We get it, everything nowadays sucks, old times were the best.

[Papaya Petee]

Yes we get it. The NBA now sucks, and everything in the past was so much better.

Dwight Howard wouldn't even be a top 7 defensive player if he played in the 80's or 90's.

Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, and LeBron James would struggle to average 25\5\5 in their primes in the 80's or 90's.

Michael Jordan would average 45 PPG and Bird and Magic would be 30\10\10 in todays league.

The league nowadays isn't as competitive as it used to be, it's soft, and it just sucks.

I have a question for you people who constantly say those things, why do you even bother watching the NBA, if you constantly complain about how bad its gotten?

[Indian guy]

Who's actually saying any of this stuff?

[EarlTheGoat]

Most of those type of quotes are made by people who didnt even watch the old guys, just acting like that to look like they have a lot of knowledge and so on. Old tactic.

The only thing I agree with when it comes to this kind of conversations is that Dwight Howard is overrated because the C position is not stacked at all. Which is true, Dwight would not be a top 5 Center in the 80`s and 90`s for example.

[PHILA]

One can only envy those who have seen the great big men of the 60's & 70's as they played, which there is really only one of in a 30 team league in 2010.

http://i38.tinypic.com/9ithyp.jpg




Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nate Thurmond
Bob Lanier
Willis Reed
Walt Bellamy
Zelmo Beaty
Luke Jackson
John Kerr
Clyde Lovellette
Wes Unseld
Elvin Hayes
Bob McAdoo
Dave Cowens
Artis Gilmore
Bill Walton
Moses Malone
Robert Parish
Jack Sikma
Dan Issel
Mel Daniels
Swen Nater
Elmore Smith
Alvan Adams
Sam Lacey
Clifford Ray
Wayne Embry

[darius15]

Most of those type of quotes are made by people who didnt even watch the old guys, just acting like that to look like they have a lot of knowledge and so on. Old tactic.


This

[Se]

Dwight Howard wouldn't even be a top 7 defensive player if he played in the 90's.


Do you mean defensive player or defensive big? He would be a top 7 defensive big, but not a top 7 defensive player.

If you think that Dwight would be a better player than people like Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon, O'Neal you need you're head read.

[PowerGlove]

I just learned today that Reggie Miller was better than Ray Allen.:oldlol:

[Bring-Your-Js]

Yes we get it. The NBA now sucks, and everything in the past was so much better.

Dwight Howard wouldn't even be a top 7 defensive player if he played in the 80's or 90's.

Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, and LeBron James would struggle to average 25\5\5 in their primes in the 80's or 90's.

Michael Jordan would average 45 PPG and Bird and Magic would be 30\10\10 in todays league.

The league nowadays isn't as competitive as it used to be, it's soft, and it just sucks.

I have a question for you people who constantly say those things, why do you even bother watching the NBA, if you constantly complain about how bad its gotten?

I have no idea what you're trying to say but Kobe is definitely better than Dwyane Wade.








JP, I see where you're coming from. It's revisionist history. Film tends to reveal a lot of bullshit. :hammerhead:

[MasterDurant24]

Yes we get it. The NBA now sucks, and everything in the past was so much better.

Dwight Howard wouldn't even be a top 7 defensive player if he played in the 80's or 90's.

Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, and LeBron James would struggle to average 25\5\5 in their primes in the 80's or 90's.

Michael Jordan would average 45 PPG and Bird and Magic would be 30\10\10 in todays league.

The league nowadays isn't as competitive as it used to be, it's soft, and it just sucks.

I have a question for you people who constantly say those things, why do you even bother watching the NBA, if you constantly complain about how bad its gotten?
Don't hear these things too often. Basketball, in my opinion, will never suck. Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, And LeBron James can play in any era and dominate. If Jordan averaged 45 PPG, he wouldn't be winning any championships.

[talk at ya]

I don't agree with these types of posts at all, and I do not think that the NBA was better way back when. Think about it-when you look at sports like running/swimming/track&field-sports that you can 100% accurately measure progress-the records are constantly getting broken. Great swimmers from the seventies would not even come close to making the Olympics today. There are very few records older than the late 90s. With so many advances in weight training, coaching, practice techniques, it is impossible for people from the 60s/70s/80s to compete. Also, with organized sports growing in popularity, plus the growth of the world population, there is much more competition now. People are also bigger and taller on average, increasing competition at every level.

I'm sorry, but just considering all of this and putting it all together, I have a hard time believing that any 60s/70s/80s player or team would be annihilating todays players or teams. In reality it would probably be the other way around.

[jstern]

I don't agree with these types of posts at all, and I do not think that the NBA was better way back when. Think about it-when you look at sports like running/swimming/track&field-sports that you can 100% accurately measure progress-the records are constantly getting broken. Great swimmers from the seventies would not even come close to making the Olympics today. There are very few records older than the late 90s. With so many advances in weight training, coaching, practice techniques, it is impossible for people from the 60s/70s/80s to compete. Also, with organized sports growing in popularity, plus the growth of the world population, there is much more competition now. People are also bigger and taller on average, increasing competition at every level.

I'm sorry, but just considering all of this and putting it all together, I have a hard time believing that any 60s/70s/80s player or team would be annihilating todays players or teams. In reality it would probably be the other way around.
Most records are from the 90s and 2000's, and that probably has to do with better nutrition. But really, the difference in the record is so small that I kind of look at it as a mute point when it comes to basketball. I mean, records being broken by a hundreds of a seconds is really so small. I mean, perhaps if every member of a race was destroying those records, even the guy who came in 7th place, but that's not the case. In the NBA you have guys of different athletic levels, different age, so I really don't see today's players as more athletic. Different body types, for different styles of game, but not more athletic. Faster paced game back then, 7 pounds lighter on average, but ran up and down more, and more players jumped from the free throw line back then. Kobe even played against even players who played in 70s, sometimes you just have to see how players from different eras played in future eras.

[Jasper]

Yes we get it. The NBA now sucks, and everything in the past was so much better.

Dwight Howard wouldn't even be a top 7 defensive player if he played in the 80's or 90's.

Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, and LeBron James would struggle to average 25\5\5 in their primes in the 80's or 90's.

Michael Jordan would average 45 PPG and Bird and Magic would be 30\10\10 in todays league.

The league nowadays isn't as competitive as it used to be, it's soft, and it just sucks.

I have a question for you people who constantly say those things, why do you even bother watching the NBA, if you constantly complain about how bad its gotten?

As a fan for close to 40 years ... I take offense to that statement.

[Fatstogie]

Yes we get it. The NBA now sucks, and everything in the past was so much better.Wrong. Thats just old folks being old folks. They think " all i need a phone for is calling people." Yea sure as we younger people know, "its not called a phone anymore *****, its an MID." lol


Dwight Howard wouldn't even be a top 7 defensive player if he played in the 80's or 90's.Dwight Howard would rape the pants of those 1970s fools. With their daisy dukes on. Theyd stand no chance. The league is WAAAAAAAAAAY more competitive now and the skill level of the average player has increased. People are dumb and they have it backwards. But they dont think with logic they think with emotions. And thats why theyre wrong.


Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, and LeBron James would struggle to average 25\5\5 in their primes in the 80's or 90's.
They could play on freakin alpha centauri 15,000 years ago and theyd still get their numbers. They would destroy those old fools. People didnt even go hard to the rim back in the day. You couldnt dunk with any sort of force or power. So getting to the rim was weak. Players now adays would dominate them simply because they arent used to players driving so hard and fast.


Michael Jordan would average 45 PPG and Bird and Magic would be 30\10\10 in todays league.Naw the average level of D in the league is greater now. Theyd compete with Kobe,Lebron,Wade,Durant, but no better.

Also back in the day these guys were it, they were stars. They got the ball whenever they wanted it. But these days allt he players are good. They get preferential treament. But not as far as that MJ would get the ball when he wanted it. No one else would get a chance unless he decided it. Now theres more talent that you have to keep happy.


The league nowadays isn't as competitive as it used to be, it's soft, and it just sucks.

Ask Glen Davis if its soft, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCJK1hPpLCE
And i could put up more. Peopel saying the game is soft. Quit whinning. And pay attention to the game, its not all that soft.


I have a question for you people who constantly say those things, why do you even bother watching the NBA, if you constantly complain about how bad its gotten?Complaining is what losers do.

It appears play is softer and all that because talent has spread out. Back in those days a 6'1 guy didnt exist. Sot eh ball was in Magics hand every time or Larrys hand every time or MJs hand everytime. Smaller guys were not premier players.

Now adays there are better gaurds. CAuse the over all level of talent has increased. Magic and company were the best of their time. But today theyd just be another guy who was good.

They scored 100 points a game and shit cause they were the only good players. And thats what people wanna see. A professional fighter, boxing a retarded kid. Just pummel him.

Thats what entertains them. The competition is great and the league is ina place (other than the current shitty economy) where their entertainment value is increasing.

Just have the fools who wanna see the fighter vs the retard. The strong verses the weak. Id rather see strong v strong. But its not gonna be so i sidedly entertaining as it was in teh past. Its gonna be more competative, and it is.


MJ less though. In his era talent was rising. But still not at the level it is today. And the older dudes? Shit they were playing high school level talent.

[bagelred]

And I had to walk 10 miles uphill to school...in the snow....both ways!!!!

[MasterDurant24]

Wrong. Thats just old folks being old folks. They think " all i need a phone for is calling people." Yea sure as we younger people know, "its not called a phone anymore *****, its an MID." lol

Dwight Howard would rape the pants of those 1970s fools. With their daisy dukes on. Theyd stand no chance. The league is WAAAAAAAAAAY more competitive now and the skill level of the average player has increased. People are dumb and they have it backwards. But they dont think with logic they think with emotions. And thats why theyre wrong.

They could play on freakin alpha centauri 15,000 years ago and theyd still get their numbers. They would destroy those old fools. People didnt even go hard to the rim back in the day. You couldnt dunk with any sort of force or power. So getting to the rim was weak. Players now adays would dominate them simply because they arent used to players driving so hard and fast.
Naw the average level of D in the league is greater now. Theyd compete with Kobe,Lebron,Wade,Durant, but no better.

Also back in the day these guys were it, they were stars. They got the ball whenever they wanted it. But these days allt he players are good. They get preferential treament. But not as far as that MJ would get the ball when he wanted it. No one else would get a chance unless he decided it. Now theres more talent that you have to keep happy.

Ask Glen Davis if its soft, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCJK1hPpLCE
And i could put up more. Peopel saying the game is soft. Quit whinning. And pay attention to the game, its not all that soft.
Complaining is what losers do.

It appears play is softer and all that because talent has spread out. Back in those days a 6'1 guy didnt exist. Sot eh ball was in Magics hand every time or Larrys hand every time or MJs hand everytime. Smaller guys were not premier players.

Now adays there are better gaurds. CAuse the over all level of talent has increased. Magic and company were the best of their time. But today theyd just be another guy who was good.

They scored 100 points a game and shit cause they were the only good players. And thats what people wanna see. A professional fighter, boxing a retarded kid. Just pummel him.

Thats what entertains them. The competition is great and the league is ina place (other than the current shitty economy) where their entertainment value is increasing.

Just have the fools who wanna see the fighter vs the retard. The strong verses the weak. Id rather see strong v strong. But its not gonna be so i sidedly entertaining as it was in teh past. Its gonna be more competative, and it is.


MJ less though. In his era talent was rising. But still not at the level it is today. And the older dudes? Shit they were playing high school level talent.
Isiah Thomas
Calvin Murphy
Nate Archibald
Bob Cousy
John Stockton
Lenny Wilkens
Jerry West

Is not having 6-1 players supposed to be a bad thing anyway?

[Jordan23GOAT]

As a fan for close to 40 years ... I take offense to that statement.
I haven't been a fan for that long, considering i'm not that old, but i have been a fan my whole life and i as well take offense.

[plowking]

Ask Glen Davis if its soft, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCJK1hPpLCE
And i could put up more. Peopel saying the game is soft. Quit whinning. And pay attention to the game, its not all that soft.
.

I broke a dudes nose like this while playing at my local courts. Felt terrible...:(

[Rose]

The league isn't quite as competitive as the 80s and 90s. and the talent level is lower. But it's not a HUGE difference.

[Colin Cowherd]

And I had to walk 10 miles uphill to school...in the snow....both ways!!!!

No you didn't.

[MasterDurant24]

Wrong. Thats just old folks being old folks. They think " all i need a phone for is calling people." Yea sure as we younger people know, "its not called a phone anymore *****, its an MID." lol

Dwight Howard would rape the pants of those 1970s fools. With their daisy dukes on. Theyd stand no chance. The league is WAAAAAAAAAAY more competitive now and the skill level of the average player has increased. People are dumb and they have it backwards. But they dont think with logic they think with emotions. And thats why theyre wrong.

They could play on freakin alpha centauri 15,000 years ago and theyd still get their numbers. They would destroy those old fools. People didnt even go hard to the rim back in the day. You couldnt dunk with any sort of force or power. So getting to the rim was weak. Players now adays would dominate them simply because they arent used to players driving so hard and fast.
Naw the average level of D in the league is greater now. Theyd compete with Kobe,Lebron,Wade,Durant, but no better.

Also back in the day these guys were it, they were stars. They got the ball whenever they wanted it. But these days allt he players are good. They get preferential treament. But not as far as that MJ would get the ball when he wanted it. No one else would get a chance unless he decided it. Now theres more talent that you have to keep happy.

Ask Glen Davis if its soft, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCJK1hPpLCE
And i could put up more. Peopel saying the game is soft. Quit whinning. And pay attention to the game, its not all that soft.
Complaining is what losers do.

It appears play is softer and all that because talent has spread out. Back in those days a 6'1 guy didnt exist. Sot eh ball was in Magics hand every time or Larrys hand every time or MJs hand everytime. Smaller guys were not premier players.

Now adays there are better gaurds. CAuse the over all level of talent has increased. Magic and company were the best of their time. But today theyd just be another guy who was good.

They scored 100 points a game and shit cause they were the only good players. And thats what people wanna see. A professional fighter, boxing a retarded kid. Just pummel him.

Thats what entertains them. The competition is great and the league is ina place (other than the current shitty economy) where their entertainment value is increasing.

Just have the fools who wanna see the fighter vs the retard. The strong verses the weak. Id rather see strong v strong. But its not gonna be so i sidedly entertaining as it was in teh past. Its gonna be more competative, and it is.


MJ less though. In his era talent was rising. But still not at the level it is today. And the older dudes? Shit they were playing high school level talent.
Dwight Howard would rape:
Bob McAdoo
Nate Thurmond
Willis Reed
Bill Walton
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Wilt Chamberlain
Wes Unseld
Elvin Hayes
Artis Gilmore
Spencer Haywood
Caldwell Jones
Bobby Jones

Really? These guys were either very athletic, very skilled, very long, or a combination of the aforementioned. Plus, centers could linger in the paint for however long they wanted as a result of the no defensive three seconds. Dwight Howard would need to develop a mid-range game or fine tune his offensive post skills to dominate.

And do Kobe, LeBron, and Wade not get the ball whenever they wanted it? I think you got it twisted around bro, Magic had to share the ball with James Worthy, Kareem, Byron Scott, Wilkes, and Norm Nixon while Bird had McHale, Parish, Archibald, Maxwell, and Dennis Johnson to share it with. Now Bird could call for it whenever in clutch situations, but he didn't have the ball 90% of the time like LeBron.

What in the world makes you think players didn't go hard to the rim? Because they didn't dunk hard? Willis Reed, Wilt Chamberlain, Clyde Drexler, James Worthy, Dominique Wilkins, Julius Erving, David Thompson, Darryl Dawkins, Tom Chambers, Isiah Thomas, Kareem, Larry Nance, Connie Hawkins, Darrell Griffith, Elgin Baylor, and Spud Webb couldn't throw it down hard?

Magic would be just another guy who is good? Your telling me an extremely hard working 6'8 triple double machine who had perhaps the best court vision ever, great ball handling, great basketball IQ, and a great ability to score when he wanted to would just be another guy? Come on now.

[Round Mound]

Comparing Swiming to Basketball? :rolleyes:

Basketball is game of skills and fundamentals its not just aerobics, athletics or potence like it is to swim. Its also a team game. It has more variables of skills, fundementals and tecniques than the common sport.

Yes, there are players in any era that bring new skills, new tecniques and things never seen before (and sometimes never again) but nothing like what was visible in the 80s-early90s. The 70s had better fundamentals than the 90s and 2000s yet the average wing player was not as athletic but in the frontcourt probably better than today.

The fundamentals mixed with the athleticism for each average position peekd in the 80s-early 90s. An era which better than today in terms of the mid range, post players, centers, the passing game was superb, the court vision etc.

Today`s game is better as far as far shooting and average athleticism of the wing players: SGs and PGs. The 80s was golden for SFs though.

Also, the old game was taller, there was more contact allowed, more seconds to plant yourself in the opposers terrain and start demolishing it, better post defense and demmanded more post skills too.

The 60s where fundamentally superior to the 2000s-mid 90s era too but less athletic at average. Except the center positions.

Each era has brough new talents, skills, legends. Some of them would favor in this eras game more, some won`t. It depends on the style of player.

But in terms of mid range game, post play, hard nosed contact d, passing game, court awareness....the game has been loosing since the mid 90s.

[plowking]

What a load of shit Round Mound.

I'm supposed to believe there were better fundamentals in the 60's over the 00's despite not all players in the 60's being able to dribble with their left hand?

[talk at ya]

Most records are from the 90s and 2000's, and that probably has to do with better nutrition. But really, the difference in the record is so small that I kind of look at it as a mute point when it comes to basketball. I mean, records being broken by a hundreds of a seconds is really so small. I mean, perhaps if every member of a race was destroying those records, even the guy who came in 7th place, but that's not the case. In the NBA you have guys of different athletic levels, different age, so I really don't see today's players as more athletic. Different body types, for different styles of game, but not more athletic. Faster paced game back then, 7 pounds lighter on average, but ran up and down more, and more players jumped from the free throw line back then. Kobe even played against even players who played in 70s, sometimes you just have to see how players from different eras played in future eras.


