What NBA Era WASN'T a "Weak, Watered-Down" Era?

[SpecialQue]

I keep seeing this crap pop up when people try to discredit older players. So I want to get some kind of consensus here so we all know what kind of people we're dealing with. What era in basketball history WASN'T "weak" or "watered-down"?

[Eric Cartman]

They athleticism that we see today in the NBA is superior of that of the 80's & 90's. Atheles today are bigger, stronger, quicker. 20, 30 years ago the advantage was it was much more of a team concept of playing the game. Not this 1 on 1 streeball stuff you see some of the time here. I think the weakest era was that early 70's basketball. When Wilt slowed his GOAT role he had.

It is said that Larry Bird & Magic Johnson saved a dying sport, while raising it's popularity through the roof. True Story.

[Deuce Bigalow]

1979-80 to present

[StateOfMind12]

They athleticism that we see today in the NBA is superior of that of the 80's & 90's. Atheles today are bigger, stronger, quicker. 20, 30 years ago the advantage was it was much more of a team concept of playing the game. Not this 1 on 1 streeball stuff you see some of the time here. I think the weakest era was that early 70's basketball. When Wilt slowed his GOAT role he had.

It is said that Larry Bird & Magic Johnson saved a dying sport, while raising it's popularity through the roof. True Story.
Athletes are bigger and stronger these days because they don't play as fast as a pace as they did back in the days such as the 80s. You had to be in better running shaped or conditioned to play in NBA games and seasons back then than in today's game. That is why players were lighter back then and that is why they weren't as strong as they are now.

It has nothing to do with the evolution of the game or athleticism, that is garbage.

[jlauber]

In the '67 NBA season, the Lakers fielded a team that had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, who were in their near-primes, and who averaged 29 ppg and 27 ppg respectively. They also had HOFer Gail Goodrich. Then they had Archie Clark, who would average 20 ppg and be an all-star guard the very next season. At PF, they had Rudy Larusso, who would average 22 ppg the very next season. On their bench, they had Walt Hazzard (Abdul-Rahman) who was lost to the expansion draft the next season, and would average 24 ppg that season. And, in addition to 6-10 journeyman center Darrell Imhoff, who averaged a 10-13 that season, they had TWO seven-footers, Mel Counts (who was a good outside shooter and could also play PF), and Henry Finkel.


With all of that talent, they could only go 36-45. Now, Baylor and West were the "Lebron and Wade" of their era. Can you imagine a PRIME Lebron and Wade, with a boatload of surrounding talent...going 36-45????

[STATUTORY]

In the '67 NBA season, the Lakers fielded a team that had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, who were in their near-primes, and who averaged 29 ppg and 27 ppg respectively. They also had HOFer Gail Goodrich. Then they had Archie Clark, who would average 20 ppg and be an all-star guard the very next season. At PF, they had Rudy Larusso, who would average 22 ppg the very next season. On their bench, they had Walt Hazzard (Abdul-Rahman) who was lost to the expansion draft the next season, and would average 24 ppg that season. And, in addition to 6-10 journeyman center Darrell Imhoff, who averaged a 10-13 that season, they had TWO seven-footers, Mel Counts (who was a good outside shooter and could also play PF), and Henry Finkel.


With all of that talent, they could only go 36-45. Now, Baylor and West were the "Lebron and Wade" of their era. Can you imagine a PRIME Lebron and Wade, with a boatload of surrounding talent...going 36-45????


:biggums: no era more watered down than the non ABA NBA merged, still not fully racially integrated 60s era

[Deuce Bigalow]

:biggums: no era more watered down than the non ABA NBA merged, still not fully racially integrated 60s era
:applause:

"Bbbbu bbbut bbut but my father...I mean Wilt played in that era!" - jlauber

[AMISTILLILL]

In the '67 NBA season, the Lakers fielded a team that had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, who were in their near-primes, and who averaged 29 ppg and 27 ppg respectively. They also had HOFer Gail Goodrich. Then they had Archie Clark, who would average 20 ppg and be an all-star guard the very next season. At PF, they had Rudy Larusso, who would average 22 ppg the very next season. On their bench, they had Walt Hazzard (Abdul-Rahman) who was lost to the expansion draft the next season, and would average 24 ppg that season. And, in addition to 6-10 journeyman center Darrell Imhoff, who averaged a 10-13 that season, they had TWO seven-footers, Mel Counts (who was a good outside shooter and could also play PF), and Henry Finkel.


With all of that talent, they could only go 36-45. Now, Baylor and West were the "Lebron and Wade" of their era. Can you imagine a PRIME Lebron and Wade, with a boatload of surrounding talent...going 36-45????

This dude is ****ing shameless. Get a hobby.

[bwink23]

They athleticism that we see today in the NBA is superior of that of the 80's & 90's. Atheles today are bigger, stronger, quicker. 20, 30 years ago the advantage was it was much more of a team concept of playing the game. Not this 1 on 1 streeball stuff you see some of the time here. I think the weakest era was that early 70's basketball. When Wilt slowed his GOAT role he had.

It is said that Larry Bird & Magic Johnson saved a dying sport, while raising it's popularity through the roof. True Story.

Even if that were the case, that still wouldn't apply, since everyone for their own era was on a equal plane..:coleman:

[jlauber]

In a recent interview by David Feherty, Bill Russell recalled the story of a conversation he had with Michael Jordan a few years ago. He told Jordan that MJ's series winning assist to John Paxson in the '93 Finals would not have happened in the 60's. When Jordan asked him why, Russell responded, that Paxson would have been watching the game from the stands. When MJ continued to question Russell, Russell said, no offense to Paxson, but he would not have been the 100th best player in the league in the 60's, and therefore would not have made an NBA roster back then.

[Asukal]

LOL! This pervert gaylauber..... :facepalm

[STATUTORY]

In a recent interview by David Feherty, Bill Russell recalled the story of a conversation he had with Michael Jordan a few years ago. He told Jordan that MJ's series winning assist to John Paxson in the '93 Finals would not have happened in the 60's. When Jordan asked him why, Russell responded, that Paxson would have been watching the game from the stands. When MJ continued to question Russell, Russell said, no offense to Paxson, but he would not have been the 100th best player in the league in the 60's, and therefore would not have made an NBA roster back then.

:roll: :roll:

can we stop being delusional about the past?

this was bob cousy who was putting up 20 points and 18 points in the 60s and he was dribbling like this:
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
John Paxson along with any decent 90s guard would have ShIetted on him

[bwink23]

In a recent interview by David Feherty, Bill Russell recalled the story of a conversation he had with Michael Jordan a few years ago. He told Jordan that MJ's series winning assist to John Paxson in the '93 Finals would not have happened in the 60's. When Jordan asked him why, Russell responded, that Paxson would have been watching the game from the stands. When MJ continued to question Russell, Russell said, no offense to Paxson, but he would not have been the 100th best player in the league in the 60's, and therefore would not have made an NBA roster back then.


That problem with this J, is that many of those 60's players wouldn't even make a roster in the 80's or 90's.

