|
On July 21 2014 13:42 seiferoth10 wrote:
Who leaves a bigger legacy, but we're not allowed to factor in hype? Isn't that an oxymoron? Anyway, still Kobe. Duncan's legacy will always be diminished because he's always had help and Pop and his system.
you mean people wont say shaq/phil jackson about kobe? come on
|
On July 21 2014 13:37 RowdierBob wrote:
Drama bait time. Which player leaves a bigger legacy on the game when they retire: Kobe or Duncan? But take the LA/celeb hype out and focus only on basketball.
Bigger pop culture/young player legacy? Kobe, simply b/c of his playstyle.
Who should be rated higher historically as a better player? Duncan.
Duncan has more individual awards and has won in 3 different decades (and may yet win another, we'll see). Duncan is also a much better representative for the game as a whole imo. He is like the Derek Jeter of Basketball and has had no significant criminal problems, unlike Kobe. Beyond that though, the stats also favor Duncan for me. One player has the most playoff wins and double-doubles in history. The other? The most bricks.
|
Ok, sorry we'll make it easier. In the list of all-time players who do you have in front Kobe or Duncan?
|
On July 21 2014 13:59 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 16ofthem wrote:
at least in baseball there is great value in tanking. the expected value derived from history would give the #1 overall pick more value than 2-10 combined. there is also the way draft spending slots are tied to picks, so #1 represents a lot of money in the artificially depressed draft 'market'
the whole 'give worst teams more help' concept is generally just small market/bad teams subsidy, and in the nba it's pretty strong.
saying the draft in the nba is overvalued is highly puzzling. the nba is precisely the kind of league that accentuates draft value. should perhaps distinguish between overvaluing the top of the draft vs overvaluing lower picks. You rarely see outright tanking in the MLB. The Astros are the only team I'm aware of that has clearly gone down that path for baseball-winning reasons. The Marlins are a different, more amazing, story. The only justification for tanking is that it, hypothetically, puts a team on the best track for winning a championship. The only possible reason that could even be close to true, is that intentionally losing (or minimizing your wins, I don't care,) increases your chance at a high lottery pick. If you look at the past decade (conveniently after the league defining 2003 draft,) you can find 3 players who even led the team that drafted them to a conference finals: Dwight Howard, Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose. And of course, we can bicker over how much each star meant to their team: a lot, everything, some. Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Blake Griffin, Anthony Davis, Stephen Curry, James Harden, John Wall, LaMarcus Aldridge, Al Horford. These are all super sweet players who have the talent to win NBA championships. But most of them won't. Probably just one of them, honestly. Do you honestly believe a core of LaMarcus Aldridge and Damian Lillard and Wes Matthews and Nic Batum can win an NBA Championship? Of course not. They should blow it up!
The principle behind any of these strategies is the same: getting a star player. History shows the best way to do so is the draft. Look at the winning teams of the last decade or so. All got a star in the draft. Spurs, Lakers, mavs, heat. Even the Celtics leveraged their top 5 pick into Allen (to go with drafted pierce).
Then there's the morey method of hoarding assets or the Lakers/knicks method of being in a city everyone wants to live. Either way, they're all aiming for that star. Small market teams struggle with the morey or Lakers method so they're really left with pinning their hopes to the draft.
Filling out the roster is the other half of the puzzle.
|
And boogie, what about Wade, Kobe, Dirk, LeBron (Cavs), KG (minny), Duncan, Melo (Denver), deron (jazz), George/hibbert ? All led their team to conf finals and were drafted by them too. Could even argue pierce too...
|
On July 21 2014 10:19 zev318 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2014 07:05 cLutZ wrote:
So, two major themes have been emerging since Lebron's "Second Decision" that I really disagree with, and would like to hear some feedback on. First is that the new Lebron is "mature" and second is that he is a "brilliant businessman". I see no real evidence of either.
First, on maturity. The "evidence" that is cited to support this notion is that last time he did "The Decision" TV show, followed by the "Pep Rally" in Miami. This time, of course he wrote a letter in SI. Am I the only one who thinks a 7 year old after seeing the fallout of the first two would have done the same? I am pretty sure a lab rat wont touch a hot surface that burns him a second time. So really, he has reached the maturity level of a small child. Congratulations?
Second, on business brilliance. Apparently this is presumed because of his ability to recognize that taking short term deals will allow him to maximize his income based on a presumed increase in the salary cap. This isn't brilliance, this is something that sportswriters were easily able to figure out, and something that a C Student in Accounting at Ohio State would have figured out. This is not being a great businessman, it is being an average businessman.
Or what about his Beats deal? Admittedly it looks good, but in reality he just took equity in lieu of payment from a company that really (at the time) couldn't pay him substantially for his sponsorship. The only way this is actually a hard choice for him is if he had an offer on the table from Bose, or another premium headphone company and turned that down to do the Beats deal.
