Wilt Chamberlain discussion

[QUOTE]Psileas , haven't you given this unreasonable clown enough jerkoff material. It's obvious this is how he gets his rocks off. Him having to acknowledge them(Wilt/Big O/Kareem...) is proof to their Towering legacies.His is silly/obscure 15 pages of confusion. I have never seen anyone questions Kareem's greatness which spanned three decades[/QUOTE]

You're right, and I had stopped like twice following the guy in this topic, but when I see certain things posted which are too obviously wrong to just ignore, I get into the trap of re-entering the (let's call it) conversation. I'll try to stop now, because it isn't getting anywhere. Let the others draw their conclusions.

This is the kid that said Howard was the most dominant center ever, right?:oldlol:

[QUOTE=Psileas]First of all, we're talking about USA, not the world, so world population doesn't matter.[/quote]

Well, I'm talking 'talent pool' which includes everyone who plays basketball which includes countries other then the USA, so you're wrong.

[qutoe]After all, international players started playing in the NBA in the early 90's (of course I don't count these very few individual cases that happened earlier), so world population up to the late 80's doesn't matter.[/quote]

The talent pool of players who played in the 90's came from those playing ball in the 70's/80's. It does matter.

[quote]The world population thing that you mentioned, along with the fact that the popularity of basketball exploded later compared to the USA (started from the late 80's and is still increasing), the fact that Team USA is no longer the "who's going for second?" dominator and the vast increase of internationals during the last seasons can easily mean that the real biggest talent pool exists nowadays.[/quote]

Umm... yes, that was a point I made, its been expanding continuously.

[quote]Second, basketball's popularity even in the USA didn't stop growing at any point. Going by childhoods alone, which you did, Jordan-Magic-Bird belonged to the 70's talent pool (more like late 60's for the last 2 guys). LeBron belongs to the 90's pool. Like you did before, compare the popularities of the games in these decades (which you admitted was higher in the 90's) and you should similarly reach to the conclusion that LeBron's era>Jordan's/Magic's-Bird's eras. Especially if you add in the increase popularity of the game globally.[/quote]

I don't doubt Lebron's era is going to be better for a second. Bron's era is not over yet though and is just picking up steam. After MJ et al retired the league slumped for a few years. Since the 2003 draft its been getting better every year. 6 years from 2003 things are really picking up as the 2003 and on rookies are getting closer to their potential just as Jordan's class started peaking right at the end of the 80's after being drafted in 84. This past year's class was even better. The year before was awesome too. I think the league was in better shape when Jordan came in to be honest but its not going to matter. In 10 years when Asia invades the NBA its going to go to another level we've never seen. For that matter I think the league has taken a step forward athletically.

I fully anticipate the 90's being overtaken... not as much as the 50's/60's was however. Who knows though in another 30 years, yea maybe. The thing about the older era was the sport was just still being developed as it was being played. The game changed so much from 1950 to 1960 its tough to even call it the same sport. Or consider 1940-1960. It really is not the same at all. That rate of change has slowed down as 1960-1980 does look like a lot more like it and 1980-2000 looks even more the same. At some point it will reach a tipping point where it stops growing and changing so much and people generally know how its played best and its spread enough that the pool is not expanding more.

Look at baseball. It started in the early half of the 18'th century. Over the next 50-70 years there was a lot of flux. Then in the 20's it hit it's own tipping point and the game is played more or less the same as it was from then on with very little change beyond roids.

I mean, in Bill Russel's career he invented blocking shots and you're trying to tell me it hit that point while he was playing?

[quote]Third, whichever 25 or 30 year span you're comparing, even a 100-fold increase is still an extreme overexaggeration, not because I said so, but because the results do: Which span's pools do you want to compare? 40's and 70's? Let's say that there was a 400-time increase in this pool. If this increase was kind of steady, this would mean a 7.37-time deeper pool for each decade. This, in turn, should mean either that
1) A huge number of NBA teams should be added-I mean hundereds of teams during these 3 decades.
or that[/quote]

Do you pay attention or just read 1960's headlines. Its two fold.

