Quantcast
Thursday, October 3rd, 2013 at 1:55 pm  |  248 responses

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Oscar Robertson Better Than Michael Jordan and LeBron James


The always-opinionated Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said during an ESPN Radio interview on Thursday morning, that he believes Oscar Robertson was a better overall player than Michael Jordan (generally considered the greatest of all time) and LeBron James (the best there is today.) Per Lakers Nation: “LeBron is awesome, MJ was awesome — but I think Oscar Robinson would have kicked them both in the behind, said Abdul-Jabbar when asked about James and Jordan. ‘Absolutely. Oscar was awesome. He had brains. [...] He had all the skills. He could rebound and box out guys four and six inches taller than him. He was ruggedly built. He had fluid, quickness, and just understood the game. No flair, he just got the job done every night. Who’s going to average double figures in points, assists and rebounds?’”

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: , , ,

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    did Kareem ever actually watch Oscar play when they were teammates or nah? lol, if you took him with his skillset and put him in the modern NBA, he’d turn the ball over on almost every possession because you can’t back people down from baseline to baseline.
    .
    no but seriously, it’s just stupid to say people who played ANY sport 50 years ago are “more skilled” then people who play it now. that’s not how sports work.

  • ATL dynamite

    We can easily foresee the total comments for this post to go over 200 just for the title. Haha

  • robb

    I don’t agree. ‘He had brains” yeah well, Lebron and MJ are not stupid, both are extremely intelligent players, physically superior, stronger more athletic and dominant in an era full of tougher and more prepared players than those who Oscar played against.

    But whatever…

  • Dagger

    “Who’s going to average double figures in points, assists and rebounds?’”

    Lebron and Jordan, if their teams played at the pace Oscar’s did, if their competition was similarly nonathletic, and the defenses they faced were equally primitive. Oscar was awesome. But he was not better than Lebron or Jordan.

  • pposse

    i think in the older persons mind they assume that the player from yesteryear would have access to all the training regimens etc. the guys now have.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    he said, “He had all the skills.” which is what i am referring too.

  • shockexchange

    Funny story. Years ago, the Shock Exchange was on a business trip in Indiana and shared a cab ride with an elderly couple. The conversation turned to Indiana HS hoops when he asked, “Who is the greatest schoolboy ball player ever to come out of Indiana? Bird? George McGinnis?” In unison they responded, “Oscar Robertson … it’s not even close.”

  • LakeShow

    Cool story, but whatever right? Bird is better than Oscar.

  • LakeShow

    lol, exactly!

  • shockexchange

    Yeah, cause you actually saw both of them play in HS. *Welp*

  • blachthought

    Yeah, averagin`a 3double might never be done again – but it didn`t bring a title with it… a being the GOAT isn`t about stats (bill russell should be the goat standard by that, 11 titles, 22 boards avg.). don`t get me wrong the big O was great, but i would rang 1.mj / 2.kareem / 3.russell & even “the big dipper”/”shaq” as mde ahead of him.
    Still always funny 2 hear another, “who`s the greatest….?” debate gettin`started…

  • M Mcintyre

    He just said what people who know, who have seen and who understand basketball have already been saying……here is a guy that average a triple double for a single season, his stats averaged over five years result in a triple double, and averaged over 11 seasons rounded up average a triple double…………his playoff triple double over 62 play-off games is 62%……..NO PLAYER BEFORE OR SINCE COME CLOSE IN THAT CATEGORY AND with Kareem saying that having played with Magic, who tried to be like Oscar says alot. So 62 po games and 38 are triple doubles.

  • M Mcintyre

    no he was better—-his first five year stats avg. a triple double Oscar was a big guard and dominated, like George McGinnis did, like LeBron does now. The difference is Oscar did it all Kareem said it—-he played with the two most COMPLETE PLAYERS to play the game…both of them did it all

  • destro81

    Big o had better stats than lebron, plus no 3ptr in those days, hard to believe he couldn’t make at least 1 a game, he was a great shooter. They weren’t physically superior…BIG O: 6’5 220lbs…bigger stronger than Jordan at least.

    People say Lebron almost averages a triple double, but Big O was closer to averaging a triple double than either of them

    Oscar Robertson carrer per game: Pts 25.6 | RB 7.5 | Ast 9.5

    Lebron 6’8″ 240 carrer per game: Pts 27.6 | RB 7.3 | Ast 6.9

    MJ 6’6″ 195 : Pts 30.1 | RB 5.3 | Ast 5.3

    Check this pic out, he was the most athletic guy in all of basketball in his time.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    and you did? before you were even in the womb?
    *Welp*

  • M Mcintyre

    they are correct…..Oscar, Bird, Big Mac and after that none of the rest matter and Coach John Wooden might be in that group as both a player and coach

  • shockexchange

    Actually the Shock Exchange tried to argue them down. Let’s just put it this way, it’s the only time SE has lost a basketball argument. He had to sit there and be quiet for about a 45 min ride from the airport.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    “it’s the only time SE has lost a basketball argument”

    .
    you got out argued by an old couple, and that’s the “only” time you’ve lost a basketball related argument?
    .
    i cannot breath. someone grab the paddles! i’m flatlining!

  • sam

    If Lebron played in even the 80′s, they would clog up the lanes and clobber him every play (like the bad boys). He might average 22pts a game. Jordan was able to score but he’s a scorer. Not to mention hand checking, it not like you can just waltz in the lane and do whatever you’d like, you had to pay the price with a foul every play down .

  • shockexchange

    It wasn’t SE’s proudest moment. *Welp*

  • M Mcintyre

    no the assumption is that you think today’s players are better playing against waterdown talent. Now you could also say the same about league that were segregated too,,,which means Ty Cobb/Babe Ruth/Christy Mathewson aren’t that good either, because Cool Papa Bell, Josh gibson and Satchel Paige were just as good but and kept out of the game because of that….that’s why track is probably the better measure….Jesse Owens ran a 10.3 in 1936,,,,that time fell in 1960…

  • TrojanConquest

    Before a Magic and Jordan, the all time backcourt was Big O and West. The idea that past players couldn’t compete today is BS. Russell played against Wilt. Wilt played against Jabbar (really well even though past prime). Jabbar played against Olajuwon. Olajuwon played against Shaq and Duncan. Oh yeah, now the current centers suck. Greatest of all time should be replaced by greatest of their era. 60s Russell, 70s Jabbar, 80s Magic & Bird, 90s Jordan, 00s Kobe, 10s James. All time starting 5: PG Magic, SG Jordan, C Jabbar, PF Russell, SF James (hate to leave off Bird). Bench: Bird, Kobe, West, Robertson, Chamberlain, Duncan, Dr J

  • TrojanConquest

    Oscar was past his prime when he played with Jabbar.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    i still don’t understand why people are so impressed by that picture…..he’s really only like 2 feet off the ground if he put his legs down….or 24″ —- a 24″ vertical is not a big deal at all……
    .
    and why does everyone choose to ignore the context of Oscar’s era? he was overwhelmingly more athletic than the rest of the league. Like LeBron against a bunch of Steve Novak’s. Oscar was really really great, but it doesn’t help his legacy to pretend he was up against equal competition.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    and how often do peoples skills diminish? i was just making a joke, but seriously, have you ever seen Oscar play or anyone from that era? nobodies skill level in those days is comparable. it’s just ignorant to act like it was.

  • TR

    Its a never ending cycle with who’s the greatest/best ever. In 20 years people are going to dispute how good LeBron was and people from here will sound like Kareem does now

  • shockexchange

    Yet today we marvel at how big and strong Deron Williams is and how he posts up and “bogarts” much smaller guards. At one point D Will was in the conversation as the “mythical” best PG in the L. However, the “Big O” was bigger than D. Will (6’5″ v. 6’3″), stronger, a higher basketball IQ, more competitive / meaner disposition and was more skilled. This gives you an indication that Oscar would have dominated any era.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    “waterdown talent.”

    going to have to explain how a sport goes from having guys playing that need jobs in the off-season, to being watered down when that sport has grown into a global sport with no race issues keeping guys away, that allows it’s pros to train year round. it is stupid to argue anything other than, Oscar opened the door for guys like Michael Jordan to evolve the sport. Because that’s what happened. And that’s all we KNOW happened. the rest is speculation, nobody knows how good Oscar would have been in todays climate. Physically….Oscar Robertson = Mitch Richmond. You realize that? or nah?

    (yeah, the guys Oscar was playing with, went home and worked at Gas Stations in the off-season, they weren’t training or anything like that)

  • Junior Taylor

    I guess we are just going to ignore the fact that players back then weren’t afforded the countless luxuries today’s players have in terms of scouting, training, nutrition, technology, medicine and what is probably the most important in my mind, the ability to watch the guys that come before you play and implement their moves into your game. Oscar, Jerry and Baylor didn’t have that luxury to be able to watch/study MJ (like Kobe, LeBron and every one in the League did growing up) or Dr J/David Thompson (like MJ did growing up). Those guys had to master the game of basketball on their own without no cable TV or DVR. No one back then knew what a crossover was or that being able to dribble with both hands was essential. It’s unfair to criticize players for their lack of skills that are so popular today when those guys played in a different era with different approaches to the game of basketball.

  • robb

    true

  • ChosenOne

    This guy gets it. Very well said.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    nobody is saying Deron Williams is better than Michael Jordan.

    .

    “was more skilled.” – how? in what way? the lack of intelligence that goes into saying a guy 50 years ago was more skilled than a guy today is what this discussion is going to turn into.
    .
    you guys can try and make the, “given Oscar grew up in this era, he would be as good as or possibly better than” would make sense. not saying he was more skilled in 1960 then guys who play today. that’s plain stupid.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    thank you JT

  • Junior Taylor

    Is it Oscar’s fault that the competition wasn’t up to par with his talent level? Should we dock him some praise for destroying and dominating his era? Basketball is the only sport I know that criticizes past players for dominating lesser talented players. Football, Baseball and Hockey doesn’t. The fans and media of those sports probably revere those players more than they do today’s players.

  • shockexchange

    The game is taught differently today than it was back then. However, shooting, dribbling, rebounding, defense has not changed. SE showed his son footage of The Big O a few years ago and Oscar was out ^&$#%^%^&%$ guys up. If he played today, he would have a field day with these mamas boys.

    Given the opinion of Jabbar and the elderly couple who SE ran across years ago – who have no incentive to stan for Oscar – SE has to respectfully disagree.

  • shockexchange

    The concept of a triple double didn’t exist in Oscar’s day. The Big O was quoted as saying,” If I knew it would become a stat then I would have done it every night.”

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    I’m not criticizing, I’m saying you can’t use stats from that era to justify why he’d be better today. That’s like saying Wilt would average 50 today. It’s nonsense.

  • ChosenOne

    Who did you argue for? Just wondering…

  • shockexchange

    A 7 footer who also competed in the high jump and long jump … prolly.

  • Junior Taylor

    Thank you. I have been saying this for a long time. Who are we to claim that so and so is the GOAT when no one knows just how well a guy would perform if he played in a different era. It’s unfair to the older greats like Kareem, West and Wilt because very few people were alive to see them play. For me it all comes down to just how dominant a player was in his era.

  • Wake up

    Thank you JT, Think about it this way. You have 4hours of time to shoot hoops, back in tje day you had to get your own rebound instead of 3people rebounding for you. Who will be the better shooter in the end?

  • shockexchange

    SE was arguing for Bird and McGinness. They started on (i) how big and athletic Oscar was, (ii) his basketball IQ, (iii) how competitive he was, (iv) how skilled he was. They said that McGinness and Bird weren’t in Oscar’s league. They were laughing at SE. The Shock Exchange had sit in the corner and take some personally inventory. *Welp*

  • Junior Taylor

    No one is saying that. No one in the right mind thinks that Oscar would avg. a Trip Dub in today’s league or that Wilt would drop 50/25 today but to act like those guys would fall off a cliff and become just another player in today’s NBA is downright foolish. Wilt even in his 60/70s form would be by far the best C in today’s game and better than any center in the late 80s and 90s. Oscar is a much different story because I doubt he would be able to play PG or handle the rock as much as he did in today’s game given his lack of elite ballhandling but if he could implement today’s training (in terms of skills not weight training), I have no doubt in my mind he would be a Top-3 PG.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Dude read my comments more thoroughly, I am not arguing any of that

  • ChosenOne

    Sounds like a fun cab ride, haha. Anyway, I would have no idea who was the best baller to come out of indiana. Was Isaiah Thomas from Indiana too?

  • guest

    Well said sir. But put on a shirt.

    “Keep your shirt on, at least a button up. Yuck. Is they rhymers or strippin’ males? Outta work jerks since they shut down Chippendales.”

  • Junior Taylor

    Why is it that professional basketball is the only sport where the fans and the media puts down or tries to diminish the accomplishments of past greats. I have yet to hear one Football fan claim that Jim Brown is not as great as we think simply because he was bigger, faster and stronger than anyone on the field. Same thing goes for Baseball with a guy like Babe Ruth. Guys like Oscar, Wilt and Kareem to a lesser extent, will never get their just due simply because most people claim that they were going up against “skinny white dudes”

  • TrojanConquest

    I’m old enough to see Russell play. I grew up a huge Lakers fan, but if I had to, I’d say Russell was the greatest. Russell, Magic, Bird, and Jordan all were assassins. James reminds me of Chamberlain. Physically unmatched, unbelievably talented, but just not the killers that these guys were.

  • shockexchange

    It’s like comparing Carl Sagan to Sir Isaac Newton. You can build upon Isaac Newton’s discoveries, but to suggest Sagan is smarter than Newton would be tough argument.

  • Junior Taylor

    So what is your argument? That Oscar wouldn’t be a great player today or that his numbers aren’t as impressive as they seem simply because he was a superior athlete compared to those around him?

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Oscar was a terrible teammate. And he didn’t lead his team to success. That’s why he isn’t considered the goat. Kareem didn’t win without another top 10 all timer. That’s why he isn’t considered the goat by most people. It has nothing to do with their era, if they dominated like Mike did, we would recognize it. The only “era” argument is against Russell, because he was playing a whole team of way more talented individuals, so he doesn’t get the credit you’d expect from a guy who led his team to 11 finals in 13 seasons. And even with that, he’s in everyone’s top 5.

  • ChosenOne

    Completely agree. But to be fair, there was a time where some (not all) sportswriters/fans were saying Babe Ruth was playing in a weaker era. The pre-Jackie Robinson era to be precise.

  • robb

    Kareem never said ‘If Oscar had the same training as todays players he’d kick their asses because blah blah blah.’ What KAJ said was: ‘Oscar Robertson, better than Michael Jordan and Lebron James.’ and that’s not true. I agree with NBK, and I’m not blaming Oscar for playing against less skilled, less athletic opponents, I’m just saying what KAJ is not true, Oscar wasn’t better, how could he? That’s all

  • shockexchange

    Two different discussions going on. Does the Shock Exchange think the Big O would have dominated today? YES.

    Is he better than Mike? NO.

    Is he better than Horry Jr? The Shock Exchange wouldn’t insult Oscar by responding to that question.

  • shockexchange

    You weren’t there so you don’t know how it felt. They made the Shock Exchange feel small, and unimportant. NOBODY DOES THAT TO SE!

    By the way, Isaiah’s from Chicago.

  • Junior Taylor

    So being the League’s all-time leading scorer, 3rd all-time in rebounds, 1st in FGs, 2nd in Games played, 1st in Minutes played, 3rd in Blocks, 1st in Offensive Wins Shares, 2nd in Defensive Win Shares, 1st in Overall Wins Shares, winning 6 MVPs (most all-time and I more than MJ), and 6 championships (same as MJ) is not as dominant as MJ? The guy is basically Top-3 in 8 different statistical categories. If that isn’t unmatched dominance, I don’t know what is.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    It’s simple, I think we can all assume Oscar would be great today. How great? Who knows, could be the greatest individual ever, could be Carmelo Anthony (see, defense wise, Havlicek was really the first “elite perimeter defender” – it wasn’t even a thing to try and be with Oscar, so we don’t know how good he even was back then)
    .
    We know a few things,
    We can’t compare skills, it isn’t fair to previous generations.
    And we can’t compare stats.
    .
    But like you said, we should assume if a guy was dominant in his era, he would probably be dominant in this one.

