Who looks better at the game of basketball: Butch Komives vs Mathew Dellavadova

[CavaliersFTW]

Without getting into advanced metrics and all that stuff, just visualize these two players skill sets and physical qualities in an NBA game. Both players about the same size, both play guard, both actually look like they play with very similar energy:

Mathew Dellavedova:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8jN53qx7Q

Butch Komives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8KowkGMiBw

My thoughts when watching the footage is Komives seems to use screens better like in P&R situations, and have better reach and timing with his hands defensively being that he actually accumulates two blocked shots and 2 steals on top of being under his oppositions shirt. Dellavadova hustles with similar intensity as Komives, but has only blocked 7 shots in his entire career so I'm guessing he doesn't have the reach or timing of Komives on that end. Komives is statistically on average, the superior player. But not by much. Then again, he only looks better than Dellavedova "not by by much". Their attempted shooting ranges are different as a result of this being a 3 point era - where there is incentive to shoot 23 feet out - to the 60's 2 point era, where the incentive was to just get the ball in as close as reasonably possible. The slight edge Komives appears to have in capabilities shows up as one would expect in their earned minutes per game and role each had/has been allowed to that/this point in their careers.

So one assumption I've often heard online whenever I share highlights of Wilt, Russell, West, Robertson, Baylor etc is that they could play in any era, or be time traveled and do fine, or w/e. However a fair number of fans are of the assumption that the "average" players and non all-stars rounding out rosters back in those days must've been worse than the similar situation players today. I could be wrong but I think this assumption is a means to rationalize the different numbers such as the increased amount of rebounds and what not. I feel the rule and talent culture changes in the game, as well as the impact of roles within a team and what not offers a more convincing explanation about why numbers of superstars such as Bill Russell's rebounds can look so drastically different era to era. I think NBA talent, at least from the late 60's to the present, still looks an awful lot like NBA talent today. Be it role players, stars, or superstars.

Anyways, I'm of course open to be wrong and criticized so I'll leave this discussion open for you guys to watch some of the film and add your two cents on things I may have overlooked.

[CavaliersFTW]

http://cdn.instructables.com/FWI/21L0/ERFETVPKSTS/FWI21L0ERFETVPKSTS.LARGE.jpg

[sundizz]

Without getting into advanced metrics and all that stuff, just visualize these two players skill sets and physical qualities in an NBA game. Both players about the same size, both play guard, both actually look like they play with very similar energy:

Mathew Dellavedova:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8jN53qx7Q

Butch Komives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8KowkGMiBw

My thoughts when watching the footage is Komives seems to use screens better like in P&R situations, and have better reach and timing with his hands defensively being that he actually accumulates two blocked shots and 2 steals on top of being under his oppositions shirt. Dellavadova hustles with similar intensity as Komives, but has only blocked 7 shots in his entire career so I'm guessing he doesn't have the reach or timing of Komives on that end. Komives is statistically on average, the superior player. But not by much. Then again, he only looks better than Dellavedova "not by by much". Their attempted shooting ranges are different as a result of this being a 3 point era - where there is incentive to shoot 23 feet out - to the 60's 2 point era, where the incentive was to just get the ball in as close as reasonably possible. The slight edge Komives appears to have in capabilities shows up as one would expect in their earned minutes per game and role each had/has been allowed to that/this point in their careers.

So one assumption I've often heard online whenever I share highlights of Wilt, Russell, West, Robertson, Baylor etc is that they could play in any era, or be time traveled and do fine, or w/e. However a fair number of fans are of the assumption that the "average" players and non all-stars rounding out rosters back in those days must've been worse than the similar situation players today. I could be wrong but I think this assumption is a means to rationalize the different numbers such as the increased amount of rebounds and what not. I feel the rule and talent culture changes in the game, as well as the impact of roles within a team and what not offers a more convincing explanation about why numbers of superstars such as Bill Russell's rebounds can look so drastically different era to era. I think NBA talent, at least from the late 60's to the present, still looks an awful lot like NBA talent today. Be it role players, stars, or superstars.

Anyways, I'm of course open to be wrong and criticized so I'll leave this discussion open for you guys to watch some of the film and add your two cents on things I may have overlooked.

I honestly really like your analysis and videos but you often sound like someone that doesn't understand the game that well from an intense competition level perspective.

I played hoops yesterday against a kid that is about to be a freshman in high school and has a brother in the NBA. This kid was 6 ft tall, with lanky arms, and could already do put back slams in a live game, dribble really well, and shoot from anywhere with good consistency.

Even though there are generational superstars, it makes absolutely no sense that the other 9 to 11 players on a team where even remotely close to what the talent level is in today's NBA. The sheer # of players that play hoops now dwarfs how many played then - choosing from a significantly larger talent pool = better talent except for outliers like a Wilt or Russell.

6'5 with elite athleticism +skills back in those days does not equate to 6'5 with elite athleticism +skills in today's game. It just does not. The 6'5 guy from back then didn't get weeded out by better players before he got to the NBA. The 6'5 guy of today faces worldwide talent and has to prove his ability time and time again to get to where he is (the NBA).

The only possible place that your analysis could still make sense for is for 7 foot players. Even now, they are still somewhat of a rarity (true 7 footers). For any non ridiculously big guy though your analysis makes no sense.

A normal NBA player now would have to beat out upwards of 10 million (random guess) players to get to where he is in his lifetime.

A normal NBA player of back then would of had to beat out 500,000.

The #'s are just made up, but serve to illustrate the why.

As someone that plays basketball doesn't it make sense that you are good in certain leagues. Their can be a superstar player or two, but as long as the rest of the players are at your level you can still play.

However, if you move up to a better league the superstar level players could still be just that, superstars, but now you would be terrible.

[navy]

I honestly really like your analysis and videos but you often sound like someone that doesn't understand the game that well from an intense competition level perspective.

I played hoops yesterday against a kid that is about to be a freshman in high school and has a brother in the NBA. This kid was 6 ft tall, with lanky arms, and could already do put back slams in a live game, dribble really well, and shoot from anywhere with good consistency.

Even though there are generational superstars, it makes absolutely no sense that the other 9 to 11 players on a team where even remotely close to what the talent level is in today's NBA. The sheer # of players that play hoops now dwarfs how many played then - choosing from a significantly larger talent pool = better talent except for outliers like a Wilt or Russell.

6'5 with elite athleticism +skills back in those days does not equate to 6'5 with elite athleticism +skills in today's game. It just does not. The 6'5 guy from back then didn't get weeded out by better players before he got to the NBA. The 6'5 guy of today faces worldwide talent and has to prove his ability time and time again to get to where he is (the NBA).

The only possible place that your analysis could still make sense for is for 7 foot players. Even now, they are still somewhat of a rarity (true 7 footers). For any non ridiculously big guy though your analysis makes no sense.

A normal NBA player now would have to beat out upwards of 10 million (random guess) players to get to where he is in his lifetime.

A normal NBA player of back then would of had to beat out 500,000.

The #'s are just made up, but serve to illustrate the why.

As someone that plays basketball doesn't it make sense that you are good in certain leagues. Their can be a superstar player or two, but as long as the rest of the players are at your level you can still play.

However, if you move up to a better league the superstar level players could still be just that, superstars, but now you would be terrible.

