New Franchise: Havlicek/Russell or Kobe/Shaq

[DraftBoy10]

Kobe/Shaq would **** on Havlicek/Russell.

These old time farts can't do **** on present-day greats.

[_BBIB_]

A couple of things-

In watching those clips above, most of them were from his LA days where he was actually LESS mobile. So to see that power and quickness AFTER he slowed down is still amazing. Secondly, watching that Rookie highlight real I noticed a few things. He routinely outran guards and forwards (watch when he slides into the camera diving for the loose ball). He routinely started AND finished the break. His power was unparallelled even before he went to LA and started weight training!

Also, I didn't realize before, but when he tore down the goal, the center was holding onto his arm, and he still went up, dunked it, and pulled the friggin' goal down! But people say Wilt was a god because he hurt somebody's wrist while he tried to block a shot!!

Wilt could dunk from the free throw line. Next

And if you think Shaq could beat Wilt in a foot race, I don't know what else to really say about something that uninformed. Wilt was a track star for a reason.

People have so much chronological snobbery.

If an Old Wilt could stick with a young Kareem, and a old Kareem could stick with a young Hakeem, and an old Hakeem, with a young-prime Shaq, what on earth makes people think that these players couldn't play in any era?

It's completely exaggerated what kind of height advantage that Wilt had in his day. And if it were so easy, then why doesn't Yao Ming dominate like that, Yao has more height advantage than Wilt ever had. Heck who's the best center in the game today? Dwight Howard who is well under 7 feet. SO if anything the Centers are SHORTER today. Heck Al Horford of my Hawks is arguably a top 5 Center today as an undersized PF playing Center.

The idea that 7'1 olympic event competing Wilt chamberlain who was 275 even without modern medicine and weight training couldn't stick with Shaq, that's hilarious.

Wilt was a better athlete and a better defender than Shaq. He could have contained Shaq far more than Shaq could have contained him. Shaq couldn't contain Hakeem who was not nearly as strong or athletic as Wilt. And I don't even think Shaq was a bad defender, but he certainly was no Wilt on that end of the floor.

[_BBIB_]

Kobe/Shaq would **** on Havlicek/Russell.

These old time farts can't do **** on present-day greats.

I don't know much about Hondo but it's amazing how many people poo poo the name Bill Russell. "Oh he wouldn't be a great defender today". You kididng me? First of all look at the amount of rebounds Dennis Rodman grabbed playing in the 1990s. And he's like 6'6. Look at undersized Ben Wallace and hte rebounds he grabbed, look at Dwight Howard at the Center position today.

Yeah maybe Bill Russell would have to put on a lot of weight to play Center today and perhaps would have to get moved to PF, but seriously the way people talk about his game not translating is absurd.

If anything the way he's so fundamentally sound and pays attention to detail and doesn't go for the highlight block as much as he does taking control of the possession, that translates even more so today.

And rebounding wins championships in ANY era.

[jaypo]

Good for Wilt. I've seen Shaq lead the break and dunk from almost the FT line IN A GAME! Next!
I never said Shaq would win a foot race with Wilt, did I? I said he was faster than people remember. Just go look at those links above. "The Tape Don't Lie!"
32 yr. old Akeem wasn't old. He was in his prime. And Shaq was before his. And Shaq put up better numbers. So using the transitive axiom of equality doesn't have any purpose here!
I'm sure Wilt could "stick with Shaq". My ascertion is that Shaq COULD stick with him as well. Hell, they may even play each other to a standstill. But their physical talents being pretty equal, I think Shaq had the killer instinct that Wilt didn't have. He wanted to break you no matter what. I give that advantage to Shaq.
You are basing your ascertion that Wilt could hang with Shaq on nothing concrete. Wilt never had to deal with somebody stronger and as physically dominant as he was. He never had to keep a 325lb man off the block for 40 minutes per game. Shaq has played against some of the best centers in history. He has battled the likes of Akeem, DRob, Ewing, even Sabas, who although past his prime, was still 300lbs plus with a great set of skills. So no, Shaq didn't ONLY play against Al Horford. He played against defenders like Zo, Ben Wallace, Rodman (who suprisingly dd pretty well against him), and Mutombo. Need I mention that cat named Duncan?

