Is there an advanced stat Jordan doesn't destroy Kobe in?

[Booharv]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1420/4725118734_de52a7b7c7_b.jpg

Jordan has 7 seasons with a TS% of 57.9 or higher including four consecutive seasons with a TS% over 60. Kobe's best TS% would be Jordan's seventh best.

lol @ Kobe never leading the league in any category of win shares and Jordan dominating that category for nearly a decade in offensive, total, and per 48.

lol@ Kobe's best rebounding being way below Jordan's.

lol @ Kobe's way higher turnover percentage

lol @ Jordan's assist ratio for a season being way out of Kobe's stratosphere and his assist ratio for a career being significantly better as well

lol @ Kobe even getting dominated in blocks and steals

lol @ Jordan even dominating in Hollinger's questionable PER

lol @ the whole concept of comparing Kobe to Jordan

The only stat Kobe beats Jordan in is usage rate, lol.

[Giuseppe]

6 at 35

5 at 32

Ruh, roh.

[IronMexican]

Who cares.


I'm no fan of either.

[Booharv]

Seriously Kobe is a nice player and all, but its time to stop comparing the two and whining with "Jordan had bad playoff games too" bs. They're not on the same level.

[Ashy Larry]

Who cares.


I'm no fan of either.


exactly, as long as those banners continue to go up in Staples - that's all what matters ........

already looking forward to another ring night .......

[Kevin Durant 35]

Kobe doesn't deserve being compared to Jordan.

[Booharv]

Seriously people, you can believe in comparing Kobe and Jordan or you can believe in advanced stats.

It's one or the other, but not both.

[DeadlyDynasty]

As long as the Lakers are winning I couldn't give a fuck about individual comparisons. MJ is hands-down the GOAT, case closed. The Lakers, however, are a better franchise far and away, and that's all I care about

[Booharv]

As long as the Lakers are winning I couldn't give a fuck about individual comparisons. MJ is hands-down the GOAT, case closed. The Lakers, however, are a better franchise far and away, and that's all I care about

:toast. I salute your unbiasedness (if that's a word). tbh I showed mine in the Duncan vs. Hakeem thread.

[JamStone]

You gave the answer and obviously it's no. But what's your point.

Pretty much everyone in the world says Jordan is better than Kobe. Pretty much everyone says Kobe will never catch Jordan. So ok, why so mad that people compare when the comparison always tells us Jordan is greater? You should be happy they make the comparison, because every time, Jordan comes out on top and does it easily.

People compare Kobe with Jordan because Jordan set the standard so high that it would take someone playing at an unbelievable level for a long time to even come close to touching him. No one has come close. And, no, not even Kobe. But, of all the players that haven't come even close, Kobe has come closest. And yes he's still not close. But people like to talk. People like to explore the possibilities that Kobe could get in the same universe as the GOAT. But it's just talk. And almost everyone knows that.

Why are you so mad at people talking?

Heck, if you're so upset about it, why did you start another thread about it?

[Booharv]

You gave the answer and obviously it's no. But what's your point.

Pretty much everyone in the world says Jordan is better than Kobe. Pretty much everyone says Kobe will never catch Jordan. So ok, why so mad that people compare when the comparison always tells us Jordan is greater? You should be happy they make the comparison, because every time, Jordan comes out on top and does it easily.

People compare Kobe with Jordan because Jordan set the standard so high that it would take someone playing at an unbelievable level for a long time to even come close to touching him. No one has come close. And, no, not even Kobe. But, of all the players that haven't come even close, Kobe has come closest. And yes he's still not close. But people like to talk. People like to explore the possibilities that Kobe could get in the same universe as the GOAT. But it's just talk. And almost everyone knows that.

Why are you so mad at people talking?

Heck, if you're so upset about it, why did you start another thread about it?

Are you saying people like to have fun making a retarded comparison and that they should be left to have their fun making their retarded comparison? Like you should leave the kid who likes to play with the box that the present came in more than the present alone?

[An Unbiased Fan]

Dirk > Bird in advanced stats

I guess OP thinks Bird is the lesser player. :downspin:

[stretch]

Of course. We let you girls do it when calling Duncan the greatest power forward of all time. Yet everyone knows Karl Malone's numbers smashes Duncan's.

Bad comparison, because not only does MJ's numbers > Kobe's numbers, MJ's accomplishments and accolades > Kobe's accomplishments and accolades.

Malone's accomplishments doesn't compare to Duncan's, and he wasn't spoon-fed 80% of his points from John Stockton creating wide open jumpers and dunks for him.

Karl Malone IMO is one of the more overrated players ever.

[Booharv]

Dirk > Bird in advanced stats

I guess OP thinks Bird is the lesser player. :downspin:

I just checked stats reference, he isn't. They're similar but Bird destroys him in assist ratio, steals, rebounds, plus has better defensive stats, and single season highs in several categories. They're about equal in career PER and win shares per 48 and Dirk beats him in a few singles season highs But Bird's a wash with Dirk even with Bird's last couple of years weighing down his numbers like Dirk's eventually will. Dirk's closer than he should be but its not a total all category whitewash like MJ v. Kobe.

[MiamiHeat]

really, i've grown tired of even trying to defend MJ anymore.

I just point and laugh at dumbass marc jackson/kobe/laker fans

[Booharv]

Of course. We let you girls do it when calling Duncan the greatest power forward of all time. Yet everyone knows Karl Malone's numbers smashes Duncan's.

Not really, look at the advanced stats. Duncan consistently destroys Karl Malone in win shares (Duncan lead the league in win share categories nine times to Malone's three), Duncan led the league in defensive rating three times and Malone never came close. Tbh Duncan pimp slaps Malone overall in advanced stats.

Go find a new argument.

[Fabbs]

Fag hats and appearances in mascara?

[Edward]

Bad comparison, because not only does MJ's numbers > Kobe's numbers, MJ's accomplishments and accolades > Kobe's accomplishments and accolades.

Malone's accomplishments doesn't compare to Duncan's, and he wasn't spoon-fed 80% of his points from John Stockton creating wide open jumpers and dunks for him.

Karl Malone IMO is one of the more overrated players ever.


Both Malone and Stockton are overrated, and they were equally dependent on each other to make each other look better than they really were. For some reason when two players run a pick and roll really well, the PG gets all the credit, and the big gets labeled as someone who would suck without said PG. Having one of the best passers of all time inflated Malone's stats, and having one of the best pick and roll bigs of all time inflated Stockton's stats. Neither one was more/less dependent on the other.

[Mavs_man_41]

Fag hats and appearances in mascara?

Faggs hats?

[Booharv]

Fag hats and appearances in mascara?

He destroys Jordan in fag hat ratio and mascara shares, but trails in Hitler mustache efficiency rating.

[Mark Jackson]

Ladies and gentlemen, hide your wives and hide your children.

There's a black mamba in the building!

[Mark Jackson]

Of course. We let you girls do it when calling Duncan the greatest power forward of all time. Yet everyone knows Karl Malone's numbers smashes Duncan's.

That was a grown man post

[Veterinarian]

Where's the Jeff Van Gundy troll?

[Killakobe81]

nope, Kobe is not as good as MJ ...

He is not really THAT close ...

But to say kobe or LBJ are not in the same sentence is asinine IMHO ...

Jordan is JUST better ...i may not be a jordan fan but I repect his game and his gangsta ...

Too bad the haters (jordan jockers) dont do the same for kobe ...or LBJ

[cobbler]

Only one stat matters when it is all said and done.

Rings!

The players count titles.... not stats.

Shaq, Kobe, and TD having a conversation....

Kobe: I have 5! Leaving you two in the dust now!

Shaq: But but but... I was 1A and you were 1B for 3 of them so my tally is worth more.

TD: But but but... My advanced stats are clearly better than yours so 4 > 5!!!

Kobe: :lmao :lmao:lmao

... MJ, your next!!!!

[HarlemHeat37]

Lol Bill Russell >> Jordan..

[Pero]

Only one stat matters when it is all said and done.

Rings!

The players count titles.... not stats.

Shaq, Kobe, and TD having a conversation....

Kobe: I have 5! Leaving you two in the dust now!

Shaq: But but but... I was 1A and you were 1B for 3 of them so my tally is worth more.

TD: But but but... My advanced stats are clearly better than yours so 4 > 5!!!

Kobe: :lmao :lmao:lmao

... MJ, your next!!!!

LMAO, more like TD would say: Oh god, when are you two going to grow up?

[Ghazi]

I always find it comical when Lakers fans say "I can care less, as long as we keep winnin rings"... um, like no shit sherlock... that doesn't make you some sort of pious fan or true fan anything like that.. youre just stating something fucking obvious. just my 2 cents on this irrelevant topic.

[HarlemHeat37]

Well, to be fair, Laker fans are actually on the team when they win titles..shit, Gobbler is even telling us what NBA players talk about, implying that he actually knows:lol..

[cobbler]

Lol Bill Russell >> Jordan..

Better at winning titles...

[TheMACHINE]

Kobe haters compare Kobe to Jordan. So if you want to stop hearing comparisons, tell all your homies to STFU.

[cobbler]

Well, to be fair, Laker fans are actually on the team when they win titles..shit, Gobbler is even telling us what NBA players talk about, implying that he actually knows:lol..

When MJ had 4 titles... his said his goal was to top Magics 5. Simple as that. He didn't comment on wanting to top Magics stats or have the best shooting %, winshares, points etc etc

I played many years and at any level its about titles. I have yet to be in a conversation with opponents and have stats be a determining factor in one upsmanship.

And since you are obsessed with me and who I know or do not know, I have been in many many conversations with NBA players over the years with my connections through USA basketball and Laker locker room access.

Maybe when you get past being cut and actually make a team... you too can see the game beyond a stat sheet. :lol

[cobbler]

I always find it comical when Lakers fans say "I can care less, as long as we keep winnin rings"... um, like no shit sherlock... that doesn't make you some sort of pious fan or true fan anything like that.. youre just stating something fucking obvious. just my 2 cents on this irrelevant topic.

What would a Mav or Mav fan know about winning rings? :bang

[Veterinarian]

What would a Mav or Mav fan know about winning rings? :bang

He gets ESPN/ABC too.

