Why does CavsFTW use height and weight as an argument?

[sundizz]

I'm curious? He mentions it all the time in regards to these old players like their size has something to do with how good they would be today.

If you look at the roster of all 64 of the NCAA teams from last year's NCAA tournament, and even at the 351 D-1 schools total almost all of them have someone that is 6'11, 250+ hanging around on their team.

Height and size alone really tells us no story about how good those 60's players were.

All we know as a fact is that those centers back then faced far far far far far far far far less competition to make it to the NBA.

For anyone that has played basketball they know just how easy it is to put up stats when you are significantly better than 8 of the 10 players on the floor. Most of those clips seem to indicate their were a few players that were very good (the level of good is impossible to say) and a lot of amateur level players.

I can't seem to figure it out, but I'd say to make the current NBA as a big man you probably have to be the best out of 10,000 other big men (pure guess). Back then, you probably had to be the best out of 500 big men.

So to say that Pau Gasol or Marc Gasol who are the best of the best couldn't absolutely shut down the league back then is simply wishful thinking. They may be outclassed by Wilt, or possible even Russell (unlikely), but they definitely would be significantly better than any non transcendent superstar.

[Marchesk]

I'm curious? He mentions it all the time in regards to these old players like their size has something to do with how good they would be today.

Maybe because people are always saying modern athletes are bigger, stronger and faster. They're not that much taller. I think the average is one inch difference. More players lift weights and put on bulk than they used to, but there were big guys back then too. I don't recall the average weight difference.


So to say that Pau Gasol or Marc Gasol who are the best of the best couldn't absolutely shut down the league back then is simply wishful thinking. They may be outclassed by Wilt, or possible even Russell (unlikely), but they definitely would be significantly better than any non transcendent superstar.

Thing is that Wilt and Russel weren't the only hall of fame centers back then. I can't say where the Gasols would rank. They're skilled. But would they be better than Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond, Wes Unseld or Willis Reed? They wouldn't be better than Kareem, although he came into the league at the end of the 60s. Still, Kareem played most of those guys for several seasons.

[sundizz]

Maybe because people are always saying modern athletes are bigger, stronger and faster. They're not that much taller. I think the average is one inch difference. More players lift weights and put on bulk than they used to, but there were big guys back then too. I don't recall the average weight difference.



Thing is that Wilt and Russel weren't the only hall of fame centers back then. I can't say where the Gasols would rank. They're skilled. But would they be better than Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond, Wes Unseld or Willis Reed? They wouldn't be better than Kareem, although he came into the league at the end of the 60s. Still, Kareem played most of those guys for several seasons.

No one but idiots say that modern athletes are that much bigger, stronger, or faster. And in basketball being skinny is just fine. We didn't evolve physically that much.

The point being made is not that the current era players are genetically superior, but rather that they face more people to get to where they are.

Those players may be Hall of Famers, but that is based on stats and achievements (which they should get props for), not on how good they are in comparison to all players that have ever played basketball.

If you were a GM of a team and they said you can pick 12 players to put on your team.
Pool A: 500 players
Pool B: 20,000 players

Wouldn't it make sense that maybe you'd take maybe 1 or 2 (e.g., Wilt) max from Pool A and 10+ from Pool B?

[dankok8]

No one but idiots say that modern athletes are that much bigger, stronger, or faster. And in basketball being skinny is just fine. We didn't evolve physically that much.

The point being made is not that the current era players are genetically superior, but rather that they face more people to get to where they are.

Those players may be Hall of Famers, but that is based on stats and achievements (which they should get props for), not on how good they are in comparison to all players that have ever played basketball.

If you were a GM of a team and they said you can pick 12 players to put on your team.
Pool A: 500 players
Pool B: 20,000 players

Wouldn't it make sense that maybe you'd take maybe 1 or 2 (e.g., Wilt) max from Pool A and 10+ from Pool B?

I see the point you're trying to make about the size of the talent pool but it's not 40:1. It's really the international players (who comprise like 10% of the NBA?) who they didn't have it back then but in the US basketball was very developed and popular in the past era. The talent pool might have 3-5 times smaller. Not 40 times.

Besides you should also take into account the smaller size of the league in the 60's.

8-team league x15 = 120 players
30-team league x15 = 450 players

It was much tougher to make the NBA when there are almost 4 times fewer spots! Talent in the NBA was therefore much more concentrated back then and makes up for (not sure to what degree?) the smaller talent pool you're taking about.

[sundizz]

I see the point you're trying to make about the size of the talent pool but it's not 40:1. It's really the international players (who comprise like 10% of the NBA?) who they didn't have it back then but in the US basketball was very developed and popular in the past era. The talent pool might have 3-5 times smaller. Not 40 times.

Besides you should also take into account the smaller size of the league in the 60's.

8-team league x15 = 120 players
30-team league x15 = 450 players

It was much tougher to make the NBA when there are almost 4 times fewer spots! Talent in the NBA was therefore much more concentrated back then and makes up for (not sure to what degree?) the smaller talent pool you're taking about.

Completely disagree. Making the NBA wasn't a dream to many young kids at that time (say born 1940). There wasn't the financial incentive + mass appeal that is has nowadays. It is actually much more than 40:1 when you take into account the whole world. Nowadays, probably 1/10 male kid wants to be a NBA player when they grow up.

All those random close to 7 footers around the world that are bball players in this era were just random tall people back in that day. Most of them had no way to even get the training or even attempt to play hoops (especially if they were foreign).

[jongib369]

I'm curious? He mentions it all the time in regards to these old players like their size has something to do with how good they would be today.

If you look at the roster of all 64 of the NCAA teams from last year's NCAA tournament, and even at the 351 D-1 schools total almost all of them have someone that is 6'11, 250+ hanging around on their team.

Height and size alone really tells us no story about how good those 60's players were.

All we know as a fact is that those centers back then faced far far far far far far far far less competition to make it to the NBA.

