Best decade for the NBA?

[Deleted member 848]

I don't know if you understand. One Brow says that you like the 2000s. I'm sorry.

Right. Sweeping, generalizing, umbrella phrases are always true. All of us are simply predisposed to phenomenon, no matter what.






I'm Albanian, so by this logic I'm doomed to be uneducated, tax-avoiding, prostitute-pimping, hairy-assed, and big nosed.




I suppose a couple of those are true.

 

[addictionary]

I think streetball's effect reflected pretty well on the game. As it became a subculture with a deeper and deeper inside world of codes, styles and such, the development, artistic style and individual talent became much more under the spotlight. All the alley-oops, emphatic dunks-blocks, crazy crossovers, amazing dribbling skills, genius court sight assists and many other things gave the game a much better appetizer look. I just can't see what kind of a sports fan not like the game of basketball and I don't know many, hell I think none. Some of those decades have this evolution advantage over the others.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I enjoyed the late 80's the most... but not the early 80's. The 90's were a very close second though, and of course 97 and 98 were great. I have to go with the 90's because it was the full decade, where the late 80's was only a partial.

 

[Hotdog]

I voted 2010 to now.

Its definitely a time more friendly to the Jazz. Not that having Malone and Stockton wasn't great, it was just sad in a way that it was so hard to recruit help. They always had terrible depth. Not to mention the refs were far worse back then, there wasn't replay, refs blatantly favored bigger markets. I notice a huge difference in the way games are called now. The CBA is better than it has ever been too.

A lot of really good players are in the league now. I think the depth of the league is far greater now than it ever has been. The top half is also more heavy now than it ever has been too.

I believe the game has made considerable progress in terms of individual talents. The competition to make the league is harder than it ever has been. There is more access to the game and opportunities to learn the game. More money and more fame is to be gained. The carrott has gotten bigger and brighter so to speak.

Sure it may seem that team play has taken a hit and the chucker mentality has taken over. But it may be we just have more players capable of taking over a game. Its the same mentality that dominated the 90's and was a break through in what was thought one man was capable of doing (Jordan), and now its frowned upon but somehow the 90's rule. Go figure!

I just find it hard to believe that the stars of today's game wouldn't be just as good if not better in any era, including the 90's. As if there has been no intellectual progress inside the game. As if all the hours of todays modern man has spent studying the game now and its past has been all for not and a waste of time, and we would be better off if they left it alone. Huh?

No. Its just not true. Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Rose, Durant, Paul and the likes would all be shredding the league in the 90's and Jordan would be lucky to be walking around with 2 rings. You think Lebron couldn't do a very good job defending Jordan and stopping him from winning six. Or Kobe wouldn't have a say about who is winning rings? Lebron , Kobe and Wade is like having 3 Jordans in one era. Or the Spurs wouldn't be working over the entire league with the way they play and think?


I'm sorry but I dont think the 90's or any other era is as good as advertised. Its a lot of romanticizing the past. There were a lot of things wrong with the league back then.

 

[LogGrad98]

Anyone else notice that the poll results appear to be flipping us off?

 

[One Brow]

I'm not saying you have to agree with my opinion, but I think it's extremely presumptuous and even more condescending to have the attitude that you do about this (which is essentially that everyone's opinion is naturally invalidated unless they like an era that isn't what they grew up with). Furthermore, you addressed an entire one of the things I mentioned and didn't knock it out of the park either (this is a question of what is the best, not an equivalency based on relativism).

I think opinions can be based on highly subjective criteria (in this case, which era they grew up in and similar concerns) and still be valid. One case is when there there are no truly objective criteria, such as the era in which the NBA was best. If having the subjectivity pointed out really bothers you, you should really ask yourself why.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

^ how many bees fly into your bonnet when i say ...

(a) there are no "truly objective" criteria
(b) this doesnt give us license to be sloppy relativists because, despite (a), things have DIFFERENT not EQUAL value

 

[One Brow]

^ how many bees fly into your bonnet when i say ...

