Jerry West pretty much destroys JJ Redick

[madmaxmedia]

High salaries along with modern training, teaching, nutrition, and what not has improved the sport of basketball and the quality of play.

Ok, but that just means they weren't quite as good, probably like most professionals when a league is started and are getting used to the nuance of the game at a professional level. The "plumbers and fireman" comment implies that basketball was a secondary job for them, which I'm not sure why anyone believes that.

It means that many players did have secondary jobs to basketball and many ended up making their careers outside of the sport vs today. It just shows that the league was of lower quality and many guys very likely had better opportunities to make money outside of basketball. Thus the league likely did not even have the best possible talent coming out of college.

This aspect goes both ways, which makes for really good discussion but a lot of stupid hot takes (not saying yours is.) It's not hard to discuss this with just a little nuance, but if you just want to yell at clouds or wave off the past it's pretty easy too.

When the sport is worth many, many billions a year through multiple revenue streams, players are going to practice and go through advanced development from an early age, go through all the prep and HS stuff, and enter the league as absolutely elite athletes. It's both a credit to them and to the environment.

OTOH players way back in the day didn't get paid nearly so much, often there wasn't even live telecasts, and yeah many worked in the offseason because they didn't get paid that much relative to the normal population. It made more sense to work a separate job than to train in the offseason and essentially work for nothing instead (remember this was not the days of collective bargaining agreements and free agency.) How many grade schoolers and high schoolers trained back then the way they do now? Or had specialized training programs in the offseason?

If you literally transplant a 28 year old star player 60 years in the past (or future), their performance is going to necessarily reflect differences in the environment they grew up in. OTOH if you take baby Wilt or Jerry and have him born in 1996, or take MJ (or JJ Redick) and have him born in 1940, obviously that would change who they are as adults.

[Capn'O]

like some have said both sides are right. west was obviously defending his generation but i found it funny that he was irked by the plumber comment and then pretty much said yeah, that guys had to be plumbers during the summer to support their families.

just because they're not really comparable due to changes in the game and advances in medicine, training and player development, it doesn't mean that the players back then weren't still the best basketball players in the world at that time.

It's the entire point of his comment. Guys had to be plumbers and if they didn't put in that extra work for the game it would never have gotten to the point where today's athletes can focus entirely on the game. JJ's not wrong but, as West says, it's just disrespectful to refer to the players of that era in that way. It's not like random plumbers just came in to play. The money just wasn't there for many to be full time athletes yet.

[TravisScott55]

Feel like the old school players had better basketball iq

[dhsilv2]

Ok, but that just means they weren't quite as good, probably like most professionals when a league is started and are getting used to the nuance of the game at a professional level. The "plumbers and fireman" comment implies that basketball was a secondary job for them, which I'm not sure why anyone believes that.

It means that many players did have secondary jobs to basketball and many ended up making their careers outside of the sport vs today. It just shows that the league was of lower quality and many guys very likely had better opportunities to make money outside of basketball. Thus the league likely did not even have the best possible talent coming out of college.

This aspect goes both ways, which makes for really good discussion but a lot of stupid hot takes (not saying yours is.) It's not hard to discuss this with just a little nuance, but if you just want to yell at clouds or wave off the past it's pretty easy too.

When the sport is worth many, many billions a year through multiple revenue streams, players are going to practice and go through advanced development from an early age, go through all the prep and HS stuff, and enter the league as absolutely elite athletes. It's both a credit to them and to the environment.

OTOH players way back in the day didn't get paid nearly so much, often there wasn't even live telecasts, and yeah many worked in the offseason because they didn't get paid that much relative to the normal population. It made more sense to work a separate job than to train in the offseason and essentially work for nothing instead (remember this was not the days of collective bargaining agreements and free agency.) How many grade schoolers and high schoolers trained back then the way they do now? Or had specialized training programs in the offseason?

If you literally transplant a 28 year old star player 60 years in the past (or future), their performance is going to necessarily reflect differences in the environment they grew up in. OTOH if you take baby Wilt or Jerry and have him born in 1996, or take MJ (or JJ Redick) and have him born in 1940, obviously that would change who they are as adults.

Transplanting a baby is just a silly discussion though. We can only discuss who these players actually were and what they did. Anything else is into pure fantasy. What's staggering is that people can't grasph that a JJ Redick who was a MEGA star in college. You put him in the 1950's NBA and he's a mega star.

