Jerry West is the 2nd greatest SG of all time.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

REGULAR SEASON
Jerry West :
27 ppg, 5.8 rebs, 6.7 assts, on 47% fg

Kobe Bryant :
25.5 ppg, 5.3 rebs, 4.8 assts, on 45% fg
----------------

PLAYOFFS
Jerry West :
29.1 ppg, 5.6 rebs, 6.3 assts, on 47% fg

Kobe Bryant :
25.6 ppg, 5.1 rebs, 4.7 assts, on 45% fg

-------------------

- Jerry West did the same thing Michael Jordan did. Averaged 50% FG or better in a season. Kobe Bryant has never done this.

- In his 9 Finals appearances, West averaged 30.0 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 5.5 apg, 45.3 FG%, 81.0 FT%

- Jerry West had TWO 9.5 assists per game seasons(while scoring 27ppg and 26ppg), while Kobe has never sniffed that.

- The fact that West's nickname was MR. CLUTCH should tell you all you need to know about who is the better clutch player.

- As far as any "pace of the era" comments, West averaged 20.4 FGA per game, and Kobe averages 19.6 FGA per game. Barely 1 shot more. Yet West still shot better FG%.

- West has averaged 30+ PPG four different times, while Kobe has only done it three times.

Now try and explain to me, why Kobe deserves the 2nd spot aside from "5 rings" or media hype.

[LongLiveTheKing]

Jerry West played in a weak era and lost 8/9 finals.

[iTare]

5 rings.

[Eric Cartman]

1/9 in finals. Was he trying to do that or was it by accident?

[TheMarkMadsen]

Jerry West played in a weak era and lost 8/9 finals.

Can you imagine if Kobe lost 8 finals & West won 5 in 7 tries.

Kobe would be laughed off in comparisons.

[Johnny Jones]

Jerry West played in a weak era and lost 8/9 finals.
end thread...

[TheMarkMadsen]

Gotta love how OP says "explain why he's better besides 5 rings and media hype"

As if those 5 rings were just handed out to the most hyped player.

Trollllllllllll

[Dionysus]

I also feel Kobe is overrated, but this is a dumb thread. Kobe>>>>West. Kobe dominated in better era with crop of All Star perimeter HOF players and doesnt have inflated stats like West due to pace.

West 1-9 finals record. 1 title 1 Finals MVP.

LeBron>>>>>Jordan>>>>>Kobe>>>>>>>>>>West

[3LiftHeatCurse]

I also feel Kobe is overrated, but this is a dumb thread. Kobe>>>>West. Kobe dominated in better era with crop of All Star perimeter HOF players and doesnt have inflated stats like West due to pace.

West 1-9 finals record. 1 title 1 Finals MVP.

LeBron>>>>>Jordan>>>>>Kobe>>>>>>>>>>West

Kobe never "dominated" anything.

Shaq dominated. Jordan dominated. Kobe has never dominated the league.


and West statistically is a better overall player. 5 rings is a team accomplishment.

[KingLeBronJames]

Based on the Championships, awards, honors, skills, stats and accomplishments.
Kobe > Jerry West.

[FlashDwyaneWade3]

Kobe never "dominated" anything.

Shaq dominated. Jordan dominated. Kobe has never dominated the league.


and West statistically is a better overall player. 5 rings is a team accomplishment.
So '03, '06 and '07 wasn't dominant?

[KingMichael23]

Kobe. So far 9 votes to Kobe. 1 for Jerry West by 3LiftHeatCurse.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

Jerry West played in a weak era and lost 8/9 finals.

Team accomplishment.

West was the best player in the series in a losing NBA Finals and won the NBA Finals MVP even though the Lakers lost.

West didn't choke, or get shut down. He averaged 30.0 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 5.5 apg, 45.3 FG%, 81.0 FT% over those 9 Finals.

[Sakkreth]

Can you imagine if Kobe lost 8 finals & West won 5 in 7 tries.

Kobe would be laughed off in comparisons.

Because West is better player.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

Based on the Championships, awards, honors, skills, stats and accomplishments.
Kobe > Jerry West.

Just say "5 rings" and sound like a Laker fan already.


Cause you listed a bunch of stuff that West is better at. Skill, stats, awards, honors, and accomplishments all go to West.

Kobe has the championships cause of team around him.

[no pun intended]

I wouldn't argue against Jerry West himself. When he says Kobe is the greatest Laker, I would consider this case closed.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

1/9 in finals. Was he trying to do that or was it by accident?
West didn't choke, or get shut down.

He averaged 30.0 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 5.5 apg, 45.3 FG%, 81.0 FT% over those 9 Finals.

Those statistics shit all over Kobe's individual performance in the 7 Finals he's been in. West lost cause The Celtics were simply more stacked than the Lakers were.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

Kobe. So far 9 votes to Kobe. 1 for Jerry West by 3LiftHeatCurse.

Even with the statistics staring at you right in the face.

Sad. Blinded by the championships cause Kobe had great teams around him.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

I wouldn't argue against Jerry West himself. When he says Kobe is the greatest Laker, I would consider this case closed.

And Jordan said he would be a great General Manager.

Doesn't matter what people say out of humility, or father-like enthusiasm for the kid you drafted.

If Jordan comes out and says Kobe is better than him, it doesn't make it true.

[BoutPractice]

In terms of who you'd rather have on your team, I think you can make a good argument for both. If you put Jerry West with peak Shaq in the early 00s, when the only truly great center in the league happened to play for the Los Angeles Lakers, he probably would've had more than one title... the reason he lost so often with the Finals was that he and Baylor always had to go through the 60s Celtics, an absurdly dominant team led by a player many call the GOAT. West himself was a dominant Finals performer, as evidenced by the FMVP he got while being on the losing team... it's not like they lost because he kept choking.

