# No League for Old Men



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Basketball has actually never been a young men's game. Regardless of whatever the phosphor dots on your television have told you once upon a time, young players are terrible. In the 80's, everyone went to college for more than one year, including Bird, Magic, and Jordan. Nowadays, the current and upcoming stars either skipped college or went for one year so they entered the league sooner.

That's probably why they're going to leave the league sooner. Kobe Bryant is 33. Michael Jordan won two championships after he turned 33. However, Kobe is finished. He's arguably not even a top five player right now which was also not the case with Jordan who was the best until the moment he retired. However, to put it in perspective, Kobe came into the league at 18 and Jordan at 21.

It's not just the age when entering the league, but that is a huge reason why players aren't lasting as long. The game is getting more competitive and the talent is getting back to where it was in the 80's. Look at Chris Paul, the best PG in the league. He's 26 but he has had knee surgery and lost some form, so after only six years in the league he might not even be enough to influence the outcome of the league. Why? Because you can draft guys like Norris Cole and Ty Lawson late.

I'm not sure Chris Paul stays relevant for three more years. Same goes for Dwight Howard. In their seventh and eighth years respectively. I think with the increasing talent pool nobody is going to be changing the competitive landscape in their eighth or ninth years and more. By that time they're too old, the young guys are too fast.

TL;DR These days I'm looking more at how far into their career guys are. Unless you're a transcendent talent like Wade or James, you aren't a game changer after I'd say your 7th year. Guys the level of Paul and Howard are who I'm talking. Sorry, but I can just draft a Norris Cole or DeAndre Jordan. The league is getting too talented (mean that in a good way).


----------



## BigWill33176 (Dec 21, 2003)

this is going to get ugly


I agree with most of it except for the part where you pool Dwight/Paul as non-transcendent players. If they stay healthy they will stay dominant. Especially Howard.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Jordan was in no way a top-five player when he retired.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

BigWill33176 said:


> this is going to get ugly
> 
> 
> I agree with most of it except for the part where you pool Dwight/Paul as non-transcendent players. If they stay healthy they will stay dominant. Especially Howard.


I think the Clippers could have traded for Howard but they recognized the jump from DeAndre to Howard wasn't as large as the jump with Paul. That tells me just how little Howard influences the competitive landscape compared to a guy like LeBron.

Teams around the league are lining up to acquire Howard to retool for years of contending but I just don't see how with time and new players and player movement he can overcome any contender. I think it's too easy to find a player to defend him and most teams already have that player.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Lol, since when is being arguably not a top five guy anymore the same thing as finished? Kobe's still a top 5-7 player in the league and is averaging like 28 a game so far. His prime was never as good as Jordan's so why would his twilight years? Your comparison doesn't make any sense.

I do think that you have an interesting premise though, the league is definitely starting to cater towards younger players and the NBA is going through a resurgence of talent. I just don't know if it's as extreme as you're trying to paint it. Dwight Howard will still be the best center in the world in three years and you can quote me on that.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Yesterday's young is today's old. Teams need to recognize this because a guy like Chris Paul is actually entering his twilight not his prime, so it's something to be conscious of if you're the Clippers and acquiring him. A 26 year old today is not a 26 year old in Jordan's time. The "old" players will still win but people need to be correct about what stage of their career they're in or they're going to get burned.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Adam said:


> Yesterday's young is today's old. Teams need to recognize this because a guy like Chris Paul is actually entering his twilight not his prime, so it's something to be conscious of if you're the Clippers and acquiring him. A 26 year old today is not a 26 year old in Jordan's time. The "old" players will still win but people need to be correct about what stage of their career they're in or they're going to get burned.


Well, that's more to do with Paul's knee than his age(although I suppose you could argue they're one in the same). For what it's worth, I think Paul's got several more years of "prime" left, not in his twilight.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Yeah to piggyback on what Bogg just said, Chris Paul is only in jeopardy of being finished because of his knees, not ability. If he's healthy then he's still a top fiveish player in the league.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Bogg said:


> Well, that's more to do with Paul's knee than his age(although I suppose you could argue they're one in the same). For what it's worth, I think Paul's got several more years of "prime" left, not in his twilight.


I think people look at his age, 26, and assume that he's just approaching the crest of the hill, whereas I believe at 26, in the current NBA landscape, he already crested it. He has several years left on this side of the hill but he's still further along than people mistake because of his age.


----------



## lakeshows (Mar 17, 2009)

It used to be a player's prime years were something like the ages 26-32/33. People would lose a step or two around 33/34 and become the old vets. MJ was the absolute without a doubt best player in the league until about age 38 or so. Karl Malone and Stockton played at a high level until around that age as well.

Now a days it seems like a player's prime years are something like 22-28/29. It seems like you lose a step around 30 or so. You could see it with Kobe and I think you'll see it with Lebron and others as well. And it definitely seems like players enter their prime earlier. It seems Lebron and Dwight entered their prime around 21/22.

I don't agree thought that the difference between Deandre Jordan and Dwight is small. There's still a huge difference. The difference between David Lee and Deandre Jordan is small. 

It's just that it seems players hit their peak earlier and burn out quicker. I think it probably has something to do with kids being put in AAU ball and such at earlier stages and playing competitive year long ball much earlier and younger.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

The history of NBA players in no way supports this argument. If it did it would only be valid if a player was nothing more than an athlete, a brainless zombie that ran and jumped. You might be able to support this argument with players of limited skill, but when you bring up Chris Paul you ignore the fact that his greatest asset is purely cerebral. Is Chris Paul going to get Alzheimers on his 28th birthday and forget how to run a basketball team?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Well LeBron, Dwight, and Kobe are exceptions because they came straight out of high school. By the time Jordan entered the league (age wise) these guys had been playing professional basketball for 3-4 years.

Oh, and Jordan was the best player when he was playing for the Wizards in 2001? Because that's a 38 year old MJ. And that MJ was a fringe all star.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

It depends on your game, and your athleticism to basketball skills ratio. Players like Nash and Ginobili who rely on skills more than athleticism haven't skipped a beat in old age, and their biggest obstacle with age has been injuries.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I am very interested to see how LeBron ages. He seems to have put in the work around his post game and we all saw last year that he's made great strides with his jumper. Once his athleticism fades he will still have the body/strength to be a top power forward in the league, he will just need to polish his repitore.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I was thinking about this the other day...Rose, Durant, LeBron and Wade...guys are peaking at a really early age, and maybe wearing down faster too.

If you look at it like the two elevators with athleticism going down and IQ/craftiness going up, they're meeting at a younger age.

I made a thread similar to this awhile back about how years played and mileage overrides age, and you see it. Some of these guys are like 34 which isn't that old and look absolute toast..so coming in early doesnt really extend your career.

But like HKF said, just because you're not top 10 anymore doesnt mean you have to pack it in or you're not relevant. Chris Paul is such a great passer and Dwight is so strong and gifted on the boards they'll have value way past 3 years from now.

Yes, you fall off your peak earlier but with zone D and knowing you'll get calls you can play a long time as long as you're in shape.

Kobe is the oldest 33 ever too. I mean he could play halfway into this decade...and he's a guy that was an all star nearly two decades ago. He can retire today and be more than complete.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I was thinking about this the other day...Rose, Durant, LeBron and Wade...guys are peaking at a really early age, and maybe wearing down faster too.

If you look at it like the two elevators with athleticism going down and IQ/craftiness going up, they're meeting at a younger age.

I made a thread similar to this awhile back about how years played and mileage overrides age, and you see it. Some of these guys are like 34 which isn't that old and look absolute toast..so coming in early doesnt really extend your career.

But like HKF said, just because you're not top 10 anymore doesnt mean you have to pack it in or you're not relevant. Chris Paul is such a great passer and Dwight is so strong and gifted on the boards they'll have value way past 3 years from now.

Yes, you fall off your peak earlier but with zone D and knowing you'll get calls you can play a long time as long as you're in shape.

Kobe is the oldest 33 ever too. I mean he could play halfway into this decade...and he's a guy that was an all star nearly two decades ago. He can retire today and be more than complete.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

Let's look at the dominant players on the last few champions - the guys that the teams were built around and most went on to win Finals MVP:

2011 - Nowitzki 32
2010 - Kobe 30
2009 - Kobe 31
2008 - KG 32 Pierce 30
2007 - Tim Duncan 31
2006 - D-Wade 24 Shaq 34

The fact you have to go back to 2006 to see a Championship team being based around the performance of a player under 30 shows that age isn't diminishing players in the post season. Until that changes I don't see much of an argument for players careers/primes shortening.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

edabomb said:


> 2011 - Nowitzki 32
> 2010 - Kobe 30
> 2009 - Kobe 31
> 2008 - KG 32 Pierce 30
> ...


Is this more a product of teams taking some time to build a championship team around these guys? When Duncan had a championship caliber team around him at a young age, he won championships. Same with Shaquille, and obviously Wade. Kobe winning at an older age is more a product of talent arriving. 

I don't think your observation is relevant.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

edabomb said:


> Let's look at the dominant players on the last few champions - the guys that the teams were built around and most went on to win Finals MVP:
> 
> 2011 - Nowitzki 32
> 2010 - Kobe 30
> ...



Those Germans have therapeutic time travel, now? I gotta get myself some quasi-socialist health care.


----------



## hroz (Mar 4, 2006)

To be fair Tony Parker was MVP in 2007 and Ginobili is in the mix as well. 

PS How was Kobe 31 in 2009 and 30 in 2010 LOL. I am gonna presume those two should be switched.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I think Adam brings up an interesting point here. Ray Allen and Paul Pierce show you can still be relevant in your 30's. However, the window for the team to be good seems to be shrinking more and more. I mean the Knicks group was together for like 6 years. You have teams that are together for 3 and players are opting out, wanting to go somewhere else to win. I think that strictly has to do with the fact that the talent level has risen significantly. A team used to be able to tread water, add a piece here and there and be good. After three seasons even with a significant payroll the Lakers are forced to retool again because their roster is just not athletic enough.

Ultimately, this is another reason I have been in favor of unguaranteed contracts. We keep forgetting that there is a reason the average career is 4 years and down.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

hroz said:


> To be fair Tony Parker was MVP in 2007 and Ginobili is in the mix as well.
> 
> PS How was Kobe 31 in 2009 and 30 in 2010 LOL. I am gonna presume those two should be switched.


Tim Duncan was the best player on the 2007 Spurs and it wasn't even debatable. The Spurs recognized that Eric Snow couldn't guard my 16 year old hipster sister and planned accordingly. Anyone that watched that team recognized that Timmy was the most important Spur.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Eric Snow could guard Chauncey Billups, that was the only reason he was on the roster for Cleveland. I don't remember if he even played much in the Finals, but I don't think he played much during the regular season. They knew that they had to beat the Pistons to get out of the East and Snow pretty much shut down Billups by getting up on him. If you dug up the thread you'd see me predicting exactly what happened. Cleveland could not guard quick guards whatsoever that year.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Which was my point.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

My bad on mixing the Kobe age haha.

I don't know how the age of dominant players on champs isn't relevant to this discussion. If the dominant players on champs is primarily veterans then give me the decrepid vets any day personally.

Some players will perform into their 30s, some won't. It seems pretty much the same as long as I have been following the NBA.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Wait, so every superstar is finished except for your heat? Thanks for the information. Right now the league is in chaos since teams haven't settled on their offenses or defenses. This means that a lot of plays are relying on the raw athleticism of the players rather than savvy. Chris Paul is manning a team that he's been on for a week. 

As for kobe, either he learns how to finally be a playmaker or will be finished.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Hyperion said:


> Wait, so every superstar is finished except for your heat? Thanks for the information. Right now the league is in chaos since teams haven't settled on their offenses or defenses. This means that a lot of plays are relying on the raw athleticism of the players rather than savvy. Chris Paul is manning a team that he's been on for a week.
> 
> *As for kobe, either he learns how to finally be a playmaker or will be finished*.


Seeing as he's been the primary facilitator on five championship teams and seven finalists, I'd say he's doing okay in the facet of his game.


----------



## lakeshows (Mar 17, 2009)

edabomb said:


> Let's look at the dominant players on the last few champions - the guys that the teams were built around and most went on to win Finals MVP:
> 
> 2011 - Nowitzki 32
> 2010 - Kobe 30
> ...


Exactly. That's the generation we're talking about. They're not going to be dominant into their mid to late 30's like MJ, Stockton, Malone and others. Duncan was on the downhill from that year. All those players were pretty much done after those titles. 

MJ was dominant until about age 35/36 (not 38 like I said earlier). Kobe in his prime was a top 5 player. It lasted for about 10 years and he was even top 2/3 for a couple of years, but he's fringe top 5 now at 33. More like top 10. I'm guessing he's going to drop even more significantly by the time he's 35/36 rather than being able to keep up his current pace.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

lakeshows said:


> Exactly. That's the generation we're talking about. They're not going to be dominant into their mid to late 30's like MJ, Stockton, Malone and others. Duncan was on the downhill from that year. All those players were pretty much done after those titles.
> 
> *MJ was dominant until about age 35/36* (not 38 like I said earlier). Kobe in his prime was a top 5 player. It lasted for about 10 years and he was even top 2/3 for a couple of years, but he's fringe top 5 now at 33. More like top 10. I'm guessing he's going to drop even more significantly by the time he's 35/36 rather than being able to keep up his current pace.


That is a false statement. Michael Jordan retired after the 1998 season as *arguably* the best player going at age 34. 

Kobe at his peak ('06-'08) was the best player in the league, and he was number two to 'Bron in the two seasons that followed. He was also top five for like 5-6 seasons before his peak started in 2006, let's not try and rewrite history here. 

And another thing that you're forgetting, MJ retired from the Bulls for good in '98 after thirteen NBA seasons, Bryant is currently in his 16th. That's a fairly big difference. But then again it's moot because Kobe was never as good as Jordan, which is why the comparison didn't make sense in the OP.

Players that are smart/talented enough to adjust will be fine as they age, players that don't put in the work won't be. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

I don't want to derail this thread but <5apg is not being a play maker. He'll need to set the table more this year than ever before. He's not good enough anymore to just take over with his shooting.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Hyperion said:


> Wait, so every superstar is finished except for your heat? Thanks for the information. Right now the league is in chaos since teams haven't settled on their offenses or defenses. This means that a lot of plays are relying on the raw athleticism of the players rather than savvy. Chris Paul is manning a team that he's been on for a week.
> 
> As for kobe, either he learns how to finally be a playmaker or will be finished.


You completely missed the point. It's about the qualitative phrases "young" and "old" not meaning today what they did in the past. Somebody who was called young 15 years ago is actually old in today's landscape. Kobe being finished is just an example of how players are maturing sooner and careers are being sped up. It's unheard of for a player that good to fall so far relative to his peers at only 33. It shows just how old 33 is in today's game.

Players like Dirk and Kobe and LeBron are transcendent players and they're always going to compete for titles. But people are too often misunderstanding what stage they are in their career. For example, I don't want to hear Chris Paul called a young player. He's a "veteran" and soon he will be "old." I would even call Wade "old." Wade's age actually really worries me for the future of my team.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Paul is a year younger than Lebron and what two years younger than Wade. How many players in the NBA are keener mentally or more skilled than he is? He is probably less reliant on athletic ability than any other superstar. You should probably worry about Miami more. Their window is slamming shut as we speak.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

I see your point. You're arguing verbiage. What if young ment developing, prime meant peak and veteran mends past his prime but knows the game well enough to help you win.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Adam said:


> You completely missed the point. It's about the qualitative phrases "young" and "old" not meaning today what they did in the past. Somebody who was called young 15 years ago is actually old in today's landscape. Kobe being finished is just an example of how players are maturing sooner and careers are being sped up. * It's unheard of for a player that good to fall so far relative to his peers at only 33*. It shows just how old 33 is in today's game.
> 
> Players like Dirk and Kobe and LeBron are transcendent players and they're always going to compete for titles. But people are too often misunderstanding what stage they are in their career. For example, I don't want to hear Chris Paul called a young player. He's a "veteran" and soon he will be "old." I would even call Wade "old." Wade's age actually really worries me for the future of my team.


How good was Larry Bird at age 33? Or Magic Johnson? Or Oscar Robertson? Or even Clyde Drexler? 33 is ****ing old. And it's not even like he's fallen off a mountain or anything, he's just not one of the 3 best players in the league anymore. He's somewhere in the 4-7 range, and that's pretty damn good for a 33 year old, 16 year vet. I'm just not seeing what you're trying to say here.

Chris Paul isn't a young player anymore. 26 isn't young. It's prime time. If his knees hold up these next three years will probably be the best that he is ever going to play. But he's certainly not old. Wade is still in his prime too, he may have already peaked, but he is still enjoying the best stretch of his career.


----------



## jaw2929 (Dec 11, 2011)

Bogg said:


> Jordan was in no way a top-five player when he retired.


1st, 2nd or 3rd time?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Diable said:


> Paul is a year younger than Lebron and what two years younger than Wade. How many players in the NBA are keener mentally or more skilled than he is? He is probably less reliant on athletic ability than any other superstar. You should probably worry about Miami more. Their window is slamming shut as we speak.


LeBron is old. And I truly feel that next year when he's 27, seven years completed in the league, people should be calling Paul an old player as well.

