Retro Draft: Winner is Stun704

[Paydro70]

So you assumed we had a time machine?

A hypothetical one, yes. To match our hypothetical teams made out of players in their primes.

I think you underestimate the skill levels immensely. It's called ethnocentrism. "Those people don't look like the people I'm used to, so they must suck."

Wow, that's quite a leap.

It would be pretty much (Please Use More Appropriate Word) to pick these guys up in a time machine. You have to have more finesse than that. Teams need a chance to practice with each other anyway. If you wanted to play that game, I would have just taken the 72 win bulls sans MJ and plus some other SG and steamroll every one of you. You have to assume that these guys would be able to update their style of play to new rules and styles.

Who said they weren't practicing in my hypothetical scenario? The point is that we aren't imagining entirely new lifespans for these guys ("what if Russell had been born in 1985?"), we're looking at how they played at their primes and assembling a team out of them ("How would Russell do on a team with these other guys, against the teams other drafters have put together?").

Anyway, I'm not sure why I should assume that every player would be able to update their style of play. Even on the simplest level, having a 3pt line completely transforms the game of basketball, and likewise the skillsets that work the best. To take a more extreme example, quarterbacks from the days that passing was a trick play would never be able to play in the modern NFL, no matter how great they were at QB for their time.

(Not that it's especially relevant, but the 72-win Bulls without MJ would not be nearly so great, and even if someone HAD assembled them, they would get completely annihilated by the squads that we're putting together out of all-time players. There's a reason only three of those guys have been picked.)

It isn't like there is new physics, or a different gravity, or fundamentally different people playing the game. In fact this kind of thinking is pretty much anathema to the competition itself. If you just wanted another draft like the last one you could have had it, you're a mod, make another one. This is an all time great competition.

No, gravity hasn't changed. But fundamentally different people ARE playing the game. If you were a great athlete in the 1950s, did you go try out for the NBA? Probably not. If you don't live in the US, you don't even know what basketball is. If you're black, half the teams don't want to sign you, and the league had only opened up the possibility at the beginning of the decade. There was way better money in baseball and boxing, or hell, accounting! The worldwide penetration of the NBA and the proliferation of youth basketball is enormously better... WAY more people with NBA potential are being cultivated now than sixty years ago (sorry, we're talking about people who were PLAYING in 1950s, so actually it's more about how big basketball was in the THIRTIES).

I hardly think appreciating the different levels of competition is "anathema to the competition." In fact I see that as half the point of this; comparing players across eras in creating the best teams we possibly can.

I'll be honest, and don't shoot the messenger, but you just sound racist now.

If the messenger is the only one who thought of and delivered the message, I think it's OK to shoot him. That is a ludicrous accusation without basis.

I made those two comparisons because they are similar pairings in terms of era-based statistics (like PER, for example). Mikan dominated the NBA the way Shaq did... but the NBA was a very different place in 1950 than it was in 2000.

Here, I'll make it better... I'm not viewing Schayes as if he's Dirk.

[BigSlam]

I find it interesting when dudes post about time machines and PER and being a racist in this thread.

I'm just participating in this draft/thread because I think it's fun and it's filling in lockout enforced time.

[captaincrunk]

So you assumed we had a time machine?

A hypothetical one, yes. To match our hypothetical teams made out of players in their primes.

I think you underestimate the skill levels immensely. It's called ethnocentrism. "Those people don't look like the people I'm used to, so they must suck."

Wow, that's quite a leap.

Which is why it's surprising that you made it.

It would be pretty much (Please Use More Appropriate Word) to pick these guys up in a time machine. You have to have more finesse than that. Teams need a chance to practice with each other anyway. If you wanted to play that game, I would have just taken the 72 win bulls sans MJ and plus some other SG and steamroll every one of you. You have to assume that these guys would be able to update their style of play to new rules and styles.

Who said they weren't practicing in my hypothetical scenario? The point is that we aren't imagining entirely new lifespans for these guys ("what if Russell had been born in 1985?"), we're looking at how they played at their primes and assembling a team out of them ("How would Russell do on a team with these other guys, against the teams other drafters have put together?").

You're ignoring some things and adding others of your choosing.