1. Simple economics. 30 franchises have increasing talent. More talent with less teams makes more competition and easier to market, charge higher prices and make more money for everyone. This is 'exactly' what happened and it can be seen in the salaries reflecting the price people are willing to pay for better product and the ease of marketing. Once you have a group of people making a killing do you want more competition or do you keep profits for yourself? The NBA is a collection of 'owners' not of 'groups people like to play in'.

2. Have you not noticed that there are basketball leagues all over the world now? Euro league has become so successful that they are successfully starting to sign legitimate NBA players in their prime. There are 100's of more teams.

A 100 fold increase is not only possible but is lower then the ceiling. Basketball has become the #2 global sport. In the 40's it was what, the #10 US sport? #5 maybe? I mean... without thinking: boxing/Lacross/football/soccer/baseball/cricket. I'm not even sure where hockey and track fit into the equation and I forget when cricket/lacross peaked and fell or what other sports were huge. I do know that ball was popular but localized regionally.

[quote]2) with the number of the teams not increasing to an extreme degree (a 3-4 team increase is considered a big expansion), a huge percentage of players from year X should be out of the league or struggling to survive just a few years after beginning their careers.
Neither happened.[/quote]

??? It happens every year. The stars are the best so they have long careers. The average career lasts 5 years. That means about an equal number of players last 7-9 years as last 1-3 years.

[quote]Once again you're trying to magnify certain things, like the symmetricity of the ball. The balls were not as high tech as today's balls, but we already saw that balls very similar to today's basketballs started existing by the early 40's. You must be talking about 40's players, not 60's. If 40's balls were as largely problematic as you claim, do you think there would be any reason for organizing pro leagues in that decade, with the most important equipment of the sport being at a horrible condition?[/quote]

I think they'd organize but people wouldn't bother to really dribble because the balls sucked. I can't believe you're trying to tell me that because a decent experimental balls 'existed' poor white trash and segregated kids growing up in ghettos got them as presents.

[quote]Don't you also think that, while watching videos from the 40's NBA we'd be able to see the ball bounce and move in weird ways and directions every time it was dribbled, which we don't?[/QUOTE]

Man, I've watched old BAA games. They didn't dribble the ball. It was almost like a faster version of team handball. People passed, maybe bounce passed, and maybe took a dribble or two to reset their feet and move. You can actually see the game evolve watching clips year by year as the equipment starts changing the way the game was played. And yes, I've actually done this in my sports history class when I was in university. Nothing was standard and maybe one place had a soccer ball that bounced better then another place's soccer ball.

And it still really does not matter because poor ghetto kids are not going to be playing with NBA level equipment with a war on in the 1940's. Its just ridiculous. Even if there is a team in Indiana or in New York that has learned how to do something right or had a decent ball things were not wide spread. And that spread didn't reach those kids. Jerry West's parents threw beer bottles at him not expensive new basketballs from Spalding's 'inventor workbench room'.

Your problem is you think just because you're older you're the only one who knows anything credible. The game evolved over time and everyone played their part. I'm glad its continuously gotten better.

[QUOTE=chains5000]This is the kid that said Howard was the most dominant center ever, right?[/QUOTE]

Uh, I said he dominated the league more then anyone since Wilt... and he is. What didn't you understand?

[QUOTE=32jazz]Psileas , haven't you given this unreasonable clown enough jerkoff material. It's obvious this is how he gets his rocks off. Him having to acknowledge them(Wilt/Big O/Kareem...) is proof to their Towering legacies.His is silly/obscure 15 pages of confusion. I have never seen anyone questions Kareem's greatness which spanned three decades:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

23jazz, where did you get the idea that I'm challenging Kareem's greatness? Or Wilt or Big O?

Lord man. You really don't read what people said.

Kareem: played 20 seasons. Won zillions of titles. MVPs. Had one of the most unstoppable moves in history.

Big O: averaged a triple double over one season. Most like will never be done again. Nuff said.

Wilt: Averaged 50 PPG and 27 RPG.

Why would anyone question their legacies which are obvious?

