Dear nash.....
- Thread starter DannieDarKo
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
from bannister
Truer words have never been written. I always thought that Shaq - having been successfully been tutored by Walton - should have been tutored by Kareem to teach him some shooting skills. I do not know if they ever asked Kareem - or if he would have done it. But somebody should have helped this guy. Of course, when the league thinks you are THE MAN - you do not have to improve.
I wonder how many more years Shaq will play. The last 2 at least have been on half speed and its simply being called in on most nights now.
Truer words have never been written. I always thought that Shaq - having been successfully been tutored by Walton - should have been tutored by Kareem to teach him some shooting skills. I do not know if they ever asked Kareem - or if he would have done it. But somebody should have helped this guy. Of course, when the league thinks you are THE MAN - you do not have to improve.
I wonder how many more years Shaq will play. The last 2 at least have been on half speed and its simply being called in on most nights now.
gideon said:jlcmsu.... I never would have guessed
Its cool to have a sports hero who did it all and never let you down. I certainly would pick Mr. Jordan as one of my all time NBA team - and he would start.
I know big suprise.
I don't have them as memorized as I used but I did at one time have all his career numbers memorized.
I've always felt Shaq's stats are heavily padded by the fact that he's a tank out there. Chamberlain and those guys were tall and not skinny rails but they weren't as thick as Shaq, and as cut as some of the players seem to be these days, he walks all over them like he's Godzilla and the rest of the players are helpless little people. If he couldn't plow through with his size, he'd be an average player.
As for the changing of the game and rules, the game may have changed to adapt to newer styles of play like Jordan and the more street ball styles of today, but you can't hold it against the players, do they break rules of old, sure, but it's the NBA's fault for caving and changing, if they had enforced the same rules all along, the players would have either adapted of failed, and I think Jordan and others who get flagged for being able to get away with things, would have adapted and still had as impressive a career under those circumstances as the ones they've had, that's what makes them hall of fame players, they came into the game as it was and they knew how to work with it, if the game were different, they would have worked with that style.
I love Jordan, as much as my fellow Maul and Jordan brother Josh, but I will say as great as I think he was, looking at how the game has become of late, I think part of why everyone regards Michael so highly is because he was the end of the Magic and Bird era of playing, and shortly after Jordan's final Bulls years, the game started changing and those who are vocal about players in the game have a fondness for the game as it was played in the 80s and 90s and get frustrated with the antics of some of the players today, and Jordan stands out more because he was the more recent. I don't know a great deal about the players of old like Chamberlain because they were well before my time, but you have to give a lot of credit to the more recent big 3, Bird who played with his back problems and all, gave everything he had and may possibly go down as one of, if not the, hardest working player in the game, Magic who took the game to all new levels, got struck down with an illness that would likely sideline many people but came back for sheer love of the game, and Jordan, who not only wowed people with his acrobatics, but inspired many of his teamates to be the players he saw them being capabale of (he encourage Rodman a lot and that guy had one of his best career seasons with Chicago), and a player who just couldn't put the ball down. Those guys were magical because they played with their hearts and they unified their teams.
As for the changing of the game and rules, the game may have changed to adapt to newer styles of play like Jordan and the more street ball styles of today, but you can't hold it against the players, do they break rules of old, sure, but it's the NBA's fault for caving and changing, if they had enforced the same rules all along, the players would have either adapted of failed, and I think Jordan and others who get flagged for being able to get away with things, would have adapted and still had as impressive a career under those circumstances as the ones they've had, that's what makes them hall of fame players, they came into the game as it was and they knew how to work with it, if the game were different, they would have worked with that style.
