How good would Prime Jerry West and Walt Frazier be now ....

[TrueLAfan]

Well, I think it

[yaya banana]

Well, I think it

[tha_rock220]

-= original quote snipped =-



That is ridiculous... utterly ridiculous. I can't fathom the kind of knowledge-void required to make that statement...

sigh....im going to show some restraint here because i generally enjoy reading your posts.

[writerman]

-= original quote snipped =-



I agree - we currently are unable to quantify basketball ability. But that does not mean that we are unable to draw indirect statistical inferences, which is what I have tried to do.

The direction of my argument has gone too far off track to be of general interest, and I think we're now talking past each other, so I think I'll stop here and let anyone else have the final word.

Since you've "proven" that Shaq>Wilt, Ben Wallace > than Bill Russell, Iverson > Jerry West and Gary Payton > Oscar Robertson, now "prove" to me that Steroid-soaked Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens are > Ted Williams, Roberto Clemente, Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle and Sandy Koufax or Steve Carlton...

or how the improvement in equipment, as opposed to athleticism (the former which you just basically dismissed out of hand as a significant factor) doesn't apply in a sport like thepole vault, where the new fiberglass and composite poles have basically made a travesty of the sport in breaking all the old records?

OK, so you've studied your ass off about this and did statistical and other sophisticated analyses up the butt, but the one thing you haven't done, other than in old clips, is see the 60's basketball players and other athletes first hand. IMO, if you had, you wouldn't be making the kind of cocksure judgements about the superiority of the moderns like you have.

One thing that TrueLAfan has said that IMO you didn't adequately address is the size issue. As he pointed out , there is (especially if you factor in the thedifference in how players were measured in the two eras, i.e., barefoot vs shoes) there is virtually no significant difference between the heights of players now vs then.

Or, as I think the following pictures show, in overall physical development. The idea that these guys would be overpowered by today's players is patently absurd.

http://espn.go.com/photo/2006/0504/nba_ ... on_395.jpg

http://media.scout.com/Media/College_Me ... hnson2.JPG

http://www.basketballcollectiblesstore. ... 400917.jpg

http://www.jimmyrod.com/bestwarriors_files/image014.jpg

http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php/John_Havlicek

http://i.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_ga ... lwa_02.jpg

http://www.nba.com/history/images/elgin_baylor.jpg

http://www.remembertheaba.com/TributeMa ... orDrbl.jpg

http://www.lalanternadelpopolo.it/Baske ... Unseld.jpg

[yaya banana]

Writerman, I did claim to stop posting, and I'll refrain from making further substantive points. However, I suggest I look at what I've previously written, because you seem not to have read much of it. You find that I have attempted to address all the points you are making, or already conceded the point.

[Myth_Breaker]

-= original quote snipped =-



Jumping in on my first post ...

I don't see why we have to assume similar access to training methods and medicine when comparing players. That is necessary when making a "raw talent" comparison; however, many posters seem to claim that if we take such-and-such 60s player and dump him in today's game, he'd not be out of place athletically. For example much of this thread is about how the athletic feats of West back in the day compare with those by today's players (which I won't try to dispute for now.) But in making such a comparison about how high West could jump back in the day versus today, surely it is right to allow today's players the advantage of modern medicine.

Bgil's point about a white DPOY, although sensitive, is valid. The point is that talent pool has vastly increased today compared to the past, whether due to improvements in IT, transportation, scouting, etc; and this change in talent pool has manifested itself in the change in the makeup of the population of players. This is manifest in many sports other than basketball (long-distance running is a clean example). There is no question there that today's runners are simply far better than those of yesteryear, and this is due to both improvements in sports medicine and to expansion of the talent pool. yet there is no debate as we do in basketball, simply because ability is easily quantified in running but not in basketball. When you observe that the vast majority of top players today are of a certain ethnicity, that top players of the past were of another ethnicity, and that the talent pool of the latter has not diminished (big assumption here), you surely have to question whether these top players of the past would be compeittive today.

Of the top of my head, there doesn't seem to be any major sport which has easily quantifiable performance metrics where atheletes today do worse (or even comparable to) athletes of 40 years ago. On the other hand, such claims are often made in sports where performance is hard to quantify. To me, this simply says that athletic ability (but not necessarily raw talent) has in fact improved significantly over the years, even in the sports where performance is hard to quantify. it'd be a pretty big coincidence otherwise.

Final comment. Why use West's bpg and spg in comparing him with players today? Such stats give us an idea of him talent relative to the average talent of the time; but to me, it doesn't make sense to use it as evidence that he would be good compared to players today.

