PDA

View Full Version : If Jordan didn't play for Wizards, he would be career 50% shooter



Derivative
11-17-2013, 11:36 AM
If Jordan never came back to play for the Wizards, he would be a career 50% shooter. Take that in mind.

Highest career PPG in history of NBA + over 50% career FG + being a guard + playing at the toughest defensive in NBA history = GOAT being GOAT.

CelticBaller
11-17-2013, 11:38 AM
but he did

LAZERUSS
11-17-2013, 11:42 AM
If Jordan never came back to play for the Wizards, he would be a career 50% shooter. Take that in mind.

Highest career PPG in history of NBA + over 50% career FG + being a guard + playing at the toughest defensive in NBA history = GOAT being GOAT.

If Chamberlain had retired after his knee injury in 1969 (beginning of his 11th season) he would have left the game with a 34.4 ppg, 24.3 rpg, .530 FG% (in leagues that averaged about a .440 FG% over that span.)

asdf1990
11-17-2013, 11:43 AM
If Jordan never came back to play for the Wizards, he would be a career 50% shooter. Take that in mind.

Highest career PPG in history of NBA + over 50% career FG + being a guard + playing at the toughest defensive in NBA history = GOAT being GOAT.

toughest defensive era, when holding a team to 110 points was considered elite defense.

Teanett
11-17-2013, 11:59 AM
but he did

Psileas
11-17-2013, 12:01 PM
If Chamberlain had retired after his knee injury in 1969 (beginning of his 11th season) he would have left the game with a 34.4 ppg, 24.3 rpg, .530 FG% (in leagues that averaged about a .440 FG% over that span.)

And he missed a few early prime seasons as well, due to not having the right to play in the NBA as a non-graduate, leading him to even play one season with the Globetrotters. Which means that his career totals could still be as high as his actual ones and his averages could also be about as high as the ones you mentioned at the same time. Plus a few more scoring titles in a row (for a possible total of like 10 in a row). GOAT being GOAT.

La Frescobaldi
11-17-2013, 12:19 PM
virtually every one of my older hoops friends believes to this day Jordan came out of retirement to pass Chamberlain on the all time scoring list. Because he couldn't outscore the greatest scorer of his own era.

b1imtf
11-17-2013, 12:28 PM
but he did
:applause:

PizzamanIRL
11-17-2013, 12:36 PM
but he did

This.

And it wouldn't change anything about his legacy.

Quickening
11-17-2013, 12:52 PM
If your momma didn't have braces, you wouldn't be born

Trollsmasher
11-17-2013, 12:56 PM
If he did not play in the weakest defensive era, he would've been a sub 50% career shooter.

LEFT4DEAD
11-17-2013, 01:01 PM
If Jordan never came back to play for the Wizards, he would be a career 50% shooter. Take that in mind.

Highest career PPG in history of NBA + over 50% career FG + being a guard + playing at the toughest defensive in NBA history = GOAT being GOAT.
Bullshit. Stupid thread.

La Frescobaldi
11-17-2013, 01:26 PM
Bullshit. Stupid thread.

you don't think late '80s - '90s were the toughest defensive era?

Nastradamus
11-17-2013, 01:27 PM
the worst defensive era maybe. Serious? Now is by far the best defensive era, and it started around 2000

Purch
11-17-2013, 01:30 PM
but he did:wtf:

LAZERUSS
11-17-2013, 01:34 PM
the worst defensive era maybe. Serious? Now is by far the best defensive era, and it started around 2000

I just glanced at this year's stats...

The NBA is shooting at an eFG% of .493. Subtract 3's, and the league would be still be shooting .478 from 2-pt shots.

There are currently 11 teams that have an eFG% of .503 or above, with Miami running away at .584.

