Humans Evolve at Minuscule Rates Over Thousands of Years

[3ball]

People vastly overrate how fast humans evolve... they exponentially overrate how fast it happens.

If humans advance physically and evolve as fast as people think they do as it relates to sports, than in the next 25 years, players will be able to dunk on 15-foot rims.

The truth is that humans evolve so incrementally, you can't tell over a short period like only a few decades...

For one, players are actually shorter today than they used to be... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing _experience

And athletically, people get fooled by the longer shorts, the latest fashions, and newer, more aesthetically appealing dunking STYLES into thinking these guys are jumping so much higher, but they aren't - Lebron doesn't jump higher than Jordan, Wade doesn't jump higher than Drexler, Blake Griffin doesn't jump higher than Shawn Kemp did... and on down the line.

Science tells us that humans evolve very slowly over thousands of years, and comparing say Shawn Kemp to Blake Griffin or Wilt to Shaq provides sort of a marker that shows over just a few decades, athletic advancements will always be negligible.
.

[Killbot]

Weak era

[blablabla]

our knowledge about fitness did evolve drastically tho

[robert de niro]

human evolution =/= sport/fitness development

[Kvnzhangyay]

Thats true, but today's basketball has much more complicated schemes and much better fitness regimes and such, which is why players can't do as much as they used to now (ex: Wilt, although would still be great in today's league, would not be averaging 50 ppg, defense has just gotten too much better to allow it)

[Psileas]

People vastly overrate how fast humans evolve... they exponentially overrate how fast it happens.

If humans advance physically and evolve as fast as people think they do as it relates to sports, than in the next 25 years, players will be able to dunk on 15-foot rims.

The truth is that humans evolve so incrementally, you can't tell over a short period like only a few decades...

For one, players are actually shorter today than they used to be... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing _experience

And athletically, people get fooled by the longer shorts, the latest fashions, and newer, more aesthetically appealing dunking STYLES into thinking these guys are jumping so much higher, but they aren't - Lebron doesn't jump higher than Jordan, Wade doesn't jump higher than Drexler, Blake Griffin doesn't jump higher than Shawn Kemp did... and on down the line.

Science tells us that humans evolve very slowly over thousands of years, and comparing say Shawn Kemp to Blake Griffin or Wilt to Shaq provides sort of a marker that shows over just a few decades, athletic advancements will always be negligible.
.

Wow, 2007 NBA was about an inch shorter than its previous seasons? :wtf:

[dubeta]

People vastly overrate how fast humans evolve... they exponentially overrate how fast it happens.

If humans advance physically and evolve as fast as people think they do as it relates to sports, than in the next 25 years, players will be able to dunk on 15-foot rims.

The truth is that humans evolve so incrementally, you can't tell over a short period like only a few decades...

For one, players are actually shorter today than they used to be... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing _experience

And athletically, people get fooled by the longer shorts, the latest fashions, and newer, more aesthetically appealing dunking STYLES into thinking these guys are jumping so much higher, but they aren't - Lebron doesn't jump higher than Jordan, Wade doesn't jump higher than Drexler, Blake Griffin doesn't jump higher than Shawn Kemp did... and on down the line.

Science tells us that humans evolve very slowly over thousands of years, and comparing say Shawn Kemp to Blake Griffin or Wilt to Shaq provides sort of a marker that shows over just a few decades, athletic advancements will always be negligible.
.

OK?

LeBron is bigger, 50 pounds heavier, and faster end to end, the fact that he can still jump at least as high should tell you something



And where were all the athletic pg's of the previous decades?

John Starks is the only athletic Pg I can think of from the previous era's

Wheres the westbrooks, d rose's, john walls of the past

heck kyrie irving is probably more athletic than any pg of the previous eras

[Trollsmasher]

People vastly overrate how fast humans evolve... they exponentially overrate how fast it happens.

If humans advance physically and evolve as fast as people think they do as it relates to sports, than in the next 25 years, players will be able to dunk on 15-foot rims.

The truth is that humans evolve so incrementally, you can't tell over a short period like only a few decades...

For one, players are actually shorter today than they used to be... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing _experience

And athletically, people get fooled by the longer shorts, the latest fashions, and newer, more aesthetically appealing dunking STYLES into thinking these guys are jumping so much higher, but they aren't - Lebron doesn't jump higher than Jordan, Wade doesn't jump higher than Drexler, Blake Griffin doesn't jump higher than Shawn Kemp did... and on down the line.

Science tells us that humans evolve very slowly over thousands of years, and comparing say Shawn Kemp to Blake Griffin or Wilt to Shaq provides sort of a marker that shows over just a few decades, athletic advancements will always be negligible.
.
this will happen:confusedshrug:

[King Jane]

:biggums: :biggums:

Ey what is dis BS. A course humans is WAY more sophistictated an highly evolved now :kobe:

You think a ford model T could drag race a buggati veyron? A hunnid years ago kids played wit rocks today kids use sophistctated electronix. U think a kid from the 18 hunnids would know how to operate a PS4?!?! :wtf: :no: :oldlol:

jesse owens wouldnt place on my junior high track team f outta hear wit dis "humans dont evolve" shit. A thousand years ago cave men was 5 feet tall an dragged they knuckles an aint know how to soe clothes. But nah we don evolve

:hammerhead: :banghead::rolleyes:

[Marchesk]

OK?

LeBron is bigger, 50 pounds heavier, and faster end to end, the fact that he can still jump at least as high should tell you something

Gus Johnson, Charles Barkley?




And where were all the athletic pg's of the previous decades?

John Starks is the only athletic Pg I can think of from the previous era's

Wheres the westbrooks, d rose's, john walls of the past

heck kyrie irving is probably more athletic than any pg of the previous eras

http://ballislife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/air-jordan-ix-9-penny-hardaway-orlando-magic-pe-away-og.jpg

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwe4rnx5zQ1qc9n6mo1_500.png

http://www.nba.com/media/allstar2003/spud_webb_260x380.jpg

[swagga]

:biggums: :biggums:

Ey what is dis BS. A course humans is WAY more sophistictated an highly evolved now :kobe:

You think a ford model T could drag race a buggati veyron? A hunnid years ago kids played wit rocks today kids use sophistctated electronix. U think a kid from the 18 hunnids would know how to operate a PS4?!?! :wtf: :no: :oldlol:

jesse owens wouldnt place on my junior high track team f outta hear wit dis "humans dont evolve" shit. A thousand years ago cave men was 5 feet tall an dragged they knuckles an aint know how to soe clothes. But nah we don evolve

:hammerhead: :banghead::rolleyes:

god damn son that's some mature knowledge right there :lol

[TerranOP]

It's not about human evolution, it's about the evolution of science and medicine. Injuries that were career-ending 30 years ago no longer are. There's been an explosion in sports technology and research and allows players to optimize their potential while reducing the risk of injury. Obviously humans are the same today as they were a few decades ago, but the average fitness of these athletes is increased because injury and recovery aren't as much of an issue and because training protocols are more specific and efficient now.

[Meticode]

It's not about human evolution, it's about the evolution of science and medicine. Injuries that were career-ending 30 years ago no longer are. There's been an explosion in sports technology and research and allows players to optimize their potential while reducing the risk of injury. Obviously humans are the same today as they were a few decades ago, but the average fitness of these athletes is increased because injury and recovery aren't as much of an issue and because training protocols are more specific and efficient now.
This is what i agree with. We haven't evolved physically at all for the most part. The only reason we're bigger, faster, stronger and living longer now is because we have a better understanding of what effects all of those things negatively and positively than we did 100 or 200 years ago.

[buddha]

bs, if you think current humans will evolve at the same pace as cavemen you are retarded.

I'm not going to explain why, I would rather let you stew in your ignorance.

[ralph_i_el]

All those years into researching the science of motion/sports/the human body has to count for something right?

Plus having a greater talent pool to choose from.

Nobody thinks the average person is a better athlete than 50 years ago because of evolution

[Prometheus]

:biggums: :biggums:

Ey what is dis BS. A course humans is WAY more sophistictated an highly evolved now :kobe:

You think a ford model T could drag race a buggati veyron? A hunnid years ago kids played wit rocks today kids use sophistctated electronix. U think a kid from the 18 hunnids would know how to operate a PS4?!?! :wtf: :no: :oldlol:

jesse owens wouldnt place on my junior high track team f outta hear wit dis "humans dont evolve" shit. A thousand years ago cave men was 5 feet tall an dragged they knuckles an aint know how to soe clothes. But nah we don evolve

:hammerhead: :banghead::rolleyes:

Yes, evolution is real, and it has left you behind.

[Milbuck]

:biggums: :biggums:

Ey what is dis BS. A course humans is WAY more sophistictated an highly evolved now :kobe:

You think a ford model T could drag race a buggati veyron? A hunnid years ago kids played wit rocks today kids use sophistctated electronix. U think a kid from the 18 hunnids would know how to operate a PS4?!?! :wtf: :no: :oldlol:

jesse owens wouldnt place on my junior high track team f outta hear wit dis "humans dont evolve" shit. A thousand years ago cave men was 5 feet tall an dragged they knuckles an aint know how to soe clothes. But nah we don evolve

:hammerhead: :banghead::rolleyes:
So many points being made.

[navy]

What is this shit?

[Im so nba'd out]

Can we at least agree that african americans are more athletic than white americans OP NBA wise?

[Warfan]

So many points being made.

Probably Fresh Kid/wilds09 best alt, ill let that speak for itself...


Did lol @ '18 hunnids' though :oldlol:

[deja vu]

Steroids.

[deja vu]

OK?

LeBron is bigger, 50 pounds heavier, and faster end to end, the fact that he can still jump at least as high should tell you something



And where were all the athletic pg's of the previous decades?

John Starks is the only athletic Pg I can think of from the previous era's

Wheres the westbrooks, d rose's, john walls of the past

heck kyrie irving is probably more athletic than any pg of the previous eras
80s and 90s were weak eras for steroids.

[GODbe]

...The 1900s featured nothing but weak eras and inflated stats. At some point you're going to have to accept that and move on gramps.

