OT- MJ's greatness with respect to Jkidd's recent streak

[kooldude]

-= original quote snipped =-




MJ: FG% .538, 3P% .276, FT% .850, OFF 1.8, DFF 6.2, TOT 8.0, APG 8.0, SPG 2.89, BPG 0.80, PPG 32.5

LBJ: FG% .476, 3P% .290, FT% .715, OFF 1.5, DFF 5.8, TOT 7.3, APG 7.5, SPG 1.90, BPG 1.03, PPG 29.0


LeBron doesn't even stack up as MJ beats him in everything but 3P% and BPG


Then again, I'm always a BIG fan of:
55.5% FG, 79.2% FT, 19.1 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.6 apg, 1.50 bpg, 1.56 apg

well, in '89, team allowed 109 ppg, that's 10ppg higher than it is now. The fg%, rebound, assists were all higher. What's MJ's adjusted stats look like? I bet Lebron's numbers are closer than people think.

[jfs1000d]

The rest of the league wasn't that talented when the Big O was dominant. Sorry. It's like watching Marcus Banks in the Summer League..

Pete

OH PLEASE. Not that talented? the NBA was better then than it is now. What are you smoking?

[jfs1000d]

More thoughts:

I got to listen to people saying the players now are better? Bob Cousy couldn't play now?

But, Steve Nash, a 5-10 white PG who can't defend, dominates the league?

It doesn't past the smell test. Allen Iverson meet Tiny Archibald and Gus Williams. Chris Paul is unique? Ever see Isiah Thomas play?

Dwigth Howard is one of a kind? Please let me know if you saw a young Moses Malone.

Point? Cousy would dominate now with his dribbling and passing ability. He was Jason Kidd like with his ability.

If there is one sport that can translate eras it is the NBA because since the 24 second shot clock, the only real difference in the game is the 3-point shot. Baseball's parks have gotten smaller, football has gotten so much more complex and athletic and big.

Basketball is still about the pick and roll and shooting.

The modern NBA is probably a little more athletic and sculpted (as in Howard's broad shoulders), but, THE SKILL LEVEL IS NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Dwight Howard is Bill Russell without the offense. When do you draw the line in the NBA? Half the guys on the current Celtics rosters wouldn't even be in the NBA in the 1970s.

Is Jordan's Bulls the turning point? No, because universally the 1980s had superior teams and talent.

Can Russell play now? Can Wilt? Elgin Baylor or Jerry West? These guys would smoke players now.

The Big O is LeBron James.

The Celtics' teams that started 8 straight titles were the modern NBA player. Watch the mid 1970s Celtics with Hondo on the team. They destroy teams now.

The 1983 Sixers were as good as any team ever. They would hammer every team the last decade.

[jfs1000d]

Anyway Jordan was in fact the man - he managed to dominate games from the SG position which we have never seen before. And it was his defense as much as his "numbers" which was so amazing.

It's not a 'cult" go back and watch some old Jordan games.. I hate the Bulls but you can make a good case he was in fact the best ever despite the fact that people have had 'superior" fantasy years.

pete

Peter -- Oscar was a wing player and dominated games. Jerry West and Elgin Baylor dominated games. John Havlecik was a perimeter player and dominated games. Julius Irving dominated games.

Jordan is great, maybe the best ever, but, it is VERY VERY close.

[chakdaddy]

-= original quote snipped =-



The original LeBron James

No my point was that the guy who is so sure Jordan is the greatest is such an NBA historian that he thinks the Big O's last name is Robinson...

[Bleeding Green]

It's worth noting that Big O played in an era with like 20% more offense, which obviously means more points, more assists, more rebounds, more everything.

Every sporting league is more flooded with talent now than at any time in history due to an obvious influx in talent population. Also, advanced workout regimens and diet and all that stuff make the competition stiffer than at any point in history.

Did anyone scout outside the US in 1960? Did players work out year-round in 1960?

I don't think you can compare eras at all. There are just so many dissimilarities in the way the game is played. If you transported Paul Pierce to 1960 he'd be nothing like the player he is today. I guess you can compare players relative to their contemporaries and then use that to judge who is better, though. Say Jordan was 50% better than the average NBA player in his era. Then say O-Rob was 32% better than the average NBA player in his era.

I made those numbers up for what it's worth. Jordan was obviously 58% better than the average NBA player.

[Jimmy103]

More thoughts:

I got to listen to people saying the players now are better? Bob Cousy couldn't play now?

But, Steve Nash, a 5-10 white PG who can't defend, dominates the league?

It doesn't past the smell test. Allen Iverson meet Tiny Archibald and Gus Williams. Chris Paul is unique? Ever see Isiah Thomas play?

