I think Barkley was picked early. My issue is that teams took 120-125% more shots on average, over an entire season during the 60's.
unless you argue that many of today's players couldn't play effectively at that pace and take as many good shots as they do milking the clock like they do now... whoops, it's a 2 way street of conjuncture. also when taking outside factors into consideration (like better travel, nutrition, training and a dilution of talent due to over expansion) you could say players from the 60's/70's etc would be just as effective today and still be some of the best players in the league.
Well you've just made my point though, what I said at least "closes" any mental gap you had between two comparable players. There is no two way street, more shots equals more stats. Sort of how a game that goes into triple overtime produces players with 30+ points much more easily. It is impossible to average 20+ rebounds at today's pace for example.
Right, you could make the case for person X, but there wasn't any clearly better player at that slot.
I agree. It's my personal opinion that Robinson was picked too early. There are players I would have picked over him, but he's not THAT bad of a pick. Besides...he's mentally weak.
It is true about Robinson though, he didn't have that extra 'it' factor that the all time greats had. You never thought during the 90's, "If the Spurs can keep it close David Robinson will take over the 4th quarter and win this important game"
In my several experiences in all-era draft, players from the past 20 years get too much credit vs players from 30-40 years ago because most ppl are 20 and under and vote by what they have seen. The argument quite often used is today's players are better physical specimens as well. As for the argument of pace, my point was a faster pace wouldn't necessarily augment today's players stats that much higher to an exact degree. A faster pace may just = worse shots taken like the late 80's, early 90's denver Nuggest Sure Wilt wouldn't average 20 some odd rebounds per game, but he'd still lead the league in rebounding. Oscar wouldn't average a triple double, but he's be top 5 in pts and assists and the best rebounding guard. etc, etc,
I didn't use the argument that modern players are better physical specimens. Pace isn't something that can be argued. :] What's your point though? I wasn't saying D-Rob was better than Wilt, just that he wasn't reached for at #8 is all. But for what it is worth, durvasa did pace adjust Shaq's and Wilt's stats once, and they were quite similar.
pace doesn't measure intangibles, it's just a mathematical tool so it's part of a discussion, not the be all to end all. my point is pace or no pace great players will be great in any era. pace also doesn't account for the way fouls were called and how much more physical the game was in bygone era's. I also wasn't discussing Wilt/The Admiral. I would have taken Shaq over Robinson though.
More often than not, someone with great stats in X situation (eg lower pace) or throughout a season, is a great player. This isn't ALWAYS the case, but that would be considered an exception. Fair enough, I just cringe at the word "reached" (don't know if you meant that though).
