“Jumpin” Joe Fulks once went 13/55 for 35 points. He played the whole game. Was +31

[Kblaze8855]

This is 1948. This is the true infancy of the league. Not a single opponent of his that game even lasted till Russell came in. These are pre shot clock players.

My question is this….

How do you lose by 31 when one guy goes 13/55 and there is no shot clock? I’d stall if I couldn’t score. What could the game plan be? Miss then just let them run and…you miss again…and let them run?

Forget the players…how could coaches be that bad?

Looking into it I see the “coach” was actually a safety off the New York giants who was also an ump in Major League Baseball and apparently…got a shot to coach in the nba.

They were just grabbing people from general athletics.

My question for you is this….

With only the concepts you understand from being a modern fan…

Given time….let’s say 10 years minimum.

Would you be a hall of fame coach if dropped into the league in 1950?

Do you believe your knowledge of the advancing concepts of the last 70 years would give you enough of a tactical advantage that we would see you in the history books as an amazing innovator?

Even taking out your knowledge of which players end up great would you be tactically advanced enough to take advantage of the limited coaching experience possible for your opponents to have?

Would you maybe need to wait till the ABA came along with the 3 and teach pace and space ball?

60 years into the sport and 20 years past Olympic status Joe Fulks was having 8-42 playoff games.

I feel like one of us might be useful just enforcing good shot selection and pacing.

Id have us 50 years ahead if nobody killed me for being uppity.

[BigShotBob]

They installed the shot clock system because teams that were up by like 5 used to play keep away until the game ended

And nobody here can use "advanced concepts" because it would be illegal or dumb to implement.

Pace and Space doesn't mean anything conceptually unless you have smart players and implement offensive concepts and sets that allow for optimum scoring outputs. Nobody here can do that.

I'd be a hall of fame coach now and in the 80's/90's but I would need a somewhat competent cast. I think my specialty would be rotations and innovating and inverting the offense. Defensively I'd pin point the lowest scoring starter and just play off them and say that they have to beat me.

Especially in a playoff series. I.E. if I was playing the Lakers Patrick Beverly would have to average 30 every game because I'd give him whatever he wants

[RRR3]

Yes I would be a hall of fame coach back then. Just running basic shit too.

[SaltyMeatballs]

Career FG% of 30.2 :roll:

This guy shouldn't be in the HOF

[Real Men Wear Green]

I bet they had unwritten rules like baseball that made it so that there were no 2-nothing games. Something like If one guy dribbled the ball for more than 2 minutes he would get clotheslines and back then the refs weren't sure whether or not they wanted to be football.

Give me two years to teach guys how to dribble and two coordinated bigs and we should be a good team using basic pick and roll and post up plays. Utah was a great team in the 90s based on pick and roll it would be a major weapon in a league where guys can't all dribble with both hands.

[FultzNationRISE]

This is 1948. This is the true infancy of the league. Not a single opponent of his that game even lasted till Russell came in. These are pre shot clock players.

My question is this….

How do you lose by 31 when one guy goes 13/55 and there is no shot clock? I’d stall if I couldn’t score. What could the game plan be? Miss then just let them run and…you miss again…and let them run?

Forget the players…how could coaches be that bad?

Looking into it I see the “coach” was actually a safety off the New York giants who was also an ump in Major League Baseball and apparently…got a shot to coach in the nba.

They were just grabbing people from general athletics.

My question for you is this….

With only the concepts you understand from being a modern fan…

Given time….let’s say 10 years minimum.

Would you be a hall of fame coach if dropped into the league in 1950?

Do you believe your knowledge of the advancing concepts of the last 70 years would give you enough of a tactical advantage that we would see you in the history books as an amazing innovator?

Even taking out your knowledge of which players end up great would you be tactically advanced enough to take advantage of the limited coaching experience possible for your opponents to have?

Would you maybe need to wait till the ABA came along with the 3 and teach pace and space ball?

60 years into the sport and 20 years past Olympic status Joe Fulks was having 8-42 playoff games.

I feel like one of us might be useful just enforcing good shot selection and pacing.

Id have us 50 years ahead if nobody killed me for being uppity.


Are you kidding, most fans think theyd be HOF coaches today.

