Bill Simmons Trolling Lakers

[midnightpulp]

Deuce, after getting eviscerated by Midnight in the stats department, turns to player quotes as examples of his basketball knowledge. :lol

He always does.

Quote mining and ring count are the only resources Kobe fans have these days.

[HI-FI]

How does this factor into improving his legacy?


J3NvhxKicJY

;)

can't make them all. some go 6/24 and still win because of lucky breaks.
also how does being a buttfucking quitter improve Kobe's legacy?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Spurfan can't refute my posts

[Sybok]

Perhaps the biggest understatement in the history of Spurstalk.

Did you ever watch either of them play? I understand Wilt could dunk from the opponent's FT line, and that Bill Russell was so smart that he could coax the other team into shooting at the wrong basket. I mean, he had to be given he won all those rings consecutively. He must therefore be better than Michael Jordan. If Bill and Wilt aren't better than Mike, someone here is not taking into account the periods in which they played. Odd though that Mike is always atop the list, with 6 measly rings.

[Sybok]

Spurfan can't refute my posts

You already said you're just here for Kobe. What's to refute? You're an admitted dick sucker.

[Deuce Bigalow]

can't make them all. some go 6/24 and still win because of lucky breaks.
also how does being a buttfucking quitter improve Kobe's legacy?
Speaking of efficiency...

.471 TS% in the 2005 Finals
.483 TS% in the 2007 Finals

Still wins because of lucky breaks :lol

[midnightpulp]

Speaking of efficiency...

.478 TS% in the 2005 Finals
.481 TS% in the 2007 Finals

Still wins because of lucky breaks :lol

Kobe .456 TS% against that same team. :lmao

[Sybok]

“I think Kobe is the best player in our league and I think he’s been the best player for a long time, not to take anything away from anybody else. You know, somebody told me the other day that [Kobe] hasn’t won an MVP trophy, and it sort of made me feel like I want to go throw mine away, so that’s how much respect I have for the guy.”
lol a Lakers fan using a Boston Celtic legend's words to support his case as if Larry's opinion means something to you suddenly.

As if Larry has a keen eye for talent. Show me one ex-superstar who does. Just one.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Kobe .456 TS% against that same team. :lmao
Not exactly...

10/27 :lol

[Deuce Bigalow]

lol a Lakers fan using a Boston Celtic legend's words to support his case as if Larry's opinion means something to you suddenly.

As if Larry has a keen eye for talent. Show me one ex-superstar who does. Just one.
Does no ones opinion except your guy's matter? Jesus

[Sybok]

Does no ones opinion except your guy's matter? Jesus

Which guy would that be?

[midnightpulp]

Kobe .456 TS% against that same team. :lmao

Let's examine further how each player did against that Pistons team.

Kobe' assignment Rip Hamilton: 21.0, 5.2rpg, 4.0 on on .500 TS%.

Kobe: 22, 2.8rpg, 4.4 on .456 TS%.

Kobe was outplayed by Rip fuckin' Hamilton.

Duncan's assignment Rasheed Wallace: 10.9, 5.6rpg, 1.9apg, 2.4blk on .465 TS%

Duncan: 20.1, 14.1, 2.1apg, 2.1blk on .478 TS%

Also, he nearly out rebounded both Wallaces combined.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Which guy would that be?
Anyone that posted that players and media opinions dont matter.

[Sybok]

Anyone that posted that players and media opinions dont matter.

"Duncan is the best player of his generation" -Bill Simmons

That's what started all the butt hurt at LG and obviously here. It is what it is, and Tim is building on it while Kobe sits and collects a welfare check.

[midnightpulp]

Not exactly...

10/27 :lol

Kobe shot 10-27 in game 1, which was at home. So yes, "exactly."

Kobe also had a .386 TS% in a swing game (if the Lakers won, they would've tied the series) in a game they lost by 8.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Let's examine further how each player did against that Pistons team.

Kobe' assignment Rip Hamilton: 21.0, 5.2rpg, 4.0 on on .500 TS%.

Kobe: 22, 2.8rpg, 4.4 on .456 TS%.

Kobe was outplayed by Rip fuckin' Hamilton.

Duncan's assignment Rasheed Wallace: 10.9, 5.6rpg, 1.9apg, 2.4blk on .465 TS%

Duncan: 20.1, 14.1, 2.1apg, 2.1blk on .478 TS%

Also, he nearly out rebounded both Wallaces combined.
04 =/= 05

BTW Shaq shot like 63%, Duncan's a big right so compare him to another big. Why did he shoot so bad when he plays in the post. Its embarrassing. Another big like Shaq had no problem but Duncan...eh he's never been a dominant offensive player anyway so i guess its not fair.

[Deuce Bigalow]

"Duncan is the best player of his generation" -Bill Simmons

That's what started all the butt hurt at LG and obviously here. It is what it is, and Tim is building on it while Kobe sits and collects a welfare check.
I posted a bunch of media guys voting for the greatest players of alltime and Kobe was ahead of Duncan comfortably.

[midnightpulp]

04 =/= 05

BTW Shaq shot like 63%, Duncan's a big right so compare him to another big. Why did he shoot so bad when he plays in the post. Its embarrassing. Another big like Shaq had no problem but Duncan...eh he's never been a dominant offensive player anyway so i guess its not fair.

Sheed has always defended Duncan the best out of anyone in NBA history. Throw in Ben Wallace, and it's a long night ahead.

BTW Manu shot like 56%. Kobe's a guard right? So compare him to another guard. Why did he shoot so bad? It's embarrassing. Another guard like Manu had no problem but Kobe...eh he's never been a efficient player anyway so I guess it's not fair.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Sheed has always defended Duncan the best out of anyone in NBA history. Throw in Ben Wallace, and it's a long night ahead.

BTW Manu shot like 56%. Kobe's a guard right? So compare him to another guard. Why did he shoot so bad? It's embarrassing. Another guard like Manu had no problem but Kobe...eh he's never been a efficient player anyway so I guess it's not fair.
Manu the MVP of the series tbh

05 Finals Manu was the MVP
07 Finals Parker was the MVP

[midnightpulp]

Manu the MVP of the series tbh

05 Finals Manu was the MVP
07 Finals Parker was the MVP

Nice deflection.

Manu was the MVP of the series if you only count the offensive end. He didn't even guard Hamilton that series (Bowen did) and was hidden on Prince. He played great, no doubt, but Duncan had the better all around series.

How was Parker the clear cut Finals MVP when Duncan averaged more assists, rebounds, steals, blocks, and was the last line of defense against Lebron penetration?

I have no problem with Parker getting the MVP, but he had a huge matchup advantage at the PG, going against Gibson/Damon Jones on both ends.

[Gummi Clutch]

can't make them all. some go 6/24 and still win because of lucky breaks.
also how does being a buttfucking quitter improve Kobe's legacy?
Not sure about the quitter part, but butfucking brings him out of the closet. It worked for Collins.

