RealGM

I'm just tryna talk ball man lol.

is 50's ball? idk. I just ignore it for the most part, seems easier on the brain. I do get a chuckle when old heads try to fight for the honor of dudes like Bob Cousy, like bro just watch a youtube video and proceed to laugh at a game you hardly recognize

General rule of thumb. Give players of yesteryear the same nutritional, medical and physio advancements (and money) of today and probably they'd be really good today as well. Im sure Bob Cousy would've developed an off-hand drive.

Sent from my LM-K500 using RealGM mobile app

CharityStripe34 wrote:General rule of thumb. Give players of yesteryear the same nutritional, medical and physio advancements (and money) of today and probably they'd be really good today as well. Im sure Bob Cousy would've developed an off-hand drive.

Sent from my LM-K500 using RealGM mobile app

But what's the point of even debating that. The hypotheticals are actually endless, just judge off a game we can watch and understand. Obviously Dame **** on anybody that hasn't played basketball in the last 60 years

Give Wilt modern training and he is the GOAT, right? It has no substance. Every argument is just grasping at straws

But anyways I guess this is my shtick today sorry if I come off as an ass definitely have an agenda here

MiltownMadness wrote:Give Wilt modern training and he is the GOAT, right? It has no substance. Every argument is just grasping at straws

Then don't make a list of the top players of all-time, as if you have taken them into consideration. Just limit it to the last 45 years.

As for Bob Cousy, I also wouldn't put him in any top tier list. But there are a ton of others I would.

BigO wrote:

MiltownMadness wrote:Give Wilt modern training and he is the GOAT, right? It has no substance. Every argument is just grasping at straws

Then don't make a list of the top players of all-time, as if you have taken them into consideration. Just limit it to the last 45 years.

As for Bob Cousy, I also wouldn't put him in any top tier list. But there are a ton of others I would.

Honestly agree, make it easy and make it last 50 years. It's too hard to extrapolate players from a prehistoric game. Rating Bill Russell is about the hardest thing ever to me

chonestown wrote:Love too rank the dames of yesteryear on real gm dot com slash bucks but since I'm here yes, I would fancy sharing a phosphate with Marpessa Dawn while casually discussing the likelihood of nuclear holocaust.

You thought you'd one up me by throwing out Marpessa Dawn. Good choice.

Is everyone on the same page that the officials have just gone to a 90s style playoff whistle. I am enjoying the product more and if this reduces the grifting the game will benefit. Also I think this whistle can help the Bucks more than other teams.

MiltownMadness wrote:Give Wilt modern training and he is the GOAT, right?

no his problems were not physical

And btw BigO, you know a lot about the game. More than me. Not trying to **** on the burgeoning of basketball but just hope you see where I'm coming from. I can't rate those players so why bother, and when I see them next to a guy like Dame it seems strange to me. Certain players were definitely good at basketball back in the day tho lmao. Probably just a victim of my own ignorance

Shaffty wrote:

MiltownMadness wrote:Give Wilt modern training and he is the GOAT, right?

no his problems were not physical

Bro there's like 60 years of knowledge about the game you're missing out on, training is not just lifting weights

Remember basketball is a game, 60 years of optimization on a game is mind-blowing really

BigO wrote:

chonestown wrote:Love too rank the dames of yesteryear on real gm dot com slash bucks but since I'm here yes, I would fancy sharing a phosphate with Marpessa Dawn while casually discussing the likelihood of nuclear holocaust.

You thought you'd one up me by throwing out Marpessa Dawn. Good choice.

Ha, at best I thought I'd match. Unlike some of the scoundrels here, I respect my elders.

Well, my elders that aren't MD.

-Jragon- wrote:

Milbucks96 wrote:

randy84 wrote:Well Carmelo Anthony is on that list as well has Harden and Westbrook. I would consider Dame at their level.

I think all of those guys are better than Dame. Harden and Westbrook easily, Carmelo is debatable.