And I've consistently said that transcendent players, talking greatest ever players, affect the landscape in spite of old age. I did however say that Paul isn't one of those players. So LeBron and the Heat will be fine but not Paul.

People are misinterpreting the thread title to be a slight against old players. I said in the first sentence that young players don't win anything. Old players will still win, but the old players of today are going to be late 20's. The days of 30 year olds being superstars is over. And of course I mean "superstars" in the overused generic sense. Not the Kobe, Bird, and LeBron class. Those guys will hang on a little longer like Kobe is, but be declining.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Okay every player who does not play for the Heat is going to start falling apart because you think they transcend ordinary players who wear other uniforms. I see where you are coming from now.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Diable said:


> Okay every player who does not play for the Heat is going to start falling apart because you think they transcend ordinary players who wear other uniforms. I see where you are coming from now.


Hilarious how when people get mad at you they make pathetic claims of bias.

Yes, I think LeBron is a top 10 player all time and it takes me being a Heat fan to see it.

You salty because I think Paul is on the downhill side of his career? He plays the most generic position in basketball. He can shoot and pass. There are plenty of guys who can do that and they rebound, block shots, and shut down the opposing team. Every year there's a new Darren Collison, Ty Lawson, or Norris Cole available into the 2nd round of the draft. The talent nowadays is too deep for guys to be superstars into their 30's. Sorry that this pisses you off but don't intentionally misinterpret an easy concept just because you don't like what it means about your favorite player.

People didn't like the Kobe example but there's also Vince Carter and T-Mac as well. Players today are older a lot sooner than players in the past.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I'd be interested in seeing the rest of your top ten Adam.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Adam said:


> He plays the most generic position in basketball. He can shoot and pass.


This is a grossly broad and/or complete misevaluation of Chris Paul's game.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is a grossly broad and/or complete misevaluation of Chris Paul's game.


Generic is not the right word for it, but it would not be false to say that point guard seems to be the easiest position to fill in the last 5-6 years. I mean every night you have to go up against someone good it seems.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Hilarious how when people get mad at you they make pathetic claims of bias.
> 
> Yes, I think LeBron is a top 10 player all time and it takes me being a Heat fan to see it.
> 
> ...



Wow. This post should be quoted any time you act like you have any knowledge of the game of basketball.

According to most sports writers, commentators, GM's, players, ect the point guard position is the hardest to fill in the NBA. According to you though, its easy. Passing and shooting is easy. Funny a Heat fan would underrate the 1 spot, the most important position in the NBA.

And Paul is on the downswing of his career? Are you kidding me? Blake Griffin better enjoy the next year or 2, because after that he'll be in the bone yard right?

It is painful to see how you view the game. Its ignorant on so many levels. "In the past no one ever fell off at 33" uhhhhh, yea, pretty much most players always have. You've seen some highlights of Jordan and some other greats and seem to think everyone used to play great until they retired. You're wrong. I'm going to quit now before I post the countless other areas you're wrong in. I don't want this to turn into a half page post.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

So far we have yet to see a young team win a title built around youth. So there's that. The Heat came close last year. But in the end lost to a much more experienced team. So I don't know that I agree with the premise of this thread. 

When the Heat finally do win a title(if they do), they're going to look a lot closer to the normal age we get for champions, and Wade probably will win the finals MVP for the first one, and he'd be what...like 30/31? Right in range of previous winners.

It still takes time to learn how to win. And I don't think it's a given that the Thunder make it out of the West for that reason. Experience wise they're behind the Lakers/Mavs/Spurs still.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

jaw2929 said:


> 1st, 2nd or 3rd time?


Exactly


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> So far we have yet to see a young team win a title built around youth. So there's that. The Heat came close last year. But in the end lost to a much more experienced team. So I don't know that I agree with the premise of this thread.
> 
> When the Heat finally do win a title(if they do), they're going to look a lot closer to the normal age we get for champions, and Wade probably will win the finals MVP for the first one, and he'd be what...like 30/31? Right in range of previous winners.
> 
> It still takes time to learn how to win. And I don't think it's a given that the Thunder make it out of the West for that reason. Experience wise they're behind the Lakers/Mavs/Spurs still.


I was about to post almost this same thing. The last time a "young" team won a championship was the '91 Bulls, but that team had already been through the fire in the playoffs the three prior seasons.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Your career declines when you lose the ability to make up for the shortcomings of your age. I don't jump as hight, but I added my left hand. Now I jump less High and I can't get my shot off. Great players mask decline with hard work and the ability to actually play the game. The Celtics held on way to long in the 80's and they are doing it again. The Heat won't do the same...the egos of todays era won't allow it.

So yes it is a young man's game.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

edabomb said:


> Let's look at the dominant players on the last few champions - the guys that the teams were built around and most went on to win Finals MVP:
> 
> 2011 - Nowitzki 32
> 2010 - Kobe 30
> ...


Forget this part, I want to know where the absurd idea that _Ye Olde Tyme Basquetteballe Players_ all played until ripe old ages came from? Dave Cowens was done at 30. Tiny Archibald broke for good at around 30 or 31 (I mean, he hung around for a few more years because he was a wizard with the basketball, but he was strictly a roleplayer, a criminally underrated player). Isiah pretty much the same. For every Kareem or Robert Parish I can give you two Larry Birds that were, more or less, finished as dominant players by the time they were 30-32. 

Basketball was always a young man's game. If anything players last longer now do to better surgical techniques, nutrition/training, etc.. Players peaks last much longer now than they did when I was growing up. I mean Bryant is 15 years into his career and Oscar Robertson's career didn't last that long.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Kobe is not finished, Adam, and as a moderator you should know better than to attempt to bait others.

Give it a rest.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Adam said:


> LeBron is old.


I stopped reading this ridiculous post after the first three words.

Get real.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Ron said:


> Kobe is not finished, Adam, and as a moderator you should know better than to attempt to bait others.
> 
> Give it a rest.


I don't think hes baiting by saying that. Hes just actually ignorant enough to think that.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

It's baiting if you say anything other that kobe is top 5 in the league and top 10 all time and is a warrior who won't stop despite all of his crippling injuries.

Edit: just kidding ron, please don't ban me.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> It's baiting if you say anything other that kobe is top 5 in the league and top 10 all time and is a warrior who won't stop despite all of his crippling injuries.


That's a mischaracterization of what I wrote.

If you read my very short post, you will notice I made no comment about "top 5" or "top 10" or any of that, that is up for debate. I personally think he is past his prime.

But to say one is "finished" clearly (1) shows a bias, and (2) didn't watch last night's game.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> Edit: just kidding ron, please don't ban me.


Another mischaracterization.

I have had people call me "moron" and "idiot" and you don't see them banned now, do you?


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Back to the thread, different players have a different age peak. Bigger players peak at 30-33 generally. Guards peak at 27-32 and then fall off sharply.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Anyone who thinks Kobe is done should watch last night's game, specifically the third quarter.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> Anyone who thinks Kobe is done should watch last night's game, specifically the third quarter.


I think Adam missed it, he had to get to bed early.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I don't think hes baiting by saying that. Hes just actually ignorant enough to think that.


I don't think he actually believes that, he just wants to believe it. According to Adam Kobe's done, Pau is finished and Bynum isn't as good as deandre Jordan. So therefore the lakers will be lucky to win 35 games.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I don't think he actually believes that, he just wants to believe it. According to Adam Kobe's done, Pau is finished and Bynum isn't as good as deandre Jordan. So therefore the lakers will be lucky to win 35 games.


Well I guess if the Heat win every championship from now until Lebron and Wade decide they're bored with dominating the league and retire, I guess we'll know Adam was right all along.

Kobe is old. But Lebron transcends age.......


This has been an entertaining thread.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Tyler Hansbrough is old


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

You shut your face.

Tyler Hansbrough is timeless. Like a classic movie.

Tyler Hansbrough is Star Wars.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Psycho T is way more Spaceballs than he is Star Wars... but in a good way.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Well I guess if the Heat win every championship from now until Lebron and Wade decide they're bored with dominating the league and retire, I guess we'll know Adam was right all along.
> 
> Kobe is old. But Lebron transcends age.......
> 
> ...


Adam is a basketball Jerry Sandusky. 

Why trade for a 26 year old Chris Paul when you can get a 23 year old Norris Cole cheap in the draft?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Well obviously you'd rather Chris Paul if both were 23, but I agree with Adam here. I mean 26? Chris Paul is a dinosaur....... oh wait, that's Chris Bosh.









*RAAAWWWWWWRRRRRRR!!!*


----------



## Venom110 (Apr 3, 2003)

^ LOL!!! I love u guys!


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

That's one of the worst gifs I've seen on this site, and that's saying a lot.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

But I put so much work and effort into finding it......


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

There, now it's no longer the worst.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

That doesn't represent a basketball player like mine did though.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)




----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

This is spiraling out of control...


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)




----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam is supposed to come back and explain himself. I didn't want this..... not this.

Not that above me anyways.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

This thread has moved










of


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Adam is supposed to come back and explain himself. I didn't want this..... not this.
> 
> Not that above me anyways.


Adam will show us in 3 years when Dwight Howard and Chris Paul will be finished and Norris Cole and Deandre Jordan are competing to win finals MVP.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Adam will show us in 3 years when Dwight Howard and Chris Paul will be finished and Norris Cole and Deandre Jordan are competing to win finals MVP.


Hopefully not on the same team. That sounds like a dynasty right there.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Adam will show us in 3 years when Dwight Howard and Chris Paul will be finished and Norris Cole and Deandre Jordan are competing to win finals MVP.


I never said Norris Cole or DeAndre will be superstars. I said that young talented players shorten the longevity of superstars' careers. People call Chris Paul a young player and he's not. In today's game he is at the cusp of being old.

And for the people who keep reading the title and saying that I somehow think old players like Kobe don't win anything they obviously didn't even read the first sentence. Old players win in this league. The point is players are maturing sooner and becoming "old" sooner. Paul can still win Finals MVP because of his experience, just like Dirk did last year, but nobody would be dumb enough to argue that Dirk is young.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

So your whole point was that Chris Paul isn't young? He may still dominate for six more years, but don't call him young.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> So your whole point was that Chris Paul isn't young? He may still dominate for six more years, but don't call him young.


Yes. Exactly.

People probably called Kobe young when he was 29 even though he was a 10 year vet. My whole point is he should have been called old and people should have been expecting him to drop out of the top 5 by the time he was 33. People have a distorted concept of what is young and old in today's NBA. Many GM's are going to get burned if they're trading for players and expecting to try to get the right pieces around them before they get progressively worse.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Yes. Exactly.
> 
> People probably called Kobe young when he was 29 even though he was a 10 year vet. My whole point is he should have been called old and people should have been expecting him to drop out of the top 5 by the time he was 33. People have a distorted concept of what is young and old in today's NBA. Many GM's are going to get burned if they're trading for players and expecting to try to get the right pieces around them before they get progressively worse.


A) No one called Kobe young at 29. They brought up the fact that even though 29, he had been in the league a lot longer since he was drafted out of highschool. Comparing that to Paul, who played college ball, is ignorant.

B) Why are you not replying to any of the posts bringing up the fact that your breakthrough discovery has been happening for as long as any of us have watched basketball? Countless players have been brought up. Slowing down when you hit your early 30's is not new. It may be new to you, but it is not new to anyone who has been paying attention to the game for a long time. There is always exceptions, there were exceptions back then, there are exceptions today, but the large majority of players slow down in their early 30's. Like they always have.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> A) No one called Kobe young at 29. They brought up the fact that even though 29, he had been in the league a lot longer since he was drafted out of highschool. Comparing that to Paul, who played college ball, is ignorant.
> 
> B) Why are you not replying to any of the posts bringing up the fact that your breakthrough discovery has been happening for as long as any of us have watched basketball? Countless players have been brought up. Slowing down when you hit your early 30's is not new. It may be new to you, but it is not new to anyone who has been paying attention to the game for a long time. There is always exceptions, there were exceptions back then, there are exceptions today, but the large majority of players slow down in their early 30's. Like they always have.


A) Well I want to call Chris Paul old so you can preclude that I would have called Kobe older a lot sooner than 29. Chris Paul went to college for one year and I addressed one and dones. In the first post.

B) You're wrong. The average age of careers has shortened and players are retiring at younger ages. And the talent is getting good enough nowadays that player slowdowns are noticeable into the 20's not the 30's. LeBron already looks less athletic and he's in his mid 20's.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> A) Well I want to call Chris Paul old so you can preclude that I would have called Kobe older a lot sooner than 29. Chris Paul went to college for one year and I addressed one and dones. In the first post.
> 
> B) You're wrong. The average age of careers has shortened and players are retiring at younger ages. And the talent is getting good enough nowadays that player slowdowns are noticeable into the 20's not the 30's. LeBron already looks less athletic and he's in his mid 20's.


Ohhhhh. I guess if you post "you're wrong" and say "careers are shorter these days" its good enough for me.

No stats needed. I trust you.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Edit: ^I was posting stats. Gimme a second lol.

Stats http://www.nba.com/news/survey_2007.html:

Players are getting smaller, lighter, and younger. It's starting to reflect the 80's (which can't be directly compared because the league was smaller in scope back then and very young).

Edit 2: Forgot that was the newest survey. But you get the idea. The trend is actually more extreme today than back when it was conducted, but the chart shows the trend.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I'm looking under age on the link you posted and its about as static as you can get. I see no trend.


----------



## M.V.W. (Apr 2, 2011)

This thread reminded me of some tweets (including one from Greg Anthony) which made an observation of the combined record of the Lakers, Celtics and Mavs yesterday. Guys are peaking earlier in recent years due to the age they begin playing and the level of competitiveness and ability they play with. By the time they reach the "peak" age, they've been playing at a high level for a while. Add in other things like injuries and you have the recipe for players being worn down in their early 30's. 



Jamel Irief said:


> That's one of the worst gifs I've seen on this site, and that's saying a lot.





R-Star said:


> But I put so much work and effort into finding it......


:laugh:


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> I'm looking under age on the link you posted and its about as static as you can get. I see no trend.


In 2008 the league was the youngest it had been in 20 years. What are you talking about?

The league was the smallest height it had ever been. The shortest career length in 11 years.

And by all visual evidence and hearsay this trend has been exaggerated in recent years. Players have never been this short or young.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> In 2008 the league was the youngest it had been in 20 years. What are you talking about?
> 
> The league was the smallest height it had ever been. The shortest career length in 11 years.
> 
> And by all visual evidence and hearsay this trend has been exaggerated in recent years. Players have never been this short or young.


The league was 26.89 years in 2007-2008. It was younger the 2 previous years of 2006 and 2005. So maybe you should read your own list before the whole "What are you talking about"

Not to mention the youngest age in 20 years was 26.53 in 86-87, and the oldest was 27.95 in 99-00. Where is this huge alarming jump in numbers? I work with numbers for a living and see a very static, stable variance in those 20 years.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> The league was 26.89 years in 2007-2008. It was younger the 2 previous years of 2006 and 2005. So maybe you should read your own list before the whole "What are you talking about"
> 
> Not to mention the youngest age in 20 years was 26.53 in 86-87, and the oldest was 27.95 in 99-00. Where is this huge alarming jump in numbers? I work with numbers for a living and see a very static, stable variance in those 20 years.


If you work with numbers for a living I pity Canada. You're probably just drunk now, so I'm wasting my time.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> If you work with numbers for a living I pity Canada. You're probably just drunk now, so I'm wasting my time.


Was 2008 the lowest in 20 years?

Send me a pm. We can work on your numbers.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

But I digress, it is almost 6pm and crew change time for R-Star. No point for arguments at this point, I think I accomplished what I wanted.

The best part is, you even posted the list of numbers for me. You then misquoted them, and also failed to understand that in 20 years on the list you showed, the high was in the middle, with the late 80's and late 00's being fairly similar. 

In short, not only did you not prove your point. If anything you helped my disprove it.

Thank you Adam.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

I showed you that over a seven year period the average length of an NBA career decreased 16%. I've read that career length today is below 4 years. That means that over the last 12 years the average career length has decreased by 25%. If I proved your point then thanks for agreeing with me that NBA careers are finishing sooner and players are getting younger.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Chris Paul only went to college one year huh?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Jamel Irief said:


> Chris Paul only went to college one year huh?


I guess all learn something new everyday.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> I showed you that over a seven year period the average length of an NBA career decreased 16%. I've read that career length today is below 4 years. That means that over the last 12 years the average career length has decreased by 25%. If I proved your point then thanks for agreeing with me that NBA careers are finishing sooner and players are getting younger.


There's more players being drafted, coming in for a couple years, and not making it in the big leagues. That isn't indicative of players deteriorating sooner. There are a lot more players these days drafted for their athletic potential that don't pan out in the NBA.

I'm surprised you keep coming back to this thread.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> I guess all learn something new everyday.


That was a hectic point in my life. Maybe the two years I remember him being at Wake went by so long it just seemed like it was two years.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

So this is a long thread about an imaginary trend?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Yep.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> So this is a long thread about an imaginary trend?


Do you work in Canadian numbers as well? I posted a link that shows the league is getting younger, smaller, lighter, and careers are lasting shorter and it's a downward trend whereas there was a 15 year upward trend before that.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Do you work in Canadian numbers as well? I posted a link that shows the league is getting younger, smaller, lighter, and careers are lasting shorter and it's a downward trend whereas there was a 15 year upward trend before that.


