Am I the only one not fooled by arbitrary "First player to X X and X since ____"?

[#number6ix#]

So are you saying they didn't happen?

I guess it happened I would like to see the video to see if the other team was just conceding the rebounds or battling for them and also the talent of the other team

[NumberSix]

First player to have 25/8/6 in 8 out of 10 games in under 38 minutes per game since 1987.

[sportjames23]

I really only care about 6/6, 5/7 and 2/5

I see what you did there.

[Straight_Ballin]

you're like nostalgia's lawyer but you're not even 50

how does this happen?

is this a result of too much free time? was your grandfather a basketball fan? did you not meet your daddy?

You sound insecure about having only lived in an era thus far where arbitrary numbers are required to prop up superstars. Simply put, players in former eras were just that good that you didn't need ESPN promoting them every week.

Cracks me up every time someone with less viewing experience under their belt tries to play the nostalgia card, as if it has any meaning whatsoever.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You sound insecure about having only lived in an era thus far where arbitrary numbers are required to prop up superstars. Simply put, players in former eras were just that good that you didn't need ESPN promoting them every week.

Cracks me up every time someone with less viewing experience under their belt tries to play the nostalgia card, as if it has any meaning whatsoever.

This first "arbitrary number" to get any media love was Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game.

[ralph_i_el]

The level of competition today is higher and individual players don't put up the ridiculous stats that were possible in weaker eras

[Straight_Ballin]

This first "arbitrary number" to get any media love was Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game.

Not all arbitrary numbers have equal importance. The 100 points was actually worth mentioning unlike the shit you hear from ESPN these days.

[Eric Cartman]

That's why I don't watch ESPN.

[VIP2000]

Not all arbitrary numbers have equal importance. The 100 points was actually worth mentioning unlike the shit you hear from ESPN these days.

Scoring 100 points is still arbitrary, tho. Like if Wilt had scored 99 instead, it wouldn't have been equally impressive?

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Its really from betas who settle for less coz they knew their boy's 2/5 aint going to improve

2/5 in 11 seasons > 2/8 in 69. Knicks fans can't talk shit.

[LAZERUSS]

I still recall ESPN's tracking of Kevin Durant's run of 25+ point games a few years ago. Nightly ESPN would show his streak and compare it to the "record" held by Jordan, of 40 straight games (and eventually KD would surpass MJ with 41 straight.)

BUT, someone forgot to tell ESPN that Oscar had a run of 46 straight...or that Wilt had an entire season, covering 80 games, with 25+ point games (and in fact, Wilt carried it over the next season with 46 more...or an actual 126.)

[Helix]

I still recall ESPN's tracking of Kevin Durant's run of 25+ point games a few years ago. Nightly ESPN would show his streak and compare it to the "record" held by Jordan, of 40 straight games (and eventually KD would surpass MJ with 41 straight.)

BUT, someone forgot to tell ESPN that Oscar had a run of 46 straight...or that Wilt had an entire season, covering 80 games, with 25+ point games (and in fact, Wilt carried it over the next season with 46 more...or an actual 126.)

Yea Laz, but as we both well know, the 60's was a weak era, so those ones don't count.

[gts]

Agreed.

A lot of arbitrary stats ESPN makes up are wrong too, or doesn't account for pre 1970 which makes no sense.

yeah the time frame they use on some of these comparisons is a bit of a moving target...

And to the OP yes, most of these things are just garbage numbers to generate content..

[CavaliersFTW]

Scoring 100 points is still arbitrary, tho. Like if Wilt had scored 99 instead, it wouldn't have been equally impressive?

This thread is flying over your head. Yes, it would have been equally impressive know why?

...because it would have been the all time record. Without some abritrary criteria, or date that cuts other past records out of the picture. Plain and simple that would have been the most points scored in an NBA basketball game.

Do you fail to see the difference between an all time record free-of-arbitrary stipulations vs say, "highest field goal percentage in a game with at least 30 points 10 assists and 5 rebounds since 1974"?

[LAZERUSS]

Yea Laz, but as we both well know, the 60's was a weak era, so those ones don't count.

Oh of course. We saw that with Kareem, who came into the league in the 60's, and, then at ages 38-39, put up 10 straight games in which he averaged 32 ppg on a .630 FG% against Hakeem in the mid-80's.

And we know that Hakeem was over-matched by his peers in the 90's.