[SmoothLefty21]

I love the irony of JJ Redick of all people calling out the athleticism of previous eras. It says volumes about the current NBA if a non-athlete like Redick can not only succeed but earn $118m over the course of his career. It's also telling that Redick was a bust before the league transitioned to a finesse, 3PT-heavy game, and all of a sudden he's a valuable asset who had his best seasons in his 30s.

Hell, we just had the least athletic MVP of all time. The nonsense of past stars not being as good against today's uber athletes needs to stop. If you can hoop, you can hoop. You don't need to be an all-world athlete.

[Peregrine01]

Old heads should start acknowledging that almost everything gets better with time. It's foolish to think that the sport they played doesn't.

[ninjamilk23]

We also have zero way of knowing if todays pu**y players would be able to hold up to play the game back in the day and also work jobs to support their families if they even have the “ethic” to do that …. We have zero way to know that.

Lol. How old are you?

Eleven

I thought you were at least 15. Well you're more mature for your age.

[JonFromVA]

like some have said both sides are right. west was obviously defending his generation but i found it funny that he was irked by the plumber comment and then pretty much said yeah, that guys had to be plumbers during the summer to support their families.

just because they're not really comparable due to changes in the game and advances in medicine, training and player development, it doesn't mean that the players back then weren't still the best basketball players in the world at that time.

It's the entire point of his comment. Guys had to be plumbers and if they didn't put in that extra work for the game it would never have gotten to the point where today's athletes can focus entirely on the game. JJ's not wrong but, as West says, it's just disrespectful to refer to the players of that era in that way. It's not like random plumbers just came in to play. The money just wasn't there for many to be full time athletes yet.

Hey, Hank Aaron became Hammering Hank by strengthening his wrists by delivering ice blocks.

I imagine NBA2K66 will finally stop this silliness where they give players scores and simply replicate the actual abilities and decision making based on film analysis and some machine learning.

Meaning the simulated Jerry West will move around the court at the same speed, with the same moves, same shot profile, same hops, same reactions, same toughness, etc, etc, as the real Jerry West.

Then it's finally game on for these cross-generational comparisons we waste so much time on.

[SpreeS]

Watch on YouTube

if someone thinks that the newest techologies would help for all these guards from top two teams in 69

Em Bryant 6-1
Jones 6-4 (35y)
Siegfried 6-3
Egan 5-11
Erikson 6-5

to become players like guards from this year Finals

Payton 6-3
Poole 6-4
Klay 6-7
White 6-4
Smart 6-3
Brown 6-6

I could say that he is very high. The difference is astronomical between Curry and West competitive environment.

[dhsilv2]

I love the irony of JJ Redick of all people calling out the athleticism of previous eras. It says volumes about the current NBA if a non-athlete like Redick can not only succeed but earn $118m over the course of his career. It's also telling that Redick was a bust before the league transitioned to a finesse, 3PT-heavy game, and all of a sudden he's a valuable asset who had his best seasons in his 30s.

Hell, we just had the least athletic MVP of all time. The nonsense of past stars not being as good against today's uber athletes needs to stop. If you can hoop, you can hoop. You don't need to be an all-world athlete.

and a 7 footer is now non athletic for the NBA? Dear lord...

Jumping and running are NOT the extent of athleticism!

[madmaxmedia]

like some have said both sides are right. west was obviously defending his generation but i found it funny that he was irked by the plumber comment and then pretty much said yeah, that guys had to be plumbers during the summer to support their families.

just because they're not really comparable due to changes in the game and advances in medicine, training and player development, it doesn't mean that the players back then weren't still the best basketball players in the world at that time.

It's the entire point of his comment. Guys had to be plumbers and if they didn't put in that extra work for the game it would never have gotten to the point where today's athletes can focus entirely on the game. JJ's not wrong but, as West says, it's just disrespectful to refer to the players of that era in that way. It's not like random plumbers just came in to play. The money just wasn't there for many to be full time athletes yet.

Hey, Hank Aaron became Hammering Hank by strengthening his wrists by delivering ice blocks.

Watch on YouTube

[michaelm]

It means that many players did have secondary jobs to basketball and many ended up making their careers outside of the sport vs today. It just shows that the league was of lower quality and many guys very likely had better opportunities to make money outside of basketball. Thus the league likely did not even have the best possible talent coming out of college.

This aspect goes both ways, which makes for really good discussion but a lot of stupid hot takes (not saying yours is.) It's not hard to discuss this with just a little nuance, but if you just want to yell at clouds or wave off the past it's pretty easy too.

When the sport is worth many, many billions a year through multiple revenue streams, players are going to practice and go through advanced development from an early age, go through all the prep and HS stuff, and enter the league as absolutely elite athletes. It's both a credit to them and to the environment.

