There’s currently 6 players averaging over 30 ppg. What does it even mean at this point?
- Thread starter Ethnic Vagina Finder
- Start date
Ruland only made 2 All-star teams because he broke his foot in his 4th NBA season, it never healed and he had to retire the next year. This is like claiming that Brandon Roy was never great because he only made 3 All-Star teams.
The year before he got hurt Ruland was putting up Tim Duncan-like numbers on insane efficiency (though in a faster era), was the leading scorer for a playoff team and was routinely double-teamed or triple-teamed when he got the ball. And that was just his 3rd NBA season.
In 1984 Ruland averaged 22-12-4 on 58% shooting, then put up 24-13-8 on 52% shooting against the Celtics in the playoffs. That was just his 3rd year in the NBA and was his last healthy season. The very next year he broke his foot less than halfway through the season and was fukked for his career, only limping through 59 games spread out over 4 seasons after that.
Why you think that because he's White & unathletic that means he couldn't play as if Larry Bird & Nikola Jokic are fukking Giannis Antetekumpo in athleticism.
As if this guy aint won multiple MVPs
There's always been unathletic ass White dudes who could play.
This is a nonsense comparison. Jokic has incredible skill level. He can put the ball on the ground, has smooth footwork for his size, range out to 3pt, great touch on midrange and floaters, is one of the greatest passing bigs in NBA history if not the greatest, shooting nearly 85% from the line for his career, has incredible basketball IQ, and has been amazingly clutch.
Ruland moved like a dead weight with little footwork, couldn't do anything with the ball when he was facing the basket, had zero lift, zero range, and looked awkward as fukk putting the ball up with an extended gather move before a simple below-the-rim layup. This is how he was described in his OWN era:
"Center-forward Jeff Ruland of the Washington Bullets is for all those basketball fans who can't dunk without a ladder; score if they're more than a foreign car length away from the basket; or run like they're wearing concrete sneakers."
"Jeff Ruland does not look graceful on the court."
"Ruland is a cement truck whose inside game is based on power and strength and whose baskets are four-foot putts, with the ball cradled in one hand, because for him that's the only sure way."
I mean just look these plays:
1:37 Ruland posts up Robert Parish. Parish tries to front but gets out of position, running into no-man's land and leaving Ruland wide open for a layup. Bird, McHale, and Parish rush over for the late triple-team but don't get there in time to challenge the shot.
1:47 Parish tries to front again and gets caught in no-man's land again (partially due to a push-off by Ruland). Buckner half-heartedly tries a late double but is way too late. Another easy layup with no challenge.
1:57 Ruland posts up Parish again, Bird doubles immediately but bites on a rudimentary fake and blows by the play. Ruland puts up a terrible layup attempt cause he can't get off the ground but refs give him the foul call.
2:10 Ruland posts Parish again, Dennis Johnson and Larry Bird collapse for the triple-team. Ruland puts up a terrible reverse layup from his hip that Bird blocks easily, but Ruland collects the rebound and scores an easy layup against Parish/Bird with the and-1 too.
3:28 McHale (6-time All-Defensive team PF) is defending Ruland now, it makes no difference. Despite help from a Gerald Henderson double, Ruland makes the easy layup.
3:35: Ruland posts up McHale again and makes a telegraphed slow-motion hook shot. All 5 Celtics were within 5 feet of Ruland when he takes the shot, but none of them challenge it outside of McHale.
You get the idea. Most of the other plays were similar, or involved Ruland getting double/triple teamed and making easy passes to wide-open players because illegal defense forced defenders to move all the way back and forth rather than hedging. He was 11-21 for 30 points, 15 rebounds, and 8 assists in a critical elimination game that went down to the final basket. No one else in the game scored more than 20 points for either team.
That wasn't even his best game of the series. The game before, he put up 33-13-5 on 13-22 shooting in a Bullets win.
Where the hell are you seeing Luka or Jokic-level skills from him? He's not an outside shooter. He has to gather himself before every layup. His form is awkward as hell. Most of his scoring is on layups that would get blocked today.
Comparing that performance to Luka and Jokic is offensive.
Last edited:
In The Zone '98
Superstar
They gonna put the 90s on the Summer Jam screen.
The Amerikkkan Idol
The Amerikkkan Nightmare
I'm not gonna lie. That was a long ass post and I'm sorry, but I aint reading all that this late, but I was there, nobody ever called Jeff Ruland DOMINANT in the '80s. Lots of players had abbrieviated carrers. Andrew Toney comes to mind. Now HE was considered dominant. He'd be in the HOF if he hadn't gotten hurt.
22 & 12 isn't dominant in a world with Kareem, Moses, Bob McAdoo, etc. . ., sorry.
Wilt Chamberlain was dominant.
He was a decent player for his time when the sport was more physical.
You take the violence out of the sport, the players adjust to that. That's any sport.
Could Ruland play today? No
But a lot of players playing today wouldn't be tough enough to play then, either & would be viewed as soft.
Guys 6'10 and above would be told to get their asses in the paint and stop shooting 3's, set some screens, and box out
Guards would be weary of coming through the lane willy-nilly like Harden & Curry do.
The only difference is the rules opening up the game, the "sports medicine", and the spamming of three pointers.
I guess if you want to turn the entire thread into semantics that's your prerogative. Point is, Ruland was a HUGE problem for teams. The best team in the world is double and triple teaming him every time he touches the ball and he's still averaging 24-13-8 on 52%? Puts up 30-15-8 in the biggest game of the series?
Boston had 4 HOFers in their prime, 3 All-Defensive level starters, and still struggled to contain him with 2-3 guys at once. And this is someone who wouldn't even make a roster today.
There isn't a single player today who couldn't play in the 80s. Not one.
Stop with the revisionist bullshyt. 80s defense was porous as fukk. Teams didn't even try to play hard defense in the regular season until the Pistons changed the game in the late 80s, and it didn't catch on league-wide until the mid 90s.
5'10" 160lb Michael Adams averaged 26.5ppg back then and you think Curry would have a problem.
Mark Price got into the lane at will at 6'0" 170lb, but you think Harden would have problems at 6'5" 220lbs.
Greg Grant was 5'7" 140lbs and still lasted 7 years in the "physical era." Muggsy Bogues was 5'3" 135lbs and yet was a quality STARTER his first 11 years who dribbled in among the trees all the time.
There were far more small guards back then and you needed less of a bag to make the league. Zero chance a single modern guard would struggle to make those rosters.
Maybe the actual difference is that the talent pool is 10x deeper now and everyone is picking up the game at 5-6 instead of 10-12?
Basketball wasn't even a popular sport in the 1970s, which is when all those 1980s players were learning the game. Plus there was zero foreign talent to compete with. Not to mention the overall population is far bigger now. That smaller talent pool is why there were far more roster spaces being filled back then by guys with a fraction of the ability.
Last edited:
The Amerikkkan Idol
The Amerikkkan Nightmare
Again with the TIRED Michael Adams argument as if 5'9 Isiah Thomas didn't average 30ppg in THIS NBA.
There isn't a single player today who couldn't play in the 80s. Not one.
Stop with the revisionist bullshyt. 80s defense was porous as fukk. Teams didn't even try to play hard defense in the regular season until the Pistons changed the game in the late 80s, and it didn't catch on league-wide until the mid 90s.
5'10" 160lb Michael Adams averaged 26.5ppg back then and you think Curry would have a problem.
Mark Price got into the lane at will at 6'0" 170lb, but you think Harden would have problems at 6'5" 220lbs.
Greg Grant was 5'7" 140lbs and still lasted 7 years in the "physical era." Muggsy Bogues was 5'3" 135lbs and yet was a quality STARTER his first 11 years who dribbled in among the trees all the time.
There were far more small guards back then and you needed less of a bag to make the league. Zero chance a single modern guard would struggle to make those rosters.
Maybe the actual difference is that the talent pool is 10x deeper now and everyone is picking up the game at 5-6 instead of 10-12?
Basketball wasn't even a popular sport in the 1970s, which is when all those 1980s players were learning the game. Plus there was zero foreign talent to compete with. Not to mention the overall population is far bigger now. That smaller talent pool is why there were far more roster spaces being filled back then by guys with a fraction of the ability.
Ironically, Isiah Thomas was MORE dominant in this era than Jeff Ruland was in his at only 5'9
Jeff Ruland never made an All-NBA team, in spite of being "dominant" according to you. Was never top 10 in the NBA in scoring avg.
Meanwhile, Isiah Thomas averaging almost 30 & 3rd in the league in scoring.
Having a few decent years and a good playoff series I guess is "dominance"
And I never said ALL defense was great in the '80s, I said it was a TOUGHER sport to play. Vets who ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME have said this.
Guys who played in the '90s & 2000s have said this.
Guys who've played in the 2000s & 2010s have said this.
Less back to backs, better travel conditions, less physicality, "load management", PEDs, and a whole lot more focus on long distance shooting are the difference.
Guys are expanding their careers with less wear & tear on their bodies, focusing on skills instead of going to battle.
Basically, THE RULES make the sport different.
How can you defend players that have this type of ability 
Can you even follow the discussion? WTF does Isaiah Thomas have anything to do with anything?
You claimed the 1980s/90s were too physical for guys like Curry and Harden to get in the lane. I pointed out that weak-ass Michael Adams got in the lane all the time. And you respond with....Isiah Thomas?