[warriorfan]

Yes I would be a hall of fame coach back then. Just running basic shit too.

no you wouldn’t


this thread is kinda retarded, hindsight is 20/20.

[Kblaze8855]

no you wouldn’t


this thread is kinda retarded, hindsight is 20/20.


More about foresight. You would know what and who is coming. There are advancements in tactics even from more recent times. If you could go to the early 90s just telling guys to stop taking toe on the line 3s would make the team better. You coach one of the best shooters in the world like Mullin or Glen Rice:


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ActiveAgreeableHeifer-size_restricted.gif





Just making them run their plays to get guys open a couple feet further you would change the game.

Cant have a GOAT shooter like Mullin taking 30 threes in a season. You’d have him gunning away, using the resulting space to help Hardaway drive, and generally playing a different game.

And teams that long ago have much more glaring issues.

The extra 75 years of advances you have seen create the modern game couldn’t all be implemented of course but you could help.

[warriorfan]

it would of course changed the trajectory of the game. but that is why the game is special, it took everyone this long to figure certain things out that it should seem to be obvious along time ago. but that’s how it works. hindsight is 20/20. there’s still probably obvious low hanging fruit that everyone was somehow missing for almost 100 years that we will look back and slap ourselves for missing

[BigShotBob]

Bill Laimbeer was a center that was already shooting 3's though so it's not like what you're saying is revolutionary the issue is the variance and volatility of the 3 point shot can literally take your teams out of games

Edit: Also the reason why teams now are allowed to play the way they do now is because of offensive friendly freedom of movement rules and you can't fight over screens as hard as you used to (it's a foul) so now you have more switching

[Kblaze8855]

Laimbeer made 200 threes in 14 years. Obviously modern stretch bigs would be seen as revolutionary.

[post]

Career FG% of 30.2 :roll:

This guy shouldn't be in the HOF

fg% was above league average his rookie year when he led the league in scoring and the team won a championship

pretty monumental considering he was there at the big bang and created some of the elements

[AlternativeAcc.]

They didn't even know how to shoot correctly back then.

Just practicing modern form and basic ball movement strategy would suffice. I'd be considered the greatest coach in sports history when I coupled my strategies with general leadership and optimizing their bodies. They'd be doing squats and recovering better than anybody else at the time. Easy shit

[post]

i know a lot of people don't think reading is cool

but these are some interesting facts about him

grew up poor

drank before and after games

was murdered after he retired

set the single game scoring record of 63 which baylor broke 10 years later

[hiphopanonymous]

This is 1948. This is the true infancy of the league. Not a single opponent of his that game even lasted till Russell came in. These are pre shot clock players.

My question is this….

How do you lose by 31 when one guy goes 13/55 and there is no shot clock? I’d stall if I couldn’t score. What could the game plan be? Miss then just let them run and…you miss again…and let them run?

Forget the players…how could coaches be that bad?

Looking into it I see the “coach” was actually a safety off the New York giants who was also an ump in Major League Baseball and apparently…got a shot to coach in the nba.

They were just grabbing people from general athletics.

My question for you is this….

With only the concepts you understand from being a modern fan…

Given time….let’s say 10 years minimum.

Would you be a hall of fame coach if dropped into the league in 1950?

Do you believe your knowledge of the advancing concepts of the last 70 years would give you enough of a tactical advantage that we would see you in the history books as an amazing innovator?

Even taking out your knowledge of which players end up great would you be tactically advanced enough to take advantage of the limited coaching experience possible for your opponents to have?

Would you maybe need to wait till the ABA came along with the 3 and teach pace and space ball?

60 years into the sport and 20 years past Olympic status Joe Fulks was having 8-42 playoff games.

I feel like one of us might be useful just enforcing good shot selection and pacing.

Id have us 50 years ahead if nobody killed me for being uppity.
My 2 cents is I don't even care what plays anyone tries to write on a piece of paper. Few here are likely to be a capable coach in a pro league even if it is just crude barnstorming caliber and that's just due to the people skills it would require and how far removed anyone here is from what young men identified with in that era. I'd bet money most posters here can't succeed coaching a middle school let alone a pro league back then where guys are losing teeth from an errant elbow while simultaneously some guys on the roster may be dealing with PTSD from the 2nd world war. Or maybe they dodged the war and are prima dona's. Either way, leadership skill is timeless and if you aren't a leader today able to get people to buy into your values you are NOT going to be a leader in the past.

