Re: US White vs US Blue Scrimmage

by **dboss** Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:13 pm

worcester wrote:Watching Tatum, all I can say is Holy Shit! The young man can play!

worcester

Tatum was really good.

He looks like he can do anything he wants on the court.

I think he is going to break out this year and become a big-time scorer for Boston.

Watching him confirms that he has gotten taller. I was blow away by his length as compared to other players on the court.

by **swish** Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:16 pm

dboss and oldschool

In addition to the superior shooting of the present day player is the huge increase in the weight of the BIGS . You might want to consider the fact that the early years, including the 80's, had teams like the 85-86 Celtics with several frontcourt players that played at weights of the modern day guards or small forward. Here are the weights of the 85-86 front court Celtics . Bird,,220--McHale,,210--Parish,,230--Walton,,210--Wedman,,215.

Here's the 2016-17 Warriors weights. Durant,,240--Green,,230--McGee,,270--Pachulia,,270--West,,250.
Sure the three ball gets heavy play now but boy have the men down low become a load - Certainly a factor to be considered in any generational matchup.

swish

by **dboss** Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:14 pm

Swish

They played more physical back in 86.

GS is a team of guys wearing flip flops. The 86 Celtics team were fitted with construction boots.

The weight differential does not outweigh the skill level of the greatest front line in the history of the NBA and the world.

Sorry but i'm sticking with the 86 team.

by **swish** Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:42 pm

dboss

And I'll go with the present day players (teams) as the best - simply because in the 34 years that have based since the mid 80's, sports like the scientific world just keeps improving to the same degree, for example, as the 80's were advanced over the 50's in the nba and product inovation. The olympic games are the Rosetta stone of the sports world - where there is a clear picture of athletes constantly improving on past records. Maybe our thoughts on the good old days are effected by our fond memories of the past.

swish

by **cowens/oldschool** Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:50 pm

Swish I don’t know where you get your weights from, but no way Kevin Durant is 30 pounds heavier than Kevin McHale. Walton is over 7 ft tall and weighs way more than 210. I already debated you on this weight point years ago, so surprised you went there again....Barkley could have played at 300 pounds, felt it was better to play at 250.

by **cowens/oldschool** Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:56 pm

McGee is a stick and no way was ever 270, Zaza wouldn’t even be able to get on the floor, he’d be getting so abused by that Celtic frontline....must have been a joke to even bring up Zaza...???

Good one, I’m cracking up, him going against Parish, Walton or McHale, hahaha, good one lmao....

by **swish** Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:08 pm

cowens/oldschool wrote:Swish I don’t know where you get your weights from, but no way Kevin Durant is 30 pounds heavier than Kevin McHale. Walton is over 7 ft tall and weighs way more than 210. I already debated you on this weight point years ago, so surprised you went there again....Barkley could have played at 300 pounds, felt it was better to play at 250.

oldschool

Basketball ref .com
Roster
Share & more
Modify & Share Table
Embed this Table
Get as Excel Workbook (experimental)
Get table as CSV (for Excel)
Strip Mobile Formatting
Copy Link to Table to Clipboard
About Sharing Tools
Video: SR Sharing Tools & How-to
Video: Stats Table Tips & Tricks
Glossary
No. Player Pos Ht Wt Birth Date Exp College
44 Danny Ainge SG 6-4 175 March 17, 1959 us 4 Brigham Young University
33 Larry Bird SF 6-9 (220) December 7, 1956 us 6 Indiana State University
34 Rick Carlisle SG 6-5 210 October 27, 1959 us 1 University of Maine, University of Virginia
3 Dennis Johnson PG 6-4 185 September 18, 1954 us 9 Pepperdine University
50 Greg Kite C 6-11 250 August 5, 1961 us 2 Brigham Young University
32 Kevin McHale PF 6-10 (210) December 19, 1957 us 5 University of Minnesota
00 Robert Parish C 7-0 (230) August 30, 1953 us 9 Centenary College of Louisiana
12 Jerry Sichting PG 6-1 168 November 29, 1956 us 5 Purdue University
45 David Thirdkill PF 6-7 195 April 12, 1960 us 3 Bradley University
11 Sam Vincent SG 6-2 185 May 18, 1963 us R Michigan State University
5 Bill Walton C 6-11 (210) November 5, 1952 us 8 University of California, Los Angeles
8 Scott Wedman SF 6-7 (215) July 29, 1952 us 11 University of Colorado
35 Sly Williams SF 6-7 210 January 26, 1958 us 6 University of Rhode Island