:applause:

Not only that, but he mentioned that they look the same. When you play basketball, you can see people that look better than NBA superstars in many aspects of the game. Dribbling, passing, footwork. It doesnt mean shit, these are some the first guys that will tell you that they just flat out werent good enough. If you think the 60s talent level was the same, then more power to you I guess. Most people dont. Obviously there are exceptions especially for someone like Wilt.

[CavaliersFTW]

I honestly really like your analysis and videos but you often sound like someone that doesn't understand the game that well from an intense competition level perspective.

I played hoops yesterday against a kid that is about to be a freshman in high school and has a brother in the NBA. This kid was 6 ft tall, with lanky arms, and could already do put back slams in a live game, dribble really well, and shoot from anywhere with good consistency.

Even though there are generational superstars, it makes absolutely no sense that the other 9 to 11 players on a team where even remotely close to what the talent level is in today's NBA. The sheer # of players that play hoops now dwarfs how many played then - choosing from a significantly larger talent pool = better talent except for outliers like a Wilt or Russell.

6'5 with elite athleticism +skills back in those days does not equate to 6'5 with elite athleticism +skills in today's game. It just does not. The 6'5 guy from back then didn't get weeded out by better players before he got to the NBA. The 6'5 guy of today faces worldwide talent and has to prove his ability time and time again to get to where he is (the NBA).

The only possible place that your analysis could still make sense for is for 7 foot players. Even now, they are still somewhat of a rarity (true 7 footers). For any non ridiculously big guy though your analysis makes no sense.

A normal NBA player now would have to beat out upwards of 10 million (random guess) players to get to where he is in his lifetime.

A normal NBA player of back then would of had to beat out 500,000.

The #'s are just made up, but serve to illustrate the why.

As someone that plays basketball doesn't it make sense that you are good in certain leagues. Their can be a superstar player or two, but as long as the rest of the players are at your level you can still play.

However, if you move up to a better league the superstar level players could still be just that, superstars, but now you would be terrible.
Why not just watch how they play basketball. If your assumptions were true, a guy like Mathew Dellavadova should look superior to a guy like Butch Komives... The ground he covers, the radius he plays effective defense, his ability to create space or utilize screens, his vision to hit open players. However, his talent and skills do not look superior. They both look and play very similar. One is NBA talent from 40 years ago, one is NBA talent right now. I know you've created this narrative of why you THINK Komives should look/be a lot worse of a player... but what happens when watching him, he doesn't appear to be? Maybe some of your assumptions, though they sound nice on paper, aren't all that relevant?

He's driving on Kareem, he's not playing bums, in fact he's playing against other guys that look like legitimate NBA talent. I think I provide a valid question. You generate all these assumptions that are popularly discussed as a means to dismiss basketball players of that time. But the film doesn't really back up your conclusions, does it?

[CavaliersFTW]

:applause:

Not only that, but he mentioned that they look the same. When you play basketball, you can see people that look better than NBA superstars in many aspects of the game. Dribbling, passing, footwork. It doesnt mean shit, these are some the first guys that will tell you that they just flat out werent good enough. If you think the 60s talent level was the same, then more power to you I guess. Most people dont. Obviously there are exceptions especially for someone like Wilt.
What is Dellavadova doing in the NBA on the court that Komives isn't. Watch the film, look at the moves, what does Delly do to make him superior?

[navy]

What is Dellavadova doing in the NBA on the court that Komives isn't. Watch the film, look at the moves, what does Delly do to make him superior?
Delly's a scrub and I have no idea who Komives is. Im not gonna say who I think is better. Its probably Komives.

Like I said, I can post high school mixtapes of players looking like superstars in all facets of the game. Doesnt mean shit.

[CavaliersFTW]

Before you guys post walls and walls of text about "if then" logic, just watch the film. You guys must craft these "if then" arguments before you ever even watch an honest amount of film of the players you are so ready to dismiss. You want to treat guys who played back then as nobodies save for like the top 3 players. What does Mathew Dellavadova do that Butch Komives doesn't, simple question - with film to watch.

Here I'll help:

Butch Komives does not display: A modern 3 point range shot.

And the simple counter?: Because there wasn't incentive to do so in his era.

His floaters in the lane? Same. His dribble penetration, ability to create space, and handle? Same. His apparent size/athleticism and ability to cover ground? Same. His hustle/effort/energy, fighting through screens and the like? All looks pretty much the same.

And his length/timing with his hands on defense looks superior. Blocks 2 perimeter players shots in one game, to Dellavadova's 7 for his entire career.

This is not some "if then" circular argument... this is watching the film of them playing the game and being surprised that one guy 40 years ago who nobody today has ever heard of looks no less good at the game of basketball as a guy playing the game of basketball in the highest league today.

[FatComputerNerd]

Delly is no scrub

[CavaliersFTW]

Delly's a scrub and I have no idea who Komives is. Im not gonna say who I think is better. Its probably Komives.

Like I said, I can post high school mixtapes of players looking like superstars in all facets of the game. Doesnt mean shit.
This is not a high school mix-tape, this is a single game highlight. And any high school player today's single game highlight is not playing against players like Kareem.

I can post highlights of every player in that 1969 game and show you how they ALL play, on both ends. There's no opportunity to get exposed here, like one could if they tried to pass off a highschooler with a hot hand's highlights as legit NBA level. You can't really post a single game highlight of some high school player that's lighting up a gym, and expect it to look like NBA footage because of who they're playing against - the entire roster of competition. I can, and am starting to do highlights of anyone who put up say, 5+ points for 60's and early 70's games that I've got on film.

And I'm not just talking about putting up stats... I'm talking about analyzing how they are scoring points, how they are reading the offense, how they handle the ball and are able to create space, etc. These are things that can be used to evaluate talent no matter who the competition is, it isn't just footage of some physically superior high schooler with a step and a reach advantage on all the rest of the talent scoring 30 points with half of them looking like an uncontested layup line.

[CavaliersFTW]

Here's what I think based on all the film I've seen so far. And I will be posting much more of it in the future.

I think a lot of players from the 60's and 70's could likely "play today", with limited adjustments to their game. I mean top to bottom tier players too, not just the superstars. I don't know how much, I couldn't put a figure on it, but a lot of them look really good - not just the superstars. It all depends on how they play - as the game today is a slightly different expression of the game that was once played. Certain players styles today might translate well to that era, and visa versa. Some might translate more poorly going from one era to the other, but that also goes visa versa.

I think the biggest handicap the majority of players of that time would face is in the initial polish of the range of their 23 foot shots. Because most of them did not practice shooting that far out for obvious reasons. But you don't necessarily "need" a 3 point shot right away in the NBA today, if you offer other things with your talent/skillset - and players today often "develop" that shot as they adjust to the NBA game anyways out of college or HS. The other thing is, everyone would need to adapt to playing defense more with their legs/feet than with their hands. Hand checking is gone, so you have to be on point with your footwork. Rule changes in play here. I think they'd all benefit offensively from the lack of ball handling and traveling calls given today, as well as not getting hand checked offensively. This would grant them less pressure when handling the ball and thus more time to set up for careful, higher percentage shots at a lower pace. Also, they could run right over players a lot more often in this era. Charges were called more in the 60's and 70's and with a lot less contact, the incentive was to not attempt to draw contact with your defender because the defensive player often got the benefit call not the offensive player. Again though, all of this would be a "visa versa" if you tried to put a modern player back in that era. The game is just different.

