Since the Lords of this board won't let me--

[70sFan]

Man, I love this board but people are going too far. CP3 and Wade over Wilt? Curry with 4 superstars seasons has better career?

Probably the most objective man I know - ElGee - just ranked Wilt at 9th best player ever. That's legit place, even though I have him around 6th mark. You are focusing too much on Wilt's shortcomings and forget how dominant he really was. People see his accomplishements and negate it because he wasn't perfect. That's bad and very unfair way of thinking. Try to do the same with Shaq or even my man Duncan and they also will drop behind top10. But that's not legit analyse at all.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Let's also remember that the game of basketball has grown exponentially. The talent pool to draw from is far greater. That is why it is highly unlikely that most of the players of yesteryear would be nearly as effective, even had they been born today.

We also have 3.5 times as many teams. So, if the pool of talent has grown more than 350% then you would expect players from yesteryear to be less effective. I do think this is true with the smaller players. I don't think it was close to true in the 70s, or true in the 80s or even the 90s so an average 1965 team would have had MORE talent on it than an average 1980s team or quite possibly an average 1990s team. I think it was the opening up of the NBA to world talent that made the expansion of the talent pool bigger than the expansion of the league.

However, there is a possible exception to that rule and that for the true centers of the world. Even in the 1950s, if you were a legit 7' height or close to it, everyone assumed you played basketball. You were scouted and recruited much more thoroughly than a superathletic 6' player who would have been more likely to be drawn to baseball or football, unless he came from the inner city where basketball was king that early. So, the curve for legit big men might be a bit different (more favorable to earlier eras).

And, of course, there are a very few people in the history of the world that just break all the rules and are such genetic freaks that they would stand out in any era. That would include Wilt and Shaq as the most obvious. But a Chet Walker or Hal Greer might not stand out in the modern era . . . or they might, but the competitive talent pool of athletes of their size group is appreciably larger today I believe.

The population of the US alone has almost doubled since Wilt scored 100 points. The game of basketball has also grown at a tremendous rate both nationally and internationally.

Today basketball is played by 9,182,000 American youth between the ages of 14-17, the most of any major sport.

Growth of the game should have easily outpaced expansion.

[trex_8063]

Let's also remember that the game of basketball has grown exponentially. The talent pool to draw from is far greater. That is why it is highly unlikely that most of the players of yesteryear would be nearly as effective, even had they been born today.

We also have 3.5 times as many teams. So, if the pool of talent has grown more than 350% then you would expect players from yesteryear to be less effective. I do think this is true with the smaller players. I don't think it was close to true in the 70s, or true in the 80s or even the 90s so an average 1965 team would have had MORE talent on it than an average 1980s team or quite possibly an average 1990s team. I think it was the opening up of the NBA to world talent that made the expansion of the talent pool bigger than the expansion of the league.

However, there is a possible exception to that rule and that for the true centers of the world. Even in the 1950s, if you were a legit 7' height or close to it, everyone assumed you played basketball. You were scouted and recruited much more thoroughly than a superathletic 6' player who would have been more likely to be drawn to baseball or football, unless he came from the inner city where basketball was king that early. So, the curve for legit big men might be a bit different (more favorable to earlier eras).

And, of course, there are a very few people in the history of the world that just break all the rules and are such genetic freaks that they would stand out in any era. That would include Wilt and Shaq as the most obvious. But a Chet Walker or Hal Greer might not stand out in the modern era . . . or they might, but the competitive talent pool of athletes of their size group is appreciably larger today I believe.

The population of the US alone has almost doubled since Wilt scored 100 points. The game of basketball has also grown at a tremendous rate both nationally and internationally.

Today basketball is played by 9,182,000 American youth between the ages of 14-17, the most of any major sport.

Growth of the game should have easily outpaced expansion.

Afraid I must agree with oaktown here.
The US population in 1965 was 194.3 million. The US population in 2015 was 320.9 million. That's a 65% increase (up to 165% size on the player pool already without consideration of any other factor).

The league was still partially segregated in 1965; was up to around 40% or so black---->don't know the exact number, but was 28.0% in '61, 49.6% in '67; so likely about 3 of every 7 players was black in '65 (compared to more like 3 of every four in recent years).

