Mock Draft Chat

[MilkSpiller22]

Also can't wait until Bill Russell is drafted in our next draft and the discussions that will take place.

whose bill Russell?? whats basketball???

 

[Shanemansj13]

Also can't wait until Bill Russell is drafted in our next draft and the discussions that will take place.

And whoever drafts him is going to lose. Most overrrated sack of shit. Draymond 2.0

 

[Mookie]

You gave him a dislike. You must have fat fingers lolzzz

Ah...the dislike was on purpose. Whereas I get his point and agree to a certain extent, I don't like definitive statements like "none of them would be more dominant than Ruth on an even playing field". I mean maybe...maybe not. I do believe there are better athletes walking the earth today than there were 100 years ago outside of just nutrition and training. And there are way more of them playing competitive sports. So even with all the advantages you still have to beat out a larger crop of athletes who also have those same advantages. I mean I'm sure Bob Cousy would have learned to shoot a jumpshot instead of a set shot and would have learned to dribble with both hands instead of just his right, but I'd rather draft a modern option and not have to hypothesize what or what not Cousy would have become. Apples to apples, if you teleported Bob Cousy into today's NBA, he would get completely embarrassed out there imo. I just lean heavily modern with a few exceptions in my philosophy on who the best athletes are. I think Ruth would still be great today. I'm not as confident that the old school pitchers would do as well today if they had the benefit of all the modern advances.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

And whoever drafts him is going to lose. Most overrrated sack of shit. Draymond 2.0

But if you draft Ben Wallace you might win it all...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Ah...the dislike was on purpose. Whereas I get his point and agree to a certain extent, I don't like definitive statements like "none of them would be more dominant than Ruth on an even playing field". I mean maybe...maybe not. I do believe there are better athletes walking the earth today than there were 100 years ago outside of just nutrition and training. And there are way more of them playing competitive sports. So even with all the advantages you still have to beat out a larger crop of athletes who also have those same advantages. I mean I'm sure Bob Cousy would have learned to shoot a jumpshot instead of a set shot and would have learned to dribble with both hands instead of just his right, but I'd rather draft a modern option and not have to hypothesize what or what not Cousy would have become. Apples to apples, if you teleported Bob Cousy into today's NBA, he would get completely embarrassed out there imo. I just lean heavily modern with a few exceptions in my philosophy on who the best athletes are. I think Ruth would still be great today. I'm not as confident that the old school pitchers would do as well today if they had the benefit of all the modern advances.

I think Greats would be at least AS level in any era... Its more that their stats would not be as good in any era... I mean, it is not a coincidence that we haven't seen a .400 BA in decades...

Its not the BEST players that are different, it is the average player... The average player is much better today than the average player decades ago...

 

[CitySushi]

But if you draft Ben Wallace you might win it all...

Yeah I hate that damn logic. Him and Mutumbo. Both great individual defenders, but neither of them had to defend on the perimeter too. Defensive specialists are too highly regarded in NBA drafts, IMO. Great scoring always beats great defense. Even when the Pistons beat the Lakers in the NBA finals, look at Shaq's scoring numbers against Wallace. He had a FG% of 63.1 and scored 26.6 PPG. And Shaq was ridiculously out of shape that whole season.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Ah...the dislike was on purpose. Whereas I get his point and agree to a certain extent, I don't like definitive statements like "none of them would be more dominant than Ruth on an even playing field". I mean maybe...maybe not. I do believe there are better athletes walking the earth today than there were 100 years ago outside of just nutrition and training. And there are way more of them playing competitive sports. So even with all the advantages you still have to beat out a larger crop of athletes who also have those same advantages. I mean I'm sure Bob Cousy would have learned to shoot a jumpshot instead of a set shot and would have learned to dribble with both hands instead of just his right, but I'd rather draft a modern option and not have to hypothesize what or what not Cousy would have become. Apples to apples, if you teleported Bob Cousy into today's NBA, he would get completely embarrassed out there imo. I just lean heavily modern with a few exceptions in my philosophy on who the best athletes are. I think Ruth would still be great today. I'm not as confident that the old school pitchers would do as well today if they had the benefit of all the modern advances.

