Last Lakers game was Elgin Baylor night. If you havent seen how good he was DO IT NOW

[CavaliersFTW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjNS_oYE92E

Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell have both said he's the best player they've seen all-time. Multiple players like Worthy, Erving, Pettit, etc believe he's the best SF of all time. The footage shows, Baylor could do everything.

Every fan that went to the game received an Elgin Baylor jersey and Elgin was given another Lakers ring :applause:

http://www.multiplenews.com/news/2014/11/17/Baylor/

LA needs to get that man a statue. Father of the modern game. Saved the LA franchise with his style of play and fan draw. And one of the greatest to ever play. :bowdown:

[3ball]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjNS_oYE92E

Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell have both said he's the best player they've seen all-time. Multiple players like Worthy, Erving, Pettit, etc believe he's the best SF of all time. The footage shows, Baylor could do everything.

Every fan that went to the game received an Elgin Baylor jersey and Elgin was given another Lakers ring :applause:

http://www.multiplenews.com/news/2014/11/17/Baylor/

LA needs to get that man a statue. Father of the modern game. Saved the LA franchise with his style of play and fan draw. And one of the greatest to ever play. :bowdown:

elgin's game and skill was unbelievably nuanced - he was GOAT at two-pointers (would have been great at 3's too) - his game used the widest range of two-point shots of anyone ever.

don't try this at home:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5833bfa00cf51213da10678b8f1d865c.gif

artistry of elgin baylor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANH50UrlQk8... :bowdown:
.

[MP.Trey]

Taking a break from the usual trolling, I see. :applause:

[navy]

elgin's game and skill was unbelievably nuanced - he was GOAT at two-pointers (would have been great at 3's too) - his game used the widest range of two-point shots of anyone ever.

don't try this at home:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5833bfa00cf51213da10678b8f1d865c.gif

artistry of elgin baylor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANH50UrlQk8... :bowdown:
.
That is the sorriest cross over i've ever seen. :oldlol:

[Akrazotile]

Elgin is 80 years old, still got a better head of hair than OP :biggums:

[Akrazotile]

That is the sorriest cross over i've ever seen. :oldlol:


And the worst defensive closeout ever.

Its crazy how far the fame has progressed.

[Ramza]

Elgin is 80 years old, still got a better head of hair than OP :biggums:
Can CLE get him?

[ArbitraryWater]

And the worst defensive closeout ever.

Its crazy how far the fame has progressed.

This.. Holy shit.

It's like the dude tried to get himself out of position.

[3ball]

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5833bfa00cf51213da10678b8f1d865c.gif





Taking a break from the usual trolling, I see. :applause:



:confusedshrug: .. more like giving credence TO my "trolls"..


btw, looks like some GOAT help defense - makes thibbs' defense look worse than the carolina panthers.
.

[3ball]

That is the sorriest cross over i've ever seen. :oldlol:
it's not a crossover dumbass.. you've now instantly lost all credibility.. :applause:

[oarabbus]

:confusedshrug: .. more like giving credence to my "trolls"..


btw, looks like some GOAT help defense - makes thibbs' defense look worse than the carolina panthers.


Well, at least it doesn't look like their offensive line.

[Ramza]

it's not a crossover dumbass.. you've now instantly lost all credibility.. :applause:
:lol :oldlol: :lol

[navy]

it's not a crossover dumbass.. you've now instantly lost all credibility.. :applause:
So what is it? :oldlol:

That was literally the first crossover I was doing at six years old. Notice the amount of time he took to move the ball to the other side for that simple ass move.

[3ball]

So what is it? :oldlol:
it's a move.. the defender actually thinks elgin is going to pull up for a jumper, which is the objective of that particular move.

[PHILA]

Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell have both said he's the best player they've seen all-time.
Wilt Chamberlain also compared him favorably to Jordan in 1997.

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/chat.htm

M3 says:

Question...how do you rate Elgin Baylor vs. Jordan?

Host Wilt_Chamberlain says:

I would think that that's a good match. I think people should talk about that match more. Both have very incredible body control, movements and how they score points. I think Elgin is stronger and a better rebounder, in showmanship in today's market you have to go with Jordan, but I have to go with Elgin.



awful defense
If I was defending Jordan the number one priority would be not to give him the baseline. I wouldn't even want him looking in that direction. That blazing first step will leave the defender in the dust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wznsnbBhqUw&t=7m25s


Elgin Baylor was just as good if not better than Jordan going baseline, but also better driving across the middle. To see him take Luke Jackson off the dribble and glide across the lane is impressive, especially after his major injury.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A17rECYJqU&t=9m22s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwkiXiwzCY&t=4m8s


Jordan didn't seem to have same creativity driving across the middle as he did going baseline, though he had a runner which was pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dASHnEHnQ7Q&t=21s


I would say Jordan is better as a defensive disruptor and outside shooter, and Baylor has an edge in passing, rebounding, and full court ball-handling. As slashers they are even all things considered.

[oarabbus]

it's a move.. the defender actually thinks elgin is going to pull up for a jumper, which is the objective of that particular move.


You're reaching almost as bad as the defender on Baylor in that gif.

[navy]

it's a move.. the defender actually thinks elgin is going to pull up for a jumper, which is the objective of that particular move.
He only does that because he's a shit defender. Baylor makes no discernible motion that he is even thinking about pulling up for a jumshot.

[Ariza4three]

More weak ass 60's defense :roll: :roll:

[navy]

trust me... it's a move... real ball players know this.

give me a few minutes and i'll post guys like paul pierce, baron davis - guys like that with elite handle - doing the same move and the defender reacts the same way.
You mean terribly closing out?

I bet the defender was shocked he could dribble with two hands. :oldlol:

[3ball]

He only does that because he's a shit defender. Baylor makes no discernible motion that he is even thinking about pulling up for a jumshot.
trust me... it's a move... it's one of a plethora of moves where the offensive player gets the defender to jump up to contest while the offensive player is still dribbling - like, the offensive player doesn't have to pick up his dribble to upfake the defender.

gifs coming.

[navy]

Why did you delete your post then post the exact same thing barely reworded....

[SamuraiSWISH]

OP obsessed with players he never even witnessed. Creepy. Unless he's Steve Rogers.

[3ball]

Why did you delete your post then post the exact same thing barely reworded....
i had meant it to be one post.. but do you get what i'm saying about elgin's dribble there?

it's a very sophisticated dribble move - ALL the dribble moves where you are essentially up-faking the defender without picking up your dribble are highly sophisticated moves that only the best ballhandlers can do.

i'll show you a few.

[navy]

OP obsessed with players he never even witnessed. Creepy. Unless he's Steve Rogers.
Dude must be one of Wilt's illegitimate sons.

[navy]

i had meant it to be one post.. but do you get what i'm saying about elgin's dribble there?

it's a very sophisticated dribble move - ALL the dribble moves where you are essentially up-faking the defender without picking up your dribble are highly sophisticated moves that only the best ballhandlers can do.

i'll show you a few.

No, because he didnt make a dribble move. He slowly crossed over with his hand all over that ball and changed directions. The defender just closed out badly.

The move you are thinking of is called a hesitation or hesi. He didnt do that.

[steve]

OP obsessed with players he never even witnessed. Creepy. Unless he's Steve Rogers.

Um...video exists, in fact a good chunk of video of Baylor exists. If you have an interest in understanding how past players performed in any sort of context, it's really just being lazy if you can't/won't find out.

Also, is everyone unfamiliar with hesitation dribble? Players in those days couldn't perform much of a crossover because they'd instantly be called for a carry as soon their hand gripped even the side of the ball.

[CavaliersFTW]

elgin's game and skill was unbelievably nuanced - he was GOAT at two-pointers (would have been great at 3's too) - his game used the widest range of two-point shots of anyone ever.

don't try this at home:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5833bfa00cf51213da10678b8f1d865c.gif

The artistry vid is also one that I made, but it's older and has less footage.

Here's the full play of that gif in real-time speed (the gif is in slow-motion in case these brilliant IQ trolls haven't figured it out) http://youtu.be/rjNS_oYE92E?t=3m48s

That move happens in a fraction of a second. Everyone laughing at the "closeout defense" would probably have failed to even move or register what happened in that amount of time there's just no chance in hell any defender could have reacted to Elgin properly given his repertoire of moves.

[3ball]

No, because he didnt make a dribble move. He slowly crossed over with his hand all over that ball and changed directions. The defender just closed out badly.

The move you are thinking of is called a hesitation or hesi. He didnt do that.

i'm not talking about any ONE move - there are a plethora of moves where you make the defender contest what they think is a jumpshot, but you are still dribbling - you essentially upfake the defender while still dribbling (btw, that's what "not picking up your dribble" means - still dribbling).


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/59c29495a2a11c228d4aa3e8333e5e0b.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/27a7ea9c904a8f186014b14f36c4a2ce.gif

[CavaliersFTW]

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/59c29495a2a11c228d4aa3e8333e5e0b.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/27a7ea9c904a8f186014b14f36c4a2ce.gif
/ether :oldlol: :applause:

[navy]

/ether :oldlol: :applause:
Are you serious? Those are the exact hesitations that Baylor didnt do. :oldlol:

[Deuce Bigalow]

What a shame Wilt cost him a ring in '69.

jk he sucked ass in the finals too

[3ball]

Are you serious? Those are the exact hesitations that Baylor didnt do. :oldlol:
you know nothing about hesitations or anything of the sort, and you obviously suck at basketball yourself

[Poetry]

He only does that because he's a shit defender. Baylor makes no discernible motion that he is even thinking about pulling up for a jumshot.

He was either anticipating a jumper or was attempting to deflect a possible pass to the cutter.

The defender probably thought his teammate was coming over to help with a double, but the cutter kept following his route, so he couldn't gamble on the double.

When Baylor sees daylight (the spacing created by the cutter) he switches directions.

[LAZERUSS]

What a shame Wilt cost him a ring in '69.

jk he sucked ass in the finals too

Actually, it was West who cost him the ring. He was the offensive leader that VBK asked to score (with Baylor taking the second most shots), so that responsibility ultimately falls upon him. Had he scored more, they would have won that series.

[LAZERUSS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjNS_oYE92E

Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell have both said he's the best player they've seen all-time. Multiple players like Worthy, Erving, Pettit, etc believe he's the best SF of all time. The footage shows, Baylor could do everything.

Every fan that went to the game received an Elgin Baylor jersey and Elgin was given another Lakers ring :applause:

http://www.multiplenews.com/news/2014/11/17/Baylor/

LA needs to get that man a statue. Father of the modern game. Saved the LA franchise with his style of play and fan draw. And one of the greatest to ever play. :bowdown:

Excellent, as always.

Of course, as is the case with the other greats of that era, there is only a fraction of their careers available in video footage, and even much of that is skewed towards the ends of their careers. And, in Baylor's case, his explosiveness was ended in the first half of his career by a devastating knee injury. Despite that, he managed to play at an elite level for another few years after that.

In terms of peak play, Baylor's 61-63 seasons are among the greatest ever. And I always get a kick out of those that go out of their way to rip his near 20 rpg season as some kind of slap at his era and competition. Some 25-30 years later, a 6-5 Charles Barkley led the NBA in rpg, as well. Of course, the available rebounds in Baylor's era were considerably higher, but Elgin would have approached Barkley's numbers in Charles' era. Same with Jerry Lucas, who was a great rebounder at 6-8. His numbers would translate close to the 6-8 Kevin Love's in this era.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Overrated. West was much better.

[gts]

OP obsessed with players he never even witnessed. Creepy. Unless he's Steve Rogers.They used to say the same thing about Ken Burns

[La Frescobaldi]

The artistry vid is also one that I made, but it's older and has less footage.

Here's the full play of that gif in real-time speed (the gif is in slow-motion in case these brilliant IQ trolls haven't figured it out) http://youtu.be/rjNS_oYE92E?t=3m48s

That move happens in a fraction of a second. Everyone laughing at the "closeout defense" would probably have failed to even move or register what happened in that amount of time there's just no chance in hell any defender could have reacted to Elgin properly given his repertoire of moves.

I'd bet you've got hundreds of the same kinds of ridiculous posts on YT - digital kids that don't even know what film is, nor film speeds.... let alone that the old highlight stuff like this was ubiquitously in slow motion.

But really... could they know? Many of them never knew the world or even the internet before www
Awesome clips as always!!

[La Frescobaldi]

Excellent, as always.

Of course, as is the case with the other greats of that era, there is only a fraction of their careers available in video footage, and even much of that is skewed towards the ends of their careers. And, in Baylor's case, his explosiveness was ended in the first half of his career by a devastating knee injury. Despite that, he managed to play at an elite level for another few years after that.

In terms of peak play, Baylor's 61-63 seasons are among the greatest ever. And I always get a kick out of those that go out of their way to rip his near 20 rpg season as some kind of slap at his era and competition. Some 25-30 years later, a 6-5 Charles Barkley led the NBA in rpg, as well. Of course, the available rebounds in Baylor's era were considerably higher, but Elgin would have approached Barkley's numbers in Charles' era. Same with Jerry Lucas, who was a great rebounder at 6-8. His numbers would translate close to the 6-8 Kevin Love's in this era.
Great... not elite. There's a difference. The Pearl was always better on 1on1 offense as far as I ever saw - but I do believe, from my old friends many tales, that before the broken kneecap Baylor was unbelievably good.
These little clips really are just crazy!!

[KobesFinger]

One of the great Lakers :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

Great... not elite. There's a difference. The Pearl was always better on 1on1 offense as far as I ever saw - but I do believe, from my old friends many tales, that before the broken kneecap Baylor was unbelievably good.
These little clips really are just crazy!!

Agreed.

I don't recall much of a pre-injury Baylor. From the mid-60's on, he was still capable of scoring, but the explosiveness was gone.

Monroe's game would have translated very well into today's era. He is relatively an unknown on the forum. And it's a shame that there is only a fraction of his 60's footage available. He was another great argument to those that claim that the players of the 60's couldn't dribble.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

elgin's game and skill was unbelievably nuanced - he was GOAT at two-pointers (would have been great at 3's too) - his game used the widest range of two-point shots of anyone ever.

don't try this at home:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5833bfa00cf51213da10678b8f1d865c.gif

artistry of elgin baylor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANH50UrlQk8... :bowdown:
.
LMFAO is this supposed to be impressive? :roll: :roll:

weak era confirmed

[LAZERUSS]

LMFAO is this supposed to be impressive? :roll: :roll:

weak era confirmed

How about this era...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlsKE3IzlZk

[Dro]

Great Thread
:applause: :bowdown:

[RoundMoundOfReb]

How about this era...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlsKE3IzlZk
Except nobody is pointing to anyone one of those plays acting like it's some amazing move

[STATUTORY]

elgin's game and skill was unbelievably nuanced - he was GOAT at two-pointers (would have been great at 3's too) - his game used the widest range of two-point shots of anyone ever.

don't try this at home:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5833bfa00cf51213da10678b8f1d865c.gif

artistry of elgin baylor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANH50UrlQk8... :bowdown:
.
is it the quality of the footage or them defenders straight albinos?

what league would those players be playing at today?

92nd street YMCA?

[3ball]

He was either anticipating a jumper or was attempting to deflect a possible pass to the cutter.

The defender probably thought his teammate was coming over to help with a double, but the cutter kept following his route, so he couldn't gamble on the double.

When Baylor sees daylight (the spacing created by the cutter) he switches directions.
that was a MOVE he did there - it's pre-planned - if it hadn't worked, he would have just pulled it back and started over, but the move did work so he kept going.

[3ball]

is it the quality of the footage or them defenders straight albinos?

what league would those players be playing at today?

92nd street YMCA?

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/57929f36881400da1070697af1d87f38.gif


as you can see, just as many white guys guard lebron, and he doesn't abuse them nearly to the extent elgin did.

elgin didn't get to set up open shots using the spacing, or a clear lane, or any 3-and-D easy stuff.... he shot all contested two's - and a very wide range of various types of two-pointers.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

The pass LeBron made in that gif is much more impressive than that "move" (i guess dribbling with your off-hand was considered a "move" in the 60s) Elgin Baylor did.

[3ball]

The pass LeBron made in that gif is much more impressive than that "move" (i guess dribbling with your off-hand was considered a "move" in the 60s) Elgin Baylor did.

you think lebron executing what looks like a staged play is more impressive than elgin's instinctive moves amongst crowds of defenders?

the lebron play doesn't look like basketball to me... the spacing and choreographed look and pace makes it look like marching band or something.

also, y'all just aren't aware that there are a wide range of moves guys do where they upfake the defender while maintaining their dribble - these moves represent the highest level of ball-handling skill there is.

watch rondo go for it here - it's the EXACT SAME MOVE AS ELGIN'S:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/f95970bed0af0bb68c417ec2c665fc94.gif

[RoundMoundOfReb]

you think lebron executing what looks like a staged play is more impressive than elgin's instinctive moves amongst crowds of defenders?

the lebron play doesn't look like basketball to me... the spacing and choreographed look/pace makes it look like marching band or something.

also, y'all just aren't aware that there are a wide range of moves guys do where they upfake the defender while maintaining their dribble - these moves represent the highest level of ball-handling skill there is.

watch rondo go for it here - it's the EXACT SAME MOVE AS ELGIN'S:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/f95970bed0af0bb68c417ec2c665fc94.gif

No it's not. Rose faked a pass to the bull at the top of the screen. Baylor switched dribbling hands.

[3ball]

No it's not. Rose faked a pass to the bull at the top of the screen. Baylor switched dribbling hands.
rose faked a pass?... rose didn't switch dribbling hands?

wtf are you talking about?

rose never faked any pass and he switched dribbling hands after faking out rondo with the exact same move elgin used.

[josh99]

I don't get the argument that they played in a weak era. A marine today >>> than a marine from WWII so does that mean that everybody that fought in WWII were noobs?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I don't get the argument that they played in a weak era. A marine today >>> than a marine from WWII so does that mean that everybody that fought in WWII were noobs?
No but stop acting like the Marine from WWII would dominate today.

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa2qVkjss9Y

And tell me with a straight face that Elgin Baylor is in the same stratosphere.

[3ball]

I don't get the argument that they played in a weak era. A marine today >>> than a marine from WWII so does that mean that everybody that fought in WWII were noobs?
im curious how a marine from today > marine from WWII

[3ball]

No but stop acting like the Marine from WWII would dominate today.

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa2qVkjss9Y

And tell me with a straight face that Elgin Baylor is in the same stratosphere.
all i see is lebron running over defenders and benefiting from spacing... otoh, it is a fact that elgin was the better scorer and rebounder - and it's not close in these areas.

and we know that when lebron can't run over defenders or get easy looks, he gets locked up like 2011 and outplayed by someone way less athletic (dirk) - like, dirk's highlights don't look as circus-like as lebron's either, but dirk could easily be considered the better player depending on the year, and certainly is in the same "stratospere".

elgin would never have been locked up by the relatively unathletic mavs, and he would destroy boris diaw - are these two things not all but fact?

so clearly, for all lebron's HD highlights, he is not in another stratosphere from elgin - that's just your ignorance talking.

[SugarHill]

it is a fact that elgin was the better scorer and rebounder - and it's not close in these areas.

lmao

[Round Mound]

Elgin Paved The Way For Point-Forward Play. The Dude Was One Of The Greatest All Around Players Ever.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Shaq did a lot of "running over defenders" as well. Guess he isn't very good.

[3ball]

all i see is lebron running over defenders and benefiting from spacing... otoh, it is a fact that elgin was the better scorer and rebounder - and it's not close in these areas.

we know that when lebron can't run over defenders or get easy looks, he can get locked up like 2011 - like, dirk's highlights don't look as circus-like as lebron's either, but dirk could easily be considered the better player depending on the year, and certainly is in the same "stratospere".

elgin would never have been locked up by the relatively unathletic mavs, and he would destroy boris diaw - are these two things not all but fact?



lmao
other than dunks, elgin was more skilled at all forms of two-point shots - it's not remotely close.

lebron couldn't dream of putting up elgin numbers while playing a brand of basketball that didn't have a 3-point line at all - so lebron would not have anyone spreading the floor for him, and he himself would have to shoot all two-pointers with NO spacing whatsoever... it would be a completely different game that his current game is not suited for at all.

with his broke mid-range shot and limited mid-range game, his numbers would be worse shooting all two's in perpetually packed paints than elgin's were.

do you think lebron could get 61 in the Finals shooting all two-pointers against Russell's Celtics?

**** no

[RoundMoundOfReb]

do you think lebron could get 61 in the Finals shooting all two-pointers against Russell's Celtics?

**** no

**** no is correct. He would score much more than that in the 60s. He would probably average 65 ppg back then.

[3ball]

**** no is correct. He would score much more than that in the 60s. He would probably average 65 ppg back then.

i'm not even sure if the mavs that locked him up and held him to 17 ppg were any more athletic than Russell's Celtics.


http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/1001/nba_g_james_gb2_576.jpg


but he's going to get 61 shooting all two's with no spacing?... in the Finals?... gtfo... :oldlol:

[josh99]

im curious how a marine from today > marine from WWII
Training, technology, and equipment have all improved.

[josh99]

No but stop acting like the Marine from WWII would dominate today.

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa2qVkjss9Y

And tell me with a straight face that Elgin Baylor is in the same stratosphere.
If Elgin Baylor grew up in today's era of course he would. If Kobe/Lebron/whoever grew up in that era they wouldn't even be close to the players they are today.

[3ball]

Training, technology, and equipment have all improved.
if a WWII guy were transplanted to today, they would have access to the same training, technology, and equipment.

and with that same training, technology and equipment, they would apply their undoubtedly superior toughness and resiliency to do better than today's marines.

[3ball]

If Elgin Baylor grew up in today's era of course he would. If Kobe/Lebron/whoever grew up in that era they wouldn't even be close to the players they are today.
lebron in his current form could not go back and duplicate elgin's scoring or rebounding numbers.

he can't get 61 in the Finals against the Celtics shooting all two-pointers, when the relatively unathletic Mavs held him to 17ppg... that makes NO sense.

in all reality, a lot of guys play him very well, like boris diaw.
.

[oarabbus]

lebron in his current form could not go back and duplicate elgin's scoring or rebounding numbers.

he can't get 61 in the Finals against the Celtics shooting all two-pointers, when the relatively unathletic Mavs held him to 17ppg... that makes NO sense.

in all reality, a lot of guys play him very well, like boris diaw.
.


3ball - why do you watch the NBA today? I've asked you a dozen times and you side step the question EVERY TIME. You CONSTANTLY shit on the modern NBA and it's players. Why the **** do you still watch?

[3ball]

3ball - why do you watch the NBA today? I've asked you a dozen times and you side step the question EVERY TIME. You CONSTANTLY shit on the modern NBA and it's players. Why the **** do you still watch?
ball in hole is fun to watch... not as interesting as it used to be for me... but still fun.

and this is fun... discussion on forums.... or talking shit, however you want to phrase it.

i like today's game, but i hate it when people act like today's game and players are some sort of marvel compared to previous eras... they are so wrong.. the danny greens and chandler parsons of the league are not marvels, and the stars from each era match up pretty well.

it was a different game or brand of basketball in previous eras, almost a different sport... many players from previous eras would destroy today's softer league and softer brand of basketball that gets everyone open shots.

for one, they'd be better rested - in the 80's, everyone rode coach... so with today's charters, that means more energy for elgin if he played today... how would lebron fare having to ride coach?... he'd be bitching a ton about it, i know that... almost certainly use it as an excuse early on..

[CavaliersFTW]

3ball - why do you watch the NBA today? I've asked you a dozen times and you side step the question EVERY TIME. You CONSTANTLY shit on the modern NBA and it's players. Why the **** do you still watch?
Who cares this dude is doing a helluva job right now exposing trolls of Elgin Baylor and giving Elgin his long overdue props :lol :applause:

I'm not even gonna lie, I may not agree with this guy about everything seeing as how my GOAT fav is Wilt or Russ before MJ but if he's gonna fight tooth and nail defending Elgin and is capable of not only recognizing Elgins astounding all-around moves, but able to remember other players attempts of them and even makes gifs of said plays then let this man fight the good fight :applause:

[oarabbus]

ball in hole is fun to watch... not as interesting as it used to be to me... but still fun.

and this is fun... discussion on forums.... or talking shit, however you want to phrase it.

i like today's game, but i hate it when people act like today's game is some sort of marvel compared to previous eras, and they act like this all the time... they are so wrong..


:cheers: Alright, just asking because I was legitimately curious. I still think you're a crazed Jordan/previous era stan but I can respect that, you're being real.

[josh99]

if a WWII guy were transplanted to today, they would have access to the same training, technology, and equipment.

and with that same training, technology and equipment, they would apply their undoubtedly superior toughness and resiliency to do better than today's marines.
Exactly... That was my point. :hammerhead:
(I'm not sure what you thought I was trying to imply)

[LAZERUSS]

Shaq did a lot of "running over defenders" as well. Guess he isn't very good.

C'mon...Shaq was doing that 10 years ago. Do you honestly believe that a prime Shaq could do that in today's NBA?

No way. Today's players are much bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, and more skilled.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Elgin was a beast :applause:


3ball putting them ignorant haters in check, all over this thread :lol

[Ariza4three]

We should ban everyone who actually thinks the 60s is worth two shits.

[LAZERUSS]

We should ban everyone who actually thinks the 60s is worth two shits.

Then why did you waste your time, as well as other's, posting in a topic that you had absolutely no interest in, and certainly no knowledge of?

[pudman13]

Are you serious? Those are the exact hesitations that Baylor didnt do. :oldlol:

In his day, those plays would have been called for palming.

[pudman13]

Monroe's game would have translated very well into today's era.

Nobody would care about him today because he couldn't dunk!

I recently read autobiographies of Monroe, Dr. J and Rick Barry, and guess what all of them had in common? They all said they grew up watching Elgin Baylor on TV and all of them modeled their games on his.

[Psileas]

Exactly... That was my point. :hammerhead:
(I'm not sure what you thought I was trying to imply)

Difference is, in general, people appreciate old time legends and have no problem putting them among the GOAT of their field, because they know that whatever advantage modern eras hold is due to technology, preparation, etc, not due to different levels of humans.
People do appreciate seeing ancient artifacts and buildings that would be easy to create/construct today. They do appreciate cars, planes, weapons, machines, etc, that have been outdated. They do enjoy watching Jesse Owens run 100 m in "only" 10.3 s and 200 m in 20.7. All these achievements are considered among the greatest of their fields and nobody bothers to point out this "old era" shit as a kind of rebuttal.
Now, guess what category of message boards is the exception to this rule...Which means that either their posters are extremely smart, seeing things and patterns that others couldn't or...the polar opposite.

[Dro]

Nobody would care about him today because he couldn't dunk!

I recently read autobiographies of Monroe, Dr. J and Rick Barry, and guess what all of them had in common? They all said they grew up watching Elgin Baylor on TV and all of them modeled their games on his.
:biggums:

[Dro]

No it's not. Rose faked a pass to the bull at the top of the screen. Baylor switched dribbling hands.
Faked a pass? lol, wtf are you watching? stop trolling....

[stanlove1111]

Difference is, in general, people appreciate old time legends and have no problem putting them among the GOAT of their field, because they know that whatever advantage modern eras hold is due to technology, preparation, etc, not due to different levels of humans.
People do appreciate seeing ancient artifacts and buildings that would be easy to create/construct today. They do appreciate cars, planes, weapons, machines, etc, that have been outdated. They do enjoy watching Jesse Owens run 100 m in "only" 10.3 s and 200 m in 20.7. All these achievements are considered among the greatest of their fields and nobody bothers to point out this "old era" shit as a kind of rebuttal.
Now, guess what category of message boards is the exception to this rule...Which means that either their posters are extremely smart, seeing things and patterns that others couldn't or...the polar opposite.


Good post. You show here that you almost get it.

Todays players and athletes are much better because of the advantages they have. Finally you see it.

I consider players like Russell, West,Baylor, and Wilt to be among the greatest ever but if you took them from 1962 an plopped them into todays NBA they would be nothing. Now if they were born 25 years ago and they grew up with the same advantages todays players have then they might still be dominating. But that's speculation.


I don't know why the OP doesn't understand this. he shows these clips and thinks todays fans are going to be impressed. Its not going to happen. Compared to todays game its not impressive at all, for 1962 yes, for today it looks like a YMCA move..

And yes if Lebron was in his prime in 1962 his moves would look like this, that they way they played then. The game has evolved. Kids today start practicing tougher and harder moves from the time they are 10 years old because that's what they see on TV. It will continue to evolve. 40 years from now people will laugh at Lebron or Durant's game. Not sure why this is hard to understand. When I see games from the 1960s I see guys doing things that are on my level just they are bigger, when I see games today the skills are out of this world and a lot of it is almost rebotic.The OP in his bias for some really strange reason can't see this. But isn't he the guy who thinks the 1967 Green Bay Packers could play even with todays best teams. That's how crazy the old school backers on here are. I love watching the old school players better but not sure why its hard to admit that the game has greatly evolved.


The OP has been at this for 15 years at least. I use to read his stuff on AOL message boards in the 1990s. His name was OLD Fogey back then.

[Proctor]

Good post. You show here that you almost get it.

Todays players and athletes are much better because of the advantages they have. Finally you see it.

I consider players like Russell, West,Baylor, and Wilt to be among the greatest ever but if you took them from 1962 an plopped them into todays NBA they would be nothing. Now if they were born 25 years ago and they grew up with the same advantages todays players have then they might still be dominating. But that's speculation.


I don't know why the OP doesn't understand this. he shows these clips and thinks todays fans are going to be impressed. Its not going to happen. Compared to todays game its not impressive at all, for 1962 yes, for today it looks like a YMCA move..

And yes if Lebron was in his prime in 1962 his moves would look like this, that they way they played then. The game has evolved. Kids today start practicing tougher and harder moves from the time they are 10 years old because that's what they see on TV. It will continue to evolve. 40 years from now people will laugh at Lebron or Durant's game. Not sure why this is hard to understand. When I see games from the 1960s I see guys doing things that are on my level just they are bigger, when I see games today the skills are out of this world and a lot of it is almost rebotic.The OP in his bias for some really strange reason can't see this. But isn't he the guy who thinks the 1967 Green Bay Packers could play even with todays best teams. That's how crazy the old school backers on here are. I love watching the old school players better but not sure why its hard to admit that the game has greatly evolved.


The OP has been at this for 15 years at least. I use to read his stuff on AOL message boards in the 1990s. His name was OLD Fogey back then.
He's as sick as Euroleague :eek:

Great post.

[iamgine]

Elgin was great for a 60s player.

[LAZERUSS]

Good post. You show here that you almost get it.

Todays players and athletes are much better because of the advantages they have. Finally you see it.

I consider players like Russell, West,Baylor, and Wilt to be among the greatest ever but if you took them from 1962 an plopped them into todays NBA they would be nothing. Now if they were born 25 years ago and they grew up with the same advantages todays players have then they might still be dominating. But that's speculation.


I don't know why the OP doesn't understand this. he shows these clips and thinks todays fans are going to be impressed. Its not going to happen. Compared to todays game its not impressive at all, for 1962 yes, for today it looks like a YMCA move..

And yes if Lebron was in his prime in 1962 his moves would look like this, that they way they played then. The game has evolved. Kids today start practicing tougher and harder moves from the time they are 10 years old because that's what they see on TV. It will continue to evolve. 40 years from now people will laugh at Lebron or Durant's game. Not sure why this is hard to understand. When I see games from the 1960s I see guys doing things that are on my level just they are bigger, when I see games today the skills are out of this world and a lot of it is almost rebotic.The OP in his bias for some really strange reason can't see this. But isn't he the guy who thinks the 1967 Green Bay Packers could play even with todays best teams. That's how crazy the old school backers on here are. I love watching the old school players better but not sure why its hard to admit that the game has greatly evolved.


The OP has been at this for 15 years at least. I use to read his stuff on AOL message boards in the 1990s. His name was OLD Fogey back then.

I have BLOWN AWAY these RIDICULOUS theories several times here.

You mention the '67 Packers. Well, FOOTBALL is the ONE major sport in which pure size and strength, and overall physical gifts are 90% of the game. Having said that though, just less than a decade after Green Bay's '67 title, the Pittsburgh Steelers entire offensive line was benching 500+ lb. per man. And we ALL know why, too.

And that is where you are so CONFUSED. You are equating the gigantic linemen of today as some kind of SKILLS advantage over those of 40-50 years ago.

Here is the REALITY... Jim Brown was 6-2, 230 lbs, and a track star in college. Now, you explain to me how that man, who was bigger, more powerful, and likely faster than Adrian Peterson, was "only" putting up a peak AD numbers in the 50's? And, do you honestly believe that you could a Peterson, from his 2000 yard rushing season, and he would just overwhelm the NFL in the 50's?

How do explain Brown's numbers...and yet, just a little over a decade ago, Barry Sanders, who was 5-8 200 lbs, could also rush for 2000 yards, and against supposedly much bigger, stronger, faster players.

You want more examples: How did a 31 year old Tiki Barber, who was another 5-10 200 lb back, rush for 1662 yards, and just the year before, 1860 yards? He was no bigger, nor shifter, nor faster, than Gale Sayers was back in the late 60's.

OJ Simpson would likely be among the fastest players in the NFL today, and was a powerful 210 lb back. Eric Dickerson, in the 80's, was the size of Peterson, but faster. And I seriously doubt that there is anyone faster in the NFL today, than Hershel Walker and Bo Jackson...both of whom played 30 years ago.

Obviously you were not around in the 60's thru the 80's, but look up Christian Okoye. 6-1, 253 lbs, and ran a 4.4 40. How come that guy just didn't annihilate defenses in the 80's?

Pure speed? How about your '67 Packers? How about this quote by Travis Williams:


"You start running 9.7 and you're gone," says Williams, once timed at 9.3 seconds in the 100-yard dash. "It's like, 'We've done used him up. Time for him to go do something else. Thanks for the championship, thanks for the Super Bowl, but right now we got a first-round choice coming up and you're in the way. Thanks for using your body for five years. You all come back now, ya hear?' "

BTW, Hershel Walker was bigger, stronger, and faster than Marcus Allen. Tell me who the better RB was.

The fastest LEGITIMATE NFL player of all-time? He played in the SIXTIES. None other than "Bullet" Bob Hayes. And to be honest, had that man had the shoes, the surfaces, and the training that today's elite sprinters have, and I have no doubt he would be giving Bolt a real run.

And how about a 50 year old Darrell Green? Ran a 4.42 40 at age 50. Hell, he was winning the "NFL Fastest Man" competitions in his late 30's. The man was playing in the 80's, and was likely the fastest man in the NFL near the end of the 90's.

And it's not as if the NFL (and AFL) of the 60's was devoid of size, either. The Chargers of the early 60's had the 6-9 315 lb Ernie Ladd, and the Chiefs had 6-9 300 lb. Buck Buchanon. Had those two had the "advantages" of YOUR modern athletes, and they likely would be the two biggest men in the game today.

The average football player is bigger, and marginally faster than those of yesteryear. But again, pure size is really the only difference. And, as I have already shown, had the athletes of the 60's had the same "technology" as afforded to TODAY's football players, and those margins would be nearly nil.

But again, the SKILLED players of TODAY, are NO BETTER than the SKILLED NFL players of the 60's and 70's. How does Jordy Nelson star in TODAY's NFL? Pure SKILL. How does a weak-armed Payton Manning smash the NFL record book at age 37? SKILL. And the flip side...how come the cannon-armed Jay Cutler has been pretty bust? And go back to the 80's, and Jay Schroeder....the man could throw the ball the length of the football field...and yet...BUST. Hell, who has the stronger arm on the today's Broncos? Manning or his 6-8 backup, Brock Osweiler? I can GUARANTEE you it not Manning.

The NFL's all-time greatest receiver? Th 6-2, 200 lb. Jerry Rice and his 4.6 40 speed. How could that man dominate a sport in which linemen were as fast as he was?

Put Jim Brown, fresh out of the 50's, into today's NFL...and he is an instant star. Same with OJ, Sayers, Hayes, Alworth, Warren Wells, Clifford Branch, all the way thru the Hershel, Allen, Bo, Dickerson, Deion, Green, et al, would be INSTANT stars. There might be a two-week training period, and then, BAM, on their way to NFL records.


Next...baseball.

[CavaliersFTW]

He's as sick as Euroleague :eek:

Great post.
You guys crack me up :oldlol: I hardly watched basketball 15 years ago, I was 11 or 12. Other than Shaq or Jordan I doubt I would have been able to recognize many players at that time let alone talk about them. Knew nothing about the games history back then.

[Marchesk]

I consider players like Russell, West,Baylor, and Wilt to be among the greatest ever but if you took them from 1962 an plopped them into todays NBA they would be nothing. Now if they were born 25 years ago and they grew up with the same advantages todays players have then they might still be dominating. But that's speculation.

A time-traveled Wilt would be nothing in today's league? He was 7-1 without shoes, was an excellent all-around track athlete, had great stamina, had excellent hands, and was the best scorer of his time.

How many legitimate seven footers today could do what Wilt could do back then? Go ahead, name them. They have to be athletic, coordinated, not injury prone, lots of stamina, great hands, and an ability to score at a high level.

So who are they? Who is it that would be keeping Wilt on the pine today? You had Kendrick Perkins starting for a serious contender. Kendrick Perkins, and you're telling me Wilt plucked from 62 would be nothing. LOL.

Bill Russell from 1958 >>> any version of Kendrick Perkins.

Bill Russell was a greater basketball player than any version of Dwight Howard, and it's not even close.

Anthony Davis is looking great in this league at only 21. Wilt was a better physical specimen in 1959 than Anthony Davis is now.

[Marchesk]

i'm not even sure if the mavs that locked him up and held him to 17 ppg were any more athletic than Russell's Celtics.http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/1001/nba_g_james_gb2_576.jpg


Can't wait for next generation to see this old, 2D photo of Lebron trying to post up some 5-10 white dude in the finals.

I wonder what they will say?

[Marchesk]

Training, technology, and equipment have all improved.

And if a marine today was time traveled to the beaches of Normandy in 1944?

[Marchesk]

That is the sorriest cross over i've ever seen. :oldlol:

Just imagine if he didn't dribble with his other hand. :coleman:

One thing to take into consideration is that guys today can get away with serious palming violations when doing their hesitation moves and crossovers.

[oarabbus]

How do explain Brown's numbers...and yet, just a little over a decade ago, Barry Sanders, who was 5-8 200 lbs, could also rush for 2000 yards, and against supposedly much bigger, stronger, faster players.

You want more examples: How did a 31 year old Tiki Barber, who was another 5-10 200 lb back, rush for 1662 yards, and just the year before, 1860 yards? He was no bigger, nor shifter, nor faster, than Gale Sayers was back in the late 60's.



You have a lot of good information on this post but I had to take issue with this. The people who use the size argument are employing a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, as much as people want it to be true, 6'3" doesn't mean you're better than 5'9" in football, or many other sports, the one exception being basketball.

Darren Sproles is 5'6" and he is averaging the HIGHEST yards per carry of ANY running back. You don't need to be bigger to be better in football, although GENERALLY the bigger players are better. But it's by no means a lock.

[LAZERUSS]

You have a lot of good information on this post but I had to take issue with this. The people who use the size argument are employing a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, as much as people want it to be true, 6'3" doesn't mean you're better than 5'9" in football, or many other sports, the one exception being basketball.

Darren Sproles is 5'6" and he is averaging the HIGHEST yards per carry of ANY running back. You don't need to be bigger to be better in football, although GENERALLY the bigger players are better. But it's by no means a lock.

You, my friend, have hit the proverbially nail on the head.

Of course SIZE is not an end-all. I will concede that, generally, all ELSE being equal, and I would take the bigger man.

But my point was two-fold. One, today's greatest football players are no faster, nor more skilled, than the greatest football players of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's.

Secondly, if the play in the NFL was so inferior in the 60's, how come a 6-2, 230 lb, sprinter, and a beast of a man, like Brown, was not rushing for 3000 yards, on 10 ypc, and scoring 50 TD's... against these supposedly smaller, weaker, and slower players he was facing. And conversely, how could a 30 and 31 year old, 5-10 Tiki Barber, rush for b2b seasons of 1700 and 1800 yards, against supposedly much bigger, stronger, and faster defenders in his era? Barber was certainly no better a running back than Brown.

How about QB play? Sure, John Elway had a cannon for an arm. So did Dan Marino. Who was the best QB in their era...little Joe Montana, and with his average arm. Why? Did Montana need super size, or superior strength, or superior speed to be the best QB of his era?

BTW, I personally have a peak OJ (yes, I know), as the greatest RB of all-time. And I also believe that Bart Starr has a case as the greatest QB of all-time. I could go on for hours on these topics, and I can certainly back up my arguments with a TON of evidence, too, but this is a basketball forum.

Having said that, though, EVERY era has their greats, and in very major professional team sport.

Baseball is next...

[iamgine]

Good post. You show here that you almost get it.

Todays players and athletes are much better because of the advantages they have. Finally you see it.

I consider players like Russell, West,Baylor, and Wilt to be among the greatest ever but if you took them from 1962 an plopped them into todays NBA they would be nothing. Now if they were born 25 years ago and they grew up with the same advantages todays players have then they might still be dominating. But that's speculation.


I don't know why the OP doesn't understand this. he shows these clips and thinks todays fans are going to be impressed. Its not going to happen. Compared to todays game its not impressive at all, for 1962 yes, for today it looks like a YMCA move..

And yes if Lebron was in his prime in 1962 his moves would look like this, that they way they played then. The game has evolved. Kids today start practicing tougher and harder moves from the time they are 10 years old because that's what they see on TV. It will continue to evolve. 40 years from now people will laugh at Lebron or Durant's game. Not sure why this is hard to understand. When I see games from the 1960s I see guys doing things that are on my level just they are bigger, when I see games today the skills are out of this world and a lot of it is almost rebotic.The OP in his bias for some really strange reason can't see this. But isn't he the guy who thinks the 1967 Green Bay Packers could play even with todays best teams. That's how crazy the old school backers on here are. I love watching the old school players better but not sure why its hard to admit that the game has greatly evolved.


The OP has been at this for 15 years at least. I use to read his stuff on AOL message boards in the 1990s. His name was OLD Fogey back then.

:applause:

/thread. I mean, we should really appreciate the pioneers but lets not act like they were something they're not.

[LAZERUSS]

If someone posted pictures of Babe Ruth, and a PED-enhanced Barry Bonds, side-by-side, and asked the average "ESPN generation" fan to pick the better player, how many here believe that Ruth would win in that vote? Hell, how many here believe that Ruth would receive a SINGLE vote?

Ruth....the rotund, chicken-legged Ruth, who played in the 20's and 30's, and never faced integrated pitching? C'mon.

How about this:

In 1939, rookie Ted Williams hit .327 with 31 HRs. Two years later, Williams' hit a career high, .406, and with 37 HRs. So what, you ask? Well, the nay-sayers will immediately jump in and claim that Williams accomplished those numbers before integration.

Ok, fast forward to 1957. A 38 year old Williams, who would be out of baseball within a couple of years...batted .388 and with 38 HRs. This, again at age 38, and 10 years AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. Oh, as a sidenote, Henry Aaron won his only MVP, at age 23, with a .322 BA, and 44 HRs (in 675 PA's.) Another side-note...Mickey Mantle batted .365, and hit 34 HRs in that 1957 season...and was offered a $5000 CUT in pay by Yankee management. Why? Because he had won the triple crown in 1956, with a .353 BA, 52 HRs, and 130 RBI.

In 1960, Williams', in his last season, and at age 41, batted .316, and slugged 29 HRs (in only 390 PAs BTW). So, here was a 41 year old Williams, nearly 20 years after his '41 season (the last time a player ever batted .400)...hitting HRs at the highest rate of his career. And in a well-entrenched integrated MLB.

I have studied Williams career, and IMHO, he is arguably the greatest hitter of all-time. So, I will digress for three quick tidbits. One, everyone here probably knows that Joe DiMaggio hit in 56 consecutive games in 1941. However, how many here know that DURING that 56 game streak, Williams OUTHIT DiMaggio? And how about this...going into the last day of the 1941 season, the RedSox were scheduled to play a double-header. Going into the last day of the season, Williams was batting .3996, or a rounded off, .400. The Sox were out of the pennant race, so Williams manager asked Ted if he would like to sit out, and preserve his .400. Williams responded by saying that there were fans there who had come to see him play, so he would play BOTH games. Well, he went 6-8, and wound up at .406. All of which is interesting, because there was a season, some 25 years ago, when Mark McGuire was batting .201 going into the last day of the year. He sat out to "preserve" his .200. And finally,...in Williams very last at-bat of his career...he hit a homerun.

Ok, enough. Back to point. Ok, in 1957, and again, a peak Aaron won his only MVP...in a season in which he batted .322 and hit 44 HRs, in 675 PAs. Fast forward 14 years later, to 1971. A 37 year old Aaron hit a career high 47 HRs, in 573 PAs. Two years later, in 1973, a 39 year old Aaron hit 40 HRs in only 465 PAs (the best season in that stat in his entire career.

So, for those that continue to suggest that sports evolve every year, and that the players of such-and-such, were far superior to those that played even 20 years before...how do explain Williams, and Aaron? Or Willie Mays hitting 51 HRs in 1955, and 52 in 1965, and against considerably better league-wide pitching? BTW, I have long maintained that Mays' '65 season was the greatest "HR" season in MLB history...at least post-Ruth. Why? Because he had the highest HR differential in MLB history (post-Ruth.)

And how about this argument: Who would you pick to win a HR hitting contest...a peak Barry Bonds, or a peak Mickey Mantle? Keep in mind that the PED-enhanced Bonds weighed 228 lbs, while a peak Mantle weighed 195. And again, this was a PED-enhanced Bonds, and going up against an alcoholic, chronically injury-plagued Mantle. Guess what...SI ran an article back in the mid-00's, in which it had recorded the distance of EVERYONE of Bonds' homeruns. A PED-enhanced Bonds' longest HR... 495 feet. Now, go ahead and take a look at this:

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


Mantle hit some of the longest home runs in Major League history. On September 10, 1960, he hit a ball left-handed that cleared the right-field roof at Tiger Stadium in Detroit and, based on where it was found, was estimated years later by historian Mark Gallagher to have traveled 643 feet (196 m). Another Mantle homer, hit right-handed off Chuck Stobbs at Griffith Stadium in Washington, D.C. on April 17, 1953, was measured by Yankees traveling secretary Red Patterson (hence the term "tape-measure home run") to have traveled 565 feet (172 m). Deducting for bounces,[4] there is no doubt that both landed well over 500 feet (152 m) from home plate. Mantle twice hit balls off the third-deck facade at Yankee Stadium, nearly becoming the only player to hit a fair ball out of the stadium during a game. On May 22, 1963, against Kansas City's Bill Fischer, Mantle hit a ball that fellow players and fans claimed was still rising when it hit the 110-foot (34 m) high facade, then caromed back onto the playing field. It was later estimated by some that the ball could have traveled 504 feet (154 m) [29] had it not been blocked by the ornate and distinctive facade. On August 12, 1964, he hit one whose distance was undoubted: a center field drive that cleared the 22-foot (6.7 m) batter's eye screen, some 75' beyond the 461-foot (141 m) marker at the Stadium.

Although he was a feared power hitter from either side of the plate and hit more home runs batting left-handed than right, Mantle considered himself a better right-handed hitter.[30] In roughly 25% of his total at-bats he hit .330 right-handed to .281 left.[31] His 372 to 164 home run disparity was due to Mantle having batted left-handed much more often, as the large majority of pitchers are right-handed. In spite of short foul pole dimension of 296 feet (90 m) to left and 302 feet (92 m) to right in original Yankee Stadium, Mantle gained no advantage there as his stroke both left and right-handed drove balls there to power alleys of 344' to 407' and 402' to 457' feet (139 m) from the plate. Overall, he hit slightly more home runs away (270) than home (266).[


Think about that for an instant...a much smaller Mantle, was FAR more powerful from EITHER side of the plate...than Barry Bonds ever was. This from a player who was often playing without sleep, surviving a hang-over, and battling numerous injuries.


The ultimate baseball "bridge" has to be Nolan Ryan. His career spanned FOUR decades, and overall, 27 seasons. Who is the hardest thrower of all-time? If you said Aroldis Chapman, and his 105 MPH fastball...well, you would be wrong. Ryan threw harder. Huh? True, his fastest recorded pitch was at "only" 100.9 MPH...BUT, that was on a SLOW gun.

Take a look at this:

http://www.efastball.com/baseball/stats/fastest-pitch-speed-in-major-leagues/

Ryan's recorded pitch was actually thrown at...get this...108.1 MPH! Oh, and who is second on that list? Chapman? Nope, "Bullet" Bob Feller, at 107.6 MPH. BTW, Ryan's "official" 100.9 pitch was clocked in the 8th inning of a game, and after he had thrown 162 pitches.

Oh, and how about this...the very last pitch of Ryan's career, at age 46, and on an injured arm... 98 MPH!

And how about a guy virtually no one has ever heard of... Steve Dalkowski?

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

The stories abound, but there are many who believe he was the hardest thrower of all-time. All from a 170 lb man.

And take a look at that list...Bob Turley in 1954... 103.2 MPH. Jo Black, in 1952...102.2 MPH. And we know that Sandy Koufax was "only" clocked at 98 MPH. So? He had to SLOW down his fast ball to control it. Once he did that, he was nearly unhittable.


Back to Nolan Ryan. His KO/9 was even higher, later in his career, than earlier. His career high K/9 came at age 40, and in 1987. The man was still striking out 300 batters in a season, in 1989, and at age 42! His ERA and K/9 were still as good, in 1991, and at age 44, as they were at his peak in the early 70's. Oh, and at age 44, Ryan threw his 7th, and last no-hitter.


I have mentioned SKILL in a previous post. Obviously, as Mantle proved, a player doesn't have to be McGuire's size, to have prodigious power.

But, let's carry this further...The Atlanta Braves of the 90's, had their "Big Three" pitching staff of John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, and Greg Maddux. Guess which one was the "slowest" of that group? Yep...Maddux. Guess which one, in the midst of the "Steroid Era" had an ERA of 1.56 (and then 1.63 the next year)? Yep...Maddux. How could a pitcher, who could only throw at 90 MPH, be the most dominant pitcher of the biggest explosion in power numbers in MLB history? Oh, and how about the 5-11 170 lb. Pedro Martinez? At the height of the "Steroid Era", in 2000, Pedro had an ERA of 1.74. The next best pitcher in the AL? Roger Clemens at 3.70.


Ok, what does all of this have to do with Babe Ruth, for cryingoutloud?

Remember Ted Williams in 1939? .327, with 31 HRs. Ok, well a 31 year old Jimmy Foxx batted.360 with 35 HRs that same season. Just the year before, in 1938, Foxx batted .349 with 50 HRs. In his peak season, in 1932, Foxx hit .364 with 58 HRs.

This is where it gets interesting. In that same season, a 37 year old Ruth, and way-past-his prime (he would done three years later in 1935), batted .341 with 41 HRs. And, of course, just five years before that 1932 season, and in 1927, a prime Ruth, batted .356 with 60 HRs (and that was probably not his greatest season, either.)

So, using these "bridges" and we can clearly see that Ruth likely would have been a GREAT player in TODAY's MLB.

BTW, unlike guys like Sammy Sosa, who not only used PEDs, but who also swung a "corked bat"...Ruth was swinging...get this... a 42 ounce bat. There are probably baseball players today who couldn't pick up that bat, much less swing it.


Next...basketball.

[iamgine]

^that wall of text about baseball ain't changing this truth:


Good post. You show here that you almost get it.

Todays players and athletes are much better because of the advantages they have. Finally you see it.

I consider players like Russell, West,Baylor, and Wilt to be among the greatest ever but if you took them from 1962 an plopped them into todays NBA they would be nothing. Now if they were born 25 years ago and they grew up with the same advantages todays players have then they might still be dominating. But that's speculation.


I don't know why the OP doesn't understand this. he shows these clips and thinks todays fans are going to be impressed. Its not going to happen. Compared to todays game its not impressive at all, for 1962 yes, for today it looks like a YMCA move..

And yes if Lebron was in his prime in 1962 his moves would look like this, that they way they played then. The game has evolved. Kids today start practicing tougher and harder moves from the time they are 10 years old because that's what they see on TV. It will continue to evolve. 40 years from now people will laugh at Lebron or Durant's game. Not sure why this is hard to understand. When I see games from the 1960s I see guys doing things that are on my level just they are bigger, when I see games today the skills are out of this world and a lot of it is almost rebotic.The OP in his bias for some really strange reason can't see this. But isn't he the guy who thinks the 1967 Green Bay Packers could play even with todays best teams. That's how crazy the old school backers on here are. I love watching the old school players better but not sure why its hard to admit that the game has greatly evolved.


The OP has been at this for 15 years at least. I use to read his stuff on AOL message boards in the 1990s. His name was OLD Fogey back then.

[LAZERUSS]

Good post. You show here that you almost get it.

Todays players and athletes are much better because of the advantages they have. Finally you see it.

I consider players like Russell, West,Baylor, and Wilt to be among the greatest ever but if you took them from 1962 an plopped them into todays NBA they would be nothing. Now if they were born 25 years ago and they grew up with the same advantages todays players have then they might still be dominating. But that's speculation.


I don't know why the OP doesn't understand this. he shows these clips and thinks todays fans are going to be impressed. Its not going to happen. Compared to todays game its not impressive at all, for 1962 yes, for today it looks like a YMCA move..

And yes if Lebron was in his prime in 1962 his moves would look like this, that they way they played then. The game has evolved. Kids today start practicing tougher and harder moves from the time they are 10 years old because that's what they see on TV. It will continue to evolve. 40 years from now people will laugh at Lebron or Durant's game. Not sure why this is hard to understand. When I see games from the 1960s I see guys doing things that are on my level just they are bigger, when I see games today the skills are out of this world and a lot of it is almost rebotic.The OP in his bias for some really strange reason can't see this. But isn't he the guy who thinks the 1967 Green Bay Packers could play even with todays best teams. That's how crazy the old school backers on here are. I love watching the old school players better but not sure why its hard to admit that the game has greatly evolved.


The OP has been at this for 15 years at least. I use to read his stuff on AOL message boards in the 1990s. His name was OLD Fogey back then.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Marchesk already covered this brilliantly, but in any case, take a look at this footage:

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

Now, you tell me that THAT man would be "NOTHING" in today's NBA. I don't
ANY of that from Joaquin Noah, Tyson Chandler, DeAndre Jordan, Roy Hibbert, or Andre Drummond.

Here is Chamberlain, a FULL 7-1 1/2, and likely close to 7-3 using TODAY's measurements. Probably (and in fact, SURELY), the strongest NBA player of all-time. Playing between 290-310 lbs almost his entire NBA career. A college HIGH-JUMP champion (and doing so part-time and with horrible technique), and easily a 40" vertical. With a 7-8 wingspan, and a standing reach within an inch of Yao Ming. And with THOSE SKILLS...being NOTHING in today's NBA??!!

Watch this footage...

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

And with a STRAIGHT FACE, tell me that Ricky Rubio is a better player than THAT guy. C'mon, Pistol Pete could jump from the '60's, right into TODAY's NBA and be an offensive FORCE. His game just BLOWS AWAY Rubio (who can't hit a shot for his life in THIS NBA...and likely wouldn't hit ANY in the 60's.) Hell, I would easily take Bob Cousy over Rubio.


Russell? A 6-10 WORLD-CLASS HIGH-JUMPER, with a 7-4 wingspan?

How about this:

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

Does that look like Andre Drummond or DeAndre Jordan?


And, STANLEYLOVE... how do think your boy Bill Walton would do in TODAY's NBA? Obviously, if Wilt would be a "nothing" then surely a Walton, whose peak was just four years after Chamberlain retired, and was NOWHERE NEAR as dominant a player as Wilt was...well, I guess you would have to admit that he couldn't make a college roster today, then, right? Oh sure, he was 6-11 (and likely 7-0) BEFORE putting on shoes. And sure, he had SKILLS that were FAR superior to the vast majority of NBA centers in TODAY's game...but obviously, he wouldn't even be a Tyler Hansborough in the current NBA, right?

How about this footage...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQ3unu2YAQ

Taken in 1975. Does that man look like he would be a "nothing" in TODAY's NBA.


BTW, if you were watching tonight's Spurs-Cavs game, the pre-game showcased an in-bounds pass from Kevin Love. A two-handed, length of the floor pass that was right on the money. Guess what...they then flashed back to Wes Unseld, who played in the NBA in the 60's...and making an IDENTICAL pass.


Of course, let's take a look at this guy...who also played in the NBA in the 60's...

Here is footage from 1965-to-1967...

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

Does THAT guy look like he wouldn't just CRUSH Anthony Davis TODAY?

But, let's fast forward to THAT same guy...and going up against your boy Walton in the latter part of the 70's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMKlx7Was&playnext=1&videos=YqP06ya0k4w


He just WIPED the floor with a PEAK Walton. Oh, BTW, this wasn't anywhere near his greatest game against Walton, either.


Continued...

[Psileas]

Good post. You show here that you almost get it.

Todays players and athletes are much better because of the advantages they have. Finally you see it.

I consider players like Russell, West,Baylor, and Wilt to be among the greatest ever but if you took them from 1962 an plopped them into todays NBA they would be nothing. Now if they were born 25 years ago and they grew up with the same advantages todays players have then they might still be dominating. But that's speculation.


I don't know why the OP doesn't understand this. he shows these clips and thinks todays fans are going to be impressed. Its not going to happen. Compared to todays game its not impressive at all, for 1962 yes, for today it looks like a YMCA move..

And yes if Lebron was in his prime in 1962 his moves would look like this, that they way they played then. The game has evolved. Kids today start practicing tougher and harder moves from the time they are 10 years old because that's what they see on TV. It will continue to evolve. 40 years from now people will laugh at Lebron or Durant's game. Not sure why this is hard to understand. When I see games from the 1960s I see guys doing things that are on my level just they are bigger, when I see games today the skills are out of this world and a lot of it is almost rebotic.The OP in his bias for some really strange reason can't see this. But isn't he the guy who thinks the 1967 Green Bay Packers could play even with todays best teams. That's how crazy the old school backers on here are. I love watching the old school players better but not sure why its hard to admit that the game has greatly evolved.


The OP has been at this for 15 years at least. I use to read his stuff on AOL message boards in the 1990s. His name was OLD Fogey back then.

Now, this was basically a mostly trolling post, since it tried to spin what I wrote and meant. It somehow "agreed" with me, but forgot to take into account that I mentioned phrases like "they do enjoy". Meaning that they do actually get impressed, because they
a) are not expecting that someone would be able to achieve what he did given the technology and training of the day
b) are not expecting that someone would have the talent to perform these given achievements due to his era (!)
c) somehow believed that having watched a couple of shabby 90's, 30'' clips of a given old-time player, they've cupped pretty well what he was able to do.

Remember the Russell college coast-to-coast layup clip? That clip alone changed the perceptions of a lot of people on how athletic Russell was. College Wilt running the fast break also impressed a lot of fans and even lesser plays, like Jerry West performing crossovers or dribbling with his off-hand (dispelling the stupid myth that he couldn't dribble with his left - as if a freakin' NBA Logo shouldn't be evidence by itself) opened some eyes.
Am I expecting from the average ISH troll to look impressed to prove anything? I've seen a troll who saw the Wilt video I mentioned claim that college Wilt at full speed was as fast as Oden. Several years ago, I'd seen a troll doubting that Nate Thurmond could dunk (!). See, he was only making jump-shots in his 15'' "highlight clip" that existed back then. And, to be honest, I don't find the "Wilt and Russell planted today would be nothing" opinion any more valid itself. Its only advantage over the others is that it cannot be factually, 100%, falsified.

[LAZERUSS]

Continued...

We have numerous "bridges" in NBA history. A peak 6-11 265 lb HOFer Bob Lanier, and going up against a 36 year old Chamberlain in Wilt's LAST season...




vs. Lanier in 6 H2H's:

Lanier: 21.2 ppg, 13.4 rpg (5 known games), .374 FG% (5 known games)

Wilt: 19.8 ppg, 16.3 rpg, .764 FG%



Lanier would go on to be among the best centers in the league in the 70's.

Oh, and how about against your boy Walton...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=laniebo01&p2=waltobi01

One more Walton clip...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whIPLxAXGc4

Yes...a 6-4 David Thompson did that, and in the '74 NCAA semi's. Obviously that couldn't have happened though, right...because that was in 1974. Those guys would have no chance against the much bigger and better athletic players of TODAY's NBA right?


Robert Parish was another bridge. He not only faced Artis Gilmore, but he also faced Shaq, as well. Guess which one that he considered to be stronger? If you said Shaq, ...you would be WRONG.

Now, are you going to tell me that a PEAK Gilmore, who could easily get his head to rim level, was 7-2, 290-300 lbs, SKILLED, and massively strong...and could do this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXCHDcSHBS4

Would be a "nothing" in TODAY's NBA?


And then watch this footage...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1utx7OxiaoU

A 36 year old Chamberlain, easily outplaying a young Gilmore. BTW, in the pre-game conversation in the full footage of that game...Hot Rod Hundley says that Wilt, not only looks bigger, but TALLER than the 7-2 Gilmore, as well.


And speaking of Gilmore...

Surely a 7-2 force like that would have just crushed his college opposition, right?

How about this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvw3-G0iTU

The 6-9 Wicks outrebounded Gilmore, 18-16, held Artis to 9-29 shooting from the field, and blocked FIVE of his shots in that game!

So much for those unathletic and unskilled players of the 70's, right?

Continued...

[DatAsh]

Yes, the game has evolved considerably since the 60s.

Players should be judged relative to their era.

Big man game hasn't evolved that much at all. Centers are actually worse today than they were in the 60's, even time-traveled.

[Dr.J4ever]

Overall great post by Stanlove1111. Nice point about today's kids practicing moves that weren't even widely used moves 30 years ago like step back 3s.

There is absolutely no way the 60s GB Packers can even compete in today's NFL. They are just too small along the offensive line or on defense, in general.

In baseball, pitchers are just plain better today with more specialization. The hitters are bigger and stronger, in GENERAL. The key word is GENERAL.

However, I'm somewhere in the middle with all these arguments on both side. There are exceptions. The elite players transcend eras, I believe, and they would be great, after adjustment, in any era. They would not be "nothing" .

Are Elgin's moves impressive today? Not particularly, but his basketball fundamentals would still make him a great player today in my estimation. Yes, the general caliber of players are better today. That much is really undeniable. So many more people are playing the game today worldwide, and if you can't acknowledge this, you're a troll too.

Russel and Wilt would still be great today too. Did both of them play in an overall lesser era for athletes? Yes, but they were freaks, and would still dominate in today's game, albeit with lesser numbers.

[LAZERUSS]

Continued...

The Greatest NBA "Bridge" of all-time?

I present Kareem, who played in the NBA from 1969 thru 1989, and who career narrowly missed spanning FOUR decades.

Think about this...

From the '84-85 season thru the '85-86 season, and covering TEN STRAIGHT H2H games with a young Hakeem...

32 ppg on...get this... a .630 FG%! That's right... a 38-39 year old Kareem, just ABUSING a 23-24 year old Hakeem. Included were THREE games of 40+ points, including a 46 point game, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes (newspaper recaps suggested that had KAJ played more minutes he likely would have broken his career high game of 55 points.

The "Hakeem-lovers" will point out the '85-86 WCF's, when Hakeem SLIGHTLY outplayed Kareem...BUT, they will never mention the FACT, that it was Ralph SAMPSON who defended Kareem in that series.

Oh, and BTW, after Sampson went down with an injury in the middle of the 86-87 season, a 40 year old KAJ and a 25 year old Hakeem went at it in four H2H games. Here were their numbers:

Hakeem: 17.3 ppg, 12.3 rpg, and on a ...get this... a .403 FG%.
KAJ: 18.8 ppg, 6.5 rpg, and on...get this... a .582 FG%.

A 40 year old KAJ easily outplaying a 25 year old Hakeem. :roll:

Oh, and BTW, in the same week that a 39 year old Kareem dumped that 46 point game on Hakeem...he outscored Patrick Ewing in a H2H, 40-9, and outshot Ewing from the field, 15-22 to 3-17.

A 39 year old KAJ just SLAUGHTERING Hakeem and Ewing in the same week!
:roll: :roll:

BTW, a PEAK Shaq's career HIGH game against (an aging) Hakeem... 37 points.


Ok, now let's go back in KAJ's career.

A PEAK Kareem, from '69-70 thru the '72-73 season, faced a fulltime, and the little known Nate Thurmond in some 35 career H2H games. KAJ's HIGH game against Thurmond? 34 points. In fact, he only had FIVE 30+ point games against a fulltime Thurmond in his entire career against him. Oh, and get this... in those H2H's...again, a PEAK Kareem...shot .447 from the field against Nate.

Hell, a PEAK Kareem, in the greatest season of his career, went H2H with Thurmond in five playoff games in the '72 post-season. Thurmond outscored KAJ in that series, 25.0 ppg to 22.8 ppg, and outshot him from the field by a .437 to...drum roll... .405 margin.

A PRIME "scoring" Chamberlain faced a PEAK Thurmond in a span of 13 straight games from the '65 season thru the first H2H in '67. In that span, Chamberlain had SIX games of 30+ points, including games in which he oustcored Thurmond by margins of 38-15 and 45-13. And, in their six regular season H2H's in the 66-67 season, Chamberlain outscored a PEAK Thurmond, per game, 20.8 ppg to 13.0 ppg, and outshot him from the field by, get this a .633 to .320 margin. Over the course of their CAREER H2H's, Chamberlain held Thurmond to less than a .360 FG%!

A PEAK Kareem faced an aging Connie Dierking 10 times in their careers. His HIGH game against Dierking... 41 points. His next highest game... 35 points.

A PRIME Chamberlain faced Dierking numerous times, and had many 40+ games against him, including a 63 point game, and another game in which he outscored Dierking, 59-4. Oh, and in 1969, Chamberlain hung a 60 point game on Dierking...which is interesting from the standpoint that KAJ would come into the NBA the very next season. And obviously, KAJ never approached a game like that against Dierking.

A PEAK Kareem faced Jim Foxx multiple times in his career. His HIGH game against Foxx? 41 points. How about Chamberlain? Well, Wilt was no longer in his prime, but, in a game in 1969, he carpet-bombed Foxx with 66 points on 29-35 from the field.

A PEAK KAJ faced Darrall Imhoff 16 times. His HIGH game was 46 points,. followed by games of 36 and 36. How about a PRIME Chamberlain against Imhoff? MANY games of 50+, including a relatively unknown game of... 100 points. BTW, Imhoff and Chamberlain would face off again a few days after that 100 point game, and Imhoff claimed it was the only time in his career in which he received a standing ovation. He had "held" Wilt to a mere 58 points.

KAJ's high game against Willis Reed? 41 points. How about a PRIME Chamberlain against Reed? Games in which he outscored Reed by margins of 46-25, 41-9, 52-23, and 58-28.

A PEAK Kareem faced the aging HOFer Walt Bellamy in 24 H2H's. Kareem's HIGH games were 40, 39, and 35 points. A PRIME Chamberlain against a PEAK Bellamy? Wilt just CRUSHED Bellamy, and did so in their entire career H2H's.

Chamberlain, in a span of two seasons, and covering 20 STRAIGHT H2H games with a PEAK Bellamy...AVERAGED...get this... 48.2 ppg. Yes...AVERAGED! Included were FOUR games of 60+, with a HIGH of 73 points (to go along with 36 rebounds.) Chamberlain ROUTINELY hung 50+ point games on Bellamy, and even as late as their 65-66 seasonal H2H's. I am certain that a PRIME Chamberlain had more 50+ point games, just against Bellamy in those H2H's, than Kareem had 50+ point games in his entire 20 year career.


OK, think about that. An old Kareem just waxed Hakeem repeatedly. And a peak Hakeem would go on to give Shaq all he could handle, albeit, Shaq still easily outplayed him in their entire career H2H's. Still, a PEAK Shaq never approached the carpet-bombings that a 39 year old KAJ was hanging on Hakeem.

And yet, A PEAK Kareem played FOUR years IN the "Wilt-era", and never sniffed the overwhelming domination that a 60's Wilt leveled against the same centers that a PEAK Kareem would face a few years later. In fact, KAJ never approached Wilt's overall domination...PERIOD.

But, yes, STANLEYLOVE believes that a PRIME 60's Chamberlain would be "nothing" in TODAY's NBA.

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[LAZERUSS]

I have thrown this out before, but here it is again...

I want those that honestly believe that TODAY's NBA is far superior to the game of 50 years ago...please point out THE season in which the NBA game became what we see today.

I want THE season. Was it the NBA-ABA merger? Was it the arrival of Magic and Bird in '80? Was it the beginning of the MJ era? The Kobe-era?

You tell all of us here the SPECIFIC season...

[LAZERUSS]

Overall great post by Stanlove1111. Nice point about today's kids practicing moves that weren't even widely used moves 30 years ago like step back 3s.

There is absolutely no way the 60s GB Packers can even compete in today's NFL. They are just too small along the offensive line or on defense, in general.

In baseball, pitchers are just plain better today with more specialization. The hitters are bigger and stronger, in GENERAL. The key word is GENERAL.

However, I'm somewhere in the middle with all these arguments on both side. There are exceptions. The elite players transcend eras, I believe, and they would be great, after adjustment, in any era. They would not be "nothing" .

Are Elgin's moves impressive today? Not particularly, but his basketball fundamentals would still make him a great player today in my estimation. Yes, the general caliber of players are better today. That much is really undeniable. So many more people are playing the game today worldwide, and if you can't acknowledge this, you're a troll too.

Russel and Wilt would still be great today too. Did both of them play in an overall lesser era for athletes? Yes, but they were freaks, and would still dominate in today's game, albeit with lesser numbers.

Ok, since we know what Dr. J and Moses did against THEIR peers, just what kind of "lessor" numbers would they put up today..and at their peaks?

[SugarHill]

continued

[Dr.J4ever]

Ok, since we know what Dr. J and Moses did against THEIR peers, just what kind of "lessor" numbers would they put up today..and at their peaks?

Without looking at the numbers, I just think the 1970s and 80s were faster paced eras with higher FG%s across the board. Doc regularly shot over 52% in his better NBA seasons, and around 49% in his best ABA seasons when he shot the ball much more.

Again, in general, the 70s and 80s were not great defensive eras, as compared to the 60s, for example, or the even the 90s which was a rugged era in basketball.

Moses, meanwhile, grabbed a ton of boards during the late 70s and early 80s, which were fast paced eras. I still remember Denver AVERAGING 125 ppg and even the 83 Sixers averaged 112 a game. It wasn't just the pace though. FG% were usually in the 50s during the regular season. Fast break attacks weren't usually stalled, and the best NBA teams always were considered fast breaking teams i.e. Bos, Phi, and especially LA.

They were great eras for offense. Defensively, not so much.

So this is what I mean when I say you have to adjust and take into consideration extenuating circumstances of both eras. What would their numbers be? It depends on the team they end up with.

I would put Moses on a team with 1 good PG, and 3 stretch players today. No need for a PF for Moses. He would dominate the boards in today's era all by himself. Given one on one matchups inside, with 3 point shooters around the perimeter, Moses would be like Randolph on steroids. 24/13 would be very reachable numbers for Moses.

Doc, on the other hand, would be great too. A Doc today, after practicing, would shoot the 3 ball, and would shoot a decent %, maybe around 34% is my guess. People don't realize he would occasionally get clutch 3 balls with the 76ers back in the day, and it wasn't really a surprise because his ABA days also provided Doc opportunities for clutch 3s which he converted. Don't get me wrong, he never shot a decent % back in the 80s, but my guess is he would shoot the 3 relatively well today. I mean, if Igoudala can improve his 3 %, then so can Doc, right?

Put Doc on a team with a strong big like Marc Gasol, a PG like Conley, who reminds me of Cheeks, and 3 shooters. And then, put on your seat belts LOL.

A prime ABA doc would average easily 22-26ppg, 8rpg,4apg, 1.5bpg, 1 spg in today's NBA.

Both players would have a slight decline from their peak numbers from their eras, but so what? They would be the hubs of their teams today, and would take their teams deep in the playoffs. Of that, there is no doubt.

[3ball]

Are Elgin's moves impressive today? Not particularly


you don't know shit - im serious, you know nothing about basketball.. why even watch the game if you can't understand that elgin's post moves, one and two-dribble pull-ups, footwork, and moves from a triple-threat position (pre-dribble stationary position, shown below) are not only impressive today, but they would be UNMATCHED today.

like, if you don't have this understanding, you don't enjoy the game as much as i do... nowhere near - don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to compete with you, but i'm trying to make a point that your lack of understanding is costing you enjoyment of the game.

Kobe on Elgin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8UXE7pDA_c

"that's pretty impressive. A lot of guys can't do that: the right foot being the pivot foot and the left foot being the foot you fake with - it's just a very uncomfortable move for a right-handed player to do.. yet he looked absolutely natural doing it"

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/43d5cf02e36411e3b5d5b1e73b6f56f5.gif

[3ball]

Also, the Spurs starters tonight were: kawhi leonard, tim duncan, boris diaw, tony parker, and danny green.

This is not a particularly athletic lineup - the only decent athlete is kawhi leonard.

Considering how unathletic teams like the Spurs and Mavs have easily and consistently contained him, do people really think lebron could score 61 points on all two-pointers in the Finals against Bill Russell's Celtics?

[SHAQisGOAT]

Without looking at the numbers, I just think the 1970s and 80s were faster paced eras with higher FG%s across the board. Doc regularly shot over 52% in his better NBA seasons, and around 49% in his best ABA seasons when he shot the ball much more.

Again, in general, the 70s and 80s were not great defensive eras, as compared to the 60s, for example, or the even the 90s which was a rugged era in basketball.

Moses, meanwhile, grabbed a ton of boards during the late 70s and early 80s, which were fast paced eras. I still remember Denver AVERAGING 125 ppg and even the 83 Sixers averaged 112 a game. It wasn't just the pace though. FG% were usually in the 50s during the regular season. Fast break attacks weren't usually stalled, and the best NBA teams always were considered fast breaking teams i.e. Bos, Phi, and especially LA.

They were great eras for offense. Defensively, not so much.

So this is what I mean when I say you have to adjust and take into consideration extenuating circumstances of both eras. What would their numbers be? It depends on the team they end up with.

I would put Moses on a team with 1 good PG, and 3 stretch players today. No need for a PF for Moses. He would dominate the boards in today's era all by himself. Given one on one matchups inside, with 3 point shooters around the perimeter, Moses would be like Randolph on steroids. 24/13 would be very reachable numbers for Moses.

Doc, on the other hand, would be great too. A Doc today, after practicing, would shoot the 3 ball, and would shoot a decent %, maybe around 34% is my guess. People don't realize he would occasionally get clutch 3 balls with the 76ers back in the day, and it wasn't really a surprise because his ABA days also provided Doc opportunities for clutch 3s which he converted. Don't get me wrong, he never shot a decent % back in the 80s, but my guess is he would shoot the 3 relatively well today. I mean, if Igoudala can improve his 3 %, then so can Doc, right?

Put Doc on a team with a strong big like Marc Gasol, a PG like Conley, who reminds me of Cheeks, and 3 shooters. And then, put on your seat belts LOL.

A prime ABA doc would average easily 22-26ppg, 8rpg,4apg, 1.5bpg, 1 spg in today's NBA.

Both players would have a slight decline from their peak numbers from their eras, but so what? They would be the hubs of their teams today, and would take their teams deep in the playoffs. Of that, there is no doubt.

I'd just like to know why DRtg has remained more or less the same since the 1980's, and eFG% too :confusedshrug:
And I guess the 60's/70's are the GOAT defensive era(s) because their DRtg blows everything else... or worst offensive era(s)? Pick one :confusedshrug:
How about the FG% actually going up as the pace decreased throughout the 70's into the 80's? I thought stuff like that couldn't happen :confusedshrug:
...
Again, everything is pretty subjective, and you can't determine everything off of raw numbers then using mathematics, and whatnot... Would Wilt average 50 PPG today? Ofc not, not even close, he wouldn't get close to 40 shots, so on... But would he still be a complete beast? **** yea, best in the game if he was playing right now at his peak.
How about 80's pace compared to today's? Not considerable to make a difference, for the best players especially. Bird, for example, was averaging the same at today's pace: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po1M--HaINA

Reachable?? Moses is 3rd all-time in TRB%, and dude wasn't playing in a soft-era, plus he was actually going up against various elite centers and "real" bigmen. Dwight got over 14 RPG's, Love even got over 15... Yet 13 is 'reachable' for peak Moses?? Gimme a break.
:rolleyes:
Also, Moses was a legit 6'10, had a pretty good post-game, a nice jumper, could even put it on the floor, was a great finisher, extremely relentless, one of the GOAT's at drawing fouls/contact, pretty smart, strong as a bull, could get off the floor quickly, one of the GOAT rebounders... From 1979 to 1981 averaged 27 PPG on 19 shots, against some great competition, for example... And you're telling me 24 is 'reachable', even while Al Jefferson scores 22 on 19 shots, or Cousins scored 23 on 17 shots... :rolleyes:
At 35 years old, as a complete shell of his former self, dude was still able to put up 19 PPG in less than 34 min, playing at the average pace of 95.8 for the Hawks.

Doc was averaging 1.8 steals and blocks per game at 33 years old, on a team playing at the average pace of 99.6, which is not a considerably difference to today's game, at all.
^That's 2.5 STL% and 3.0 BLK%, in his last years, and just one example from Erving...
LeBron in 2012 with 2.6 STL%? 1.9 SPG in less than 38 min.
Marion in 2007 with 2.8 BLK%? 1.5 BPG in less than 38 min.
Very few perimeter players, all-time, can **** with Julius' steals/blocks numbers, yet you say 1.5 BPG and 1.0 SPG at his best :rolleyes: Dude's 63rd in STL% and 86th in BLK%, all-time.

Now, I'm even doubting you saw much from those guys or are even that big of a fan.

[SHAQisGOAT]

you don't know shit - im serious, you know nothing about basketball.. why even watch the game if you can't understand that elgin's post moves, one and two-dribble pull-ups, footwork, and moves from a triple-threat position (pre-dribble stationary position, shown below) are not only impressive today, but they would be UNMATCHED today.

like, if you don't have this understanding, you don't enjoy the game as much as i do... nowhere near - don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to compete with you, but i'm trying to make a point that your lack of understanding is costing you enjoyment of the game.

Kobe on Elgin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8UXE7pDA_c

"that's pretty impressive. A lot of guys can't do that: the right foot being the pivot foot and the left foot being the foot you fake with - it's just a very uncomfortable move for a right-handed player to do.. yet he looked absolutely natural doing it"

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/43d5cf02e36411e3b5d5b1e73b6f56f5.gif

Great post

[LAZERUSS]

Without looking at the numbers, I just think the 1970s and 80s were faster paced eras with higher FG%s across the board. Doc regularly shot over 52% in his better NBA seasons, and around 49% in his best ABA seasons when he shot the ball much more.

Again, in general, the 70s and 80s were not great defensive eras, as compared to the 60s, for example, or the even the 90s which was a rugged era in basketball.

Moses, meanwhile, grabbed a ton of boards during the late 70s and early 80s, which were fast paced eras. I still remember Denver AVERAGING 125 ppg and even the 83 Sixers averaged 112 a game. It wasn't just the pace though. FG% were usually in the 50s during the regular season. Fast break attacks weren't usually stalled, and the best NBA teams always were considered fast breaking teams i.e. Bos, Phi, and especially LA.

They were great eras for offense. Defensively, not so much.

So this is what I mean when I say you have to adjust and take into consideration extenuating circumstances of both eras. What would their numbers be? It depends on the team they end up with.

I would put Moses on a team with 1 good PG, and 3 stretch players today. No need for a PF for Moses. He would dominate the boards in today's era all by himself. Given one on one matchups inside, with 3 point shooters around the perimeter, Moses would be like Randolph on steroids. 24/13 would be very reachable numbers for Moses.

Doc, on the other hand, would be great too. A Doc today, after practicing, would shoot the 3 ball, and would shoot a decent %, maybe around 34% is my guess. People don't realize he would occasionally get clutch 3 balls with the 76ers back in the day, and it wasn't really a surprise because his ABA days also provided Doc opportunities for clutch 3s which he converted. Don't get me wrong, he never shot a decent % back in the 80s, but my guess is he would shoot the 3 relatively well today. I mean, if Igoudala can improve his 3 %, then so can Doc, right?

Put Doc on a team with a strong big like Marc Gasol, a PG like Conley, who reminds me of Cheeks, and 3 shooters. And then, put on your seat belts LOL.

A prime ABA doc would average easily 22-26ppg, 8rpg,4apg, 1.5bpg, 1 spg in today's NBA.

Both players would have a slight decline from their peak numbers from their eras, but so what? They would be the hubs of their teams today, and would take their teams deep in the playoffs. Of that, there is no doubt.


Last season the NBA averaged 101.0 ppg on an eFG% of .501, and 42.7 rpg.

Let's take Moses' 81-82 season. 42.0 mpg, 31.1 ppg, 14.7 rpg, and a .519 FG%. In an NBA that averaged 108.6 ppg, on an eFG% of .495, and with 43.4 rpg.

So you think Moses would be a 24-13 player...or roughly a DeMarcus Cousins?

BTW, a peak "rebounding" Moses in 78-79, played 41.3 mpg, and grabbed 17.6 rpg, in an NBA that averaged 45.2 rpg.

And another BTW, Moses had seasons of 30+ ppg against Kareem, including Kareem's MVP season of 79-80.

In any case, you are basically claiming that both players would have a SLIGHT DECLINE from their PEAK seasons. Keep in mind that Dr.J's PEAK was in the mid-70's, and Moses' PEAK was in the early 80's. Or roughly 35-40 years ago. So, what I am gathering is that YOU must honestly believe that the players of 40 years ago, were nearly as good as the one's of TODAY.

And then think about this...

Dr. J's PEAK was in the mid-70's. Only a COUPLE of years before that, a PEAK Kareem was averaging 35 ppg against his peers. And only 10 years before that, Chamberlain was shelling the NBA with 35-50 ppg seasons. So, evidently THOSE players of the 60's must have been NEARLY as good as the one's that a PEAK DR. J faced, right?

[Asukal]

it's not a crossover dumbass.. you've now instantly lost all credibility.. :applause:

:biggums:

:oldlol: :lol :roll:

What do you call a dribble move where the ball handler switches control of the ball from one hand to the other? :rolleyes:

[3ball]

:biggums:

:oldlol: :lol :roll:

What do you call a dribble move where the ball handler switches control of the ball from one hand to the other? :rolleyes:



the gifs shown below and elswhere itt display moves where the primary objective of the move is not to change direction like a crossover, but to induce the defender to contest what they think will be a pull-up jumpshot - in each gif, the defender gets faked out and contests like it is a jumpshot.

the first two gifs below are identical moves by elgin baylor and derrick rose, with identical footwork - again, they are using moves designed to essentially upfake the defender while maintaining the dribble.


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/77d572183782fe9a2b1f86b10bdd4924.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5833bfa00cf51213da10678b8f1d865c.gif




Here is Kobe and Paul Pierce also doing a move designed to upfake the defender while maintaining the dribble - the footwork on the kobe/pierce upfake is slightly different than the rose/baylor one above, but the objective is the same (upfake the defender while maintaining the dribble)..


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/fb1546c7d7bccc454918f7daacc8583e.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/59c29495a2a11c228d4aa3e8333e5e0b.gif

[Asukal]

the gifs shown below and elswhere itt display moves where the primary objective of the move is not to change direction like a crossover, but to induce the defender to contest what they think will be a pull-up jumpshot - in each gif, the defender gets faked out and contests like it is a jumpshot.

the first two gifs below are identical moves by elgin baylor and derrick rose, with identical footwork - again, they are using moves designed to essentially upfake the defender while maintaining the dribble.


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/77d572183782fe9a2b1f86b10bdd4924.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5833bfa00cf51213da10678b8f1d865c.gif




Here is Kobe and Paul Pierce also doing a move designed to upfake the defender while maintaining the dribble - the footwork on the kobe/pierce upfake is slightly different than the rose/baylor one above, but the objective is the same (upfake the defender while maintaining the dribble)..


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/fb1546c7d7bccc454918f7daacc8583e.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/59c29495a2a11c228d4aa3e8333e5e0b.gif

You are talking about the move before the crossover. The ball handler fakes a shooting stance and when the defender bites he goes into a crossover dribble for the drive.

[Dr.J4ever]

you don't know shit - im serious, you know nothing about basketball.. why even watch the game if you can't understand that elgin's post moves, one and two-dribble pull-ups, footwork, and moves from a triple-threat position (pre-dribble stationary position, shown below) are not only impressive today, but they would be UNMATCHED today.

like, if you don't have this understanding, you don't enjoy the game as much as i do... nowhere near - don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to compete with you, but i'm trying to make a point that your lack of understanding is costing you enjoyment of the game.

Kobe on Elgin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8UXE7pDA_c

"that's pretty impressive. A lot of guys can't do that: the right foot being the pivot foot and the left foot being the foot you fake with - it's just a very uncomfortable move for a right-handed player to do.. yet he looked absolutely natural doing it"

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/43d5cf02e36411e3b5d5b1e73b6f56f5.gif

Hey, each to his own, dude.

When Jordan drove into the lane in the 1991 Finals, and switched hands in mid air, does that need any more commentary and analysis to defend how great a move it was?

When Erving drove to his right, and into the lane in the 1980 Finals vs LA, and swooped a finger roll high over the rim and just above the outstretched arms of KAJ, does that need a bunch of posters explaining how great a move that was?

I mean, it's a good move by Baylor and all, but can't we just leave it to other posters to decide how great a move it is today having seen Thompson, Erving, Wilkins, Tmac, and Carter?

A great move has no need for explanation. If you love the move, more power to you. As I said, each to his own.

[pudman13]

please point out THE season in which the NBA game became what we see today.

I want THE season. Was it the NBA-ABA merger? Was it the arrival of Magic and Bird in '80? Was it the beginning of the MJ era? The Kobe-era?

You tell all of us here the SPECIFIC season...

This is simple. The season the game changed to the modern game of today is 1979-1980, not because of the arrival of Bird and Magic, but because of the addition of the 3-point shot. Admittedly, it took several years before it became something that teams did more than a couple of times a game (at which point it REALLY became the modern game), but that rule change is what changed everything and made the game what it is today. I'll say it changed it for the worse. Most people disagree with me, but I think it's worth looking at it objectively. Everything about the way teams play offense and defense has changed, and certainly the role of the center on offense has decreased (to put the Wilt and Kareem talk in context.)

I do think one other thing that changed around that same time is that there grew to be a greater number of large, athletic forwards in the game. Maybe there are modern examples that will prove me wrong, but I can't really imagine championship teams playing Havlicek at 6'5" and Sanders at 6'6', like the 60s Celtics, or, to pick a random example, 6'6" Keith Wilkes and 6'7" Rick Barry, like the 1975 Warriors. Maybe this is a bit misleading because in today's game every one of those players would be listed at least an inch taller than they were then, and most certainly they were playing against teams like the '75 Bullets, who had Elvin Hayes playing PF, or 60s teams that paired Wilt and Nate Thurmond, or Willis Reed and Walt Bellamy (both experiments that were considered great failures--the twin tower situation held back Reed and Thurmond, both of whom were more suited to center than PF) but I do think that modern teams are noticably bigger on the inside. There are lots of conversations here about which past stars would translate well to today's game, and Havlicek is the one I find most intriguing to think about. I just can't picture someone of his size dominating as a forward now, and I also think his game was suited much better to a game without the 3-point rule. Could he have been a star guard? He did play guard a significant amount of time, so maybe, but he's one guy whose size gives me a bit of pause when I think about today's game.

I think it's also fair to say that the pool of players is much larger now because the game is so much popular and also because of the influx of foreign players.

This is all just food for thought. My personal inclination is to agree with those here who are lauding the players of the past and saying that the stars of the 60s and 70s would be stars today, but I do think that there's more athleticism in the game now, mostly because of the greater pool of athletes who choose this game over, say, baseball, in this day and age. Are the skills better? Old-time players continually say no, mostly because of all of the guys jumping to the NBA without much college experience. To compare these apples and oranges, anyway, you'd have to take into consideration the way the rules have changed. All of those fancy handles of the modern game would by rendered impossible by the palming rules. Put that in context and the fact is that there's nobody who has the out-and-out skills of Maravich (or Ernie D, for that matter), and today's flashiest and most solid guards aren't any more impressive than, say, Walt Frazier or Earl Monroe. I just recently read Oscar Robertson's autobiography, and he insists that the modern game is much more flash than substance. I think some of it is bitterness that his reputation seems to decline a bit as the game progresses, but his point that nobody ever played the game as well as him on a fundamental level is one to ponder.

[Psileas]

the gifs shown below and elswhere itt display moves where the primary objective of the move is not to change direction like a crossover, but to induce the defender to contest what they think will be a pull-up jumpshot - in each gif, the defender gets faked out and contests like it is a jumpshot.

the first two gifs below are identical moves by elgin baylor and derrick rose, with identical footwork - again, they are using moves designed to essentially upfake the defender while maintaining the dribble.


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/77d572183782fe9a2b1f86b10bdd4924.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5833bfa00cf51213da10678b8f1d865c.gif




Here is Kobe and Paul Pierce also doing a move designed to upfake the defender while maintaining the dribble - the footwork on the kobe/pierce upfake is slightly different than the rose/baylor one above, but the objective is the same (upfake the defender while maintaining the dribble)..


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/fb1546c7d7bccc454918f7daacc8583e.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/59c29495a2a11c228d4aa3e8333e5e0b.gif

Thanks for the similarity videos. Funny how people call poor defense in Baylor's case, yet even today's players fall for this move. People claim that they don't see any hesitation from Baylor, but it's easy to see, thanks to the movement of Baylor's opponent's hands, that he thought Baylor was going to shoot. Baylor didn't need a complete hesitation move in this case, so, he chose his move wisely, but he's needed and taken it on other occasions.

[Dr.J4ever]

I'd just like to know why DRtg has remained more or less the same since the 1980's, and eFG% too :confusedshrug:
And I guess the 60's/70's are the GOAT defensive era(s) because their DRtg blows everything else... or worst offensive era(s)? Pick one :confusedshrug:
How about the FG% actually going up as the pace decreased throughout the 70's into the 80's? I thought stuff like that couldn't happen :confusedshrug:
...
Again, everything is pretty subjective, and you can't determine everything off of raw numbers then using mathematics, and whatnot... Would Wilt average 50 PPG today? Ofc not, not even close, he wouldn't get close to 40 shots, so on... But would he still be a complete beast? **** yea, best in the game if he was playing right now at his peak.
How about 80's pace compared to today's? Not considerable to make a difference, for the best players especially. Bird, for example, was averaging the same at today's pace: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po1M--HaINA

Reachable?? Moses is 3rd all-time in TRB%, and dude wasn't playing in a soft-era, plus he was actually going up against various elite centers and "real" bigmen. Dwight got over 14 RPG's, Love even got over 15... Yet 13 is 'reachable' for peak Moses?? Gimme a break.
:rolleyes:
Also, Moses was a legit 6'10, had a pretty good post-game, a nice jumper, could even put it on the floor, was a great finisher, extremely relentless, one of the GOAT's at drawing fouls/contact, pretty smart, strong as a bull, could get off the floor quickly, one of the GOAT rebounders... From 1979 to 1981 averaged 27 PPG on 19 shots, against some great competition, for example... And you're telling me 24 is 'reachable', even while Al Jefferson scores 22 on 19 shots, or Cousins scored 23 on 17 shots... :rolleyes:
At 35 years old, as a complete shell of his former self, dude was still able to put up 19 PPG in less than 34 min, playing at the average pace of 95.8 for the Hawks.