[ambchang]

Modern day scientists know more about science in general than Issac Newton knew. The argument isn't whether or not modern day ball players know more about the game. The argument is whether or not old timers, in their primes, would be as dominant in the league as they were in their day. Neither Wilt nor Bill would be even close, and I don't know that either of them would even be top 10 players today. That's not because they didn't understand the game of basketball, but that they just weren't nearly as impressive relative to today's crop as they were when it was just a small league. It has nothing to do with learning from each other. Kobe took Mike's moves, but Kobe isn't considered better than Mike. There were players from that era that were really good, but the Wilt/Russell thing is just about league imbalance, especially Wilt's stats.

Then we are not arguing the same subject. I rank players all time based on their contributions on the game and their impact based on the environment of their days. Players today certainly knew more about today's game than players back then. Defensive schemes were extremely complicated, and even 80s and 90s ball were completely different because of that. Defense got so complicated the team has to change the rules so that players can score in the early 00s, so yes, the league has certainly advanced based on the amount of knowledge around basketball.

Almost all big men wouldn't put up stats they would in today's game because of the shift into a perimeter offense and interior defense (due to offensive and defense rule changes), but I won't rank Kareem, Hakeem, or Moses lower because of that. They simply performed with their given set of rules and their competition. I am sure Wilt or Russell will not put up the stats they put up back in the day in today's game, but I am not sure if they will be top 10 players today (my guess is yes, because I am guessing they would be able to adapt), but that is another question.


You see some D-league guys score 30 a game. Those D-league teams would beat most of the NBA teams of Russell's era, maybe all of them, yet the D-league guy cannot average 7 a game in the NBA.

Because players today got more training, better medicine, and knowledge of the game. The game has advanced, the environment has changed, much like the Newton analogy. I think it is a stretch to say D-leaguers will beat all the teams in the 60s, but I get your point.


Why has no team won 4 consecutive championships since Russell did it? Why only the Lakers and Celtics for 10 years? Is it because there was no parity in the league? Of course. Had there been parity, we'd not be talking about Russell and Chamberlain. When a player can rise to the top and stay there for a long time in a somewhat balanced league, that says a lot more about that player than having one team win 9 titles in 11.

There's huge parity, big money with the game enticed better scouting and such. League rule changes no longer allow one team to have 8 HoFers, and the talent is much well distributed over the entire league.


When one guy gets 50 rebounds in a game, that's not because he's the best rebounder the world has ever seen even today. It's because he's 3 feet taller than anyone else. 50 rebounds... 100 points... really? And you think that doesn't illustrate how imbalanced that era was?

Kobe scored 81, Robinson scored 71, Rodman had a string of 30+ rebound games, but they aren't 3 feet taller than anybody else. Wilt fought it out with other guys who weren't 7' tall, but they were a good 6'10, 6'11. Ben Wallace is 6'10", but he was one of the best defensive big man in the league for a long time, Duncan's 6'11". Will Wilt score 100 points or grab 55 rebounds in today's game? I doubt it, but he would be able to put up great stats because of his athleticism and general knowledge of the game.


What elite athlete today has scored 100 points in a game, or grabbed 50 rebounds? Without those gawdy stats, we don't even talk about Wilt.

I didn't say Larry was more athletic. I said I'd take him over either of them. Hasheem Thabeet in the 60's would have been a dominant force in the NBA.

Hasheem Thabeet was a stiff now, and he'd be a stiff back then. I think you are underestimating the importance of understanding of the game. Look at a guy like Stromile Swift, extremely athletic even by today's standards, but wasn't able to do anything, because he was dumb as a rock. Look at a guy like Larry Bird, not so athletic, but his knowledge of the game allowed him to dominate. Russell was a very smart player, and while he likely won't average 25 rpg and block 6 shots, he'd be able to be a defensive anchor and an offensive kickstarter.

[ambchang]

Kobe over Duncan
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/lists/Top-10-players-in-NBA-history

http://www.hoopsmanifesto.com/articles/basketball/top-10-nba-players-of-all-time.html

http://www.interbasket.net/news/6831/2010/06/jordan-magic-bird-in-top-5-nba-players-all-time-kobe-bryant-8/

http://www.sportscity.com/whos-the-best-of-all-time-the-top-10-players-in-nba-history/2013/04/05/

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2013/12/top-ten-greatest-nba-players?page=5

http://m.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-top-nba-players-of-all-time

http://www.clicktop10.com/2013/05/top-10-best-nba-players-of-all-time/

http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2013/03/top-50-nba-players-of-all-time/#45

http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/404920-the-nbas-top-50-players-of-all-time

http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.com/2011/07/ranking-top-100-players-in-nba-history.html?m=1

http://www.celticslife.com/2013/01/ranking-top-ten-players-in-nba-history.html?m=1

http://waldersworldofsports.com/2011/11/11/walder-top-10-greatest-players-in-nba-history/


Duncan over Kobe
http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/slam_500_greatest.html

http://www.basesandbaskets.com/2012/12/greatest-nba-players-of-all-time.html?m=1

:lol bashing the MVP as a media award, then this.
:lol self contradiction.

[Raven]

Modern day scientists know more about science in general than Issac Newton knew. The argument isn't whether or not modern day ball players know more about the game. The argument is whether or not old timers, in their primes, would be as dominant in the league as they were in their day. Neither Wilt nor Bill would be even close, and I don't know that either of them would even be top 10 players today. That's not because they didn't understand the game of basketball, but that they just weren't nearly as impressive relative to today's crop as they were when it was just a small league. It has nothing to do with learning from each other. Kobe took Mike's moves, but Kobe isn't considered better than Mike. There were players from that era that were really good, but the Wilt/Russell thing is just about league imbalance, especially Wilt's stats.

You see some D-league guys score 30 a game. Those D-league teams would beat most of the NBA teams of Russell's era, maybe all of them, yet the D-league guy cannot average 7 a game in the NBA.

Why has no team won 4 consecutive championships since Russell did it? Why only the Lakers and Celtics for 10 years? Is it because there was no parity in the league? Of course. Had there been parity, we'd not be talking about Russell and Chamberlain. When a player can rise to the top and stay there for a long time in a somewhat balanced league, that says a lot more about that player than having one team win 9 titles in 11.

When one guy gets 50 rebounds in a game, that's not because he's the best rebounder the world has ever seen even today. It's because he's 3 feet taller than anyone else. 50 rebounds... 100 points... really? And you think that doesn't illustrate how imbalanced that era was?

What elite athlete today has scored 100 points in a game, or grabbed 50 rebounds? Without those gawdy stats, we don't even talk about Wilt.

I didn't say Larry was more athletic. I said I'd take him over either of them. Hasheem Thabeet in the 60's would have been a dominant force in the NBA.

saying that in the same week as the one where georgie dieng or whatever puts up like a 20-20 ...

[ambchang]

MVPs are team team based awards nowadays since the media started voting on it. When's the last time someone won it with a team record under 50 wins since the '80s? And how many times has that been done since then?

:lol using the ring argument

[ambchang]

Nuh uh. Kobe's a chucker. Chucker's don't pass.

His career apg even factors in his rookie year when Del Harris wouldn't play him. Yet he still trumps Jim. :lol

Iverson is a chucker, so is Marbury. They have quite a number of assists strictly because THEY WERE GUARDS TO HANDLES THE BALL A LOT.