[QUOTE=Psileas]-Jerry West was a poor athlete who couldn't even get his hand above the rim and trained with soccer balls. However, Stockton, Nash, Billups and Duncan are all great or elite ones. Even Bird and Magic, even at their worst, were worlds better athletes than West.
-Big Baby Davis could do all the things Wilt could (that's a new gem right here). Plus, Greg Oden could run faster than him at his prime.
-Within 30 or so years, the talent pool in the USA increased by 3.2 gazillion times, regardless of what results show.
-Rumors that most players back then were measured barefoot and their weights weren't updated are myths just to make them look better.
-Wilt facing 4-5 very good/great centers in a 10-team league is not enough to qualify as good competition.

(And many more that I have no will to recall).

Dude, your understanding, perceptions and estimations at a lot of things you discuss are ironically bad to try and blame others for not understanding the game. Forget me, the "Wilt homer". Try to tell any of these things mentioned above to any sensible person who knows about NBA history and you'll be laughed at.[/QUOTE]

Heh, dude, I could care less if people laugh at me. My understanding is fine. If you have to lie about what I said to feel like you won that's okay... its just shameful cuz all those players you love lose.

[QUOTE=Manute for Ever!]Indiefan23, Psileas is probably the most knowledgeable poster on ISH. Why waste your time? He can actually back up and/or expand on his claims and know s the game inside out. Give it up.[/QUOTE]

Its cute how your friends who obviously already agree with you come in to give you morale support. Yea, they're not bias at all. :)

Like I said before, I'll do my best to try not to continue this conversation for like 5 months more. There are still many points I could address, like the fact that even Euroleague (and other European championships) NBA-level players aren't that many and neither are European teams which are attractive and wealthy enough to invite them - Josh Childress must be the biggest NBA name playing in Europe today, and he was considered just an average or a little above average NBA player. A lot of these guys had NCAA careers and then got cut (or completely ignored) by NBA teams.

Also, I can't help but mention the following quote:

[QUOTE]Man, I've watched old BAA games.[/QUOTE]

Reminds me of another guy who claimed so and had been banned. I just hope you're not him under another screen-name.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Like I said before, I'll do my best to try not to continue this conversation for like 5 months more. There are still many points I could address, like the fact that even Euroleague (and other European championships) NBA-level players aren't that many and neither are European teams which are attractive and wealthy enough to invite them - Josh Childress must be the biggest NBA name playing in Europe today, and he was considered just an average or a little above average NBA player. A lot of these guys had NCAA careers and then got cut (or completely ignored) by NBA teams.

Also, I can't help but mention the following quote:



Reminds me of another guy who claimed so and had been banned. I just hope you're not him under another screen-name.[/QUOTE]

Because I've watched ESPN Classic? ;0

I didn't way Euroleague was NBA talent, but theres top talent playing elsewhere and those leagues are getting much stronger. You acted like there were no other high quality teams and there are. Those teams are better then NCAA D-League teams and theres more talent then just childress playing. Pargo comes to mind as well. And Delfino off the top of my head.

Second best NBA player ever.

sorry, I can't resist this. You're resorting to just plain lying.

[QUOTE=Psileas]-Jerry West was a poor athlete who couldn't even get his hand above the rim and trained with soccer balls. However, Stockton, Nash, Billups and Duncan are all great or elite ones. Even Bird and Magic, even at their worst, were worlds better athletes than West.[/quote]

Yes, thats true.

[quote]-Big Baby Davis could do all the things Wilt could (that's a new gem right here).[/quote]

He could do all the things you listed when I made that comment.

[quote]Plus, Greg Oden could run faster than him at his prime.[/quote]

Greg Oden ran the floor as fast as Wilt did in a clip you showed me. You say 'in his prime' and list times Wilt the track athlete, not the in his prime ball player ran.

[quote]-Within 30 or so years, the talent pool in the USA increased by 3.2 gazillion times, regardless of what results show.[/quote]

The talent pool in the world. I specifically said and re-clarified this. You're bald faced lying.