As for talent? If there is a disparity in talent then vs now, which there very well might be if any of this circular argument hyperbole I often hear people fall on is valid, than just watching film indicates to me that the actual practical differences then vs now in talent are small. Not great. Which means under the right circumstances, a good deal of players that used to play NBA basketball at that time could likely find a spot on a roster in today's game, given some aforementioned time to adjust. Any one of those guys would benefit from PED's, a physical trainer, shooting coaches and a great pair of Nike's. And anyone of today's players games would suffer with b2b's on the road flying coach or driving by bus, playing in Chuck Taylor's. The actual talent I see on film? Not all that different. If there is an "average" of greater talent in the league today, well it's certainly possible perhaps even probable but the differences seem subtle and are on an individual by individual basis, as many players even non-noteworthy ones back then look like legitimate NBA tier basketball players in the 60's and 70's.

[Nash]

yes op i expect a lot of 15 year old ishers to give you a proper discussion about some guy named butch komives

[navy]

yes op i expect a lot of 15 year old ishers to give you a proper discussion about some guy named butch komives
I take it 15 year olds have seen about as much of Komives as CavsFTW has. :lol

[iznogood]

I really don't get the point od this thread. Of course human race doesn't genetically evolve in such a short period od time, so I don't think there's a greater amount of talent available to one person. The changes imo come from the fact that the game is consistantly changing.

As for the comparison, I'd say Dellavedova looks much stronger to me. He's imo one of the best players at his playing position at denying the position and fronting taller players. But then his defense would be considered fouling back in the days so again this has more to do with the way basketball rules has changed. Probably his strength is above average though.

I also don't think a guard with the skillset level of the 60s could adapt in a decent amount of time to the style of basketball today, there's just too much stuff to absorb. Developing range and handles takes years. So I don't think you could put a rookie Butch Komives in the D-League and hope he would develop and be ready to play in a couple of years. If somebody with his level of talent started to practice at early age then I think he would have just as much chance as Dellavedova.

I think the task would be significantly easier for the bigs, even though I think many would struggle since battling for position was not nearly as physical back in the days as it is today. This is why I think length and height are not as important today. It's not going to help when you're constantly being bumped pushed from you sweet spots.

Also I'm not trying to speculate that modern players would thrive in the older eras or be more successful at adapting.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Dellavadova is much better. What you fail to grasp is that somebody playing against trash competition will look much better on tape to the untrained eye than somebody playing great competition. You seem to evaluate these players based on the assumption that they are playing against equal competition which is clearly not true.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I really don't get the point od this thread. Of course human race doesn't genetically evolve in such a short period od time, so I don't think there's a greater amount of talent available to one person. The changes imo come from the fact that the game is consistantly changing.


Literally not one single sane person has said that the improvements in level of play are due to human evolution.

The increased talent level in the NBA is due to the fact that basketball is a much more popular and developed sport than it was in the 60s. 1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s.

This is the same reason why the current era is a weak one in boxing - the sport's popularity has diminished and this has led to weaker product.

Of course basketball is a bit different in that someone who is 7 feet tall is gonna end up playing basketball whether it be the 60s or today...for this reason i don't think that big men were much worse in the 60s than today...but are guards/wings substantially better? Absolutely.

[Jameerthefear]

Literally not one single sane person has said that the improvements in level of play are due to human evolution.

The increased talent level in the NBA is due to the fact that basketball is a much more popular and developed sport than it was in the 60s. 1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s.

This is the same reason why the current era is a weak one in boxing - the sport's popularity has diminished and this has led to weaker product.

Of course basketball is a bit different in that someone who is 7 feet tall is gonna end up playing basketball whether it be the 60s or today...for this reason i don't think that big men were much worse in the 60s than today...but are guards/wings substantially better? Absolutely.
The funny thing is this isn't really debatable. This is a straight up fact that grown ass man like Lazerrus, CavsFTW, etc. try to disprove day after day. I can show you a ****ing highschool mixtape on ballislife or some shit of players that won't ever amount to anything doing crazy ass moves.

[iznogood]

Literally not one single sane person has said that the improvements in level of play are due to human evolution.

The increased talent level in the NBA is due to the fact that basketball is a much more popular and developed sport than it was in the 60s. 1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s.

This is the same reason why the current era is a weak one in boxing - the sport's popularity has diminished and this has led to weaker product.

Of course basketball is a bit different in that someone who is 7 feet tall is gonna end up playing basketball whether it be the 60s or today...for this reason i don't think that big men were much worse in the 60s than today...but are guards/wings substantially better? Absolutely.
Good point, I agree.

[ralph_i_el]

What is Dellavadova doing in the NBA on the court that Komives isn't. Watch the film, look at the moves, what does Delly do to make him superior?

He's doing it AGAINST better players. I looked like a damn champ the other day against a bunch of high schoolers, but in reality I suck.

[MiseryCityTexas]

I think Belladova can be a solid role player. He has shown flashes in the past that he at least belongs in the NBA with his shooting. I've seen waaay shitter players in the league than Belldova. (like Keith Booth, Rusty Larue, Kornell David, Matt Fish, and Calvin booth). Didn't nobody have a clue that Kornell David existed until Mcgrady dunked on him.

[RRR3]

Komives was one of my dad's favorite players :lol

[coin24]

Delly is fkn garbage what the hell are the rest of you watching?:oldlol:

[Psileas]

Literally not one single sane person has said that the improvements in level of play are due to human evolution.

The increased talent level in the NBA is due to the fact that basketball is a much more popular and developed sport than it was in the 60s. 1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s.

This is the same reason why the current era is a weak one in boxing - the sport's popularity has diminished and this has led to weaker product.

Of course basketball is a bit different in that someone who is 7 feet tall is gonna end up playing basketball whether it be the 60s or today...for this reason i don't think that big men were much worse in the 60s than today...but are guards/wings substantially better? Absolutely.

Literally no-one in his right mind would claim that "1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s". Just taking into account how rare, even today, it is for someone to grow to a height of 6'7, especially when we're (mostly) talking about a country with an average male height which hasn't been altered substantially for decades and is similar to the height of most developed countries, but not very close to the average height of countries like the Netherlands, let alone even taller (like 6'10+) and the fact that, despite excessive trolling, 6'6-6'7 is basically what the average NBA height has been from the early 60's onwards, it makes zero sense to argue anywhere near such an absurd number. Not to mention raw talent and the fact that 1,000 Baylors certainly don't exist today, neither do 1,000 Oscars, let alone 1,000 Wilts or Kareems.

[LAZERUSS]

Literally not one single sane person has said that the improvements in level of play are due to human evolution.

The increased talent level in the NBA is due to the fact that basketball is a much more popular and developed sport than it was in the 60s. 1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s.

This is the same reason why the current era is a weak one in boxing - the sport's popularity has diminished and this has led to weaker product.

Of course basketball is a bit different in that someone who is 7 feet tall is gonna end up playing basketball whether it be the 60s or today...for this reason i don't think that big men were much worse in the 60s than today...but are guards/wings substantially better? Absolutely.

The same nonsense posted again and again.

If you look at the footage of Zach Randolph and Kevin Love...and then compare it with the footage of Willis Reed and Jerry Lucas...I can guarantee you that any rational fan would not see a discernible difference. Yet they played 40-50 years apart.

