Ways to compare across eras - MJ vs Wilt

[QUOTE=Whoah10115]We have to be realistic here. I understand what you're trying to say, but Wilt would max out at 40MPG. 10 years ago he might get 42. If his team was in the East and super average then maybe he could push a little higher than 40 now, but it's still unlikely. Any team with Wilt would choose to protect its future and not let him play that much. It's just how it's gonna go.


Team defenses are more sophisticated, tho they're not necessarily better. Obviously, we're not gonna get scoring like in the 60's. And we won't get the 80's either, as coaches are going to want to play it safe on that side of the ball...especially to combat the newer defensive approaches.


Nowadays, coaches and their defensive systems make a lot of concessions, but are conservative enough to play a more defensive-minded game, overall. Wilt is going to score Level Medium video game numbers. That's just not reasonable, especially when considering his minutes will be much lower.[/QUOTE]

Under Frank McGuire Wilt would play 48mpg... It was Frank McGuires wish that Wilt play that many minutes, Wilt obliged. Like I said, if your going to be making corny time travel scenarios to see what kind of numbers Wilt was capable of might as well pull his coach along that gave him the green light to tap all of his scoring potential in the first place.

Wilt Chamberlain wouldn't be playing the heavy minutes he did back in the day, nor would ever again apporach playing every second of a game like he did in 61-62.

Today's coaching would bench him if the game was at hand or out of reach.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Under Frank McGuire Wilt would play 48mpg... It was Frank McGuires wish that Wilt play that many minutes, Wilt obliged. Like I said, if your going to be making corny time travel scenarios to see what kind of numbers Wilt was capable of might as well pull his coach along that gave him the green light to tap all of his scoring potential in the first place.[/QUOTE]



McGuire could be transported into time, but he wouldn't have a job here to transport to.


I do get what you mean tho. But this shouldn't be about flying Chamberlain thru time. Just imagine him and his talent, his basic mindset, competitiveness, intelligence, conditioning. Who would that player be now?


You asked if that poster believes that today's players are more cerebral than in the past. The answer is obviously no. But why would they be? The coaches do that for them and, like in other sports, get in the way of instincts and true accountability. Wilt might be too big a personality to have that happen (I certainly think most of the best 90's players would be) but certain things are going to come back down to Earth...especially coming from the 60's.

There have been some brilliant responses to this thread -- do consider, despite the title, this thread wasn't meant as a direct comparison of MJ vs Wilt, so let's all just let that go. Rather it is about using some overlap to explore whether comparisons across eras is possible and what kinds of factors have to be accounted for when making these types of comparisons.

Obviously, coaching is a factor that would have to be accounted for -- it might be useful to look at coaching careers that spanned multiple decades, and even to look at some of the resumes of current head coaches, in their days as assistants, etc. One example that comes to mind would be Phil Jackson, whose coaching career began in the early 80s. Is he still a viable head coach in 2013? Ask Laker fans. Has his basketball philosophy changed very much over the years? As a throw in, Chuck Daly's coaching career spanned the 70s 80s and 90s.

I think there is a tendency, because we see 100 meter records consistently broken over the years, to assume the same thing is happening in basketball. But basketball is a beautiful sport, much like soccer, that cannot be reduced to athletic ability. The mere argument that players on the whole are more athletic today says absolutely nothing of the quality of basketball. So many less athletic players were legends in their day, as Steve Nash is an unathletic legend in our day. This game is more about moving at the right speed than it is about moving at the fastest possible speed, a concept many of you younger aspiring players have no clue about.

Now, on the wilt thing

You can make the argument for specific players that dominated mostly due to athletic ability, such as Wilt, that their athletic advantage would no longer exist, and that's an interesting argument to have. Must get into the details of Wilt's game, his footwork, his passing ability, defensive positioning, etc. to determine if his formidable athleticism was the driving force behind his success. And then you have to make the (good luck) argument that because we have come SUCH a long way (9.98 to 9.69 is it?), his athletic ability alone would not make him the 1st pick of the 2013, or 2056 draft.

[QUOTE=2010splash]It can't. Why in the hell would a 6'6" SG be anywhere near the league leader in FG%, rebounding, blocks, etc.

And you incorrectly assume that the 60's Celtics and 70's Knicks were some kind of powerhouses compared to the teams Jordan faced. Just because they were stacked relative to other 60's or 70's teams does not mean that Wilt's competition was tougher.