For anyone that has played basketball they know just how easy it is to put up stats when you are significantly better than 8 of the 10 players on the floor. Most of those clips seem to indicate their were a few players that were very good (the level of good is impossible to say) and a lot of amateur level players.

I can't seem to figure it out, but I'd say to make the current NBA as a big man you probably have to be the best out of 10,000 other big men (pure guess). Back then, you probably had to be the best out of 500 big men.

So to say that Pau Gasol or Marc Gasol who are the best of the best couldn't absolutely shut down the league back then is simply wishful thinking. They may be outclassed by Wilt, or possible even Russell (unlikely), but they definitely would be significantly better than any non transcendent superstar.

How long ago do you think you're talking about? :lol

I personally feel pretty young being 24. Obviously I'm a man, but it doesn't really feel like that much time to me.

When I was born, this was going on

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/53/5310/O5OIG00Z/posters/michael-jordan-game-5-of-the-1991-nba-finals-with-championship-trophy.jpg

http://www.mymj.nl/michaeljordan/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/jordan-1991-game2.jpg

And just 24 years before that, this was going on

http://www.nba.com/sixers/photos/six_wilt1_640x360.jpg

http://oi58.tinypic.com/2j8h8x.jpg


You could argue that "But this was 24 years before that breh

http://theclassical.org/sites/default/files/TheFirstJumper.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yHaSXuMFa8"

But I'd argue that this was before the professionalization of the sport, but it was a well developed and played at the College, Highschool, and even younger level. The pros didn't get to truly see that until the money was worth it. But the love of the game had been rooted for a while at that point

For instance, people of your opinion(Not that it is yours specifically) I would assume think hardly anyone played back then. I'd go as far as to say some people think women teams were RARE

Buuuuut

"http://www.iptv.org/iowastories/detail.cfm/sixonsix takes a look back at girls' 6-on-6 basketball and what it meant to generations of young women who played it. One of the most acclaimed sports in Iowa history, 6-on-6 was especially popular in small towns. It was there that young women became queens of the court, where communities ralled behind their daughters, and where school leaders, mostly male, fought for girls' equality. Like nowhere else in the country, young women in Iowa have played the game of basketball for over a century.

In 1993, the era of girls' 6-on-6 basketball came to an end. The game was unique. The girls who played it and the rural communities that loved it were part of an experience that may never again be replicated in any sport, by either gender. For Iowans, it was More Than a Game."

http://www.iptv.org/iowastories/detail.cfm/sixonsix

| 6 on 6

1948 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C3HZfhM8EM

VS

1982
http://youtu.be/xHu8QeVbeLc

Six-on-six basketball or basquette is a largely archaic variant of women's basketball. It is played with the same rules as regular basketball, with the following exceptions:

Teams have six players each instead of five; three "forwards" and three "guards".
Only forwards are allowed to shoot the ball. Forwards must stay in their teams' frontcourt (the side of the court they shoot from) and guards must stay in their team's backcourt. For example, Team A's forwards would be on the left side of the court with Team B's guards on defense. Team B's forwards are on the right side of the court with Team A's guards. Thus, forwards play only offense and guards play only defense.
In some forms, unlimited dribbling is not allowed. Once in possession of the ball, players may dribble the ball up to two times; at that point, the player must shoot (if a forward) or pass to a teammate. Both forwards and guards may handle the ball.

|

While the league HAS progressed in some ways, IMO the changes we see is more so because of enforcing the rules differently, and new elements of the game added like the 3. I'm sure you're more than aware of how they called offensive fouls back then, or how strict they were with carrying/palming.

Example of foul calling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH8tpl04EDI

I can only see so many NBA level talents with the right measurements being born even with the increase in population. Maybe better lower tier, or middle of the road players. But the best, or even Elite players are that much rarer. In the case of bigmen specifically this is amplified even more so.

Just to get an idea of your positioning, bold the players you think would lose their spot due to Marc, or Pau getting placed on their team as they are today in their era. Not going to name everyone but here's a few guys who played in the pros, or college during the 1960s

Wilt
Russell
Thurmond
Kareem
Bellemy
Reed
Unseld
Hayes
Gilmore
Hayes
Haywood
Lucas
McAdoo
DeBusschere
Pettit
Lanier
Walton
Cowens
Kerr
Lovelette
Smith
Boerwinkle
Smith


Repeating...If they never added the 3, or let up on some rules I'm under the impression that the game would look more or less the same, somewhat similar to that girls basketball videos I posted. With the luxuries that come with playing today, like better conditions, different strategies, etc the game has progressed. But otherwise, it's a luck of the draw what kind of great, or elite players a generation will bring....And depending on how the game is being played, it may never cater to their strengths. For example take a stretch 4 who can put it on the floor like a guard to an extent. Most likely, he's a tad 'clumsy' with the ball in comparison to smaller players, taking advantage of todays dribbling rules to an extent... The rules of the 60s wouldn't cater to him. Not that he couldn't ever pull it off, it's just that because of there being no 3, the spacing, coaches stances on what players tat size should do wouldn't cater to him. And the same can be said about some who fit in the 50's/60s trying to play todays expression of the game.


If you want to knock past NBA/pro players achievements with that logic, the 40's and 50s before they integrated, or had the shot clock is where the finger should be pointed.

There's so much more I can say, and better points that I could have made but I only have so much time. This isn't simple or clear cut, and IMO neither of us are completely wrong or right. Hate sounding like a politician :hammerhead:

[swagga]

I'm curious? He mentions it all the time in regards to these old players like their size has something to do with how good they would be today.

If you look at the roster of all 64 of the NCAA teams from last year's NCAA tournament, and even at the 351 D-1 schools total almost all of them have someone that is 6'11, 250+ hanging around on their team.

Height and size alone really tells us no story about how good those 60's players were.

All we know as a fact is that those centers back then faced far far far far far far far far less competition to make it to the NBA.