La Frescobaldi
11-17-2013, 01:38 PM
the worst defensive era maybe. Serious? Now is by far the best defensive era, and it started around 2000
gosh we can't agree on this. Granted there was no 3 line but the '70s had better defense than now. And it's not close.

miamiandorlando
11-17-2013, 06:07 PM
glad he did

Tking714
11-17-2013, 06:12 PM
It's cooler that he proved he can still dominate at 40 years old than shoot 50%

LEFT4DEAD
11-17-2013, 06:21 PM
you don't think late '80s - '90s were the toughest defensive era?
I know it was not. You had 5-6 top defensive teams just like today. Half of the league were just garbage. Much more than its today. I would even say that today you have more good individual defenders than back then. Best vs best, late '80s-90's were better. But as a league in whole, I would take today's competitiveness.

Jameerthefear
11-17-2013, 06:21 PM
gosh we can't agree on this. Granted there was no 3 line but the '70s had better defense than now. And it's not close.
doubt it.

Greg Oden 50
11-17-2013, 10:12 PM
but he did
at least he makes history :bowdown:

JimmyMcAdocious
11-17-2013, 11:11 PM
How did the topic of this thread become Wilt/his era? Why not create a parody thread instead of guiding this one off topic?

People mock others and then do the exact same thing themselves. :facepalm Hypocrisy thy name is ISH.

NumberSix
11-17-2013, 11:13 PM
What is it with both Jordan and Kobe stans always wanting to erase years of their careers? Do any other fan bases pull this shit?

Greg Oden 50
11-17-2013, 11:51 PM
What is it with both Jordan and Kobe stans always wanting to erase years of their careers? Do any other fan bases pull this shit?
he will never as gd as jordan,so who cares ????

andgar923
11-18-2013, 12:29 AM
the worst defensive era maybe. Serious? Now is by far the best defensive era, and it started around 2000

I don't say this lightly because it applies in your post.

But that's idiotic.

AintNoSunshine
11-18-2013, 01:01 AM
I thought even with his Wizards days he still averaged 30 ppg on 50%?

ihoopallday
11-18-2013, 02:15 AM
If your momma didn't have braces, you wouldn't be born

:roll: :roll: Damn that's a good one

OldSchoolBBall
11-18-2013, 11:20 AM
I thought even with his Wizards days he still averaged 30 ppg on 50%?

He did. 30.1 ppg on 49.7% FG, to be exact. Without the Wizards years he was at 51% FG actually.

La Frescobaldi
11-18-2013, 09:47 PM
doubt it.

defense is consistently a joke so far this year regardless of team (Pacers & Spurs significant exceptions). I've watched 30 games so far this season and have yet to see a game where the announcers don't make comments about how bad the defense is.

Take a look at 2014 season. Pace is 94.9 league wide. D-rating is 104
Pace in 1974 was 107.8. D-rating? 94.9.
season by season the league looks similar across both eras. Completely different levels. So explain then how defense is so great compared to back then.... why is defensive rating atrocious compared to pace --- like it has been all throughout the 2000s? Why is it so much better in that older era... if it's worse like you say?
Look at shooting percentages across those eras. They are higher today because they get open looks, and lots of unimpeded drives (no defense). This is confirmed further when you look at free throws per shot attempt - virtually dead even at 2.07.

#1 reason is the 3 point line, but also reduced handchecking, no touch zone around the basket etc. etc. etc. combine to make defense non-existent compared to that time frame.

SamuraiSWISH
11-18-2013, 09:53 PM
He did. 30.1 ppg on 49.7% FG, to be exact. Without the Wizards years he was at 51% FG actually.
Crazy. What was he before the Wizards seasons? A 32 ppg career player @ 51 FG%? A consistent 8 points per quarter player. Utterly amazing. GOAT gonna GOAT. I wonder what kind of scoring numbers prime / peak Jordan from '90 - '93 could've put up on an offensively inept team that needed all he could provide.

KobeClutchAsFK
11-18-2013, 10:09 PM
defense is consistently a joke so far this year regardless of team (Pacers & Spurs significant exceptions). I've watched 30 games so far this season and have yet to see a game where the announcers don't make comments about how bad the defense is.

Take a look at 2014 season. Pace is 94.9 league wide. D-rating is 104
Pace in 1974 was 107.8. D-rating? 94.9.
season by season the league looks similar across both eras. Completely different levels. So explain then how defense is so great compared to back then.... why is defensive rating atrocious compared to pace --- like it has been all throughout the 2000s? Why is it so much better in that older era... if it's worse like you say?
Look at shooting percentages across those eras. They are higher today because they get open looks, and lots of unimpeded drives (no defense). This is confirmed further when you look at free throws per shot attempt - virtually dead even at 2.07.

