# Point guards rookie years



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Bibby
MPG RPG APG SPG PPG
35.2 2.70 6.5 1.56 13.2

Kidd
MPG RPG APG SPG PPG
33.8 5.40 7.7 1.91 11.7 

Francis
MPG RPG APG SPG PPG
36.1 5.30 6.6 1.53 18.0

maybury
MPG RPG APG SPG PPG
34.7 2.70 7.8 1.00 15.8

Tim hardaway
MPG RPG APG SPG PPG
33.7 3.90 8.7 2.09 14.7

Just thought I'd toss some numbers up there for comparision. If history is anything to go by williams should average about 
35 minutes a game.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

jwill wont get 35 minutes a game as long as crawford is still here it will be more like 24 a piece for each guy- whenever crawford gets traded- which will happen jwill will prove he is the guy- then 35 will happen with mason or someone getting the other 13 minutes


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> jwill wont get 35 minutes a game as long as crawford is still here it will be more like 24 a piece for each guy- whenever crawford gets traded- which will happen jwill will prove he is the guy- then 35 will happen with mason or someone getting the other 13 minutes


Crawford has about as much chance of getting traded as Rosanne has of making the luva-bulls. Zilch

Crawford and Williams will get some time on the court together, and they'll both end the year with about 27-31 minutes a game each. Which is PLEANTY for both of them.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Roseanne as a LuvaBull. Bad mental picture.

Hey! How good is JWill? I confess that I don't know. I saw him a lot in college, but that was college. If he plays as advertised, he'll get his 30+ mpg and we'll have to risk the Roseanne thing.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

If Jason Williams doesn't get 30mpg, I will shave my entire body and run nude around the ISU campus.


----------



## JGKoblenz (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> If Jason Williams doesn't get 30mpg, I will shave my entire body and run nude around the ISU campus.


Oh!!! Please Lord make JWill get 30mpg!!! Please!!!!!!!!!! 
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Not so fast...*



> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> Crawford has about as much chance of getting traded as Rosanne has of making the luva-bulls. Zilch
> ...


I am inclined to believe your story Jim.....for probably the first 30-40 games. Then we will see if One or the other has a problem being the back up. IF its JC and he has a fit being the back up, he WILL get traded...if its JWill, he will be given until next year to take the job. It might also depend on how well our SG position is filled. Playing backup at PG and SG might be welcomed by both JWill & JC.:grinning:


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

The way I figure it, they can both easily get 30 mpg. 
So no problems!

C'mon everybody get happy!

:rbanana: :gbanana: :banana: :bbanana: :cbanana: :vbanana: :rbanana:


----------



## robg (Jul 19, 2002)

Well I think Jwill playing the point is inevitable. Like bamabull said what if JC has a fit being a backup? Also, will JC be pissed more if he starts the season as a backup or loses his job midway thru the season?
This will tell us what kind of coach Bill will be... he did well by playing the H.S'ers. Will he feel commited to JC or play the more deserving jwill or play jc and bench the 2nd overall pick?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

well from what i've been hearing JC was killing williams in scrimmages . As long as he does that its going to be hard to convince JC williams is the better player ...as well as the bulls coaching staff.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

Rosanne a luv-a-bull? She could have enough money to buy her way into the luv-a-bulls. I'd never underestimate a former prostitute.

PS. Crawford cant/wont be traded? Dont believe it.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Crawford has not proven he can play effective point guard in the NBA. He has not proven he can play effective at all. He is a defensive sieve. This is his year to prove it, or he is gone.

Williams has not proven anything yet, but with his draft position and hype he is expected to be a star. Crawford is not expected to be a star like Williams, although he may become one.

Crawford will probably have to show this year he is of star caliber to stay on this team for an extended period. Williams was drafted to play point guard in the future, and unless Crawford shows he can play both point and shooting guard effectively this season it is likely he will have to be moved to let Williams get big minutes.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i find it funny that you would say JC has to be a star to stay on the bulls 

i'm assuming Curry and chandler would also have to grow into stars themselves 

rose is a star

and you expect williams to be a star 

maybe my math is off but i count 5 stars(and they could all be slotted into 5 spots on the floor, how nice) and i have yet to see a team with 5 stars in my lifetime do anything worth anything in the nba (think trailblazers of the last few years)

why? because the nba is about roles 

1 or 2 players are stars possibly 3 and the rest fulfill their roles to make a team successful

williams may or not be a star in the making the same goes for crawford but i find it hard to believe the bulls ( they were 21-61 last year if i remember correctly) would trade a player simply because he wasn't a star


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

With all of the hype surrounding Williams I would think that Crawford most likely will have to become a star caliber player to stay ahead of Williams. No way the Bulls drafted Williams to sit on the bench. It also looks to me that with Robinson and Marshall aboard there is no way Krause will be happy with Rose at small forward. That means Crawford and Williams are the point guards. If Williams does become a top notch player he will get 35 minutes a game eventually. Crawford does not have the temperment to be a bench player, and no matter how many positions bench players play they don't get 30 minutes a game.

I don't see Crawford happy with 20 minutes a game. Unless he proves to be a better player than Williams and keeps the point guard spot I don't see him in Chicago long term.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I don't think this thread was intentioned to be another Jwill vs. Craw thread but hypocritically I will chime in none the less.

THe major basis if not sole imput we have to judge minutes at pg is summer league play. THe one RMR game I saw featured JWILL leading from the pg position, controling the flow of the offense, in a way that Craw lacks the ability. THis is a dead issue-- I side with Retro in believing that if JWill is not starting opening day he will be filling the starters role by the end of the first month of the season. 

Back to the original message of the post-- I am very enthused by these numbers. I believe Jwill is comprable to all the guards you mentioned and given his strengths and the Bulls game (strength at scoring, weakness at rebounding) I see the following numbers as being realistic his rookie year. 

14 pts, 6 a, 6 b.

I actually think he may be further along in his development than Bibby, Kidd and Hardaway was at this point in their careers. Marbury was a scoring freak at GT and I don't see Jwill living up to those offensive numbers, and Francis was... well Francis...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sinkingship</b>!
> With all of the hype surrounding Williams I would think that Crawford most likely will have to become a star caliber player to stay ahead of Williams. No way the Bulls drafted Williams to sit on the bench. It also looks to me that with Robinson and Marshall aboard there is no way Krause will be happy with Rose at small forward. That means Crawford and Williams are the point guards. If Williams does become a top notch player he will get 35 minutes a game eventually. Crawford does not have the temperment to be a bench player, and no matter how many positions bench players play they don't get 30 minutes a game.
> 
> I don't see Crawford happy with 20 minutes a game. Unless he proves to be a better player than Williams and keeps the point guard spot I don't see him in Chicago long term.


hype is simply that... hype it doesn't mean anything when matched up against real life happenings. 

i cant see the fact that more columnists want to do more stories on williams than crawford as a basis of Cartwright giving out playing time in fact it should be a reason against it. On a team that is built on players no matter how young or inexperienced EARNING their minutes , giving entitlement minutes to a player who is supposedly ready made is the type of things that can wreck a young and impressionable squad

like i've said before the only thing thats going to decide who plays and how much is on the court and as of now I've got to believe JC has a huge advantage

1. he is as knowledgeable of the triangle as any player on the team sans hoilberg(and even thats debatable) and while you can minimalize that being important at other positions but at point guard thats crucial

2. williams has already expressed his problems with the triangle off. something that wasn't helped by him playing on team usa when he could have gotten valuable cohesion time with his teammates in chi.

add to that he has to make an adjustment to nba basketball on a whole and i really cant see him stepping ahead of crawford on the depth chart in the near future if at all (it could be him thats traded and before anyone says it cant happen remember they said the same thing about brand )


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> 2. williams has already expressed his problems with the triangle off. something that wasn't helped by him playing on team usa when he could have gotten valuable cohesion time with his teammates in chi.


