More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

More impressive: Jordan's 6 or Russell's 11?

1) Jordan
8
38%
2) Russell
13
61%
 
Total votes : 21

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby V.V.V.V.V. on Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:14 pm

The game has changed, but I wouldn't say that it has evolved. Zone defenses make it easier for teams to stop players, without the individual defenders having to get better. In terms of offense, it's easier to cross someone over if the defender can't touch him.

High-powered analytics don't seem to be doing anything. The success rate for drafting a star is the same as it was 20 years ago.

As for players evolving, the big difference in "training" is PEDs. That's why athletes are bigger and faster and stronger. Taking vitamins and working out on ellipticals won't effect a significant change. And players don't evolve biologically over the course of 50 years. It takes thousands to hundred thousands of years to noticably evolve. These arguments are red herrings hiding the huge PED scandal in the background.
Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici
V.V.V.V.V.

 
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 11:59 pm
Location: Hollywood

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby halekulani on Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:11 am

Rooscooter wrote:
I said developing that talent is different today..... Is English not your first language? This is one of a number of times you have not gotten the content right and then gone on a 1/4 page post basically saying exactly what I was saying.


there's only so much i can infer from two sentences.
Talent is innate and doesn't change. Developing talent is different.
i don't even know what 1/4 page you are referring to so i don't know where we agree when you completely disagree and insist the skills are worse. i'm sorry i can't read your mind, but thank you for questioning my intellect and going on a tangent that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. why don't you enlighten me with how your educational background is so much more superior to my own

What I said is that if it were all "developing skill" then there would be a linear progression... which there hasn't been any such thing. In fact, with the sheer number of available players there is little progression at all and in some areas regression.

again, why is the assumption that progression must be linear? you can progress despite not following a linear track. even if the skill level were to approach a plateau/maximum, the little difference is all that matters.

As for not having basketball camps...... you need to know of what you speak before you speak. I went to 4 basketball and 2 football camps between my JR and SR years in High School....... and that was 1980...... and no, we didn't work out or take care of our bodies or anything..... we just ate Twinkies and drank Coke between pick up games in our short shorts and tube socks..... :man10: We'd have been so much better with "Jordan's" and black footies.....

i didn't mean any basketball camp
talking about ABCD, nike, pangos, etc
vaccarro didn't hit the scene until the mid 80s and it blew up in the 90s. by mid 90s these exclusive camps and their promotion is why you see players like kobe on sports illustrated.

You act as if all the stuff they do now was invented in 2000 or something..... Training hard has always been part of the game. Hell today's players would call for a Union meeting at 3 in a rows on the road like they had in the 70's and 80's. Those games were faster paced and teams ran all night. They played 82 games in a season 4 weeks shorter then.

What's changed since then is PED's and their acceptance by the players...... in the "old days" you had "juice" which was harsh stuff that you couldn't do all the time and was basically a black market commodity... today you have "clinics" outside the country that will put you on a regime of HGH and steroids along with duping agents to get through the joke tests that they give. It's big business now and my guess is that most of the top players are using something.

Getting in a gym and practicing and running, lifting and training hasn't changed much at all...... well..... there is Tybo


the rest of your argument against training is all conspiracy theory. PEDs are a factor, but not as widespread as you think. i doubt you can attribute all of a modern player's success to it. i can't change your mind about sports training getting better if you think things like world records are merely being broken simply because people are using PEDs. yea games were faster because everything was in transition. if you want to score easy buckets, your goal is to get into transition. game theory has changed since then. play style has changed. now when you see a fast break about to develop, you have a player sacrificing a foul to allow his team to reset his defense. the ideas behind diet and nutrition for athletes have changed too.

if you see a drastic jump in skill from 1940 to 1970 and think i'm arguing that you would see the same change from 1970 to 2000, you have mistaken what i'm trying to write about. it makes sense that skills approach a maximum. what doesn't make sense is that the overall trend would cease to continue moving towards it. yes there will be lulls when basketball talent is low, but the overall trend will always approach that maximum. basketball gets better, not worse, with time. and while those differences now are much more miniscule, like a hundreth of a second in a 100m dash, players 50 years from now will build on those and have players even better than today.
Last edited by halekulani on Sat Mar 29, 2014 9:47 am, edited 10 times in total.
User avatar
halekulani

 
Posts: 8787
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:35 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby halekulani on Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:25 am

V.V.V.V.V. wrote:High-powered analytics don't seem to be doing anything. The success rate for drafting a star is the same as it was 20 years ago.


well analytics rely on volume for power
there's only so many college bball games in a season when kids are leaving after one year.
User avatar
halekulani

 
Posts: 8787
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:35 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby halekulani on Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:45 am

V.V.V.V.V. wrote:The game has changed, but I wouldn't say that it has evolved. Zone defenses make it easier for teams to stop players, without the individual defenders having to get better. In terms of offense, it's easier to cross someone over if the defender can't touch him.

