What being a better athlete has to do with being a better basketball player is beyond me. Lets try a different way of looking at the paradigm. Wilt Chamberlain used to eat up a young Lew Alcindor. A very old in his 17th year in the league, after finishing 4 years in college before he came out Kareem Abdul-Jabbar averaged over 30 points a game against the duo of Sampson and Olajuwon in the 85-86 regular season. He was 38 years old that year. The athletes Olajuwon and Sampson couldn't stop him one on one. Why because at that stage in his career Kareem was still an athlete but he knew how to play the game at a higher level than either of the much younger and in your words greater athletes. With the modern training some of these older guys would be completely unstoppable today. Why does there seem like there is so much more room in those old games on NBA tv. Its because they used to know how to spread the court and make space. It was near impossible to double team anyone because to even make it in the league EVERYONE on the court could hit an open 15 footer. Hell you've got small forwards who can't take guys off the dribble or are involved in the offense, nowadays, they just hang at the 3 point line. The RULES have made it a different game, not the players
wow, i thought some of the cliched analysis of basketball back in the 60 and 70's versus today was starting to go away but BobFinn and jsb have brought us right back. where to even start: you do realize that every ballhandler in today's NBA carries the ball? Not to mention walks with the ball as well. well good, we got that one in right off the bat so we could move on to others. yeah, no legal dribbling whatsoever. Also if players today are so much better, why can't anyone average more than 14 rebounds a game? There are more missed shots in today's game than ever before. that almost has to be a joke. there are not even close to as many available rebounds as there used to be. Fight through complex defensive schemes? How about movement without the ball? It is a lost art (as is the mid-range jump shot) good, now we've gotten in the "no one actually plays good defense today, it's just no one knows how to move or hit a jump shot" cliche. i'll grant you the jump shot point. it's clear an open 18 footer isn't as automatic as it used to be. Too much standing around while one guy dribbles and tries to make a fancy (ESPN highlight) YES! we have gotten an ESPN/Sportscenter/AND1 mention in. and we're still in the first post. this cliche is too important to pass up. yes, that's all that happens nowadays, one guy dribbles and everyone watches. and all plays are based on getting a highlight out of it. i suppose every crossover is considered a highlight and not a very good way of getting past your man. all alley oops are highlights, not effective ways of taking advantage of athleticism to go over the defense instead of through it. It's playground style. No thought process going on whatsoever. of course. the rockets, pure playground. the spurs, the kings, the mavs, the suns, the sonics, the heat, the pistons, the pacers, the grizzlies, the lakers, the bulls, the cavaliers, all playground for sure. and no sort of scheme or intelligent play anywhere. Todays players may be beter conditioned and better athletes but THEY ARE NOT as smart of players from yesteryear maybe, maybe not. but any IQ deficiency is blown out of the water by the athletic and physical advantages. Why do you think Bird and Magic were so good? They were throwback players. Fundamentally sound and they knew how to play all aspects of the game. i didn't realize bird and magic were the end of good players. guys like duncan, garnett, kobe, mcgrady, james, dirk. you don't think they fundamentals and skills? from the kaiser: there's no way a guy from the earlier ages of basketball who averaged 15-25 rpg would average the same amount these days exactly, because there aren't near as many rebounds. If you take it as the absolute sense, the later guy is always the better, because of progress i don't think BobFinn even agrees with that. that in an absolute sense, today's players are easily better. today's are better than the 90's. the 90's were better than the 80's. the 80's over the 70's and so on. You obviously never saw Bill Russell play, or Nate Thurmond. Dennis Rodman was a weak version of Bill Russell. you obviously never saw rebounding stats. i wish i knew where to get them, but others have posted them and it's amazingly different. there was some article about how good of a rebounder shaq has been when you consider the percentage of rebounds he gets versus guys in the past who may edge him in absolute numbers. from thacabbage: Guys like McGrady, Bryant, Garnett, and Iverson would literally destroy their counterparts individually. exactly. and it would be ugly. look what happens to guys who aren't that athletic in today's nba. they get absolutely torched. and they were still more athletic than your average nba'er from the past. Lots of people