#1 reason is the 3 point line, but also reduced handchecking, no touch zone around the basket etc. etc. etc. combine to make defense non-existent compared to that time frame.

The 70s unquestionably had better defense because of the handchecking that was allowed back then (which was restricted in the early 80s i believe, before being further restricted in 2005 or 2006 i think it was)

But no is the 80s-90s the best defensive era ever. Sure they had a bit more handchecking compared to today but they didn't allow zone defense like they do now. You couldn't even double team off the ball.

plowking
11-18-2013, 10:23 PM
defense is consistently a joke so far this year regardless of team (Pacers & Spurs significant exceptions). I've watched 30 games so far this season and have yet to see a game where the announcers don't make comments about how bad the defense is.

Take a look at 2014 season. Pace is 94.9 league wide. D-rating is 104
Pace in 1974 was 107.8. D-rating? 94.9.
season by season the league looks similar across both eras. Completely different levels. So explain then how defense is so great compared to back then.... why is defensive rating atrocious compared to pace --- like it has been all throughout the 2000s? Why is it so much better in that older era... if it's worse like you say?
Look at shooting percentages across those eras. They are higher today because they get open looks, and lots of unimpeded drives (no defense). This is confirmed further when you look at free throws per shot attempt - virtually dead even at 2.07.

#1 reason is the 3 point line, but also reduced handchecking, no touch zone around the basket etc. etc. etc. combine to make defense non-existent compared to that time frame.

Slower pace results in more set defenses, which means its far harder to score. This is fact. No other way around it.

Once again you are wrong about shooting percentages. They were far higher in the 90's and 80's compared to now. Reason why? More complicated, and set defenses today compared to back then.

Its incredible that people on here try to pass off their bullshit views as fact when we have the facts readily available to us on the internet.
The facts are, players shoot worse today, score less, and the game is far slower? Why? Because of better, more organized defenses. No other way around it. The game is constantly getting better.

NumberSix
11-18-2013, 11:32 PM
Slower pace results in more set defenses, which means its far harder to score. This is fact. No other way around it.

Once again you are wrong about shooting percentages. They were far higher in the 90's and 80's compared to now. Reason why? More complicated, and set defenses today compared to back then.

Its incredible that people on here try to pass off their bullshit views as fact when we have the facts readily available to us on the internet.
The facts are, players shoot worse today, score less, and the game is far slower? Why? Because of better, more organized defenses. No other way around it. The game is constantly getting better.
repped

La Frescobaldi
11-18-2013, 11:50 PM
Slower pace results in more set defenses, which means its far harder to score. This is fact. No other way around it.

Once again you are wrong about shooting percentages. They were far higher in the 90's and 80's compared to now. Reason why? More complicated, and set defenses today compared to back then.

Its incredible that people on here try to pass off their bullshit views as fact when we have the facts readily available to us on the internet.
The facts are, players shoot worse today, score less, and the game is far slower? Why? Because of better, more organized defenses. No other way around it. The game is constantly getting better.

I'm not talking about 80s and 90s bro I'm talking about '70s. As I mentioned in the very post you quoted. Entirely different from 80s & 90s. My contention is that defense has completely changed (for the worse) due primarily to the 3 point line.

SHAQisGOAT
11-19-2013, 12:08 AM
Slower pace results in more set defenses, which means its far harder to score. This is fact. No other way around it.

Once again you are wrong about shooting percentages. They were far higher in the 90's and 80's compared to now. Reason why? More complicated, and set defenses today compared to back then.

Its incredible that people on here try to pass off their bullshit views as fact when we have the facts readily available to us on the internet.
The facts are, players shoot worse today, score less, and the game is far slower? Why? Because of better, more organized defenses. No other way around it. The game is constantly getting better.