As for players evolving, the big difference in "training" is PEDs. That's why athletes are bigger and faster and stronger. Taking vitamins and working out on ellipticals won't effect a significant change. And players don't evolve biologically over the course of 50 years. It takes thousands to hundred thousands of years to noticably evolve. These arguments are red herrings hiding the huge PED scandal in the background.


just for your reference, i'm using the terms 'evolve' and 'change' loosely and somewhat interchangeably. it is only natural for the game to change if the rules do.

zone defenses have their strengths and their weaknesses. there isn't a single team in the nba that run an exclusive 2-3 zone the whole game like you would see in syracuse. the zone has its moments, but at the nba level you cannot soley rely on it. it's not an overpowered tactic. it doesn't change the fact that the game still is mostly played man to man, and that people have focused more on using their feet and moving laterally than players of the past would have bc they have the crutch of arm checking and overall increased physicality.

not sure why you think i was talking about something as silly as vitamins and ellipticals. most athletes have specific training regimens to improve their speed, agility, and strength. trainers know what exercises will target those muscles best. in addition, it is not uncommon for players to hire personal chefs to make healthy, home cooked meals.
User avatar
halekulani

 
Posts: 8787
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:35 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Sat Mar 29, 2014 9:50 am

Look.... I'm not saying the game was better in every aspect back in the day......I'm saying it's not much better and certain aspects are not as good like players understanding of the game and team play. I do think if you teleported the mid 80's Laker team forward they would be just as effective today.

The thought that PED's aren't an issue is just ignoring the obvious. Baseball got caught..... Football and basketball haven't yet. To think it was only a baseball thing shows that you don't understand that sports training has moved offshore and the facilities that the baseball players went to the same places the football and basketball guys do. You note the results but ignore the most likely reason for it. Let's not forget that the best player in the game for 15 years was fuled by Double Doubles with cheese and animal fries and Pizza..... And ignored nutrition. Remember Ratliff?..... He took 30+ supplements a day...... And played a couple games in two years for us.
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23048
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby halekulani on Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:10 pm

certain aspects aren't as good because they are no longer relevant or have diminished in importance. fg% dropped and so has the art of the mid-range game for sg/sf. you don't see guys like rip hamilton anymore because the fundamentals and game theory have completely changed. in 1985 the avg 2pt% was near 50. now it's near 48% but you have fewer transition layups, fewer big men with back to the basket games, and more people pulling up 3 pointers than ever. big men that can stretch the floor like kevin love and bosh with much weaker back to the basket games have range that their predecessors don't have. the avg 3pt% today is 36%...1984 was like 28%. 1994 was 36% but they also moved the line forward to make it easier.

a guy like kobe bryant, jack of all trades, is rare. he is one of the last players that emulated those from the past who could do it all like MJ, bird, and magic, all of whom were lauded for their all-encompassing abilities that extended beyond their position. while players today have become position-less and hybrids, they are also far more specialized in their skillsets because they have taken specific skills from the two positions they relate to the most without ever taking all of one (ie. wade/rose pg-scorer mold...not a pure point...not entirely a pure scorer). because everyone is so specialized, i think team play has enhanced, and think people are saying basketball of today is worse bc the isolation skills are worse...everyone of old wants to see jordan go one on one and drop 40. the coaches that go to the finals, pop, phil, doc, spoelstra, and carlisle, all have tailored their offense to pick n rolls, set plays, triple screens, etc. i mean the fact that phil jax had to cut on the triangle to add more pick n rolls says a lot about how 1v1 isolation has really diminished. you could of course be watching a ton of milwaukee games, and then i wouldn't blame you at all for thinking all of basketball has gone to hell, but i assure you the top talent is doing just fine.

PEDs is a pretty broad term and so are their effects. what exactly are we talking about besides hormones and what exactly is out about PEDs that you are against? PEDs for recovery is different than PEDs for strength and size and where do we put things like adderall on that list? PEDs for recovery helps with consistency and would be far more applicable to basketball. PEDs can increase maximum capability in something like the NFL and MLB where raw power in something like batting power can translate directly to a home run, but with something as precise as basketball, i would presume it is more about consistency than anything else (sidenote: this isn't to say batting doesn't require precision, but the purpose of PEDs is really just to hit it further). to me personally, context is everything. i'm ok with it if you're using it to recover. (my main opinion on PEDs highlighted) adderall? it's probably a bigger deal in academics than anything else, but again, i couldn't care less. pitchers get both the velocity and recovery bonus with PEDs so i think it's unfair for them to use it although if they could just nail it to recovery only regimens i would be fine with it. the fact that PEDs are such a big deal now is only a testament to how saturated the talent pool is at this time.

if you disagree with using any PEDs whatsoever, fine, then we agree to disagree. but my rationale is that i just don't think PEDs are that big of a deal as far as improving maximum performance for basketball.

as far as diet goes...my philosophy goes wherever trainers like tim grover goes. http://www.cbssports.com/nba/writer/ken ... al-trainer
User avatar
halekulani

 
Posts: 8787
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:35 pm

Previous

Return to NBA Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.