1970 NBA Finals Game 7 breakdown - Jerry West sucks

[Obama=ROY]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMp7c2bcfkk

Stole this thread from r***gm. Does anyone know that Jerry West couldn't dribble left handed? This just proves that those were the weak era of NBA. As to be expected though, since earlier form of anything usually is.

[Psileas]

Why is Wade in his 8th season in the league and is still unable to hit an outside shot with some consistency? Seems like this is also a weak era of the NBA, but this is to be expected, as it's still an early form of the league and it won't be able to hold a candle to the 2030-2040 NBA.

[Batz]

Did you watch the entire video? Because he can dribble left handed He just chooses not to. He can also dribble under pressure, as you can see if you watched the entire video.

[Obama=ROY]

Why is Wade in his 8th season in the league and is still unable to hit an outside shot with some consistency? Seems like this is also a weak era of the NBA, but this is to be expected, as it's still an early form of the league and it won't be able to hold a candle to the 2030-2040 NBA.
Those aren't even the same level. Dribbling with both hands is basic guard requirement while shooting from outside depends on one's style. But it might be right that today's NBA is weak compared to future NBA and those from the 60s are even weaker.

[d.bball.guy]

TheMiz

[Papaya Petee]

Why is Wade in his 8th season in the league and is still unable to hit an outside shot with some consistency? Seems like this is also a weak era of the NBA, but this is to be expected, as it's still an early form of the league and it won't be able to hold a candle to the 2030-2040 NBA.
Why can Wade slash to the hoop, create contact, and finish with both hands better than anyone else in the league?

[Harison]

Another troll bites the dust in the ignore list, bye bye OP :pimp:

[Psileas]

Those aren't even the same level. Dribbling with both hands is basic guard requirement while shooting from outside depends on one's style. But it might be right that today's NBA is weak compared to future NBA and those from the 60s are even weaker.

A) Shooting for a guard is not a basic requirement in your opinion? Then, no wonder this era should be considered weak. But, similarly to your view, didn't it matter to you that West maybe could dribble with both hands, and it's just that it wasn't a basic requirement of his era?

B) Dennis Johnson was a below average dribbler and he played in the 70's-80's. Mark Jackson as well (plus, he was very slow, thus being called "the turtle"), and he played in the 80's-90's. If they played in West's time, people today would claim that in more modern leagues they would get their pockets picked in one possession after another.

C) If by claiming that West's era was weaker, you imply that we shouldn't care about it, then we'd also better ignore today's NBA, knowing that the NBA of the 2030's/2040's will be better. You are excluded however from this rule if you are over 65-70 or you have been diagnosed with some serious condition or you consider suicide...



Why can Wade slash to the hoop, create contact, and finish with both hands better than anyone else in the league?

Irrelevant with what I said. Why could West hit the outside shot, disrupt offenses with his team defense and steals, pass as well as few, draw lots of fouls and take over games in clutch situations at an all-time level?

[Obama=ROY]

A) Shooting for a guard is not a basic requirement in your opinion? Then, no wonder this era should be considered weak. But, similarly to your view, didn't it matter to you that West maybe could dribble with both hands, and it's just that it wasn't a basic requirement of his era?

B) Dennis Johnson was a below average dribbler and he played in the 70's-80's. Mark Jackson as well (plus, he was very slow, thus being called "the turtle"), and he played in the 80's-90's. If they played in West's time, people today would claim that in more modern leagues they would get their pockets picked in one possession after another.

C) If by claiming that West's era was weaker, you imply that we shouldn't care about it, then we'd also better ignore today's NBA, knowing that the NBA of the 2030's/2040's will be better. You are excluded however from this rule if you are over 65-70 or you have been diagnosed with some serious condition or you consider suicide...

A) What? Wade can shoot consistently, only not from 3 pt range. Anyone can dribble with their left, just maybe not very good at it. Which is why West didn't do it.
B) which is why DJ and Mark Jackson weren't superstars.
C) No one knows if the NBA future will be better or not. And that implication is only in your head.

[Psileas]

A) What? Wade can shoot consistently, only not from 3 pt range. Anyone can dribble with their left, just maybe not very good at it. Which is why West didn't do it.

So, you gave a kind of an answer to your question. He was a great player. Doesn't mean he was great everywhere.


B) which is why DJ and Mark Jackson weren't superstars.

No, the main reason they weren't superstars is that simply they weren't overall great enough at basketball to be. They weren't great shooters, they weren't overly athletic (although prime DJ was pretty athletic, and he was a multiple-time All-Star), Jackson wasn't anything special defensively, they weren't versatile enough to play multiple positions, they didn't have a scorer's mentality, a will to dominate (by "dominate", I don't necessarily mean "dominate the ball"), etc.


C) No one knows if the NBA future will be better or not. And that implication is only in your head.

Unless knowledge and technology for some reason stop or start going backwords or people stop dealing with basketball, it's a pretty safe assumption to make.

[Obama=ROY]

So, you gave a kind of an answer to your question. He was a great player. Doesn't mean he was great everywhere.



No, the main reason they weren't superstars is that simply they weren't overall great enough at basketball to be. They weren't great shooters, they weren't overly athletic (although prime DJ was pretty athletic, and he was a multiple-time All-Star), Jackson wasn't anything special defensively, they weren't versatile enough to play multiple positions, they didn't have a scorer's mentality, a will to dominate (by "dominate", I don't necessarily mean "dominate the ball"), etc.



Unless knowledge and technology for some reason stop or start going backwords or people stop dealing with basketball, it's a pretty safe assumption to make.
Not really. Not able to dribble with his left was a pretty basic flaw. No one's perfect, but there are requirement to make today's NBA that weren't the standards then. Especially make it as a superstar. The standard is higher today.

About future NBA, assumptions is just assumptions. that implication is only in your head. College basketball is far weaker than NBA but many still care about it.

[jlauber]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMp7c2bcfkk

Stole this thread from r***gm. Does anyone know that Jerry West couldn't dribble left handed? This just proves that those were the weak era of NBA. As to be expected though, since earlier form of anything usually is.

My god, it took Frazier six games in that series to finally figure out that West could not dribble with his left hand? Because before that sixth game, West was TORCHING him, by averaging 33 ppg against him. And don't forget that Frazier was a first-team defender.

And, evidently, West was able to get by his ENTIRE HOF career without being able to dribble with his left hand, too.

I get so sick-and-tired of reading this crap, and I'm sure many here are getting sick of reading one of my responses to this "weak" era, but here goes...

How do we explain Kareem, at age 39, and WAY past his physical peak, pouring in games of 35, 42, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting) against Hakeem in the 85-86 season? Or shredding Ewing in the same season with a 40 point performance, while holding Patrick to 2-16 shooting? Of course, maybe the OP doesn't consider Hakeem a HOF center, either. BUT, if he doesn't, then what do we make of Shaq, whom many claimed that Hakeem outplayed in the '95 Finals (I am not one of them BTW)?

