Raw meat for Sam (and probably lots of others)

Early in the week Jeff Van Gundy was interviewed at length on the Mike and Mike ESPN radio show (and shown on TV as well at the same time on ESPN2) and Jeff was asked to comment on the fact that Patrick Ewing, who he coached for many years, was left off a recent all-time top ten centers list which listed (in order):

1 - Bill Russell
2 - Wilt Chamberlain
3 - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4 - Shaquille O'Neal
5 - Hakeem Olajuwan
6 - Moses Malone
7 - David Robinson
8 - George Mikan
9 - Willis Reed
10 - Bill Walton

Van Gundy was incredulous that Ewing wasn't on the list, said he was SIGNIFICANTLY better than George Mikan ("no question Ewing was a much better center than Mikan"), was actually outraged Mikan made the list over Patrick, mentioned even Willis Reed himself has stated Ewing was better than him (even tho Willis had two rings to Ewing's none), said Ewing had a much better career than Bill Walton but admitted a healthy Walton was one of the all-time best players at the position but said Walton was only healthy for a few years and in no way had a career equal to Patrick's, said even their college careers were virtually equal (tho many would disagree who feel the two best college players ever were Walton and Alcinder), and said Ewing and David Robinson were toss-a-coin equals.

He said he thought Shaq (?!?) was the number one center of all time because of his physicality and he felt no one in history could deal with him one-on-one.  When Mike Greenberg asked Van Gundy if he thought Shaq was a better center than Bill Russell, who, in most people's minds is the greatest player ever at ANY position, Van Gundy laughed and asked Greeny, "How big was Russell?  6'9" and 215 pounds?  And Shaq was 350?  Russell wouldn't have a chance against him one-on-one. Neither would Wilt."

The conversation got around to comparing talent in recent decades to earlier eras and here's where Van Gundy began to make his most startling claim.  He said players of the past couple decades are in much better shape with better training, better nutrition, better athletically and when the discussion got around to comparing teams from earlier eras to more recent ones here is an EXACT QUOTE that came out of Van Gundy's mouth, which had my jaw on the floor:

Van Gundy:  "You could take any also-ran team of the 90's and they would mop the floor with any of the Sixties Celtic teams."  Mike and Mike were both speechless, but neither of them challenged Jeff on that statement.

That is word for word from Jeff Van Gundy this past Tuesday on the Mike and Mike show boys and girls.

That Jeff Van Gundy quote needs to be repeated (and I don't know why it hasn't made the news for comments by other hoop experts, but it hasn't):  "YOU COULD TAKE ANY ALSO-RAN TEAM OF THE 90'S AND THEY WOULD MOP THE FLOOR WITH ANY OF THE SIXTIES CELTIC TEAMS."

And that's not a misquote folks.  

Discuss.

Anybody else catch that discussion and hear that?  I sure did and was shocked by that statement as I've always considered Van Gundy pretty sharp with regard to his basketball observations.  

Until now.

I's be more pissed that Nate Thurmond isn't on this list.

Personally I always felt Ewing was vastly over rated and a bit soft. Never seemed to mix it up in the post and liked the little 15 ft baseline jumpers way too much. What did he get to 1 final? Heck when they were together Oakley had a better post game than Ewing and sure played a heck of a lot tougher. Heck he never averaged more than 12 rebounds per game in any season. Heck inn 90-91 Oakley led the knicks in rebounding. Ewing never led the league in rebounds and in fact was never close too, finished 3rd best once. (Wilt led 11 years) (Russ 4) (Russ was second to Wilt 6 times) And after the age of 30 never averaged 3 block per game either

Just recall how much old man Thompson coddled him and the other Georgetown players back then, would not even let them speak to reporters. Don't believe speaking was required to enroll at Gtown anyway.

Also recall one time Thompson got his dander up when a an SU fan held up a signe. PATRICK EWING CAN'T READ THIS.

