35 mins of Bill Russell's last NBA game (against Wilt, too)

[jzek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnu5vMfPtbw

Has this been posted before? Probably but I don't care :pimp:

[NumberSix]

Bill Russell = Joakim Noah

[Kvnzhangyay]

Is it just me or was there a lot less ball movement and a lot more chucking back then?

[played0ut]

Bill Russell = Joakim Noah

behehehe


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AlFrOj5Mc

[jongib369]

behehehe


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AlFrOj5Mc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zod87fjoyv0

[1987_Lakers]

Geez, what a snooze fest. The crowd wasn't into the game. After Boston won their players weren't even celebrating. Everyone is like "Thank God the season is over". :oldlol:

[fpliii]

Bill Russell = Joakim Noah
What an attention whore. :oldlol:

[Psileas]

Geez, what a snooze fest. The crowd wasn't into the game. After Boston won their players weren't even celebrating. Everyone is like "Thank God the season is over". :oldlol:

You can't judge the crowd having a limited court view like this, the sound toned down, etc. Still, when the Lakers came back, you can see plenty of them standing up and going nuts, booing the Celtics' FT's, etc. If anything, the crowd looks like the major reason the Celtics didn't celebrate as they should. There have been older seasons than '69 when they celebrated more, while playing at the Boston Garden.

[1987_Lakers]

There have been older seasons than '69 when they celebrated more, while playing at the Boston Garden.

I guess that what happens when you win 11 titles in 13 years. You just expect a title.

[Yankstar]

Is it just me or was there a lot less ball movement and a lot more chucking back then?

Weak era :no:

[Angel Face]

I was figuring out who won that game before clicking the link, then after clicking the link, found out it's Finals, so no doubt... Wilt lost... again.

[Fawker]

honestly please explain, those were pretty primitive play from of what's happening now.

[KBaller33]

So Russell was 35 here. Can't really judge him. But these guards can't dribble with their left hand :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

The more I watch that game the more I am inclined to believe that, no, VBK was not incompetent, but rather, he was in on the take.

With about 10 minutes remaining, Russell picked up his 5th personal. The very next play the Lakers go into Chamberlain and he goes right around Russell's "matador" defense for an easy layin. He wouldn't touch the ball again on the offensive end.

Then, there was Elgin Baylor, and I am even suspicious of HIM. How does a player who had a relatively solid season, put up such horrific numbers in games 3, 4, 5, and 7? It is just not seemingly possible that one man could collectively shoot .269 over the course of four of the biggest games of his life. Hell, Wilt gets criticized for his FT shooting, but in game four, a one point loss, Baylor not only shot 2-14 from the field, but he also shot 1-5 from the line.

In any case, by a game seven, in a series in which Baylor has just been awful, VBK not only lets Baylor play 43 minutes, he continues to let him shoot wildly all game long.

And of course there was the "Wilt gaffe", too. How does a coach leave the game's greatest player on the bench in the last five minutes of a close game seven? And of course, Wilt's "replacement" the great Mel Counts, misses a key shot late, and then commits a turnover when LA had a chance to win, en route to a 4-13 game from the field.

Oh, and then you can go back to that game four, when LA was leading the series, 2-1, leading 88-87 late, and with the ball. Does VBK put the ball in the hands of West at the most critical time of the game? Hell no, he had Johnny Egan stumbling around, and sure enough, he is stripped, and then Sam Jones, (of course), while falling down, hits the game winner at the buzzer. Had VBK had West handling the ball, and likely the Lakers go up 3-1, and given the game five romp over Boston, they would have won the series, 4-1.

Highly suspicious...

[Fawker]

the **** is up with spacing in those times.:roll:

**** that the new top 5 is

jordan
magic
bird
shaq
duncan


kareem

[1987_Lakers]

But these guards can't dribble with their left hand :roll:

I noticed that too.

[AnaheimLakers24]

lakers getting cheated back than

[jongib369]

So Russell was 35 here. Can't really judge him. But these guards can't dribble with their left hand :roll:
They could, they were just taught to use their right more often than not with the thought that your dominant hand should always be the one shooting or dribbling. Only switching to the left when the defender goes after it or driving to the left....And even then some risked going to the left dribbling with their right only switching last second if the defender went after it. That along with the rules of only being able to dribble with your hand hitting the very top of the ball made using your left hand a little more awkward to do. But, I'm not saying they're as good at dribbling as todays players....They wouldn't be able to just run out there and do the stuff you see guys do today if given todays rules. Some like Baylor, Maravich Monroe and a host of others for sure, but most would probably prefer to keep their style of play. Especially Oscar lol. Since every position liked to/almost had to play back to the basket more, the dribbling you see today wasn't AS needed.

[jongib369]

the **** is up with spacing in those times.:roll:

**** that the new top 5 is

jordan
magic
bird
shaq
duncan

shaq

kareem
What do you mean?Don't know if I'm understanding what you meant but what do you expect the spacing to be when there's no 3 pointer? Why shoot a long two when you could get in close?

[Fawker]

What do you mean?Don't know if I'm understanding what you meant but what do you expect the spacing to be when there's no 3 pointer? Why shoot a long two when you could get in close?
the bottom line is that was not modern world format at all. why you defending that prehistoric play?

i'm convinced russel, wilt and others in the era are novelty greats and nothing more.

[LAZERUSS]

the bottom line is that was not modern world format at all. why you defending that prehistoric play?

Yeah...those guys in the 60's couldn't dribble...

How about this goofy 6-5 white kid who played college in the 60's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ

He was Ricky Rubio, and who could shoot, long before Rubio was.

BTW, and speaking of dribbling...how about these kids from a 1962 video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soLH6bau9uo

I's sure there is also Globtrotter footage, from even before that, in which they put on a dribbling clinic, as well.

BTW, players were NOT allowed to PALM and CARRY the ball back then, either. Today's NBA would never get the ball past half court had they been forced to play in the 60's.

[Psileas]

:oldlol:
And then you 60's-70's bashers get angry when the newer fans crap on your own eras, spitting poison at the ones who notice that the 80's had no defense compared to nowadays, the 90's had less ball movement and no international competition compared to nowadays, etc.
Btw, I watched the famous Jordan vs Bryon Russell play again. Can't believe teams back then weren't smart enough to double Jordan in the single most important defensive play of their ****ing history and defenders weren't good enough to keep their defensive balance to save their season (and Bryon had lost his balance in a crucial Finals play again in 1997 :oldlol: ).

[Fawker]

Yeah...those guys in the 60's couldn't dribble...

How about this goofy 6-5 white kid who played college in the 60's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ

He was Ricky Rubio, and who could shoot, long before Rubio was.

BTW, and speaking of dribbling...how about these kids from a 1962 video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soLH6bau9uo

I's sure there is also Globtrotter footage, from even before that, in which they put on a dribbling clinic, as well.

BTW, players were NOT allowed to PALM and CARRY the ball back then, either. Today's NBA would never get the ball past half court had they been forced to play in the 60's.
Don't resort to vintage GT footage because that is not modern format either. Anyway... no more props to old generations for me. It was just a primitive time I'm sorry. Does that exclude them from being all time greats? No. but they lose major respect from being equal to modern greats.

[LAZERUSS]

Don't resort to vintage GT footage because that is not modern format either. Anyway... no more props to old generations for me. It was just a primitive time I'm sorry. Does that exclude them from being all time greats? No. but they lose major respect from being equal to modern greats.

Please educate all of us here, as to WHEN the "modern era" first began...

[Psileas]

Please educate all of us here, as to WHEN the "modern era" first began...

Please, Pistol Pete wasn't modern. That's an insult to Maravich. He was post-modern. Most modern guards couldn't replicate in an empty gym the things he was doing in NBA games.

[moe94]

Please, Pistol Pete wasn't modern. That's an insult to Maravich. He was post-modern. Most modern guards couldn't replicate in an empty gym the things he was doing in NBA games.

Like what exactly?

[fpliii]

:oldlol:
And then you 60's-70's bashers get angry when the newer fans crap on your own eras, spitting poison at the ones who notice that the 80's had no defense compared to nowadays, the 90's had less ball movement and no international competition compared to nowadays, etc.
Btw, I watched the famous Jordan vs Bryon Russell play again. Can't believe teams back then weren't smart enough to double Jordan in the single most important defensive play of their ****ing history and defenders weren't good enough to keep their defensive balance to save their season (and Bryon had lost his balance in a crucial Finals play again in 1997 :oldlol: ).
It's not worth the effort IMO. Though I think you guys enjoy the back-and-forth more than I do, lol.

[Fawker]

Please, Pistol Pete wasn't modern. That's an insult to Maravich. He was post-modern. Most modern guards couldn't replicate in an empty gym the things he was doing in NBA games.
i want to learn

[Psileas]

Moe+Fawker:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ruz5VkBt0Q&t=2m27s
In game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuiOBLkMKdk

[Psileas]

Probably the most perfect between the legs pass I've ever seen, barely changed his pace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y5KAaercTI&t=5m22s

[La Frescobaldi]

i want to learn

dude you didn't answer. when exactly did the "modern era" begin?

Was it when 40 y.o. Kareem was using Olajuwon to wipe the sweat off his jersey? Or was it earlier, when Moses Malone was teaching Hakeem how to play in college?

When exactly was this "modern era"? Was it when they did away with handchecking? Or was it when they allowed flopping for like 10 years?

[LAZERUSS]

Please, Pistol Pete wasn't modern. That's an insult to Maravich. He was post-modern. Most modern guards couldn't replicate in an empty gym the things he was doing in NBA games.

Agreed. I STILL haven't seen ANYONE else duplicate what he was doing 40 years ago. Not only that, he didn't need to palm or carry the ball, either. Take that away from today's NBA players and they wouldn't get the ball across half court. In fact, the game would slow to a complete crawl. Teams would be inbounding the ball back-and-forth all game long.

[LAZERUSS]

dude you didn't answer. when exactly did the "modern era" begin?

Was it when 40 y.o. Kareem was using Olajuwon to wipe the sweat off his jersey? Or was it earlier, when Moses Malone was teaching Hakeem how to play in college?

When exactly was this "modern era"? Was it when they did away with handchecking? Or was it when they allowed flopping for like 10 years?

He never bit. I was truly hoping he would, but alas,...

And yes, you are spot on.

:applause:

[BoutPractice]

The funny thing is that while Maravich was the most "modern" ball handler he was far from being the best player in the league.

His modern superpowers apparently didn't help him dominate the weaker league that supposedly was the NBA at the time. In fact the best PER he ever achieved in his career was 20. He was well known as a loser and a chucker at the time.

Casual fans overrate ball handling, and confuse the spectacular with the effective.

[WillC]

Bill Russell = Joakim Noah

So you're saying that Bill Russell would be on the All-NBA 1st Team if he played today? I agree.

[cuad]

6 minutes in. Dunks, post ups, jump shots, crossovers, too many fouls. Tell me the game has changed.

[Psileas]

So you're saying that Bill Russell would be on the All-NBA 1st Team if he played today? I agree.

And DPOY, let's not forget.



6 minutes in. Dunks, post ups, jump shots, crossovers, too many fouls. Tell me the game has changed.

But, alas, 5 minutes is the modern ISHer's threshold.

[Nash]

that was some terrible basketball

[jzek]

Please educate all of us here, as to WHEN the "modern era" first began...

1980s

[STATUTORY]

1980s
post NBA/ABA merger at the very earliest

I mean honestly if you watch that video in its entirety and you believe the level of play hasn't gone up. you just don't understand basketball or needs to have your internet access privilege revoked at your retirement home.

[STATUTORY]

They could, they were just taught to use their right more often than not with the thought that your dominant hand should always be the one shooting or dribbling. Only switching to the left when the defender goes after it or driving to the left....And even then some risked going to the left dribbling with their right only switching last second if the defender went after it. That along with the rules of only being able to dribble with your hand hitting the very top of the ball made using your left hand a little more awkward to do. But, I'm not saying they're as good at dribbling as todays players....They wouldn't be able to just run out there and do the stuff you see guys do today if given todays rules. Some like Baylor, Maravich Monroe and a host of others for sure, but most would probably prefer to keep their style of play. Especially Oscar lol. Since every position liked to/almost had to play back to the basket more, the dribbling you see today wasn't AS needed.

a long ass paragraph to try and rationalize the fact they COULDN'T dribble well even by modern High School standard

there IS no basketball reason for a guard to play back to the basket from the three point line. you only resort to that because you have no confidence in keeping your dribble.

[STATUTORY]

dude you didn't answer. when exactly did the "modern era" begin?

Was it when 40 y.o. Kareem was using Olajuwon to wipe the sweat off his jersey? Or was it earlier, when Moses Malone was teaching Hakeem how to play in college?

When exactly was this "modern era"? Was it when they did away with handchecking? Or was it when they allowed flopping for like 10 years?

:roll: :roll: USING OUTLIERS to define eras

f@cking boomer retards.

[GimmeThat]

Wilt looked awkward on the defensive end, you can tell that he was a ball dominant big.

Russell on the other hand was the mobile big who was great without the ball, and knew what position to run to.


I don't know if Wilt didn't enjoy the finals stage. You can tell that he didn't seem to be giving the full effort on the defensive end, but more grabbing the rebound (i.e. I'll let Russell get his, but I'll be sure we win the board)

You can tell he was comfortable with West trying to carry the scoring load offensively, as well as being the mobile guard that dictates the back court.


I don't know if West ever called out Wilt to say you just gotta shut Russell out of the game, but maybe West felt confident in his ability to carry his team over the edge, because Wilt's production for the team to him was good/great enough as it gets help wise.

[NumberSix]

Why can't people just admit that the basketball is past eras was crappy? It's like watching a college game with worse defense.

[STATUTORY]

Why can't people just admit that the basketball is past eras was crappy? It's like watching a college game with worse defense.
they are either old men or just contrarians.

[stanlove1111]

The game has evolved that's for sure. Doesn't mean I don't count Wilt and Russell among the greatest 6 ever because you can only judge a player by how he did in his era..IF Lebron was born was born in 1937 this is how he would have played. But I would think there are high school teams today who might beat these guys just like 50 years from now high schools teams might beat the 2014 Spurs..




One thing that jumps out at you is how nobody can touch anyone without a foul being called. I always laugh when old time worshippers act like things were rougher back then..I laugh when the Wilt fans tried to say that Wilt was roughed up and ganged up on back then. Be might have had alittle more pressure on him then other players from the time but that means nothing..You couldn't touch anyone and we have never seen a video of Wilt being ganged up on like stars of today are..IF Wilt played today he would know what rough is and he would know what it feels like to be double teamed if they needed to.

The lack of ballhandling skills jumps out at you also..Guards today wouldn't make their high school team if they couldn't dribble better then that. They would get ripped everytime they got the ball.


I am old enough to have watched the game live at the time but when looking back after following bball for all of these years only a biased foul would deny that basketball has obviously evolved since then...

[STATUTORY]

The game has evolved that's for sure. Doesn't mean I don't count Wilt and Russell among the greatest 6 ever because you can only judge a player by how he did in his era..IF Lebron was born was born in 1937 this is how he would have played. But I would think there are high school teams today who might be these guys just like 50 years from now high schools teams might be the 2014 Spurs..




One thing that jumps out at you is how nobody can touch anyone without a foul being called. I always laugh when old time worshippers act like things were rougher back then..I laugh when the Wilt fans tried to say that Wilt was roughed up and ganged up on back then. Be might have had alittle more pressure on him then other players from the time but that means nothing..You couldn't touch anyone and we have never seen a video of Wilt being ganged up on like stars of today are..IF Wilt played today he would know what rough is and he would know what it feels like to be double teamed if they needed to.

The lack of ballhandling skills jumps out at you also..Guards today wouldn't make their high school team if they couldn't dribble better then that. They would get ripped everytime they got the ball.


I am old enough to have watched the game live at the time but when looking back after fouling bball for all of these years only a biased foul would denied that basketball has obviously evolved since then...

:applause: :applause: nice to see an old fella that's not blinded by nostalgia

[stanlove1111]

These trolls catching feelings because their idols Kobe and LeBron will never be considered better basketball players than Russell or Wilt. :oldlol:

I have Russell tied for number one with Jordan and Wilt in the next group with Jabbar,Bird, and Magic..But if anyone thinks they are going to put Wilt or Russell from 1969 into a game today and they are not going to get destroyed then they are blind..The game has evolved..