Now consider the fact that a statistically prime Kareem struggled mightily against Thurmond in his last two playoff series (11 games) and only shot .405 and .428 against him in those two series (and in his '71 playoff series against him, he only shot .486.) Or that Wilt held Kareem to .464 shooting in their 28 H2H games? And, that both Thurmond and Wilt were well past their primes (and Wilt played the last 27 games against Kareem on a surgically repaired knee)?

Rick Barry averaged 35.6 ppg in the 66-67 season, on .451 shooting, and then averaged 30.2 ppg on .464 shooting in the 74-75 season...or nearly a decade later, and against a new crop of players...many of whom would go to dominate players that played in the 80's.

MJ, in his 40's, was able to score over 50 points in a game in the 2000's. Does that mean that the players of the 00's were much worse than those of the 90's?

[TheMiz]

TheMiz

Sadly that thread got deleted. Pathetic. Took some time to write

[jlauber]

BTW, how did 6-8 Dennis Rodman win SEVEN rebounding titles in an era of players like 7-1 David Robinson, 7-0 Patrick Ewing, 7-1 Shaq, and with many players 7-2+? Or how did 6-7 Ben Wallace win two rebounding titles in the 00's and in a league filled with seven-footers? Or the fact that Shaq, at 7-1 and 325+lbs never won ONE rebounding title? Does that mean that the eras that Rodman and Wallace played in were "weak" rebounding eras?

And how did Shaq manage to dominate the entire NBA for the better part of his career, without being able to shoot from 8 ft away? Must have been a pretty weak defensive era when a player that can't shoot wins scoring titles, leads the league in FG% TEN times, and wins four rings.

[Round Mound]

John Stockton could barely dribble with his left hand. As Maradona said: "The Ball is One, Not Two."

[Obama=ROY]

My god, it took Frazier six games in that series to finally figure out that West could not dribble with his left hand? Because before that sixth game, West was TORCHING him, by averaging 33 ppg against him. And don't forget that Frazier was a first-team defender.

And, evidently, West was able to get by his ENTIRE HOF career without being able to dribble with his left hand, too.
Exactly why it was a weak era.


How do we explain Kareem, at age 39, and WAY past his physical peak, pouring in games of 35, 42, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting) against Hakeem in the 85-86 season? Or shredding Ewing in the same season with a 40 point performance, while holding Patrick to 2-16 shooting? Of course, maybe the OP doesn't consider Hakeem a HOF center, either. BUT, if he doesn't, then what do we make of Shaq, whom many claimed that Hakeem outplayed in the '95 Finals (I am not one of them BTW)?

Now consider the fact that a statistically prime Kareem struggled mightily against Thurmond in his last two playoff series (11 games) and only shot .405 and .428 against him in those two series (and in his '71 playoff series against him, he only shot .486.) Or that Wilt held Kareem to .464 shooting in their 28 H2H games? And, that both Thurmond and Wilt were well past their primes (and Wilt played the last 27 games against Kareem on a surgically repaired knee)?

Rick Barry averaged 35.6 ppg in the 66-67 season, on .451 shooting, and then averaged 30.2 ppg on .464 shooting in the 74-75 season...or nearly a decade later, and against a new crop of players...many of whom would go to dominate players that played in the 80's.

MJ, in his 40's, was able to score over 50 points in a game in the 2000's. Does that mean that the players of the 00's were much worse than those of the 90's?
Anyone can have a few hot games. Of course, there are also some guys who would still be good by today's standard like Wilt or even Rick Barry.

[jlauber]

It has gotten so bad in TODAY's NBA, that a 6-9 WHITE center is easily leading the league in rebounding. Who would have ever believed it?

[Dwade305]

It has gotten so bad in TODAY's NBA, that a 6-9 WHITE center is easily leading the league in rebounding. Who would have ever believed it?
:lol

[jstern]

I remember watching this game on Classic Sports back in like 96. It felt so old, yet a game from like 1985 wouldn't feel that old.

They did show West dribbling with his left hand, I believe the complaint was that he wasn't dribbling with his left hand in a situation where most coaches now a day would have the player dribbling with their left. But though it was way before my time, I believe the style was different, and players tended to protect the ball more with their body when they were coming down, so the dribbling style was different. It wasn't as free as today, and the carry rules not as strict, which would definitely alter the style. Yesterday I saw an image of Wade dribbling, and I actually thought what they would think of it if he went back in time, because it looked as if he was carrying it. Imagine if suddenly the rules were a little more strict, how much different his style would look when he has to keep that in mind. (I like the way it is now much better, when it comes to dribbling, because it doesn't hinder athleticism, though I hate the no hand-checking.)

[Psileas]

Not really. Not able to dribble with his left was a pretty basic flaw. No one's perfect, but there are requirement to make today's NBA that weren't the standards then. Especially make it as a superstar. The standard is higher today.

Not using a type of dribbling does not equal to not being able to do it. Stockton did not do crossovers and rarely did Magic, either. Doesn't mean they weren't good enough to perform it, especially after knowing that good dribbling is a skill that even a 10 year old with no serious basketball knowledge can quickly master after some serious practice. I guess there were a lot of tougher things that West did learn than use his left hand a lot. After all, if you see enough of West's games, you'll notice him use his left hand at times. But I know you won't. Reminds me of the "Baylor couldn't move to his left" myth that some tried to spread, whereas there is a Youtube clip, with a lot of plays showing Baylor doing exactly this.


About future NBA, assumptions is just assumptions. that implication is only in your head.

These aren't random assumptions, like saying "in a few years, I'll have a beautiful wife and a smart kid". They are based on patterns that we are seeing all the time and are very likely to be repeated in the future.


College basketball is far weaker than NBA but many still care about it.

That's an argument that I can use as well in favor of the old NBA.


Exactly why it was a weak era.

Rather exactly why NBA players are human and not supermen who can exploit at will their opponents' weaknesses. Drexler and Dr.J almost never drove to their left, yet nobody could figure out how to make them do this. D.J dribbled the ball at chest level yet nobody could figure out how to steal it from him all the time. Nash is less athletic than maybe 99% of today's NBA's guards, yet he can take any shot he wants and convert at a high rate without getting blocked. Shaq sucks at the FT line, yet, in crucial 4th quarters, his opponents are not able to "hack a Shaq" every time he touches the ball. Real life is much less entertaining and hilarious than NBA Live and players have real, not artificial intelligence and logic. Knowing these things, I extremely doubt that West would face the slightest problem in playing great in today's NBA because he rarely used his left hand in his time. He never showed that he lacked something really fundamental and difficult to learn. The things that he probably couldn't do even if he was raised today, like dunking from the FT line or dribble with the speed of Iverson are not important to be an all-time great. If you were talking about some guy of the time without some good shooting touch or without good defensive instincts, like Guy Rodgers, you'd have a point. But then again, there's a reason he wasn't an all-time great and West was.