However, Kobe was clearly the more dominant scorer, and has better career accomplishments, so you have to give him the edge overall.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

In terms of who you'd rather have on your team, I think you can make a good argument for both. If you put Jerry West with peak Shaq in the early 00s, when the only truly great center in the league happened to play for the Los Angeles Lakers, he probably would've had more than one title... the reason he lost so often with the Finals was that he and Baylor always had to go through the 60s Celtics, an absurdly dominant team led by a player many call the GOAT. West himself was a dominant Finals performer, as evidenced by the FMVP he got while being on the losing team... it's not like they lost because he kept choking.

However, Kobe was clearly the more dominant scorer, and has better career accomplishments, so you have to give him the edge overall.

Explain this comment. How is kobe "clearly the more dominant scorer"

Did you close your eyes when you saw the statistics in the OP? West's scoring averages and FG% shit on Kobe. Jerry West scores more in the reg season and in the playoffs than Kobe does. And West does it on better efficiency.

Here I'll post it again for you.

REGULAR SEASON
Jerry West :
27 ppg, 5.8 rebs, 6.7 assts, on 47% fg

Kobe Bryant :
25.5 ppg, 5.3 rebs, 4.8 assts, on 45% fg
----------------

PLAYOFFS
Jerry West :
29.1 ppg, 5.6 rebs, 6.3 assts, on 47% fg

Kobe Bryant :
25.6 ppg, 5.1 rebs, 4.7 assts, on 45% fg

-------------------

West is the better scorer. And the better passer. And the better rebounder. And the better clutch player.

Once again, are you even paying attention?

[Jacks3]

Comparing their career numbers is pretty ridiculous. West played in a 8 team league where the average pace was around 120 possessions. Kobe played in a 30 team league where the pace was at 90-92. West played a bunch of short white guys. Certainly he didn't see anywhere near the type of perimeter players that Bryant sees on a nighty basis, nor were league defenses back than anywhere near as advanced or sophisticated as they were today. Not even close. Not to mention Kobe's 17 years/55,000+ min is already well ahead of West. Not to the fact that has significantly better durability. Not to mention the fact that his pace-adjusted numbers are easily better. Not to mention his superior peak, longer prime, far greater host of accolades, far greater team success, greater athleticism, etc. West has no case over Bryant at this point.

Dumb Wade stans.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

Comparing their career numbers is pretty ridiculous. West played in a 8 team league where the average pace was around 120 possessions. Kobe played in a 30 team league where the pace was at 90-92. West played a bunch of short white guys. Certainly he didn't see anywhere near the type of perimeter players that Bryant sees on a nighty basis, nor were league defenses back than anywhere near as advanced or sophisticated as they were today. Not even close. Not to mention Kobe's 17 years/55,000+ min is already well ahead of West. Not to the fact that has significantly better durability. Not to mention the fact that his pace-adjusted numbers are easily better. Not to mention his superior peak, longer prime, far greater host of accolades, far greater team success, greater athleticism, etc. West has no case over Bryant at this point.

Dumb Wade stans.

1) West was a 6'2 white guy.

2) Your comments on "pace", West averaged 20.4 FGA's per game. Kobe averaged 19.6 FGA's per game. No difference.

3) Kobe's 19.6 FGA per game includes kobe's bench scrub years and 2nd option years. Would be much higher if we take his recent 1st option play into account, in which case, Kobe shoots more than West did. So pace means nothing

4) Even IF "pace of the era" had any impact on the FGA's, giving West more shot attempts, it wouldn't matter, because West shoots a better FG% than Kobe does.

Your last argument is basically "Kobe has played longer"

Next.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

Yeah, thought so.

The only Pro-Kobe arguments in this thread are "5 rings"

Jerry West is the 2nd best SG of all time. The media is infected with stupidity.

[Jacks3]

1) West was a 6'2 white guy.
Who didn't see anywhere near the type of perimeter players we have today, or the athleticism we see today, or anywhere near the level of sophistication and advancement of defenses.


2) Your comments on "pace", West averaged 20.4 FGA's per game. Kobe averaged 19.6 FGA's per game. No difference.
There's no difference between playing in a league where average pace was at 120 vs a league at 92? So if Kobe played in a game with an extra 30 possessions, that wouldn't matter? We should ignore 30 extra possessions when comparing raw stats? LOL. ****ing retard.




4) Even IF "pace of the era" had any impact on the FGA's, giving West more shot attempts, it wouldn't matter, because West shoots a better FG% than Kobe does.
Except FG% is useless and the defenses and defenders he saw in his era is nowhere near comparable to what Kobe sees.


Your last argument is basically "Kobe has played longer"
Much better defenses, much better competition at the perimeter, much better pace-adjusted numbers, better peak, better and longer prime, far greater team success, far greater accolades and achievements, better durability, more skill and athleticism. West has no case.

Try again.

[senelcoolidge]

West was a better player than Kobe. Kobe is basically a glorified chucker, really.
West was a better overall player. Efficient. Not selfish. Truly clutch.
West played mostly during the 60's...Celtics Dynasty. So yeah, he lost many finals. It's like the guys that played in the 90's that ended ringless because of the Bulls dynastic run.

[LAZERUSS]

In terms of overall resume, Kobe does have an edge.

West was the more skilled player, and certainly the more "clutch" between the two.

In any case, there is not much separation. You can't go wrong with either.

[Deuce Bigalow]

OP uses no logic. First of all, Jerry West attempted 0 three pointers since there was no three point line. Kobe has taken 4879 threes in his career. That is not to say that West could not have been a three point shooter, since he was capable of taking deep shots. Better stats to look at would be eFG% and TS%.