I  believe Ewing has questioned why he has never been a head coach........ perhaps there is a reason.

As for the Shaq-Russ thing sure Shaq would have been a load but Wilt was just as athletic or even more so and Russ did pretty well against him.

Russ would have found a way to deal with Shaq too cause although Shaq was bigger and stronger the area between the ears was not quite like Russ's, nobody's was.

Obviously Stan was smoking something.

beat

As for Mikan being named and Ewing being omitted I suppose that depends on what criteria you use to measure "greatest."

If you mean "dominant" than Mikan certainly belongs on the list.  The guy was the most important player on the most dominant team that won five titles.  If you mean  "can he be a top center today" then Mikan certainly would not belong on the list.

Mikan played in a very different era with no shot clock and a lane that was six feet wide.  A good inside player today allowed to repeatedly get the ball three feet from the basket would usually at least draw a foul on the defender and probably a lot more.

I mean would you take Mikan for today's game over, say, Jack Sikma or even Patrick Ewing, very good players who were not nearly as dominant as Mikan was?

I don't think that too many fans would and this implicitly acknowledges that there are more good players today than in Mikan's era.

But this does not diminish Mikan's achievements one bit.

Using the criteria of whether Mikan would be a top center today is kind of like asking whether a P-51 Mustang, a top fighter plane in WW II, could compete with an F-22 Raptor.  But this does not mean that the Mustang wasn't an exceptional design.  Indeed, a good argument could probably be made that what was learned from the Mustang contributed a great deal to subsequent designs.

I think the same holds true for teams.  The average player today is better than the average player from three, four decades ago.  The exceptional player from past eras would still be among the top players today but they'd be less dominant as the average level of play has improved.

I once heard Jack Ramsey say that in the early 60's Bill Russell  averaged double figures in points, rebounds and blocks (which weren't kept track of until the early 70's) and that he was AT LEAST A DECADE AHEAD of the rest of the league.  


This of course implies that the rest of the league took about a decade to catch up to what Russell was doing but it did catch up.

Russell himself has said that when he first came into the league, teammates, coaches, opponents, refs and fans had never seen anyone play the way he did.

If Russell were playing today does anyone seriously think he'd average double figures in blocks?  He'd still be one of the elite players but he would not be as dominant than in the era when he averaged double figures in blocks.  He invented a new way to play that leapfrogged his contemporaries.

Hi,
It seems to me that JVG's been on TV too long, and now has 3rd (if not 4th) stage of disease called sensationalism.

AK

I am replacing Bill Walton with Patrick Ewing on the top 10 list.

dboss

The Van Gundys seem to be polarizing figures, but I'm one who likes them. Regarding Jeff's statements about Ewing, the main thing I see here is a coach advocating for a very good player who played for him. I don't see anything wrong with that, even if I disagree.

His statement about the Russell Celtics is an extension of that. He didn't compare today's teams or even teams from the 2000s; he compared teams from the '90s, which coincides with his time as coach of the Knicks, the best teams he had.

So the main thing is that I think he's being provincial -- he's supporting the players and teams from his era over others.

When it comes to the greatest centers, here's the group I put at the top (I'm listing guys by when the entered the league, not in 1-2-3 order):

Russell
Wilt
Kareem
Walton

I put Walton there because he played the position at the highest level, even if only for a brief time due to his foot and ankle problems. Others may not give him as high a recognition if they consider longevity an important factor in determining who's best.

Here's my next group:

Walt Bellamy
Thurmond
Moses
Hakeem
Shaq

I don't put Mikan up there. While I recognize his significance to the evolution of the game in general and the center position in particular and his dominance in his era, even if we could mitigate the cross-era factors of training, nutrition, rules, and so on, I don't think he would be a match for the truly athletic big men who followed. Maybe that is my own provincialism, because I never saw him play while I've seen the rest of them from the mid-sixties on. But I don't think it's so bad to be in my third tier of centers, which still includes all-time greats like Parish, Artis Gilmore, Robinson, Reed, and Ewing.