And this ridiculous crap about players not dribbling with their left hand. I can show footage from 1962 in which little kids are dribbling like the Harlem Globetrotters (behind their backs, between their legs, etc, etc.) I grew up in that era and I can assure you everyone that was playing any competitive basketball was capable of dribbling with both hands.

Three point shooting? Guess what, by the early 70's many kids were learning to shoot from that distance. Why? Because the ABA was using it. Again, players like Lucas, Barry, and Maravich developed three-point range, and all three would have become Bird-like had the rule been in place in the 60's. And Bird is a good example, as well. His career 3pt % is not remarkable, at .376, nor were his attempts. But anyone that actually watched him in the 3pt shooting contests would tell you he would likely win them today.

I attended a Knicks game in the early 70's, and in the pre-game shoot-around, Lucas was firing from between the circles, and well beyond the current 3pt line...and he made something like 20 in a row. Same with a game I saw years later with Chris Mullen. The guy made some incredible number of shots in a row from all sides of the 3pt line in a shoot-around.

Are today's players more athletic? On average, marginally so. But how do explain a 6-7 1/2" Kevin Love not only running away with a rpg title a few years ago, but in only 35 mpg? Think about that. 15 rpg in 35 mpg! And yet I am supposed to believe that a Russell, or Wilt would struggle today?

Hell, look at the current crop of CENTERS in the NBA today. Demarcus Cousins, at 6-9 1/2", and with a non-existant vertical, is currently putting up a 24-12 season...and in less than 34 mpg. A 6-11 270 lb. Bob Lanier had more size and skill, and that was HIS averages in the 70's. Absolutely NOTHING has changed.

The good centers in the league today are all around 6-10. Which is pretty much the average height of NBA centers since the early 60's. NOTHING has changed. And, please don't tell me that today's centers are more skilled. Wilt gets ripped for his poor FT shooting, but there is enough footage which CLEARLY shows he was exceptionally skilled in the post, with range up to 15 ft. And before some idiot says that he wouldn't average 50 ppg in today's NBA, how about 32 ppg? That is what he averaging early in the 69-70 season, and on a .579 FG%, to go along with 21 rpg...when he blew out his knee. That same season rookie Kareem averaged 29-15 and on a .518 FG%. Two years later KAJ was averaging 35-17. 15 years later he was routinely hanging 40 point games on the likes of Hakeem and Ewing.

A way-past his prime Moses Malone was STILL outrebounding a Hakeem who would win a rpg late in the 80's in their H2H's. How could that be? A 35-36 year old Gilmore had two straight seasons, covering 10 straight games, in which he averaged 24 ppg on a .677 FG% against Hakeem.

Bob McAdoo was a Kevin Durant playing CENTER. Same height, same skills, slightly less range (only because the 3pt shot didn't come about until the end of his career), and a much better rebounder.

Forwards? Again...Lucas. But how about Dr. J, who was playing college ball in the 60's? The Dr. was still winning MVPs in the 80's. Rick Barry was no more dominant in '75 than he had been in '67. And he won a FMVP that season. Gus Johnson was 6-6 230 lbs, and with a well-documented 44+ vertical. He actually rebounded BETTER, on bum knees, in the 70's, than he did in the 60's. How come?

Watch footage of Connie Hawkins. He was James Worthy before James Worthy. John Havlicek's career split the 60's and 70's, and he was MORE productive in his eight years in the 70's, than he was in his eight years in the 60's. There were many others, too. Cunningham, Baylor, Reed (yes he played PF too), Hayes (yes, he played PF too), Sidney Wicks (just ask Gilmore about him), Haywood...MANY greats.

Guard play. Of course the bashers always claim that West couldn't dribble with his left hand (which is odd, since "the Logo is dribbling with his left hand), but aside from that, just watch footage of Pistol Pete, who was dominating college ball in the 60's. BTW, Maravich was a full 6-5, and would be among the taller guards in TODAY's NBA. In any case, NO ONE at the time would have taken Maravich over West or Oscar. But there were many others. Just ask Bill Russell about Sam Jones. Then there was Dave Bing, Nate Archibald, Gail Goodrich, "Skywalker" Thompson, Monroe, ...MANY greats.

And again, most of them played relatively long careers, and most of them were just as dominant early in their careers, as they would be near the end of them. They just didn't suddenly fall off of a cliff when the "new wave" of talent arrived.

I have read those who have claimed that the 80's is when the "modern era" arrived. Pleas explain this then...the first FOUR MVPs went to players whose career started in the 70's (or 60's.) The first FIVE scoring champions, all played in the 70's. The first SIX rebounding leaders, ...all played in the 70's. And the first FIVE FG% champs...all played in the 70's.

I have long maintained that there has never been one single season, in which all of a sudden, the new wave of players just completely took over. BUT, I can show you season-after-season, in which "old-timers" were still dominating their new peers.

And no, it hasn't been a gradual development, either. Again, just use "bridges", and you will see the changes have been minimal, if at all. Sure, the GAME has changed...due to rules changes, such as the 3pt shot. But the actual PLAYERS...nope, no better. More of them, but even then the level no different. True, the greats are great...just as they were in the 60's. But, as for the rest...all on the same level.

How do I KNOW that? As Psileas commented above...where are the thousand Kareems and Wilts? Hell, where are the Shaq's? The MJ's? The Hakeem's? The Robinson's? Wouldn't this "world-wide explosion" have brought forth a ton of 7-1+ Shaq's?

30 some years ago Pat Riley envisioned an NBA in which teams would be fielding five Magic Johnson's. There hasn't been even ONE since. Not even close.

Watch footage of Maravich...and then compare it with Ricky Rubio. No rational fan is going to claim that Rubio is even remotely as skilled. What does that tell you about the current level of "guard play?" And think about this...a 6-2 180 lb Steve Nash was winning apg titles, at age 37, and in only 33 mpg. How the hell does that happen in an era of a "world-wide population explosion?" In that same season, a 6-7 Love won a rebounding title (again, in 35 mpg), and the 6-11 stumble-bum Andrew Bogut won a bpg title. How is that possible with all these world-class athletes on the planet today?

Sorry to tell all of these 15-20 year olds here...the game is no better today, than it was 50 years ago. And there is virtually ZERO evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Jameerthefear]

The same nonsense posted again and again.

If you look at the footage of Zach Randolph and Kevin Love...and then compare it with the footage of Willis Reed and Jerry Lucas...I can guarantee you that any rational fan would not see a discernible difference. Yet they played 40-50 years apart.

And this ridiculous crap about players not dribbling with their left hand. I can show footage from 1962 in which little kids are dribbling like the Harlem Globetrotters (behind their backs, between their legs, etc, etc.) I grew up in that era and I can assure you everyone that was playing any competitive basketball was capable of dribbling with both hands.

Three point shooting? Guess what, by the early 70's many kids were learning to shoot from that distance. Why? Because the ABA was using it. Again, players like Lucas, Barry, and Maravich developed three-point range, and all three would have become Bird-like had the rule been in place in the 60's. And Bird is a good example, as well. His career 3pt % is not remarkable, at .376, nor were his attempts. But anyone that actually watched him in the 3pt shooting contests would tell you he would likely win them today.

I attended a Knicks game in the early 70's, and in the pre-game shoot-around, Lucas was firing from between the circles, and well beyond the current 3pt line...and he made something like 20 in a row. Same with a game I saw years later with Chris Mullen. The guy made some incredible number of shots in a row from all sides of the 3pt line in a shoot-around.

