Jerry West pretty much destroys JJ Redick

[dhsilv2]

This aspect goes both ways, which makes for really good discussion but a lot of stupid hot takes (not saying yours is.) It's not hard to discuss this with just a little nuance, but if you just want to yell at clouds or wave off the past it's pretty easy too.

When the sport is worth many, many billions a year through multiple revenue streams, players are going to practice and go through advanced development from an early age, go through all the prep and HS stuff, and enter the league as absolutely elite athletes. It's both a credit to them and to the environment.

OTOH players way back in the day didn't get paid nearly so much, often there wasn't even live telecasts, and yeah many worked in the offseason because they didn't get paid that much relative to the normal population. It made more sense to work a separate job than to train in the offseason and essentially work for nothing instead (remember this was not the days of collective bargaining agreements and free agency.) How many grade schoolers and high schoolers trained back then the way they do now? Or had specialized training programs in the offseason?

If you literally transplant a 28 year old star player 60 years in the past (or future), their performance is going to necessarily reflect differences in the environment they grew up in. OTOH if you take baby Wilt or Jerry and have him born in 1996, or take MJ (or JJ Redick) and have him born in 1940, obviously that would change who they are as adults.

Transplanting a baby is just a silly discussion though. We can only discuss who these players actually were and what they did. Anything else is into pure fantasy. What's staggering is that people can't grasph that a JJ Redick who was a MEGA star in college. You put him in the 1950's NBA and he's a mega star.

I bring those things up because there end up being a lot of assumptions people make in arguing for this or that. It's just conjecture either way.

It would be interesting though to consider how putting JJ Redick in 1950's NBA would change the NBA, because people would see what he's doing and try to pick up on things. You'd have a bunch of guys trying to emulate and learn his shooting form, and it would actually speed up development in the game.

I agree that would change the course of NBA history. But how fast would it really travel? It might take years for coaches at the highschool level to even see it. There was so little basketball on tv at that time. We're talking about a league that had the finals on tape delay into the 1980's. There just wasn't "game film" even then. The league was barely in the infancy of integration midway through the 1950's.

Just look through the all nba list from 1951. This was a truly infant league at the time.

1st Team
Ralph Beard
Bob Davies
Alex Groza
Ed Macauley
George Mikan
2nd Team
Frankie Brian
Joe Fulks
Dick McGuire
Vern Mikkelsen
Dolph Schayes

[madmaxmedia]

Transplanting a baby is just a silly discussion though. We can only discuss who these players actually were and what they did. Anything else is into pure fantasy. What's staggering is that people can't grasph that a JJ Redick who was a MEGA star in college. You put him in the 1950's NBA and he's a mega star.

I bring those things up because there end up being a lot of assumptions people make in arguing for this or that. It's just conjecture either way.

It would be interesting though to consider how putting JJ Redick in 1950's NBA would change the NBA, because people would see what he's doing and try to pick up on things. You'd have a bunch of guys trying to emulate and learn his shooting form, and it would actually speed up development in the game.

I agree that would change the course of NBA history. But how fast would it really travel? It might take years for coaches at the highschool level to even see it. There was so little basketball on tv at that time. We're talking about a league that had the finals on tape delay into the 1980's. There just wasn't "game film" even then. The league was barely in the infancy of integration midway through the 1950's.

Just look through the all nba list from 1951. This was a truly infant league at the time.

1st Team
Ralph Beard
Bob Davies
Alex Groza
Ed Macauley
George Mikan
2nd Team
Frankie Brian
Joe Fulks
Dick McGuire
Vern Mikkelsen
Dolph Schayes

Yeah definitely. The first thing that would actually happen, is JJ's team would become a squad of stone cold snipers. And the coach wouldn't let any other team watch or practice with them for at least a couple of years.