No. You actually didn't. The fact you fail to understand that is hilarious.

You called me out saying "Don't you understand numbers, the league is the youngest its been in 20 years!", when in reality, the link you posted shows the previous 2 years were younger, not to mention numerous years from the 80's. Also, the fact that there is a variance of less than 2 years up and down throughout the 20 years. 

Now all the sudden you're throwing in height and weight like it has something to do with your original age discussion (it doesn't). 

We should start a count of the threads you make or try to take over, have everyone tell you you're wrong, and you still argue and try to act like you know what you're talking about. 

Let me guess: 



Adam said:


> Oh yea? Well maybe we should make one of those count thread things with you R-Star! Ha! You're stupid! Canadians a dumbest!


Good one Adam. Good one.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I finally read the first post. Wow. 

That is some of utter garbage right there.

"Sorry, but I can just draft Norris Cole."

:laugh:


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Also, the fact that there is a variance of less than 2 years up and down throughout the 20 years.


You have to look at percent change you *******. You work with numbers and don't even know that?



R-Star said:


> I finally read the first post. Wow.


Of course you _just_ did. You're such a valuable, contributing member of this forum. So knowledgeable too. And great with numbers.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> You have to look at percent change you *******. You work with numbers and don't even know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you _just_ did. You're such a valuable, contributing member of this forum. So knowledgeable too. And great with numbers.


*YEAR____AGE 
1985-86 26.72 
1986-87 26.53 
1987-88 27.01 
1988-89 26.92 
1989-90 26.79 
1990-91 27.01 
1991-92 27.09 
1992-93 27.19 
1993-94 27.26 
1994-95 27.43 
1995-96 27.56 
1996-97 27.74 
1997-98 27.82
1998-99 27.82 
1999-00 27.95 
2000-01 27.75 
2001-02 27.47 
2002-03 27.34
2003-04 27.22
2004-05 27.03 
2005-06 26.70 
2006-07 26.67 
2007-08 26.89*

There's the list you posted a link to, with the average player for each year.

Please, feel free to convert this into the percentage you're talking about.


At some point, you need to put away the shovel and just take your loss on this.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> *YEAR____AGE
> 1985-86 26.72
> 1986-87 26.53
> 1987-88 27.01
> ...


You do realize that the column "EXP" is the one that denotes average career length, right? After a seven year period average career length dropped 16%. Today it's down 25% from 1999-2000.

The average age (the column you posted) dropping a full year in an 8 year period in a sport with an age rule and a very set age range that it can be physically played is a pretty significant change.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> You do realize that the column "EXP" is the one that denotes average career length, right? After a seven year period average career length dropped 16%. Today it's down 25% from 1999-2000.
> 
> The average age (the column you posted) dropping a full year in an 8 year period in a sport with an age rule and a very set age range that it can be physically played is a pretty significant change.


It went up appoximately 1 year to the mid 90's and then back down 1 year to the late 00's. You do understand that's called a trend correct?

You also understand that the "EXP" that you're talking about represents average league experience, and not average career length, correct?

No?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> It went up appoximately 1 year to the mid 90's and then back down 1 year to the late 00's. You do understand that's called a trend correct?
> 
> You also understand that the "EXP" that you're talking about represents average league experience, and not average career length, correct?
> 
> No?


No shit it's a trend. I said it myself that the league was on an upward trend in age, experience, and size and peaked in '99 and since then it has been on a downward trend to now where it's the lowest it has been since the '80's. The league is getting shorter, lighter, and younger. That's my whole point.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> No shit it's a trend. I said it myself that the league was on an upward trend in age, experience, and size and peaked in '99 and since then it has been on a downward trend to now where it's the lowest it has been since the '80's. The league is getting shorter, lighter, and younger. That's my whole point.


You should reread your posts and figure out what your point actually was. It's not really a point if you change it every time I post something to make you look stupid.


You know, it really seems like my ******* Canadian ass is doing a better job understanding the numbers you posted, now doesn't it?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> You should reread your posts and figure out what your point actually was. It's not really a point if you change it every time I post something to make you look stupid.
> 
> 
> You know, it really seems like my ******* Canadian ass is doing a better job understanding the numbers you posted, now doesn't it?


Is this your argumentative strategy? You say you're winning and hope that there's somebody gullible enough to believe you? I posted stats that support my argument that the league is getting younger and careers are shortening and you somehow think that I'm proven wrong, with my own supporting evidnece?

You've been arguing my point for me for the past 24 hours without even being smart enough to realize it. Claiming young guys are being taken based on promise and they're phasing out and there's a downward trend in age. Keep going. Please.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Is this your argumentative strategy? You say you're winning and hope that there's somebody gullible enough to believe you? I posted stats that support my argument that the league is getting younger and careers are shortening and you somehow think that I'm proven wrong, with my own supporting evidnece?
> 
> You've been arguing my point for me for the past 24 hours without even being smart enough to realize it. Claiming young guys are being taken based on promise and they're phasing out and there's a downward trend in age. Keep going. Please.


:laugh:

I wonder if your tactic is to hope you annoy me enough to lose my temper.

Again, please go back and read the posts. I could re quote your posts and my replies, explaining where how asinine this all is, and how your "theory" is ridiculous, but do I really have to?

Please, its an honest question. And I'm still waiting for you to convert all this to a percentage that you mentioned. Oh, and I'm also waiting for you to touch on the fact you thought "EXP" meant average career length (it didn't.), how in 2008 players were the youngest they'd been in 20 years (they weren't), how Chris Paul was one and done, etc.

So think about it for a few minutes and see if you honestly want me to go back and rehash all this for you. I do see a lot of people in this thread agreeing with you and quoting me telling me how I'm wrong though.......


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Adam said:


> You do realize that the column "EXP" is the one that denotes average career length, right? After a seven year period average career length dropped 16%. Today it's down 25% from 1999-2000.
> 
> The average age (the column you posted) dropping a full year in an 8 year period in a sport with an age rule and a very set age range that it can be physically played is a pretty significant change.


With the 20 year sample you provided, the average experience is 4.45years with a standard deviation of 0.38years. 70% of all samples fall within 4.83 - 4.07 years of experience. 2008 is no different.

The average age varies one standard deviation from 27.63 - 26.79. 

The data you've provided does nothing other than to show that the age remains the same in the league.

EDIT: I didn't feel like doing a t-test


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> :laugh:
> 
> I wonder if your tactic is to hope you annoy me enough to lose my temper.


Again, please go back and read the posts. I could re quote your posts and my replies, explaining where how asinine this all is, and how your "theory" is ridiculous, but do I really have to?

I should go back and read all the posts you skipped? You just read the first post an hour ago, right?



> Please, its an honest question. And I'm still waiting for you to convert all this to a percentage that you mentioned. Oh, and I'm also waiting for you to touch on the fact you thought "EXP" meant average career length (it didn't.),


It's the average length of the careers of the current NBA players. You're confounding yourself.



> how in 2008 players were the youngest they'd been in 20 years (they weren't), how Chris Paul was one and done, etc.


Those are mistakes. So what? I misquoted the chart and I incorrectly thought Chris Paul was a one and done.



> So think about it for a few minutes and see if you honestly want me to go back and rehash all this for you. I do see a lot of people in this thread agreeing with you and quoting me telling me how I'm wrong though.......


Go ahead. I'm waiting.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Hyperion said:


> With the 20 year sample you provided, the average experience is 4.45years with a standard deviation of 0.38years. 70% of all samples fall within 4.83 - 4.07 years of experience. 2008 is no different.
> 
> The average age varies one standard deviation from 27.63 - 26.79.
> 
> ...


You're taking the mean of means and I already said that the data is becoming more like the earlier time points. Of course the '80's points shift the mean but if you just look at the trends then you can see the league is getting younger. All you're stating is that it's not significantly different than it was including the past 20 years. Which I've consistently said. I said it's getting more like it was 20 years ago. 

But on top of that the current trend hasn't bottomed out yet. I've heard that career length is below four years now and it's still going lower. Players are even younger today than they were in 2008.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Again, please go back and read the posts. I could re quote your posts and my replies, explaining where how asinine this all is, and how your "theory" is ridiculous, but do I really have to?
> 
> I should go back and read all the posts you skipped? You just read the first post an hour ago, right?
> 
> ...


You do understand that I'm the only one posting with you because no one else finds you bullshit worth their time right?

You come in here, saying the leagues never been younger (it has), that careers have never been shorter (they have), like its some kind of epidemic (it isn't). I used the numbers you yourself posted to show any variance is small, and that the league has actually been very static for the 20 year period you showed.

I'm sitting here almost upset with myself that I've wasted time posting with a guy who says things like "Guys like Norris Cole make Chris Paul irrelevant." 

There aren't even Heat fans coming in here to agree with you. That is how utterly stupid your posts have been in this thread.

Luckily this is the first time you've made a thread and had the whole community jump down your throat though right? Oh, you mean this happens to you all the time? Oh well, at the end of the day as long as you know you're right and everyone else in the world is stupid, who cares right?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> With the 20 year sample you provided, the average experience is 4.45years with a standard deviation of 0.38years. 70% of all samples fall within 4.83 - 4.07 years of experience. 2008 is no different.
> 
> The average age varies one standard deviation from 27.63 - 26.79.
> 
> ...


Hmmmmm. You aren't Canadian. I wonder if he will respect the numbers you posted.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I dont think mods should be calling posters ********. Why have mods if they'll do that? What do they moderate?

Adam is 25 anyways, he's done in about 3 years. We can just make that kid that keeps posting about the heat and Derrick Rose mod.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> You're taking the mean of means and I already said that the data is becoming more like the earlier time points. Of course the '80's points shift the mean but if you just look at the trends then you can see the league is getting younger. All you're stating is that it's not significantly different than it was including the past 20 years. Which I've consistently said. I said it's getting more like it was 20 years ago.
> 
> But on top of that the current trend hasn't bottomed out yet. I've heard that career length is below four years now and it's still going lower. Players are even younger today than they were in 2008.


Nope. Guess he won't.

Sorry Hyperion.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Hmmmmm. You aren't Canadian. I wonder if he will respect the numbers you posted.


Why wouldn't I respect his numbers? They don't go against anything I've said. I said that 2008 was the lowest in 20 years, meaning it reflects earlier timepoints. Obviously it would be within standard deviation.

What I did say was that today's average career is less than four years and players are younger than ever. He told you the mean and the standard deviation. < 4.00 is outside the standard deviation range of 4.07 so the career length today is in fact significantly shorter today than it has ever been. Which was my "theory."


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I dont think mods should be calling posters ********. Why have mods if they'll do that? What do they moderate?
> 
> Adam is 25 anyways, he's done in about 3 years. We can just make that kid that keeps posting about the heat and Derrick Rose mod.


Why trade for an Adam when I can draft a Timmy?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Why trade for an Adam when I can draft a Timmy?


Serious question, weren't you done with this board? I remember something you wrote around Christmas.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Why wouldn't I respect his numbers? They don't go against anything I've said. I said that 2008 was the lowest in 20 years, meaning it reflects earlier timepoints. Obviously it would be within standard deviation.
> 
> What I did say was that today's average career is less than four years and players are younger than ever. He told you the mean and the standard deviation. < 4.00 is outside the standard deviation range of 4.07 so the career length today is in fact significantly shorter today than it has ever been. Which was my "theory."


I only have to go one sentance in and its already wrong. 2008 _was not the lowest in 20 years_

Where is the formula showing Chris Paul is no Norris Cole?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Serious question, weren't you done with this board? I remember something you wrote around Christmas.


I came back for the utter joy of posting with guys like you.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Where is the formula showing Chris Paul is no Norris Cole?


This was addressed earlier in the thread. The thread you didn't read.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> This was addressed earlier in the thread. The thread you didn't read.


I read it. I missed your formula for it though. Can you post the forumla again? It's part of your theory correct?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> I read it.


We both know you didn't. You only just read the first post an hour ago by your own admission.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I read it. I missed your formula for it though. Can you post the forumla again? It's part of your theory correct?


He didn't say that, he said in 3 years Paul will be done like Kobe supposedly is now (which he later went back on).


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

For the record Chris Paul was at Wake Forest for 2 years, however he was slightly younger than most players who entered the league with two years of college experience. I think he was still 19 for a month or so after his college career ended. When he was drafted the Hawks took Marvin Williams 2nd and everyone said Williams had all sorts of potential. However he was a couple of months younger than Paul and had been a small factor in a conference that Paul had dominated. 

When Paul came into the NBA scouts were thinking rather similarly to this nonsense, he was not tall enough and did not have elite athleticism, wasn't jumping over people and doing triple somersaults over 7 footers...and you'd be able to find a lot of strong posters saying that he was not going to be a good NBA player because of that. So since Paul was never supposed to be a great NBA player it's not surprising that people want to claim he won't be one in the future.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> He didn't say that, he said in 3 years Paul will be done like Kobe supposedly is now (which he later went back on).


I never went back on that. Kobe is done (as a superstar). He's not a top 5 player or a top 5 passer like Ricky Rubio.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> I never went back on that. Kobe is done (as a superstar). He's not a top 5 player or a top 5 passer like Ricky Rubio.


Now, this is just my opinion here, so bear with me, but I would have thought 4th in league scoring would show a player _isn't_ done. But that's just me.

I guess with 7 less point per game and worse in every statistic, Wade is more done then Kobe.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Kobe is finished


You're right, you never said he was done. You said he was finished.


This thread sure is a ton of fun.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Adam said:


> I never went back on that. Kobe is done (as a superstar). He's not a top 5 player or a top 5 passer like Ricky Rubio.


You went back on Paul no longer being a factor in 3 years, not Kobe.

Kobe and gasol are done. Lakers shouldn't win 36 games right? Especially when they face Rubio 3 times.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> You're right, you never said he was done. You said he was finished.
> 
> 
> This thread sure is a ton of fun.


I'll say he's done and I'll say he's finished (as a superstar). Fire up your thesaurus and I'll plug in some more.



Jamel Irief said:


> You went back on Paul no longer being a factor in 3 years, not Kobe.
> 
> Kobe and gasol are done. Lakers shouldn't win 36 games right?


I said Paul won't be a superstar in 3 years. I picked the Lakers to finish 4th in the West.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Adam said:


> I'll say he's done and I'll say he's finished (as a superstar). Fire up your thesaurus and I'll plug in some more.
> 
> 
> 
> I said Paul won't be a superstar in 3 years. I picked the Lakers to finish 4th in the West.


Paul will still be younger than the last 4 finals MVPs in 3 years. You responded by saying "well he'll still win you a lot of games." which means this thread is a waste of time. 

How are the lakers going to finish 4th when their top two players are done and the third is an inferior center to deandre Jordan? Must be Metta World Peace.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> I'll say he's done and I'll say he's finished (as a superstar). Fire up your thesaurus and I'll plug in some more.
> 
> 
> 
> I said Paul won't be a superstar in 3 years. I picked the Lakers to finish 4th in the West.


I'm sorry, but nowhere did it say "as a superstar". If I fire up my thesarus as you've asked me to, are you going to argue with it and add brackets like (as a superstar) like you're doing with us?

This is priceless.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Paul will still be younger than the last 4 finals MVPs in 3 years. You responded by saying "well he'll still win you a lot of games." which means this thread is a waste of time.


Because players past their prime statistically decline every year? If he's old he's going to start declining. It matters to the Clippers who have to make trades to build a contender and properly evaluate their team.



> How are the lakers going to finish 4th when their top two players are done and the third is an inferior center to deandre Jordan? Must be Metta World Peace.


The Pistons won a championship without any superstars. You guys are good enough for a 2nd round exit, don't worry.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Because players past their prime statistically decline every year? If he's old he's going to start declining. It matters to the Clippers who have to make trades to build a contender and properly evaluate their team.
> 
> 
> 
> The Pistons won a championship without any superstars. You guys are good enough for a 2nd round exit, don't worry.


You do understand that you giving anyone advice on their own team at this point is probably the most laughable thing I've seen in days right?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

The worst part of all of this is waiting the 3 years to bump this thread only to see this post:



Adam said:


> Guys, I'm not changing anything. I said in 3 years Chris Paul will done (being a star and is now a superstar). You guys are just helping prove my point!


Adding ( and ) has really made Adam the greatest poster on the site.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> I'm sorry, but nowhere did it say "as a superstar". If I fire up my thesarus as you've asked me to, are you going to argue with it and add brackets like (as a superstar) like you're doing with us?
> 
> This is priceless.


What's more likely, that I was saying he was done as a basketball player or that he was done as a superstar. The latter was obviously implied. It's so obvious that it need not even be stated. Except people like you need to have the obvious stated. I think the average literacy rate on this board is declining. I'll do a study and come up with a formula.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Peja is done.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Tom said:


> Peja is done.


(as a basketball player).


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> What's more likely, that I was saying he was done as a basketball player or that he was done as a superstar. The latter was obviously implied. It's so obvious that it need not even be stated. Except people like you need to have the obvious stated. I think the average literacy rate on this board is declining. I'll do a study and come up with a formula.


(Will the formula contain brackets?)


