Just got done watching a 2 hour documentary on Oscar Robertson:

[Kblaze8855]

That might be an exaggeration in terms of the numbers because who would know. Regarding the outcome though - if they are calling it the way they call it now I truly feel the warriors would light up any team from any era.

Why would they be calling it like they call it now? Isnt that a built in advantage to the Warriors? What makes one eras more fair to use than another? would it be....unfair...to have 1948 rules with a thin lane? If so...why? Players who grew up with a 3 point line only got to the NBA in like 1998. Most of basketball history was played very differently.

The warriors have wins recently where if their 3s....were 2s...they score 85 points. So of course...they have to play a TOTALLY different game. Totally different. It just doesnt make sense to shoot from 25 feet when 10 feet is the same. The teams with a gang of dominant interior players would have a natural advantage. Which is why bigmen led all the title teams for decades.

The spacing doesnt work when teams dont fear the 3.

Why even guard Steph at 25 feet if its no more if he makes it than if he makes a pullup jumper in the lane?

They would still be great....but we cant say what they would be exactly because the 3....and resulting spacing and open lanes...is what makes them so unstoppable.

As I said...they rebuild the offense from the ground up. And how can you honestly say you know how it turns out?

When there is more value in a layup than a 25 footer....is Steph more valuable than Doctor J?

It would be a whole different game.

[red1]

Why would they be calling it like they call it now? Isnt that a built in advantage to the Warriors?

Which again doesnt account for the 3 pointers. They have wins this season where if their 3s....were 2s...they score 85 points. So of course...they have to play a TOTALLY different game. Totally different. It just doesnt make sense to shoot from 25 feet when 10 feet is the same. The teams would a gang of dominant interior players would have a natural advantage.

The spacing doesnt work when teams dont fear the 3.

Why even guard Step at 25 feet if its no more if he makes it than if he makes a pullup jumper in the lane?

They would still be great....but we cant say what they would be exactly because the 3....and resulting spacing and open lanes...is what makes them so unstoppable.

As I said...they rebuild the offense from the ground up. And how can you honestly say you know how it turns out?

When there is more value in a layup than a 25 footer....is Steph more valuable than Doctor J?

It would be a whole different game.

I agree but that is what we are discussing, no? Who knows if they repeat as champions. I think they will. There is no arguing that they have amplified an existing trend of basing the teams half-court offense around 3s.

If the warriors played any of the all-time great teams including the 80s celtics and lakers and the 90s bulls their strategy would be succesful. They have two elite shooters and a very solid cast around them that are all bought in. Anyone who claims that strategy wouldn't work is only kidding themselves and that is the point I am making.

[bdreason]

Hey bro. I am posting from my phone so I won't watch those videos due to not wasting data. No troll. Be real with yourself though. Do you actually feel that the league hasn't improved massively in the last few decades?

Is Harden better than Jordan? It's been 20 years since MJ dominated the league. Surely the "evolution" of the sport means that modern SG's are better than SG's from 20 years ago.

[red1]

Is Harden better than Jordan? It's been 20 years since MJ dominated the league. Surely the "evolution" of the sport means that modern SG's are better than SG's from 20 years ago.

I mean generally speaking. Jordan and harden are exceptions and no I don't think harden is anything particularly special all-time and I am not saying that MJ isn't the GOAT. Harden is certainly top 10 now, no argument otherwise. However, the average level of talent has CERTAINLY improved from previous eras, especially the 60s and 70s.

[bdreason]

Why even guard Steph at 25 feet if its no more if he makes it than if he makes a pullup jumper in the lane?

Actually, they've done the math, and even if you count Curry's Three's as Two's, there are still only a handful of players in the history of the sport that match his offensive efficiency.

In other words, even if there was no 3-point line, teams could not afford to just let Curry shoot open 30-footers. Teams in every era would have to guard him 40 feet from the hoop.

[bdreason]

I mean generally speaking. Jordan and harden are exceptions and no I don't think harden is anything particularly special all-time and I am not saying that MJ isn't the GOAT. Harden is certainly top 10 now, no argument otherwise. However, the average level of talent has CERTAINLY improved from previous eras, especially the 60s and 70s.

The average player is definitely more talented/devloped in the modern NBA, but Oscar Robertson wasn't an average player. Great players transcend eras, and Oscar would be a complete stud, even in the modern era.

[red1]

The average player is definitely more talented/devloped in the modern NBA, but Oscar Robertson wasn't an average player. Great players transcend eras, and Oscar would be a complete stud, even in the modern era.

I believe that. Talent and heart will create success regardless and that applies to everything in life, not just sports.

[Marchesk]

Actually, they've done the math, and even if you count Curry's Three's as Two's, there are still only a handful of players in the history of the sport that match his offensive efficiency.

In other words, even if there was no 3-point line, teams could not afford to just let Curry shoot open 30-footers. Teams in every era would have to guard him 40 feet from the hoop.

Curry's percentage from three point range is 46.5%. His average drops by five points without the three. I'm not seeing why teams would need to guard him 30 feet out from the hoop. It's just a long two with worse percentage.