What I think we see, is that in comparison to the totally idiotic business deals that many high profile athletes engage in, Lebron looks good, but its not brilliance its competence. But I guess competence is amazing when you live in a land of fools. my feedback is you got too much lebron haterade in your system 
No no. Its more of the media. They constantly try to pretend that athletes are not (typically) average or below average intelligence. Lebron is just the current focal point of the idiocy of things such as "Basketball/Football IQ", "it", "intangibles", "maturity" etc which are mostly just blither blather anyways.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there's not much tanking in baseball but this does not mean there isn't great value in the draft. keep in mind you can't trade for draft picks in baseball or else you'll see a lot of picks trading. there's definitely a clear strategic divide between rebuilding teams and win now teams.
for basketball because of the outsized power of star players tanking to get that one super star is just op
|
On July 21 2014 14:37 RowdierBob wrote:
And boogie, what about Wade, Kobe, Dirk, LeBron (Cavs), KG (minny), Duncan, Melo (Denver), deron (jazz), George/hibbert ? All led their team to conf finals and were drafted by them too. Could even argue pierce too...
Wade was a 5th overall, Kobe a 13th, Dirk a 9th, Melo was 3rd, Deron was 4th, Paul George was like 10th and Roy Hibbert was 17th!!!
Kobe did not win with the team that drafted him.
And while I can't speak for the 1994 Timberwolves, I was too young, I know for a fact the Pacers didn't willfully lose as many games as possible to pick SDSU product Paul George and Georgetown underachiever Roy Hibbert.
And the 2004 Jazz and Hornets should praise basketball Jesus for Marvin freaking Williams. And the 2002 Heat and Nuggets should send 9 digit aid to the 3rd world countries of Serbia and Detroit for Darko Milicic for perpetuity.
|
You really think tanking only applies to the top pick? The stats point to top 5 picks being most valuable (in terms of getting star talent).
And Kobe was drafted by the Lakers... They did a pick swap before the draft...
Not saying you can't get a star outside the top 5 but your odds are greatly increased if you're there.
|
On July 21 2014 15:14 oneofthem wrote:
there's not much tanking in baseball but this does not mean there isn't great value in the draft. keep in mind you can't trade for draft picks in baseball or else you'll see a lot of picks trading. there's definitely a clear strategic divide between rebuilding teams and win now teams.
for basketball because of the outsized power of star players tanking to get that one super star is just op
It's true that the 1st overall pick in baseball produces a gigantic number of wins, even when compared to the immediate pics after him. I believe this is true in the NBA as well.
But ultimately, the key to winning in the MLB is to generate as many 2-3 win players on the roster while paying them pre-free agent money. I believe tanking in the NBA is as silly as it is in the MLB (which is why the Brady Aiken situation makes me so happy.)
|
On July 21 2014 15:28 RowdierBob wrote:
You really think tanking only applies to the top pick? The stats point to top 5 picks being most valuable (in terms of getting star talent).
And Kobe was drafted by the Lakers... They did a pick swap before the draft...
Not saying you can't get a star outside the top 5 but your odds are greatly increased if you're there.
While you're wrong, he was officially selected by the Hornets, are you saying the success of the early aughts Lakers is because the Hornets "tanked" to the 13th pick overall?
Tanking creates a bad product and hurts the value of the league overall. The league isn't seeking reform because of some stupid public outcry against the unsporting nature of tanking, it's reforming it because Comcast, Dupont and Arkema doesn't want to pay for a corporate box to a 76ers game if they're going to put that product on the court for 4 seasons.
|
On July 21 2014 14:12 RowdierBob wrote:
Ok, sorry we'll make it easier. In the list of all-time players who do you have in front Kobe or Duncan?
Only list I'd put Kobe even close to Duncan is if we're talking career wise because Kobe's longevity is historically insane. In terms of peak/prime play Duncan is ahead of him. If we're talking legacy Kobe by a landslide. He's just a bigger star and his impact dwarfs Duncan.
|
Does it really though? No one cares how bad Philly was last year. This is all knee jerk hysteria.
Is there really much of a difference between a shitty team that wins 18 vs 28 games? Does anyone remember the thunder/Sonics tanking the shit out of three straight seasons to get Durant, wb and harden?
And you're really going to argue semantics on Kobe not being drafted by the Lakers (not that it matters...)?
I'd wager there's more excitement in Philly this year than watching the struggle for the 8th seed each year (like they were pre tank).
The Nba is about to sign a massive new TV deal so the whole tanking catastrophe can't be doing too much harm.
|
I wouldn't argue that tanking is making the product unsuccessful, I'd argue that it's successful in spite of tanking. Yes the NBA is still profitable but I think it would be more so (and more popular/fun to watch) if all the teams were/tried to be competitive rather than having entire teams essentially being not worth watching because they're trying to lose.
There's more excitement in Philly, but only for the hardcore fan and only right before, during, and after the draft. Watching an 8th seed play is more exciting than watching a team play terrible. Yeah you want your team to do it so they're better down the line, but that doesn't mean you're going to/going to want to watch them trot out a D-league roster 82 times a year.