[Batz]

It has gotten so bad in TODAY's NBA, that a 6-9 WHITE center is easily leading the league in rebounding. Who would have ever believed it?
Love is 6'10-6'11. Besides, he is 10x better than the white guys in Wilt's era. So don't flatter yourself, sir.

[PHILA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UsLn9IjEhc

5:12 mark

Great drive with his left hand against an excellent defender in Siegfried.

[PHILA]

Love is 6'10-6'11. Besides, he is 10x better than the white guys in Wilt's era. So don't flatter yourself, sir. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WfehZAlXtjQ/TOoA1Q4kbuI/AAAAAAAABfQ/AttG34kgMxQ/s1600/t1larg.greene.friendship.courtesy.jpg

[jlauber]

Love is 6'10-6'11. Besides, he is 10x better than the white guys in Wilt's era. So don't flatter yourself, sir.

Jerry Lucas was 6-8 and could easily outshoot the vast majority of the current NBA PF's (if not all of them) from 20+ ft. And, BTW, he was grabbing over 20 rpg in league's with Thurmond, Bellamy, and Russell.

Wilt faced Dave Cowens, who 6-9 and is deservedly in the HOF. Chamberlain was the best rebounder of his era, in leagues that included Cowens, Kareem, Lanier, Hayes, Unseld, as well as Lucas, Reed, Russell, and Thurmond. After Wilt retired, Cowens nearly beat Kareem for the rebounding title in the 75-76 season. Oh, and while Wilt didn't face Walton, Walton didn't rebound any better than Cowens did. Chamberlain alos crushed Tom Boerwnkle, who was 7-0, 270 lbs and was considered one of the strongest players in the league at the time. AND, for the stat-heads, Boerwinkle had 20+ rebound rates in the Wilt era.

Someday we might suggest that Love is on the level of Lucas, Cowens and Walton, but NOT today.



As for his height...someone here posted that Love was barely 6-8. I won't take the time to look it up now. In any case, Wilt DID face centers that were more athletic, stronger, bigger, and taller than Love.

[StillKill24]

basketball before 90's is like watching a bunch of high schoolers, lol at all these old timers defending a weak era. :oldlol:

[jlauber]

Love is 6'10-6'11. Besides, he is 10x better than the white guys in Wilt's era. So don't flatter yourself, sir.


http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/kevin-love-1062/

Love is listed at 6-9, 255 lbs.

[Niquesports]

So, you gave a kind of an answer to your question. He was a great player. Doesn't mean he was great everywhere.



No, the main reason they weren't superstars is that simply they weren't overall great enough at basketball to be. They weren't great shooters, they weren't overly athletic (although prime DJ was pretty athletic, and he was a multiple-time All-Star), Jackson wasn't anything special defensively, they weren't versatile enough to play multiple positions, they didn't have a scorer's mentality, a will to dominate (by "dominate", I don't necessarily mean "dominate the ball"), etc.



Unless knowledge and technology for some reason stop or start going backwords or people stop dealing with basketball, it's a pretty safe assumption to make.
DJ not an all star ? Finals MVP in which he did dominate. Also would't u call a player that's gonna be a HOFer an All Star?

[Tez62]

Yes, Kevin Love was under 6'8'' w/o shoes

[jlauber]

Yes, Kevin Love was under 6'8'' w/o shoes

BTW, I was being somewhat facetious when I brought up Love leading the NBA in rebounding (and by a good margin.) He is an exceptionally skilled rebounder-passer-shooter.

But, if I told the young posters that Jerry Lucas would be a great rebounder in today's game, they would laugh me off the board. The fact was, Lucas, (who was also 6-8 BTW), is the only non-Wilt player to have two 20-20 seasons, was a powerful and intelligent rebounder. BTW, he is one of a small handful of NBA players with a 40 rebound game.

And, for those that marvel at Love's 3pt shooting, ...they would have to see Lucas' shooting to believe it. I have mentioned this before, but I actually attended a Warrior-Knick game in the 72-73 season, and in the pre-game shoot-around, Lucas made something like 20 straight shots from between the circles (probably 25+ ft)...and virtually every one swished.

I just get so sick-and-tired of these threads which disparage the players who played in the 60's (or as one poster above noted...anyone before the 90's.) Rick Barry was not only a great shooter (albeit, his FG% was more like an Iverson), he was a truly gifted passer. Connie Hawkins was doing wind-mill dunks back in the 60's. 6-6 Gus Johnson was shattering backboards in the 60's (THREE of them.) Oscar was an exceptional all-around guard, who was not only 6-5, but a solid 225 lbs. Most posters have never heard of Tom Boerwinkle, but he was an incredibly strong 7-0 270 lbs, who had some solid "rebound rate" seasons in the 60's and 70's. And yet, Chamberlain, who was FAR stronger, just crushed him on the glass in their H2H meetings in the post-season in '72 and '73.

And the 60's had Havlicek, Sam Jones, Greer, Elvin Hayes, Unseld (who was a more skilled Ben Wallace), Baylor, Russell, West, Bellamy, Reed, Frazier, and many others, including Thurmond, who would give Kareem fits. In fact, Alexanbren ran a post in which Nate faced Kareem some 61 games, and I believe Abdul Jabbar's high game was something like 36 points. In the vast majority of those games, Kareem failed to shoot 50%. In the 71-72 and 72-73 playoffs, Kareem shot .405 and .428 against Kareem. Chamberlain not only held Kareem to about 100 points lower than his career FG% in their 28 H2H meetings, as well as outrebounding him in the most of them, he abused Kareem in his one H2H meeting before his leg injury in 1969.

Then you had the players of the 70's, like Lanier, Cowens, Gilmore (yes, Chamberlain schooled him in their one H2H meeting in an NBA/ABA All-Star game), and McAdoo (who could shoot from anywhere on the floor, and who had two 30+ ppg seasons on well over 50% shooting)...and Wilt pounded all of them. He had a 30-30 game against Lanier, and well past his prime in the 71-72 season. Against Thurmond, in the mid-60's, he had a game in which he outscored Nate, 45-13, as well as several 30+ point games. In their three playoff series, Wilt never shot less than 50% against Thurmond (with a high of .560), and Nate never shot as high as 40% against Wilt (with a low of .343 .) Chamberlain had two 50+ point games against Reed (with a high of 58.) He also had THREE 60+ point games against Bellamy. Of course, Chamberlain had 24 40+ point games against Russell, including FIVE 50+ point games, and a high game of 62 (on 27-45 shooting.) Even in his final season, he put up a 24 point game on Kareem, on 10-14 shooting, outscoring Kareem, who shot 10-27 in that game.

And yet, Kareem, at age 39, and well past his physical prime, was able to hang games of 35, 42, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting) on Hakeem in the 85-86 season. On top of that, in the same season, he poured in 40 points on Ewing, while holding Ewing to 2-16 shooting.

So, how can anyone come to the conclusion that the players of the 60's were set-shot shooting, clumsy, uncoordinated, nerds that would be destroyed by the players of today?