For anyone that has played basketball they know just how easy it is to put up stats when you are significantly better than 8 of the 10 players on the floor. Most of those clips seem to indicate their were a few players that were very good (the level of good is impossible to say) and a lot of amateur level players.

I can't seem to figure it out, but I'd say to make the current NBA as a big man you probably have to be the best out of 10,000 other big men (pure guess). Back then, you probably had to be the best out of 500 big men.

So to say that Pau Gasol or Marc Gasol who are the best of the best couldn't absolutely shut down the league back then is simply wishful thinking. They may be outclassed by Wilt, or possible even Russell (unlikely), but they definitely would be significantly better than any non transcendent superstar.

white boy is obssessed with old big nigggas... something big and black really left him butthurt when he was young. .. that's why.

[sundizz]

Jongbi you brought us some awesome points. Good to know. I'm not of that era so I have no idea the reality of how often people played basketball in that era.

So, would you say that a similar amount of kids played basketball back then as they do today? That actually makes sense to me because back then people did athletic stuff for fun (no other options) even though becoming a pro wasn't a big goal.

Mainly, did most high schools in 1950 have a basketball team?

I can agree with all of that actually. The only point that I think a lot of people miss is the huge statistical difference in the population pool you are drawing from also.

1940: 133 million people
1960: 180 million people
2015: 319 million people

In that early time period the BEST of the BEST was out of of a much smaller population pool. In the current period the best is drawn out 2x the size population, with much more exposure given to each kid, more sport specific training, and the big plus of also having to compete against the rest of the world for these NBA spots.

So, regardless of how it is thought about it makes no sense that the talent pool back then could of been even remotely close to what it is now. Every advantage of population size, exposure, sport specific training, competition etc is given now. A 6'10 player that made the NBA today has gone through so many more levels of players than the player back then.

It really doesn't mean anything except that in a statistical sample average, a player from the 2015 NBA is significantly better than the player from the 1960's. Just like in any set of data there are outliers (e.g., Wilt).

Let's put it this way. Transport to today all the 120 players from 64-65 season. GMS's have to choose between the existing 450 players in the 15-16 season and the 120 players from the 64-65 season for roster spots.

Likely, it'd end up like 430 players of current players and 20 players from the past era (taken on pure potential).

[dankok8]

Let's put it this way. Transport to today all the 120 players from 64-65 season. GMS's have to choose between the existing 450 players in the 15-16 season and the 120 players from the 64-65 season for roster spots.

Likely, it'd end up like 430 players of current players and 20 players from the past era (taken on pure potential).

So essentially you're saying that the worst 10% of players today (worst 45) are on average better than some of the all-stars from 64-65 (top 24 make the all-star game). You're telling me that some total scrub I've never even heard of is as good as a regular all-star like Jerry Lucas. That Brian Scalabrine would make today's league over a guy like Lucas.

Sorry I don't buy it.

You arguments are not flawed but you're exaggerating it beyond belief. The larger size of the population (double), more popularity, and better training is largely balanced out by a much much larger league today. Imagine if today's NBA was condensed to just 120 best players on 8 teams. How strong the league would be...

On average, today's best 120 are better than the 120 from 1965 but today's 450 are probably not better than the 120 from 1965. Not likely anyways.

[sundizz]

So essentially you're saying that the worst 10% of players today (worst 45) are on average better than some of the all-stars from 64-65 (top 24 make the all-star game). You're telling me that some total scrub I've never even heard of is as good as a regular all-star like Jerry Lucas. That Brian Scalabrine would make today's league over a guy like Lucas.

Sorry I don't buy it.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Also, they only had that many players because people had to go work. They couldn't get enough guys to play to get a bigger league. You know like when you go to the park but there are only 9 guys...it sucks, but you can't play.

[DatAsh]

You're right that making into the NBA is much more difficult today than it was back then, even with more teams. The biggest factor by far is financial incentive; even the worst players in the league today are millionaires - several times over. Population growth and international interest also heavily increase the competition, though no where near as much as the financial incentive.

The issue is...players can't control when they're born, so is it really fair to penalize them for that?

[jongib369]

Jongbi you brought us some awesome points. Good to know. I'm not of that era so I have no idea the reality of how often people played basketball in that era.

So, would you say that a similar amount of kids played basketball back then as they do today? That actually makes sense to me because back then people did athletic stuff for fun (no other options) even though becoming a pro wasn't a big goal.

Mainly, did most high schools in 1950 have a basketball team?

I can agree with all of that actually. The only point that I think a lot of people miss is the huge statistical difference in the population pool you are drawing from also.

1940: 133 million people
1960: 180 million people
2015: 319 million people

In that early time period the BEST of the BEST was out of of a much smaller population pool. In the current period the best is drawn out 2x the size population, with much more exposure given to each kid, more sport specific training, and the big plus of also having to compete against the rest of the world for these NBA spots.

So, regardless of how it is thought about it makes no sense that the talent pool back then could of been even remotely close to what it is now. Every advantage of population size, exposure, sport specific training, competition etc is given now. A 6'10 player that made the NBA today has gone through so many more levels of players than the player back then.

It really doesn't mean anything except that in a statistical sample average, a player from the 2015 NBA is significantly better than the player from the 1960's. Just like in any set of data there are outliers (e.g., Wilt).

Let's put it this way. Transport to today all the 120 players from 64-65 season. GMS's have to choose between the existing 450 players in the 15-16 season and the 120 players from the 64-65 season for roster spots.

Likely, it'd end up like 430 players of current players and 20 players from the past era (taken on pure potential).
I want to ask you something again just to get an idea of where you're standing

Wilt 1936 128.05 million

Kareem 1947 144.13 million |Difference 70.66 Million, 27 years

Jordan 1963 189.24 million

.............1967 198.71 million

Shaq 1972 209.90 million |Difference 54.27 Million, 24 years

............1991 252.98 million

|Difference 68.21 Million, 24 years
.............2015 321.19 million
..........|Difference 116.81 Million 35 years
Projection 2050 438.00 Million

24 years separated Wilts first chip, and Jordans....Will Shaq, Dwight, Cousins, or w.e big man you can think of be just okay in 2039? Or how about Kobe in 2063, 48 years from now. The time between Wilts first chip and now...Will he not be able to make the league because of there being too many players similar to Jordan...All of the skills Kobe has, but physically more gifted therefore rendering Kobe obsolete?

