Reply With Quote
.... PERIOD.
Mute just do what your name says, keep mute and stop making stupid threads.
You realize kids are gonna be saying the exact same thing about Duncan and his generation in 2060 right? Don't be so disrespectful.
.... PERIOD.
Mute just do what your name says, keep mute and stop making stupid threads.
Well, there are two possibilities. Either athletes can't get much more athletic than they are today, in which case there won't be as much of a disparity between now and 2060; or athletes will improve greatly in the next 50 years, in which case these hypothetical kids would be correct in their hypothetical assertions.
Either way, you failed to rebut the point.
Tim Duncan is 37 years old, having his worst shooting year as a pro, and is still shooting better than Pet 's career average. A 6'9" center taking 21 shots per game and shooting 43 percent from the floor would get cut from his team. Army and Navy used to field strong college football teams, too. It's not because they're great recruiters.
Probably none, wouldn't have worked in Pop's system and Spurs would have been outclassed in the early runs 1999- 2003 because Duncan was that cornerstone who had size and skill. I doubt we get Parker or Manu because they would still be searching for that Big man center, Robinson would have retired much earlier.
I was thinking more of if we kept the same players but swapped Duncan and Pet . In my opinion, Chicago takes 98, we take 99, LA wins 4 in a row, Detroit takes 04, LA breaks up, we take 05, 06 (this was Duncan's down year and we almost beat DALLAS), and 07.
People really need to take into account pace. There were WAY more possessions in a typical 50s/60s basketball game.
The '61 Celtics scored 118+ ppg (would be insane in today's league)...however they shot under 42% as a team (would be 2nd to worst in today's league). Were they some historic offense that is leaps and bounds better than the offenses of today's league? Of course not. The game was simply different back then...we don't have exact pace numbers for the earliest eras, but we know the game was WAY faster paced than it is now.
So far this season, the league-average pace is 94.2. For those unfamiliar, this means that the average NBA team will have 94.2 possessions during the course of a game. In 1980, the league-average pace was 103.1. So teams in 1980 were averaging nearly 10 more possessions per game than current teams. It's no wonder why the league-average PPG in 1980 was 109.3, while the league-average PPG in the current season is 99.4. What, nowadays people are just worse scorers and aren't as good offensively as the players in 1980? No.
This trend continues into the 50s/60s. 1950s basketball was even FASTER paced than basketball in 1980. To sum it up:
faster pace = more possessions per game = more opportunity to put up stats. Give Duncan 15 more possessions per game: you think his scoring remains the same?
I'm not trying to take away from older era players. But you can't just pull up two sets of stats and solely look at the numbers to make a judgment. As with basically every statistic in sports, you must always use context. Also, as others have mentioned, the athleticism/size of players has increased as a whole. Obviously a guy like Wilt would be a freak physical specimen no matter what era you put him in. But there's no denying that there were much fewer 7 footers running around playing against him compared to today's league. He would still dominate, but it's really not far-fetched to assume his production would go down if he was constantly facing guys like Duncan, Marc Gasol, Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett, Olajuwon, etc instead of 6'8, less athletic guys.
edit: one more thing that even further proves what I'm getting at. In 1965, the league-average for team field-goal attempts over the entire season was 7987. Today? 1476. So teams are taking ~6500 less shots over the course of a season. Think that might result in inflated scoring/rebounding/assist numbers?
Last edited by SpursFan86; 12-05-2013 at 04:12 AM.
This sums it up. Pe t's stats come down in todays NBA.
Your points about pace are correct in general, but your numbers about current field goal attempts per season are way off. 1476/82 = 18. The Spurs have already taken 1490 shots this season. You may have looked at the average number of attempts so far this season. Last season the average NBA team attempted 6720 shots.
Wilt leads the league in career 20/20 games with over 500.
And yet Dennis Rodman has a much higher effective rebounding rate than chamberlain did.
That should tell you all you need to know about stats from that era. Duncan. Would. Have. Smashed. He would have made absolute fools of defenders in the 60s.
Ahhh, don't know how I didn't realize that. That's what I get for posting early in the morningShould've figured those numbers were way too far apart. Regardless, as you said, the points about pace still stand.
I'm old enough. No comparison. Earlier post was right on. Bob Pe equals today's Antawon Jamison.
So, zero les. Also, no Parker or Ginobili because we would still be looking for a big. Keep in mind we wouldn't get all the other additions to le teams because no Duncan to attract them to San Antonio.
To end the discussion altogether .................. Having Pe rather than Duncan would result in ............................... No more Spurs in San Antonio.
I know we all love Mr Robinson for his character and play. I will always be the first to applaud him. However, AT&T Center is the house that TD built. If he didn't come here we were done. It all started with David but Timmy set it in stone with Pop as the atmosphere setter with Tim's approval. Even after they are both gone the winning atmosphere is set and will be carried on by Pop's home grown predecessor.
Bank it !!!!!!
successor
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions