Just came across this and is a great read and debate through out the entire thread, but as in all sports of different eras, it's near impossible to compare past players/teams to todays game due to the evolution of the game and athletes. This said, taking the DT by 5, unless 12 are better than 60% from the floor.

I shouldn't debate you because you have consistently been the worst poster ITT, but this isn't recency bias that gives way to nostalgia bias - like with what happened with people who will think that the 1992 Dream Team is without doubt the best basketball team assembled, and they will think this even in 15-20 years, regardless of what happens with USA Basketball. It's more fun to think that something that happened in our lifetimes when we were young (I assume) will be the best thing we'll ever see - to turn over the possibilities in our mind, because it will never happen again, so that's the only place we can do it.

I see a lot of arguments that use the word recency bias on this forum - I think maybe discussions about QBs in football are the only ones where people are actually guilty of overvaluing the present. Recency bias can occur when we're discussing players individually - is so and so the GOAT, are they GOATish, isn't Pujols a lock to break Bonds record, etc. but in the aggregate like we're talking, nostalgia bias is far, far more prevalent.

Do you think Karl Malone at almost 36 years old was better than, or at least approximately equal to, the Karl Malone at 28/29? Could you explain why? This seems ridiculous on the surface to me but I'm willing to hear it out.

Disclaimer: I don't really follow basketball much.

I mean, is it any more ridiculous than 'The entire league got slightly worse at basketball thereby allowing Karl Malone to be better?' Because that to me is much, much less likely - even given basketball's ability to be controlled by only a few players. Is it really so difficult to believe that players subvert aging curves, and do so all the time, across sports? Perhaps slight rule changes/tactics alterations slightly benefited Malone as opposed to other players? (This seems to be an iteration of 'the entire league got worse at basketball', but it's not - this is outside the purview of an ostensibly aging body somehow improving athletically from 29 to 36, or alternately, somehow everyone else getting worse relative to malone over that time, which you seem to be arguing)

Regardless, putting this on one player is absurd and reductive - the iggy argument seems to hinge on the fact that 2012 tactics are much better than 1992 tactics, so that in the aggregate the 2012 team is much better than the 1992 team, even though in their respective time frames the 1992 team may have been more dominant in the NBA at the time. And I think someone made the point that not all the 92 team's primes were in 1992, a point which appears to be lost on some.

They will always believe that the DT is the greatest team ever assembled, in respect to their era, correctly. I don't think that can even be debated. Whether or not they can actually beat the 2012 team is the only thing really being debated, and that's where the recency bias comes in, and it's much stronger now imo than any nostalgia bias. Thirty years from now, the top ten players in the league will surely crush both of these teams, but it's at least debatable now.

In 20 years, as my generation (people born 77-86) become the legacy sports voices - and some are already crystallizing, I imagine - I guarantee it will be a dominant claim among the crotchety that the 1992 Dream Team would still beat whatever team the US cobbled together for the 2032 Olympics. Guarantee.

The argument isn't that the league got slightly worse. The argument is that the league does not get significantly better in 20 years, because it could not have gotten any better in 7.

More formally it's the law of contraposition:

If the league gets significantly better between eras, players from a previous era would be significantly worse if placed in the newer era.

We have examples of players from a previous era NOT being significantly worse when playing in a newer era (and in fact, they won an MVP past their prime), therefore the league does not get significantly better between eras.

It's basically physiologically impossible for someone 2 months shy of 36 years old to be better at basketball than he was at 28/29. So we have a player on the '92 Dream Team (who was pretty clearly not even the best player on the team), playing in a subsequent 'era', at an age well past his peak (Karl Malone definitely aged better than average, but even given this it's impossible to be as good at 35/36), winning an MVP (and another MVP 2 years prior). He may not have been as good as Shaq, but it's impossible to win an MVP if you are not at least among the league's best.

I guess you could argue that Karl Malone subverted the aging curve (could you give a single example where someone is clearly a better bball player at 35/36 than 28/29?), or slight rule changes/tactics all happened to benefit Karl Malone moreso than other players, but it would seem that this would require so many assumptions and random extreme outliers to be true that are almost always false that it's not really worth discussing. Basically yeah I guess there's a 0.0001% chance Malone subverted the aging curve and all rule changes happened to benefit him more than everyone else in the league, and these changes combined with Malone not physiologically aging normally outweighed the league improving dramatically between eras. But I'll take the 99.9999% side that the league just didn't improve dramatically between eras.

I'm impressed. I wish I had the ability to read the future.

That's the problem. Karl Malone is not being placed in the new era. He is playing every single year. Part of the argument revolves around the 92 team being placed in this era, which is something that never happens, so it can't be proven one way or the other.