Pretty subjective if you ask me. Why didn't the FG% go down (instead the other way around happened) as the pace got slower into the 70s, through the 70s and then into 80s?
Still, comparing the 80s to nowadays, the difference in pace is around 10%, which is pretty minimal.

Far higher? Like 3% FG is far higher? And we can't neglect that back then they shot way less 3s, ball movement was clearly greater looking for the best shot possible, way less dribbling out the clock, way less dumb iso players, better overall bigmen across the league, better overall post-game and more usage of those with higher % shots. Also of course, most teams liked to play at a higher pace than nowadays, but let's not think that that's easy or that it makes them worse for plenty of them, showtime Lakers would run any recent team out of the building while laying the smack down, for example.
Let's not forget, DRtg is about the same, and eFG% even higher right now because of the 3pt shooting.

The 2013 Toronto Raptors gave up less points than the 1989 Pistons. One team had Gay, DeRozan, Bargnani, Lowry and Calderon while the other had Dumars, Rodman, Mahorn, Laimbeer, Salley and Isiah, beating your ass.... I guess the Raptors were just the better defensive team if we look at that lol. Now looking at it the right way let's compare them to their peers: Raptors were 17th in opp/ppg and the Pistons were 2nd, Raps were 22nd in DRtg with 107.5 and the Pistons were 3rd with 104.7, Pistons got 63W and were champions, Toronto didn't even make the post-season.. Now put the 2013 Raptors in 1989 and you think they give up the same amount of points? Obviously that number would be considerably higher and their pace as well, along with a worse DRtg, because they were playing against teams they liked to push it up more and were just in a different league period. Another thing is that even if they gave up more points they also scored much more than a team like the Raptors, common situations like when they were already up by a lot then give up more points, happen, if their pace was a bit slower and they scored less then they would be holding the opponents to less as well getting pretty much the same diferential and the W. Put the 1989 Pistons in today's league and they're still the best defensive team in the game or pretty close to it (because rules would affect players like Laimbeer from playing the same type of D).
And that leads to that question again, better defense? Better offense? Better/more stacked league back then?

Ignorant people overblown all the pace and opp/ppg subject, coming through with dumb arguments and not looking at everything else.

Why were DRtg's better in the 70s? Best defensive era? Worse offense? Again, same thing.
I can go the other way and say they score less nowadays because of worse overall offense but anyways I said what it had to be said above.

You can even say that defenses are more organized ok (modern advances in other areas also help) but even if so, not by much really, plus there were alot of great defensive players back in the day and physicality helps a big deal when playing D so......

Saying that the game is constantly getting better is just a load of shit also.

La Frescobaldi
11-19-2013, 12:25 AM
Pretty subjective if you ask me. Why didn't the FG% go down (instead the other way around happened) as the pace got slower into the 70s, through the 70s and then into 80s?
Still, comparing the 80s to nowadays, the difference in pace is around 10%, which is pretty minimal.

Far higher? Like 3% FG is far higher? And we can't neglect that back then they shot way less 3s, ball movement was clearly greater looking for the best shot possible, way less dribbling out the clock, way less dumb iso players, better overall bigmen across the league, better overall post-game and more usage of those with higher % shots. Also of course, most teams liked to play at a higher pace than nowadays, but let's not think that that's easy or that it makes them worse for plenty of them, showtime Lakers would run any recent team out of the building while lacking the smack down, for example.
Let's not forget, DRtg is about the same, and eFG% even higher right now because of the 3pt shooting.

The 2013 Toronto Raptors gave up less points than the 1989 Pistons. One team had Gay, DeRozan, Bargnani, Lowry and Calderon while the other had Dumars, Rodman, Mahorn, Laimbeer, Salley and Isiah, beating your ass.... I guess the Raptors were just the better defensive team if we look at that lol. Now looking at it the right way let's compare them to their peers: Raptors were 17th in opp/ppg and the Pistons were 2nd, Raps were 22nd in DRtg with 107.5 and the Pistons were 3rd with 104.7, Pistons got 63W and were champions, Toronto didn't even make the post-season.. Now put the 2013 Raptors in 1989 and you think they give up the same amount of points? Obviously that number would be considerably higher and their pace as well, along with a worse DRtg, because they were playing against teams they liked to pushed it more and were just in a different league period. Another thing is that even if they gave up more points they also scored much more than a team like the Raptors, common situations like when they were already up by a lot then give up more points happen, if they pace was a bit slower and they scored less then they would be holding the opponents to less as well getting pretty much the same diferential and the W. Put the 1989 Pistons in today's league and they're still the best defensive team in the game or pretty close to it (because rules would affect players like Laimbeer from playing the same type of D).
And that leads to that question again, better defense? Better offense? Better/more stacked league back then?