[spizzle_tronk]

u mad

[JamStone]

What would a Mav or Mav fan know about winning rings? :bang

Same as any "fan" of a team that has actually won rings.

[cobbler]

Apparently the sarcasm wasn't grasped. :lol

[lotr1trekkie]

Stats don't always tell the story and neither do rings. If that were true the 60's Celtics would have the best players at every position. How many of you clowns have ever seen West, Baylor, Bird, Magic, Chamberlain, Thurman, Kareem, the Pearl, Frazier, Archibal, Walton in their primes?
If your knowledge of basketball begins in the 90's you have missed a lot. It is really too bad we can't bring these athletes back to compete against each other. If Russel was playing for the Celtics this year, the Lakers lose in 5. If West was playing for the Lakers at SG the Lakers sweep. Everyone goes bonkers over Fisher. That was a subnormal performance for Jerry West. If Pete Maravich and Rick Barry were playing with today's rules they would be lighting up the score sheet. Kobe and James are clearly the most dominant players in the league now but you can't make comparisons unless Kobe had to cover MJ in his prime.

[JamStone]

Apparently the sarcasm wasn't grasped. :lol

Hard to tell when that is the type of comment some posters on these boards actually use in all seriousness.

[Chieflion]

Matt Bonner: I got 1 ring, bitches.

Brian Scalabrine: Hey, I got 1 ring too.

Adam Morrison: Shut the fuck up, posers, I got 2 rings.

[cobbler]

Matt Bonner: I got 1 ring, bitches.

Brian Scalabrine: Hey, I got 1 ring too.

Adam Morrison: Shut the fuck up, posers, I got 2 rings.


And that is just how the convo would go amoungst the scrubs.

Honestly.... If Magic, Bird, and MJ were in a conversation and taking trash what do you think would be the topic?

Magic would rib Larry cause he's got 5 to his 3. MJ would boast that he has 6. Come on. Do you honesty think Magic would say... but MJ... I made my teamates better. That Bird would argue... but Magic... I was a much better shooter than you.

It's a joke to think these guys consider stats. It's all about the rings. And they would laugh at the Bonners and Morrisons and simply say... yeah you have said amount of rings riding the pine.

The stats and advanced stats are for the media, analysts, and armchair GM's. Stats only tell a small portion of the game. From the players perspective, it's about championships. Plain and simple. It's the very reason Magic just went on record and said he considers Kobe and himself equal and if Kobe wins another that he would take the back seat.

And as lotr1trekkie stated, most of you never even saw players before the 80's other than video clips. It's impossibe to compare between eras. You guys missed out on some truly amazing players. Competition changes due to rule differences, expansion, travel, training, medical advances, nutrition, equiptment, etc etc...

And just for arguments sake... I don't have MJ or Kobe as GOAT so don't feed me the Kobe homer crap.

[Giuseppe]

^Cobby, the voice of reason & moderation in Championship times.

[Venti Quattro]

Rape charges beaten.

[HarlemHeat37]

When MJ had 4 titles... his said his goal was to top Magics 5. Simple as that. He didn't comment on wanting to top Magics stats or have the best shooting %, winshares, points etc etc

I played many years and at any level its about titles. I have yet to be in a conversation with opponents and have stats be a determining factor in one upsmanship.

And since you are obsessed with me and who I know or do not know, I have been in many many conversations with NBA players over the years with my connections through USA basketball and Laker locker room access.

Maybe when you get past being cut and actually make a team... you too can see the game beyond a stat sheet. :lol

I'm not going to thoroughly acknowledge the fact that you think you know how NBA legends would converse based on the fact that you have met NBA players(so have I, I've even played with some through HS, as I've said here..so have many people here LOL)..I won't talk about the fact that you think you know about winning because you were good at wheelchair basketball, as if it's comparable to a pro basketball league that involves many politics, millions of $, and actual analysis that goes much deeper than the simple "X player has more rings than him"..

Do you believe Bill Russell is the GOAT?..simple question..if you answer yes, then I'll give you a pass, and your list of GOAT would make more sense..if not, it invalidates all your arguments and the beliefs that you've made clear here..

[Nahtanoj]

Based on statistics, Wilt Chamberlain destroys both Kobe and Jordan.

[cobbler]

I'm not going to thoroughly acknowledge the fact that you think you know how NBA legends would converse based on the fact that you have met NBA players(so have I, I've even played with some through HS, as I've said here..so have many people here LOL)..I won't talk about the fact that you think you know about winning because you were good at wheelchair basketball, as if it's comparable to a pro basketball league that involves many politics, millions of $, and actual analysis that goes much deeper than the simple "X player has more rings than him"..

Do you believe Bill Russell is the GOAT?..simple question..if you answer yes, then I'll give you a pass, and your list of GOAT would make more sense..if not, it invalidates all your arguments and the beliefs that you've made clear here..

I never said that was my opinion... I said from my experience that is what I see as a players perspective. Can you not read? GOAT is a subjective topic and you can make arguments for any of the top 10 or so players based on different criteria and GOAT was not part of this discussion.

GOAT can be defined in so many ways. Rings, individual athletic talent, fundementals, by position, team player, teamates, era, stats etc etc

I personally would choose the player or players that I feel had the most talent. The ones that when put on the floor one on one would take the other. I have wavered over the years between two players and I have seen nothing to change my mind. Wilt and Oscar. Russell is definelty high on the list.

That does not in anyway detract from my above posts. I have seen the talks between many players both in media and in person and I firmly believe that championships is the determining factor amoungst themselves. I know it is with my sport and friends. My posts above were in reference to STATS determining who the better player is. That simply isn't an argument I have seen AMOUNG players.

You can toss out your ignorant wheelchair comments all you want. At any level you can evaluate talent. Amature, college, international, pro, and yes even wheelchair ball. This isn't the first time you have mocked my sport or me for my success at it and it just shows you for the hater & fool you are. For someone who constanly tosses out the morals card... your high horse is severly flawed.

... and yeah... when I am evaluating basketball talent I often consider the politics and money involved. :lmao:lmao:lmao

[Smooth Criminal]

And that is just how the convo would go amoungst the scrubs.

Honestly.... If Magic, Bird, and MJ were in a conversation and taking trash what do you think would be the topic?

Magic would rib Larry cause he's got 5 to his 3. MJ would boast that he has 6. Come on. Do you honesty think Magic would say... but MJ... I made my teamates better. That Bird would argue... but Magic... I was a much better shooter than you.Yes, those 3 definitely would argue that, but the deciding factor would be number of rings. And the 2 with less would have no way to ultimatly one-up the guy with 6, just as the guy with 3 could never one-up the guy with 5.

It's a joke to think these guys consider stats. It's all about the rings. And they would laugh at the Bonners and Morrisons and simply say... yeah you have said amount of rings riding the pine. Maybe not stats but skills. MJ would say they were slow and couldnt jump, Bird would say they other two were way worse shooters than him, Magic would say neither were close to being as good of passers as he was, etc.

The stats and advanced stats are for the media, analysts, and armchair GM's. Stats only tell a small portion of the game. From the players perspective, it's about championships. Plain and simple. It's the very reason Magic just went on record and said he considers Kobe and himself equal and if Kobe wins another that he would take the back seat.

And as lotr1trekkie stated, most of you never even saw players before the 80's other than video clips. It's impossibe to compare between eras. You guys missed out on some truly amazing players. Competition changes due to rule differences, expansion, travel, training, medical advances, nutrition, equiptment, etc etc...

And just for arguments sake... I don't have MJ or Kobe as GOAT so don't feed me the Kobe homer crap.
Kareem?
I personally find myself leaning towards Magic as the GOAT but Kareem has a very strong case as well

[Veterinarian]

Magic would rib Larry cause he's got 5 to his 3. MJ would boast that he has 6. Come on. Do you honesty think Magic would say... but MJ... I made my teamates better. That Bird would argue... but Magic... I was a much better shooter than you.

Lol at your dumbass imagined conversations. Magic was saying Jordan was the greatest ever during his first three-peat. Magic had him destroyed in rings then and he was still saying to anyone who would listen to his boring ass that Jordan was better.

[Veterinarian]

actual>>>>>>>>>>>>>>imagined conversations

N6og_pOVi2w

[BullsDynasty]

Stats don't always tell the story and neither do rings. If that were true the 60's Celtics would have the best players at every position. How many of you clowns have ever seen West, Baylor, Bird, Magic, Chamberlain, Thurman, Kareem, the Pearl, Frazier, Archibal, Walton in their primes?
If your knowledge of basketball begins in the 90's you have missed a lot. It is really too bad we can't bring these athletes back to compete against each other. If Russel was playing for the Celtics this year, the Lakers lose in 5. If West was playing for the Lakers at SG the Lakers sweep. Everyone goes bonkers over Fisher. That was a subnormal performance for Jerry West. If Pete Maravich and Rick Barry were playing with today's rules they would be lighting up the score sheet. Kobe and James are clearly the most dominant players in the league now but you can't make comparisons unless Kobe had to cover MJ in his prime.

I don't buy that crap. Every generation NBA players get athletic and better. Bill Russell looked dominant because he played against mostly weak players. Ive watched a few of the old 60s clips and their ball handling was mediocre, they barely knew how to run plays, and whenever Bill Russell blocked a shot its because the guy who shot it shoots it directly right over him. Its like there was no basketball I.Q or whatsover. Every generation a new type of player comes in and builds on what was already established and improves the game. We went from a transition of George Mikan to Russell to West to Magic/Bird to Jordan and now Lebron/Kobe. If Bill Russell was in his prime and I got to chose between him and Bynum I'd chose bynum because Bill Russell wouldnt be able to compete in today's era....

[cobbler]

Lol at your dumbass imagined conversations. Magic was saying Jordan was the greatest ever during his first three-peat. Magic had him destroyed in rings then and he was still saying to anyone who would listen to his boring ass that Jordan was better.

Because as he explained, he never 3peated. He obviously felt 3peating trumped 5 spread out... not unlike how the Lakers 3peat trumps the Spurs 4 titles.

You are reading way too much into this. I stand by my points that players ultimately value rings over awards, records, or stats and amoungst themselves that is the trump card.