Yaya - while I'm honoured that you've chosen me to be the first poster to address on this board, I don't think you did in a very logical way. I mean: the whole first part of your post is totally unnecessary since I am not the one claiming that greats from the past would be just as good now without necessary adjustment. As to your second point: I more or less believe that increasement of NBA teams' number more or less offsets widening the talent pool. There IS some difference between 8 - and 30 - team league, right? While argument about international talent holds water only as to current decade - the first era when international players are appearing here in meaningful numbers - though, funny thing, I didn't notice many posters claiming because of this that the 00s > the 90s. Anyway, while reading posts of such modern era partisans as you, I must highlight the fundamental logical mistake committed by you and many other similar posters. I mean: you remind me of people spending weeks and sacrifying all their honest effort for creating arguments trying to prove that trees in forest A are taller than trees in forest B - instead of simply going and measure the trees in both forests. And what you get if you go - methaphorically speaking - to measure all forests? For instance: that any leading scorer in any decade of the modern NBA except Wilt didn't register more than thirty-something points per game. Or - to be more general - that all-time NBA greats kept their excellence throughout their whole NBA career. Bob Pettit was a dominant player both in the 50s and in the 60s - actually, both his Hawks and himself were even better in this later decade, but weren't getting so much pub since the competition was tougher. Ditto Bill Russell. Wilt? He dominated with his superior defense even young Kareem during 1972 playoffs. In turn Kareem became both the oldest Finals MVP in history in 1985 and the oldest ever All-NBA First Teamer in history in 1986 - in both cases beating young bucks like Ewing and Hakeem. And I hope I don't have to add how good Hakeem fared with Shaq even when being aging - and then how Shaq compares to current bigmen greats... In short: no NBA greats' careers show that there was any sudden increasement in competition causing old stars to become inadequate - quite on the contrary. So there's also no proof to claim that old-era greats would be like role-players now.

[przemminator21]

The physic is not changing. The game is changing.

And you can't transfer the players from the past into todays NBA, they would be lost. They would have to adopt to the rules, game plans, training etc.
Kareem could compete with Hakeem and Ewing with success only because he also elevated his game game-progres-wise.

If we take 2005 and 1989 Pistons from the defensive point of view. Spurs wins bigtime (when you accually see how those defense were effective.)



Another thing. Player now and then are playing with injuries.
In the mid 90s karl malone said that he sees the diference between now (mid 90s) and past. In the past uyopu would sit out the injuries you play now with.
Interesting huh?

[TrueLAfan]

...just as players from today would be lost if they played in the past because of different rules and styles. The knife cuts both ways. The idea that Kareem elevated his game "progress-wise"--implying that he was better later in his career and/or when he went up against Hakeem and ewing--is ludicrous. Kareem was still an excellent player in 1985 and 1986--good enough to beat out Hakeem and Ewing on All-NBA teams, for instance--but he was markedly worse than he had been ten years earlier.

There are reasons to listen to Karl Malone. He's second all time in minutes played, and he played in the modern era. Except..he's behind a guy who started playing in the NBA in the 60s, and guy just behind him also began his career in the sixties. The #4 guy first played in the pros in 1974, and the #5 guy played his first NBA game in 1959. In terms of minutes per game in a season, and minutes per season, Malone played in the worst era in NBA history. In the first fifteen years of Malone's career, exactly three players played over 3400 minutes in a season--Latrell Sprerwell in 93-94, Anthony Mason in 95-96, and Michael Finley in 1999-2000. It's been done four times in the seven years since; it was done something like 20 times in the 1970s. Regardless of what Malone thinks, players played slightly more per game and season in the past, and had careers of (at least) similar length in minutes played. (Although we do seem to be on an upward swing now in terms of mintuesa played per season). The facts are pretty much indisputable. Interesting, indeed.

[Warspite]

If given a full training camp I would expect both players to struggle untill Christmass and both to miss to the allstar game but they would both be outside the MVP talk by the end of the yr and I would expect West to be 3rd or 2nd ALL NBA. Frazier in yr 2 would be a prime Gary Payton and West would outplay LBJ or Wade.


As a Pistons fan I have np tradeing either of my allstar gaurds for 1 of them.

Frazier is basicly Gary Payton with better offense
West is Wade with Kaponos jumpshot.