[deja vu]

:biggums: :biggums:

Ey what is dis BS. A course humans is WAY more sophistictated an highly evolved now :kobe:

You think a ford model T could drag race a buggati veyron? A hunnid years ago kids played wit rocks today kids use sophistctated electronix. U think a kid from the 18 hunnids would know how to operate a PS4?!?! :wtf: :no: :oldlol:

jesse owens wouldnt place on my junior high track team f outta hear wit dis "humans dont evolve" shit. A thousand years ago cave men was 5 feet tall an dragged they knuckles an aint know how to soe clothes. But nah we don evolve

:hammerhead: :banghead::rolleyes:
What a Neanderthal type of knowledge. :lol

[LAZERUSS]

While we are continually improving medicine and technology, I find it interesting that...

In the 50's and 60's there were a PLETHORA of pitchers that not only had seasons of 300+ innings pitched, they pitched for MANY seasons. Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Waren Spahn, Juan Marichal, Don Drysdale, Steve Carlton, Mickey Lolich, and Wilbur Wood. And late in the 60's, perhaps the hardest thrower in MLB history arrived. Nolan Ryan pitched for 27 years, and in some, not only well over 300 IP, but if you were to calculate his walks and strikeouts, he was throwing an enormous amount of pitches. In the 8th inning of a game in 1974 (I believe), he was clocked at 101 MPH (on a slow gun), and after he had thrown 162 pitches.

Today's pitchers pitch once every 5-6 days, and routinely go 6-7 IP, and are usually pulled after around 110-120 pitches. And yet, we are constantly witnessing the current crop of pitchers experiencing arm injuries.

And how about some track-and-field records? Most noticeably the long jump. In 1968 Bob Beamon set the record at 29' 2". It wasn't until 1991 that that record was finally broken, with a leap of 29' 4"...which is STILL the current record.

Not only that, but today's track stars have much better shoes, run on pristine surfaces, and have supposedly much better training. When Bob Hayes anchored the US 4x100 relay team in 1964, he used a pair of borrowed shoes, and ran on a track that was the equivalent of a plowed field. Give him all the benefits of modern technology, and I suspect that he would have given Bolt all he could handle. Of course, who knows...but perhaps Bolt is one of those "once-in-a-generation" athletes, as well.

And am I the only one who has wondered why Jim Brown was "only" averaging 5.2 ypc in his career? The man was 6-2, 230 lbs, and a sprinter. He was close to Bo Jackson in physical abilities, and yet, in an era of much smaller, and presumably much weaker, as well as slower football players...just how in the hell did his era "contain" him so much?

BTW, does anyone here honestly believe that Tiki Barber was a better running back than say, Brown, or OJ, or Hershel, or Eric Dickerson, or Bo? He certainly wasn't as big, nor as fast. And to be honest, Adrian Peterson isn't any bigger, nor any faster than any of them, either. So, does anyone REALLY believe that Peterson would have been even more dominant in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's?

And some of us here have pondered Gus Johnson. Here was a guy that was 6-6, 230 lbs, and likely had a vertical the equal of MJ's. Furthermore, there is sufficient evidence of his skill levels on YouTube. He actually had a text-book jump shot from up to 18 feet. And yet, with all of that almost unreal athleticism and skill, he had ONE 20 ppg (and just barely), and aside from ONE 17 rpg season, there was really nothing extraordinary about his career.

And as has been proven, today's players are, at the most, just SLIGHTLY taller than they were even as far back as Wilt's 50 ppg season. Not only that, but given the current measuring system (in shoes), they are likely NO taller than they were in Chamberlain's '62 season.

And we have video footage of Chamberlain, Kareem, Reed, Thurmond, West, Oscar, Dr. J, David Thompson, Gilmore, Lanier, Cowens, Lucas, Pistol Pete, et. al, and I don't see any of the current era being any more physically talented, nor skilled.

If there were some truth to this great evolution, where are the 7-5 Magic Johnson's? How come we haven't had a player like Shaq, well,...since Shaq? Wouldn't this world population explosion have given us MANY Shaq's, Hakeem's, Bird's, Magic's, MJ's, Kareem's, and Wilt's?

And with all of the advancements in training and technology, how come the current NBA doesn't shoot FTs any better than those of the late 50's (nor as good as as those of the mid-70's)? Wouldn't a simple FT be an automatic by now?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.

[3ball]

Wilt, although would still be great in today's league, would not be averaging 50 ppg


But he WOULD be averaging 30 ppg and doing the same thing Kareem, Olajuwon, and Shaq did, so they don't represent any advancement..

And that is the argument - that athleticism advances negligible amounts over the course of a short term period like a few decades.

The fact that big men are weaker today than in the 90's demonstrates the nature of short-term variance in athleticism progression - it takes thousands of years for humans to evolve materially, and there are ups and downs along the way.

If athleticism advanced as fast as everyone thinks it does, then players would already be dunking from the three-point line... But instead, the limit appears to be around the free-throw line, or a few inches behind, just like Jordan, Dr. J, or guys like Mike Conley used to do 25 years ago.

People always ask whether Larry Bird would make it in today's game.. Are Pippen, Rodman, Dominique and Worthy really any different than Durant, Leonard, George and Batum??.. PF's Lebron and Melo any different than Malone and Barkely??... Blake any different from Kemp??...

[nathanjizzle]

Its not about evolving as a specimen, its about learning the sport better. What happens is when you have something entirely new that is createted, you have the first generation of people to learn it, then the second gen takes what the first gen did and builds upon it, and it it keeps improving untill it cannot improve no more, then something new is invented

[Psileas]

But he WOULD be averaging 30 ppg and doing the same thing Kareem, Olajuwon, and Shaq did, so they don't represent any advancement..

And that is the argument - that athleticism advances negligible amounts over the course of a short term period like a few decades.

The fact that big men are weaker today than in the 90's demonstrates the nature of short-term variance in athleticism progression - it takes thousands of years for humans to evolve materially, and there are ups and downs along the way.

If athleticism advanced as fast as everyone thinks it does, then players would already be dunking from the three-point line... But instead, the limit appears to be around the free-throw line, or a few inches behind, just like Jordan, Dr. J, or guys like Mike Conley used to do 25 years ago.
People always ask whether Larry Bird would make it in today's game.. Are Pippen, Rodman, Dominique and Worthy really any different than Durant, Leonard, George and Batum??.. PF's Lebron and Melo any different than Malone and Barkely??... Blake any different from Kemp??...

If athleticism and size advanced as fast as many think, humans 2,000 years ago would be 1 foot tall midgets with 2-inch verticals.

[chocolatethunder]

OK?

LeBron is bigger, 50 pounds heavier, and faster end to end, the fact that he can still jump at least as high should tell you something



And where were all the athletic pg's of the previous decades?

John Starks is the only athletic Pg I can think of from the previous era's

Wheres the westbrooks, d rose's, john walls of the past

heck kyrie irving is probably more athletic than any pg of the previous eras
Except that he was a SG.

[Pointguard]

While we are continually improving medicine and technology, I find it interesting that...

In the 50's and 60's there were a PLETHORA of pitchers that not only had seasons of 300+ innings pitched, they pitched for MANY seasons. Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Waren Spahn, Juan Marichal, Don Drysdale, Steve Carlton, Mickey Lolich, and Wilbur Wood. And late in the 60's, perhaps the hardest thrower in MLB history arrived. Nolan Ryan pitched for 27 years, and in some, not only well over 300 IP, but if you were to calculate his walks and strikeouts, he was throwing an enormous amount of pitches. In the 8th inning of a game in 1974 (I believe), he was clocked at 101 MPH (on a slow gun), and after he had thrown 162 pitches.

Today's pitchers pitch once every 5-6 days, and routinely go 6-7 IP, and are usually pulled after around 110-120 pitches. And yet, we are constantly witnessing the current crop of pitchers experiencing arm injuries.

And how about some track-and-field records? Most noticeably the long jump. In 1968 Bob Beamon set the record at 29' 2". It wasn't until 1991 that that record was finally broken, with a leap of 29' 4"...which is STILL the current record.

Not only that, but today's track stars have much better shoes, run on pristine surfaces, and have supposedly much better training. When Bob Hayes anchored the US 4x100 relay team in 1964, he used a pair of borrowed shoes, and ran on a track that was the equivalent of a plowed field. Give him all the benefits of modern technology, and I suspect that he would have given Bolt all he could handle. Of course, who knows...but perhaps Bolt is one of those "once-in-a-generation" athletes, as well.

And am I the only one who has wondered why Jim Brown was "only" averaging 5.2 ypc in his career? The man was 6-2, 230 lbs, and a sprinter. He was close to Bo Jackson in physical abilities, and yet, in an era of much smaller, and presumably much weaker, as well as slower football players...just how in the hell did his era "contain" him so much?

BTW, does anyone here honestly believe that Tiki Barber was a better running back than say, Brown, or OJ, or Hershel, or Eric Dickerson, or Bo? He certainly wasn't as big, nor as fast. And to be honest, Adrian Peterson isn't any bigger, nor any faster than any of them, either. So, does anyone REALLY believe that Peterson would have been even more dominant in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's?

And some of us here have pondered Gus Johnson. Here was a guy that was 6-6, 230 lbs, and likely had a vertical the equal of MJ's. Furthermore, there is sufficient evidence of his skill levels on YouTube. He actually had a text-book jump shot from up to 18 feet. And yet, with all of that almost unreal athleticism and skill, he had ONE 20 ppg (and just barely), and aside from ONE 17 rpg season, there was really nothing extraordinary about his career.

And as has been proven, today's players are, at the most, just SLIGHTLY taller than they were even as far back as Wilt's 50 ppg season. Not only that, but given the current measuring system (in shoes), they are likely NO taller than they were in Chamberlain's '62 season.

And we have video footage of Chamberlain, Kareem, Reed, Thurmond, West, Oscar, Dr. J, David Thompson, Gilmore, Lanier, Cowens, Lucas, Pistol Pete, et. al, and I don't see any of the current era being any more physically talented, nor skilled.

If there were some truth to this great evolution, where are the 7-5 Magic Johnson's? How come we haven't had a player like Shaq, well,...since Shaq? Wouldn't this world population explosion have given us MANY Shaq's, Hakeem's, Bird's, Magic's, MJ's, Kareem's, and Wilt's?