  • Junior Taylor

    I could care less about what KAJ said (as a former teammate of Oscar, I wouldn’t expect him to say anything different). All I am arguing is that it is not Oscar or Wilt’s fault that they were so ahead of their time and that they shouldn’t be docked points in terms of all-time rankings.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Unmatched longevity.
    .
    Jordan won essentially 6 championships in a row in a more competitive era as by far the leagues and his teams best player. Kareem was great, but he was really dependent on a another player to be truly dominant on both sides of the ball.
    .
    But as I’ve said to you numerous times, I respect your view on the GOAT, it’s very logical, well thought out, and very well translated. I’m just explaining my and presumably most other peoples reasoning for having Jordan over Jabbar

  • cbranson05

    ill say it AGAIN, its a generational thing. its about who you saw more with your own eyes. the “greatest ever” discussion of anything is a circle of endless “but what about’s”. its cool barbershop talk but unless there is a time machine, its only a popularity contest

  • Dagger

    I find opinions like these hilarious. As if Lebron doesn’t have a fantastic jump shot. As if he doesn’t face defenses that are far more sophisticated than anything produced in the 80s. As though he can’t take contact. If Lebron played in the 80s, he would be as dominant as he is now, and, given the pace those teams played at, perhaps even more statistically impressive.

  • Dagger

    Kareem did cite Oscar’s stats to justify his superiority over Jordan and Lebron, so nbk’s comment is perfectly on point.

    “Who’s going to average double figures in points, assists and rebounds?”

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    That is nonsense. If we weren’t developing new skills and furthering our abilities there would be something wrong, skill wise it’s not close. I can prove it if you promise to actually read it and not give me an analogy as your response. You can even tell me I’m wrong and I won’t fight you. As long as you make it clear you read it.
    .
    Same goes for everyone.

  • shockexchange

    SE’s argument isn’t predicated on taking a 1960s Oscar and have him play against guys who have had the benefit of studying him. If the Big O was growing up today, he would be as dominant from the PG position as he was during his era. There’s no right or wrong answer so it’s just more of an informed opinion.

  • Slick Ric

    I wouldn’t say that necessarily, rules were just different and strictly enforced. Guys were only allowed to dribble the top of the ball, they couldn’t palm the ball and carrying was not allowed at all back then. They don’t call carrying or traveling as much nowadays.

  • shockexchange

    He’s right nbk. You have to also realize there were fewer teams back then, and fewer players. In MJ or Oscar’s era, many of today’s players would be in the college, CBA, playing in Europe or somewhere bagging groceries.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Well nbk’s is. Shock Exchange might want to pay attention to the comments he is replying too.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    There are millions of people playing basketball throughout the world. Not hundreds of thousands. He, like you, doesn’t see the bigger picture.

  • Therealness

    Thank You.

  • shockexchange

    SE was debating the argument you should have made.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Oh thanks, I covered that with rational people tho.

  • Drig

    Kareem was great even before he came to LA and started a mini-dynasty with Magic. The only reason why he’s not rated highly is because he doesn’t dominate as flashily as Shaq/Wilt used to.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    I mean of course that’s true to an extent, but I can go grab a video of Bob Cousy wasting 20 seconds of clock shredding a defense with just his right hand. A Bob Cousy who is probably less athletic then your average D-1 player today…..I mean the contrast in skills is not close. And it shouldn’t be. Comparing them doesn’t make sense.

  • Drig

    While I respect the Big O, I have a hard time seeing him achieve a trip-dub against today’s modern defensive schemes. 6’5 guy would’ve been matched up vs today’s SGs who are, at worst, comparable to what Big O would be with the help of modern technology and healthcare.

    The league is a lot more athletic, smarter and skiled than what it used to be.

  • LakeShow

    This is the first time you have legitimately made me laugh out loud, uncontrollably.

    You have had your ass handed to you 100′s of times on this site with your asinine statements.

    That’s why we like having you around here, because it’s hilarious to see you get sh*t on. Then you just come back with some terrible 1983 low budget film bad guy with a mustache response like: “want me to drop fiddy on you”

    LMAO, you’re awesome…the most delusional person ever…

  • LakeShow

    I laughed so hard when I read that. Legitimately. I rarely ever laugh on an online comment forum.

    One of the biggest dunce this site has ever seen says he’s never lost a basketball argument…. too good…

  • shockexchange

    You’re right Lake. All those “PLEASE STAY” billboards did entice Rent-A-Center did re-sign with L.A. We’re just pretend the Lakers changed their colors to red and white.

  • LakeShow

    He was greater, statistically.

    In his third year: 35-16.5-4.5 and around 4 blocks a game. (If they would have kept track…)

    Amazing!

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    yep, because he would have competed in those things today right? there is a huge contrast in those sports skill wise as well duncecap

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    everyone has him higher than Shaq. and a lot of people have him ahead of Wilt too.

  • LakeShow

    Thank god they didn’t. That guy is an embarrassment to the center position from a mental stand point.

    Wait why are we talking about Howard? I thought Laker’s fans were the one that couldn’t stop talking about him, yet I never bring him up, you do.

    A bit obsessed?

    Anyway back to the point…
    You’re a flaming idiot and will never be taken seriously. (not that you’re trying to be, but holy sh*t do you waste allot of time acting like this “Shock Exchange” ass-hole for what appears to be ZERO reason what-so-ever)

  • Ugh

    And awaaaay we go! Flame on!

  • LP @ThisisEther

    Look what kareem has started

  • Docio

    MJ would bust his ass. Lebron too.Cut it out Kareem.

  • M Mcintyre

    the sad thing is that in this day and age of media over exposure we tend to think players didn’t workout or train…they did. We look at the leagues with 31 teams and think it’s great we have 450 guys playing, versus the 85 that played before..we look at the NBA today, only to see it’s the ABA of 45 years ago. Also, if you ever get a chance to attend a pro try-out camp you’ll quickly find that the best players are usually not the final team members. Contracts, attitude, racial composition etc…STILL plays a big part of the game(Minnesota Timberwolves, Real Madrid are just a few modern examples where the #of import players are limited etc.. As far as other jobs,,,,,players of yesteryear generally graduated college as did Oscar, had other businesses”Ochem” and they kept their money.

  • M Mcintyre

    the bigger picture is this I’m from an ABA city Indiana Pacers, a market the NBA never looked at, I’m from a post Kennedy-Johnson Great Society,,,the one with the Peace Corps that took basketball to Asia/Africa/South America-as well as Europe. I know players today that should be in the league, but for cheaper overseas imports, bad attitudes and that era of basketball1975-1980(pre Magic/Bird) when the league was about to dissolve, because of ethnic issues—hence the Euro imports…..let me ask of all the Euro imports…I think Drazen Petrovic was the absolute best player the rest of them are at best marginal to some US players,,,,,,,

  • M Mcintyre

    for a guard during his era “O” was bigger and stronger 1960-1974
    for a forward George McGinnis was bigger stronger 1976-1981 6’8 235
    for a forward LeBron is bigger/stronger 2005- 6’8-265
    note the trend………………….
    Magic for a point guard bigger stronger at 6’9, and like Oscar he was complete and could play all the positions on the court,,,,,Oscar also play far fewer games & play-offs

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    are you referring to the 70s and later here? because 50s, 60s it really was not like that at all. With civil rights and everything else going on, the % of people who were afforded the even the opportunity to play the sport was much much much lower. the # of teams does not make up for that difference.

    -

    “if you ever get a chance to attend a pro try-out camp you’ll quickly find that the best players are usually not the final team members. Contracts, attitude, racial composition etc…”

    —- that is absolutely dependent on the bubble in which you live. come to a pro try out in the most Western part of the country, (a modern day one), guys are treated fairly – it feels like you are talking about whatever you experienced 30+ years ago.

