CP3, Jordan, LeBron, Durant, DRob?

The only ones that are up for debate really are Durant/CP3. I could see taking Magic for his height advantage depending on how in shape you take him to be after the layoff, or Barkley for his post play over Durant (or Malone if you need post play and defense). Completely depends on the matchup. On average I probably take CP3 for his perimeter shooting and Magic not playing for a year, and Durant for his shooting to free up the middle more for DRob and drives by MJ/LeBron.

Way to ignore his quote:

"I didn't say we were a better team," Bryant said. "But if you think we can't beat that team one time? Like I'm going to say no, that we'd never beat them.

"They are a better team. The question was 'Can we beat them?' Yes we can. Of course we can."

Last years hawks could, and did, beat the full strength heat...but they were a dog to beat them in a given game and especially in a 7 game series

2012 can beat DT, but they'd be a dog in a game and a big dog in a series

Another kobe quote:

"The fact is, they have [Patrick] Ewing and [David] Robinson and those big guys, it's tough. If you're asking me, 'Can you beat them one game?' Hell yeah, we can beat them in one game. You didn't ask me if we could beat them in a 7-game series. In one game, we can beat them. No question about it."

Yeah, I personally think anyone being reasonable sees the gargantuan advantage 1992 has in the post with Barkley/Malone/DRob/Ewing vs. KLove/Chandler/Davis. Not that 2012 doesn't have an edge in some areas, but they just can't compete at all in the post. The huge height advantage at PG amplifies this even more, not that it's really necessary.

Kobe needs to remember how much better the athletes are today compared to back then.

almost cant believe one quote sparked a 2 week 1k post fictional debate

is trainwreckedog back yet?

Fyp

BTW, for the people who say that universal improvement only applies to track and swimming and not ball and puck type sports, I thought of something that's actually universally measurable from those. Kicking and punting in the NFL. Fun stats comparing 1992 to now:

Average punting distance in 1992: 42.4 yards
Average punting distance today: 45.0 yards

Field goal percentage in 1992: 72.6%
Field goal percentage today: 82.9%

Field goals made outside 50 yards in 1992: 36
Field goals made outside 50 yards today: 90

Extra point percentage in 1992: 97.7%
Extra point percentage today: 99.4%

The best punter in the league in raw average in 1992 was Greg Montgomery with an average of 46.9 yards/punt. Today, that average would put him just 8th in the league with Shane Lechler being the leader averaging 50.8 yards/punt.

Kevin Love sucks

Meh, the training for kickers and the selection for athleticism has probably gone up a ton over the last 20 years. I don't think anyone has said that general improvement only applies to track and swimming. Aren't you the one who brought up swimming anyway? And again there are a lot of relevant events in track that have NOT improved since 1990.

I'm not convinced there's been a dramatic improvement in basketball strategy over the last 20 years. It's 5 on 5, not like there is some epic military strategy involved and there have been plenty of great coaches since way before 1992. One could say weight training is more prevalent in basketball now but I think that is overblown. Look at Malone/DRob. Then look at Durant. I think someone noted the average weight of the Dream Team is pretty much identical to 2012.

Does anyone have any specifics on training methods or basketball strategy that are really utilized now but didn't exist in 1992? That would go a long way in convincing me the NBA has improved a ton like kickers have in 20 years. The problem is since you guys never give specifics on these huge leaps in basketball fundamentals, strategy, and training methods they are just vague assertions that don't have much merit.

It doesn't have to be huge leaps, it just doesn't make much sense that for some reason basketball peaked in 1992 when in every other sport that pretty much isn't the case. Why is basketball so much different? It's just blind luck that we have the GOAT team in 1992? It's just blind luck that basketball for some reason has flat lined while all other sports have pretty much gotten at worst slightly better over the same period of time. Do people honestly believe that no team will ever be better than the 1992 DT? If that's the case, then LOL. I guess people in the 20s thought there'd be no better team than the 1929 Yankees. Every generation I guess has their team that can't possibly be beat.

It doesn't have to be huge leaps, but it has to be a rather decent leap to make up for the huge advantage the '92 team has in post play. And the argument is not that the entire sport peaked in 1992, the argument is that the 1992 Olympic team is better than the 2012 team.

And there is a rather large amount of "blind luck" for which generation is best when the relevant technologies and training are close because it entirely depends on what players are born when. It is blind luck that Magic/MJ/DRob/Ewing/Barkley/Malone/Pippen etc. were all at or near their peak in '92. It's pretty much "blind luck" that MJ was born in 1963 and not 1983.

Your assertion that pretty much every sport improves from year to year and there's no variance involved in a window as small as 20 years is a blind assertion without any evidence. The entire argument for 2012 is basically one big exercise in assuming your conclusion.

Agree with this. The increase in overall skill, athleticism, strategy and tactics over the last 20 years is a modest effect, and certainly not enough to overwhelm the variance involved in 1 or 2 extra elite players just happening to be born.

