Why do you have such a disdain for the way players rate each other?

[Kblaze8855]

By “you” I both mean you personally(probably) and fans in general.

Actual players so often have head scratching opinions in the eyes of fans who lean so heavily on stats, team success, and narratives. Things like the overwhelming respect for Melo or KD…for Kobe….the emphasis on guys they might call a bucket. How they lean so heavily on personal experience. Skills that were hard to deal with. Fans look at things like they’re all amateur GMs and thinking “Can I win a title this way? Can this guy take up 50 million and still have a title winning cast?”.

Player evaluating each other are really asking entirely different questions than we are.

We have players discussing if pure basketball wise Melo is top 15 all time and people who never made a floater talking about how stupid it is. And even if you think so….

Theyre talking about strength plus finesse…the first step for his size…the touch around the basket…how hard it is to make him pick up his dribble if he doesn’t want…how quick his second jump is…his anticipation. His footwork. How hard it is to box him out. How you need ice all over your body after playing him.

They aren’t talking about how all his teams lost(especially considering all of them should have lost).

I listened to JJ and Durant talk about Jrue Holiday guarding Dame better than anyone but being able to switch and guard Jokic long enough to not look like a mismatch. Listened to Iggy explain why he’s the best defender he’s ever seen in person and how his arm strength is other worldly once you’re in his defensive box. How he disrupts plays by being too strong for you to get to your spot or dribble through what looks like incidental contact but is actually a vice grip that throws off your timing and forces someone to ISO because you now aren’t where you were supposed to be to get the next pass. So someone else takes a bad shot he wasn’t defending because you got deleted from the play 20 feet away.

I remember we were talking once about Nikola Pekovic in Minny and people weren’t that impressed but I later read there were big man in the league downright afraid to share the floor with him. People out here getting intentional fouls so somebody else has to come in and deal with him. Stan Van Gundy was on a podcast and talked about how they chewed Dwight out because he didn’t seem to be going that hard and Dwight explained “You don’t understand. He’s the strongest man in the world. I can’t do anything.”.


you see really prepared and meticulous people like Kobe explain how, even after watching hours of film to prepare there’s literally nothing you can take from Kevin Durant to make him fall back on something easier to defend. That not only is he hell on offense, but his wingspan makes it hard to play against him. He’s not talking about 3-1 leads or shit like that.

I watched Isiah Thomas explain about a random role player on the Washington bullets in the 80s who everybody on the Pistons refused to defend because of his handles. They would rather get lit up by a scorer than have to deal with that guy’s ball handling all night.

you listen to other players talk about Paul George, Kyrie, or Kawhi Leonard…the respect is miles beyond fans.

I watched a guy talking about how to defend Ray Allen and which way he’d go and this and that. Then he was asked how to guard Steph. The blank look on his face was hilarious. It’s not an answer but…it’s an answer.

It’s really clear they aren’t evaluating players the way you might. Armed with that information? Why are we so offended when they have a GOAT list that looks nothing like we want it to?

when you play basketball, you don’t come away evaluating the other players just by who won. Other than the few pros or semi pros I have played the player I most hated to play against my whole life is my cousin. He was smaller than me and less athletic, but his handles and quickness were just flabbergasting.

I don’t know that he won the most games we would all play, but it was hell to compete against that guy. When NBA players spend 15 or 20 years, playing other players in and out of the league, why do we find it so easy to dismiss their conclusions? Even when you find their takes to be bad, as I said earlier, you aren’t even talking about the same thing they are.

Most of you are talking about hypothetical teambuilding, and the narratives that surround players caught up in that process as well as career accolades, health, and team wins. Basketball players are talking about basketball. Why do you have a problem with reaching different conclusions when you’re doing different equations?

Why does “True hoopers know….” offend you when you are NOT a true hooper?

They aren’t saying you know. They’re specifically setting you apart as someone who doesn’t.

[highwhey]

you're right OP. i actually don't have a problem with their opinion as far as active players go, it's when they start ranking non-contemporary players that it begins to get silly. also, there's a large group of hipsters in the NBA that refuse to give LeBron his flowers...and they almost always have something in common, they got their ass beat by him. Draymond the only one willing to admit LeBron is great despite being annihilated by Bron in the playoffs. and that's likely due to being signed to the same agency so there is some loyalty due there.

[Kblaze8855]

We’re getting to the podcast era where people have the room to sit down and have full discussions that would’ve just been soundbites years ago. You should listen to guys like Jeff Teague, JJ Redick, Iggy/Evan Turner, and even Paul George’s podcasts. They’re talking real basketball and it’s often hilarious. Jeff Teague is going to be a star one day if he ever gets into a traditional media.


https://twitter.com/justinbobbyx13/status/1679650119640072192?s=46&t=6wC01e_jvrTUpW4eOxrXKA


He and PJ Tucker talking about Lebron.

he has a funny one about Curry lighting him up and dancing all over the place where he said he played the best defense of his life, but he still gave him 44. Guy knows how to tell a story.

Shump is the same way. Will break down how LeBron or Kobe were approaching them or picking another team apart for a whole quarter. He explained how LeBron made them run the same play like 19 times in a row and it just kept working over and over but he just has a great way of putting it.

[Axe]

That kind of disdain is not only limited to players (such as 'Disasterbrook') but extends to coaches and GMs as well.

We sure have heard some weird things here before. Like how Vogel is 'retarded', 'Pelinkduh' is a bad GM and even 'Hambone' isn't an exception too. Don't necessarily disagree with it tho.

But anyway. Going back to the main topic, I still find it funny that Brandon miller called PG the 'goat'.

[Kblaze8855]

That kind of disdain is not only limited to players (such as 'Disasterbrook') but extends to coaches and GMs as well.

We sure have heard some weird things here before. Like how Vogel is 'retarded', 'Pelinkduh' is a bad GM and even 'Hambone' isn't an exception too. Don't necessarily disagree with it tho.

But anyway. Going back to the main topic, I still find it funny that Brandon miller called PG the 'goat'.


some other rookie did too, but I don’t remember his name. He clarified it as not the goat, but my goat. But again they aren’t talking about what we’re talking about. And I’d be surprised if either one had ever played, Paul George. Just evaluating skills from their perspective.

[game3524]

Because NBA fans by in large are arrogant nerds. They will laugh at shit like KD saying Kobe the 2nd best of all time then go on realgm and vote Jeff Hornacek top 100 all time.

[Full Court]

I don't see it as any different from anyone else's opinions and ratings. Players have biases just like the rest of us. Anytime someone throws out an opinion that differs from yours (the royal "yours"), you're going to have disdain for it, whether it comes from a professional baller or an ISH poster.

[Real Men Wear Green]

O generally respect player opinions but a big area where I would differ is when it comes to missing games. To me it can ruin a players value but for players is more like bad luck and they know each other as people in a way that I never will. Very possible they view it as an unfair way to judge.

For fans in general a player is "stupid" basically because he says something they don't agree with. Also I bet a lot of the time the players don't take these discussions as seriously as the fans on a board like this one. ISH poster is lining up advanced stats counting rings and then have whatever Stan/troll agenda. Meanwhile you ask Marcus Smart who the best guard in the league is after a week where Curry scored 25 on him while Lillaird went off for 40 he says Lillaird and fans lose their mind over it but for him the answer was never that serious.

[Kblaze8855]

I don't see it as any different from anyone else's opinions and ratings. Players have biases just like the rest of us. Anytime someone throws out an opinion that differs from yours (the royal "yours"), you're going to have disdain for it, whether it comes from a professional baller or an ISH poster.


I say that’s symptomatic of a larger problem with society in general. The refusal to acknowledge real world expertise when it comes to generating conclusions as opposed to what people hilariously refer to as their own research.

people are so offended at the idea that their closely held opinions would be thrown out by some because they are simply less informed than somebody else they have to wage a subtle war against the entire concept of additional knowledge being useful in drawing said conclusions.

when an Electrician comes to your house and says you have a problem and how he’s going to fix it, there is more respect for that than for an NFL safety telling you who the best quarterbacks he played are if you don’t like the list. But the fact is, I was doing Electrician’s work when I was 13 years old and I understood the concepts. I personally ran a good deal of the wiring and some of the plumbing at a gas station and a church when I was in middle school. My stepdad was a master electrician and plumber, and I would tagalong. It was easier to get away within those days, and they would just run me off before any inspections.

I’ve seen the tests for certifications. There was less study than I’d need to remember the entire playbook vs Peyton Manning. When Bill explains here it’s the greatest play a safety has ever made….



https://youtu.be/GQrZKveWgOk


There isn’t one person here who truly understands why. It’s just another pick.

But it’s hours and hours of prep for 3 seconds of execution.

we just don’t respect the work, and the knowledge and understanding that goes into playing sports because we just see it as entertainment. They absolutely are experts in their field.

Now their final opinions run the same gamut that normal fans do. There’s a reason commercials say nine out of 10 dentist recommend brushing your teeth with such and such. There’s always somebody who just wants to be different. There’s always a player who thinks somebody like Jamal Crawford is top 50 just like there’s always a dentist who is against flossing. But that doesn’t mean you know more about basketball than that player with a weird opinion just like you don’t know more about teeth than the dentist.