And with all of the advancements in training and technology, how come the current NBA doesn't shoot FTs any better than those of the late 50's (nor as good as as those of the mid-70's)? Wouldn't a simple FT be an automatic by now?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.:rockon:
Just had to bump this. Nothing else has to be said.

[jstern]

:biggums: :biggums:

Ey what is dis BS. A course humans is WAY more sophistictated an highly evolved now :kobe:

You think a ford model T could drag race a buggati veyron? A hunnid years ago kids played wit rocks today kids use sophistctated electronix. U think a kid from the 18 hunnids would know how to operate a PS4?!?! :wtf: :no: :oldlol:

jesse owens wouldnt place on my junior high track team f outta hear wit dis "humans dont evolve" shit. A thousand years ago cave men was 5 feet tall an dragged they knuckles an aint know how to soe clothes. But nah we don evolve

:hammerhead: :banghead::rolleyes:

The other day someone posted a very interesting video that put past eras in sports in perspective. For example, Jesse Owens Olympic time was 10.2, while Usain Bolt's was 9.77, but Jesse Owens ran on a different surface, and started off a hole of ash that he had to dig. Something to that effect. If Owens had race on the same track, he would had just been on Bolt's back.

This is really not a topic for the ignorant. The ignorant that think that anything before the moment they were born is somehow rotten just because they have new computers that have more cores every few years.

I found the video. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_b etter_stronger#t-56886

It's not a simplistic subject for simplistic people.

[Smoke117]

People vastly overrate how fast humans evolve... they exponentially overrate how fast it happens.

If humans advance physically and evolve as fast as people think they do as it relates to sports, than in the next 25 years, players will be able to dunk on 15-foot rims.

The truth is that humans evolve so incrementally, you can't tell over a short period like only a few decades...

For one, players are actually shorter today than they used to be... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing _experience

And athletically, people get fooled by the longer shorts, the latest fashions, and newer, more aesthetically appealing dunking STYLES into thinking these guys are jumping so much higher, but they aren't - Lebron doesn't jump higher than Jordan, Wade doesn't jump higher than Drexler, Blake Griffin doesn't jump higher than Shawn Kemp did... and on down the line.

Science tells us that humans evolve very slowly over thousands of years, and comparing say Shawn Kemp to Blake Griffin or Wilt to Shaq provides sort of a marker that shows over just a few decades, athletic advancements will always be negligible.
.

Yeah no shit Sherlock...nobody ever said Wade an higher Vert than Drexler...

[3ball]

The other day someone posted a very interesting video that put past eras in sports in perspective. For example, Jesse Owens Olympic time was 10.2, while Usain Bolt's was 9.77, but Jesse Owens ran on a different surface, and started off a hole of ash that he had to dig. Something to that effect. If Owens had race on the same track, he would had just been on Bolt's back.

This is really not a topic for the ignorant. The ignorant that think that anything before the moment they were born is somehow rotten just because they have new computers that have more cores every few years.

I found the video. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_b etter_stronger#t-56886

It's not a simplistic subject for simplistic people.
Ben Johnson's Olympic time was 9.78 in 1988... the long jump record has been the same for 25 years.

I mean, for a guy like Larry Bird to not be able to play today, NBA players would need to have made tremendous strides athletically, so much so that if such a pace were kept up, players would be dunking from the 3-point line in 5 years... and then 5 years after that, they'd be dunking from half court..

Instead, humans evolve incrementally over thousands of years, which is why Scottie Pippen, Dominique, Rodman and Worthy match up very well with (actually completely destroy) Durant, George, Leonard and Batum... that's why the bigs of today have actually REGRESSED - there is a ton of variance that can occur over just a few decades and players can actually go backwards.
.

[inclinerator]

The other day someone posted a very interesting video that put past eras in sports in perspective. For example, Jesse Owens Olympic time was 10.2, while Usain Bolt's was 9.77, but Jesse Owens ran on a different surface, and started off a hole of ash that he had to dig. Something to that effect. If Owens had race on the same track, he would had just been on Bolt's back.

This is really not a topic for the ignorant. The ignorant that think that anything before the moment they were born is somehow rotten just because they have new computers that have more cores every few years.

I found the video. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_b etter_stronger#t-56886

It's not a simplistic subject for simplistic people.


if bolt had competition he would have ran faster

[jstern]

if bolt had competition he would have ran faster

He had no competition, I guess humans haven't evolved into super humans the last few decades then.

[moe94]

The other day someone posted a very interesting video that put past eras in sports in perspective. For example, Jesse Owens Olympic time was 10.2, while Usain Bolt's was 9.77, but Jesse Owens ran on a different surface, and started off a hole of ash that he had to dig. Something to that effect. If Owens had race on the same track, he would had just been on Bolt's back.

This is really not a topic for the ignorant. The ignorant that think that anything before the moment they were born is somehow rotten just because they have new computers that have more cores every few years.

I found the video. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_b etter_stronger#t-56886

It's not a simplistic subject for simplistic people.

That's an incredibly interesting video.

[NumberSix]

People need to understand that environment has changed significantly in recent history. With current technology and medical science, humans are able to come closer to reaching their potential than ever before.

[dubeta]

Maybe its cause nba players of the 60's and 70's needed to work 2 jobs to make ends meet so they didnt have time to work out?

How many of them actually worked out and conditioned regularly?

[Dunaprenti]

Thousands of years is very small amount of time for any mammal to "evolve" drastically. Humans have changed much more than gorillas, in the last few thousand years.
40 years is basically nothing in terms natural evolution.
Having said that, techniques develop much faster than humans and we can enhance ourselves through medicine.
I suppose physical peak, now, should be higher than before, but overall should be about the same.
Stories about strong men and their feats have existed throughout history. They are here to inspire us.

[navy]

How many serious post have claimed what the OP is refuting? Please link examples.

[Dunaprenti]

How many serious post have claimed what the OP is refuting? Please link examples.
The problem with the OP is that he is taking a false argument and builds on it.
Overall the human population is not evolving on a high rate but the basketball "gene pool" is. So on average the athletic level is up. There was one Spud Webb now every dunk contest has at least one small guy.

[bdreason]

Evolution happens by necessity, and there hasn't been any reason for the human species to physically evolve in thousands of years. The next major evolution of the human race will probably be induced by a lack or resources or armageddon type event (i.e. Asteroid). Humans who are able to survive on less water, or in more toxic conditions will survive, while the rest of mankind will die off.


Humans have all but destroyed the process of evolution not only for humans, but for all species. The only places on the Earth still experiencing significant evolution are at the bottom of the Oceans, or in remote places like Papa New Guinea.

[SpanishACB]

trainning, tactical techniques and diet tech has evolved very fast, what's your point OP?

[Asukal]

"BIGGER, FASTER, STRONGER" arguments... :rolleyes:

Good job OP. :applause: :oldlol:

[jstern]

People need to understand that environment has changed significantly in recent history. With current technology and medical science, humans are able to come closer to reaching their potential than ever before.

The problem with modern technology is that it keeps a significant amount of people with health problems alive. They reproduce and pass down those medical problems, while a hundred years ago they would had died.

We also rely less on physical strength and quickness in this modern world, so again we're having a much large percentage of non physically exceptional people having babies compared to the past. So that will also go down.

The one area where we will probably go up is intelligence, which is something that's needed more right now to better survive, with technology, and other things. But in terms of physical strength and quickness, the trend will be for it to go less athletic, more health problems.

Once we get good at genetic manipulation, then we will probably be able to eliminate those health problems, and become faster.

The majority of people who believe in evolution really don't understand it. They just think that a human will become bigger, stronger, faster, simply because that's better than before. They have no concept of the environment driving what beneficial genes get passed down.

[3ball]

trainning, tactical techniques and diet tech has evolved very fast, what's your point OP?
and even WITH the things you say, the world record in the long jump never changes as people jump the same distance they always have... guys can STILL only dunk from a few inches behind the FT line - same as always.

And with all the modern things you say, today's SG's are horrible compared to say, 1990... ditto for SF's and bigs...
.

[sundizz]

Such dummies in here.

It's not our bodies that evolve...it is our society that evovles. That is what Laz etc don't seem to comprehend.

1990 to 2010 was a period of greater human thought evolution than the prior billion years basically.

The fact that I can talk smack to a dude in Australia (i actually live in Korea) and have it instantaneously transmitted is unprecedented.

We didn't become the dominant species because of our physical abilities.

To discount technology, and the upgrade in understanding of sports from 1970 yo now is just embarassaing.

[3ball]

Such dummies in here.

It's not our bodies that evolve...it is our society that evovles. That is what Laz etc don't seem to comprehend.

1990 to 2010 was a period of greater human thought evolution than the prior billion years basically.

The fact that I can talk smack to a dude in Australia (i actually live in Korea) and have it instantaneously transmitted is unprecedented.

We didn't become the dominant species because of our physical abilities.

To discount technology, and the upgrade in understanding of sports from 1970 yo now is just embarassaing.
and yet we don't jump any higher, longer or run any faster.

also, 1990 to 2010 is not the greatest period of human thought - that's 3rd grade logic... there's something called electricity that was invented... the car... stuff like that is more impressive than the internet.

[Marchesk]

1990 to 2010 was a period of greater human thought evolution than the prior billion years basically.

The fact that I can talk smack to a dude in Australia (i actually live in Korea) and have it instantaneously transmitted is unprecedented.

That could be done before 1990 with something called the telephone. And the internet existed prior to the web. People were online in the 80s. There were also satellites prior to 1990. And radio.

There were underwater telagraph cables in the 1800s. Australia got linked up in 1872 (via the city of Darwin).

Anyway, the last 20 years of technological progress is predicated on everything that came before. Like you know, computers and networking. And before that, various electronic devices. And before that, electricity, which was kind of a big deal.

[Marchesk]

also, 1990 to 2010 is not the greatest period of human thought - that's 3rd grade logic... there's something called electricity that was invented... the car... stuff like that is more impressive than the internet.

Also, scientific breakthroughs like relativity, quantum mechanics, the discovery of DNA, the Big Bang, discovery of other galaxies, ... the list goes on and on. That's just 20th century stuff prior to 1990. Plenty of stuff in the 1800s.

