Garnett vs Russell

[frica]

When talking about talent pool I think it's important to recognize:

It's entirely possible that more American kids were regularly playing basketball in the '30s than they are now.

That surely seems like a crazy statement but people need to get it into their head that just because the NBA was nascent, doesn't mean basketball was. The NBA comes about precisely because American youth was playing basketball like crazy - in a way more similar to how they play video games nowadays - and people were going out and watching local teams with an enthusiasm that they simply don't do today. It was very much a bet on a sport that already had a talent base and thus was ready to play in big arenas.

If we look at the things about the landscape that really were nascent:

1. Evaluation of basketball tactics was still primitive. They didn't have the data to really know which types of shots were the best shots for the human body to be accurate with, and they didn't understand what was possible with non-goaltending shot blocking.

2. That meant that the skills for those best moves weren't anything like optimized yet.

3. The materials - ball & court - were primitive and spotty. The average pro back then was literally a better passer than the average NBA passer precisely because you couldn't rely on dribbling at every location.

4. Primitive medicine which tended to mean that your career was over the first time you had a serious injury.

5. A lack of big-salary-goal driving young athletes. Doesn't mean they weren't playing like crazy as youths, but really it wasn't until after World War II that having a pro career became anywhere near as good of a plan as becoming a college coach.

6. The separation of Black & White basketball didn't just mean that Black players weren't getting to play in the big leagues, but that most Black players in general weren't getting the mentorship they needed to become elite pros. Example:

While the Harlem Rens & Globetrotters really were elite pro Black teams in the '30s & '40s, and they had some scouting to pick up younger talent, they didn't have the ability to scout all over the country. Bill Russell's primarily Black McClymond high school in Oakland, CA was the best team in that giant state, but California is a long way from where those Black pro teams were operating.

I think salary is really the biggest factor.

When you can't work full-time on your skills, you're simply not going to be anywhere near as good as you could have been.

[Doctor MJ]

When talking about talent pool I think it's important to recognize:

It's entirely possible that more American kids were regularly playing basketball in the '30s than they are now.

That surely seems like a crazy statement but people need to get it into their head that just because the NBA was nascent, doesn't mean basketball was. The NBA comes about precisely because American youth was playing basketball like crazy - in a way more similar to how they play video games nowadays - and people were going out and watching local teams with an enthusiasm that they simply don't do today. It was very much a bet on a sport that already had a talent base and thus was ready to play in big arenas.

If we look at the things about the landscape that really were nascent:

1. Evaluation of basketball tactics was still primitive. They didn't have the data to really know which types of shots were the best shots for the human body to be accurate with, and they didn't understand what was possible with non-goaltending shot blocking.

2. That meant that the skills for those best moves weren't anything like optimized yet.

3. The materials - ball & court - were primitive and spotty. The average pro back then was literally a better passer than the average NBA passer precisely because you couldn't rely on dribbling at every location.

4. Primitive medicine which tended to mean that your career was over the first time you had a serious injury.

5. A lack of big-salary-goal driving young athletes. Doesn't mean they weren't playing like crazy as youths, but really it wasn't until after World War II that having a pro career became anywhere near as good of a plan as becoming a college coach.

6. The separation of Black & White basketball didn't just mean that Black players weren't getting to play in the big leagues, but that most Black players in general weren't getting the mentorship they needed to become elite pros. Example:

While the Harlem Rens & Globetrotters really were elite pro Black teams in the '30s & '40s, and they had some scouting to pick up younger talent, they didn't have the ability to scout all over the country. Bill Russell's primarily Black McClymond high school in Oakland, CA was the best team in that giant state, but California is a long way from where those Black pro teams were operating.

I think salary is really the biggest factor.

When you can't work full-time on your skills, you're simply not going to be anywhere near as good as you could have been.

Yes, but let's just keep in mind that traditionally in the NBA you have to gain most of the skill you're ever going to have before anyone is going to pay you.

[One_and_Done]

If lawyers went from earning 40k on average to $12 mill, and the number of available lawyer jobs tripled, would we only see a x4 increase in applicants, or would the number be exponentially higher. I think the answer is pretty obvious. Especially with all the fallback jobs in places like Europe that pay less (but you can still live on it).

[Texas Chuck]

Its almost like way more people can become lawyers than a job (NBA) with a fixed number of jobs.

But you know, go off.

[OhayoKD]

Its almost like way more people can become lawyers than a job (NBA) with a fixed number of jobs.

But you know, go off.

The hypothetical one-and-done offered already baked that consideration in.