The subject could be barbecue or quantum physics. Somebody who can reasonably be called an expert will have an opinion that varies from the norm. Maybe some four time world champion thinks ribs should be cooked to 192 instead of 200 where I like to cook it because it’s tender. weird take to me, but that doesn’t mean I’m the person to listen to instead of him about barbecue.

We use the outlier opinions to discredit the entire concept of gaining information and credibility from doing and expertise and it feels like sports and medicine we most readily dismiss expert opinions in favor of what we googled.

In the end it’s just not wanting someone to be able to call you out for being uninformed even if 90% of us don’t know floppy action when we see it.

Andre Iguodala can identify it instantly and defend it or run it himself on the other end if asked to. But people who don’t understand one of the most basic things happening on a modern court will laugh because he thinks something they don’t when the only expertise they have in this world is in roofing or landscaping.

when two legitimate experts disagree, it isn’t proof that expertise doesn’t matter because it can lead to opposing conclusions that are shared by people who have no expertise. Plenty of people who don’t follow basketball have the same all time top two all time as people who live the game. But they don’t understand why.

Not really. An idiot, and a genius, having the same opinion doesn’t mean general intelligence is useless. People today are just so unwilling to accept contradictory opinions they can’t even acknowledge credibility as a concern. Once someone is deemed more credible than anyone else their own can be called into question.

personally, I like to have my notions challenged by someone I know, for a fact, has more expertise. I’d rather change my mind because I learned something than to deny people exist I’m capable of learning from if we don’t initially agree.

Maybe I’m wrong. I care more about Ray Lewis opinion on playing linebacker than I care about anyone here and I can’t think of any logical reason anyone would be offended by that. But some people legitimately are. They call it an appeal to authority. Who is supposed to be appealed to if not somebody who studied and worked at it for 30 years? I want somebody to teach me something. Nobody here knows how strong jrue holidays hands are. So I listen to Andre Iguodala and JJ Redick because they can factor such things in and I have a complete blindspot. Dudes on here think he had a bad game because he missed nine shots as opposed to 7 when scoring isn’t even why he’s on the floor.

Fans know we have a massive Blindspot in our evaluation but are so concerned with maintaining our own credibility to other fans a lot of us lash out at the extra mirror if we don’t like what it shows.

[Wardell Curry]

Most of the players evaluate other players by scowling faces, how they were emotionally made to feel and how flashy players are.

Jokic was going to be the last pick in the All-Star game.

Michael Jordan is one of the worst GMs of all time.

The ability to play doesn't mean anything.

[Kblaze8855]

Neither choosing all star game players for a pick up nor hitting on draft picks is “knowing basketball”.

As I said initially basketball fans make evaluating the game, essentially being a general manager in a fantasy world piecing teams together because that’s realistically all they can do. That’s the only way most fans can insert themselves into the goings on.

If I wanted to rank the best players you played locally me having google results of your games and some highlights would not give me a better idea than you having played those players. It just wouldn’t. You don’t need to be infallible to be more informed than an outsider who doesn’t even know the people you play beyond some stats.

Most fans would look like absolute idiot’s seriously talking ball with nba coaches. That they tell their teams to draft the wrong guy doesn’t change that. A fan saying draft ____ and not ____ and being right 7 years later doesn’t mean he knows shit about basketball. 20 million people no doubt felt the Pistons should draft Melo over Darko. Doesn’t mean they know what the Jordan rules are better than Joe Dumars who picked Darko and had to guard Jordan.

People can pick out a guy who ends up being great from highlights then turn around and can’t build an offense for middle schoolers. They don’t actually know what they’re seeing. Most fans….genuinely can’t tell what’s going on or why players move where they do or what sets are being run.

Fans are incredibly surface level with the game but think their hindsight assisted fantasy gm skills mean they understand basketball.

They really really don’t. We…generally don’t.

[gonzaldo]

Neither choosing all star game players for a pick up nor hitting on draft picks is “knowing basketball”

but being better at something than a random fan/amateur still doesnt mean you are good at it. Jordan wanted Joe Wolf drafted instead of Pippen, so obviously he had no realistic assement of Joe's skills, despite playing with him.

in your plumber exmple you can still see he had done a shitty job, even if you cant fix it syourself.

[Wardell Curry]

Neither choosing all star game players for a pick up nor hitting on draft picks is “knowing basketball”.

As I said initially basketball fans make evaluating the game, essentially being a general manager in a fantasy world piecing teams together because that’s realistically all they can do. That’s the only way most fans can insert themselves into the goings on.

If I wanted to rank the best players you played locally me having google results of your games and some highlights would not give me a better idea than you having played those players. It just wouldn’t. You don’t need to be infallible to be more informed than an outsider who doesn’t even know the people you play beyond some stats.

Most fans would look like absolute idiot’s seriously talking ball with nba coaches. That they tell their teams to draft the wrong guy doesn’t change that. A fan saying draft ____ and not ____ and being right 7 years later doesn’t mean he knows shit about basketball. 20 million people no doubt felt the Pistons should draft Melo over Darko. Doesn’t mean they know what the Jordan rules are better than Joe Dumars who picked Darko and had to guard Jordan.

People can pick out a guy who ends up being great from highlights then turn around and can’t build an offense for middle schoolers. They don’t actually know what they’re seeing. Most fans….genuinely can’t tell what’s going on or why players move where they do or what sets are being run.

Fans are incredibly surface level with the game but think their hindsight assisted fantasy gm skills mean they understand basketball.

They really really don’t. We…generally don’t.

Yeah you're right, my bad. Jordan is perfect at evaluating talent and understanding everything.

[Kblaze8855]

but being better at something than a random fan/amateur still doesnt mean you are good at it. Jordan wanted Joe Wolf drafted instead of Pippen, so obviously he had no realistic assement of Joe's skills, despite playing with him.

in your plumber exmple you can still see he had done a shitty job, even if you cant fix it syourself.

Once again I must say, knowing basketball is not the same thing as building a successful basketball team. And even if it were? Fans pointing out people who are worse than their contemporaries, does not mean the fans themselves know anything at all.

whatever your job is, I suspect you are more informed about it than I am, even if within your own industry, you’re nothing special. It’s a pretty common sense conclusion that most of us reach about every industry except sports because we don’t respect the expertise it takes to be involved in it.

[Kblaze8855]

Yeah you're right, my bad. Jordan is perfect at evaluating talent and understanding everything.

Anyone else get flashbacks to arguing with with women in your early 20s when you read replies like this?

agree or don’t agree. If you don’t, I’m happy to hear why. That’s just a nothing answer to generate a go nowhere argument, which I’m not interested in. I’ll leave you be.

[tpols]

It's a logical fallacy ~ appealing to authority. If Jordan was such a genius at evaluating other players he wouldn't have been such a shitty drafter. The reality is most players are only great in their own right, they aren't expert talent evaluators or anything.

If you look at all the best coaches and GMs of all time almost all of them weren't great basketball players.

[Kblaze8855]

It's a logical fallacy ~ appealing to authority. If Jordan was such a genius at evaluating other players he wouldn't have been such a shitty drafter..

There it is. The first claim that appealing to authority isn’t reasonable to do when you’re factually less informed than said authority. Let’s ignore that for now and the many life situations where that’s ridiculous to do.

Who is Jordan drafting against? Other people involved in the game or the people who work at subway who dismiss the idea that he knows more about basketball than they do?

Let’s pretend for a moment that building a good basketball team takes simply knowing more about basketball than someone who built a bad one. Let’s be stupid and pretend that’s the case. And that the people running good teams simply know more about basketball than the people who run bad ones. What would that have to do with whether or not you know basketball better than either of them?

[Real Men Wear Green]

It's a logical fallacy ~ appealing to authority. If Jordan was such a genius at evaluating other players he wouldn't have been such a shitty drafter. The reality is most players are only great in their own right, they aren't expert talent evaluators or anything.

If you look at all the best coaches and GMs of all time almost all of them weren't great basketball players.

The four greatest basketball coaches of all time would probably be Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Greg Poppovich and Pat Riley. Two of those four played in the NBA and Red was one of the innovators of the game. When it comes to modern coaches almost all of them at least played college basketball.

[tpols]

There it is. The first claim that appealing to authority isn’t reasonable to do when you’re factually less informed than said authority. Let’s ignore that for now and the many life situations where that’s ridiculous to do.

Who is Jordan drafting against? Other people involved in the game or the people who work at subway who dismiss the idea that he knows more about basketball than they do?

Let’s pretend for a moment that building a good basketball team takes simply knowing more about basketball than someone who built a bad one. Let’s be stupid and pretend that’s the case. And that the people running good teams simply know more about basketball than the people who run bad ones. What would that have to do with whether or not you know basketball better than either of them?