Dude, I don't discredit anything Wilt or Russell did. 11 rings speaks for itself. 50ppg speaks for itself. 100 points in a game speaks for itself. 20 rpg speaks for itself. But that was a DIFFERENT ERA. I just don't honestly think that any of those players would have accomplished those feats in today's game. There is too much parity now. I also think that Shaq would do just fine against anyone. Hell, in his 3rd year, he did fine against a prime Dream. That speaks volumes!

So you hang on to your memories of someone that played 50 years ago. I'll watch tape of someone that I watched since the McDonald's game blocking a shot and leading the fast break at 7'1", 285lbs as a teenager. And I'll still side with Shaq!

Oh yeah. That Kobe guy put up 81!

[bastillon]

If an Old Wilt could stick with a young Kareem, and a old Kareem could stick with a young Hakeem, and an old Hakeem, with a young-prime Shaq, what on earth makes people think that these players couldn't play in any era?

Hakeem dominated Kareem in '86 finals so I don't know wtf you're talking about.

[ElGee]

If an Old Wilt could stick with a young Kareem, and a old Kareem could stick with a young Hakeem, and an old Hakeem, with a young-prime Shaq, what on earth makes people think that these players couldn't play in any era?

Hakeem dominated Kareem in '86 finals so I don't know wtf you're talking about.

You could argue Kareem dominated Wilt when they played in the early 70s (he certainly destroyed him statistically).

Should we revise the formula based on the transitive property?

[ElGee]

A couple of things-

In watching those clips above, most of them were from his LA days where he was actually LESS mobile. So to see that power and quickness AFTER he slowed down is still amazing. Secondly, watching that Rookie highlight real I noticed a few things. He routinely outran guards and forwards (watch when he slides into the camera diving for the loose ball). He routinely started AND finished the break. His power was unparallelled even before he went to LA and started weight training!

Also, I didn't realize before, but when he tore down the goal, the center was holding onto his arm, and he still went up, dunked it, and pulled the friggin' goal down! But people say Wilt was a god because he hurt somebody's wrist while he tried to block a shot!!

It's completely exaggerated what kind of height advantage that Wilt had in his day. And if it were so easy, then why doesn't Yao Ming dominate like that, Yao has more height advantage than Wilt ever had. Heck who's the best center in the game today? Dwight Howard who is well under 7 feet. SO if anything the Centers are SHORTER today. Heck Al Horford of my Hawks is arguably a top 5 Center today as an undersized PF playing Center.

The idea that 7'1 olympic event competing Wilt chamberlain who was 275 even without modern medicine and weight training couldn't stick with Shaq, that's hilarious.

(1) Strength. Shaq didn't weight train at Orlando - he was 290 pounds at about 19. He was probably 315 in Orlando, lean and quick. He's just a big-boned, muscular freak. Wilt DID weight train at the end of his career. He couldn't carry 315 pounds. (Then again, he couldn't carry 330 pounds like Shaq did in Los Angeles). Furthermore, Shaq plays against players with modern nutrition and weight training who weigh more, and they bounce off of him like dolls.

(2) Height. Let's focus on 60-66 since that's when Wilt was breaking scoring records.

Wilt, 7-2. The other centers in the league playing more than 20 mpg during that period:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws

Avg. height: 6' 9.4"
2 of 20 were fellow 7-footers: Walter Dukes, Reggie Harding.

Shaq's opponents in first 7 years, same criteria:

Avg. height: 7' 0.1"
22 of 40 were fellow 7-footers, including 8 players over 7-2.

Players were simply shorter in the 60s - can people stop challenging this fact?


Opponents:

[_BBIB_]

Hakeem dominated Kareem in '86 finals so I don't know wtf you're talking about.

Post the box score proof. And BTW, Kareem scored 27 points at 39 years old on Hakeem. ANd I wasn't talking Kareem on his last legs at 38 and 39 either when I made the assertion

[_BBIB_]

(2) Height. Let's focus on 60-66 since that's when Wilt was breaking scoring records.

Wilt, 7-2. The other centers in the league playing more than 20 mpg during that period:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws

Avg. height: 6' 9.4"
2 of 20 were fellow 7-footers: Walter Dukes, Reggie Harding.

