# DaBullz challenge to Hong Kong Fooey



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm sure others will want to jump in on this, but the exercise will be worth it. I propose a little game, which will provide proof positive that the quality of talent in the NBA has declined. 

Here's the rules:
1) We'll do a draft of players. I'll select my players from the 1984 season, you select your players from the current season. My reasoning is that Kevin Willis is the oldest player in the NBA. We should consider the decline over the course of his career.
2) We can only draft players who played in the 1984-85 season (in my case) or this current season (in your case, HKF).
3) You can be the abitor of which player is the better player between my picks and yours. I expect the peanut gallery to provide a lot of feedback.
4) The scoring system is a little bit complex. When either of us decides to call it quits, we look at the number of players drafted by one side (i.e. if I draft 50 and you draft 50, the number is 50). We give 50 points to the #1 pick who's determined the better, 49 to the 2nd, and so on. This will prevent you from picking some scrub to go head to head against Jordan when I pick him first; saving Kobe for a later pick will earn you less points...
5) You consider the entire careers of the players involved. For players who are rookies or are early in their careers this season, it's fair to project them to be however good you think they're going to be. Again, I expect the peanut gallery to keep you in line.
6) We don't have to draft one player at a time. I will go first and choose a bunch of guys, in order. You come up with a list, in order, to compete head to head against my picks.

Remember, I'm picking from a league that had far fewer teams, so there's less roster spots and players to choose from. If the quality of players in the league has truly declined, I think you're going to be the one who gives up first.

In that spirit, I'll make my first bunch of picks in my next post, and await your reply. Everyone else can feel free to make suggested picks, but the official ones are mine and HKF's.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I knew you were plotting something. Alright, let me get my pen and pad out and start value ranking some of these guys in my head. 

I also love how you get a prime Bernard King in there as well. Real smooth there. Darnit. Kiki Vandejwhe was getting 27 plus during this period.

I'm game. However, I never said the talent didn't decline. I did say it's on an upswing though. 

Let's do this. Make it happen. Take 5 and then I'll take 5.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

20 paces.

Should be fun.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

1. Michael Jordan
2. Larry Bird
3. Magic Johnson
4. Julius Erving
5. Moses Malone
6. Hakeem Olajuwan
7. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
8. Bernard King
9. Charles Barkley
10. Clyde Drexler

There's my first 10. Good luck.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Too bad I have this to take into battle. 

<img src="http://img36.exs.cx/img36/382/peashooter9it.jpg" width="200" height="147" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" />


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'm sure others will want to jump in on this, but the exercise will be worth it. I propose a little game, which will provide proof positive that the quality of talent in the NBA has declined.
> 
> Here's the rules:
> ...


Where are you looking for stats on the '84 season. I was only 6-years old at the time, so I need a refresher in order to contribute as peanut gallery judge.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

1. Shaquille O'Neal
2. Kevin Garnett
3. Lebron James
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Tim Duncan
6. Amare Stoudemire
7. Dirk Nowitzki
8. Jason Kidd
9. Gary Payton
10. Dwyane Wade

Note: Had Karl Malone been available or played somewhere this year, I would have included him.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Thats hardly a fair proposition IMO The guys that DaBullz is picking have already established their worth. HKF may pick someone like Shaun Livingston (for instance) and 10 years from now he may be regarded as better than Magic for all we know Right now all we know is that he has potential. So there really is no way to do this comparison without waiting another decade or so IMHO.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: DaBullz challenge to Hong Kong Fooey*



> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> 
> Where are you looking for stats on the '84 season. I was only 6-years old at the time, so I need a refresher in order to contribute as peanut gallery judge.


basketball reference.com

Just type that into google.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder:

http://www.basketballreference.com/leagues/leagueyear.htm?lg=N&yr=1984

HKF:

The real fun will be round 2 of this game, where you get to pick from 1984, and I get to pick from 1974.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Larry Bird
> 3. Magic Johnson
> ...


lol.. christ....

that's a hell of a 10 :worship:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Thats hardly a fair proposition IMO The guys that DaBullz is picking have already established their worth. HKF may pick someone like Shaun Livingston (for instance) and 10 years from now he may be regarded as better than Magic for all we know Right now all we know is that he has potential. So there really is no way to do this comparison without waiting another decade or so IMHO.


If HKF wants to contend that Livingston will be better than Magic, he can do so and win his points for that pick. I think highly of his judgement about player talent, and have no problem with him making such a claim (though I doubt he will). And I trust that posting something like that here, for posterity, and in front of this audience of smart basketball fans, he'll do the right things.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Thats hardly a fair proposition IMO The guys that DaBullz is picking have already established their worth. HKF may pick someone like Shaun Livingston (for instance) and 10 years from now he may be regarded as better than Magic for all we know Right now all we know is that he has potential. So there really is no way to do this comparison without waiting another decade or so IMHO.


No it's fair. However, if he picked 1994 as the decade to use, then I would be in a lot of trouble, because then 1994 doesn't hold a candle. Too many stop gaps. The League is better now then in 1994 (at least at the top).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Thats hardly a fair proposition IMO The guys that DaBullz is picking have already established their worth. HKF may pick someone like Shaun Livingston (for instance) and 10 years from now he may be regarded as better than Magic for all we know Right now all we know is that he has potential. So there really is no way to do this comparison without waiting another decade or so IMHO.


That is indeed a fundamental flaw in the game.

Still, it'll be fun.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> 
> 
> lol.. christ....
> ...


Here's a big part of my point. Hakeem, Kareem, and Malone had to put up the kind of stats they did while mostly playing against eachother; they didn't have the benefit of playing against the Samuel Delamberts and Eddy Curry's of the world.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Here's a big part of my point. Hakeem, Kareem, and Malone had to put up the kind of stats they did while mostly playing against eachother; they didn't have the benefit of playing against the Samuel Delamberts and Eddy Curry's of the world.


and that's a real good point that I agree with...

but look at that top 10 for that decade...

In my personal opinion Jordan, Bird, and Johnson are 3 of the top 5 players to ever play the game of basketball... just amazing

Barkley and Malone are easily top 2 of the top 5 Power Forwards ever as well...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Jordan vs. Shaq
Bird vs. Garnett
Magic vs. LeBron
Dr. J vs. Kobe
Malone vs. Duncan
Hakeem vs. Stoudemire
Kareem vs. Nowitzki
Bernard King vs. Kidd
Barkley vs. Payton
Drexler vs. Wade

You get to pick the winner of each matchup.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Jordan vs. Shaq
> Bird vs. Garnett
> Magic vs. LeBron
> ...


here is the peanut gallery's opinion:

Winners:

Jordan
Bird
Magic
Kobe
Malone
Hakeem
Kareem
King
Barkley
hmmmmmmmm.... damn, I'll go with Wade

I think TB#1 or ACE, -don't remember who said it- is correct in their "flaw" in the game, I think because those guys in 1984 are finished and accomplished I'm way more enamored with them...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Bernard King over Jason Kidd? Even though he was injured the majority of his career?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Anothing thing that must be factored in was the pace of the standard game then versus now. Every team in the league averaged above 100ppg then, as a result of a lot of fast breaking and quick shots. More shots in the game equates to more points and more rebounds.

If you're solely looking at stats, and today's player is close to 1984, you'd almost have to give the nod to today's player.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

delete

sorry for the double post


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

My picks would have been different, but that's just me.

Seems like:

Jordan vs. Garnett
Bird vs. Nowitzki
Magic vs. Kidd
Dr. J. vs. Kobe
Malone vs. Shaq

are good matchups.

In response to HAWK23, I saw both groups of players play, too. But we're talking about guys back then who dominated a league full of men, not a league with a lot of Euros and HSers and undergrads (Malone being the exception in my list, granted).

Where this is going to get real fun is after about 30 picks, when the lack of current talent is going to be REALLY obvious.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

This is, of course, going to be impossibly hard to judge. Stats are just not a good way to compare eras. God, who the hell knows what Lebron would have done in 1984...or KG...or Shaq, for that matter. I won't buy for one second that players were fundamentally different people in 1984 (ie tougher, smarter, grittier, trickier) and I think it's impossible to argue that today's athletes aren't bigger, stronger, and faster. Maybe not by a lot. But they are. They just are. 

This will be fun...but tricky...very tricky...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

My picks would have been different, but that's just me.

Seems like:

Jordan vs. Garnett
Bird vs. Nowitzki
Magic vs. Kidd
Dr. J. vs. Kobe
Malone vs. Shaq

are good matchups.

In response to HAWK23, I saw both groups of players play, too. But we're talking about guys back then who dominated a league full of men, not a league with a lot of Euros and HSers and undergrads (Malone being the exception in my list, granted).

Where this is going to get real fun is after about 30 picks, when the lack of current talent is going to be REALLY obvious.

For HKF,

If Karl Malone played just one game this season, I think it fair you pick him, as well. However, be careful that I don't look at guys who played just one game in 1984 - you're going to regret it ;-)


----------



## atlbull (Feb 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Larry Bird
> 3. Magic Johnson
> ...


Nice!! I"ll take these guys into battle anytime.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Bernard King over Jason Kidd? Even though he was injured the majority of his career?


your probably right, I don't know enough about King, but just know he was a terrific scorer... I mean it's ahrd to pick between for example a Center VS a Shooting Guard... or a Powefroward VS a Point Guard...

That was the only pick where I didn't know enough about both players... just giving the benefit of the doubt to King.... I really liked Drexler too... so that was the other tough one for me...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Bernard King over Jason Kidd? Even though he was injured the majority of his career?


You get to choose the criteria you wish to determine the winners. You can factor in different style of play, fewer teams, injuries, whatever. Like I said, I trust your judgement. If it were me, I'd just say, player X was "better" than player Y in my considered judgement, and that'll be fine.

For the record, Bernard King averaged 22.5 PPG over 14 seasons, and averaged 62.4 games per season over those 14.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> 
> 
> here is the peanut gallery's opinion:
> ...




Hmm...I'd take 

Jordan
Garnett
Lebron
Kobe
Duncan
Hakeem
Kareem
Kidd 
Barkley 
Wade

Though I do think the matchups could have been more strategically arranged...and it's hard but not indefensible to pick Lebron/KG over Magic/Bird.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'm sure others will want to jump in on this, but the exercise will be worth it. I propose a little game, which will provide proof positive that the quality of talent in the NBA has declined.
> 
> Here's the rules:
> ...


Given the uncertainty and disagreement in projections, I would guess that DaBullz would win this contest hands down, regardless of whether the players were better in 1984-85 or now. How would the projections of Bird, Magic, and Jordan compare to the realizations of Bird, Magic, and Jordan? Not very good at all.

The generation of players from Bird/Magic to Jordan was the best in NBA history. The generation after that (the Shaq generation) was really bad. The generations after that have gotten much better. As good as the Bird/Magic/Jordan generation, only time will tell.