Jordan was great mostly because of his absurd athleticism and own personal ruthless competitiveness. If you put Jordan's mind in Jerry Kraus body he wouldn't have made a middle school team. How good most of the best players ever were is mostly just physical. That's why you look at all the best coaches ever ~ pop, Riley, Carlisle, Kerr, brown, Phil, red, etc. none were elite players. The more of a superstar somebody is usually means they had insane physical gifts and didn't have to use their brain as much.

[tpols]

The four greatest basketball coaches of all time would probably be Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Greg Poppovich and Pat Riley. Two of those four played in the NBA and Red was one of the innovators of the game. When it comes to modern coaches almost all of them at least played college basketball.

Right, so how did two guys who never played in the NBA become the 2 greatest basketball coaches and minds of all time?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Jordan was great mostly because of his absurd athleticism and own personal ruthless competitiveness. If you put Jordan's mind in Jerry Kraus body he wouldn't have made a middle school team. How good most of the best players ever were is mostly just physical. That's why you look at all the best coaches ever ~ pop, Riley, Carlisle, Kerr, brown, Phil, red, etc. none were elite players. The more of a superstar somebody is usually means they had insane physical gifts and didn't have to use their brain as much.
Most of the guys you list here had careers in the NBA as players. They weren't Jordan level athletes but these guys were actually a lot more athletic than most people. An average NBA athlete is still a great athlete. But a great athlete is not necessarily a great player. For every one Tracy McGrady there are 5 Kedrick Browns. You still have to know how to use your athletic gifts and what kind of skills you must develop to get the most out of yourself.

[Full Court]

I say that’s symptomatic of a larger problem with society in general. The refusal to acknowledge real world expertise when it comes to generating conclusions as opposed to what people hilariously refer to as their own research.

I can't say I really agree with you here.

For basketball specifically, the ability to play at a professional level doesn't make someone a better analyst than someone who has no skill. So the opinion of a professional player about something like rankings shouldn't carry any more weight than anyone else's opinion. The opinions of pro players are just as all over the map as any other group of peoples'.

Moving to the larger area of "expert" opinions in general, we've seen too many times where so-called experts ended up being 180 degrees wrong. Part of this is because people are using the "expert" card to push certain narratives and agendas, but as a result, people don't give the same credibility to experts that they once did. And it's at least partially for good reason.

[Kblaze8855]

Jordan was great mostly because of his absurd athleticism and own personal ruthless competitiveness. If you put Jordan's mind in Jerry Kraus body he wouldn't have made a middle school team. How good most of the best players ever were is mostly just physical. That's why you look at all the best coaches ever ~ pop, Riley, Carlisle, Kerr, brown, Phil, red, etc. none were elite players. The more of a superstar somebody is usually means they had insane physical gifts and didn't have to use their brain as much.


You just listed 5 nba/ABA players and a college ball player being better coaches/GMs than another player as evidence players don’t know the game better than fans. It really feels like you’re not understanding what I’m asking at all.

[Im Still Ballin]

Comparing and ranking individual players in a team sport is always going to be a hard endeavor. And how exactly do we assign credit regarding team success? Measuring impact isn't as simple as looking at box score numbers, advanced statistics, and play-by-play data. Who can we trust to watch the games and pick up everything that happens? It's hard enough to keep an eye on all ten players on the court.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Right, so how did two guys who never played in the NBA become the 2 greatest basketball coaches and minds of all time?

Well for starters Red was 29 or so at the time the NBA was founded. As one of the innovators of the game he was born too late to have a real playing career. That leaves us with just Pop. Pop played collegiate ball for Air Force and something like 3 years after his college career was over his coaching career began. No one is saying that someone absolutely must play in the NBA to be a head coach but it's a demonstrable fact that you have to be a basketball life and 2 of the three guys that actually had the possibility of playing in the NBA on our short list of for greatest did so. Without a doubt having had a playing career helps.

[iamgine]

when you play basketball, you don’t come away evaluating the other players just by who won. Other than the few pros or semi pros I have played the player I most hated to play against my whole life is my cousin. He was smaller than me and less athletic, but his handles and quickness were just flabbergasting.

I don’t know that he won the most games we would all play, but it was hell to compete against that guy. When NBA players spend 15 or 20 years, playing other players in and out of the league, why do we find it so easy to dismiss their conclusions? Even when you find their takes to be bad, as I said earlier, you aren’t even talking about the same thing they are.

Most of you are talking about hypothetical teambuilding, and the narratives that surround players caught up in that process as well as career accolades, health, and team wins. Basketball players are talking about basketball. Why do you have a problem with reaching different conclusions when you’re doing different equations?

Why does “True hoopers know….” offend you when you are NOT a true hooper?

They aren’t saying you know. They’re specifically setting you apart as someone who doesn’t.
Well exactly. They are talking about a different thing.

Also, Dwight saying Pekovic is so hard to play against doesn't mean it's a view shared by most. Or when Barkley said Mchale is the best player he played against doesn't mean other players agree.

So why should we put that much weight in what one or two players said about another player? We can watch them ourselves and come up with our own conclusions.

[Kblaze8855]

For basketball specifically, the ability to play at a professional level doesn't make someone a better analyst than someone who has no skill. So the opinion of a professional player about something like rankings shouldn't carry any more weight than anyone else's opinion. The opinions of pro players are just as all over the map as any other group of peoples'.


As I said….casuals and lifetime students can have the same opinion. Doesn’t make them equally qualified to reach it equally capable of explaining.

That’s especially so in something like sports with so many low level opinions being just parroted takes of more qualified people in the first place.

People just have a fundamental problem with acknowledging someone knows more than they do about anything. I swear to God on here once we were talking about the triangle offense, and the guy was arguing that Tex winter was wrong about his evaluation of how Kobe played within in as opposed to freelancing. Tex winter learned the triangle by playing college ball under the person who invented it, Tex literally wrote the book on it, and spent 50 years teaching people how to run it. random ISH poster says he’s wrong about it.

Its an”appeal to authority” to listen to Tex ****ing Winter author of “Triangle basketball” about who runs it properly because some douchebag just feels he knows better.

Its just such a joke to me.

[Kblaze8855]

Well exactly. They are talking about a different thing.

Also, Dwight saying Pekovic is so hard to play against doesn't mean it's a view shared by most. Or when Barkley said Mchale is the best player he played against doesn't mean other players agree.

So why should we put that much weight in what one or two players said about another player? We can watch them ourselves and come up with our own conclusions..

Just because 2 foundation repair experts don’t agree on exactly how they would go about a repair doesn’t mean the forklift driver unloading cages of soon to be killed chickens at a slaughterhouse has an equally valid opinion on foundation repair. He can Google the two and decide which one he thinks he would do if anyone was stupid enough to trust him to do it but relative to them his opinion holds no weight.

[tpols]

Well for starters Red was 29 or so at the time the NBA was founded. As one of the innovators of the game he was born too late to have a real playing career. That leaves us with just Pop. Pop played collegiate ball for Air Force and something like 3 years after his college career was over his coaching career began. No one is saying that someone absolutely must play in the NBA to be a head coach but it's a demonstrable fact that you have to be a basketball life and 2 of the three guys that actually had the possibility of playing in the NBA on our short list of for greatest did so. Without a doubt having had a playing career helps.

True but it goes against OPs point that basketball ability correlates with a person's ability to evaluate the game. A nerd like Morey would make a better GM than Shaq or Jordan despite never having played. So why wouldn't our opinions matter? A lot of average people have higher IQs than a lot of pro ballers. Just because they're 6'9 230 and can run and jump like a deer doesn't mean they have better evaluation skills.

[Kblaze8855]

True but it goes against OPs point that basketball ability correlates with a person's ability to evaluate the game..


That wasn’t the point at all.

The point is the players making such evaluations aren’t talking about the outsider fantasy gm bullshit fans insist they’re experts on. They’re evaluating basketball. Which is an entirely different discussion.

[tpols]

That wasn’t the point at all.

The point is the players making such evaluations aren’t talking about the outsider fantasy gm bullshit fans insist they’re experts on. They’re evaluating basketball. Which is an entirely different discussion.

We don't evaluate basketball? A lot of us here have spent 1000s and 1000s of hours watching and discussing. And talking a ton of context outside only numbers. I know you don't like numbers but some of the most prestigious guys that run NBA teams use them to a huge degree. Some of which never even played basketball.

[Real Men Wear Green]

True but it goes against OPs point that basketball ability correlates with a person's ability to evaluate the game. A nerd like Morey would make a better GM than Shaq or Jordan despite never having played. So why wouldn't our opinions matter? A lot of average people have higher IQs than a lot of pro ballers. Just because they're 6'9 230 and can run and jump like a deer doesn't mean they have better evaluation skills.

Daryl Morey has studied the game in far more depth than you have. He knows and understands the plays being called and what players are supposed to be doing in those plays. You and most average fans do not study the game nearly as deeply as he does.

[iamgine]

Just because 2 foundation repair experts don’t agree on exactly how they would go about a repair doesn’t mean the forklift driver unloading cages of soon to be killed chickens at a slaughterhouse has an equally valid opinion on foundation repair. He can Google the two and decide which one he thinks he would do if anyone was stupid enough to trust him to do it but relative to them his opinion holds no weight.
It could be equally valid or even more if he has done his research. Even if his opinion still holds no weight for the masses.

