Kareem on the NBA

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    another example limited to italy : now marco belinelli is a starter in the nba ; a much much much better shooting guard we had in the 80s, antonello riva, used to watch the nba as i did, on tv
    Posted by caesarthecat


    Caesar, be careful, when you bring up foreign players, someone here will use Sasha Vujacic as an example of how sucky the current NBA is, that how Vujacic wouldn't be good enough to be a ball-boy back in the great 60s.

    Belinelli, Gasol, Manu, Dirk, Parker, Scola, etc. don't even exist in the league nowadays. According to some here, the only foreigner is Sasha and that tells you how the foreign players' lack of talent dilute the league...




     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    In Response to Kareem on the NBA : Duke Great subject Duke. This should bring out all those fans that have strong feelings about the players and teams of their generation. My guess is that most posters will, for the most part, support those players that they watched during their youth.It seems the older you get, the better the "Good old days" of one's youth become. SeemsToMe
    Posted by SeemsToMe


    You hit it on the nose. And duke is one of those oldtimers who criticize everything that ain't the '60's. So boring. If the celtics had been winning or even competitive in the last quarter century he would be extolling the great celtics of today and how much better they are than 50 years ago. Fact of the matter is that in the '60's half the players were white, the dribble was the boring up and down variety and set shots were in. Most of the players from the 60's would barely be D-league today, and I'm referring to the super stars of that era. The one big exception is Wilt. Why? Because of his immense size and athleticism, not unlike todays players. How can you possibly even hint that  those players could even compete with todays. You can put all the best players of that era onto one team and they would be hardpressed to compete with even todays Clippers or many of the other cellar dwellers, like the current celtics will soon be. This is true in pretty much all sports. Do you really think Babe Ruth would even come close to todays superstars. It was a completely different racist era where black players were not welcome. It's laughable when you think Russell had to compete with the likes of Henry Finkle and Leroy Ellis. These were the centers of that day. 90% of the players back then couldn't even dunk. Jumping Johhnny Green was a phenom back then but now every bench warmer today even the 12th man is better the Johnny Greens of then.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : Russ never played against Finkel, idiot!! So, the two WS the Sox have won this century out weigh the 25 the Yankees won in the 1900's?  Laughable. BABE RUTH???  He would MURDER today's pitchers!! So much for your argument!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11


    Henry finkel was a San Diego Rocket or Laker from 1966-1969 and a kelt after that. So do your research before you open your big mouth. Who's the idiot now?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    please, lets just ignore the kids guys......these posts aren't worth reading.....90% of the players in the '60's couldn't dunk?? ......how old are you ....?  ....besides Wilt, there were dozens upon dozens upon....well, I think you get my drift..... just take a look at the rosters and see for yourself....since you obviously didn't see them when they actually played.....if you would like me to help, I'll be glad to post a huge list of names....but I think that would be quite an embarrasment to you....
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : You hit it on the nose. And duke is one of those oldtimers who criticize everything that ain't the '60's. So boring. If the celtics had been winning or even competitive in the last quarter century he would be extolling the great celtics of today and how much better they are than 50 years ago. Fact of the matter is that in the '60's half the players were white, the dribble was the boring up and down variety and set shots were in. Most of the players from the 60's would barely be D-league today, and I'm referring to the super stars of that era. The one big exception is Wilt. Why? Because of his immense size and athleticism, not unlike todays players. How can you possibly even hint that  those players could even compete with todays. You can put all the best players of that era onto one team and they would be hardpressed to compete with even todays Clippers or many of the other cellar dwellers, like the current celtics will soon be. This is true in pretty much all sports. Do you really think Babe Ruth would even come close to todays superstars. It was a completely different racist era where black players were not welcome. It's laughable when you think Russell had to compete with the likes of Henry Finkle and Leroy Ellis. These were the centers of that day. 90% of the players back then couldn't even dunk. Jumping Johhnny Green was a phenom back then but now every bench warmer today even the 12th man is better the Johnny Greens of then.
    Posted by lakersavenger
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA :
    Posted by Duke4

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    I can't believe you actually made these statements...............mind boggling!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from henryfinkel. Show henryfinkel's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    To set the record straight. Henry J. "Hank" Finkel didn’t arrive in Boston until August 1969. He played three seasons with the Los Angeles Lakers and the San Diego Rockets (later known as the Houston Rockets), prior to joining the Celtics, where he played six years--helping them to a title in 1974 against Kareem and the Bucks with his strong bench play.

