Speaking Of No Adjustments!

Mrkleen,

My comment on Loscy was sort of tongue-in-cheek. I might have said Sanders. It really wouldn't have mattered because, as I've tried to say consistently, you can't assume a one-on-one game unless you also assume that only today's conditions would apply. (Not fair.)

But Loscy often specialized in taking care of bigger players. When he entered the league, his 220 pounds could elevate so that he could rest his elbow on the rim. (I know that's not "athleticism," but I can't do it.) Defense is a lot more than physical strength, as Wilt found out against Russ.

And Loscy wouldn't have to stop Lebron. All he'd have to do would be to slow him down maybe 10% as the human eraser got ready to do the rest. Because it's all about the TEAM. And the TEAM philosophy against an elite player was to make him work for his points and stop the rest of the team. It's all about the TEAM.

Moreover, it's easy to single out one or two elite players as representative of an entire generation, but that's not the case. The roughly 420 players in today's NBA are not all Lebrons. You're talking about an elite player, and I'm talking about a non-starter. Get it?

I simply will not compare eras on a player-by-player basis because basketball is a team sport. In general, a much better quality of basketball was played by TEAMS in the 60s than is the case nowadays. The ability to play much faster, on a continuous basis, with far fewer mistakes goes a long way toward saying it all. I will give today's individual players a significant edge in crowd-pleasing feats of athleticism, if one is into that sort of thing. But, if one prefers crowd-pleasing feats of teamwork.....Camelot.

Sam

swedeinestonia wrote:LeBron is NOT 5% bodyfat, neither should he be. That is not a good % to be at for a sport like basketball.

Bodyfat % is one of those numbers the media just throw around.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/chris_ballard/01/27/lebron.james/index.html

And just how big is James, exactly? Well, that is a matter of intense speculation around the NBA. He came into the league in 2003 weighing 240 pounds and is listed at 250 in this year's media guide, but that number is clearly low. There are whispers that he goes 265; one report recently had him at 274. "He's at least 260, right?" guessed Stephen Jackson, who added that D-ing up James is like "guarding a brick wall."

In an attempt to settle the matter last week I brought a scale to my interview with James at a ballroom in San Francisco's St. Regis Hotel. He laughed, but didn't get on. "I can't let everybody know everything about LeBron," said James, who more than any other star understands the value of mystique. He did joke that he'd "gotten fat" -- this from a man with 5% body fat whose raised veins run like tiny interstates up his arms and calves -- then hemmed and hawed before confiding that he had gained eight pounds this summer "even though I was trying to lose 10." That said, a Cavs source puts James's weight "between 265 and 270."


I will take the word of Sport Illustrated over yours sorry.

Sam wrote:Moreover, it's easy to single out one or two elite players as representative of an entire generation, but that's not the case. The roughly 420 players in today's NBA are not all Lebrons. You're talking about an elite player, and I'm talking about a non-starter. Get it?

Sorry Sam, YOU were the one that brought up Loscy. If you want to go back and pick again, thats fine.

Mrkleen,

Any time I mention an individual player in that context, it's likely to be tongue-in-cheek because it's all about the TEAM. But if the Celtics of the early 60s played the the current Cavs in some mythical game, I'd be perfectly sanguine about seeing Loscy spend some time on Lebron. Whatever would make Lebron work; that's all that would be needed.

Sam

mrkleen09 wrote:

swedeinestonia wrote:LeBron is NOT 5% bodyfat, neither should he be. That is not a good % to be at for a sport like basketball.

Bodyfat % is one of those numbers the media just throw around.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/chris_ballard/01/27/lebron.james/index.html

And just how big is James, exactly? Well, that is a matter of intense speculation around the NBA. He came into the league in 2003 weighing 240 pounds and is listed at 250 in this year's media guide, but that number is clearly low. There are whispers that he goes 265; one report recently had him at 274. "He's at least 260, right?" guessed Stephen Jackson, who added that D-ing up James is like "guarding a brick wall."

In an attempt to settle the matter last week I brought a scale to my interview with James at a ballroom in San Francisco's St. Regis Hotel. He laughed, but didn't get on. "I can't let everybody know everything about LeBron," said James, who more than any other star understands the value of mystique. He did joke that he'd "gotten fat" -- this from a man with 5% body fat whose raised veins run like tiny interstates up his arms and calves -- then hemmed and hawed before confiding that he had gained eight pounds this summer "even though I was trying to lose 10." That said, a Cavs source puts James's weight "between 265 and 270."


