NBA East-West Championship : Milk vs Nos

[ehb5]

Nos

 

[Pack 500]

Milky

 

[tlance]

Cmon guys.

I got Milk here. My East team was better than Nos' team. I got robbed!

 

[tlance]

Just a general comment:

While discussion on current players has certainly sparked quite the debate, I did want to bring up players from the 50s and 60s.

NBA salaries really started to rise quickly in the early 70s. In fact, in 1958, the average NBA salary was $12,000, and it was around $20,000 in 1968. That figure rose to $200,000 by the mid 70s as the sport became more popular. while these figures were still significant before 1970, they were not the life changing amounts of $ that they are today.

This is significant because for 2 reasons:

1) many high quality athletes chose other professions over pro basketball. The money was seen as a short term paycheck and not enough to set them up for life, as it is today.
2) today, talented players train from young ages because being a pro ball player is among the most coveted professions in the world. That simply was not the case back then. Basketball was viewed as a game or a hobby, where today many see it as a way out.

Because the game was not as popular then, there was not nearly as much talent to draw from. There were very few international players in the league, and also few black players. The level of competition was not nearly the same. Therefor, it is fair to conclude that players from those eras are overrated in the grand scheme of things.

Lastly, I am 37, so my only real exposure to this era of basketball is through stats and short film clips. From what I have seen from the 50s, I truly believe that Any average D3 player with a time machine could compete with NBA players from that era. The game was much slower, the athletes were not the same and the players lacked the knowledge and skills that today's players have. So when people say that 50's stars would dominate current players, I have to laugh. Bob Petit was awesome for his era, but he never saw anything like Anthony Davis or even Draymond Green.

Like any industry, coaching in the game of basketball has evolved tremendously. Today's stars could play in any era. I am not sure the same can be said for most players before 1960. Those guys were big fish in a relatively small pond. These guys are big fish in a large ocean.

End of rant.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Just a general comment:

While discussion on current players has certainly sparked quite the debate, I did want to bring up players from the 50s and 60s.

NBA salaries really started to rise quickly in the early 70s. In fact, in 1958, the average NBA salary was $12,000, and it was around $20,000 in 1968. That figure rose to $200,000 by the mid 70s as the sport became more popular. while these figures were still significant before 1970, they were not the life changing amounts of $ that they are today.

This is significant because for 2 reasons:

1) many high quality athletes chose other professions over pro basketball. The money was seen as a short term paycheck and not enough to set them up for life, as it is today.
2) today, talented players train from young ages because being a pro ball player is among the most coveted professions in the world. That simply was not the case back then. Basketball was viewed as a game or a hobby, where today many see it as a way out.

Because the game was not as popular then, there was not nearly as much talent to draw from. There were very few international players in the league, and also few black players. The level of competition was not nearly the same. Therefor, it is fair to conclude that players from those eras are overrated in the grand scheme of things.

Lastly, I am 37, so my only real exposure to this era of basketball is through stats and short film clips. From what I have seen from the 50s, I truly believe that Any average D3 player with a time machine could compete with NBA players from that era. The game was much slower, the athletes were not the same and the players lacked the knowledge and skills that today's players have. So when people say that 50's stars would dominate current players, I have to laugh. Bob Petit was awesome for his era, but he never saw anything like Anthony Davis or even Draymond Green.

Like any industry, coaching in the game of basketball has evolved tremendously. Today's stars could play in any era. I am not sure the same can be said for most players before 1960. Those guys were big fish in a relatively small pond. These guys are big fish in a large ocean.

End of rant.

On the other hand.....everyone knows that MJ is the greatest player ever....and MJ will tell you, Magic and Bird were the same caliber players. Magic played with KAJ towards the end of KAJ's career, and will tell you that even as an older player, he was the best. KAJ is old enough to have played against Wilt, West and Oscar, and will tell you those guys were better than anything going today. So yes, older stars were as good as stars from today.
I heard Hubie Brown, talking about this yesterday. I respect Hubie's opinion more than about anyone on the planet. He was saying that while you can't take away from today's player, the current game's rules are as watered down and as offense friendly as the NFL's passing game rules. With no hand check, no forearm, and no risk of a hard foul(which he said is a disgrace), the top players from those era's could have scored 7-8 points per game more than they did. As he was saying, the reason there is no structured passing game in today's NBA is that there is no reason too, the rules make it to where you can just go to the rim. If great players from that era played with these lax rules....you want to talk about LOL, try stopping Magic or Oscar without a hand check or KAJ or Wily without a forearm in his back. Now that's LOL
As to your laugh at Bob Petit...you wouldn't be laughing if he were in his prime and playing today. He would take Draymond Green to school. Ever hear of a guy named Kevin McHale? I can assure you, if they didn't have help, he would take AD or DG to school. He would score on them at will

 

[tlance]

On the other hand.....everyone knows that MJ is the greatest player ever....and MJ will tell you, Magic and Bird were the same caliber players. Magic played with KAJ towards the end of KAJ's career, and will tell you that even as an older player, he was the best. KAJ is old enough to have played against Wilt, West and Oscar, and will tell you those guys were better than anything going today. So yes, older stars were as good as stars from today.
I heard Hubie Brown, talking about this yesterday. I respect Hubie's opinion more than about anyone on the planet. He was saying that while you can't take away from today's player, the current game's rules are as watered down and as offense friendly as the NFL's passing game rules. With no hand check, no forearm, and no risk of a hard foul(which he said is a disgrace), the top players from those era's could have scored 7-8 points per game more than they did. As he was saying, the reason there is no structured passing game in today's NBA is that there is no reason too, the rules make it to where you can just go to the rim. If great players from that era played with these lax rules....you want to talk about LOL, try stopping Magic or Oscar without a hand check or KAJ or Wily without a forearm in his back. Now that's LOL
As to your laugh at Bob Petit...you wouldn't be laughing if he were in his prime and playing today. He would take Draymond Green to school. Ever hear of a guy named Kevin McHale? I can assure you, if they didn't have help, he would take AD or DG to school. He would score on them at will

The best players from the older eras could play today. Not saying they couldn't.