    To address Lakersavenger and other misinformed NBA neophytes, the 60's featured the big man talents of not only Russell and Chamberlain, but also Walt Bellamy (6'11"), Willis Reed (6'10"), and Nate Thurmond (6'11"), to name a few. Tell me honestly, what other "era" can touch this? Outside of Dwight Howard, the big men of today would have been eaten alive by these giants of the past. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jrleftfoot. Show jrleftfoot's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    He must have been High again, we all know he loves the green stuff. Just saying...
    Posted by RicoCeltic

    YOU ARE ALWAYS JUST SAYING---SOMETHING STUPID.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    To set the record straight. Henry J. "Hank" Finkel didn’t arrive in Boston until August 1969. He played three seasons with the Los Angeles Lakers and the San Diego Rockets (later known as the Houston Rockets), prior to joining the Celtics, where he played six years--helping them to a title in 1974 against Kareem and the Bucks with his strong bench play. To address Lakersavenger and other misinformed NBA neophytes, the 60's featured the big man talents of not only Russell and Chamberlain, but also Walt Bellamy (6'11"), Willis Reed (6'10"), and Nate Thurmond (6'11"), to name a few. Tell me honestly, what other "era" can touch this? Outside of Dwight Howard, the big men of today would have been eaten alive by these giants of the past. 
    Posted by henryfinkel

     
      henryfinkel
    Sorry Henry but you have got it all wrong! The players and teams of the 60's Benifited statistically from a style of play which promoted high scoring with little regard to the defensive side of the battle. Thus the high scoring and rebounding numbers compiled by the players of the 60's are quite bogus. As a matter of fact, the big men of the 80's on to the present, are vastly superior to the players of the 60's.

      Seems
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tayshawn. Show Tayshawn's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    Kareem is bitter about not getting his statue at Staples, and he tends to smoke a lot of that mind altering substance that is green and sticky.

    Most celtic fans believe every word that Tim Donaghy says, without regarding the fact that the NBA banned him and he had to serve jail time for his mistakes.

    silly celtic fans Surprised
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from painter. Show painter's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    Every time the league added a team or teams, there was a dispersal draft that was intended to stock the new team(s) with a core of decent but not frontline players to be somewhat competitive, and they were allotted favorable drafting positions.  But, when you take the 5th, 6th, or 7th player from each team, who will replace them?  Everyone moved up by a few slots and the end of each bench now looked like players on a bad semi-pro team.  Despite being the world's best league, the NBA can't compare, top to bottom, with itself from '60s through the late '80s.  
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Gasthoerer. Show Gasthoerer's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    I think this is an interesting thread.

    IMO the players of the good old days would have major problems playing against todays players simply to the fact of better training and medical staff today. One poster mentioned the better fundamentals of current era players and he is right IMO but that won't make up for it.

    BUT (and this is a big but) with proper training the players of that era could transfer into todays game nicely IMO. But actually this is not how one should compare those eras.

    One should compare those eras about the competition within itself. And todays league is clearly watered down (at least on the elite level). This is due to expansion (even the international players addition can't make up for that), salary cap (which keeps the league even but without real top teams) and drafting players to early (talking again about that fundamental thing -- /> even KG and Dirk were far from beeing NBA ready).

