EPTNBA Offseason 2014 - Page 61
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
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. . Well, there is the fact that so many of them go bankrupt just a few years after earning millions of dollars. Then there is the fact that many (not sure if it is still a majority) would not be admitted to the college they attended sans sports. Plus that even in long form interviews they are horrible. Plus most that go into broadcasting are terrible (and those presumably are among the best at speaking). And finally, because writers feel the need to praise the few athletes who don't make idiotic decisions as some sort of savant. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
People have never flocked to watch Duncan play they way they do with Kobe. Duncan hasn't drawn interest in the sport or helped it grow the way that Kobe has. That isn't a criticism of Duncan as a player, but it does work against him when comparing how he'll be remembered or perceived and in terms of his legacy. Kobe has been a much greater ambassador of the game and done much more in terms of increasing its popularity and impact on the general public, which certainly has value and will certainly come into play after he retires. Many more people will gush and tell stories about times they watched Kobe play when they're old and talking about this time period to the younger generation. Many more people will talk about and remember Kobe in general, which is certainly something to consider. Sad to say, I could easily see many basketball fans and players growing up in a decade or two who may barely recognize Duncan or have any idea how good he was/is. He'll probably be become someone older or hardcore fans will refer to as someone only "true" basketball fans who know what they're talking about will remember and appreciate. But Kobe will remain synonymous with the NBA, just as Jordan has. Also, Duncan's style of play also works against him in terms of being remembered or emulated in later years. His game is no-nonsense and very fundamental, with little flash or flair. Duncan's highlight reels would consist of that consistent bank shot, his fabulous footwork that resulted in little flips, hooks shots or fadeaways, and great defense. But there will be few buzzer beaters, monster dunks, killer crossovers, or sensational blocks followed by screams or staredowns. At the heart of it, his play is simply less entertaining to watch, even if you know how effective and efficient it is. He "quietly" puts up stats, and people will have few specific memories of his games because there have been fewer spectacular or eye-catching plays. Even his most ardent fans will have few specific plays or memories to talk about or remember as years pass, because few of his plays stand out from each other. Needless to say, Kobe is on the opposite end of the spectrum with his high degree of difficulty plays and shots in big games. It doesn't make for efficient basketball, but it certainly makes a player much more memorable. Plus, as a 7 foot big man, there simply aren't a lot of people who can do what Duncan does on the court even if they worked at it. A kid shooting hoops in his backyard or on a playground won't be able to back down defenders and toss hook shots over them, or dominate the paint with rim protection and rebounding even if they watch Duncan religiously. Duncan was a physical specimen in terms of his wingspan, height and size, which made him extremely valuable and scarce as a basketball player, but very difficult, if not impossible, to try to emulate or pattern your game after except for a minority of the population. On the other hand, anyone can learn to dribble and shoot from the perimeter, albeit to questionable success. Even little kids can do their versions of the Kobe fadeaway, and there's no size or height requirement to do so. In the end, I think Kobe will win out when comparing the two for most people. If you're talking strictly on-court, then Duncan arguably has the edge because of his sustained high-end production that carried his teams on both ends. However, Kobe was/is excellent enough on the court to at least make it arguable because he is truly one of the most skilled players to ever play the game in terms of how wide his skillset is and how he does everything so well. Duncan dominates the post on both ends and has a very effective mid-range jumpshot that improved as he got older. Kobe, on the other hand, excels at literally everything that someone can do in basketball, i.e. perimeter shooting, FT shooting, dribbling, passing, etc. While his defense has never been as good as Duncan's and has fallen off much more dramatically over the years, there is just enough evidence of Kobe the elite defender out there for people to argue that he was capable of it, even if he didn't always use it. He's also excellent in the post and a very good rebounder for a guard. I'm not saying that those things make Kobe the definitive better player, only that there's enough evidence to argue that he was just as good as Duncan on the court. Then, once you get into the off-court stuff, Kobe wins out by a mile and either makes up for whatever deficiency you find in his on-court impact or pushes him over the top. Whether it's fair or not, this will end up being known as the Kobe era and he will likely end up on more people's "Mt. Rushmores" as time passes. | ||
|
FakePseudo
Belgium716 Posts
