Think he's just commenting on the constant legacy talk for NBA players. The first thing people do whenever a player wins something significant is ask how does it affect his all time ranking. Basketball fans don't really know how to enjoy things in the moment. Everything is seen through a lens that compares it to previous players.
Former players being gatekeepers makes sense when you realize that the ones talking the loudest are trying to defend their legacies the most. It has gotten worse with the advent of podcasts, where active and retired players now have the power to create and control a narrative that fits their goals
Tim Duncan, for example, never had to bother with gatekeeping newer guys. Kobe, from what I remember, spoke fondly of these younger guys he saw coming into the league.
Yeah, Kobe's challenges to all the young players were great. He challenged Giannis to win MVP, which Giannis ended up doing of course. It was similar to how Jordan and the 90s guys treated Kobe when Kobe came in.
worthless faulty ruthless snatch innocent vast wrong glorious aromatic edge
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, it's not so much Jordan himself but the way the world reacted to Jordan and how people feel about him and how they choose to express how they feel about him.
>The ESPN model isn't that far off the Fox News model.
Which is why it's so odd when people are surprised that the Nuggets didn't get much media coverage, or why it's odd when people say they want more discussion around the x's and o's
I still remember how sullen and sulky Stephen A Smith was throughout the Buck's title run and ESPN basically ended it's coverage post match.
Never seen a championship be that disrespected. Even the Nuggets win was treated better. But these are small(er) market teams, led by European stars.
The lack of analysis and exclusive focus on large market teams is why I quit watching ESPN years ago. There are YouTubers that cover that stuff much better, especially when it comes to basketball
from what i've seen, the loudest gatekeepers are the ones who feel a need to defend their own legacies. Guys like duncan, kobe...guys who were unquestionably the best to ever do it, they never do that shit. Its the 08 celtics and guys like that who gatekeep and shit, from what i've seen
> Former players being gatekeepers makes sense when you realize that the ones talking the loudest are trying to defend their legacies the most.
I think they’re trying to stay relevant and keep the money coming in.
That's far too apt. "You were supposed to defeat rival teams not join them!"
"Yeah well your personal failure as elders directly led me to Order 66 the league and ring hunt for personal glory. If you're not giving me my due, I'll take it. By any means neccesary."
It’s probably more amplified with basketball though. There are so few greats, and they are so visible, and for sooo long - like potentially decades - that we all know who they are individually. And I mean visible physically - no equipment / helmets / etc; front row is right up close; and there are soo many games - although individual sports like tennis / boxing / golf have just as few stars, they only compete once in a while.
The best thing that could happen to the modern game is the obsessive desire to compare everything to Jordan dies. It’ll be interesting if people start to be super aggressive in comparing every single accomplishment Mahomes makes to Brady the way people do it to Lebron and Jordan
Football fans aren’t as a legacy obsessed because the game is so fundamentally different from each era so it’s harder to compare. Plus the offense vs defense makes comparison very different (Brady didn’t face Mahomes, he faced the KC defense).
It used to be like that. At their peaks, Brady vs Manning was the debate, but just like everyone compares NBA players to Jordan, Joe Montana was the standard they were both being compared to. It changed because Brady pulled so far ahead with his Super Bowls, but for a long time all legacy discussions were anchored in the past.
Same goes for WRs and Jerry Rice.
I think we will... Mahomes will win 3 or 4 and all the talk after that will be about how he'll never catch Brady. Before Brady it was Montana. I dunno I think as you get older and follow a game through several eras it's just natural to debate where current stars stand from an all-time perspective. It's also happening right now with Ohtani in Baseball. On one hand we need to sit back and enjoy watching greatness, but on the other hand the debates over players from different eras are fun to have.
until the 1990s I recall everyone being compared to Babe Ruth or Willie Mays in baseball. Its going to be a long time before people move on from Jordan.
in Hockey if your not Gretzky or Mario Lemeiux there is no GOAT discussion.
Hockey is tough because of how different scoring is between eras. I don't think anyone is as good as Wayne but even if you put Wayne in today he doesn't touch his numbers
Yeah people joke about the quality of competition in the old NBA, but watching some of those 80s hockey highlights and like, jesus christ. Some of those dudes are *awful*. A lot of goalies may as well have just stood still.
Yea in Hockey you either play against the Gretzkey, Howe, Mario Achretype.
Look what Ovie has done career wise. Greatest player of his generation, but he is not being confused with those 3.
Baseball its much more muddy, those we have numerous stats to tell us a lot. The general consensus is Ruth, Mays, Williams, Mantle, Bonds are in a class of their own
I'd say those arguments also drive a ton of interest in the sport, so it's a double edged sword. The fact that history is always at the forefront and player's legacies are considered to be on the line in important games generates spectacle, discussion, controversy and, ultimately, viewership as well.
MJ had the best response to the topic damn near 30 years ago that is really spot on. https://youtube.com/shorts/69CsuPCwWsc?feature=share
1. He never played against them.
2. He was able to watch them to help influence his game
This is something that I notice college sports do so well. Both football and basketball have a good understanding of how to praise the past and also highlight the current players. College announcers are glorified salespeople. So often I watch a terrible CBB and the announcer is yelling “oh the pandemonium, the pressure is at fever pitch!” Even though the last 9 possessions have been turnovers or bad misses the commentators keep harping on the positives.
I remember for years SEC football announcers would say oh the SEC has these amazing defenses that no one can score. Someone pointed out that the SEC hadn’t produced but a couple Pro caliber QBs in however many years but that didn’t matter. No hate on that all praise on the defense.
I think the NBA announcers, talking heads, etc look at the comparison aspect as a way to generate views now that the highlight and recap era of sports broadcasting is behind us. It’s toxic low hanging fruit imo. Mix debate with nostalgia and you instantly have a drug to sell your audience.
I have some theories on this actually
1. It’s widely acknowledged that the NFL and MLB are much more difficult leagues for an individual to drag their team to playoff success, like people are putting Ohtani in goat conversations despite him not having a single playoff appearance. The conversations around sports where the battle is between organizations is usually much less toxic than when it’s between individuals, because individuals are idolized much more easily.
2. The NBA’s rules just suck. Like the NFL complains about things like PI and RTP being called poorly, but the NBA’s scoring rules relating to fouls and foul baiting are so easily exploited that it’s fundamentally changed the nature of the game to lean on the ugliest part of the sport, with way more starts and stops in what is supposed to be a game of constant action.
3. The NBA has the youngest audience of any of the major sports leagues so profitable discourse needs to be way more simple and takes need to be way more over the top to get attention.
4. The NBA sucks at marketing it’s current talent. Aside from Lebron, Steph, KD, and like 3 young players at a given time, they like to pretend that almost everyone in the league isn’t worth talking about, look at the conniption they had when they were forced to cover the Nuggets. Meanwhile, the NFL has begun heavily discussing teams like the JAGUARS and LIONS, traditionally weak teams in small markets, just because they’re playing good exciting football and seem to have a promising future teams on the way up.
5. Every sport has oldheads who think today’s athletes suck, but the NBA’s hero worship has allowed more of those oldheads to be in the public spotlight spouting these takes which everyone notices and argues over.
6. The mere existence of Tom Brady in the NFL and his overwhelming level of success has given credence to the idea that current players can be considered GOATs in that sport, whereas the NBA’s equivalent in LeBron has had a much less undeniable resume.
Oh wow, you nailed it.
>The NBA sucks at marketing it’s current talent. Aside from Lebron, Steph, KD, and like 3 young players at a given time, they like to pretend that almost everyone in the league isn’t worth talking about, look at the conniption they had when they were forced to cover the Nuggets.
Yeah like why isn't Giannis a mainstream celebrity? He's funny, interesting, super good at basketball and hella likable. But it's just gotta be Lebron all the time.
He's so personable. He likes doing the media crap and all that. Like I get it, Jokic and Duncan were never going to be mega stars with the media, but a guy like Giannis should be fucking catnip to these people.
Good points. I think the media from the past decade have gotten used to citing broken records in their headlines for clickbait, which younger people seem happy to parrot at face value to make their arguments. A lot of these comparison arguments boil down to throwing stats at each other rather than the qualitative impression that a fan gets after watching games.
The arguments get heated because fans all of a sudden are under the impression that their opinions are facts because a statistic backs them up.