Kobe: 48.7 eFG%/55.5 TS%
West: 47.4 eFG%/55.0 TS%

Second, when need to consider their roles for their careers. West did not come to the NBA at 18 and start games off the bench. Kobe did not start for 148 games.

Kobe as a starter: 27.4 ppg
West as a starter: 27.0 ppg

Now if you know anything about the game back then, it is that you cannot compare raw rebounding and assist numbers of that era to the modern era. AST% would be a good stat to look at.

Kobe's AST% career: 24.7/as a starter: 24.9
West's AST%: 27.1

West has the clear advantage in assists, but the gap is not as big as you think when you account for pace instead of looking at raw APG.

There is not enough data for TRB% in most of West's career to compare rebounding.

Who was the better scorer at their peak?

Top 3 PPG seasons:

Kobe: 35.4/31.6/30.0
West: 31.3/31.2/31.0

Clear advanatage for Kobe.

How about longevity?

Kobe's point total as a starter: 29,855
West's point total as a starter: 25,192

Advantage Kobe.

So Kobe has the advantage in peak scoring, longevity scoring, and in scoring efficiency. While West has an advantage in assists.

On to the Playoffs

Kobe's stats as a starter in the Playoffs: 27.4 ppg/48.2 eFG%/54.2 TS%/23.7 AST%
West's stats as a starter in the Playoffs: 29.1 ppg/46.9 eFG%/54.1 TS%/24.8 AST%

We need to compare the championships and finals appearances too when looking at the playoffs

Kobe: 5x Champion/7x NBA Finalist
West: 1x Champion/9x NBA Finalist

West has impressive scoring numbers individually, but Kobe has a huge advantage in team success. While you may look at the Finals statistics and think West has the edge, I can guarantee you that Kobe has the edge in Conference Finals and Conference Semifinals performances. Something that hurts Kobe's scoring numbers is that he did not have deep runs in his absolute scoring peak in 2006 and 2007.

Now lets look at all complishments.

Using Kobe as a starter:

Championships: Kobe 5, West 1
Finals MVPs: Kobe 2, West 1
League MVPs: Kobe 1, West 0
League MVP shares: Kobe 4.206, West 2.090
All-Star teams: Kobe 14, West 14
All-NBA teams: Kobe 15, West 12
All-NBA First teams: Kobe 11, West 10
Scoring titles: Kobe 2, West 1

Kobe is the second greatest shooting guard of alltime, and West is third. Looking at their careers objectively and that is clear. West himself called Kobe the greatest Laker of alltime.

Kobe > West > Wade

[SuperPippen]

**** off.

I love West, and think he would be a surefire All-NBA caliber player if he played today, but he wasn't a better player than Kobe Bryant. I don't think I need to state why.

[plowking]

Kobe never "dominated" anything.

Shaq dominated. Jordan dominated. Kobe has never dominated the league.



I'd actually agree on this. But you need to pipe down on the West>Kobe talk mainly because you didn't watch West play, and you sure as hell didn't do enough research when all you can site is statistical evidence and achievements.

[LAZERUSS]

OP uses no logic. First of all, Jerry West attempted 0 three pointers since there was no three point line. Kobe has taken 4879 threes in his career. That is not to say that West could not have been a three point shooter, since he was capable of taking deep shots. Better stats to look at would be eFG% and TS%.

Kobe: 48.7 eFG%/55.5 TS%
West: 47.4 eFG%/55.0 TS%
Second, when need to consider their roles for their careers. West did not come to the NBA at 18 and start games off the bench. Kobe did not start for 148 games.

Kobe as a starter: 27.4 ppg
West as a starter: 27.0 ppg

Now if you know anything about the game back then, it is that you cannot compare raw rebounding and assist numbers of that era to the modern era. AST% would be a good stat to look at.

Kobe's AST% career: 24.7/as a starter: 24.9
West's AST%: 27.1

West has the clear advantage in assists, but the gap is not as big as you think when you account for pace instead of looking at raw APG.

There is not enough data for TRB% in most of West's career to compare rebounding.

Who was the better scorer at their peak?

Top 3 PPG seasons:

Kobe: 35.4/31.6/30.0
West: 31.3/31.2/31.0
Clear advanatage for Kobe.

How about longevity?

Kobe's point total as a starter: 29,855
West's point total as a starter: 25,192

Advantage Kobe.

So Kobe has the advantage in peak scoring, longevity scoring, and in scoring efficiency. While West has an advantage in assists.

On to the Playoffs

Kobe's stats as a starter in the Playoffs: 27.4 ppg/48.2 eFG%/54.2 TS%/23.7 AST%
West's stats as a starter in the Playoffs: 29.1 ppg/46.9 eFG%/54.1 TS%/24.8 AST%

We need to compare the championships and finals appearances too when looking at the playoffs

Kobe: 5x Champion/7x NBA Finalist
West: 1x Champion/9x NBA Finalist

West has impressive scoring numbers individually, but Kobe has a huge advantage in team success. While you may look at the Finals statistics and think West has the edge, I can guarantee you that Kobe has the edge in Conference Finals and Conference Semifinals performances. Something that hurts Kobe's scoring numbers is that he did not have deep runs in his absolute scoring peak in 2006 and 2007.

Now lets look at all complishments.

Using Kobe as a starter:

Championships: Kobe 5, West 1
Finals MVPs: Kobe 2, West 1
League MVPs: Kobe 1, West 0
League MVP shares: Kobe 4.206, West 2.090
All-Star teams: Kobe 14, West 14
All-NBA teams: Kobe 15, West 12
All-NBA First teams: Kobe 11, West 10
Scoring titles: Kobe 2, West 1

Kobe is the second greatest shooting guard of alltime, and West is third. Looking at their careers objectively and that is clear. West himself called Kobe the greatest Laker of alltime.

