RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #14 (Jerry West)

[trex_8063]

I think people think that the athletes of today are drastically superior compared to what came before, but I think people overestimate what's gone on here. If you had asked people whether someone who looked like Jokic could be MVP of the modern NBA before he showed up and proved he could, people would have said, "Hell no, maybe in the '50 when Mikan was doing it". Same for Steve Nash. Even the people who believe John Stockton could've been better than Nash weren't saying that Stockton was an MVP-level talent back in the '90s. Had you asked them, they'd have said, "Hell no, maybe in the '50s when Cousy was doing it."

We keep being surprised by guys today who look like guys from the '50s, and I think we need to recognize that this is happening to us, and be less certain about what we think we know. Just because things have changed, doesn't mean that the new is necessarily completely dominant over what came before.

The above was a very nice way to put it; almost want to And2 it.

wrt the bolded, it almost seems sort of like the question of racism in "savaant" labelling being discussed in another thread; only this time in the other direction (e.g. he can't really be that good because [ahem....."looks like guys from the 50s".....).

And wrt the "just because things have changed": I think people lose sight of the fact that "what has changed" would "happen" to some of those players from the 50s (you know, if they were born 60 years later).

Been meaning to post more on this topic (even as someone who is not supporting Mikan, nor would I in any of the next dozen or so threads), but just wanted to compliment the wording here.


Also: you're bigger than Kevin Love? I remember you discussing this before, but I thought you said you were like about 6'8". I guess that's his listing these days (used to be 6'10" before they started listing the without shoes height, so makes me think he's toward the "high side" of 6'8"; also about 250 lbs). Just curious....

[Doctor MJ]

I think people think that the athletes of today are drastically superior compared to what came before, but I think people overestimate what's gone on here. If you had asked people whether someone who looked like Jokic could be MVP of the modern NBA before he showed up and proved he could, people would have said, "Hell no, maybe in the '50 when Mikan was doing it". Same for Steve Nash. Even the people who believe John Stockton could've been better than Nash weren't saying that Stockton was an MVP-level talent back in the '90s. Had you asked them, they'd have said, "Hell no, maybe in the '50s when Cousy was doing it."

We keep being surprised by guys today who look like guys from the '50s, and I think we need to recognize that this is happening to us, and be less certain about what we think we know. Just because things have changed, doesn't mean that the new is necessarily completely dominant over what came before.

The above was a very nice way to put it; almost want to And2 it.

wrt the bolded, it almost seems sort of like question of racism in "savaant" labelling being discussed in another thread; only this time in the other direction (can't really be that good because [ahem....."looks like guys from the 50s".....).

And wrt the "just because things have changed": I think people lose sight of the fact that "what has changed" would "happen" to some of those players from the 50s (you know, if they were born 60 years later).

Been meaning to post more on this topic (even as someone who is not supporting Mikan, nor would I in any of the next dozen or so threads), but just wanted to compliment the wording here.


Also: you're bigger than Kevin Love? I remember you discussing this before, but I thought you said you were like about 6'8". I guess that's his listing these days (used to be 6'10" before they started listing the without shoes height, so makes me think he's toward the "high side" of 6'8"; also about 250 lbs). Just curious....

Appreciate the kind words.

Yup, I'm 6'9". Tall enough that if I don't duck properly under most doors, I hit my head.

Weight-wise, well, I'm overweight. Kevin Love's played at weights between 240 & 265 I believe. I'd expect to be playing in that range too.

One thing that's different between myself and Love is that Love was bigger sooner.
Love said he was 6'4" in 8th grade, and had reached full height by the end of high school, and as a freshman was 250+ lbs.
I was 5'7" in 8th grade, and a super-skinny 6'7" by the end of high school. By the end of college I was 6'9" but my shoulders still weren't as broad as they would become - at the time I was 220 lbs (and not overweight).

So maybe I overstate things when I talk about being bigger than Kevin Love, because as a prospect, I wouldn't have been. Pretty confident that I'm taller than him though, in terms of shoulder width proportion, I think we're pretty similar.

[f4p]

Voting Post
1. George Mikan


Mikan: before this project, i figured i'd be voting for george mikan once we got everyone else out of the way. that's what you do. you vote for all the people who have won an alpha championship, throw in some longevity guys whose careers you remember real well, and then you eventually vote for "that guy". mikan. guy who played in the 40's. with the plumbers. and not even the good plumbers.

but then you think about it, and the guy started his nba career 12 years before west and oscar. those guys played in a modern league, right? and they were nowhere close to the era-relative dominance of mikan. like, not even a little. and then you go back a little further. bill russell won a title in 1957 as a rookie, and we all just lump that in with his other 10 titles. all from the modern nba, right? and yet just 3 years earlier, mikan won a title as the best player in the league. could the league have changed that much? it's not like the league suddenly became massively more popular and money started flooding in and the 1957 talent pool swamped the 1954 talent pool.

while i do think it's reasonable to think that there was a fairly rapid increase in the league talent in the early days, it's hard to think that titles in 1953 and 1954 could really be that different from a title in 1957.

obviously, if you are going to play in the weakest era, perhaps weakest by a bit, you better absolutely dominate. and mikan does. enough that i think that's it's certainly right to start talking about him now. we are talking about west and oscar, and they are seemingly fairly distant 3rd/4th in their era. is a clear cut #1, arguably a bill russell-level winner with wilt chamberlain-level stats, from just 12 years before not better than them? there obviously isn't much to go on as far as stats or videotape for mikan, but what we do have in stats is dominant.

once they start counting minutes in 1952, which is after the lane-widening, mikan leads the league in PER for the next 3 years. actually peaking at 29.0 in 1954. he finishes 2nd, 1st, and 3rd in WS48.

in the playoffs, he leads the league in PER all 3 years. he finishes 3rd, 1st, and 1st in WS48.

in fact, in 1954, the year that is only 3 years before bill russell wins his first title, mikan sets the playoff record for PER (33.6) and WS48 (0.391), records which would stand for a multi-series playoff run until 2009 lebron. the 0.391 WS48 is just enormous. so he had the most statistically dominant playoffs for most of NBA history while winning a title, including winning as an SRS underdog in the finals against +4.3 team.

and of course, by all accounts this is the weak part of his career. from 1949-1951, he average 28.0 ppg on 41.7 FG% compared to 20.7 ppg and 38.8 FG% from 1952-1954. the league was a little faster-paced in the earlier 3 year era, but considering the gulf between these stats and given that he was leading the league in basically everything from '52-'54, he was almost certainly having the highest PER seasons in history from '49-'51. he played 40 mpg in 1952. even if we assume he played 43 mpg in 1949, 1950, and 1951, his WS48 in the regular season would beat 1972 kareem all 3 years for the nba record.

in the playoffs, the statistical difference between '49-'51 and '52-'54 is basically the same. so again, almost certainly at least in 2nd all-time in PER behind 2009 lebron and possibly in first. even if he played all 48 minutes in 1949, he would have the WS48 record at 0.420. so mostly like somewhere around 0.450 WS48 if he played 45 minutes. only 1951 shows a drop off.

and what probably impressed me the most when i started looking at numbers before this project, things that were supposed to impress me about hakeem, mikan stands out as an amazing playoff riser.

Actual Championships vs Expected Championships - 5 vs 2.31 (2.69 delta is 7th), +116% is 13th

how did this happen? well, playoff resiliency. i looked at the last project's Top 33 (just stopped at pippen due to time and less interest in the players below him) plus newer guys like jokic, giannis, embiid, and kawhi and then put in tatum and butler. i would've put in doncic but i only did ages 22-35 and doncic only had one season (though he would have led the list below).

all the data is from ages 22 to 35 and it looks at the BBRef stats PER, WS48, BPM, and TS% and compares each year to the regular season. the resilience at the end is just an average of the normalized increase/decrease for each value. +1 is a top 95% value and -1 is a bottom 6.5% value (couldn't use 5% because the lower values were so low that they were making the average season as slightly "resilient"). for playoff runs shorter than 10 games, the final value was multiplied by "Games/10" so a 5 game, 1 round playoffs would get weighed at 50%. the table is their career average (each playoff run weighed equally to essentially average your resiliency from year to year). mikan comes in 3rd behind kawhi and hakeem. so the guy who absolutely kills regular season stats also shows up as one of the great individual playoff risers ever. and he's a huge team riser as well.

