Present Day Players Overrated?, Test Of Time, Etc.

[Fresh8]

I was just thinking the other day...

Are today's generation of NBA players overrated?

I am not saying that they are not exceptional athletes because that's not the case. And I am not saying that these guys are not talented. I am just wondering if all of the money and marketing in today's NBA makes the present day NBA player more than he really is when compared to the NBA pro basketball player from back in the day. Is the current state of sport inflating the value of the NBA player - not monetary but in terms of people's opinions of them.

The reason why I ask is that I was thinking about the age-old question of who are the top basketball players in NBA history. How do you rank players from different eras? That led me to ask myself, which players from the 50s, 60s, 70s have and will continue to survive the test of time. As aging fans pass away, memories of those great players will go away with them. It's inevitible that over time, many great players will be forgotten. And what about guys from the 80s/90s? Will Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan be a big part of NBA folklore 25 years from now? Or will they only play a minor part?

How will the legacies of many of these players stand?

I mean, time plays its part but the state of the NBA also has an effect. Mass communication allows all fans, worldwide, to have easy access to videos, games, news reports, articles about the present day player. And does the mass media make us overrate today's players and underrate or under appreciate the players of the past? You often hear the retired guys saying that they would be so much tougher than the present day NBA player. Do you think that past players are underrated?

So what do you guys think? For me, I think it's a little sad that only a select few would probably still be vividly remembered by future generations but I guess it's only natural.

[benji]

Overrated by who? Overrated how? Underrated compared to what?

It's not inevitable that anything is forgotten. We don't forget historical events if we've written them down or continue to pass them on in some other form. And we have: http://www.basketball-reference.com/ and http://www.nba.com/history/ and http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_ ... 1275525992 and so on.

[Andrew]

I'd say past greats do sometimes get underrated by younger fans who didn't grow up watching those players. I think there's also an awareness of the nostalgic filter that causes older fans to look back on the "good old days" and as such there's an effort to tear down the myth, to the point where players from yesteryear aren't given their due. Words like "legend" are put out there and I think some people take a fair amount in debunking the mystique.

It really just boils down to each generation having strong attachments to their own culture, attitudes, interests and icons and believing them to be superior to every other generation; past, present and future. It's a cycle we're doomed to repeat unto infinity.

[rise]

Nobody's ever going to forget MJ that's for sure. He's always going to be "the best" even if LeBron or Kobe or someone else becomes better than him just because he is the standard of superstars. Bird, Magic, Chamberlain, etc..., they're not going to be forgotten either. With today's competition in the NBA, it is doubtful that anyone will ever break some of Chamberlain's records (like the 100-point game), but there are good points that have been brought up already in this thread. The part where Andrew says that current players overshadow legendary players from the 60s, 70s, etc. with younger fans and it's 100% true. Michael Jordan was nearing his prime when I was born. I'm only 17 (born Jan. 1993) and I know just about nothing about older players. The only ones I really know stuff about are MJ (duh! he's the greatest) and Wilt Chamberlain (because of his zillions of broken records). Other, than them... not much. Like Larry Bird, I could tell you he was the star of the Celtics in 1980...ish?... and was a great rebounder and scorer. Another example is "Big O" Oscar Robertson. I couldn't tell anything about him except he's the only guy to average a triple-double for a full season. (except for some guys in NBA Live... lol) Anyway... what I'm trying to say without getting an ADD attack on everyone who is ever going to read this thing is that younger generations of players are going to get more attention until all the old guys make an SLCBA: Senior Legendary Citizens Basketball Association. (tm) z02 2010 These days, everyone will focus more on LeBron James or Kobe Bryant or someone instead of Larry Bird, because more people who follow basketball today care more about the newer and current players and as much as we want to believe the opposite, there's no way of feasibly denying it. 20 years from now, when everyone who is currently in the NBA is retired everyone will know about Chamberlain's 100 point game, but people are going to remember how successful King James' career was more clearly, because it happened more recently. That is just how younger fans (me, included) think: we care more about what's happening now than what happened twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty years ago. As we get older, we'll know (and care) about the older players that really set the standard at which today's players play to, but until then we'll be satisfied living in our own bubble of ignorance.

[shadowgrin]

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/paragraphs.html

[koberulz]

Like Larry Bird, I could tell you he was the star of the Celtics in 1980...ish?... and was a great rebounder and scorer.

And passer, and defender, and everything else. Drafted 78, rookie year was 80, played until he broke down in the early 90s. I know all this from memory.