When discussing GOAT from a media or fans standpoint, there are too may variables. GOAT at what? Winning? Stats? Awards? Skills? Desire? etc etc

[cobbler]

I don't buy that crap. Every generation NBA players get athletic and better. Bill Russell looked dominant because he played against mostly weak players. Ive watched a few of the old 60s clips and their ball handling was mediocre, they barely knew how to run plays, and whenever Bill Russell blocked a shot its because the guy who shot it shoots it directly right over him. Its like there was no basketball I.Q or whatsover. Every generation a new type of player comes in and builds on what was already established and improves the game. We went from a transition of George Mikan to Russell to West to Magic/Bird to Jordan and now Lebron/Kobe. If Bill Russell was in his prime and I got to chose between him and Bynum I'd chose bynum because Bill Russell wouldnt be able to compete in today's era....

You still cannot discredit a player because of the evolution of the game. What ultimately seperates most the greats from the others is their desire to win and work ethic to make it happen. This is why comparing across eras is impossible. You have no clue that Russell, West, Baylor, Oscar etc couldn't compete today. If you just transport them thru time magically... of course not. But if those guys were playing today, they would have the benefit of modern science, training techniques, tools etc. In my book.... they would excel in any era.

So 50 years from now when the avg player makes JBJ look scrawny will that diminish Jordans, Magicd, Birdd etc legacys? No.

[ezau]

As long as the Lakers are winning I couldn't give a fuck about individual comparisons. MJ is hands-down the GOAT, case closed. The Lakers, however, are a better franchise far and away, and that's all I care about

Lakers are slowly but surely catching Boston's number of titles.

[cobbler]

Lakers are slowly but surely catching Boston's number of titles.

Would be nice to be the only other team to 4peat to surpass them! :toast

[ezau]

Why compare Kobe to MJ when he's not even the best Laker ever?

[ezau]

Would be nice to be the only other team to 4peat to surpass them! :toast

In 10 years time, I will not be surprised if the Lakers have surpassed the Celtics' number of trophies.

[Veterinarian]

I don't buy that crap. Every generation NBA players get athletic and better.

Are you saying human beings from today are athletically superior to human beings from the 1960s? Tbh evolution is a slow, gradual process that takes advantage of mutations caused sometimes by radiation and other factors other thousands and thousands and thousands of years which don't quit work like you think they do. If it worked like you thought, in 200 years people would be jumping on top of buildings.

Most of the great athletes in today's game didn't do any high tech fancy advanced training to get the way they are either, they're just fools who can jump high. There were plenty of fools who could jump high in the 1980s.

[Veterinarian]

Because as he explained, he never 3peated. He obviously felt 3peating trumped 5 spread out... not unlike how the Lakers 3peat trumps the Spurs 4 titles.

You are reading way too much into this. I stand by my points that players ultimately value rings over awards, records, or stats and amoungst themselves that is the trump card.

When discussing GOAT from a media or fans standpoint, there are too may variables. GOAT at what? Winning? Stats? Awards? Skills? Desire? etc etc

He hadn't three-peated at the point in that video. Also since three-peating is important and only Shaq and Russell have three-peated, then because Russell came from the Paleolithic era where man couldn't leave the ground because of his evolutionary deficiencies, Shaq is the best big man ever.

Lol at that.

[Smooth Criminal]

Are you saying human beings from today are athletically superior to human beings from the 1960s? Tbh evolution is a slow, gradual process that takes advantage of mutations caused sometimes by radiation and other factors other thousands and thousands and thousands of years which don't quit work like you think they do. If it worked like you thought, in 200 years people would be jumping on top of buildings.

Most of the great athletes in today's game didn't do any high tech fancy advanced training to get the way they are either, they're just fools who can jump high. There were plenty of fools who could jump high in the 1980s.
If you think that radiation and mutations are the main cause of evolution then you should avoid using it as an example for anything, as your knowledge is limited. Evolution occurs over millions of years, and changes in life are mostly due to survival of the fittest. Organisms best equipped to survive and reproduce and spread their genes, do so. Those that aren't, don't.

[Chieflion]

If you think that radiation and mutations are the main cause of evolution then you should avoid using it as an example for anything, as your knowledge is limited. Evolution occurs over millions of years, and changes in life are mostly due to survival of the fittest. Organisms best equipped to survive and reproduce and spread their genes, do so. Those that aren't, don't.

Both of you have the same point and consequences. There is only one conclusion. People don't suddenly become athletically dominant against their older counterparts. Otherwise, 100m sprints at the Olympics would be banned because the race would last for only 6 seconds.

[Veterinarian]

If you think that radiation and mutations are the main cause of evolution then you should avoid using it as an example for anything, as your knowledge is limited. Evolution occurs over millions of years, and changes in life are mostly due to survival of the fittest. Organisms best equipped to survive and reproduce and spread their genes, do so. Those that aren't, don't.

Wow, prepare for some ownage. Cover yer eyes kids.

Evolution absolutely depends on mutations. This is the only way that new alleles are created.

Small changes in genes caused by mutations, specifically single-base substitutions ("point mutations"), lead to broad changes that distinguish species. Potentially, a single gene mutation can not only be beneficial occasionally but can lead to a major change in phenotype aka adaptive evolution.

Mutations are basically the well springs of evolution.

And the thousands and thousands and thousands of years comment was meant to signify hundreds of thousands and yes, millions and millions of years.

[Veterinarian]

Where you're confused is that the mutations allow those blessed with them to survive better and then their mutations are passed on. It's a common misunderstanding.

[BullsDynasty]

You still cannot discredit a player because of the evolution of the game. What ultimately seperates most the greats from the others is their desire to win and work ethic to make it happen. This is why comparing across eras is impossible. You have no clue that Russell, West, Baylor, Oscar etc couldn't compete today. If you just transport them thru time magically... of course not. But if those guys were playing today, they would have the benefit of modern science, training techniques, tools etc. In my book.... they would excel in any era.

So 50 years from now when the avg player makes JBJ look scrawny will that diminish Jordans, Magicd, Birdd etc legacys? No.

Of course the players were great. ( In their own era) And they will still remain one of the bests because of what they achieved in their current time. What I don't agree is when he said the Celtics of the 60s would be able to beat the current Lakers. Thats not true because of the evolution of the game. Players get better and so old players in the 60s wont stand a chance against todays players...

[Killakobe81]

Based on statistics, Wilt Chamberlain destroys both Kobe and Jordan.

Yep ...

[pauls931]

Can the mods just delete all the Kobe vs MJ threads?

[JamStone]

NBA athletes now aren't bigger and stronger than NBA athletes in the 1960s because of evolution and gene mutation of the world's overall population. They're bigger and stronger because of a much larger pool of people that started playing basketball competitively, thereby raising the standards. The best athletes back in the 1960s were not all playing professional basketball. They were also playing baseball and football and ran track or went into boxing. But now, the NBA probably has a much, much larger percentage of the world's best athletes. You add the fact that the pool includes international players so the pool of possible NBA players is global now, yes, NBA players are bigger and stronger and more athletic than the players in the NBA back in the 1960s.

But there are also advancements, both nutritionally and with strength and conditioning techniques that have made a difference now. 99% of NBA players lift weights these days, and not just for recreation. They have to in order to compete at that level. Back in the 60s, I wouldn't be surprised if it were 10% or less of NBA players who lifted weights routinely. It wasn't a necessity like it is now. You add all the funky voodoo crap NBA training staffs put players through these days to maximize athleticism, yes, I think that has quite a bit to do with NBA players being more athletic and stronger than they were 40-50 years ago. It's not gene mutation. But in its own way, it's very much evolution. It's evolution of the game and the standards of NBA competition.

[stretch]

NBA athletes now aren't bigger and stronger than NBA athletes in the 1960s because of evolution and gene mutation of the world's overall population. They're bigger and stronger because of a much larger pool of people that started playing basketball competitively, thereby raising the standards. The best athletes back in the 1960s were not all playing professional basketball. They were also playing baseball and football and ran track or went into boxing. But now, the NBA probably has a much, much larger percentage of the world's best athletes. You add the fact that the pool includes international players so the pool of possible NBA players is global now, yes, NBA players are bigger and stronger and more athletic than the players in the NBA back in the 1960s.

But there are also advancements, both nutritionally and with strength and conditioning techniques that have made a difference now. 99% of NBA players lift weights these days, and not just for recreation. They have to in order to compete at that level. Back in the 60s, I wouldn't be surprised if it were 10% or less of NBA players who lifted weights routinely. It wasn't a necessity like it is now. You add all the funky voodoo crap NBA training staffs put players through these days to maximize athleticism, yes, I think that has quite a bit to do with NBA players being more athletic and stronger than they were 40-50 years ago. It's not gene mutation. But in its own way, it's very much evolution. It's evolution of the game and the standards of NBA competition.

+1.

Its the reason why guys like MJ, Wilt, Jim Brown are all considered "ahead of their time". They were exceptional athletes that their sports/eras had never really seen before, whereas today, its considrably more common to see a guy with MJ type athletic ability (Kobe, Wade, VC, T-Mac, Lebron, Carmello, etc...), or Jim Brown type mix of great power and speed (Tomlinson, Peterson, Alexander...)

[stretch]

You still cannot discredit a player because of the evolution of the game. What ultimately seperates most the greats from the others is their desire to win and work ethic to make it happen. This is why comparing across eras is impossible. You have no clue that Russell, West, Baylor, Oscar etc couldn't compete today. If you just transport them thru time magically... of course not. But if those guys were playing today, they would have the benefit of modern science, training techniques, tools etc. In my book.... they would excel in any era.

So 50 years from now when the avg player makes JBJ look scrawny will that diminish Jordans, Magicd, Birdd etc legacys? No.

A players legacy is one thing. No one in their right mind would really discredit Russels legacy. It's just highly doubtful he would be able to win 11 rings in more modern eras, with far superior competition. Highly doubtful that Oscar Robertson would be able to average a triple double over a season in modern eras, not only due to superior competition, but due to the increase of basketball strategy on both ends which has led to a decrease of posessions per game. Less opportunitiy to put up such monster numbers. If Bron can't do it, I strongly doubt Oscar could, considering how much smaller he is than Bron. It would be pretty much impossible for him to average double digit rebounds.

