Kareem on the NBA

  1. 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:
    [QUOTE]Dirk and Kevin made major contributions to their teams at a age that would have had them in college in prior decades. Seems                                           
    Posted by SeemsToMe[/QUOTE]

    You are right, but missing my point though. There was a thread about the career stats of Duncan and KG. And a lot of guys said sth like: KG didn't contribute from the beginning like Duncan did". Thats exactly what I`m saying. Of course he didn't cause he was much younger as a Rookie and not ready for the NBA. At the same age, similiar stats. But for the first years -- /> low contribution for his team...
     
  2. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : You are right, but missing my point though. There was a thread about the career stats of Duncan and KG. And a lot of guys said sth like: KG didn't contribute from the beginning like Duncan did". Thats exactly what I`m saying. Of course he didn't cause he was much younger as a Rookie and not ready for the NBA. At the same age, similiar stats. But for the first years -- /> low contribution for his team...
    Posted by Gasthoerer[/QUOTE]

    Quoting you from above- "But for the first years--/> low contribution for his team"

      And how does that matter?  If he was only contributing at a low level, how do you know that another player that would have had his roster spot had he gone to college, would have contributed more? The bottom line is, that at age 22, both Dirk and Kevin were bonified stars in the nba.
    Seems
     
  3. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

    Bellamy's rookie season: 1961-62
    Thurmond's rookie season: 1963-64
    Reed's rookie season: 1964-65

    So by the time all these three were playing in the league (1964-65), the Celtics had already won 7 championships.

    By the time any of these three were playing in the league (1961-62), the Celtics had already won 4 championships against which African American big men?

    Wilt, Wilt, Wilt, Wilt and Wilt....







     
  4. 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:
    [QUOTE]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.  
    Posted by painter[/QUOTE]

    This is an illogical reasoning by itself. If more teams == disperal draft == diluted talent, then the Magic/Bird era, many regarded as the golden era of the NBA, should be worse/more diluted than the 8-team league in 1960. Why not? It's a 23-team league vs an 8-team league.

    The problem with Celtics fans reasoning, who claim the 60s was the most talented league, is simple:

    1) they think league talent is static, as if it's determined by God in 1940, that only 100 players are fit to play in the NBA at any time.

    2) they think NBA talent is born, not trained.


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    So back to the point of the thread, does Kareem have his statue yet?
     
  6. 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:
    [QUOTE]1) they think league talent is static, as if it's determined by God in 1940, that only 100 players are fit to play in the NBA at any time. 2) they think NBA talent is born, not trained.
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    If you would read the posts above you would recognize that no one is saying what you quoted there.

    Of course there is much more talend today, but the questions is: Is it 4 times more? Espacially if you take into account that todays players need to be really big. People are taller than back in the 60s but still only few players have the physical ability to play in todays league. And you can't teach size, right?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    Hard to compare which era has the best talent...  I think many people who witnessed the 60's on up may be comparing the quality of the game between the era's rather than the talent.

    I always wonder... if todays talent is so superior & the NBA allowing rampant travelling, no hand checking etc, how were the teams in the old days able to score so many more points?

    Also, someone made the argument that in the old days teams didnt play defense and therefore scoring & rebounding stats were artificially higher. However, if teams were scoring so much more by putting the ball in the hole...how could rebounding stats be so much higher?? Lot less missed shots to board, no?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    [QUOTE]Hard to compare which era has the best talent...  I think many people who witnessed the 60's on up may be comparing the quality of the game between the era's rather than the talent. I always wonder... if todays talent is so superior & the NBA allowing rampant travelling, no hand checking etc, how were the teams in the old days able to score so many more points? Also, someone made the argument that in the old days teams didnt play defense and therefore scoring & rebounding stats were artificially higher. However, if teams were scoring so much more by putting the ball in the hole...how could rebounding stats be so much higher?? Lot less missed shots to board, no?
    Posted by Karllost[/QUOTE]

    One other thing... in the old days there was no such thing as a 3point line... so again, how did they score so many more points?
     
  9. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : If you would read the posts above you would recognize that no one is saying what you quoted there. Of course there is much more talend today, but the questions is: Is it 4 times more?
    Posted by Gasthoerer[/QUOTE]
    What's the big deal if there are 4 times more basketball talents? Is there a rule saying that a talent pool cannot grow 4 times? Look at the field of computer science. How many times do you think the talent pool grow since the 60s?

    Look at the African Americans getting exposed to the game, and opportunities at high school, college and professional levels they get now, as compared to the late 50s/early 60s. Not to mention the mega million $$$$ business here, a motivation to hone their skills in this field to strike gold.

    There is simply no match.




