PDA

View Full Version : List of Guys from the 60's,70's,80's,90's, where would they rank in the league now??



JordansBulls
10-27-2008, 10:05 AM
Where would the following players rank if in the league nowadays in their prime?


Rick Barry

Dave Cowens

Walt Frazier

John Havilicek

Earl Monroe

Willis Reed

David Robinson

Bernard King

Julius Erving

Oscar Robertson

Paul Arizin

Hal Greer

Elgin Baylor

Kevin Mchale

James Worthy


When you rank those 15 players, rank as if each player was individually in the league. So if it says "Rick Barry" then just assume only he is in the league from the list of players above with the current players in the league. Or if it says "Julius Erving" rank him as if he is the only player in the league from the list above with the current guys we have in the league.


I just want to see how many posters would view how good players from the 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's would be in the league today with the exception of the "Immortal 6" and Prime Shaq and Hakeem"

SteveNash
10-27-2008, 05:43 PM
I think they'd all do pretty well in the league today though I wouldn't put any of them in the best player in the league category.

All Stars:
Walt Frazier
David Robinson
Oscar Robertson
Kevin Mchale

Borderline All Stars:
Rick Barry
Julius Erving
James Worthy

Starters:
John Havilicek
Dave Cowens
Earl Monroe
Willis Reed
Bernard King
Hal Greer
Elgin Baylor

Benchwarmer:
Paul Arzin

Obviously this kind of rating makes it a little out of whack. Hal Greer would be better but wouldn't be awarded with an All Star appearance most likely because of his he wouldn't be as flashy a player. And a guy like Willis Reed may start, but only because the Center position is weaker.

GregOden#1
10-27-2008, 07:56 PM
Rick Barry (3rd best player in the league, scoring champ. Seriously considered for the MVP)

Dave Cowens (Better than Duncan is now)

Walt Frazier (best player in the league, no question. He'd be better today, same goes for Havlicek)

John Havlicek (best player in the league, no question.)

Earl Monroe (all-star, would probably be better than he was then, also one of the most marketable players)

Willis Reed (Just behind Lebron and Kobe, he'd probably win the MVP over them)

David Robinson (Best player in the league)

Bernard King (35+PPG scorer, maybe even 40, the guy was pulling in 10 FTA's a game in his prime, he'd get 15 today, easily the scoring champ. He'd be the bset player in the league, people forget this guy won the TSN MVP over Larry Bird, and was second in the one voted by broadcasters)

Julius Erving (EASILY the best player in the league. Scoring champ, MVP, all-star MVP, most likely the finals MVP. When this guy was 25 he was putting up 29/11/5/2/2 on 51% shooting and those stats were even better in the playoffs)

Oscar Robertson (Even better than Erving)

Paul Arizin (Rafer Alston type player. 18ppg on low efficiency PG who played little defense is what he'd be today. He'd make a good bench player)

Hal Greer (All-star, probably 3rd team all-NBA)

Elgin Baylor (EASILY the best player in the league, the dude was averaging 38/19/5 on great efficiency and absolutely ridiculous free throw numbers, if this guy gets the ball enough he'd probably get 17 free throws a game today. Before this guy went down with an injury he was on his way to being the greatest SF ever)

Kevin Mchale (86-87 this guy put up a ******** season. 26/10/3/3 on 61% shooting. Other than this one season he'd be a very good roleplayer, all-star caliber, but this season he was an MVP, and he'd probably be the best player in the league)

James Worthy (very solid roleplayer, like what McHale would be if it wasn't for 86-87. His game matched up perfectly with the Lakers though, so unlike alot of guys it'd depend on what team he was on).

This really isn't a fair thread though, we're in a downtime for MVP candidates, Kobe is just getting out of his prime, Shaq is gone, Duncan is past his prime, Lebron is just approaching his. That's why guys like Nash and Dirk can win, because it's a really weak period for MVP candidates, while alot of these guys either were the actual MVP in their prime or were very close to it. Yeah, Bernard King would probably have an MVP in this generation (he had a TSN one in a much tougher era for his position) but with his injury he probably woudn't be considered much better than he was in his era, if that.

