Would Prime Kareem be the best player in the NBA now?

[indiefan23]

There are few players in the NBA that have the length and mobility that KG and Camby have. They get rebounds in spite of their lack of strength, just like Noah.

LOL @ bringing up Wallace. He doesn't back people down because he can't score.

Ergo, why using points in the paint is a useless indicator of strength. Dwight Howard does not take shots outside the key because he can't get them to go through the hoop. The difference has nothing to do with who's strong or weak.

KG has owned prime Shaq on the blocks many games. He doesn't look huge and beefy but that does not mean you're weak especially when all the floor strength comes from you quads anyway. KG was the definition of a beast in his prime. You taking some stats about how he's shooting less inside after a knee injury only proves the weakness of your point.

[indiefan23]

Lol, I did not say "top form". I said he was in excellent shape and better than Shaq is now. 14 point a game on 64.9 fg% along with 19.2 rpg and 4 apg is not the sign of a "role player". Do you think Bill Russell was a role player, too?

What difference does it make if he was better then Shaq is now? He was a shell of his former self and had his game altered by a knee injury. I don't call that 'excellent shape' at all. He was a defensive role player, a fantastic one, but none the less, that's what he was.

Check his stats again. His shooting % went up after the merger, now why is that?

What point are you really trying to make that his FG% went up .05% anyway? That's noise created by a nearly unblockable shot. I stated that his production went down, not his %age. Why do you deny this happened when it's present in nearly every star's stats from this time?

So if Kareem with no knowledge or training from beyond 1977 played today, he would get owned? That kind of goes without saying. The game has changed quite a bit since then.

:) Okay, well this is really all I am saying and honestly, I think it's logical. If we are not talking about the player Kareem actually was, then the argument is really about Kareem's DNA being used to create a new player, not Kareem as a player. I guess the DNA conversation is interesting, but it's not a very good sports discussion.

The op only says "prime Kareem", not "If a 1970s version of Kareem played in a random game today." Just dropping 1976 Kareem into a random NBA game with no knowledge of the numerous changes is ridiculous.

Of course it's ridiculous. But the OP does say a 1970's version, because he references prime kareem: a specific person in a specific period in time, which is the 1970's.

I think you'll find that lots of people in this thread are saying that that player would dominate the league today in the same way he did in the 70's. I don't even get the point of saying the 'given today's adantages' thing. Today's advantages come from 20 years of being developed in a more advanced time. If Kareem moved up a generation he would not likely play the same way at all. He probably does not even have a hook.

I never really get how people get so hung up on denial of the game's evolution. The world's population has doubled since KAJ first started shooting hoops and the popularity of hoop has doubled a whole bunch of times. It's normal that those trends produce better players and more competition all time.

[tontoz]

Ergo, why using points in the paint is a useless indicator of strength. Dwight Howard does not take shots outside the key because he can't get them to go through the hoop. The difference has nothing to do with who's strong or weak.

KG has owned prime Shaq on the blocks many games. He doesn't look huge and beefy but that does not mean you're weak especially when all the floor strength comes from you quads anyway. KG was the definition of a beast in his prime. You taking some stats about how he's shooting less inside after a knee injury only proves the weakness of your point.

Would you rather use muscle mass as an indicator of strength? I didn't think so.

You are using rebounding as an indicator of strength when it has shown to have little correlation to strength. Amare is certainly stronger than Gerald Wallace, KG, Camby and Noah yet all those guys punk him on the boards.

If rebounding is an indicator of strength then why is Garnett averaging only 7.6 rebounds this year? Why did he average only 8.5 last year?

[indiefan23]

Would you rather use muscle mass as an indicator of strength? I didn't think so.

You are using rebounding as an indicator of strength when it has shown to have little correlation to strength. Amare is certainly stronger than Gerald Wallace, KG, Camby and Noah yet all those guys punk him on the boards.

If rebounding is an indicator of strength then why is Garnett averaging only 7.6 rebounds this year? Why did he average only 8.5 last year?

Garnett was injured last year and recovering this year moron. He's also slightly past his prime. He averaged 14 a game for a whole season in an era dominated by bigs. Why is Amare stronger then KG? Like, what's that based on? Pictures? ;0

[tontoz]

Garnett was injured last year and recovering this year moron. He's also slightly past his prime. He averaged 14 a game for a whole season in an era dominated by bigs. Why is Amare stronger then KG? Like, what's that based on? Pictures? ;0

Garnett's rebounding dropped as soon as he put on a Celtics jersey. Did he suddenly become weaker in a matter of months? Or was it the because there wasn't anyone else in Minny to get rebounds?

Who says Amare is stronger than KG? Anyone with a clue.

[Alhazred]

What difference does it make if he was better then Shaq is now? He was a shell of his former self and had his game altered by a knee injury. I don't call that 'excellent shape' at all. He was a defensive role player, a fantastic one, but none the less, that's what he was.

I mentioned Shaq because you said he would have given Kareem trouble due to his size. To an extent yes, but Kareem was able to hold his own against larger opponents which is what I was getting at. A mid thirties Wilt was much better than a 37 year old Shaq, wouldn't you agree?

What point are you really trying to make that his FG% went up .05% anyway? That's noise created by a nearly unblockable shot. I stated that his production went down, not his %age. Why do you deny this happened when it's present in nearly every star's stats from this time?

His overall numbers did go down, so I agree that he wouldn't be averaging 34/16. That said, he could still put up great numbers. The only reason his numbers went down slightly was due to his minutes being reduced and the fact that he was almost 30 could have played a part in it as well.

:) Okay, well this is really all I am saying and honestly, I think it's logical. If we are not talking about the player Kareem actually was, then the argument is really about Kareem's DNA being used to create a new player, not Kareem as a player. I guess the DNA conversation is interesting, but it's not a very good sports discussion.