[STATUTORY]

I have Russell tied for number one with Jordan and Wilt in the next group with Jabbar,Bird, and Magic..But if anyone thinks they are going to put Wilt or Russell from 1969 into a game today and they are not going to get destroyed then they are blind..The game has evolved..
the evolution in guard play is even more drastic and stark. Guys like Wilt and maybe Russell will still be competitive in today's league, guards like Bob Cousey wouldn't even make college D1 team.

[BoutPractice]

Once again, let's not overstate the importance of ball handling.

Even today, quality shots come from sharing the ball, as the Spurs demonstrate.

Fancy crossovers aren't necessary to get a good shot... in fact, the most prevalent play in today's league is the pick and roll. Most ball handlers use their teammate's picks instead of trying to beat the defense by themselves with a crossover.

Watch the modern game with an unbiased eye, and you will see that it does not look at all like the caricature you portray it as. It's much simpler, much more similar to the game of the 60s than you think. And as in the days of Maravich, the complexity or aesthetics of the moves doesn't translate into actual effectiveness.

[STATUTORY]

bob cousy executing a crossover

http://oi33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

[miles berg]

They didn't allow carrying back then. It was true dribbling unlike today where basically everyone carries every time they dribble. Been this way since Magic.

[Nuff Said]

bob cousy executing a crossover

http://oi33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
Holy shit. I know ball handling is slightly overrated but come on now. Let's be real, dude would get stripped clean today dribbling like that. And that sorry ass defense too.

[fpliii]

the evolution in guard play is even more drastic and stark. Guys like Wilt and maybe Russell will still be competitive in today's league, guards like Bob Cousey wouldn't even make college D1 team.
This I agree with. I do think Oscar would translate well into today's game, though. Great with both hands, a good shooter with range (could hit from the corner), and a great passer/floor general (terrific in the pick and roll).

I'm not very high on Cousy, no disrespect.

[Dro]

They didn't allow carrying back then. It was true dribbling unlike today where basically everyone carries every time they dribble. Been this way since Magic.
Don't use logic on this board.........This point has been stated a MILLION times and yet people still REFUSE to get it.....

[GimmeThat]

I'm gonna have to order the book "state of zen" or whatever it is called. so you guys can understand that we are over populated.


game has evolved.

:coleman:

[GimmeThat]

Holy shit. I know ball handling is slightly overrated but come on now. Let's be real, dude would get stripped clean today dribbling like that. And that sorry ass defense too.


talk about scrappy plays.

where's the fake dog chasing cat in the middle of the euro league or whatever .gif?

[PistonsFan#21]

People praising the fundamental plays of the 60's and how refs were calling every violation...
yet you can see an uncalled travel at the 0:22 seconds mark by Bill Russell as soon as he touches the ball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnu5vMfPtbw

[Dr.J4ever]

I'm actually somewhere in the middle of all these discussions. I have said here on other threads that the game has evolved during the decades. Offenses react to defensive adjustments over the years, and vise versa.

When you watch film like this from You Tube, you can't honestly say this is the same basketball we are watching today. It's just not.

The athleticism, the skill level is higher today. Even the defensive tactics employed are different. Does this mean Wilt and Russel would just be ordinary players today? No, they would still be great.

I do agree about the comment here about guards today being a completely different animal than the guards back then.

[Soundwave]

Holy sh*t at Russell's shooting form. Fuuuuuugly.

[stanlove1111]

They didn't allow carrying back then. It was true dribbling unlike today where basically everyone carries every time they dribble. Been this way since Magic.

Are you serious with this nonsense. You honestly believe that's the difference? Come on..

[stanlove1111]

Once again, let's not overstate the importance of ball handling.

Even today, quality shots come from sharing the ball, as the Spurs demonstrate.

Fancy crossovers aren't necessary to get a good shot... in fact, the most prevalent play in today's league is the pick and roll. Most ball handlers use their teammate's picks instead of trying to beat the defense by themselves with a crossover.

Watch the modern game with an unbiased eye, and you will see that it does not look at all like the caricature you portray it as. It's much simpler, much more similar to the game of the 60s than you think. And as in the days of Maravich, the complexity or aesthetics of the moves doesn't translate into actual effectiveness.

I am not overstating the importance of ball handings you are understating it. Those guards wouldn't get the ball upcourt. Ball handling is huge in basketball and today almost everyone can and does ball handle.. You think Wilt or Russell are getting to the basket with that primitive ball handling?

[stanlove1111]

I'm actually somewhere in the middle of all these discussions. I have said here on other threads that the game has evolved during the decades. Offenses react to defensive adjustments over the years, and vise versa.

When you watch film like this from You Tube, you can't honestly say this is the same basketball we are watching today. It's just not.

The athleticism, the skill level is higher today. Even the defensive tactics employed are different. Does this mean Wilt and Russel would just be ordinary players today? No, they would still be great.

I do agree about the comment here about guards today being a completely different animal than the guards back then.

Wilt and Russell might be great in todays game if they were born 25 years ago. But if you put Wilt or Russell from their time in todays game they are not good.

[STATUTORY]

Don't use logic on this board.........This point has been stated a MILLION times and yet people still REFUSE to get it.....
cause it's retarded, even if players were restricted to very strict hand on top of the ball rules, the fact of the matter is the guards in the 60s displayed incredibly LOOSE handles, NBA players today would replicate what they do and do it much tighter and be able to actually take their eyes off the


This I agree with. I do think Oscar would translate well into today's game, though. Great with both hands, a good shooter with range (could hit from the corner), and a great passer/floor general (terrific in the pick and roll).

I'm not very high on Cousy, no disrespect.

I agree about Oscar. And that goes to my point actually. Oscar was more or less a MODERN nba player. he had the size, requisite skills, athleticism etc. that's why he put up borderline hyperbolic and superman statistics back in the day, because he was an outlier in a league of predominently proto modern NBA players. Oscar would be a great player today but I dont think he would put up the stats he did.

[La Frescobaldi]

Wilt and Russell might be great in todays game if they were born 25 years ago. But if you put Wilt or Russell from their time in todays game they are not good.
disagree.

I do agree with some of your earlier stuff, that the game has evolved tremendously.

But both those guys would do fine against Noah, Nene, either Lopez, Chandler, Howard or any other center in today's game.

In fact they'd totally dominate the 5 just like they did then.
Both great students of the game and of other players, it's not like they were morons who can't learn an offense. Amazing quickness, elite leap, sprint and stamina........ both Russell & Chamberlain would crush the league just like they did then.

Love Tim Duncan but he's not better on D than Bill Russell. Sure his offense is much higher..... but Willis, Nate, Connie and those guys had much higher offensive skills than he did and Russell didn't struggle. Chamberlain was the only guy that surpassed him as an individual player at the C.

Not just those two either. Willis Reed would be the best center in today's NBA.

Now the guards? Yeah. Except for Logo & Oscar, Walt Frazier, Earl Monroe, Pete Maravitch, Sam Jones, Havlicek Gus Johnson (ok he played swing like Hondo) and..... oh wait. I guess that's a lot of guys.

The hardest part would be learning the offenses & the lax rules. Physically they'd all do just fine.

[stanlove1111]

disagree.

I do agree with some of your earlier stuff, that the game has evolved tremendously.

But both those guys would do fine against Noah, Nene, either Lopez, Chandler, Howard or any other center in today's game.

In fact they'd totally dominate the 5 just like they did then.
Both great students of the game and of other players, it's not like they were morons who can't learn an offense. Amazing quickness, elite leap, sprint and stamina........ both Russell & Chamberlain would crush the league just like they did then.

Love Tim Duncan but he's not better on D than Bill Russell. Sure his offense is much higher..... but Willis, Nate, Connie and those guys had much higher offensive skills than he did and Russell didn't struggle. Chamberlain was the only guy that surpassed him as an individual player at the C.

Not just those two either. Willis Reed would be the best center in today's NBA.

Now the guards? Yeah. Except for Logo & Oscar, Walt Frazier, Earl Monroe, Pete Maravitch, Sam Jones, Havlicek Gus Johnson (ok he played swing like Hondo) and..... oh wait. I guess that's a lot of guys.

The hardest part would be learning the offenses & the lax rules. Physically they'd all do just fine.

Just because you say they would do this or not does not make it true..

Willie Reed could shoot and nothing else he did would translate to todays game. he didn't play at a time when guards could get up higher then him and he had to battle everyone on the floor for rebounds.

You really can watch that video of Jerry West and think he is going to play today? Come on he couldn't even dribble and was slow compared to todays players.

Russell and Wilt would be good rebounders and that's bout it..

The rest you mentioned except maybe Oscar doing OK the rest are going nowhere..The game has changed.

You guys amaze me with this. Todays basketball works totally different. No they have constant round the year training and camps and AAU but you think the guys with the way basketball players were groomed back then were going to just step up and compete with that..LOL..

Like I said if you want to argue that if Jerry West was born 25 years ago and was brought up with everything todays players are brought up with, he would be a good player then its speculation and maybe you wopuld be correct, hard to tell. But if you are trying to argue that the West who was born in the 1930s was just going to step into todays game and even make a team you are delusional..Did you even watch the video?

[STATUTORY]

Just because you say they would do this or not does not make it true..

Willie Reed could shoot and nothing else he did would translate to todays game. he didn't play at a time when guards could get up higher then him and he had to battle everyone on the floor for rebounds.

You really can watch that video of Jerry West and think he is going to play today? Come on he couldn't even dribble and was slow compared to todays players.

Russell and Wilt would be good rebounders and that's bout it..

The rest you mentioned except maybe Oscar doing OK the rest are going nowhere..The game has changed.

You guys amaze me with this. Todays basketball works totally different. No they have constant round the year training and camps and AAU but you think the guys with the way basketball players were groomed back then were going to just step up and compete with that..LOL..

Like I said if you want to argue that if Jerry West was born 25 years ago and was brought up with everything todays players are brought up with, he would be a good player then its speculation and maybe you wopuld be correct, hard to tell. But if you are trying to argue that the West who was born in the 1930s was just going to step into todays game and even make a team you are delusional..Did you even watch the video?

yup I have made these arguments multiple times, players in the 60s had to take OFFSEASON jobs because of low pay. the institutional advantages that players today have just didn't exist in the 60s. You have to have really failed econ 101 to believe with greater financial investment and magnified financial returns, that somehow players today are worse.

[LAZERUSS]

1980s


:roll: :roll: :roll:

First of all, with the exceptions of the 24 second clock, and the advent of the 3pt shot, the game is essentially the EXACT game that was invented in the 1890's. Ehat has changed? The court dimensions, the ball, the hoop size and height, and the number of players.

Secondly, if the game was "modernized" in the 1980's, how do explain the fact that the first FOUR MVPs ...all played in the 70's. And their numbers were essentially the same in those '80 seasons, as they were in their '70 seasons? The first FIVE scoring leaders of the '80's...all from the '70's. The first SIX rebounding leaders in the '80's...yep, you guessed it, the '70's. The first THREE assist leaders...'70's. The first FIVE FG% leaders...yep, 70's.

Was defense better in the "modern game of the 80's?" How do explain player-for-player, who spanned the 70's and 80's...suddenly shooting better, to MUCH better? My god Artis Gilmore, in his prime, at age 27...averaged 18.6 ppg on a .522 FG%. In his last season of the 70's, at age 29, before the "modern" game... a .575 FG%. The 80's? EIGHT seasons of .595, or above, including SIX of .618 and above, and a HIGH of .670. Oh, and at age 35... 19.1 ppg on a .623 FG%.

LaFrescobaldi mentioned Kareem. Began playing in the NBA in 1969. Played some 40 games against the little known Nate Thurmond. His HIGH game against Thurmond? 34 points. This was not some fluke, either. He had a TOTAL of FIVE 30+ games against a full-time Thurmond. Not only that, but in those 40 H2H's...he shot...get this... .447. And a PEAK Kareem faced him three straight years in the playoffs, and shot... .486, .405, and .428. In his statistically most dominant season of his career, 71-72, in a year in which he averaged 34.8 ppg on a .574 FG%....in his five playoff games against Thurmond... 22.8 ppg on a .405 FG%. Oh, and BTW, Nate averaged 25.4 ppg on a .437 FG% against him.

Fast forward to the '85 and '86 seasons. A 38 and 39 year old Kareem, barely capable of grabbing a rebound any more, faced Hakeem in 10 straight H2H games. Obviously Hakeem must have just crushed this old, washed up "70's" Kareem, right? Think again...this 38-39 year old KAJ AVERAGED 32 ppg...on get this... a .621 FG%. He had games of 40, 43, and 46 points, the last of which came on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes. Oh, and in the same time frame that he SHELLED Hakeem with that 46 point eruption, he had a game against Patrick Ewing in which he outscored him 40-9, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17. These were NOT flukes. An old KAJ, from 37-42 years old, outscored Hakeem in their 23 H2H games, and outshot him by a .607 to .512 margin. In fact, he only had THREE games, in 23, in which he shot less than .500.

Moses was just as dominant in the '70's, as he would be in the 80's. Why? How come these "80's" players were no match for him? Hell, eh was outrebounding the rebounding leader, Hakeem, in the late 80's. And Gilmore, in 10 straight games against Hakeem, in the 85 and '86 seasons... 24 ppg on, get this... a .677 FG%. How could Hakeem be a DPOY in his career, and yet ROUTINELY get torched by players who were nearing their "rest home" years?

And I have already given you footage of Pistol Pete, who would blow Ricky Rubio away in any kind of skills (and especially shooting) competition. Rubio can't do HALF the things with the ball that Maravich was doing 40 years ago. Yet, and as was already mentioned, Maravich was never regarded as the best guard of his era.

One more time for those that may have missed it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ

Again, he would just BLOW Rubio away,..at ANYTHING in the game of basketball.

How about Ernie D?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY65sR4rvA0

Couldn't dribble with his left hand? I don't see anyone TODAY that could dribble as well. And again, he wasn't allowed to PALM or CARRY the ball.

And I get so tired of those that continually use that Cousy .gif. Why not show the entire clip? Watch at the 42 second mark...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QCP6mMMH2Q

Are you going to tell me that this man, who played in the 50's...couldn't dribble with his LEFT hand? Hell, h could shoot hook shots with BOTH hands.

BTW, take a look at these young kids, back in 1962?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soLH6bau9uo

Guess what? They were doing things with a basketball that the Globetrotters were doing LONG before that. The REALITY was, kids growing up playing basketball in the 60's, were doing between-the-legs and behind-the-back dribbling with BOTH hands.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continued...

And if today's players are so much better shooters...how do you answer this? In the '59 season, the NBA shot .756 from the FT line. Just last season, the NBA shot...guess what... .756. Oh, and there have been many seasons since '59, in which the NBA shot a HIGHER FT% than this past season. In '74 the league shot .771. How do explain that?


And what would a 6-6, 230 lb freight train, with a higher vertical than MJ, and with a "money" jump shot from 15+ feet do to the 60's NBA? Would he put up 30-20 seasons all decade long? Well, we have an answer...Gus Johnson.

http://www.cornerclubmoscow.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=2


When Johnson played at Idaho in 1963, he already had a reputation as a leaper of the highest order. One evening at the Corner Club, a local tavern on Main Street in Moscow, Johnson was requested by owner Herm Goetz to display his rare ability to the patrons. The Corner Club was a very modest establishment, converted from a white-stuccoed small chapel in the 1940s with hardwood floors and a beamed ceiling. From a standing start near the bar, Johnson touched a spot on a beam 11'6" (3.505 m) above the floor. This spot was ceremoniously marked with a nail by Goetz, who then proudly proclaimed that anyone who could duplicate the feat could drink for free. A 40-inch (1.016 m) diameter circle was painted on the floor, and both feet had to start inside the circle to ensure a standing start. A full 23 years went by with many attempts at Gus Johnson's Nail, including Bill Walton in the summer of 1984, but there were no successes.

That was until 1986, when the College of Southern Idaho basketball team from Twin Falls stopped in town in January on their way to a game against NIC in Coeur d'Alene. Joey Johnson, a younger brother of then NBA star Dennis Johnson, was brought into the Corner Club for a try. The 6'3" (1.905 m) guard had a 48" (1.219 m) vertical leap and could put his chin on a basketball rim (10 feet (3.048 m)) with a running start.

Johnson laced up his shoes and touched the nail on his first try but was disqualified because he did not start with both feet inside the 40-inch circle. The next attempt came from a legal static start but was just a bit short. On his third try, Johnson grabbed and bent the legendary nail, a landmark event in Vandal sports history. Goetz pulled the nail out of the beam and pounded it back in, a half inch (13 mm) higher.

