Fun fact: The gap between MJ and Wilt's era is now the same as 'Wiggins' to MJ era [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 07:05 PM

While that's true, the leap forward isn't as dramatic simply because professional sports became a bonafied billion dollar industry in the 1980s with big sponsorship TV deals.

All that money leads to teams being highly incentive to develop, coach, scout, etc. better and eventually you hit a saturation point where you're not seeing such huge improvements in the game.

There are no more countries left for example where a scout could go to find untapped potential really (uhhh ... North Korea I guess?) ... every scout knows what most other scouts know.

There's no magic offensive/defensive schemes that really catch anyone off guard anymore either. Everyone video scouts each other to death.

I have to agree with kennethgriffin (lol, first time ever) ... evolution doesn't happen at a standardized rate.
Read about the history of the game, the organizations that competed say, BEFORE the money was big... were pure competitors. They wanted to win at all costs, and sent scouts all over the country and turned over every rock to find what they needed and develop who they needed to develop just the same. The best players and talent that have ever played are a result of competitiveness, not money. And all players that played say, before the 1970's, were pure competitors that would have been playing regardless of the size of their checks. Can the same even be said today? I wouldn't try to use money as a means to prop up this era when one could turn it right back around as a negative. Competitiveness and a drive to find and develop the best players on the planet has always existed in the NBA.

STATUTORY

07-28-2014, 07:06 PM

:facepalm progress isn't linear

fpliii

07-28-2014, 07:07 PM

Soundwave

07-28-2014, 07:08 PM

Read about the history of the game, the organizations that competed say, BEFORE the money was big... were pure competitors. They wanted to win at all costs, and sent scouts all over the country and turned over every rock to find what they needed and develop who they needed to develop just the same. The best players and talent that develops are a result of competitiveness, not money. Competitiveness has always existed in the sport.

People are still competitive today. The average coaching staff just has access to thousands of hours of video footage on other teams/individual players/advanced stats, flat out better training, etc.

You don't get a cookie for being competitive, you have to competitive in any pro sports league or you won't last more than a week.

Television has massively changed the game too ... because of the explosion of TV sports it exposed millions of more people to basketball and basketball marketing ("propaganda"), expanding the potential talent pool for the sport several times over.

But this type of thing only happens once, you can't continually keep expanding the talent pool for players, eventually you hit a point where TV/Nike marketing can only have so much of an impact.

STATUTORY

07-28-2014, 07:09 PM

Read about the history of the game, the organizations that competed say, BEFORE the money was big... were pure competitors. They wanted to win at all costs, and sent scouts all over the country and turned over every rock to find what they needed and develop who they needed to develop just the same. The best players and talent that have ever played are a result of competitiveness, not money. And all players that played say, before the 1970's, were pure competitors that would have been playing regardless of the size of their checks. Can the same even be said today? I wouldn't try to use money as a means to prop up this era when one could turn it right back around as a negative. Competitiveness and a drive to find and develop the best players on the planet has always existed in the NBA.

:facepalm wilt fans believe in mountain lions but not economics

RoundMoundOfReb

07-28-2014, 07:09 PM

not really an accurate way for judging change since it took 100,000 years for humans to learn how to build anything beyond rubbing sticks and stones together to make fire

in the last 100 years we've invented more things than we have in all the meleniums prior to that combined

evolution is in no way shape or form unison/clockwork/equal

Going by this analogy wilt and mj would be closer than mj and wiggins

kennethgriffin

07-28-2014, 07:10 PM

http://i62.tinypic.com/119z1p4.png

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 07:11 PM

http://i62.tinypic.com/119z1p4.png
:roll:

Translation:

"Jordan era was best era... cause I grew up watching him play"

Soundwave

07-28-2014, 07:23 PM

Basketball took a quantum leap forward from the 60s-late 80s ... there's just too many things that happened during that time that are one time changes that can't be replicated again.

The advent of the "black superstar" - Before the 60s there were no black stars in the NBA. Because the league wasn't integrated. Russell and Chamberlain were the first, they were so much better/bigger/more athletic than the median (white) NBA player that the other teams had to adapt and allow more black players into the game. This then increases the overall athleticism of the game completely revolutionizing the way the sport is played. By the ABA merger in the 70s, it's a completely different sport from the 1950s, just 20 years prior.

The advent of big money TV/sponsorship takes basketball to a fanbase of thousands into the millions. Kids like Kobe Bryant and LeBron James and Dirk Nowitzki grow up inundated with constant TV footage of their favorite players (even in Italy or Germany). Being a basketball player changes from being a "pro athlete" to really being a famous rock star/movie star megamillionaire. The incentive to want to make the NBA goes up several levels.

As basketball becomes a big business sport, the stakes for success rise for everyone. Not just the NBA, but NCAA college is a big business now too. The incentive to find and develop talent better from a younger age, changing coach techniques.

Players like Jordan, Gervin, and Dr. J revolutionize the concept of guard play, this gets married to monster marketing campaigns that appeal to young players greatly.

The fall of the Soviet bloc/USSR in the early 90s allows for a huge influx of European players that wouldn't be able to play before. The NBA Dream Team in 1992, while largely basically just a marketing campaign is a PR slam dunk for the NBA, taking basketball to its highest global scale.

All these things radically changed the sport. But IMO there haven't been many "revolutions" since them. Tom Thibodeau's "different spacing" or Allen Iverson wearing shorts 4 sizes too big isn't a revolution in the game, lol.

kennethgriffin

07-28-2014, 07:24 PM

:roll:

Translation:

"Jordan era was best era... cause I grew up watching him play"

lol wtf i hate jordan

and i rated the 80's as the best ( mainly the late 80's i'd say )

it was the apex of tallent evolution/player evolution before the 90's expansion

then 00's diluting of fundimentals

notice the dip starts after the 80's

that was the toughest era by far IMO and i was born in 1984. could only see footage. no affiliation whatsoever

until the league gets back down to around 20-22 teams the league will continue to suffer and we'l never be able to get back up to where they were

guy

07-28-2014, 07:25 PM

Read about the history of the game, the organizations that competed say, BEFORE the money was big... were pure competitors. They wanted to win at all costs, and sent scouts all over the country and turned over every rock to find what they needed and develop who they needed to develop just the same. The best players and talent that have ever played are a result of competitiveness, not money. And all players that played say, before the 1970's, were pure competitors that would have been playing regardless of the size of their checks. Can the same even be said today? I wouldn't try to use money as a means to prop up this era when one could turn it right back around as a negative. Competitiveness and a drive to find and develop the best players on the planet has always existed in the NBA.

I don't think anyone is denying how competitive the participants were. But the game grew as it became more well known and the incentives grew. That results in more participants.

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 07:29 PM

Basketball took a quantum leap forward from the 60s-late 80s ... there's just too many things that happened during that time that are one time changes that can't be replicated again.

The advent of the "black superstar" - Before the 60s there were no black stars in the NBA. Because the league wasn't integrated. Russell and Chamberlain were the first, they were so much better/bigger/more athletic than the median (white) NBA player that the other teams had to adapt and allow more black players into the game. This then increases the overall athleticism of the game completely revolutionizing the way the sport is played. By the ABA merger in the 70s, it's a completely different sport from the 1950s, just 20 years prior.

The advent of big money TV/sponsorship takes basketball to a fanbase of thousands into the millions. Kids like Kobe Bryant and LeBron James grow up inundated with constant TV footage of their favorite players (even in Italy).

As basketball becomes a big business sport, the stakes for success rise for everyone. Not just the NBA, but NCAA college is a big business now too. The incentive to find and develop talent better from a younger age, changing coach techniques.

Players like Jordan, Gervin, and Dr. J revolutionize the concept of guard play, this gets married to monster marketing campaigns that appeal to young players greatly.

The fall of the Soviet Union/USSR in the early 90s allows for a huge influx of European players that wouldn't be able to play before. The NBA Dream Team in 1992, while largely basically just a marketing campaign is a PR slam dunk for the NBA, taking basketball to its highest global scale.

All these things radically changed the sport. But IMO there haven't been many "revolutions" since them. Tom Thibodeau's "different spacing" or Allen Iverson wearing shorts 4 sizes too big isn't a revolution in the game, lol.
A "quantum leap" happened from 60's to 80's? :biggums:

No, Game looks more or less the same. In fact if you try to pick apart the differences of today's game from the late 1980's as opposed to picking apart some late 1980's games from some 1960's games... it's going to be pretty much the same quantity of subtle changes. Most of which, fall directly under rules and styles of play/trends. Same basic game. Played by athletes with great height and length which had already long been figured out well before the 1960's were the best suited to play the game. The biggest differences lie with changes in the rules and opinions of how the game should be played.

fpliii

07-28-2014, 07:32 PM

Soundwave

07-28-2014, 07:33 PM

A "quantum leap" happened from 60's to 80's? :biggums:

No, Game looks more or less the same. In fact if you try to pick apart the differences of today's game from the late 1980's as opposed to picking apart some late 1980's games from some 1960's games... it's going to be pretty much the same quantity of subtle changes. Most of which, fall directly under rules and styles of play/trends. Same basic game. Played by athletes with great height and length which had already long been figured out well before the 1960's were the best suited to play the game. The biggest differences lie with changes in the rules and opinions of how the game should be played.

Yes a quantum leap happened. You're naive if you think the civil rights/integration of the NBA, the fall of the Soviet bloc, the rise of big money TV exposure and the monstrous marketing of the game were all game changers.

In 1966, Wilt and Russell were head and shoulders more athletic than the average NBA player. By say 1988, some teams had 3-4 players on their own roster with similar athleticism (maybe not quite equal, but similar ... not to say that makes them equal in ability).

That's a pretty massive change.

Soundwave

07-28-2014, 07:34 PM

A "quantum leap" happened from 60's to 80's? :biggums:

No, Game looks more or less the same. In fact if you try to pick apart the differences of today's game from the late 1980's as opposed to picking apart some late 1980's games from some 1960's games... it's going to be pretty much the same quantity of subtle changes. Most of which, fall directly under rules and styles of play/trends. Same basic game. Played by athletes with great height and length which had already long been figured out well before the 1960's were the best suited to play the game. The biggest differences lie with changes in the rules and opinions of how the game should be played.