Karl Malone. There you go.

I'm sorry, but your assumption is ridiculous that since the league didn't evolve 7 years according to your example of one player who played in the league all of those years, it can't have significantly changed in 20 years. And my point is that the league hasn't 'significantly' changed in 20 years, but it's changed enough that the 2012 team would be slight favorites over the 92 team if that team were transported to today.

I just read the present. And what I hear on sports talk radio on the occasions I listen that Mays and Mantle were better than anyone playing today, and that the players today are steroid-aided (but still aren't better), and if Mays could play today with (thing that gives the advantage to hitters), think of how great he would be, etc. And the same is true of people talking about Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem, and so forth. And thus it will be always.

So if Jordan continued playing through today he'd be an even better player at 49 years old than he was at 24, since he learned all these new strategies and tactics and benefitted from his newfound nutritional knowledge about proteins and carbohydrates?

Sigh. You HAVE to know I meant a player other than Karl Malone. And so I don't have to respond to this next, I don't mean a buddy of yours that just started playing basketball at 33...

Can you find one single reliable source that says male athleticism remains relatively constant or peaks around 35 - 36 years old? One single source that says basketball players are in or near their prime at 35 - 36 years old?

And even for Karl Malone -- why exactly do you think he's clearly a better player at 35/36 than he was at 28/29? Let's just say I'm not convinced he's broken the laws of physiology just because you say he has.

My assumption that the law of contraposition is valid is ridiculous? If we can show that one player can still dominate well into his old age (for a basketball player), it shows that the league couldn't have gotten significantly better in that time frame.

A question for you: if player X is one of the best players in the league (not the best) in year Y, and he remains one of the best players in the league at year (Y + 7) such that he wins an MVP award, what does that say about the relative overall "basketball ability" of the league in year Y vs. the year Y + 7?

If the league was even a little better, wouldn't Malone have dropped at least a few notches in player rankings? When he's significantly older?

Oh, and this is important also. If the league has only slightly changed, this doesn't imply at all that the elite of the league has slightly improved (i.e. the players that comprise the Olympic team). Which is what the argument is about.

I agree that the league has slightly changed in 2012 vs. 1992.

Also, FYI, the Karl Malone argument is for the less knowledgable posters in the thread claiming that 2012 would destroy the 1992 squad because the league is way better now. We are not arguing the same thing apparently.

My last post to address this, because you are really doing a terrible job of arguing.

Of course not. So now that we've established a strawman, let's keep going...

Holy lord. Of course nothing will say that male athleticism remains constant IN THE AGGREGATE or that basketball players remain in their prime at that age. NOTHING. NOTHING. IN THE AGGREGATE. Barry Bonds had his best major league season at 37, Hank Aaron too. Goalies Tim Thomas and Dominik Hasek had dominant seasons in their mid to late 30s - Hasek had one of the best years of all time at age 41. Again, I don't know much about basketball, but what I know about sports is that for whatever reason, players can improve or remain at a constant level despite aging. Age catches up with everyone, but not at the same rate.

No, it's not. Your assumption is that a basketball player is static - he's established as A Thing. But if the league is fluid (and ldo it is), why wouldn't a player be fluid?

Lol, again with the MVP. 'He won an MVP!' He wasn't the best player in the league, everyone has told you this, and you keep harping on this. Have you considered that he won the MVP because it was such a great story that a player his age was playing so well? Of course not - the MVP voters are all objective. Again, your point is absurd, you are proving it with one player. Give me other players. You can't, and it's not because the league has gotten better or worse, it's because it's impossible to separate strategy/nutrition/etc. factors from aging factors - players improve and get worse, and it doesn't necessarily happen over a Bell Curve for each guy. IN THE AGGREGATE it does, but in the individual case, it doesn't. And I'm saying that league improvement isn't enormous or exponential - it's closer to being glacial (generally). That's why the 2012 team is a slight favorite over the 92 team, something which you haven't addressed at all besides citing one guy.

You familiar with my man Zeno?

it when people resort to this in intertubes arguments. Checkmate amirite?


Oh, so improved training/nutrition/strategy/tactics doesn't always improve a player past a certain age? Got it! You may want to consider what this implies about a basketball player who is 36 years old.


There may be a tiny bit of difference between sports like baseball that rely more heavily on things like brute strength to power a ball over the fence and hockey goalie that rely more heavily on pure skill and developed instincts vs. basketball where you need a requisite amount of speed, quickness, and jumping ability to even be competitive. Have you considered the differences between sports in your arguments? It doesn't seem you have....

omg female gymnasts peak when they're 16! LeBron James subverted the aging curve at 27 because he's still good at basketball!