[Booharv]

NBA athletes now aren't bigger and stronger than NBA athletes in the 1960s because of evolution and gene mutation of the world's overall population. They're bigger and stronger because of a much larger pool of people that started playing basketball competitively, thereby raising the standards. The best athletes back in the 1960s were not all playing professional basketball. They were also playing baseball and football and ran track or went into boxing. But now, the NBA probably has a much, much larger percentage of the world's best athletes. You add the fact that the pool includes international players so the pool of possible NBA players is global now, yes, NBA players are bigger and stronger and more athletic than the players in the NBA back in the 1960s.

But there are also advancements, both nutritionally and with strength and conditioning techniques that have made a difference now. 99% of NBA players lift weights these days, and not just for recreation. They have to in order to compete at that level. Back in the 60s, I wouldn't be surprised if it were 10% or less of NBA players who lifted weights routinely. It wasn't a necessity like it is now. You add all the funky voodoo crap NBA training staffs put players through these days to maximize athleticism, yes, I think that has quite a bit to do with NBA players being more athletic and stronger than they were 40-50 years ago. It's not gene mutation. But in its own way, it's very much evolution. It's evolution of the game and the standards of NBA competition.

:tu To the expanding talent pool point. But from what I've read the training has less to do with it than people make out. VC is one of the best athletes ever and Antonio Davis called him out repeatedly for never lifting weights, not training hard, etc. Plus I have a hard time believing some of these undisciplined kids coming out of college like JR Smith, Tyrus Thomas, Stromile Swift, etc got their hops from Olympic style training regimens and strict diets.

[Booharv]

I can't find a free article where Davis calls out VC for being lazy but he did and he said VC didn't like lifting weights. These pay ones have the basic info:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/615935211.html?dids=615935211:615935211&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+11%2C+2004&author=Doug+Smith&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Davis+disses+Vince%2C+fans%3B+Ex-Rap+questions+Carter%27s+heart%2C+lone+wolf+ex-GM+Boo+management%2C+not+the+players%2C+Bull+tells +Toronto&pqatl=google

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/617225611.html?dids=617225611:617225611&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+12%2C+2004&author=Doug+Smith&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Carter+won%27t+play+Davis%27+%27games%27%3B+R aptor+shrugs+off+ex-mate%27s+criticism+%27He%27s+the+last+person+I+wor ry+about%27&pqatl=google

[Booharv]

lol VC wasting his talent.

[JamStone]

Perhaps VC is among that 1% that doesn't really lift weights. But hating lifting weights and not lifting weights at all are two different things. Plus, there are always freak athletes who just are naturally strong and quick and agile and good leapers. The difference in eras is that there are way more NBA players now that can make up for not being freak athletes by lifting weights and working on improving their strength, quickness, agility, and jumping ability with techniques and equipment that would have never been available to players 50 years ago. So the athleticism of the entire league as a whole is raised. And it's not just about the top whatever percent of freak athletes.

As for guys like Tyrus Thomas and Stromile Swift and JR Smith, I bet those guys and most of the other guys who are naturally athletic lift weights daily and do exercises to maintain and maximize the athleticism they have. And jumping high and running fast are not the only two facets of athleticism.

[BullsDynasty]

You still cannot discredit a player because of the evolution of the game. What ultimately seperates most the greats from the others is their desire to win and work ethic to make it happen. This is why comparing across eras is impossible. You have no clue that Russell, West, Baylor, Oscar etc couldn't compete today. If you just transport them thru time magically... of course not. But if those guys were playing today, they would have the benefit of modern science, training techniques, tools etc. In my book.... they would excel in any era.

So 50 years from now when the avg player makes JBJ look scrawny will that diminish Jordans, Magicd, Birdd etc legacys? No.

Again, Im not discrediting players. No matter what, their legacy will forever be remembered thats a known fact but you fail to see my argument. As I stated before today's era is much harder to play in than the 60's. Bill Russell although will still remain one of the best centers of all time no matter what happens, I still think if he were to play in today's era he wouldn't have won a ring. I watched his game in the 60's and nothing about him impresses me enough to say he would dominate today's game.


Wow, prepare for some ownage. Cover yer eyes kids.

Evolution absolutely depends on mutations. This is the only way that new alleles are created.

Small changes in genes caused by mutations, specifically single-base substitutions ("point mutations"), lead to broad changes that distinguish species. Potentially, a single gene mutation can not only be beneficial occasionally but can lead to a major change in phenotype aka adaptive evolution.

Mutations are basically the well springs of evolution.

And the thousands and thousands and thousands of years comment was meant to signify hundreds of thousands and yes, millions and millions of years.

Wrong, Im a biology major and I can tell you evolution isn't JUST about mutations. Have you ever heard of the hardy equillibrium? They are a set of conditions where if any is violated then evolution can occur. Mutations is one of them but isn't the only thing that causes evolution. In fact mutation plays little or no role at all when you consider the population. Mutation is only effective in very small populations.


NBA athletes now aren't bigger and stronger than NBA athletes in the 1960s because of evolution and gene mutation of the world's overall population. They're bigger and stronger because of a much larger pool of people that started playing basketball competitively, thereby raising the standards. The best athletes back in the 1960s were not all playing professional basketball. They were also playing baseball and football and ran track or went into boxing. But now, the NBA probably has a much, much larger percentage of the world's best athletes. You add the fact that the pool includes international players so the pool of possible NBA players is global now, yes, NBA players are bigger and stronger and more athletic than the players in the NBA back in the 1960s.

But there are also advancements, both nutritionally and with strength and conditioning techniques that have made a difference now. 99% of NBA players lift weights these days, and not just for recreation. They have to in order to compete at that level. Back in the 60s, I wouldn't be surprised if it were 10% or less of NBA players who lifted weights routinely. It wasn't a necessity like it is now. You add all the funky voodoo crap NBA training staffs put players through these days to maximize athleticism, yes, I think that has quite a bit to do with NBA players being more athletic and stronger than they were 40-50 years ago. It's not gene mutation. But in its own way, it's very much evolution. It's evolution of the game and the standards of NBA competition.

+1

[Edward]

Again, Im not discrediting players. No matter what, their legacy will forever be remembered thats a known fact but you fail to see my argument. As I stated before today's era is much harder to play in than the 60's. Bill Russell although will still remain one of the best centers of all time no matter what happens, I still think if he were to play in today's era he wouldn't have won a ring. I watched his game in the 60's and nothing about him impresses me enough to say he would dominate today's game.


He wouldn't. He'd be a rich man's Ben Wallace.

[cobbler]

NBA athletes now aren't bigger and stronger than NBA athletes in the 1960s because of evolution and gene mutation of the world's overall population. They're bigger and stronger because of a much larger pool of people that started playing basketball competitively, thereby raising the standards. The best athletes back in the 1960s were not all playing professional basketball. They were also playing baseball and football and ran track or went into boxing. But now, the NBA probably has a much, much larger percentage of the world's best athletes. You add the fact that the pool includes international players so the pool of possible NBA players is global now, yes, NBA players are bigger and stronger and more athletic than the players in the NBA back in the 1960s.

But there are also advancements, both nutritionally and with strength and conditioning techniques that have made a difference now. 99% of NBA players lift weights these days, and not just for recreation. They have to in order to compete at that level. Back in the 60s, I wouldn't be surprised if it were 10% or less of NBA players who lifted weights routinely. It wasn't a necessity like it is now. You add all the funky voodoo crap NBA training staffs put players through these days to maximize athleticism, yes, I think that has quite a bit to do with NBA players being more athletic and stronger than they were 40-50 years ago. It's not gene mutation. But in its own way, it's very much evolution. It's evolution of the game and the standards of NBA competition.

And lets not forget that players today train all year. Players in the 60's and 70's had summer jobs to make ends meet. The average player though making a decent salary did not make the ridiculous amounts of money above the avg citizen that the players of today make.

[cobbler]

In 3 years time, I will not be surprised if the Lakers have surpassed the Celtics' number of trophies.

Fixed

[cobbler]

Why compare Kobe to MJ when he's not even the best Laker ever?

That is debatble.

[Veterinarian]

Wrong, Im a biology major and I can tell you evolution isn't JUST about mutations. Have you ever heard of the hardy equillibrium? They are a set of conditions where if any is violated then evolution can occur. Mutations is one of them but isn't the only thing that causes evolution. In fact mutation plays little or no role at all when you consider the population. Mutation is only effective in very small populations.



How are new alleles created?

[Killakobe81]

That is debatble.

agree ...I prefer magic but I can see arguments being made for:

Kobe
West
Baylor
Kareem

and even Shaq to an extent ...but I sure as hell would not as good as he was for 5 years i think he and wilt are together a notch below the other 5

[BullsDynasty]

How are new alleles created?

Mutation creates new alleles yes we all know that but thats not the only way evolution occurs as you stated....

[HarlemHeat37]

Shaq was much, much better than Elgin Baylor in every possible way, even if we're talking about strictly from a Laker standpoint..

[Cane]

Jordan has 7 seasons with a TS% of 57.9 or higher including four consecutive seasons with a TS% over 60. Kobe's best TS% would be Jordan's seventh best.

lol @ Kobe never leading the league in any category of win shares and Jordan dominating that category for nearly a decade in offensive, total, and per 48.

lol@ Kobe's best rebounding being way below Jordan's.

lol @ Kobe's way higher turnover percentage

lol @ Jordan's assist ratio for a season being way out of Kobe's stratosphere and his assist ratio for a career being significantly better as well

lol @ Kobe even getting dominated in blocks and steals

lol @ Jordan even dominating in Hollinger's questionable PER

lol @ the whole concept of comparing Kobe to Jordan

The only stat Kobe beats Jordan in is usage rate, lol.

:wow

[BullsDynasty]

agree ...I prefer magic but I can see arguments being made for:

Kobe
West
Baylor
Kareem

and even Shaq to an extent ...but I sure as hell would not as good as he was for 5 years i think he and wilt are together a notch below the other 5

How is West > Wilt?

[Killakobe81]

How is West > Wilt?

Look I am not making an advanced stat argument.

i was speaking about their place or legacy in lakers lore ...

I never saw West, Baylor or Wilt play.

i much like simmons did with his Book on Ball ... am taking the word of longtime Laker fans and relatives of mine that have followed the team before i was born.

Out of the guys i have seen ...