I think it's not so much the logical 'what would happen' that people get argumentative about, it's that people react to ostensible disrespect that is sometimes shown. Like you can say JJ Redick would crush it or whatever in 1960 (I agree he would), but still acknowledge that every player today stands on the shoulders of their predecessors, acknowledge the different developmental and competitive environments, etc. The same can go the other way too of course, when old school proponents hand wave off everything new generations have achieved.

[dhsilv2]

I bring those things up because there end up being a lot of assumptions people make in arguing for this or that. It's just conjecture either way.

It would be interesting though to consider how putting JJ Redick in 1950's NBA would change the NBA, because people would see what he's doing and try to pick up on things. You'd have a bunch of guys trying to emulate and learn his shooting form, and it would actually speed up development in the game.

I agree that would change the course of NBA history. But how fast would it really travel? It might take years for coaches at the highschool level to even see it. There was so little basketball on tv at that time. We're talking about a league that had the finals on tape delay into the 1980's. There just wasn't "game film" even then. The league was barely in the infancy of integration midway through the 1950's.

Just look through the all nba list from 1951. This was a truly infant league at the time.

1st Team
Ralph Beard
Bob Davies
Alex Groza
Ed Macauley
George Mikan
2nd Team
Frankie Brian
Joe Fulks
Dick McGuire
Vern Mikkelsen
Dolph Schayes

Yeah definitely. The first thing that would actually happen, is JJ's team would become a squad of stone cold snipers. And the coach wouldn't let any other team watch or practice with them for at least a couple of years.

I think it's not so much the logical 'what would happen' that people get argumentative about, it's that people react to ostensible disrespect that is sometimes shown. Like you can say JJ Redick would crush it or whatever in 1960 (I agree he would), but still acknowledge that every player today stands on the shoulders of their predecessors, acknowledge the different developmental and competitive environments, etc. The same can go the other way too of course, when old school proponents hand wave off everything new generations have achieved.

JJ in 1960 is a different thing all together though. The nba was leaps and bounds more athletic by 1960 than 1950. Oscar and West coming into the league in 61 are a good mark of just how much the athletic ability LEAPED, though they're certainly not alone in that change. West entering the league in 1950 would create real GOAT talk, while also highlighting the racial issues the league had in the 50's despite not having overt rules against integration, it really just wasn't happening yet. But make no mistake, West would be seen as an athletic freak in 1950, not that he wasn't likely that too in 1961 when he entered the league.

[Johnlac1]

There were some pretty good athletes in the league in the early fifties like Jim Pollard (who could dunk from the foul line), Paul Arizin, George Yardley, and a few others.
But you are correct. There was a tremendous change in athleticism (and overall skills) from 1950 to 1960. The video of some of the games from the late forties or early fifties is almost cringeworthy. It really looks like they took ten guys from out of the stands, suited them up, and let them run around the court.
By 1960 the average athleticism and skill level had made a quantum leap. There was one black player in the league in 1950, Earl Lloyd. By 1960 20% of the players were black. That would be 50% by the mid sixties, and about what it is now by 1970.
In 1950 there were only a few players who had a jump shot. By 1960 virtually everybody in the league had a jump shot...even Bob Cousy who occasionally took one.

[70sFan]

What was the difference in game style that made the 60s players shoot free throws at a much worse clip?

Much worse? The difference is very subtle.

There was a big change in a basketball in the beginning of the 1970s, which gave NBA players big boost in FT efficiency. So, the ball was much worse quality, which made the slight difference in FT efficiency. Nothing huge though.

[snaquille oatmeal]

I understand his point, but Jerry is basically saying only the greats can competently talk basketball. That’s just not true. If you make it to the league, your opinion on ball should be revered. But that’s just me. Keep doing your thing JJ!

Yeah it's not really a good response at all. Also, JJ's point is about the lower quality of competition and West goes on to talk about how he was more athletic than anyone else at the time. It kind of helps make JJ's point.

The dumbassery of comparing players from different generations speaks for it self.
JJ’s point was destroyed by West and West’s point was destroyed by JJ.