Well, Gus had a great NBA career, but he was never close to a 30-20 player. The man that shattered THREE backboards in the 60's...was a career 17-13 .440 player.

Just go to YouTube and look up David "Skywalker" Thompson, or Dr. J, or Calvin Murphy, or Connie Hawkins. ALL of them were playing college ball in the 60's. BTW, Dr. J was at his peak in the 70's...and won an NBA MVP on the decline in '81.


And this post is just flat hilarious:


The game has evolved that's for sure. Doesn't mean I don't count Wilt and Russell among the greatest 6 ever because you can only judge a player by how he did in his era..IF Lebron was born was born in 1937 this is how he would have played. But I would think there are high school teams today who might beat these guys just like 50 years from now high schools teams might beat the 2014 Spurs..

Two of the game's best centers in THIS era, are the 6-11 DeAndre Jordan, and the 6-10 Andre Drummond...neither of whom can shoot from five feet. They are NOT taller than Thurmond, Gilmore, Kareem, and many others who played in the 60's and 70's. They are certainly not as athletic as Russell was, who was a world-ranked high jumper. None of them ar as strong as Gilmore. Just ask Robert Parish, who played against both Gilmore, and Shaq.

And if Roy Hibbert can play in today's NBA, can you imagine the WRECKAGE that a PEAK Chamberlain would unleash on these clowns? Wilt was close to 7-2, and would measure at least 7-3 in today's NBA. He was 290 in the mid-60's, and already among the strongest athletes in the WORLD. He was high-jump champion, and did so part-time, and with poor technique. He was a sprinter on his KU track team. None other than Hank Stram clocked a 27 year old Wilt, at 290 lbs, and with no warmup, at a 4.6 40. Which certainly makes Wilt's claim that he ran a 4.4 in college almost a certainty. And how about this footage...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

BTW, CavsFan has much more indepth footage, but I know that the average fan is not going to watch 45 minutes of footage in which Chamberlain is scoring at every conceivable angle, and on a wide variety of moves.

Sorry, but THAT Chamberlain would DESTROY today's NBA. THAT Wilt was blowing a young Kareem away. That PRIME Wilt was FAR more dominant against the SAME centers that a PEAK Kareem would face a few years later. If Kareem could ROUTINELY hang 40+ on Hakeem,...sorry, but a PRIME Chamberlain would have hung 60 on him, and then went into the locker room at halftime.

Are today's players better? REALLY? How do explain a 6-8 Kevin Love winning a dominating rebounding title a few years ago, and in less than 36 mpg? Or a 37 year old, 6-2 Steve Nash, playing 33 mpg, and winning an assist title? Or a 6-11 Andrew Bogut with no more atheticism than the average white center of the 60's, leading the league in bpg a couple of years ago?

Jerry Lucas was Kevin Love long before Love was. In fact, he probably had MORE range. Just look up the term "Lucas Layup", and yet, he could also grab 20+ rpg (which would translate into about 14 rpg in TODAY's game.)

True, the game is PLAYED differently today, not because of TALENT, but because of the RULES changes. I have no doubt that the players of the 60's would quickly adapt to the RULES of this decade. If they could shoot FTs better then, than today, they would adjust to the 3pt line, and shoot 3pters just as well.

So please...no more NONSENSE about how the game today is more "modern" than it was in the 60's. It CLEARLY is NOT.

[La Frescobaldi]

Just because you say they would do this or not does not make it true..

Willie Reed could shoot and nothing else he did would translate to todays game. he didn't play at a time when guards could get up higher then him and he had to battle everyone on the floor for rebounds.

You really can watch that video of Jerry West and think he is going to play today? Come on he couldn't even dribble and was slow compared to todays players.

Russell and Wilt would be good rebounders and that's bout it..

The rest you mentioned except maybe Oscar doing OK the rest are going nowhere..The game has changed.

You guys amaze me with this. Todays basketball works totally different. No they have constant round the year training and camps and AAU but you think the guys with the way basketball players were groomed back then were going to just step up and compete with that..LOL..

Like I said if you want to argue that if Jerry West was born 25 years ago and was brought up with everything todays players are brought up with, he would be a good player then its speculation and maybe you wopuld be correct, hard to tell. But if you are trying to argue that the West who was born in the 1930s was just going to step into todays game and even make a team you are delusional..Did you even watch the video?


Just because you say they would do this or not does not make it true..

As I said, I don't disagree that the game has evolved. It absolutely has. Guards would have the hardest time of all. Not disagreeing.

But those Centers wouldn't struggle one bit.

I've been watching the NBA since Chamberlain won his first ring. Nikola Pekovic is my current favorite player. He destroys every one of today's NBA Centers and has one of the, if not the, best skillsets of any center. Brook Lopez also plays at a high level. Those guys are not close.
Wilt Chamberlain would not struggle. I watched him on the playgrounds in Philly & NYC doing Mikan drills by the hour. He worked on his game believe it.

Tyson Chandler & Kendrick Perkins are in no way better defensive bulwarks than Bill Russell would be.

You say you watched the NBA in those days but clearly you did not if you think all Willis Reed could do was shoot.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt and Russell might be great in todays game if they were born 25 years ago. But if you put Wilt or Russell from their time in todays game they are not good.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Again...a 7-2, 290 Wilt, who was STRONGER than SHAQ, a higher leaper than ANY Center in TODAY's game, with MORE SKILLs than Dwight...would "not be good."

You are a complete IDIOT.

[LAZERUSS]

Just because you say they would do this or not does not make it true..

As I said, I don't disagree that the game has evolved. It absolutely has. Guards would have the hardest time of all. Not disagreeing.

But those Centers wouldn't struggle one bit.

I've been watching the NBA since Chamberlain won his first ring. Nikola Pekovic is my current favorite player. He destroys every one of today's NBA Centers and has one of the, if not the, best skillsets of any center. Brook Lopez also plays at a high level. Those guys are not close.
Wilt Chamberlain would not struggle. I watched him on the playgrounds in Philly & NYC doing Mikan drills by the hour. He worked on his game believe it.

Tyson Chandler & Kendrick Perkins are in no way better defensive bulwarks than Bill Russell would be.

You say you watched the NBA in those days but clearly you did not if you think all Willis Reed could do was shoot.

Dave Cowens would be the BEST center in TODAY's NBA.

And I mean it.

[La Frescobaldi]

yup I have made these arguments multiple times, players in the 60s had to take OFFSEASON jobs because of low pay. the institutional advantages that players today have just didn't exist in the 60s. You have to have really failed econ 101 to believe with greater financial investment and magnified financial returns, that somehow players today are worse.
absolutely correct. not disagreeing at all.

The financial rewards at that day were restricted to the very top players. Russell earned $100,000 in days when a new Cadillac cost about $2,000 and a nice home cost $1500 and a mansion ran $75,000. Sure there were million dollar houses or whatever, nevertheless it was an enormous salary in those days of solid money.
Movie star mansions were not nicer than the one Chamberlain built in LA, in the same neighborhood :confusedshrug:

[LAZERUSS]

Look at these clowns from the 60's...

http://ballislife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Steve-Nash-cant-hear-you-reporters.-Hes-somewhere-far-away.-Photo-via-@mcten.jpg


http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-bulls-confidential/files/2014/01/KevinLove.jpg


http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0405/nba_a_bogut_300.jpg




None of them would be capable of playing in TODAY's NBA, much less be any good.

[GimmeThat]

well, good to see the spacing in terms of foot work, the spacing between the ground, ball, and dribbling hand, as well as the spacing between defender and offensive player hasn't changed one bit.


spacing.

[LAZERUSS]

Put Roy Hibbert into the early 70's, and there is a good chance he wouldn't make a team.

He would certainly NOT be better than...

Neal Walk
Tom Boerwinkle
Dave Cowens
Nate Thurmond
Walt Bellamy
Willis Reed
Wes Unseld
Bob Lanier
Spencer Haywood
Elvin Hayes
Artis Gilmore
Bob McAdoo
Kareem
Wilt

Those guys would just SHELL him...

[STATUTORY]

Look at these clowns from the 60's...



None of them would be capable of playing in TODAY's NBA, much less be any good.

look at this imbecile trying to make it about race and posting pics of 60 year old nash to prove a point

Nash is in the league cause he has incredibly great handles while players in the 60s had aboslutely SHIT dribbles and coudn't even use their left

Kevin love is in the league cause he has range that even guards in the 60s didn't have

Bogut is a athletic 7fter, he was going to be in the league regardless of the era

[LAZERUSS]

well, good to see the spacing in terms of foot work, the spacing between the ground, ball, and dribbling hand, as well as the spacing between defender and offensive player hasn't changed one bit.


spacing.

Again...the RULES have caused this...NOT TALENT.

[STATUTORY]

Again...the RULES have caused this...NOT TALENT.

:roll: so the talent pool hasn't increased tenfold since the 60s?

so institutional youth programs has had no effect on talent scouting, recruiting, and development

keep lying to yourself old man.

[LAZERUSS]

look at this imbecile trying to make it about race and posting pics of 60 year old nash to prove a point

Nash is in the league cause he has incredibly great handles while players in the 60s had aboslutely SHIT dribbles and coudn't even use their left

Kevin love is in the league cause he has range that even guards in the 60s didn't have

Bogut is a athletic 7fter, he was going to be in the league regardless of the era

:roll: :roll: :roll:

You obviously never saw Maravich play. A TALLER, FASTER, more ATHLETIC, and yes, MORE SKILLED version of the 6-2 Nash.

And don't forget that Ricky Rubio is playing in TODAY's NBA, and he doesn't SHOOT any better than Stevie Wonder would in a wind tunnel.

And sorry, but Jerry Lucas had 25+ foot range, in leagues that didn't have a 3pt shot...all while grabbing rebounds at about the same rate that a 6-8 Love does. Oh, and BTW, Lucas was nowhere near the rebounder Chamberlain was.

[LAZERUSS]

:roll: so the talent pool hasn't increased tenfold since the 60s?

so institutional youth programs has had no effect on talent scouting, recruiting, and development

keep lying to yourself old man.

Nope.

Next...

[Warfan]

That game was literally just chuck jumpers and dribble with your right 99% of the time, and for some reason the defender couldn't or wouldn't try and steal
It. I counted like a dozen soft calls as well, just from one quarter. Even though I watched it an hour ago I can barely remember any drive and layup attempts.

[LAZERUSS]

That game was literally just chuck jumpers and dribble with your right 99% of the time, and for some reason the defender couldn't or wouldn't try and steal
It. I counted like a dozen soft calls as well, just from one quarter. Even though I watched it an hour ago I can barely remember any drive and layup attempts, if there even were any...


That's because the two greatest defensive centers of all-time were playing in the same game. TODAY's players wouldn't drive on them, either.

[STATUTORY]

Nope.

Next...

nah no need to continue, you are an certified retard with no semblance of common sense let alone basketball knowledge. With the level of senility you are exhibiting, discussing basketball should be least of your concerns.

[LAZERUSS]

nah no need to continue, you are an certified retard with no semblance of common sense let alone basketball knowledge. With the level of senility you are exhibiting, discussing basketball should be least of your concerns.

How many Magic Johnson's have we had since he retired? Honestly. How many Michael Jordan's have you seen since he played in his prime? How many Shaq's have there been in the league since 2000? How many Hakeem's have you noticed playing center since the late 90's? Give me your list of Moses Malones? Where are all of the Kareem's? Where are the Rodman's? Where are the Gilmore's? Where are all the Wilt's?

C'mon man...

[STATUTORY]

How many Magic Johnson's have we had since he retired? Honestly. How many Michael Jordan's have you seen since he played in his prime? How many Shaq's have there been in the league since 2000? How many Hakeem's have you noticed playing center since the late 90's? Give me your list of Moses Malones? Where are all of the Kareem's? Where are the Rodman's? Where are the Gilmore's? Where are all the Wilt's?

C'mon man...

outliers are what they are, not indicative of general trends. Decades might go on before we see another player with Shaq's combination of strength and agility. What we are discussing is the average player in the league. It is significantly harder to make the league today. the average player is significantly more skilled and talented than average player in 60s, especially among guards.

athletic 7fters are going to make the league regardless of era, but the amount of competition for the guard spot in the NBA is so much more than what it was in the 60s.

and you are literally listing players from 60s to 2000s... I am discussing exclusively the proto modern NBA, pre NBA/ABA merger.

[GimmeThat]

Again...the RULES have caused this...NOT TALENT.

but nothing has changed. unless your rules are guided by asthetically pleasing.

I didn't see an over flow of midgets running on the court in terms of talent.

[La Frescobaldi]

Again...the RULES have caused this...NOT TALENT.
Not only rules though. All these guys are making significantly accurate points, but it's not only about training regimens, skills drills, and the financial opportunities, as Stan and Stat have talked about.

Coaching is infinitely better, not just in elementary schools but at every single level including the NBA. Guys can spend the money and go to elite retreats with Kareem or Hakeem or Michael Jordan and learn at the highest levels.

Also film changed everything about basketball.

There's no question basketball is infinitely better today than it was in '69. Talent, physical ability, the raw materials of the greatest players.... have not.
The role players are uniformly better today.

[LAZERUSS]

outliers are what they are, not indicative of general trends. Decades might go on before we see another player with Shaq's combination of strength and agility. What we are discussing is the average player in the league. It is significantly harder to make the league today. the average player is significantly more skilled and talented than average player in 60s, especially among guards.

athletic 7fters are going to make the league regardless of era, but the amount of competition for the guard spot in the NBA is so much more than what it was in the 60s.

and you are literally listing players from 60s to 2000s... I am discussing exclusively the proto modern NBA, pre NBA/ABA merger.

And I am saying that the players of the 60's , most all of whom were just as skilled and athletic (and we BOTH know that athleticism is overrated BTW), would adapt to the "modern" RULES.

A 5-11 190 lb. Mickey Mantle hit the longest HRs in MLB history. And there are those that claim that Nolan Ryan, with TODAY's gun, would be the hardest thrower of all-time. Bob Hayes is STILL the fastest legitimate NFL football player of all-time, and guys like Hershel Walker, Bo Jackson, and Darrell Green would blow Chris Johnson away in a sprinting contest. Hell, Bo Jackson was as big, and faster than Adrian Peterson.

Jim Brown was 6-2 230 lbs, and was a track star in college. Surely against the small and slow players of his era, he must have been rushing for 10 ypc and 200+ yard games all the time, right? He was great, to be sure, but he was no more dominant than the 5-9 Barry Sanders was just a few years ago. In fact, Brown was simply AWFUL in his four post-season games.

You idiots act the game of basketball in the 60's was being played on a half court, with peach baskets, with no dribbling, and all rebounds being picked up off the ground. The game was invented well over a HUNDRED years ago, and aside from a couple of major RULES changes, and a few minor tweaks, it is being essentially played the EXACT same way it was then. Colleges were playing it in the 1890's. There were PROFESSIONAL leagues as far back as the 1920's. The Globetrotters of the 40's and 50's were doing things with a ball that we see TODAY.

The world is NOT producing MUCH BIGGER, STRONGER, TALLER, FASTER men than what it was 50+ years ago. Please, give Bob Hayes today's shoes, surfaces, and training, and he while he may not be as fast as Bolt (who may be a ONE-OF-A-KIND himself), he would certainly have run MUCH faster than he did back then. The NFL is the only major sport in which BULK has gone up. Speed? Nope.

How do explain the Long Jump? The world record in 1968 was 29' 2". It last for over 20 years. The new world record was set in 1991, at 29' 4". That is STILL the world today...over 20 years later. How come?

You are living in a fantasy world if you honestly believe that today's athletes are significantly better than those of 50 years ago.

And again, basketball is a game of SKILL. It is a SIMPLE game. You shoot, rebound, dribble, and play defense. That is IT. Almost ANYONE can do them. Some, in every generation, do it better than other's. NONE are doing them SIGNIFICANTLY better TODAY, than 50+ years ago.

About the only thing that TODAY's generation is significantly better at, is playing VIDEO GAMES.

[PHILA]

But if anyone thinks they are going to put Wilt or Russell from 1969 into a game today and they are not going to get destroyed then they are blind

Destroyed by whom? From the last 5 years or so there have been a few of good centers who could play in any era like Howard, the Gasol brothers, Noah, Pekovic, etc. In the old days just about every team had a good center.