Yes a quantum leap happened. You're naive if you think the civil rights/integration of the NBA, the fall of the Soviet bloc, the rise of big money TV exposure and the monstrous marketing of the game didn't have a big impact.

In 1966, Wilt and Russell were head and shoulders more athletic than the average NBA player. By say 1988, some teams had 3-4 players on their own roster with similar athleticism (maybe not quite equal, but similar ... not to say that makes them equal in ability).

That's a pretty massive change.

The league went from like 5% black at the start of the 60s to 80% black by the start of the 80s. You can't seriously say that's just a minor difference, lol.

The NBA barely had any TV exposure in the 60s at all. It's also why we barely have any footage from this era, the NBA was such a low rent league that most games (like Wilt's 100 point game) weren't televised even locally.

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 07:42 PM

Yes a quantum leap happened. You're naive if you think the civil rights/integration of the NBA, the fall of the Soviet bloc, the rise of big money TV exposure and the monstrous marketing of the game were all game changers.

In 1966, Wilt and Russell were head and shoulders more athletic than the average NBA player. By say 1988, some teams had 3-4 players on their own roster with similar athleticism (maybe not quite equal, but similar ... not to say that makes them equal in ability).

That's a pretty massive change.
:facepalm

bullshit i'm sorry but if you believe this you are misinformed, any gap in athleticism is not as big as you think it is. The rules and changes in styles of play are far bigger at changing what you see in a 1960's game vs a 1980's game. I don't even know what measuring stick you are using to evaluate athleticism... Dunks? ABA encouraged it from wing players in the 60's and 70's, NBA big man dominated ball discouraged wing players from dunking until the merger. Like I said, the changes from a 1980's game to a present day game look at least as distinct. And it's more from the rules and trends from what I see.

Asukal

07-28-2014, 07:50 PM

Can't believe what I'm seeing. A known troll makes more sense than Cavsftw. :oldlol:

Add this to the greatest slays thread. :roll:

STATUTORY

07-28-2014, 07:51 PM

:facepalm

bullshit i'm sorry but if you believe this you are misinformed, any gap in athleticism is not as big as you think it is. The rules and changes in styles of play are far bigger at changing what you see in a 1960's game vs a 1980's game. I don't even know what measuring stick you are using to evaluate athleticism... Dunks? ABA encouraged it from wing players in the 60's and 70's, NBA big man dominated ball discouraged wing players from dunking until the merger. Like I said, the changes from a 1980's game to a present day game look at least as distinct. And it's more from the rules and trends from what I see.

it doesn't have to do with athleticism per se but increasing the field of participants of any sport will raise the level of competitiveness

are there no community colleges that you can enroll in ohio to get some basic stats and econ knowledge?

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 07:53 PM

Yes a quantum leap happened. You're naive if you think the civil rights/integration of the NBA, the fall of the Soviet bloc, the rise of big money TV exposure and the monstrous marketing of the game didn't have a big impact.

In 1966, Wilt and Russell were head and shoulders more athletic than the average NBA player. By say 1988, some teams had 3-4 players on their own roster with similar athleticism (maybe not quite equal, but similar ... not to say that makes them equal in ability).

That's a pretty massive change.

The league went from like 5% black at the start of the 60s to 80% black by the start of the 80s. You can't seriously say that's just a minor difference, lol.

The NBA barely had any TV exposure in the 60s at all. It's also why we barely have any footage from this era, the NBA was such a low rent league that most games (like Wilt's 100 point game) weren't televised even locally.
A 5% black league? See... this is where you are exposing your ignorance. The figures of how 'black' the league was in the 1960's has been researched already. You are either deliberately ignoring the time and research of posters like fpliii or you are oblivious to it. Either way, it makes your argument look like nothing but trollbait, because you aren't using real facts you are just making up figures (that are grossly inaccurate) to suit an agenda.

Soundwave

07-28-2014, 07:56 PM

A 5% black league? See... this is where you are exposing your ignorance. The figures of how 'black' the league was in the 1960's has been researched already. You are either deliberately ignoring the time and research of posters like fpliii or you are oblivious to it. Either way, it makes your argument look like nothing but trollbait, because you aren't using real facts you are just making up figures (that are grossly inaccurate) to suit an agenda.

What is the percentage of black players in the league from 1960 compared to 1980?

Answer the question.

I'm sure it's no big difference, right?

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 07:57 PM

it doesn't have to do with athleticism per se but increasing the field of participants of any sport will raise the level of competitiveness

are there no community colleges that you can enroll in ohio to get some basic stats and econ knowledge?
The "increasing the field" argument is only going to hurt the reputation of 1985 basketball being "close" to modern basketball, not support it. Careful with your choice of logic.

The game wasn't global in 1985 any more than it was in 1973. The game today however, is WAY more global than it was in 1985...

fpliii

07-28-2014, 07:57 PM

A 5% black league? See... this is where you are exposing your ignorance. The figures of how 'black' the league was in the 1960's has been researched already. You are either deliberately ignoring the time and research of posters like fpliii or you are oblivious to it. Either way, it makes your argument look like nothing but trollbait, because you aren't using real facts you are just making up figures (that are grossly inaccurate) to suit an agenda.
Soundwave is a good poster when it comes to anything except for MJ vs Wilt/Russell and related issues. It's a tough sell for me to engage him on this since I know the conversation won't be worthwhile, so why bother? I enjoy reading his posts on other topics so I'll just stick to that.

STATUTORY

07-28-2014, 08:01 PM

The "increasing the field" argument is only going to hurt the reputation of 1985 basketball being "close" to modern basketball, not support it. Careful with your choice of logic.

The game wasn't global in 1985 any more than it was in 1973. The game today however, is WAY more global than it was in 1985...

there were two separate leagues in the 60s and while the league was nominally "integrated", many other institutions pertinent to the development of basketball players were not, schools, hospitals etc, the domestic african american talent pool that can feasibly pursue basketball is much greater in 80s than it was in the 60s.

This is not even to mention that players in the 60s had to take off season jobs and could not dedicate training year round. Or the disparity in coaching betwen now and then.

fpliii

07-28-2014, 08:02 PM

What is the percentage of black players in the league from 1960 compared to 1980?

Answer the question.

I'm sure it's no big difference, right?
When did any of us mention 1960 specifically? Don't misrepresent our viewpoint(s).

Wilt and Russell were dominant players into the end of their careers. The league was 2/3 black by the time they were out of the league, and still finishing in the top few spots for MVP.

I'm not going to be baited again so this is my first and last post on the topic, but by sitting down and watching film from the late 60s/early 70s and the early/mid 80s, I don't see how any reasonable person can say there's a bigger gap in terms of talent or style of play than there is between the 90s and the present.

Again, I'm not saying the present game is superior...I hate when games devolve into 3pt chucking contests, and actually prefer the late 60s-80s/90s style of play to today's game. I like the clogged paint, and how it forces players to act creatively and think on their feet.

fpliii

07-28-2014, 08:02 PM

there were two separate leagues in the 60s and while the league was nominally "integrated", many other institutions pertinent to the development of basketball players were not, schools, hospitals etc, the domestic african american talent pool that can feasibly pursue basketball is much greater in 80s than it was in the 60s.

This is not even to mention that players in the 60s had to take off season jobs and could not dedicate training year round. Or the disparity in coaching betwen now and then.
Thanks for the extensive, specific research/evidence to support your claims.

Soundwave

07-28-2014, 08:06 PM

Thanks for the extensive, specific research/evidence to support your claims.

You seriously can't think life in the 50s/60s for a black person was anything like it was today or even in the 80s. The opportunities and economic situations aside from the social changes are miles apart.

fpliii

07-28-2014, 08:08 PM

You seriously can't think life in the 50s/60s for a black person was anything like it was today or even in the 80s. The opportunities and economic situations aside from the social changes are miles apart.
Why do you guys keep refusing to delve into specifics/provide data, and instead speak in generalities?

Again, nothing against you, but I'm not going to be baited. It's predictably weak trolling.

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 08:09 PM

What is the percentage of black players in the league from 1960 compared to 1980?

Answer the question.

I'm sure it's no big difference, right?
http://i.imgur.com/jV8NFL2.png

You need to be extremely specific about what dates you want to argue here.

1960-1969 saw a lot of change in the racial make up of the league. It went from about 30% black to 60% black in the course of that decade. So if you want to say "60s basketball" what year represents sixties basketball to you? Or should it be the percentage that sits nicely between 1960 and 1969? Actually by minutes played percentage, by 1965 57% of the league was already 'black'... so a majority black league playing NBA basketball. What were you driveling on about "5%" again?

Btw I've read it's about 70-75% black in 1980 or 1985.

And 1973 to 1985, as per my OP? That'd be an even smaller change. I'd bet the difference is like a 10 percent or 15 percent change tops.

Now compare that to the difference in % of international players 1985 to now. vs the % of international players 1973 to 1985.

The game has taken no more of a 'quantum leap' from Wilt's era to MJ's as MJ's to now. I can say this backed by doing the research, and watching film, and understanding rule changes and how it effects what I'm seeing while watching film. I did not conclude that via broad sweeping generalizations and/or making assumptions.

Soundwave

07-28-2014, 08:10 PM

Why do you guys keep refusing to delve into specifics/provide data, and instead speak in generalities?

Again, nothing against you, but I'm not going to be baited. It's predictably weak trolling.

What specific stats do you want? Do you seriously need stats to understand the 50s/60s was a very different time for black people?

Barack Obama would be washing dishes in the White House circa 1963 if he was extremely lucky, not commander in chief.

Most black people grew up in abject poverty in the 40s/50s/60s that most people wouldn't have any concept of today.

Even Bill Russell has said the first basketball hoop he had was one that had been throw in the garbage from a white neighborhood. Someone salvaged it and they basically plopped it down on an open dirt area and they played on that. Prior to that he'd never even seen a basketball (and he was about 10 years old by this time) before.