Judge things for yourself. Do your own research. Don't just follow blindly what the authority says.

[Kblaze8855]

We don't evaluate basketball? A lot of us here have spent 1000s and 1000s of hours watching and discussing. And talking a ton of context outside only numbers. I know you don't like numbers but some of the most prestigious guys that run NBA teams use them to a huge degree. Some of which never even played basketball.


I’ve spent more time watching and talking ball than almost anyone here. Doesn’t mean I can tell you how hard it is to box out Pekovic. Dwight can. Why would you value my opinion on it equally?

[tpols]

Pekovic looks like some type of ñon humanoid Neanderthal cyclops breed. A nephilem remnant that survived the flood. I wouldn't doubt Dwight on that. I love hearing individual insights like that though that we could never know.

[Kblaze8855]

It could be equally valid or even more if he has done his research. Even if his opinion still holds no weight for the masses.

Judge things for yourself. Do your own research. Don't just follow blindly what the authority says.


I’d happily go guard prime Melo then prime Lebron to tell you who was tougher. Unfortunately the nba wouldn’t let me. How then do I compare my “research” to people who not only have my “research”(which is just watching, numbers, and seeing what others think) but forms I don’t have access to?

[sdot_thadon]

We don't evaluate basketball? A lot of us here have spent 1000s and 1000s of hours watching and discussing. And talking a ton of context outside only numbers. I know you don't like numbers but some of the most prestigious guys that run NBA teams use them to a huge degree. Some of which never even played basketball.

But a guy like yourself "evaluates" for 1000s of hours and still.manages to look absolutely clueless. So does that even count for any sort of validation? Meanwhile these other guys have eat sleep and shit ball virtually all their lives and have a much higher education in terms of functioning up close and personal within the environment we observe from afar. Sure they are human and prone to bias like we are, but they also possess a degree of expertise a poster here can never sniff, especially within their specific era they played or coached. I always respect player opinions for the unique insights, and take the obvious biases with a grain of salt.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Because they're not real opinions and they over support people they either know closely, or over support people thinking it will boost them socially amongst their peers.

They are not real, logical, or thought out opinions. I didn't read anything you typed in the OP, just answering the question asked in the title.

[Kblaze8855]

Because they're not real opinions and they over support people they either know closely, or over support people thinking it will boost them socially amongst their peers.

They are not real, logical, or thought out opinions. I didn't read anything you typed in the OP, just answering the question asked in the title.


Not logical real thought out opinions as opposed to who? There’s a thousand reply topic on the front page of this forum that’s an extension of a 10 year argument about how much Scottie Pippen sucked.

What group of people are we taking serious?

[tpols]

Because they're not real opinions and they over support people they either know closely, or over support people thinking it will socially amongst their peers.

They are not real, logical, or thought out opinions. I didn't read anything you typed in the OP, just answering the question asked in the title.

This is a great point. It's politics... basically.


https://youtu.be/pUGLfN4oSCg

[iamgine]

I’d happily go guard prime Melo then prime Lebron to tell you who was tougher. Unfortunately the nba wouldn’t let me. How then do I compare my “research” to people who not only have my “research”(which is just watching, numbers, and seeing what others think) but forms I don’t have access to?

See that is also a fallacy. You can guard them but that will only tell who you subjectively feel was tougher for you. What good is that. If we only listens to Dwight we'd think Pekovic is like a DPOY candidate or something.

[Kblaze8855]

No that’s just the way fans especially ones who spend time arguing on places like this are conditioned to see praise. Say someone is great fans act like you mean they’re the greatest player who ever played. Fans are rarely nuanced or subtle so they don’t instinctively look for it.

And in an awful lot of cases, you can find a consensus among people qualified to answer. For example:



"He’s by far the strongest human I played against in my life. He is a very very strong man. I hate playing them every time I saw them on the schedule. Hated it. I knew he would move me around. I felt like a kid. He was just pushing me around. I’m fighting as hard as I can to stop him from backing me into the paint and I can’t stop him. Yeah, he’s very very very strong. He’s the reason I started lifting harder. I can say that to this day, he is the reason why I started lifting weights more seriously,” Drummond told Zach Harper.

Or


.Missing Favors was not a good development for a Jazz team that has had discussions about whether Pekovic is the NBA’s strongest man.“We kind of joke about it in the locker room,” Jazz veteran forward Marvin Williams said. “We can’t think of a guy stronger than this guy. He’s a wide load down there.”

Somebody asked Favors on Tuesday where he ranks Pekovic on the league’s strength continuum.
“Oh, he might be the strongest guy in the league,” Favors said. “It’s hard to push him off the block and me trying to post up against him, he pushes you all the way out to the three-point line. He’s probably the strongest guy in the league to me, as far as strength.”



A lot of people to play him will tell you the same thing. And that is not information available from any other source. He can put up the same numbers as people who have a completely different set of skills and attributes. Things like that aren’t recorded at all but they are a defining characteristic to the people who have to play a basketball game against him. Which is why I say players are talking about basketball and fans are talking about something else.

[Baller234]

I don't care how much experience you have or how much you claim to be an expert, opinions are still just opinions.

Does a player or coach in the league know about the inner workings of basketball more than I do? Sure. Does that mean their opinion is always more valid than ours? Not really.

Talent scouts aren't always former player and coaches. I know someone who got a job as a talent scout for an MLB team and believe me he didn't make it very far as a player. He's not even a great athlete. In fact I think he got his start in journalism.

My point is that anyone who has followed the game and has a passion for the game can assess talent. Players may see the game from an angle that we don't, but fans also see the game from an angle that the players don't. I mean we could go on forever about players and coaches saying foolish things and looking like an idiot in retrospect, so it's not like they're infallible.

[Kblaze8855]

The millions of times one somewhere may misdiagnose what is wrong with a car doesn’t mean lifetime mechanics don’t know more about cars than lifetime shoe salesmen. Infallibility is not a standard used by anyone halfway reasonable.

Fans don’t have some additional information because of their perspective as fans. Almost everybody in the NBA is a basketball fan themselves, and even if they weren’t merely having to pay enough attention to function in an offense and defense forces them to understand what’s going on at a higher level. Fans watch TV and have access to stats. That’s it. Players are in the games you watch on TV. Players watch TV themselves. Players have entire staff who do nothing but record and log what happens in specific situations to relay it to them immediately if they need to know. players have coaches and assistants who watch every second of people they have to guard playing offense and can tell them plays and tendencies off the top of their heads. You do not have some kind of additional information due to your perspective as a fan.

Very few are honest enough to come in here and admit it, but a lot of people reading this right now wouldn’t even know where to stand if a coach told them they’re going to set up and work on some flares screens. Madden is the only reason even 10% of the NFL Fanbase could identify a cover three, and they would have to see it from the perspective of the quarterback to do it.

people out here, arguing passionately, and belittling the knowledge of people who are also doing nothing but speaking in generalities and couldn’t explain half of this:



https://youtu.be/2I3CHKBcJbw


dropped into an NBA practice a lot of the people reading this would have to be walked by the hand through where to go and what to do just hearing absolute, basic middle school terminology.

Fans watch games like it’s street ball. Most fans, including most here don’t really know what they’re seeing but are legitimately offended that the people doing it do do and they defense against that idea is that the hundreds of people out there don’t always agree with each other and have some weird opinions as if any group of people knowledgeable about anything must therefore agree with each other and have no unusual opinions.

put 500 people with a PhD in astrophysics in one room you won’t get consensus about everything, and a few of them will be considered quacks by most of the rest. there is no subject of any complexity you can just learn all there is to know about and eliminate disagreements on the top level of understanding it. that doesn’t mean the people at and close to that top level arent infinitely more credible than people who aren’t in that field. Just off having wide ranging interests I could tell an expert on a lot of things a few facts that are correct, and might go against the ideas of experts in that field who disagreed with the majority. Doesn’t make me an expert. Means I read a few books and go down rabbit holes on Wikipedia some nights.

I’m also pretty good at framing an argument. Doesn’t make me right. It would make my argument sound better than a lot of people in basketball I’ve heard speak but it doesn’t mean I’m more knowledgeable.

A lot of us….a lot more than would admit it…just don’t know what we are watching. I know more than most just off caring more and being willing to learn and acknowledge the gaps in my knowledge. If you can’t readily admit to not knowing what you’re talking about on a lot of subjects, I don’t know how earnestly you’re even trying to learn.

I’m happy to admit what I don’t know. That’s why I read a lot that’s written by people who do. That’s why, when my girlfriends grandfather introduced me to some of the coaches at Wofford(local university) and I got to sit in on practices I asked questions. I’m curious, and the cause of that curiosity is accepting my lack of knowledge. And I don’t like that many people know more than I do so I try to do something about it. A lot of people don’t even want to acknowledge there’s anything to learn because exposing your ignorance devalues your opinion, in the eyes of people who won’t be as honest as you are.

