Tom Heinsohn: "practically same amount of kids played basketball in my era vs..."

[CavaliersFTW]

...this era, in the college ranks." Only he says that the NBA back then only allowed the top 80 players to play, instead of several hundreds in the league in this era. He says the number of college basketball players then was virtually the same as today.

https://youtu.be/Mlo9PuZDO2M?t=11m14s

Damn. If that statement has any truth to it, it blows that "pool of talent" argument out the water.

I'm actually curious to know if anyone wants to research how big was the NIT + NCAA college combo back then (NIT was actually bigger than NCAA back then), vs today's college ball programs. I'm interested to know since a few posters blindly cling to this "talent pool" assumption in order to remain dismissive of 1960's basketball. Heinsohn is the first guy I've ever actually heard talk about that subject and he isn't talking about it defensively or smugly or anything to prop his era up he's just saying it matter of factly.

Old school detractors burst onto the scene in a tirade of rustled jimmies in 3, 2, 1:

[Jameerthefear]

Well, he's wrong.

[inclinerator]

Well, he's wrong.

[Cocaine80s]

Well, he's wrong.

[Shade8780]

NO.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Assuming there are a similar number of programs there would be a similar number of players. The difference is in the superior training methods and sports science of today.

[RidonKs]

good topic, hope somebody enlightens us or digs a little more

i still kinda doubt that though. aren't there more university teams, whatever division, now than there have ever been? there are definitely more people playing the game recreationally than there was in 1965, at least i would think so

[Killbot]

Well he's practically wrong.

[tpols]

game has changed.. dribbling now allows for more palming which allows superior athletes to really dominate. When you can only have your hand on top of the ball it limits you're lateral movement and control when slashing with force. A lot of those guys back then wouldn't be able to keep up with that today because aside from the stars the middling talent (which is majority of the league) wasn't close to as athletic..

not to mention 3 pt shooting in todays era wasn't even practiced back then and its so critical to enhanced efficiency.

[CavaliersFTW]

Lots of "well he's wrongs"

Zero research. Come on ISH, you're better than this. Or are you?

[Asukal]

Lots of "well he's wrongs"

Zero research. Come on ISH, you're better than this. Or are you?

Well, he's wrong.

[sundizz]

Regardless of how right you are, you are still wrong.

Even if the sport was played EXACTLY the same amount, with the same interest, the population in the US has basically doubled since then.

Additionally, you have to add in the 7 billion people around the world as part of the basketball conversation nowadays.

Back then, there weren't very many foreign born people playing in the NCAA because of a lack of exposure, interest in the sport globally etc.

So, by pure math you again are proving yourself to be so out of touch with reality.

Again, this doesn't affect "genius" level talent like Wilt, but it does affect the rest of the "regular" NBA or NCAA.

Unless you believe the NBA to be such an outlier of data that regular statistics don't apply to it (which is by and far away your best argument).

[Cocaine80s]

He is underestimating the growth of black genes

Tell me if you saw any 17 year olds pulling this shit off back then

http://38.media.tumblr.com/a3bcbf8fbb83488c4a06a6684c485306/tumblr_nbx3xm4Pul1qcmnsoo4_r1_250.gif

[AnaheimLakers24]

That pos is a racist

[Jameerthefear]

You still needed a highschool education back then to go to college, right? You still had to attend college back then to play sports there. on average only 34% of people even completed highschool back then. it was 80% in 2000

[ProfessorMurder]

game has changed.. dribbling now allows for more palming which allows superior athletes to really dominate. When you can only have your hand on top of the ball it limits you're lateral movement and control when slashing with force. A lot of those guys back then wouldn't be able to keep up with that today because aside from the stars the middling talent (which is majority of the league) wasn't close to as athletic..

not to mention 3 pt shooting in todays era wasn't even practiced back then and its so critical to enhanced efficiency.
This has a lot to do with the total amount of people playing...

[ISHGoat]

Its pretty intuitive to think that Heinsohn would be doubly wrong. The total population has increased AND the percentage of the population playing basketball at all levels has increased.

[Marchesk]

He is underestimating the growth of black genes

Tell me if you saw any 17 year olds pulling this shit off back then

http://38.media.tumblr.com/a3bcbf8fbb83488c4a06a6684c485306/tumblr_nbx3xm4Pul1qcmnsoo4_r1_250.gif

If Dr J had grown up watching MJ and Vince Carter dunk, he might have been able to do that at 17.

There's not much video available for highlight dunks before a certain time. Jumping Jim Pollard supposedly could dunk from the free throw line back in the 50s.

[Marchesk]

ven if the sport was played EXACTLY the same amount, with the same interest, the population in the US has basically doubled since then.

Sure, but other sports have grown as well, some of which didn't exist back then.

[Marchesk]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/a3bcbf8fbb83488c4a06a6684c485306/tumblr_nbx3xm4Pul1qcmnsoo4_r1_250.gif

Anyway, this is in no way determines whether you will be a good basketball player. It just means you're a good dunker. There's been plenty of super athletic dunking types who didn't turn into great pros, or even make it in the league.