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Adam said:


> You're taking the mean of means and I already said that the data is becoming more like the earlier time points. Of course the '80's points shift the mean but if you just look at the trends then you can see the league is getting younger. *All you're stating is that it's not significantly different than it was including the past 20 years. Which I've consistently said. I said it's getting more like it was 20 years ago.
> *


You just contradicted yourself here. If the past 20 years are indifferent to 20 years ago, then there has been no real change to the average anything in the NBA other than height and weight, which I will agree with you that the average player is shorter and stronger.



> But on top of that the current trend hasn't bottomed out yet. I've heard that career length is below four years now and it's still going lower. Players are even younger today than they were in 2008.


 When you look at a two tailed t test you can see that 95% of all results will be within the range of [26.842, 27.585] and experience is [4.109, 4.789]. Therefore, there is no real statistical anomaly. Fact.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

R-Star said:


> (Will the formula contain brackets?)


yes


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I wonder how you use data for ordinary players and then make the leap to somehow superstars becoming less relevant in some hypothetical way. Most NBA players are not good enough to stick in the NBA, everyone knows this and it is not worth ten words discussing it. They come and go like cabs in front of an airport terminal. The really great players are sometimes reliant about their physical height or size and athleticism...those guys usually peak out sooner. The guys who can adjust their games as they get older prolong their careers. Everyone knows all of that and there's not a damned thing in this cracked pot theory that contradicts common knowledge. The whole thing boils down to one person's opinion, but there is no further basis to it.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I'll enjoy reading Adams reply tomorrow.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Hyperion said:


> You just contradicted yourself here. If the past 20 years are indifferent to 20 years ago, then there has been no real change to the average anything in the NBA other than height and weight, which I will agree with you that the average player is shorter and stronger.


I was saying that the final data points reflect the early ones. Somebody just has to look at the list and see they are within the distribution so obviously they can't be significantly different.



> When you look at a two tailed t test you can see that 95% of all results will be within the range of [26.842, 27.585] and experience is [4.109, 4.789]. Therefore, there is no real statistical anomaly. Fact.


I'm confused. Just taking the experience list, you're contradicting yourself. You said yourself you did a t test and the mean is 4.45 and the standard deviation is 0.38. I claimed that the mean today today is below 4.00. That's a statistically significant mean, how are you saying it's not?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Yea Adam, Kobe seems pretty done to me.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Yea Adam, Kobe seems pretty done to me.


Yeah, he ****ing sucks. This is definitely not a league for old men.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I have a feeling he won't post back in this thread until Kobe has a bad game.


----------



## goodfoot (Feb 28, 2009)

R-Star said:


> Yea Adam, Kobe seems pretty done to me.


I was just about to bump this too, lol.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

goodfoot said:


> I was just about to bump this too, lol.


Great minds..


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Steroids are awesome!


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HGH brah. Keeps you young.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I'd wait for the (regular) season to end first. It's been 13 days since the last post. There is still almost four full months of basketball left before the playoffs.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Sorry, I can just draft Norris Cole.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Adam said:


> B) You're wrong. The average age of careers has shortened and players are retiring at younger ages. And the talent is getting good enough nowadays that player slowdowns are noticeable into the 20's not the 30's. LeBron already looks less athletic and he's in his mid 20's.


Did you not read the encyclopedic list of all time greats that were actually _finished_ at 30? And by "finished" I don't mean "fell off from peak performance" I mean "Were trying to figure out what to do now that basketball is over". You have no idea what you're talking about.

And LeBron _should_ look less athletic in his mid 20s, the average human male begins physical decline at age 21. For elite athletes peak run & jump athleticism might last a little longer than that, but nearly everyone is in decline by age 25 (unless they're using steroids to boost testosterone). A player's peak production years tend, and always have tended, to start around their fourth season or so and usually lasts until their late 20s, when most players' bodies begin breaking down. But the reason that peak production rarely coincides with athletic peak is that it generally takes a couple of years for players to master the game at its highest level. Peak production years did/do tend to start earlier in the high school/one & done era than in the three and out era.

You want to know something else? Despite the the difference in average _NBA_ career length in the 80s and now, I don't think that total basketball career length is really that much different if you take into consideration the average college career length of players in the 80s vs. now.



Adam said:


> I showed you that over a seven year period the average length of an NBA career decreased 16%. I've read that career length today is below 4 years. That means that over the last 12 years the average career length has decreased by 25%. If I proved your point then thanks for agreeing with me that NBA careers are finishing sooner and players are getting younger.


Where did you demonstrate that again? Because according to someone that actually conducted a study you're talking out of your ass. And the survey you posted a link to lists not the average career length in total, but the average number of years played by players active in that calendar year. So while the average NBA player might have had 4.71 years of experience in 2008, the average total career length that year was nearly seven years. 

Year to year averages are going to have swings because there isn't a huge turnover in the league from year to year, so you always run across the sample size problem, you would need to look at ten year averages to get a better number. But the average career length is still a lot more now than it was in the 80s (and mostly due to better medical treatment, drugs, nutrition, training, etc).

But there's nothing really surprising about the numbers, they show that career length peaked during the age of steroids and have declined slightly since. But that's more a function of better drug screening than anything else. 



Adam said:


> I'm confused. Just taking the experience list, you're contradicting yourself. You said yourself you did a t test and the mean is 4.45 and the standard deviation is 0.38. I claimed that the mean today today is below 4.00. That's a statistically significant mean, how are you saying it's not?


The biggest real difference is that a larger league means that there are more scrubs whose careers don't outlive their rookie deals. That combined with partial guarantees for rookie deals means that NBA careers are ending more quickly due to general suckiness. 

Gerald Green's NBA career didn't end because of age, it ended because he was as stupid as a bag of hammers and couldn't memorise a playbook. Once no one was obligated to pay him anymore, the gig was up. In the 80s and 90s players were signing guaranteed deals coming out of college and getting the benefit of contract security (pre-rookie salary scale teams were more hesitant to pull the trigger). And yet, in spite of all this, NBA careers last longer than during the 80s, when it was, allegedly, "a league for old dudes".


----------



## marcus_sr (Jan 1, 2012)

jwmann2 said:


> I'm glad someone finally sees it the way I do and realizes that they are hurting the game by coming out early and not going to college. Terrific insight. However, Paul and Howard are both fundamentally sound. They are not all athleticism and those are the players that are usually the first to go. Paul will go before Howard. What happens when he starts to slow down and loses some quickness? Will he be as dominant?


Yeah I was one of those guys who thought coming out as soon as you leave high school was a good idea. Im starting to slowly think otherwise. I would even say 1 year is not enough now, 2 years at the college level should be good though.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Nope, coming out as soon as you can is smart for the players. You make more money. Doesn't mean their careers will last longer or shorter. There are other factors that contribute to that.


----------



## marcus_sr (Jan 1, 2012)

HKF said:


> Nope, coming out as soon as you can is smart for the players. You make more money. Doesn't mean their careers will last longer or shorter. There are other factors that contribute to that.


yeah you would think the league and NCAA would have come up with some type of setup to help the players and the league. I think the best solution is to pay the college kids why they are in college. Ohio trying to pass legislation to pay all D1 atheletes 8000 a year, that my curb the enthusiasm to leave early?


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

So a player should forego the draft for college so that he can play fewer years in the pros, open himself to injury and risk ending up with a two year college scholarship and no money. College sports do not belong in universities because the ethics behind these sports run contrary to what the university strives to stand for.


----------



## marcus_sr (Jan 1, 2012)

Hyperion said:


> So a player should forego the draft for college so that he can play fewer years in the pros, open himself to injury and risk ending up with a two year college scholarship and no money. College sports do not belong in universities because the ethics behind these sports run contrary to what the university strives to stand for.


I agree about college sports, I think its down right insane , especially from a financial stand point. These universities make tons of money and share none with the student athletes who generate a large sum of it. Speaking from knowing someone who had a close friend receive some bad info and enter the draft out of highschool, he was told that he was for sure lottery and if not first round garunteed. He did not get picked until late in the second round with no garunteed money, the money he did get basically went to family. Now he is out the league and paying to go school when he had school expenses garunteed injury or not with his athletic scholarship. This is the vast majority for many of the guys who entered the draft early and that's who I think benefits the most from staying in school. Someone that I knw who got injured his senior year of high school and have not been the same since but benefiting from going to school and eventually will gain a degree is Delvon Roe a kid from my area who was a top 5 recruit and told he would be a one and done but never recovered from a knee injury, but now has the rest of his schooling paid for has a source of income in acting because of a drama course he took at michigan state. True he could have entered the draft and made more money, but his knee lasted what 2 years , how long will 2 years of an NBA salary hold you over ...not much. If your not a for sure , without a doubt first rounder or lottery pick...go to school


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Ummm.... What? Being paid a league minimum for two years is enough to retire on. You're telling me that it's a bum deal to get paid roughly $500k a year for two years instead of having school paid for and getting a 50k a year job for the rest of your life is a bum deal? You're crazy. Also, if you're injured to the point that you won't be able to fulfill your scholarship duties, they'll revoke it and you get nothing. I've seen quite a few football players go this route.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Kobe is the leading scorer in the league. Where is Adam to defend his "Kobes done" proclamation?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

He's pumping up his points in games his team would have won if he scored 20 and gave the ball to his big men. Grats to him, looks pretty on paper, but he's playing like a selfish dick and there's a reason he's leading the league in scoring and his team is lousy.

The other night he was 3-14 against Miami then he hits 5 meaningless baskets down 20 to finish something like 8-21. He's still an All Star though.

You can accuse me of backtracking but let me clarify that when I said, "He's done," I mean he's done as a superstar. He's definitely still in the top 20 but he's not the player he was. Regardless of his stats.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Adam said:


> He's pumping up his points in games his team would have won if he scored 20 and gave the ball to his big men. Grats to him, looks pretty on paper, but he's playing like a selfish dick and there's a reason he's leading the league in scoring and his team is lousy.
> 
> The other night he was 3-14 against Miami then he hits 5 meaningless baskets down 20 to finish something like 8-21. He's still an All Star though.
> 
> You can accuse me of backtracking but let me clarify that when I said, "He's done," I mean he's done as a superstar. He's definitely still in the top 20 but he's not the player he was. Regardless of his stats.


You can't name five players that have been better thus far this season then Kobe.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> You can't name five players that have been better thus far this season then Kobe.


LeBron, Chris Paul, Durant, Howard, and Rose.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Adam said:


> LeBron, *Chris Paul*, Durant, Howard, and Rose.


Sorry, I can just draft Norris Cole.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Adam said:


> He's pumping up his points in games his team would have won if he scored 20 and gave the ball to his big men. Grats to him, looks pretty on paper, but he's playing like a selfish dick and there's a reason he's leading the league in scoring and his team is lousy.
> 
> The other night he was 3-14 against Miami then he hits 5 meaningless baskets down 20 to finish something like 8-21. He's still an All Star though.
> 
> You can accuse me of backtracking but let me clarify that when I said, "He's done," I mean he's done as a superstar. He's definitely still in the top 20 but he's not the player he was. Regardless of his stats.


You are using classic trick debating techniques.

If his scoring was dwindling, you would say "no league for old men." But since he is tearing it up, you turn around your argument and say he is "being a dick," "being selfish," and "pumping up his points."

In other words, you have an answer for everything...

...but the reality of your arguments are that they are intellectually dishonest and your credibility is shot because you will write anything here to justify your argument, even if what you write is total horseshit.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Ron said:


> You are using classic trick debating techniques.
> 
> If his scoring was dwindling, *you would say* "no league for old men." But since he is tearing it up, you turn around your argument and say he is "being a dick," "being selfish," and "pumping up his points."


You obviously don't know me well enough because you're completely wrong. I don't use shitty box score data to make any prediction. I've consistently said that. That's why I'm trashing Kobe when he's high in the boxes now and I wouldn't care if he was low in them either. What matters is his impact on whether his team wins or loses and he doesn't carry a superstar's weight in that category anymore.



> In other words, you have an answer for everything...
> 
> ...but the reality of your arguments are that they are intellectually dishonest and your credibility is shot because you will write anything here to justify your argument, even if what you write is total horseshit.


The only classic debating technique here is an entire post by you attacking me and making baseless claims because you can't argue the one fact that I am using to defend my argument: winning. Kobe isn't winning. He isn't impacting winning. He isn't a defending champion (who called that last year Ron?). That's my stance.

Back to the box score data and Kobe leading the league in scoring. That scoring average includes games against scrub teams, games where he comes back in the fourth quarter down 20 and makes 5 shots. That doesn't show you that he got trounced in Miami but Chris Paul is leading the most incompetent franchise in the league to a win against that same Miami team. Not Norris Cole either.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Adam said:


> You obviously don't know me well enough because you're completely wrong. I don't use shitty box score data to make any prediction. I've consistently said that. That's why I'm trashing Kobe when he's high in the boxes now and I wouldn't care if he was low in them either. What matters is his impact on whether his team wins or loses and he doesn't carry a superstar's weight in that category anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is Wade not a superstar? The years where he was on his own ('08 - '10) he lost more games than he won. 

And I thought Chris Paul was done?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> You obviously don't know me well enough because you're completely wrong. I don't use shitty box score data to make any prediction. I've consistently said that. That's why I'm trashing Kobe when he's high in the boxes now and I wouldn't care if he was low in them either. What matters is his impact on whether his team wins or loses and he doesn't carry a superstar's weight in that category anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funny, since I watched the whole Laker game tonight and the only reason they were in it, was Kobes clutch play on both sides of the court. He was everywhere, involved in every play. 

You speak about his empty points, and stat stuffing, which is hilarious since all the while Lebron chocked again in the 4th today.

You, as per usual, have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> Is Wade not a superstar? The years where he was on his own ('08 - '10) he lost more games than he won.


Are you arguing that Kobe doesn't have help? Because that's a stupid argument.



> And I thought Chris Paul was done?


He will be in three years. He's currently a superstar on the best team in LA.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Adam said:


> Are you arguing that Kobe doesn't have help? Because that's a stupid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> He will be in three years. He's currently a superstar on the best team in LA.


You've been saying for years that Gasol was terrible. The only player besides Kobe that is worth a damn is Bynum.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I'm glad I revived this. 

No one is ever going to take you seriously again. Good work Adam.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> You've been saying for years that Gasol was terrible. The only player besides Kobe that is worth a damn is Bynum.


I used to defend Gasol, but what I saw against the Pacers from him tonight was pathetic. So its basically Kobe, Bynum and junk on nights where Gasol decideds he doesn't want to play.


----------



## rudymax34 (Jan 22, 2012)

I don't get what you're trying to prove here.
In 03-04, we had Duncan, Garnett, Mcgrady, Carter, Kobe and Shaq as the faces of the League.
in 05-06, it was still Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Shaq, but with Lebron joining the party too.
Now its Rose, Lebron, Howard, Paul, Wade, and company.
Players get old, isn't that the way its always been?
And what kobe is doing now? We've seen that before (05), where he becomes selfish and doesn't pass.
Sigh, whether or not we change the draft rules, ppl get old, no matter what.
I miss duncan and garnett, but 33-34 will always be the age where it goes downhill, how fast just depends on a players' conditioning.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Kobe hasnt been selfish in the last few games (he was in a few games earlier, especially the second half of the cleveland game)

last night Kobe was getting shots inside the offense - in fact I was really happy to see him working off picks before he got the ball - he was getting quality shots in a fashion he hasnt really ever seen before

anyway if Kobe wants to be selfish that's fine with me as long as he does so efficiently - he's the only guy on the team who can create his own shot

Pau has been timid and inconsistent (and missing wide open 15 footers) 

and Bynum's conditioning is poor and he's not getting into position until late in the clock (he's almost always the last player up court) 

neither of which are Kobe's fault


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> I used to defend Gasol, but what I saw against the Pacers from him tonight was pathetic. So its basically Kobe, Bynum and junk on nights where Gasol decideds he doesn't want to play.


I defended the shit out of Pau from '08 - '10 because outside of the first Boston series, he didn't suck. He was wonderful on offense, above average on defense, and did most of the little things that you expect an allstar big to do. But like midway through last season he either lost interest or forgot how to play basketball, because he's been pathetic. He misses shots he used to make, he's more timid than ever, and his defense has reverted back to it's Memphis Pau matador status.

I used to sit here and try to make arguments about how as Kobe aged we'd be fine, because we had a big man who's game should remain consistent as he aged, but it's clear that that's not the case. Gasol is closer to the end of his career than Kobe is at this point.

If Bynum can get into shape and we tweak the roster here and there we should be fine as far as making the playoffs, but this team will be very lucky to advance to the second round.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> this team will be very lucky to advance to the second round.


I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. It's just a shame the mainstream media has not caught up to you on this. They knew what they were doing unloading Pau and Odom in that Chris Paul deal. Would have been an excellent move for the Lakers and Hornets.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

RollWithEm said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. It's just a shame the mainstream media has not caught up to you on this. They knew what they were doing unloading Pau and Odom in that Chris Paul deal. Would have been an excellent move for the Lakers and Hornets.


Here's to hoping that they save face and somehow obtain Dwight + shooters.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

RollWithEm said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. It's just a shame the mainstream media has not caught up to you on this. They knew what they were doing unloading Pau and Odom in that Chris Paul deal. Would have been an excellent move for the Lakers and Hornets.