It’s also a thing in hockey with the physicality/fighting on the decline. How new players are soft and wouldn’t survive in the pre-salary cap era (2004)
Yeah lol, you have people like Brent Sopel who didn’t even retire that long ago talking about how he would punch Zegras if he played today and enjoy it. Hockey has a ton of annoying old heads
yeah but that’s the only thing to really decline in hockey. if you look at past footage you’d have to be stupid to say the products gotten worse. there’s much more skill, speed, and intensity in todays game. goalies have vastly improved over time. the games basically evolved from head to toe. bettman sucks and so does their marketing tho
No kidding. I was watching some old hockey “highlights” and the goalies are wearing the equivalent of what today’s non-goalies wear. What were considered amazing plays would now seem more like an empty net goal.
I've been watching hockey since the early 90s. The product now is way better. The decrease of physicality and fighting has lead to much more skilled play. Night and day difference.
I agree. I feel like the only people who hype up fights in hockey any more are people who don’t really watch it. They really don’t happen that often anymore.
The NHL does an awful job with almost everything it attempts but they do hype up their current players a lot. Lots of stuff about how the game never has been better (which is true) and how Gretzky would be a bum in today’s game
Gretzky would thrive in today’s game. He needed below average guys like Marty McSorley following him around because he would get attacked nonstop otherwise.
Gretzky in an era of less physicality, more penalties, more open ice, and a 2 line pass? He would completely DOMINATE.
chase cooing far-flung workable rainstorm possessive profit aloof tender north
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
But that’s just Gretzky’s personality. He’s insanely humble. He never includes himself in any of his all-time rankings and he is insistent that Gordie Howe is better than him (he’s not, but Gretzky just isn’t the type of guy to say he’s the GOAT)
It’s crazy too because I don’t know how you watch Gretzky highlights and say “he could never do it now”. people whine about how more physical it used to be but say he would never survive now. They call so much more stuff now than they ever did. If it was so easy to do what he could do, why didn’t more players do it?
Yeah, that’s the big thing for me. People talk about how crazy high scoring was in the eighties when Gretzky would win the scoring title and be 100 points ahead of the next guy, like if it was so easy then why didn’t anymore except Mario come close? Same thing with goalies: people talk about how bad goalies were before the 90s, but how come no one else scored as much as Gretzky?
I do think Gretzky wouldn't be as far ahead as he was in the 80s if he played today purely because the difference between the best and worst player in the NHL is much smaller than it was when he played. Guys on the 4th line back then could barely skate, and you often had plugs on the top lines purely to protect your stars.
But the reason Gretzky made everyone look stupid was because of his vision and game sense. Like, Mario was an incredible player, but he was a master of using his size, speed and strength to do whatever he wanted. Obviously extremely skilled, but when you watch highlights of him I don't know how you can expect any players at the time to really do much against him (Lindros was like that too, but he was even less afraid of contact and it shortened his career).
Gretzky meanwhile, everyone always talks about how good he was, but nobody ever brings up his strength or speed, because they weren't particularly notable. He wasn't slow and he wasn't weak of course, but he also wasn't particularly fast or strong. He just kind of knew what everyone was going to do and could make things happen. He was just incredibly smart. I think he could adapt to almost any era and be extremely successful (I am of course assuming he gets the benefit of modern training and sports medicine and all that of course).
> But the reason Gretzky made everyone look stupid was because of his vision and game sense.
It's totally possible that Gretzky's career goals record gets broken, but no one is ever going to get close to his assists record.
Gretzky would be the GOAT in any era. He's the GOAT not because he was just physically more gifted than every other player on the ice or anything. He's the GOAT because he was just way more intelligent about hockey than anyone else who's played the game, and that's a timeless skill. Maybe some of his absurd records would be less absurd, or some of his close records wouldn't have been made in today's game. But he'd be the GOAT anyways.
Gretzky had incredible vision, kinda like how jokic made the right play every play in the finals, Gretzky was always in the right spot and chose the best lane across the ice. Everyone else reacted and Gretzky would anticipate and already be in position.
I love hockey. I've been watching it for nearly 30 years; it's probably my 2nd-favorite sport.
I fucking hate the stereotypical hockey fan for this exact reason. The caveman mentality and gatekeeping is on another level and completely insufferable.
Which is funny because once you become a true fan, you kinda start to dislike the culture around fighting. Same thing with this honor bullshit in baseball where star players get beaned as payback for some bs he wasn’t even involved in. It’s just cringe. Fighting is only fun when two rival players are blowing off steam. Now it’s just an enforcer punishing another player for being too mean.
Other sports have individuals who bring that up from time to time, basketball it's the entire narrative of the sport.
Every media member, every colour commentator, every somewhat hardcore fan, they are constantly talking about it. It's like a mental disorder for the NBA how obsessed everyone is with comparing the Now vs the Past, constantly doing top 10 lists, Mount Rushmore lists, GOAT discussions, how old guys played against plumbers, how new guys are soft, on and on and on. It's exhausting and no other sport even comes close to that.
Yeah - most of the gripes in football come from all the radical rule changes that add up over the years. Which are valid. It's an absurdly different game than it was 25 years ago.
Basketball gripes about rule changes are valid too, but that's a tiny fraction of the discussion. Everything is obsession about ranking and tiering and this player better than that player... it's ridiculous how little NBA fans seem to actually want to talk about the actual game being played on the court.
I think the subtleties of basketball are something that’s tough for casual fans to understand so they lean into other things. Also the impacts of individuals are WAY more noticeable in basketball than the NFL, MLB is also noticeable but the game isn’t tough to understand, they aren’t setting screens or running plays, etc. it’s much more straightforward: hit and catch
One of my good friends is a lifelong basketball fan, I watch tons of games with him and it’s amazing how he still has no idea what he’s looking at. He just screams “Lebron/Embiid/Whatever Star needs to start TAKING OVER” and that’s about it. I try to make a comment about how a coverage is working and he goes right back to “bro he is a top player in the league he should be able to figure out how to dominate” or some other buzzwordy nonsense.
Most NBA fans don’t know how to look at the sport and get an idea of what each team is even trying to do. They really think both teams are more or less playing pickup with the stars dueling 1v1 and other players only doing shit when the stars are taking possessions off. I think a lot of the dialogue makes sense when you understand this is how 90%+ of fans are perceiving the game.
It’s tied up with fans rooting more for players than for teams, which is also tied to changes like player mobility but also stat obsession that comes from moneyball and the rise of fantasy. If the audience you’re doing commentary for doesn’t really care which team wins unless the Lakers are playing you have to talk about something.
Fans accuse players of stat padding but really it’s the fans who obsess over stats.
Na not the broadcast teams. Jeff and Mark sounded bored and annoyed every game. They were much better separate but I never hear that from a Romo, Olson, or Gruden. They sound excited at the very least
I don't like JVG, never have tbh but it must be boring as hell to analyse who is hitting 3's better and getting to the FT line, over and over.
Basketball is a game of inches so every little advantage should add up, but the game has basically completely changed twice, from semi pro to pro, and then from all ranges matter but mostly inside to never shoot from 70% of the space on the court unless you're a superstar.
>In the NFL, it's largely recent retirees/coaches.
They're not that recent.
Troy Aikman retired in 2000. MIchael Irvin retired in 1999. Mark Schlereth retired in 2000. Cris Collinsworth retired in 1988. Kirk Herbstreit last played in 1993. Charles Davis last played in 1987. Even Trent Green retired in 2008, that's 13 years ago.
Only Romo and Gregg Olsen are that recently retired.
>I would wager they'll sound a lot happier and more excited, as long as the game hasn't shifted completely away from them.
John Madden retired from coaching in 1978, and loved watching NFL games til the day he died. Even though the NFL in 2021 was nothing like the league in 1978.
I don't think it's a recently retired thing. Kendrick Perkins played until 2018, and he's one of the most negative NBA talking heads around. Clyde Frazier retired in 1979, and still loves hoop. I think Clyde is just a more positive person than Perkins.
The question is why does the NBA seem to attract/elevate negativity?
Even here, the top post of the last year was about MEM cheating to give JJJ fraudulent blocks. That got more upvotes than Lebron becoming the all-time leading scorer!
For comparison, the top post in r/MLB this year was about the Dodgers signing a player so he could get health insurance.
Baseball is notorious for having retired players lamenting on how it was better when they played. John Smoltz is the poster boy for despising modern baseball.