like to watch a guy dribble around for 20 seconds and throw up an offbalance shot that might go in. It's not my cup of tea. I watch more college basketball than NBA. College is more team oriented yes, that's why people watch the nba. the 20 seconds of dribbling and off balance shots. perhaps your perception of the nba is what's off. as for college basketball versus college, obviously anyone can like whatever they choose and college is probably more team oriented, but it's still no where near the quality of basketball. unless you get an awesome matchup of two top ten teams, you're probably going to get to see some substandard basketball. you have to get down to the hawks/hornets dregs before that happens in the nba. What being a better athlete has to do with being a better basketball player is beyond me. OH. MY. GOD. wow, then i guess a lot of things are beyond you. lets see, shaq, duncan, garnett, kobe, tmac, lebron, dirk, jermaine... stop me when i hit someone who doesn't have freak athleticism/physical skills (and, yes, duncan counts with his 7'1 height, extremely long arms, and brute strength in the post) and stop me when i get to a non-top ten player in the nba. what about vince and amare. more superb athletes and more guys who dominate. jordan, possibly the best player ever, also possibly the most athletic player ever. hakeem? freak. magic, 6'9 guy with speed and amazing handles. barkley, run away freight train who could jump. dr j, wilt, kareem. man, i just can't figure how athleticism makes anyone good. i mean scott padgett has lots of skills, why does he not dominate. probably b/c he can't run, jump, isn't that tall, and doesn't have really long arms.
somehow different to help today's players? possibly the carrying interpretation, but the physical play that is allowed today has held back today's players. even with the new enforcement, a guy like yao still has to wrestle in the post. so in conclusion, thacabbage is right.
Listen, I will grant you that the modern athlete has better resources available than each preceding generation. Having said that who are the better athletes (Jason Kidd and Duncan) or (Steve Francis and A. Stoudamire)?? Steve and Amare hands down..... Who are the better basketball players?? Omigosh is it hands down Kidd and Duncan..... At a certain time in the careers of athletes their training is the same. Normally at the tail end of one's career and the beginning of anothers. Olajuwon and Shaq as an example...... Kareem and Wilt......... Kareem and Olajuwon..... Who at that point in time is the better player??? Its always the older guy until he reaches the age of retirement. Just because the resources available eventually make the young player a better athlete doesn't remove the claim that the previous generation for their time was the better athlete and could also play the game. Also if your going to compare players as in Kareem and Olajuwon in 85-86 don't forget to remember that Olajuwon killed Kurt Rambis and the other PF's of the Lakers not Kareem in those same playoffs. And nobody was more happy than I when that occurred.
where did my comprehension fail? you make the disingenuous "thank you for agreeing with me" comments and you say i need the comprehension skills? brilliant. you pretty much did nothing to back up your point except say prove it. essentially, you're not going to let stats and facts get in the way of your flawed perception.
Ok, I will kill 2 birds with one stone here... so not only were you wrong, but you now wanna be adamant about being so? in 1961, teams averaged 73 rebounds per game. in 1966, 68. that was the era of huge rebounding numbers. the seventies were generally in the 50's until around 1980 we finally leveled off to levels around today, where pace and lower fg% finally started canceling each other out. and what a coincidence, the massive 20+ and 16 and 18 a season numbers went away also. we've seen fairly consistent rebound numbers since rebounding overall leveled off around 42 or 43 a game. ____________________________________________________ what would it mean other than the percentage of rebounds available that one guys gets? if there are 44 rebounds in a game and shaq gets 11, that's 25% of the rebounds. So if there are 73 rebounds available in a game and Wilt is averaging 27 a game (1960, 1959) that comes out to Wilt getting 36% of the rebounds. So much for that article you read about Shaq's percentage. how many championships did the rest of the nba have in the 80's after magic and bird? by my count they had 8 of them. how many other titles did guys other than hakeem and jordan have? how many guys other than shaq or duncan have titles now? your list only went two deep. My list went 2 deep to prove the point that fundamentally sound players will beat athletically gifted players 8 times out of 10. Jordan had both fundamentals and great athletic ability. you're not going to let stats and facts get in the way of your flawed perception. Who has the "flawed perception" here?