[jongib369]

LeBrons all time ranking is in biiig trouble, as it's more likely for his body type and athleticism to come around than it is a Wilt/Shaq type. He's made some great improvements these last few years, but let's face it...Eventually there will be a ton of guys with LeBrons advantages today, but with more skill. Think a Lebron/Kobe/Duncan/Iverson hybrid

Save up on the adult diapers now guys, cuz you're going to be shitting your pants on the daily with the level of basketball we will witness in 24 years.

Our kids, and Grand kids will think we're betas. Awesome.

[Jameerthefear]

no one is saying wilt is garbage. they are saying his competition was, and it WAS.

[jongib369]

no one is saying wilt is garbage. they are saying his competition was, and it WAS.
So is Shaq not that great also? Considering Shaq never faced his top competition as much as Wilt? Which includes the likes of Nate Thurmond in his prime, who while older defended Kareem better than anyone else could, holding him below 50%. Something Hakeem, nor Ewing could do.


WILT


Russell- 142

Bellamy- 108

reed 74

Nate- 64

Kareem- 28

unseld- 20

Lanier 16

Total= 452




SHAQ

Duncan 62

Robinson- 40

Mutombo-29

Hakeem- 28

Ewing- 26

Ming 18

Mourning 16


Total Games= 219

(Numbers might not be exact, but it's close. Counted the games when they actually played...Would have been more if I just counted the amount of times the teams faced

[Jameerthefear]

So is Shaq not that great also? Considering Shaq never faced his top competition as much as Wilt? Which includes the likes of Nate Thurmond in his prime, who while older defended Kareem better than anyone else could, holding him below 50%. Something Hakeem, nor Ewing could do.


WILT


Russell- 142

Bellamy- 108

reed 74

Nate- 64

Kareem- 28

unseld- 20

Lanier 16

Total= 452




SHAQ

Duncan 62

Robinson- 40

Mutombo-29

Hakeem- 28

Ewing- 26

Ming 18

Mourning 16


Total Games= 219
I don't give two f*cks what you're talking about. It's simple math. Bigger talent pool = more competition. It's that simple. It isn't hard, but you old geezers are so wrapped up in your nostalgia that you can't realize that.

[Kobe_6/8]

Completely disagree. Making the NBA wasn't a dream to many young kids at that time (say born 1940). There wasn't the financial incentive + mass appeal that is has nowadays. It is actually much more than 40:1 when you take into account the whole world. Nowadays, probably 1/10 male kid wants to be a NBA player when they grow up.

All those random close to 7 footers around the world that are bball players in this era were just random tall people back in that day. Most of them had no way to even get the training or even attempt to play hoops (especially if they were foreign).

A true baller doesn't give a **** about 'financial incentive' or 'mass appeal'. They play because they love the game and want to prove themselves at the highest level.

[jongib369]

:wtf:
I don't give two f*cks what you're talking about. It's simple math. Bigger talent pool = more competition. It's that simple. It isn't hard, but you old geezers are so wrapped up in your nostalgia that you can't realize that.
Stop acting as if that argument is check mate breh :roll:

I just posted the population differences, amount of years between certain players births etc. Answer the question I posed to him.

Are you telling me that in 2050 LeBron will be outclassed by players his size but with kobes skill? And that Kobe would be outclassed by guys with his skill, but with Jordans body/athleticism?

Also name a center today that can play better D than Thurmond

[Jameerthefear]

:wtf:
Stop acting as if that argument is check mate breh :roll:

I just posted the population differences, amount of years between certain players births etc. Answer the question I posed to him.

Are you telling me that in 2050 LeBron will be outclassed by players his size but with kobes skill? And that Kobe would be outclassed by guys with his skill, but with Jordans body/athleticism?

Also name a center today that can play better D than Thurmond
1. It isn't about population differences. That's so simpleminded it leads me to believe you might be ****ing retarded.

2. No, because while basketball will likely get a bit bigger it will never be bigger than football. There's a peak, and I think you will just see a bigger difference in maybe like highschool basketball but that isn't guaranteed. There's a huge difference in popularity between basketball now and in the 60's. That's absolutely inarguable.

3. Gobert, Dwight, Gasol, and more. Take your pick.

[jongib369]

1. It isn't about population differences. That's so simpleminded it leads me to believe you might be ****ing retarded.

2. No, because while basketball will likely get a bit bigger it will never be bigger than football. There's a peak, and I think you will just see a bigger difference in maybe like highschool basketball but that isn't guaranteed. There's a huge difference in popularity between basketball now and in the 60's. That's absolutely inarguable.

3. Gobert, Dwight, Gasol, and more. Take your pick.

That's exactly what he's arguing. That there's more people playing baseball due to the population differences.

The fact you think Gasol can play better D on Kareem than Thurmond proves that you can't be taken seriously. That is as simple as 1+1, it's very telling about your thought process. The guy who played better D than anyone on a player that would murder the league today would be outclassed by Marc? Wow.

It's a shame a lot of these guys have overlapped bttw...There's something to be said about the "chain" argument

[Jameerthefear]

That's exactly what he's arguing. That there's more people playing baseball due to the population differences.

The fact you think Gasol can play better D on Kareem than Thurmond proves that you can't be taken seriously. That is as simple as 1+1, it's very telling about your thought process. The guy who played better D than anyone on a player that would murder the league today would be outclassed by Marc? Wow.

It's a shame a lot of these guys have overlapped bttw...There's something to be said about the "chain" argument
It's not just population difference. It's interest in the sport, it becoming a multi-million dollar payment, and the popularity of other sports.