So let's say the combination of desegregation of the league and simple population growth in the US combined have increased the player pool for recent years to ~180% what it was in 1965. But then we must take note of the relative popularity of basketball among youths in these respective time periods. The popularity of the game has grown pretty substantially in the US during those 50 years (I can present some fan-related data to back that up if needed). But let's suggest, for the sake of argument/discussion, that the proportional popularity of the game has roughly doubled (or just under) in that time period [not at all an unreasonable suggestion, btw].

Roughly doubling the ~180% from above, that would bring us to the ~350% player pool size you'd mentioned, pen........and that's before we even consider foreign player markets (which I would suggest perhaps roughly double that 350% figure again).


In summary [imo], the player pool in recent years is likely at least 6x the size it was circa-1965 (and possible even 10x [or more????]). That's still pretty significant mitigated by the ~3.5x expansion in the size of the league, but by no means are they cancelling each other out. The league has undoubtedly [overall, at least-->positional exceptions may apply; and imo] become more competitive in the last 50 years.

That said, I think statements to the effect that players who were legit stars in the 60's wouldn't even make the league today are generally preposterous. Many of them wouldn't be as effective, sure. However, the same can occasionally [if not often] be said of modern players had they been born 50-60 years earlier, too.

[OsuCavsfan103]

This whole thing reminds me of movies from the past.

The people who are praising Wilt and Russell and not appreciating today (you can appreciate both eras) are the kind who rate Citizen Kane, Rosemary's Baby, Casablanca as the best movies ever made.

Take someone from 1960 and freeze them til now, and have them watch a movie like The Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, Inception, or something rated well from this era, and they would lose their minds. Same can be said for basketball. Freeze someone from 60's and awake them to watch current (or even 2013) LeBron, and they would lose their minds.

You can appreciate the past, the way they paved the way and all, but you cannot ignore changes in times.

Not really the same. Sport abilities are more or less measurable. Art isn't.

And even if it were, just like better athletic abilities don't have to imply a better bball player, technical proficiency (special FX, etc) doesn't imply better art quality.

Not exactly the same, but I said it reminds me of it. I think it's similar. I do agree there are distinct differences on how you can judge them, but still... it seems people tend to stick to their era for judging things, people don't want to accept change, accept that things generally improve in quality the longer it exists.

[OsuCavsfan103]

This whole thing reminds me of movies from the past.

The people who are praising Wilt and Russell and not appreciating today (you can appreciate both eras) are the kind who rate Citizen Kane, Rosemary's Baby, Casablanca as the best movies ever made.

Take someone from 1960 and freeze them til now, and have them watch a movie like The Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, Inception, or something rated well from this era, and they would lose their minds. Same can be said for basketball. Freeze someone from 60's and awake them to watch current (or even 2013) LeBron, and they would lose their minds.

You can appreciate the past, the way they paved the way and all, but you cannot ignore changes in times.

I hear what you're saying.
Hey man, you've gotta at least admit this regarding movies though - the quality of patience required, quality of dialogue in older movies is substantially higher quality than what we find today. Movies are proof of our lowered attention span and how distracted we are (which has been proven in experiments by the way, and I myself am guilty. Try meditating and it'll blow your mind how difficult it is).

I agree, but that's just how the world works. Movies capture the environment of today and how the people are today. It wouldn't make sense if they kept the same slow dialogue, that's just not how people act much anymore for better or worse. A lot of it has to do with technology, we have grown so used to it, we don't really know what to do with ourselves if deprived of it. I myself am guilty on that.

[penbeast0]

....

If you guys read my quote again, you will see that I agree with you. The difference is that I see the tipping point for ordinary players being somewhere in the mid to late 90s and the tipping point for big men (who were the guys first and most easily identified and therefore the most likely to fill the racial quotas in the 60s) being around 2000 or early in that decade. The growth of international recruiting since has clearly moved the league past the expansion. However, this leaves the likes of Michael Jordan playing against teams that are not clearly stronger as a percentage of the player pool than Wilt or Russell (or for that matter West or Oscar to use the other two great standout players of the 60s).

Most posters seem to think that improvement in talent depth is a continuous upward trend from the 50s on. I might agree with overall talent but in terms of talent on teams, I think expansion outpaced growth in the potential player pool pretty clearly through the 70s and into the 80s and then it took some time for that growth to catch up. That doesn't even include the issues of increased drug use (more cocaine than marijuana) among players through the 70s and 80s that hurt so many stars.