[Prometheus]

Such dummies in here.

It's not our bodies that evolve...it is our society that evovles. That is what Laz etc don't seem to comprehend.

1990 to 2010 was a period of greater human thought evolution than the prior billion years basically.

The fact that I can talk smack to a dude in Australia (i actually live in Korea) and have it instantaneously transmitted is unprecedented.

We didn't become the dominant species because of our physical abilities.

To discount technology, and the upgrade in understanding of sports from 1970 yo now is just embarassaing.

"1990 to 2010 was a period of greater human thought evolution than the prior billion years basically." - you don't have a ****ing clue buddy. Yes we are living in an age of rapid advancement, but your exaggeration is blasphemous.

[fpliii]

That could be done before 1990 with something called the telephone. And the internet existed prior to the web. People were online in the 80s. There were also satellites prior to 1990. And radio.

There were underwater telagraph cables in the 1800s. Australia got linked up in 1872 (via the city of Darwin).

Anyway, the last 20 years of technological progress is predicated on everything that came before. Like you know, computers and networking. And before that, various electronic devices. And before that, electricity, which was kind of a big deal.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/net.sport.hoops

Usenet the GOAT :bowdown:

[Kvnzhangyay]

and yet we don't jump any higher, longer or run any faster.

also, 1990 to 2010 is not the greatest period of human thought - that's 3rd grade logic... there's something called electricity that was invented... the car... stuff like that is more impressive than the internet.

Humans are becoming more athletic... just check Olympic 100 meter dashes time from past to present, theres a reason for the times consistently decreasing

That being said, the reason is NOT genetic athleticism is going up, but more of increasing scientific knowledge and medical knowledge that allow athletes to do more while staying healthier.

[tgan3]

OK?

LeBron is bigger, 50 pounds heavier, and faster end to end, the fact that he can still jump at least as high should tell you something



And where were all the athletic pg's of the previous decades?

John Starks is the only athletic Pg I can think of from the previous era's

Wheres the westbrooks, d rose's, john walls of the past

heck kyrie irving is probably more athletic than any pg of the previous eras

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

World.B Free, Robert Pack, david thompson, isiah thomas, spud webb...just to name a few top of my head

[ProfessorMurder]

Look at how far we've evolved in 500 years. This doesn't even look like a human!

http://img2-2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/081107/statue-of-david_l.jpg

[ILLsmak]

our knowledge about fitness did evolve drastically tho

Exactly. Think about drugs. Think about medicine, anti-depressants, steroids. All of that shit has gone up a ton.

Sooner or later, we will cap out. Probably before we are dunking on 15 foot rims, too.

Edit: Also, to who said we are becoming less physical because we don't do as much. Maybe as a whole, but what about all of the athletes who spend their whole life building their bodies... in a way that wouldn't have been possible before.


-Smak

[Poetry]

Plus having a greater talent pool to choose from.

Some argue that it's shrinking or at a standstill.

[3ball]

Humans are becoming more athletic... just check Olympic 100 meter dashes time from past to present, theres a reason for the times consistently decreasing

That being said, the reason is NOT genetic athleticism is going up, but more of increasing scientific knowledge and medical knowledge that allow athletes to do more while staying healthier.
Well, you've cherry-picked sprinting to make your case, but the reason sprinting times have gone down slightly in recent years is due to the emergence of the Jamaicans.. They have had greater access to training so their superior talent has come to the fore.

But for the rest of the world, 9.8 and 9.9 are still considered winning times just like they were back when Ben Johnson was running a 9.78 in 1988.

Now look at the long jump... Distances in that discipline have been the same for 50 years.

Also, guys aren't they dunking any further than the FT line, just like they were in the 70's.

But the most revealing is how today's SG's, SF's and bigs are materially worse than they were in previous eras.

[Marchesk]

Humans are becoming more athletic... just check Olympic 100 meter dashes time from past to present, theres a reason for the times consistently decreasing

That being said, the reason is NOT genetic athleticism is going up, but more of increasing scientific knowledge and medical knowledge that allow athletes to do more while staying healthier.

Okay, but you need to take into account faster track surfaces and better shoes. That can make a big different. Bolt is a freak of nature, no doubt, but he did set his WR times on a very fast track.

[tgan3]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evolve.jpg

OP is right.!!

[navy]

and even WITH the things you say, the world record in the long jump never changes as people jump the same distance they always have... guys can STILL only dunk from a few inches behind the FT line - same as always.

And with all the modern things you say, today's SG's are horrible compared to say, 1990... ditto for SF's and bigs...
.

Why are you only using the long jump? How many other Olympic records are still present from the same time period?

[CavaliersFTW]

Okay, but you need to take into account faster track surfaces and better shoes. That can make a big different. Bolt is a freak of nature, no doubt, but he did set his WR times on a very fast track.
There's no can about it, it DOES make a huge difference, otherwise such changes in surfaces and shoes would never have happened... There's data curves on just how much that stuff has improved performance too. Based on such curves I believe in a recent TED talks it has been calculated a raw time traveled Jesse Owens would have placed an estimated 3rd in the most recent Olympic 100 with modern shoes/blocks on a modern track, and this up against the worlds very best of this era like Usain Bolt. This is not even factoring in any potential curves PED use gives modern athletes. So obviously the surfaces have had a huge huge impact on runner performance. As raw athletes, we're the same. No evolutionary or genetic impact or observable changes whatsoever. Just as OP said, evolution does not work that way and it takes a much longer time than our recorded history has documented.

[3ball]

Why are you only using the long jump? How many other Olympic records are still present from the same time period?
Shaving .05 seconds off a WORLD RECORD time is not evidence of "oh look, everyone is getting so much faster - larry bird would never make it today."

There are 7 million people on the planet with more coming every day.... Records get broken after a long enough time - this has nothing to do with increasing athleticism, it has to do with the law of numbers.

People say training methods are better and this is true - better training will help shave those few hundreths of a second off - but the people breaking the records are still phenoms... they were people that would have been world class and very close to the same times with or without the training... and anyone from a previous era playing today would have the same training methods.

Humans evolve over thousands of years, not dozens... This is very evident when looking at NBA bigs.. There are no more giants in the NBA like there were when Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Mutombo, Alonzo, Robinson were all in the league at the same time... This shows that it takes SO long for humans to evolve, that there are frequently periods of time where humans regress physically, as you see with NBA bigs.
.

[navy]

Shaving .05 seconds off a WORLD RECORD time is not evidence of "oh look, everyone is getting so much faster - larry bird would never make it today."

There are 7 million people on the planet with more coming every day.... Records get broken after a long enough time - this has nothing to do with increasing athleticism, it has to do with the law of numbers.

People say training methods are better and this is true - better training will help shave those few hundreths of a second off - but the people breaking the records are still phenoms... they were people that would have been world class and very close to the same times with or without training... and anyone from a previous era playing today would have the same training methods.

Humans evolve over thousands of years, not dozens... This is very evident when looking at NBA bigs.. There are no more giants in the NBA like there were when Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Mutombo, Alonzo, Robinson were all in the league at the same time... This shows that it takes SO long for humans to evolve, that there are frequently periods of time where humans regress physically, as you see with NBA bigs.

....

You are arguing against yourself really. I have seen little to no serious post claiming the evolution of which you speak of.

[russwest0]

law of numbers is part of it, but our technology for enhancing human athleticism has contributed an assload...

we have high schoolers now running faster than the worlds fastest MAN ever did 100 years ago.

[navy]

People wonder all the time if Larry Bird would make it today...

That's just not understanding the true pace that humans evolve, which is the point of this thread.

To say that so-and-so couldn't play today is like saying the players today wouldn't be able to play in 20 years - which would only be the case if guys were dunking from the 3-point line by then.

I'm quite certain that humans won't be dunking from the 3-point line for another 500 years, maybe 1000 who knows... so today's players are safe.

I bet there were some bosses back in 200 B.C. that could have dunked from the FT line... there were 50 years ago... and the guys today still can only dunk from the FT line.
Again, it is not because of the evolution of which you are speaking of. People wonder if he would make it today, because they havent seen him play, or see him as too slow to keep up. Not because we have evolved since the 80s.

Once again, you are arguing against yourself. Ive yet to see a serious post claiming the genetic evolution you are talking about. :confusedshrug:

[LAZERUSS]

People wonder all the time if Larry Bird would make it today...

That's just not understanding the true pace that humans evolve, which is the point of this thread.

To say that so-and-so couldn't play today is like saying the players today wouldn't be able to play in 20 years - which would only be the case if guys were dunking from the 3-point line by then.

I'm quite certain that humans won't be dunking from the 3-point line for another 500 years, maybe 1000 who knows... so today's players are safe.

I bet there were some bosses back in 200 B.C. that could have dunked from the FT line... there were 50 years ago... and the guys today still can only dunk from the FT line.

How about a 6-4 white guy doing it 70 years ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pollard


In college, Pollard played for Stanford and was a key member of Stanford's 1942 national championship team (though due to illness, he did not play in the final game). During World War II, he starred in Coast Guard teams from Alameda to Honolulu. Following World War II, Pollard played for the San Diego Dons and the Oakland Bittners, making four trips to Denver for AAU playoffs. In the NBA, Pollard was considered one of the best forwards in the 1940s and 1950s, and was known for his leaping ability[1] (Pollard would occasionally dunk from the free throw line during warmups[2]) earning him the nickname "The Kangaroo Kid".

[3ball]

law of numbers is part of it, but our technology for enhancing human athleticism has contributed an assload...

we have high schoolers now running faster than the worlds fastest MAN ever did 100 years ago.
you had to go back 100 years when various people weren't ALLOWED to compete at all.

[russwest0]

you had to go back 100 years when various people weren't ALLOWED to compete at all.

I don't know man, it may or may not have been 100 years. maybe later, maybe earlier.

I read a lot of shit, and sometimes spew out general knowledge accumulated from such readings :lol

[navy]

How can you say that it's not about the evolution you speak of but then say the bolded above?

There it is right there!!!... You just claimed the false evolution right there!
This is what im talkin about. You inserted a false argument on your own and are arguing against it. Larry Bird being slow has nothing to do with humans evolving since the 80s. He's just slow.