    This is of course my opinion, but let me ad two examples to support my statement. (1) A core of 3 legit players almost immediately gives you a ring today. Example the Cs (and they were far from their prime already) and Miami this year. (Remember, Miami has freaking Joel Anthony as starting center! And some guys think Russell couldn't transfer into todays NBA). In the 60s, 3 players were not enough (less talent but far less teams and no cap) just ask West, Wilt and Baylor. In the 80s teams with 3 or more superstars fought against each other with almost every year different winners. (2) D.Howard is considered as the best C in the league! A guy without any offensive skills. Hakeem in his prime would eat him alive. Shaq with 39 and hardly able to run the floor more than once is a difference maker in this league (when healthy). Perkins is considered as franchise C. Bill Russell without todays training would run circles around him. Bynum with a shot knee and mediocre offense talent is considered as future of the Lakers franchise.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tayshawn. Show Tayshawn's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    I think this is an interesting thread. IMO the players of the good old days would have major problems playing against todays players simply to the fact of better training and medical staff today. One poster mentioned the better fundamentals of current era players and he is right IMO but that won't make up for it. BUT (and this is a big but) with proper training the players of that era could transfer into todays game nicely IMO. But actually this is not how one should compare those eras. One should compare those eras about the competition within itself. And todays league is clearly watered down (at least on the elite level). This is due to expansion (even the international players addition can't make up for that), salary cap (which keeps the league even but without real top teams) and drafting players to early (talking again about that fundamental thing -- /> even KG and Dirk were far from beeing NBA ready). This is of course my opinion, but let me ad two examples to support my statement. (1) A core of 3 legit players almost immediately gives you a ring today. Example the Cs (and they were far from their prime already) and Miami this year. (Remember, Miami has freaking Joel Anthony as starting center! And some guys think Russell couldn't transfer into todays NBA). In the 60s, 3 players were not enough (less talent but far less teams and no cap) just ask West, Wilt and Baylor. In the 80s teams with 3 or more superstars fought against each other with almost every year different winners. (2) D.Howard is considered as the best C in the league! A guy without any offensive skills. Hakeem in his prime would eat him alive. Shaq with 39 and hardly able to run the floor more than once is a difference maker in this league (when healthy). Perkins is considered as franchise C. Bill Russell without todays training would run circles around him. Bynum with a shot knee and mediocre offense talent is considered as future of the Lakers franchise.
    Posted by Gasthoerer


    All this from the same guy that stated dirk was far better than Kobe this year. When I pulled the stats on him, he quickly backtracked as the usual celtic fan does. Laughing
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    I think this is an interesting thread. IMO the players of the good old days would have major problems playing against todays players simply to the fact of better training and medical staff today. One poster mentioned the better fundamentals of current era players and he is right IMO but that won't make up for it. BUT (and this is a big but) with proper training the players of that era could transfer into todays game nicely IMO. But actually this is not how one should compare those eras. One should compare those eras about the competition within itself. And todays league is clearly watered down (at least on the elite level). This is due to expansion (even the international players addition can't make up for that), salary cap (which keeps the league even but without real top teams) and drafting players to early (talking again about that fundamental thing -- /> even KG and Dirk were far from beeing NBA ready). This is of course my opinion, but let me ad two examples to support my statement. (1) A core of 3 legit players almost immediately gives you a ring today. Example the Cs (and they were far from their prime already) and Miami this year. (Remember, Miami has freaking Joel Anthony as starting center! And some guys think Russell couldn't transfer into todays NBA). In the 60s, 3 players were not enough (less talent but far less teams and no cap) just ask West, Wilt and Baylor. In the 80s teams with 3 or more superstars fought against each other with almost every year different winners. (2) D.Howard is considered as the best C in the league! A guy without any offensive skills. Hakeem in his prime would eat him alive. Shaq with 39 and hardly able to run the floor more than once is a difference maker in this league (when healthy). Perkins is considered as franchise C. Bill Russell without todays training would run circles around him. Bynum with a shot knee and mediocre offense talent is considered as future of the Lakers franchise.
    Posted by Gasthoerer


      Gasthoerer
     When it comes to a watered down league, its the 50's and 60's that take 1st prize. The last 30 years  has seen the greatest influx of talent, on a per team basis, in the history of the game. What is your line of thinking that leads you to the conclusion that the present game is "watered down" when compared to the
     "good old days"?

    Seems 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Gasthoerer. Show Gasthoerer's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    What is your line of thinking that leads you to the conclusion that the present game is "watered down" when compared to the  "good old days"? Seems 
    Posted by SeemsToMe


    Well, actually I've explained that in my previous post. Of course there is much more talent "around" today. But: There are much more teams as well and a salary cap which makes it difficult to add more than 3 quality players. This plus the reason that a lot of players come in the league way to early led to my conclusion.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from larry1717. Show larry1717's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    Vermont, I disagree with you.  Players today want to win as much as players back then.  Everyone LOVES to win and you can't tell me Lebron doesn't want to win as much as Chamberlain or West or Heinsoln or any other player of that era. The difference is the player back then was a "slave" because management had all the power and today's player is getting paid for that love.   Nice to have a job you love AND get paid well for it.   We all wish we had jobs like that!
    Posted by Celtsfan4life


