Why do people always think if an older player played today they would be WAY better?

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]except that I have a source that claims he was only 6-9, and 6-10.25 in shoes + a player who says he's taller than Dwight Howard

you have a source that claims he grew an inch to the full "7 feet tall" (funny, seeing as how he only ever measured 6-9... or at best, 6-10.25 "with the shoes he brought to draft camp") meaning said source never did any legit research in the first place to learn that Dwight never in fact measured to 6-11. That same 6-11 height that u tried to use as an excuse to say "well Dwight got listed 6-11 cause he grew into it". No. Dwight listed 6-11 immediately otherwise that article wouldn't have come up with such a phony number to begin with :oldlol: , and they even tried to exaggerate his height further to 7-0 :oldlol: The article is straight up flawed from the get go. It aint credible bro.

The NBA, where players get bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. [COLOR="White"]On paper[/COLOR][/QUOTE]


I only read the first sentence, apparently you stop growing at 18, and you have a learning disability that doesn't allow you to process the thought that they are listing his height with shoes on.

And instead of using a tape measure at the NBA Combine, they should just bring in Andre Iguodala.

I only read the title. Took sleeping pill and I'm too tired.

There's 2 reasons. For centers, it's the lack of quality centers in this era, so people assume that the Ewing's of the world will have an easier times not going up against the Olajuwon's of the world. When it comes to perimeter players, since the league change the rules to make it significantly better, and as a result it's what happened, people assume that the Drexler's of the world will also do better.

[QUOTE=abuC]I only read the first sentence, apparently you stop growing at 18, and you have a learning disability that doesn't allow you to process the thought that [B]they are listing his height with shoes on.[/B]

And instead of using a tape measure at the NBA Combine, they should just bring in Andre Iguodala.[/QUOTE]
6-10.25? So that means he should have grown to the full 6-11.25 right?

Where in the article did it say that? To me it looks like it said 7 feet :roll:

Your drowning in defeat.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]6-10.25? So that means he should have grown to the full 6-11.25 right?

Where in the article did it say that? To me it looks like it said 7 feet :roll:

Your drowning in defeat.[/QUOTE]


Reading comprehension isn't your strong point


[quote] arriving for training camp at right around 7-feet.[/quote]

It didn't explicitly state he was 7 feet tall, just around there, Im right around 6"2......since I'm 6"1 and 3/4ths. I don't tell people I'm 6"2, just like he doesn't tell people he's 7 feet, hence he's listed at 6"11.

Have you finally understood such a daunting topic? You have no opinion on why he's taller than Chris Bosh in sneakers which says enough.

[QUOTE=abuC]Reading comprehension isn't your strong point




It didn't explicitly state he was 7 feet tall, just around there, Im right around 6"2......since I'm 6"1 and 3/4ths. I don't tell people I'm 6"2, just like he doesn't tell people he's 7 feet, hence he's listed at 6"11.

Have you finally understood such a daunting topic? No opinion on why he's taller than Chris Bosh in sneakers....[/QUOTE]
Yes, I understand that the NBA never learned how to round a decimal. They think that 6-10.25 = "6-11". And that Dwight grew an inch according to the NY post to the "full 7 feet".






Or






Dwight lied about his list height, and a poorly written obscure NY article states (based on nothing whatsoever) that Dwight grew an inch from his 6-11 height (which the editor thinks was his real height, despite it not being his real height) to "7 feet tall". Dwight is in fact, shorter than a 70+ year old Bill Russell. Who once listed only 6-9 (also untrue, but for different reasons) and is by now, probably barely over 6-9 himself - seeing as how when he was in his prime he was no more than 6-9 and 5/8ths. Keep drowning son. The NBA makes up list heights, it isn't based on "shoes". It isn't based on anything. It's inconsistent, it's whatever the player wants it to be. And in the past 30 years, players have exaggerated the number beyond reality a lot more so than the years prior.

[QUOTE=atljonesbro]I really don't understand the logic what so ever. So you think, "Oh he played in an era other than the current one, he must be better than everyone playing today."? There's no logic behind that at all. If you think players have gotten worse over time then you're sadly mistaken. That's completely backwards thinking. More of the aspects that make a player develop into what they become get BETTER over time and players learn BETTER ways to get better.

[SIZE="3"][B]LET ME HIGHLIGHT THIS PART BEFORE SOMEONE SH1TS A COW. IM NOT SAYING ALL CURRENT PLAYERS ARE BETTER THAN OLDER PLAYERS OR OLDER PLAYERS ARE SCRUBS. IM SIMPLY SAYING YOUR NOSTALGIA AND HOMERISM OF ERAS MAKES NO SENSE. [/B][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Because most logical people take training into account. If Lebron played back in the days he would still have the mindset that he has but his skillset and style of play would look similar to that era.

