Our Self Serving Biases

[The Main Event]

gh

[mysticbb]

Based on what you've said, i feel it's safe to assume that you believe that the human species has made great evolutionary steps in the past 50 years.

No, you failed badly. It has nothing to do with any kind of evolutionary steps, but only with better training methods and better "medicine". You must also take into account the better competition only because there are more people who play basketball.

This is simply untrue. Wilt Chamberlain, by todays standards, would be considered an elite athlete. Wilt was said to have been able to bench over 400 pounds (witnessed by several teammates, Arnold Schwartzeneger, reporters, etc.).

Yeah, and he had millions of women too.

50 years ago the 100 m world record (electronically stopped) was 10.32 s, nowadays is 9.72 s. The world record in 100 m swimming (freestyle) was 54.6 s 50 years ago, today Eamon Sullivan sets a new world record with 47.05 s. The difference has nothing to do with evolutionary steps.

No matter how you cut it, Wilt would be a DOMINANT athlete in todays game, no question about it.

But not in the way he was dominant 40 to 50 years ago. Simple by the fact that there are players, who are more athletic than he ever was. Shaquille O'Neal at his prime would dominate a prime Wilt Chamberlain, because he was much heavier, more skilled and faster than Chamberlain. If Oden can stay healthy, I think he will be the next step, because he is strong as O'Neal, but has more agility and is even quicker on his feet.

For example: Finals 1964

Look how unskilled the players were in comparison to today, or how slow they ran down the court. Sorry, but there is nothing to see, that he would dominate in the same way without a question.

[The Main Event]

Based on what you've said, i feel it's safe to assume that you believe that the human species has made great evolutionary steps in the past 50 years.

No, you failed badly. It has nothing to do with any kind of evolutionary steps, but only with better training methods and better "medicine". You must also take into account the better competition only because there are more people who play basketball.

This is simply untrue. Wilt Chamberlain, by todays standards, would be considered an elite athlete. Wilt was said to have been able to bench over 400 pounds (witnessed by several teammates, Arnold Schwartzeneger, reporters, etc.).

Yeah, and he had millions of women too.

50 years ago the 100 m world record (electronically stopped) was 10.32 s, nowadays is 9.72 s. The world record in 100 m swimming (freestyle) was 54.6 s 50 years ago, today Eamon Sullivan sets a new world record with 47.05 s. The difference has nothing to do with evolutionary steps.

No matter how you cut it, Wilt would be a DOMINANT athlete in todays game, no question about it.

But not in the way he was dominant 40 to 50 years ago. Simple by the fact that there are players, who are more athletic than he ever was. Shaquille O'Neal at his prime would dominate a prime Wilt Chamberlain, because he was much heavier, more skilled and faster than Chamberlain. If Oden can stay healthy, I think he will be the next step, because he is strong as O'Neal, but has more agility and is even quicker on his feet.

For example: Finals 1964

Look how unskilled the players were in comparison to today, or how slow they ran down the court. Sorry, but there is nothing to see, that he would dominate in the same way without a question.

You said, "if you put Wilt in today's game he would not be as dominant", or something along those lines. So you're saying that if you gave Wilt the treatment that todays players receive he wouldn't be dominant? Do you really think that if you sent Shaq back to the 60's he would have been able to play close to the minutes that Wilt averaged, playing both ends of the court, let alone for 1 season?
Seeing as to how there is a much larger basketball pool today, wouldn't that make you respect someone of Wilts athletic ability even more? He is the type of athlete that appears once a century.

Ok, and as you mentioned, that can be attributed in large part to advances in medicine, training and the financial backing of these athletes, which allow them to dedicate their lives to their respective sports. Many of the ballers of Wilts generation had regular jobs during the off season and couldnt afford the luxury of dedicating every waking moment to training.

There is no center in todays game that could match Wilts athleticism. Not one.

A prime shaq vs a prime Wilt would make for an epic matchup; however, Wilt is quicker and has a much better touch than Shaq. Shaq being more skilled than Wilt? I guess it depends on how you guage skill. I know that Wilts game was far from one-dimensional and he could score on his opponents in a variety of ways. I have no doubt that Shaq could score on wilt in the post but don't think for one second that Wilt couldn't hold his own.