The Lakers maybe, but it sucked for everyone else.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> The Lakers maybe, but it sucked for everyone else.


The argument could certainly be made that it would've sucked for the Hornets long term. Short term, though, they would've easily been a top 4 team in the west and a second-round playoff participant if healthy.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

No, they wouldn't have been a "top 4 team in the west" and would have had no prayer of making it out of the first round. Oh, and it would have left them with a rapidly aging core of thirtysomething roleplayers on high money contracts. The only team that would have benefitted was LA.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> The Lakers maybe, but it sucked for everyone else.


except that maybe the Celtics would have been able to sign West and then there's the matter of that Clippers pick which probably went from a mid first round pick to a low first round pick


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> No, they wouldn't have been a "top 4 team in the west" and would have had no prayer of making it out of the first round. Oh, and it would have left them with a rapidly aging core of thirtysomething roleplayers on high money contracts. The only team that would have benefitted was LA.


Stern was cash dumping so they could sell the team, the hornets essentially got expiring contracts and a couple 1st rounders in a decent draft for the best PG in the league - the only way that's better is situationally (i.e. they want to sell the team so they dont want to be weighed down by contracts)

and that has nothing at all to do with the fact that it's questionable that the league should be involved in those kind of decisions in the first place


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> No, they wouldn't have been a "top 4 team in the west" and would have had no prayer of making it out of the first round. Oh, and it would have left them with a rapidly aging core of thirtysomething roleplayers on high money contracts. The only team that would have benefitted was LA.


Look at Houston's team now that happens to be on a 6-game win streak.

They have Kyle Lowry, Sam Dalembert, Chandler Parsons, Chase Budinger, Pat Patterson, Jordan Hill, Courtney Lee, and Terrence Williams as their top 8 guys (not counting Martin, Scola, and Dragic who were in the trade). That unit is currently a half game out of 4th in the west. I'm not saying they will finish that way, but still.

The Hornets would have had Lamar Odom, Jarrett Jack, Emeka Okafor, Carl Landry, Trevor Ariza, Marco Belinelli, Jason Smith, and Greivis Vasquez (who they may or may not have still traded for had the trade gone through) as their 8. That is a top 4 seed in the west any way you slice it. Other than maybe Denver, OKC, and the Chris Paul Lakers, who would be better than the Hornets in the West? The Clippers with no Paul? The Mavericks with no Odom? Who's your 4th seed?

That Hornets roster would've been perfectly assembled. Ariza and Okafor are top defenders at their positions to protect Martin and Scola. The bench would've been way deeper than the current Rockets. Outside of overall team speed, where exactly is that team's weakness?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> except that maybe the Celtics would have been able to sign West and then there's the matter of that Clippers pick which probably went from a mid first round pick to a low first round pick


That's true, Boston would have benefitted from the O'Neal/Bradley for West part of the trade.



e-monk said:


> Stern was cash dumping so they could sell the team, the hornets essentially got expiring contracts and a couple 1st rounders in a decent draft for the best PG in the league - the only way that's better is situationally (i.e. they want to sell the team so they dont want to be weighed down by contracts)
> 
> and that has nothing at all to do with the fact that it's questionable that the league should be involved in those kind of decisions in the first place


The league owns the team. Two owners have no right, in any way you look at it, to demand that the rest of the owners turn over an all star in exchange for $80 million in contracts. Had LA & Houston offered to pay 100% of the contracts they were dumping on the NBA, the deal would have gone through. But they wanted the rest of the NBA to subsidize them, and that's the bottom line. 

As for the franchise, two playoff home games this year and next, followed by an implosion actually hurts, and not helps the franchise. 2012 and 2013 are going to be surer bets, draftwise, for the fact that there were very few early entries in 2011. So this year and next are the years to bottom out, because these picks have better odds and more trade value.



RollWithEm said:


> Look at Houston's team now that happens to be on a 6-game win streak.
> 
> They have Kyle Lowry, Sam Dalembert, Chandler Parsons, Chase Budinger, Pat Patterson, Jordan Hill, Courtney Lee, and Terrence Williams as their top 8 guys (not counting Martin, Scola, and Dragic who were in the trade). That unit is currently a half game out of 4th in the west. I'm not saying they will finish that way, but still.
> 
> ...


No real primary scorer (Little K-Mart is really more of a sidekick), no NBA quality point guard to get him (and everyone else) easier shots (I know it's popular to look down on Lowry, but he's been absolutely one of the five best at the point spot this season), no overabundance of young players to survive the current schedule. Should I go on? 

The schedule has absolutely helped (or hurt depending on your perspective) teams like Houston & Cleveland, who have scads of young players that can survive these four games in six night/ six games in ten nights stretches. Unfortunately the Hornets wouldn't have got those guys. They would have had the old ones instead. They would be in exactly the same boat as Boston & LA. Only without the winning.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Adam said:


> Are you arguing that Kobe doesn't have help? Because that's a stupid argument.


That's YOUR argument Adam. Do you not remember what you said about Gasol and Bynum in these forums? Maybe you have some stat or formula that shows that Barnes and Fisher are above average starters?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> That's YOUR argument Adam. Do you not remember what you said about Gasol and Bynum in these forums? Maybe you have some stat or formula that shows that Barnes and Fisher are above average starters?


Last season back in November '10, I said Gasol was having a garbage year. I kept it up consistently pointing out that he was playing badly. The funny thing? There's no benefit to being ahead of the masses with stuff like that. All that happens is people disagree with you and say you don't know shit, and then when it comes true nobody is bumping those posts. The archivist is only looking for the stuff you get wrong to bump.

I said Gasol was no longer a top 20 player (I said this last year when people were still calling him a top 2 center). Said he wasn't top 5 at his position. Said he was playing like garbage.

But my exact quote back in April was he's not a top 20 player but he's still an All Star. Like a David West tier. I don't know when it became necessary to have to have every player on your roster a superstar. An above average PF does not equal Kobe not having help.

What did I say about Bynum? I don't think I've ever trashed Bynum. I think he's injury prone and hasn't proven anything but I don't think I've ever said he sucks because I don't think he does. I think he's a probably a top 5 center right now.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Adam said:


> Last season back in November '10, I said Gasol was having a garbage year. I kept it up consistently pointing out that he was playing badly. The funny thing? There's no benefit to being ahead of the masses with stuff like that. All that happens is people disagree with you and say you don't know shit, and then when it comes true nobody is bumping those posts. The archivist is only looking for the stuff you get wrong to bump.
> 
> I said Gasol was no longer a top 20 player (I said this last year when people were still calling him a top 2 center). Said he wasn't top 5 at his position. Said he was playing like garbage.
> 
> ...


So since Pau is playing worse now than he was last regular season that implies that you still think he's garbage, correct? And it's common knowledge that the Lakers have the worst point guard rotation in the league, right? That leaves Andrew Bynum as the only other above average NBA player on the roster other than a 33 year old Kobe, and they are playing better than .500 ball despite players missing games and playing the toughest schedule in the league?

Call me crazy, but methinks this Laker supporting cast isn't as good as everyone makes it out to be. We're not in 2009 anymore. The fact that a 16 year vet is leading a mediocre at best team to a winning record while throwing up roughly 30/6/6 completely destroys the entire crux of your argument. An old man is dominating in the apparent young man's league.

As a Laker fan there is a small light at the end of the tunnel, even barring a Dwight trade. As the season progress Andrew will hopefully get in better shape and become more comfortable in the flow of the offense, and will be able to take some of the pressure off of Kobe. We're sure as shit not winning anything with the roster as currently constructed, but we could be a tough out with a Kobe-Bynum duo even if they are surrounded by a bunch of garbage + Pau.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> So since Pau is playing worse now than he was last regular season that implies that you still think he's garbage, correct? And it's common knowledge that the Lakers have the worst point guard rotation in the league, right? That leaves Andrew Bynum as the only other above average NBA player on the roster other than a 33 year old Kobe, and they are playing better than .500 ball despite players missing games and playing the toughest schedule in the league?
> 
> Call me crazy, but methinks this Laker supporting cast isn't as good as everyone makes it out to be. We're not in 2009 anymore. The fact that a 16 year vet is leading a mediocre at best team to a winning record while throwing up roughly 30/6/6 completely destroys the entire crux of your argument. An old man is dominating in the apparent young man's league.
> 
> As a Laker fan there is a small light at the end of the tunnel, even barring a Dwight trade. As the season progress Andrew will hopefully get in better shape and become more comfortable in the flow of the offense, and will be able to take some of the pressure off of Kobe. We're sure as shit not winning anything with the roster as currently constructed, but we could be a tough out with a Kobe-Bynum duo even if they are surrounded by a bunch of garbage + Pau.


You said I couldn't name five better players and I did. Easily. There are even more players (a healthy Wade for instance) that will push Kobe down further relative to his peers.

I know where he stands in the league right now. I know what weight he carries toward winning and losing in this league. He isn't top 5 (I already answered you there) and he isn't a superstar. I don't care that he's averaging 30/6/6 in January against lockout teams.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Adam said:


> Last season back in November '10, I said Gasol was having a garbage year. I kept it up consistently pointing out that he was playing badly. The funny thing? There's no benefit to being ahead of the masses with stuff like that. All that happens is people disagree with you and say you don't know shit, and then when it comes true nobody is bumping those posts. The archivist is only looking for the stuff you get wrong to bump.
> 
> I said Gasol was no longer a top 20 player (I said this last year when people were still calling him a top 2 center). Said he wasn't top 5 at his position. Said he was playing like garbage.
> 
> ...


So according to you Kobe has an above average pf and a top 5 center. What else? Anything? What do you think of fisher? MWP? Darius Morris? Josh mcroberts? Where do you rank the lakers bench?

Superstar at every position? The lakers have none right?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Do you think if Kobe played for the Bulls I would be saying anything else? He doesn't dominate games and impact winning and losing and that is independent of his teammates. I refuse to acknowledge a non top 5 player as a superstar. I will never do it.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Adam said:


> You said I couldn't name five better players and I did. Easily. There are even more players (a healthy Wade for instance) that will push Kobe down further relative to his peers.
> 
> I know where he stands in the league right now. I know what weight he carries toward winning and losing in this league. He isn't top 5 (I already answered you there) and he isn't a superstar. I don't care that he's averaging 30/6/6 in January against lockout teams.


Except you didn't. Chris Paul and his cute 18/8 average while going to war with the likes of Blake Griffin is in no way, shape, or form better than Kobe and what he has done with the Lakers. Especially considering that the Clippers have only played 14 games and aren't exactly setting the league on fire. The only players that have played up to Kobe's standards this season are LeBron, Durant, Rose, and Dwight. That's four, making Kobe fifth. This isn't complicated.

And I'm not getting the Wade nomination - his team has played every bit as well without him as they were with him, and even when he is playing he's not even pushing 20 a game. From a scoring guard. Talk about him playing injured all you want, the fact of the matter is that he has been an inferior player so far.

PS: lol at the "lockout teams" like it only applies to Kobe. I guess 'Bron's season is a huge pile of mediocre because he's shitting on lockout teams too, right? Oh no, that would inconvience your ridiculous argument.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Adam said:


> Do you think if Kobe played for the Bulls I would be saying anything else? He doesn't dominate games and impact winning and losing and that is independent of his teammates. I refuse to acknowledge a non top 5 player as a superstar. I will never do it.


So vanillas point stands, neither does wade. 

Who ironically just turned 30 and is therefore done.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> Except you didn't. Chris Paul and his cute 18/8 average while going to war with the likes of Blake Griffin is in no way, shape, or form better than Kobe and what he has done with the Lakers. Especially considering that the Clippers have only played 14 games and aren't exactly setting the league on fire. The only players that have played up to Kobe's standards this season are LeBron, Durant, Rose, and Dwight. That's four, making Kobe fifth. This isn't complicated.
> 
> And I'm not getting the Wade nomination - his team has played every bit as well without him as they were with him, and even when he is playing he's not even pushing 20 a game. From a scoring guard. Talk about him playing injured all you want, the fact of the matter is that he has been an inferior player so far.
> 
> PS: lol at the "lockout teams" like it only applies to Kobe. I guess 'Bron's season is a huge pile of mediocre because he's shitting on lockout teams too, right? Oh no, that would inconvience your ridiculous argument.


Except I don't need to use stats to justify a rating of LeBron (and LeBron just happens to have the highest PER in NBA history against these shitty lockout teams showing you how unreliable stats are right now). I don't use box score averages for the last time. I don't care that Kobe can drop 40 against Cleveland. That means nothing to me. You take your 30/6/6 Kobe and I'll take 18/8 Chris Paul. You will lose and look good in the box score and I will win.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

There are a number of posters on this board who are convinced of their infallibility regardless of anything you might have to say on the matter. It's a waste of time to argue with them.

They're always right...until they're wrong. See: Hawks over Bulls, last year's playoffs.

Discussion's great (and why we're here), but at some point you're just better off saving the time and energy.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

King Joseus said:


> There are a number of posters on this board who are convinced of their infallibility regardless of anything you might have to say on the matter. It's a waste of time to argue with them.
> 
> They're always right...until they're wrong. See: Hawks over Bulls, last year's playoffs.
> 
> Discussion's great (and why we're here), but at some point you're just better off saving the time and energy.


I'm convinced of my infallibility? I happily admit when I'm wrong but am I supposed to admit to being wrong when they go out of their way to bump posts to try and prove me wrong? I said at the start of this thread that Kobe is no longer a top 5 player. They want to bump it after he scores 40 a couple times in January of a lockout season but sorry I'm not going to take him in the top 5. Are you? What has changed?

Like I said, Jamel doesn't go out of his way to bump the ones you get right. This is the point where I can brag about a dozen predictions I got right but I won't do that because I'll just come off looking like a douche. And in three years when Chris Paul isn't All NBA (that cute 18/8 already has some people saying he isn't even top 5 today) Jamel won't dare bump this thread.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Adam said:


> Except I don't need to use stats to justify a rating of LeBron (and LeBron just happens to have the highest PER in NBA history against these shitty lockout teams showing you how unreliable stats are right now). I don't use box score averages for the last time. I don't care that Kobe can drop 40 against Cleveland. That means nothing to me. *You take your 30/6/6 Kobe and I'll take 18/8 Chris Paul. You will lose and look good in the box score and I will win*.


The numbers aren't unreliable. LeBron has been posting historic PERs since 2008. According to PER he has been better than Jordan for years. But I understand ignoring that, because dodging realities and making things up are probably your only way of saving face at this point.

As for that bolded part... What exactly will you win? You realize you are defending the injury prone point guard that has been to the second round once in six years of trying, correct? And you also realize that you are defending him against a five time champion (seven time finalist) that is currently playing at a level similar to when he was winning Finals MVPs every year? Sounds to me like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

The entire premise of this thread is stupid and has been dismissed by the basketball that we've seen over the last month or so. But I get it, you got called out and you are willing to spit whatever ridiculous theories come to your head to try and save face, cool. But just know that you sound ridiculous.

That was a great job dodging the Wade part of my last post too, Adam. 

Just for lols, does this mean that when Norris Cole is 26 he will be a top five player too? Just like Chris Paul right?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Yeah, I get it. It's just silly for there to be all this back and forth when it's not going to lead to a change of opinion on either side. This thread should never have been bumped.

Each side's got their stance, and their reasons why they believe it. It just turns into beating a dead horse after a while.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> The numbers aren't unreliable. LeBron has been posting historic PERs since 2008. According to PER he has been better than Jordan for years. But I understand ignoring that, because dodging realities and making things up are probably your only way of saving face at this point.
> 
> As for that bolded part... What exactly will you win? You realize you are defending the injury prone point guard that has been to the second round once in six years of trying, correct? And you also realize that you are defending him against a five time champion (seven time finalist) that is currently playing at a level similar to when he was winning Finals MVPs every year? Sounds to me like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> The entire premise of this thread is stupid and has been dismissed by the basketball that we've seen over the last month or so. But I get it, you got called out and you are willing to spit whatever ridiculous theories come to your head to try and save face, cool. But just know that you sound ridiculous.


What the **** are you talking about? I'm spitting ridiculous theories? You are the ones who bumped this not me. I said Kobe isn't top 5 and R-Star wanted to be cute and bump it and ask if I still felt the same, I do. I don't care about any of that champion nonsense, PER, or anything else you're talking about. What a bunch of drivel. What is it that you want from me?

As Joseus said, this is beating a dead horse. I don't consider Kobe top 5 and I haven't changed my mind in the past two weeks since I wrote it. It has nothing to do with theories or "saving face."



> That was a great job dodging the Wade part of my last post too, Adam.


What did I dodge? Did I list Wade in my top 5 this year? Didn't I say I'm not calling anybody outside the top 5 a superstar? Can't you conclude that Wade isn't having a superstar year? Last year he was better than LeBron and certainly a superstar. I'm not writing him off yet. He's 30 but I think he can recover from that sprained ankle.



> Just for lols, does this mean that when Norris Cole is 26 he will be a top five player too? Just like Chris Paul right?


I said young talent like Norris Cole is quickening the expiration date of players like Chris Paul. I specifically said that doesn't mean Norris Cole is a superstar. I'm sorry you can't understand that concept.