Draco
10-27-2008, 08:00 PM
This really isn't a fair thread though, we're in a downtime for MVP candidates, Kobe is just getting out of his prime, Shaq is gone, Duncan is past his prime, Lebron is just approaching his. That's why guys like Nash and Dirk can win, because it's a really weak period for MVP candidates, while alot of these guys either were the actual MVP in their prime or were very close to it. Yeah, Bernard King would probably have an MVP in this generation (he had a TSN one in a much tougher era for his position) but with his injury he probably woudn't be considered much better than he was in his era, if that.

I was with you up until this part.. Nash is older than Kobe so I'm not sure how Nash is at an advantage to win the MVP.

GregOden#1
10-27-2008, 08:40 PM
I was with you up until this part.. Nash is older than Kobe so I'm not sure how Nash is at an advantage to win the MVP.

It's kinda hard to explain. The MVP has to win alot of games, and while Kobe was the better player his team did not win many games. The only exception is when your having an all-time great season like Kareem, and it'd just be ridiculous to not give it to him. Nash isn't older than Kobe, but is at an advantage because his teams won more. In alot of the cases when we look at these players, they were MVP's in their era or very close in the voting, it's fair to assume they'd also be in this era. Combine that with the relatively weak era for MVP candidates and alot of the guys who almost won would surely win today.

l GeArs l
10-27-2008, 09:02 PM
Anyone from the late 70's down wouldn't be able to play with the type of players that we have now in day. The Game has just flat out changed, theirs pretty much video and scouting reports on every little thing you do.

THE MTL
10-27-2008, 10:29 PM
I think they'd all do pretty well in the league today though I wouldn't put any of them in the best player in the league category.

All Stars:
Walt Frazier
David Robinson
Oscar Robertson
Kevin Mchale

Borderline All Stars:
Rick Barry
Julius Erving
James Worthy

Starters:
John Havilicek
Dave Cowens
Earl Monroe
Willis Reed
Bernard King
Hal Greer
Elgin Baylor

Benchwarmer:
Paul Arzin

Obviously this kind of rating makes it a little out of whack. Hal Greer would be better but wouldn't be awarded with an All Star appearance most likely because of his he wouldn't be as flashy a player. And a guy like Willis Reed may start, but only because the Center position is weaker.

WTF??? Dr. J would be the best player in the league. He would put up Lebron James stats easily along with 2 blocks and great defense.

THE MTL
10-27-2008, 10:31 PM
Walt Frazier would be even better if he played in the league now-a-days. A point guard that can score, rebound, and assist. He would be a Jason Kidd on crack. Plus, Frazier's fundamentals are unmatched and would really thrive in a not-so-fundamental game of today.

cmellofan15
10-27-2008, 10:36 PM
Rick Barry (3rd best player in the league, scoring champ. Seriously considered for the MVP)

Dave Cowens (Better than Duncan is now)

Walt Frazier (best player in the league, no question. He'd be better today, same goes for Havlicek)

John Havlicek (best player in the league, no question.)

Earl Monroe (all-star, would probably be better than he was then, also one of the most marketable players)

Willis Reed (Just behind Lebron and Kobe, he'd probably win the MVP over them)

David Robinson (Best player in the league)

Bernard King (35+PPG scorer, maybe even 40, the guy was pulling in 10 FTA's a game in his prime, he'd get 15 today, easily the scoring champ. He'd be the bset player in the league, people forget this guy won the TSN MVP over Larry Bird, and was second in the one voted by broadcasters)

Julius Erving (EASILY the best player in the league. Scoring champ, MVP, all-star MVP, most likely the finals MVP. When this guy was 25 he was putting up 29/11/5/2/2 on 51% shooting and those stats were even better in the playoffs)

Oscar Robertson (Even better than Erving)

Paul Arizin (Rafer Alston type player. 18ppg on low efficiency PG who played little defense is what he'd be today. He'd make a good bench player)

Hal Greer (All-star, probably 3rd team all-NBA)

Elgin Baylor (EASILY the best player in the league, the dude was averaging 38/19/5 on great efficiency and absolutely ridiculous free throw numbers, if this guy gets the ball enough he'd probably get 17 free throws a game today. Before this guy went down with an injury he was on his way to being the greatest SF ever)

Kevin Mchale (86-87 this guy put up a ******** season. 26/10/3/3 on 61% shooting. Other than this one season he'd be a very good roleplayer, all-star caliber, but this season he was an MVP, and he'd probably be the best player in the league)

James Worthy (very solid roleplayer, like what McHale would be if it wasn't for 86-87. His game matched up perfectly with the Lakers though, so unlike alot of guys it'd depend on what team he was on).