[homecourtloss]

Just one question--why is it so hard for younger fans here to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, the greatest athletic/physical specimen to ever play the game played BEFORE their time? I hear all the time here that today's players are bigger (patently false) stronger (arguable) and more athletic than all past players (guess they never saw David Thompson, Gus Johnson, or Billy Cunningham play...) Frankly, I think THAT'S generational prejudice--by the Millennials here. The idea that we have somehow evolved into supermen in the past fifty-sixty years is so laughable as normally to be not even deserving of comment. Evolution simply doesn't work that way!

I really don’t know where to begin with your post, but I will right here.

Why is it difficult for people to entertain the idea that the greatest physical specimen to ever play the game played before their time?

Maybe because we have on record every single athletic fest being bettered over time. People run faster, jump higher, swim longer/faster, lift heavier weights, run longer distances in shorter times, etc., etc., etc. Due to better nutrition, better medicine, better whatever else you want to include. Now, it’s possible that there’s a singular outlier who has defied all this progression and is the greatest specimen ever. OK. What about his competition? Are they all comparable, too?

“Greatness” has to be measured in a player’s time and thst is why Wilt and Russell are so great. They’d be good today, too, but nobody is quite sure how good. Given the advance in athleticism, would they be as physically dominant relative to their peers?

[ronnymac2]

Everyone knows the home run records of McGwire and Sosa are bogus, being that they had artificial advantages Ruth, Maris, Aaron and others didn't have. The same could fairly be said if the 100 point game was eclipsed by a player who even in part used the three.

McGwire and Sosa are heroes (maybe not Sosa nowadays ). I want all these guys juiced to the gills. Who is it hurting?

[HoopsMalone]

I think James Harden could score 100 if the Rockets went into the game with the expressed goal of trying to get him to 100 points. There could easily be 130 possessions in a Rockets game and the guy can literally shoot stepback contested threes and hit a decent percentage of them on the plays where he doesn't get a better look off the PNR.

[NO-KG-AI]

Writerman, is that you? Been a while


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[penbeast0]

Everyone knows the home run records of McGwire and Sosa are bogus, being that they had artificial advantages Ruth, Maris, Aaron and others didn't have. The same could fairly be said if the 100 point game was eclipsed by a player who even in part used the three.

McGwire and Sosa are heroes (maybe not Sosa nowadays ). I want all these guys juiced to the gills. Who is it hurting?

Them, for a start. My cousin was a competitive power lifter in his early twenties and used steroids to bulk up. Today, he is in dialysis because the steroids led to kidney failure. There's a reason they are banned for non-prescription use.

[ronnymac2]

Everyone knows the home run records of McGwire and Sosa are bogus, being that they had artificial advantages Ruth, Maris, Aaron and others didn't have. The same could fairly be said if the 100 point game was eclipsed by a player who even in part used the three.

McGwire and Sosa are heroes (maybe not Sosa nowadays ). I want all these guys juiced to the gills. Who is it hurting?

Them, for a start. My cousin was a competitive power lifter in his early twenties and used steroids to bulk up. Today, he is in dialysis because the steroids led to kidney failure. There's a reason they are banned for non-prescription use.

But if you give these guys prescriptions and designer drugs and advice from professionals on using without abusing, the chances of long-term damage would decrease sharply.

[penbeast0]

But if you give these guys prescriptions and designer drugs and advice from professionals on using without abusing, the chances of long-term damage would decrease sharply.

Maybe. I know steroids are miracle drugs for a lot of medical conditions but that very few doctors are willing to leave a patient on a steroid once the crisis point has passed because they are so powerful. I'm not sure but that long-term damage is an integral part of creating a consistent, lasting athletic benefit.

[kabstah]

Just one question--why is it so hard for younger fans here to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, the greatest athletic/physical specimen to ever play the game played BEFORE their time? I hear all the time here that today's players are bigger (patently false) stronger (arguable) and more athletic than all past players (guess they never saw David Thompson, Gus Johnson, or Billy Cunningham play...) Frankly, I think THAT'S generational prejudice--by the Millennials here. The idea that we have somehow evolved into supermen in the past fifty-sixty years is so laughable as normally to be not even deserving of comment. Evolution simply doesn't work that way!

I really don’t know where to begin with your post, but I will right here.

Why is it difficult for people to entertain the idea that the greatest physical specimen to ever play the game played before their time?