I agree with your logic for most sports but not baseball. If you could hit, you could hit. If you could pitch, you could pitch. Sure they have computers and all these advanced metrics that tell them what pitches are most effective now. You have to look at it like this:

In the 1990's all the players had the same resources: walter and babe dominated.
In the 2000's all the players have the same resources, more competition? You could definitely say so. I didn't see many players dominating like those two players dominated, even for the last 50-60 years imo

 

[CitySushi]

And whoever drafts him is going to lose. Most overrrated sack of shit. Draymond 2.0

 

[Mookie]

@UK Cowboy fwiw I didn't mean to be harsh with the dislike button but I didn't see a "I slightly disagree" button

 

[CitySushi]

@UK Cowboy fwiw I didn't mean to be harsh with the dislike button but I didn't see a "I slightly disagree" button

Use the @Nosferatu button, aka the Rainbow.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Yeah I hate that damn logic. Him and Mutumbo. Both great individual defenders, but neither of them had to defend on the perimeter too. Defensive specialists are too highly regarded in NBA drafts, IMO. Great scoring always beats great defense. Even when the Pistons beat the Lakers in the NBA finals, look at Shaq's scoring numbers against Wallace. He had a FG% of 63.1 and scored 26.6 PPG. And Shaq was ridiculously out of shape that whole season.

That's why now in the NBA you see offense and scheme dominating, I will say the rule changes didn't help, but for the most part you need a great offense, shooters, scorers to win.

 

[Nosferatu]

Use the @Nosferatu button, aka the Rainbow.

 

[Mookie]

I agree with your logic for most sports but not baseball. If you could hit, you could hit. If you could pitch, you could pitch. Sure they have computers and all these advanced metrics that tell them what pitches are most effective now. You have to look at it like this:

In the 1990's all the players had the same resources: walter and babe dominated.
In the 2000's all the players have the same resources, more competition? You could definitely say so. I didn't see many players dominating like those two players dominated, even for the last 50-60 years imo

I agree that baseball is one of the most evolution proof sports as it does rely heavier on hand eye coordination and less on raw athleticism than other sports, but I think the overall level of competition being raised over the last century would equate to the old school numbers not really being close today to what they were then.

 

[CitySushi]

That's why now in the NBA you see offense and scheme dominating, I will say the rule changes didn't help, but for the most part you need a great offense, shooters, scorers to win.

Its hard to compare today's rules where you can't touch a guy at all to previous generations, but I do agree with scheme. Today's offenses are MUCH more sophisticated, and players are much more skilled than in previous generations. Even if say you put a guy like KAT in the 80's he's going to DOMINATE most bigs just based on his skillset alone.

Basketball is a sport that's basically evolved so much of its run that it's sort of impossible to use older generations to compare. Baseball and football for the most part, have at least held the majority of the same rules. Basketball's continually changing and it makes it almost impossible to compare.

 

[Nosferatu]

I'm not as confident that the old school pitchers would do as well today if they had the benefit of all the modern advances.

Based on?

 

[CitySushi]

Based on?

Based upon they'd be dead right now.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Idk if he was complimenting you...

 

[Mookie]

Based on?

Lack of confidence in them mastering the additional pitches they would need to be AS successful again today's hitters. I find it more reasonable to think that most of the old greats would still be good but not have near the level of success they had against their own era.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Lack of confidence in them mastering the additional pitches they would need to be AS successful again today's hitters. I find it more reasonable to think that most of the old greats would still be good but not have near the level of success they had against their own era.

I don't think their stats would be as inflated but as far as being great in any era I don't doubt they would still be great and dominating.

I mean I look at it like this way, the great players in every sport would most likely be great in any decade, although there are exceptions like Bill Russell. He was an undersized player in an 8 team league. He was a great rebounder and defender but he couldn't score in his era, imagine him in today's era. He would be Draymond Green essentially, that is just one example.

I believe Walter Johnson would be just as dominating now, the stats wouldn't look as dominating possibly imo. That's just my take on it

 

[femurov]

Also can't wait until Bill Russell is drafted in our next draft and the discussions that will take place.

I want to see their reaction when they learn that Peja > Elgin Baylor