I will take the word of Sport Illustrated over yours sorry.

So they do not know his weight (which is as simple as someone getting on a scale) but they know his bodyfat %?

swedeinestonia wrote:

mrkleen09 wrote:

swedeinestonia wrote:LeBron is NOT 5% bodyfat, neither should he be. That is not a good % to be at for a sport like basketball.

Bodyfat % is one of those numbers the media just throw around.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/chris_ballard/01/27/lebron.james/index.html

And just how big is James, exactly? Well, that is a matter of intense speculation around the NBA. He came into the league in 2003 weighing 240 pounds and is listed at 250 in this year's media guide, but that number is clearly low. There are whispers that he goes 265; one report recently had him at 274. "He's at least 260, right?" guessed Stephen Jackson, who added that D-ing up James is like "guarding a brick wall."

In an attempt to settle the matter last week I brought a scale to my interview with James at a ballroom in San Francisco's St. Regis Hotel. He laughed, but didn't get on. "I can't let everybody know everything about LeBron," said James, who more than any other star understands the value of mystique. He did joke that he'd "gotten fat" -- this from a man with 5% body fat whose raised veins run like tiny interstates up his arms and calves -- then hemmed and hawed before confiding that he had gained eight pounds this summer "even though I was trying to lose 10." That said, a Cavs source puts James's weight "between 265 and 270."


I will take the word of Sport Illustrated over yours sorry.

So they do not know his weight (which is as simple as someone getting on a scale) but they know his bodyfat %?

He very easily could be 5%, but I am not sure. I would tend to believe a reporter sitting across the table from him before you...but thats just me.

Yes, it is not like media uses numbers that are not true.

5% is not a number that is even optimal for him to be at, it just has a "wow factor" to people.

Here are some examples of bodyfat%

http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/losing-weight/36424-examples-bodyfat-levels.html

mrkleen, do you know why you can't compare different generations of players. This is how the Celtics of old would have handled Lebron James:

1) while going in for one of Lebron's patented dunks, Loscy would have planted him in the 2nd row of end court;

2) after Russell blocked a few Lebron runners, one can start to detect a wilting of James' confidence;

3) after a missed 3-pointer by James, the Celts would start a 3-on-one fastbreak culminating in a 10 ft bank shot by Sam Jones.

Farfetched. No. When the Celtics of Loscy played, you did not drive down the lane more than a few times without paying for it. You were banged around and expected it. James would not like that one bit. There were no "superstar" rules because pro basketball was still in its infancy.

Everyone got blocked by Russell. James would not have been able to hide the tape this time. Russell was a master at head games. Just ask Chamberlain and Jerry West.

mrkleen, did you ever see Jerry West play? Oscar Robertson? Elgin Baylor? Connie Hawkins? Wilt Chamberlain? Bob Pettit? Fantastic players whose teams could not defeat the Celtics. If you don't believe athleticism was alive and well in the 60's, you don't know NBA history.

Some of the things these players did better than those of today (including Pierce) was playing a physical, demanding game for 40 - 48 minutes, and playing a disciplined game along with it.

Know that the NBA of the 60's did a whole lot more than the trash talkof today. They backed it up with a disciplined, physical game that devoured emotional and physical weaknesses.

I still can see Dolph Schayes elbows and shoulders carving up Havlicek one afternoon. What did Havlicek do? He ran for the next 30 minutes. And ran. And ran. and....

sdceltfan wrote:mrkleen, do you know why you can't compare different generations of players. This is how the Celtics of old would have handled Lebron James:

1) while going in for one of Lebron's patented dunks, Loscy would have planted him in the 2nd row of end court;

2) after Russell blocked a few Lebron runners, one can start to detect a wilting of James' confidence;

3) after a missed 3-pointer by James, the Celts would start a 3-on-one fastbreak culminating in a 10 ft bank shot by Sam Jones.

Farfetched. No. When the Celtics of Loscy played, you did not drive down the lane more than a few times without paying for it. You were banged around and expected it. James would not like that one bit. There were no "superstar" rules because pro basketball was still in its infancy.