Anyway, I'm not sure why I should assume that every player would be able to update their style of play. Even on the simplest level, having a 3pt line completely transforms the game of basketball, and likewise the skillsets that work the best. To take a more extreme example, quarterbacks from the days that passing was a trick play would never be able to play in the modern NFL, no matter how great they were at QB for their time.

What an absurd comparison. May as well compare brats dolls to G.I. Joes.

(Not that it's especially relevant, but the 72-win Bulls without MJ would not be nearly so great, and even if someone HAD assembled them, they would get completely annihilated by the squads that we're putting together out of all-time players. There's a reason only three of those guys have been picked.)

No they wouldn't because they had chemistry. You put a bunch of guys form different eras out there who don't know the rules or how players from different eras played, and they'd get wiped by a team like the Bulls that year. Which is why your ludicrous "Pick em up in a time machine and drop em on the court" idea is so broken.

It isn't like there is new physics, or a different gravity, or fundamentally different people playing the game. In fact this kind of thinking is pretty much anathema to the competition itself. If you just wanted another draft like the last one you could have had it, you're a mod, make another one. This is an all time great competition.

No, gravity hasn't changed. But fundamentally different people ARE playing the game. If you were a great athlete in the 1950s, did you go try out for the NBA? Probably not. If you don't live in the US, you don't even know what basketball is. If you're black, half the teams don't want to sign you, and the league had only opened up the possibility at the beginning of the decade. There was way better money in baseball and boxing, or hell, accounting! The worldwide penetration of the NBA and the proliferation of youth basketball is enormously better... WAY more people with NBA potential are being cultivated now than sixty years ago (sorry, we're talking about people who were PLAYING in 1950s, so actually it's more about how big basketball was in the THIRTIES).

So... black people are fundamentally different from white people? International players are fundamentally different from U.S. white players? This is precisely what I'm talking about. Thinly veiled racism.

I hardly think appreciating the different levels of competition is "anathema to the competition." In fact I see that as half the point of this; comparing players across eras in creating the best teams we possibly can.

But you aren't. You're claiming that only modern era players are worth picking. You can't just dump a bunch of players into the modern era. You have to assume they were given time to adjust to it, otherwise it wouldn't be even close to fair. Think of the way these guys played defense before hand checking. Most players would be off the court in 5 minutes just because of foul trouble. You don't want that do you?

No, you don't. You aren't thinking this through at all.

I'll be honest, and don't shoot the messenger, but you just sound racist now.

If the messenger is the only one who thought of and delivered the message, I think it's OK to shoot him. That is a ludicrous accusation without basis.

The basis is strong, and rooted in what appears to be racially driven biases of your own making.

I made those two comparisons because they are similar pairings in terms of era-based statistics (like PER, for example). Mikan dominated the NBA the way Shaq did... but the NBA was a very different place in 1950 than it was in 2000.

Here, I'll make it better... I'm not viewing Schayes as if he's Dirk.

No two players are the same. Schayes was better than Dirk, but a completely different player. Mikan was dominant in ways Shaq wasn't. Shaq had brute size that no other player has ever been able to take advantage of aside from Wilt, who was more skilled anyway.

Basically, you're willing to make allowances for your players but not mine. Got it.

[SWedd523]

I find it interesting when dudes post about time machines and PER and being a racist in this thread.

I'm just participating in this draft/thread because I think it's fun and it's filling in lockout enforced time.

Yeah the greatest thing about this draft has been doing all this research on players I wasn't so familiar with. I've found out so many crazy things and accomplishments by players that I'm glad I even got to participate.

[captaincrunk]

I find it interesting when dudes post about time machines and PER and being a racist in this thread.

I'm just participating in this draft/thread because I think it's fun and it's filling in lockout enforced time.

I'm not trying to do all that. I'm just trying to put forth an argument for considering the players as though they had some chance to adjust. It's hardly fair to say we can't pick any modern players, and then expect them all to play as though they were in the modern era, eh?