Yeah I'll take Dame Dolla

He's also on most lists in the 65-75 range. He's almost always at the bottom tier. I have no issues with that at all.

Dame can take over games, weird this is even being debated. He's had a difficult transition to mke but the talent is absolutely still there.

MiltownMadness wrote:

BigO wrote:

MiltownMadness wrote:Give Wilt modern training and he is the GOAT, right? It has no substance. Every argument is just grasping at straws

Then don't make a list of the top players of all-time, as if you have taken them into consideration. Just limit it to the last 45 years.

As for Bob Cousy, I also wouldn't put him in any top tier list. But there are a ton of others I would.

Honestly agree, make it easy and make it last 50 years. It's too hard to extrapolate players from a prehistoric game. Rating Bill Russell is about the hardest thing ever to me

Wilt wouldn’t even need modern anything to be great in todays game he could run forever as it was and he was huge af

BigO wrote:

MiltownMadness wrote:Give Wilt modern training and he is the GOAT, right? It has no substance. Every argument is just grasping at straws

Then don't make a list of the top players of all-time, as if you have taken them into consideration. Just limit it to the last 45 years.

As for Bob Cousy, I also wouldn't put him in any top tier list. But there are a ton of others I would.

They should have basically did eras and selection 10-25 players from every era. You then don't have the awkward situation of bumping someone off a list. 25 from first 25 years, 25 from years 26-50, 25 from years 51-75 and then just add 25 new ones next time around.

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:

BigO wrote:

MiltownMadness wrote:Give Wilt modern training and he is the GOAT, right? It has no substance. Every argument is just grasping at straws

Then don't make a list of the top players of all-time, as if you have taken them into consideration. Just limit it to the last 45 years.

As for Bob Cousy, I also wouldn't put him in any top tier list. But there are a ton of others I would.

They should have basically did eras and selection 10-25 players from every era. You then don't have the awkward situation of bumping someone off a list. 25 from first 25 years, 25 from years 26-50, 25 from years 51-75 and then just add 25 new ones next time around.

that is what they did. They took the same players from the 50th anniversary team and then added 25 new ones.

Right, it was essentially best 25 of the last 25 years that they just did. In reality or general theory some of the bottom 50 previously could/should been pushed off for new players but that wasn't allowed. And in general that's fair/fine by me, as this whole discussion shows the eras are so different and will only increase differences as time goes so on. so essentially you're rewarding them for their accomplishments relative to their peers rather than against people 70 years later with changes to the game/training/etc

So really this talk should be taking the 25 people added new this time and seeing who should/could be ahead of him. My guess is he'd end up between 20-30 on most peoples lists (thus making his inclusion fine), though I haven't done a deep dive. And keep in mind at the time of deciding they were doing a bit of projection, at the time he was what 31ish with like 20K points already, yea play 5ish more years at top level and you're in the upper 20K in points. Remember Shaq was included in the first one after playing like 3 years

All athletes are products of their eras and if you're going to compare athletes across eras you should do it based on what they did in their eras. What makes this conversation so weird to me is that I think people can do this with football. Art Shell is one of the greatest Offensive Tackles in NFL history, Myles Garrett would also probably use him as a tackling dummy. I don't think a lot of people view either statement as particularly controversial or contradictory. For various reasons people seem to use the teleportation device argument a lot more frequently when talking about basketball.

Dame would eat Cousy up, but the man is 95 years old and has probably lost a step. I am not sorry.

Shaffty wrote:

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:

BigO wrote:

Then don't make a list of the top players of all-time, as if you have taken them into consideration. Just limit it to the last 45 years.

As for Bob Cousy, I also wouldn't put him in any top tier list. But there are a ton of others I would.

They should have basically did eras and selection 10-25 players from every era. You then don't have the awkward situation of bumping someone off a list. 25 from first 25 years, 25 from years 26-50, 25 from years 51-75 and then just add 25 new ones next time around.

that is what they did. They took the same players from the 50th anniversary team and then added 25 new ones.

So they didn't do what I described at all thanks for the info though