Code: Select all

Rank   Player Name             Career Avg       
1      Kawhi Leonard           0.4561           
2      Hakeem Olajuwon         0.3315           
3      George Mikan            0.3246           
4      Lebron James            0.2747           
5      Bill Russell            0.2548           
6      Walt Frazier            0.2318           
7      Jerry West              0.2142           
8      Michael Jordan          0.2081           
9      Tim Duncan              0.166             
10     Magic Johnson           0.0968           
11     Scottie Pippen          0.0963           
12     Oscar Robertson         0.0865           
13     Kobe Bryant             0.0856           
14     Charles Barkley         0.0779           
15     Kareem Abdul-Jabbar     0.0554           
16     Dirk Nowitzki           0.0534           
17     Jayson Tatum            0.0247           
18     Nikola Jokic            0.0205           
19     Shaquille O'neal        0.0179           
20     Moses Malone            0.0093           
21     Dwyane Wade             -0.0021           
22     Chris Paul              -0.0156           
23     Julius Erving           -0.0231           
24     Jimmy Butler            -0.0341           
25     Wilt Chamberlain        -0.0851           
26     Kevin Garnett           -0.1115           
27     Larry Bird              -0.1327           
28     Kevin Durant            -0.1435           
29     Patrick Ewing           -0.1446           
30     David Robinson          -0.1552           
31     Steve Nash              -0.1582           
32     Stephen Curry           -0.1613           
33     Bob Pettit              -0.1624           
34     John Stockton           -0.182           
35     Giannis Antetokounmpo   -0.1975           
36     James Harden            -0.1982           
37     Karl Malone             -0.2959           
38     Joel Embiid             -0.533           


the following table shows how much better a player was in the playoffs to explain how many championships they won. well, it turns out for mikan it would be a massive 13.5 wins per season or 5.0 SRS. even above hakeem.



won like russell, dominated stats like wilt, playoff riser like hakeem. at some point, winning 7 titles in 8 years, dominating basically every regular season stat that was available, dominating every playoff stat that was available, being one of the great playoff risers ever, and still basically being able to do it all within 3 years of bill russell entering the nba, tells me mikan needs to be above other players from the league's first 25 years who weren't nearly as dominant in their era.

[iggymcfrack]

This is a worthwhile topic that I think people should ponder for themselves. I'm not really looking to get into it point by point, but will just say:

1. This is something that bothered me when I first started doing all-time rankings.

2. I've since further examined all of these guys, and some of them dropped like a stone on my list. It just so happens that that there are 4 guys (Russell, Wilt, West, Oscar) who don't. And so while I don't want to talk as if my view is everyone's view, I think it's important to understand that this isn't going to be a rate that continues as we go deeper in the Top 100.

3. While it seems extreme to have 4 guys born in a 5 year span back then so highly rated, I think it's important to keep in mind that there is one year that towers over all others in terms of the quantity of great players, and that year was closer to the birth year of the 4 guys in question than it is:

1963 saw Jordan, Olajuwon, Malone & Barkley, along with Mullin, Dumars, Hornacek & Porter. What are the odds that 1963 was the best year of basketball talent in history? Very, very low...but some year has to be that year, and whatever year that is, it's naturally going to beat the odds.



Key things here:

1. By 1970 the NBA was majority Black I believe. I totally get being skeptical of the guys who exited before that time, but realistically Wilt, Oscar & West were clear cut stars until almost the very end of their careers so I don't see a logic to knocking them because of who was around when they started.

2. When we talk about "white Americans" there's an elephant in the room: White Europeans are thriving in the NBA at the highest of levels, and not because we found the one-in-a-billion quick twitch guy. Realistically, we have a White American problem more than a White problem in the NBA, and that's cultural.

There was a time when if you were born and raised in Indiana, you were playing basketball in your spare time as a matter of course. There was a time when Jews were seen as the minority who were so exceptional at basketball, and those who stood out within that community at basketball took it extremely seriously. Things change.

Mostly in the US nowadays, if you're White, you don't expect that there's a future for you in basketball beyond a college scholarship.

There was a weird thread talking about this stuff over on the GB that talked about Kevin Love as the best White American in quite some time. Forgetting the silliness of his actual point, the thing that immediately stood out to me about Love was this:

Love's dad played in the NBA.

When your dad did a thing, and you have obvious talent for it, you're far more likely to devote yourself to it.

And this will sound self-aggrandizing, but it is what it is: Had my father been in the NBA, I expect that I'd have either been an NBA player, or been a near miss. I'm bigger than Kevin Love, I was a good shooter, passer, and ball-handler at least relative to the kids around me...and yet I never took it seriously as something I had a future in. Now, I had health problems during adolescence that are just as important as anything else when thinking about this stuff, but regardless of that, I saw my future in terms of my academic strengths rather than my athletic strengths. Had that not been how I saw my future - had my family not expected me to go to college despite none of my ancestors being college grads - I may well have spent my free time refining my basketball game.

You come very close to the key point here and yet you still manage to draw the opposite conclusion. The fact is that in the ‘60s and in the ‘40s to an even greater extent, people didn’t think of basketball as a career PERIOD with precious few exceptions. The cultural factors that work against white Americans taking up basketball seriously today worked much more against ALL Americans taking up basketball seriously well into what we’d consider the “modern era”. Basketball was a niche sport that didn’t pay that well. Tons of people who enjoy basketball as a hobby today and would look at as all lottery ticket if they were born with incredible height and athleticism just weren’t interested in basketball in previous times. This was a giant factor in league talent level and was honestly just as big of a factor as the integration of the league.

The fact that you missed this and act like these factors are more relevant today than it was in the early days is how you managed to read f4p’s Babe Ruth point backwards. Yes, baseball was segregated in the ‘20s, but the natural talent level between blacks and whites was much closer than it was in basketball, and furthermore baseball was a national obsession. Kids grew up idolizing baseball stars in Babe Ruth’s day. MLB was much more popular in Ruth’s day than the NBA was in Oscar or West’s day, let alone Mikan’s.

As a result, of course Babe Ruth could “still play” today. He’d be a star, he just wouldn’t be an elite talent at the same level. Mikan, on the other hand leaves a lot more questions. Basketball was VERY, VERY niche in the postwar years. It wasn’t remotely close to the popularity of baseball in the 1920s. The player pool of elite athletes with a serious interest in baseball in the 20s was probably 5-10x larger than the pool willing to pursue an NBA career in the 40s and 50s if they had the talent. Like if Ruth would be a fringe MVP candidate in the modern era, Mikan would be lucky to be Mason Plumlee.

Now I don’t want to suggest that we should actually judge Mikan that harshly, I would have him in my top 40 for his contributions as a pioneer and his in era dominance. But I do think it’s a little ridiculous to have someone who played in such a VASTLY inferior league considered heavily when there are players with similar dominance in a league where the average 5th starter is better than anyone Mikan played against in his entire career? Is anyone really sure that Mikan’s in-era impact was better than Jokic’s after the key was widened (the first time, it wouldn’t be 15 feet until after he retired)? If not, how can he possibly be getting serious traction when Jokic hasn’t even been nominated with less games played? Mikan was literally playing in a league where just based on player pool after accounting for popularity of the game, cultural factors, race, population, and international expansion, you’d only expect 1-2 players at most from Mikan’s league to be starters in the NBA. Putting up worse numbers in the RS with worse defense but having better playoff numbers is nowhere a reasonable bar to earn a higher all-time rank against such a primitive level of competition.

Hmm.

I talked about white Americans because f4p talked about "white Americans", and the trend of the best white players coming from other countries today is a phenomenon that is about more than just the globalization of the sport. I understand why someone would interpret my words as a rejection of the growth of the talent pool over time, but that was not my intention.

Re: Babe Ruth. So you're jumping in response to something I said to someone, you're not providing the quotes, and your tone is condescending. I don't think I want to talk to you about this further.

I didn’t mean to be confrontational or condescending. I wrote the post out on my phone while I was playing poker and it was hard enough to just clip the quote to a length that wasn’t unwieldy. I almost made a point of mentioning that I really liked the points you made at the beginning (which I did!) so that my post didn’t come off too harsh, but I was already typing forever and I feel like people don’t read really long posts.