If bill Russell played today it would be similar to Dwight. If Oscar played today, his game would look similar to the nets Jason Kidd with a better scoring ability etc...

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Yes, I understand that the NBA never learned how to round a decimal. They think that 6-10.25 = "6-11". And that Dwight grew an inch according to the NY post to the "full 7 feet".






Or






Dwight lied about his list height, and a poorly written obscure NY article states (based on nothing whatsoever) that Dwight grew an inch from his 6-11 height (which the editor thinks was his real height, despite it not being his real height) to "7 feet tall". Dwight is in fact, shorter than a 70+ year old Bill Russell. Who is by now, probably barely over 6-9 himself - seeing as how when he was in his prime he was no more than 6-9 and 5/8ths. Keep drowning son.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you definitely have a learning disability, mixed in with some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory stuff.

You won't address the obvious, which is he's taller than Bosh in sneakers, because that just destroys the point you're trying to make. You argue like a woman, talking about "winning" and being completely dishonest in doing so, posting pictures of Russell in the foreground with Dwight in the background, ignoring facts and just trying to "win" on some real bitch shit. If you're not even going to be objective I won't bother responding anymore.

I love how the depth of people analysis is "Oh, this is a weak era for centers".

Lol. You think it's just a coincidence that under 1 set of rules, centers dominated the league THEN as soon as the rules change, the are no dominant centers anymore? Just a coincidence? Really?

If past centers played today with the current rules, they'd mostly be worse than they were in their own eras, not better.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]I love how the depth of people analysis is "Oh, this is a weak era for centers".

Lol. You think it's just a coincidence that under 1 set of rules, centers dominated the league THEN as soon as the rules change, the are no dominant centers anymore? Just a coincidence? Really?

If past centers played today with the current rules, they'd mostly be worse than they were in their own eras, not better.[/QUOTE]

I thought it was, but I don't think that's entirely the case.

The centers really started to go down hill around 1999ish. Shaq was the only dominate guy. He stayed like that for years and nobody came close to his level in the center position. All of the centers he competed against in the 90s, got old or suffered from injuries and retired shortly, and they couldn't compete with Shaq by time 2000. No other great center picked up the torch after Hakeem, David Robinson, and Ewing except for Shaq and Mourning, but Mourning was never the same again after 2000 too. Unless you count Duncan as a center. Who was the second and third best center in the early 00s where Shaq dominated? Then then compare that to the 90s.

Would those centers, and the centers in the 80s, dominate this era? I'm not hesitant to say yes, because who is really their competition besides D.Howard and Bynum? Would they average the same numbers is a different story. Depends on the situation I think. But no doubt they are more polish and have more offensive capability.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]I love how the depth of people analysis is "Oh, this is a weak era for centers".

Lol. You think it's just a coincidence that under 1 set of rules, centers dominated the league THEN as soon as the rules change, the are no dominant centers anymore? Just a coincidence? Really?

If past centers played today with the current rules, they'd mostly be worse than they were in their own eras, not better.[/QUOTE]


Centers used to go to college and develop over the course of years -

Wilt - 4 years (2 years varsity)
Kareem - 4 years
Walton - 4 years
Hakeem - 3 years
Robinson - 4 years
Ewing - 4 years
Robinson - 4 years
Shaq - 2 years
Rik Smits - 4 years
Brad Daughtery - 4 years
Alonzo Mourning - 4 years


Compare that to guys in the league now, the guys with the most polished post games are almost all foreigners today, with a few exceptions. Yeah Bynum has a nice post game, but he also had a tutor spend time with him and help him develop.

It's not the rules, we're only 5 years removed from Yao averaging 25 a game.

[QUOTE=atljonesbro]I really don't understand the logic what so ever. So you think, "Oh he played in an era other than the current one, he must be better than everyone playing today."? There's no logic behind that at all. If you think players have gotten worse over time then you're sadly mistaken. That's completely backwards thinking. More of the aspects that make a player develop into what they become get BETTER over time and players learn BETTER ways to get better.

[SIZE="3"][B]LET ME HIGHLIGHT THIS PART BEFORE SOMEONE SH1TS A COW. IM NOT SAYING ALL CURRENT PLAYERS ARE BETTER THAN OLDER PLAYERS OR OLDER PLAYERS ARE SCRUBS. IM SIMPLY SAYING YOUR NOSTALGIA AND HOMERISM OF ERAS MAKES NO SENSE. [/B][/SIZE][/QUOTE]


I think where you're going wrong with this is the same way Niquesports tends to bash on the youngins for not recognizing the past, you seem very narrow minded to the fact that the older generation is qualified to make those arguments. As fast as Niquesports discredits the younger POV you get your peacock feathers up when the oldies reminice about the past and validate it's greatness.