And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I dont think that matters he would be more or less the same player today.

[3ball]

This is what im talkin about. You inserted a false argument on your own and are arguing against it. Larry Bird being slow has nothing to do with humans evolving since the 80s. He's just slow.

And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I dont think that matters he would be more or less the same player today.
We'll agree to disagree - i think that when someone questions whether bird is fast enough to keep up today, they are vastly overrating how fast humans evolve.

Bird was fast enough to keep up back then, why wouldn't he now?

[navy]

We'll agree to disagree - i think that when someone questions whether bird is fast enough to keep up today, they are vastly overrating how fast humans evolve.

Bird was fast enough to keep up back then, why wouldn't he now?
It has nothing to do with evolution. The supposed "speed increase" has always been attributed to other factors.

[3ball]

It has nothing to do with evolution. The supposed "speed increase" has always been attributed to other factors.
Ben Johnson ran 9.78 in 1988 Olympics and Usain Bolt ran 9.63 in 2012 Olympics.. I think it's safe to assume these times represent the fastest humans ran in that era and this one.

If we put a basketball team together where everyone ran the 100M in Ben Johnson's 9.78, and then put another team together where everyone ran Usain Bolts 9.63, the 0.15 difference in time would have ZERO impact on betting odds, or the likelihood one team will win over another - and the difference could be much more than 0.15 without changing the odds.

Amirite?... While the 0.15 difference over the eras matters in track and field, it has zero impact on a basketball court.

Also, if guys like Kevin Love and Dirk Nowitski can crush it today, that proves the "better" training and the extra 0.15 must be negligible, immaterial.. not remotely in the vicinity of being enough.

Of course, on the genetic end of things, the plethora of giants that existed in the NBA is gone - and overall, players are shorter now than 30 years ago... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing _experience

[Dresta]

Of course players haven't biologically evolved over the past century. God, what a ****ing idiotic thing to suggest.

[swagga]

Look at how far we've evolved in 500 years. This doesn't even look like a human!

http://img2-2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/081107/statue-of-david_l.jpg

he is too white ... he didn't play against black ballers. did he get his apollo name from this god?
http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/07/24/apollo-creed.jpg

[3ball]

Of course players haven't biologically evolved over the past century. God, what a ****ing idiotic thing to suggest.


In the quote below, Navy explains that people don't wonder if Bird can keep up due to evolutionary advancements in today's players, but instead they wonder if he is too slow to keep up with today's faster players.




Again, it is not because of the evolution of which you are speaking of.. People wonder if he would make it today, because they havent seen him play, or see him as too slow to keep up.. Not because we have evolved since the 80s.


So he thinks it's not logical to wonder if Bird coudn't make it due to biological advances, but perfectly logical to wonder if Bird couldn't make it due to today's faster players.

So since we agree that today's players haven't advanced biologically, than any difference in today's players can only be explained by sports training... But that means that wondering whether Bird is too slow for today's faster players is ALSO be a ****ing idiotic thing to suggest, because why wouldn't he have the same training as everyone else?
.

[navy]

Of course players haven't biologically evolved over the past century. God, what a ****ing idiotic thing to suggest.
He still doesnt get it. Watch as he'll try to falsify my post so he can continue his false argument with himself. :oldlol:

[3ball]

He still doesnt get it. Watch as he'll try to falsify my post so he can continue his false argument with himself. :oldlol:
:yaohappy:

ignoring this eh??




So since we agree that today's players haven't advanced biologically, than any difference in today's players can only be explained by sports training... But that means that wondering whether Bird is too slow for today's faster players is ALSO be a ****ing idiotic thing to suggest, because why wouldn't he have the same training as everyone else?

[3ball]

He still doesnt get it. Watch as he'll try to falsify my post so he can continue his false argument with himself. :oldlol:
How did I change your post - your sophistry is impressive...

And I exposed your flawed thinking - you think it doesn't make sense to question Bird's capability today due to evolutionary advances, but think it does makes sense to question it based on training that he WOULD have?

:yaohappy:

[3ball]

and the funniest thing about your questioning bird's ability by thinking he wouldn't have the same training as everyone else, is that kevin love is a top player, and Dirk Nowistki has been THE top player, and they are slower than Bird.

but it makes sense to question bird??

:biggums:

[fpliii]

and the funniest thing about your questioning bird's ability by thinking he wouldn't have the same training as everyone else, is that kevin love is a top player, and Dirk Nowistki has been THE top player, and they are slower than Bird.

but it makes sense to question bird??

:biggums:
Just a note, navy doesn't seem to be questioning Bird. He's just saying that some people do (right or wrong).

Bird is an example of a guy who would be better today IMO. He'd play PF exclusively since there wouldn't be any super-loaded frontcourts, meaning he wouldn't be at a disadvantage defensively against quicker 3s (since he'd be matched up against other 4s). Also, Coach Fitch discouraged use of the three, and K.C. didn't care for it much either in the 80s. Today, Bird's coaches would have him taking tons of shots beyond the arc.

[choppermagic]

No way Wade could have gotten the quality of HGH back in the 80s or 70s...
Scientific breakthroughs have been by leaps in bounds in this area.

[kshutts1]

Have not been following the thread, but a few points:

OP is correct. Humans are not that much more evolved, that quickly.

Sports training has the largest impact.

Another huge factor is a much larger player pool which, in theory, has increased the overall athleticism. Would Embiid or Ibaka have been discovered thirty years ago?

Since the fifties and sixties, the increased acceptance and influx of black players has undoubtedly made the league more athletic.

All that said, I saw Bird being discussed on the last page... any great, from any post-shot-clock era, would be great today. The above "changes" really only apply to the lower and middle tier players.

[fpliii]

Have not been following the thread, but a few points:

OP is correct. Humans are not that much more evolved, that quickly.

Sports training has the largest impact.

Another huge factor is a much larger player pool which, in theory, has increased the overall athleticism. Would Embiid or Ibaka have been discovered thirty years ago?

Since the fifties and sixties, the increased acceptance and influx of black players has undoubtedly made the league more athletic.

All that said, I saw Bird being discussed on the last page... any great, from any post-shot-clock era, would be great today. The above "changes" really only apply to the lower and middle tier players.
Just a note...

I agree for the most part with the bolded, but until the league was mostly black (broke 50% in the mid-60s; got close to the current composition of the league in the late 60s/early 70s), I do have concerns about the level of competition. After the league was fully integrated, games look pretty indistinguishable from 80s/90s ball.

What does irk me though, is the implication that the best 10 or 20 talents have all played in the league in the past 25 years or so. That kind of suggestion rubs me the wrong way. We haven't evolved in the past 50-60 years, and while training and medicine have drastically improved, what reason do I have to believe that the Kareems/Russells/Oscars/Wilts/Waltons of the world, if they come into today's league as rookies, wouldn't develop into high impact players? The burden of proof is certainly on those suggesting they wouldn't.

Don't get me wrong...I think if you take one of them mid-career and drop him into the NBA in 2014, it'll take some time to get acquainted with the modern game. The best teams of the era would be shell-shocked by the use of the three. But those transcendent talents of yesteryear would surely adapt.

[Marchesk]

So he thinks it's not logical to wonder if Bird coudn't make it due to biological advances, but perfectly logical to wonder if Bird couldn't make it due to today's faster players.

Bird played in a league with guys like Wilkins, Dr J and Pippen at small forward, Jordan and Drexler at SG, Barkley and Rodman at PF, just to name a few guys much more athletic than he was. Larry was always considered slow and flat footed, but it didn't matter. He went down in history as better than any of those guys but Mike. He won 3 MVPs in a row with much superior athleticism all around him.

Is the argument that guys like Dominique, MJ, Drexler, Pippen and Dr J aren't as athletic as anyone playing today? Really? How could that be supported? Those guys were every bit as athletic as anyone playing today. Just go watch their highlights on youtube.

If Bird would be too slow today, how in the hell did he get by having to play those guys? The reason is because it didn't matter in Bird's case. Skill, high BB IQ, and great teamwork trumps athleticism.

Consider that Bird averaged more rebounds than Lebron and the same amount of blocked shots, yet Lebron is light years more athletic than Bird. How is that? Because Larry knew how to get the most out of his body. He was smart and extremely skilled.

Bird would be exactly like he was back in the 80s. An MVP candidate that guys would be talking about as maybe the best ever during his peak. Except that he would benefit from the focus on 3pt shooting.

[navy]

Just a note, navy doesn't seem to be questioning Bird. He's just saying that some people do (right or wrong).

Bird is an example of a guy who would be better today IMO. He'd play PF exclusively since there wouldn't be any super-loaded frontcourts, meaning he wouldn't be at a disadvantage defensively against quicker 3s (since he'd be matched up against other 4s). Also, Coach Fitch discouraged use of the three, and K.C. didn't care for it much either in the 80s. Today, Bird's coaches would have him taking tons of shots beyond the arc.



Alex Hannum, May 1979

http://i.imgur.com/rr3KhKy.png



Red Auerbach

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcB43C0dawQ&t=19m14s

I already said, I don't think Bird would have a problem playing, but the idea that he is slow isnt something new.

[Crimsonrain777]

Evolution happens by necessity, and there hasn't been any reason for the human species to physically evolve in thousands of years. The next major evolution of the human race will probably be induced by a lack or resources or armageddon type event (i.e. Asteroid). Humans who are able to survive on less water, or in more toxic conditions will survive, while the rest of mankind will die off.


Humans have all but destroyed the process of evolution not only for humans, but for all species. The only places on the Earth still experiencing significant evolution are at the bottom of the Oceans, or in remote places like Papa New Guinea.

this guy gets it. the mechanism for evolution is natural selection where as certain traits are carried on because they do better in the environment and less effective traits die out.that hasnt happened in a very long time. in fact, all traits will get carried on to future generations as the human population continues to expand. humans have grinded evolution by natural selection of our species to a screeching halt because of how successful we are in reproducing.

[jstern]

this guy gets it. the mechanism for evolution is natural selection where as certain traits are carried on because they do better in the environment and less effective traits die out.that hasnt happened in a very long time. in fact, all traits will get carried on to future generations as the human population continues to expand. humans have grinded evolution by natural selection of our species to a screeching halt because of how successful we are in reproducing.
Evolution is happening all the time. You might not see some drastic physical changes unless the environment significantly changes, but none the less it's happening all the time. It's just the way genetic mutation works.

