So about a month ago this discussion had been going on on Twitter that I saw pop up a few different times. I wish I had the original post (I'm sure someone here can link it), but the gist was if a regular person was on an NBA team, played all 48 minutes, didn't have to play defense, and the team was feeding him, would he score 20 or more at any point over the course of a season? Now, this is an awfully silly question, and I'll get into that later, but it was ridiculous seeing some of the takes on this. I think this idea really offends people because they have to say a lay man could never do that because... it would apparently mean something (when it wouldn't). I saw a few takes of people saying how they played pickup ball against some former JuCo players (or similar scenarios) and how they just blew everyone out of the water, and if people think that a lay person can drop 20 in those circumstances, that it means they don't understand the infinite talent chasm between professional sports and guys at the gym.
My first take on this is an acknowledgement that no, guys at the gym aren't NBA level. No, they're not better than guys in the NBA. But I've made this point in other contexts previously that I could probably beat a number of NBA players in a free throw shoot-out (not a lot of guys, but some). Ultimately, this is meaningless. If I could do this, it speaks nothing to me being on NBA level at all. But many people would probably conflate a statement like that to "lol u cant be guis in nba u soooo dumb." A live NBA game is much more than a free throw shooting contest, it's more than winning a sprint, it's more than simply being taller than someone or [insert variable]. It's when the game comes together as an amalgam that you see the guys who belong and those who don't. It doesn't mean that there's no overlap in any given random ability (though there's certainly fewer), but more importantly, there being overlap in any particular component of the game between a pro and a lay person is entirely meaningless. I think this is where people get tripped up. They seem to believe that if one that a lay person could have one particular talent, or be able to do something, that's on the level of some pro, that somehow the whole belief that professional athletes are better comes crashing down (it doesn't). This absurdity can be tested by asking how many lay people would have been quicker than Shaq? How many lay people could beat him in a free throw contest? Ultimately this would be meaningless because none of those lay people would survive in a live game. But Shaq being an NBA player doesn't magically mean that there's not an 8th grader in the world who could have beat him in a sprint.
The above only partially addresses the original question. My beef with this question is that they're painting such a ridiculous scenario that the game being played ceases to be basketball. Play all 48? You don't have to play defense? Your team is feeding you? The dynamics of the game would dictate that multiple teams would just let you get your 20 on high inefficiency at least a few times. This scenario doesn't have your team's goal being to win the game but apparently to get you 20 points. It's silly. Any time there's a steal in the game (even if your team is playing 4-on-5), you're there cherry picking. Someone scoring 20 in a scenario like this over the course of 82 games is not a threat to the reality of how much better NBA players are than lay people. The other end of this is that it's an argument of how good the NBA players are, but paradoxically people are not willing to acknowledge that a team of NBA professionals couldn't get some random jackass 20 points over a season if apparently their goal isn't even to win the game. It's like when Homer Simpson asked if Jesus could make a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it.
My first take on this is an acknowledgement that no, guys at the gym aren't NBA level. No, they're not better than guys in the NBA. But I've made this point in other contexts previously that I could probably beat a number of NBA players in a free throw shoot-out (not a lot of guys, but some). Ultimately, this is meaningless. If I could do this, it speaks nothing to me being on NBA level at all. But many people would probably conflate a statement like that to "lol u cant be guis in nba u soooo dumb." A live NBA game is much more than a free throw shooting contest, it's more than winning a sprint, it's more than simply being taller than someone or [insert variable]. It's when the game comes together as an amalgam that you see the guys who belong and those who don't. It doesn't mean that there's no overlap in any given random ability (though there's certainly fewer), but more importantly, there being overlap in any particular component of the game between a pro and a lay person is entirely meaningless. I think this is where people get tripped up. They seem to believe that if one that a lay person could have one particular talent, or be able to do something, that's on the level of some pro, that somehow the whole belief that professional athletes are better comes crashing down (it doesn't). This absurdity can be tested by asking how many lay people would have been quicker than Shaq? How many lay people could beat him in a free throw contest? Ultimately this would be meaningless because none of those lay people would survive in a live game. But Shaq being an NBA player doesn't magically mean that there's not an 8th grader in the world who could have beat him in a sprint.
The above only partially addresses the original question. My beef with this question is that they're painting such a ridiculous scenario that the game being played ceases to be basketball. Play all 48? You don't have to play defense? Your team is feeding you? The dynamics of the game would dictate that multiple teams would just let you get your 20 on high inefficiency at least a few times. This scenario doesn't have your team's goal being to win the game but apparently to get you 20 points. It's silly. Any time there's a steal in the game (even if your team is playing 4-on-5), you're there cherry picking. Someone scoring 20 in a scenario like this over the course of 82 games is not a threat to the reality of how much better NBA players are than lay people. The other end of this is that it's an argument of how good the NBA players are, but paradoxically people are not willing to acknowledge that a team of NBA professionals couldn't get some random jackass 20 points over a season if apparently their goal isn't even to win the game. It's like when Homer Simpson asked if Jesus could make a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it.