Jerry West was an incredible ATHLETE, who had a perfect jump shot, and who could run the floor with anyone in today's game. And great players from the early 70's, like Maravich, Dr. J, David Thompson, Charlie Scott, Havlicek, Barry, Hayes, Gilmore, Lanier, Wicks, Cowens, Unseld, Goodrich, Frazier, Archibald, McAdoo, Thurmond, Kareem, and Wilt, were as gifted, and as skilled, as anyone in today's game.

As for the clown who posted that the players before the 90's were some primitive basketball players...how about Bird and Magic, both of whom were every bit as great as MJ in the 80's?

[Round Mound]

80s was the Best Era Ever.

90s: the one i lived most off wasn`t as good.

Even i admit to this

[alanLA92]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMp7c2bcfkk

Stole this thread from r***gm. Does anyone know that Jerry West couldn't dribble left handed? This just proves that those were the weak era of NBA. As to be expected though, since earlier form of anything usually is.

The guy averaged 40 flipping points in a finals series and you say he sucks :bowdown:

[jlauber]

The guy averaged 40 flipping points in a finals series and you say he sucks :bowdown:

Makes you wonder what he could have accomplished had he learned to dribble with his left hand.

[StillKill24]

Makes you wonder what he could have accomplished had he learned to dribble with his left hand.
makes me wonder if he would even be better than adam morrison in todays nba.

[jlauber]

makes me wonder if he would even be better than adam morrison in todays nba.

Or if Andrew Bynum could have made an NBA roster in the early 70's.

[Showtime]

I wonder how many players today would look having to dribble with actual carry rules enforced, instead of like they allow now with the hand on the side of the ball.

[PurpleChuck]

A 6:00 minute video managed to convinced some idiots who have never seen Logo play that he sucked? Child please.:facepalm

[jlauber]

A 6:00 minute video managed to convinced some idiots who have never seen Logo play that he sucked? Child please.:facepalm

Exactly. I'm sure we could find six minutes in Jordan's or Kobe's careers in which they looked pretty bad, as well.

[PurpleChuck]

Exactly. I'm sure we could find six minutes in Jordan's or Kobe's careers in which they looked pretty bad, as well.

Word. The video only showed part of the match. And even so, c'mon who hasn't had a bad game.

[jlauber]

Word. The video only showed part of the match. And even so, c'mon who hasn't had a bad game.

Yep...somehow West managed to average 31 ppg in that seven game series, without being able to dribble with his left hand.

[PurpleChuck]

Yep...somehow West managed to average 31 ppg in that seven game series, without being able to dribble with his left hand.

Lol yeah. And the thing is, the video actually showed West dribble with his left under pressure.

Kids these days are god naive.:facepalm

[jlauber]

Lol yeah. And the thing is, the video actually showed West dribble with his left under pressure.

Kids these days are god naive.:facepalm

25 years from now, the next generation will be criticizing MJ and Kobe's play, as well. Some will even claim that the WNBA players, if the league is still around, would destroy them.

[PurpleChuck]

25 years from now, the next generation will be criticizing MJ and Kobe's play, as well. Some will even claim that the WNBA players, if the league is still around, would destroy them.

Like how ppl here are downplaying some greats like Wilt and Russell in contrast to Durant TS%.:facepalm

[jlauber]

Like how ppl here are downplaying some greats like Wilt and Russell in contrast to Durant TS%.:facepalm

Somehow Russell was able to win 11 rings while shooting .441 from the field in his career. He also won FIVE MVP's, too, and had there been a Finals MVP award for his entire career, he probably would have won nine or more.

[PurpleChuck]

This thread just shows how sad this generation of fans knowledge in regards to the past greats is.

Pure delusional assumption even when they didn't watch one game from the past.:facepalm

Thread title: Jerry West sucks :wtf: :banghead: :facepalm

[necya]

basketball before 90's is like watching a bunch of high schoolers, lol at all these old timers defending a weak era. :oldlol:

:roll:

totally the contrary.

[Simple Jack]

To the people vehemently defending the older era; do you agree that plenty of their stats were severely inflated? Or do you think Elgin would post 38 19 in this era just like he did back when he played?

Personally, I believe great talent can transcend eras (especially if you establish the whole "if they were born now" aspect of it) but I'd be surprised if any of you actually believed the "average" player back then was as skilled or athletic as the "average" player now.

I mean, does anyone think George McGinnis would average 23 13 5 with 2.6 steals a game if he was taken out of his era, and put into this one?

[Niquesports]

To the people vehemently defending the older era; do you agree that plenty of their stats were severely inflated? Or do you think Elgin would post 38 19 in this era just like he did back when he played?

Personally, I believe great talent can transcend eras (especially if you establish the whole "if they were born now" aspect of it) but I'd be surprised if any of you actually believed the "average" player back then was as skilled or athletic as the "average" player now.

I mean, does anyone think George McGinnis would average 23 13 5 with 2.6 steals a game if he was taken out of his era, and put into this one?
This is why you younger guys are so wrong b y not learning just assuming. Elgin was the Lebron James of his day. There had never been a player with that size,athletic ability,and skill. To answer your question yes if Lebron can do it so would Elgin. As far as George Mc well think Kevin Love. Its silly try and rate players by athletic ability alone.In that case Nate Robinson is better than Magic.See how silly that sounds.Base a player on his accomplishments personal,and team.Base a player on his rankings on how well he did in his era. Then you compare which player was more successful in their own era. This is why Lebron has yet to catch a player like West.

[Simple Jack]

This is why you younger guys are so wrong b y not learning just assuming. Elgin was the Lebron James of his day. There had never been a player with that size,athletic ability,and skill. To answer your question yes if Lebron can do it so would Elgin. As far as George Mc well think Kevin Love. Its silly try and rate players by athletic ability alone.In that case Nate Robinson is better than Magic.See how silly that sounds.Base a player on his accomplishments personal,and team.Base a player on his rankings on how well he did in his era. Then you compare which player was more successful in their own era. This is why Lebron has yet to catch a player like West.


Huh? Since when has LeBron averaged 39 18? I specifically made a reference about those players averaging those same numbers, but in todays game; way to take an argument out of context.

I never insisted Elgin was bad or "not the LeBron of his day". I asked whether you think he'd average the same stats as he did back then, today.

I never said players should be judged on athletic ability alone either.

I also never said players should be judged on anything other than what they did in their own era.

Again, way to take my argument, make about 20 assumptions, and take it out of context.
:facepalm

[Sarcastic]

You can't just transpose a player from one era to another era. You can't just try to put current Lebron in the 1960s and say he would be the exact same athlete. He would have been brought up different, with different training and abilities. If Lebron were brought up in the 1960s, he wouldn't have the abilities he has now, and if Baylor were brought up today he would have better abilities than he had then.

[Niquesports]

Huh? Since when has LeBron averaged 39 18? I specifically made a reference about those players averaging those same numbers, but in todays game; way to take an argument out of context.