And I'm not infallible (I was completely wrong about Rose, Joseus) but I'm a shit ton more accurate than some people (VP and Ron):

http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-...78-current-odds-win-nba-finals-4-14-11-a.html

You had Dallas too in the summer and then April, right Jose? Or do you just look at Atlanta vs. Chicago?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Oh, I was definitely wrong in the playoffs too. My interest in the Finals was (understandably) deflated after the ECF, so I didn't vote in the poll. I was definitely of the belief that the Heat had it in the bag, but then the Finals went and surprised a number of folks.

I know enough to know that nothing's set in stone. There are "expected" outcomes that I'll root for or against depending on how my team's affected. I generally don't pick against my team, but that's just fandom at work. I don't mind being wrong in those cases.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Adam said:


> What the **** are you talking about? I'm spitting ridiculous theories? You are the ones who bumped this not me. I said Kobe isn't top 5 and R-Star wanted to be cute and bump it and ask if I still felt the same, I do. I don't care about any of that champion nonsense, PER, or anything else you're talking about. What a bunch of drivel. What is it that you want from me?
> 
> As Joseus said, this is beating a dead horse. I don't consider Kobe top 5 and I haven't changed my mind in the past two weeks since I wrote it. It has nothing to do with theories or "saving face."
> 
> ...


The premise of this thread is a ridiculous theory. And I'm not the one that bumped this thread, so you're wrong again.

You don't consider Kobe a top five player. Fine. But he is, and he absolutely has been one of the five most impressive players in the association this year, and you being blind to this fact does not change it.

You've spent this entire page dodging and running away. I don't need to elaborate when you can simply reread through it.

Your top five is wrong, and the fact that you believe that there can't be more than five superstars in a league at any given time is ridiculous. In 1988 the top players were Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Isaih Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, and Karl Malone among others. Are these guys all not superstars simply because there are more than five of them? That's ridiculous.

Norris Cole is not making Chris Paul sweat. That I can assure you. He's a mediocre rookie that plays on the best team in basketball, he will never be half of the player that a peak Paul was.

Your theory has been proved wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes, myself included. But I don't spend pages trying to defend myself and rewrite history to save face. You do.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> The premise of this thread is a ridiculous theory.


That's your opinion.



> And I'm not the one that bumped this thread, so you're wrong again.


I said "ones." You're participating in the discussion that was bumped. So I'm not wrong again. If you're going to be a pedant I can be as well.



> You don't consider Kobe a top five player. Fine. But he is, and he absolutely has been one of the five most impressive players in the association this year, and you being blind to this fact does not change it.


This is just annoying. I've already said that we don't agree. Move on already.



> You've spent this entire page dodging and running away. I don't need to elaborate when you can simply reread through it.


Again with this running away stuff? I'm replying to every post, where am I running away? The thread was bumped to ask me what I think about Kobe now and I answered. You don't like my answer, but I answered. That's the exact opposite of running away, chief.



> Your top five is wrong, and the fact that you believe that there can't be more than five superstars in a league at any given time is ridiculous. In 1988 the top players were Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Isaih Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, and Karl Malone among others. Are these guys all not superstars simply because there are more than five of them? That's ridiculous.


I actually only think there is one superstar this year. Maybe two.



> Norris Cole is not making Chris Paul sweat. That I can assure you. He's a mediocre rookie that plays on the best team in basketball, he will never be half of the player that a peak Paul was.


I didn't say Norris Cole the person is making Chris Paul sweat. Get some reading comprehension. I said young talented guard play like with Norris Cole, Ty Lawson, etc. is hastening the maturation of star players.



> Your theory has been proved wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes, myself included. But I don't spend pages trying to defend myself and rewrite history to save face. You do.


You keep discussing my theory despite the fact that this thread was bumped to discuss Kobe, a tangential argument to my theory. You're obfuscating and discussing two different things. Now I'm rewriting history? You're too much.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> There are a number of posters on this board who are convinced of their infallibility regardless of anything you might have to say on the matter. It's a waste of time to argue with them.
> 
> They're always right...until they're wrong. See: Hawks over Bulls, last year's playoffs.
> 
> Discussion's great (and why we're here), but at some point you're just better off saving the time and energy.


Its funny though. Adam is a running joke. He spends so much time on his posts, you can see him squirm and struggle to make a reply, and its just hilarious to know he puts so much effort into his post, all the while not realizing hes at best a novelty act around here. Not one person respects his opinion, hes just fun to laugh at.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Its funny though. Adam is a running joke. He spends so much time on his posts, you can see him squirm and struggle to make a reply, and its just hilarious to know he puts so much effort into his post, all the while not realizing hes at best a novelty act around here. Not one person respects his opinion, hes just fun to laugh at.


You're a regular poster on this board now? Since when?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Oh, and lets just come out and explain how ridiculous it is for you to "Judge players on their games, and not their stats" when you've hardly seen Kobe play at all this year.


Please, feel free to spout something about league pass, and how you watch every game of every team. You're full of shit, and that's why I bumped this thread. Its been amazing.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> You're a regular poster on this board now? Since when?


Quite some time. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Oh, and lets just come out and explain how ridiculous it is for you to "Judge players on their games, and not their stats" when you've hardly seen Kobe play at all this year.
> 
> 
> Please, feel free to spout something about league pass, and how you watch every game of every team. You're full of shit, and that's why I bumped this thread. Its been amazing.


I've seen Kobe play at least 10 times.




R-Star said:


> Quite some time. Thanks for the reply.


No, you're actually not. In between posting only in EBB, sitting on your couch drunk and unemployed spending your wife's money, and being banned you've never participated in game threads or started any thought-provoking basketball related discussions. There is a novelty joke around here and it's not me.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> I've seen Kobe play at least 10 times.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You do realize I've been one of the most active game thread posters over the last year correct?

You do realize I was given a mod job, and a free lifetime membership for my basketball related contributions in this forums early years correct?

You do realize that while I lost my job during a global recession, I make more money than you could ever hope to make, correct?

But hey, we all see what you're trying to do here. We're not going to lock this thread to try to help you move past this. You made your stupid, ignorant comments, and you're going to have to live with them.



"I've watched Kobe 10 times this year! At least. Probably more like 20!" :laugh: what a lying joke you are. 


Mods, don't worry, I'm not going tot keep this going past this post.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Adam said:


> That's your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's been the opinion of every single person that replied in this thread.

Okay.

You're incorrect. That's fine.

You dodge points and counterpoints and only choose to respond to things that you have fabricated a myth about.

That's stupid. I'd safely call LeBron, Durant, Rose, Kobe, and Dwight superstars right now. D-Wade too once he returns to form.

Norris Cole is not hastening anything. He's not very good. He is not a bleep on Chris Paul or any other elite player's radar and never will be. The premise that these guys will be done by 30 was ridiculous then and it's ridiculous now. People have constantly and consistently debunked your theory and your hypothesis through this thread but you maintain that everyone is wrong and that you are smarter than stupid posters like me and Ron. That's cute. Completely incorrect, but cute.

Kobe is more than a tangential argument to your theory because he has single handidly debunked it over the last four weeks. And you don't like that so you've been spending hours on here trying to reevaluate your theory to paint a NBA where a 33 year old putting up 30/6/6 is not impressive. I'm not even a big numbers or stats guy, but anyone can look at that and say that at the very least he is playing great basketball.

Bu...Bu...But shitty lockout competition!!!!!


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> You do realize I've been one of the most active game thread posters over the last year correct?


No, you haven't. And how many threads have you started in the NBA General forum? Two threads. That's how many. In 13 months.



> You do realize I was given a mod job, and a free lifetime membership for my basketball related contributions in this forums early years correct?


You do realize you've been banned a dozen times and you're now calling a mod and a better poster than you a novelty act? That's ironic.



> You do realize that while I lost my job during a global recession, I make more money than you could ever hope to make, correct?


You do realize you don't, and you proved during that period what kind of man you are. As you have with your drunken disrespectful posting history towards posters on this forum.



> But hey, we all see what you're trying to do here. We're not going to lock this thread to try to help you move past this. You made your stupid, ignorant comments, and you're going to have to live with them.


This is the closest you come to basketball discussion. Live it up.



> "I've watched Kobe 10 times this year! At least. Probably more like 20!" :laughing: what a lying joke you are.


There is a search function genius. Search between the start and close of last season and look at my game day thread posts in this forum, live blogging Lakers games. You'll notice yourself absent.



> Mods, don't worry, I'm not going tot keep this going past this post.


Yeah, because you have a reputation to uphold. You take pride in your posting history on this forum?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Thought I'd point out also, its pretty funny you put Wade in the "transcendent" category, or whatever dumb shit you spouted about not slowing down due to age and injury, yet Miami currently has him sitting, and Kobe is playing a ton of minutes and using his athleticism to keep his team in games. 

Oh, and your original point was about players slowing down due to age. Not Kobe being top 5 or not. You seem to be confused after you changed your opinion every page after getting laughed at. Kobe looks like he hasn't missed a beat so far this year, which was the whole point of bumping this thread and having a laugh.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> No, you haven't. And how many threads have you started in the NBA General forum? Two threads. That's how many. In 13 months.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I won't keep this going, since its obvious to anyone what you're attempting to get done (locking the thread)

But I will say, if you haven't seen me in game threads, it speaks volumes to just how little you post about basketball on here. Every other poster who posted in this thread today has posted with me in multiple game threads, not to mention I made a game thread yesterday.

Again, its pretty clear you just don't follow basketball outside the Heat, so its not surprising you have no idea what you're talking about with basketball, or me as a poster.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Thought I'd point out also, its pretty funny you put Wade in the "transcendent" category, or whatever dumb shit you spouted about not slowing down due to age and injury, yet Miami currently has him sitting, and Kobe is playing a ton of minutes and using his athleticism to keep his team in games.


Wade has a sprained ankle, what's your point?



> Oh, and your original point was about players slowing down due to age. Not Kobe being top 5 or not. You seem to be confused after you changed your opinion every page after getting laughed at. Kobe looks like he hasn't missed a beat so far this year, which was the whole point of bumping this thread and having a laugh.


My _theory_ was regarding the shortening of careers and players not remaining superstars as long. My opinion of Kobe was singled out and became a tangential argument. You can argue whether players careers are actually shortening (my theory) or you can argue whether Kobe is a top 5 player but you can't say that it's the same argument.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Wade has a sprained ankle, what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> My _theory_ was regarding the shortening of careers and players not remaining superstars as long. My opinion of Kobe was singled out and became a tangential argument. You can argue whether players careers are actually shortening (my theory) or you can argue whether Kobe is a top 5 player but you can't say that it's the same argument.


We already argued about the shortening of careers. Multiple posters showed you your numbers were idiotic, and proved the exact opposite of what you thought you were proving. Do we really need to revisit that? 

And Kobe? Why should anyone argue with you? Anyone who has watched him and Paul play this year know there's no question who's the better player at this point. Its Kobe, without question. But you do your elementary tactic of "Well I don't look at stats, but what I've seen with my eyes is that....." really? You aren't some basketball guru. You don't have 1, not 1 post to point at where you can say "See, look at that." and have people respect your opinion. Its blunder after blunder for you, yet you come off with the air of thinking you actually know something.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> We already argued about the shortening of careers. Multiple posters showed you your numbers were idiotic, and proved the exact opposite of what you thought you were proving. Do we really need to revisit that?


Only one poster actually took the time to actually argue my points and support himself with facts. That poster is EHM. He's a great poster, and if I can't refute what he wrote (I haven't had time yet) then I have no problem with that. It was a good discussion.



> And Kobe? Why should anyone argue with you? Anyone who has watched him and Paul play this year know there's no question who's the better player at this point. Its Kobe, without question. But you do your elementary tactic of "Well I don't look at stats, but what I've seen with my eyes is that....." really? You aren't some basketball guru. You don't have 1, not 1 post to point at where you can say "See, look at that." and have people respect your opinion. Its blunder after blunder for you, yet you come off with the air of thinking you actually know something.


I thought picking Dallas last year was pretty impressive if I say so myself. I know I would respect anybody else who picked that winner. Didn't we cover just an hour ago that I said last year Pau Gasol wasn't a top 20 player anymore? I took flak for that one. I think that's pretty impressive. There's more but I don't need to defend myself. Certainly not to you...


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Only one poster actually took the time to actually argue my points and support himself with facts. That poster is EHM. He's a great poster, and if I can't refute what he wrote (I haven't had time yet) then I have no problem with that. It was a good discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought picking Dallas last year was pretty impressive if I say so myself. I know I would respect anybody else who picked that winner. Didn't we cover just an hour ago that I said last year Pau Gasol wasn't a top 20 player anymore? I took flak for that one. I think that's pretty impressive. There's more but I don't need to defend myself. Certainly not to you...


There's more? Your right, there is. We can start with the fact that Gasol is currently playing like shit, but was unarguably a top 20 player up until just before the playoffs last year, where he had a meltdown. Saying something wrong and then waiting for a guy to fall isn't clever Adam. Its stupid. I guess I should go bump my posts where I said Wade would get injured again, so I can share in your profetic limelight.


You are right though, there is more. I mean hell, you've got everyone quoting you these days with "Chris Paul? Sorry, I can just draft Norris Cole"

You see yourself as a respected poster. That's ****ing hilarious.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Oh, and both Hyperion and myself destroyed your "stats" you posted. So no, lets now try to play it off as "I haven't had the time to get back to EH yet" You ran away from the thread. The only reason you're back is because I forced you back in here.


----------



## Choco_KoBHAYter (Jan 24, 2012)

R-Star said:


> Oh, and both Hyperion and myself destroyed your "stats" you posted. So no, lets now try to play it off as "I haven't had the time to get back to EH yet" You ran away from the thread. The only reason you're back is because I forced you back in here.


Yo mama is so ugly that even Rice Krispies won't talk to her! :gunner:


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> There's more? Your right, there is. We can start with the fact that Gasol is currently playing like shit, but was unarguably a top 20 player up until just before the playoffs last year, where he had a meltdown. Saying something wrong and then waiting for a guy to fall isn't clever Adam. Its stupid. I guess I should go bump my posts where I said Wade would get injured again, so I can share in your profetic limelight.


Gasol was not playing well and it was proven when the season shortened in the playoffs.



> You are right though, there is more. I mean hell, you've got everyone quoting you these days with "Chris Paul? Sorry, I can just draft Norris Cole"
> 
> You see yourself as a respected poster. That's ****ing hilarious.


Well it's true that I haven't been banned before, so maybe we just see things differently. I also don't post like a drunk buffoon.




R-Star said:


> Oh, and both Hyperion and myself destroyed your "stats" you posted. So no, lets now try to play it off as "I haven't had the time to get back to EH yet" You ran away from the thread. The only reason you're back is because I forced you back in here.


I ran away from the forum not the thread. I was out of town. I wonder if you even know that there is a search function on this site. It would make things a lot easier if you did.

You didn't destroy anything and I didn't disagree with anything Hyperion said.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

That's why no one buys Rice Krispies anymore bro. You buy a cereal you aren't expecting it to judge you when you pour a bowl. 

We rock Cherrios up here. They're cool with whoever.


----------



## Choco_KoBHAYter (Jan 24, 2012)

Have you guys seen "first latch"?


----------



## Choco_KoBHAYter (Jan 24, 2012)

R-Star said:


> That's why no one buys Rice Krispies anymore bro. You buy a cereal you aren't expecting it to judge you when you pour a bowl.
> 
> We rock Cherrios up here. They're cool with whoever.


Some would say I have 2 problems. Drinking too much, and caring too much. I'm drunk with love for you baby.

More like...Yo mama is so ugly that she practices birth control by leaving the lights on.
:glowllama:


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Gasol was not playing well and it was proven when the season shortened in the playoffs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, Hyperion and myself posted the same thing, to which you shuffled away from with weak side steps. 

And yea, there is a search function, and it shows you were around for quite a while after EH's post before you left. Pathetic. Are you assuming you can just post lies and no one will call you on it?

Meh, regardless, I'm not going to get sucked into your black hole attempts.


We'll get back to the thread.

How has Norris Cole performed this season compared to Chris "One and Done" Paul?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Choco_KoBHAYter said:


> Some would say I have 2 problems. Drinking too much, and caring too much. I'm drunk with love for you baby.
> 
> More like...Yo mama is so ugly that she practices birth control by leaving the lights on.
> :glowllama:


We don't have lights. I live in Canada. The correct term would be, leaving the candles lit.


----------



## Choco_KoBHAYter (Jan 24, 2012)

this is rstar on first date with wienertime http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lLqqR2pcws
:jr:


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Actually, Hyperion and myself posted the same thing, to which you shuffled away from with weak side steps.


I had the last post in a long discussion so how did I shuffle away?



> And yea, there is a search function, and it shows you were around for quite a while after EH's post before you left. Pathetic. Are you assuming you can just post lies and no one will call you on it?


I didn't post between 1/10 and 1/19. If you're going to post lies I'll edit your posts. You're free to act like a drunken asshole but only to a certain extent.



> Meh, regardless, I'm not going to get sucked into your black hole attempts.
> 
> 
> We'll get back to the thread.
> ...


Who cares about Norris Cole? My interest is in young, talented players like him and not him specifically.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> I had the last post in a long discussion so how did I shuffle away?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nah man, you won't edit my posts.