[quote]-Rumors that most players back then were measured barefoot and their weights weren't updated are myths just to make them look better.[/quote]

You just assume players who are older you liked were 2"'s taller then everyone who played later despite the fact that plenty of people are listed barefoot and height in shoes varies totally from player to player. That is, you'd just tack on 2 inches with 0 facts backing you up. Constantly.

[quote]-Wilt facing 4-5 very good/great centers in a 10-team league is not enough to qualify as good competition.[/quote]

Not when you're comparing it to a league of 30 teams with 50 good bigs. No, its not.

[quote](And many more that I have no will to recall).

Dude, your understanding, perceptions and estimations at a lot of things you discuss are ironically bad to try and blame others for not understanding the game. Forget me, the "Wilt homer". Try to tell any of these things mentioned above to any sensible person who knows about NBA history and you'll be laughed at.[/QUOTE]

You're absolutely a Wilt old era homer. You look at tape of th 1967 NBA finals, admit they don't box out or play a sophisticated level of ball and that the players are way less athletic and then claim that they'd be able to compete on the same level in the 90's that Jordan played in. Watch the games side by side. The old era players were 'great' but there is 0 chance they could compete.

You even admit you have your head in the sand but are too proud to acknowldge it.

[quote]
Actually I (and most of the others) do talk about greatness. I don't really care what would happen if so and so changed eras and remained "only" as good as they were, because that would never happen. You're born and grow up in an era, yet, despite this obvious fact, some continue using the "time transportation" thing.
[/quote]

You 'don't care' because you know the result and refuse to admit it.

[QUOTE=Kiddlovesnets]Second best NBA player ever.[/QUOTE]

I think you can make an argument for that but it really depends on the criteria.

[QUOTE=indiefan23]I think you can make an argument for that but it really depends on the criteria.[/QUOTE]

Wilt was once voted as second greatest player in an official ISH poll...

[QUOTE=Kiddlovesnets]Wilt was once voted as second greatest player in an official ISH poll...[/QUOTE]

Well, if a poss by fans is your criteria I think you have to do better. Kobe was voted by 34% of fans as the best playoff performer of all time. Magic had 6%. Bird had 4%. You think people who know basketball give fans, much less, ISH fans, any credit at all? Do you think they deserve any?

[QUOTE]You just assume players who are older you liked were 2"'s taller then everyone who played later despite the fact that plenty of people are listed barefoot and height in shoes varies totally from player to player. That is, you'd just tack on 2 inches with 0 facts backing you up. Constantly.[/QUOTE]

I assume nothing. Open some books, ask people who know about the 60's and educate yourself.

[QUOTE]Not when you're comparing it to a league of 30 teams with 50 good bigs. No, its not.[/QUOTE]

The 50th best big in any modern league is a low-impact scrub or, at best, a very mediocre player, with low basketball skills, especially nowadays. This doesn't constitute a "good big" or real competition.

[QUOTE]You're absolutely a Wilt old era homer. You look at tape of th 1967 NBA finals, admit they don't box out or play a sophisticated level of ball and that the players are way less athletic and then claim that they'd be able to compete on the same level in the 90's that Jordan played in. Watch the games side by side. The old era players were 'great' but there is 0 chance they could compete.
You even admit you have your head in the sand but are too proud to acknowldge it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]You 'don't care' because you know the result and refuse to admit it.[/QUOTE]

The real reason you only care about straightly comparing players from different eras without any adjustment is because deep inside you know that older guys had much more talent than you give them credit and you fear that a more fair, adjusted comparison (which is the norm in comparing just about anything, except if you have ever met anyone who believes that the commander-in-chief of the army of modern Tanzania is greater than Alexander the Great, because Alexander's army used swords and shields) would greatly hurt the players you idolized.
No, really, you find me one sane person who would think like this in that army example. And this example is actually exaggerated, because war in the last 2,300 years progressed way, way more than basketball in the last 30-50. The equivalent of the Atom Bomb in 330 BC in basketball would be a player averaging like 3,000 ppg (or generally, a completely supernatural number) in the 60's/70's.

OK, off now.