in 1961, teams averaged 73 rebounds per game. in 1966, 68. that was the era of huge rebounding numbers. the seventies were generally in the 50's until around 1980 we finally leveled off to levels around today, where pace and lower fg% finally started canceling each other out. and what a coincidence, the massive 20+ and 16 and 18 a season numbers went away also. we've seen fairly consistent rebound numbers since rebounding overall leveled off around 42 or 43 a game. Where in the world did you get there are only 42-43 rebounds a game. There were 82 REBOUNDS in yesterdays Bulls/Rox game. Or are you trying to tell me there were 146 Rebounds a game in 1961????? What nonsense are you talking about??
Actually - JSB's numbers make sense to me. Here are some team stats from classic teams: http://www.nba.com/playoffs2004/challenge_celtics1960.html http://www.nba.com/playoffs2004/challenge_sixers1967.html http://www.nba.com/playoffs2004/challenge_celtics1965.html 5700-6000 rebounds comes out to around 70-75 a game. Yes - these are some of the best teams of that era - but even the worst rebounding teams probably got 60+ per game. JSB is right - you can't really compare statistics from different eras. Today's players (or since mid 80's) are much more athletic. And there is an international pool of players now. Guys like Shaq and Yao go up against 7 footers almost every game. I think most would agree that the mid 80's to mid 90's was the best era for the NBA. It was during this period that the league actually began to flourish. Who knows what Shaq would have done in the 60's. He could have been a lot fatter. Wilt today might have gotten into wieghts and been even more of a monster. Who knows? Arguments about different sports eras can go on and on. In the end - it's probably a matter of opinion. I just wouldn't go against MJ in his prime.
i didn't realize i was teaching a course in quantum mechanics here. lets see, teams averaged 73 in 1961, then i said teams averaged 42-43 now. then you find a boxscore where the combined rebounds is almost exactly twice the number i said teams average now, almost as if each team were averaging about 41. man, what could "teams averaged 73 in 1961" have possibly meant. it means, yes, there were 146 rebounds per game for both teams in 1961. thus, teams averaged 73 per game. saying teams averaged 146 a game then, or 86 now would sound strange, just as saying teams average 195 point a game now would sound strange. it's quite clear what the meaning is and saying it the other way would sound strange. and bravo Bob, you found someone with a higher percentage than shaq. thing is, the article was only referencing guys from 10-20 years ago (i suppose i could've mentioned that but i wasn't trying to say shaq was a record-breaking rebounder, just pointing out an article mentioning the decline in rebounds), and also i don't think anyone has disputed the dominance of chamberlain's stats. the manner is which he achieved the numbers and the competition, yes, but the dominance, no. besides, year in and year out shaq isn't even the best rebounder in the league. rodman, wallace, duncan, and garnett have probably posted better percentage numbers than even shaq's best season.
I dont think any era has a TOTAL domination over another era. I think what the diffrence is is training, nutrition and rules of the game. And a longer period of time to create diffrent schemes. So from that i dont think you guys are arguing really over whos players are better because there all probably pretty close. Really what i think you guys are arguing over is really what era or style of play YOU like better.
LOL, I feel for ya, f4p! The inflated rebounding stats of early eras can also be attributed to: 1) In the few ultra-dominating Wilt years, there were only a handful of athletes who could keep Wilt from getting a few offensive rebounds at a time, since he had legitimate hops. Sure, there are lots of players in that era with 12-15 rebounds a game, but you are going to have those when there are 73 available a game. If B Cunningham is collecting 12 boards a game, you know the stats are inflated. 2) The three-point shot was not in existence. Hence the 15-18 footer, not the 23 footer, was the outside shot of choice. This causes guys like Sura, Kidd and even Boykins to collect all the long rebounds that are soaring above the centers' heads. My beef with the worshipping of the Wilt/Russell stats is that this causes Dream to get shortchanged by not being included in the pantheon of best-ever centers because the numbers don't match up. I happen to think there is, and has been, no better center that could dominate on both offense and defense like he could. Put him in a different era, and he would have had the quickness, power and skills to edge out all of the all time greats. But that would be contrary to the northeast and LA sensibilities, so that view is not prevailing wisdom. My opinion: Time-warp these all-time greats like Russell and Wilt and sure, they'll be All-Star quality, but I think they'll be in the mold of Duncan/Sampson/Ewing/Robinson - great but not awesomely great. And Russell = a slightly better Ben Wallace. If you upgrade these old era centers' training regimen and improve their play accordingly simply by learning from playing against superior competition, maybe they have it in them to edge out Dream, but that's completely speculative since you have to increase their abilities arbitrarily.