I love Jordan, as much as my fellow Maul and Jordan brother Josh, but I will say as great as I think he was, looking at how the game has become of late, I think part of why everyone regards Michael so highly is because he was the end of the Magic and Bird era of playing, and shortly after Jordan's final Bulls years, the game started changing and those who are vocal about players in the game have a fondness for the game as it was played in the 80s and 90s and get frustrated with the antics of some of the players today, and Jordan stands out more because he was the more recent. I don't know a great deal about the players of old like Chamberlain because they were well before my time, but you have to give a lot of credit to the more recent big 3, Bird who played with his back problems and all, gave everything he had and may possibly go down as one of, if not the, hardest working player in the game, Magic who took the game to all new levels, got struck down with an illness that would likely sideline many people but came back for sheer love of the game, and Jordan, who not only wowed people with his acrobatics, but inspired many of his teamates to be the players he saw them being capabale of (he encourage Rodman a lot and that guy had one of his best career seasons with Chicago), and a player who just couldn't put the ball down. Those guys were magical because they played with their hearts and they unified their teams.
from Maulfan
Very good and incisive post. I certainly do not hold the changes against the players. The NBA - more than any other professional big league - is very sensitive to the players and is more "player friendly" and quicker to adapt than any other league. Where I differ with you is the part where you say that the players would have had the same impressive career....
I think about how carrying the ball and dunking is today the accepted part of the game. Chamberlain could have dunked at least half the time he had the ball. Oscar Robertson or Nate Archibald could have gone coast to coast if they had allowed them to carry the way players do today. Hell, Archibald could dribble two balls and beat another player down the court. He used to do that in exhibitions.
Many of todays players only get points because of the changes. Without them, they would be mediocre or be forced to develop a new skill set. The best could still play anytime. But the stereotypical "pure athlete" who is fast as a cheetah and can jump out of the jump but has no other real skills would be useless without the changes made in the last 15 years.
Think of it this way. Elgin Baylor was everthing Lebron James is plus Elgin could shoot the jumper consistently and with accuracy. But Elgin was not allowed to carry the ball, there were no clear-outs for him, and he was not given the extra step to beat his defender to the basket.
Very good and incisive post. I certainly do not hold the changes against the players. The NBA - more than any other professional big league - is very sensitive to the players and is more "player friendly" and quicker to adapt than any other league. Where I differ with you is the part where you say that the players would have had the same impressive career....
I think about how carrying the ball and dunking is today the accepted part of the game. Chamberlain could have dunked at least half the time he had the ball. Oscar Robertson or Nate Archibald could have gone coast to coast if they had allowed them to carry the way players do today. Hell, Archibald could dribble two balls and beat another player down the court. He used to do that in exhibitions.
Many of todays players only get points because of the changes. Without them, they would be mediocre or be forced to develop a new skill set. The best could still play anytime. But the stereotypical "pure athlete" who is fast as a cheetah and can jump out of the jump but has no other real skills would be useless without the changes made in the last 15 years.
Think of it this way. Elgin Baylor was everthing Lebron James is plus Elgin could shoot the jumper consistently and with accuracy. But Elgin was not allowed to carry the ball, there were no clear-outs for him, and he was not given the extra step to beat his defender to the basket.
jlcmsu said:
Yes Ive played basketball for most of my life actually. Since I was a kid and varsity highschool ball since my sophomore year. Besides martial arts it's my second love.
I thought you meant guard to guard, and big man to big man. It's a given that Shaq would dominate a guard, theres no question. But honestly, how many Shaqs are out there that can dominate a game like that? Not very many at all. Imo the low post is the most competetive spot on the court because that's the closest to the rim and if done right, the easiest place and most "ideal" place to get buckets.
Look at Nowitzki, he should idealy be dominating on the low post because he's a seven footer, but he can't. He dominates from mid court most of the time. Even Yao Ming has trouble on the low post at times.
Maybe our definitions of "dominating" a game differs. I see it as all aspects of offense, not just scoring.
This is a pretty crazy statement. It is a known fact that today's game is way way way wayyyyyyyy more competetive and the skill levels of the players outshine those of the oldschool ballers by miles. Saying todays players would be mediocre playing an oldschool game is just false and absurd. Anyone who knows basketball will tell you that oldschool ballers, as great legends as they are, can't hold a candle to todays talent.gideon said:
Just to clarify, I dont consider Bird or Jordan oldschool.
Last edited:
nash - perhaps you are reading too much into my statement or perhaps I simply did not express it well enough. There are players today who are often described as "pure athletes". Usually that is code for the African American player who is very fast on his feet, has quick reflexes and can jump out of the gym BUT lacks the basic fundamentals that the old school players were so good at. Things like setting screens, the give and go, boxing out and other fundamental things that we used to teach elementary kids to do. The player today that has physical skills in the top 1% of the athletic population often simply uses those skills instead of the older fundamentals. The result is a great deal of one-on-one play, the clear outs, the extra step off the dribble, the over reliance on the dunk, and other things.