[Deuce Bigalow]

:roll: :roll:

can we stop being delusional about the past?

this was bob cousy who was putting up 20 and 18 points in the 60s and he was dribbling like this:
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
John Paxson along with any decent 90s guard would have ShIetted on him
a simple stop juked the defender and made him fall, then went right through them like they weren't even there:oldlol:

[bwink23]

"weak and watered down" is just some B.S. made up by detractors of Jordnan's reign....League expansion only hurts if there isn't enough talent to fill the spots. Obviously, 23 teams vs. 30, the talent will get spread a little thin. But this is the United States, and there is no shortage of basketball talent here.

[Vienceslav]

In a recent interview by David Feherty, Bill Russell recalled the story of a conversation he had with Michael Jordan a few years ago. He told Jordan that MJ's series winning assist to John Paxson in the '93 Finals would not have happened in the 60's. When Jordan asked him why, Russell responded, that Paxson would have been watching the game from the stands. When MJ continued to question Russell, Russell said, no offense to Paxson, but he would not have been the 100th best player in the league in the 60's, and therefore would not have made an NBA roster back then.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EXvHbjy4VM4/TO1q44cu4ZI/AAAAAAAAAFc/VsTX9dPfHwc/s1600/Cee-Lo-Green.jpg

[Deuce Bigalow]

Did you say 20 & 18? :roll:

[TheBigVeto]

I keep seeing this crap pop up when people try to discredit older players. So I want to get some kind of consensus here so we all know what kind of people we're dealing with. What era in basketball history WASN'T "weak" or "watered-down"?

Era without Kobe Bryant wasn't weak or watered down.
Era with Kobe Bryant is weak and watered down.
This is the correct answer.
You're welcome.

[eazyduzzit10]

Even if that were the case, that still wouldn't apply, since everyone for their own era was on a equal plane..:coleman:
This! :applause:

I don't understand why a lot of people diss past eras of basketball. Would Wilt have dominated the way he did back then? Probably not. But what he done in his time was something noone could do, he dominated his era and that's what it's all about. In 50 years time athleticism will probably be at a higher level than it is today and someone will probably surpass Lebron's production. Does that make him a scrub? Does that mean that Kobe's 81 will be overrated because it will be seen as something done against "unathletic scrubs"? Greatness is measured by how dominant they were in their time, not 50 years later in a game that continues to change

[LBJMVP]

:roll: :roll:

can we stop being delusional about the past?

this was bob cousy who was putting up 20 points and 18 points in the 60s and he was dribbling like this:
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
John Paxson along with any decent 90s guard would have ShIetted on him


i cant stop laughing at that guy falling.... then he proceeds to loose control of the ball on a simple spin to the left hand.

[bdreason]

I'm cool with everything from the mid-to-late 60's and forward, i.e. when African Americans were integrated into the league.

[CavaliersFTW]

I keep seeing this crap pop up when people try to discredit older players. So I want to get some kind of consensus here so we all know what kind of people we're dealing with. What era in basketball history WASN'T "weak" or "watered-down"?

1960's... there's no such thing as a "watered down" 9 team league. Limited coverage means nobody knows anything about it, thus it is easiest just to shrug it off with a "weak" label and not worry about it. A lot of talent crammed into a small amount of teams that decade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvMq-eX_pNw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVi0EtJcZg

[CavaliersFTW]

:roll: :roll:

can we stop being delusional about the past?

this was bob cousy who was putting up 20 points and 18 points in the 60s and he was dribbling like this:
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
John Paxson along with any decent 90s guard would have ShIetted on him

:biggums:

Nah, cause your Trolling.

This is Lebron James who puts up 30ppg and capable of dropping 50 in the 21st century and he still clumsily stumbles into the post, panics, and jacks up horrendous shit like this:
http://nsa20.casimages.com/img/2010/11/25/101125035807433904.gif
Bob Cousy would have ShIetted on him in the post. Is it too much trouble to learn a hook shot!? For Christs sake, that's basic shit.













So are we done cherry picking 3 second GIFS to judge entire decades now?

[97 bulls]

a simple stop juked the defender and made him fall, then went right through them like they weren't even there:oldlol:
Lol I agree

[iamgine]

I keep seeing this crap pop up when people try to discredit older players. So I want to get some kind of consensus here so we all know what kind of people we're dealing with. What era in basketball history WASN'T "weak" or "watered-down"?
You mean NBA history? No era is weak, just weaker than the next. Natural progression of the game and talent. The popularity, technology, nutrition and knowledge has risen dramatically. No doubt in the future it will be even stronger with more global talents and better technologies. The progression has slowed down somewhat since mid 80s because popularity of the game just boomed back then. The progression from 40s to mid 80s were huge while from mid 80s to 2010s not that huge.

[LoneyROY7]

:roll: :roll:

can we stop being delusional about the past?

this was bob cousy who was putting up 20 points and 18 points in the 60s and he was dribbling like this:
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
John Paxson along with any decent 90s guard would have ShIetted on him

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/mrmeat.gif

[Deuce Bigalow]

:biggums:

Nah, cause your Trolling.

This is Lebron James who puts up 30ppg and capable of dropping 50 in the 21st century and he still clumsily stumbles into the post, panics, and jacks up horrendous shit like this:
http://nsa20.casimages.com/img/2010/11/25/101125035807433904.gif
Bob Cousy would have ShIetted on him in the post. Is it too much trouble to learn a hook shot!? For Christs sake, that's basic shit.












So are we done cherry picking 3 second GIFS to judge entire decades now?
This guy's living in denial

[CavaliersFTW]

You mean NBA history? No era is weak, just weaker than the next. Natural progression of the game and talent. The popularity, technology, nutrition and knowledge has risen dramatically. No doubt in the future it will be even stronger with more global talents and better technologies. The progression has slowed down somewhat since mid 80s because popularity of the game just boomed back then. The progression from 40s to mid 80s were huge while from mid 80s to 2010s not that huge.

:roll:

"Nutrition" ... biggest load of shit people say on IH.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilyFh1gOUjY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_aYfPsneDM

Junk food. Major problem in the U.S.... has only increased since prior decades not decreased... NBA players of today grew up on Pepsi and McDonalds. Most NBA players have horrible diets. But yah okay, "nutrition" makes older era's weaker...

Great logic.

You honestly think Pau Gasol goes home and gives a flying f_ck what he snacks on from his fridge? You think players prior to the 1980's were "starving" or something!? Instead of Dorrittos, Taco Bell and Big Macs some of those "starved" vintage players probably had to settle for actual grocery store foods like chicken, eggs, potatoes, vegetables and all that other prehistoric terrible food that you can't put in your microwave for instant-calorie-satisfaction. :roll:

[AlphaWolf24]

:biggums:

Nah, cause your Trolling.

This is Lebron James who puts up 30ppg and capable of dropping 50 in the 21st century and he still clumsily stumbles into the post, panics, and jacks up horrendous shit like this:
http://nsa20.casimages.com/img/2010/11/25/101125035807433904.gif
Bob Cousy would have ShIetted on him in the post. Is it too much trouble to learn a hook shot!? For Christs sake, that's basic shit.













So are we done cherry picking 3 second GIFS to judge entire decades now?


if Lebron traveled back in time and posted up Cousy ...

only to travel and stumble...then commit a foul like he did in the Finals vs 5' 7" JJ Barea...I would ***** a *****!:lol

[CavaliersFTW]

if Lebron traveled back in time and posted up Cousy ...

only to travel and stumble...then commit a foul like he did in the Finals vs 5' 7" JJ Barea...I would ***** a *****!:lol

Barea is 5'7!!? Cousy was 6'2... Cous would be too much to handle, would Destroy 'Bron in the post. :roll:

"HALP!@"

"WHRE"S HASLEM"

*clank
*whistle





http://www.slamdunkcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/UdonisHeat.jpg

"Bron u okay bro? I was on the bench... That's where players like me belong in 4th quarters, why the hell do you keep lookin for me to bail you out!?"