1. Magic
2. Kobe
3. Kareem (i didnt see his prime I started watching in 1980)
4. shaq

I love how non laker fans goona tell us who is greater...this just my opinion obviously ...

But my 5 criteria for judging was:

1. rings
2. Fans that saw all of them play opinions
3. impact
4. stats
5. Overall career AS A LAKER

[BullsDynasty]

Look I am not making an advanced stat argument.

i was speaking about their place or legacy in lakers lore ...

I never saw West, Baylor or Wilt play.

i much like simmons did with his Book on Ball ... am taking the word of longtime Laker fans and relatives of mine that have followed the team before i was born.

Out of the guys i have seen ...

1. Magic
2. Kobe
3. Kareem (i didnt see his prime I started watching in 1980)
4. shaq

I love how non laker fans goona tell us who is greater...this just my opinion obviously ...

But my 5 criteria for judging was:

1. rings
2. Fans that saw all of them play opinions
3. impact
4. stats
5. Overall career AS A LAKER

Well based on your criteria......

Wilt has more rings than west which is your top priority and has better stats, just saying......

[Killakobe81]

Well based on your criteria......

Wilt has more rings than west which is your top priority and has better stats, just saying......

how many more rings as a LAKER does Wilt have?

and yes i do consider rings as MOST important ...but gave you all the factors

Dont get me Wrong I am aware and appreciate Wilt's contributions ...

But dont forget West also was the architect of almost all of our titles ...Some here have argued that EVEN the last 2 with the Gasol trade ... are owed to jerry west ...LMAO!

I wont go that far but some could argue his contributions in the fron-office even over-shadow his on court which were substantial.

West Magic and kobe IMHO are the only 3 in the discussion of greatest laker ever ..

Mikan, wilt, Shaq Kareem are great ... but a notch below.

[Booharv]

Perhaps VC is among that 1% that doesn't really lift weights. But hating lifting weights and not lifting weights at all are two different things. Plus, there are always freak athletes who just are naturally strong and quick and agile and good leapers. The difference in eras is that there are way more NBA players now that can make up for not being freak athletes by lifting weights and working on improving their strength, quickness, agility, and jumping ability with techniques and equipment that would have never been available to players 50 years ago. So the athleticism of the entire league as a whole is raised. And it's not just about the top whatever percent of freak athletes.

I was comparing to the 1980s not 50 years ago. Davis basically said VC did not lift weights. He said that he didn't believe in weight lifting iirc. Davis said it was important to avoid injuries and that VC didn't understand that.

There are undoubtedly a ton of guys who are utilizing every advantage they can to stay in shape and maximize their potential, no doubt.

As for guys like Tyrus Thomas and Stromile Swift and JR Smith, I bet those guys and most of the other guys who are naturally athletic lift weights daily and do exercises to maintain and maximize the athleticism they have.

My brother played in the NFL for a few years. He even started. Plus he played on a 2nd tier Big East football team where several players went pro. Since by all indication you are a stand up guy, I can pm you and you can confirm me and my brother's identity if you want to. He also did some assistant work at his college for a few years later on. Now keep in mind he said this, not me, but he said that almost every talented guy (ie mostly black) on his college team ate pizza and Burger King every day and sported six packs. Plus he said several of them never ran in the offseason, they did mandatory weight lifting three days a week but that the best players ran the weight room and half of them goofed off most of the time if they wanted to and would only run in practice in the fall. Don't get me wrong several guys worked out hard did everything right, etc. Some of them played B-Ball in the offseason to stay in shape. Like 12 of these guys were drafted according to him. Tbh they did work out hard and smart in prep for the combine for a few months, sported awesome athletic numbers in the tests, and practiced hard. His closest friend, who I met, was a notorious loafer according to my brother, and was drafted based on his athletic ability. They called him a "workout warrior" when he was drafted, lol.

For that reason plus the fact that lardasses like Eddy Curry, Jackie Butler, Jerome James, etc etc are able to stay in the league for years and do pretty much whatever they want training wise, I'll never believe JR Smith lift weights or follows a strict diet every day. Especially since he's been caught drunk street racing several times. I just won't. As for Thomas and Swift both of them failed to bulk up for years even though the book on them (especially Thomas) coming out of college was that they needed to add weight to play power forward. Thomas seems to weigh what he did when he was drafted. My point is there's a lot more loafers who still play than you seem to realize. The idea that almost all of these guys are living Spartan lives and not eating candy and junk food (*cough* Odom *cough*) and training like Olympians is a fairy tale imo. I mean this is a player's league this is tbh.

A ton of them I would guess maybe most, train hard, eat right, and employ advanced training techniques. Tbh my brother talked to several of his friends who also went pro and told me some pretty enlightening stories about them waking up to having to work hard. He also said the NFL is way more serious than college. But they don't have guaranteed contracts. According to his friends though most guys there eat whatever they want as well. Plus they can go home in the offseason and train by themselves if they have enough clout. He also said teams don't hardly lift weights during the season because they say it will wear you out or whatever. So whatever weight lifting advantages you get have to last for four months through the season. The main point I'm making is that according to my brother's experiences pro athletes are way more naturally blessed and in many cases there are more loafers than you're making it seem. Especially in the NBA I would think.


And jumping high and running fast are not the only two facets of athleticism.

Of course not.

[Booharv]

I made a mistake in that post and just edited it. I meant to say they hardly lift weights during the season.

[JamStone]

The NFL is not the NBA. There are plenty of positions on a football team that do not require the absolute best physical condition in terms of having the best diet or being weight room freaks or working on speed. 300 pound guys on either side of the line probably eat whatever the fuck they want and some probably encouraged to do to maintain their bulk. They probably don't worry about their sprint times as much either, at least the middle trench guys like guards and nose tackles. Don't see kickers, punters, and even some quarterbacks being weight room junkies who have to get as strong as possible, at least not a lot of them. I would be willing to bet the vast majority of wide receivers, running backs, defensive backs, and most linebackers are workout warriors who also train on their speed, agility, jumping to maintain the edge they need on the field.

Now that's not to say there aren't slackers in the NBA that get by almost virtually on their talent alone. I'm sure there are. But the examples you use are also ones that prove the point as well. Eddy Curry, Jerome James, Jackie Butler... guys that are extreme underachievers or borderline NBA players at all. They played in the NBA and maintained careers based on their sheer size. Those are the types of guys in the small percentage who because they didn't concern themselves with maintaining their conditioning and maximizing their talent didn't become very good players at all.

I don't really care what your brother says about NFL players. And I'm not questioning whether he actually did play in NFL or whether he knows what he's talking about. Not at all. That's fine. I just think it's less relevant, especially when you're comparing athletes in each sport. The NBA has guys that don't train hard or work hard and don't worry about diet and nutrition. I'm sure there are some, maybe many. I think most players, even the more athletic players in the league, who actually have careers that last past a rookie contract, and especially players that have quality careers as starting caliber or at least rotation players for 8-10 plus years, actually do train hard, work hard to maintain their athleticism and their physical gifts. I think the vast majority do work out and lift weights if not every day at least several times a week. I think there are far fewer Vince Carters in the league than there are guys who work hard to make sure they're still playing in the league. And I think that is one of the reasons why the league as a whole is much more athletic than the 60s, or even the 1980s as you just said was more to your point. You look at the 1980s, the average power forward would be 6'9 and 215 lbs. Today's average NBA power forward is 6'10 and 245 lbs. Some shooting guards today would have been power forwards 20-30 years ago when you look at guys like Joe Johnson or Corey Maggette or Quentin Richardson or Paul Pierce. The league has gotten bigger and stronger. I don't think there's any question about it.

[JamStone]

I made a mistake in that post and just edited it. I meant to say they hardly lift weights during the season.

I'm sure there are a good number of players that don't lift weights during the season or limit their weightlifting by a lot. Some players don't like how weightlifting affects their shooting and others might think it's just too tiring with their heavy schedule of games to do it as much as in the off-season.

But, not lifting weights at all, even in the off-season? I don't think many players could stick around in the NBA unless they have that Vince Carter or LeBron James or KG type of talent. And even then, I think Vince Carter is still more of the exception than the rule.

[Cane]

Seems like hardly anyone in the NBA follows a strict exercise or diet lifestyle such as Steve Nash or John Salley. It doesn't seem like until a player gets old or injured that they really change their lifestyles then you have guys like Sheed who just doesn't seem to give a fuck regardless. On the flipside, Shaq lost weight while sitting on the sidelines with his thumb injury.

Offseason is mainly about balancing rest and staying in shape unless you have huge weaknesses to address; with an emphasis on rest unless you hardly played during the season. Even then you have to balance it with rest since over-exerting yourself in the summer can cause problems in the marathon of the sport that is the NBA.

[Booharv]

The NFL is not the NBA. There are plenty of positions on a football team that do not require the absolute best physical condition in terms of having the best diet or being weight room freaks or working on speed. 300 pound guys on either side of the line probably eat whatever the fuck they want and some probably encouraged to do to maintain their bulk. They probably don't worry about their sprint times as much either, at least the middle trench guys like guards and nose tackles. Don't see kickers, punters, and even some quarterbacks being weight room junkies who have to get as strong as possible, at least not a lot of them. I would be willing to bet the vast majority of wide receivers, running backs, defensive backs, and most linebackers are workout warriors who also train on their speed, agility, jumping to maintain the edge they need on the field.

Now that's not to say there aren't slackers in the NBA that get by almost virtually on their talent alone. I'm sure there are. But the examples you use are also ones that prove the point as well. Eddy Curry, Jerome James, Jackie Butler... guys that are extreme underachievers or borderline NBA players at all. They played in the NBA and maintained careers based on their sheer size. Those are the types of guys in the small percentage who because they didn't concern themselves with maintaining their conditioning and maximizing their talent didn't become very good players at all.