[fatlever]

i'm going with the time machine... teleport all players from their prime to today and we make them play as is for a season, using a team of referees that spans all eras, but playing with current rules such as 3pt line, lane violations and no goaltending. bill russell doesnt get to add 30 lbs of muscle, cousy doesnt get to add 3pt range and conversely all the guys from the 90s will get called for 10 palming/traveling violations per game from the refs from the 60s-80s and the power forwards from the 70s lay everyone out cold each time that try to enter the lane.

in terms of comparing generations, i think the great players from any era could compete with guys today after some adjustment period to the speed of the game. its the median/average players from the 60s that would get chewed up by the average players today.

so lets say for arguments sake the guys from each era get a full summer, training camp and preseason to get ready for each other, then game on.

all that being said, i do have to take the pre-integration players from the 50s with a grain of salt since the competion was missing the majority of great black players. and i also take some of the players from 67-75 with a grain of salt as both the aba and the nba were watered down due to competing leagues.

but those guys in the 60s when there was only 8 teams, hell every team had 3 all-star level players. the competition was fierce. the 60s lakers had wilt, jerry west AND elgin baylor, 3 of the 15 greatest players of all time and they still couldnt beat the celtics. each team was stacked and you never had an easy win back then.

and of course the guys in the late 90s were playing in a league that was so watered down with all the expansion that had just happened. 97-04 is some of the worst NBA of the past 40 years to me.

i will always hold a premium for guys who played from 84 to 94 because, to me, that was the best stretch in NBA history. you had great teams, great stars, you didnt have another league stealing teams, the league wasnt watered down and the league was fully integrated.



i do have to take the 50s, pre-integration, players with a grain of salt.

[fatlever]

I find it interesting when dudes post about time machines and PER and being a racist in this thread.

I'm just participating in this draft/thread because I think it's fun and it's filling in lockout enforced time.

I'm not trying to do all that. I'm just trying to put forth an argument for considering the players as though they had some chance to adjust. It's hardly fair to say we can't pick any modern players, and then expect them all to play as though they were in the modern era, eh?

thats why i hired referees from each era and put them in my time machine... to blend the officiating styles.

steve francis doesnt get the ball over halfcourt in the 60s because he would get called for traveling everytime he touched the ball.

[captaincrunk]

i'm going with the time machine... teleport all players from their prime to today and we make them play as is for a season, using a team of referees that spans all eras, but playing with current rules such as 3pt line, lane violations and no goaltending. bill russell doesnt get to add 30 lbs of muscle, cousy doesnt get to add 3pt range and conversely all the guys from the 90s will get called for 10 palming/traveling violations per game from the refs from the 60s-80s and the power forwards from the 70s lay everyone out cold each time that try to enter the lane.

But wouldn't such a game be impossible to complete?

in terms of comparing generations, i think the great players from any era could compete with guys today after some adjustment period to the speed of the game. its the median/average players from the 60s that would get chewed up by the average players today.

I definitely agree. also worth considering is putting more modern players in an older context. They'd have trouble with the floors and the temps and everything else. The rules... It's all relative.

so lets say for arguments sake the guys from each era get a full summer, training camp and preseason to get ready for each other, then game on.

And so it is written, so it shall be done.

all that being said, i do have to take the pre-integration players from the 50s with a grain of salt since the competion was missing the majority of great black players. and i also take some of the players from 67-75 with a grain of salt as both the aba and the nba were watered down due to competing leagues.

It's an embarrassment that some of the greatest individuals were barred from the NBA.

but those guys in the 60s when there was only 8 teams, hell every team had 3 all-star level players. the competition was fierce. the 60s lakers had wilt, jerry west AND elgin baylor, 3 of the 15 greatest players of all time and they still couldnt beat the celtics. each team was stacked and you never had an easy win back then.

and of course the guys in the late 90s were playing in a league that was so watered down with all the expansion that had just happened. 97-04 is some of the worst NBA of the past 40 years to me.

i will always hold a premium for guys who played from 84 to 94 because, to me, that was the best stretch in NBA history. you had great teams, great stars, you didnt have another league stealing teams, the league wasnt watered down and the league was fully integrated.



i do have to take the 50s, pre-integration, players with a grain of salt.

It doesn't help that Schayes first name is Adolph, does it?

[Paydro70]

Wow, that's quite a leap.

Which is why it's surprising that you made it.