Case in point - two key players (and current HOFers) on the 60's Celtics were [B]Bob Cousy and John Havlicek. Neither player had the athleticism nor skill level that would translate to anything more than a complete scrub in Jordan's league or today's league.[/B] Yet someone like you would use [I]these[/I] players to support your theory that the 60's Celtics were tough competition for Wilt. If only Jordan were being defended by slow and unathletic stiffs every night...[/QUOTE]


:rolleyes: Suuuuure, dude, that's why Dr.J, with all-time level athleticism and skills, had called [B]36-38 year old Havlicek[/B] one of his toughest opponents, and the boxscores now exist and prove his point. And that's why Havlicek, just 7 years before Jordan (not to mention just 2 years before Magic and Bird), and facing multiple players who also faced Jordan, was still a 16/4/4 guy, at the age of 38. All you did was look at 2-3 minutes of footage, you saw no dunks, you deemed him a scrub. Because reality, as depicted by opponents like Erving and Gervin (were they also "scrubs in Jordan's era"? Care to check out, please?), shows otherwise.
Even funnier, when Jordan is doing his thing on "athletes" like Craig Ehlo, Bryon Russell and Bad Boy Pistons' "athletes" like Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, Adrian Dantley and Laimbeer, we are supposed to marvel at how he managed to beat them, right? Oh, the hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

Summary of NBA Era

Wilt era = weak era, 5foot white boy era

Jordan era = watered down era, no defense era

Kobe era = modern era, best era, toughest era, most competitive era

[QUOTE=Psileas]:rolleyes: Suuuuure, dude, that's why Dr.J, with all-time level athleticism and skills, had called [B]36-38 year old Havlicek[/B] one of his toughest opponents, and the boxscores now exist and prove his point. And that's why Havlicek, just 7 years before Jordan (not to mention just 2 years before Magic and Bird), and facing multiple players who also faced Jordan, was still a 16/4/4 guy, at the age of 38. All you did was look at 2-3 minutes of footage, you saw no dunks, you deemed him a scrub. Because reality, as depicted by opponents like Erving and Gervin (were they also "scrubs in Jordan's era"? Care to check out, please?), shows otherwise.
Even funnier, when Jordan is doing his thing on "athletes" like Craig Ehlo, Bryon Russell and Bad Boy Pistons' "athletes" like Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, Adrian Dantley and Laimbeer, we are supposed to marvel at how he managed to beat them, right? Oh, the hypocrisy. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Perhaps "complete scrub" was an overstatement. But he certainly wouldn't be that good. Probably a role player in today's league and he absolutely would not be the hall of famer he was in the 60s and 70s. Dr. J "calling him one of his toughest opponents" is not evidence of Havlicek having the physical tools that would translate to a successful career in today's league. It's merely his opinion. Watching games of his, however, is a better way to judge how good he actually was.

And yes, the athletes on the late 80s Pistons and 90s Jazz were far superior to those in Wilt's days. You can scoff at the idea of players like Russell, Dumars, Vinnie etc being better athletes than your average 60s player, but it's simply the truth. If you actually watched clips of past games, you'd notice the comical skill level on display. Players dribbling around in circles with their heads down, poor shooting form, almost non-existent defense, etc.

[QUOTE]Perhaps "complete scrub" was an overstatement.[/QUOTE]

And very typical when it comes to judging players someone never saw live.

[QUOTE]But he certainly wouldn't be that good. Probably a role player in today's league and he absolutely would not be the hall of famer he was in the 60s and 70s.[/QUOTE]

And how do you know this? If Havlicek was considered a prime talent in the 60's and 70's what on earth would drag his talent down in the 80's and suddenly make him a role player? If anything, as a human with a brain, he would take advantage of the 80's technology and improve his game, as he did in the 70's compared to his 60's self and as Jordan did in the 90's compared to his 80's self and manage to stay at an equivalent level.

[QUOTE]Dr. J "calling him one of his toughest opponents" is not evidence of Havlicek having the physical tools that would translate to a successful career in today's league. It's merely his opinion.[/QUOTE]

Dr. J "calling him one of his toughest opponents" is evidence that he did fine against one of the best players and athletes of an era that covered part of Jordan's one - and so did he against other athletic opponents of his day. Obviously he wasn't at the peak of his athleticism. I remind you, he was 36-38.
Havlicek, however, being described as a perpetual motion machine by his peers, being asked to play football apart from basketball or leading the league in mpg twice while being a guard are not things you'll meet in someone who doesn't have physical tools. Honestly, Havlicek is just a wrong player to try to question his physical tools. You even paired him athletically with Cousy, just because they were both white players from the black-white era.

[QUOTE]It's merely his opinion. Watching games of his, however, is a better way to judge how good he actually was. [/QUOTE]

Going by this, watching games of his will not lead us to anything more than personal opinons either. And not necessarily honest. Someone could see an athlete in 1960's tape display 2000 level athleticism and try to downplay it due to the level of his opponents' athleticism, although athleticism is completely irrelevant to the level of your opponents.
These guys do not need to watch video of their own opponents. They lived them.

