Bright Side Of The Sun: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Sean Keeley's Week 12 College Football Buffet

Athletes Now Vs. Yesterday: Who Wins? (Complete With a Poll!)

Would Amare posterize Charles Barkley?

More photos » by Sue Ogrocki - AP

Would Amare posterize Charles Barkley?

So this question has been in my head for many years now. I remember vividly when it appeared in 2004: I am on a treadmill at some gym looking up at an ESPN Classic baseball game from the 1980's on TV. It's the Angels versus someone else, I don't recall. And this skinny white dude with a mustache and glasses is up at the plate. His name is Bobby Grich and he's the starting second baseman for the California Angels. This guy looks like an accountant or a lawyer, or some IT geek, not an athlete. But he's hitting like .300. and he's a major leaguer. And I start thinking to myself, no way does a guy like this play baseball in this day and age. No way. And as I continued my jog while watching this game, and these guys in high stirrups and skinny biceps, I thought to myself, I wonder if athletes now are better than athletes 20 years ago. I thought about how virtually every professional athlete we see these days is yoked. I thought about how most players have special diets and how most teams have a special coach for weight and strength training. The professional athlete has indeed changed over the years. But are they better-on the court and on the field? Obviously PED's have change professional sports, but I'm not focusing on that. I'm thinking off all of the scientific research, the legal diets and supplements, the practice regiments, the coaching techniques. Have they all combined to make a 2009 athlete much better than an athlete from 1989? 1969?

I submit the following for consideration when mulling this question(s) over. I know there must be more, so consider this a short list:

  • Scientific research has provided the athlete with data specific to diet and dietary supplements that will enhance muscle growth and endurance thereby maximizing performance. This results in athletes obtaining more information on how to perform better by consuming certain foods and avoiding others.
  • Professional athletics are much more popular as a vocation now than they were 20 years ago, hence, This results in many more opportunities to play sports but also much more competition to climb the ranks as an athlete.
  • Fame and fortune is a goal for the growing population of youth in America and abroad based on societal and popular culture influences. This also results in more opportunities to play sports while also more parents encouraging their children to play. If you aren't a movie star, being a professional sports star is just as good.
  • The media has grown astronomically due to advances in technology whereby information is easily available via internet and television. Increased availability of  exposure to professional sports can lead to increased popularity. (I wanna be like Mike!) 
  • New research has enhanced practice methods for athletes-there are now specialized techniques in every sport that will maximize productive output and minimize injury. Practicing the right thing is much better than practicing the wrong thing. Learning correct form and technique leads to less injuries and more effectiveness.
  • Sports Training for children in sports has become a major industry. Most kids like sports and most parents put their children in sports. Why not see if your kid is the next Tiger Woods? (See Frank and Eddie Johnson). There are even more opportunities to practice and learn than just with your school or league teams.
  • Professional sports are growing internationally-there are amazing athletes all over the world, and scouts are finding them and bringing them to American Professional Leagues. This results is increased population of athletes. Especially among poor and developing nations whereby sports are used as a means to escape poverty and political oppression.

So, we have established that sports have increased in popularity over the past 20 or more years. Can we make some conclusions?:

  • As youths are exposed to more sports and the popularity of professional sports increases, the population of youths becoming athletes grows as they attempt to emulate their favorite players.
  • As the population of athletes increases, so does the level of competition-at every level from grade school to professional.
  • To improve in a sport, the athlete will increase practice time, honing technique and increasing repitions while also utilizing dietary aids and supplements as a means to build strength and stamina to complement their technical expertise.

Hm. It sounds pretty good. But something still doesn't sound right. Consider the greats of yesteryear:

  • Babe Ruth was plain fat. He was notorious for boozing and partying. We can assume he didn't have a gym membership nor did he do a whole lot to keep in optimal athletic condition. But he hit 714 home runs over his career, and went down in history as one of the best to ever play the game. Hank Aaron eclipsed Ruth's home run record, hitting 755 home runs. He was a strapping man, but he didn't look like Albert Pujols, did he?
  • Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was a slow, tall, gaunt, skinny seven footer. He also scored 38,387 points and played on 6 NBA Championship teams in 20 seasons. 
  • Joe Montana was not a physical specimen, nor did he have the arm strength or speed of some of quarterbacks in the NFL today, but he owns a truckload of NFL records including post-season career touchdown passes (45), yards (5,772) and four Super Bowl Championships

Star-divide

But how would these players fair in their respective leagues now? Would Kareem in his prime be able to dominate the NBA like Shaq did in his prime? If the two played head to head, would Shaq's gigantic frame and aggressiveness completely over power Jabbar? Would Ruth even be able to last a 162 game season in his physical condition, let alone hit 714 HR's? Would Montana's average athleticism be any match for the monsters he would encounter on defense in 2009? Are these even fair questions to ask?