Are today's players more athletic? On average, marginally so. But how do explain a 6-7 1/2" Kevin Love not only running away with a rpg title a few years ago, but in only 35 mpg? Think about that. 15 rpg in 35 mpg! And yet I am supposed to believe that a Russell, or Wilt would struggle today?

Hell, look at the current crop of CENTERS in the NBA today. Demarcus Cousins, at 6-9 1/2", and with a non-existant vertical, is currently putting up a 24-12 season...and in less than 34 mpg. A 6-11 270 lb. Bob Lanier had more size and skill, and that was HIS averages in the 70's. Absolutely NOTHING has changed.

The good centers in the league today are all around 6-10. Which is pretty much the average height of NBA centers since the early 60's. NOTHING has changed. And, please don't tell me that today's centers are more skilled. Wilt gets ripped for his poor FT shooting, but there is enough footage which CLEARLY shows he was exceptionally skilled in the post, with range up to 15 ft. And before some idiot says that he wouldn't average 50 ppg in today's NBA, how about 32 ppg? That is what he averaging early in the 69-70 season, and on a .579 FG%, to go along with 21 rpg...when he blew out his knee. That same season rookie Kareem averaged 29-15 and on a .518 FG%. Two years later KAJ was averaging 35-17. 15 years later he was routinely hanging 40 point games on the likes of Hakeem and Ewing.

A way-past his prime Moses Malone was STILL outrebounding a Hakeem who would win a rpg late in the 80's in their H2H's. How could that be? A 35-36 year old Gilmore had two straight seasons, covering 10 straight games, in which he averaged 24 ppg on a .677 FG% against Hakeem.

Bob McAdoo was a Kevin Durant playing CENTER. Same height, same skills, slightly less range (only because the 3pt shot didn't come about until the end of his career), and a much better rebounder.

Forwards? Again...Lucas. But how about Dr. J, who was playing college ball in the 60's? The Dr. was still winning MVPs in the 80's. Rick Barry was no more dominant in '75 than he had been in '67. And he won a FMVP that season. Gus Johnson was 6-6 230 lbs, and with a well-documented 44+ vertical. He actually rebounded BETTER, on bum knees, in the 70's, than he did in the 60's. How come?

Watch footage of Connie Hawkins. He was James Worthy before James Worthy. John Havlicek's career split the 60's and 70's, and he was MORE productive in his eight years in the 70's, than he was in his eight years in the 60's. There were many others, too. Cunningham, Baylor, Reed (yes he played PF too), Hayes (yes, he played PF too), Sidney Wicks (just ask Gilmore about him), Haywood...MANY greats.

Guard play. Of course the bashers always claim that West couldn't dribble with his left hand (which is odd, since "the Logo is dribbling with his left hand), but aside from that, just watch footage of Pistol Pete, who was dominating college ball in the 60's. BTW, Maravich was a full 6-5, and would be among the taller guards in TODAY's NBA. In any case, NO ONE at the time would have taken Maravich over West or Oscar. But there were many others. Just ask Bill Russell about Sam Jones. Then there was Dave Bing, Nate Archibald, Gail Goodrich, "Skywalker" Thompson, Monroe, ...MANY greats.

And again, most of them played relatively long careers, and most of them were just as dominant early in their careers, as they would be near the end of them. They just didn't suddenly fall off of a cliff when the "new wave" of talent arrived.

I have read those who have claimed that the 80's is when the "modern era" arrived. Pleas explain this then...the first FOUR MVPs went to players whose career started in the 70's (or 60's.) The first FIVE scoring champions, all played in the 70's. The first SIX rebounding leaders, ...all played in the 70's. And the first FIVE FG% champs...all played in the 70's.

I have long maintained that there has never been one single season, in which all of a sudden, the new wave of players just completely took over. BUT, I can show you season-after-season, in which "old-timers" were still dominating their new peers.

And no, it hasn't been a gradual development, either. Again, just use "bridges", and you will see the changes have been minimal, if at all. Sure, the GAME has changed...due to rules changes, such as the 3pt shot. But the actual PLAYERS...nope, no better. More of them, but even then the level no different. True, the greats are great...just as they were in the 60's. But, as for the rest...all on the same level.

How do I KNOW that? As Psileas commented above...where are the thousand Kareems and Wilts? Hell, where are the Shaq's? The MJ's? The Hakeem's? The Robinson's? Wouldn't this "world-wide explosion" have brought forth a ton of 7-1+ Shaq's?

30 some years ago Pat Riley envisioned an NBA in which teams would be fielding five Magic Johnson's. There hasn't been even ONE since. Not even close.

Watch footage of Maravich...and then compare it with Ricky Rubio. No rational fan is going to claim that Rubio is even remotely as skilled. What does that tell you about the current level of "guard play?" And think about this...a 6-2 180 lb Steve Nash was winning apg titles, at age 37, and in only 33 mpg. How the hell does that happen in an era of a "world-wide population explosion?" In that same season, a 6-7 Love won a rebounding title (again, in 35 mpg), and the 6-11 stumble-bum Andrew Bogut won a bpg title. How is that possible with all these world-class athletes on the planet today?

Sorry to tell all of these 15-20 year olds here...the game is no better today, than it was 50 years ago. And there is virtually ZERO evidence to suggest otherwise.
yep. you're still a ****ing idiot

[Dr.J4ever]

Good thread, Cavs.

Let me offer my two cents.

When Erving came into the scene during the early 70s, and when he got to Philly in 76, the comment and general observation by many including Pat Riley, is where did this guy come from? Is this guy an alien or from outer space?

When Doc started playing pro hoops, there was never any player quite like him ever. Doc consistently played above the rim, or more accurately way above the rim.

My question is if Doc started playing today in the NBA, would he look so unusual from other high fliers who already came before in the last 2 decades from Thompson to Dominique to Jordan to Carter to Tmac to Kobe to lebron and many other 2 guards and even PGs like Westbrook? The depth of athletic freaks since the 80s has brought the game to new heights. You simply didn't see those type of players in the 60s.

The answer is obvious. Doc would not look so unique as he did back then. It's acknowledged that Doc went in to the ABA/NBA and changed the game. If Doc went into the NBA today, there wouldn't be anything for him to change. Ironically, much of how the NBA is today is in huge part because of him.

So the point is the game has evolved, and players are on average better at least athletically from players in the 60s.

Now, I am of the opinion that athletic freaks like Wilt and Russel would do great in any era. Great players can adjust, and there is no doubt in my mind that Wilt and Russel would be MVP caliber players in today's league, just like the Doctor would challenge Lebron for best SF in today's NBA.

[CavaliersFTW]

Good thread, Cavs.

Let me offer my two cents.

When Erving came into the scene during the early 70s, and when he got to Philly in 76, the comment and general observation by many including Pat Riley, is where did this guy come from? Is this guy an alien or from outer space?

When Doc started playing pro hoops, there was never any player quite like him ever. Doc consistently played above the rim, or more accurately way above the rim.

My question is if Doc started playing today in the NBA, would he look so unusual from other high fliers who already came before in the last 2 decades from Thompson to Dominique to Jordan to Carter to Tmac to Kobe to lebron and many other 2 guards and even PGs like Westbrook? The depth of athletic freaks since the 80s has brought the game to new heights. You simply didn't see those type of players in the 60s.

