If Jordan played in 60's, is he still one of the GOAT candidates?

[alexandreben]

just a quick thought, had Michael Jordan played in the 60's with Jerry Sloan in the Bulls from 1966-67 season, and then retired at around 1980, would he still be regarded as one of the GOAT candidates or even THE GOAT??

[OldSchoolBBall]

just a quick thought, had Michael Jordan played in the 60's with Jerry Sloan in the Bulls from 1966-67 season, and then retired at around 1980, would he still be regarded as one of the GOAT candidates or even THE GOAT??

Why not? Kareem's dominance came roughly in that same time period, and he's a GOAT candidate. Jordan would have destroyed the late 60's and 70's. Destroyed.

[jlauber]

We will never know, of course, but one thing is for sure...he would not have been able to CARRY the ball back then. Palming and traveling were actually illegal back then. And I have said this before, too... Shaq would have fouled out on offensive fouls far more often back then, as well.

[DMAVS41]

We will never know, of course, but one thing is for sure...he would not have been able to CARRY the ball back then. Palming and traveling were actually illegal back then. And I have said this before, too... Shaq would have fouled out on offensive fouls far more often back then, as well.

Good points.

One thing I want to get across to people on here though:

Players can adapt to their surroundings and others. I'm so sick of hearing that older generation players were awful. People constantly laugh at old videos and how they dribbled and moved...etc. That is how the game was played back then. It was different. Different does not mean worse or better. It means different.

Jordan would have had to change his game of course. He would have to not carry the ball and he would have adjust his moves to so he wouldn't be called for traveling. Which of course he could have done.

I heard someone the other day say that Larry Bird wouldn't be nearly as good today. What? The players have not changed that much in 20 years. The game is just different now. Bird might be even better today, we just don't know. It would all be about how he would adapt to the current game.

And vice versa. You might find that some players today would actually be worse playing 40 years ago based on how the game was played and their inability to adapt.

Sorry for the rant, but basketball is basketball and players are players. So sick of this era BS that pretends that Wilt and Russell played against scrubs. Simply not true at all.

[Kblaze8855]

He wouldnt be considered at nearly the rate he is now. Has nothing to do with what he would do back then. He might well put up 55/18/6 on 55% shooting. But much like Wilt his own numbers and visual dominance of his peers would work against him. He would be so dominant as to have everyone now discredit him due to lack of people to slow him. People would post highlights of him giving say...the Celtics...77 points...and laugh at Hondo, Kc Jones, and company getting blown by and shot over as if they were not perfectly good defenders. And dont let him play a team of all or mostly whites and go off and have it posted on youtube. Idiots today would be laughing their asses off about how he couldnt do it vs Lebron or someone like that.

Jordan made long armed, athletic, and tall guys look like trash. Imagine a picture of Cousy stuck with Jordan on a switch and MJ is posting this guy up:

http://www.basketballsbest.com/BobCousy.jpg

Current ISH would have a field day and drop Jordan to 11th all time just off the one image. There would be topics asking "Kobes 81, Wilts, 100, or Jordan 106" and answers would be along the lines of "The one vs people who are good at basketball".

MJ would be a joke to so many people just off being too good.

[Juges8932]

Good points.

One thing I want to get across to people on here though:

Players can adapt to their surroundings and others. I'm so sick of hearing that older generation players were awful. People constantly laugh at old videos and how they dribbled and moved...etc. That is how the game was played back then. It was different. Different does not mean worse or better. It means different.

Jordan would have had to change his game of course. He would have to not carry the ball and he would have adjust his moves to so he wouldn't be called for traveling. Which of course he could have done.

I heard someone the other day say that Larry Bird wouldn't be nearly as good today. What? The players have not changed that much in 20 years. The game is just different now. Bird might be even better today, we just don't know. It would all be about how he would adapt to the current game.

And vice versa. You might find that some players today would actually be worse playing 40 years ago based on how the game was played and their inability to adapt.

Sorry for the rant, but basketball is basketball and players are players. So sick of this era BS that pretends that Wilt and Russell played against scrubs. Simply not true at all.

1st point- yes, they were awful compared to players of today. However, a point that can be brought up is that that is to be expected. Then game of basketball, just like with everything else (technology, etc), is an evolving game. Of course those players aren't going to be better than those of today. They are the building blocks upon which the game has been built and transformed into the game we see today.

MJ, Kobe, Wade, LeBron, etc would not have been the players they were/are without players before them to mold their game upon and improve. However, you take prime MJ, Kobe, Wade, or LeBron and put them in those 60s seasons, and yes, they would demolish them. That's why you have those exceptions, like Wilt, who put up stats that will never be seen again, because he was one of those rare exceptions that was just on another level athletically.

But that, of course, is not to say that greats from the 60s would be shit in today's game, assuming that they would have had other players to benefit from like these guys. They would also benefit from improved technology (diets, supplements, work outs, shoes, etc). However, you take those guys from the 60s as they were and put them in today's game- they would not be what they were (Jerry West being top 4 SG all time).

Yes, if Jordan had grown up in the 60s, he would not be the same player he was in the 80s and 90s. Of course his game would be different, because he wouldn't have had the benefits that those 60s players did not.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Are you talking about circa '85-98 MJ and dumping him in the 60's or him growing up in the 40's and playing his pro ball in the 60's? If it's the latter then he wouldn't be the same player. Training and nutrition methods were drastically different and he wouldn't have the inspiration from Erving or David Thompson (check the HoF speech; without DT, theres no "air" between his name). Hell, Kobe, Wade and LBJ would have drastically different games.

[DMAVS41]

1st point- yes, they were awful compared to players of today. However, a point that can be brought up is that that is to be expected. Then game of basketball, just like with everything else (technology, etc), is an evolving game. Of course those players aren't going to be better than those of today. They are the building blocks upon which the game has been built and transformed into the game we see today.

MJ, Kobe, Wade, LeBron, etc would not have been the players they were/are without players before them to mold their game upon and improve. However, you take prime MJ, Kobe, Wade, or LeBron and put them in those 60s seasons, and yes, they would demolish them. That's why you have those exceptions, like Wilt, who put up stats that will never be seen again, because he was one of those rare exceptions that was just on another level athletically.

But that, of course, is not to say that greats from the 60s would be shit in today's game, assuming that they would have had other players to benefit from like these guys. They would also benefit from improved technology (diets, supplements, work outs, shoes, etc). However, you take those guys from the 60s as they were and put them in today's game- they would not be what they were (Jerry West being top 4 SG all time).

Yes, if Jordan had grown up in the 60s, he would not be the same player he was in the 80s and 90s. Of course his game would be different, because he wouldn't have had the benefits that those 60s players did not.

So you think a guy like nash or stockton or mark price were significantly better than bob cousy?

[jlauber]

Good points.

One thing I want to get across to people on here though:

Players can adapt to their surroundings and others. I'm so sick of hearing that older generation players were awful. People constantly laugh at old videos and how they dribbled and moved...etc. That is how the game was played back then. It was different. Different does not mean worse or better. It means different.

Jordan would have had to change his game of course. He would have to not carry the ball and he would have adjust his moves to so he wouldn't be called for traveling. Which of course he could have done.

I heard someone the other day say that Larry Bird wouldn't be nearly as good today. What? The players have not changed that much in 20 years. The game is just different now. Bird might be even better today, we just don't know. It would all be about how he would adapt to the current game.

And vice versa. You might find that some players today would actually be worse playing 40 years ago based on how the game was played and their inability to adapt.

Sorry for the rant, but basketball is basketball and players are players. So sick of this era BS that pretends that Wilt and Russell played against scrubs. Simply not true at all.

GREAT POST!!!

I have said it before, but the differences between the GREAT players, in ANY major sport, from the 60's to today, are not nearly as dramatic as the "ESPN Generation" would lead us to believe. And, basketball is more dependant on SKILLS than pure athletic ability, as well.

In any case, I was listening to the Dan Patrick show last week, and he had Mitch Williams on. They were discussing Aroldis Chapman with his purported 105 MPH velocity. Williams said that the baseball has used TWO different guns in the last 40 years, or so, and that Chapman's 105 would be the equivalent to about 98-99 on the guns that measured Nolan Ryan. In fact, Williams said that Ryan would be throwing 106 or more, in the NINTH inning of games using the current gun.

I have also mentioned Barry Bonds, at his PED-enhanced best, with his longest HR being measured at 490 ft. Just google the 5-11 180 lb Mickey Mantle, and you will find a PLETHORA of 500 ft, HR's, and he hit arguably the longest HRs in baseball history.

And for those that marvel at Chris Johnson's speed in the current NFL, he was NOWHERE near as fast as Darrell Green, or Hershel Walker, or Bo Jackson. And the fastest LEGITIMATE NFL player of all-time? "Bullet" Bob Hayes, who played some 40-50 years ago. He ran a 10.0 meters in the 60's (and can you imagine what he would have run with the advanatges that current sprinters have with shoes, surface, training, medicine, and technology?)

And I'm sure there are many here who are tired of reading this, but a 38 year-old Kareem was able to CRUSH Hakeem and Ewing in tyhe 85-86 season. My god, he averaged 33 ppg on an eye-popping .634 shooting against Hakeem in FIVE H2H games that season. And he was just a shell of what he had been in his phyiscal prime, as well. He could barely get six rpg at that time, and yet he could pour in 40+ point games against Hakeem and Ewing. And we know that Hakeem was considered the best center for much of the 90's.

And yet, Kareem STRUGGLED mightily against the likes of little known Nate Thurmond. In 61 H2H meetings between the two, Kareem never scored 40 points, and had games of under 20. He also seldom shot even 50% against him, and had MANY games in the low 40's and even some in the 30 percent range against Thurmond.

And Wilt, in the 70-71 playoffs, and just a year removed from major knee surgery...and WELL PAST his dominant best, battled a statistically prime Kareem to a statistical draw. And, by nearly all acoounts, Wilt outplayed Kareem in the 71-72 WCF's, holding him to .457 shooting (and only .414 in the last four pivotal games.) In their one meeting before Wilt shredded his knee in 1969, Chamberlain just BURIED Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. Furthermore, a PRIME Chamberlain, in the mid-60's, had a 45 point game against Thurmond, and in fact, DOMINATED him in EVERY area of the game.

So, how can anyone HONESTLY believe that Wilt would not be a dominant center in TODAY's NBA? The man was 7-1, 275-300 lbs, with enormous strength, amazing leaping ability, sprinter's speed, and was exceptionally SKILLED. In fact, early in his career, he scored MANY of his points from 10-15 ft. And let's get real here. The CURRENT NBA is the WORST period of centers in NBA history. It has gotten so bad, that some teams don't even play a center. Wilt was erroneously believed to have faced 6-6 centers (totally untrue), while the current NBA has 6-7 Ben Wallace and 6-6 Chuck Hayes...in addition to a slew of inept clods who would not have made NBA rosters in the 60's and 70's. Wilt might not average 50-25 in today's NBA, but a PRIME Wilt would be FAR better than a 25-14 guy.

[Rnbizzle]

No he isn't, Jordan right now is the goat because the people who remember the Jordan era are still into basketball right now, and nostalgia will increasingly strengthen Jordan's case.

The GOAT/Top 10 all time lists are made up from 2 things;

1. Nostalgia
2. Stats

And both change the actual story.

[dunksby]

He wouldnt be considered at nearly the rate he is now. Has nothing to do with what he would do back then. He might well put up 55/18/6 on 55% shooting. But much like Wilt his own numbers and visual dominance of his peers would work against him. He would be so dominant as to have everyone now discredit him due to lack of people to slow him. People would post highlights of him giving say...the Celtics...77 points...and laugh at Hondo, Kc Jones, and company getting blown by and shot over as if they were not perfectly good defenders. And dont let him play a team of all or mostly whites and go off and have it posted on youtube. Idiots today would be laughing their asses off about how he couldnt do it vs Lebron or someone like that.

