Greats Of The Past Not Getting The Respect They Are Due

And when the peers aren't as good we can point it out. The peers in 1961 weren't as good.

Also with efficiency ratings if you adjust for different play styles, you can filter out a lot of noise. That's why it's not sacrilege to mention Shaq and Wilt in the same sentence, given that their PER's in their prime years were very similar.

 

The NBA sucks these days.

The huge amount of money these guys are making nowadays is ridiculous, and its the reason why the NBA sucks so bad. Look at any of the so called "elite" teams today, and you will see a superstar or two and the rest of the team are a bunch of scrubs. If you look at teams from the 80s and mid 90s, many teams had a roster full of quality players.

With guys like Stromile Swift making MLE type money, these guys are have no incentive to work their tails off even though they are much more athletic than their predecessors.

 

I would argue without the monetary incentive you wouldn't have the Lebron James' of the NBA. Sure they play for the love of the game but I don't think they would work as hard as they do if the money wasn't there. And as much as you want to believe that Kobe and Lebron don't work hard its true...especially in the case of Kobe. I'm saying this even though I hate him but I respect his work ethic...

 

I will agree there is much more money and much more players but if you look at the starting lineups of the best teams now compared to the best teams in the 80's and talent wise there is no comparison. I will give the 2009 Lakers their due that they are a great for now but that team doesn't compare to the 1980's Lakers with Magic, Jabbar, Worthy, Green and Scott.

I will concede that it is hard to compare players of different eras but the concentration of talent was much greater back in the 1980's than it is now.

 

There are athletes in many other sports who don't make anywhere near NBA money and work just as hard.

 

On one team - sure. BUt that's an issue of one team being a great team compared to another non-great team - that doesn't have anything to do with the leauge as a whole having less talent. The 2009 Thunder would have run the 1982 Rockets out of the builiding, for example, even though they both suck.

 

If I need one guy to take the last shot in an important game, Bill Russell is not on my short list. That's how I judge greatness.

 

Its not just one team. Consider the Celtics, the Rockets, the Hawks and etc... I will agree with you though that some of the bad teams were bad though and that 1982 Rocket team was a bad team for the ages.

 

The Hawks are a fun example, let's go down the top rotation players on the current roster (47 wins) vs. their 1987 vintage (57 wins)

1987 Hawks

John Battle G 6-2 175 13.8 PER
Jon Koncak C-F 7-0 250 10.9 PER
Cliff Levingston F 6-8 210 14.3 PER
Mike McGee G-F 6-5 190 15.2 PER
Doc Rivers G 6-4 185 19.9 PER
Tree Rollins C 7-1 235 12.0 PER
Dominique WilkinsF-G 6-7 200 23.5 PER
Kevin Willis F-C 7-0 220 17.4 PER
Randy Wittman G-F 6-6 210 13.0 PER

2009 Hawks

Mike Bibby G 6-1 190 16.3 PER
Al Horford C 6-10 245 17.0 PER
Joe Johnson G 6-8 225 18.2 PER
Ronald Murray G 6-4 190 14.7 PER
Zaza Pachulia C 6-11 240 14.1 PER
Josh Smith F 6-9 225 17.2 PER
Marvin Williams F 6-9 230 16.0 PER
Maurice Evans G 6-5 220 11.1 PER
Solomon Jones F 6-10 230 12.0 PER

Note - I included PER as a stat, becaue it's probaly more comparable cross generations as it adjusts for pace. PER is productivity per minute such that the league average is set at 15.

Now, I admit, most people, if you compared the 1987 Hawks to the 2009 Hawks would probably laugh, hell I would laugh - but think about a 7 game series between those teams (at a neutral site, as if basketball in atlanta is ever anything but....lol) is a real toss up.

I really do think the 2009 Hawks, who, for their era, were a slightly above average team, would give the 1987 Hawks - an elite team from their era - a ton of problems due to the depth of this era.

The 2009 Hawks the depth is notable - you can note that their production is more evenly spread among a number of players, rather than the 1987 Hawks, who were highly dependent on Nique and Doc to either score or set everybody else up. I thnk the number of athletic bodies that the 2009 Hawks can throw at the 1987 team presents some issues (not including Josh Childress either, if they had him it would be even worse).

Just briefly going over the matchups, let's take it by position:

Guards: Mike Bibby-Joe Johnson-Flip Murray-Maurice Evans vs. Doc Rivers - Randy Wittman-John Battle-Mike McGee

I'd give a huge edge to the 2009 team.