I never insisted Elgin was bad or "not the LeBron of his day". I asked whether you think he'd average the same stats as he did back then, today.

I never said players should be judged on athletic ability alone either.

I also never said players should be judged on anything other than what they did in their own era.

Again, way to take my argument, make about 20 assumptions, and take it out of context.
:facepalm
Well I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. If your just talking about the numbers. That's hard to say yes or no. The style of play was different the % of shoots Elgin took of his teams total I would bet is bigger than what most of todays players take. Defenses are so different and yes better. But to answer your question no I don't think the older players would have the same numbers

[Psileas]

To the people vehemently defending the older era; do you agree that plenty of their stats were severely inflated? Or do you think Elgin would post 38 19 in this era just like he did back when he played?

Personally, I believe great talent can transcend eras (especially if you establish the whole "if they were born now" aspect of it) but I'd be surprised if any of you actually believed the "average" player back then was as skilled or athletic as the "average" player now.

I mean, does anyone think George McGinnis would average 23 13 5 with 2.6 steals a game if he was taken out of his era, and put into this one?

So what if the 60's had more inflated stats than today's era? Does this negate the performances of the era? The 80's also had inflated stats in scoring, FG% and assists, yet nobody takes anything away from the big performances and the records of the era. Even better, the NBA is about the only league where performances like 30 ppg or 12 apg still happen. In the rest of the world, regardless of league strength, leaders hover around 20 ppg or 5 apg, often below. So, the average international's reaction to NBA stats should be "LOL at NBA players still averaging 30 ppg or 12 apg against the -so called- great NBA defenses. In the Euroleague, even if it's not as strong a league, they still wouldn't sniff such numbers". So, remember this next time you're talking about inflated stats. The league you're watching is not small on them in any way. If it was, there would be no Fantasy games, no Hollinger, no Heat Index, no "who will be the first player in the season to score 50" threads...

[Niquesports]

So what if the 60's had more inflated stats than today's era? Does this negate the performances of the era? The 80's also had inflated stats in scoring, FG% and assists, yet nobody takes anything away from the big performances and the records of the era. Even better, the NBA is about the only league where performances like 30 ppg or 12 apg still happen. In the rest of the world, regardless of league strength, leaders hover around 20 ppg or 5 apg, often below. So, the average international's reaction to NBA stats should be "LOL at NBA players still averaging 30 ppg or 12 apg against the -so called- great NBA defenses. In the Euroleague, even if it's not as strong a league, they still wouldn't sniff such numbers". So, remember this next time you're talking about inflated stats. The league you're watching is not small on them in any way. If it was, there would be no Fantasy games, no Hollinger, no Heat Index, no "who will be the first player in the season to score 50" threads...
It's funny I rarely hear people ask if Babe Ruth's numbers were inflated. It seems like only in basketball do people question the Greatness of early stars.

[32jazz]

I wonder how many players today would look having to dribble with actual carry rules enforced, instead of like they allow now with the hand on the side of the ball.

These knuckleheads continually ignore the fact(trolling) that West & Big O aren't allowed to carry & plam the ball like players do today.

From MJ to Iverson they would all awkward driblling the ball if they weren't allowed to blatantly carry/palm the ball & travel on top.


When I was young if your wrists/palms weren't parallel to the floor yoy would be called for 'carrying'.

If your hands were on the side of the ball like today(palming) that would be 'carrying'.


All of this 'hestitation dribbles' & 'crossover' BS Could NOT possibly exist under the old rules & todays players would dribblr no better than Jerry West did at the time.

[necya]

So what if the 60's had more inflated stats than today's era? Does this negate the performances of the era? The 80's also had inflated stats in scoring, FG% and assists, yet nobody takes anything away from the big performances and the records of the era. Even better, the NBA is about the only league where performances like 30 ppg or 12 apg still happen. In the rest of the world, regardless of league strength, leaders hover around 20 ppg or 5 apg, often below. So, the average international's reaction to NBA stats should be "LOL at NBA players still averaging 30 ppg or 12 apg against the -so called- great NBA defenses. In the Euroleague, even if it's not as strong a league, they still wouldn't sniff such numbers". So, remember this next time you're talking about inflated stats. The league you're watching is not small on them in any way. If it was, there would be no Fantasy games, no Hollinger, no Heat Index, no "who will be the first player in the season to score 50" threads...

all we have heard that the 80's have inflated stats...so my question is what's the reference?
the 90's? the 00's the weakest bball era ever?
nope

fact is people are only focused on stats, how many rebounds he averages with a foot injured, how many points he scored in only 30min...that's pathetic in my opinion.

Russell and Chamberlain had averages around 25rbd per game. but take into account that their team had 70rbd per game. then Rodman who is arguably an elite at rebounding the ball has averaged 17 a game on 43 rbd for his whole team. Wiley had like 28rbd 20rbd, 19 rbd in finals games. does it make him an elite rebounder? no, but a good rebounder for sure.
see what i mean here...

it's like when i read some bullshit about the no defense in the 80's just because the players shot at 50%. then, adjust the stats : guys like Dantley, Jordan, King was truly efficient because they shot the ball better than their own team. they brought efficiency. nowadays, with some rules who clearly advantaged the perimeter players, you have guys like Bryant, enable to shot the ball well, he did not shot the ball better than his own team for like 10 of his 14 years!
he reminds me of a Nique or Baylor at scoring. great players, insane at
putting the ball into the basket, but not the best scorers ever.

i think it's more a change of mentality. this streetball, crossover and1 generation is just not good for the basketball. now people wanna a spectacle, a show rather than good team basketball.
and the stats are part of show. too bad for basketball.

edit : of course, this post is not for you psileas....i typed it quickly as i'm at work, but i hope people will understand what i tried to show.

[32jazz]

It's funny I rarely hear people ask if Babe Ruth's numbers were inflated. It seems like only in basketball do people question the Greatness of early stars.

That garbage ticks me off as well ,but unfortunately that was Baseballs Golden era(1920-60) & no matter how many players surpass them on the diamond the media/fans won't hear it. They are the greatest in the media/fans minds(check the all time ranking of baseball players) no Matter Hispanics, Asians & Blacks were excluded most of this era. Plus most haven't even seem them play today YET they still rank them higher than most players after 1960.

In basketball the Golden era was the 80's/90's & the same rules seem to apply.

The 60's/70's was not the NBA's Golden Era & I'm not schocked that MOST(not all) of the players are casually dismissed.

[jlauber]

There were considerably more shot attempts and more FT attempts in the early 60's, and while the numbers declined each year, it was in the 90's that they were significantly lower. So, there would be no way that Wilt would be shooting 39 FGAs in today's game.