Let me back up for a second and make this Suns related. I want to compare two similar Suns squads-I just grabbed random ones with similar results, the 2006-7 Suns and the 1994-5 Suns. Both teams won a lot of regular season games, both teams lost in the Western Conference Semifinals, both teams scored a lot of points. Take a look at these teams:


2006-7 SUNS 61-21:   LOST WC SEMIFINALS
Coach: Mike D'Antoni

Scored: 110.2 PPG
Allowed: 102.9 PPG

Starting 5:

Amare Stoudamire 20.4 PPG, 9 RPG, 1.3 BLK
Kurt Thomas (or Leandro, James Jones, etc. all) 4.6 PPG  5.7RPG
Shawn Marion  18.1 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 1.5 BLK, 2.0 STL
Raja Bell  14.7 PPG  2.5 STL
Steve Nash  18.6 PPG  11.6 AST

1994-5  SUNS 59-23:   LOST WC SEMIFINALS
Coach: Paul Westphal

Scored: 110.6 PPG
Allowed: 106.8 PPG

Starting 5:

Charles Barkley  23.0 PPG 11.1 RPG
Kevin Johnson 15.5 PPG 7.7 AST 1 SPG
Dan Majerle 15.6 PPG 4.6 RPG 4.1 AST
A.C. Green  11.2 PPG  8.2 RPG
Joe Kleine (D. Schayes/W Tisdale, etc.all) 3.7 PPG 3 RPG


Is it a forgone conclusion that the 2007 Suns would absolutely murder the 1995 Suns? Would Amare posterize Charles Barkley every time down the floor?  Would K.J. have been able to contain Nash, and stop him from getting his teammates involved? Would Raja have been able to get under Majerle's skin enough to stop him from popping 3's from the top of the key? Did Danny Schayes wear those glasses for protection, or did he think they were cool?

I urge you all to ponder this at length, because I don't think it's a simple answer. What do you all think?

Poll
Who wins?
2006-7 Suns: Amare Posterizes Barkley
154 votes
1994-5 Suns: KJ Posterizes Amare, Olajuwon style
168 votes
Not sure/Who cares?
73 votes

395 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs  |  Comment 63 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Um
Professional sports are growing internationally-there are amazing athletes all over the world, and scouts are finding them and bringing them to American Professional Leagues. This results is increased population of athletes. Especially among poor and developing nations whereby sports are used as a means to escape poverty and political oppression.

I assume you mean American professional sports, because professional sports like tennis, rugby, and especially soccer have been ridiculously popular worldwide for a very long time.

Also regarding the post: I think you need to ask a second question which is whether being a better athlete makes them better basketball players.

Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.

by rosewood on Aug 3, 2009 5:51 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

i think they are

watch NBA classics. They don’t play any particularly better brand of basketball.

Let the fools have their tartar sauce!

by Funky Flapsack on Aug 3, 2009 5:54 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rosewood

Yes, American professional sports.

Good, a second question. What do you think? Does better athlete=better basketball players?

by Wil Cantrell on Aug 3, 2009 6:47 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Depends which rules you go by...

It really was a different game back then. This is one of the things that gets overlooked in the whole REDICULOUS Kobe vs. Jordan debate. Jordan did it in an era where the Pistons came up with the Jordan rules…basically, knock him on his ass every time he gets near you or the basket. In today’s game the hits he was taking on every possession would result in fines, flagrants and suspensions but back then it was routine. So are you playing with todays rules that allow Steve Nash to get hand checking calls or old school rules where hand checking didn’t really exist. Are you playing where people are afraid to get too physical with Amare going up for a dunk or where Barkley would let you know not to come into the lane with a WWF (yes that’s what it was called back then) body slam. Obviously these athletes are good enough to adapt to either style but if you were to take the old school guys and just throw them into a game with new school rules it would’ve been quite the adjustment and probably would result in players fouling out rather quickly. Same goes for new school guys going back to the old game – would they be tough enough to handle it.

Man, Will! You got my brain working way too hard on a Monday afternoon right at 5!

by watdogg10 on Aug 3, 2009 6:00 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

what about the zone?

Kobe has said it’s much harder to attack the hoop these days because the entire opposing team can converge on a player

Let the fools have their tartar sauce!

by Funky Flapsack on Aug 3, 2009 6:10 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ha. sorry about that.

The Bad Boys of Detroit come to mind as a very physical team with Mahorn and Laimbeer tossing elbows like it was nothing. You could also consider what San Antonio got and continues to get away with, and only suffering minimal punishment.

I think you raise good points, some that I hadn’t considered. It goes to show that this is a difficult question, but interesting to think about. I for one think MJ in his prime could play now and give Kobe a serious run for his money. Nash is a tougher version of Stockton, and Stockton got along just fine playing against much more physical, talented competition. So, do you think Stockton could be playing against the CP3’s of the league and be successful?

My mind’s in a bottle too.

by Wil Cantrell on Aug 3, 2009 8:20 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

and since you did mention PED's

i think it would be devastating to to find out Lebron, Amare, Dwight Howard, or and of these guys were using. But it’s been a fear of mine, specifically because of what you mentioned, their physique.