I'm not sure what leap you are talking about. I meant your assumption that my opinion has anything to do with what the players look like.

Who said they weren't practicing in my hypothetical scenario? The point is that we aren't imagining entirely new lifespans for these guys ("what if Russell had been born in 1985?"), we're looking at how they played at their primes and assembling a team out of them ("How would Russell do on a team with these other guys, against the teams other drafters have put together?").

You're ignoring some things and adding others of your choosing.

Please be more specific about your argument, because I'm not sure what you're referring to (what's being "added" or "ignored" here?). It's fairly obvious we have a different conception of how these players were supposed to be compared within this draft.

Anyway, I'm not sure why I should assume that every player would be able to update their style of play. Even on the simplest level, having a 3pt line completely transforms the game of basketball, and likewise the skillsets that work the best. To take a more extreme example, quarterbacks from the days that passing was a trick play would never be able to play in the modern NFL, no matter how great they were at QB for their time.

What an absurd comparison. May as well compare brats dolls to G.I. Joes.

Is this the extent of your counter-argument? Do you deny that basketball has changed enormously since the 1950s, to the point that different skillsets are valuable?

(Not that it's especially relevant, but the 72-win Bulls without MJ would not be nearly so great, and even if someone HAD assembled them, they would get completely annihilated by the squads that we're putting together out of all-time players. There's a reason only three of those guys have been picked.)

No they wouldn't because they had chemistry. You put a bunch of guys form different eras out there who don't know the rules or how players from different eras played, and they'd get wiped by a team like the Bulls that year. Which is why your ludicrous "Pick em up in a time machine and drop em on the court" idea is so broken.

So is this the source of your seeming hostility? Some mistaken belief that I ever said the players would all be "dropped on the court?" I of course assumed that the players would be told their roles, be able to learn plays, etc. What they WOULDN'T do is completely change their bodies, or the way they have learned to play basketball.

In any case, I don't think it would take terribly much practice for teams made up exclusively of HOF-caliber players to beat one starting Luc Longley and Ron Harper.

No, gravity hasn't changed. But fundamentally different people ARE playing the game. If you were a great athlete in the 1950s, did you go try out for the NBA? Probably not. If you don't live in the US, you don't even know what basketball is. If you're black, half the teams don't want to sign you, and the league had only opened up the possibility at the beginning of the decade. There was way better money in baseball and boxing, or hell, accounting! The worldwide penetration of the NBA and the proliferation of youth basketball is enormously better... WAY more people with NBA potential are being cultivated now than sixty years ago (sorry, we're talking about people who were PLAYING in 1950s, so actually it's more about how big basketball was in the THIRTIES).

So... black people are fundamentally different from white people? International players are fundamentally different from U.S. white players? This is precisely what I'm talking about. Thinly veiled racism.

Another exciting leap of logic!

I'll be really honest, I don't know what else to tell you. In 1950, huge segments of the population were not even in consideration as potential NBA players. In 2000, virtually the entire world is the talent pool for the league. How is it possible that that does not affect the level of competition?

It's not a matter of blacks being different from whites, it's simply MORE PEOPLE that can play NBA basketball. I'll make it even simpler by ignoring the time factor at all. The 1950 Harlem Globetrotters featured multiple players who would have been dominant in the NBA. They were NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY BY THE LEAGUE. So how the heck can we look at the 1950 NBA and say that it's the same as the 1960 NBA? The more doors open for potential NBA players (esp. through international expansion), the tougher the competition is to be a dominant player in that league.

I hardly think appreciating the different levels of competition is "anathema to the competition." In fact I see that as half the point of this; comparing players across eras in creating the best teams we possibly can.

But you aren't. You're claiming that only modern era players are worth picking. You can't just dump a bunch of players into the modern era. You have to assume they were given time to adjust to it, otherwise it wouldn't be even close to fair. Think of the way these guys played defense before hand checking. Most players would be off the court in 5 minutes just because of foul trouble. You don't want that do you?

No, you don't. You aren't thinking this through at all.