Jordan made long armed, athletic, and tall guys look like trash. Imagine a picture of Cousy stuck with Jordan on a switch and MJ is posting this guy up:

http://www.basketballsbest.com/BobCousy.jpg

Current ISH would have a field day and drop Jordan to 11th all time just off the one image. There would be topics asking "Kobes 81, Wilts, 100, or Jordan 106" and answers would be along the lines of "The one vs people who are good at basketball".

MJ would be a joke to so many people just off being too good.
Im not trying to start this whole thing over again, but the fact that you yourself admit that he would put up ridiculous numbers means that 60s basketball can not be compared to Jordan's era or later competitiveness wise.

[jlauber]

Are you talking about circa '85-98 MJ and dumping him in the 60's or him growing up in the 40's and playing his pro ball in the 60's? If it's the latter then he wouldn't be the same player. Training and nutrition methods were drastically different and he wouldn't have the inspiration from Erving or David Thompson (check the HoF speech; without DT, theres no "air" between his name). Hell, Kobe, Wade and LBJ would have drastically different games.

Another great post. An MJ growing up in the 40's may never have even made an NBA roster. Hell, he was cut from his high school team for cryingoutloud. And, how about genetics. Would a Shaq, born in 1940, have been 7-1 350 lbs? I have long maintained that he would have been around 6-11, and given what was known about weight training and nutrition at the time, he may very well have been a flabby 300+.

Furthermore, there were great ATHLETES in the NBA in the 60's and 70's. Gus Johnson was 6-6 235 lbs, and could leap out of the building. He was on record as having smashed three backboards. Connie Hawkins had perhaps the longest arms and biggest hands of anyone who has ever played the game. He was doing wind-mill dunks in the 60's. David Thompson claimed that he could touch the top of the backboard (something that witnesses said that Wilt could do BTW...and some even said that Russell could accomplish.) Baylor was a SKILLED leaper who put up a 34-19 season. West had LONG arms, and could easily get as high as 11' 6" on his jumps. Oscar was 6-5 and 225 lbs. and was a nightmare for defenders, much like Magic would be in the 80's. Too big and strong for the smaller defenders, and too explosive for the bigger ones. Dr. J was making "Jordan-type" dunks LONG before MJ did them. Russell was a 6-10 WORLD-CLASS leaper, with a long wingspan. Take a look at some of the photos of Thurmond. He was a BEAST, and reportedly had a higher reach than Chamberlain (who had a 7' 8" wingspan himself BTW.)

Jerry Lucas was a Kevin Love some 40-50 years ago. Jon McGlocklin was a BIGGER Steve Kerr 40 years ago. Gilmore was 7-2 30-40 years ago, and much like Motumbo.

And, once again, give all of those players the benefits of modern technology, as well as the genetics of this generation, and how much bigger and better would they be today?

[PHILA]

No he isn't, Jordan right now is the goat because the people who remember the Jordan era are still into basketball right now, and nostalgia will increasingly strengthen Jordan's case.

The GOAT/Top 10 all time lists are made up from 2 things;

1. Nostalgia
2. Stats

And both change the actual story.Don't forget the bigotry most fans are blessed with in formulating such ranks.

[97 bulls]

So from reading some of the posts in here jordan wouldn't dominate the 60 era the way he did the era he played in? I don't believe that

[jlauber]

Another point that is seldom discussed regarding the 60's...

Take a look at the lower FG% of that period, and particularly the early 60's. Why? For one thing, teams played in COLD and BREEZY arenas. I have said it before, but anyone that has played basketball outdoors, will attest to the increased difficulty of shooting in frigid or windy conditions. Secondly, and this is HUGE, the BALL was NOT uniform until the late 60's. Here again, I recall playing in games in the 60's and 70's, in which the ball was different in the pre-game shoot-arounds. Some were heavier, some were bald, and some were even LOP-SIDED. There was footage of Wilt on YouTube (I won't take the time to find it now, in which he was palming two balls, and they were both worn out and bald.) And finally, the SCHEDULING was BRUTAL back then. In Wilt's 61-62 season, in which he averaged 48.5 mpg, he not only played in MANY B2B games, he had SIX separate strings of THREE games in a row, another separate run of THREE 4-in-a-rows, and even another separate run of FIVE games in FIVE nights (and none of the home games were B2B either.)

[97 bulls]

So teall me J., what do you think jordans ppg,rpg,apg,fg% would look like if he played in wilts era under the same conditions?

[alexandreben]

i forgot one thing when i post the thread, how about shoes?

had any one of you ever played a 48 minutes with converse? i did once, thank God it was a one time thing, and it was bloodyhell painful!!! :rant and i swear i will never ever wear a converse to do any type of sports in the rest of my life...

i can't imagine how Jordan would perform 80 games a season wearing converse...

not to post advertise, one of the most comfortable basketball shoes i've ever wear so far was "Jordan15":rockon:

[jlauber]

So teall me J., what do you think jordans ppg,rpg,apg,fg% would look like if he played in wilts era under the same conditions?

No way of knowing. I suspect that given the pace of the game, he would have been a 40+ ppg scorer, at least in the early 60's. However, given the conditions, and the rules that would have limited him somewhat, I also suspect that he would have shot somewhere around 45% in his highest scoring seasons. In the later 60's, and early 70's, probably about 35-40 ppg, on maybe 48% shooting.

I have no doubt that he would have been great, though. Only a complete idiot would argue otherwise.

[Kblaze8855]

Numbers alone dont show how good your competition is. Plenty of issues impact numbers. Like the minutes Jordan would play in the 60s. Stars might play 45 milutes. Wilt played 48.5 minutes a game one year(He played some OTs and sat out 6 total minutes one year). Spread over Wilts minutes that year Jordan did like 44ppg in 87.Probably like 34/10/10 in 88. Though his assists would drop with 60s rules...

The pace and minutes would have as much to do with his numbers as the people he played

[jlauber]

Numbers alone dont show how good your competition is. Plenty of issues impact numbers. Like the minutes Jordan would play in the 60s. Stars might play 45 milutes. Wilt played 48.5 minutes a game one year(He played some OTs and sat out 6 total minutes one year). Spread over Wilts minutes that year Jordan did like 44ppg in 87.Probably like 34/10/10 in 88. Though his assists would drop with 60s rules...

