Andre Drummond-New offensive rebound leader for the Pistons+more

[BadMofoPimp]

No, you can’t observe Dre getting rebounds before he was born.

With the level of training skills, conditioning and strength of players in the modern age, Drummond would destroy 60's basketball. 30rpg gauransheed.

I think it's generally assumed that when comparing across eras you consider each player in relative terms. There's not much of a point in the comparison if you disregard advances in science, technology, etc. made available to players in recent eras not available to players in the past. Not to mention that Dre plays on a team where almost no one other than Blake makes any effort to rebound.

For the record, in looking up the player stats from a number of games in 1965-66 it looks like Wilt was getting about a third of the team's rebounds on average.

In any case, he's got a long way to go before there's an argument for him being the NBA's greatest rebounder ever.

Ok. Players in the 60's did not play defense and while many had very low conditioning. Thus, any 7 footer who had decent basketball skills and conditioning could destroy back then. It wasn't like Wilt was playing against tough competition. Drummond actually has to fight for much of what he gets.

[Manocad]

With the level of training skills, conditioning and strength of players in the modern age, Drummond would destroy 60's basketball. 30rpg gauransheed.

I think it's generally assumed that when comparing across eras you consider each player in relative terms. There's not much of a point in the comparison if you disregard advances in science, technology, etc. made available to players in recent eras not available to players in the past. Not to mention that Dre plays on a team where almost no one other than Blake makes any effort to rebound.

For the record, in looking up the player stats from a number of games in 1965-66 it looks like Wilt was getting about a third of the team's rebounds on average.

In any case, he's got a long way to go before there's an argument for him being the NBA's greatest rebounder ever.

Ok. Players in the 60's did not play defense and while many had very low conditioning. Thus, any 7 footer who had decent basketball skills and conditioning could destroy back then. It wasn't like Wilt was playing against tough competition. Drummond actually has to fight for much of what he gets.

Again, you can't compare across eras by removing the relativity factor. The adjective I'm addressing is "greatest," not "best." Kinda like saying Barry Bonds is a greater home run hitter than Babe Ruth (and/or greatest all time) because he had better conditioning, mechanics, and ultimately hit more home runs. Better in the literal sense? Certainly an argument you can make. But greater? No way. Babe Ruth was hitting 50-60 home runs in a season in an era when ENTIRE TEAMS weren't hitting that many. Sure, if you define "greatest" as who got the most [insert measure here], well, Wilt still holds 21 NBA rebounding records. Regardless of what you think of the competition he played against, he was still a freakishly athletic and strong 7'2" guy.

In any case, Drummond being awesome as a rebounder right now doesn't make him great and certainly not arguably the "greatest ever." Doing it for his entire career does.

[Invictus88]

I think it's generally assumed that when comparing across eras you consider each player in relative terms. There's not much of a point in the comparison if you disregard advances in science, technology, etc. made available to players in recent eras not available to players in the past. Not to mention that Dre plays on a team where almost no one other than Blake makes any effort to rebound.

For the record, in looking up the player stats from a number of games in 1965-66 it looks like Wilt was getting about a third of the team's rebounds on average.

In any case, he's got a long way to go before there's an argument for him being the NBA's greatest rebounder ever.

Ok. Players in the 60's did not play defense and while many had very low conditioning. Thus, any 7 footer who had decent basketball skills and conditioning could destroy back then. It wasn't like Wilt was playing against tough competition. Drummond actually has to fight for much of what he gets.

Again, you can't compare across eras by removing the relativity factor. The adjective I'm addressing is "greatest," not "best." Kinda like saying Barry Bonds is a greater home run hitter than Babe Ruth (and/or greatest all time) because he had better conditioning, mechanics, and ultimately hit more home runs. Better in the literal sense? Certainly an argument you can make. But greater? No way. Babe Ruth was hitting 50-60 home runs in a season in an era when ENTIRE TEAMS weren't hitting that many. Sure, if you define "greatest" as who got the most [insert measure here], well, Wilt still holds 21 NBA rebounding records. Regardless of what you think of the competition he played against, he was still a freakishly athletic and strong 7'2" guy.

In any case, Drummond being awesome as a rebounder right now doesn't make him great and certainly not arguably the "greatest ever." Doing it for his entire career does.

Middle ground: He's the best of his generation/era (or whatever you want to call the window in which he played). He's been that way for the years he has played already and is still young. He doesn't have career stats of the elite but is at least on a trajectory to do it.

[Invictus88]

I will say this: does anyone have numbers of average height of players back then vs now? I would think that would be fairly objective (although not tell the complet story)

Also, how many posessions were there per game in both times? Shots put up? Type of shots... Typical distribution of rebounds (did they crash the boards as a team back then vs now?). Lot's of variables.