Kobe/Duncan- Kobe if we're talking pop culture impact, the fact that Duncan purposefully tries to keep himself out of the spotlight means he essentially took himself out of the running. In terms of who had the better career/is the better player, I'd go with Duncan.
|
There isn't enough talent for everyone to compete though. I've been a bucks fan for many years now and the 8th seed hamster wheel is not entertaining. It's frustratingly predictable. I'd much rather my team build for a winner rather than just compete.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well in baseball you are looking at a roster that's around twice as large as that of basketball, whether on formal roster size or per player playing time basis. various labor market restrictions are also far more present in basketball.
idk if there's great value in the first pick in basketball but it would seem that the draft has given a lot of previously hopeless teams immediate rebound. the original statement was 'draft is overvalued' which is too general to be defended in the case of hte nba.
|
On July 21 2014 16:00 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2014 14:12 RowdierBob wrote:
Ok, sorry we'll make it easier. In the list of all-time players who do you have in front Kobe or Duncan? Only list I'd put Kobe even close to Duncan is if we're talking career wise because Kobe's longevity is historically insane. In terms of peak/prime play Duncan is ahead of him. If we're talking legacy Kobe by a landslide. He's just a bigger star and his impact dwarfs Duncan.
Does not compute.
Otherwise I won't really argue because I'm biased, and more importantly, I never understand what to factor in in words like "impact", "legacy", "help from others".
|
Kobe's been the face of the NBA in the 00's. Look how popular he is in China compared to everyone else. That's legacy.
|
On July 21 2014 16:41 DystopiaX wrote:
There's more excitement in Philly, but only for the hardcore fan and only right before, during, and after the draft. Watching an 8th seed play is more exciting than watching a team play terrible. Yeah you want your team to do it so they're better down the line, but that doesn't mean you're going to/going to want to watch them trot out a D-league roster 82 times a year.
On July 21 2014 16:03 RowdierBob wrote:
I'd wager there's more excitement in Philly this year than watching the struggle for the 8th seed each year (like they were pre tank).
As an actual Philadelphian I can confirm that there's much more excitement/interest in the sixers now than there has been for quite some time. During the season there's not much difference in media attention the team gets, although there were small blips for things like beating the bulls when Rose & Noah both got hurt. The sports radio dudes periodically made the sixers a focal topic, which almost never happened since AI left. Anecdotally most of the basketball fans I know are interested in buying a ticket or two to see the young dudes be athletic. Being irrelevant as a team for ~15years builds some serious fan apathy, and the team is much more intriguing lately.
On July 21 2014 15:03 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2014 10:19 zev318 wrote:On July 21 2014 07:05 cLutZ wrote:
So, two major themes have been emerging since Lebron's "Second Decision" that I really disagree with, and would like to hear some feedback on. First is that the new Lebron is "mature" and second is that he is a "brilliant businessman". I see no real evidence of either.
First, on maturity. The "evidence" that is cited to support this notion is that last time he did "The Decision" TV show, followed by the "Pep Rally" in Miami. This time, of course he wrote a letter in SI. Am I the only one who thinks a 7 year old after seeing the fallout of the first two would have done the same? I am pretty sure a lab rat wont touch a hot surface that burns him a second time. So really, he has reached the maturity level of a small child. Congratulations?
Second, on business brilliance. Apparently this is presumed because of his ability to recognize that taking short term deals will allow him to maximize his income based on a presumed increase in the salary cap. This isn't brilliance, this is something that sportswriters were easily able to figure out, and something that a C Student in Accounting at Ohio State would have figured out. This is not being a great businessman, it is being an average businessman.
Or what about his Beats deal? Admittedly it looks good, but in reality he just took equity in lieu of payment from a company that really (at the time) couldn't pay him substantially for his sponsorship. The only way this is actually a hard choice for him is if he had an offer on the table from Bose, or another premium headphone company and turned that down to do the Beats deal.
What I think we see, is that in comparison to the totally idiotic business deals that many high profile athletes engage in, Lebron looks good, but its not brilliance its competence. But I guess competence is amazing when you live in a land of fools. my feedback is you got too much lebron haterade in your system No no. Its more of the media. They constantly try to pretend that athletes are not (typically) average or below average intelligence. Lebron is just the current focal point of the idiocy of things such as "Basketball/Football IQ", "it", "intangibles", "maturity" etc which are mostly just blither blather anyways.
I'm not sure what you're basing this off of, but why do you think athletes are largely idiots? Many are savvy and thoughtful, and quite a few are impressively expressive. Are you basing it off of their interview responses to inane questions immediately after a game? Some of them aren't particularly articulate and/or don't have a much of a background in academics to be sure, but that doesn't mean they're dumb. There's a ton of super complex stuff that happens behind the scenes in sports that the fans never get to see. Just because they don't have specialized knowledge because they focused on sport instead of academics for their entire school-years doesn't mean that a random sampling of athletes is going to get you a group that is less intelligent than the average population.
On July 21 2014 23:27 Daozzt wrote:
Kobe's been the face of the NBA in the 00's. Look how popular he is in China compared to everyone else. That's legacy.
That's advertising, marketing & business savvy. Ofc Kobe is a bigger 'deal' than Duncan. Duncan is absolutely the better player, and has been.
|
Being a "bigger deal" is part of having a greater legacy. Kobe's game popularized the NBA worldwide in the 2000's. It has nothing to do with being a better/worse player than Duncan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
