US White vs US Blue Scrimmage

Reading Swish's post out here is exhausting. Glad for the most part I am taking the summer off from this nonsense.

Seems that I'm getting under the skin of a few posters that don't agree with my analysis. There is a cure you know - refute it.


swish

gyso wrote: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

Thanks Gyso, this seems to be a very common misunderstanding. Evolution requires many many generations for selected traits to accumulate, and there is no meaningful selection for being good at hoops; other than Calvin Murphy, basketball players don't have more offspring than the general population. So no selection. In general, if anything, selection based on strength and speed has decreased since we were hunter gatherers.

What might be more important though is that more and more kids grow up playing basketball. Just by increasing the number of kids competing, the chances of finding someone with natural ability and aptitude also increases. However, that doesn't mean the "best" players from today are any better than the "best" players from the past. I would expect that on average, the "best" players of yesterday are about as good as the "best" players of today. It's possible that the "average" player of today is better than the "average" player of years past since more kids play the game. However, the league has expanded also, so although there are more kids playing, there are more spots in the NBA. I suppose it would depend on which has grown more proportionately, the number of kids playing a lot of ball, or the number of professional players in the league.

All this ignores changes in the rules and philosophy of the game, which others have eloquently expounded on - the skill set required for yesterday's game is not exactly the same as that required for today's game.

Players now are a bit quicker and are overall better outside shooters. But the game isn't as physical as it was back in the 80s-90s, or even just 10-15 years ago.

The legendary teams of the 80s-90s could hang with the teams of today, IMO.



KJ

Okay, I will just add my two cents.............John Havlicek  6'5"  205lbs his whole career. No way Rick Carlisle was much bigger weight wise than him. I think this whole thing is ridiculous

Kevin McHale.....no way he weight 210 lbs  he was 6'10"tall. This is silly

Those weights are inaccurate and that’s a FACT, it’s stupid to argue if McHale and Walton were 210 or not, it’s obvious....so basing your argument on the wrong weights to prove a point, proves NOTHING. This is absurd, swish if you want to prove that the wrong weights support players weighed more and are better....I don’t see it. Larry and Co went against Barkley, Karl Malone, Moses, Kareem, Hakeem, Ewing. ...plenty of big beefy guys in that era and they had sick skills and could play/dominate. You think a line up with McGee and Zaza could compete against the 86 Celtics, please answer me on that...??? I will admit GS will hit some 3’s, but they will get decimated by that frontline both ends.

cowens/oldschool wrote:Those weights are inaccurate and that’s a FACT, it’s stupid to argue if McHale and Walton were 210 or not, it’s obvious....so basing your argument on the wrong weights to prove a point, proves NOTHING. This is absurd, swish if you want to prove that the wrong weights support players weighed more and are better....I don’t see it. Larry and Co went against Barkley, Karl Malone, Moses, Kareem, Hakeem, Ewing. ...plenty of big beefy guys in that era and they had sick skills and could play/dominate. You think a line up with McGee and Zaza could compete against the 86 Celtics, please answer me on that...??? I will admit GS will hit some 3’s, but they will get decimated by that frontline both ends.

oldschool

I'm still waiting for you to confirm the weight of the Celtic bigs in 1985-86.

swish

gyso wrote:Swish,

I thought we determined that the published weights and heights of players, then and now, is full of errors and inconsistencies.  

Cowens can't confirm the numbers from 85-86 anymore than you can for recent players.

The data is junk.

gyso

So why not go with published weights as listed - even if they are for a players rookis season ? Do they not refleck a reality that players are heavier now.

swish

gyso wrote:Swish,

I thought we determined that the published weights and heights of players, then and now, is full of errors and inconsistencies.  

Cowens can't confirm the numbers from 85-86 anymore than you can for recent players.

