How do we reach the next level ?

[13 - 3]

Yeah for real, these new kids are always trying to be friends. They're the type to cry on the phone in the parking lot after a finals loss to try and recruit other superstars to come and save them, rather than truly believing in the spirit of competition. Draymond would never be so buddy-buddy with the other teams.

If you watched Clippers vs Suns last night you saw good hard nose basketball.

[Pelicanidae]

If you watched Clippers vs Suns last night you saw good hard nose basketball.

And yet, the Clippers (who won) made 18 threes. In the year 2000, only 2 teams in the league (the Bucks and Celtics) even attempted that many threes in a game, let alone made that many. The same people who are making the ''good ol' days'' argument would, at good portion of the time, call that Clippers Suns game a 3pt shootout chuck-fest with no ''real'' basketball just because we didn't get to see Ivica Zubac post up 28 times.

[Eman5805]

Plus the rules of the game aren’t the same. Handchecking isn’t a thing now. Gary Payton isn’t the same player today or he’d need to adapt.

[Pelicanidae]

Plus the rules of the game aren’t the same. Handchecking isn’t a thing now. Gary Payton isn’t the same player today or he’d need to adapt.

For real. The rules have changed a lot, in ways that make it harder for players in certain ways and easier in others.

Harder, for example, in that illegal defense rules no longer exist in the same way and therefore defenses can key in on individual players and scheme a lot more fluidly than they used to be able to do. Triple teaming, for example, is mostly a post-2000 thing that players just didn't really have to deal with much in the 80s and 90s.

Easier, for another example, in that rules regarding travelling and palming are massively loosened up from the way they were even 30 years ago, let alone back in the 60s.

People called Bob Cousy a ball-handling wizard at the time but you look at clips of him today and he's kind of whatever. A lot of that is just due to rule changes: things that players do today, or that Iverson was doing in the late 90s, simply would have been called as palming violations when Cousy was active.

Of course, if Cousy was born in 1990 and was playing today, he would have grown up with modern rules and styles and his play would reflect that. But if you just teleported prime Cousy into today's NBA and asked him to play his game from then, he'd be dreadful.

[As I See It]

Every future generation would destroy the past ones. In every sport. I dont think Babe Ruth would bat .200 if you took todays players back to his time or brought him forward to ours and he is the most dominant player of all time in any sport. Guys from today would go back to the 60s and drain 25 footers with ease, unguarded. And if those guys came out to contest, they would blow by them. The best defender in that time would have tless lateral mobility and speed than Brandon Ingram. I would say an average team like the Bulls would beat the champion Celtics by 40 or 50.

Which is why I am always a fan of measuring a guy only against his era and then saying he is better than a guy in another era based on how much better he is than the guys in his era. So, even though Babe Ruth couldnt bad .200 today, he is better than Mike Trout because he hit more home runs than entire teams when he played. Trout couldnt possibly do that. So, Babe Ruth is the best player of all time, even though Trout would be 5x better than him if you transported Babe to today

To a large measure, Mac, I agree with you; however the game is far different from the days of the Boston dynasty and before. A 35% shooter from three is a hot commodity in 2020's; in the days of yore, a 35% shooter from three point line would be on the pines because there was no three. Traveling was a violation of the rules and not an a routine occurrence. The notion of 'continuation' didn't exist. A euro-step would have been deemed traveling and not a staple of the game as it is today. A three second lane did exist at one point in the NBA (Sorry Shaq). The bonus situation would not be an automatic two free throws, but a one and one (A guy like Adams could never close a game in the 60's). Being able to play both ends of the court was an absolute requirement in the 60's and 70's...not so much today (this, alone, wipes out half the current league).

So I don't necessarily think today's player translates well , as a rule, into the NBA basketball in the 60's and 70's (there are always exceptions). On the other hand, the same can be said of the players of yesterday playing in today's NBA (again there would be exceptions...one was named Maravich).

[Pelicanidae]

To a large measure, Mac, I agree with you; however the game is far different from the days of the Boston dynasty and before. A 35% shooter from three is a hot commodity in 2020's; in the days of yore, a 35% shooter from three point line would be on the pines because there was no three. .