The game pace was faster back then. If it was so much slower as you claim, then that would only make Wilts numbers even greater. No matter how you look at it, Wilt played for an average of approximately 47 minutes a game throughout his career, which is absurd.

[microfib4thewin]

If Shaq was in the 60s he would either retire in 10 years because of injuries or call it quits because he gets hammered without any foul calls. He'd still win at least a title, but he will not put up such a career people would consider GOAT worthy.

[The Main Event]

As a Psychology major I cringe when people butcher/misuse terms.

A self-serving bias is when we attribute good stuff to ourselves (I won because I have a lot of skill), while attributing bad stuff to others (I lost because he cheated).

The psychological phenomenon you're talking about, where we only take in information that serves our purposes (such as I only pay attention to Nellie's strengths, not weaknesses) is called "confirmation bias".

Other than that, I don't know what to say. You've come to realize that sports fans are biased...someone alert the presses.

Thanks, i was also a psych major. I used the term 'Self Serving Bias' because people often manifest tendencies to evaluate ambiguous information in a way that is beneficial to their personal interests. In this case, people who advocate their generation as having better basketball are making an ambigous comparison between the two eras, in a way that promotes their era as being better. The comparison can be interpreted in a variety of ways, making it extremely difficult to come to a conclusion.

[sweet daddy]

He had better stats than all of them as late as '72 (well, Jabbar's offense was a little better, but ...)

I'm sorry, but I have to nitpick a little on this statement. In the 1972 season, Wilt averaged 14.8 points on .649 fg shooting and .422 ft shooting (tsp at .610) with 4.0 assists. Kareem averaged 34.8 points on .574 and .689 (tsp at .603) with 4.6 assists. Usually the gap will be that big because the older player played way less minutes, but when you consider that Wilt only played 1.9 mpg less, and that offensive gap wasn't little, it was enormous.

Wilt was still the best rebounder in the league with an average of 19.2 and a rebound percentage of 20.1, but Kareem was no slouch at 16.6 rebounds per game and a rebound percentage of 18.1.

Kareem's PER was 29.9, while Wilt's was 18.5. Statistically, at that point, they weren't even close.

You are correct, sir, and I am sorry. I was using the comparison data from basketball-reference.com, but it was providing me with career averages instead of current year averages. Kareem was a much more dominant player that year than Wilt was. Thank you for catching my mistake.

The gaps in these players' eras do make it difficult to make meaningful comparisons.

[The Main Event]

This commercial gives an accurate depiction of what would happen if an elite player (by todays standards) went back 30 years to ball with players of that era.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sav68TkaVOM

[NUNBETTA]

One thing that people don't consider when making the argument for the superiority of the current generation over the players of generations past is that this situation will happen to them in reverse, if they live long enough to see it happen. Wait for the day when your son, grandson, niece or nephew is telling you that player X (NBA MVP, year 2030) is twice the athlete that Lebron James was in his prime. Wait for the day that your son tells you that player Y is way more skilled than Kobe ever was, and that player Z could dominate a prime Shaq.

He'll tell you that Allen Iverson wasn't that quick, and Dwight Howard wasn't that strong or physically imposing compared to his favourite player. You'll likely be left with nothing to do but shake your head. You'll ask your son how it's possible for him to hold such strong and dismissive opinions about players he has never seen play, he'll tell you that he's seen the old video, and all of the players from the time of your youth/the height of your fan-dom were playing in a league that, by comparison to their own, is vastly inferior.

When your 20 something relative is telling you that player P is a much, much, better dunker than Vince Carter ever was, I want to know what you all plan to do.

I say all of this as a person who is currently only 19, but I hesitate to dismiss the opinions of those who claim that Wilt was better than Shaq, or that Pistol Pete could have held his own against any guard in today's game, because I realize that there will come a time when I have to defend the merits of the players who I grew up watching.

[Point forward]

I can't wait until RGM ballboys in 2020 say that Jordan was a scrub b/c he played before the 7 foot guard generation.