Kobe > West > Wade

Three things.

West played in an era that had a far lower eFG% than what Kobe has played in. So, you HAVE to account for that (especially since these "paceologists" always hold the pace of the 60's against Oscar and Wilt.) West was shooting .514 in leagues that had an eFG% of .446. Find me a year in which Kobe accomplished that. In Kobe's highest season, he shot .503 in a league that shot .497.

And secondly, I have exposed that AST% as a complete FALSEHOOD. Give me the EXACT breakdown of where West's AST% comes from. You can't. Just because some clown claimed that the pace in West's era was higher, they have NEVER given us an EXACT pace. I have seen idiots here claim that there were 150 possessions back then, which again, is pure BS. Most educated guesses have it at between 120-130, and that was at it's PEAK. By the late 60's it was much lower. Furthermore, I have proven that assists were MUCH harder to come by in the 60's.

In Kobe's highest apg season, he averaged 6.0 apg, in a league that averaged 21.2 apg per team. In West's best season, he averaged 9.7 apg in a league that averaged 24.1 apg per team. Sorry, but there is not a 40% difference in apg in those two seasons. It is barely 10%.

BTW, in West's 31.3 ppg season, he averaged 21.9 FGAs per game. In Kobe's 35.4 ppg season, he averaged 27.2 FGA. Furthermore, Kobe DID have the benefit of a 3pt line, which elevated his scoring. Had West taken 27 FGAs in his 31.3 ppg season he woud have averaged 38.8 ppg. And again, that was without benefit of 3pt line.

And how about the post-season? In Kobe's highest scoring post-season, he averaged 32.8 ppg on 26 FGAs per game. In West's highest scoring post-season, he averaged 40.6 ppg on 31.9 FGAs, which translates to 33 ppg, AND he also had a post-season of 34.2 ppg on 25.5 FGAs, or 34.9 ppg on Kobe's 26 FGAs. And again...without a 3 pt shot.

[jongib369]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/4f433fddca717008f6aadea6c42d4d61/tumblr_moper2fNhM1sroezho1_500.png

[jongib369]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/e45f16b77fbfe819c0b7540f7607ed76/tumblr_mo1lbtthpq1renuivo1_500.gif

[jongib369]

http://i.imgur.com/5N1bqfp.gif

[Marchesk]

1/9 in finals. Was he trying to do that or was it by accident?

Do you people fail to understand there was a dynasty by the name of the Boston Celtics back then? You know the team with a top 5 GOAT player and 9 other HOFers during the 60s.

At least it's not Wilt this time for once.

In one finals, which the Lakers lost 4-3 to the Celtcs by three points, Baylor averaged 40.6 a game, and West 31, and they still lost! The Lakes lost anothe series by two points in which West put up 33.9 on 51.5% shooting with 6.4 assists. He always played well, but they had the better team. His finals MVP was another 7 game, two point loss in 69 in which he averaged 37.9 and 7.4 assists on 49% shooting.

West was putting up MJ numbers and his teams were getting beat by that dynasty, the same one that was denying Wilt, Oscar and Petit's teams (in the early 60s the Hawks were very strong).

[Marchesk]

Based on the Championships, awards, honors, skills, stats and accomplishments.
Kobe > Jerry West.

West's average best's Kobe in points, assists, and FG% (in a less efficient era). West was a 14x NBA all-star, 10x first team, 4x all-defensive first team. Kobe has him by one on the all-star awards, and he does have him by 5 on the defensive first team, but the award wasn't given out until 68-69, in West's 8th season.

As for steals, they only kept track West's last season at 35, and he averaged 2.7. Kobe's best is 2.2 West's blocks in that one season were 0.7. Kobe had a 0.9 early in his career, but hasn't had better than 0.5 since he was 26.

West doesn't have any MVPs. He had to compete with Russell, Wilt and Oscar. Three guys who have been considered GOAT candidates at various times (yes Oscar has been by some at least in the past).

Kobe has West in overall numbers, and that speaks to longevity, but then players weren't allowed to enter the league that young back then (Wilt had to go play with the Globetrotters after leaving KU because he wasn't old enough).

[Psileas]

Can you imagine if Kobe lost 8 finals & West won 5 in 7 tries.

Kobe would be laughed off in comparisons.

If anything, if this happened, it would indicate that West was the better player individually.

Rings is a tiring argument. What's funny is that it's used mostly in order to compare players and not teams. I've seen more times people claim that Magic>Bird because 5>3 rather than 80's Lakers>80's Celtics for that same reason.

Please, people, stick to West vs Kobe. Nobody claimed that 60's Lakers>2000's or 2010's Lakers.

[BoutPractice]

3LifHeatCurse > By "more dominant scorer", I was simply referring to those peak scoring years Kobe had, where he averaged 35 and had his famous 81 point performance. Kobe in the mid 00s was closer in his own era to what Chamberlain was doing than to what West was doing. That's not necessarily a knock on West as a player, because it's not just a product of his skills, rather the fact that he was more of a playmaker than Kobe and less about his own scoring records.

[Eric Cartman]

Do you people fail to understand there was a dynasty by the name of the Boston Celtics back then? You know the team with a top 5 GOAT player and 9 other HOFers during the 60s.

At least it's not Wilt this time for once.

In one finals, which the Lakers lost 4-3 to the Celtcs by three points, Baylor averaged 40.6 a game, and West 31, and they still lost! The Lakes lost anothe series by two points in which West put up 33.9 on 51.5% shooting with 6.4 assists. He always played well, but they had the better team. His finals MVP was another 7 game, two point loss in 69 in which he averaged 37.9 and 7.4 assists on 49% shooting.

West was putting up MJ numbers and his teams were getting beat by that dynasty, the same one that was denying Wilt, Oscar and Petit's teams (in the early 60s the Hawks were very strong).