OK in 2008 Michael Phelps was going trying to beat Mark Spitz' performance of 7 gold medals at a single Olympics. Spitz was obviously a very dominant swimmer, comparable to Phelps, to win 7 gold medals. However, the link below demonstrates how not only do Phelp's times beat Spitz' times by up to almost a third of the pool (14 meters), Phelps usually beat his competition by way less than Spitz beat his competition. So Spitz, as a slower swimmer, was more dominant than a faster Phelps, just because today's competition is steeper.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/08/13/sports/olympics/20080813-spitz-comparison-graphic.html


Running may have a little more relevance to basketball, so found this chart:
http://imgur.com/oBxJi.jpg
Basketball kind of combines distance and sprints in that you need to be a good sprinter with endurance to play the whole game. The distance events, esp the mile show a huge improvement in time. And even though the sprint events may seem very close, when watching it seems like a much bigger difference. For example, I don't know if you watched the 2008 olympic 100m dash with Usain Bolt. But if you did, you'll remember how Bolt DESTROYED his competition-no one was even close to him. But if you look at the gold medal time from 1972 (10.06), that time would not have beaten a SINGLE PERSON Bolt's race. So just remember how far ahead Bolt was from second place, and then go back 6 more places, and your 1972 gold medalist still hasn't finished.
100m dash if you've never seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qslbf8L9nl0

Don't mean to sound in your face or anything, I just did these sports throughout high school so I kind of follow them and keep track of times. Humans are just more athletic today, and we have done more research towards perfecting training. I know they're different sports, but if the runners and swimmers of the 60s/70s couldn't compete today, then I don't see how the bball players could. I think the 80s starts the era that the standout players then would be very good if playing in today's league, however I do not think they would be as dominant today as they were then. Obviously we'll never know, just what I think.

[no pun intended]

Who's actually saying any of this stuff?
BRUCE BLITZ!

[Round Mound]

What a load of shit Round Mound.

I'm supposed to believe there were better fundamentals in the 60's over the 00's despite not all players in the 60's being able to dribble with their left hand?

And? John Stockton never dribbled with his left either much but what he did with his right hand was better than 99.9% of all PGs in NBA History and today ofcourse.

You dribble the ball with one hand not two at the same time.

You dribble with 2 hands, its is double dribble

1st dominate your ideal hand, then work on the other hand. Now if you don`t dominate your ideal hand then you lack more than being above average with both.

Also the iq was better in the 60s,70s,80s-early 90s.

Not to mention in the 50s-60s you really could not take steps or carry like what happened later on in the 70s (ABA spread the ganster crap), 80s, early 90s and to an extreame level late 90s and now 2000s.

The game has changed cause of rules to favor athleticism type fanship hype of dunks instead of pure hard nosed ball and smart talent-creative iq ball. Last seen in the 80s-Early90s.

No wonder Reggie Miller, Jordan, Malone, Stockton and some others where still dominating the game after the age of 35....with a league of players that looks more like playground ball (but not of the old) with lack of witts, brain and fundamentals.

The game has lost alot tecnique and skill wise (real creativity, not just athletic). Especially the fundamentals but those connected with the brain (not just asthetic nice looking)...all have been declining since the 90s.

[Samurai Swoosh]

I just learned today that Reggie Miller was better than Ray Allen.:oldlol:
Seriously ... one of the most outrageous "back in my day" mentality opinions of a past generation player > current era player.

:oldlol:

Ray Allen shits on Reggie Miller.

[Round Mound]

Thinking that sports get better every other decade is so biased its not even funny. Some Elements Evolve and Some Elements Devolve...because when you expand the pool of competition you also let in more people that don`t have the capacity to play.

Hence the amount of pathetic rookies seen in the early 2000s.

Divac was a good center but he became an All Star in the 2000s past his prime, that saying the lack of centers of this era.

Cassell? Lord in the 80s he would have stayed a role player for ever as he was in the early-mid 90s.

[talk at ya]

Thinking that sports get better every other decade is so biased its not even funny. Some Elements Evolve and Some Elements Devolve...because when you expand the pool of competition you also let in more people that don`t have the capacity to play.

Hence the amount of pathetic rookies seen in the early 2000s.

Divac was a good center but he became an All Star in the 2000s past his prime, that saying the lack of centers of this era.

Cassell? Lord in the 80s he would have stayed a role player for ever as he was in the early-mid 90s.

OK obviously when there were only 8 teams talent was more concentrated. I mean with 15 players per team, that means 120 NBA players then vs. 450 now. Obviously the average talent of the top 120 players in the world is greater than the top 450 players in the world. But if you took the top 120 players today, they would shit all over the top players from the 60s.

[EllEffEll]

Isiah Thomas
Calvin Murphy
Nate Archibald
Bob Cousy
John Stockton
Lenny Wilkens
Jerry West

Is not having 6-1 players supposed to be a bad thing anyway?

I am 6'5" and have stood shoulder to shoulder with Jerry West. He is well over 6'1". More like 6'4" as he was always advertised to be.

[tontoz]

Yes we get it. The NBA now sucks, and everything in the past was so much better.

Dwight Howard wouldn't even be a top 7 defensive player if he played in the 80's or 90's.

Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, and LeBron James would struggle to average 25\5\5 in their primes in the 80's or 90's.

Michael Jordan would average 45 PPG and Bird and Magic would be 30\10\10 in todays league.

The league nowadays isn't as competitive as it used to be, it's soft, and it just sucks.

I have a question for you people who constantly say those things, why do you even bother watching the NBA, if you constantly complain about how bad its gotten?



Please point out the posts you are referring to. I must have missed them. Since people are "constantly" saying this things it shouldn't be hard to find the quotes.

Sounds to me like you are butthurt after getting clowned in another thread and decided to make up some strawman BS.

I have been watching the NBA since the late 70s and have had League Pass the last several years. I wouldn't be paying for LP every year if i thought the NBA sucked.

The center position is certainly lame compared to 20 years ago. I would say there is more talent overall in the NBA now. However there are also more teams which dilutes it a bit.

The thing that really bothers me now is all the BS calls that go in favor of the offense. A guy can just dribble into a defender making no legit attempt at scoring and get to the line. That is my big gripe about the current NBA.

[Fatstogie]

Dwight Howard would rape:
Bob McAdoo
Nate Thurmond
Willis Reed
Bill Walton
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Wilt Chamberlain
Wes Unseld
Elvin Hayes
Artis Gilmore
Spencer Haywood
Caldwell Jones
Bobby Jones
[QUOTE]
Really? These guys were either very athletic, very skilled, very long, or a combination of the aforementioned. Plus, centers could linger in the paint for however long they wanted as a result of the no defensive three seconds. Dwight Howard would need to develop a mid-range game or fine tune his offensive post skills to dominate.What? Are you smoking crack bro? I wont even look the stat up but id bet that Dwight has the most 3 second violations in the league. And you think the lack of the rule would hurt him? You retarded? He would prefer not to have a 3 second rule. He would bully everyone if he could just stay in the paint.


And do Kobe, LeBron, and Wade not get the ball whenever they wanted it?no they dont. Not even close to the level that MJ magic larry got the ball. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Ive seen Lebron on MANY occasions pissed cause he had to give the ball up.


I think you got it twisted around bro, Naw my IQ is 155. Its the layman in here who have it twisted.


Magic had to share the ball with James Worthy, Kareem, Byron Scott, Wilkes, and Norm Nixon while Bird had McHale, Parish, Archibald, Maxwell, and Dennis Johnson to share it with. Now Bird could call for it whenever in clutch situations, but he didn't have the ball 90% of the time like LeBron.When he chose to. And again ok so theres a second guy. Not a whole team. AGain now adays the average players talent has increased so they gotta share the ball with the no namers more. If Lebron, Kobe,Carmelo,Wade all had the ball as much as Jordan did? Theyd put the same numbers up.


What in the world makes you think players didn't go hard to the rim? Because they didn't dunk hard? Willis Reed, Wilt Chamberlain, Clyde Drexler, James Worthy, Dominique Wilkins, Julius Erving, David Thompson, Darryl Dawkins, Tom Chambers, Isiah Thomas, Kareem, Larry Nance, Connie Hawkins, Darrell Griffith, Elgin Baylor, and Spud Webb couldn't throw it down hard?
I was talking more before teh reactive rim. It wasnt liek Lebron or Dwight going absolute 100% full force to the rim. Yes it is absolutely different.


Magic would be just another guy who is good? Your telling me an extremely hard working 6'8 triple double machine who had perhaps the best court vision ever, great ball handling, great basketball IQ, and a great ability to score when he wanted to would just be another guy? Come on now.
Yes all those plays. Your gonna watch em and tell me all that no look shit he did and all that would continually work in todays league like it did then? no someone would read and steal. Look at how easy they made it look. Not look. Its cause it was easy cause playing scrubs is easy.

Do i have to go down the list of records Dwight broke? Just this year? With his how many remaining years to play? He would ****ing asshole rape those dudes like they were playing lil league ball.

Hes faaaaaar more athletic than they are as well.

I call this Jimmy Hendrix syndrome. As anyone "whos the greatest guitar player in the world."

Answer 98% of the time? Jimmy Hendrix. He WAS. WAS. WAS. the greatest guitar player int he world. I guarantee you there are people now who would melt his freakin brain if he was still alive.

And even that guy will tell you "jimmy hendrix is the greatest" when even he himself is better. And he knows it. But its hte ole "oh respect the old geezers" bullshit.

No. The next generations job is to surpass the previous generation. And its done on a daily basis. And same thing in basketball.

Watching those old clips? Man that shit would catch some D today. On top of that the smaller players would be breakin their old old ankles.

They were the greatest. They arent anymore. GOAT? No such thing exists cause its all opinion. And again those old guys played against less competition.

People today grow up their entire lives playing the game with the sole purpose of being in the NBA.

Hence why some smaller plaeyrs are in. Theyve upped their level of play.
Back then it wasnt as much people playing basketball their whole lives. It was just a tall ass dude and someone said "hey you should play basketball."

Todays players grew up worshiping the game. Not as many old school dudes did IMO.

[jstern]

OK in 2008 Michael Phelps was going trying to beat Mark Spitz' performance of 7 gold medals at a single Olympics. Spitz was obviously a very dominant swimmer, comparable to Phelps, to win 7 gold medals. However, the link below demonstrates how not only do Phelp's times beat Spitz' times by up to almost a third of the pool (14 meters), Phelps usually beat his competition by way less than Spitz beat his competition. So Spitz, as a slower swimmer, was more dominant than a faster Phelps, just because today's competition is steeper.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/08/13/sports/olympics/20080813-spitz-comparison-graphic.html


Running may have a little more relevance to basketball, so found this chart:
http://imgur.com/oBxJi.jpg
Basketball kind of combines distance and sprints in that you need to be a good sprinter with endurance to play the whole game. The distance events, esp the mile show a huge improvement in time. And even though the sprint events may seem very close, when watching it seems like a much bigger difference. For example, I don't know if you watched the 2008 olympic 100m dash with Usain Bolt. But if you did, you'll remember how Bolt DESTROYED his competition-no one was even close to him. But if you look at the gold medal time from 1972 (10.06), that time would not have beaten a SINGLE PERSON Bolt's race. So just remember how far ahead Bolt was from second place, and then go back 6 more places, and your 1972 gold medalist still hasn't finished.
100m dash if you've never seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qslbf8L9nl0

Don't mean to sound in your face or anything, I just did these sports throughout high school so I kind of follow them and keep track of times. Humans are just more athletic today, and we have done more research towards perfecting training. I know they're different sports, but if the runners and swimmers of the 60s/70s couldn't compete today, then I don't see how the bball players could. I think the 80s starts the era that the standout players then would be very good if playing in today's league, however I do not think they would be as dominant today as they were then. Obviously we'll never know, just what I think.

My point was that nutrition and stuff like that picked up somewhere in the late 80s, and pretty much half of the records for track and field are in the 90s and 2000s. At the same time when it comes to basketball such small gain is almost meaningless when it comes to the NBA, a sports that's about much more than a 5% or less increase in athleticism. Also one of the big story in the Olympics was the records being broken all of sudden due to the new swimming suits that they were wearing. That was a big story, (probably the biggest story) so when it comes to swimming you have to consider much more than their native abilities. As a younger person sometimes it's hard to give props to older players, simply because the whole world kind of started when we were born. We're ignorant of the past. I remember seeing footage of NBA players lifting weights in the 60 and because of ignorance I can't help but get a little like, "Wow, they had weights back then." It's just ignorance of a younger person when it comes to stuff before their time. Heck, when I was a kid I remember watching I love Lucy and sometimes getting like, "Wow" some of these words that I use everyday are so old. Hard to explain, but I just don't care for the opinion of a person criticizing things that were before their time, especially when it comes to teenagers about basketball.

[BigBalla44]

Yes we get it. The NBA now sucks, and everything in the past was so much better.

Dwight Howard wouldn't even be a top 7 defensive player if he played in the 80's or 90's.

Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, and LeBron James would struggle to average 25\5\5 in their primes in the 80's or 90's.

Michael Jordan would average 45 PPG and Bird and Magic would be 30\10\10 in todays league.

The league nowadays isn't as competitive as it used to be, it's soft, and it just sucks.

I have a question for you people who constantly say those things, why do you even bother watching the NBA, if you constantly complain about how bad its gotten?

Why dont you get a reality check and realize your scope of basketball history is limited because never watched any of these players?

Look, I cant speak for some of the other posters here, but I been watching the game since the early 90's and I never shit on the legacy of those before my time and will not necessarily object to anyone saying Bill Russell or KAJ is greater than MJ because they have a case based on facts and I never had the privilege of watching them. You can only debate who's better, but at the end of the day, you will never know who is truly the greatest player or the greatest generation because it's impossible. The greats who have played this game realize this. Why cant you?

However, I can judge the players Ive seen until now and base it on my own judgement. I can say based on talent and potential, LeBron is probably better than any SF I've ever seen. At the same time, I can say John Stockton is miles above Steve Nash at the defensive end and is a more efficient passer (I dont know the stats and I could be wrong, but it appears to be that way).

Just use your f*cking common sense, be objective, and not be so f*cking close-minded to think only the players you watch are the best.

Besides, while I agree that current players are generally more athletic than those in the past, the difference is not as great as you think it is.

[jstern]

Thinking that sports get better every other decade is so biased its not even funny. Some Elements Evolve and Some Elements Devolve...because when you expand the pool of competition you also let in more people that don`t have the capacity to play.

Hence the amount of pathetic rookies seen in the early 2000s.

Divac was a good center but he became an All Star in the 2000s past his prime, that saying the lack of centers of this era.

Cassell? Lord in the 80s he would have stayed a role player for ever as he was in the early-mid 90s.

That's a good point, a lot of players became really good after their prime.

[MasterDurant24]

I am 6'5" and have stood shoulder to shoulder with Jerry West. He is well over 6'1". More like 6'4" as he was always advertised to be.
On Basketball reference he is listed at 6'2.

[HisJoeness]

Why dont you get a reality check and realize your scope of basketball history is limited because never watched any of these players?

Look, I cant speak for some of the other posters here, but I been watching the game since the early 90's and I never shit on the legacy of those before my time and will not necessarily object to anyone saying Bill Russell or KAJ is greater than MJ because they have a case based on facts and I never had the privilege of watching them. You can only debate who's better, but at the end of the day, you will never know who is truly the greatest player or generation because it's impossible. The greatest players in the game realize this. Why cant you?

However, I can judge the players Ive seen until now and base it on my own judgement. I can say based on talent and potential, LeBron is probably better than any SF I've ever seen. At the same time, I can say John Stockton is miles above Steve Nash at the defensive end and is a more efficient passer (I dont know the stats and I could be wrong, but it appears to be that way).

Just use your f*cking common sense, be objective, and not be so f*cking close-minded to think only the players you watch are the best.

Besides, while I agree that currentplayers are generally more athletic than before, the difference is not as great as you think it is.


Thank you. :applause:

[bdreason]

The league is obviously deeper today. Arguing over the elite players is a different story though. Todays game lacks the quality back-to-the-basket, defensive bigs that dominated the late 80's and 90's... but there are a lot of really good wing players in todays game. I think it has a lot to do with the MJ effect. After MJ burst onto the scene, everyone wanted to be like Mike (even bigs). Then came a whole generation of wing players and bigs who wanted to face up and attack the rim like Mike, instead of playing more fundamental ball from the post (inside-out). I remember reading a quote from one of the superstars in the league (I think it was Shaq or KG) talking about how playing like a traditional big was considered 'boring'.

[talk at ya]

My point was that nutrition and stuff like that picked up somewhere in the late 80s, and pretty much half of the records for track and field are in the 90s and 2000s. At the same time when it comes to basketball such small gain is almost meaningless when it comes to the NBA, a sports that's about much more than a 5% or less increase in athleticism. Also one of the big story in the Olympics was the records being broken all of sudden due to the new swimming suits that they were wearing. That was a big story, (probably the biggest story) so when it comes to swimming you have to consider much more than their native abilities. As a younger person sometimes it's hard to give props to older players, simply because the whole world kind of started when we were born. We're ignorant of the past. I remember seeing footage of NBA players lifting weights in the 60 and because of ignorance I can't help but get a little like, "Wow, they had weights back then." It's just ignorance of a younger person when it comes to stuff before their time. Heck, when I was a kid I remember watching I love Lucy and sometimes getting like, "Wow" some of these words that I use everyday are so old. Hard to explain, but I just don't care for the opinion of a person criticizing things that were before their time, especially when it comes to teenagers about basketball.


I'm definitely not criticizing the older players. I recognize their accomplishments were great. I think that the best players of today would beat the best players of yesterday one on one. But a huge reason for that is the increase in athleticism, the more precise training, etc...things beyond the control of the older players. Just because I think that the players today are 'better' doesn't mean that they deserve any more praise-they had more help through athletic advances. Similarily, just because the biggest scrub in the NBA right now would probably beat Candace Parker, it doesn't mean I put that scrub in a higher regard than I do Parker.

And I admit-I never watched Bill Russell, or Wilt Chamberlain, and I wasn't alive to see Magic and Bird. And that probably makes my argument less valid. Doesn't mean I can't have my opinion though.

[Fatal9]

What a load of shit Round Mound.

I'm supposed to believe there were better fundamentals in the 60's over the 00's despite not all players in the 60's being able to dribble with their left hand?
That's because they didn't need their left hand. Here is Bob Cousy illustrating how to perform an ankle breaker while dribbling with just one hand:

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

[BigBalla44]

.

Naw my IQ is 155. Its the layman in here who have it twisted.




Was the IQ test administered by a licensed psychologist or a Facebook quiz?

If you were really that smart, you wouldnt be so absolute regarding the history of the game.

A bias towards the present is just as unreasonable as a bias towards the past.

[MasterDurant24]

[QUOTE=MasterDurant24]Dwight Howard would rape:
Bob McAdoo
Nate Thurmond
Willis Reed
Bill Walton
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Wilt Chamberlain
Wes Unseld
Elvin Hayes
Artis Gilmore
Spencer Haywood
Caldwell Jones
Bobby Jones
What? Are you smoking crack bro? I wont even look the stat up but id bet that Dwight has the most 3 second violations in the league. And you think the lack of the rule would hurt him? You retarded? He would prefer not to have a 3 second rule. He would bully everyone if he could just stay in the paint.

no they dont. Not even close to the level that MJ magic larry got the ball. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Ive seen Lebron on MANY occasions pissed cause he had to give the ball up.

Naw my IQ is 155. Its the layman in here who have it twisted.

When he chose to. And again ok so theres a second guy. Not a whole team. AGain now adays the average players talent has increased so they gotta share the ball with the no namers more. If Lebron, Kobe,Carmelo,Wade all had the ball as much as Jordan did? Theyd put the same numbers up.

