they are still horse **** reasons. i have no idea how good the team's chemistry was. the team played a bunch of turds and every game was a blow out. these are the same excuses i've heard for years why Kobe was better than Lebron and I still laugh when people use them b/c they are pathetic crutches that don't help any argument. watch the video of cuban punking skip bayless. literally you are saying nothing when you mention those things. all guys want to win more. how does the media decide who wants it more in those cases? who wins. it's so circular and stupid that its not even worth mentioning.

Yes, the Pats had ridiculous amazing team chemistry, except when they were losing, then all of a sudden the same guys couldnt get along, etc etc etc. "Team Chemistry" is basically a synonym for "currently winning." Zero predictive power whatsoever.

do you think the nba has improved significantly in the last 5 years? I do. 10 years ago it was un-****ing-watchable.

we're comparing the very tail end of the curve so I think the differences are negligible. I'm not sure what you mean by difference among the elite... if anything, I would think that as the overall talent level rises, the difference decreases. we're talking about limits on the human organism, which has been around in its current form for 200K years. it's a given that training and nutrition have improved exponentially in the last 20 years. but imo the level of excellence/athletic genius that we're trying compare is defined by more than just 40 times and workout regimens.

I know it's really difficult to measure, but do you think the smartest person in the history of mankind is alive today? if you had to pick one person, would you find someone who's alive now, or would you take einstein, newton, plato, etc...?

bringing it back to sports, do you think the best player in the history of football, baseball or soccer is playing right now?

I don't expect you to address all of this of course. but at least tell me this: if the modern nba'er is so much fitter and stronger, and michael jordan is inarguably part of the debate over the greatest player ever, is it fair for me to say that "if MJ had post-modern nutrition and training, he would undoubtedly be the greatest player in history"?

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but if athletes were constantly (decade-to-decade lets say) improving, world records in every event would be broken in a relatively consistent fashion, right? but they're not.

I'm not sure what you're saying here either. myself, I don't know dick about sprinters except for the 9-10 guys I see line up every 4 years in the summer games. given that these improvements are measured in hundredths, I'm not sure it matters that 25 years ago the field averaged 10.0s in the 100m and now the field averages 9.95s. neither time is winning you anything but the opportunity to live in the olympic village and bang hot chicks from 20 different countries. hmmm... that's actually something.

people have been arguing kobe>lebron in the last 4 years? also, this is the first time I've ever heard of kobe being an example of "chemistry." but since we're talking about it, wouldn't you agree that if kobe and shaq had better chemistry, they'd have won at least 2 more rings together?

all guys don't want to win more. some guys want to **** bitches. some guys want to get paid. some guys want to have their asses kissed. and some guys want to win above all else. it's just like any other job, not everyone at your company wants to be a C-level executive or even a VP. some people just want to make decent money, keep their job for as long as they want it, and go home to their family at 6 every night.

so who wants it more--you don't think at the NBA level every guy wants it a ton--we aren't playing with a bunch of scrubs especially in the nba? so who wants its more-the guy who wins it right? its a very circular argument. and on the outside, how do you know who wants it more? but if the talent differential is large then they can overcome the want it more argument. but it's a really, really silly argument 99% of the time.

Welp, guess ur shocked then

i just simply dont agree with basketball skills improving that greatly over the last 20 years compared to human beings advancing physically to become better sprinters. We know the height and weight of all the players and telling me that lebron is faster than jordan just isnt gonna cut it anyway. I played baseball basketball pretty competitvely in the mid 90s when I was younger and now coach both sports. In baseball I actually see kids are much worse because they aren't focused to go out and play everyday all day because they have other things to do like facebook and ps3.

I mean parents are much more lax now-a-days than than they were 20-25 years ago. And I suspect it got even worse for those kids compared to the ones that grew up in the dream teams era. I just really feel this argument holds no water when comparing to a sport like basketball when the dream team was obviously a bigger stronger team than the 12 team unlike the 60s players who besides wilt and russel the tallest guys were 6'8 and white.

RE: Team Chemistry

Chemistry in basketball is kind of like managing in baseball;

If it's Great - Negligible gain

If it's Bad - Huge impact

your proof blows and proves literally nothing. do you live in the ghetto? do you live where basketball is an obsession? do you live in other countries where basketball has become if not the top sport but the #2 sport?

please give me a real good reason why basketball, unlike other sports, miraculously peaked in the mid 90s for no apparent reason other than nostalgia. I'm not going to say 2012 >>> 1992 when it comes to basketball, but people acting like 1992 >>>>>>>> 2012 are on crack when it comes to basketball in the Olympics or the NBA. What makes those years so great and the game today so weak?