The data is junk.

gyso

Thanks gyso like I’m going to look for data on weights of players and be able to prove it...??? Who the flip knows about the weight of a player some 30 years ago? So swish are you gonna show me any stats or recollection of some skill that McGee or Zaza has that will show they would enable the Warriors to beat the 86 Celtics besides your belief that they are 270...??? Those guys/bums would get eaten up and spit out by that Celtic frontline. Look who Parish, McHale and Walton used to go up against and had to go thru, you have the gall to say they weighed 270 so therefore could enable their team to win, really, do you know what a scrub is? I want to hear you admit those/your guys would get eatin up, destroyed by Parish, Walton and McHale....

swish wrote:

gyso wrote:Swish,

I thought we determined that the published weights and heights of players, then and now, is full of errors and inconsistencies.  

Cowens can't confirm the numbers from 85-86 anymore than you can for recent players.

The data is junk.

gyso

So why not go with published weights as listed - even if they are for a players rookis season ? Do they not refleck a reality that players are heavier now.

  swish

Who gives a flying flip...???

Zaza going against 86 frontline still cracks me up, great point you made to convince everyone how our frontline would completely dismantle that team. Good point swish!!!

cowens/oldschool wrote:Zaza going against 86 frontline still cracks me up, great point you made to convince everyone how our frontline would completely dismantle that team. Good point swish!!!

Cow,

This whole digression is why I hate inter-era comparisons.

GSW dynasty - weak frontcourt, overwhelming backcourt.

Cleveland win - guard, wing, forward.  No center.

Miami mini-dynasty - guard, wing, forward.  No center.


Maybe needing an overwhelming frontcourt is a thing of the past, when most points were scored in or near the paint, so having paint monsters paid off?  When was the last time a team won a championship on the strength of their frontcourt?  San Antonio, with Robinson and Duncan?  That was a looonng time ago too.

I hope those days aren't gone forever, I personally enjoyed them tremendously, but until I see it happen again...



bob


.

Bob we also had this guy named Larry Bird. He could play either forward position quite well. I will admit other great forwards also could have played Birds position with Parish and McHale and done quite well....adding a motivated Bill Walton who was all about making up for lost time. Jeez!!!

Do the Warriors have one player near Birds level...???

I don’t think so, not even close....

cowens/oldschool wrote:Bob we also had this guy named Larry Bird. He could play either forward position quite well. I will admit other great forwards also could have played Birds position with Parish and McHale and done quite well....adding a motivated Bill Walton who was all about making up for lost time. Jeez!!!

Cow,

You're making my point for me.  Thanks.

We had a front court to end all front courts.  Can you name another team since that one and Robinson/Duncan that won based upon its front court?  I cannot.  If I am correct, then how are all the teams who have won championships since then won?  I wanna be like them, since they are winning championships (unless you can offer a plan where Danny can find us another Bird/McHale/Parish/Walton.  Then I am definitely listening). If it's having a guard like MJ or Kobe or Curry or Thompson, then get me one of them (Jayson Tatum?). If it's having more than one of them (Curry AND Thompson?) then get me two of them. I only care about what worked in the past if it is still relevant, applicable and doable today.


bob


.

Bob Curry and Thompson were on a nice run, but they were not as dominant as MJ-Scottie or Kobe-Shaq, they just were not that great. They really played well in their system, what took them over the top was Durant, without Durant I don’t see them getting 3 rings. MJ and Scottie would have gotten delayed if Len Bias didn’t have an off night.

On frontlines, none were as big and skilled, they just routinely took over games over and over for how many years...??? They just shutdown the paint, moved the ball, posted up, with a little luck and no injury bug, could have got another title in 82 with Tiny and 85 with Maxwell, then the dreaded Bias, could have easily been an 7-8 title team.

Jeez I’m thinking of some of the frontlines they had to go against, there was the Sixers with Dawkins, Caldwell and Bobby Jones and the Doctor, then later had Moses, Barkley, Dr J and Bobby Jones. Lakers had Kareem, Magic, Worthy, Mychal Thompson, McAdoo, shit Jazz had Karl Malone, Eaton and Thurl Bailey. Rockets had Hakeem and Ralph, Hawks had Tree, Kevin Willis, Dominique and a lot of depth and size, everyone had to get big to match up with us.

cowens/oldschool wrote:Bob Curry and Thompson were on a nice run, but they were not as dominant as MJ-Scottie or Kobe-Shaq, they just were not that great. They really played well in their system, what took them over the top was Durant, without Durant I don’t see them getting 3 rings. MJ and Scottie would have gotten delayed if Len Bias didn’t have an off night.