Let the fools have their tartar sauce!

by Funky Flapsack on Aug 3, 2009 6:02 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

If I understand correctly, testing a hair sample can indicate past steroid use. Any player who has nothing to hide could have a hair sample analyzed by an NBA-approved laboratory, and publicize the results. If he cared at all about being above suspicion.

by lonesomepoint on Aug 3, 2009 7:27 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

May I just make a point about Amare Stoudemire vs. Charles Barkley, and Stoudemire’s defense? Of course Stoudemire would posterize Barkley! In Barkley’s first Suns season, Tom Gugliotta (then a rookie, I believe) lit Barkley up. (I don’t know if he dunked on Barkley, but according to the book Phoenix Suns: Rising to the Top With the Team of Oddities, someone on the Suns—I think Coach Westphal—claimed that Barkley made Gugliotta look like Larry Bird in that game.)
The thing is, Barkley would posterize Stoudemire just as often, because Stoudemire wouldn’t necessarily guard him aggressively.

by lonesomepoint on Aug 3, 2009 7:03 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

P.S. Stoudemire could single-cover Barkley if he put any effort into it, because he’s quicker and more athletic than Barkley was, and possibly as strong. If you were very big and strong, you could cover him without being an athletic freak like Stoudemire; yes, David Robinson could single-cover Barkley in 1993, but when Barkley played for the Rockets later, the Suns successfully used Joe Kleine to cover Barkley. (Barkley said after the game that Kleine wore him out.)

by lonesomepoint on Aug 3, 2009 7:21 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Barkley didn’t have much game after he left PHX for Houston. I wouldn’t put so much credence into the Joe Klein shutdown at that time in his career. Robinson was an excellent defender (7 time NBA All-Defensive team) and he had about what, 7 inches on Chuck?

Consider Barkley in his MVP season vs. Stoudamire v. ‘06-07. I assume you watched Charles then. He was a monster. They didn’t give him the MVP trophy for nothing. Sure his D consisted of back pedaling so the offensive player lost his balance, but by ‘93 Chuck was a beast inside and had also developed a pretty decent jump shot from outside. I think it would be a blast watching STAT vs Chuck. They’d be talking *hit and going at one another, battling for pride.

by Wil Cantrell on Aug 3, 2009 8:13 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Stan

I think that would actually be 1.9K80

Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.

by rosewood on Aug 4, 2009 12:02 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

fundamentals will always beat power and athleticism imo. for example, in tennis roger federer is one of the weakest players on the tour strengthwise but is fundamentally very sound. this way he is more than a match for power players like roddick, soderling et al, who all are more powerful, athletic than fedex.

similarly in basketball in the 90s mike dunleavy was unbeaten in one on one with each of his players when he was coaching the bucks. now those players were obviously in their prime, at least 10 years younger, more athletic but dunleavy’s basics beat it all. btw dunleavy was nothing more than a journeyman during his nba days.

also given that those players never had the facilities/diet/comfort that today’s players have access to they relied more on their natural athleticism. i am pretty sure if kareem had access to today’s technology from when he was 15-16 years old i am pretty sure he’d as good as shaq if not better. kareem played on a fast breaking LA side in his late 30s couldnt match it with the suns could he? i know he is heavier etc but that just shows how kareem took care of his body and how natural he was.

by sr vas on Aug 3, 2009 9:16 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

Interesting points, sr vas.

I think Larry Bird could play now and be pretty potent, although I do think he’d get roughed up a bit under the hoop. But his shot was so pure, he could just sit outside and pop J’s all day in any era.

by Wil Cantrell on Aug 3, 2009 9:28 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

also another point is that the early players never got the preferential treatment from referees that players get today. i mean look at lebron james in ecf game 3 or 4, he just put his head down and ran. he wasnt looking to score, i am not even sure if he knew where the basket was but he knew if he was banged he’ll shoot freebies. i know kareem got the phantom foul call in the 88 finals but that looks like a clothesline foul compared to what star players like kobe, lebron, wade get these days.

the worst case of officiating imo is the 2006 finals. irrespective whether wade was fouled or not he went to the stripe every single time he attacked the basketball. not to mention the travelling and double dribbling that is ignored.

another non basketball example is 41 year old pancho gonzalez. he played passarell who was i believe 20 years his junior at wimbledon and won a 5 setter that lasted close to 6 hrs over 2 days (additionally there were no tiebreaks and no seats). can u imagine any tennis player let alone a 40 year old doing the same thing today?

athleticism is a very wrong measure. skills will more often than not beat power.

by sr vas on Aug 3, 2009 9:44 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

There’s a basic fallacy to all of this reasoning, which is that certain players did play under the conditions we’re discussing. Robert Parish played from 1976 to 1997. He got old, sure, but the basic skills he had enabled him to score and rebound right to the end, in increasingly smaller intervals. I think there is a much better argument that waterbug guards like Michael Adams would be bigger stars now due to the lack of defense, rather than the other way around.

And comparing the Spurs to the Bad Boys teams…bonkers. Go back and watch the Detroit teams. It’s crazy to think that basketball in the last 10 years has been anywhere near as physical as it was then. Or if you want to see Derek Harper deliver a beatdown on Kenny Smith for 7 games, check out the Knicks-Rockets finals in ’94.

"Give me chonchon."

by Slowpoke Rodriguez on Aug 3, 2009 11:24 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

A better poll question

I did not answer the poll, because I believe Amare would posterize Charles, and KJ would dunk over Amare. A better question would be how Jordan in his prime would do against Kobe. I would pay to watch that matchup. Or how about Olajuwon against Garnett?

I don’t necessarily go with the conventional wisdom, which says Bird would have trouble now, or that small rugged players like Oscar Robertson or Elgin Baylor would pale against taller foes. Nor do I believe that Havlicek would have trouble keeping up with a Vince Carter or LeBron James. Some of you young guys might think I am nuts. I saw Hondo play.

Slowpoke has a great point on the physical nature of the game back then. The refs are destroying the game with the way they call things, and the rulesmakers can’t quit meddling. The players now are whiners and floppers. Do you really think LeBron or Kobe would be venturing into the lane if Nate Thurmond or Wilt were waiting for them? I don’t think so. The toughest interior defender in today’s game is Howard, and he pales to the giants of the past.

All I’m saying is don’t assume the heroes of the current game are transcendant. The greats in just about all eras would be great in any era. My pet peeve is those idiots who dismiss Wilt’s accomplishmentsnby saying he was a man among boys, and had no competition. Let me just say this. Did Jabbar, Olajuwon, Ewing, or Robinson ever have to play 12 games a year against a guy who averaged 16 points and 22 rebounds and probably 6-8 blocked shots, who would have been a 10-time DPOY (Russell)? I didn’t think so.

April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?

by Hawk42 on Aug 4, 2009 7:02 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

I would pay good money to see a Laimbeer clothesline on Kobe or Lebron.

"Fun fact: Larry Hughes, who couldn’t stay healthy if all his human parts were replaced with bionic implants, is out for the next four weeks with a bruised leg. Do you think that Willis Reed ever reads about all these players missing time with bruises and sprained fingers and throws up in his mouth a little?"

by Diosnomeama on Aug 4, 2009 8:38 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just as a reference point

Here is the size of folk Wilt was facing:

4s and 5s from 1961-1962

Boston Celtics

Bill Russell (Center) – 6’ 9" 215
Tom Heinsohn (F/C) – 6’ 7" 218
Satch Sanders (PF) – 6’ 6" 210

St. Louis Hawks

Bob Petit (Center) – 6’ 9" 205
Clyde Lovellette (F/C) – 6’ 9" 234
Larry Foust (F/C) – 6’ 9" 215
Barney Cable (PF) – 6’ 7" 175

Los Angeles Lakers

Rudy LaRusso (F/C) – 6’ 7" 220
Jim Krebs (F/C) – 6’ 8" 230
Ray Felix (Center) – 6’11" 220
Howie Joliff (F/C) – 6’ 7" 218

Cincinnati Royals

Wayne Embry (C/F) – 6’ 8" 240
Bob Boozer (PF) – 6’ 8" 215
Hub Reeb (C/F) – 6’ 9" 215
Bevo Nordmann (Center) – 6’ 10" 225

Detroit Pistons

Bob Ferry (F/C) – 6’ 8" 230
Ray Scott (F/C) – 6’ 9" 215
Walter Dukes (Center) – 7’ 220

Syracuse Nationals

Red Kerr (F/C) 6’ 9" 230
Dolph Schayes (F/C) 6’7" 195
Swede Halbrook (Center) 7’ 3" 235

Chicago Packers

Walt Bellamy – 6’ 11" 225
Charlie Tyra – 6’ 8" 230
Dave Piontek – 6’ 6" 230

NY Knicks

Willie Naulis (F-C): 6’6" 225 lbs
Johnny Green (F-C): 6’5" 210 lbs
Darrall Imhoff©: 6’10" 220 lbs
Cleveland Buckner©: 6’9" 210 lbs.

And, of course,

Wilt Chamberlain – 7’ 1" 275

It would be foolish to say Wilt (or Russell) wasn’t great or that he wouldn’t be great in any era. But it would probably be equally foolish to say he faced equivalent competition to centers today or especially 10-15 years ago when the league was full of great centers. Wilt was a C guarded by SFs. It wasn’t really fair.

Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.

by rosewood on Aug 4, 2009 10:48 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Of course, the missing point is...

how much better could Wilt have been in an era where his shoes, diet and training regime would be so much better. All those players would be taller and bigger in today’s game, and a player like Karl Malone never emerged back then (although you could argue that Wilt was that player). Similarly, playing in Chuck Taylors would have severely curtailed much of those modern players games.

Still, there’s no doubt that the modern era presents a far more advanced game than the past, from more sophisticated offensive play, to far superior defensive play.

If you took Nash, put him in a time machine and sent him back, even to 1970, he’d be considered the greatest defensive guard ever, just because his speed and knowledge, would overwhelm those players, including people like Frazier, Monroe and West. Maravich might be the only one who might give him some trouble. Defense has improved that much, overall, and the bar raised that much higher.

Furthermore, advances in sports medicine and psychology and in-game player monitoring/management would mean, for instance, that Wilt would play far more to his limits than he did in the 60’s.