:lebroncry:

[andgar923]

Best era ever was early-mid 90s.

Why?

It was the transitional period between the old school fundamentally tough era, and the newer more athletic one. This is when both styles combined, an era that still had the old school rules with old school mentality, but cats were bigger, badder, more athletic, and teams had employed the Pistons' defense and took it to another level.

Because of this era, the league began to get watered down.

Rules were changed, players got younger and less experienced, quality of play overall deteriorated. And then we get into the now..... great individual players and athletes, but no IQ, watered down rules, lack of overall intensity and toughness, and bad TEAM play.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Best era ever was early-mid 90s.

Why?

It was the transitional period between the old school fundamentally tough era, and the newer more athletic one. This is when both styles combined, an era that still had the old school rules with old school mentality, but cats were bigger, badder, more athletic, and teams had employed the Pistons' defense and took it to another level.

Because of this era, the league began to get watered down.

Rules were changed, players got younger and less experienced, quality of play overall deteriorated. And then we get into the now..... great individual players and athletes, but no IQ, watered down rules, lack of overall intensity and toughness, and bad TEAM play.

No it wasn't

the '80s was the best era
Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, and Pistons
Magic, Bird, Kareem, Michael

'90s the 'franchises' got old
Lakers were old - Kareem retired in '89, Magic done after '91
Celtics were old - Bird back problems in '90s
Pistons got old a year after the '90s started
Sixers got old - Dr J and Moses retied in the late '80s

'90's could be one of the worst eras in terms of competition

[andgar923]

No it wasn't

the '80s was the best era
Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, and Pistons
Magic, Bird, Kareem, Michael

'90s the 'franchises' got old
Lakers were old - Kareem retired in '89, Magic done after '91
Celtics were old - Bird back problems in '90s
Pistons got old a year after the '90s started
Sixers got old - Dr J and Moses retied in the late '80s

'90's could be one of the worst eras in terms of competition

But new teams and players emerged.

it wasn't as dominated by a select elite anymore, which imo it made the league more competitive.

Besides... the players from the 80s cared more about drinking and getting high on coke. They had bad nutrition and diets, with horrible workout regimens. These bad habits changed, and modern science and training evolved.

So you had the best of the old with the best of the new.

I still say that the 80s was better than the late 90s and early 00-mid 00 tho, because the overall play was just better even with all of their faults. But that can't be said about the early-mid 90s.

[andgar923]

No it wasn't

the '80s was the best era
Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, and Pistons
Magic, Bird, Kareem, Michael

'90s the 'franchises' got old
Lakers were old - Kareem retired in '89, Magic done after '91
Celtics were old - Bird back problems in '90s
Pistons got old a year after the '90s started
Sixers got old - Dr J and Moses retied in the late '80s

'90's could be one of the worst eras in terms of competition

I didn't say all of the 90s, I meant a part of the 90s.

While it was a brief moment, that moment was the best overall.

The 80s also saw expansion, so that argument is nulled.

[Deuce Bigalow]

But new teams and players emerged.

it wasn't as dominated by a select elite anymore, which imo it made the league more competitive.

Besides... the players from the 80s cared more about drinking and getting high on coke. They had bad nutrition and diets, with horrible workout regimens. These bad habits changed, and modern science and training evolved.

So you had the best of the old with the best of the new.

I still say that the 80s was better than the late 90s and early 00-mid 00 tho, because the overall play was just better even with all of their faults. But that can't be said about the early-mid 90s.
All the great teams died off, and only one great team rose up - Bulls, who else? Suns? lol, Cavs? lol

[tommyhtc]

Since very few here truly witnessed the 70s and the 60s,

I don't think we should come up with conclusions just by watching 5 minute footages.

[Owl]

1960's... there's no such thing as a "watered down" 9 team league. Limited coverage means nobody knows anything about it, thus it is easiest just to shrug it off with a "weak" label and not worry about it. A lot of talent crammed into a small amount of teams that decade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvMq-eX_pNw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVi0EtJcZg
Not "watered down" which refers to expansion. But the the reason you could water down the league was that the number of good players increased. The potential pool of pro basketball players increased with the US's increasing population, and particularly more people became dedicated to to playing basketball as it became more popular/visible/viable. Since the 80's the expansion of the game globally has further enhanced the pool of potential NBA players.

This is not a theoretical argument about if Jerry West had grown up with today's coaching and resources and tapes and youtube and nutrition. If he had then yes he could have been better.

And yes I said nutrition. And yes many americans are fat (though I'd imagine fewer than before are are underfed as a percentage of population). But that doesn't mean that generally the standards of elite athletes (not all, but on average) in terms of taking care of themselves and diet-wise has gone down. Given that teams and even players can afford dieticians and various other helpful resources they can play effectively to an age which players from the 60's simply couldn't. It's not to criticize those older players but they had less medical support, worse travel and often ate at greasy spoons (certainly through the 50's) so inevitably they were on the whole in worse shape. Obviously there exceptions but on the whole this seems true to me.


In the '67 NBA season, the Lakers fielded a team that had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, who were in their near-primes, and who averaged 29 ppg and 27 ppg respectively. They also had HOFer Gail Goodrich. Then they had Archie Clark, who would average 20 ppg and be an all-star guard the very next season. At PF, they had Rudy Larusso, who would average 22 ppg the very next season. On their bench, they had Walt Hazzard (Abdul-Rahman) who was lost to the expansion draft the next season, and would average 24 ppg that season. And, in addition to 6-10 journeyman center Darrell Imhoff, who averaged a 10-13 that season, they had TWO seven-footers, Mel Counts (who was a good outside shooter and could also play PF), and Henry Finkel.


With all of that talent, they could only go 36-45. Now, Baylor and West were the "Lebron and Wade" of their era. Can you imagine a PRIME Lebron and Wade, with a boatload of surrounding talent...going 36-45????
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1968.html
West only played 51 games and by that point was by a substantial distance their best player (probably the leagues best guard at both ends by that point), Baylor was never a high fg% guy or elite defender and by this point (after significant injuries) was slipping off. Goodrich wasn't the player he would become at this point. I suspect the ppg "the next season" guys would be overrated simply by taking them by that measure because 1 you're using a single season and 2) the league was rapidly expanding at that point (66 Chicago added, 67 Clippers, Sonics added, 68 Bucks and Suns added, plus in 67 the ABA started).


In a recent interview by David Feherty, Bill Russell recalled the story of a conversation he had with Michael Jordan a few years ago. He told Jordan that MJ's series winning assist to John Paxson in the '93 Finals would not have happened in the 60's. When Jordan asked him why, Russell responded, that Paxson would have been watching the game from the stands. When MJ continued to question Russell, Russell said, no offense to Paxson, but he would not have been the 100th best player in the league in the 60's, and therefore would not have made an NBA roster back then.
Because like in the 90's they would first drop it into the post to Horace Grant who would get the assist.