AAU

Perhaps the worst thing to ever happen to basketball in this country. The kids here are not taught the game, and the international players who actually learn how play properly come over and have a big impact in the NBA. The D-League should be used like an actual minor league system, and AAU should be eradicated.

[jzek]

This is why I don't put too much stock on anything that has happened in the NBA pre-1980. The game in the 50s to 70s was so inferior compared to the 80s and up.

Also, Russell winning 8 titles? There were 12 or 15 teams in the entire NBA during that time span!

[La Frescobaldi]

Destroyed by whom? From the last 5 years or so there have been a few of good centers who could play in any era like Howard, the Gasol brothers, Noah, Pekovic, etc. In the old days just about every team had a good center.



Perhaps the worst thing to ever happen to basketball in this country. The kids here are not taught the game, and the international players who actually learn how play properly come over and have a big impact in the NBA. The D-League should be used like an actual minor league system, and AAU should be eradicated.
The old Industrial League is entirely forgot.

[LAZERUSS]

This is why I don't put too much stock on anything that has happened in the NBA pre-1980. The game in the 50s to 70s was so inferior compared to the 80s and up.

Also, Russell winning 8 titles? There were 12 or 15 teams in the entire NBA during that time span!

Russell didn't win a title in '67.

Now, do some research, and take a look at the ROSTERS of those 10 teams, and get back to me. There were players who would be 20+ ppg scorers, scattered all over the BENCH on those teams. There were HOFers on the BENCH.

The '67 Lakers had the equivalent of a prime Lebron, and a near-prime Wade, along with a slew of players who had 20+ ppg seasons, as well as TWO seven-footers...and they could only go 36-45. Look at the Knicks, Royals, and Hawks rosters...all on "losing" teams. Look at the incredible talent that the '67 Warriors had...and they could only go 44-37.

Sorry, but for Russell to win 11 rings in 13 seasons, in THOSE leagues was simply amazing.

[Hands of Iron]

And I am saying that the players of the 60's , most all of whom were just as skilled and athletic (and we BOTH know that athleticism is overrated BTW), would adapt to the "modern" RULES.

A 5-11 190 lb. Mickey Mantle hit the longest HRs in MLB history. And there are those that claim that Nolan Ryan, with TODAY's gun, would be the hardest thrower of all-time. Bob Hayes is STILL the fastest legitimate NFL football player of all-time, and guys like Hershel Walker, Bo Jackson, and Darrell Green would blow Chris Johnson away in a sprinting contest. Hell, Bo Jackson was as big, and faster than Adrian Peterson.

Jim Brown was 6-2 230 lbs, and was a track star in college. Surely against the small and slow players of his era, he must have been rushing for 10 ypc and 200+ yard games all the time, right? He was great, to be sure, but he was no more dominant than the 5-9 Barry Sanders was just a few years ago. In fact, Brown was simply AWFUL in his four post-season games.

You idiots act the game of basketball in the 60's was being played on a half court, with peach baskets, with no dribbling, and all rebounds being picked up off the ground. The game was invented well over a HUNDRED years ago, and aside from a couple of major RULES changes, and a few minor tweaks, it is being essentially played the EXACT same way it was then. Colleges were playing it in the 1890's. There were PROFESSIONAL leagues as far back as the 1920's. The Globetrotters of the 40's and 50's were doing things with a ball that we see TODAY.

The world is NOT producing MUCH BIGGER, STRONGER, TALLER, FASTER men than what it was 50+ years ago. Please, give Bob Hayes today's shoes, surfaces, and training, and he while he may not be as fast as Bolt (who may be a ONE-OF-A-KIND himself), he would certainly have run MUCH faster than he did back then. The NFL is the only major sport in which BULK has gone up. Speed? Nope.

How do explain the Long Jump? The world record in 1968 was 29' 2". It last for over 20 years. The new world record was set in 1991, at 29' 4". That is STILL the world today...over 20 years later. How come?

You are living in a fantasy world if you honestly believe that today's athletes are significantly better than those of 50 years ago.

And again, basketball is a game of SKILL. It is a SIMPLE game. You shoot, rebound, dribble, and play defense. That is IT. Almost ANYONE can do them. Some, in every generation, do it better than other's. NONE are doing them SIGNIFICANTLY better TODAY, than 50+ years ago.

About the only thing that TODAY's generation is significantly better at, is playing VIDEO GAMES.

This is also a persistent topic on boxing forums. It's probably the weakest era in history top to bottom right now. Sugar Ray Robinson would lay absolute waste, even in spite of the weight cutting freaks around. Could Thomas Hearns compete today though? It was well over 30 years ago when he exploded onto the scene. :oldlol: He wouldn't even be able to get guys in the ring with him. I've noticed quite a few heavyweights since the 80's combining the level of power, speed, punch variation and defense of a prime Mike Tyson. Or not.

[La Frescobaldi]

This is why I don't put too much stock on anything that has happened in the NBA pre-1980. The game in the 50s to 70s was so inferior compared to the 80s and up.

Also, Russell winning 8 titles? There were 12 or 15 teams in the entire NBA during that time span!
Imagine though, a current league of 12 teams.
Lakers
Celtics
Heat
Spurs
Pacers
Rockets
Thunder
Mavericks
Nets
Knicks
Clippers
Warriors.

2 divisions, East & West. Naturally Lakers and Celtics would be spending at their normal enormous pace and would compete, not necessarily talking about these 2 or 3 seasons of dog days.
No Bucks, Raptors, Piston, Pelican joke teams nor Kings, Magic, Wizards, Cavs Hornets to consistently stat pad against.
Instead only the very best players of those weak teams will make the NBA at all.


Instead of being a joke league like you suggest, it was a brutal schedule all 82 games.

[LAZERUSS]

This is also a persistent topic on boxing forums. It's probably the weakest era in history top to bottom right now. Sugar Ray Robinson would lay absolute waste, even in spite of the weight cutting freaks around. Could Thomas Hearns compete today though? It was well over 30 years ago when he exploded onto the scene. :oldlol: He wouldn't even be able to get guys in the ring with him. I've noticed quite a few heavyweights since the 80's combining the level of power, speed, punch variation and defense of a prime Mike Tyson. Or not.

I recall reading something, somewhere, where George Foreman was the most powerful puncher of all-time. I am sure Joe Frazier would confirm that.

[STATUTORY]

This is also a persistent topic on boxing forums. It's probably the weakest era in history top to bottom right now. Sugar Ray Robinson would lay absolute waste, even in spite of the weight cutting freaks around. Could Thomas Hearns compete today though? It was well over 30 years ago when he exploded onto the scene. :oldlol: He wouldn't even be able to get guys in the ring with him. I've noticed quite a few heavyweights since the 80's combining the level of power, speed, punch variation and defense of a prime Mike Tyson. Or not.

boxing is a complete different sport with different financial dynamics, popularity wise boxing has been in a gradual decline over the last century punctuated by periods of star fighter that capture popular attention. so of course this would be a weak era, because talented athletes 6ft+ are no longer boxing and training boxing at a young age.

That has NO RELEVANCE to basketball

don't brush everything with a broad stroke

[La Frescobaldi]

I recall reading something, somewhere, where George Foreman was the most powerful puncher of all-time. I am sure Joe Frazier would confirm that.
This Joe Frazier right here?

http://mantra4men.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Frazier-knocks-down-ali.jpg

[LAZERUSS]

This is also a persistent topic on boxing forums. It's probably the weakest era in history top to bottom right now. Sugar Ray Robinson would lay absolute waste, even in spite of the weight cutting freaks around. Could Thomas Hearns compete today though? It was well over 30 years ago when he exploded onto the scene. :oldlol: He wouldn't even be able to get guys in the ring with him. I've noticed quite a few heavyweights since the 80's combining the level of power, speed, punch variation and defense of a prime Mike Tyson. Or not.

As a sidenote, on a different sport, how about this nerdy guy from the 50's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Dalkowski

BTW, here is an excellent article on the fastest pitchers of all-time...

http://www.efastball.com/baseball/stats/fastest-pitch-speed-in-major-leagues/

[Hands of Iron]

boxing is a complete different sport with different financial dynamics, popularity wise boxing has been in a gradual decline over the last century punctuated by periods of star fighter that capture popular attention. so of course this would be a weak era, because talented athletes 6ft+ are no longer boxing and training boxing at a young age.

That has NO RELEVANCE to basketball

don't brush everything with a broad stroke

I wasn't really comparing it to basketball, but rather responding to a Lazeruss post in which he was talking about numerous different sports and athletic competitions over time.

[LAZERUSS]

This Joe Frazier right here?

http://mantra4men.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Frazier-knocks-down-ali.jpg

Yep..."Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!"

SIX times in the second round. Just brutal.

That is why Ali had the ropes loosened for his fight with Foreman a year later. The famous "rope-a-dope."

[STATUTORY]

As a sidenote, on a different sport, how about this nerdy guy from the 50's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Dalkowski

BTW, here is an excellent article on the fastest pitchers of all-time...

http://www.efastball.com/baseball/stats/fastest-pitch-speed-in-major-leagues/

:facepalm and that's suppose to prove your point?

out of the 20 fastest pitches recorded, 18/20 are from 90s or beyond. but you thought it proved something that the guy on top of the list is from 70s right. again no concept of outliers vs trends

[PHILA]

The old Industrial League is entirely forgot.
I believe there were a number of old professional leagues besides the NBA. Sonny Hill has mentioned his time in the old CBA (Eastern Basketball League).


http://www.jockbio.com/Classic/S_Hill/S_Hill_bio.html


Who were some of the other people you played with and against in the Eastern League that could have been starters in the NBA?

You have to understand when I started playing in the Eastern League in 1958, there were only eight teams in the NBA. So you had eight teams in the NBA and about the same number of teams in the Eastern League. So you truly had the best of the best in both. Some Eastern League players, for one reason or another, didn’t get a chance to play in the NBA. It could have been because of the point-shaving scandals in the ’50s. It could have been because of the color line. It could be that they didn’t get the right opportunity.


The style of play in the NBA was much more conservative, too.

That’s right. In the Eastern Basketball League, you could let your total game be played, whereas if we went to the NBA, you would have been required to play within the parameters of a structure.

I played against Sherman White, one of the premier players in the ’50s. He was the first of the tall players who could play inside-out, and inside-in, which was rare back in those days. Most big guys got rebounds, passed it to the little guy and just ran back down the floor. Sherman was that good.

I played against the great Hal Lear, who didn’t get the opportunity because of the color line. He was the first guy to average 40 points in the Eastern Basketball League. I played against John Chaney. I tell people all the time, he was a far better player than he was a coach! He was ahead of his time. I played against Bill Spivey who played at Kentucky. I played against “*****” Gains, who got drafted by the Syracuse Nationals.


Who was the best player you saw in the Eastern League that nobody’s heard of?

There was a tremendous player that I played against and I played with. His name was “Swish” McKinney out of Oakland, California. If you mention that name today, very few people would know who he is. He was a tremendous offensive player, great shooter.


Is there a player today who reminds you of you?

A guy I played against in the Eastern League, and who played with the Globetrotters, called me up and said, “Sonny, I want you to know, that Allen Iverson—he plays like you.” So it’s not me thinking about who played like me, it was somebody who I had played against who said there was a similarity between Iverson’s speed, size and athletic ability—that there was a player closely related to the way that I played.




talented athletes

The AAU culture has indeed poisoned amateur basketball, that many don't even know what the word "talent" means. Kobe Bryant certainly agrees as does Charles Barkley.



http://i.imgur.com/tZIlltr.jpg



Sports Illustrated - Oct. 21, 2013 (http://www.si.com/nba/2013/10/16/kobe-bryant-lakers-si-cover-story)

"I was lucky to grow up in Italy at a time when basketball in America was getting ****ed up with AAU shuffling players through on strength and athleticism," Bryant says. "I missed all that, and instead I was taught extreme fundamentals: footwork, footwork, footwork, how to create space, how to handle the ball, how to protect the ball, how to shoot the ball. I wasn't the strongest kid at that camp. I wasn't the fastest. I wasn't the most athletic. I was probably the most skillful, but that didn't matter. It was all about the 360 windmill dunks."




Charles Barkley - XTRA Sports 910 Interview (http://sportsradiointerviews.com/2011/03/23/charles-barkley-ncaa-tournament-sweet-16-previews-byu-florida-arizona-final-four-predictions-new-york-knicks/#more-35632)

If he agrees that the whole general upbringing of young players is disconcerting and if he believes the prominent AAU culture has anything to do with it:

“No, they’re killing the game. AAU is the worst thing to happen to college basketball ever. I hate AAU more than anything in the world. To piggy-back on your point, these kids aren’t getting good coaching. They’re playing too many games and not working on their game enough. And what happens with the AAU and all the extracurricular stuff, the college coaches have no control over these kids. They have to kiss their butts to come to their school; they’re afraid to coach them because if you criticize them, they don’t consider that coaching, they consider it criticism. There’s very few coaches that are actually coaching these kids. They let them do what they want to because they’re happy to get them because of the AAU circuit. It’s bad basketball. And what’s happened is the NBA, we’re the beneficiary of it unfortunately. We’ve got a bunch of guys who…my number one thing I hate in the world is when you’re talking to fans and they’ll say ‘man that guy can really run and he can really jump.’ And I always say ‘so can a deer but I wouldn’t put him in a game.’ These guys, listen, they’ve been coming into the NBA for the last three years and they can run and jump, but they’ve cut out the middle man when you go to college and learn how to play. And listen, it’s really had a huge negative effect on the NBA, plain and simple. I mean, you look at the last couple of drafts, it undermines the integrity of the game. And what I mean by that is the draft is designed for the bad teams to get help, and they’re drafting an 18-year old kid who don’t know how to play, who’s not physically or mentally mature or tough enough. And you’ve got the same cycle of bad teams staying bad.

[LAZERUSS]

:facepalm and that's suppose to prove your point?

out of the 20 fastest pitches recorded, 18/20 are from 90s or beyond. but you thought it proved something that the guy on top of the list is from 70s right. again no concept of outliers vs trends

The REAL problem, is that there were no radar guns in the 50's and 60's. Sandy Koufax had to SLOW down his fastball to control it. He supposedly "tipped" his pitches, and batters STILL could not hit.

What is also interesting is that despite Feller supposedly throwing well over 100 MPH, his K/9 was not overwhelming. How come? How come the players of the 40's and 50's could make better contact back then, than TODAY?

And there were PLENTY of hard throwers in the 60's. Gibson, McDowell, Drysdale...

Put them on TODAY's gun, which again, is much faster than what was measuring Ryan's, and they likely all top 100 as well.

And again, you simply can't say that the sprinters of today are much faster than those of 40-50 years ago, when they have much lighter shoes, run on much more pristine tracks, and have much better training. Do you honestly believe that the world's fastest men of 50 years ago would STILL run as fast TODAY, as they did back then, with TODAY's technology?

[LAZERUSS]

And with this supposed "population boom" in TODAYs world, how come the average NBA HEIGHT is nearly the SAME as it was 50 years ago?

And how come we have guys like Drummond and D Jordan, who are not even seven feet tall, and who can't shoot from five feet away, among the best players in TODAY's league?

And not one of the "modern" guys here has explained how a 6-8 white Kevin Love can routinely put up 20-20 (hell even 30-30 games) in TODAY's NBA.

And how come TODAY's NBA doesn't shoot FTs any better than leagues in the late 50's (and worst than league's in the mid-70's)? With all of these so-called modern advancments and training regimens, shouldn't all these guys be in the 90's?

[LAZERUSS]

1973...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8D0IIW4-pU

And BTW, isn't it refreshing to watch an ASG where DEFENSE is actually played?

[LAZERUSS]

How great was a PEAK Kareem?

Take a look at that '73 ASG footage. Dave Cowens was a BEAST. I would love to watch THAT Cowens play against TODAY's Dwight.

BUT, a PEAK KAJ had two straight seasons of 5 H2H's in each with THAT Cowens, and put up 41.4 ppg on .609, and 44.5 ppg on .570 against him.

[LAZERUSS]

A PEAK Bob McAdoo...in 1975...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQ3unu2YAQ

BTW, McAdoo ROUTINELY outscored a PRIME Kareem in H2H games, and in fact, in one of them, he scored 45 points...and at one point in that game, he hit 17 straight shots (which BTW, is one short of Wilt's single game mark of 18, which he did twice.)

In McAdoo's '75 season, he averaged 34.5 ppg, in a league that averaged 102.6 ppg (just this past season the NBA averaged 101.0 ppg.)