[warriorfan]

Well, he's wrong and he has an agenda. What do you want him to say? "Well, yeah there were only 8 teams and we had a monopoly on the majority of the talent. Today I wouldn't even make the league!" No, of course not. He is going to play mental gymnastics and try to make an argument how back in his day the league was just as good or even better than today! What a bunch of B.S. CavsFTL if you really believe this nonsense for a second then I know someone who got a few bridges for sale.

[Marchesk]

Regarding athletic ability being so much greater today, answer this.

Why didn't Gus Johnson, who was 6'6, 230 pounds in the 60s as an exceptional athlete put up Wilt or Oscar type numbers? Don't you guys claim that if you took a modern player and put them back in that era, they would put up video game numbers because of their superior athleticism?

Well why didn't Gus? He was a HOFer, but he didn't destroy the league.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/thetoydepartment/gusjohnson500.jpg

[Jameerthefear]

Well, he's wrong and he has an agenda. What do you want him to say? "Well, yeah there were only 8 teams and we had a monopoly on the majority of the talent. Today I wouldn't even make the league!" No, of course not. He is going to play mental gymnastics and try to make an argument how back in his day the league was just as good or even better than today! What a bunch of B.S. CavsFTL if you really believe this nonsense for a second then I know someone who got a few bridges for sale.
Have you seen CuckFTW play basketball? There are videos. It's ****ing pathetic and you realize why he thinks the way he does :oldlol:

[La Frescobaldi]

He is underestimating the growth of black genes

Tell me if you saw any 17 year olds pulling this shit off back then

http://38.media.tumblr.com/a3bcbf8fbb83488c4a06a6684c485306/tumblr_nbx3xm4Pul1qcmnsoo4_r1_250.gif

Sure. There were real young guys, 17, 18, 19 years old doing that kinda stuff in the parks back then.
I promise you've never seen a basketball player do anything that we didn't see way way back in '60s and '70s. Not a single thing athletically nor skills wise. On the NBA courts you never saw the highest skills, because the skills rules were really strict but dribbling and so forth? Oh yeah they could handle a ball but the rule was hand on top at all times period. To me it was most excellent of the NBA to get rid of that because it was bad basketball I mean palming and carrying rules. But my gosh shooting skills though.... much much higher nowadays with all the film and the coaches so much better in the elementary school levels, etc.

Julius Erving is the last guy to invent new moves as far as I know, but I would never rule out the idea that he himself got those moves from guys like Earl Monroe or Connie Hawkins or somebody we never even heard of because they never made the pros. There used to be small pro leagues too back then with some great players but who were jacked on cocaine or whatever it was and no NBA team would touch them. Even city leagues you could see glimpses of greatness, usually guys with astounding athleticism but stupider than a lump of granite.

But Connie Hawkins is the only player I know of that I can say, his game, his style, has never been duplicated. As far as I know, nobody can do what he did. I say that because, nobody ever has, that I have ever seen.

edit ~ now as I say that it doesn't mean the skills were that high everywhere like they are now. I'm talking about the very best guys back then... where today you see really great skills everywhere. Athletic though hasn't changed much if at all

[Marchesk]

But Connie Hawkins is the only player I know of that I can say, his game, his style, has never been duplicated. As far as I know, nobody can do what he did. I say that because, nobody ever has, that I have ever seen.

Now I'm curious. What was Connie Hawkins able to do that nobody else could?

Edit: from some of the highlights, I see there are things he could do with the ball one handed that few would be capable of doing.

[senelcoolidge]

Now I'm curious. What was Connie Hawkins able to do that nobody else could?

Connie Hawkins had really large hands and he knew how to put the ball in the hole.
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/y%20NBA%20etc/1%20Phoenix%20Suns/Connie%20Hawkins/Connie.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp3UXNVqR9E

[LAZERUSS]

Sure. There were real young guys, 17, 18, 19 years old doing that kinda stuff in the parks back then.
I promise you've never seen a basketball player do anything that we didn't see way way back in '60s and '70s. Not a single thing athletically nor skills wise. On the NBA courts you never saw the highest skills, because the skills rules were really strict but dribbling and so forth? Oh yeah they could handle a ball but the rule was hand on top at all times period. To me it was most excellent of the NBA to get rid of that because it was bad basketball I mean palming and carrying rules. But my gosh shooting skills though.... much much higher nowadays with all the film and the coaches so much better in the elementary school levels, etc.

Julius Erving is the last guy to invent new moves as far as I know, but I would never rule out the idea that he himself got those moves from guys like Earl Monroe or Connie Hawkins or somebody we never even heard of because they never made the pros. There used to be small pro leagues too back then with some great players but who were jacked on cocaine or whatever it was and no NBA team would touch them. Even city leagues you could see glimpses of greatness, usually guys with astounding athleticism but stupider than a lump of granite.

But Connie Hawkins is the only player I know of that I can say, his game, his style, has never been duplicated. As far as I know, nobody can do what he did. I say that because, nobody ever has, that I have ever seen.

edit ~ now as I say that it doesn't mean the skills were that high everywhere like they are now. I'm talking about the very best guys back then... where today you see really great skills everywhere. Athletic though hasn't changed much if at all

Not sure about Lavine's shooting skills. He shot .449 in college, and .422 last year.