MikeDC and I looked at this statistically quite awhile ago, and we found that comparing the points, rebounds, minutes played, etc. of cohorts at a given age compared to other cohorts playing at the same time, accounting for the quality of the given cohorts (as measured by how they did at given ages), the young players now are quite comparable to the Bird/Magic/Jordan generation. Shaq's generation was much, much worse.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You get to choose the criteria you wish to determine the winners. You can factor in different style of play, fewer teams, injuries, whatever. Like I said, I trust your judgement. If it were me, I'd just say, player X was "better" than player Y in my considered judgement, and that'll be fine.
> ...


I did not pick my players based off of positions. Cause if I did I was sure to lose. I picked mine based on if I was ranking the players as a whole for their careers.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Time for my next batch:

11. Kevin McHale
12. John Stockton
13. George Gervin
14. Mark Aguirre
15. Adrian Dantley
16. Terry Cummings
17 Sidney Moncrief
18. Robert Parish
19. Cedric Maxwell
20. Bobby Jones
21. Andrew Toney
22. Michael Ray Richardson
23. Gus Williams
24. Ralph Sampson
25. Artis Gilmore


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Time for my next batch:
> 
> 11. Kevin McHale
> ...


I could win multiple championships with this group, although not sure why Ralph Sampson is here.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: DaBullz challenge to Hong Kong Fooey*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Given the uncertainty and disagreement in projections, I would guess that DaBullz would win this contest hands down, regardless of whether the players were better in 1984-85 or now. How would the projections of Bird, Magic, and Jordan compare to the realizations of Bird, Magic, and Jordan? Not very good at all.
> 
> ...


Given the undertainty, I'm willing to accept HKF's assessment of the future abilities of any player he picks from this season. I don't see how I can be more fair than that.

Though I disagree that you couldn't know that Bird, Magic, and Jordan were going to be the players they were from the moment they first stepped on the NBA court. They were highly regarded as college players, and the turnarounds their teams made were significant in their first seasons. Magic led his team to the championship as a rookie. Bird led his team to the championship finals and the greatest worst to first turnaround in history. Jordan immediately dominated the league, putting up near 29 points per game as a rookie and making opponents look like statues.

I agree that statistically the bird/magic/jordan generation was terrific. Yet, I look forward to going back a generation and playing the same game after HKF concedes ;-)


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

11. Allen Iverson
12. Tracy McGrady
13. Alonzo Mourning
14. Grant Hill
15. Reggie Miller
16. Chris Webber
17. Andre Kirilenko
18. Dwight Howard
19. Ron Artest
20. Paul Pierce
21. Stephon Marbury
22. Ray Allen
23. Peja Stojakovic
24. Pau Gasol
25. Emeka Okafor


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> I could win multiple championships with this group, although not sure why Ralph Sampson is here.


I no longer feel the need to rank the players in any particular order, so I'm just going through the rosters, team by team. There's some ranking involved, I'm just not having to pay a whole lot of attention to the ranking, as you're quickly running out of players who are even close.

Sampson? He was a hellaciously good player. Injuries did cut his career short, but there's little doubt in my mind that when healthy, he was every bit the player Duncan is now. Your mileage may vary, of course.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I no longer feel the need to rank the players in any particular order, so I'm just going through the rosters, team by team. There's some ranking involved, I'm just not having to pay a whole lot of attention to the ranking, as you're quickly running out of players who are even close.
> ...


I definitely know the score with Ralph, but when you say cut short, you're being kind. He had two great years and was out of the league because of those knees a few years later.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McHale vs. Iverson
Stockton vs. TMac
Gervin vs. Mourning
Aguirre vs. Hill
Dantley vs. Miller
Cummings vs. Webber
Moncrief vs. Kirilenko
Parish vs. Howard
Maxwell vs. Artest
Jones vs. Pierce
Toney vs. Marbury
Richardson vs. Allen
Williams vs. Stojakovic
Sampson vs. Gasol
Gilmore vs. Okafor

Again, you get to decide the winner of each matchup.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I no longer feel the need to rank the players in any particular order, so I'm just going through the rosters, team by team. There's some ranking involved, I'm just not having to pay a whole lot of attention to the ranking, as you're quickly running out of players who are even close.
> ...


Every bit the player Duncan is now? That's bull and you know it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

An interesting observation.

You've had to resort to picking 3 euros and 2 HSers in this last batch.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> An interesting observation.
> 
> You've had to resort to picking 3 euros and 2 HSers in this last batch.


When having to deal with the long term careers, I had to go with the guys I feel will have Hall of Fame careers. Not whom is having the best season this year.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> I definitely know the score with Ralph, but when you say cut short, you're being kind. He had two great years and was out of the league because of those knees a few years later.


Like I said, you're opinion is worth a lot in my eyes.

However, my own judgement is that an injury doesn't make the player less of a player before the injury.

Sampson was as highly touted a draftee as virtually anyone you can name.

Sampson averaged 21.0/11.1 PPG/APG as a rookie. 22.1/10.4 PPG/APG his second season (with Hakeem at center, no less). And 18.9/11.1 his third season. So three top quality seasons before his injury. And he came in and did it, not only with another great at center to compete for rebounds with, he did it against Kareem, Malone, et al, as a rookie, 2nd year, and 3rd year player.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> An interesting observation.
> 
> You've had to resort to picking 3 euros and 2 HSers in this last batch.


What is your bias against non-Americans? You act as if non-Americans playing is a black mark on the sport.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're opinion is worth a lot in my eyes.
> ...


In 1985-86, yes they destroyed the Lakers and lost to the Celtics, however, even though Sampson took the league by storm, by this rational I should include Penny Hardaway for his 3-4 years of brilliance. I just can't do it. Derrick Coleman as well.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> You've had to resort to picking 3 euros and 2 HSers in this last batch.


It's irrelevant that he picked two high schoolers, because if these guys had been born fifteen years earlier and gone to college, they still would have ended up in the NBA. You picked Moses Malone in the first batch, and he jumped from high school.

Anyway, the 1984 players will win this contest handily, because the young players of 2005 are still relative unknowns. Giving HKF the right to project how good people will be in the future doesn't really help anything, because there are quite a few guys who had similar production to a guy like Larry Bird when they got to the league, but hardly any of them had as good careers as Larry Bird. No one is going to project that today's young players will be that good, even if there's a chance that they will.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Tremble in fear. Here's my next batch of picks:

26. Isiah Thomas
27. Dominique Wilkins
28. James Worthy
29. Bob McAdoo
30. Walter Davis
31. Larry Nance
32. Alvan Adams
33. Tom Chambers
34. Jack Sikma
35. Norm Nixon
36. Marques Johnson


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

OT:

Look at the 84-85 LA Lakers... 11 guys averaged 8 points or more...

It looks like a trend that more players got a higher amount of points per game than in todays game... Looking through many of those teams in the 84-85 season many teams had 6/7/8 players average in double figures with points... look at today's rosters... 4/5/6 id the closer number for double digit point averages... I found that interesting, maybe that just proves to an even further extent there was more scoring back then, or it could just be the coaching to give everyone shots and not focus on one player... today the game is focused on super stars who want to average 30 points a game... OR it proves Dabullz's point that the players back then were overall better and had the talent TO score more


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ralph Sampson is a good selection. As would be Walton, even though his career was cut short.

The head to head matchups are what is so hard to do.

Shaq v Jordan? Shaq is clearly a much better center. On the other hand, I'd rather not see Shaq try to take off from the free throw line.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> What is your bias against non-Americans? You act as if non-Americans playing is a black mark on the sport.


Exactly my point, Dan.

The influx of Euros has DECREASED the level of talent league-wide.

There's three ways to look at it:

1) The talent in the NBA has fallen to Euro levels. Consider how the dream teams destroyed those Euro players and how we lost to Argentina this lat time.

2) The talent in the Euro leagues has risen to the level of talent that should be NBA quality. If this were true, then the Jordan/Barkley/etc. dream team would still have a tough battle from the euros in international competition. But I don't think so.

3) Something in between. This is where I stand. Euro talent has improved, but hardly enough to justify so many being so good in the NBA. Talent in the NBA has fallen so much that euro talent can be so good in the NBA.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Jordan vs. Shaq
> Bird vs. Garnett
> Magic vs. LeBron
> ...


1. *Jordan vs. Shaq*
If we're solely looking at 1984, I'd pick 2005 Shaq over 1984 MJ, simply because he is more proven at the stage of their career, even though Shaq's efficiency rating is lower. If you had given it another year and saw Jordan averaging 40+ppg in the playoffs it would probably be enough to swing my vote.

MJ didn't lead the Bulls anywhere that year. Shaq has already won titles, was traded to a team with zero depth after the trade (outside of Wade really) and now makes the new team a title contender again

_Rhyder peanut gallery:_ Shaq

2. *Bird vs. Garnett*
Simarly to the MJ vs. Shaq argument, Bird is simply more proven in leading a team. He was right around 30 for his 4th season in a row at that point and had done extremely well in the playoffs. Garnett is close, but I'm going to have to give the nod to Bird for more consistency. KG could end up being the better player over the course of his career.

_Rhyder peanut gallery:_ Bird

3. *Magic vs. LeBron*
This is another purely speculation type vote. I'm a huge fan of Lebron's, but I'm going to have to take the more proven, more consistend Magic this round. Even if you compare their first two years, Magic had a EFF rating of 25.13 his rookie season and 30.19 his sophomore season. LBJ had a EFF rating of 18.77 his rookie year and currently has a 27.19 currently. I'll have to take the more proven player looking at it both ways

_Rhyder peanut gallery:_ Magic

4. *Dr. J vs. Kobe*
Another difficult comparison. J was on his decline, and Kobe is either in his prime or on the way into being in his prime (I personally don't think Kobe will ever be a better player until he learns he has to rely on his teammates as much as his own skills--much like Jordan, pre-benching of the getting the scoring title). Kobe has only one season close to a 30 EFF, and Dr. J started his first 5 seasons with over a 30 EFF rating. Kobe could end up being better than Dr. J over his career, but I sort of doubt it.

_Rhyder peanut gallery:_ Dr. J

5. *Malone vs. Duncan*
Yet another difficult comparison. These two progress fairly similarly starting out their careers. Malone reaches his peak a little faster than Duncan, and is a little higher than Duncan's peak in terms of efficiency. I think these are the two closest comparisons yet, but since Moses already has the highest EFF rating, I'm going to have to give him the nod. I do think that Duncan has a chance to overtake him by the end of his career.
_Rhyder peanut gallery:_ Moses Malone

(will continue on, but wanted to throw this out there now)


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly my point, Dan.
> ...


I think your right with #3... guys like Pavel Podzokline and Cabarkpa (garbage on the warriors last night), wouldn't even get looked at back then... but guys like Dirk and Peja would definetely have found a spot on a roster regardless... just because they are very talented.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly my point, Dan.
> ...


I'd have to disagree. I think decades long exposure to the NBA has helped todays euro players become better and have a better understanding of how the NBA game is played. I don't think it is such a huge drop off that has allowed them to become factors in the NBA as much as their own internal improvement. Decades ago there were only a couple of Detlef Schrempfs and Vlade Divacs in the world but today there are more and the reason why is simple....exposure to the NBA


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> 
> 1. *Jordan vs. Shaq*
> ...


