I don't think it's ridiculous anymore to say Kobe is top 20

My new favorite thing about this thread is how people are still surprised when iggy cherry picks stats.

A close 2nd is how iggy apparently LOL's at relative measurements for athletic performance when that is like the only way to compare these kinds of things. Then he gives an absolute measure to show something completely arbitrary that means nothing without the relative measurement. It's like an advanced form of cherry picking, where you're not just cherry picking the stat, but you're cherry picking an entire statistical method.

Alter the entire field of statistics, sort by PER, birthyear and 100 meter times, ignore all contradicting evidence ---> show 2012 team is a 3 point favorite over the 1992 team.

#1, I have no idea how I "altered the entire field of statistics", that was you trying to explain that the number of people at the tail of a distribution don't increase proportionally with the total population when they obviously do. Second, you weren't even on this forum when the sortbyPER meme came about, so don't arbitrarily try to use it where it doesn't fit when my argument had nothing to do with PER. And finally, ignore what contradicting evidence? There's no contradicting evidence whatsoever. Just a bunch of appeals to nostalgia from people saying "oh, you must not remember watching the Dream Team. They were just the coolest. Nobody could be as good as them."

iggy,
"altering the entire field of statistics" was you claiming relative measurements don't mean anything then trying to say something about an absolute measure without reference to distance run. post #870 ITT. If you didn't constantly ignore any shred of evidence that didn't support your point you may have noticed this earlier.

Unsurprisingly, you still continue to miss my point regarding the tail ends of approximately normal distributions even though I've explained it about 5 times now and have used several examples. Hint: I wasn't ever talking about the "total number of people" in the population as a whole. (Although I'm 100% sure you will ignore that hint, since once you actually understand what I've been saying several of your arguments completely collapse.)

As for PER, yeah, you don't use this stat very often. Don't know what I was thinking poking fun at it.

And I'm not surprised you don't see the contradicting evidence and are continuing to pretend the facts showing that athletic performance does not increase over a 20 year time span in all cases, the relevant potential player pool being smaller now, the rule changes helping perimeter shooting in the NBA relative to 1992, the fact 1992 completely dominates post play and 2012 has no centers, there is a 7"+ height advantage mismatch at PG, etc. etc. etc., don't even exist. It's another manifestation of your bizarro tendency to cherry pick evidence that only supports your point.

It just doesn't prove anything. You are trying to bridge something that makes little sense and also really doesn't help your argument at all. Great that Karl Malone was able to dominate at an old age. Stop bringing up the MVP like it means something. Yes in some years they get in right, most years the voters are a joke. Shaq did not win it some years due to missing some games, actually a lot, but in those games he played he was an absolute stud.

For some other points, we include Magic and Bird in this 1992 discussion like they were in the peak but they were not. A ton of guys on the 1992 were at their peak or slightly after it. Great, what does that again prove? That these guys had length to their career and could play well at an older age? Or its just supposed to prove how good they really were? It really doesn't tell us how dominant they were at their peak though or 1992 which is what we are arguing about.

In this era, most players don't peak right out of college--much like the guys who were on the 1992 team. They take a couple of years to mature.

I think you've likely done some cherry picking of your own in this thread.

So this is the post where I "alter the entire field of statistics" by saying that just because the times are within 3% doesn't mean that track athletes haven't improved a lot? OK, good to know. Think it's probably time to stop arguing with you now.

iggy,
You said the 2.7% was "meaningless", but the 5.4 meters WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE TOTAL DISTANCE tells you something about the performance. I don't know how else to explain this to you, sorry man.

Edit- the "alter the entire field of statistics" comment was obviously hyperbole. I don't think you went back and altered the foundations of an entire branch of mathematics. Jesus.

Can you give me an example or two? I'm actually trying to be as balanced as possible. I use ranges of statistics rather than single years, use relative measurements rather than absolutes, and concede stats like PER and TS% actually do you tell you information about player productivity. I even said that as a pure PG, peak CP3 may be slightly better than peak Magic, when Magic is widely considered to be the greatest PG ever by most. I even think someone arguing 2008 > 1992 may be able to make a decent case, and it is pretty much a coinflip in my mind at the moment.

Iggy on the other hand pretty much only uses cherry picked statistics and assumes his conclusion in every argument he makes. Like 5 or more different posters have called him out for this. It's not like I'm the only one who sees it. Hell, I'm not even attached to the 1992 > 2012 side, I'm just calling out the lol arguments being put forth.

But yeah, seriously, if you can find some examples of me cherry picking in this thread you can point them out to me and I'll explain or fix the error.

A typical statement from someone who failed to prove his case.

this might go down as the worst thread in SE history

Well the USA is 1-0, as France just doesn't have the horses to compete. Especially with an injured Tony Parker.
Although they did show you the makings of a blueprint to beating team USA.
Just pound the ball inside.

Tyson Chandler will be in foul trouble, and both Carmelo Anthony, and Kevin Love are to small to play big guys on the block.
It also slows the game down, which is what you need against the USA.

beating one of the candidates for the bronze medal by 30 = looking vulnerable, obviously

Stop with your recency bias, it's like people have already forgotten how horrible the threads from 2007 were.

besides, given the advances in internet memes, gifs and smilies over the last 5 years, there's no way that 2012 posters are worse.

Lebron didn't seem too confident that they could beat DT

He had lots of caveats and disclaimers

"as a competitor you never wanna say you will lose"

"we can beat them for one game"

Even bryant said that "they are the better team"

All Bryant and lebron are saying is they have a shot in a one game playoff to win

Neither are saying they are better nor that they would win in a best of 7

They simply think they are close enough to DT that they could pull out an upset

or maybe labron learned something about media/public relations over the last couple seasons

Well Kobe came straight out and said
DT is the better team


They just think its ludicrous to give them no chance at winning a game against them

They basically think they should be a 3 pt dog to DT, not a 12 point dog

the whole "story" is so stupid. Kobe and James were both asked questions and they answered them. no one is gonna say "no, we'd lose." they both hemmed and hawed before saying they think they'd win. of course ESPN runs with "Lebron says they'd beat Dream Team" and the like.

And MJ, of course, gets a free pass by laughing at the notion and saying it wasn't one of Kobe's smarter moments or whatever.

I think this is more what you want to believe they think, than what they actually think. I think both teams believe they would win (understandably), and Kobe/Lebron are being respectful as possible about it.

I mean from the actual interview

Reporter: How do you guys think you would do against them, with the team you have right now?

Kobe: It'd be a tough one, but I think we'd pull it out

Do you mean France, the 5-6th best team in the Olympics, who has more NBA players than the entire non-USA 1992 Olympics combined?

Their chance of an upset would be like a 15 beating a 2. It happened twice last year so I concede they would have a shot

Lol at you thinking the gap is that large between the two teams. Maulaga, Maulagaing.

Starting 5 if you can take players from both teams?