[Cocaine80s]

Anyway, this is in no way determines whether you will be a good basketball player. It just means you're a good dunker. There's been plenty of super athletic dunking types who didn't turn into great pros, or even make it in the league.
Nikka please, put ****ing Gerald Green in the 60s and he would average 30ppg on dunks alone

[Marchesk]

Nikka please, put ****ing Gerald Green in the 60s and he would average 30ppg on dunks alone

Wilt didn't even score 30 on dunks alone. What makes you think a 46.6 2P% 6-8 player would do that back then?

[Cocaine80s]

Wilt didn't even score 30 on dunks alone. What makes you think a 46.6 2P% 6-8 player would do that back then?
Thats because he is nowhere near the athlete Green is

[CavaliersFTW]

He is underestimating the growth of black genes

Tell me if you saw any 17 year olds pulling this shit off back then

http://38.media.tumblr.com/a3bcbf8fbb83488c4a06a6684c485306/tumblr_nbx3xm4Pul1qcmnsoo4_r1_250.gif
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmBc8NX_oL8

This is even more impressive :hammerhead:

[GIF REACTION]

Hah. The key was so narrow back then. They say widening the paint was just one of the number of rules the league had to implement to lessen Wilt's dominance. That reminds me of what Wilt used to say about Michael Jordan.

"I heard Michael Jordan once say that he thought he was the greatest player of all time. I say to Michael, until they start changing the game because you are so great, then I don't think you should be giving yourself such accolades. In fact, Michael has been enhanced by some of the things the NBA has done. My game, it went the other way. [The NBA] tried to stop me.''

[AirFederer]

If you don't believe the talent pool and skill level is higher today than in the 60ies, you surely have an agenda.

But we kind of already knew that.

We know you ignore all negative stats and statements about Wilt, focusing solely on agenda driven stuff. Even you should own up to this.

[Cocaine80s]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmBc8NX_oL8

This is even more impressive :hammerhead:
I only saw a goal tend and a week ass alley oop

Lavine would have dunked that

[Nash]

why is this so difficult to understand OP?
Everything we do evolves, we get better, we know more, we get more experience and learn from it. Science makes breakthroughs and we improve.
Same thing happens to basketball.

Watching videos from your era and comparing it to todays game there is not a doubt in my mind that the game is at a much higher level today. And its exactly the same story in every sport.

[Marchesk]

Everything we do evolves, we get better, we know more, we get more experience and learn from it.

Particularly politics and trolling on ISH.

But seriously, Nash, Curry and Paul are three of the best, most skilled PGs over the past 15 years. Put them as they are or were in their prime back in the 60s. Do you expect them to do as well or better than Oscar and West?

[Asukal]

CavsFTL going full retard again... :facepalm

[iznogood]

You still needed a highschool education back then to go to college, right? You still had to attend college back then to play sports there. on average only 34% of people even completed highschool back then. it was 80% in 2000
This is a good point.

Also, I believe back then there were more players in college who made college for their academic achievements. Nowadays elite basketball programs are full of kids who can barely pass high school.

Another argument could be that there's more kids today who only come to college for a year or two. So even if the amount of colleges and the level of talent they produce stays the same, this means that they actually produce more elite talent. Because the players leave college earlier.

[SyRyanYang]

I agree. Even though players today earn probably 100 times more than their counterparts did 50 years ago, this shouldn't motivates more people to take part in basketball (or any major sports for that matter) because remember, every NBA player plays for passion and love of basketball not for money.

[Jameerthefear]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmBc8NX_oL8

This is even more impressive :hammerhead:
this is why no one takes u seriously

[CavaliersFTW]

this is why no one takes u seriously
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk7YFY3xjb8

[Jameerthefear]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk7YFY3xjb8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljr2dbascVM

[CavaliersFTW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljr2dbascVM
Your come back is footage I've posted of myself in the 100 shots challenge thread? You lose you don't even play basketball :oldlol:

[SugarHill]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk7YFY3xjb8
:applause:

[La Frescobaldi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljr2dbascVM
You are so lost you don't even recognize how bad you got destroyed right there.

CAVs gets taken so seriously that his work is shown on national television... on the biggest NBA show there is.

[Jameerthefear]

Your come back is footage I've posted of myself in the 100 shots challenge thread? You lose you don't even play basketball :oldlol:
I do play basketball you nymph. Just because someone used your footage to show off an old player doesn't mean people take you seriously :oldlol:

[Jameerthefear]

You are so lost you don't even recognize how bad you got destroyed right there.

CAVs gets taken so seriously that his work is shown on national television... on the biggest NBA show there is.
Did anyone ask you old man? Time to get off the web, you have one foot in the grave already.

[iamgine]

Regarding athletic ability being so much greater today, answer this.

Why didn't Gus Johnson, who was 6'6, 230 pounds in the 60s as an exceptional athlete put up Wilt or Oscar type numbers? Don't you guys claim that if you took a modern player and put them back in that era, they would put up video game numbers because of their superior athleticism?

Well why didn't Gus? He was a HOFer, but he didn't destroy the league.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/thetoydepartment/gusjohnson500.jpg
Why must he? Today we also have ultra athletic James White who didn't even make the league. No one is saying you can make it on athleticism alone.

[iamgine]

Particularly politics and trolling on ISH.