    — and it’s a total misconception to believe just because a guy has better talent that he is a better professional basketball player than a guy with less so. whether you want to acknowledge it or not, a guys intelligence and personality have to come with him as a basketball player. and it does, and should carry more weight then his natural skillset. you can go to a Sprite Dunk Contest and watch guys with all the natural talent in the world who will get totally and completely trashed in an organized basketball game against well seasoned high level players.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    i sort of replied to this with the comment above as well.
    .
    but i must say, Drazen Petrovic (imo) had a very real shot at having a Hall Of Fame level career in the NBA. it’s really tragic what happened to him.

  • M Mcintyre

    I guess Jim Brown would have had 50,000 years rushing with today’s training….unfortunately he set the NFL rushing record that stood 30 years , by playing fewer games than current six rushers in front of him on the all-time list. Oh, but blame it on the league right, when he did it on the field. Applying today’s training would make every player then even better,,,,Gale Sayers was incredible playing on mud, he would have been far greater on turf, indoors,,,,,those guys would have easily rushed for 20,000 yards right?

  • M Mcintyre

    Oscar with his team mates, I can say this because my father played on the 1954 state basketball team with Oscar, the one that lost to the “Real Hooisers” Milan Team….Story is O was a no BS teammate and the reason why players are making the money & manage the trade issues of the day—A Curt Flood of basketball. So not only was he a great player, he balls that none of the players today have, but everyone of them owes to Oscar.

  • ChosenOne

    My bad, I knew he was a Hoosier in college, I just wondered if he was raised in Indiana too.

  • M Mcintyre

    yes, I can say it…..hell he can still hit a one handed 25 footer with either hand……..at 70. He plays a game with the old timers every year at Crispus Attucks usually the week of July (third weekend)

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7684533/the-big-o-had-plenty-game-plenty-chips-shoulder

    here is a pretty great story of Robertson and his career. Follows the general opinion about him i’ve heard from people who were alive to see the era, so on and so forth.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    your opinion is obviously being affected by your personal connection to the man.

  • M Mcintyre

    so you support the best talented player arguement,,meaning the best most suitably talent player is signed.
    as far as pro camps go fair treatment was never the issue, the issue was always who had the best talent/skill set today as it was years ago.
    Again, all of the attributes that go into the decision to sign a player or not include some of the things mentioned and getting butts in the seats is the name of that game–it is a business at the end of the day.
    I’m just here to say this, before this generation of over-hype talent, it’s always been players–my favorite player was just induced to the hall of fame “Roger Brown” he was a legend, but people had never heard of the guy, because he came along at the wrong time, got caught in a scandal that never happened and played in obscurity until Oscar Robertson said sign this guy to a pro contract…….and the rest is history. His peers know what he is about, which the fans or media would never acknowledge.

  • Dundler

    The real fun would be determining who would be better were they born in the same era. Of course, this is completely pointless and indeterminable, which is why I bring it up

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    this generation is full of over-hyped talent? in what way?
    .
    you sound like a typical old(er) person who thinks his days were the glory days. honestly

    .

  • Dundler

    I dunno man. The argument about who they play with gets real tricky. Just as easy to say that Jordan never won without Pippen, Chamberlain without West, blah blah blah we’ve all heard it

  • Dundler

    There is a lot of over-hype, but let’s not act lie it dominates. OJ Mayo, Brandon Jennings, the hype machine is full strength, but I don’t think thats a reflection of the players, just of our times

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Relative to the popularity of the sport the overhype is similar. It’s just never going to work acting like one era featured better talent/competition then another one that came later with increased popularity. It’s just the way it is. If we mean just without context? Sure, dudes are overhyped a lot more often. But I can’t look at stuff void of context in a serious conversation

  • guest

    The personalities of players in the past was better. They were mean b*stards. Much more enjoyable for sports.

  • Dundler

    I’m not saying there wasn’t over hype then too. I honestly have no idea if there was or wasn’t, I was just making the point that it does exist within the league today (and is perhaps more on the nose, due to internet etc). But ultimately, there is no comparison. They were different worlds. We may aswell be comparing guys from different sports

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    I mean not that extreme but yeah pretty much lol

  • Dundler

    Its not that far off. Even considering the athletic development side of things alone (my field) the training is aeons apart. Then we have the rule changes, the tactics and styles changes, the skills training, the travel luxury/ease, the pressure of today (get dunked on now and you become a GIF, get dunked on then and word of mouth is all you have to contend with).
    I do realise you didn’t contend any of that and are fully aware, I’m just going through the site and decided to list some stuff

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Ehh we can surmise which of those guys would probably have translated well to other eras. Nobody thinks Bob Cousy would be good today, but we know Bill Russell would have been. It’s just a case by case thing, the stats just help sort them out. I realize how exponentially advanced the sport has progressed, I’m trying to get all these other people to see that

  • Dundler

    Yeah that is true. To completely change subject are you playing fantasy ball this year?

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Yeah. I haven’t decided how I want to do the scoring, but I’ll put them together later this month, i’ll have one for SLAM guys to play in.

  • rande3p

    I agree with a statement Wilt once made, every era thinks their guys are superior and will argue that point. Fans want to believe it so they think they are watching all-time, historic stuff and for journalists it makes sense to hype the current state of sports because it sells, it’s their career after all. That said, very hard to compare eras for the most part.

    Of course players are more skilled now (evolution of the sport) but at the same time the game isn’t as rough as it once was so it would be interesting to see how players would have been in different eras. Interestingly impossible lol

  • M Mcintyre

    All time, Magic/Robertson guards can score/pass/rebound & defend
    C-Russell defend/rebound and run the court
    F-James/Bird-both score/have range, the forward is the hardest position because I want a forward that can do the six essential things to be considered great.
    pass/defend/rebound/shoot/score/run the court – only a very few players can do four or five of these things after that all other players are good at one or two aspects of the game.

  • M Mcintyre

    O intimidated most of his teammates, they were pretty much afraid of him….and maybe because of the money players don’t have the guts to be like that.

  • M Mcintyre

    a learned man and great comparison

  • shockexchange

    Quit trolling the Shock Exchange then.

  • robb

    I get it. I’m starting to understand why you say ‘there’s no GOAT’. There are too many circumstances around the greatest players of all time and it’s impossible to determine who’s the single greatest. It’s more a personal preference than anything else. If I say MJ other guy will say Wilt or Russell and all of them could be the greatest but there will never be a consensus about it.

  • LakeShow

    You’re life is trolling.

  • shockexchange

    You’ve been trying to get a rise out of SE all day. Keep it moving guy.

  • M Mcintyre

    Felipe Lopez-St. Johns and cover story for Sports Illustrated–that is hype,,his equal would be Rick Mount Purdue when he was on the cover in the 60′s–which dude do you know about? Which one does the media still refer too? This is the over hype,,,slam magazine is about the hype every player is the next ,,,,,,and unfortuantely most are the wash out,-Corleone,Marcus Pfizer and many countless I can’t remember the names others etc, but you never heard of John Heath or Nate Barnett who played with guys from UNCC or U. of Akron

  • M Mcintyre

    simply put these guys get way too much press, hype and attention starting with AAU-2nd grade national championships through high school, the cottage industry of youth basketball is the over hype of today highlight players with talent(strength) in one/two aspects of the game—-remember you only talk about the talent that the NBA decides you can see.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Oh the amateur hype now is unreal. I was not talking about how it works in general, I was just talking on the NBA level. The amateur hype machine is part of why the sport has grown so exponentially in such a short amount of time. There is apparently two different conversations going on here. The hype at the pro level is pretty on point with the players, those that are over hyped only stay so for a season or two

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    No it don’t know about some of those guys, although I remember Felipe Lopez. I never claimed to know or be talking about any over hyped high school or collegiate players. I didn’t think the fact that scouting and attention (hype) non professionals really needed to be stated…..

  • Caboose

    You gonna get that all organized?

  • Caboose

    You know he’s in the Hall right?

  • Pingback: Oscar Robertson Better Than Michael Jordan and LeBron James

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    logical fallacy. algebra was the origin of the modern world. W/o arabic numerals and algebra none of this scientific progress could have happened. Isaac Newton took it a step further by using numbers (nature’s language) to under one aspect of the material world.