This really isn't a fair thread though, we're in a downtime for MVP candidates, Kobe is just getting out of his prime, Shaq is gone, Duncan is past his prime, Lebron is just approaching his. That's why guys like Nash and Dirk can win, because it's a really weak period for MVP candidates, while alot of these guys either were the actual MVP in their prime or were very close to it. Yeah, Bernard King would probably have an MVP in this generation (he had a TSN one in a much tougher era for his position) but with his injury he probably woudn't be considered much better than he was in his era, if that.

Completely agree :clap: None of today's elite can hold a candle to some of these guys. I'd like to see Rick Barry play again b/c of what he did in the Finals was amazing

cmellofan15
10-27-2008, 10:38 PM
Anyone from the late 70's down wouldn't be able to play with the type of players that we have now in day. The Game has just flat out changed, theirs pretty much video and scouting reports on every little thing you do.

I saw your sig and






He Got Banned!!!!!!

:dance:

Lakersfan2483
10-27-2008, 10:53 PM
Where would the following players rank if in the league nowadays in their prime?


Rick Barry

Dave Cowens

Walt Frazier

John Havilicek

Earl Monroe

Willis Reed

David Robinson

Bernard King

Julius Erving

Oscar Robertson

Paul Arizin

Hal Greer

Elgin Baylor

Kevin Mchale

James Worthy


When you rank those 15 players, rank as if each player was individually in the league. So if it says "Rick Barry" then just assume only he is in the league from the list of players above with the current players in the league. Or if it says "Julius Erving" rank him as if he is the only player in the league from the list above with the current guys we have in the league.


I just want to see how many posters would view how good players from the 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's would be in the league today with the exception of the "Immortal 6" and Prime Shaq and Hakeem"

Rick Barry- Top 10

Dave Cowens- Top 20

Walt Frazier- Top 15

John Havlicek- Top 12

Earl Monroe- Top 15

Willis Reed- Top 12

D. Robinson- Top 5

B. King- Top 15

Dr. J- Top 3

Oscar- No. 1 or 2

E. Baylor- Top 3

K. Mchale- Top 15

J. Worthy- Top 15-20


A lot of people don't give the quote, "new age" players much respect, but I think we have players nowadays that would be top ten no matter what era they played in. As far as the players from the diff. eras mentioned above, very few were better than Kobe, T. Duncan and Lebron. Allen Iverson in his prime was also a very great player in his own right.

*Oscar Robertson, Dr. J and E. Baylor would be ranked in the top ten no matter what era they played in.

GregOden#1
10-28-2008, 03:54 PM
A lot of people don't give the quote, "new age" players much respect, but I think we have players nowadays that would be top ten no matter what era they played in. As far as the players from the diff. eras mentioned above, very few were better than Kobe, T. Duncan and Lebron. Allen Iverson in his prime was also a very great player in his own right.

*Oscar Robertson, Dr. J and E. Baylor would be ranked in the top ten no matter what era they played in.

You claim anything prior to 1980 is inferior basketball, and yet you also claim today's players dont get the respect they deserve? What kind of logic is that? YOUR CLAIMING A WHOLE GENERATION OF PEOPLE WERE INFERIOR AT SPORTS THAN ANOTHER ONE.

Lakersfan2483
10-28-2008, 05:39 PM
You claim anything prior to 1980 is inferior basketball, and yet you also claim today's players dont get the respect they deserve? What kind of logic is that? YOUR CLAIMING A WHOLE GENERATION OF PEOPLE WERE INFERIOR AT SPORTS THAN ANOTHER ONE.

Actually, I don't recall every stating that prior to the 1980's, the level of basketball was inferior. However, I do not subscribe to the thinking that the players in today's league would somehow not be top players if they played in the 60's, 70's, etc...