[swagga]

what I LOVE about these threads is that they resort to 1v1 without taking into account rule changes, intangibles, adaptability, league playstyle, how said players scores, on what type of moves and offense types.

only ppg/rpg/apg talk. stat nerd central.

[LAZERUSS]

I don't give two f*cks what you're talking about. It's simple math. Bigger talent pool = more competition. It's that simple. It isn't hard, but you old geezers are so wrapped up in your nostalgia that you can't realize that.

Agreed.

And don't forget all the advanced training, either.

That is why seven-foot+ centers like DeAndre Jordan, Dwight Howard, and Andre Drummond are so marvelously skilled.

And you have guys like Rubio and Rondo, both much taller than Magic, with their pin-point shooting accuracy.

And of course, who in the 60's could have matched the size and athleticism of the 6-10 Kevin Love?

And can you imagine the puny Big-O trying to guard the much bigger and stronger two-time MVP-winning Steve Nash?

And you won't find an entire NBA in say, 1958-59, or 73-74, coming close to shooting FTs as well as the current NBA, either. It's called evolution, my friend.

And it's not just the NBA, either. College players are far bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, and skilled, too. Can you imagine the beating that CPOY Tyler Hansborough would have administered on the physically inferior stumble-bum Lew Alcindor had the two went H2H in their primes. It would have been hilarious.


Nope. Just watch footage of the players from the 60's and 70's. They were all six-foot, uncoordinated, nerds, who dribbled with both hands at the same time, bricked their set shots (that they were shooting at peach baskets), and fought for rebounds on the floor.


Thanks again Jameer, for educating everyone here.

[STATUTORY]

I want to ask you something again just to get an idea of where you're standing

Wilt 1936 128.05 million

Kareem 1947 144.13 million |Difference 70.66 Million, 27 years

Jordan 1963 189.24 million

.............1967 198.71 million

Shaq 1972 209.90 million |Difference 54.27 Million, 24 years

............1991 252.98 million

|Difference 68.21 Million, 24 years
.............2015 321.19 million
..........|Difference 116.81 Million 35 years
Projection 2050 438.00 Million

24 years separated Wilts first chip, and Jordans....Will Shaq, Dwight, Cousins, or w.e big man you can think of be just okay in 2039? Or how about Kobe in 2063, 48 years from now. The time between Wilts first chip and now...Will he not be able to make the league because of there being too many players similar to Jordan...All of the skills Kobe has, but physically more gifted therefore rendering Kobe obsolete?

:facepalm what's relevant is not the total population of the country but the subset that could have feasibly participated or wanted to participate in organized basketball.

[STATUTORY]

:wtf:
Stop acting as if that argument is check mate breh :roll:

I just posted the population differences, amount of years between certain players births etc. Answer the question I posed to him.

Are you telling me that in 2050 LeBron will be outclassed by players his size but with kobes skill? And that Kobe would be outclassed by guys with his skill, but with Jordans body/athleticism?

Also name a center today that can play better D than Thurmond

you f@cking retard, the point is not about total population but about the difference in financial returns to playing basketball, youth programs that exist which identify and train youths in basketball from young age, the black kids who would never had an opportunity to participate in basketball in the pre civil rights era, etc

[jstern]

Because younger people who were not alive back then like to diminish the physical ability of humanity back in the 60s.

[sundizz]

Sigh.

It really shows me how stubborn people are when they refuse to accept pure facts.

Same talent pool (not like comparing China and the US) to draw from

Talent Pool A: 180 million
Talent Pool 3: 320 million

How can talent pool A, on average, give you better results.

Again, it the disparity is WAY more than this in reality because it is more like:

Talent Pool A: 180 million
Talent Pool B: 320 million + 7 billion around the world

[Marchesk]

Talent Pool A: 180 million
Talent Pool B: 320 million + 7 billion around the world

How many great NBA players are those 7 billion providing? There's been a few like Dirk and Hakeem (granted more like 5 billion back then). But the NBA isn't overwhelmingly Euroleague stars, or Chinese.

[dankok8]

Sigh.

It really shows me how stubborn people are when they refuse to accept pure facts.

Same talent pool (not like comparing China and the US) to draw from

Talent Pool A: 180 million
Talent Pool 3: 320 million

How can talent pool A, on average, give you better results.

Again, it the disparity is WAY more than this in reality because it is more like:

Talent Pool A: 180 million
Talent Pool B: 320 million + 7 billion around the world

The 7 billion global talent pool included in your argument is misleading because the entire world talent pool was always at the NBA's disposal. The NBA never had rules against or in any way discouraged international players from playing in the NBA. Henry Biasatti from Italy played in the very first NBA (actually BAA) game in 1946. Guys like Tom Meschery (Russia), Swen Nater (Netherlands) and Leo Rautins (Canada) played in the NBA in the 60's and 70's.

The international talent prior to the 90's was extremely weak though. Absolutely negligible. That's why we didn't have hordes of foreign players playing in the NBA in those days. Because they weren't good enough not because the NBA didn't want them. The US used to often send merely good (not even great) college players to the Olympics/World Championships back in the 60's and 70's and completely obliterate all international competition.

So population growth has increased the talent pool and media popularity has to a certain degree as well. How much I don't know but given that today's league is so much larger than in the 60's I don't think that the average player today is way better than back then. I just don't.

[Pointguard]

I don't give two f*cks what you're talking about. It's simple math. Bigger talent pool = more competition. It's that simple. It isn't hard, but you old geezers are so wrapped up in your nostalgia that you can't realize that.
But it has to be evident for us to know that it exist:
Wilt great deep post game with major skills around the basket.
Kareem great deep post game with major skills around the basket.
Bellamy great deep post game with major skills around the basket.
Reed great deep post game with major skills around the basket.

Bigger talent pool without a deep post game or great skills around the basket overall. If your argument is only going to produce Al Jefferson, who is the prototype of deep post game, is evidence that more people in the talent pool is proof, then your argument isn't working. Where are the big guys that like to play big on both sides of the ball. If you have a gigantic talent pool that doesn't like playing big it doesn't really matter much. 10 people that love playing big are worth more than a 1,000 that don't want to.

