Do people here really think that a Bob Pettit was more talented that a David Lee?

[MavsSuperFan]

There seems a bunch of guys here that argue the league was just as good in the 60s as it is now. For that reason they dont diminish the accomplishments of Wilt and Russell.

But common guys do you really think a Bob Pettit was more talented than say a David Lee or a Kevin Love? (both overrated stat padder)

Bob Pettit was an MVP level player purely because he played in a weak era. Yes both david lee and kevin love would have been MVP level players in that era.

When you rank Wilt and Russell ahead of guys like MJ (I have seen this atrocity on ISH), Shaq, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Isaiah, Duncan, Kobe, Lebron, etc. you are totally ignoring the fact that they played in an incredibly weak era, where guys like Love and Lee would have been MVP level players.

[Shade8780]

shut the fcuk up mavssuperfan

[Solefade]

this is the most irrelevant and uninteresting topic ever in the history of ISH lol

[MavsSuperFan]

shut the fcuk up mavssuperfan

please elaborate


this is the most irrelevant and uninteresting topic ever in the history of ISH lol

I agree that it should be obvious the NBA before the 1980s was inferior.

[SuperPippen]

You're kind of an idiot.

[DirkNowitzki41]

sadly, people actually believe so

[PHILA]

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


http://i.imgur.com/u7uE3.png

[Kblaze8855]

You have nothing to say when actually asked to explain yourself. Just make these idiotic topics and ignore inconvenient facts. Similar to euroleague really.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Why did you choose David Lee? He's one of the most skilled players in the entire league.

[LAZERUSS]

please elaborate



I agree that it should be obvious the NBA before the 1980s was inferior.

I have to agree. When players like Dr. J, Gervin, Dantley, Moses, Gilmore, and Kareem moved from the '70's into the 80's, they all became instant flops. You won't find MVPs, FMVPs, scoring champs, rebounding champs, or FG% champs in the entire lot.

[MavsSuperFan]

You're kind of an idiot.
People who have a different opinion than you about a topic as irrelevant as sports obviously have inferior intelligence.


You have nothing to say when actually asked to explain yourself. Just make these idiotic topics and ignore inconvenient facts. Similar to euroleague really.
You guys really believe saying that players that played in the 50s, 60s and 70s are not as good as players today is as ludicrous as saying that Euroleague is superior to the NBA in terms of talent?


Why did you choose David Lee? He's one of the most skilled players in the entire league.
Mostly because I consider him and love overrated and not players to build your team around. a good piece but not a cornerstone.
Which is what I honest think AT BEST Pettit would be today. In the 50s/60s he was a great franchise player, he would at best be good role player today. I went overboard with the havlicek/kwame comparison, even I don't really believe that, but I was just amazed that people here seem to reject the improvement in quality in the NBA from the 80s onwards.

[Kblaze8855]

I dont care what you think Bob Petitt is today. I do know you base your opinion on it on the nothing you know about the man. Im borderline obsessed with such things and ive not seen 10 minutes of even highlights. But you...who clearly dont care...have seen enough to know exactly what hes capable of. Which...is the issue to me.

I will give you my basic problem with your type. You make claims as if you have actually looked into this sport and act like they cant be disputed. Bullshit about the inarguable superiority of newer athletes as if basketball is a race to be clocked with results for all to see. It sounds as if you know nothing of basketball but you insist on multiple topics steady making the same claims always with the same cutoff where I suppose you accept that greatness began.

You say shit like Ewing would eat the greatest 60s bigmen alive.

Kareems career high vs Nate Thurmond(3rd or 4th best 60s center) is 34. When he was at his best. When he was a 30/15 monster in his youth. Most he got...34. He has 42 and 6 blocks on 68% shooting the second time he plays Ewing. And Kareem is 38 about to be 39. Ewing goes 3-17. Vs a player who came out in 69 and was only still in the league due to being robbed by his accountants.

Kareem retires at 35 like he planned I bet anything claims he could drop 40 on 90s/early 2000s centers like Ewing and Hakeem would be laughed at. Luckily he stuck around and proved it as an old man.


Elvin Hayes isnt considered as good as Wilt or Russell in the 60s. he came out in 68...at age 23. He was NBA age in 1965. But he can put up 25 and 26 in games vs Birds Celtics with a frontcourt that retired in the 90s. Hes dropped 35 on guys who were in the NBA in 1995.

Dave Cowens came out in 1970. He left the game a shadow of what he was...and later came out of retirement and at age 35 was still an effective bigman at times having double doubles playing opposite Buck williams...who was still in the NBA in 1998.

Robert Parish was putting up worse numbers at 24 on the Warriors in 1978 than when he was 39 in 1993.

Bob Lanier has 30/30/12 games hung on him by Wilt when hes young and at his peak. But when hes 33 hes still an all star and having 26 point games vs frontcourts with both starters playing deep into the 90s(94 and 98). All star bigman in the 80s....in his 30s. Worse than the 60s players you mock when hes at his peak.

I sat and watched an old well past his prime George Gervin out of 1972 drop 40 on a guy who was still in the league in 1999.

And you dont seem to grasp...any of it.

There is not some hard line between eras. This era bullshit is largely an issue of our obsession with 10 year periods and feeling what we have must be the best. It ignores that the league is always just a mix of young and old. Old usually hanging right in with young. And when you act like the Bird/Magic 80s era when we had guys who clearly would be great today...is some whole other league...from the 60s/70s..it shows you are just talking out of your ass.

Im not gonna assume only the guys young enough to not be 50 yet in the Bird/Magic era could have played in it. When a month from retired Bill Russell outplays 22 year old MVP Wes Unseld...and Wes is doing 10/13/5 in the 80s....I dont see how I assume Bill doesnt translate. I take it to mean Bill proved himself vs the prime version of a good 80s bigman.

When Hondo, Rick Barry, Tiny Archibald, and Dave Cowens are in all star games with 5-6 guys(12 in Tinys case) also in the ASG with Michael Jordan....


These examples are endless. Old guys outplay people from an "era" or two in the future all the time.

But you tell me its as simple as newer=better using bullshit Issac Newton analogies.

I dont get the impression you even care enough about this game to investigate the merits of your claims. But still....here you are. Making wild claims. As if you know anything.

Which isnt rare here. But its always annoying.

