Re: Comparing Eras

by **LACELTFAN** Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:14 am

tjmakz wrote:
beat wrote:TJ

Russ was an OLYMPIC caliber high jumper. Although he might not DOMINATE today he would wear the hell out of whoever he played and dominate them when it mattered in the end.

He did not need to score but could. Stats are very misleading and the only thing that mattered was winning which he did better than ANYONE before or since.

Of course the players today are bigger but if Russ was given the opportunity with weight traing and all the other benifits of todays players he would be fine in todays game.

Comparing eras in any sport is virtually imposible and involves a lot of speculation.

Bottom line you nearing blasphemy status for siting Russ's stats and NOT the fact he won at every level HS College Olympic and NBA in an era that was not conducive to the black athelte being accepted. NONE of todays players have to worry about that do they?

beat

beat,

I really don't like comparing players from completely different era's.
How do you compare Cy Young to Warren Spahn to Randy Johnson? Was Cy a better pitcher because he won over 500 games?
Baseball is completely different now.
The same is true with pro basketball. Just by watching the offense from 1960 to 2010 you can see that it is a very different game now.

I mean no disrespect to Bill Russell. He is widely recognized as one of the top 5 greatest players ever and possibly the greatest center. We all know that he is the greatest winner in pro basketball history. The thing that people have to keep in mind is that just because he won the most, doesn't mean he was the best. No one can tell me that he wanted to win more than Shaq or Kareem just because he has the most titles. By looking at championships one might think that Derek Fisher or Robert Horry were excellent players. They were decent players who were on very good teams.

Besides stats, I am not sure how else we compare players especially those that have been retired for a long time.

TJ, the man didn't just win some titles or the most titles. He won 11 titles in 13 years...probably would have been 12 out of 13 had he not been injured in 58. That is beyond phenomenal. I don't want to jump into the fray here about whether he was great or the greatest but he was an enormous reason why that team did something that will never be repeated. Those Celtic teams were very team oriented and I take nothing away from the rest of them but NO Russell, NO Celtic dynasty. He was simply the winningest professional athelete of all time in a business where winning is seen as the only thing...something very special.

by **gyso** Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:26 am

jeb65 wrote:gyso

if you dont know I am by and large speaking pig latin all the time by now after 3000 posts...

Jeb,

Just having some fun with you. Usually your "ig-pay atin-lay" makes sense, but that one didn't agree with a foggy memory from my college daze.

gyso

by **beat** Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:12 am

TJ

I think I'll go with multiple references over a "buddy".

I remember in College, a friend of mine and I got press passes to attend the Buffalo Braves games in 74-76. I was fortunate enough to get to go to virtually all the home games and got to talk to the players of both teams after in the locker rooms. No way the height listed for many was what they were. Jabbar towered over everyone. I'm was just a hair shy of 6'. Jabbar was well over a foot taller in bare feet my guess 7'3" without sneakers. Then you have the other side of the coin I was notacebly taller than Nate Archibald yet the program had him at 6'1".

I was always amazed how well Russ handled Wilt as Wilt was so much bigger and stronger. Russ seemed to slouch a lot for some reason making himself seem a bit shorter and I'm sure he had his reasons and apparently they worked quite well.

No doubt the game has evolved from set shots to jumpers but great players in any era given the advancement in nutrition/training ect would still excell.

beat

by **cowens/oldschool** Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:04 am

gyso wrote:tj,

Relevance? Did I quote something and expound on it? No, I just linked a couple things that had to do with the issue at hand.

Commentary on a Yahoo answers page? What are you talking about? The only Yahoo links I used were player pages.

In addition to the Yahoo player pages, I linked nbadraft.net, SBnation and ??? Again, I ask you what are you talking about?

I said, "Your agent buddy can say they measure players in a hundred different ways and it does not alter the fact that they use the inflated height obtained with shoes to come up with the final number that is used to define most player's heights."

Then you list 13 measurable things, of which two are heights. That leaves 87 to go. I'll make up one and leave you with 86:

I offer to you a new way to measure the height of players. How about their height above sea level while standing on the rock pile on top of Mt. Kataden (in Maine) wearing hiking boots? That would make me about one mile, 6'-2 1/2" tall. And I still can't get a job in the NBA. Go figure.

I don't care what the GM's know. Again, that is NOT the point. Remember, we are talking height - the height that is listed for reference for the general public. In the NBA today, they use the player's height with shoes, not barefoot. Not exactly scientific. Compare a 6'-7" player of today against a 6'-7" player of the 60's and the current player comes up short.

You seem to want to make an argument rather than support one. A case in point:

In this thread, you discount some player's "greatness" in one post, because you say being involved with many championships doesn't add to a players absolute quality, yet in another post you discount LeBron's greatness because he hasn't won multiple rings.

Let me know when you make up your mind!!!

gyso

so if Paul Silas played today he'd be 6'9" right?

by Guest Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:36 am

gyso wrote:tj,

Relevance? Did I quote something and expound on it? No, I just linked a couple things that had to do with the issue at hand.