**** it. I’ll tell you. I have an awful lot to learn because there are perspectives I don’t have. If that somehow takes credibility from my takes because you aren’t willing to admit to the gaps in your understanding? So be it. Jamal Crawford said something weird so expertise shouldn’t be acknowledged. Expertise without infallibility is to be dismissed. Personally, I don’t see it that way. But I like to learn things. If I thought I already knew it all, I would know a lot less than I do now. I have a long long way to go. Congratulations to most of you for having reached the end already but I embrace and acknowledge my ignorance. I don’t see any other way to get rid of it.

[90sgoat]

I respect that of course, but there's a reason why very few players make good coaches or even good TV analysts.

It's because there's a massive difference in being a player on the court and just being focused on your part on the team and being a coach and seeing the whole team and everything that goes on.

Also, a lot of players are friends and there are more liked and less liked players socially and so on.

[Clifton]

I love listening to guys talk about stuff they're competent to talk about. The results of these guys' experience are helpful for increasing my basketball knowledge, and you can't get that from anyone who hasn't played. But someone who understands basketball only from the point of view of one limited participant isn't, by that fact alone, any more knowledgeable than anyone else about the total 5-on-5 reality of the game in terms of all the moving parts.

Most NBA players probably feel like they're as good at basketball as it is possible to be. But then they get on an NBA court and the game reveals who they are and what they mean to NBA ball. Jordan Clarkson might think he's the best player of all time; only actually playing in games can reveal that there are 50-100+ guys better than him.

That Paul George quote about how he's the best ball-handling wing is a case in point. He feels like the best ball handling wing because he can go between the legs and shoot pull-up jumpers against anyone. But he's just Paul George. He's not watching every other player go against the same defenders, so he doesn't see as clearly as I do that however 'smooth' it is, George does less with his dribbling than almost anyone, has a tough time getting by people, doesn't go where he wants on the court nearly as well as a bunch of other guys do, and most of the dribble moves lead to a long contested jumper.

There are players of the game and students of the game; lots of times, guys are both. But there are very good players out there who don't understand the game very well at all from a global point of view. They're stuck in the grind... often effective there, but they only see what they see.

[Wardell Curry]

Anyone else get flashbacks to arguing with with women in your early 20s when you read replies like this?

agree or don’t agree. If you don’t, I’m happy to hear why. That’s just a nothing answer to generate a go nowhere argument, which I’m not interested in. I’ll leave you be.


I have no desire to do a long format debate with you and watch you write long winded posts that only have about three or four lines of actual point.

The reason that you can't compare this to telling a plumber how things work is we don't sit around for hours and hours and hours watching people do plumbing. We do sit around watching NBA players play basketball and some of us watch more NBA basketball than those guys play it AND watch it. It's hard to pin down how many exactly but there are posters on this board that undoubtedly consume more NBA than most NBA players, and they do it from an 'impartial' third party perspective while these guys are watching the games while playing the games.

But even that aside? You're damn right if I watched hundreds of plumbers for thousands of hours that I could analyze what was going on better than a bunch of plumbers who have not.

Then there's also the other part which is that being an NBA player requires elite athleticism in almost all cases. Not elite athleticism for an NBA player, but elite athleticism compared to your everyday joe. This alone allows people to play the game. This is exactly why highly skilled guys are out of the league once their athleticism starts to fade. So if athleticism is what is primarily keeping them in the league, why are we going to take their word as gospel? Just because they played and were athletic?

This is already far more than I wanted to spend on this topic. I'm done.

[dankok8]

OP makes a very good point. I personally have no disdain for how players rank other players because their criteria are different since they actually play basketball and can evaluate aspects of a player's game that I hardly can. So yes when I hear a whole bunch of players rank Melo among the best players ever, I try to take that into consideration when ranking Melo on my all time list. In other words he will probably get a pretty noticeable bump from me.

With that being said, current players have never competed against past players. So perhaps someone like George Gervin they would clearly be impressed with even more so they they would with Melo but never played with or against him. Thus players can only analyze a small subset of players they played against. That's the limitation. There is no way to compare eras which we as fans love doing.

[Kblaze8855]

I’m sure I’m one of the people here who consume more nba from a watching perspective than players. I didn’t find the footage online to make hundreds of videos over 20 years. A lot of it is my own tapes. I still have tapes of summer league games from 20 years ago. I’ve been watching, recording, watching back, reading, playing, and obsessed with basketball for decades. Hell I was decades in when I got here 20+ years ago. I’ve obviously seen and studied more of the NBA than a lot of its players because a lot of them could literally be my children. But that is not the same thing as knowing the game inside and out. It just isn’t. I’ve been watching the NFL just as long that doesn’t mean I could be a defensive coordinator tomorrow. Plenty of 28-year-old NFL players who haven’t seen half of what I have could be though. Well I could do it I guess. I played defense in high school. I understand some things. But I’d be much more a fish out of water than some 25 year old living it.

there is a reason that even after many trade schools you still have to be an apprentice. I’ve learned a lot of things by watching I didn’t truly understand till doing. You know how simple it is to rekey a lock? There are a lot of steps, and before the first time I did it, I read those steps and I saw someone do it. It’s simple but a little drawn out. Drop a pin that isn’t quite the right size in the wrong place file it down till you think it’s level, then reassemble that lock and try to turn the key. the process of backtracking and fixing that shit when it won’t turn is not learned in a video or instructions.

You have to do it. Feel for the spots. Listen. It takes experience though the entire process takes 30 seconds to explain. It might take an hour to fix a mistake.

Theres a reason that plumber is a plumber. And it isn’t watching other plumbers. It doesn’t take years of hands on…but it takes some. And it’s a lot less complicated than the team sports in question. I’ve seen people who know what they’re doing cause thousands of dollars of damage in seconds. If you think YouTube clips of plumbing are a substitute for having the tools in your hand for real I don’t know what to tell you.

[Kblaze8855]

OP makes a very good point. I personally have no disdain for how players rank other players because their criteria are different since they actually play basketball and can evaluate aspects of a player's game that I hardly can. So yes when I hear a whole bunch of players rank Melo among the best players ever, I try to take that into consideration when ranking Melo on my all time list. In other words he will probably get a pretty noticeable bump from me.

With that being said, current players have never competed against past players. So perhaps someone like George Gervin they would clearly be impressed with even more so they they would with Melo but never played with or against him. Thus players can only analyze a small subset of players they played against. That's the limitation. There is no way to compare eras which we as fans love doing.

I think this brings us to some of the problems people have. I don’t care if people listen to a players opinion, and then don’t change their own. Where I rank Carmelo Anthony isn’t changed by where Kobe does. But I listen to him explain his reasoning because he has a perspective I don’t have. How the hell would I know how strong Carmelo Anthony is or how quick his first step feels? he has more information. I want information, so I’ll listen to it. But I don’t necessarily have to change the outcome of my equation because someone I respect gets a different answer by doing a completely different problem. Players aren’t looking at basketball the way fans are, so why should we come to the same conclusion?

my feelings aren’t hurt because someone with more knowledge than me comes to a different conclusion. It does make me want to reevaluate parts of my argument, but in the end he and I can’t see eye to eye when we’re coming from such a different places. Like I said…how can I be mad at different answers to a different question? Fans are simply not talking about the same thing a player is when we evaluate abstract greatness or utility in winning at a high salary vs players talking about basketball playing. We are on entirely different paths to our answers.

[dankok8]

I think this brings us to some of the problems people have. I don’t care if people listen to a players opinion, and then don’t change their own. Where I rank Carmelo Anthony isn’t changed by where Kobe does. But I listen to him explain his reasoning because he has a perspective I don’t have. How the hell would I know how strong Carmelo Anthony is or how quick his first step feels? he has more information. I want information, so I’ll listen to it. But I don’t necessarily have to change the outcome of my equation because someone I respect gets a different answer by doing a completely different problem. Players aren’t looking at basketball the way fans are, so why should we come to the same conclusion?

my feelings aren’t hurt because someone with more knowledge than me comes to a different conclusion. It does make me want to reevaluate parts of my argument, but in the end he and I can’t see eye to eye when we’re coming from such a different places. Like I said…how can I be mad at different answers to a different question? Fans are simply not talking about the same thing a player is when we evaluate abstract greatness or utility in winning at a high salary vs players talking about basketball playing. We are on entirely different paths to our answers.

Well said. Totally agree.

Thing is though, if enough players are raving about someone (ex. Melo) I will rank that player higher than I would otherwise. Clearly stats are not telling us everything. It would be ignorant not to at least reevaluate as you said.

[Clifton]

Take architecture. You have architects, builders, and people who live in the building. The builder probably knows more about building than the architect, but he doesn't, as a builder, understand as well how the parts fit together to make a whole. Now, the architect might not even know how to hammer a nail. It doesn't make him any worse of an architect.