But seriously, Nash, Curry and Paul are three of the best, most skilled PGs over the past 15 years. Put them as they are or were in their prime back in the 60s. Do you expect them to do as well or better than Oscar and West?
Better in what? Rebounding definitely not. Scoring maybe also not. Running a team and destroying opposition defenses, definitely yes.

Also compare the rest. Would 60's PGs match up well with Wall, Rose, Conley, Parker, Irving, Oladipo, Dragic?

[IncarceratedBob]

All the best athletes during his time played baseball, which was the most popular sport during his era.

[Marchesk]

Why must he? Today we also have ultra athletic James White who didn't even make the league. No one is saying you can make it on athleticism alone.

That's fine, but someone posted a 17 year old making an incredible dunk and asked whether anyone back then could do that. And that wasn't the only post about how much more athletic modern players are.

[Marchesk]

Did anyone ask you old man? Time to get off the web, you have one foot in the grave already.

At least he knows what he's talking about. You didn't even see Jordan play. You probably didn't see a prime Kobe.

[iamgine]

That's fine, but someone posted a 17 year old making an incredible dunk and asked whether anyone back then could do that. And that wasn't the only post about how much more athletic modern players are.
Modern players are indeed more athletic overall.

[20Four]

Did anyone ask you old man? Time to get off the web, you have one foot in the grave already.
Shouldn't you be enjoying life as a teenager? But nope your a lonely 17 year old kid with no friends so you stay home and bash on everybody on ISH because your life sucks......I feel bad for you jameer....freal :(

[Jameerthefear]

Shouldn't you be enjoying life as a teenager? But nope your a lonely 17 year old kid with no friends so you stay home and bash on everybody on ISH because your life sucks......I feel bad for you jameer....freal :(
What was that midget? Talk louder. I can't hear you from up here.

[20Four]

What was that midget? Talk louder. I can't hear you from up here.
I feel bad for you, you have nothing intelligent to say, but I do expect that from you lol, name calling? LMAO fvcking kids these days talk shit behind a computer, but in person, would shit their pants


This is you talking about not going to PROM just because you a lonely bitch: LOL

http://i.imgur.com/UC348an.png

[Jameerthefear]

Still having trouble man. Speak up

[tmacattack33]

...this era, in the college ranks." Only he says that the NBA back then only allowed the top 80 players to play, instead of several hundreds in the league in this era. He says the number of college basketball players then was virtually the same as today.

https://youtu.be/Mlo9PuZDO2M?t=11m14s

Damn. If that statement has any truth to it, it blows that "pool of talent" argument out the water.

I'm actually curious to know if anyone wants to research how big was the NIT + NCAA college combo back then (NIT was actually bigger than NCAA back then), vs today's college ball programs. I'm interested to know since a few posters blindly cling to this "talent pool" assumption in order to remain dismissive of 1960's basketball. Heinsohn is the first guy I've ever actually heard talk about that subject and he isn't talking about it defensively or smugly or anything to prop his era up he's just saying it matter of factly.

Old school detractors burst onto the scene in a tirade of rustled jimmies in 3, 2, 1:

1. The NBA wasn't fully integrated until around 1970. Blacks are the best at this sport, so if you have a league that only has 40% blacks, it is inferior. Sorry for not being PC

2. The population of the country as a whole has gone up since 1960...so even if the same percentage of kids like basketball today as back then, the absolute numbers have gone up.

3. There are countries on planet Earth besides the USA. Tom didn't even mention this and the emergence of basketball as a global game in 2015 compared to 1960. And if he didnt mention this, it really makes him look foolish and so I don't know why anyone would take his argument any more seriously than some random dude they meet at the sports bar.

[tmacattack33]

I just read through the thread, and saw everyone say how wrong he is.... I'm glad no one took this seriously. Sorry for my long post right there ^, I suppose it was unneeded.

[AnaheimLakers24]

Bill russel would be a garbage man in the ghetto in this era

[CavaliersFTW]

I just read through the thread, and saw everyone say how wrong he is.... I'm glad no one took this seriously. Sorry for my long post right there ^, I suppose it was unneeded.
Nobodies done research still.

All just assumptions and imagination, which is all anyone had in the first place. Was hoping people would do research, but am so far disappointed. Everyone is content with not actually knowing a thing - yet still believing they are correct. Not good.

[Jameerthefear]

Nobodies done research still.

All just assumptions and imagination, which is all anyone had in the first place. Was hoping people would do research, but am so far disappointed. Everyone is content with not actually knowing a thing - yet still believing they are correct. Not good.
Check the % and # of people who even had a highschool diploma back then...
He's bullshitting if he says it's the same. It's just obvious.

[guy]

Nobodies done research still.

All just assumptions and imagination, which is all anyone had in the first place. Was hoping people would do research, but am so far disappointed. Everyone is content with not actually knowing a thing - yet still believing they are correct. Not good.

Where's Tom research?

The assumptions are based on common sense though. It's obvious that the games popularity has grown immensely in the U.S. and Worldwide, and as a result more resources have been put forth to accelerate that growth. Maybe there is an argument that the overall popularity growth of the sport hasn't been as much as the overall growth of the NBAs size I.e. 8 teams back then to 30 team now, but it's common sense that the popularity has grown.