I was talking more before teh reactive rim. It wasnt liek Lebron or Dwight going absolute 100% full force to the rim. Yes it is absolutely different.

Yes all those plays. Your gonna watch em and tell me all that no look shit he did and all that would continually work in todays league like it did then? no someone would read and steal. Look at how easy they made it look. Not look. Its cause it was easy cause playing scrubs is easy.

Do i have to go down the list of records Dwight broke? Just this year? With his how many remaining years to play? He would ****ing asshole rape those dudes like they were playing lil league ball.

Hes faaaaaar more athletic than they are as well.

I call this Jimmy Hendrix syndrome. As anyone "whos the greatest guitar player in the world."

Answer 98% of the time? Jimmy Hendrix. He WAS. WAS. WAS. the greatest guitar player int he world. I guarantee you there are people now who would melt his freakin brain if he was still alive.

And even that guy will tell you "jimmy hendrix is the greatest" when even he himself is better. And he knows it. But its hte ole "oh respect the old geezers" bullshit.

No. The next generations job is to surpass the previous generation. And its done on a daily basis. And same thing in basketball.

Watching those old clips? Man that shit would catch some D today. On top of that the smaller players would be breakin their old old ankles.

They were the greatest. They arent anymore. GOAT? No such thing exists cause its all opinion. And again those old guys played against less competition.

People today grow up their entire lives playing the game with the sole purpose of being in the NBA.

Hence why some smaller plaeyrs are in. Theyve upped their level of play.
Back then it wasnt as much people playing basketball their whole lives. It was just a tall ass dude and someone said "hey you should play basketball."

Todays players grew up worshiping the game. Not as many old school dudes did IMO.
They sure don't seem like they worship the game now except for a select few. Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, the ones that worked they ass off, worshipped the game. Plus, what is considered a normal crossover today was carrying about 20 years ago. You couldn't dribble with your hand on the side of the ball, that's one of the reasons the game looks so primitive.

And you think Magic was all about no looks? If it doesn't work, then why do so many guys today try to do it?

And you sound incredibly infantile to have an IQ of 155. Your reasoning of why they would dominate is just pure nonsense. Why is the defense weaker? Magic played a bunch of scrubs? Simply because they played in the 80s? Your just one of those people full of ignorance who thinks that because it's a new decade, that the players are automatically superior. You ignore the fact that guys focused more on fundamentals, or the higher field goal percentages, or the rule changes, or the fact that the top teams were loaded with Hall of Fame/All-Star talent.

And last thing, Dwight Howard way more athletic than Wilt Chamberlain and Willis Reed? Oh hell, to the muthaf**cking naw! You probably haven't even heard of those greats.

[JDKMagic]

[QUOTE=Se

[Micku]

I think a lot of things peaked in the 90s or 80s with entertainment stuff. Video games, sports, wrestling, cartoons, movies, and music!

The mid 00s and above are full of remakes, reality TV, and people reminiscing about the good ole days.

[BallsOut]

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this might be the case. Rap/Hip Hop sucks today. Lil Wayne, soulja boy, justin bieber and the rest of the main stream sh1t is wack. I wish I grew up in the 90s with nas, pac, mos def, and the rest of em. Basketball was also a lot more competitive back then. People were actually allowed to play defense. Today you can touch a guy like Lebron (and sometimes don't have to touch him), and he's going to the ft line.

[Rizko]

[QUOTE=Fatstogie]
They sure don't seem like they worship the game now except for a select few. Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, the ones that worked they ass off, worshipped the game. Plus, what is considered a normal crossover today was carrying about 20 years ago. You couldn't dribble with your hand on the side of the ball, that's one of the reasons the game looks so primitive.

And you think Magic was all about no looks? If it doesn't work, then why do so many guys today try to do it?

And you sound incredibly infantile to have an IQ of 155. Your reasoning of why they would dominate is just pure nonsense. Why is the defense weaker? Magic played a bunch of scrubs? Simply because they played in the 80s? Your just one of those people full of ignorance who thinks that because it's a new decade, that the players are automatically superior. You ignore the fact that guys focused more on fundamentals, or the higher field goal percentages, or the rule changes, or the fact that the top teams were loaded with Hall of Fame/All-Star talent.

And last thing, Dwight Howard way more athletic than Wilt Chamberlain and Willis Reed? Oh hell, to the muthaf**cking naw! You probably haven't even heard of those greats.
Your pick in the NBA draft

[Mor'Fiyah]

So let me get this right:

In every other sport, but basketball, athletes have gotten faster, stronger, quicker, bigger, more agile while also taking advantage of better nutrition, more dedicated time to training, better facilities and technology, and more specialisation in analysis, strategy and technique?

:facepalm

[Bigsmoke]

i think the NBA is at its best at all position right now besides centers if you ask me.

[Round Mound]

So let me get this right:

In every other sport, but basketball, athletes have gotten faster, stronger, quicker, bigger, more agile while also taking advantage of better nutrition, more dedicated time to training, better facilities and technology, and more specialisation in analysis, strategy and technique?

:facepalm

What makes you say that as the time passes everything becomes better just becuase technology?. That will only add to what you are born with and you create yourselv with in medicine: But players aren`t born faster, stronger, quicker, more agil etc..TODAY. Infact, many Skills become lost because of Rule Changes and Others Are Developed

Name me a middleweight today that was as "Quick and Skilled" as Sugar Ray Leonard?

Is there a lightweight with a "Hit as Strong" as Duran...today?

Is there a midfielder in soccer with the "Tecnique or Skill"on his left like Maradona?

Is there a Player Today that Is as Tall, Yet also Potent-Agil-Quick and Skilled" as Rud Gullit?

What player today is stronger or was stronger than Shaq? (90s dude)?

What 6`5 dude today is as Strong as Charles Barkley? None!

.....don`t give me more cra-p

Also, the T.V Neatness is Superior so Players look more Athletic than the past. Sometimes they filming at a different height than the 90s (farther), 80s closer)

An example of an 80s game filmed with better neatness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48PWr2AQ45c

[Pointguard]

I don

[Pointguard]

Lebron and Derrick Rose got crazy combinations of skills, athleticism and natural gifts. They are amazing but by no means does it mean that across the board that basketball is at a level unapproached by the past. That's simply not true.

[whatever666]

I kind of agree with the title of the thread at least....

I hate it how many people (especially in this forum) refuse to let go of history and cant be more openminded and realistic about those players and todays players.

I hate it how they overrate these legends... especially Michael Jordan, for many people here its IMPOSSIBLE to be a more complete player, he is treated like a basketball GOD here after all the reputation, its SACRED to say he wasnt the most talanted/skilled player of all time and so on... when infact somebody like Kobe, Lebron, Wade today were probably equally good or even better than him realistically speaking.... when infact MJ has never faced such foes, when infact Lebron, Kobe, Wade would have made MJs life extremly tough, so tough he would not be "GOAT" at least at the end of his career...

(Please watch how many MJ homers will respond to this post, which proves my point once again)

I just hate it.... its like everything was sacred back then, its like everything was muuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better back then, its like basketball has NOT evolved... when infact it has....

[Showtime]

It's not that everything sucks. It's that you may have to accept that not everything in existence today is superior to everything before it. There are still some great things about today's NBA, and some all time great players like Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, etc we get to watch. It's just that the idea that every current player is superior is just plain false.

[AK47DR91]

It's like this in almost every aspect of entertainment. Just look at those stupid Top 100 or Top 500 singles or albums of all-time articles or rankings. All you will see are artists from the 50's, 60's, and 70's.

I guess certain things are branded as classics and they stay that way forever.

[Collie]

I kind of agree with the title of the thread at least....

I hate it how many people (especially in this forum) refuse to let go of history and cant be more openminded and realistic about those players and todays players.

I hate it how they overrate these legends... especially Michael Jordan, for many people here its IMPOSSIBLE to be a more complete player, he is treated like a basketball GOD here after all the reputation, its SACRED to say he wasnt the most talanted/skilled player of all time and so on... when infact somebody like Kobe, Lebron, Wade today were probably equally good or even better than him realistically speaking.... when infact MJ has never faced such foes, when infact Lebron, Kobe, Wade would have made MJs life extremly tough, so tough he would not be "GOAT" at least at the end of his career...

(Please watch how many MJ homers will respond to this post, which proves my point once again)

I just hate it.... its like everything was sacred back then, its like everything was muuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better back then, its like basketball has NOT evolved... when infact it has....

Ironic that you refuse to be openminded either and state such things like Lebron, Kobe and Wade in FACT are better, without pointing out the reasons why, when everything from accomplishments to statistics and acclaim state contrary.

[shawbryant]

You are standing against Darwin, kid.

[Hotlantadude81]

Wrong. Thats just old folks being old folks. They think " all i need a phone for is calling people." Yea sure as we younger people know, "its not called a phone anymore *****, its an MID." lol

Dwight Howard would rape the pants of those 1970s fools. With their daisy dukes on. Theyd stand no chance. The league is WAAAAAAAAAAY more competitive now and the skill level of the average player has increased. People are dumb and they have it backwards. But they dont think with logic they think with emotions. And thats why theyre wrong.

They could play on freakin alpha centauri 15,000 years ago and theyd still get their numbers. They would destroy those old fools. People didnt even go hard to the rim back in the day. You couldnt dunk with any sort of force or power. So getting to the rim was weak. Players now adays would dominate them simply because they arent used to players driving so hard and fast.
Naw the average level of D in the league is greater now. Theyd compete with Kobe,Lebron,Wade,Durant, but no better.

Also back in the day these guys were it, they were stars. They got the ball whenever they wanted it. But these days allt he players are good. They get preferential treament. But not as far as that MJ would get the ball when he wanted it. No one else would get a chance unless he decided it. Now theres more talent that you have to keep happy.

Ask Glen Davis if its soft, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCJK1hPpLCE
And i could put up more. Peopel saying the game is soft. Quit whinning. And pay attention to the game, its not all that soft.
Complaining is what losers do.

It appears play is softer and all that because talent has spread out. Back in those days a 6'1 guy didnt exist. Sot eh ball was in Magics hand every time or Larrys hand every time or MJs hand everytime. Smaller guys were not premier players.

Now adays there are better gaurds. CAuse the over all level of talent has increased. Magic and company were the best of their time. But today theyd just be another guy who was good.

They scored 100 points a game and shit cause they were the only good players. And thats what people wanna see. A professional fighter, boxing a retarded kid. Just pummel him.

Thats what entertains them. The competition is great and the league is ina place (other than the current shitty economy) where their entertainment value is increasing.

Just have the fools who wanna see the fighter vs the retard. The strong verses the weak. Id rather see strong v strong. But its not gonna be so i sidedly entertaining as it was in teh past. Its gonna be more competative, and it is.


MJ less though. In his era talent was rising. But still not at the level it is today. And the older dudes? Shit they were playing high school level talent.

If today's players are so great how come they struggle to beat unknowns in USA Basketball?

And my spelling is bad.... But damn! I've seen 5 years old that spell better than you. You sound like you went to the same school as Dwight Howard.

[jlauber]

OK in 2008 Michael Phelps was going trying to beat Mark Spitz' performance of 7 gold medals at a single Olympics. Spitz was obviously a very dominant swimmer, comparable to Phelps, to win 7 gold medals. However, the link below demonstrates how not only do Phelp's times beat Spitz' times by up to almost a third of the pool (14 meters), Phelps usually beat his competition by way less than Spitz beat his competition. So Spitz, as a slower swimmer, was more dominant than a faster Phelps, just because today's competition is steeper.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/08/13/sports/olympics/20080813-spitz-comparison-graphic.html


Running may have a little more relevance to basketball, so found this chart:
http://imgur.com/oBxJi.jpg
Basketball kind of combines distance and sprints in that you need to be a good sprinter with endurance to play the whole game. The distance events, esp the mile show a huge improvement in time. And even though the sprint events may seem very close, when watching it seems like a much bigger difference. For example, I don't know if you watched the 2008 olympic 100m dash with Usain Bolt. But if you did, you'll remember how Bolt DESTROYED his competition-no one was even close to him. But if you look at the gold medal time from 1972 (10.06), that time would not have beaten a SINGLE PERSON Bolt's race. So just remember how far ahead Bolt was from second place, and then go back 6 more places, and your 1972 gold medalist still hasn't finished.
100m dash if you've never seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qslbf8L9nl0

Don't mean to sound in your face or anything, I just did these sports throughout high school so I kind of follow them and keep track of times. Humans are just more athletic today, and we have done more research towards perfecting training. I know they're different sports, but if the runners and swimmers of the 60s/70s couldn't compete today, then I don't see how the bball players could. I think the 80s starts the era that the standout players then would be very good if playing in today's league, however I do not think they would be as dominant today as they were then. Obviously we'll never know, just what I think.

How would Bob Hayes, who ran a 10.0 100 meters in 1964, have done on much better surfaces, with much better shoes, and with all the many benefits of modern technology (better medicine, better training, better nutrition, better "supplements", etc.)? Meanwhile, Bob Beamon long jumped 29' 2" in 1968. The CURRENT world record in 29' 4".

Those that claim today's basketball players are much better than those of years past...care to point out when this occurred? Would a 2000 Shaq be outplayed today by Samuel Dalembert? Would Hakeem get torched by Dampier today? Would a 1991 MJ be embarrassed by OJ Mayo today? Would '87 Magic get shredded by Jose Calderon today? Would '86 Bird struggle against Al Harrington today? Would Okur pound an '82 Moses Malone? Would Rasual Butler smack a '72 Dr. J around? How about Roy Hibbert against a '72 Kareem? Finally, how would Dwight Howard, at 6-10 and 260 lbs fare against a 7-1 285 lb Wilt, in his prime circa '67? A Chamberlain that was bigger, taller, stronger, faster, able to leap higher, and far more skilled?

Here is what we do know...Kareem, at age 39, poured in games of 35, 42, and 46 against Hakeem in the '85-86 season. Hakeem dueled Shaq to a draw in '95. Shaq dominated the NBA into the mid-00's. Meanwhile, Kareem, who scored at will against the "Twin Towers" in the mid 80's, was outplayed by Wilt and Thurmond in the early 70's playoffs...and Kareem was in his prime, while Nate and Wilt were well past their's.

Let me know, then, when those players of the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and early 00's suddenly were surpassed by the CURRENT players.

[Sarcastic]

OK in 2008 Michael Phelps was going trying to beat Mark Spitz' performance of 7 gold medals at a single Olympics. Spitz was obviously a very dominant swimmer, comparable to Phelps, to win 7 gold medals. However, the link below demonstrates how not only do Phelp's times beat Spitz' times by up to almost a third of the pool (14 meters), Phelps usually beat his competition by way less than Spitz beat his competition. So Spitz, as a slower swimmer, was more dominant than a faster Phelps, just because today's competition is steeper.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/08/13/sports/olympics/20080813-spitz-comparison-graphic.html


Running may have a little more relevance to basketball, so found this chart:
http://imgur.com/oBxJi.jpg
Basketball kind of combines distance and sprints in that you need to be a good sprinter with endurance to play the whole game. The distance events, esp the mile show a huge improvement in time. And even though the sprint events may seem very close, when watching it seems like a much bigger difference. For example, I don't know if you watched the 2008 olympic 100m dash with Usain Bolt. But if you did, you'll remember how Bolt DESTROYED his competition-no one was even close to him. But if you look at the gold medal time from 1972 (10.06), that time would not have beaten a SINGLE PERSON Bolt's race. So just remember how far ahead Bolt was from second place, and then go back 6 more places, and your 1972 gold medalist still hasn't finished.
100m dash if you've never seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qslbf8L9nl0

Don't mean to sound in your face or anything, I just did these sports throughout high school so I kind of follow them and keep track of times. Humans are just more athletic today, and we have done more research towards perfecting training. I know they're different sports, but if the runners and swimmers of the 60s/70s couldn't compete today, then I don't see how the bball players could. I think the 80s starts the era that the standout players then would be very good if playing in today's league, however I do not think they would be as dominant today as they were then. Obviously we'll never know, just what I think.

You do realize one of the reasons that athletes have gotten bigger, stronger, faster is because of illegal performance enhancing drugs, right? By posting those numbers without taking into account the amount of steroids that have been used is completely misleading.

[jrong]

A bias towards the present is just as unreasonable as a bias towards the past.

But, the OP's point is that the bias toward the past is never acknowledged for being exactly that. Instead those who do embrace the NBA and its players today are told they need to "learn their history". These posters never recognize that they view older players through rose-colored glasses that are rimmed with nostalgia.

The simple fact is that the average player today is simply better. There are guys who were starters in the 80s and even 90s who wouldn't make a roster today. I remember the 80s very well-- some of those players wouldn't make the D-league today.

Now the true creme de la creme of megastars from the 80s are so far still better than their counterpart megastars today, but I'm talking like top-ten all-time guys-- Jordan, Magic, Jabbar, Bird... and that's basically it.

[Ikill]

You can't really compare the NBA now to the past like in the 60s or 70s. Comparing it to the 80s is fine but seriously if you take a dominant player from the past like Wilt Chamberlain and put him in this time he would still dominate. If he was in this time he would have better nutrition, better training and better coaches. He would also have a longer career enter earlier and retire at a later age. The stats wouldn't be the same but his stats would still be very good maybe 28-30 ppg 14-16 rpg 3-4 blocks in his prime. In this time how would probably be 7'1 320 with a 40 inch vertical no one would stop even if he had a 35 inch vertical.

[Mor'Fiyah]

What makes you say that as the time passes everything becomes better just becuase technology?. That will only add to what you are born with and you create yourselv with in medicine: But players aren`t born faster, stronger, quicker, more agil etc..TODAY. Infact, many Skills become lost because of Rule Changes and Others Are Developed

Name me a middleweight today that was as "Quick and Skilled" as Sugar Ray Leonard?

Is there a lightweight with a "Hit as Strong" as Duran...today?

Is there a midfielder in soccer with the "Tecnique or Skill"on his left like Maradona?

Is there a Player Today that Is as Tall, Yet also Potent-Agil-Quick and Skilled" as Rud Gullit?

What player today is stronger or was stronger than Shaq? (90s dude)?

What 6`5 dude today is as Strong as Charles Barkley? None!

.....don`t give me more cra-p

Also, the T.V Neatness is Superior so Players look more Athletic than the past. Sometimes they filming at a different height than the 90s (farther), 80s closer)

An example of an 80s game filmed with better neatness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48PWr2AQ45c

Well what I said was that every other sport is experiencing these leaps in performance level. It stands to reason that basketball, being not that much different from, say, football (soccer), or baseball, or hockey, would also get boosts in OVERALL performance level. No?

And if the answer is no then what would differentiate basketball from all these other sports with marked gains?