To state there is no logic behind older players having the abilty to be greater in todays era is a very ignorant statement. As much as you may be right, you will NEVER know, and that's where debate is healthy. The different eras are relevant to being on a level playing field. Sports in any genre is about the science of improving. They had the resources they had then, the resources are much better now. You're relevant to who your competition is. Does that not sound logical to you?

Put it this way, Alexander Graham Bell never invented an iphone. Does that make Steve Jobs smarter than him? No, but we also can't say that maybe Jobs could have invented the phone in Graham Bells day. That may not be a solid foundation to compare with but it is somewhat the point.

[QUOTE=INDI]Because most logical people take training into account. If Lebron played back in the days he would still have the mindset that he has but his skillset and style of play would look similar to that era.

If bill Russell played today it would be similar to Dwight. If Oscar played today, his game would look similar to the nets Jason Kidd with a better scoring ability etc...[/QUOTE]

Yes. I agree. You are using good predictive logic here.

And if you go further, using some more good predictive logic, you will realize that since today's population is larger than it was in 1970 and a higher percentage of people are playing basketball, today's talent pool is a lot larger than it was in the past, which makes today's players proportionally better.

[QUOTE=atljonesbro]I really don't understand the logic what so ever. So you think, "Oh he played in an era other than the current one, he must be better than everyone playing today."? There's no logic behind that at all. If you think players have gotten worse over time then you're sadly mistaken. That's completely backwards thinking. More of the aspects that make a player develop into what they become get BETTER over time and players learn BETTER ways to get better.

[SIZE="3"][B]LET ME HIGHLIGHT THIS PART BEFORE SOMEONE SH1TS A COW. IM NOT SAYING ALL CURRENT PLAYERS ARE BETTER THAN OLDER PLAYERS OR OLDER PLAYERS ARE SCRUBS. IM SIMPLY SAYING YOUR NOSTALGIA AND HOMERISM OF ERAS MAKES NO SENSE. [/B][/SIZE][/QUOTE]


What youre saying is partially true but Certain eras are indeed weak eras or have rules/lacked rules that might have benefitted or negatively effected specific players.

For example Allen Iverson benefitted from the hand check rules which limited a physically stronger perimeter defender from imposing his strength on a guy like AI.

Another example was Wilt playing in an era of 6"7 centers. You can also look at a guy like Bynum and realize he wouldnt be as highly valued in the 90s as he is today; guys like Ewing, Hakeem, Shaq etc would make him look very average in comparison.

So certain players yes they may fit better/ worse depending on the era, but that doesnt mean that player is a scrub

[QUOTE=atljonesbro]How about instead of a lecture you answer my question thanks.[/QUOTE]

Because your question is absurd and lacks a premise.

People don't always think if an older player etc.

They just don't. You're wrong. There's nothing to answer.

[QUOTE=NewYorkNoPicks]What youre saying is partially true but Certain eras are indeed weak eras or have rules/lacked rules that might have benefitted or negatively effected specific players.

[B]For example Allen Iverson benefitted from the hand check rules which limited a physically stronger perimeter defender from imposing his strength on a guy like AI.[/B]

Another example was Wilt playing in an era of 6"7 centers. You can also look at a guy like Bynum and realize he wouldnt be as highly valued in the 90s as he is today; guys like Ewing, Hakeem, Shaq etc would make him look very average in comparison.

So certain players yes they may fit better/ worse depending on the era, but that doesnt mean that player is a scrub[/QUOTE]

No he didnt. He killed players prior to the rule being enforced. What are you talkin about? Do your homework.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]My bad - the NY daily news says Dwight went from 6-9 to 7 feet tall now :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[IMG]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-wPViLyRfLeI/UD17AkJNi1I/AAAAAAAADj8/JS4qa8lgOtk/s800/01_howard_russesll.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Not to disagree about growing 3", but using that pic as "evidence" that he's shorter than Russell is misguiding. Russell is about half a foot closer to the camera and the shot is a close up. You could make Chris Bosh look just as big as Andrew Bynum with similar camera angle.

[QUOTE=JMT]Because your question is absurd and lacks a premise.

People don't always think if an older player etc.