The pace and minutes would have as much to do with his numbers as the people he played

It's easy for people to make assumptions, though. MJ never played more than 40.4 mpg, and only had three seasons of 40+. He would surely have played more in the 60's, but considering the somewhat faster pace, and brutal scheduling, I suspect that his efficiecy would have taken a considerable hit. Same with those that argue Rodman's "rebound rate per minute." The man averaged 32 mpg over his career. The assumption has to be that given that fact, that he his production would have fallen off dramatically for 45 mpg. And keep in mind that, a player playing 45 mpg, instead of 38 or so, would be much more worn down by game 50 in the season...especially in an NBA in which teams were routinely playing three games in three nights.

Which makes Chamberlain's numbers all the more incredible. Had he "only" played 40-42 mpg, his numbers would have dropped, but clearly his efficiecy would have risen. So, his overall production would not have declined much at all. He would have been much fresher in game 65 of the season., and may have put up BETTER numbers at that point in the season.

[dunksby]

Numbers alone dont show how good your competition is. Plenty of issues impact numbers. Like the minutes Jordan would play in the 60s. Stars might play 45 milutes. Wilt played 48.5 minutes a game one year(He played some OTs and sat out 6 total minutes one year). Spread over Wilts minutes that year Jordan did like 44ppg in 87.Probably like 34/10/10 in 88. Though his assists would drop with 60s rules...

The pace and minutes would have as much to do with his numbers as the people he played
You brought up a good point. Wilt playing close to 50 minutes each game rooted from the low competitiveness of the league. Jordan had to work much harder and spend more energy due to a higher competitiveness in his time compared to what Wilt faced. You cant apply Wilt's minuted to Jordan's numbers since fatigue would affect his performance greatly.

[jlauber]

You brought up a good point. Wilt playing close to 50 minutes each game rooted from the low competitiveness of the league. Jordan had to work much harder and spend more energy due to a higher competitiveness in his time compared to what Wilt faced. You cant apply Wilt's minuted to Jordan's numbers since fatigue would affect his performance greatly.

I would argue that EXACT opposite. Many posters here disparage Wilt's numbers based on "pace", ...yet, the game was played at a faster rate. Players were running up-and-down the floor at a higher rate. And, once again, the scheduling was BRUTAL. In MJ's high-scoring '87 season, he NEVER played in three games in three nights. That was COMMON in Wilt's era.

AND, take a look at the MUCH higher LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%'s the 80's. There was NO defense being played in that era. There were ENTIRE leagues shooting .492, and even the 30-52 Kings shot .504 in the 84-85 season.

[dunksby]

I would argue that EXACT opposite. Many posters here disparage Wilt's numbers based on "pace", ...yet, the game was played at a faster rate. Players were running up-and-down the floor at a higher rate. And, once again, the scheduling was BRUTAL. In MJ's high-scoring '87 season, he NEVER played in three games in three nights. That was COMMON in Wilt's era.

AND, take a look at the MUCH higher LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%'s the 80's. There was NO defense being played in that era. There were ENTIRE leagues shooting .492, and even the 30-52 Kings shot .504 in the 84-85 season.
Running from one basket to the other faster does not mean better defense or a more competitive league. One can take the high FG% of the 80s as a golden era with a high level of competitiveness.
My reply was following Kblaze's prediction that MJ would put up 55/18/6 on 55% FG in the 60s.

[iamgine]

Basketball is more brain than athleticism. We see unathletic guys like Steve Nash becoming one of the best PG in the NBA while uber athletic guys like Joe Alexander becomes nothing.

Players in the 60s didn't have the knowledge that players in the 90s have. It really won't be fair to compare them. Techniques, tactics, positioning, defense, offense, training, almost all facet of the game has advanced. If we pluck Michael Jordan from the 90s and put him in the 60s, he'll destroy those players and teach his teammates advanced stuff that's not from their era. Ultimately, his team would kill every other teams.

[97 bulls]

i forgot one thing when i post the thread, how about shoes?

had any one of you ever played a 48 minutes with converse? i did once, thank God it was a one time thing, and it was bloodyhell painful!!! :rant and i swear i will never ever wear a converse to do any type of sports in the rest of my life...

i can't imagine how Jordan would perform 80 games a season wearing converse...

not to post advertise, one of the most comfortable basketball shoes i've ever wear so far was "Jordan15":rockon:
I do agree that conditions were bad. Or weren't as good as now. But those conditions were the same for everybody. Not just wilt or russel. Just the same as now. Its not like kobe and james only practice in tthe best facilities and wear the best shoes etc. The competititon does as well. So again, it all relative.

[PHILA]

You brought up a good point. Wilt playing close to 50 minutes each game rooted from the low competitiveness of the league. Jordan had to work much harder and spend more energy due to a higher competitiveness in his time compared to what Wilt faced. You cant apply Wilt's minuted to Jordan's numbers since fatigue would affect his performance greatly.

Tall Tales: The Glory Years of the NBA - Terry Pluto


http://i56.tinypic.com/x42fbk.png

[jlauber]

Running from one basket to the other faster does not mean better defense or a more competitive league. One can take the high FG% of the 80s as a golden era with a high level of competitiveness.
My reply was following Kblaze's prediction that MJ would put up 55/18/6 on 55% FG in the 60s.

And yet a 38 year-old Kareem, who could barely get 6 rpg, was demolishing Hakeem and Ewing in the mid-80's. I found it fascinating that Kareem, in four years, from ages 38 to 41, shot .599 against Hakeem-led teams. BUT, in his statistical prime, from 71-73, he had three playoff series against Thurmond in which he shot .486, .405, and .428. Or that in his 28 H2H games against Wilt, who played the last 27 of those on a surgically repaired knee, and was in the twi-light of his career, that he only shot .464 (his career FG% was .559 BTW.) Kareem had a season in the mid-70's in which he shot .513.