The answer is obvious. Doc would not look so unique as he did back then. It's acknowledged that Doc went in to the ABA/NBA and changed the game. If Doc went into the NBA today, there wouldn't be anything for him to change. Ironically, much of how the NBA is today is in huge part because of him.

So the point is the game has evolved, and players are on average better at least athletically from players in the 60s.

Now, I am of the opinion that athletic freaks like Wilt and Russel would do great in any era. Great players can adjust, and there is no doubt in my mind that Wilt and Russel would be MVP caliber players in today's league, just like the Doctor would challenge Lebron for best SF in today's NBA.
What does that have to do with Mathew Dellavadova and Komives?

And I think only Lebron James is more athletic than Dr J at the small forward spot all-time, and he still doesn't do the things Doc did he surpasesses him only because he's so much bigger and stronger. Doc is an outlier, his hands were bigger than Kareem's, he's not a representation of "average". Which is what this thread is about. BTW he wasn't the first high flyer either, Gus Johnson and Connie Hawkins were playing above the rim in a similar giant-hand waiving the ball around style before him.

[LAZERUSS]

Good thread, Cavs.

Let me offer my two cents.

When Erving came into the scene during the early 70s, and when he got to Philly in 76, the comment and general observation by many including Pat Riley, is where did this guy come from? Is this guy an alien or from outer space?

When Doc started playing pro hoops, there was never any player quite like him ever. Doc consistently played above the rim, or more accurately way above the rim.

My question is if Doc started playing today in the NBA, would he look so unusual from other high fliers who already came before in the last 2 decades from Thompson to Dominique to Jordan to Carter to Tmac to Kobe to lebron and many other 2 guards and even PGs like Westbrook? The depth of athletic freaks since the 80s has brought the game to new heights. You simply didn't see those type of players in the 60s.

The answer is obvious. Doc would not look so unique as he did back then. It's acknowledged that Doc went in to the ABA/NBA and changed the game. If Doc went into the NBA today, there wouldn't be anything for him to change. Ironically, much of how the NBA is today is in huge part because of him.

So the point is the game has evolved, and players are on average better at least athletically from players in the 60s.

Now, I am of the opinion that athletic freaks like Wilt and Russel would do great in any era. Great players can adjust, and there is no doubt in my mind that Wilt and Russel would be MVP caliber players in today's league, just like the Doctor would challenge Lebron for best SF in today's NBA.

My problem with your post is that you are comparing athleticism, with skill. Look, there have been many NBA players that were amazing athletes. Where is James White today? How come Zach Lavine isn't worth a damn? Why doesn't Gerald Green dominate? Ryan Hollins and Javale McGee, two seven-footrs with great athleticism and couldn't even dominate in college, much less the pros.

And how about the reverse? Does anyone believe that Bird was an athletic freak? How about John Stockton and Steve Nash? Look at Dennis Rodman, or Kevin Love, or before their time, Swen Nater. How did the 6-1 Gail Goodrich routinely score in the paint? And how about the 6-5 Adrian Dantley, who was one of the greatest POST players in NBA history?

I mentioned Shaq earlier. What separated him from the 7-4, 350 lb Priest Lauderdale? And how come the 7-3 Swede Halbrook didn't dominate in the 60's, or that the 7-4 Steve Turner couldn't make an NBA roster in the early 70's. Or that the 7-7 Manute Bol was a complete waste. Or that the 7-6 Shawn Bradley was among the worst starting centers of his era? Or that the 7-1+ Roy Hibbert routinely is shut down in today's NBA, despite being one of the largest players in the league.

Basketball is a game of SKILL, much moreso than of athleticism (albeit, all NBA players are among the best athletes in the world.) And, as the Rodman's and Ben Wallaces' have proven...of determination and grit.

Would Dr. J be among the best players in the league today? Absolutely...just as Bird, or West, or Rodman would be.

[sundizz]

I really don't think OP (and Laz) get the concept of the difference the talent around you makes in a game of basketball.

Joel Embiid can stand in a corner and knock down trey after trey in practice. However, in a real game (NCAA) he never ever did that. Just because people can do certain things does not mean they can handle doing it when the speed, ferocity of the game, defenses scrambling, etc are all at a different level.

In those old clips (yes I watched) the player looks good. No one is (or should) argue that. He is a skilled, good basketball player.

However, if that same player time transported to the modern era the speed of the defenses, and the level of player is just so much improved that it is very unlikely he would "look" the same, or have close to the same impact.

It's really not a knock on that player. Had he been born in the 80's and had the same training, and competition, he may have made it. Who knows. Or, would he have been just another good player, but not NBA quality. We can't really predict it on an individual basis, but can say as a whole the NBA talent level is significantly higher now for non superstars than it was in prior eras.

Serious question: Do you really think that basketball has not improved in 40 years?

[CavaliersFTW]

I really don't think OP (and Laz) get the concept of the difference the talent around you makes in a game of basketball.

Joel Embiid can stand in a corner and knock down trey after trey in practice. However, in a real game (NCAA) he never ever did that. Just because people can do certain things does not mean they can handle doing it when the speed, ferocity of the game, defenses scrambling, etc are all at a different level.

In those old clips (yes I watched) the player looks good. No one is (or should) argue that. He is a skilled, good basketball player.

However, if that same player time transported to the modern era the speed of the defenses, and the level of player is just so much improved that it is very unlikely he would "look" the same, or have close to the same impact.

It's really not a knock on that player. Had he been born in the 80's and had the same training, and competition, he may have made it. Who knows. Or, would he have been just another good player, but not NBA quality. We can't really predict it on an individual basis, but can say as a whole the NBA talent level is significantly higher now for non superstars than it was in prior eras.
That's a nice theory but he's shooting floaters in the lane 13 feet over the outstretched arms say, Kareem at that time a 230lb center with a max reach probably in the 12 and a half foot range and at that lithe body weight and young age would be among the quickest centers say, playing the game today. What do you mean the guys he's playing are no good, want me to post the game film of all the guys he's playing against? I intend to mix that footage anyways.

This is not a game where anyone was taking plays off. This is not them shooting in an empty gym your analogy makes no sense.

[Dr.J4ever]

What does that have to do with Mathew Dellavadova and Komives?

And I think only Lebron James is more athletic than Dr J at the small forward spot all-time, and he still doesn't do the things Doc did he surpasesses him only because he's so much bigger and stronger. Doc is an outlier, his hands were bigger than Kareem's, he's not a representation of "average". Which is what this thread is about. BTW he wasn't the first high flyer either, Gus Johnson and Connie Hawkins were playing above the rim in a similar giant-hand waiving the ball around style before him.

Well, the point is and maybe I didn't add that it's not just superstars that are producing highlight reel stuff. Even relatively average players are driving the lanes and producing spectacular dunks. Overall athleticism is getting better and better.

Your point on Deladova and Kom is that average players can be similar if you compare the 60s to other eras, but I can't agree. I mean, there are always exceptions and there must have been a couple of Dr. J types before he came along, but they would be few and far between.

Today, as I said, Doc would not be so unique coming in.

[CavaliersFTW]

Well, the point is and maybe I didn't add that it's not just superstars that are producing highlight reel stuff. Even relatively average players are driving the lanes and producing spectacular dunks. Overall athleticism is getting better and better.