His biggest sources of pride, after the titles, were the facts that he never fouled out of a game, and that he once averaged 48.2 mins/game during a season. He was always conscious of being a big man, and never wanted to be the bully, and consequently played within himself. His most famous move was the finger roll, a finesse play. That would change if he played today.

This is the main flaw with these time machine comparisons, in that they don’t that these things into account. Rosewood, of course, your main point is correct, but Wilt also played in an era with Nate Thurmond, Alcindor/Aldul Jabbar, Willis Reed and others, during the late 60s and early 70s and still managed to do very well.

While Shaquille and Darrell Dawkins were famous for breaking backboards, neither of them, nor anyone else, did what Wilt did, which was to break an opposing players big toe, with a dunk (in this case Johnny Kerr). That’s how physical the guy could be.

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Aug 4, 2009 11:48 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think the point

is simply that while Wilt is a HOFer in any era, he’s not going to put up 50 ppg in today’s game. That just isn’t a plausible outcome.

Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.

by rosewood on Aug 4, 2009 12:27 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

that's true..

and neither would he average 27 rbs/game, today, either.

But put a young Wilt running together in a fastbreak system, with a prime Nash and he might put up 35+ ppg. Jordan did it twice, so it’s not beyond the realms of possibility.

mathematically, though, the interesting question is not how many points, but how many standard deviations away is the first placed player from the second or third placed players, in any statistical category.

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Aug 4, 2009 1:19 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

actually... I'd make that conditional...

if Wilt played on a crappy team, like the Griz or the Kings, he might just get enough shooting opportunities to score 50 ppg.

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Aug 4, 2009 1:23 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree, maybe 20

The shooters back then weren’t as good, although Jason Kidd would fit right in.

April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?

by Hawk42 on Aug 4, 2009 4:08 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll address the rest of this later

because I"m in a hurry, but the rebounding averages from that era were insanely inflated because of the number of shots those teams took and the amazingly poor rate at which they converted.

For instance in 61-62, the average team collected 71 rebounds per game.

In 08-09, the average team collected 41 rebounds per game.

I’m fairly sure today’s rebounding numbers would look a bit different if players had an additional 30 rebounds per game to go after (i.e. 75% more!). And when you add to this the fact that Wilt and Russell’s greatest skills were really their ability to stay on the court for outlandish periods of time, you can see why their rebounding stats looked so gaudy.

There was an outlandish amount of rebounds and they played an outlandish amount of minutes. But there’s no statistical reason to think that their actual ability to rebound was outlandishly superior to today’s players.

In fact, by the numbers, I think you can say that Dennis Rodman’s 1991-1992 season was the greatest rebounding season of all time since in only 40 mpg he collected an insane 42% of his team’s rebounds. That almost doesn’t make any sense. To compare, if he had done that on an average 61-62 team he would have averaged almost 30 rpg in eight less minutes per game than Wilt who only averaged 25.

So, yes, Wilt is great. Russell was great. But when you look at the competition they faced (and yes being guarded by centers the size of Kobe makes a difference) and then their statistical context, you have to agree that the numbers do not bear out any sort of incredible dominance over today’s players. Really, their greatest skill was staying on the court, which is remarkable, but tends to inflate statistics.

Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.

by rosewood on Aug 4, 2009 4:57 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

They werent better than Rodman

but they were no slouches, either. Still, neither Wilt & Russell, were generally considered the best of their era, with that honor going to Jerry Lucas. Where Rodman runs away from those two, is with his offensive rebounding.

btw, there are no trb% stats for before 1970 on basketball-reference.com, so it’s hard to make the case with real facts, but for the last 3 years of his career, with shaky knees, Wilt averaged 19.4%, which would put him 5th all time. Rodman averaged 23.5% for trb%, the last 3 years of his career, although his career wasn’t curtailed by injury.

I also tried to verify that Rodman 42% stat.. Where did you get that number, please ? btw, I’m not sure that’s a good number to use, either. If you have a bad rebounding team, that averages 20 boards/game, a player can average 10 boards/game, which is good, but not great, but have 50% of the teams boards, which sounds extraordinary. Trb% takes into account all the players on the floor, and so I think it’s a better measure

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Aug 4, 2009 8:06 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rebounding numbers

Sure, TRB% would probably be a better number but in light of the fact that opp. rebs. aren’t available for most of Wilt’s career and I don’t feel like going through old box scores and adding up all the rebs.

The number I would really like is reb/min but because the amount of available rebounds during the respective eras was so dramatically different, that was a dead end as well.

So the best comparison I could come up with was relative rebound contribution, which as you point out is flawed. I would say it isn’t as flawed as your example presents since the numbers from your example are extreme and thus a bit silly, but yes, in closer instances or instances between a player from a good rebounding team and a player from a poor rebounding team, this is probably not an ideal statistic. But in the particular instance, both the 61-62 Warriors and 91-92 Pistons were good rebounding teams, so the distortion you mention doesn’t present as much of an issue here.

As far as 42%, that’s simple. Pistons got 3600ish rebounds that year. Rodman got 1500ish of them. 42ish percent.

Finally, about the last three year things:

1) I’m not sure how much sense it makes to talk about Wilt’s “shaky knees” since he was still playing 82 games and 40+ mpg during those years. Clearly, there was plenty left in the tank.