But, as I have pointed out, as well as some other's here, the early to mid-60's had some mysteriously low FG percentages, as well. Not FT percentages, which have fluctuated very little (especially if you throw Wilt and his enormous attempts out of that era.) There were players shooting well over 90% from the FT line even in the late 50's. Yet, Jerry West was shooting .419 one season. Havlicek shot .399 in a year in the mid-60's. Almost to a player, the players who played in the early 60's shot better, to much better, by the late 60's. And many of the players who played in both the 60's and 70's, shot better to much better in the 70's. Then, on top of that, most of the players who played in both the 70's and 80's, watched their FG% climb in the 80's...some dramatically.

My point being that, while the players of the 60's had more FGA's, they were also handicapped in the FG% department. IMHO, it was a combination of things. One, the schedule was brutal. B2B's, B2B2B's, 4-in-a-rows, even 5-in-a-rows (in fact Kizzle, I believe, said he even heard or read of NINE games in a row.) Secondly, the arenas. Some were downright frigid. Some even had breezes. Almost all of us have played outdoors at some point on windy days, and it affects shooting dramatically, as does temperature. Third, the floors dead spots, which affected the bounce of the ball. Fourth, the rims were different, and in some cases, maybe not even regulation height. And finally, there was no such thing as a uniform ball. Here again, most all of us have played with different balls...some heavier, some lighter, and some even lopsided. All of those factors affect shooting.

And I have read it here that defenses in the 60's were a joke. Interesting, though, that players like Thurmond and Wilt could DRAMATICALLY lower Kareem's FG%, and yet Kareem torched Hakeem and Ewing in his late 30's.

Now, while Wilt wouldn't get 39 FGAs in today's NBA, it must be mentioned that he had SEVERAL seasons in which he had over 30 FGAs per game. And only Baylor, with ONE (playing part-time as well), had more than 30 in a season. So, it was not like every player back then was shooting an ungodly number of shots. Furthermore, MJ took 28 FGAs in one season, and Kobe had 27 as late as 2006. In fact, reducing the FGAs down to 2010 levels, and per minute played, those two took more shots than Wilt.

So, while the players of the 60's would not shoot as often, they would probably shoot considerably better. And, those that shot a lot, would still get a lot of shots. If Chamberlain were to play 45+ minutes, and at the current pace, he would still be taking somehwere around 30 FGAs in today's game. Factor in that he would he was shooting well over 50% in leagues that ranged from .410 to .441 in his peak scoring seasons, and 60% to over 70% in leagues that ranged from .441 to .456, the assumption would be that he would dramatically raise his FG%. He averaged 38.9 ppg on .509 shooting, in a league that shot .415. He averaged 50.4 ppg on .506 shooting in a league that shot .426. He averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting in a league that shot .441. And he averaged 33.5 on .540 shooting in a league that shot .433. And, at his peak, he averaged 24.1 on .683 shooting in a league that shot .441. Had he gone all out that season, he might very well have averaged 35-40 ppg on nearly 60% shooting.

As far as rebounding goes, here again, there is no way that Chamberlain would get 27 rpg in today's NBA. But, if you reduce his rebounding down to 2010 levels, and he would still get 18-19 rpg. Furthermore, Chamberlain had post-seasons of 24.7 rpg, 24.7 rpg, 25.8 rpg, 26.6 rpg, 27.2 rpg, 29.1 rpg, and even 30.2 rpg. Even is his last post-season, in 72-73, in a league that shot considerably less than in the early 60's, he averaged 22.5 rpg in 17 games. IMHO, a peak Wilt, playing 45+ mpg, even in today's NBA, would have been capable of 20 rpg seasons.

What does all of this mean? Wilt, being the focal point of some of the horrible teams that he played on in the early 60's, and playing 45+ mpg, would still be taking 30+ FGAs in today's game. And, he would be shooting more efficiently. perhaps in the .550 to .575 range. So, 38-40 ppg seasons would not only be possible, but probably realistic. And, 18-20 rpg seasons would certainly have been within reach.

Now, take a peak Wilt, circa 66-67 or so, ask him to shoot a little more, and his numbers could possibly be 25-30 ppg, on .600-.650 FG%, along with 4-6 apg, 16-18 rpg, and perhaps 6-7 bpg in today's NBA. Ask him to be the focal point of the offense, and 35-40 ppg on .550+ shooting would be attainable.

And while Oscar, West, Barry, and Elgin's offensive numbers would decline, if they were the focal point of their team's offense, like AI, Kobe, and MJ were at times in their careers, they would certainly have been capable of 30 ppg seasons.

Players like Russell, who averaged as many as 24.7 rpg, or Thurmond, who grabbed as many as 22 rpg, or Lucas who snared as many as 21 rpg, would obviously not be getting that mant in today's NBA. But here again, Russell had post-seasons of 29.9 rpg, and Nate had one at 26.7 rpg. So, 15-16 rpg would be within reason, and perhaps as many as 18-19 for Russell. If Rodman could get 18.7 rpg in a league that had fewer FGAs, but could only 10.2 rpg in the critical playoffs in the same season, and against quality rebounders, then players like Wilt and Russell, who elevated their play in the post-season, would probably be even more dominant.

And, don't forget that McAdoo and Kareem were putting up 35 ppg seasons, in leagues that shot considerably less than those in the early 60's, and yet, while those leagues shot better than those of the 60's, they were at about 2010 levels. And those that saw Kareem play in his peak statistical seasons, like myself, would tell you that he could probably have scored 40 ppg had he been asked to do so. So, here again, Archibald's 35, Kareem's 35, and McAdoo's 35 would probably translate to at least close to 30 ppg in today's NBA. And, in McAdoo's case, he "only" played in 43.2 mpg, so his ppg may not have declined much at all.

But back to Wilt. I have said it many times, but he was LIGHT-YEARS ahead of his peers. Take him and his 39 FGA season out (and his other 30+ FGA seasons) and Baylor and Barry were next with 29.7 and 28.7 FGAs per game (excluding Baylor's part-time season in '62 in which he shot 33.) So, MJ's 28 in 40 mpg, and Kobe's 27 in 41 mpg seasons, in league's that has less shot attempts, are within reason.

Take Chamberlain's multiple 38+ ppg seasons out of the equation, and Barry's 35.6 ppg, Baylor's 34.8, Kareem's 34.8, McAdoo's 34.5, and Archibald's 34.0 were no more spectacular than MJ's 37 in a league that averaged 110 ppg, nor even close to Kobe's 35 in a league that averaged 97 ppg.

Take Wilt and Russell out of the equation, and there have only been four 20 rpg seasons, with a high of 22 rpg (Thurmond in a part-time season), which is not considerably more than Rodman's 18.7 rpg season. And, Wilt's best seasons of 27.2 and 27.0 are considerably higher than even Russell's 24.7.

Take Wilt's .727 and .683, in league's that shot .441 and .456 respectively, out of the equation, and you have Gilmore's .670 in a league that shot .486.

So, as you can see, it was ONLY Wilt that was WAY over the norm in the history of the NBA. Take Chamberlain out, and then there are many players bunched at on the all-time leader boards.