[PistonsFan#21]

I dont have any links to prove whether Tom was right or wrong but just a quick google search shows that the population of the USA has increased from about 180 millions in the 1960 to about 282 millions in 2000 (Today its estimated at over 300 millions) Thats an increase of over 100 millions habitants in a 40 year span.

I think its pretty safe to assume that there is more kids playing basketball than ever before. If we also take into account the fact that basketball popularity has increased even more when the league expended and with the help of today's media,advertisement and the leagues ability to build superstars that became worldwide icons. Basketball never had as much exposure as it does now.

But like i said thats my take on it. Id like to know how Tom came up with that statement though

[jongib369]

I dont have any links to prove whether Tom was right or wrong but just a quick google search shows that the population of the USA has increased from about 180 millions in the 1960 to about 282 millions in 2000 (Today its estimated at over 300 millions) Thats an increase of over 100 millions habitants in a 40 year span.

I think its pretty safe to assume that there is more kids playing basketball than ever before. If we also take into account the fact that basketball popularity has increased even more when the league expended and with the help of today's media,advertisement and the leagues ability to build superstars that became worldwide icons. Basketball never had as much exposure as it does now.

But like i said thats my take on it. Id like to know how Tom came up with that statement though
How many of these population numbers overlap though with people still alive? What we need to find out specifically is how many 1-20 year old there were during these time periods.

He came up with that statement by being around basketball his entire life, and playing/learning basketball in the years being questioned.

I've watched footage of girls basketball in Iowa where the announcer stated the history of some of the players in the area. Mentioning how a few rival schools/families really went at it, going 3-4 generations back. I think this was a game in either 1948, or 51. Anyways, my point is there might of been more people playing basketball at that time then people assume. Especially since being outside/active was more of a thing back then. Not that they were all great at sports or anything, there ws just less shit to do :lol

I'm not saying it's not a good point at all...But there are other arguments for their generation not being simply outclassed that aren't easy to answer either.

[tmacattack33]

Nobodies done research still.

All just assumptions and imagination, which is all anyone had in the first place. Was hoping people would do research, but am so far disappointed. Everyone is content with not actually knowing a thing - yet still believing they are correct. Not good.

LOL...what research bro...

A) It's obvious that the population of the USA is much larger than back then

B) The league was not fully integrated until the 1970's (search this yourself because this is too stupid for me to even search for a link)

C) It's obvious the game is much more popular in the 100s of other countries on this planet than it was in 1960.

Are you just bored today? :biggums:

[CavaliersFTW]

LOL...what research bro...1. It's obvious that the population of the USA is much larger than back then 2. The league was not fully integrated until the 1970's (search this yourself because this is too stupid for me to even search for a link 3. It's obvious the game is much more popular in the 100 other countries on this planet than it was in 1960.

Are you just bored today? :biggums:
What was the population of twenty somethings then, vs now?

Simple questions. Again, no one is actually doing research. The league was fully integrated with the "best players in the world" in the 1960's.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

What was the population of twenty somethings then, vs now?

Simple questions. Again, no one is actually doing research. The league was fully integrated with the "best players in the world" in the 1960's.

By no one you mean Tom Heinsohn right?

The OP was never proven by any research in the first place.:facepalm

[CavaliersFTW]

By no one you mean Tom Heinsohn right?

The OP was never proven by any research in the first place.:facepalm
Of course, but he's more qualified to make a statement like that than the rest of ISH. He absolutely could be wrong, but there'd be only one way to find out. I'm hoping some people in the thread here take some initiative and do some research. I'm a film guy, not a numbers guy. I'm hoping some of you hoops heads can churn up some numbers. So far I've been disappointed.

[tmacattack33]

What was the population of twenty somethings then, vs now?

Simple questions. Again, no one is actually doing research. The league was fully integrated with the "best players in the world" in the 1960's.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/pop6097.pdf
(look at page 2 of the pdf)

In 1960:

About 21 million total persons between the ages of 20-29. And about 10 million males.



http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html

In 2000:

About 40 million total persons between the ages of 20-29. And about 20 million males.




Goodbye. End of thread.

[CavaliersFTW]

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/pop6097.pdf
(look at page 2 of the pdf)

In 1960:

About 21 million total persons between the ages of 20-29. And about 10 million males.



http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html

In 2000:

About 40 million total persons between the ages of 20-29. And about 20 million males.




Goodbye. End of thread.
Thanks, now find out how many played college basketball :applause:

*EDIT* Also, damn. The number hasn't quite doubled. Yet the league is more than 3 times as big... yikes.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Of course, but he's more qualified to make a statement like that than the rest of ISH. He absolutely could be wrong, but there'd be only one way to find out. I'm hoping some people in the thread here take some initiative and do some research. I'm a film guy, not a numbers guy. I'm hoping some of you hoops heads can churn up some numbers. So far I've been disappointed.

How is he qualified to make such a statement? Did he become a statistician for the Census? Does he run marketing science for a basketball company? :oldlol:

This random graph has more research behind it than his entire statement.

http://www.newgeography.com/files/imagecache/Chart_fullnodeview/chartimages/age18-24inusa.png

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Thanks, now find out how many played college basketball :applause:

*EDIT* Also, damn. The number hasn't quite doubled. Yet the league is more than 3 times as big... yikes.