Probably why you can never answer this with confidence. Forum discussion fodder for sure

[Manocad]

Ok. Players in the 60's did not play defense and while many had very low conditioning. Thus, any 7 footer who had decent basketball skills and conditioning could destroy back then. It wasn't like Wilt was playing against tough competition. Drummond actually has to fight for much of what he gets.

Again, you can't compare across eras by removing the relativity factor. The adjective I'm addressing is "greatest," not "best." Kinda like saying Barry Bonds is a greater home run hitter than Babe Ruth (and/or greatest all time) because he had better conditioning, mechanics, and ultimately hit more home runs. Better in the literal sense? Certainly an argument you can make. But greater? No way. Babe Ruth was hitting 50-60 home runs in a season in an era when ENTIRE TEAMS weren't hitting that many. Sure, if you define "greatest" as who got the most [insert measure here], well, Wilt still holds 21 NBA rebounding records. Regardless of what you think of the competition he played against, he was still a freakishly athletic and strong 7'2" guy.

In any case, Drummond being awesome as a rebounder right now doesn't make him great and certainly not arguably the "greatest ever." Doing it for his entire career does.

Middle ground: He's the best of his generation/era (or whatever you want to call the window in which he played). He's been that way for the years he has played already and is still young. He doesn't have career stats of the elite but is at least on a trajectory to do it.

Best rebounder of his generation? Without a doubt there is a solid case for that judgment.

[Manocad]

I will say this: does anyone have numbers of average height of players back then vs now? I would think that would be fairly objective (although not tell the complet story)

Also, how many posessions were there per game in both times? Shots put up? Type of shots... Typical distribution of rebounds (did they crash the boards as a team back then vs now?). Lot's of variables.

Probably why you can never answer this with confidence. Forum discussion fodder for sure

[Invictus88]

I wonder how much 2 inches matters...

[Manocad]

I wonder how much 2 inches matters...

Spoiler:

That's NOT what she said

[Snakebites]

I wonder how much 2 inches matters...

The measure isn't particularly reliable.

How and under what conditions players were measured has changed a lot and my inclination is to think that it's trended towards being more standardized with the way workouts and draft compounds are conducted these days. For example, Jerry West is listed at 6'2'' for his playing days, but see how similar in height he looks to Kobe Bryant, even as an older man? I'd say even if we're being liberal he's MAYBE an inch or two shorter at most, and Kobe's 6'6''.



I think off-reporting of height was a lot more common back then, though I'll admit I've really only got anectdotal evidence of that.

I think it's probably generally true that the average height has gotten taller over time, but I'm not sure how easy it is to determine just how much. I think differences in training and conditioning are probably greater.

[_Und3r][D4wg_]

OT: Who's the best "short" rebounder? Barkley?

[Snakebites]

OT: Who's the best "short" rebounder? Barkley?

Depends on what you mean by "short". Rodman was out there getting it done against guys taller than him, I think he's just an inch taller than Barkley.

[Manocad]

OT: Who's the best "short" rebounder? Barkley?

Depends on what you mean by "short". Rodman was out there getting it done against guys taller than him, I think he's just an inch taller than Barkley.

Rodman was listed usually at 6’8”, sometimes at 6’9” and was said to be in the 6’7” range. Barkley was pretty universally listed as 6’6” but said to be 6’4-1/2”. At 13.12 and 11.69 RPG respectively for their careers it’s really hard to argue these two aren’t the best rebounders in NBA history given their heights. Currently? Russell Westbrook, hands down. Listed as 6’3” and by everything I can see is actually 6’3”.

[Manocad]

Did some Google searching on Jerry West and saw plenty of pictures with Kobe that would put him in the 6-2, 6-3 range if Kobe is 6-6. He looks to be about the same height as both Curry and DWade.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Snakebites]

OT: Who's the best "short" rebounder? Barkley?

Depends on what you mean by "short". Rodman was out there getting it done against guys taller than him, I think he's just an inch taller than Barkley.

Rodman was listed usually at 6’8”, sometimes at 6’9” and was said to be in the 6’7” range. Barkley was pretty universally listed as 6’6” but said to be 6’4-1/2”. At 13.12 and 11.69 RPG respectively for their careers it’s really hard to argue these two aren’t the best rebounders in NBA history given their heights. Currently? Russell Westbrook, hands down. Listed as 6’3” and by everything I can see is actually 6’3”.

Most thing I see- including the best source-b-ball reference list Rodman at 6’7”.

Barkley always looked like he was about the same height as Michael Jordan.

Westbrook is a good call.