    The world as humans see it is distinct disciplines such as biology, chemistry, physics but the world/nature have been running through integrating all of these sciences by the Uncreated.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    I agree. That’s why I don’t think Bill Russell would have excelled in a modern age where dominant big men have some offensive skill set. Shaq was an exception because of his physical capacity. Hakeem would have iced russell. I’m not as skeptical of Wilt because his physical attributes are transcedental. Where as Russell would be a modern day Dikembe.

    That’s why I think Lebron is the greatest of all time because no matter how basketball evolves his mix of physical and skill is unparalleled. If his team was better on the cavs his 7 years would have been different like how Kobe had Shaq early in his career.

    The game is also much faster today but less physical than the 80s

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    I disagree. There’s a reason why fewer and fewer Caucasian players are in the NBA then now. Even if guys like Jerry West learned those skills they wouldn’t have been in the league. You have to be an athlete to succeed now more than ever.

    When the NBA removed the ban on dunking was one reason why basketball become more of an athletes game where guys with now technical skills (such shooting) are in the game. I am not making this a racial discussion or trying to support the claim that one race is superior then another. Honestly, African Americans are more athletic than many Africans based on multiple factors. BUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACE. The concentration of melanin only separates us, anatomically and physiologically we are human beings.

    I don’t think The Logo of the NBA would have been able to play in the nba today. That’s why I’m amazed at why the TOP 50 and HOF doesn’t change. Legacy and Resume don’t equate to how good a basketball player is.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    yeah, you did read what I said right?

  • Caboose

    Re-read. Gotcha. Withdrawn.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    if you want to put it together this season, be my guest man! lol

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Bill Russell would be the modern dikembe? do some god damn research. I don’t care if you find that disrespectful, you are going to just ignorantly type your idea like a cat puking out fur then i’m going to be brutally honest. don’t be so outwardly stupid, if you don’t have any clue what you are about to say, keep your ignorant opinion to yourself. as a person who has made a point out of researching topics before I form an opinion on them, I can’t just let something that overwhelmingly ignorant go by unscathed.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    so what player comparison would you give bill who has played in the modern age?

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    A=B B=C so A=C

    that logic doesn’t apply. Russell wouldn’t have been winning 11 rings during 80s and 90s.

  • Caboose

    Haha I’ll make a post on the next Top 50 article. I’ll make the L right now.

  • BE.water

    Read Bill Simmons Book Of Basketball. It really puts those pre-Bird/Magic seasons in perspective somewhat.

  • Ryan

    I’ll keep it short and simple. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is absolutely right. Oscar Robertson is the best wing of all time.

    I just wonder what he could’ve been with today’s sports medicine.

  • Caboose

    How do you make the league require a password?

  • guest

    I think that you guys are saying the same thing.

  • guest

    Academia is less based on historical achievements than academia. If someone is proved to be wrong in academia then they are only still known through being wrong, not based on their contribution that was considered important at the time.

  • guest

    I meant to say that academia is less based on historical achievements than sports.

  • guest

    Or maybe he was a bad teammate, whilst being a phenomenal player.

  • chyea

    Then no doubt the greatest should be Russell.

  • chyea

    If you put a player today in a game in the 60s, he would struggle as well. Essentially everything would be called a travel, carry or some other violation. The game has changed completely.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    but you wouldn’t say that incorrect theories and explanations broaden our understanding.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Just make it private pimp

  • guest

    Well they did initially yes because people challenged them. But those incorrect theories were displaced. That’s my point.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Maybe, maybe they’d adjust, who knows

  • guest

    I love that you brought this up by the way so you and I can geek out on a basketball thread.

  • Caboose
  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    How you figure? I can’t see it, seems private

  • Caboose

    Uhhh…I never assigned a password to it. Join it for me, I’ll make you co-commish.

  • Isaaq Attack

    The only reason these current players are so good is because they had the privilege to watch “Legends” at work. Sir Isaac Newton once said “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.”

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Pretty sure you have to go to commish tools and send me an email invite. I think you can see my email from the league last season

  • guest

    That’s a good quote but it’s also because we’ve refined all aspects of sports to breed these super human athletes that are completely primed for athletics.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    no but especially in science by understanding mistakes of your predecessors you won’t let History repeat itself.

    I mean the greatest financial failure in science stemmed from an inability of astronauts to remember to check units and convert to significant figures http://www.riverdeep.net/current/1999/10/100199.mars_explorer.jhtml

  • Isaaq Attack

    That’s for sure. Players in colleges go into crappy programs just to play at the college levels. They’ll give scholarships for talent like hot cakes nowadays.

  • Caboose

    Sent.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Of course. That’s how people work. We learn from those that do things the best, adopt and recycle their actions in our own way, and eventually make enhancements. The more people doing said activity, the quicker that activity will experience advancements. Basketball, like everything else, has evolved over time. New skills have sprouted from the old ones. It’s evolution baby.

  • guest

    What are we arguing about right now?

  • guest

    It’s because sports=$ for colleges.

  • Isaaq Attack

    Exactly!

  • Caboose

    So I made you cocommish. HELP. Lol.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Now can you explain this to Kareem and everyone else who doesn’t see this? Thanks bruh

  • Isaaq Attack

    No guarantees lol

  • robb

    about science and astronauts goddammit! keep up!
    lol

  • guest

    lol what’s your perspective robb?

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Alright well as long as I’m a commish we can’t just let anyone in lol, these people have been asking for my identity lately and I don’t even want to find out why.

  • Caboose

    Lol ok, I’ll make a post on the next Top 50, and if they want in, they’ll have to tell me they want an invite. Then you can ok it.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    What you even need help with? If you wanna do a head to head league with categories this is fine lol

  • Caboose

    Haha is this the same as you did last year?

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    In that league I think I did head to head points instead of rotisserie, you on a computer? I think you can check that if you want

  • Caboose

    This league is HtH categories…right?

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Yeah, if it were points each category would need a value, they are added for a total. It’s like a PER type of thing if you think about it that way.

  • robb

    I think history distorts through time inevitably and the reality we know is a flawed interpretation of events. It’s very difficult to find truth since even the slightest change or the slightest misunderstanding at a particular moment in time changes everything. Everything is relative. One day someone said the universe was infinite, then others found out it’s actually finite and it’s contracting, at some point somebody will prove a whole different theory, so when you consider all these things the ‘what ifs’ are fun to talk about but nothing can be proven because everything changes constantly.

    just my opinion

  • guest

    I hear you but I think the reason why we say the universe is finite and we used to say it was infinite is that our capabilities and knowledge to determine that answer have improved dramatically. Things will definitely change as time goes on, and our conclusions will be different. But I don’t think it’s necessarily because everything is relevant, it’s because scientists know so much more now. Socially we progress slowly, scientifically we progress exponentially. But I could definitely be wrong.

  • robb

    thats the funny thing, scientists know more now but it’s relative because in the near future scientists will say: Man, how could we think that was true! So things today we swear are true may be a lie tomorrow, it’s part of the evolution but it’s funny to me how little we know about everything. Honestly the best phrase to me is ‘I know one thing: that I know nothing’ by Socrates. That sums it up pretty well, but it’s fun to discuss pretending we know stuff I mean, what else can we do as humans but to try to figure things out right?

  • TrojanConquest

    I never said Russell was the greatest because of 11 titles. Again, don’t like the GOAT. Greatest of your era is where I go. And Russell had tougher competition because there were fewer teams and all teams had great players. The Phoenix Suns have nobody good enough to be in the NBA if there were fewer teams.

  • Brian Johnson

    Sorry Captain.. But MJ is the G.O.A.T.

  • Busta213

    OK, so the knock on Wilt was that he shrunk in the biggest moments of the biggest games (according to BS’s book at least) and you want to throw that shade at Bron literally weeks after he closed out a game 7 in the finals? SMH……

  • shutup

    Smarter or more intelligent? The advancement in technology and understanding of the sciences would definitely make Carl Sagan the smarter of the two, however their intelligence would be based on their “processing power”. Its just like NBK is trying to argue, older players didn’t have the benefit to be the next step in evolution. Thats how evolution works, greatness becomes greater, defenses get better so players have to adapt and get better, its evident in all sports.