During the 70's, the competition at the center position may have been at it's all time highest considering the talent during that time frame.

In terms of quality basketball, the 80's was the best, in my opinion.

DODGERS&LAKERS
10-28-2008, 06:23 PM
You claim anything prior to 1980 is inferior basketball, and yet you also claim today's players dont get the respect they deserve? What kind of logic is that? YOUR CLAIMING A WHOLE GENERATION OF PEOPLE WERE INFERIOR AT SPORTS THAN ANOTHER ONE.

I understand you growing up in a certain era and falling in love with that era. But you go way overboard with the things you type.

How can you say that there was more talent in an era where teams were only allowed to have a maximum of 2 black players per team? That means they were excluding some of the best athletes on earth. Not to mention there were so few teams back in the day. That means there were a total of 16 black players playing in the 50's and 60's. You might argue that due to expansion the league is watered down. But I would counter saying that the fact that basketball is now allowing all athletes in the United Stats in, as well as the fact that basketball is a global game and we are getting the best players from around the world would negate the expansion argument. There are more athletes for these teams to choose from.

I also noticed you said Havilicek would be the best player in the league now a days. The guy came off the bench for the Celtics. Are you saying that Kobe or Lebron would be bench players in the 60's?

I wonder if you think the NFL players were bigger and faster in the 50's, 60's, and 70's? Do you think that the MLB players were better back in the day also? I think everyone would agree todays football players are bigger, stronger, faster than anything in the 50's. I think its safe to say the same about baseball. And its an absolute fact about NBA players bigger stronger and faster as a whole nowadays.

P.S. The year that Elgin Baylor averaged those numbers, he only played in 48 games cause he was a national reserve. He only played on weekends that year. He never practiced. Does that say that he was the greatest thing ever, or does it speak to the lack of talent in the NBA? I would think that if what you say were true, and the greatest players played back then, you would think the great talent at that time would be able to limit such numbers. Looks like there were a few men against boys at the time and the men were picking on the little boys to make their stats look so fat. I say Lebron would average 40 a game in the 50's and 60's. I say Kobe would average around the same. With the number of shots these guys would get due the the fast pace play, plus the number of available rebounds, these guys would look like the best thing to ever walk the planet. Even if they got those numbers against slow footed defenders who only got their spot cause the world was racist and excluded the best players from playing.

You show yourself to be totally biased towards anything older. If you think the sport has gone to crap nowadays, why even waste yours or our time? You should just rent old tapes and watch "the greatest athletes" ever to play over and over again looking exactly like a ping pong match, (back and forth with no stragety) in black and white. As for the rest of us, we will move on and evolve just like the rest of the world.

GregOden#1
10-28-2008, 06:35 PM
I understand you growing up in a certain era and falling in love with that era. But you go way overboard with the things you type.
I didn't grow up in that era.


How can you say that there was more talent in an era where teams were only allowed to have a maximum of 2 black players per team? That means they were excluding some of the best athletes on earth. Not to mention there were so few teams back in the day. That means there were a total of 16 black players playing in the 50's and 60's. You might argue that due to expansion the league is watered down. But I would counter saying that the fact that basketball is now allowing all athletes in the United Stats in, as well as the fact that basketball is a global game and we are getting the best players from around the world would negate the expansion argument. There are more athletes for these teams to choose from.

:confused:


I also noticed you said Havilicek would be the best player in the league now a days. The guy came off the bench for the Celtics. Are you saying that Kobe or Lebron would be bench players in the 60's?

Yes. If they were in the same situation Havlicek was in.


I wonder if you think the NFL players were bigger and faster in the 50's, 60's, and 70's? Do you think that the MLB players were better back in the day also? I think everyone would agree todays football players are bigger, stronger, faster than anything in the 50's. I think its safe to say the same about baseball. And its an absolute fact about NBA players bigger stronger and faster as a whole nowadays.

Because of better training regiments and nutrition, athletes back then were no worse than today. Saying they are is like saying I'm smarter than Newton because I know more physics than he does.


