Jerry West pretty much destroys JJ Redick

[michaelm]

There’s too many intrinsic advantages and building off literally himself over the years to directly compare, but he was the trend setter. Literally THE mold of the NBA. The “transplant” nonsense makes no sense given how different the game was, but give him time to adapt as a 16 year old and he would run game on this league, I assure you.

I strongly suspect you are right about West, but even taking him out of it modern players do owe something to the likes of Bill Russell imo. Apart from pretty much inventing NBA defense, possibly being pretty much the ultimate team player and leader of men, being an elite athlete by any standard, and successfully coaching a team to titles while still playing for that team, what he had to put up with, or more to the point wouldn't put up with, changed the way basketball players were treated, and JJ Reddick for one certainly doesn't have to face what Bill, who gets the plumbers and firemen stuff as well, faced.

Of course Michael, and there were trend setters before Bill as well. I’m speaking more to the modern game of perimeter shooting/defensive wings who are #1’s that can also playmake. West is the man for this league. And he was the man in his own league as well.

Sure. I was prompted by a guy who ridiculed the idea that the pioneers of the game in any way paved the way for current players.

[JN61]

Interestingly enough, just another example of how thin skinned Jerry can be even worrying about those comments. He can’t help himself but to come across like the one thing he truly hates…his own portrayal in Winning Time.

Anyways JJ probably shouldn’t have said it even though he isn’t wrong. Very few of those dudes from the 60s could play in the league today.

Goes both ways. Take all the knowledge and advancements and the money from that era to this era away from guys like Redick and he doesn't even make to 60s league. Guys like Redick are too busy trying to get nice newspaper job or what ever to rise a family to care about the sports..

He is a shooting specialist which translates to any era. But given there was no three point line back then, that’s what he built his entire game around. He’d still probably average 30 plus a game. Basketball wasn’t good in that era, bunch of dudes with a weak handle and slow release set shots…a lot of unathletic dudes on the court. Guys selling insurance in the offseason. Yawn.

You should be ashamed to wear Lakers fan tag under your name.


Redick played on the easiest era ever for a perimeter player to score and he never managed to come even close to 20 ppg in a season. Lets see some of facts between West and Redick here, one of roleplayers of this era vs premier player of that era and how on earth would Redick score 30ppg in a season in West's era:

Redick played 940 career reg season games, West played 932 reg season games:
- Redick has 618 games over 10+ points in a game (65.7%)
- West has 905 games over 10+ points in a game (97.1%)

- Redick has 386 games over 15+ points in a game (41.1%)
- West has 853 games over 15+ points in a game (91.5%)

- Redick has 168 games over 20+ points in a game (17.9%)
- West has 752 games over 20+ points in a game (80.7%)

- Redick has 58 games over 25+ points in a game (6.2%)
- West has 581 games over 25+ points in a game (62.3%)

- Redick has 14 games over 30+ points in a game (1.5%)
- West has 350 games over 30+ points in a game (37.6%)

- Redick has 1 game over 35+ points in a game (0.01%)
- West has 188 games over 35+ points in a game (20.2%)

Then we factor in that rules were way harder back then for perimeter player. Redick can't even dribble under rules of carry the basketball or travel how much you want. How you expect him to score in an era where dribbling is tens of times harder than now?

Lets take look at who and how many scored over 30 ppg in that era as well:

61: 3x players (Wilt 38.4, Baylor 34.8, Robertson 30.5, next; Pettit 27.9)
62: 5x players (Wilt 50.4, Bellamy 31.6, Pettit 31.1, Robertson 30.8, West 30.8, next; Guerin 29.5)
63: 2x players (Wilt 44.8, Baylor 34, next; Pettit 28.4)
64: 2x (Wilt 36.9, Robertson 31.4, next: West 28.7)
65: 3x (Wilt 34.7, West 31, Robertson 30.4, Next; Baylor 27.1)
66: 3x (Wilt 33.5, West 31.3, Robertson 31.3, next; Barry 25.7)
67: 2x (Barry 35.6, Robertson 30.5, next; West 28.7)
68: 0x (next; Robertson 29.2)
69: 0x (next Hayes 28.4)
70: 1x (West 31.2, next; Kar 28.8) The time West won scoring championship
71: 1x (Kaj 31.7, Next; Havlicek 28.9)
72: 1x (Kaj 34.8, next; Archibald 28.2)
73: 2x (Archibald 34, Kaj 30.2, next; Haywood 29.2)
74: 1x (McAdoo 30.6, next; Maravich 27.7)

In west's era 9 different players managed to score over 30 ppg... Apart of the wild year of 62 there isn't really many players constantly scoring big numbers (apart of Wilt being huge outliner as we know). Also what we can see from this era is all big time scorers who are small guys are elite ballhandlers. Reddick is poor ballhandler as we know.

