OOPS! Sorry I thought you were basically saying I was the poster child for casual fan. I get carried away with my internet tirades sometimes.


OK, I misinterpreted based on the order and time of the posts. I still think there's some really casual fan stuff on the 2012 side. But it's mostly skewed towards the asperger poker nerd side where people pick out random stats as the holy grail of basketball evaluation and think it can't possibly be true that a skill like basketball is reaching a plateau.

I really only think the ******s are the ones that say that 2012 would COMPLETELY DOMINATE HURR DURR an era that was only 20 years ago, MJ wouldn't start for a playoff team today, and omg people are so much more athletic now let me only look at track and field times that support my point by being a fraction of a percent lower now.

I think iggy and everyone else actually make decent points when they don't have the blinders on and are annoying me with cherrypicked stats.

Haha no, I was saying you'd be a good choice to speak for the pro 1992 side.

I mean the guy you quoted saying that MJ wouldn't start today or w/e is obv a perfect example of casualfan.jpeg, which was started here

id say either side thats 'convinced' that the team theyre supporting would dominate is likely very stupid. there's just so much unknown.

just an fyi Matt R, while at times condescending and ignorant you have made some good points and should stick to that rather than getting sucked in by '12ers ignorance/condescending comments. the super sarcasm/calling lebron 'labum' isnt funny it just makes you look like an idiot.

i think the DT has two distinct edges that make me think theyre slight favs: fit and size. they just seemed to flow together so well and, outside of lebron distributing, the '12 team hasn't seemed to find a lineup that flows like the DT does. probably because coach k has to play kobe so much and he's a cancer to this type of team. if there was a way to watch paul/wade/durant/labron/hgh vs the DT's best 5 i'd think the former would be slight favs. that team is just so good. the '12 team in its current state is a slight dog imo.

i do think it is silly to think that talent in 2012 isnt >1992. id imagine if you made a list of the 50 best players in 1992 and the 50 best players in 2012, pooled them together and then made a top 50 list of those 100, you'd have more from 2012 than 1992.

It actually amuses me and I think it's funny, so I'll keep doing it to people who post ridiculous and dumb ****.

If you haven't figured it out yet, for posts that are over-the-top ridiculous I go more over-the-top ridiculous. I mix it in with being kinda right too though which tilts people like MyTurn2Raise and the other usual suspects.

The labum is more semi-trolling and a play on people spelling LaBron wrong intentionally. Jesus I can't believe I'm taking the time to explain this.

And I'm really bummed that a lot of these casualfan.jpeg's are deleted.

This has turned into a bigger/stronger/faster thread. Revisit in 2032 for the next revelation in sports training and conditioning jump.

I did? I watch an unhealthy amount of basketball. I watch summer league games, FFS.

Malone averaged 21-8-5 with 2 steals in 2002-03 when he was 39. That wasn't all that long ago, and he was ancient going up against plenty of "modern" PFs like Duncan, KG, Dirk, Webber, JO, etc.

Your position isn't even reasonably defensible.

They have to continue to ignore the cross-era players because we have actual basketball proof that sort by athleticism and aau training doesn't work


I'll use evidence of players like Malone, shaq, Kobe, dirk, kg, etc over track times when discussing basketball

Talking about speed and athleticism doesn't really help either, if you compare the teams side by side. Most of the big guys were not only bigger, stronger and faster, but what's more important than how much you bench is how much better they were. James ****ing Harden is in the olympic team. When he puts the ball in the floor with his right hand, it will be the first time. Guy makes Manu look like a righthanded wizard.

People talk about the 92 team like they played in ancient Greek times. Many of those guys played in the 2000's, Malone was great at 39. The difference in athletic ability on guys who played in late 90's to now is miniscule at best. I'd like nothing more than to see Chuck in the post against Lebron, you know because he can guard PF's these days (that's what Van Gundy said on tv, so it must be true). But it's a bit different when you are guarding bums like David West and Serge Ibaka, and not one of the best PF's of all time and who can move you like you were a wet rag.