The guy who lives in the building, meanwhile, you could ask: Is he even anything? Who cares what he thinks? He can't design OR build. Fair, and there are plenty of frauds out there. But here's what he has that the other two don't: first, an unbiased perspective; he's not attached to any school of architecture or any way of doing things. Second, he's the one who experiences what the other two create, as it's meant to be experienced, while the other two spend all their time in the grind of creation. Once the building is planned out, the architect is done with it. Once it's built, so is the builder. They're on to the next one. It's not their job to appreciate what they've done, how it feels to live in, how it fits in with the other buildings around it, etc. If they do, it has to be in their spare time. It's not a part of their job.

Now, sometimes basketball players do what I do and watch tape. And sometimes I read or listen to players talk about the experiential aspect of the game. But what I hear from them is second-hand, and what they watch is always directed toward the next game's performance; it's always specialized, it's never disinterested. Nothing about the film that won't help them play better will be noticed. On the other hand, all I'm looking for when I watch is: what makes for successful NBA basketball, the way it's actually played, 5-on-5 in 48 minute games, with an 82 game regular season that matters somewhat and a 4-round playoffs that matters immensely? A player, as player, thinks, "Kyrie is a master. He scores every time I guard him." An observer of the game, as an observer, thinks, "When's the last time Kyrie did something important in the postseason?"

[tpols]

Take architecture. You have architects, builders, and people who live in the building. The builder probably knows more about building than the architect, but he doesn't, as a builder, understand as well how the parts fit together to make a whole. Now, the architect might not even know how to hammer a nail. It doesn't make him any worse of an architect.

The guy who lives in the building, meanwhile, you could ask: Is he even anything? Who cares what he thinks? He can't design OR build. Fair, and there are plenty of frauds out there. But here's what he has that the other two don't: first, an unbiased perspective; he's not attached to any school of architecture or any way of doing things. Second, he's the one who experiences what the other two create, as it's meant to be experienced, while the other two spend all their time in the grind of creation. Once the building is planned out, the architect is done with it. Once it's built, so is the builder. They're on to the next one. It's not their job to appreciate what they've done, how it feels to live in, how it fits in with the other buildings around it, etc. If they do, it has to be in their spare time. It's not a part of their job.

Now, sometimes basketball players do what I do and watch tape. And sometimes I read or listen to players talk about the experiential aspect of the game. But what I hear from them is second-hand, and what they watch is always directed toward the next game's performance; it's always specialized, it's never disinterested. Nothing about the film that won't help them play better will be noticed. On the other hand, all I'm looking for when I watch is: what makes for successful NBA basketball, the way it's actually played, 5-on-5 in 48 minute games, with an 82 game regular season that matters somewhat and a 4-round playoffs that matters immensely? A player, as player, thinks, "Kyrie is a master. He scores every time I guard him." An observer of the game, as an observer, thinks, "When's the last time Kyrie did something important in the postseason?"

That's a great analogy.

[Wardell Curry]

A player, as player, thinks, "Kyrie is a master. He scores every time I guard him." An observer of the game, as an observer, thinks, "When's the last time Kyrie did something important in the postseason?"

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding.

"Tell him what he's won, Johnny!"

"You've won nailing the point and it being disregarded, disagreed with and going over their heads! Congratulations!"

[Norcaliblunt]

Because a lot of times it comes off as some schoolgirl shit. Either kissing ass to be accepted by the cool kids or bitter jealous shade throwing.

There is never any real in depth evaluation going on between present or former players. Even on these new pods.

[tpols]

Because a lot of times it comes off as some schoolgirl shit. Either kissing ass to be accepted by the cool kids or bitter jealous shade throwing.

There is never any real in depth evaluation going on between present or former players. Even on these new pods.

Yup...

I was watching Bill lambier comment on the GOAT debate. Even 35 years later you can still see he hates MJ. And would never put him as GOAT. So players have a ton of biases and prejudices just like us. Their word is the furthest thing from gospel. All we can do as individuals is soak it all up and come to our own conclusions.

[Wardell Curry]

Yup...

I was watching Bill lambier comment on the GOAT debate. Even 35 years later you can still see he hates MJ. And would never put him as GOAT. So players have a ton of biases and prejudices just like us. Their word is the furthest thing from gospel. All we can do as individuals is soak it all up and come to our own conclusions.

:cheers:

[RRR3]

Plumber analogy doesn’t work because we don’t rank plumbers. I’d trust an NBA player to explain the rules of basketball to me if I was a newbie because of course they’re gonna be an expert on that. Ranking players is completely different than understand how to play basketball and basketball strategies. Too much opinion and bias in those ranking and judging people on how tough it felt to guard them in an iso situation

[Norcaliblunt]

Yup...

I was watching Bill lambier comment on the GOAT debate. Even 35 years later you can still see he hates MJ. And would never put him as GOAT. So players have a ton of biases and prejudices just like us. Their word is the furthest thing from gospel. All we can do as individuals is soak it all up and come to our own conclusions.

They all act like schoolgirls. Whether praising or criticizing. Barkley, Isiah, Shaq, Draymond, Reddick, Jackson, Barnes. They are all just yapping schoolgirls.

[Kblaze8855]

A player, as player, thinks, "Kyrie is a master. He scores every time I guard him." An observer of the game, as an observer, thinks, "When's the last time Kyrie did something important in the postseason?".


Of course. Which I why I said fans aren’t talking about basketball. The last time you did something important in the postseason is not talking about basketball playing. It’s talking about circumstance. There are hall of famers who barely even made a playoff as best player. The fans perspective is obviously miles off from the basketball evaluation. Fans primarily weighing narratives and team Success doesn’t mean Mitch Richmond needs to go back and win something to justify the respect he has from his peers who had to play basketball against him. The fans aren’t talking about playing basketball. The fans compare compelling story lines more than anything because it gives them a leg to stand on and something to debate.

You don’t have to know what you’re talking about to participate in a discussion of accolades, playoff success, and narratives. It’s a lot harder to look stupid, leaning on things like that because most of it is just public record of facts. There’s nothing to evaluate. You just pick a side and parrot the takes your team has driven into the public conscious.

[Norcaliblunt]

I want to know what players are out there actually talking basketball? Lol.

I mean X’s and O’s, fundamentals, player comparisons, etc.?

Please lead me to this podcast where players are really breaking down plays and analyzing shit.

Edit. Kobe had his show. But he’s dead.

[Im Still Ballin]

Take architecture. You have architects, builders, and people who live in the building. The builder probably knows more about building than the architect, but he doesn't, as a builder, understand as well how the parts fit together to make a whole. Now, the architect might not even know how to hammer a nail. It doesn't make him any worse of an architect.

The guy who lives in the building, meanwhile, you could ask: Is he even anything? Who cares what he thinks? He can't design OR build. Fair, and there are plenty of frauds out there. But here's what he has that the other two don't: first, an unbiased perspective; he's not attached to any school of architecture or any way of doing things. Second, he's the one who experiences what the other two create, as it's meant to be experienced, while the other two spend all their time in the grind of creation. Once the building is planned out, the architect is done with it. Once it's built, so is the builder. They're on to the next one. It's not their job to appreciate what they've done, how it feels to live in, how it fits in with the other buildings around it, etc. If they do, it has to be in their spare time. It's not a part of their job.

Now, sometimes basketball players do what I do and watch tape. And sometimes I read or listen to players talk about the experiential aspect of the game. But what I hear from them is second-hand, and what they watch is always directed toward the next game's performance; it's always specialized, it's never disinterested. Nothing about the film that won't help them play better will be noticed. On the other hand, all I'm looking for when I watch is: what makes for successful NBA basketball, the way it's actually played, 5-on-5 in 48 minute games, with an 82 game regular season that matters somewhat and a 4-round playoffs that matters immensely? A player, as player, thinks, "Kyrie is a master. He scores every time I guard him." An observer of the game, as an observer, thinks, "When's the last time Kyrie did something important in the postseason?"

Are you a philosopher? I feel like I just learned something about life.

[Kblaze8855]

Yup...

I was watching Bill lambier comment on the GOAT debate. Even 35 years later you can still see he hates MJ. And would never put him as GOAT. So players have a ton of biases and prejudices just like us. Their word is the furthest thing from gospel. All we can do as individuals is soak it all up and come to our own conclusions.


this is just the worst argument to me. Mostly because it argues a point nobody ever made. There are many thousands of pro basketball players, current, and former. Do you think that I think any group of thousands of people which would reach unanimity about any subject of complexity? Of course not. It doesn’t matter what the subject is any group of thousands of qualified people giving opinions would have different ones.

The issue is why there is such pushback on the idea that said group…whatever it’s area of expertise….knows more about it than casual observers of what they do.

Why is such umbrage taken at the suggestion that someone who is much more invested and involved in the game knows more about it than fans?

Is there any other area of society where that would be taken as anything but obvious? For a while political allegiance made a bunch of weirdos feel more credible than vaccine experts because they read some confirmation bias soaked report while sitting on the toilet. But that’s politics.

Are sports also that far gone? That our need to be right makes us so defensive we can’t even acknowledge there are groups more credible than we are?