Anyway, I certainly think you make much better posts than average and I respect your opinion, but I just wanted to make the point that you not taking basketball seriously because you were white and you didn’t have an NBA relative is exactly the same reason that the player pool was so much smaller in the early days of the NBA and that the average talent level was so much lower. Then I just kinda just got on to rambling about Mikan after a while which isn’t even related to you. I know it’s annoying when people just seem unendingly argumentative so no harm no foul.

[ZeppelinPage]

I think people think that the athletes of today are drastically superior compared to what came before, but I think people overestimate what's gone on here. If you had asked people whether someone who looked like Jokic could be MVP of the modern NBA before he showed up and proved he could, people would have said, "Hell no, maybe in the '50 when Mikan was doing it". Same for Steve Nash. Even the people who believe John Stockton could've been better than Nash weren't saying that Stockton was an MVP-level talent back in the '90s. Had you asked them, they'd have said, "Hell no, maybe in the '50s when Cousy was doing it."

We keep being surprised by guys today who look like guys from the '50s, and I think we need to recognize that this is happening to us, and be less certain about what we think we know. Just because things have changed, doesn't mean that the new is necessarily completely dominant over what came before.

Thanks for bringing this up. This is very true and it was something I was also thinking about when reading this thread. Many 50s and 60s players weren't slow and plodding like some believe, but even if they were, Jokic and Doncic aren't exactly gifted athletes. I know Nash was brought up by someone earlier as playing "nothing like a player from the 1950s" and it makes me wonder if some people are discounting how massive an impact the rules of the era had on players, especially guards. It would become significantly more difficult for modern players to score or create offense if dribble rules of the 50s and 60s were instituted--that's why Nash doesn't play like a guard from then and vice versa.

Could players that were uniquely skilled for their time adapt to modern rules? If the overall skill and IQ of a player is more important than athleticism, how would players that helped invent aspects of the game look today with more tools at their disposal?

To segue this into more thoughts on the topic:

I try to focus on evaluating players within their respective eras as much as possible. When it comes down to it, the stars of that era were better than their contemporaries, who had the same advantages and disadvantages that they did, and the same available, or lack thereof, tools.

But if one were to take the training, nutrition, and other advancements and give them to players of that era, they would certainly look different in skill and athleticism. These players were naturally talented athletes during their time and played multiple sports growing up, they can't help that aspects of the game advanced, but I also think they should get more credit for helping push basketball forward. Of course, players today are more athletic in general, but I do think players like West and Pollard would still be considered high-end athletes.

Stars of the 50s and 60s allowed the game to evolve by establishing new techniques. To name just a few: Mikan and Wilt's scoring abilities forced the game to change around them, Russell invented the rim protecting defensive-style that became prevalent after him, West helped to modernize the jump shot, and Cousy established new ways to pass the ball that other players learned from and attempted to adapt.

Players of each decade learn and take from those that came before them. And that has to be recognized and factored in when evaluating this era.

Jerry West once answered the question "Who was your basketball idol growing up?" with "I didn't have one."

During this period, studying techniques and aspects of the game from film was non-existent. Players were having to practice their own techniques and improve them without a reliable way to study current or past players. West, for instance, had to learn much of the game himself and had nowhere near as much help as a modern player does. Russell, West, and others were inventing aspects of the game that would be used for decades to come--that, to me, is extremely impressive.

Yes, modern players are obviously more advanced in a direct comparison, but they have also had decades of knowledge to look back on in order to help refine their abilities. These players (and coaches) developed techniques that were later evolved by the players and coaches that came after them--it's an ongoing cycle.

Now this isn't to say coaches and players of the 40's, 50s, and 60s hadn't learned from those before them, as the game had already been developing for decades, but there was certainly a lack of emphasis on basketball as a career and fewer ways to actively study the professional game in order to improve compared to the following decades. This meant players were having to think, play, and adapt in new ways on the professional level.

Not to mention the overall quality of the equipment and rules that were vastly different from today that held players back. Not only were courts smaller and differing in size to go with "dead spots," but the ball wasn't molded as efficiently and featured fewer leather panels compared to a modern day basketball. On top of that, rims were inferior, and Jerry West has described them as "harder" with "less give" than modern rims.

Players were frequently allowed to hit, punch, or shove other players on defense, and utilized hand checking freely. The dribble rules restricted the ability to create your own offense and was compounded with all these other factors. Take all this, and then add on the fact that many players were often playing injured in order to get paychecks, and that players could play as many as five or six games in a row, and it drastically impacts what a player is capable of.

[iggymcfrack]

I think people think that the athletes of today are drastically superior compared to what came before, but I think people overestimate what's gone on here. If you had asked people whether someone who looked like Jokic could be MVP of the modern NBA before he showed up and proved he could, people would have said, "Hell no, maybe in the '50 when Mikan was doing it". Same for Steve Nash. Even the people who believe John Stockton could've been better than Nash weren't saying that Stockton was an MVP-level talent back in the '90s. Had you asked them, they'd have said, "Hell no, maybe in the '50s when Cousy was doing it."

We keep being surprised by guys today who look like guys from the '50s, and I think we need to recognize that this is happening to us, and be less certain about what we think we know. Just because things have changed, doesn't mean that the new is necessarily completely dominant over what came before.

Thanks for bringing this up. This is very true and it was something I was also thinking about when reading this thread. Many 50s and 60s players weren't slow and plodding like some believe, but even if they were, Jokic and Doncic aren't exactly gifted athletes. I know Nash was brought up by someone earlier as playing "nothing like a player from the 1950s" and it makes me wonder if some people are discounting how massive an impact the rules of the era had on players, especially guards. It would become significantly more difficult for modern players to score or create offense if dribble rules of the 50s and 60s were instituted--that's why Nash doesn't play like a guard from then and vice versa.

Could players that were uniquely skilled for their time adapt to modern rules? If the overall skill and IQ of a player is more important than athleticism, how would players that helped invent aspects of the game look today with more tools at their disposal?

To segue this into more thoughts on the topic:

I try to focus on evaluating players within their respective eras as much as possible. When it comes down to it, the stars of that era were better than their contemporaries, who had the same advantages and disadvantages that they did, and the same available, or lack thereof, tools.

But if one were to take the training, nutrition, and other advancements and give them to players of that era, they would certainly look different in skill and athleticism. These players were naturally talented athletes during their time and played multiple sports growing up, they can't help that aspects of the game advanced, but I also think they should get more credit for helping push basketball forward. Of course, players today are more athletic in general, but I do think players like West and Pollard would still be considered high-end athletes.

Stars of the 50s and 60s allowed the game to evolve by establishing new techniques. To name just a few: Mikan and Wilt's scoring abilities forced the game to change around them, Russell invented the rim protecting defensive-style that became prevalent after him, West helped to modernize the jump shot, and Cousy established new ways to pass the ball that other players learned from and attempted to adapt.

Players of each decade learn and take from those that came before them. And that has to be recognized and factored in when evaluating this era.

Jerry West once answered the question "Who was your basketball idol growing up?" with "I didn't have one."

During this period, studying techniques and aspects of the game from film was non-existent. Players were having to practice their own techniques and improve them without a reliable way to study current or past players. West, for instance, had to learn much of the game himself and had nowhere near as much help as a modern player does. Russell, West, and others were inventing aspects of the game that would be used for decades to come--that, to me, is extremely impressive.

Yes, modern players are obviously more advanced in a direct comparison, but they have also had decades of knowledge to look back on in order to help refine their abilities. These players (and coaches) developed techniques that were later evolved by the players and coaches that came after them--it's an ongoing cycle.

Now this isn't to say coaches and players of the 40's, 50s, and 60s hadn't learned from those before them, as the game had already been developing for decades, but there was certainly a lack of emphasis on basketball as a career and fewer ways to actively study the professional game in order to improve compared to the following decades. This meant players were having to think, play, and adapt in new ways on the professional level.

Not to mention the overall quality of the equipment and rules that were vastly different from today that held players back. Not only were courts smaller and differing in size to go with "dead spots," but the ball wasn't molded as efficiently and featured fewer leather panels compared to a modern day basketball. On top of that, rims were inferior, and Jerry West has described them as "harder" with "less give" than modern rims.