2) Rodman’s last two years consisted of 35 games for the Mavericks and Lakers would he couldn’t have cared less about basketball. In fact, I would say his shaky personality during those years was more of a liability than Wilt’s knees. If you look at this last three years when he actually played a fullish season, his average would have been closer to 25.4ish.

So yeah, rebounds. They were pretty crazy inflated back then.

Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.

by rosewood on Aug 4, 2009 10:35 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I actually agree with you about Rodman, btw...

I actually consider him to be one of the 40 best players ever, the best rebounder ever, and the poster child for the notion that you win championships with players who have heart, intelligence, team-awareness, consistency and uniqueness

Say what you will about his off court antics, Rodman was insanely focused on court, very rarely took games off, and was possessed of Bird level basketball IQ. When I saw him play for the Lakers and Dallas, he was in pretty good shape.

I seem to remember the Lakers going on a 10 game win streak that started his first game with them. It was pretty amazing at the time. But I think you’re right in that had he played a full season, including a preseason with either the Lakers or Dallas, that trb% number would be higher for those seasons.

Wilt in 1972, though, was pretty much done, despite his mins/game and stats, and running on fumes. He said as much, in one of his books. And he wasn’t the all-round force in 72 that he had been before 1968. Wilt constantly amazes me. Here is a player who, as a center, once led the league in total assists (although, to be honest that was somewhat forced), and who was in the top 7 in asts/game and total assists 4 times.

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Aug 5, 2009 12:59 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

re rbs/min

try the measure (player rbs/min)/(team rbs/min).

That gets you a number that’s close to a players rebounding efficiency measure.

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Aug 5, 2009 1:03 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Who is stopping him?

Have Phoenix Stan get an interview with Connie Hawkins. I bet he will say no one in the game today would stop him.

April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?

by Hawk42 on Aug 4, 2009 4:07 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would love to talk to the Hawk

but he’s not been around…his health hasn’t been good but the latest I heard several weeks ago was that he was recovering from the Big C.

Did you ever hear the hour long podcast Suns.com did with Connie? It was great stuff. I can find the link if you missed it

by Phoenix Stan on Aug 4, 2009 4:41 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Post the link

I think that with what The Hawk went through just to play basketball, he would have a lot to say about the state of the game today. First, the recruiters screwed him and took advantage of him, Then it was the bookies. Finally, the trainers messed his knee up by making him play when he shouldn’t have. And he still became a legend, won an MVP in the only league that would allow him to play, and has somehow lived to retirement age despite everyone he has ever met taking advantage of him.

April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?

by Hawk42 on Aug 8, 2009 6:46 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Big Dipper

I saw Wilt do something I don’t think anyone else has done. In 1970 or so, he tipped a jump ball into the basket from the free throw circle.

April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?

by Hawk42 on Aug 4, 2009 4:05 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I saw Vince Carter

literally jump over a 7 foot man’s head for a dunk.

Doesn’t amount to much though really. It’s just one play.

Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.

by rosewood on Aug 4, 2009 11:37 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Size isn't everything

Which centers of this era (outside of Yao, Shaq, and Howard, would do well in those days?

April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?

by Hawk42 on Aug 4, 2009 4:02 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

All of them.

Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.

by rosewood on Aug 4, 2009 10:36 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Are you kidding?

THAT is a foolish statement.

April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?

by Hawk42 on Aug 8, 2009 6:48 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rosewood, isn’t it true that the Wilt comparison is pretty much the same situation that exists for Howard today? There still aren’t very many 7-footers around, and most of them either suck or think they’re small forwards. He certainly doesn’t go up against Dream/DRob/Shaq/Ewing/Zo type-players…

"Give me chonchon."

by Slowpoke Rodriguez on Aug 4, 2009 7:32 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, that's not true at all.

Without going through each team, you can simply look at the Southeast division, which has 23 players that are 6’ 10’’ or taller, not including Dwight Howard. Considering the 1961-62 league only had six total, I would say there’s absolutely no comparison.

Furthermore, you are right to say that no every big man is particularly great, but I would say that it’s more or less obvious that being guarded by a 6’11" Pachulia or 7’0" Diop is more difficult than being guarded by a 6’ 8" version of either player.

Size matters and people are much bigger now. I can’t even believe this is in controversy.

Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.

by rosewood on Aug 4, 2009 9:44 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

It is completely in controversy. In the 94 finals, the player who gave Olajuwon the most trouble on the Knicks was 6’7" Anthony Mason. Would you rather have Diop over Horace Grant or Charles Oakley as a defensive player because he’s taller? Come on.

"Give me chonchon."

by Slowpoke Rodriguez on Aug 6, 2009 8:55 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think KJ's Suns take win, no contest.

He’d be absolutely unstoppable with today’s hand-checking rules, and there’s nobody on our squad that can guard Barkley either.

