KenBurnski said:
Don't play dumb. We all know that the secrecy policy was created specifically to thwart you. We just can't afford to have other teams learning about how our current players fail when compared against the legendary studs of the 1950's. So thanks a lot, SFCity. If not for you, there'd be WAY more inside information about how our current guys don't seem to run actual plays and can't shoot.
Burnski,
I don't have to play dumb. I am dumb, as my girlfriend tells me (too often). I tell her I'm not dumb, I'm just old. She replies that I am old AND I am dumb. Other than this, she is the perfect girlfriend.
I've said before that we can't compare the players of today with the legendary players (or any players) of the '50s. It isn't fair to the players of either generation, because the rules of the game have changed so much, making the game of today very different from that of the '50s. Take dribbling, for example. It takes lots of practice and many years to learn to dribble well. In the '50s the dribbler needed to learn to control the ball with his hand only on top of the ball, never on the sides or underneath. There were no crossover moves to learn, because if he tried that, it would be a violation. When I was a kid, the refs called palming maybe 4-5 times in a game, and with the low scores and no shot clock, turnovers were a more devastating mistake than they are today, on average. Today, the player has to become skilled at controlling the ball with his hands on top, on the sides, and even underneath, as palming is never called today. The modern player has to learn crossover moves. It would not be fair to either player to try and dribble under the rules of the other era, because he would have to spend several years learning the dribbling skills of another era, which is time he does not have. The same is true of 3-point shooting of the modern game or the hook shot of the game in the 1950's, or skills like dunking, charging without getting called, or hand-checking, and more. I don't think you can transplant players from era to era, but I do believe the big stars of any era might, after a couple years of adjustment be able to be stars in another era. Wilt, Oscar, Elgin, Russell, West, and others could likely be stars today, and Lebron, Durant, and Curry could likely be stars in the '50s. Just my take.
I do think coaches from different eras could be compared, because no matter what era, their main task is the same, to come up with a strategy and a system to defeat their opponents, playing within the rules of the era. This work is mental, not physical, and they constantly have to adapt their system to meet rule changes and personnel changes, so they should be able to be successful in any era, easier than a player could be successful in two different eras.
So now to compare Pete Newell with Wyking Jones, well, -------------------------------
I'll let you fill in the rest of that sentence.
SFCityBear