I agree with much of what you say, in regards to the rules changes meaning modern players would be officiated harshly in the past and would therefore lose an advantage.

However, the idea that a 35% shooter in the days of yore would be on the pines is just absurd.

Here's the First Team All NBA in 1960, and their fg%s:

- Elgin Baylor - 42.4%FG
- Wilt Chamberlain - 46.1%FG
- Bob Cousy - 38.4% FG
- Bob Pettit - 43.8% FG
- Gene Shue - 41.9% FG

Dolph Schayes made All NBA Second Team and he shot 40.1% from the floor that year, and shot 38% from the floor for his career.

Bob Cousy in particular never shot better than 39.7% from the floor, and had 5 seasons shooting under 37% from the floor. Yet he was a Hall of Famer, a 13x All Star, won an MVP award, and was 12x All NBA.

All-star appearances in the 1959-60 season included Dick Garmaker, who shot 39.6% from the floor, Hot Rod Hundley, who shot 35.8% from the floor, and Chuck Noble, who shot 35.7% from the floor.

If you could shoot reliably at 35% in 1959-60, not only were you not destined to be glued to the pines, you could be an All-Star.

[As I See It]

I agree with much of what you say, in regards to the rules changes meaning modern players would be officiated harshly in the past and would therefore lose an advantage.

However, the idea that a 35% shooter in the days of yore would be on the pines is just absurd.

Here's the First Team All NBA in 1960, and their fg%s:

- Elgin Baylor - 42.4%FG
- Wilt Chamberlain - 46.1%FG
- Bob Cousy - 38.4% FG
- Bob Pettit - 43.8% FG
- Gene Shue - 41.9% FG

Dolph Schayes made All NBA Second Team and he shot 40.1% from the floor that year, and shot 38% from the floor for his career.

Bob Cousy in particular never shot better than 39.7% from the floor, and had 5 seasons shooting under 37% from the floor. Yet he was a Hall of Famer, a 13x All Star, won an MVP award, and was 12x All NBA.

All-star appearances in the 1959-60 season included Dick Garmaker, who shot 39.6% from the floor, Hot Rod Hundley, who shot 35.8% from the floor, and Chuck Noble, who shot 35.7% from the floor.

If you could shoot reliably at 35% in 1959-60, not only were you not destined to be glued to the pines, you could be an All-Star.

All the players you mentioned played in an era where defense was premier, today's stars...not so much. Challenge today's players with the defenses of yesterday and they would not shoot the same numbers. Sorry if that's incomprehensible to you. It just is what it is.

Put Bailey Howell or Dave DeBusschere (or Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Bobby Jones Ron Artest, or Larry Bird in later years) on Kevin Durant instead of Brandon Ingram or Zion Williamson and incorporate yesterday's rules. If we could do that, I'd bet a dollar to your donut that there would be a negative impact on Durant's Numbers. But, maybe you feel differently.

Bottom line: A 35% shooter in 2020's would not positively translate to yesterday (especially with no three point line).

[Pelicanidae]

All the players you mentioned played in an era where defense was premier, today's stars...not so much. Challenge today's players with the defenses of yesterday and they would not shoot the same numbers. Sorry if that's incomprehensible to you. It just is what it is.

Put Bailey Howell or Dave DeBusschere (or Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Bobby Jones Ron Artest, or Larry Bird in later years) on Kevin Durant instead of Brandon Ingram or Zion Williamson and incorporate yesterday's rules. If we could do that, I'd bet a dollar to you donut that there would be a negative impact on Durant's Numbers. But, maybe you feel differently.

Bottom line: A 35% shooter in 2020's would not positively translate to yesterday (especially with no three point line).

I mean, if your argument is that the average PF/C from 1959 is guarding Zion and doing a better job than, say, Rudy Gobert does today then you're welcome to it. I'd no more argue with that than I'd argue with the man claiming he's Napoleon.