Maybe because we have on record every single athletic fest being bettered over time. People run faster, jump higher, swim longer/faster, lift heavier weights, run longer distances in shorter times, etc., etc., etc. Due to better nutrition, better medicine, better whatever else you want to include. Now, it’s possible that there’s a singular outlier who has defied all this progression and is the greatest specimen ever. OK. What about his competition? Are they all comparable, too?

“Greatness” has to be measured in a player’s time and thst is why Wilt and Russell are so great. They’d be good today, too, but nobody is quite sure how good. Given the advance in athleticism, would they be as physically dominant relative to their peers?

It's unbelievable that people can't wrap their heads around this. Over the last 50 or whatever years, the human race as a whole has gotten better at every single worthwhile endeavor, and yet somehow basketball has supposedly gotten worse? That's borderline insane. It's not evolution on a genetic level, no one argues that except as a strawman, but it IS human progress.

[homecourtloss]

Just one question--why is it so hard for younger fans here to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, the greatest athletic/physical specimen to ever play the game played BEFORE their time? I hear all the time here that today's players are bigger (patently false) stronger (arguable) and more athletic than all past players (guess they never saw David Thompson, Gus Johnson, or Billy Cunningham play...) Frankly, I think THAT'S generational prejudice--by the Millennials here. The idea that we have somehow evolved into supermen in the past fifty-sixty years is so laughable as normally to be not even deserving of comment. Evolution simply doesn't work that way!

I really don’t know where to begin with your post, but I will right here.

Why is it difficult for people to entertain the idea that the greatest physical specimen to ever play the game played before their time?

Maybe because we have on record every single athletic fest being bettered over time. People run faster, jump higher, swim longer/faster, lift heavier weights, run longer distances in shorter times, etc., etc., etc. Due to better nutrition, better medicine, better whatever else you want to include. Now, it’s possible that there’s a singular outlier who has defied all this progression and is the greatest specimen ever. OK. What about his competition? Are they all comparable, too?

“Greatness” has to be measured in a player’s time and thst is why Wilt and Russell are so great. They’d be good today, too, but nobody is quite sure how good. Given the advance in athleticism, would they be as physically dominant relative to their peers?

It's unbelievable that people can't wrap their heads around this. Over the last 50 or whatever years, the human race as a whole has gotten better at every single worthwhile endeavor, and yet somehow basketball has supposedly gotten worse? That's borderline insane. It's not evolution on a genetic level, no one argues that except as a strawman, but it IS human progress.

This.

[trex_8063]

Just one question--why is it so hard for younger fans here to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, the greatest athletic/physical specimen to ever play the game played BEFORE their time? I hear all the time here that today's players are bigger (patently false) stronger (arguable) and more athletic than all past players (guess they never saw David Thompson, Gus Johnson, or Billy Cunningham play...) Frankly, I think THAT'S generational prejudice--by the Millennials here. The idea that we have somehow evolved into supermen in the past fifty-sixty years is so laughable as normally to be not even deserving of comment. Evolution simply doesn't work that way!

I really don’t know where to begin with your post, but I will right here.

Why is it difficult for people to entertain the idea that the greatest physical specimen to ever play the game played before their time?

Maybe because we have on record every single athletic fest being bettered over time. People run faster, jump higher, swim longer/faster, lift heavier weights, run longer distances in shorter times, etc., etc., etc. Due to better nutrition, better medicine, better whatever else you want to include.

You realize you're referring to extrinsic factors (extrinsic to the individual in question), right? That is, they're environmental factors, "nurture", if you will [vs "nature"]. In other words, they're factors Wilt (or Russell, or whoever) would have to their advantage too, if they were born in a later era (to whatever positive or increasing effect that would have on their athleticism, just as it has for modern athletes).

[penbeast0]

It's unbelievable that people can't wrap their heads around this. Over the last 50 or whatever years, the human race as a whole has gotten better at every single worthwhile endeavor, and yet somehow basketball has supposedly gotten worse? That's borderline insane. It's not evolution on a genetic level, no one argues that except as a strawman, but it IS human progress.

They haven't. Off the top of my head, Americans at least, have gotten worse on a number of worthwhile endeavors . . . evironmental impact on the earth, obesity, income inequality, etc. I will say that basketball today is different, and is a subjective rather than objective sense better in that I believe it is more entertaining. They have achieved this through rule changes designed to favor offense, particularly non-post offense, plus (much bigger factor) referee's "interpreting" or ignoring basic rules such as travelling, dribbling, etc. which make the modern game look much faster and more athletic.