I don't really care what your brother says about NFL players. And I'm not questioning whether he actually did play in NFL or whether he knows what he's talking about. Not at all. That's fine. I just think it's less relevant, especially when you're comparing athletes in each sport. The NBA has guys that don't train hard or work hard and don't worry about diet and nutrition. I'm sure there are some, maybe many. I think most players, even the more athletic players in the league, who actually have careers that last past a rookie contract, and especially players that have quality careers as starting caliber or at least rotation players for 8-10 plus years, actually do train hard, work hard to maintain their athleticism and their physical gifts. I think the vast majority do work out and lift weights if not every day at least several times a week. I think there are far fewer Vince Carters in the league than there are guys who work hard to make sure they're still playing in the league. And I think that is one of the reasons why the league as a whole is much more athletic than the 60s, or even the 1980s as you just said was more to your point. You look at the 1980s, the average power forward would be 6'9 and 215 lbs. Today's average NBA power forward is 6'10 and 245 lbs. Some shooting guards today would have been power forwards 20-30 years ago when you look at guys like Joe Johnson or Corey Maggette or Quentin Richardson or Paul Pierce. The league has gotten bigger and stronger. I don't think there's any question about it.

Since the guys I was talking about had six packs they weren't O-Linemen. They were wide receivers, defensive backs, linebackers, running backs, etc. Many of them were as or more athletic than NBA players. Tbh in many ways the NFL is more athletic than the NBA. I would guess the 60 starting cornerbacks would probably be more athletic than the NBA starting point guards overall since mediocre athletes like Fisher, Andre Miller, Luke Ridnour, Steve Nash, have been recent starters and they would be covering Randy Moss, Chad Johnson, etc. in the NFL. Mostly they didn't exactly kill themselves in the offseason and waited until camp started to get in great shape. And they ate badly.

The league has definitely gotten bigger and stronger, I'm not arguing that. Teams didn't used to lift weights at all. Now they have trainers and million dollar facilities. I've never been talking about strength. What I'm saying is the changes in top tier athleticism, quickness, and leaping ability have more to do with more people playing basketball than advanced training methods.

There have to be a ton of slackers like those fat guys I mentioned but ones that don't overeat. Ones that have the same dedication to laziness but do just enough to get by. Tbh a lot of the high school players before the one and done rule were already athletic enough (not in a strength sense but a quickness, leaping ability, speed sense) to play in the NBA and they had been training at some random bumfuck high school five months earlier. There were straight from high school players competing in the dunk contests every year. The fact that you hear that a bunch of players came back from Team USA had learned an entirely new level of work ethic just by watching Kobe means guys made it onto the US Olympic team while not even working that hard. It wasn't even like they learned new fancy advanced techniques from Kobe either, they just learned Kobe was seriously outworking them by a large margin.

[dirk4mvp]

prime Findawg > Kobe, tbh.

[Smooth Criminal]

Both of you have the same point and consequences. There is only one conclusion. People don't suddenly become athletically dominant against their older counterparts. Otherwise, 100m sprints at the Olympics would be banned because the race would last for only 6 seconds.
I agree, I just thought it was foolish that he thought evolution was mainly caused by mutations and radiation

[Smooth Criminal]

Fixed
is there a reason you didn't change it to 2 years time?4peat baby!

[Smooth Criminal]

agree ...I prefer magic but I can see arguments being made for:

Kobe
West
BaylorBaylor has an argumnt for best Laker? I'd love to hear somebody try to get away with that one...
Kareem

and even Shaq to an extent ...but I sure as hell would not as good as he was for 5 years i think he and wilt are together a notch below the other 5

[Veterinarian]

Mutation creates new alleles yes we all know that but thats not the only way evolution occurs as you stated....

You're aware of the "mutation-driven evolution" school. Since the molecular revolution in the 1960’s and 1970’s, evidence clearly states that evolution depends on mutation in a way that was not envisioned in the Modern Synthesis.

[Booharv]

lol science class

[BullsDynasty]

You're aware of the "mutation-driven evolution" school. Since the molecular revolution in the 1960’s and 1970’s, evidence clearly states that evolution depends on mutation in a way that was not envisioned in the Modern Synthesis.

Yes Im aware but thats not what Im arguing, you said that evolution is driven only by mutation which is wrong....

[Veterinarian]

lol science class

lol several thousand word argument from two guys guessing how hard NBA players work out.

[BadOdor]

Yes Im aware but thats not what Im arguing, you said that evolution is driven only by mutation which is wrong....

He is correct. Mutations are the driving force behind evolution.

lol creationism.

[cobbler]

Baylor was a spectacular player.... Many of his accomplishments have been forgotten as there was not a lot of film from that era and the Celts took the limelight. A 25 point turnaround over 8 games and he's the toast of Lakerdom. He was the first real high flyer.

read this:


Full Name: Elgin Gay Baylor
Born: 12/16/34 in Washington, D.C.
High School: Phelps Vocational, then Spingarn (both Washington)
College: College of Idaho, then Seattle
Drafted by: Minneapolis Lakers, 1958
Height: 6-5
Weight: 225 lbs.
Honors: Elected to Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame (1977); All-NBA First Team (1959, '60, '61, '62, '63, '64, '65, '67, '68, '69); Rookie of the Year (1959); 11-time NBA All-Star; All-Star co-MVP (1959)
Complete Bio | Summary

Had Elgin Baylor been born 25 years later, his acrobatic moves would have been captured on video, his name emblazoned on sneakers, and his face plastered on cereal boxes. But he played before the days of widespread television exposure, so among the only records of his prowess that remain are the words of those who saw one of the greatest ever to play.

An offensive force, Baylor averaged 27.4 points per game in his 14-year career.

"He was one of the most spectacular shooters the game has ever known," Baylor's longtime teammate Jerry West told HOOP magazine in 1992. "I hear people talking about forwards today and I haven't seen many that can compare with him."

Bill Sharman played against Baylor and coached him in his final years with the Lakers. "I say without reservation that Elgin Baylor is the greatest cornerman who ever played pro basketball," he told the Los Angeles Times at Baylor's retirement in 1971.

Tommy Hawkins, Baylor's teammate for six seasons and opponent for four (and later a basketball broadcaster) declared to the San Francisco Examiner that "pound for pound, no one was ever as great as Elgin Baylor."

Strong and graceful at 6-5 and 225 pounds, Baylor averaged 27.4 points and 13.5 rebounds during his 14-year career with the Minneapolis and Los Angeles Lakers. In 134 playoff games, he averaged 27.0 points and 12.9 rebounds.

From 1960-61 through 1962-63 he averaged 34.8, 38.3, and 34.0 points, respectively. He led the Lakers to the NBA Finals eight times, was a 10-time All-NBA First Team selection, and played in 11 NBA All-Star Games.

At one time Baylor owned records for most points in a game, in a playoff game, and in one half of a playoff game. In 1962-63, he became the first NBA player to finish in the top five in four different statistical categories -- scoring, rebounding, assists, and free-throw percentage.

Because his career paralleled the succession of juggernaut Boston Celtics teams in the 1950s and 1960s, Baylor never played on a club that won an NBA Championship. His best years as a scorer coincided with Wilt Chamberlain's peak years, and Baylor never captured a scoring title.

Moreover, while he was one of the first flashy performers in basketball, many of his best acrobatic plays were never captured on film. Many observers mention his moves in the same breath with those of Connie Hawkins, Julius Erving and Michael Jordan. Baylor played the game with midair body control, employing his ability to change the position of the ball and the direction of his move while floating toward the basket.

"Elgin certainly didn't jump as high as Michael Jordan," Tommy Hawkins told the San Francisco Examiner. "But he had the greatest variety of shots of anyone. He would take it in and hang and shoot from all these angles. Put spin on the ball. Elgin had incredible strength. He could post up Bill Russell. He could pass like Magic [Johnson] and dribble with the best guards in the league."

Elgin Baylor was born in 1934 in Washington, D.C., and was named for his father's favorite watch. A high school sports star, he didn't perform well academically and even dropped out for a while to work in a furniture store and to play basketball in the local recreational leagues.

An inadequate scholastic record kept him out of college until a friend arranged a scholarship at the College of Idaho, where he was expected to play basketball and football. After one season, the school dismissed the head basketball coach and restricted the scholarships. Seattle car dealer Ralph Monroe interested Baylor in Seattle University, and Baylor sat out a year to play for an amateur team while establishing eligibility at Seattle.

Baylor played for Seattle University in 1956-57 and 1957-58, taking the Chieftains to the 1958 NCAA Championship Game, where they lost to the Kentucky Wildcats. In his three collegiate seasons, one at Idaho and two at Seattle, Baylor averaged 31.3 points. The Minneapolis Lakers used the No. 1 overall pick in the 1958 NBA Draft to select Baylor after his junior year, then convinced him to pass up his final college season and join the pro ranks.

The Lakers, several years removed from the glory days of George Mikan, were in trouble on the court and at the gate. The year prior to Baylor's arrival the Lakers finished 19-53 with a team that was slow, bulky and aging. Baylor, whom the Lakers signed to play for $20,000 per year (a huge amount of money at the time), was the franchise's last shot at survival.

"If he had turned me down then, I would have been out of business," Minneapolis Lakers owner Bob Short told the Los Angeles Times in 1971. "The club would have gone bankrupt." Baylor was seen as the kind of player who could save a franchise. He was and he did.

As a rookie in 1958-59 Baylor was sensational. He finished fourth in the league in scoring (24.9 ppg), third in rebounding (15.0 rpg), and eighth in assists (4.1 apg). He registered 55 points in a single game, at the time the third-highest mark in league history behind Joe Fulks's 63 and Mikan's 61.

The Lakers finished second in the Western Division at 33-39, 14 victories better than the previous season. They surprised everyone by making it to the NBA Finals after playoff victories over the Detroit Pistons and the defending NBA-champion St. Louis Hawks. However, Boston's young dynasty swept the Lakers in four games.

That same season, Baylor appeared in the NBA All-Star Game and shared the game's Most Valuable Player honors with the Hawks' Bob Pettit. At season's end, he was an easy choice for the NBA Rookie of the Year Award.

In 1959-60 Baylor's scoring and rebounding improved. He averaged 29.6 points, good for third place in the league, and 16.4 rebounds, which ranked him fourth. The Lakers finished the regular season at 25-50 but still made the playoffs as the third-place finisher in the four-team Western Division. They upset the Pistons in the division semifinals, then lost to the Hawks in a seven-game division finals. Baylor averaged 33.4 points during the postseason.