I guess your argument is with Basketball.com

swish

by **swish** Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:15 pm

cowens/oldschool wrote:McGee is a stick and no way was ever 270, Zaza wouldn’t even be able to get on the floor, he’d be getting so abused by that Celtic frontline....must have been a joke to even bring up Zaza...???

Good one, I’m cracking up, him going against Parish, Walton or McHale, hahaha, good one lmao....

I guess your just another old timer - living in the past - ah yeh - the good old feel good days.

swish

by **cowens/oldschool** Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:42 pm

swish wrote:
cowens/oldschool wrote:McGee is a stick and no way was ever 270, Zaza wouldn’t even be able to get on the floor, he’d be getting so abused by that Celtic frontline....must have been a joke to even bring up Zaza...???

Good one, I’m cracking up, him going against Parish, Walton or McHale, hahaha, good one lmao....

I guess your just another old timer - living in the past - ah yeh - the good old feel good days.

swish

Really am I delusional thinking Zaza would get wiped up and spit out by that frontline or are you delusional for bringing him and his weight in as a challenge to that team...???

by **cowens/oldschool** Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:48 pm

swish wrote:
cowens/oldschool wrote:Swish I don’t know where you get your weights from, but no way Kevin Durant is 30 pounds heavier than Kevin McHale. Walton is over 7 ft tall and weighs way more than 210. I already debated you on this weight point years ago, so surprised you went there again....Barkley could have played at 300 pounds, felt it was better to play at 250.

oldschool

Basketball ref .com
Roster
Share & more
Modify & Share Table
Embed this Table
Get as Excel Workbook (experimental)
Get table as CSV (for Excel)
Strip Mobile Formatting
Copy Link to Table to Clipboard
About Sharing Tools
Video: SR Sharing Tools & How-to
Video: Stats Table Tips & Tricks
Glossary
No. Player Pos Ht Wt Birth Date Exp College
44 Danny Ainge SG 6-4 175 March 17, 1959 us 4 Brigham Young University
33 Larry Bird SF 6-9 (220) December 7, 1956 us 6 Indiana State University
34 Rick Carlisle SG 6-5 210 October 27, 1959 us 1 University of Maine, University of Virginia
3 Dennis Johnson PG 6-4 185 September 18, 1954 us 9 Pepperdine University
50 Greg Kite C 6-11 250 August 5, 1961 us 2 Brigham Young University
32 Kevin McHale PF 6-10 (210) December 19, 1957 us 5 University of Minnesota
00 Robert Parish C 7-0 (230) August 30, 1953 us 9 Centenary College of Louisiana
12 Jerry Sichting PG 6-1 168 November 29, 1956 us 5 Purdue University
45 David Thirdkill PF 6-7 195 April 12, 1960 us 3 Bradley University
11 Sam Vincent SG 6-2 185 May 18, 1963 us R Michigan State University
5 Bill Walton C 6-11 (210) November 5, 1952 us 8 University of California, Los Angeles
8 Scott Wedman SF 6-7 (215) July 29, 1952 us 11 University of Colorado
35 Sly Williams SF 6-7 210 January 26, 1958 us 6 University of Rhode Island

I guess your argument is with Basketball.com

swish

Well they are wrong but so are you because you still decided to go with the wrong information, do you really think Kevin Durant is 30 pounds heavier that Walton and McHale...??? Come on man I hate to keep bashing you, but your wrong on so many levels....

by **cowens/oldschool** Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:50 pm

Swish I hope you stop this nonsense, I like your observations and posts, but on this one you are so obviously WRONG, let it end....

by **swish** Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:30 am

cowens/oldschool wrote:
swish wrote:
cowens/oldschool wrote:McGee is a stick and no way was ever 270, Zaza wouldn’t even be able to get on the floor, he’d be getting so abused by that Celtic frontline....must have been a joke to even bring up Zaza...???