Players going to pros quicker?

Less fundamentals?

There are more players playing today than ever. The game has grown in countries outside the US significantly. The coaching, training, etc. is better than ever. But b/c we love the 1992 and no team can beat it--it must be the best team ever and must be the peak of basketball.

Really?

U've kinda just dismissed any credence toward ur "memories" of the DT.

Talk about recency bias

Yeah, I mean I totally buy that in small-town America at a predominantly white school in a town where the population's stayed static, the quality of ball might be a little lower because the kids are less dedicated, but if you're looking at elite prospects (the ones who actually make the NBA), kids are playing way, way more high-level basketball than they were in the '80s. Whereas before, kids were mostly just doing stuff on their own through the summmers, now they're traveling across the country with AAU teams, and putting themselves up against other elite level competition, developing much faster than they would have in the '80s.

it usually is a circular argument, which is why I included the condition of two evenly matched teams.

as for the bolded, I'd agree that WIM has increased overall a great deal in the last 5 years. but I also know that the owners have already amnestied $350M worth of contracts, and they didn't all belong to old/hurt players. I don't recall any of those "amnesties" being a situation where "he's still really good, but at $10M per instead of $15M," but I could be wrong.

maybe this is why we're seeing true 5s disappear though -- being 6' 10"+ and coordinated doesn't guarantee you an NBA contract anymore. however, once again, that's a trend that has emerged very recently.

has anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of the game, that wasn't a lakers fan, tried to argue that kobe>lebron in the last 4 years or so? maybe in that first year, but definitely not in the last 3.

was I unclear?

the media definitely did-- there were a ton of people who kept thinking Kobe was the king especially with the cavaat who would take the last shot or operated in the clutch.

No you were def crystal clear, that just wasn't reality. Maybe on this forum it was but ...

Until Lebron won a ring it was a debate and many (most?) mouth-breathers chose Kobe b/c of his 'desire to win' and 'he's got MJ's work ethic' and 'Lebron's a choker' and blah blah blah

Let alone 3-4 years ago where Wilbon and the sort were taking Kobe hands down

lol why did ppl let this slide

how fast you can run is the #1 or very close to it measurement of athleticism

not really sure why you have to attack my post like that. First off I was arguing the advancement of humans physically saying I just dont see it. I wasnt really arguing about the dream team in general, just saying logically, kids are more prone to not get out and play all as much today as they did 30 years ago. A lot of other sports popularity has gained signficantly too over that time...how could it be true for all of them unless the amount they grew was pretty miniscule?

No I dont live in the ghetto, yes I live in Indiana where basketball is as big as anywhere and coach at a school with 2,500 kids where multiple D1 players played.

I personally agree with you that it would be a tough game for 92 solely based on the 3 point line as that wasnt near part of the game back then as it was today and the dream team would struggle. I still think they'd be favorites though.

extremely-short-distance speed? really?

al davis agrees with you though.

wanting to win more basically just means trying harder right? why wouldn't this show up in the stats

b/c your proof is off hand asside and first hand knowledge--which can't prove anything nor means anything. did you coach in the 80s and 70s when these players were coming through? can you really compare?

do you coach AAU basketball?

NBA still pays the best of any league in world per player. There isn't a reason why players are going elsewhere like there have been in other sports--are the top end athletes especially the tall ones switching to other sports--i doubt it. As iggy mentioned, AAU is growing and helping players advance faster. While interest in the NBA might have slowed down in the USA, it has gone full blast in the rest of the world especially China and the rest of Asia. Europe, basketball is insanely popular.

i actually heard that vert leap was very good (or the best) simple measurement

it only doesn't show up when you don't want it to.

Basketball expert:

Oh, Lebron whoops Kobe in every stat.

Bayless or any number of media pawns:

But Kobe is the king of clutch, he is the best player in the last minute therefore Kobe > Lebron cause clutch is all that matters (last minute vs first 47, last minute always wins) and rings are all that matters, duh.

dont coach, but ill brag, won indiana state championship in AAU tho. Oh yea.

Other than soccer who are these people going elsewhere to play other sports? Theres just only so much in basketball that can be taught, this isnt like poker where there are endless options at your disposal. IF ( and this is the main argument at this point) they everybody is basically on equal footing atheltically, then I think you just got to look at the teams to determine who is better, because I just dont think Durant more atheltically gifted than Pippen, or Chandler/Robinson and so forth.

oh I firmly believe that kids leaving for the pros pretty much always after 1 or 2 years of college has definitely effected the competition.