Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Dilution, balance, and Bob-bashing

Expand Messages
  • John W. Craven
    ... No, of course not, because if the talent level changed this much over the last decade then the guys who played against them and didn t completely dominate
    Message 1 of 35 , Jan 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Mike G <msg_53@...> wrote:

      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003 <schtevie@h...>"
      > <schtevie@h...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > > ... it would
      > > seem most prudent to believe that in fact talent has actually
      > > increased over time and at least has not decreased. ...
      >
      > This is often stated as though it should be so, and therefore it _is_
      > so. Pardon me, but have you looked at the players on the court? Or
      > looked at the statistical leaders?
      >
      > What do the following players have in common?: Larry Bird, Kevin
      > McHale, Kiki Vanderweghe, Jack Sikma, Bill Laimbeer, Bill Walton, Dan
      > Issel, ... of course they are all white American players, from the
      > early '80s, and they were all better than any white American player
      > today.
      >
      > Would we suppose that in today's increased talent field, that Larry
      > Bird would put up numbers no better than Brad Miller's? That McHale
      > would be no more of an impact player than LaFrentz is?

      No, of course not, because if the talent level changed this much over the last decade then the guys who played against them and didn't completely dominate would have been out of the league by the time they turned 30.

      >
      > I keep coming back to this issue, with deafening silence all about,
      > broken only by occasional questions to my motivation. I would like
      > to know what motivates others here to continue ignoring this
      > situation.

      Like others, I have problems simply looking at color WRT basketball talent. I'm not really concerned with the racial aspect of this; my problem is more with the idea that race doesn't, by itself, explain the shift in the talent base. I think that by "white", you mean "learned the game primarily by playing organized ball" and by "black" you mean "learned the game on the streets." Well, that means that Grant Hill and probably Jay Williams ought to be classified as "white", and (the white) Jason Williams should be referred to as "black" for the purposes of that study. When you make adjustments like that, suddenly the "white" players of 1977 don't look head and shoulders better than the "white" players of today. That still doesn't completely address the question of whether or not the fact that basketball ceased to be a quasi-Canadian game played by suburban kids and began to be the game of the Jews and then the blacks in the inner city, but it does begin to explain why folks wit!
      h white skin and no discernible accent appear to be less populous in today's NBA.

      Another thing to consider is that although the nation has expanded in population by quite a bit since the '60s, the white American population has not, for a variety of reasons, most notably the idea that more wealthy populations tend to have smaller families than less wealthy ones.

      John Craven
    • John Hollinger <alleyoop2@yahoo.com>
      ... watched ... Put me firmly in the pompous windbag camp. The best thing about the Mason comment, for instance, was that Rosen said the reason Mason can t
      Message 35 of 35 , Jan 11, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > I particularly enjoyed Rosen's article on the Sonics where he
        watched
        > one game (one of the worst of the year, for what it's worth) and
        > acted like he knew something about the team. Apparently, Desmond
        > Mason can't make a jumper because he had one bad night.

        Put me firmly in the "pompous windbag" camp. The best thing about the
        Mason comment, for instance, was that Rosen said the reason Mason
        can't make a jumper was his "low release point", which was hilarious
        on several levels:

        1) Apparently he's never watched Steve Kerr. Or Andrew Toney. Or
        Bryce Drew. Or about a hundred other guys who shoot from under their
        chin but make everything.

        2) Mason's release point isn't low, especially given that he's about
        20 feet off the ground when he shoots it.

        3) Mason's problem isn't the release point, it's the lack of arc on
        his shot.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.