The game is officiated in a way today that would not be recognizable even thirty years ago. If you took Mendy Rudolph and an officiating crew from the 70's and had them call a game today, the number of whistles blowing would be some sort of record. Travelling would be called constantly as players take the quick step before putting the ball to the floor as well as the extra step at the end of many drives to the hoop. Carrying the ball would be called on nearly every play as a dribblers hand constantly goes underneath the ball and the hesitiation dribble is employed. The player who depends on those type of things to get free would not survive in the old time game where those things were not allowed.
The old game depended on lots of passing, setting screens and picks, the give and go and hitting the open man. Todays game largely is a game of getting yourself to the hoop by getting past your defender with a dribble or quick first step going around him. Watch the old games on ESPN classic and you never see that. The modern clear out is the obvious example of that.
Would todays players develop new skills (in this case the oldtime skills) if they had to? The really good one probably could. The smart ones could. But some of them would be lost.
The reverse is also true. Many of the old players played in a slower game and simply did not have the one-on-one skills necessary to play today. They could not take a defender offthe dribble - they could not simply get themselves past a defender with a few moves - they depended on picks and screens and quick jumpers to get off a shot.
The really great ones - like a Jordan, Bird or Magic could have played and been stars at any time in the game since they had a mixture of both world plus they played with their heads and not just their bodies.
The game is officiated in a way today that would not be recognizable even thirty years ago. If you took Mendy Rudolph and an officiating crew from the 70's and had them call a game today, the number of whistles blowing would be some sort of record. Travelling would be called constantly as players take the quick step before putting the ball to the floor as well as the extra step at the end of many drives to the hoop. Carrying the ball would be called on nearly every play as a dribblers hand constantly goes underneath the ball and the hesitiation dribble is employed. The player who depends on those type of things to get free would not survive in the old time game where those things were not allowed.
The old game depended on lots of passing, setting screens and picks, the give and go and hitting the open man. Todays game largely is a game of getting yourself to the hoop by getting past your defender with a dribble or quick first step going around him. Watch the old games on ESPN classic and you never see that. The modern clear out is the obvious example of that.
Would todays players develop new skills (in this case the oldtime skills) if they had to? The really good one probably could. The smart ones could. But some of them would be lost.
The reverse is also true. Many of the old players played in a slower game and simply did not have the one-on-one skills necessary to play today. They could not take a defender offthe dribble - they could not simply get themselves past a defender with a few moves - they depended on picks and screens and quick jumpers to get off a shot.
The really great ones - like a Jordan, Bird or Magic could have played and been stars at any time in the game since they had a mixture of both world plus they played with their heads and not just their bodies.
Freddie_Freeloader
Freakzoid
pixletwin said:
I think you forgot about the only team that always gave them a fight the New York Knicks.
Ironman1188
SO BE IT
jlcmsu said:
I think a "best player ever" should be a team player. Better yet part of a well playing team. I think that Jordan was very good, no doubt, but the fact that the team pretty well sucked without him seems to make him little more than a ball hog.
The Admiral, David Robinson, was a great player, on a great team, who exemplified professionalism on and off the court. Rather than hype, he was surrounded by respect. And, he tutored and taught the rest of the team how to continue after he retired. Thats greatness.
nash said:
I'm simply talking about dominating everywhere. Jordan could do it in the post with the dunk early in his career and the fade away later in his career. He could score whenever he wanted and get his teammates points whenever he wanted. Not to mention he could dominate on the defensive end of the floor as well. Outside of maybe some of the best post players ever he was one of the best defenders ever. If he didn't want you to score he could do it.
As I said it's much easier for a post player to dominate the game on both ends because of his size and ability. Jordan could do that and he was only 6'6".
nash said:
I honestly think both these guys are way the heck overrated. Then again I don't care much for the guys playing today.
nash said:
Jordan could do it all. There wasn't an aspect he couldn't dominate. Offense, Defense, Passing, Dribbling, etc. He was about as complete a player as has ever played the game.