     
  10. 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:
    [QUOTE]Hard to compare which era has the best talent...  I think many people who witnessed the 60's on up may be comparing the quality of the game between the era's rather than the talent. I always wonder... if todays talent is so superior & the NBA allowing rampant travelling, no hand checking etc, how were the teams in the old days able to score so many more points? Also, someone made the argument that in the old days teams didnt play defense and therefore scoring & rebounding stats were artificially higher. However, if teams were scoring so much more by putting the ball in the hole...how could rebounding stats be so much higher?? Lot less missed shots to board, no?
    Posted by Karllost[/QUOTE]

    Looking at the games of the old (60s, 70s), I would consider those games of low quality. They are very much like the gunslinging teams in the 80s: quick shots, poor defense, as represented by the Doug Moe Nuggets.  They average 7900+ FGA (or 96+ FGA/game) every year. That's a team we know of no chance of winning championships: don't know how to milk the clock, quick shots, trying to outscoring you. That's not the type of playoff basketball we have been witnessing in the past 2 decades.

    Then you look at the league average of the early 60s. In 80-game seasons:

    1960 8151 FGA (101.9/game for each team)
    1961 8642 (108.0)
    1962 8619 (107.7)
    1963 8099 (101.2)
    1964 7926 (99.0)

    The league averages were even higher than the gunslinging Doug Moe Nuggets. No wonder they get so many points and rebounds. The stats were simply inflated.

    In 2011, the league average is only 6660 (81.2/game)

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    Anyone here think Babe Ruth would not be a good player in this century?? I think he'd be even better.  Ted Williams?
    The Greats would be GREAT regardless of the era.
    If Yaz played in NY, he'd have a statue in centerfield (they estimate he lost 15 HR"s per year at Fenway!!)
    Wilt would be great now, Kareem, Russell, Cousy, West..........the Greats are timeless and we insult them all with ridiculous posts like this!
     
  12. 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:
    [QUOTE]Anyone here think Babe Ruth would not be a good player in this century?? I think he'd be even better.  Ted Williams? The Greats would be GREAT regardless of the era. If Yaz played in NY, he'd have a statue in centerfield (they estimate he lost 15 HR"s per year at Fenway!!) Wilt would be great now, Kareem, Russell, Cousy, West..........the Greats are timeless and we insult them all with ridiculous posts like this!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    If Wilt play in this era, get stats comparable to Shaq, win 2 championships, are we going to say "Wilt sucks"?  That is so lame.

    Just because we don't call him GOAT it means we are deriding his game, calling him Shawn Bradley or Chris Washburn, huh?

    If Wilt plays in this era, he can be ONE OF THE GREATS, a la Shaq, he is unlikely to be the GOAT, just like no one has ever claimed Shaq as the GOAT. Now what? are you going to cry bloody murder?

    Hedley, your sour attitude has sold you out.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    It's just so easy  to say  anyplyer fromm any era wouldn be as great in the current era. By definition, youre saying this era is the greatest of all time. In ten years, that era will be the greatest of all time, by default.

    Ill admit, it would be difficult to imagine any player being able to avg 50 points and 20+ rebounds today. Now, todays centers are garbage imo compared to most other era's.  Take a player like DH...most of his career hes been great based upon athleticism... Tall, strong, quick, can jump... pure athlete...not much on the skill side. Outside of DH...who the heck else plays center in the NBA that would sniff top 100 GOAT's??

    Wilt was tall also, quick, fast, strong, jumped and possessed many more skills than DH. Wilt went up against much tougher opposition than DH... Wilt had Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy...DH has Perkins, Bynum & I cant think of anyone...

    Read an article that most players measured in the old days were wearing socks but todays players get measured in sneakers, adding 1-2 more inches. Anyway, heres an interesting read comparing the era's

     http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100224214633AAvvebd

    Honestly, I cant see Wilt avging 50/25 in this era... but I cant imagine it when he did it in his era either.  In his prime, he would statistically dominate this eras NBA...no question in my mind.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    If we rewind back 20 years, there are 4 great centers in this generation if we ignore DH: Ewing, Hakeem, DRob, and Shaq. Everyone has had his own legacy.

    Had Wilt played in this era, would he be averaging 50/25? Not a chance. When you are talking about 41 available rebounds and 81 FGA/game (as of 2010-11 season), there are just not enough rebounds/FGA for one to accumulate such stats.

    But getting stats comparable to Ewing/DRob/Hakeem/Shaq is no shame. It would definitely rank him as one of the greats. But are you folks upset if we don't call a hypothetical Wilt playing in this era the GOAT?



     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    [QUOTE]If we rewind back 20 years, there are 4 great centers in this generation if we ignore DH: Ewing, Hakeem, DRob, and Shaq. Everyone has had his own legacy. Had Wilt played in this era, would he be averaging 50/25? Not a chance. When you are talking about 41 available rebounds and 81 FGA/game (as of 2010-11 season), there are just not enough rebounds/FGA for one to accumulate such stats. But getting stats comparable to Ewing/DRob/Hakeem/Shaq is no shame. It would definitely rank him as one of the greats. But are you folks upset if we don't call a hypothetical Wilt playing in this era the GOAT?
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    The fact is you're just speculating what Wilt's  stats would be and expecting us to stipulate to it. Would Ewing average 50/25 if he played in Wilts era?  