The biggest change you would probably see in humans as the years go by is personality changes.

Culture can change personality significantly. Lets say for example, there's a really huge cultural change that influences girls that they can't settle for anyone but Mr. Perfect. Completely perfection, great job, really tall, etc, and that the guy has to worship them. A rough scenario, but just go with it. Such a culture would drastically cut down down on the genetics of girls who would value such a thing, while the girls who genetically care more about the personality of the person will have a better chance of passing their genes, since the other type of girl are simply just not going to be reproducing a lot because no man is good enough, and then they're old and alone.

Such an extreme scenario could drastically change the personality of human women.

And just like that, more subtle cultural influence can have an effect in the genetics of humans. The world is drastically different than it was 100 years ago, and that too would influence genetics the way I mention.

It's a very, very complicated subject that's not easy to explain, but it's sort of my major interest.

[LAZERUSS]

Of course, when it comes to basketball, how do explain players like the 6-11 injury-prone Bogut leading the league in bpg? Or a 37 year old Nash, playing 33 mpg, and leading the league in apg? Or a 6-4 Ricky Rubio, shooting .368 in today's NBA? Or a 6-8 Love running away with a rebounding title, and doing so in 35 mpg?

Or a 6-7 Ben Wallace winning two rpg titles, and multiple DPOY's?

Or a world-class athlete like James White being a complete bust? Or a 7-4 350 lb Priest Lauderdale not even making an NBA roster? Or the 7-0 athletic Ryan Hollins being a a career 4-2 player in the NBA, and only a 6-4 guy in four years in college?

This "evolution" theory in the NBA has been shredded many times. A peak Kareem in the ealry 70's had a HIGH game of only 34 points against the littl known Nate Thurmond in their some 40 career H2H's, and overall, only shot .447 against a full-time Nate in those career H2H's. And yet a 39 year old Kareem was averaging 33 ppg on a .620 FG% in five H2H's against a 24 year old Hakeem, which included games of 43 and 46 points. And in the same week he plastered Hakeem with that 46 point game, he hammered Patrick Ewing by a 40-9 margin (outshooting Ewing by a 15-22 to 3-17 margin.)

Furthermore, pick any single season you like, and I will give you a TON of examples of players, playing just the season before that, and putting up huge numbers. For example, when Magic and Bird arrived in the 79-80 season, did they just overwhelm the league with their talent immediately? Nope, not even close. The first FOUR MVPs of the 80's, were players who had played in the 70's (and one, KAJ, who came into the league in the 60's.) The first FIVE scoring leaders...all players from the 70's. The first FOUR rebounding leaders...all players from the 80's. The first FOUR FG% leaders...all players from the 70's. And so on. And you can pretty much do that with ANY particular season you choose.

The reality is, the game of basketball had been played for over 100 years, and is still being played with the essentially the same size court, ball, rim height and diameter, and with the same number of players. Furthermore, aside from the 24 second clock in the mid-50's, and the 3pt shot in the late 70's (and in the ABA in the 60's), the game is played with essentially the same rules.

Again, it is a SIMPLE game, as well. It is a game of shooting, passing, dribbling, rebounding, and playing defense. And it is a game being played by both boys and girls in pee-wee leagues today.

The fact is, the game is basically no different today, than what it was in the 60's (and that includes the percentage of Blacks, as well, which were nearly identical by the late 60's.)

Watch footage of a high school and college Alcindor. He was FAR more SKILLED, back then, than ANY other center in TODAY's NBA. Compare footage of "Pistol Pete" with Rubio. Not only was Maravich better at ball-handling and passing, he was a MUCH better shooter and scorer, as well. The 6-6 Gus Johnson was shattering rims in the 60's, and Dr J and Sky-Walker Thompson were doing soaring dunks in college in the late 60's and early 70's.

And how about Wilt? Over 7-1, and would measure at around 7-3 today. Probably the strongest basketball player of all-time (and yes, even "Wilt-bashr" Bill Simmons agrees with that premise.) A college high jumper, who won titles doing so part-time, and with poor technique. A college sprinter, who at age 27, and at over 290 lbs, was timed at 4.6 in the 40 by Hank Stram. A prime Wilt played between 280-300+ lbs, and had a verified 7-8 wing-span. And here is some of the very little footage that we have of him...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

Now, how can anyone honestly believe that THAT Chamberlain, would not be a FORCE in today's NBA?

I'm sorry, but this theory that the game of basketball is being played at a much higher level today, than even 50 years ago, just doesn't ring true.

[deja vu]

law of numbers is part of it, but our technology for enhancing human athleticism has contributed an assload...

we have high schoolers now running faster than the worlds fastest MAN ever did 100 years ago.
Thousands of years ago, people in Africa were running faster than Usain Bolt.

I'm not even kidding.

[3ball]

Don't get me wrong... I think if you take one of them mid-career and drop him into the NBA in 2014, it'll take some time to get acquainted with the modern game.


It wouldn't take long - the 1988 Celtics shot 38.4% from 3-point land, which is better than the Heat's 36.4% - the volume was considerably less (8.6 attempts to the Heat's 22.0), but simply running more plays for 3-pointers (which is all that today's teams are doing) is an easy decision to make, and one that they would make.

And this where what you are saying is misguided - what EXACTLY are the adjustments that players would have to make on both sides of the ball??... Isn't it just shooting and defending 3-pointers, and playing a much weaker zone than college while learning to tippy-toe the paint for defensive 3 seconds??... So just strategical, x's and o's things - which means you are exaggerating how substantial and long the adjustment would take...

Shot allocation is an instant coaching decision and implementation time is very fast - and the great thing is that today's game has already done all the leg-work and due-diligence for new players or teams to immediately use optimal floor-spreading strategy and the corresponding defensive strategy based on the current rules - it is ironic that previous eras would get this advantage.... :pimp:




The best teams of the era would be shell-shocked by the use of the three.

Shellshocked??... You mean more shellshocked than the Heat in the 2014 Finals???... because that's the last time I heard that word used.... Seriously, teams take 21.5 threes per game nowadays to keep the floor spaced and they frequently get hot - it's basketball, no one is getting shellshocked... If they are, then I guess the Heat were more "shellshocked" than any team in history.

Teams were already taking 15+ threes per game in the 90's compared to today's 21.5, so the use of "shellshocked" is a blatant oversell (and perhaps subconsciously based on the 2014 Finals).




But those transcendent talents of yesteryear would surely adapt.


Why only the transcendent talents???... This is another example of trying to oversell today's game - what about non-transcendent players, such as solid to very good players like Ronaldo Blackmon, Sleepy Floyd, Nate McMillan, Larry Nance?

You said only transcendent talents would adjust - that lets me know that you overrate the game in your mind; because I don't think you are purposefully trying to oversell today's game.

Keep in mind that we agree that biological advances haven't occurred that can account for differences in today's game - so the only thing that can account for changes in the game are rule changes, coaching decisions/strategy, and training advancements, ALL of which any athlete or team dropped into today's game would have access to... Or are you saying they would NOT have access to it?




Don't get me wrong... I think if you take one of them mid-career and drop him into the NBA in 2014, it'll take some time to get acquainted with the modern game.


One more thing about this quote - Why do we only consider how well previous era players would fare in today's game and not the other way around?... Isn't a game that doesn't have the 3 point line a completely different game than basketball WITH the 3-point line?..

And today's players ARE worse at shooting two-pointers, so there would be a big adjustment - in 2014, teams attempted 61.0 two-pointers per game and shot 48.78%... In 1985, teams attempted 86.0 two-pointers per game and shot 49.88%... So previous eras DID take a much wider volume and variety of two-pointers... Accordingly, it would be almost impossible for today's 3-and-D play-finisher to keep up in previous eras with players that had mastered a wide variety of two-pointers and had developed the unique scoring skill necessary to score ON their man as a standard - today's game simply doesn't require this of today's player, which is why they shoot worse from two.

It is simply a lack of understanding about basketball to think the adjustment for previous era players that are accustomed to scoring ON a defender, to a brand of basketball that gets them more open shots, could be harder than the adjustment today's players would have of going from open shots to more contested ones..
.

[Dresta]

No way Wade could have gotten the quality of HGH back in the 80s or 70s...
Scientific breakthroughs have been by leaps in bounds in this area.
Not only are you not making any sense ('quality of HGH'?) you are focusing on a hormone that has been studied and which has been shown not to help athletic performance:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=awlswGxIiU5c&refer=home

[fpliii]

It wouldn't take long - the 1988 Celtics shot 38.4% from 3-point land, which is better than the Heat's 36.4% - the volume was considerably less (8.6 attempts to the Heat's 22.0), but simply running more plays for 3-pointers (which is all that today's teams are doing) is an easy decision to make, and one that they would make.
Just a note, I think you're misunderstanding my post...

I said:

Just a note...

I agree for the most part with the bolded, but until the league was mostly black (broke 50% in the mid-60s; got close to the current composition of the league in the late 60s/early 70s), I do have concerns about the level of competition. After the league was fully integrated, games look pretty indistinguishable from 80s/90s ball.

What does irk me though, is the implication that the best 10 or 20 talents have all played in the league in the past 25 years or so. That kind of suggestion rubs me the wrong way. We haven't evolved in the past 50-60 years, and while training and medicine have drastically improved, what reason do I have to believe that the Kareems/Russells/Oscars/Wilts/Waltons of the world, if they come into today's league as rookies, wouldn't develop into high impact players? The burden of proof is certainly on those suggesting they wouldn't.

Don't get me wrong...I think if you take one of them mid-career and drop him into the NBA in 2014, it'll take some time to get acquainted with the modern game. The best teams of the era would be shell-shocked by the use of the three. But those transcendent talents of yesteryear would surely adapt.
The era to which I was referring is the late 60s/early 70s. In the 80s/90s, while the three wasn't prevalent (except for when the line was brought in), teams were familiar with it, and I think they could adapt.