Ignorant people overblown all the pace and opp/ppg subject, coming through with dumb arguments and not looking at everything else.

Why were DRtg's better in the 70s? Best defensive era? Worse offense? Again, same thing.
I can go the other way and say they score less nowadays because of worse overall offense but anyways I said what it had to be said above.

You can even say that defenses are more organized ok (modern advances in other areas also help) but even if so, not by much really, plus there were alot of great defensive players back in the day and physicality helps a big deal when playing D so......

Saying that the game is constantly getting better is just a load of shit also.

yeah.
Unfortunately he's already proven he can't read too well since he quoted a post about '70s and called it 80s & 90s..... so you're prolly not gonna have much impact, even with that sledgehammer-to-the-melon post.

Micku
11-19-2013, 01:02 AM
This thread went off topic, lol.


Slower pace results in more set defenses, which means its far harder to score. This is fact. No other way around it.

Once again you are wrong about shooting percentages. They were far higher in the 90's and 80's compared to now. Reason why? More complicated, and set defenses today compared to back then.

Its incredible that people on here try to pass off their bullshit views as fact when we have the facts readily available to us on the internet.
The facts are, players shoot worse today, score less, and the game is far slower? Why? Because of better, more organized defenses. No other way around it. The game is constantly getting better.

That's not really true. The eFG% is about the same or better than 80s. This is because nowadays teams take a lot of 3s, this also hinders their FG%.

Teams in general don't like to run as much as the 80s or the 70s. In the 80s, they would run up an down the court to not give the D time to set up, so they had more possessions and scored more because they had more fast breaks. It was a different time. I believe part of the reason why they slowed down the offense was because of the Pistons since they didn't have the offensive talent that the Lakers and Celts had, they tried to keep the pace slower so they can organize their defense. I believe today teams are much more prepared defensively with scouting and etc.

Defense across eras is subjective. Part of it you'll have to understand the stats and see with your eyes, just like all sports and stats. As a SHAQisGOAT said, if you compared opponent points and Drtg, you'll find a team like the 2013 Atlanta Hawks that gave up less points and have a better Drtg than the 1989 Pistons even tho the Pistons had better individual defenders across the board.

Anyway, the game isn't constantly getting better necessary. The centers today suck compared to back then. The mid range game and the post game aren't being utilized compared to the other eras. Teamplay and ball movement was better back then, but the shooting and spacing today are better than it was back then, and guys are more athletic. At least that's my opinion from the videos that I watched.

With that said, I find the teamplay starting from 08 to now to be better than the early 00s.

SamuraiSWISH
11-19-2013, 01:07 AM
With that said, I find the teamplay starting from 08 to now to be better than the early 00s.
Apart from a few teams pre 2008, I absolutely agree.

2007 Suns
2006 Suns
2006 Clippers
2005 Pistons
2004 Pistons
2000 Pacers

All played great team ball.

And 2000 - current Spurs.

Micku
11-19-2013, 01:24 AM
Apart from a few teams pre 2008, I absolutely agree.

2007 Suns
2006 Suns
2006 Clippers
2005 Pistons
2004 Pistons
2000 Pacers

All played great team ball.

And 2000 - current Spurs.

Oh yeah, definitely. The Kings were great too. One of my favorite teams. Awesome ball movement. 2002 Kings were exciting basketball for me as a kid. And I liked Jason Williams before Mike Bibby came. He had some silk passes. Bibby was a better fit tho.