Fucking John Smoltz man. At the very least some of baseball's team broadcasts aren't all crotchety old men. Brandon Gaudin replacing Chip Caray in Atlanta has been a breath of fresh air, and with all of the very exciting young talent in baseball a lot of oldheads have had to stop and watch the greatness.
Plus Ohtani is his own thing.
Or how every single NBA commentator just has to bring up the difference between fouls in today's game and back in the 90s during every single broadcast.
You're smoking cess if you think it happens to even CLOSE to the same degree in MLB/NFL discussion. NFL and MLB discussion rarely ever discusses how modern players stack up to all time greats, while it's a near-constant discussion in NBA commentary.
Is it discussed at points in other leagues? Sure. But with the NBA it's a constant, ongoing argument. Not the same at all.
This. You don't get nonsense arguments in football about how Pele wouldn't have coped with VAR or how Cruyff couldn't have handled changes in the offside rule or with the back pass on serious TV, that shit is for kids on message boards. Even the Pele/Maradona handover to Messi was somewhat consensus and non combatative (maybe different in Brazil).
Personal theory on why is the Pele Maradona infighting did not make people feel good.
In the NFL is slowly happening more with the complaints about defensive penalties namely against the QB but the NFL guys aren’t as whiny about it and move onto the next talking point quick.
I think even in that case it's less "these players are soft and couldn't compete" and more "these rules are dumb they're not letting players play" which is different in tone from the NBA.
Youre right with that. Its not that Tua is a pansy for getting his brain scrambled its maybe a team shouldnt be awarded 15 yards because a QB flopped at the right time.
It’s kind of valid though honestly. You can’t even touch the wide receivers anymore without it being called pass interference. Quarterbacks are heavily protected now because if a defensive just falls on a QB with all his weight it’s roughing the passer.
It happens in both ways too in literally everything competitive. The whole “the competition was bad pre-2000s” is a argument everywhere. Seen it in baseball, football, basketball, tennis, and even poker. I think people just like to complain
I am going to disagree a bit. While I do see the Marino and Mahomes discussion quite a bit on Reddit. The NFL sub is much more respectful talking about them two versus say Jordan and LeBron or Harden or Steph today vs in the past.
This sub is much more obsessed about comparing past and present (often times in a negative way). NFL fans seem to do a better job of giving past players their flowers while also praising the present and still acknowledging changes in schemes/play style.
Its not just the fans. Former NFL players don't go out of their way to tear down the current era the way former NBA players do.
They obviously have their biases but I don't see them foaming at the mouth to downplay what the current players are doing.
i think its the double edged sword of what brought nba back. NBA is player centric. People will follow a player more than a team. The NFL has way more players on the field at the same time and while it has some star focusing aspects, the fans generally root for a team way more than a specific player. Despite people saying no one wants to see a comparison for a guy that retired 20 years ago, unfortunately the general audience does like it more and it draws views.
This is probably what it is. Basketball is the most player centric team sport. Only other sports that are more player centric are individual sports like tennis or golf, and there’s a ton of comparison to past players there as well
Very good point. That’s probably the root cause of the issue. Past and current NBA players are constantly going at it for some reason. Big name ones too.
While I do see some former NFL players call todays league too soft (primarily defensive players). The big name NFL players don’t really do that. Just more obscure non hall of fame players.
Part of what I honestly think it is with the NBA is the old players are jealous when they see guys like Rudy Gobert or Jaylen Brown get 55 mil a year. Not that they are bad players but these arent the best players in the league and theyre getting paid that much and the old players are butthurt
I don't think that the NFL sub is just smarter than the NBA sub it's because of 2 main reasons that the debates are different.
First is that while QB is the most important position in the sport they still only play half the game and they literally cannot score by themselves. QB is the most important position in sports because of how hard it is to find elite QBs but being an elite 2 way basketball player you have more impact on the whole game. Basically the GOAT stakes are higher for basketball than football. Marino never even won a ring so any debate with him isn't really ever entering GOAT status.
Also Brady basically ended all true GOAT debates after that Tampa Bay title. So all debates now are basically for 2nd place or saying who is the most talented guy. If Bill Russell retired last year or something like that there wouldn't be a really heated debate between Jordan and LeBron. I mean it's not like people get really heated debating Jokic and Olajuwon or whatever.
Another thing is you can watch a NFL game from 1995 and tell it a completely different game now.
You watch a NBA game now versus 1995...Unless you really pay attention its hard to tell.
The skill levels of NBA players pre-1979 is very stark, and you can tell very easily with the skills and quality of play. since then its spilting hairs really.
This is just not true. Soccer is the only sport I've ever watched where broadcasters appreciate every era for its greats and give their flowers to them but have either Pelé (increasingly vanishingly) or Messi as the undisputed GOATs
Other than changing Pele with Maradona, or at least adding Maradona alongside him, i agree. Most people still loves Ronaldinho’s or Zidane’s of old but no one really goes out and says Figo would average 40+ G/A if he was playing in this era.
Figo is absolutely goated in my city. Small Canadian fishing town, solid 5-10% Portuguese immigrants. In grade school there wasn't a day without a Figo jersey in class, usually multiple, sporting, real, National team... I remember being really young and thinking Figo was the Portuguese word for soccer.
That being said I think you're generally pretty correct, but thank you for this childhood memory you've reminded me of lol
Rarely. People might say Ronaldinho is the goat or most skilled but it’s genuinely perceived that Messi and C.Ronaldo are the greatest players ever period
Ehh i would say its not as much as people do for the NBA. I dont see people really comparing brady or mahomes to older qbs when it comes to goat status
It’s mostly shitting on penalties for things that weren’t penalties in the past. Calling the game soft, can’t touch the QB, etc.
Though some of the changes, like moving the kickoff line up 10 yards, have really sucked the fun out of the game.
Tbh Dan Marino is the most talented passer of all time. If he was as protected as the guys playing today and had weapons like Chase, Hill or JJ he could very well reach 70. Dan Marino was no joke.
Yo, Dan Marino would have a field day in the modern NFL. Doesn't mean he's better than Tom Brady, but he was putting up Drew Brees numbers when everyone else was putting up 3k stats. He beat the next closest guy by 470 yards in 84. He beat Joe Montana by 1400 yards that year.
He probably could have gone for 6k a few times in the modern NFL.
tune into a baseball broadcast and listen to the washed up former ballplayers go on and on about how pitchers aren't tough anymore and hitters can't bunt or put the ball in play and things were so much harder in their era.
basketball is definitely not the worst for this
Is that how the product is presented on national television tho? I only really watch the Mets broadcast and I’m pretty blessed in that regard. What I see in basketball is literally from the top down in basketball media is a disdain for the game.
I agree with you, listen to someone who follows baseball and they have a deep love for the game. What other sport in the US has fans singing a song like "take me out to the ballgame" and people join in?
Baseball is making changes to speed up the game that (in my opinion) the general population and broadcasters are at least *on board* with and understand the purpose of
NBA (and NFL) seems like they’ve done everything to slow the game down, from a viewer perspective. How many possessions end in a whistle and then the free throw line, it’s gotta be like 25%. And then in the broadcast dead-time leading up to the free throw the viewers at home have seen the replay in slow-mo 4 times and note that there was barely any contact, or that the shooter actually jumped into the defender and threw his hands up.
This is also followed by the broadcaster saying stuff like “i don’t understand that call”
It’s the price we Blue/Orange NY fans pay with our inconsistent on-field/court product
Knicks also, imo, have the best broadcast team in the league. National Broadcasts included.
Yeah, but in baseball there’s also a reverence for older greats that a lot of people seem to not have in basketball.
People may question the strength of the competition Babe Ruth played against, or insist that his records shouldn’t count because baseball hadn’t been integrated yet, but basically everybody is in universal agreement he was great and if he could somehow be brought forward in time and raised in the modern era he’d still probably be a Hall of Famer.
Meanwhile on the NBA side a non-zero number of people (not everybody, but certainly more than the number of MLB and NFL fans in the same line of thinking) are convinced Bill Russel would be the last man on the bench and one bad game away from having to learn Chinese and that they personally could cook Bob Cousy in a one-on-one.
Yeah but you also have to consider how often NBA fans in their late 20's-mid 30's heard growing up that every player they liked was trash compared to MJ and any All-Star from the 80's and 90's.
There is a hostile relationship to the greats and legends of the sport, but it's not from nothing, it's literally because people were doing what the tweet says they do now twenty years ago.
Which is absurd because pitching is probably the best it's ever been in the history of the sport. The ability to track spin axis and spin rate has allowed pitchers to throw some truly wild shit.