Wow HappyGrinch, good point. 

How is it that Crawford gets ripped a new one for playing some games at hoops and in seattle by his kid.... but you never hear anything about Williams missing practices to ride the bench on team USA.

I'm expecting pre-season dogfights, and I can't wait!


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

*other guards*



> Originally posted by <b>robg</b>!
> Well I think Jwill playing the point is inevitable. Like bamabull said what if JC has a fit being a backup? Also, will JC be pissed more if he starts the season as a backup or loses his job midway thru the season?
> This will tell us what kind of coach Bill will be... he did well by playing the H.S'ers. Will he feel commited to JC or play the more deserving jwill or play jc and bench the 2nd overall pick?


I was just wondering what your source is?

On another point, I did just start this thread to give some indication of what other point guards did in their first season, not to turn into
J.C vrs Williams Round 11. There seems to be enough threads like that around.

Andre Miller only averaged 25 minutes in his first season
payton 27 and B Davis 18. 

What ever the case in terms of mintue splits I think we now will get 48 minutes of quality play at the point guard position. A vast improvement on last year. Defensively it's a worry but early last year we were getting kill be opposing point guard as we had no one physically who could go with them. At least both of this guys have the phsyical gifts to do so. 

I happen to like the two distinct styles of play they'll bring to the position.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

*My Bad*

My bad, I meant to quote happygrinch's statement about JC and J.W


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

http://www.sportingnews.com/voices/sean_deveney/20020825.html

is where williams was talking about his problems with the triangle and that was only a month ago 

i couldn't find the article about crawford but i remember when it was said about the time he came back from the acl tear . he basically had nothing else to do but rehab with the strength and conditioning coach and study the playbook with the coaching staff and since only fizer bagaric & hoilberg have been bulls as long as crawford it shouldn't really be that surprising to anyone that he may have the best knowledge of the offense


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> i find it funny that you would say JC has to be a star to stay on the bulls
> 
> i'm assuming Curry and chandler would also have to grow into stars themselves
> ...


I don't know how old you are, but the Celtics have had two different rosters of championship teams (and maybe 3) with at least 5 stars/starters (they were so deep they traded a future star in Paul Westphal for a proven star Charlie Scott). The celtics featured bench players like Maravich and Walton.

Similarly, the showtime Lakers had at least 5 stars, and continuously brought in bench players like Bob MacAoo (no D!) and Mychal Thompson (a truly awesome player) and Michael Cooper.

The 84-85 76ers featured Moses Malone, Dr. J, Andrew Toney, Barkley, Maurice Cheeks, and Bobby Jones. That's SIX stars.

The bucks of the early 80s featured Sidney Moncrief, Marques Johnson, Junior Bridgeman, Bob Lanier, and Brian Winters. All stars. (Moncrief destroyed Larry Bird in college and the pros in one-on-one matchups).

The 82-83 Suns featured Walter Davis, Larry Nance, Maurice Lucas, Dennis Johnson, and Alvan Adams. All stars.

I edit this post to add that the above teams were all 50+ game winning teams and several won 60+. That's successful 

I edit this post one more time to shamelessly plug the new stats site at http://stats.basketballboards.net - where I looked up the rosters of those teams


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Something I haven't really seen anyone point out is that Williams moved from PG to SG at Duke. There's no rule that says he must play PG for the Bulls. Though he'd be undersized at SG.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know how old you are, but the Celtics have had two different rosters of championship teams (and maybe 3) with at least 5 stars/starters (they were so deep they traded a future star in Paul Westphal for a proven star Charlie Scott). The celtics featured bench players like Maravich and Walton.
> ...


well i some things to say about that 

it was a time when there were fewer teams in the league so there would be more stars to go around in that was also in a different time when players did the little things needed to make their team a winner whether they were star players or not 

mychal thompson & michael cooper were not stars and the bob macadoo was on his last legs no longer a star player ...they were role players 

the suns weren't all stars at that point in their career either(82-83)nance was in his 2nd year and good but not a star avg. about 16 and 7 or 8 and alvan adams was on the downside of his career as well

the 76ers didn't so well with their 6 stars (as if jones was still a star avg 7 pts a game in 20 min.) they won games in the reg. season but were such a disappointment in the playoffs after the 82-83 season they did one of the worse trades in nba history following that season moses malone for ruland (does a team that thinks their star system is working do this trade?) 

i'm old enough to know this much


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> since only fizer bagaric & hoilberg have been bulls as long as crawford it shouldn't really be that surprising to anyone that he may have the best knowledge of the offense


This is why Crawford has to be the starter this year. This is the reason that Crawford has to step up and play to all the hype he has gotten. You cant continually say well wait till next year for Crawford. IMHO this is Crawford's make or break season. The kid has had very limited organized ball experience. He needs to play in games like he has wowed MJ, coaches and teammates in practice and pickup games. If he doesnt JW has the confidence and ability to take his job away, which is another reason JW was drafted.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>WshflThinking</b>!
> 
> 
> This is why Crawford has to be the starter this year. This is the reason that Crawford has to step up and play to all the hype he has gotten. You cant continually say well wait till next year for Crawford. IMHO this is Crawford's make or break season. The kid has had very limited organized ball experience. He needs to play in games like he has wowed MJ, coaches and teammates in practice and pickup games. If he doesnt JW has the confidence and ability to take his job away, which is another reason JW was drafted.


for me its a reason why in my opinion he will start

but i would never say he HAS to start nobody has to do anything if Jay will hits the exibition season like wildfire and takes to the league like the superstar guard some predict him to be then he should start no question 

i dont think thats likely to happen . What I think is much more likely to happen is that jay will is confused and out of place in the offense like most if not all of the bulls rookies sans brand for the last decade and change and will play typical rookie defense but will do so with a lot of hustle and flair 

IMO crawford now gets it in the sense that he can lead on the floor and is starting to utilize his talents i saw proof of it last year and this year he should put it together moreso than any pure guard on the roster (for those who think that is muddled that means every guard that isn't robinson & rose ) 

i honestly dont think it will be the heated contest most are touting it to be unless williams turns out to be an unusally fast study of which i have seen no proof of at this point although he does seem to have a good work ethic


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> well i some things to say about that
> ...


OK, there were fewer teams. Teams that won had 5 stars and that's all that counts, since it was claimed that no team has won with 5 stars "in my lifetime."



> mychal thompson & michael cooper were not stars and the bob macadoo was on his last legs no longer a star player ...they were role players


Everyone on these boards would love it if just a few of our players had their stats and/or proven ability. As a part-time player, that over-the-hill Bob MacAoo outscored and outrebounded the following players from last year's bulls: Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford, Tyson Chandler, %c. In his prime he was a 30ppg/10+rpg player.



> the suns weren't all stars at that point in their career either(82-83)nance was in his 2nd year and good but not a star avg. about 16 and 7 or 8 and alvan adams was on the downside of his career as well


Adams played 6 more years - hardly the downside of his career. 16/7 for Nance are terrific numbers. All 5 starters were stars.



> the 76ers didn't so well with their 6 stars (as if jones was still a star avg 7 pts a game in 20 min.) they won games in the reg. season but were such a disappointment in the playoffs after the 82-83 season they did one of the worse trades in nba history following that season moses malone for ruland (does a team that thinks their star system is working do this trade?)