I didn't think they were basing it off on ONLY the 84-85 season... just the careers of the players in that season... right?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I don't think the best in Europe could compete with the original Dream Team. But that is an impossibly high standard. I think a team of the best Euros could give any of the other so-called Dream Teams a run for their money.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Tremble in fear. Here's my next batch of picks:
> 
> 26. Isiah Thomas - HOF
> ...


Tough, but I'll give it a go.

26. Gilbert Arenas (21 years old)
27. Carmelo Anthony
28. Vince Carter
29. Dikembe Mutombo
30. Jamal Mashburn
31. Elton Brand
32. Bardn Davis
33. Zach Randolph
34. Chris Bosh
35. Steve Nash
36. Joe Johnson


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't think they were basing it off on ONLY the 84-85 season... just the careers of the players in that season... right?


I didn't take it that way either. However, Jordan had only played one year at that point, so his career was 1 year long at that point.

Notice I picked Dr. J over Kobe, when 2005 Kobe's season is clearly better than 1984 Dr. J.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't take it that way either. However, Jordan had only played one year at that point, so his career was 1 year long at that point.
> ...


I took it that way.. maybe I was confusing in my earlier post... I think your SUPPOSED to take into account the whole career of the player... but you can only use the players available from that particular season.

Shaq's career VS Mj's career


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The Malone is Moses, not Karl. Karl did not come into the NBA in 1984.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Tough, but I'll give it a go.
> ...


I'm not going along picking winners of head-to-head matchups, since there is no useful way to truly compare head-to-head stats of different players from different eras, and the difficulty increases again when comparing players head-to-head who played different positions (again, as in Shaq v MJ).

However, I will say that HKF is still going strong in presenting groups of talent that at least compare favorably with DaBullz' groups.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Tough, but I'll give it a go.
> ...


You guys are moving super fast. I posted my top 5 matchup choices, but will defer unless an argument comes up on something and feel my input is needed.

If I continue to do my matchup analysis I'll be on #10 when you have already voted on 50 players.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> The Malone is Moses, not Karl. Karl did not come into the NBA in 1984.


Mi r dum

Excuse me and refer to my edit when I complete it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Tough, but I'll give it a go.
> ...


For fun, you might try the best of this season vs. my previous list or this one.

Also, for Dan's sake, if we went back and let you draft from, say, the 2000 season, you'd be in a stronger position. But to be fair, that would also prove my point that the league is declining, even from 2000 until now.

Think about it... you'd get to draft guys like Hakeem and Ewing, which would cancel out more of the talent I get to choose from.

One of the other points I made is that some observers believe Jordan could only win championships because many of the players I'm getting to pick were old or retired by the time the bulls finally won.

For Ace, in spite of the higher scoring back then, there were quite a few players and teams that were known for their defense.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Note also in a game like this, perception clouds thinking. 

Many wax poetically about the 80's style of basketball, so to some there is no way of seeing anything else but that. However, since most are not optimist, it's hard for me to throw a convincing argument to the majority regarding the curve of a lot of players.

For example I had made a post about Richard Jefferson. In his 4 years in the NBA, he's gotten better every single year significantly. However, were I to place Jefferson on this list, people would immediately castigate him. 

In this case perception is overriding reality, when I'm not dealing with a full body of work.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> 
> 
> I took it that way.. maybe I was confusing in my earlier post... I think your SUPPOSED to take into account the whole career of the player... but you can only use the players available from that particular season.
> ...


Too many variables. If you look at the entire career, the '84 squad would look superior clearly because there is more data to base your argument. I tried to eliminate that by using '84 as my cutoff year, much like we are using '05 as our cutoff year for the current players.

See why player generation comparisons are impossible??

I tried my best


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Isiah vs. Arenas
Wilkins vs. Melo
Worthy vs. Carter
McAdoo vs. Mutombo
Davis vs. Mashburn
Nance vs. Brand
Adams vs. Davis
Chambers vs. Randolph
SIkma vs. Bosh
Nixon vs. Nash
Johnson vs. Johnson

Feel free to choose the better of each matchup.

Isn't it wild that I can come up with 5 HOFers in my picks 26-36?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> 
> You guys are moving super fast. I posted my top 5 matchup choices, but will defer unless an argument comes up on something and feel my input is needed.
> ...


Honestly DaBullz would be best served to stop at 50 and then you compare the entire 50. I think that stands to make more sense. just stack all the names on the list, but I guarantee you when you see all the 50 names on my list, you won't say the NBA is declining, but you will notice the upswing. Obviously not at 1984, but I'm confident enough to wager that 5 years from, the NBA will look closer to the 1986-87 season in basketball then people would have expected.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Honestly DaBullz would be best served to stop at 50 and then you compare the entire 50. I think that stands to make more sense. just stack all the names on the list, but I guarantee you when you see all the 50 names on my list, you won't say the NBA is declining, but you will notice the upswing. Obviously not at 1984, but I'm confident enough to wager that 5 years from, the NBA will look closer to the 1986-87 season in basketball then people would have expected.


We can stop at 50, or we can stop now. I'm satisfied that if Dominique were in the NBA right now, he'd be considered the best player or at least in the top very few, yet he's 27 on my list.

The next stage for this game is to either go back a decade and let you pick from the 84 season and me from the 74 season, or to go forward a decade and see the 84 picks vs. the 94 picks. I'm convinced the 74 team would be much more competitive with the 84 team than the current players are. And I'm equally convinced that the 94 team would be less competitive than the 74 team, but better than the current players.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Note also in a game like this, perception clouds thinking.
> 
> Many wax poetically about the 80's style of basketball, so to some there is no way of seeing anything else but that. However, since most are not optimist, it's hard for me to throw a convincing argument to the majority regarding the curve of a lot of players.





> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Honestly DaBullz would be best served to stop at 50 and then you compare the entire 50. I think that stands to make more sense. just stack all the names on the list, but I guarantee you when you see all the 50 names on my list, you won't say the NBA is declining, but you will notice the upswing. Obviously not at 1984, but I'm confident enough to wager that 5 years from, the NBA will look closer to the 1986-87 season in basketball then people would have expected.


I agree with both of these observations.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

dabullz is throwing out hall of famers in picks 26-35...

I don't see anyone even close in the current 26-35 list... maybe Melo could turn into one? That's the only possibility..


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

In 1984-85, there was one player (Larry Bird) who shot better than 36.8 percent from the three point line. This season there are 43 such players, more than one per team.

In 1984-85, there were just 15 players who made 30 or more three pointers during the whole season. Not even halfway through this season, there are 62 players with 30 or more three pointers.

Force those 1984-85 teams to play against today's defenses when they don't even have to guard the three point line and I think a lot of those gaudy statistics that were put up would go up in smoke.

Today's players are an order of magnitude better shooters than players in the past.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> In 1984-85, there was one player (Larry Bird) who shot better than 36.8 percent from the three point line. This season there are 43 such players, more than one per team.
> 
> In 1984-85, there were just 15 players who made 30 or more three pointers during the whole season. Not even halfway through this season, there are 62 players with 30 or more three pointers.
> ...


you are one of the smartest guys I've ever seen... but to be devil's advocate, couldn't it be said the 84-85 teams were playing better defense not allowing shooters to be as open as today and getting more hands in the face on shots than today?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> We can stop at 50, or we can stop now. I'm satisfied that if Dominique were in the NBA right now, he'd be considered the best player or at least in the top very few, yet he's 27 on my list.
> ...


Dominique the best player? C'mon DaBullz, you're reaching. 

There is a good chance if Josh Smith continues to work on his game (and he hasn't shown any reason he won't) he'll be a more well-rounded version of Nique, although with as deadly a mid-range game. 

I'm leaving off Al Jefferson, Dorell Wright, JR Smith, Sebastian Telfair and Shaun Livingston, but I hope you realize just how influential this group of ball players is to the NBA. Along with the other 15-30 ball players from their HS class that will soon dot the NBA and lead the charge back to greatness. 

When Telfair is conjuring visions of Tiny and Stockton, I will have my "Kool-Aid' smile and wink for you. 

I'll post my 37-50 now:

37. Shawn Marion
38. Latrell Spreewell
39. Allan Houston
40. Richard Jefferson
41. Michael Finley
42. Carlos Boozer
43. Rashard Lewis
44. Yao Ming
45. Mike Bibby
46. Steve Francis
47. Zydrunas Ilgauskas
48. Jermaine O'Neal
49. Corey Maggette
50. Troy Murphy

Edit: Take Lamar Odom out and put in Jermaine O'Neal. He was an oversight, but I thought I had put him in.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Let me just give a glimpse of that 1974 level of talent:

Celtics: Cowens, Havlicek, White, Westphal

Buffalo: McAdoo, Smith, McMillian

Knicks: Frazier, Monroe, Bradley

Sixers: Carter, Cunningham, Collins, Mix

Bulls: Love, Walker, Van Lier, Sloan

Kings: Archibald, Lacey, Wedman

Pistons: Lanier, Bing

Bucks: Kareem, Dandridge

Bullets: Hayes, Chenier, Riordan, Porter, Unseld, Truck Robinson

Rockets: Tomjanovich, Murphy

Hawks: Hudson, Drew

Jazz: Maravich

Warriors: Barry, Wilkes, Phil Smith

Sonics: Spencer Haywood, Downtown Freddie Brown

Blazers: Wicks, Petrie, Walton, Lenny Wilkins

Suns: Charlie Scott

Lakers: Goodrich

Go back one more season and I get Wilt and Jerry West ;-)


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

Jermaine O'Neal out of the top 50, below guys like Carlos Boozer, Lamar Odom, Corey Maggette, and Troy Murphy? I'm not the biggest fan of the guy either, but Jesus, I didn't know you disliked the guy so much.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Dominique the best player? C'mon DaBullz, you're reaching.


Wilkins in 15 seasons <B>averaged</B> 24.8 PPG. 

http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=WILKIDO01

HOF Monitor: 142 (Likely HOFer > 135)

Similar Players (Career)
Charles Barkley (820)
Tom Chambers (774)
Clyde Drexler* (774)
Larry Bird* (759)
Alex English* (739)
Adrian Dantley (737)
Michael Jordan (736)
Mitch Richmond (722)
Chris Mullin (715)
George Gervin* (688)


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> you are one of the smartest guys I've ever seen... but to be devil's advocate, couldn't it be said the 84-85 teams were playing better defense not allowing shooters to be as open as today and getting more hands in the face on shots than today?


I remember watching games in that era and teams just did not guard the three point line. Players just did not shoot that shot, because there were very few who could hit more than 30 percent from there. A healthy fraction of the three point shots were desperation heaves, often at the end of games. Larry Bird was such a great player, because he was one of the first players who could really stretch a defense. Today every team has two or three Larry Birds in terms of being able to stretch a defense. A player like Peja would have been an MVP candidate back in 1984-85, because defenses would not have known what to do with him. Rashard Lewis also would have been a dominant player.

Dominique Wilkins, I think, would not be a great player in today's game. He just would not dominate players physically like he did in 1984-85 and then his lack of range would be a big handicap.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Does anyone take into account how much the game has slowed down? How many possessions? 