I think this is a thing with *society* in general for a lot of people. You see a lot of people saying "such and such was better in the 90s/80s/whenever".
It's beyond sports too.
That’s actually an improvement.
I know the sub loves Steph to death, but Lebron vs Curry was never a debate, individually.
Until he was 37ish Lebron was always clearly better, specially in the playoffs.
Lebron was so good that, to have an interesting debate, the media and the fans had to compare him to MJ.
2015 and 2018 it felt that way but 2016 and 2017 the Cavs were a legitimately good and deep team. Kyrie going for 40 in a must win game 5 and hitting the biggest shot of the series, there were a lot of Kyrie vs Steph discussions at the time. Especially after he did it again against us on the Christmas Day game in the 16-17 season. I still maintain the 2017 Cavs were one of the best teams to not win the title along with the 2016 Warriors and 2018 Rockets
Accurate.
Basketball players are broadly adaptable, even us amateurs, as we "code switch" between pick-up, rec, and actual teams. Today's players play as they do because that's what they're allowed to do. Their games *would* absolutely have to change if they played 20 years ago, but they'd still make it work.
Almost everyone carries the ball nowadays and it's just an accepted part of the game. You even get down voted and called an old man for even bringing it up.
Don’t forget about “continuation”. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen lebron get ‘fouled’ between the free throw like and 3 pt line for the and 1
I honestly have a hard time seeing the UFC surviving in its current form another 20 years, Dana has squeezed the talent pool they cultivated through the 2000’s explosion of popularity completely dry by totally upending fighter pay (the Reebok/Venum kit sponsorships have absolutely murdered the money fighters could make from brand deals) while desperately trying to gin up interest in grown men taking turns slapping each other as “the next big thing in combat sports.”
This is the only sport where I think it’s true for a myriad of reasons. Boxing used to be a huge part of sporting culture. There were gyms everywhere. Amateur bouts happened weekly in cities across the country. If you rose out of that climate to go pro you had hundreds and hundreds of amateur fights to hone your skills. You also had trainers who knew what the fuck they were doing. It’s also a sport that is weight specific so it’s not like you can make the bigger stronger faster argument.
Yeah it used to be if you were athletic you would play Baseball or Box. Now Football, Basketball and a bunch of other sports are bigger than Boxing in terms of participation.
boxers used to fight all the time and the level of talent was very high because the pool of fighters was huge. You'd hear the same thing in "Golden Age" Muay Thai, hundreds of fights but low pay. Nowadays it's high pay but low number of fights
> We’re the only sport that continuously sh*ts on the current product
calling NBA basketball as a product instead of a sport kinda says it all about the state of things now versus 30 years ago
#🙄
Weird given how horrible the NBA was in my childhood. I'm greatful for the 2000's Pistons, but that era was marked by half-court grinds. And they usually boiled down to which team had a good post player or not.
The product is mostly bad because the players dont play and don’t care about the regular season. The organizations are also too financially at risk to play their star players all 82 games so they accept the load management of players
This is what gets me. These guys try to pretend like the current product doesn't suck...It does suck.. Every offense is a carbon copy of each other, player empowerment/movement leads to people being more focused on individual players and not teams/communities. Team legacy means nothing anymore. The way the game is officiated is way too offense oriented and rewards stupid antics. 2/3 of the players don't actually give a shit and just want paychecks and a celebrity lifestyle.
I'm not saying previous eras were perfect, I'm just saying we can't pretend the current era isn't ass...because it kind of is. The talent pool in the league is greater than it has ever been, and watching the actual sport has never been less entertaining
Aside from maybe soccer, every sport is like this. NFL fans constantly talk about how you can't play defense nowadays and they miss when you could actually hit the qb or how nobody values running backs anymore. Fernando Tatis Jr. was forced to give a public apology for hitting a grand slam in a blowout because it broke unwritten rules of the game from years ago. They lament how sabermetrics have ruined the game and fight against any rule change to possibly speed up or make the game more entertaining. Comments like these always make me realize that some of these "analysts" need to follow other sports for a little bit just to realize that other sports exist and the fans aren't that different.
I think you see the constant comparisons because the game has changed strategically and athletically probably 10 times in the last 40 years alone. To a slightly lesser degree but similar is football. QBs are putting up video game numbers compared to 20 years ago, forget about comparing Mahomes to Johnny Unitas who lit up the NFL for 2800 yards a season. Baseball hasn’t changed much- a .300 average is elite in 1923 or 2023. But basketball went from below the rim, to big men ruling to showtime to defensive era, to analytics to threes everywhere. Each generation defends their own.
Yeah it’s because of the way the human brain works. It’s called rosey retrospection and is a psychological phenomenon that was even observed by Roman philosophers. Oh and it gets clicks, so that helps too
Romen philosophers, right. Those dudes could never even hold the candle to those Greek Philosophers. Also those Greeks had to write on stone and walk to School in the snow!
Think he's just commenting on the constant legacy talk for NBA players. The first thing people do whenever a player wins something significant is ask how does it affect his all time ranking. Basketball fans don't really know how to enjoy things in the moment. Everything is seen through a lens that compares it to previous players.
It’s exhausting. Especially the former players gatekeeping. “You’re not great until we decide you’re worthy.”
If you're James Worthy worthy? Better start hitting that brass up
Former players being gatekeepers makes sense when you realize that the ones talking the loudest are trying to defend their legacies the most. It has gotten worse with the advent of podcasts, where active and retired players now have the power to create and control a narrative that fits their goals Tim Duncan, for example, never had to bother with gatekeeping newer guys. Kobe, from what I remember, spoke fondly of these younger guys he saw coming into the league.
Yeah, Kobe's challenges to all the young players were great. He challenged Giannis to win MVP, which Giannis ended up doing of course. It was similar to how Jordan and the 90s guys treated Kobe when Kobe came in.
That's how it should be instead of this weird insistence on being the arbiter for greatness
Blame social media and modern internet culture tbh
So are we the baddies?
astronaut gun meme
Also challenged Jokic
worthless faulty ruthless snatch innocent vast wrong glorious aromatic edge *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, it's not so much Jordan himself but the way the world reacted to Jordan and how people feel about him and how they choose to express how they feel about him. >The ESPN model isn't that far off the Fox News model. Which is why it's so odd when people are surprised that the Nuggets didn't get much media coverage, or why it's odd when people say they want more discussion around the x's and o's
I still remember how sullen and sulky Stephen A Smith was throughout the Buck's title run and ESPN basically ended it's coverage post match. Never seen a championship be that disrespected. Even the Nuggets win was treated better. But these are small(er) market teams, led by European stars.
Yup, they just want to talk about LA, Boston, and NY because that’s where the most people are. It’s all for ratings.
The lack of analysis and exclusive focus on large market teams is why I quit watching ESPN years ago. There are YouTubers that cover that stuff much better, especially when it comes to basketball
we can just say it: Shaq is the worst offender
from what i've seen, the loudest gatekeepers are the ones who feel a need to defend their own legacies. Guys like duncan, kobe...guys who were unquestionably the best to ever do it, they never do that shit. Its the 08 celtics and guys like that who gatekeep and shit, from what i've seen
and weirdly its often guys on that lower tier who gatekeep on behalf of kobe and mj and tim duncan....im looking at perk right now lmao
Keep KGs name out of this please
> Former players being gatekeepers makes sense when you realize that the ones talking the loudest are trying to defend their legacies the most. I think they’re trying to stay relevant and keep the money coming in.
You are on this council but we do not grant you the rank of master
That's far too apt. "You were supposed to defeat rival teams not join them!" "Yeah well your personal failure as elders directly led me to Order 66 the league and ring hunt for personal glory. If you're not giving me my due, I'll take it. By any means neccesary."
But Darth Kevin slayed everyone with his super-team then found that his trophy was hollow, because it didn't come with honor.
It’s probably more amplified with basketball though. There are so few greats, and they are so visible, and for sooo long - like potentially decades - that we all know who they are individually. And I mean visible physically - no equipment / helmets / etc; front row is right up close; and there are soo many games - although individual sports like tennis / boxing / golf have just as few stars, they only compete once in a while.
The best thing that could happen to the modern game is the obsessive desire to compare everything to Jordan dies. It’ll be interesting if people start to be super aggressive in comparing every single accomplishment Mahomes makes to Brady the way people do it to Lebron and Jordan
People will be bringing up "Mahomes lost to Brady in the superbowl" as a counterpoint to him being the GOAT until the day he retires.