[Mor'Fiyah]

[QUOTE=Pointguard]
To me Amare, David Lee, Al Jefferson, Al Horford, Joakim Noah are arguably the next tier of centers after the guys mentioned above but they are really power-forwards. I think Wilt and Russ had too much of a well rounded game and went harder at rebounds, block shots, learning post moves, learned the skills around the basket and played bigger than anybody mentioned in this post. The only guys I have athletically in the same breadth (Amare in speed and D Howard in general). In physical gifts only D Howard and Yao might have something comparative. But that

[Mor'Fiyah]

Lebron and Derrick Rose got crazy combinations of skills, athleticism and natural gifts. They are amazing but by no means does it mean that across the board that basketball is at a level unapproached by the past. That's simply not true.

You are right. Last year the basketball was at a similar level. 20-40 years ago? Not to so much.

[Mor'Fiyah]

It's not that everything sucks. It's that you may have to accept that not everything in existence today is superior to everything before it. There are still some great things about today's NBA, and some all time great players like Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, etc we get to watch. It's just that the idea that every current player is superior is just plain false.

Of course its plain false. And no one is saying that. No one is saying that Joachim Noah is better than Wilt or Russell or Ewing. What people are saying is that Noah today is faster and bigger and longer and stronger and quicker and has more time to spend on his training and nutrition etc than MOST other athletes in the NBA 20 years ago. He would very likely be better than most of them too if you transported him, as is back in time, even if he was not better than Ewing.

[stickfigure87]

i don't agree with the particular statement. however, the dream team would smash the redeem team. i think that says something about where we are and where we were.

the argument against basketball today is that the rules are in place to favor the offense too much. the most common argument i hear about players like if jordan played in today's game is how aggressive the defense got to play against him then, and how a lot of those would be fouls now (though refs were never shy about giving mj the whistle).

d12 would not be a top tier center in the center. would definitely be behind ewing, robinson, hakeem, and shaq.

[jlauber]

Well what I said was that every other sport is experiencing these leaps in performance level. It stands to reason that basketball, being not that much different from, say, football (soccer), or baseball, or hockey, would also get boosts in OVERALL performance level. No?

And if the answer is no then what would differentiate basketball from all these other sports with marked gains?

Aside from football players being considerably bigger, I haven't noticed a dramatic difference in other factors. In fact, I could argue that the speed of TODAY's NFL, at least at the top end of the athlete's, is SLOWER today, than in many decades. Hershel Walker was running a 10.1 100 meters nearly 30 years ago. Bo Jackson was clocked at 4.12 in the 40 some 25 years ago. Deion Sanders was timed at 4.18. I have read that Darrell Green ran a 4.09 40. Even if you don't believe that number, he did have a legitimate 10.06 100 meters some 30 years ago. Hell, he was still running in the "NFL's Fastest Man" competition at age 40! In fact, he was timed at 4.35 at age 40. OJ Simpson was a wrold-class sprinter AND a great football player (no need to add any more comments here, though.) Furthermore, NO other LEGITIMATE NFL player has EVER ran as fast as Bob Hayes. He ran a 10.0 meters over 40 years ago. And once again, he was a LEGITIMATE HOF receiver (he averaged 42 yards per TD on his 76 career TD's.)

Nolan Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH on a SLOW radar gun, after having thrown 162 pitches. (I mean slow because there have been estimates, from other sources, that he was actually throwing as hard as 108 MPH)

http://www.efastball.com/baseball/stats/fastest-pitch-speed-in-major-leagues/

How about little known Steve Dalkowski, who pitched in the 50's and 60's?

http://www.sportshollywood.com/poorsports13.html

Barry Bonds's longest measured HR, and in the prime of his alleged PED aided career, was 490 feet. Mickey Mantle hit MANY HRs over 500+ feet.

http://www.themick.com/10homers.html

There were many other players in the 60's and 70's (and before) that were hitting "tape measure" HRs, too. Who can forget Reggie Jackson's All-Star game HR in 1971? And there were guys like Stargell, McCovey, Kingman, Killebrew, Frank Howard, and other's that were launching bombs.

I have long maintained that the progression of the athletes in these major sports has actually been very slow pace. True, the average athlete of today is bigger, stronger, and faster than the average athlete of 40-50 years ago, but it is only marginal. And the truly great athletes of the 60's and 70's would be great today, as well.

[Mor'Fiyah]

i don't agree with the particular statement. however, the dream team would smash the redeem team. i think that says something about where we are and where we were.

the argument against basketball today is that the rules are in place to favor the offense too much. the most common argument i hear about players like if jordan played in today's game is how aggressive the defense got to play against him then, and how a lot of those would be fouls now (though refs were never shy about giving mj the whistle).

d12 would not be a top tier center in the center. would definitely be behind ewing, robinson, hakeem, and shaq.

How do you know the Dream Team would smash the Redeem team? Nostalgia is a hell of a thing.

[jlauber]

Here is an interesting question: would the guys mentioned above all have been "power forwards" in Wilt's and Russell's day? Are they big enough to compete with centers of that era? And why are they undersized in today's NBA?

Just a hint.. but the answer circulates somewhere around the actual size criteria for the positions changing over the years as the players themselves have gotten bigger at every position.

Yes, the average player is taller (and bigger), but it is not significant. The average starting center in the NBA in 1960 was 6-10. In 1970 it was 6-11. In 2010 it was slightly over 7-0. Furthermore, the average player was taller in the late 80's, than today.

BUT, how about 6-7 Ben Wallace? Or Chuck Hayes playing center at 6-6?

On top of that, show me a list of all of the 7-3+ players who have led the NBA in rebounding. In fact, take Wilt out of the equation, and remove Olajuwon (who was closer to 6-10), and there have been MANY more rebound leaders UNDER seven-feet, than over it. Guys like Wallace, Barkley, Truck Robinson, Rodman, and Russell.

And speaking of Russell...he had a reported wingspan greater than Kareem, and he was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper. I suspect that he would do just fine in today's NBA.

[tontoz]

I kind of agree with the title of the thread at least....

I hate it how many people (especially in this forum) refuse to let go of history and cant be more openminded and realistic about those players and todays players.

I hate it how they overrate these legends... especially Michael Jordan, for many people here its IMPOSSIBLE to be a more complete player, he is treated like a basketball GOD here after all the reputation, its SACRED to say he wasnt the most talanted/skilled player of all time and so on... when infact somebody like Kobe, Lebron, Wade today were probably equally good or even better than him realistically speaking.... when infact MJ has never faced such foes, when infact Lebron, Kobe, Wade would have made MJs life extremly tough, so tough he would not be "GOAT" at least at the end of his career...

(Please watch how many MJ homers will respond to this post, which proves my point once again)

I just hate it.... its like everything was sacred back then, its like everything was muuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better back then, its like basketball has NOT evolved... when infact it has....


LOL only someone who hasn't seen Jordan play would believe that nonsense. Lebron's J isn't nearly as good as Jordan's and he hasn't been very impressive in the playoffs. MJ never quit on his team in the playoffs like Lebron did this year. Wade's J is weak too.

Kobe's game resembles Jordan the most, he just isn't as good. Even with the hand check rule he still settles for way too many long, contested jumpers. He also isn't as athletic as MJ was.

[Mor'Fiyah]

Aside from football players being considerably bigger, I haven't noticed a dramatic difference in other factors. In fact, I could argue that the speed of TODAY's NFL, at least at the top end of the athlete's, is SLOWER today, than in many decades. Hershel Walker was running a 10.1 100 meters nearly 30 years ago. Bo Jackson was clocked at 4.12 in the 40 some 25 years ago. Deion Sanders was timed at 4.18. I have read that Darrell Green ran a 4.09 40. Even if you don't believe that number, he did have a legitimate 10.06 100 meters some 30 years ago. Hell, he was still running in the "NFL's Fastest Man" competition at age 40! In fact, he was timed at 4.35 at age 40. OJ Simpson was a wrold-class sprinter AND a great football player (no need to add any more comments here, though.) Furthermore, NO other LEGITIMATE NFL player has EVER ran as fast as Bob Hayes. He ran a 10.0 meters over 40 years ago. And once again, he was a LEGITIMATE HOF receiver (he averaged 42 yards per TD on his 76 career TD's.)

Nolan Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH on a SLOW radar gun, after having thrown 162 pitches. (I mean slow because there have been estimates, from other sources, that he was actually throwing as hard as 108 MPH)

http://www.efastball.com/baseball/stats/fastest-pitch-speed-in-major-leagues/

How about little known Steve Dalkowski, who pitched in the 50's and 60's?

http://www.sportshollywood.com/poorsports13.html

Barry Bonds's longest measured HR, and in the prime of his alleged PED aided career, was 490 feet. Mickey Mantle hit MANY HRs over 500+ feet.

http://www.themick.com/10homers.html

There were many other players in the 60's and 70's (and before) that were hitting "tape measure" HRs, too. Who can forget Reggie Jackson's All-Star game HR in 1971? And there were guys like Stargell, McCovey, Kingman, Killebrew, Frank Howard, and other's that were launching bombs.

I have long maintained that the progression of the athletes in these major sports has actually been very slow pace. True, the average athlete of today is bigger, stronger, and faster than the average athlete of 40-50 years ago, but it is only marginal. And the truly great athletes of the 60's and 70's would be great today, as well.

Again. You are comparing the top elite players here. What about the average players? Were they running faster and jumping higher and bigger and hitting the ball further off faster pitching than the average athlete today? Hmmmm?

Think about it... When Jordan dunked from the free throw line was it considered an incredible feat of athletic prowess? How many other athletes in the NBA could have duplicated the feat? Ok... how about now? Are there significantly more athletes in the NBA capable of doing just that?

You see the more significant factor here is not how good the elite guys were or are... but how good the guys they have to face are on a daily basis. In track and field if you ran 10.20 20 years ago it was enough to coast through the heats and then give it your all in the finals. Now there are too many people capable of running sub 10 second 100m times. So you can't coast in the Heats because you won't qualify. Now guys run sub 10 seconds in the Heats just to qualify. Why? Not because the elite fastest guys are necessarily that faster than in the past (they are though) but moreso because the middle tier of runners are much faster than they were in the past.

The same goes for soccer. Pele would still be a great athlete today. Maradonna same thing. Its the other 10 guys on the field who would have problems keeping up with the other ten guys in today's soccer world. Jordan played against guards who would be considered slower and smaller in today's NBA.

[tontoz]

SMH @ people acting like Dwight Howard is such a force of nature. He can't score outside of 5 feet. he was shut down by Kendrick Perkins.

Anyone who thinks Perkins could shut down Kareem, Hakeem or Shaq without a double is completely clueless.

[Mor'Fiyah]

Yes, the average player is taller (and bigger), but it is not significant. The average starting center in the NBA in 1960 was 6-10. In 1970 it was 6-11. In 2010 it was slightly over 7-0. Furthermore, the average player was taller in the late 80's, than today.

BUT, how about 6-7 Ben Wallace? Or Chuck Hayes playing center at 6-6?

On top of that, show me a list of all of the 7-3+ players who have led the NBA in rebounding. In fact, take Wilt out of the equation, and remove Olajuwon (who was closer to 6-10), and there have been MANY more rebound leaders UNDER seven-feet, than over it. Guys like Wallace, Barkley, Truck Robinson, Rodman, and Russell.

And speaking of Russell...he had a reported wingspan greater than Kareem, and he was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper. I suspect that he would do just fine in today's NBA.

1. Please post your stats and links on the average height of NBA players by era. I have never seen this.

2. Chuck Hayes is undersized and Ben Wallace is an exception. It does not make sense to use exceptions in a discussion about the overall performance level of the league now does it?

3. Being a rebounding leader has nothing to do with being the tallest player. Thats not the argument here at all. The argument I am making is that the AVERAGE rebounder in today's NBA is better than the AVERAGE rebounder 20 years ago, and as such it makes it more difficult for an elite player today, to rack up the same stats of the elite players of 20 years ago because the disparity between the mediocre, the good, and the great is smaller today.

[Mor'Fiyah]

SMH @ people acting like Dwight Howard is such a force of nature. He can't score outside of 5 feet. he was shut down by Kendrick Perkins.

Anyone who thinks Perkins could shut down Kareem, Hakeem or Shaq without a double is completely clueless.

Put Dwight Howard in the NBA 20-40 years ago and he would not have to be able to score outside of 5 feet. Very few players would be able to stop him from getting to the rim.

And aside from that... the center position has changed in the NBA as the game has changed.

[tontoz]

Jordan played against guards who would be considered slower and smaller in today's NBA.

Andre Miller, Mike Bibby, Jose Calderon, and Nash are all starters today and aren't exactly known for their blazing speed. At the 2 Joe Johnson is slow, Monta Ellis is small, KMart and Hamilton are weak.

There is no hand checking allowed now, making it easier for guards to get to the basket. With all the touch fouls called now Jordan would have an easy time stringing together 30+ seasons.

[tontoz]

Put Dwight Howard in the NBA 20-40 years ago and he would not have to be able to score outside of 5 feet. Very few players would be able to stop him from getting to the rim.

And aside from that... the center position has changed in the NBA as the game has changed.


You are right the center position has changed. It has gotten weak. Twenty years ago Hakeem and DRob would own Howard.

What centers can stop Howard from getting to the rim now?

[Mor'Fiyah]

Andre Miller, Mike Bibby, Jose Calderon, and Nash are all starters today and aren't exactly known for their blazing speed. At the 2 Joe Johnson is slow, Monta Ellis is small, KMart and Hamilton are weak.

There is no hand checking allowed now, making it easier for guards to get to the basket. With all the touch fouls called now Jordan would have an easy time stringing together 30+ seasons.

Why is everyone trying to make an argument by trying to find out of the norm examples?!

Andre Miller, Micke Bibby, Jose Calderon and Nash are slow compared to whom? The average player today right? So... what if we were to compare the speed, strength and size of the average point guard or two guard today with the average point guard and two guard of 20-40 years ago? What would we find?

[jlauber]

Again. You are comparing the top elite players here. What about the average players? Were they running faster and jumping higher and bigger and hitting the ball further off faster pitching than the average athlete today? Hmmmm?

Think about it... When Jordan dunked from the free throw line was it considered an incredible feat of athletic prowess? How many other athletes in the NBA could have duplicated the feat? Ok... how about now? Are there significantly more athletes in the NBA capable of doing just that?

You see the more significant factor here is not how good the elite guys were or are... but how good the guys they have to face are on a daily basis. In track and field if you ran 10.20 20 years ago it was enough to coast through the heats and then give it your all in the finals. Now there are too many people capable of running sub 10 second 100m times. So you can't coast in the Heats because you won't qualify. Now guys run sub 10 seconds in the Heats just to qualify. Why? Not because the elite fastest guys are necessarily that faster than in the past (they are though) but moreso because the middle tier of runners are much faster than they were in the past.

The same goes for soccer. Pele would still be a great athlete today. Maradonna same thing. Its the other 10 guys on the field who would have problems keeping up with the other ten guys in today's soccer world. Jordan played against guards who would be considered slower and smaller in today's NBA.

Regarding dunking from the FT line, look up Jim Pollard, a white 6-4 guy who played in the 1950's....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pollard


In the NBA, Pollard was considered one of the best forwards in the 1940s and 1950s, and was known for his leaping ability[1] (Pollard would occasionally dunk from the free throw line during warmups[2]) earning him the nickname "The Kangaroo Kid".

Furthermore, I actually remember Dr.J's dunk in the ABA All-Star game...still the most spectacular dunk that I have ever seen. In any case...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Erving


He is well-known for slam dunking from the free throw line in Slam Dunk Contests

How about 6-6 Gus Johnson, who shattered THREE backboards in the 60's? Or David "sky-walker" Thompson? Or Dr. K, Larry Kenon? Or Connie Hawkins? Or Bill Russell and Wilt, both of whom reportedly could touch the top of the backboard?

Contrary to popular myth, Michael Jordan did NOT invent the dunk. IMHO, he was not even as great as some of the dunkers of the 60's and 70's.

Look, everyone of the athletes I have mentioned in my last few posts on this topic, were GREAT athletes. BUT, can you imagine what they would have accomplished had they had all the benefits of modern technology?

As for the athletes they were facing? Take a look at Ryan's ERA. It was very good, but not unworldly. Or Mantle's HR numbers (with tape measure shots from BOTH sides of the plate.) He had a high of 54 and another season at 52. Exceptional numbers to be sure, but certainly nothing like we witnessed in the last 10-15 years in baseball.

Jim Brown was a 230 lb Running Back in the 50's, with track speed. Yes, he won NINE rushing titles, and he had some great seasons, but he was NOT averaging 2500 yard seasons, or 10 ypc.

Yes, Wilt did put up UNGODLY numbers (he STILL holds some 130 NBA records), but it must be mentioned that he was the ONLY one doing it. Take him out of the 60's, and there were some great seasons (Barry averaging 35.6ppg in '67), or Lucas averaging a 20-20 season twice (Wilt did it EIGHT times BTW), but overall, none of them were unworldly. ONLY Wilt had those staggering scoring, rebounding, and FG% seasons.

Overall, and once again...today's athletes are MARGINALLY better than those of even 40-50 years ago. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.

[tontoz]

Why is everyone trying to make an argument by trying to find out of the norm examples?!

Andre Miller, Micke Bibby, Jose Calderon and Nash are slow compared to whom? The average player today right? So... what if we were to compare the speed, strength and size of the average point guard or two guard today with the average point guard and two guard of 20-40 years ago? What would we find?


You would find fewer teams and a less diluted league for one thing. You would also find plenty of guys who are quick and big enough to guard anyone today.

You are obviously a teenager that doesn't realize 20 years is not a long time. The NBA now doesn't look much different than the NBA 20 years ago. I know because i was actually watching 20 years ago. Any increase in size/athleticism during that time is marginal.

When you go back to the 60s there is a big difference due to the lower numbers of blacks in the league at that time. But in 1990 that wasn't an issue.

[Mor'Fiyah]

Regarding dunking from the FT line, look up Jim Pollard, a white 6-4 guy who played in the 1950's....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pollard



Furthermore, I actually remember Dr.J's dunk in the ABA All-Star game...still the most spectacular dunk that I have ever seen. In any case...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Erving



How about 6-6 Gus Johnson, who shattered THREE backboards in the 60's? Or David "sky-walker" Thompson? Or Dr. K, Larry Kenon? Or Connie Hawkins? Or Bill Russell and Wilt, both of whom reportedly could touch the top of the backboard?

Contrary to popular myth, Michael Jordan did NOT invent the dunk. IMHO, he was not even as great as some of the dunkers of the 60's and 70's.

Look, everyone of the athletes I have mentioned in my last few posts on this topic, were GREAT athletes. BUT, can you imagine what they would have accomplished had they had all the benefits of modern technology?

As for the athletes they were facing? Take a look at Ryan's ERA. It was very good, but not unworldly. Or Mantle's HR numbers (with tape measure shots from BOTH sides of the plate.) He had a high of 54 and another season at 52. Exceptional numbers to be sure, but certainly nothing like we witnessed in the last 10-15 years in baseball.