If I had a time machine I would go back to the time Russell dominated. With this argument about different eras, there's one thing that is never mentioned, the quality of the role player back then was MUCH higher than it is now. People want to complain about the fundamentals of players in todays NBA and they always blame the stars, the only guys who have them, huh?! Steve Francis doesn't have any, huh?! What can't he do? Allen Iverson doesn't have them because his shooting percentage is low, what?! He's one of the NBAs greatest scorers, leading the league in scoring and top 5 in assists, that's GREAT, no matter the era. Tim Duncan is percieved to be the only player with fundemantals now a days, wrong, I hate Stephon Marbury but he could do everthing a PG is supposed to do. Cut the NBA in half, contract 15 teams and we'll see a MUCH better NBA than there was back then, no more Ryan Bowen's, no more Mark Jackson's hanging around at age 55, no more Alonzo Mourning's playing with a kidney disease. You won't see AI on one man teams if the NBA wasn't a 30 team league, won't see a guy like Steve Francis go seven years in the NBA without playing with a guy that is better than him, as a matter of fact if he's the best player in a 15 team NBA his team wouldn't win 15 games! The NBA wouldn't HAVE to rely on 18 year old high school and foreign players for a boost in talent, why draft JR Smith and Al Jefferson when Cuttino Mobley and Drew Gooden are on your bench? Better yet add 15 teams to the NBA in the 60's, no more John Havliceks coming off the bench, no more third and fourth option Billy Cunningham and Chet Walkers, all those guys would have to carry a team not be a role player on one. IMO if you add even eight teams to the 60's NBA there would of been a lot of players that lack fundamentals and the ones who had them wouldn't of looked as good because they had to play with dudes who didn't belong in their league. What about the coaching and managing? Anyone think Johnny Davis coaches back then? Does an 80 year old Hubie Brown get begged out of retirement? Does Elgin Baylor last this long? Does Dougie Howser coach the Nets? Tim Floyd? Enough said. A lot of the coaches considered to be great NBA coaches today would be assistants back then, you'd have coaching staffs that resemble the Spurs coaching staff all over the league. I know you wouldn't see guys like Jamal Crawford and Troy Murphy with eight figure salaries, GMs dumb enough to do that wouldn't be in position to make that mistake. It's not fair to diss today's NBA in comparison to the NBA back in the day without considering expansion, IMO every time the NBA adds a team it sets the league back at least 4 years. Old timers love to do it though and they're right the NBA was better, but I think the best players of todays game compare to the ones back then although a few guys like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robinson and Jerry West would still be kings.
Ok I couldn't resist the temptation any longer. I'm watching Celtics/Knicks on NBATV, I don't know what year, but this is absolutely some of the worst garbage I've ever seen. I mean this is horrible. Can anyone out there dribble comfortably with their left hand? I don't care what anyone says, basketball players back then could not even compare to the players of today's era. Simple logic tells us this - As the human has progressed through advances in nutrition and training, obviously the player has advanced. I don't know why we place some of these guys on such a pedestal to where any criticism of them is blasphemous. I love how players of today are all stupid but players of yesteryear were scholars of the game, fundamentally sound, the ultimate teammates! Maybe the reason these guys passed it around so well was because noone was skilled enough to get by his man on his own. I don't know about any of you, but I absolutely cannot stand watching college basketball. 5 guys coming down the court, passing it around the perimeter to each other for 23 seconds until someone finally jacks up a 3. Why is it so hard for us to accept that players of today are simply better? Is it because we hate the hip-hop image of today's NBA and automatically label all the players as "dumb and selfish?" Is it subconscious racism? Excluding the Wilt's, Russell's, and Dr. J's, we can't accept that a predominantly black league is greatly superior to one of yesterday, which was white. In our insecurity, we have to label today's players as "dumb and selfish" and have to hold the likes of Bob Cousy and John Havlicek to an immortal status when neither would likely make an NBA starting lineup in today's league. I'm not saying this is the case, I'm posing the question, is this why? I know I will get bashed. Bob* - You're still saying that the team game was better. You're citing better passing etc. Noone argues that. The passing and teamwork WAS better. What is in question here is the individual players. On that point, there is no question that today's are greatly superior.