[Johnny Jones]

Mostly because I consider him and love overrated and not players to build your team around. a good piece but not a cornerstone.
Which is what I honest think AT BEST Pettit would be today. In the 50s/60s he was a great franchise player, he would at best be good role player today. I went overboard with the havlicek/kwame comparison, even I don't really believe that, but I was just amazed that people here seem to reject the improvement in quality in the NBA from the 80s onwards.
:oldlol: Who has considered Lee a franchise player?

[fpliii]

This shit is so boring.

[kennethgriffin]

relative to this era.. yes a 50's/60's player is pretty much trash compared to anyone from the modern era ( asside from maybe a big that dominated with pure size and strength )

a guy like jerry west who was one of the most talented players of his era is basically a sasha vujacic of today


any great player from todays era could go back and average 50ppg

theres a reason wilt was the only guy to do it back then. because he's the only transferable player that could be put in todays nba and average anywhere near 25-30ppg and be just as great

everyone else including bob pettit is era specific

and don't let anyone on this forum tell you differently.

[MavsSuperFan]

I dont care what you think Bob Petitt is today.

I will give you my basic problem with your type. You make claims as if you have actually looked into this sport and act like they cant be disputed. Bullshit about the inarguable superiority of newer athletes as if basketball is a race. It sounds as if you know nothing of basketball but you insist on multiple topics steady making the same claims always with the same cutoff where I suppose you accept that greatness began.

You say shit like Ewing would eat the greatest 60s bigmen alive.

Kareems career high vs Nate Thurmond(3rd or 4th best 60s center) is 34. When he was at his best. When he was a 30/15 monster in his youth. Most he got...34. He has 42 and 6 blocks on 68% shooting the second time he plays Ewing. And Kareem is 38 about to be 39. Ewing goes 3-17. Vs a player who came out in 69 and was only still in the league due to being robbed by his accountants.

Kareem retires at 35 like he planned I bet anything claims he could drop 40 on 90s/early 2000s centers like Ewing and Hakeem would be laughed at. Luckily he stuck around and proved it as an old man.


Elvin Hayes isnt considered as good as Wilt or Russell in the 60s. he came out in 68...at age 23. He was NBA age in 1965. But he can put up 25 and 26 in games vs Birds Celtics with a frontcourt that retired in the 90s. Hes dropped 35 on guys who were in the NBA in 1995.

Dave Cowens came out in 1970. He left the game a shadow of what he was...and later came out of retirement and at age 35 was still an effective bigman at times having double doubles playing opposite Buck williams...who was still in the NBA in 1998.

Robert Parish was putting up worse numbers at 24 on the Warriors in 1978 than when he was 39 in 1993.

Bob Lanier has 30/30/12 games hung on him by Wilt when hes young and at his peak. But when hes 33 hes still an all star and having 26 point games vs frontcourts with both starters playing deep into the 90s(94 and 98). All star bigman in the 80s....in his 30s. Worse than the 60s players you mock when hes at his peak.

I sat and watched an old well past his prime George Gervin out of 1972 drop 40 on a guy who was still in the league in 1999.

And you dont seem to grasp...any of it.

There is not some hard line between eras. This era bullshit is largely an issue of our obsession with 10 year periods and feeling what we have must be the best. It ignores that the league is always just a mix of young and old. Old usually hanging right in with young. And when you act like the Bird/Magic 80s era when we had guys who clearly would be great today...is some whole other league...from the 60s/70s..it shows you are just talking out of your ass.

Im not gonna assume only the guys young enough to not be 50 yet in the Bird/Magic era could have played in it. When a month from retired Bill Russell outplays 22 year old MVP Wes Unseld...and Wes is doing 10/13/5 in the 80s....I dont see how I assume Bill doesnt translate. I take it to mean Bill proved himself vs the prime version of a good 80s bigman.

When Hondo, Rick Barry, Tiny Archibald, and Dave Cowens are in all star games with 5-6 guys(12 in Tinys case) also in the ASG with Michael Jordan....


These examples are endless. Old guys outplay people from an "era" or two in the future all the time.

But you tell me its as simple as newer=better using bullshit Issac Newton analogies.

I dont get the impression you even care enough about this game to investigate the merits of your claims. But still....here you are. Making wild claims. As if you know anything.

Which isnt rare here. But its always annoying.

Hey man if you want me to admit I havent put as much time into this as you have your right.


I dont get the impression you even care enough about this game to investigate the merits of your claims. But still....here you are. Making wild claims. As if you know anything.
This is accurate, people have have jobs and most of us post on ISH for shits and giggles calm down. Personally I come on here mostly to kill time at work in between browsing huffpo and facebook/twitter.
you are taking this a lot more seriously than you should chill, we arent discussing the future of the nation here. I am not going to take out time to research stuff for ISH in depth.


But you tell me its as simple as newer=better using bullshit Issac Newton analogies.

My basic point here is that modern physicists today have more knowledge than Newton because they used his work as a ladder and built upon it. They know what he knew about gravity and have discovered additional information. You can argue they are better physicists in that sense, but I wouldn't argue that they are greater.


These examples are endless. Old guys outplay people from an "era" or two in the future all the time.

Yes experience veterans out play guys before they hit their prime.

Look man I seem to have offended you for some reason so I apologize, I didnt realize some people considered posting on ISH akin to submitting a doctoral thesis.

[LAZERUSS]

relative to this era.. yes a 50's/60's player is pretty much trash compared to anyone from the modern era ( asside from maybe a big that dominated with pure size and strength )

a guy like jerry west who was one of the most talented players of his era is basically a sasha vujacic of today


any great player from todays era could go back and average 50ppg

theres a reason wilt was the only guy to do it back then. because he's the only transferable player that could be put in todays nba and average anywhere near 25-30ppg and be just as great

everyone else including bob pettit is era specific

and don't let anyone on this forum tell you differently.

Did you take the time to read KBlaze's entire post?

Now is your chance to rebutt his arguments...

[Kblaze8855]

Ah so...you know nothing...that just doesnt stop you.

As I said earlier...annoying...but not rare.

I tend to not talk much about issues I dont understand. And when I do...its asking those who understand them better. Not making claims I cant support after pulling them out of my ass.

Even when im bored.

Im bored now. Which is why im probably gonna glance at a movie or read.

I find those better options than going to a cricket forum and arguing with people who have loved it for 30 years how a guy I saw on tv last month is better than the greatest cricket players ever(according to them) who I know nothing about.

[kennethgriffin]

Did you take the time to read KBlaze's entire post?