You put a guy next to Kobe that averages 40 points and he will win every single year no matter who he is playing or in what era. 60's Celts, 80's Lakers, 90's Bulls. He will deliver.

[INDI]

http://i.imgur.com/5N1bqfp.gif

lol. no disrespect but kobe would average 44 ppg 10 rebs 9asts in that era, and Im not even exaggerating

[Psileas]

You put a guy next to Kobe that averages 40 points and he will win every single year no matter who he is playing or in what era. 60's Celts, 80's Lakers, 90's Bulls. He will deliver.

The closest we've ever seen to this was when Shaq averaged 38 against Indiana in 2000. And although the Lakers won in 6,
1) the Pacers were hardly 60's Celtics, 80's Lakers, etc.
2) Kobe only averaged 15, was far from the series' MVP and only boosted his legacy due to being young and nowhere near as accomplished as now. Today, people rarely remember 2000 Kobe when discussing his career.
3) we've never seen prime Kobe play alongside any high volume scorer except Shaq and we know how that thing ended. So, we don't even know whether they'd get along well. He's had many good teammates at times, but none of them was a high volume scorer.
4) having someone average 40 had never in NBA history been the norm (let alone while being another high scorer's teammate), so "every single year" makes no sense. It might happen in some single crazy sequence and it still wouldn't count as hard evidence.

[Jameerthefear]

i like the gifs, but those aren't really spectacular when you compare them to some of the shit Kobe has done. Not to mention one of them is an easy layup

[cos88]

not a fan of kobe the person or his moron stans but west has over wade or kobe.

west = the most unlucky player in the nba history, played in an era where russell's celtics were stacked and destroyed everything in their way.

kobe = luckiest player in profesional basketball. no need for explanation here, it's been disscused time and time again.

maybe this can make a small case west > kobe, but jerry west will be the 4th best shooting guard for the next 15-20 years imo.

[LAZERUSS]

1/9 in finals. Was he trying to do that or was it by accident?

I guess getting to nine Finals was a negative. And playing brilliantly in nearly every one of them, but on a losing team, was even worse. It is ironic that he played horribly in the entire post-season, on his only title team. I guess he was holding back his team when he was putting up 42-13-12 game seven's.

[bagelred]

http://i44.tinypic.com/vfbnef.jpg

[Fudge]

:roll:

LeBron stans stay reachinnnnnnn doe.

[La Frescobaldi]

1/9 in finals. Was he trying to do that or was it by accident?
A sample.
'66 Celtics vs. '66 Lakers:
John Havlicek HoF,T50 - Elgin Baylor HoF, T50
K.C. Jones - Jerry West both Hof, T50
Sam Jones Hof, T50 - Mahdi Abdul-Rahman
Willie Naulls - Bob Boozer
Don Nelson - Jim King
Bill Russell Hof, T50- Leroy Ellis
Tom Sanders Hof - Rudy LaRusso
Larry Siegfried - Gail Goodrich HoF
John Thompson - Gene Wiley
Ron Watts - John Fairchild
Ron Bonham - Mahdi Rahman (better known as Walt Hazzard)
Mel Counts - Darrall Imhoff
Si Green - Bob Boozer
Woody Sauldsberry
HoF = Hall of Fame
t50 = Top 50 NBA selection.

Coaches:
Red Auerbach (probably the greatest coach ever, certainly one of the top 2) vs. Fred Schaus. Have you ever heard of Fred Schaus? I didn't think so.

I put bold font on the Lakers that would have made a spot on that '66 Celtics roster {Goodrich was a rookie, and since he was a territorial draft, the Celtics had no chance of getting him, but we'll throw him on there too.}.
Literally 3 guys on the Lakers squad were good enough to make a spot on the Celtics team. Their starters were not good enough to make the Celtics bench. Maybe Walt Hazzard would have sat down by the water cooler. He got better as he went along but he wasn't much those early years.
Would you say the Lakers had a good chance of winning that series? It is a measure of Baylor & West's greatness that they even competed, let alone went to the Finals.
It was like this for the Logo every single year of his career until 1969, and if you allow for injuries to the Lakers and to himself, he only had 1 chance for a ring in the '70s, which he won.

[MaxFly]

I guess the real question is this. If we were to take LeBron, transport him to the 1960s and have him play out his career in that era, would we expect his points/rebounds/assists/steals and FG% to go down, stay the same or go up? I'm interested to see how people think LeBron would do, including the OP.

[LAZERUSS]

I guess the real question is this. If we were to take LeBron, transport him to the 1960s and have him play out his career in that era, would we expect his points/rebounds/assists/steals and FG% to go down, stay the same or go up? I'm interested to see how people think LeBron would do, including the OP.

Regarding scoring, the natural inclination would be that, since the NBA scored more points, with more possessions, then a player from this era would score more.

However, what is often not considered, is the percentage of team's shots. For example, Hakeem averaged 33.0 ppg in his '95 playoff run. In Wilt's '64 playoff run, he averaged 34.7 ppg. Hakeem's '95 post-season NBA averaged 78.2 FGAs, while Wilt's '64 post-season NBA averaged 95.6 FGAs.

So, the immediate response would be...Hakeem would have scored considerably more in the '64 post-season, than Chamberlain did. However, Hakeem averaged 26.2 FGAs in his '95 post-season, while Chamberlain averaged 26.8 in his '64 post-season. Furthermore, Hakeem's post-season NBA had an eFG% of .504, while Wilt's '64 post-season NBA shot an eFG% of .420. So, a case could be made that Hakeem would have averaged less, on less efficiency, in '64, than what he did in '95.

