Why does CavsFTW use height and weight as an argument?

[sundizz]

I'm curious? He mentions it all the time in regards to these old players like their size has something to do with how good they would be today.

If you look at the roster of all 64 of the NCAA teams from last year's NCAA tournament, and even at the 351 D-1 schools total almost all of them have someone that is 6'11, 250+ hanging around on their team.

Height and size alone really tells us no story about how good those 60's players were.

All we know as a fact is that those centers back then faced far far far far far far far far less competition to make it to the NBA.

For anyone that has played basketball they know just how easy it is to put up stats when you are significantly better than 8 of the 10 players on the floor. Most of those clips seem to indicate their were a few players that were very good (the level of good is impossible to say) and a lot of amateur level players.

I can't seem to figure it out, but I'd say to make the current NBA as a big man you probably have to be the best out of 10,000 other big men (pure guess). Back then, you probably had to be the best out of 500 big men.

So to say that Pau Gasol or Marc Gasol who are the best of the best couldn't absolutely shut down the league back then is simply wishful thinking. They may be outclassed by Wilt, or possible even Russell (unlikely), but they definitely would be significantly better than any non transcendent superstar.

[Marchesk]

I'm curious? He mentions it all the time in regards to these old players like their size has something to do with how good they would be today.

Maybe because people are always saying modern athletes are bigger, stronger and faster. They're not that much taller. I think the average is one inch difference. More players lift weights and put on bulk than they used to, but there were big guys back then too. I don't recall the average weight difference.

So to say that Pau Gasol or Marc Gasol who are the best of the best couldn't absolutely shut down the league back then is simply wishful thinking. They may be outclassed by Wilt, or possible even Russell (unlikely), but they definitely would be significantly better than any non transcendent superstar.

Thing is that Wilt and Russel weren't the only hall of fame centers back then. I can't say where the Gasols would rank. They're skilled. But would they be better than Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond, Wes Unseld or Willis Reed? They wouldn't be better than Kareem, although he came into the league at the end of the 60s. Still, Kareem played most of those guys for several seasons.

[sundizz]

Maybe because people are always saying modern athletes are bigger, stronger and faster. They're not that much taller. I think the average is one inch difference. More players lift weights and put on bulk than they used to, but there were big guys back then too. I don't recall the average weight difference.



Thing is that Wilt and Russel weren't the only hall of fame centers back then. I can't say where the Gasols would rank. They're skilled. But would they be better than Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond, Wes Unseld or Willis Reed? They wouldn't be better than Kareem, although he came into the league at the end of the 60s. Still, Kareem played most of those guys for several seasons.

No one but idiots say that modern athletes are that much bigger, stronger, or faster. And in basketball being skinny is just fine. We didn't evolve physically that much.

The point being made is not that the current era players are genetically superior, but rather that they face more people to get to where they are.

Those players may be Hall of Famers, but that is based on stats and achievements (which they should get props for), not on how good they are in comparison to all players that have ever played basketball.

If you were a GM of a team and they said you can pick 12 players to put on your team.
Pool A: 500 players
Pool B: 20,000 players

Wouldn't it make sense that maybe you'd take maybe 1 or 2 (e.g., Wilt) max from Pool A and 10+ from Pool B?

[dankok8]

No one but idiots say that modern athletes are that much bigger, stronger, or faster. And in basketball being skinny is just fine. We didn't evolve physically that much.

The point being made is not that the current era players are genetically superior, but rather that they face more people to get to where they are.

Those players may be Hall of Famers, but that is based on stats and achievements (which they should get props for), not on how good they are in comparison to all players that have ever played basketball.

If you were a GM of a team and they said you can pick 12 players to put on your team.
Pool A: 500 players
Pool B: 20,000 players

Wouldn't it make sense that maybe you'd take maybe 1 or 2 (e.g., Wilt) max from Pool A and 10+ from Pool B?