I was born all of two years earlier than you, and started following the NBA in 2005. Speak for yourself about your ignorance of these players, but we're not all like that.

It isn't an entirely unreasonable point, though, because whilst I've seen Jordan, Magic, Bird, West, Wilt, Russell, Maravich, Shaq back when he could play basketball instead of running people over, Barkley, Erving, Ewing, Robinson, Frazier, Thomas, Dumars, Kareem, Worthy, McHale, Parish, and so on play (and even Mikan on a highlight reel), watching one-off games isn't quite the same as living through it. Anyone who was watching the NBA when Jordan was in it insists he's the greatest player ever absolutely undoubtedly, whereas all I see is Kobe Bryant without a long-range shot.

20 years from now, when everyone who is currently in the NBA is retired everyone will know about Chamberlain's 100 point game, but people are going to remember how successful King James' career was more clearly, because it happened more recently.

The fact that a 100-point individual performance is practically inconceivable probably doesn't help. Pity there's no visual record of this one. Though apparently, once adjusted for pace, Kobe Bryant's 81 point game was the greater feat.

That is just how younger fans (me, included) think: we care more about what's happening now than what happened twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty years ago. As we get older, we'll know (and care) about the older players that really set the standard at which today's players play to, but until then we'll be satisfied living in our own bubble of ignorance.

Again: speak for yourself.

[benji]

Anyone who was watching the NBA when Jordan was in it insists he's the greatest player ever absolutely undoubtedly

No, I don't.

[Rip32]

I think as the NBA and basketball itself has evolved over the years we've seen guys fall to the wayside when it comes to certain things. George Mikan and Bob Pettit were the best players around during their years, but they wouldn't be any type of factor in today's game. There's a good description of how the game as evolved in Simmons' Book of Basketball.

The ideas that the dimensions on the court have evolved, the introduction of black players (applies to Mikan/Pettit only really), and the overall changes in the way basketball is played have done a lot to change the perception of guys from the past. Could Player X from 1978 still be as good if he were playing today?

The changes in the game have definitely had an impact on the way people look at players, both past and present.

[The X]

koberulz, forget about comparing Kobe to MJ as Bryant still has yet to prove himself to even be the best guard (Magic by far) or even SG (Jerry West, although granted he is starting to close in on him) in Lakers' history (IMHO of course )

[benji]

I wouldn't name Bob Pettit as one of those players. He was still one of the best players in the league even during the addition of Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, etc. He wasn't one of those 1950s players that died with the shot clock, indeed he played his entire career with the shot clock and started his career five years after the color line was broken. He retired due to a bad knee not because the league had left him behind.

[koberulz]

koberulz, forget about comparing Kobe to MJ as Bryant still has yet to prove himself to even be the best guard (Magic by far) or even SG (Jerry West, although granted he is starting to close in on him) in Lakers' history (IMHO of course )

Only seen West play twice; the drubbing by the Knicks in '70 and some of the title win in '72. Either way, and with regard to Magic, my point still stands - not having been around when those players were, I don't see them as as big a deal as those who were around do.

The thing with the Kobe-Jordan comparison is that [url=http://waltonswisdom.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-are-there-so-many-kobe-haters.html]Kobe is the closest to Jordan anyone has ever been[/quote], at least from a 'watch the games' standpoint. Watching them both play, there really isn't much of a difference there.

[benji]

Dear god.

I can't even.

[The X]

koberulz, forget about comparing Kobe to MJ as Bryant still has yet to prove himself to even be the best guard (Magic by far) or even SG (Jerry West, although granted he is starting to close in on him) in Lakers' history (IMHO of course )

Only seen West play twice; the drubbing by the Knicks in '70 and some of the title win in '72. Either way, and with regard to Magic, my point still stands - not having been around when those players were, I don't see them as as big a deal as those who were around do.

The thing with the Kobe-Jordan comparison is that Kobe is the closest to Jordan anyone has ever been, at least from a 'watch the games' standpoint. Watching them both play, there really isn't much of a difference there.

So you've been comparing Kobe before they changed the no-handcheck rule that NBA implemented about 5 years back? This rule change can not be underestimated. I'd hate to see what MJ would do in his prime with the rules geared towards not being able to put a hand on him

[NovU]

Lolz... just when we thought we ended pointless Kobe(initially Lebron) discussion which actually was supposed to be about 23 claims of stupidity, we now seem to have a whole new discussion in Kobe/MJ.

Are today's generation of NBA players overrated?

