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

[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 les.

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 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 les.

[cobbler]

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

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

[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!

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 les.

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 subs utions ("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 compe ively, 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 compe ion.

[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 compe ively, 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 compe ion.

+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 compe ion. Highly doubtful that Oscar Robertson would be able to average a triple double over a season in modern eras, not only due to superior compe ion, 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 compe ively, 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 compe ion.

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/...o&pqatl=google

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/...7&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 subs utions ("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 compe ively, 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 compe ion.

+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 compe ively, 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 compe ion.

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.