Whether or not Isaiah Thomas had a good season in 2017 has nothing to do with whether the 80s/90s were too physical for Curry. It's a total strawman, it has nothing to do with the conversation. Adams was a tiny, skinny baller with no hops and a weak layup package who still got into the lane at will, but you think a much larger and 10x more skilled Curry or FAR larger Harden would have been "too soft" to do the same thing.
Besides, Isaiah Thomas was a ripped 185 pounds. Michael Adams was maybe 160 if he was wearing shoes, chains, and had had a big meal beforehand. Adams was WAY skinnier and weaker than Isaiah, and what Isaiah did for one season has NOTHING to do with your claim that the 1980s/90s were too physical for Curry and Harden.
You can't name a single skilled player who was unable to make the league in the 80s/90s because it was "too physical".
And NONE of that changes the fact that every player in this era would have been just fine in that one. Soft-ass players like "Joe Barely Cares" were #1 draft picks back then, but you think Harden really would have struggled.
Last edited:
The Amerikkkan Idol
The Amerikkkan Nightmare
Anthony Bennett was a #1 Pick in this eraCan you even follow the discussion? WTF does Isaiah Thomas have anything to do with anything?
You claimed the 1980s/90s were too physical for guys like Curry and Harden to get in the lane. I pointed out that weak-ass Michael Adams got in the lane all the time. And you respond with....Isiah Thomas?
Whether or not Isaiah Thomas had a good season in 2017 has nothing to do with whether the 80s/90s were too physical for Curry. It's a total strawman, it has nothing to do with the conversation. Adams was a tiny, skinny baller with no hops and a weak layup package who still got into the lane at will, but you think a much larger and 10x more skilled Curry or FAR larger Harden would have been "too soft" to do the same thing.
Besides, Isaiah Thomas was a ripped 185 pounds. Michael Adams was maybe 160 if he was wearing shoes, chains, and had had a big meal beforehand. Adams was WAY skinnier and weaker than Isaiah, and what Isaiah did for one season has NOTHING to do with your claim that the 1980s/90s were too physical for Curry and Harden.
You can't name a single skilled player who was unable to make the league in the 80s/90s because it was "too physical".
And NONE of that changes the fact that every player in this era would have been just fine in that one. Soft-ass players like "Joe Barely Cares" were #1 draft picks back then, but you think Harden really would have struggled.
Joe Barry Carroll was WAYYYYY better than Anthony Bennett.
Markelle Fultz was a #1 pick in this era.
Joe Barry Carroll was better than him.
JBC was just as you stated "barely cared". He was talented as hell. He just wasn't passionate about the sport. That happens in all sports with busts.
You a Wikipedia fan.
You weren't there.
You didn't watch the games
You look up stats on the internet, that's why you bring up motherfukkers that like Jeff Ruland and Michael Adams that aint nobody who was watching was even sweating like that back in the day.
Not ONE motherfukker watching basketball in the '80s was looking at them motherfukkers as some paragon of what the sport was at the time.
Meanwhile, you got guys who were there, played the game, journalists, and all us who watched the games WHILE THEY WERE HAPPENING telling you what it is, but you and your basketball-reference.com bullshyt knows better, I guess.
Anthony Bennett was a #1 Pick in this era
Joe Barry Carroll was WAYYYYY better than Anthony Bennett.
Markelle Fultz was a #1 pick in this era.
Joe Barry Carroll was better than him.
JBC was just as you stated "barely cared". He was talented as hell. He just wasn't passionate about the sport. That happens in all sports with busts.
WTF are you talking about? This is the 2nd comment in a row where you don't appear able to follow the conversation one bit.
No one is talking about talent level. We're talking about SOFTNESS. You claimed that modern players were too weak to survive in that "physical" era and I'm showing you 150lb Michael Adams doing whatever he wanted. You claimed modern players were too soft to play back then and I'm showing you soft-ass Joe Barry Carroll getting drafted #1 and putting up 20+ ppg in four straight seasons without even giving a shyt.
Let me point that out again. Joe Barely Cares put up 24 and 9 with 2 blocks a game in the "toughest" physical era, despite being soft as downy tissues.
But your comeback is Anthony Bennett who barely even scored 24 points in his entire career.
I've been watching NBA since 1987, dumbass. I watched Bird and Magic go, I remember when MJ was considered a big stat guy who couldn't win, I watched the Bad Boy Pistons in real time, I watched EVERY televised Blazers game from that Drexler-Porter-Kersey-Buck-Duckworth core. (Duckworth, another soft-ass player who weighed damn near 300 lbs but avoided the rim at all times. Still made all-star anyway).
Good try though.
Imagine if Mike Fratello and not Mike D'Antoni revolutionized the NBA.
In The Zone '98
Superstar
I just started crying for no reason.