[Norcaliblunt]

this is just the worst argument to me. Mostly because it argues a point nobody ever made. There are many thousands of pro basketball players, current, and former. Do you think that I think any group of thousands of people which would reach unanimity about any subject of complexity? Of course not. It doesn’t matter what the subject is any group of thousands of qualified people giving opinions would have different ones.

The issue is why there is such pushback on the idea that said group…whatever it’s area of expertise….knows more about it than casual observers of what they do.

Why is such umbrage taken at the suggestion that someone who is much more invested and involved in the game knows more about it than fans?

Is there any other area of society where that would be taken as anything but obvious? For a while political allegiance made a bunch of weirdos feel more credible than vaccine experts because they read some confirmation bias soaked report while sitting on the toilet. But that’s politics.

Are sports also that far gone? That our need to be right makes us so defensive we can’t even acknowledge there are groups more credible than we are?

If we analyzed your life enough we will find something where you are not taking the so called “experts” advice, and it’s probably more important then basketball opinions.

[Kblaze8855]

If we analyzed your life enough we will find something where you are not taking the so called “experts” advice, and it’s probably more important then basketball opinions.

of course you could. Every person alive is both a liar and a hypocrite. I am both and I don’t mind saying so because I know you are to whether or not you choose to admit it.

But….

Who said I take basketball players “advice” to begin with? You can find a player who agrees with you on just about anything if you ask enough of them. The issue isn’t your willingness to throw out your own observations because somebody more qualified to analyze the situation made a different one. My issue is why people are so offended at the idea more qualified people even exist.

[Norcaliblunt]

My issue is why people are so offended at the idea more qualified people even exist.


You are moving the goal posts now. Lol.

And people don’t get offended they cringe when players act like schoolgirls and slurp each other off. It’s like the academy awards with the fakeness.

[tpols]

Its... literally a direct answer to the question in the title. Why do we have disdain for players rankings of each other?

Because their perspective is incredibly myopic and often biased based on who their friends and enemies are. Or what they do or don't value. The Bill Lambier example is spot on.

And Cliftons post dismantled your whole argument.

[tpols]

Appeal to authority when the authority is corrupt doesn't mean shit. I can't believe you're still copping for that vaccine bullshit. :facepalm

[Im Still Ballin]

ISH needs more threads like this. Actual interesting topics; something other than the usual spiel and dribble.

[Kblaze8855]

Its... literally a direct answer to the question in the title. Why do we have disdain for players rankings of each other?

Because their perspective is incredibly myopic and often biased based on who their friends and enemies are. Or what they do or don't value. The Bill Lambier example is spot on.

And Cliftons post dismantled your whole argument.

His entire post culminates in essentially the same thing from the OP

He said


On the other hand, all I'm looking for when I watch is: what makes for successful NBA basketball, the way it's actually played, 5-on-5 in 48 minute games, with an 82 game regular season that matters somewhat and a 4-round playoffs that matters immensely? A player, as player, thinks, "Kyrie is a master. He scores every time I guard him." An observer of the game, as an observer, thinks, "When's the last time Kyrie did something important in the postseason?".


I said



Fans look at things like they’re all amateur GMs and thinking “Can I win a title this way? Can this guy take up 50 million and still have a title winning cast?”.

Player evaluating each other are really asking entirely different questions than we are.


The point is the same.

Fans aren’t talking about the same thing players are. Fans are essentially fantasy gms convinced of their own ability to build teams. Players are talking about playing basketball. Knowing the criteria is so different? I don’t see how people get so upset the conclusions are different.

Now if you’re going to talk about a player who is having a fan like argument or giving takes to further that on TV that’s an entirely different conversation. That’s tv. That’s hot take culture. That’s a whole other thing.

[Kblaze8855]

Appeal to authority when the authority is corrupt doesn't mean shit. I can't believe you're still copping for that vaccine bullshit. :facepalm


politics and sports. Two areas of society, people aren’t prepared to acknowledge that expertise even exists if it means they might be contradicted. I don’t need to get you started on all that again.

[Clifton]

Of course. Which I why I said fans aren’t talking about basketball. The last time you did something important in the postseason is not talking about basketball playing. It’s talking about circumstance.
You got me; that was a bad example.

What I really wanted to say was "How well does Kyrie's skillset and mentality (on-court and off-court) contribute to successful basketball?" (Or Carmelo's, or Kobe's...) But it was too complicated to articulate so I went for something easier. Which is part of your point: if it's not based on real experience, it's probably going to resort to accolades, circumstances, etc. It's hard to get the kind of basketball analysis I'm talking about off the ground. I do think, though, that when done right, it should be in the driver's seat, and both career-appraisal (6 rings!) and anecdotal stuff should come second.

Anyway, the original topic was why do I have disdain for the way players rate each other. I would say two things. First, I don't think their opinions are special just because they're the ones grinding. So I think their opinions are good if they're good and bad if they're bad, just like anyone else's. I think a lot of players have very good opinions.

But I've noticed that when players are, in my opinion, wrong, it's almost always in the direction of overrating a style of basketball I don't like watching and that I think is bad for the game and bad for their team. The bucket-getter, the hero, the killer. These players are important no doubt, but there are a lot of other important things for a player to be. If a player overrates a guy, it's going to be a Kyrie because Kyrie does amazing stuff, and he does it to them. And they can't do it back. It's never going to be, like, overrating Boris Diaw's passing, or something.

So if I dislike bad takes on players rating players, it's the perpetuation of ways of being a star I think are bad and that I'd rather go the way of the Dodo... (and, by the way, I'm noticing that's been happening the last 10 years...)

[Kblaze8855]

I’d say that’s more an issue of the kinds of players who get brought up to talk about. Offense will always be where stars are made so they get talked about more but you get players talking about some of the guys I mentioned like Tony Allen or Jrue Holiday. The praise and “Y’all really don’t understand how good this man is….” fan dismissal aspect is just as strong.

But who is gonna ask Kevin Durant about Boris Diaw?

He’s never the topic of the day. He doesn’t come up.

[Overdrive]

I say that’s symptomatic of a larger problem with society in general. The refusal to acknowledge real world expertise when it comes to generating conclusions as opposed to what people hilariously refer to as their own research.

people are so offended at the idea that their closely held opinions would be thrown out by some because they are simply less informed than somebody else they have to wage a subtle war against the entire concept of additional knowledge being useful in drawing said conclusions.

when an Electrician comes to your house and says you have a problem and how he’s going to fix it, there is more respect for that than for an NFL safety telling you who the best quarterbacks he played are if you don’t like the list. But the fact is, I was doing Electrician’s work when I was 13 years old and I understood the concepts. I personally ran a good deal of the wiring and some of the plumbing at a gas station and a church when I was in middle school. My stepdad was a master electrician and plumber, and I would tagalong. It was easier to get away within those days, and they would just run me off before any inspections.

I’ve seen the tests for certifications. There was less study than I’d need to remember the entire playbook vs Peyton Manning. When Bill explains here it’s the greatest play a safety has ever made….



https://youtu.be/GQrZKveWgOk


There isn’t one person here who truly understands why. It’s just another pick.

But it’s hours and hours of prep for 3 seconds of execution.

we just don’t respect the work, and the knowledge and understanding that goes into playing sports because we just see it as entertainment. They absolutely are experts in their field.

Now their final opinions run the same gamut that normal fans do. There’s a reason commercials say nine out of 10 dentist recommend brushing your teeth with such and such. There’s always somebody who just wants to be different. There’s always a player who thinks somebody like Jamal Crawford is top 50 just like there’s always a dentist who is against flossing. But that doesn’t mean you know more about basketball than that player with a weird opinion just like you don’t know more about teeth than the dentist.

The subject could be barbecue or quantum physics. Somebody who can reasonably be called an expert will have an opinion that varies from the norm. Maybe some four time world champion thinks ribs should be cooked to 192 instead of 200 where I like to cook it because it’s tender. weird take to me, but that doesn’t mean I’m the person to listen to instead of him about barbecue.

We use the outlier opinions to discredit the entire concept of gaining information and credibility from doing and expertise and it feels like sports and medicine we most readily dismiss expert opinions in favor of what we googled.

In the end it’s just not wanting someone to be able to call you out for being uninformed even if 90% of us don’t know floppy action when we see it.

Andre Iguodala can identify it instantly and defend it or run it himself on the other end if asked to. But people who don’t understand one of the most basic things happening on a modern court will laugh because he thinks something they don’t when the only expertise they have in this world is in roofing or landscaping.

when two legitimate experts disagree, it isn’t proof that expertise doesn’t matter because it can lead to opposing conclusions that are shared by people who have no expertise. Plenty of people who don’t follow basketball have the same all time top two all time as people who live the game. But they don’t understand why.

Not really. An idiot, and a genius, having the same opinion doesn’t mean general intelligence is useless. People today are just so unwilling to accept contradictory opinions they can’t even acknowledge credibility as a concern. Once someone is deemed more credible than anyone else their own can be called into question.

personally, I like to have my notions challenged by someone I know, for a fact, has more expertise. I’d rather change my mind because I learned something than to deny people exist I’m capable of learning from if we don’t initially agree.

