Am I the only one not fooled by arbitrary "First player to X X and X since ____"?

[CavaliersFTW]

It seems every week there's some new player to become the "first" to average some completely arbitrary number since way back when :oldlol:

Often times these numbers aren't even close to what the past players numbers actually were either. For example I saw a stat, Lebron I believe chasing 4 other players with "25-5-5" performances... guys like Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Roberttson were on the list... I'm thinking, Wilt was averaging over 20 rebounds and Oscar probably 10 rebounds and 10 assists in most all those games why arbitrarily chop down the numbers to just 5 assists and rebounds? :lol

Solely to prop up and sell these modern players that's why. They want to make it seem like records are being broken several times every damn week. It isn't pointed out that the legends these guys are often being compared to actually were putting up vastly superior performances. The modern marketing machine just wants to be able to throw a bunch of all-time great names our way in the presence of these young guys playing right now which is great in the sense that they are keeping old names alive. But it's slightly annoying when in reality these past performances and legends are actually sometimes being underrepresented in order to even make the comparison.

Also I notice a lot of arbitrary cut off points. They'll eliminate the Michael Jordan era, or the 80's, or the 70's/60's etc on down the line if any of those decades had too many statistics that make whatever stat they are presenting from a modern player appear unfavorable. They'll often only make this disclaimer in the finest of print while someone proceeds to talk about the "new record".

Oh well. Ending my rant.

[Fire Colangelo]

Agreed.

A lot of arbitrary stats ESPN makes up are wrong too, or doesn't account for pre 1970 which makes no sense.

[SyRyanYang]

Am I the only one not fooled by the arbitrary records recorded pre-70s.

[CavaliersFTW]

Am I the only one not fooled by the arbitrary records recorded pre-70s.
They used to come without arbitrary disclaimers and stipulations. Unlike the records you see today.

For example, setting a scoring rebounding or assist record back then, actually meant you were setting the scoring rebounding or assist record.

Today, since nobody is touching that stuff, they have to come up with arbitrary cut off points, or arbitrary statistical combo's (IE 25-5-5).

You don't see the difference?

To be honest I don't even mind the use of arbitrary cut offs on numbers and dates... I just think if they are going to do it would be respectful and more truthful to also show what they've excluded and why. For example, the 4 guys ahead of Lebron on the 25-5-5 list's numbers should actually be posted so people can see they weren't just putting up a bunch of similar 25-5-5 games. Or if they cut off dates, show why they cut off the dates (because greater numbers were present back then in w/e stat they wished to show for w/e reasons). They should pull back the curtain a little more. I know they won't though because the reasons behind the arbitrary records isn't about honest sports journalism or record seeking, it's about marketing. The truth in full context isn't nearly as marketable.

[Heavincent]

I see this every time I turn on ESPN. They never stop with the arbitrary statistics.

[Random_Guy]

sure its arbitrary, but then again imo its just giving props to great players. for instance, russ is the second player to average 30/10/8, why cut it there? because he obviously doesnt qualify for 30/10/10, but 30/10/8 is still impressive, and who cares if its arbitrary tbh? I mean, we are talking about future hof players its not like these arbitrary stats will still be bought up in a couple of years.

[CavaliersFTW]

sure its arbitrary, but then again imo its just giving props to great players. for instance, russ is the second player to average 30/10/8, why cut it there? because he obviously doesnt qualify for 30/10/10, but 30/10/8 is still impressive, and who cares if its arbitrary tbh? I mean, we are talking about future hof players its not like these arbitrary stats will still be bought up in a couple of years.
Well I agree that keeping the names in circulation is a positive, I actually mentioned that that is one of the good things about the arbitrary records.

I also pointed out that I don't mind that they are used. I just think the curtain should be pulled back a little further when they are mentioned, out of respect to names in question. The differences are often not just small, they are often noteworthy and should be mentioned but rarely are.

[inclinerator]

arbitrary water

[Keno]

wilt is the definition of arbitrary.

[warriorfan]

agreed w/ op

[#number6ix#]

A lot of the stats from back in the day are too ridiculous... 50 rebound game c'mon bro

[Sarcastic]

A lot of the stats from back in the day are too ridiculous... 50 rebound game c'mon bro


So are you saying they didn't happen?

[knicksman]

I really only care about 6/6, 5/7 and 2/5

[SpanishACB]

It seems every week there's some new player to become the "first" to average some completely arbitrary number since way back when :oldlol:

Often times these numbers aren't even close to what the past players numbers actually were either. For example I saw a stat, Lebron I believe chasing 4 other players with "25-5-5" performances... guys like Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Roberttson were on the list... I'm thinking, Wilt was averaging over 20 rebounds and Oscar probably 10 rebounds and 10 assists in most all those games why arbitrarily chop down the numbers to just 5 assists and rebounds? :lol

Solely to prop up and sell these modern players that's why. They want to make it seem like records are being broken several times every damn week. It isn't pointed out that the legends these guys are often being compared to actually were putting up vastly superior performances. The modern marketing machine just wants to be able to throw a bunch of all-time great names our way in the presence of these young guys playing right now which is great in the sense that they are keeping old names alive. But it's slightly annoying when in reality these past performances and legends are actually sometimes being underrepresented in order to even make the comparison.