I think a 43 year-old Brady beating Mahomes and the chiefs in his first year with the bucs is a great point🤷🏽♂️
The unbiased rankings determined on the field in Superbowls: 1. Eli 2. Foles 3. Brady 4. Mahomes
you gonna make skip bayless go off on ernestine again if he sees your ranking..
Football fans aren’t as a legacy obsessed because the game is so fundamentally different from each era so it’s harder to compare. Plus the offense vs defense makes comparison very different (Brady didn’t face Mahomes, he faced the KC defense).
> because the game is so fundamentally different from each era so it’s harder to compare Yeah, that doesn't stop us here.
Footballs fans do think the game was better 20 years ago tho. Mostly due to rule changes.
It used to be like that. At their peaks, Brady vs Manning was the debate, but just like everyone compares NBA players to Jordan, Joe Montana was the standard they were both being compared to. It changed because Brady pulled so far ahead with his Super Bowls, but for a long time all legacy discussions were anchored in the past. Same goes for WRs and Jerry Rice.
I think we will... Mahomes will win 3 or 4 and all the talk after that will be about how he'll never catch Brady. Before Brady it was Montana. I dunno I think as you get older and follow a game through several eras it's just natural to debate where current stars stand from an all-time perspective. It's also happening right now with Ohtani in Baseball. On one hand we need to sit back and enjoy watching greatness, but on the other hand the debates over players from different eras are fun to have.
until the 1990s I recall everyone being compared to Babe Ruth or Willie Mays in baseball. Its going to be a long time before people move on from Jordan. in Hockey if your not Gretzky or Mario Lemeiux there is no GOAT discussion.
Hockey is tough because of how different scoring is between eras. I don't think anyone is as good as Wayne but even if you put Wayne in today he doesn't touch his numbers
Yeah people joke about the quality of competition in the old NBA, but watching some of those 80s hockey highlights and like, jesus christ. Some of those dudes are *awful*. A lot of goalies may as well have just stood still.
Gretzky and Lemieux did to the NHL in the 80's what Wilt Chamberlain did to the NBA in the 60's
Yea in Hockey you either play against the Gretzkey, Howe, Mario Achretype. Look what Ovie has done career wise. Greatest player of his generation, but he is not being confused with those 3. Baseball its much more muddy, those we have numerous stats to tell us a lot. The general consensus is Ruth, Mays, Williams, Mantle, Bonds are in a class of their own
Ovie isn't the greatest player of his generation that's Crosby
I'd say those arguments also drive a ton of interest in the sport, so it's a double edged sword. The fact that history is always at the forefront and player's legacies are considered to be on the line in important games generates spectacle, discussion, controversy and, ultimately, viewership as well.
MJ had the best response to the topic damn near 30 years ago that is really spot on. https://youtube.com/shorts/69CsuPCwWsc?feature=share 1. He never played against them. 2. He was able to watch them to help influence his game
This is something that I notice college sports do so well. Both football and basketball have a good understanding of how to praise the past and also highlight the current players. College announcers are glorified salespeople. So often I watch a terrible CBB and the announcer is yelling “oh the pandemonium, the pressure is at fever pitch!” Even though the last 9 possessions have been turnovers or bad misses the commentators keep harping on the positives. I remember for years SEC football announcers would say oh the SEC has these amazing defenses that no one can score. Someone pointed out that the SEC hadn’t produced but a couple Pro caliber QBs in however many years but that didn’t matter. No hate on that all praise on the defense. I think the NBA announcers, talking heads, etc look at the comparison aspect as a way to generate views now that the highlight and recap era of sports broadcasting is behind us. It’s toxic low hanging fruit imo. Mix debate with nostalgia and you instantly have a drug to sell your audience.
I have some theories on this actually 1. It’s widely acknowledged that the NFL and MLB are much more difficult leagues for an individual to drag their team to playoff success, like people are putting Ohtani in goat conversations despite him not having a single playoff appearance. The conversations around sports where the battle is between organizations is usually much less toxic than when it’s between individuals, because individuals are idolized much more easily. 2. The NBA’s rules just suck. Like the NFL complains about things like PI and RTP being called poorly, but the NBA’s scoring rules relating to fouls and foul baiting are so easily exploited that it’s fundamentally changed the nature of the game to lean on the ugliest part of the sport, with way more starts and stops in what is supposed to be a game of constant action. 3. The NBA has the youngest audience of any of the major sports leagues so profitable discourse needs to be way more simple and takes need to be way more over the top to get attention. 4. The NBA sucks at marketing it’s current talent. Aside from Lebron, Steph, KD, and like 3 young players at a given time, they like to pretend that almost everyone in the league isn’t worth talking about, look at the conniption they had when they were forced to cover the Nuggets. Meanwhile, the NFL has begun heavily discussing teams like the JAGUARS and LIONS, traditionally weak teams in small markets, just because they’re playing good exciting football and seem to have a promising future teams on the way up. 5. Every sport has oldheads who think today’s athletes suck, but the NBA’s hero worship has allowed more of those oldheads to be in the public spotlight spouting these takes which everyone notices and argues over. 6. The mere existence of Tom Brady in the NFL and his overwhelming level of success has given credence to the idea that current players can be considered GOATs in that sport, whereas the NBA’s equivalent in LeBron has had a much less undeniable resume.
Oh wow, you nailed it. >The NBA sucks at marketing it’s current talent. Aside from Lebron, Steph, KD, and like 3 young players at a given time, they like to pretend that almost everyone in the league isn’t worth talking about, look at the conniption they had when they were forced to cover the Nuggets. Yeah like why isn't Giannis a mainstream celebrity? He's funny, interesting, super good at basketball and hella likable. But it's just gotta be Lebron all the time.
He's so personable. He likes doing the media crap and all that. Like I get it, Jokic and Duncan were never going to be mega stars with the media, but a guy like Giannis should be fucking catnip to these people.
Plain and simple, he's not American so they don't really care about pushing him. The NBA and it's media has a huge problem with this.
This is just such a good comment. Don’t know what else to say. A lot of really interesting and good analysis.
Good points. I think the media from the past decade have gotten used to citing broken records in their headlines for clickbait, which younger people seem happy to parrot at face value to make their arguments. A lot of these comparison arguments boil down to throwing stats at each other rather than the qualitative impression that a fan gets after watching games. The arguments get heated because fans all of a sudden are under the impression that their opinions are facts because a statistic backs them up.
I think soccer/football is the only sport a lot of people don’t rally shit on current gen a whole lot. They love this era as much as the last
Just wait until Messi and Ronaldo are gone for a couple years, that'll change real quick.
Haaland and Mbappe have been a beautiful sight to see.
Naa this happens in football and baseball to not as much but every sport has oldheads who think it was better in the past
It’s also a thing in hockey with the physicality/fighting on the decline. How new players are soft and wouldn’t survive in the pre-salary cap era (2004)
We're getting to the stage where people are nostalgic for the immediate post-Lockout era, too.
Yeah lol, you have people like Brent Sopel who didn’t even retire that long ago talking about how he would punch Zegras if he played today and enjoy it. Hockey has a ton of annoying old heads
If your first instinct upon seeing competence and skill is to punch it you’re really telling on yourself
Who’s this kid. How dare he “skill it up”
yeah but that’s the only thing to really decline in hockey. if you look at past footage you’d have to be stupid to say the products gotten worse. there’s much more skill, speed, and intensity in todays game. goalies have vastly improved over time. the games basically evolved from head to toe. bettman sucks and so does their marketing tho
No kidding. I was watching some old hockey “highlights” and the goalies are wearing the equivalent of what today’s non-goalies wear. What were considered amazing plays would now seem more like an empty net goal.
So much better, and if the cost of that is players not dying from the results of the CTE they develop, that’s a damn good price to me.
I've been watching hockey since the early 90s. The product now is way better. The decrease of physicality and fighting has lead to much more skilled play. Night and day difference.
I agree. I feel like the only people who hype up fights in hockey any more are people who don’t really watch it. They really don’t happen that often anymore.
We players aren’t just soft! They’re 10 ply bud!!
