Is Yogi the most overrated Hoosier of all time?

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Relative to competition ..

Comparing today's stats or players vs yesterdays is stupid. Comparing the percentage ranking of a players stats in either era will supply an answer or starting place to gauge how effective that player was (in his era). Since those players smoking cigars played against players smoking cigars, and todays' roid enhanced athletes are playing against other roid enhanced athletes, then the playing field is the same. BECAUSE in competitive sports everything is relative to the competition. So, no, we cannot compare McCracken to Ferrell, but I would be willing to bet that McCracken had stats that wer in the top 2% of his era. Thus we can gauge McCracken relative to his competition was better than Yogi fking Ferrell because his WERE NOT!

Jesus Christ! Why is that concept so hard to fking understand? Are we going to take away this year's championships because the stats imply that this year is the weakest statistical year since at least 1995. Seriously, the only team currently that would rank in the top 10 last year, would be UNC. If so then Yogi's stats are even worse, because using a four year SOS and using averages stats during those better years - will dip him below average. If so, our championship is also tainted because it came against the weakest conference field in ten years.

Where your argument breaks down is... well, it's not because of what you're saying, but because of how 99.99999999999% of dumbasses understand it. Most people take that as meaning that McCracken was better than Yogi. But in real life, Yogi would probably knock Branch out of his damn shoes. Because that's the nature of sports.

And that's the real reason these inter-era comparisons are stupid. Because "relative to the competition" is meaningless when the competition is so dramatically different.

It's quite possible that, relative to his competition, Yogi is good but not great, but at the same time, in a hypothetical world where all players could compete against all other players of every era, each in his prime, Yogi would end up one of the top players of all time. Simply because, in that hypothetical universe - again, which is the universe most dumbasses are imagining when they supposedly put these lists together - almost all of the greatest players of all time would end up being recent players.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Why is that dumb, players in that era were also more skilled and smarter. Plus, a guy like Jordan stayed 3 years. In the present era, how many did Kobe Bryant play? If the one and dones all played NCAA, and all stayed 3 years on average, you don't believe the overall basketball would be improved.Especially for the major teams (which is all we should care about as the 351st team is so bad it skews our perception. It would be exponential, not only would this years one and done's come back, but last years, and the year before. Also, those players leaving early creates a talent vacuum that effects every team below them in stature because they're recruiting is affected. Imagine UK with the 12 team staying until last year. the 13/14/ and 15 recruits woudl have signed elsewhere.Talent vacuum...

If we brought the 82 UNC team to the present age - our walk ons would probably beat them because the whole damn starting unit would already be in the NBA

No, our walk-ons would probably beat them because our walk-ons are probably as good as scholarship players from 1982.

 

[T.M.P.]

But in real life, Yogi would probably knock Branch out of his damn shoes

Well, yea, McCracken played on peach baskets. I doubt he could dribble left handed and probably couldn't jump 3"...

More on FL's post. Take the 90+ best American 3 year players in the NBA and spread them out to all the major teams. That's 18 total starting lineups. They would fill the top 25 and AA lists. Now take the worst 90+ players on those same teams, (+ because some of the better players would want playing time) and spread them to the next low major teams. do it again and again. down to low minor ..

Then cut the whole NCAA almost half, because there weren't 351 teams in that era. Meaning Tom Crean couldn't schedule the 300 range teams that would then be NAIA or Div 2 or 3, and Yogi couldn't rack up stats against them. He would have to play against 200 talent which would be comparable to today's 150 talent (due to talent uptick).

The present college talent pool, even considering the greatly enhanced athleticism, is watered down compared to the 80's. and players are not that much more athletic or you would see a considerable amount of players jump higher than David Thompson (70's). Or be as quick with the ball from end to end as Isiah. and, that was without the roids.

You could argue that population has grown, but then I would argue that less kids play sports.. it'll never end.. vbg

There's just a lot more athletes, where there used to be a lot more skill players. fwiw - Basketball on the cerebral level is at an all time low even if it is at an all time high athletically. I see the lack of fundamentals daily.

 

[FrankTGucker]

They didnt move the 3-point line back farther because so many shooters were getting worse...

On the old film clips - the big guys were built like Priller. Tall skinny rail types. Today everyone is fast, everyone is strong, most can jump.

The science involved with todays athletes has made todays athletes far superior. They used to have budweisers iced down and cigarettes provided in locker rooms postgame.

Players from the old days vs modern guys. This thread has somehow turned into the Mike and Mike show. We gonna talk some hall of fame next? Remember, all you Fred McGriff fans it's the "hall of fame" not "hall of very good".

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well, yea, McCracken played on peach baskets. I doubt he could dribble left handed and probably couldn't jump 3"...

More on FL's post. Take the 90+ best American 3 year players in the NBA and spread them out to all the major teams. That's 18 total starting lineups. They would fill the top 25 and AA lists. Now take the worst 90+ players, (+ because some of the better players would want playing time) and spread them to the next low major teams. do it again and again. down to low minor ..

Then cut the whole NCAA almost half, because there weren't 351 teams in that era. Meaning Tom Crean couldn't schedule the 300 range teams that would then be NAIA or Div 2 or 3, and Yogi couldn't rack up stats against them. He would have to play against 200 talent which would be comparable to today's 150 talent (due to talent uptick).

The present college talent pool, even considering the greatly enhanced athleticism, is watered down compared to the 80's. and players are not that much more athletic or you would see a considerable amount of players jump higher than David Thompson (70's). Or be as quick with the ball from end to end as Isiah. and, that was without the roids.

You could argue that population has grown, but then I would argue that less kids play sports.. it'll never end.. vbg

There's just a lot more athletes, where there used to be a lot more skill players. fwiw - Basketball on the cerebral level is at an all time low even if it is at an all time high athletically. I see the lack of fundamentals daily.

Yeah, but once again, even though you keep responding to me, most of your arguments are directed at what other people said, things that I would never claim. I'm not saying Yogi's THE BEST. I love Yogi, and I think he deserves respect (or, on a deeper level, scorn) for single-handedly saving his coach's job by going nuts these past three months, but I'm not saying he's the best. I think his 3rd team AA is about the best he could expect, and might even be a bit generous. But comparing him to Zeke? To Quinn? To Branch? Not possible. And if you took all of them in their prime, and put them against each other, Yogi would probably prevail, because an average player today is better than a star player back then.

(Possible exception for Zeke, who was just phenomenal, and would probably be a star even today.)

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Players from the old days vs modern guys. This thread has somehow turned into the Mike and Mike show. We gonna talk some hall of fame next? Remember, all you Fred McGriff fans it's the "hall of fame" not "hall of very good".

Who's better Terry Bradshaw or Tom Brady?

Didn't we already have this thread? Like a dozen times?

I've been trying to highlight how dumb this is all along. Apologies if I've done a poor job.

 

[T.M.P.]

No, our walk-ons would probably beat them because our walk-ons are probably as good as scholarship players from 1982.

LOL .......................

The 82 team had Jordan...

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

LOL .......................

The 82 team had Jordan...

There are always a few generational athletes that are just amazing, but I would put $100 against your $1 that, if you had a time machine, MJ would not dominate the league today like he did in his day.

 

[T.M.P.]

Yeah, but once again, even though you keep responding to me, most of your arguments are directed at what other people said, things that I would never claim. I'm not saying Yogi's THE BEST. I love Yogi, and I think he deserves respect (or, on a deeper level, scorn) for single-handedly saving his coach's job by going nuts these past three months, but I'm not saying he's the best. I think his 3rd team AA is about the best he could expect, and might even be a bit generous. But comparing him to Zeke? To Quinn? To Branch? Not possible. And if you took all of them in their prime, and put them against each other, Yogi would probably prevail, because an average player today is better than a star player back then.

(Possible exception for Zeke, who was just phenomenal, and would probably be a star even today.)

I'm not even arguing with you, it's just a conversation and one I enjoy and enjoy having with you because I know you understand what I'm saying even if you keep disagreeing. vbg

I'm winning though regardless of who I'm arguing with, right? lol

And, yea, Zeke's ballhandling was phenomenal, Yogi can't do what he did with the ball. Not even close. Also, he had an outrageous vertical for his size - one I doubt very very much Yogi could match (Zeke dunked in traffic) and as far as I know he's still has one of the fastest players from end to end with the ball.

Zeke's was very athletic. Sure as a whole the NBA and NCAA is more athletic, but players are not more athletic than Zeke or Jordan. Or even David Thompson, who played for NC St in the 70's. Plus, their will was second to none, something Yogi doesn't have.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm not even arguing with you, it's just a conversation and one I enjoy and enjoy having with you because I know you understand what I'm saying even if you keep disagreeing. vbg

I'm winning though regardless of who I'm arguing with, right? lol

And, yea, Zeke's ballhandling was phenomenal, Yogi can't do what he did with the ball. Not even close. Also, he had an outrageous vertical for his size - one I doubt very very much Yogi could match (Zeke dunked in traffic) and as far as I know he's still has one of the fastest players from end to end with the ball.