On frontlines, none were as big and skilled, they just routinely took over games over and over for how many years...??? They just shutdown the paint, moved the ball, posted up, with a little luck and no injury bug, could have got another title in 82 with Tiny and 85 with Maxwell, then the dreaded Bias, could have easily been an 7-8 title team.

Cow,


Curry and Thompson, before Durant, won a title.  Did he make them better?  Of course, but he didn't put them "over the top", they already went over it.

MJ and Pippen, a guard and a SF, no big.  HOFer Kobe Bryant and the best big of his era, BY FAR?  Sure.

Talking about Len Bias slowing down the Jordanaires when he never even laced up an NBA summer league sneaker is just plain silly.


bob


.

bobheckler wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:Bob Curry and Thompson were on a nice run, but they were not as dominant as MJ-Scottie or Kobe-Shaq, they just were not that great. They really played well in their system, what took them over the top was Durant, without Durant I don’t see them getting 3 rings. MJ and Scottie would have gotten delayed if Len Bias didn’t have an off night.

On frontlines, none were as big and skilled, they just routinely took over games over and over for how many years...??? They just shutdown the paint, moved the ball, posted up, with a little luck and no injury bug, could have got another title in 82 with Tiny and 85 with Maxwell, then the dreaded Bias, could have easily been an 7-8 title team.

Cow,


Curry and Thompson, before Durant, won a title.  Did he make them better?  Of course, but he didn't put them "over the top", they already went over it.

MJ and Pippen, a guard and a SF, no big.  HOFer Kobe Bryant and the best big of his era, BY FAR?  Sure.

Talking about Len Bias slowing down the Jordanaires when he never even laced up an NBA summer league sneaker is just plain silly.


bob


.

Just my opinion, GS struggles a lot more without Durant, might not have gotten next 2, if they did, would have been more a struggle....

cowens/oldschool wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:Bob Curry and Thompson were on a nice run, but they were not as dominant as MJ-Scottie or Kobe-Shaq, they just were not that great. They really played well in their system, what took them over the top was Durant, without Durant I don’t see them getting 3 rings. MJ and Scottie would have gotten delayed if Len Bias didn’t have an off night.

On frontlines, none were as big and skilled, they just routinely took over games over and over for how many years...??? They just shutdown the paint, moved the ball, posted up, with a little luck and no injury bug, could have got another title in 82 with Tiny and 85 with Maxwell, then the dreaded Bias, could have easily been an 7-8 title team.

Cow,


Curry and Thompson, before Durant, won a title.  Did he make them better?  Of course, but he didn't put them "over the top", they already went over it.

MJ and Pippen, a guard and a SF, no big.  HOFer Kobe Bryant and the best big of his era, BY FAR?  Sure.

Talking about Len Bias slowing down the Jordanaires when he never even laced up an NBA summer league sneaker is just plain silly.


bob


.

Just my opinion, GS struggles a lot more without Durant, might not have gotten next 2, if they did, would have been more a struggle....

Cow,

1. GSW without Durant is not as good as they were with him. True.

2. Without Durant, they would have struggled more to get another 2. True.

3. Water is wet. True.


bob


.

Durant is a pussy for taking the easy way to get a ring and he knows it, that’s why he gets so sensitive about it when all the media bash him for taking the easy way out. When he was up 3-1 where was the greatness, the balls, the poise to close out GS...??? Other great iconic players would have lived to close out that series and done it. Then cause they’re (GS) kissing his ass, he decides to go join them. He got no joy from the whole process of winning it all, because when the deck is too stacked in your favor, that was your choosing/manipulating, it wasn’t the right thing to do and he damn knows it.

That '85-86 team might be the best passing team in the history of the NBA.

Robert Williams is saying how much he loves passing and how he thinks he's a good passer.  I think he should be strapped into a chair and forced to watch hours of Bill Walton coming off the bench for that team, like Alex in A Clockwork Orange.







bob


.