Its almost as if NBA players just don't come from the United States. :facepalm

[CavaliersFTW]

Its almost as if NBA players just don't come from the United States. :facepalm
18% NBA talent, comes from the entire rest of the globe. The overwhelming majority are Americans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPa-2czPs1g

America still produces the basketball talent, by far.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

18% NBA talent, comes from the entire rest of the globe. The overwhelming majority are Americans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPa-2czPs1g

America still produces the basketball talent, by far.

And?

At worst that's another 10 million basketball eligible males in the talent pool to choose from. Making Heinsohn's condensed talent fantasy the ramblings of an old fool.

[CavaliersFTW]

And?

At worst that's another 10 million basketball eligible males in the talent pool to choose from. Making Heinsohn's condensed talent fantasy the ramblings of an old fool.
Yet he's a HOF coach, player, he's paid to give his opinions by the NBA and Celtics. People on ISH? Well, we all post here and don't get paid a dime for it because we HAVEN'T seen what he's seen. He's forgotten more about basketball than we'll ever learn.

Though I'm sure you guys will disagree due to some unresearched generalization about population and how it affects basketball, right?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Yet he's a HOF coach, player, he's paid to give his opinions by the NBA and Celtics. People on ISH? Well, we all post here and don't get paid a dime for it because we HAVEN'T seen what he's seen. He's forgotten more about basketball than we'll ever learn.

Though I'm sure you guys will disagree due to some broad sweeping generalization about population, right?

He literally has no expertise on this topic. Any random nerd who never touched a basketball in their life from the census or a marketing company would smoke him. :confusedshrug:

[NuggetsFan]

Of course, but he's more qualified to make a statement like that than the rest of ISH. He absolutely could be wrong, but there'd be only one way to find out. I'm hoping some people in the thread here take some initiative and do some research. I'm a film guy, not a numbers guy. I'm hoping some of you hoops heads can churn up some numbers. So far I've been disappointed.

Game has grown in Europe. Look at how many players aren't from the US right now, and than look at the past. Look at all the different leagues around the world. Mudiay/Gallo/Nurkic are from The Congo/Italy/Bosnia. Just one team. 3 best/most promising players all because of the increasing popularity of basketball.

AAU basketball wasn't around back than. The importance of education wasn't the same. People walked into there careers at 18, in 2015 college is really your only option. Racism was still crazy alive. You don't think there was some poor kid from the projects who could have been amazing? With youtube, twitter, 24/7 news and scouting cycle that kid is found and developed. Shit look at all the things you post. Stuff like that wasn't available back than. In Wilt's 100 point game nothing besides the 4th quarter audio is available correct? 1 score keeper. The fact that 1000's of more jobs have been created is all the evidence you need really :confusedshrug:

You don't need numbers to see the game has grown. It's insane not to think otherwise. Youtube/dunk contests/DVD's/merchandising etc. Affordability/convenience as well. There are amazing basketball courts everywhere nowadays, gyms's, basketball's everywhere.

[CavaliersFTW]

Game has grown in Europe. Look at how many players aren't from the US right now, and than look at the past. Look at all the different leagues around the world. Mudiay/Gallo/Nurkic are from The Congo/Italy/Bosnia. Just one team. 3 best/most promising players all because of the increasing popularity of basketball.

AAU basketball wasn't around back than. The importance of education wasn't the same. People walked into there careers at 18, in 2015 college is really your only option. Racism was still crazy alive. You don't think there was some poor kid from the projects who could have been amazing? With youtube, twitter, 24/7 news and scouting cycle that kid is found and developed. Shit look at all the things you post. Stuff like that wasn't available back than. In Wilt's 100 point game nothing besides the 4th quarter audio is available correct? 1 score keeper. The fact that 1000's of more jobs have been created is all the evidence you need really :confusedshrug:

You don't need numbers to see the game has grown. It's insane not to think otherwise. Youtube/dunk contests/DVD's/merchandising etc. Affordability/convenience as well. There are amazing basketball courts everywhere nowadays, gyms's, basketball's everywhere.
See... this is what not doing a spit of research does.

AAU Ball did exist then. It was what a lot of college players ended up doing that didn't make the pros as AAU back then consisted of a lot of corporate teams like Goodyear. You landed a job, and were put on a company AAU team. A few of the 1960 team USA players were players in the AAU that aren't HOF NBA players.

[Jameerthefear]

For the 3rd time, if I'm correct you still had to have a highschool education back then to go to college to play basketball. ONLY 34% OF PEOPLE GRADUATED FROM HIGHSCHOOL BACK THEN. This fact alone erases his myth about college

[NuggetsFan]

See... this is what not doing a spit of research does.

AAU Ball did exist then. It was what a lot of college players ended up doing that didn't make the pros as AAU back then consisted of a lot of corporate teams like Goodyear. You landed a job, and were put on a company AAU team. A few of the 1960 team USA players were players in the AAU that aren't HOF NBA players.

I was clearly talking about prospects. As in highly ranked prospects in the AAU cycle. Not people playing for goodyear or company teams :oldlol: all tho I suppose that kinda helps my point.

