Steve Kerr weighs in whether great teams of the past could beat the Warriors

Steve Kerr recently weighed in on the age-old debate of whether players/teams are better now or in the past. I know some people hate this discussion and others find it interesting. I would paste the  text, but it includes screen grabs of tweets that wouldn't transfer.


https://sports.yahoo.com/steve-kerr-explains-older-teams-will-kill-warriors-players-less-talented-185140797.html

Who knew Kerr was such a master of sarcasm...

The game is different in different eras. Different rules, different skills, different game.

KyleCleric wrote:The game is different in different eras. Different rules, different skills, different game.

Fair enough. Let's rephrase the question. The current Warriors, 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, 96 Bulls, and add which ever other teams you want (e.g. 72 Lakers, 65 Celtics, etc, etc) show up at the local court. Its a magic world, where all players are in the exact same physical state they were in during their teams best year. Playground rules. Who takes the day?

Is there a 3pt shot?

KyleCleric wrote:Is there a 3pt shot?

Great point. Initially I said playground rules - when I was a kid there was no 3 in playground games, and fouls were only called if blatant. Let's start there. If you want to make a second prediction with palyground rules that incorporate the 3 (but still playground foul culture), thats cool too.

For openers - I would rule out any team dating back to 1965 or earlier.

swish

If they are at the level of skill they were when they were active then warriors would win. The game evolves, players evolve. Players are faster and more athletic. Sure in some ways things like hand checking was allowed making some things for difficult so it depends how you call the rules but unless you turn it into a cage fight then in general the newer players are just so much more evolved shooting/dribble/etc wise.

Every team that had a #6 playing on it. The two years they lost the championship were really great teams too. They get overlooked too often. But as great teams...

swedeinestonia wrote:If they are at the level of skill they were when they were active then warriors would win. The game evolves, players evolve. Players are faster and more athletic. Sure in some ways things like hand checking was allowed making some things for difficult so it depends how you call the rules but unless you turn it into a cage fight then in general the newer players are just so much more evolved shooting/dribble/etc wise.

playground rules, which can be close to a cage fight.

I agree there are more better players now than then, simply because there are more people, and more kids playing hoops. However, that doesn't mean the best now are more "evolved" than the best then - natural selection operates over eons, and doesn't select for hoops prowess. Can anyone today check Wilt or Kareem? Is anyone, other than possibly Lebron, as athletically gifted as MJ? On the other hand, todays players are probably better shooters. Tought question...

Shamrock1000 wrote:

swedeinestonia wrote:If they are at the level of skill they were when they were active then warriors would win. The game evolves, players evolve. Players are faster and more athletic. Sure in some ways things like hand checking was allowed making some things for difficult so it depends how you call the rules but unless you turn it into a cage fight then in general the newer players are just so much more evolved shooting/dribble/etc wise.

playground rules, which can be close to a cage fight.

I agree there are more better players now than then, simply because there are more people, and more kids playing hoops. However, that doesn't mean the best now are more "evolved" than the best then - natural selection operates over eons, and doesn't select for hoops prowess. Can anyone today check Wilt or Kareem? Is anyone, other than possibly Lebron, as athletically gifted as MJ? On the other hand, todays players are probably better shooters. Tought question...

Defenders are better, faster, quicker and so on too, the understanding of the game will be different and the ability to read the game. If you took all old great players and they got to go through playing today for a couple of seasons they most likely have both the physical and mental tools to get very good too but its lack of exposure and practice at certain things that later developed. Same is true for pretty much every sport. Like baseball I could imagine that the batters of today are just much better at reading and tracking the ball than the ones of old just because they get exposed to better pitchers with more different types of pitches so if they travelled back in time and faced pitchers of old they would have a field day whereas the great batters of old times would struggle some.

If you take away the 3pt shot, today's Warriors would struggle with physicality that some of these older teams would bring. Many of these top teams from the 60s, 70s, and 80s played at a fast pace themselves. In a full court setting, they'd be fine with that aspect of the game with them.

Shamrock1000 wrote:Steve Kerr recently weighed in on the age-old debate of whether players/teams are better now or in the past. I know some people hate this discussion and others find it interesting. I would paste the  text, but it includes screen grabs of tweets that wouldn't transfer.


https://sports.yahoo.com/steve-kerr-explains-older-teams-will-kill-warriors-players-less-talented-185140797.html

Who knew Kerr was such a master of sarcasm...