I have often read that players of the 60's would not have scored nearly as much in the current NBA. Yet, Oscar had a season of 31.4 ppg on 22.0 FGAs, and West had a season of 31.3 ppg on 21.9 FGAs. Compare that with Kobe's 35.4 ppg on 27.2 FGAs, or MJ's 37.1 ppg on 27.8 FGAs. Give Oscar and West 27.8 FGAs in their seasons, and they would have averaged 39.7 ppg. And they would have done so in eras that shot considerably worse in terms of efficiency.

How about Wilt's '62 season in MJ's '87 season?

Chamberlain's '62 NBA averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs per game, and on an eFG% of .426. MJ's '87 NBA averaged 89 FGAs and 30 FTAs per game, and on an eFG of .488.

Reduce Wilt's 39.5 FGAs down to '87 levels, and he would have taken 32.6 FGAs per game. Reduce his 17 FTAs in '62 down to '87 levels, and he would have taken 13.7 FTAs per game.

Now, before adjusting for eFG%, and using Wilt's actual .506 FG% in '62, he would have then made 16.5 FGMs in '87, or 33 ppg. Using his actual FT% of .613 in '62, and he would have made 8.4 FTMs in '87, or, of course, 8.4 ppg from the line. Again, without adjusting his eFG% yet, and simply using the raw numbers, Wilt would have scored 33 ppg from the field, and 8.4 ppg from the line in '87, for a total of 41.4 ppg.

However, if we are reducing Wilt's FGAs and FTAs to '87 levels, we HAVE to adjust his eFG% to '87 levels, as well. Why? The average NBA team scored 118.8 ppg in '62. The average NBA team scored 109.9 ppg in '87. But, if we just reduce '62 efficencies to '87 levels, the average NBA team in '62 would have only made 38 FGM (89 x .426) per game, or 76 ppg on FGAs, and
21.8 ppg from the line (30 x .727), for a total of 97.8 ppg in '87.

Now, if we up the '62 eFG% to '87 levels, the scoring becomes much more realistic. 89 x .488 = 43.4 FGM, or 86.8 ppg from the field. And then add the 21.8 ppg from the line, for a total of 108.6 ppg per game (compared to the actual 109.9 ppg in '87.)

So, Wilt's .506 FG% in '62, jumps to .580 in '87 (.488/.426 x .506.) Now his 32.6 FGAs x his adjusted .580 FG% becomes 18.9 FGM in '87, or 37.8 ppg from the field. Add in his 8.4 ppg from the line, and he would have averaged 46.2 ppg in MJ's '87 season.

Of course, one could use simple math, as well. Wilt's 50.4 ppg came in an NBA that averaged 118.8 ppg. In '87 the NBA averaged 109.9 ppg. Divide 109.9 by 118.8 and you get .925. Multiple 50.4 x .925 and the result is 46.6 ppg.

All of the above is just purely mathematical comparisons. But those that use "pace" against Oscar and Chamberlain, need to also adjust for differences in efficiencies in their era's, as well.

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://i.imgur.com/5N1bqfp.gif
What is that supposed to prove?

http://31.media.tumblr.com/4d7d82cc84ca1d9d7df805287580c9c1/tumblr_mhbzyqVjUB1rixyqqo1_400.gif

[hateraid]

Why stop at 2nd? Why not the greatest? The OP is just that convincing

[Deuce Bigalow]

not a fan of kobe the person or his moron stans but west has over wade or kobe.

west = the most unlucky player in the nba history, played in an era where russell's celtics were stacked and destroyed everything in their way.

kobe = luckiest player in profesional basketball. no need for explanation here, it's been disscused time and time again.

maybe this can make a small case west > kobe, but jerry west will be the 4th best shooting guard for the next 15-20 years imo.
Damn you convinced me.

[SamuraiSWISH]

1) MJ
2) Kobe
3) West
4) Wade
5) Drexler

Probably will stay like this too for quite sometime. Wade may add 2 more rings to his total already. If he matched 5 with Kobe, or even 6 rings, what do we do? It's the RANGZ argument.

[longtime lurker]

Where did the OP disappear to? Typical troll that runs away when he's proven to be a moron :oldlol:

[MaxFly]

Thanks for the reply, Lazeruss.



So, the immediate response would be...Hakeem would have scored considerably more in the '64 post-season, than Chamberlain did. However, Hakeem averaged 26.2 FGAs in his '95 post-season, while Chamberlain averaged 26.8 in his '64 post-season. Furthermore, Hakeem's post-season NBA had an eFG% of .504, while Wilt's '64 post-season NBA shot an eFG% of .420. So, a case could be made that Hakeem would have averaged less, on less efficiency, in '64, than what he did in '95.


Let's deal with a larger pool of games. In 1963-1964, the average NBA team shot an eFG% of 0.433 during the regular season. Wilt Chamberlain's eFG% was 0.524. In 1994-1995, the average NBA team shot an eFG% of 0.500. That's about a 15.5% jump over 1964. Hakeem Olajuwon's eFG% was 0.517.

Can the case be made that 1964 Wilt would average more points (he averaged 36.9 ppg) on a much higher eFG% (a 15.5% jump would correlate to something like a 0.605 eFG%) in 1995?

I guess the crux of the question is this... did the average team in 1964 average an eFG% of 0.433 because that league was much tougher defensively? Were the 1960s a better defensive era than the 1990s? Or was it the case that offenses during that era weren't as advanced and the offensive abilities of individual players weren't as polished or well rounded as they were in 1995? The notion that Hakeem Olajuwon would average fewer points and be less efficient in 1964 than he was in 1995 would mean that he either lost a decent amount of his offensive skill, or the defenses of that era were much better than they were in '95.

Without needing to say it explicitly, I think we can draw an obvious conclusion here.