P.S. The year that Elgin Baylor averaged those numbers, he only played in 48 games cause he was a national reserve. He only played on weekends that year. He never practiced. Does that say that he was the greatest thing ever, or does it speak to the lack of talent in the NBA? I would think that if what you say were true, and the greatest players played back then, you would think the great talent at that time would be able to limit such numbers. Looks like there were a few men against boys at the time and the men were picking on the little boys to make their stats look so fat. I say Lebron would average 40 a game in the 50's and 60's. I say Kobe would average around the same. With the number of shots these guys would get due the the fast pace play, plus the number of available rebounds, these guys would look like the best thing to ever walk the planet. Even if they got those numbers against slow footed defenders who only got their spot cause the world was racist and excluded the best players from playing.

It speaks to how well Elgin Baylor is. It's like saying the competition in the 90's was weak because Shaq came in as a rookie and dominated.


You show yourself to be totally biased towards anything older. If you think the sport has gone to crap nowadays, why even waste yours or our time? You should just rent old tapes and watch "the greatest athletes" ever to play over and over again looking exactly like a ping pong match, (back and forth with no stragety) in black and white. As for the rest of us, we will move on and evolve just like the rest of the world.

Please dont put words in my mouth.

And your right, evolution happens quickly, in fact I evolved a third arm yesterday. Tomorrow I hope to grow 3 inches, in a month I'l have x-ray vision.

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, and inevitably my arguments generally end up winning, so lets just skip repeating myself and you just admit defeat.

GregOden#1
10-28-2008, 06:40 PM
Actually, I don't recall every stating that prior to the 1980's, the level of basketball was inferior. However, I do not subscribe to the thinking that the players in today's league would somehow not be top players if they played in the 60's, 70's, etc...

And I never said they woudn't. But these are some of the greatest ever and they're all in their prime. What I said was accurate in how they would perform in their prime today, they'd perform just as well today as they did back then. YOU are insinuating that they woudn't by claiming Dr. J is worse than Lebron or Kobe, despite winning 3 MVP's.

Look at this list, it's disgusting:

Rick Barry- Top 10

Dave Cowens- Top 20

Walt Frazier- Top 15

John Havlicek- Top 12

Earl Monroe- Top 15

Willis Reed- Top 12

D. Robinson- Top 5

B. King- Top 15

Dr. J- Top 3

Oscar- No. 1 or 2

E. Baylor- Top 3

K. Mchale- Top 15

J. Worthy- Top 15-20

Bernard King top 15? The guy who the executives and coaches felt was the best player in the league 83-84? Kevin McHale top 5 MVP candidate in 87-88 would be top 15? MVP and DPOY David Robinson would be top 5? MVP Willis Reed would be top 15??? Havlicek who despite splitting all the votes with teammate and MVP Dave Cowens (who you have as a top 20????) still came fourth in MVP voting in 71-72??? Your telling me with this list that everyone of these players would do substantially worse than what they did back then in their era. And to put it simply, you're wrong. Very very wrong.

DODGERS&LAKERS
10-28-2008, 06:41 PM
I didn't grow up in that era.



:confused:



Yes. If they were in the same situation Havlicek was in.



Because of better training regiments and nutrition, athletes back then were no worse than today. Saying they are is like saying I'm smarter than Newton because I know more physics than he does.



It speaks to how well Elgin Baylor is. It's like saying the competition in the 90's was weak because Shaq came in as a rookie and dominated.



Please dont put words in my mouth.

And your right, evolution happens quickly, in fact I evolved a third arm yesterday. Tomorrow I hope to grow 3 inches, in a month I'l have x-ray vision.

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, and inevitably my arguments generally end up winning, so lets just skip repeating myself and you just admit defeat.

I'm pretty sure we have had that argument about todays players vs the older ones. I'm pretty sure I showed you the way you were doing the stats skew was wrong and Kobe was Better than West. I remember you arguing for West for a couple days only to just change your argument saying "well, West wasn't even a shooting guard. He was a point guard" I noticed you never take defeat as an option. Thats admirable. But if you have to change your whole argument after your defeated, Ill just let you bow out gracefully without having to bow down to me?:)

GregOden#1
10-28-2008, 06:47 PM
I'm pretty sure we have had that argument about todays players vs the older ones. I'm pretty sure I showed you the way you were doing the stats skew was wrong and Kobe was Better than West.