[rodman91]

:roll: :roll:

can we stop being delusional about the past?

this was bob cousy who was putting up 20 points and 18 points in the 60s and he was dribbling like this:
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
John Paxson along with any decent 90s guard would have ShIetted on him

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkejgoc4Cs1qdyl8z.gif

[chips93]

I keep seeing this crap pop up when people try to discredit older players. So I want to get some kind of consensus here so we all know what kind of people we're dealing with. What era in basketball history WASN'T "weak" or "watered-down"?

the era that my favorite player played in

duh!

:hammerhead:

[Owl]

No it wasn't

the '80s was the best era
Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, and Pistons
Magic, Bird, Kareem, Michael

'90s the 'franchises' got old
Lakers were old - Kareem retired in '89, Magic done after '91
Celtics were old - Bird back problems in '90s
Pistons got old a year after the '90s started
Sixers got old - Dr J and Moses retied in the late '80s

'90's could be one of the worst eras in terms of competition
What do you mean by competition? That there were more teams with a good chance of winning the title. Yes. Though at any one time Boston and LA were likely champs with Milwaukee and Philly strong for periods and later the Pistons. But measuring league quality by number of title contenders makes no sense all that measure is the degree of equality amongst the leagues top few teams. It does not indicate the overall level of talent.

Dr J was falling off from '82 and wasn't Dr J by 85 so that sounds more like an argument for a weak '80s. Moses Malone "reti[r]ed" in 1995. Now admittedly he wasn't the same player in the '90s as he was in the early '80s but getting your facts wrong does undermine your credibility.

Looking at the centres of the '90s I'd take '90s over '80s looking at the point guards, I'd take '90s over '80s. The idea that the league got dramatically worse in the '90s doesn't make any sense (given the number of players who played both periods and whose numbers didn't leap up).

[guy]

I keep seeing this crap pop up when people try to discredit older players. So I want to get some kind of consensus here so we all know what kind of people we're dealing with. What era in basketball history WASN'T "weak" or "watered-down"?

The people that try to defend older eras are the ones that say the later eras were weak and watered-down primarily due to expansion. You have it the other way around. Of course, they are wrong cause they don't take into account that as the league expanded the talent pool and popularity of the game expanded as well. If they had come up in an earlier era, Michael Jordan probably sticks to baseball, Charles Barkley may never get the chance to come up in a racist South, and foreign players like Hakeem Olajuwon and Dirk Nowitzki may have never even picked up a basketball. These factors are completely ignored by people that bring this up.

[Psileas]

Not "watered down" which refers to expansion. But the the reason you could water down the league was that the number of good players increased. The potential pool of pro basketball players increased with the US's increasing population, and particularly more people became dedicated to to playing basketball as it became more popular/visible/viable. Since the 80's the expansion of the game globally has further enhanced the pool of potential NBA players.

Funnily enough, not anyone makes a case for today's era, despite the validity of this argument. Going by popularity of basketball, the deepest era ever is nowadays and will likely continue to be what will be called "nowadays", except if global population for some reason decreases or the popularity of basketball decreases. No other era before the 2000's boasted any countries that could beat/challenge the US - regardless of how good teams the Americans bring to tournaments, the era when any team would succumb to them by 30+ points almost by default is gone since the early-mid 90's. In no other era have that many people globally played/cared about basketball.

[guy]

In the '67 NBA season, the Lakers fielded a team that had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, who were in their near-primes, and who averaged 29 ppg and 27 ppg respectively. They also had HOFer Gail Goodrich. Then they had Archie Clark, who would average 20 ppg and be an all-star guard the very next season. At PF, they had Rudy Larusso, who would average 22 ppg the very next season. On their bench, they had Walt Hazzard (Abdul-Rahman) who was lost to the expansion draft the next season, and would average 24 ppg that season. And, in addition to 6-10 journeyman center Darrell Imhoff, who averaged a 10-13 that season, they had TWO seven-footers, Mel Counts (who was a good outside shooter and could also play PF), and Henry Finkel.


With all of that talent, they could only go 36-45. Now, Baylor and West were the "Lebron and Wade" of their era. Can you imagine a PRIME Lebron and Wade, with a boatload of surrounding talent...going 36-45????

I don't understand why you bring up stats and accolades to try to compare the quality of eras. In any basketball game today, not just in the NBA, there will be players putting up big stats. ISH can start up their own league right now, and someone can put up 30 ppg. Stats don't say ANYTHING. There will always be big stats by individuals just because of the simple fact that someone has to put numbers up.

Accolades don't mean much either because they haven't really added much to awards/honors of that era. They've added new awards/honors such as Finals MVP, DPOY, and All-NBA third team but they are usually just dismissed when compared to earlier eras since they didn't exist. However, despite the league almost quadrupling in size as a result of the talent pool and popularity significantly increasing in size since the early 60s, there's still only 1 MVP, 5 All-NBA first team members, 5 All-NBA second team members, 24 All-Stars, 5 HOF members inducted every year, and most importantly just 1 champion. And I'm not saying they should add to awards/honors cause thats obviously huge overkill, but using accolades from across eras isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison given how much things have changed.

[guy]

In a recent interview by David Feherty, Bill Russell recalled the story of a conversation he had with Michael Jordan a few years ago. He told Jordan that MJ's series winning assist to John Paxson in the '93 Finals would not have happened in the 60's. When Jordan asked him why, Russell responded, that Paxson would have been watching the game from the stands. When MJ continued to question Russell, Russell said, no offense to Paxson, but he would not have been the 100th best player in the league in the 60's, and therefore would not have made an NBA roster back then.

:oldlol: This is hilarious. Russell also said Wilt would average 60-70 ppg in the 90s. Older players deserve more credit then they get from certain people but they don't help their case when they say deluded stuff like this.

[LamarOdom]

Barea is 5'7!!? Cousy was 6'2... Cous would be too much to handle, would Destroy 'Bron in the post. :roll:

"HALP!@"

"WHRE"S HASLEM"

*clank
*whistle

"Bron u okay bro? I was on the bench... That's where players like me belong in 4th quarters, why the hell do you keep lookin for me to bail you out!?"

:lebroncry:

Hahaha cmon bro get over the fact that LeBron screwed the Cavs i mean who needs LeBron the Cavs got Luuuuuuuuuke Walton!

Oh yeah it's almost 2 years ago LeBron left you the Cavs hate is (getting) pathetic.

[bwink23]

:roll:

"Nutrition" ... biggest load of shit people say on IH.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilyFh1gOUjY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_aYfPsneDM

Junk food. Major problem in the U.S.... has only increased since prior decades not decreased... NBA players of today grew up on Pepsi and McDonalds. Most NBA players have horrible diets. But yah okay, "nutrition" makes older era's weaker...

Great logic.

You honestly think Pau Gasol goes home and gives a flying f_ck what he snacks on from his fridge? You think players prior to the 1980's were "starving" or something!? Instead of Dorrittos, Taco Bell and Big Macs some of those "starved" vintage players probably had to settle for actual grocery store foods like chicken, eggs, potatoes, vegetables and all that other prehistoric terrible food that you can't put in your microwave for instant-calorie-satisfaction. :roll:


i think the appropriate words he was looking for was "performance-enhancing" supplements....:lol

[I.R.Beast]

Athletes are bigger and stronger these days because they don't play as fast as a pace as they did back in the days such as the 80s. You had to be in better running shaped or conditioned to play in NBA games and seasons back then than in today's game. That is why players were lighter back then and that is why they weren't as strong as they are now.