[ambchang]

Kobe fans got three moves:
1) Kobe got 5 rings (ignoring Shaq and MVPau)
2) Kobe scored more (Then Malone > Jordan, and Magic, and Bird, etc ...)
3) Quoting some players with an IQ of 72 because some media guys were asking about Kobe to write a story.

[scanry]

With the contract and 48, every gd laker fan has bailed on Kobe tbh except for Duece, Rxpimp. Kool and the parrot.

[ambchang]

With the contract and 48, every gd laker fan has bailed on Kobe tbh except for Duece, Rxpimp. Kool and the parrot.

What does gd means? Because every good good laker fan has bailed on Kobe, and there are no exceptions.

[scanry]

What does gd means? Because every good good laker fan has bailed on Kobe, and there are no exceptions.

God damn tbh.

[spurraider21]

Here's a summary I have gathered.

- mvp's don't matter since it's a media award, but hold up lemme post a bunch of media quotes
-the two seasons deuce keeps referring to for statistical greatness are two of the most forgettable seasons in recent laker history
-uses free throw % and assist figures to compare a guard to a big
-some people don't realize defense is a thing
-argument basically boils down to ppg
-says "nobody can refute my post" when he's just spamming quotes of athletes

[Sybok]

saying that in the same week as the one where georgie dieng or whatever puts up like a 20-20 ...

Kevin Murphy leads the D League in PPG. How's he doing in the NBA? Oh that's right... he's been waived more than the US Flag.

[Sybok]

Here's a summary I have gathered.

- mvp's don't matter since it's a media award, but hold up lemme post a bunch of media quotes
-the two seasons deuce keeps referring to for statistical greatness are two of the most forgettable seasons in recent laker history
-uses free throw % and assist figures to compare a guard to a big
-some people don't realize defense is a thing
-argument basically boils down to ppg
-says "nobody can refute my post" when he's just spamming quotes of athletes

Sounds about right.

[Sybok]

Then we are not arguing the same subject. I rank players all time based on their contributions on the game and their impact based on the environment of their days. Players today certainly knew more about today's game than players back then. Defensive schemes were extremely complicated, and even 80s and 90s ball were completely different because of that. Defense got so complicated the team has to change the rules so that players can score in the early 00s, so yes, the league has certainly advanced based on the amount of knowledge around basketball.

I rank them based on how they would fare against players today. If we were ranking runners, we'd consider times, even though technology and training has greatly improved, we still consider the runner with the fastest time to be the best runner.

The same should be true for the NBA. We should consider the abilities of the players. It's not fair to old timers but then that's why we move forward. We cannot always consider Bill Russell as a top 5 player of all time just because he dominated in the onset of the game. You have to eventually compare him to others on a talent level, and we are doing that when we put MJ at number 1. We are saying that MJ was more dominant than Wilt or Bill Russell even though Wilt's stats say otherwise and Bill's rings say otherwise. You cannot have it both ways.


Almost all big men wouldn't put up stats they would in today's game because of the shift into a perimeter offense and interior defense (due to offensive and defense rule changes), but I won't rank Kareem, Hakeem, or Moses lower because of that. They simply performed with their given set of rules and their competition. I am sure Wilt or Russell will not put up the stats they put up back in the day in today's game, but I am not sure if they will be top 10 players today (my guess is yes, because I am guessing they would be able to adapt), but that is another question.


I agree with that, mostly.


Because players today got more training, better medicine, and knowledge of the game. The game has advanced, the environment has changed, much like the Newton analogy. I think it is a stretch to say D-leaguers will beat all the teams in the 60s, but I get your point.

I don't think it's a stretch at all. If you watch games from back then, ball movement wasn't that great and handles were suspect at best. A decent PG today could dominate the game back then.


There's huge parity, big money with the game enticed better scouting and such. League rule changes no longer allow one team to have 8 HoFers, and the talent is much well distributed over the entire league.



Kobe scored 81, Robinson scored 71, Rodman had a string of 30+ rebound games, but they aren't 3 feet taller than anybody else. Wilt fought it out with other guys who weren't 7' tall, but they were a good 6'10, 6'11. Ben Wallace is 6'10", but he was one of the best defensive big man in the league for a long time, Duncan's 6'11". Will Wilt score 100 points or grab 55 rebounds in today's game? I doubt it, but he would be able to put up great stats because of his athleticism and general knowledge of the game.

You're using subjective terms to say "big stats". We know Wilt could not grab 55 boards in today's game because there aren't that many to go around usually. We know no big man is gong to score 100 points again because of the intentional foul. He'd be put on the line and he'd shoot 50% at best which makes him a liability. He'd be on the bench in crucial moments. In everything, when it first starts there are those who dominate it but as it gains in popularity and everyone is doing it, the talent is more diluted yet a greater talent overall is seen. A good example would be the 1st Dream Team vs the world. It was a joke. These days it's a competition, because the world has improved. I would not say we have players today better than those on the original Dream Team, but the world has better players. With the NBA, the Celtics and Lakers were the dream teams, the Globetrotters, and everyone else was the Generals. It's not so much the case now. I don't think you can use those easy mode games to judge the players ability compared to hard mode games of today.


Hasheem Thabeet was a stiff now, and he'd be a stiff back then. I think you are underestimating the importance of understanding of the game. Look at a guy like Stromile Swift, extremely athletic even by today's standards, but wasn't able to do anything, because he was dumb as a rock. Look at a guy like Larry Bird, not so athletic, but his knowledge of the game allowed him to dominate. Russell was a very smart player, and while he likely won't average 25 rpg and block 6 shots, he'd be able to be a defensive anchor and an offensive kickstarter.

He'd be a stiff but he'd be bigger than anyone else so he'd just block telegraphed shots and rebound and score at the rim. Take him back to the beginning of the game and he's a force.

[ambchang]

I rank them based on how they would fare against players today. If we were ranking runners, we'd consider times, even though technology and training has greatly improved, we still consider the runner with the fastest time to be the best runner.

The same should be true for the NBA. We should consider the abilities of the players. It's not fair to old timers but then that's why we move forward. We cannot always consider Bill Russell as a top 5 player of all time just because he dominated in the onset of the game. You have to eventually compare him to others on a talent level, and we are doing that when we put MJ at number 1. We are saying that MJ was more dominant than Wilt or Bill Russell even though Wilt's stats say otherwise and Bill's rings say otherwise. You cannot have it both ways.

Well, we differ on this then. Jesse Owens will always be one of the best runner of all time.

Jordan maximized his abilities against he competition, and still dominated despite the advancement in the entire league, that is the impressive part. FYI, I don't have Jordan as the definitive #1, he's in the conversation along with Kareem for me. But I have not locked this down.


I agree with that, mostly.

I don't think it's a stretch at all. If you watch games from back then, ball movement wasn't that great and handles were suspect at best. A decent PG today could dominate the game back then.