Look man, read my posts in good faith. I never said only modern era players are worth picking. I never asserted that they would have no time to learn the new rules. What I said is that the level of competition in the 1950s was way worse than now, the rules have changed drastically, and that a lot of the players from that era would therefore not be up to snuff against modern players in a modern game. There are some exceptions; for example, I think Schayes and Mikan could play in our league. But would they be elite? Anywhere close to how they dominated in the 1950s? I doubt it.

Are you trying to make my point for me when you bring up hand-checking? That's exactly what I'm talking about, it would be a huge adjustment to attempt modern defense. Unless we're reimagining an entire lifespan of basketball for Schayes, why would anyone assume he could learn to play modern defense well?

If the messenger is the only one who thought of and delivered the message, I think it's OK to shoot him. That is a ludicrous accusation without basis.

The basis is strong, and rooted in what appears to be racially driven biases of your own making.

Okay.

I made those two comparisons because they are similar pairings in terms of era-based statistics (like PER, for example). Mikan dominated the NBA the way Shaq did... but the NBA was a very different place in 1950 than it was in 2000.

Here, I'll make it better... I'm not viewing Schayes as if he's Dirk.

No two players are the same. Schayes was better than Dirk, but a completely different player. Mikan was dominant in ways Shaq wasn't. Shaq had brute size that no other player has ever been able to take advantage of aside from Wilt, who was more skilled anyway.

Basically, you're willing to make allowances for your players but not mine. Got it.

Schayes was not better than Dirk even in comparison to his era, but I'll leave that one alone. The real best comparison for Schayes in the modern NBA would probably be Kevin Durant, but since I didn't want to be called racist for saying Durant is better than Schayes, I went with the closest white guy... another very tall player (Schayes' 6'7" was also comparatively taller in 1950) who succeeded mainly on the basis of his excellent jump shot.

I have no idea what kind of "allowances" I'm asking for my players. Does assuming the game is played in 2011 instead of 1955 count?

[captaincrunk]

Wow, that's quite a leap.

Which is why it's surprising that you made it.

I'm not sure what leap you are talking about. I meant your assumption that my opinion has anything to do with what the players look like.

You're the one who called it a leap, I was just going with it.

Who said they weren't practicing in my hypothetical scenario? The point is that we aren't imagining entirely new lifespans for these guys ("what if Russell had been born in 1985?"), we're looking at how they played at their primes and assembling a team out of them ("How would Russell do on a team with these other guys, against the teams other drafters have put together?").

You're ignoring some things and adding others of your choosing.

Please be more specific about your argument, because I'm not sure what you're referring to (what's being "added" or "ignored" here?). It's fairly obvious we have a different conception of how these players were supposed to be compared within this draft.

Like the three point line, for example. Players were shooting from that far before the line was there, just not as often because it wasn't as probably. Schayes, for example, could shoot fine from that range. But you would pretend they couldn't just because you haven't seen it.

Anyway, I'm not sure why I should assume that every player would be able to update their style of play. Even on the simplest level, having a 3pt line completely transforms the game of basketball, and likewise the skillsets that work the best. To take a more extreme example, quarterbacks from the days that passing was a trick play would never be able to play in the modern NFL, no matter how great they were at QB for their time.

What an absurd comparison. May as well compare brats dolls to G.I. Joes.

Is this the extent of your counter-argument? Do you deny that basketball has changed enormously since the 1950s, to the point that different skillsets are valuable?

Let's see, shooting the three vs shooting from three point distance without a skinny half circle is somehow comparable to quarterbacks pre passing? Yeah... No.

(Not that it's especially relevant, but the 72-win Bulls without MJ would not be nearly so great, and even if someone HAD assembled them, they would get completely annihilated by the squads that we're putting together out of all-time players. There's a reason only three of those guys have been picked.)

No they wouldn't because they had chemistry. You put a bunch of guys form different eras out there who don't know the rules or how players from different eras played, and they'd get wiped by a team like the Bulls that year. Which is why your ludicrous "Pick em up in a time machine and drop em on the court" idea is so broken.

So is this the source of your seeming hostility? Some mistaken belief that I ever said the players would all be "dropped on the court?" I of course assumed that the players would be told their roles, be able to learn plays, etc. What they WOULDN'T do is completely change their bodies, or the way they have learned to play basketball.