As for greats commenting on the guys before them being there toughest competition, of course they would say that! They were breaking into the league and still learning when those players were in their primes. Ironically, there was an article today on Y! Sports where Larry Bird said he thinks the current era of basketball is as good or better than the 80s. Keep in mind that he and all the other older players are biased toward their own eras.

Say what you will about greats from yesteryear averaging more with today's rules. I am sure that is true. That does not mean they could do it today's NBA. The average player today is far superior to the average player in 1950. Petit dominated his peers, but never had to face anybody like Green. I am not saying Petit could not play in the league today, I am sure he could, but anyone who thinks he would score anywhere near as much as he did then is crazy. The competition is much tougher today.

Petit was a relatively athletic 4 who could shoot and and attack the rim. My guess is that he would be something like Paul Millsap today: a nice player, but not an all time great.

 

[tlance]

Also keep in mind, while rules have changed, defensive schemes have become much more advanced. While it may be true that ISO ball can work in the current NBA, the team's that are most successful move the ball pretty darn well.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Also keep in mind, while rules have changed, defensive schemes have become much more advanced. While it may be true that ISO ball can work in the current NBA, the team's that are most successful move the ball pretty darn well.

Defensive schemes have become more advanced, but it doesn't matter, the rules have tilted the game so far in the offenses favor, it doesn't matter. It's like the NFL, having 5 guys a year throw for 5000 yards doesn't make any of them Dan Marino

 

[tlance]

Defensive schemes have become more advanced, but it doesn't matter, the rules have tilted the game so far in the offenses favor, it doesn't matter. It's like the NFL, having 5 guys a year throw for 5000 yards doesn't make any of them Dan Marino

Ok, then how do you explain the fact that players from the 60s and early 70s in particular posted such gaudy numbers and the current players cannot?

People often make the assumption it is because those players were better. That is not why. Greats like Wilt and Baylor where physically superior to their competition in a way we will never see again. The talent gap is not nearly as wide today. It isn't because the best players are less great, it is because the average player is much, much better. While LeBron is clearly the best athlete in the game now, every team has 2-3 guys capable of mixing it up with him. Nobody can check him 1 on 1 without help, but many can make him work for his shots. That was not true back in the 50s 60s and the early 70s.

Elgin Baylor would be a fine player today, but every team has players capable of competing with him athletically. There were no such players back in his day.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Ok, then how do you explain the fact that players from the 60s and early 70s in particular posted such gaudy numbers and the current players cannot?

People often make the assumption it is because those players were better. That is not why. Greats like Wilt and Baylor where physically superior to their competition in a way we will never see again. The talent gap is not nearly as wide today. It isn't because the best players are less great, it is because the average player is much, much better. While LeBron is clearly the best athlete in the game now, every team has 2-3 guys capable of mixing it up with him. Nobody can check him 1 on 1 without help, but many can make him work for his shots. That was not true back in the 50s 60s and the early 70s.

Elgin Baylor would be a fine player today, but every team has players capable of competing with him athletically. There were no such players back in his day.

Players then were more fundamentally sound, they went through 4 years of college to hone their craft. Kids today are very athletic, but with the majority of them one and done, their skill level, as a whole, is not what it was. Steph Curry is seen as the greatest shooter ever. If you couldn't hand check a guy like Reggie Miller, Larry Bird, Jerry West, it would be absurd. Not better, just as good

 

[tlance]

And before you go there, I agree that post play has all but disappeared from today's game. None of the current bigs hold a candle to the greats from the 60s -90s, but there are guys in today's league who could guard yesterday's centers as well as their peers could. The trouble is that today's bigs could not score on the other end.

 

[tlance]

Players then were more fundamentally sound, they went through 4 years of college to hone their craft. Kids today are very athletic, but with the majority of them one and done, their skill level, as a whole, is not what it was. Steph Curry is seen as the greatest shooter ever. If you couldn't hand check a guy like Reggie Miller, Larry Bird, Jerry West, it would be absurd. Not better, just as good

They were far more fundamentally sound when they entered the league. No argument there.

As for hand checking, sure West and Bird would have been harder to guard. Not sure it would have affected Miller much at all because he did his work off the ball. By the time he catches it, he is going up and you couldn't hand check a shooter.

Let's look at why these rules were instituted in the first place though.

In the late 90s, the game was becoming unwatchable. The athletes were better than ever before and the defense was ahead of the offense. So while hand checking rules have made the game easier, West and Bird did not have to face the same quality of athlete that today's stars do. Forget about players from the 50s, it is night and day form there. My opinion is that the athletes today are still much tougher to score on, even without hand checking.

 

[tlance]

One more comment just to illustrate how much the game has changed:

If this year's college crew were the class of 1966, who would the top picks be?

Hield, Valentine and Brogdon would all be sure fire top 5 picks and eventual NBA stars. They all have strong fundamental skill sets, but they lack high end athleticism, so they will likely end up being role players in today's game.

Whether or not they have it when they enter the league, you can teach skills to a freak athlete, but you can't teach the fundamental player to be a better athlete. The best players of any era have both athleticism and a strong fundamental base, but the athletic advantage found in the league today over any prior generation is large.