Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1696Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Cross Generational Simulating/Comparisons

Expand Messages
  • bchaikin@aol.com
    Jan 25, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      If you're saying that it should be possible to compare players from different eras, once some kind of adjustment is made for the differences, then I agree with you.

      adjustment? like what kind of adjustment? "...made for the differences..." what differences? again - here is someone saying, emphatically, that some kind of adjustment is needed (i'm assuming to the stats), and that there are some kind of differences, but does not state what they are, for whatever reason, nor does he give any manor of clue or clues as to what he means.....once again statements made not backed up by any kind of evidence or fact...

      If you're saying the players from the 1950s and 1960s are JUST AS GOOD as they players today, I couldn't disagree with you more emphatically.

      you can disagree all you want, but as this is a stats analysis group, lets hear your reasons why...

      Even after adjusting for the weight training, travel, improvements in medicine, etc., there is one huge, clear difference between baseball in the 1950s and 1960s and basketball in the 1950s and 1960s:

      all right, my eyes and ears are wide open now.....to hear this "...one huge, clear difference..."...

      Baseball, as North America's most popular sport, was already drawing in almost all of the people in the population who were genuinely talented. But there was never the same pull to get the best athletes into basketball, because its popularity has only bloomed in the last 30 years. Basketball, on the other hand, was not. In fact, absurdly, obviously not.

      oh, really?......absurdly, obviously not?.........fine - then lets look at this closely......

      this is 2003, thirty years ago would be 1973. are you trying to tell me that prior to 1973 (the 1950s and 1960s), the best basketball athletes or basketball players in the country might not have been playing basketball, not pursuing pro basketball as a career? that pro basketball was not "....drawing in almost all of the people in the population who were genuinely talented..." like pro baseball was?....

      let me get this straight - are you saying that people who were very good at basketball, say, at a college level back then some 30+ odd years ago, were pursuing careers other than pro basketball who could have been in the pros? is this what you are saying? that this god awfully good basketball talent was doing something other than playing pro basketball? or are you saying that there weren't enough good players around to make the NBA competitive?...

      you're joking right?...

      fyi - not just 30 years ago but 35-40 and more years ago there was so much talent in terms of pro basketball players in this country, great players could not make it into the pros because they weren't good enough (meaning the players in the NBA were the very best the country had to offer) because the league had only 8 teams,  and because of that great extra talent that not only was the NBA expanding from 8 to 9 teams, then 9 to 10 teams, then 10 to 12 teams, and then 12 to 14 teams in the span of less than a decade (in the 1960s), but a second pro league was started up in 1967-68 with another 11 teams (you may have heard of it - it was called the ABA)....

      so in 65-66 there were 9 pro teams and 3 years later, by 1968-69, there were, what, 25 total pro teams between the NBA and ABA?...

      Basketball, on the other hand, was not. In fact, absurdly, obviously not.


      absurdly, obviously, not? uh...yep...i can see your point......pro hoops wasn't too popular back then...

      (if in your eyes there were college players that were blatantly good enough in college to be NBA pro players and possibly dominate the NBA but did not, prior to the league expanding to more than 8 teams, that went on to become accountants or lawyers or whatever rather than play pro hoops, lets hear who you think they were)...

      George Mikan was a giant at the time,l but he was 6-10, 245. Slater Martin was 5-10. Jim Pollard was 6-5, 185 and often played power forward.

      again, what is your point here? what does height have to do with it? charles barkley was 6'5" and he was a power forward, no? he was pretty good, no? muggsy bogues, spud webb, earl boykins were all smaller than martin, they were pretty good, no? dennis rodman was 6'8" in a land of a multitude 7 footers, and he dominated the boards for some time. you ever heard of a player named leonard "truck" robinson? he was 6'7" and 230 lbs and lead the league in rebounding (new orleans jazz) in the late 1970s...

      in 1968-69 (34 years ago), when the NBA was dominated by such big men as 7'1" wilt chamberlain, 6'9" bill russell, 6'11" elvin hayes, 6'9" bob rule, 6'11' nate thurmond, 6'10" walt bellamy, 6'9" zelmo beaty, 6'8" jerry lucas, most of these mentioned are hall of famers, and many others, and long before - i guess - basketball was popular enough to bring in top rated talent (your words - cause they were looking for other jobs i guess), a scrawny little 6'7" rookie by the name of wes unseld came into the league and dominated in such a way that he not only captured the league's rookie of the year award but also the league's most valuable player award (can't remember if that ever happened again)??...

      so here was a league - so denuded of talent (i guess) - because its popularity hadn't "...bloomed yet..." so as to pull in the best talent available from around the country, not only expands its number of teams (almost doubling the number of teams in less than a decade) but supposedly dilutes its talent base because it was bringing in so many new players and teams in such a short period of time, and a player 3 inches shorter than big old lumbering george mikan dominates the league filled with the above mentioned super talent in such a way and to such a degree that he is named both ROY and MVP?? and you're trying to tell me the league wasn't bringing the best talent from around the country? who you trying to kid?...

      are you telling me that a 6'7" rookie named wes unseld, who faced chamberlain and russell and hayes and thurmond (all hall of famers) twice as often as if he was a rookie of today would face o'neal and shawn bradley and yao ming and whomever else (because there are now twice as many teams as back then) would not be just as good in today's game? someone who beat down the doors of a number of hall of famers?....

      Those were the cornerstones of the BEST team of the 1950s; you can't seriously tell me that, even with modern weight training and diet, those guys could walk out on the floor and hang with the Kings for four quarters.

      i couldn't be more serious.......i don't think there is any question that the players of the 30+ years ago could play equally competitively against the players of today, and even the players of the mid-to-late 1950s (as i've stated all along with this cross generational debate - not early 1950s), especially if they had access to what the players of today have - they were of equal talent in my opinion.....

      is that "...in fact, absurdly obvious..."?...

      bob chaikin
      bchaikin@...











    • Show all 29 messages in this topic