Then, what I've gathered from NBA history over the years is that most people don't know how little they know about how the past game was played. It isn't the same game as today. The refs aren't going to allow or disallow the same things. The conditions aren't the same. You can't just organize any practice session you want or assign homework to the players that had to go work extra jobs. It's just a barnstorming league with some cash incentives in 1948, good luck getting people to practice their shooting touch or to be receptive to you telling them a damn thing unless your're a truly influential human being that can convince them of the benefits of taking 10,000 more jumpers. Why would they even waste their time unless you can show them tangible proof first, or have some very powerful persuasion. Because you can't say "I'm from the future, trust me". You'll be laughed off the court and told to never return, and since you don't have a real identity back then you also have zero credentials on your resume. You'll also have the guys signing the players checks telling you or your players conflicting information such as jacking up more shots and fighting sells more tickets - keep it up or lose your job.


Yes I would be a hall of fame coach back then. Just running basic shit too.
You'd still have to earn the respect of jock-minded super-sized (not compared to modern NBA but still compared to average people) college educated athletes some of whom literally may have just survived battle and killed human beings in the 2nd world war.

How exactly would you - of all people - win them over with your liberal anarchist communist whining?

Fascinating to me that people who are mice right now think they'd be lions in a different era simply by knowing a strategy or two.

A real world way to become a coach back then would be to earn it - by implementing what you know today into a version of yourself back then. Prove to the players your techniques work by actually beating them and becoming something big in the league - if you can make it, because you might literally just not have enough talent, or work ethic to apply it to yourself and if you can't do that why should they give a damn what you think you know? It had better work against those guys or they'll never respect you enough to even be a coach. If you can't, you'd never be heard and all your future info would be for nothing.

[ralph_i_el]

This is 1948. This is the true infancy of the league. Not a single opponent of his that game even lasted till Russell came in. These are pre shot clock players.

My question is this….

How do you lose by 31 when one guy goes 13/55 and there is no shot clock? I’d stall if I couldn’t score. What could the game plan be? Miss then just let them run and…you miss again…and let them run?

Forget the players…how could coaches be that bad?

Looking into it I see the “coach” was actually a safety off the New York giants who was also an ump in Major League Baseball and apparently…got a shot to coach in the nba.

They were just grabbing people from general athletics.

My question for you is this….

With only the concepts you understand from being a modern fan…

Given time….let’s say 10 years minimum.

Would you be a hall of fame coach if dropped into the league in 1950?

Do you believe your knowledge of the advancing concepts of the last 70 years would give you enough of a tactical advantage that we would see you in the history books as an amazing innovator?

Even taking out your knowledge of which players end up great would you be tactically advanced enough to take advantage of the limited coaching experience possible for your opponents to have?

Would you maybe need to wait till the ABA came along with the 3 and teach pace and space ball?

60 years into the sport and 20 years past Olympic status Joe Fulks was having 8-42 playoff games.

I feel like one of us might be useful just enforcing good shot selection and pacing.

Id have us 50 years ahead if nobody killed me for being uppity.


How long do you have with an innovation before everybody else copies it? ~3 years?

[hiphopanonymous]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGYKyRmX4q4

Would love to know how anyone is going to assert their will onto players like that. The ego any players of any era including Mikan era was huge because they battled their way to the top levels of competition since their youth.

Would take a hell of a good natural leader to humble any of them into listening to you especially without credentials such as a tenure of successfully playing or coaching against their peers or other high ranking organizations that they are aware of and could respect to buy you some temporary compliance. Then your techniques had better work. Would they? Are you so sure? You could teach joe fulks and his teammates to shoot a few different kinds of ways and offer them some strategies but would they beat George Mikan and the Lakers with it? No? Your tactics if you even got that far might fade away into the category of losing tactics simply because you don't have George Mikan on your team. Hypothetically if Steph Curry's 3 point era team strategy couldn't beat Jordan's bulls for whatever reason it might also just not have been the right time for them and get stricken off as a losing brand of basketball. In 90's rules maybe the moving screens literally gum up the whole equation of modern 3 point basketball and once you figure that out and realize it isn't a good idea if it's from the wrong time or wrong rules it's too late. 1948 basketball is so different I really doubt even on a strategy level that it's as simple as many of you would like to believe and I'll still stand by that if you aren't a natural leader now you sure wouldn't be some other time. People skills are timeless.