Compare that to the 1990s, where a grade 10 Chris Webber has player agents, round the calendar year coaching (high school, summer basketball camp, etc. etc.), going to a prep school just because of basketball, being recruited by dozens of big money colleges, etc. etc. etc.

STATUTORY

07-28-2014, 08:10 PM

Thanks for the extensive, specific research/evidence to support your claims.

two leagues - NBA/ABA - fact

players had to take off season jobs - ""None. I worked construction in the summer," said Robertson, noting that all players had off-season jobs then." http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2010/02/oscar_robertson_and_jerry_west.html

hospitals and schools were segregated - fact

vietnam war draft - fact

I guess the only statement that needs substantiating is the difference in level of coaching

STATUTORY

07-28-2014, 08:15 PM

http://i.imgur.com/jV8NFL2.png

You need to be extremely specific about what dates you want to argue here.

1960-1969 saw a lot of change in the racial make up of the league. It went from about 30% black to 60% black in the course of that decade. So if you want to say "60s basketball" what year represents sixties basketball to you? Or should it be the percentage that sits nicely between 1960 and 1969? Actually by minutes played percentage, by 1965 57% of the league was already 'black'... so a majority black league playing NBA basketball. What were you driveling on about "5%" again?

Btw I've read it's about 70-75% black in 1980 or 1985.

And 1973 to 1985, as per my OP? That'd be an even smaller change. I'd bet the difference is like a 10 percent or 15 percent change tops.

Now compare that to the difference in % of international players 1985 to now. vs the % of international players 1973 to 1985.

The game has taken no more of a 'quantum leap' from Wilt's era to MJ's as MJ's to now. I can say this backed by doing the research, and watching film, and understanding rule changes and how it effects what I'm seeing while watching film. I did not conclude that via broad sweeping generalizations and/or making assumptions.

so we just hand waving away difference between 55% of the league being black and 75% of the league being black?

quantum leap may be exaggeration but almost half of the league being white to only fourth of the league being white is kind significant.

fpliii

07-28-2014, 08:21 PM

two leagues - NBA/ABA - fact

players had to take off season jobs - ""None. I worked construction in the summer," said Robertson, noting that all players had off-season jobs then." http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2010/02/oscar_robertson_and_jerry_west.html

hospitals and schools were segregated - fact

vietnam war draft - fact

I guess the only statement that needs substantiating is the difference in level of coaching
:facepalm

there were two separate leagues in the 60s and while the league was nominally "integrated", many other institutions pertinent to the development of basketball players were not, schools, hospitals etc, the domestic african american talent pool that can feasibly pursue basketball is much greater in 80s than it was in the 60s.

This is not even to mention that players in the 60s had to take off season jobs and could not dedicate training year round. Or the disparity in coaching betwen now and then.
1) Demonstrate using objective evidence that the league was integrated in name alone.

2) Demonstrate using objective evidence that the domestic black talent pool that could/would pursue basketball was much larger.

3) Demonstrate using objective evidence that star players at the end of the 60s/beginning of the 70s had to take offseason jobs could not dedicate to training year round (some quotes from Wilt, Russell, West in particular would be great...interested in hearing about their jobs).

4) Demonstrate using objective evidence that the difference in coaching between the late 60s/early 70s was substantial.

In your new post, you made three more claims:

5) Demonstrate using objective evidence that the ABA during the late 60s/early 70s (i.e. when it was still a minor league) was stealing considerable talent from the NBA.

6) Demonstrate using objective evidence that Oscar continued to hold jobs into the late 60s/early 70s, and that other superstar players during that period did as well.

7) Demonstrate using objective evidence that segregation in hospitals and schools in the late 60s/early 70s not only existed, but impacted the black talent pool.

8) Demonstrate using objective evidence that the Vietnam War substantially impacted the talent pool.

See? There's a lot on your plate. I'm only sticking to arguments that can easily be quantified/observed:

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 08:25 PM

so we just hand waving away difference between 55% of the league being black and 75% of the league being black?

quantum leap may be exaggeration but almost half of the league being white to only fourth of the league being white is kind significant.
What's more dramatic...

Wilt's era 55% black by the mid 60's or upon retirement 66% black: to 70%-75% black in MJ's era

or

MJ's era 1993, 7% international to 21% international today

So... relatively similar impactful changes both ways. Where's the quantum leap?

fpliii

07-28-2014, 08:26 PM

so we just hand waving away difference between 55% of the league being black and 75% of the league being black?

quantum leap may be exaggeration but almost half of the league being white to only fourth of the league being white is kind significant.
After you've responded to my claims in the post above, here's another thing for you to address...

In 73, Wilt's last season in the league, the numbers are:

Total% - 65%
Games% - 65%
Minutes% - 66%
TSA% - 66%

If your 75% is correct, that's a 9%-10% difference. Okay. The league is now comprised of 19%-20% international players. Over the 80s, this number ranged from 1%-7%, and over the 90s it ranged from 6%-9%. So that's a 12%-18% difference from the 80s, and a 10%-12% difference from the 90s. Can't spin that or write it off.

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 08:28 PM

After you've responded to my claims in the post above, here's another thing for you to address...

In 73, Wilt's last season in the league, the numbers are:

Total% - 65%
Games% - 65%
Minutes% - 66%
TSA% - 66%

If your 75% is correct, that's a 9%-10% difference. Okay. The league is now comprised of 19%-20% international players. Over the 80s, this number ranged from 1%-7%, and over the 90s it ranged from 6%-9%. So that's a 12%-18% difference from the 80s, and a 10%-12% difference from the 90s. Can't spin that or write it off.
This season it's headlined at 'highest ever' at over 20%, In my above post I assumed 21 but it could be closer to 20 just an FYI as to how I came up with 21%

fpliii

07-28-2014, 08:28 PM

What's more dramatic...

Wilt's era 55% black by the mid 50's or upon retirement 66% black: to 70%-75% black in MJ's era

or

MJ's era 1993, 7% international to 21% international today

So... relatively similar impactful changes both ways. Where's the quantum leap?
Beat me to it. :lol

It's great having these hard numbers. Really takes the suspense out of these discussions, though.

I know you're busy with projects on Oscar and others so I don't want to distract you, but I'm sure you can interweave footage of the late 60s/early 70s and 80s, to really demonstrate how small the differences are (and maybe include a comparison between the 90s and the present league).

Soundwave

07-28-2014, 08:30 PM

What's more dramatic...

Wilt's era 55% black by the mid 60's or upon retirement 66% black: to 70%-75% black in MJ's era

or

MJ's era 1993, 7% international to 21% international today

So... relatively similar impactful changes both ways. Where's the quantum leap?

European players don't impact the game the same way black athleticism, size, and speed did.

Look at all sprinting events in the Olympics today. How many white people do you see? In some ways black people are simply better athletes, there's no shame in admitting it.

Do you really think Wilt Chamberlain would average 50 ppg and 25 rpg in the modern NBA or even close? How about a season of 30/11/10 for a 6-5 Oscar Robertson? If the answer is no, then that's pretty much an acknowledgement that the league has changed considerably.

Magic, Bird, Jordan circa 1988 IMO would still put up around the same numbers in the modern game.

fpliii

07-28-2014, 08:32 PM

This season it's headlined at 'highest ever' at over 20%, In my above post I assumed 21 but it could be closer to 20 just an FYI as to how I came up with 21%
I only have up to 2012-13 in my database, but this past season according to B-R, there were 482 players in the league, 96 of whom were foreign-born:

http://bkref.com/tiny/hXneG

for 19.9%. It's possible the over 20% comes from a different measure (weighted by games played, minutes, shot attempts, etc.). But the point still stands that the difference clearly outweighs the difference in black players from the late 60s/early 70s to the 80s/90s.

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 08:35 PM

Beat me to it. :lol

It's great having these hard numbers. Really takes the suspense out of these discussions, though.

I know you're busy with projects on Oscar and others so I don't want to distract you, but I'm sure you can interweave footage of the late 60s/early 70s and 80s, to really demonstrate how small the differences are (and maybe include a comparison between the 90s and the present league).
Maybe I could in the future I'm open to the idea :cheers:

1969 basketball https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap_50s5mNuI

Looks at least as close if not closer to 1980's basketball than 80's does to 2014.

And "5% black" with "Wilt/Russell then no one close" athletically generalizations and assumptions simply don't fit or belong in place of actual research.

fpliii

07-28-2014, 08:37 PM

European players don't impact the game the same way black athleticism, size, and speed did.

Look at all sprinting events in the Olympics today. How many white people do you see? In some ways black people are simply better athletes, there's no shame in admitting it.

Do you really think Wilt Chamberlain would average 50 ppg in the modern NBA or even close? If the answer is no, then that's pretty much an acknowledgement that the league has changed considerably.

Magic, Bird, Jordan circa 1988 IMO would still put up around the same numbers in the modern game.
1) If you feel improving the talent pool from foreign-born players is negligible compared to that of blacks, then we're done here.

2) The 50ppg was by design. That probably wasn't one of Wilt's 5 best seasons. From Frank McGuire himself, who coached Wilt in 61-62:

[quote]"We aren't as good as Boston

fpliii

07-28-2014, 08:38 PM

Maybe I could in the future I'm open to the idea :cheers:

1969 basketball https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap_50s5mNuI

Looks at least as close if not closer to 1980's basketball than 80's does to 2014.

And "5% black" with "Wilt/Russell then no one close" athletically generalizations and assumptions simply don't fit or belong in place of actual research.
:applause:

Soundwave

07-28-2014, 08:40 PM

1) If you feel improving the talent pool from foreign-born players is negligible compared to that of blacks, then we're done here.

2) The 50ppg was by design. That probably wasn't one of Wilt's 5 best seasons. From Frank McGuire himself, who coached Wilt in 61-62:

Answer the question ... would Wilt be able to score 50 ppg/25 rpg in the modern NBA in any offensive scheme today? I'd submit that there's no human being that could produce these numbers in the modern NBA even more than 4-5 times in a season (and even then it would be an incredible feat), let alone average them for an entire season.

