- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:02 pm to Hoops
quote:Dude. First off, it's fricking obvious. Second, how did you ignore the first part of my post? I didn't say that acknowledging how shitty the defenders were isn't subjective. I said the stats about pace and whatnot aren't subjective.
This isn't subjective?
shite man!
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:15 pm to ReauxlTide222
If the game was the same length I just don't think the style of play should be used as a negative.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:17 pm to Hoops
Holy fricking shite 
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:18 pm to Hoops
quote:It's not a negative, it's called context.
If the game was the same length I just don't think the style of play should be used as a negative.
If you think their scoring averages should count the same as guys' today, then to remain consistent, you'd have to also think all those guys were super terrible on defense, thus negating their awesome offensive numbers.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:31 pm to PrimeTime Money
I have him in my top 1.Best player ever.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:33 pm to shel311
Oh shite there's a word for considering the surroundings? Glad you stopped by to educate me on context. I don't believe the discussion has ever been greatest scorer, rebounder, etc. If a player dominated their era you can adjust the numbers all you want and they still dominated their era.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:37 pm to PrimeTime Money
I base it on the fact he banged more women than John Holmes and Ron Jeremy combined.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:43 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
How many of you have ever seen him play 1 full game in it's entirety? Not highlights. Just ONE game?
Babe Ruth was a hack
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:48 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Even Russell, an acknowledged defensive genius, only moderately slowed down Wilt's offense.
You are stupid.... Just look when it mattered most who WON and who DIDN'T............
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:51 pm to dukke v
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:54 pm to sms151t
Stop at what?????
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:56 pm to Hoops
quote:
Oh shite there's a word for considering the surroundings? Glad you stopped by to educate me on context. I don't believe the discussion has ever been greatest scorer, rebounder, etc. If a player dominated their era you can adjust the numbers all you want and they still dominated their era.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:57 pm to dukke v
Chamberlain hammered Russell head to head
You want to say Russell's teams were better fine, they were. Put Russell on the Warriors/76'ers and Wilt on Celtics, we'd speak of Wilt as Zeus of basketball.
You want to say Russell's teams were better fine, they were. Put Russell on the Warriors/76'ers and Wilt on Celtics, we'd speak of Wilt as Zeus of basketball.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 4:58 pm to shel311
Use your words like a big boy
Posted on 5/29/16 at 5:03 pm to Masterag
quote:I'm not saying because you didn't see someone play that they suck.
Babe Ruth was a hack
What I am saying is if you didn't see players play, then how can YOU accurately judge who should be ranked where?
When we're talking about the best players of all-time, they are all amazing players. So how can you make a ranking if you've never even seen many of them play the game? What are you basing it off of? Other people's opinions? What are they basing it off of? Other people's opinions?
People are ranking simply by word-of-mouth passed-down legends without ever seeing anything for themselves.
This post was edited on 5/29/16 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 5/29/16 at 5:05 pm to sms151t
quote:
Put Russell on the Warriors/76'ers and Wilt on Celtics, we'd speak of Wilt as Zeus of basketball.
BUT we can't do that can we... That's like putting Bron On the 1996 Bulls.. YOU ARE A DIPSHIT.. Who can't admit when he is wrong,...............
Posted on 5/29/16 at 5:11 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
So my question is... how can you regard him so highly if you've never seen him play?
The statistics speak for themselves. When they are that outstanding, you don't have to have seen someone play, when none of his contemporaries were even close to him. Statistics are imperfect but they're the best indicator we have to go on to measure a player's worth. I don't think there's anything I would glean from watching a full Wilt game to dissuade me from my opinion that he's an all-time great.
Additionally, there's a difference between better and greater. Greatness is a measure of someone vs their contemporaries. Wilt was clearly great vs who he went up against. That's all he can do. As far as if he's better than players today, we could have that argument all day. But he was greater than most.
If we made all time lists based on nothing but the statistics, it would very heavily favor players of the past 20 years. Does anyone consider David Robinson to be greater than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? Stats say he's better. Context matters.
This post was edited on 5/29/16 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 5/29/16 at 5:13 pm to dukke v
That's rich Peej
I just showed you head to head and career averages. Imperial data that proves that your statement was false.
Now you fricking drunk stupid babbling mother fricker learn to read facts and accept you are wrong. Now you can go claim you have cancer, your trailer burned down, or you're sober, but at least learn how to comprehend statistics and stop being the fricking clown. You are Kige level ignorant most of the time, it's not a good look .
I just showed you head to head and career averages. Imperial data that proves that your statement was false.
Now you fricking drunk stupid babbling mother fricker learn to read facts and accept you are wrong. Now you can go claim you have cancer, your trailer burned down, or you're sober, but at least learn how to comprehend statistics and stop being the fricking clown. You are Kige level ignorant most of the time, it's not a good look .
Posted on 5/29/16 at 5:30 pm to Goldrush25
quote:When you are talking about the early days of any sport, a lot of weird stats happen. Much of it has to do with the talent pool being small like it was back then.
The statistics speak for themselves. When they are that outstanding, you don't have to have seen someone play, when none of his contemporaries were even close to him.
quote:Umm, no they don't. Kareem has better stats.
If we made all time lists based on nothing but the statistics, it would very heavily favor players of the past 20 years. Does anyone consider David Robinson to be greater than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? Stats say he's better.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News