You are proving my point for me. That the sixers could win 65, 52, and 58 games with those stars proves you can have a winning team with a roster full of stars. That they lost in the playoffs to two other teams with 5 star players doesn't prove that you can only win with 2 stars and role players.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Alot of you Bulls fans are way too high on Crawford. What has he done so far? Nothing realy. Theres no way he will get half the minutes at point. Crawford will never be that good of an NBA player. Period.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> Alot of you Bulls fans are way too high on Crawford. What has he done so far? Nothing realy. Theres no way he will get half the minutes at point. Crawford will never be that good of an NBA player. Period.


Damn, good call. By the way, what are tonights lotto numbers? 

Seriously though. The kid has like 80 games under his belt, playing, prolly the hardest postition in the NBA. He played little to no college ball, I mean he practically came out of High School

To predict what his future holds is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay premature.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> for me its a reason why in my opinion he will start
> ...


I say he has to start because he knows the offense best, its simply best for the team. I say he deserves the opportunity to show what he can do. How long that opportunity is there is up to Crawford and how he performs. If he continues to perform the way he did the last of last season then JW will take the job away from him, sooner rather than later.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> OK, there were fewer teams. Teams that won had 5 stars and that's all that counts, since it was claimed that no team has won with 5 stars "in my lifetime."
> ...


well ok i did say "in my lifetime "(as in mine) well um i'm 26 so the 60's celtics and their multitude of stars dont really count for me do they ?

as far as alvan adams goes once being a star and still being a star are 2 totally different things and he avg 14.7 pts and 6.9 rebounds and was at least 3 years removed from his years as a star type player and producer in the 82-83 season another sun of today fits that discription perfectly as a player who was a star when he was younger but the light from the that star faded quicker than usual although he played for # of years afterward(penny hardaway)

and if you look back in my original post i did mention the trailblazers and their amount of stars as an example of what didn't count .reg. season wins but nothing but a dissappointing run in the playoffs soon there after

and as far as the 76ers go they went as far as the 1st round in one of these years and the conf. finals in the other (the 1st couple years didn't even have barkley on it he was drafted in june of 84 )but your star #s were off anyway so it really didn't matter

so i dont think i proved your point at all but this continued debate will prove mine more and more clearly


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> Alot of you Bulls fans are way too high on Crawford. What has he done so far? Nothing realy. Theres no way he will get half the minutes at point. Crawford will never be that good of an NBA player. Period.


Correct about "so far."

The bulls traded the #7 overall pick (Chris Mihm) for Crawford for a reason. That is counter to your statement that he will never be that good of an NBA player.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> well ok i did say "in my lifetime "(as in mine) well um i'm 26 so the 60's celtics and their multitude of stars dont really count for me do they ?


Well, I said twice and maybe 3 times, for the Celtics. At the very least, during the 80s, when you were alive, they featured Parrish, McHale, Bird, Ainge, and Dennis Johnson. Not to mention guys like Walton, Maravich, Cornbread Maxwell and Scott Wedman. They had Nate Archibald (a 30ppg/15+apg player), too, but that was not in your lifetime.



> as far as alvan adams goes once being a star and still being a star are 2 totally different things and he avg 14.7 pts and 6.9 rebounds and was at least 3 years removed from his years as a star type player and producer in the 82-83 season another sun of today fits that discription perfectly as a player who was a star when he was younger but the light from the that star faded quicker than usual although he played for # of years afterward(penny hardaway)


It is not surprising that an Alvan Adams will lose 3 PPG in his stats and some rebounds when the team has big rebounders like Truck Robinson, Nance and Maurice Lucas, and all the rest of the scorers on the team. He was in no way anything like Penny Hardaway, who hasn't overcome a serious injury.



> and if you look back in my original post i did mention the trailblazers and their amount of stars as an example of what didn't count .reg. season wins but nothing but a dissappointing run in the playoffs soon there after


What's more realistic is the Blazers are a team with a lot of veterans who are past their prime.



> and as far as the 76ers go they went as far as the 1st round in one of these years and the conf. finals in the other (the 1st couple years didn't even have barkley on it he was drafted in june of 84 )but your star #s were off anyway so it really didn't matter


What the 76ers actually did is:

Lose to Lakers in NBA finals, 1982
Defeated Lakers in NBA finals, 1983
Lost in first round in 1984
Lost to Celtics in NBA East Conference Finals in 1985

The teams they lost to, and defeated, all had 5 stars.



> so i dont think i proved your point at all but this continued debate will prove mine more and more clearly


Clearly, I think not  However, if you can define away what a star is, then you can say "the bulls had no stars when they won their championships, because Jordan was past his prime." Now that's my silly example, but I hope it makes the point...

In fact, every NBA champion in the 1980s had 5 stars.

1980 Lakers (Kareem, Wilkes, Magic, Nixon, Haywood, Cooper)
1981 Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parrish, Maxwell, Archibald)
1982 Lakers (Kareem, Wilkes, Magic, Nixon, McAdoo, Cooper)
1983 76ers (Malone, Dr. J, Toney, Cheeks, Jones)
1984 Celtics (Bird, Parrish, McHale, Maxwell, DJ)
1985 Lakers (Kareem, Magic, Worthy, Scotte, McAdoo, Cooper)
1986 Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parrish, Ainge, DJ, Walton, Wedman)
1987 Lakers (Magic, Worthy, Kareem, Scott, Cooper, Thompson)
1988 Lakers (Scott, Worthy, Kareem, Magic, Thompson, Cooper)
1989 Pistons (Dantley, Thomas, Dumars, Aguirre, Vinnie, Laimbeer, Rodman)

*Dantly was traded for Aguirre mid-season.


You have a tough case to make that a team with 5+ stars that wins 55 games in the regular season and loses in the playoffs to another team with 5+ stars was some sort of failure.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, I said twice and maybe 3 times, for the Celtics. At the very least, during the 80s, when you were alive, they featured Parrish, McHale, Bird, Ainge, and Dennis Johnson. Not to mention guys like Walton, Maravich, Cornbread Maxwell and Scott Wedman. They had Nate Archibald (a 30ppg/15+apg player), too, but that was not in your lifetime.
> ...


you and i clearly have different views on what makes a star basketball player 

michael cooper was not a star no matter how many times you try to say he is he wasn't 

he was a defensive player who was counted on to hit a timely shot no more of a star than mario elie on the spurs squad that won a title or robert horry on the lakers of today who fullfill the same level of importance for their squads they are well known by basketball fans but they are not star players and there is a difference 

now i'm not going to go through every title team from the 80's and point who isn't a star anymore i'll just use your MJ point to prove it to you even last year Mj was the guy on the wizards the guy they looked to when they needed a basket and the guy the other team focused on even at 38 or 39 MJ is still a star player 

on your list of players there were players who didn't follow that criteria anymore because their games couldn't back it up if it ever could (cooper, jones , archibald wedman to name some but not all the pretenders from your list)

my point is simple at some juncture i'm just going to have to assume you are being difficult just for the fun of it


----------



## Vdog (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> well from what i've been hearing JC was killing williams in scrimmages . As long as he does that its going to be hard to convince JC williams is the better player ...as well as the bulls coaching staff.


happygrinch, where did you hear this?

i was one of those williams supporters who thought he was going to tear up the league as a rookie. but your point about new guards getting lost in the triangle is a good one. as far as whether williams is a quick study, i read some quotes (don't remember from where) from some of the NBA players at the recent WC that said that williams is very coachable, asks lots of questions, and things of that nature. so i think you don't have to worry about him wasting his talents (players like baron davis complimented him in the press on his talent, too...specifically, i believe, his scoring ability, among other things.)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> you and i clearly have different views on what makes a star basketball player



Clearly.