Lets look at ''Reddick's era'':
07: 1x. Bryant
08: 1x. James
09: 1x Wade
10: 1x Durant
11: 0x
12: 0x
13: 0x
14: 1x Durant
15: 0x
16: 1x Curry
17: 1x Westbrook
18: 1x Harden
19: 1x Harden
20: 3x Harden, Beal, Lillard
21: 2x Curry, Beal

9x different names. And several others over 29 ppg. Scoring isn't really that different to back then for superstars. Wilt was above everyone else but other players were very similar to scoring numbers as players are these days with a bit similar pace. There was usually 1-2 players who averaged over 20 ppg on a team sometimes 3, very similar to now. So superstars scored most of the points just like now.

Just looking at these numbers how would Redick magically score 30 ppg when he managed to do it in the softest era ever only 14 times. And not like he didn't have a chance to be a scorer in this league, he was on bad teams several times in his career and put in role of a scorer on many good teams. He simply doesn't have capability now or back then. And realistically Redick would be working some white person job like in a magazine in 60s rather than being basketball player. Though Redick's arrogance just screams actual plumber in 60s as jokes goes...

[LAL1947]

Jerry West has G14 clearance to say whatever he wants AFAIC. He's an OG.

I'm not mad at JJ Redick though. All of this is ESPN's and Steven A Smith's fault for originally baiting Redick into saying what he did about plumbers.

[dhsilv2]

Fun factoid. West, known for his shooting shot 81.4% for his career. Of qualifying players last year he'd be tied with Embiid for 60th place in the league. People talk about 3 point shooting so much but the game's changed a good bit more over the years.

And yes he peaked at 87.8 which would be 11th last year but even if we took his 3rd best at 83.3 that barely cracks the top 50 for last year.

JJ without any question if he'd come into the league in the 60's with his 2000's jumper would be an all time NBA legend. I doubt he'd be better than West who's a whole other level as an athlete, but JJ's jumper would be the thing of legends none the less.

[gorz]

I dont think jj reddick is wrong in his statement but he should have been more tactful and respectful to those who came before him. I also am of the belief Reddick if he played in the 50s 60s or 70s would be considered a legend today.

[sikma42]

Fun factoid. West, known for his shooting shot 81.4% for his career. Of qualifying players last year he'd be tied with Embiid for 60th place in the league. People talk about 3 point shooting so much but the game's changed a good bit more over the years.

And yes he peaked at 87.8 which would be 11th last year but even if we took his 3rd best at 83.3 that barely cracks the top 50 for last year.

JJ without any question if he'd come into the league in the 60's with his 2000's jumper would be an all time NBA legend. I doubt he'd be better than West who's a whole other level as an athlete, but JJ's jumper would be the thing of legends none the less.

What is shooting shot percentage? Jerry West was a better shooting talent (look at the shot variety and difficulty). JJ could never do that and it matters. Jerry West could pick up what JJ does in a season or 2.

These if we put JJ in the 50s stuff is silly. Is he also going to invent a better on of stuff with all the technology he has seen and will that make him the smartest person alive.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[youngcrev]

People realize there have been a ton of rule changes over the years that have had a dramatic effect on how teams play... Right?

Today's rules have promoted a more skilled, free flowing offensive game.

It's very similar to what the NFL has done to open up the passing game to make the league more exciting.

I'm not saying there isn't more depth or a sizable skill gap between the eras, but you're talking about a completely different game in terms of how it's played, and not everyone doing well now would thrive in that setting.

[dhsilv2]

Fun factoid. West, known for his shooting shot 81.4% for his career. Of qualifying players last year he'd be tied with Embiid for 60th place in the league. People talk about 3 point shooting so much but the game's changed a good bit more over the years.

And yes he peaked at 87.8 which would be 11th last year but even if we took his 3rd best at 83.3 that barely cracks the top 50 for last year.

JJ without any question if he'd come into the league in the 60's with his 2000's jumper would be an all time NBA legend. I doubt he'd be better than West who's a whole other level as an athlete, but JJ's jumper would be the thing of legends none the less.