Doc was averaging 1.8 steals and blocks per game at 33 years old, on a team playing at the average pace of 99.6, which is not a considerably difference to today's game, at all.
^That's 2.5 STL% and 3.0 BLK%, in his last years, and just one example from Erving...
LeBron in 2012 with 2.6 STL%? 1.9 SPG in less than 38 min.
Marion in 2007 with 2.8 BLK%? 1.5 BPG in less than 38 min.
Very few perimeter players, all-time, can **** with Julius' steals/blocks numbers, yet you say 1.5 BPG and 1.0 SPG at his best :rolleyes: Dude's 63rd in STL% and 86th in BLK%, all-time.

Now, I'm even doubting you saw much from those guys or are even that big of a fan.

First of all, you have no competence whatsoever to know how big a fan I was of early 80s basketball. Nor do i have the competence to know how many real games you saw in real time during the 80s. So let's leave it at that.

I won't quarrel with numbers. If I don't remember Doc averaging more steals and blocks per game, I'm happy to be corrected by you.

With regards to Moses, I did say he would be a modern day version of Zach Randolph on "steroids". Maybe I didn't make myself clear with the 13 rebound thing. So let me say it: Moses would average 2-3 boards more per game than the best rebounder today.

DRT and EFG can be skewed in any direction. It can be used wrongly to make erroneous arguments. It was an era of let's just say, great shooting, so we can all agree. Let's just say, that most balls that were shot in to the bucket seemed to make it's way into the hoop. Clear enough?

None of this mumbo jumbo analytics stuff that can be skewed to one era or another like EFG% which increases shooting%s of 3 point shooting teams.

Fast break basketball was the game most of the best teams liked to use during the 80s, and as I said, it was rarely stopped during the regular season. Draw your own conclusions from this.

I have repeated it many times. I saw all the games of my beloved 76er team of 1982-83. Either on the court in the old Spectrum, on cable with Prism tv for the home games, or local tv for the away games. It was a magical year, and I still remember specific games and backgrounds and conversations in the media about those games.

However, I can't ignore how the game has evolved since. I have seen the game change. Many others have seen it change. People like Steve Kerr in an Open Court episode said, when watching old Laker Celtic tape from the 80s, he says it seems "there's no defense being played".

Do I agree? No, not completely. After all, I do feel the 1982-83 76ers had one of the best defenses ever in short stretches, where they switch on and say, no more points for you.

But Kerr's comments does illustrate that we all wear rose-colored glasses, and bring our biases along. I like to think I have learned to take those glasses off.

[Dr.J4ever]

Last season the NBA averaged 101.0 ppg on an eFG% of .501, and 42.7 rpg.

Let's take Moses' 81-82 season. 42.0 mpg, 31.1 ppg, 14.7 rpg, and a .519 FG%. In an NBA that averaged 108.6 ppg, on an eFG% of .495, and with 43.4 rpg.

So you think Moses would be a 24-13 player...or roughly a DeMarcus Cousins?

BTW, a peak "rebounding" Moses in 78-79, played 41.3 mpg, and grabbed 17.6 rpg, in an NBA that averaged 45.2 rpg.

And another BTW, Moses had seasons of 30+ ppg against Kareem, including Kareem's MVP season of 79-80.

In any case, you are basically claiming that both players would have a SLIGHT DECLINE from their PEAK seasons. Keep in mind that Dr.J's PEAK was in the mid-70's, and Moses' PEAK was in the early 80's. Or roughly 35-40 years ago. So, what I am gathering is that YOU must honestly believe that the players of 40 years ago, were nearly as good as the one's of TODAY.

And then think about this...

Dr. J's PEAK was in the mid-70's. Only a COUPLE of years before that, a PEAK Kareem was averaging 35 ppg against his peers. And only 10 years before that, Chamberlain was shelling the NBA with 35-50 ppg seasons. So, evidently THOSE players of the 60's must have been NEARLY as good as the one's that a PEAK DR. J faced, right?

Demarcus Cousins? The guys a career 18/10. Okay 22/11 last year, but still.

I don't what I have to say for you guys to be happy.

I know your "bridge" theory and all. You keep asking and going backward and bridging everything 'till we get back to Wilt's era. :lol

I don't know why you're hammering me on this. I already said the legends would still post elite numbers in any era. I repeat, elite numbers in any era.

I don't presume to be an expert in 70s and 60s basketball since I never saw any of those games in real time, but I suppose and just hearing from other experts, that the game has grown in small steps. That is the general caliber of athletes has improved over the years. That assumption looks pretty reasonable to me.

[3ball]

Can someone answer the question of whether Lebron could score 61 on all two-pointers in the Finals against Russell's Celtics?

I don't see it, considering how unathletic teams like the Mavs and Spurs have a long history of easily and consistently containing him.

The Spurs starters last night were: kawhi leonard, tim duncan, boris diaw, tony parker, and danny green.

This is not an athletic lineup - the only decent athlete is kawhi leonard.

Doesn't putting Russell on lebron immediately curtail lebron to 25ppg or less?... Diaw did it - why wouldn't Russell?... can Diaw defend like Russell?... did Diaw guard Wilt?

Also, in today's game, lebron avoids mid-range shots - he takes a very small percentage of shots from there and shoots poorly from there... But there was no 3-point line in Elgin's day, so a big proportion of lebron's shots would be mid-range shots, just like everyone else - it is impossible for lebron to get 61 this way.
.

[iamgine]

Can someone answer the question of whether Lebron could score 61 on all two-pointers in the Finals against Russell's Celtics?

I don't see it, considering how unathletic teams like the Mavs and Spurs have a long history of easily and consistently containing him.

The Spurs starters last night were: kawhi leonard, tim duncan, boris diaw, tony parker, and danny green.

This is not an athletic lineup - the only decent athlete is kawhi leonard.

Doesn't putting Russell on lebron immediately curtail lebron to 25ppg or less?... Diaw did it - why wouldn't Russell?... can Diaw defend like Russell?... did Diaw guard Wilt?

Also, in today's game, lebron avoids mid-range shots - he takes a very small percentage of shots from there and shoots poorly from there... But there was no 3-point line in Elgin's day, so a big proportion of lebron's shots would be mid-range shots, just like everyone else - it is impossible for lebron to get 61 this way.
.Answer is yes.
Russel's Celtics was good defensively for their era. Those has evolved a lot. If Lebron is given enough shot by the coach, why wouldn't he score 61....or even 100. He won't though, not cause he cant but cause his game is about involving teammates.

[stanlove1111]

Answer is yes.
Russel's Celtics was good defensively for their era. Those has evolved a lot. If Lebron is given enough shot by the coach, why wouldn't he score 61....or even 100. He won't though, not cause he cant but cause his game is about involving teammates.


Exactly..IF Lebron of today was put on the 1962 Lakers and wanted to score 61 points of course he could, easily..Too big, too strong, too much skill.

[La Frescobaldi]

This is simple. The season the game changed to the modern game of today is 1979-1980, not because of the arrival of Bird and Magic, but because of the addition of the 3-point shot. Admittedly, it took several years before it became something that teams did more than a couple of times a game (at which point it REALLY became the modern game), but that rule change is what changed everything and made the game what it is today. I'll say it changed it for the worse. Most people disagree with me, but I think it's worth looking at it objectively. Everything about the way teams play offense and defense has changed, and certainly the role of the center on offense has decreased (to put the Wilt and Kareem talk in context.)

I do think one other thing that changed around that same time is that there grew to be a greater number of large, athletic forwards in the game. Maybe there are modern examples that will prove me wrong, but I can't really imagine championship teams playing Havlicek at 6'5" and Sanders at 6'6', like the 60s Celtics, or, to pick a random example, 6'6" Keith Wilkes and 6'7" Rick Barry, like the 1975 Warriors. Maybe this is a bit misleading because in today's game every one of those players would be listed at least an inch taller than they were then, and most certainly they were playing against teams like the '75 Bullets, who had Elvin Hayes playing PF, or 60s teams that paired Wilt and Nate Thurmond, or Willis Reed and Walt Bellamy (both experiments that were considered great failures--the twin tower situation held back Reed and Thurmond, both of whom were more suited to center than PF) but I do think that modern teams are noticably bigger on the inside. There are lots of conversations here about which past stars would translate well to today's game, and Havlicek is the one I find most intriguing to think about. I just can't picture someone of his size dominating as a forward now, and I also think his game was suited much better to a game without the 3-point rule. Could he have been a star guard? He did play guard a significant amount of time, so maybe, but he's one guy whose size gives me a bit of pause when I think about today's game.

I think it's also fair to say that the pool of players is much larger now because the game is so much popular and also because of the influx of foreign players.

This is all just food for thought. My personal inclination is to agree with those here who are lauding the players of the past and saying that the stars of the 60s and 70s would be stars today, but I do think that there's more athleticism in the game now, mostly because of the greater pool of athletes who choose this game over, say, baseball, in this day and age. Are the skills better? Old-time players continually say no, mostly because of all of the guys jumping to the NBA without much college experience. To compare these apples and oranges, anyway, you'd have to take into consideration the way the rules have changed. All of those fancy handles of the modern game would by rendered impossible by the palming rules. Put that in context and the fact is that there's nobody who has the out-and-out skills of Maravich (or Ernie D, for that matter), and today's flashiest and most solid guards aren't any more impressive than, say, Walt Frazier or Earl Monroe. I just recently read Oscar Robertson's autobiography, and he insists that the modern game is much more flash than substance. I think some of it is bitterness that his reputation seems to decline a bit as the game progresses, but his point that nobody ever played the game as well as him on a fundamental level is one to ponder.
I like all that; however, the introduction of game film into the locker room had vastly more impact on the NBA than the three point line ever did... and that is a valuable measuring stick because the three DID change everything.

Everything changed when film happened, and the level of players' skills and the overall coaching quality in the game immediately accelerated and hasn't stopped since.

But 1980 isn't a magical season when it all changed, no.

[3ball]

Paint defense is much worse in today's game because players aren't allowed to camp in the paint anymore - in previous eras, players COULD camp in the paint, so lebron's at-rim percentages would have been much lower back then



Fixed your post - today's defensive 3 seconds rule requires defenders to stay out of the lane, unless they are within "armslength" of an opponent.. http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html

The original rule from 1982 was different, and ALLOWED defenders to camp in the paint: (http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html)


1981-82
"Defender on post player is allowed in defensive three-second area (A post player is any player adjacent to paint)".

So just by substituting the rule's own parenthetical reference, the rule translates EXACTLY to: "Defender on player adjacent to the paint is allowed in defensive 3 second area."


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/b209aeddf6bfaaa9fcaed8eea3c72c65.gif


in this clip, Klay Thompson's dad (#43 in the middle of lane) would get a tech after 3 seconds in today's game because his man is out of "armslength".... but back then, he was legal because his man was "adjacent to the paint", which was the only requirement at the time - notice how there is no need for Thompson to tippy-toe in and out of the paint.


in previous eras, guys didn't have to worry about staying out of the lane or tippy-toeing - the 3 seconds rule was very simple back then: as long as their man was "adjacent to the paint", defenders could stay in the lane... so usually, they could camp in the lane for the entire possession because the paint is huge, and "adjacent to the paint" covers a ton of ground... Furthermore, "adjacent to the paint" could mean right next to the paint, a few feet outside the paint, or all the way out to the 3-point line - defenders routinely camped in the paint while their man was behind the 3-point line (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10695139&postcount=1).

contrastingly, today's rule makes sure defenders can physically touch their man to stay in the lane, by requiring defenders be within "armslength" of an opponent - since players that are outside, or "adjacent to the paint", are out of armslength to defenders inside the paint, players in today's game are not allowed to stay in the lane if their man is outside the paint.

[houston]

too bad he didn't play defense

[3ball]

defenses have evolved a lot.


^^^^^ this is a misunderstanding by most.... the new strategies used by today's defenses only allow defensive effectiveness to remain the same in light of new playing style and rule changes that favored the offense - this is what actually happened:

i.e. "oh wow... we have to guard 3-pointers now and stay out of the lane due to defensive 3 seconds.... how are we going to maintain the same defensive effectiveness while having to do these things?.... hmmmm (thibbs thinking).... i know, we'll invent the strong side flood and other scrambling schemes so we can cover the extra ground from the 3-pointers and still stay out of the lane".

these natural defensive adjustments to playing style and rule changes merely allowed defensive effectiveness to remain the same as it was when the defense DIDN'T have to guard 3-pointers or stay out of the lane... offenses and defenses naturally adjust to each other in this way, which is why the stat that measures how hard it is to score - league-wide offensive rating (ORtg) - is the same today as it was 30 years ago.
.

[SHAQisGOAT]

First of all, you have no competence whatsoever to know how big a fan I was of early 80s basketball. Nor do i have the competence to know how many real games you saw in real time during the 80s. So let's leave it at that.

I won't quarrel with numbers. If I don't remember Doc averaging more steals and blocks per game, I'm happy to be corrected by you.

With regards to Moses, I did say he would be a modern day version of Zach Randolph on "steroids". Maybe I didn't make myself clear with the 13 rebound thing. So let me say it: Moses would average 2-3 boards more per game than the best rebounder today.

DRT and EFG can be skewed in any direction. It can be used wrongly to make erroneous arguments. It was an era of let's just say, great shooting, so we can all agree. Let's just say, that most balls that were shot in to the bucket seemed to make it's way into the hoop. Clear enough?

None of this mumbo jumbo analytics stuff that can be skewed to one era or another like EFG% which increases shooting%s of 3 point shooting teams.

Fast break basketball was the game most of the best teams liked to use during the 80s, and as I said, it was rarely stopped during the regular season. Draw your own conclusions from this.

I have repeated it many times. I saw all the games of my beloved 76er team of 1982-83. Either on the court in the old Spectrum, on cable with Prism tv for the home games, or local tv for the away games. It was a magical year, and I still remember specific games and backgrounds and conversations in the media about those games.

However, I can't ignore how the game has evolved since. I have seen the game change. Many others have seen it change. People like Steve Kerr in an Open Court episode said, when watching old Laker Celtic tape from the 80s, he says it seems "there's no defense being played".

Do I agree? No, not completely. After all, I do feel the 1982-83 76ers had one of the best defenses ever in short stretches, where they switch on and say, no more points for you.

But Kerr's comments does illustrate that we all wear rose-colored glasses, and bring our biases along. I like to think I have learned to take those glasses off.

Don't really agree with "Zach Randolph on steroids"... More like a rich-man's DeMarcus Cousins (currently), which is saying 'a beast of a center'.

Fastbreak teams, in the 80's, I'd say were teams like the Nuggets, the Pistons before the Bad-Boys years, Blazers in the mid 80's, Suns/Nets/Warriors at some point... Those were not the best teams (Nuggets were pretty good in some years though).
Bucks were a team majorly based on defense, that ran little; Celtics and 76ers had great fastbreaks but not what you call fastbreak teams at all; Rockets in 1981 were the opposite of a fastbreak team, in 1986 they ran plenty but I wouldn't call them that.
From the very best teams, the only one that you could make a case as a fastbreak team were the showtime Lakers and even so, they were much more than that even if their fastbreak was a thing of beauty and what they are most known for. They were only once top5 in pace, and in their best year (1987) they were barely in the top10.
...
Draw your conclusions from that.

I can also bring up Gary Payton saying that there's little defense played today (mostly because of the rules), or Jerry West claiming this to be one of the worst eras, so on... What it leaves us at? :confusedshrug:

And I'd like to hear that sentence by Kerr... For the most part, I've seen some very physical games between the Lakers and the Celtics in the 80's, with more than enough defense being played, lots of good (at least) defenders too, like Cooper, McHale, DJ, Kareem, Bird, Wilkes, Worthy, Parish... Plus, those teams were as elite as they come when it comes to offense, harder to play defense when you're going up against teams like that. As they say, great offense beats great defense.
Just look at last years Finals, I can also say that Miami were just a shitty defensive team (that made it to the last round), as the Spurs just whoop their asses, breaking records and whatnot, going for 106 PPG on .604 eFG%, at a (slow) pace of 87.4, with a 121 ORtg. Maybe some years from now they'll say that no defense was being played... Or was it that the Spurs were just extremely good offensively? :confusedshrug:

[LAZERUSS]

This is simple. The season the game changed to the modern game of today is 1979-1980, not because of the arrival of Bird and Magic, but because of the addition of the 3-point shot. Admittedly, it took several years before it became something that teams did more than a couple of times a game (at which point it REALLY became the modern game), but that rule change is what changed everything and made the game what it is today. I'll say it changed it for the worse. Most people disagree with me, but I think it's worth looking at it objectively. Everything about the way teams play offense and defense has changed, and certainly the role of the center on offense has decreased (to put the Wilt and Kareem talk in context.)

I do think one other thing that changed around that same time is that there grew to be a greater number of large, athletic forwards in the game. Maybe there are modern examples that will prove me wrong, but I can't really imagine championship teams playing Havlicek at 6'5" and Sanders at 6'6', like the 60s Celtics, or, to pick a random example, 6'6" Keith Wilkes and 6'7" Rick Barry, like the 1975 Warriors. Maybe this is a bit misleading because in today's game every one of those players would be listed at least an inch taller than they were then, and most certainly they were playing against teams like the '75 Bullets, who had Elvin Hayes playing PF, or 60s teams that paired Wilt and Nate Thurmond, or Willis Reed and Walt Bellamy (both experiments that were considered great failures--the twin tower situation held back Reed and Thurmond, both of whom were more suited to center than PF) but I do think that modern teams are noticably bigger on the inside. There are lots of conversations here about which past stars would translate well to today's game, and Havlicek is the one I find most intriguing to think about. I just can't picture someone of his size dominating as a forward now, and I also think his game was suited much better to a game without the 3-point rule. Could he have been a star guard? He did play guard a significant amount of time, so maybe, but he's one guy whose size gives me a bit of pause when I think about today's game.

I think it's also fair to say that the pool of players is much larger now because the game is so much popular and also because of the influx of foreign players.

This is all just food for thought. My personal inclination is to agree with those here who are lauding the players of the past and saying that the stars of the 60s and 70s would be stars today, but I do think that there's more athleticism in the game now, mostly because of the greater pool of athletes who choose this game over, say, baseball, in this day and age. Are the skills better? Old-time players continually say no, mostly because of all of the guys jumping to the NBA without much college experience. To compare these apples and oranges, anyway, you'd have to take into consideration the way the rules have changed. All of those fancy handles of the modern game would by rendered impossible by the palming rules. Put that in context and the fact is that there's nobody who has the out-and-out skills of Maravich (or Ernie D, for that matter), and today's flashiest and most solid guards aren't any more impressive than, say, Walt Frazier or Earl Monroe. I just recently read Oscar Robertson's autobiography, and he insists that the modern game is much more flash than substance. I think some of it is bitterness that his reputation seems to decline a bit as the game progresses, but his point that nobody ever played the game as well as him on a fundamental level is one to ponder.

While I agree that the 3pt shot was one of the two MAJOR Rules changes in NBA history (the other, of course, being the shot clock), I probably should have phrased my question a little better. Did the 3pt shot significantly alter the game...yes. However, did that rule change, in itself, change the impact of the players, before-and-after? Nope, not at all.

My point was in reference to those that claim that the players of yesteryear would be significantly inferior to those of today. I basically wanted someone to tell us all here on ISH, just when did THAT take place? Did a group of players suddenly enter the NBA, and dramatically make it different?

1980 is usually one of the years that is selected. That is when both Bird and Magic came into the league. But while the two were definitely the best players of the decade, they didn't immediately "take over" with vastly superior skills, nor were they overwhelmingly better than the best players of the decade, either.

For instance, the first FOUR MVPs in the decade of the 80's...ALL players who had played in the 70's. Furthermore, none of those four significantly DECLINED in play from their last seasons in the decade of the 70's, either. The first FIVE scoring title winners...ALL players who had played in the 70's. Some, like Gervin and Dantley, were significantly BETTER in the 80's. The first SIX rebounding titles...went to players whose career spanned both the 70's and 80's (alright, I know...Moses won FIVE of those.) The first FIVE FG% leaders...ALL from players who had played in the 70's. True, Artis Gilmore won FOUR of those...but what is interesting about that was, he DRAMATICALLY ELEVATED his FG% in the 80's...even though he was past his physical peak.

So, while the 3pt shot did change the way the game was played, it had virtually ZERO EFFECT on the players whose career spanned both the years before, and then after, that rule change went into effect.

Which is my main point. There has NEVER been a period in the history of the NBA, where we suddenly saw vastly superior players come in, and just blow away their predecessors. Hell, Bob Pettit and Bill Russell were just as great in both the 50's, and the 60's. Jerry West and Rick Barry were just as effective in the 70's, as they had been in the 60's.

Granted...and I have long maintained this...FG% EFFICIENCY steadily rose year-after-year, until the 78-79 season, when it suddenly EXPLODED. Why? I can't explain the dramatic rise in that 78-79 season (it was TWO years AFTER the ABA merger), I can provide some insight as to why it occurred before that.

First of all, the BALL was changed. The legendary poster here, G.O.A.T claimed that the ball did not become uniform, until the end of the decade of the 60's. If nothing else, the balls used were often well worn. There are photos of players palming a basketball, and the ball was clearly bald. And most all of us have played organized ball at some level. I recall playing in city leagues, in which there was not one ball that was identical to another in a rack of balls. Some were heavier, some much lighter, some bald, and some were even lopsided.

Secondly, the venues in the 60's (and before) were often COLD and even BREEZY. Tom Boerwinkle grabbed 40 rebounds in a game in Chicago, in a FREEZING temperature. And, most all of us have played basketball in the elements before, and both the cold, and especially the wind, can dramatically affect shooting.

There were other reasons, as well. Players, especially the stars, were expected to play more minutes, and with injuries. I don't ever recall a player
pulling a "Rose", not playing when reasonably healthy, nor a "Lebron", asking to play REDUCED minutes, until just recently. And of course, medical technology was nowhere near what it is today. Knee injuries often ended careers, and at the very least, considerably reduced them both in terms of years, and production.

Traveling and accomodations were significantly worse than today. Cramped quarters, long bus rides, etc.

And THE biggest reason...SCHEDULING. The NBA schedules of the early 60's were MUCH more CONDENSED than those of today. For instance, in Wilt's '61-62 season, (in a season in which he a TOTAL of eight MINUTES)...Chamberlain played in a TON of back-to-back games. In addition, he played in SIX separate stretches of three-games-in-a-row; FOUR separate stretches of FOUR-games-in-a-row; and even one other separate stretch...of FIVE STRAIGHT games in FIVE nights (and with the home games split between home-and-away.)