Shaq's opponents in first 7 years, same criteria:

Avg. height: 7' 0.1"
22 of 40 were fellow 7-footers, including 8 players over 7-2.

Players were simply shorter in the 60s - can people stop challenging this fact?


Opponents:

6'10+ players in NBA


1950s- 10
1960s- 33
1970s- 93
1980s- 193
1990s- 260
2000s- 289

That's pretty staggering on the surface but let's look beneath the surface. How many of those guys are listed for height were anything more than that just height? How many Kwame Brown and Kandi Man's were there? Of course people have so much chronological snobbery I supposed they think those guys would be Wilt like back in the day.

Let's look at who actually logged game time

Center position
minimum 300 games
6'10+

2000s

20 MPG- 32
25 MPG- 17
30 MPG- 7
35 MPG- 1
36 MPG- 0
38 MPG- 0

1990s

20 MPG- 29
25 MPG- 15
30 MPG- 9
35 MPG- 6
36 MPG- 5
38 MPG- 0


There were a lot of tall Centers but how many were worth a darn is the question. If I listed the amount of guys who were decent scorers the list would shrink even more. Expansion if anything makes up for the lack of height. Because you may not be going up against as many tall players, but by expansion you're playing a lot more mediocre players by the same token.

[_BBIB_]

How about we look at Shaq's career from his rookie season until his Final Season in LA?

Centers during that period with 20 MPG and 10 PPG (minimum 300 games)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... i?id=vCGbu

Only 15 guys including Shaq. WIth Alonzo Mourning 3rd in scoring at 20 PPG.

How ever did Zo score all those points in the land of incomporable Giants? I guess he was stronger and better than Wilt too eh?


Speaking of Giants, how many players were 7'0 feet tall? Only 10 on that list.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... i?id=ERVc5

In fact. In the 1990s AND 2000s there are only a total of 31 7 foot centers that logged 20 minutes per game and played in 300 games. Only 19 who played 500 games. And that's including players like Kandi Man, Koncak, etc.

If we had say a list of guys who were capable of scoring in double digits again to separate the pretenders, that leaves us with only 15 names in TWO DECADES of guys who played 300+ games.

Yeah not nearly as daunting as you make it out to be. (Especially considering only SEVEN guys in TWO DECADES on that list played in 500+ games)

[ElGee]

^^^^ You completely changed the issue mid-thread...are you a lawyer?

What does opponent scoring ability have anything to do with the fact that Wilt played against much shorter, weaker players, thus making his size a bigger advantage then than it would be now?

EDIT: What is chronological snobbery?

[_BBIB_]

^^^^ You completely changed the issue mid-thread...are you a lawyer?

What does opponent scoring ability have anything to do with the fact that Wilt played against much shorter, weaker players, thus making his size a bigger advantage then than it would be now?

EDIT: What is chronological snobbery?

You're right. I shouldn't have based it on players ability to score. Because after all David Lee can score all day but he can't defend right?

So how good were defensive centers in the NBA that were 7 feet? Any Center who is worth a lick of anything defensively can average at least 1.5 blocks per game.

So how many guys did that with a minimum of 300 games played? 14. A mere 14 guys in 20 years in the 1990s and 2000s

Number of them with:
20 MPG- 12
25 MPG- 8
30 MPG- 6
33 MPG- 4
35 MPG- 2
36 MPG- 0
38 MPG- 0

How about a mere 1?
7 Foot Centers who averaged 1+ BPG- 32 Players (in 20 years)
(Min 300 games)

Numbers with:

20 MPG- 25
25 MPG- 14
30 MPG- 8
33 MPG- 4
35 MPG- 2
36 MPG- 0
38 MPG- 0

What if I'm generous and include the 6'11 players?
1990s
6'11 +
1.5+ BPG

20 MPG- 13
25 MPG- 9
30 MPG- 6
35 MPG- 5
36 MPG- 5
38 MPG- 1*

*rounding up!

2000s
6'11+
1.5+ BPG

20 MPG- 10
25 MPG- 7
30 MPG- 4
35 MPG- 1
38 MPG- 0


Not very good. And if I go to 1.7+ blocks to 2.0+ blocks like the truly above average defensive centers really get the list gets even more bleak again even if you include the 6'11 players.