Aside from that. How many shot clock violations do you see per game in the NBA? How many outlet passes? How many guys taking a shot before half the guys are up the floor? How many shooting with more than 18 seconds on the shot clock? If you really want to make a comparison. 80's NBA basketball was played more ABA style and free-flowing, then it was NBA style of a generation before. Also, it was eerily reminiscient to AAU ball, except the only difference is the remarkable point guard play. 

Somewhere down the line, when you have busts like Khalid Reeves, Kenny Anderson, William Avery, Keyon Dooling, Travis Mays, Rumeal Robinson, Jay Williams, Bobby Hurley, Chris Jackson, Lindsey Hunter, Antonio Daniels, Jason Williams. All taken in the top ten from 1990-1998 (except for Avery, Dooling and Williams), there was a reason PG's were not being drafted for a large portion of the NBA draft. There was a drought.

Jacque Vaughn, was the top HS PG Prospect in 1993. :dead:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> Jermaine O'Neal out of the top 50, below guys like Carlos Boozer, Lamar Odom, Corey Maggette, and Troy Murphy? I'm not the biggest fan of the guy either, but Jesus, I didn't know you disliked the guy so much.


Sorry, I'm kind of sleepy and I was dragging. I scratched his name out on a piece of paper thinking I put him in on the computer. My bad. :sigh:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Let me just give a glimpse of that 1974 level of talent:
> 
> Celtics: Cowens, Havlicek, White, Westphal
> ...


I still think you're romanticizing some of these guys. You have the ability to look back on entire careers played with the smallest amount of teams. It's almost like a pickup game, where only the best players can get in. Like the Rucker during Saturday mornings.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> In 1984-85, there was one player (Larry Bird) who shot better than 36.8 percent from the three point line. This season there are 43 such players, more than one per team.
> 
> In 1984-85, there were just 15 players who made 30 or more three pointers during the whole season. Not even halfway through this season, there are 62 players with 30 or more three pointers.
> ...


I think you try to make an interesting point.

The 3 point shot was not in favor in those days. A lot of it had to do with the fact that it was something that was started in the ABA, and the NBA and ABA were at war for years. The resistance to it was understandable.

Plus, you have to look at guys like Walter Davis and Paul Westphal, teammates in Phoenix, who perennially shot > 50% as wing players. On top of that, the league was full of top quality centers and power forwards who shot much higher FG% than they do today.

On Boston, alone, in 1984, Bird shot .522, McHale .570, Parrish shot .542, Maxwell shot .533, and Ainge shot .529. Others of interest are: Barkley .545, Cheeks (a point guard!) .570, Toney shot .371 3PT% and .492 overall, Otis Birdsong shot .511, Buck Williams .530, Bernard King .530, Alex English .518, Calvin Natt .546, Sampson .502, Hakeem .538, McCray .535, Lloyd .526 (4 guys on Houston right there), and so on.

Today, there are just two players shooting over 54% (Shaq, Amare). In 1984, there were 13. Today there are 15 guys shooting 50% or better, back then, there were <B>51</B>.

On top of all this, the 3pt line was further out back then, I do believe.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Another telling difference in the eras is given by the defensive player of the year in 1984-85: Mark Eaton. Mark Eaton was a force, but in 2004-05 he would be no better of a defensive player than Yao Ming. And Yao Ming barely gets any consideration for defensive player of the year. Eaton would not get 456 blocks in 2004-05. His block total would be much more similar to that of Ming or Ilgauskas or Olowokandi, other big centers who lack mobility.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> I still think you're romanticizing some of these guys. You have the ability to look back on entire careers played with the smallest amount of teams. It's almost like a pickup game, where only the best players can get in. Like the Rucker during Saturday mornings.


Which guys are you suggesting I'm romanticizing?

McAdoo and his 30+ PPG and 10+ APG?

heh heh


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Another telling difference in the era is given by the defensive player of the year in 1984-85: Mark Eaton. Mark Eaton was a force, but in 2004-05 he would be no better of a defensive player than Yao Ming. And Yao Ming barely gets any consideration for defensive player of the year. Eaton would not get 456 blocks in 2004-05. His block total would be much more similar to that of Ming or Ilgauskas or Olowokandi, other big centers who lack mobility.


How can you possibly know this?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> I remember watching games in that era and teams just did not guard the three point line. Players just did not shoot that shot, because there were very few who could hit more than 30 percent from there. A healthy fraction of the three point shots were desperation heaves, often at the end of games. Larry Bird was such a great player, because he was one of the first players who could really stretch a defense. Today every team has two or three Larry Birds in terms of being able to stretch a defense. A player like Peja would have been an MVP candidate back in 1984-85, because defenses would not have known what to do with him. Rashard Lewis also would have been a dominant player.
> 
> Dominique Wilkins, I think, would not be a great player in today's game. He just would not dominate players physically like he did in 1984-85 and then his lack of range would be a big handicap.


Yeah, my non-statistical take (which can be confirmed by watching ESPN Classic or old games on NBA TV) is that the level of defensive intensity in the late 70s/early 80s was a patch on what it would become after the Bad Boys and Riley Knicks. 

I know that this mightily upset purists like Bob Ryan and Terry Pluto and Phil Jackson and Red Auerbach and so on, but I think that as HKF and Dan have pointed out, the scoring and aesthetic drought the NBA went through in the mid 90s may have had more to do with a talent gap than anything else. Now that the talent is running deeper, the league imo is an absolute pleasure to watch, and I don't think a champion from this era has anything to apologize for.

And I don't think it can be argued that today's NBA athlete isn't a much different physical specimen than his counterpart 20-30 years ago. This of course isn't to say that the player of yesteryear wouldn't have been as good if he'd benefited from diet, strength training, medical advances, etc., but it's another thing to consider.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Another telling difference in the eras is given by the defensive player of the year in 1984-85: Mark Eaton. Mark Eaton was a force, but in 2004-05 he would be no better of a defensive player than Yao Ming. And Yao Ming barely gets any consideration for defensive player of the year. Eaton would not get 456 blocks in 2004-05. His block total would be much more similar to that of Ming or Ilgauskas or Olowokandi, other big centers who lack mobility.


What makes you think this? You can't know for sure?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> On top of all this, the 3pt line was further out back then, I do believe.


It was moved in from 1994 to 1997 (a fantasy player's bonanza, what with guys like Scottie Pippen and Latrell Sprewell suddenly making 150+ 3s a year), but it is the same distance now that it was since its inception in 1979.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Which guys are you suggesting I'm romanticizing?
> ...


You are incredibly clever. McAdoo, you'll never hear a peep out of me from. Man was terrific, dad used to talk about him all the time to me. 

Spencer Haywood yes, I believe so. JoJo White, I don't believe he was as good as Bill Walton said he was. Call me a skeptic, but I think he would be looked at as an above average player in that era or any era for that matter.

I do have to give you credit though as you posted a lot of names and I don't really have all my faculties (I'm really sleepy, I'm not going to lie) to keep taking you on. I'll concede to you, but it's rather interesting that rather then respond to my post on the other thread, you decided to make a thread knowing I couldn't win, because of the history/hegemony of Bird/Magic/MJ/Kareem/Dr. J at the top. From then on it was down hill for me.

I just hope you understand the league is in much better shape then the talking heads or even basketball historians would lead you to believe. The 2nd renaissance will soon be upon you and you can't stop it. 

:frenchy:


----------



## Parabull (Nov 4, 2003)

The stats look different in part because the size of the court has remained the same while the average size of players has gone up considerably.

Maybe the skill level has declined to a certain extent because of the youth influx, but the effective space to work in has shrunk. That means more turnovers and less uncontested shots close to the basket.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Deciding who's the "better" player between eras is a subjective thing. I conceded this point in the first post by allowing HKF to be the subjective judge of it all.

How much better, really, is diet and training and so on from 1984 until now? Is it really that significant? I'm not so sure, though you might make a case for steroids making better athletes today; another topic altogether.

The whole point about being subjective is that I've seen Dominique Wilkins play basketball, and I've seen the current crop play. Maybe Shawn Marion would be a good player to compare him to, but Wilkins was consistently in the top very few scorers in the league, and the goto guy on his team, and a clutch player. If Jordan weren't in the NBA, he'd probably have been considered the best player of his era.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Deciding who's the "better" player between eras is a subjective thing. I conceded this point in the first post by allowing HKF to be the subjective judge of it all.
> 
> How much better, really, is diet and training and so on from 1984 until now? Is it really that significant? I'm not so sure, though you might make a case for steroids making better athletes today; another topic altogether.
> ...


Which is strange, because he never faced Jordan in the playoffs? It was always Bird or Isiah knocking him (Doc and the Hawks) out of the playoffs. 

What would have made him the best player of his era? Dunks? Highlight plays? It obviously wasn't going to be winning championships.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I think you try to make an interesting point.
> 
> The 3 point shot was not in favor in those days. A lot of it had to do with the fact that it was something that was started in the ABA, and the NBA and ABA were at war for years. The resistance to it was understandable.
> ...


When I hear about how teams prepared for games then and now, it appears that defenses are much more sophisticated now. Scouting reports have gotten to the point where every team knows all of the plays of the other teams. Teams also over the past couple decades have emphasized getting back on defense more and more and you can see this in the steadily lower fraction of offensive rebounds over time.

The influx of long, athletic wing players has made it very difficult to get uncontested shots inside the three point arc. I don't know if today's players could shoot 1984-85 percentages on the 1984-85 shots that were available, but I am certain that 1984-85 players would not shoot nearly as well given the shots they would get in today's game. Those two-point percentages are more a reflection of defense than shooting ability.

And the three point line was shorter for a brief period in the 1990s, but other than that is the same length as it always been. I am about 95% sure about this. But the fact that you remember it being longer, I think, is very telling. It says a lot about how impossible that shot was for 1984-85 players.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> How much better, really, is diet and training and so on from 1984 until now? Is it really that significant? I'm not so sure, though you might make a case for steroids making better athletes today; another topic altogether.


I think it's significantly better, both in terms of the resources available to the players and in terms of the focus on diet/training/upkeep by both the players and the teams.

It makes perfect sense from an economic standpoint -- the players now are a much bigger investment than they were in the late 70s or early 80s, even adjusted for inflation.

Then there are other little nuances, like the fact that all NBA teams now own their own plane or hire private charters, whereas in 1984 teams would frequently have to wait until the morning after a road game to fly commercial. That sort of thing is bound to have an effect on performance imo.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> What makes you think this? You can't know for sure?


Who said anything about certainty? Mark Eaton was incredibly slow. You would have to have seen him play to realize how much trouble he would have in today's NBA.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Which is strange, because he never faced Jordan in the playoffs? It was always Bird or Isiah knocking him (Doc and the Hawks) out of the playoffs.
> ...


Wilkins suffered from a lack of talent on his teams. He may have been nearly the best player in the league, each and every season, but it's tough to compete when you outplay Bird, but your teammates can't outplay McHale and Parrish, and the Celtics bench has guys named Walton, Archibald, Wedman, and Maravich. Wilkins's teammates were named Sly Williams, Doc Rivers, Randy Wittman, Cliff Levingston, and so on.