> michael cooper was not a star no matter how many times you try to say he is he wasn't
> 
> he was a defensive player who was counted on to hit a timely shot no more of a star than mario elie on the spurs squad that won a title or robert horry on the lakers of today who fullfill the same level of importance for their squads they are well known by basketball fans but they are not star players and there is a difference


Apparently you didn't see him play, or hear the announcers at the time talk about him. Your criterea for what makes a player great is clearly undefined at this point. Cooper appeared in 168 playoff games, beat out both Jordan and Pippen for defensive player of the year award, was 1st or 2nd team All-NBA defensive team every season he played, and he and Magic are the only two players on the Lakers to appear in all 5 of their championship teams in the 1980s. He averaged 30 minutes per game, too.





> now i'm not going to go through every title team from the 80's and point who isn't a star anymore i'll just use your MJ point to prove it to you even last year Mj was the guy on the wizards the guy they looked to when they needed a basket and the guy the other team focused on even at 38 or 39 MJ is still a star player


Here you attempt to spell out your criteria for what makes a player a star. I would call guys like Bill Russell and even Dennis Rodman stars, even though they were never THE go-to guy in the clutch when you need points.





> on your list of players there were players who didn't follow that criteria anymore because their games couldn't back it up if it ever could (cooper, jones , archibald wedman to name some but not all the pretenders from your list)


Both Archibald and Wedman were NBA starters for two different teams. They went from an also-ran team to start and play for teams that won 60+ games on more than one occaision. Maybe you don't think Norm Nixon was a star, but what can you say about a guy who could average 18 PPG and 8 APG on the same team as Magic? You call a career (13 seasons) 18.8PPG/7.4APG player a "pretender?" 

I suppose you would call Ron Harper one of those pretenders. Perhaps you were too young to remember him as the scoring machine he was. Eight seasons of near 20ppg (some over), and 21ppg the very year before he joined the Bulls. Then 6.7ppg. You think he just stopped knowing how to score? Or is it more likely that he is such a skilled player that he modified his game to fit the team's needs at the expense of padding his stats? I say the latter - and his defense was outstanding, as we all know. He played quality minutes for two different NBA championship franchises.




> my point is simple at some juncture i'm just going to have to assume you are being difficult just for the fun of it


I'd suggest the Bulls last championship team had 5 stars: Jordan, Pippen, Harper, Rodman, and Kukoc. Go figure. 

And I'm not being difficult, I merely think your observation about how well star caliber players can play together and win championships is not accurate. You mentioned the Blazers' woes and pointed to them as a team with 5 stars... Well, those teams I mentioned who fared much better had superior talent to the Blazers...

But when you do have a roster full of star talent, there isn't enough ball to go around; if you have guys like Alvan Adams or Michael Cooper or Harper who will sacrifice their stats for winning games, you might perceive that they're somehow no longer stars... In spite of not enough ball to go around, many of those teams I mentioned had 5 or 6 players averaging in double figures, as have the Blazers. My view is the Blazers' players aren't making the sacrifices that are needed to make them a winning team (and they're probably getting too old).

In the Bulls' case, they don't have 5 stars now. They may have 5 players who they feel can develop into stars. It remains to be seen if even one becomes one, and I think it will be very difficult to develop all 5 at the same time into stars. We may see a guy like Chandler - as highly touted a pick as Cooper was - never have mind boggling stats, but he may very well develop his full potential and be the kind of player that helps his team win.

Regards...


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> If Jason Williams doesn't get 30mpg, I will shave my entire body and run nude around the ISU campus.


I recommend body waxing - it gives you a greater sheen and it lasts longer + it does not itch as much on the regrowth


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Here you attempt to spell out your criteria for what makes a player a star. I would call guys like Bill Russell and even Dennis Rodman stars, even though they were never THE go-to guy in the clutch when you need points.
> ...


 

I'm going to stay out of what I would hope would be your intelligent discussion of how many stars a team has.

What got me up to post is your putting Rodman and Russell in the same sentence.

Back when players selected the MVP, Russell was voted MVP 5 times.

He was All-NBA 12 times, only missing his rookie year, when he played in the Olympics in Australia until December.

Besides his 11 championships, he could score, on the pick and roll or alley oop, even though he was Boston's 4th or 5th option. He did score 51 points once. Over 40 a couple of times.

And in 1969, Russell's last season, against Willis Reed of the Knicks (one year before Willis was voted MVP by the Players), he had playoff games of like 25, 27 and 23 points. And the Knicks couldn't even defend their home court in three tries. But the next year, the very same Knick team won the championship, with Russell and the great Sam Jones having retired and no longer standing in the way.

His career average of 15.1 pts. on 44% from the field, plus 22 rebounds per game, plus 4 assists may not seem like a lot of points; but *when you realize that he was never higher than the 4th option,* it sure is a lot of points. Especially with what he brought with it.

That statement of yours is sad.

By the way, Russell's playoff average in 1968 and 1969, his last two seasons, although less than earlier in his career, matched his career average of 15, 22 and 4. His liftetime playoff average was higher, though. I believe just over 18 ppg.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I didn't mean to imply that Russell and Rodman were equivalent players, merely that you cannot define stardom by if they were the offensive focus of the team. They were BOTH star players.

Rodman's Career Highlights:

1) Led the nation in scoring in college (averaged 25.7ppg, 15.7rpg from 1983-84 through 1985-86)

2) The best rebounding forward in NBA history. He led the league in rebounding for seven straight seasons. Only Wilt led the league more times (11).

3) Was runner up for defensive player of the year and sixth man in his second NBA season

4) Won both those awards his third NBA season, and was an all-star

5) With Rodman as a starter for the last 43 games, Detroit went 39-4 in its second championship run.

6) He's been a key player on five NBA championship teams for two franchises

7) NBA Defensive Player of the Year twice, beating out both Jordan and Pippen

8) Named to the NBA All-Defensive First Team seven times 

9) In 1991-92 he averaged 18.7 RPG, the highest total since Wilt's 19.2 in the 1970-71 season.

10) Career shooting/FG pct. is .530


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*what is a star?*

i'll make it real simple a star is a standout player one who is among the top players at his position in a league of 29 teams i'll give you a round # a top 10 player at his position is a star due to their impact on the league by their performance in a 15 team league i wold probably make it top 5 a their position


Jalen Rose = star 

trent hassell =not a star

and to put in perspective of your 80's title teams list 

abdul jabbar circa 1982 = star 

abdul-jabbar in 1988 = not a star 

micheal cooper(his entire career) = never a star

one mo' time (condensed version) impact defines stardom

if that doesn't make it clearer there isn't much i can do for you


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: what is a star?*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> i'll make it real simple a star is a standout player one who is among the top players at his position in a league of 29 teams i'll give you a round # a top 10 player at his position is a star due to their impact on the league by their performance in a 15 team league i wold probably make it top 5 a their position


I would reject your definition because it is oblivious to the talent. You can have 29 teams full of Mike Smereks and there just isn't much talent or any stars. You can have 15 teams full of Wilts and every player would be a star. I wonder how your definition would fit if we were to choose who are the star centers in the Eastern Conference right now (I'd say maybe Mutumbo and Mourning are stars, though it doesn't look like Mourning will play again).