Can I LOL at your use of Bonds as an example? The most obvious case of late career steroid use ever? Do you think using crazy amounts of PEDs when you're in your mid-30's may impact your career trajectory? No, Bonds hitting 73 home runs at 36 implies stuff about basketball player aging curves. Yes, that makes more sense.

No, my assumption is that basketball players don't break the laws of physiology (even if their name is Karl Malone, ldo) and their requisite abilities to be good at basketball begin to decline in their early 30's.


Oh no. I see the problem now. You're one of those dumb posters.

Hey bro, I've said like at least 5 times that he wasn't the best player in the league. Pretty sure I've said it directly to you at least once. The only thing that matters here is that MVP = one of the best players in the league. He doesn't have to be the best. If you think any second rate NBA players have won the MVP, lol at you I guess. The fact that I've said this directly to you, and said this repeatedly in this thread, and you STILL don't get it implies things about your intelligence that I mentioned above.

Hey bro, have you actually looked at his productivity? Have you considered that he already won an MVP at almost 34 and thus a second MVP at almost 36 would be superfluous if we were going with your ****** logic? Do you have a single shred of evidence that the MVP committee, in aggregate, decided "oh hey look everyone he's really old, and even though he sux in modern era NBA we should give him his 2nd MVP in 3 years"? Or are you just completely making **** up that doesn't even make any sense?

Unlike you, the pinnacle of objectivity, who apparently hasn't even looked at Malone's productivity in the relevant season? This is so hilarious I don't even know what else to say except lol@u.

Holy crap you are just wrong in everything you post. Like literally, everything.

There is more than one player who has played well at an old age. Karl Malone is just the most obvious example. Kevin Garnett is another. He's 36 and playing well and has 17 years of NBA wear and tear on his body.

Jordan played well at 38/39 AFTER RETIRING FOR 4 YEARS. And came back with PERs of 20.7 and 19.3. People say he turned into a chucker but he had a TS% of .468 and .491 in those two seasons respectively. Grant Hill is still playing well, and playing efficiently, at 39. Jason Kidd won a title at 38, managed to shut down LeBron, and played efficiently.

"Players improving or getting worse" almost ALWAYS happens as a bell curve for each guy, for players that are working consistently at their game over years. Their productivity may go up or down but that is related to factors outside of them such as team makeup, team strategy, opposing defenses, etc. Or they load up on PEDs at a specific age like Bonds or have some other dramatic change.

And this:

shows that you are just blindingly ******ed. YOU are the one who is only citing one piece of evidence to show that 2012 is a slight favorite. And your reason is that basketball improves glacially over time, and this implies something (though you give no reasoning to show how you get here) about the 2012 Olympic team vs. the 1992 team. I am the one who has given multiple reasons throughout this thread and supported it all with evidence. Most notably team makeup and the massive post play advantage for 1992. I really feel sorry for you that you don't get this, I truly do.

Back to this:

I would say something here about your lack of ability to argue, but I am nicer than that.

Yeah, you solve it with infinite series. It's not relevant here when t1 = 7 years and t(total) = 20 years.

The 92 team's post advantage is negated by Durant or Carmelo pulling up and draining 50% from the kiddie 3pt line all game.

Damnit! Yeah, we completely forgot about this.

so the argument here is that because one player did better at age 36 than 29, it is impossible that the league as a whole has improved over a period of 20 years?

matt r

Your position is that it is NOT a logical fallacy to say "There is no way things could improve in 20 years if they dont improve in 7 years"? And that you dont think this is a fairly decent real-world example of Zenos paradox?

so the argument is that the league is way better over 20 years even though we have a clear example of a player on the Dream Team well past his peak performing at an elite level at almost the halfway point between the two eras?

dkgojackets

"There is no way things could Improve dramatically. Improve dramatically. Improve dramatically."

Also, can SOMEONE please show how the league improving SLIGHTLY over 20 years implies that the top 12'ish players in the league improve SLIGHTLY over 20 years. SOMEONE! ANYONE!

If so, then why the **** do we have DRob/Ewing/Barkley/Malone going up against Chandler/Love/and a rookie in the post?

Seriously, anyone??

With statistical distributions if the mean shift so do the ends of the curve. If the mean shifts upwards then the high end should as well, so if the league as a whole improves slightly over 20 years then it does indeed imply that the high end should also improve slightly.

However this whole thing is pointless because we're talking about specifics not generalisations. The competition being stronger is an argument in the context of the current team's results vs them, not an argument by itself.