Then came the move west. Following teams in other professional sports that moved to the Pacific rim, the Lakers opened up NBA basketball to the other half of the country when they shifted to Los Angeles for the 1960-61 season. Baylor was essential to the club's early success with West Coast fans. He averaged 34.8 points in that first California season, second in the league behind Wilt Chamberlain's 38.4. On November 15, 1960, Baylor scored 71 points against the Knicks in New York, setting a new record for the most points scored in a single contest. He also snared 25 rebounds that night.


"He was one of the most spectacular shooters the game has ever known. I hear people talking about forwards today and I haven't seen many that can compare with him."

-- Former teammate and NBA Legend Jerry West



"Elgin did nothing unusual in that game," former Knicks player Johnny Green told Hoop magazine. "It was just a typical Baylor performance. He just came down the floor, his teammates would clear out an area, and he'd shoot -- a jump shot or a driving layup, followed up by a rebound if he missed. Each particular shot had nothing amazing about it. It was just that Elgin was such an amazing player."

The Lakers lost to St. Louis in seven games in the Western Division Finals that season, dropping Game 6 in overtime, 114-113, and Game 7, 105-103.

In 1961-62, Baylor hit his stride along with hotshot second-year guard Jerry West. Unfortunately, Baylor was playing at a time when eligible males were required to perform military service, and his season was curtailed. He spent half of the year stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington, playing only when he could obtain a weekend pass. He appeared in 48 games that season.

Still, with Baylor (38.3 ppg) and West (30.8 ppg) combining for almost 70 points per game, the Lakers won the Western Division by 11 games and advanced to the NBA Finals. In what would become a familiar matchup, the Lakers played the Celtics for the championship -- and lost. Boston won Game 7 in overtime, 110-107, to claim a fourth consecutive title. Baylor was phenomenal in the playoffs. He scored 61 points in Game 5 of the title series, setting a single-game playoff record that would stand for 24 years until Jordan with the Chicago Bulls scored 63 against the Celtics in a first-round contest in 1986.

In 1962-63, Baylor was no longer spending half his time marching with a rifle and he improved his overall game. He finished second in the league in scoring (34.0 ppg), fifth in rebounding (14.3 rpg), third in free-throw percentage (.837) and sixth in assists (4.8 apg). The first player to finish in the NBA's top five in four major categories, Baylor helped the Lakers win the Western Division that year, but they fell to the Celtics again in the NBA Finals.

Knee troubles began plaguing Baylor during the 1963-64 season, and many said he was never quite the same player afterward. Although he would never again average more than 30 points after 1962-63, he had five more All-Star seasons ahead and was a major scoring force for six of the next seven years, averaging at least 24 points in every season except 1965-66, when his output fell to 16.6 points per contest.

The Lakers remained a winning team throughout those years, although they were constantly overshadowed by the Celtics, who won 11 championships in 13 seasons from 1956-57 through 1968-69.

After a disappointing 1963-64 campaign, the Lakers won the Western Division and made it back to the NBA Finals the following season. Baylor averaged 27.1 points during the regular season, second on the team to West's 31.0, and made his seventh consecutive appearance on the All-NBA First Team. True to form, the Lakers lost to the Celtics in the Finals, four games to one.

In 1965-66 Baylor's knee problems limited him to 65 games and a 16.6 scoring average. But West (31.3 ppg), Rudy LaRusso (15.4), and Walt Hazzard (13.7) picked up the slack as the Lakers won the Western Division and advanced to the NBA Finals for the third time in four seasons. Once again they ran into the Celtics who were poised for a rout after taking a 3-1series lead. In Game 5, Baylor ripped the net for 41 points and led the Lakers to a 121-117 win in Boston. After taking Game 6, the Lakers ran out of steam as the Celtics escaped with a 95-93 Game 7 win and another title.

The 1966-67 Lakers finished in third place in the Western Division and lost in the playoffs to the San Francisco Warriors and Rick Barry, who led the league with 35.6 points per game. Baylor ranked fourth with a 26.6 scoring average and returned to both the All-Star Game and the All-NBA First Team after a one-year absence.

With Baylor, West, Gail Goodrich and Archie Clark, the Lakers finished second in the Western Division in 1967-68, then blitzed through the playoffs all the way to the NBA Finals. However, Los Angeles lost to Boston in six games. Baylor came as close as he ever would to a scoring title that season, averaging 26.0 points, second to Dave Bing's 27.1.

The 1968-69 season, Baylor's last full campaign, brought another seven-game Lakers-Celtics Finals, but still no title for Los Angeles. The Lakers had picked up Wilt Chamberlain during the offseason, who with Baylor and West -- all future Hall of Famers -- scored more than 20 points per game. Baylor averaged 24.8 points, helping Los Angeles to a 55-27 record and the Western Division title. The Lakers actually held a three-games-to-two lead in the Finals before the Celtics pulled out Games 6 and 7, clinching the series with a 108-106 victory in Los Angeles.

The next season, the Lakers finished second in the Western Division, then advanced to the 1970 NBA Finals against New York. The Knicks featured a lineup of Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Dick Barnett, Dave DeBusschere and Bill Bradley. The Lakers countered with Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Happy Hairston, and Mel Counts.

Games 3 and 4 went into overtime, and then a hobbling Reed, who had missed Game 6 with a leg injury, emerged dramatically from the locker room just prior to Game 7, inspiring the Knicks to a lopsided win. During the regular season Baylor's knee problems had limited him to 54 games, although he made his 11th All-Star appearance and contributed 24.0 points per game.

Two games into the 1970-71 season Baylor went down with a knee injury that all but ended his career. He missed the rest of the campaign and then returned for only nine games in 1971-72 before retiring at age 37. Ironically, later that season the Lakers won their first championship since moving to Los Angeles. Baylor had ended an illustrious 14-year career without a championship ring.

Shortly after his playing career came to a close, Baylor tried his hand at coaching. He was hired by the expansion New Orleans Jazz as an assistant coach for the team's inaugural 1974-75 season. He served two full years in that capacity before replacing Butch van Breda Kolff as head coach early in the 1976-77 campaign. Baylor guided the young Jazz for the rest of that season and for the next two seasons, compiling an 86-135 record. His teams failed to reach the playoffs and finished no better than fifth in the Central Division. Baylor stepped down after the 1978-79 season.

During his coaching stint with the Jazz, Baylor was elected to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. In 1980 he was named to the NBA 35th Anniversary All-Time Team, and in 1996, he was named to the NBA 50th Anniversary All-Time Team.

In April 1986, the Los Angeles Clippers hired Baylor to serve as the team's vice president of basketball operations, a position he continues to hold. After a disastrous 12-70 season in 1986-87, Baylor slowly molded his squad into a playoff contender. Los Angeles improved slightly in each of the next five seasons, peaking at 45-37 in 1991-92 and earning a playoff berth for the first time since the franchise was known as the Buffalo Braves in 1975-76. The Clippers reached the postseason again in 1993 but have continued to experience down years with hopes of greater expectations.


Career Statistics

G FG% 3PFG% FT% Rebs RPG Asts APG Pts PPG
846 .431 .330 .780 11,463 13.5 3,650 4.3 23,149 27.4


http://www.nba.com/history/players/baylor_bio.html

[mystargtr34]

Based on statistics, Wilt Chamberlain destroys both Kobe and Jordan.

Actually if you adjust for pace (per 100 possessions) overall Jordan was equally as statistically dominant as Wilt.

During Wilt's peak years, he put up a PER of just under 32 in three consecutive seasons, almost identical to Jordan's peak run. Outside of that though, Jordan probably had the slightly better numbers.

You have to remember back in the Wilt-Russell era both teams regularly put up 150-160 points in a game, meaning there were far more possessions, thus more chances for points, rebounds, assists etc.

Statistics in those days were incredibly inflated.

[jdev82]

Actually if you adjust for pace (per 100 possessions) overall Jordan was equally as statistically dominant as Wilt.

During Wilt's peak years, he put up a PER of just under 32 in three consecutive seasons, almost identical to Jordan's peak run. Outside of that though, Jordan probably had the slightly better numbers.

You have to remember back in the Wilt-Russell era both teams regularly put up 150-160 points in a game, meaning there were far more possessions, thus more chances for points, rebounds, assists etc.

Statistics in those days were incredibly inflated.

also, the average nba FG% was much much much lower than today

[Chieflion]

Actually if you adjust for pace (per 100 possessions) overall Jordan was equally as statistically dominant as Wilt.

During Wilt's peak years, he put up a PER of just under 32 in three consecutive seasons, almost identical to Jordan's peak run. Outside of that though, Jordan probably had the slightly better numbers.

You have to remember back in the Wilt-Russell era both teams regularly put up 150-160 points in a game, meaning there were far more possessions, thus more chances for points, rebounds, assists etc.

Statistics in those days were incredibly inflated.

PER favors players playing at a lower pace. Plus, blocks were not recorded in Wilt's time. Wonder what his PER would have been.

[JamStone]

Actually if you adjust for pace (per 100 possessions) overall Jordan was equally as statistically dominant as Wilt.

During Wilt's peak years, he put up a PER of just under 32 in three consecutive seasons, almost identical to Jordan's peak run. Outside of that though, Jordan probably had the slightly better numbers.

You have to remember back in the Wilt-Russell era both teams regularly put up 150-160 points in a game, meaning there were far more possessions, thus more chances for points, rebounds, assists etc.

Statistics in those days were incredibly inflated.


I don't really know how they calculate PER but don't you think Wilt's PER stats would be greater if it actually accounted for blocks and steals? Those stats were not documented during his career.

Also, slightly exaggerated on the 150-160 points a game comment. I'm sure there were games that were scored that high from time to time, maybe even more than once in a while, but in Wilt's 14 year career, the teams he played for combined averaged 117.1 PPG. Still a much greater pace, but you really went uber-hyperbole with that comment.

[lefty]

Another Kobe MJ thread?


Seriously close that shit



We all know Jordan shits on Kobe and stuff

[TDMVPDPOY]

picking draft busts

[Veterinarian]

I don't really know how they calculate PER but don't you think Wilt's PER stats would be greater if it actually accounted for blocks and steals? Those stats were not documented during his career.

Also, slightly exaggerated on the 150-160 points a game comment. I'm sure there were games that were scored that high from time to time, maybe even more than once in a while, but in Wilt's 14 year career, the teams he played for combined averaged 117.1 PPG. Still a much greater pace, but you really went uber-hyperbole with that comment.