Would Oscar Robertson at 6-5 be able to average 31/10/10 in the modern NBA? This is a stat line that LeBron James hasn't ever come close to sniffing.

If the league has not changed much since the 1960s, then there shouldn't be much of a doubt here, but if you really believe that, then I think you probably are the only person on this board that seriously believes in that.

I don't really have any doubt that Bird/Magic/Jordan/Isiah from 1988 could more or less match their production from that time into this season though. Might be a slight variance in some statistical categories, but not any major change (perhaps 27 ppg for Bird instead of 29, perhaps 32 ppg for Jordan instead of 35 ppg with other categories remaining about static.

LAZERUSS

07-28-2014, 08:43 PM

Damn, a 37 year old Steve Nash, playing 33 mpg, and leading the NBA in apg, just a couple of years ago. Or a 6-11 injury-prone Andrew Bogut leading the NBA in bpg, in that same season. Or a 6-8 non-athletic Kevin Love running away with the rpg, and doing so in 35 mpg. Or a Ricky Rubio shooting .368 from the field in his three seasons in the NBA, combined.

These great Black athletes of the current era would sure slaughter the likes of Jerry Lucas, Bill Walton, Pete Maravich, Jerry West, Dave Cowens, and Rick Barry. And what chance would players like Russell, Oscar, Hayes, Gilmore, Lanier, Bellamy, McAdoo, Archibald, Thurmond, Gus Johnson, Kareem, and Wilt have against these modern beasts that roam the hardwood of the NBA?

fpliii

07-28-2014, 08:46 PM

Answer the question ... would Wilt be able to score 50 ppg/25 rpg in the modern NBA in any offensive scheme today?

Would Oscar Robertson at 6-5 be able to average 31/10/10 in the modern NBA?

If the league has not changed much since the 1960s, then there shouldn't be much of a doubt, but if you really believe that, then I think you probably are the only person on this board that seriously believes in that.
Christ, can't believe I'm responding again:

1) It was by design. No coach today would be so stupid to try that. Why do you have a problem with responding to my specific points, with specific counterpoints/evidence? Why are you misrepresenting my position with these strawmen? In the 80s though, I could see him coming close in points, and beating out the Moses Malones of the world in rebounding.

2) Box score numbers mean little to me, but Oscar could average the same points, and more assists (since scorekeepers aren't as stingy as they were in his day). The rebounds and blocked shots would go down, because ~15% fewer shots would be taken by both sides. The paint is less packed due to improved spacing.

3) I never said the game hasn't changed since the 60s when compared to today. Again you're misrepresenting my stance. I said the game didn't change much from the late 60s/early 70s to the 80s. Don't put words in my mouth. I just think the top level stars from back then would be as successful in today's game as the top level stars of the 80s. No question in my mind from watching tape.

I know I keep saying this, but now I'm legitimately done being baited by weak trolling. Peace out.

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 08:48 PM

B-hoop

07-28-2014, 08:52 PM

I only have up to 2012-13 in my database, but this past season according to B-R, there were 482 players in the league, 96 of whom were foreign-born:

http://bkref.com/tiny/hXneG

for 19.9%. It's possible the over 20% comes from a different measure (weighted by games played, minutes, shot attempts, etc.). But the point still stands that the difference clearly outweighs the difference in black players from the late 60s/early 70s to the 80s/90s.

Couple of quick questions:

How many of the top 10 players in the league are international players?

How many are black?

You can't say quality has improved more from the 90's to today because there are more international players when these players aren't consistently the best in the league when compared to black players from the 60's to the 80's/90's.

Soundwave

07-28-2014, 08:55 PM

we doing straw man arguments now? :biggums:

How is it a straw man arguement. You are saying there isn't a big difference from the 60s to modern basketball.

If that's the case then your own logic dictates that players like Wilt and Oscar would be able to replicate their numbers in a modern NBA context.

But everyone knows they wouldn't even come close. Not on any team in the NBA, not under any kind of system. So how is the league "more or less the same"?

Whereas if we look at the star players from the late 80s, does anyone really doubt that Bird couldn't score 27 ppg today when Dirk hit 26 ppg a couple of times in his career? Or Jordan couldn't score 32 ppg? He had that down to pretty much a science even in the lower scoring/tight defense of the second threepeat Bulls. Those players transplanted into today's game would basically perform the same. The biggest adjustment for Bird/Magic would probably be the baggy shorts, lol.

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 08:59 PM

How is it a straw man arguement. You are saying there isn't a big difference from the 60s to modern basketball.

If that's the case then your own logic dictates that players like Wilt and Oscar would be able to replicate their numbers in a modern NBA context.

But everyone knows they wouldn't even come close. So how is the league "more or less the same"?

Whereas if we look at the star players from the late 80s, does anyone really doubt that Bird couldn't score 27 ppg when Dirk hit 26 ppg a couple of times in his career? Or Jordan couldn't score 32 ppg? He had that down to pretty much a science even in the lower scoring/tight defense of the second threepeat Bulls.
You used Wilt as your example :oldlol:

His coach wanted him to score 50 by design as fpliii had stated and I agree with him, that in the 1980's he'd sure as heck get 50 or close to 50 again if it were similarly, by coaches design.

You using that isolated situation to try and knock the stats of others in the 1960's is where you fall short. 1960's players MINUS Wilt were putting up similar numbers to 1980's players. Biggest difference is in (as fpliii had already pointed out) rebounding, and assists. Spacing changed a little, and the rules did effecting those things, as well as field goal percentages. Could Jerry West, or Oscar, or Baylor still be scoring 30+ a game in the 80's? You bet your left testicle they would.

fpliii

07-28-2014, 08:59 PM

Couple of quick questions:

How many of the top 10 players in the league are international players?

How many are black?

You can't say quality has improved more from the 90's to today because there are more international players when these players aren't consistently the best in the league when compared to black players from the 60's to the 80's/90's.
I'll respond to you since you asked in earnest (I hope the guys in this thread don't pile on your post senselessly, though predictably, I'm sure they will).

1) Dirk at the very least, but top 10 players is an arbitrary cutoff.

2) It's not about how many are black...if we're comparing 66% (from the end of Wilt's career, when he was still one of the top MVP votegetters) to 75%, the question is, how many of that extra 9% of black players are top 10 players? See, it's not about top-heavy talent, it's about depth of legitimately good players.

3) That was one of my reasons, the others were improved spacing/more utilization of the three, and elimination of illegal defense/Thibs' impact on D.

I started watching in Shaq's rookie year, and I just can't repeat this enough. It's like night and day to me watching games from then and now. When watching games from the late 60s/early 70s compared to those of the 80s, if there wasn't a very rarely-utilized 3pt line drawn on the floor, it would be impossible to differentiate between the two. The game looks exactly the same in terms of both level and style of play.

Soundwave

07-28-2014, 09:04 PM

You used Wilt as your example :oldlol:

His coach wanted him to score 50 by design as fpliii had stated and I agree with him, that in the 1980's he'd sure as heck get 50 or close to 50 again if it were similarly, by coaches design.

You using that isolated situation to try and knock the stats of others in the 1960's is where you fall short. 1960's players MINUS Wilt were putting up similar numbers to 1980's players. Biggest difference is in (as fpliii had already pointed out) rebounding, and assists. Spacing changed a little, and the rules did effecting those things, as well as field goal percentages. Could Jerry West, or Oscar, or Baylor still be scoring 30+ a game in the 80's? You bet your left testicle they would.

None of them would sniff 30+ a game in the 90s. And no I don't believe even Wilt would score 50 a game even in the 80s.

I don't think I'm in the minority on that here either.

There's no basketball player ever to have lived that could average 50 ppg for an entire season (on top of 25 rebouds) in any NBA season post 1980 IMO. The competition and defensive schemes would eventually zero in on a player doing that and make it too difficult for them to do it.

Not Jordan, not Wilt, not Kareem, not LeBron, not Kobe, no one is doing that.

Something like that could only happen in the 1960s or earlier. Maaaaaybe the early 70s but even that might be pushing it.

I don't have a doubt that a peak Wilt could perhaps be a 31-32/12-13 player in the 80s, but 50/25? Only in fantasy land or the 1960s basketball is something like that ever happening.

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 09:09 PM

None of them would sniff 30+ a game in the 90s. And no I don't believe even Wilt would score 50 a game even in the 80s.

I don't think I'm in the minority on that here either.

There's no basketball player ever to have lived that could average 50 ppg for an entire season (on top of 25 rebouds) in any NBA season post 1980 IMO. The competition and defensive schemes would eventually zero in on a player doing that and make it too difficult for them to do it.

Not Jordan, not Wilt, not Kareem, not LeBron, not Kobe, no one is doing that.

Something like that could only happen in the 1960s or earlier. Maaaaaybe the early 70s but even that might be pushing it.

I don't have a doubt that a peak Wilt could perhaps be a 31-32/12-13 player in the 80s, but 50/25? Only in fantasy land or the 1960s basketball is something like that ever happening.
the 25 rebounds and 50 points thing are two totally different things... a coach can design an offense around a player like Wilt to score 50... unlike rebounds, which are limited to availability. You are doing a really childish tactic right now, I forget the term for it, but you are taking a sensible argument and tweaking details to make it sound worse so as to ridicule and justify your position. Not going to work here. My stance on this is clear. Stop pushing your own tweaked version of it on to me, and others such as fpliii. What we've said is reasonable given the facts that we can bring to the table.

LAZERUSS

07-28-2014, 09:12 PM

What chance would these scrubs have in the current NBA?

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AlFrOj5Mc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5EUU9UZWCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLXcg-V8FI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6OsKy1c5A0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLGAaTinDq8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAnC4cBXAuY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

Psileas

07-28-2014, 09:15 PM

I'll respond to you since you asked in earnest (I hope the guys in this thread don't pile on your post senselessly, though predictably, I'm sure they will).

1) Dirk at the very least, but top 10 players is an arbitrary cutoff.

2) It's not about how many are black...if we're comparing 66% (from the end of Wilt's career, when he was still one of the top MVP votegetters) to 75%, the question is, how many of that extra 9% of black players are top 10 players? See, it's not about top-heavy talent, it's about depth of legitimately good players.

3) That was one of my reasons, the others were improved spacing/more utilization of the three, and elimination of illegal defense/Thibs' impact on D.

I started watching in Shaq's rookie year, and I just can't repeat this enough. It's like night and day to me watching games from then and now. When watching games from the late 60s/early 70s compared to those of the 80s, if there wasn't a very rarely-utilized 3pt line drawn on the floor, it would be impossible to differentiate between the two. The game looks exactly the same in terms of both level and style of play.

:applause:
Plus: There was a recent time when up to 3 international players could be argued for being top-10: Dirk, Nash, a healthy Yao. Plus, Parker was Finals MVP in 2007.

Soundwave

07-28-2014, 09:16 PM

the 25 rebounds and 50 points thing are two totally different things... a coach can design an offense around a player like Wilt to score 50... unlike rebounds, which are limited to availability.

It's impossible in any era outside of the 50s/60s in any case. Which tells us something.

Even 30+ ppg is fairly rare, there's maybe one player every year since 1980 that's hit 30+ ppg and usually it's just barely above 30 ppg.

Jordan's the only one to have more than two 32+ ppg seasons outside of the 1960s and he's basically an anomaly.

Even Kareem only topped 32 ppg once in his entire career and that came not coincidentally I think very early in the 1970s.

Psileas

07-28-2014, 09:19 PM

not really an accurate way for judging change since it took 100,000 years for humans to learn how to build anything beyond rubbing sticks and stones together to make fire

in the last 100 years we've invented more things than we have in all the meleniums prior to that

evolution is in no way shape or form unison/clockwork/equal

Thanks for showing that there's actually bigger separation between 80's and now than 60's and 80's.

LAZERUSS

07-28-2014, 09:20 PM

Thanks for showing that there's actually bigger separation between 80's and now than 60's and 80's.

In fact, put a peak Shaq in the current NBA, and he would be riding the bench behind the much more gifted Chuck Hayes. What a difference ten years makes.

STATUTORY

07-28-2014, 09:25 PM

:facepalm

1) Demonstrate using objective evidence that the league was integrated in name alone.

2) Demonstrate using objective evidence that the domestic black talent pool that could/would pursue basketball was much larger.

3) Demonstrate using objective evidence that star players at the end of the 60s/beginning of the 70s had to take offseason jobs could not dedicate to training year round (some quotes from Wilt, Russell, West in particular would be great...interested in hearing about their jobs).

4) Demonstrate using objective evidence that the difference in coaching between the late 60s/early 70s was substantial.

In your new post, you made three more claims:

5) Demonstrate using objective evidence that the ABA during the late 60s/early 70s (i.e. when it was still a minor league) was stealing considerable talent from the NBA.

6) Demonstrate using objective evidence that Oscar continued to hold jobs into the late 60s/early 70s, and that other superstar players during that period did as well.

7) Demonstrate using objective evidence that segregation in hospitals and schools in the late 60s/early 70s not only existed, but impacted the black talent pool.

8) Demonstrate using objective evidence that the Vietnam War substantially impacted the talent pool.

See? There's a lot on your plate. I'm only sticking to arguments that can easily be quantified/observed:

• The difference in the black talent pool from the late 60s/early 70s to the 80s/90s did not change substantially, and expansion as the decades went on made talent less concentrated.

• The differences in playstyle and talent from watching games is minuscule from the late 60s/early 70s and 80s.

• The rule changes/innovations/influx of international talent (which was nonexistent until around a decade ago) have greatly changed the composition of league talent and the style of the game.

As I've said, I'm not going to be baited by weak trolling. When you have evidence to support the above claims you made, get back to me. Thanks.

1) the league today is integrated and we have a natural unconstrained equilibrium of 75-80% black players in the NBA. the fact the league had only 55% black players in the end of the 60s provide prima facie evidence that the the league was not integrated to the best of its ability.

2) 19 million black americans in 1960s, 27 million black americans by the start of the 1980s. So if simply assume NO change in circumstances of african americans that would make it more convenient for blacks to enter NBA, my point would still be true on basis of population growth alone.

of the 19 million black americans in 1960s. around 9 million males. of the 9 million males, the age distribution indicates that around 20 percent of the 9 mil blacks would be in age group suitable for NBA, age 15-34. That's about 1.8 million people. Because of the vietnam war, 180k blacks were forcibly drafted into the war, leaving about 1.6 million pool of domestic black talent pool. Assuming everyone that was not drafted had the wherewithal to pursue basketball, which is a very generous assumption for your side of the argument.

a similar computation for 1980 give pool of 2.7 million blacks. Significantly higher

3) quote from oscar robertson - http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2010/02/oscar_robertson_and_jerry_west.html

quote from jerry west - http://www.dailyprogress.com/greenenews/sports/jerry-west-talks-about-his-ties-to-charlottesville-his-basketball/article_72258430-4d64-5efc-8214-4336c25e9687.html

I think the onus is on you to prove that majority of the league didn't have offseason jobs...

4) This can be easily observed (if you are going to say that difference between play in the 60s and now is miniscule and justify that by "easy observation" I will do the same here. what's good for the goose is good for the gander

5)"Of the 84 players in the ABA at the time of the merger, 63 played in the NBA during the 1976–77 season.[69] In that first post-merger season, four of the NBA's top ten scorers had come over from the ABA (Billy Knight, David Thompson, Dan Issel and George Gervin).[69]"

Moses malone, George Gervin, Julius Ervin, Rick Barry. 4 of the most iconic players of that era, all played in the ABA.

significant talent? you decide

6)I don't know exactly when Robertson stopped taking offseason jobs. The fact he had to take off season job is enough.

7) in the 60s the vast majority of players in the NBA played college ball. College was in effect a prerequesite for the NBA. only 3.1 % of the adult black population in 1960 attended college. The rest simply had no path to the NBA. The college enrollment stats for black americans now is much higher in case you were wondering the connection.

8)did above.

As for your "easily quantified and observed" statements. what a load of bs. Easily observed by who? fanboys who can't even extricate their face from the **** orifice of Wilt's exhumed corpse?

LAZERUSS

07-28-2014, 09:27 PM

[QUOTE=STATUTORY]1) the league today is integrated and we have a natural unconstrained equilibrium of 75-80% black players in the NBA. the fact the league had only 55% black players in the end of the 60s provide prima facie evidence that the the league was integrated in name only.

2) 19 million black americans in 1960s, 27 million black americans by the start of the 1980s. So if simply assume NO change in circumstances of african americans that would make it more convenient for blacks to enter NBA, my point would still be true on basis of population growth alone.

of the 19 million black americans in 1960s. around 9 million males. of the 9 million males, the age distribution indicates that around 20 percent of the 9 mil blacks would be in age group suitable for NBA, age 15-34. That's about 1.8 million people. Because of the vietnam war, 180k blacks were forcibly drafted into the war, leaving about 1.6 million pool of domestic black talent pool. Assuming everyone that was not drafted had the wherewithal to pursue basketball, which is a very generous assumption for your side of the argument.

a similar computation for 1980 give pool of 2.7 million blacks. Significantly higher

3) quote from oscar robertson - http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2010/02/oscar_robertson_and_jerry_west.html

quote from jerry west - http://www.dailyprogress.com/greenenews/sports/jerry-west-talks-about-his-ties-to-charlottesville-his-basketball/article_72258430-4d64-5efc-8214-4336c25e9687.html

I think the onus is on you to prove that majority of the league didn't have offseason jobs...

4) This can be easily observed (if you are going to say that difference between play in the 60s and now is miniscule and justify that by "easy observation" I will do the same here. what's good for the goose is good for the gander

5)"Of the 84 players in the ABA at the time of the merger, 63 played in the NBA during the 1976

fpliii

07-28-2014, 09:28 PM

As for your "easily quantified and observed" statements. what a load of bs. Easily observed by who? fanboys who can't even extricate their face from the **** orifice of Wilt's exhumed corpse?
*sigh* Deflections and statements like this.

Thanks for playing dude. But you're full of shit, and you know it.

I know you're just messing around though, so I don't have a problem with that. Some of the others actually believe this kind of stuff without objective/confirmable evidence.

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 09:29 PM

It's impossible in any era outside of the 50s/60s in any case. Which tells us something.

Even 30+ ppg is fairly rare, there's maybe one player every year since 1980 that's hit 30+ ppg and usually it's just barely above 30 ppg.

Jordan's the only one to have more than two 32+ ppg seasons outside of the 1960s and he's basically an anomaly.

Even Kareem only topped 32 ppg once in his entire career and that came not coincidentally I think very early in the 1970s.
... what? Again why don't you ever cite facts man? :biggums:

First, nobody in the 50's averaged 30 a game... why even bring up the 50's!? Who are we discussing here and how did we get from 1973-1985 to 2003-2015 as the dates subject to discussion in the OP to "1950's"!?

There have been two prominent spikes in the "30+ppg scorers"... one of them was 1962. The other was after hand checking was eliminated, I forget which season specifically, but multiple players also scored over 30 that year. If you wish to take a position to argue something "can't" be done, or something was a fluke isolated to one era or w/e, you should be more diligent about finding actual figures. I mean, you were arguing the league was 5% black in the 60's earlier in this thread which proved to be grossly inaccurate. You'll be better off doing more research and making less assumptions. Otherwise your position comes off more as an agenda and less as an actual position supportable by facts.

STATUTORY

07-28-2014, 09:30 PM

*sigh* Deflections and statements like this.

Thanks for playing dude. But you're full of shit, and you know it.

I know you're just messing around though, so I don't have a problem with that. Some of the others actually believe this kind of stuff without objective/confirmable evidence.

what deflections? literally every point i enumerated is truth. You only responded to the last statement because there's nothing to dispute elsewhere. You asked me specific question and I gave specific answers. No deflections at all.

LAZERUSS

07-28-2014, 09:32 PM

The reality is...there is absolutely NOTHING being done on a court today, that wasn't being accomplished in the 60's, and likely before.

BTW, how about this 6-4 white guy who played in the 40's...

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

In college, Pollard played for Stanford and was a key member of Stanford's 1942 national championship team (though due to illness, he did not play in the final game). During World War II, he starred in Coast Guard teams from Alameda to Honolulu. Following World War II, Pollard played for the San Diego Dons and the Oakland Bittners, making four trips to Denver for AAU playoffs. In the NBA, Pollard was considered one of the best forwards in the 1940s and 1950s, and was known for his leaping ability[1] (Pollard would occasionally dunk from the free throw line during warmups[2]) earning him the nickname "The Kangaroo Kid".

LAZERUSS

07-28-2014, 09:36 PM

Thanks to modern technology, training, and coaching...

In the 58-59 NBA season, the league shot .756 from the FT line.

In the 73-74 season, the NBA shot .771 from the FT line.

In the 13-14 season, the NBA shot .756 from the FT line.

What a remarkable difference 50+ years has made. A FT is now automatic.

jongib369

07-28-2014, 09:38 PM

Have fun zeroing in on him as he still puts up around 35-40 points and nears 10 assists. How close he can get to 50 is dependent on whether the coach is dumb enough to design it that way like people have said and if he's surrounded by guys where you CAN'T zero in on him

This is going to be a godawful example but for instance....

Lets imagine in fairy tale land Wilt is on a team that looks like this

Wilt
Dirk
Horry
Allen
Hinrich

Good luck doubling Wilt with your Small forward or guards leaving one of those guys open without your PF being able to help as he defends Dirk whose creeping around for a 3/mid range shot

fpliii

07-28-2014, 09:43 PM

what deflections? literally every point i enumerated is truth. You only responded to the last statement because there's nothing to dispute elsewhere. You asked me specific question and I gave specific answers. No deflections at all.
Jesus ****ing christ, why do I bother...fine, I'll waste more of my time here:

1) See the point above about international players. The gap between Wilt's retirement (at which point he was still a top 5 player at worst) and that 75% or so is smaller than that between international players in the 80s/90s and the present. Not saying you will, but don't dare try to minimize the importance of this.

2) Okay, and how many teams were there in the late 60s compared to the 80s?

3) Burden of proof reversal? :lol Is this real life? First strawmen, now this.

4) Thing is...from watching tape you can observe differences in style/level of play. That much is evident. To make a claim about coaching? How the **** is that similar in the slightest? Show me some proof of differences in tactics/schemes from the late 60s/early 70s compared to the 80s. Again, be careful not to fall victim to burden of proof fallacies.

5) You compared the ABA at the end of its existence to the NBA. Okay. When did I say that? Here is my quote:

Demonstrate using objective evidence that the ABA during the late 60s/early 70s (i.e. when it was still a minor league) was stealing considerable talent from the NBA.

Don't put words in my mouth.

6) It isn't, and again, don't try a burden of proof reversal again.

7) Dug yourself into a deeper hole:

in the 60s the vast majority of players in the NBA played college ball. College was in effect a prerequesite for the NBA. only 3.1 % of the adult black population in 1960 attended college. The rest simply had no path to the NBA. The college enrollment stats for black americans now is much higher in case you were wondering the connection.

Unquestionably dug yourself into a deeper hole. Now you have more things to attempt to research...

A) Demonstrate using objective evidence that the 3.1% wasn't overly represented by pro athlete prospects.

B) Demonstrate using objective evidence that a markedly higher percentage of legitimate pro athlete prospects are now enrolled in college.

Again, don't try and spin this into a burden of proof reversal.

8) Not in the slightest. More to prove:

of the 19 million black americans in 1960s. around 9 million males. of the 9 million males, the age distribution indicates that around 20 percent of the 9 mil blacks would be in age group suitable for NBA, age 15-34. That's about 1.8 million people. Because of the vietnam war, 180k blacks were forcibly drafted into the war, leaving about 1.6 million pool of domestic black talent pool. Assuming everyone that was not drafted had the wherewithal to pursue basketball, which is a very generous assumption for your side of the argument.

C) Specific references for the numbers you're producing?

D) U.S. troops were in Vietnam from 65-73, so it's not a percentage of 1.6 million, it's a percentage of the equivalent proportion over eight years, if you can provide proof in (C).

Again, don't try and spin this into a burden of proof reversal.

LAZERUSS

07-28-2014, 09:46 PM

Can you imagine Gilmore, Kareem, and Wilt having to battle the much bigger Howard's, Drummond's, and D. Jordan's of the current NBA? They wouldn't have a prayer.

Hell, you could put a Gilmore, Alcindor, or Wilt, in their peak college seasons, and they would get run out of the building by CPOY's like Tyler Hansborough.

Let's get real here...the best players of the WBNA would pummel the likes of Russell, Gus Johnson, Thurmond, Pistol Pete, Oscar, West, Dr. J, Gilmore, KAJ, McAdoo, and Wilt.

Cocaine80s

07-28-2014, 09:47 PM

did op even watch wilt play live? lol

why the **** does he stan wilt so hard

Kvnzhangyay

07-28-2014, 09:47 PM

fpliii

07-28-2014, 09:50 PM

Js lol "burden of proof" cmon man this isn't Ld/policy/pofo even tho i agree with your points

I don't mind having fun on these boards, but when debating, I stick to the letters of the law of logic. Otherwise why waste the time going back and forth?

Obviously it's all well-intentioned, since basketball is entertainment. But I'm generally not going to say something unless I mean it and sincerely believe it.

LAZERUSS

07-28-2014, 09:52 PM

did op even watch wilt play live? lol

why the **** does he stan wilt so hard

Have you even watched any of the 2% footage that exists in Wilt's career? The 2% that doesn't include any footage from one of his 271 40+ point games?

fpliii

07-28-2014, 09:57 PM

Have you even watched any of the 2% footage that exists in Wilt's career? The 2% that doesn't include any footage from one of his 271 40+ point games?
To be fair, don't we have some footage from two such games?

1) 62 All-Star game (42 points).
2) Wilt breaking Pettit's career scoring record (41 points).

From some of the footage of him with the facemask, it's possible those were 40 ppg performances too.

Obviously this is still very limited and 40 points doesn't scratch the surface of his scoring ability, but it is something. :confusedshrug:

ralph_i_el

07-28-2014, 10:06 PM

Roundball_Rock

07-28-2014, 10:13 PM

You'll be better off doing more research and making less assumptions. Otherwise your position comes off more as an agenda and less as an actual position supportable by facts.

Soundwave dismisses a poster doing research to support his arguments as "working on a high school project."

Excellent point CavsFTW. It will be interesting to see how some of the people who denigrate the 60's and 70's will react when inevitably there is a critical mass of people who view the 80's and even the 90's as historical relics in the same way people like Soundwave view the 60's/70's. Keep in mind this year's college freshmen class was 3 years old when Bill Clinton left the White House and 3-5 when Shaq was at his peak. Think about it: for these kids Bill Clinton and Shaquille O'Neal are as much historical figures as Ronald Reagan and Kareem are to our generation.

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 10:23 PM

Soundwave dismisses a poster doing research to support his arguments as "working on a high school project."

Excellent point CavsFTW. It will be interesting to see how some of the people who denigrate the 60's and 70's will react when inevitably there is a critical mass of people who view the 80's and even the 90's as historical relics in the same way people like Soundwave view the 60's/70's. Keep in mind this year's college freshmen class was 3 years old when Bill Clinton left the White House and 3-5 when Shaq was at his peak. Think about it: for these kids Bill Clinton and Shaquille O'Neal are as much historical figures as Ronald Reagan and Kareem are to our generation.
Yes, everything fades with time. At one time Wilt, Oscar, West etc was all fresh in every adult who loved basketball in the U.S.'s mind... this was in the 1980's when Jordan was young. Than those adults got old... than new generations of young adults dismissed them. The process continues. There's now as much separation of time as Wilt to Jordan since Jordan has played to now. People who defend Jordan and talk about him compared to this era's players... now they're the old nostalgiac heads.

Roundball_Rock

07-28-2014, 10:27 PM

Yes, everything fades with time. At one time Wilt, Oscar, West etc was all fresh in every adult who loved basketball in the U.S.'s mind... than those adults got old... than new generations of young adults dismissed them. The process continues. There's not as much separation of time as Wilt to Jordan since Jordan has played to now.

Yup. So the role reversal with some of the people diminishing the 60's/70's when people start to say the same about the 80's/90's will be quite amusing to observe. :D You already are starting to see this to some degree...

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 10:34 PM

Yup. So the role reversal with some of the people diminishing the 60's/70's when people start to say the same about the 80's/90's will be quite amusing to observe. :D You already are starting to see this to some degree...
And as per what me and fpliii were trying to point out, there's just as much plethora of rule and game style changes that these new generation fans that don't identify with the Jordan era can point out as examples how the game has evolved/changed so that they can support (how ever erroneous some feel it may be) that the "new" game is better, or perhaps more difficult/skilled/etc. The three point shot is being utilized as a key weapon now more than ever. Hand checking has been eliminated. International players are now making up 20% of the league, and that number is still rising. Carrying went from being a thing in the beginning of the Jordan era to being non-existent today, so modern players handles look way more dramatic than the beginning of the Jordan era.

The game changes... it ALWAYS changes. With change will come people picking and defending sides... the old way vs the new way. That's why I like studying the history of the game, I don't have to pick a side, I can just keep learning about the changes and learn to recognize the greatness and talent spread out across ALL the eras.

jongib369

07-28-2014, 10:38 PM

Wilt sucks and would get eaten ALIVE by Shaq. You're about to get ethered with science Cavs

http://oi58.tinypic.com/5djbsp.jpg

What excuses do you have now?

CavaliersFTW

07-28-2014, 10:39 PM

Wilt sucks and would get eaten ALIVE by Shaq. You're about to get ethered with science Cavs

http://oi58.tinypic.com/5djbsp.jpg

What excuses do you have now?
:oldlol:

Roundball_Rock

07-28-2014, 10:41 PM

And as per what me and fpliii were trying to point out, there's just as much plethora of rule and game style changes that these new generation fans that don't identify with the Jordan era can point out as examples how the game has evolved/changed so that they can support (how ever erroneous some feel it may be) that the "new" game is better, or perhaps more difficult/skilled/etc. The three point shot is being utilized as a key weapon now more than ever. Hand checking has been eliminated. International players are now making up 20% of the league, and that number is still rising. The game changes... it ALWAYS changes. With change will come people picking and defending sides... the old way vs the new way. That's why I like studying the history of the game, I don't have to pick a side, I can just keep learning about the changes and learn to recognize the greatness and talent spread out across ALL the eras.

Great points all. :applause: I have found it odd that there are some people who argue the league steadily improved for decades and then peaked in the 80's and 90's--as it then promptly declined thereafter. That is a very strange argument to make--and one that will have increasing difficulty holding over time. The idea that some past period was the peak is a very hard sell. Every generation is going to tend to think it witnessed a new level of achievement in every field. If the league was progressing for its first 30-35 years there is no rational reason to believe it suddenly stopped progressing 15-20 years ago.

Dr.J4ever

07-28-2014, 11:07 PM

Pretty much, and the gap is bigger IMO in these past 12 years than the Wilt-MJ gap from watching tape...the influx of international players, elimination of illegal defense/Thibs innovating, utilization of spacing/3pt line, etc.

This isn't to say MJ isn't the best ever...he very well might be. The game just looks so much different now than it did, for better or worse.

I don't know how I feel about the present game. I love watching NBA regardless of the changes, but it seems like games from the late 60s/70s/80s/early 90s are a different sport at times.

This is exactly the way I feel. The game has changed so much in the last 12 years or so that if you time traveled a coach from the 80s into today, he would be very surprised with our style of game. He wouldn't be able to adjust very quickly.

Also, You tube videos, and the internet have changed modern day scouting. 76ers prospect/draft pick Dario Saric is a good example. During the 80s, he would be a mysterious player from Yugoslavia, but today I myself can watch his games anytime on the internet, and make my own judgements.

Imagine the wealth of information the scouts can get out of him.

Dr.J4ever

07-28-2014, 11:25 PM

The other point Soundwave was making about if Wilt can't average 50/25 or if Oscar can't average a triple double in the 1980s NBA, then it must have been a very different league.

I agree with this to an extent, but most of this can be answered with PACE. I think many on this board have demonstrated that the 60s pace was much faster, and most of the fantastic stats from that era can be explained with just that.

I don't think the 60s was all that different with 80s when I watch tape of 60s ball. But I do think there is a significant difference between today's ball and 90s ball.

Basketball has changed a lot in the last 12 years or so, This was mentioned in the recently concluded NBA Finals with just the astronomical no. of 3 point attempts by the Spurs and comparing it with teams from the early 90s, for example.

Today's style of play and rules has shifted thinking on positions, types of players recruited, game strategies and tactics, defensive philosophies to counter these changes, etc..

juju151111

07-29-2014, 12:09 AM

50s and early 60s was inflated has **** and the guard positions were horrible. Most of them couldn't even dribble with their left hand and could not go left at all. They were slow and lacked athleticism. The pace and lack of any kind of defensive concepts allowed for sky rockets numbers. The lack of athletic wing players led to inflated block number s by the Bigs. They barely had anyone over 6'10. From what I have seen I still respect the Bigs of the50s and early 60s. I have no doubt both of them can play in this era especially Wilt. The League becoming bigger size,pace,3 point shot,amount of games promotional stuff,flights,more teams and athletic small players would limit them. Wilt isn't averaging freaking 50 ppg 20 rpg 10 blocks. I see Wilt peak season today has 24-30 ppg,12-15 rpg,3asts,3-4 blks and Russell more of a slightly better Ben Wallace(no I personally don't believe he winning 11 chips today because of various reasons Free agency, more teams, etc....)

STATUTORY

07-29-2014, 02:17 PM

Jesus ****ing christ, why do I bother...fine, I'll waste more of my time here:

1) See the point above about international players. The gap between Wilt's retirement (at which point he was still a top 5 player at worst) and that 75% or so is smaller than that between international players in the 80s/90s and the present. Not saying you will, but don't dare try to minimize the importance of this.

2) Okay, and how many teams were there in the late 60s compared to the 80s?

3) Burden of proof reversal? :lol Is this real life? First strawmen, now this.

4) Thing is...from watching tape you can observe differences in style/level of play. That much is evident. To make a claim about coaching? How the **** is that similar in the slightest? Show me some proof of differences in tactics/schemes from the late 60s/early 70s compared to the 80s. Again, be careful not to fall victim to burden of proof fallacies.

5) You compared the ABA at the end of its existence to the NBA. Okay. When did I say that? Here is my quote:

Don't put words in my mouth.

6) It isn't, and again, don't try a burden of proof reversal again.

7) Dug yourself into a deeper hole:

Unquestionably dug yourself into a deeper hole. Now you have more things to attempt to research...

A) Demonstrate using objective evidence that the 3.1% wasn't overly represented by pro athlete prospects.

B) Demonstrate using objective evidence that a markedly higher percentage of legitimate pro athlete prospects are now enrolled in college.

Again, don't try and spin this into a burden of proof reversal.

8) Not in the slightest. More to prove:

C) Specific references for the numbers you're producing?

D) U.S. troops were in Vietnam from 65-73, so it's not a percentage of 1.6 million, it's a percentage of the equivalent proportion over eight years, if you can provide proof in (C).

Again, don't try and spin this into a burden of proof reversal.

1) this is simply nonsequitor. My point is and has always been there's been a continued evolution of the game due to increased financial investment from the inception of the sport onward and there's a marked difference between 60s and 80s, and 60s and now. Comparing 60s to 80s with 80s to 2000s was never my point. I only responded to posts about difference between 60s and 80s, never about the difference in difference between 60s to 80s and 80s to 2000s. don't put words into my mouth

2)14 teams in 1969, 25 teams in 1989. The growth in population far outpaces the growth in available roster spots and this is still assuming that the black population in 60s had the same opportunities to pursue basketball as the black population in 80s, which is a very generous assumption for you.

3) not a burden of proof reversal. You asked me for sources substantiating off season jobs for players. I provided TWO QUOTES FROM REAL STAR players of that era stating EXACTLY THAT. For some reason that's not enough. I'm sorry I don't have the resources to track down what every player of that era did in their offseason for the duration of their career. Yea you got me, I failed to make my point :rolleyes:

4) the complexities of defensive and offensive schemes are not observable in games?

5)so Julius Erving getting drafted in 1972, early 1970s, and choosing to go to ABA is not a counter to your point?
George Gerving playing in ABA in 1972, early 70s, is not indicative that ABA had NBA level talent? Gerving had a nice career for himself in the NBA
Rick Barry jumping from NBA to ABA in 1967 didn't demonstrate that ABA was a credible threat to take talent from the NBA? rick barry. kind of a legend
Mose Malone going to ABA in 1974, early 70s,

I only discussed players who fit your goalpost of 60s and early 70s, that's why i didnt even bother mentioning david thompson. Yet somehow not convincing enough for you? even though they are the exact examples of what you asked

it's incredible. You ask for specific examples, i give them to you and you just willfully ignore them. Clever debate style

6) completely irrevelant. My point was that players had to take offseason jobs. I have quotes from players stating exactly such. What kind of offseason jobs they took is interest to a biographer not me.

7)
A) even if all 3.1% of black college graduates were college athletes playing basketball (an impossibility), that's still lower than number of black college basketball players today. So even in the most favorable circumstance to you, my point still stands.

B)this is almost tautological based on the higer number of blacks in the NBA

since every black player in the NBA was by definition a pro athlete prospects and since in the 80s and 60s vast majority of the players in the nba went to college, the fact there are markedly higher percentage of black players in the nba in the 80s compared to the 60s indicate that there are higher percentage of black pro athletes enrolled in colleges in 80s compared to 60s, under safe assumptions.

What are you even arguing against here? other than trying to be an **** prick. That there was no more discriminatory practices and institutions in place in the 60s that precluded admission of blacks in higher education compared to the 80s? Or those prejudices didnt extend to basketball players?

C)some sources:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922246.html
http://www.veteranshour.com/vietnam_war_statistics.htm
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2010/02/blacks_and_education_what_we_learn.html

D) the age group I used in my calculation was 15-34, since 15 year olds cannot actually play in the NBA, the 8 year duration is accounted for by my generous age inclusion.

Since you seem to enjoy putting my post through these **** and empirical driven scrutiny even though most posts on message boards, including those of yourself and Cavsftw, fail to meet these lofty standards you erected, I don't mind wasting some of my time responding to your bs. I do find your insistence on data to be amusing though, since it's theories that define the facts. inference is driven by assumptions, without them, data are just meaningless numbers.

fpliii

07-29-2014, 02:30 PM

Since you seem to enjoy putting my post through these **** and empirical driven scrutiny even though most posts on message boards, including those of yourself and Cavsftw, fail to meet these lofty standards you erected, I don't mind wasting some of my time responding to your bs. I do find your insistence on data to be amusing though, since it's theories that define the facts. inference is driven by assumptions, without them, data are just meaningless numbers.
Again, more of the same. I'm not going to respond because what you're saying isn't sourced, and you responded with more one-liners and random, non-representative quotes. Don't accuse me of dodging you, because you know I'm going to respond again with the exact same post. I hope you, or anyone else, doesn't think what you've posted above is by any means exhaustive/exhibitive of your points.

I can't speak for Cavs, but if I am using something as evidence, I'm going to be damn sure of it. I don't know why you felt the need to introduce over a dozen separate points here. Wouldn't you be better served to finding which points you can prove, and sticking to those? When I've drawn the comparison, I've stuck to objective statements:

1) Sourced composition of the league in terms of race/international players.