Dwigth Howard is one of a kind? Please let me know if you saw a young Moses Malone.

Point? Cousy would dominate now with his dribbling and passing ability. He was Jason Kidd like with his ability.

If there is one sport that can translate eras it is the NBA because since the 24 second shot clock, the only real difference in the game is the 3-point shot. Baseball's parks have gotten smaller, football has gotten so much more complex and athletic and big.

Basketball is still about the pick and roll and shooting.

The modern NBA is probably a little more athletic and sculpted (as in Howard's broad shoulders), but, THE SKILL LEVEL IS NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Dwight Howard is Bill Russell without the offense. When do you draw the line in the NBA? Half the guys on the current Celtics rosters wouldn't even be in the NBA in the 1970s.

Is Jordan's Bulls the turning point? No, because universally the 1980s had superior teams and talent.

Can Russell play now? Can Wilt? Elgin Baylor or Jerry West? These guys would smoke players now.

The Big O is LeBron James.

The Celtics' teams that started 8 straight titles were the modern NBA player. Watch the mid 1970s Celtics with Hondo on the team. They destroy teams now.

The 1983 Sixers were as good as any team ever. They would hammer every team the last decade.

WOW...just WOW

Reading that gave me chills thinking about history...thank you!

[jfs1000d]

It's worth noting that Big O played in an era with like 20% more offense, which obviously means more points, more assists, more rebounds, more everything.

Every sporting league is more flooded with talent now than at any time in history due to an obvious influx in talent population. Also, advanced workout regimens and diet and all that stuff make the competition stiffer than at any point in history.

Did anyone scout outside the US in 1960? Did players work out year-round in 1960?

I don't think you can compare eras at all. There are just so many dissimilarities in the way the game is played. If you transported Paul Pierce to 1960 he'd be nothing like the player he is today. I guess you can compare players relative to their contemporaries and then use that to judge who is better, though. Say Jordan was 50% better than the average NBA player in his era. Then say O-Rob was 32% better than the average NBA player in his era.

I made those numbers up for what it's worth. Jordan was obviously 58% better than the average NBA player.

NBA isn't better now. It is a bigger league with more positions open. Is the NBA better than the mid 1980s? Not even close. Not better than the 70s? No.

You can compare eras in the NBA easier than any other sport.

The players now are better physical specimens and probably age better and are stronger. But, that doesn't make them better hoops players.

In baseball and football the diet and training has led to longer home runs and faster and more physical players on the football field.

The Green Bay packers' o line averaged about 260 pounds. They can't play now at that size.

But, the NBA is different. Karim would dominate now as he did then. Wilt is just as awesome a physical specimen as he was back then. The modern NBA athlete doesn't blow away his predecessor as in other sports.

Connie Hawkins and Dr. J were as athletic dunkers as anyone in the league right now. Moses Malone would dominate Dwight Howard. Kevin McHale would destroy every single power forward on the low box. These guys came right after Russell and company.

The celtics of the 60s ushered in the modern NBA.

What happens is many young people see white players like Hondo and Cousy, Cowens and Dave Debuscherre and see how funny they looked with the long hair and short shorts and assume they couldn't play now.

They look ridiculous and so different than the modern player you assume they can't play. There is not hat and long pants as there is in any other sport.

In fact, their skill level was by far better than today's player. And, they were great athletes. Athletes, that is what Red always looked for.

[Bleeding Green]

It's not about athleticism. Athleticism isn't some new thing ushered in by Mike Jordan. The game has change a **** is all.

I don't buy that players were more skilled before. It just isn't possible; there are advancements in every single other sport, newer techniques, newer strategies. Today there is a greater emphasis on the half-court game; teams aren't running around and jacking up 105 shots a game like they were in 1960. Golden State took 85 shots a game last year and they led the league. NBA teams average 80 shots a game.

In 48 years the game should be significantly more advanced than it is today. Changes will likely be radical. You won't be able to compare a player from 2056 and 2008.

As far as the size of the league is concerned, US population in 1960 (the size of the available player pool basically): 180 million.

Global population (size of available player pool due to scouting): 6.6 billion.

The size of the league has increased by 3.75 times. The size of the available player pool has increased by 36.67 times. Even if you disagree that the entire global pool isn't exactly scoutable, you have to agree that the pool is at least 3.75 times 180 million, or 675 million.

This isn't to say basketball today is "better" just different.

[treefi]

Current players are better shooters than they were in the past... Sounds insane but look at the statistics. Better shooters AND more athletic = BETTER.