FWIW, people we've mentioned that are on the top 50 players of all time list:

Kareem, Archibald, Barkley, Bird, Wilt, Dr. J, Jordan, Magic, Malone, Maravich, McHale, Parrish, Pippen, Russell, Walton, and Worthy.

Kareem, Magic, and Worthy were on the champion Laker teams from the 80s.

Archibald, Bird, Maravich, McHale, Parrish, and Walton were on the champion Celtics teams.

Barkley, Malone, and Dr. J were teammates on the 76ers teams we mentioned.

I'm having fun with this, and I'm not meaning to be argumentative. Here's a review of some of those teams.

1979-80 Lakers. Five players averaged in double figures. Kareem, Wlikes, Johnson, and Nixon (top four players) averaged 17.6 PPG. The team also featured a veteran star in Spencer Haywood (career 19.2PPG/9.3RPG). Team went 60-22.

1981-82 Lakers. Same four players averaged at least 17.4 PPG. Cooper added another 10.1PPG, and McAdoo 9.9PPG. 57 wins, 25 losses.

1982-83 Lakers. SIX players averaged 13.4PPG or more; the above four plus McAdoo and Worthy (Worthy was low man at 13.4, the others averaged over 15PPG each). 58 wins, 24 losses.

1983-84 Lakers. Six players again in double figures. The whole team shot .532 from the field. 54-28 record.

1984-85 Lakers. Again six players in double figures. The team shot .545 from the field. 62-20 record.

1985-86 Lakers. Get a load of this roster. Kareem, Worthy, Magic, Scott, Maurice Lucas. All scored in double figures. Lucas contributed 7.4RPG in only 22 minutes. McAdoo is no longer on the team, having been one of their double-digit scorers for the past three seasons. 62-20 record.

1986-87 Lakers. SEVEN players in double figures, though new acquiree Mychal Thompson (1st pick in the 1st round of his draft) was injured and played only 33 games. 65-17 record.

1987-88 Lakers. Six players in double figures. Kareem splits time with Thompson; Kareem scores 14.6PPG, Thompson 11.1. Byron Scott leads the team in scoring. 62-20 record.

1988-89 Lakers. Five players in double figures: Magic, Worthy, Scott, Green, Kareem; ex-bull Orlando Woolridge, and Michael Thompson contributed 9+ PPG each. 57 wins, 25 losses.

1979-80 Celtics. Eight players in double figures, including Maravich's 11.1 in just 26 games. The rest were \Bird, Maxwell, Cowens, Archibald, Robey, Ford and Carr providing the double-digit scoring. The pretender, Archibald, played 35.8 minutes per game (80 games), averaged 14.1 PPG and 8.4 APG. 61 victories, 21 losses.

1980-81 Celtics. The team featured Bird, Parish and McHale for the first time, though Maxwell got the minutes at PF. Along with Archibald, those four averaged double figures in scoring. Archibald again played 35min/game for 80 games, scoring 13.8 PPG with 7.7APG. 62 wins, 20 losses.

1981-82 Celtics. Six players in double figures, including Archibald's 12.6 and 8APG. The team has signed former Toronto Blue Jays washout Danny Ainge, and he plays his way into shape with the team. 63 wins, 19 losses.

1982-83 Celtics. Give players in double figures, with Ainge coming in at 9.9. Ainge is getting Archibald's minutes, though Nate still manages 10.5PPG and 6.2APG in 27 minutes. 56-26 record.

1983-84 Celtics. Bird (24.2), Parrish (19.0), and McHale (18.4) led six players in double figure scoring. Dennis Johnson is now the point guard, and Archibald is gone. DJ pitches in his 13.4PPG, and is regarded as the top defensive guard in the NBA of his time, next to Cooper. 62 wins, 20 losses.

1984-85 Celtics. The starting five of Bird, Parrish, McHale, Johnson, and Ainge average double figures (Ainge was the low man with 12.9PPG). DJ is the only one of the give to shoot under .500 from the field. Maxwell scores 11.1PPG for icing on the cake. 63-19 record.


1985-86 Celtics. Again the starting five scores double digits. The top four (minus Ainge) average 15PPG or better. Wedman steps up to replace Maxwell and contributes 8PPG in under 20 minutes per. Bill Walton joins the team and plays in 80 of 82 games, scoring 7.6PPG and averaging 6.8RPG in 19 minutes as Parish's backup. 67 wins, 15 losses.

1986-86 Celtics. Injuries hant the club as both Wedman and Walton fall. The starting five averages double figures, with Bird leading the way with 28.1PPG and McHale contributing 26.1. Because of its five stars, the team still manages to win 59 and lose 23 with key reserves being Jerry Sichting and Fred Roberts.

1987-88 Celtics. Again 5 starters with 12.6PPG or better. The only noteworthy subs are an aging Artis Gilmore and a young Reggie Lewis. The team "slips" to 57-25.

1979-80 76ers. Five full-time players in double figures, including Erving, Dawkins, Bobby Jones, Mix, and Cheeks. Henry Bibby and Caldwell Jones round out a DEEP squad. 59-23 record.

1980-81 76ers. Again five players in double figures, with guards Hollins and Cheeks adding 9.5 and 9.4. This team had just 4 "stars." 62-20 record.

1981-82 76ers. Erving leads six players in double figures. 58-24.

1982-83 76ers. Moses Malone joins the team and is one of three players with 19.7 PPG or more. Malone averaged 24.5PPG, 15.3RPG, and near 2blk/game. This team had 5 legitimate stars, and went 65-17.

1983-84 76ers. Three 20PPG scorers, again led by Malone. The team is experimenting with the "hustle" player, Iavaroni, to break up the 5-star chemistry thing. The lakers emulate this with Kurt Rambis, btw. The team slips to only 52-30 and gets to draft Sir Charles.

1984-85 76ers. Malone, Erving, Toney, Barkley, and Cheeks average at least 13PPG or more. Cheeks shoots a blistering 57% from the field (amazing for a point guard). 58 wins, 24 losses.

1985-86 76ers. Malone, Barkley, Erving, and Cheeks average 15.4PPG or more. Malone and Barkley 20PPG+. Sedale Threatt replaces injured star Andrew Toney and adds 9.9PPG.

For comparison, I give you:

1995-96 Chicago Bulls. Jordan 30.4, Pippen 19.4, Kukoc 13.1. 72 wins, 10 losses.

1996-97 Bulls. Jordan 29.6, Pippen 20.2, Kukoc 13.2.

AND

2001-2002 Kings. SEVEN players in double figures. 61-21 record.

2001-2002 Mavericks. 5 bonafide stars: Nowitzki, Finley, Nash, Van Exel, and Howard. The first three averaged 17.9PPG or better. 57 wins, 25 losses.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

talent is talent every player in the nba is talented or they wouldn't be there 

and maybe a player like brad miller 20 years ago wouldn't be a star but then again maybe he would 

times change and the league changes with it 

a lot of players who are power forwards today would have been centers 20 years ago (duncan for one ) some players today wouldn't cut it then due to lack of fundamentals and some players from then coundn't cut it now due to a lack in athletic ability or some other pyhsical problem like lack of height

how does bill russell fare in a league where there are 2 guards as big as he is and small forwards that dwarf him ?

its all speculation when you talk about a time that isn't now 

but the bottom line is if are the 25th best player at your position no matter how good you are chances are the other team has a better option so in that league you aren't a star

like i said its about the impact your play has on the game and that is why a player like micheal cooper was never a star because if he were on lets say the bullets in the 80's he would be no more thought of than bruce bowen 

and btw bringing up scoring #s have little impact the nba was much higher scoring back so even you would have to admit the #s are inflated when compared to todays nba t(even dennis rodman avg. double figures in the 80s and he wasn't even trying to score)

and I'm having fun remember i'm a happy grinch


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

Hi Grinch:

Interesting discussion that you and DBullz have gotten into.