And this where what you are saying is misguided - what EXACTLY are the adjustments that players would have to make on both sides of the ball??... Isn't it just shooting and defending 3-pointers, and playing a much weaker zone than college while learning to tippy-toe the paint for defensive 3 seconds??... So just strategical, x's and o's things - which means you are exaggerating how substantial and long the adjustment would take...

Shot allocation is an instant coaching decision and implementation time is very fast - and the great thing is that today's game has already done all the leg-work and due-diligence for new players or teams to immediately use optimal floor-spreading strategy and the corresponding defensive strategy based on the current rules - it is ironic that previous eras would get this advantage.... :pimp:
Well, again...I was talking about the late 60s/early 70s. But even 80s/90s teams would take some time to adapt:

1) The three is used so much now. I don't think it makes the game better or worse, just different. I think teams would be confused to see it utilized as much as it is.

2) Hand-checking is banned now, so players have to relearn how to play defense (using their legs as opposed to their feet). Players can more easily play zone now, and there's always a secondary "2.9" defender in or near the paint (and sometimes a "nail" defender near the top of the key). Yes, I know the paint was packed, and there was more traffic back in the day. It was more difficult to drive to the basket in terms of traffic. But teams today have really built on concepts forcing guys to the sideline and baseline, and trapping them. Pure zone is rarely played, but the strong side is overloaded a ton.

Completely disagree that the zone is weaker than college. Watching games, the 3 seconds is just a technicality. It does not hamper players in any way, and stepping out of the lane briefly doesn't weaken interior defense.


Shellshocked??... You mean more shellshocked than the Heat in the 2014 Finals???... because that's the last time I heard that word used.... Seriously, teams take 21.5 threes per game nowadays to keep the floor spaced and they frequently get hot - it's basketball, no one is getting shellshocked... If they are, then I guess the Heat were more "shellshocked" than any team in history.

Teams were already taking 15+ threes per game in the 90's compared to today's 21.5, so the use of "shellshocked" is a blatant oversell (and perhaps subconsciously based on the 2014 Finals).
Again, I said the 60s/70s teams would be shellshocked.

As for 90s squads, how many teams were taking that many threes excluding seasons when the line was brought in closer? I don't know why you're mentioning the Heat, they were pretty shellshocked though. One of the worst defensive performances in a Finals I've seen, and the Spurs were passing/shooting better than any squad I've seen in a while that series (especially on contested jumpers).


Why only the transcendent talents???... This is another example of trying to oversell today's game - what about non-transcendent players, such as solid to very good players like Ronaldo Blackmon, Sleepy Floyd, Nate McMillan, Larry Nance?

You said only transcendent talents would adjust - that lets me know that you overrate the game in your mind; because I don't think you are purposefully trying to oversell today's game.

Keep in mind that we agree that biological advances haven't occurred that can account for differences in today's game - so the only thing that can account for changes in the game are rule changes, coaching decisions/strategy, and training advancements, ALL of which any athlete or team dropped into today's game would have access to... Or are you saying they would NOT have access to it?
Again...I was referring to the 60s/70s.

I agree that players haven't evolved, but my point being that today's game favors certain types of players more than others. Bird, for example, might be the GOAT by a huge margin if he played in today's game. MJ would have an easier time with the spacing too. But guys who defended with their arms as opposed to with their legs would have to adjust, or foul out. Similarly, coaches have less of a problem telling players not to dominate the ball as much, so perimeter stars from the isolation heavy late 90s/early 00s wouldn't be putting up 30 a night.


One more thing about this quote - Why do we only consider how well previous era players would fare in today's game and not the other way around?... Isn't a game that doesn't have the 3 point line a completely different game than basketball WITH the 3-point line?..

And today's players ARE worse at shooting two-pointers, so there would be a big adjustment - in 2014, teams attempted 61.0 two-pointers per game and shot 48.78%... In 1985, teams attempted 86.0 two-pointers per game and shot 49.88%... So previous eras DID take a much wider volume and variety of two-pointers... Accordingly, it would be almost impossible for today's 3-and-D play-finisher to keep up in previous eras with players that had mastered a wide variety of two-pointers and had developed the unique scoring skill necessary to score ON their man as a standard - today's game simply doesn't require this of today's player, which is why they shoot worse from two.

It is simply a lack of understanding about basketball to think the adjustment for previous era players that are accustomed to scoring ON a defender, to a brand of basketball that gets them more open shots, could be harder than the adjustment today's players would have of going from open shots to more contested ones..
.
I used to think like that, but think about it this way...

For better or worse, the game is changing. The rules, strategy, schemes, and other trends are all moving in one direction. Rarely are things undone or reversed.

So if the league has decided to move in that direction, I don't think it's sensible to move guys from today back into the past. Again, for better or worse, the league has decided that the game will evolve in the way it does.

There were better one-on-one players in the past for sure IMO. But today, both offense and defense are played on a team level, so dominant isolation scorers and man defenders might not have the same value today, if that's their bread and butter.

[3ball]

1) The three is used so much now. I don't think it makes the game better or worse, just different. I think teams would be confused to see it utilized as much as it is.
The point of me posting is not to advocate that we change the rules back to the old rules - NOT AT ALL - I just want people to be more logical in comparing players over the eras.... that's it....

And as part of that aim, I think people should know that players would really be shellshocked going back in time to play before the 3-point line existed.. Many players would not have the skills to operate in a congested environment of all two-pointers because you MUST have a post game and triple-threat game... it's mandatory in that environment and those are the two skills most lacking offensively in today's game.


2) Hand-checking is banned now, so players have to relearn how to play defense (using their legs as opposed to their feet). Players can more easily play zone now.... and the strong side is overloaded a ton.
These are strategical things that ANY new NBA player has to learn, whether they are coming from overseas or college - again, strategical things don't take long... it's like changing teams - you have to learn all the new plays..


Completely disagree that the zone is weaker than college. Watching games, the 3 seconds is just a technicality. It does not hamper players in any way, and stepping out of the lane briefly doesn't weaken interior defense.
It 100% is........ and this is common knowledge - being able to camp in the paint as long as you want with no restrictions is ridiculous.... NONE of the defensive strategy used in today's NBA (i.e. strong-side flood) would be necessary with the college zone rules... this is an indisputable fact.


I don't know why you're mentioning the Heat, they were pretty shellshocked though. One of the worst defensive performances in a Finals I've seen, and the Spurs were passing/shooting better than any squad I've seen in a while that series (especially on contested jumpers).
What about the Heat's horrific offense???... They scored by far the least points of any Spurs opponent (only 91 per game) - Didn't that hurt them as much as their defense???...

In basketball, sports, and life, various plays are easier when you have more confidence, optimism, adrenaline, energy, etc... In hoops, these things are encapsulated in the word "momentum"... Teams get more confidence and momentum whenever the other team's offense can't score - so when the team's buckets aren't being answered.

The Heat's bad offense and inability to answer the Spurs buckets fueled the Spurs confidence and contributed to the way the games progressed as much as bad defense... The Heat's defense had a harder job due to their bad offense that couldn't limit the Spurs momentum from building after each unanswered bucket.

Maybe try to figure out the games yourself rather than watching the media too much - by watching them, i bet you had no idea that the Heat's offense was as bad as it was, but clearly, offense affects the game just like defense does, no?


Bird, for example, might be the GOAT by a huge margin if he played in today's game... MJ would have an easier time with the spacing too..... Similarly, coaches have less of a problem telling players not to dominate the ball as much, so perimeter stars from the isolation heavy late 90s/early 00s wouldn't be putting up 30 a night.
What amazes me is how non-basketball players have no idea how easy it is for a player to adjust his game.... Guys like Mark Aguirre, who were already considered okay 3-point shooters for their day, would just increase the volume on 3-point shooting practice - and he'd go from 33% to say 36% in one season and be just fine, just like Lebron from 2011 to 2012 - this kind of improvement is quite standard and not difficult for professionals.


So if the league has decided to move in that direction, I don't think it's sensible to move guys from today back into the past. Again, for better or worse, the league has decided that the game will evolve in the way it does.

Where did I say that I wanted the league to go back to old rules????... Why does everyone misinterpret my posts that way???...Show me where I said that.... My point in these posts is to help people be more logical in their player comparisons over the eras - nothing more... I never said we should go back to the old rules... never.... so there wasn't any need for you to bring up that you DID want the old rules to come back... because I never have.


There were better one-on-one players in the past for sure IMO. But today, both offense and defense are played on a team level, so dominant isolation scorers and man defenders might not have the same value today, if that's their bread and butter.
But scoring on your man 1-on-1 is a lower efficiency shot attempt and therefore harder... So the adjustment for those players to today's game, where the spacing strategy and running off a few more screens gets you an open look, would be EASIER for a lot of them... The differences in today's game are just strategical adjustments that get them more open!!!... that is not a difficult adjustment.
.

[Dresta]

Miami's defense was the problem all season, not offense.

[Crimsonrain777]

Evolution is happening all the time. You might not see some drastic physical changes unless the environment significantly changes, but none the less it's happening all the time. It's just the way genetic mutation works.

The biggest change you would probably see in humans as the years go by is personality changes.

Culture can change personality significantly. Lets say for example, there's a really huge cultural change that influences girls that they can't settle for anyone but Mr. Perfect. Completely perfection, great job, really tall, etc, and that the guy has to worship them. A rough scenario, but just go with it. Such a culture would drastically cut down down on the genetics of girls who would value such a thing, while the girls who genetically care more about the personality of the person will have a better chance of passing their genes, since the other type of girl are simply just not going to be reproducing a lot because no man is good enough, and then they're old and alone.

Such an extreme scenario could drastically change the personality of human women.

And just like that, more subtle cultural influence can have an effect in the genetics of humans. The world is drastically different than it was 100 years ago, and that too would influence genetics the way I mention.

It's a very, very complicated subject that's not easy to explain, but it's sort of my major interest.
yeah, that makes sense and i do agree with you. but as far as athletics go. unless there was a concerted effort to only have supremely physically talented people breed with other supremely physically talented people. then you won't see a significant shift in athletic ability; certainly not in only a couple of decades. i know someone in this thread was talking about the laws of numbers and how just on the basis of our population size being larger, the chances of there being more people born with god-given ability is increased and i could see that being the case.