I think not that many people think that way these days, perhaps it's the other way around though. Just a thought, since I do get the feeling that some try way too hard, diminishing what those so called 'legends' accomplished.

How will the legacies of many of these players stand?...
For me, I think it's a little sad that only a select few would probably still be vividly remembered by future generations but I guess it's only natural.

I think the same. Though we now have better video record with stats(which we always had) so at least the future generation will be able to look at the past more vividly while we can't, of 25-30 years ago.

[hova-]

You need to draw a line between comparing the statistics, the real value of a player on the court and his whole "legendary aura". By legendary aura I mean that, for example, Michael Jordan was THE player you link with the rise of the NBA and basketball globally.
By the time of the 90ies, the NBA reached new popularity heights and Michael Jordan was the repeating MVP (1991, 1992) at that time. He was the best player (and I think you can't argue with that at that time) in the best league of the world. Add the excitement the "Dream team" brought up in 1992 in Barcelona, when they simply dominated the world and you understand that it was a whole different time.

Even if a player reached the level of Jordan on the court and statistically, he would never be able to rise above the legend Michael Jordan. And if there was a player on Jordan's level before (Oscar Robertson for example), he would also never be considered to be "like Mike" because by the time of the 60ies and 70ies the NBA's popularity was limited to the amercian continent and thus there was no world-wide hype. (just ask your parents if you are non-american, my parents know Michael Jordan, but they do not even know any other player of the 70ies, 80ies or 90ies. Of the present time they do not only know Nowitzki but also some other players, simply because of the media coverage of the Olympics for example)

Today the popularity and hype is like "for granted". No one will ever have a chance to reach the status of players who helped to make the league what it is today. A world-wide popular corporation.


P.S. : I would not even try to compare any statistics, just let benji. do

[benji]

Good post Hova, but we stat people and academics don't compare across eras', we look to players against their own era. And then we spend decades arguing about the eras.

And we laugh at the Kobe is close to Jordan stuff because of this. Jordan dominated his position to the point where he dictated the championship. Kobe hasn't even been the best player at his position for any extended period. To the point where the Kobe cultists are arguing "WELL, HE ADOPTED JORDAN'S MANNERISMS, SO HE'S THE CLOSEST TO JORDAN!!!" to avoid admitting their guy is closer to Vince Carter than he is to Michael Jordan.

You can pretty easily separate hype from what someone actually did on the court. But people hate this. They want to justify their emotions over objectivity. They want to assign team success to their favorite player. They want to decide the players they like are gods and the players they don't are worse than they are.

[Andrew]

They want to justify their emotions over objectivity. They want to assign team success to their favorite player. They want to decide the players they like are gods and the players they don't are worse than they are.

And arbitrarily assign importance to a particular accomplishment or accomplishments. In Kobe's case, that would be the "81. Case closed." crowd.

[hova-]

You can pretty easily separate hype from what someone actually did on the court. But people hate this. They want to justify their emotions over objectivity. They want to assign team success to their favorite player. They want to decide the players they like are gods and the players they don't are worse than they are.

You're pretty right, kind of underlines my post. You not only can separate hype from on-court value, you have to draw a line if you want to compare those players.

But on on the other hand I ask myself how to measure the influence of a guy on a Championship calibre team like for example the Celtics right now. None of these guys' numbers really amaze you. Still they will have another shot at the title.
Actually it would be funny if there were not only player-debates but team-debates which means that everybody would talk about "the 2010 Lakers are better than the Showtime Lakers of 1985. I guess it would be way easier to justify the result of team comparisons than these player debates.

[Sauru]

Kobe is the closest to Jordan anyone has ever been, at least from a 'watch the games' standpoint. Watching them both play, there really isn't much of a difference there.

this is one of the worst statements i have ever seen.

[koberulz]

Where am I wrong?

[Sauru]

defense to start

[rise]

I was born all of two years earlier than you, and started following the NBA in 2005. Speak for yourself about your ignorance of these players, but we're not all like that.

bear with me koberulez, I have never watched the NBA closely until these playoffs so I'm still learning. I wasn't into b-ball much until now so I'll learn more and get back to you in like a year.

[koberulz]

defense to start

Kobe plays defense in a different-looking way to Michael?

[hova-]

A start would be the compare their steal statistics. Would be quite naive, but it's a start.

Oh, and don't forget about the DPOY awards. Maybe less naive I guess.

[Sauru]

defense to start

Kobe plays defense in a different-looking way to Michael?

in a much different looking way, see michael was damn good it. infact most games he was the best on both ends of the court