I can pull multiple players opinions on it. Alot of the older ones saying it's bad for the game with how crazy it's got. It's image is starting to become ruined. 10 year old kids getting recruited.

Way to ignore everything else tho. Just like with everybody else lol

[CavaliersFTW]

I was clearly talking about prospects. As in highly ranked prospects in the AAU cycle. Not people playing for goodyear or company teams :oldlol: all tho I suppose that kinda helps my point.

I can pull multiple players opinions on it. Alot of the older ones saying it's bad for the game with how crazy it's got. It's image is starting to become ruined. 10 year old kids getting recruited.

Way to ignore everything else tho. Just like with everybody else lol
You didn't give me anything in your post. There was nothing to respond to other than the ramblings of someone who proved so ignorant on this subject they claimed AAU didn't exist back then. I would refrain from talking about AAU ball back then if I were you, seeing as how 5 minutes ago you didn't know it existed. Wouldn't advise trying to talk about it as if it is admissible or dismissible compared to today until you've actually put some time into the subject. Don't want to paint yourself in a corner twice.

There's one piece of somewhat relevant, cited information that has been posted in this entire thread so far. When it was posted the population of 20 somethings then to now. Though, that information is totally void of context right now as it could/would only be a supplemental piece to what we actually need. The claim Heinsohn made was that colleges churned out almost the same number of players as today. Knowing the entire population of 20 somethings, basketball players or not, isn't even really what the thread is about.

*EDIT* Let me also make it clear that I'm willing to accept that Heinsohn could be mistaken/unaware of actual numbers, or exaggerating. But, let's see the numbers. Don't care to read assumptions. I'm hoping to see the numbers of basketball players colleges produced, then and now.

[NuggetsFan]

You didn't give me anything in your post. There was nothing to respond to other than the ramblings of someone who proved so ignorant on this subject they claimed AAU didn't exist back then.


I misspoke. You knew what I meant.


I would refrain from talking about AAU ball back then if I were you, seeing as how 5 minutes ago you didn't know it existed. Wouldn't advise trying to talk about it as if it is admissible or dismissible compared to today until you've actually put some time into the subject. Don't want to paint yourself in a corner twice.


Hardly. It's a pretty popular topic at the moment and has been for abit. AAU basketball hasn't been what it's like now. Pretty obvious when discussing modern basketball.

Pretty sure AAU is actually a pretty massive thing. I would agree with you I don't know much about it. I was specifically talking about NBA level prospects and how crazy it's become. How much a player like Jaylen Brown plays compared to somebody who played in the 1960's. Travelling to face other high level recruits. You think a 15 year old in 1960 was flying out to face the best of the best? Couldn't afford too. Another good point ftr :confusedshrug:


There's one piece of somewhat relevant, cited information that has been posted in this entire thread so far. When it was posted the population of 20 somethings then to now. Though, that information is totally void of context right now as it could/would only be a supplemental piece to what we actually need. The claim Heinsohn made was that colleges churned out almost the same number of players as today. Knowing the entire population of 20 somethings, basketball players or not, isn't even really what the thread is about.

Mudiay, Nurkic, Gallo. Refute that. They wouldn't be here in 1960.

[NuggetsFan]

*EDIT* Let me also make it clear that I'm willing to accept that Heinsohn could be mistaken/unaware of actual numbers, or exaggerating. But, let's see the numbers. Don't care to read assumptions. I'm hoping to see the numbers of basketball players colleges produced, then and now.

All I'm saying is the talent pool is way bigger and the game has became way more popular. Thus more kids are playing. Goes without saying. I truthfully don't see how somebody would disagree with that.

[Asukal]

*EDIT* Let me also make it clear that I'm willing to accept that Heinsohn could be mistaken/unaware of actual numbers, or exaggerating. But, let's see the numbers. Don't care to read assumptions. I'm hoping to see the numbers of basketball players colleges produced, then and now.

Why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

[LAZERUSS]

For the 3rd time, if I'm correct you still had to have a highschool education back then to go to college to play basketball. ONLY 34% OF PEOPLE GRADUATED FROM HIGHSCHOOL BACK THEN. This fact alone erases his myth about college

Maybe at YOUR school, but the nation-wide graduation rate in 1959 was about 70%, or the SAME as in 1999.

AND, it was higher in 1969 (80%) than in 1999...and nearly the same rate as THIS past year

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/02/12/us-high-school-graduation-rate-hits-all-time-high

Next...

[Jameerthefear]

Maybe at YOUR school, but the nation-wide graduation rate in 1959 was about 70%, or the SAME as in 1999.

