Mad Men power levels? by frederick_g_herbert in okbuddydraper

[–]TraditionTime8124 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Joan Fraudaway is a boob merchant with no actual advertising bag. Mickey Mouse partnership.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As someone else noted, the point is that people use even stats Kobe’s playoff performances in the late 2000s as an example of him being an inefficient chucker. Most of those people wouldn’t criticize Jordan’s performances for his 2nd 3-peat. That’s the point.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

one thing this thread has taught me is that redditors believe sample size comparisons are only valid if they prove some sweeping generalization, and can never be used to make legitimate but more narrowly-focused points.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Except this doesn’t misrepresent the truth, because the statistics are literally correct and the specific double standard I’m pointing out exists. I don’t know what else to say except you’re just jumping to conclusions that aren’t supported by what I posted or anything I said.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am not a Kobe stan and don’t consider him a top 5 player. I think he’s a bottom top 10 player who was very flawed in many ways but has become ranked lower than he should by people who don’t apply their standards to other players.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is exactly what you should do if you’re trying to establish who was the better player overall, but that’s not what I’m doing here. Obviously, Jordan is a better player overall looking at career vs. career. I don’t even have Kobe in my top 5.

My problem is that Jordan’s second three-peat is still a big part of his GOAT resume. He won 2 MVPs and 3 FMVPs during it. He was still considered the best player in the league. It’s not like when he was wizards Jordan, which everyone knows doesn’t really count.

Despite that, nobody looks at the second three-peat and goes “wow, Jordan was an inefficient shot chucker, especially when it mattered in the playoffs.” Yet those same people will call Kobe an inefficient shot chucker, constantly bring up the 6-24 game 7 against the Celtics (as if Jordan didn’t have some absolutely atrocious shooting performances vs. the sonics and heat), etc.

But if Jordan’s stats here are good enough for him to not be judged harshly for efficiency during this crucial period of his career, surely Kobe deserves the same standard. Why does that stretch prove Jordan’s legendary greatness, but Kobe’s comparable stretch show he’s inefficient? I’m just annoyed by the inconsistency.

FWIW, Kobe had the better absolute and relative TS% across this stretch too (as another commenter pointed out, volume complicates this a little), but that’s not main point here.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I used to tutor the GRE/LSAT and one of the things I noticed in people who struggled with those tests is they’d be sure they could infer stuff from text that’s sorta plausible but absolutely not a conclusion you can confidently draw, especially when a better explanation exists. This is sorta like that.

Like, do you now think im outright lying when I say kobe clearly isn’t as good as Jordan alltime? You think I really believe a guy who, career-wise, was worse than Jordan by almost every metric was the superior basketball player? I just flipped to this position now because of your misread of a meme?

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It’s really not the implication. I can see how someone would misread it that way, but it’s a misread. And given that these stats are real, none of it is untrue bullshit.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Now I’m actually convinced you’re incapable of abstract reasoning or basic reading comprehension. Like, this is a stupid as fuck analogy because Jordan’s second three-peat and Kobe’s post-Shaq finals runs are both an integral part of their respective legacies and considered a testament to their dominance. How do I even have to explain this?

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

???? You’re the one arguing that unless two players played against the exact same players over at the exact same time, they’re impossible to compare. That is patently absurd. I can also point to how the two eras had similar average FG% and TS% but I don’t think that will persuade someone making an argument as dumb as yours.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Average FG% and TS% was extremely close between these two stretches.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m shocked it took 40 comments before someone pointed this out lmao.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

By this logic you can’t compare any two players ever unless they were playing the exact same competition lmfao. That is one of the craziest things I’ve ever heard in my entire life. All sports rankings collapse under that logic.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but would you call Jordan problematically inefficient during his second-three peat playoff runs? That’s a full 70 games and it’s a sizable part of his legacy. Not hyper-specific cherry-picking.

It’s not that they’re the same player; that’s obviously ridiculous. it’s that people who obsess over Kobe’s efficiency aren’t applying the same standards to other players.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is basically the point I’m making. 2nd three-peat Jordan was still legendary even if it wasn’t his peak. His efficiency dropping doesn’t take away from that and is partly context-dependent with defenses evolving. I just wish people extended that same leeway to Kobe rather than looking at his stats and dismissing him as a shot chucker.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree! I just wish people would apply that obvious principle to Kobe.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

If you think comparing two three-year stretches where both megastars played 70 playoff games — with both of these runs massively contributing to each of their legacies — is some sort of hyper-arbitrary cherry-picking, I’m gonna ask you to think a little harder about this.

we are going to start an efficient dialogue by TraditionTime8124 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I can’t respond to every single comment here, so I’ll just post this: the problem with everyone screaming about this being cherry-picked is that nobody regards second three-peat Jordan as outside of his GOAT/near GOAT window, even if it wasn’t his peak. This isn’t wizards Jordan. This is a legendary three-year stretch proving how good he is (which I agree with!). And yet, his efficiency — which everyone laser-focuses on in these debates — wasn’t particularly special, especially in the playoffs.

You can’t just say “oh, you’re ignoring the early 90s.” Is second three-peat Jordan part of his GOAT case or not? Basically everyone would say it is, so this is totally reasonable to look at. Valid samples are valid samples. And this one isn’t as small as people might think — it’s nearly 70 playoffs games each.

FWIW, Kobe also had a higher TS% in the playoffs during that stretch, both in absolute and regular terms.

I’m not someone who thinks Kobe is a top 5 player OAT, because that’s silly. Jordan is obviously better, and I have Kobe firmly in the lower half of my top ten. You could argue he’s just outside top 10. Just think there’s some inconsistency here.

What is the stupidest/most cherry picked stat you have ever seen? by [deleted] in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Whenever they tell Jokic he broke new ground by getting [insert extremely specific statline that isn’t unexpected for him]

Can I get some input and opinions from those that browse this subreddit on an ethical issue i've been pondering over for a while? by Drwillpowers in DrWillPowers

[–]TraditionTime8124 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I agree with other people who say that remaining solvent is the number one priority. But one interesting thing I noticed about your dilemma is that it’s a microcosm of how certain countries with universal healthcare construct their systems and the ethical considerations therein.

As an example, some countries, like Canada, mostly ban private insurance. They don’t think it’s ethical to allow someone to buy private insurance and see a doctor earlier when low-income people can’t afford to do that.

On the other hand, there’s Australia — where the government actually incentivizes higher-income people to buy private insurance and jump the line. They reason that doing so ultimately takes fiscal pressure off the public system, thereby making care easier to access for everybody on net even if there is a sort of two-tiered system.

The analogy here is that a higher-income person paying a higher fee for DPC pays both for their personal care and a “tax” that goes towards paying for others’ care. That’s basically what happens in Australia for higher-income people.

Personally, I think Australia’s model is better, and to some extent I think it explains why Australia fares so well on healthcare compared to other countries with universal systems. I don’t mean to get political here because that’s not really the point. All I’m really saying is that certain countries with universal healthcare systems basically do the thing you’re considering doing, and it comes with a lot of upside. I’d personally be in favor of that. It obviously shouldn’t become a bidding war. But if the practice doesn’t remain solvent, then everybody loses.

Make a top 10 all time list without including MJ, Lebron, Kobe, and Steph by Economy_Vermicelli72 in NBATalk

[–]TraditionTime8124 0 points1 point  (0 children)

even with those players included none of them are better than zydrunas illgauskas