The culture back than was that you take on big responsibilities as your lively hood and enjoy it. Now nobody wants to play big. 1 good bull is worth half the herd. Guys who enjoy their work/responsibilities and developing big men responsibilities will always beat the elite of gifted guys that want to play small or something that they are not. Desire is more than half the game.

[iznogood]

But it has to be evident for us to know that it exist:
Wilt great deep post game with major skills around the basket.
Kareem great deep post game with major skills around the basket.
Bellamy great deep post game with major skills around the basket.
Reed great deep post game with major skills around the basket.

I've checked out every Walt Bellamy's video on youtube and I don't see him having a great deep post game. He had a very good jump shot, but on most of his highlight videos I've seen they let him take it. Not many of his jump shots were contested. I realise we only have a small sample of his career on tape, but I'm pretty sure there'd be some tapes of him performing moves on the low block if he was that successful at it.

Also none of the other guys had any real moves using their non shooting hand. This is why you back in the days you saw so many finger rolls, awkward looking scoop shots with the inside arm and such. Many centers today finish with both arms around the basket and display elite footwork. Show me a video of any of the guys you mentioned do a baseline spin, I've never seen one. The all use drop step, which is much easier to execute.

I would argue that the level of skill has not diminished. The guys from the 60s are considered to have elite post game because they scored a lot. But the biggest reason they were able to score that efficient is because it was much much easier to secure a position closer to the basket and also because the rules allowed very little contact. Just look at how many post ups from the 60s start a couple of feet away from the basket. It also makes finishing around the basket easier when you're not exhausted from battling for position.

Please note that I'm not trying to say anyone is better or how well one or the other would do if they time travelled to some other era. What I'm writing to say is that the rules changed and so has the game. The big men are not as favoured by the rules as they use to be, because the amount of contact allowed gives defenders much better chances to fight for the position. It also allows smaller players to partially compensate for the height disadvantage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtrxfvKYXjc
Look how Dellavedova is allowed to hip check Nowitzki and doesn't let him establish the high post position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQO9q_oi6B4
Look at how Chris Paul stands his ground and forces Miller to spin baseline where he's expecting help.

[Pointguard]

I've checked out every Walt Bellamy's video on youtube and I don't see him having a great deep post game. He had a very good jump shot, but on most of his highlight videos I've seen they let him take it. Not many of his jump shots were contested. I realise we only have a small sample of his career on tape, but I'm pretty sure there'd be some tapes of him performing moves on the low block if he was that successful at it.

Also none of the other guys had any real moves using their non shooting hand. This is why you back in the days you saw so many finger rolls, awkward looking scoop shots with the inside arm and such. Many centers today finish with both arms around the basket and display elite footwork. Show me a video of any of the guys you mentioned do a baseline spin, I've never seen one. The all use drop step, which is much easier to execute.

I would argue that the level of skill has not diminished. The guys from the 60s are considered to have elite post game because they scored a lot. But the biggest reason they were able to score that efficient is because it was much much easier to secure a position closer to the basket and also because the rules allowed very little contact. Just look at how many post ups from the 60s start a couple of feet away from the basket. It also makes finishing around the basket easier when you're not exhausted from battling for position.

Please note that I'm not trying to say anyone is better or how well one or the other would do if they time travelled to some other era. What I'm writing to say is that the rules changed and so has the game. The big men are not as favoured by the rules as they use to be, because the amount of contact allowed gives defenders much better chances to fight for the position. It also allows smaller players to partially compensate for the height disadvantage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtrxfvKYXjc
Look how Dellavedova is allowed to hip check Nowitzki and doesn't let him establish the high post position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQO9q_oi6B4
Look at how Chris Paul stands his ground and forces Miller to spin baseline where he's expecting help.
If you want to play big and around the hoop you can. Al Jefferson does because he desired to do that. Howard moved away from that game because he doesn't want to do it. Got me??? He played that game because he had the energy to do it in his early years but never looked comfortable in the post. Oakafor is going to play around the basket because he's comfortable there and wants to be there just like Al Jefferson. If you want to play big, you can play big.

They beat Iverson's butt so that he wouldn't drive. Did Iverson stop driving??? They don't call fouls that much when Rose or Mello drives to the basket. Yet, they play their game. If a player wants to play a certain way, he can make enough room to play the way way he wants.

Desire is more than half the game. Tristan Thompson has a great off hand and I can't even tell which is the dominant hand, and can score around the basket with it. James Worthy and Dantley not as much. But their desire to want to score going to their left was on a whole different planet. This is what I mean when Desire to be effective in a certain way is more than just having a skill that a player will shy away from. If Shaq didn't identify with being a big player that dominates he wouldn't be that player. Hakeem, who has more moves than any big in the game now, imagined himself to be as big as Shaq to play in a more dominant way.

You are making excuses that rules, refs and endurance issues have it so that players shy away from the post. Really? Mello and Al Jefferson didn't get that memo. They were making rule changes against Wilt frequently and the refs working non rules on him as well - he didn't become Dirk despite the greatest of defensive centers on him. You got to have the heart of a big man to play like one. The refs, endurance and rule changes aren't going to take away the heart. The game comes with pressure, that just part of it.

Embiid and Oakafor have oldschool deep post games in them and I believe the courage to be big. It takes a certain culture to get that, and a certain mentality to sustain being that. And a bigger pool to choose from hasn't been the answer to why there aren't more guys wanting to play big much less being that way.

[iznogood]

If you want to play big and around the hoop you can. Al Jefferson does because he desired to do that. Howard moved away from that game because he doesn't want to do it. Got me??? He played that game because he had the energy to do it in his early years but never looked comfortable in the post. Oakafor is going to play around the basket because he's comfortable there and wants to be there just like Al Jefferson. If you want to play big, you can play big.
I don't know what your problem is, I never claimed any of the guys were forced to play further away from the basket. You're making my argument up.