AND, it was higher in 1969 (80%) than in 1999...and nearly the same rate as THIS past year

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/02/12/us-high-school-graduation-rate-hits-all-time-high

Next...
Uh, a graduation rate is different from the % of people who graduate highschool in the U.S.
You're wrong, once again.
https://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/censusatlas/pdf/10_Education.pdf

[LAZERUSS]

Uh, a graduation rate is different from the % of people who graduate highschool in the U.S.
You're wrong, once again.
https://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/censusatlas/pdf/10_Education.pdf


:roll: :roll: :roll:

http://ftp.iza.org/dp3216.pdf


The high school graduation rate is a barometer of the health of American society and the
skill level of its future workforce. Throughout the first half of the 20th century, each new cohort of
Americans was more likely to graduate high school than the preceding one. This upward trend in
secondary education increased worker productivity and fueled American economic growth (See
Goldin and Katz [2003]). In the past 25 years, rising wage differentials between high school
graduates and dropouts increased the economic incentives to graduate high school.1 The real wages
of high school dropouts have declined since the early 1970s while those of more skilled workers
have risen sharply (See Autor, Katz, and Kearney [2005]).
According to one measure issued by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES),
U.S. students responded to these higher incentives by completing high school at increasingly greater
rates. Figure I plots the high school status completion rate overall and by race for each year since
1968 from the NCES. It is the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds possessing a high school credential.
By this measure—widely regarded as the official rate—U.S. schools now graduate nearly 88 percent
of students and black graduation rates have converged to those of non-Hispanic whites over the
past four decades.
The NCES also publishes a second measure of the high school graduation rate called the 17-
year-old graduation ratio (Figure I). This is the number of public and private high school diplomas
issued by secondary schools each year divided by the size of the 17-year-old population in that year.
This measure suggests a very different assessment of the U.S. secondary schooling system.2 Both
the graduation ratio and status completion rate start at nearly the same level in 1968. However,
contrary to the status completion rate, the graduation ratio estimates peak at 77 percent in 1969 and
then slowly declined until suddenly reversing the long-time trend starting in 2002.3
3
A number of recent studies question the validity of the status completion rate and attem

[Jameerthefear]

You can't link to a separate definition from a different source for graduation rates dumbass.
For all we know, your source could mean this:

A. The primary difference is defining the cohort. The four-year high school graduation rate defines the cohort when the student first becomes a freshman, and the rate is calculated using the number of students who graduate within four years.

[LAZERUSS]

As a side-note SAT scores have dropped from the 60's as well.

http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/historical-average-SAT-scores.pdf

[Jameerthefear]

Percent of population over who graduated highschool in 1950: 34%
2000: 80.4%

[LAZERUSS]

Percent of population over who graduated highschool in 1950: 34%
2000: 80.4%

Percentage of the EXISTING US population,,, 25 years and OLDER, at THAT time, who had graduated from High School.

How many 60 year olds were trying out for the NBA in 1959 you dumb ass?

GRADUATION RATES SINCE 1959 have been basically the SAME until just recently.

These are students, from 1959 and on, who graduated. You know...eligible potential BASKETBALL players.

Not 92 year old farmers who came over on a boat from Italy.

And again, the SAT scores tend to show a DECLINING intelligence since the 60's.

[LAZERUSS]

And I'll save myself some time on this "population boom" theory that has been used here, from another topic...




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.




BTW, and for those that didn't catch it...

D Jordan, Dwight, and Drummond (and Cousins BTW) are all 6-9 1/2...or the SAME height as Bill Russell.

Oh, and the "6-10" Kevin Love is really 6-7 3/4. But h is gifted athletically...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7TnbhJr8iY

Yep...the modern era is so much more advanced...

[Jameerthefear]

Over 25 is now 92 according to old man Laz :roll:

[warriorfan]

why does wilt stare down at the floor and slap at the ball with his palm everytime he dribbles?

[LAZERUSS]

why does wilt stare down at the floor and slap at the ball with his palm everytime he dribbles?

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

[ISHGoat]

Wilt and other old era defenders, please respectfully respond with your stance these facts:

Population has nearly tripled since 1950. (3x)
General quality of life has increased USA and internationally.(3x)
More development for basketball in USA and internationally.(3x)
Greater focus, knowledge, and technique in sports science.(3x)

While this doesnt affect GOAT talent like Wilt, it does the scrubs he faced. It would be like me playing against 6th graders.

I conclude the NBA is 3*3*3*3 = 81 times more advanced now than in Wilt's era.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt and other old era defenders, please respectfully respond with your stance these facts:

Population has nearly tripled since 1950. (3x)
General quality of life has increased USA and internationally.(3x)
More development for basketball in USA and internationally.(3x)
Greater focus, knowledge, and technique in sports science.(3x)

While this doesnt affect GOAT talent like Wilt, it does the scrubs he faced. It would be like me playing against 6th graders.

I conclude the NBA is 3*3*3*3 = 81 times more advanced now than in Wilt's era.

So guys like Hayes, Unseld, Reed, Bellamy, Cowens, McAdoo, Gilmore, Thurmond, Russell, and Kareem were "scrubs"?

BTW, the "second tier" centers he faced in his career were guys like the 7-0 270 Tom Boerwinkle (who, BTW, holds the Bulls single game rebounding record); or 20 ppg scorer Clyde Lovellette; or Zelmo Beaty, who was a 20 ppg scorer at times in his career; or Neal Walk, another 20 ppg scorer at one time in his career; Wayne Embry; and solid centers like Darrell Imhoff and Connie Dierking.

Not only that, but Chamberlain faced his HOF peers FAR more than Shaq, Hakeem, and Robinson faced their's.

Next...

[Norcaliblunt]

There are a lot more fat, lazy, video game playing kids now days that's for sure. As much as sports science and training may have progressed there has also definitely been some negative factors. Population increase means nothing when obesity is at an all time high, especially for children. As much as we have evolved, we have also devolved.