Now is your chance to rebutt his arguments...


i base my judgement on countless hours of footage i've watched over the last 20 years of my life from 50's, 60's players to make a good enough judgement.

i would never argue with anyone that has a hard on for those era's. theyre kind of batsh*t crazy if you ask me. even more delusional than they think i am about kobe

those era's were garbage compared to anything post 1981

not even remotely the same game whatsoever

i'm not saying what they did wasnt worthy of them being ranked high all time. what they did to pave the way for the sport should never be taken lightly. they made it possible for the jordans and kobes to play

every era learns from the one before it.

its the same as any sport. when its new, raw, utilizing a small portion of the population, race and resources. its going to pale in comparison to that same league 60 years into the future.

look at the earliest incarnations of hockey, football, golf, baseball, ANYTHING...

those guys placed into todays league would have cricles ran,skated around them. and people would be droppin knowledge with a back hand on the regular. its a joke that some people on here try and argue for those dinosaurs as being era transferable

insulting to say the least.

only wilt treated that era like a joke because only he had the body,skill of someone comparable to today

[Kblaze8855]

Did you take the time to read KBlaze's entire post?

Now is your chance to rebutt his arguments...


I have little interest in that.

Be it him with all things that can directly or indirectly be used to support Kobe, you and Wilt praise that it seems you thought the exact opposite of not long ago, or this other guy making Kwame vs Hondo and "Anyone really believe Wilt can score 20?" topics...

My patience is thin once I notice that someone only has one thing to say or one reason to say whatever it is they say.

Reading all these topics is hard in the offseason. Im low on patience in general and a 3 page string of bullshit for the express purpose of removing as obstacles anyone who was ever compared to Kobe doesnt feel like a fun use of time.

[kennethgriffin]

I have little interest in that.

Be it him with all things that can directly or indirectly be used to support Kobe, you and Wilt praise that it seems you thought the exact opposite of not long ago, or this other guy making Kwame vs Hondo and "Anyone really believe Wilt can score 20?" topics...

My patience is thin once I notice that someone only has one thing to say or one reason to say whatever it is they say.

Reading all these topics is hard in the offseason. Im low on patience in general and a 3 page string of bullshit for the express purpose of removing as obstacles anyone who was ever compared to Kobe doesnt feel like a fun use of time.


what would shaq average in the 60's

if its anything more than what he averaged in 2000... then even you yourself can admit the 60's was not nearly as good

what would lebron or jordan average in the 60's?

what would kobe average in the 60's... again. if its anything more than what those guys did in their best years of their career. then you don't have a leg to stand on.


and i don't believe you would be dishonest enough to sit there and say shaqs highest average in the 60's would be 29ppg or lower


lebron, kobe, and jordan would all beast with 40+ppg averages. maybe even 1 year at 50


a guy like ben wallace would average 25/20 easy

its common knowledge

[Dr.J4ever]

I dont care what you think Bob Petitt is today. I do know you base your opinion on it on the nothing you know about the man. Im borderline obsessed with such things and ive not seen 10 minutes of even highlights. But you...who clearly dont care...have seen enough to know exactly what hes capable of. Which...is the issue to me.

I will give you my basic problem with your type. You make claims as if you have actually looked into this sport and act like they cant be disputed. Bullshit about the inarguable superiority of newer athletes as if basketball is a race to be clocked with results for all to see. It sounds as if you know nothing of basketball but you insist on multiple topics steady making the same claims always with the same cutoff where I suppose you accept that greatness began.

You say shit like Ewing would eat the greatest 60s bigmen alive.

Kareems career high vs Nate Thurmond(3rd or 4th best 60s center) is 34. When he was at his best. When he was a 30/15 monster in his youth. Most he got...34. He has 42 and 6 blocks on 68% shooting the second time he plays Ewing. And Kareem is 38 about to be 39. Ewing goes 3-17. Vs a player who came out in 69 and was only still in the league due to being robbed by his accountants.

Kareem retires at 35 like he planned I bet anything claims he could drop 40 on 90s/early 2000s centers like Ewing and Hakeem would be laughed at. Luckily he stuck around and proved it as an old man.


Elvin Hayes isnt considered as good as Wilt or Russell in the 60s. he came out in 68...at age 23. He was NBA age in 1965. But he can put up 25 and 26 in games vs Birds Celtics with a frontcourt that retired in the 90s. Hes dropped 35 on guys who were in the NBA in 1995.

Dave Cowens came out in 1970. He left the game a shadow of what he was...and later came out of retirement and at age 35 was still an effective bigman at times having double doubles playing opposite Buck williams...who was still in the NBA in 1998.

Robert Parish was putting up worse numbers at 24 on the Warriors in 1978 than when he was 39 in 1993.

Bob Lanier has 30/30/12 games hung on him by Wilt when hes young and at his peak. But when hes 33 hes still an all star and having 26 point games vs frontcourts with both starters playing deep into the 90s(94 and 98). All star bigman in the 80s....in his 30s. Worse than the 60s players you mock when hes at his peak.

I sat and watched an old well past his prime George Gervin out of 1972 drop 40 on a guy who was still in the league in 1999.

And you dont seem to grasp...any of it.

There is not some hard line between eras. This era bullshit is largely an issue of our obsession with 10 year periods and feeling what we have must be the best. It ignores that the league is always just a mix of young and old. Old usually hanging right in with young. And when you act like the Bird/Magic 80s era when we had guys who clearly would be great today...is some whole other league...from the 60s/70s..it shows you are just talking out of your ass.

Im not gonna assume only the guys young enough to not be 50 yet in the Bird/Magic era could have played in it. When a month from retired Bill Russell outplays 22 year old MVP Wes Unseld...and Wes is doing 10/13/5 in the 80s....I dont see how I assume Bill doesnt translate. I take it to mean Bill proved himself vs the prime version of a good 80s bigman.

When Hondo, Rick Barry, Tiny Archibald, and Dave Cowens are in all star games with 5-6 guys(12 in Tinys case) also in the ASG with Michael Jordan....


These examples are endless. Old guys outplay people from an "era" or two in the future all the time.

But you tell me its as simple as newer=better using bullshit Issac Newton analogies.

I dont get the impression you even care enough about this game to investigate the merits of your claims. But still....here you are. Making wild claims. As if you know anything.

Which isnt rare here. But its always annoying.

Total demolition of op. If this were a fight ,it would be stopped in the 1st round.

[Kblaze8855]

Im going to reply in "I said this at some point in the last 10 years" form with my old quotes since...as I said....I dont find this terribly interesting. And this gets me out of putting in effort:





Assists were not counted they was they are now. Cousy was getting 8-9 a game on teams scoring 120ppg and running all day. Under todays definition he might have been around 12-15 a game.