Chuck was dominating against guys like Grant, Oakley, Kemp, McHale, Webber and all kinds of freaks of nature. Some who just played dirty and some who had great offensive skills. But I'm sure the "superior" talent that the NBA possesses today would make Chuck a mere mortal. I'm sure he'd be shocked to face Elton Brand, David West and Ibaka on his way to the Finals. I don't know how he could handle such skilled and talented physical specimens.

*will retire from this thread due to the facepalming it gives me*

look, no one is disputing (well a couple dumb ppl are) that the dream teamers are of similar athleticism than the 2012ers. its the athleticism (and skills) of their respective competition that has increased.

yeah D12 is a massive loss, a lot of it is depth as Chandler is really fing good, you have too much scoring as is on these rosters

Wade is a pretty bad fit on a team like this, not as bad as Kobe but both are just inferior to Lebron and Paul with the ball and pretty awful without the ball

you can't be the 3rd best ballhandler on the court, suck at 3pt shooting and be a good fit on a superstar roster

Yep this is me. I think DT>2012 probably, but the pro-DT people are really swaying me the other way.

As is recall bias, and "get off my lawn" bias.

I'm not sure what you are doing here. You have Shaq and Hakeem on the court together? And is the second comparison defensively, with the first being offensively?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh yes, the arguement is over because the 2012 team beat up an undermanned team from Africa.
When they beat Ginobli and Argentina, or the Gasols and Spain by 83, then the arguement is over.

Well, did the '92 team face a single team in competition better than the team the '12 team played yesterday?
Look at college and NBA experience of those opponents. Compare to anyone the '92 team faced.

an undermanned team that is more talented than any team the '92 team faced

Kevin Love couldn't hold Karl Malone's jock.

Basektball has gotten significantly better on average from '92 to '12
like 1 STDEV or whatever

ok, so we're dealing with the top tail end
It's possible the dream teamers had a +4SD and the '12 team doesn't (though I don't know how anyone thinks LeBron this year isn't the best ever)
But, the argument is that '92 had many more guys at least 1 STDEV above the top players of today.

The basketball playing population has exploded in those 20 years. Basketball is more popular than ever internationally. The structure in place for developing that talent has grown by leaps and bounds. The top national talent isn't playing a few good camps here and there and working mainly on their own and in local area to get better. They are being separated at 13 for massive camping and competition against the best in the land all year long with competitive scouting making sure the youth have the incentives to keep working. The world growth is ridiculous. So, we're seeing the top of maybe 4 times the numbers who are better prepared than ever. Pardon me if I think that group may be a large amount better. It's simple math. Number of people participating has gone up. Time, investment, and teaching/learning techniques have gone up. The top of that will be better.

'92 dream team is like the NHL in the 80s before the rest of the world was let in. Only there, the rest of the world had been playing the sport and was competitive. Thus, we couldn't have delusions about how grandiose the '88 North American hockey teams were and be arguing they are better than the '10 olympic teams.

The arguement was that Ginobli was the 4th best player in this Olympics. It has nothing to do with his rings, or olympic medals.

The casual fan such as yourself says Paul is better, because he throws lots of ally-opps to Blake Griffen.
Looks great on TV, and then they lose.

Nope. But if it makes you feel better to think that, knock yourself out.

making it easier

Group A - 1,000 people do X full-time - how good are the best 3-4?

Group B - 4,000 people do X full-time - they have more structure in place pushing the best to compete against the best and improve from an earlier age and 20 years of more human knowledge built-up in teaching and training to do X.

Would we expect the best from group A or group B to be the best?

we're talking about a level of performance that results from a synergy of athletic ability, BB IQ and personality/WIM/whatever you want to call it.

which DTers are you suggesting wouldn't be among the league's best players in 2012?