[fpliii]

These are strategical things that ANY new NBA player has to learn, whether they are coming from overseas or college - again, strategical things don't take long... it's like changing teams - you have to learn all the new plays..
I don't think it's reasonable to assume that every player could translate equally well though. It's like footwork on the low post: not every player can develop it, so even if a guy has solid defensive instincts, we can't take for granted that it might be a difficult adjustment.


It 100% is........ and this is common knowledge - being able to camp in the paint as long as you want with no restrictions is ridiculous.... NONE of the defensive strategy used in today's NBA (i.e. strong-side flood) would be necessary with the college zone rules... this is an indisputable fact.
I don't watch much college hoops, but I'm assuming their zone regulations are similar to FIBA (no defensive 3 seconds).

Why are you contending they wouldn't flood the strong side though? The only downside is if a guy can throw skip passes over the defense constantly, and they can hit threes. Preventing guys from getting to their spots is a big deal, and part of why hand checking was so effective before defenders were forced to use their feet instead.


What about the Heat's horrific offense???... They scored by far the least points of any Spurs opponent (only 91 per game) - Didn't that hurt them as much as their defense???...

In basketball, sports, and life, various plays are easier when you have more confidence, optimism, adrenaline, energy, etc... In hoops, these things are encapsulated in the word "momentum"... Teams get more confidence and momentum whenever the other team's offense can't score - so when the team's buckets aren't being answered.

The Heat's bad offense and inability to answer the Spurs buckets fueled the Spurs confidence and contributed to the way the games progressed as much as bad defense... The Heat's defense had a harder job due to their bad offense that couldn't limit the Spurs momentum from building after each unanswered bucket.

Maybe try to figure out the games yourself rather than watching the media too much - by watching them, i bet you had no idea that the Heat's offense was as bad as it was, but clearly, offense affects the game just like defense does, no?
As we have before, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. From watching the series, I don't know how someone can suggest their offense was anywhere near as much of an issue as their offense. Momentum can explain minor shifts, but SA put up an ORtg of 120.8 in that series. When's the last time that happened? Miami's ORtg was 104.8. Pretty poor due to their scoring, but not the worst performance on that end ever. As a matter of fact, from 03-10, the losing team in the Finals had an ORtg that bad every year, and in some cases the winnings team did as well. On the other hand, the Spurs' offensive rating is unmatched, unless you go all the way back to the 89 Finals when Detroit put up 120.6.

I take great offense at your claim that I vale the media's opinion. I'm one of the people on this board who is most skeptical of media claims, and I completely devalue narrative, media accolades, and the like. I only trust what my eyes have seen, and the complete data available when we look at a large enough sample. I don't need anyone to form an opinion for me, I make my own educated decisions after taking in all the available evidence.


What amazes me is how non-basketball players have no idea how easy it is for a player to adjust his game.... Guys like Mark Aguirre, who were already considered okay 3-point shooters for their day, would just increase the volume on 3-point shooting practice - and he'd go from 33% to say 36% in one season and be just fine, just like Lebron from 2011 to 2012 - this kind of improvement is quite standard and not difficult for professionals.
How can we assume they'd just increase their volume though? Very well might be possible, but no guarantee. I didn't start watching until the early 90s so I can't comment on prime Aguirre. As I said though, I think Bird would improve his volume.

LeBron decreased his 3pt shooting volume from 11 to 12, not increased. Some consider me a bit of a LeBron hater on here, but I still don't think of him as a great 3pt shooter.


Where did I say that I wanted the league to go back to old rules????... Why does everyone misinterpret my posts that way???...Show me where I said that.... My point in these posts is to help people be more logical in their player comparisons over the eras - nothing more... I never said we should go back to the old rules... never.... so there wasn't any need for you to bring up that you DID want the old rules to come back... because I never have.
I don't think you did say that, I'm just saying that because of how the league is changing rules, I don't think it is logical to transplant players from today into the past. It's an interestingness exercise, but if the rules are changing in one direction (for better or worse, I might say worse), why should we act like both comparisons are equally valuable? As I've said though, great players will be great in any era, and some guys (like Bird, MJ, etc.) would be better today than they were when they played.


But scoring on your man 1-on-1 is a lower efficiency shot attempt and therefore harder... So the adjustment for those players to today's game, where the spacing strategy and running off a few more screens gets you an open look, would be EASIER for a lot of them... The differences in today's game are just strategical adjustments that get them more open!!!... that is not a difficult adjustment.
.
I'm not sure why you're using the terms easier and harder here. Both are subjective qualifiers, and we can't just use them without doing deep, thorough investigation.

Spacing improves offensive chances, but team defense works in the other direction. It's easier for some players today I'm sure, but not necessarily for everybody.

[3ball]

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that every player could translate equally well though. It's like footwork on the low post: not every player can develop it, so even if a guy has solid defensive instincts, we can't take for granted that it might be a difficult adjustment.

Why do you like comparing apples and oranges???... You are comparing post footwork (an actual skill that must be honed) to the stratetic, coaching initiatives of playing a zone, doing a strong-side flood, and hand-checking!!!!!

This is what I'm talking about - you will use any reasoning to support the way you want to think about the game, even if it makes no sense.


I don't watch much college hoops, but I'm assuming their zone regulations are similar to FIBA (no defensive 3 seconds).
Anyone that has played ball at a decent level understands how impossible it is to score on a full-fledged zone (where everyone can camp in the lane)... There's a reason the NBA included the defensive 3 seconds rule.. they didn't want it to be impossible to score... they wanted to "open up the game".


Why are you contending they wouldn't flood the strong side though? The only downside is if a guy can throw skip passes over the defense constantly, and they can hit threes. Preventing guys from getting to their spots is a big deal, and part of why hand checking was so effective before defenders were forced to use their feet instead.
The strong-side flood is based on circumventing defensive 3 seconds - this is a fact... if guys could camp in the lane as long as they wanted, the strong-side flood wouldn't be necessary at all... this is not hard to understand.


As a matter of fact, from 03-10, the losing team in the Finals had an ORtg that bad every year, and in some cases the winnings team did as well. On the other hand, the Spurs' offensive rating is unmatched, unless you go all the way back to the 89 Finals when Detroit put up 120.6.

Again, here you are comparing apples and oranges.... You can't compare the Heat's offense to that of past Finals participants because the game is played differently over the years and the rules change every year - the appropriate comparison to make is to compare the Heat's offense to their CURRENT, CONTEMPORARY PEERS, not teams in previous seasons and eras when the game was played differently.

The Heat's current, contemporary peers that play the same brand of basketball under the exact same rules, would be other Spurs opponents in this year's playoffs - and when appropriately compared to them, the Heat's offense was by far the worst of any Spurs opponent... It's not even close...

The Heat scored by FAR the least number of points as any Spurs opponent - scoring the least number of points is going to hurt you, no???????... And i explained how scoring so little and not answering the Spurs buckets serves to fuel momentum for the Spurs.


How can we assume they'd just increase their volume though? Very well might be possible, but no guarantee. I didn't start watching until the early 90s so I can't comment on prime Aguirre. As I said though, I think Bird would improve his volume.
Because if you understand basketball, you will know that for a good shooter, improving your 3-point shot doesn't take long... Look at big men that have improved their 3-point shot in one summer... See Lebron's improvement in recent years and many others that improved their 3-point shooting by a few percentage points in just one summer - it's not hard to do and has happened a zillion times.


LeBron decreased his 3pt shooting volume from 11 to 12, not increased. Some consider me a bit of a LeBron hater on here, but I still don't think of him as a great 3pt shooter.
Lebron is a great example of how easy it is for a player to focus in and decide to shoot more 3's... Again, big men learn to shoot 3's in one offseason... it's not a long process at all.


I don't think it is logical to transplant players from today into the past. It's an interestingness exercise, but if the rules are changing in one direction (for better or worse, I might say worse), why should we act like both comparisons are equally valuable?
Why not????... Basketball WITHOUT a 3-point line is an equally viable form of the game so it makes sense to evaluate how good players would be at it - infact, it is how the game was originally invented and played... the 3-point shot was an arbitrary decision... like, why not a 4-point shot or a 5-point shot... why is the line exactly 23'9" from the hoop?.. why not 26 feet or 21 feet from the hoop?

So all-two-point basketball is purer, equally viable form of the game that plays much different, so it's only fair to see if today's players could play that game - to only evaluate if previous era players could play today version is an incredibly biased approach.

[LAZERUSS]

Kevin Love vs Jerry Lucas

Andrew Bogut vs Bill Walton

Ricky Rubio vs Pistol Pete

Kevin Durant vs Bob McAdoo

Roy Hibbert vs Artis Gilmore

Andre Drummond vs Moses Malone

Chris Paul vs Tiny Archibald

Blake Griffin vs Dr. J

Chuck Hayes vs Wes Unseld


Yep. No doubt about it...today's players are FAR superior to those that played 40-50 years ago.

[Lebronxrings]

Kevin Love vs Jerry Lucas

Andrew Bogut vs Bill Walton

Ricky Rubio vs Pistol Pete

Kevin Durant vs Bob McAdoo

Roy Hibbert vs Artis Gilmore

Andre Drummond vs Moses Malone

Chris Paul vs Tiny Archibald

Blake Griffin vs Dr. J

Chuck Hayes vs Wes Unseld


Yep. No doubt about it...today's players are FAR superior to those that played 40-50 years ago.
shouldnt be discussed. Only trolls think otherwise.

[snipes12]

Evolution?
Do we still have players like
7'4 who runs and play as an sf - ralph samson
6"9 who plays perfect at the point - magic
7'1 straight up domination - shaq
7'1 as athletic sa lebron- wilt
And the godly moves that the present players today cannot copy-mj
Shawn kemp to amare to blake? Do you call this evolution?
The only playrers today that represent evolution today are lebron durant and dirk

[3ball]

Evolution?
Do we still have players like
7'4 who runs and play as an sf - ralph samson
6"9 who plays perfect at the point - magic
7'1 straight up domination - shaq
7'1 as athletic sa lebron- wilt
And the godly moves that the present players today cannot copy-mj
Shawn kemp to amare to blake? Do you call this evolution?
The only playrers today that represent evolution today are lebron durant and dirk
More like short term variance... just like Wilt, MJ and Magic