Stan Van Gundy: the best 20 players ever have played in the last 20 years

[video]https://youtube.com/shorts/ohBh0PfNhj0?si=CeehH6Xx7w_Ae55z[/video]

I tried embedding the video, but it doesn't seem like you can with shorts? Anyways I'm sure you all know the quote by now...

I know ISH isn't going multiple days without someone posting this. Discuss.

Zero substance, at least as far as the host.

I find it curious how those who blamed Shaq for simply using his weight to create shots can't bring themselves to admit Jokic does the same thing.

Jokic has skills (distance shooting, passing) but creating a shot isn't one of them. That said Shaq was a great player even if he was never the most talented player.

Jokic never put in the work in terms of conditioning; he is questionable as a two-way player. I give him some credit for coming into training camp in better shape than he has in past years.

2nd half defense from him has always been suspect. Not a rim protector, doesn't switch well, average at best at perimeter defense. Even worse when they target him on defense, esp in 2nd half (again, conditioning).

And don't bring up DWS - that's a bogus stat which emphasizes minutes, defensive rebounds (which I've talked about should not even count as a stat). Defensive Rating isn't ideal either but it shows Jokic is not near the top and if you see his reflexes and court coverage, that should be obivous.

Jordan was the toughest, fastest, highest-jumping, most predatory player on the floor. On both sides. And the results showed. He managed the offense brilliantly; customizing it to every opponent. Draymond and AD can slow down Jokic. No one could slow down Jordan consistently.

[QUOTE=bdonovan;15045661]Zero substance, at least as far as the host.

I find it curious how those who blamed Shaq for simply using his weight to create shots can't bring themselves to admit Jokic does the same thing.

[b]Jokic has skills (distance shooting, passing) but creating a shot isn't one of them. That said Shaq was a great player even if he was never the most talented player.[/b]

Jokic never put in the work in terms of conditioning; he is questionable as a two-way player. I give him some credit for coming into training camp in better shape than he has in past years.

2nd half defense from him has always been suspect. Not a rim protector, doesn't switch well, average at best at perimeter defense. Even worse when they target him on defense, esp in 2nd half (again, conditioning).

And don't bring up DWS - that's a bogus stat which emphasizes minutes, defensive rebounds (which I've talked about should not even count as a stat). Defensive Rating isn't ideal either but it shows Jokic is not near the top and if you see his reflexes and court coverage, that should be obivous.

Jordan was the toughest, fastest, highest-jumping, most predatory player on the floor. On both sides. And the results showed. He managed the offense brilliantly; customizing it to every opponent. Draymond and AD can slow down Jokic. No one could slow down Jordan consistently.[/QUOTE]


You smokin dope fool?

Both guys had excellent footwork, in addition to the use of their exceptional mass.

SVG's heart was in the right place trying to throw a lob to his guys who all have giant egos and can't stand to be talked about as if they are even as low as "equal footing" to past players - but his brains were in the wrong place. Clearly not a deep thinking man. Track and Field times was his analogy for "superior athleticism" (anyone even slightly familiar with track and field knows past records depended heavily on cinders to rubberized track and pits in the cinders to blocks - shoe technology etc) and a lot less to do with the individuals athleticism then to now. And his whole argument for only looking at players now was based on this athleticism. Even with track, normalizing sprint times using a well known modifier for surface and block changes - Jesse Owens would have been literally 1 stride length behind Usain Bolt. And btw, Bolt's record is how old at this point and no one has even sniffed it? It's already an 18 year old record in and of itself isn't it!? Not exactly any new guys coming to blow it out of the water, none in sight actually. Track events where even fewer rules or regulations have changed such as the long jump are - to no surprise - standing even longer. The top 3 jumps in history all happened in 1968, 1988 and 1988. And literally no one has even been remotely close ever since. A literal pro coach is probably thinking things like high jump are great proof of better athletes when all that had to do with was they allowed a landing mat and boom fosbury flop became possible and suddenly everyone jumped a foot higher overnight. Like I said, that comment exposed to me he's not a deep thinker. Say something shallow and surface level and he'll shrug his shoulders and go "yeah that explanations good enough".

And the biggest irony is he tried to use raw athleticism as his big argument for now = best, then = inferior is that he was doing so in an effort to prop up... Jokic? The dude with literally identical height weight and athleticism and physique and even playstyle to like... 1949's George Mikan? Dude looks like a sack of flabby mashed potatoes out there with a 6" running vert and has the quickness attributes I would expect out of a professional bowler. Yeah. The athletes today are so evolved. That's why Jokic is the best, yeah, his modern athleticism.