Players were frequently allowed to hit, punch, or shove other players on defense, and utilized hand checking freely. The dribble rules restricted the ability to create your own offense and was compounded with all these other factors. Take all this, and then add on the fact that many players were often playing injured in order to get paychecks, and that players could play as many as five or six games in a row, and it drastically impacts what a player is capable of.

Ultimately, it’s not about what players look like. It’s about the talent pool. Today, the NBA gets the best players from across the globe with a significant portion coming from places as far away and low income as Africa. If you go back to the very early days, it was a very niche sport that only drew white Americans and most of them were northeastern Jews since that was the only tiny community where the game was popular. Jokic is the best out of hundreds of millions. West was probably the 4th best of like 20 million during his playing days. Mikan was the best of maybe 2 million.

Yeah, Jokic wouldn’t be as good in the past as he is today and Mikan would be better in the 2020s than he was in the 40s and 50s, but if you drew from the same pool of players you were drawing from in the post-war era today, you’d be lucky to even have a Mason Plumlee as the best player in the league. And there’s a very good chance he wouldn’t care about basketball and it would be somebody worse.

[70sFan]

I think the nature of basketball makes the growth of the talent pool overstated. Don't get me wrong - it still exists and is extremely important - but we don't have the talent pool of "hundreds of millions" now, because basketball is a tall men sport.

[iggymcfrack]

I think the nature of basketball makes the growth of the talent pool overstated. Don't get me wrong - it still exists and is extremely important - but we don't have the talent pool of "hundreds of millions" now, because basketball is a tall men sport.

Right, but in the early days of the game, even the majority of the tall players never took up the sport because it wasn’t that popular and didn’t have close to the financial rewards it does today. I’m giving the numbers of all the players interested if they had the aptitude. It’s the only way you can actually compare real numbers. Even with a rough estimate, I don’t know to quantify “what number of players with sufficient height took up the sport” because it’s impossible to have real information of what number of people at different heights took up the game. Especially since we had a 5’ 3” star play into the 2000s and we had a 5’ 8” player finish all-NBA as recently as 2017. You could just as easily say that the player pool for chess isn’t that large because “chess is a smart people game”. Height is one of the skills important for basketball, but it’s not exclusionary. For any activity, you judge the player pool by the number of people interested, not by the number of people who have an aptitude with one particular skill that helps.

[penbeast0]

I think the nature of basketball makes the growth of the talent pool overstated. Don't get me wrong - it still exists and is extremely important - but we don't have the talent pool of "hundreds of millions" now, because basketball is a tall men sport.

Right, but in the early days of the game, even the majority of the tall players never took up the sport because it wasn’t that popular and didn’t have close to the financial rewards it does today. I’m giving the numbers of all the players interested if they had the aptitude. It’s the only way you can actually compare real numbers. Even with a rough estimate, I don’t know to quantify “what number of players with sufficient height took up the sport” because it’s impossible to have real information of what number of people at different heights took up the game. Especially since we had a 5’ 3” star play into the 2000s and we had a 5’ 8” player finish all-NBA as recently as 2017. You could just as easily say that the player pool for chess isn’t that large because “chess is a smart people game”. Height is one of the skills important for basketball, but it’s not exclusionary. For any activity, you judge the player pool by the number of people interested, not by the number of people who have an aptitude with one particular skill that helps.

By the 1950s, probably every American kid over 6-4 had been pushed to pick up a basketball. The pro game wasn't that popular going into the 50s but the college game was and certainly it was already known as "the City Game" and athletic kids growing up in cities played. Did they stick with it? Some, like Bob Kurland, chose other careers. Some chose other sports. But when you get to 6'10 and taller, I would guess almost everyone with talent at least gave it a shot. Kurland is still talked about not because he is the norm, but because he is the exception.

[eminence]

Star being used a bit liberally there, Muggsy was never a clearly above average starter, certainly not in 2000 (his effectively last season). Thomas at 5'8 3/4 barefoot (combine measurement) is still decently above the global average height. If the shortest player to star in years is literally above average height (I think he may be the shortest Allstar+ level player ever, am I forgetting anyone?), it's a tall mans game and very exclusionary at the pro level. The only other sub 6 foot guys I can think of to make the Allstar game since the 50s are Calvin Murphy/Michael Adams. In the 40s/50s there were a few other 5'10 and 5'11 star guards - Martin, Scolari, Cervi, ???, but that's still about it.

[eminence]

I think the nature of basketball makes the growth of the talent pool overstated. Don't get me wrong - it still exists and is extremely important - but we don't have the talent pool of "hundreds of millions" now, because basketball is a tall men sport.

Right, but in the early days of the game, even the majority of the tall players never took up the sport because it wasn’t that popular and didn’t have close to the financial rewards it does today. I’m giving the numbers of all the players interested if they had the aptitude. It’s the only way you can actually compare real numbers. Even with a rough estimate, I don’t know to quantify “what number of players with sufficient height took up the sport” because it’s impossible to have real information of what number of people at different heights took up the game. Especially since we had a 5’ 3” star play into the 2000s and we had a 5’ 8” player finish all-NBA as recently as 2017. You could just as easily say that the player pool for chess isn’t that large because “chess is a smart people game”. Height is one of the skills important for basketball, but it’s not exclusionary. For any activity, you judge the player pool by the number of people interested, not by the number of people who have an aptitude with one particular skill that helps.

By the 1950s, probably every American kid over 6-4 had been pushed to pick up a basketball. The pro game wasn't that popular going into the 50s but the college game was and certainly it was already known as "the City Game" and athletic kids growing up in cities played. Did they stick with it? Some, like Bob Kurland, chose other careers. Some chose other sports. But when you get to 6'10 and taller, I would guess almost everyone with talent at least gave it a shot. Kurland is still talked about not because he is the norm, but because he is the exception.

I'd note that even Kurland just effectively chose a different league to play in, he was well subsidized (for the time) to bring those AAU titles to Phillips. Amateurs my butt, you think Kurland was getting paid by Phillips for much other than playing 65 games in the '48 season? They went 62-3 to demonstrate the level of competition.

[One_and_Done]

I think people think that the athletes of today are drastically superior compared to what came before, but I think people overestimate what's gone on here. If you had asked people whether someone who looked like Jokic could be MVP of the modern NBA before he showed up and proved he could, people would have said, "Hell no, maybe in the '50 when Mikan was doing it". Same for Steve Nash. Even the people who believe John Stockton could've been better than Nash weren't saying that Stockton was an MVP-level talent back in the '90s. Had you asked them, they'd have said, "Hell no, maybe in the '50s when Cousy was doing it."

We keep being surprised by guys today who look like guys from the '50s, and I think we need to recognize that this is happening to us, and be less certain about what we think we know. Just because things have changed, doesn't mean that the new is necessarily completely dominant over what came before.

The above was a very nice way to put it; almost want to And2 it.

wrt the bolded, it almost seems sort of like question of racism in "savaant" labelling being discussed in another thread; only this time in the other direction (can't really be that good because [ahem....."looks like guys from the 50s".....).

And wrt the "just because things have changed": I think people lose sight of the fact that "what has changed" would "happen" to some of those players from the 50s (you know, if they were born 60 years later).

Been meaning to post more on this topic (even as someone who is not supporting Mikan, nor would I in any of the next dozen or so threads), but just wanted to compliment the wording here.


Also: you're bigger than Kevin Love? I remember you discussing this before, but I thought you said you were like about 6'8". I guess that's his listing these days (used to be 6'10" before they started listing the without shoes height, so makes me think he's toward the "high side" of 6'8"; also about 250 lbs). Just curious....

By 'look like' I assume Doc is talking about their skin colour, because when I look at Steve Nash and Cousy for example I see nothing in common in terms of skill level, or even athleticism. When I compare West's footage to Luka they look nothing alike. Jokic and Mikan might as well be from different planets.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Steve Nash absolutely does not play anything like a 1950s guard aside from the fact that he’s not very athletic. Jokic isn’t athletic but he’s also 280-300 pounds with an absurd touch and while he’s slow he is very fluid for his size. Never really watched Stockton though.

I think that’s a vast oversimplification of the improvements in skill on both ends guards and wings have made from the 50s to now, learning from the past, iron sharpens iron and increased incentive to play and all of that, and all of that but just to be clear

Are you in the side that, A. They’d still be good if they grew up today? Or B. An adjustment period with the new rules is all they would need if teleported today in their peak.

When it comes to to A, I think it’s reasonable for some great players (60s, not 50s)

Strongly disagree with B at least for the perimeter guys ive watched from that time (never seen Oscar)

So, when you talk about Nash & Jokic like this, it reads as "Yeah, but those guys are special, and so they are exceptions to the rule." To which I'd say: I don't know what gave you the impression that I was looking to champion every guy from the past.

Steve Nash is special. Nikola Jokic is special. Oscar Robertson is special. Jerry West is special. They are all of them outliers.

I have a lot of experience with folks coming in to basketball analysis and looking to write off the past. Before Nash became an MVP, they'd have told you that nobody who looked like him could be anything like an MVP level player in today's game. New legends emerge, but the songs remain the same. Some will say the new guy is overrated. Some will say that the new guy was fundamentally unlike what came before. And eventually, a new group of people will come in and use the fact that a guy who looks like Nash is proof that the era he was in must not have been very good.

I'd urge you to really think about what I said about jumping S-curves. You believe based on your video scouting you can tell glaring superiority-inferiority between the eras, and I can understand thinking this, and I'm not saying that the difference you spot aren't real. But if things are progressing at such a drastic rate, we should see it analytically. If instead things are roughly looking the same as before - same average height, same average weight, about the same FG%, superstars having decade plus where the only thing driving them out of the game are clear cut signs of aging - then things just really aren't that dramatic.

Re: A vs B. Eh, let me address both, though more B than A.

On A: I don't think it's any kind of given that any player would be as good in any different era, and I'm not trying to argue that all eras are of equal quality. Me talking about a lack of massive statistically salient trends may seem like I'm saying the quality is not improving, but I think it is, just not like it does when you're in the middle of a serious paradigm shift.

On B: I do think that things like 3-point shooting, dribbling technique, etc is something that can be picked up without growing up with it as a child. Not everybody from the past would ever be able to become a great 3-point shooter, but I certainly believe there are guys from prior eras who could pick it up pretty quickly. I don't think an overall adjustment can be done simply with an off-season - because there's no substitute for real season competition - but I think some of these guys could pick it up effectively in the span of a year.

One thing I'll say: Things like previous exposure to formal basketball is important. One of the reasons given for Connie Hawkins' struggles as a defender is that he didn't learn a lot of the standards of the time due to not playing college ball. He had physical defensive talents, but in terms of knowing about different schemes and what he should be doing within those schemes, he struggled.

But if we're talking about college stars like Oscar & West, I would not be concerned.

“So, when you talk about Nash & Jokic like this, it reads as "Yeah, but those guys are special, and so they are exceptions to the rule." To which I'd say: I don't know what gave you the impression that I was looking to champion every guy from the past.

Steve Nash is special. Nikola Jokic is special. Oscar Robertson is special. Jerry West is special. They are all of them outliers.

I have a lot of experience with folks coming in to basketball analysis and looking to write off the past. Before Nash became an MVP, they'd have told you that nobody who looked like him could be anything like an MVP level player in today's game. New legends emerge, but the songs remain the same. Some will say the new guy is overrated. Some will say that the new guy was fundamentally unlike what came before. And eventually, a new group of people will come in and use the fact that a guy who looks like Nash is proof that the era he was in must not have been very good.”

This isn’t what I was saying at all though. Like even remotely.

I don’t even remotely look at Nash and think of a 1950-60s player. I absolutely had a different impression of him when hearing how he played vs watching him and him being ridiculous even 100% ignoring his passing. Jokic otoh, while I understand the idea he isn’t athletic, fluid 300 pound man with a better touch than Dirk and GOAT level passing isn’t really a question.

What do you mean by looks like? I was talking about how they played, Nash isn’t a player who I look at play and see someone that I don’t feel plays in a modern way or demonstrates a modern skillset he looks insane watching back, not just in his iq but his overall skill and ability to read

With Nash especially though he looks nothing like a 50s or 60s player aside from having a really stupid haircut some years lol. Like yeah he’s not a great athlete, but aside from the shooting, if we’re just talking about asthetically in some ways he resembles a looser Curry more than any 50s player. His slashing and finishing in particular, and craftyness around the rim.

I don’t view either as exceptions or anything like that to any sort of rule.Sure they aren’t particularly fast or athletic, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be insane or anything. My main criticism watching 50-60s players has absolutely nothing to do with the athleticism, it’s lower but the gap in skill level for a large majority of players is substantially more obvious to me. It’s to the point where it feels people are so astonished by regular basketball plays in that context that they overcompensate for it


I think people assume I think every player in history sucks. I’m not gonna pretend I have much viewing experience on the 70s or the 80s, but I absolutely don’t look at guys like bird or magic and see players I don’t think would be exceptional today. (As in I think they would be exceptional today) I don’t really make sweeping conclusions on Oscar Robertson because I haven’t watched him play. I saw a bit of him the other day, just a few highlights but I saw more there than anything with west so far to be honest.

I don’t believe because a player has similar impact to someone in era I should believe he would be similarly impactful today if both are in the same situation. More than that, certain things absolutely do translate 1 to 1, and extreme athleticism and slashing finishing ability are some of those things. But certain things I believe don’t translate very well, depending on how far you go back. When it comes to making offensive reads for example, I can look at guys like magic and bird and appreciate their incredible passing ability but In the 60s games I watched I was incredibly unimpressed with the defensive and offensive playmaking.

I can understand the “they aren’t athletic how are they good” but I really don’t agree they’re even remotely similar to 50s players. Jokic is a bit of a weird case physically because offensively it’s not a negative, but Nash especially plays exactly like a modern guard other than not pulling up from three as much

“I'd urge you to really think about what I said about jumping S-curves. You believe based on your video scouting you can tell glaring superiority-inferiority between the eras, and I can understand thinking this, and I'm not saying that the difference you spot aren't real. But if things are progressing at such a drastic rate, we should see it analytically. If instead things are roughly looking the same as before - same average height, same average weight, about the same FG%, superstars having decade plus where the only thing driving them out of the game are clear cut signs of aging - then things just really aren't that dramatic.”

Is average weight the same? Every position aside from the small forward spot (+6) from 1960 to now went up about 10-15 pounds, and it’s gone down since the mid 2000s where it would be +20, I’m assuming from teams downsizing a bit probably. Don’t think anyone would say they are fast in those times.

Height I’ve heard is because players measure in shoes or out of shoes now. Wingspan would be interesting, and we don’t have any real concrete vertical measurements, but we know west had a max reach of 11ft4, which was considered impressive at his height at the time since it’s cited as a feat, but it is below average in the draftexpress database for drafted shooting guards, while the actual vertical is realistically somewhere from 32-34 inches (Curry and reaves are at 35.5 and 35 respectively for reference).

As for general statistical arguments, there are certainly some trends but I don’t envision it to be offense alone that improves either.

Of course comparing 2p% because 3PA.

From 1960-70, it ranged between 41%-46%, but never passed 45% other than 1970 and it dropped off again

From 1970-1980, it ranged between 44-48.5%

From 1980-1990, 3 point shooting made it a bit weird but 2 point percentage generally ranged from 48-49%, where it stayed at till rule changes occurred, where it drops to 45-47%, and then throughout the decade rises to 48-49% again. It had been rising before the rule changes in 06 actually, which I personally think came from offenses s Lowkey going more to spacing and pick and roll most likely. Isolation effeciency overall seemed incredibly low when I saw some synergy data, especially in 2005, and it’s risen substantially today. doubt it was previously.