BTW, there was a player on my list anmed Sidney Moncrief. The guy was a 6'3" guard who regularly shut down the 6'10" Larry Bird in both college and the pros. He was a remarkable player, and even with any perceived difference in the eras, he'd be one of the top few players in the NBA right now.

Regarding McAdoo, I used to call him McAoo. No D (as in defense). Yet he was a scoring leader and terrific rebounder, and a key contributor to NBA championship teams for the Lakers as a reserve. That's how deep the league was.

Cheers


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Who said anything about certainty? Mark Eaton was incredibly slow. You would have to have seen him play to realize how much trouble he would have in today's NBA.


He was also 7'3" and with skills. You can't teach someone to be 7'3", of course.

I saw him play plenty, and he'd be just as good a player today, especially with the zone defense rules now in place.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Jordan vs. Shaq
> Bird vs. Garnett
> Magic vs. LeBron
> ...


I'm having trouble getting around the site today, so I haven't read pages 3+ of this thread.

Obviously, projecting ahead for the current players is tricky and entirely subjective. However, since I was 30 back in '84, it's not too tough for me to remember all of DaBullz' players. My peanut gallery winners:

Jordan, Garnett, LeBron, Erving, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem, Kidd (health is key here), Barkley and Wade.

Tough, very tough.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Sidney Moncreif is another good example of the difference in the eras. In today's NBA he would be a defensive specialist, because it is hard for teams to put a 6'3'' shooting guard out on the floor who in his career shot 110 for 387 (28.4 percent) from the three point line. That is one made three pointer every seven games. Chris Duhon shoots the same percentage, but makes two every three games.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> He was also 7'3" and with skills. You can't teach someone to be 7'3", of course.
> 
> I saw him play plenty, and he'd be just as good a player today, especially with the zone defense rules now in place.


Skills??? He was big, very big and that is all. He had nothing on Ilguaskas or Ming in terms of size or skills.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Sidney Moncreif is another good example of the difference in the eras. In today's NBA he would be a defensive specialist, because it is hard for teams to put a 6'3'' shooting guard out on the floor who in his career shot 110 for 387 (28.4 percent) from the three point line. That is one made three pointer every seven games. Chris Duhon shoots the same percentage, but makes two every three games.


I thought Moncrief was about 6'5?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Sidney Moncreif is another good example of the difference in the eras. In today's NBA he would be a defensive specialist, because it is hard for teams to put a 6'3'' shooting guard out on the floor who in his career shot 110 for 387 (28.4 percent) from the three point line. That is one made three point every seven games. Chris Duhon shoots the same percentage, but makes two every three games.


I don't see the point you're trying to make. It's like saying Jerry West wouldn't play much because he didn't shoot 3 pointers.

The whole league didn't shoot 3 pointers, taking just 257 per team in 84-85. Last season, teams averaged 1224.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Skills??? He was big, very big and that is all. He had nothing on Ilguaskas or Ming in terms of size or skills.


Offensively, true. Defensively, obviously not (wake me up when Ming or Ilgauskas win defensive player of the year).


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I don't see the point you're trying to make. It's like saying Jerry West wouldn't play much because he didn't shoot 3 pointers.
> 
> The whole league didn't shoot 3 pointers, taking just 257 per team in 84-85. Last season, teams averaged 1224.


They did not shoot that shot because they could not hit that shot consisently. Outside shooting has improved by leaps and bounds between 1984-85 and 2004-05. Players today have a lot more range than players did in 1984-85. Players like Moncreif were the norm in 1984-85, but in today's NBA he would be an oddity. There are very good players like Dwyane Wade who can get by with not being able to hit three pointers, but their teams have to surround them with great three point shooters. Moncreif and his Bucks team would not have that advantage.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Offensively, true. Defensively, obviously not (wake me up when Ming or Ilgauskas win defensive player of the year).


I was the one who pointed out that Eaton won defensive player of the year in 1984-85, so what is your point here? He would be a solid defensive center today (like Ming and Ilgauskas - Ming is better than solid, but is not a defensive player of year candidate), but his lack of offense probably would keep him to about 20 to 25 minutes a game today.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> I was the one who pointed out that Eaton won defensive player of the year in 1984-85, so what is your point here? He would be a solid defensive center today (like Ming and Ilgauskas - Ming is better than solid, but is not a defensive player of year candidate), but his lack of offense probably would keep him to about 20 to 25 minutes a game today.


He averaged 28 minutes a game for his career.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

DanRosenbaum is whooping everyone in terms of analysis, in my opinion.

HKF--no need to give up. They ARE romanticizing the legends and today's crop of talent is very, very good. Perhaps the "average player" is slightly worse due to their being more teams and more guys on the IR who haven't and will never prove anything (zhi-zhi etc but are still hanging around just in case. 

I was only 2 years old in 1984 so it's hard for me to say but I am 100% positive from watching ESPNClassic (yeah, I know) that defensive intensity is WAY UP and that athleticism as a whole is way up. Seriously. This is ridiculous. And what parabull said about player size? Totally spot on. I know it sounds funny, but it's true. Mark Eaton, skilled. Give me a break. Sampson as good as Duncan? My god. Wilkins one of the top few players in the league today? NO WAY! Is he really better than Lebron? Kobe? Shaq, Wade, Garnett, Duncan....??? He just had the luxury of introducing a new aspect to the game much the same way no one believes Wilt would average 50+ a game in 2005. I'm angry typing this. There's no way to compare eras and the romanticizing going on is ridiculous.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I was the one who pointed out that Eaton won defensive player of the year in 1984-85, so what is your point here? He would be a solid defensive center today (like Ming and Ilgauskas - Ming is better than solid, but is not a defensive player of year candidate), but his lack of offense probably would keep him to about 20 to 25 minutes a game today.


Actually, come to think of it. Mark Eaton is a slightly bigger, but less skilled and less athletic version of Greg Ostertag. Wake me up when Greg Ostertag wins a defensive player of the year award.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> They did not shoot that shot because they could not hit that shot consisently. Outside shooting has improved by leaps and bounds between 1984-85 and 2004-05. Players today have a lot more range than players did in 1984-85. Players like Moncreif were the norm in 1984-85, but in today's NBA he would be an oddity. There are very good players like Dwyane Wade who can get by with not being able to hit three pointers, but their teams have to surround them with great three point shooters. Moncreif and his Bucks team would not have that advantage.


I think you are leaping to a bad assumption.

I played in a pickup game with a 38-year old Flynn Robinson and the guy could shoot the lights out. The guy literally was standing in the bleachers and hit about 30 in a row.

Guys COULD shoot back then, but just didn't shoot 3 pointers. 

The stats only indicate they didn't shoot, not that they couldn't shoot. 

You pick on Moncrief because he would go 1-14 or 1-10 for entire seasons. Yet when he did take 3 pointers in bulk, he'd go 33-103, or 25-73, or 21-64, all respectable figures compared to today's players.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Actually, come to think of it. Mark Eaton is a slightly bigger, but less skilled and less athletic version of Greg Ostertag. Wake me up when Greg Ostertag wins a defensive player of the year award.


Eaton was DPOY twice. The 2nd time in 1989. Joining him on the 1st team were Joe Dumars, Michael Jordan, Larry Nance, and Dennis Rodman. That puts him in plenty good company, and with players who would be considered for the same honor today. The 2nd team included Patrick Ewing, A.C. Green, McHale, Alvin Robertson, and John Stockton. 

Eaton was also on the 1989 all-star team. 

He was 1st or 2nd team all-defense 5 straight years.

The first time he won DPOY, he beat out Moncrief, Michael Cooper, Olajuwan, and Dennis Johnson.

But he had no skills. Right.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I think you are leaping to a bad assumption.
> 
> I played in a pickup game with a 38-year old Flynn Robinson and the guy could shoot the lights out. The guy literally was standing in the bleachers and hit about 30 in a row.
> ...


So you are telling me these guys were just dumb, then. They could have just stepped back a couple feet and got an extra point when they shot, but they were too dumb to realize it. And when they did shoot from three, they did it with their eyes closed, so that explains why their percentages were so low.

33-103 from the three point line is awful for an NBA 2-guard. And I think that might have been in one of the years with the shorter three point line. But I could be wrong about that.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Sidney Moncreif is another good example of the difference in the eras. In today's NBA he would be a defensive specialist, because it is hard for teams to put a 6'3'' shooting guard out on the floor who in his career shot 110 for 387 (28.4 percent) from the three point line. That is one made three pointer every seven games. Chris Duhon shoots the same percentage, but makes two every three games.


Moncrief made 4 All-STAR games and shot 50% for his career. At his peak, he was getting to the line 8 times a game. He was definetely big enough to guard SGs today. He would definetely still start.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Eaton was DPOY twice. The 2nd time in 1989. Joining him on the 1st team were Joe Dumars, Michael Jordan, Larry Nance, and Dennis Rodman. That puts him in plenty good company, and with players who would be considered for the same honor today. The 2nd team included Patrick Ewing, A.C. Green, McHale, Alvin Robertson, and John Stockton.
> 
> Eaton was also on the 1989 all-star team.
> ...


And he was so good defensively because there were so few guys like him in the leauge. Today there are lots of guys like him, so he would be Greg Ostertag. That is the whole point. Defensive play at the center position has progressed so rapidly that a Mark Eaton in 1984-85 would be a Greg Ostertag today.

Players have learned to adjust to having Mark Eaton-like players on a large fraction of the teams. So a Mark Eaton-type has no chance to win defensive player of the year award. I think the rapid improvement of defense at the center position is a big reason why there are so few dominant offensive centers.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Moncrief made 4 All-STAR games and shot 50% for his career. At his peak, he was getting to the line 8 times a game. He was definetely big enough to guard SGs today. He would definetely still start.


I think he would start for most teams, but I think he would have a lot harder time maintaining a 50 percent shooting percentage in today's games. And if his shooting percentage dropped to the mid-40s, then his lack of range would become a big handicap.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> So you are telling me these guys were just dumb, then. They could just stepped back a couple feet and got an extra point when they shot, but they were too dumb to realize it. And when they did shoot from three, they did it with their eyes closed, so that explains why their percentages were so low.
> 
> 33-103 from the three point line is awful for an NBA 2-guard. And I think that might have been in one of the years with the shorter three point line. But I could be wrong about that.


Dumb? Again, a pretty big assumption.

It's also a weird assumption that they took so many shots from one step inside the 3 point line.

From someone I think you respect:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/john_hollinger/10/18/nbdl.3point/

Back to the future?

Grand experiment in D-League will have NBA watching closely

Is this any way to celebrate an anniversary? The 3-pointer turns 25 this year, having been implemented for the 1979-80 season, but you won't see the NBA fêting it with the finest wines and cheeses. The league won't even set off a few bottle rockets in the backyard. 

Instead, David Stern and Co. have the gall to use the 3-pointer's silver anniversary as an opportunity to discuss its funeral plans. The NBDL -- the NBA's minor league -- approved a rule change last week that dispenses with the 3-point line until the final five minutes of the game, hoping to see what the game would look like without the familiar arc that has been part of the game for a quarter century. (Side note: How long do you think it will take before a D-League point guard stands 30 feet from the hoop and dribbles the clock down to 5:00 just so he can shoot a 3-pointer? I'm guessing it happens in the first week).