SamuraiSWISH
11-19-2013, 01:28 AM
Oh yeah, definitely. The Kings were great too. One of my favorite teams. Awesome ball movement. 2002 Kings were exciting basketball for me as a kid. And I liked Jason Williams before Mike Bibby came. He had some silk passes. Bibby was a better fit tho.
Shit how did I forget the 2000 - 2004 era King. Revise my list. Hell, even those 2001 - 2004 Mavs team that featured a powerful roster of: Finley, Dirk, Nash, Van Excel played pretty good team ball as well.

plowking
11-19-2013, 01:54 AM
lol @ you trying to sound smart here - defenses today aren't any more sophisticated than they were in the 90's... the rules of the game have shifted what is allowed offensively and defensively and defenses have adjusted accordingly. Strategies for scoring or preventing players from scoring aren't any more or less complex or sophisticated - just slightly different.

You want to be a big boy about this and talk like you know something we don't? Than go through the lengths it takes to prove it like everyone else on here who knows a thing or two about basketball does - take the time to explain the X's and O's. Don't just sit their on your throne of pompousness and pretend you know what your talking about - because when you fail to deliver why you believe what you believe it becomes obvious that your just blowing smoke out your ass.

Yet facts still state that players shoot a lower % and score less today. So I guess the defenses have gotten better, since that is a large indication of what defense goes by. :oldlol:
Why is it that rules are constantly being shifted to allow more freedom on offense? Its called counteracting a shift. Know why? Because the advantage has shifted to the defensive side with more advanced and sophisticated defenses.
Its as if you don't have any common sense and simply let your hard on for me spew out senseless shit as you have.

plowking
11-19-2013, 02:59 AM
Nobody is arguing against the stats themselves, we just don't buy your B.S. 'explanation' as to why the stats today are different. We're all waiting for you to provide a single shred of evidence that supports your claim. Field goal percentages are lower - well - whoopy ****ing doo basketball isn't played on a stat sheet it is played on a court with 10 people at a time. Provide some video clips, where you can showcase some routine offensive plays like pick and roll, backdoor cuts etc from say the 80's or 90's, than provide video clips of those exact same offensive plays being run today and show how differently defenses react. Make sure that if you provide an example, we can't go back and see that exact same type of defense from the past because then we will disprove you. Once you find a clip of present-era defense reacting in a way never before done or seen in the 90's than maybe we can buy into your theory that defenses became more 'sophisticated'.

Until that time, your full of shit. Good luck.

As of now, people stating the opposite haven't brought any facts or stats to the table either, so why is the onus on me exactly? :roll:
I at least corrected the BS in here that FG% was lower before.

Once again, stop letting your hard on for me get in the way of things. I guess I'm your new obsession along with Wilt.

La Frescobaldi
11-19-2013, 08:17 AM
As of now, people stating the opposite haven't brought any facts or stats to the table either, so why is the onus on me exactly? :roll:
I at least corrected the BS in here that FG% was lower before.

Once again, stop letting your hard on for me get in the way of things. I guess I'm your new obsession along with Wilt.

:no: I brought some facts in the quote you used.
Then you promptly twisted the quote, saying it was about 90s when it was clearly talking about '70s. So I called you on it. Good enough. :cheers: But now you act like what you said was correct even when it was wrong... and then you claim to fix it!!:oldlol:

At least go look at the league wide stats for the two eras, like 2013 vs. 1974 (NOT 1990s or some other time frame) instead of making stuff up.
THERE WAS NO 3 POINT LINE IN 1974. SO COMPARE 2 POINTERS TO 2 POINTERS.

Q: When is league-wide .483 FG% lower than .459 FG%?
A: When plowking says it is.

When you get it wrong, you go all the way, that's for sure. But as shaqisgoat said here, and as Micku has masterfully shown in the past, comparing these kinds of things across eras is dangerous. And I need to thank you for promptly showing up and providing an example of why that is.

You can't compare across seasons team for team with those kinds of tools. But if you examine league vs. league you see patterns emerge.

Glide2keva
11-19-2013, 12:13 PM
.498%

OMG Jordan didn't shoot 50% for his career!!!!!

That rounds up to 50% in case they forgot that in math class.