Quote:
Originally Posted by BADUU
His arguement makes perfect sense. However you have chosen to ignore it. You should probably run for a political office, as your ability to brush off the truth is a real gift.
His argument does not make perfect sense. When has anyone even argued that the league has gotten significantly better. Is that the crux of his argument? And how can he prove significance but any reasonable doubt other than a weak argument that tries to pull in one or two players that reasonably prove his point when I can do the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum to disprove his point--again that proof shows little to nothing. I can look at player Y, and randomly his career gets significantly worse from 25 to 34 from 1992 to 1999, thus I've "proved" that the competition has gotten so much better b/c that's the only reasonable assumption I could make--or is it?
As I stated earlier, I have no idea if 1992 >>> 2012 or the reverse, Matt seems to have convinced you that are worst, 1992 = 2012 when all he has basically done is picked one point to show that his point is true or that our point--which nobody seems to have is false in that things have significantly gotten better--I'm pretty sure most people who have argued that are trolling but then again I'm pretty sure Matt is a troll.
Basically he has shown that b/c Karl Malone some how stayed constantly good or better from 1992 to 1999 that it means b/c he aged the league could not have gotten much better. Why this is true? I have no freaking idea. Karl could have gotten better. League could have gotten worse. Or a million other things could have influenced it. Then you expound that to a generalization for the next 13 years for some reason or another. Thus, no significant improvement for the league over 20 years b/c Karl Malone stayed at constant level over a 7 year period--he has proven--what exactly that there can't be significant improvement b/c one player didn't degrade significantly over time and actually stayed constant--that's his argument? Why should that make perfect logical sense?
Basically as others have pointed out, you probably can link together players to show that since the inception of the NBA there has been no signficant change in player population. And do we believe that that is true? If you do, then I guess you believe his point without argument. Honestly, I believe he has shown nothing. Fine, don't use Karl Malone--use any player that has peaked and either stayed constant with age. Even if you found a player that played from 1992 to 2012 and had constant performance, you could still not be confident that the league got worse or he got better. Yet, Matt has convinced you that the opposite must be false. I'm not convinced -- b/c its really weak logic.
I'm not saying I need to be proved, I'm just saying his point is really horrible and shouldn't be used. I have no idea who is better, the 1992 or 2012 teams--I honestly have repeatedly said due to injuries I think 1992 would be favored.
I also think that many 1992ers have nostalgia when it comes to the team and can't seperate that from whatever truth is. I typically think things have advanced over time, maybe not significantly as Matt has been saying but enough to play some sort of effect. The problem is there is so much uncertainty with this. There are SO many factors involved in influencing the differences between the 1992 and 2012 team and the 1992 and 2012 league that I can't even garner. I will say, I find it weird that there have been assumptions that even though the population from which the league selects has gotten significantly bigger, at the same time the league has grown in teams that we have gotten worse over time.
Obviously Matt will argue that the top end of the population hasn't changed much. I have no idea. All I know is we now have more international players than ever in the NBA. I would assume the players coming over are at the top end. Obviously in the most extreme cases, those players came over in the past--but the lesser internationals or the 2nd tier ones if that's less confusing are coming over and improving the NBA. I'm not sure how much. Obviously, Matt is convinced it has had little help. I can't really prove that it hasn't but it seems weird that the league would get worse when the population available (meaning population that has played or interested in basketball) has increased significantly over the same time.
How many years will it take for there to be a significant change in the population of the NBA? Or will there never be a change? Maybe the advancement has been slight or maybe it has been significant. I honestly have no idea. I prefer to think things have advanced--but I guess for some reason the sample is some how stacked in 1992 for some reason or another. I wonder how long it will take to realize that the 1992 team isn't the GOAT team. But it likely will be the GOAT team in comparison to its competition.
Again the argument is what is significant. We basically can show, nothing has changed in any sport significantly over the last 50 years if you look at it a certain way. The issue is it may be significant if we can some how understand the standard deviation which we of course don't. Obviously, absolutely there has been little advancement in most sports. What honestly is a difference between 10.00 and 9.5, it's only 5% gain in the last 30 years in improvement in athletics--but honestly, in a standardized or relative sense at the highest level it might be an amazing improvement that accounts for changes in diet, training, competition, etc.
If you look at basketball by PPG or something trivial, we have actually gotten significantly worse over time. But that's b/c rules have changed, the game has changed, etc.
Sorry for the huge wall of next.
Last edited by capone0; 08-07-2012 at 05:52 PM.