There are only a handful of great defensive centers who logged consistent minutes. There's a reason why only a few names stick out, because those were the only guys any good at defending.

So even if you say that Wilt wouldn't have completely abused those guys, (who abused each other BTW), he most certainly could have abused the rest of the league.

I mean even if I stated the guys who blocked a mere 1 shot per game, it's still not that long of a list.

Now you may say blocks isn't the only way to gauge how good someone is defensively. That may be true. But even a flopper like Divac met these block requirements. Any center who can't get a block per game and honestly who can't get 1.5+ blocks per game, can't be called very good defensively.

And the truth is there are a whole lot of guys who have played in this league. (There is a reason why FG% continue to rise for post players today)

I don't know about Wilt having a 50 points per game season in the modern NBA, but he certainly could have a whole lot of 30 point ones.

[Harry Palmer]

If you want more size and strength and better overall scoring, you go with Kobe/Shaq (though that's overall--in today's shoes there would be little difference in size between Kobe and Hondo, and any strength difference would be insignificant)

If you want better defense and overall athleticism, you go with Russell/Havlicek. (the Kobe fans in particular will go **** over than, but nonetheless it's true...Kobe's a fine player, but not in Hondo's class as an overall athlete...ditto Shaq vs Russell)

DISAPPOINTING!

I came into this thread specifically to see you have another aneurysm about younger fans, and this is what I get?

I want my money back.

Edit: I read further on, and I'll admit you got better, but still, you're slipping.

[_BBIB_]

Oh and just FYI, Chronological snobbery is the idea that something/someone is inferior just because they lived/accomplished something at an earlier period of time.

This is very common in sports. The idea that Bill Russell couldn't be an elite defender today or that Wilt couldn't be an elite offensive talent. This is mostly based on perceived inferiority based on the passage of time.

But what really exposes how silly that is is when you consider the fact that one is essentially saying by the same window of time that someone like Michael Jordan wouldn't be effective 5-10 years from now because of the time that's passed since he came into the league.

Not taking into account the great physical talents and skills and basketball IQs of these players, and just ignoring all of it based on the passage of time.


It's one thing to discount something like Hondo is as athletic as Kobe. It's another to pretend that a 7'1 275 track star with no telling what kind of freakish wing span and vertical, and a finesse game to match the power, couldn't dominate in an era where arguably the 4th best Center is a 6'10 240 guy playing out of position in Al Horford. Or heck the best Center is an under 7 footer with no game outside 5 feet.

Or again even if you look at the 1990s which was much better at the C position where only 5-7 guys could truly be considered decent defenders. And you have a 6'10 245 guy in Alonzo Mounring capable of putting up 20 PPG. Heck look in the 2000s when 6'10 245 Amare Stoudemire was still at Center before he got hurt and was putting up 26 PPG on outstanding FG%.

Yet a 7'1 275 pound Wilt couldn't match that? Not buying it.

At the very least Wilt could score like Amare and rebound like Dwight Howard and block shots like a prime Hakeem which would make him undisputably the best Center in the game because of that.

And more than likely he'd be a decisively better scorer than Amare and a better rebounder than Dwight.

[Harry Palmer]

Oh and just FYI, Chronological snobbery is the idea that something/someone is inferior just because they lived/accomplished something at an earlier period of time.

Isn't that normally just called ''Old People's Opinions''?

[_BBIB_]

Isn't that normally just called ''Old People's Opinions''?

IT doesn't even have to do with sports. It could have something to do with say for instance that the minds of today are vastly superior to hte minds of people 30 years ago. In reality all the advancements in technology we have made, we have people in previous generations to thank for acquiring the information in the first place. It's not like each generation has to build from scratch. They can learn from research, trials and errors of previous one.

But without really getting into that, look at it along these lines.

Moses Malone at 6'10 215 pounds was the dominant center in the 1980s. No other Center scored more points or pulled down more rebounds.

Dude had a 31/15 season in 1981-82. Even while older he had a 20/12 season in 1988-89.

Bear in mind from a height stand point there were almost just as many legit 7 footers who logged significant minutes as there are today.