All I was saying is that you were wrong about the assessment of Bellamy's post game which you failed to address. Bellamy wasn't a low post player.


They beat Iverson's butt so that he wouldn't drive. Did Iverson stop driving??? They don't call fouls that much when Rose or Mello drives to the basket. Yet, they play their game. If a player wants to play a certain way, he can make enough room to play the way way he wants.
Again, I never claimed anybody was forced to play away from the basket.


Desire is more than half the game. Tristan Thompson has a great off hand and I can't even tell which is the dominant hand, and can score around the basket with it. James Worthy and Dantley not as much. But their desire to want to score going to their left was on a whole different planet. This is what I mean when Desire to be effective in a certain way is more than just having a skill that a player will shy away from. If Shaq didn't identify with being a big player that dominates he wouldn't be that player. Hakeem, who has more moves than any big in the game now, imagined himself to be as big as Shaq to play in a more dominant way.

You are making excuses that rules, refs and endurance issues have it so that players shy away from the post. Really? Mello and Al Jefferson didn't get that memo. They were making rule changes against Wilt frequently and the refs working non rules on him as well - he didn't become Dirk despite the greatest of defensive centers on him. You got to have the heart of a big man to play like one. The refs, endurance and rule changes aren't going to take away the heart. The game comes with pressure, that just part of it.
I only pointed out that scoring efficiently today is harder that it used to be. You're putting words into my mouth


Embiid and Oakafor have oldschool deep post games in them and I believe the courage to be big. It takes a certain culture to get that, and a certain mentality to sustain being that. And a bigger pool to choose from hasn't been the answer to why there aren't more guys wanting to play big much less being that way.
I haven't written a word about how the bigger pool affects the way the guys play. I simply corrected your incorrect statement and voiced my opinion on what I think about the level of the general post skills since a lot of posters seem to think the guys in he 60s were pulling off moves that players today can't.

[Pointguard]

I don't know what your problem is, I never claimed any of the guys were forced to play further away from the basket. You're making my argument up.
My reply was obviously to the whole post. Don't act all brand new. Where did I ever make any statements about players needing to player further from the basket. Where are you coming from with that.


All I was saying is that you were wrong about the assessment of Bellamy's post game which you failed to address. Bellamy wasn't a low post player.

In the beginning Bells did have a deep post game. And he did switch it up. But I could use Dantley, B King, and dozens of others if it pleases you. Besides it was a side bar to the main statement. And it obviously wasn't all you were saying in your four paragraph rebuttal. But I will chop it up for you being that you frequently get lost and then try to play stupid.



Again, I never claimed anybody was forced to play away from the basket.

"
What I'm writing to say is that the rules changed and so has the game. The big men are not as favoured by the rules as they use to be, because the amount of contact allowed gives defenders much better chances to fight for the position. It also allows smaller players to partially compensate for the height disadvantage."
I was addressing this. Iverson's game wasn't favored by the league, the commissioner hated him, and they allowed him to get beat when he came down the middle. Did he change his game because it wasn't favored??? I never said anything about playing further from the basket. When you watch the Kareem vs Wilt video do you not notice that neither player comes close to taking the amount of steps that Hakeem does after the dribble stops. Are you playing dumb to the fact that Wilt had rule and rule made to slow him down???



I only pointed out that scoring efficiently today is harder that it used to be. You're putting words into my mouth.

"Also none of the other guys had any real moves using their non shooting hand. This is why you back in the days you saw so many finger rolls, awkward looking scoop shots with the inside arm and such. Many centers today finish with both arms around the basket and display elite footwork. Show me a video of any of the guys you mentioned do a baseline spin, I've never seen one. The all use drop step, which is much easier to execute."

This is why I brought up the left handed of Tristan Thompson vs Dantley and Worthy. Screw the non shooting hand if the mentality in the deep post is that I am dominant and play big here. You are trying to be sly in downing big men of the past and are now playing stupid.



I haven't written a word about how the bigger pool affects the way the guys play. I simply corrected your incorrect statement and voiced my opinion on what I think about the level of the general post skills since a lot of posters seem to think the guys in he 60s were pulling off moves that players today can't.
Dude that was what my post was about. If you jump in with a four paragraph reply you have to know my context to sound coherent. If all you were responding to was Bellamy then make that clear and leave. You didn't so now I'm giving it to you. You went off into some weak stuff about:

"It also makes finishing around the basket easier when you're not exhausted from battling for position."

"The big men are not as favoured by the rules as they use to be, because the amount of contact allowed gives defenders much better chances to fight for the position."

Like big men are wimps today. The context of my post was that the big man pool didn't create more big men that play big. The rest is sidebar stuff off of the main topic. You were responding to my idea and now you acting like where did my main idea come from.

[iznogood]

My reply was obviously to the whole post. Don't act all brand new. Where did I ever make any statements about players needing to player further from the basket. Where are you coming from with that.
The whole point of who plays where was brought up by you. I never even debated it in my first post.


In the beginning Bells did have a deep post game. And he did switch it up. But I could use Dantley, B King, and dozens of others if it pleases you. Besides it was a side bar to the main statement. And it obviously wasn't all you were saying in your four paragraph rebuttal. But I will chop it up for you being that you frequently get lost and then try to play stupid.
If Bellamy really had a deep post game, I'm sure you'll be able to find some clips of him showing that deep post game, I'd love to see them.


"
What I'm writing to say is that the rules changed and so has the game. The big men are not as favoured by the rules as they use to be, because the amount of contact allowed gives defenders much better chances to fight for the position. It also allows smaller players to partially compensate for the height disadvantage."
I was addressing this. Iverson's game wasn't favored by the league, the commissioner hated him, and they allowed him to get beat when he came down the middle. Did he change his game because it wasn't favored??? I never said anything about playing further from the basket. When you watch the Kareem vs Wilt video do you not notice that neither player comes close to taking the amount of steps that Hakeem does after the dribble stops. Are you playing dumb to the fact that Wilt had rule and rule made to slow him down???
How was Iverson's game not favoured by the league? He was allowed to carry the ball all the time. He was the originator of all the carrying we're watching today. You are very naive to think commissioner hated Iverson. Iverson was loved by the league, he brought in a lot of fans and a lot of money.