Your point on Deladova and Kom is that average players can be similar if you compare the 60s to other eras, but I can't agree. I mean, there are always exceptions and there must have been a couple of Dr. J types before he came along, but they would be few and far between.

Today, as I said, Doc would not be so unique coming in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gKjEKroCPg

You mean like that?

You should watch the ABA documentary again. I'm sure you've watched it before, but watch it again.

The high flying dunks through the lanes were not something players were once "not capable of" doing. That was something a lot of players could have done in the NBA, but the brand/culture of NBA basketball discouraged it. The ABA, so as to distance itself from the NBA and in an effort to be more entertaining, encouraged it's players to dunk as much as possible.

I think in that ABA documentary they mentioned something like you'd see 3 or 4 dunks in an NBA game, and 17-20 dunks in an ABA game. And that the ABA dunk culture carried over after the merger, not just the 3 point line.

It isn't that Doctor J paved the way for the super athlete above the rim, honestly, above the rim players were there before him that's just the romanticized angle that's like when people say Bill Russell invented the blocked shot. He didn't. Doc wasn't the first great high flyer, he even admits so and goes on to mention guys like Hawkins and Johnson, and before them Baylor whenever people suggest to him that he was.

[LAZERUSS]

I really don't think OP (and Laz) get the concept of the difference the talent around you makes in a game of basketball.

Joel Embiid can stand in a corner and knock down trey after trey in practice. However, in a real game (NCAA) he never ever did that. Just because people can do certain things does not mean they can handle doing it when the speed, ferocity of the game, defenses scrambling, etc are all at a different level.

In those old clips (yes I watched) the player looks good. No one is (or should) argue that. He is a skilled, good basketball player.

However, if that same player time transported to the modern era the speed of the defenses, and the level of player is just so much improved that it is very unlikely he would "look" the same, or have close to the same impact.

It's really not a knock on that player. Had he been born in the 80's and had the same training, and competition, he may have made it. Who knows. Or, would he have been just another good player, but not NBA quality. We can't really predict it on an individual basis, but can say as a whole the NBA talent level is significantly higher now for non superstars than it was in prior eras.

There is footage of a 7-0 Thon Maker on YouTube dribbling like a guard, and hitting high school 3's. But, then there is REALITY. His idiotic head coach is trying to make him into a Dirk, and instead he is a Dork. How come I say that? Because against HIGH SCHOOL competition, he isn't even shooting 50% from the field....which is aided by his 28% shooting from the high school 3pt line. It is a complete WASTE of talent to take a player who should be learning POST SKILLS, and just because ESPN shows highlights of Dirk draining three's then he should be, as well.

BTW, there is YouTube footage of Wilt hitting FOUR STRAIGHT Hook shots from the corner, and winning a bet on the 4th one. Now, with the limited footage that exists on Chamberlain, there is not even one shot like that. And there is a good chance that it never happened in a game, either. Why? Because he was a GREAT POST player with a myriad of moves and range up to 15 ft.

Watch footage of Jason "White Chocolate" Williams, and then of John Stockton. If a fan didn't know anything about the game, he would probably believe that Williams was ten times the player that Stockton was. Well, we know the REALITY, and it was the complete opposite.

Basketball is not about "highlight" plays, but rather about solid skills. And the skill level has not changed in 50 years. One only need to look at the current NBA's FT%...which is at .753. In the 58-59 season it was at .756.

[Dr.J4ever]

My problem with your post is that you are comparing athleticism, with skill. Look, there have been many NBA players that were amazing athletes. Where is James White today? How come Zach Lavine isn't worth a damn? Why doesn't Gerald Green dominate? Ryan Hollins and Javale McGee, two seven-footrs with great athleticism and couldn't even dominate in college, much less the pros.

And how about the reverse? Does anyone believe that Bird was an athletic freak? How about John Stockton and Steve Nash? Look at Dennis Rodman, or Kevin Love, or before their time, Swen Nater. How did the 6-1 Gail Goodrich routinely score in the paint? And how about the 6-5 Adrian Dantley, who was one of the greatest POST players in NBA history?

I mentioned Shaq earlier. What separated him from the 7-4, 350 lb Priest Lauderdale? And how come the 7-3 Swede Halbrook didn't dominate in the 60's, or that the 7-4 Steve Turner couldn't make an NBA roster in the early 70's. Or that the 7-7 Manute Bol was a complete waste. Or that the 7-6 Shawn Bradley was among the worst starting centers of his era? Or that the 7-1+ Roy Hibbert routinely is shut down in today's NBA, despite being one of the largest players in the league.

Basketball is a game of SKILL, much moreso than of athleticism (albeit, all NBA players are among the best athletes in the world.) And, as the Rodman's and Ben Wallaces' have proven...of determination and grit.

Would Dr. J be among the best players in the league today? Absolutely...just as Bird, or West, or Rodman would be.

No question on your points about skill, and you're right that I was only talking about athleticism. The best basketball players aren't necessarily the best athletes. All I said is that modern NBAers are on average more athletic.

[Jameerthefear]

There is footage of a 7-0 Thon Maker on YouTube dribbling like a guard, and hitting high school 3's. But, then there is REALITY. His idiotic head coach is trying to make him into a Dirk, and instead he is a Dork. How come I say that? Because against HIGH SCHOOL competition, he isn't even shooting 50% from the field....which is aided by his 28% shooting from the high school 3pt line. It is a complete WASTE of talent to take a player who should be learning POST SKILLS, and just because ESPN shows highlights of Dirk draining three's then he should be, as well.

BTW, there is YouTube footage of Wilt hitting FOUR STRAIGHT Hook shots from the corner, and winning a bet on the 4th one. Now, with the limited footage that exists on Chamberlain, there is not even one shot like that. And there is a good chance that it never happened in a game, either. Why? Because he was a GREAT POST player with a myriad of moves and range up to 15 ft.

Watch footage of Jason "White Chocolate" Williams, and then of John Stockton. If a fan didn't know anything about the game, he would probably believe that Williams was ten times the player that Stockton was. Well, we know the REALITY, and it was the complete opposite.

Basketball is not about "highlight" plays, but rather about solid skills. And the skill level has not changed in 50 years. One only need to look at the current NBA's FT%...which is at .753. In the 58-59 season it was at .756.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Yep...the new "Zach Lavine" generation...

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Dr.J4ever]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gKjEKroCPg

You mean like that?

You should watch the ABA documentary again. I'm sure you've watched it before, but watch it again.

The high flying dunks through the lanes were not something players were once "not capable of" doing. That was something a lot of players could have done in the NBA, but the brand/culture of NBA basketball discouraged it. The ABA, so as to distance itself from the NBA and in an effort to be more entertaining, encouraged it's players to dunk as much as possible.

I think in that ABA documentary they mentioned something like you'd see 3 or 4 dunks in an NBA game, and 17-20 dunks in an ABA game. And that the ABA dunk culture carried over after the merger, not just the 3 point line.

It isn't that Doctor J paved the way for the super athlete above the rim, honestly, above the rim players were there before him that's just the romanticized angle that's like when people say Bill Russell invented the blocked shot. He didn't. Doc wasn't the first great high flyer, he even admits so and goes on to mention guys like Hawkins and Johnson, and before them Baylor whenever people suggest to him that he was.