Jim Brown was a 230 lb Running Back in the 50's, with track speed. Yes, he won NINE rushing titles, and he had some great seasons, but he was NOT averaging 2500 yard seasons, or 10 ypc.

Yes, Wilt did put up UNGODLY numbers (he STILL holds some 130 NBA records), but it must be mentioned that he was the ONLY one doing it. Take him out of the 60's, and there were some great seasons (Barry averaging 35.6ppg in '67), or Lucas averaging a 20-20 season twice (Wilt did it EIGHT times BTW), but overall, none of them were unworldly. ONLY Wilt had those staggering scoring, rebounding, and FG% seasons.

Overall, and once again...today's athletes are MARGINALLY better than those of even 40-50 years ago. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.

I will ignore all the arguments you put forth above using some exception to the norm and concentrate on your claim that if the elite athlete was so much better than his competition then imagine what he could do given the same advantages today.

I agree. That we will never really know and it would certainly be different in regards to the individual. Who knows. So I say we stick to what we know... and as you have apparently conceded... we do know that athletes today benefit from a plethora of advantages that athletes of yester-year did not have. You just admitted that above. So now... having admitted that, is it your stance that despite these advantages the athletes of today are still inferior in strict performance standards to athletes 20-40 years ago?

[Sarcastic]

Here are the numbers for the average size of an NBA player going back to the 1980s. As you can see, it has remained incredibly balanced for the past 20 years. The average player has gained slightly more weight, which can be attributed to nutrition, but their height is just about the same.

http://www.nba.com/news/survey_2004.html



Team Height Weight Age Exp.
1985-86 6’ 7.36” 214.40 26.72 3.85
1986-87 6’ 7.62” 215.46 26.53 3.83
1987-88 6’ 7.38” 215.61 27.01 4.10
1988-89 6’ 7.31” 215.58 26.92 4.01
1989-90 6’ 7.09” 214.82 26.79 3.95
1990-91 6’ 7.16” 216.16 27.01 4.08
1991-92 6’ 7.04” 216.47 27.09 4.20
1992-93 6’ 7.06” 219.86 27.19 4.15
1993-94 6’ 7.34” 221.68 27.26 4.28
1994-95 6’ 7.19” 221.50 27.43 4.56
1995-96 6’ 7.27” 223.66 27.56 4.42
1996-97 6’ 7.20” 223.67 27.74 4.63
1997-98 6’ 7.11” 222.95 27.82 4.82
1998-99 6’ 7.10” 222.85 27.82 4.81
1999-00 6’ 7.26” 224.68 27.95 5.20
2000-01 6’ 7.03” 223.47 27.75 5.01
2001-02 6’ 7.26” 224.05 27.47 4.82
2002-03 6’ 7.40” 225.40 27.34 4.73
2003-04 6' 7.31" 225.45 27.22 4.76
2004-05 6' 7.26" 224.29 27.03 4.61

[Soundwave]

A lot of NBA players are jacked on supplements and creatine and dare I say it ... steroids IMO.

It's rampant in all sports, MLB is the only one that really gets called out for it though.

[Mor'Fiyah]

You would find fewer teams and a less diluted league for one thing. You would also find plenty of guys who are quick and big enough to guard anyone today.

You are obviously a teenager that doesn't realize 20 years is not a long time. The NBA now doesn't look much different than the NBA 20 years ago. I know because i was actually watching 20 years ago. Any increase in size/athleticism during that time is marginal.

When you go back to the 60s there is a big difference due to the lower numbers of blacks in the league at that time. But in 1990 that wasn't an issue.

I will be 33 in October.

You do raise an interesting point about the introduction of blacks to the leagues increasing the overall athleticism. Very interesting point as you say the NBA now does not look that much different than the NBA 20 years ago. Quick question... how many foreign players were in the league 20 years ago vs today and how many of these foreign players were elite? Thats just ONE difference to think about.

Bear in mind I never said that the difference between now and 20 years ago was large or significant. I merely said there was a difference and that the trend is upwards in terms of performance level as it has been every single decade in every single sport.

There are numerous articles on the evolution of the athlete over time... scientists have confirmed this upward trend. And they have specifically done research in specific sports to prove this. My challenge to you would be to prove that basketball is different in this regard.

[andgar923]

Yes we get it. The NBA now sucks, and everything in the past was so much better.

Dwight Howard wouldn't even be a top 7 defensive player if he played in the 80's or 90's.

Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, and LeBron James would struggle to average 25\5\5 in their primes in the 80's or 90's.

Michael Jordan would average 45 PPG and Bird and Magic would be 30\10\10 in todays league.

The league nowadays isn't as competitive as it used to be, it's soft, and it just sucks.

I have a question for you people who constantly say those things, why do you even bother watching the NBA, if you constantly complain about how bad its gotten?

I say it so f$ckin what!

And that's because basketball overall IS weaker in many aspects.

Why do I still watch it?

What kind of stupid sh!t is that?

Why can't I watch it?

I still love the game, it still entertains me, but it also pi$$es me off when I see dumb shit happen all the time.

[tontoz]

I will ignore all the arguments you put forth above using some exception to the norm and concentrate on your claim that if the elite athlete was so much better than his competition then imagine what he could do given the same advantages today.

I agree. That we will never really know and it would certainly be different in regards to the individual. Who knows. So I say we stick to what we know... and as you have apparently conceded... we do know that athletes today benefit from a plethora of advantages that athletes of yester-year did not have. You just admitted that above. So now... having admitted that, is it your stance that despite these advantages the athletes of today are still inferior in strict performance standards to athletes 20-40 years ago?

Please point out where anyone has said that todays athletes are inferior. I must have missed it.

[tontoz]

I will be 33 in October.

You do raise an interesting point about the introduction of blacks to the leagues increasing the overall athleticism. Very interesting point as you say the NBA now does not look that much different than the NBA 20 years ago. Quick question... how many foreign players were in the league 20 years ago vs today and how many of these foreign players were elite? Thats just ONE difference to think about.

Bear in mind I never said that the difference between now and 20 years ago was large or significant. I merely said there was a difference and that the trend is upwards in terms of performance level as it has been every single decade in every single sport.

There are numerous articles on the evolution of the athlete over time... scientists have confirmed this upward trend. And they have specifically done research in specific sports to prove this. My challenge to you would be to prove that basketball is different in this regard.


As Sarcastic already pointed out the heights of players hasn't changed since the 80s. And these evolution studies you are talking about, links please. I would bet they aren't looking at a time frame of only 20 years.

Also there is more to basketball than athleticism. Joey Graham is a great athlete but not much of a ballplayer.

As far as foreign player i would certainly say there are more now, and the players from Europe aren't increasing the athleticism of todays NBA. Dirk is one of the best and he isn't known for his athleticism.

[Mor'Fiyah]

Here are the numbers for the average size of an NBA player going back to the 1980s. As you can see, it has remained incredibly balanced for the past 20 years. The average player has gained slightly more weight, which can be attributed to nutrition, but their height is just about the same.

http://www.nba.com/news/survey_2004.html

So... no significant gains in height. But the weight seems to have shifted no? Indicative of the athletes getting bigger? What are the chances these increases in weight pertain to increases in muscle mass?

Also of note is that the average height is not by position so it MAY not accurately reflect actual differences in size from position to position over the years.

[Mor'Fiyah]

Please point out where anyone has said that todays athletes are inferior. I must have missed it.

I never said anyone in particular said that. I merely asked what your stance was. Is it then your stance that today's athlete is superior to athletes 20-40 years ago?

[Mor'Fiyah]

As Sarcastic already pointed out the heights of players hasn't changed since the 80s. And these evolution studies you are talking about, links please. I would bet they aren't looking at a time frame of only 20 years.

Also there is more to basketball than athleticism. Joey Graham is a great athlete but not much of a ballplayer.

As far as foreign player i would certainly say there are more now, and the players from Europe aren't increasing the athleticism of todays NBA. Dirk is one of the best and he isn't known for his athleticism.

Sarcastic only pointed out the average height of all the players on a team have stayed more or less consistent over 15 years or so. Not that players have not gotten bigger at various positions over those years. The surveys also indicate the players have gotten BIGGER.

The studies I am talking about can all be googled. And yes, many of them are over an extremely long period of time. But the point is the trend. If scientists note an upward trend in the criteria why do you think that this particular 20 year period would buck that trend?

Better athleticism does not mean better players no. But if all factors remain level then the better athleticism is an advantage. Unless you are putting forward the argument that today's players are just stupid in comparison to yesterday's players (which I just don't buy).

Finally, in regard to the European players. Who cares if they contribute less or more athleticism. They contribute to the level of the game do they not? The talent pool that the NBA is able to benefit from got that much bigger and deeper than it used to be. How can that do anything BUT increase the level of play?

[tontoz]

I never said anyone in particular said that. I merely asked what your stance was. Is it then your stance that today's athlete is superior to athletes 20-40 years ago?


I would say that any difference in the athleticism of the NBA now vs 20 years ago is so marginal as to be statistically insignificant. The more teams you have the less athletic the average player is going to be. When you consider the addition of teams vs the gradual increse in athleticism over time i think it is a wash.

[triangleoffense]

It's hypocrisy on both sides. What about the people who say Russell would be a poor man's Dalmbert at best in the NBA? Are you kidding me?

[Pointguard]

Put Dwight Howard in the NBA 20-40 years ago and he would not have to be able to score outside of 5 feet. Very few players would be able to stop him from getting to the rim.

And aside from that... the center position has changed in the NBA as the game has changed.

The basic science of the game was that the tallest guy would be most effective close to the rim. There, he could affect the events around the rim the best. Now, people do not have skills around the rim so now they are shooters and the foreign game has won influence. A skill-less Shaq was dominant because the science is still true. That science has not changed. You need good timing to block shots and a certain level of explosion in your legs. For rebounds you need intuition, will power, energy and good fundamentals. For a low post game you need solid fundamentals, good practice routines, some foot work. To be the pivot in the offense you need understanding of the offensive schemes, practice passing out of the pivot... If today is all that then why aren't they better at it? A lot is lacking now and it has to do with how big men are brought up today.

As far as D Howard is concerned you are saying he would be going up against more guys that wouldn't be able to keep him from the rim. What you must understand is that they played bigger then and played much more solidly fundamentally. A guy back in Wilt's day faced guys that were more center focused during the course of the season than D Howard does. Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Jerry Lucas and Willis Reed would account for over 35 of their season's matchups. They played with more will power, had all around big man game, and they went at rebounds hard. All except Lucas were hardcore low-post players and solid on bigman fundamentals. So Dwight would be more challenged then he would be today: Shaq, Bogut and Lopez 12 times a year and Bynum/Gasol twice.

So the average big man today is not interested in playing big. To me, Wilt Kareem and Russell were athletically even with the most gifted bigs that followed them (Shaq an exception) but they had fundamental advantages and an all around big-man advantage on most of them and more developed big-man skills than those who followed.

Once again I only have this beef at the center position.

[Pointguard]

It's hypocrisy on both sides. What about the people who say Russell would be a poor man's Dalmbert at best in the NBA? Are you kidding me?

No way. He went to hard for the ball and involved himself in every play. I could see you saying Dwight Howard but he looses focus too much.

[deeznut]

Yes we get it. The NBA now sucks, and everything in the past was so much better.

Dwight Howard wouldn't even be a top 7 defensive player if he played in the 80's or 90's.

Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, and LeBron James would struggle to average 25\5\5 in their primes in the 80's or 90's.

Michael Jordan would average 45 PPG and Bird and Magic would be 30\10\10 in todays league.

The league nowadays isn't as competitive as it used to be, it's soft, and it just sucks.

I have a question for you people who constantly say those things, why do you even bother watching the NBA, if you constantly complain about how bad its gotten?
---
was you even old enough to watch the 80s?

[andgar923]

Players today have some 'individual' skill sets better than their counterparts from the 80s.

However....

This is a TEAM game!!!

So while it may be nice that they might be slightly more skilled in some areas, and are slightly more athletic, the team aspect is in decline along with some 'fundamental' aspects of the game.

And I hate to sound like the old geezer that is constantly brining up "There's no fundamentals, there's no fundamentals" but its the truth. And fundamentals play a bigger role throughout the course of a game than a fancy crossover or dunk.

I think that the point guard position has changed dramatically.

Point guards are more athletic all around, the ball handling has improved, but their IQ has dropped.

I also think that the biggest drop off is in the Center position.

If Bynum makes the simplest of moves, he is hailed for it. A move that Bill f^ckin Wennington could make in his sleep.

I think that the average team from the 80s could beat the avg team from today's era. And I also think that the better teams from that same era could beat the best teams from today, specially if they played under those rules.

Could you imagine this Lakers team beating the Bad Boys? hell naw!

No matter how athletic the Lakers are, they aren't gonna beat the Bad Boys in a series. Because the Bad Boys were a TEAM. A team with experienced players that played with more consistency. And that's because, players from past eras were 'men' not teenagers still trying to find their role.

It takes most players today half their career trying to find their role, and another 2 seasons accepting it. Most players today want to be on ESPN, they want the endorsements, they want the fame far more than their earlier counterparts. Add to that, the fact that they're jumping into the NBA alot sooner than before. So not only have they not had the time to mature as humans, they haven't developed as basketball players. Meanwhile in this 3-5 year transition between they start to mature both on and off the floor the league gets watered down as a result of all of the young bucks coming in. Its an endless cycle.

Having said that....

I do think that in the upcoming years, we'll start to see the NBA reach a level that its never been. Part of that is due to the age limit rules and 3 year contracts.

I also think that NBA players playing international ball, will help their game and specially their IQ and 'team' concept.

[Papaya Petee]

---
was you even old enough to watch the 80s?
I don't need to be old enough to know that Bird wouldn't average 30\10\10, nor would Magic. I don't need to be old enough to know Jordan wouldn't average 45 PPG in todays league. I watch enough games on youtube to see how good they are.


And yes, I see those comments all the time. People are constantly complaining how weak the leagues gotten, yet they still find it entertaining, so they must be doing something right.

I'm not bashing the older days, because I don't know enough to do so, but the bashing of the modern days is gotten annoying to read.

[Papaya Petee]

It's hypocrisy on both sides. What about the people who say Russell would be a poor man's Dalmbert at best in the NBA? Are you kidding me?
That's just stupid talk, and yes its both ways sometimes.

[tontoz]

I don't need to be old enough to know that [I]Bird wouldn't average 30\10\10, nor would Magic. I don't need to be old enough to know Jordan wouldn't average 45 PPG in todays league. I watch enough games on youtube to see how good they are.


And yes, I see those comments all the time[/B]. .


You see them all the time yet you have failed to quote one of them. :no:

[O.J A 6'4Mamba]

People ( you morons on ISH) think Joe Dumars is better than OJ Mayo, at least when OJ hits his prime. Dumars, that f*cker only averaged 16 ppg and 2 rebounds for his entire career. Let's just say if OJ put up Dumars numbers, i would stop being a fan of him.

talk about overrating a past great at its finest hour.

[Papaya Petee]

You see them all the time yet you have failed to quote one of them. :no:
You're telling me you didn't see that? Because this thread has 8 pages and guys here agree with me.

[tontoz]

You're telling me you didn't see that? Because this thread has 8 pages and guys here agree with me.

First of all you are reading impaired if you think this thread is full of people that agree with you. Most of them think you are clueless.

Secondly where are the posts from the people who think Bird would averag 30/10/10 and Jordan 45 ppg?

[Papaya Petee]

First of all you are reading impaired if you think this thread is full of people that agree with you. Most of them think you are clueless.

Secondly where are the posts from the people who think Bird would averag 30/10/10 and Jordan 45 ppg?

Oh I don't know, try watching Bruce Blitzes videos. Or read anything from Jordan fan's here.

I didn't say all, I said quite a good amount agreed. If you got a problem, don't read it.

[tontoz]

Oh I don't know, try watching Bruce Blitzes videos. Or read anything from Jordan fan's here.

I didn't say all, I said quite a good amount agreed. If you got a problem, don't read it.


Given that you are clearly reading impaired i will ask again.


WHERE ARE THE QUOTES FROM PEOPLE SAYING BIRD WOULD AVERAGE 30/10/10 AND JORDAN 45 POINTS?


Links or didn't happen.

[O.J A 6'4Mamba]

Given that you are clearly reading impaired i will ask again.


WHERE ARE THE QUOTES FROM PEOPLE SAYING BIRD WOULD AVERAGE 30/10/10 AND JORDAN 45 POINTS?


Links or didn't happen.


Larry Brown said MJ would average 45 points in todays league

[fazzazz1k]

GHG has alot do do these days also.....

[tontoz]

Larry Brown said MJ would average 45 points in todays league


As far as i know Larry Brown doesn't post here. PP says he sees these comments all the time on here yet he has failed to provide one quote.

[jlauber]

Originally Posted by O.J A 6'4Mamba
Larry Brown said MJ would average 45 points in todays league



As far as i know Larry Brown doesn't post here. PP says he sees these comments all the time on here yet he has failed to provide one quote.


The legendary Walt Frazier believes that Wilt would average 75 ppg in today's NBA...

(posted on 7/16/2010 BTW)...

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2010/07/16/walt-frazier-if-wilt-chamberlain-was-playing-today-hed-averag/


Hall of Fame basketball star Walt Frazier starred in the NBA for 13 years, winning two NBA titles and earning seven All-Star selections while playing for New York and Cleveland. FanHouse caught up with Frazier to get his take on the LeBron move, who the best players in league history are, and why Wilt Chamberlain would average 75 points per game if he was in the NBA today.


Just saying....

:confusedshrug:

[rmt]

I think that players nowadays (on average - not referring to physical freaks like Wilt or Shaq) are much more athletic than they were in the old days. However, as a result of this greater athleticism and human nature, they can get by without developing the skill that previous players had to. It's similar to European players - they're not as physically gifted so they work on their games and they're usually excellent shooters.

I also think that the hand-checking rule has greatly benefitted perimeter players nowadays. I don't know if it was an attempt to help out perimeter players in an effort to create another MJ. Another result might be the decrease in the number of traditional big men in the post as some of the elite big men today are jump shooters.

I am not a Kobe fan by any means but I do admire his desire to keep improving such as seeking out Hakeem to improve his post game. Dwight Howard is the one who should have been doing this every summer since he entered the NBA. It's a shame how limited he is offensively except for dunks. I am happy to see that some of the young upcoming big men (Lopez brothers, Kevin Love, Marc Gasol) are more traditional post-up players.

[tontoz]

The legendary Walt Frazier believes that Wilt would average 75 ppg in today's NBA...

(posted on 7/16/2010 BTW)...

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2010/07/16/walt-frazier-if-wilt-chamberlain-was-playing-today-hed-averag/



Just saying....

:confusedshrug:


Funny i didn't realize that i was asking about Wilt. What is Walt Fraziers username on this board?