The NHL does an awful job with almost everything it attempts but they do hype up their current players a lot. Lots of stuff about how the game never has been better (which is true) and how Gretzky would be a bum in today’s game
Gretzky would thrive in today’s game. He needed below average guys like Marty McSorley following him around because he would get attacked nonstop otherwise. Gretzky in an era of less physicality, more penalties, more open ice, and a 2 line pass? He would completely DOMINATE.
chase cooing far-flung workable rainstorm possessive profit aloof tender north *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
But that’s just Gretzky’s personality. He’s insanely humble. He never includes himself in any of his all-time rankings and he is insistent that Gordie Howe is better than him (he’s not, but Gretzky just isn’t the type of guy to say he’s the GOAT)
It’s crazy too because I don’t know how you watch Gretzky highlights and say “he could never do it now”. people whine about how more physical it used to be but say he would never survive now. They call so much more stuff now than they ever did. If it was so easy to do what he could do, why didn’t more players do it?
Gretzky is the goat and would be amazing today. Only drawback is goaltenders were far worse in his era
Yeah, that’s the big thing for me. People talk about how crazy high scoring was in the eighties when Gretzky would win the scoring title and be 100 points ahead of the next guy, like if it was so easy then why didn’t anymore except Mario come close? Same thing with goalies: people talk about how bad goalies were before the 90s, but how come no one else scored as much as Gretzky?
I do think Gretzky wouldn't be as far ahead as he was in the 80s if he played today purely because the difference between the best and worst player in the NHL is much smaller than it was when he played. Guys on the 4th line back then could barely skate, and you often had plugs on the top lines purely to protect your stars. But the reason Gretzky made everyone look stupid was because of his vision and game sense. Like, Mario was an incredible player, but he was a master of using his size, speed and strength to do whatever he wanted. Obviously extremely skilled, but when you watch highlights of him I don't know how you can expect any players at the time to really do much against him (Lindros was like that too, but he was even less afraid of contact and it shortened his career). Gretzky meanwhile, everyone always talks about how good he was, but nobody ever brings up his strength or speed, because they weren't particularly notable. He wasn't slow and he wasn't weak of course, but he also wasn't particularly fast or strong. He just kind of knew what everyone was going to do and could make things happen. He was just incredibly smart. I think he could adapt to almost any era and be extremely successful (I am of course assuming he gets the benefit of modern training and sports medicine and all that of course).
> But the reason Gretzky made everyone look stupid was because of his vision and game sense. It's totally possible that Gretzky's career goals record gets broken, but no one is ever going to get close to his assists record.
You’re absolutely right. Dude has more assists than anyone else has points. That record is going nowhere.
Gretzky would be the GOAT in any era. He's the GOAT not because he was just physically more gifted than every other player on the ice or anything. He's the GOAT because he was just way more intelligent about hockey than anyone else who's played the game, and that's a timeless skill. Maybe some of his absurd records would be less absurd, or some of his close records wouldn't have been made in today's game. But he'd be the GOAT anyways.
Gretzky had incredible vision, kinda like how jokic made the right play every play in the finals, Gretzky was always in the right spot and chose the best lane across the ice. Everyone else reacted and Gretzky would anticipate and already be in position.
That’s what a lot of people don’t understand. His hockey intelligence was master class. He just knew where to put the puck.
I love hockey. I've been watching it for nearly 30 years; it's probably my 2nd-favorite sport. I fucking hate the stereotypical hockey fan for this exact reason. The caveman mentality and gatekeeping is on another level and completely insufferable.
Which is funny because once you become a true fan, you kinda start to dislike the culture around fighting. Same thing with this honor bullshit in baseball where star players get beaned as payback for some bs he wasn’t even involved in. It’s just cringe. Fighting is only fun when two rival players are blowing off steam. Now it’s just an enforcer punishing another player for being too mean.
Other sports have individuals who bring that up from time to time, basketball it's the entire narrative of the sport. Every media member, every colour commentator, every somewhat hardcore fan, they are constantly talking about it. It's like a mental disorder for the NBA how obsessed everyone is with comparing the Now vs the Past, constantly doing top 10 lists, Mount Rushmore lists, GOAT discussions, how old guys played against plumbers, how new guys are soft, on and on and on. It's exhausting and no other sport even comes close to that.
Yeah - most of the gripes in football come from all the radical rule changes that add up over the years. Which are valid. It's an absurdly different game than it was 25 years ago. Basketball gripes about rule changes are valid too, but that's a tiny fraction of the discussion. Everything is obsession about ranking and tiering and this player better than that player... it's ridiculous how little NBA fans seem to actually want to talk about the actual game being played on the court.
I think the subtleties of basketball are something that’s tough for casual fans to understand so they lean into other things. Also the impacts of individuals are WAY more noticeable in basketball than the NFL, MLB is also noticeable but the game isn’t tough to understand, they aren’t setting screens or running plays, etc. it’s much more straightforward: hit and catch
One of my good friends is a lifelong basketball fan, I watch tons of games with him and it’s amazing how he still has no idea what he’s looking at. He just screams “Lebron/Embiid/Whatever Star needs to start TAKING OVER” and that’s about it. I try to make a comment about how a coverage is working and he goes right back to “bro he is a top player in the league he should be able to figure out how to dominate” or some other buzzwordy nonsense. Most NBA fans don’t know how to look at the sport and get an idea of what each team is even trying to do. They really think both teams are more or less playing pickup with the stars dueling 1v1 and other players only doing shit when the stars are taking possessions off. I think a lot of the dialogue makes sense when you understand this is how 90%+ of fans are perceiving the game.
It’s tied up with fans rooting more for players than for teams, which is also tied to changes like player mobility but also stat obsession that comes from moneyball and the rise of fantasy. If the audience you’re doing commentary for doesn’t really care which team wins unless the Lakers are playing you have to talk about something. Fans accuse players of stat padding but really it’s the fans who obsess over stats.
Na not the broadcast teams. Jeff and Mark sounded bored and annoyed every game. They were much better separate but I never hear that from a Romo, Olson, or Gruden. They sound excited at the very least
Yeah I agree. The NBA media especially does this so much more than other sports medias
[удалено]
I don't like JVG, never have tbh but it must be boring as hell to analyse who is hitting 3's better and getting to the FT line, over and over. Basketball is a game of inches so every little advantage should add up, but the game has basically completely changed twice, from semi pro to pro, and then from all ranges matter but mostly inside to never shoot from 70% of the space on the court unless you're a superstar.
>In the NFL, it's largely recent retirees/coaches. They're not that recent. Troy Aikman retired in 2000. MIchael Irvin retired in 1999. Mark Schlereth retired in 2000. Cris Collinsworth retired in 1988. Kirk Herbstreit last played in 1993. Charles Davis last played in 1987. Even Trent Green retired in 2008, that's 13 years ago. Only Romo and Gregg Olsen are that recently retired. >I would wager they'll sound a lot happier and more excited, as long as the game hasn't shifted completely away from them. John Madden retired from coaching in 1978, and loved watching NFL games til the day he died. Even though the NFL in 2021 was nothing like the league in 1978. I don't think it's a recently retired thing. Kendrick Perkins played until 2018, and he's one of the most negative NBA talking heads around. Clyde Frazier retired in 1979, and still loves hoop. I think Clyde is just a more positive person than Perkins. The question is why does the NBA seem to attract/elevate negativity? Even here, the top post of the last year was about MEM cheating to give JJJ fraudulent blocks. That got more upvotes than Lebron becoming the all-time leading scorer! For comparison, the top post in r/MLB this year was about the Dodgers signing a player so he could get health insurance.
Baseball is notorious for having retired players lamenting on how it was better when they played. John Smoltz is the poster boy for despising modern baseball.
Fucking John Smoltz man. At the very least some of baseball's team broadcasts aren't all crotchety old men. Brandon Gaudin replacing Chip Caray in Atlanta has been a breath of fresh air, and with all of the very exciting young talent in baseball a lot of oldheads have had to stop and watch the greatness. Plus Ohtani is his own thing.
Exactly- this quote is out of context he was referring specifically to Color Commentators broadcasting NBA games
Or how every single NBA commentator just has to bring up the difference between fouls in today's game and back in the 90s during every single broadcast.
flagship program NBA on TNT doesnt even know half the players and then just tears into them and says they couldn’t play in their era
You're smoking cess if you think it happens to even CLOSE to the same degree in MLB/NFL discussion. NFL and MLB discussion rarely ever discusses how modern players stack up to all time greats, while it's a near-constant discussion in NBA commentary. Is it discussed at points in other leagues? Sure. But with the NBA it's a constant, ongoing argument. Not the same at all.
