Skip to content

Historical Comparisons Aren’t Just stupid; They’re Bad for Basketball

Historical comparisons in basketball are incredibly annoying.

We’ve all heard them before: LeBron James will never be better than MJ, Stephen Curry couldn’t have handled basketball in the 80s, Big Men are twice as soft today as they were 20 years ago, blah blah blah, whatever it is, I don’t care.

The other day, I heard an ESPN clip of Stephen A Smith claiming that LeBron could never surpass the feats of Michael Jordan, and I was livid. I’ve spent thousands – literally thousands – of hours watching NBA analysts debate trivial, practically immeasurable arguments like that to no avail. But I’m done. So much of this ESPN fodder is predicated on logical fallacies, imprecise modeling, and media bias. It’s just so frustrating.

Okay, so maybe – no, definitely – I’m overreacting. Technically speaking, making cross-generational comparisons  isn’t outrageous, but it’s certainly not as simple as media personalities make it appear. Adjusting for all influential factors can be a tedious, exhaustive process that poses significant challenges, even for statisticians. In this blog post, I’ll try to highlight some of the main issues of historical comparisons and break down how they hurt our appreciation of the game.

Let’s get cracking.

(Quick Note: Although this entry may be less statistics-intensive, it still considers the statistical implications of making historical comparisons, i.e. the difficulty of quantifying greatness or predicting success within other eras of basketball. If you’re interested at looking at the specific numbers, check out some of the links at the bottom of the post.)

Evolving Tactics and Strategies

The NBA is constantly changing. Today, the league is more small-ball oriented, relying on finesse finishing and precision shooting. Players like Stephen Curry and Kevin Durant, who excel off the dribble and in transition, have flourished in the modern era with their particular skill sets.

Back in the 90’s, however, basketball was far more physical, methodical, and half-court structured. And players from that generation – blinded by their own nostalgia – can’t seem to accept that the league is no longer what it once was.

Take Gary Payton, for instance. In an interview in 2014, Payton addressed NBA reporters, commenting that the NBA has become a softer version of its former self. “It’s no defense, it’s just run and gun. To me, there’s only three point guards in the NBA that impress me; I got Chris Paul, Rondo, and another kid that I like a lot and I forgot his name right now. Oh, and Tony Parker. That’s only three NBA players in there.”

Yep, Gary Payton excluded mentioning Curry, Westbrook, and a few other great guards because he didn’t consider them to fit the archetype model of his playing days. Newsflash, Gary: the NBA has evolved, and with it, players have too.

Stephen Curry is a revolutionary force in the NBA. The statistically astounding, pin-point precision with which he shoots ball has never been seen before by the league, and as a result, he’s become a matchup headache for coaching staffs. How do you stop someone who can spot up from 35 feet away from the basket and break your ankles just as easily?

Critics say that Curry couldn’t have thrived in the days of tougher and tighter ball pressure. Yet it’s foolish to calibrate his success with other rules since Curry adapted his game to fit the current regulations of the NBA. After all, without hand-checks, NBA defensive systems have become much more complex (defenses have to consider rotations, off-ball help, and screens more carefully), making Curry’s ability to move off the ball and create offense for his team all the more impressive.

Constant Improvement

If you took the average NBA player during the 80s, chances are they’d be noticeably worse than the average player of 2016. It sounds insulting, but player development and training methods have dramatically progressed over the last few decades. Plus, with league expansions, the overall talent pool has grown larger; competition levels are statistically more intense.

I have no problem – well, less problems – with comparing players and teams relative to their own eras. Yet this caveat rarely appears in the NBA’s trending topics for debate. Alternatively, arguments are phrased more like “LeBron would get destroyed if his squad matched up with Michael Jordan and the Bulls today,” which is, quite frankly, a little presumptuous.

LeBron’s athleticism and stature aside, he is still the beneficiary of newer health technologies, improved coaching, and most importantly, more film. The NBA is constantly learning from its past failures, and with a greater pool of player information at its disposal, coaches can assess previous mistakes and create strategic models that rectify these errors. Time is the key to evolution – an advantage that current players will always have over their historical counterparts.

They Undermine Greatness

lebron-chalk

This is definitely the reason that I support most strongly.

I don’t think people realize how difficult it is to contextualize the achievements of a player within another generation; there’s so many extraneous variables to consider, so many ways to quantify value, that most statistical comparisons are incomplete and superficial. I mean, how can you say that Oscar Robertson’s triple-double season was more astounding than Stephen Curry’s 90-50-40 performance in 2016? Or the year Wilt had 50 points/game?

Answer: You can’t.

It’s not just because defining greatness is so relativistic and subjective. People have a right to their opinion as well as a right to voice it to an audience. Rather, it’s because claiming one player’s superiority is impossible without somehow downgrading the status of another all-time great. Saying Michael Jordan’s finals record is far more meaningful than LeBron’s comeback victory over Golden State makes LeBron seem less dominant. Similarly, saying that the Celtics are the best franchise of all time makes every other championship team seem trivial. In truth, placing an intrinsic “worth” on stats is a very tricky business, and one that often offends more than anything else.

Look, I get it: classifying and ranking things is a natural human tendency. We constantly feel the urge to categorize our favorite foods, people, sports, places, etc. Nonetheless, sometimes we need to look past these ridiculous comparisons and instead just recognize the basketball greatness around us. Amazing things happen in the NBA everyday, and if we remain trapped in the snares of the “good ol’ days,” we’ll miss the great days that are in store.

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-90s-NBA-games-so-much-slower-than-todays

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-90s-NBA-games-so-much-slower-than-todays

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1995.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2014.html

http://stats.nba.com/league/team/#!/advanced/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PACE&dir=1

http://www.sbnation.com/2014/3/25/5542838/nba-rules-changes-lebron-james-michael-jordan

Published inNBA BasketballTrends

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar