Do people here really think that a Bob Pettit was more talented that a David Lee?

[MavsSuperFan]

I dont care what you think Bob Petitt is today.

I will give you my basic problem with your type. You make claims as if you have actually looked into this sport and act like they cant be disputed. Bullshit about the inarguable superiority of newer athletes as if basketball is a race. It sounds as if you know nothing of basketball but you insist on multiple topics steady making the same claims always with the same cutoff where I suppose you accept that greatness began.

You say shit like Ewing would eat the greatest 60s bigmen alive.

Kareems career high vs Nate Thurmond(3rd or 4th best 60s center) is 34. When he was at his best. When he was a 30/15 monster in his youth. Most he got...34. He has 42 and 6 blocks on 68% shooting the second time he plays Ewing. And Kareem is 38 about to be 39. Ewing goes 3-17. Vs a player who came out in 69 and was only still in the league due to being robbed by his accountants.

Kareem retires at 35 like he planned I bet anything claims he could drop 40 on 90s/early 2000s centers like Ewing and Hakeem would be laughed at. Luckily he stuck around and proved it as an old man.


Elvin Hayes isnt considered as good as Wilt or Russell in the 60s. he came out in 68...at age 23. He was NBA age in 1965. But he can put up 25 and 26 in games vs Birds Celtics with a frontcourt that retired in the 90s. Hes dropped 35 on guys who were in the NBA in 1995.

Dave Cowens came out in 1970. He left the game a shadow of what he was...and later came out of retirement and at age 35 was still an effective bigman at times having double doubles playing opposite Buck williams...who was still in the NBA in 1998.

Robert Parish was putting up worse numbers at 24 on the Warriors in 1978 than when he was 39 in 1993.

Bob Lanier has 30/30/12 games hung on him by Wilt when hes young and at his peak. But when hes 33 hes still an all star and having 26 point games vs frontcourts with both starters playing deep into the 90s(94 and 98). All star bigman in the 80s....in his 30s. Worse than the 60s players you mock when hes at his peak.

I sat and watched an old well past his prime George Gervin out of 1972 drop 40 on a guy who was still in the league in 1999.

And you dont seem to grasp...any of it.

There is not some hard line between eras. This era bullshit is largely an issue of our obsession with 10 year periods and feeling what we have must be the best. It ignores that the league is always just a mix of young and old. Old usually hanging right in with young. And when you act like the Bird/Magic 80s era when we had guys who clearly would be great today...is some whole other league...from the 60s/70s..it shows you are just talking out of your ass.

Im not gonna assume only the guys young enough to not be 50 yet in the Bird/Magic era could have played in it. When a month from retired Bill Russell outplays 22 year old MVP Wes Unseld...and Wes is doing 10/13/5 in the 80s....I dont see how I assume Bill doesnt translate. I take it to mean Bill proved himself vs the prime version of a good 80s bigman.

When Hondo, Rick Barry, Tiny Archibald, and Dave Cowens are in all star games with 5-6 guys(12 in Tinys case) also in the ASG with Michael Jordan....


These examples are endless. Old guys outplay people from an "era" or two in the future all the time.

But you tell me its as simple as newer=better using bullshit Issac Newton analogies.

I dont get the impression you even care enough about this game to investigate the merits of your claims. But still....here you are. Making wild claims. As if you know anything.

Which isnt rare here. But its always annoying.

Hey man if you want me to admit I havent put as much time into this as you have your right.

I dont get the impression you even care enough about this game to investigate the merits of your claims. But still....here you are. Making wild claims. As if you know anything.

This is accurate, people have have jobs and most of us post on ISH for shits and giggles calm down. Personally I come on here mostly to kill time at work in between browsing huffpo and facebook/twitter.
you are taking this a lot more seriously than you should chill, we arent discussing the future of the nation here. I am not going to take out time to research stuff for ISH in depth.

But you tell me its as simple as newer=better using bullshit Issac Newton analogies.

My basic point here is that modern physicists today have more knowledge than Newton because they used his work as a ladder and built upon it. They know what he knew about gravity and have discovered additional information. You can argue they are better physicists in that sense, but I wouldn't argue that they are greater.