Actually no. Look back at the thread, you started a thread comparing MJ and Kobe and you were doing the adjustments wrong, I said West was better than Kobe and you started doing adjustments for West, I corrected them and you agreed I knew more about it than you did. You still didn't admit West was better, even though it was plainly obvious, I still consider that a win though.


I remember you arguing for West for a couple days only to just change your argument saying "well, West wasn't even a shooting guard. He was a point guard" I noticed you never take defeat as an option. Thats admirable. But if you have to change your whole argument after your defeated, Ill just let you bow out gracefully without having to bow down to me?:)

That's not true either. I've always said West was a point guard, but in the context of the original argument West was listed at SG, it's arguable wether or not West was an SG or a PG, those lines were blurred in the 60's like the PF/C's are now. Arguing that West was both a PG and better than Kobe dont cancel eachother out, they can both be right simultaneously.

DODGERS&LAKERS
10-28-2008, 06:58 PM
Actually no. Look back at the thread, you started a thread comparing MJ and Kobe and you were doing the adjustments wrong, I said West was better than Kobe and you started doing adjustments for West, I corrected them and you agreed I knew more about it than you did. You still didn't admit West was better, even though it was plainly obvious, I still consider that a win though.



That's not true either. I've always said West was a point guard, but in the context of the original argument West was listed at SG, it's arguable wether or not West was an SG or a PG, those lines were blurred in the 60's like the PF/C's are now. Arguing that West was both a PG and better than Kobe dont cancel eachother out, they can both be right simultaneously.

Thats not true at all. I made that thread about Kobe and MJ. The thread we had our discussion in was "Greatest shooting gaurds" You never said anything about the way I skewed the stats in the Kobe MJ thread. You corrected me in the Kobe/West argument. But after you showed me the way you do it, I found flaws in your skewing. Here is the final post in that thread......


Talk about skewing stats. Kobe's is just about right. But West's are off.

Bryants per 36 min stats:

24.7 pts, 5.2 reb. 4.6 assist,1.5 steals .06 blocks. Per 23.6 True shooting .557

West's per 36 min stats: Before Era adjustment

24.8 pts, 5.3 reb., 6.1 assist 3.3 steals, 1 block

After Era adjustment ( Which I took away 20 % of all West's stats due to the extra possessions his teams had due to the era. I also added your 30% extra assist already plus I took your advise and and used Ray Allen's 3 point attempt average. He like West after you do the era adjustment has taken 16.5 shots per game for his 12 year career. He has averaged 6.1 three point shots for his career. But at a 36 min average he has taken 5.9 3 point shots per game. I will give you your requested average of 44% made which would make him the 4th highest in NBA history. Which will give him an extra 3.304 points per game.

So West estimated stats for today's era would be

23.14 points 4.24 rebounds 6.34 assist 2.5 steals .7 blocks with a true shooting % of .550 We dont know he PER cause as you pointed out, his per of 22.9 was without steals or blocks. But after the era adjustments of his career stats being dropped, and adding the 2.5 steals and .7 blocks to his PER it might even back out to the same average. I really dont know how they calculate that stuff.

But the overall end of the stat discussion has Kobe averaging 1.56 more points, 1 rebound (which I'm still protesting due to the 40 extra opportunities West had)

West averaging 1.7 more assist, 1 steal and .01 blocks.

Kobe has the higher PER 23.6 TO 22.9 and the higher true shooting %

So in my opinion the stat argument will go to the eye of the beholder. It depends on what you like your Shooting guards to do. Make more baskets or dish more assist. The steals average never really tells me how good a defender a person is. A.I averages 2.3 steals a game for his career and to me and most people he is a horrible defender. Kobe is taller than West so he should get more rebounds. And they both average roughly the same amount of blocks.

I have to admit that I thought Kobe would be a lot more ahead in stats once you did the era adjustments. But totally forgot about West not having a three point line and adding 30 % more assist ( has that been documented or is that just an opinion)

So that is the stats argument which could go either way I guess I guess we will have to wait till Kobe's career is over in 5 or 6 years to do the accolades and rings argument. ( Kobe is already winning those categories but in six years it wont be close ) Nice debating with you.