Good one, I’m cracking up, him going against Parish, Walton or McHale, hahaha, good one lmao....

I guess your just another old timer - living in the past - ah yeh - the good old feel good days.

swish
Really am I delusional thinking Zaza would get wiped up and spit out by that frontline or are you delusional for bringing him and his weight in as a challenge to that team...???

For a guy who writes a lot about team play I'm surprized to see that you want to make this in to a strickly front court confrontation. Like I pointed out earlier the Warrior team is far superior in both team EFG average and team 2 point shooting percentage. I also believe that the modern players are more skilled than the 80's players - and it appears that you also feel that the 80's players were better than those that preceeded them 30 years earlier. Is there any reason to believe that after 25 or 30 years that we should not expect players to have improved their game. I'll stick with my numbers - and of course your welcome to view things via the eyeball test. The bottom line is the fact that we'll never know who's right. by the way - in the early years including the 80's the front court was a big leader in fga's and now it's just the opposite as the backcourt leads the way in fga's. Different skills - can result in a different style of play.

swish

by **swish** Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:35 am

cowens/oldschool wrote:Swish I hope you stop this nonsense, I like your observations and posts, but on this one you are so obviously WRONG, let it end....

With you as the judge and jury - I'm sure that I'll post even more frequently on this subject.

swish

by **cowens/oldschool** Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:42 am

Really how so? Who was the MVP in this years Finals, who was the MVP the last 2 years before that? Was it a backcourt player or a front court player? Seems to me the best teams in the last 30 years were dominated by a SF type wing, Lebron, Durant, Kawhi, oh right Curry snuck in there one year when 2 all stars, Love and Kyrie got injured, then before that there was Pierce and Kobe and they played with some great bigs that they needed to get those teams to that level....not little fairy point guards that can’t play D and jack up 3’s.

At least you made a better argument than the weight of Zaza lol....

by **cowens/oldschool** Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:49 am

swish wrote:
cowens/oldschool wrote:Swish I hope you stop this nonsense, I like your observations and posts, but on this one you are so obviously WRONG, let it end....

With you as the judge and jury - I'm sure that I'll post even more frequently on this subject.

swish

Better come strong and accurate, your weight to impress was too easy to poke holes in because all your stats of your choosing on the weights was ALL wrong, do you get that?

by **swish** Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:08 am

cowens/oldschool wrote:
swish wrote:
cowens/oldschool wrote:Swish I hope you stop this nonsense, I like your observations and posts, but on this one you are so obviously WRONG, let it end....

With you as the judge and jury - I'm sure that I'll post even more frequently on this subject.

swish
Better come strong and accurate, your weight to impress was too easy to poke holes in because all your stats of your choosing on the weights was ALL wrong, do you get that?

Just copying from Basketball ref. So that we get their weights straight I'll let you do the reseach to get their weights for the 1985-86 season. Be sure to list the source.

swish

by **pete** Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:09 am

Hey Rosalie!

We are all doing well, hope the same for your family. This year is going to be fun!

Pete

by **bobheckler** Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:17 am

If you just google Keven McHale (there's a 31 year old actor with that name, so make sure you're looking at the right one) he's listed as 209-210#. Is it possible he was 235#? Sure, but what are the odds it's going to be that far off? 25# is a lot to be off.

bob

.

by **gyso** Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:34 am

swish,

I wouldn't put too much "weight" on the weights or heights given on that or any other site. They are most likely the weights of the players when they entered the league and never got changed after that.

Carlisle at 210, I might believe that, although I do not remember his being all that heavy for his height. DJ at 185, Ainge at 175? I seriously doubt they played their entire careers at those weights, especially DJ.

Does anyone believe that Larry Bird actually weigh 15 pounds less than Paul Pierce?

Back in the day, they measured heights barefoot, now it is wearing shoes. When did that change? For any player from the past, you would have to add an inch or two, depending on the shoe. That is a most unscientific way to measure height. Why does the league continue to do this? Perception. Marketing.

I'll also use KG as an example of how unreliable those heights are. He always claimed to be 6'-11". He had his reasons to say that, but it was an obvious lie. He was always over 7 feet as a player in the NBA.

