Proof: Basketball today>>>>> Old era ball

[Lebronxrings]

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2008-06-01/much-has-changed-last-celtics-lakers-finals-meeting

From the wise words of the great bird and ainge themselves- ""For the fans' point of view, talk with them," says Bird, a Hall of Fame player who now is president of the Pacers. "I like to watch it either way." "I love the game today," says Ainge, then the guard that Lakers fans loved to hate and now the Sporting News' executive of the year for his work as the Celtics' general manager. "I love the energy. I love the defensive intensity. Coaches and teams have more resources, more scouting, more technology. I think it's an evolution of the game."


"All you have to do is look at the stats," Bird says. "There's better shooting back then, better defense now. Obviously, the skill level is not where it was at one time."

"Offenses are a little more complex because the defenses have forced that," Ainge says. "In the '80s, defense was important but you didn't do as much double-teaming, you didn't do as much trapping. You played guys straight up.


Care to defy the greats who ACTUALLY PLAYED DURING THAT ERA?

wait i thought defense was terrible in this weak era and lebron would get destroyed by the old pistons. :hammerhead:

Imagine Wilts era :biggums:

[Dragic4Life]

It's common knowledge. Only MJ stans, Wilt stans and Kareem stans are delusional enough to think otherwise.

[Warfan]

This has already been posted. Waiting for your alts to come in and make a really dumb post...

[Lebronxrings]

This has already been posted. Waiting for your alts to come in and make a really dumb post...
I didn't see it :confusedshrug:

[jstern]

The defender's in this era are more restricted, have less to work with, so of course in that sense they have to evolve into something extra, work a little extra harder, but that doesn't mean that it has gotten harder for the perimeter players after the rule changes. He also said offensively today's player's are less skilled. Why do you ignore that?

Why don't you answer this then. Why did so many perimeter players had career years after the rule changes? Even allowing Nash to win MVPs after the age of 30? Also creating the PG era?

And I'm one of the guys who thinks today's players are just as good as the players in the 80s and 90s.

[sportjames23]

Lebronxring = Dragic4Fail

[Kvnzhangyay]

The defender's in this era are more restricted, have less to work with, so of course in that sense they have to evolve into something extra, work a little extra harder, but that doesn't mean that it has gotten harder for the perimeter players after the rule changes. He also said offensively today's player's are less skilled. Why do you ignore that?

Why don't you answer this then. Why did so many perimeter players had career years after the rule changes? Even allowing Nash to win MVPs after the age of 30? Also creating the PG era?

And I'm one of the guys who thinks today's players are just as good as the players in the 80s and 90s.

Pretty sure thats everyone except the people that didn't actually watch the 80s and 90s...

[GrapeApe]

It's tough to argue what those guys are saying and I absolutely agree. The game has evolved and will continue to evolve. Even so, it's not grounds to discredit past players IMO. It's not as if great players from the past had any advantages over their peers. It was a level playing field and they stood out above the rest. That's why I find the "time machine" hypotheticals to be logically flawed.

[dubeta]

Pre- 2003 was a weak era imo

[LAZERUSS]

I thought I was going to read some "proof"...but sorry, nothing to see here....keep moving....

[JohnFreeman]

It's common knowledge. Only MJ stans, Wilt stans and Kareem stans are delusional enough to think otherwise.
welcome back

[Asukal]

Pre- 2003 was a weak era imo

Weak era of trolls. You're not even funny, just extremely stupid. :facepalm

[GrapeApe]

Pre- 2003 was a weak era imo

PED's?

[Smook A.]

Pre- 2003 was a weak era imo
I'm guessing you were born in 2003

[Kvnzhangyay]

I'm guessing you were born in 2003

:roll: :roll: :roll: :applause: :applause:

[DonDadda59]

"All you have to do is look at the stats," Bird says. "There's better shooting back then...

Highest League eFG%, NBA History
1) 2013-14 .501
2) 2009-10 .501
3) 2008-09 .500
4) 1994-95 .500 (3 point line shortened)
5) 199-96 .499 (3 point line shortened)
6) 2010-11 .498
7) 2007-08 .497
8) 2012-13 .496
9) 2006-07 .496
10) 1984-85 .496


Only 3 of the top 10 shooting seasons were not from the post early-mid 2000s rule changes NBA. 2 of them were years the NBA moved the 3 point line closer.


Obviously, the skill level is not where it was at one time."

AKA Larry Legend thinks players were more skilled in the past...

[GODbe]

Proof isn't needed honestly. Just working eyes and common sense.

[Marchesk]

Proof isn't needed honestly. Just working eyes and common sense.

Wilt, Baylor, and Gus Johnson looked pretty damn awesome in Cavs videos.

[TheMan]

I'm guessing you were born in 2003
:yaohappy:

Like someone else mentioned, I love how OP ignores what Bird said about offensive skill being worse today...dat agenda :applause:

[DonDadda59]

:yaohappy:

Like someone else mentioned, I love how OP ignores what Bird said about offensive skill being worse today...dat agenda :applause:

Not only that, but since now old school players are apparently preaching Gospel...

[INDENT]Someone, however, thinks otherwise, and that other person is former Lakers great Jerry West. The former Lakers general manager voiced his opinion about the NBA today and the upcoming draftees this year on ESPN Radio with Scott Van Pelt and Ryen Rusillo:

[B]"Just look at the league, this is the weakest I

[ImKobe]

beta getting ethered left n right

[Dr.J4ever]

Highest League eFG%, NBA History
1) 2013-14 .501
2) 2009-10 .501
3) 2008-09 .500
4) 1994-95 .500 (3 point line shortened)
5) 199-96 .499 (3 point line shortened)
6) 2010-11 .498
7) 2007-08 .497
8) 2012-13 .496
9) 2006-07 .496
10) 1984-85 .496


Only 3 of the top 10 shooting seasons were not from the post early-mid 2000s rule changes NBA. 2 of them were years the NBA moved the 3 point line closer.



AKA Larry Legend thinks players were more skilled in the past...

This is deceiving. In context, I think what they(Bird, Ainge, Scott) were talking about is FG%. The fact that teams then shot the ball at a much higher %, and on average had 20 more PPG.

However, if you are making a point about defense, then EFG% is not a good way to compare defenses across eras since they didn't shoot the 3 nearly as much as they do today.

Players shoot so many more 3s today with so more accuracy. This of course will raise Effective Field Goal %.

If any body here is unclear about EFG%, here is the definition below:

"Sporting Charts explains Effective Field Goal Percentage - eFG%

Basic basketball statistics have long been unfair to players who shoot a lot of 3-pointers. Players who take and make a large number of 3-point shots often don't have a very impressive field goal percentage, but that doesn't tell the whole story in terms of the points that player produces.

Take, for example, a player like Hall of Fame center Bob Lanier. He generally did all his scoring around the basket. He had a career field goal percentage of 51.4, but since he did all his scoring in the lane, his effective field goal percentage was also 51.4.

Now by contrast, let's look at a player like Hall of Fame guard Reggie Miller, who made 2560 3-pointers during his career. His career field goal percentage was 47.1, but because of all the 3-pointers he made, his effective field goal percentage was all the way up to 54.4."

So in eras(1980s) where PPGs by teams were so much higher and traditional FG% were also higher, they didn't take so many 3s also. This made them at a disadvantage when you compare them to teams in this era, if you use the advanced stat tool of EFG% .

Additionally, Larry might be correct, that players back them were more skilled(perhaps), but now there's no denying the most important thing he, Ainge, and Laker Coach Scott revealed and agree on: that their eras defenses are not nearly as complex as today's defenses.

If you watch the game closely today and you're honest to yourself, this is really basic basketball knowledge.

[Dr.J4ever]

I also want to know people's opinions on this from the article:

"Scott points out that the best of today's players are more athletic and just as skilled. "There weren't any 7-footers who could guard on the perimeter like Garnett" he says, and no do-it-all superstars.........."

I certainly remember it this way. I don't remember centers back then who blitzed on the pick and roll the way it is commonly done today.

[Bandito]

It's common knowledge. Only MJ stans, Wilt stans and Kareem stans are delusional enough to think otherwise.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo this fgt is back:(


Well he's been back for a long time but now the alts triumvirate is officially back!!!!

[Encre92]

Not one single player in the 70s/60s would start on any team in today's league. Not one.

Meanwhile you take our top 40-50 current players and they will be top 10 in the old era.

[StephHamann]

Basketball today>>>>> Old era ball


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-30-2014/m8dyun.gif


:rockon:

[Paul George 24]

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2008-06-01/much-has-changed-last-celtics-lakers-finals-meeting

From the wise words of the great bird and ainge themselves- ""For the fans' point of view, talk with them," says Bird, a Hall of Fame player who now is president of the Pacers. "I like to watch it either way." "I love the game today," says Ainge, then the guard that Lakers fans loved to hate and now the Sporting News' executive of the year for his work as the Celtics' general manager. "I love the energy. I love the defensive intensity. Coaches and teams have more resources, more scouting, more technology. I think it's an evolution of the game."


"All you have to do is look at the stats," Bird says. "There's better shooting back then, better defense now. Obviously, the skill level is not where it was at one time."

"Offenses are a little more complex because the defenses have forced that," Ainge says. "In the '80s, defense was important but you didn't do as much double-teaming, you didn't do as much trapping. You played guys straight up.


Care to defy the greats who ACTUALLY PLAYED DURING THAT ERA?

wait i thought defense was terrible in this weak era and lebron would get destroyed by the old pistons. :hammerhead:

Imagine Wilts era :biggums:

FLASE,BIG MAN TODAY DORSN'T KNOW HOW TO PLAY DEFENCE :no:

[Paul George 24]

Not one single player in the 70s/60s would start on any team in today's league. Not one.

Meanwhile you take our top 40-50 current players and they will be top 10 in the old era.

WILT CAN :banana:

[LAZERUSS]

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-30-2014/m8dyun.gif


:rockon:

Young school kids in the early 60's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soLH6bau9uo

[Paul George 24]

It's common knowledge. Only MJ stans, Wilt stans and Kareem stans are delusional enough to think otherwise.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3853/15093376935_f3457cd5ef.jpg

[Paul George 24]

Lebronxring = Dragic4Fail

everyone know it :applause:

[Paul George 24]

Pre- 2003 was a weak era imo

weak era,then why no center in current era can scores,rebs,blks shot more than shaq is his rookie season :roll:

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3853/15093376935_f3457cd5ef.jpg

[Paul George 24]

Proof isn't needed honestly. Just working eyes and common sense.

too bad,u dun hv neither one :roll:

[iamgine]

Young school kids in the early 60's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soLH6bau9uo
They had young Kobe at 1:55

[La Frescobaldi]

gosh this is a lousy thread. C'mon guys, step it up

[LAZERUSS]

gosh this is a lousy thread. C'mon guys, step it up

It's just the weekly 60's bashing topic. We all know that only 6-0 white nerds played the game back then. Not only that, but it was played half-court, and with eight-foot peach baskets. Dunking was unheard of, and rebounds were picked up off the ground. Double-dribble? Players dribbled with BOTH hands at the same time, and usually head-high. No one could make a FT back then, either, because it was so far away from the basket. Passing consisted of merely handing the ball to a teammate. Anything else was an automatic turnover.

Now the game is played by 7-2+ Magic Johnson's, with 12 foot rims on football fields. Centers are 8-2+ Hakeem's, and they routinely bang their heads on the rim when they dunk. FT shooting? Been eliminated because it is automatic today. Instead they just award the player three points, since the game is now about 3pt shooting. Of course, since everyone was shooting 95% from the old three point line, they moved the shot back from 23 feet to 23 yards. Now the average is only 60%.

Yep. The game today is light years ahead of the 60's.

[Lebronxrings]

It's just the weekly 60's bashing topic. We all know that only 6-0 white nerds played the game back then. Not only that, but it was played half-court, and with eight-foot peach baskets. Dunking was unheard of, and rebounds were picked up off the ground. Double-dribble? Players dribbled with BOTH hands at the same time, and usually head-high. No one could make a FT back then, either, because it was so far away from the basket. Passing consisted of merely handing the ball to a teammate. Anything else was an automatic turnover.

Now the game is played by 7-2+ Magic Johnson's, with 12 foot rims on football fields. Centers are 8-2+ Hakeem's, and they routinely bang their heads on the rim when they dunk. FT shooting? Been eliminated because it is automatic today. Instead they just award the player three points, since the game is now about 3pt shooting. Of course, since everyone was shooting 95% from the old three point line, they moved the shot back from 23 feet to 23 yards. Now the average is only 60%.

Yep. The game today is light years ahead of the 60's.
why are you melting down? :biggums:

[LAZERUSS]

why are you melting down? :biggums:

Not at all.

It just amazes me that when we have footage of the NBA in the 60's, and with players every bit as tall, as athletic, and as skilled, as we have in today's NBA...we still have these topics pop up weekly.

Again, these morons make it seem like the average player of today is light-years ahead of those of the 60's (and beyond.)

[LAZERUSS]

Here was a typical 6-1 white player from the 60's thru the 70's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11BpfX2KDUo

Keep in mind that he used to routinely challenge the likes of Russell, Thurmond, Kareem, and Lanier when he played.

BTW, he was also an NCAA tourney MVP, which included a Finals game of 42 points.

[Lebronxrings]

Not at all.

It just amazes me that when we have footage of the NBA in the 60's, and with players every bit as tall, as athletic, and as skilled, as we have in today's NBA...we still have these topics pop up weekly.

Again, these morons make it seem like the average player of today is light-years ahead of those of the 60's (and beyond.)
well they are. Its like comparing technology from back then to today. Back then, colour television was considered an extreme luxury and very popular. You can't say that today, it would be considered the same status. It has outlived itself. In the same way, 60s players would be nobodies in todays nba. High schoolers probably could beat them.

[LAZERUSS]

well they are. Its like comparing technology from back then to today. Back then, colour television was considered an extreme luxury and very popular. You can't say that today, it would be considered the same status. It has outlived itself. In the same way, 60s players would be nobodies in todays nba. High schoolers probably could beat them.

I see high schoolers like this all the time today...

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

[Lebronxrings]

Here was a typical 6-1 white player from the 60's thru the 70's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11BpfX2KDUo

Keep in mind that he used to routinely challenge the likes of Russell, Thurmond, Kareem, and Lanier when he played.

BTW, he was also an NCAA tourney MVP, which included a Finals game of 42 points.
if he tried that first shot in the nba, he'd be blocked. :rolleyes:

[Lebronxrings]

I see high schoolers like this all the time today...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ
ya i would say thats around high school level.

[LAZERUSS]

ya i would say thats around high school level.

Today's high schools are churning out Thon Maker's...seven-footers who shoot 28% from a high school three-point line.

Brilliant development.

[Heavincent]

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-30-2014/m8dyun.gif


:rockon:

Lebron23 with the killer reverse layup :bowdown: Dr. J esque

[Lebronxrings]

Lebron23 with the killer reverse layup :bowdown: Dr. J esque
wheres your vid? You can't do any better phaggit.

[LAZERUSS]

well they are. Its like comparing technology from back then to today. Back then, colour television was considered an extreme luxury and very popular. You can't say that today, it would be considered the same status. It has outlived itself. In the same way, 60s players would be nobodies in todays nba. High schoolers probably could beat them.

How do you think a peak Shaq would fare in today's NBA? Obviously, he never faced anyone with DeAndre Jordan's size or skill, and same with Andre Drummond.

And take a look at how an old Shaq fared against a prime Howard?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=howardw01

Then think about this...

A prime Hakeem gave Shaq all he could handle. And a 39 year old Kareem just annihlated a 23 year Hakeem. And Moses routinely pounded Kareem. And Nate Thurmond was the "KAJ-stopper." No one held a peak Kareem down like Thurmond did. And a prime Wilt just murdered a peak Thurmond.

But, I guess DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond would just crush a peak Shaq, right?

[3ball]

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2008-06-01/much-has-changed-last-celtics-lakers-finals-meeting

From the wise words of the great bird and ainge themselves- ""For the fans' point of view, talk with them," says Bird, a Hall of Fame player who now is president of the Pacers. "I like to watch it either way." "I love the game today," says Ainge, then the guard that Lakers fans loved to hate and now the Sporting News' executive of the year for his work as the Celtics' general manager. "I love the energy. I love the defensive intensity. Coaches and teams have more resources, more scouting, more technology. I think it's an evolution of the game."


"All you have to do is look at the stats," Bird says. "There's better shooting back then, better defense now. Obviously, the skill level is not where it was at one time."

"Offenses are a little more complex because the defenses have forced that," Ainge says. "In the '80s, defense was important but you didn't do as much double-teaming, you didn't do as much trapping. You played guys straight up.


Care to defy the greats who ACTUALLY PLAYED DURING THAT ERA?

wait i thought defense was terrible in this weak era and lebron would get destroyed by the old pistons. :hammerhead:

Imagine Wilts era :biggums:
How does everyone miss the bolded above???

Why was skill higher in previous eras??... because there was no spacing and a lower proportion of open shots, which meant players had to score ON defenders more often... Accordingly, the type of player that was developed back then was one that had the ability to take their man (individually unique scoring ability), as opposed to 3-and-D or just finishing a play off of the PG's dribble creation.

Like compare Harrison Barnes and Alex English - Barnes is like a robot, a cookie-cutter type of a player, and there are a lot more players like him... Otoh, English was one of a kind, as was Kareem, McaDoo, Bird, Magic, Bernard King, etc... these guys had unique games built on TAKING THEIR MAN, not finishing a play for an open shot.
.

[jongib369]

How do you think a peak Shaq would fare in today's NBA? Obviously, he never faced anyone with DeAndre Jordan's size or skill, and same with Andre Drummond.

And take a look at how an old Shaq fared against a prime Howard?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=howardw01

Then think about this...

A prime Hakeem gave Shaq all he could handle. And a 39 year old Kareem just annihlated a 23 year Hakeem. And Moses routinely pounded Kareem. And Nate Thurmond was the "KAJ-stopper." No one held a peak Kareem down like Thurmond did. And a prime Wilt just murdered a peak Thurmond.

But, I guess DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond would just crush a peak Shaq, right?
http://youtu.be/EYsXeYzFr7w?t=3m16s

:roll:

[Lebronxrings]

Yeah this is pretty common knowledge. I've watched some 80s, 90s, 00s to today.. The game is constantly evolving in a better direction from a physical, mental, fundamental and dental standpoint. There's no doubt in my mind that I could make for a serviceable player in the 60's just for perimeter defense alone (think Tony Allen). Today? There's so much competition you could make 100s of entire basketball leagues of talent equivalent to the 60s. (srs)
yea. I always noticed that from watching older highlights back then, the huge spacing and open shots players got. Today, you need to work hard for every single point.

[GrapeApe]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread but cross-era comparisons using the "time machine" scenario are highly flawed. The best method by far is comparing how they performed relative to their competition. That eliminates statistical discrepancies, rule changes, style changes, nutritional/medical/technological advances, as well as external non-basketball related factors.

[3ball]

In today's game, since it's a higher proportion of open shots, we have cookie-cutter players to MAKE those open shots... they are just open shots, so any robot can make them.

Compare Harrison Barnes and Alex English for example - Barnes is like a robot, a cookie-cutter type of a player, and there are a lot more players like him...

Otoh, English was one of a kind, as was Kareem, McaDoo, Bird, Magic, Bernard King, etc... these guys had unique games resulting from the need to TAKE THEIR MAN, not finishing a play for an open shot.

That's part of the reason Duncan can still play at a high level - he just has to make open shots today, he doesn't have to have an offense run through him like before.

[Lebronxrings]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread but cross-era comparisons using the "time machine" scenario are highly flawed. The best method by far is comparing how they performed relative to their competition. That eliminates statistical discrepancies, rule changes, style changes, nutritional/medical/technological advances, as well as external non-basketball related factors.
i get this, and agree with this type of criteria. Problem is, some people (jongib, 3ball) believe guys like Wilt and Russell would succeed just as well in this era. They make stupid arguments how players back then are just as good as todays even with the evolved game. Then you have retards who call this a weak era and try to diminish players today by saying back then, they would be scrubs. Thats my only problem.

[The_Pharcyde]

well they are. Its like comparing technology from back then to today. Back then, colour television was considered an extreme luxury and very popular. You can't say that today, it would be considered the same status. It has outlived itself. In the same way, 60s players would be nobodies in todays nba. High schoolers probably could beat them.

I know you are just doing your trolling thing
Cause surely no one is this dumb haha

[GrapeApe]

i get this, and agree with this type of criteria. Problem is, some people (jongib, 3ball) believe guys like Wilt and Russell would succeed just as well in this era. They make stupid arguments how players back then are just as good as todays even with the evolved game. Then you have retards who call this a weak era and try to diminish players today by saying back then, they would be scrubs. Thats my only problem.

I'm shocked we are actually in agreement on something :oldlol:

That being said, my point is also applicable for the reverse scenario. For example, it's equally flawed to say something like "modern scrubs would dominate in previous eras" or something to that effect. You cannot simply "transport" a modern player to another era as the exact same player they are today. The only way to compare a player like, say, Jordan to Wilt is to compare how they fared against their competition at the time.

[3ball]

You cannot simply "transport" a modern player to another era as the exact same player they are today. The only way to compare a player like, say, Jordan to Wilt is to compare how they fared against their competition at the time.
This is very true...

For example, most people think Lebron would be a good 3-point shooter back then - but he was a 32% three-point shooter for the first 9 years of his career... Only in 2012 did he catch on to the floor-spacing trend that had taken over the league and become a better 3-point shooter... So if he played back when the 3-pointer wasn't used, it's illogical to think he would shoot any better than he did the first 9 years of his career (32%).

And I have a hard time thinking that players from previous eras who were accustomed to taking a much higher proportion of "the worst shots in basketball" (as another poster described contested, mid-range shots), would have trouble taking the much easier modern allocation of shots designed to maximize efficiency - open looks at three-pointers, easy at-rim looks created by dribble penetration and screen rolls, and of course FT's.

It's an easier game, which is why guys like Duncan can still crush - he gets to take more open shots, rather than before where the offense ran through him and he had to create shots for everyone else.
.

[Marchesk]

Not one single player in the 70s/60s would start on any team in today's league. Not one.

Meanwhile you take our top 40-50 current players and they will be top 10 in the old era.

This is the most ignorant post I've seen on here that wasn't blatant trolling. At the center position alone ... :facepalm

[TheMan]

This is the most ignorant post I've seen on here that wasn't blatant trolling. At the center position alone ... :facepalm
It was so horrifically bad I was torn between giving that post legitimacy or letting it slip by like a smelly fart in the wind. Kareem Abdul Jabbar would crush the league today, who's going to stop him???

[GrapeApe]

This is the most ignorant post I've seen on here that wasn't blatant trolling. At the center position alone ... :facepalm

Not suprising considering the source. I wonder if he'd rethink that statement if he realized he just said Anderson Verejao > prime Kareem? :oldlol:

[Marchesk]

Not suprising considering the source. I wonder if he'd rethink that statement if he realized he just said Anderson Verejao > prime Kareem? :oldlol:

He also implied that your average small forward today > Dr J, and Kyrie Irving > Oscar Robertson.

[Lebronxrings]

I'm shocked we are actually in agreement on something :oldlol:

That being said, my point is also applicable for the reverse scenario. For example, it's equally flawed to say something like "modern scrubs would dominate in previous eras" or something to that effect. You cannot simply "transport" a modern player to another era as the exact same player they are today. The only way to compare a player like, say, Jordan to Wilt is to compare how they fared against their competition at the time.
thing is that argument is extremely valid. Modern day scrubs WOULD dominate in previous eras. Come on, players these days train their entire lives, along with evolution, it clearly puts them above past players. Put Lebron in the 50s and he dominates everyone and wins 12 rings. Its not meaning to critique the "greats" who played well relative to their peers, rather its a blatant truth.

[Marchesk]

thing is that argument is extremely valid. Modern day scrubs WOULD dominate in previous eras. Come on, players these days train their entire lives, along with evolution, it clearly puts them above past players. Put Lebron in the 50s and he dominates everyone and wins 12 rings. Its not meaning to critique the "greats" who played well relative to their peers, rather its a blatant truth.

What makes Lebron better than Bill Russell, though? Let's start Lebron off in 59 on the Lakers in place of Baylor. Now what make you think the Lakers are winning rings instead of the Celtics? In the 1962 finals, Baylor averaged 40.6/17.9/3.7 while West averaged 31.1/5/2.7 and they still lost in 7 to Boston.

You can argue Lebron top 10 > Baylor top 20, and that's fine, but some of that is due to Baylor suffering a major knee injury in his prime. The real question is what makes Lebron more successful back then than Baylor/West, Oscar, Wilt or Petit against Boston?

[Round Mound]

The Only Things That Have Gotten Better In The 00s Is Far Range Shooting, New Better Medicine For Injuries, Medical Suppliments To Gain More Muscle and More Athletic Slashers (whom have benefited with the soft rules post early-mid 90s). As Far As Passing, B-Ball IQ, Shot Selection, Mid Range Shooting, Post Play and Athletic Skilled Big Men, Today Is The Weakest Era Ever.

[GrapeApe]

thing is that argument is extremely valid. Modern day scrubs WOULD dominate in previous eras. Come on, players these days train their entire lives, along with evolution, it clearly puts them above past players. Put Lebron in the 50s and he dominates everyone and wins 12 rings. Its not meaning to critique the "greats" who played well relative to their peers, rather its a blatant truth.

I get what your saying but you're missing my point. Let me put it like this. If you took an MIT grad and transported him to Albert Einstein's time, with the advancements in science and technology that he'd be privy to, the MIT grad might run circles around Einstein. Does that make him smarter? Absolutely not. If Einstein were born in modern times, he'd likely run circles around that same MIT grad.

If you're going to transport a modern NBA player with modern advantages to a past era, you have to give the past era players the same modern advantages to level the playing field. If a modern day scrub was born in the 40's and played in the 60's he likely be a scrub in the 60's. Get what I'm saying?

[ballinhun8]

This article is six years old :oldlol:

It's only seven years younger than OP and his alts :roll: :roll: :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

The REALITY is....the game of basketball has been around for over 100 years. And aside from the 24 second clock in the mid-50's, and the three-point shot, since the late 70's (actually it was being used by the ABL and ABA in the 60's), the game is essentially being played the exact same way it was when it was invented. Same size court, ball, hoop, number of players, etc. AND, the players of today are roughly the same height as those in the 60's. They may weigh more, but society as a whole does, as well. But in Wilt's '62 season, the average starting center was a shade over 6-10. Today it is about 6-11, BUT, the measurements used today are enhanced because the players are being measured with shoes on, and not bare feet, as they were in the 60's.

Furthermore, the game of basketball is a SIMPLE game. Shooting, dribbling, passing, rebounding, and playing defense. And most pros today are not adept at at least one of those areas, and often two, and sometimes even three.

And I would contend that the centers of the early 70's would blow away the centers of the current NBA. Most all of them were decent shooters, defenders, and rebounders, and some were even good at passing and dribbling. There is footage of an aging Bellamy in '71, battling a PEAK Kareem, and holding his own against him. He also averaged 19 ppg on a .545 FG% in '72...at WAY past his prime. Willis Reed won two FMVP's in the early 70's, and he was basically Zack Randolph long before Randolph was.

And just ask Robert Parish who he thought was stronger...Shaq, or Artis Gilmore. He faced both of them, and he contended that Artis was stronger. And the reality was, Gilmore was never close to Chamberlain in strength, either.

I mentioned it before, but an aging full-time Thurmond played some 40 H2H's against a PEAK Kareem, and held him to a high game of 34 points, and overall, a .447 FG%. He even outscored and outshot KAJ in their '72 playoff encounter, in perhaps Kareem's greatest season. And yet a 38-39 year old Kareem, in 10 straight H2H's with Hakeem, plastered Olajuwon with an AVERAGE of 32 ppg on...get this... a .621 FG%. He even hung THREE games of 40+ on Hakeem (two of them at age 39), including a high of 46 points, and in only 37 minutes. And in the same week he crushed Hakeem with that 46 point outburst, he destroyed Patrick Ewing, outscoring Ewing 40-9, and outshooting him, 15-22 to 3-17.

And centers like McAdoo, Gilmore, and Lanier were often outplaying a much more prime Kareem. And then Moses Malone, who was 6-10, weighed about 245, was not particularly athletic, nor overwhelmingly strong, came along, and just abused Kareem in the majority of their 40 career H2H's.

Dave Cowens was 6-9, but ran the floor like a madman, was relentless, and could shoot from 20 feet, would run the current crop of centers into the ground. And then he would over them.

Of course Chamberlain was past his prime by the 70's, but he was voted first team all-defense at the center position in his last two years in the league, and easily won rebounding titles in those same years. In his last post-season, he averaged 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 ppg...which would translate to over 19 rpg in today's NBA. And there was a reason that no one since, has come close to that mark. Furthermore, a PRIME Wilt was far more dominant against the same centers that a peak Kareem would face a few years later.

Of course, these idiotic posters are probably not aware of the fact that Wilt was over 7-1, and would measure at close to 7-3 using today's methods. Furthermore, he had a 7-8 wingspan, weighed around 280-290 at his peak (and was over 300 later in his career), was a high-jump champion, and a sprinter on his college team, and almost anyone that met the man would claim he was the strongest NBA player of all-time (BTW, even "Wilt-hater" Bill Simmons is on record as also claiming that Wilt was the strongest.) And if you look at the very limited footage of a prime Chamberlain, you can easily see that he was considerably more skilled than the best centers of today.

And yet, we are supposed to believe that THAT man would be a "scrub" in today's NBA? If Wilt would be a "scrub", then I'm sorry, but a prime Shaq wouldn't make a middle school girl's team today.

I posted footage of Pistol Pete, some of it from his college days in the 60's. Are you seriously going to tell me that a 6-5 Maravich would be a "scrub" in today's NBA, when he would outrun, outpass, outrebound, and definitely outshoot a shorter, less athletic, and much worse shooting Ricky Rubio? C'mon,...that is pure nonsense.

And I'm not saying that the greats of this, the Duncan's, Dirk's, Lebron's, Durant's, and Kobe's, would not have been great in the 60's. They surely would have. But they would have faced the same caliber players that they face today. And the truly greats of that period would be as great today. No, they wouldn't put up the same numbers today. Not because the talent level is better, which it clearly is not, but because the game is played differently today. Of course, the greats of the 60's would probably force the current NBA to play at a faster pace, too.

In any case, it is just ridiculous to claim that guys like Russell, West, Baylor, Oscar, Pistol Pete, Lucas, Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Frazier, Monroe, Tiny Archibald, Lanier, Gilmore, Dr J, Thompson, Hayes, Hawkins, Unseld, McAdoo, Hondo, Walton, Moses, and Wilt...would be "scrubs" today.

[Simple Jack]

These types of arguments are always flawed.

I can literally pull a dozen quotes of historical greats stating specific old-time players would dominate today (even exaggerated claims like Wilt averaging ___ points if he played today) with the same "care to argue against ___ all-time great?"

[miles berg]

Wilt Chamberlain would easily be the best player in today's game. Ridiculous thread.

[305Baller]

The REALITY is....the game of basketball has been around for over 100 years. And aside from the 24 second clock in the mid-50's, and the three-point shot, since the late 70's (actually it was being used by the ABL and ABA in the 60's), the game is essentially being played the exact same way it was when it was invented. Same size court, ball, hoop, number of players, etc. AND, the players of today are roughly the same height as those in the 60's. They may weigh more, but society as a whole does, as well. But in Wilt's '62 season, the average starting center was a shade over 6-10. Today it is about 6-11, BUT, the measurements used today are enhanced because the players are being measured with shoes on, and not bare feet, as they were in the 60's.

Furthermore, the game of basketball is a SIMPLE game. Shooting, dribbling, passing, rebounding, and playing defense. And most pros today are not adept at at least one of those areas, and often two, and sometimes even three.

And I would contend that the centers of the early 70's would blow away the centers of the current NBA. Most all of them were decent shooters, defenders, and rebounders, and some were even good at passing and dribbling. There is footage of an aging Bellamy in '71, battling a PEAK Kareem, and holding his own against him. He also averaged 19 ppg on a .545 FG% in '72...at WAY past his prime. Willis Reed won two FMVP's in the early 70's, and he was basically Zack Randolph long before Randolph was.

And just ask Robert Parish who he thought was stronger...Shaq, or Artis Gilmore. He faced both of them, and he contended that Artis was stronger. And the reality was, Gilmore was never close to Chamberlain in strength, either.

I mentioned it before, but an aging full-time Thurmond played some 40 H2H's against a PEAK Kareem, and held him to a high game of 34 points, and overall, a .447 FG%. He even outscored and outshot KAJ in their '72 playoff encounter, in perhaps Kareem's greatest season. And yet a 38-39 year old Kareem, in 10 straight H2H's with Hakeem, plastered Olajuwon with an AVERAGE of 32 ppg on...get this... a .621 FG%. He even hung THREE games of 40+ on Hakeem (two of them at age 39), including a high of 46 points, and in only 37 minutes. And in the same week he crushed Hakeem with that 46 point outburst, he destroyed Patrick Ewing, outscoring Ewing 40-9, and outshooting him, 15-22 to 3-17.

And centers like McAdoo, Gilmore, and Lanier were often outplaying a much more prime Kareem. And then Moses Malone, who was 6-10, weighed about 245, was not particularly athletic, nor overwhelmingly strong, came along, and just abused Kareem in the majority of their 40 career H2H's.

Dave Cowens was 6-9, but ran the floor like a madman, was relentless, and could shoot from 20 feet, would run the current crop of centers into the ground. And then he would over them.

Of course Chamberlain was past his prime by the 70's, but he was voted first team all-defense at the center position in his last two years in the league, and easily won rebounding titles in those same years. In his last post-season, he averaged 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 ppg...which would translate to over 19 rpg in today's NBA. And there was a reason that no one since, has come close to that mark. Furthermore, a PRIME Wilt was far more dominant against the same centers that a peak Kareem would face a few years later.

Of course, these idiotic posters are probably not aware of the fact that Wilt was over 7-1, and would measure at close to 7-3 using today's methods. Furthermore, he had a 7-8 wingspan, weighed around 280-290 at his peak (and was over 300 later in his career), was a high-jump champion, and a sprinter on his college team, and almost anyone that met the man would claim he was the strongest NBA player of all-time (BTW, even "Wilt-hater" Bill Simmons is on record as also claiming that Wilt was the strongest.) And if you look at the very limited footage of a prime Chamberlain, you can easily see that he was considerably more skilled than the best centers of today.

And yet, we are supposed to believe that THAT man would be a "scrub" in today's NBA? If Wilt would be a "scrub", then I'm sorry, but a prime Shaq wouldn't make a middle school girl's team today.

I posted footage of Pistol Pete, some of it from his college days in the 60's. Are you seriously going to tell me that a 6-5 Maravich would be a "scrub" in today's NBA, when he would outrun, outpass, outrebound, and definitely outshoot a shorter, less athletic, and much worse shooting Ricky Rubio? C'mon,...that is pure nonsense.

And I'm not saying that the greats of this, the Duncan's, Dirk's, Lebron's, Durant's, and Kobe's, would not have been great in the 60's. They surely would have. But they would have faced the same caliber players that they face today. And the truly greats of that period would be as great today. No, they wouldn't put up the same numbers today. Not because the talent level is better, which it clearly is not, but because the game is played differently today. Of course, the greats of the 60's would probably force the current NBA to play at a faster pace, too.

In any case, it is just ridiculous to claim that guys like Russell, West, Baylor, Oscar, Pistol Pete, Lucas, Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Frazier, Monroe, Tiny Archibald, Lanier, Gilmore, Dr J, Thompson, Hayes, Hawkins, Unseld, McAdoo, Hondo, Walton, Moses, and Wilt...would be "scrubs" today.


:applause:

:bowdown:

[Psileas]

I posted footage of Pistol Pete, some of it from his college days in the 60's. Are you seriously going to tell me that a 6-5 Maravich would be a "scrub" in today's NBA, when he would outrun, outpass, outrebound, and definitely outshoot a shorter, less athletic, and much worse shooting Ricky Rubio? C'mon,...that is pure nonsense.

And some poor hater even confirmed that Maravich played at around high school level, just in order to stay within his agenda. :oldlol: And that's prime Maravich. You know, a much better, healthier version of the same washed out player that Larry Bird's Celtics trusted just before he called it quits.

An idiot also said that no 60's-70's player would be a starter today. :roll:

Some poor minds are so off with their estimations you can't help but laugh, without even trying to explain why they're wrong. It's like listening to a member of Flat Earth Society trying to make his "points". No matter how well you can reason, you can't win, because idiocy will find a way to get away with it.

[LAZERUSS]

These types of arguments are always flawed.

I can literally pull a dozen quotes of historical greats stating specific old-time players would dominate today (even exaggerated claims like Wilt averaging ___ points if he played today) with the same "care to argue against ___ all-time great?"

No reasonable Wilt fan would claim that he would average 50-25 in today's NBA. The pace is considerably lower, albeit, it is also considerably more efficient. And to be honest Wilt's 50 ppg season was just ONE of his MANY unfathomable seasons. People forget that in his 69-70 season, and at age 33, his new coach asked Wilt to be the focal point of the Laker offense, and he responded by leading the NBA in scoring in his first nine games, at 32.2 ppg on a .579 FG%. Unfortunately, he blew out his knee in that ninth game (and what a game it was BTW... 33 points, on 13-14 shooting, and in 28 minutes.) Or that Wilt unleashed a 17 game streak just the year before, of 31.1 ppg, which included games of 60 and 66 points. And even in his last two seasons, at ages 35 and 36, he battled the 6-11 Bob Lanier in 11 straight games, and averaged 24 ppg on an eye-popping .784 FG%. Lanier would go on to have a HOF career, and was a dominant center in the 70's.

And there is simply ZERO "proof" that the players of today are MUCH better than those of 50 years ago, either. I have said this many times...go ahead and pick any year in which you honestly believe the NBA became more like the "modern era." I have read those that have claimed that it was the arrival of Bird and Magic in the 79-80 season. Ok, take a look at their first 4-5 years in the league, then. The first four MVPs in the decade of the 80's were players from the 70's (including KAJ, who actually started in 1969.) The first four scoring champions were players who had began their careers in the 70's. The first six rebounding champions were players who were playing in the 70's. The first five FG% champions were players who played in the 70's.

Nor or the players of today bigger, stronger, more athletic, or more skilled. Hell, the current NBA just shot .756 from the FT line last year. Guess what...in the 58-59 season, the NBA also shot .756. And in fact, in the 73-74 season, the NBA shot .771. And CavsFan has blown away this theory that the average player is considerably taller today, than 50 years ago. Chamberlain faced the same-sized centers in the 60's, that Howard is facing today.

And even this "height" argument is flawed anyway. Why? There have been more rebounding champions 6-10 and under, than over 7-0. The 6-5 Barkley won a title in the 80's, and the 6-8 Rodman was running away with rebounding titles in the 90's. My god, the 6-7 Ben Wallace won back-to-back rebounding titles in the early 00's. Oh, and the 6-8 Kevin Love, playing 35 mpg, ran away with a rebounding title only a few short years ago. At the other end of the spectrum, there has never been a 7-3+ player to ever lead the league in rebounding, and there have only been three rebounding titles by players 7-2 (a couple more if you count the ABA.) Take Chamberlain's 11 rebounding titles out of the equation, and the disparity between players 6-11 and under winning rebounding titles in overwhelming.

And Love is the interesting piece here. Again, 6-8, and certainly not an athletic marvel (albeit, he is very skilled.) If Love can be an elite rebounder in TODAY's NBA, then how could a Russell or Wilt not be? Russell was nearly 6-10, had a 7-4 wingspan, and was a world-ranked high jumper. And Wilt was 7-1+, 280-300 lbs, with a 7-8 wingspan, a college high jump champion, and likely the most powerful player the game has ever known. And yet these uneducated posters here claim that Russell and Wilt would be "scrubs" in today's game?

Ricky Rubio is clearly inferior at every aspect of the game to Pistol Pete. And he is not as tall, nor as fast, nor as athletic, either. But what is even more interesting is that Maravich was never considered as a better player than Oscar or West. And yet I am supposed to believe that Oscar and West would be "scrubs" in today's NBA?

And how do these 60's ripping posters explain Gus Johnson? The man was 6-6, 230 lbs, and had a vertical leap the equal of MJ's. Not only that, but just take a look at the small footage that exists on YouTube, and you will see a skilled jump shooter from up to 18-20 feet. And yet, while he was a great player, how come he was a career 17-13 player with one 20 ppg season. And yet I am supposed to believe that a 6-8 Blake Griffin would just overwhelm the 60's NBA?

Take a look at two of the elite centers of the CURRENT NBA. DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond. Both are between 6-10 and 6-11, and weigh about 265 lbs. Neither can shoot from five feet, nor do they even have any set plays run for them. I'm supposed to believe that Bellamy, Reed, Gilmore, Hayes, Lanier, Cowens, Thurmond, Moses, Walton, Kareem, and Wilt would be dominated by them? Hell, I would take Swen Nater over both of them (go ahead and look him up.) BTW, Nater was Walton's backup at UCLA.

Again, just WATCH the footage of the players of the 60's and 70's. And honestly ask yourself...has the game changed THAT much since then?

[Psileas]

Oh, and the other gem:


Yeah this is pretty common knowledge. I've watched some 80s, 90s, 00s to today.. The game is constantly evolving in a better direction from a physical, mental, fundamental and dental standpoint. There's no doubt in my mind that I could make for a serviceable player in the 60's just for perimeter defense alone (think Tony Allen). Today? There's so much competition you could make 100s of entire basketball leagues of talent equivalent to the 60s. (srs)

Yeah, "hundreds" of leagues with talent equivalent to the 60's NBA. After all, the global population is in the trillions now and about to get to the quadrillions in another decade, when the early 2000's will start being called obsolete, as well. :rolleyes:

[dr.hee]

Furthermore, the game of basketball is a SIMPLE game.

What the hell? Freaking armchair quarterbacks :facepalm

:roll:

[LAZERUSS]

What the hell? Freaking armchair quarterbacks :facepalm

:roll:

It is such an advanced game that you will never see "pee-wee" leagues with 7-8 year olds playing it, will you?

GTFO.

:facepalm

[dr.hee]

It is such an advanced game that you will never see "pee-wee" leagues with 7-8 year olds playing it, will you?

GTFO.

:facepalm

That's why there are no kids playing chess, right? By your logic, heavyweight boxing is a more advanced sport than American Football, since kids can't do it.

You're such a fool, unbelievable. Until now I just thought you're some delusional, maybe semi-autistic/OCD impaired Wilt d*cksucker. But with that comment, it looks like you're just another brainless troll. You've jumped the shark, old man

:roll:

[SpanishACB]

i got a proof! *continues OP with a bunch of quotes of opinions and personal appreciations*

How can you not feel retarded, OP?

[LAZERUSS]

It's less about the increase in population and more about the access, viewership and global reach of the game. How many people would you say considered basketball their favorite sport in the 1950s compared to today? Players today (especially the elite) are known across the world.

Also.. how old are you? I highly doubt you're over 40.. f outta here. :facepalm


I am so sick-and-tired of this same RIDICULOUS nonsense. If this population explosion were really valid, wouldn't we see Shaq's and Magic's all over the place? The rest of the world has contributed a HANDFUL of truly GREAT players. Dirk being the most notable. But where are the THOUSANDS, or even MILLIONS of them?

Even two of the "what-could-have-been's", Sabonis and Yao, became broken down almost immediately in their careers. And the REALITY was, a PRIME Sabonis was not even as good as a YOUNG David Robinson. That MYTH was blown apart years ago.

And how is it a playr who shoots .368 is even in TODAY's NBA? Yet, we have the great Euro, Ricky Rubio doing just that.

And how about US College basketball? The best players play for one year, and even if they put up Zach Lavine's paltry numbers, they get drafted. The rest of college is comprised of players with very little talent. How do I KNOW that? A couple of years ago Tyler Hansborough was the CPOY. I believe he even holds some records at North Carolina, which is amazing considering the players who have gone there. Now, the REALITY is,... the man cannot shoot, pass, dribble, rebound, or play defense. The only quality he brought to the Pacers was his ability to draw offensive fouls.

With this "population explosion"...wouldn't the colleges be overflowing with talented kids waiting for an opportunity to play in the NBA? Nope...instead a player who averaged 9 ppg on a .441 FG% is the 13th player taken in an NBA draft. He may be a super star down the road, but the odds are overwhelmingly against that.

But with this "population explosion", and modern technology, and genetics, etc...how come the league is not filled with 7-5 players with Magic Johnson's skills? The fact is, there has only been ONE Magic, and he played 25 years ago. How come?

[Psileas]

It's less about the increase in population and more about the access, viewership and global reach of the game. How many people would you say considered basketball their favorite sport in the 1950s compared to today? Players today (especially the elite) are known across the world.

Also.. how old are you? I highly doubt you're over 40.. f outta here. :facepalm

It is absolutely about the increase of population. You are talking about talent, do you know what talent is? Do you really think there's such a thing as a "basketball gene", that humans have actually and naturally become more talented in basketball, just because basketball is only a bit more than a century old? Where the F is your evidence?
The 60's (not 50's, as you mentioned) was an era when someone like Nate Thurmond or Willis Reed (listed as a C) might not even make an All-league 3rd team, yet, you really think there are hundreds of leagues today whose players would be going to keep someone like Reed out of their all-league 3rd team? :facepalm Lol, you stick Willis Reed in any modern league except the NBA and he's winning MVP in every single one, unless he plays for some scrub team - and even in the NBA, he's easily an All-Star.

The vast majority of people today still don't call basketball their favorite sport. And it doesn't matter, basketball isn't a game that every kind of athlete can play and dominate. Most people who had basketball talent in the 60's, at least in the US, were not ignorant about the sport.
Also, I've come across articles from the 60's that have called Wilt Chamberlain arguably the best athlete in the world, I've seen comparisons to Pele and I remind you that Wilt himself visited and played basketball in more countries than most basketball players ever have or will, as a member of the Globetrotters. Hundreds of thousands of people have watched him play worldwide, in the late 50's.

[LAZERUSS]

That's why there are no kids playing chess, right? By your logic, heavyweight boxing is a more advanced sport than American Football, since kids can't do it.

You're such a fool, unbelievable. Until now I just thought you're some delusional, maybe semi-autistic/OCD impaired Wilt d*cksucker. But with that comment, it looks like you're just another brainless troll. You've jumped the shark, old man

:roll:

Ok clown, give us YOUR take on the OP. I want solid "proof" as to why the current NBA is better than previous decades.

Are players taller today? NO. Absolutely NOT.

Do players shoot better today? Take a look at FT%'s. They were the SAME in 1959 as they were just LAST YEAR. BTW, had the 3pt line existed back in the 60's and 70's, and coaches used it as regular ly as they do today, and I can guarantee you that the best shooters of that period would be every bit as good as they are today. I still recall watching Jerry Lucas make some 20 straight shots between the circles during a pre-game warmup. Someone else here commented that Chris Mullin made something like 49 out of 50. Bird probably could still win a three-point contest.

And at the opposite end of the spectrum...DeAndre Jordan and Andrew Drummond, who can't shoot from five feet. Or Rubio shooting .368 from the floor.

Are today's players better athletes? You are kidding, right? How do explain a 6-8 Kevin Love leading the league in rebounding (running away with it actually, and in only 35 mpg)? Or a 6-11 stumblebum like Andrew Bogut leading the league in blocks per game? Or a 37 year old Steve Nash, playing 33 mpg, and leading the league in apg?

And even if athleticism is a must, how come Jame White was a complete bust? Or a 7-0 Ryan Hollins, who couldn't even start in his four year career at UCLA, and has been a washout in the pros?

Same with height. How come a 7-4, 350 lb. Priest Lauderdale, who would have dwarfed Shaq, couldn't make it in the NBA? And look at the laughingstock that Roy Hibbert has become.

And do you think that tall players in the 60's and 70's were automatic stars? Look up the 7-3 Swede Halbrook's NBA "career." Or how about the 7-4 Steve Turner, who played for Vanderbilt in the early 70's? The reality was, there were a TON of legitimate seven-footers in the 60's and 70's, who either were flops in the NBA, or didn't even make a roster.

Now, give me YOUR take...

[dr.hee]

Ok clown, give us YOUR take on the OP. I want solid "proof" as to why the current NBA is better than previous decades.

Are players taller today? NO. Absolutely NOT.

Do players shoot better today? Take a look at FT%'s. They were the SAME in 1959 as they were just LAST YEAR. BTW, had the 3pt line existed back in the 60's and 70's, and coaches used it as regular ly as they do today, and I can guarantee you that the best shooters of that period would be every bit as good as they are today. I still recall watching Jerry Lucas make some 20 straight shots between the circles during a pre-game warmup. Someone else here commented that Chris Mullin made something like 49 out of 50. Bird probably could still win a three-point contest.

And at the opposite end of the spectrum...DeAndre Jordan and Andrew Drummond, who can't shoot from five feet. Or Rubio shooting .368 from the floor.

Are today's players better athletes? You are kidding, right? How do explain a 6-8 Kevin Love leading the league in rebounding (running away with it actually, and in only 35 mpg)? Or a 6-11 stumblebum like Andrew Bogut leading the league in blocks per game? Or a 37 year old Steve Nash, playing 33 mpg, and leading the league in apg?

And even if athleticism is a must, how come Jame White was a complete bust? Or a 7-0 Ryan Hollins, who couldn't even start in his four year career at UCLA, and has been a washout in the pros?

Same with height. How come a 7-4, 350 lb. Priest Lauderdale, who would have dwarfed Shaq, couldn't make it in the NBA? And look at the laughingstock that Roy Hibbert has become.

And do you think that tall players in the 60's and 70's were automatic stars? Look up the 7-3 Swede Halbrook's NBA "career." Or how about the 7-4 Steve Turner, who played for Vanderbilt in the early 70's? The reality was, there were a TON of legitimate seven-footers in the 60's and 70's, who either were flops in the NBA, or didn't even make a roster.

Now, give me YOUR take...

Are you brain damaged? Where exactly did I say that the current era is better than past ones? Maybe I don't even believe that? I only quoted one ridiculous sentence by a ridiculous poster. You. And laughed at your stupidity. Some old bum thinking basketball is simple. Which means that in all the years you're already vegetating on this planet, rambling about a dead basketball player for a daily job, you've never played a second of competitive basketball. You're a joke, that's all I wanted to say. Basketball is simple? F*ck off :facepalm

And not a single f*cking sentence in your essay is related to me. Is your short term memory that messed up already? I'm neither OP nor any other poster trolling fans of old players. I like old school ball myself. I only pointed out that some idiot acted like bball is simple. And laughed at him.

Let me laugh again.

:roll:

[MiseryCityTexas]

Not one single player in the 70s/60s would start on any team in today's league. Not one.

Meanwhile you take our top 40-50 current players and they will be top 10 in the old era.


Wilt would easily dominate in today's era of weak centers. Who's Wilt's competition at center in today's league? Dwight? Cousins? Noah? Pekovic? Prime Wilt's better than all these players.