I'm having a seriously hard time trying to comprehend your defense. 1. You said Russell was a horrible shooter. I gave you numbers of his teammates, players that actually were THE scorers for his Celtic teams. 2. You dismiss it because they're perimeter players which apparently gives them a right to have a bad shooting % I then gave you FACTS that Russell's FG% during his era was, in fact, pretty good, which is in line with how the NBA has been since the beginning (e.g. big men having high FG% which was proven by Russell's number being in the TOP 5 in the whole league). 3. Finally, you're saying that "shooting 44% for a big man is subpar", regardless of era. I'm now going to question why are you still refuting the stats and evidence that, in fact, Russell wasn't a bad shooter for a player in his time? In today's NBA, no one is going to say 44% is good but it was pretty damn good for that era. And then you bring up an example that doesn't support your case one bit. If all of my friends miss all of their shots and I make 3 out of 10, wouldn't I be considered the best shooter among the group? Your usage of 100% as the baseline for shooting accuracy is something that will NEVER be achieved over the course of a season for a starting NBA player. Just for comparison's sake: Tim Duncan's career FG%: 50.8% Hakeem Olajuwon's career FG%: 51.2% David Robinson's career FG%: 51.8% Patrick Ewing's career FG%: 50.4% Shaquille O'Neal's career FG%: 58.1% Wilt Chamberlain's career FG%: 54% So would you consider 50% as an elite percentage for a big man, considering the HOF or future HOF players I just listed all hovered around the 50% mark? If you can say "yea, I consider 50% to be the line that separates the elite from the non-elites", then how can 44% be considered "bad" or "horrible" or "terrible"? This is akin to saying, "Player X is a good free throw shooter at 88% but Player Y is terrible at 83%"
That's not what I said at all. I said that because they are perimeter players, its understandable that they have lower FG percentages because their shots are inherently more difficult due to the increased distance. Like I said, he was good relative to his peers. But that doesn't mean he's a good shooter. How am I refuting stats? I've clearly said that Russell was good relative to his peers. And like you said, in today's game, no one is going to say 44% is good. Here's another example. In 1963, Oscar Robertson shot 81% from the free throw line and was #10 in the league in ft%. In 2010, a player shooting 81% from the line would be ranked #55. So yeah, Robertson was good compared to his peers, but that doesn't change the fact that he's still going to miss 19% of his attempts. Actually, my example is entirely applicable. You would be the best shooter amongst your peers, but you'd still be considered a poor shooter. 100% is already the established baseline, and its always been that way. Btw, Flip Murray shot 100% from the free throw line in the postseason. 8-8. The players you listed were the focal points of their team's offenses. More defensive attention will be focused on them and their attempts will be more difficult. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Look at their offensive win shares. Chuck Hayes' career fg% is over 50%. Does that mean he should be compared to Ewing/Olajuwon/Robinson/etc...? And 6% is actually a lot
So since Magic was not a huge scorer with stats I can show that there were a number of pg's better than Magic... It's just like steddinotayto stated with stats you can that there were better players than Hondo and West...
Well I'm sorry if you interpreted my post that way. However evolution requires hundreds if not thousands of generations in order to see any effect. I was hoping the absurdity of claiming the entire human race became signifcantly more athletic in just 3 generations would make everyone realize I was talking about it in the context of the league. I guess its a reaction to the inherent bias old-schoolers have regarding the all time greats. Hearing most of the old-schoolers complain about the "good old days", you'd think the quality of the NBA players have gone to the crapper when the reality is quite the opposite. The fundamental skills have indeed gone down, however the athleticism has increased, and the overall quality has increased due to the NBA becoming an international sport. Owning the league when it was much more physical wouldn't really matter in today's league, as the rule changes have made being physical at the perimeter practically illegal. Good defenders nowadays don't just use physicality, they use their quickness and agility to stay in front of their defender. And again I'm not saying Bird will be a scrub. He probably just won't be considered a GOAT IMHO.
There are more stats than just scoring. If you incorporate every useful statistic into your argument, you can make a compelling argument. If you insist on sticking with scoring, then the only argument you can make is that there might be better scoring pgs than Magic. You cannot take a single statistic and use it to define every aspect of a player's game.
Skill is more important than athleticism. That's why a 40 year old Michael Jordan can average 20 ppg in this era. That's why players like Gerald Green and Von Wafer can't stay on a team. Remember Stromile Swift?
Yup skill is more important than athleticism, but other people have both skill AND insane athleticism (i.e. Lebron James). 40 year old MJ got 20 ppg, but he didn't dominate the league, which was basically just my point in the first place.
Your point is that a player with insane athleticism and skill will dominate the league? You should next try to prove that 2 + 2 = 4.