[rhowen4]

Don Nelson's free throw form :lol

[La Frescobaldi]

Don Nelson's free throw form :lol
Nellie was a stone cold trip just weird@ss game all over :lol

[Micku]

Yeah...those guys in the 60's couldn't dribble...

How about this goofy 6-5 white kid who played college in the 60's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ

He was Ricky Rubio, and who could shoot, long before Rubio was.

BTW, and speaking of dribbling...how about these kids from a 1962 video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soLH6bau9uo

I's sure there is also Globtrotter footage, from even before that, in which they put on a dribbling clinic, as well.

BTW, players were NOT allowed to PALM and CARRY the ball back then, either. Today's NBA would never get the ball past half court had they been forced to play in the 60's.

Pistol Pete was in a class of his own tho. He had some crazy moves. He did some passes that I never seen before when he was doing a demonstration with Red Auerbach. I thought it wouldn't work in a game, and I saw a clip of him doing it in game. Crazy skills man. Magic Johnson said that he was inspired by Pistol Pete's game to be all flashy with his passes. Pistol Pete was a showman.

On going on the dribble topic, from the vids that I watched it seemed like there are were guards were way more comfortable with dribbling to the left than others. Guys like Bob Cousy kind'a revolutionize with his dribbling skills and probably inspired others. You also had Oscar who dribble with both hands. Later in the 60s, you had Walt Frazier who could do a quick crossover and go to his left. Earl Monroe had some sick moves too. But the majority of the guys didn't look as good as those guys with their dribbling skills. Even a star like Jerry West didn't look nearly as smooth like Bob Cousy, Oscar, Frazier, and Monroe with dribbling to his left.

I would probably have to watch more games tho. I only seen a few. My guess is that all of these guys influence the other guys on their dribbling skills, so they got better overtime along with the league cooling it on the carrying.

[Psileas]

Just because you say they would do this or not does not make it true..

As I said, I don't disagree that the game has evolved. It absolutely has. Guards would have the hardest time of all. Not disagreeing.

But those Centers wouldn't struggle one bit.

I've been watching the NBA since Chamberlain won his first ring. Nikola Pekovic is my current favorite player. He destroys every one of today's NBA Centers and has one of the, if not the, best skillsets of any center. Brook Lopez also plays at a high level. Those guys are not close.
Wilt Chamberlain would not struggle. I watched him on the playgrounds in Philly & NYC doing Mikan drills by the hour. He worked on his game believe it.

Tyson Chandler & Kendrick Perkins are in no way better defensive bulwarks than Bill Russell would be.

You say you watched the NBA in those days but clearly you did not if you think all Willis Reed could do was shoot.

Do people think Wilt was getting proposals by NBA teams up to the late 80's just for the hell of it? Dude was playing at summers and holding his own against 80's centers in their prime, dunking on Eaton, repeatedly blocking Magic's drives, making Parish claim that he'd rather not see him return and add one more trouble for him, yet there are people who think Wilt "the player" would get destroyed? Much less, because centers would "rough him up"? Yeah, one of the strongest players of all time would have a hard time against typical centers roughing him up...BTW, how many teeth has Shaq or Hakeem or whoever else modern center lost due to being roughed up? Was Wilt having too weak teeth for Clyde Lovellette "breathing" on him or had Clyde been playing weak defense all day long and suddenly decided that elbowing Wilt in the teeth was the next step to this?

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt and Russell might be great in todays game if they were born 25 years ago. But if you put Wilt or Russell from their time in todays game they are not good.

Perhaps THE dumbest, of the MANY stupid comments this poster has produced here...

[Psileas]

And one more question that hasn't been answered: If the 80's had great basketball and the 60's-70's terrible, how the heck do you suppose 80's players were inspired and decided to become NBA stars? Last time I checked, the players who inspired Jordan or Magic or Bird or Kareem were players who were playing in those "terrible" eras and they weren't even necessarily the best of their own era. Maravich inspired a lot of future stars, including Magic, and he was never a serious MVP candidate. David Thompson inspired Jordan and he only got somewhat serious MVP consideration once. If these guys could inspire some of the GOAT without even being the greatest of their own era, it's not reasonable at all to qualify their era as weak.

[LAZERUSS]

Do people think Wilt was getting proposals by NBA teams up to the late 80's just for the hell of it? Dude was playing at summers and holding his own against 80's centers in their prime, dunking on Eaton, repeatedly blocking Magic's drives, making Parish claim that he'd rather not see him return and add one more trouble for him, yet there are people who think Wilt "the player" would get destroyed? Much less, because centers would "rough him up"? Yeah, one of the strongest players of all time would have a hard time against typical centers roughing him up...BTW, how many teeth has Shaq or Hakeem or whoever else modern center lost due to being roughed up? Was Wilt having too weak teeth for Clyde Lovellette "breathing" on him or had Clyde been playing weak defense all day long and suddenly decided that elbowing Wilt in the teeth was the next step to this?

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

Look at this inept Russell with a basketball...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poeWs2D5tTA

[stanlove1111]

Perhaps THE dumbest, of the MANY stupid comments this poster has produced here...


This is classic coming from you. All I see when I read your posts is some moron who found a stat book but doesn't understand basketball at all. I am not joking that's all you are...

All you ever talk about is stats and act like that tells the story. You know nothing about basketball strategy, you know nothing about roles on a basketball court and you know nothing about value to a basketball tea,, Just stats..

Like players sit in the locker room before the game planning on how to get the best individual stats they can..

[stanlove1111]

How great was a PEAK Kareem?

Take a look at that '73 ASG footage. Dave Cowens was a BEAST. I would love to watch THAT Cowens play against TODAY's Dwight.

BUT, a PEAK KAJ had two straight seasons of 5 H2H's in each with THAT Cowens, and put up 41.4 ppg on .609, and 44.5 ppg on .570 against him.


More stats obsessed hogwash..

[LAZERUSS]

More stats obsessed hogwash..

Only YOU could look at those 10 games, and somehow come away thinking that Cowens had outplayed KAJ. Just like your take on the '77 WCF's, when you claimed that Walton battled Kareem to a draw.

Talk about someone who has never watched a game in his life...

[La Frescobaldi]

More stats obsessed hogwash..
curious.
do you think Cowens also would stand no chance in today's NBA?

[LAZERUSS]

curious.
do you think Cowens also would stand no chance in today's NBA?

This will be interesting, since he doesn't believe that Wilt or Russell would be very good...

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

curious.
do you think Cowens also would stand no chance in today's NBA?

Next question for him...how about Kareem and Thurmond...

[Soundwave]

And one more question that hasn't been answered: If the 80's had great basketball and the 60's-70's terrible, how the heck do you suppose 80's players were inspired and decided to become NBA stars? Last time I checked, the players who inspired Jordan or Magic or Bird or Kareem were players who were playing in those "terrible" eras and they weren't even necessarily the best of their own era. Maravich inspired a lot of future stars, including Magic, and he was never a serious MVP candidate. David Thompson inspired Jordan and he only got somewhat serious MVP consideration once. If these guys could inspire some of the GOAT without even being the greatest of their own era, it's not reasonable at all to qualify their era as weak.

This doesn't really make sense though, yes no doubt Russell, Wilt, Kareem inspired a lot of players, but that's part of the natural evolution of a sport ... great players make the sport better.

But I think this tends to level off after a while, there's only so much improvement the human body can make for example and after the 80s, basketball became big business with millions being invested into player development even at the college level whereas in the decades prior it was a peanuts business that had no real corporate backing.

So it's kinda natural now that you would see a rise in the quality of the game through the 70s and into the 80s (and yes sure, for that Wilt/Russ/West/KAJ etc. deserve all the credit in the world), but I think the last big "revolution" in basketball was the Pistons style of "physical defence wins championships" that was aped by a lot of teams since then and I guess the rise of the super-athletic wing guard because of Jordan's popularity.

I would say basketball started to really improve a lot in the 70s with the impact that Russell/Wilt/Big O had on it (they changed the game sure). Then Magic/Bird had a very important impact in terms of the business side of it, they took basketball from a rinky dink side sport into big business mainstream where development, coaching and other aspects of the game evolved big time.

[La Frescobaldi]

This doesn't really make sense though, yes no doubt Russell, Wilt, Kareem inspired a lot of players, but that's part of the natural evolution of a sport ... great players make the sport better.

But I think this tends to level off after a while, there's only so much improvement the human body can make for example and after the 80s, basketball became big business with millions being invested into player development even at the college level whereas in the decades prior it was a peanuts business that had no real corporate backing.

So it's kinda natural now that you would see a rise in the quality of the game through the 70s and into the 80s (and yes sure, for that Wilt/Russ/West/KAJ etc. deserve all the credit in the world), but I think the last big "revolution" in basketball was the Pistons style of "physical defence wins championships" that was aped by a lot of teams since then and I guess the rise of the super-athletic wing guard because of Jordan's popularity.

I would say basketball started to really improve a lot in the 70s with the impact that Russell/Wilt/Big O had on it (they changed the game sure). Then Magic/Bird had a very important impact in terms of the business side of it, they took basketball from a rinky dink side sport into big business mainstream where development, coaching and other aspects of the game evolved big time.
Yes indeed. I've said it a hundred times.
Look at 1962 and compare that to 1967 - there is no comparison. And then compare that to 1972 and you have got modern basketball except there's no 3 point line.

Chamberlain, West, Robertson, Russell - they invented modern basketball, formed it, shaped it, and to this day it looks just like the game they left us.

It was just as much Auerbach, Hannum, Sharman & Heinsohn who did it, too. Coaching is, in the long run, every bit as important as players are.

Fresco's First Rule of Hoops:
Winning rings is like a 3 legged stool. You gotta have these 3 legs to win a championship:

* Talent
* System/Coaching
* Injuries

If any one of those legs breaks, the stool falls. You do not get to pass Go, you do not get to collect $200... you do not get a championship.

It makes no sense to say one leg is more important than the other, because if any leg breaks, that stool won't bear weight.

[stanlove1111]

Only YOU could look at those 10 games, and somehow come away thinking that Cowens had outplayed KAJ. Just like your take on the '77 WCF's, when you claimed that Walton battled Kareem to a draw.

Talk about someone who has never watched a game in his life...

I don't remember saying that Cowens outplayed Jabbar..

And yes I think Walton and Jabbar played equally well in the 1977. I know you don't understand basketball and will go with the stats now. Like stats tell the whole story with Walton..

[Psileas]

This doesn't really make sense though, yes no doubt Russell, Wilt, Kareem inspired a lot of players, but that's part of the natural evolution of a sport ... great players make the sport better.

But I think this tends to level off after a while, there's only so much improvement the human body can make for example and after the 80s, basketball became big business with millions being invested into player development even at the college level whereas in the decades prior it was a peanuts business that had no real corporate backing.

So it's kinda natural now that you would see a rise in the quality of the game through the 70s and into the 80s (and yes sure, for that Wilt/Russ/West/KAJ etc. deserve all the credit in the world), but I think the last big "revolution" in basketball was the Pistons style of "physical defence wins championships" that was aped by a lot of teams since then and I guess the rise of the super-athletic wing guard because of Jordan's popularity.

I would say basketball started to really improve a lot in the 70s with the impact that Russell/Wilt/Big O had on it (they changed the game sure). Then Magic/Bird had a very important impact in terms of the business side of it, they took basketball from a rinky dink side sport into big business mainstream where development, coaching and other aspects of the game evolved big time.

My point is that there is a big difference between having a league whose main popularity is based on 1-2 mega-stars and nothing more and having a league where even its secondary stars can be influential enough to inspire a new generation of legends. The early 60's bigs had no more than a few role models to copy (Mikan, Schayes, Pettit), and everything else fell on their own shoulders to innovate. A little after Mikan came Cousy to start inspiring smalls and later Baylor who started inspiring middle sizes. By the mid-late 60's, the league was deep enough to have players who weren't even top-tier stars and were still able to inspire others. Earl Monroe, for example, created a legend bigger than his NBA career.
But, yes, you were right to mention sports industry which took the game to bigger heights, but sports industry and general lack of talent, that some argue, are 2 different kinds of things. While the 60's-70's NBA's popularity still had not reached later heights, the sport of basketball was still a household term in the USA, especially among tall people, so the idea that due to the NBA's reduced popularity, there might have been 10 "Wilt Chamberlains" or 10 "Oscar Robertsons" available, but only 1 of each tried basketball as a career, while the others never even tried out the sport and became accountants instead doesn't fly with me. What the increased popularity of the NBA would have brought in the future would be more average-to-good players and many more "marginal NBA talent/NBA scrubs" level of players, but many more superstars? I don't think so.

[stanlove1111]

curious.
do you think Cowens also would stand no chance in today's NBA?

Cowens would be a good power forward...His stats and effect on the game would be nothing like they were in the 70s.

[Psileas]

In the end, and getting a bit more relevant with the topic, there is nothing more insulting to the history of our sport than having a historical document like this and yet the number of people whose knowledge about those leagues is good enough to comment about these very specific players and this very specific game is so vastly smaller than the number of people whose eyes cannot adapt to anything that doesn't resemble todays' league at a higher than, say, 90% level.
To make an analogy, this is like having an early 2000's teen gamer who is told to try out Age of Empires, but he refuses, replying "why should I care about a game that simulates ancient eras and ancient type of warriors that I don't know or care about?". Same here, I'd rather have a 5-post thread that actually discusses the game and the specific players instead of a boring 100-post crapfest of "era vs era".

[LAZERUSS]

I don't remember saying that Cowens outplayed Jabbar..

And yes I think Walton and Jabbar played equally well in the 1977. I know you don't understand basketball and will go with the stats now. Like stats tell the whole story with Walton..

1. I brought up the FACT that KAJ just KILLED Cowens in 10 STRAIGHT H2H's...the stats do NOT lie...and here was your response:


More stats obsessed hogwash..

So, my natural assumption would be that you don't believe that Kareem, averaging 43 ppg in 10 straight games, and on about a .590 FG% in the process, was outplaying Cowens. If you agreed with me, why didn't you either, a) say yes, you are right Lazeruss, or b) not respond at all.


2. As for Walton-Kareem, in a series in which KAJ just statistically annihilated Walton (as he ALWAYS did BTW), and despite a sweeping loss, the margins were by 12, 2, 5, and 4 points...that if we were to remove KAJ and Walton, that the margins would have been about the same?

That reminds of the Russell-Wilt nonsense. Take Wilt and Russell out of the equation, and Boston would have routed Wilt's teams unmercifully. How about their 65-66 seasonal H2H's. Wilt's Sixers went 6-4 against the Celtics, but Chamberlain missed one game. In that one game Boston was leading by 22 points going into the 4th quarter, and coasted to a 137-122 win. And that was one of Wilt's most talented rosters BTW. Incidently, Russell scored 19 points on 9-11 from the field in that game. How did he do in the other nine games against Wilt? 9.4 ppg on a .301 FG%.

Had Kareem not brutalized Walton in '77, his vastly inferior Lakers would have been routed by the Blazers in those four games.

[LAZERUSS]

Cowens would be a good power forward...His stats and effect on the game would be nothing like they were in the 70s.

Why would a natural center, who was under-sized then, and still was winning an MVP, be a PF today, in leagues with similar sized centers? He was 6-9, and would be at least 6-10 today. How many centers in today's NBA are 6-10? Hell, the 6-7 Ben Wallace was winning back-to-back rebounding titles at the CENTER position (and DPOY's) just 10 years ago.

I guess Barkley would be a SG today, then, as well. Same with Dantley.

[LBJ4MVP23]

Im not sure why its so hard for people to grasp the truth about the past (especially a young sport like basketball). The elite big men of ALL TIME transcend eras. Russell, Wilt, Thurmond, etc. (guards to a far lesser extent) would play today and still be considered great.

The issue is not with the elite guys, its the rest of the field. Would Bill Russell average 7 blocks per game today? Would he average 25 boards? Would Wilt average 50 points? If the answer to any of these is NO, which it is, then it means the stats were inflated because of a weaker era. But just because their stats were inflated it doesnt mean their greatness was inflated. The top 1% would be the top 1% today, maybe top 5% at worst. However the other 98-95% has gotten so much better. There is a reason those gaudy numbers were never approached again and its because the talent gap doesnt exist like it used to.