[Kblaze8855]

Then, what I've gathered from NBA history over the years is that most people don't know how little they know about how the past game was played. It isn't the same game as today. The refs aren't going to allow or disallow the same things. The conditions aren't the same. You can't just organize any practice session you want or assign homework to the players that had to go work extra jobs. It's just a barnstorming league with some cash incentives in 1948, good luck getting people to practice their shooting touch or to be receptive to you telling them a damn thing unless your're a truly influential human being that can convince them of the benefits of taking 10,000 more jumpers..



Just for the record Joe made the modern equivalent of 106K a year in 1947(8000 dollars) and got a new car as a signing bonus. This is when he was a 24 year old rookie coming out of ww2.

Most promising players made about 5K which was a solid living for that era.

[Kblaze8855]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGYKyRmX4q4

Would love to know how anyone is going to assert their will onto players like that. The ego any players of any era including Mikan era was huge because they battled their way to the top levels of competition since their youth.

Would take a hell of a good natural leader to humble any of them into listening to you especially without credentials such as a tenure of successfully playing or coaching against their peers or other high ranking organizations that they are aware of and could respect to buy you some temporary compliance. Then your techniques had better work. Would they? Are you so sure? You could teach joe fulks and his teammates to shoot a few different kinds of ways and offer them some strategies but would they beat George Mikan and the Lakers with it? No? Your tactics if you even got that far might fade away into the category of losing tactics simply because you don't have George Mikan on your team. Hypothetically if Steph Curry's 3 point era team strategy couldn't beat Jordan's bulls for whatever reason it might also just not have been the right time for them and get stricken off as a losing brand of basketball. In 90's rules maybe the moving screens literally gum up the whole equation of modern 3 point basketball and once you figure that out and realize it isn't a good idea if it's from the wrong time or wrong rules it's too late. 1948 basketball is so different I really doubt even on a strategy level that it's as simple as many of you would like to believe and I'll still stand by that if you aren't a natural leader now you sure wouldn't be some other time. People skills are timeless.



I suspect people skills and being generally respected, is how the opposing coach from the game in question got the job when he was just an ex NFL player and a baseball umpire. Maybe the players listened to him…as they got blown out while the other teams star shot 13-55.

You’re obviously right in that the hurdles will involve more than having more sound tactics than those of that era. As I mentioned, the racial issue alone would probably exempt me.

Im asking more from a “If you can get your ideas implemented” point. Obviously most of those guys wouldn’t listen to some random 19 year old ish poster…unless of course their jobs depended on it. As I said the idea those guys were broke is a bit overblown.

4-5K wasn’t a bad living for those days and 8 was great.

[Xiao Yao You]

Are you kidding, most fans think theyd be HOF coaches today.

were they better players than Quin Snyder though?

[FultzNationRISE]

were they better players than Quin Snyder though?


Cant quit me.

[hiphopanonymous]

I suspect people skills and being generally respected, is how the opposing coach from the game in question got the job when he was just an ex NFL player and a baseball umpire. Maybe the players listened to him…as they got blown out while the other teams star shot 13-55.

You’re obviously right in that the hurdles will involve more than having more sound tactics than those of that era. As I mentioned, the racial issue alone would probably exempt me.

Im asking more from a “If you can get your ideas implemented” point. Obviously most of those guys wouldn’t listen to some random 19 year old ish poster…unless of course their jobs depended on it. As I said the idea those guys were broke is a bit overblown.

4-5K wasn’t a bad living for those days and 8 was great.
Fair enough - well if we ignore the people skills and just go X's and O's and training regimens already accepted I still have my doubts most ISH posters are at a level to teach basketball properly and tangibly improve a former pro because I'm not convinced they know enough about why 1948 basketball was the way it was let alone the nuances of why winning versions of the game are played the way it is today.