[jlauber]

Funny i didn't realize that i was asking about Wilt. What is Walt Fraziers username on this board?

I'm sorry Tontoz, I really wasn't disputing your post. In fact, I was agreeing with it. I probbaly should not have used your quote.

I think you and I are basically agreeing here BTW.

:cheers:

[Round Mound]

You still are avoiding the examples i posted on other sports. None have surpassed them

Yes i agree that the average athleticism is better today but that regarding just the "Perimeter Players".

Centers where stronger, more athletic and bigger in the late 60s, 70s and 80s.

Just look at the centers of the 70s:

-Wilt
-Kareem
-Thurmond
-Reed
-Unseld
-Hayes (CF)
-Walton
-Gilmore
-Lanier
-Cowens
-Moses
-Parish

The weight has gotten better by average but that is pretty much do to weight lifting prgrams and modern day vitamins. If 70s centers recieved that it would have been even more dominating.

The 80s ball provided better "Run and Gun" SFs than the 90s and 2000s too.

Playing at higher pace also demands more "Team Play Skills" (lost in todays NBA)

Centers of the 80s:

-Kareem
-Moses
-Hakeem
-Ewing
-Gilmore
-Laimbeer
-Sikma
-Daugherty
-Parish
-Ruland

Centers of the 90s:

-Hakeem
-Ewing
-Robinson
-Daugherty
-Shaq
-Mourning
-Mutombo
-Divac
-Smits

*Some where in the 80s too and they kept dominating till the late 90s

And as i said the fundamentals of post play, mid range game, court awareness, desicion timing, passing game, knowing when to shoot and when not to etc. has gotten weaker since the early-90s.

Also the 80s drafts kept dominating till the late 90s past their primes while the stars of today with the exception of Duncan where just not even close to as good against all these old geezers

[Mor'Fiyah]

So are people now saying that every other position has gotten better EXCEPT the center position?

[tontoz]

So are people now saying that every other position has gotten better EXCEPT the center position?










http://www.kidestore.co.uk/images/images_big/hooked_on_phonics_level_1.jpg

[Mor'Fiyah]

http://www.kidestore.co.uk/images/images_big/hooked_on_phonics_level_1.jpg

FYI.. it was a question...

But ok. If JUST the perimeter players are better (or maybe only more athletic but I will get to that later), that leaves the forwards and center position. Now by all traditional (by traditional I really mean old) definitions of a center... sure... today's NBA lacks centers who stayed in the paint. But there is a reason for that: the changing style of the game. Rule changes mean that the paint is far more clogged and its much harder for front court players to operate from the paint. Its harder to get them ball and its harder to get to the rim once they do get the ball. In addition other rules changes make it an advantage to have a penetrating guard... so... why clog the paint anyways! As a result, the center and power forward positions skillsets have adjusted to include mid range to perimeter type skills to allow for spacing and making it harder to guard a "paint" player. Just because centers or "power forwards" (we may as well use them interchangeably) don't match up well in the bruising back your man under the rim and tear the basket off or do some fancy up and under post move bank shot as the players of other eras does not mean they are inferior to big men in the past. I could very easily make the argument that today's big men can space the floor better than the big men of any other era because they can shoot. So they lack fundamentals in one area but have enhanced them in other areas. We now have seven footers who can dribble full court or knock down a three with regularity. They are DIFFERENT not inferior.

And don't even get me started on the players calling themselves power forwards today who could have easily played center 20 years ago.

There seems to be an underlying belief that the players of yesteryear would be much better than the players of today if they were allowed to adjust to the times. Well can't the same thing be said of the players of today? If they were allowed to train and develop for the era and type of basketball they had to play who is to say how good they would be.

This idea that the players of today don't compare mentally or fundamentally with athletes back in the day is pure poppycock boosted by generation gap nostalgia in much the same way people think the music of today is rubbish (and I almost guarantee you that the same people who think basketball players/teams were better 20 years ago also think music was better 20 years ago... coincedence?). Its simply not true when athletes of today benefit from a plethora of information/instructional/technical advantages in the form of information on technique and fundamentals... the coaches to train them for it... the additional time and money to be able to dedicate themselves to learning... and the freedom of not even having to do the leg work to get the information themselves. And lets not discount the fact that they have been able to learn from the players who came before them.

[tontoz]

The Bobcats, Magic, and Grizzlies weren't in the league 20 years ago. The Hornets first year was 1988. the more teams there are the more the talent is spread out which lowers the overall talent in the league. It isn't hard to grasp for a normal person but i can certainly see why it would be confusing for you.

It isn't just a question of centers staying in the paint. The issue is that the centers today are just not as good as they were 20 years ago. Period.

[jlauber]

I have already given a long detailed response to this topic, but let's tru again. The AVERAGE athlete today is better than the AVERAGE athlete of 10-20-30-40-50 years ago. However, in every 10 year increment, the increase has been very marginal. And that is just for the AVERAGE athlete.

Furthermore, there are a variety of reasons why this is so. Genetics is just one small part. Equipment (shoes in track for instance), conditions (better surfaces in track and basketball, domed stadiums in football and baseball), nutrition, medicine (players are able to return much sooner and in better shape, as well as longevity), "supplements" (including steroids, which have affected all sports, but reallt shredded baseball's slugging records), training (each generation learns from the previous), coaching (geezus, there are multiple specialized coaches for each team in each sport now), etc., etc.

Still, if you use "bridges" you can see that the overall level of play is not significantly better. Ted Williams was a good "bridge." He played in the 30's thru the 60's. He also played before integration, and after. He won ROY in 1939 with 31 HRs and batting.327. Jimmie Foxx was on that team, and at age 31 that season, he batted .369 with 35 HRs. In 1938 Foxx slugged 50 HRs, and Hank Greenberg cracked 58. In 1932 Foxx belted 58 HRs...which was only five years after Ruth hammered 60.

In 1941 Williams batted .401, which still remains as the last season anyone has reached that mark. Now, Williams batted .388 in 1957, and at age 38. This was 10 years AFTER integration. In between those years there MANY great baseball players, guys like Ott, DiMaggio, Kiner, and many others. In 1956 Mickey Mantle batted .353 with 52 HRs. I have mentioned him before, but there is a strong possibilty that NO OTHER player, in MLB HISTORY, has hit the ball harder or longer...and he did it from BOTH sides of the plate. Just before that season, in 1955, Willie Mays hit 51 HRs. In 1965 Mays hit 52.

How about Aaron. In 1957 he hit 44 HRs and won the MVP. In 1972, and at age 38, he hit a career high 47. George Foster was just a struggling rookie in 1972, but in 1977, he smacked 52 HRs, which would be the last season that anyone would hit 50+ until 1991. Of course, after that, and with PEDs running rampant, we saw more 50, 60, and 70+ HR seasons in a span of about 10 years, than in all the previous season in HISTORY...COMBINED. However, after testing came into place, the HR leaders have come back down. WAY down. A couple of years ago the AL leader hit 37.

Nolan Ryan is another "bridge." He pitched in the 60's thru the 90's. He was throwing well over 100 MPH in his 20's, and was still throwing 98 MPH at age 46, and on his very last pitch. In between he set strikeout records that may never be broken. Yet, there were many other pitchers in those years that pitched as well, or even better. Carlton, Guidry, Gooden, and Clemens (I know...). In any case, in the late 30's Bob Feller was throwing close to 100 MPH (some will say even faster.) And while he was the fastest pitcher of his era, he was not unhittable. So, those good players of the 30's and 40's were hitting him, just as they would do into the 50's and 60's. Koufax was clocked at 98 MPH in the 60's...and he had SLOWED his fastball down to control it. And I mentioned Steve Dalkowski in another post. Just Google that guy. There were som estimates as high as 110 MPH. AND, none other than TED WILLIAMS claimed he was the fastest he had ever seen.

Ok, that was baseball. As you can conclude from all of that, guys like Babe Ruth (yes Babe Ruth believe it or not!) would still be among the best players in today's game. Not only that, but Ruth was swinging a 46 ounce bat. Most players today would have a hard time picking it up, much less swinging it.

Now, how about football? Once again, I covered this previously, but I will try to condense it here. Jim Brown was a 230 lb. RB in the 50's with track speed. And yes, he terrorized the NFL. He won NINE rushing titles. Still, the ASSUMPTION would be that a gifted athlete like that, playing 50 years ago, would be rushing for 2500-3000 yards in a season and at 10 ypc. Well, most all of his records have been broken.

And speed in the NFL? Yes, the AVERAGE player today is probably faster than those of yesteryear, but there have been quite a few in the last 50 years who were faster. Darrell Green came into the NFL in 1983 with a 10.06 100 meters, and 40 yard times that were unbelieveable (some as low as 4.09.) He was still among the top-5 fastest players in the league in 2000 and was clocked at a 4.35 at age 40! Hershel Walker ran a 10.1 in the 80's. Bo Jackson was among the fastest 60 meter runners in the world in the 80's, and ran a 4.12 40 at the NFL combine. OJ Simpson was a member of USC's record holding 4x100 relay team in the 60's. And the fastest legitimate NFL player ever? "Bullet" Bob Hayes, who ran a 10.0 100 meters in 1964. I say legitimate, because he played in the NFL for years, and is in the HOF. He also averaged an eye-popping 42 yards on his 76 career TDs. Still, none of those guys set records that will never be broken, although OJ still holds the record for yards per game in a season. The bottom line, though, is that, even with all those physical gifts, those greats were not blowing the league away. Which indicates that the AVERAGE NFL player in the 60's and 70's was just not that much less a player than what we have TODAY.

Granted, today's players are much bigger, but you can argue that size has not been a dominate factor in any category in the NFL. Anthony Munoz has widely been regarded as the greatest O-Lineman in NFL history, and he was still an all-pro in 1990, at 280 lbs. Bruce Matthews played from 1983 to 2001, and was still an all-pro in 2000 at age 40 and at 300 lbs.

Buck Buchanon played in the 60's and was 6-9 and around 300 lbs. There were others nearly as big, or bigger. The entire Steeler O-line was benching 500+ lbs in the early 70's (albeit, with some "help".)

How about the NBA. I already mentioned that Jim Pollard, a 6-4 white guy was dunking from the FT line in the 40's and 50's. Gus Johnson was smashing backboards in the 60's (THREE of them.) Bill Russell had the wingspan of a seven-footer and was WORLD-RANKED in the high-jump in the 50's. Connie Hawkins was making spectacular dunks in the 60's. In the early 70's, players like Dr. J, Dr. K, David Thompson, and other's were popularizing the dunk.

How about a "bridge?" Kareem is the best of all-time. He played from the late 60's thru the late 80's. He was putting up games of 35, 42, and 46 on Olajuwon in the 85-86 season, at age 39. And Hakeem was generally considered the best center of the 90's. Does anyone here actually believe that a PRIME Hakeem would not be a great center today? Geez, he battled Shaq to a draw in the '95 Finals, and we all know what Shaq did to the NBA in the early 2000's (although his regular season stats weren't much better in 2000 than in 1994.) Does anyone here believe that a PRIME Shaq would not be pounding the best centers of 2010?

Kareem did dominate in the 70's, and at his peak. BUT, he struggled against Thurmond and Wilt in their playoff battles. Not only that, but even Dave Cowens, a 6-9 white center outplayed him in a critical game seven in the Finals. Kareem shot .599 in '85 at age 37. His high season was in 1980, at .604. Yet, in the 70's he had seasons of .539, .529, .518, and even .513 in the MID-70's. Thurmond outscored and outshot him in the '72 playoffs. Not only that, but he held Kareem to .486, .405 (yes .405), and .428 shooting in the their three playoff series battles from 70-71 thru 72-73.

Wilt abused Kareem in their very first encounter in 1969. That was before he was injured, and was never quite the same. Chamberlain battled Kareem to a statistical draw in the '71 WCF's, and just a year removed from major knee surgery. In the '72 WCF's, Kareem heavily outscored Wilt, but most observers felt that Wilt outplayed him. He held him to .457 shooting (.414 over the last four pivotal games), outrebounded him, and then dominated him in the clinching game six win. In their last season in the league together, Wilt outshot Kareem by a .637 to .450 margin in those six regular season games. In their 28 H2H games, Kareem shot .464 against Wilt (and remember, he was a CAREER .559 shooter), and in their last ten meetings, Wilt held Kareem to .434 shooting. And, Kareem only broke 50% against Wilt in 10 of their 28 meetings. And Wilt not only easily outrebounded Kareem in their H2H battles, he ran away from hism to win rebounding titles.

Keep in mind that both Thurmond and Wilt were well past their primes in those matchups. One can only wonder what a PRIME Chamberlain would have done against Kareem. We do know that a PRIME Wilt outplayed Thurmond, and had some crushing games against him. Furthermore, Kareem never faced Bill Russell, who was widely regarded as the best defensive of his era (and maybe of all-time.)

So, after reading all of that...how do you think players like Oscar, West, Russell, Dr. J, Lanier, Cowens, McAdoo (who had a BRILLIANT outside game at 6-11)Thurmond, Lucas (who was not only a 20 rpg rebounder, but could hit 25+ foot shots with uncanny precision), Reed, Bellamy, Maravich, and Wilt, would fare in TODAY's NBA?

[Mor'Fiyah]

The Bobcats, Magic, and Grizzlies weren't in the league 20 years ago. The Hornets first year was 1988. the more teams there are the more the talent is spread out which lowers the overall talent in the league. It isn't hard to grasp for a normal person but i can certainly see why it would be confusing for you.


Because I am not normal? Lets keep this non-personal. So 20 years ago the BobCats Magic, and Grizzlies did not exist and its your belief that the injection of these three teams has caused the talent in the league to be thinner? Lets see... three additional teams injecting 45 additional players into the league/per year and you think somehow this has strained the talent level of the league DESPITE the fact that the sport has grown in popularity in those 20 years and DESPITE the fact that the talent pool is boosted by the International players? Are you serious?



It isn't just a question of centers staying in the paint. The issue is that the centers today are just not as good as they were 20 years ago. Period.

It is not good enough to say that the average center of yesteryear is not good enough today. Good enough at what? Can the average center of yesteryear shoot anything outside of 15 feet from the basket? We know they are not bigger. Are they stronger? On average now. We are not comparing the top two centers over a 20 year stretch to the top center in the last 5 years. That comparison is just not fair.

[salmon_stinks]

I think the issue is that the average player has gotten much better, and this makes the "stars" look worse than when they were playing against the scrubs of the 80's.

Just my 2 cents

[Rasheed1]

to me the league was better for a number of reasons back in the 80's and 90's

in the 80's teams played better team basketball (the good teams). magic's Lakers were the most fun to watch, but you also had some great 76er teams, Cletics, Pistons, and Hawks teams... the league didnt try as hard to manipulate the rules to favor offense or defense... Most importantly is that the league wasnt over exposed..

in the 90's you had Mj which was good, and you also had great TV with Marv Albert and some of the other guys... NBA on NBC was the best show on TV alot of times... Marv and Mj in the Garden for playoffs? that was what everyone wanted to see...As Mj got better, the Pistons instituted the Jordan rules and once Jordan surpassed the Pistons and Chuck Daly, Pat Riley's Knicks adopted the same style of play and though it provided some interesting games, Stern didnt like the scores being in the high 80s/low 90s so he changed the rules....

After the rules changes the game is now almost all about offense... It is really difficult to play defense without fouling these days and the fundamentals have almost been stripped away from the game to the point where alot of fans dont even understand the basic fact that 3 pointers arent good shots.. people forget these days that the point of the game is to PASS to the ball around until you find the open man... Its too individual and too tied up in individual player's legacy... its hardly a team sport anymore

you come here and people only want to have juvenile arguments about lebron or kobe....

game is overexposed and not based on what it used to be about and it makes the game less fun to watch...

to me, it used to be on an even plane with the NFL, but the NBA has fallen off now, while the NFL can still give you that thrill

[tontoz]

Because I am not normal? Lets keep this non-personal. So 20 years ago the BobCats Magic, and Grizzlies did not exist and its your belief that the injection of these three teams has caused the talent in the league to be thinner? Lets see... three additional teams injecting 45 additional players into the league/per year and you think somehow this has strained the talent level of the league DESPITE the fact that the sport has grown in popularity in those 20 years and DESPITE the fact that the talent pool is boosted by the International players? Are you serious?



Man you are as sharp as a bowling ball. I have repeated the same things over and over and you still don't get it.

Let's look strictly at todays game. Forget about any time in the past. the current league has 30 teams. Now lets say 4 of the teams fold and the league contracts to 26 teams.

Which league would have higher average talent?

A. the 30 team league
B. the 26 team league

Please anwser A or B only and avoid any reference to the past. This is not complex.

[Mor'Fiyah]

So, after reading all of that...how do you think players like Oscar, West, Russell, Dr. J, Lanier, Cowens, McAdoo (who had a BRILLIANT outside game at 6-11)Thurmond, Lucas (who was not only a 20 rpg rebounder, but could hit 25+ foot shots with uncanny precision), Reed, Bellamy, Maravich, and Wilt, would fare in TODAY's NBA?

This is all I need to respond to really as I agree with most of what you are saying (except that you are leaving way too much out of the equation).

I believe that most of the players you listed would be fine in today's NBA. But would they all be the superstars they were back then? Hard question to answer especially if they are allowed the same nutritional benefits and technological advancements etc etc as the players today. If they are not, however. If they are just transported as is to this time they would likely still be competitive but it is unlikely they would be able to distance themselves from the pack as they did in their respective eras. In fact they might not be able to distance themselves at all in some cases.

Here is the problem with your equation: Your stance approaches the conversation from one angle and one angle only - you look at the statistical numbers of these guys in relation to their peers and go "WOW! This guy would absolutely decimate some of the players today!"

Fallacy #1: The statistics (like all statistics in all sports except speed times) are invariably comparison stats. In other words they don't say how good a rebounder or batter or pitcher or shooter a players is. Instead what they tell you is how good a rebounder or batter or pitcher or shooter a player is compared to the guys he is playing with and against (with some other factors thrown in... but lets keep it simple). So what this means is that an elite player will significantly distance himself from the players around him. This was much easier to do the younger the sport was because talent was the predominant factor and fundamentals, training, nutrition etc etc were just too far behind. As years go by and the sport becomes older the gap between the elites and the other players usually closes (give or take a few phenoms who had some jump in physical or mental talent ... your MJs and Wilts and Jesse Owens and today Usain Bolt) as sheer talent is able to be reigned in by the other factors. This phenomenon happens in all sports and is further exacerbated by the increasing popularity of the sport deepening the talent pool. Eventually the gap between the elites becomes smaller causing what appears to be shrinking stats of the greats. But its not the ability of the greats today are any less than those of the greats in the past. Its that the abilities of their more average counterparts are that much better. We have no idea how Babe Ruth (as is) would fare against much quicker pitchers armed with film and analysis of what pitches he can and cannot hit etc.