Just depends on what you are taking about when you say, "superior." The question is not that today's players aren't more physically talented. They are. That's fine. But those player that represent the *best* must be held at the highest standard. If that standard has been lowered (too dependent on improved physical talent), then that's *dumbing* down the game. The lower standard has caused some to accept the fact that our *best* should not be great passers, shooters, or team players and just settle for their physical ability (some define that as talent). I define talent as natural physical ability AND know how! BOTH! Not just one aspect. No one is saying that great athletic ability is bad. We're saying that using ones athletic ability at the expense of passing, teamwork, rebounding, low turnovers, defense, etc is BAD....the league *was* lacking the COMPLETE PLAYER over the last few years. Era comparison in terms of physically will always be hard to quantify. We just don't know how they would perform. But time does not erode a players smarts. A player that plays smart and can adjust works today just like it did back in the 50's. John Barry can play in today's "great defenses." I hope no one is suggesting that John Barry would be the same physical talent as Larry Bird in the 80's just because of the "bad defense" they played back then. Dennis Johnson could play today just like he did back then (just like Barry does today). Dennis not anymore less a *good athlete* than guards in the 90's or today. And Barry is no more a *good athlete* than guards in the 80's. Savvy, deception, leverage, smarts, and knowing the game really can elevate a players natural ability. Yes, both John and Dennis are role players. But we are assuming that we are talking about *good players* can have made it and are not lower than 12th man quality. But saying that the reason that our *best* players can't shoot or pass as good as the past players and blaming today's "great defense" is not true. Defenses does have *some* effect. But not as much as some make it out to be. During the mid-nineties to around 2001, I don't think I've seen so many missed OPEN SHOTS in my life! OPEN SHOTS! Not defended! Yes, teamwork had a lot to do on how the players of the past got open, which is something that our recent players didn't practice as much. All this was lacking in recent times (not the Rox, though ). The fact of the matter is that there were a lot of guards of Tony Parkers quality back in the 80's. They were a dime-a-dozen. AND, the *best players* of that time could do it *all.* They were not just scorers-iso-players but fundamentally sound on *all* aspects of the game. They knew the pass, the fast-break, the perfect jump-shot, the importance of teamwork, rebounding, defense, efficiency....you name it. That's what lacking in a lot of our stars. Our mid-level guys of today are fine (Barry, Sura, Westley, James). But those guys are NOT the ones that carry the league. The superstars are the ones that do. But it is those stars that lack the same know-how that the Barry's, Westley, Sura's, and James have. I would say that Nash and Parker are on a slightly different level. So, not all players should be able to pass as good as Nash/Paker (they are PG). But at least have *some* level of accuracy from our best stars; regardless of position. Now I will say this. In the last 3-4 years, the NBA has improved collectively. Maybe the international losses had something to do with it. Maybe KG losing year after year without help has an effect on the new school mind. Maybe the NBDL has helped. Maybe the fact that our H.S. players have made an immediate impact than rather waiting 6 years (KG, TMac, J. O'Neal, Kobe compared to Lebron, and Amare). Also, Dallas, Sac, and Seattle have brought back a brand of basketball that is pure efficiency (sans defense, but still). These teams are doing things that can only be accomplished by buying into the team game and the benefit of the pick and roll, passing and jump shot (vs the ISO). Detroit is winning with a collective of good to very good players. But no great players. Team work and efficiency! So, *greatly superior* is subjective. If you talk about *just* athletic ability. Sure, the athletes are better today. But if you talk about those player being complete players. No. We are lacking that. Not all of them. I would say that KG, Duncan, Yao, Nash, Parker, Bibby, Allen are a few of the top players that really have elevated their games within their physically talent. TMac is moving along quite nicely too. But he's bought into the team game. He really make his teammate better. It's refreshing to see that. But even when he was with Orlando he was still a very accurate passer and active rebounder. So, individually he's