Commentary on a Yahoo answers page? What are you talking about? The only Yahoo links I used were player pages.

In addition to the Yahoo player pages, I linked nbadraft.net, SBnation and ??? Again, I ask you what are you talking about?

I said, "Your agent buddy can say they measure players in a hundred different ways and it does not alter the fact that they use the inflated height obtained with shoes to come up with the final number that is used to define most player's heights."

Then you list 13 measurable things, of which two are heights. That leaves 87 to go. I'll make up one and leave you with 86:

I offer to you a new way to measure the height of players. How about their height above sea level while standing on the rock pile on top of Mt. Kataden (in Maine) wearing hiking boots? That would make me about one mile, 6'-2 1/2" tall. And I still can't get a job in the NBA. Go figure.

I don't care what the GM's know. Again, that is NOT the point. Remember, we are talking height - the height that is listed for reference for the general public. In the NBA today, they use the player's height with shoes, not barefoot. Not exactly scientific. Compare a 6'-7" player of today against a 6'-7" player of the 60's and the current player comes up short.

You seem to want to make an argument rather than support one. A case in point:

In this thread, you discount some player's "greatness" in one post, because you say being involved with many championships doesn't add to a players absolute quality, yet in another post you discount LeBron's greatness because he hasn't won multiple rings.

Let me know when you make up your mind!!!

gyso

gyso,

The original article that was referenced was from a Yahoo answers page.
I don't feel a player is an all-time great player unless they win championships and at least 1 MVP or finish in the top 5 of MVP voting multiple times.
Do you consider LeBron an all-time great player? I don't.
My point about Russell is that nobody wants to discuss his lower scoring average in an era when scoring was much higher then today's game. Celtics fans just talk about 11 titles in 13 years.
Robert Horry won 7 titles with 3 different teams.
Nobody downplays how great Russell was in the 50's and 60's. But with his lack of size and lack of scoring would he be dominate center today? Maybe, maybe not.

Can we put a little reality to the playoff format from the 50's and 60's compared to what teams have to do today to win the championship?
Back then you only had to win 1 playoffs series to get to the finals.
Today, teams have to win 3 series to get to the finals.

by **jeb** Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:45 am

gyso

was goin to say it was a similie and not a metaphow but figured I'd spell it wrong!

by Guest Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:48 am

If Sam or someone else who watched Russell would objectively tell me that Russell was so dominate and would be a dominate center today for the following reasons, I would believe him.
I don't like to rate players who I never watched play.
That is why I can say that Jordan, Bird and Magic were the 3 greatest players that I have ever seen play.
Kobe, Shaq and Olajuwon are a notch below them.

by **gyso** Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:53 am

jeb65 wrote:gyso

was goin to say it was a similie and not a metaphow but figured I'd spell it wrong!

jeb,

It probably is a simile and not a metaphor, but they are so close. Don't think for a minute that I didn't have to look up both words in the dictionary before posting. Comparing Eras - Page 2 Confused

gyso

by **worcester** Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:47 am

TJ - It is not a personal indictment to be a called ignorant when making a statement without benefit of adequate information. Your statement - "Nobody downplays how great Russell was in the 50's and 60's. But with his lack of size and lack of scoring would he be dominate center today? Maybe, maybe not." - is ignorant of the facts of Russell's career. I saw Russell play many times, along with Cousy and Heinsohn who lived within a mile of my home, and I've watched 50+ Celtics games a year for many years now. I can say categorically that Russell's size, speed, savvy, strength, and sustainability - let alone his statistics over a 13 year career -would be enough to set him metaphorical head and shoulders above most other players in the modern era. Let's take on a more reasonable topic for debate, such as "Is the world flat?" rather than waste further time discussing the topic of Russell's greatness.

by **beat** Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:50 am

Hey TJ just to correct your statement a bit.

Back then (prior to 66) you needed to win one series to go to the finals as you say BUT you did not finish the story. You seemed to have left this part out. in 1966 it became 2 series to get to the finals.

Your spin I guess point out 1/2 of the story.

beat

by Guest Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:04 am

beat wrote:Hey TJ just to correct your statement a bit.

Back then (prior to 66) you needed to win one series to go to the finals as you say BUT you did not finish the story. You seemed to have left this part out. in 1966 it became 2 series to get to the finals.

Your spin I guess point out 1/2 of the story.

beat

beat,

Yes, I agree. I didn't know when they added another round.
Then in 1975 it the NBA added another round which was the best 2 out of 3.
My point is that it is a lot harder to win titles now with 30 teams and (4) best of 7 series compared to the teams of the 50's and 60's when there were only 8-14 teams and you only had to win (2) playoff series.

by **beat** Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:08 am

TJ

Wrong again IMHO

To win titles in a diluted league is perhaps easier now than it was in the Russell era when you played more talent laden teams sometines 5 nights in a row.

SO your point is YOUR point and I don't buy it.

beat

by Guest Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:12 am

Most people would agree that you have a much better chance to win against only 7 other teams then 29 other teams.
More talent in a league means more talent for everyone, including your own team.

by **gyso** Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:16 am

tj,

When you said, "You put so much relevance on some commentary that was written on a Yahoo Answers page with no author listed" you really weren't paying attention. I was replying to a sentence that you had written, not on the "commentary" of the original post. I didn't even know that the author had mentioned it until I read your last reply.