Your bridge argument holds no water here at all because it uses an elite player who gets the chance to transition himself into another era complete with all the advantages of that era and then even then this "great" is an exception to the rules even amongst greats. You cannot. I repeat. You cannot use an outlier to make a generalize extrapolation about the level of the game today. Its fallacious logic at best. Just plain wrong at worst.

[Mor'Fiyah]

I think the issue is that the average player has gotten much better, and this makes the "stars" look worse than when they were playing against the scrubs of the 80's.

Just my 2 cents

And quite a brilliant 2 cents it is sir! Its a very simple phenomenon that happens in all sports (and basketball is not immune). On a macro level this is reflected in the closing gap between the International teams. International teams are less and less likely to be pushovers now as the talent pool of good players in exponentially increased boosting the level of what an average player is now considered.

[tontoz]

Now lets look at what i said earlier in the thread.


I would say that any difference in the athleticism of the NBA now vs 20 years ago is so marginal as to be statistically insignificant. The more teams you have the less athletic the average player is going to be. When you consider the addition of teams vs the gradual increse in athleticism over time i think it is a wash.

I don't see how this can be confusing to anyone with reasonable reading comprehension.

The funny think is that Mor'Fiyah can't even make up his mind what he is talking about. For several posts he was talking strictly about athleticism, then he starts talking about level of play. So which is it? When you talk about level of play you bring skills into the equation. I don't see a lot of skills in Dwight Howards game.

[Mor'Fiyah]

Man you are as sharp as a bowling ball. I have repeated the same things over and over and you still don't get it.

Let's look strictly at todays game. Forget about any time in the past. the current league has 30 teams. Now lets say 4 of the teams fold and the league contracts to 26 teams.

Which league would have higher average talent?

A. the 30 team league
B. the 26 team league

Please anwser A or B only and avoid any reference to the past. This is not complex.

I cannot answer A or B because you have not given me enough information to answer that. Are the players from the 4 teams above or below the average talent? Just reducing the size of the league does not increase or decrease average talent.

And I am the bowling ball...

[tontoz]

I cannot answer A or B because you have not given me enough information to answer that. Are the players from the 4 teams above or below the average talent? Just reducing the size of the league does not increase or decrease average talent.

And I am the bowling ball...

Wow :facepalm

I think that says it all. Are you really that clueless?

[Mor'Fiyah]

Now lets look at what i said earlier in the thread.



I don't see how this can be confusing to anyone with reasonable reading comprehension.

The funny think is that Mor'Fiyah can't even make up his mind what he is talking about. For several posts he was talking strictly about athleticism, then he starts talking about level of play. So which is it? When you talk about level of play you bring skills into the equation. I don't see a lot of skills in Dwight Howards game.

I am talking about both. Athleticism affects the level of play. I have no reason to think this is not true given a widening talent pool of players and human beings who are no less capable of learning fundamentals than they were 20-40 years ago.

If its any consolation to you I too am flabbergasted by how a simple concept like every single sport increasing in performance levels is so difficult to transfer over to basketball that apparently is in a backward looping time warp.

[Mor'Fiyah]

Wow :facepalm

I think that says it all.

Here are 10 teams. The average height on each team is 6'7". The average height for the league of 10 teams is this 6'7".

Lets remove 5 teams from the league making it a 5 team league. The averages of each of the remaining teams is the same.

What is the average height for the league of 5 teams?

[tontoz]

Here are 10 teams. The average height on each team is 6'7". The average height for the league of 10 teams is this 6'7".

Lets remove 5 teams from the league making it a 5 team league. The averages of each of the remaining teams is the same.

What is the average height for the league of 5 teams?

:roll:


Man you are so clueless.

Let's say Minny is disbanded. Do you really think Al Jefferson and Kevin Love won't get picked up by other teams? The good players from Minny will be picked up, the bad ones won't. Hence the overall talent in the league will go up.

SMH

[Round Mound]

[B]2000s era SFs-PFs is nothing compared to the 80s :confusedshrug:

- Charles Barkley 6`4 3/4 and 284-255-252-265-288 lbs PF-SF, Point PF, Top 4 GOAT Finishing PF, GOAT Coast To Coast Finishing PF, GOAT Mid Range Game PF and GOAT Top 1-2

[Mor'Fiyah]

:roll:


Man you are so clueless.

Let's say Minny is disbanded. Do you really think Al Jefferson and Kevin Love won't get picked up by other teams? The good players from Minny will be picked up, the bad ones won't. Hence the overall talent in the league will go up.

SMH

You are making rank assumptions. Why didn't you just answer my question? Lets look at your logic in reverse then: if the league expands does the average talent decrease because of the expansion? Or does more talent get injected into a league with more room for talent?

You act as if there is a set amount of talent in the world and that the absolute best of it is already in the league and so any change in the number of players left in the league is directly correlated to talent and this is simply not true. What does correlate to talent is the pool of available people developing their games. And that pool is significantly larger today than it was 20-40 years ago. And this same thing happens in just about every sport in the world.

I want an answer to one simple question: why is basketball immune to performance level increases seen in other sports?

[Sarcastic]

I cannot answer A or B because you have not given me enough information to answer that. Are the players from the 4 teams above or below the average talent? Just reducing the size of the league does not increase or decrease average talent.

And I am the bowling ball...

Of course it does. The NBA's expansion of the 1990s was awful for the league, as far as competition is concerned. It completely diluted the talent. In order to win in the NBA you need star players, and there just aren't enough to support 30 teams.

[tontoz]

You are making rank assumptions. Why didn't you just answer my question? Lets look at your logic in reverse then: if the league expands does the average talent decrease because of the expansion? Or does more talent get injected into a league with more room for talent?

You act as if there is a set amount of talent in the world and that the absolute best of it is already in the league and so any change in the number of players left in the league is directly correlated to talent and this is simply not true. What does correlate to talent is the pool of available people developing their games. And that pool is significantly larger today than it was 20-40 years ago. And this same thing happens in just about every sport in the world.

I want an answer to one simple question: why is basketball immune to performance level increases seen in other sports?


It isn't immune. Your problem is that you can't grasp the fact that 20 years isn't that long ago. You also don't understand that the pool of players is identical regardless of how many teams there are. It doesn't matter if there are 15, 30, or 50 teams, the pool of available players is the same.

If the league expanded this summer do you think NBA caliber players would just appear out of thin air?

I can't believe i have to explain this. Your stupidity is amazing. The fewer teams there are, the higher the average talent level will be. It isn't debatable at all.

[Mor'Fiyah]

Of course it does. The NBA's expansion of the 1990s was awful for the league, as far as competition is concerned. It completely diluted the talent. In order to win in the NBA you need star players, and there just aren't enough to support 30 teams.

It was not JUST because of the talent and this dilution only lasted as long as those teams had to eventually find the talent that was out there and get them in the league via drafting and player movement. If there aren't enough star players to support 30 teams you think an additional 3 more teams is really going to matter over a decade or two? Take the Orlando Magic for instance... one of the expansion teams. How is it that they have actually been able to get more than decent talent?

[Mor'Fiyah]

It isn't immune. Your problem is that you can't grasp the fact that 20 years isn't that long ago. You also don't understand that the pool of players is identical regardless of how many teams there are. It doesn't matter if there are 15, 30, or 50 teams, the pool of available players is the same.

If the league expanded this summer do you think NBA caliber players would just appear out of thin air?

I can't believe i have to explain this. Your stupidity is amazing. The fewer teams there are, the higher the average talent level will be. It isn't debatable at all.

I will just leave the name calling to you. It seems to suit you.

The pool of talent of NBA level players is larger today than it was 20 years ago. There is no disputing that fact. 20 years ago the game was not as popular internationally and there has been an influx of quality foreign players in the league. Expansion does not happen inside a vacuum of NBA talent.

But you said it yourself... basketball and the NBA is not immune to the phenomenon of performance level increasing over time as players get faster, stronger, and benefit for more information. So what is your stance exactly? Because mine is that, like every other sport, the performance level in the NBA has trended upwards as the years have gone by.

If its your stance that this is not true then how can the NBA be immune?

[Sarcastic]

It was not JUST because of the talent and this dilution only lasted as long as those teams had to eventually find the talent that was out there and get them in the league via drafting and player movement. If there aren't enough star players to support 30 teams you think an additional 3 more teams is really going to matter over a decade or two? Take the Orlando Magic for instance... one of the expansion teams. How is it that they have actually been able to get more than decent talent?

They have gotten talent from getting number 1 draft picks on numerous occasions. Imagine Shaq, Chris Webber, and Dwight Howard were not drafted by the Magic, but instead drafted by more established teams.

[Mor'Fiyah]

They have gotten talent from getting number 1 draft picks on numerous occasions. Imagine Shaq, Chris Webber, and Dwight Howard were not drafted by the Magic, but instead drafted by more established teams.

Who cares who drafts them. The point is that expanding teams is not enough to lower talent in the league when compared to 20 years ago if talented players are being drafted into the league from a larger talent pool. If your argument is that, given the same talent pool, the NBA would be richer in average talent if there were less teams to spread the talent over then thats an entirely different argument than saying that the talent in the NBA 20 years ago is better than it is now because of team expansion.

[Sarcastic]

Who cares who drafts them. The point is that expanding teams is not enough to lower talent in the league when compared to 20 years ago if talented players are being drafted into the league from a larger talent pool. If your argument is that, given the same talent pool, the NBA would be richer in average talent if there were less teams to spread the talent over then thats an entirely different argument than saying that the talent in the NBA 20 years ago is better than it is now because of team expansion.

The talent pool is limited. If you remove 4 teams, then all the other teams get to drop all their scrubs and pick up the stars from the other dropped teams.

[Wukillabeez78]

I will just leave the name calling to you. It seems to suit you.

The pool of talent of NBA level players is larger today than it was 20 years ago. There is no disputing that fact. 20 years ago the game was not as popular internationally and there has been an influx of quality foreign players in the league. Expansion does not happen inside a vacuum of NBA talent.

But you said it yourself... basketball and the NBA is not immune to the phenomenon of performance level increasing over time as players get faster, stronger, and benefit for more information. So what is your stance exactly? Because mine is that, like every other sport, the performance level in the NBA has trended upwards as the years have gone by.

If its your stance that this is not true then how can the NBA be immune?

I don't agree. Players now are stronger and more athletic overall than players from 20 years ago. But they aren't any more talented. Basketball is different from other sports that rely strictly on athleticism. Basketball is a game of skill. You can't compare basketball to track and field or swimming. Bigger muscles and more athleticism in those sports mean you perfom better because they rely less on skill and more on athletic performance. Basketball is different. Larry Bird is better than 99.9% of players today not because of his athleticism but because of his greater level of skill. From a skill standpoint the game has evolved as far as it ever will and hasn't changed at all compared to 20 years ago. The game is played the same way. Players are bigger and stronger for sure, this aspect of the game has evolved. But players are not shooting better percentages than they were 20 years ago (actually shooting worse). Free throw shooting (another skill) has gotten worse as well from the 80s to the 2000s.

The influx of foreign players has boosted the level of play somewhat (because they still learn the fundamentals of the game and are highly skilled) but not enough of them are coming to reverse the negative slide. The game is still great and there are still players who are very skilled but overall the Golden Era of the NBA was in the 80s peaking in the early 90s. Everything doesn't suck now and the NBA certainly doesn't suck now. I think one reason people don't notice that NBA players are less skilled today is because of the media. There was no YouTube in 1985. There was no Internet. There was far less publicity. People are fooled into thinking certain players are stars today just because they can google his name and pull up highlights showing him dunking in High Definition while they can't do the same thing nearly as well for players from the past. There weren't cameras everywhere capturing the game back then. Many great performances will never be seen. There aren't more stars today in the NBA when you compare it to the level of talent the league had in the past. There are just more avenues for players to self-promote themselves (twitter) and appear to be stars to the public.

[tontoz]

[QUOTE=Mor'Fiyah]I will just leave the name calling to you. It seems to suit you.

The pool of talent of NBA level players is larger today than it was 20 years ago. There is no disputing that fact. [QUOTE]


Jesus you still don't get it.

Forget 20 years ago. Forget 2 years ago. I am talking about right now. If the league eliminated 4 teams right now, the scrubs on those teams wouldn't have jobs. The good players would get picked up by other teams, replacing that teams scrubs.

Thus the talent level in the league would increase. Do you really not understand this? :facepalm

[Mor'Fiyah]

The talent pool is limited. If you remove 4 teams, then all the other teams get to drop all their scrubs and pick up the stars from the other dropped teams.


Why is the talent pool limited to just the players in league before the expansion?

[Mor'Fiyah]

I don't agree. Players now are stronger and more athletic overall than players from 20 years ago. But they aren't any more talented. Basketball is different from other sports that rely strictly on athleticism. Basketball is a game of skill. You can't compare basketball to track and field or swimming. Bigger muscles and more athleticism in those sports mean you perfom better because they rely less on skill and more on athletic performance. Basketball is different. Larry Bird is better than 99.9% of players today not because of his athleticism but because of his greater level of skill. From a skill standpoint the game has evolved as far as it ever will and hasn't changed at all compared to 20 years ago. The game is played the same way. Players are bigger and stronger for sure, this aspect of the game has evolved. But players are not shooting better percentages than they were 20 years ago (actually shooting worse). Free throw shooting (another skill) has gotten worse as well from the 80s to the 2000s.


Of course basketball is a game of skill. Skill AND athleticism. Why do you think that skills have diminished while ONLY athleticism has increased in basketball while other similar team sports like soccer, cricket, baseball, hockey etc etc have seen increases in both skill and athleticism. And soccer is a much older sport than basketball and has a FAR larger fan base and talent pool. Shooting percentages have more to do with where the players are taking their shots from and the facing of more athletic defenses as well as better team strategies than it has anything to do with diminished shooting skills.



The influx of foreign players has boosted the level of play somewhat (because they still learn the fundamentals of the game and are highly skilled) but not enough of them are coming to reverse the negative slide. The game is still great and there are still players who are very skilled but overall the Golden Era of the NBA was in the 80s peaking in the early 90s. Everything doesn't suck now and the NBA certainly doesn't suck now. I think one reason people don't notice that NBA players are less skilled today is because of the media. There was no YouTube in 1985. There was no Internet. There was far less publicity. People are fooled into thinking certain players are stars today just because they can google his name and pull up highlights showing him dunking in High Definition while they can't do the same thing nearly as well for players from the past. There weren't cameras everywhere capturing the game back then. Many great performances will never be seen. There aren't more stars today in the NBA when you compare it to the level of talent the league had in the past. There are just more avenues for players to self-promote themselves (twitter) and appear to be stars to the public.

These videos and cameras everywhere make for better learning from mistakes and analysing players. There are far more benefits from the videos than there are negative effects. I disagree with your assessment. Ask Kobe Bryant if he would rather go back to an era before you could see a players or teams moves and strategies and plays from every which angle and situation at a whim?

[Mor'Fiyah]

Jesus you still don't get it.

Forget 20 years ago. Forget 2 years ago. I am talking about right now. If the league eliminated 4 teams right now, the scrubs on those teams wouldn't have jobs. The good players would get picked up by other teams, replacing that teams scrubs.

Thus the talent level in the league would increase. Do you really not understand this? :facepalm

Of course if you did that RIGHT now and didnt give anyone any time to adjust. Sure. Is that what has happened in the NBA? Or do expansion teams spend years bolstering the talent levels of their teams until they eventually surpass teams that existed before they did? Is 20 years not enough time to get talent from the pool?

[Papaya Petee]

:roll:


Man you are so clueless.

Let's say Minny is disbanded. Do you really think Al Jefferson and Kevin Love won't get picked up by other teams? The good players from Minny will be picked up, the bad ones won't. Hence the overall talent in the league will go up.

SMH

Yeah, and if the teams left need a point guard, they will take Johny Flynn, not Al or Kevin, so the not as good talent still stays...

[tontoz]

Of course if you did that RIGHT now and didnt give anyone any time to adjust. Sure. Is that what has happened in the NBA? Or do expansion teams spend years bolstering the talent levels of their teams until they eventually surpass teams that existed before they did? Is 20 years not enough time to get talent from the pool?


It has nothing to do with adjusting. The more teams there are the more diluted the talent will be whether it is now, 10 years ago or 20 years ago. Period.

Just look at the guys on the bench now. Just on the Hawks (my favorite team) there are several players who absolutely suck. Six of them were absolute garbage cans and the Hawks were the 3rd seed in the east.

There are a lot of players in the NBA now who only have jobs because teams are required to have a certain number of players on the roster. They aren't good enough to really make a positive contribution. If the league contracted a lot of those guys would be out of jobs and the average talent level in the NBA would be higher.

[jlauber]

A previous poster commented that the league FT% was higher in the 80's, and I will accept that (I won't take the time to look it up.) I did look up the seasonal FT% records. I was amazed that Jose Calderson shot .981 in 08-09(I guess I never paid attention to that record.) Incidently, Calderon shot .798 last year (quite a drop-off.)

In any case, the previous record was set in 80-81 by Calvin Murphy at .958. I looked at the numbers and there were great FT shooters in every decade. Rick Barry shot .947 in 78-79. Bill Sharman shot .921 in 60-61, and .932 in 58-59.

The 3pt percentage is a little deceptive, but last year Korver shot an all-time best .556. Some of the other high seasons were in the mid-90's when the line was moved in, so you really can't count those. However, John Sundvold shot .522 in 88-89. Of course, the 3pt shot was put in in the 80's, so we can't compare shooters before that. And the ABA line was further back.

League FG% were on the rise almost every year from 1960 thru the late 80's. But then they declined for about a decade, and have slowly been on the rise since. Still, the best shooters in the 60's, shot better in the 70's. And the best shooters in the 70's, shot better in the 80's. In any case, it is clear that the best shooters of today are probably not any better than the best shooters of 50 years ago.

Bolt currently holds the 100 meter record at 9.59. Bob Hayes ran a 10.0 in 1964. So, in nearly 50 years, we have seen .41 shaved off the record, or roughly .04 per year. Now, how much of that .41 was attributed to shoes, surface, and technique? What would Hayes do today, with all the benefits of modern technology? Better nutrition, better training, better medicine, better conditions, and better shoes?

The swimmimg records were annihilated this past year. Why? Because of body-suits.

We have had this discussion before, but the high jump record was crushed when Dick Fosbury changed the technique (and the landing pits were much softer.)

The world record in the long jump is currently 29' 4". In 1968 Bob Beamon jumped 29' 2". TWO inches in over 40 years.

MY entire point has been that while the AVERAGE athlete is better today...even before all the benefits of modern technology...it has only been marginal over the last 50 years (and in baseball you could argue 90 years.) There have been faster football players than Chris Johnson. There have been more powerful HR hitters than Bonds and Ryan Howard. The fastest pitchers of today are MARGINALLY faster (if that) than those of 40-50 and 60 years ago.