Lets look at the career stats of a few people to see if we can determine who was the most complete player who ever played the game. I limited this to the major three categories of points, rebounds and assists per game. NBA championships are not an individual achievement but are totally team dependent. MVP awards are subjective and not measured by performance statistics.
Michael Jordan 30.1 PPG 6.2 REB 5.3 AST
Larry Bird 24.3 PPG 10.0 REB 6.3 AST
Bird passed Jordan in two of the three major offensive categories.
Earvin Johnson 19.5 PPG 7.0 REB 11.2 AST
Magic passed Jordan in two of the three major offensive categories and is behind Larry Bird in two of three.
Kareem Abdul Jabbar 24.6 PPG 11.2 REB 3.6 AST
Jordan passed Kareem in two out of three categories. Kareem passed Bird in two of the three major offensive categories.
Julius Erving/ DR. J. 24.2 PPG 8.5 REB 4.2 AST
Jordan passed Dr. J in two of the three categories. Kareem passed him in two and Bird passed him in all three.
Wilt Chamberlain 30.1 PPG 22.9 REB 4.4 AST
Wilt ties with Jordan in points, wins in rebounds and is behind in assists.
Bird is behind in two categories, Kareem behind in all three, Erving is behind WIlt in all three, Magic ahead in one and behind Wilt in two.
Oscar Robertson 25.7 PPG 7.5 REB 9.5 AST
The Big O is ahead of Jordan in two categories and behind in one.
He surpasses Bird, Magic, Kareem and Erving in two categories, and O is behind Wilt in 2.
Bottom line is that the best of the all time all around players cannot claim the lead across the board. Somebody always was better in one phase of the game or another. Larry Bird can sit back and say that nobody ever playedthe game and finished up with better career stats in all three major offensive categories. But so can Jordan, Magic, Chamberlain, and Robertson. So you have five people that can make that claim. According to this method, Julius Erving cannot make that claim nor can Kareem Jabbar.
Unless someone can come up with another player like the above five, I think they are in a distinct class by themselves.
Not a bad All Time team right there.
Wilt in the pivot.
Bird at one forward, Jordan at the other.
Magic and Robertson in the backcourt.
All five men could score, all five could rebound and all five knew how to pass.
Who is the best all around of those five? Depends on how you define BEST. Is the most dominant the best? Then its either Wilt or Jordan. Is the Best the man who brings out the most in his teammates? Then I think you have to go with Bird or Magic.
Try it this way: Add the three categories together to get a total measuring individual productivity.
Chamberlain 57.4
Robertson 42.7
Jordan 41.6
Bird 40.6
Jabbar 39.4
Johnson 37.7
Erving 36.9
When you do that, one name screams out at being completly and utterly in a class by himself - Wilt Chamberlain. Wilt is a full 14.7 productivity points higher than the second man on the list. However, there are only 2.1 points between the grouping of the next three men.
Who was the best is a subjective claim. I have tried to place some measure of objectivity to it with these numbers. And I could have screwed something up since I did not double check but would welcome for others to both check my numbers as well as include other players.
For me Jordan is the best ever. It goes beyond the stats which can be turned to however you want. All these great players have said Jordan is the best. That's good enough for me on top of what I've seen. Not to mention he was voted the greatest athlete of the 20th century.
Last edited:
jlcmsu
no - stats are not subjective - they are a very objective measurement of individual productivity. They depend on nobodys opinion of how good you are or how sweet you are or how dominant you are or anything else that depends on opinion.
You are a smart person and you can look up the definition of the two in any dictionary but I am sure you already know it. Objective is something can be measured using standard tools and gets measurable results. It deals with external facts and not thoughts or feelings. Subjective depends totally on the opinion of a person or even a group of persons. They are produced by ones own thoughts or feelings about the worth of something based on their own criteria.
Officially, the NBA recognizes Points per game, and rebounds per game and assists per game as official statistics. Look it up in the record books. Those are the recognized tools of measurement that produce the leagues official statistics. They give you an objective record.
I think you can make a good case that Jordan may be the greatest player ever to play in the modern era - if you define that era as post Chamberlain/Russell/Robertson. But even then its pretty close in productivity to Bird.
