Would you take any duo over prime MJ and LeBron?

[trojanfan12]

Too bad Daryl Dawkins passed away. Chocolate Thunder & White Chocolate would have been unstoppable.

lol No doubt.

In all seriousness, loved Daryl Dawkins back in the day. That dude was a true original. He ain't dead, he just went home to Planet Lovetron.

 

[Wamu]

lol No doubt.

In all seriousness, loved Daryl Dawkins back in the day. That dude was a true original. He ain't dead, he just went home to Planet Lovetron.

Yeah I was a Dawkins fans as well. He sure was a funny guy.

 

[trojanfan12]

 

[tlance]

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the advantages that are enjoyed by today's players wouldn't be taken advantage of by the great players of the past.

If this were a "hot tub time machine" situation where guys were dropped into different eras as exactly who they are/were in their primes...then yes, today's average players would be Hall of Famers in previous eras. Heck, just the amount of time that today's players have to hone their craft because of the money they make, would give them a huge advantage.

Prior to the 80's, many NBA players had to get summer jobs to make ends meet between seasons. Those who were fortunate enough to not have to do that, still didn't have the advances in training, medicine and nutrition that today's players enjoy.

However, all things being equal, great players would likely be just as great in any era with few, if any, exceptions.

I agree

with you to a point.

But, in the 50s and 60s basketball was not a job, it was a hobby. There were elite college players who turned down pro careers for opportunities in business and other professions. Pay wasn't nearly what it is today in comparison.

Today, pro basketball is a dream job and kids train for it from a very early age. Add in the international players, the fact that many more US kids play basketball competitively and the prospect field is ridiculously larger than it was then.

So, yes. Russell and his contemporaries would benefit from sport science advancements, but they would be nowhere near as dominant against a similarly deep player pool as what we have today.

 

[trojanfan12]

But, in the 50s and 60s basketball was not a job, it was a hobby. There were elite college players who turned down pro careers for opportunities in business and other professions. Pay wasn't nearly what it is today in comparison.

That's exactly my point and why I say that "all things being equal players from the past would be great today." The main difference is, if basketball could have been a job back then, you would also have a much larger pool of players. So, you would have more players that could compete at today's level (all things being equal).

That's why the era comparisons, while fun, are ultimately pointless and prove nothing. I mean, imagine guys like Wilt, the Big O, etc. with today's training, medicine, nutrition, etc.

So, with a larger pool like we have today, there would just be more great players to add to the list of guys we already have.

 

[tlance]

That's exactly my point and why I say that "all things being equal players from the past would be great today." The main difference is, if basketball could have been a job back then, you would also have a much larger pool of players. So, you would have more players that could compete at today's level (all things being equal).

That's why the era comparisons, while fun, are ultimately pointless and prove nothing. I mean, imagine guys like Wilt, the Big O, etc. with today's training, medicine, nutrition, etc.

So, with a larger pool like we have today, there would just be more great players to add to the list of guys we already have.

I don't want to get into a semantical argument here, but competition was definitely far less then than it is today. You don't know how good they would be. My guess is that the best of the best would still be all star caliber players, but again, we don't know because their level of competition was inferior. There are at least a couple stars from that era who couldn't play in the league today.

 

[msgkings322]

Kobe and Duncan are layups? LOL. OK.

Only layup over leBron is Jordan. Kareem can make a good case. mayyyybe Magic. That's it. leBron clearly better than everyone else

 

[flyerhawk]

Only layup over leBron is Jordan. Kareem can make a good case. mayyyybe Magic. That's it. leBron clearly better than everyone else

Yeah. Anyone who wants to argue that Lebron is top 5 instead top 2 I can understand, even if I completely disagree with that.

Top 10 is just ridiculous.

 

[tducey]

Yeah, it'd be pretty sweet to see those 2 together. Magic and Bird together might be a good duo as well.

 

[CodeBreaker]

I can roll out of bed and name 10 guys better than LeBron James.

Now, can you still name 10?

You can't even name 5 that are convincingly better than LeBron.
Sometimes, brain doesn't function well when you just rolled out from bed.

 

[msgkings322]

Yeah, it'd be pretty sweet to see those 2 together. Magic and Bird together might be a good duo as well.

Since we're on the 25th anniversary of the Dream Team from the 1992 Olympics there's plenty of video you can watch of those two PLUS Jordan playing together.

Apparently the team scrimmaged against each other, and their last scrimmage Jordan called the best game of basketball he ever played in.

Drexler and Stockton were nursing minor injuries, so the teams were:

Jordan/Pippen/Bird/Malone/Ewing

vs

Magic/Barkley/Mullin/Robinson/Laettner

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't want to get into a semantical argument here, but competition was definitely far less then than it is today. You don't know how good they would be. My guess is that the best of the best would still be all star caliber players, but again, we don't know because their level of competition was inferior. There are at least a couple stars from that era who couldn't play in the league today.

If the the talent pool were bigger because players were paid well enough for basketball to be their full time, year round job, then you would have better competition than they faced back then.

You'd probably have had guys growing up and playing basketball year round like they do today too.

If they had today's training, medicine and nutrition back then, the players would take advantage of it just like the players do today.

I get that you want today's players to be better, but end of the day, they are really only better because of the advantages they have compared to the players from the past.

Sure, there are some guys who were stars back then that wouldn't be today. But guess what? If they had the talent pool, etc. that they have today...those players wouldn't have been stars back then either.

 

[tlance]

If the the talent pool were bigger because players were paid well enough for basketball to be their full time, year round job, then you would have better competition than they faced back then.

You'd probably have had guys growing up and playing basketball year round like they do today too.

If they had today's training, medicine and nutrition back then, the players would take advantage of it just like the players do today.

I get that you want today's players to be better, but end of the day, they are really only better because of the advantages they have compared to the players from the past.

Sure, there are some guys who were stars back then that wouldn't be today. But guess what? If they had the talent pool, etc. that they have today...those players wouldn't have been stars back then either.

Exactly.

And Russell, Baylor, West, etc. might not have been so great if that were the case. Maybe they are all stars instead of superstars.

You are assuming that the players who were the best of the best in a shallow pool would still have been in a deeper one. Wilt is the only player I think would have been for sure.

 

[gohusk]

If you want to play this game then I'm going with Magic and Kareem. Kareem was already 32 when they hooked up and it ended up working very well. Wilt and Jordan would be awesome as well.

 

[trojanfan12]

You are assuming that the players who were the best of the best in a shallow pool would still have been in a deeper one.

Actually, I didn't assume or say that at all. I said that a deeper talent pool would have meant more talented players and that some of those who were superstars back then may not have been because they'd have been replaced by better players.

So, you would still have great players, but some of the names may be different.

Your premise assumes that players from the past wouldn't be as great as players today if they had access to the same advantages that players today have.

 

[megalodon30]

Peja and C-Webb

Go Kings!

 

[CodeBreaker]

Peja and C-Webb

Go Kings!

They were great. But not S+ level

 

[LogicMan]

I would take Magic and Jordan over that duo. But of I cant have that I would put up Magic and Larry or the Big O and Chamberlin

 

[CodeBreaker]

I would take Magic and Jordan over that duo. But of I cant have that I would put up Magic and Larry or the Big O and Chamberlin

Why Magic over LeBron?

 

[LogicMan]

Why Magic over LeBron?

Magic drew people and players to him. He could adjust and play all 5 positions. He built a locker room of fighters and he could get the most out of the peeps around him