why dont Wilt era fans like to brag about 6-5 Elgin Baylor averaging 19.8 rebounds

[bmd]

So you're faulting them for not having a 3pt line (or for not coming up with it, like players in the 80's)? Child please Imagine them with a 3pt line scoring more points Goes both ways.

Look at this tool, looking at PPG and ignoring things like pace... Current Bobcats give up 3 less points than the 89 Pistons, guess they're a better (defensive) team? Put them in 1989 and you can be sure as hell they would be giving up more points than the Bad Boys, considerably.
Riddle me these things:
Why is average DRtg and eFG% pretty much the same now and in the 80's?
Why is DRtg worse than in the 70's? Worse defense, or better offense?
Why did FG% increased as pace decreased through the 70's into the 80's?

So, let me guess this straight, you're also saying that it was much harder to score in the paint (also looking at the rules)? Again, goes both ways.

Yea, fastest, strongest, biggest players, best offense and defense, so on (what else?)... I know all of that (bullshit) talk

Please just stop posting, son.. Always coming up with ignorant shit

Let me put it to you this way...

When I played, I averaged about 18-20 points per game at all levels. In middle school, high school, and college.

Now, clearly I was a much better player in college than I was in middle school. Yet I averaged the same amount of points.

How in the world could that be? Were the middle schoolers I was playing against in middle school as good as the college players I was playing against in college?

Of course not.

[LAZERUSS]

Kareem was still taking 17 shots per game, at 38 years old, in 1986, 20 in the post-season to score 26 ppg.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=ewingpa01

Both averaged pretty much the same amount of shots, Kareem scored more than Ewing, in 3 less minutes, on MUCH greater efficiency. And Jabbar was 38(!) when Ewing came around. Also dropped 40 on him once.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=olajuha01

Scored 40 or more, 3 times against Hakeem, including a 46/11/4 on 21-30 game, in 37 minutes, at 38 years old. Averaged more ppg in the regular-season. Kareem was 37 when Dream joined the NBA.


You can't look at the raw numbers and say those types of things... Top10 leaders in rpg's were mostly (if not all of them) playing in the 60's - because of pace pretty much - and you just can't say that those are the top10 rebounders of all-time like that (similar thing for PER, for example). Wilt would be a beast in any era, and a top5 center of all-time all the same with an incredible peak, regardless of his numbers.
It's no surprise a geeky kid like you is "only" looking at the numbers and throwing them around like that. I don't know why I even bother though, I won't reply again, you're one of the worst posters here, surprises me why some people even take an ignorant child, such as yourself, seriously.

Absolute destruction...

[Fazotronic]

i disagree with the part that the position died.
while it might be harder we still don't have anyone with the athletic ability and size like shaq. we don't have anyone that is able to move like hakeem did.
no bigman today comes close to the talent they had.

position dead or not

[LAZERUSS]

i disagree with the part that the position died.
while it might be harder we still don't have anyone with the athletic ability and size like shaq. we don't have anyone that is able to move like hakeem did.
no bigman today comes close to the talent they had.

position dead or not

Chamberlain was taller, longer, stronger, faster, and more athletic than Shaq. And Kareem was more skilled than Hakeem.

Both played in the 60's.

[Fazotronic]

Chamberlain was taller, longer, stronger, faster, and more athletic than Shaq. And Kareem was more skilled than Hakeem.

Both played in the 60's.

pfff

[Rose'sACL]

So you're faulting them for not having a 3pt line (or for not coming up with it, like players in the 80's)? Child please Imagine them with a 3pt line scoring more points Goes both ways.

Look at this tool, looking at PPG and ignoring things like pace... Current Bobcats give up 3 less points than the 89 Pistons, guess they're a better (defensive) team? Put them in 1989 and you can be sure as hell they would be giving up more points than the Bad Boys, considerably.
Riddle me these things:
Why is average DRtg and eFG% pretty much the same now and in the 80's?
Why is DRtg worse than in the 70's? Worse defense, or better offense?
Why did FG% increased as pace decreased through the 70's into the 80's?

So, let me guess this straight, you're also saying that it was much harder to score in the paint (also looking at the rules)? Again, goes both ways.

Yea, fastest, strongest, biggest players, best offense and defense, so on (what else?)... I know all of that (bullshit) talk

Please just stop posting, son.. Always coming up with ignorant shit

You posted eFG% and then you act like an idiot when i point out the obvious 3 point line.
Why do you act like such an idiot with bad posts ? you make them bold too so that no one misses them.
also, the league has overall the fastest players in history of the NBA. Most players agree. You can debate stronger but they are the fastest.

[LAZERUSS]

You posted eFG% and then you act like an idiot when i point out the obvious 3 point line.
Why do you act like such an idiot with bad posts ? you make them bold too so that no one misses them.
also, the league has overall the fastest players in history of the NBA. Most players agree. You can debate stronger but they are the fastest.

Throw out 3pt% altogether. TODAY's NBA has a 2pt% of .485, and there are SIX teams shooting over 50%.

Now, are you going to tell me that defense is better today than in an NBA that was shooting .410 to .460 in the 60's?

[bmd]

Throw out 3pt% altogether. TODAY's NBA has a 2pt% of .485, and there are SIX teams shooting over 50%.

Now, are you going to tell me that defense is better today than in an NBA that was shooting .410 to .460 in the 60's?

There are several reasons for that.

The first being that the 3-point line opens up the floor and makes it harder for defenses to cover.

Secondly, shooters today are much better and much more versatile.


I mean, offenses are so much more complex today than they were in the 60's. And the defenses have to improve greatly to stop these offenses.

You can just watch the games and see how much better the defense is today and how much harder it is to play defense today.

Offenses today would make 60's defenses look absolutely silly. They wouldn't be able to defend the pick and roll as well as today and their rotations would be stupid bad.

It would be a joke.

[ralph_i_el]

Throw out 3pt% altogether. TODAY's NBA has a 2pt% of .485, and there are SIX teams shooting over 50%.

Now, are you going to tell me that defense is better today than in an NBA that was shooting .410 to .460 in the 60's?

well obviously the 2pt% will be higher today

the .410-.460 is including shots from 3 point distance! It's not like people didn't take deep shots back then. Also today guys pass up long 2's to take 3's. No incentive to do that back then, hence more long 2's

[LAZERUSS]

There are several reasons for that.

The first being that the 3-point line opens up the floor and makes it harder for defenses to cover.

Secondly, shooters today are much better and much more versatile.


I mean, offenses are so much more complex today than they were in the 60's. And the defenses have to improve greatly to stop these offenses.

You can just watch the games and see how much better the defense is today and how much harder it is to play defense today.

Offenses today would make 60's defenses look absolutely silly. They wouldn't be able to defend the pick and roll as well as today and their rotations would be stupid bad.

It would be a joke.

They didn't have a 3pt line in the NBA until the late 70's. It was more DIFFICULT to shoot in the 60's for a variety of reasons, but CONGESTED lanes were among them. Players who were certainly capable of 20+ foot shots were discouraged because there was no benefit.

And again, show me the EXACT year when all of a sudden the NBA became much better at BOTH offense and defense. Because I will point out the season just before that, and you will look like a fool.

The game is MARGINALLY different today, than it was 50 years ago. Same size court, same size hoop, same number of players, same size players, with the same basic goals of shooting, passing, rebounding, and playing defense. Don't make it out to be something that it is not.

And for those that claim that today's players are faster...explain how scoring has dropped, (as well as "pace.")

[Rose'sACL]

Throw out 3pt% altogether. TODAY's NBA has a 2pt% of .485, and there are SIX teams shooting over 50%.

Now, are you going to tell me that defense is better today than in an NBA that was shooting .410 to .460 in the 60's?

of course. why wouldn't i ? You guys assume pretty much everything like Pace of the game only impacting things you don't like.
teams play better defense forcing teams to pass the ball and 3 point shot opens the lane for drivers.
It also goes the other way when a good finisher like lebron/kd drives and forces defense to collapse causing open team mates for mid range jumpers or 3 point shot.
Since the 90s, defense has reached new peaks.It is way more complicated. This year has actually been a little sloppy because of some teams not trying to win any games and it is still overall a better defensive league than anything before 90s.

[jongib369]

pfff

I can understand your reservations about Wilt being stronger than Shaq but the rest is reasonable...Even Phil Jackson doesnt think Shaq was the all around athlete Wilt was...

http://youtu.be/yDMCh5HrcG0

Could Shaq get that high in college from one step?


And Kareem being more skilled or equally isnt a stretch either....Would Hakeem need to do those mves to create space for a shot if he was Kareems size? Hakeem isnt a true 7 footer and like Reed he needed fancier moves to get space....If he was Shaq or Wilts size and still played like that hed be pretty dumb even though itd look awesome. Kareem has as much skill but his skills suit his size

[Rose'sACL]

They didn't have a 3pt line in the NBA until the late 70's. It was more DIFFICULT to shoot in the 60's for a variety of reasons, but CONGESTED lanes were among them. Players who were certainly capable of 20+ foot shots were discouraged because there was no benefit.

And again, show me the EXACT year when all of a sudden the NBA became much better at BOTH offense and defense. Because I will point out the season just before that, and you will look like a fool.

The game is MARGINALLY different today, than it was 50 years ago. Same size court, same size hoop, same number of players, same size players, with the same basic goals of shooting, passing, rebounding, and playing defense. Don't make it out to be something that it is not.

And for those that claim that today's players are faster...explain how scoring has dropped, (as well as "pace.")

The game is much better than it was 50 years ago. pretty much every major sports is. only guys like you believe otherwise.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

OP just madd that any knowledgeable people have
Oscar and Wilt over Kobrick on their alltime lists

[LAZERUSS]

I can understand your reservations about Wilt being stronger than Shaq but the rest is reasonable...Even Phil Jackson doesnt think Shaq was the all around athlete Wilt was...

http://youtu.be/yDMCh5HrcG0

Could Shaq get that high in college from one step?


And Kareem being more skilled or equally isnt a stretch either....Would Hakeem need to do those mves to create space for a shot if he was Kareems size? Hakeem isnt a true 7 footer and like Reed needed he fancier moves to get space....If he was Shaq or Wilts size and still played like that hed be pretty dumb even though itd look awesome. Kareem has as much skill but his skills suits his size

I don't see ANYTHING from Shaq that would indicate he was STRONGER than Wilt. The internet is PLASTERED with page-after-page of Wilt's ENORMOUS strength, and from FIRST-HAND accounts such as Arnold himself.

And yet, a Shaq who was supposedly capable of benching 450 lbs couldn't even budge 405.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW2-x-0lAQo


SI ran article claiming Wilt was benching EASILY benching 400 in the mid-60's. And we KNOW that Chamberlain became bigger and stronger after that.