  • Zabbah

    they’d adjust. the adjustments they’d have to make would be a lot easier than for a ’60s guy to play today.

  • shutup

    Oh shutup, go clone something…..you have no idea what you just typed, go back and take that youtube class again.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    Explain yourself.

  • Busta213

    Someones resume doesn’t become poor just because they got old – there isn’t any reason to update the HOF – your membership is earned based on your successes vs. YOUR competition. Its hardly the logo’s fault that he didn’t get born 40 years later to prove that he could hang with more modern players. If the NBA redid its 50 greatest, undoubtedly it would change (they only did it as part of anniversary celebrations). Maybe they will just do a top 75 when that anniversary falls due.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    I agree that’s a completely valid point. But it’s deceiving to say that top 50 are greatest of all time. How would Mikan have faired today. Like to make the argument that oh with current sources for training he would’ve been just as good isn’t real evidence.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    But their exist absolutes.

    I mean water is water you can’t say that’s open to interpertation. An apple is an apple. Lnguage in itself has absolute phrases regardless of what language we use. Grass is grass it’s an absolute.

  • Busta213

    considering the venom in this comment Id like to see the answer to the follow up question. Ive seen people give worse comparisons re. who Bill would be in the modern game…..

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    Read first 2 sentences. In academia failures are just as important as success. With documented failures scientist will not allow history to repeat itself.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    Even though perspectives and how history is recorded changes. There is only one actual sequence events that occurred during that time period. That’s the absolute whether the human can perceive or convey it doesnt matter.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    Read the oj mayo article to see continuation

  • Basketball_iQ

    Nbk – bro,,,, that’s the way they dribbled the ball THEN,,, if he was apart of this era, he’d dribble like every one else,,,, that sentence alone kills your argument.
    How can you pit them in our era and still make’em dribble back to the basket?

  • Mat

    Anyone who leaves Jordan off any all-time roster has absolutely zero credibility on any following opinions.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    I don’t thinks evolution is goal-directed look up Richard Dawkins for reference.

  • M Mcintyre

    Jerry West could have played in any era, because he could shoot, look at his percentage over the 12 years he played and scoring avg. The league always has a home for shooters, if Chris Mullins……also, the league went global to find white guys that could play, because Americans are playing lacrosse, crew, soccer, hockey in addition to video games and skateboarding.

  • M Mcintyre

    No on the NBA side the hype machine is to promote stars on each team. I’m sorry that isn’t the case in today’s league, a guy like Sidney Wicks would have been hyped in Portland, Curtis Rowe would be Detriot because they came out of UCLA, they were winners etc….now they are good players, but hyped the next coming of ????? no and that is what I am talking about a lot of these guys are good players not Great. I look at players in progression. Where would Walt Frazier or Earl Monroe be in today’s NBA? JoJo White, Rick Barry

  • Busta213

    Lol there was some follow-up venom!

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    i’m not. i’m just reacting to what Jabbar said “he had all the skills” – he didn’t, they didn’t exist. Jabbar used stats from that era to justify his argument, so obviously he wasn’t giving credit to the changes in the game..

    “no but seriously, it’s just stupid to say people who played ANY sport 50 years ago are “more skilled” then people who play it now. that’s not how sports work.”

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    yeah? what do you know about Bill Russell? anything? first of all, Bill Russell was 6’10″ and he was known for his ability to run the floor as well as every other player in the league. Is Dikembe, at all, known for foot speed? — Russell scouted out his teammates before he even joined the Celtics, he knew everyone’s strengths and weaknesses, and only tried to do the things that the team needed to succeed. He didn’t score a lot, because that wasn’t something the team needed. If we HAD to compare him to a player today it would have to be Kevin Garnett. And that doesn’t do justice to how controlling and smart Russell was on the court.

    .

    Here, read this story, then let me know if the Dikembe Mutombo comparison makes ANY sense,

    http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8724362/the-kobe-question

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    come on man you are the historian and you didn’t mention how good Jerry West won on defense? West is a top 5 ever defensive guard by all accounts, he may have been even better in this era that is tailored for perimeter players, especially with a 3pt line. but anyway, carry on.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    you are taking marketing as overhype?
    .
    who in the NBA today is “the next coming of” that didn’t pan out? or you just take random headlines without reading the articles as hype?
    .
    what about guys like Cazzie Lee Russell who was “the next coming of”
    .
    i mean, it’s not new for guys to get more hype around them then they should.
    .
    can you tell me where Bill Russell was drafted? it’s relative to the times, there is “more” over hyped NBA players now ….. because there are 500% more NBA players then there were then. yes, more hype but why? because there is more talent. it’s nothing new.
    .

  • shutup

    Your diatribe is arguing non-points, there is not one thing in all those words you typed that has anything to do with what was said except you putting Isaac Newton’s name in it. FYI he studied multiple facets of science.

    Point and case what is the purpose of this sentence? “The world as humans see it is distinct disciplines such as biology, chemistry, physics but the world/nature have been running through integrating all of these sciences by the Uncreated.” I bet you thought you were smart and insightful with this ish, all it is is words that have no meaning or bearing on the conversation, take your penitentiary vocabulary and call Clyde Frazier.

  • shutup

    Guess you haven’t got to the Darwin section of you youtube education. Survival of the fittest would be a “goal”, the survival would be the goal and the fittest would represent the progress of the individual to achieve said goal.

  • shutup

    Here is a quote from Dawkin’s “You could go to other planets in the universe and find life, and if you do find life, then it will have evolved by some kind of evolutionary process, probably Darwinian.”

    In order for you to understand what he is saying you should go back and study what he is referencing. Instead you come here and name drop with no deeper understanding of the drivel your typing. Dawkins is an evolutionist, as opposed to being a creationist, why you would bring him into the conversation when it completely contradicts your statement?

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    stop it. there are 400+ NBA players today,
    compared to around 150 back then.
    .
    there are MILLIONS of young people playing basketball today
    compared to hundreds of THOUSANDS back then.
    .
    what’s a bigger difference? 400 to 150, or Millions to Thousands?
    .
    #MathIsHard.

  • Busta213

    Sheez, why are you so defensive all of a sudden?
    I read that article when it came out.

    Even in this thread Ive mentioned that Ive read Bill Simmon’s Book of Basketball, and nobody fawns over Celtics greats more than BS. So yes, I have a reasonable idea of who BR was.

    The young fella already explained that the Deke comparison was meant in terms of overall impact – and it was obvious that it was meant in that way. He wasnt suggesting Russell would become a Congolese dude with a robotic hook shot.

    Prime Deke was a multiple DPOY winner and one of the greatest defensive bigs off all time; he was an elite shot bloker and rebounder.

    Thats not the biggest insult of all time. It just suggests that in a different era he may not of dominiated to the same level – he would not have the same athletic advantage in the league in the modern era that he had in the 50′s and 60′s.

    From a cerebal standpoint you could bring up a player considered high IQ like KG, but from an on court skillset standpoint, you dont have anything but wishful thinking to say that is an acceptable comparison – that his skillset could expand to be as vast as KGs.
    We are talking about a guy who barely shot freethrows better than Shaq vs. KG who loves his perimeter shots…..KG is a player who at his best could arguably defend all 5 positions and could handle the ball like a guard. But anyway, for most of his career, KG was considered someone who faded away (both in terms of his choice of shot and figuratively) when the games/shots meant the most. So maybe KG is not that fitting a comparison to the great winner that Bill Russell was from a mental standpoint after all….

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Busta, in the half court, who was the Celtics offense run through? .

    There is nobody in the league to compare Russell too. Comparing him to Dikembe is like saying, well he blocked shots and rebounded, so they ahve to be similar. Despite the overwhelming narrative that Russell controlled games on BOTH ends of the floor.

    .

    who invented the fast break? do you think it was Cousy? Then you don’t know about the Celtics or Bill Russell.

    .

    And the reason I get so defensive is because people like Adding Velocity just say things.

    .