Then spacing happened and now it’s at 55%

Now let’s look at the top 5?ppg scorers that are not bigs (so non PF or C) and their shooting percentage inside the arc. Looked on bbref so they have to qualify to count

1960 season
Jack twyman 42.2% 31.2ppg
Elgin Baylor 42.4% 29.6ppg
Cliff hagan 46.4% 24.6ppg
Gene shue 41.3% 22.5ppg
Paul arazin 42.0% 22.3ppg

1970 season
Jerry West 49.7% 31.2ppg
Billy Cunningham 46.9% 26.9ppg
Lou Hudson 53.1% 25.4ppg
Connie Hawkins 49.0% 24.6ppg
Havlicek 45.4% 24.2ppg

1980 season
George Gervin 54.0% 33.1ppg
World B Free 47.6% 30.2ppg
Adrian dantley 57.7% 28.0ppg
Dr J 52.3% 26.9ppg
Otis birdsong 51.1% 22.7ppg

1990 season (Barkley listed at fs)
Michael jordan 54.8% 33.6ppg
Wilkins 50.4% 26.7ppg
Barkley 63.2% 25.2ppg
Chris Mullin 57.3% 25.1ppg
Reggie Miller 55.2% 24.6ppg

2000 season
Allen iverson 43.5% 28.4ppg
Grant hill 50% 25.8ppg
Vince Carter 47.5% 25.7ppg
Payton 49.7% 24.2ppg
Jerry stackhouse 46.2% 23.6ppg

2010 season
Durant 50.6% 30.1ppg
Lebron 56.0% 29.7ppg
Carmelo 47.8% 28.2ppg
Kobe 48.7% 27.0ppg
Wade 50.9% 26.6ppg

2020 season
Harden 55.6% 34.3ppg
Beal 51.5% 30.5ppg
Lillard 52.4% 30.0ppg
Trae 50.1% 29.7ppg
Luka 57.4% 28.8ppg


This kind of aligns with what I said, In terms of a clear rise, a fall late 90s with rule changes, then slowly rising from basketball strategy evolving to become more effective, with spacing and help beaters and what not.

I wanted to see within eras peoples data as well, maybe the higher percentages could be explained by worsening defense and I was wrong about “iron sharpens iron”

I went to 1970 to 1975 to see, and sorted it so they’d be under 28.

Unfortunately players were either in the ABA or dealt with injuries

Jack Marin
1970- 19.7ppg 48.9% age 25 season 4
1975- 11.8ppg 45.5%
Played 74+ games all seasons midway, so doubt he has a big injury

Archie Clark
1970- 19.7ppg 49.6FG% age 28 season 4
1975- 13.9ppg 49.5FG%
Seemed to have an injury in 1973

Gail Goodrich
1970- 20.0ppg 45.4FG% age 26 season 5
1975- 22.5ppg 45.9FG%

Chem Haskins
1970- 20.3ppg 45% age 26 season 3
1975- 4ppg 39.7%
All seasons at or above 70

Jimmy walker
1970- 20.8ppg 47.8% age 25 season 3
1975- 16.7ppg 47.5%
All seasons at or above 70

Frazier
1970- 20.9ppg 51.8% age 24 season 3
1975- 21.5ppg 48.3%

Dick van arsle
1970- 21.3ppg 50.8% age 26 season 5
1975- 16.1ppg 47.0%

Jeff Mullins
1970- 22.1ppg 46.0% age 27 season 6
1975- 8.2ppg 45.5%
66 games in 1975, maybe got hurt early but numbers had trended down

Tom van Arsdale
1970- 22.8ppg 45.1% age 26 season 5
1975- 18.4ppg 42.8%

Dave bing
1970- 22.9ppg 44.4% age 26 season 4
1975- 19.0ppg 43.4%

Earl monroe
1970- 23.4ppg 44.6% age 25 season 3
1975- 20.9 45.4%
Might have dealt with an injury the season prior, numbers trended down but bounced back

Connie Hawkins
1970- 24.6ppg 49.0% age 27 season 3
1975- 8ppg 42.6% (half season but trended down)

Average age around 31

What makes this difficult is that it’s hard to know what roster construction or stuff like that turns out, or if they had injuries and played through it.

Furthermore, this is only 5 years, if they themselves as basketball players, declined from age, or improved from experience. Peaks happened much earlier on back then, and I think it’s a fair question to ask, is this because they played longer in college? Because the league outpaced their growth? Or a lack of modern health stuff meant even wear and tear and smaller injuries caused a big issue.

Finally, 5 years isn’t enough to make a large difference, I don’t think it’s a singular era where a huge paradigm shift occurred more so incremental change that looks larger when comparing multiple years together. I don’t think, for example, west wouldn’t make the nba in 1980. For the most part, a players personal growth will far outstrip the league getting stronger over any period of time.

I think what’s important to note here is that I’m not really saying there’s a large difference in league situations between those years, there probably isn’t, but a small difference that likes on year after year would be signficant by what is now year 60 since that era.

I went through the top 50 scorers of all time and picked modern players (still playing). I don’t believe defenses have gotten better since the mid 2000s, and honestly we can just more easily evaluate how these players have gotten better or worse. These are their age 26 to 31 seasons, as well as their 4th season to their 8th season below that

Derozan
2016 vs 2021
2013 vs 2018

Curry
2015 vs 2019/2021
2013 vs 2018

Paul
2012 vs 2017
2009 vs 2014

Westbrook
2015 vs 2019
2012 vs 2017

Harden
2016 vs 2021
2013 vs 2018

Durant
2015 vs 2019/2021
2011 vs 2016

Lebron
2011 vs 2016
2007 vs 2012

Comparing their 4th to 8th seasons we see a pretty uniform improvement. Age 26 to 31c in spite of the fact not all these guys are super healthy I’d say most of them improved, in an absolute sense. At the very least, had a peak in between those years

In any case, while I do believe it’s more incremental, when you think, what would be the years where you would expect the most growth, it would likely be the 1990-2023 time period, since the nba had a revival in popularity in the 1980s, so I’m thinking more guys who grew up watching magic and bird.

If you consider that the nba hit its revival more so in that 1984-1987 period, you’d probably expect an influx of talent a bit more than a decade or so after (like a 10 year old inspired in 1984 would play his first season probably in 1994 or 1995). It wouldn’t be anything huge but you’d probably see a slightly stronger increase than previously, but this essentially coincides exactly with illegal defense rules. Conversely, with how absolutely awful it was in the 70s you probably don’t have many people inspired watching finals games on tape delay to take up basketball.

More than anything though, I don’t believe you can assume a steadily growing league will have any large statistical evidences of that if you assume defense is growing concurrently. Had we seen a situation where they all went against the exact same defenders and there had been no change of data I would agree with you, however that is not the case. If offensive players grow as they emulate and refine things they learn from their idols growing up, defenders going against these players will improve to. If offensive players become harder to stop with more freedom allowing them to showcase their ability and allow for more ways to attack, defenders must improve going against these stronger attackers

It’s a similar idea to scheme. A 2023 defense will be more adept at defending against a 2003 offense and attacking weaknesses they have in terms of not being optimized with their spacing and all of that. If we be realistic about cross team comparisons that’s why a 2016 warriors vs.1996 bulls matchup under the context that defense is allowed the same freedom positioning wise it has now, has a lot of caveats to it if you really break it down.

This isn’t to say, defenders are far better now than they were 10-15 years ago because they’re facing curries or something, I do believe that, and especially with wings, top end talent somewhat leveled out, outside of pullup 3 point shooting vs non aggressive pick and roll coverages essentially.

In any case, I disagree that there is much statistical evidence to show the league hasn’t evolved as much as it seems to have when watching film. Beyond this, had there been no rule changes or subtle ref changes between 1997-2002 overall, I wouldn’t probably expect inside the arc FG% to be higher than 50% by now even without the spacing revolution

Finally, I’m much more talking about an average guard. If we take something to an absolute extreme and say, bob cousy averaged 21-8 on 39.7% shooting in 1955 and then averaged as a declined 32 year olds 15.7 on 39.1% shooting, therefore he could probably average 20 per game on poor effeciency in his peak in the 60s and therefore could probably average like 10 per game on poor effeciency in the 2000s, well that’s just taking it to an unnecessary extreme because that’s a player who really if we’re talking about his pure scoring game and nothing else, certainly isn’t better than a good recreational player at all.

More than that I’m against the idea that impact or data>film when translating people accross eras, it’s much more akin to scouting than comparing players accross similar eras. Certain things translate better than others. I mean, it’s similar to two dominant players in a bad highschool go to a good one and only one of them remains effective. It’s not as if the average 60s guard is better than a top 10 highschool senior guard now, I hope that isn’t controversial because it shouldn’t be.