In their one meeting before Wilt's knee injury, Wilt outscored Kareem, 25-23; outrebounded Kareem, 25-20; outassisted Kareem, 5-2; outblocked Kareem, 3-2; and Wilt outshot Kareem in that game, 9-14 to 9-21. Furthermore, Wilt outrebounded Kareem in their H2H's, and in fact, was seldom outrebounded in any of them. And, in the 71-72 WCF's, Wilt not only held Kareem to .457 shooting (and only .414 over the course of the last four games), he blocked some 15 sky-hooks in that series. Here was a Wilt, at age 35, and on a surgically repaired knee, outplaying a statistically prime Kareem. One can only imagine what a PRIME Chamberlain would have hung on Kareem. A Wilt that hung 45 point games on Thurmond, and THREE 50+ point games on Willis Reed (with a high game of 58), and THREE 60+ point games on 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy (with a high game of 73!), or a Wilt that had 24 career 40+ point games against Russell, with FIVE of 50+, and a high of 62.

And, then, of course, what a PRIME Chamberlain have hung on a Hakeem that a 38 year-old Kareem just abused?

[alexandreben]

Tall Tales: The Glory Years of the NBA - Terry Pluto


regarding to Wilt was never fouled out of the game, i just want to add one point, Moses Malone was ONLY fouled out ONCE in his entire career. i guess one must have a high ball IQ to be smart to do that

[DMAVS41]

And yet a 38 year-old Kareem, who could barely get 6 rpg, was demolishing Hakeem and Ewing in the mid-80's. I found it fascinating that Kareem, in four years, from ages 38 to 41, shot .599 against Hakeem-led teams. BUT, in his statistical prime, from 71-73, he had three playoff series against Thurmond in which he shot .486, .405, and .428. Or that in his 28 H2H games against Wilt, who played the last 27 of those on a surgically repaired knee, and was in the twi-light of his career, that he only shot .464 (his career FG% was .559 BTW.) Kareem had a season in the mid-70's in which he shot .513.

In their one meeting before Wilt's knee injury, Wilt outscored Kareem, 25-23; outrebounded Kareem, 25-20; outassisted Kareem, 5-2; outblocked Kareem, 3-2; and Wilt outshot Kareem in that game, 9-14 to 9-21. Furthermore, Wilt outrebounded Kareem in their H2H's, and in fact, was seldom outrebounded in any of them. And, in the 71-72 WCF's, Wilt not only held Kareem to .457 shooting (and only .414 over the course of the last four games), he blocked some 15 sky-hooks in that series. Here was a Wilt, at age 35, and on a surgically repaired knee, outplaying a statistically prime Kareem. One can only imagine what a PRIME Chamberlain would have hung on Kareem. A Wilt that hung 45 point games on Thurmond, and THREE 50+ point games on Willis Reed (with a high game of 58), and THREE 60+ point games on 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy (with a high game of 73!), or a Wilt that had 24 career 40+ point games against Russell, with FIVE of 50+, and a high of 62.

And, then, of course, what a PRIME Chamberlain have hung on a Hakeem that a 38 year-old Kareem just abused?

Great points man. All of them.

I'll ask the same question I did earlier to the guy saying players are much much better now.

Is Nash or Stockton or Price significantly better than Cousy? The people that think this era stuff and that players now are far superior need to answer.

How far do we go with this stuff? We just saw Stockton have an amazing career. Are we saying that he is on another level athletically than Cousy? We just saw Nash win back to back MVP's. We just saw Kevin Love do things only Moses has done.

I'll keep harping on it. Basketball is basketball. Being athletic can be a huge advantage. It can also mean nothing.

How far do we go? Would Stockton not be an elite point guard in the game today?

I hate how we just assume older players have no ability to adapt at all. As if they couldn't adapt to the game and players. Its an extremely flawed notion.

[Juges8932]

So you think a guy like nash or stockton or mark price were significantly better than bob cousy?

Um, absolutely. Again, read my post. I am not saying had they been born and raised at the same time as Cousy that they would still be better. But if you take those players in the era they played and then transfer them, in the same form, to the 60s, they are unquestionably better. But those guys would not be the same players that they are now if they had been born and raised during that time.

[DMAVS41]

Um, absolutely. Again, read my post. I am not saying had they been born and raised at the same time as Cousy that they would still be better. But if you take those players in the era they played and then transfer them, in the same form, to the 60s, they are unquestionably better. But those guys would not be the same players that they are now if they had been born and raised during that time.

1. Thats a really flawed and backwards way to look at it

2. Agree to disagree. Stockton and Cousy were pretty much the exact same size and I'd argue that Cousy had a better skill set. I'd take Cousy over stockton in any era.

The idea that Stockton is clearly better than a guy like Cousy is the problem here and its a shame.

I'll ask another question.

Is Russell Westbrook significantly better than Stockton?

[jlauber]

Great points man. All of them.

I'll ask the same question I did earlier to the guy saying players are much much better now.

Is Nash or Stockton or Price significantly better than Cousy? The people that think this era stuff and that players now are far superior need to answer.

How far do we go with this stuff? We just saw Stockton have an amazing career. Are we saying that he is on another level athletically than Cousy? We just saw Nash win back to back MVP's. We just saw Kevin Love do things only Moses has done.

I'll keep harping on it. Basketball is basketball. Being athletic can be a huge advantage. It can also mean nothing.

How far do we go? Would Stockton not be an elite point guard in the game today?

I hate how we just assume older players have no ability to adapt at all. As if they couldn't adapt to the game and players. Its an extremely flawed notion.

Great post! If you posted a picture of Nash, or Stockton, or Love in a photo in the 60's, and they would have fit right in as the "non-athletic" players of the 60's. Fans of this era would call them laughable. They would also say that there would be no way that a 37 year old Nash would have led the 2010-11 NBA in assists, or that the 6-9 Love would even be in the NBA, much less running away with the rebounding title. And of course, they would also say that there is no way that TODAY's NBA would have centers like Chuck Hayes at 6-6, or Ben Wallace at 6-7 (who also won TWO rebounding titles in the 00's BTW.)

Meanwhile, James White, a gifted ATHLETE to be sure, was a complete BUST in the NBA. And does anyone honestly believe that Erick Dampier, or Ronny Turiaf would have made an NBA roster in the early 70's? In fact, you could go right down the list of CURRENT NBA centers. How many of them would be better than Cowens, Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Gilmore, Unseld, Hayes, McAdoo, Lanier, Kareem, and Wilt...all in the HOF, and all playing in Wilt's LAST season in 72-73?