Steve Nash, the league's MVP, is a longhaired Canadian who spoke out against the war in Iraq and reads The Communist Manifesto. Quentin Richardson declared after a game-winning shot that it "was like Hamlet. It was a suspense thriller, and I killed them at the end." Amare Stoudemire, when asked to comment on a 22-point third quarter against the Kings, said, "I've got a tendency to jump over some guys' heads and throw it down."

by rsavaj on Aug 4, 2009 9:13 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

I think I would

be most intrigued by the Kleine/Lopez matchup.

Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.

by rosewood on Aug 4, 2009 10:52 AM MDT up reply actions   1 recs

A thought on the specialized training

It really only helps at the highest levels. Kids should play all sports, and they should play at the top level that challenges them. Many great pros were multi-sport guys in HS. Very few pros have stories like Tiger Woods or Peyton Manning.

At the younger level, specialized training tends to over-stress growing bodies at their weak points due to over-exertion.

Single-sport emphasis at an early age can also be responsible for the lack of fundamentals development. Touch and feel for the ball (in whatever sport you’re playing) is often best developed after practice hours (think, Chitwood taking his ball to class or Brazilians juggling soccer balls on the beach). Also, over-competitive juices can often lead to the best player spending too much time on the court/field, at the expense of not only other players’ development but his own (think, Amare Stoudemire in HS).

At the younger levels, the key is better coaching but less of it.

At the pro levels, the specialized training is paramount — for many of the reasons in the post.

A good example, in my mind, is Steve Nash. He played quite a few sports at quite a high level. At some point in time, he was eating and sleeping basketball and playing at a competitive level. In the pros, he undergoes specialized training in order to play well and to stay in the game. Olajuwon played soccer … What did TD do in the Virgin Islands? … Howie Long didn’t play football until 10th grade … I should get back to work, but there are probably dozens (or hundreds) of examples.

Last point: Throughout the majority of the 19th Century (probably until about the 70s or 80s) determination and “killer instinct” and all that stuff could carry an athlete. Especially when guys worked other jobs in the off-season to be able to play. Mental toughness and killer instincts are what separate the elite players in any sport from the really good athletes. However, for the remaining 80% of any league, specialized training is required just to get some playing time against the other “scrubs” who are doing it, too.

Mmmmm ... Guinness

by JSun on Aug 4, 2009 9:52 AM MDT reply actions   1 recs

I can't explain

how much fun I’m having imagining professional basketball in the 19th century.

Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.

by rosewood on Aug 4, 2009 10:50 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

those peach baskets

just couldn’t stand up to today’s massive dunks…

by Phoenix Stan on Aug 4, 2009 12:04 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

No... they built those peach buckets to last, in those days.

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Aug 4, 2009 1:20 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

I voted for the 94-95

the reason, they played more defense then 2004-05 team. they also could turn it on at will vs the 1994-5 team. if KJ could contain stockton, tim hardaway, etc. i believe he could have contained nash. on charles vs amare i believe it would have been close but charles would have gotten under amares skin and put him into early foul trouble he would have to leave the game. majerle vs raja, probably a wash. marion vs AC green would go to marion because of speed and agility. center a wash………… 1994-5 win by 2 points then the next night the 2004-5 win by 3 points…………….. 7 game series i go for 1994-5 team. if you had pick the Suns team that J Johnson on it i would pick that team in 7 games………..

by PhxSuns#7 on Aug 4, 2009 2:52 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

Stockton didn't have Nash's speed

nor his ability to dribble with his off hand. Stockton’s shooting was also slightly worse than Nash, particularly at the 3 (remember Nash is the only player to shoot 50:40:90 in 3 season, missing a 4th by a single free throw).

What Stockton had was an almost telepathic symbiosis with his pick & roll partner, and later his shooting guard, and an ability to execute more precisely than any other point who played the game.

What KJ would have to deal with, particularly with SSOL is Nash’s ability to improvise with his teammates.

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Aug 4, 2009 7:41 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Stock vs Nash

Stockton had longevity, Karl Malone, and his grabbing and tripping on defense in his favor. Nash is quicker, a better shooter, and can make scrubs look like all stars. He flops like Stockton, but I have never see such a thug for a small man like Stockton. Nash doesn’t do the grabbing and tripping.

April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?

by Hawk42 on Aug 8, 2009 6:53 AM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Isiah Thomas..

Nash takes charges better than Stockton, imho. And I don’t think longevity, in of itself, has any meaning (otherwise, Mark Jackson would be the 2nd best pg ever)

But Isiah Thomas, was the real deal in thuggery. He took the Pistons, and turned them into a street gang. Not as overtly physical as Stockton, but just as much of a cheap shot artist.

The hardest small man to play in the NBA, though, was Al “The Destroyer” Attles, who played with Wilt on the Warriors in the 60s. That guy could end a fight with anyone.

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Aug 8, 2009 5:27 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Height can be overrated...

As Dejuan Blair demonstrated against Hasheem Thabeet last year…

"Give me chonchon."

by Slowpoke Rodriguez on Aug 4, 2009 7:33 PM MDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't think one example

really shows much. If the NBA switches policy and decides that height is irrelevant to be a center, you might have something, but until then all you’ll have are exceptional anecdotes.