And now Norris Coles stats don't matter? I thought Chris Paul didn't matter, because you could just draft Norris Cole. 

Its an honest question. Hows he working out for the Heat?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Nah man, you won't edit my posts.
> 
> And now Norris Coles stats don't matter? I thought Chris Paul didn't matter, because you could just draft Norris Cole.
> 
> Its an honest question. Hows he working out for the Heat?


It's crazy that after all the time you've invested in this thread you still have yet to actually read anything before your first post.

Chris Paul won't be a superstar player in three years because young pg talent is too rich. Players like Norris Cole.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> It's crazy that after all the time you've invested in this thread you still have yet to actually read anything before your first post.
> 
> Chris Paul won't be a superstar player in three years because young pg talent is too rich. Players like Norris Cole.


Young talent? Norris Cole is 23. 3 years younger than Paul, and not fit to carry Pauls jock strap. 


Man that's funny. Cole is the answer to Chris Paul, yet right now hes terrible, and in 3 years according to you he'll be "done".


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Oh, by the way, according to you, Chris Paul is one of the 5 players better than Kobe. Also according to you, only top 5 players in the league are supserstars.


But who wants a superstar, when you can draft Norris Cole.


----------



## Choco_KoBHAYter (Jan 24, 2012)

how u like deez boobz!

these boobs as big as norris coles shooting ability!

:mrt:


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Young talent? Norris Cole is 23. 3 years younger than Paul, and not fit to carry Pauls jock strap.
> 
> 
> Man that's funny. Cole is the answer to Chris Paul, yet right now hes terrible, and in 3 years according to you he'll be "done".


The rationale is that in three years a 30 yr old Paul won't be able to maintain a superstar level relative to the young, talented 23 year olds like Norris Cole of today. That position is getting way too deep and Paul will be too far past his prime.

Sorry that theory bothers you so much. Can't we just agree to disagree? It will give us more time to talk in game threads and about Kobe and box scores.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> The rationale is that in three years a 30 yr old Paul won't be able to maintain a superstar level relative to the young, talented 23 year olds like Norris Cole of today. That position is getting way too deep and Paul will be too far past his prime.
> 
> Sorry that theory bothers you so much. Can't we just agree to disagree? It will give us more time to talk in game threads and about Kobe and box scores.


You can agree to disagree, the rest of us can agree you're just wrong. By the way, you seem to have a hard to grasping that if Paul is 3 years older, so is Norris _Nobody Cares Because Hes Not Good_ Cole. Kind of similar to when you kept saying "Against lockout teams" when talking about Kobe. 

Oh yea.... I forgot, what you _really_ meant was guys _like_ Norris Cole (even though that isn't what you originally said), and that Kobe is _done_ but only a superstar. 



Man I love this thread.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> You can agree to disagree, the rest of us can agree you're just wrong. By the way, you seem to have a hard to grasping that if Paul is 3 years older, so is Norris _Nobody Cares Because Hes Not Good_ Cole. Kind of similar to when you kept saying "Against lockout teams" when talking about Kobe.
> 
> Oh yea.... I forgot, what you _really_ meant was guys _like_ Norris Cole (even though that isn't what you originally said), and that Kobe is _done_ but only a superstar.
> 
> ...


You seem to have a hard time grasping that I don't care about Norris Cole the specific person. He's an example of the quality of young, cheap talent available in the draft nowadays. I said specifically, countless times, that I don't think Norris Cole will be as good as Chris Paul. That is not what I'm saying. I don't give a damn about Norris Cole and I haven't predicted greatness or failure or anything for him. He's an example.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> You seem to have a hard time grasping that I don't care about Norris Cole the specific person. He's an example of the quality of young, cheap talent available in the draft nowadays. I said specifically, countless times, that I don't think Norris Cole will be as good as Chris Paul. That is not what I'm saying. I don't give a damn about Norris Cole and I haven't predicted greatness or failure or anything for him. He's an example.


An example of what? Norris Cole, or a player like Norris Cole, will arguably never even be a quality starter, let alone a guy who could ever replace Chris Paul on a team. DeAndre Jordan? Hes going to bring to a team what Howard does? No. He isn't. Ever.

Its asinine. And it just proves that your understanding of basketball is a joke.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> An example of what? Norris Cole, or a player like Norris Cole, will arguably never even be a quality starter, let alone a guy who could ever replace Chris Paul on a team. DeAndre Jordan? Hes going to bring to a team what Howard does? No. He isn't. Ever.
> 
> Its asinine. And it just proves that your understanding of basketball is a joke.


Paul is a superstar PG because he's high enough above the average level of PG play to qualify as one. As the baseline PG skill rises and Paul declines as he ages he will no longer be a superstar relative to his peers. That's all that superstars are: players vastly superior than their peers. When the peers get better or you get worse (usually with age) or a combination of both (in this theory) then that's when a player stops being a superstar.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Paul is a superstar PG because he's high enough above the average level of PG play to qualify as one. As the baseline PG skill rises and Paul declines as he ages he will no longer be a superstar relative to his peers. That's all that superstars are: players vastly superior than their peers. When the peers get better or you get worse (usually with age) or a combination of both (in this theory) then that's when a player stops being a superstar.


I'll touch on the rest of your post later, but I thought you said superstars were the top 5 players in the league. Now you've changed your mind on what a superstar is? 

Do you just change your mind from post to post?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> I'll touch on the rest of your post later, but I thought you said superstars were the top 5 players in the league. Now you've changed your mind on what a superstar is?
> 
> Do you just change your mind from post to post?


Nope. I said there is only one superstar this year. I said I absolutely refuse to call somebody outside the top 5 a superstar.

But Vanilla brought up a good point. That's too restrictive. There could be years where there are more than 5 superstars (he brought up examples). He's right. I'd be willing to call a player outside the top 5 a superstar. But not this year.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Nope. I said there is only one superstar this year. I said I absolutely refuse to call somebody outside the top 5 a superstar.
> 
> But Vanilla brought up a good point. That's too restrictive. There could be years where there are more than 5 superstars (he brought up examples). He's right. I'd be willing to call a player outside the top 5 a superstar. But not this year.


So Chris Paul is a superstar, but Norris Cole negates him?

We've been over this. You haven't been able to provide a reply that doesn't look ridiculous. 


You do understand that using Norris Cole as an example of how great the PG talent is getting is idiotic right? Hell, Jamal Tinsley was drafted in 2001 and looked like a hell of a lot more promising rook, and its not as though he was a high pick. There's countless examples.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> So Chris Paul is a superstar, but Norris Cole negates him?
> 
> We've been over this. You haven't been able to provide a reply that doesn't look ridiculous.
> 
> ...


He's an example of how deep the talent at PG has gotten that he is what you get at the end of the draft, he is what you stock your bench with. The talent at that position is getting incredibly deep. To be above average as a starter you have to be better than 15 other PG's. There's Deron, Paul, Nash, Rondo, Rose, Rubio, Lawson, Felton, etc. Just to sit on the end of the bench you have to be Norris Cole. Ten years ago Jamal Tinsley was a starter and some people actually thought he was decent. The talent is growing fast.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> He's an example of how deep the talent at PG has gotten that he is what you get at the end of the draft, he is what you stock your bench with. The talent at that position is getting incredibly deep. To be above average as a starter you have to be better than 15 other PG's. There's Deron, Paul, Nash, Rondo, Rose, Rubio, Lawson, Felton, etc. Just to sit on the end of the bench you have to be Norris Cole. Ten years ago Jamal Tinsley was a starter and some people actually thought he was decent. The talent is growing fast.


How is Cole sitting on the end of the bench yet getting 20mpg? He plays for your team for gods sakes.

The Lakers are starting Derek Fisher, the Knicks PG state is pathetic, and there's others. The PG's of the 90's and early 2000's if anything better than it is today. There were a few years where it was Nash, a washed up Kidd, and not much else, so when guards like Paul, Deron, Westbrook and Rondo came into the league everyone got excited. 

The point is, we aren't seeing some sort of revolutionary PG depth, we're seeing a historic low spot being corrected.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> How is Cole sitting on the end of the bench yet getting 20mpg? He plays for your team for gods sakes.
> 
> The Lakers are starting Derek Fisher, the Knicks PG state is pathetic, and there's others. The PG's of the 90's and early 2000's if anything better than it is today. There were a few years where it was Nash, a washed up Kidd, and not much else, so when guards like Paul, Deron, Westbrook and Rondo came into the league everyone got excited.
> 
> The point is, we aren't seeing some sort of revolutionary PG depth, we're seeing a historic low spot being corrected.


Three MVP's at PG in less than a decade. Chris Paul finishing high in MVP voting. Guys like Deron and Rondo down the list. There has definitely been an explosion of PG depth. And back in the 90's you never saw two PG backcourts. I've seen more in the past year than I saw in all my years of watching 90's basketball.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Three MVP's at PG in less than a decade. Chris Paul finishing high in MVP voting. Guys like Deron and Rondo down the list. There has definitely been an explosion of PG depth. And back in the 90's you never saw two PG backcourts. I've seen more in the past year than I saw in all my years of watching 90's basketball.


The last decade you're talking about was known by many as the weakest years we've seen for PG in a long time. Naming a handful of good point guards isn't hard Adam.


Why did you not respond to the fact you called Cole a bench warmer in todays PG golden era?

Not to mention, if you consider Norris Cole (or Norris Cole like players) a bench warmer in todays game, how exactly does that negate Chris Paul?


This is getting sad.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> The last decade you're talking about was known by many as the weakest years we've seen for PG in a long time. Naming a handful of good point guards isn't hard Adam.
> 
> 
> Why did you not respond to the fact you called Cole a bench warmer in todays PG golden era?
> ...


I said if you want to sit on the bench you have to be as good as Norris Cole. That's the level we're reaching. It means that the talent level of the starters is going to be so insane that a 30 year old 10 year vet will have trouble keeping up.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> I said if you want to sit on the bench you have to be as good as Norris Cole. That's the level we're reaching. It means that the talent level of the starters is going to be so insane that a 30 year old 10 year vet will have trouble keeping up.


Couple problems I'll point out for you before I start thinking about going to bed.

1) Norris Cole averages 20 minutes a game. That's not bench warmer minutes, its 6-7th man minutes. 

2) According to you, a 30 year old will have trouble keeping up. Funny, because Steve Nash, a guy you've brought up multiple times in this thread is 37 and still one of the leagues top points. Yea. That helps your point a ton doesn't it?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Couple problems I'll point out for you before I start thinking about going to bed.
> 
> 1) Norris Cole averages 20 minutes a game. That's not bench warmer minutes, its 6-7th man minutes.
> 
> 2) According to you, a 30 year old will have trouble keeping up. Funny, because Steve Nash, a guy you've brought up multiple times in this thread is 37 and still one of the leagues top points. Yea. That helps your point a ton doesn't it?


Yeah, some guys just defy logic and convention, but I would be comfortable saying that PG's on average will start declining sooner than in the past because currently the talent level is so deep. But that's just on average. There's going to be guys who play forever for some reason. Why has Andre Miller never had a major injury? Just freaks I guess.

Yeah, Paul himself could conceivably have a long career. But again, I feel comfortable saying 30 year old PG's are going to start struggling and I think with his injury history he won't be able to overcome that aspect. Maybe I'm taking advantage of his injury history to fit my theory and if he declines that doesn't actually prove me right? It's possible. I'm not going for that though and I think way in the future they will look back at this period and be able to see the data and say that PG's had shorter careers and the talent field was deep.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> Yeah, some guys just defy logic and convention, but I would be comfortable saying that PG's on average will start declining sooner than in the past because currently the talent level is so deep. But that's just on average. There's going to be guys who play forever for some reason. Why has Andre Miller had a major injury? Just freaks I guess.
> 
> Yeah, Paul himself could conceivably have a long career. But again, I feel comfortable saying 30 year old PG's are going to start struggling and I think with his injury history he won't be able to overcome that aspect. Maybe I'm taking advantage of his injury history to fit my theory and if he declines that doesn't actually prove me right? It's possible. I'm not going for that though and I think way in the future they will look back at this period and be able to see the data and say that PG's had shorter careers and the talent field was deep.


Its easy to see why guys like Nash and Andre Miller are able to play well deep into their careers. Would you like me to explain why they're able to? 

We'd have to go on my basketball knowledge, and hope I don't pass out from alcohol abuse, or lose my job in the process, but I think I can pull it off.


----------



## Tooeasy (Nov 4, 2003)

The premise of this theory is sound. Using Kobe as the crux for this argument considering what he's doing up to this point is not.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Tooeasy said:


> The premise of this theory is sound. Using Kobe as the crux for this argument considering what he's doing up to this point is not.


He says Kobe's not a superstar because he's a selfish dick. Kind of backpedaling considering his argument was that Kobe is no longer capable of being a superstar because he's old.

Regardless, it's obvious he's wrong about old man Kobe's capabilities and is trying to save face. He's already somewhat admitted that, so with that being said really no point in continuing the discussion unless you want to exchange insults.

By the way, I didn't bump this thread either.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Tooeasy said:


> The premise of this theory is sound. Using Kobe as the crux for this argument considering what he's doing up to this point is not.


I should have just stuck to the idea and not mentioned any specific players because even if they do have short careers it's not a given that their career was shortened due to the deeper talent of the league. The only way to prove or disprove this theory is to look back on the careers of the players around this time and see how long their careers were on average and compare it to other time periods. That's the only way, so me pointing out some examples of players doesn't accomplish anything and I definitely erred there.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Adam said:


> I should have just stuck to the idea and not mentioned any specific players because even if they do have short careers it's not a given that their career was shortened due to the deeper talent of the league. The only way to prove or disprove this theory is to look back on the careers of the players around this time and see how long their careers were on average and compare it to other time periods. That's the only way, so me pointing out some examples of players doesn't accomplish anything and I definitely erred there.


The stats you posted show exactly the opposite of what you're trying to say. Saying players slow down once they get into their early 30's on average isn't some sort of nostradamus prediction, its common sense. Thing we differ on, is its no different today than it was yesterday for players burning out. The stats you showed prove that, and disprove what you're attempting to say.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

lebron will probably be the only exception to old age, we will play elite till about 36-37. Wade has fallen off big time though


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Adam said:


> He's an example of how deep the talent at PG has gotten that he is what you get at the end of the draft, he is what you stock your bench with. The talent at that position is getting incredibly deep. To be above average as a starter you have to be better than 15 other PG's. There's Deron, Paul, Nash, Rondo, Rose, Rubio, Lawson, Felton, etc. Just to sit on the end of the bench you have to be Norris Cole. Ten years ago Jamal Tinsley was a starter and some people actually thought he was decent. The talent is growing fast.


lol at cole sitting on the bench, he splits minutes with chalmers...around 20min a game dude


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

doctordrizzay said:


> lebron will probably be the only exception to old age, we will play elite till about 36-37. Wade has fallen off big time though


Okay, lol.

Go on believing that.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Pay Ton said:


> Okay, lol.
> 
> Go on believing that.


Yea, for a guy who relies on his athleticism so much, I cant see Bron being nearly as good in his late 30's.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Its not about age itd be mileage..LeBron would be nearing 20 years at that point. lol @ Elite.

I do think he'll age fine though. He's already flooring his game and he's a great passer.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Its not about age itd be mileage..LeBron would be nearing 20 years at that point. lol @ Elite.

I do think he'll age fine though. He's already flooring his game and he's a great passer.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Kobe Bryant, named played of the month. Norris Cole, named shitty nobody of the month.

Must be an age conspiracy.


----------



## Samurai Swish (Feb 3, 2012)

It's about NBA mileage ... not age. LeBron is 9 years deep, practically a decade. 6'8 and no post game, no reliable mid range game (where you consistently score, especially in the playoffs) ... he can pass, but that's his most discernable SKILL. As well as his ball handling, but he's had an ALARMING drop off in off the dribble quickness from the end of the 2010 season, so that is rendered useless. I would be worried about dude's game aging.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Samurai Swish said:


> It's about NBA mileage ... not age. LeBron is 9 years deep, practically a decade. 6'8 and no post game, no reliable mid range game (where you consistently score, especially in the playoffs) ... he can pass, but that's his most discernable SKILL. As well as his ball handling, but he's had an ALARMING drop off in off the dribble quickness from the end of the 2010 season, so that is rendered useless. I would be worried about dude's game aging.


Your Lebron hate and need to post about it with every single post is fairly alarming.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Wait so he has no post game now

And wtf is dribble quickness :2ti:


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Kobe Bryant, named played of the month. Norris Cole, named shitty nobody of the month.
> 
> Must be an age conspiracy.


It's impressive that Norris Cole won such an award at a young age. Too bad he only has six years left before he's finished.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Bumped for Adam.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

I was discussing Nash with someone the other day, and these popped out at me about him at 38. Note that he was supposed to start breaking down sometime last year:


Leading the league in assists in what is now a league teeming with good to great PGs
Averaging more assists-per-game than in his MVP years
Garnering a better asst-to-TO ratio than in his MVP years
Playing less minutes than in his MVP years
While playing at a MUCH slower pace than he ever did in his MVP years

Granted, his scoring is down a bit, but he's basically said it's because there's really no one else on the team that can create their own shots for the opponents to worry about. He was asked about it:



> "Maybe I could be more aggressive looking for my shot, but every team we play traps me (frequently) or (jumps) out hard at me on the pick-and-roll," Nash said. "So my thinking is, 'Get it out of my hands as fast as possible and it's four on three or three on two for my teammates.' It seems to be working. We've been playing a lot better (since the All-Star break). I'm not just going to be forcing up shots to improve my numbers."