They just don't. You're wrong. There's nothing to answer.[/QUOTE]
Actually their is something to answer seeing as this thread had 4 pages and i've gotten multiple answers already. What forum are you on? This forum overrates past players more than anywhere i've ever seen. I guess you really wouldn't notice since your main concern is not to contribute but to post smart a$$ comments to try to up yourself and gain rep. There's always that one guy on every forum who thinks he's a fu.cking genius but never contributes and posts cocky smart a$$ comments everywhere. That would be you here.

[QUOTE=tmacattack33]Yes. I agree. You are using good predictive logic here.

And if you go further, using some more good predictive logic, you will realize that since today's population is larger than it was in 1970 and a higher percentage of people are playing basketball, today's talent pool is a lot larger than it was in the past, which makes today's players proportionally better.[/QUOTE]

but were not going by talent pool, we are going by who actually played. Just to further my point that you have to adjust players games to the time period etc....

How many of you believe that if bob cousy played in this day and era that he would still do all that one handed dribbling??? EXACTLY, cousy would have had a different set of teachers but his bball dna would still be what is was always destined to be. So if you put cousy in todays game, he would probably play and dribble like nash (best example I could think of). Wilt would have a Javele Mcgee kind of athleticism with a superior scorer's touch (hopefully you get it by now).

[QUOTE=GOBB]No he didnt. He killed players prior to the rule being enforced. What are you talkin about? Do your homework.[/QUOTE]


I saw that comment too :oldlol:

AI came entered the league in 96... The rules helped him get to the line EVEN MORE by the time they were instituted, but AI tore up defenses prior to the handchecking rule changes

[QUOTE=atljonesbro]Actually their is something to answer seeing as this thread had 4 pages and i've gotten multiple answers already. What forum are you on? This forum overrates past players more than anywhere i've ever seen. I guess you really wouldn't notice since your main concern is not to contribute but to post smart a$$ comments to try to up yourself and gain rep. There's always that one guy on every forum who thinks he's a fu.cking genius but never contributes and posts cocky smart a$$ comments everywhere. That would be you here.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and the majority of those posts point out what I did: that you're consumed with this conspiracy theory. There's a poster or two that you have a beef with, and you've made them "everybody" and "always" by applying a really childish lack of logic.

There are a good, solid group of posters here who are knowledgable about the game prior to 1990. I've not seen any of them, on any kind of regular basis, say that players from former eras would be better today, aside from the ovious advantages they'd have in conditioning, coaching and nutrition. Rather, they tend to argue against a myopic, limited side that randomly assumes that all those players would be far worse. That's the side making generalizations backed up by nothing; the side you're advocating.

[QUOTE]
Lol. You think it's just a coincidence that under 1 set of rules, centers dominated the league THEN as soon as the rules change, the are no dominant centers anymore? Just a coincidence? Really?


[/QUOTE]

If there were young centers just before the change who suddenly fell off and never got where they were expected id say you had a point.

But unless you are gonna tell me Kwame, Darko, Curry, and Greg Odens issues were the rule changes....there have only been 2 centers drafted in the last 15 years who had the game to justify the assumption that they might join the Shaqs, Drobs, Ewing, and so on of the previous era.

Yao...and Dwight. And if you want to include Oden I wouldnt argue. Or maybe consider Amare a 5 even though he was drafted as a 4 and is one now.

The great centers who dont get hurt still become great centers. Be it Dwight doing 23/14 a couple years ago and leading a finals team or pre injury Yao doing 25/9.

Guys with that "....of all time" talent dont just fizzle out into the centers we are left with over the rule changes. They either get to that level or they get hurt. Nothing in the rules stops them.

Where are the guys who should be Hakeem, Drob, Shaq, Russell, Ewing, Mourning, Wilt, Parish, Kareem, Moses and so on...and arent due to the rules? Cousins? Bynum? Al Jefferson?

Its a lack of the players. Not the rules keeping them from showing it.

The late 60s through the early 90s simply had bigmen who wanted to play like bigmen. Around then tall players wanted to play like guards and less of them turned into what great centers used to be.

It isnt the rules that changed things. Its Michael, Magic, and Bird changing both what makes one a star and what tall people try to do.

Guys left the paint and lost a lot of the desire to dominate around the basket. Potentially great centers shoot more to become big forwards. Want to handle the ball and all. Guys like Lebron who are 6'9'' 270+ used to be thrown into the paint. Dude is Karl Malones size playing the point half the time.

Being huge and athletic became a mismatch to be exploited by matching up with smaller players at unusual positions for a big guy to play and straight up back to the basket paint players faded away.

You can see the guard play start to take over the minds of mobile tall guys as far back as Ralph Sampson. Before that as well im sure but hes one of the first straight up freaks who wanted to be Dr.J more than Kareem so hes out going coast to coast and gliding into the paint instead of beefing up and owning the league.