Certainly, times have changed. Watch an NBA game from 25 years ago and an NBA game today, and for a plethora of reasons you'll see two very different brands of basketball. Bigger players, zone defenses, more contact and the extinction of the jheri curl are a few of the differences, but the 3-point line may be the biggest.

The line's slow-motion impact has nonetheless been pervasive. Fast breaks have become an anachronism; teams instead look to work the ball around the perimeter for an open trifecta. When teams do run, players invariably fan out to the 3-point line looking for an extra point rather than going to the rim for a dunk. 

...

Much of the punditry considers this a bad thing. For instance, Pistons coach Larry Brown said, "The 3-point shot, now, with the young kids, has really hurt our game." (Of course, two months ago in Athens he was decrying the absence of a 3-point shot with the young kids. You can't win with some people). A more credible detractor is Steve Kerr, the top 3-point marksman in NBA history, who added, "It's being shot way too often these days and it's hurting the game."

...

However, partly because teams have slowed the pace to take advantage of the 3-point shot, scoring has taken a precipitous drop. There are several other reasons that scoring has declined, which I'll talk about much more extensively in another week or so, but for now just look at these two data points. In '79-80, when the NBA introduced the line, every team averaged at least 100 points. Last season, only two did.

Purists have squarely placed the blame -- unfairly so -- for this decline on the 3-pointer's impact. And that is why a quarter-century after it the shot was introduced, the D-League's new approach has arrived. Theoretically, the NBDL's change allows the one definitive improvement the line brought to the game -- making comebacks easier in the final minutes by legalizing the 3-pointer at that time -- without all the other negative baggage.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> BTW, there was a player on my list anmed Sidney Moncrief. The guy was a 6'3" guard who regularly shut down the 6'10" Larry Bird in both college and the pros. He was a remarkable player, and even with any perceived difference in the eras, he'd be one of the top few players in the NBA right now.


You're talking about a NYC legend, as wel as Marquette. You know I know these guys.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Eaton was DPOY twice. The 2nd time in 1989. Joining him on the 1st team were Joe Dumars, Michael Jordan, Larry Nance, and Dennis Rodman. That puts him in plenty good company, and with players who would be considered for the same honor today. The 2nd team included Patrick Ewing, A.C. Green, McHale, Alvin Robertson, and John Stockton.
> ...


Eaton was basically a poor man's Mutombo.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Eaton was basically a poor man's Mutombo.


So what's a rich man's Mutombo like? ;-)


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> So what's a rich man's Mutombo like? ;-)


Bill Russell or Nate Thurmond.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

*reply to Dan Rosenbaum*

*Dan Rosenbaum*,

Nice previous posts regarding players range back in the mid 80s. But I just have a few comments, and questions that I want to ask in response to your post on the lack of range of shooters back in the mid 80s.

Some players who got better as the 3 point shot became more prevalent

John Paxson had several seasons shooting 33% or under before 1990-91. For some reason at that point until the end of his career he made a living off the three pointer. With the exception of the 1992-93 season, he had excellent percentages in the other years with a higher frequency of attempts.

Now did Paxson just all of a sudden learn how to shoot finally after playing four seasons with MJ? Or did it all of a sudden become an important part of their offense when Phil Jackson came aboard and they started running the triangle and getting consistent offensively with Jordan and Pippen creating for others? Perhaps the offensive strategy led Paxson to take and make more threes (of course MJ and Pippen made it a bit easier). But its not like Paxson did not have MJ four years prior to his sudden three point proficiency in 1990-91.

http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=PAXSOJO01

Joe Dumars also hit a great percentage of his three pointers even near the END of his career. He didn’t take many, but hit at a good percentage in his Bad Boy days. Did he all of a sudden learn how to shoot threes? Or maybe the three pointer was simply not considered a bad shot towards the end of his career, so he took more and made a shot that was probably always make able even in his early NBA days? 

http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=DUMARJO01

Notice Danny Ainge was a poor three point shooter, until the Celtics actually become an offensively dominant team and of championship caliber. Their half court execution was superb in 1986-87, the year they won the title and 67 regular season games. Why all of a sudden did Danny start taking and making a lot of threes at a great percentage? Because the strategy and concept of the three pointer was becoming more accepted by coaches in the mid to late 80s? Or actually just the Celtics at that time. Other teams would later follow suit, but not until the late 80s, early 90s -- and even then not many teams used the 3pt line much. 

http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=AINGEDA01

Why was Hornacek such a poor shooter his first three seasons? Not a large enough sample of three pointers taken? But year 4 is when he took off from the 3pt line in 1989-90. Interesting how the Suns that year were an excellent offensive team that used the 3pt line a lot. Why did they use this strategy, especially Hornacek who was not a proven three point threat prior to that season? The Celtics seem to be the only team consistently using the three pointer and having it pay dividends until later in the decade. Did they start the trend?


Just because some of these guys had poor percentages early in the their careers, which took place in the mid to late 80s, does that really mean they were poor long range shooters, or incapable of hitting a three pointer back then? To me it seems a lot of poor three point percentages and number of attempts might have been as a result of strategy by coaches, who may have considered the three pointer to be a bad shot. 

I am not saying these guys were way better than today’s shooters, but are you trying to insinuate that most guys in the mid to late 80s guys could not a hit a three just because you looked at their 3pt% stats which are surely a fairly low sample? Even though there may have been a dozen or more guys who later in their careers (when the 3pter became more in style), were able to hit the shot at a good % on a high amount of attempts? Why is it there are several of players who were poor 3pt shooters for 4-5 years in the beginning of their career, but in the late 80s, 90s when teams starting using the three, all of a sudden became very good 3pt shooters? Did they practice it? Or was it the coaches simply catching on and understanding that it was an efficient shot, provided certain players had the range and talent to hit them reliably?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: reply to Dan Rosenbaum*



> Originally posted by <b>Nikos</b>!
> *Dan Rosenbaum*,
> 
> Nice previous posts regarding players range back in the mid 80s. But I just have a few comments, and questions that I want to ask in response to your post on the lack of range of shooters back in the mid 80s.
> ...


I do not disagree with the point being made in this post, but I don't think it explains most of the improvement between the mid-1980s and today. Those guys probably did not practice that shot as much as today's players, but the line was still there. Coaches are not dumb and if they watched guys hit that shot in practice they would have let their guys shoot it in games. To me it looks more like with shooting percentages so low from that distance, it did not make sense for players to shoot that shot. In other words, I am arguing that coaches were by and large making the right decisions in not letting their poor shooting players shoot that shot. Your argument relies on some myopia from coaches which might make sense for a year or two. But for a decade - that seems an extreme assumption. Coaches just are not that dumb.

And DaBullz, I was being sarcastic when I was saying players were dumb. It would seem that you of all people would realize when someone was being sarcastic.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Wow. I'm glad you were so bold in making this challenge, DaBullz. It's only possibly the most biased thing ever. What's the point of using entire careers as a comparison point, if you are comparing the level of talent as it was in each year? There is such uncertainty with young players that no one would be wager for them to be better than a proven, hyped up 80's player. Using solely the level of performance in 84-85, compared with 04-05 would look like this. 

Bird ~ Garnett
Jordan > Bryant
Magic ~ James
King > McGrady
Abdul Jabbar < S. O'Neal
Malone ~ Stoudemire
Olajuwon < Duncan
Cummings ~ Gasol
English > Marion
Moncrief < Artest
Thomas < Wade
Dantley < Nowitzki
Gervin < Iverson
Sikma < J. O'Neal
Nance < Ming
Richardson < Marbury
Short > Pierce

I mean, honestly, I'm having trouble finding great players from that year. Please, help me out here. Other than being top heavy, this current year definitely seems to be superior and filled with more quality players. I'll be willing to defend any of my choices if you wish.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

*Re: Re: reply to Dan Rosenbaum*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> I do not disagree with the point being made in this post, but I don't think it explains most of the improvement between the mid-1980s and today. Those guys probably did not practice that shot as much as today's players, but the line was still there. Coaches are not dumb and if they watched guys hit that shot in practice they would have let their guys shoot it in games. To me it looks more like with shooting percentages so low from that distance, it did not make sense for players to shoot that shot. In other words, I am arguing that coaches were by and large making the right decisions in not letting their poor shooting players shoot that shot. Your argument relies on some myopia from coaches which might make sense for a year or two. But for a decade - that seems an extreme assumption. Coaches just are not that dumb.


I actually agree that coaches would have let players shoot it about more if they proved they could hit reliably. The trouble is as you mentioned, there probably was a few years of 'doubt' from coaches, who just felt it was not a good shot to take. Even though some players, ala Horny, Dumars, etc... could shoot it -- that does not mean that most of the other players in the mid 80s could shoot it. I mean look at Rickey Pierce, who was considered a GREAT shooter, he never became a good three point shooter as a Seattle Sonic 6th man stud in 1993-94 or at any point before that season (which happened to be near the end of his NBA career). So I can only assume there was a transition period, where players were not accustomed to taking the three, even though they probably could hit it if the offense and coaches encouraged it more. Obviously this does not aplly to everyone, but it probably took a while before players, coaches, and teams caught on.

The thing I find funny is even people like Larry Brown and Steve Kerr are babbling about how players are shooting the three too much (I personally disagree and I think they are overeacting). Steve Kerr of all people was a three point specialist, I don't see how anyone can take him seriously when he says too many players take the three. He is known to make statements in a exaggerating manner.


Why do they say such things IYO? Larry Brown mentioning Rip Hamilton of all players for olympics, who is not a three point shooter (forget the fact that FIBA three point line was shorter). I still think he exaggerates the whole lack of shooting as being the reason USA didn't win the olympics comfortably. There were other reasons as well obviously, which you have alluded to in the past I beleive? Rip Hamilton wouldn't have magically made them 10 times better with his 'mid-range' shooting IMO.

What do you think?

Lastly, I have always been under the impression that most fans who watched the game tend of romanticize too much about the 80s. Personally I do not think the players were any better back then as a whole. They were not neccesarily worse, I just do not think they were as special as some suggest. 

It was a golden era for the NBA, and yes there are some egos, young unproven hyped up players, and selfish talents. But that does not mean the league is horrible in comparison to the 80s in terms of talent and overall potential. 

I happen to enjoy the NBA today as it is. I especially appreciate a great team on the floor. And I do not really like to over romanticize about the 80s (although I did not see tons of games from the early to mid 80s except on ESPn classic and from old tapes).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: reply to Dan Rosenbaum*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> I do not disagree with the point being made in this post, but I don't think it explains most of the improvement between the mid-1980s and today. Those guys probably did not practice that shot as much as today's players, but the line was still there. Coaches are not dumb and if they watched guys hit that shot in practice they would have let their guys shoot it in games. To me it looks more like with shooting percentages so low from that distance, it did not make sense for players to shoot that shot. In other words, I am arguing that coaches were by and large making the right decisions in not letting their poor shooting players shoot that shot. Your argument relies on some myopia from coaches which might make sense for a year or two. But for a decade - that seems an extreme assumption. Coaches just are not that dumb.
> 
> And DaBullz, I was being sarcastic when I was saying players were dumb. It would seem that you of all people would realize when someone was being sarcastic.