[jlauber]

Russell and Chamberlain had averages around 25rbd per game. but take into account that their team had 70rbd per game. then Rodman who is arguably an elite at rebounding the ball has averaged 17 a game on 43 rbd for his whole team

That is a slight misconception. Before the 73-74 season (the year after Wilt rertired BTW), the league used to include "team rebounds" in their totals. After the 72-73 season, they excluded them. For example, Wilt's 60-61 Warriors had a total of 5938 rebounds, but subtract their "team rebounds" and it dropped to 5276. So, he actually averaged 27.2 rpg, on a team that averaged 66 rpg. His 66-67 76ers actually averaged 62 rpg, and he grabbed 24.2 of them in 45 mpg. In his 62-63 season, Wilt averaged 24.6 rpg on a team that averaged 58.4.

[jlauber]

Russell and Chamberlain had averages around 25rbd per game. but take into account that their team had 70rbd per game. then Rodman who is arguably an elite at rebounding the ball has averaged 17 a game on 43 rbd for his whole team. Wiley had like 28rbd 20rbd, 19 rbd in finals games. does it make him an elite rebounder? no, but a good rebounder for sure.
see what i mean here...



Chamberlain NEVER had a post-season, in his 13 post-seasons, in which he averaged less than 20 rpg. In his LAST post-season, at age 36 (nearly 37), he averaged 22.5 rpg over the course of 17 playoff games. And, he had post-seasons of 25, 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30 rpg.

Meanwhile, the "elite" Rodman averaged 9.9 rpg in his post-season career, with a high of 16 rpg (in a three game series BTW.) I believe Rodman's post-season high game was 20. Wilt not only holds the record of 41 (and against Russell no less), he had MANY 30+ rebound games, including 38 in a Finals game (and against Thurmond.) How about these games: Game one of the '67 ECF's, Wilt outrebounded Russell, 32-15, and those 32 rebounds were out of a TOTAL of 120 available rebounds. In the clinching game five of that same series, Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, 36-21, and those 36 were out of a TOTAL of 128 available rebounds. And, in game three of that series, Wilt grabbed a playoff record of 41, out of a TOTAL of 134 available rebounds...or 30%! In the clinching game five win of the '72 Finals, and playing with one severely sprained wrist, and the other wrist fractured, Wilt took down 29 rebounds, out of a TOTAL of 106, while the entire Knick team had 39 rebounds.

[Simple Jack]

So what if the 60's had more inflated stats than today's era? Does this negate the performances of the era? The 80's also had inflated stats in scoring, FG% and assists, yet nobody takes anything away from the big performances and the records of the era. Even better, the NBA is about the only league where performances like 30 ppg or 12 apg still happen. In the rest of the world, regardless of league strength, leaders hover around 20 ppg or 5 apg, often below. So, the average international's reaction to NBA stats should be "LOL at NBA players still averaging 30 ppg or 12 apg against the -so called- great NBA defenses. In the Euroleague, even if it's not as strong a league, they still wouldn't sniff such numbers". So, remember this next time you're talking about inflated stats. The league you're watching is not small on them in any way. If it was, there would be no Fantasy games, no Hollinger, no Heat Index, no "who will be the first player in the season to score 50" threads...


You, like the other guy, need to NOT assume my stance on an argument. I was simply asking a question. The reason I asked it, is because I've seen plenty of people defend the era, then quote some statistical achievements of those players. If you, or whoever makes these arguments including the statistical achievements agree they were inflated, they shouldn't be all that relevant in an argument.

[jlauber]

You, like the other guy, need to NOT assume my stance on an argument. I was simply asking a question. The reason I asked it, is because I've seen plenty of people defend the era, then quote some statistical achievements of those players. If you, or whoever makes these arguments including the statistical achievements agree they were inflated, they shouldn't be all that relevant in an argument.

OK, throw out the sheer numbers, and think about this...

Chamberlain won scoring titles, in seasons in which the next guy averaged 31.6 ppg, by nearly 20 ppg. He won rebounding titles, in an era of a few 20 rpp seasons, by nearly five per game. He won FG%, in league's that shot between .410 to .456, by over 150 points over his nearest competitior, and by over 250 points over the entire league average. He has the SEVEN highest MPG seasons in NBA history. He averaged 47.2 MPG over his entire post-season career, and in 160 playoff games. He has something like 103 of the entire 128 30-30 games in NBA history. He has 55 of the entire 61 40-30 games in NBA history. He has 15 of the entire 28 40 rebound games in NBA history. He made 35 straight FGAs. He has the THREE highest perfect games in NBA history. He has six of the ten 70+ point games in NBA history. He has 32 of the entire 62 60+ point games in NBA history, including three in seasons in which he averaged about 15 FGAs per game. He had more 30-30 games in his 71-72 season, two, when he was well past his peak, than Kareem had in his entire career...and Kareem's 71-72 season was his statistical prime. Furthermore, Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in 29 post-season series...and against the likes of Russell, Thurmond, Reed, Lucas, Bellamy, and Kareem...all in the HOF. To my knowledge, he was only outshot from the field in one, and in that series, he missed 20 shots, while his opposing center missed over 100. He not only outscored the vast majority of his opposing centers in the post-season, he had some in which he was outscoring them by over 20 ppg, and outshooting them by nearly 200 points from the field. He also had post-season series, in which he outrebounded Russell, by a 32-23 margin. He has the only 20-20-20 game in NBA history. He is the only center to lead the league in assists. He had a game on Christmas day in 1968, in which he blocked 23 shots. He also had a game early in his career, when the scorekeeper had him with 25 blocks. He supposedly has seasons of double-digit blocks.

So, in terms of absolute domination of his peers, Chamberlain has no equal. Would he put up 50-26 seasons in today's NBA? Probably not. BUT, if he dominated the players of today, like he did in his era, then yes, he could very well post some staggering numbers.

[Psileas]

You, like the other guy, need to NOT assume my stance on an argument. I was simply asking a question. The reason I asked it, is because I've seen plenty of people defend the era, then quote some statistical achievements of those players. If you, or whoever makes these arguments including the statistical achievements agree they were inflated, they shouldn't be all that relevant in an argument.

Are you for or against all-time comparisons? I hope that, by saying this, you are against, because I see people making all-time comparisons, which involve, apart from stats, championship/MVP/DPOY comparisons. I need not go further to tell you that they can't be compared, either, for various reasons.
As for the stat inflation, it's been shown in the past that the only stat you can definitely say it was inflated in the 60's was rebounding, and that's why I'm not equating 20 rebounds in the 60's to 20 rebounds in the 00's. Scoring was inflated only team-wise, since shots were more evenly distributed among players. Assists and FG%'s were deflated, so, similarly, I don't equate 10 assists from the 60's to 10 assists from the 80's. Steals, blocks and TO's would almost certainly be inflated, but they weren't even counted.
And, of course, there's still the case of comparing players from the same era. You don't need statistical adjustment to know that Wilt was the greatest scorer of his era and him with Russell the greatest rebounders.