OTOH players way back in the day didn't get paid nearly so much, often there wasn't even live telecasts, and yeah many worked in the offseason because they didn't get paid that much relative to the normal population. It made more sense to work a separate job than to train in the offseason and essentially work for nothing instead (remember this was not the days of collective bargaining agreements and free agency.) How many grade schoolers and high schoolers trained back then the way they do now? Or had specialized training programs in the offseason?

If you literally transplant a 28 year old star player 60 years in the past (or future), their performance is going to necessarily reflect differences in the environment they grew up in. OTOH if you take baby Wilt or Jerry and have him born in 1996, or take MJ (or JJ Redick) and have him born in 1940, obviously that would change who they are as adults.

Transplanting a baby is just a silly discussion though. We can only discuss who these players actually were and what they did. Anything else is into pure fantasy. What's staggering is that people can't grasph that a JJ Redick who was a MEGA star in college. You put him in the 1950's NBA and he's a mega star.

Except his most elite skill which is 3 point shooting would amount to chucking inefficient 2 point shots before there was a 3 point line. Sure he would still be an elite shooter in general which would translate, and he wouldn’t have to face 60 years of development of defensive strategies..

I agree however with another recent poster that West’s major point was that JJ was fortunate to play in an era when the sport has grown to the degree that an elite role player can garner generational wealth from a playing career rather than needing to have a second job as a plumber or fireman to make ends meet. I also don’t believe the NBA could have sprung into existence 1 week after Dr Naismith invented the game using a peach basket as the sport it was at the time of JJ’s career without going through the preliminary stages JJ is implicitly discounting, and as I said in an earlier post Jerry West himself has probably contributed rather more to the development of the game to its current level than JJ has. He is also pretty much a proven par excellence judge of modern playing talent so he absolutely knows the capabilities of modern players.

[Onlytimewilltel]

Lol. How old are you?

Eleven

I thought you were at least 15. Well you're more mature for your age.

Thanks ninja milk!! Very mature name by the way

[dhsilv2]

This aspect goes both ways, which makes for really good discussion but a lot of stupid hot takes (not saying yours is.) It's not hard to discuss this with just a little nuance, but if you just want to yell at clouds or wave off the past it's pretty easy too.

When the sport is worth many, many billions a year through multiple revenue streams, players are going to practice and go through advanced development from an early age, go through all the prep and HS stuff, and enter the league as absolutely elite athletes. It's both a credit to them and to the environment.

OTOH players way back in the day didn't get paid nearly so much, often there wasn't even live telecasts, and yeah many worked in the offseason because they didn't get paid that much relative to the normal population. It made more sense to work a separate job than to train in the offseason and essentially work for nothing instead (remember this was not the days of collective bargaining agreements and free agency.) How many grade schoolers and high schoolers trained back then the way they do now? Or had specialized training programs in the offseason?

If you literally transplant a 28 year old star player 60 years in the past (or future), their performance is going to necessarily reflect differences in the environment they grew up in. OTOH if you take baby Wilt or Jerry and have him born in 1996, or take MJ (or JJ Redick) and have him born in 1940, obviously that would change who they are as adults.

Transplanting a baby is just a silly discussion though. We can only discuss who these players actually were and what they did. Anything else is into pure fantasy. What's staggering is that people can't grasph that a JJ Redick who was a MEGA star in college. You put him in the 1950's NBA and he's a mega star.

Except his most elite skill which is 3 point shooting would amount to chucking inefficient 2 point shots before there was a 3 point line. Sure he would still be an elite shooter in general which would translate, and he wouldn’t have to face 60 years of development of defensive strategies..

I agree however with another recent poster that West’s major point was that JJ was fortunate to play in an era when the sport has grown to the degree that an elite role player can garner generational wealth from a playing career rather than needing to have a second job as a plumber or fireman to make ends meet. I also don’t believe the NBA could have sprung into existence 1 week after Dr Naismith invented the game using a peach basket as the sport it was at the time of JJ’s career without going through the preliminary stages JJ is implicitly discounting, and as I said in an earlier post Jerry West himself has probably contributed rather more to the development of the game to its current level than JJ has. He is also pretty much a proven par excellence judge of modern playing talent so he absolutely knows the capabilities of modern players.

It wouldn't matter at all that JJ was taking 2 pointers in the 1950's. His 40% shooting from there would have made him so far beyond the best player in the league it's comical.

Remember, Jerry is ignorantly putting his era and Cousey's into the same one. They are absolutely not! Once Jerry did that, he really lost all credibility on the topic.

