Deke

1.Bron has 6.5
birds career is 6.3

and bron plays in a slower era. so why can you say elgin isnt as good a scorer cuz his era is faster even though he scores more, but cant say bron is a better passer then bird even though he puts up better passing stats in a slower era? hypocrite much?

on the basis that emeka okafer scores similar points in a MUCH slower era. i thought you had to take era into account?

why do you have to "Always take era into account'' but you can disregard these two things?

and regardless of conference the elite sfs killed him almost every time out. Julius Erving was 34 in 1984 also...

kflo

except you said magic, not bird. and averaging more assists doesn't make one a better passer. marbury averaged more assists than bird as well.


he scores similar points, is a bad passer, and scores inefficiently on a bad team. russell was still an offensive catalyst on championship teams. if you want to give the offensive edge to okafor, be my guest, it wasn't russell's strongest suit. but not sure what the point is.

i didn't disregard anything. you should always take era and context into account. are you arguing that era and context aren't important and raw numbers unadjusted are all that matter? that nate thurmond must be a better rebounder than dennis rodman because he averaged more rebounds?

and that's just false.

PauloCatarino

I think that is probably the most moronic question i have ever read in all my years in this Forum.

Congratulations!

__________________
(...) we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender (...)

buduan

Deke, you're killing yourself.

Lets simplify it (if this hasn't already been posted). Baylor averaged 27ppg for his career on almost 24 shots a game. Bird averaged 24ppg on about 19 shots a game. Baylor shot 43% for his career. Bird, 49%. Do the math. 5 more shots a game over the course of his career and he would have averaged more than Baylor.

Baylor averaged more rebounds per game because there were more available rebounds in his era. And he was a POWER FORWARD. That is what PF's do.

Fact is you'd have to have seen more than some clips of his game to know that Bird was just a better all around and more complete player. Neither player was a particularly good defensive player. Bird got by with height and smarts. Baylor was undersized but he found a way to compete with his athleticism.

Deke

using the pace argument against the 60s will ALWAYS favor modern day players. thats my point.

i guess dennis rodman in 87 was better offensively then russell as well....?

''cuz you have to simplify it''

and bill russell only scored about 5 more ppg and took close to 500+ more shots per year.

Deke

elgin baylor was a SF btw. not a pf. did he play some pf? yes. but so did bird.

Pioneer10

It's not favoring it's simply placing the stats in perspective. Your view is simply strange: in financial terms it like looking at interest rates w/o looking at inflation as well (i.e. a bond that pays 6% now in a low inflation period looks good but a bond that pays 6% in a high inflation period like the 70's and your actually losing money)

And even when adjusted for pace, 60's players still stand out. Baylor is still a top 5 SF just not as good as Bird and Chamberlain has a case to be made for GOAT even after adjusting for era.

__________________

Deke

using the argument of pace will always favor modern generations man. its a flawed *** argument. it cant be a valid argument if EVERY WAY you look at it favors modern generations...

the way i see it, you score what you score, you rebound what you rebound. everyone has different paces and factors but they did what they did, and thats right there. 27 ppg in the 60s is better then 24 ppg regardless of the era imo.

i dont look at kobes 35 and say ''well according to pace'' thats better then wilts 50 ppg. and so on so on...

its just a 1 sided view to always discredit the players of the past if you look at it like that.

BadBaronRudigor

Pace is legit. There were more points, people averaged more shots and rebounds (assists were actually harder to get so you have to adjust them up if anything). But even adjusting for pace, the stars of the 60s still compare to modern players . . . Russell would still be the DPOY pretty much every year; Wilt in his 50 point season would be the equivalent of a 38/17/2 guy today and still the best player in the league.

The argument that devalues and ridicules the players of the past is the one that says players from the 60s didn't have the size and athleticism of modern players (and believe me, you hear it ALL THE TIME). When you adjust for the fact that modern players are measured in shoes rather than barefeet for their official height (adds 1-2 inches) and that 60s records continued to list their college weights (Walt Bellamy weighed 225 pounds . . . in his dreams), there has been little or no change in size. Modern training methods and equipment have made a difference (trying jumping in Chuck Taylors 82 games a year), particularly weight training which was discouraged then (it would make you musclebound), plus of course steroids which are probably quite common now (NBA has a joke of a testing program). But there has NOT been an evolutionary development adding measurable athleticism in 50 years, that's a scientific joke.

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

MrJayremmie

He isn't right now, if his career ended today.

But he will be... I think he will be a top 5 player of all time.

He is the best 23 year old of all time, imo.

__________________