I think the few that could write up some decent modifications to how players were already training back then would have to be posters that have been hoopers. I could be wrong on this though, maybe I'm underestimating the bbiq of many ISH posters. You'd probably do ok because you seem to have a long tenured decent interest with the game, and probably aren't instantly going to look at a weird shot or dribble or 5 man weave of 1948 and simply think "do this hesi crossover instead". I'm not convinced a lot of iso moves of today even work back then. Some might be considered valid while others might draw a lot of whistles. And as for the 5 on 5 stuff it's pretty different with a 6 foot lane and big George Mikan planted down there with his ambidextrous bruiser moves in the lane in a strictly 2 point era. I'd imagine with his individual dominance that he could devastate a typical 1948 roster even if they had help being told how to improve their training.

That said some things that I would most want to improve would be the off-season individual skills of the players like ball handling and footwork of the roster, as well as MAYBE the jump shooting footwork and mechanics (simply to try to improve triple threat options). What I know from Mikan era basketball is that shooting forms had not been consolidated yet. Players were taught a variety of push shots, jump shots, and 2 handed set shots and were told to switch up the form depending on defensive coverage and range. I can only imagine this makes triple threat preparedness and consistency a bit more awkward unless the players on the floor in question had an insane BBIQ and could handle the variable overload. I suspect some superstars might've but most players couldn't. Today, obviously players are taught to simply shoot a derivative of the jump shot from a young age and to just keep it that way regardless of coverage and range which if nothing else does a whole lot of simplifying of footwork and hand positioning and thus - probably improves triple threat readiness on catches.

The big problem is players worked summer jobs back then and there was no such thing as team practicing or coaching in the off season... there kind of isn't even that today. Fundamentals are learned before the NBA and with that said I'd consider my roster back then corrupted by outdated teachings unless I could intervene so if I could hypothetically do that months before a season that's what I'd want to do. Assuming I could, what I do think might improve the team even better is ball handling drills and some lessons on driving and rim finishing tactics. Things like how and where to tuck the ball, what to do with your off-hand as you drive, how close to get to the defender, jumping into a body to finish through contact etc. Then I'd probably just keep it simple with pick and roll drills, backdoor cutting and screening. Nothing ridiculously complex or innovative because I don't think there really is anything done today that would blow their minds with brilliance short of the stuff that I don't think would have been allowed in the rules back then. I think improving everyone's ball handling and just making it a much higher priority than it may have been considered at the time will free up players to move around the floor with the ball in their hands and simultaneously I do think instructions about these things also improve players awareness on defense because if they are taught why they should or shouldn't keep the ball exposed in certain ways at different times this would translate to their alertness when an opponent makes said mistake.

So I guess when I think about it in short, I don't think I'd be reinventing the wheel. I'd just be doubling down on what I know to be fundamentals from my own first hand experiences... many of which are fundamentals known back then but perhaps just not as heavily emphasized as the game was still pretty experimental back then with a lot of rogue dead-end ideas that would eventually go extinct (like shots). I wouldn't bet against George Mikan though. A 6-10 270 guy who's aggressive, plays and practices surprisingly ahead of his time is not easy to win against. I don't think it'd be easy to turn just any old group of players into a group that beats Mikans teams. But if I had an entire fictional off-season I might be able to really up the attacking tactics of a team, maybe.

[RRR3]

My 2 cents is I don't even care what plays anyone tries to write on a piece of paper. Few here are likely to be a capable coach in a pro league even if it is just crude barnstorming caliber and that's just due to the people skills it would require and how far removed anyone here is from what young men identified with in that era. I'd bet money most posters here can't succeed coaching a middle school let alone a pro league back then where guys are losing teeth from an errant elbow while simultaneously some guys on the roster may be dealing with PTSD from the 2nd world war. Or maybe they dodged the war and are prima dona's. Either way, leadership skill is timeless and if you aren't a leader today able to get people to buy into your values you are NOT going to be a leader in the past.