[QUOTE]And yes, the athletes on the late 80s Pistons and 90s Jazz were far superior to those in Wilt's days. You can scoff at the idea of players like Russell, Dumars, Vinnie etc being better athletes than your average 60s player, but it's simply the truth. [/QUOTE]

Not the ones I mentioned, sorry, not compared to Havlicek that you mentioned. I simply see no evidence of it. It's one thing to smartly hide your relative lack of athleticism, like Dumars, and even manage to be an all-star level player and another not to display it very often.

[QUOTE]If you actually watched clips of past games, you'd notice the comical skill level on display. Players dribbling around in circles with their heads down, poor shooting form, almost non-existent defense, etc.[/QUOTE]

I've also seen 80's and 90's players dribble at chest level all the time, I've seen guards being left completely unguarded outside 25 feet in the 80's and guarded from a distance of 3 feet when they are at 20 feet from the basket, I'm still seeing Kobe drawing fouls after just yelling "HEEEEY!", I've seen just a few years ago the today's best player in the world struggle to post up smaller opponents, I've seen the 2006 Team USA in Japan being unable to face elementary pick and roll situations, etc. Contrary to popular belief, "comedy" didn't end in the 70's. It's just that, when it happens today's we say "wow, X sucks", but if when we see it happen in the 60's, we say "wow, the 60's suck!"...

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]
He isn't a Shaq either, but it's the same thing with the "no one would ever" line... the game changed, the rules changed. It's not big man's game anymore, it's a perimeter oriented game. Howard just happens to be the best of his position because of weaker centers. It's also easier to notice that Howard is a more flawed player than Shaq.

Shaq vs Wilt is more than a valid argument

What improvement ? In skills ? Sure they have, but not by much since the center position really hasn't changed all that much, outside of well... they can't play much down low.

It was definitely at it's peak either in the 70's or 90's.

Which Hakeem and Ewing would we be talking about ? Prime versions or their older versions ?

No doubt if were talking about our own personal life, but I don't see anything different now that I would later on for basketball discussions. The game might change again and again, it's inevitable it seems.

I guess we just view things differently.[/QUOTE]
Everything said here is in regards to perspective when you get older. Jlauber, saw a bridge and it made him realize that ball players didn't evolve in this crazy way he thought they had when he was younger. Wilt was certainly able to handle Kareem when Kareem was younger and getting over 30 ppg 16 rebounds and 4 blocks and by the time that Ewing and Hakeem come around his scoring is down 10 points, his rebounds down 10 per game, his blocks are down by 3 per game. But he could score 40 on the new wave centers a bit easier than he could those who were in the league when he began and was scoring like crazy.

While guards have improved, they penetrate a lot more and are overall quicker, faster and super coordinated, one can mistakenly attribute the whole game as having evolved. It didn't for centers. There is nothing wrong with reevaluating your ideas. That's growth. Everytime you have a breakthrough player your ideas about the game should change. Once you see a Shaq you should think differently about dominant players. Once you see Jordan go crazy to score 40 ppg, you should think differently about how hard it was to score 44ppg and 50ppg. When you see Rodman average 18.7 rebounds per game you should think differently about a guy that averaged 50ppg and 25 rebounds along with it.

After Youtube and you see new footage and that Wilt had springs in his legs. A bounce rarely seen in modern centers. Modern centers don't really like playing big, few multitask or take on all of the center responsibilities like Wilt did. So yeah its fine to change your ideas or how you see things in light of learning the game.

On the defense side, they were allowed to clobber you in the 60's. The Celtic's bragged about beating up Wilt. Somebody posted a clip of a guy getting punched in the face at the free throw alignment without visible instigation. It was straight up brutal. Wilt was the league star and the guy that pushed his teeth into his gums, played the next game. The foul that sent Shaq over the top against Indiana was common place for Wilt. You would be expected to clobber quicker, smaller players. Jordan was protected, but back then he would have a marked player. And the league wouldn't have encouraged his scoring. The league attitude toward Jordan would have been if you want to go into the paint, we will send you a "get well soon card," along with a rule change to make it harder before the consequences. Everything had it tradeoffs.

