disagreement about what a skillset includes (the disagreement extends to exactly one aspect of basketball, which is dribbling).

To bring it back to KD vs West, I don't think whether KD could dribble much 60s style would even matter, because in the circumstances of KD playing in the 60s he'd barely need to dribble, just like Klay barely dribbled in his hey day. Conversely, West would be in big trouble without a modern handle or 3pt shot today, because of how different today's superior league is

But then over the majority of league history KDs skills would translate better too.

KD is bigger, more athletic, more talented, better on D, and better on O. I don't see the comparison as terribly close. West is the bigger legend though, with more of a legacy. I wish more fans could he happy with that, instead of trying to argue West could really stand up to KD today. I follow other sports where most fans don't have a problem distinguishing between these 2 things. In Rugby League everyone venerates the teams of the past, while recognising the differences in the game mean that today's players are far superior.

The bolded is what bothers me. I'm not sure anyone in this thread has argued that West would be superior to Durant in the present league. If someone really has argued that West would be better than KD today, then I'll stand corrected. But most if not all of the arguments in favor of West, I believe, have been era-relative in nature.

It's not "West wouldn't be as good in today's game vs West would be as good in today's game", it's "It matters that West wouldn't be as good in today's game vs It doesn't matter that West wouldn't be as good as in today's game".

I'll let others speak to that, but I've certainly seen people saying West would be a huge star today, and that's just absurd in my mind.