A couple of years ago, when the NBA had a strike-shortened season, they played a condensed schedule, which included a lot of B2B games. During that span, scoring and efficiency NOSE-DIVED. As the schedule normalized, the numbers slowly increased.

In any case, the bottom line is this...

Those that rip the 60's, would have you believe that basketball was in it's infancy. That the game was played by short, white, nerdy guys, who couldn't dribble, and were shooting at peach baskets. The REALITY was, the game of basketball had been played for SEVENTY years prior to the 60's. Colleges had been playing it for 60+ years. And there were PROFESSIONAL teams dating all the way back to the 20's. The NBA, itself, had been played for 15 seasons.

For those that believe that the players couldn't dribble...how about this footage from 1962...

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

Little KIDS, not only dribbling effectively with their left hands, but between their legs, and behind-their-backs. And where did they learn that from? From the Globetrotters of the 50's! There were a TON of great "dribblers" in the 60's. I won't take the time to find them now, but YouTube had Celtic-Royals footage from the mid-60's, in which both Oscar and Em Bryant were dribbling behind their backs. And, of course, we have the magnificent footage of Pistol Pete. Maravich was a magician with the basketball, and doing things with a ball that haven't been duplicated as well since (sorry White Chocolate and Ricky.) Not only that, but a decade prior, Bob Cousy was a pioneer (and again, the Globetrotters before him.)

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

There is absolutely nothing being done by the players of TODAY, that weren't being accomplished by the players of the 60's and 70's.

Maravich's impact has already been established. He was taller, and more athletic than Ricky Rubio, and considerably more skilled. In fact, he was light years better in terms of shooting and scoring. If Rubio can be a starter in TODAY's NBA, and shooting an awful "Cousy-like" .360 from the field...then the Pistol would just terrorize today's NBA. But, as brilliant and flashy as Maravich was, he was never considered the best guard of his era. Players like West, Oscar, and Frazier were always ranked higher.

Dunking? First of all, there were no Sports Center Highlights being shown on a nightly basis. So, there was no reason to expend energy with high-flying dunks. Most everyone could dunk back then (hell, look up the 6-4 Jim Pollard, a white guy who was dunking from the FT line back in the 40's), but they chose to score as efficiently as they could. Oscar was a classic example. He could easily dunk it, but there is very little footage, in the very limited footage that we have, in which he did so. Jerry West had long arms, and could touch the top of the square...still, very little footage of him dunking.

But, Gus Johnson, who was 6-6 and 230 lbs, had a vertical leap that would rival MJ's. Again, we have very little footage, but we do know that he shattered THREE backboards in his career. Connie Hawkins had huge hands that unfolded beneath his knees. He routinely threw down "tomahawk" dunks. In the late 60's, Dr. J was playing college ball, and there are still many who believe he was the greatest "dunker" of all-time. Look up the name of Calvin Murphy. He was 5-8 and played college ball in the 60's. He was dunking with two hands. David Thompson? He was dunking balls at 5-8 in eighth grade in the 60's, (and there are claims of him touching the top of the backboard later on.)

Speaking of shattered backboards, Darryl Dawkins came along in the 70's, and he too was shattering them. In fact, Dawkins was every bit as big, strong, and athletic as the 6-11 DeAndre Jordan is today. Yet, how often do you read anything about him? Why? Because, yes, he was a good player, but certainly not a dominant one.

Shooting? First of all, for all of those that claim that TODAY's NBA has far more skilled shooters...think about this: In the 58-59 NBA season, the NBA collectively shot .756 from the line. As of this moment, TODAY's NBA i shooting... .756 from the line (just as they did last year.) Oh, and there were years in the 70's when the NBA shot as high as .771.

In any case, those that had the pleasure of seeing Jerry Lucas, would attest that he was arguably as great a pure shooter as anyone that has ever played the game. Just google the term "Lucas Layup." He was swishing 25+ ft shots back in the 60's and 70's. I personally witnessed Lucas live, in a pre-game shoot-around in the early 70's, in which he made 20 straight shots from between the circles. YouTube has a Sports Century documentary on his life, and I believe around the 32:00 mark, he was described as shooting from well past 25 ft.

Of course, had the 3-pt shot existed in the NBA back then (BTW, the ABA and ABL had used it for years), there would have been a plethora of guys capable of shooting well from the modern arc. Players like Jon McGlocklin and Flynn Robinson, were shooting 25 ft two-point shots. And while Rick Barry was not as accurate, he was still a force later in his career when the rule came into effect. Even Pistol Pete shot over .600 in his brief foray with the 3pt shot.

Continued...

[pudman13]

Re: FG %, another change was the breakaway rims

[iamgine]

I agree, how silly of me, of course Lebron could score 61..or even 100 in 1960 if he wanted to. There's no reason whatsoever to think otherwise. Literally no reason.

Fixed your post.

[Dr.J4ever]

Don't really agree with "Zach Randolph on steroids"... More like a rich-man's DeMarcus Cousins (currently), which is saying 'a beast of a center'.

Fastbreak teams, in the 80's, I'd say were teams like the Nuggets, the Pistons before the Bad-Boys years, Blazers in the mid 80's, Suns/Nets/Warriors at some point... Those were not the best teams (Nuggets were pretty good in some years though).
Bucks were a team majorly based on defense, that ran little; Celtics and 76ers had great fastbreaks but not what you call fastbreak teams at all; Rockets in 1981 were the opposite of a fastbreak team, in 1986 they ran plenty but I wouldn't call them that.
From the very best teams, the only one that you could make a case as a fastbreak team were the showtime Lakers and even so, they were much more than that even if their fastbreak was a thing of beauty and what they are most known for. They were only once top5 in pace, and in their best year (1987) they were barely in the top10.
...
Draw your conclusions from that.

I can also bring up Gary Payton saying that there's little defense played today (mostly because of the rules), or Jerry West claiming this to be one of the worst eras, so on... What it leaves us at? :confusedshrug:

And I'd like to hear that sentence by Kerr... For the most part, I've seen some very physical games between the Lakers and the Celtics in the 80's, with more than enough defense being played, lots of good (at least) defenders too, like Cooper, McHale, DJ, Kareem, Bird, Wilkes, Worthy, Parish... Plus, those teams were as elite as they come when it comes to offense, harder to play defense when you're going up against teams like that. As they say, great offense beats great defense.
Just look at last years Finals, I can also say that Miami were just a shitty defensive team (that made it to the last round), as the Spurs just whoop their asses, breaking records and whatnot, going for 106 PPG on .604 eFG%, at a (slow) pace of 87.4, with a 121 ORtg. Maybe some years from now they'll say that no defense was being played... Or was it that the Spurs were just extremely good offensively? :confusedshrug:


Kerr absolutely said it. It was a recent episode where Kenny Smith also shockingly said KD might not be a superstar during the the 80s. Thomas agreed, and qualified what would make a superstar.

However, Thomas also said certain centers from the 80s might not be able to play in today's NBA due to different rules and defensive/offensive emphasis. Thomas questioned if Magic would be able to guard today's PG oriented teams, and opined that Magic might have to be a Point Center in today's NBA. And then, Kerr added his take. Hopefully, other posters here can give us a link to this.

Man, I was such a geek/fan of the 76ers back then that I still remember specific quotes from magazine articles about my 6ers. A Sport magazine article previewing the upcoming season after the 82-83 title said, "Cheeks was the pinwheel in which Philly's relentless fast break revolves". This answers your question if the 76ers were a fast break team.

Ever since Cunningham took over as coach, the 76ers built around the Doc, who of course loved to fill the lanes on the open court.

Boston, too, loved to fast break owing to their tradition of inventing the fast break. Was this true? I heard this so often that they invented the fast break. During the latter part of the decade with Mchale starting, they seemed to slowdown a bit, but were still potent on the break.

The only team I can remember that played slow down ball were the offensively challenged NY Knicks led by Hubie Brown and Bernard King. The 76ers swept them in the 1st round during their title run, but all the games were close and NY had a 20 plus point lead in game 1 at the Spectrum in Philly.

It was a fast break era, but it wasn't an inferior era to any other era, including today. I like to believe every era has it's strengths and weaknesses. Each era stands on it's own, and it's nice to know both sides of the coin.

[LAZERUSS]

Continued...

Stanlove111 would have you believe that since the NFL has much larger players today, that the NBA does, as well. And quite simply, it's not even close in the NBA. True, the average player is a "documented" 1-2 inches" taller than those of the 60's, the reality is, the players of today are measured differently, and with shoes on. And, in Chamberlain's '61-62 season, the average starting center in the NBA was a little over 6-10. Today's starting centers... 6-11. And again, different measuring styles. Furthermore, by the end of the decade of the 60's, the NBA starting centers were, on average, 6-11. Hell, I believe it was either in the late 80's, or early 90's, when the NBA centers were at their tallest.

And for those (mistakingly, or otherwise) claim that Wilt faced much shorter competition, he not only faced quite a few 7-0+ players in his career (including at least two who were taller...the 7-3 Swede Halbrook, and the 7-2 KAJ)...the REALITY was, had players been measured with their shoes on, and the many 6-11 players that he played against, would also be listed at 7-0+. And think about this...Dwight Howard is listed at 6-11. In reality, he is barely over 6-9. Bill Russell was listed at 6-9 for much of his NBA career, and he was a shade under 6-10. In actuality, Russell was TALLER than Dwight. Furthermore, as athletic as Howard is, Russell was a WORLD-CLASS HIGH-JUMPER. I have no doubt that Russell's apex was higher than Howard's (and Wilt's was considerably higher BTW.)

Of course, where Stanlove111's arguments are really flawed is this...while height is certainly a benefit in basketball, it unto itself, has never proven to be an end-all. How about this...there have been quite a few NBA players who were 7-3+ (albeit, some were LISTED at that height, but were really not...e.g., Ralph Sampson, who was not even 7-2.) How many of them have won rebounding titles? How about this...ZERO! Hell, in the entire history of the NBA, there have been exactly THREE seasonal RPG titles by player 7-2+ (Kareem and Mutombo...and if you include Gilmore's ABA years, a couple more.)

Take Chamberlain out of the equation, and use TRUE height (Hakeem was nowhere near 7-0), and there have been considerably more RPG titles won by players 6-10 or less, than 7-0+. The 6-8 Rodman won SEVEN. The 6-7 Ben Wallace, as recently as a decade ago, won TWO. My god, the 6-5 Charles Barkley won one in the 80's. And not only were those guys short, none of them were considered leaping marvels, either (albeit, Barkley's elevation was amazing for as heavy as he was.)

Think about this...the 7-1, 325+ Shaq played 19 seasons in the NBA...not even ONE rpg title. Hell, he was outrebounded by the 6-8 Rodman in one post-season matchup, and the 6-7 Wallace in another...and both in his PRIME.

James Donaldson was a massive man in the 80's. 7-2 and at least 280 lbs. Never came close to winning a RPG title. And how about this... Denver's Fat Lever was 6-3, and weighed 175 lbs. He played alongside several seven-footers in his career, and against many more. He was routinely leading his team in RPG, and was even among the league-leaders on more than one occasion.

Furthermore, look up guys like Priest Lauderdale (7-4, 350 lbs), and as recently as this season, Sim Bhullar, who is 7-5 355 lbs, and was just cut by the Kings. If height and size were truly a factor, wouldn't those two be dominating even the likes of Shaq?

Oh, and how about ATHLETICISM? Let me ask you this...where is the 6-8 James White today? He was last seen (briefly) in the NBA on the Knicks in 2013. A CAREER 2.7 ppg scorer.

Most everyone here has seen footage of the 6-8 Gerald Green. The man can bang his head on the rim. With all of that athleticism...a CAREER 10 ppg, 2.5 rpg, .426 FG% player.

The "Wilt-bashers" laughingly compare Ryan Hollins to Chamberlain. Hollins is an outstanding leaper, and is about seven-feet tall. A CAREER 3.8 ppg, 2.1 rpg player. Hell, this "modern day Wilt" played FOUR years at UCLA...and averaged...get this... 5.7 ppg and 4.0 rpg (and you can imagine the "competition" he faced in college.)

Meanwhile, how about the great "athletic" players in the 60's and 70's? Gus Johnson, Russell, Hawkins, Dr. J, David "sky-walker" Thompson, and of course, Wilt? Those were GREAT ATHLETES, who by-the-way, were also SKILLED.

Sorry to tell Stanlove111, but players like Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, Nate Thurmond, Bill Bridges, Clyde Lee, Elvin Hayes, and many more relative unknowns, were highly SKILLED players. A couple of nights ago and before the start of the Spurs-Cavs game, there was footage shown of a Kevin Love two-handed in-bounds length of the court pass. A few moments later, they also showed the exact same pass by Wes Unseld, and likely from the 60's.

And let's be brutally honest here... watch players like DeAndre Jordan, or Andre Drummond, both no more than 6-11, and you tell me that these guys can shoot. The Clippers don't even bother running plays for Jordan. Put either of them 3-4 from the hoop, and they might as well be on the other side of the Grand Canyon. Yet, both of them are considered elite centers in TODAY's NBA.

Dwight Howard is generally considered as the best center in the game today. Players like Bob Lanier, Artis Gilmore, Bill Walton, Bob McAdoo, even Dave Cowens, and of course, Kareem...were all FAR more SKILLED in the 70's. In the early 70's, Howard likely would have been in the middle-of-the-pack among the best centers of that period. KAJ, Wilt, Reed, Thurmond, Lanier, Gilmore, Hayes, and McAdoo...all better.

I apologize to all of those that bash the players of the 60's and 70's...but there were MANY players back then, that would be GREAT today. And again, the game today is NOT played by "vastly superior, and skilled" men. True, this era has had it's share of truly GREAT players...Duncan, Kobe, Lebron, Durant, Dirk, and Shaq among them. Those guys would have been great in any era...just as Dr. J, West, Oscar, Russell, Walton, Reed, Thurmond, Lanier, Tiny Archibald, Pistol Pete, Lucas, Barry, Gilmore, Havlicek, Kareem, and Chamberlain would have.

[iamgine]

^Dude no one's bashing the pioneers. They were great in their own era and they would still likely still be good had they been born later but the game has evolved. It's not their fault and we still admire them greatly, maybe even more than today's players. Just like we admire Galileo more than today's scientist.

[Dr.J4ever]

Continued...

Stanlove111 would have you believe that since the NFL has much larger players today, that the NBA does, as well. And quite simply, it's not even close in the NBA. True, the average player is a "documented" 1-2 inches" taller than those of the 60's, the reality is, the players of today are measured differently, and with shoes on. And, in Chamberlain's '61-62 season, the average starting center in the NBA was a little over 6-10. Today's starting centers... 6-11. And again, different measuring styles. Furthermore, by the end of the decade of the 60's, the NBA starting centers were, on average, 6-11. Hell, I believe it was either in the late 80's, or early 90's, when the NBA centers were at their tallest.

And for those (mistakingly, or otherwise) claim that Wilt faced much shorter competition, he not only faced quite a few 7-0+ players in his career (including at least two who were taller...the 7-3 Swede Halbrook, and the 7-2 KAJ)...the REALITY was, had players been measured with their shoes on, and the many 6-11 players that he played against, would also be listed at 7-0+. And think about this...Dwight Howard is listed at 6-11. In reality, he is barely over 6-9. Bill Russell was listed at 6-9 for much of his NBA career, and he was a shade under 6-10. In actuality, Russell was TALLER than Dwight. Furthermore, as athletic as Howard is, Russell was a WORLD-CLASS HIGH-JUMPER. I have no doubt that Russell's apex was higher than Howard's (and Wilt's was considerably higher BTW.)

Of course, where Stanlove111's arguments are really flawed is this...while height is certainly a benefit in basketball, it unto itself, has never proven to be an end-all. How about this...there have been quite a few NBA players who were 7-3+ (albeit, some were LISTED at that height, but were really not...e.g., Ralph Sampson, who was not even 7-2.) How many of them have won rebounding titles? How about this...ZERO! Hell, in the entire history of the NBA, there have been exactly THREE seasonal RPG titles by player 7-2+ (Kareem and Mutombo...and if you include Gilmore's ABA years, a couple more.)

Take Chamberlain out of the equation, and use TRUE height (Hakeem was nowhere near 7-0), and there have been considerably more RPG titles won by players 6-10 or less, than 7-0+. The 6-8 Rodman won SEVEN. The 6-7 Ben Wallace, as recently as a decade ago, won TWO. My god, the 6-5 Charles Barkley won one in the 80's. And not only were those guys short, none of them were considered leaping marvels, either (albeit, Barkley's elevation was amazing for as heavy as he was.)

Think about this...the 7-1, 325+ Shaq played 19 seasons in the NBA...not even ONE rpg title. Hell, he was outrebounded by the 6-8 Rodman in one post-season matchup, and the 6-7 Wallace in another...and both in his PRIME.

James Donaldson was a massive man in the 80's. 7-2 and at least 280 lbs. Never came close to winning a RPG title. And how about this... Denver's Fat Lever was 6-3, and weighed 175 lbs. He played alongside several seven-footers in his career, and against many more. He was routinely leading his team in RPG, and was even among the league-leaders on more than one occasion.

Furthermore, look up guys like Priest Lauderdale (7-4, 350 lbs), and as recently as this season, Sim Bhullar, who is 7-5 355 lbs, and was just cut by the Kings. If height and size were truly a factor, wouldn't those two be dominating even the likes of Shaq?

Oh, and how about ATHLETICISM? Let me ask you this...where is the 6-8 James White today? He was last seen (briefly) in the NBA on the Knicks in 2013. A CAREER 2.7 ppg scorer.

Most everyone here has seen footage of the 6-8 Gerald Green. The man can bang his head on the rim. With all of that athleticism...a CAREER 10 ppg, 2.5 rpg, .426 FG% player.

The "Wilt-bashers" laughingly compare Ryan Hollins to Chamberlain. Hollins is an outstanding leaper, and is about seven-feet tall. A CAREER 3.8 ppg, 2.1 rpg player. Hell, this "modern day Wilt" played FOUR years at UCLA...and averaged...get this... 5.7 ppg and 4.0 rpg (and you can imagine the "competition" he faced in college.)

Meanwhile, how about the great "athletic" players in the 60's and 70's? Gus Johnson, Russell, Hawkins, Dr. J, David "sky-walker" Thompson, and of course, Wilt? Those were GREAT ATHLETES, who by-the-way, were also SKILLED.

Sorry to tell Stanlove111, but players like Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, Nate Thurmond, Bill Bridges, Clyde Lee, Elvin Hayes, and many more relative unknowns, were highly SKILLED players. A couple of nights ago and before the start of the Spurs-Cavs game, there was footage shown of a Kevin Love two-handed in-bounds length of the court pass. A few moments later, they also showed the exact same pass by Wes Unseld, and likely from the 60's.

And let's be brutally honest here... watch players like DeAndre Jordan, or Andre Drummond, both no more than 6-11, and you tell me that these guys can shoot. The Clippers don't even bother running plays for Jordan. Put either of them 3-4 from the hoop, and they might as well be on the other side of the Grand Canyon. Yet, both of them are considered elite centers in TODAY's NBA.

Dwight Howard is generally considered as the best center in the game today. Players like Bob Lanier, Artis Gilmore, Bill Walton, Bob McAdoo, even Dave Cowens, and of course, Kareem...were all FAR more SKILLED in the 70's. In the early 70's, Howard likely would have been in the middle-of-the-pack among the best centers of that period. KAJ, Wilt, Reed, Thurmond, Lanier, Gilmore, Hayes, and McAdoo...all better.

I apologize to all of those that bash the players of the 60's and 70's...but there were MANY players back then, that would be GREAT today. And again, the game today is NOT played by "vastly superior, and skilled" men. True, this era has had it's share of truly GREAT players...Duncan, Kobe, Lebron, Durant, Dirk, and Shaq among them. Those guys would have been great in any era...just as Dr. J, West, Oscar, Russell, Walton, Reed, Thurmond, Lanier, Tiny Archibald, Pistol Pete, Lucas, Barry, Gilmore, Havlicek, Kareem, and Chamberlain would have.

Here, I have to agree with you about the heights and all. I believe it was my own thread documenting that heights are only bigger by about 1-2 inches.

But what about the weight though? Aren't players today more well built, on average? What's the data on this?

[LAZERUSS]

Demarcus Cousins? The guys a career 18/10. Okay 22/11 last year, but still.

I don't what I have to say for you guys to be happy.

I know your "bridge" theory and all. You keep asking and going backward and bridging everything 'till we get back to Wilt's era. :lol

I don't know why you're hammering me on this. I already said the legends would still post elite numbers in any era. I repeat, elite numbers in any era.

I don't presume to be an expert in 70s and 60s basketball since I never saw any of those games in real time, but I suppose and just hearing from other experts, that the game has grown in small steps. That is the general caliber of athletes has improved over the years. That assumption looks pretty reasonable to me.

I apologize if you think I am "hammering" you. You are a well-respected poster, whose research is always impeccable. Furthermore, neither of us can "prove" out points.

But, what I would suggest to you, and I honestly believe that even you will accept it...is that the game today is not vastly better than what was played 40-50 years ago. Perhaps marginally, but not dramatically.

And let me ask you this...do you honestly believe that the ten best players in the game today, would beat the ten best in the 80's (Magic, Bird, Dr. J, Moses, and later MJ?) The 70's (remember, KAJ was at his peak then, as well as Gilmore, Tiny, Dr. J, Walton, Barry)? The 60's (Chamberlain, Russell, West, and Oscar were at their peaks)?

[Dr.J4ever]

I apologize if you think I am "hammering" you. You are a well-respected poster, whose research is always impeccable. Furthermore, neither of us can "prove" out points.

But, what I would suggest to you, and I honestly believe that even you will accept it...is that the game today is not vastly better than what was played 40-50 years ago. Perhaps marginally, but not dramatically.

And let me ask you this...do you honestly believe that the ten best players in the game today, would beat the ten best in the 80's (Magic, Bird, Dr. J, Moses, and later MJ?) The 70's (remember, KAJ was at his peak then, as well as Gilmore, Tiny, Dr. J, Walton, Barry)? The 60's (Chamberlain, Russell, West, and Oscar were at their peaks)?

Thank you for compliment, Laz.

While I don't always agree with your conclusions, I certainly have learned a lot from your historical take on the 60s and 70s.

Just to answer your question. Athletically, while most players, on average, are better today. Among the legends, I don't think you can see a huge difference.

For example, Wilt vs. Shaq? Doc vs. Tmac. Kobe vs. Jordan. Baylor vs. Pierce? I just don't see modern players necessarily being much better than old time legends.

If they played a game, like 60s all star guys vs. 90s or vs. today's stars, my question would be: what rules will we use? If it's today's rules, with 3 point shooting, the modern guys would win, hands down. The 3 is such a huge advantage.

Now, 60s rules with no 3 point shot? It would be close, and the 60s guys might have the advantage.

[LAZERUSS]

Thank you for compliment, Laz.

While I don't always agree with your conclusions, I certainly have learned a lot from your historical take on the 60s and 70s.

Just to answer your question. Athletically, while most players, on average, are better today. Among the legends, I don't think you can see a huge difference.