    Back then, 50's and 60's the NBA teams were just barely holding onto fiscal life.  There was NO big time TV contract.  Management for many teams was just getting by.  You stated the player back then was a "slave".  Do some homework!  We are speaking about the NBA not major league baseball.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from larry1717. Show larry1717's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : You hit it on the nose. And duke is one of those oldtimers who criticize everything that ain't the '60's. So boring. If the celtics had been winning or even competitive in the last quarter century he would be extolling the great celtics of today and how much better they are than 50 years ago. Fact of the matter is that in the '60's half the players were white, the dribble was the boring up and down variety and set shots were in. Most of the players from the 60's would barely be D-league today, and I'm referring to the super stars of that era. The one big exception is Wilt. Why? Because of his immense size and athleticism, not unlike todays players. How can you possibly even hint that  those players could even compete with todays. You can put all the best players of that era onto one team and they would be hardpressed to compete with even todays Clippers or many of the other cellar dwellers, like the current celtics will soon be. This is true in pretty much all sports. Do you really think Babe Ruth would even come close to todays superstars. It was a completely different racist era where black players were not welcome. It's laughable when you think Russell had to compete with the likes of Henry Finkle and Leroy Ellis. These were the centers of that day. 90% of the players back then couldn't even dunk. Jumping Johhnny Green was a phenom back then but now every bench warmer today even the 12th man is better the Johnny Greens of then.
    Posted by lakersavenger


    You are a complete Goofus.  In the early 60's, right after Cousy and Heinsohn retired, Red Started 5 black players. Do a little reading about the 60's before you open up your mouth.  Russell, who when I met him appeared to have a dark skin color, was the first black coach of any of the major sports in the when?  60's!  By the way, who of todays players would give Russell a hard time?  No one that I can see.  There is nobody close to Wilt and Russell had Wilt to compete against many times a year.

    In the 60's there was hardly a player who shot a set shot?  Who the hell are you trying to kid?  The last great set shot shooter I can think of was Dolph Shayes who played maily in the 50's.

    I can not stand IDIOTS like you who write pure BS as if it was the truth.  Get some basketball history books and study them.  You are one STUPID NBA fan.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : You are a complete Goofus.  In the early 60's, right after Cousy and Heinsohn retired, Red Started 5 black players. Do a little reading about the 60's before you open up your mouth.  Russell, who when I met him appeared to have a dark skin color, was the first black coach of any of the major sports in the when?  60's!  By the way, who of todays players would give Russell a hard time?  No one that I can see.  There is nobody close to Wilt and Russell had Wilt to compete against many times a year. In the 60's there was hardly a player who shot a set shot?  Who the hell are you trying to kid?  The last great set shot shooter I can think of was Dolph Shayes who played maily in the 50's. I can not stand IDIOTS like you who write pure BS as if it was the truth.  Get some basketball history books and study them.  You are one STUPID NBA fan.
    Posted by larry1717

    larry
     Pick your poisson!
    http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=2011&year_max=2011&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=80&height_max=91&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=g&c1comp=gt&c1val=56&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=pts_per_g
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : Well, actually I've explained that in my previous post. Of course there is much more talent "around" today. But: There are much more teams as well and a salary cap which makes it difficult to add more than 3 quality players. This plus the reason that a lot of players come in the league way to early led to my conclusion.
    Posted by Gasthoerer


      You did in deed  present some analysis. Sorry for the oversite. I'll get back to you in a while with my response to some of your comments.
    Seems
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    please, lets just ignore the kids guys......these posts aren't worth reading.....90% of the players in the '60's couldn't dunk?? ......how old are you ....?  ....besides Wilt, there were dozens upon dozens upon....well, I think you get my drift..... just take a look at the rosters and see for yourself....since you obviously didn't see them when they actually played.....if you would like me to help, I'll be glad to post a huge list of names....but I think that would be quite an embarrasment to you....
    Posted by Duke4


    Duke reminds me of an old uncle of mine who always lived in the past and talked only derisively of anything current. It was always "in the old days". That's why young people can't stand old codgers. To even suggest that because a few players could dunk that the entire league back then was better than today is so phockin ludicrous. The keltics back then had Russell and his cast and only had Wilt to contend with. Who else did he have to deal with? Well start with the Lakers, all his triumphs were against great HOF Laker centers like Darrell Imhoff and Leroy Ellis, and yet the Lakers still gave them their run for the money with just 2 quality players in West and Baylor, and no de facto center. How many times did you even see Imhoff or Ellis dunk? Those two would likely not even be qualified to be a 12th man on any of todays super rosters.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tayshawn. Show Tayshawn's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    I have only seen a couple of NBA games from the 60's, but they were not clear at all condsidering it was in black and white and the cameraman could not focus the camera, and it was basically all jacked up. Everyone of the players that I could see through the haze looked a lot like high school players of today with the exception that they wore very short shorts. The fundamentals were great but it was very boring overall. Laughing