Maybe I’m wrong. I care more about Ray Lewis opinion on playing linebacker than I care about anyone here and I can’t think of any logical reason anyone would be offended by that. But some people legitimately are. They call it an appeal to authority. Who is supposed to be appealed to if not somebody who studied and worked at it for 30 years? I want somebody to teach me something. Nobody here knows how strong jrue holidays hands are. So I listen to Andre Iguodala and JJ Redick because they can factor such things in and I have a complete blindspot. Dudes on here think he had a bad game because he missed nine shots as opposed to 7 when scoring isn’t even why he’s on the floor.

Fans know we have a massive Blindspot in our evaluation but are so concerned with maintaining our own credibility to other fans a lot of us lash out at the extra mirror if we don’t like what it shows.

You're mixing up two things, twice.

First most fans discuss greatness, while players often talk about the best player, toughest defender etc

Second you're mistaking expertise and opinion. If you asked an electrician which fuses to use for which gauge, the answer is an expertise. If you ask him which inventor had the biggest impact on electrotechnics that's an opinion.

Ofc a player can dismantle a play better than anyone else, but his take on greatness is still an opinion.

[Kblaze8855]

Now we’re getting somewhere. All takes on abstract greatness are opinions and can’t really be proven and that’s what is the most common and popular form of sports discussion. The idiots can take part fully without having a ****ing clue what they’re talking about. That’s how you engage a larger audience. People largely speaking can’t relate to Paul George on his last episode talking about the trouble he always had making cuts and how somehow the defenders always heard him moving when he’d go back door and his deep appreciation for people like Steph, who are so good at it.

nobody wants to hear that shit on Tuesday morning on ESPN. Well maybe we would but it’s not going to be widely popular. Not when you can ask if Curry officially passes magic with another title. Abstract greatness is easy to talk about and hard to look stupid doing because you can’t prove any of it.

it’s hard to have a nuanced discussion about basketball skills and team play especially if only one person has any idea what he’s talking about. I can talk greatness with any coach in the history of basketball. Doesn’t mean I know as much as him about basketball. I’m just really well-versed in the bullshit things we all do to rank players.

The never ending greatness conversation is basketball discussion played on easy mode. But that’s where fans are comfortable. So that’s what they largely cater to.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Now we’re getting somewhere. All takes on abstract greatness are opinions and can’t really be proven and that’s what is the most common and popular form of sports discussion. The idiots can take part fully without having a ****ing clue what they’re talking about. That’s how you engage a larger audience. People largely speaking can’t relate to Paul George on his last episode talking about the trouble he always had making cuts and how somehow the defenders always heard him moving when he’d go back door and his deep appreciation for people like Steph, who are so good at it.

nobody wants to hear that shit on Tuesday morning on ESPN. Well maybe we would but it’s not going to be widely popular. Not when you can ask if Curry officially passes magic with another title. Abstract greatness is easy to talk about and hard to look stupid doing because you can’t prove any of it.

it’s hard to have a nuanced discussion about basketball skills and team play especially if only one person has any idea what he’s talking about. I can talk greatness with any coach in the history of basketball. Doesn’t mean I know as much as him about basketball. I’m just really well-versed in the bullshit things we all do to rank players.

The never ending greatness conversation is basketball discussion played on easy mode. But that’s where fans are comfortable. So that’s what they largely cater to.

You're asking fans on a site dedicated to the NBA why they don't agree with the way the majority of players rank themselves. And then bringing up casual fans insinuating we are one in the same

Casual fans and players are actually more similar and use the same biases in their judgement. Let's call people on forums 'advanced fans' and treat them entirely different than the casual group so you can't just lump everyone in the casual drawer to make your point.

And then we can go from there

[tpols]

You're mixing up two things, twice.

First most fans discuss greatness, while players often talk about the best player, toughest defender etc

Second you're mistaking expertise and opinion. If you asked an electrician which fuses to use for which gauge, the answer is an expertise. If you ask him which inventor had the biggest impact on electrotechnics that's an opinion.

Ofc a player can dismantle a play better than anyone else, but his take on greatness is still an opinion.

Bingo.

There's a lot of blue collar electricians who probably don't know who Nikola Tesla was. They can fix all the outlets in your house and fix your lighting up but have know knowledge of The Meta.

They're just performing simple physical tasks for money. Not studying the history of electricity.

[Kblaze8855]

You're asking fans on a site dedicated to the NBA why they don't agree with the way the majority of players rank themselves. And then bringing up casual fans insinuating we are one in the same

Casual fans and players are actually more similar and use the same biases in their judgement. Let's call people on forums 'advanced fans' and treat them entirely different than the casual group so you can't just lump everyone in the casual drawer to make your point.

And then we can go from there

Well….I dont know. Calling someone a casual is one of the more common insults I see on here. Being a casual is probably like being stupid. Almost everyone acknowledges theres a huge number of stupid people, but somehow almost nobody realizes that they are one of them.

What makes someone a casual? Being a fan but not really understanding what you’re seeing?

Not watching very much anymore?

Sticking to easy talking points about legacy and greatness?

If so….we have an awful lot of them.

How would you define casual nba fans? I don’t need like some formal thing I just mean generally speaking. What’s a trait likely found in casual fans?

[Kblaze8855]

Coincidentally I saw this episode of west wing earlier about the difference between being a fan and having a fetish and almost made a topic on it:


https://youtu.be/vbUTsqjxWOg



There are obviously some fetish types here but I’m not sure of the number.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Well….I dont know. Calling someone a casual is one of the more common insults I see on here. Being a casual is probably like being stupid. Almost everyone acknowledges theres a huge number of stupid people, but somehow almost nobody realizes that they are one of them.

What makes someone a casual? Being a fan but not really understanding what you’re seeing?

Not watching very much anymore?

Sticking to easy talking points about legacy and greatness?

If so….we have an awful lot of them.

How would you define casual nba fans? I don’t need like some formal thing I just mean generally speaking. What’s a trait likely found in casual fans?
To me a good barometer of a casual fan is if they are completely oblivious to the past. Like if you ask their top 5 all time and they include guys like Kobe and Iverson, and scoff at names like Larry Bird or Bill Russell. They don't know the history of the game at all. They don't have a broad enough view to compare players from prior eras.


Now obviously there are guys who are just stupid. They know the context of history but just have dumb opinions. They're not casual fans, they're just stupid. You'll see them listed as 'Kobe stans' on forums like this.

But you know what I'm talking about. Casual fans generally overrate the flashy guys like Kyrie and are oblivious to what winning basketball is.


With a lot of players the problem really does boil down to politics. You don't lebron knows about westbricks weaknesses? He'll never say anything negative about him in public. They're close friends. A lot of the opinions of players aren't real opinions or they're slanted towards things that aren't relevant to what wins basketball games for whatever biased reason.

[Baller234]

They all act like schoolgirls. Whether praising or criticizing. Barkley, Isiah, Shaq, Draymond, Reddick, Jackson, Barnes. They are all just yapping schoolgirls.

Shaq especially is notorious for propping up guys he beat and downplaying guys he didn't beat as often.

And sometimes it's not even about having emotional feelings, sometimes it's about having an inflated sense of self worth. I remember a video where T-Mac was being interviewed about Dan Patrick and they were talking about Lebron. T-Mac was talking about how great Lebron was at a young age and how he saw him come up.

So Dan asks him, "At what point were you ready to admit that Lebron was better than you?"... and T-Mac basically took offense to the question. His competitive spirit and ego took hold, and he couldn't bring himself to admit that Lebron was actually better than him. He said something along the lines of, "Lebron is great but as a competitor but I don't think anyone is better than me..."

On one hand I can respect his mentality, and in his defense T-Mac was probably the more skilled 1 on 1 player... but come the f--k on. Part of being a great competitor is having the humility to admit defeat or admit when someone was better than you. Bob Costas asked Barkley going into the 1993 finals if he thought Jordan was better than him, but unlike T-Mac he didn't get offended. He had no choice but to laugh. He couldn't bring himself to say the words, but he didn't play dumb either. He gave an open ended answer with a smile and kept it moving.

Ironically, Barkley is actually a horrible analyst most of the time, but he definitely didn't have an inflated sense of self worth. :oldlol:

[Overdrive]

Bingo.

There's a lot of blue collar electricians who probably don't know who Nikola Tesla was. They can fix all the outlets in your house and fix your lighting up but have know knowledge of The Meta.

They're just performing simple physical tasks for money. Not studying the history of electricity.

Exactly and we're disregarding the outlet fixing aspect of a player because he says AI is top 5 all time.
Players can be knowledgeable about the game itself while being totally uneducated about historical context. While alot of fans are the other way round.

They barely can see what happens on the court while having the benefit of replays. They have their eyes on the ball mostly and rarely grasp what both teams do in order to get or deny the ball where it's supposed to end up.

[Baller789]

Calling other people casuals is something Bronies call other posters who disagree with them in this forum mostly.

Thats what I observed here.