has a nice collection of know-how skills (he's not just depending on his iso-physical ability). What I'm keeping an eye on is how good LeBron becomes. If he stays on his current learning curve he should be able to elevate the league to a level of know-how that is comparable to his physical ability. We don't need any more Jordan wannabes (Minor, Stackhouse, Kobes, Iversons, Francis, etc...). We need more Parkers, Bibbys, Nashes, Duncans, Yaos, Allens, KG, Tmacs...etc... Jumpman did mention that the league being diluted by expansion has hurt the league. I agree. That didn't help. But the young players goals also changed too (scoring over teamwork). And it's up to them to learn the whole game, not just scoring. I do see this change. And I feel that the next 10 years will be the best bball we've seen since the 80's. I hated the 1996-2001 era. I think what made it even worse for me was that we had the poster boy for sloppy basketball that we just traded. By the way, I don't like this poll. There are players from each era that represent the *best* superstars. I think the one that got the most votes because of Hakeem and Jordan. Easy to vote for those two guys; especially a Rocket. But I can't limit myself to just one era.
JumpMan makes a great point that cannot be overlooked. Let's forget about individual talent. If you want to compare overall quality of the league and criticize today's lack of team play or whatever or lack of overall talent, then you can't overlook how much expansion has hurt the game. Distribute the best players from the 15 worst teams amongst the top half and suddenly Chris Bosh and Jalen Rose join TMac and Yao in Houston, Elton Brand joins Shaq and Wade, while Baron Davis and Jason Richardson give Memphis a backcourt. The Reece Gaines' and Tyronn Lue's of the world suddenly are out of jobs and the 70's squads don't look so hot anymore.
Yes, that would help a lot if it was possible. But even better would be that the individual know-how also improved in terms of team play, passing, shooting etc...(our best players). So, what you suggest will not happen. The league is not going to get smaller any time soon. The only thing we can wait for is the *best* to elevate their know-how. We already know they have the physical ability. Now, let them put their physical ability to good use. Learn the whole game! By the way, I hope you aren't suggesting that Reece Gaines' and Tyronn Lue's would necessarily have jobs in the 70's or 80's. Because there were enough role players back then that were better than Gaines/Lue were; versatile role players (good to average players were plentiful). So, they wouldn't be out of a job *today* because the 70's or 80's were more consolidated and we are not (which wont change today). They would be out of jobs because the 90's and 2000's players elevated their know-how and raised the bar -- even when team consolidation does not happen. I'm say this because the league isn't going to shrink. So, the individual know-how has to improve. And it has in the last 2-3 years.
Re-reading all the posts, besides Bob finn, no-one else has bad mouthed the modern era of basketball. But there are several posters who are adamant that the only good basketball is the modern game. First let me say that the greatest part of watching all of these era's and the game of basketball in general is its ever continuing evolvement into what it is now. The era of Chamberlain, Russell, Baylor, Robertson and West changed the game more than any other era. You don't believe it,,,,, watch some form of basketball game before they came around. They were the original Fab 5 who were the forefathers of the modern game. As great a basketball player as Jabbar was the next player and era of player who changed the face of the game was Julius Erving. His athleticism and his dunk from the free throw line changed the game forever. Forever more the game evolved into a more athletic one. The Johnson/Bird era popularized the game but it didn't change the game. What it did bring was the greatest skill increase in the game since the Chamberlain era. The next player to change the game was Jordan and not necessarily for the better. Instead of concentrating on his tremendous skill level the media concentrated his aura on his one on one displays and his dunks. Although spectacular it brought along the modern one on one player that disturbs most purists. There is no questioning the skill level of the modern player nor their atleticism. With the rule changes like the hand check rule this year, I believe you are already seeing a much more fluid game and the sky is the limit for these outstanding athletes. My favorite era was probably the Olajuwon and Jordan era but the greatest superstars in my mind will be the Chamberlain era.