Your assertion is also blind. Most things get better. Training, technique, coaching, strategy get better over time in sports. You'll have a really hard time prove that is a wrong assertion. You have done almost nothing to convince me of the opposite. I'm not going to argue that we are in a lul when it comes to post players in the NBA, but he rest of the positions have gotten stronger over time--probably has to do with Jordan coming in and the league being controlled on the wing.

So a better question might be, rather than Could the 2012 team beat the DT?, instead, Could you come up with a team from the 2012 NBA that would be a favorite over the DT?

I didn't make an assertion. Other than the 1992 team was better, which I have given arguments for. I NEVER asserted athleticism, in general, is better (or even equal) in 1992 compared to 2012. My argument is that, in basketball, it's really damn close and the variance in the 20 years, in this case, overwhelms any tiny (if any) difference between the two years in general athleticism/training/strategy. The post play advantage for 1992 is overwhelming. The advantage in athleticism/fundamentals/strategy is not, and given variance may be nonexistent even if I do grant that basketball is still gradually improving year to year. 20 years is not a long time. Unless there are specific advances in athleticism/training/strategy whatever that you can at least name, there is no reason to think they are significant enough to matter here.

I think I could come up with one that would be a coinflip or close to it, if we're ignoring injuries. That statement may put capone0 on monkeytilt so I'll explain by saying I can't find an equivalent to MJ, DRob, and the height advantage of Magic at PG, and even Barkley/Malone in the post. Howard would help a ton in the post department, but he's only one man. LeBron would obviously cause a lot of matchup problems even with Pippen on him. But yeah if I could put together any 12 I think I could get pretty much even ignoring injuries.

I like 2008's chances a lot better with a younger Kobe, Wade, CP3 pre-knee trouble, etc.

So, I guess, what do you think are the implications of that? I mean, this 2012 Olympic team was NOT constructed with the sole purpose of beating a hypothetical DT matchup.

Advanced scouting, specifically player tendencies. Adjusting to more optimal strategy for shot selection and defensive schemes. Strength and conditioning becoming more advanced and implemented much younger into the career of players.

And most importantly, much more advanced PEDs.

Most obvious one which I've brought up like a kajillion times is the greater emphasis on the 3-point shot. A 3-pointer is a better shot than a mid-range jumper in about 90% of instances, but coaches didn't realize how accurate 3-point shooters could be until recently, and coached their teams to intentionally shoot mid-range jumpers. Phil Jackson, as recently as like 3 or 4 years ago coached the Lakers to try to get the other team to shoot corner 3s even though it's the highest EV shot on the entire court, because of some theory about rebounding which has since been proven false statistically. The other stuff is mostly training/nutrition stuff which we don't know the details on, but mirrors advancements in individual sports.


Track and field has improved a TON since 1992. Just because there's a few older records doesn't mean that the fields haven't improved a ton overall. If Babe Ruth was the best hitter until Mickey Mantle, would that mean that baseball didn't improve at all from 1920-1950? Of course not. It just means that he's one exception, just like a lot of people think MJ was an exception in the 80s and early 90s. That doesn't mean there won't still be a marked difference if you go 10 deep with a team.

Anyway, just because I'm a glutton for punishment, I'm going to take the gold medal times/distances from the 1992 Olympics, and show what place they would have gotten in 2008 16 years later.

100m: 9.96 seconds (6th)
200m: 20.01 seconds (4th)
400m: 43.50 seconds (2nd)
800m: 1:43.66 (1st)
1500m: 3:40.12 (17th)
5000m: 13:12.52 (3rd)
10000m: 27:46.7 (14th)
110m hurdles: 13.12 seconds (2nd)
400m hurdles: 46.78 seconds (1st)
3000m steeplechase: 8:08.84 (1st)
4x100m relay: 37.40 seconds (2nd)
4x400m relay: 2:55.74 (2nd)
Marathon: 2:13.23 (12th)
20K walk: 1:21.25 (15th)
50K walk: 3:50.13 (13th)
Long jump: 8.67 m (1st)
Triple jump: 18.17 m (1st)
High jump: 2.34 m (T-2nd)
Pole vault: 5.80 m (3rd)
Shot put: 21.70 m (1st)
Discus: 65.12 m (8th)
Javelin: 89.66 m (2nd)
Hammer throw: 82.54 m (1st)
Decathlon: 8611 (2nd)

So in 17 out of 24 events, the 2008 winner did better than the 1994 winner and in 5 events, the 1994 gold medal winner wouldn't even have finished in the top ten. Meanwhile, if you run it the other way, of the 7 gold medalists who had a worse mark in 2008, every one except for one would have at least medaled, and the one that didn't would have finished 4th.

Again, the events where the 1994 winner was better doesn't mean that some events evolve and some don't; it just means that even with the sport evolving, there will still be an outlier who was better from the previous era. It shows that over a 16 year span, 17 of the top 24 athletes are likely to be from the new generation.