I can't agree on that, a player like Frazier and Earl the Pearl had great handles, and they played in the 60s/70s


You're using subjective terms to say "big stats". We know Wilt could not grab 55 boards in today's game because there aren't that many to go around usually. We know no big man is gong to score 100 points again because of the intentional foul. He'd be put on the line and he'd shoot 50% at best which makes him a liability. He'd be on the bench in crucial moments. In everything, when it first starts there are those who dominate it but as it gains in popularity and everyone is doing it, the talent is more diluted yet a greater talent overall is seen. A good example would be the 1st Dream Team vs the world. It was a joke. These days it's a competition, because the world has improved. I would not say we have players today better than those on the original Dream Team, but the world has better players. With the NBA, the Celtics and Lakers were the dream teams, the Globetrotters, and everyone else was the Generals. It's not so much the case now. I don't think you can use those easy mode games to judge the players ability compared to hard mode games of today.

Wilt actually shot 28 for 32 for FTs (or something to that effect) in those games. Hack-a-Wilt was used back then as well.

As for the Dream Team comparisons, the original Dream Team would still dominate any international teams, including the US one today. And the other teams weren't that bad in the day. The Hawks, Warriors, Knicks, Pistons and Royals were decent teams.



He'd be a stiff but he'd be bigger than anyone else so he'd just block telegraphed shots and rebound and score at the rim. Take him back to the beginning of the game and he's a force.

You are making it sound like everybody were 5'10" back then. Most centers were 6'9" and above, and with the way they like exaggerate the players' heights now aday, isn't that different from what we have now.

Thabeet is a stiff now, and he'd be a stiff then. In fact, he probably won't see the floor much back in those racist days because he's black.

[Sybok]

Well, we differ on this then. Jesse Owens will always be one of the best runner of all time.

Jordan maximized his abilities against he competition, and still dominated despite the advancement in the entire league, that is the impressive part. FYI, I don't have Jordan as the definitive #1, he's in the conversation along with Kareem for me. But I have not locked this down.

A lot of players maximize their skills vs the competition. A lot of players have dominated despite the advancements of their times. Humans have't evolved into better basketball playing primates however, so the stiffer the competition, the more noteworthy the domination.


I can't agree on that, a player like Frazier and Earl the Pearl had great handles, and they played in the 60s/70s

watch?v=GvrCl12-kKo

See the ball handling? That's Cousy, supposedly one of the best. That's a Finals game. Chris Paul would pick his pocket on every trip. Earl Monroe and Clyde Frazier weren't on every team, so the overall ball handling ability on the NBA teams was much much lower than it is today.


Wilt actually shot 28 for 32 for FTs (or something to that effect) in those games. Hack-a-Wilt was used back then as well.

Wilt had a horrible FT%. In his best FT% season he shot 61%. Sure you can cherry pick a small sample size but what good does it do as a whole? The fact is Wilt was a free throw liability. Hacking him when you cannot score at the other end is futile though and Wilt's competition often could not score at the other end.


As for the Dream Team comparisons, the original Dream Team would still dominate any international teams, including the US one today. And the other teams weren't that bad in the day. The Hawks, Warriors, Knicks, Pistons and Royals were decent teams.

Decent by what standards? The original Dream Team would not beat other countries by 50+ points night in and night out. Are you denying that the world has gotten better at basketball? What's your point here?


You are making it sound like everybody were 5'10" back then. Most centers were 6'9" and above, and with the way they like exaggerate the players' heights now aday, isn't that different from what we have now.


How many Thabeet size guys were waived back then? If you were sweeping floors at an IGA at his size and you were found, you'd be put into the NBA.


Thabeet is a stiff now, and he'd be a stiff then. In fact, he probably won't see the floor much back in those racist days because he's black.
If Bill Russell sees the floor, so would he. If he can make an NBA roster today, he's a shoo in back then.

If Tiger Woods overcomes Jack's record, he's the best golfer ever... most likely. We don't talk about technology and trainers though...

So to call it like it is, the 76ers of today would win multiple titles in the Cousy era.

[ambchang]

A lot of players maximize their skills vs the competition. A lot of players have dominated despite the advancements of their times. Humans have't evolved into better basketball playing primates however, so the stiffer the competition, the more noteworthy the domination.

But people do improve with better competition, and the best, most athletic ones always adapt. We see the league transitioning from a rough and tumble era in the late 90's/early 00s to a fast paced perimeter based league of today, and the best of the best adapted and still dominated (Duncan, Kobe, Dirk). By the same lines of logic, I am sure players like Russell and Wilt can adapt and prosper in today's league.


watch?v=GvrCl12-kKo

See the ball handling? That's Cousy, supposedly one of the best. That's a Finals game. Chris Paul would pick his pocket on every trip. Earl Monroe and Clyde Frazier weren't on every team, so the overall ball handling ability on the NBA teams was much much lower than it is today.

Earl and Clyde were both on the same team, and they didn't pick steals every possession against players who were notably worse than Cousy. Ball handling is obviously better nowadays than back then, but then again, the best players adapt.



Wilt had a horrible FT%. In his best FT% season he shot 61%. Sure you can cherry pick a small sample size but what good does it do as a whole? The fact is Wilt was a free throw liability. Hacking him when you cannot score at the other end is futile though and Wilt's competition often could not score at the other end.

You mentioned that nobody can score 100 points in todays game anymore, and cited Wilt's FT% as a huge liability, so I mentioned he shot 28/32. Shaq's FT% was as bad as Wilt, didn't stop him from dropping 61 points.


Decent by what standards? The original Dream Team would not beat other countries by 50+ points night in and night out. Are you denying that the world has gotten better at basketball? What's your point here?

My point is that Dream Team would still be dominating, though not the same degree, just like Russell and Wilt would be dominating in today's game, just not averaging 50ppg or 25 rpg like they did back then.


How many Thabeet size guys were waived back then? If you were sweeping floors at an IGA at his size and you were found, you'd be put into the NBA.

If Bill Russell sees the floor, so would he. If he can make an NBA roster today, he's a shoo in back then.

There certainly more than 8 guys that were 7-footers back in the day, but not all of them made it to the NBA.

Rodman was a bag boy at a supermarket before he was noticed, and that was in the 80s, so picking random guys off IGA isn't a bad idea afterall.


If Tiger Woods overcomes Jack's record, he's the best golfer ever... most likely. We don't talk about technology and trainers though...

So to call it like it is, the 76ers of today would win multiple titles in the Cousy era.

I don't follow golf, and no, the 76ers wouldn't win multiple titles in the Cousy era.

[Sybok]

But people do improve with better competition, and the best, most athletic ones always adapt. We see the league transitioning from a rough and tumble era in the late 90's/early 00s to a fast paced perimeter based league of today, and the best of the best adapted and still dominated (Duncan, Kobe, Dirk). By the same lines of logic, I am sure players like Russell and Wilt can adapt and prosper in today's league.

That's speculation that's unwarranted. The Wilt and Russell that we are aware of were not at that level.


Earl and Clyde were both on the same team, and they didn't pick steals every possession against players who were notably worse than Cousy. Ball handling is obviously better nowadays than back then, but then again, the best players adapt.

Steals weren't recorded before the 72-73 season, however his steals were about 1.3 per game, that we know of. Chris Paul averages about 2.5 a game. That's a full steal and then some, against much better ball handlers.