Everyone got blocked by Russell. James would not have been able to hide the tape this time. Russell was a master at head games. Just ask Chamberlain and Jerry West.

mrkleen, did you ever see Jerry West play? Oscar Robertson? Elgin Baylor? Connie Hawkins? Wilt Chamberlain? Bob Pettit? Fantastic players whose teams could not defeat the Celtics. If you don't believe athleticism was alive and well in the 60's, you don't know NBA history.

Some of the things these players did better than those of today (including Pierce) was playing a physical, demanding game for 40 - 48 minutes, and playing a disciplined game along with it.

Know that the NBA of the 60's did a whole lot more than the trash talkof today. They backed it up with a disciplined, physical game that devoured emotional and physical weaknesses.

I still can see Dolph Schayes elbows and shoulders carving up Havlicek one afternoon. What did Havlicek do? He ran for the next 30 minutes. And ran. And ran. and....

SD,

Is it all one sided?

What would James be able to do to/against Loscy?

What would James be able to do to/against Russell?

If James played by the old rules could he out Loscy Loscy?

Got to you tube this Loscy guy. Think I'm goin to do just that.

I think great players are great players in any era. Bird would dominate today. What gets me is that people dont use methods that I saw work so well through the 80's. Pass the ball fellas. It moves faster through the air. Less dribbling.

All the guys that saw the 60's squads seem pretty clear that those teams would march on a road of bones in todays nba. Guess we'll never know but I tend to think great players would be great in any era.

That's just it mrkleen: we don't know. You just answered your own question.

Honestly, this is probably just a generational thing....but it is amusing listening to all the old timers get upset and try and defend their era.

I am surprised you can still WATCH the modern NBA, SD. Sounds like you have disdain for the modern players.

I love the old time Celtics and listen to Tommy every night talk about the toughness of the old time players and game.

But when people start telling me that LeBron, Dwayne Wade and Kobe would not dominate in ANY era, they just make me laugh.

I agree that the oldtimers were great and great in their era and if they had all the modern training methods that players use now,did the old timers have strength and conditioning coaches/trainers?,they would also be stronger,faster,more explosive athletes,however looks can be deceiving.Amare Stoudamire looks expolosive enough,howcome he can't defend or rebound better,howcome guys earthbound like Debusshere and Silas could defend and board so much better?Where does the modern era begin?Nobody can convince me that Bird,Magic,Jordan,Dr J,Barkley,Worthy,Pippen,McHale,Moses,Hakeem,Kareem couldn't play and dominate in any era,they were the era,its the modern guys playing right now who are trying to get in the conversation.And just to let you know(to no one in particular I'm just rambling)in 1977 the Celtics were old,defending champs,but old;the league had just merged the Jordan and Lebron of his time,the guy that brought the dunk and high flying into vogue originally was a young upstart named Dr J,Julius Erving.Well the Celtics were in shambles,Dave Cowens,the teams KG and Ben Wallace in one had taken a sabatical at the beginning of season as he was so disappointed in Reds decision to not resiqn his tagteam partner,the menacing defensive presence Paul Silas,a shorter oldschool version of Perk,who specialized in the dirty work.
Well as I said this team was in shambles,Hondo was on his last legs as the injury bug had caught him during the previous years playoffs and by the next year he was on his last legs,he retired the next year.If any series or time could signal the modern era vs the old time,this may have been it.Well those valient old Celtics in disarray regrouped for that series and took the heavily favored Sixers to 7 games and Hondo and Dr J went head to head too,Cowens had some dominant 20 rebound games in the series and not once did the great Dr J go off for a big 35-40 point game in that whole series(he never even got 30) as he would do in the next series vs Portland.If we had just kept Silas that would have been the difference and we could have won that series as Silas would go on to win a title with the Sonics two years later,so for that one year he still had enough left.All I heard afterword in postgame interviews was how now Dr J knew what Celtic Pride felt like,that it was more real than he could ever imagine.

No defense of the teams of the 60s is required. Their play spoke for itself in the eyes of those fortunate actually to have seen it on a day-to-day basis.

Pointing out facts that could never be realized by those who never saw those times is not a defense. It's simply a matter of dispensing knowledge. These facts, as with any knowledge, are easy enough to ignore if there's sufficient emotional attachment to players one has actually seen in action.

I'd be interested in a FACTUAL rebuttal of my point that, all other things being equal (a concept that seems totally elusive at times), teams with mentality and physicality best suited to the strategic philosophies of their era would have the best chance of success.

Sam