Wilt would not average 50 points per game in the modern NBA. Russell would not average 25 rebounds because the game has slowed, fg% is up because people are better at putting the ball in the hole, and teams arent missing nearly as many shots as they used to. His team from that decade would not win 11 of 13 titles. But Russell and Wilt would be top 5 players in todays NBA, there is no doubt in my mind especially Wilt. But if you think their stats are going to go down in modern NBA then that means you accept competition today is stronger overall.

I know people like Lazareus will be offended by this but its the truth. If you told me Wilt would be the best player in todays NBA I would believe you. But if you told me he would average 50-25 I would tell you to go f*ck yourself.

[JohnFreeman]

Russell travels at :23

[La Frescobaldi]

Im not sure why its so hard for people to grasp the truth about the past (especially a young sport like basketball). The elite big men of ALL TIME transcend eras. Russell, Wilt, Thurmond, etc. (guards to a far lesser extent) would play today and still be considered great.

The issue is not with the elite guys, its the rest of the field. Would Bill Russell average 7 blocks per game today? Would he average 25 boards? Would Wilt average 50 points? If the answer to any of these is NO, which it is, then it means the stats were inflated because of a weaker era. But just because their stats were inflated it doesnt mean their greatness was inflated. The top 1% would be the top 1% today, maybe top 5% at worst. However the other 98-95% has gotten so much better. There is a reason those gaudy numbers were never approached again and its because the talent gap doesnt exist like it used to.

Wilt would not average 50 points per game in the modern NBA. Russell would not average 25 rebounds because the game has slowed, fg% is up because people are better at putting the ball in the hole, and teams arent missing nearly as many shots as they used to. His team from that decade would not win 11 of 13 titles. But Russell and Wilt would be top 5 players in todays NBA, there is no doubt in my mind especially Wilt. But if you think their stats are going to go down in modern NBA then that means you accept competition today is stronger overall.

I know people like Lazareus will be offended by this but its the truth. If you told me Wilt would be the best player in todays NBA I would believe you. But if you told me he would average 50-25 I would tell you to go f*ck yourself.
That's not bad, not bad at all.

There's no way to know what the numbers would be, it's folly really. I think James could do 37 or 40 in today's game if his team had to have that to win. He's that much better than the rest of the league. Literally unstoppable.

Thing about it is, it's not what an individual player can do. James would never dream of warping his team like that. That fact is more than obvious today, after 40 years of modern basketball.
But nobody knew that yet in 1962. Chamberlain was so much better than anything anyone ever saw that there was no pattern, no strategy to account for a player of that caliber. The League had to learn that, on Wilt's back.

He's still one of the 3 best players I've ever seen, with KAJ & Jordan. The things he was doing on the Spectrum court in '67 and '68 are unmatched to this day.

edit ~ other thing, the Sixers as a team threw down 47% fg in '67. Given the enormously faster pace of those days, and no 3 point line to stretch the court....... that is very very comparable to today's league.

[Dr.J4ever]

La Fresco said they left us "modern basketball" except there is no "3 point line".

With all due respect, small things or changes can have a huge impact. The 3 point shot and no hand checking rule have vastly changed the nature of the game. From offensive tactics, defensive tactics, to the type of players NBA scouts would look for, to "small ball" basketball being a preferred method by many successful teams, to the shooting accuracy and offensive efficiency of many of today's teams, and to probably more things I am not aware of, basketball is not the same sport it was during the 60s, 70s, or even 80s for the most part.

I still can't understand how some can watch old You Tube clips and say it's the same game. :facepalm

[Psileas]

Would he average 25 boards? Would Wilt average 50 points? If the answer to any of these is NO, which it is, then it means the stats were inflated because of a weaker era. But just because their stats were inflated it doesnt mean their greatness was inflated. The top 1% would be the top 1% today, maybe top 5% at worst. However the other 98-95% has gotten so much better. There is a reason those gaudy numbers were never approached again and its because the talent gap doesnt exist like it used to.

The stats that were inflated weren't inflated because of the competition, they were inflated by higher pace and minutes per game of certain players. Wilt was averaging 40 ppg vs Russell in 1960 and 1962, which is a good indication that, with the same pace and mpg, he'd probably average even more than this against pretty much anyone else.

The competition among less than elite players has increased. However, most teams favor superstar run systems more than they did back then, which inflates today's stars' stats. Adjusting for pace and mpg, some of today's stars' numbers become gaudy and, although such adjustments are always too inaccurate to rake at face value, they still give you the hint that modern stars produce better stats than their actual level margin compared to the rest of the league should allow. Which is why in the PER stat, most all-time leaders are modern players, including several active ones. It's not a team oriented game.


I know people like Lazareus will be offended by this but its the truth. If you told me Wilt would be the best player in todays NBA I would believe you. But if you told me he would average 50-25 I would tell you to go f*ck yourself.

There isn't a single guy over here who argues that Wilt would average 50/25, etc. Not Lazeruss, not Frescobaldi, not me, no-one. In contrast, there are several people who believe that Wilt and, even more, Russell, wouldn't be star players in today's league, and a few of them have already posted here. So, you tell me which side needs to be addressed more.

[stanlove1111]

1. I brought up the FACT that KAJ just KILLED Cowens in 10 STRAIGHT H2H's...the stats do NOT lie...and here was your response:



So, my natural assumption would be that you don't believe that Kareem, averaging 43 ppg in 10 straight games, and on about a .590 FG% in the process, was outplaying Cowens. If you agreed with me, why didn't you either, a) say yes, you are right Lazeruss, or b) not respond at all.


2. As for Walton-Kareem, in a series in which KAJ just statistically annihilated Walton (as he ALWAYS did BTW), and despite a sweeping loss, the margins were by 12, 2, 5, and 4 points...that if we were to remove KAJ and Walton, that the margins would have been about the same?

That reminds of the Russell-Wilt nonsense. Take Wilt and Russell out of the equation, and Boston would have routed Wilt's teams unmercifully. How about their 65-66 seasonal H2H's. Wilt's Sixers went 6-4 against the Celtics, but Chamberlain missed one game. In that one game Boston was leading by 22 points going into the 4th quarter, and coasted to a 137-122 win. And that was one of Wilt's most talented rosters BTW. Incidently, Russell scored 19 points on 9-11 from the field in that game. How did he do in the other nine games against Wilt? 9.4 ppg on a .301 FG%.

Had Kareem not brutalized Walton in '77, his vastly inferior Lakers would have been routed by the Blazers in those four games.

I mean its silly to compare Jabbar and Cowens and only go by stats which is what you always do..I don't care who had better stats in their meetings, I watched them play many times. Jabbar was always the better player despite the stats simply

And Jabbar because the Celtics whole defense approach was usually to try and limit Jabbar, and the Bucks whole defense approach was not to limit Cowens..Simple as that..


2- Stats again. I watched the series live and I don't care what the stats said and neither does anyone who knows basketball..

Walton's passing was amazing at that time and if you paid attention you would know that the Lakers game play was to try and stop Walton was passing them to death. The announcers even talk about that in game 2. So the way to stop a passer who will kill you by hitting cutters is to play off the passers teammates so they won't have an easy time getting past you on the cut. This open up jumpers for the Blazers guards and forwards. Plus assists stats don't count when players are so wide open cutting to the basket that they get fouled instead of allowing a layup, and assist numbers don't usually count for great outlet passes with start a fastbreak, and Walton was maybe the best ever at it. So I don't care what the stats say about their assist totals which is the only thing someone like you would look at. Walton's passing was huge in that series and any game Portland played.


Walton was the better defender and everyone in the league at the time knew that. To deny that is goofy.


Walton was a better rebounded and while Jabbar barely outrebounded him in that series it was because Walton had Lucas on his team. Switch Lucas to Jabbar's team and Walton easily outrebounds him..


Jabbar was a better scorer then Walton at that was it. Walton did more things really well and his game was perfect for a 5 on 5 basketball game, he didn't need shoot or score to be effective and this helped his teammates game..

Game 1--Walton outplayed Jabbar easily. Saw the game live at the time and the announcers were ever talking about it in game 2. Don't care what the stats showed everyone at the time knew it.

Game 2. Its on video Both played well. Jabbar was the better scorer Walton was the better passer and better defender. Walton scored the big basket when he needed to.


Game 3- Walton scored 14 points in the 4th quarter to propel the Blazers over the Lakers..

Game 4- Its on video. They both played well. More of the same..Jabbar's scoring was unreal and Walton was better at everything else..


They are 2 different type players and stats don't tell the story. I think Walton added more value to a basketball team then Jabbar. A whole lot of people at the time agreed with me.


Wilt left a 76ers team that had the 2nd best record in the league without him after he left, he went to a team that went to the finals the year before he got there. he played with a Lakers team from 69-73 that I would take over the 1969 Celtics without Russell or Wilt involved..

[WillC]

Oh here we go...


bob cousy executing a crossover

http://oi33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

The lack of respect for the legends is bewildering. And you call yourself basketball fans?

"But... but... but... he doesn't crossover like Iverson or shoot like Curry, so he sucked!"

Pathetic.

So let's get this straight. Before the Beatles, before rock and roll, before JFK was assassinated, before Martin Luther King had a dream, before colour TV took off, before they put a man on the moon.... a guy who grew up in the Great Depression was making fools of defenders, throwing no-look passes and winning multiple championships as the most creative and innovative basketball player the world had ever seen.

But no, you guys aren't impressed.

He lacked LeBron's athleticism. He didn't have Iverson's dribbling skills. He didn't dunk like Kobe.

What Cousy did, though, was completely change the game of basketball. Without him - and other innovators like Luisetti, Davies, Fulks, Baylor and Maravich - the game wouldn't be how it is today.

So, go ahead, shit all over the history of the game, post silly GIFs of Cousy dribbling one-handed and have a good laugh about the pioneers of the game. Go on, get it out of your system - impress your online buddies and make yourself look cool while you hide behind your computer pretending you're from the ghetto when you're actually at home in your bedroom while your Mom cooks you dinner.

Then grow up and realise that you are a fvcking imbecile with zero respect for history.

As Larry Bird once said: "All I know is that people tend to forget how great the older great players were. It'll happen that way with me, too."

And Kobe Bryant. And LeBron James. And Kevin Durant.

[GimmeThat]

Oh here we go...



The lack of respect for the legends is bewildering. And you call yourself basketball fans?

"But... but... but... he doesn't crossover like Iverson or shoot like Curry, so he sucked!"

Pathetic.

So let's get this straight. Before the Beatles, before rock and roll, before JFK was assassinated, before Martin Luther King had a dream, before colour TV took off, before they put a man on the moon.... a guy who grew up in the Great Depression was making fools of defenders, throwing no-look passes and winning multiple championships as the most creative and innovative basketball player the world had ever seen.

But no, you guys aren't impressed.

He lacked LeBron's athleticism. He didn't have Iverson's dribbling skills. He didn't dunk like Kobe.

What Cousy did, though, was completely change the game of basketball. Without him - and other innovators like Luisetti, Davies, Fulks, Baylor and Maravich - the game wouldn't be how it is today.

So, go ahead, shit all over the history of the game, post silly GIFs of Cousy dribbling one-handed and have a good laugh about the pioneers of the game. Go on, get it out of your system - impress your online buddies and make yourself look cool while you hide behind your computer pretending you're from the ghetto when you're actually at home in your bedroom while your Mom cooks you dinner.

Then grow up and realise that you are a fvcking imbecile with zero respect for history.

As Larry Bird once said: "All I know is that people tend to forget how great the older great players were. It'll happen that way with me, too."

And Kobe Bryant. And LeBron James. And Kevin Durant.


True.

The NBA still exist today.



And if it didn't.
they SHOULD get the blame.

[BoutPractice]

I dread the day people start saying this about Larry...

In fact you already hear them saying that.

The worst Kobe trolls have even started using an accelerated "evolution of the game" argument to discredit Michael Jordan.

[JohnFreeman]

Russell traveled at :23

[LAZERUSS]

I mean its silly to compare Jabbar and Cowens and only go by stats which is what you always do..I don't care who had better stats in their meetings, I watched them play many times. Jabbar was always the better player despite the stats simply

And Jabbar because the Celtics whole defense approach was usually to try and limit Jabbar, and the Bucks whole defense approach was not to limit Cowens..Simple as that..


2- Stats again. I watched the series live and I don't care what the stats said and neither does anyone who knows basketball..

Walton's passing was amazing at that time and if you paid attention you would know that the Lakers game play was to try and stop Walton was passing them to death. The announcers even talk about that in game 2. So the way to stop a passer who will kill you by hitting cutters is to play off the passers teammates so they won't have an easy time getting past you on the cut. This open up jumpers for the Blazers guards and forwards. Plus assists stats don't count when players are so wide open cutting to the basket that they get fouled instead of allowing a layup, and assist numbers don't usually count for great outlet passes with start a fastbreak, and Walton was maybe the best ever at it. So I don't care what the stats say about their assist totals which is the only thing someone like you would look at. Walton's passing was huge in that series and any game Portland played.


Walton was the better defender and everyone in the league at the time knew that. To deny that is goofy.


Walton was a better rebounded and while Jabbar barely outrebounded him in that series it was because Walton had Lucas on his team. Switch Lucas to Jabbar's team and Walton easily outrebounds him..


Jabbar was a better scorer then Walton at that was it. Walton did more things really well and his game was perfect for a 5 on 5 basketball game, he didn't need shoot or score to be effective and this helped his teammates game..

Game 1--Walton outplayed Jabbar easily. Saw the game live at the time and the announcers were ever talking about it in game 2. Don't care what the stats showed everyone at the time knew it.

Game 2. Its on video Both played well. Jabbar was the better scorer Walton was the better passer and better defender. Walton scored the big basket when he needed to.


Game 3- Walton scored 14 points in the 4th quarter to propel the Blazers over the Lakers..

Game 4- Its on video. They both played well. More of the same..Jabbar's scoring was unreal and Walton was better at everything else..


They are 2 different type players and stats don't tell the story. I think Walton added more value to a basketball team then Jabbar. A whole lot of people at the time agreed with me.


Wilt left a 76ers team that had the 2nd best record in the league without him after he left, he went to a team that went to the finals the year before he got there. he played with a Lakers team from 69-73 that I would take over the 1969 Celtics without Russell or Wilt involved..


I either listened to, or watched all four games of the '77 WCF's. And I recall watching games two and four on television.

First of all, the Lakers had NO PF at all in that series (Kermit Washington missed the post-season.) In fact, there were many times in that series that they were going with three guards, and then with the 6-5 Cazzie Russell at the "PF" slot. Don Ford was basically a worthless PF who played less than half the games. And of course, Portland's best player in that series was Maurice Lucas, a PF, who murdered the Laker frontline. Lucas led the Blazers in scoring in that series, at 23.0 ppg, and outscored Walton in three of the games, and tied him in the other.

Incidently, with Walton in the 75-76 season, Portland went 26-25. They added Lucas to their 76-77 roster, and the improvement was dramatic.

Not only that, the Lakers ONE ball-handling guard, Lucius Allen, was injured and missed the first two games of that series. NONE of the remainder of the Lakers guards could even remotely handle a ball. And that was HUGE. The Blazer guards just SLAUGHTERED the Laker guards in that series. There were MANY instances throughout that series where the LA guards couldn't get the ball past the half court. In one 10 second sequence they lost the ball THREE times, and surrendered six points. It was LAUGHABLE.

So, Kareem, with NO PF, and with his guards just embarrassed the entire series, SINGLE-HANDEDLY kept his team in all four games.

KAJ: 30.3 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.8 bpg, .608 FG%, .660 TS%
Walton: 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, .507 FG%, .570 TS%

The ONLY game in which Walton remotely played Kareem even, was in game three. And not coincidently, it was Kareem's worst game of the series.

In the other THREE games Kareem either outplayed, or downright DESTROYED Walton. And not only that, but the Blazers were doubling Kareem on nearly every entry pass, and at times later in the series, they were simply swarming him.

Walton was a SLIGHTLY better passer in their careers (he passed MORE), but even his 5.8 to 3.8 apg margin in this series was deceptive. KAJ would pass to wide open teammates, and they bricked their shots.

Game 1: Kareem outplayed Walton. He outscored him, 30-22, and the rebounding was close, with Walton having a 13-10 edge. KAJ shot 11-19, to Walton's 10-16.

Game 2: Kareem ANNIHILATED a HELPLESS Walton. Only a complete idiot would claim other wise. KAJ hung a 40-17 17-23, 6-9 game on as all Walton could do was watch him score. Walton shot 7-13 to get his 14 points. Being outscored 40-14 is all anyone needs to know.