What is interesting, too, is that there are still many records held in these other sports. Gibson still holds the "modern" ERA mark of 1.12 set in 1968. OJ Simpson still holds the yards-per-game mark of 143 set in 1973. You can find many others, although the slugging records in baseball were artificially enhanced in the decade from about '93-'03.

But, what is really perplexing, though, are Wilt's records. He STILL holds some 130 records. Many of them are unapproachable. All of which goes against the modern "experts" who claim that Wilt's ERA and PACE were responsible. True, the PACE was higher, at least for a few seasons....BUT, why was it ONLY Chamberlain that was SO MUCH HIGHER and BETTER than everyone else. And why couldn't players like Kareem approach those marks just a few years after Wilt set them? I have said it many times, but if you transport Wilt's best seasons into ANY ERA, and they STILL would be the best, even after reducing them to that era's levels.

In any case, players like Kareem, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Darrell Green, and Nolan Ryan proved that they were not only dominant in a variety of eras, ...but there numbers were not dramatically different in ANY of them, either. Which supports MY theory that the AVERAGE players were, at the very least, only SLIGHTLY less talented than those of today. And the truly GREAT players would be GREAT in ANY era. And that is BEFORE you give them all of the benefits of modern technology.

[Sarcastic]

Why is the talent pool limited to just the players in league before the expansion?

Imagine the league cut the teams down to 15 next year. Think about all the stars that would end up on those 15 teams. You would only have the best of the best on each team. Every team would be completely loaded.

The more teams you add, the more diluted the teams become.

[Mor'Fiyah]

It has nothing to do with adjusting. The more teams there are the more diluted the talent will be whether it is now, 10 years ago or 20 years ago. Period.

Just look at the guys on the bench now. Just on the Hawks (my favorite team) there are several players who absolutely suck. Six of them were absolute garbage cans and the Hawks were the 3rd seed in the east.

There are a lot of players in the NBA now who only have jobs because teams are required to have a certain number of players on the roster. They aren't good enough to really make a positive contribution. If the league contracted a lot of those guys would be out of jobs and the average talent level in the NBA would be higher.

This is retarded. I can't believe I have to break down something this simple. But I am persevering if nothing else. So here goes...

The more teams there are the more diluted the talent will be is very true. But in relation to what? consider the 2010 season in the NBA. 30 teams. Lets say the average talent of those 30 teams = 65% (just a random number). Now if we remove 5 teams from the equation then in the 2011 season the best players from those 5 teams will find there way to other teams in the process cutting the fat from the 30 other teams right? But remember this only consists of 16% of the league and only the best of that 16% will replace the worst players on the remaining teams. How much do you think the talent level increases then relative to the 2010 season? Probably not that much... but it does increase right? Lets give it a generous upward hike of say 10% to 75%. Remember now... this is the talent level compared between 2010 and 2011 when they JUST cut the 5 teams. In 2012 the NBA decides to expand the league again and add an additional 5 teams. So in 2012 we are back to 30 teams again. Its safe to say that the talent level drops back down to 65% as a result of the additional 5 teams that create a gulf that must be filled with less talented players with the rare gem here and there.

follow me now... your theory holds water in comparing two seasons with the expanded markets and no time to adjust. But what happens when there is time to adjust? And plenty time at that?

Fast forward 20 years and its now the year 2032. The NBA has maintained the same 30 teams it had back in 2012. According to your theory the league in 2012 that had 25 teams MUST have a higher level of talent than the league in 2032 with 30 teams right? Now I am sure you see the complete and utter fallacy of that argument because over a 20 year period every team has more than enough time to bolster the talent on their rosters so that its much better than it was when it first expanded. In addition the talent pool is not a constant number that stays the same every year. In fact, the talent pool increases as more youngsters become serious students of the game in more countries and in greater numbers than before. 5 additional teams might dilute the very elite athletes over in the league over a 20 year stretch but it will not dilute the average talent in the league over a 20 year stretch when there are more players of NBA talent in the world then actually play in the league. Unless you think the most talented players are all already playing in the league (not true) or that more talented players won't be developed in a 20 years stretch to bolster the players already in the league.

[Mor'Fiyah]

A previous poster commented that the league FT% was higher in the 80's, and I will accept that (I won't take the time to look it up.) I did look up the seasonal FT% records. I was amazed that Jose Calderson shot .981 in 08-09(I guess I never paid attention to that record.) Incidently, Calderon shot .798 last year (quite a drop-off.)

In any case, the previous record was set in 80-81 by Calvin Murphy at .958. I looked at the numbers and there were great FT shooters in every decade. Rick Barry shot .947 in 78-79. Bill Sharman shot .921 in 60-61, and .932 in 58-59.

The 3pt percentage is a little deceptive, but last year Korver shot an all-time best .556. Some of the other high seasons were in the mid-90's when the line was moved in, so you really can't count those. However, John Sundvold shot .522 in 88-89. Of course, the 3pt shot was put in in the 80's, so we can't compare shooters before that. And the ABA line was further back.

League FG% were on the rise almost every year from 1960 thru the late 80's. But then they declined for about a decade, and have slowly been on the rise since. Still, the best shooters in the 60's, shot better in the 70's. And the best shooters in the 70's, shot better in the 80's. In any case, it is clear that the best shooters of today are probably not any better than the best shooters of 50 years ago.

Bolt currently holds the 100 meter record at 9.59. Bob Hayes ran a 10.0 in 1964. So, in nearly 50 years, we have seen .41 shaved off the record, or roughly .04 per year. Now, how much of that .41 was attributed to shoes, surface, and technique? What would Hayes do today, with all the benefits of modern technology? Better nutrition, better training, better medicine, better conditions, and better shoes?

The swimmimg records were annihilated this past year. Why? Because of body-suits.

We have had this discussion before, but the high jump record was crushed when Dick Fosbury changed the technique (and the landing pits were much softer.)

The world record in the long jump is currently 29' 4". In 1968 Bob Beamon jumped 29' 2". TWO inches in over 40 years.

MY entire point has been that while the AVERAGE athlete is better today...even before all the benefits of modern technology...it has only been marginal over the last 50 years (and in baseball you could argue 90 years.) There have been faster football players than Chris Johnson. There have been more powerful HR hitters than Bonds and Ryan Howard. The fastest pitchers of today are MARGINALLY faster (if that) than those of 40-50 and 60 years ago.

What is interesting, too, is that there are still many records held in these other sports. Gibson still holds the "modern" ERA mark of 1.12 set in 1968. OJ Simpson still holds the yards-per-game mark of 143 set in 1973. You can find many others, although the slugging records in baseball were artificially enhanced in the decade from about '93-'03.

But, what is really perplexing, though, are Wilt's records. He STILL holds some 130 records. Many of them are unapproachable. All of which goes against the modern "experts" who claim that Wilt's ERA and PACE were responsible. True, the PACE was higher, at least for a few seasons....BUT, why was it ONLY Chamberlain that was SO MUCH HIGHER and BETTER than everyone else. And why couldn't players like Kareem approach those marks just a few years after Wilt set them? I have said it many times, but if you transport Wilt's best seasons into ANY ERA, and they STILL would be the best, even after reducing them to that era's levels.

In any case, players like Kareem, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Darrell Green, and Nolan Ryan proved that they were not only dominant in a variety of eras, ...but there numbers were not dramatically different in ANY of them, either. Which supports MY theory that the AVERAGE players were, at the very least, only SLIGHTLY less talented than those of today. And the truly GREAT players would be GREAT in ANY era. And that is BEFORE you give them all of the benefits of modern technology.

Lets look at your track and field analogy. First off .41 seconds in the 100m is a ridiculous amount of distance. If a runner runs 10 seconds flat in the 100m and the next runner to the tape runs 10.41 take a look at how far back that second runner will be in relation to the first place runner. In reality Usain Bolt would leave Bob Hayes so far behind he wouldnt be able to tell what number Bolt was running with.

But I digress. We know Bolt is faster than Bob Hayes was. But that really isn't relevant to the argument at all. What is relevant is the number of runners capable of now running times that would have been competitive were they able to run those times in a race with Bob Hayes. Back in Hayes' time 10 seconds was particularly fast. Now 10 seconds is quite ordinary for world level sprinters. Here are the results for the Olympic 100 meter finals in 2008:

1 Usain Bolt JAM 9.69 (WR)
2 Richard Thompson TRI 9.89 (PB)
3 Walter Dix USA 9.91 (PB)
4 Churandy Martina AHO 9.93 (NR)
5 Asafa Powell JAM 9.95 .
6 Michael Frater JAM 9.97 (PB)
7 Marc Burns TRI 10.01 .
8 Darvis Patton USA 10.03 .

Guess where Bob Hayes would place? 7th. But it gets worse. Bob Hayes would not even be able to run 10.00 seconds in the finals because he would have had to run MUCH faster in the three heats leading up to the finals and would likely not have enough energy to produce a personal best of 10.00 seconds flat. But it gets worse. This is sprinting. The most basic of sports with the widest participation base in the world and the one with the smallest potential for improvement. Yet here we are and 20 years ago the elite sprinters would still be competitive no doubt... but they would find that gap between them and the average runner of this era is significantly smaller than the gap they had over the average competition of their eras.

This same phenomenon also holds true for team sports like soccer and cricket and hockey where again the average athlete of the era has improved so much that the gap between them and the elite appear smaller. Why is it that soccer teams like Brazil can no longer just walk on to the pitch and destroy teams like the US and Jamaica and Panama anymore? Or even the African teams that now always make it past the second round? The game has developed around the world and now other countries have increased their talent levels, thereby increasing the talent pool of club teams that get to pull from this pool.

So the question remains. Why is it that other similar sports that do not simply rely on athleticism are seeing marked improvements in playing level and fitness and power and speed and stamina and agility while basketball experiences none of this?

[jlauber]

Lets look at your track and field analogy. First off .41 seconds in the 100m is a ridiculous amount of distance. If a runner runs 10 seconds flat in the 100m and the next runner to the tape runs 10.41 take a look at how far back that second runner will be in relation to the first place runner. In reality Usain Bolt would leave Bob Hayes so far behind he wouldnt be able to tell what number Bolt was running with.

But I digress. We know Bolt is faster than Bob Hayes was. But that really isn't relevant to the argument at all. What is relevant is the number of runners capable of now running times that would have been competitive were they able to run those times in a race with Bob Hayes. Back in Hayes' time 10 seconds was particularly fast. Now 10 seconds is quite ordinary for world level sprinters. Here are the results for the Olympic 100 meter finals in 2008:

1 Usain Bolt JAM 9.69 (WR)
2 Richard Thompson TRI 9.89 (PB)
3 Walter Dix USA 9.91 (PB)
4 Churandy Martina AHO 9.93 (NR)
5 Asafa Powell JAM 9.95 .
6 Michael Frater JAM 9.97 (PB)
7 Marc Burns TRI 10.01 .
8 Darvis Patton USA 10.03 .

Guess where Bob Hayes would place? 7th. But it gets worse. Bob Hayes would not even be able to run 10.00 seconds in the finals because he would have had to run MUCH faster in the three heats leading up to the finals and would likely not have enough energy to produce a personal best of 10.00 seconds flat. But it gets worse. This is sprinting. The most basic of sports with the widest participation base in the world and the one with the smallest potential for improvement. Yet here we are and 20 years ago the elite sprinters would still be competitive no doubt... but they would find that gap between them and the average runner of this era is significantly smaller than the gap they had over the average competition of their eras.

This same phenomenon also holds true for team sports like soccer and cricket and hockey where again the average athlete of the era has improved so much that the gap between them and the elite appear smaller. Why is it that soccer teams like Brazil can no longer just walk on to the pitch and destroy teams like the US and Jamaica and Panama anymore? Or even the African teams that now always make it past the second round? The game has developed around the world and now other countries have increased their talent levels, thereby increasing the talent pool of club teams that get to pull from this pool.

So the question remains. Why is it that other similar sports that do not simply rely on athleticism are seeing marked improvements in playing level and fitness and power and speed and stamina and agility while basketball experiences none of this?

As I have pointed out, there have been quite a few faster NFL players than today's fastest player (Chris Johnson.) There have been sluggers who hit the ball farther than the longest of this era. There were even pitchers who may very well have thrown harder than the fastest pitchers today.

Having said that, though, why would Emmitt Smith be the all-time leading rusher in NFL history? He was never considered fast, nor was he very big. Larry Bird was never considered an exceptional athlete, nor was John Stockton. Greg Maddux could barely throw 90 MPH, yet he had ERAs of 1.56 and 1.63 in the middle of the "Steroid Era" in baseball. Joe Montana never had a big arm. And surely no one would consider Gretzky a great ATHLETE.

In any case, as I have said almost every post on this topic...the athletes of TODAY, are at BEST, only marginally better than those of even 50 years ago. And aside from Wilt, very few of the GREAT athletes of up to 50 years ago, were any more dominant, with their peers, than the GREATS of today.

MY point has been, though, that the truly GREAT athletes of even 50 years ago, would be nearly as great today. And then, if you gave them all the benefits of modern technology, they would as great, or greater.

Look...you tell me EXACTLY when today's NBA players became better than those of yesteryear. Do you think that Dalembert is better TODAY, than Shaq was 10 years ago? Do you think Dampier is better TODAY, than Hakeem 15 years ago? Do you think OJ Mayo is better TODAY, than MJ was 20 years ago? I'll even eliminate the other's like Moses, Gervin, Gilmore, Kareem, Dr. J., McAdoo, Maravich, West, Oscar,. Lucas, Reed, Thurmond, Russell, ...and jump right to Wilt. Do you HONESTLY believe that Dwight Howard, TODAY, is a better ATHLETE or BASKETBALL player than Wilt was 45 years ago?

[tontoz]

This is retarded. I can't believe I have to break down something this simple. But I am persevering if nothing else. So here goes...

The more teams there are the more diluted the talent will be is very true. But in relation to what? consider the 2010 season in the NBA. 30 teams. Lets say the average talent of those 30 teams = 65% (just a random number). Now if we remove 5 teams from the equation then in the 2011 season the best players from those 5 teams will find there way to other teams in the process cutting the fat from the 30 other teams right? But remember this only consists of 16% of the league and only the best of that 16% will replace the worst players on the remaining teams. How much do you think the talent level increases then relative to the 2010 season? Probably not that much... but it does increase right? Lets give it a generous upward hike of say 10% to 75%. Remember now... this is the talent level compared between 2010 and 2011 when they JUST cut the 5 teams. In 2012 the NBA decides to expand the league again and add an additional 5 teams. So in 2012 we are back to 30 teams again. Its safe to say that the talent level drops back down to 65% as a result of the additional 5 teams that create a gulf that must be filled with less talented players with the rare gem here and there.

follow me now... your theory holds water in comparing two seasons with the expanded markets and no time to adjust. But what happens when there is time to adjust? And plenty time at that?

.


This whole "adjustment time" nonsense is meaningless. It doesn't matter how long teams have to adjust. the talent pool will be the same regardless of how many teams there are. the number of NBA caliber players is not going to change just because there are more teams. Do you think NBA caliber players just magically appear out of thin air when there are more teams? :facepalm

Why are there so many bench scrubs in the game today? Because there aren't enough quality players for 30 teams.

Let's also not forget that Europe is starting to lure players away from the NBA. Rubio has shown no sign that he is coming over. Orlando drafted Fran Vazquez at 11 in 2005 and he still hasn't come over. Josh Childress was the Hawks 6th man but left to play in Europe. Kleiza was a productive player for the Nuggets but he also left to play in Europe.

Europe is no longer a feeder system for the NBA. It is a competitor for players.

[tontoz]

I realize that i probably have to simplify this.

Lets say the NBA expanded to 40 teams this year. Would the talent pool of players be greater 20 years from now than if the NBA stayed at 30 teams?

OF COURSE NOT


The number of NBA teams has no effect on the talent pool of players. It isn't like mothers can decide whether or not they want to give birth to players with NBA talent.

[Mor'Fiyah]

As I have pointed out, there have been quite a few faster NFL players than today's fastest player (Chris Johnson.) There have been sluggers who hit the ball farther than the longest of this era. There were even pitchers who may very well have thrown harder than the fastest pitchers today.

Having said that, though, why would Emmitt Smith be the all-time leading rusher in NFL history? He was never considered fast, nor was he very big. Larry Bird was never considered an exceptional athlete, nor was John Stockton. Greg Maddux could barely throw 90 MPH, yet he had ERAs of 1.56 and 1.63 in the middle of the "Steroid Era" in baseball. Joe Montana never had a big arm. And surely no one would consider Gretzky a great ATHLETE.

In any case, as I have said almost every post on this topic...the athletes of TODAY, are at BEST, only marginally better than those of even 50 years ago. And aside from Wilt, very few of the GREAT athletes of up to 50 years ago, were any more dominant, with their peers, than the GREATS of today.

MY point has been, though, that the truly GREAT athletes of even 50 years ago, would be nearly as great today. And then, if you gave them all the benefits of modern technology, they would as great, or greater.

Look...you tell me EXACTLY when today's NBA players became better than those of yesteryear. Do you think that Dalembert is better TODAY, than Shaq was 10 years ago? Do you think Dampier is better TODAY, than Hakeem 15 years ago? Do you think OJ Mayo is better TODAY, than MJ was 20 years ago? I'll even eliminate the other's like Moses, Gervin, Gilmore, Kareem, Dr. J., McAdoo, Maravich, West, Oscar,. Lucas, Reed, Thurmond, Russell, ...and jump right to Wilt. Do you HONESTLY believe that Dwight Howard, TODAY, is a better ATHLETE or BASKETBALL player than Wilt was 45 years ago?

Who cares about the list of elite players you just listed? You are having a completely different argument than I am having. And in fact I have agreed with your sentiments throughout. All of the elite players 20 years ago would be elite today. But the gap between them and the average players would be smaller than it was in their hey days is all I am saying. It would be more reflective of the smaller gaps today that make it APPEAR as if the elite players today just aren't as good as the elite players of the past.

[Mor'Fiyah]

I realize that i probably have to simplify this.

Lets say the NBA expanded to 40 teams this year. Would the talent pool of players be greater 20 years from now than if the NBA stayed at 30 teams?

OF COURSE NOT


The number of NBA teams has no effect on the talent pool of players. It isn't like mothers can decide whether or not they want to give birth to players with NBA talent.

I am glad you are simplifying it. Because you appear to have a very simplistic view of talent pools. No one is saying that talent pool size is correlated to the amount of teams in the league. What I am saying is that talent pool size is not a constant number that stays the same year after year after year. And it definitely does not stay the same over a 20 year gap. In sports that progressively get more popular, talent pools increase as the years go by.

30 years ago, how many people were xtreme skate boarders? How many people now? Is the talent pool of skate boarders the same today as it was 30 years ago? Or has the talent pool increased over the years as more and more people are attracted to the sport?

Just by virtue of there being more people playing basketball today than there were playing basketball 20 years ago means an increasing talent pool. Your entire argument is valid ONLY IF the talent pool of NBA level players is the same 20 years ago as it is now.