Then, what I've gathered from NBA history over the years is that most people don't know how little they know about how the past game was played. It isn't the same game as today. The refs aren't going to allow or disallow the same things. The conditions aren't the same. You can't just organize any practice session you want or assign homework to the players that had to go work extra jobs. It's just a barnstorming league with some cash incentives in 1948, good luck getting people to practice their shooting touch or to be receptive to you telling them a damn thing unless your're a truly influential human being that can convince them of the benefits of taking 10,000 more jumpers. Why would they even waste their time unless you can show them tangible proof first, or have some very powerful persuasion. Because you can't say "I'm from the future, trust me". You'll be laughed off the court and told to never return, and since you don't have a real identity back then you also have zero credentials on your resume. You'll also have the guys signing the players checks telling you or your players conflicting information such as jacking up more shots and fighting sells more tickets - keep it up or lose your job.


You'd still have to earn the respect of jock-minded super-sized (not compared to modern NBA but still compared to average people) college educated athletes some of whom literally may have just survived battle and killed human beings in the 2nd world war.

How exactly would you - of all people - win them over with your liberal anarchist communist whining?

Fascinating to me that people who are mice right now think they'd be lions in a different era simply by knowing a strategy or two.

A real world way to become a coach back then would be to earn it - by implementing what you know today into a version of yourself back then. Prove to the players your techniques work by actually beating them and becoming something big in the league - if you can make it, because you might literally just not have enough talent, or work ethic to apply it to yourself and if you can't do that why should they give a damn what you think you know? It had better work against those guys or they'll never respect you enough to even be a coach. If you can't, you'd never be heard and all your future info would be for nothing.
Melting down about my political views in a completely unrelated subject :facepalm

Beyond embarrassing.

[Lebron23]

Fair enough - well if we ignore the people skills and just go X's and O's and training regimens already accepted I still have my doubts most ISH posters are at a level to teach basketball properly and tangibly improve a former pro because I'm not convinced they know enough about why 1948 basketball was the way it was let alone the nuances of why winning versions of the game are played the way it is today.

I think the few that could write up some decent modifications to how players were already training back then would have to be posters that have been hoopers. I could be wrong on this though, maybe I'm underestimating the bbiq of many ISH posters. You'd probably do ok because you seem to have a long tenured decent interest with the game, and probably aren't instantly going to look at a weird shot or dribble or 5 man weave of 1948 and simply think "do this hesi crossover instead". I'm not convinced a lot of iso moves of today even work back then. Some might be considered valid while others might draw a lot of whistles. And as for the 5 on 5 stuff it's pretty different with a 6 foot lane and big George Mikan planted down there with his ambidextrous bruiser moves in the lane in a strictly 2 point era. I'd imagine with his individual dominance that he could devastate a typical 1948 roster even if they had help being told how to improve their training.

That said some things that I would most want to improve would be the off-season individual skills of the players like ball handling and footwork of the roster, as well as MAYBE the jump shooting footwork and mechanics (simply to try to improve triple threat options). What I know from Mikan era basketball is that shooting forms had not been consolidated yet. Players were taught a variety of push shots, jump shots, and 2 handed set shots and were told to switch up the form depending on defensive coverage and range. I can only imagine this makes triple threat preparedness and consistency a bit more awkward unless the players on the floor in question had an insane BBIQ and could handle the variable overload. I suspect some superstars might've but most players couldn't. Today, obviously players are taught to simply shoot a derivative of the jump shot from a young age and to just keep it that way regardless of coverage and range which if nothing else does a whole lot of simplifying of footwork and hand positioning and thus - probably improves triple threat readiness on catches.

The big problem is players worked summer jobs back then and there was no such thing as team practicing or coaching in the off season... there kind of isn't even that today. Fundamentals are learned before the NBA and with that said I'd consider my roster back then corrupted by outdated teachings unless I could intervene so if I could hypothetically do that months before a season that's what I'd want to do. Assuming I could, what I do think might improve the team even better is ball handling drills and some lessons on driving and rim finishing tactics. Things like how and where to tuck the ball, what to do with your off-hand as you drive, how close to get to the defender, jumping into a body to finish through contact etc. Then I'd probably just keep it simple with pick and roll drills, backdoor cutting and screening. Nothing ridiculously complex or innovative because I don't think there really is anything done today that would blow their minds with brilliance short of the stuff that I don't think would have been allowed in the rules back then. I think improving everyone's ball handling and just making it a much higher priority than it may have been considered at the time will free up players to move around the floor with the ball in their hands and simultaneously I do think instructions about these things also improve players awareness on defense because if they are taught why they should or shouldn't keep the ball exposed in certain ways at different times this would translate to their alertness when an opponent makes said mistake.