If that doesn't do it for you, how about we look at the timeline of his airness?

Michael Jordan played from 1984-85 to 1997-98.

Do you know what the rebounding list looks like during that period of time?

Top 15 Rebounders
From 1984-85 to 1997-98
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... i?id=sSQEd

6’7 Rodman- 13.2 RPG
7’1 Shaq- 12.3 RPG
7’2 Mutombo- 12.1 RPG
6’11 Duncan- 11.9 RPG
7’0 Hakeem- 11.9 RPG
6’6 Barkley- 11.7 RPG
7’1 Robinson- 11.6 RPG
6’9 K.Malone- 10.7 RPG
6’10 Coleman- 10.4 RPG
7’0 Ewing- 10.4 RPG
6’8 Oakley- 10.4 RPG
6’10 Alonzo- 10.1 RPG
6'10 M.Malone-10.0 RPG
6’10 Tarpley- 10.0 RPG
6'11 Rony Seikaly- 9.6 RPG

Dennis freaking Rodman is at the top of the list. And people may say something ridiculous to discount that fact that all he tried to do was rebound. Well how about the mound of rebound Barkley on that list as well? In fact if you start from Rodman's rookie year in 1986-87 and go through the Bulls dynasty Barkley jumps into the top 5. So you have two guys who you would considered little men in the land of giants who are pulling down boards with the big boys.


Now sadly because of chronological snobbery, someone could take this fact and make a ridiculous argument and say that's proof that Michael Jordan couldn't play today or 5-10 years in the future.

[ThaRegul8r]

Oh and just FYI, Chronological snobbery is the idea that something/someone is inferior just because they lived/accomplished something at an earlier period of time.

This is very common in sports. The idea that Bill Russell couldn't be an elite defender today or that Wilt couldn't be an elite offensive talent. This is mostly based on perceived inferiority based on the passage of time.

But what really exposes how silly that is is when you consider the fact that one is essentially saying by the same window of time that someone like Michael Jordan wouldn't be effective 5-10 years from now because of the time that's passed since he came into the league.

It will be interesting when the days comes—and that day WILL come—when Jordan fans who disparage Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Bird, and everyone else who came before are on the other side and are defending Jordan against the modern day fans of the future who will say that Jordan couldn't hang in the modern day league as he did in the '80s and '90s. When people will say, "Jordan? GTFO. He wouldn't come CLOSE to doing the same things in the league now that he did then."

And the thing is, it's already starting.

Two days ago I saw people talking about how the 2007-08 Celtics defense Kobe faced was greater than anything Jordan ever faced in his career, and they posted YouTube clips of all the great defensive teams Jordan faced, dating back to the Bad Boys, and commenting how they were nothing like the modern day defensive teams. How prime Jordan never played against a zone defense.

I've seen elsewhere people disparaging Jordan for the fact that he's on record as saying that 6-3 Joe Dumars defended him better than anyone, and they were rolling at the idea of a 6-3 SG being able to D anyone up in today's game ("When was the last time since Dumars that a 6-3 SG was First Team All-D?", they ask), using this as proof that Jordan took advantage of shorter defenders (look similar to accusations made against Wilt?), and laughed at the idea that a 6-3 SG could do anything whatsoever against Kobe, McGrady, etc. The process is already in motion, and soon Jordan will face the same fate as all the other greats who preceded him, diminished by modern day fans who tear down the greats of the yesteryear to prop up current stars.

I'm against this being done to ANYONE, as greatness is greatness in any era. However, seeing the prevalence with which modern day fans do this now, I can't really say I'll have much sympathy when the shoe's on the other foot. Perhaps then the offenders on this forum will look back and wish they weren't so harsh on writerman, who's already undergone the process regarding the greats of his day.

[ElGee]

^^^^ You completely changed the issue mid-thread...are you a lawyer?

What does opponent scoring ability have anything to do with the fact that Wilt played against much shorter, weaker players, thus making his size a bigger advantage then than it would be now?

EDIT: What is chronological snobbery?

You're right. I shouldn't have based it on players ability to score. Because after all David Lee can score all day but he can't defend right?

So how good were defensive centers in the NBA that were 7 feet? Any Center who is worth a lick of anything defensively can average at least 1.5 blocks per game.