[QUOTE=hiphopanonymous;15045853]SVG's heart was in the right place trying to throw a lob to his guys who all have giant egos and can't stand to be talked about as if they are even as low as "equal footing" to past players - but his brains were in the wrong place. [B]Clearly not a deep thinking man.[/B] Track and Field times was his analogy for "superior athleticism" (anyone even slightly familiar with track and field knows past records depended heavily on cinders to rubberized track and pits in the cinders to blocks - shoe technology etc) and a lot less to do with the individuals athleticism then to now. And his whole argument for only looking at players now was based on this athleticism. Even with track, normalizing sprint times using a well known modifier for surface and block changes - Jesse Owens would have been literally 1 stride length behind Usain Bolt. And btw, Bolt's record is how old at this point and no one has even sniffed it? It's already an 18 year old record in and of itself isn't it!? Not exactly any new guys coming to blow it out of the water, none in sight actually. Track events where even fewer rules or regulations have changed such as the long jump are - to no surprise - standing even longer. The top 3 jumps in history all happened in 1968, 1988 and 1988. And literally no one has even been remotely close ever since. A literal pro coach is probably thinking things like high jump are great proof of better athletes when all that had to do with was they allowed a landing mat and boom fosbury flop became possible and suddenly everyone jumped a foot higher overnight. Like I said, that comment exposed to me he's not a deep thinker. Say something shallow and surface level and he'll shrug his shoulders and go "yeah that explanations good enough".

And the biggest irony is he tried to use raw athleticism as his big argument for now = best, then = inferior is that he was doing so in an effort to prop up... Jokic? The dude with literally identical height weight and athleticism and physique and even playstyle to like... 1949's George Mikan? Dude looks like a sack of flabby mashed potatoes out there with a 6" running vert and has the quickness attributes I would expect out of a professional bowler. Yeah. The athletes today are so evolved. That's why Jokic is the best, yeah, his modern athleticism.[/QUOTE]


Well he does have a documented TDS diagnosis. So you may be right.

Anthony Edwards and Dame beat Jokic without HCA and in Game 7.

[QUOTE=hiphopanonymous;15045853]SVG's heart was in the right place trying to throw a lob to his guys who all have giant egos and can't stand to be talked about as if they are even as low as "equal footing" to past players - but his brains were in the wrong place. Clearly not a deep thinking man. Track and Field times was his analogy for "superior athleticism" (anyone even slightly familiar with track and field knows past records depended heavily on cinders to rubberized track and pits in the cinders to blocks - shoe technology etc) and a lot less to do with the individuals athleticism then to now. And his whole argument for only looking at players now was based on this athleticism. Even with track, normalizing sprint times using a well known modifier for surface and block changes - Jesse Owens would have been literally 1 stride length behind Usain Bolt. And btw, Bolt's record is how old at this point and no one has even sniffed it? It's already an 18 year old record in and of itself isn't it!? Not exactly any new guys coming to blow it out of the water, none in sight actually. Track events where even fewer rules or regulations have changed such as the long jump are - to no surprise - standing even longer. The top 3 jumps in history all happened in 1968, 1988 and 1988. And literally no one has even been remotely close ever since. A literal pro coach is probably thinking things like high jump are great proof of better athletes when all that had to do with was they allowed a landing mat and boom fosbury flop became possible and suddenly everyone jumped a foot higher overnight. Like I said, that comment exposed to me he's not a deep thinker. Say something shallow and surface level and he'll shrug his shoulders and go "yeah that explanations good enough".

And the biggest irony is he tried to use raw athleticism as his big argument for now = best, then = inferior is that he was doing so in an effort to prop up... Jokic? The dude with literally identical height weight and athleticism and physique and even playstyle to like... 1949's George Mikan? Dude looks like a sack of flabby mashed potatoes out there with a 6" running vert and has the quickness attributes I would expect out of a professional bowler. Yeah. The athletes today are so evolved. That's why Jokic is the best, yeah, his modern athleticism.[/QUOTE]

Bolt is 6'5" (which is very tall for a sprinter) and has a correspondingly long stride. I almost NEVER say NEVER - but looks like his 100m time will last a long time - it's an insane .11 second ahead of next competitor. His (favorite race) 200m record has less time difference ahead of next competitor (in more distance).