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