It just so happens that I categorize players in these groups, not as a top ten.

Sloopjohnb wrote:If Russell were playing today does anyone seriously think he'd average double figures in blocks?  He'd still be one of the elite players but he would not be as dominant than in the era when he averaged double figures in blocks.  He invented a new way to play that leapfrogged his contemporaries.

In a sense, I think both can be true. Russell did essentially invent the blocked shot, which did revolutionize the game, but he joined the league in December 1956. By the mid-sixties, opposing players and the game itself had adapted to a new type of play, but the league still had Russell, Wilt, and Thurmond rejecting double-digit shots regularly. It just so happens that three of the best shot blockers the game has ever seen played at that time.

I don't think those guys would average double-digit blocks today, for these reasons:

• Pace. There were far more shots available to block in the '60s because they played at a much faster pace.

• The three-point shot. Outside shooting is rewarded now with an extra point, whereas in the '60s, it was better to shoot mid-range and closer because of the higher percentage, which meant more blockable shots for centers like Russell, Wilt, and Thurmond.

One way to look at it is that a performance like Anthony Davis had the other night -- nine blocks -- would be a regular occurrence for Russell, Wilt, and Thurmond. In my provincial view, they were the three greatest shot blockers of all time.

Jeff van Gundy wrote:How big was Russell?  6'9" and 215 pounds?  And Shaq was 350?  Russell wouldn't have a chance against him one-on-one. Neither would Wilt.

Shaq was a ridiculous physical specimen, to be sure, but Wilt was his match in strength, and Wilt was also 300 pounds or more in the second half of his career. Russell could deal with Wilt then, so he'd also deal with Shaq. And as much as I like Shaq, one thing I know for sure is that he wouldn't be able to deal with Russell; Shaq would get his points, but Russell would sprint the other way and get them right back before Shaq could make it down the court. And come the fourth quarter, I know which one of them would be tired out, and it wouldn't be Russell.

Then there's the generational issue -- put Russell in Shaq's time, and he'd benefit from nutrition and training to be heavier.

And besides, he was 6'10" (and would be called 6'11 or 7'0" by today's standards), had a 7'4" wingspan (more important than height), and jumped so high that he could look down in the basket. Russell would do just fine.

Jeff van Gundy wrote:You could take any also-ran team of the 90's and they would mop the floor with any of the Sixties Celtic teams.

Even with the generational comparison issues, it's a ridiculous statement. I'm fine with someone believing the '86 Celtics were the best Celtics team ever or that the best team of a later generation could beat the best team of an older generation, but to go as far as saying an also-ran team could destroy the Russell Celtics is absurd.

This is the kind of thinking that says that there is no way a two-time defending NBA champion with the greatest player on the planet and the three best players on the court could ever lose to a bunch of old guys and scrubs, yet San Antonio is the one who ran Miami off the court and made King James irrelevant as a factor in the finals.

Although I never saw Miken play in person, I have seen highlights and clips of his play, and probably no one will object to anyone else saying that Miken was the first really good big man in the NBA or that the may have "changed" the game in his time.

BUT, there have been many centers since him who have been far better centers in the NBA in my opinion.  Every one of the guys Outside listed were better than Miken, and if any two of these guys had played in Miken's era, Miken would only have been second or even third on an all NBA type of all star team in that era, and would not hold the title of 'first great big man'.

There have also been lots of other guys who would have been much better than Miken as well.  Remember that Miken was a 'giant' (at only 6'9") in his time and played most every game with a 2-4 inch height advantage over most all of his opponents.  I believe that his height advantage allowed him to be the best at his position much more than his athleticism allowed him to be outstanding.

Of course, there will always be a spot for George Miken in NBA history as he was "the first great big man", but as far as being one of the best all time centers, I have to disagree.