And, one more time...using the CURRENT way of measuring TODAY's NBA players (in shoes), and use it back in the 60's and 70's, when players were measured in bare feet, and...those 6-11 players of that era would all be over 7-0. And Wilt (who most believed was at least 7-2) would have been 7-3+ today, as would Gilmore and Kareem (who would probably would have been closer to 7-4.)

[DMAVS41]

Great post! If you posted a picture of Nash, or Stockton, or Love in a photo in the 60's, and they would have fit right in as the "non-athletic" players of the 60's. Fans of this era would call them laughable. They would also say that there would be no way that a 37 year old Nash would have led the 2010-11 NBA in assists, or that the 6-9 Love would even be in the NBA, much less running away with the rebounding title. And of course, they would also say that there is no way that TODAY's NBA would have centers like Chuck Hayes at 6-6, or Ben Wallace at 6-7 (who also won TWO rebounding titles in the 00's BTW.)

Meanwhile, James White, a gifted ATHLETE to be sure, was a complete BUST in the NBA. And does anyone honestly believe that Erick Dampier, or Ronny Turiaf would have made an NBA roster in the early 70's? In fact, you could go right down the list of CURRENT NBA centers. How many of them would be better than Cowens, Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Gilmore, Unseld, Hayes, McAdoo, Lanier, Kareem, and Wilt...all in the HOF, and all playing in Wilt's LAST season in 72-73?

And, one more time...using the CURRENT way of measuring TODAY's NBA players (in shoes), and use it back in the 60's and 70's, when players were measured in bare feet, and...those 6-11 players of that era would all be over 7-0. And Wilt (who most believed was at least 7-2) would have been 7-3+ today, as would Gilmore and Kareem (who would probably would have been closer to 7-4.)

Exactly.

That is exactly my point. How far do we go with this stuff? At what point do we realize that basketball is basketball. At what point do we acknowledge that a 37 year old Canadian is playing at an all-nba level and routinely outplaying these so called "superior" players.

It makes no sense.

[jlip]

One thing for certain...MJ's resume (i.e. awards and accomplishments) would be vastly different if he had entered the league in say '60-'61 along with West and Oscar. He would have no more than 3 or 4 All Defensive Team selections (The nominations didn't start until 1969.), no DPOY (wasn't awarded until 1983), probably siginificantly fewer rings (I see no way he's getting 6 titles on any team competing against the Celtics.), and fewer MVPs. The players in the 60s who voted for the league's MVP seemed to prefer centers to perimeter players seeing that Oscar Robertson was the only non center to win the award during that era. Also they seemed to be rather unimpressed with people who won scoring titles. Most importantly, MJ would not have had the advantage of mass 24 hour media coverage adding to his GOAT reputation. His resume and legacy would definitely look far worse than it looks today had he played most of his career in the 60s.

Edit:
I forgot that if he played most of his career with Wilt I also don't see him having anymore than 5-6 scoring titles as opposed to the 10 that he has. Finally his impressive aerial acrobatics and showmanship style of play would be lost on a younger generation of fans the same way Baylor's are today.

[jlauber]

One thing for certain...MJ's resume (i.e. awards and accomplishments) would be vastly different if he had entered the league in say '60-'61 along with West and Oscar. He would have no more than 3 or 4 All Defensive Team selections (The nominations didn't start until 1969.), no DPOY (wasn't awarded until 1983), probably siginificantly fewer rings (I see no way he's getting 6 titles on any team competing against the Celtics.), and fewer MVPs. The players in the 60s who voted for the league's MVP seemed to prefer centers to perimeter players seeing that Oscar Robertson was the only non center to win the award during that era. Also they seemed to be rather unimpressed with people who won scoring titles. Most importantly, MJ would not have had the advantage of mass 24 hour media coverage adding to his GOAT reputation. His resume and legacy would definitely look far worse than it looks today had he played most of his career in the 60s.

Another GREAT post. Jordan probably has an "Oscar-type" career in the 60's. He probably would not have been on the Celtics, so there is probably no way he leads teams to six titles. He most certainly would not have won scoring titles in the first half of the decade, when Wilt was averaging 40 ppg. In fact, I suspect that Wilt might have scored even MORE had anyone challenged him in that period. My god, after Wilt's 61-62 season, in which he averaged 50.4 ppg, Psileas commented that over the course of the first third of the 62-63 season, Wilt was averaging 51 ppg (and would finish at "only" 44.8 ppg.) Rick Barry, who led the NBA in scoring in 66-67 at 35.6 ppg acknowledged that the only reason that he won it, was because Wilt didn't want it (and Wilt was at his absolute PEAK that year...and IMHO, he could have easily have averaged over 40 ppg.)

And with Russell and Wilt winning EIGHT of the ten MVP awards in the decade of the 60's (with Oscar and Unseld winning the other two...and neither as dominant as Wilt in either of them), MJ probably would have been fortunate to win ONE.

[Juges8932]

1. Thats a really flawed and backwards way to look at it

2. Agree to disagree. Stockton and Cousy were pretty much the exact same size and I'd argue that Cousy had a better skill set. I'd take Cousy over stockton in any era.

The idea that Stockton is clearly better than a guy like Cousy is the problem here and its a shame.

I'll ask another question.

Is Russell Westbrook significantly better than Stockton?

Maybe Cousy specifically I could see an argument for. I certainly think Cousy is somebody who elevated the game and helped the evolution of it for his time. If he was in today's era, I absolutely think he could be in the league. But that's under the assumption that he would have grown up in the 90s/00s and had the benefit of what current players have. I can't rule out for certain that Cousy in 60s form would not be great in today's NBA- he was a great playmaker and had good court vision (from what I have seen and those are extremely important for a PG). I don't know if Cousy from the 60s could be great in today's league, but I am making a more general statement to 60s generation of players on the whole. Cousy for his time was a great, great player. I think he should be viewed and ranked according to what he accomplished and did for the game in his era. It is rather pointless to compare people from different eras IMO. You have to look at what they accomplished in their era, but keep it in perspective to how the league was at that time as well.