So how many guys did that with a minimum of 300 games played? 14. A mere 14 guys in 20 years in the 1990s and 2000s

Number of them with:
20 MPG- 12
25 MPG- 8
30 MPG- 6
33 MPG- 4
35 MPG- 2
36 MPG- 0
38 MPG- 0

How about a mere 1?
7 Foot Centers who averaged 1+ BPG- 32 Players (in 20 years)
(Min 300 games)

Numbers with:

20 MPG- 25
25 MPG- 14
30 MPG- 8
33 MPG- 4
35 MPG- 2
36 MPG- 0
38 MPG- 0

What if I'm generous and include the 6'11 players?
1990s
6'11 +
1.5+ BPG

20 MPG- 13
25 MPG- 9
30 MPG- 6
35 MPG- 5
36 MPG- 5
38 MPG- 1*

*rounding up!

2000s
6'11+
1.5+ BPG

20 MPG- 10
25 MPG- 7
30 MPG- 4
35 MPG- 1
38 MPG- 0


Not very good. And if I go to 1.7+ blocks to 2.0+ blocks like the truly above average defensive centers really get the list gets even more bleak again even if you include the 6'11 players.

There are only a handful of great defensive centers who logged consistent minutes. There's a reason why only a few names stick out, because those were the only guys any good at defending.

So even if you say that Wilt wouldn't have completely abused those guys, (who abused each other BTW), he most certainly could have abused the rest of the league.

I mean even if I stated the guys who blocked a mere 1 shot per game, it's still not that long of a list.

Now you may say blocks isn't the only way to gauge how good someone is defensively. That may be true. But even a flopper like Divac met these block requirements. Any center who can't get a block per game and honestly who can't get 1.5+ blocks per game, can't be called very good defensively.

And the truth is there are a whole lot of guys who have played in this league. (There is a reason why FG% continue to rise for post players today)

I don't know about Wilt having a 50 points per game season in the modern NBA, but he certainly could have a whole lot of 30 point ones.

I must be very confused about this topic. I thought the issue was height of players when Wilt played vs. height today. I posted what amounts to the effective height of centers in the league (20 mpg+) and there was large difference. This came up in the discussion of athleticism and competition they faced...you seem to want to have a discussion about quality of defensive opponent on a nightly basis.

[_BBIB_]

It will be interesting when the days comes—and that day WILL come—when Jordan fans who disparage Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Bird, and everyone else who came before are on the other side and are defending Jordan against the modern day fans of the future who will say that Jordan couldn't hang in the modern day league as he did in the '80s and '90s. When people will say, "Jordan? GTFO. He wouldn't come CLOSE to doing the same things in the league now that he did then."

And the thing is, it's already starting.

Two days ago I saw people talking about how the 2007-08 Celtics defense Kobe faced was greater than anything Jordan ever faced in his career, and they posted YouTube clips of all the great defensive teams Jordan faced, dating back to the Bad Boys, and commenting how they were nothing like the modern day defensive teams. How prime Jordan never played against a zone defense.

I've seen elsewhere people disparaging Jordan for the fact that he's on record as saying that 6-3 Joe Dumars defended him better than anyone, and they were rolling at the idea of a 6-3 SG being able to D anyone up in today's game ("When was the last time since Dumars that a 6-3 SG was First Team All-D?", they ask), using this as proof that Jordan took advantage of shorter defenders (look similar to accusations made against Wilt?), and laughed at the idea that a 6-3 SG could do anything whatsoever against Kobe, McGrady, etc. The process is already in motion, and soon Jordan will face the same fate as all the other greats who preceded him, diminished by modern day fans who tear down the greats of the yesteryear to prop up current stars.

I'm against this being done to ANYONE, as greatness is greatness in any era. However, seeing the prevalence with which modern day fans do this now, I can't really say I'll have much sympathy when the shoe's on the other foot. Perhaps then the offenders on this forum will look back and wish they weren't so harsh on writerman, who's already undergone the process regarding the greats of his day.

Well stated sir.