Van Gundy may have more credibility when he made mention of today's athletes being so much better than the athletes in the 60s, but as Celtics fan from the late 1950s I will always have to disagree with him and stand by the Celtics teams that I grew up with.  I will always think that there have been many teams that would have lost to the Russell led Boston teams. A form of prejudice possibly? But, I am not ashamed.

Outside, the Spurs may have older players in Duncan, Ginobili and Parker but vets are what is needed in the playoffs of today's NBA. In 1957 the Celtics won with Bill Russell and Tommy Heinshon, two rookies, starting.

I can't think of the last time since then that a champion started two rookies.

And the rest of the Spurs were hardly scrubs. Kwahi Leonard was voted MVP and is one of the top young players.

Moreover the Spurs are the type of team that could not have been put together 25 or 30 years ago. Six of their regulars--Parker, Ginobili, Diaw, Belinelli. Splitter and Paddy Mills--played overseas before coming to the NBA.

There may have been overseas guys talented enough to play in the NBA 20-30 years ago but they were probably playing soccer or something.

Those who say that talent was more concentrated in an eight team NBA are correct in a relative way but to say that this means the level of play must have been higher assumes that the talent pool is the same today as in an earlier era.

The Spurs are living proof that the talent pool is now the entire world not just the USA.

Jeff Van Gundy:  11 seasons, .575 winning percentage, 1x EC Champion, 0 Championships

George Mikan:  7 seasons, Minny made the playoffs 6 of 7 seasons, .675 winning percentage, 4x All-Star, 5x Champion


My bet is always on the proven winner first, rather than on the talker.  That's why they're called "Champions".



bob



.

So Bob suppose you had a time machine that could bring players back from the past. Would you take George Mikan in his prime over Jack Sikma in his prime? Or how about Jeff Ruland if you want a brutish inside scorer?

Sloopjohnb wrote:So Bob suppose you had a time machine that could bring players back from the past.  Would you take  George Mikan in his prime over  Jack Sikma in his prime?  Or how about Jeff Ruland if you want a brutish inside scorer?

sloop,


If I had a time machine, I'd go FORWARD 50 years so I could have 7'0" Point Guards, 7'5", 260# SGs and 8'0", 420# centers who can run like gazelles compete against CP3, Kobe Bryant and Patrick Ewing.  I think that would be step one to ending, what I consider to be, the neverending and badly flawed attempts to compare eras by today's self-serving "experts" who are obviously trying to promote their era's favorite players.

One competes against whom one competes against at the time one competes against them.  If people want to make stuff up, buy NBA 2K.  Personally, when I fantasize, the people in my dreams have more curves (and nicer ones too!)  than any of the names I see thrown around.

Would General "Black Jack" Pershing have won WWI if he had to go up against Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and his Afrika Corp?  Not a chance, but it's kind of moot isn't it?  Would George Washington have won the Revolutionary War if he went up against Montgomery and the Royal Navy of WWII?  That's how I see these inter-eral comparisons.

Would Kobe Bryant still be a great player?  Yes.  Would he be putting up the same numbers if there was no 3pt shot, hand-checking was allowed and he had Jerry Sloan beating on him like a drum for 35mpg (and not fouling out for doing it because that was the game back then)?  I doubt it.  And how many seasons do you think Kobe would last if he had to take that punishment year-in-and-year-out. Throw in the advances in medical technology that lets players come back from ACL surgeries (or inject cartilage into knees that have none anymore, like Kobe did), rather than have to retire (or, at least, have their skills degrade), and the advances in training and nutrition and it becomes even more silly.  



bob



.

It is a mind game Van Gundy is playing. In order for HIM to be rated high on the coaching list he has to rate HIS center as a great one. No one is taking anything away from Ewing, however, his statement about Russell is ridiculous. 11 championships in 13 years, right Jeff, he would stink. These comparison statements are really getting sickening. I said I wasn't going to respond to these comments anymore,but when someone says something against the guy I feel is the greatest player I have ever watched, I have to comment. This is it, I promise.