Don't feel bad, Channing. We can't rebound either.

by rosewood on Aug 4, 2009 9:31 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

There is more than one example

Do I really have to discuss every one? The overarching point is that basketball is a complicated sport and all sorts of players find ways to contribute and succeed. Athleticism helps – LeBron – but it doesn’t make you a great player in of itself, as he seems to be slowly discovering…

"Give me chonchon."

by Slowpoke Rodriguez on Aug 6, 2009 8:51 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Would you have us believe

That Erick Dampier would stand a chance against either Wilt or Jerry Lucas? Wilt would foul him out in the first quarter. Lucas was so relentless on the boards, Damp would be tugging at his shorts all game. Thurmond would block every one of his shots, and put him in the first row if Damp ever tried to get a rebound against him.

The point is, basketball is 75% heart, and 25% physical talent. My favorit illustration of this is Michael Jordan and Walter Davis. They were pretty much equal in physical stature and talent. Both received some of the best basketball instruction available from Dean Smith. Both went on to great success in the NBA, Walter with a 20,000 point career and one of the sweetest shots you’ll ever see, and MJ with a 30,000 point career with six titles. But MJ had the heart and steel determination to become a great defender and made everyone better. Walt was soft on defense, not much as a passer, and not a leader. Shawn Marion iand Charles Barkley are examples of an incredibly gifted athletes who ignored those who said size matters. Wes Unseld was barely 6’7", but If I had him, I would start him at center today.

April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?

by Hawk42 on Aug 8, 2009 7:11 AM MDT up reply actions   1 recs

Two words: Dave Cowans..

6-9, 230 lbs. Won an MVP and 2 titles as Center.

Played, and held his own vs the great centers of the 70s including Kareem, Walton, Nate Thurmond, Moses Malone, Artis Gilmore, Willis Reed and others.

Why was he able to compete? despite his lack of height, he played physically and with intelligence, and had speed/quickness, heart and fire. But he was shorter than Magic, btw.

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Aug 8, 2009 5:37 PM MDT up reply actions   1 recs

Right on, Hawk42 and Pliny! Preach!

"Give me chonchon."

by Slowpoke Rodriguez on Aug 8, 2009 8:44 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

and having seen

Thabeet play in person now I would say his height is pretty much all he has going for him…ok maybe not all but it is certainly a big factor

by Phoenix Stan on Aug 4, 2009 11:24 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hes got great instincts on d

And his is fairly agile for his size. He is just pathetically soft and inexperienced.

by egp the great on Aug 5, 2009 2:04 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

It could be more

mental uncertainty but he didn’t seem agile to me at all.

Running the floor he didn’t lift his knees at all – he basically shuffles from one end to the other and in the paint I didn’t think he was all that fluid. Again, that could be mental.

He does come from the weak side and he is long. But so is Petro and Sene and lots of other guys his size

by Phoenix Stan on Aug 5, 2009 2:28 PM MDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good post, Will

Got me thinking a lot. I don’t know much about KJ’s team because I was rooting for the Bulls back then (2004 Bandwagon fan) but I can tell you this: 2006-07 Suns were just awesome. It was so much fun to watch that team play. I remember having trouble sleeping after games because I just wanted to play pick up basketball at 2:00am and just dunk on someone!

In reference to athletes going through advanced trainings and if it makes a difference, the answer is yes. I learned to play basketball in Chicago and I was able to polish my skills in different training camps with coaches who knew what they were doing. My high school coach corrected many flaws on my game and I went to the gym 4 times a week. Now compare that type of training vs a kid that has the talent, works his ass off on the playground but has nobody to tell him what he’s doing wrong. Who’s gonna be on the starting line up of the team? Technique matters, nowadays raw talent is not enough.

Also, it’s not easy to become a pro if you’re living in a third world country. There are no sports’ schollarships here so if you decide to give it a shot at becoming a pro you are putting your future in jeopardy because you won’t have time to go to college. For every Mariano Rivera there are 2,000 kids who never make it. That’s a risk I was not willing to take so I decided to go to law school instead…and there’s not one day that passes by without thinking: what If? =(

"Basketball doesn't build character. It reveals it"

by PanamaSun on Aug 5, 2009 11:45 AM MDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog devoted to all things Phoenix Suns.
Start posting about the Suns »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Sunslollo_small
The new Suns bring this thousands-miles-away fan back to the good ol' days

Recent FanPosts

Small
Is Amare the problem?
Real_duffman_small
The world is schocked -- Tony Parker's Comrades Cheat, Too
1024_small
luke ridnour??
Small
Dudley + Jrich trade
Small
Best part of a bad LA game
Elektra2_small
Suns playing the best basketball in the league....
Teratorn-25ft_small
All praise Steve Kerr: Genius not Moron!
Small
Analysing the offense of the Suns
Small
Leandro's Brazilian Bash

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

RSS Feeds

Bright Side Of The Sun Feeds


Editor in Chief

Seth_avatar_4_small Phoenix Stan

Photo Editor

Photo_1_small Max Simbron

Staff Writer

Suns_small ZonaFlash

Dsc03465_small PanamaSun

Real_duffman_small JSun

Mark_west_small Mike Lisboa

Amare_small watdogg10

P1000778_small Wil Cantrell