I see the point you're trying to make about the size of the talent pool but it's not 40:1. It's really the international players (who comprise like 10% of the NBA?) who they didn't have it back then but in the US basketball was very developed and popular in the past era. The talent pool might have 3-5 times smaller. Not 40 times.

Besides you should also take into account the smaller size of the league in the 60's.

8-team league x15 = 120 players
30-team league x15 = 450 players

It was much tougher to make the NBA when there are almost 4 times fewer spots! Talent in the NBA was therefore much more concentrated back then and makes up for (not sure to what degree?) the smaller talent pool you're taking about.

[sundizz]

I see the point you're trying to make about the size of the talent pool but it's not 40:1. It's really the international players (who comprise like 10% of the NBA?) who they didn't have it back then but in the US basketball was very developed and popular in the past era. The talent pool might have 3-5 times smaller. Not 40 times.

Besides you should also take into account the smaller size of the league in the 60's.

8-team league x15 = 120 players
30-team league x15 = 450 players

It was much tougher to make the NBA when there are almost 4 times fewer spots! Talent in the NBA was therefore much more concentrated back then and makes up for (not sure to what degree?) the smaller talent pool you're taking about.

Completely disagree. Making the NBA wasn't a dream to many young kids at that time (say born 1940). There wasn't the financial incentive + mass appeal that is has nowadays. It is actually much more than 40:1 when you take into account the whole world. Nowadays, probably 1/10 male kid wants to be a NBA player when they grow up.

All those random close to 7 footers around the world that are bball players in this era were just random tall people back in that day. Most of them had no way to even get the training or even attempt to play hoops (especially if they were foreign).

[jongib369]

I'm curious? He mentions it all the time in regards to these old players like their size has something to do with how good they would be today.

If you look at the roster of all 64 of the NCAA teams from last year's NCAA tournament, and even at the 351 D-1 schools total almost all of them have someone that is 6'11, 250+ hanging around on their team.

Height and size alone really tells us no story about how good those 60's players were.

All we know as a fact is that those centers back then faced far far far far far far far far less competition to make it to the NBA.

For anyone that has played basketball they know just how easy it is to put up stats when you are significantly better than 8 of the 10 players on the floor. Most of those clips seem to indicate their were a few players that were very good (the level of good is impossible to say) and a lot of amateur level players.

I can't seem to figure it out, but I'd say to make the current NBA as a big man you probably have to be the best out of 10,000 other big men (pure guess). Back then, you probably had to be the best out of 500 big men.

So to say that Pau Gasol or Marc Gasol who are the best of the best couldn't absolutely shut down the league back then is simply wishful thinking. They may be outclassed by Wilt, or possible even Russell (unlikely), but they definitely would be significantly better than any non transcendent superstar.

How long ago do you think you're talking about?

I personally feel pretty young being 24. Obviously I'm a man, but it doesn't really feel like that much time to me.

When I was born, this was going on





And just 24 years before that, this was going on






You could argue that "But this was 24 years before that breh



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yHaSXuMFa8"

But I'd argue that this was before the professionalization of the sport, but it was a well developed and played at the College, Highschool, and even younger level. The pros didn't get to truly see that until the money was worth it. But the love of the game had been rooted for a while at that point

For instance, people of your opinion(Not that it is yours specifically) I would assume think hardly anyone played back then. I'd go as far as to say some people think women teams were RARE

Buuuuut

"http://www.iptv.org/iowastories/detail.cfm/sixonsix takes a look back at girls' 6-on-6 basketball and what it meant to generations of young women who played it. One of the most acclaimed sports in Iowa history, 6-on-6 was especially popular in small towns. It was there that young women became queens of the court, where communities ralled behind their daughters, and where school leaders, mostly male, fought for girls' equality. Like nowhere else in the country, young women in Iowa have played the game of basketball for over a century.

In 1993, the era of girls' 6-on-6 basketball came to an end. The game was unique. The girls who played it and the rural communities that loved it were part of an experience that may never again be replicated in any sport, by either gender. For Iowans, it was More Than a Game."

http://www.iptv.org/iowastories/detail.cfm/sixonsix

| 6 on 6

1948 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C3HZfhM8EM

VS

1982
http://youtu.be/xHu8QeVbeLc

Six-on-six basketball or basquette is a largely archaic variant of women's basketball. It is played with the same rules as regular basketball, with the following exceptions:

Teams have six players each instead of five; three "forwards" and three "guards".
Only forwards are allowed to shoot the ball. Forwards must stay in their teams' frontcourt (the side of the court they shoot from) and guards must stay in their team's backcourt. For example, Team A's forwards would be on the left side of the court with Team B's guards on defense. Team B's forwards are on the right side of the court with Team A's guards. Thus, forwards play only offense and guards play only defense.
In some forms, unlimited dribbling is not allowed. Once in possession of the ball, players may dribble the ball up to two times; at that point, the player must shoot (if a forward) or pass to a teammate. Both forwards and guards may handle the ball.

|

While the league HAS progressed in some ways, IMO the changes we see is more so because of enforcing the rules differently, and new elements of the game added like the 3. I'm sure you're more than aware of how they called offensive fouls back then, or how strict they were with carrying/palming.

Example of foul calling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH8tpl04EDI

I can only see so many NBA level talents with the right measurements being born even with the increase in population. Maybe better lower tier, or middle of the road players. But the best, or even Elite players are that much rarer. In the case of bigmen specifically this is amplified even more so.

Just to get an idea of your positioning, bold the players you think would lose their spot due to Marc, or Pau getting placed on their team as they are today in their era. Not going to name everyone but here's a few guys who played in the pros, or college during the 1960s

Wilt
Russell
Thurmond
Kareem
Bellemy
Reed
Unseld
Hayes
Gilmore
Hayes
Haywood
Lucas
McAdoo
DeBusschere
Pettit
Lanier
Walton
Cowens
Kerr
Lovelette
Smith
Boerwinkle
Smith


Repeating...If they never added the 3, or let up on some rules I'm under the impression that the game would look more or less the same, somewhat similar to that girls basketball videos I posted. With the luxuries that come with playing today, like better conditions, different strategies, etc the game has progressed. But otherwise, it's a luck of the draw what kind of great, or elite players a generation will bring....And depending on how the game is being played, it may never cater to their strengths. For example take a stretch 4 who can put it on the floor like a guard to an extent. Most likely, he's a tad 'clumsy' with the ball in comparison to smaller players, taking advantage of todays dribbling rules to an extent... The rules of the 60s wouldn't cater to him. Not that he couldn't ever pull it off, it's just that because of there being no 3, the spacing, coaches stances on what players tat size should do wouldn't cater to him. And the same can be said about some who fit in the 50's/60s trying to play todays expression of the game.


If you want to knock past NBA/pro players achievements with that logic, the 40's and 50s before they integrated, or had the shot clock is where the finger should be pointed.

There's so much more I can say, and better points that I could have made but I only have so much time. This isn't simple or clear cut, and IMO neither of us are completely wrong or right. Hate sounding like a politician

[swagga]

I'm curious? He mentions it all the time in regards to these old players like their size has something to do with how good they would be today.

If you look at the roster of all 64 of the NCAA teams from last year's NCAA tournament, and even at the 351 D-1 schools total almost all of them have someone that is 6'11, 250+ hanging around on their team.

Height and size alone really tells us no story about how good those 60's players were.

All we know as a fact is that those centers back then faced far far far far far far far far less competition to make it to the NBA.

For anyone that has played basketball they know just how easy it is to put up stats when you are significantly better than 8 of the 10 players on the floor. Most of those clips seem to indicate their were a few players that were very good (the level of good is impossible to say) and a lot of amateur level players.

I can't seem to figure it out, but I'd say to make the current NBA as a big man you probably have to be the best out of 10,000 other big men (pure guess). Back then, you probably had to be the best out of 500 big men.