The whole "case in point" thing I posted was not about how I felt about LeBron's legacy, but how you seem to post whatever seems to back up your point and then immediately post what seems to be the opposite view to back up your next point.

Now you have me saying that I think LeBron is the next best thing to sliced bread. Why have you brought Russell, playoff format, etc into the discussion with me? My only point of discussion has been the height thing and later, your inconsistant logic in backing up your points.

Cowens gets the point, Paul Silas would be 6'-9" in today's NBA. That would be the number next to "Player Height" found on his NBA player page, regardless of what information can be found on the pre-draft measurement sites.

You can keep jumping around off the topic of my posts all you want. It certainly doesn't help support your argument any.

gyso

by Guest Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:25 am

gyso,

This whole conversation was started by Sam from a post on a Yahoo Answers page. This is the information we have been discussing not something that you posted about. You can start a new thread if you want.

A large part of the ORIGINAL post was about centers and how the writer didn't believe today's centers are superior then ones from years ago. We were referencing different players and trying to compare how they would do, thus the conversation about Russell since he fits into this center 'size" discussion.

by **beat** Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:26 am

TJ

I respectfully disagree with you on this.
Winning 8 straight against fewer but more talented teams is much more difficult than winning even one against a league of watered down talent.

beat

by Guest Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:33 am

beat,

I coach basketball in a local middle school league.
Due to lack of players, we only had 4 teams this year.
My chances of winning the championship were 1 in 4.
Going into the season an NBA teams chance is 1 in 30.

We can agree to disagree. I won't drag this on anymore.
Thanks.

by **beat** Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:49 am

Tj but if the bulk of the 30 teams have no chance....................see what i'm saying. (like the Cubbies in baseball, there is always next year)

beat

by **bobheckler** Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:56 am

gyso wrote:
swish wrote:gyso

Do you know the year that the change took place?

swish

I don't know.

Here is some interesting stuff, though:

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/A-Historical-Look-at-the-NBA-Pre-Draft-Measurements-2912/

http://www.brewhoop.com/2008/6/22/543088/measurement-error-explorin

gyso

gyso,

GREAT FIND!!

According to nba.com, Dwight Howard is listed as 6'11". According to the first article you provide a link to, he stands 6'9" in bare feet and 6'10 1/4" in shoes. So, they even round up to the next highest inch, even if he's closer to the lower inch.

bob

/

by **gyso** Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:14 pm

tj,

only in your mind. Comparing Eras - Page 2 Icon_rolleyes

the original post was titled "comparing eras" and you made a rather strong statement in your first post about how player height is measured the same as in the past. something about it being a "fact".

you brought up the height issue in a stand-alone one-sentence paragraph in the middle of your post and then there was discussion. go back and read the first part of this thread. you must have felt that single point was important enough to have it stand out the way you did.

i felt that your statement about player height reporting in this era compared to the player height reporting of another era was not entirely true. i am still waiting for a single fact to support your case.

don't tell me that i am off-topic and can start a new thread. you are totally wrong in that regard.

by Guest Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:16 pm

On nba.com/history/players Bill Russell is listed as 6'10.
He is also listed as 6'10" on his wikipedia page.
Different references have different heights for players.

Teams are not required to re-measure players once they are signed. They can update their height/weight if they choose to.
A Dwight Howard or another 19 year old could easily grow 1 or 2 inches after they are in the NBA.

by **worcester** Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:21 pm

All, Most people have a 3/4" difference in height between the time just after waking and later in the day. Taller upon waking.

by Guest Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:21 pm

gyso,

I said that it was a fact that NBA players are measured barefoot or in their socks. That is an absolute fact. I posted different measurements that are done to draft eligible players. Two of them are in socks and sneakers. Not sure why you think I am wrong about how they measure players.

Please see my last post above about Bill Russell's height.

by **gyso** Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:26 pm

bobheckler wrote:
gyso wrote:
swish wrote:gyso

Do you know the year that the change took place?

swish

I don't know.

Here is some interesting stuff, though:

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/A-Historical-Look-at-the-NBA-Pre-Draft-Measurements-2912/

http://www.brewhoop.com/2008/6/22/543088/measurement-error-explorin

gyso

gyso,

GREAT FIND!!

According to nba.com, Dwight Howard is listed as 6'11". According to the first article you provide a link to, he stands 6'9" in bare feet and 6'10 1/4" in shoes. So, they even round up to the next highest inch, even if he's closer to the lower inch.

bob

bob,

I think you will find a lot of that going on "in this era" Comparing Eras - Page 2 Icon_razz

Some don't like this fact because it doesn't fit into their argument.

Russ and Cowens really wouldn't be considered "short" if the current "era" was honest about player heights.

gyso

by **worcester** Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:39 pm

On the topic of "Standing Tall," check out this You Tube video:

http://media.causes.com/576542?p_id=92681239

by Sponsored content