Glen Davis was listed at 260 - 270 pounds towards the end of his career, but he clearly was over 300.

I will agree that, for the most part, today's athlete is bigger and stronger those of the past. Much of that is because the modern athlete has the opportunity to train, since their high school days even, for 12 months of the year. If you go back far enough, the players had to get second jobs in the off season, just to support their families. That doesn't leave much time for the gym.

I believe that using the heights and weights of the players listed in any website is at best, suspect. What did they use as their source of data? A quick glance at the numbers that you posted only goes to reinforce my belief.

gyso

by **gyso** Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:55 am

bobheckler wrote:If you just google Keven McHale (there's a 31 year old actor with that name, so make sure you're looking at the right one) he's listed as 209-210#. Is it possible he was 235#? Sure, but what are the odds it's going to be that far off? 25# is a lot to be off.

bob
.

Bob,

I would guess that McHale did not play his entire career at 209-210 lbs. I would guess that 235 (for him) would not be that much of a reach. Paul Pierce was listed at 235 lbs. Kevin could have weighed that much after a few years in the league.

Heights and weights of the players are made when they enter the league and those numbers often never get updated. Do you think Jason Tatum is still 6'-8"? That is what he is still listed at on basketball-reference.com.

The numbers for points, assists, rebounds and the like are based on facts and are tallied for each game, etc. The numbers for heights and weights are fixed in time from the day they were measured and often never get changed.

Big difference.

gyso

by **swish** Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:27 am

gyso wrote:swish,

I wouldn't put too much "weight" on the weights or heights given on that or any other site. They are most likely the weights of the players when they entered the league and never got changed after that.

Carlisle at 210, I might believe that, although I do not remember his being all that heavy for his height. DJ at 185, Ainge at 175? I seriously doubt they played their entire careers at those weights, especially DJ.

Does anyone believe that Larry Bird actually weigh 15 pounds less than Paul Pierce?

Back in the day, they measured heights barefoot, now it is wearing shoes. When did that change? For any player from the past, you would have to add an inch or two, depending on the shoe. That is a most unscientific way to measure height. Why does the league continue to do this? Perception. Marketing.

I'll also use KG as an example of how unreliable those heights are. He always claimed to be 6'-11". He had his reasons to say that, but it was an obvious lie. He was always over 7 feet as a player in the NBA.

Glen Davis was listed at 260 - 270 pounds towards the end of his career, but he clearly was over 300.

I will agree that, for the most part, today's athlete is bigger and stronger those of the past. Much of that is because the modern athlete has the opportunity to train, since their high school days even, for 12 months of the year. If you go back far enough, the players had to get second jobs in the off season, just to support their families. That doesn't leave much time for the gym.

I believe that using the heights and weights of the players listed in any website is at best, suspect. What did they use as their source of data? A quick glance at the numbers that you posted only goes to reinforce my belief.

gyso

Like you, I've always believed that the weights were more than likely based on when they entered into the league - and it's obvious that the player now, when entering the league are much heavier than in the past. I think that it's fair to assum that some players from the past have experienced weight change and I see no reason to believe that the same has not occured for the moderns. Same differential ? Why not. And I agree with you that training and diet are a big reason for the present days edge in size and strength - and I'll add - skill level.

swish

by **dboss** Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:52 pm

swish wrote:dboss

And I'll go with the present day players (teams) as the best - simply because in the 34 years that have based since the mid 80's, sports like the scientific world just keeps improving to the same degree, for example, as the 80's were advanced over the 50's in the nba and product inovation. The olympic games are the Rosetta stone of the sports world - where there is a clear picture of athletes constantly improving on past records. Maybe our thoughts on the good old days are effected by our fond memories of the past.

swish

Swish this is the reason why comparing athletes of different time frames never really works.

If players of today are better can we assume that Bird, Mchale and Parrish would be better today if they were NBA players today. They would have the advantage of new sports medicine, trainning and technology.

There is no doubt that athletes are superior to athletes in the past because of evolution. But put GS back to 86 and their athleticism would be different assuming you could travel through time and space. Perhaps the answer lies in an acknowledgement that in each timeframe the Celtics were the best and in 2018 the Warriors were the best. So comparing them to each other can never really work but the stats show the Celts were the dominant team.