Game 3: KAJ's worst game, and Walton was clutch down the stretch. Still, Walton didn't do anything until the 4th quarter, and Kareem easily outrebounded him overall, 20-15. And while Walton outshot KAJ, 11-20 to 5-12, KAJ did go 11-13 from the line. So, this was a close "win" for Walton.

Game 4: ALL Kareem. KAJ outscored Walton, 30-19, outrebounded him, 17-14, and outshot him, 12-20 to 8-22.


Sidenotes: I recall Snapper Jones, who was the Blazers announcer making a claim along the lines that Walton lost all the battles in that series. I'll see if I can find that link, but it is out there somewhere.

And in any case the overwhelming consensus was that Walton had a FAR greater supporting cast in that series. For three of the four games to go down to the wire was a tribute to KAJ's absolute domination. Swap rosters in that series, and it would have been Walton on the receiving end of a sweep.


Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

As for Wilt's 69-73 teams. His 68-69 team was NOT better than Russell's 68-69 TEAM. True, he and West were better than Russell and Havlicek (albeit, Havlicek nearly matched West's brilliance in that series.) From 3-8 it was a rout for Boston. And please don't include BAYLOR as an example of a better player. He was arguably the WORST Laker player in that series. In games three, four, five, and seven, three of them losses, he averaged 11 ppg on ... get this... a .269 FG%. He was also the Lakers WORST shooter the entire playoffs (.385.) He was a worthless POS in that series, and he, along with coach VBK COST the Lakers that series.

And to quickly add to your points. The Lakers TRADED THREE players to gt Wilt, one of them ASG and 20 ppg scorer Archie Clark, and the other key player was journeyman center Darrall Imhoff, who had averaged a 10-13 in '68.

THEN, the Lakers lost HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. How important was Goodrich to the 67-68 Lakers? West missed 31 games in that season, but with both Clark and Goodrich, they didn't miss a beat, and went 19-12 in his absence.

So Wilt essentially had to replace not only Clark's and Imhoff's 29 ppg and 15 rpg, but ALSO Goodrich's 13 ppg and 3 rpg...or a combined 42 ppg and 18 rpg.

So LA went from THREE exceptional guards in '68, down to ONE in '69. And they had to scramble to fill those holes, and all they could get was journeyman Johnny Egan, who gave them 8 ppg, and his horrible gaffe at the end of game four likely cost LA a 4-1 series romp. BTW, West would miss 21 more games in '69, and with the crappy guards they had, Chamberlain's presence still led them to a 12-9 record in those 21 games.

Furthermore, even with the addition of both of those players, the Sixers went from a 62-20 team that was crippled with injuries and still only lost a game seven in the ECF's by four points...down to a 55-27 team that was blown out in the first round by the 48-34 Celtics. Oh, and BTW, Clark and Imhoff combined for a collective average of 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and shot .510 in that series...and they were STILL annihilated by Boston. Just goes to show you Wilt's true IMPACT. And, of course, the REAL bottom line...the Sixers essentially went from a 68-13 championship team in '67 WITH Wilt, to first round cannon-fodder in '69 withOUT Wilt. And the slide would continue, as well. By Wilt's last season in the NBA, 72-73, the Sixers put up the worst record in NBA history, at 9-73.

And for the record, Wilt shredded his knee in '69, and was nowhere near 100% in that post-season, and yet he STILL led a 46-36 Laker all the way to the Finals, where they lost a game seven to the heavily-favored 60-22 Knicks.

'70-71? Baylor played TWO games early in the year, was injured, and did not return. And West missed the last fourth of the season with injuries, and also missed the playoffs. Chamberlain then single-handedly carried them past Chicago in a seven game series, and then outplayed a PEAK Alcindor (KAJ) in the WCF's, albeit, in a series loss.

'71-72. Dumped Baylor, and then immediately went on a 33 game winning streak, and finished 69-13. This from a team that was picked as low as 4th in their own division by most pre-season publications. Chamberlain would chop down Kareem and his defending champion 63-19 Bucks in the WCF's, and then dominate a Knicks team with FIVE HOFers, en route to leading LA to their first ever title (in Los Angeles), and win the FMVP.

'72-73. Chamberlain leads an injury-riddled Laker team to a 60-22 record. In the WCF's, he crushes Thurmond's 47-35 Warriors, the same Thurmond who shut down KAJ and his 60-22 Bucks in the first round. Wilt goes to yet another Finals, where they would lose the last four games, and for the second year in a row, with absolutely no help from Jerry West, all in the waning seconds, and against a NY team that fielded SIX HOFers.

Wilt "retired." The Lakers immediately plunged to a 47-35 record, and a first round blowout loss. The next year they would go 30-52. They added KAJ, and still only could go 40-42. It was not until Magic arrived in 79-80, when they would return to where Wilt had left them.

[IMObjective]

Great thread, the old folks are right. The young'uns need to respect the past legends. It's like dissing Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton by comparing them to Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Great modern advancements can't happen without the solid foundations laid down by the past greats.

And people like LASER need to acknowledge the skill level IS higher in today's game, due to obvious reasons. Overall. Statutory is right about trends and outliers.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

The more I watch that game the more I am inclined to believe that, no, VBK was not incompetent, but rather, he was in on the take.

With about 10 minutes remaining, Russell picked up his 5th personal. The very next play the Lakers go into Chamberlain and he goes right around Russell's "matador" defense for an easy layin. He wouldn't touch the ball again on the offensive end.

Then, there was Elgin Baylor, and I am even suspicious of HIM. How does a player who had a relatively solid season, put up such horrific numbers in games 3, 4, 5, and 7? It is just not seemingly possible that one man could collectively shoot .269 over the course of four of the biggest games of his life. Hell, Wilt gets criticized for his FT shooting, but in game four, a one point loss, Baylor not only shot 2-14 from the field, but he also shot 1-5 from the line.

In any case, by a game seven, in a series in which Baylor has just been awful, VBK not only lets Baylor play 43 minutes, he continues to let him shoot wildly all game long.

And of course there was the "Wilt gaffe", too. How does a coach leave the game's greatest player on the bench in the last five minutes of a close game seven? And of course, Wilt's "replacement" the great Mel Counts, misses a key shot late, and then commits a turnover when LA had a chance to win, en route to a 4-13 game from the field.

Oh, and then you can go back to that game four, when LA was leading the series, 2-1, leading 88-87 late, and with the ball. Does VBK put the ball in the hands of West at the most critical time of the game? Hell no, he had Johnny Egan stumbling around, and sure enough, he is stripped, and then Sam Jones, (of course), while falling down, hits the game winner at the buzzer. Had VBK had West handling the ball, and likely the Lakers go up 3-1, and given the game five romp over Boston, they would have won the series, 4-1.

Highly suspicious...
stop preaching.
these young ass clowns wont ever accept that Wilt is GOAt till LeBron takes his throne:coleman:

[GimmeThat]

Great thread, the old folks are right. The young'uns need to respect the past legends. It's like dissing Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton by comparing them to Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Great modern advancements can't happen without the solid foundations laid by the past greats.

And people like LASER need to acknowledge the skill level IS higher in today's game, due to obvious reasons. Overall. Statutory is right about trends and outliers.


we should create a new sport, and document it, and prove people wrong.

[La Frescobaldi]

La Fresco said they left us "modern basketball" except there is no "3 point line".

With all due respect, small things or changes can have a huge impact. The 3 point shot and no hand checking rule have vastly changed the nature of the game. From offensive tactics, defensive tactics, to the type of players NBA scouts would look for, to "small ball" basketball being a preferred method by many successful teams, to the shooting accuracy and offensive efficiency of many of today's teams, and to probably more things I am not aware of, basketball is not the same sport it was during the 60s, 70s, or even 80s for the most part.

I still can't understand how some can watch old You Tube clips and say it's the same game. :facepalm

Then you'll never understand. Which is a shame.
Eras change, but the game remains.

[stanlove1111]

I either listened to, or watched all four games of the '77 WCF's. And I recall watching games two and four on television.

First of all, the Lakers had NO PF at all in that series (Kermit Washington missed the post-season.) In fact, there were many times in that series that they were going with three guards, and then with the 6-5 Cazzie Russell at the "PF" slot. Don Ford was basically a worthless PF who played less than half the games. And of course, Portland's best player in that series was Maurice Lucas, a PF, who murdered the Laker frontline. Lucas led the Blazers in scoring in that series, at 23.0 ppg, and outscored Walton in three of the games, and tied him in the other.

Incidently, with Walton in the 75-76 season, Portland went 26-25. They added Lucas to their 76-77 roster, and the improvement was dramatic.

Not only that, the Lakers ONE ball-handling guard, Lucius Allen, was injured and missed the first two games of that series. NONE of the remainder of the Lakers guards could even remotely handle a ball. And that was HUGE. The Blazer guards just SLAUGHTERED the Laker guards in that series. There were MANY instances throughout that series where the LA guards couldn't get the ball past the half court. In one 10 second sequence they lost the ball THREE times, and surrendered six points. It was LAUGHABLE.

So, Kareem, with NO PF, and with his guards just embarrassed the entire series, SINGLE-HANDEDLY kept his team in all four games.

KAJ: 30.3 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.8 bpg, .608 FG%, .660 TS%
Walton: 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, .507 FG%, .570 TS%

The ONLY game in which Walton remotely played Kareem even, was in game three. And not coincidently, it was Kareem's worst game of the series.

In the other THREE games Kareem either outplayed, or downright DESTROYED Walton. And not only that, but the Blazers were doubling Kareem on nearly every entry pass, and at times later in the series, they were simply swarming him.

Walton was a SLIGHTLY better passer in their careers (he passed MORE), but even his 5.8 to 3.8 apg margin in this series was deceptive. KAJ would pass to wide open teammates, and they bricked their shots.

Game 1: Kareem outplayed Walton. He outscored him, 30-22, and the rebounding was close, with Walton having a 13-10 edge. KAJ shot 11-19, to Walton's 10-16.

Game 2: Kareem ANNIHILATED a HELPLESS Walton. Only a complete idiot would claim other wise. KAJ hung a 40-17 17-23, 6-9 game on as all Walton could do was watch him score. Walton shot 7-13 to get his 14 points. Being outscored 40-14 is all anyone needs to know.

Game 3: KAJ's worst game, and Walton was clutch down the stretch. Still, Walton didn't do anything until the 4th quarter, and Kareem easily outrebounded him overall, 20-15. And while Walton outshot KAJ, 11-20 to 5-12, KAJ did go 11-13 from the line. So, this was a close "win" for Walton.

Game 4: ALL Kareem. KAJ outscored Walton, 30-19, outrebounded him, 17-14, and outshot him, 12-20 to 8-22.


Sidenotes: I recall Snapper Jones, who was the Blazers announcer making a claim along the lines that Walton lost all the battles in that series. I'll see if I can find that link, but it is out there somewhere.

And in any case the overwhelming consensus was that Walton had a FAR greater supporting cast in that series. For three of the four games to go down to the wire was a tribute to KAJ's absolute domination. Swap rosters in that series, and it would have been Walton on the receiving end of a sweep.


Continued...

One more post where you prove you know nothng at all about basketball . Just a 12 year old who found a stat sheet. You know nothing about roles of basketball players.


You foolishly bring up that the Blazers went 26-25 with Walton before Lucas got there like it means something..I know the game of trying to make it look like Lucas was the one who was responsible for the Blazers success I have seen idiots like you try this many times before..People do this when they don't want to give Walton credit...Yes Lucas was the 2nd best player on the team so what. Every title team has a 2nd best player and Lucas was one of the worst 2nd best players ever,

Ok now to show you are not just a cherry picker give me the Blazers record from 76-78 with and without Walton in the lineup. The Blazers record was awful without Walton in the lineup and among the best ever with him in the lineup..So your argument here is laughable like usual.


Here we go again with you making the point of Lucas outscoring Walton in 3 games...Once again a clown who only understands stats...Like a child.


The fact that you are not even aware that Walton outplayed Jabbar in the first game shows again you don't know what you are talking about. I saw the game and the announcers chaulked it up to Jabbar being tired, Walton easily out performed in in the first game.Look that up like you would if it was the other way around.


Karrem never destroyed Walton in any game in that series. To say that means again you don't know anything but stats..You should say that Jabbar outscored Walton in a couple of games in the series..Huge difference..That had different games.



Walton was a slightly better passer according to you..Then you go into assist stats..LOL..Really getting to the point where you are not worth even talking to. That's all you know is stats, you don't understand the game at all..I already pointed out why stats don't tell you all that much about passing, but once again you totally ignore that and go right back to the stats...Of course,


And you are pulling your usually like you do with Wilt ad Russell...You are trying to have it both ways which for some reason you have never grasped because you don't want to grasp..YOu go on and on about Russell or Walton having better teammates, but then you don't ack that when looking at the stats of Walton/Russell vs Jabbar/Wilt..Obviously if Walton/Russell have better teammates to pass to and to rebound that will take some of the scoring and rebunding away from Walton/Russell..Just one thing you could never understand..

[LAZERUSS]

One more post where you prove you know nothng at all about basketball . Just a 12 year old who found a stat sheet. You know nothing about roles of basketball players.


You foolishly bring up that the Blazers went 26-25 with Walton before Lucas got there like it means something..I know the game of trying to make it look like Lucas was the one who was responsible for the Blazers success I have seen idiots like you try this many times before..People do this when they don't want to give Walton credit...Yes Lucas was the 2nd best player on the team so what. Every title team has a 2nd best player and Lucas was one of the worst 2nd best players ever,

Ok now to show you are not just a cherry picker give me the Blazers record from 76-78 with and without Walton in the lineup. The Blazers record was awful without Walton in the lineup and among the best ever with him in the lineup..So your argument here is laughable like usual.


Here we go again with you making the point of Lucas outscoring Walton in 3 games...Once again a clown who only understands stats...Like a child.


The fact that you are not even aware that Walton outplayed Jabbar in the first game shows again you don't know what you are talking about. I saw the game and the announcers chaulked it up to Jabbar being tired, Walton easily out performed in in the first game.Look that up like you would if it was the other way around.


Karrem never destroyed Walton in any game in that series. To say that means again you don't know anything but stats..You should say that Jabbar outscored Walton in a couple of games in the series..Huge difference..That had different games.



Walton was a slightly better passer according to you..Then you go into assist stats..LOL..Really getting to the point where you are not worth even talking to. That's all you know is stats, you don't understand the game at all..I already pointed out why stats don't tell you all that much about passing, but once again you totally ignore that and go right back to the stats...Of course,


And you are pulling your usually like you do with Wilt ad Russell...You are trying to have it both ways which for some reason you have never grasped because you don't want to grasp..YOu go on and on about Russell or Walton having better teammates, but then you don't ack that when looking at the stats of Walton/Russell vs Jabbar/Wilt..Obviously if Walton/Russell have better teammates to pass to and to rebound that will take some of the scoring and rebunding away from Walton/Russell..Just one thing you could never understand..

1. Walton with WICKS, went 26-25. Lucas, with NO center, went 10-14.

2. LUCAS was the Blazers best player in the '77 WCF's. Plain-and-simple. Not too difficult for anyone to absorb. Lucas DOMINATD the pitiful Laker frontline, while Walton watched helplessly as KAJ reigned in basket-after-basket.

3. PASSING. KAJ passed much less in his career than Walton did in his. Chamberlain averaged 3.4 apg in '63, on a team with no shooters. In '68 he averaged 8.6 apg, with quality shooters all over the lineup. And NO, Walton was not the PASSER that a prime Chamberlain was, either. Not even close. Chamberlain would draw doubles and triples and then hit wide open shooters. Walton...not so much.

Same with KAJ. In his 71-72 season, he averaged 34.8 ppg AND still found time to hand out 4.6 apg. Their ast% (which is a flawed stat BTW), was nearly identical in their primes.

And I think you are one of these idiots that would take White Chocolate Williams over John Stockton. Williams could make a flashy between the legs half court pass for a layup, and on the very next play, throw a ball into th stands with a wide open teammate standing under the basket.

Again, Walton was NOT better a PASSER than Kareem. And was NOWHERE NEAR a prime Chamberlain.

As for the rest of your typical nonsense...when Wilt had equal teammates to Russell's, he STILL outscored, outrebounded, outassisted, outblocked, and outshot him. And while KAJ was not that dominant, it worked essentially the same way. A PEAK KAJ was capable of a 35-17-5- .574 season, on a 63-19 team (and 32-16-4 .577 in 40 mpg on a 66-16 team.) Walton could never have imagined anything close to that kind of a season. He was a good player that blended well with his teammates, but he was never a truly dominant one.