Kobe in the 60s would score pretty much whatever his coach decided. But not much over 50ppg. At some point it stops being practical to have one guy shoot every time. He would get wild baskets on the break, have no motivation to shoot 3s, and be able to rebound his ass off in most games.

38 points, 10-12 rebounds, and 5-6 assists on 50-55% shooting wouldnt surprise me. I know nobody back then shot that well..but I just cant see Kobe really being stopped. Plus I think he could be brought under control and not just gun away the way some of the old guys did to lower their percentages. Kobe knowing what he knows now...in 06 form...his numbers are what he decides to make them.

If he dropped around 28-30ppg he might shoot 60%. And its not that hes THAT much better a shooter than everyone then....but guys didnt make the same effort to take good shots guys these days have to. Wilt might take 2 fadeaways get the rebounds then dunk it...when he could just overpower and dunk on guys to begin with if he put his mind to it.

That lack of a free for all mentality I think would help a modern guy like Kobe.




I think the difference is the kinds of shots they took compared to those Kobe would take. Drop Kobe in his prime into 1962 hes not taking the sweeping across the lane low percentage hook shots ive seen out of Baylor. Guys back then were getting up shots that are just...garbage. Its as if they set out to shoot regardless of the defense or the situation just for the sake of getting a shot up quickly. As much as hes hated on for it by modern standards....by 1962 standards Kobe is meticulous. He has clearly worked on every aspect of how to score to the point that everything from his footwork to release is carefully planned. Kobe isnt gonna just start coming down on the break and taking contested 15 footers.

Kobe might shoot 45% if he plays 60s ball. hes not shooting 45% vs those defenses with all the extra fast break baskets if hes playing the way he plays today. You arent putting a 6'5'' slower guy on Kobe at 18 feet and let him go one on one as they did the great majority of the time and have him miss 70% of the time as he likely needs to to make up for the extra fast break chances shooting percentage wise.

When you watch those old games and Elgin, Oscar, or Jerry face up and really take a moment to attack they are shredding guys. Watch Wilt back down one on one its hard to imagine him missing over half of his shots as he did one year(46%). But he did. ITs not because he couldnt get easy shots when he wanted. Its because he didnt try. He put up garbage went and got the misses and put it back. He would catch it and throw up hooks from 12-14 feet. He could back a guy down and score 90% of the time I bet. But he chose not to do it. He was allowed to play that way because its how they league was. Shoot quickly. Not shoot the best shot you can get.

Put 2000 Shaq in Wilts body he might have shot 75% in 1962. Put Kobe or Lebrons one on one attacking mentality into Elgin Baylor in 1962...hes not shooting 43%.

Plenty of those guys had great one on one ability that they didnt show to its full extent because the name of the game was get the first half decent shot up.

Kobe...03-08 Kobe?

Dude is gonna post up and punish those guys. Hes gonna gradually work himself into position for midrange jumpers. Hes gonna dunk on the break at every chance. Hes playing like guys have to play today to get good shots against defenses that try to stretch out the posession and make you take shots against the shot clock.

Kobe going one on one at the rate he would be able to back in the 60s before players got doubled outside much....isnt shooting 45%.

Not with 40 fast break points up for grabs.



And what is funny to me....


If al lthis happened? If Kobe were moved to the 60s and nobody knew it happened? Just drop 01 Kobe into 1958 to begin his career and have him play to like 1972?

Kids here would have like 10 minutes of footage of him making uncontested layups and dunks on the break, barely off the ground fadeaways, putting up 40ppg in largely unimpressive fasion(couldnt do flashy dunks and be allowed t oplay...no lobs thrown...he cant do much to show off) and shutting down 6'4'' white guys. And we would be asking if Kobe could score like Lebron in todays NBA and anyone who said yes would be laughed at by all but the oldest posters.

Kobe would have probably stayed pretty skinny. There would be a picture like this of him:


http://sportspressnw.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Elgin-Baylor-rebounding-e1304883743464.jpg

Or like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lF7wBVgGr9E/RdH4Cn-cXkI/AAAAAAAAAAM/DIPQEupo53Y/s320/oscar+robertson+ncaa.jpg

And it would be about it.

The same people asking how great he could do back then would be saying he couldnt stand toe to toe with Wade.

Shit for all we know we could be living in an altered timeline where the best center of the 90s was moved back in time by a childs wish....he became Wilt...dropped 50ppg and 27 rebounds and won rings....and all we do now is act like how much he would suck if he played in the 90s.

If Wilt doing the things he did gets laughed at by modern kids....Kobe wouldnt be any different. He would be numbers on a website being laughed at by people pretending that since he couldnt do them today hes actually worse than people think.

Kobe goes back in time...he would have better numbers...and be less respected by the same people acting like hes a monster now.

[Sarcastic]

If Lee doesn't have modern training/nutrition/advantages of today, then Pettit would destroy him handily.

As of today a time machine has not been invented to prove it one way or the other.

[fpliii]

what would shaq average in the 60's

if its anything more than what he averaged in 2000... then even you yourself can admit the 60's was not nearly as good

what would lebron or jordan average in the 60's?

what would kobe average in the 60's... again. if its anything more than what those guys did in their best years of their career. then you don't have a leg to stand on.


and i don't believe you would be dishonest enough to sit there and say shaqs highest average in the 60's would be 29ppg or lower


lebron, kobe, and jordan would all beast with 40+ppg averages. maybe even 1 year at 50


a guy like ben wallace would average 25/20 easy

its common knowledge

griff, you really need to cool it. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but...

1) The fetishism with the 50/25 season is strange. It wasn't so much a product of the era as much as a result of weird circumstances (for which Gottlieb, McGuire, and Wilt all deserve blame/"credit"). For a variety of reasons, nobody else would average 50 points in a game even if they were capable of doing so. But that wasn't Wilt's best season.

2) Ben Wallace would never average 25 points, stop with that shit. Respond to that Bill Russell thread from last week if you wanna get into that.

[Marchesk]

As of today a time machine has not been invented to prove it one way or the other.

And I'm sure that's what we'd be using time machines for. To send great basketball players from today back to the 60s to see how they would do.

[Marchesk]

1) The fetishism with the 50/25 season is strange. It wasn't so much a product of the era as much as a result of weird circumstances (for which Gottlieb, McGuire, and Wilt all deserve blame/"credit"). For a variety of reasons, nobody else would average 50 points in a game even if they were capable of doing so. But that wasn't Wilt's best season.

