Jesus.

[Kblaze8855]

Traded to the Knicks 52 years ago today.




Im not here to talk about how good he was or wasn’t but just to bring up a change in how we judge and talk about people.

Im not entirely sure that looked at with modern analysis by “serious” fans he’d even be called good. He was all nba first team and led a finals team then had a contract dispute that led him to take a mostly sidekick role behind a rival. Won a ring. But he’s the type many fans today would say was shooting too much for his ppg…wasn’t a plus defender. You know the usual argument against those types deemed flashy but inefficient.

As I said him actually being good or not isnt my issue. I don’t care if you don’t think Earl Monroe was objectively good at basketball by our standards.

Id like to talk about those standards themselves.

Are people allowed in your circles to be great “just” because they’re aesthetically pleasing and score quite a bit or does that make them strictly the casual fans player?

Oddly enough the key player on this issue might be Kyrie who has not only among the most beautiful games ever but is generally an efficient scorer which kinda makes him a bad test case. But he kinda seems to be the guy. Maybe we can shoot lower though. Towards Darius Garland or maybe better…Terry Rozier.

You pull up Rozier highlights that dude is a wizard. You’ll see him cast a ducking spell on a defense. But I feel like we all agree he isn’t particularly good.

But I think the kind of player he is would be looked back on with reverence if he played in an earlier time. Are we just way more forgiving of “legends”? Have the evaluations changed that much?

You imagine any spectacular players lacking in efficiency gain legendary status in this era and going forward? Lamelo is…pretty spectacular. Anyone care?

Does “serious” fanhood allow you to care?

[FultzNationRISE]

Basketball “science” isnt really any different from any other.

It gets better and more precise with time.

You wouldnt treat an illness today with 18th century medical techniques. “Hold this herb bundle in your left hand and chant the Song of Healing four times while standing on one foot.”

People back then thought that was like… common sense. Yeah, sure, of course you hold the herb and chant the song on one foot. Thats medicine. You tryin to die or what??

Our dietary and nutritional understanding has come a huge way even since just the 1990s.

There are sometimes ideas, values, philosophical concepts that do tend to get lost with time as populations get carried away with tech and so on. But anything that’s really analytical in the details tends to become more refined over time.

In fact it’s going to be a general issue as society tends ever toward “maximum efficiency.” Do we want the drama, the intrigue, the triumph and tragedy of human decisions, mistakes, corruptions and all, that give life the only meaning its ever known to this point? Or do we want computer entities to tell us exactly how to do every job in every way, with no ambiguity and nobody to celebrate or blame when the job is finished?

With increased efficiency and predictability also comes a degree of sterility.

Neither way is gonna be perfect. The question is whether a static balance is even possible, or whether we are destined to go all the way from one end to the other until the cycle repeats.

[Kblaze8855]

Are you sure we should be treating the appreciation and fanhood of an athletic event like a science in the first place?

Do you believe that everyone thinks the people they love to watch are better than the people they don’t want to watch?

can you just want to watch someone do something because it’s entertaining and that’s the role they play in your life?

[FultzNationRISE]

Are you sure we should be treating the appreciation and fanhood of an athletic event like a science in the first place?

Do you believe that everyone thinks the people they love to watch are better than the people they don’t want to watch?

can you just want to watch someone do something because it’s entertaining and that’s the role they play in your life?

Just depends on the person.

I dont think it’s any different than the difference between science and religion. Different approaches to the same fundamental goal: Enjoying basketball. Err, answers.

Both approaches have their adherents. Some people are heavy on one approach and not the other, for some its vice versa, and some like a little bit of both.

Whatever pleases ya.



As long as you respect Lebron as GOAT

[Xiao Yao You]

Are you sure we should be treating the appreciation and fanhood of an athletic event like a science in the first place?

Do you believe that everyone thinks the people they love to watch are better than the people they don’t want to watch?

can you just want to watch someone do something because it’s entertaining and that’s the role they play in your life?

and someone could call you crazy for that

[Kblaze8855]

Well, if you’re going to blend your personal admiration for somebody style with a ranking and defend it unreasonably, you might be crazy. But I’m talking about people who have the maturity to separate what they like from rankings. So you can probably sit this one out. You are here acting like people in the Hall of Fame aren’t good and don’t meet your standards so you’re not really the kind of fan I’m talking to. You’re kind of emblematic of the problem actually. Not that sports fanhood has any serious problems that need fixing outside violence and related hatred.

[RRR3]

Earl Monroe wasn't inefficient for his era. Solidly above league average efficiency for his career.

[Kblaze8855]

Earl Monroe wasn't inefficient for his era. Solidly above league average efficiency for his career.

People are really selective with that “For the era” argument though.

I think it’s odd when they literally added 50% more points for some shots but people do like to make those cross era comparisons anyway.

[Xiao Yao You]

Well, if you’re going to blend your personal admiration for somebody style with a ranking and defend it unreasonably, you might be crazy. But I’m talking about people who have the maturity to separate what they like from rankings. So you can probably sit this one out. You are here acting like people in the Hall of Fame aren’t good and don’t meet your standards so you’re not really the kind of fan I’m talking to. You’re kind of emblematic of the problem actually. Not that sports fanhood has any serious problems that need fixing outside violence and related hatred.

When did I say someone in the HOF wasn't good? Being good and not meeting my standards are two different things. Not like the HOF has very high standards to begin with.

[1987_Lakers]

One of the players I never used in NBA Street Vol 2 (along with Connie Hawkins), but I see why they put him in it considering he was seen as a street ball player.

[Duffy Pratt]

Monroe did things that no-one had ever seen before. As a kid who loved the Knicks in the late 60s, I absolutely hated him (and Havlicek and West). I was at a double-overtime playoff game at the Garden between the Knicks and the Bullets where he was simply amazing.

Then, of course, when the Knicks got him, I loved him. But he very much changed his style to fit with the Knicks as possibly the coolest backcourt ever. He invented some of the handles that are commonplace today, but he did them without carrying the ball.

On the subject of eras, shouldn’t the question be how a player from then would be now if he had the advantages modern players have, or how modern players would have fared then, given the limitations (playing back to back to back several times a year, for example, in Chuck Conners, with the shot clocks on the floor in the corners, without the trainers, without the early coaching, etc…).