For instance, let's look at the only event where the 2008 winner wouldn't have medaled in 1994, the 800 meters. Here are the winning times through the years:

1896: 2:11.0
1900: 2:01.2
1904: 1:56.0
1908: 1:52.8
1912: 1:51.9
1920: 1:53.4
1924: 1:52.4
1928: 1:51.8
1932: 1:49.7
1936: 1:52.9
1948: 1:49.3
1952: 1:49.3
1956: 1:47.8
1960: 1:46.5
1964: 1:45.1
1968: 1:44.4
1972: 1:45.9
1976: 1:43.5
1980: 1:45.4
1984: 1:43.0
1988: 1:43.5
1992: 1:43.7
1996: 1:42.6
2000: 1:45.1
2004: 1:44.5
2008: 1:44.7

Now, I think there's a pretty clear trend downward on those times throughout the years. But that doesn't mean there aren't little relative maximums at different places. For instance, the 1908 winner has a better time than the 1936 winner. However, the sport didn't stop evolving in 1936. A full 7 seconds have been taken off the Olympic record since 1936, and that previous record wouldn't have won a single gold medal since World War II. Just like the last 3 Olympics coming up short of the 4 previous Olympics doesn't mean that people have stopped evolving in the 800m now. In fact, the world record for that race was set in 2010.

It's pretty clear downward trend until the plateau that started 50 years ago

See, that's what I'm saying. You can always look at a small number of times and find anamolies that look like plateaus. If this was 1948, you could have said that times started plateauing in 1912. However, the record time in the 800m for any race (not just Olympics) was recorded in 2010 and 5 of the top 10 times ever in the race are recorded since 2000, so there's still definite improvement. Also, all the other running events both shorter and longer have seen relatively steep declines in the last 50 years so there's no reason for a middle distance to be anamolous in that regard. Here's a table I found for the 1500 meters which is probably the most similar race to the 800 including every year and not just Olympic years:

1966 3:36.1 Jim Ryun (USA) Berkeley
1967 3:33.1 Jim Ryun (USA) Los Angeles
1968 3:34.9 Kipchoge Keino (KEN) Mexico City
1969 3:37.2 Marty Liquori (USA) Stuttgart
1970 3:34.0 Jean Wadoux (FRA) Colombes
1971 3:36.0 Marty Liquori (USA) Milan
1972 3:36.33 Pekka Vasala (FIN) Munich
1973 3:34.6 Filbert Bayi (TAN) Helsinki
1974 3:32.16 Filbert Bayi (TAN) Christchurch
1975 3:32.4 John Walker (NZL) Oslo
1976 3:34.19 John Walker (NZL) Stockholm
1977 3:32.72 John Walker (NZL) Brussels
1978 3:35.48 David Moorcroft (GBR) Edmonton
1979 3:32.03 Sebastian Coe (GBR) Zürich
1980 3:31.36 Steve Ovett (GBR) Koblenz
1981 3:31.57 Steve Ovett (GBR) Budapest
1982 3:32.12 Sydney Maree (USA) Brussels
1983 3:30.77 Steve Ovett (GBR) Rieti
1984 3:31.54 Saïd Aouita (MAR) Hengelo
1985 3:29.46 Saïd Aouita (MAR) Berlin
1986 3:29.77 Sebastian Coe (GBR) Rieti
1987 3:30.69 Saïd Aouita (MAR) Oslo
1988 3:30.95 Steve Cram (GBR) Brussels
1989 3:30.55 Abdi Bile (SOM) Rieti
1990 3:32.60 Noureddine Morceli (ALG) Bologna
1991 3:31.00 Noureddine Morceli (ALG) Helsinki
1992 3:28.86 Noureddine Morceli (ALG) Rieti
1993 3:29.20 Noureddine Morceli (ALG) Narbonne
1994 3:30.61 Noureddine Morceli (ALG) Villeneuve d'Ascq
1995 3:27.37 Noureddine Morceli (ALG) Nice
1996 3:29.05 Hicham El Guerrouj (MAR) Brussels
1997 3:28.91 Hicham El Guerrouj (MAR) Zürich
1998 3:26.00 Hicham El Guerrouj (MAR) Rome
1999 3:27.65 Hicham El Guerrouj (MAR) Seville
2000 3:27.21 Hicham El Guerrouj (MAR) Zürich
2001 3:26.12 Hicham El Guerrouj (MAR) Brussels
2002 3:26.89 Hicham El Guerrouj (MAR) Zürich
2003 3:28.40 Hicham El Guerrouj (MAR) Brussels
2004 3:27.40 Bernard Lagat (KEN) Zürich
2005 3:29.30 Bernard Lagat (USA) Rieti
2006 3:29.02 Daniel Kipchirchir Komen (KEN) Rome
2007 3:30.54 Alan Webb (USA) Saint-Denis
2008 3:31.49 Daniel Kipchirchir Komen (KEN) Monaco
2009 3:29.47 Augustine Kiprono Choge (KEN) Berlin
2010 3:29.27 Silas Kiplagat (KEN) Monaco
2011 3:30.46 Asbel Kiprop (KEN) Rieti

With a larger sample, it's much easier to see the trend while fewer data points can trick the mind easier.

I wasn't ignoring his quote, I was quoting from the initial interview I watched where he gives his opinion and doesn't say the bolded, then after all the attention his statement got he said that. I feel pretty good about this:

Who on the 2012 team is more athletic than Jordan and Robinson? No one ITT has even talked about specifics of the question.