For example, Wilt vs. Shaq? Doc vs. Tmac. Kobe vs. Jordan. Baylor vs. Pierce? I just don't see modern players necessarily being much better than old time legends.

If they played a game, like 60s all star guys vs. 90s or vs. today's stars, my question would be: what rules will we use? If it's today's rules, with 3 point shooting, the modern guys would win, hands down. The 3 is such a huge advantage.

Now, 60s rules with no 3 point shot? It would be close, and the 60s guys might have the advantage.

I'm not so sure that players like Barry, and West, would not quickly adapt to the 3pt shot. I KNOW Lucas would have done just fine. Lucas was Kevin Love long before Love was.

[Dr.J4ever]

^^^^^ this is a misunderstanding by most.... the new strategies used by today's defenses only allow defensive effectiveness to remain the same in light of new playing style and rule changes that favored the offense - this is what actually happened:

i.e. "oh wow... we have to guard 3-pointers now and stay out of the lane due to defensive 3 seconds.... how are we going to maintain the same defensive effectiveness while having to do these things?.... hmmmm (thibbs thinking).... i know, we'll invent the strong side flood and other scrambling schemes so we can cover the extra ground from the 3-pointers and still stay out of the lane".

these natural defensive adjustments to playing style and rule changes merely allowed defensive effectiveness to remain the same as it was when the defense DIDN'T have to guard 3-pointers or stay out of the lane... offenses and defenses naturally adjust to each other in this way, which is why the stat that measures how hard it is to score - league-wide offensive rating (ORtg) - is the same today as it was 30 years ago.
.

3Ball, I don't have the time to go through the complexities of the rules tonight or anytime soon:lol , but there's something wrong with the way you're interpreting all this.

I already made a threat where Coach Thibs said this:

""When Jordan was playing," Chicago coach Tom Thibodeau said, "if he was isolated at 12 feet or at the elbow, you had to keep your 'big' on the weak side. There was no way you could get him across the lane. Now that you can bring your big over to the strong side, elbow isolations become jump-shot plays. And there's usually four shooters on the floor, at a minimum, and some teams have five."

Also, just from experience and watching 80s ball. I already told you this in the past. The 76ers had a play where Doc would be isolated from the elbow, and all 4 other 76ers would spread out. Even Caldwell Jones and Dawkins(who can't shoot 3balls) would go to the 3 point line, and their defenders were FORCED to follow them all the way out.

Now, once Doc made his move and entered the lane, defenders could leave their man and help out, but it was usually too late. Today, this couldn't happen. See Coach Thibs quote on why it can't happen.

[Dr.J4ever]

I'm not so sure that players like Barry, and West, would not quickly adapt to the 3pt shot. I KNOW Lucas would have done just fine. Lucas was Kevin Love long before Love was.

Given enough time, they would adjust. I've always believed 3 point shooting is really just practice..

I still remember when Coach Cunningham would be outraged at Toney for shooting 3s. It was just not emphasized back then.

Now, I believe Toney is one of the great shooters in NBA history. No one can tell me that given enough practice sessions over months and then years that Toney is not a .40 shooter from 3.

So after an adjustment period, 60s guys would fare just fine vs modern players, yes.

[3ball]

The 76ers had a play where Doc would be isolated from the elbow, and all 4 other 76ers would spread out. Even Caldwell Jones and Dawkins(who can't shoot 3balls) would go to the 3 point line, and their defenders were FORCED to follow them all the way out.



^^^ this is patently false - stop saying it... seriously - it is a lie or you are misinformed.


today's defensive 3 seconds rule requires defenders to stay out of the lane, unless they are within "armslength" of an opponent.. http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html

The original rule from 1982 was different, and ALLOWED defenders to camp in the paint: (http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html)


1981-82
"Defender on post player is allowed in defensive three-second area (A post player is any player adjacent to paint)".

So just by substituting the rule's own parenthetical reference, the rule translates EXACTLY to: "Defender on player adjacent to the paint is allowed in defensive 3 second area."


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/b209aeddf6bfaaa9fcaed8eea3c72c65.gif


in this clip, Klay Thompson's dad (#43 in the middle of lane) would get a tech after 3 seconds in today's game because his man is out of "armslength".... but back then, he was legal because his man was "adjacent to the paint", which was the only requirement at the time - notice how there is no need for Thompson to tippy-toe in and out of the paint.


in previous eras, guys didn't have to worry about staying out of the lane or tippy-toeing - the 3 seconds rule was very simple back then: as long as their man was "adjacent to the paint", defenders could stay in the lane... so usually, they could camp in the lane for the entire possession because the paint is huge, and "adjacent to the paint" covers a ton of ground... Furthermore, "adjacent to the paint" could mean right next to the paint, a few feet outside the paint, or all the way out to the 3-point line - defenders routinely camped in the paint while their man was behind the 3-point line (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10695139&postcount=1).

contrastingly, today's rule makes sure defenders can physically touch their man to stay in the lane, by requiring defenders be within "armslength" of an opponent - since players that are outside, or "adjacent to the paint", are out of armslength to defenders inside the paint, players in today's game are not allowed to stay in the lane if their man is outside the paint.

[La Frescobaldi]

^^^ this is patently false - stop saying it... seriously - it is a lie or you are misinformed.


today's defensive 3 seconds rule requires defenders to stay out of the lane, unless they are within "armslength" of an opponent.. http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html

The original rule from 1982 was different, and ALLOWED defenders to camp in the paint: (http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html)


1981-82
"Defender on post player is allowed in defensive three-second area (A post player is any player adjacent to paint)".

So just by substituting the rule's own parenthetical reference, the rule translates EXACTLY to: "Defender on player adjacent to the paint is allowed in defensive 3 second area."


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/b209aeddf6bfaaa9fcaed8eea3c72c65.gif


in this clip, Klay Thompson's dad (#43 in the middle of lane) would get a tech after 3 seconds in today's game because his man is out of "armslength".... but back then, he was legal because his man was "adjacent to the paint", which was the only requirement at the time - notice how there is no need for Thompson to tippy-toe in and out of the paint.


in previous eras, guys didn't have to worry about staying out of the lane or tippy-toeing - the 3 seconds rule was very simple back then: as long as their man was "adjacent to the paint", defenders could stay in the lane... so usually, they could camp in the lane for the entire possession because the paint is huge, and "adjacent to the paint" covers a ton of ground... Furthermore, "adjacent to the paint" could mean right next to the paint, a few feet outside the paint, or all the way out to the 3-point line - defenders routinely camped in the paint while their man was behind the 3-point line (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10695139&postcount=1).

contrastingly, today's rule makes sure defenders can physically touch their man to stay in the lane, by requiring defenders be within "armslength" of an opponent - since players that are outside, or "adjacent to the paint", are out of armslength to defenders inside the paint, players in today's game are not allowed to stay in the lane if their man is outside the paint.

It was a very simple and a very wise rule; a defender could stay between his player and the basket but not camp.

It wasn't until Stern lost testosterone and got girlie that the league got stupid about these rules. I doubt Silver will do anything about it because girlie is a popular fad right now.

[SHAQisGOAT]

^^^ this is patently false - stop saying it... seriously - it is a lie or you are misinformed.


today's defensive 3 seconds rule requires defenders to stay out of the lane, unless they are within "armslength" of an opponent.. http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html

The original rule from 1982 was different, and ALLOWED defenders to camp in the paint: (http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html)


1981-82
"Defender on post player is allowed in defensive three-second area (A post player is any player adjacent to paint)".

So just by substituting the rule's own parenthetical reference, the rule translates EXACTLY to: "Defender on player adjacent to the paint is allowed in defensive 3 second area."


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/b209aeddf6bfaaa9fcaed8eea3c72c65.gif


in this clip, Klay Thompson's dad (#43 in the middle of lane) would get a tech after 3 seconds in today's game because his man is out of "armslength".... but back then, he was legal because his man was "adjacent to the paint", which was the only requirement at the time - notice how there is no need for Thompson to tippy-toe in and out of the paint.


in previous eras, guys didn't have to worry about staying out of the lane or tippy-toeing - the 3 seconds rule was very simple back then: as long as their man was "adjacent to the paint", defenders could stay in the lane... so usually, they could camp in the lane for the entire possession because the paint is huge, and "adjacent to the paint" covers a ton of ground... Furthermore, "adjacent to the paint" could mean right next to the paint, a few feet outside the paint, or all the way out to the 3-point line - defenders routinely camped in the paint while their man was behind the 3-point line (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10695139&postcount=1).

contrastingly, today's rule makes sure defenders can physically touch their man to stay in the lane, by requiring defenders be within "armslength" of an opponent - since players that are outside, or "adjacent to the paint", are out of armslength to defenders inside the paint, players in today's game are not allowed to stay in the lane if their man is outside the paint.

Plus, even by the rule-book, the man with the ball could've had more than one defender on him.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Kerr absolutely said it. It was a recent episode where Kenny Smith also shockingly said KD might not be a superstar during the the 80s. Thomas agreed, and qualified what would make a superstar.

However, Thomas also said certain centers from the 80s might not be able to play in today's NBA due to different rules and defensive/offensive emphasis. Thomas questioned if Magic would be able to guard today's PG oriented teams, and opined that Magic might have to be a Point Center in today's NBA. And then, Kerr added his take. Hopefully, other posters here can give us a link to this.

Man, I was such a geek/fan of the 76ers back then that I still remember specific quotes from magazine articles about my 6ers. A Sport magazine article previewing the upcoming season after the 82-83 title said, "Cheeks was the pinwheel in which Philly's relentless fast break revolves". This answers your question if the 76ers were a fast break team.

Ever since Cunningham took over as coach, the 76ers built around the Doc, who of course loved to fill the lanes on the open court.

Boston, too, loved to fast break owing to their tradition of inventing the fast break. Was this true? I heard this so often that they invented the fast break. During the latter part of the decade with Mchale starting, they seemed to slowdown a bit, but were still potent on the break.

The only team I can remember that played slow down ball were the offensively challenged NY Knicks led by Hubie Brown and Bernard King. The 76ers swept them in the 1st round during their title run, but all the games were close and NY had a 20 plus point lead in game 1 at the Spectrum in Philly.

It was a fast break era, but it wasn't an inferior era to any other era, including today. I like to believe every era has it's strengths and weaknesses. Each era stands on it's own, and it's nice to know both sides of the coin.


Cool... Like I've stated before, I can also post plenty of stuff from past players (even players who are still active) and so on, talking negatively about this era... What it leaves us at? What does it prove? :confusedshrug:
And again:

For the most part, I've seen some very physical games between the Lakers and the Celtics in the 80's, with more than enough defense being played, lots of good (at least) defenders too, like Cooper, McHale, DJ, Kareem, Bird, Wilkes, Worthy, Parish... Plus, those teams were as elite as they come when it comes to offense, harder to play defense when you're going up against teams like that. As they say, great offense beats great defense.
Just look at last years Finals, I can also say that Miami were just a shitty defensive team (that made it to the last round), as the Spurs just whoop their asses, breaking records and whatnot, going for 106 PPG on .604 eFG%, at a (slow) pace of 87.4, with a 121 ORtg. Maybe some years from now they'll say that no defense was being played... Or was it that the Spurs were just extremely good offensively? :confusedshrug:

Answers my question? I've seen them play, I don't need no article to tell me about it... Also "Cheeks was the pinwheel in which Philly's relentless fast break revolves", is the 'reason' why they were a fastbreak team? :rolleyes: They had a great fastbreak and some great fastbreaks players, but since 1983 they weren't a fastbreak team, really.
They ran more before Moses was there, and you can even make a case for them as a fastbreak team at some point during those years (late 70s, early 80s), now ever since Malone got there, and most importantly in their best year (1983) and beyond, they weren't what you call a fastbreak team. Even in 1983 they were barely top15 in terms of pace. Doesn't mean they weren't great on the break...

So, them being pontent on the break makes them a fasbreak team? :rolleyes:
Let's just call every team with a great fastbreak a fastbreak team. 2006 Suns were a fastbreak team, 2012 Heat weren't.

Like I've said, teams like the Nuggets, Pistons before the bad-boys years, mid80s Blazers, Warriors/Suns/Nets at some point... were what you call fastbreak teams.
-> Teams ran more back then? Definitely, and there were more fastbreak teams than today too, easily... Still, the very best teams were not what you call fastbreak teams. And the difference in pace is around 10, compared to nowadays, which is not considerable at all.

Teams that played "slow-ball"? Bucks (one of the best franchises in the 80's), Knicks coached by Hubie (who were great defensively and had Bernard King to wreck shit up on offense), Hawks (also had some great teams throughout the decade), Jordan's Bulls, Mavs that almost made the Finals...

I agree with that. Still, if I had to name the strongest era, it would've been the 80's.

[ZenMaster]

^^^ this is patently false - stop saying it... seriously - it is a lie or you are misinformed.


today's defensive 3 seconds rule requires defenders to stay out of the lane, unless they are within "armslength" of an opponent.. http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html

The original rule from 1982 was different, and ALLOWED defenders to camp in the paint: (http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html)


1981-82
"Defender on post player is allowed in defensive three-second area (A post player is any player adjacent to paint)".

So just by substituting the rule's own parenthetical reference, the rule translates EXACTLY to: "Defender on player adjacent to the paint is allowed in defensive 3 second area."


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/b209aeddf6bfaaa9fcaed8eea3c72c65.gif


in this clip, Klay Thompson's dad (#43 in the middle of lane) would get a tech after 3 seconds in today's game because his man is out of "armslength".... but back then, he was legal because his man was "adjacent to the paint", which was the only requirement at the time - notice how there is no need for Thompson to tippy-toe in and out of the paint.


in previous eras, guys didn't have to worry about staying out of the lane or tippy-toeing - the 3 seconds rule was very simple back then: as long as their man was "adjacent to the paint", defenders could stay in the lane... so usually, they could camp in the lane for the entire possession because the paint is huge, and "adjacent to the paint" covers a ton of ground... Furthermore, "adjacent to the paint" could mean right next to the paint, a few feet outside the paint, or all the way out to the 3-point line - defenders routinely camped in the paint while their man was behind the 3-point line (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10695139&postcount=1).

contrastingly, today's rule makes sure defenders can physically touch their man to stay in the lane, by requiring defenders be within "armslength" of an opponent - since players that are outside, or "adjacent to the paint", are out of armslength to defenders inside the paint, players in today's game are not allowed to stay in the lane if their man is outside the paint.


Todays rules allows them not to camp in the lane without being an arms length from the defender, just like you point out. But what todays rules does allow is for the defender to skip across the lane to the strong side of a play. They allow this without it being a true double team meaning the defender comming to the strong side of the lane does not have to be within arms distance of the player with the ball.

Teams don't do this all the time but they do it vs the best scorers. You can be sure if Jordan played today, the guy who in your gifs is in the middle of the lane, he would be totally across the lane outside the block just waiting for MJ and another guy would be on the weakside guarding 2 players untill ball reversal happens.

Thibs is not lying in his quote.

[Nash]

elgin's game and skill was unbelievably nuanced - he was GOAT at two-pointers (would have been great at 3's too) - his game used the widest range of two-point shots of anyone ever.

don't try this at home:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5833bfa00cf51213da10678b8f1d865c.gif

artistry of elgin baylor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANH50UrlQk8... :bowdown:
.
that guy getting crossed over looks like my accountant

[pudman13]

Oscar was a classic example. He could easily dunk it, but there is very little footage, in the very limited footage that we have, in which he did so.

In Oscar's biography, he tells a story about how he grew up playing on a playground that had baskets with wooden supports, and he went up for a dunk and got shoved into one, and it hurt, a lot. He decided at that point he would never dunk in games, even though he easily could. So, there's no footage of him dunking because he never did it. Walt Frazier is another guy who purposely never dunked. If you watch any footage of Frazier doing a finger-roll layup, you can see that his whole hand is over the rim; in other words, he could easily have dunked if he chose to do so.

RE: the 3-point shot. Of course if it was part of the game people would have adjusted to it. It's ridiculous to think that Jerry West, or Sam Jones, or John McGlocklin, or Jerry Lucas, or Randy Smith, or Hal Greer, just to name a few, wouldn't have been very good at it. I'll just leave it at that before I go into another rant about it...

I agree with you completely that the stars of those eras would stack up with the stars of this era, but I do think that the intermediate players are bigger, stronger, and more athletic than those of the past, and I believe this really began to happen around the time of the NBA/ABA merger and exploded in the 80s when the game became more popular. They may not necessarily be more skilled, though I would guess that due to the changes in the game they are probably less disciplined on offense but moreso on defense.

One thing you don't see any more are teams that are top-to-bottom stacked as, say, the great Laker, Sixer and Celtic teams of the early 80s.

[La Frescobaldi]

In Oscar's biography, he tells a story about how he grew up playing on a playground that had baskets with wooden supports, and he went up for a dunk and got shoved into one, and it hurt, a lot. He decided at that point he would never dunk in games, even though he easily could. So, there's no footage of him dunking because he never did it. Walt Frazier is another guy who purposely never dunked. If you watch any footage of Frazier doing a finger-roll layup, you can see that his whole hand is over the rim; in other words, he could easily have dunked if he chose to do so.

RE: the 3-point shot. Of course if it was part of the game people would have adjusted to it. It's ridiculous to think that Jerry West, or Sam Jones, or John McGlocklin, or Jerry Lucas, or Randy Smith, or Hal Greer, just to name a few, wouldn't have been very good at it. I'll just leave it at that before I go into another rant about it...

I agree with you completely that the stars of those eras would stack up with the stars of this era, but I do think that the intermediate players are bigger, stronger, and more athletic than those of the past, and I believe this really began to happen around the time of the NBA/ABA merger and exploded in the 80s when the game became more popular. They may not necessarily be more skilled, though I would guess that due to the changes in the game they are probably less disciplined on offense but moreso on defense.

One thing you don't see any more are teams that are top-to-bottom stacked as, say, the great Laker, Sixer and Celtic teams of the early 80s.
Yeah
That is exactly how a bigger league is watered down compared to earlier days. 90s is where it just got embarrassingly bad. Stars had stat-padding galore by feasting on atrocious raptor grizzly crap teams that should never have been in the NBA for like a decade.
It's way worth it though, for your city to get NBA hoops!!! But it does skew the numbers in favor of later era players just lower competition.

[Dr.J4ever]

Cool... Like I've stated before, I can also post plenty of stuff from past players (even players who are still active) and so on, talking negatively about this era... What it leaves us at? What does it prove? :confusedshrug:
And again:


Answers my question? I've seen them play, I don't need no article to tell me about it... Also "Cheeks was the pinwheel in which Philly's relentless fast break revolves", is the 'reason' why they were a fastbreak team? :rolleyes: They had a great fastbreak and some great fastbreaks players, but since 1983 they weren't a fastbreak team, really.
They ran more before Moses was there, and you can even make a case for them as a fastbreak team at some point during those years (late 70s, early 80s), now ever since Malone got there, and most importantly in their best year (1983) and beyond, they weren't what you call a fastbreak team. Even in 1983 they were barely top15 in terms of pace. Doesn't mean they weren't great on the break...

So, them being pontent on the break makes them a fasbreak team? :rolleyes:
Let's just call every team with a great fastbreak a fastbreak team. 2006 Suns were a fastbreak team, 2012 Heat weren't.

Like I've said, teams like the Nuggets, Pistons before the bad-boys years, mid80s Blazers, Warriors/Suns/Nets at some point... were what you call fastbreak teams.
-> Teams ran more back then? Definitely, and there were more fastbreak teams than today too, easily... Still, the very best teams were not what you call fastbreak teams. And the difference in pace is around 10, compared to nowadays, which is not considerable at all.

Teams that played "slow-ball"? Bucks (one of the best franchises in the 80's), Knicks coached by Hubie (who were great defensively and had Bernard King to wreck shit up on offense), Hawks (also had some great teams throughout the decade), Jordan's Bulls, Mavs that almost made the Finals...

I agree with that. Still, if I had to name the strongest era, it would've been the 80's.


I respect your opinion. We will have to agree to disagree regarding the fast breaks. No biggie.:cheers:

[Dr.J4ever]

Todays rules allows them not to camp in the lane without being an arms length from the defender, just like you point out. But what todays rules does allow is for the defender to skip across the lane to the strong side of a play. They allow this without it being a true double team meaning the defender comming to the strong side of the lane does not have to be within arms distance of the player with the ball.

Teams don't do this all the time but they do it vs the best scorers. You can be sure if Jordan played today, the guy who in your gifs is in the middle of the lane, he would be totally across the lane outside the block just waiting for MJ and another guy would be on the weakside guarding 2 players untill ball reversal happens.

Thibs is not lying in his quote.

Exactly.

Thibs quote stands on it's own. It's either he's uninformed, lying, or he is completely right. You guys will have to judge.

""When Jordan was playing," Chicago coach Tom Thibodeau said, "if he was isolated at 12 feet or at the elbow, you had to keep your 'big' on the weak side. There was no way you could get him across the lane. Now that you can bring your big over to the strong side, elbow isolations become jump-shot plays. And there's usually four shooters on the floor, at a minimum, and some teams have five." "

[Dr.J4ever]

Yeah
That is exactly how a bigger league is watered down compared to earlier days. 90s is where it just got embarrassingly bad. Stars had stat-padding galore by feasting on atrocious raptor grizzly crap teams that should never have been in the NBA for like a decade.
It's way worth it though, for your city to get NBA hoops!!! But it does skew the numbers in favor of later era players just lower competition.

I agree about the 90s being a watered down league. I still feel to this day that there was only 1 great team during the entire decade.

During the 80s, we had 4 great teams. As in super teams or teams of the ages in Bos, LA, Phi, and Det..The 90s, not so much.

[ImKobe]

I agree about the 90s being a watered down league. I still feel to this day that there was only 1 great team during the entire decade.

During the 80s, we had 4 great teams. As in super teams or teams of the ages in Bos, LA, Phi, and Det..The 90s, not so much.

Bulls, Jazz, Suns(Barkley & KJ) Rockets (95 one), 99 Spurs were great teams...top heavy, but great still. 98 Lakers had 4 all-stars and would be a top team in any other era, but the Jazz took em to school.

The Shaq-Penny-Grant Magic team would have been a beast if they played together a couple more years.

[hawksdreamfan44]

He is one of the most underrated players of all-time.

[3ball]

It was a very simple and a very wise rule; a defender could stay between his player and the basket but not camp.



you completely changed the wording of the rule - that is not necessary - the rule said "defender on a player adjacent to the paint is allowed in the 3 seconds lane".

the rule doesn't need you to change it - it clearly states that a defender "is allowed in 3 seconds lane".

so just use actual quotes from the rule - don't insert your own words to replace the words of the rule.

not only does the rule itself state that defenders are "allowed in the 3 seconds lane", but naturally, the video backs up the rule - defenders camped right under the basket in previous eras plain as day...

today, defenders must actively make efforts to keep the lane clear by tippy-toeing in and out of the lane, which happens on every possession - this forces help defenders to come from further distances than a guy that is camping right there under the basket.