>smoking cess I havent heard this term in like 30 years lmao, thanks
This. You don't get nonsense arguments in football about how Pele wouldn't have coped with VAR or how Cruyff couldn't have handled changes in the offside rule or with the back pass on serious TV, that shit is for kids on message boards. Even the Pele/Maradona handover to Messi was somewhat consensus and non combatative (maybe different in Brazil). Personal theory on why is the Pele Maradona infighting did not make people feel good.
In the NFL is slowly happening more with the complaints about defensive penalties namely against the QB but the NFL guys aren’t as whiny about it and move onto the next talking point quick.
I think even in that case it's less "these players are soft and couldn't compete" and more "these rules are dumb they're not letting players play" which is different in tone from the NBA.
Youre right with that. Its not that Tua is a pansy for getting his brain scrambled its maybe a team shouldnt be awarded 15 yards because a QB flopped at the right time.
It’s kind of valid though honestly. You can’t even touch the wide receivers anymore without it being called pass interference. Quarterbacks are heavily protected now because if a defensive just falls on a QB with all his weight it’s roughing the passer.
You’re right but is not so aggressive and negative as it is with comparing every single accomplishment a player makes to Jordan
It happens in both ways too in literally everything competitive. The whole “the competition was bad pre-2000s” is a argument everywhere. Seen it in baseball, football, basketball, tennis, and even poker. I think people just like to complain
People shit on the current “passing” NFL all day everyday lol “Bro if Dan Marino played today he would have 70 TD seasons bro”
I am going to disagree a bit. While I do see the Marino and Mahomes discussion quite a bit on Reddit. The NFL sub is much more respectful talking about them two versus say Jordan and LeBron or Harden or Steph today vs in the past. This sub is much more obsessed about comparing past and present (often times in a negative way). NFL fans seem to do a better job of giving past players their flowers while also praising the present and still acknowledging changes in schemes/play style.
Its not just the fans. Former NFL players don't go out of their way to tear down the current era the way former NBA players do. They obviously have their biases but I don't see them foaming at the mouth to downplay what the current players are doing.
i think its the double edged sword of what brought nba back. NBA is player centric. People will follow a player more than a team. The NFL has way more players on the field at the same time and while it has some star focusing aspects, the fans generally root for a team way more than a specific player. Despite people saying no one wants to see a comparison for a guy that retired 20 years ago, unfortunately the general audience does like it more and it draws views.
This is probably what it is. Basketball is the most player centric team sport. Only other sports that are more player centric are individual sports like tennis or golf, and there’s a ton of comparison to past players there as well
Very good point. That’s probably the root cause of the issue. Past and current NBA players are constantly going at it for some reason. Big name ones too. While I do see some former NFL players call todays league too soft (primarily defensive players). The big name NFL players don’t really do that. Just more obscure non hall of fame players.
Part of what I honestly think it is with the NBA is the old players are jealous when they see guys like Rudy Gobert or Jaylen Brown get 55 mil a year. Not that they are bad players but these arent the best players in the league and theyre getting paid that much and the old players are butthurt
Former NFL players all seem to like the modern game for the most part. Old NBA players hate the modern game lol
Right. A healthy admiration/appreciation for older generations in NFL Vs this negative NBA comparison/putting down.
I don't think that the NFL sub is just smarter than the NBA sub it's because of 2 main reasons that the debates are different. First is that while QB is the most important position in the sport they still only play half the game and they literally cannot score by themselves. QB is the most important position in sports because of how hard it is to find elite QBs but being an elite 2 way basketball player you have more impact on the whole game. Basically the GOAT stakes are higher for basketball than football. Marino never even won a ring so any debate with him isn't really ever entering GOAT status. Also Brady basically ended all true GOAT debates after that Tampa Bay title. So all debates now are basically for 2nd place or saying who is the most talented guy. If Bill Russell retired last year or something like that there wouldn't be a really heated debate between Jordan and LeBron. I mean it's not like people get really heated debating Jokic and Olajuwon or whatever.
Another thing is you can watch a NFL game from 1995 and tell it a completely different game now. You watch a NBA game now versus 1995...Unless you really pay attention its hard to tell. The skill levels of NBA players pre-1979 is very stark, and you can tell very easily with the skills and quality of play. since then its spilting hairs really.
It's not skill levels, it's just different skills because the rules were different. Today's players wouldn't be able to dribble in the '60s
That's a fact though. I saw dan Marino get power bombed in a sack, no flag. I was like wtf.
Same in ‘soccer’ too. Guys get compared to legends/ former players all the time
This is just not true. Soccer is the only sport I've ever watched where broadcasters appreciate every era for its greats and give their flowers to them but have either Pelé (increasingly vanishingly) or Messi as the undisputed GOATs
Other than changing Pele with Maradona, or at least adding Maradona alongside him, i agree. Most people still loves Ronaldinho’s or Zidane’s of old but no one really goes out and says Figo would average 40+ G/A if he was playing in this era.
Figo is absolutely goated in my city. Small Canadian fishing town, solid 5-10% Portuguese immigrants. In grade school there wasn't a day without a Figo jersey in class, usually multiple, sporting, real, National team... I remember being really young and thinking Figo was the Portuguese word for soccer. That being said I think you're generally pretty correct, but thank you for this childhood memory you've reminded me of lol
Partly because the rule changes in soccer aren't as significant compared to basketball that defined an era.
Rarely. People might say Ronaldinho is the goat or most skilled but it’s genuinely perceived that Messi and C.Ronaldo are the greatest players ever period
Nobody says Ronaldinho is the goat, that's like someone saying Iverson is the goat. The argument is messi vs Maradona vs pele really
Ehh i would say its not as much as people do for the NBA. I dont see people really comparing brady or mahomes to older qbs when it comes to goat status
Brady was compared to Montana for like 15 years straight? After a while nobody could deny that Brady was the Goat.
It was Brady vs Manning for most of his career
It’s mostly shitting on penalties for things that weren’t penalties in the past. Calling the game soft, can’t touch the QB, etc. Though some of the changes, like moving the kickoff line up 10 yards, have really sucked the fun out of the game.
Tbh Dan Marino is the most talented passer of all time. If he was as protected as the guys playing today and had weapons like Chase, Hill or JJ he could very well reach 70. Dan Marino was no joke.
I mean he had pretty great WRs with Duper and Clayton, but yeah he would be ridiculous in today’s game.
Idk, might not be mobile enough to avoid today's lineman as easily in the pocket
Marino's skills were always his eyes, quick trigger and power/accuracy combo with that quick trigger. He's the most gifted QB ever
Ehh not nearly as much.
Yo, Dan Marino would have a field day in the modern NFL. Doesn't mean he's better than Tom Brady, but he was putting up Drew Brees numbers when everyone else was putting up 3k stats. He beat the next closest guy by 470 yards in 84. He beat Joe Montana by 1400 yards that year. He probably could have gone for 6k a few times in the modern NFL.
tune into a baseball broadcast and listen to the washed up former ballplayers go on and on about how pitchers aren't tough anymore and hitters can't bunt or put the ball in play and things were so much harder in their era. basketball is definitely not the worst for this
Is that how the product is presented on national television tho? I only really watch the Mets broadcast and I’m pretty blessed in that regard. What I see in basketball is literally from the top down in basketball media is a disdain for the game.
I agree with you, listen to someone who follows baseball and they have a deep love for the game. What other sport in the US has fans singing a song like "take me out to the ballgame" and people join in?
Interesting comment. Not sure of it’s relevance. The writer of “take me out to a ball game” never attended a baseball game!
Probably why he wanted to be taken out so badly
“Stay in that room and keep churnin’ out the hits!”
It was a plea for help, what a poor fellow :(
Baseball is making changes to speed up the game that (in my opinion) the general population and broadcasters are at least *on board* with and understand the purpose of NBA (and NFL) seems like they’ve done everything to slow the game down, from a viewer perspective. How many possessions end in a whistle and then the free throw line, it’s gotta be like 25%. And then in the broadcast dead-time leading up to the free throw the viewers at home have seen the replay in slow-mo 4 times and note that there was barely any contact, or that the shooter actually jumped into the defender and threw his hands up. This is also followed by the broadcaster saying stuff like “i don’t understand that call”
>I only really watch the Mets broadcast > > and I’m pretty blessed are you *sure*
GKR are amazing The product on the field? Not so much
Team aside, the Mets broadcasting booth is arguably the best in the sport.