Maybe not, but how is putting a random player into a different era with no knowledge or preparation any better?

Of course it's ridiculous. But the OP does say a 1970's version, because he references prime kareem: a specific person in a specific period in time, which is the 1970's.

Technically, but I assumed it meant him growing up and playing in today's league. Ok, let's just agree it's 70s Kareem and not an alternate 2000s version, then. The man was slightly bigger than Kevin Garnett and had about the same muscle mass. If Garnett is capable of playing in today's game, then why not Kareem? He was also extremely fast for his size and had excellent shooting range for a center.

I think you'll find that lots of people in this thread are saying that that player would dominate the league today in the same way he did in the 70's. I don't even get the point of saying the 'given today's adantages' thing. Today's advantages come from 20 years of being developed in a more advanced time. If Kareem moved up a generation he would not likely play the same way at all. He probably does not even have a hook.

Today's advantages include not playing in a league where lifting weights was considered taboo.

http://espn.go.com/trainingroom/s/fitness/index.html

"People used to think in basketball that if you lifted weights, you couldn't shoot because you'd be too muscle-bound," Traina said. "These guys spend a lot of time in the weight room. You look at the athletes now compared to 20 or 25 years ago, and they're cut, they're muscular. Karl Malone is huge."

[indiefan23]

Garnett's rebounding dropped as soon as he put on a Celtics jersey. Did he suddenly become weaker in a matter of months? Or was it the because there wasn't anyone else in Minny to get rebounds?

Who says Amare is stronger than KG? Anyone with a clue.

Heh, dude, you need a lesson in 'perception'. KG is like, 4 inches taller then Amare. KG's boards went down because he went from playing 40 MPG to 32, while instead of carrying Eddie Griffen/Mark Blount he was playing with Paul Pierce. Kendrick Perkins, James Posey, Ray Ray. His production was nearly the same and he was even more efficient. Did you go to an inane comment school or something?

[indiefan23]

I mentioned Shaq because you said he would have given Kareem trouble due to his size. To an extent yes, but Kareem was able to hold his own against larger opponents which is what I was getting at. A mid thirties Wilt was much better than a 37 year old Shaq, wouldn't you agree?

Is he? I'm not really sure. Wilt was playing almost 40 minutes and Shaq is playing 22. Per 36 minutes, Shaq is putting up 16/11, Wilt was putting up 11/16. If Shaq was trying to grab boards vs the ultra watered down early 70's NBA with no defensive 3 seconds or 3 point line to spread the floor would he pull down 5 more boards? Probably. The point is that in the 70's there were no Dwight Howard/KG type players guarding people. Today's Shaq is probably more broken down then Wilt and could not sustain the minutes, but that does not mean that there were Kendrick Perkins quality role players in the early 70's for him to square off against. Did KAJ have what, 8 games in his whole career vs chamberlain? Was it even that many? VS today's size/power in the NBA KAJ would have it harder then then. That's the point.

His overall numbers did go down, so I agree that he wouldn't be averaging 34/16. That said, he could still put up great numbers. The only reason his numbers went down slightly was due to his minutes being reduced and the fact that he was almost 30 could have played a part in it as well.

For sure. I think he could do well but would be much more an offensive guy then the dominant center he was. I don't think he has 4 block seasons or 15+ rebound seasons, if he even breaks 10 boards at all. Maybe he does, but 20/10 I think is his ceiling with maybe a little more on the 20 and less on the 10.

Maybe not, but how is putting a random player into a different era with no knowledge or preparation any better?

Cuz that conversation is actually about sports. I can tell you one thing, if prime KAJ stepped onto an NBA floor right now he would play like a rookie. He'd be in awe that some random bench player like Joe Alexander was more athletic then Dr. J, but couldn't get playing time. The speed of players would astound the guy. The defensive schemes teams used would blow his mind with how complex they were. The training regimens would leave him aching for days because he'd never strained his body that much in training and he would be devastated by the force of some dude boxing him out with 250-300 pounds of muscle.

I think it's silly myself but it's interesting. Over time things change and it's interesting to think about where those division lines are. KAJ could play in the 70's and 80's, but he'd show severe decline if he had to grind out defences in the 90's. Most likely, honestly, he sustains some injuries, blows out a knee, and his career is short and sweet. Consider this too... if KAJ went back to the 50's and played as Wilt... I think he destroys Wilt all time. He had to spend most of his career playing with far superior athletes then Wilt did.

Technically, but I assumed it meant him growing up and playing in today's league. Ok, let's just agree it's 70s Kareem and not an alternate 2000s version, then. The man was slightly bigger than Kevin Garnett and had about the same muscle mass. If Garnett is capable of playing in today's game, then why not Kareem? He was also extremely fast for his size and had excellent shooting range for a center.

I think KAJ is totally capable of playing in today's game. For sure. I just don't think he'd be the best player in the league at all and I know for a fact that he does not put up nearly the same jaw dropping numbers. If he played in the 90's, I seriously doubt his longevity is the same. The strain of playing 10 years of hoop in the 90's is 100 fold that of playing in the 70's. Just so much more force being used.

Today's advantages include not playing in a league where lifting weights was considered taboo.

http://espn.go.com/trainingroom/s/fitness/index.html

Yep... and here's a point too. It's pretty much agreed that if KAJ played today he would be bigger. He's put on some weight and muscle, and ESP if he played in the 90's. With that, I really think the chances of him getting injured increase big time. An extra 50 pounds on your ligaments/tendons is a really huge deal over 10-30 years. Do the number counters really talk KAJ up so much if he didn't play 20 solid years? I don't think so. Granted, playing that long is a massive achievement, but it skews things a little when his name is all over record books.