I think West is maybe the best pullup jump shooter that has ever lived. The only scorering guard that I respect/fear more than West is MJ himself. Once West adapted to todays rules he would lead the NBA in FT attempts, PPG, 3pt%, steals and he could get 8-9 assts.

It would take both West and Frazier a full yr to adapt but make no mistake they can play. Both are so mentaly tough and such great leaders that find it hard to believe that they wouldnt win more than they should and that coaches wouldnt love them so much that they wouldnt make allstar and all NBA teams.

[teamny1]

The way people bring up athleticism and size like that is all that matters in basketball is absurd. Some of you guys in that crowd make it seem like someone that runs a 4.5 sec 40 with mediocre jumpshot is a much greater basketball player than one that runs a 4.8 sec 40 with an impeccable jumpshot.

Do people get bigger and stronger over time? Yes. But some people make it seem like players in the 60s and 70s were loafing around barely able to walk yet alone run.

Those same people screaming out that older players would stand no chance in today's amazingly athletic game just need to look at who the best point guard in the NBA right now is: Steve Nash. Even if you want to strictly use an older player's abilities and place them into today's world without giving them any of the benefits that modern day athletes have received such as weight training and dieting, they'd still be great BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW TO PLAY BASKETBALL.

It's sadly humorous to think that there are people in the world that could look at a player like Kevin McHale and judge him as worse than a currently player like Carlos Boozer and say unequivocally that Boozer is better because he is from a younger generation.

[przemminator21]

...just as players from today would be lost if they played in the past because of different rules and styles. The knife cuts both ways. The idea that Kareem elevated his game "progress-wise"--implying that he was better later in his career and/or when he went up against Hakeem and ewing--is ludicrous. Kareem was still an excellent player in 1985 and 1986--good enough to beat out Hakeem and Ewing on All-NBA teams, for instance--but he was markedly worse than he had been ten years earlier.

There are reasons to listen to Karl Malone. He's second all time in minutes played, and he played in the modern era. Except..he's behind a guy who started playing in the NBA in the 60s, and guy just behind him also began his career in the sixties. The #4 guy first played in the pros in 1974, and the #5 guy played his first NBA game in 1959. In terms of minutes per game in a season, and minutes per season, Malone played in the worst era in NBA history. In the first fifteen years of Malone's career, exactly three players played over 3400 minutes in a season--Latrell Sprerwell in 93-94, Anthony Mason in 95-96, and Michael Finley in 1999-2000. It's been done four times in the seven years since; it was done something like 20 times in the 1970s. Regardless of what Malone thinks, players played slightly more per game and season in the past, and had careers of (at least) similar length in minutes played. (Although we do seem to be on an upward swing now in terms of mintuesa played per season). The facts are pretty much indisputable. Interesting, indeed.

1. I don't care about the minutes cause todays NBA is more intense and talking about coaches that took the experience of the past.

2.It's not like the knife cuts both sides the same way. No way.
Players of today just train with a better quality and playing better basketball in general.
For excample - Cousy - I was doing something that kids on the backyards doing on regular basis.
The same thing about Pettit who was saying that he was nobody special, that his skills is nothing compare to the players of today.

Basketball is on much higher level now that it was. No contest. No comaprison, that's a fact. I don't need no milion stats to prove that. Cause stats shows nothing esp. in a team game. How much efficient is Bowen? Is he clutch? Only stats you can put up is the best oposite team opponent FG's% and his +/-. But how can you locate him against Cooper? Diferent players they played with, diferent they played against. Diferent team startegies.

And Kareem - hmm - he might be better in his first 3 years I don't care. I will seprate basketball from an indyvidual player

[writerman]

-= original quote snipped =-



1. I don't care about the minutes cause todays NBA is more intense and talking about coaches that took the experience of the past.

2.It's not like the knife cuts both sides the same way. No way.
Players of today just train with a better quality and playing better basketball in general.
For excample - Cousy - I was doing something that kids on the backyards doing on regular basis.
The same thing about Pettit who was saying that he was nobody special, that his skills is nothing compare to the players of today.

Basketball is on much higher level now that it was. No contest. No comaprison, that's a fact. I don't need no milion stats to prove that. Cause stats shows nothing esp. in a team game. How much efficient is Bowen? Is he clutch? Only stats you can put up is the best oposite team opponent FG's% and his +/-. But how can you locate him against Cooper? Diferent players they played with, diferent they played against. Diferent team startegies.

And Kareem - hmm - he might be better in his first 3 years I don't care. I will seprate basketball from an indyvidual player

don't try to confuse me with facts. I've already got my mind made up.