Dan,

I think the current Bulls management proves that the "cut of one's jib" means more to some in management (league wide) than talent does.

The 3 point shot was an ABA invention. The NBA resisted almost all things ABA, because of the jib thing. The NBA didn't like anything about the ABA, from the red/white/blue ball, to the 3 point line, to the flashy playground (and individualistic) style of play, and right down to the big afro hairstyles.

The jib thing to do was to take a dribble one step closer to the basket, at every opportunity, because it was considered a higher percentage shot.

Perhaps it was Bird, and his great range for a man his size, and ability to hit that 3 point shot that really opened the eyes of the most resistant organization to all things ABA, as well as the rest of the league. The celtics didn't even get a player from the ABA in the dispersal draft (or if they did, nobody I can recall).

For the record, Niko's posts were two of the very best I've read on these boards in a long time.

Cheers


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

This is for Niko...

I do not think I am romanticizing about the teams or players of the 1980s. What I do believe about the 1980s is that it was a time of major transition and the influx of talent into the league that was only possible because of the demise of the ABA.

The ABA and NBA were at war. The ABA was able to sign some of the most significant college talent from under the NBA's nose; David Thompson comes immediately to mind, but somehow they also landed guys like Dr. J, Artis Gilmore, George McGinnis (a hardship case), and many others who would have been major stars in the NBA their entire careers. 

If I do romanticize, it's about what would have been if David Thompson and Marvin Webster had gone to Atlanta to join John Drew and Lou Hudson and Pete Maravich (instead of going to the ABA). But that is truly a different story.

The combination of the two leagues, and particularly the dispersal draft, made the league incredibly deep.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

This is from an old post, but I think this breakdown helps make clear why there clearly was a fall in talent after the Bird/Magic/Jordan generation. During that period older players hung on and dominated for a much longer period than they did prior or since.

The players aged 27 through 36 (or 37) as of 12/10/02 (that would make them 29 through 38 now) was really weak. During the years that group was in its prime, we have experienced older players and younger players who found it easier to get selected to the All-Star team, make it onto All-NBA teams, and lead teams to championships. A few years from now as that group ages its way out the NBA, the NBA will enter a new renaissance. We are starting to see the beginnings of that today. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are the ages as of 12/10/02 for all the NBA players in the league as of 12/10/01. I will add some of the rookies from time to time. Give me birthdays for any you want included (missing birthdates for Woods and Stoudamire). Basic data came from

http://www.dfw.net/~patricia/ 

(I challenged myself to figure out a way to do this without having to input all of the data and I was up to the challenge. I hope this is useful.)

Rookies and Bulls are bolded, and the 27 players to get MVP votes or be All-NBA (1st, 2nd, or 3rd teams) in the last two years are underlined.

For extra interest, I put together a starting team and three bench players for each year, group 19-20 and 38-40. I then ranked the teams by how good they would be in 2002-2003.

*19*

*Nickoloz Tskitishvili* (1983), *Dajuan Wagner* (2/4/83)

*20* (#17) S: Parker, Arenas, Griffin, Chandler, Curry B: Wagner, Wallace, Brown 

Gilbert Arenas (1/6/82), Kwame Brown (3/10/82), *Tyson Chandler* (10/2/82), Omar Cook (1/28/82), *Eddy Curry* (12/5/82), DeSagana Diop (1/30/82), Eddie Griffin (5/30/82), *Nene Hilario* (9/13/82), Tony Parker (5/17/82), Gerald Wallace (7/23/82), *Chris Wilcox* (8/3/82)

*21* (#13) S: J Williams, J Richardson, Kirilenko, Miles, Hunter B: J Johnson, Bender, Gooden 

Jonathan Bender (1/30/81), Kedrick Brown (3/18/81), Samuel Dalembert (5/10/81), Alton Ford (5/29/81), Joseph Forte (3/23/81), Antonis Fotsis (4/1/81), *Drew Gooden* (9/24/81), Steven Hunter (10/31/81), *Jared Jeffries* (11/25/81), Joe Johnson (6/29/81), Andrei Kirilenko (2/18/81), Darius Miles (10/9/81), Olumide Oyedeji (5/11/81), Zach Randolph (7/16/81), Jason Richardson (1/20/81), Kenny Satterfield (4/10/81), DeShawn Stevenson (4/3/81), *Jay Williams* (9/10/81)

*22* (#11) S: Crawford, Q Richardson, M Miller, Gasol, Ming B: Butler, Dunleavy, Radmanovic 

Brandon Armstrong (6/16/80), *Dalibor Bagaric* (2/7/80), *Curtis Borchardt* (9/13/80), Jamison Brewer (11/19/80), *Caron Butler* (3/13/80), *Jamal Crawford* (3/20/80), Keyon Dooling (5/8/80), *Mike Dunleavy* (9/15/80), Pau Gasol (7/6/80), Al Harrington (2/17/80), Donnell Harvey (8/26/80), Richard Jefferson (6/21/80), DeMarr Johnson (5/5/80), Mike Miller (2/19/80), *Yao Ming* (9/12/80), Troy Murphy (5/2/80), Vladimir Radmanovic (11/19/80), Quentin Richardson (4/13/80), Bobby Simmons (6/2/80), Bruno Sundov (2/10/80), Rodney White (6/28/80)

*23* (#5) S: B Davis, McGrady, Lewis, Brand, Haywood B: Turkoglu, Artest, Odom

Carlos Arroyo (7/30/79), Ron Artest (11/13/79), William Avery (8/8/79), Charlie Bell (3/12/79), Michael Bradley (4/18/79), Elton Brand (3/11/79), Primoz Brezec (10/2/79), Damone Brown (6/28/79), Ernest Brown (5/17/79), Tierre Brown (6/3/79), Baron Davis (4/13/79), Ricky Davis (9/23/79), *Trenton Hassell* (3/4/79), Kirk Haston (3/10/79), Brendan Haywood (11/11/79), Larry Hughes (1/23/79), Jumaine Jones (2/10/79), Rashard Lewis (8/8/79), Corey Maggette (11/12/79), Tracy McGrady (5/24/79), Stanislav Medvedenko (4/4/79), Chris Mihm (7/16/79), Terence Morris (1/11/79), Lamar Odom (11/6/79), Joel Przybilla (11/10/79), Michael Redd (8/24/79), Jeryl Sasser (2/13/79), Stromile Swift (11/21/79), Jeff Trepagnier (7/11/79), Jake Tsakalidis (6/10/79), Hidayet Turkoglu (3/19/79), Ratko Varda (5/6/79), Earl Watson (6/12/79)

*24* (#2) S: Bibby, Bryant, Marion, Nowitzki, J O'Neal B: Francis, Martin, Magloire 

Malik Allen (6/27/78), Chris Andersen (7/7/78), Erick Barkley (2/21/78), Shane Battier (9/9/78), Mike Bibby (5/13/78), Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje (5/20/78), Kobe Bryant (8/23/78), Speedy Claxton (5/8/78), Jarron Collins (12/2/78), Jason Collins (12/2/78), Maurice Evans (11/8/78), *Marcus Fizer* (8/10/78), Steve Francis (2/21/78), Dion Glover (10/22/78), *AJ Guyton* (2/13/78), Richard Hamilton (2/14/78), Eddie House (5/14/78), Stephen Jackson (4/5/78), Alvin Jones (9/9/78), Jamaal Magloire (5/21/78), Shawn Marion (5/7/78), Kenyon Martin (12/30/77), Jerome Moiso (6/15/78), Dirk Nowitzki (6/19/78), Dean Oliver (11/5/78), Jermaine O'Neal (10/13/78), Milt Palacio (2/7/78), Lavor Postell (2/26/78), Brian Scalabrine (3/18/78), Will Solomon (7/20/78), Etan Thomas (4/1/78), Jamaal Tinsley (2/28/78), Loren Woods (6/21/78)

*25* (#7) Marbury, Carter, Pierce, Peja, Mohammed B: Terry, Wally, Abdur-Rahim

Shareef Abdur-Rahim (12/11/76), Courtney Alexander (4/27/77), Cal Bowdler (3/31/77), Rodney Buford (11/2/77), Brian Cardinal (5/2/77), Vince Carter (1/26/77), Mateen Cleaves (9/7/77), Jason Collier (9/8/77), Michael Doleac (6/15/77), Jeff Foster (1/16/77), Devean George (8/29/77), Dan Langhi (11/28/77), Quincy Lewis (6/26/77), Tyronn Lue (5/3/77), Stephon Marbury (2/20/77), Desmond Mason (10/11/77), Jelani McCoy (12/6/77), Nazr Mohammed (9/5/77), Morris Peterson (8/26/77), Paul Pierce (10/13/77), James Posey (1/13/77), *Norman Richardson* (7/24/77), Michael Ruffin (1/21/77), Jabari Smith (2/12/77), Predrag Stojakovic (6/9/77), Wally Szczerbiak (3/5/77), Jason Terry (9/15/77), Kenny Thomas (7/25/77), Tim Thomas (2/26/77), Oscar Torres (12/18/76), Robert Traylor (2/1/77), Jake Voskuhl (11/1/77), Wang Zhizhi (7/8/77)

*26* (#1) A Miller, Wells, A Walker, Garnett, Duncan B: Billups, A Jamison, B Miller

Rafer Alston (7/24/76), Tony Battie (2/11/76), Raja Bell (9/19/76), Chauncey Billups (9/25/76), Calvin Booth (5/7/76), Earl Boykins (6/2/76), Greg Buckner (9/16/76), Vonteego Cummings (2/29/76), Derrick Dial (12/20/75), Tim Duncan (4/25/76), Danny Fortson (3/27/76), Kevin Garnett (5/19/76), Pat Garrity (8/23/76), Steve Goodrich (3/18/76), Matt Harpring (5/31/76), Troy Hudson (3/13/76), Antawn Jamison (6/12/76), Harold Jamison (11/20/76), Damon Jones (8/25/76), Raef LaFrentz (5/29/76), Trajan Langdon (5/13/76), Todd MacCulloch (1/27/76), Mark Madsen (1/28/76), Ron Mercer (5/18/76), Andre Miller (3/19/76), Brad Miller (4/12/76), Hanno Mottola (9/9/76), Eduardo Najera (7/11/76), Tyrone Nesby (1/31/76), Radoslav Nesterovic (5/30/76), Scott Padgett (4/19/76), *Eddie Robinson* (4/19/76), Daniel Santiago (6/24/76), Brian Skinner (5/19/76), Vladimir Stepania (5/8/76), Maurice Taylor (10/30/76), Antoine Walker (8/12/76), Samaki Walker (2/25/76), Bonzi Wells (9/20/76), Jahidi White (2/19/76)

*27* (#6) S: Iverson, R Allen, Van Horn, K Clark, Kandi B: J Williams, Wright, Pollard