[3ball]

You can be sure if Jordan played today, the guy who in your gifs is in the middle of the lane, he would be totally across the lane outside the block just waiting for MJ and another guy would be on the weakside guarding 2 players untill ball reversal happens.


this is fine, but Jordan was an off-ball player, so he would have been one of the guys benefiting on the weakside from a wide open paint - you said it yourself bolded above - the weakside defender that went over to the strongside, has to go all the way over and outside of the paint; they can't camp right under the basket like previous eras.

your example demonstrates how defenders have to help from OUTSIDE the paint in today's game, as opposed to being able to wait under the basket like previous eras - today's setup hurts the ballhandler in some situations as you described, but it's an off-ball player's dream - the entire point of playing off-ball is to beat the defender to a spot, which is a lot harder if the defender is already waiting there like in previous eras.

in this era, it's natural to assume that jordan would at least match the lane penetration ability of today's best wings, and his pull-up game is by far GOAT, so he'd do that better than say, durant, and even prime kobe... but more importantly, with a clear lane and no defenders waiting under the rim, his real bread-and-butter off-ball game would be easier than ever before.

so again, jordan dealt with tougher paint defense in his eras, because there was always a man waiting at the rim - defenders didn't have to help from outside the paint like they do today, as the league intended - i suppose when the league said the new 3 seconds rule was meant to "open up the game", they meant "open up the LANE".

[La Frescobaldi]

you completely changed the wording of the rule - that is not necessary - the rule said "defender on a player adjacent to the paint is allowed in the 3 seconds lane".

the rule doesn't need you to change it - it clearly states that a defender "is allowed in 3 seconds lane".

so just use actual quotes from the rule - don't insert your own words to replace the words of the rule.

not only does the rule itself state that defenders are "allowed in the 3 seconds lane", but naturally, the video backs up the rule - defenders camped right under the basket in previous eras plain as day...

today, defenders must actively make efforts to keep the lane clear by tippy-toeing in and out of the lane, which happens on every possession - this forces help defenders to come from further distances than a guy that is camping right there under the basket.
True and a good point.

[3ball]

True and a good point.



for players with truly elite skill levels, athleticism matters very little.

for example, dirk is so immensely skilled as a scorer, that his skill more than offsets his athleticism deficit.... ditto for Pierce... ditto for Bird and Magic, and they added a passing aspect to those elite skills.

which brings us to elgin baylor... elgin had the same elite skill that allows pierce, dirk and bird to not need athleticism, but elgin was in a different class athletically - he was incredibly quick with an athletic, shifty style, and a stronger, firmer body that could get 20 rebounds per game... his barkley-like strength doesn't fully come through on the grainy tape.

by all indications, elgin was at least a material step up from pierce .. (most of the gifs below are elgin finishing on #6 bill russell:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/2894eb83d0d85ce7d2b346fafb7302fe.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/a37bb1bb35d856c228b81a37714aa4ff.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/28a06da0a726eecb1199322ecf9d731f.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5a9291cd6f8fbc45c768b84894268a16.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/788eee3f33eaf8a4ffede903ccf529f1.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/7470430a7f4d517b6b869bff51444752.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/b790f3aea0dc2a655f517ff7d2477be1.gif...poster over bill russell


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/25b3be360ab18956d0e87818dd283134.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/f7a70a0117dc65528c179129c032014c.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/7f599bc9f590bcb726a21b83083d94f5.gif

[3ball]

which brings us to elgin baylor... elgin had the same elite skill that allows pierce, dirk and bird to not need athleticism, but elgin was in a different class athletically - he was incredibly quick with an athletic, shifty style, and a stronger, firmer body that could get 20 rebounds per game... his barkley-like strength doesn't fully come through on the grainy tape.

by all indications, elgin was at least a material step up from pierce .. (most of the gifs below are elgin finishing on #6 bill russell:


speaking of paul pierce (and how elgin was much better - a different type of athlete that was much quicker and had a firm, strong body capable of getting 20 rebounds per game) - espn ran a stat tonight showing how lebron was 1-8 when pierce was guarding him, and did better against everyone else.

lol

pierce is a fossil - do you guys still think lebron could score 61 on all two's in the NBA Finals against Bill Russell's Celtics?

pierce has always contained him, just like the relatively pedestrian athletes on the spurs and mavs.
.

[CavaliersFTW]

speaking of paul pierce (and how elgin was much better - a different type of athlete that was much quicker and had a firm, strong body capable of getting 20 rebounds per game) - espn ran a stat tonight showing how lebron was 1-8 when pierce was guarding him, and did better against everyone else.

lol

pierce is a fossil - do you guys still think lebron could score 61 on all two's in the NBA Finals against Bill Russell's Celtics?

pierce has always contained him, just like the relatively pedestrian athletes on the spurs and mavs.
.
Satch Sanders would be Lebron's iso opponent in a game against the Celtics... exact same measurements as Kawhi Leonard (and we all know how that length bothered Lebron) and along side Gus Johnson was considered (by Elgin) to be the best defensive forward of the 1960's. Not to mention Bill Russell was the guy right behind him protecting the rim as good and relentlessly as anyone in NBA history has ever been capable of.

Lebron can't score 50 points on the Spurs in the Finals with 3 point shots against Kawhi and an absolutely ancient totally unathletic (especially relative to Russell) Tim Duncan. Both of whom dedicate their energy in a balanced fashion on both ends, not just defensively like the Russell and Satch front court of the Celtics.

I don't even care about pace, by matchup alone on his best most perfect night Lebron isn't capable of scoring 50 on the 1962 Celtics in a Finals game let alone 61. Lebron isn't a scorer at heart, Elgin was. Knowing how he played against the current Spurs the 1960's Celtics would be his worst matchup nightmare possible as far as scoring points is concerned, even if everything went well for him and he got every lucky bounce and was hot. Still wouldn't crack 50. It's just not the way he plays, it never has been. He likely wouldn't crack 35 to be honest unless his teammates were absolutely terrible and not making their own shots, and that would be by his own design. He looks to pass more than to score compared to Elgin (though Elgin had as good a court vision as just about anyone, he just looked to shoot more).

[3ball]

Satch Sanders would be Lebron's iso opponent in a game against the Celtics... exact same measurements as Kawhi Leonard (and we all know how that length bothered Lebron) and along side Gus Johnson was considered (by Elgin) to be the best defensive forward of the 1960's. Not to mention Bill Russell was the guy right behind him protecting the rim as good and relentlessly as anyone in NBA history has ever been capable of.

Lebron can't score 50 points on the Spurs in the Finals with 3 point shots against Kawhi and an absolutely ancient totally unathletic (especially relative to Russell) Tim Duncan. Both of whom dedicate their energy in a balanced fashion on both ends, not just defensively like the Russell and Satch front court of the Celtics.

I don't even care about pace, by matchup alone on his best most perfect night Lebron isn't capable of scoring 50 on the 1962 Celtics in a Finals game let alone 61. Lebron isn't a scorer at heart, Elgin was. Knowing how he played against the current Spurs the 1960's Celtics would be his worst matchup nightmare possible as far as scoring points is concerned, even if everything went well for him and he got every lucky bounce and was hot. Still wouldn't crack 50. It's just not the way he plays, it never has been. He likely wouldn't crack 35 to be honest unless his teammates were absolutely terrible and not making their own shots, and that would be by his own design. He looks to pass more than to score compared to Elgin (though Elgin had as good a court vision as just about anyone, he just looked to shoot more).



Sorry this is turning into an Elgin shrine of highlights.. can't help it.


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/60d480de30b8d0e5547d178884d753ff.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/71d707eb19a759912f16c94dab5f6006.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/ed5deb5cdbe32bdfb4e9b2e075d2f671.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/fff1a20b4e594578b8e91389fb73ab1f.gif... SHIFTY


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/76d10144b9417201e72e3529f2917527.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/8cbc9ed6f9326539735030269a26f653.gif... ANOTHER POSTER ON RUSSELL


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/c6d206caf44d01af1540faddb59d4df9.gif... better than any lebron pass

[iamgine]

Sorry this is turning into an Elgin shrine of highlights.. can't help it.


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/60d480de30b8d0e5547d178884d753ff.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/71d707eb19a759912f16c94dab5f6006.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/fff1a20b4e594578b8e91389fb73ab1f.gif... SHIFTY


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/ed5deb5cdbe32bdfb4e9b2e075d2f671.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/76d10144b9417201e72e3529f2917527.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/8cbc9ed6f9326539735030269a26f653.gif... ANOTHER POSTER ON RUSSELL


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/c6d206caf44d01af1540faddb59d4df9.gif... better than any lebron pass
That supposed to be impressive? :durantunimpressed: :kobe: :whatever:

[3ball]

That supposed to be impressive?


to a knowledgeable fan, yes..

a knowledgeable fan would know that the former best player in today's game cannot do 5 of the gifs previously posted itt, namely:

1) the two gifs showing drives that were initiated using the opposite pivot foot

2) the "shifty" up-and-under mid-range jumpshot gif

3) the willie mays throw-pass gif

4) and the upfake-while-dribbling move that derrick rose duplicated in a gif earlier itt
.

[iamgine]

to a knowledgeable fan, yes..

a knowledgeable fan would know that the former best player in today's game cannot do 5 of the gifs previously posted itt, namely:

1) the two gifs showing drives that were initiated using the opposite pivot foot

2) the "shifty" up-and-under mid-range jumpshot gif

3) the willie mays throw-pass gif

4) and the upfake-while-dribbling move that derrick rose duplicated in a gif earlier itt
.
I'd say it would be impressive to ignorant fans cause they haven't seen it before. Knowledgable fans have seen those over the top moves and bad defense in And1 and local YMCA thus: :durantunimpressed: :whatever: :kobe:

[3ball]

Knowledgable fans have seen those over the top moves and bad defense in And1 and local YMCA


guys don't use their opposite pivot foot at the Y, unless it's by accident - it's not used much in college or the pros either - kobe talked about how rare it is and how difficult it is to execute here.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8UXE7pDA_c&t=0m35s

nor do they do willie mays 360 fullcourt pass.

some guys at the Y do use the derrick rose upfake-while-dribbling move, but they invariably carry, just like today's NBA players... the beauty of elgin doing the move, is that you couldn't carry back then, so elgin naturally positions his body and the ball in a way where his palm never has to go underneath the ball and carry like today's players... it's remarkable to do the move without even the slightest carry whatsoever.

[STATUTORY]

Sorry this is turning into an Elgin shrine of highlights.. can't help it.



http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/ed5deb5cdbe32bdfb4e9b2e075d2f671.gif


:roll: :roll: :roll: took up the entire shot clock for this ni99a to run the open court on a "fast" break

and he was still faster than his white peers


pathetic

[Psileas]

I'd say it would be impressive to ignorant fans cause they haven't seen it before. Knowledgable fans have seen those over the top moves and bad defense in And1 and local YMCA thus: :durantunimpressed: :whatever: :kobe:

The everyday top-10 is choke-full of plays that I've seen before and equally full of bad defense, and I don't see this pose any problem to knowledgeable fans.

[La Frescobaldi]

:roll: :roll: :roll: took up the entire shot clock for this ni99a to run the open court on a "fast" break

and he was still faster than his white peers


pathetic

do you know what frame speed is bro?

[STATUTORY]

do you know what frame speed is bro?
the crowd is moving in regular speed

[LAZERUSS]

Satch Sanders would be Lebron's iso opponent in a game against the Celtics... exact same measurements as Kawhi Leonard (and we all know how that length bothered Lebron) and along side Gus Johnson was considered (by Elgin) to be the best defensive forward of the 1960's. Not to mention Bill Russell was the guy right behind him protecting the rim as good and relentlessly as anyone in NBA history has ever been capable of.

Lebron can't score 50 points on the Spurs in the Finals with 3 point shots against Kawhi and an absolutely ancient totally unathletic (especially relative to Russell) Tim Duncan. Both of whom dedicate their energy in a balanced fashion on both ends, not just defensively like the Russell and Satch front court of the Celtics.

I don't even care about pace, by matchup alone on his best most perfect night Lebron isn't capable of scoring 50 on the 1962 Celtics in a Finals game let alone 61. Lebron isn't a scorer at heart, Elgin was. Knowing how he played against the current Spurs the 1960's Celtics would be his worst matchup nightmare possible as far as scoring points is concerned, even if everything went well for him and he got every lucky bounce and was hot. Still wouldn't crack 50. It's just not the way he plays, it never has been. He likely wouldn't crack 35 to be honest unless his teammates were absolutely terrible and not making their own shots, and that would be by his own design. He looks to pass more than to score compared to Elgin (though Elgin had as good a court vision as just about anyone, he just looked to shoot more).

THIS is a GREAT post.

This addresses the ignorant and uneducated fans that honestly believe that if you could transport today's players back into the 60's and 70's, and that they would shatter the scoring records.

Think about this...Shaq's career HIGH game was 61 points. He played 45 minutes in a 20 point blowout of a 12-47 Clippers team. In that game, the Clippers started one of the biggest busts of all-time at center, Michael Olawakandi, who played 14 minutes...and managed to get 5 fouls in that time. The rest of the game, Shaq was either defended by the 6-9 Anthony Avent (who had 4 fouls in 16 minutes), the 6-7 Eric Piatkowski, or else, NO ONE at all. Just watch the game...the Clippers had no interest in defending him. They had long since mailed it in, and would "coast" to a 15-67 record. I'm sorry, but a prime Kareem, and certainly a prime Chamberlain, would have had no problems hanging 60+ on that Clipper team.

How often did Shaq throw up a 40 point game against the Robinson-led Spurs in the playoffs?

Bird had one 60 point game...and the OPPOSING players were cheering him on. Where were his 50+ point games in the post-season?

This is not a knock on Shaq, or Bird ... but it speaks volumes about just how difficult it is/was to score 50-60+ points against MEANINGFUL competition in a MEANINGFUL game.

And I get a kick out of those that disparage Wilt's numbers because of "pace" or "competition." During Wilt's 14 seasons, there were a TOTAL of 37 60+ point games. Again...TOTAL of 37 60+ point games. Baylor had FOUR of them, West had ONE,...and Wilt...32! That was IT.

Take Wilt's 32 out of the equation, and the decade of the 60's had no more 60+ point games, than any other decade.

And Baylor's 61, in a key title game, and against one of the greatest defensive teams in NBA history, speaks volumes about just how great he was.

[La Frescobaldi]

the crowd is moving in regular speed

lol yeah that's true they are sitting at the same pace regardless of frame speed


:cheers:

[iamgine]

The everyday top-10 is choke-full of plays that I've seen before and equally full of bad defense, and I don't see this pose any problem to knowledgeable fans.
It's everyday top 10 today vs hand picked from the 60s tho. Both :durantunimpressed: :whatever: :kobe:

[LAZERUSS]

It's everyday top 10 today vs hand picked from the 60s tho. Both :durantunimpressed: :whatever: :kobe:

You do realize that less than 2% of Wilt's entire NBA career is on video, right?

Same with just about most everyone else I listed.

Hell, other than the '62 ASG, we don't even have ONE of Chamberlain's 271 40+ point NBA games in video. Don't you think that perhaps he might have had at least a couple of more highlight moments in his career, in which he did something that was almost physically impossible...as were often witnessed first hand by so many players, coaches, and fans?

[CavaliersFTW]

It's everyday top 10 today vs hand picked from the 60s tho. Both :durantunimpressed: :whatever: :kobe:
lol at hand picked... that's everything I've got bro. 2% of Elgins career field goals exists on film, I've counted. This is about the same relative amount as what is available of Wilt and once I finish my Oscar video I'll do another count, and I expect a similarly low amount. Even less exists of guys like Gus Johnson and Bob Cousy, guys who played more in the prior decade and/or on a lower market team. And the sources for anyone back then are very random, and generally bias towards the end of their careers.

So a random 2% of field goals of Elgin ..I don't remember the exact count off hand but whoever wants to count to verify there's only 8-12 dunks of Elgin that exist on film. Given the random nature of the 2%, that implies Elgin threw down 400 to 600 times and that's basically how many of Elgin's career dunks on film we're missing. Given that he posterized Bill Russell twice in the random 2%, and 2 or 3 other dunks were contested posters, that implies he acquired several hundred posters in his career.

Shouldn't I "hand pick" those? Maybe make an Elgin top 100 poster mix like has been done for MJ or Vince Carter? The math indicates there should be plenty to choose from lemme just contact the NBA to release every minute of 60's footage to allow these old mixes that are "hand picked" :hammerhead:

[DaRkJaWs]

lol at hand picked... that's everything I've got bro. 2% of Elgins career field goals exists on film, I've counted. This is about the same relative amount as what is available of Wilt and once I finish my Oscar video I'll do another count, and I expect a similarly low amount. Even less exists of guys like Gus Johnson and Bob Cousy, guys who played more in the prior decade and/or on a lower market team. And the sources for anyone back then are very random, and generally bias towards the end of their careers.

So a random 2% of field goals of Elgin ..I don't remember the exact count off hand but whoever wants to count to verify there's only 8-12 dunks of Elgin that exist on film. Given the random nature of the 2%, that implies Elgin threw down 400 to 600 times and that's basically how many of Elgin's career dunks on film we're missing. Given that he posterized Bill Russell twice in the random 2%, and 2 or 3 other dunks were contested posters, that implies he acquired several hundred posters in his career.

Shouldn't I "hand pick" those? Maybe make an Elgin top 100 poster mix like has been done for MJ or Vince Carter? The math indicates there should be plenty to choose from lemme just contact the NBA to release every minute of 60's footage to allow these old mixes that are "hand picked" :hammerhead:
We should do a random sample of Shaq's games and put it on video for 45 minutes as well so we can compare the two. Then we'll get these mofos to start crying that the videos we are showing aren't shaq at his best, and then we can really catch them in the proverbial rabbit hole.

[funnystuff]

Players in this time literally do not look brain smart the way they move around.

[3ball]

people like to hate and say that elgin played high school competition.

well, how many 6'5" high school kids average 20 rebounds per game?

how many HS kids taller than 6'5" do that?

how many 6'5" high school kids average 20 rebounds a game while playing a team with wilt chamberlain or Bill Russell 24 times per regular season... :eek:

and played oscar's royals another 12 times.... only 8 teams in the whole league - that would be like a league with only okc, spurs, dallas, warriors, clips, toronto, washington and houston in the league and a SG averaged 20 rebounds per game.

haters need to chill and learn about the game.

[Psileas]

Players in this time literally do not look brain smart the way they move around.

Agreed, which is why more and more people have started getting tired of 82 game seasons. Players are way too well payed and protected to take games, at least regular season ones, seriously. Result? Too much randomness, no ball movement, a crapload of low efficiency shots taken, and most fans even enjoy this thing, ignoring the much brainier, strategic and efficient game of teams like the Spurs.

[3ball]

.

Elgin Baylor Top Ten (from the 1% of footage we have of him)



http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/2894eb83d0d85ce7d2b346fafb7302fe.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/a37bb1bb35d856c228b81a37714aa4ff.gif... Standard Paint-Camping (Wilt Waiting)


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/8cbc9ed6f9326539735030269a26f653.gif... Poster AND1 Over Bill Russell


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5a9291cd6f8fbc45c768b84894268a16.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/788eee3f33eaf8a4ffede903ccf529f1.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/7470430a7f4d517b6b869bff51444752.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/b790f3aea0dc2a655f517ff7d2477be1.gif...Another poster over Russell


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/25b3be360ab18956d0e87818dd283134.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/f7a70a0117dc65528c179129c032014c.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/7f599bc9f590bcb726a21b83083d94f5.gif


we see lebron routinely get contained for 15 point and 22 point impactless nights against boris diaw, fossil pierce, and unathletic teams like the Spurs and Mavs.

the notion that he could get 61 points in the Finals against the goat confidence and swag of Bill Russell's 4-time, defending back-to-back-to-back-to-back champions, is ridiculous.

lebron would crap his paints, let alone get 61 shooting the shots he hates the most - mid-range and all contested, low-percentage two-pointers - no waiting for the easy stuff like he tries to do today.

therefore, elgin > lebron.
.

[Dro]

THIS is a GREAT post.

This addresses the ignorant and uneducated fans that honestly believe that if you could transport today's players back into the 60's and 70's, and that they would shatter the scoring records.

Think about this...Shaq's career HIGH game was 61 points. He played 45 minutes in a 20 point blowout of a 12-47 Clippers team. In that game, the Clippers started one of the biggest busts of all-time at center, Michael Olawakandi, who played 14 minutes...and managed to get 5 fouls in that time. The rest of the game, Shaq was either defended by the 6-9 Anthony Avent (who had 4 fouls in 16 minutes), the 6-7 Eric Piatkowski, or else, NO ONE at all. Just watch the game...the Clippers had no interest in defending him. They had long since mailed it in, and would "coast" to a 15-67 record. I'm sorry, but a prime Kareem, and certainly a prime Chamberlain, would have had no problems hanging 60+ on that Clipper team.

How often did Shaq throw up a 40 point game against the Robinson-led Spurs in the playoffs?

Bird had one 60 point game...and the OPPOSING players were cheering him on. Where were his 50+ point games in the post-season?

This is not a knock on Shaq, or Bird ... but it speaks volumes about just how difficult it is/was to score 50-60+ points against MEANINGFUL competition in a MEANINGFUL game.

And I get a kick out of those that disparage Wilt's numbers because of "pace" or "competition." During Wilt's 14 seasons, there were a TOTAL of 37 60+ point games. Again...TOTAL of 37 60+ point games. Baylor had FOUR of them, West had ONE,...and Wilt...32! That was IT.

Take Wilt's 32 out of the equation, and the decade of the 60's had no more 60+ point games, than any other decade.

And Baylor's 61, in a key title game, and against one of the greatest defensive teams in NBA history, speaks volumes about just how great he was.
Good post but are you sure it wasn't Keith Closs that Shaq was playing against that game? Or the "great" Keith Closs as Shaq put it........

[Dro]

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/7f599bc9f590bcb726a21b83083d94f5.gif
Elgin doing Eurosteps before folks even knew Europe had good basketball players:applause:

[3ball]

Elgin doing Eurosteps before folks even knew Europe had good basketball players:applause:
the move was a popular common move back then

[3ball]

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/7f599bc9f590bcb726a21b83083d94f5.gif





Elgin doing Eurosteps before folks even knew Europe had good basketball players:applause:




It wasn't just Elgin - the wrongly-named "euro-step" was COMMON:



http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/5c89bc378182f5bddc5916df977cad29.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/9a0666804b32d5b4824561aad788cb8e.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/Michael_Jordan_Eurostep_5cc9d1bfc6064cfecf8deaef00 3568c2.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/Michael_Jordan_Doing_Eurostep_1131c3189b6e3424c21a 5ee6e71b4415.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/7974a441220e03f68aa03e2979e59623.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/Magic_Johnson_Eurostep_88016c2ae6879878e978634fe79 5130f.gif


the only reason it's called the "eurostep" is because people are dumb... literally.. it's like saying white people invented rock-n-roll...

no surprise - pretty standard procedure historically for white people to take something black people did, and take it over and act like it was theirs to begin with...

even today's game of basketball - the whole game has been europeanized.... :applause: