Who looks better at the game of basketball: Butch Komives vs Mathew Dellavadova

[CavaliersFTW]

Without getting into advanced metrics and all that stuff, just visualize these two players skill sets and physical qualities in an NBA game. Both players about the same size, both play guard, both actually look like they play with very similar energy:

Mathew Dellavedova:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8jN53qx7Q

Butch Komives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8KowkGMiBw

My thoughts when watching the footage is Komives seems to use screens better like in P&R situations, and have better reach and timing with his hands defensively being that he actually accumulates two blocked shots and 2 steals on top of being under his oppositions shirt. Dellavadova hustles with similar intensity as Komives, but has only blocked 7 shots in his entire career so I'm guessing he doesn't have the reach or timing of Komives on that end. Komives is statistically on average, the superior player. But not by much. Then again, he only looks better than Dellavedova "not by by much". Their attempted shooting ranges are different as a result of this being a 3 point era - where there is incentive to shoot 23 feet out - to the 60's 2 point era, where the incentive was to just get the ball in as close as reasonably possible. The slight edge Komives appears to have in capabilities shows up as one would expect in their earned minutes per game and role each had/has been allowed to that/this point in their careers.

So one assumption I've often heard online whenever I share highlights of Wilt, Russell, West, Robertson, Baylor etc is that they could play in any era, or be time traveled and do fine, or w/e. However a fair number of fans are of the assumption that the "average" players and non all-stars rounding out rosters back in those days must've been worse than the similar situation players today. I could be wrong but I think this assumption is a means to rationalize the different numbers such as the increased amount of rebounds and what not. I feel the rule and talent culture changes in the game, as well as the impact of roles within a team and what not offers a more convincing explanation about why numbers of superstars such as Bill Russell's rebounds can look so drastically different era to era. I think NBA talent, at least from the late 60's to the present, still looks an awful lot like NBA talent today. Be it role players, stars, or superstars.

Anyways, I'm of course open to be wrong and criticized so I'll leave this discussion open for you guys to watch some of the film and add your two cents on things I may have overlooked.

[CavaliersFTW]

[sundizz]

Without getting into advanced metrics and all that stuff, just visualize these two players skill sets and physical qualities in an NBA game. Both players about the same size, both play guard, both actually look like they play with very similar energy:

Mathew Dellavedova:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8jN53qx7Q

Butch Komives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8KowkGMiBw

My thoughts when watching the footage is Komives seems to use screens better like in P&R situations, and have better reach and timing with his hands defensively being that he actually accumulates two blocked shots and 2 steals on top of being under his oppositions shirt. Dellavadova hustles with similar intensity as Komives, but has only blocked 7 shots in his entire career so I'm guessing he doesn't have the reach or timing of Komives on that end. Komives is statistically on average, the superior player. But not by much. Then again, he only looks better than Dellavedova "not by by much". Their attempted shooting ranges are different as a result of this being a 3 point era - where there is incentive to shoot 23 feet out - to the 60's 2 point era, where the incentive was to just get the ball in as close as reasonably possible. The slight edge Komives appears to have in capabilities shows up as one would expect in their earned minutes per game and role each had/has been allowed to that/this point in their careers.

So one assumption I've often heard online whenever I share highlights of Wilt, Russell, West, Robertson, Baylor etc is that they could play in any era, or be time traveled and do fine, or w/e. However a fair number of fans are of the assumption that the "average" players and non all-stars rounding out rosters back in those days must've been worse than the similar situation players today. I could be wrong but I think this assumption is a means to rationalize the different numbers such as the increased amount of rebounds and what not. I feel the rule and talent culture changes in the game, as well as the impact of roles within a team and what not offers a more convincing explanation about why numbers of superstars such as Bill Russell's rebounds can look so drastically different era to era. I think NBA talent, at least from the late 60's to the present, still looks an awful lot like NBA talent today. Be it role players, stars, or superstars.

Anyways, I'm of course open to be wrong and criticized so I'll leave this discussion open for you guys to watch some of the film and add your two cents on things I may have overlooked.

I honestly really like your analysis and videos but you often sound like someone that doesn't understand the game that well from an intense competition level perspective.

I played hoops yesterday against a kid that is about to be a freshman in high school and has a brother in the NBA. This kid was 6 ft tall, with lanky arms, and could already do put back slams in a live game, dribble really well, and shoot from anywhere with good consistency.

Even though there are generational superstars, it makes absolutely no sense that the other 9 to 11 players on a team where even remotely close to what the talent level is in today's NBA. The sheer # of players that play hoops now dwarfs how many played then - choosing from a significantly larger talent pool = better talent except for outliers like a Wilt or Russell.

6'5 with elite athleticism +skills back in those days does not equate to 6'5 with elite athleticism +skills in today's game. It just does not. The 6'5 guy from back then didn't get weeded out by better players before he got to the NBA. The 6'5 guy of today faces worldwide talent and has to prove his ability time and time again to get to where he is (the NBA).

The only possible place that your analysis could still make sense for is for 7 foot players. Even now, they are still somewhat of a rarity (true 7 footers). For any non ridiculously big guy though your analysis makes no sense.

A normal NBA player now would have to beat out upwards of 10 million (random guess) players to get to where he is in his lifetime.

A normal NBA player of back then would of had to beat out 500,000.

The #'s are just made up, but serve to illustrate the why.

As someone that plays basketball doesn't it make sense that you are good in certain leagues. Their can be a superstar player or two, but as long as the rest of the players are at your level you can still play.

However, if you move up to a better league the superstar level players could still be just that, superstars, but now you would be terrible.

[navy]

I honestly really like your analysis and videos but you often sound like someone that doesn't understand the game that well from an intense competition level perspective.

I played hoops yesterday against a kid that is about to be a freshman in high school and has a brother in the NBA. This kid was 6 ft tall, with lanky arms, and could already do put back slams in a live game, dribble really well, and shoot from anywhere with good consistency.

Even though there are generational superstars, it makes absolutely no sense that the other 9 to 11 players on a team where even remotely close to what the talent level is in today's NBA. The sheer # of players that play hoops now dwarfs how many played then - choosing from a significantly larger talent pool = better talent except for outliers like a Wilt or Russell.

6'5 with elite athleticism +skills back in those days does not equate to 6'5 with elite athleticism +skills in today's game. It just does not. The 6'5 guy from back then didn't get weeded out by better players before he got to the NBA. The 6'5 guy of today faces worldwide talent and has to prove his ability time and time again to get to where he is (the NBA).

The only possible place that your analysis could still make sense for is for 7 foot players. Even now, they are still somewhat of a rarity (true 7 footers). For any non ridiculously big guy though your analysis makes no sense.

A normal NBA player now would have to beat out upwards of 10 million (random guess) players to get to where he is in his lifetime.

A normal NBA player of back then would of had to beat out 500,000.

The #'s are just made up, but serve to illustrate the why.

As someone that plays basketball doesn't it make sense that you are good in certain leagues. Their can be a superstar player or two, but as long as the rest of the players are at your level you can still play.

However, if you move up to a better league the superstar level players could still be just that, superstars, but now you would be terrible.

Not only that, but he mentioned that they look the same. When you play basketball, you can see people that look better than NBA superstars in many aspects of the game. Dribbling, passing, footwork. It doesnt mean shit, these are some the first guys that will tell you that they just flat out werent good enough. If you think the 60s talent level was the same, then more power to you I guess. Most people dont. Obviously there are exceptions especially for someone like Wilt.

[CavaliersFTW]

I honestly really like your analysis and videos but you often sound like someone that doesn't understand the game that well from an intense competition level perspective.

I played hoops yesterday against a kid that is about to be a freshman in high school and has a brother in the NBA. This kid was 6 ft tall, with lanky arms, and could already do put back slams in a live game, dribble really well, and shoot from anywhere with good consistency.

Even though there are generational superstars, it makes absolutely no sense that the other 9 to 11 players on a team where even remotely close to what the talent level is in today's NBA. The sheer # of players that play hoops now dwarfs how many played then - choosing from a significantly larger talent pool = better talent except for outliers like a Wilt or Russell.

6'5 with elite athleticism +skills back in those days does not equate to 6'5 with elite athleticism +skills in today's game. It just does not. The 6'5 guy from back then didn't get weeded out by better players before he got to the NBA. The 6'5 guy of today faces worldwide talent and has to prove his ability time and time again to get to where he is (the NBA).

The only possible place that your analysis could still make sense for is for 7 foot players. Even now, they are still somewhat of a rarity (true 7 footers). For any non ridiculously big guy though your analysis makes no sense.

A normal NBA player now would have to beat out upwards of 10 million (random guess) players to get to where he is in his lifetime.

A normal NBA player of back then would of had to beat out 500,000.

The #'s are just made up, but serve to illustrate the why.

As someone that plays basketball doesn't it make sense that you are good in certain leagues. Their can be a superstar player or two, but as long as the rest of the players are at your level you can still play.

However, if you move up to a better league the superstar level players could still be just that, superstars, but now you would be terrible.

Why not just watch how they play basketball. If your assumptions were true, a guy like Mathew Dellavadova should look superior to a guy like Butch Komives... The ground he covers, the radius he plays effective defense, his ability to create space or utilize screens, his vision to hit open players. However, his talent and skills do not look superior. They both look and play very similar. One is NBA talent from 40 years ago, one is NBA talent right now. I know you've created this narrative of why you THINK Komives should look/be a lot worse of a player... but what happens when watching him, he doesn't appear to be? Maybe some of your assumptions, though they sound nice on paper, aren't all that relevant?

He's driving on Kareem, he's not playing bums, in fact he's playing against other guys that look like legitimate NBA talent. I think I provide a valid question. You generate all these assumptions that are popularly discussed as a means to dismiss basketball players of that time. But the film doesn't really back up your conclusions, does it?

[CavaliersFTW]

Not only that, but he mentioned that they look the same. When you play basketball, you can see people that look better than NBA superstars in many aspects of the game. Dribbling, passing, footwork. It doesnt mean shit, these are some the first guys that will tell you that they just flat out werent good enough. If you think the 60s talent level was the same, then more power to you I guess. Most people dont. Obviously there are exceptions especially for someone like Wilt.

What is Dellavadova doing in the NBA on the court that Komives isn't. Watch the film, look at the moves, what does Delly do to make him superior?

[navy]

What is Dellavadova doing in the NBA on the court that Komives isn't. Watch the film, look at the moves, what does Delly do to make him superior?

Delly's a scrub and I have no idea who Komives is. Im not gonna say who I think is better. Its probably Komives.

Like I said, I can post high school mixtapes of players looking like superstars in all facets of the game. Doesnt mean shit.

[CavaliersFTW]

Before you guys post walls and walls of text about "if then" logic, just watch the film. You guys must craft these "if then" arguments before you ever even watch an honest amount of film of the players you are so ready to dismiss. You want to treat guys who played back then as nobodies save for like the top 3 players. What does Mathew Dellavadova do that Butch Komives doesn't, simple question - with film to watch.

Here I'll help:

Butch Komives does not display: A modern 3 point range shot.

And the simple counter?: Because there wasn't incentive to do so in his era.

His floaters in the lane? Same. His dribble penetration, ability to create space, and handle? Same. His apparent size/athleticism and ability to cover ground? Same. His hustle/effort/energy, fighting through screens and the like? All looks pretty much the same.

And his length/timing with his hands on defense looks superior. Blocks 2 perimeter players shots in one game, to Dellavadova's 7 for his entire career.

This is not some "if then" circular argument... this is watching the film of them playing the game and being surprised that one guy 40 years ago who nobody today has ever heard of looks no less good at the game of basketball as a guy playing the game of basketball in the highest league today.

[FatComputerNerd]

Delly is no scrub

[CavaliersFTW]

Delly's a scrub and I have no idea who Komives is. Im not gonna say who I think is better. Its probably Komives.

Like I said, I can post high school mixtapes of players looking like superstars in all facets of the game. Doesnt mean shit.

This is not a high school mix-tape, this is a single game highlight. And any high school player today's single game highlight is not playing against players like Kareem.

I can post highlights of every player in that 1969 game and show you how they ALL play, on both ends. There's no opportunity to get exposed here, like one could if they tried to pass off a highschooler with a hot hand's highlights as legit NBA level. You can't really post a single game highlight of some high school player that's lighting up a gym, and expect it to look like NBA footage because of who they're playing against - the entire roster of competition. I can, and am starting to do highlights of anyone who put up say, 5+ points for 60's and early 70's games that I've got on film.

And I'm not just talking about putting up stats... I'm talking about analyzing how they are scoring points, how they are reading the offense, how they handle the ball and are able to create space, etc. These are things that can be used to evaluate talent no matter who the competition is, it isn't just footage of some physically superior high schooler with a step and a reach advantage on all the rest of the talent scoring 30 points with half of them looking like an uncontested layup line.

[CavaliersFTW]

Here's what I think based on all the film I've seen so far. And I will be posting much more of it in the future.

I think a lot of players from the 60's and 70's could likely "play today", with limited adjustments to their game. I mean top to bottom tier players too, not just the superstars. I don't know how much, I couldn't put a figure on it, but a lot of them look really good - not just the superstars. It all depends on how they play - as the game today is a slightly different expression of the game that was once played. Certain players styles today might translate well to that era, and visa versa. Some might translate more poorly going from one era to the other, but that also goes visa versa.

I think the biggest handicap the majority of players of that time would face is in the initial polish of the range of their 23 foot shots. Because most of them did not practice shooting that far out for obvious reasons. But you don't necessarily "need" a 3 point shot right away in the NBA today, if you offer other things with your talent/skillset - and players today often "develop" that shot as they adjust to the NBA game anyways out of college or HS. The other thing is, everyone would need to adapt to playing defense more with their legs/feet than with their hands. Hand checking is gone, so you have to be on point with your footwork. Rule changes in play here. I think they'd all benefit offensively from the lack of ball handling and traveling calls given today, as well as not getting hand checked offensively. This would grant them less pressure when handling the ball and thus more time to set up for careful, higher percentage shots at a lower pace. Also, they could run right over players a lot more often in this era. Charges were called more in the 60's and 70's and with a lot less contact, the incentive was to not attempt to draw contact with your defender because the defensive player often got the benefit call not the offensive player. Again though, all of this would be a "visa versa" if you tried to put a modern player back in that era. The game is just different.

As for talent? If there is a disparity in talent then vs now, which there very well might be if any of this circular argument hyperbole I often hear people fall on is valid, than just watching film indicates to me that the actual practical differences then vs now in talent are small. Not great. Which means under the right circumstances, a good deal of players that used to play NBA basketball at that time could likely find a spot on a roster in today's game, given some aforementioned time to adjust. Any one of those guys would benefit from PED's, a physical trainer, shooting coaches and a great pair of Nike's. And anyone of today's players games would suffer with b2b's on the road flying coach or driving by bus, playing in Chuck Taylor's. The actual talent I see on film? Not all that different. If there is an "average" of greater talent in the league today, well it's certainly possible perhaps even probable but the differences seem subtle and are on an individual by individual basis, as many players even non-noteworthy ones back then look like legitimate NBA tier basketball players in the 60's and 70's.

[Nash]

yes op i expect a lot of 15 year old ishers to give you a proper discussion about some guy named butch komives

[navy]

yes op i expect a lot of 15 year old ishers to give you a proper discussion about some guy named butch komives

I take it 15 year olds have seen about as much of Komives as CavsFTW has.

[iznogood]

I really don't get the point od this thread. Of course human race doesn't genetically evolve in such a short period od time, so I don't think there's a greater amount of talent available to one person. The changes imo come from the fact that the game is consistantly changing.

As for the comparison, I'd say Dellavedova looks much stronger to me. He's imo one of the best players at his playing position at denying the position and fronting taller players. But then his defense would be considered fouling back in the days so again this has more to do with the way basketball rules has changed. Probably his strength is above average though.

I also don't think a guard with the skillset level of the 60s could adapt in a decent amount of time to the style of basketball today, there's just too much stuff to absorb. Developing range and handles takes years. So I don't think you could put a rookie Butch Komives in the D-League and hope he would develop and be ready to play in a couple of years. If somebody with his level of talent started to practice at early age then I think he would have just as much chance as Dellavedova.

I think the task would be significantly easier for the bigs, even though I think many would struggle since battling for position was not nearly as physical back in the days as it is today. This is why I think length and height are not as important today. It's not going to help when you're constantly being bumped pushed from you sweet spots.

Also I'm not trying to speculate that modern players would thrive in the older eras or be more successful at adapting.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Dellavadova is much better. What you fail to grasp is that somebody playing against trash competition will look much better on tape to the untrained eye than somebody playing great competition. You seem to evaluate these players based on the assumption that they are playing against equal competition which is clearly not true.