I also do think the modern game is, in an objective sense, more athletic. Weight work and training progams, particularly offseason training, combined with the massive amounts of money which have led to a much greater sense of professionalism among the athletes (which I also believe was appreciably greater in the 60s than in the 70s or even the 80s), I believe have produced better athletes today than 50 years ago. Not every person, of course, and not as an improvement in the genetic stock or degree of variation from the mean, but in the actual measureable athleticism (strength, jumping ability, coordination, etc.). However, this was controlled for in the OP question which talked about athletes given the same nutrition/training/medical/etc. So, while I do believe modern athletes are more "athletic," I don't believe it's significant when you control for advances in outside influences on the athletes themselves except in terms of the question of player pool for potential NBA player v. the number of jobs available.

[HeartBreakKid]

I really don’t know where to begin with your post, but I will right here.

Why is it difficult for people to entertain the idea that the greatest physical specimen to ever play the game played before their time?

Maybe because we have on record every single athletic fest being bettered over time. People run faster, jump higher, swim longer/faster, lift heavier weights, run longer distances in shorter times, etc., etc., etc. Due to better nutrition, better medicine, better whatever else you want to include. Now, it’s possible that there’s a singular outlier who has defied all this progression and is the greatest specimen ever. OK. What about his competition? Are they all comparable, too?

“Greatness” has to be measured in a player’s time and thst is why Wilt and Russell are so great. They’d be good today, too, but nobody is quite sure how good. Given the advance in athleticism, would they be as physically dominant relative to their peers?

It's unbelievable that people can't wrap their heads around this. Over the last 50 or whatever years, the human race as a whole has gotten better at every single worthwhile endeavor, and yet somehow basketball has supposedly gotten worse? That's borderline insane. It's not evolution on a genetic level, no one argues that except as a strawman, but it IS human progress.

This.

That is not true, and basketball is hardly a worthwhile endeavor.

[kabstah]

It's unbelievable that people can't wrap their heads around this. Over the last 50 or whatever years, the human race as a whole has gotten better at every single worthwhile endeavor, and yet somehow basketball has supposedly gotten worse? That's borderline insane. It's not evolution on a genetic level, no one argues that except as a strawman, but it IS human progress.

They haven't. Off the top of my head, Americans at least, have gotten worse on a number of worthwhile endeavors . . . evironmental impact on the earth, obesity, income inequality, etc. I will say that basketball today is different, and is a subjective rather than objective sense better in that I believe it is more entertaining. They have achieved this through rule changes designed to favor offense, particularly non-post offense, plus (much bigger factor) referee's "interpreting" or ignoring basic rules such as travelling, dribbling, etc. which make the modern game look much faster and more athletic.

I also do think the modern game is, in an objective sense, more athletic. Weight work and training progams, particularly offseason training, combined with the massive amounts of money which have led to a much greater sense of professionalism among the athletes (which I also believe was appreciably greater in the 60s than in the 70s or even the 80s), I believe have produced better athletes today than 50 years ago. Not every person, of course, and not as an improvement in the genetic stock or degree of variation from the mean, but in the actual measureable athleticism (strength, jumping ability, coordination, etc.). However, this was controlled for in the OP question which talked about athletes given the same nutrition/training/medical/etc. So, while I do believe modern athletes are more "athletic," I don't believe it's significant when you control for advances in outside influences on the athletes themselves except in terms of the question of player pool for potential NBA player v. the number of jobs available.

To the bolded portions, I don't believe these hypotheticals to be meaningful or conducive to discussion. It's akin to saying that a 1960 Ferrari would be just as fast and capable as a 2017 Ferrari, as long as you equalize for advances in chassis, engine, transmission, tires, electronic control unit, suspension, brakes, fuel composition, track quality, and driver skill.

At that point, is there even a purpose to the comparison? Does anyone earnestly argue that players from older eras are inferior on a genetic level?

[penbeast0]

That is sort of the point of the population pool v. expansion argument, to look at whether the average NBA team is likely to contain more or less talent than it did in the 60s. It's not genetic (though we have had people make that argument here) but it's looking at baseline factors that aren't included in the nutrition, training, medicine issue.