If you are going to say current players would beast in the past the question is would they beast under the same circumstances as the older generation?
Probably not. Probably yes

Would old generation players beast if they grew up under the same circumstances as modern players?
Probably yes. Probably no.

[JN61]

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.

So you didn't even read my post. Thanks.

[hoosierdaddy34]

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.

So you didn't even read my post. Thanks.

Oh I read it. But I kept imagining JJ coming off screens with guys 5 feet behind him. And honestly JJs ball handling isn’t good for this era…but it’s probably pretty good for that era. So he’d be able to do a lot more creating his own shot than he can do today. So yes there would be a hell of a lot more opportunities for him to score in the 60s than he gets today because the era a caliber of play and player is way better today. It would be the equivalent of him going down to a mid level D1 school or playing in the German top league. You don’t think JJ in his prime would score 30 a night against Cal-St Northridge or Munich? It would be a similar drop in competition.

[BostonCouchGM]

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.

So you didn't even read my post. Thanks.

Oh I read it. But I kept imagining JJ coming off screens with guys 5 feet behind him. And honestly JJs ball handling isn’t good for this era…but it’s probably pretty good for that era. So he’d be able to do a lot more creating his own shot than he can do today. So yes there would be a hell of a lot more opportunities for him to score in the 60s than he gets today because the era a caliber of play and player is way better today. It would be the equivalent of him going down to a mid level D1 school or playing in the German top league. You don’t think JJ in his prime would score 30 a night against Cal-St Northridge or Munich? It would be a similar drop in competition.

except JJ's handle wouldn't be great for that era because they didn't allow carries. And JJ coming off screens wouldn't be the same since they didn't allow illegal moving screens. And they didn't have a 3 pt line. And JJ would be wearing Chuck Taylors. There'd be no PEDs to abuse. The money would suck so poor JJ would need to work at his Dad's autobody shop in the offseason. Sorry folks, JJ was a plumber for his era and is likely still a plumber in the 60s.

[michaelm]

Transplanting a baby is just a silly discussion though. We can only discuss who these players actually were and what they did. Anything else is into pure fantasy. What's staggering is that people can't grasph that a JJ Redick who was a MEGA star in college. You put him in the 1950's NBA and he's a mega star.

Except his most elite skill which is 3 point shooting would amount to chucking inefficient 2 point shots before there was a 3 point line. Sure he would still be an elite shooter in general which would translate, and he wouldn’t have to face 60 years of development of defensive strategies..

I agree however with another recent poster that West’s major point was that JJ was fortunate to play in an era when the sport has grown to the degree that an elite role player can garner generational wealth from a playing career rather than needing to have a second job as a plumber or fireman to make ends meet. I also don’t believe the NBA could have sprung into existence 1 week after Dr Naismith invented the game using a peach basket as the sport it was at the time of JJ’s career without going through the preliminary stages JJ is implicitly discounting, and as I said in an earlier post Jerry West himself has probably contributed rather more to the development of the game to its current level than JJ has. He is also pretty much a proven par excellence judge of modern playing talent so he absolutely knows the capabilities of modern players.

It wouldn't matter at all that JJ was taking 2 pointers in the 1950's. His 40% shooting from there would have made him so far beyond the best player in the league it's comical.

Remember, Jerry is ignorantly putting his era and Cousey's into the same one. They are absolutely not! Once Jerry did that, he really lost all credibility on the topic.

As for the rest, Reddick is on a talking head show and he's being flamboyant as he points out how idiotic some of the past greats have been when dismissing the growth and changes to the modern game. And he's completely right! Players from the past are down right disrespectful to the modern game in a way that JJ doesn't even come remotely close to doing. I don't think in anyway the comments are ignorant of the reality that ALL of modern life is built as it was once point, "on the backs of giants". But nobody has to pause and explain that we'd not have the smart phone or space travel without the works of Issac Newton or Aristotle. Why only in sports do we have to pause to remind people that we wouldn't have the NBA it is today without Cousey, Russell, and West? Where are the people saying Einstein was good at math but had Newton grown up in his era we'd be using Fission energy vs fusion and the world would be further ahead?