So to say that Pau Gasol or Marc Gasol who are the best of the best couldn't absolutely shut down the league back then is simply wishful thinking. They may be outclassed by Wilt, or possible even Russell (unlikely), but they definitely would be significantly better than any non transcendent superstar.

white boy is obssessed with old big nigggas... something big and black really left him butthurt when he was young. .. that's why.

[sundizz]

Jongbi you brought us some awesome points. Good to know. I'm not of that era so I have no idea the reality of how often people played basketball in that era.

So, would you say that a similar amount of kids played basketball back then as they do today? That actually makes sense to me because back then people did athletic stuff for fun (no other options) even though becoming a pro wasn't a big goal.

Mainly, did most high schools in 1950 have a basketball team?

I can agree with all of that actually. The only point that I think a lot of people miss is the huge statistical difference in the population pool you are drawing from also.

1940: 133 million people
1960: 180 million people
2015: 319 million people

In that early time period the BEST of the BEST was out of of a much smaller population pool. In the current period the best is drawn out 2x the size population, with much more exposure given to each kid, more sport specific training, and the big plus of also having to compete against the rest of the world for these NBA spots.

So, regardless of how it is thought about it makes no sense that the talent pool back then could of been even remotely close to what it is now. Every advantage of population size, exposure, sport specific training, competition etc is given now. A 6'10 player that made the NBA today has gone through so many more levels of players than the player back then.

It really doesn't mean anything except that in a statistical sample average, a player from the 2015 NBA is significantly better than the player from the 1960's. Just like in any set of data there are outliers (e.g., Wilt).

Let's put it this way. Transport to today all the 120 players from 64-65 season. GMS's have to choose between the existing 450 players in the 15-16 season and the 120 players from the 64-65 season for roster spots.

Likely, it'd end up like 430 players of current players and 20 players from the past era (taken on pure potential).

[dankok8]

Let's put it this way. Transport to today all the 120 players from 64-65 season. GMS's have to choose between the existing 450 players in the 15-16 season and the 120 players from the 64-65 season for roster spots.

Likely, it'd end up like 430 players of current players and 20 players from the past era (taken on pure potential).

So essentially you're saying that the worst 10% of players today (worst 45) are on average better than some of the all-stars from 64-65 (top 24 make the all-star game). You're telling me that some total scrub I've never even heard of is as good as a regular all-star like Jerry Lucas. That Brian Scalabrine would make today's league over a guy like Lucas.

Sorry I don't buy it.

You arguments are not flawed but you're exaggerating it beyond belief. The larger size of the population (double), more popularity, and better training is largely balanced out by a much much larger league today. Imagine if today's NBA was condensed to just 120 best players on 8 teams. How strong the league would be...

On average, today's best 120 are better than the 120 from 1965 but today's 450 are probably not better than the 120 from 1965. Not likely anyways.

[sundizz]

So essentially you're saying that the worst 10% of players today (worst 45) are on average better than some of the all-stars from 64-65 (top 24 make the all-star game). You're telling me that some total scrub I've never even heard of is as good as a regular all-star like Jerry Lucas. That Brian Scalabrine would make today's league over a guy like Lucas.

Sorry I don't buy it.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Also, they only had that many players because people had to go work. They couldn't get enough guys to play to get a bigger league. You know like when you go to the park but there are only 9 guys...it sucks, but you can't play.

[DatAsh]

You're right that making into the NBA is much more difficult today than it was back then, even with more teams. The biggest factor by far is financial incentive; even the worst players in the league today are millionaires - several times over. Population growth and international interest also heavily increase the competition, though no where near as much as the financial incentive.

The issue is...players can't control when they're born, so is it really fair to penalize them for that?

[jongib369]

Jongbi you brought us some awesome points. Good to know. I'm not of that era so I have no idea the reality of how often people played basketball in that era.

So, would you say that a similar amount of kids played basketball back then as they do today? That actually makes sense to me because back then people did athletic stuff for fun (no other options) even though becoming a pro wasn't a big goal.

