What's new
By:
Filters

2022 Jazzfanz all time nba draft sign up

NUMBERICA said:
Nah. About half the teams will be dead on arrival since there are so few ancients that make sense in the later/modern eras.
Click to expand...
Translation: voters are ****ing clueless and cannot imagine well enough to extrapolate how a player like Kareem would still be dominant in today's NBA by a mile, especially with modern medicine, training, and coaching, all just because he played in the "olden days". Main reason I won't play. It is insanely stupid to say that a player like Oscar Robertson or Bill Russell or Walton or Dr. J would not be simply dominant if their career had the same trajectory, with modern coaching training and medicine, as a Durant or Irving or Giannis or basically anyone except LeBron in the modern age. Pistol Pete had the potential to be a player nearly equal to Steph in his scoring ability and shooting (by accounts if he had had the 3 pt line he would have been a nearly 4-6 pts per game higher scorer and would have been in the neighborhood of a 38% 3 pt shooter for his career, with basically zero focus on the long-ball...what would happen if that were his primary focus?), with better play-making and defense. There are those timeless ones, like Jordan and LeBron, but they are literally in a class by themselves. But no one can imagine how giving a player like Chamberlain the same modern advantages as the advancements that have been made in conditioning, training in general, and technique/skills training would not just simply create a beast that could not be reckoned with in any era. Since no one can conceive of this stuff, and everyone gets stuck in the rut of "but he old guy, slow and fat and short" then it is a pointless exercise outside of the top 10 players from the past 10 years. As soon as they are gone, then the voters cannot get their heads around how to incorporate players from past eras because we are so short-sighted as a species. News flash "the good old days" don't really exist, they were just different old days. And the "today's everything is better/faster/harder/more difficult/easier than anything in X era" is garbage too.

TL/DR: the voters are idiots, so the competition is a total crap shoot and no better than just having everyone guess a number between 1 and 100.

Carry on.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Translation: voters are ****ing clueless and cannot imagine well enough to extrapolate how a player like Kareem would still be dominant in today's NBA by a mile, especially with modern medicine, training, and coaching, all just because he played in the "olden days". Main reason I won't play. It is insanely stupid to say that a player like Oscar Robertson or Bill Russell or Walton or Dr. J would not be simply dominant if their career had the same trajectory, with modern coaching training and medicine, as a Durant or Irving or Giannis or basically anyone except LeBron in the modern age. Pistol Pete had the potential to be a player nearly equal to Steph in his scoring ability and shooting (by accounts if he had had the 3 pt line he would have been a nearly 4-6 pts per game higher scorer and would have been in the neighborhood of a 38% 3 pt shooter for his career, with basically zero focus on the long-ball...what would happen if that were his primary focus?), with better play-making and defense. There are those timeless ones, like Jordan and LeBron, but they are literally in a class by themselves. But no one can imagine how giving a player like Chamberlain the same modern advantages as the advancements that have been made in conditioning, training in general, and technique/skills training would not just simply create a beast that could not be reckoned with in any era. Since no one can conceive of this stuff, and everyone gets stuck in the rut of "but he old guy, slow and fat and short" then it is a pointless exercise outside of the top 10 players from the past 10 years. As soon as they are gone, then the voters cannot get their heads around how to incorporate players from past eras because we are so short-sighted as a species. News flash "the good old days" don't really exist, they were just different old days. And the "today's everything is better/faster/harder/more difficult/easier than anything in X era" is garbage too.

TL/DR: the voters are idiots, so the competition is a total crap shoot and no better than just having everyone guess a number between 1 and 100.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
Wilt Chamberlain would absolutely dominate in today's game. LeBron is one of the most physically gifted players of all time. Wilt was much more physically gifted than LeBron.

I agree that it's really hard to do this competitions without a true understanding of every single player.
 
LoPo said:
Wilt Chamberlain would absolutely dominate in today's game. LeBron is one of the most physically gifted players of all time. Wilt was much more physically gifted than LeBron.

I agree that it's really hard to do this competitions without a true understanding of every single player.
Click to expand...
At least an ability to imagine what might have been, even if just extrapolated from their stats in their era. But too often it all just gets shut down "nah, he old and sucks".
 
LogGrad98 said:
At least an ability to imagine what might have been, even if just extrapolated from their stats in their era. But too often it all just gets shut down "nah, he old and sucks".
Click to expand...
Yep.