Rosalie

Bob, I doubt that we'll see 7'0" Point Guards, 7'5", 260# SGs and 8'0", 420# centers who can run like gazelles compete against CP3, Kobe Bryant and Patrick Ewing.

I agree with Stephan Jay Gould* that as a general proposition complex systems improve when the best performers play by the same rules over extended periods of time but that the improvement is most rapid when the system is newer--and the best performers find more optimal ways to do their thing-- and then becomes incremental as these optimal methods are imitated improving the over all level of play and when human limits begin to be reached.

Take marathon times.  The length is the same and there's no doubt that times have improved but this is not an infinite process since if we extrapolate then the best competitors would eventually run the race in no time and then in negative time.  Indeed,  the best times have flattened out.

Obviously there are limits to what human muscle and nervous system can do even with the best preparation, nutrition, training and even with pharmacological enhancement.

I regard these era to era comparisons  fun but I don't take them seriously since there's no way to prove anything in the absence of a time machine.

I sometimes think that which era one regards as having the highest level of play tells more about the person than the era.  I bet that most fans' favorite era correlates very strongly with when they were between 20 and 40 years of age.  I know mine does.

* In his book "Full House"  Gould has a chapter arguing that the disappearance of .400 hitting in baseball actually measures an improvement in over all play.

Rosalie, Van Gundy has shown unwavering loyalty to those who played or coached on his teams. He always praises Tom Thediboux to the skies and ditto with Mark Jackson, sometimes to a degree that is a little nauseating.

I can't fault him for that.

As a coach he always stuck up for his players. Remember that brawl between Larry Johnson and Alonzo Mourning? At first I thought there was a raggedly ass rag doll clinging to the legs of both players. But it was Van Gundy.

I used to like him as an analyst more than I do now. Interesting guy. I bet he's the only person who dropped out of Yale to go to a community college because he wasn't getting PT on those horrible Yale basketball teams.

I agree with Sloop that we won't see 7'0" Point Guards, 7'5", 260# SGs and 8'0", 420# centers who can run like gazelles. Nutrition, training, and people with the optimal body type being directed into basketball have improved exponentially, but the big jumps have been taken. At some point, players who get larger start to break down rather than perform better.

Outside wrote:I agree with Sloop that we won't see 7'0" Point Guards, 7'5", 260# SGs and 8'0", 420# centers who can run like gazelles. Nutrition, training, and people with the optimal body type being directed into basketball have improved exponentially, but the big jumps have been taken. At some point, players who get larger start to break down rather than perform better.

outside,

May we all be alive then to see if we're right.

Who thought there'd be a 6'9" point guard? A 6'9" SF?

Magic was an outlier. How many 6'9" PG's have there been since Magic? And it wasn't for lack of effort in trying to find one.

Many modern PG's are about the same height as Cousy, Lenny Wilkens, Guy Rodgers and others from the late 50's-early 60's

To COMPARE eras is pointless. Too many factors rule changes, MONEY, and a slew of other things. Would Wayne Gretzkey have survived the brutality of the NHL 50 years ago?

I figure if any player dominates his era pretty much completely and forces rule changes to the game like Mikan did (wider lane) ( plus he won a lot too) he's in my top ten all time. I do like Outsides tier system though.

beat

What are the ground rules for evaluating players in this discussion? Is it based on how they fared against their peers only, or a much broader view and comparisons against other generations the issue?

swish

swish wrote:What are the ground rules for evaluating players in this discussion? Is it based on how they fared against their peers only, or a much broader view and comparisons against other generations the issue?

swish

Swish - there are no ground rules here. You know that.

steve

Talking apples and oranges makes it difficult to arrive at a consensus opinion.

swish

bobheckler wrote:

Outside wrote:I agree with Sloop that we won't see 7'0" Point Guards, 7'5", 260# SGs and 8'0", 420# centers who can run like gazelles. Nutrition, training, and people with the optimal body type being directed into basketball have improved exponentially, but the big jumps have been taken. At some point, players who get larger start to break down rather than perform better.

outside,

May we all be alive then to see if we're right.