I already said that I too consider his shooting in general would translate and they wouldn’t have defensive strategies to cope with same so sure I agree he would be a dominant scorer translated back to the first decade or two of the NBA.

I agree with others that there are levels to this discussion and it is not completely either JJ’s or the Logo’s way though.

If people don’t like an old white guy defending an era of less diversity and hence less athleticism regardless of training I can understand that. But Bill Russell cops the firemen and milkmen stuff as well. I haven’t researched or looked at old footage as much on Jerry West, but am convinced Bill Russell would still be a great defensive player, was the archetype physically to be so right now, and hardly unlikely to be unable to pick up any defensive strategies which he didn’t invent. If you watch footage of him he looks like a fluid modern day NBA athlete, and as world class high jumper then still likely to be elite athletically now. Looking at recent DPOY winners I consider it highly likely he would be better at defending the perimeter than Gobert, and he is taller and more athletic than Draymond Green who is unlikely imo to be significantly smarter than Bill as a basketball player either.

It is also not to my knowledge the likes of West, Russell and KAJ who are wont to denigrate modern players, more later generation players like Barkley and Shaq who are like JJ employed by the media to do that sort of thing.

So overall JJ did start the whole thing and West responded rather than denigrating JJ unprompted. Sure calling JJ a role player is illegitimate, he was not a 50s or 60s level role player. The fireman and milkman comment was also illegitimate imo, as has been said they didn’t have the opportunity however good they might have been to just play basketball and earn hundreds of millions of dollars, and for NBA basketball to get to where it is now it was pretty much necessary for it to proceed through previous eras when the players were less fortunate. JJ also largely didn’t have to face what Bill Russell faced significantly because of Bill Russell as well.

There also aren’t too many players left with the knowledge and experience to defend the early eras of the NBA and among them Jerry is particularly well placed to do so imo as someone still considered of value to the building of a team in his 80s rather than someone employed to provide additional hot takes on Screamin’ Stephen’s show.

[The Rebel]

I would bet that JJ Redick and many other players of the last 20 years would know that Bob Cousy and the plumbers and tradesmen he was playing against are the reason that the players association exists and is as strong as it it? Do they realize without Spencer Hayword (yes the same guy mocked on winning times after the drugs got control) they would have to stay in college for 4 years to get drafted? Without Oscar Robinson they never get free agency, without Tom Chambers they never get unrestricted free agency?

Scott Hastings has a radio show in Denver, he was drafted in 1982. One of the stories he tells about his time in the league is that a lot of teams only bought a certain number of 1st class tickets, and they were assigned by how many minutes you had played the night before. Even if you were the star and injured, if you were not in the top minutes played you didn't get the seat. Which meant you flew coach, sometimes to 3 games in 3 cities in 3 nights. They were thankful though because they could train and have offseasons off, they didn't deal with the same **** that their teammates who were older dealt with in the 60s and 70s, and especially not the **** that the previous generation had to deal with in the 40s and 50s.

Today's athletes are coddled with no respect for how they got that way. They talk about slavery with no idea that 45 years ago a team owned your rights as long as they wanted, and if you wanted to play basketball you had to play for that team. Even then it wasn't until 1988 when you could change teams without your former team getting considerable compensation. Even in the 70s if a team didn't want to pay you, then all you could do is quit.

They want to talk about more skilled or athletic, the fact is evolution doesn't happen in 50 or 60 years, and basketball is the only sport where they have constantly changed the rules to relax skill requirements.

Today even the veteran minimum is life changing money, due to the sacrifices that those plumbers and car salesmen made for today's player. JJ Redick is a rich man that can afford to have a hobby like podcasting due directly to the sacrifices made by players of yesterday, what West said is not enough, he should have told him the truth, without Cousy he couldn't have afforded to start his dumb podcast because he would have been fixing toilets

[dhsilv2]

Except his most elite skill which is 3 point shooting would amount to chucking inefficient 2 point shots before there was a 3 point line. Sure he would still be an elite shooter in general which would translate, and he wouldn’t have to face 60 years of development of defensive strategies..