Everybody has a right to their subjective opinion. And its great how you defend yours regarding Mr. Jordan. Thats cool. All I was trying to do was put some objective measurement to it so that it does not come down to unmeasurable things like sweetness or coolness or stuff than can simply never be objectively measured.
Jordans teammates were no slouches as the inclusion of Scottie Pippin into the All Time Best 50 according to the NBA attests.
I agree with you about Chamberlain not bringing out the best in his teammates. No argument there. Once again, it comes down to how you define the best. If the best means bringing out the best in your fellow teammates, then Chamberlain falls short. However, he is so light years ahead in measurable productivity as evidenced by his productivity score of 57.4 which is nearly 15 point ahead of Jordan, and then ahead of Robertson and Bird, that you have to give huge consideration to Wilt.
no - stats are not subjective - they are a very objective measurement of individual productivity. They depend on nobodys opinion of how good you are or how sweet you are or how dominant you are or anything else that depends on opinion.
You are a smart person and you can look up the definition of the two in any dictionary but I am sure you already know it. Objective is something can be measured using standard tools and gets measurable results. It deals with external facts and not thoughts or feelings. Subjective depends totally on the opinion of a person or even a group of persons. They are produced by ones own thoughts or feelings about the worth of something based on their own criteria.
Officially, the NBA recognizes Points per game, and rebounds per game and assists per game as official statistics. Look it up in the record books. Those are the recognized tools of measurement that produce the leagues official statistics. They give you an objective record.
I think you can make a good case that Jordan may be the greatest player ever to play in the modern era - if you define that era as post Chamberlain/Russell/Robertson. But even then its pretty close in productivity to Bird.
Everybody has a right to their subjective opinion. And its great how you defend yours regarding Mr. Jordan. Thats cool. All I was trying to do was put some objective measurement to it so that it does not come down to unmeasurable things like sweetness or coolness or stuff than can simply never be objectively measured.
Jordans teammates were no slouches as the inclusion of Scottie Pippin into the All Time Best 50 according to the NBA attests.
I agree with you about Chamberlain not bringing out the best in his teammates. No argument there. Once again, it comes down to how you define the best. If the best means bringing out the best in your fellow teammates, then Chamberlain falls short. However, he is so light years ahead in measurable productivity as evidenced by his productivity score of 57.4 which is nearly 15 point ahead of Jordan, and then ahead of Robertson and Bird, that you have to give huge consideration to Wilt.
Last edited:
Stats are subjective. Why? Because if you go strictly off the numbers you could say that Dirk is as good as say Bird because of the numbers. (No, I don't know how close they are. I'm just using an example.) There is more to who I determine as the best player ever than just the numbers. They give you a good starting point but you can't base the whole thing on numbers.
Jordan is the greatest player in any era. It's not a close race. It's just not. You can have everyone else and I'll take MJ. The guy did everything you could and dominated at everything you could. The numbers are there and the pure domination of his peers.
Right he had Pippen. Scottie was a pretty good player in his own right. However, I do believe Pippen was made to be the player he turned out because of MJ. Case in Point look at all Pippen did in the years without MJ.
Again, if you base all your stuff on just the numbers then you fall short in being able to judge. Chamberlin had the chance to be the best ever but he could not make his teams good enough to win titles. He dominated in an era where there where few 7fters. I would take Bill Russell over Wilt every day and then some.
You made a good discussion on this and kudos to you for staying with what you believe.
Jordan is the greatest player in any era. It's not a close race. It's just not. You can have everyone else and I'll take MJ. The guy did everything you could and dominated at everything you could. The numbers are there and the pure domination of his peers.
Right he had Pippen. Scottie was a pretty good player in his own right. However, I do believe Pippen was made to be the player he turned out because of MJ. Case in Point look at all Pippen did in the years without MJ.
Again, if you base all your stuff on just the numbers then you fall short in being able to judge. Chamberlin had the chance to be the best ever but he could not make his teams good enough to win titles. He dominated in an era where there where few 7fters. I would take Bill Russell over Wilt every day and then some.
You made a good discussion on this and kudos to you for staying with what you believe.
Something is not something because you or I or anyone claims that it is. There is a difference in what is objective and what is subjective. Points per game are an objective measurement of productivity. Rebounds per game are an objective measurement of productivity. Assists per game are an objective measurement of productivity. All three together produce an additional productivity index to measure a players over all productivity.