[One_and_Done]

Its almost like way more people can become lawyers than a job (NBA) with a fixed number of jobs.

But you know, go off.

The hypothetical one-and-done offered already baked that consideration in.

NBA jobs have tripled since 1950, and there are now other leagues where you can make good money too. But even with limited job numbers, when the payoff is that huge then exponentially more people will pursue it just in case. It's not like you even sacrifice that much to pursue it either; for many they actually increase their other employment options by pursuing it even if it doesn't work out (e g. Free degree, college money, jobs for the boys, etc). You'll know if you've failed or not by your early to mid 20s, and will still have your whole life ahead of you to pursue another career. In contrast you have to work far longer to see if being a lawyer or doctor has panned out.

There are only so many legal cases to pursue too, yet according to the US bar association the number of lawyers in America increased by 793% between 1900 and 2000, and the average lawyer salary didn't increase 29,900% in that time like NBA salaries did from 1950 to 2025.

[70sFan]

Its almost like way more people can become lawyers than a job (NBA) with a fixed number of jobs.

But you know, go off.

The hypothetical one-and-done offered already baked that consideration in.

Doesn't make his hypothetical any more relevant to this discussion.

[OhayoKD]

Its almost like way more people can become lawyers than a job (NBA) with a fixed number of jobs.

But you know, go off.

The hypothetical one-and-done offered already baked that consideration in.

Doesn't make his hypothetical any more relevant to this discussion.

It does, which is why texas used "Limited # of jobs" to establish a difference of kind in the first place.

[eminence]

The NBA is closer to one particularly high paying firm in such a hypothetical.

College athletics have historically been the 'career' at large, but I'd argue for the playground as the true talent pool of any sport - how many kids are playing this game on the playground?

The professional version of a sport only emerges after the talent/interest pool.

[One_and_Done]

The average law firm position doesn't pay an average yearly salary of $12 million though, and the number of lawyers (never mind law students) increases 793% from 1900 to 2000. A 29,000%+ increase in salary is going to yield far more than an 8 fold increase in applicants, never mind all the other factors mention (e.g. racism, no internationals, etc)

[eminence]

The average law firm position doesn't pay an average yearly salary of $12 million though, and the number of lawyers (never mind law students) increases 793% from 1900 to 2000. A 29,000%+ increase in salary is going to yield far more than an 8 fold increase in applicants, never mind all the other factors mention (e.g. racism, no internationals, etc)

Brother, I'm not rolling with your poor analogy just cause you like it, lol.

[One_and_Done]

And your alternative analogy is?

[LukaTheGOAT]

With younger guys specializing in sports earlier and earlier, it definitely should be noted that the attention that is focused on a particular sport now.

The ole's, pending time on the playground has changed because you could argue talent is squeezed out if they are not playing the sport year round.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/story?id=3507788

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27125793/these-kids-ticking-bombs-threat-youth-basketball

Maybe it's too small of a sample to make grand statements, but there used to be a couple guys who participated in multiple of the 3 major U.S. sports.

Bo Jackson, Danny Ainge, Deion Sanders, Gene Cooley, Dave DeBusschere, Charlie Ward, Brian Jordan.

Other than QBs who were drafted as pitchers due to the overlap in what the position requires, who today is doing the above?

who were pro-athletes in the 3 major sports.

[eminence]

And your alternative analogy is?

Not feeling the need to make an analogy and instead directly looking at how many/what percent of young men played basketball at various points.

[One_and_Done]

And your alternative analogy is?

Not feeling the need to make an analogy and instead directly looking at how many/what percent of young men played basketball at various points.

So anecdotal evidence with no point of comparison.

I'll take hard numbers (e.g. 29,000% increase) and some kind of vaguely comparable industries (e.g. law) over a gut feeling, some population numbers, etc.

[eminence]

With younger guys specializing in sports earlier and earlier, it definitely should be noted that the attention that is focused on a particular sport now.

The ole's, pending time on the playground has changed because you could argue talent is squeezed out if they are not playing the sport year round.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/story?id=3507788

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27125793/these-kids-ticking-bombs-threat-youth-basketball

Maybe it's too small of a sample to make grand statements, but there used to be a couple guys who participated in multiple of the 3 major U.S. sports.

Bo Jackson, Danny Ainge, Deion Sanders, Gene Cooley, Dave DeBusschere, Charlie Ward, Brian Jordan.

Other than QBs who were drafted as pitchers due to the overlap in what the position requires, who today is doing the above?

who were pro-athletes in the 3 major sports.