Mainly, did most high schools in 1950 have a basketball team?

I can agree with all of that actually. The only point that I think a lot of people miss is the huge statistical difference in the population pool you are drawing from also.

1940: 133 million people
1960: 180 million people
2015: 319 million people

In that early time period the BEST of the BEST was out of of a much smaller population pool. In the current period the best is drawn out 2x the size population, with much more exposure given to each kid, more sport specific training, and the big plus of also having to compete against the rest of the world for these NBA spots.

So, regardless of how it is thought about it makes no sense that the talent pool back then could of been even remotely close to what it is now. Every advantage of population size, exposure, sport specific training, competition etc is given now. A 6'10 player that made the NBA today has gone through so many more levels of players than the player back then.

It really doesn't mean anything except that in a statistical sample average, a player from the 2015 NBA is significantly better than the player from the 1960's. Just like in any set of data there are outliers (e.g., Wilt).

Let's put it this way. Transport to today all the 120 players from 64-65 season. GMS's have to choose between the existing 450 players in the 15-16 season and the 120 players from the 64-65 season for roster spots.

Likely, it'd end up like 430 players of current players and 20 players from the past era (taken on pure potential).

I want to ask you something again just to get an idea of where you're standing

[COLOR="Red"]Wilt 1936 128.05 million[/COLOR]

Kareem 1947 144.13 million |[COLOR="Red"]Difference 70.66 Million, 27 years[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Red"]Jordan 1963 189.24 million[/COLOR]

.............[COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"]1967 198.71 million [/COLOR]

Shaq 1972 209.90 million |[COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"]Difference 54.27 Million, 24 years[/COLOR]

............[COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"]1991[/COLOR] [COLOR="Blue"]252.98 million[/COLOR]

|[COLOR="Blue"]Difference 68.21 Million, 24 years[/COLOR]
.............[COLOR="Blue"]2015[/COLOR] [COLOR="DarkOrchid"]321.19 million[/COLOR]
..........|[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Difference 116.81 Million 35 years[/COLOR]
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Projection 2050 438.00 Million[/COLOR]

24 years separated Wilts first chip, and Jordans....Will Shaq, Dwight, Cousins, or w.e big man you can think of be just okay in 2039? Or how about Kobe in 2063, 48 years from now. The time between Wilts first chip and now...Will he not be able to make the league because of there being too many players similar to Jordan...All of the skills Kobe has, but physically more gifted therefore rendering Kobe obsolete?

[jongib369]

LeBrons all time ranking is in biiig trouble, as it's more likely for his body type and athleticism to come around than it is a Wilt/Shaq type. He's made some great improvements these last few years, but let's face it...Eventually there will be a ton of guys with LeBrons advantages today, but with more skill. Think a Lebron/Kobe/Duncan/Iverson hybrid

Save up on the adult diapers now guys, cuz you're going to be shitting your pants on the daily with the level of basketball we will witness in 24 years.

Our kids, and Grand kids will think we're betas. Awesome.

[Jameerthefear]

no one is saying wilt is garbage. they are saying his competition was, and it WAS.

[jongib369]

no one is saying wilt is garbage. they are saying his competition was, and it WAS.

So is Shaq not that great also? Considering Shaq never faced his top competition as much as Wilt? Which includes the likes of Nate Thurmond in his prime, who while older defended Kareem better than anyone else could, holding him below 50%. Something Hakeem, nor Ewing could do.


WILT


Russell- 142

Bellamy- 108

reed 74

Nate- 64

Kareem- 28

unseld- 20

Lanier 16

Total= 452




SHAQ

Duncan 62

Robinson- 40

Mutombo-29

Hakeem- 28

Ewing- 26

Ming 18

Mourning 16


Total Games= 219

(Numbers might not be exact, but it's close. Counted the games when they actually played...Would have been more if I just counted the amount of times the teams faced