First up, Joe Johnson on Randy Wittman is simply a nightmarish matchup for the 1987 Hawks. Wittman was a pretty below average player for his entire career, I don't believe he'd be a starter for most NBA teams these days. Johnson meanwhile is a tall, efficient, 20 ppg scorer with good 3 point range. I think he kills Wittman unless Wittman somehow dials up the spirit of Ryan Bowen on Dirk, 2005 (which was good for about 1 quarter of one game).

Doc was a very good point guard, great at setting up his teammates, low turnovers, but a terrible outside shooter and not much of a scorer. I guess Andre Miller is a good modern equivalent? Bibby is no stopper on defense but I'd try to make Doc a shooter and not a penetrator (easier said than done) Bibby again has a bit more range than Doc and a way better scorer, not as good a passer. You could call this one a wash.

Of the other guys, not much to say for any of them, all kind of scrubs, so let's call it a wash. Overall though I think the guards (if you call Johnson a guard) are a net advantage for 2009

Frontcourt - Josh Smith-Marvin Williams-Al Horford-ZaZa Pachulia-Solomon Jones vs. Dominique Wilkins-Kevin Willis-Tree Rollins-Cliff Levingston-John Koncak-

Obviously a huge advantage for Wilkins here, one of the toughest covers in history. He's score his points and 2009 team would just employee defense by committee and try to limit him. WHere they might have some success is that they've got some athletic help defenders in Williams-Smith-Horford-Johnson to help out on him when he gets to the rim - which is what he woudl be able to do in all likelihood.

Kevin Willis as we all recall was a devestating rebounder, and a good inside scorer but I don't know if the young kevin willis in 1987 is significantly better than the Marvin Williams/Horford tandem that rotates at PF and C for the 2009 version. Koncak and Rollins are big empty holes in the Hawks lineup (though Tree could block some shots as we recall). Pachulia is as good or better. Levingston was a nice defensive player but nothing that nobody on the 2009 Hawks couldn't handle.

So in conclusion, if I had to bet, I'd probably bet on the 1987 Hawks, but only if I was confident Dominique could pull them through, because against he 1987 Hawks, he wouldn't get a lot of help, and the lack of perimeter shooting back in the 80's would be difficult against good defensive teams of today when teams emphasize transition defense and packing the lane .

 

I'd bet the house on the 1987 Hawks.

Wittman probably wouldn't guard Johnson that much... McGee was a more athletic player and split time with Wittman. PG is not close... Doc was way better than a broken down Bibby... he averaged over 10 assists per game that year.

Willis would eat those boys up on the boards and he's a better scorer than any current Hawks forward. Plus, Levingston and Antoine Carr (15.5 PER) were men coming off the bench.

Rollins and Koncak didn't set the world on fire, but they took up space and when you have Dominique, all you have to do is rebound and make the outlet pass.

And as far as depth goes, the 1987 Hawks had 5 players that averaged over 6 rebounds per game while the current Hawks have 3. The 1987 Hawks had 11 players that averaged over 5 points per game, the current Hawks have 8.

It would be fun watching Wilkins challenge Smith at the rim, but the current Hawks have nobody in his league.

Plus, you're forgetting that Spud Webb came off the bench and ran the second unit, averaging over 5 assists in just 16 minutes a game with a PER of 16.5. There is no current Hawk that could hang with Spud in the open court.

So, the 1987 team had a 29 PPG scorer in Wilkins, a 10 APG guard in Rivers, and a 10+ RPG forward in Willis, and a 2 BPG Center in Rollins. The current team has none of these.

By the 4th quarter, the 1987 frontline would wear down the 2009 frontline and if they didn't 'Nique would put them on the bench with foul trouble. I do think the current Hawks would have a slight advantage in the backcourt, but not enough to make a huge difference... and don't forget about Spud.

 

I agree that over very long times the dilution argument doesn't hold up, but I think it's valid for more than just a year or two. I think the argument could apply to the 10 year window that saw Orland, Miami, Minnesota, Charlotte, Toronto, and Vancouver. You can't tell me the league wouldn't have been stronger if the good young players going to those teams had been spread among fewer teams.

This is not the same kind of argument (on shorter time scales). Here you're talking about picking the same number of players from either a large pool of prospects or a much smaller pool. Of course you're going to end up with lesser players. That's not the same as picking more players from a pool of roughly the same size.

 

Now you're the one being ridiculous. Picking Rasual Butler and acting like he's one of the top SG's in the league today is just wrong. He's one of the worst starters at his position in the league, but I'd say he's not any worse than Todd Day or Dee Brown. And you also pick several of the worst starting SF's and compare them to the above average players of 1994.