To frame this discussion, could you identify when you started watching NBA games?

Same for DBullz??

I remember vividly from the 1967-68 season, when I was 11 years old. Game of the week and local broadcasts (when local was free), and of course the playoffs. The games I saw before that season I don't remember that well. That would be 5 or 6 years earlier, but again, I don't remember well prior to '67-68.

Part of my intrigue is your reference to heights.

The fact is, most players today bump their height, on average, two inches.

Jordan has an Olympic height of 6 3 3/4", but is listed at 6' 6".

Pippen has an Olympic height of 6' 5 1/2", and is listed at 6' 7".

Patrick Ewing, who towers over everyone, has been listed at various times in his career between 7' 0" and 7' 2". *Yet, Ewing's Olympic height is 6' 10". That's right, 6' 10".* 

Rodman is 6' 6 1/2 ".

The point. Most players heights today are exagerated. Like Jay Williams bumping himself from 6' 1/4" to 6' 2".

In the old days, I'd say every player *rounded down,* and some even more than the next lower whole number, because in the sixties, someone did not want to seem like a gawk.

I have often suspected that this is why you get so many funky camera angles in the huddles nowadays, as opposed to the level views you'd get 30 years ago where every player's relationship to one another and the coaching staff was clearly visible.

I also suspect, unlike some sports, like baseball, where you get to see oldtimers and the current players side by side, that this has not happened in the NBA. It would expose some of the current height fabrications.

Ever wonder why in his last 10 years you never saw Wilt Chamberlain at at NBA game side by side, on camera, with the players? Because at 7' 1 3/8" barefoot, it would have changed a lot of people's images of current players. I have a picture of Michael Jordan and Bill Russell, who was an even 6' 10", standing side by side in what appear to be the same type of shoes. Russell appears over 6" taller than Mike in the photo. 

But Russell was lightning compared to today's players. Next to Russell, Alonzo Mourning in his prime would still look like he was in slow motion.

Here are the "barefoot" heights of the '67 NBA champion 76'ers five key players. 

C Wilt Chamberlain 7' 1 3/8" (4 time MVP)
PF Luke Jackson 6' 10" (a #5 pick who disappointed)
SF Chet Walker 6' 6 1/2" (Many time All-star & better than Pippen)
SF/SG Billy Cunningham 6'7" (Many time All-star, 27 ppg one year)
PG Hal Greer 6' 3" 1968 All-Star Game MVP

I'd take them over today's Lakers.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> a lot of players who are power forwards today would have been centers 20 years ago (duncan for one ) some players today wouldn't cut it then due to lack of fundamentals and some players from then coundn't cut it now due to a lack in athletic ability or some other pyhsical problem like lack of height


If you look at the historical data, you might find that the NBA has always had odd-sized players playing at the various positions. Dave Cowens was a 6'9" center. Wes Unseld was 6'6" and was a rebounding machine at center. Guys like Garfield Heard and Truck Robinson were smalllish guys who dominated the glass as power forwards.



> how does bill russell fare in a league where there are 2 guards as big as he is and small forwards that dwarf him ?
> 
> its all speculation when you talk about a time that isn't now


I think if you look at the history of offense/defense rules in the NBA, you'll find that Russell did what he did (rebound, defense, score) in spite of rules that allowed defenses to liberally double, triple, quadruple, or quintuple team him. Though, Wilt destroyed him in head-to-head matchups; I think you might get some idea from these kinds of things.



> but the bottom line is if are the 25th best player at your position no matter how good you are chances are the other team has a better option so in that league you aren't a star
> 
> like i said its about the impact your play has on the game and that is why a player like micheal cooper was never a star because if he were on lets say the bullets in the 80's he would be no more thought of than bruce bowen


You haven't demonstrated that any of the players I mentioned are the 25th best player at their position. I do not believe you can, but feel free to try  Where I think your view of "star" falls down:

You could theoretically make a team with the following lineup: Kobe, Shaq, Iverson, Duncan, and Pierce, with guys like 
TMac, Walker, and Garnett on the bench. I hope you agree they're all stars... In any case, the team will have maybe 3 20ppg scorers and some in double figures. At some point, you'd just look at the stats and say "Garnett isn't a star because he only scored 13ppg" while I would say they're ALL stars, and their stats reflect the depth and quality of the team.

As for the Bullets of the 80s, I say Cooper would have started over Franklin Edwards for sure, and he would have started on 8 of those Bullets teams in those 10 years. If I were to speculate, I'd say that Cooper's stats do not show his overall skills, because he played as 6th man on a team where the scoring roles were assigned to other stars; that he fit his game to the needs of the system he played in and the teammates he played with is no reason to deny his talent. As for impact (how subjective can you be?) he was the most dominant defensive player of his era, and averaged 30+ min/game for a team that won 5 NBA championships - I'd call that impact. There were players who were 6th man on teams that would easily have started for their own team and certainly for many (if not all) the others. Havlicek and McHale are two obvious ones. Cooper is just as obvious - to me.



> and btw bringing up scoring #s have little impact the nba was much higher scoring back so even you would have to admit the #s are inflated when compared to todays nba t(even dennis rodman avg. double figures in the 80s and he wasn't even trying to score)


Rodman was trying to score, but that's a whole separate thread, I think 

While it's true that overall the league has scored less in the 90s than in the 80s, it underscores the fact that so few teams have so many stars on them - as they used to. 

Though when you do a comparison, say, of last year's Mavericks or Kings with the championship Bulls or Pistons teams, they all scored about 105PPG as a team.




> and I'm having fun remember i'm a happy grinch


I hope we keep it that way 

FWIW, a lot of knowledgable basketball fans I know think that Jordan's scoring numbers were distorted by the dilution of talent the league demonstrably suffered.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jammer</b>!
> 
> Jordan has an Olympic height of 6 3/4", but is listed at 6'6".


WOW, excellent post Jammer! 

Just one quick question... is that actually a 6 foot 3/4" for Jordan or is that a typo?

I 100% agree about the height "stretching" (pun intended). It's a bit silly if you ask me....


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

Jim Ian.

It is a typo.

I apologize.

Thank you for pointing out.

Jordan's Olympic Height is 6' 3 3/4".

I edited the previous post to correct this.

Thanks again for your kind manner of pointing this out.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jammer</b>!
> Jim Ian.
> 
> It is a typo.
> ...


No prob. That post was excellent, I just passed that and thought, good god! That must be wrong!

Glad I caught it before someone tore you a new one!  

:rbanana:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jammer</b>!
> Hi Grinch:
> 
> Interesting discussion that you and DBullz have gotten into.
> ...


Excellent post. I started watching the NBA in the 60s, myself. I was treated ad nauseum to Lakers/Celtics throughout the 80s on the nationally televised game, and I remember practically screaming at the TV about how the refs let both teams get away with playing a blatant zone defense (that's the only way the teams could hide the defensive deficiencies of Magic and Bird).


I remember Kareem as a youngster being very conscious of his height. He always walked with a stoop, and the saying was "you can't get Kareem to stand up straight next to a tape measure." You may have heard the same thing, though slightly differently.