[Myth_Breaker]

-= original quote snipped =-



1. I don't care about the minutes cause todays NBA is more intense and talking about coaches that took the experience of the past.

2.It's not like the knife cuts both sides the same way. No way.
Players of today just train with a better quality and playing better basketball in general.
For excample - Cousy - I was doing something that kids on the backyards doing on regular basis.
The same thing about Pettit who was saying that he was nobody special, that his skills is nothing compare to the players of today.

(Basketball is on much higher level now that it was. No contest. No comaprison, that's a fact. I don't need no milion stats to prove that. Cause stats shows nothing esp. in a team game. How much efficient is Bowen? Is he clutch? Only stats you can put up is the best oposite team opponent FG's% and his +/-. But how can you locate him against Cooper? Diferent players they played with, diferent they played against. Diferent team startegies.

And Kareem - hmm - he might be better in his first 3 years I don't care. I will seprate basketball from an indyvidual player

Actually, these are FACTS, denying your ASSERTIONS - you know, there's a marked difference between the two:

-= original quote snipped =-
that all-time NBA greats kept their excellence throughout their whole NBA career. Bob Pettit was a dominant player both in the 50s and in the 60s - actually, both his Hawks and himself were even better in this later decade, but weren't getting so much pub since the competition was tougher. Ditto Bill Russell. Wilt? He dominated with his superior defense even young Kareem during 1972 playoffs. In turn Kareem became both the oldest Finals MVP in history in 1985 and the oldest ever All-NBA First Teamer in history in 1986 - in both cases beating young bucks like Ewing and Hakeem. And I hope I don't have to add how good Hakeem fared with Shaq even when being aging - and then how Shaq compares to current bigmen greats... In short: no NBA greats' careers show that there was any sudden increasement in competition causing old stars to become inadequate - quite on the contrary. So there's also no proof to claim that old-era greats would be like role-players now.

While talking about basketball in "separation" from individual player performances is plain ridiculous: the game is MADE UP of such performances. If players keep performing at high level, there is no reason to claim that the game became significantly harder to play - it's so simple.

(And don't necessarily bring the Cousy into equation: modern basketball started in the 60s, that's why we're talking not about him, but about West and Frazier.).

[przemminator21]

don't try to confuse me with facts. I've already got my mind made up.

Even when you are wrong? You are making your own happiness land and feel comfortable there?

While talking about basketball in "separation" from individual player performances is plain ridiculous: the game is MADE UP of such performances. If players keep performing at high level, there is no reason to claim that the game became significantly harder to play - it's so simple.

It did. And that is a fact. If it wouldn't we still would look at 30% shooters whos success is to hit the rim. Big guys still would be treated as freaks who does not fit into basketball.
As techniqe went forward everything went.
Isn't the modern basketball made by the past? Aren't they using the experience of the past?

As for players being as good as at the beginig of the careers. They adopted to the game and they learned in the process. That's why we had so many great players in the past but bringim them to todays NBA is insaine and claiming that they played as good as stars of present is unfair. Even to mankind as a whole.

Taking players like Pettit with whole their game indyvidually, talentwise mindwise etc. they were great, but in their era in their game.
It's not like I'm taking away something from them. I always defended players of the past, begining from Mikan who is desrespect by most.

I watched some games from '70s '80s and '00s, so I can see bear eyes what are the diferences.

(And don't necessarily bring the Cousy into equation: modern basketball started in the 60s, that's why we're talking not about him, but about West and Frazier.).

From cousy to frazier to magic to stockton to kidd to paul

We started moder basketball in 60s and can't talk about the past?

I know you all have talked about past and present many times. Bringing stats etc. Bringing marathon running into the table. But come on every marathon got it's own specific and conditions.
No comparison.[/quote]

[RockTHECasbah]

Both West and Frazier were smart players. I'm thinking they could make the adjustments in dribbling and likewise to remain very good players.

[RockTHECasbah]

Could someone link that great picture of Artis Gilmore taken from the top of the basket?

[penbeast0]

Sorry Prez, just can't agree. There have been advances but mainly in the areas of training, nutrition, sports medicine, illegal performance enhancement, etc. I believe with those enhancements, players from the modern era of basketball (60s forward) would play with a relative degree of success similar to what they had then.

I believe Oscar would dominate players today like he did then (Jason Kidd with an outstanding shot and scorers mentality), I believe Chamberlain and Russell would be the top centers in the game today.