How about this comparison: could Dell Curry, Todd Day, Dee Brown, or Bryant Stith be "feature players" in the era of Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, Ray Allen, Joe Johnson, Vince Carter, T-Mac, Rip Hamilton, Michael Redd, and Brandon Roy? Of course not!

 

This is part of the problem when people reminisce about the old guys - you remember Kevin Willis as a 7th or 8 year player, with an additional 20 lbs of muscle, and when he led the league in rebounding, and Antoine Carr as a veteran - in short, people remember playersi n their prime, not the way that they actually were at that moment in time

Kevin Willis was a great rebounder and a good inside player - but was he that much better than Al Hrorford at that stage of his career?

A lot of Willis' gaudier stats (16 ppg and 10 board) don't look as gaudy when you adjust for pacing. On efficiency it is a wash:

Willis ORtg 113 DRtg 104 Usg 20.6 Rebound rtg 17.5%
Horford ORtg 114 DRtg 104 Usg 16.4 Rebound rtg 16.3%

- But Willis had a lot more touches both overall and per game so his numbers look gaudier.

Antoine Carr was a second year player, the 10th man off the bench who logged 10 mpg in 60 games, 5 ppg and 2 rebounds - not really much of a factor back then.

Spud Webb appeared in 33 games that year and logged about 500 minutes, I didn't even consider him for that reason.

Again, the answer is pace, see above. If we increased the pace of the 2009 team to 1987 levels, they'd probably have a 25-26 ppg scorer, a 7-8 apg guard, and a 10 rpg forward, and josh smith would be a 3-4 bpg small forward, while Horford would also block 3 shots per game - how does that compare?

Why not? Mike Fratello did.

 

from the late 80's to 2009 - the pool isn't roughly the same size, it's probably double the size in terms of people able to play basketball at a high level to be considered for the NBA. Meanwhile the number of teams increased by about 25%. The U.S. alone probably increase its population by that much in the same time span. In addition, all of Europe, lots of South America, parts of Africa, and even parts of Asia now far moree able to send players to the NBA, either directly or indirectly via US colleges due to increased access & information. I think that alone arguably doubled the talent pool size.

 

Its an interesting comparison and an excellent point regarding defenses of today. One thing to keep in mind is defensive rules have changed somewhat regarding packing the paint that would be very difficult for a Tree Rollins and Kevin Willis. At the sametime the change in rules regarding hand checks means a slashing wing player like Wilkins could have a field day.

I'm going to defer to Rimrocker's interpretation but I don't think it would be a blowout.

That said I would say the other top teams, mid-80's Lakers would destroy their 2009 counterparts as would the 80's Celtics and it would be no contest between the Rockets then versus Rockets now even with a health Yao, T-Mac and Mutumbo. I love these Rockets but imagine Yao having to defend Olajuwon or Sampson and T-Mac having to deal with Lew Lloyd or Robert Reid and then being hounded by Mitchell Wiggins.

 

That would be true, with the exception of maybe Mike McGee (who I should have noted was a good three point shooter for his era) the Hawks weren't optimized for today's style of play as far as role players go.

That's a very tough matchup for the 2009 Rockets.

The 1986 Rockets are good enough in the half-court so that the 2009 Rockets can't bludgeon them in the slow down game and their greatest assets on defense (Artest and Battier) are going to be wasted by drawing Rodney McCray and Robert Reid who are just complimentary players.

Plus they have size on the front line that the Rockets don't have after Yao, who guys like Olajuwon and Sampson are custom made to check. I'd say Sampson/Olajuwon vs. Yao/Scola is a total blowout for the 86'rs.

 

I disagree. It is about how will make the right play, not make the final shot. An example being Jordan passing to a wide open Steve Kerr.

 

I was responding to a statement that explicitly said fringe starters today would have been feature players 15 years ago.

 

Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain were amazing. Definitely the best players... in that time frame of the NBA. They should be respected for being some of the all-time greats in the NBA... in that time frame of the NBA.

Comparing players today with players of long ago is like comparing apples to oranges.

Jordan and LeBron are in comparable basketball eras. Russel and Chamberlain are too. But Russel and Jordan or LeBron and Chamberlain are not. You cannot compare the two. You cannot say one is/was better than the other. It's just not comparable.

That being said, the old greats did a lot more for the sport than Jordan/LeBron have/will do. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird even did more (like getting the NBA out of the cellar). But you cannot compare their basketball skill as they lived/played in different eras.

No one (at least I hope no one) is comparing their basketball skill. No one is saying Jordan is better than Wilt or LeBron will be better than Russel. If they are, they are dumb. In our current basketball era, Jordan/LeBron are two of the most dominant players known. Period. This isn't a hack at former greats like Russel or Wilt.