It has nothing to do with the evolution of the game or athleticism, that is garbage.
you sound like a fool.. Evolution of the game does have alot to do with it.

[CavaliersFTW]

i think the appropriate words he was looking for was "performance-enhancing" supplements....:lol

Not sure if the NBA tests for steroids (I would assume they do... pro sport in the 21st century... right??? - Team U.S.A. def has too). But even if 'roids aren't around, I bet at least a small small % of players have once used HGH, which you can't test for IIRC. :lol

HGH would def be something vintage players didn't have your right - I'll def buy into that before I'll buy into nutrition being any sort of "improvement". I wonder about HGH and a few players sometimes, like Dwayne... and his ever expanding jaw... lol

Also, surgeries, much much better orthopedic inserts and shoes, and new things like Kobe's enriched platelet formula or w/e he underwent in Germany are all new things that seem to help treat injuries better.

But nutrition itself? nah, that isn't even relevant unless you can find an NBA player born and raised during the great depression in a shanty town that suffering from long stretches of malnourishment... A diet of foods all made from Milk, Eggs, Pastas, Chicken etc etc is honestly probably >>>>>> than half of the modern NBA players diets. It doesn't matter though, because from the ages of 18-30 your diet isn't really going to perceptibly effect you unless it's pretty awful.

[CavaliersFTW]

you sound like a fool.. Evolution of the game does have alot to do with it.

I don't think he sounds like a fool, part of the point he made is right, unless your strictly pointing out that he's sort of missing the link with "evolution of the game".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS1GJ5wxyTc
This basketball is a full court game, sprinting basket to basket with agility on the fast break. Their wiry gymnasts physique is absolutely necessary for that era. Not too heavy, incredible cardiovascular system, high-end top speed, some quickness, and some noteworthy acrobatics as a result of their lighter weight frames. They aren't weak, they just can't afford to add much mass to their frames.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYzoN2do63Y
...Today is a half-court game, the offense usually doesn't start until the players jog to their positions while the point guard also takes more time to bring the ball up to the 3 point arc and than develop a play. It's a slower game, and as a result weight lifting and mass for establishing position, and also for generating a rapid "explosion" to the basket has become favorable. They are heavier and stronger. But he's right in that they are NOT more athletic. They've only molded their physique to fit what the game's trend/rules/whatever has now demanded from them. So yah, the game's evolution in that sense, had to have contributed to this.

[SlayerEnraged]

"weak and watered down" is just some B.S. made up by detractors of Jordnan's reign....League expansion only hurts if there isn't enough talent to fill the spots. Obviously, 23 teams vs. 30, the talent will get spread a little thin. But this is the United States, and there is no shortage of basketball talent here.

Nope. most over rated and hyped up player in nba history. True media product.

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

[SwooshReturns]

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

Why is everyone hating on this GIF? For it's time, this was unheard of and truly innovative.

As pertains to ERA ... everyone is different. The game style changes and adapts to his operating parts.

The only way to compare players across eras is to view them within the scope of how well they dominated THEIR era.

The only people I've ever heard call MJ an over-hype, "media creation" is lunatic Laker fans.

Their sheer jealousy of arguably having the best franchise in the sport ... a lineage of outrageously gifted talents, and the largets all-time roster of HOF players.

Yet they don't have the one player that is almost unanimously considered GOAT.

It's also why they were on LeBron so hard from 2008 - 2010. The guy from an individual perspective was show casing MJ / Bird / Magic esque transcendant qualities.

[NumberSix]

The only people I've ever heard call MJ an over-hype, "media creation" is lunatic Laker fans.

Their sheer jealousy of arguably having the best franchise in the sport ... a lineage of outrageously gifted talents, and the largets all-time roster of HOF players.

Yet they don't have the one player that is almost unanimously considered GOAT.

It's also why they were on LeBron so hard from 2008 - 2010. The guy from an individual perspective was show casing MJ / Bird / Magic esque transcendant qualities.
As much as this sounds like a legit argument, we all know god damn well that this isn't what's going on.

It's not "lunatic Laker fans". It's the army of clueless 15 year old Kobetards. Laker fans aren't jealous that LAL didn't have MJ. The attempt to discredit Jordan is just a pathetic attempt by an army of raging Eric Cartmans trying to scream louder than everyone else that Kobe is the best player ever.

It's the exact same reason why they do it to LeBron, Shaq and Duncan. To try to brush away the player's of Kobe's own era that are blatantly better than him.

Tim Tebow is the only player I've seen that to even more of extent than Kobe, is an example of a player that people for some reason desperately want to prop up to a level they are completely undeserving of.

What is it about these particular guys that makes people so desperate to propel them to a stature far beyond what they are?

[Deuce Bigalow]

As much as this sounds like a legit argument, we all know god damn well that this isn't what's going on. What about these particular guys makes people want to propell them beyond what they are?

Tim Tebow is the only player I've seen that to even more of extent than Kobe, is an example of a player that people for some reason desperately want to prop up to a level they are completely undeserving of.

It's not "lunatic Laker fans". It's the army of clueless 15 year old Kobetards. Laker fans aren't jealous that LAL didn't have MJ. The attempt to discredit Jordan is just a pathetic attempt by an army of raging Eric Cartmans trying to scream louder than everyone else that Kobe is the best player ever.

It's the exact same reason why they do it to LeBron, Shaq and Duncan. To try to brush away the player's of Kobe's own era that are blatantly better than him.
:biggums:

[SwooshReturns]

:biggums:
LeBron in 2008, 2009, and 2010 was more dominant and more impactful than any of the best versions of Kobe Bryant.

That's what he means.

[STATUTORY]

Why is everyone hating on this GIF? For it's time, this was unheard of and truly innovative.

As pertains to ERA ... everyone is different. The game style changes and adapts to his operating parts.

The only way to compare players across eras is to view them within the scope of how well they dominated THEIR era.

The only people I've ever heard call MJ an over-hype, "media creation" is lunatic Laker fans.

Their sheer jealousy of arguably having the best franchise in the sport ... a lineage of outrageously gifted talents, and the largets all-time roster of HOF players.

Yet they don't have the one player that is almost unanimously considered GOAT.

It's also why they were on LeBron so hard from 2008 - 2010. The guy from an individual perspective was show casing MJ / Bird / Magic esque transcendant qualities.

not really making fun of cousy or the gif but jlauber for saying with a straight face that the guys from the 60s could be transplanted to modern day and be great or that 90s guard would not made the roster if he was transplanted back to the 60s

jlauber delusional old man or more likely young pup that's in love with the myth of wilt.

[kileer7]

http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/measuring-the-quality-of-basketball-in-the-nba/

Measuring the Quality of Basketball in the NBA Posted on 07/17/2010 by Arturo Galletti (Wages of Wins Journal)

Excerpt:


To create an objective measurement of the quality of basketball in the NBA, a good place to start is how we measure the quality for each player productivity (WP48 and Wins Produced). So by calculating the average team [productivity], I can objectively conclude: 1985-92 was the best basketball the NBA has seen since the merger; 1992 was the Apex and 1999 the nadir (lowest point) for quality."

His analysis is very interesting because of the predictive nature of WP48.