    Here is a list (Thanks Caboose)

    15. LeBron is a point guard.

    14. Kawhi Leonard is currently better than Andre Iguodala both on offense and defense.

    13. Kobe more talented than Jordan and T-Mac as the 7th most talented player of all time.

    12. Rajon Rondo is better than Chris Paul.

    11. Rudy Gay outclasses Iggy, Pierce, and Josh Smith.

    10. Dirk would beat Jordan 1 on 1.

    9. Oden will play heavy minutes and contribute regularly.

    8. PER is foolish because it’s impossible to contextualize.

    7. LeBron has the ability next season to win MVP, DPOY, 6th Man, and Most Improved.

    6. Wade with only 1 ring would not be in the HOF.

    5. Nick Young is or could be a franchise SG.

    4. The best way to compare players is to simulate them cloned and have them play 2 on 2.

    3. Tony Parker is not a top 5 point guard.

    2. Prime Ray Allen would smash prime Dwyane Wade.

    and, for #1…

    1. Chris Paul is not a franchise changing point guard.

    .

    The guy just says things. He does no research, has no rational reasoning behind what he says. The comparison between Mutombo and Russell outside of the Box Score is nothing close to similar. And even in the box score you have no idea how close it is, because you don’t see stats for steals or blocks, and you see an almost double portion of rebounds. at most, the Dikembe comparison was a wild guess.

  • Busta213

    ROFL – the list is hilarious….but he is young and enthusiastic I think – he will learn!
    You are right that the Mutombo comparison is partially based on box scores ( the rebounding difference is obviously a red herring based on the different pace of the modern era game tho) but really its only about trying to suggest a more toned down impact for Russell in the modern era.
    That list tho……….. :o )

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Mutombo was literally a stand under the basket and block shots defensive anchor. in a time of “illegal defense” — so he rarely ever had to do anything but protect the basket. there was no hedging pick and rolls in those days, he rarely had to do anything but rotate from block to block in the post. seriously, their strengths / weaknesses / style couldn’t be more different from 2 guys playing the same position.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    my statement. evolution has no purpose to advance or enhancement individuals. Any evolutionary biologists will confirm that. It is a process with no goal-direction. Also, how does dawkins know of the realities of other dimensions. That’s beyond current capacity.

    I am a reductionist when i write freely because this is a casual page. I have no desire to demonstrate my intelligence on a social forum. But you need to reflect on what I said.

    Whether you believe in a personal God who communicates on this planet through scripture is irrelevant in my statement above.

    Understanding concepts is based on the ability to differentiate two opposite ideas. You cannot know what Hot is unless you use cold as a standard. You will not know what Beauty is until you know Ugly. What is the opposite of created –> Uncreated. Our ability to perceive the Uncreated is a different matter. From a linguistic perspective we communicate and develop understanding through differentiation of polar opposites.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

    i posted a link to clarify certain misunderstandings.

  • shutup

    Never said it’s purpose was to advance anything, but advancement is a byproduct of it, as it is inevitable to evolve without advancement, or else it is de-evolution or backwards progression.

    I am not having a discussion about GOD with you.

    BTW hot is still hot without ever being cold, there are places that don’t have cold, like the sun, is it not hot then?

    One does not have to look upon ugliness to appreciate beauty. Can a person not love until they experience hate? Babies love without every knowing hate, you are perpetuating “logical fallacies”

  • shutup

    Instead of posting a link how about you demonstrate the ability to digest what you post, until then click your own links until infinitude. Oh btw I am proficient in googling too. Your link is full of semantics, an organisms “need” to survive and the ability to survive are one in the same, they try to separate it and associate “need” with want, or A CONSCIOUS EFFORT ON THE ORGANISMS PART. That is a misnomer an organism has factors outside of it’s choices in reproduction. If an organism can’t survive in a climate it can’t reproduce, thus by whittling away the lesser of the species; the whole species advances and adapts to its environment thus it evolves and advances.

    Let me know if you want me to explain anything else to you.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    Babies love without hate. I disagree. Try switching a pacifier of a baby who is teething.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Freaking ether. Touché

  • shutup

    That has to be the weakest metaphor ever. Generally a baby that is teething doesn’t want a pacifier, the sucking motion hurts their gums more, that is why teething rings were invented, or chilled waffles, etc, etc etc.

    A baby doesn’t hate because you take a pacifier, the baby is in pain, it is a state of confusion, because the baby hasn’t experienced that type of pain yet. That doesn’t constitute hate, one can argue that the baby starts to feel love in the mother’s womb, thus being sequestered from any type influence that might corrupt it. So yes in this world any good can exist without bad, generally it doesn’t happen but here are some examples in nature that one polar opposite exists without its juxtapose,

    Deep see darkness, there hasn’t been light down there since creation/inception of the planet, does that mean light doesn’t exist? Same thing with the temperature down there, it has been “cold” does warmth not exist? any animal that survives down there has adapted to that environment without ever experiencing the polar opposite.

    Lastly I have a philosophical metaphor, say we have a race of super-intelligent beings, they are all smart, some are smarter then others, but no one is stupid, you have a scenario where one extreme exists without the other, before you say that can’t happen, apply that metaphor to physical characteristic based on a secluded race, we can take African skin color, or Asian eyes. If your argument stands, which it doesn’t ; then essentially your saying that “black” people couldn’t have existed without “white” people, or slanted eyes couldn’t exist solely in a culture just because there has to be balance.

    This isn’t a movie were everything has to be equal, nature has a balance, but it is rarely an equality, to think otherwise is extremely naive.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    So maybe you didn’t notice before or something but it’s clear to you now that you are one of the smarter cats around here….right

  • shutup

    I’ll humbly accept that, but we both know it is only a matter of time before I post some dumb ish.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Well all of us say dumb sh*t so that’s not really a good barometer of intelligence

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    I agree about black versus white people – that was never my point. Let me restate my point. I am reducing all the way to the point of meaning of individual words. SLANT needs to be contrasted with straight. I am not saying that for thing to exist and another must exist.

    That which exists is what we as individuals try to understand. I agree w/ you we don’t need black people for whites to exist because humans haven’t created this reality. RATHER WE ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF ITEAMS WHICH OUR ENVIRONMENT CONTAINS. INDIVIDUAL WORDS such as hot, cold, slant, straight, black, white are attributed meanings on scale which contains extremes.

    When you learn any idea at the word level. You try to contrast those ideas with what is all ready known to you. For instance, you learn that the SUN is hot. What does hot mean. Initially an individual learns “HOT” through association of physical senses so they can understand what it means to say the SUN is HOT. But how does an individual understand the degrees of hotness? That individual needs to also perceive “cold”. Now of course can an individual ever physically perceive the temperature of the sun. NO.. but the mind uses the meaning of cold to say what is hottest, hotter, hot.

    I personally don’t think this is mere coincedence that nature contains extremes. And that humans ability to apply meaning to individual words and form more complex ideas (via grammatical rules to make words into sentences, paragraphs etc.).

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe
  • shutup

    So you want to take a conversation about scientists and scientific concepts and degrade it to a discussion of semantics and word origin? We were talking about Isaac Newton and Natural Selection; now you want to argue word origins.

    I’ll take the bait but with a disclaimer that truthfully I think your an idiot, your understanding of the concepts you put forth are elementary at best.

    Hot would still be hot without cold, watch this hot, hotter, hottest. You don’t need to experience cold to understand hot, that’s why the metaphor of the sun was so key. Hot is it’s own entity, just like the cold that would be found on Neptune or Pluto, it never gets hot, if organisms lived there and were capable of language they would not have the need for the opposite of cold, thus it would never exist.

    Think about it you can teach a baby what up is without ever teaching what down is.

    Just to blow one more hole in your theory, what about the other colors, what are their opposites? How do we know what orange is if it has no opposite? Whats the opposite of purple? If love is the opposite of hate whats the opposite of pain? not pain? Not everything has an opposite, so do all these “oppositeless” entities not exist?

    Oh and the idea of the “uncreated” is just stupid, that act of un-creating something means it would have to be created already, hence the prefix “un” you might wanna rephrase that as the anit-created just like anti-matter. “Un” doesn’t and has never represented the opposite of something it represents the “UN-doing” of something, so in order for something to be undone it has to be done first.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    How do you understand hot, hotter, and hottest? You use the concept of cold. Really reflect on what I am saying because even the Pluto argument there are degrees of fluctuation in the temperature. Saying less cold and warmer are essentially the same thing. I mean how would you qualify temperature changes on pluto with words.