Zeke's was very athletic. Sure as a whole the NBA and NCAA is more athletic, but players are not more athletic than Zeke or Jordan. Or even David Thompson, who played for NC St in the 70's. Plus, their will was second to none, something just Yogi doesn't have.

Even if I disagree and act like I'm getting frustrated, I enjoy it, too. It's fun to have a real discussion about this stuff, instead of the BS that happens on the hoops boards.

Zeke was a special case. So was MJ. They were special. The kinds of athletes that could dominate even today. But they are rare. Most basketball players at high-level D1 programs from the 1980s would have a hard time seeing floor time for Gonzaga today.

But eventually, even the special athletes get overtaken. I mean, really, is there any doubt (objectively, without emotion) at this point that Steph is eventually going to overtake MJ as the Best Ever? I have no doubt. Unless he gets hurt, it's going to happen. And deservedly so.

 

[T.M.P.]

There are always a few generational athletes that are just amazing, but I would put $100 against your $1 that, if you had a time machine, MJ would not dominate the league today like he did in his day.

Man, you need to look up his physical test scores. He was a freak then and would still be a freak now. Plus, his competitive will power was exceptional, it was the thing that separated him from the rest. And, most importantly, he was so far ahead of today's players on a fundamental level that it's a no contest.

The general view you have of the game as a whole is correct, the AVERAGE player is easily more athletic, and maybe better in that way, even if they are less fundamental and skilled, but the top end players are not much different. LeBron being a roided out exception.

Now if you go back a couple more decades, like 1965, sure, a two bit average PG from an NCAA team could play against a NBA HoF.. but you're underestimating just how good and how athletic those 80's HOF players were.

 

[T.M.P.]

Zeke was a special case. So was MJ. They were special. The kinds of athletes that could dominate even today. But they are rare. Most basketball players at high-level D1 programs from the 1980s would have a hard time seeing floor time for Gonzaga today.

Yup, that I agree with ..

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Man, you need to look up his physical test scores. He was a freak then and would still be a freak now. Plus, his competitive will power was exceptional, it was the thing that separated him from the rest. And, most importantly, he was so far ahead of today's players on a fundamental level that it's a no contest.

The general view you have of the game as a whole is correct, the AVERAGE player is easily more athletic, and maybe better in that way, even if they are less fundamental and skilled, but the top end players are not much different. LeBron being a roided out exception.

Now if you go back a couple more decades, like 1965, sure, a two bit average PG from an NCAA team could play against a NBA HoF.. but you're underestimating just how good and how athletic those 80's HOF players were.

Okay, maybe I'm jumping the gun with MJ. But eventually...

 

[T.M.P.]

Okay, maybe I'm jumping the gun with MJ. But eventually...

I truly believe the late 80's in the NBA was the best basketball played in history. Previously, in the 70's basketball was almost all offensively oriented, until some guy at Indiana proved that defense was where it was at. The late 80's had a perfect mix of skill, knowledge and athleticism among the players and the perfect balance of offense vs defense among the teams.

The game has changed, and is now mostly geared towards having less skilled, more athletic players more apt towards defense, or ones that can put up a dunk on ESPN. The nonathletic skill guys became specialists. While the athletic guys became starters. That's why efficiency dropped so badly during the 90's and beyond. Not only did defensive aptitude increase but offensive skills also decreased.

 

[FL33]

l. The kinds of athletes that could dominate even today. But they are rare. Most basketball players at high-level D1 programs from the 1980s would have a hard time seeing floor time for Gonzaga today.

But eventually, even the special athletes get overtaken. I mean, really, is there any doubt (objectively, without emotion) at this point that Steph is eventually going to overtake MJ as the Best Ever? I have no doubt. Unless he gets hurt, it's going to happen. And deservedly so.

You massively overrate today's athlete and underrate some of the older athletes (especially since we're only talking about going back 25-30 years).

And no, it isn't a forgone conclusion Steph will overtake Jordan. It's not even likely, even if you think they are close now in terms of peak performance, which is debatable.

 

[Rakkasan29]

Players from the old days vs modern guys. This thread has somehow turned into the Mike and Mike show. We gonna talk some hall of fame next? Remember, all you Fred McGriff fans it's the "hall of fame" not "hall of very good".

Ron Santo disagrees with this post.

 

[UTFO]

"Greatest" players win something. 0 final fours. We didn't win jack crack during his time here. Winning a bunch of games against patsies and piling up #s doesn't do much for me. Not a clutch player at all.