What is shooting shot percentage? Jerry West was a better shooting talent (look at the shot variety and difficulty). JJ could never do that and it matters. Jerry West could pick up what JJ does in a season or 2.

These if we put JJ in the 50s stuff is silly. Is he also going to invent a better on of stuff with all the technology he has seen and will that make him the smartest person alive.

Who said a thing about the 50's? The 50's and 60's are so drastically different you can't compare them. That's why West's comments come off so horrible here. The topic was about a 50's star and West is trying to imply it was about his era which couldn't have been more drastically different.

And no, knowledge is not intelligence. JJ's intelligence wouldn't change. He would come back with knowledge others wouldn't have that that could make him massively successful in other ways too. That is a given with these discussions, it's the basis of why we are even having them.

[BK_2020]

People realize there have been a ton of rule changes over the years that have had a dramatic effect on how teams play... Right?

Today's rules have promoted a more skilled, free flowing offensive game.

It's very similar to what the NFL has done to open up the passing game to make the league more exciting.

I'm not saying there isn't more depth or a sizable skill gap between the eras, but you're talking about a completely different game in terms of how it's played, and not everyone doing well now would thrive in that setting.

What were some 50s and 60s rules that forced guards to take ridiculous looking set shots from 30 feet out and sweeping hooks from 15 feet out? Asking for a friend.

[youngcrev]

People realize there have been a ton of rule changes over the years that have had a dramatic effect on how teams play... Right?

Today's rules have promoted a more skilled, free flowing offensive game.

It's very similar to what the NFL has done to open up the passing game to make the league more exciting.

I'm not saying there isn't more depth or a sizable skill gap between the eras, but you're talking about a completely different game in terms of how it's played, and not everyone doing well now would thrive in that setting.

What were some 50s and 60s rules that forced guards to take ridiculous looking set shots from 30 feet out and sweeping hooks from 15 feet out? Asking for a friend.

Oh, ok, I thought you were asking just to be a douchebag, but I guess it's your friend that's the douchebag.

[Nate505]

So, for those of you who agree with Reddick's take....do you all also really believe that Cousy was playing against "plumbers and fireman"? If so, what does that even mean to you guys?

To me that's the dumb part of his take, and nobody has been able to explain it very well.

[dhsilv2]

So, for those of you who agree with Reddick's take....do you all also really believe that Cousy was playing against "plumbers and fireman"? If so, what does that even mean to you guys?

To me that's the dumb part of his take, and nobody has been able to explain it very well.

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

[Nate505]

So, for those of you who agree with Reddick's take....do you all also really believe that Cousy was playing against "plumbers and fireman"? If so, what does that even mean to you guys?

To me that's the dumb part of his take, and nobody has been able to explain it very well.

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

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

[zshawn10]

West is literally the Logo and JJ is the chalk outline lol.

[MrSparkle]

I think this debate is pointless.

End of the day, a basketball game’s style and rules dictate a lot. Otherwise Team USA would’ve never lost a game in the 21st century, given their talent/depth superiority.

Fact is, a game’s only as hard as the competition is allowed to be that night. Guy’s were getting hacked and checked harder, wearing worse shoes, and had to generate more baskets in a very crowded paint and midrange than current basketball. The talent level might’ve been worse, but that goes both ways. That means your teammates, particularly the 5-12 were less talented than today’s standard reserve.

It’s all apples and oranges. I think West made a good point- it was just kinda disrespectful, and JJ’s great fortune amassed as an average NBA role player poops on the pennies role-players made in the 60s (even adjusted for inflation).

I don’t think JJ is a superstar in the 60s. That’s a stupid presumption. He was a bad defender who worked his way into being an average defender. His 3P shot and talent becomes the same 2PTs that every mid/inside scorer makes. He doesn’t have the handles and passing to run point like West or Cousy on a contender.

It’d be interesting to see him roughed up by guys like Van Lier, Sloan, Oscar, West. I wasn’t around, but you know these guys hacked, pulled and scratched more than today, with less favorable accommodations and diets. JJ is a generational shooter, but the stars of the early days were also elite defenders and ballhandlers. Even Pistol Pete had a mediocre NBA career for all his offensive talent, because his defense was never good enough. And injuries happened.

Which surely JJ’s knees wouldn’t last as long if he was playing in the 60s as hard as he did in today’s NBA. Especially if he was working a construction job in the off-season..

I’m kinda mixed on the whole thing. Is basketball talent greater than it used to be? Definitely acknowledge dudes are bigger stronger and more 3P capable. Also they read defense and offense at a high level.