Also I notice a lot of arbitrary cut off points. They'll eliminate the Michael Jordan era, or the 80's, or the 70's/60's etc on down the line if any of those decades had too many statistics that make whatever stat they are presenting from a modern player appear unfavorable. They'll often only make this disclaimer in the finest of print while someone proceeds to talk about the "new record".

Oh well. Ending my rant.

you're like nostalgia's lawyer but you're not even 50

how does this happen?

is this a result of too much free time? was your grandfather a basketball fan? did you not meet your daddy?

[knicksman]

Its really from betas who settle for less coz they knew their boy's 2/5 aint going to improve

[#number6ix#]

So are you saying they didn't happen?
I guess it happened I would like to see the video to see if the other team was just conceding the rebounds or battling for them and also the talent of the other team

[NumberSix]

First player to have 25/8/6 in 8 out of 10 games in under 38 minutes per game since 1987.

[sportjames23]

I really only care about 6/6, 5/7 and 2/5


I see what you did there. :lol

[Straight_Ballin]

you're like nostalgia's lawyer but you're not even 50

how does this happen?

is this a result of too much free time? was your grandfather a basketball fan? did you not meet your daddy?

You sound insecure about having only lived in an era thus far where arbitrary numbers are required to prop up superstars. Simply put, players in former eras were just that good that you didn't need ESPN promoting them every week.

Cracks me up every time someone with less viewing experience under their belt tries to play the nostalgia card, as if it has any meaning whatsoever.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You sound insecure about having only lived in an era thus far where arbitrary numbers are required to prop up superstars. Simply put, players in former eras were just that good that you didn't need ESPN promoting them every week.

Cracks me up every time someone with less viewing experience under their belt tries to play the nostalgia card, as if it has any meaning whatsoever.

This first "arbitrary number" to get any media love was Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game. :confusedshrug:

[ralph_i_el]

The level of competition today is higher and individual players don't put up the ridiculous stats that were possible in weaker eras

[Straight_Ballin]

This first "arbitrary number" to get any media love was Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game. :confusedshrug:

Not all arbitrary numbers have equal importance. The 100 points was actually worth mentioning unlike the shit you hear from ESPN these days.

[Eric Cartman]

That's why I don't watch ESPN.

[VIP2000]

Not all arbitrary numbers have equal importance. The 100 points was actually worth mentioning unlike the shit you hear from ESPN these days.

Scoring 100 points is still arbitrary, tho. Like if Wilt had scored 99 instead, it wouldn't have been equally impressive?

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Its really from betas who settle for less coz they knew their boy's 2/5 aint going to improve

2/5 in 11 seasons > 2/8 in 69. Knicks fans can't talk shit.

[LAZERUSS]

I still recall ESPN's tracking of Kevin Durant's run of 25+ point games a few years ago. Nightly ESPN would show his streak and compare it to the "record" held by Jordan, of 40 straight games (and eventually KD would surpass MJ with 41 straight.)

BUT, someone forgot to tell ESPN that Oscar had a run of 46 straight...or that Wilt had an entire season, covering 80 games, with 25+ point games (and in fact, Wilt carried it over the next season with 46 more...or an actual 126.)

[Helix]

I still recall ESPN's tracking of Kevin Durant's run of 25+ point games a few years ago. Nightly ESPN would show his streak and compare it to the "record" held by Jordan, of 40 straight games (and eventually KD would surpass MJ with 41 straight.)

BUT, someone forgot to tell ESPN that Oscar had a run of 46 straight...or that Wilt had an entire season, covering 80 games, with 25+ point games (and in fact, Wilt carried it over the next season with 46 more...or an actual 126.)


Yea Laz, but as we both well know, the 60's was a weak era, so those ones don't count.

[gts]

Agreed.

A lot of arbitrary stats ESPN makes up are wrong too, or doesn't account for pre 1970 which makes no sense.

yeah the time frame they use on some of these comparisons is a bit of a moving target...

And to the OP yes, most of these things are just garbage numbers to generate content..

[CavaliersFTW]

Scoring 100 points is still arbitrary, tho. Like if Wilt had scored 99 instead, it wouldn't have been equally impressive?
This thread is flying over your head. Yes, it would have been equally impressive know why?

...because it would have been the all time record. Without some abritrary criteria, or date that cuts other past records out of the picture. Plain and simple that would have been the most points scored in an NBA basketball game.

Do you fail to see the difference between an all time record free-of-arbitrary stipulations vs say, "highest field goal percentage in a game with at least 30 points 10 assists and 5 rebounds since 1974"?

[LAZERUSS]

Yea Laz, but as we both well know, the 60's was a weak era, so those ones don't count.

Oh of course. We saw that with Kareem, who came into the league in the 60's, and, then at ages 38-39, put up 10 straight games in which he averaged 32 ppg on a .630 FG% against Hakeem in the mid-80's.

And we know that Hakeem was over-matched by his peers in the 90's.

[Mrofir]

Not only are 64% of statistics meaningless and arbitrary, fully 59.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.