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

doctordrizzay said:


> lebron will probably be the only exception to old age, we will play elite till about 36-37. Wade has fallen off big time though


Lebron is already falling off athletically. Watch some games from 2009 and 2010 and watch him now.....it is as clear as day that he has lost a step.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Except his game hasn't lost a step


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

Dre said:


> Except his game hasn't lost a step


I am not so sure about that.....he was a far more dynamic offensive player 2-3 years ago.

He is a better shooter and defensive player now, but he is easier to defend IMO since he can't get to the basket like he used to.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Samurai Swish said:


> It's about NBA mileage ... not age. LeBron is 9 years deep, practically a decade. 6'8 and no post game, no reliable mid range game (where you consistently score, especially in the playoffs) ... he can pass, but that's his most discernable SKILL. As well as his ball handling, but he's had an ALARMING drop off in off the dribble quickness from the end of the 2010 season, so that is rendered useless. I would be worried about dude's game aging.


Lol yet he is having the one of the single most greatest season's of all-time by anyone. 

People like Kobe who shoot 3-20 and 9-34 and 3-21 7-25 in games and shooting 300 times for than any player and hitting only 40% for the season...Thats a drop-off. 

Lebron's jumper is Legit and his defense is the best it's ever been. He will likely Win MVP and DPOY award. So no lebron is not dropping off at all, He is literally going up.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Game3525 said:


> Lebron is already falling off athletically. Watch some games from 2009 and 2010 and watch him now.....it is as clear as day that he has lost a step.


how has he lost a step when he can guard players from Dwight Howard to Derrick Rose...IF he can easily keep up with the fastest in the league, I dont know what planet you live on where you think Lebron has lost a step.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

doctordrizzay said:


> how has he lost a step when he can guard players from Dwight Howard to Derrick Rose...IF he can easily keep up with the fastest in the league, I dont know what planet you live on where you think Lebron has lost a step.


He doesn't get to the rim like he used to, he has lost that explosive first step and it is very obvious when you watch him play.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

doctordrizzay said:


> Lol yet he is having the one of the single most greatest season's of all-time by anyone.
> 
> People like Kobe who shoot 3-20 and 9-34 and 3-21 7-25 in games and shooting 300 times for than any player and hitting only 40% for the season...Thats a drop-off.
> 
> Lebron's jumper is Legit and his defense is the best it's ever been. He will likely Win MVP and DPOY award. So no lebron is not dropping off at all, He is literally going up.


Can I ask your age sir?


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Can I ask your age sir?


Ask him to show it with his hands.

It's easier for them that way.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Pay Ton said:


> Ask him to show it with his hands.
> 
> It's easier for them that way.


This many!


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

R-Star said:


> This many!


You're giving him too much credit.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

"And then Lebron punched the dinosaur in the face and made him leave the earth alone forever! Then we ate peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and sang The Wiggles. And then Lebron dunked the ball so hard that Kobe pee'd his pants. Then I got tired and went asleep because mom says I get cranky when I'm tired."


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Game3525 said:


> He doesn't get to the rim like he used to, he has lost that explosive first step and it is very obvious when you watch him play.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I watched the Heat loss yesterday, and Norris Cole has very little impact on the basketball court. I don't think I've seen one game of his this season where I didn't think he was replaceable with any of 10 NBDL PG's. 

And GM's aren't supposed to overpay for a 26 year old Chris Paul because Norris Cole level PG's are plentiful in the draft?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-star, thoughts on Kobe and Norris Cole's respective seasons?


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)




----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> R-star, thoughts on Kobe and Norris Cole's respective seasons?


R-Star's thoughts on Kobe: He's old. You could replace him with Chase Buddinger or a mentally stable Royce White. Sure he's lighting the league up yet again, but its all smoke and mirrors. He's 34. Kobe, Pau, Dwight and Nash? Old. Give me Jae Crowder, Jared Sullinger, Tyler Zeller and Doron Lamb. Young.


Thoughts on Norris Cole: Currently breathing down Chris Pauls neck, averaging 4.6ppg on 34.5% shooting, and helping the team out in other areas with his sweet 2 assists and 1.3 rebounds per game. I smell a repeat this year, with Norris Cole flirting between adequate 3rd string pg and absolute liability the whole way.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Again?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Again?


Since Kobe is still not "done" and wasn't even close when this thread was made, like me and others said at the time, then yea... again.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Oh, and also since Norris Cole is a fringe NBA player, and not a replacement for Chris Paul like we said in this thread, then yea.... again.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Deandre Jordan looks great this year in all fairness.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> Deandre Jordan looks great this year in all fairness.


Looks good. Doesn't look like a "Why have Dwight Howard when you can draft DeAndre Jordan!?!" though.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Hey Adam...... Transcendent like Wade?


Hahaha...... Hey Adam......


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Is it really no league for old men Adam?


I went back and read your age to time in league equation. Its finally making sense to me.


----------



## JBKB (Jan 12, 2013)

The way I see it is if you can compete well at 14, then you should be allowed to play NBA basketball at 14. Many professional tennis players went pro at 14, and there are olympians in their teens who train harder than NBA players. 

Personally, I think the NBA wants to keep a stable NBA in terms of the players we see and hear about. In other words, they don't want an ever-changing NBA environment. Players like Kevin Garnett, Jason Kidd,Derek Fisher (Yes, I know he retired just recently) and many others should have long been out of this league. The best basketball players are NOT in the NBA. You would be foolish to think otherwise!


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I get it, when I asked you to have "a thing" its to be the crazy guy.

Awesome. I like it.


----------



## JBKB (Jan 12, 2013)

R-Star said:


> I get it, when I asked you to have "a thing" its to be the crazy guy.
> 
> Awesome. I like it.


The crazy guy? lol I hope that's not the impression I'm giving off. 

I just like being honest. The best players are NOT in the NBA. Surely there is someone out there better than Kurt Thomas! : )


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

JBKB said:


> The crazy guy? lol I hope that's not the impression I'm giving off.
> 
> I just like being honest. The best players are NOT in the NBA. Surely there is someone out there better than Kurt Thomas! : )


Its not a 14 year old. I can tell you that much. 


Kurt Thomas is still in the league because he brings what you want from a deep bench big. He'll come in, play good/decent D, not take any dumb fouls, and is a good mentor for the young players. 

If you fill that role with a young player with potential to be good, hes making mistakes down the stretch if you put him in, isn't getting enough playing time, and isn't the positive veteran presence that Thomas is for your team.


----------



## JBKB (Jan 12, 2013)

R-Star said:


> Its not a 14 year old. I can tell you that much.
> 
> 
> Kurt Thomas is still in the league because he brings what you want from a deep bench big. He'll come in, play good/decent D, not take any dumb fouls, and is a good mentor for the young players.
> ...


Well I was only using 14 as an extreme example. My main point is that if a young player in his teens is able to compete, then age should not be a factor. For that matter, old or young, it shouldn't matter as long as he can compete.

The NBA doesn't want an ever-changing environment. If the NBA truly allowed the best competition in, then players would be entering and exiting at a much faster rate than you see now. Shaq sucks and doesn't come close to representing the highest competition, but I bet if he wanted to come back and play the NBA would let him in.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

JBKB said:


> Well I was only using 14 as an extreme example. My main point is that if a young player in his teens is able to compete, then age should not be a factor. For that matter, old or young, it shouldn't matter as long as he can compete.
> 
> The NBA doesn't want an ever-changing environment. If the NBA truly allowed the best competition in, then players would be entering and exiting at a much faster rate than you see now. Shaq sucks and doesn't come close to representing the highest competition, but I bet if he wanted to come back and play the NBA would let him in.


No one would sign Shaq at this point. You keep mentioning big men though and there isn't an abundance of them out there to begin with.


The best players in the world play in the NBA. Every once in a while a player comes around who lights the league up in his rookie year, but it doesn't happen often, which goes to prove the point that its not like these guys are being held back for the most part.


----------



## JBKB (Jan 12, 2013)

R-Star said:


> The best players in the world play in the NBA.


Simply not true! : ) 

What about the top players throughout European, African, South American, and Asian leagues. Are you telling me even those top superstar players are not better than some of the NBA's bench players? : ) 

Suppose Tony Parker never left France and continued to thrive there. Wouldn't his talent still be better than more than half the NBA?


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

JBKB said:


> The way I see it is if you can compete well at 14, then you should be allowed to play NBA basketball at 14. Many professional tennis players went pro at 14, and there are olympians in their teens who train harder than NBA players.
> 
> Personally, I think the NBA wants to keep a stable NBA in terms of the players we see and hear about. In other words, they don't want an ever-changing NBA environment. Players like Kevin Garnett, Jason Kidd,Derek Fisher (Yes, I know he retired just recently) and many others should have long been out of this league. The best basketball players are NOT in the NBA. You would be foolish to think otherwise!


Ya lets have pre-puberty teens in the league. How will they finish school with the NBA schedule? Their body structure is weak and would get injured probably within a weak. Can you imagine Lebron at 14 taking a charge on himself now...Shattered. 

18/19 is fine...almost even took early for most.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Your phrasing makes it sound like there are better players out there than the top players in the league. All the players that would matter in the NBA play in the NBA, save for a small handful.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

JBKB said:


> Simply not true! : )
> 
> What about the top players throughout European, African, South American, and Asian leagues. Are you telling me even those top superstar players are not better than some of the NBA's bench players? : )
> 
> Suppose Tony Parker never left France and continued to thrive there. Wouldn't his talent still be better than more than half the NBA?


What Euro player has been inducted in the Hall of Fame? I rest my case. 

This isn't even an argument man. The Best players are in the NBA, and that's why Tony Parker is in the NBA and not in europe.


----------



## JBKB (Jan 12, 2013)

doctordrizzay said:


> Ya lets have pre-puberty teens in the league. How will they finish school with the NBA schedule? Their body structure is weak and would get injured probably within a weak. Can you imagine Lebron at 14 taking a charge on himself now...Shattered.
> 
> 18/19 is fine...almost even took early for most.


Keep in mind that I said if he could "compete." As far as finishing school, that is a small matter. Most child actors and celebrities do home school, so I would assume a teen NBA player would do the same. 

Olympians train and compete as early as childhood so why shouldn't they compete in the NBA if they are capable of do so? 

The NBA does not represent the best players. They pick and choose who gets the special privilege to enter, and they allow bad players to overstay their welcome. Just my two cents. : )


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

JBKB said:


> Keep in mind that I said if he could "compete." As far as finishing school, that is a small matter. Most child actors and celebrities do home school, so I would assume a teen NBA player would do the same.
> 
> *Olympians train and compete as early as childhood so why shouldn't they compete in the NBA if they are capable of do so?*
> 
> The NBA does not represent the best players. They pick and choose who gets the special privilege to enter, and they allow bad players to overstay their welcome. Just my two cents. : )


Olympians train for an event that happens every 4 years and those young teenager events are things like gymnastics which is a 20 second routine and not 3 hours of running around.

You don't see 14 year olds playing Olympic basketball do you?



and NBA Basketball is an 82 game 8 month schedule every year.

I don't quite see you logic at all. Makes no sense.


----------



## JBKB (Jan 12, 2013)

doctordrizzay said:


> What Euro player has been inducted in the Hall of Fame? I rest my case.
> 
> This isn't even an argument man. The Best players are in the NBA, and that's why Tony Parker is in the NBA and not in europe.


The NBA is the league that pays the most, so it gives us the illusion that the best players play where there is the most money. Everyone doesn't care about the money to the point they are willing to leave their home country. This explains why most NBA players are American, most Chinese players are Chinese, most Italian players are Italian, etc. 

Now lets suppose a basketball league in the country Uzbekistan pays the most money. Do you really think all of the best American players will move their families to Uzbekistan? United States just happens to be a popular enough country that if a person does have the courage to leave their native land, they would be happy to choose America.


----------



## JBKB (Jan 12, 2013)

doctordrizzay said:


> Olympians train for an event that happens every 4 years and those young teenager events are things like gymnastics which is a 20 second routine and not 3 hours of running around.
> 
> You don't see 14 year olds playing Olympic basketball do you?
> 
> ...


That 20 second routine that you speak of is often a once in a lifetime opportunity for olympians, and they dedicate their lives to perform optimally when that 20 second opportunity occurs. To even participate in the Olympics they have to win many extremely challenging races before that. They train just as hard, if not harder than NBA players. 

Aside from that, I don't see why so many people discriminate on age. The way I see it is if you can physically compete at 14 in the NBA, so be it, and if you can compete at 48, so be it.

Kobe Bryant was probably better than half the NBA when he was still in high-school. : )


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Nope. This isn't happening. This is my thread to taunt Adam with, not some dumb talk about how there's some unknown superstar in the North Korean basketball association who hasn't got a fair shot yet. 

We can make another thread for that.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I got you.

Adam? Thoughts on R-stars employment status 3 years ago?


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Kinda wanted to see JBKB and the Doc duke it out some more. It's like getting high. More of a paint-huffing high than the chronic, but an alternate reality nevertheless.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

The nba is the best basketball league in the world and it's not close.


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Jace said:


> Kinda wanted to see JBKB and the Doc duke it out some more. It's like getting high. More of a paint-huffing high than the chronic, but an alternate reality nevertheless.


He's an idiot. "If Tony Parker was still in France then some of the best players would be in Europe"....Umm duh that's why he's in the NBA. He might be full retard...gotta wait to find out.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Don't ****ing ruin my Adam thread and its memories. 

Make another thread with this JBKB guy ;(


----------



## JBKB (Jan 12, 2013)

doctordrizzay said:


> He's an idiot. "If Tony Parker was still in France then some of the best players would be in Europe"....Umm duh that's why he's in the NBA. He might be full retard...gotta wait to find out.


The main point I was making is that the NBA does not comprise the best players. Surely there are players across the world who are better than Kurt Thomas, Jason Kidd, Kyle Korver, Shannon Brown, and lots more. 

Just because a great player from another country doesn't want to leave his native land to come play in the NBA, it doesn't mean he isn't among the best of players. Just my two cents!


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

No, they would if they could. There are no players that could really make it in the NBA in Europe/Asia or South America. You see guys who could barely make the d league here lead teams in all major categories in Europe.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> No, they would if they could. There are no players that could really make it in the NBA in Europe/Asia or South America. You see guys who could barely make the d league here lead teams in all major categories in Europe.


No players is false. If prigoni can debut as a 35 year old he could of 10 years ago too.

There are at least 10 players in foreign leagues that could be rotation players here but choose not to. La Bamba only played one season and decided he liked Europe better. Doesn't help that he was in a town like Memphis, Wisconsin.

Actually I was in Memphis in July. It was a good town for being in the south.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Was he being paid more in Europe?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> Was he being paid more in Europe?


Your post I quoted said nothing about money. You were basically saying everyone in Europe wasn't good enough to come here.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Ok, one caveat, which is very rare, if they get paid more.


----------



## JBKB (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm very shocked that some people would actually think that there are no players across the world who are better than many of the current NBA players.

The NBA actively recruit players from around the world, so it would be silly to think there aren't any more great players around the world that the NBA are unsuccessful in persuading to leave their home country.

By the way, everyone doesn't care about the money. There are millionaires who absolutely love their job as janitors and don't mind cleaning restrooms, mopping floors, and emptying trash regardless of being rich.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

That's one highly paid janitor.


----------



## JBKB (Jan 12, 2013)

Hyperion said:


> That's one highly paid janitor.


lol : ) Well, the truth is that he won the lottery, but simply couldn't dream of quitting his job as a janitor.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

JBKB said:


> The main point I was making is that the NBA does not comprise the best players. Surely there are players across the world who are better than Kurt Thomas, Jason Kidd, Kyle Korver, Shannon Brown, and lots more.
> 
> Just because a great player from another country doesn't want to leave his native land to come play in the NBA, it doesn't mean he isn't among the best of players. Just my two cents!


Listen to what you're saying. Of course you'll find players overseas that are better than the NBA's worst. There just aren't many who would make any sort of significant impact, so it's moot. 



Jamel Irief said:


> No players is false. If prigoni can debut as a 35 year old he could of 10 years ago too.
> 
> There are at least 10 players in foreign leagues that could be rotation players here but choose not to. La Bamba only played one season and decided he liked Europe better. Doesn't help that he was in a town like Memphis, Wisconsin.
> 
> Actually I was in Memphis in July. It was a good town for being in the south.


You went to Memphis, Wisconsin? 

Yeah, he wanted to either play in Miami or where Pau was. When Pau was traded, La Bamba was "Asta la vista" HOHOHO. Rudy Fernandez is another who could be a solid role player, but missed his mom too much to continue in the league. These are aberrations, though. There aren't any potential NBA All-Stars playing overseas.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Last week at this time only 3 Lakers had ever scored 40 points and 12 assists in a game. Kobe has done it twice since then. Respect Vino!

In other news CP3 apparently will not be an all-NBA player next year. Would you give him the max this summer?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Was Adam high when he created this thread?


----------

