jlip
01-27-2015, 02:43 PM
In 1989 MJ was the ringless, young star putting up monster stats. He was having a dominant playoffs up until that point averaging something like 36/8/8. Like present day ESPN when praising statistical feats by Kobe, Lebron, or Durant people in 1989 were acting as if nothing comparable to what MJ was doing had been done in history. So, in steps a "proto-ISHesque" journalist providing arguments as if it were 2015. Here are some highlights from the article:
"Jordan isn't playing any better now than Oscar Robertson or Elgin Baylor in their primes. Both had do-it-all myself, go-down-in-flames of glory streaks in the playoffs comparable to Jordan's. "
"Most important Jordan has not yet approached the level of dominance achieved by the NBA's three greatest players, all centers: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar."
Early advanced stats: :eek:
Let's use a simplified version of an old Red Auerbach system to give Jordan a total grade. Add up Jordan's points, rebounds, and assists, then subtract all his missed shots and free throws. On our Red meter Jordan has averaged a superb rating of 37.6 per game.
But in 1963...the Big O had a rating of 40.3...
Answering the weak era/ fewer teams criticism:
Before anyone jerks a knee and says, 'There weren't nearly as many good players then, let it be noted that the old NBA had only 9 teams not 25. Even rotten squads had good players at most positions...
Kareem as the bridge between the old and new eras:
For those who think that current players are a different breed, remember this: when Abdul Jabbar was an NBA puppy from 1969 to 1971, averaging 30 points and 15 rebounds, Chamberlain was an old man. Yet Wilt still averaged 20 rebounds per game, blocked more shots than Jabbar, had more assists, committed fewer fouls, shot a better floor percentage, and still averaged 20 points a game.
If old Chamberlain matched the young Jabbar, and the old Jabbar was good enough to start for back to back NBA champions, what would the young Wilt and Bill do to nice Brad Daugherty.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19890527&id=k_JRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Zm4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5896,9798562)
The world of basketball debating hasn't changed in decades especially when it comes to comparing eras.
"Jordan isn't playing any better now than Oscar Robertson or Elgin Baylor in their primes. Both had do-it-all myself, go-down-in-flames of glory streaks in the playoffs comparable to Jordan's. "
"Most important Jordan has not yet approached the level of dominance achieved by the NBA's three greatest players, all centers: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar."
Early advanced stats: :eek:
Let's use a simplified version of an old Red Auerbach system to give Jordan a total grade. Add up Jordan's points, rebounds, and assists, then subtract all his missed shots and free throws. On our Red meter Jordan has averaged a superb rating of 37.6 per game.
But in 1963...the Big O had a rating of 40.3...
Answering the weak era/ fewer teams criticism:
Before anyone jerks a knee and says, 'There weren't nearly as many good players then, let it be noted that the old NBA had only 9 teams not 25. Even rotten squads had good players at most positions...
Kareem as the bridge between the old and new eras:
For those who think that current players are a different breed, remember this: when Abdul Jabbar was an NBA puppy from 1969 to 1971, averaging 30 points and 15 rebounds, Chamberlain was an old man. Yet Wilt still averaged 20 rebounds per game, blocked more shots than Jabbar, had more assists, committed fewer fouls, shot a better floor percentage, and still averaged 20 points a game.
If old Chamberlain matched the young Jabbar, and the old Jabbar was good enough to start for back to back NBA champions, what would the young Wilt and Bill do to nice Brad Daugherty.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19890527&id=k_JRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Zm4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5896,9798562)
The world of basketball debating hasn't changed in decades especially when it comes to comparing eras.