Ish Wainwright made a training camp roster in the NFL (Buffalo Bills) and played some in the NBA, Pat Connaughton was in the Orioles minor league system for a bit and has had an NBA career. Those are the two semi-current ones that come to mind, I'd be interested to hear of others.

I worry about it not being the best for the 99% of kids who inevitably don't go pro, but fingers crossed it's fine.

[atlantabbq99]

Russell is a top 5 player of all time. KG is only maybe a top 25 or top 20 at best.

[theonlyclutch]

The NBA is closer to one particularly high paying firm in such a hypothetical.

College athletics have historically been the 'career' at large, but I'd argue for the playground as the true talent pool of any sport - how many kids are playing this game on the playground?

The professional version of a sport only emerges after the talent/interest pool.

Your argument that 'talent pool' is inelastic to salaries doesn't hold water in any industry, let alone NBA.

Imagine if the NBA reverted back to 60s-esque terms today. I. E roughly 2x median salaries (c. $140k) for a couple years at most, no fallback options in Europe and oh, need to complete college? Suddenly NBA really doesn't look that attractive vs alternative options like Banking/Consulting/Tech + others which pay similar starting out (w/more upside) and have median careers measured in decades vs years. Logically in this scenario, many would-be NBA talents would persue other career options, but from your PoV there wouldn't be any change to the 'Talent Pool'.

[eminence]

The NBA is closer to one particularly high paying firm in such a hypothetical.

College athletics have historically been the 'career' at large, but I'd argue for the playground as the true talent pool of any sport - how many kids are playing this game on the playground?

The professional version of a sport only emerges after the talent/interest pool.

Your argument that 'talent pool' is inelastic to salaries doesn't hold water in any industry, let alone NBA.

Imagine if the NBA reverted back to 60s-esque terms today. I. E roughly 2x median salaries (c. $140k) for a couple years at most, no fallback options in Europe and oh, need to complete college? Suddenly NBA really doesn't look that attractive vs alternative options like Banking/Consulting/Tech + others which pay similar starting out (w/more upside) and have median careers measured in decades vs years. Logically in this scenario, many would-be NBA talents would persue other career options, but from your PoV there wouldn't be any change to the 'Talent Pool'.

In your scenario, these guys all still wanted to get those high end white-collar jobs in the first place right? How many folks were turning down college basketball scholarships? I wouldn't guess very many. But okay, you seem to be arguing that they'll choose another career after college, and it's just demonstrably false, top end college basketball players didn't choose other careers - in the NBA shot clock era, exactly 1 1st Team All American has opted out of pursuing a professional basketball career. Don Hennon - a 5'8 surgeon who played in the late 50s. As you go further down the talent list obviously fewer pursued the pros, but it should be easy to point to all these great college players who chose not to play professional basketball? Please do so.

[lessthanjake]

The NBA is closer to one particularly high paying firm in such a hypothetical.

College athletics have historically been the 'career' at large, but I'd argue for the playground as the true talent pool of any sport - how many kids are playing this game on the playground?

The professional version of a sport only emerges after the talent/interest pool.

Your argument that 'talent pool' is inelastic to salaries doesn't hold water in any industry, let alone NBA.

Imagine if the NBA reverted back to 60s-esque terms today. I. E roughly 2x median salaries (c. $140k) for a couple years at most, no fallback options in Europe and oh, need to complete college? Suddenly NBA really doesn't look that attractive vs alternative options like Banking/Consulting/Tech + others which pay similar starting out (w/more upside) and have median careers measured in decades vs years. Logically in this scenario, many would-be NBA talents would persue other career options, but from your PoV there wouldn't be any change to the 'Talent Pool'.

In your scenario, these guys all still wanted to get those high end white-collar jobs in the first place right? How many folks were turning down college basketball scholarships? I wouldn't guess very many. But okay, you seem to be arguing that they'll choose another career after college, and it's just demonstrably false, top end college basketball players didn't choose other careers - in the NBA shot clock era, exactly 1 1st Team All American has opted out of pursuing a professional basketball career. Don Hennon - a 5'8 surgeon who played in the late 50s. As you go further down the talent list obviously fewer pursued the pros, but it should be easy to point to all these great college players who chose not to play professional basketball? Please do so.

That’s good info. I think the counterargument is that, with professional basketball not being nearly as lucrative as it is now, talented people might not even have ended up pursuing basketball to the point of playing in college. You’re saying you doubt people were turning down basketball scholarships, and that’s probably largely right, but there is no basketball scholarship if the person simply never opted to devote a lot of time and effort to becoming good at basketball.