Larry Bird 24.3 PPG 10.0 REB 6.3 AST 40.9 total
Dirk Nowitzki 22.3 PPG 8.6 REB 2.6 AST 33.5 total
By this measurement of an objective productivity we can see that Bird surpasses Nowitzki in all three areas that the NBA recognizes.
Frank Deford, a tremendous writer and former editor of Sports Illustrated did an article on Bill Russell in which he introduced another area to be considered with the above three stats - something Deford called "winning percentage". He claimed that Bill Russell played in the highest percentage of games in which his team won than any other single player. He said that this was the most important statistic.
One problem with that is that no individual player ever won an NBA game by himself. Games are won by teams. Russell may have helped his team win. Russell may have been instrumental in his team winning. Russell may have made the key plays that decided the game at crucial times. But he never won an NBA game. His team did.
I would imagine that Jordan, Bird and Johnson all had similar high winning percentages even if they were not as high as Russell.
Regarding Pippin - of course his years without Jordan were not as good - but then he was also older and his skills had begun to erode and diminish. The fact is that the NBA did place him as one of the 50 Best to ever lace up a pair of shoes and play the game. I agree that he was a better player because of Jordan. I agree that he never would have been placed on that All Time Best 50 without Jordan as his teammate. Jordan did that for his teammates. So did Bird and Johnson.
I remember when Indiana State played Michigan State for the NCAA title and everybody made a big deal that Magic beat Bird. Fact was that besides Magic, two other MSU players would play in the NBA. Not a single one of Birds teammates every played in the NBA. Which player had the better supporting cast?
Chamberlain did win world championships with two different teams. Fact.
It matters not how many people he played against who were 7 feet or 6-10 or whatever. He played against the best the world had and he responded with numbers that no player has ever equaled before or since. All you can do is play your best against the best. And there were 7 footers in that era despite the false mythos that Wilt was playing with boys.
nash said:
I explained what I meant because you didn't get my point the first time. I'm sorry you where unable to understand my point in that I was talking about overall domination. I understood your point that it's easy for big guys to dominate guards. You're the one who missed my point.
Not anymore I'm not. The NBA is full of thugs and a league I don't care to watch. I'd rather watch College Basketball, Baseball, or Tiger Woods. I was a huge fan of the NBA during the Johnson, Bird, and Jordan era. That's when the NBA was the NBA. Now, it's just streetball played at a higher level.
Gideon the numbers are objective yes but they do not mean that one person is just this or that. Hence why they are subjective.
This has been a fun discussion but honestly I'm done. Those players are great. I loved watching them or seeing old tapes of Russell, Wilt, etc but for me and most Jordan is the best ever. It comes down to just more than Stats.
piccolodaimaoh
Super Freak
jlcmsu said:
Wilt NEVER said Jordan was the greatest ever. Wilt knew he was the best. When people told him that Jordan is the greatest Wilt would just laugh and let them keep believing whatever they wanted.
When it comes to who people believe are the best it is always subjective to the person themselves. From what I get in your posts one of the reasons you love Jordan so much it that it started when you were a kid and grew and grew. Winning six titles didn't hurt either.
Now I know in this day and age it is hard to compare, the competition is different. But stats don't lie, when Wilt came into the league from the first moment he walked out on the floor he was the best player. Time has only proven this, it is just unfortunate that not everyone has ESPN Classic Sports.
When Magic was a rookie he played Wilt in practice one day. Wilt being up to that point the greatest center in Lakers' history they let the 19 year old Magic play against the 45 year old Chamberlain. Wilt put a hurting on Magic.
The differences between Wilt and Jordan are vast, like the differences between a lion and a spider. Both dominate the worlds they live in, but head to head it isn't even close.
When you look at Wilt's stats it is staggering, I said out loud "Is this guy from another planet?!"
I know this probably will not change your mind but I hope this doesn't go on deaf ears.
Wilt was as arrogant a player as there has ever been. He was great but his ego would not let him believe anyone was better even if they where. Wilt wouldn't even be the in my top two players. Wilt was great no doubt but not the greatest. Jordan would have just thrown down on him like he did anyone else.
Similar threads