I have often read that players of the 60's would not have scored nearly as much in the current NBA. Yet, Oscar had a season of 31.4 ppg on 22.0 FGAs, and West had a season of 31.3 ppg on 21.9 FGAs. Compare that with Kobe's 35.4 ppg on 27.2 FGAs, or MJ's 37.1 ppg on 27.8 FGAs. Give Oscar and West 27.8 FGAs in their seasons, and they would have averaged 39.7 ppg. And they would have done so in eras that shot considerably worse in terms of efficiency.

Was the era that Oscar and West played in better defensively and offensively than the era that Jordan and Bryant have played in? If you sent Jordan back to the 1960s, would he average fewer points and a lower eFg% on 27.8 shots a game? Again, the question is what would the competition have been like, and would the style and level of the game be conducive or hurtful to the player in question.


How about Wilt's '62 season in MJ's '87 season?

Chamberlain's '62 NBA averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs per game, and on an eFG% of .426. MJ's '87 NBA averaged 89 FGAs and 30 FTAs per game, and on an eFG of .488.

Reduce Wilt's 39.5 FGAs down to '87 levels, and he would have taken 32.6 FGAs per game. Reduce his 17 FTAs in '62 down to '87 levels, and he would have taken 13.7 FTAs per game.

Now, before adjusting for eFG%, and using Wilt's actual .506 FG% in '62, he would have then made 16.5 FGMs in '87, or 33 ppg. Using his actual FT% of .613 in '62, and he would have made 8.4 FTMs in '87, or, of course, 8.4 ppg from the line. Again, without adjusting his eFG% yet, and simply using the raw numbers, Wilt would have scored 33 ppg from the field, and 8.4 ppg from the line in '87, for a total of 41.4 ppg.

However, if we are reducing Wilt's FGAs and FTAs to '87 levels, we HAVE to adjust his eFG% to '87 levels, as well. Why? The average NBA team scored 118.8 ppg in '62. The average NBA team scored 109.9 ppg in '87. But, if we just reduce '62 efficencies to '87 levels, the average NBA team in '62 would have only made 38 FGM (89 x .426) per game, or 76 ppg on FGAs, and
21.8 ppg from the line (30 x .727), for a total of 97.8 ppg in '87.

Now, if we up the '62 eFG% to '87 levels, the scoring becomes much more realistic. 89 x .488 = 43.4 FGM, or 86.8 ppg from the field. And then add the 21.8 ppg from the line, for a total of 108.6 ppg per game (compared to the actual 109.9 ppg in '87.)

So, Wilt's .506 FG% in '62, jumps to .580 in '87 (.488/.426 x .506.) Now his 32.6 FGAs x his adjusted .580 FG% becomes 18.9 FGM in '87, or 37.8 ppg from the field. Add in his 8.4 ppg from the line, and he would have averaged 46.2 ppg in MJ's '87 season.

Of course, one could use simple math, as well. Wilt's 50.4 ppg came in an NBA that averaged 118.8 ppg. In '87 the NBA averaged 109.9 ppg. Divide 109.9 by 118.8 and you get .925. Multiple 50.4 x .925 and the result is 46.6 ppg.

All of the above is just purely mathematical comparisons. But those that use "pace" against Oscar and Chamberlain, need to also adjust for differences in efficiencies in their era's, as well.


Your last statement is key. It's not simply about a mathematical comparison using pace. The level of competition and the style of the game must be taken into account.

All that said, would we realistically expect LeBron to score fewer points on a lower eFG% on a similar number of shots if we were to send him back in time to play in the 1960s. The reason I ask this is that I've seen a few people do linear comparisons of stats that have about 40 years between them. Moreover, this sort of analysis supposes that not only is the pace of the game the same, but the level of competition and style of the game are as well.

I have my opinions. I believe the answer is self evident. I'd like to get people on the record as saying the 60s was an equivalent or more difficult era to play in than the 90s and 00s.

[LAZERUSS]

Thanks for the reply, Lazeruss.



Let's deal with a larger pool of games. In 1963-1964, the average NBA team shot an eFG% of 0.433 during the regular season. Wilt Chamberlain's eFG% was 0.524. In 1994-1995, the average NBA team shot an eFG% of 0.500. That's about a 15.5% jump over 1964. Hakeem Olajuwon's eFG% was 0.517.

Can the case be made that 1964 Wilt would average more points (he averaged 36.9 ppg) on a much higher eFG% (a 15.5% jump would correlate to something like a 0.605 eFG%) in 1995?

I guess the crux of the question is this... did the average team in 1964 average an eFG% of 0.433 because that league was much tougher defensively? Were the 1960s a better defensive era than the 1990s? Or was it the case that offenses during that era weren't as advanced and the offensive abilities of individual players weren't as polished or well rounded as they were in 1995? The notion that Hakeem Olajuwon would average fewer points and be less efficient in 1964 than he was in 1995 would mean that he either lost a decent amount of his offensive skill, or the defenses of that era were much better than they were in '95.

Without needing to say it explicitly, I think we can draw an obvious conclusion here.



Was the era that Oscar and West played in better defensively and offensively than the era that Jordan and Bryant have played in? If you sent Jordan back to the 1960s, would he average fewer points and a lower eFg% on 27.8 shots a game? Again, the question is what would the competition have been like, and would the style and level of the game be conducive or hurtful to the player in question.



Your last statement is key. It's not simply about a mathematical comparison using pace. The level of competition and the style of the game must be taken into account.

All that said, would we realistically expect LeBron to score fewer points on a lower eFG% on a similar number of shots if we were to send him back in time to play in the 1960s. The reason I ask this is that I've seen a few people do linear comparisons of stats that have about 40 years between them. Moreover, this sort of analysis supposes that not only is the pace of the game the same, but the level of competition and style of the game are as well.