    Because you can’t define one opposite exclusively (because multiple exists) doesn’t mean there aren’t opposites.

    You only defined the prefix-un with create. Can you please apply the same reasoning to the suffix-ed. the word UNCREATE is DIFFERENT THAN UNCREATED.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    I apologize if I have offended you in any way.

  • shutup

    I disagree; you don’t need cold to understand hot, that’s why there is different degrees of hotness. Essentially the same thing and the same thing are not equal, you don’t need cold to measure heat, especially in an environment that never gets cold. Babies tend to learn hot by touching something hot, after that stimulus you think cold is even in their mind? In order to truly define a word you have to look at the inception of the concept on the consciousness, and “hot” or “cold” “up” or “down” are all created independently during our development, later on to we start to see the associations that things have and how they are relative to each other, but saying you need one to define the other is wrong.

    BTW uncreated is not different from uncreate they are both not words, but uncreated would be the past tense of uncreate thus making it the same word just having it happen at a time that has passed, hence the suffix “ed”

    I’ll use it in a sentence.

    During this thread I uncreated your sense of intellectual superiority by poking holes in all your pseudo intellectual bullspit.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    why would you have offended me?

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    keep applying the word uncreated for every entity that has ever come into existence like you used for “intellectual superiority” (which is just another entity). Start from this present period and work backwards on the timeline with the same definition you applied for uncreated for “intellectual superiority” you’ll understand what I am saying. Eventually as you uncreate every entity (to an infinite amount of time) regardless of whether it can be perceived or not you’ll come to the conclusion that there must exist atleast one entity that has no origin. To say the beginning came from nothing implies that there is an absence of something.

    In terms of the “saying you need one to define the other is wrong”. I agree partially. I will use Hellen Keller as an example. When she perceived hot the first time she understood it from her senses. For instance she touched hot concrete road. Now if she touched something hotter like an iron. She would without knowing he word “cold” still perceive the iron to be less hot or colder. Your mind continuously contrasts in the environment to perceive and localize one definition to one thing (whether it’s an idea or an object).

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    because we don’t have the same views on basketball or the same approach to arriving at our conclusions. I don’t try to say my method is superior because with a sport how does one know the appropriate method to assess talent.

  • shutup

    Lets get this straight there is no uncreate, the opposite of create is to destroy, you can’t uncreate something.

    Again I am not discussing religion with you, which is where you seem to want to go with your “uncreated” theory.

    Just maybe there are concepts we don’t understand that explain the origins of the universe, without placing it in the hands of a mythical being. When we reach that level of consciousness then maybe everything gets explained by science. History is filled with examples, such as the world is flat etc, etc, etc….

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    You previously stated that you uncreated intellectual superiority but now you are saying you can’t uncreate something.

    I have no desire to discuss religion.

    What is the difference between the words destroy and uncreated

    Destroy-put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it.

    Uncreated- existing without having been created.not yet created.

    To destroy something you had to first create it. But something that is Uncreated never was created in the first place.

    No desire to discuss religion with you. I pulled up these definition by just googling definition of the words. Associating the definition of Divinity to the word Uncreated is different discussion.

    All I ask is you keep removing things from existence by never allowing them to exist. The difference is with the word destroy you allow things to exist and then you make them go out of existence.

    Example. If I took a ate an apple I destroyed its physical form via my digestive system and turned it into fecal matter. The apple is destroyed it no longer exists. But what if that apple never existed in the first place I could never have destroyed it. Now keep removing everything from existence by undoing everything. If you keep doing this for an infinite amount of time you’ll eventually realize one entity had to be uncreated. This is purely a linguistic exercise with meaning of words which is our method of communication.

    Have you ever heard the paradoxical statement When an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object what happens? Even language itself can’t be understood on the basis of visualization or any sense. Unlike science which is using of senses to understand the physical world. To understand language one must reflect on meanings and what the consequence of those meanings are and how those consequences affect our reality.

  • M Mcintyre

    Jordan can score and can defend 6-4 or smaller(Dale Ellis),,,,,,Magic & Oscar can score defend, rebound, run the offense and guard both taller and smaller……I know most of you grew up with 23, but learn the game it take a couple of things to make a player complete and frankly most of the guys playing today are weak at a lot of aspects of the game,,,,don’t get me at the 1 or 2 things they are strong at they are pretty damn good.

  • M Mcintyre

    it just means the quality has gone down, or you have weak players who aren’t asking for money or in the strip club or having 19 kids in 31 NBA cities…..the numbers are really a terrible comparison when you are talking 150 best Americans, versus 400 of the best players that are signed to play

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    so you grew up in a time relatively close to oppression, when there was no cable TV, no internet, no AAU, no nationalized High School System, no scouting system/databes, nothing more than localized athetlics and you don’t understand how the talent pool is larger and more potent? but you do understand that “the best players” weren’t necessarily getting chances….and you still argue this?
    .
    that’s fine. believe whatever you want. the earth is flat too.

  • M Mcintyre

    true, Jerry West would have been the man, but then a guy like Rick Mount would have been even better. I mean in college the guy avg. 35 points on 14-16 shots a game. In the games where he scored 45, they estimate he would have scores 73 in college. Jerry West at 6’2 would have been perfect, but he wouldn’t have shot 16-19 times a game the defense would have put a hurt on him. But until Jordan came along he was in the best backcourt in the history of the game he’s still on my all-time top 10-15,,,but most def on the all scorers team with Mike/Bob McAdoo/George Gervin/Jerry and maybe Wilt just cause he could do it anytime…but again, I like complete players versus specialty players….

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    when will he reply to my last post.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    what?

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    when will shutup reply to my last reply differentiate the words between Uncreated and destroy

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    he probably won’t.
    .
    you can’t uncreate something. to uncreate is to make it so it never existed. it’s science fiction. to destroy is to obviously alter the state of an object or thing in such a way that it is no longer recognizable in its original form. as i’m sure you are aware, we can’t truly destroy anything with any mass. we can alter it’s state to another form of energy, for example, burning plastic turns it into a toxic soup of gases.
    .
    you can’t “destroy” something without leaving a trace of its existence. to uncreate would be to literally erase it from all existence. which is just flatly impossible.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    But that’s my point. Your trying to understand it through only your five senses. However, your mind allows you to conceptualize the word uncreate. It’s not science fiction because science is modern.
    i don’t believe the argument of ignorance. But how can you say the Uncreated is nothing. when that would mean you are implying that it is absence of something but what is that something. Language demonstrates the limitation of science. Because science only demonstrates the extent of what our senses allow us to perceive. However our ability to reflect to think leads us to different understandings.

    Why does human language allow for these possibilities? Possibilities that are logical according to the language but are impossible to demonstrate based on human physical restraints.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    Lol oh! Ok

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    is my analysis correct?

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    You do not want my description of what you said.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    why? what is wrong with what I have said.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    You’re thinking too hard

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    and what is wrong with what i have said though

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    The words in it.

  • AddingVelocityDontTellMe

    lol man stop joshing

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    It doesn’t make sense. Even if what you are trying to say is correct, there is no way to decipher it out of that block of words

  • Rich

    To make your comment shows me that either (A) you really don’t know the game or (B) You simply have never see Oscar play. If you did, you would not doubt what Kareem clears articulated. It was Oscar’s all around skills, knowledge of the game,determination and instincts that make him great then and able to take on any one in today’s game. If what you say is true then in another 5 years Magic could not play in todays game or in 10 years, MJ would not be able to compete in the game and there is no way that could possible be true. Greatness is simple greatness. The game has changed and yes players today have many more advantages. In fact, given the lack of advantages players in the 60′s and 70′s had compared to today’s stars perhaps you need to rethink your comments. Perhaps those players back in the day were actually better and had better fundamental skills.

  • http://twitter.com/sooperfadeaway nbk

    If you are going to comment on a conversation that took place months and months ago, please read the whole to thing.

Advertisement