Ways to compare across eras - MJ vs Wilt

[KOBE143]

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

[2010splash]

Suuuuure, dude, that's why Dr.J, with all-time level athleticism and skills, had called 36-38 year old Havlicek 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.

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.

[Psileas]

Perhaps "complete scrub" was an overstatement.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!"...

[Pointguard]

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.

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.

[Pointguard]

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.

[2010splash]

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Which makes them biased.

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.

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.

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!"...

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.

[Psileas]

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?

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[-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.

[Mrofir]

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.

[Psileas]

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.

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.

[madmax]

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

[aau]

so

a jeremy lin can set the hoops world ablaze

but john havlicek would be a freakin scrub

.

.

.

who knew

[Mrofir]

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


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

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 - http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=abdulka01

stats are cool, but footage is what really counts

[2010splash]

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).

It

[DatAsh]

[QUOTE=2010splash]

Players from the 90