The players who have the game to be Hakeem and so on just arent bring produced anymore. The rules arent keeping them from showing it.

If we had an undercover Kareem hanging around....he couldnt stay hidden for long.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]If there were young centers just before the change who suddenly fell off and never got where they were expected id say you had a point.

But unless you are gonna tell me Kwame, Darko, Curry, and Greg Odens issues were the rule changes....there have only been 2 centers drafted in the last 15 years who had the game to justify the assumption that they might join the Shaqs, Drobs, Ewing, and so on of the previous era.

Yao...and Dwight. And if you want to include Oden I wouldnt argue. Or maybe consider Amare a 5 even though he was drafted as a 4 and is one now.

The great centers who dont get hurt still become great centers. Be it Dwight doing 23/14 a couple years ago and leading a finals team or pre injury Yao doing 25/9.

Guys with that "....of all time" talent dont just fizzle out into the centers we are left with over the rule changes. They either get to that level or they get hurt. Nothing in the rules stops them.

Where are the guys who should be Hakeem, Drob, Shaq, Russell, Ewing, Mourning, Wilt, Parish, Kareem, Moses and so on...and arent due to the rules? Cousins? Bynum? Al Jefferson?

Its a lack of the players. Not the rules keeping them from showing it.

The late 60s through the early 90s simply had bigmen who wanted to play like bigmen. Around then tall players wanted to play like guards and less of them turned into what great centers used to be.

It isnt the rules that changed things. Its Michael, Magic, and Bird changing both what makes one a star and what tall people try to do.

Guys left the paint and lost a lot of the desire to dominate around the basket. Potentially great centers shoot more to become big forwards. Want to handle the ball and all. Guys like Lebron who are 6'9'' 270+ used to be thrown into the paint. Dude is Karl Malones size playing the point half the time.

Being huge and athletic became a mismatch to be exploited by matching up with smaller players at unusual positions for a big guy to play and straight up back to the basket paint players faded away.

You can see the guard play start to take over the minds of mobile tall guys as far back as Ralph Sampson. Before that as well im sure but hes one of the first straight up freaks who wanted to be Dr.J more than Kareem so hes out going coast to coast and gliding into the paint instead of beefing up and owning the league.

The players who have the game to be Hakeem and so on just arent bring produced anymore. The rules arent keeping them from showing it.

If we had an undercover Kareem hanging around....he couldnt stay hidden for long.[/QUOTE]
This. Will rep after:

*You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.*

[QUOTE=Rasheed1]I saw that comment too :oldlol:

AI came entered the league in 96... The rules helped him get to the line EVEN MORE by the time they were instituted, but AI tore up defenses prior to the handchecking rule changes[/QUOTE]

Iverson became a beast when they were instituted... Were all aware he was having big games even in his first year but you cant tell me he wasnt the player who benefited the MOST from that rule change

Centers like Wilt would be beast but some of the perimeter players would just suck. I can't even imagine guys like Jerry West and Bob Cousy dominating today's NBA :oldlol:

[QUOTE=NewYorkNoPicks]Iverson became a beast when they were instituted... Were all aware he was having big games even in his first year but you cant tell me he wasnt the player who benefited the MOST from that rule change[/QUOTE]


His MVP season happened with hand checking.

[QUOTE=KingBeasley08]Centers like Wilt would be beast but some of the perimeter players would just suck. I can't even imagine guys like Jerry West and Bob Cousy dominating today's NBA :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Nash did. And those guys were of that caliber. Just remember that you can't imagine their movements like they were still in the 60's, you have to imagine their game with the style of today's players

[quote=abuC]Barkley was 270-280lbs, he's 1 of a kind.


And I don't understand why you keep listing guys who have more advanced one on one moves,[B] the damn eye test look at Wade/Kobe/MJ and how they handle the ball in isolation, then go[/B] [B]back and look at Baylor[/B]. It's just not the same, he was a small forward, you're talking about guys who are the same height as him that are shooting guards and are more fluid with better handles.[/quote]

If ANY player played back in Bill's day with the way the rules were enforced they ALL would dribble exactly like how Oscar did. Just about every single crossover today is a carry in the 60's.

[quote=NewYorkNoPicks]Iverson became a beast when they were instituted... Were all aware he was having big games even in his first year but you cant tell me he wasnt the player who benefited the MOST from that rule change[/quote]


Of course it did, it helped everyone. There was an explosion across the board in ppg in i think 05 it was the year they really started enforcing the hand check rule. Iverson would have absolutely RAPED the league had he been in his prime when the changes came about