Who thought there'd be a 6'9" point guard?  A 6'9" SF?

Bob,

While a 7'0" point guard may be theoretically possible given the example of Magic, there were already 6'9" players when he played. Magic's arrival as a point guard didn't usher in an era with similar height increases across all positions. There was still room for 6'4.5" Charles Barkley to excel at power forward.

I don't necessarily think an 8'0" center is an impossibility, though I think it would be along the lines of Manute Bol and would be an outlier, not a trend. I have more of an issue with the notion of an 8'0", 420-pound center who can run like a gazelle. That is a major upscale in size from Shaq, who was an outlier himself.

swish wrote:steve

 Talking apples and oranges makes it difficult to arrive at a consensus opinion.

swish

Swish,

There won't ever be any consensus opinion, but it doesn't stop people from discussing/arguing it.

What I do is explain the ground rules I use for such discussions. Others use their own ground rules. There's no universally accepted set of ground rules.

Outside wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

Outside wrote:I agree with Sloop that we won't see 7'0" Point Guards, 7'5", 260# SGs and 8'0", 420# centers who can run like gazelles. Nutrition, training, and people with the optimal body type being directed into basketball have improved exponentially, but the big jumps have been taken. At some point, players who get larger start to break down rather than perform better.

outside,

May we all be alive then to see if we're right.

Who thought there'd be a 6'9" point guard?  A 6'9" SF?

Bob,

While a 7'0" point guard may be theoretically possible given the example of Magic, there were already 6'9" players when he played. Magic's arrival as a point guard didn't usher in an era with similar height increases across all positions. There was still room for 6'4.5" Charles Barkley to excel at power forward.

I don't necessarily think an 8'0" center is an impossibility, though I think it would be along the lines of Manute Bol and would be an outlier, not a trend. I have more of an issue with the notion of an 8'0", 420-pound center who can run like a gazelle. That is a major upscale in size from Shaq, who was an outlier himself.

outside,

That's what they said about 300+# centers, and then along comes Shaq.


Players are bigger, faster, stronger than they used to be, in general. I don't know any reason why that genetic trend wouldn't continue, resulting in a generally bigger player, on average, in the 2064-2065 season.





bob



.

bobheckler wrote:

Outside wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

Outside wrote:I agree with Sloop that we won't see 7'0" Point Guards, 7'5", 260# SGs and 8'0", 420# centers who can run like gazelles. Nutrition, training, and people with the optimal body type being directed into basketball have improved exponentially, but the big jumps have been taken. At some point, players who get larger start to break down rather than perform better.

outside,

May we all be alive then to see if we're right.

Who thought there'd be a 6'9" point guard?  A 6'9" SF?

Bob,

While a 7'0" point guard may be theoretically possible given the example of Magic, there were already 6'9" players when he played. Magic's arrival as a point guard didn't usher in an era with similar height increases across all positions. There was still room for 6'4.5" Charles Barkley to excel at power forward.

I don't necessarily think an 8'0" center is an impossibility, though I think it would be along the lines of Manute Bol and would be an outlier, not a trend. I have more of an issue with the notion of an 8'0", 420-pound center who can run like a gazelle. That is a major upscale in size from Shaq, who was an outlier himself.

outside,

That's what they said about 300+# centers, and then along comes Shaq.  


Players are bigger, faster, stronger than they used to be, in general.  I don't know any reason why that genetic trend wouldn't continue, resulting in a generally bigger player, on average, in the 2064-2065 season.  





bob



.

Bob - Don't the Celtics have the Nets first round draft pick for that season?