So I guess when I think about it in short, I don't think I'd be reinventing the wheel. I'd just be doubling down on what I know to be fundamentals from my own first hand experiences... many of which are fundamentals known back then but perhaps just not as heavily emphasized as the game was still pretty experimental back then with a lot of rogue dead-end ideas that would eventually go extinct (like shots). I wouldn't bet against George Mikan though. A 6-10 270 guy who's aggressive, plays and practices surprisingly ahead of his time is not easy to win against. I don't think it'd be easy to turn just any old group of players into a group that beats Mikans teams. But if I had an entire fictional off-season I might be able to really up the attacking tactics of a team, maybe.

Guys like Joe Fulks became hall of famers not because of their basketball skills. They became hall of famers because they were Pioneers just like the guy who invented basketball.

[Real Men Wear Green]

The NBA began integrating in the 50s. Liberal views would actually help coaches relate to black players that were fighting for equal rights and any white players that were against fair treatment of their black teammates would not be worth dealing with anyway.

[RRR3]

The NBA began integrating in the 50s. Liberal views would actually help coaches relate to black players that were fighting for equal rights and any white players that were against fair treatment of their black teammates would not be worth dealing with anyway.
He’s a bitter old man who longs for the days when he could be openly racist without blowback.

[FultzNationRISE]

The NBA began integrating in the 50s. Liberal views would actually help coaches relate to black players that were fighting for equal rights and any white players that were against fair treatment of their black teammates would not be worth dealing with anyway.

If you think race has to do with liberal/conservative politics, you're falling for a calculated media campaign pushed by wealthy oligarchs to divide ordinary people and profit from all of them.

You are under nuanced and unintelligent tho so this is of course not a surprise.

[Real Men Wear Green]

If you think race has to do with liberal/conservative politics, you're falling for a calculated media campaign pushed by wealthy oligarchs to divide ordinary people and profit from all of them.

You are under nuanced and unintelligent tho so this is of course not a surprise.

It is a known fact that the liberal stance was pro equal rights in the 50s. You are arguing with reality per usual. You assume that everyone that doesn't share your world view is uninformed but you continuously neglect to factor in the fact that you are in fact a stupid jackass.

[FultzNationRISE]

It is a known fact that the liberal stance was pro equal rights in the 50s. You are arguing with reality per usual. You assume that everyone that doesn't share your world view is uninformed but you continuously neglect to factor in the fact that you are in fact a stupid jackass.


You dont understand what a “right” is and youre conflating liberal/conservative POLICY preferences with personal social values.

Not gonna waste time spelling it out for the umpteenth time what youre failing to grasp, because it wont change your mind. I realize the connection between you being objectively pathetic as an individual and your “inability” to understand basic logic.

It’s not that you cant, it’s that you will always subconsciously reject what works counter to your own interests. Objectivity is the enemy of those who are objectively weak. Pretty simple.

So… whatever. :confusedshrug:

[Real Men Wear Green]

It would probably help if you were sane.

[FultzNationRISE]

It would probably help if you were sane.


The one poster clowned rrr3 for being a cringe 'anachronocommunist' or whatever try-hard identity shtick he's desperate to cling to.

You then turned that into the first poster somehow being racist and claiming black players would reject him on political grounds. I suppose John Wooden must have been a political anrnroachrochcommunisms too since he coached black people. RMWG with the 300 IQ insights.

You are the BIGGGGGEESSTTTTTTTTT loser here and youve been widely seen as such since you started posting. It's not the view of a couple people with an axe to grind. It's an empirical fact you are a pathetic, limp wristed loser.

So, it is what it is.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I started nothing here that wasn't factual. Black players in the 50s would definitely appreciate a coach that was for equal rights. You continue to argue because you are not sane. This is not my problem.

[FultzNationRISE]

I started nothing here that wasn't factual. Black players in the 50s would definitely appreciate a coach that was for equal rights. You continue to argue because you are not sane. This is not my problem.


I know bud. Im just reminding you that everyone here sees you as a tard.

Felt like you might have been forgetting that for a moment.

Cheers.