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : Well, actually I've explained that in my previous post. Of course there is much more talent "around" today. But: There are much more teams as well and a salary cap which makes it difficult to add more than 3 quality players. This plus the reason that a lot of players come in the league way to early led to my conclusion.
    Posted by Gasthoerer


    Gasthoerer,
    The increase in the number of teams(from 8 to 30) since the 1950's have been more than off-set by the number of blacks that are now able to play in the nba. In the 50's and 60's blacks were very limited by segregation and the lack of a high school diploma to be able to go to college. College basketball was not a very viable option for blacks in those days.

      As to the lack of fundamental because of skipping college. They spend 4 years learning the game from the best possible teachers and for many will have played far more minutes than they would have if they had gone to college for 4 years. You get a better picture of their progress if you check their stats after 4 yrs. in the pros. Go back to the 50's and 60's and compare with 1st. year pros. with 4 years of college  under their belt. If you've got what it takes you will succeed without 4 years of college ball.
    Seems
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Gasthoerer. Show Gasthoerer's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : Gasthoerer, The increase in the number of teams(from 8 to 30) since the 1950's have been more than off-set by the number of blacks that are now able to play in the nba. Posted by SeemsToMe

    That is your opinion, which I respect but mine is different. You should also consider that there is no space in the league for average athlets with good basketball skills any more. That limits the amount of players available as well. You didn't consider the salary cap either.
    Miami is currently the strongest team in the league. They have Greg Anthony and Mike Bibby as starters!  

    As to the lack of fundamental because of skipping college. They spend 4 years learning the game from the best possible teachers and for many will have played far more minutes than they would have if they had gone to college for 4 years. Posted by SeemsToMe

    You may be right, even if I`m not 100 % convinced that the kids learn all the fundamentals at the pro level. But: Even if they learn them better than in college, still they play a few years on a poor level due to the lack of fundamentals or because they are physicaly just not ready. Just look at guys who entered the league later: Bird and Duncan --> direct impact.  Dirk and KG --> No direct impact.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : That is your opinion, which I respect but mine is different. You should also consider that there is no space in the league for average athlets with good basketball skills any more. That limits the amount of players available as well. You didn't consider the salary cap either. Miami is currently the strongest team in the league. They have Greg Anthony and Mike Bibby as starters!   You may be right, even if I`m not 100 % convinced that the kids learn all the fundamentals at the pro level. But: Even if they learn them better than in college, still they play a few years on a poor level due to the lack of fundamentals or because they are physicaly just not ready. Just look at guys who entered the league later: Bird and Duncan -- /> direct impact.  Dirk and KG --> No direct impact.
    Posted by Gasthoerer


      "One should compare those eras about the competition within itself. And todays league is clearly watered down (at least on the elite level). This is due to expansion (even the international players addition can't make up for that), salary cap (which keeps the league even but without real top teams) and drafting players to early (talking again about that fundamental thing -- /> even KG and Dirk were far from beeing NBA ready"

     Speaking of top teams--- 
                    The 1960's had 1 team that played .800 ball for the season
                      "   2000"s had 3   "       "       "       "     "    "    "      " 

    Here are the figures on Bird, Duncan, Garnett,and Dirk at age 22 or earlier in the nba for pts per game and total pts scored.
     Bird-- age 22--in college 
    Duncan--age 22--21.7 per game--1784 pts.
                  "   21--21,1  "      "   --1731   "
    Nowitski--"    22--21.8 "      "    --977    "
                  "    21--18.5  "    "    --1435   "
                 "    20-- 8.2    "   "     --385    "
    Garnett    "   22-- 20.8  "     "   --977     "
                 "    21-- 18.5  "    "    --1518   "
                "     20-- 17.0  "    "    --1309   "
                 "    19-- 10.4  "    "    --835     "

      Dirk and Kevin made major contributions to their teams at a age that would have had them in college in prior decades.

    Seems                                           
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share