You need to go on another walkabout to the Steppes or something b/c your anger is obvious.

And it has nothing to do with Yogi or IU.

 

[PtownHoosier]

Players from the old days vs modern guys. This thread has somehow turned into the Mike and Mike show. We gonna talk some hall of fame next? Remember, all you Fred McGriff fans it's the "hall of fame" not "hall of very good".

McStiff has fans?

 

[Cream&Crimson]

Here's the real deal about Yogi. He stepped up and put this team on his back this year, became a leader, and willed the team to a B1G title and a S16 appearance. We wouldn't have come anywhere close to any of that without Yogi. Whoever said above that he is all the more impressive because of the handicap he was saddled with was right. He became a coach on the floor, and sometimes even on the sideline. Crean would take his advice about what to do.

If he had a coach who knew what the hell he was doing, Yogi might have ended up hitting all the statistical benchmarks a guy like TMP wants you to hit to be considered "great." He might have led this team to the kind of postseason success a guy like Toasted wants to call someone "great." but he didn't have that, so we can only judge what he did in the context of the situation he was in. And when we do that, it's pretty clear he deserves a lot of kudos.

Think about it like this. If it weren't for Zeller, Vic and Yogi, CTC might have never taken a single IU team to the tournament. It takes a special player to overcome that kind of incompetence, and, therefore Yogi is a pretty special player. One of the all-time "best" Hoosiers, objectively speaking? Probably not. But, subjectively speaking, he's still an all-time Hoosier in my mind, simply because he's one of the few players good enough to overcome the tremendous coaching handicap he was given, and carry his team to at least some level of success.

One of the most damning indictments I've read on our coach - and one I agree with. Damn that's depressing...

 

[The Vid]

You massively overrate today's athlete and underrate some of the older athletes (especially since we're only talking about going back 25-30 years).

And no, it isn't a forgone conclusion Steph will overtake Jordan. It's not even likely, even if you think they are close now in terms of peak performance, which is debatable.

Curry will never be able to play defense like Jordan, so this discussion needs to stop.

 

[Oxford Collapse]

There are always a few generational athletes that are just amazing, but I would put $100 against your $1 that, if you had a time machine, MJ would not dominate the league today like he did in his day.

I'm sorry, Goat, but that's nuts.

 

[The Vid]

I'm sorry, Goat, but that's nuts.

The bigger faster stronger debates are interesting, but they have no merit starting with the Bird/Magic era IMO. All of those players and teams would be just fine in today's NBA. Larry Bird would be just as dominant in the modern era, and Jordan may even be more dominant playing against these pansies. Jordan would eat these clowns alive actually.

 

[PtownHoosier]

The bigger faster stronger debates are interesting, but they have no merit starting with the Bird/Magic era IMO. All of those players and teams would be just fine in today's NBA. Larry Bird would be just as dominant in the modern era, and Jordan may even be more dominant playing against these pansies. Jordan would eat these clowns alive actually.

Jordan with today's no hand checking rules? Are you kidding me? He'd average 50. I know some say defenses would be more effective against him today because of analytics, but he was the type of OCD perfectionist that he'd have improved whatever weaknesses he would have had to those improved schemes.

 

[FL33]

Curry will never be able to play defense like Jordan, so this discussion needs to stop.

Yea... I didn't think the discussion even merited a breakdown. But that is the most obvious difference.

The other thing is, Tim Duncan is currently (at age 40) playing at a higher level than Yogi ever will dream of. 20 years ago he was in college. We're talking about that age of players and a decade before. The gap isn't that big and certainly wouldn't let yogi dominate on athleticism.

A good Yogi comp might be a guy like Jason Gardner. Gardner had slightly worse stats but more success. Similar size and defense.

 

[FL33]

Jordan with today's no hand checking rules? Are you kidding me? He'd average 50. I know some say defenses would be more effective against him today because of analytics, but he was the type of OCD perfectionist that he'd have improved whatever weaknesses he would have had to those improved schemes.

I don't know about that, but he would've averaged more. He wouldn't have won as much either. His talents and coach were uniquely situated for the garbage isolation ball of the 90's. He also benefitted from those hand checking rules. Long, strong defenders like him, pippen, Payton, etc... used those rules to their advantage, which is why Stern never changed them.

To me, it all comes out in the wash. Or as TMP was saying, just compare them to their peers. Jordan was amazing. Maybe the best ever. It would take Curry almost half a decade of this type of success to get to what Jordan did.