As for your question, no, I don't think Russell Westbrook is better than Prime John Stockton. John Stockton was a fantastic PG and IMO, the second greatest of all time. The greatest that I got to see actually play (Magic/Isiah were before my time). But that isn't to dismiss Westbrook as a player. He is young, talented, and looks like he has a bright future in this league. It would be foolish to compare a guy who has been in the league 3 years to somebody who was in it for what, 17 years?

[-23-]

I would argue that EXACT opposite. Many posters here disparage Wilt's numbers based on "pace", ...yet, the game was played at a faster rate. Players were running up-and-down the floor at a higher rate. And, once again, the scheduling was BRUTAL. In MJ's high-scoring '87 season, he NEVER played in three games in three nights. That was COMMON in Wilt's era.

AND, take a look at the MUCH higher LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%'s the 80's. There was NO defense being played in that era. There were ENTIRE leagues shooting .492, and even the 30-52 Kings shot .504 in the 84-85 season.


Pace IS a huge factor. When comparing the PACE with the FG% of the league, you can equate that their was ALOT more rebounds and second-chance points. The avg FG% was what? 40-44% during that era with a ton more possessions. These lead to huge statistical deviations.

And I would argue that Jordan playing in the 60's would average 45-50PPG/10+ assists/ 15+ rebounds (he's an OVERSIZED guard), 55% FG, and probably a ton of steals.

[HighFlyer23]

LOL

he DESTROYS that weak scrub era

60/15/12 on 57-60% shooting

throw in about 4 blocks a game and 5 steals too

posterizes Wilt and Russell multiple times

throw in any modern day player into the 60s and they destroy

[DMAVS41]

Maybe Cousy specifically I could see an argument for. I certainly think Cousy is somebody who elevated the game and helped the evolution of it for his time. If he was in today's era, I absolutely think he could be in the league. But that's under the assumption that he would have grown up in the 90s/00s and had the benefit of what current players have. I can't rule out for certain that Cousy in 60s form would not be great in today's NBA- he was a great playmaker and had good court vision (from what I have seen and those are extremely important for a PG). I don't know if Cousy from the 60s could be great in today's league, but I am making a more general statement to 60s generation of players on the whole. Cousy for his time was a great, great player. I think he should be viewed and ranked according to what he accomplished and did for the game in his era. It is rather pointless to compare people from different eras IMO. You have to look at what they accomplished in their era, but keep it in perspective to how the league was at that time as well.

As for your question, no, I don't think Russell Westbrook is better than Prime John Stockton. John Stockton was a fantastic PG and IMO, the second greatest of all time. The greatest that I got to see actually play (Magic/Isiah were before my time). But that isn't to dismiss Westbrook as a player. He is young, talented, and looks like he has a bright future in this league. It would be foolish to compare a guy who has been in the league 3 years to somebody who was in it for what, 17 years?

Ok.

But I could take the exact same line of thinking. I could say that players today without adaptation would be terrible in older generations. Jordan would get called for carrying and traveling almost every play.

So it goes both ways.

[Ne 1]

LOL

he DESTROYS that weak scrub era

60/15/12 on 57-60% shooting

throw in about 4 blocks a game and 5 steals too

posterizes Wilt and Russell multiple times

throw in any modern day player into the 60s and they destroy
:facepalm

Typical Jordan stan.

Of course, if Jordan played in Wilt/Russell's era, he would eventually be out of the league because he couldn't stop the following infractions:

-traveling
-offensive fouls
-cursing the refs (he would not have lasted in that era with this; he only "got better" in his career because he received more and more respect from refs)
-palming the ball (he'd turn the ball over on VIRTUALLY EVERY possession; if he corrected this, he wouldn't be as effective ball handler)
-likely not as much hero worship, so not as many calls
-hand check allowed, meaning other players could defend him better
-no advanced physical therapy for Jordan during his career- meaning his body breaks down sooner, more injuries, less production in his career
-making a meager salary playing, many players of that time worked another during job the offseason; if Jordan had to work like everyone else, his game would NOT BE HALF WHAT IT WAS, due to not being able to train in the off-season.

These differences would render Jordan a very different player- not the one you remember.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I know one things for sure, Kobe would get his primadonna ass sent back to Hollywood. He wouldnt be able to whine for calls, carry the ball, or jack up tons of shots. Players then would call him out on it and would be put in his his place within a matter of seconds.

Without Jordan, Kobe would be a lost basketball player. :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

:facepalm

Typical Jordan stan.

Of course, if Jordan played in Wilt/Russell's era, he would eventually be out of the league because he couldn't stop the following infractions:

-traveling
-offensive fouls
-cursing the refs (he would not have lasted in that era with this; he only "got better" in his career because he received more and more respect from refs)
-palming the ball (he'd turn the ball over on VIRTUALLY EVERY possession; if he corrected this, he wouldn't be as effective ball handler)
-likely not as much hero worship, so not as many calls
-hand check allowed, meaning other players could defend him better
-no advanced physical therapy for Jordan during his career- meaning his body breaks down sooner, more injuries, less production in his career
-making a meager salary playing, many players of that time worked another during job the offseason; if Jordan had to work like everyone else, his game would NOT BE HALF WHAT IT WAS, due to not being able to train in the off-season.

These differences would render Jordan a very different player- not the one you remember.

This is of course taking it way too far. But the premise is true with all the current players. Acting like there would be no adaptation both ways is absurd.

But if other want to take that line, then even Steven Nash would struggle without adaptation. Nash's hesitation dribble he has perfected would be called carrying every single time down the floor.

I don't know why this is so hard for people. Basketball is basketball. The game is just different now.

Are players today more athletic? Of course. Does the current league have better depth? Of course. Are the elite players today significantly better than elite players from yesteryear? I don't think so.

We have too many examples for this not to be true. Being more athletic does not mean better. James White was given as a great example earlier by JLAUBER. He would arguably be a top 5 athlete in the game. Joe Alexander.

If athleticism is so important, explain what Kevin Love is doing right now.

That is why I love basketball. It truly is a timeless game. Skill and feel will always trump raw athleticism.

People site Lebron as all raw athleticism. Rubbish. His skill set and court vision and feel for the game is elite overall.

Christ, look what JJ Barea is doing right now in the league. Anyone think Mark Price wouldn't be one of the better guards currently? Its hilarious this era crap we have to hear about given the many examples otherwise.

Take Wilt. He would probably be as good or better today. Not numbers wise because of pace, but in dominance and impact, I could easily see Wilt being even more of a force. The centers he would face today simply aren't as good as they were in his era. Wilt would abuse people on a nightly basis. He'd foul out the likes of Chandler and Bogut in the first half with the current rules. Bynum and Howard would probably be the only 2 guys in the league that could even remain competitive with him.

Put Wilt back in the 90's against Ewing/Hakeem/Robinson/Shaq and he would struggle more. So that is an example right there of a significant (maybe the most significant) part of the game being considerably worse now than it was 20 years ago.

Does anyone refute that? Does anyone honestly believe that this crop of bigs even remotely holds a candle to the late 80's and 90's? Or is Tyson Chandler better than David Robinson or Mchale? LOL

[RainierBeachPoet]

LOL

he DESTROYS that weak scrub era

60/15/12 on 57-60% shooting

throw in about 4 blocks a game and 5 steals too

posterizes Wilt and Russell multiple times

throw in any modern day player into the 60s and they destroy

i beg to differ

0/0/0 on 0% shooting

0 steals/blocks (they did not keep these stats in the 60s)


jordan was only SIX years old in 1969. the nba guys would have completely dominated him

[feyki]

Tall Tales: The Glory Years of the NBA - Terry Pluto


http://i56.tinypic.com/x42fbk.png


This was very solid sharing :applause: .

Wilt had said what i'm thinking , totally .


I don't think that , X player cannot play in the X era . Every player can . But their game would changes under the circumstances . Before 80's , game was tougher . But pace was higher . Jordan would got above than 40 points with worse percentages . Assist numbers can be drop too . Baskets were far more assisted oriented since 80's , with spacing,handchecking rules . More space means more passing capabilities .

[3ball]

:rolleyes:

[3ball]

.
MJ versus the best 4 players that Lebron ever faced:



1) SHAQ



Top Lebron moments:



2004-2006 were the only years of Lebron's career where Shaq had some prime left - during those years, Lebron finished behind Shaq in MVP voting (2004 and 2005), and lost the conference to him (2005 and 2006).. Lebron never dunked on him.




Top Jordan moments:



Jordan won MVP over prime Shaq in 1996 and 1998, swept Shaq in 1996 ECF, and won the Eastern Conference over him from 96-98'.. He also dunked on him, shown here (http://i.makeagif.com/media/7-10-2015/LfHlds.gif).




2. KOBE:



Top Lebron moments:



- Lebron watched Kobe win more championships during the time that both were in their prime, and also watched Kobe save the team in the 2008 Olympics.

- Lebron missed the much-anticipated, Kobe/Lebron matchup in 2009 and 2010 Finals, because his top-seeded team underachieved by losing to lower seeds in earlier rounds.




Top Jordan moments:



- MJ dunked on Kobe in their first ever possession vs. each other, shown here (http://i.makeagif.com/media/12-13-2015/Q3fm0o.gif)

- MJ showed his protege how it's done by hitting the game-winner in Game 1 of the 1997 Finals, after Kobe had airballed 4 straight game-winner attempts against the same team earlier in the playoffs.

- MJ passed the torch to his protoge in the 1998 all-star game by scoring on him at will (5 times in head-to-head possessions, shown here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN3sto7KGQs&t=0m16s)).




3. DUNCAN



Top Lebron moments:



- Lebron missed the infamous game-tying 3-pointer and needed Ray Allen to save him




Top Jordan moments:



- Jordan MADE his game-tying 3-pointer from the exact same spot during his first meeting with Duncan/Popovich in 1998 (the shot is shown here (http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2015/rP-QUs.gif))... Then he dominated the OT, including 2 dunks over Duncan, shown here (https://media.giphy.com/media/26FPq7nUqs2V8LyNO/giphy.gif)..

Later in that 1998 season, Jordan won the Finals against the team (Jazz) that destroyed Duncan/Popovich's Spurs in 2nd Round (the Spurs won 56 games with Duncan/Robinson/Popovich in 1998).




4. GARNETT:



Top Lebron moments:



- Lebron got his shit pushed in during 2008 and 2010 ECSF




Top Jordan moments:



- Jordan schooled Garnett in the 1998 all-star game (shown here (http://i.makeagif.com/media/10-30-2015/q8-1iR.gif)) and during the regular season (shown here (http://i.makeagif.com/media/12-12-2015/6agjm-.gif), here (http://i.makeagif.com/media/12-12-2015/EfFINb.gif) and here (http://i.makeagif.com/media/12-12-2015/Jp9ACT.gif)).

- The only time where MJ and Garnett were matched up defensively for an entire game was during a 2002 contest - both were matched up at SF, and 38-year old Jordan scored 35 on Garnett in every way imagineable, including various blow-by dunks and layups, shown here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmngcHYnfN0).




5. SHAWN MARION:



Top Lebron moments:



- Lebron got locked down by OLD Shawn Marion during the 2011 Finals, which was one of the greatest chokes ever by a star in the Finals.




Top Jordan moments:



- 38-year old Jordan hit the game-winner in PRIME Shawn Marion's face during a contest in 2002 (shown here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjo06p5zchg&t=0m09s)), and then destroyed him for 41 points in another contest (shown here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd9ayPlqCMg)).




6. 2003-2004 seasons



JORDAN 2003: 19.3 PER.. 20.0 ppg.. 44.5 fg
LEBRON 2004: 18.3 PER.. 20.9 ppg.. 41.7 fg














Yeah, he'd do okay in the 60's

.

[Stringer Bell]

He'd still be a candidate, but some people would probably underrate him and say "oh he played against non-athletic scrubs" and all that mess.

As for him not getting preferential referee treatment and not being allowed to travel so much, don't you think Jordan, or any player for that matter, would adapt?