Wilt's Rookie Year- 1959-60
Jordan's Rookie Year- 1984-85

Wilt's Final Season- 1972-73
Jordan's Final Season (on Bulls)- 1997-98


It's been 26 years since the debut of Jordan. 23 years since the most dominant form of 23 there probably ever was in the 1987 form that won everything from the dunk contest to defensive player of the year to the scoring title and of course one of his 5 MVPs.

The notion that Wilt couldn't dominate in Jordan's era which was 25 years apart from the era of Jordan, is essentially the same that Jordan couldn't dominate today.

So I guess in 10-15 years we'll be hearing how Jordan wouldn't have been better than or marginally at best over Kobe. Who knows, maybe Kobe gets a couple more rings and people will be saying Kobe was flat out better and that he would have averaged what Jordan did in 1987 for his career if he played in the "watered down" 1980s/1990s.

[ElGee]

Oh and just FYI, Chronological snobbery is the idea that something/someone is inferior just because they lived/accomplished something at an earlier period of time.

This is very common in sports. The idea that Bill Russell couldn't be an elite defender today or that Wilt couldn't be an elite offensive talent. This is mostly based on perceived inferiority based on the passage of time.

But what really exposes how silly that is is when you consider the fact that one is essentially saying by the same window of time that someone like Michael Jordan wouldn't be effective 5-10 years from now because of the time that's passed since he came into the league.

Not taking into account the great physical talents and skills and basketball IQs of these players, and just ignoring all of it based on the passage of time.


It's one thing to discount something like Hondo is as athletic as Kobe. It's another to pretend that a 7'1 275 track star with no telling what kind of freakish wing span and vertical, and a finesse game to match the power, couldn't dominate in an era where arguably the 4th best Center is a 6'10 240 guy playing out of position in Al Horford. Or heck the best Center is an under 7 footer with no game outside 5 feet.

Or again even if you look at the 1990s which was much better at the C position where only 5-7 guys could truly be considered decent defenders. And you have a 6'10 245 guy in Alonzo Mounring capable of putting up 20 PPG. Heck look in the 2000s when 6'10 245 Amare Stoudemire was still at Center before he got hurt and was putting up 26 PPG on outstanding FG%.

Yet a 7'1 275 pound Wilt couldn't match that? Not buying it.

At the very least Wilt could score like Amare and rebound like Dwight Howard and block shots like a prime Hakeem which would make him undisputably the best Center in the game because of that.

And more than likely he'd be a decisively better scorer than Amare and a better rebounder than Dwight.

This is one interpretation of what has happened. Another, I think more plausible explanation, is that there was a *shift* sometime in the last century regarding our view of athletics and culture.

The talent pool to choose from back then was *very* small. People didn't recruit to all corners and young talents didn't devote themselves to sport because it wasn't a fantastic economic option. Many pro athletes had to have off-season jobs, and the wear and tear on the body was not glamorous. Fame was minimal and the exposure to young people was small (the NBA's TV contracts were pedestrian before the Magic-Bird years).

As TV contracts, celebrity, money and fame blew up in sports, the talent pool to choose from expanded enormously. Particularly basketball. At the same time (with a small lag), nutrition and fitness education became part of professional athletics. Heck, athletes used to smoke in the 50s and 60s!

To judge basketball players differently from an era when the game was evolutionarily young - dunking and jumpshots weren't even around - doesn't seem to be a case of some period-specific bias that emerges in every generation, but instead people being aware of that *shift* and trying to accurately fit those players into the bigger picture of what the sport has become. It's no different than viewing Babe Ruth's records with a grain of salt (even if it's a coarse, crystal chunk) because he played against whites only in an era when pitchers started 5 games a week.

Consider this: (1) In the 80s, people had the same observations about the state of basketball in the 50s that we have today. (2) Today, people do NOT view the league in the 80s like people then viewed the 50s.

To act like sports aren't (in general) constantly evolving, at least from at athletic standpoint, is just plain wrong. Every raw-metric sport on earth has records that are continually broken. To use Wilt's track numbers as an example, I believe that today they measure up to an average high school track athlete. And I'm not arguing Shaq has better straight-line speed, it's just simply wrong to ignore the difference in athletics then and now, and I don't think that's symptomatic of a constant generational bias, but of a major shift in athletics in the last century.

(I have no idea if there is this snobbery you speak of outside of sports -- very well may be.)