The fundamentals are called fundamentals for a reason. Between fundamentals and the mental aspect you've got at least 75% of basketball. Sure some of these guys weren't quite as buff, but they played a rough and tumble game too, don't forget that. They hustled just as hard and some would say they played for better reasons since they weren't payed as much.

In any case, I don't think it would take terribly much practice for teams made up exclusively of HOF-caliber players to beat one starting Luc Longley and Ron Harper

Pippen too, who was picked pretty early in the draft. With the summer training camp that Fats just placed, sure they'd be creamed though. But if we just time machined them onto a court and yelled "Fight!" the bulls would kill.

No, gravity hasn't changed. But fundamentally different people ARE playing the game. If you were a great athlete in the 1950s, did you go try out for the NBA? Probably not. If you don't live in the US, you don't even know what basketball is. If you're black, half the teams don't want to sign you, and the league had only opened up the possibility at the beginning of the decade. There was way better money in baseball and boxing, or hell, accounting! The worldwide penetration of the NBA and the proliferation of youth basketball is enormously better... WAY more people with NBA potential are being cultivated now than sixty years ago (sorry, we're talking about people who were PLAYING in 1950s, so actually it's more about how big basketball was in the THIRTIES).

So... black people are fundamentally different from white people? International players are fundamentally different from U.S. white players? This is precisely what I'm talking about. Thinly veiled racism.

Another exciting leap of logic!

I'll be really honest, I don't know what else to tell you. In 1950, huge segments of the population were not even in consideration as potential NBA players. In 2000, virtually the entire world is the talent pool for the league. How is it possible that that does not affect the level of competition?

That's why there are more teams to soak up the talent. There are also more sports in general to soak up athletically gifted individuals. Tennis, hockey, all that. It all pays well now. Baseball.

It's not a matter of blacks being different from whites, it's simply MORE PEOPLE that can play NBA basketball. I'll make it even simpler by ignoring the time factor at all. The 1950 Harlem Globetrotters featured multiple players who would have been dominant in the NBA. They were NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY BY THE LEAGUE. So how the heck can we look at the 1950 NBA and say that it's the same as the 1960 NBA? The more doors open for potential NBA players (esp. through international expansion), the tougher the competition is to be a dominant player in that league.

I think there is something to be said for this, it's true, but it's also got to be taken as relative. There's a lot going on in this equation. I truly believe Bob Cousy (just as an example) was supremely talented, and would have been amazing in any era. He just happened to be born earlier than the rest of these guys. We shouldn't penalize him for his birth. That's all I'm saying.

I hardly think appreciating the different levels of competition is "anathema to the competition." In fact I see that as half the point of this; comparing players across eras in creating the best teams we possibly can.

But you aren't. You're claiming that only modern era players are worth picking. You can't just dump a bunch of players into the modern era. You have to assume they were given time to adjust to it, otherwise it wouldn't be even close to fair. Think of the way these guys played defense before hand checking. Most players would be off the court in 5 minutes just because of foul trouble. You don't want that do you?

No, you don't. You aren't thinking this through at all.

Look man, read my posts in good faith. I never said only modern era players are worth picking. I never asserted that they would have no time to learn the new rules. What I said is that the level of competition in the 1950s was way worse than now, the rules have changed drastically, and that a lot of the players from that era would therefore not be up to snuff against modern players in a modern game. There are some exceptions; for example, I think Schayes and Mikan could play in our league. But would they be elite? Anywhere close to how they dominated in the 1950s? I doubt it.

Read: Not worth picking. This is just ethnocentrism plain and simple. It's like saying Aristotle would be a (Please Use More Appropriate Word) in the modern era since he didn't know about gravity and all that. Give him a chance to get up to speed, and you'd still have one of the brightest minds ever to grace this earth. Times change, the people haven't changed significantly.

Are you trying to make my point for me when you bring up hand-checking? That's exactly what I'm talking about, it would be a huge adjustment to attempt modern defense. Unless we're reimagining an entire lifespan of basketball for Schayes, why would anyone assume he could learn to play modern defense well?

You do know hand checking is relatively new? Most the players picked so far have to make that adjustment as well as many others. Shall we assume none of them can, or all of them? Because we can't know on an individual basis.

