In a recent airing of ESPN Radio's Waddle & Silvy show, former NBA great and current NBA analyst Charles Barkley had this to say about the 25-1 and defending champion Golden State Warriors:
"That Bulls team would kill this little team. Come on, man. Who is going to guard Scottie Pippen and Michael Jordan? What about Dennis Rodman?"
He added:
"Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman -- let me just start with those three. First of all they would love playing the way the Warriors play. It's a much easier game now. Could you imagine how many points Michael would average if you couldn't touch him? Dennis would get so many rebounds against that team. They are a very small team."
I'm sorry, but isn't this kind of silly? Why do so many sports fans find it necessary to debate impossible hypotheticals? It'd be one thing to ponder about and debate hypotheticals of a single season. In college football this year, it made sense to ask, "What will happen if Clemson and Stanford lose their conference title games? Will the playoff committee still allow Clemson in at #4? Will they move Ohio State in the top four, a team who didn't even make it to its respective conference championship game? Is there a chance North Carolina could move up from 10 to 4 by winning the ACC title game against #1 Clemson?" However, when attempting to compare players and teams from completely different eras, these hypotheticals are flat out ridiculous!
Yes, it's sometimes fun to think about the most dominating players/athletes and teams from different eras facing one another in their primes. However, it's also pointless. Sports change over time. Basketball isn't today what it was 20-30 years ago. That doesn't make the game better or worse necessarily, just different. Just as we haven't the slightest idea how Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls would fare in today's NBA, there's no possible way of telling how Stephen Curry's Golden State Warriors would have fared in the '80s or '90s. It's literally impossible to say which team would come out on top in a single game, let alone an entire series. Instead of throwing out these impossible hypotheticals, why don't we simply enjoy greatness when it comes our way, regardless of the sport, regardless of the era, and appreciate it for what it is? If not, then we might as well be asking and debating the following ridiculous questions as well:
- Who would win in a fight, Barack Obama or Abraham Lincoln?
- If they were to run the hurdles, who would come away with the faster time, Gandhi or Jesus?
- In a skeet-shooting competition, who would be victorious, Dick Cheney or Elmer Fudd?
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/14391158/chicago-bulls-72-win-team-kill-golden-state-warriors-charles-barkley-says
"That Bulls team would kill this little team. Come on, man. Who is going to guard Scottie Pippen and Michael Jordan? What about Dennis Rodman?"
He added:
"Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman -- let me just start with those three. First of all they would love playing the way the Warriors play. It's a much easier game now. Could you imagine how many points Michael would average if you couldn't touch him? Dennis would get so many rebounds against that team. They are a very small team."
I'm sorry, but isn't this kind of silly? Why do so many sports fans find it necessary to debate impossible hypotheticals? It'd be one thing to ponder about and debate hypotheticals of a single season. In college football this year, it made sense to ask, "What will happen if Clemson and Stanford lose their conference title games? Will the playoff committee still allow Clemson in at #4? Will they move Ohio State in the top four, a team who didn't even make it to its respective conference championship game? Is there a chance North Carolina could move up from 10 to 4 by winning the ACC title game against #1 Clemson?" However, when attempting to compare players and teams from completely different eras, these hypotheticals are flat out ridiculous!
Yes, it's sometimes fun to think about the most dominating players/athletes and teams from different eras facing one another in their primes. However, it's also pointless. Sports change over time. Basketball isn't today what it was 20-30 years ago. That doesn't make the game better or worse necessarily, just different. Just as we haven't the slightest idea how Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls would fare in today's NBA, there's no possible way of telling how Stephen Curry's Golden State Warriors would have fared in the '80s or '90s. It's literally impossible to say which team would come out on top in a single game, let alone an entire series. Instead of throwing out these impossible hypotheticals, why don't we simply enjoy greatness when it comes our way, regardless of the sport, regardless of the era, and appreciate it for what it is? If not, then we might as well be asking and debating the following ridiculous questions as well:
- Who would win in a fight, Barack Obama or Abraham Lincoln?
- If they were to run the hurdles, who would come away with the faster time, Gandhi or Jesus?
- In a skeet-shooting competition, who would be victorious, Dick Cheney or Elmer Fudd?
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/14391158/chicago-bulls-72-win-team-kill-golden-state-warriors-charles-barkley-says
Comments
Post a Comment