As far as today's lakers, I think the Showtime Lakers would soundly defeat the current team. After all, you'd have the Kareem/Shaq matchup and Cooper would shut down Kobe. After that, it'd be guys like Magic, Scott and Worthy lighting up the rest of the current Lakers' role players.

While you point to a team full of stars, the old Philly team, they're a bit too far removed (dated) for the current argument. I believe... A terrific team, though, and one of the all-time greatest teams ever.

As I perceive it, the decline in scoring in the NBA has resulted from a number of factors. The dilution of talent has made it less possible for a coach to throw 5 great players on the court and just let them play. The Bulls demonstrated that you can have great team defense stats by playing out the 24-second clock just about every time - results in less shots. And the Bulls demonstrated they could win championships by having less fundamentally strong players that were highly specialized at certain aspects of the game, and the coach (PJ) was a master at using his entire roster; and the rest of the league emulates what works.

Judging from the scores of the All-Star games, it is clear that if you have a roster full of stars and don't play a defensive strategy with the shot clock, the scoring is through the roof.

Regards.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

hello all 

i'm still going to go by my original statements that players are bigger now 

in the 60's there was wilt who 7'1 and change but i'm willing to bet there weren't 5 other legitament 7 footers in the whole decade 

i doubt you could say the same about the 90's or now

wilt never had to look up at a player his entire career the closest he ever came to that was abdul-jabbar

if he played now he would have at least 2 players next season 3 inches or more taller than him and over the last 5 or 6 years you could add people like manute bol rik smits muresan illgaustas and the odd player who occasionlly could pop up like priest lauterdale who are taller than him no matter whether you measured with their shoes on or off

i started watching the nba in the mid 80's(and i got espn classic) and its changed so much since then 

can you see 6'5 adrian dantley posting up kevin garnett an other 6'10 plus small forwards and being successful enough to avg. 30? i doubt you can

i dont think russell was faster than todays faster players, humans get faster every year as evidenced by the 100 meter dash record getting broken a couple of weeks ago and while he was a lot faster than the players in the post of his era i dont think the same would be true today 

every sport improves over time due to things such as better techniques and training 


and i would take todays lakers over yesteryears 76ers because of it


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

Happy Grinch:

A curteous reply. Thank you.

Mid-Eighties, you say. I expected as much.

Ignorance is Bliss.

Have a pleasant day. Looking forward to your future posts.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

in responce to to dabulz stats are relatively unimportant i just use them to show importance to the teams in question

like i said your impact on a game is important and alot of the players you mentioned were on the downside of their career not just because they were old but in some cases they had been traded after sub par years and really weren't stars anymore macadoo ,wedman to name a couple and were brought in to fill in roles that they handled well but if they had been given a team of their own to be the best or 2nd best player they would have fared very poorly as would their team

and to jammer insinuating i am ignorant due to the fact i believe to the progress of the modern athlete or because i dont use some ancient #s system to determine good play (which by the way favors offensive over well rounded players and really spits on defensive players as it lacks stats such as deflections and intimidations) i find to be a little cheap and well for a lack of a better word, ignorant 

anyone can read a box score without even watching a game and devise a little system but that kind of system could never be comprehensive enough to judge a players worth on a basketball court better than the human eye and his judgement.


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> anyone can read a box score without even watching a game and devise a little system but that kind of system could never be comprehensive enough to judge a players worth on a basketball court better than the human eye and his judgement.



True.

The numbers system that you refer to is imperfect, and flawed, but more informative than simply looking at a box score column or row like points, because it factors in misses and turnovers and rebounds, among other things.

But you contradict yourself.

You make statements about players that you haven't seen play that are false (heights of players). Most players today are listed 2 inches over their actual height, nearly every player in the sixties was listed less than their actual height, some by more than an inch.

You dismiss DaBullz reference to fewer teams, and stars. If we use All-Stars and first or second team ALL-NBA (one of the ten best players in the league) as a gauge, no teams today have more than 3 recent All-stars in their lineup. Their was a time teams had four, even five recent All-NBA players as starters, and frequently three current All-NBA players as starters.

You make many intelligent comments. Sometimes, when commenting on areas that in my opinion that you are not familiar, instead of taking offense when such is courteously highlighted by a fellow member, and responding with an insult, as you did, you might try sticking to what you do know. Because in this case, you are wrong. 

You said " but that kind of system could never be comprehensive enough to judge a players worth on a basketball court better than the human eye and his judgement."

Well, in my judgement, from watching these teams play probably fifteen times each per season, there are MANY teams from the past that would give today's Lakers a thomping. Besides the obvious Showtime Lakers or mid-Eighties Celtics; the '71 Bucks; '67 76'ers; sixties Celtics. 

I do not intend to return to this thread.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> in responce to to dabulz stats are relatively unimportant i just use them to show importance to the teams in question
> 
> like i said your impact on a game is important and alot of the players you mentioned were on the downside of their career not just because they were old but in some cases they had been traded after sub par years and really weren't stars anymore macadoo ,wedman to name a couple and were brought in to fill in roles that they handled well but if they had been given a team of their own to be the best or 2nd best player they would have fared very poorly as would their team


Well, you mentioned Jordan and the Wizards. He's clearly on the downside of his career, yet he's clearly still a star.

The stats are a mathematical measure of a player or team's impact on the game. They are averages and do not reflect a player's performance. Wilt averaged 50.4PPG and scored 100 points in one game - that's 50 points over his scoring average. If you look at Jason Kidd's stats from last year, you might not find them that impressive, but when you see that he led his team in scoring with 30+points on numerous occaisions, it paints a different picture.

What the 70s and 80s proved is that the league intentionally skewed the talent towards a few top teams. In the 70s, the ABA and NBA merged, and magically the 76ers ended up with Erving and McGinnis, arguably the best SF/PF combination the ABA could field. The ability of the Celtics and Lakers to supplement their roster with guys like Walton, Maravich, and Wedman and the Lakers ability to get guys like Thompson and McAdoo should be a clue.



> and to jammer insinuating i am ignorant due to the fact i believe to the progress of the modern athlete or because i dont use some ancient #s system to determine good play (which by the way favors offensive over well rounded players and really spits on defensive players as it lacks stats such as deflections and intimidations) i find to be a little cheap and well for a lack of a better word, ignorant


I don't think he meant anything personal by it. It's just that by 1986, he and I were sophisticated consumers of the professional game, and you were something of a newbie. Think about it - what does Jammer gain by insulting you? Rather, he made an observation, and I hope it's left at that.



> anyone can read a box score without even watching a game and devise a little system but that kind of system could never be comprehensive enough to judge a players worth on a basketball court better than the human eye and his judgement.


You're on to something here. When we're talking about a Nate Archibald, I AM using my human eye and judgement, and that eye and judgement has seen pro basketball played in 5 different decades  I remember when everyone was gaga over this 6'9" white guy from French Lick/Indiana State who could rebound like a PF and shoot like an SG. I remember watching him in college and waiting for the Bulls to hopefully get to draft him.

I have the "advantage" of seeing all five players from the Indiana championship team going to the NBA. Of seeing one of the most highly touted players in college history, Scott May, drafted by the Bulls with the #1 pick in the 1st round and get injured. I remember a Bulls team that was huge in its day: 6'7" Bobby Wilkerson and Reggie Theus, 7'2" Artis Gilmore, 6'10" David Greenwood, and 6'10" Larry Kenon. Or that Bobby Wilkerson did the jump ball for that Indiana team instead of their center, Kent Benson.

