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

[Phoenix]

https://youtube.com/shorts/ohBh0PfNh...ehH6Xx7w_Ae55z

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.

[bdonovan]

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.

[FultzNationRISE]

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.

You smokin dope fool?

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

[hiphopanonymous]

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.

[FultzNationRISE]

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.

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

[kawhileonard2]

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

[rmt]

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.

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).

[bdonovan]

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.

Every discipline improves upon the past by learning from the past and developing new methods. It's why whether in politics or business or sport, we stand on the shoulders of giants, acknowledging their greatness and building upon what they did further.

Of course, some are freaks athletically and even with the new knowledge, some modern players might fall short of the past greats, in general the trend is towards superior players in the modern day.

The thing is there is no debate that physio and nutrition has improved. Today, they emphasize macronutrient timing while the olden day, they had steak and beer before game and smoked cigarettes. Of course, modern players have the edge.

50 years ago, teams didn't even have strength and conditioning units. Biomechanics like hip mobility, deceleration strength training- players back then never benefitted from any of this. It's fair to say that if players long ago had all these advantages, they might have measured up to today's players, but the apples to apples comparison of who they were then to players today, they simply fell short.

Little while back, I saw the training they were given Steph Curry. I'll just copy/paste because it summarizes it better "FITLIGHT reaction-light system — In his training, small light discs around the court or on poles light up in random patterns/colors. Curry must react instantly: dribble, change direction, pass, shoot — depending on the light cue."

As is true with basketball is true with everything else, modern people are no better than people from long ago. Evolution doesn't work that fast. But society becomes smarter and so the performance improves, not uniformly or completely, but generally.

[hiphopanonymous]

Every discipline improves upon the past by learning from the past and developing new methods. It's why whether in politics or business or sport, we stand on the shoulders of giants, acknowledging their greatness and building upon what they did further.

Of course, some are freaks athletically and even with the new knowledge, some modern players might fall short of the past greats, in general the trend is towards superior players in the modern day.

The thing is there is no debate that physio and nutrition has improved. Today, they emphasize macronutrient timing while the olden day, they had steak and beer before game and smoked cigarettes. Of course, modern players have the edge.

50 years ago, teams didn't even have strength and conditioning units. Biomechanics like hip mobility, deceleration strength training- players back then never benefitted from any of this. It's fair to say that if players long ago had all these advantages, they might have measured up to today's players, but the apples to apples comparison of who they were then to players today, they simply fell short.

Little while back, I saw the training they were given Steph Curry. I'll just copy/paste because it summarizes it better "FITLIGHT reaction-light system — In his training, small light discs around the court or on poles light up in random patterns/colors. Curry must react instantly: dribble, change direction, pass, shoot — depending on the light cue."

As is true with basketball is true with everything else, modern people are no better than people from long ago. Evolution doesn't work that fast. But society becomes smarter and so the performance improves, not uniformly or completely, but generally.

Any creative person can come up with training gimmicks that are no less helpful and that's exactly what was going on even 60 years ago when child prodigies like Pete Maravich were doing every dexterity drill imaginable. I literally don't believe the dexterity or timing drills Steph does are any better than what say, Pete Maravich did. Any superiority mentality behind that is just hubris. Cross training and drills have always existed in basketball.

https://youtu.be/xszwPYK34AI?si=irYVlT5vZkNRVm3j&t=1019

Watch this person 100 years ago training to sail around Cape Horn. There's no way someone comes up with better training than that just because of a team of whatevers with a bunch of new gimmicks. This is why Larry Bird was so good, Pistol Pete, etc. The greatest at things are creative people that know how to hone themselves. Infer that this goes back through the history of mankind, about any activity. Determined creative people figure out what they need to do to max out their capabilities, any time, any era, any task at hand. I think the rules of the game have changed what people are training for more than anything such as "step backs" (why... oh yeah, a 3 point shot that's why - for example). Technology compounds. People don't. Is the human tasked to design a rocket engine in autocad superior to the human doing so with slide rules? Which requires more brain power... neither does, actually, and neither the trained person in category A is any superior to the trained person a category B assuming equal effort - they just disciplined themselves with different tools. A maxed out determined person is maxed out. And if basketball were the same as it was 60 years ago and all metrics were measured and created identically a person like SVG might be able to make a better point if something was really obviously better but the fact is the rules have changed so much and I just think it's ridiculous to assert child prodigy pro's back then were any worse than child prodigy pro's now. A human can only train themself so much. Another gimmick in the training bag is just that - a gimmick.

Guys like Wilt, Dolph Schayes, Bob Pettit, George Mikan, Pete Maravich, Jerry West etc. All detail their own personal training protocols... honestly, they write the book for the next generation and the next generation we must assume then does it better yeah? That's what all the futurists back then believed and that's where a lot of this hubris comes from. But it's not true. Nobody today even watches those old red on roundball videos because their hubris gets in the way. We got guys out here like Joel Embiid who never touched a basketball until he was in his teens thinking he's literally better than players 50 years ago and that he'd be "put in jail" if he played back then. They think those guys were inferior and that's exactly why he won't look at their old training techniques even though if you knew what they were you or others would realize how damn good they were and I can't tell you how many young kids today just want to pick up a trainer to teach them to do step back off balance shots that are not fundamentally sound and the future of NBA players comes from this exact same crop. The best will simply learn on their own. Not from a "system". All these trainers and whatnot are outside noise. I think there's far more disinformation and bad training techniques out there than ever before. We thought it would be a straight line to progress, it ended up like static on a tv set with only bits and pieces of good info out there that most people will never find or never be able to organize into one spot. A player like Steph is good not because of his trainers, but because he's just constantly trying to get better - and he's bright enough to figure out what to train mostly on his own, whether he hired extra help or not they aren't even the difference maker - he is. That's literally no different than people 50 60 years ago or even 600 or 6,000 years ago at whatever task was at hand. Are hunters with a .22 looking to get a turkey better than a hunter with an atlatl dart bringing down a mammoth? Are the hunters training techniques better? ... how do you even define better when the game has changed so much. That's a macro scale, it's true at any scale.

That's my 2 cents at least. Technology and rules and games change. People don't. There aren't "better" basketball players today than there were 50 years ago.