“Re: A vs B. Eh, let me address both, though more B than A.

On A: I don't think it's any kind of given that any player would be as good in any different era, and I'm not trying to argue that all eras are of equal quality. Me talking about a lack of massive statistically salient trends may seem like I'm saying the quality is not improving, but I think it is, just not like it does when you're in the middle of a serious paradigm shift.”


Talked about

On B: I do think that things like 3-point shooting, dribbling technique, etc is something that can be picked up without growing up with it as a child. Not everybody from the past would ever be able to become a great 3-point shooter, but I certainly believe there are guys from prior eras who could pick it up pretty quickly. I don't think an overall adjustment can be done simply with an off-season - because there's no substitute for real season competition - but I think some of these guys could pick it up effectively in the span of a year.

So it depends to an extent.


One thing I'll say: Things like previous exposure to formal basketball is important. One of the reasons given for Connie Hawkins' struggles as a defender is that he didn't learn a lot of the standards of the time due to not playing college ball. He had physical defensive talents, but in terms of knowing about different schemes and what he should be doing within those schemes, he struggled.

But if we're talking about college stars like Oscar & West, I would not be concerned.


I think the environment of how basketball is played between the 60s vs now is enough that it’s just an entirely different league.

On statistics remaining somewhat the same, it’s not really too suprising at all for me. I have never really been in the camp that players back then are tiny or anything, it’s much more that iron sharpens iron and players on offense and defense both improve. Within a decade, I don’t think players improve so much that a guy won’t make the league, or that a top player would be reduced to a role player after a class gets in, but within 6 decades I do think so. Addressed this more earlier like I did, but I don’t think it’s a 60-70 year paradigm shift as much as a 60-70 year incremental shift. I have no real issue saying you can drop west to a 80s team and he’d be fine, have an issue saying you drop him in today




On B, so I think it depends

When it comes to perimeter skills, offensively, we can try to break down offense in a few ways, but to oversimplify it

IQ
Ball handling
Shooting
Finishing/slashing
Triple threat
Playmaking and pick and roll play



Can players with only experience palming learn to dribble to not lose the ball and be able to reasonable move around well? Likely. Will they be able to handle the ball at a level of a modern guard who utilized it to get past modern defenders in a variety of ways? Absolutely not. An average 60s ball handler doesn’t have more control of the ball than any decent high schooler does. Ball handling under palming rules, people seem to have an opinion that in comparison to today it took an incredible amount of skill and restraint to dribble around with both hands normally without palming constantly, and to be frank it’s not hard to dribble at the level that many of those players normally did with palming rules in place. While there are probably some exceptions, west absolutely was not one of them.

I feel I need to hammer that point home because it’s always been one of the strangest points people make on here. To say an decent (emphasis on the word decent, there are players this probably wouldn’t apply to) 60s ball handler can become an nba level ball handler with a year or two of training is like saying the same about a random decent player on a junior varsity team. It would be different if defenders clearly displayed an incredible intensity in that era to take advantage of less controlled ball handling, but that isn’t really the case at all. There’s an unbelievable gap between the two, dribbling at the level of an nba guard is something probably less than 0.1% of serious basketball players can do, dribbling a ball obeying palming rules strictly without losing it against defense content to concede to your body protecting the ball is something that any guard that even remotely seriously plays basketball can do.

When it comes to shooting I’m inclined to agree with your take, although one thing I would like to say is I feel people assume there are upper limits to shooting percentages and that only really comes from there being general upper limits depending on the defense you face, and normally defense and offense has grown concurrently. There’s a reason why 45-50% midrange shooting had been seen as somewhat of a upper limit and recently there are multiple players suddenly able to hit 55%+ on those shots. I mean, if random population member with no help, were to guard KD but KD can only take midrange jump shots, KD is probably hitting 80%+ if not more.

Meanwhile, while not nearly as big as the gap with ball handling, things like their triple threat game and post game certainly weren’t polished at all compared to elite guys with those skills today, although what stood out more was the defense especially in the post many times.

Slashing is a more difficult area to evaluate. The finishing ability for guards at that time for many players, in the games Ive seen, have been absolutely in the dirt if I’m gonna be honest. This isn’t to say good finishes don’t occur or no player looks good finishing (in the very few clips I’ve seen of Oscar I’ve liked it). I understand a lack of a gather step and palming make it harder as well but for a lot of players they just aren’t driving fast or doing much to set up their drives and defenders just look somewhat embarrassing



Iq and playmaking is the biggest thing for me though. I feel that people just assume high IQ translates and, as I’ve grown more knowledgeable about the intricacies of how teams run their offense the past few years, I really don’t see it whatsoever. This isn’t for everyone but particularly in that era.

Like with guys like magic or bird, they are genuinely making these incredible reads in these incredibly tight windows with minimal time.

When it comes to 60s playmaking or basketball IQ I really don’t even remotely see it the same way. Pick and rolls are ran at times but the intensity both players and the screener ran them with (for the Lakers at least, I only saw one clip with Oscar running one a few times and it looked pretty good) is much more comparable to high school than the nba (if even! It was so peculiar). And when it comes to IQ I get it’s popular to assume it translates perfectly but it’s hard to emphasize how much more pressure there is making these reads nowadays, much more controlled but defenses take things away and deny with far more intensity than before. I certainly wouldn’t classify some of the players I watched as consistent elite decision makers in that regard

This is prevelant on defense too, much much more actually, but I feel I don’t want to open that can of worms. Defense is honestly 1000% the biggest issue, off ball defense in the 60s and in the 2020s are so different in complexity that you might as well compare highschool basketball to the nba if you’re talking about the complexity of schemes and the speed of the reads.

Iq goes beyond that do, ability to read defenders guarding you and all of that and I feel people assume nba players have this level of deep understanding we could never even remotely comprehend. I don’t really agree with that, it’s more the speed in which they do it and how precise and effecient and effective they are at attacking from these reads, to put it simply there’s an incredible gap in this sense you compare it to much older years.

There’s a tendency to go, “he had a great iq he’ll figure it out” and I don’t really think that’s justified. For the most part, players don’t nearly have as much “meta” knowledge as people expect. if pick and roll offense fell off and had marginally become worse than isolation, I have no doubt in my mind this wouldn’t be something a guy like Nash would notice, know what I mean?

High bball iq is obviously a thing and incredibly important, but a guy like Jokic isn’t drawing up the playbook or even calling out most plays as much as executing the gameplan where they have preset reads off of specific situations the coaching staff makes that he is adept at executing, which really is alotnof playmaking . We’ve even seen multiple Nuggets players talk about their offensive coordinator. Likewise with Chris Paul’s passing second wind with the Suns despite his scoring threat being far gone vs his earlier years.


What I’m saying up there is, if you take guys from 60 years ago and assume greatness equates to they’ll be able to understand the game and process it at an nba level, it just isn’t really realistic at all. More on defense than anything else, it’s actually fare more prevelanr in that regard with the pace of the game and action and stuff within possessions, but like, my expectation certainly wouldn’t be that the smarter guards in that era would be among the highest IQ pick and roll operators in the league today

[iggymcfrack]

Star being used a bit liberally there, Muggsy was never a clearly above average starter, certainly not in 2000 (his effectively last season). Thomas at 5'8 3/4 barefoot (combine measurement) is still decently above the global average height. If the shortest player to star in years is literally above average height (I think he may be the shortest Allstar+ level player ever, am I forgetting anyone?), it's a tall mans game and very exclusionary at the pro level. The only other sub 6 foot guys I can think of to make the Allstar game since the 50s are Calvin Murphy/Michael Adams. In the 40s/50s there were a few other 5'10 and 5'11 star guards - Martin, Scolari, Cervi, ???, but that's still about it.

So what, should I divide all my stupid made up numbers by 2 and say that’s the player pool for people with above average height? None of that had anything to do with my actual point anyway which is that PROPORTIONALLY the player pool’s much, much larger now. Also, you can be a 6’5 athlete and pick up a basketball and find out your good in gym class or something, but that still has absolutely zero to do with how likely you are to work hard enough to become a professional player when the rewards are minimal.

