What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is.
Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were familiar with Bird's shooting numbers in college , and none of that is at all anecdotal, given that Jackie covered the Celtics for a long time and also did a book with Bird, but go ahead and keep believing that none of what I've posted is fact. Is it also not true that how you grip the basketball is a vital factor when it comes to shooting? Are you not convinced that his injury actually happened? Did you miss his 16-19, 35 point performance against Mark Aguirre and Depaul?
I am sure the injury happened. I believe the things you have posted are factual, insofar as they are historical. That's what anecdotes from journalists are, most of the time: historical and factual. What they are not, as I've said before, is grounds for emperical evidence. Like, come on dude, you're either playing dumb on purpose or I'm not connecting with what I'm saying. You can say "Bird was the best shooter of all time 'cause Jackie Mac said so," but that's not empirical, and these sorts of comparisons can be made, at least in part, with actual numbers. The only thing you've brought up is College FG%... really? that's the best you've got?
What I am saying is that I don't believe the fact that his injury happened has any bearing on whether or not he was a better shooter than Steph Curry -- something I never said, anyway: only that you can make an argument for it.
Also, for the record, your constant emoji usage is entirely inane.
So, I'm the guy who ACTUALLY said Curry was the best shooter ever, earlier in the thread (not that it's an original thought).
Sorry about the ensuing outrage storm directed your way, D.o.s.
No worries, but thanks for that.
So, wait, you weren't even aware of the injury before I posted this tidbit? Wow, but hey, as long as you're sure, now
, and, umm, I'm using his college fg% because that is the genesis of my argument? Look at his numbers before the injury, and then look at them after it occurred, and tell me that it didn't make an impact.
You're also ignoring the fact that there is no hand checking or anything allowed against perimeter players today, when in Bird's time the defenses were much more physical and sophisticated. People say that the reason why teams scored more points back then was because of a lack of defense, when the reality is that the teams were harder to stop in the 80s because not only did they have more talent per roster, but they also had more skilled players. What a concept, right? I wouldn't call the defenses better now, I'd say that they only look great because everyone just runs the pick and roll 24/7, so there's no change in offensive philosophy, aside from the triangle, meaning that teams don't have to radically adjust their game plans team to team.
However, when a club turns to an old play every once in a while, the most sophisticated and stingiest of defenses had no clue how to stop it, nor did the rest of the league, and I'm talking about the scissor play used by the Knicks when they had a lot of success in 2012-13 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugTH91GmLTs It was a better game in the 80s, which is why it's referred to as the golden age of basketball, and as for the Jackie Mac interview, what I'm alluding to is the fact that if Bird was as great as he was without being able to properly grip the ball during his NBA career, don't you think it would have made him an even better shooter had he been able to do so? It's common sense. I was making the argument for Bird against the argument that you say can be made for Curry as being the best shooter of all time. Again, are you even comprehending what I'm writing, here? I do agree that you're not connecting with what you're saying, though
, and I'm glad that you've decided to come down off of your high horse for once to even notice my use of emojis. Thank you
.