(a) there are no "truly objective" criteria
(b) this doesnt give us license to be sloppy relativists because, despite (a), things have DIFFERENT not EQUAL value

None. Should they?

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

You telling NUMBERICA that is position is (a) PERSPECTIVAL and then draining the discussion with (b) relativism was silly because....

1. All statements of fact or opinion are perspectival. So, you accomplish nothing here.
2. Relativism does too much to de-potentialize the value of/in someone's perspective, adding nothing but a moralizing pat on the head.

 

[One Brow]

You telling NUMBERICA that is position is (a) PERSPECTIVAL and then draining the discussion with (b) relativism was silly because....

1. All statements of fact or opinion are perspectival. So, you accomplish nothing here.
2. Relativism does too much to de-potentialize the value of/in someone's perspective, adding nothing but a moralizing pat on the head.

What if my intent is to remind people that 1. applies at least to this situation? Then not only did I accomplish that, but you have also helped me do so.

I disagree that relativism, when applied to that which is largely relative, depletes the value derived from someone's perspective. A truly rich life requires the ability to incorporate multiple perspectives and evaluate their values. If I prefer vanilla to chocolate, strawberry, or rocky road, my choice becomes no less enjoyable by the recognition it is subjective.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

What if my intent is to remind people that 1. applies at least to this situation? Then not only did I accomplish that, but you have also helped me do so.

I disagree that relativism, when applied to that which is largely relative, depletes the value derived from someone's perspective. A truly rich life requires the ability to incorporate multiple perspectives and evaluate their values. If I prefer vanilla to chocolate, strawberry, or rocky road, my choice becomes no less enjoyable by the recognition it is subjective.

you're savvy enough to know that NUMBERICA doesn't need a lesson on importance of relativism, that he steeps himself in multiple perspectives of his own accord. That's why it's interesting when he makes a firm declaration. It's more interesting to understand the PARTICULAR VALUES that compose his declaration than to bring everything back to the "ground" of relativism. Zzzzzzzzz.

 

[MVP]

It was tough choice for me between 80's and 90's but I leaned more towards 90's just because of the Jazz factor and them being powerhouse in 1996-1998.

 

[LogGrad98]

Right. Sweeping, generalizing, umbrella phrases are always true. All of us are simply predisposed to phenomenon, no matter what.






I'm Albanian, so by this logic I'm doomed to be uneducated, tax-avoiding, prostitute-pimping, hairy-assed, and big nosed.




I suppose a couple of those are true.

No no no. You are unique, just like everybody else.

 

[LogGrad98]

^ how many bees fly into your bonnet when i say ...

(a) there are no "truly objective" criteria

Oh yeah, how many slices of american cheese are in your fridge? I have 7. Pretty damn objective there.

(b) this doesnt give us license to be sloppy relativists because, despite (a), things have DIFFERENT not EQUAL value

 

[NUMBERICA]

I think opinions can be based on highly subjective criteria (in this case, which era they grew up in and similar concerns) and still be valid. One case is when there there are no truly objective criteria, such as the era in which the NBA was best. If having the subjectivity pointed out really bothers you, you should really ask yourself why.

I'd rather ask you why you think you need to come into a thread and **** on everyone, change the stated criteria, and insist on blasting *** on your tummy about how smart you think you are.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I'd rather ask you why you think you need to come into a thread and **** on everyone, change the stated criteria, and insist on blasting *** on your tummy about how smart you think you are.

I was fine with it. It was hilarious seeing him backtrack in the severity of his statement, when NAOS dairy-queen'd him. Many bees most certainly flew into his bonnet

 

[NUMBERICA]

I was fine with it. It was hilarious seeing him backtrack in the severity of his statement, when NAOS dairy-queen'd him. Many bees most certainly flew into his bonnet

Vulcans that don't understand simple instruction don't get bees in their bonnets.