[jlauber]

:oldlol: This is hilarious. Russell also said Wilt would average 60-70 ppg in the 90s. Older players deserve more credit then they get from certain people but they don't help their case when they say deluded stuff like this.

HILARIOUS???!!!

:roll: :roll: :roll:

So, when Russell says that Paxson would have been watching the game from the stands in the 60's, he ultimately argued that Paxson would not have been among the top-100 players in the league.

Now, instead of rushing to judgment, and making a ridiculous response, how about actually taking the time to understand what Russell was actually saying.

There were 27 NBA teams in the league in 1993.

Now, take a look at the Bulls roster that season...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1993.html

59 GAMES played. 17.5 MPG. 4.2 PPG. .451 FG%.

Paxson was somewhere around their 8-10th best player...in a league of 27 teams. He was NOWHERE NEAR a Top-100 player that season. Russell's INTELLIGENT point was that, in a league of EIGHT teams, players like Paxson would not have playing at all. I don't see how ANYONE can argue that point.

[Deuce Bigalow]

HILARIOUS???!!!

:roll: :roll: :roll:

So, when Russell says that Paxson would have been watching the game from the stands in the 60's, he ultimately argued that Paxson would not have been among the top-100 players in the league.

Now, instead of rushing to judgment, and making a ridiculous response, how about actually taking the time to understand what Russell was actually saying.

There were 27 NBA teams in the league in 1993.

Now, take a look at the Bulls roster that season...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1993.html

59 GAMES played. 17.5 MPG. 4.2 PPG. .451 FG%.

Paxson was somewhere around their 8-10th best player...in a league of 27 teams. He was NOWHERE NEAR a Top-100 player that season. Russell's INTELLIGENT point was that, in a league of EIGHT teams, players like Paxson would not have playing at all. I don't see how ANYONE can argue that point.
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

[Living Being]

Right after the Grizzlies and Raptors were added to the NBA, the league was like a glass of water with one sugar particle.

[jlauber]

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

Now, take a look at this highlight video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4Jmx7hW7uw


How many current NBA players can make a RIGHT and LEFT-HANDED hook shot so effortlessly?

As for the rest of the 60's...here was another player who was in COLLEGE in the 60's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qUZILi8IM&feature=related

[KingBeasley08]

Wilt's issue wasn't his era. It was his choking. That kind of dominance and only 2 rings along with horrendous Game 7 play knocks him out of the Top 5 IMO and seperates him from a guy like Jordan

[jlauber]

Wilt's issue wasn't his era. It was his choking. That kind of dominance and only 2 rings along with horrendous Game 7 play knocks him out of the Top 5 IMO and seperates him from a guy like Jordan

Not that this topic was specifically about Chamberlain, BUT, since YOU brought him into the conversation...

Chamberlain played in 11 games which went to the series limit (nine game seven's, one game five of a best-of-five series, and one game three of a best-of-three series), and all he did was average 29.9 ppg (outscoring his opposing center by a 29.9 ppg to 9.8 ppg margin in the process), with 26.7 rpg, and on .581 shooting. Or he was an eye-lash away from averaging a 30-27 game, and on nearly .600 shooting, in those 11 "at the limit" games.

Now, how many all-time greats even had ONE game of 30-27 .600 in their playoff CAREER, much less in an absolute elimination game , and while reducing their opposing starting center to 10 ppg in the process? Much less AVERAGE those numbers in their ENTIRE "absolute elimination games."

[NumberSix]

I have to agree that 50's/60's players are somewhat delusional. One thing that has always stuck in my mind was when Bill Russell said that in the 80's or 90's he'd still win eleven or maybe even TWELVE championships. C'mon.

It's one thing to say that when there are 8 teams and one team has all the HOF's except Wilt and Petit, but with 27+ teams with greater talent and spread out more, to say you'd still do it is absurd. Lol @ him thinking he'd DOUBLE what Jordan did in the same era.

[KingBeasley08]

Not that this post was specifically about Chamberlain, BUT, since YOU brought him into the conversation...

Chamberlain played in 11 games which went to the series limit (nine game seven's, one game five of a best-of-five series, and one game three of a best-of-three series), and all he did was average 29.9 ppg (outscoring his opposing center by a 29.9 ppg to 9.8 ppg margin in the process), with 26.7 rpg, and on .581 shooting. Or he was an eye-lash away from averaging a 30-27 game, and on nearly .600 shooting, in those 11 "at the limit" games.
I saw statistics showing Wilt struggling at the end of the game. I coulda been high when I read it though so could you post the stats if you have them? I'm tryna legitimately rank a top 10

[jlauber]

I saw statistics showing Wilt struggling at the end of the game. I coulda been high when I read it though so could you post the stats if you have them? I'm tryna legitimately rank a top 10

Gladly. In fact, here are ALL 35 of his post-season games in which it was either an "elimination game", or a "series clinching game." I bolded his game seven's, and game five in a best-of-five, and game three in a best-of-three.


Ok, here are the known numbers in Wilt's "must-win" playoff games (elimination games), and clinching game performances (either deciding winning or losing games), of BOTH Chamberlain, and his starting opposing centers in those games.

1. Game three of a best-of-three series in the first round of the 59-60 playoffs against Syracuse, a 132-112 win. Wilt with 53 points, on 24-42 shooting, with 22 rebounds. His opposing center, Red Kerr, who was a multiple all-star in his career, had 7 points.

2. Game five of the 59-60 ECF's against Boston, a 128-107 win. Chamberlain had 50 points, on 22-42 shooting, with 35 rebounds. His opposing center, Russell, had 22 points and 27 rebounds.

3. Game six of the 59-60 ECF's against Boston, in a 119-117 loss. Wilt had a 26-24 game, while Russell had a 25-25 game.

4. Game three of a best-of-five series in the first round of the 60-61 playoffs , and against Syracuse, in a 106-103 loss. Chamberlain with 33 points, while his opposing center, the 7-3 Swede Halbrook, scored 6 points.

5. Game five of a best-of-five series in the first round of the 61-62 playoffs, against Syracuse, in a 121-104 win. Chamberlain had 56 points, on 22-48 shooting, with 35 rebounds. Kerr had 20 points in the loss.

6. Game six of the 61-62 ECF's, and against Boston, in a 109-99 win. Wilt with 32 points and 21 rebounds. Russell had 19 points and 22 rebounds in the loss.

7. Game seven of the 61-62 ECF's, against Boston, in a 109-107 loss. Wilt with 22 points, on 7-15 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Russell had 19 points, on 7-14 shooting, with 22 rebounds in the win.

8. Game seven of the 63-64 WCF's, and against St. Louis, in a 105-95 win. Wilt with 39 points, 26 rebounds, and 10 blocks. His opposing center, Zelmo Beaty, who would go on to become a multiple all-star, had 10 points in the loss.

9. Game five of the 63-64 Finals, and against Boston, in a 105-99 loss. Chamberlain with 30 points and 27 rebounds. Russell had 14 points and 26 points in the win.

10. Game four of a best-of-five series in the 64-65 first round of the playoffs against Cincinnati, a 119-112 win. Chamberlain with 38 points. His opposing center, multiple all-star (and HOFer) Wayne Embry had 7 points in the loss.

11. Game six of the 64-65 ECF's, against Boston, a 112-106 win. Chamberlain with a 30-26 game. Russell with a 22-21 game in the loss.