Don't quote me but I think they found some way to account for the fact that steals and blocks weren't counted then.

[Nahtanoj]

Actually if you adjust for pace (per 100 possessions) overall Jordan was equally as statistically dominant as Wilt.

During Wilt's peak years, he put up a PER of just under 32 in three consecutive seasons, almost identical to Jordan's peak run. Outside of that though, Jordan probably had the slightly better numbers.

You have to remember back in the Wilt-Russell era both teams regularly put up 150-160 points in a game, meaning there were far more possessions, thus more chances for points, rebounds, assists etc.

Statistics in those days were incredibly inflated.


Dawg, thanks for helping me out. Thread over.

[Veterinarian]

Jordan beats Wilt in PER and win shares per 48. He beats him in career TS%. And his best seasons of win shares per 48 beat Wilts best seasons (Wilt has the top season Jordan has the next four best).

Here's how they calculate those stats differently for pre blocks/steals guys:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

Wilt has the top 3 seasons of TS% and Jordan has like the next nine best and therefore 9 of the top 12 plus a significantly higher career TS% despite the fact that his last two years his TS% totally sucked and dragged down his average. Jordan is not even helped that much by three point percentage since his career percentage is 32.7%, which means those shots came out to less than 50 TS% I think and presumably if there was no 3-point line he would never have taken so many of those long shots. So Jordan appears to be the more efficient scorer (mainly because of Wilt's Shaq like ft shooting).

[mystargtr34]

I don't really know how they calculate PER but don't you think Wilt's PER stats would be greater if it actually accounted for blocks and steals? Those stats were not documented during his career.

Also, slightly exaggerated on the 150-160 points a game comment. I'm sure there were games that were scored that high from time to time, maybe even more than once in a while, but in Wilt's 14 year career, the teams he played for combined averaged 117.1 PPG. Still a much greater pace, but you really went uber-hyperbole with that comment.

Ill just look at the years he had a +30 PER. I think the year he put up 50 a game, his team averaged 125 PPG, so i guess 150-160 a game wouldnt be all that 'regular', i actually didnt check the exact stats so it wasnt a deliberate exaggeration - i just thought the teams scored more than 125 a game. Either way, i think i made my point.

And yea, i thought there was some adjustment made for blocks and steals for when they werent recorded, like the previous poster mentioned (not sure exactly what). Still, that adjustment still probably shortchanges Wilt, c onsidering people say he averaged double digit blocks in a season on a regular basis, you would think the PER would increase by about 2 or 3 points.

I just find it funny when people that have been around the game for so long, such as experts and coaches etc marvel so much at the numbers guys like Russell and Wilt put up like they were far more dominant than players today based on pure numbers. They were great players, its just not that hard to see why they put up the numbers the did.

[Veterinarian]

Statistically Jordan was a way better scorer than Wilt. His TS% (which is simply points per fg attempt and a pretty inarguable stat) is way higher than Wilt's even if you count all the three pointers he took as two pointers. He made 581 three pointers so subtract 581 points and do the math, his career YS% is still significantly higher than Wilt's even though his last two years suck donkey dick and Wilt's last two were awesome (career highs) because he was playing the Kendrick Perkins catch and dunk role in LAL's offense.

[Booharv]

Bump, since people are getting retarded around here again with the Jordan and Kobe comparisons.

[Banzai]

is there any thread that doesn't compare stats between Kobe and Jordan? nope.

[Serge Ibaka]

6 rings to 5 is pretty close.

Horry > MJ > Kobe

[atxbuttknocker]

is there any thread that doesn't compare stats between Kobe and Jordan? nope.

I know a couple. Don't forget your troll password!!

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42817

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102923

:elephant :elephant

[midnightpulp]

Of course. We let you girls do it when calling Duncan the greatest power forward of all time. Yet everyone knows Karl Malone's numbers smashes Duncan's.

No they don't. Quit looking at PPG.

Besides, Duncan's playoff stats obliterate Malone's.

[TE]

You put Malone on those Duncan's teams and they go back to back. And this is no knock on Duncan, he's just not a beast.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


wow Luva, the stink of your body has probably fucked up your basketball logic.


1999-2004... Those years belonged to the best, skilled, most fundamentally sound player bigman of all time. Tim Fucking Duncan.


Malone couldn't win shit when he had the chance, but I do agree that he was a beast, just not in a prime Duncan's league.



honestly, you are losing it dude.

[HarlemHeat37]

He's just trolling now, but LOL @ the stink of your body :lol..

[Serge Ibaka]

Kinda like how Kobe was afraid to play for the Hornets

[Zelophehad]

Wow, I would have thought Kobe would have led the league in at least one of those metrics besides jacking up shots.

Even excluding that. Some of those stats aren't even debatable as to their value. Turnover ratio is just the percentage of your possessions that you use which end in turnovers, rebound ratio is the percentage of rebounds you grab while you are on the floor, steal and block ratio same deal.

[HarlemHeat37]

Kobe's advanced stats don't really measure up to most, if not all of the top players..

His legacy is about his longevity, titles and aesthetics, TBH..

[HarlemHeat37]

I'm not a Russell hater, but if he had 6 rings or so, he wouldn't be anywhere near the discussion IMO..11 rings is an extreme amount, not comparable to Kobe's 5..

[HarlemHeat37]

Not really, TBH, I don't hate on success..congratulations on your titles Luv, you worked hard for them, my man:toast..

[Chieflion]

lakaluva would rather fight off his camels and do gardening tbh.

[Veterinarian]

Tbh some of these advanced stats involve math and even in the case of PER calculus I think, so it's no surprise Luva pays them no heed. He couldn't make heads nor tails of them if he tried.

[atxbuttknocker]

Tbh some of these advanced stats involve math and even in the case of PER calculus I think, so it's no surprise Luva pays them no heed. He couldn't make heads nor tails of them if he tried.


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4139/4808056720_a9b90b8c7f_b.jpg

Aaaaaaaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

:elephant :elephant

[Zelophehad]

:lol

[Booharv]

tbh I'm going to ahead and bump this since I noticed some laker fans getting retarded with the Kobe/Jordan comparisons again. Also it contains a great Jamstone quote on the first page imho.

[hobbler]

Real champion posters don't bump old threads. Do you think HOF posters sit around bumping old threads? No they march out and create new dominant threads, like Kobe is creating a new threepeat.

[Giuseppe]

Hold on, Hobbs, early this week I was rummaging thru the stacks bumping shit from last June.

:lol

[LkrFan]

:lol

You think that's funny? Laugh at this (http://www.lakersuniverse.com/headtohead/season_lakers_mavericks.htm) shit. The Lakers are 97-31 against the Mavs in the regular season and 12-6 (http://www.lakersuniverse.com/headtohead/playoffs_lakers_mavericks.htm) in the playoffs. Mavs haven't won one playoff series against the Lakers. They own the deed to that ass, but Cuban pays the mortgage. :lol

Knowledge is power, kid. :downspin:

[Chieflion]

Is 81 considered a stat?

It certainly is advanced enough for you.

[Giuseppe]

He could care less, Luva, Chief is stitting high & wide on a 14-incher.

[hobbler]

Hold on, Hobbs, early this week I was rummaging thru the stacks bumping shit from last June.

:lol

When you've got 16 rings like we do, you're allowed some leeway :toast

[jag]

He could care less, Luva, Chief is stitting high & wide on a 14-incher.

Talking about 14-inchers again?



Giuseppe - Simmer down with the repetitive crap. Quit Hatin' was banned tonight. I'm sure you don't want to join him, right?


Oh how soon we forget...

[Giuseppe]

The old 14-incher!

[Riddler]

Is 81 considered a stat?

Only if rape cases is considered one

[jag]

Giuseppe - Simmer down with the repetitive crap. Quit Hatin' was banned tonight. I'm sure you don't want to join him, right?


Right.

Understood.

Good night.


Uh oh

Guiseppe regulated like the garbage poster he is.


Don't want to get Culburn369'd (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=17061) again...

You've been warned...

[TampaDude]

6 at 35

5 at 32

Ruh, roh.

Kobe entered the NBA straight out of high school. Jordan played 3 years at UNC. Jordan has one more ring in the same time in the NBA, and that's not even counting the two years that Jordan "retired" to play baseball. Had Jordan not taken those two years off, chances are very good that he and the Bulls would have eight-peated. :hat

[Giuseppe]

Kobe entered the NBA straight out of high school. Jordan played 3 years at UNC. Jordan has one more ring in the same time in the NBA, and that's not even counting the two years that Jordan "retired" to play baseball. Had Jordan not taken those two years off, chances are very good that he and the Bulls would have eight-peated. :hat

Your regrets, on behalf of MJ are your own. Kobe has 5 at 32, while Jordan had his 6 at 35. Jordan is kaput. He's done. He's landlocked at 6.

Kobe still has years ahead of himself.

[LkrFan]

Your regrets, on behalf of MJ are your own. Kobe has 5 at 32, while Jordan had his 6 at 35. Jordan is kaput. He's done. He's landlocked at 6.

Kobe still has years ahead of himself.

:lol

[HarlemHeat37]

Kobe's advanced stats are definitely underwhelming..also, as I pointed out in a thread I made last year, Kobe is the only star player on title teams that was consistently comparable or inferior to his "2nd option" in advanced stats for the team in question..Shaq always obliterated him in advanced statistics, and even Gasol either matched him or surpassed him in advanced stats during the last few years..

Whether you buy into the stats or not is irrelevant, in this case..it's not like these stats are biased against Kobe, and only Kobe, for some reason..

[Giuseppe]

Kobe's advanced stats are definitely underwhelming..also, as I pointed out in a thread I made last year, Kobe is the only star player on title teams that was consistently comparable or inferior to his "2nd option" in advanced stats for the team in question..Shaq always obliterated him in advanced statistics, and even Gasol either matched him or surpassed him in advanced stats during the last few years..

Whether you buy into the stats or not is irrelevant, in this case..it's not like these stats are biased against Kobe, and only Kobe, for some reason..

If:::

Duncan: 4

Kobe: 3

sufficed at that time,,,

Kobe: 5

Duncan: 4

suffices now.

[Chieflion]

Hey chief. Has that radiation laced water reached you yet?

No. The radiation laced water is nearer to you, I'm sure.