[Simple Jack]

Are you for or against all-time comparisons? I hope that, by saying this, you are against, because I see people making all-time comparisons, which involve, apart from stats, championship/MVP/DPOY comparisons. I need not go further to tell you that they can't be compared, either, for various reasons.
As for the stat inflation, it's been shown in the past that the only stat you can definitely say it was inflated in the 60's was rebounding, and that's why I'm not equating 20 rebounds in the 60's to 20 rebounds in the 00's. Scoring was inflated only team-wise, since shots were more evenly distributed among players. Assists and FG%'s were deflated, so, similarly, I don't equate 10 assists from the 60's to 10 assists from the 80's. Steals, blocks and TO's would almost certainly be inflated, but they weren't even counted.
And, of course, there's still the case of comparing players from the same era. You don't need statistical adjustment to know that Wilt was the greatest scorer of his era and him with Russell the greatest rebounders.


I think players should be judged based on what they did during their own era. Anything else involves assumptions. It's just illogical when people cite these statistics without some sort of context; especially when they agree that these numbers are inflated and couldn't be duplicated today.

[Niquesports]

I think players should be judged based on what they did during their own era. Anything else involves assumptions. It's just illogical when people cite these statistics without some sort of context; especially when they agree that these numbers are inflated and couldn't be duplicated today.
What the numbers do is show people who have no idea how good these players were some info on past players. You get people saying Lebron James was better than Elgin .IF your under 40 you have no real idea just how great Baylor was.I can't think of anyone that I know that knows the game wouldn't have Elgin in a top 10-15.So the numbers aren't look he scored 100 points in one game so he's the best ever. IT just sows how great this player was in his era.

[alexandreben]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMp7c2bcfkk

Stole this thread from r***gm. Does anyone know that Jerry West couldn't dribble left handed? This just proves that those were the weak era of NBA. As to be expected though, since earlier form of anything usually is.
:wtf:
without looking up Jerry West's left hand dribbling from video clips, take a quick look at some photos:

what is NBA logo again? left hand?
http://www.laobserved.com/assets/jerry-west-logo.gif

is this left hand?
http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0705/gallery.nba.never.to.win.mvp/images/west.jpg

is this left hand again?
http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00111/Images/West.png

is this left hand? just asking, i'm not that sure, cuz it was a weak era..
http://www.nba.com/media/west3_627.jpg

[jlauber]

:wtf:
without looking up Jerry West's left hand dribbling from video clips, take a quick look at some photos:

what is NBA logo again? left hand?
http://www.laobserved.com/assets/jerry-west-logo.gif

is this left hand?
http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0705/gallery.nba.never.to.win.mvp/images/west.jpg

is this left hand again?
http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00111/Images/West.png

is this left hand? just asking, i'm not that sure, cuz it was a weak era..
http://www.nba.com/media/west3_627.jpg


Hmmm...and not ONE time with his left hand UNDERNEATH the equator of the ball, either. Imagine what kind of numbers he could have put up while carrying the ball.

[CavaliersFTW]

What coach Nick did not know about this game is that Jerry West had both thumbs injured coming into this game - after watching all the rest of his games that I have and combing through his career footage its clear that barring injury West displays no issue at all alternating between hands fluidly. In any of Jerry's half a dozen other games available where he has no injuries to his hands he is transitioning between both hands seemlessly while driving through traffic with no signs of avoiding his off-hand in the process

[haji_d_robertas]

The guy was a great player. Time travel doesn't exist. Enjoy the game as it was. Enjoy the game as it is. You couldn't palm the ball back then. That's why
they dribble funny. So what. Nobody cares if you like old basketball players or not. Nobody cares what era you think is weakest, nobody cares about your fantasy teams or your Xbox Stats. Nobody cares who you think couldn't play in today's era. Nobody cares. It's over. Go to bed, little one.

[Poetry]

Does anyone know that Jerry West couldn't dribble left handed?

And apparently Wilt Chamberlain was a virgin.

[bdreason]

I wonder how many players today would look having to dribble with actual carry rules enforced, instead of like they allow now with the hand on the side of the ball.


Every other dribble would be a turnover. Guys like Rose and Crawford would be out of the league. :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGlryGCKtTo

This is a much more honest look at Jerry Wests handling abilities. He has a simple but secure handle (and he uses both hands) - nothing fancy, nothing wreckless. He can cut through traffic like a knife through butter and he creates space for his shot with fakes and quick changes of pace. And he was considered a superior backcourt player to any of the dozen or so guys of his era who liked to incorporate crossovers jab-steps and dribble-between-the legs / behind-the-back moves;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDtxGg2nLps

[WillC]

By complete coincidence, I happened to watch the 1970 Game 7 last night. I've seen it about 4 or 5 times now.

It's funny that the idiot on YouTube is criticising West for not dribbling left. I noticed him using his left hand plenty of times while watching the game. Sure, he usually drove to the right, but he still did so exceptionally well and was clearly enough of a threat going left that the defenders (who were exceptional, by the way) had to play him honestly on either hand.

[G.O.A.T]

People run into a problem with comparing players over eras because they rely on stats. The longer I look into the NBA and the history of it's the players the more sure I am that stats only tell you what a players role on a team is and how they performed in that role.

It's just that measurable stats, even advanced metrics, make-up such a small percentage of what goes into each play.

The notion that West "can't" dribble with his left hand is not only false, it's irrelevant. For even if West had no left hand his results speak for themselves.

As I've always said, you can only measure a player by what they did against their competition. Proposing what you think might of happened "if", "or" or "when" is a waste of time except to serve your own ego and drive your own agenda.

Most players can't correctly dribble a ball anymore, by the rules, there should be dozens of turnovers on unguarded dribbles every game. But there is not, so being able to dribble correctly does not matter, therefore it is not a valid criticism of someone in this modern era. However if Kyrie Irving took his exact style of play into 1962 for example, he'd average 10-15 turnovers a game. Obviously he'd adjust, which is my point. If West needed to dribble more with his left hand, he would have. His goal was not to impress someone born twenty years after he retired, but to beat anyone playing while he did. That's the common bond across eras and that's what's worth discussing.

[LAClipsFan33]

Love is 6'10-6'11. Besides, he is 10x better than the white guys in Wilt's era. So don't flatter yourself, sir.

LOL Kevin love wouldn't be 6'11" in platforms

[LAClipsFan33]

All any idiot has to do it look at 2 min of Jerry West highlights to disprove this. One of his favorite moves was a really hard fake drive with his left hand into a pull up jumper

[WillC]

His goal was not to impress someone born twenty years after he retired, but to beat anyone playing while he did.

Quote of the year.

[FKAri]

Why can Wade slash to the hoop, create contact, and finish with both hands better than anyone else in the league?

Prime Wade is a below average slasher in the 2040's NBA.

[G.O.A.T]

Prime Wade is a below average slasher in the 2040's NBA.

I don't even know if Wade could dunk on the 11-foot rims which they started using in 2035. He was a great player but he's no Kobe Bryant Jr.