I made those two comparisons because they are similar pairings in terms of era-based statistics (like PER, for example). Mikan dominated the NBA the way Shaq did... but the NBA was a very different place in 1950 than it was in 2000.

Here, I'll make it better... I'm not viewing Schayes as if he's Dirk.

No two players are the same. Schayes was better than Dirk, but a completely different player. Mikan was dominant in ways Shaq wasn't. Shaq had brute size that no other player has ever been able to take advantage of aside from Wilt, who was more skilled anyway.

Basically, you're willing to make allowances for your players but not mine. Got it.

Schayes was not better than Dirk even in comparison to his era, but I'll leave that one alone. The real best comparison for Schayes in the modern NBA would probably be Kevin Durant, but since I didn't want to be called racist for saying Durant is better than Schayes, I went with the closest white guy... another very tall player (Schayes' 6'7" was also comparatively taller in 1950) who succeeded mainly on the basis of his excellent jump shot.

Nowitzki is much taller though. 5 inches taller. A better comparison would be someone like Reggie Miller. A great shooter, clutch, big for his position but not All NBA defense, etc.

I have no idea what kind of "allowances" I'm asking for my players. Does assuming the game is played in 2011 instead of 1955 count?

I get the feeling this will go nowhere...

[LamarMatic7]

I don't even know who I should be quoting or arguing against. I just want to say my piece and hope that I won't get bashed again for it.

In my opinion, Paydro is wrong. You can't just compare 50s players that way to the players from today's game. They didn't have the medicine they have nowadays, they didn't have the doctors they have now, players careers often lasted for about 8 years, since they couldn't come back after serious injuries like you can now. The game was still in its diapers. They all were pioneers - the coaches were learning and basically making up plays and strategies, the players didn't have any idol to watch on their TV and learn from, the schedule they had can't be compared to today. They didn't fly first class or play in brand new arenas. Imagine how tired they were after those long seasons.

As every sport, basketball has evolved over the years pretty much till the 80s/90s. I don't even want to get into genetics. Nowadays the human athlete has pretty much reached his ceiling - they practice the perfect way, they have coaches that know exactly what to teach them, medicine has allowed players like Dwight and LeBron to have monster-like bodies etc. If you look at the time Jesse Owens ran and the results sprinters get nowadays, you can easily say that Owens is crap. Yet he's up there with Usain Bolt as one of the all-time best 100m sprinters. Why? Because they both achieved results, which were the fastest for their time and age. You couldn't ask Jesse Owens to run the 100 metre dash in 9,6 seconds, at that point a human simply couldn't achieve that kind of a result. In my opinion, it's the same in basketball. What Dolph Schayes did is close to the maximum of what a power forward could do at that time. So if he played during the same era as Dirk Nowitzki, per example, he would be at the same level. If he time travelled and tried to guard Dirk as a players from the 50s, he'd give up 50 points, since he doesn't have the physical abilities and didn't play in an era, where basketball had been mastered by coaches. He probably wouldn't know how possibly you can do anything on defense against such kind of a German machine. He probably would think that Dirk is Hitler's son.

Now I'm crossing my fingers in hope that there is someone, who agrees with me.

[BigSlam]

If we do have the use of a time machine I'm not using it to go back into the past to bring basketball players into the modern era. I'm going back to when I was thinner, better looking and a better lover and nailing all the chicks I passed up on that I shouldn't have.

I'd also play a thick Chuck Berry lick on guitar at a high school dance.

/thread.

[Diop]

I'd also play a thick Chuck Berry lick on guitar at a high school dance.
/thread.

And also have your mum crack onto you.

Anyhow, for my next pick for the Dunks & 3's category, I'm selecting the first ever slam dunk champion Larry Nance.

He was everything you wanted in a power forward, good mid range game, solid inside game and also blocked plenty of shots averaging over 2 for his career.

Best year 20.5pts, 9.6rebs, 3 assists, 2.3 blocks, 1 steal.
Career average 18.4pts, 8.6rebs, 2.8 assts, 2.4 blocks, 1 steal.

That's some consistency over 13 years.