I even believe that Michael Jordan would be a dominant wing guard if he were playing today although, of course, in his day he played nothing but 6'3 skinny guys who couldn't play defense against todays bigger stronger players (like Joe Dumars for example). . . .mmm . . .that was sarcasm btw

If it isn't true for West, why should it be true for Michael or is it . . . just to a lesser degree?

[przemminator21]

Giving the same chances and same conditions they would be as dominat as they were in any era.

[TrueLAfan]

Agree with penbeast0. And, again, I just want to say that the areas of health and training and nutrition and medical advances haven't produced the type of results a lot of people assume. Leaving out the (silly) "the game is more intense now" idea...the quote I was addressing was

Another thing. Player now and then are playing with injuries.
In the mid 90s karl malone said that he sees the diference between now (mid 90s) and past. In the past uyopu would sit out the injuries you play now with.

which says/implies--someone correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Players today play with injuries that would have forced them to sit in the past
2. This results in an overall difference in court time between the past and the present

Except, like I showed, it doesn't. As a matter of fact, if players are able to play with injuries that kept them out in the past...what accounts for the fact that players don't play more now? Why haven't we seen a big upsurge--and it should be big, if these changes have had any significant impact--in how many minutes an NBA player plays in his career? In a season? Something doesn't add up; we don't see the expected gains. My conclusion is that the impact of the benefits is, perhaps, less than it would appear on the surface.

In a way, I liken this to pitching in baseball. Tommy John surgery of the 1970s revolutionized rehab from a critical type of injury. Pitchers improved their training regimens and took supplements (*cough*RogerClemens*cough*), legal and illegal. Knees started getting scoped. Rotator cuff surgery was pioneered. Relief pitching changes kept starters from losing as many games and supposedly saved wear. Somehow, somewhere, there suddenly was "proof" that throwing a lot of innings when you were young could hurt a pitchers career in the long term. That's a ton of changes in health and training and nutrition and medicine.

And here's what it has meant. Nothing. Pitchers don't pitch more innings in their career. They don't pitch better. What they do is pitch longer...but since they aren't able to pitch more (in terms of total innings), that's more of a stylistic choice than some sort of gain made by medicine and training, etc. Look at Clemens. Let's leave out that he probably was juicing--the guy was awesome. He pitched until he was 43 years old. And he's 300 innings behind Steve Carlton in innings pitched...and Clemens has pitched more than innings that any pitcher whose career started in the last 25 years. Carlton's not #1 from his era...he's behind Niekro, Ryan, Perry, and Sutton. With all these advances, why aren't they playing more rather than just longer?

One thing we have to be aware of is that, for most sports, there's a golden era...an era where, essentially, the game stabilizes after a period of meteoric improvement and change. In some sports, that era is a long, long time ago...in baseball, it could be as far back as the 1890s. Or it could be the late 1910s. Hockey is an interesting case...in many ways, it parallels (and predates) the NBA in terms of foreign interest and influx of overseas players and expansion. Some people think 80s hockey was the best; others go for pre/early expansion hockey of the 60s and 70s. For me, the watershed period for the NBA was 1958-62. A massive influx of quality players came into the league at that time; rule changes had been in effect for a few years, so the modern game had "stabilized." I have questions about basketball prior to 1958. I think basketball after 1960 was, essentially, modern basketball...changes after were minor and stylistic. There's ample statistical evidence to show that players are essentially the same size. Players who were great in 1960 were still great in the early 70s. That's my personal dividing line.

What we've had since then are stylistic changes. The Bad Boys Pistons and the modern Spurs, defensively? There were about 10-12% more possessions per game in the late 80s than there are now. It's much more of a halfcourt game today. Fouls are called differently. Increased use of the three has changed offensive and defensive strategies. But, here's the deal. Those differences don't represent progress. They are stylistic changes. The game is different...not necessarily better, not necessarily worse. The Spurs and the late 80s Pistons both played at a slower pace relative to the league. They are virtually identical in points allowed vs. league average (1989 and 1990 Pistons: 698 fewer points allowed than league average; 2006 and 2007 Spurs: 693 fewer points allowed than league average). The Pistons played at a lower pace relative to the league than the Spurs...but, still. I don't think the difference is large. I don't see any reasons to say it is other than superficial ones.

[przemminator21]

true

I skipped the minutes-injuries part (it's not evident that minutes equals minutes on the court)
I skipped the baseball comparison

I just went through golden eras in other pro leauges

that left me with Spurs-Pistons
Bare eye - LA were killing Pistons on transition. As easy as you can get in first half esp.