But if MJ and Pippen are getting called for hand checks anywhere near Curry/Durant and forced to chuck 3Ps, then yeah, GS17 probably win. If they’re allowed to abuse Curry the way they bodied Magic, and then Rodman gets to play mind games with Dray and Durant on and off Twitter, and it’s the 96 NBA, then no - I don’t think GS wins.

Same goes for the Russell Celtics with 60s Garden rules, and no 3P line. All of GS’s innate tricks would fail. Draymond’s ability to switch to the 3P line becomes a moot point, as you have to again win the battle of the paint with pure height and rebounding.

Besides the Splash Bros’ reliability of shooting a really high open 3P%, nobody else is shooting 25’ 2P shots and winning a game against elite post-up players. They’d completely dominate the paint. It’s not the distance of the 3P shot that makes it good; it’s the free FG (+2pts) you get after making 2 of them.

[dhsilv2]

So, for those of you who agree with Reddick's take....do you all also really believe that Cousy was playing against "plumbers and fireman"? If so, what does that even mean to you guys?

To me that's the dumb part of his take, and nobody has been able to explain it very well.

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

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

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

[hoosierdaddy34]

Goes both ways. Take all the knowledge and advancements and the money from that era to this era away from guys like Redick and he doesn't even make to 60s league. Guys like Redick are too busy trying to get nice newspaper job or what ever to rise a family to care about the sports..

He is a shooting specialist which translates to any era. But given there was no three point line back then, that’s what he built his entire game around. He’d still probably average 30 plus a game. Basketball wasn’t good in that era, bunch of dudes with a weak handle and slow release set shots…a lot of unathletic dudes on the court. Guys selling insurance in the offseason. Yawn.

You should be ashamed to wear Lakers fan tag under your name.


Redick played on the easiest era ever for a perimeter player to score and he never managed to come even close to 20 ppg in a season. Lets see some of facts between West and Redick here, one of roleplayers of this era vs premier player of that era and how on earth would Redick score 30ppg in a season in West's era:

Redick played 940 career reg season games, West played 932 reg season games:
- Redick has 618 games over 10+ points in a game (65.7%)
- West has 905 games over 10+ points in a game (97.1%)

- Redick has 386 games over 15+ points in a game (41.1%)
- West has 853 games over 15+ points in a game (91.5%)

- Redick has 168 games over 20+ points in a game (17.9%)
- West has 752 games over 20+ points in a game (80.7%)

- Redick has 58 games over 25+ points in a game (6.2%)
- West has 581 games over 25+ points in a game (62.3%)

- Redick has 14 games over 30+ points in a game (1.5%)
- West has 350 games over 30+ points in a game (37.6%)

- Redick has 1 game over 35+ points in a game (0.01%)
- West has 188 games over 35+ points in a game (20.2%)

Then we factor in that rules were way harder back then for perimeter player. Redick can't even dribble under rules of carry the basketball or travel how much you want. How you expect him to score in an era where dribbling is tens of times harder than now?

Lets take look at who and how many scored over 30 ppg in that era as well:

61: 3x players (Wilt 38.4, Baylor 34.8, Robertson 30.5, next; Pettit 27.9)
62: 5x players (Wilt 50.4, Bellamy 31.6, Pettit 31.1, Robertson 30.8, West 30.8, next; Guerin 29.5)
63: 2x players (Wilt 44.8, Baylor 34, next; Pettit 28.4)
64: 2x (Wilt 36.9, Robertson 31.4, next: West 28.7)
65: 3x (Wilt 34.7, West 31, Robertson 30.4, Next; Baylor 27.1)
66: 3x (Wilt 33.5, West 31.3, Robertson 31.3, next; Barry 25.7)
67: 2x (Barry 35.6, Robertson 30.5, next; West 28.7)
68: 0x (next; Robertson 29.2)
69: 0x (next Hayes 28.4)
70: 1x (West 31.2, next; Kar 28.8) The time West won scoring championship
71: 1x (Kaj 31.7, Next; Havlicek 28.9)
72: 1x (Kaj 34.8, next; Archibald 28.2)
73: 2x (Archibald 34, Kaj 30.2, next; Haywood 29.2)
74: 1x (McAdoo 30.6, next; Maravich 27.7)

In west's era 9 different players managed to score over 30 ppg... Apart of the wild year of 62 there isn't really many players constantly scoring big numbers (apart of Wilt being huge outliner as we know). Also what we can see from this era is all big time scorers who are small guys are elite ballhandlers. Reddick is poor ballhandler as we know.