12. Game seven of the 64-65 ECF's, and against Boston, a 110-109 loss. Wilt with 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds. Russell had 15 points, on 7-16 shooting, with 29 rebounds in the win.

13. Game five of a best-of-seven series, in the 65-66 ECF's, and against Boston, in a 120-112 loss. Wilt had 46 points, on 19-34 shooting, with 34 rebounds. Russell had 18 points and 31 rebounds in the win.

14. Game four of a best-of-five series, in the first round of the 66-67 playoffs, and against Cincinnati, a 112-94 win. Wilt with 18 points, on 7-14 shooting, with 27 rebounds and 9 assists. His opposing center, Connie Dierking, had 8 points, on 4-14 shooting, with 4 rebounds in the loss.

15. Game five of the 66-67 ECF's, and against Boston, in a 140-116 win. Chamberlain with 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and 7 blocks. Russell had 4 points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and 7 assists in the loss.

16. Game six of the 66-67 Finals, and against San Francisco, in a 125-122 win. Chamberlain with 24 points, on 8-13 shooting, with 23 rebounds. His oppsoing center, HOFer Nate Thurmond, had 12 points, on 4-13 shooting, with 22 rebounds in the loss.

17. Game six of the first round of the 67-68 playoffs, against NY, in a 113-97 win. Wilt had 25 points, and 27 rebounds. His opposing center, HOFer Walt Bellamy, had 19 points in the loss.

18. Game seven of the 67-68 ECF's, against Boston, in a 100-96 loss. Wilt with 14 points, on 4-9 shooting, with 34 rebounds. Russell had 12 points and 26 rebounds in the win.

19. Game six of the first round of the 68-69 playoffs, against San Francisco, in a 118-78 win. Wilt with 11 points. Thurmond had 8 points in the loss.

20. Game four of the 68-69 WCF's, against Atlanta, in a 133-114 sweeping win. Chamberlain with 16 points. His opposing center, Zelmo Beaty had 30 points in the loss.

21. Game seven of the 68-69 Finals, against Boston, in a 108-106 loss. Chamberlain had 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds. Russell had 6 points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds in the win.

22. Game five of a best-of-seven series (the Lakers were down 3-1 going into the game) in the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, and against Phoenix, a 138-121 win. Wilt with 36 points and 14 rebounds. His opposing center, Neal Walk, had 18 points in the loss.

23. Game six of the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, against Phoenix, in a 104-93 win. Wilt with 12 points. Jim Fox started that game for Phoenix, and had 13 points in the loss.

24. Game seven of the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, against Phoenix, and in a 129-94 win, which capped a 4-3 series win after falling behind 3-1 in the series. Wilt with 30 points, 27 rebounds, and 11 blocks. Fox had 7 points in the loss.

25. Game four of the 69-70 WCF's, against Atlanta, in a 133-114 sweeping win. Wilt with 11 points. Bellamy had 19 points in the loss.

26. Game six of the 69-70 Finals, against NY, in a 135-113 win. Wilt with 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, with 27 rebounds. Nate Bowman had 18 points, on 9-15 shooting, with 8 rebounds in the loss.

27. Game seven of the 69-70 Finals, against NY, in a 113-99 loss. Wilt with 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds. HOFer Willis Reed had 4 points, on 2-5 shooting, with 3 rebounds in the win.

28. Game seven of the first round of the 70-71 playoffs, against Chicago, in a 109-98 win. Wilt with 25 points and 18 rebounds. 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle had 4 points for the Bulls in the loss.

29. Game five of the 70-71 WCF's, against Milwaukee, in a 116-94 loss. Wilt had 23 points, on 10-21 shooting, with 12 rebounds, 6 blocks (5 of them on Alcindor/Kareem.) Kareem had 20 points, on 7-23 shooting, with 15 rebounds, and 3 blocks in the win. Incidently, Wilt received a standing ovation when he left the game late...and the game was played in Milwaukee.

30. Game four of the 71-72 first round of the playoffs, against Chicago, in a 108-97 sweeping win. Wilt had 8 points and 31 rebounds. Clifford Ray had 20 points in the loss.

31. Game six of the 71-72 WCF's, against Milwaukee, in a 104-100 win. Chamberlain with 20 points, on 8-12 shooting, with 24 rebounds, and 9 blocks (six against Kareem.) Kareem had 37 points, on 16-37 shooting, with 25 rebounds in the loss.

32. Game five of the 71-72 Finals, against NY, in a 114-100 win. Chamberlain with 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 9 blocks. HOFer Jerry Lucas had 14 points, on 5-14 shooting, with 9 rebounds in the loss.

33. Game seven of the first round of the 72-73 playoffs, against Chicago, in a 95-92 win. Wilt with 21 points and 28 rebounds. His opposing center, Clifford Ray, had 4 points.

34. Game five of the 72-73 WCF's, and against Golden St., in a 128-118 win. Wilt with 5 points. Thurmond had 9 points in the loss.

35. Game five of the 72-73 Finals, against NY, in a 102-93 loss. Wilt with 23 points, on 9-16 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Willis Reed had 18 points, on 9-16 shooting, with 12 rebounds.

That was it. 35 "must-win" elimination and/or clinching post-season games.

[CavaliersFTW]

I have to agree that 50's/60's players are somewhat delusional. One thing that has always stuck in my mind was when Bill Russell said that in the 80's or 90's he'd still win eleven or maybe even TWELVE championships. C'mon.

It's one thing to say that when there are 8 teams and many teams have numerous HOF's, but with 27+ teams with greater talent and spread thin, to say you'd still do it is logical. Lol @ him thinking he'd DOUBLE what Jordan did in the same era.

Fixed. And

:roll:

Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Embry, Ellis, Wiley, Beaty etc etc etc are all gonna be brushed under the rug?

3 of those bigs would be top 5 if they were transplanted in time to the game today. The other four would still be starters. You don't even know who those guys are.

And Oscar!? West? Baylor!? Wilkins? Lucas!? Hondo? -- dude there's to many guys to even mention that you must literally know nothing about outside of basketball reference and wikipedia.


Watch both. Your welcome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvMq-eX_pNw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVi0EtJcZg

[guy]

HILARIOUS???!!!

:roll: :roll: :roll:

So, when Russell says that Paxson would have been watching the game from the stands in the 60's, he ultimately argued that Paxson would not have been among the top-100 players in the league.

Now, instead of rushing to judgment, and making a ridiculous response, how about actually taking the time to understand what Russell was actually saying.

There were 27 NBA teams in the league in 1993.

Now, take a look at the Bulls roster that season...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1993.html

59 GAMES played. 17.5 MPG. 4.2 PPG. .451 FG%.

Paxson was somewhere around their 8-10th best player...in a league of 27 teams. He was NOWHERE NEAR a Top-100 player that season. Russell's INTELLIGENT point was that, in a league of EIGHT teams, players like Paxson would not have playing at all. I don't see how ANYONE can argue that point.

I get the math. Not surprisingly you ignore so many other factors like the fact that the talent pool is so much larger then it was back then so you can't really use that simple math. Sure, in 1993 had they wiped out 19 teams and went from 27 to 8 teams, Paxson would've been out of the league. Too bad its not exactly the same thing as what the 60s looked like. The talent pool just wasn't as large as a result of the popularity of the game not nearly as being as great, much less financial incentives, and racial issues. If John Paxson was alive back then, the more likely reason he wouldn't have been in the league was cause he may have not engaged in interest in basketball and started playing it.