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. I don't know if you're answering my post right above this or not, but anyway. I was just pointing out that bringing up longevity as the determining argument and in the favor of KB in a Duncan vs Kobe debate does not make sense [to me] And as I announced in this post, here's where I disagree when talking legacy. Being the face of their respective franchise and leading it to five championship with some arguably comparable help set aside (because on that front both player bring roughly the same to the table); I'd take setting the tone on the floor, being a fatherly figure, and transitioning the way TD has from being the #0 option on offense into being a facilitator on the floor and into being one of the reasons the Spurs team is where it's at now over taking max contracts and tying the arms of the franchise for a long time, as well as largely remaining a ballhog; being popular in China and a more marketable icon nonwithstanding. But I know there are obvious caveats in taking the condition of your team when you leave it as a large factor in legacy. That's how I feel this word though. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On July 21 2014 16:03 RowdierBob wrote: 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. It's not Knee-Jerk. It's a quiet and well-reasoned thoughtfulness. A 30 billion dollar industry just does not just do things cause they're hysterical. There is a fundamental value to teams like the Pelicans or the Hornets or the Nets. Look, if you think a team selling purposefully losing as hope is sustainable, that's fine. I don't think it is. Frankly, the only thing that justifies what the 76ers have done is an NBA championship and I don't think they'll win one in the next half decade. | ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
On July 22 2014 02:33 FakePseudo wrote: I don't know if you're answering my post right above this or not, but anyway. I was just pointing out that bringing up longevity as the determining argument and in the favor of KB in a Duncan vs Kobe debate does not make sense [to me] And as I announced in this post, here's where I disagree when talking legacy. Being the face of their respective franchise and leading it to five championship with some arguably comparable help set aside (because on that front both player bring roughly the same to the table); I'd take setting the tone on the floor, being a fatherly figure, and transitioning the way TD has from being the #0 option on offense into being a facilitator on the floor and into being one of the reasons the Spurs team is where it's at now over taking max contracts and tying the arms of the franchise for a long time, as well as largely remaining a ballhog; being popular in China and a more marketable icon nonwithstanding. But I know there are obvious caveats in taking the condition of your team when you leave it as a large factor in legacy. That's how I feel this word though. I don't know what to say. Tim Duncan's a top 10 player of all time that puts up amazing stats, but that's all he is. He doesn't have any personality outside the game and nothing that casual basketball fans will remember him for. 10 years from now when casual fans talk about basketball, they will remember Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
On July 22 2014 03:33 Daozzt wrote: Great. We're talking about legacy. That includes the opinions of casual fans which is about 99% of basketball watchers. I mean there's room for a ton of extra debate here about just this point. I think probably the most interesting example is Kareem who was so much better than almost everyone remembers. He's at worst the third best player ever (only Jordan and Russell belong in same conversation), but his 'legacy' outside of serious basketball junkies is pretty limited. Seriously Kareem was amazing, and he's the best movie actor too. He got a reputation as a jerk (possibly deserved possibly not) from reporters of his day and has never really transitioned into quite the same establishment figure. It comes down to what you mean by legacy. Kobe will 'win' any such debate if your just talking mainstream media penetration. He's ridden the modern media wave better than just about anyone, plays in LA, and has always played in the Jordan-style. And only because Jordan is Jordan does Kobe not have the best ever legacy by that definition. If we're talking about legacy as somewhat synonymous with career accomplishments, then that's very different. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
1. That he basically always won 50 games a season for basically 2 decades. 2. That the Spurs have basically ushered in the "new" basketball game, while still winning. I dont expect this to happen, but there could be some time in the future where people look back and see Duncan+Pop as NBA pillars that shepherded the league from a lumbering league into the new age stat+3pt+fast break of today. It would kind of be false, and greatly exaggerated, but idiot sports writers 20 years from now might create that narrative because they dont know better + there will be some dumb future Bob Ryan who will be all about it. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if legacy is just what the players are in fact worth then it is completely reducible to a set of on court facts about the players, but with different weighting or preferences. at this point it is then useless to talk of legacy when you are really discussing for example consistency vs peak skill mastery or the value of each player relative to their position. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
| ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
| ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
Kobe (without going into rehashed stuff I've said before) is the best guard since Jordan though. And there have been a lot of people who have tried to be like Jordan, he has just came the closest. I don't know who will have the better legacy, just pointing this out. | ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
On July 22 2014 08:02 Daozzt wrote: Duncan will raise some heads if he ties Jordan but until then he's just a 7 foot guy who's really good at basketball. Stop it. | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
On July 22 2014 08:13 MassHysteria wrote: If he wins it this season, it will be Duncan's first back-to-back titles of his career. There is something to be said to not ever be able to repeat championships (everyone goes after the champion). Although it is a fact not solely reliant on Duncan, these other player's teams have had some great 3 or 4 year runs, with possible three-peats or even four-peats. Kobe (without going into rehashed stuff I've said before) is the best guard since Jordan though. And there have been a lot of people who have tried to be like Jordan, he has just came the closest. I don't know who will have the better legacy, just pointing this out. Being able to win championships as the best/one of the best members of his teams in multiple decades/eras of the game is also impressive though. | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
| ||
| ||