You mentioned that nobody can score 100 points in todays game anymore, and cited Wilt's FT% as a huge liability, so I mentioned he shot 28/32. Shaq's FT% was as bad as Wilt, didn't stop him from dropping 61 points.

61 points is 39 points from being 100. I said no big can score that. Defenses and schemes won't allow it. How is 61 the same as 100? If it's the same, then David Robinson scored 71... so?


My point is that Dream Team would still be dominating, though not the same degree, just like Russell and Wilt would be dominating in today's game, just not averaging 50ppg or 25 rpg like they did back then.

Though not to the same degree, ergo the world has improved, which further illustrates my point that today's talent is much more refined from a basketball standpoint than the talent of Bill and Wilt's era. I don't get what you are trying to argue against. It seems you're just agreeing with me, but disagreeing with me.


There certainly more than 8 guys that were 7-footers back in the day, but not all of them made it to the NBA.

How about you cite some examples of the 7 footers who tried out but didn't make it? I can show you dozens of them that aren't playing in the NBA today, but who probably would have started in the 60's.


Rodman was a bag boy at a supermarket before he was noticed, and that was in the 80s, so picking random guys off IGA isn't a bad idea afterall.

Do you have a point here?


I don't follow golf, and no, the 76ers wouldn't win multiple titles in the Cousy era.

Says you. The ball play in that era was extremely sloppy, no one had handles.

[ambchang]

That's speculation that's unwarranted. The Wilt and Russell that we are aware of were not at that level.

So is saying the 6ers will win multiple championships in Cousy's era. This entire back and forth is speculation. Come on, we are talking about a different dimension of existence here.


Steals weren't recorded before the 72-73 season, however his steals were about 1.3 per game, that we know of. Chris Paul averages about 2.5 a game. That's a full steal and then some, against much better ball handlers.

Doesn't mean he will pick the pocket every time. I played against people who are heads and shoulders better than me, I get picked a lot, but not every time.


61 points is 39 points from being 100. I said no big can score that. Defenses and schemes won't allow it. How is 61 the same as 100? If it's the same, then David Robinson scored 71... so?

Shaq's not as good as Wilt. Shaq led the league in scoring once, Wilt did it 8 times or something like that. Also, I agree Wilt will not score 100 points in today's game, I am saying that he will still be dominant.


Though not to the same degree, ergo the world has improved, which further illustrates my point that today's talent is much more refined from a basketball standpoint than the talent of Bill and Wilt's era. I don't get what you are trying to argue against. It seems you're just agreeing with me, but disagreeing with me.

I agree the levels have improved. I don't agree that players should be penalized in their rankings because they played in the older days. Their dominance should still be taken into account when ranking them.


How about you cite some examples of the 7 footers who tried out but didn't make it? I can show you dozens of them that aren't playing in the NBA today, but who probably would have started in the 60's.

Because the league wasn't covered as much back then? I won't be able to recall a player who was cut 60 years ago when nobody was even covering then back then.


Do you have a point here?

Yeah, a direct response to your quip that IGA prospects suck. Rodman was picked up from a supermarket in a modern day league. My point was, what was your point?

Says you. The ball play in that era was extremely sloppy, no one had handles.

Goes back to your point about speculation.

[Sybok]

So is saying the 6ers will win multiple championships in Cousy's era. This entire back and forth is speculation. Come on, we are talking about a different dimension of existence here.

Fact: Ball handling is a huge part of success in the NBA
Fact: Today's average guard can handle the ball much better than even the best ball handlers of the 60's

Accepting those two facts, success in the NBA should be much greater if you have much greater ball handling

Fact: Ball movement today is much more complex today than it was in the 60's
Fact: Better ball movement is a huge part of success in the NBA

Accepting those two facts, success in the NBA should be much greater if you have much greater ball movement

Fact: The average NBA guard can shoot from outside much better than the average guard in the 60's
Fact: Better outside shooting is a huge part of success in the NBA

Accepting those two facts, success in the NBA should be much greater if you have much greater outside shooting

Fact: The overall talent level in the NBA is much greater today than it was in the 60's (perhaps because there's a much bigger pool to draw from)
Fact: Better overall talent is a huge part of success in the NBA

Accepting those two facts, success in the NBA should be much greater if you have much greater overall talent

Ergo, individual players today are, on average, much better than individual players in the 60's at ball handling, ball movement and overall basketball talent.

So then it stands to reason that a dominant player of today's game is much better than a dominant player in the 60's era.


Doesn't mean he will pick the pocket every time. I played against people who are heads and shoulders better than me, I get picked a lot, but not every time.

Anecdote that doesn't add to the debate. You are not an NBA player. You likely don't compete against NBA players.


Shaq's not as good as Wilt. Shaq led the league in scoring once, Wilt did it 8 times or something like that. Also, I agree Wilt will not score 100 points in today's game, I am saying that he will still be dominant.

Why won't Wilt score 100pts in today's game? You seemed to be arguing against that same assertion earlier. I don't need to show that Wilt wouldn't be a force today, I just need to show that Wilt would not be recognized as a dominant force since his stats are pretty much the sole reason for the recognition anyhow. You remove those, you remove Wilt.


I agree the levels have improved. I don't agree that players should be penalized in their rankings because they played in the older days. Their dominance should still be taken into account when ranking them.

It depends on how you're ranking them. If that ranking means you'd have a stronger team with the top players from all eras, then the ranking is flawed. If it just means the top players from whatever era they played, there's really no ranking going on, just recognition of being a top player of your era.


Because the league wasn't covered as much back then? I won't be able to recall a player who was cut 60 years ago when nobody was even covering then back then.

You said "more than 8". I just asked you to tell me one of them. Since you cannot recall even one of them, how can you recall that there were more than eight of them?


Yeah, a direct response to your quip that IGA prospects suck. Rodman was picked up from a supermarket in a modern day league. My point was, what was your point?

I didn't say IGA prospects suck. I said "if you were sweeping floors at an IGA at his size and you were found, you'd be put into the NBA". Where in that sentence does it say IGA prospects suck?

I don't recall reading that Rodman bagged groceries. He played college ball. Do you mean John Starks?

"After graduating high school in 1979, Rodman's future appeared uncertain. He found work where he could, including a janitor position at the Dallas-Fort Worth airport. In his off-time, though, he could be found at local basketball courts, where the now 6-7 player, was a force.

Through a family friend, Rodman's exploits soon caught the attention of the coaches at Cooke County Junior College in Gainesville, Texas, who offered Rodman the chance to attend the school. He accepted and to nobody's surprise, proved to be a dominant player for the program.

But Rodman couldn't keep up with the schoolwork and after a year, flunked out. Still, his play hadn't gone unnoticed, and he was soon invited to enroll at Southeastern Oklahoma State.

Rodman's on-the-court tenacity overwhelmed opponents, and during his three years at the school he averaged close to 26 points and 16 rebounds per game. In the 1986 NBA draft, the Detroit Pistons made the gangly but overly athletic 25-year-old Rodman a second round pick."

http://www.biography.com/people/dennis-rodman-20683617


Goes back to your point about speculation.
You can watch footage from that era to validate it. I posted a video of a Finals match to illustrate how the ball handling sucks relative to today's standard.