Now I'm really curious. Can you elaborate? And is that the reason Russell got the MVP that season and not Wilt? Do you think it helped the team less than if Wilt had settled for mid 30s on better shooting percentage while passing a little more? And was it in any way a publicity stunt for the league? A form of marketing if you will.

[Sarcastic]

Players voted for Russell over Wilt.

[Marchesk]

Players voted for Russell over Wilt.

But why? They voted for Wilt as MVP his rookie season.

[Kblaze8855]

Wilt was flat out told to score 50....every night. And he was played lal but 6 minutes of the entire season to do it. Which is why he played 48.5 minutes a game on the season...when a basketball game is 48 minutes. He played every second plus overtimes....aside from 6 minutes of a game he was ejected in.

Bit of a stunt but mostly his coach wanted to maximize their advantage. And wilt has the advantage over everyone.

The league didnt seem that impressed. The players voted for MVP at the time. Here are the results:

1961-62 1st 2nd 3rd Tot
(5) (3) (1) Pts
Bill Russell (BOS) ...... 51 12 6 297
Wilt Chamberlain (PHW) .. 9 30 17 152
Oscar Robertson (CIN) ... 13 13 31 135
Elgin Baylor (LAL) ...... 3 18 13 82
Jerry West (LAL) ........ 6 8 6 60
Bob Pettit (STL) ........ 2 4 9 31
Richie Guerin (NYK) ..... 1 0 0 5
Bob Cousy (BOS) ......... 0 0 3 3



Oscar actually got more first place votes too.



I assume the novelty of crazy ppg wore off. As a rookie he set the all time scoring and rebounding record. Nobody had seen anything like it. By 62 it wasnt that big a deal I suppose.

[fpliii]

Now I'm really curious. Can you elaborate? And is that the reason Russell got the MVP that season and not Wilt? Do you think it helped the team less than if Wilt had settled for mid 30s on better shooting percentage while passing a little more? And was it in any way a publicity stunt for the league? A form of marketing if you will.

I don't have any quotes on the marketing aspect, though I believe that played into it (somebody else might be able to tell you more about this). In Terry Pluto's Tall Tales, there's a discussion about how McGuire figured 50 points a game were what was necessary to beat Boston. I'll type it up when I have a chance.

[kennethgriffin]

griff, you really need to cool it. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but...

1) The fetishism with the 50/25 season is strange. It wasn't so much a product of the era as much as a result of weird circumstances (for which Gottlieb, McGuire, and Wilt all deserve blame/"credit"). For a variety of reasons, nobody else would average 50 points in a game even if they were capable of doing so. But that wasn't Wilt's best season.

2) Ben Wallace would never average 25 points, stop with that shit. Respond to that Bill Russell thread from last week if you wanna get into that.


http://i39.tinypic.com/2dtx1cm.png


:facepalm

ben wallace would average 25/20



6-5 elgin baylor averaged 19rpg one year. just a minor bit of athleticism made an undersized shooting guard type player one of the greatest rebounders in the nba

me saying wallace would average 20 rpg is an understatement. thats being fair


as for the 25ppg...

wallace would be a freak of nature in the 60's just like wilt. his strength, speed, athleticism would be too much for them. he would be dunking 10-12 field goals a game easy

defense's were horrible back in the day. the only competition in the nba that would even be able to body him would be russell and wilt.

[LAZERUSS]

I don't have any quotes on the marketing aspect, though I believe that played into it (somebody else might be able to tell you more about this). In Terry Pluto's Tall Tales, there's a discussion about how McGuire figured 50 points a game were what was necessary to beat Boston. I'll type it up when I have a chance.

The fact was, McGuire took one look at the roster and realized that the only hope they had was for Chamberlain to score.

To better illustrate that, take a look at how the 60-61 Warriors performed in the playoffs. They were swept by Syracuse. And Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot .332 from the field in that series. Wilt's two best teammates, Paul Arizin and Tom Gola, shot .325 and .206 respectively from the floor. You have to remember that the core of the 61-62 roster was essentially the same last place roster before Chamberlain arrived...only older, and worse.

And sure enough, while Wilt shot .506 in 61-62, his teammates collectively shot .402. In the post-season it was more of the same. Chamberlain shot .467, and his teammates collectively shot .354. However, they edged Syracuse in round one, and lost a game seven to the 60-20 Celtics by two points.

[fpliii]

:facepalm

ben wallace would average 25/20



6-5 elgin baylor averaged 19rpg one year. just a minor bit of athleticism made an undersized shooting guard type player one of the greatest rebounders in the nba

me saying wallace would average 20 rpg is an understatement. thats being fair


as for the 25ppg...

wallace would be a freak of nature in the 60's just like wilt. his strength, speed, athleticism would be too much for them. he would be dunking 10-12 field goals a game easy

defense's were horrible back in the day. the only competition in the nba that would even be able to body him would be russell and wilt.

I think the rebounding is high (see something more like high teens, I don't think he'd get the minutes), but that's your call.

The 25ppg, no way in hell. Going up against Wilt and Russell would take up as much as 1/4 of his schedule. He might have his way with some lesser centers, but Thurmond (better defensively than Wilt, and a beast of a physical specimen) would definitely give him problems. I won't speculate about anyone else he'd go against, but where would these post moves come from? Basically he'd need to get 10 baskets a game in transition, which I don't see happening. He might overpower some guys, but 25 ppg is pushing it.

I legitimately see him as a 10-12 ppg / 17-19 rpg player (with great defense).

[Sarcastic]

But why? They voted for Wilt as MVP his rookie season.

IDK but it's why I hate using mvps as a measure of greatness. The standard has changed from decade to decade.

In mlb during Ruth's era, players were eligible for only 1 mvp. The GOAT baseball player won 1 mvp, and it wasn't even close to his best year.

[fpliii]

The fact was, McGuire took one look at the roster and realized that the only hope they had was for Chamberlain to score.

To better illustrate that, take a look at how the 60-61 Warriors performed in the playoffs. They were swept by Syracuse. And Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot .332 from the field in that series. Wilt's two best teammates, Paul Arizin and Tom Gola, shot .325 and .206 respectively from the floor. You have to remember that the core of the 61-62 roster was essentially the same last place roster before Chamberlain arrived...only older, and worse.

And sure enough, while Wilt shot .506 in 61-62, his teammates collectively shot .402. In the post-season it was more of the same. Chamberlain shot .467, and his teammates collectively shot .354. However, they edged Syracuse in round one, and lost a game seven to the 60-20 Celtics by two points.