[Showtime80']

Make a top five list of every position from 1988 and compare it to 2016 and 88 blows today's league out of the water in ALL POSITIONS!!!

C: Olajuwon, Ewing, Malone, Parish and Daugherty
PF: Barkley, Malone, McHale, Williams, McDaniel
SF: Bird, Wilkins, English, Aguirre, Worthy, CHambers
SG: Jordan, Drexler, Dumars, Scott, Ainge
PG: Johnson, Isiah, Stockton, Lever, Price

When comparing to 2016 is like going backwards in EVOLUTION!

[CavaliersFTW]

Red1 has never been a rational poster about the history of the sport.

He only ever does what Kblaze pointed out in his first post in this thread. "Not good because competition."

Zero specific knowledge about any players themselves - competition or otherwise. All just a generalization. What a worthless person to try and talk about the games history with.

Fan:
"Hey but how about that shake and bake by Archie Clark!"

Red1:
"Who? Weak competition. Curry would light that era up with 150"

[Rake2204]

What do you think of these average players? Wouldn't even make the bench?

https://youtu.be/iWNAKxZPpIA

I had never heard of Mike Riordan before watching that video clip. Smooth looking player and I'm glad videos like this exist.

Also, CavaliersFTW, I've been meaning to say, I dig the individual Pistons highlights you've uploaded. I think I've mostly just seen ones from a 1969 matchup with the Bucks but even then, it's one of the few consumable forms of video media that provides a glimpse to the Pistons from that era (Eddie Miles, Jimmy Walker, etc).

If you come across any more Pistons footage, if you find the time, by all means continue sharing. Or hook me up with the footage if you have bigger fish to fry and I'll break it down and upload myself.

[red1]

Red1 has never been a rational poster about the history of the sport.

He only ever does what Kblaze pointed out in his first post in this thread. "Not good because competition."

Zero specific knowledge about any players themselves - competition or otherwise. All just a generalization. What a worthless person to try and talk about the games history with.

Fan:
"Hey but how about that shake and bake by Archie Clark!"

Red1:
"Who? Weak competition. Curry would light that era up with 150"

I'm definitely rational. Saying that the league improved from the 60s is a rational statement. I am not saying that players weren't good at their craft 50 years ago. I am saying that the average level of athleticism and raw ability has increased because more people see it as a viable career option. Thus an increase in talent level. Common sense my bro.

[CavaliersFTW]

I'm definitely rational. Saying that the league improved from the 60s is a rational statement. I am not saying that players weren't good at their craft 50 years ago. I am saying that the average level of athleticism and raw ability has increased because more people see it as a viable career option. Thus an increase in talent level. Common sense my bro.

What kind of shots did Nate Thurmond take - what's in his bag of tricks?

How about Tom Boerwinkle?

What does their defensive and rebounding sphere look like on the floor?

What is Jim Fox good at as a center?

How far out is Mel Counts a threat when he's on the floor?

What kind of a defender is Butch Komives?

What kind of a ball handler and athlete is Fred Carter?

You don't know anything about these players. You keep saying "era". But really, the era is the SMALL collection of athletes with names and individual ability. There's only like 100 to 150 guys in the league at any given time in that "era" it isn't like today with 400+ that interchange with 100 constantly in and out of the D-League.. Surely you should know about how they all perform as individuals if you're going to throw them all under the bus with broad sweeping generalizations.

[CavaliersFTW]

I had never heard of Mike Riordan before watching that video clip. Smooth looking player and I'm glad videos like this exist.

Also, CavaliersFTW, I've been meaning to say, I dig the individual Pistons highlights you've uploaded. I think I've mostly just seen ones from a 1969 matchup with the Bucks but even then, it's one of the few consumable forms of video media that provides a glimpse to the Pistons from that era (Eddie Miles, Jimmy Walker, etc).

If you come across any more Pistons footage, if you find the time, by all means continue sharing. Or hook me up with the footage if you have bigger fish to fry and I'll break it down and upload myself.

I'm desperate to get my hands on a 1967 Pistons vs Knicks game that exists in entirety. When I do, I will post it. Prime Dave Bing in it

[Duffy Pratt]

What do you think of these average players? Wouldn't even make the bench?

https://youtu.be/iWNAKxZPpIA

https://youtu.be/m4_Hgsnncc0

Riordan was considerably below average when he played on that Knicks team he was lighting up in that video. The 70s Knicks had Riordan who went on to be a star with the Bullets, Don May who went from averaging 2 points a game to over 20 the next year for Buffalo, and Cazzie Russell off the bench. The team also had Frazier, Debusschere, Reed, and Bradley, all hall of famers, and all would be good to great players now.

The factors that have changed between then and now are simply the following: 1) money, which may draw more people to the sport but its debatable, 2) worldwide exposure, which increases the talent pool, 3) expansion, which dilutes the talent pool, 4) less time spent in college, which probably decreases fundamentals. Everything else basically has to do with rules and changes in the culture.