I love the irony of old school NBA players complaining about inflated stats. There's no way in hell Oscar Robertson would have averaged double figure rebounds in today's league. But he'd never admit that.
They will have to asterisk stats in the future and call them Robertson style TD's or James style TD's.
Yeah. This was a discussion we had on blog a bull. Some guy said that none of the current Bulls would start on the 60's Celtics. I think guys like Derrick Rose and Ben Gordon could definitely start. Rose is an athletic freak that pretty much no other point guard could matchup with, and Gordon was much more athletic than most players of that era, much stronger, and has so many nifty offensive moves that he would be making those whiteboys look like fools out there. The one guy on that Celtics team, who I think it's hard to try to downplay him because of the era he played in is Bob Cousy. That guy was just so skilled with the ball, dribbling and passing, that you would have to think, even against more athletic players, because of his skill, he'd still be pretty good. Bill Russell is the most questionable imo. I think a guy like Tyrus Thomas could potentially be comparable to Russell. Russell wasn't all that athletic, but because the other guys didn't get much lift, he could block a bunch of shots and get a lot of rebounds. I think a guy like Tyrus Thomas, potentially could have been as good as Russell if you play time machine and drop him in that era, because of his athleticism, along with some shotblocking instincts and rebounding instincts. Prime Shaq, Dwight Howard, etc.? I think they would mop the floor with Russell. Shaq would probably have multiple 100 point games if he was in that era.
Same can be said for football. Different time, different style, different kind of athlete. The one major difference between the 70's, 80's, 90's, and now, is that almost everyone could make a mid-range jumper, now it's hard to find guys who can consistently knock down a shot, but I think it's coming back. Players were just better shooters back in the day.
Yeah, but look at how tough of a job guys like J.J. Redick and Adam Morrison who are less athletic have at finding a good shot attempt. I think a lot of the guys of that era would begin finding the same problem.
True, but I still think the NBA of 15-20 years ago was a much better and more well rounded game. Better shooters, better defenders, and they still had the athletes. I think you could take anyone from the original Dream Team, drop them in the game today, and they would be super stars.
Yeah. I don't think there is much difference between the 80's and present, other than offensive players of this era being a bit overrated because of the lack of handchecking, and defenders pre-2004 a bit overrated because of their allowance to handcheck. Just the 50's/60's and some of the 70's really where the talent was much less in the NBA.
Agreed, although I think there is a difference between the 80's, 90's, and present. I think basketball in the 80's and 90's was superior. Maybe I'm just the old man now, with the "back in my day" syndrome, but I've watched a lot of basketball and I think players were just better 15 years ago.
Michael Jordan was superior : D The best of the rest are comparable to today's superstars imo (and by that I mean Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, and Chris Paul).
The names you just listed make up about half of the Dream Team... you'll need to come up with about seven more names But yes, I'd say those players would have contended with the greats on the same level.
That may be true, I don't know. I wasn't so much commenting on the difference in talent or physical ability between the two eras, but rather the style of play. People today tend to look in awe at the numbers guys like Wilt, Russell, Baylor, Robertson, etc. put up back then. But its much easier to pick up those numbers when the ball is flying up and down the floor. And more than anything, its the rebounding that's totally inflated because back then players on average shot like 38-42% from the floor. So you combine the free wheeling offense with all the bad shots/misses players had, and there were a ton of rebounds to be had. Robertson averaged a triple double in his first few seasons -- something like 30-11-10. But if teams back then were playing at today's pace and with today's shot selection, he probably would have been closer to 25-7-9. Still great, but not quite the same "wow!" factor. Some old school commentators that insist Wilt and Robertson were far and away the best ever cling to their numbers without considering how the game has changed.