For example.. Bob Cousy.. Would he be Steve Nash today? HELL NO. He shot 37.5% for his career and only averaged over 9 assists ONCE in his entire career(though you could argue that had a lot to do with the era, but doesn't that prove how much was wrong with that era?). He never shot over 40%. He would be someone like Jos

[jfs1000d]

I don't think the game has changed at all. The players in the 1970s and 1980s had far superior skill levels. The mid range game has disappeared in the NBA, and moving without the ball is a lost art.

Now, NBA players now are longer (long arms, and tall) and that clogs up passing lanes.

But, the emphasis in the halfcourt is because players today don't know how to rebound and run on the break and fill the lane.

The only difference now is the multi million dollar coaches are meddling with the teams too much.

The reason there is no more running in the NBA is that coaches are controlling the game. It's now about limiting your opponents' opportunity to score. You do that with strong defense, and a deliberate offense. Look at the Pistons, they like to play in the high 80s low 90s. They don't uptempo the game intentionally, by limiting possessions, they make each basket all the more valuable.

Why do that? Low risk.

[Mad Balla 15]

Huh? The 3 point line was never further back then it is right now, in fact it was closer in the 80s and mid 90s I believe. Jordan was just never a good 3 point shooter.

Nevertheless, 7 straight triple doubles is QUITE impressive to say the least.

[jfs1000d]

Current players are better shooters than they were in the past... Sounds insane but look at the statistics. Better shooters AND more athletic = BETTER.

For example.. Bob Cousy.. Would he be Steve Nash today? HELL NO. He shot 37.5% for his career and only averaged over 9 assists ONCE in his entire career(though you could argue that had a lot to do with the era, but doesn't that prove how much was wrong with that era?). He never shot over 40%. He would be someone like Jos

[treefi]

Your argument for why the NBA wouldn't evolve like every other major sport is flawed. More popularity = more players trying to make the NBA = higher overall skill needed to succeed..

There are thousands of players today that are amazing just lacking the athleticism to play in the NBA... They dominate the high school and college game and just can't transfer their game to the professional level. Most of them have high basketball IQ's and are fantastic shooters. I argue that they would do just fine in the 50's/60's/70's. They have every bit as much desire to become great as the stars in the current NBA and past do. In today's game... there is a high level of athleticism needed to succeed ALONG with a high level of talent simply due to the fact that there are at least 30 times more highly motivated people trying to take your spot.

You need both. Talent and athleticism. There are thousands of players today that are superior athletes just lacking the skills/talent to play in the NBA as well.

[treefi]

Rondo shoots 50 percent from the field. He is among the worst shooters in the NBA. What does that tell you about shooting percentages?

He doesn't shoot much. He is surrounded by Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Ray Allen... Obviously. All I have to look back on for that era is old game film and statistics. Everything I have watched says the talent level was inferior.

Bob Cousy would destroy Steve Nash and company.

I think YOU are the ignorant one. No one will ever come along and be as good as the players in the past because your mind is dead set on it being impossible. Right? You are convinced the NBA is all about athleticism. Every single player lacks talent and pure shooting skills.

You are arguing for his low shooting perentage with a "he took harder shots" point. Isn't that a BAD thing? To take bad shots? I don't believe for one second that is a positive thing.

[UGA Hayes]

Speaking of ESPN Classic, its amazing how far along defense has come. Back in the Bird days there wasn't near the level of help defense there is now. Also defenders would sag 3 feet off of their guys. Even post play was far less physical. Those complicated rules about when you can have your arm across a defenders back didn't even seem to exist and the defense was worse for it. Defense in this era is definitely far better than it used to be.

[Fenix]

To say that the players from 60's and 70's were better than the ones now and that they would still dominate in today's League, is pure ignorance. Why? Defense and physical predispositons has much improved since then. That's a fact. Of course elite players looked more skilled back then, but only because they weren't going against the defenses of today. Let me make an analogy you'll understand: Jared Jordan was a monster in the NCAA, scoring 17ppg, grabbing 6rpg and dishing 9apg. He's a 12th man in the NBA. Why? Because he simply doesn't have the physical tools needed to translate his very advanced skills to the NBA level. Tony Parker on the other hand, is not nearly as skilled, but was a starting PG on championship teams, simply because he's freakishly quick. Cousy simply wouldn't have a chance to display those skills of his.

[chakdaddy]

Except the standouts from back then would probably be proportionately more athletic given modern training and so forth, so it all evens out.

I remember seeing highlights of Jared Jordan on draft day, he looked like an average high school player skill wise.

[chakdaddy]

[quote="tanat-0s"]Oh, c'mon...


Third, he scored 63 on Bird-McHale-Parish-Walton Celtics at the Garden in the year when Celtics lost at home only ONCE. That was possibly the best team ever in basketball! And he scored 63 on them! quote]

I'll take a guy off the team that actually won the game, thanks.

[endemicBull]

Cult of Jordan? lol...