GregOden#1
10-28-2008, 07:12 PM
Thats not true at all. I made that thread about Kobe and MJ. The thread we had our discussion in was "Greatest shooting gaurds" You never said anything about the way I skewed the stats in the Kobe MJ thread. You corrected me in the Kobe/West argument. But after you showed me the way you do it, I found flaws in your skewing. Here is the final post in that thread......

That is not the final post in that thread. I answered it, showing that my math was right:


In the end, keeping in mind my math was correct apart from the margin of error in Kobe's per36 stats, and that I forgot to mention TS% I'd say West is a clear winner in the stats department.

You answered that it's 17% to 20% (which I dont remember now but I doubt I made that mistake), that steals werent indictive of good defense, and that you now had a greater respect for West's career. That's how it ended. The whole argument was around the stats they'd average today, and it came out to:

PPG RPG APG SPG BPG FG%
24.2 4.4 6.6 2.5 0.649 48% - West
24.6 5.2 4.5 1.5 0.59 45% - Kobe

And I dont think it's debatable who had the better stats, even though I gave tons of advantages to Kobe and none to West.

DODGERS&LAKERS
10-28-2008, 07:29 PM
That is not the final post in that thread. I answered it, showing that my math was right:



You answered that it's 17% to 20% (which I dont remember now but I doubt I made that mistake), that steals werent indictive of good defense, and that you now had a greater respect for West's career. That's how it ended. The whole argument was around the stats they'd average today, and it came out to:

PPG RPG APG SPG BPG FG%
24.2 4.4 6.6 2.5 0.649 48% - West
24.6 5.2 4.5 1.5 0.59 45% - Kobe

And I dont think it's debatable who had the better stats, even though I gave tons of advantages to Kobe and none to West.

West averages were...

PPG RPG ASG SPG BPG FG%
23.1 4.2 6.3 2.5 .07 48%

Like I said in that thread. West's teams shot on average 99.47 shots. Kobes teams shot 79.69 per game. That is a difference of 20% That is where your skewing is wrong. I did everything exactly as you wanted it. But I took the correct % of possessions away from West.

And to say you gave West no advantages is a joke. You said that he shot from behind the arc at least 8 times a game making 44% of them. That means he would have been the the 4th highest % shooter ever (Even though shooting from that far had no benefit. Does that mean he had poor shot selection?) You said he should have 30% more assist. We dont know if he got more or less. You once again you are giving him the benefit of the doubt. And what advantages did you allow for Kobe? We never changed his stats for eras. His stats are what they are. No skewing.

Lakersfan2483
10-28-2008, 07:35 PM
And I never said they woudn't. But these are some of the greatest ever and they're all in their prime. What I said was accurate in how they would perform in their prime today, they'd perform just as well today as they did back then. YOU are insinuating that they woudn't by claiming Dr. J is worse than Lebron or Kobe, despite winning 3 MVP's.

Look at this list, it's disgusting:

Rick Barry- Top 10

Dave Cowens- Top 20

Walt Frazier- Top 15

John Havlicek- Top 12

Earl Monroe- Top 15

Willis Reed- Top 12

D. Robinson- Top 5

B. King- Top 15

Dr. J- Top 3

Oscar- No. 1 or 2

E. Baylor- Top 3

K. Mchale- Top 15

J. Worthy- Top 15-20

Bernard King top 15? The guy who the executives and coaches felt was the best player in the league 83-84? Kevin McHale top 5 MVP candidate in 87-88 would be top 15? MVP and DPOY David Robinson would be top 5? MVP Willis Reed would be top 15??? Havlicek who despite splitting all the votes with teammate and MVP Dave Cowens (who you have as a top 20????) still came fourth in MVP voting in 71-72??? Your telling me with this list that everyone of these players would do substantially worse than what they did back then in their era. And to put it simply, you're wrong. Very very wrong.

What is disgusting about the list? I have E. Baylor, Dr. J, and Oscar as the top players in the league, and they would be. Kevin Mchale is a fantastic player, but you are going to sit here and tell me he's better than Kobe, Lebron, KG, Shaq, Duncan, Chris Paul, Dirk Nowitzki, D. Howard? I think he's comprable to some of those players, but to say he's better, that is simply not true.

Bernard King was a fabulous player, he was an offensive weapon. I think he was a great player, but to say he's better than the top ten guys in our league, is not true. He's comprable to those players. It's not far-fetched to say that he would be in the top 15.

Bernard King, Kevin Mchale, Havlicek were all great players and they have their place in league history. I am not downplaying their success, they have had great careers, I just don't see them being better than the guys I named above. They have had better careers then some of the guys mentioned above, but to say that they are better is ridiculous.

I named the top players: Dr. J, Oscar, E. Baylor, R. Barry, and David Robinson. All of those guys would be top players in the league today. I also think Willis Reed would be excellent in today's league, it's no disrespect to Willis. He amongst the top players in the league.

I think you and I disagree with today's players, you don't seem to recognize how great the top players are in the league nowadays.... The top guys in our league would be at the top in any era. Kobe, Lebron, Shaq, Duncan, Chris Paul, KG, Dirk, and Iverson are all once in a lifetime type players, you can't just dismiss them because they play during this generation.

GregOden#1
10-28-2008, 07:44 PM
I could just reply with my original post and it'd still counter your argument. You dont give the proper respect to players from past generations by saying they'd do worse today than they did then. That's disrespectful, how you cant see that is beyond me.


Like I said in that thread. West's teams shot on average 99.47 shots. Kobes teams shot 79.69 per game. That is a difference of 20% That is where your skewing is wrong. I did everything exactly as you wanted it. But I took the correct % of possessions away from West.

I dont have time to redo the math, you'll have to show me what you did to get a different number and then I'l see who was wrong.


And to say you gave West no advantages is a joke. You said that he shot from behind the arc at least 8 times a game making 44% of them. That means he would have been the the 4th highest % shooter ever (Even though shooting from that far had no benefit. Does that mean he had poor shot selection?) You said he should have 30% more assist. We dont know if he got more or less. You once again you are giving him the benefit of the doubt. And what advantages did you allow for Kobe? We never changed his stats for eras. His stats are what they are. No skewing.

I explained why I did everything I did. I gave no advantages to West. I merely did it right. I gave tons of advantages to Kobe, I severly handicapped West's steals/blocks by only taking his last years totals, I didn't even mention PER even though it was clear West's would be substantially better than Kobe's, I also didn't adjust TS%, since West shot a lower % because of all the three's he took it'd be much higher than it was in the 60's. I gave every advantage to Kobe, and West still came out on top.

Hellcrooner
10-29-2008, 03:47 AM
ALl of them would individually taken be in the top 3 of their positions and in the top 10 of the league now.

You should post a not so popular list to rank you now? the Artis Gilmores, Ricky Pierces, Alx Englishs, Thurl Bailey, Darrell Griffith, Othis Birdsogn kind of plahyers.

JordansBulls
10-29-2008, 10:14 AM
ALl of them would individually taken be in the top 3 of their positions and in the top 10 of the league now.

You should post a not so popular list to rank you now? the Artis Gilmores, Ricky Pierces, Alx Englishs, Thurl Bailey, Darrell Griffith, Othis Birdsogn kind of plahyers.

I would, but how many folks around here know who those guys are? Many don't even know who Walt Frazier or John Havlicek are. I heard someone before think that Walt Frazier was the guy to fight Ali.
:pity:

Hellcrooner
10-29-2008, 11:04 AM
^Yeah too much Ignorance.

I wonder if at least in 20 years they will still remember the guys they are rooting for now, or if they just will go with the player of the moment and forget about them.

sportsnutzz
10-29-2008, 11:16 AM
WOW I am at a loss here...... how can Pete Maravich not be mentioned here. Talk about a player who was meant to play ahead of his time.

Here let me introduce everyone to Pistol Pete-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5-J2Spj7kg

Absolute prolific scorer, one of the most electrifying passers in history......
This guy would be AMAZING in the league today. 68 points in one game with out a 3 point line!!!!