As an aside, I was a fanatic player in high school. When the Bulls played the GS Warriors in the playoffis in 1976, the Warriors practiced in my high school gym, and we all went to watch. What I remember most is Rick Barry wearing a long racoon or mink coat and he went off in the corner and shot free throws the whole time. And I remember Clifford Ray (a terrific and underrated player in his own right) missing dunk after dunk on the fast break in the weave drills.

I spent most of my summers, vacations, and after-school time playing schoolyard ball by DePaul University. One day, these four really tall guys showed up and my friend and I joined them for a 3-on-3 game. Those guys were Dave Corzine, Scott May, Artis Gilmore, and Flynn Robinson. I can tell you one thing... Robinson must have been about 50 years old, but he could still shoot. He must have hit 30 in a row from the bleachers (this was one of the rare times my friend and I snuck into the gym to play).

As long as I'm on a roll... I often ran into Revie Sorie (sorry if I misspelled it) at the playground. He was offensive lineman for the Chicago Bears, and one of Walter Payton's better blockers. He was always there with a bunch of kids from the United Way, and he'd have the kids sit by the edge of the court while he played. He was about 6'1" and 350 pounds (it seems, he was HUGE). He could dunk. And when he did, nobody dared take the charge. If you know what I mean.

Peace!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i dont want to be too hard on you guys but there is this thing called video tape.

its wonderful !!!!

you can watch something and record it and later others can watch it 

now seriously do you think i've never seen a game played be4 1985?well i've hundreds of games pre dating my 1st actually "watched" game. and it changes nothing my views aren't on some pie in the sky hopes its on cold hard facts 

players are bigger now they are taller bulkier they run faster and they jump higher there are more people playing the game so there are more to choose fromas opposed to before and training methods are better physically and skill wise

according to jammer heights are flipped flopped to benefit the myth of players getting taller and because the "tall"players then didn't want to be known as so tall but the tallest one of them all from then was quite proud of his height(wilt)

and i know for a fact the tallest player from the 70's height was inflated(artis gilmore, whom i've seen listed at 7'4 when he wasn't )

so please stop with inane chatter on wild theorys of how they were "placed "dr. j was bought by the 76ers because the nets couldn't pay the entry fee there was no grand conspiracy

wedman the year before he was on the celts avg. a shade under 11 points on a bad cavs team so i dont really think he was a star anymore

and nate was not that 30 and 10 player he was for k.c. he put up an 11 point a game and 4.7 assist year BEFORE Bird mchale and parish when they were a 29 win team and not exactly filled to the brim in talent if he were still a star i think he could have done more (and thats why i labeled him a pretender)

walton was an injury case whom no one thought could make it through a season at that point in his career he was a risk that paid off for one year

lets be honest was it really that hard to be 1st or 2nd team in the nba in the 60's

when the decade started the league had 8 teams and the # didn't reach 10 til the 66-67 season(the bulls were added)it sounds more impressive today because there are 29 teams(in todays terms its like being on the all central division team)

and gentlemen if age really meant knowledge every front office person in the nba would be retirement age 

it really is a foolish argument to try and win on that basis and I personally find it pretty cowardly to make condesending comments and then leave as if that is all that can be said.

later


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Again, the data has a story to tell.

How about the fact that Archibald was seriously injured the year before that 29 win year for the celtics? Or that he was plaing his way back into shape and only played about 20 min/game for that season? Perhaps the fact that the team was decimated by injuries to its star players had a little to do with their victory total: Cowens out 14 games, Knight out 40, White out 35 games, Robey out 46 games, plus Havlicek and Charlie Scott retired.

The following season, when they went from worst to first, archibald played full-time.

It isn't just the video tape, dude. It's reading the box scores and recaps in the newspapers of every game played the previous night. Watching the equivalent of SportsCenter (i.e. the nightly news) and seeing the pre- and post-game shows for those games that were on TV. It was watching the guys in college before they were drafted, and watching the news about the draft before, during, and after. It was the glorious pictures and stories in Sports Illustrated and the details in the Sporting News. And going to the games in person.

As for Dr. J., you shouldn't believe what you read. Half the WWW sites I looked at say he was in a salary dispute and got sold for $3M and the other half say it was about the league entry fee and he was sold for $6M. Neither story is true. What really happened is about politics. 

The ABA and NBA had a nasty competition going... the ABA was flashy and the NBA was stodgy. The ABA pretty much invented the game we watch today - alley oops, dunks, the flashy passing, etc. And the ABA signed many college stars to big contracts (stole them from the NBA) and fixed their draft so those players could go to their hometown teams (i.e. McGinnis went to Indiana U and got drafted by Indiana). The NBA and especially Aurbach hated the ABA and refused to include any of their innovations. The feud hurt both leagues and the NBA was hurting so bad that even after the merger, it took Bird + Magic to breath life into it. 

When the merger did happen the ABA was dying and the NBA desparately needed the chemistry that the ABA had, so rather than let the ABA die and just sign the players, the NBA absorbed 4 teams and expanded. It is no accident that the Sixers got the two top forwards from the ABA and it is no accident that the Celtics refused to accept an ABA player on its squad. Politically, as well, the sale of Erving was to placate the Knicks who were to have the ABA championship team compete with them in the same city. Almost every team in the NBA would have paid $3M to buy Dr. J, who was the ABA MVP and led his team to the championship. Why the sixers? To give validity to the new ABA merged teams and to give the Celtics a run for their money.

Not only was it political, but it was racial. The ABA clearly had a very afro-centric feel to it; it was as popular for the afro haircut as it was for the flashy play. The NBA was the white man's game, highly coached, rigid/structured offenses, focused on the coach. If you combine the racial riots of the Boston area (see busing) and the nastiniess between the two leagues, it should not be such a surprise that those celtics teams of the 80s were a revolving door for white guys like Wedman, Walton, Bird, McHale, Ainge, Robey, Carslisle, Sichting, Kite, Paxson, Lohaus, Roberts, etc., etc.

This is something I witnessed as it happened, not something I read about 10+ years later.

Now for some fun. The Milwaukee Bucks drafted Dr. J in 1972. If he signed with them, their team would have had the Dr., Kareem, Oscar Robertson, Bobby Dandridge, and Lucius Allen. It boggles the mind to consider that lineup.

Other notable NBA draft picks that signed with the ABA:

1974
Marvin Barnes (76ers)
Bobby Jones (rockets)
Maurice Lucas (bulls)

1975
David Thompson (hawks)
Marvin Webster (hawks) - what a team the hawks would have been!

Hardship (non-college grads who the NBA refused to draft early):

Spencer Haywood, George McGinnis, Moses Malone


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Again, the data has a story to tell.
> 
> How about the fact that Archibald was seriously injured the year before that 29 win year for the celtics? Or that he was plaing his way back into shape and only played about 20 min/game for that season? Perhaps the fact that the team was decimated by injuries to its star players had a little to do with their victory total: Cowens out 14 games, Knight out 40, White out 35 games, Robey out 46 games, plus Havlicek and Charlie Scott retired.
> ...


i'm not going to deny alot of what you said in this post because i actuually agree with a lot 

and before you went on a what you call a conspiracy theory i merely call having your cake and eating it too 

the nba didn't like the aba that is common knowledge and when they had them they grabbed them by the short hairs and made sure the aba knew it 

the celts didn't want the aba players however not because of racial unrest (red doesn't really have a track record of discriminating based on color) i believe him when he said he hated the aba what it stood for (in his mind crappy b-ball) and didn't want the merger he wanted to crush them financially and get their players for free and when he didn't get his wishes decided he didn't want anything to do with the aba.


----------