I think it was the wrong strategy though. His teammates were certainly worse in 64, but Wilt got back on defense (and anchored one of the great teams on that end in league history...I think it's in the top 15 in relative defensive efficiency, even though the GOAT defensive team in the Celtics played that season), and orchestrated from the high post. I don't want to make this a discussion of Wilt's supporting cast early on though, it is what it is (the burden of a pioneer). Regarding those two in particular, Arizin was part of the old guard (and very much a 50s star as opposed to a 60s great, if that makes any sense; he did succeed after the shotclock, but 61-62 was his final season), and Gola wasn't much of a scorer (excellent wing defender, good playmaker, and rebounder for his position, good shooting, with size). I think Rodgers was probably his best teammate though, no? One of the worst shooters out there, but great playmaker.

Anyhow, I'm not as high on 61-62 (but don't hold it against Wilt), but 63-64 (in addition to his three MVP seasons with the Sixers) is much, much more impressive to me.

[LAZERUSS]

I think it was the wrong strategy though. His teammates were certainly worse in 64, but Wilt got back on defense (and anchored one of the great teams on that end in league history...I think it's in the top 15 in relative defensive efficiency, even though the GOAT defensive team in the Celtics played that season), and orchestrated from the high post. I don't want to make this a discussion of Wilt's supporting cast early on though, it is what it is (the burden of a pioneer). Regarding those two in particular, Arizin was part of the old guard (and very much a 50s star as opposed to a 60s great, if that makes any sense; he did succeed after the shotclock, but 61-62 was his final season), and Gola wasn't much of a scorer (excellent wing defender, good playmaker, and rebounder for his position, good shooting, with size). I think Rodgers was probably his best teammate though, no? One of the worst shooters out there, but great playmaker.

Anyhow, I'm not as high on 61-62 (but don't hold it against Wilt), but 63-64 (in addition to his three MVP seasons with the Sixers) is much, much more impressive to me.

Alex Hannum, Wilt's coach in that 63-64 season, would agree with you. Before the start of the 63-64 season, Hannum conducted a pre-season scrimmage with his veterans, sans Wilt, against a group of rookies and castoffs...and the scrubs won. Hannum was shocked. He was stunned by the fact that Wilt's teammates had become so dependent on Wilt, that they had basically forgotten how to play the game.

[Round Mound]

I dont care what you think Bob Petitt is today. I do know you base your opinion on it on the nothing you know about the man. Im borderline obsessed with such things and ive not seen 10 minutes of even highlights. But you...who clearly dont care...have seen enough to know exactly what hes capable of. Which...is the issue to me.

I will give you my basic problem with your type. You make claims as if you have actually looked into this sport and act like they cant be disputed. Bullshit about the inarguable superiority of newer athletes as if basketball is a race to be clocked with results for all to see. It sounds as if you know nothing of basketball but you insist on multiple topics steady making the same claims always with the same cutoff where I suppose you accept that greatness began.

You say shit like Ewing would eat the greatest 60s bigmen alive.

Kareems career high vs Nate Thurmond(3rd or 4th best 60s center) is 34. When he was at his best. When he was a 30/15 monster in his youth. Most he got...34. He has 42 and 6 blocks on 68% shooting the second time he plays Ewing. And Kareem is 38 about to be 39. Ewing goes 3-17. Vs a player who came out in 69 and was only still in the league due to being robbed by his accountants.

Kareem retires at 35 like he planned I bet anything claims he could drop 40 on 90s/early 2000s centers like Ewing and Hakeem would be laughed at. Luckily he stuck around and proved it as an old man.


Elvin Hayes isnt considered as good as Wilt or Russell in the 60s. he came out in 68...at age 23. He was NBA age in 1965. But he can put up 25 and 26 in games vs Birds Celtics with a frontcourt that retired in the 90s. Hes dropped 35 on guys who were in the NBA in 1995.

Dave Cowens came out in 1970. He left the game a shadow of what he was...and later came out of retirement and at age 35 was still an effective bigman at times having double doubles playing opposite Buck williams...who was still in the NBA in 1998.

Robert Parish was putting up worse numbers at 24 on the Warriors in 1978 than when he was 39 in 1993.

Bob Lanier has 30/30/12 games hung on him by Wilt when hes young and at his peak. But when hes 33 hes still an all star and having 26 point games vs frontcourts with both starters playing deep into the 90s(94 and 98). All star bigman in the 80s....in his 30s. Worse than the 60s players you mock when hes at his peak.

I sat and watched an old well past his prime George Gervin out of 1972 drop 40 on a guy who was still in the league in 1999.

And you dont seem to grasp...any of it.

There is not some hard line between eras. This era bullshit is largely an issue of our obsession with 10 year periods and feeling what we have must be the best. It ignores that the league is always just a mix of young and old. Old usually hanging right in with young. And when you act like the Bird/Magic 80s era when we had guys who clearly would be great today...is some whole other league...from the 60s/70s..it shows you are just talking out of your ass.

Im not gonna assume only the guys young enough to not be 50 yet in the Bird/Magic era could have played in it. When a month from retired Bill Russell outplays 22 year old MVP Wes Unseld...and Wes is doing 10/13/5 in the 80s....I dont see how I assume Bill doesnt translate. I take it to mean Bill proved himself vs the prime version of a good 80s bigman.

When Hondo, Rick Barry, Tiny Archibald, and Dave Cowens are in all star games with 5-6 guys(12 in Tinys case) also in the ASG with Michael Jordan....


These examples are endless. Old guys outplay people from an "era" or two in the future all the time.

But you tell me its as simple as newer=better using bullshit Issac Newton analogies.

I dont get the impression you even care enough about this game to investigate the merits of your claims. But still....here you are. Making wild claims. As if you know anything.

Which isnt rare here. But its always annoying.

:applause:

[Cali Syndicate]

i base my judgement on countless hours of footage i've watched over the last 20 years of my life from 50's, 60's players to make a good enough judgement.




Last 20 years huh? I bet you hadn't even sniffed a 50's or 60's highlight til you saw on on YouTube. And when did YouTube actually start going mainstream? Not even 10 years ago. Were there even enough NBA uploads to even consider any type of research on YouTube at that time anyways? A few vids maybe, let alone footage from the 50's and 60's....VHS to digital was a rare service. And also considering you started watching the NBA in the late 90's, with the emergence of Shaq and his escapade to LA, and I emphasize started, you really didn't have a grasp on the game for probably a number of years. And with how many games were you actually catching over there in Canada anyways? A few handful of games a month? Yeah unless you were sharing 50's and 60's game footage on early P2P networks, I highly doubt your BS.