As for the rest, Reddick is on a talking head show and he's being flamboyant as he points out how idiotic some of the past greats have been when dismissing the growth and changes to the modern game. And he's completely right! Players from the past are down right disrespectful to the modern game in a way that JJ doesn't even come remotely close to doing. I don't think in anyway the comments are ignorant of the reality that ALL of modern life is built as it was once point, "on the backs of giants". But nobody has to pause and explain that we'd not have the smart phone or space travel without the works of Issac Newton or Aristotle. Why only in sports do we have to pause to remind people that we wouldn't have the NBA it is today without Cousey, Russell, and West? Where are the people saying Einstein was good at math but had Newton grown up in his era we'd be using Fission energy vs fusion and the world would be further ahead?

[ReddoverKobe]

Feel like the old school players had better basketball iq

Based off what?

[Huskies1947]

JJ Reddick was a journey man - Everyone has a podcast these days. Not a fan of JJ and his demeanor.

[PizzaSteve]

Old heads should start acknowledging that almost everything gets better with time. It's foolish to think that the sport they played doesn't.

But youngheads need to realize that differences in game style of play does not mean inferior atheletes to the degree they think. A set shot in grainy video seems unathletic, yet these guys had fitness, endurance and strength that was top 1%. And top 1% of humans has not changed in thousands of years. Its like saying a pro gladiator of Rome would be crushed by a modern full contact fighter because of training. Sure, rules and training matter, but I would put my money on the guy who fought for his literal life a hundred times and survived as knowing how to win and being more motivated to do it.

As I posted earlier, the most recent winner of the Tour de France, Vindeguaard, was 3 years ago training and working in a fish packing factory, yet he was an elite cyclist. He is now crowned best in the world. So a job while training meaning anything is a meme, not facts.

Would love JJ to say what he did face to face to a 50s pro. "You are an inferior athelete" and see how the game went. Atheletic performance is mostly genetics (which havent changed), motivation, drive, motor, time spent perfecting skills, pool of talent. Yes the money has attracted a larger pool of people, but at the elite level the top few are going to be comparable. The average will be a higher peak, but I think less so than young people would like to admit.

I look forward to all of you aging and realizing your errors of judgement. As an old dude I smile inward at these kids who will need hip replacements someday and universally the successful retired folks I hike daily with will occasionally chat about 'how stupid at understanding the ways of the world we were when young.'

[BK_2020]

What was the difference in game style that made the 60s players shoot free throws at a much worse clip?

[dhsilv2]

What was the difference in game style that made the 60s players shoot free throws at a much worse clip?

~73 vs 77 isn't much worse...it's worse but not much.

[madmaxmedia]

It means that many players did have secondary jobs to basketball and many ended up making their careers outside of the sport vs today. It just shows that the league was of lower quality and many guys very likely had better opportunities to make money outside of basketball. Thus the league likely did not even have the best possible talent coming out of college.

This aspect goes both ways, which makes for really good discussion but a lot of stupid hot takes (not saying yours is.) It's not hard to discuss this with just a little nuance, but if you just want to yell at clouds or wave off the past it's pretty easy too.

When the sport is worth many, many billions a year through multiple revenue streams, players are going to practice and go through advanced development from an early age, go through all the prep and HS stuff, and enter the league as absolutely elite athletes. It's both a credit to them and to the environment.

OTOH players way back in the day didn't get paid nearly so much, often there wasn't even live telecasts, and yeah many worked in the offseason because they didn't get paid that much relative to the normal population. It made more sense to work a separate job than to train in the offseason and essentially work for nothing instead (remember this was not the days of collective bargaining agreements and free agency.) How many grade schoolers and high schoolers trained back then the way they do now? Or had specialized training programs in the offseason?

If you literally transplant a 28 year old star player 60 years in the past (or future), their performance is going to necessarily reflect differences in the environment they grew up in. OTOH if you take baby Wilt or Jerry and have him born in 1996, or take MJ (or JJ Redick) and have him born in 1940, obviously that would change who they are as adults.

Transplanting a baby is just a silly discussion though. We can only discuss who these players actually were and what they did. Anything else is into pure fantasy. What's staggering is that people can't grasph that a JJ Redick who was a MEGA star in college. You put him in the 1950's NBA and he's a mega star.

I bring those things up because there end up being a lot of assumptions people make in arguing for this or that. It's just conjecture either way.

It would be interesting though to consider how putting JJ Redick in 1950's NBA would change the NBA, because people would see what he's doing and try to pick up on things. You'd have a bunch of guys trying to emulate and learn his shooting form, and it would actually speed up development in the game.