If you can shoot 35% from 25 feet, you can go back to 1960 and shoot 35% from 25 feet and be scoring 2 points on each shot, which yes is less value than today's shots from the same distance but guess what? All-Stars at the time only shot 35% at the damn rim. So you'd be as efficient as some All-Stars were in terms of pure scoring and you'd be scoring the same number of points as they were, and you'd be doing it from a place that guys at the time had no idea how to guard.

Of course the absolute cream of the crop elite defenders from that period, like your Bill Russells, would very probably still cause trouble for a modern player. My point is not that if you put an average player in 1959-60 he'd suddenly be the greatest player of all time, but your average ''solid'' defender in 1959 is getting smoked by damn near anyone on an NBA roster today. Most modern players are just better at the game than guys were back then. That's not a knock on those players: the game evolves. Today's players will look like scrubs (for the most part, again, a few outliers) compared to the average player in 2070.

That's how sports work.

[As I See It]

I mean, if your argument is that the average PF/C from 1959 is guarding Zion and doing a better job than, say, Rudy Gobert does today then you're welcome to it. I'd no more argue with that than I'd argue with the man claiming he's Napoleon.

If you can shoot 35% from 25 feet, you can go back to 1960 and shoot 35% from 25 feet and be scoring 2 points on each shot, which yes is less value than today's shots from the same distance but guess what? All-Stars at the time only shot 35% at the damn rim. So you'd be as efficient as some All-Stars were in terms of pure scoring and you'd be scoring the same number of points as they were, and you'd be doing it from a place that guys at the time had no idea how to guard.

Of course the absolute cream of the crop elite defenders from that period, like your Bill Russells, would very probably still cause trouble for a modern player. My point is not that if you put an average player in 1959-60 he'd suddenly be the greatest player of all time, but your average ''solid'' defender in 1959 is getting smoked by damn near anyone on an NBA roster today. Most modern players are just better at the game than guys were back then. That's not a knock on those players: the game evolves. Today's players will look like scrubs (for the most part, again, a few outliers) compared to the average player in 2070.

That's how sports work.

You picked 1960 not me. In 1960, there were exactly eight NBA teams. The league had not yet been watered down by expansion (which plays massively to the advantage of today's player). Every night you played against good players. In 1960, Oscar Robertson's Royals (a team that included Jack Twyman and Wayne Embry) ended up in last place in the eastern conference. That's three Hall of Famers that ended up in last place.

You simply did not face any Zion Williamson's or Brandon Ingram's defensively back then. Another way of looking at it is to say, how many of today's players (the one's guarding Kevin Durant today) would even be playing in that eight team league, If that's not good enough for you, even by today's standard's pare down today's league to include only eight teams and man them with the best 120 players (15 players on each team) and tell me that Durant's numbers wouldn't suffer.

BTW: I'd gladly put Bill Russel on Zion and bet you he wouldn't enjoy the numbers he gets today.

[Pelicanidae]

The funny thing about mediocre and bad basketball teams, is that the natural inclination from the fanbase is to supremely overrate all of the players, while also being livid that the team is so bad.

— Brady Klopfer (@BradyKlopferNBA) April 10, 2021

So much this

[As I See It]

The funny thing about mediocre and bad basketball teams, is that the natural inclination from the fanbase is to supremely overrate all of the players, while also being livid that the team is so bad.

— Brady Klopfer (@BradyKlopferNBA) April 10, 2021

So much this

I couldn't agree more.

In fact some, even overvalue a poor team's so-called "superstars", huh?

[As I See It]

Would you?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...dnt-see-coming

[MichaelMcNamara]

I wouldnt give up nearly anything of value for KAT. Not the skill set I want or the attitude/motor I want either. Also, I am thinking I want a vertical spacing center over a stretch center on offense next to Zion (not even counting the defense, just offense with regard to this preference). A center outside the 3 point line will just get left to clog the paint for Zion. At least if the center is in the paint, he can screen for Zion like Adams does or catch a lob if the guy leaves him.