2) Rule changes/data-based observations regarding the use of the three (3pa/fga is one such measure) and how defense has improved (DRtg trends prove this).

I'm not throwing random statements out there, that may or may not be true, and that may or may not be relevant.

Theories define facts, but without objective proof, a theory is useless shit. If youc. Any support something with evidence or clear cut logic without holes, it's not even a theory...it's nonsense.

I like your posting dude and think you're one of the funnier posters on the site. But there's no point in a back-and-forth when you're going to keep making claims without proof.

I'm not trying to be a prick, but if you're here just to pile on and make unsubstantiated (in terms of veracity and relevance) claims based on peripheral, when I'm sticking to limited, direct arguments that are sourced/verifiable.

fpliii

07-29-2014, 02:33 PM

Also, a note. I did not want specific examples. I want exhaustive, league-wide evidence. Individual examples are not representative. Context is everything, and if we are speaking about the league as a whole, we have to be sure that the statements we make apply to the league as a whole.

navy

07-29-2014, 02:50 PM

CavaliersFTW

07-29-2014, 03:25 PM

Hmm....I've watched old footage and I must say the post players are better or at worst the same as the one's today. I dont see why Wilt couldnt be a dominant scorer. Not 50 points a game, but he would certainly put up better numbers than Al Jefferson.

However the guard play I've seen is atrocious and Im still looking for 60s video that says otherwise. These players struggle getting past their man and cannot keep a consistent dribble and it forces lots of unnecessary passes. There is very poor footwork and nonexistent dribble moves as well. And Im not talking about the carries and travels of today's NBA players I mean the basic moves. I dont see how these guys would make it in today's nba.

As for athletic differences, the players today are much faster and I dont think it's debatable. Although the speed may very well be more about the bad guard play than actual athletic differences. The post players were much more finesse from what ive seen. Even Wilt Chamberlain. But their moves are so smooth it doesnt matter.

Someone point me in the right direction for the better 60s guards. Cant say Im impressed.
That's because the guys with flashy handles were outclassed by the guys that didn't... like Oscar Robertson and Jerry West. Archie Clark, Guy Rodgers, there is a list of guys with awesome handles from the 60's... that nobody today has ever seen or heard of because they weren't as good as the guys who passed first and dribbled second.

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

Maybe those extra passes you've seen made by guys like West or Oscar because they get cut off rather than forcing a dribble move to create space and iso up a shot are simply the right plays to make... as opposed to "forcing an unnecessary pass" as you put it. You should point out specific plays and players. Because I've seen a lot of guards execute moves and display good handles from the 1960's that simply aren't talked about. I have a feeling most people who didn't have the privelage of watching basketball then and seeing the variety of teams and talent are just obvlivious to these guys because the two biggest names in basketball in the backcourt at that time are Oscar and West who both played extremely vanilla. They were the face of guards in that generation, but that's not how all the guards played back then.

Soundwave

07-29-2014, 03:28 PM

Guard play has definitely changed, just like goaltending in hockey is radically different from previous eras. Some things simply change and improve.

Even Wilt, who is notorious for not giving anyone outside of his era any credit (even slagged on Kareem, lol) admits players by the 1980s were more athletic.

Unfortunately the current era is the worst for post play. So some things have digressed.

STATUTORY

07-29-2014, 03:31 PM

Again, more of the same. I'm not going to respond because what you're saying isn't sourced, and you responded with more one-liners and random, non-representative quotes. Don't accuse me of dodging you, because you know I'm going to respond again with the exact same post. I hope you, or anyone else, doesn't think what you've posted above is by any means exhaustive/exhibitive of your points.

I can't speak for Cavs, but if I am using something as evidence, I'm going to be damn sure of it. I don't know why you felt the need to introduce over a dozen separate points here. Wouldn't you be better served to finding which points you can prove, and sticking to those? When I've drawn the comparison, I've stuck to objective statements:

1) Sourced composition of the league in terms of race/international players.

2) Rule changes/data-based observations regarding the use of the three (3pa/fga is one such measure) and how defense has improved (DRtg trends prove this).

I'm not throwing random statements out there, that may or may not be true, and that may or may not be relevant.

Theories define facts, but without objective proof, a theory is useless shit. If youc. Any support something with evidence or clear cut logic without holes, it's not even a theory...it's nonsense.

I like your posting dude and think you're one of the funnier posters on the site. But there's no point in a back-and-forth when you're going to keep making claims without proof.

I'm not trying to be a prick, but if you're here just to pile on and make unsubstantiated (in terms of veracity and relevance) claims based on peripheral, when I'm sticking to limited, direct arguments that are sourced/verifiable.

Everything I posted is pertinent to the central question of whether the NBA in the 60s is significantly different from its iteration in the 80s and now. Such a question requires the contextualization of the sport and league within its economic realities and the greater social circumstances of those periods.

Hence why I ask the dual question. Given that the increased financial return from 60s to 80s and the dissimilar social institutions in those decades especially pertaining to the experience of blacks who make up significant percentages of the league, is it reasonable to believe that NBA and its product remained unchanged?

This is the question that "wilt fans" and "wilt haters" debate about in its most raw and purest form.

Your two objective statements do not engage with that question in any serious way. Because they merely describe the symptoms without prescribing the cause.

your first sourced and verified shows a 20% difference in headcounts of blacks in the league between 1969 and 1980

your second point similarly shows significant difference in the actual play of the game.

If those two statements truly characterize the entirety of your point, then you should be completely agnostic as to whether Cavsftw is correct or "wilt haters" are correct.

The quotes I provided were in fact representative. Both West and Robertson affirm that all players had offseason jobs in their era, our knowledge of history irrevocably come from the testimonials of people from those periods, whether those testimonials are in form of statements or records is simply a matter availability.

In disputing the veracity of my statement, you are either disputing the veracity of the claims of Robertson or West or the journalist who quoted them. Either of which is fine with me. But in absence of evidence to the contrary, we should start from the presupposition that the statements are correct and not false.

I have nothing against you either, I don't take arguments here very personally. But I do take exception to your attempt at masking your interpretation of facts as what's said by the data itself.

navy

07-29-2014, 04:09 PM

That's because the guys with flashy handles were outclassed by the guys that didn't... like Oscar Robertson and Jerry West. Archie Clark, Guy Rodgers, there is a list of guys with awesome handles from the 60's... that nobody today has ever seen or heard of because they weren't as good as the guys who passed first and dribbled second.

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

Maybe those extra passes you've seen made by guys like West or Oscar because they get cut off rather than forcing a dribble move to create space and iso up a shot are simply the right plays to make... as opposed to "forcing an unnecessary pass" as you put it. You should point out specific plays and players. Because I've seen a lot of guards execute moves and display good handles from the 1960's that simply aren't talked about. I have a feeling most people who didn't have the privelage of watching basketball then and seeing the variety of teams and talent are just obvlivious to these guys because the two biggest names in basketball in the backcourt at that time are Oscar and West who both played extremely vanilla. They were the face of guards in that generation, but that's not how all the guards played back then.

Im not talking about flashy handles. I'm talking about basic handles. Which alot of the 60s guards clearly lacked. Watch Jerry West in this video. He'd get ripped. I've yet to see great footwork from the guards either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMp7c2bcfkk

In fact, from what Ive seen it was very rare for the guards to successfully blow past their man and do something with it. You can credit this to the lack of spacing I suppose.

Outside of the pull up jumper, alot of the guards posted up like their forward and center counterparts but they were more often to end the move with a pull up shot. I could see the bigger guards getting away with it today, but the smaller one's who dont have the speed nor sound fundamentals? Doubtful.

Alot of the times they were cut off because they dominated with one hand far too often and simply lacked the ability to drive past their counterparts. Whether it be a speed thing or dribbling flaw thing. :confusedshrug:

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

07-29-2014, 04:12 PM

I'm not saying the 50s and 60s were WEAK, but they simply didnt have the talent the eras that followed had.

Honestly anyone with a pair of eyeballs can see the changes in modern professional basketball, which is why we rank what players did in their respective eras.

CavaliersFTW

07-29-2014, 04:15 PM

Im not talking about flashy handles. I'm talking about basic handles. Which alot of the 60s guards clearly lacked. Watch Jerry West in this video. He'd get ripped. I've yet to see great footwork from the guards either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMp7c2bcfkk

In fact, from what Ive seen it was very rare for the guards to successfully blow past their man and do something with it. You can credit this to the lack of spacing I suppose.

Outside of the pull up jumper, alot of the guards posted up like their forward and center counterparts but they were more often to end the move with a pull up shot. I could see the bigger guards getting away with it today, but the smaller one's who dont have the speed nor sound fundamentals? Doubtful.

Alot of the times they were cut off because they dominated with one hand far too often and simply lacked the ability to drive past their counterparts. Whether it be a speed thing or dribbling flaw thing. :confusedshrug:
I think you haven't seen enough of that era, you should check out Phila's Youtube channel and brush up on how many guards there were other than Jerry West. You basically describe Jerry West, and blanket his abilities with ball handling onto every guard of the 60's... really it couldn't be further from the truth. I've seen many examples of 60's guards doing what you say they could not do. From low key ones to all-stars. Important to note too, if you are exaggerating and just talking about the frequency of drives... the paint was more clogged as you stated, hand checking was in play so you couldn't just slash inside unimpeded, and you were only alloted 1.5 steps not "2" the modern rule so keeping in mind you had to maintain a dribble through all those trees in the middle, while not carrying the ball. And further, running at your defender was a charging foul back then, today it is a blocking foul. All this goes into making it a lot tougher to get inside coming from the outside in that era. It's not a knock on the guards, they played the best they could. The best guards in the world at that time had mastered THAT version of the game. There were great penetrating guards in that era. But Jerry West was a shooter, not a great penetrator, and Jerry West's style does not encapsulate the rest of the guards of that time.

Also, just to point out one thing that Coach Nick did not mention or understand from that series. West had injured both thumbs. His handle was effected. Normal footage of Jerry West by the 70's shows a player with a lot more confidence with the ball in either hand.