I started "fully" engaging myself with the NBA in the mid 90's right around the time I was starting high school. I actually started enjoying watching basketball since the early 90's but I recall my first memories watching the game as early as the late 80's. So......with your logic I have been assessing the game since when I was like 7 years old.

20 years?:roll:

[BoutPractice]

Regarding that famous season... Several players have proved able to score 50 points in a game, but very few in history would have been capable of AVERAGING 50 - that takes a special blend of scoring skill, consistency, and stamina. Jordan and Kobe may be the only ones, based on the fact that they could score 37 and 35 ppg over 80+ games. And none would have been capable of averaging 50 along with as many rebounds and blocks. Anyway, my interpretation of that season based on some articles was that it became a "marketing" tool of sorts for the league. The more records he broke, the more publicity for the league. Wilt was a willing participant in an experiment that probably won't be replicated... but in no way does it make what he did any less impressive. It was the definition of a supreme athletic achievement.

[fpliii]

Now I'm really curious. Can you elaborate? And is that the reason Russell got the MVP that season and not Wilt? Do you think it helped the team less than if Wilt had settled for mid 30s on better shooting percentage while passing a little more? And was it in any way a publicity stunt for the league? A form of marketing if you will.

I uploaded the chapter on that season (8 pages):

http://www54.zippyshare.com/v/2543774/file.html

It was too much to type (though I could've selected relevant quotes). Anyhow, I'd recommend anyone interested in learning more about the NBA between 55 and 69 in particular pick it up. Outstanding resource, and amazing read.

[GrapeApe]

With all these cross-era hypotheticals, why not introduce a hypothetical scenario where guys like Petit/Wilt/Russell were born in 1985 and had all the advantages of modern players? What if Lee/Love were born in 1935? It's all speculative anyway so why not level the playing field?

[Dro]

Hey man if you want me to admit I havent put as much time into this as you have your right.


This is accurate, people have have jobs and most of us post on ISH for shits and giggles calm down. Personally I come on here mostly to kill time at work in between browsing huffpo and facebook/twitter.
you are taking this a lot more seriously than you should chill, we arent discussing the future of the nation here. I am not going to take out time to research stuff for ISH in depth.



My basic point here is that modern physicists today have more knowledge than Newton because they used his work as a ladder and built upon it. They know what he knew about gravity and have discovered additional information. You can argue they are better physicists in that sense, but I wouldn't argue that they are greater.



Yes experience veterans out play guys before they hit their prime.

Look man I seem to have offended you for some reason so I apologize, I didnt realize some people considered posting on ISH akin to submitting a doctoral thesis.
Bro, you're the one that started this ridiculous thread about something you obviously have no clue about and Kblaze set you straight. If you didn't want him to answer with a "thesis" which by the way, would not be ANYWHERE near as long as Kblaze' post, so its actually not a thesis, then why would start a thread making a stupid claims of which you know nothing about?:confusedshrug:

[Marchesk]

With all these cross-era hypotheticals, why not introduce a hypothetical scenario where guys like Petit/Wilt/Russell were born in 1985 and had all the advantages of modern players? What if Lee/Love were born in 1935? It's all speculative anyway so why not level the playing field?

That's more "realistic". It's not like we're going to be swapping players using a time machine. If we're comparing across eras, then you have to take all the context into play. Lebron in that era doesn't have the advantages he has now. But he's still a great athlete in any era. Oscar in this era would have the advantages of today's athletes.

I think we can conclude that many stars from the past would still be stars today, because they'd have the advantages of athletes today. They were stars in the past for a reason, which would be a combination of athleticism, skill, hard work, basketball IQ and what have you.

[Dro]

That's more "realistic". It's not like we're going to be swapping players using a time machine. If we're comparing across eras, then you have to take all the context into play. Lebron in that era doesn't have the advantages he has now. But he's still a great athlete in any era. Oscar in this era would have the advantages of today's athletes.

I think we can conclude that many stars from the past would still be stars today, because they'd have the advantages of athletes today. They were stars in the past for a reason, which would be a combination of athleticism, skill, hard work, basketball IQ and what have you.
A little too much logic in this post...

[SCdac]

http://i39.tinypic.com/2dtx1cm.png


:facepalm

ben wallace would average 25/20

we talking about the same guy who can't dribble or shoot and has career averages of 5.7 PPG and .41 FT%? :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

Wow how did I miss this topic :oldlol:

Anyways OP's trolling aside for those who entered this thread that were genuinely curious about Bob Pettit I have a rough-cut of a Bob Pettit mix in order right here:

http://youtu.be/g00Q-9Yj3Ic

- IMO Kevin Love is the modern player most analogous to him, not David Lee. The defensive rebounds turned to outlet passes, the offensive rebounding, the stretching of the floor. The overall approach of Bob Pettit's game is most similar to Loves. 'Talent'-wise he is also most similar to Kevin Love, in that he and Love are both basically 6-8 white guys in more or less the same weight class (After Love lost weight) who don't have any marketable advantage over their peers in terms of athleticism or length. For both Kevin Love or Bob Pettit, 'talent' isn't the defining characteristic and is the wrong word to use when trying to explain what makes them good players. Hard work, execution of fundamentals and determination are.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-BRusRBik_WM/UohdeCtHV3I/AAAAAAAAE2E/5ghfLckBi9I/s800/bob_pettit_8.jpg

[MavsSuperFan]

Wow how did I miss this topic :oldlol:

Anyways OP's trolling aside for those who entered this thread that were genuinely curious about Bob Pettit I have a rough-cut of a Bob Pettit mix in order right here:

http://youtu.be/g00Q-9Yj3Ic

- IMO Kevin Love is the modern player most analogous to him, not David Lee. The defensive rebounds turned to outlet passes, the offensive rebounding, the stretching of the floor. The overall approach of Bob Pettit's game is most similar to Loves. 'Talent'-wise he is also most similar to Kevin Love, in that he and Love are both basically 6-8 white guys in more or less the same weight class (After Love lost weight) who don't have any marketable advantage over their peers in terms of athleticism or length. For both Kevin Love or Bob Pettit, 'talent' isn't the defining characteristic and is the wrong word to use when trying to explain what makes them good players. Hard work, execution of fundamentals and determination are.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-BRusRBik_WM/UohdeCtHV3I/AAAAAAAAE2E/5ghfLckBi9I/s800/bob_pettit_8.jpg

Honestly if Love wasnt white (relax I am white), he would have a lot less hype.