I have my opinions. I believe the answer is self evident. I'd like to get people on the record as saying the 60s was an equivalent or more difficult era to play in than the 90s and 00s.

We'll never know.

But, to start, how do you explain the fact that the NBA shot a higher FT%, .756, in 1958-59, than it did just last year, at .753?

However, we do know that the CONDITIONS were considerably worse back in the 60's, particularly the early 60's. I could give a ton of reasons, but the scheduling was easily the best answer.

Recall the strike-shortened season of '12. In 2011, the NBA averaged 99.6 ppg on a .459 FG% and an eFG% of .498.

In the 2012 season, with a condensed schedule for over half the year, the NBA averaged 96.3 ppg on a .448 FG%, with an eFG% of .487. Furthermore, I do remember that mid-way thru the season, and just before the league's schedule returned to a more normal level, the FG% was at .441 (I don't recall the eFG%, but I am reasonably certain it was lower than .487.)

In the 2013 season, the NBA averaged 98.1 ppg, on a .453 FG%, with an eFG% of .496.

Now, take a look at Wilt's 61-62 season. He played in a ton of B2B games. Not only that, he played with 6 separate stretches of three-in-a-rows. On top of that, he played in three more separate stretches (not in those three-in-a-rows), of four-games-in a-row. Oh wait,...he also played in another separate stretch of five-games-in-a-row (and two of them were road games.) Of course, and as we all know, Wilt only missed a total of eight minutes of the entire season, and in a slightly faster-paced era, as well.

And in terms of defense, there was no 3pt shot back then, either. The lanes were packed, and players with the ball were quickly doubled.


And let me ask you this. Do you think a 39 year old Kareem was better offensive player than a Kareem in the 70's? How do explain a peak Kareem having seasons of .539, .529, .518, and even .513 (in the middle of the decade of the 70's BTW)? And how do explain a prime KAJ shooting .464 in his 28 career h2h's with Wilt (27 of them after Chamberlain had had major knee surgery)? Or that in their last ten straight h2h games, Kareem shot a combined .434 from the floor against Wilt? Or that a prime KAJ faced Nate Thurmond in 50 career h2h's, and shot an overall .440 from the floor, with his high game being 34 points?

Or that a 38-39 year old KAJ, and in a span of ten straight games, averaging 33 ppg on, get this... a .630 FG% against a 23-24 year old Hakeem, which included three games of 40, 43, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting and in only 37 minutes)? Or a 37-41 year old KAJ, in 23 h2h's with Hakeem, shot an overall .607 from the field, and with only three games of under .500 (while he had eight games, just in his last ten, against Wilt, of less .500, including four of under .400)? Or that a 39 year old KAJ could bomb a young Ewing to the tune of a 40 point game, on 15-22 shooting, while holding Ewing to 9 points on 3-17 shooting?

Or that 35-36 year old Artis Gilmore could average 23.9 ppg on .677 shooting against Hakeem (or at least his Rockets) in ten straight games in the 84-85 and 85-86 seasons? And yet a 27 year old Gilmore could only average 18.6 ppg on .522 in the 70's?

I could give you a list of player-after-player who dramatically improved in FG% from the early 60's to the late 60's. Players like West, Baylor, Hondo, Johhny Green, and Imhoff. Even Chamberlain, himself, went from a 37.6 ppg, .461 rookie campaign to a33.5 ppg, .540 season in 65-66, and then to a .683 season in '67.

Same with the players who spanned the 60's and 70's. Hondo played eight seasons in each decade...and guess what, he shot better in every season of the 70's, than what he did in his best season of the 60's. Did all these guys suddenly learn to shoot?

And then how about the reverse? How come players like Hakeem, Robinson, and Ewing all had their best FG% seasons early in their careers, and then dramatically declined after that? Did they suddenly forget how to shoot?

If you were to transport Lebron back to the 60's, would he be a superior player to say Gus Johnson, who was 6-6 230 lbs, and who had a vertical that would rival Jordan's, and a smooth 15 ft range? Why didn't a monster like Johnson routinely have 30-20 seasons in this supposedly inferior NBA?

And how would Lebron handle a packed lane, and with no one playing him outside of 20 ft?

It's easy to make assumptions, but these are valid questions.

[Marchesk]

All that said, would we realistically expect LeBron to score fewer points on a lower eFG% on a similar number of shots if we were to send him back in time to play in the 1960s. The reason I ask this is that I've seen a few people do linear comparisons of stats that have about 40 years between them. Moreover, this sort of analysis supposes that not only is the pace of the game the same, but the level of competition and style of the game are as well.

And if Lebron grew up back then, he wouldn't have the advantages modern players have now. What is the argument here? That better training, better strategies, advanced stats, tons of video on every team and player, better nutrition, PEDs, advantages of growing up practicing moves that other players pioneered or popularized - that all this leads to a higher level of competition, and better offensive and defensive team strategies?

It's fine to make that argument, but it's an unfair comparison. West, Baylor, Chamberlain, etc could only play the game the way it was back then. Even if you put Lebron in a time machine and sent him back there, he's going to be playing their style, their rules, with inferior equipment. Maybe his modern advantages make him super dominant . But then what if those guys grew up in today's era and Lebron back then?

What if Baylor had all of Lebron's advantages, and Lebron had to play in Baylor's era? Are we going to say that Elgin Baylor was only great because he played in the 60s, but he wouldn't be good if he grew up in the 90s or the 00s?

What do you suppose 60s Lebron would put up with no modern advantages? Would he have done better than Oscar, Baylor or West?

[jongib369]

What is that supposed to prove?

http://31.media.tumblr.com/4d7d82cc84ca1d9d7df805287580c9c1/tumblr_mhbzyqVjUB1rixyqqo1_400.gif
Why does it have to be proving something? It's simply a GIF of Jerry West