    Further, if youre suggesting Wilts stats in this era would equate to Ewings stats, for example. Then by that definition, all the other great centers stats of Wilts era  should be adjusted pro rata....

    Adjusting Wilt down from 50/25 to Ewing numbers would mean the other Wilt era centers would have pathetic stats.    In fact, all the other great players like the Big O, West, Baylor etc  would all be adjusted  (reduced by 60% or so) to equate to modern day stats...essentially putting them in a category of subaverage players.


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

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : Bellamy's rookie season: 1961-62 Thurmond's rookie season: 1963-64 Reed's rookie season: 1964-65 So by the time all these three were playing in the league (1964-65), the Celtics had already won 7 championships. By the time any of these three were playing in the league (1961-62), the Celtics had already won 4 championships against which African American big men? Wilt, Wilt, Wilt, Wilt and Wilt....
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    BOY, do your freakin' homework, Wilt came into the league with the Philadephia Warriors in 1960. So, he had a one year head start on the other bigs of that era (outside of Russell). The Cs initial championships were against the St Louis Hawks and one Bob Pettit.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    Karl, thanks for the link....some great reading in there....Bill was 11-0 in series deciding games.....that is not a stat that can be adjusted for different eras....he was one of a kind!!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from calvinator. Show calvinator's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    I won't deny that there are some great athletes playing in today's game. But it is quite comical when you look at the center position for the Celtics. The most athletic Celtic centers that most remember would be 1.Russell 2.Cowens3.Parrish and 4.Perk.  
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    um....Perk....? ...athletic....? I'm not sure on that one.....but I did like his role on our team...and I guess he was a great locker room presence.....he will be missed...
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from calvinator. Show calvinator's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    [QUOTE]um....Perk....? ...athletic....? I'm not sure on that one.....but I did like his role on our team...and I guess he was a great locker room presence.....he will be missed...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Hey Duke4,

    Keep sending in those posts. I like much of what you say. I don't think Perk has any athletic ability. What I was showing is that everyone talks about how much more athletic players are today, Perk is way below our centers from the 60's to 80's.  Russell and Cowens could run circles around him and were both much quicker and better leapers. Have you ever seen the video of the Cowens dunk were he took off vertically from outside the paint and slammed it home. I wonder if  today's kids know how great of an athlete Cowens was. And we both know about Russell's athleticism. 
     
  21. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : BOY, do your freakin' homework, Wilt came into the league with the Philadephia Warriors in 1960. So, he had a one year head start on the other bigs of that era (outside of Russell). The Cs initial championships were against the St Louis Hawks and one Bob Pettit.
    Posted by henryfinkel[/QUOTE]
    Yep, one Bob Pettit is an African American?

    Here is a cent, buy a clue.
     
  22. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : The fact is you're just speculating what Wilt's  stats would be and expecting us to stipulate to it. Would Ewing average 50/25 if he played in Wilts era?   Further, if youre suggesting Wilts stats in this era would equate to Ewings stats, for example. Then by that definition, all the other great centers stats of Wilts era  should be adjusted pro rata.... Adjusting Wilt down from 50/25 to Ewing numbers would mean the other Wilt era centers would have pathetic stats.    In fact, all the other great players like the Big O, West, Baylor etc  would all be adjusted  (reduced by 60% or so) to equate to modern day stats...essentially putting them in a category of subaverage players.
    Posted by Karllost[/QUOTE]

    Aren't we all speculating? You can speculate that Wilt will get mouth-dropping stats in this era. I can speculate otherwise.

    You said Wilt will average 50/25. I say he wouldn't. No player is capable of averaging 50 ppg in this era. The greatest scorer of this generation couldn't. The greatest rebounder of this generation couldn't. There just aren't enough possessions in a game to achieve that, but how convenient for you to dodge that...

    And 50/25 is an anomaly. It's not Wilt's career stats, which is 30.1/22.9. Take away 20% of the possessions, factor in his loss of physical advantage, and the money lure make him play until he's 40 (to further diminish the stats), making it a career average of 22/12.  Now, is it a great career? is it stats for GOAT?

    Don't forget, you can speculate, so can I.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Kareem on the NBA

    In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kareem on the NBA : If Wilt play in this era, get stats comparable to Shaq, win 2 championships, are we going to say "Wilt sucks"?  That is so lame. Just because we don't call him GOAT it means we are deriding his game, calling him Shawn Bradley or Chris Washburn, huh? If Wilt plays in this era, he can be ONE OF THE GREATS, a la Shaq, he is unlikely to be the GOAT, just like no one has ever claimed Shaq as the GOAT. Now what? are you going to cry bloody murder? Hedley, your sour attitude has sold you out.
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    ?????????
     

Share