Mike Golic "takes dump" on Football Outsiders this morning

[FedEx227]

I thought another odd discussion had to do with Paul Piece and Clyde Drexler. Lefty and another guy over there again based on sabre basketball stats had Pierce>Drexler.

Sure you can show it sabremetrically stat wise I guess...? But when it comes down to it who would really start a steam with Paul Pierce over Clyde Drexler? Pierce is a very good player but Drexler is an all time great. Simply looking at the numbers doesn't really show what each meant to the teams in the grand scheme of the system etc.

I think a lot of people do underrated Pierce though because he plays in this era as opposed to the over-glorified 80s-90s like Drexler.

I'd still probably take Drexler, but I feel like far too many people underrated Pierce. He's a Hall of Famer. I don't think it's a slam dunk/no doubter on Drexler.

 

[FirstTimer]

FYI, Tex posts at VSN...just sayin.

For realz?

Who is he?

 

[FirstTimer]

I think a lot of people do underrated Pierce though because he plays in this era as opposed to the over-glorified 80s-90s like Drexler.

I'm not sure the 80-90's is over glorified. I'd take 80's-1995ish era basketball over what we have today pretty quickly. I think when you lump the 90's as a whole in it becomes an issue because IMO even with the Bulls second 3 peat the play wasn't that great in the second part of the decade.

I'd still probably take Drexler, but I feel like far too many people underrated Pierce. He's a Hall of Famer.

And this is where I think Pierce is overrated. I don't think he's a no doubter HOF'er. Do I think he gets in? Most likely...but I don't think he's a lock or a first ballot guy. Until he won that championship I'm not sure he was at all...let alone borderline.

 

[NAHSTE]

I think 1v1 is more a reference to 1 action = 1 reaction in the game of baseball.

Everything is quantifiable and the final result is the sum of all its parts.

Yeah, good point, I was doing the EmpireWF thing for a minute and thinking about it too literally. Abstractly, it is essentially a zero-sum game at all times.

Greg Maddux scoffs at you.

Lemmer scoffs right back.

 

[FedEx227]

I just mean the usual and very overdone and annoying "I hate the NBA today, I stopped watching in (insert year between 1995-1998)" makes people naturally overrated guys in the era they watched more and underrated all those in the era that they didn't watch much.

 

[FedEx227]

Yeah, good point, I was doing the EmpireWF thing for a minute and thinking about it too literally. Abstractly, it is essentially a zero-sum game at all times.

Yeah, that's really all I meant, is that at it's core it's a number of 1 on 1 battles or in that every single throw, hit, pitch, catch is completely quantifiable.

 

[FirstTimer]

I just mean the usual and very overdone and annoying "I hate the NBA today, I stopped watching in (insert year between 1995-1998)" makes people naturally overrated guys in the era they watched more and underrated all those in the era that they didn't watch much.

Ahh yes the meatball approach.

Fo rme I preferred the players, the style of play etc. I mean it's nothing I can truly quantify or prove to you statistically but IMO the brand and basketball was better. I think the athletes have obviously gotten better in many ways but I think that era had better true basketball players.

----

As for the Paul Pierce HOF stuff if a guy like Mitch Richmond isn't in..same with Larry Nance I'm not entirely sold that Paul Pierce is such a lock or such a sure thing...esepcially after he retires and his career has 5 years or so to marinate.

The Celtics will retire his number and all that jazz but honestly I'm not sure Pierce is a HOF'er.

 

[FedEx227]

I don't really want to get into it for the 9,000th time (I'm sure Warner is already crafting a post), but I know what you're saying in regards to the eras.

 

[Senser81]

Lemmer scoffs right back.

Somewhat on topic...I've never met a person who had the last name "Lemke" that WASN'T a hillbilly grit.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Actually I'm trying to wrap my brain around that Kiki/Carmelo comparison.

 

[FedEx227]

Kiki was better because he was white, didn't have tattoos or cornrows and didn't play in the 00s? I'm imagining this is the basis of your argument...

:smug:

 

[NAHSTE]

As for the NBA eras debate, I think the brand of basketball being played in 2010 is waaaay better than it was in 2000-2005 or so. Way more quality teams, likeable superstars (albeit boring) and a lot more ball movement.

The NBA isn't what it was in the 80s, but like all sports, they can blame expansion for that. You'll never see a team like the Celtics again, who had multiple HOFers coming off the bench.

 

[FirstTimer]

As for the NBA eras debate, I think the brand of basketball being played in 2010 is waaaay better than it was in 2000-2005 or so. Way more quality teams, likeable superstars (albeit boring) and a lot more ball movement.

The NBA isn't what it was in the 80s, but like all sports, they can blame expansion for that. You'll never see a team like the Celtics again, who had multiple HOFers coming off the bench.

No doubt.

Honestly, 1995-2005 even with the Bulls three peat was a dark ages of basketball for me. I'd watch the Bulls but not much else.

 

[NAHSTE]

No doubt.

Honestly, 1995-2005 even with the Bulls three peat was a dark ages of basketball for me. I'd watch the Bulls but not much else.

Yep, pretty much same here.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Kiki was better because he was white, didn't have tattoos or cornrows and didn't play in the 00s? I'm imagining this is the basis of your argument...

:smug:

I'm so confused right now.

 

[NAHSTE]

I really wish there was a way to burn a website down.

There is, just ask Buck to design a skin for them.