These examples are endless. Old guys outplay people from an "era" or two in the future all the time.

Yes experience veterans out play guys before they hit their prime.

Look man I seem to have offended you for some reason so I apologize, I didnt realize some people considered posting on ISH akin to submitting a doctoral thesis.

[LAZERUSS]

relative to this era.. yes a 50's/60's player is pretty much trash compared to anyone from the modern era ( asside from maybe a big that dominated with pure size and strength )

a guy like jerry west who was one of the most talented players of his era is basically a sasha vujacic of today


any great player from todays era could go back and average 50ppg

theres a reason wilt was the only guy to do it back then. because he's the only transferable player that could be put in todays nba and average anywhere near 25-30ppg and be just as great

everyone else including bob pettit is era specific

and don't let anyone on this forum tell you differently.

Did you take the time to read KBlaze's entire post?

Now is your chance to rebutt his arguments...

[Kblaze8855]

Ah so...you know nothing...that just doesnt stop you.

As I said earlier...annoying...but not rare.

I tend to not talk much about issues I dont understand. And when I do...its asking those who understand them better. Not making claims I cant support after pulling them out of my ass.

Even when im bored.

Im bored now. Which is why im probably gonna glance at a movie or read.

I find those better options than going to a cricket forum and arguing with people who have loved it for 30 years how a guy I saw on tv last month is better than the greatest cricket players ever(according to them) who I know nothing about.

[kennethgriffin]

Did you take the time to read KBlaze's entire post?

Now is your chance to rebutt his arguments...

i base my judgement on countless hours of footage i've watched over the last 20 years of my life from 50's, 60's players to make a good enough judgement.

i would never argue with anyone that has a hard on for those era's. theyre kind of batsh*t crazy if you ask me. even more delusional than they think i am about kobe

those era's were garbage compared to anything post 1981

not even remotely the same game whatsoever

i'm not saying what they did wasnt worthy of them being ranked high all time. what they did to pave the way for the sport should never be taken lightly. they made it possible for the jordans and kobes to play

every era learns from the one before it.

its the same as any sport. when its new, raw, utilizing a small portion of the population, race and resources. its going to pale in comparison to that same league 60 years into the future.

look at the earliest incarnations of hockey, football, golf, baseball, ANYTHING...

those guys placed into todays league would have cricles ran,skated around them. and people would be droppin knowledge with a back hand on the regular. its a joke that some people on here try and argue for those dinosaurs as being era transferable

insulting to say the least.

only wilt treated that era like a joke because only he had the body,skill of someone comparable to today

[Kblaze8855]

Did you take the time to read KBlaze's entire post?

Now is your chance to rebutt his arguments...

I have little interest in that.

Be it him with all things that can directly or indirectly be used to support Kobe, you and Wilt praise that it seems you thought the exact opposite of not long ago, or this other guy making Kwame vs Hondo and "Anyone really believe Wilt can score 20?" topics...

My patience is thin once I notice that someone only has one thing to say or one reason to say whatever it is they say.

Reading all these topics is hard in the offseason. Im low on patience in general and a 3 page string of bullshit for the express purpose of removing as obstacles anyone who was ever compared to Kobe doesnt feel like a fun use of time.

[kennethgriffin]

I have little interest in that.

Be it him with all things that can directly or indirectly be used to support Kobe, you and Wilt praise that it seems you thought the exact opposite of not long ago, or this other guy making Kwame vs Hondo and "Anyone really believe Wilt can score 20?" topics...

My patience is thin once I notice that someone only has one thing to say or one reason to say whatever it is they say.

Reading all these topics is hard in the offseason. Im low on patience in general and a 3 page string of bullshit for the express purpose of removing as obstacles anyone who was ever compared to Kobe doesnt feel like a fun use of time.

what would shaq average in the 60's

if its anything more than what he averaged in 2000... then even you yourself can admit the 60's was not nearly as good

what would lebron or jordan average in the 60's?

what would kobe average in the 60's... again. if its anything more than what those guys did in their best years of their career. then you don't have a leg to stand on.


and i don't believe you would be dishonest enough to sit there and say shaqs highest average in the 60's would be 29ppg or lower


lebron, kobe, and jordan would all beast with 40+ppg averages. maybe even 1 year at 50


a guy like ben wallace would average 25/20 easy

its common knowledge

[Dr.J4ever]

I dont care what you think Bob Petitt is today. I do know you base your opinion on it on the nothing you know about the man. Im borderline obsessed with such things and ive not seen 10 minutes of even highlights. But you...who clearly dont care...have seen enough to know exactly what hes capable of. Which...is the issue to me.

I will give you my basic problem with your type. You make claims as if you have actually looked into this sport and act like they cant be disputed. Bullshit about the inarguable superiority of newer athletes as if basketball is a race to be clocked with results for all to see. It sounds as if you know nothing of basketball but you insist on multiple topics steady making the same claims always with the same cutoff where I suppose you accept that greatness began.

You say shit like Ewing would eat the greatest 60s bigmen alive.

Kareems career high vs Nate Thurmond(3rd or 4th best 60s center) is 34. When he was at his best. When he was a 30/15 monster in his youth. Most he got...34. He has 42 and 6 blocks on 68% shooting the second time he plays Ewing. And Kareem is 38 about to be 39. Ewing goes 3-17. Vs a player who came out in 69 and was only still in the league due to being robbed by his accountants.

Kareem retires at 35 like he planned I bet anything claims he could drop 40 on 90s/early 2000s centers like Ewing and Hakeem would be laughed at. Luckily he stuck around and proved it as an old man.


Elvin Hayes isnt considered as good as Wilt or Russell in the 60s. he came out in 68...at age 23. He was NBA age in 1965. But he can put up 25 and 26 in games vs Birds Celtics with a frontcourt that retired in the 90s. Hes dropped 35 on guys who were in the NBA in 1995.

Dave Cowens came out in 1970. He left the game a shadow of what he was...and later came out of retirement and at age 35 was still an effective bigman at times having double doubles playing opposite Buck williams...who was still in the NBA in 1998.

Robert Parish was putting up worse numbers at 24 on the Warriors in 1978 than when he was 39 in 1993.

Bob Lanier has 30/30/12 games hung on him by Wilt when hes young and at his peak. But when hes 33 hes still an all star and having 26 point games vs frontcourts with both starters playing deep into the 90s(94 and 98). All star bigman in the 80s....in his 30s. Worse than the 60s players you mock when hes at his peak.

I sat and watched an old well past his prime George Gervin out of 1972 drop 40 on a guy who was still in the league in 1999.

And you dont seem to grasp...any of it.

There is not some hard line between eras. This era bullshit is largely an issue of our obsession with 10 year periods and feeling what we have must be the best. It ignores that the league is always just a mix of young and old. Old usually hanging right in with young. And when you act like the Bird/Magic 80s era when we had guys who clearly would be great today...is some whole other league...from the 60s/70s..it shows you are just talking out of your ass.

Im not gonna assume only the guys young enough to not be 50 yet in the Bird/Magic era could have played in it. When a month from retired Bill Russell outplays 22 year old MVP Wes Unseld...and Wes is doing 10/13/5 in the 80s....I dont see how I assume Bill doesnt translate. I take it to mean Bill proved himself vs the prime version of a good 80s bigman.

When Hondo, Rick Barry, Tiny Archibald, and Dave Cowens are in all star games with 5-6 guys(12 in Tinys case) also in the ASG with Michael Jordan....


These examples are endless. Old guys outplay people from an "era" or two in the future all the time.

But you tell me its as simple as newer=better using bullshit Issac Newton analogies.

I dont get the impression you even care enough about this game to investigate the merits of your claims. But still....here you are. Making wild claims. As if you know anything.

Which isnt rare here. But its always annoying.

Total demolition of op. If this were a fight ,it would be stopped in the 1st round.

[Kblaze8855]

Im going to reply in "I said this at some point in the last 10 years" form with my old quotes since...as I said....I dont find this terribly interesting. And this gets me out of putting in effort:

Assists were not counted they was they are now. Cousy was getting 8-9 a game on teams scoring 120ppg and running all day. Under todays definition he might have been around 12-15 a game.

Kobe in the 60s would score pretty much whatever his coach decided. But not much over 50ppg. At some point it stops being practical to have one guy shoot every time. He would get wild baskets on the break, have no motivation to shoot 3s, and be able to rebound his ass off in most games.

38 points, 10-12 rebounds, and 5-6 assists on 50-55% shooting wouldnt surprise me. I know nobody back then shot that well..but I just cant see Kobe really being stopped. Plus I think he could be brought under control and not just gun away the way some of the old guys did to lower their percentages. Kobe knowing what he knows now...in 06 form...his numbers are what he decides to make them.

If he dropped around 28-30ppg he might shoot 60%. And its not that hes THAT much better a shooter than everyone then....but guys didnt make the same effort to take good shots guys these days have to. Wilt might take 2 fadeaways get the rebounds then dunk it...when he could just overpower and dunk on guys to begin with if he put his mind to it.

That lack of a free for all mentality I think would help a modern guy like Kobe.

I think the difference is the kinds of shots they took compared to those Kobe would take. Drop Kobe in his prime into 1962 hes not taking the sweeping across the lane low percentage hook shots ive seen out of Baylor. Guys back then were getting up shots that are just...garbage. Its as if they set out to shoot regardless of the defense or the situation just for the sake of getting a shot up quickly. As much as hes hated on for it by modern standards....by 1962 standards Kobe is meticulous. He has clearly worked on every aspect of how to score to the point that everything from his footwork to release is carefully planned. Kobe isnt gonna just start coming down on the break and taking contested 15 footers.

Kobe might shoot 45% if he plays 60s ball. hes not shooting 45% vs those defenses with all the extra fast break baskets if hes playing the way he plays today. You arent putting a 6'5'' slower guy on Kobe at 18 feet and let him go one on one as they did the great majority of the time and have him miss 70% of the time as he likely needs to to make up for the extra fast break chances shooting percentage wise.

When you watch those old games and Elgin, Oscar, or Jerry face up and really take a moment to attack they are shredding guys. Watch Wilt back down one on one its hard to imagine him missing over half of his shots as he did one year(46%). But he did. ITs not because he couldnt get easy shots when he wanted. Its because he didnt try. He put up garbage went and got the misses and put it back. He would catch it and throw up hooks from 12-14 feet. He could back a guy down and score 90% of the time I bet. But he chose not to do it. He was allowed to play that way because its how they league was. Shoot quickly. Not shoot the best shot you can get.

Put 2000 Shaq in Wilts body he might have shot 75% in 1962. Put Kobe or Lebrons one on one attacking mentality into Elgin Baylor in 1962...hes not shooting 43%.

Plenty of those guys had great one on one ability that they didnt show to its full extent because the name of the game was get the first half decent shot up.

Kobe...03-08 Kobe?

Dude is gonna post up and punish those guys. Hes gonna gradually work himself into position for midrange jumpers. Hes gonna dunk on the break at every chance. Hes playing like guys have to play today to get good shots against defenses that try to stretch out the posession and make you take shots against the shot clock.

Kobe going one on one at the rate he would be able to back in the 60s before players got doubled outside much....isnt shooting 45%.

Not with 40 fast break points up for grabs.

And what is funny to me....


If al lthis happened? If Kobe were moved to the 60s and nobody knew it happened? Just drop 01 Kobe into 1958 to begin his career and have him play to like 1972?

Kids here would have like 10 minutes of footage of him making uncontested layups and dunks on the break, barely off the ground fadeaways, putting up 40ppg in largely unimpressive fasion(couldnt do flashy dunks and be allowed t oplay...no lobs thrown...he cant do much to show off) and shutting down 6'4'' white guys. And we would be asking if Kobe could score like Lebron in todays NBA and anyone who said yes would be laughed at by all but the oldest posters.

Kobe would have probably stayed pretty skinny. There would be a picture like this of him:




Or like this:



And it would be about it.

The same people asking how great he could do back then would be saying he couldnt stand toe to toe with Wade.

Shit for all we know we could be living in an altered timeline where the best center of the 90s was moved back in time by a childs wish....he became Wilt...dropped 50ppg and 27 rebounds and won rings....and all we do now is act like how much he would suck if he played in the 90s.

If Wilt doing the things he did gets laughed at by modern kids....Kobe wouldnt be any different. He would be numbers on a website being laughed at by people pretending that since he couldnt do them today hes actually worse than people think.

Kobe goes back in time...he would have better numbers...and be less respected by the same people acting like hes a monster now.

[Sarcastic]

If Lee doesn't have modern training/nutrition/advantages of today, then Pettit would destroy him handily.

As of today a time machine has not been invented to prove it one way or the other.

[fpliii]

what would shaq average in the 60's

if its anything more than what he averaged in 2000... then even you yourself can admit the 60's was not nearly as good

what would lebron or jordan average in the 60's?

what would kobe average in the 60's... again. if its anything more than what those guys did in their best years of their career. then you don't have a leg to stand on.


and i don't believe you would be dishonest enough to sit there and say shaqs highest average in the 60's would be 29ppg or lower


lebron, kobe, and jordan would all beast with 40+ppg averages. maybe even 1 year at 50


a guy like ben wallace would average 25/20 easy

its common knowledge

griff, you really need to cool it. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but...

1) The fetishism with the 50/25 season is strange. It wasn't so much a product of the era as much as a result of weird circumstances (for which Gottlieb, McGuire, and Wilt all deserve blame/"credit"). For a variety of reasons, nobody else would average 50 points in a game even if they were capable of doing so. But that wasn't Wilt's best season.

2) Ben Wallace would never average 25 points, stop with that shit. Respond to that Bill Russell thread from last week if you wanna get into that.

[Marchesk]

As of today a time machine has not been invented to prove it one way or the other.

And I'm sure that's what we'd be using time machines for. To send great basketball players from today back to the 60s to see how they would do.

[Marchesk]

1) The fetishism with the 50/25 season is strange. It wasn't so much a product of the era as much as a result of weird circumstances (for which Gottlieb, McGuire, and Wilt all deserve blame/"credit"). For a variety of reasons, nobody else would average 50 points in a game even if they were capable of doing so. But that wasn't Wilt's best season.

Now I'm really curious. Can you elaborate? And is that the reason Russell got the MVP that season and not Wilt? Do you think it helped the team less than if Wilt had settled for mid 30s on better shooting percentage while passing a little more? And was it in any way a publicity stunt for the league? A form of marketing if you will.

[Sarcastic]

Players voted for Russell over Wilt.

[Marchesk]

Players voted for Russell over Wilt.

But why? They voted for Wilt as MVP his rookie season.

[Kblaze8855]

Wilt was flat out told to score 50....every night. And he was played lal but 6 minutes of the entire season to do it. Which is why he played 48.5 minutes a game on the season...when a basketball game is 48 minutes. He played every second plus overtimes....aside from 6 minutes of a game he was ejected in.

Bit of a stunt but mostly his coach wanted to maximize their advantage. And wilt has the advantage over everyone.

The league didnt seem that impressed. The players voted for MVP at the time. Here are the results:

1961-62 1st 2nd 3rd Tot
(5) (3) (1) Pts
Bill Russell (BOS) ...... 51 12 6 297
Wilt Chamberlain (PHW) .. 9 30 17 152
Oscar Robertson (CIN) ... 13 13 31 135
Elgin Baylor (LAL) ...... 3 18 13 82
Jerry West (LAL) ........ 6 8 6 60
Bob Pettit (STL) ........ 2 4 9 31
Richie Guerin (NYK) ..... 1 0 0 5
Bob Cousy (BOS) ......... 0 0 3 3



Oscar actually got more first place votes too.



I assume the novelty of crazy ppg wore off. As a rookie he set the all time scoring and rebounding record. Nobody had seen anything like it. By 62 it wasnt that big a deal I suppose.