I agree however with another recent poster that West’s major point was that JJ was fortunate to play in an era when the sport has grown to the degree that an elite role player can garner generational wealth from a playing career rather than needing to have a second job as a plumber or fireman to make ends meet. I also don’t believe the NBA could have sprung into existence 1 week after Dr Naismith invented the game using a peach basket as the sport it was at the time of JJ’s career without going through the preliminary stages JJ is implicitly discounting, and as I said in an earlier post Jerry West himself has probably contributed rather more to the development of the game to its current level than JJ has. He is also pretty much a proven par excellence judge of modern playing talent so he absolutely knows the capabilities of modern players.

It wouldn't matter at all that JJ was taking 2 pointers in the 1950's. His 40% shooting from there would have made him so far beyond the best player in the league it's comical.

Remember, Jerry is ignorantly putting his era and Cousey's into the same one. They are absolutely not! Once Jerry did that, he really lost all credibility on the topic.

As for the rest, Reddick is on a talking head show and he's being flamboyant as he points out how idiotic some of the past greats have been when dismissing the growth and changes to the modern game. And he's completely right! Players from the past are down right disrespectful to the modern game in a way that JJ doesn't even come remotely close to doing. I don't think in anyway the comments are ignorant of the reality that ALL of modern life is built as it was once point, "on the backs of giants". But nobody has to pause and explain that we'd not have the smart phone or space travel without the works of Issac Newton or Aristotle. Why only in sports do we have to pause to remind people that we wouldn't have the NBA it is today without Cousey, Russell, and West? Where are the people saying Einstein was good at math but had Newton grown up in his era we'd be using Fission energy vs fusion and the world would be further ahead?

I already said that I too consider his shooting in general would translate and they wouldn’t have defensive strategies to cope with same so sure I agree he would be a dominant scorer translated back to the first decade or two of the NBA.

I agree with others that there are levels to this discussion and it is not completely either JJ’s or the Logo’s way though.

If people don’t like an old white guy defending an era of less diversity and hence less athleticism regardless of training I can understand that. But Bill Russell cops the firemen and milkmen stuff as well. I haven’t researched or looked at old footage as much on Jerry West, but am convinced Bill Russell would still be a great defensive player, was the archetype physically to be so right now, and hardly unlikely to be unable to pick up any defensive strategies which he didn’t invent. If you watch footage of him he looks like a fluid modern day NBA athlete, and as world class high jumper then still likely to be elite athletically now. Looking at recent DPOY winners I consider it highly likely he would be better at defending the perimeter than Gobert, and he is taller and more athletic than Draymond Green who is unlikely imo to be significantly smarter than Bill as a basketball player either.

It is also not to my knowledge the likes of West, Russell and KAJ who are wont to denigrate modern players, more later generation players like Barkley and Shaq who are like JJ employed by the media to do that sort of thing.

So overall JJ did start the whole thing and West responded rather than denigrating JJ unprompted. Sure calling JJ a role player is illegitimate, he was not a 50s or 60s level role player. The fireman and milkman comment was also illegitimate imo, as has been said they didn’t have the opportunity however good they might have been to just play basketball and earn hundreds of millions of dollars, and for NBA basketball to get to where it is now it was pretty much necessary for it to proceed through previous eras when the players were less fortunate. JJ also largely didn’t have to face what Bill Russell faced significantly because of Bill Russell as well.

There also aren’t too many players left with the knowledge and experience to defend the early eras of the NBA and among them Jerry is particularly well placed to do so imo as someone still considered of value to the building of a team in his 80s rather than someone employed to provide additional hot takes on Screamin’ Stephen’s show.

There's nothing to defend is the problem. West should have agreed with JJ. Instead he made an ass of himself. Leave that to people getting paid to be idiots and move on is what he should have done.

[hoosierdaddy34]

So you didn't even read my post. Thanks.

Oh I read it. But I kept imagining JJ coming off screens with guys 5 feet behind him. And honestly JJs ball handling isn’t good for this era…but it’s probably pretty good for that era. So he’d be able to do a lot more creating his own shot than he can do today. So yes there would be a hell of a lot more opportunities for him to score in the 60s than he gets today because the era a caliber of play and player is way better today. It would be the equivalent of him going down to a mid level D1 school or playing in the German top league. You don’t think JJ in his prime would score 30 a night against Cal-St Northridge or Munich? It would be a similar drop in competition.

except JJ's handle wouldn't be great for that era because they didn't allow carries. And JJ coming off screens wouldn't be the same since they didn't allow illegal moving screens. And they didn't have a 3 pt line. And JJ would be wearing Chuck Taylors. There'd be no PEDs to abuse. The money would suck so poor JJ would need to work at his Dad's autobody shop in the offseason. Sorry folks, JJ was a plumber for his era and is likely still a plumber in the 60s.

Well of course Celtics fans have to cling on to and distort the 60s…it’s the only time they were the best organization in basketball. Celtics fans entire existence revolves around people over-rating the 60s

[michaelm]

It wouldn't matter at all that JJ was taking 2 pointers in the 1950's. His 40% shooting from there would have made him so far beyond the best player in the league it's comical.

Remember, Jerry is ignorantly putting his era and Cousey's into the same one. They are absolutely not! Once Jerry did that, he really lost all credibility on the topic.

As for the rest, Reddick is on a talking head show and he's being flamboyant as he points out how idiotic some of the past greats have been when dismissing the growth and changes to the modern game. And he's completely right! Players from the past are down right disrespectful to the modern game in a way that JJ doesn't even come remotely close to doing. I don't think in anyway the comments are ignorant of the reality that ALL of modern life is built as it was once point, "on the backs of giants". But nobody has to pause and explain that we'd not have the smart phone or space travel without the works of Issac Newton or Aristotle. Why only in sports do we have to pause to remind people that we wouldn't have the NBA it is today without Cousey, Russell, and West? Where are the people saying Einstein was good at math but had Newton grown up in his era we'd be using Fission energy vs fusion and the world would be further ahead?

I already said that I too consider his shooting in general would translate and they wouldn’t have defensive strategies to cope with same so sure I agree he would be a dominant scorer translated back to the first decade or two of the NBA.

I agree with others that there are levels to this discussion and it is not completely either JJ’s or the Logo’s way though.

If people don’t like an old white guy defending an era of less diversity and hence less athleticism regardless of training I can understand that. But Bill Russell cops the firemen and milkmen stuff as well. I haven’t researched or looked at old footage as much on Jerry West, but am convinced Bill Russell would still be a great defensive player, was the archetype physically to be so right now, and hardly unlikely to be unable to pick up any defensive strategies which he didn’t invent. If you watch footage of him he looks like a fluid modern day NBA athlete, and as world class high jumper then still likely to be elite athletically now. Looking at recent DPOY winners I consider it highly likely he would be better at defending the perimeter than Gobert, and he is taller and more athletic than Draymond Green who is unlikely imo to be significantly smarter than Bill as a basketball player either.

It is also not to my knowledge the likes of West, Russell and KAJ who are wont to denigrate modern players, more later generation players like Barkley and Shaq who are like JJ employed by the media to do that sort of thing.

So overall JJ did start the whole thing and West responded rather than denigrating JJ unprompted. Sure calling JJ a role player is illegitimate, he was not a 50s or 60s level role player. The fireman and milkman comment was also illegitimate imo, as has been said they didn’t have the opportunity however good they might have been to just play basketball and earn hundreds of millions of dollars, and for NBA basketball to get to where it is now it was pretty much necessary for it to proceed through previous eras when the players were less fortunate. JJ also largely didn’t have to face what Bill Russell faced significantly because of Bill Russell as well.

There also aren’t too many players left with the knowledge and experience to defend the early eras of the NBA and among them Jerry is particularly well placed to do so imo as someone still considered of value to the building of a team in his 80s rather than someone employed to provide additional hot takes on Screamin’ Stephen’s show.

There's nothing to defend is the problem. West should have agreed with JJ. Instead he made an ass of himself. Leave that to people getting paid to be idiots and move on is what he should have done.

We disagree then. I regard the milkmen and plumbers thing as out of order from anyone.

[JN61]

This aspect goes both ways, which makes for really good discussion but a lot of stupid hot takes (not saying yours is.) It's not hard to discuss this with just a little nuance, but if you just want to yell at clouds or wave off the past it's pretty easy too.

When the sport is worth many, many billions a year through multiple revenue streams, players are going to practice and go through advanced development from an early age, go through all the prep and HS stuff, and enter the league as absolutely elite athletes. It's both a credit to them and to the environment.

OTOH players way back in the day didn't get paid nearly so much, often there wasn't even live telecasts, and yeah many worked in the offseason because they didn't get paid that much relative to the normal population. It made more sense to work a separate job than to train in the offseason and essentially work for nothing instead (remember this was not the days of collective bargaining agreements and free agency.) How many grade schoolers and high schoolers trained back then the way they do now? Or had specialized training programs in the offseason?

If you literally transplant a 28 year old star player 60 years in the past (or future), their performance is going to necessarily reflect differences in the environment they grew up in. OTOH if you take baby Wilt or Jerry and have him born in 1996, or take MJ (or JJ Redick) and have him born in 1940, obviously that would change who they are as adults.

Transplanting a baby is just a silly discussion though. We can only discuss who these players actually were and what they did. Anything else is into pure fantasy. What's staggering is that people can't grasph that a JJ Redick who was a MEGA star in college. You put him in the 1950's NBA and he's a mega star.

I bring those things up because there end up being a lot of assumptions people make in arguing for this or that. It's just conjecture either way.

It would be interesting though to consider how putting JJ Redick in 1950's NBA would change the NBA, because people would see what he's doing and try to pick up on things. You'd have a bunch of guys trying to emulate and learn his shooting form, and it would actually speed up development in the game.

Maybe, maybe not. But also remember almost all of these things Redick would bring into the game would be illegal, thus useless. And even if their shooting form was a bit weird to modern day person it was effective. These guys were very much aware of different stoppings from dribble to shoot or catch and shoot mechanics so Redick would bring nothing in that front. Ever seen old man Cooz shoot fts? Even in his 80s he shot better than 90% of college basketball players.

[AussieCeltic]

I was always laugh at these statements. I can’t wait until 2050 where some scrub shooter says that Lebron James couldn’t hang with the current era and then maybe these younger guys will learn how stupid they sound.

[dhsilv2]

I already said that I too consider his shooting in general would translate and they wouldn’t have defensive strategies to cope with same so sure I agree he would be a dominant scorer translated back to the first decade or two of the NBA.

I agree with others that there are levels to this discussion and it is not completely either JJ’s or the Logo’s way though.

If people don’t like an old white guy defending an era of less diversity and hence less athleticism regardless of training I can understand that. But Bill Russell cops the firemen and milkmen stuff as well. I haven’t researched or looked at old footage as much on Jerry West, but am convinced Bill Russell would still be a great defensive player, was the archetype physically to be so right now, and hardly unlikely to be unable to pick up any defensive strategies which he didn’t invent. If you watch footage of him he looks like a fluid modern day NBA athlete, and as world class high jumper then still likely to be elite athletically now. Looking at recent DPOY winners I consider it highly likely he would be better at defending the perimeter than Gobert, and he is taller and more athletic than Draymond Green who is unlikely imo to be significantly smarter than Bill as a basketball player either.