Some guys wouldn't translate as well to the modern game, but some guys would. Wilt Chamberlain would be a better Rudy on defense with the ability to dominate on offense too. The guy literally ran the 200 hurdles in college and competed in the high jump.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Translation: voters are ****ing clueless and cannot imagine well enough to extrapolate how a player like Kareem would still be dominant in today's NBA by a mile, especially with modern medicine, training, and coaching, all just because he played in the "olden days". Main reason I won't play. It is insanely stupid to say that a player like Oscar Robertson or Bill Russell or Walton or Dr. J would not be simply dominant if their career had the same trajectory, with modern coaching training and medicine, as a Durant or Irving or Giannis or basically anyone except LeBron in the modern age. Pistol Pete had the potential to be a player nearly equal to Steph in his scoring ability and shooting (by accounts if he had had the 3 pt line he would have been a nearly 4-6 pts per game higher scorer and would have been in the neighborhood of a 38% 3 pt shooter for his career, with basically zero focus on the long-ball...what would happen if that were his primary focus?), with better play-making and defense. There are those timeless ones, like Jordan and LeBron, but they are literally in a class by themselves. But no one can imagine how giving a player like Chamberlain the same modern advantages as the advancements that have been made in conditioning, training in general, and technique/skills training would not just simply create a beast that could not be reckoned with in any era. Since no one can conceive of this stuff, and everyone gets stuck in the rut of "but he old guy, slow and fat and short" then it is a pointless exercise outside of the top 10 players from the past 10 years. As soon as they are gone, then the voters cannot get their heads around how to incorporate players from past eras because we are so short-sighted as a species. News flash "the good old days" don't really exist, they were just different old days. And the "today's everything is better/faster/harder/more difficult/easier than anything in X era" is garbage too.

TL/DR: the voters are idiots, so the competition is a total crap shoot and no better than just having everyone guess a number between 1 and 100.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree that the best athletes from earlier eras would still be the best athletes today given the same advantages as modern athletes. It's easiest to compare players from similar eras, however, it also doesn't take a crazy amount of imagination to think through how that athlete would turn out in a modern game.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Translation: voters are ****ing clueless and cannot imagine well enough to extrapolate how a player like Kareem would still be dominant in today's NBA by a mile, especially with modern medicine, training, and coaching, all just because he played in the "olden days". Main reason I won't play. It is insanely stupid to say that a player like Oscar Robertson or Bill Russell or Walton or Dr. J would not be simply dominant if their career had the same trajectory, with modern coaching training and medicine, as a Durant or Irving or Giannis or basically anyone except LeBron in the modern age. Pistol Pete had the potential to be a player nearly equal to Steph in his scoring ability and shooting (by accounts if he had had the 3 pt line he would have been a nearly 4-6 pts per game higher scorer and would have been in the neighborhood of a 38% 3 pt shooter for his career, with basically zero focus on the long-ball...what would happen if that were his primary focus?), with better play-making and defense. There are those timeless ones, like Jordan and LeBron, but they are literally in a class by themselves. But no one can imagine how giving a player like Chamberlain the same modern advantages as the advancements that have been made in conditioning, training in general, and technique/skills training would not just simply create a beast that could not be reckoned with in any era. Since no one can conceive of this stuff, and everyone gets stuck in the rut of "but he old guy, slow and fat and short" then it is a pointless exercise outside of the top 10 players from the past 10 years. As soon as they are gone, then the voters cannot get their heads around how to incorporate players from past eras because we are so short-sighted as a species. News flash "the good old days" don't really exist, they were just different old days. And the "today's everything is better/faster/harder/more difficult/easier than anything in X era" is garbage too.

TL/DR: the voters are idiots, so the competition is a total crap shoot and no better than just having everyone guess a number between 1 and 100.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
Having the stipulation that one must select a player from each era with your top 5 picks does something to mitigate the problem and does make the enterprise more entertaining.
 
Anyone remembers what team won last year? Though I will say we didn’t follow through entirely on the rules exactly as not all teams had an older player due to trades.
 
LoPo said:
Wilt Chamberlain would be a better Rudy on defense with…
Click to expand...
He wasn’t anywhere close to Rudy defensively when he did play and a faster and more perimeter oriented game would not change that.

Wilt was immensely talented but he coasted a lot and underhelped his team because he was fundamentally a selfish player. That showed up in his defense too.
 
NUMBERICA said:
He wasn’t anywhere close to Rudy defensively when he did play and a faster and more perimeter oriented game would not change that.

Wilt was immensely talented but he coasted a lot and underhelped his team because he was fundamentally a selfish player. That showed up in his defense too.
Click to expand...
Rudy works his butt off to protect the paint. He's a dang fine player. But Wilt was something Rudy is not - an athletic specimen.

Just because Marcus Smart is tenacious and puts everything he has out there doesn't mean he's near as good as Scottie Pippen was.