As for watching Hakeem and Wilt, I guess you're referring to my mention of low post baseline spin. The baseline spin out of the triple threat is legal by any rule when performed correctly. As for the steps taken after the player had ended the dribble, the interpretation of the rules changed, that's why I didn't even mention those.


"Also none of the other guys had any real moves using their non shooting hand. This is why you back in the days you saw so many finger rolls, awkward looking scoop shots with the inside arm and such. Many centers today finish with both arms around the basket and display elite footwork. Show me a video of any of the guys you mentioned do a baseline spin, I've never seen one. The all use drop step, which is much easier to execute."

This is why I brought up the left handed of Tristan Thompson vs Dantley and Worthy. Screw the non shooting hand if the mentality in the deep post is that I am dominant and play big here. You are trying to be sly in downing big men of the past and are now playing stupid.
I still don't see, what you meant by bringing up left handed Thompson.

As for the big men of the past, I'm not downing them down. I never claimed any of those guys couldn't develop the ability to shoot with both hands. I'm simply saying they didn't have to so they didn't. If they wanted to play a low post scoring game today, they'd probably have to as I can't think of any big man that can score that is not good at using his left.

As for mentality, I don't think it's going to be much of a help when you're technically limited and can not put the ball in at efficient rate. You're simply not be getting the touches you would like to, because the team is not going to run the plays for you.



Dude that was what my post was about. If you jump in with a four paragraph reply you have to know my context to sound coherent. If all you were responding to was Bellamy then make that clear and leave. You didn't so now I'm giving it to you. You went off into some weak stuff about:

[COLOR="Red"]"It also makes finishing around the basket easier when you're not exhausted from battling for position."

"The big men are not as favoured by the rules as they use to be, because the amount of contact allowed gives defenders much better chances to fight for the position."

Like big men are wimps today. The context of my post was that the big man pool didn't create more big men that play big. The rest is sidebar stuff off of the main topic. You were responding to my idea and now you acting like where did my main idea come from.
I like to discuss sidebar stuff. You didn't have to answer it if you felt like it didn't contribute to the debate. I guess I was not really addressing your point with the rest of my post. Maybe I'm just agitated about the fact that many people think that the bigs today are somehow less skilled.

And I don't disagree with you when you say that the the big pool doesn't necessarily creates more big that play big, so I'm not really sure why are you so agitated about it.

And I never tried to say big men today are wimps. If anything, the game today is tougher for the big men with all the banging in the post, guards crashing when trying to pass screens and such.

[Pointguard]

How was Iverson's game not favoured by the league? He was allowed to carry the ball all the time. He was the originator of all the carrying we're watching today. You are very naive to think commissioner hated Iverson. Iverson was loved by the league, he brought in a lot of fans and a lot of money.
Tim Hardaway was doing that long before Iverson and its not that much of a deviation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0HRPIu02Xo

The commissioner had teams scared to pick AI up and he couldn't get back in the league when there about 10 teams that could have used him for excitement, gate, points and a few wins. They had several differences about his rap records, AI implied his image was in question and his tats and hip hop influence was the target of several innuendos in league articles.


As for watching Hakeem and Wilt, I guess you're referring to my mention of low post baseline spin. The baseline spin out of the triple threat is legal by any rule when performed correctly. As for the steps taken after the player had ended the dribble, the interpretation of the rules changed, that's why I didn't even mention those.
I brought it up to show you how little discouragements don't affect a guy from playing big. Which is the emphasis of my original post.



As for the big men of the past, I'm not downing them down. I never claimed any of those guys couldn't develop the ability to shoot with both hands. I'm simply saying they didn't have to so they didn't. If they wanted to play a low post scoring game today, they'd probably have to as I can't think of any big man that can score that is not good at using his left.
Most of the big men today aren't post scorers which is what my original post was about. You talking about a precious few. Kareem played with Wilt and had a left hand hook that was effective to about 10 feet out, which to me is of better range than any playing now and more effective than anybodies left hand now as well.



As for mentality, I don't think it's going to be much of a help when you're technically limited and can not put the ball in at efficient rate. You're simply not be getting the touches you would like to, because the team is not going to run the plays for you.
We agree here. I was saying in my original post that the culture of big men wanting to play big isn't hyped as much. Big men that played big were always the most efficient scorers. But if they want to shoot jump shots that's not going to be the case anymore.


I like to discuss sidebar stuff. You didn't have to answer it if you felt like it didn't contribute to the debate. I guess I was not really addressing your point with the rest of my post. Maybe I'm just agitated about the fact that many people think that the bigs today are somehow less skilled.
I think the bigs shoot better but you have to admit they don't want to play big. And we all are agitated by it. I was hyping Embiid and Oakafor as the true challenge of if the league rules have marginalized skilled big men near the basket and unfortunately Embiid's career has been on pause.


And I don't disagree with you when you say that the the big pool doesn't necessarily creates more big that play big, so I'm not really sure why are you so agitated about it.

And I never tried to say big men today are wimps. If anything, the game today is tougher for the big men with all the banging in the post, guards crashing when trying to pass screens and such. I've seen old clips where guys get punched in the face lining up at the foul line during shots and play just continue without ejections. McHale clothes-lining Rambis. Before Jordan, players took the hit on drives to the basket. When players started leaving college early, bigs that wanted to play big stopped coming down the pipeline as much. I really believe that if you dominate at 19 and 20 and 21 years old, its much more likely that you will dominate at the next level in that same fashion. But when you are younger than men, they make you think smaller to have their way with you.

Its all good, not playing on your screen name. I just didn't understand your other three paragraphs.