Statistically they were just as good.

by **gyso** Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:49 pm

dboss,

Evolution has nothing to do with it, IMO. Humans just do not change all that much over mere decades.

New sports medicine, training and technology are the most likely reasons. Add the fact that athletes now can concentrate 24/7/365 on their training instead of having to work part of the year to earn a living goes into it as well.

Supplements (approved or otherwise) also add into it.

I do agree that comparing eras in sports is often a messy endeavor. It mostly comes down to opinions and team loyalty.

gyso

by **swish** Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:04 pm

dboss wrote:
swish wrote:dboss

And I'll go with the present day players (teams) as the best - simply because in the 34 years that have based since the mid 80's, sports like the scientific world just keeps improving to the same degree, for example, as the 80's were advanced over the 50's in the nba and product inovation. The olympic games are the Rosetta stone of the sports world - where there is a clear picture of athletes constantly improving on past records. Maybe our thoughts on the good old days are effected by our fond memories of the past.

swish

Swish this is the reason why comparing athletes of different time frames never really works.

If players of today are better can we assume that Bird, Mchale and Parrish would be better today if they were NBA players today. They would have the advantage of new sports medicine, trainning and technology.

There is no doubt that athletes are superior to athletes in the past because of evolution. But put GS back to 86 and their athleticism would be different assuming you could travel through time and space. Perhaps the answer lies in an acknowledgement that in each timeframe the Celtics were the best and in 2018 the Warriors were the best. So comparing them to each other can never really work but the stats show the Celts were the dominant team.

Statistically they were just as good.

dboss

You acknowledge that the modern athlete is superior and yet defend the Celtics by claiming that they were the more dominant team in their era - but you should remember that the competion then was inferior in nature when compared to the caliber of the players in todays game. I know that a lot of old timers like to speculate as to how much better those older players would have been if they had been fortunate to play with all the present amenities - but come on - this issue is about THEN and NOW.

swish

by **dboss** Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:28 pm

swish wrote:
dboss wrote:
swish wrote:dboss

And I'll go with the present day players (teams) as the best - simply because in the 34 years that have based since the mid 80's, sports like the scientific world just keeps improving to the same degree, for example, as the 80's were advanced over the 50's in the nba and product inovation. The olympic games are the Rosetta stone of the sports world - where there is a clear picture of athletes constantly improving on past records. Maybe our thoughts on the good old days are effected by our fond memories of the past.

swish

Swish this is the reason why comparing athletes of different time frames never really works.

If players of today are better can we assume that Bird, Mchale and Parrish would be better today if they were NBA players today. They would have the advantage of new sports medicine, trainning and technology.

There is no doubt that athletes are superior to athletes in the past because of evolution. But put GS back to 86 and their athleticism would be different assuming you could travel through time and space. Perhaps the answer lies in an acknowledgement that in each timeframe the Celtics were the best and in 2018 the Warriors were the best. So comparing them to each other can never really work but the stats show the Celts were the dominant team.

Statistically they were just as good.

dboss

You acknowledge that the modern athlete is superior and yet defend the Celtics by claiming that they were the more dominant team in their era - but you should remember that the competion then was inferior in nature when compared to the caliber of the players in todays game. I know that a lot of old timers like to speculate as to how much better those older players would have been if they had been fortunate to play with all the present amenities - but come on - this issue is about THEN and NOW.

swish

Man has yet to travel ahead to the future or return to the past so comparing teams from different times is really impossible. The Celtics were in fact a great team in 1986 and GS was a great team in 2018. The GSW greatness in 2018 is not better than the greatness of the Celtics in 1986. Their greatness can only be measured in terms of the time they played in and against like opponents. But there remains a statistical record for comparison sake. The 2018 GSW had a higher EFG% because they shot more 3 point shots so the value of the 3 pointer and the frequency with which it was used is a function of the difference in the way teams play now as compared to 3 decades ago.

Any vision of those teams playing against one another is an out of body experience.

Statistically Boston was a better team in 1986 than GSW of 2018. They scored more PPG and surrendered less PPG than the Warriors did in 2018.

by Sponsored content