They didn't count blocks in Wilt's era. One time, an assistant coach counted Wilt blocks in the first half of a game. He counted 27. Wilt was blocking in the paint, guards on the perimeter, etc. People forget that Wilt was a college track star. Hurdles, sprinting, high jump, recorded 48 inch vertical. He was truly a unicorn.
 
LoPo said:
Rudy works his butt off to protect the paint. He's a dang fine player. But Wilt was something Rudy is not - an athletic specimen.

Just because Marcus Smart is tenacious and puts everything he has out there doesn't mean he's near as good as Scottie Pippen was.

They didn't count blocks in Wilt's era. One time, an assistant coach counted Wilt blocks in the first half of a game. He counted 27. Wilt was blocking in the paint, guards on the perimeter, etc. People forget that Wilt was a college track star. Hurdles, sprinting, high jump, recorded 48 inch vertical. He was truly a unicorn.
Click to expand...
it's funny you don't realize people are making **** up about wilt. and the stories get wilder as time goes on.

i mean, you forgot to mention the time the trainer counted 53 blocks in the first quarter. 27 blocks in the first half, 48 inch vertical - none of this is verified anywhere. it's just people making **** up and it gets repeated so often it becomes "truth"
 
seattlejazzfan said:
it's funny you don't realize people are making **** up about wilt. and the stories get wilder as time goes on.

i mean, you forgot to mention the time the trainer counted 53 blocks in the first quarter. 27 blocks in the first half, 48 inch vertical - none of this is verified anywhere. it's just people making **** up and it gets repeated so often it becomes "truth"
Click to expand...
What we do know is that the Rudy Gobert of that era (Bill Russell) absolutely dominated him and the rest of the league with defense and putrid offense.

The point I was trying to make was that Wilt doesn’t have the hardware commensurate to the hype. We don’t need stats of granularity to measure that reality.
 
LoPo said:
They didn't count blocks in Wilt's era. One time, an assistant coach counted Wilt blocks in the first half of a game. He counted 27. Wilt was blocking in the paint, guards on the perimeter, etc. People forget that Wilt was a college track star. Hurdles, sprinting, high jump, recorded 48 inch vertical. He was truly a unicorn.
Click to expand...
Even if true, I doubt it though. There’s no way he gets even a tenth of that in this era, or even 80’s 90’s era’s.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
it's funny you don't realize people are making **** up about wilt. and the stories get wilder as time goes on.

i mean, you forgot to mention the time the trainer counted 53 blocks in the first quarter. 27 blocks in the first half, 48 inch vertical - none of this is verified anywhere. it's just people making **** up and it gets repeated so often it becomes "truth"
Click to expand...
There are some stories that make you wonder, but there are facts out there that prove his athletic dominance. https://howtheyplay.com/team-sports/Why-Wilt-Chamberlain-was-the-Greatest-Athlete-of-All-Time

At Overbrook High School in West Philadelphia, he was an avid track and field star: He high jumped 6 feet, 6 inches; ran the 440 yards in 49.0 seconds and the 880 yards in 1:58.3; propelled the shot put 53 feet, 4 inches; and broad jumped 22 feet.

In college at the University of Kansas, the 7'1" goliath ran a sub-11-second 100-yard dash and also threw the shot put 56 feet. Despite competing and excelling in both sprinting and throwing, these were not his best events. Chamberlain triple jumped more than 50 feet and successfully won the Big 8 Conference high jumping competition three years in a row
 
Thee Idiotic Minivan K said:
Even if true, I doubt it though. There’s no way he gets even a tenth of that in this era, or even 80’s 90’s era’s.
Click to expand...
His blocks go down big time in this era. Players are less inclined to "test him" or anybody. Getting dunked on is the only thing worse than getting blocked.

What makes LeBron ridiculous is that he's Karl Malone but with the handles and smooth athleticism as any small guard. Wilt was bigger than Rudy, but with the athleticism of somebody like Kawhi. He's unlike any player who has ever played the game.
 
LoPo said:
There are some stories that make you wonder, but there are facts out there that prove his athletic dominance. https://howtheyplay.com/team-sports/Why-Wilt-Chamberlain-was-the-Greatest-Athlete-of-All-Time

At Overbrook High School in West Philadelphia, he was an avid track and field star: He high jumped 6 feet, 6 inches; ran the 440 yards in 49.0 seconds and the 880 yards in 1:58.3; propelled the shot put 53 feet, 4 inches; and broad jumped 22 feet.

In college at the University of Kansas, the 7'1" goliath ran a sub-11-second 100-yard dash and also threw the shot put 56 feet. Despite competing and excelling in both sprinting and throwing, these were not his best events. Chamberlain triple jumped more than 50 feet and successfully won the Big 8 Conference high jumping competition three years in a row
Click to expand...
And that high jump was before the "Fosbury flop" was a thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top