I dont like the Beal fit, but I still might trade for him. I hate the KAT fit. Ideally, I am waiting to cash in my chips for a hybrid forward who can defend, slash, playmake, and hit the open 3 comes available. Which might be the hardest thing to acquire in the league, but that is what I am waiting for. Otherwise I will build internally

[6warddude]

[QUOTE=MichaelMcNamara;1553649] At least if the center is in the paint, he can screen for Zion like Adams does or catch a lob if the guy leaves him.

alot of people on the board dont understand how adams screening or walling players off so zion can score at the rim alot......now if we can find a cheaper center that can do those things and spread some money elsewhere then thats a win all around...

[As I See It]

At least if the center is in the paint, he can screen for Zion like Adams does or catch a lob if the guy leaves him.

alot of people on the board dont understand how adams screening or walling players off so zion can score at the rim alot......now if we can find a cheaper center that can do those things and spread some money elsewhere then thats a win all around...

There's a fella in Milwaukee (somewhat similar to Zion) who thrives with a stretch 5. In fact, it benefits him so well that he's found himself in the League MVP talk each of the last three years.

[6warddude]

There's a fella in Milwaukee (somewhat similar to Zion) who thrives with a stretch 5. In fact, it benefits him so well that he's found himself in the League MVP talk each of the last three years.

i might be killing my own argument but come playoffs times teams build a wall and limited that player and that player has shooters around him...

a stretch 5 maybe good for zion but im just adding that a center adams caliber would not hurt zion in the paint....

[AusPel]

I wouldnt give up nearly anything of value for KAT. Not the skill set I want or the attitude/motor I want either. Also, I am thinking I want a vertical spacing center over a stretch center on offense next to Zion (not even counting the defense, just offense with regard to this preference). A center outside the 3 point line will just get left to clog the paint for Zion. At least if the center is in the paint, he can screen for Zion like Adams does or catch a lob if the guy leaves him.

I dont like the Beal fit, but I still might trade for him. I hate the KAT fit. Ideally, I am waiting to cash in my chips for a hybrid forward who can defend, slash, playmake, and hit the open 3 comes available. Which might be the hardest thing to acquire in the league, but that is what I am waiting for. Otherwise I will build internally

DeAndre Hunter?

[Eman5805]

DeAndre Hunter?

I was thinking Pascal Siakam. He's not shooting particularly well from 3 this year, but I recall him being able to hit open shots semi-regularly at least.

[Pelicanidae]

I was thinking Pascal Siakam. He's not shooting particularly well from 3 this year, but I recall him being able to hit open shots semi-regularly at least.

Siakam's shooting by year:

16-17: 14.3% (0.1 a game)
17-18: 22% (1.6 a game)
18-19: 36.9% (2.7 a game)
19-20: 35.9% (6.1 a game)
20-21: 28.8% (4.3 a game).

Career 32.5% 3pt shooter

[Eman5805]

How'd he do when open by 3 feet or more?

[PELICANSFAN]

I was thinking Pascal Siakam. He's not shooting particularly well from 3 this year, but I recall him being able to hit open shots semi-regularly at least.

I like Siakam as a player, but not at his salary. He still has 3 years/$107 million remaining.

[hornetzplaya]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNiNSI-l...=1bmf75zpo507p

Had me rolling lol. But I honestly feel bad for Russ, I love his game individually.

[As I See It]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNiNSI-l...=1bmf75zpo507p

Had me rolling lol. But I honestly feel bad for Russ, I love his game individually.

Russel is one of the nicest professionals you ever would want to meet. While I am not in love with his game, I really hope he realizes all his goals. There is nothing 'plastic' about this young man.

[Pelicanidae]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNiNSI-l...=1bmf75zpo507p

Had me rolling lol. But I honestly feel bad for Russ, I love his game individually.

Westbrook seems like a good guy, and for all of his massive flaws as a player he never shortchanges his teammates or the fans on his effort. Dude just goes out there and kills himself trying. Whatever else is true, you have to respect that.

[13 - 3]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNiNSI-l...=1bmf75zpo507p

Had me rolling lol. But I honestly feel bad for Russ, I love his game individually.

That is how the tank works.Trust the Process