It is also not to my knowledge the likes of West, Russell and KAJ who are wont to denigrate modern players, more later generation players like Barkley and Shaq who are like JJ employed by the media to do that sort of thing.

So overall JJ did start the whole thing and West responded rather than denigrating JJ unprompted. Sure calling JJ a role player is illegitimate, he was not a 50s or 60s level role player. The fireman and milkman comment was also illegitimate imo, as has been said they didn’t have the opportunity however good they might have been to just play basketball and earn hundreds of millions of dollars, and for NBA basketball to get to where it is now it was pretty much necessary for it to proceed through previous eras when the players were less fortunate. JJ also largely didn’t have to face what Bill Russell faced significantly because of Bill Russell as well.

There also aren’t too many players left with the knowledge and experience to defend the early eras of the NBA and among them Jerry is particularly well placed to do so imo as someone still considered of value to the building of a team in his 80s rather than someone employed to provide additional hot takes on Screamin’ Stephen’s show.

There's nothing to defend is the problem. West should have agreed with JJ. Instead he made an ass of himself. Leave that to people getting paid to be idiots and move on is what he should have done.

We disagree then. I regard the milkmen and plumbers thing as out of order from anyone.

Why? It illustrates very clearly, if not perhaps a bit verbose, that the league wasn't at the same level of professional status it is today. It's a point that West ultimately agreed with even here.

[dhsilv2]

Transplanting a baby is just a silly discussion though. We can only discuss who these players actually were and what they did. Anything else is into pure fantasy. What's staggering is that people can't grasph that a JJ Redick who was a MEGA star in college. You put him in the 1950's NBA and he's a mega star.

I bring those things up because there end up being a lot of assumptions people make in arguing for this or that. It's just conjecture either way.

It would be interesting though to consider how putting JJ Redick in 1950's NBA would change the NBA, because people would see what he's doing and try to pick up on things. You'd have a bunch of guys trying to emulate and learn his shooting form, and it would actually speed up development in the game.

Maybe, maybe not. But also remember almost all of these things Redick would bring into the game would be illegal, thus useless. And even if their shooting form was a bit weird to modern day person it was effective. These guys were very much aware of different stoppings from dribble to shoot or catch and shoot mechanics so Redick would bring nothing in that front. Ever seen old man Cooz shoot fts? Even in his 80s he shot better than 90% of college basketball players.

Cousey shot under 40% his whole career. Nothing about JJ's game would be illegal.

[dhsilv2]

I was always laugh at these statements. I can’t wait until 2050 where some scrub shooter says that Lebron James couldn’t hang with the current era and then maybe these younger guys will learn how stupid they sound.

You mean 2100's? And they damn better be that much better!

[Johnny Bball]

I love the irony of JJ Redick of all people calling out the athleticism of previous eras. It says volumes about the current NBA if a non-athlete like Redick can not only succeed but earn $118m over the course of his career. It's also telling that Redick was a bust before the league transitioned to a finesse, 3PT-heavy game, and all of a sudden he's a valuable asset who had his best seasons in his 30s.

Hell, we just had the least athletic MVP of all time. The nonsense of past stars not being as good against today's uber athletes needs to stop. If you can hoop, you can hoop. You don't need to be an all-world athlete.

Uber athletes? Look at the 100 yard dash times since Ben Johnson shattered the world records twice in the 80's, or Donavan Bailey if you prefer (and think everyone wasn't doing steroids). Bolts record has also stood now for 13 years. Athlete's aren't uber anything when in comparison. There are just normally and nominally better as time/technology and size progresses. In other sports that now pay more than they used to pay over the last 25 years, there are bigger differences, very tall athletes are now in those improving those, like swimming, sprinting, goaltending in hockey changing how those are played. So yeah, its mostly nonsense.

As for Redick....Non-athlete? Redick's 2nd best quality was his speed getting around picks and getting open.