I mean, we all play volleyball in school at some point. Does that mean that just because you can get a scholarship, everyone who’s good at it is going to follow up and see if they have the skill to become a professional player? Of course not. 1950s Basketball was much closer to 2020s volleyball than 2020s basketball in terms of a thing people would train seriously at.

[One_and_Done]

The burden is on people arguing for players to prove they were really that good, not the other way around. That includes old timers with no footage. If there isn't much footage how could they ever meet that burden of proof?

[eminence]

Star being used a bit liberally there, Muggsy was never a clearly above average starter, certainly not in 2000 (his effectively last season). Thomas at 5'8 3/4 barefoot (combine measurement) is still decently above the global average height. If the shortest player to star in years is literally above average height (I think he may be the shortest Allstar+ level player ever, am I forgetting anyone?), it's a tall mans game and very exclusionary at the pro level. The only other sub 6 foot guys I can think of to make the Allstar game since the 50s are Calvin Murphy/Michael Adams. In the 40s/50s there were a few other 5'10 and 5'11 star guards - Martin, Scolari, Cervi, ???, but that's still about it.

So what, should I divide all my stupid made up numbers by 2 and say that’s the player pool for people with above average height? None of that had anything to do with my actual point anyway which is that PROPORTIONALLY the player pool’s much, much larger now. Also, you can be a 6’5 athlete and pick up a basketball and find out your good in gym class or something, but that still has absolutely zero to do with how likely you are to work hard enough to become a professional player when the rewards are minimal.

I mean, we all play volleyball in school at some point. Does that mean that just because you can get a scholarship, everyone who’s good at it is going to follow up and see if they have the skill to become a professional player? Of course not. 1950s Basketball was much closer to 2020s volleyball than 2020s basketball in terms of a thing people would train seriously at.

Basketball has stayed roughly as popular nationally in the US from the 30s until today (mini-spike in the 90's looking at Gallups polls). Baseball and Football have switched places, but Basketball has essentially always been 2B in the US (may be in the process of passing baseball for 2A, though soccer is rising to make it a 2a/b/c). Not even close to volleyball today (especially men's volleyball). The professional leagues were not built out, but high school/local/college play were a similar deal to today back then, which is where you'll get your potential player base from.

A completely seperate point, broadly on skill development - I feel confident 60s pros could quickly pick up at least near pro level dribbling skills. Why? My basketball playing story - I hit my full height early (a whopping 5'11 at 13) and so was developed as a 'big' in the late 90's to mid 00's. I wound up leaving basketball midway through high school with essentially no guard skills, I have no doubt Jerry West would've dribbled circles around me. I was re-introduced to basketball as a grad student by a fellow student who needed a couple guys for his 3s team. He was a giant by normal standards (6'7, had played some low level professional ball in Europe before moving to the US) so didn't need my 5'11 sky hook on his team, he taught me basic guard skills. And ya know what, practicing once to twice a week for an hour over a period of a couple years, I picked them up. I'd gotten to the point where I'd like to say I'm a decent recreational level player as a guard despite a somewhat poor shot and the greatest sin of all when it comes to ballhandling - short arms with small hands. Based off this, I assume guys with far higher skill and athletic baselines who practice for more than 1.5 hours a week could quickly pass my own skill level.

[iggymcfrack]

The burden is on people arguing for players to prove they were really that good, not the other way around. That includes old timers with no footage. If there isn't much footage how could they ever meet that burden of proof?

There’s plenty of footage. I’ve watched like 40 minutes of Mikan in the last week just for this project. He’s a better shot blocker than I thought and he deserves some recognition eventually, but as an overall package, it’s still ridiculous to compare him to even Anthony Davis or Joel Embiid, let alone David Robinson or Nikola Jokic.

[Colbinii]

I went through the top 50 scorers of all time and picked modern players (still playing). I don’t believe defenses have gotten better since the mid 2000s, and honestly we can just more easily evaluate how these players have gotten better or worse. These are their age 26 to 31 seasons, as well as their 4th season to their 8th season below that

You don't think defensive strategy has improved since the mid-2000s?

I feel like we went through two major defensive revolutions since the mid-2000s.

[70sFan]

I went through the top 50 scorers of all time and picked modern players (still playing). I don’t believe defenses have gotten better since the mid 2000s, and honestly we can just more easily evaluate how these players have gotten better or worse. These are their age 26 to 31 seasons, as well as their 4th season to their 8th season below that

You don't think defensive strategy has improved since the mid-2000s?

I feel like we went through two major defensive revolutions since the mid-2000s.

Wait for him calling you silly.

[cupcakesnake]

Star being used a bit liberally there, Muggsy was never a clearly above average starter, certainly not in 2000 (his effectively last season). Thomas at 5'8 3/4 barefoot (combine measurement) is still decently above the global average height. If the shortest player to star in years is literally above average height (I think he may be the shortest Allstar+ level player ever, am I forgetting anyone?), it's a tall mans game and very exclusionary at the pro level. The only other sub 6 foot guys I can think of to make the Allstar game since the 50s are Calvin Murphy/Michael Adams. In the 40s/50s there were a few other 5'10 and 5'11 star guards - Martin, Scolari, Cervi, ???, but that's still about it.

So what, should I divide all my stupid made up numbers by 2 and say that’s the player pool for people with above average height? None of that had anything to do with my actual point anyway which is that PROPORTIONALLY the player pool’s much, much larger now. Also, you can be a 6’5 athlete and pick up a basketball and find out your good in gym class or something, but that still has absolutely zero to do with how likely you are to work hard enough to become a professional player when the rewards are minimal.

I mean, we all play volleyball in school at some point. Does that mean that just because you can get a scholarship, everyone who’s good at it is going to follow up and see if they have the skill to become a professional player? Of course not. 1950s Basketball was much closer to 2020s volleyball than 2020s basketball in terms of a thing people would train seriously at.

Basketball has stayed roughly as popular nationally in the US from the 30s until today (mini-spike in the 90's looking at Gallups polls). Baseball and Football have switched places, but Basketball has essentially always been 2B in the US (may be in the process of passing baseball for 2A, though soccer is rising to make it a 2a/b/c). Not even close to volleyball today (especially men's volleyball). The professional leagues were not built out, but high school/local/college play were a similar deal to today back then, which is where you'll get your potential player base from.

A completely seperate point, broadly on skill development - I feel confident 60s pros could quickly pick up at least near pro level dribbling skills. Why? My basketball playing story - I hit my full height early (a whopping 5'11 at 13) and so was developed as a 'big' in the late 90's to mid 00's. I wound up leaving basketball midway through high school with essentially no guard skills, I have no doubt Jerry West would've dribbled circles around me. I was re-introduced to basketball as a grad student by a fellow student who needed a couple guys for his 3s team. He was a giant by normal standards (6'7, had played some low level professional ball in Europe before moving to the US) so didn't need my 5'11 sky hook on his team, he taught me basic guard skills. And ya know what, practicing once to twice a week for an hour over a period of a couple years, I picked them up. I'd gotten to the point where I'd like to say I'm a decent recreational level player as a guard despite a somewhat poor shot and the greatest sin of all when it comes to ballhandling - short arms with small hands. Based off this, I assume guys with far higher skill and athletic baselines who practice for more than 1.5 hours a week could quickly pass my own skill level.

I really don't get that there are people arguing that 60s guys couldn't learn to dribble in 2020. Every basketball player in the world right now is learning to dribble. I go on tiktok sometimes and there are jo schmos playing rec league and posting their elite ball handling. This isn't some special skill that 2020s players are magic for having.

I also have no idea why people do time travel based comparisons, but don't have the older player theoretically grow up in this era. Yeah I do think if you teleported Oscar Robertson into the middle of an NBA game, he wouldn't be good. He'd probably be terrified by the lights, the volume, the fashion, the smart phones, and the fake nails. He'd probably have a panic attack and be sent to the hospital. Should we judge him based on that? Or should we imagine Oscar being born in the early 90s and wonder what his natural skill set would have become in a modern NBA. One sounds like a worthwhile exercise that helps us understand players and context. The other sounds like a pointless strawman used to disqualify any player that played in a different era.

Anyways, I know most people aren't taking it to that extreme. But there's a bit of that vibe sometimes. I think if people want to make cross-era comparisons (as opposed to only judging the player relative to their era), they should do so with as much thought as they can muster, because it's an impossible task.