This is a guy that hasnt even been to the playoffs. Weak post game, zero defense and a career FG% under 50% as a PF. He stat pads more than Lebron ever did.

haha U mad

[moe94]

He stat pads more than Lebron ever did.

haha U mad
I ****ing love this argument of "stat padding" as if terrible players can randomly put up superstar stats at will. Is it because of his terrible team, relative to his stats? Should we absolutely discard 09 Wade's all time season? What about Timberwolves Garnett? Was T-Mac stat padding 32 points on 46% shooting?

Garnett peaked at 24 PPG on 49% shooting and is considered a great offensive PF.

Love is averaging 27 PPG on 48% shooting. He is absolutely horrific.:rolleyes:

[InspiredLebowski]

No idea. But Pettit was before his time is the idea of him I get from old timers that actually watched him.

[LAZERUSS]

If you took a non-fan, and asked them to compare photos of say Pettit, Lucas, Cousy, with Love, Nash, and Lee, do you think they could tell you who had been playing in the 50's and 60's, and those that were playing today?

The fact is, they are all physically comparable. If anything, the OP should ask...just how the hell does a 6-8 Love easily win a rpg title (and while only playing 36 mpg, too); a 37 year old Nash wins an apg title (and only playing 33 mpg in doing so); and a white 6-11 Bogut wins a bpg title...in THIS era?

How is that possible?

[Psileas]

http://i39.tinypic.com/2dtx1cm.png


:facepalm

ben wallace would average 25/20



6-5 elgin baylor averaged 19rpg one year. just a minor bit of athleticism made an undersized shooting guard type player one of the greatest rebounders in the nba

me saying wallace would average 20 rpg is an understatement. thats being fair


as for the 25ppg...

wallace would be a freak of nature in the 60's just like wilt. his strength, speed, athleticism would be too much for them. he would be dunking 10-12 field goals a game easy

defense's were horrible back in the day. the only competition in the nba that would even be able to body him would be russell and wilt.

Very compelling arguments, petergriffin.

[bukowski81]

There seems a bunch of guys here that argue the league was just as good in the 60s as it is now. For that reason they dont diminish the accomplishments of Wilt and Russell.

But common guys do you really think a Bob Pettit was more talented than say a David Lee or a Kevin Love? (both overrated stat padder)

Bob Pettit was an MVP level player purely because he played in a weak era. Yes both david lee and kevin love would have been MVP level players in that era.

When you rank Wilt and Russell ahead of guys like MJ (I have seen this atrocity on ISH), Shaq, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Isaiah, Duncan, Kobe, Lebron, etc. you are totally ignoring the fact that they played in an incredibly weak era, where guys like Love and Lee would have been MVP level players.

Thats just unfair to say.Do you think David Lee would be the same player if he played in the 60s?? Of course not, the game evolves and it evolves thanks to great players like Bob Pettit, just like the great players from today are evolving the game. Probably in 30 years the game will be very different, it doesnt mean Kobe, Jordan, Duncan, Lebron etc will stop being great.

[La Frescobaldi]

Thats just unfair to say.Do you think David Lee would be the same player if he played in the 60s?? Of course not, the game evolves and it evolves thanks to great players like Bob Pettit, just like the great players from today are evolving the game. Probably in 30 years the game will be very different, it doesnt mean Kobe, Jordan, Duncan, Lebron etc will stop being great.
dude's argument was destroyed long ago; worse, he displays straw man action on David Lee & Kevin Love, as though they aren't (granted very early days of the season) showing MVP level potential in today's league.

Warriors are a great team that is built around David Lee. If he went down, would they win a lot of games? Absolutely. Thompson & Curry alone win you lots of games. But they don't go all the way without him, plain and simple. They could arguably have beat the Spurs last year if Lee hadn't gone down with hip trouble.
Love is more intangible. This is the first time we've seen him with a team around him... so maybe it's just coincidence that he's been tearing up the league. We shall see.

[MavsSuperFan]

Thats just unfair to say.Do you think David Lee would be the same player if he played in the 60s?? Of course not, the game evolves and it evolves thanks to great players like Bob Pettit, just like the great players from today are evolving the game. Probably in 30 years the game will be very different, it doesnt mean Kobe, Jordan, Duncan, Lebron etc will stop being great.

I agree with your point. In fact it is the point I was trying to make, perhaps I expressed myself poorly.

of course Bob Pettit is great I have never said he wasnt great. There is a difference between being greater than someone and being better than someone.

Isaac Newton is arguably the greatest physicist of all time. Many modern physicists know more about gravity than he did. (eg why planets revolve around the sun) In that sense they are better physicists than he was. But obviously he was greater than them.
Edit 1. Eg planetary bodies bend the fabric of space and cause smaller planetary objects to orbit them.
http://myweb.rollins.edu/jsiry/Curved_space_elipse.JPG
http://larvalsubjects.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/fabric_of_space_warp.jpg
Newton of course knew that they did orbit them, but later we found out it was because of this.

I never said I thought Pettit was a bum. I said I think he played in an inferior league and people who played in that era should have their accomplishments/stats discounted when compared to modern players, because they couldnt put up those stats or win those awards today.

All I said was Pettit wouldnt win an MVP nowadays and would be a good role player or second option and that Love and Lee would have been MVP level player back then imo.

NBA players made a lot less money back then so their was less of an incentive to work towards improving your game. Lots of NBA players had to work second jobs to make ends meet. I even learned from CavaliersFTW that petitt got a law degree or something. How many lawyers do you see in the NBA nowadays? Zero, guys are too busy getting better at basketball.
Edit 2: You dont see highly educated people play professional sports like you did in the 60s anymore, because generally they need to concentrate on getting better at their sport. Take peyton manning for example, people always talk about how smart he is, but his degree is a communications degree.

Based on them making less money back in the 60s I am going to assume that less people worked hard at becoming great players and some people who might have had the talent to play in the NBA chose more financially rewarding careers. Overall the league had less talent, because it had less financial incentives to join it. Its all I am saying, but people act like I was saying commit genocide or something :lol

[CavaliersFTW]

I agree with your point. In fact it is the point I was trying to make, perhaps I expressed myself poorly.

of course Bob Pettit is great I have never said he wasnt great. There is a difference between being greater than someone and being better than someone.

....(troll essay ensues)...

Except Bob Pettit is actually both greater and better than David Lee.