[Seventyniner]

There are two opposing forces at work as to comparing an average (or top-level in this case) NBA player from this era vs. 50 years ago.

On one hand, there were only 8 teams back then, so you were looking at the 100 or so best basketball players in the US.

On the other hand, top-level players now have mainly been playing basketball and training for almost their entire lives. This includes offseasons when the 1960s players would have to take side jobs to make a decent living. Today's players also have advantages in science like nutrition, training, etc.

I come down on the side of today's players. Sure there are 30 teams, but you now have the best players from all over the globe in the league and I believe the average player in today's NBA is far better than an average player from the 1960s. This doesn't apply to this thread's debate about the very best players though.

[ambchang]

Fact: Ball handling is a huge part of success in the NBA
Fact: Today's average guard can handle the ball much better than even the best ball handlers of the 60's

Accepting those two facts, success in the NBA should be much greater if you have much greater ball handling

Not sure if you can quantify both of them as facts. It's generally observed so, but I wouldn't call them facts.


Fact: Ball movement today is much more complex today than it was in the 60's
Fact: Better ball movement is a huge part of success in the NBA

Accepting those two facts, success in the NBA should be much greater if you have much greater ball movement

See above.


Fact: The average NBA guard can shoot from outside much better than the average guard in the 60's
Fact: Better outside shooting is a huge part of success in the NBA

Accepting those two facts, success in the NBA should be much greater if you have much greater outside shooting

See above. Especially when considering FT% hasn't changed much in 60 years. Teams have more complex offense to get better shots, I can accept that, but they are still not facts.


Fact: The overall talent level in the NBA is much greater today than it was in the 60's (perhaps because there's a much bigger pool to draw from)
Fact: Better overall talent is a huge part of success in the NBA

Accepting those two facts, success in the NBA should be much greater if you have much greater overall talent

Again, I am not sure if we can quantify these as facts. I would pretty much agree with all of them, doesn't make them facts. And it doesn't really speak to how Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell won't even be top 10 players in today's games. We are talking about average players here, not the best of them.

The tallest person in a group who averages 5'7" in height is not necessarily shorter than the tallest person in a group who averages 6'7"


Ergo, individual players today are, on average, much better than individual players in the 60's at ball handling, ball movement and overall basketball talent.

So then it stands to reason that a dominant player of today's game is much better than a dominant player in the 60's era.

As it stands, pure speculation. I have cited examples of very good ball handlers and defenders in the 60's 70's that do not dominate the opposition to the degree Wilt and Russell did.


Anecdote that doesn't add to the debate. You are not an NBA player. You likely don't compete against NBA players.

Neither does saying Cousy will get picked by Paul every single time down the court. Because that is pure speculation, and an unlikely one at that.


Why won't Wilt score 100pts in today's game? You seemed to be arguing against that same assertion earlier. I don't need to show that Wilt wouldn't be a force today, I just need to show that Wilt would not be recognized as a dominant force since his stats are pretty much the sole reason for the recognition anyhow. You remove those, you remove Wilt.

Untrue, Wilt averaging 30/15/3 in today's game would still be considered one of the best players. My assertion is that in today's league, Wilt will at least be as dominant as an all-nba level player based on his display of athleticism and skill back in his day.


It depends on how you're ranking them. If that ranking means you'd have a stronger team with the top players from all eras, then the ranking is flawed. If it just means the top players from whatever era they played, there's really no ranking going on, just recognition of being a top player of your era.

Why is it flawed?


You said "more than 8". I just asked you to tell me one of them. Since you cannot recall even one of them, how can you recall that there were more than eight of them?

You would say there were not more than 8 people in the entire USA that were more than 7 feet back in the 60s? Michael Crichton was 6'9" and in the m, didn't play in the NBA.


I didn't say IGA prospects suck. I said "if you were sweeping floors at an IGA at his size and you were found, you'd be put into the NBA". Where in that sentence does it say IGA prospects suck?

I don't recall reading that Rodman bagged groceries. He played college ball. Do you mean John Starks?

"After graduating high school in 1979, Rodman's future appeared uncertain. He found work where he could, including a janitor position at the Dallas-Fort Worth airport. In his off-time, though, he could be found at local basketball courts, where the now 6-7 player, was a force.

Through a family friend, Rodman's exploits soon caught the attention of the coaches at Cooke County Junior College in Gainesville, Texas, who offered Rodman the chance to attend the school. He accepted and to nobody's surprise, proved to be a dominant player for the program.

But Rodman couldn't keep up with the schoolwork and after a year, flunked out. Still, his play hadn't gone unnoticed, and he was soon invited to enroll at Southeastern Oklahoma State.

Rodman's on-the-court tenacity overwhelmed opponents, and during his three years at the school he averaged close to 26 points and 16 rebounds per game. In the 1986 NBA draft, the Detroit Pistons made the gangly but overly athletic 25-year-old Rodman a second round pick."

http://www.biography.com/people/dennis-rodman-20683617

Probably got players mixed up. Larry Bird was a garbageman for a while as well. But your assertion that any Joe Blow who is tall enough would be picked up as an NBA player back in the 60s is flawed. I am just pointing out that that may not be a bad system afterall.


You can watch footage from that era to validate it. I posted a video of a Finals match to illustrate how the ball handling sucks relative to today's standard.

I am not saying those players were great and equal to today's players, what I am saying is that Russell and Wilt would still be successful in today's NBA based on their athleticism and smarts for the game. Again, you can see highlights of them playing ball in the day.

Once again, Wilt played against Kareem, Kareem played against Hakeem, and Hakeem played against Shaq. None of them were particularly dominating the other in any of these scenarios, and yet they are all top 10 players of all time.

[Sybok]

Not sure if you can quantify both of them as facts. It's generally observed so, but I wouldn't call them facts.



See above.



See above. Especially when considering FT% hasn't changed much in 60 years. Teams have more complex offense to get better shots, I can accept that, but they are still not facts.



Again, I am not sure if we can quantify these as facts. I would pretty much agree with all of them, doesn't make them facts. And it doesn't really speak to how Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell won't even be top 10 players in today's games. We are talking about average players here, not the best of them.


If you and I both accept them as generally true, they are facts for all intents and purposes. If you'd prefer a pedantic approach then there are no facts as we live in a solipsistic existence.



The tallest person in a group who averages 5'7" in height is not necessarily shorter than the tallest person in a group who averages 6'7"


But you don't just play against the tallest guy.


As it stands, pure speculation. I have cited examples of very good ball handlers and defenders in the 60's 70's that do not dominate the opposition to the degree Wilt and Russell did.

Very good ball handlers for their time. It's a subjective statement that has to be qualified. There wasn't a player in the early 60's that could handle the ball like Allen Iverson or Chris Paul or Tony Parker. They didn't exist because it wasn't part of the game.


Neither does saying Cousy will get picked by Paul every single time down the court. Because that is pure speculation, and an unlikely one at that.

If Chris Paul can pick Kyrie Irving or John Wall, Cousey wouldn't stand a chance. Look how he handles the ball. When he rotates, the ball is out in front of him. A double team would take that away from him every time.