Love his below quote:

"It's weird how human evolution goes in reverse in sports. Players get weaker, smaller, less skilled"

I guess it's nothing more than fans recalling great memories of the past - sort of a " good old days" type of recollection.

swish

https//sports.BostonBlobe.com/Shaunaseyme/CelticCloneWars

In a shocking interview, DA has revealed his secret strategy for competing with the GSW in the future. In reaction to Steve Kerr's recent truth about the older teams demolishing his squad of superstars, Danny has admitted to me and only me that he has secretly been cloning Celtics greats from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Since these are cones and are identical to the original person, they can only be under one contract. This is why Larry Legend resigned from the Pacers. so his clone could sign with Boston. Video at 11:00, we will have more breaking news as I develop it.
Dan Shanuaseyme

Shamrock1000 wrote:Steve Kerr recently weighed in on the age-old debate of whether players/teams are better now or in the past. I know some people hate this discussion and others find it interesting. I would paste the  text, but it includes screen grabs of tweets that wouldn't transfer.


https://sports.yahoo.com/steve-kerr-explains-older-teams-will-kill-warriors-players-less-talented-185140797.html

Who knew Kerr was such a master of sarcasm...

Shamrock1000

Since you mentioned the 1964-65 Celts I've done a little comparison, in 2 major areas, between them and the 2016-17 Warriors. By the way, Bill Russell called the 64-65 the best Celtic team that he ever played on.

Here's the comparison'
Based on only those players that played at least 700 minutes for the season. (That accounts for about the 8 to 11 top players on a team)
Shooting percentages
Celtics ,,, Sam Jones ,452 - Russell .438 - Sanders .429 - Siegfried .415 - Havlicek .401 - K C Jones .396 - Naulls .384 - Heinsohn .383
Warriors,,, McGee .660 - Iquodala .651 - Durant .608 - Clark .556 - Livingston .550 - West .541 - Pachulia .538 - Curry .537 - McCaw .533 - Thompson .516 - Green .494

Weights - Front court players (6'6" or taller)
Celtics,,, Russell-215, Sanders-210, Heinsohn-218, Naulls-225
Warriors,,, Green-230, Pachulia-270, West-250, McGee-270
Note: Because Durant plays some shooting guard he's not listed as a strict front court player.

My how the game has changed.
swish

swish wrote:

Shamrock1000 wrote:Steve Kerr recently weighed in on the age-old debate of whether players/teams are better now or in the past. I know some people hate this discussion and others find it interesting. I would paste the  text, but it includes screen grabs of tweets that wouldn't transfer.


https://sports.yahoo.com/steve-kerr-explains-older-teams-will-kill-warriors-players-less-talented-185140797.html

Who knew Kerr was such a master of sarcasm...

 Shamrock1000

 Since you mentioned the 1964-65 Celts I've done a little comparison, in 2 major areas, between them and the 2016-17 Warriors. By the way, Bill Russell called the 64-65 the best Celtic team that he ever played on.

   Here's the comparison'
            Based on only those players that played at least 700 minutes for the season. (That accounts for about the 8 to 11 top players on a team)
      Shooting percentages
  Celtics ,,,   Sam Jones ,452 - Russell .438 - Sanders .429 - Siegfried .415 - Havlicek .401 - K C Jones .396 - Naulls .384 - Heinsohn .383
  Warriors,,,  McGee .660 - Iquodala .651 - Durant .608 - Clark .556 - Livingston .550 - West .541 - Pachulia .538 - Curry .537 - McCaw .533 - Thompson .516 - Green .494

      Weights -  Front court players (6'6" or taller)
   Celtics,,,  Russell-215, Sanders-210, Heinsohn-218, Naulls-225
   Warriors,,,   Green-230, Pachulia-270, West-250, McGee-270
        Note: Because Durant plays some shooting guard he's not listed as a strict front court player.

          My how the game has changed.
 swish  

And here's the 1960-61 Celts (the favorite Celtic team of Bob Cousy)
Shooting percentages.
S Jones-.449, Russell.426, Sharman.422-Sanders.420-Ramsey.407-Heinsohn.400-Cousy.371-Conley.370-K C Jones.338-Loscutoff.301
Weights - Front court players (6'6' or taller)
Russell-215,Conley-225,Heinsohn-218,Sanders-210

swish

Comparing these might be interesting but basically pointless. Could Jessie Owens win any 100 meter race today?

Heck he wouldn't even qualify for the finals on the US team let alone make the team.

Same with virtually any athlete of by gone years.


Imagine pole vaulting 19 feet with a bamboo pole.


How did those Celtic teams shoot among their peers? That is the only way to truly compare things? IMHO

beat

swish wrote:

swish wrote:

Shamrock1000 wrote:Steve Kerr recently weighed in on the age-old debate of whether players/teams are better now or in the past. I know some people hate this discussion and others find it interesting. I would paste the  text, but it includes screen grabs of tweets that wouldn't transfer.


https://sports.yahoo.com/steve-kerr-explains-older-teams-will-kill-warriors-players-less-talented-185140797.html

Who knew Kerr was such a master of sarcasm...

 Shamrock1000

 Since you mentioned the 1964-65 Celts I've done a little comparison, in 2 major areas, between them and the 2016-17 Warriors. By the way, Bill Russell called the 64-65 the best Celtic team that he ever played on.

   Here's the comparison'
            Based on only those players that played at least 700 minutes for the season. (That accounts for about the 8 to 11 top players on a team)
      Shooting percentages
  Celtics ,,,   Sam Jones ,452 - Russell .438 - Sanders .429 - Siegfried .415 - Havlicek .401 - K C Jones .396 - Naulls .384 - Heinsohn .383
  Warriors,,,  McGee .660 - Iquodala .651 - Durant .608 - Clark .556 - Livingston .550 - West .541 - Pachulia .538 - Curry .537 - McCaw .533 - Thompson .516 - Green .494

      Weights -  Front court players (6'6" or taller)
   Celtics,,,  Russell-215, Sanders-210, Heinsohn-218, Naulls-225
   Warriors,,,   Green-230, Pachulia-270, West-250, McGee-270
        Note: Because Durant plays some shooting guard he's not listed as a strict front court player.

          My how the game has changed.
 swish  

And here's the 1960-61 Celts (the favorite Celtic team of Bob Cousy)
    Shooting percentages.
 S Jones-.449, Russell.426, Sharman.422-Sanders.420-Ramsey.407-Heinsohn.400-Cousy.371-Conley.370-K C Jones.338-Loscutoff.301
    Weights -  Front court players (6'6' or taller)
 Russell-215,Conley-225,Heinsohn-218,Sanders-210

 swish
 

I goofed - I should have noted that the shooting percentages are for 2 point field goal attempts - since there were no 3 point attempts back in the early years.

swish

cowens/oldschool wrote:Swish did Durant shoot 60% from the field this year? that's pretty amazing. I hate these discussions, but Sam used to say you have to realize that players today have the best in training, advanced techniques and equipment and nutrition, so give the old timers the same advantages and they too would look more like the modern players of today. A lot of old timers had real jobs in the offseason, there's wasn't near the money today where players have trainers, nutritionists, private chefs....etc

cowens

Yes - Durant shot 60 oercent from 2 point field goal range.

swish

cowens and beat

 My response was addressed to the question "whether great teams of the past could beat the warriors".  In regards to the 60-61 and 64-65 Celtics my opinion is an emphatic no. In all due respect to the abilities of the oldtimers - I'm happy to compare them with there peers -  but strongly reject any opinion that they were better than the 2017 Warriors.

  swish

beat wrote:Comparing these might be interesting but basically pointless.   Could Jessie Owens win any 100 meter race today?  

Heck he wouldn't even qualify for the finals on the US team let alone make the team.

Same with virtually any athlete of by gone years.


Imagine pole vaulting 19 feet with a bamboo pole.


How did those Celtic teams shoot among their peers?  That is the only way to truly compare things?   IMHO

beat

Actually, people know how much running on a modern track improves recorded times - there is plenty of data, and it is not that difficult to figure a correction factor. Applying this correction to Jesse Owens olympic times suggests that yes, he would have lost to Usain Bolt in the last olympics, but may have come in second or third. I get your point overall, but just want to make an important distinction. In the examples you provide, the "inferior" performances in the past are due primarlily to equipment, not necessarily to physical/mental superiority of modern athletes. Some people suggest that humans have actually evolved, in the biological sense, over the last century to produce better athletes. It doesn't work that way - not enough generations have passed, and natural selection in modern societies doesn't select for athletic prowess. Performances improve due to improvements in equipment/training/nutrition, and to an increased pool of people playing the sport. Simply increasing the number of people playing a sport increases the probability that you will find an outlier (i.e. an exceptional athlete).

swish wrote:cowens and beat

 My response was addressed to the question "whether great teams of the past could beat the warriors".   In regards to the 60-61 and 64-65 Celtics my opinion is an emphatic no. In all due respect to the abilities of the oldtimers - I'm happy to compare them with there peers -  but strongly reject any opinion that they were better than the 2017 Warriors.

  swish

Congratulations Swish - you are the first one to actually at least partially answer the question! Do you also believe the current Warriors would beat the other great teams of the past, e.g. 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, 96 Bulls? Many posters have said the rules have changed, and that teams are tailored to the rules of their era and thus comparison is pointless. However, in an earlier post, I specified that the games would take place under "playground rules", i.e. no 3 pt shot, no coaches, and no referees resulting in only the most blatant fouls being called. Also, the original question was who would win the day - on the playground, the winning team typically stays on the court. If you want to include a 3 pt shot in the playground game, thats okay too, as it would clearly make a big difference. Also, all players would be in the exact same physical state as they were in their golden seasons. It's tough question, and I don't think there is an obvious answer.

How would these Warriors look if they put the hand check rule back in place?

dboss

dboss wrote:How would these Warriors look if they put the hand check rule back in place?

dboss

Exactly - in the "playground rules" scenario I presented, I assumed handchecking would not be called...

dboss wrote:How would these Warriors look if they put the hand check rule back in place?

dboss

Another side of that question is "How much more dominant would MJ have been if he played in an era where handchecking was not allowed?". Nobody could have stayed with Jordan without handchecking.