Grandpa Waiters wrote:"So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the Pope, sexual orientation, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling. Seen that."
Unless the question is "how does it smell?", it is rather irrelevant to be at the Sistine Chapel. And even then, you might have been on drugs during your visit and your olfactory system wasn't working well. But in that case of a player comparison the "smell" of the player isn't the question at hand, but rather how good he played the game of basketball. To see that it is enough to watch games later via TV or computer screen, because the playing level will not change whether you were actually in the arena or not. And given my experience, I see more from the game when I actually watch it later on the screen than during my arena visit. Also, my video tool allows me to slow down the sequences or let me replay it as much as I like; my live experience doesn't do that.
So, what exactly is the advantage of "standing in the Sistine Chapel" when the question is actually "How big is the Sistine Chapel?" Will the height or width change based on my personal experience?
FYI: I was in the Sistine Chapel and to be quite honest: I can't remember how it smelled, but I assume it smelled like in most of the old churches and chapels I visited in the past and will likely visit in the future. And the fun fact, most people will not be able to remember that correctly, but they actually believe they can.
Grandpa Waiters wrote:I've been all over the world (Paris, London, Spain, Vietnam etc) and believe me, memorizing stats about a country vs seeing it with your own two eyes is not the same thing.
No, it isn't, but that is also trivial. Just that being in a specific country doesn't give me an exact answer for how many people are living there, how the climate is in average or how the average income is. Looking up the stats on those topics are answering me that question. The same goes for basketball players. How aesthetical pleasing a player is doesn't really tell me how big of an impact he actually really made. Watching a player play, gives me a good idea about the skillset he possess and how he uses those skills within the context of a 5on5 game; how much difference that makes to the game result is actually better determined by using stats. If I have no idea, how the stats are generated, I obviously missing out on something, which can be crucial especially in cases where such stats like detailed +/- data isn't available.
Grandpa Waiters wrote:I'm not sure if you witnessed Moses in his prime
Given the fact that I actually described how he played differently than Garnett, we may assume that I saw games where he was playing. And yes, I saw games with Moses Malone in his prime, but not even one live; mostly those games where he was at his best (a typical bias given the fact that worse performances usually are not something seen in "Classic Games" or basketball fans are uploading on Youtube (and yeah, there are full games uploaded as well).
I extensively watched games in 2011 before and during the RPOY project, because I didn't want to make a fool out of myself by proclaiming that players played differently. That's how I am; first get the best possible set of information, then form an opinion and then go write up stuff on an internet forum.
Replacing either players means you may have in fact made other moves to better compliment. Who knows how well they would actually play because it never happened. I don't see what this is suppose to prove?