Untrue, Wilt averaging 30/15/3 in today's game would still be considered one of the best players. My assertion is that in today's league, Wilt will at least be as dominant as an all-nba level player based on his display of athleticism and skill back in his day.

You just pulled those numbers out of thin air. Wilt averaged 30 over his career. He wouldn't average that today, you already conceded this. Wilt would have to score most of his points at the rim. There's a 3 second violation today. There's goaltending which Wilt did relentlessly. Wilt could not get up 50 shots in a game today. There are other bigs today who could stop that or at least limit it. Shaq would have challenged Wilt on offense. Wilt was a monster, no doubt, but without his stats he's just another noted big guy in the league, not better than Shaq except probably on defense. Wilt was 7'1. He dwarfed the little white guys and most of the blacks on other teams. He was heavier than David, but David was also 7'1. Yao Ming was much taller than both. Imagine Yao in the early 60's. He catches, he dunks, he hits his FTs. He blocks every shot at the rim with no goal tending calls. He gets every rebound because his competition is 2' shorter than him. He gets monster numbers and he's now a legend.

Think about Wilt's era: He could goal tend, they could lob shots over the backboard to him from out of bounds, he could leave the FT line and throw himself a pass off the backboard, no 5 second rule. Shaq comes along and has all those rules, but the league has to change up the defensive rules to bring back some balance. The league now disallows total domination by a freakishly large and athletic center. When it starts to occur, they change rules.


Why is it flawed?

Because a team with a prime Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain would not be than a team with a prime Shaq and a prime Hakeem. The fact that you only consider them vs the competition of their era is evidence enough that you've not picked those with the highest level of basketball skill and ability, but have an individual "greatest of their era" list. Had Russell not feasted on weak talent in the early days, he's just another decent big.


You would say there were not more than 8 people in the entire USA that were more than 7 feet back in the 60s? Michael Crichton was 6'9" and in the m, didn't play in the NBA.

You said there were more than 8. Don't try to shift the burden of proof to me.


Probably got players mixed up. Larry Bird was a garbageman for a while as well. But your assertion that any Joe Blow who is tall enough would be picked up as an NBA player back in the 60s is flawed. I am just pointing out that that may not be a bad system afterall.

So then make your point about the the IGA again? John Starks played ball before he bagged groceries.


I am not saying those players were great and equal to today's players, what I am saying is that Russell and Wilt would still be successful in today's NBA based on their athleticism and smarts for the game. Again, you can see highlights of them playing ball in the day.
Kevin Durant is successful in today's NBA. He's not in the top 10.


Once again, Wilt played against Kareem, Kareem played against Hakeem, and Hakeem played against Shaq. None of them were particularly dominating the other in any of these scenarios, and yet they are all top 10 players of all time.
These people played these others while one was at sunset and the other at sunrise.

[ambchang]

If you and I both accept them as generally true, they are facts for all intents and purposes. If you'd prefer a pedantic approach then there are no facts as we live in a solipsistic existence.

But they would still be opinions. I am not here to argue philosophy, and I have to admit that I am quite ignorant of the subject, but those are not facts, those are viewpoints we both agree on.


But you don't just play against the tallest guy.

Point is, we are comparing the best of both eras, and the logic of saying that the best in a weaker league must be worse than the best of a stronger league is flawed.


Very good ball handlers for their time. It's a subjective statement that has to be qualified. There wasn't a player in the early 60's that could handle the ball like Allen Iverson or Chris Paul or Tony Parker. They didn't exist because it wasn't part of the game.

If Chris Paul can pick Kyrie Irving or John Wall, Cousey wouldn't stand a chance. Look how he handles the ball. When he rotates, the ball is out in front of him. A double team would take that away from him every time.

Again, you are penalizing the old timers for playing against weaker competition, but ignoring the likelihood that people improve and evolve with better competition. Cousy and the likes never had to evolve that level of competition because it wasn't necessary, but given the circumstances, we have seen the best of the best evolve and adapt. What I am saying is, while you have to take both the negative and positive effects of weaker competition into account.


You just pulled those numbers out of thin air. Wilt averaged 30 over his career. He wouldn't average that today, you already conceded this. Wilt would have to score most of his points at the rim. There's a 3 second violation today. There's goaltending which Wilt did relentlessly. Wilt could not get up 50 shots in a game today. There are other bigs today who could stop that or at least limit it. Shaq would have challenged Wilt on offense. Wilt was a monster, no doubt, but without his stats he's just another noted big guy in the league, not better than Shaq except probably on defense. Wilt was 7'1. He dwarfed the little white guys and most of the blacks on other teams. He was heavier than David, but David was also 7'1. Yao Ming was much taller than both. Imagine Yao in the early 60's. He catches, he dunks, he hits his FTs. He blocks every shot at the rim with no goal tending calls. He gets every rebound because his competition is 2' shorter than him. He gets monster numbers and he's now a legend.

Think about Wilt's era: He could goal tend, they could lob shots over the backboard to him from out of bounds, he could leave the FT line and throw himself a pass off the backboard, no 5 second rule. Shaq comes along and has all those rules, but the league has to change up the defensive rules to bring back some balance. The league now disallows total domination by a freakishly large and athletic center. When it starts to occur, they change rules.

Actually, Wilt made them change the rules. They widened the lane, put in 3 seconds, no lobs behind backboards, etc ... they were all because of Wilt, and Wilt still dominated with those rules. He averaged 30 for his career, but much of it was dragged down because he changed his role to a facilitator. And saying that he won't be much better than Shaq on offense, but better on defense automatically puts him in the top 10, because Shaq is top 10 in pretty much everybody's books.

And Yao, if it wasn't for injuries, would have been a top player in today's league. He actually was for a stretch.


Because a team with a prime Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain would not be than a team with a prime Shaq and a prime Hakeem. The fact that you only consider them vs the competition of their era is evidence enough that you've not picked those with the highest level of basketball skill and ability, but have an individual "greatest of their era" list. Had Russell not feasted on weak talent in the early days, he's just another decent big.

If I read correctly, you just said Wilt is comparable to Shaq on offense, but better on defense. Russell was a team centred guy, much like Duncan actually, but more focus on defense and outlets, so it's difficult to compare him to Hakeem. If I have to pick a team to build around today, I'd likely pick Hakeem, but Russell would be a great choice for a team with enough offensive options.


You said there were more than 8. Don't try to shift the burden of proof to me.

I don't get this, so you want me to list a bunch of tall guys in the 60s? This is just getting asinine because the point isn't to say there were 8 tall guys that couldn't make the NBA, it's an assumption that given the average height of american men went from 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9" in 2002, and yet there are dozens of 7 footers in the 2000's, so it is reasonable to assume there would be a more than 8 tall guys in the US in the 60s given the population in those days.

And no, I said there were more than 8 tall guys in the states back then, as there were 8 teams, I didn't say there were 8 tall guys who couldn't make the league. Creighton was one guy who was 6'9" and didn't make the league.


So then make your point about the the IGA again? John Starks played ball before he bagged groceries.