Ray Allen (7/20/75), Mark Blount (11/30/75), Ryan Bowen (11/20/75), Anthony Carter (6/16/75), Keon Clark (4/16/75), Chris Crawford (5/13/75), Austin Croshere (5/1/75), Antonio Daniels (3/19/75), Michael Dickerson (6/25/75), Predrag Drobnjak (10/27/75), Obinna Ekezie (8/22/75), Evan Eschmeyer (5/30/75), Adonal Foyle (3/9/75), Zendon Hamilton (4/27/75), Cedric Henderson (3/11/75), Zydrunas Ilgauskas (6/5/75), Allen Iverson (6/7/75), Marc Jackson (1/16/75), Jerome James (11/17/75), Brevin Knight (11/8/75), Felipe Lopez (12/19/74), Sean Marks (8/23/75), Roshown McLeod (11/17/75), Mikki Moore (11/4/75), Lee Nailon (2/22/75), Mamadou N'diaye (6/16/75), Michael Olowokandi (4/3/75), Ruben Patterson (7/31/75), Scot Pollard (2/12/75), Vitaly Potapenko (3/21/75), Charles Smith (8/22/75), Joe Smith (7/26/75), Michael Stewart (4/24/75), Keith Van Horn (10/23/75), Jacque Vaughn (2/11/75), Jason Williams (11/18/75), Shammond Williams (4/5/75), Lorenzen Wright (11/4/75)

*28* (#8) S: Nash, Stackhouse, R Wallace, McDyess, B Wallace B: Fisher, Mobley, Camby

Tariq Abdul-Wahad (11/3/74), Derek Anderson (7/18/74), Shandon Anderson (12/13/73), Chucky Atkins (8/14/74), Marcus Camby (3/22/74), Kelvin Cato (8/26/74), Erick Dampier (7/14/74), Tony Delk (1/28/74), Bryce Drew (9/21/74), Jamie Feick (7/3/74), Derek Fisher (8/9/74), Adrian Griffin (7/4/74), Othella Harrington (1/31/74), Kerry Kittles (6/12/74), Travis Knight (9/13/74), Walter McCarty (2/1/74), Antonio McDyess (9/7/74), Jeff McInnis (10/22/74), Cuttino Mobley (9/1/74), Steve Nash (2/7/74), Don Reid (12/30/73), Malik Rose (11/23/74), Jerry Stackhouse (11/5/74), Gary Trent (9/22/74), Ben Wallace (9/10/74), John Wallace (2/9/74), Rasheed Wallace (9/17/74), Alvin Williams (8/6/74)

*29* (#3) S: Kidd, Finley, Rose, Webber, Ratliff B: B Jackson, G Robinson, Howard

Jason Caffey (6/12/73), Andrew DeClercq (2/1/73), Michael Finley (3/6/73), Darvin Ham (7/23/73), Juwan Howard (2/7/73), Bobby Jackson (3/13/73), Jason Kidd (3/23/73), Voshon Lenard (5/14/73), Donyell Marshall (5/18/73), Amal McCaskill (10/28/73), Lamond Murray (4/20/73), Moochie Norris (7/27/73), Kevin Ollie (12/27/72), Greg Ostertag (3/6/73), Theo Ratliff (4/17/73), Bryant Reeves (6/8/73), Glenn Robinson (1/10/73), *Jalen Rose* (1/30/73), Eric Snow (4/24/73), Damon Stoudamire (9/3/73), Erick Strickland (11/25/73), Bob Sura (3/25/73), Chris Webber (3/1/73), Jerome Williams (5/10/73), Corliss Williamson (12/4/73)

*30* (#4) S: Best, Mashburn, G Hill, B Grant, O'Neal B: B Barry, McKie, K Thomas

Brent Barry (12/31/71), *Travis Best* (7/12/72), Shawn Bradley (3/22/72), Rick Brunson (6/14/72), Howard Eisley (12/4/72), Brian Grant (3/5/72), Alan Henderson (12/2/72), Grant Hill (10/5/72), *Fred Hoiberg*(10/15/72), Art Long (10/1/72), Jamal Mashburn (11/29/72), Aaron McKie (10/2/72), Shaquille O'Neal (3/6/72), Cherokee Parks (10/11/72), Mark Pope (9/11/72), Zeljko Rebraca (4/9/72), Shawnelle Scott (6/16/72), Kurt Thomas (10/4/72), Eric Williams (7/17/72)

*31* (#15) S: Van Exel, Houston, E Jones, R Rogers, V Baker B: A Hardaway, Person, A Williams

Vin Baker (11/23/71), Bruce Bowen (6/14/71), Mitchell Butler (12/15/70), Calbert Cheaney (7/17/71), Lawrence Funderburke (12/15/70), Anfernee Hardaway (7/18/71), Lucious Harris (12/18/70), Allan Houston (4/20/71), Eddie Jones (10/20/71), Eric Montross (9/23/71), Tracy Murray (7/25/71), Bo Outlaw (4/13/71), Wesley Person (3/28/71), Carlos Rogers (2/6/71), Rodney Rogers (6/20/71), Bryon Russell (12/31/70), Nick Van Exel (11/27/71), Chris Whitney (10/5/71), Aaron Williams (10/2/71), Monty Williams (10/8/71)

*32* (#12) S: K Anderson, Christie, Sprewell, Horry, Mourning B: Wesley, Lynch, P Jones 

John Amaechi (11/26/70), Kenny Anderson (10/9/70), Terrell Brandon (5/20/70), Doug Christie (5/9/70), Hubert Davis (5/17/70), LaPhonso Ellis (5/5/70), Tom Gugliotta (12/19/69), Antonio Harvey (7/6/70), Robert Horry (8/25/70), Lindsey Hunter (12/3/70), Jim Jackson (10/14/70), Popeye Jones (6/17/70), George Lynch (9/3/70), Sam Mack (5/26/70), Chris Mills (1/25/70), Alonzo Mourning (2/8/70), Eric Piatkowski (9/30/70), Latrell Sprewell (9/8/70), Bryant Stith (12/10/70), Mark Strickland (7/14/70), Charlie Ward (10/12/70), Clarence Weatherspoon (9/8/70), David Wesley (11/14/70), Walt Williams (4/16/70)

*33* (#14) S: Cassell, J Barry, Fox, PJ Brown, D Davis B: Peeler, S Smith, Laettner

Victor Alexander (8/31/69), Isaac Austin (8/18/69), Jon Barry (7/25/69), Corie Blount (1/4/69), PJ Brown (10/14/69), Sam Cassell (11/18/69), John Crotty (7/15/69), Dale Davis (3/25/69), Rick Fox (7/24/69), Shawn Kemp (11/26/69), Christian Laettner (8/17/69), Anthony Peeler (11/25/69), Sean Rooks (9/9/69), Steve Smith (3/31/69), Nick Anderson (1/20/68)

*34* (#9) S: D Armstrong, Payton, Kukoc, A Davis, Divac B: M Curry, T Hill, Campbell 

Darrell Armstrong (6/22/68), Stacey Augmon (8/1/68), Randy Brown (5/22/68), Jud Buechler (6/19/68), Elden Campbell (7/23/68), Bimbo Coles (4/22/68), Michael Curry (8/22/68), Antonio Davis (10/31/68), Emanual Davis (8/27/68), Vlade Divac (2/3/68), Greg Foster (10/3/68), Kendall Gill (5/25/68), Tyrone Hill (3/19/68), Ervin Johnson (12/21/67), Toni Kukoc (9/18/68), Gary Payton (7/23/68), Brent Price (12/9/68), Larry Robinson (1/11/68), Felton Spencer (1/5/68), Scott Williams (3/21/68)

*35* (#19) G Anthony, G Rice, A Mason, C Robinson, D Coleman B: Childs, Gatling, Massenburg

Greg Anthony (11/15/67), Dana Barros (4/13/67), Mookie Blaylock (3/20/67), Matt Bullard (6/5/67), Chris Childs (11/20/67), Derrick Coleman (6/21/67), Chris Gatling (9/3/67), Anthony Mason (12/14/66), Tony Massenburg (7/13/67), George McCloud (5/27/67), Glen Rice (5/28/67), Clifford Robinson (12/16/66)

*36* (#18) S: T Hardaway, Shaw, Ferry, Long, Mutumbo B: R Strickland, Manning, Garrett 

Danny Ferry (10/17/66), Dean Garrett (11/27/66), Tim Hardaway (9/1/66), Grant Long (3/12/66), Danny Manning (5/17/66), Dikembe Mutombo (6/25/66), Brian Shaw (3/22/66), Rod Strickland (7/11/66)

*37* (#16) S: M Jackson, R Miller, Pippen, Grant, Robinson B: Kerr, Richmond, M Bryant

Mark Bryant (4/25/65), Chris Dudley (2/22/65), Horace Grant (7/4/65), Mark Jackson (4/1/65), Avery Johnson (3/25/65), Steve Kerr (9/27/65), Dan Majerle (9/9/65), Reggie Miller (8/24/65), Scottie Pippen (9/25/65), Mitch Richmond (6/30/65), David Robinson (8/6/65), John Starks (8/10/65)

*38* (#10) S: Stockton, Jordan, Newman, Malone, Olajuwon B: Porter, Curry, Ewing

Dell Curry (6/25/64), Charles Oakley (12/18/63)

*39*

Michael Jordan (2/17/63), Karl Malone (7/24/63), Sam Mitchell (9/2/63), Johnny Newman (11/28/63), Hakeem Olajuwon (1/21/63), Terry Porter (4/8/63)

*40*

Patrick Ewing (8/5/62), John Stockton (3/26/62), Kevin Willis (9/6/62)


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

I was not really trying to pinpoint you neccesarily. But I do not agree with your assesments about guys like Ralph Sampson being as good as Tim Duncan. Or basically mentioning most all stars of the 80s being as good or better than the 5-6 elite NBA players in the league now.

I just don't buy that personally. But we have different opinions.

But I do think the whole shooting and lack of talent angle is exaggerated by many posters, fans, and even some current and former NBA players and coaches.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Actually, come to think of it. Mark Eaton is a slightly bigger, but less skilled and less athletic version of Greg Ostertag. Wake me up when Greg Ostertag wins a defensive player of the year award.



:wordyo:


That means right on Dan. 


Good grief man...go write a book. You know this stuff inside and out.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

BTW *Dan* I was wondering if you could give me some thoughts on some of the comments.

1) Larry Brown and Steve Kerr's, exaggerations?

2) Lets say there were 20-25 good mid to long range shooters in the mid 80s to late 80s, maybe only 5-6 were capable of translating that to LONG range success? Specifically 3pt shooting/efficiency.

But perhaps there may have been a few more who COULD have hit the three if the coaches encouraged it more within the confines of a teams offense.

So Maybe 10/25 of the elite shooters were actually capable, but never got the chance to utlize the potential efficiency of the three point line.

3) Would it be a worthy study to study the mid 80s to early 90s and ALL those who were labeled as being good shooters, but couldnt hit a three, and also distinguish them from players who actually GOT BETTER from three because coaches encouraged it more, and allowed them to become more assertive from the 3pt line?


----------

