oaktownwarriors87 wrote:penbeast0 wrote:oaktownwarriors87 wrote:
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.