Not long ago, ESPN did a ranking of all the NBA players in the league. Players like Monta Ellis, Kevin Martin, Josh Smith, and David West didn't even make the top 40. Lets say those players went back to play in the 60s in an 8 team league, which would mean 40 starting players. Since those 4 players couldn't even make the top 40 now, are you going to tell me they'd have a hard time even STARTING back then? Players like Taj Gibson, Udonis Haslem, and Tayshaun Prince didn't even make the top 100. Are you going to tell me those players would have a hard time even MAKING the league?

[STATUTORY]

Now, take a look at this highlight video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4Jmx7hW7uw


How many current NBA players can make a RIGHT and LEFT-HANDED hook shot so effortlessly?

As for the rest of the 60's...here was another player who was in COLLEGE in the 60's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qUZILi8IM&feature=related

:facepalm 6ft pg shooting flatfooted hook shots?!

every shot would be blocked

[Ne 1]

From like 1995-2000 the NBA was pretty dismal due to expansion that diluted the talent pool, and a glut of injuries to what should have been a new generation of superstars (Hill, Penny, Webber etc.)

Well the NBA actually declined greatly after 1988. From 1988 to 1995, the league added 6 expansion team (most of whom were in the Eastern Conference; which is why the East was so weak for a long time). This was the greatest expansion effort in NBA history. Competition at the top tremendously suffered. It wasn't even until recently that the talent finally caught up with expansion. That and the their being decline of new talent entering the league during the expansion era (and the bonafide talent that did come in were either head cases like Roy Tarpley or injury plagued like Kenny Anderson)... along with the micromanaging of the coaches

The 90s were actually the perfect opportunity for a "GOAT" level player to step up and scoop up the championships in the post Magic/Bird era. The Eastern Conference was nearly as bad as it was in the early 00s. People remember the 90s as better than they actually were, I should know, I grew up remembering 90s as the golden era...now though? I look back at the laughable perimeter talent, CBA players starting on just about every roster and even worse completion at the top of the league (even the center talent declined greatly post-'95). Not to mention the great advantages perimeter players enjoyed in the era. ANYONE who has watched extensive 80s/00s ball is delusional if they think that 90s was a "stronger" era. One of the darkest ages in NBA history if not for Michael Jordan's popularity. The NBA expanded way too fast....6 teams in a 7 year stretch is horrible for the league and no other professional league has EVER seen that type of expansion. Also like I mentioned earlier a lot of the stars that were supposed to carry the weight from the early 90s era of stars were either riddled with injured or headcases. The league also became over coached to make up for the lack of talent.

What's really interesting is, that the fellow "90s kids" will use the expansion and the influx of high school players argument to argue against the talent in the current era, but refuse to acknowledge that the greatest expansion effort actually in the 90s.

[Round Mound]

Best era ever was early-mid 90s.

Why?

It was the transitional period between the old school fundamentally tough era, and the newer more athletic one. This is when both styles combined, an era that still had the old school rules with old school mentality, but cats were bigger, badder, more athletic, and teams had employed the Pistons' defense and took it to another level.

Because of this era, the league began to get watered down.

Rules were changed, players got younger and less experienced, quality of play overall deteriorated. And then we get into the now..... great individual players and athletes, but no IQ, watered down rules, lack of overall intensity and toughness, and bad TEAM play.

:no: 80s > 90s and 2000s.

2-3 All Great Role Players or All Stars Per Team
More Skillful Players
Better Fundamentals
Higher B-Ball IQ
Better Passing Game
Better Shot Selection
Defenses Hammered You.

[bwink23]

From like 1995-2000 the NBA was pretty dismal due to expansion that diluted the talent pool, and a glut of injuries to what should have been a new generation of superstars (Hill, Penny, Webber etc.)

Well the NBA actually declined greatly after 1988. From 1988 to 1995, the league added 6 expansion team (most of whom were in the Eastern Conference; which is why the East was so weak for a long time). This was the greatest expansion effort in NBA history. Competition at the top tremendously suffered. It wasn't even until recently that the talent finally caught up with expansion. That and the their being decline of new talent entering the league during the expansion era (and the bonafide talent that did come in were either head cases like Roy Tarpley or injury plagued like Kenny Anderson)... along with the micromanaging of the coaches

The 90s were actually the perfect opportunity for a "GOAT" level player to step up and scoop up the championships in the post Magic/Bird era. The Eastern Conference was nearly as bad as it was in the early 00s. People remember the 90s as better than they actually were, I should know, I grew up remembering 90s as the golden era...now though? I look back at the laughable perimeter talent, CBA players starting on just about every roster and even worse completion at the top of the league (even the center talent declined greatly post-'95). Not to mention the great advantages perimeter players enjoyed in the era. ANYONE who has watched extensive 80s/00s ball is delusional if they think that 90s was a "stronger" era. One of the darkest ages in NBA history if not for Michael Jordan's popularity. The NBA expanded way too fast....6 teams in a 7 year stretch is horrible for the league and no other professional league has EVER seen that type of expansion. Also like I mentioned earlier a lot of the stars that were supposed to carry the weight from the early 90s era of stars were either riddled with injured or headcases. The league also became over coached to make up for the lack of talent.

What's really interesting is, that the fellow "90s kids" will use the expansion and the influx of high school players argument to argue against the talent in the current era, but refuse to acknowledge that the greatest expansion effort actually in the 90s.


YAWNS.....The league back then was no more diluted than what it is now....:rolleyes:


http://www.celtics247.com/2011/04/record-103-d-league-players-on-nba-rosters/



A record-high 103 players with NBA Development League experience, representing 23 percent of all NBA players, were featured on NBA end-of-season rosters as the 2010-11 regular season concluded on Wednesday, April 13. For the first time ever, all 30 NBA teams featured a player with NBA D-League experience.

[NumberSix]

Fixed. And

:roll:

Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Embry, Ellis, Wiley, Beaty etc etc etc are all gonna be brushed under the rug?

3 of those bigs would be top 5 if they were transplanted in time to the game today. The other four would still be starters. You don't even know who those guys are.

And Oscar!? West? Baylor!? Wilkins? Lucas!? Hondo? -- dude there's to many guys to even mention that you must literally know nothing about outside of basketball reference and wikipedia.


Watch both. Your welcome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvMq-eX_pNw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVi0EtJcZg
:facepalm

It's obviously an exaggeration. Do you really think it's reasonable to think that somebody actually believes that there were only 2 players in the entire 2 decade period outside of the Celtics that are in the HOF? C'mon now. Don't take things so extremely literal.

[CavaliersFTW]

:facepalm

It's obviously an exaggeration. Do you really think it's reasonable to think that somebody actually believes that there were only 2 players in the entire 2 decade period outside of the Celtics that are in the HOF? C'mon now. Don't take things so extremely literal.
:(

[Collie]

:roll: :roll:

can we stop being delusional about the past?

this was bob cousy who was putting up 20 points and 18 points in the 60s and he was dribbling like this:
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
John Paxson along with any decent 90s guard would have ShIetted on him

To be fair, the way guys dribble nowadays would be illegal then. You literally had to dribble straight down back then.