Lets look at ''Reddick's era'':
07: 1x. Bryant
08: 1x. James
09: 1x Wade
10: 1x Durant
11: 0x
12: 0x
13: 0x
14: 1x Durant
15: 0x
16: 1x Curry
17: 1x Westbrook
18: 1x Harden
19: 1x Harden
20: 3x Harden, Beal, Lillard
21: 2x Curry, Beal

9x different names. And several others over 29 ppg. Scoring isn't really that different to back then for superstars. Wilt was above everyone else but other players were very similar to scoring numbers as players are these days with a bit similar pace. There was usually 1-2 players who averaged over 20 ppg on a team sometimes 3, very similar to now. So superstars scored most of the points just like now.

Just looking at these numbers how would Redick magically score 30 ppg when he managed to do it in the softest era ever only 14 times. And not like he didn't have a chance to be a scorer in this league, he was on bad teams several times in his career and put in role of a scorer on many good teams. He simply doesn't have capability now or back then. And realistically Redick would be working some white person job like in a magazine in 60s rather than being basketball player. Though Redick's arrogance just screams actual plumber in 60s as jokes goes...

This is why analytics gets a bad rap so often because of people who use them completely out of context like this. Statistics are heavily influenced by the caliber of competition. It’s really dumb to try and use them in comparisons when the league is completely different today. If someone cared enough to keep all the stats, people are putting huge numbers and analytics in Mens leagues all over the country. That doesn’t take into consideration the quality of play however and does nothing to support that argument. You should be ashamed for your lack of understanding of the game and learn some critical thinking so you know when to use analytics and when not to.

You are going to have to open your eyes and watch the quality of game, skill level etc to truly understand
. You are going to have to put down that calculator and actually understand basketball for a moment. The skill level, the athleticism, the quality of player…it’s not there for 90% of the league in the 60s. I really could care less who put up great stats against a bunch of Sears auto workers and Maytag repair men because I can watch it and see how inferior the game was back then. People have got to stop posting if they can’t think and understand the game of basketball past what basketball reference tells them.

[Nate505]

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

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

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

But the salary for an NBA player was greater than the salary for a plumber even when the league was founded. Like in the realm of 50%-70% more. I'm sure guys did those types of jobs on the off-season, but that was more of a cultural mindset than anything else. Why not work some more and make some more money basically. Nobody was going to sacrifice their NBA job, even back then, for some sweet plumbing gig. Yet that's what the "firemen and plumbers" comment implies.

The last point is completely valid though. I'm sure there were some talented players from college who decided to take a career that was as lucrative or more straight out of college than playing professionally.

[dhsilv2]

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

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

But the salary for an NBA player was greater than the salary for a plumber even when the league was founded. Like in the realm of 50%-70% more. I'm sure guys did those types of jobs on the off-season, but that was more of a cultural mindset than anything else. Why not work some more and make some more money basically. Nobody was going to sacrifice their NBA job, even back then, for some sweet plumbing gig. Yet that's what the "firemen and plumbers" comment implies.

The last point is completely valid though. I'm sure there were some talented players from college who decided to take a career that was as lucrative or more straight out of college than playing professionally.

4k a year in 1946 which was a very reasonable salary at the time would be about 60k today. That's right in line with a plumber with some experience today and the top 25% are making well over the 60k number. If you're looking for a long term career, it would make way better economical sense to get into plumbing in 1946 than basketball.

[madmaxmedia]

Fun factoid. West, known for his shooting shot 81.4% for his career. Of qualifying players last year he'd be tied with Embiid for 60th place in the league. People talk about 3 point shooting so much but the game's changed a good bit more over the years.

And yes he peaked at 87.8 which would be 11th last year but even if we took his 3rd best at 83.3 that barely cracks the top 50 for last year.

JJ without any question if he'd come into the league in the 60's with his 2000's jumper would be an all time NBA legend. I doubt he'd be better than West who's a whole other level as an athlete, but JJ's jumper would be the thing of legends none the less.

What is shooting shot percentage? Jerry West was a better shooting talent (look at the shot variety and difficulty). JJ could never do that and it matters. Jerry West could pick up what JJ does in a season or 2.

These if we put JJ in the 50s stuff is silly. Is he also going to invent a better on of stuff with all the technology he has seen and will that make him the smartest person alive.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Does he get to bring his iPhone with him? (with an LTE connection to today.)