Just an interesting fact. Starks didn't make the league before he was bagging groceries, that was my point. What was wrong with picking a tall guy out of IGA to play ball? You seem to view that negatively and mock the process in the 60s, alluding that any random guy tall enough would be pick off the streets to play ball. Well, guess what, they were doing


Kevin Durant is successful in today's NBA. He's not in the top 10.

Too early to say, things like injuries and such would factor into account.


These people played these others while one was at sunset and the other at sunrise.

Yeah, and even during sunset, the old guys still handled their own. Which further supports my claims that older timers would be successful in today's league.

[scanry]

Give it a rest fellows.

[LkrFan]

Iverson is a chucker, so is Marbury. They have quite a number of assists strictly because THEY WERE GUARDS TO HANDLES THE BALL A LOT.
The Spur offense runs thru Tammy. Not just sometimes. Every time. So he gets a ton of opportunities to pad his assist totals. Thing is, Tammy has also been the focal point of the offense since his rookie year. Kobe barely played his first two years. Fact still remains: even though Kobe is a chucker, apparently he is still a better passer than Tammy. Neal with it son.

[ambchang]

The Spur offense runs thru Tammy. Not just sometimes. Every time. So he gets a ton of opportunities to pad his assist totals. Thing is, Tammy has also been the focal point of the offense since his rookie year. Kobe barely played his first two years. Fact still remains: even though Kobe is a chucker, apparently he is still a better passer than Tammy. Neal with it son.

:lol kobestans are now saying
a) big men should be compared against guards in assists
b) more assists = better passing
c) passing out of a double team that leads to pass for a score is not a good passer.
d) the spurs are one of the leagues top passing teams and Duncan had nothing to do with it
e) you don't know how to read usage rates.

I guess I can understand why you are a kobestan, because you really have to be this stupid to be one.

[LkrFan]

:lol kobestans are now saying
a) big men should be compared against guards in assists
b) more assists = better passing
c) passing out of a double team that leads to pass for a score is not a good passer.
d) the spurs are one of the leagues top passing teams and Duncan had nothing to do with it
e) you don't know how to read usage rates.

I guess I can understand why you are a kobestan, because you really have to be this stupid to be one.
:lol - you can't be serious. You farmers take the liberty to claim Tammy >>>>>> Kobe, but when I correctly point out that the "chucker" is actually a better passer statistically than yo girl Tammy, you come up with all that bullshit. Either he is a chucker, or he is a better passer than Tammy. He can't be both son. Why? Kobe clearly is a superior passer than Tammy. This little factoid not only dispells your chucker schtick, it makes you look raelly siputd. :lol

[Sybok]

:lol - you can't be serious. You farmers take the liberty to claim Tammy >>>>>> Kobe, but when I correctly point out that the "chucker" is actually a better passer statistically than yo girl Tammy, you come up with all that bullshit. Either he is a chucker, or he is a better passer than Tammy. He can't be both son. Why? Kobe clearly is a superior passer than Tammy. This little factoid not only dispells your chucker schtick, it makes you look raelly siputd. :lol

Hey Mexican't. It's not "superior than" it's "superior to". I realize your only exposure to the English language is when your mother is cleaning their homes, but try to at least not butcher it.

[Clipper Nation]

Alberto trying to claim that Kirby is a good passer because homer scorekeepers inflate his already-padded assists :lol

[Thread]

Alberto trying to claim that Kirby is a good passer because homer scorekeepers inflate his already-padded assists :lol

Well, of course, only our homer scorekeepers are homer scorekeepers. Just ours.

tee, hee.

[ambchang]

:lol - you can't be serious. You farmers take the liberty to claim Tammy >>>>>> Kobe, but when I correctly point out that the "chucker" is actually a better passer statistically than yo girl Tammy, you come up with all that bullshit. Either he is a chucker, or he is a better passer than Tammy. He can't be both son. Why? Kobe clearly is a superior passer than Tammy. This little factoid not only dispells your chucker schtick, it makes you look raelly siputd. :lol

Do you even know what a chucker means? It doesn't mean a guy who doesn't get assists, it means a guy who shoots more than he should.

The most FGs Duncan put up was in 01-02 season when he shot 1504 FGA, the Spurs, as a team shot 6363 shots, which means that Duncan himself shot 23.6% of the Spurs shot that year.

Kobe, otoh, had 10 seasons where he shot more than 1504 FGA, peaking in 05-06 with 2173 of the Lakers 6607 shots. That's 32.9% of the shots. % wise, Kobe shot at a rate that is 39% more than Duncan, and in those respective seasons, Duncan had an assist rate of 18.3%, while Kobe had 24.1%, which is only 32% more, and that hasn't even taken into account that Kobe is a guard and Duncan is a PF.

Second, Duncan only had a usage rate peak of 29.7% in 03-04 season, Kobe had 12 seasons with a higher usage rate, leading the league in 3 years in that category, with a peak of 38.7%, again coming in 05-06. So your assertion that the Spurs went through Duncan every time is false.

What this tells us is that Kobe just shot more when he is used more, Duncan, on the other hand, used his teammates more in 03-04 even though the Spurs offense ran through him. One defines a chucker, the other doesn't.

And I still can't believe you are trying to use assists as a metric to measure a chucker, it's like you never heard of Nate Archibald, Tim Hardaway, Allen Iverson, Steve Francis, and Stephon Marbury. All chuckers, all have a respectable apg.

[ambchang]

Kobe had 4.7 apg per 36 minutes throughout his career.

Iverson had 5.4
Marbury 7.3
Tim Hardaway 8.3
Nate Archibald 7.5
Even the chuckiest of the chucker World B. Free had 4.4.

Kobestans are such dumbasses

[Sybok]

Kobe had 4.7 apg per 36 minutes throughout his career.

Iverson had 5.4
Marbury 7.3
Tim Hardaway 8.3
Nate Archibald 7.5
Even the chuckiest of the chucker World B. Free had 4.4.

Kobestans are such dumbasses

You cannot have apg per 36 minutes. That's two different measuring sticks.

[ambchang]

You cannot have apg per 36 minutes. That's two different measuring sticks.

My fault. I meant assists per 36 minutes. Those players all use the same metric.

[Venti Quattro]

Kobe had 4.7 apg per 36 minutes throughout his career.

Iverson had 5.4
Marbury 7.3
Tim Hardaway 8.3
Nate Archibald 7.5
Even the chuckiest of the chucker World B. Free had 4.4.

Kobestans are such dumbasses

All of the guys you mentioned having higher assist rates per 36 than Kobe are point guards... what a shocker!!!!!!!! :wow :wow :wow

Props for pointing out the obvious :cheer

[ambchang]

All of the guys you mentioned having higher assist rates per 36 than Kobe are point guards... what a shocker!!!!!!!! :wow :wow :wow

Props for pointing out the obvious :cheer

Positions matter now? Since when did Duncan start playing SG? Or is it Kobe's a PF?

:lol Less assists = chucker.

[Venti Quattro]

Positions matter now? Since when did Duncan start playing SG? Or is it Kobe's a PF?

:lol Less assists = chucker.
No you fuckstick, these are players who hold the ball voluminously

[ambchang]

No you fuckstick, these are players who hold the ball voluminously

And not the player who led the league in usage rate for three years?