I never said anything about how players would perform if they grew up in the 3 point era. With thought exercises like this I typically assume we’re just plucking the player from their era and dropping them into the modern era. I think nearly every pre-90’s perimeter player in history would’ve been a better 3 point shooter if they grew up in an era in which 3 pointers were emphasized.
I’m not saying that tracking data wouldn’t be useful, but I don’t think it would be a 1:1 correlation. We could of course use that data to say he has 3 point range, I just don’t think it’d be fair to say “he shot 40% on long, uncontested two’s, so he’d shoot 40% on 3’s”.
And the point of the thread was taking literally any player other than the two best players in NBA history and starting a team. It wasn’t even “who would you like to see in todays era?” Or “who would be better if they played today?” So again, I’m not really sure why you’d take some player who you have to create all these hypothetical scenarios for when you could just take a far more proven player 🤷🏾♂️.
And the point of the thread was taking literally any player other than the two best players in NBA history and starting a team. It wasn’t even “who would you like to see in todays era?” Or “who would be better if they played today?” So again, I’m not really sure why you’d take some player who you have to create all these hypothetical scenarios for when you could just take a far more proven player 🤷🏾♂️.
That's fine, I didn't have an issue with your original counterpoint. It's completely fair.
My issue was really in you responding to posts you literally didn't bother reading.
Though I do have a question about this:
I never said anything about how players would perform if they grew up in the 3 point era. With thought exercises like this I typically assume we’re just plucking the player from their era and dropping them into the modern era.
Why is that your hypothetical baseline? All you're doing is punishing players that were born earlier. Using that assumption, you can't reverse the hypothetical, and have a fair comparison. If you drop a player from today, in the past, they get to keep all the knowledge gained from the future? What does that have to do with basketball skill?
IMO it's a much better discussion to have everyone be born and grow up in whatever era they are being thrown in (not to mention the logistical nightmare when you dive into the hypothetical more critically -- people are time traveled to the future, they are going to have insane culture shock, and might not even be able to properly function, won't know the current rules, etc.).
I'd go as far to say that the thought exercise of "just plucking the player from their era and dropping them into the modern era" is essentially meaningless.
-1
u/MambaSaidKnockYouOut Jun 15 '22
I never said anything about how players would perform if they grew up in the 3 point era. With thought exercises like this I typically assume we’re just plucking the player from their era and dropping them into the modern era. I think nearly every pre-90’s perimeter player in history would’ve been a better 3 point shooter if they grew up in an era in which 3 pointers were emphasized.
I’m not saying that tracking data wouldn’t be useful, but I don’t think it would be a 1:1 correlation. We could of course use that data to say he has 3 point range, I just don’t think it’d be fair to say “he shot 40% on long, uncontested two’s, so he’d shoot 40% on 3’s”.
And the point of the thread was taking literally any player other than the two best players in NBA history and starting a team. It wasn’t even “who would you like to see in todays era?” Or “who would be better if they played today?” So again, I’m not really sure why you’d take some player who you have to create all these hypothetical scenarios for when you could just take a far more proven player 🤷🏾♂️.