3× NBA All-Star (1985, 1989, 1993)
NBA All-Defensive First Team (1989)
2× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1992–1993)

[SWedd523]

What Dolph Schayes did is close to the maximum of what a power forward could do at that time. So if he played during the same era as Dirk Nowitzki, per example, he would be at the same level.

I agree with everything you've said, but I just wanted to highlight this point in particular. If we're going to such extremes as to project these guys from vastly different eras, then we have to make projections that allow those players to be competitive.

There's no way a guy like Pettit could stick with someone like KG if they were to match up. But you can't think about it like that when you compare relative to their times in the league. You can't say Pettit, a top 15-20 guy all-time, doesn't match up in this league just because he's old.

Accomplishments are accomplishments. It's not fair to take away from the older guys like that. Everything has to be relative.

[Diop]

It was just a matter of time before this argument broke out.

I took the rules of this competition to be that the players will be deemed to be at their peak but that's it, no concessions or considerations for what era.

That was pretty much the only reason I didn't pick Pettit. I just kept imagining Shawn Kemp impregnating him.

[SWedd523]

I'll go ahead and nab the best remaining Center out there. Sachmo talks about consistency as 18/9 over 13 years, well how about....


14 year Career averages: 20 points, 10 rebounds, 3 assists, 2 blocks, 1 steal
Best season: 23 points, 13 rebounds, 4 assists, 3 blocks, 1 steal

This guy could get it done. He was great on both ends of the floor and didn't have any holes in his game. He's so boss, even his shoes are in the Hall of Fame!

For my Ironman category:


Bob Lanier



Ewing/Pettit
Kareem/Lanier

That's one heck of front court rotation

[fatlever]

damn you swedd... i really wanted lanier to make it back to my pick.

[Paydro70]

It was just a matter of time before this argument broke out.

I took the rules of this competition to be that the players will be deemed to be at their peak but that's it, no concessions or considerations for what era.

That was pretty much the only reason I didn't pick Pettit. I just kept imagining Shawn Kemp impregnating him.

I think this has gone on long enough. Basically, I think as you and SWEDD do, Sachmo... I'm not giving anybody bonus points for being a pioneer, I will evaluate the skillset that they demonstrated with an eye to the competition they did it against. Schayes demonstrated himself to be an A+ shooter and a good ballhandler and rebounder for a man his size. He was not a great defender even within his own era, and when matched up against elites from other generations I think he ends up being picked around the right round: as an 8th man.

Supposed "disagreement" from Lamar effectively makes my point for me... he says that many old players would not be able to match up, but wants to make concessions for them. I'm not sure why we should. Like I said when this whole discussion started, if you want to make a list of GREATEST players, by all means comparison versus era is the standard. To my mind Wilt and Russell have serious arguments as the greatest players of all time because of how far ahead they were than their peers. But if you're drafting players from history to go into the time machine and play on your make-believe team against all the other players from history, you'd better believe I am considering the level of competition you faced.

In some ways this is truly crazy because I am not nearly so era-adjusted as many people are. I think Schayes would still be a good player in today's NBA, maybe an all-star. I just don't think he'd be MVP-level, the way he was when he played sixty years ago. Pretty much the same goes for Mikan, Pettit, etc.

Hey maybe nobody saw what I originally had here... my edited pick is the best PG available, Dave Bing, for Journeyman:

My second pick is a true "peak" selection. People may scoff, but for single digits, Anfernee "Penny" Hardaway:

'95-'96 Penny Hardaway was f'ing awesome, and I don't care what anybody says. 22-4-7 with 2 steals on .500 shooting, which put him in MVP contention (finished third), and by all advanced metrics was a historic year. His career was really wrecked by injuries not too long afterwards, but for a brief moment this guy really was great. I look forward to having him come off the bench.

[Diop]

Penny was my next pick, I didn't think anybody would select him.

Bing was also my list. Ouch. Really narrowed down my point guard list.

[SWedd523]

Penny was my next pick, I didn't think anybody would select him.

I'm really, really mad at you right now, Paydro

I was hoping people would sleep on Penny and forget what he was capable of doing. Prime Penny was an awesome player who doesn't get nearly the respect he deserves.