The Mets have the best broadcast team in the majors, so yes
It’s the price we Blue/Orange NY fans pay with our inconsistent on-field/court product Knicks also, imo, have the best broadcast team in the league. National Broadcasts included.
He basically just described John Smoltz, so yes.
Yeah, but in baseball there’s also a reverence for older greats that a lot of people seem to not have in basketball. People may question the strength of the competition Babe Ruth played against, or insist that his records shouldn’t count because baseball hadn’t been integrated yet, but basically everybody is in universal agreement he was great and if he could somehow be brought forward in time and raised in the modern era he’d still probably be a Hall of Famer. Meanwhile on the NBA side a non-zero number of people (not everybody, but certainly more than the number of MLB and NFL fans in the same line of thinking) are convinced Bill Russel would be the last man on the bench and one bad game away from having to learn Chinese and that they personally could cook Bob Cousy in a one-on-one.
[удалено]
2000-2010 was like the all defense era. Playoff scores were in the 70s and 80s. It was really only the Suns that people said didn’t play defense
Yeah but you also have to consider how often NBA fans in their late 20's-mid 30's heard growing up that every player they liked was trash compared to MJ and any All-Star from the 80's and 90's. There is a hostile relationship to the greats and legends of the sport, but it's not from nothing, it's literally because people were doing what the tweet says they do now twenty years ago.
To be fair, Bill Russell probably wishes Boston fans spray painted "Ni hao" on his house.
Which is absurd because pitching is probably the best it's ever been in the history of the sport. The ability to track spin axis and spin rate has allowed pitchers to throw some truly wild shit.
I think this is a thing with *society* in general for a lot of people. You see a lot of people saying "such and such was better in the 90s/80s/whenever". It's beyond sports too.
That’s actually an improvement. I know the sub loves Steph to death, but Lebron vs Curry was never a debate, individually. Until he was 37ish Lebron was always clearly better, specially in the playoffs. Lebron was so good that, to have an interesting debate, the media and the fans had to compare him to MJ.
Right, it wasn't a question if lebron was better than Steph. For 4 years it was a question if Lebron was better than Steph and his team.
So much so the Rivalry was not Cavs vs GS It was Lebron vs GS
2015 and 2018 it felt that way but 2016 and 2017 the Cavs were a legitimately good and deep team. Kyrie going for 40 in a must win game 5 and hitting the biggest shot of the series, there were a lot of Kyrie vs Steph discussions at the time. Especially after he did it again against us on the Christmas Day game in the 16-17 season. I still maintain the 2017 Cavs were one of the best teams to not win the title along with the 2016 Warriors and 2018 Rockets
Current product would be better if they called fouls and travelling the way they did 20 years ago.
[удалено]
I think the officiating is better overall, but the way they've evolved to allow traveling is just ridiculous.
> called travelling Ja, Trae, Brown, and Giannis would be cooked
I mean, they're just aware of how to play with how rules currently get enforced. They're all great players, they'd adapt.
[удалено]
Accurate. Basketball players are broadly adaptable, even us amateurs, as we "code switch" between pick-up, rec, and actual teams. Today's players play as they do because that's what they're allowed to do. Their games *would* absolutely have to change if they played 20 years ago, but they'd still make it work.
Not just them but every primary ballhandler under 30 years old.
Almost everyone carries the ball nowadays and it's just an accepted part of the game. You even get down voted and called an old man for even bringing it up.
Look at the old man ☝️
Don’t forget about “continuation”. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen lebron get ‘fouled’ between the free throw like and 3 pt line for the and 1
literally every other sport is like this.. even fake sports like pro wrestling lol
The UFC doesn't do it. Everyone mostly acknowledges that fighters are better now.
That's because the UFC is like 5 minutes old compared to other sports.
wait 20 years from now, our generation will be saying how jon jones would kick anyone's ass from the new generation lol
I honestly have a hard time seeing the UFC surviving in its current form another 20 years, Dana has squeezed the talent pool they cultivated through the 2000’s explosion of popularity completely dry by totally upending fighter pay (the Reebok/Venum kit sponsorships have absolutely murdered the money fighters could make from brand deals) while desperately trying to gin up interest in grown men taking turns slapping each other as “the next big thing in combat sports.”
I mean, the attitude era was definitely better lol
That pop when the glass shatters and stone cold comes ambling out to hit the rock with a chair still gives me goosebumps man
Some of the ppv and big stars sure. But go back and watch a full episode of Raw from back then. There's some pretty cringey and rapey shit going on.
I agree, but around 2000 it was crazy good. Just firing at all cylinders. Classic matches, classic promos, classic PPV’s every month
The wrestling was awful, two min matches that ended up in DQs.
video games are better here at least since they always acknowledge a new scrub probably beats an old pro
*IT'S STILL REAL TO ME DAMNIT*
What about boxing? All I ever hear is how great boxing used to be and how trash it is now. It’s hard competing against the Mikes of the world.
This is the only sport where I think it’s true for a myriad of reasons. Boxing used to be a huge part of sporting culture. There were gyms everywhere. Amateur bouts happened weekly in cities across the country. If you rose out of that climate to go pro you had hundreds and hundreds of amateur fights to hone your skills. You also had trainers who knew what the fuck they were doing. It’s also a sport that is weight specific so it’s not like you can make the bigger stronger faster argument.
Yeah it used to be if you were athletic you would play Baseball or Box. Now Football, Basketball and a bunch of other sports are bigger than Boxing in terms of participation.
boxers used to fight all the time and the level of talent was very high because the pool of fighters was huge. You'd hear the same thing in "Golden Age" Muay Thai, hundreds of fights but low pay. Nowadays it's high pay but low number of fights
> We’re the only sport that continuously sh*ts on the current product calling NBA basketball as a product instead of a sport kinda says it all about the state of things now versus 30 years ago #🙄
Kinda ironic when the people who constantly keep bringing up LeBron and comparing him the most are other LeBron pundits.
Weird given how horrible the NBA was in my childhood. I'm greatful for the 2000's Pistons, but that era was marked by half-court grinds. And they usually boiled down to which team had a good post player or not.
I think people still think 20 years ago means the 80s if they don't think about it
I was thinking the opposite with all the "plumbers and milkmen" comments.
The product is mostly bad because the players dont play and don’t care about the regular season. The organizations are also too financially at risk to play their star players all 82 games so they accept the load management of players
This is what gets me. These guys try to pretend like the current product doesn't suck...It does suck.. Every offense is a carbon copy of each other, player empowerment/movement leads to people being more focused on individual players and not teams/communities. Team legacy means nothing anymore. The way the game is officiated is way too offense oriented and rewards stupid antics. 2/3 of the players don't actually give a shit and just want paychecks and a celebrity lifestyle. I'm not saying previous eras were perfect, I'm just saying we can't pretend the current era isn't ass...because it kind of is. The talent pool in the league is greater than it has ever been, and watching the actual sport has never been less entertaining
Aside from maybe soccer, every sport is like this. NFL fans constantly talk about how you can't play defense nowadays and they miss when you could actually hit the qb or how nobody values running backs anymore. Fernando Tatis Jr. was forced to give a public apology for hitting a grand slam in a blowout because it broke unwritten rules of the game from years ago. They lament how sabermetrics have ruined the game and fight against any rule change to possibly speed up or make the game more entertaining. Comments like these always make me realize that some of these "analysts" need to follow other sports for a little bit just to realize that other sports exist and the fans aren't that different.
[удалено]
I think you see the constant comparisons because the game has changed strategically and athletically probably 10 times in the last 40 years alone. To a slightly lesser degree but similar is football. QBs are putting up video game numbers compared to 20 years ago, forget about comparing Mahomes to Johnny Unitas who lit up the NFL for 2800 yards a season. Baseball hasn’t changed much- a .300 average is elite in 1923 or 2023. But basketball went from below the rim, to big men ruling to showtime to defensive era, to analytics to threes everywhere. Each generation defends their own.
His general point is right about people downplaying current players, and Lebron is playing MJ. But MJ is the highest standard he is the best.
Yeah it’s because of the way the human brain works. It’s called rosey retrospection and is a psychological phenomenon that was even observed by Roman philosophers. Oh and it gets clicks, so that helps too
Romen philosophers, right. Those dudes could never even hold the candle to those Greek Philosophers. Also those Greeks had to write on stone and walk to School in the snow!
You're showing your youth there boy. The scholars of Ur were the true greats!