[QUOTE=Psileas]And how do you know this? If Havlicek was considered a prime talent in the 60's and 70's what on earth would drag his talent down in the 80's and suddenly make him a role player? If anything, as a human with a brain, he would take advantage of the 80's technology and improve his game, as he did in the 70's compared to his 60's self and as Jordan did in the 90's compared to his 80's self and manage to stay at an equivalent level.[/quote]
It's genetics. Has nothing to do with technology. The footage strongly suggests that Havlicek, among many others, lacked the innate athletic ability + skill to be the superstar HOF player he was in the 60s and 70s were he to play in today's game. I'm assuming you believe players like Jerry West, George Mikan, Bob Cousy, Wes Unseld and others would be as successful today as well?


[QUOTE]Dr. J "calling him one of his toughest opponents" is evidence that he did fine against one of the best players and athletes of an era that covered part of Jordan's one - and so did he against other athletic opponents of his day. Obviously he wasn't at the peak of his athleticism. I remind you, he was 36-38.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it may be evidence that he "did fine" against him. What exactly that means is subjective, however. I assume you maintain that Havlicek could be a superstar in today's league, which is all I was disputing. Plenty of marginal players in today's league can hold their own against the best players, aka "doing fine." It would help more if you made it clear where exactly you believe Havlicek would rank among today's players (or the ones in the 90s).


[QUOTE]Havlicek, however, being described as a perpetual motion machine by his peers, being asked to play football apart from basketball or leading the league in mpg twice while being a guard are not things you'll meet in someone who doesn't have physical tools. Honestly, Havlicek is just a wrong player to try to question his physical tools. You even paired him athletically with Cousy, just because they were both white players from the black-white era.[/QUOTE]
Once again, not actual evidence. Being described as having certain physical skills is not the same as actually having them. And for the record, I'm not disputing this "perpetual motion machine" thing. All you have suggested here is that Havlicek was a supremely conditioned player. This seems consistent with the pace of 60s basketball, so I will not disagree with it one bit. But so what? There's more to athleticism. Prove to me that Havlicek had the coordination, foot speed, lateral agility, jumping ability, end-to-end speed, aerial dexterity and ball-handling skills to be elite in today's league. You cannot do this because the existing footage doesn't support it.


[QUOTE]Going by this, watching games of his will not lead us to anything more than personal opinons either. And not necessarily honest. Someone could see an athlete in 1960's tape display 2000 level athleticism and try to downplay it due to the level of his opponents' athleticism, although athleticism is completely irrelevant to the level of your opponents.
These guys do not need to watch video of their own opponents. They lived them.[/QUOTE]
Which makes them biased.


[QUOTE]Not the ones I mentioned, sorry, not compared to Havlicek that you mentioned. I simply see no evidence of it. It's one thing to smartly hide your relative lack of athleticism, like Dumars, and even manage to be an all-star level player and another not to display it very often.[/QUOTE]Difference of opinion then. I'm not even saying Dumars, Vinnie and the like were elite athletes (obviously they weren't). Just that they were far more athletic than Havlicek and most other 60s players.



[QUOTE]I've also seen 80's and 90's players dribble at chest level all the time, I've seen guards being left completely unguarded outside 25 feet in the 80's and guarded from a distance of 3 feet when they are at 20 feet from the basket, I'm still seeing Kobe drawing fouls after just yelling "HEEEEY!", I've seen just a few years ago the today's best player in the world struggle to post up smaller opponents, I've seen the 2006 Team USA in Japan being unable to face elementary pick and roll situations, etc. Contrary to popular belief, "comedy" didn't end in the 70's. It's just that, when it happens today's we say "wow, X sucks", but if when we see it happen in the 60's, we say "wow, the 60's suck!"...[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant to the point about 60s players and how their athleticism/skill level would translate to today's game (or vice versa). You citing individual or team-specific weaknesses like LeBron's post game a few years ago or Team USA's deficiencies says nothing about how they would have done had they played the weak competition of the 60s, nor does it support any suggestion that 60s players were athletic/skilled enough to hang today. I can just as easily say (and more rightfully so) that the 1960s teams would struggle to defend pick/rolls against today's teams, that their players would be stripped of the ball every possession before they crossed half court in today's game because of their poor dribbling skills. Did you see 90s - current players dribbling with their heads down? Going off the wrong foot for simple layups? Shooting from their chest area with hideous form? Competition was bad.

[QUOTE]It's genetics. Has nothing to do with technology. The footage strongly suggests that Havlicek, among many others, lacked the innate athletic ability + skill to be the superstar HOF player he was in the 60s and 70s were he to play in today's game. I'm assuming you believe players like Jerry West, George Mikan, Bob Cousy, Wes Unseld and others would be as successful today as well?[/QUOTE]

The "genetics" argument is exactly what doesn't fly along eras. There's no reason 1980's humans were genetically superior to 1960's ones. As for the footage, I'd rather see someone judge what he has seen extensively, not 2-3 minutes of footage. I've seen people boasting how "much" footage they had seen of Russell and then proceeded to claim he was nothing special athletically from what they had seen. Well, after CavsFTW's video went viral, it became evident they hadn't seen enough. Plus, the stamina factor (=Havlicek's most talked about athletic ) is not something that can be evaluated while watching highlight clips.
And yes, many others would also be successful today. BTW, the topic is basically talking about Jordan's era, not today, so I'd rather stick to the 80's-90's. Jordan's era, even including his Wiz years, ended 1 decade ago, almost the distance of Jordan's era from Wilt's era (12 years).


[QUOTE]Yes, it may be evidence that he "did fine" against him. What exactly that means is subjective, however. I assume you maintain that Havlicek could be a superstar in today's league, which is all I was disputing. Plenty of marginal players in today's league can hold their own against the best players, aka "doing fine." It would help more if you made it clear where exactly you believe Havlicek would rank among today's players (or the ones in the 90s). [/QUOTE]

But they don't do it often enough, hence being marginal. Havlicek was a well-known quality. He wasn't ever considered marginal. He performed well both against unathletic scrubs and against athletic superstars.
As for your question, which version of Havlicek? I assume you mean in his prime. No way to give an accurate number, but possibly around top-10 to top-15.

[QUOTE]Once again, not actual evidence. Being described as having certain physical skills is not the same as actually having them. And for the record, I'm not disputing this "perpetual motion machine" thing. All you have suggested here is that Havlicek was a supremely conditioned player. This seems consistent with the pace of 60s basketball, so I will not disagree with it one bit. But so what? There's more to athleticism. Prove to me that Havlicek had the coordination, foot speed, lateral agility, jumping ability, end-to-end speed, aerial dexterity and ball-handling skills to be elite in today's league. You cannot do this because the existing footage doesn't support it.[/QUOTE]

There's no way you can claim "the existing footage doesn't support it" when there's so little footage of him. Plus, you insist too much on athleticism, there are elite athletes who couldn't do squat in basketball, so I don't think looking for a "draft express"-like profile is what we should be primarily looking for. Havlicek's performance against players that you agree could undoudtedly play today is the closest thing we have to evidence. If Havlicek does not have the ball stolen or blocked time after time after time by an athlete like Erving, who not only was athletic with huge hands, but loved to gamble for steals and blocks, I find no reason to believe he'd suddenly struggle to take off his shots and dribble against today's opponents. Especially after getting used to the game.

[QUOTE]Difference of opinion then. I'm not even saying Dumars, Vinnie and the like were elite athletes (obviously they weren't). Just that they were far more athletic than Havlicek and most other 60s players. [/QUOTE]

Difference of opinion. I don't see any athletic superiority, especially "far more". Honestly, I feel if we could take one of the players I mentioned, like Vinnie, play some of his typical plays in black and white video and bill him a 60's player, an average gullible fan would have no problem believing it.

[QUOTE]Irrelevant to the point about 60s players and how their athleticism/skill level would translate to today's game (or vice versa). You citing individual or team-specific weaknesses like LeBron's post game a few years ago or Team USA's deficiencies says nothing about how they would have done had they played the weak competition of the 60s, nor does it support any suggestion that 60s players were athletic/skilled enough to hang today. I can just as easily say (and more rightfully so) that the 1960s teams would struggle to defend pick/rolls against today's teams, that their players would be stripped of the ball every possession before they crossed half court in today's game because of their poor dribbling skills. Did you see 90s - current players dribbling with their heads down? Going off the wrong foot for simple layups? Shooting from their chest area with hideous form? Competition was bad.[/QUOTE]

If glaring weaknesses of today's players or players in Jordan's era (btw, I also implied guys like Dennis Johnson and, of course, Mark "the Turtle" Jackson) fail to be taken advantage to a ridiculous degree (a.k.a, a degree that would likely push them towards retirement from basketball or to a career in a much inferior league) in this supposed strong era and this whole inability is not generally mocked, I see no reason to do so for glaring weaknesses of older players and the inability of their opponents to ridiculously exploit them either.

I think the one thing known for certain is that if MJ played in Wilt's era, his numbers would go up, and if Wilt played in MJ's era, his numbers would go down.

The extent to which the numbers go up/down is anyone's guess.

Interview

Me: Would you say that MJ could compete at a high level in today's league?
Kobe: Dude, MJ was so much better than me it's not even funny.

Me: Would you say that players like KAJ and Larry Bird, who you played against, could compete at a high level in the NBA when you left it for good in 2003?
MJ: I would say those players would dominate the league today, unless I was still playing.

Me: Would you say that players like Wilt Chamberlain and John Havlicek, who you played against, could compete at a high level in the NBA when you left it for good in 1988?
KAJ: Yes. How did you know you would find me next to my statue?

Official transcript of entire interview available upon request


It is most definitely in every league's best interest to popularize the notion that players are better than ever and only getting better. Makes us fans feel special. But to real fans, it's not as interesting as reality.

[QUOTE=-23-]I think the one thing known for certain is that if MJ played in Wilt's era, his numbers would go up, and if Wilt played in MJ's era, his numbers would go down.

The extent to which the numbers go up/down is anyone's guess.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but guess what player would be questioned for playing in a "joke era" and for what player people would question how good he'd be today - there wouldn't even be enough footage of him to show all his skills, just a few of his dunks and probably mainly his jump shots, to emphasize the "fundamental" part of his game (and all this, in annoying slow motion), which was the NBA's way of thinking back then.

[QUOTE=KOBE143]Summary of NBA Era

Wilt era = weak era, [B]5foot white boy era[/B]

Jordan era = watered down era, no defense era

Kobe era = modern era, best era, toughest era, most competitive era[/QUOTE]

:roll:

so

a jeremy lin can set the hoops world ablaze

but john havlicek would be a freakin scrub

.

.

.

who knew

here is a great overlap game featuring wilt vs kaj in 1972

this is part 1 but the other parts (8 of them) are readily available in related links


[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKkQyNyXICQ[/url]

Roughly speaking, Russell bridged to Wilt, then to KAJ, then to Moses, then to Hakeem, Ewing, Shaq. Any matchup that skips one step in this process is really interesting. Example, Hakeem vs KAJ - [url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=olajuha01&p2=abdulka01[/url]

stats are cool, but footage is what really counts

[QUOTE=Psileas]The "genetics" argument is exactly what doesn't fly along eras. There's no reason 1980's humans were genetically superior to 1960's ones. As for the footage, I'd rather see someone judge what he has seen extensively, not 2-3 minutes of footage. I've seen people boasting how "much" footage they had seen of Russell and then proceeded to claim he was nothing special athletically from what they had seen. Well, after CavsFTW's video went viral, it became evident they hadn't seen enough. Plus, the stamina factor (=Havlicek's most talked about athletic ) is not something that can be evaluated while watching highlight clips.
And yes, many others would also be successful today. BTW, the topic is basically talking about Jordan's era, not today, so I'd rather stick to the 80's-90's. Jordan's era, even including his Wiz years, ended 1 decade ago, almost the distance of Jordan's era from Wilt's era (12 years).[/quote]

It

[QUOTE=2010splash]

Players from the 90

[QUOTE=DatAsh]:facepalm[/QUOTE]Why don't you tell me who from that list you seriously believe Havlicek would be better than?

I really think you could run a psychology experiment where you show 2 minute clips of an anonymous basketball player to the test subject. One clip is of a superior player, in black and white with bad fps and bad overall quality. The other is an HD clip of an inferior player, taken in a nice gym, maybe with more people watching. 9\10 people believe the inferior player is better due to the quality of the video, as well as ingrained prejudices against anything that looks old.


People just completely ignoring the bridge argument and instead making emotional claims about the quality of the league today, with nothing to back it up. Just naming a list of players you think are better than Hondo and saying it is so, does not make it so.

Hondo averaged 16-4-4 at age 37, in 1978, the year before Larry Bird entered the league. Obviously Bird had the slightly more decorated career, but are we to believe that Bird belonged to a completely different league than Hondo? Or are we to believe that Kobe belongs to a completely different league than Bird? Do we believe Bird in his prime today would be 25% less effective? If so, are we also to believe that Kobe belongs to a different league than MJ and Magic, who had to be at their very best to get the better of Larry? It makes no sense. When you look at history, there are a million arguments for why the quality of the league fluctuates somewhat randomly, and very very few real arguments that quality is on a linear path upward.

[QUOTE=2010splash]Why don't you tell me who from that list you seriously believe Havlicek would be better than?[/QUOTE]

All but Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, and Duncan.

Barkley, Robinson, Malone, and Garnett are arguable for me.

[QUOTE]It

this is such an interesting thread i bumped it but also to point out that maybe some of the more narrow-minded guys that posted on this thread, might consider some actual facts:

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18735617[/url]
[B]talking about how new track technology helps sprinters break records:
[/B]
"Records and personal bests tumbled in the main stadium on Friday, [B]thanks in part to a new track design [/B]that harnesses the power of the little toe.

The [B]

[QUOTE=Psileas]First of all, please, let's not pretend that while watching the very few games of Havlicek, you had your eyes specifically set on him. I don't even think you seriously expect me to believe that someone like you would have viewed whole 1960's and 1970's games.
Yeah, OK, awkward movements, just because they are different compared to the ones you have been used to... What matters isn't how they look to you, it's whether they are effective. And there wasn't a single period in his career when they weren't. Not in 1962, not in 1978.




Miller, who did nothing but shoot? Mutombo who was worlds more limited offensively? Bosh? Aldridge? Just no, especially against a Havlicek who has got used to the modern game (because, even arguments involving the stupid "time travel" thing still include adaptable human beings). Not to mention that you like to pretend that all these players you grouped were in their primes at the same period (e.g, Kidd and Griffin).




Please, do provide us the enough footage of the 60's Celtics of YT. BTW, this is a rhetorical request, since I already have seen the games you imply. If you think this is "enough footage to form an educated opinion", let me add that the very first couple of games of Larry Bird that I viewed was one from the early 80's. He was getting something like 12/10/4. My similarly educated guess: A nice starting piece, nothing special. Maybe David Lee in today's league.
BTW, do you have Kareem in your list of players who would own Havlicek? Because I also saw Game 6 of the 1974 Finals, and too bad Havlicek's "awkwardness" didn't allow Kareem to block even one of his shots whenever Havlicek was getting close to the basket. Too bad also that Havlicek's "bad hand-eye coordination" allowed him to grab the most crucial offensive rebound in front of Kareem and send the game to OT.

And now we also have horrible hand-eye coordination for Cousy!
Horrible hand-eye coordination, foot speed, and aerial fluidity for West! Spot on, man, that's definitely what [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEzwR1a8KuA[/url] shows. "His instincts are the best I've ever seen", says one poor mind in the beginning of the video...What does he know?
Honestly, why do I even bother with you? You even equated Bill Russell with Chandler in another thread, then you went to this. All typical examples of era bias personified. "Fortunately" (although, obviously, ignorance is never fortune), similar young detractors of the 80's and 90's have already appeared in good numbers and guys like you start getting doses of your own medicine.



When I mentioned Dr.J or Gervin, I didn't give you hypotheticals. I gave you facts. Unfortunately, your hypotheticals are inconsistent with the facts. I already gave you another fact: When Havlicek was getting near Kareem in 1974, what you would definitely expect to happen if Havlicek got near the basket against modern big men usually DID NOT happen.
I only bothered to answer this last quote just to point out another inconsistency. I won't any longer. I know my facts, you know your hypotheticals, we're both happy, I guess...[/QUOTE]
holy sh*t that was an epic dose of ether :oldlol: :applause: :cheers:

[QUOTE=2010splash]Perhaps "complete scrub" was an overstatement. But he certainly wouldn't be that good. Probably a role player in today's league and he absolutely would not be the hall of famer he was in the 60s and 70s. Dr. J "calling him one of his toughest opponents" is not evidence of Havlicek having the physical tools that would translate to a successful career in today's league. It's merely his opinion. Watching games of his, however, is a better way to judge how good he actually was.

And yes, the athletes on the late 80s Pistons and 90s Jazz were far superior to those in Wilt's days. You can scoff at the idea of players like Russell, Dumars, Vinnie etc being better athletes than your average 60s player, but it's simply the truth. If you actually watched clips of past games, you'd notice the comical skill level on display. Players dribbling around in circles with their heads down, poor shooting form, almost non-existent defense, etc.[/QUOTE]
2010splash, I'm curious, who would you rather build your team around if you HAD to pick one of the two;

A fresh from college time-traveled 1958 Elgin Baylor or a rookie modern era Wesley Matthews? Please give an in depth answer if you can, since you've seen so many of the innumerable 60's games that are just slathered all over Youtube i'm sure you've seen many of Elgin's games and are aware exactly what his game was like.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]this is such an interesting thread i bumped it but also to point out that maybe some of the more narrow-minded guys that posted on this thread, might consider some actual facts:

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18735617[/url]
[B]talking about how new track technology helps sprinters break records:
[/B]
"Records and personal bests tumbled in the main stadium on Friday, [B]thanks in part to a new track design [/B]that harnesses the power of the little toe.

The [B]

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]:applause:

Remember the full-body swimsuits that were the rage a few years ago? Something like 40 world records were broken in one year.

And let's put a persimmon driver, with a heavy steel shaft, and a balata ball in the hands of today's touring pros, and let's see them average the 280 off the tee that Nicklaus did in 1965. Hell, Nicklaus was longer in 2000 than he was in his prime.

And what about the "Fosbury Flop", which revolutionized the high jump? It immediately added several inches.

And how come the Long Jump record has stood for over 20 years, and before that, it was another 23 years? A total of a couple of inches more than the world record in 1968?

When Bob Hayes ran a 10.06 100 meters in the '64 Olympics, he did so with a pair of borrowed shoes, and on a track that resembled a plowed field. Are you going to tell me that Hayes would not have run a significantly faster time with just adding modern shoes and letting him run on a pristine track?

And once again, years ago Pat Riley said that he envisioned a time in the NBA in which a team would start five Magic Johnson's. Hmmm...I haven't seen even one since.

And none of this even takes into account that basketball is as much a game of skill, as it is athleticism (if not moreso.) How do explain James White being nothing more than a benchwarmer? Or a 37 year old Steve Nash leading the league in assists, and a 6-8 white guy running away with the rebounding title in the same season (and BTW, both played 33 and 36 mpg respectively.)

And if size were a key factor, why didn't the 7-4 350 lb. Priest Lauderdale dominate? He couldn't even make a roster. And, of course, I could give you a plethora of 7-2+ players who never amounted to anything in the NBA. Oh, and BTW, how could a 6-8 230 lb Rodman just blow away the likes of Shaq, Robinson, Divac, etc, in rebounds? Or a 6-5 Barkley winning a rebounding title? Or a 6-7 Ben Wallace, who couldn't hit a shot from five feet if his life depended on it, being one of the best players in the league?

It just doesn't add up. Granted, players like LeBron, who is a once in a generation type player, or Kobe, or Durant, would be great in any era, just as players like West, Oscar, Russell, and Wilt would be, as well. I believe the greats would be great in any era.[/QUOTE]
I saw Ben Wallace make a set shot from the right hand block once Lazer that's GOT to be five feet doesn't it?

I still think the "bridge" argument is the only fact-based argument in this (fascinating) discussion.

It is very significant for a simple reason:
- there is no hard evidence that as a general rule, great players from earlier eras couldn't play today. Intuition and the eye test, perhaps, but none of the proof you would expect to find if it were true.
- there is hard evidence, however, that great players from the 60s could dominate players from the 80s who dominated players from the 00s.
More broadly speaking, there is plenty of evidence that players who saw different eras did not suddenly become ineffective against new generation players.

Old, injured Wilt Chamberlain was competitive against prime KAJ, the one center that even those who see the 60s as an era of short white boys agree would own any era due to his height and skills.

To change a bit from the usual Wilt examples, I've heard Larry Bird being dismissed as an era specific player recently, so here are examples of some of Larry Bird's statlines against Jordan's Bulls:
41, 7 and 7 (1987)
38, 9 and 8 (1988)
44 and 10 (1988)
38, 11 and 9 (1990)
34, 15 and 8 (1991, this is injured, past his prime Larry VS the first championship Bulls with peak Jordan and presumably Pippen defending. The Celtics won the game)
Clearly he would be useless in today's league.

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]I still think the "bridge" argument is the only fact-based argument in this (fascinating) discussion.

It is very significant for a simple reason:
- there is no hard evidence that as a general rule, great players from earlier eras couldn't play today. Intuition and the eye test, perhaps, but none of the proof you would expect to find if it were true.
- there is hard evidence, however, that great players from the 60s could dominate players from the 80s who dominated players from the 00s.
More broadly speaking, there is plenty of evidence that players who saw different eras did not suddenly become ineffective against new generation players.

Old, injured Wilt Chamberlain was competitive against prime KAJ, the one center that even those who see the 60s as an era of short white boys agree would own any era due to his height and skills.

To change a bit from the usual Wilt examples, I've heard Larry Bird being dismissed as an era specific player recently, so here are examples of some of Larry Bird's statlines against Jordan's Bulls:
41, 7 and 7 (1987)
38, 9 and 8 (1988)
44 and 10 (1988)
38, 11 and 9 (1990)
34, 15 and 8 (1991, this is injured, past his prime Larry VS the first championship Bulls with peak Jordan and presumably Pippen defending. The Celtics won the game)
Clearly he would be useless in today's league.[/QUOTE]

There are other factors in play here.
Let's take the young pup who knows more about the late 60s NBA by watching 2 :hammerhead: hours of YT clips than a guy who watched P Jax and Billy C crash into each other and Cunningham leave the playoffs with a broken arm.
They understand it when Russell Westbrook or David Lee goes out; but they never heard of Billy Cunningham so it means nothing to them....they don't know about Sixers playing with hamstring pulls, walking down the court as fast as they can.... all they know is Chamberlain lost in the '68 playoffs so he's a choker.
They just make sh1t up in their mind and believe it to be fact.