Okay, I will check that docu.

Yes, I know Doc goes on to credit others that went before, but c'mon he was by far the most spectacular. Players that came after him took up the mantle, and this is why the game is constantly evolving. The next generation of talents pick up where the last left of and try to improve upon it.

I've been watching the NBA for 33 years, and I can say players are more athletic overall, but they are not necessarily better. This is where we shouldn't generalize and should go player to player.

[CavaliersFTW]

Okay, I will check that docu.

Yes, I know Doc goes on to credit others that went before, but c'mon he was by far the most spectacular. Players that came after him took up the mantle, and this is why the game is constantly evolving. The next generation of talents pick up where the last left of and try to improve upon it.

I've been watching the NBA for 33 years, and I can say players are more athletic overall, but they are not necessarily better. This is where we shouldn't generalize and should go player to player.
That's all I'm trying to point out, I never got to watch the NBA for as long as you, but watching film I see that similar pattern. That's why I made the thread about two players with names. One plays in the NBA today, one played 40 years ago. I deliberately picked non-superstars because I always hear the "superstars could play in any era" thing but that's usually implying, or some times flat out declaring that the other guys couldn't. But honestly, at least watching them play the game I just don't get why a role player in one era couldn't still be an effective role player in another. At least some of them, as individuals at least.

Elgin Baylor when asked about who could play in today's era etc, says "I think a lot of guys who played then could play today, I don't think the game has changed that much." and he sort of emphasized the "that much." (then he proceeds to explain what the changes are).

You know like, why wouldn't Komives be able to have made the Cavs if he were swapped with say, Dellavadova? Looks like maybe the same caliber player on the offensive end, but a slightly better defensive player. He's just a roleplayer in the 60's, never an all-star though not necessarily a scrub. He's no Wilt, Russell, West, Robertson, or Baylor... but so what? Why can't an average player in one era still just be an average player in another.

[ThickassGlasses]

I don't see how you can watch those clips and say they are the same level of athletes. It's night and day even compared to a high level highschool game.



Note, that means the average player from that clip would look a stiff in most competitive highschool championship games of the modern era. He might be the best player out there but he would look like a stiff.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Literally no-one in his right mind would claim that "1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s". Just taking into account how rare, even today, it is for someone to grow to a height of 6'7, especially when we're (mostly) talking about a country with an average male height which hasn't been altered substantially for decades and is similar to the height of most developed countries, but not very close to the average height of countries like the Netherlands, let alone even taller (like 6'10+) and the fact that, despite excessive trolling, 6'6-6'7 is basically what the average NBA height has been from the early 60's onwards, it makes zero sense to argue anywhere near such an absurd number. Not to mention raw talent and the fact that 1,000 Baylors certainly don't exist today, neither do 1,000 Oscars, let alone 1,000 Wilts or Kareems.

Which is why i said that it is mostly guard/wing play that has improved....being betweem 6-6'6 is not that rare at all...in fact it is pretty common.

As far as 1000x being an exaggeration.....maybe it is but the overall point still stands...chris paul had to compete against 100s of times more players trying to play in the NBA to become a 6 ft point guard than somebody like Bob Cousy.

[CavaliersFTW]

I don't see how you can watch those clips and say they are the same level of athletes. It's night and day even compared to a high level highschool game.



Note, that means the average player from that clip would look a stiff in most competitive highschool championship games of the modern era. He might be the best player out there but he would look like a stiff.
Your glasses need to be a little thicker I think :oldlol:

[Jameerthefear]

Yep...the new "Zach Lavine" generation...

:roll: :roll: :roll:
Yes, Lavine defines this generation :oldlol: Your autism is hilarious.

[StephHamann]

Mathew Dellavedova:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8jN53qx7Q


:applause:

beasting against MVP Harden

love me some Delly

[ralph_i_el]

Nate Wolters>Delly>Bob Cousy
Nate Wolters - Rookie Highlights ᴴᴰ: http://youtu.be/toxelO86YMs

[CavaliersFTW]

Nate Wolters>Delly>Bob Cousy
Nate Wolters - Rookie Highlights ᴴᴰ: http://youtu.be/toxelO86YMs
Let's keep this apples to apples, post single same game highlights only please.

[NattyPButter]

Delly's a god damn scrub and it shows when he gets to many mins. When he gets very little mins he's ok in my book and he actually does fine.

[ralph_i_el]

Let's keep this apples to apples, post single same game highlights only please.

This is a white rookie PG and every clip of him is more impressive than any Cousy you can post :roll:

[CavaliersFTW]

This is a white rookie PG and every clip of him is more impressive than any Cousy you can post :roll:
I didn't watch that highlight because it's an attempt to derail the thread, and even if you were to compare a rookie PG's "season" highlights (that's what, 82 game sample size?) only about 6 or 7 random games worth of Cousy plays exist on film, mostly from just before he retired when he was in his 30's. That still wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison.

It does make a difference, showing similar sample sizes of source material.

Which is why I said, if you're going to post a players "highlights" in this thread, please post single-game highlights.

[Jameerthefear]

CavsFTW holding L's.

[Milbuck]

Nate Wolters>Delly>Bob Cousy
Nate Wolters - Rookie Highlights ᴴᴰ: http://youtu.be/toxelO86YMs
Really hope you're not using Naters as an example of a white scrub :coleman:

Dude can play. Still salty the Bucks let him go.

[ThickassGlasses]

Your glasses need to be a little thicker I think :oldlol:

I would be less intimidated of playing any of the 60's teams you have shown me, than I would be playing any of the 64 teams that made the NCAA tournament this year. I would even go as far as to say the teams in the NIT look more imposing than the 60's teams do.

I would get crushed from a skill stand point, and from being on the shorter end of guys playing, but just from a running, jumping, strength, and speed concept.. I'd look much more belonging on the floor in the 60's.

[bdreason]

Komives would lock Dellavadova up.

[CavaliersFTW]

I would be less intimidated of playing any of the 60's teams you have shown me, than I would be playing any of the 64 teams that made the NCAA tournament this year. I would even go as far as to say the teams in the NIT look more imposing than the 60's teams do.

I would get crushed from a skill stand point, and from being on the shorter end of guys playing, but just from a running, jumping, strength, and speed concept.. I'd look much more belonging on the floor in the 60's.
Komives stole the ball and drove straight to the body and shot a floater over the outstretched hand of a guy that could have listed 7 foot 4 inches and is officially the all-time leading shot blocker in Jabbar.

He also drove in from the right along the baseline and shot a layup under Jabbars armpit.

That's the athleticism/skill equivalent at the very least, of shooting a floater over Dwight Howard, and driving baseline and shooting a layup on a waiting Dwight Howard.

You guys are belittling this guy Komives competition... it's KAREEM protecting that basket ffs, there aren't even any centers today that have Kareem's physical tools how is Komives driving and scoring on Kareem the equivalent of "lesser" talent? You guys need to think about what you're saying here.

[sundizz]

bump lol

[plowking]

I can't believe LAZ actually thinks the skill level in the league hasn't gotten better in the last 40 years. There is no sane person that can sit here and watch footage of the 60's and 70's and say it compares to the current game.

You are judged based on what you did during your time. Not their fault they came about at a time when basketball was still a young game and developing. The game is so much quicker, more physical and more specialized than it was 40 or 50 years ago. Hell even 20 years ago.