Since you're playing the "time machine" game, how dominant would you think Bird would have been if he grew up in the same era as these current players having the same training and technology? Your logic implies that Isaac Newton was not really a great scientist because a smart high school kid knows more about gravity than he ever did.
Why do people at like Dirk had no help at all in that series. The series didn't turnaround until Dirk started getting help from his supporting cast.
In real life he's more like 6'7. After retirement, his posture got better and weird stuff sometimes happens...
Barkley was and is a jerk, but he was a very good player. Overall, Dirk has had more of an impact on the league and the game. And he is not finished. He and Ellis are going to be a pain in the playoffs.
This is great. Bird scores 60 on the Hawks. Especially starting at the 3:55 mark. I was too young to watch him but love his highlights. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rto2_oYVs0I
I vote Barkley. He was a better scorer, rebounder and passer than Dirk. Dirk's a better shooter, and he doesn't turn the ball over.
Well obv. Bird would be even better if he grew up in today's NBA, but that's not what happened, isn't it? That's why I'm saying the NBA players today are much better than the players in the 80's, because NBA players today benefited from the players in the 80's. But then again this is the same situation Bird, Magic, MJ etc. had they built upon the era Mikan, Wilt Chamberlain and Russell founded so I have no idea why you think it's so wrong. If Russell played in the 80's he would probably be even better as well.
I don't think that's a thing reserved to NBA Basketball, but professional sports in general...the athletes have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster...as much as people like to say the game is watered down (I agree), but at the same token tend not highlight those changes. I still think most of upper level players would dominate or be good, but the lower tier guy may be out of league, especially with no elite skills or athleticism.
Are you sure you wanna claim a "what actually happened" argument? Are you sure? Really sure? I KNOW you're NOT sure because what actually happened was a 6'5'' guy winning a rebounding title. Yet you discredited that fact in your initial post. You lose on that simple fact alone... nevermind all the other misinformed positions from your initial post.
This is where your ignorance really bug me to no ends. Do you know how long Barkley played in the league? 16 years. Do you know when was his last season in the NBA? 1999/2000. Do you know what was his TRB% and TRB per 36min in his last season at the age of 36? TRB% 18.9 (Career Avg 18.2%), His TRB per 36 was 12.1 (Career Avg 11.5) The span between his last season to now is less than his total career. Do you think the league has improved drastically to say that he would not dominate now if he was lets say 27yrs old again? Against a league which probably has the worst group of big men in the past 30-40 years?
Time of truth, I have to choose a player, after a few weeks checking and analyzing. I'm going to have to choose Chuck. He had a little more edge to his game and wouldn't be denied...I think Nowitzk has edge to...but from what I've seen and remembered with Barkley ... nine times out of ten, he wasn't the reason his team lost. I cannot get the 07 playoffs out of my head with Dirk, they should've throttled a team like Golden State. Exchanging both players, I feel like Barkley would have two titles or more, if he played on a team comparable to the Mavs. I also think him being a better rebounding force and a more imposing player on the perimeter and in the post...I'll throw it to Barkley for the victory.
So in weeks of checking and analyzing you didnt realize that the 07 Warriors was the worst matchup in the entire league for the Mavs? That the Warriors SWEPT the regular season matchups with the Mavs? It wasnt a surprise at all what happened