[IncarceratedBob]

All these old dudes need to be put into homes without WiFi. Ish would be a better place. Worst thread ever

[LAZERUSS]

All these old dudes need to be put into homes without WiFi. Ish would be a better place. Worst thread ever

I completely understand where you are coming from. You are one of those that can't comprehend well researched posts, and since you have never studied the history of the game these topics might as well be typed in Klingon to you.

Take the "geezers" out of this forum and it would be nothing but back-in-forth rants about Kobe and Lebron.

[stanlove1111]

1. Walton with WICKS, went 26-25. Lucas, with NO center, went 10-14.

2. LUCAS was the Blazers best player in the '77 WCF's. Plain-and-simple. Not too difficult for anyone to absorb. Lucas DOMINATD the pitiful Laker frontline, while Walton watched helplessly as KAJ reigned in basket-after-basket.

.


Between the two season 76-78 the Blazers went 108-36 with Walton in the lineup and 14-27 without him. They sucked without Walton and he was far and away their best and most valuable player..


Again to sho0w how not bright you are you are saying Lucas was the Blazers best player in the 77 WCF..OH boy..

Then we have the gem that Walton was not a better passer then Jabbar and not nearly as good as Wilt..Ok you are officially not worth talking to anymore..

Go back to your stat book.

[SHAQisGOAT]

One more post where you prove you know nothng at all about basketball . Just a 12 year old who found a stat sheet. You know nothing about roles of basketball players.


You foolishly bring up that the Blazers went 26-25 with Walton before Lucas got there like it means something..I know the game of trying to make it look like Lucas was the one who was responsible for the Blazers success I have seen idiots like you try this many times before..People do this when they don't want to give Walton credit...Yes Lucas was the 2nd best player on the team so what. Every title team has a 2nd best player and Lucas was one of the worst 2nd best players ever,

Ok now to show you are not just a cherry picker give me the Blazers record from 76-78 with and without Walton in the lineup. The Blazers record was awful without Walton in the lineup and among the best ever with him in the lineup..So your argument here is laughable like usual.


Here we go again with you making the point of Lucas outscoring Walton in 3 games...Once again a clown who only understands stats...Like a child.


The fact that you are not even aware that Walton outplayed Jabbar in the first game shows again you don't know what you are talking about. I saw the game and the announcers chaulked it up to Jabbar being tired, Walton easily out performed in in the first game.Look that up like you would if it was the other way around.


Karrem never destroyed Walton in any game in that series. To say that means again you don't know anything but stats..You should say that Jabbar outscored Walton in a couple of games in the series..Huge difference..That had different games.



Walton was a slightly better passer according to you..Then you go into assist stats..LOL..Really getting to the point where you are not worth even talking to. That's all you know is stats, you don't understand the game at all..I already pointed out why stats don't tell you all that much about passing, but once again you totally ignore that and go right back to the stats...Of course,


And you are pulling your usually like you do with Wilt ad Russell...You are trying to have it both ways which for some reason you have never grasped because you don't want to grasp..YOu go on and on about Russell or Walton having better teammates, but then you don't ack that when looking at the stats of Walton/Russell vs Jabbar/Wilt..Obviously if Walton/Russell have better teammates to pass to and to rebound that will take some of the scoring and rebunding away from Walton/Russell..Just one thing you could never understand..

Don't quite agree with everything but :applause:

Like I've said before, Jlauber/Laz/(....) is just a sad, pathetic, ignorant teen trying to pass off as a knowledgeable adult, especially when it comes to basketball... Kid only knows how to post very selected and easy to find stats then says that that's research, and bases everything off of selected stats :oldlol: He's been through it all, why even need the research? :lol Going off on stats like he does while never actually talking about actual games or circumstances, while clearly ignorant to everything that can't be quickly checked on bballreference and such, proves what that child is.
He's been EXPOSED countless times already, most people here know it already, so I don't know why he keeps up with his bullshit act.

Now he's trying to say Lucas was the Blazers best player??? :biggums: :facepalm

[SHAQisGOAT]

Between the two season 76-78 the Blazers went 108-36 with Walton in the lineup and 14-27 without him. They sucked without Walton and he was far and away their best and most valuable player..


Again to sho0w how not bright you are you are saying Lucas was the Blazers best player in the 77 WCF..OH boy..

Then we have the gem that Walton was not a better passer then Jabbar and not nearly as good as Wilt..Ok you are officially not worth talking to anymore..

Go back to your stat book.

:applause:

Jlauber :rolleyes: :facepalm :oldlol: Kid's just a joke, I don't know how he even posts anymore, after been EXPOSED countless times.

[LAZERUSS]

SHAQisGOAT ...the KING of ZERO RESEARCH...and ISH's POS poster.

And his sister, Stanlove1111...the dumbest poster on the board.

The Laurel and Hardy of ISH.

[LAZERUSS]

Between the two season 76-78 the Blazers went 108-36 with Walton in the lineup and 14-27 without him. They sucked without Walton and he was far and away their best and most valuable player..


Again to sho0w how not bright you are you are saying Lucas was the Blazers best player in the 77 WCF..OH boy..

Then we have the gem that Walton was not a better passer then Jabbar and not nearly as good as Wilt..Ok you are officially not worth talking to anymore..

Go back to your stat book.

LUCAS was the Blazers BEST player in the '77 WCF's.,..without a doubt.

Of course, had you not slept through the games you were supposedly at (and obviously you didn't catch a minute of that series in person or on video), you would have realized that LUCAS was butchering a worthless Laker frontline, while Walton was ducking for cover from KAJ's unmerciful onslaught.

Had Kareem had guards that could get the ball past half court in that series, he likely would have averaged 40 ppg.

And again, Walton was NOWHERE near the passer Chamberlain was, and was no better than Kareem's equal.

Anyone can just wildly claim that Walton was a better passer, but they most certainly can't prove it.

[La Frescobaldi]

1. Walton with WICKS, went 26-25. Lucas, with NO center, went 10-14.

2. LUCAS was the Blazers best player in the '77 WCF's. Plain-and-simple. Not too difficult for anyone to absorb. Lucas DOMINATD the pitiful Laker frontline, while Walton watched helplessly as KAJ reigned in basket-after-basket.

3. PASSING. KAJ passed much less in his career than Walton did in his. Chamberlain averaged 3.4 apg in '63, on a team with no shooters. In '68 he averaged 8.6 apg, with quality shooters all over the lineup. And NO, Walton was not the PASSER that a prime Chamberlain was, either. Not even close. Chamberlain would draw doubles and triples and then hit wide open shooters. Walton...not so much.

Same with KAJ. In his 71-72 season, he averaged 34.8 ppg AND still found time to hand out 4.6 apg. Their ast% (which is a flawed stat BTW), was nearly identical in their primes.

And I think you are one of these idiots that would take White Chocolate Williams over John Stockton. Williams could make a flashy between the legs half court pass for a layup, and on the very next play, throw a ball into th stands with a wide open teammate standing under the basket.

Again, Walton was NOT better a PASSER than Kareem. And was NOWHERE NEAR a prime Chamberlain.

As for the rest of your typical nonsense...when Wilt had equal teammates to Russell's, he STILL outscored, outrebounded, outassisted, outblocked, and outshot him. And while KAJ was not that dominant, it worked essentially the same way. A PEAK KAJ was capable of a 35-17-5- .574 season, on a 63-19 team (and 32-16-4 .577 in 40 mpg on a 66-16 team.) Walton could never have imagined anything close to that kind of a season. He was a good player that blended well with his teammates, but he was never a truly dominant one.
Gosh Laz, I don't agree with any of those.
Walton in his days was something fierce. Did you actually watch the Blazers in those days? Lucas was on fire yeah but Walton was running that show the whole time.
Nobody, not Chamberlain, not Hakeem, not Chief....... nobody ever stopped Kareem. The only guy who outplayed Kareem, over seasons, was Moses Malone.

stanlove is a much better poster than you are giving him credit for, saying he'd rather have White Chocolate than John Stockton man, come on with that.

Wilt was a terrific passer oh gosh yes. But Walton was "NOWHERE NEAR"? That's going too far, my friend.

[Iceman#44]

Gosh Laz, I don't agree with any of those.
Walton in his days was something fierce. Did you actually watch the Blazers in those days? Lucas was on fire yeah but Walton was running that show the whole time.
Nobody, not Chamberlain, not Hakeem, not Chief....... nobody ever stopped Kareem. The only guy who outplayed Kareem, over seasons, was Moses Malone.

stanlove is a much better poster than you are giving him credit for, saying he'd rather have White Chocolate than John Stockton man, come on with that.

Wilt was a terrific passer oh gosh yes. But Walton was "NOWHERE NEAR"? That's going too far, my friend.


Im a Wilt fan, but i agree with La Frescobaldi.

[LAZERUSS]

Gosh Laz, I don't agree with any of those.
Walton in his days was something fierce. Did you actually watch the Blazers in those days? Lucas was on fire yeah but Walton was running that show the whole time.
Nobody, not Chamberlain, not Hakeem, not Chief....... nobody ever stopped Kareem. The only guy who outplayed Kareem, over seasons, was Moses Malone.

stanlove is a much better poster than you are giving him credit for, saying he'd rather have White Chocolate than John Stockton man, come on with that.

Wilt was a terrific passer oh gosh yes. But Walton was "NOWHERE NEAR"? That's going too far, my friend.

And I don't agree with any of your points.

A near prime Chamberlain badly outplayed Kareem. And an old Chamberlain, on one leg, significantly reduced a PEAK Kareem to an inefficient shooter. The real question would have been...how would a PRIME Chamberlain have fared against a PRIME Kareem. Based on the same centers that the two would face in their primes, the answer is pretty obvious.

Walton vs Kareem. 30 ppg on a 60% shooting. In Kareem's 28 career H2H's with Wilt, 27 of which came after Wilt was 34, and on a surgically repaired knee, he had ONE game of over 60% against Wilt. ONE game.

I watched Walton struggle early in his NBA career, and when he was finally given the best supporting cast in the mid-70's, and stayed healthy for one season, he won a title,...in a post-season in which Kareem, with ZERO help, just trashed him.

And in the '77 WCF's, it was LUCAS who was carrying them. He was torching an inept Laker frontline, while Walton was being shelled by Kareem.

Passing? We are talking about EFFICIENT passing here. Walton, passing considerably more than Kareem, had a slightly higher ast% in their primes. Chamberlain was MILES ahead of both. Again, PASSING THAT LEADS TO POINTS. And while Walton was a better outlet passer than Kareem, again, he was no Wilt, whose outlets led the '72 Lakers, an old team that could barely crack 110 ppg in '71, to 121 ppg in '72 (and were light years ahead of the league.)

[G.O.A.T]

Want to compliment the following:

La Frescobaldi
Soundwave
LBJ4MVP
Psileas

for some really good posts in the second half of this thread.

Having so much footage available has really allowed us to see the game as it has evolved. It's much easier to contextualize and understand things like the pre-Russell NBA, the 1962 season, the ABA and everything else pre-David Stern league that led to the game we have today.

I try not to look at as a shame when people don't understand the players of the 40's 50's. 60's and 70's (and now starting to be the 80's too) because we as people are like that with most things. The less information you have the easier it is to stick to an opinion. It's not until you really know a lot about something that you learn how much you don't know. That's why ignorance it's so difficult to flush out. It doesn't know why it's wrong.

[La Frescobaldi]

And I don't agree with any of your points.

A near prime Chamberlain badly outplayed Kareem. And an old Chamberlain, on one leg, significantly reduced a PEAK Kareem to an inefficient shooter. The real question would have been...how would a PRIME Chamberlain have fared against a PRIME Kareem. Based on the same centers that the two would face in their primes, the answer is pretty obvious.

Yes it's true about their first few games, but that didn't happen over seasons. Chamberlain had to move into a role after his knee injury so we'll never know what would have happened.


Walton vs Kareem. 30 ppg on a 60% shooting. In Kareem's 28 career H2H's with Wilt, 27 of which came after Wilt was 34, and on a surgically repaired knee, he had ONE game of over 60% against Wilt. ONE game.

I watched Walton struggle early in his NBA career, and when he was finally given the best supporting cast in the mid-70's, and stayed healthy for one season, he won a title,...in a post-season in which Kareem, with ZERO help, just trashed him.
Like I said, nobody ever stopped Kareem.
Walton knew how to work around that irresistable force called Jabbar. He had lots of film, too. And I'm not certain that he had the best supporting cast of the mid-70s, there's a good argument for the Celtics who were the only team that pulled down 2 rings in the mid-70s but injuries and age caught up with Havlicek in particular.



And in the '77 WCF's, it was LUCAS who was carrying them. He was torching an inept Laker frontline, while Walton was being shelled by Kareem.

Lucas was on fire all right, but it was Walton who was leading that team. Jimmy MacMillian was on fire in the '72 playoffs too (really all season long)... but nobody thinks he was leading the Lakers.



Passing? We are talking about EFFICIENT passing here. Walton, passing considerably more than Kareem, had a slightly higher ast% in their primes. Chamberlain was MILES ahead of both. Again, PASSING THAT LEADS TO POINTS. And while Walton was a better outlet passer than Kareem, again, he was no Wilt, whose outlets led the '72 Lakers, an old team that could barely crack 110 ppg in '71, to 121 ppg in '72 (and were light years ahead of the league.)
Saying that Walton was "NOWHERE NEAR" is what I'm protesting, Laz. Walton is widely regarded as one of the, if not THE, best passing center ever. Sure, you know I believe Chamberlain is one of the 3 G.O.A.T.s with Kareem & Mike.
but dang man that's tipping over into hyperbole!!

[SHAQisGOAT]

Did you actually watch the Blazers in those days?

No he didn't, he's like 16, at most (and it's clear he's not even watching older games nor has a slight clue about basketball)... Dude's just a liar and a flat-out joke, but let him with his "research" :roll:

[Dr.J4ever]

Want to compliment the following:

La Frescobaldi
Soundwave
LBJ4MVP
Psileas

for some really good posts in the second half of this thread.

Having so much footage available has really allowed us to see the game as it has evolved. It's much easier to contextualize and understand things like the pre-Russell NBA, the 1962 season, the ABA and everything else pre-David Stern league that led to the game we have today.

I try not to look at as a shame when people don't understand the players of the 40's 50's. 60's and 70's (and now starting to be the 80's too) because we as people are like that with most things. The less information you have the easier it is to stick to an opinion. It's not until you really know a lot about something that you learn how much you don't know. That's why ignorance it's so difficult to flush out. It doesn't know why it's wrong.

It's not just ignorance that is at play here, but bias as well. Maybe more on bias.

I have a theory. The years where we move from being children to adulthood and at the same time being fans of a particular sport, in this case the NBA, are highly impressionable years. The years when you were a child growing up watching your hero are always going to be the "best era".

Some here grew up watching Wilt or Russel. In my case, it was Julius Erving. Nostalgia plays a huge factor when it comes to our selective memory. We don't remember too much of the faults of our heroes, just his best attributes.

Some here always believe their teams were the "best ever" that played in the "best era", completely ignoring changes and counter changes over the decades. Sometimes you can always tell how old someone is by who that poster "stans" or which era he considers the "best".

Just a thought and an observation.:cheers:

[La Frescobaldi]

No he didn't, he's like 16, at most (and it's clear he's not even watching older games nor has a slight clue about basketball)... Dude's just a liar and a flat-out joke, but let him with his "research" :roll:
No. I have great respect for Laz. Dude has deep knowledge and high research skills. Knows what he's talking about and always brings it.

[La Frescobaldi]

It's not just ignorance that is at play here, but bias as well. Maybe more on bias.

I have a theory. The years where we move from being children to adulthood and at the same time being fans of a particular sport, in this case the NBA, are highly impressionable years. The years when you were a child growing up watching your hero are always going to be the "best era".

Some here grew up watching Wilt or Russel. In my case, it was Julius Erving. Nostalgia plays a huge factor when it comes to our selective memory. We don't remember too much of the faults of our heroes, just his best attributes.

Some here always believe their teams were the "best ever" that played in the "best era", completely ignoring changes and counter changes over the decades. Sometimes you can always tell how old someone is by who that poster "stans" or which era he considers the "best".

Just a thought and an observation.:cheers:
Absolutely. You can't replace the high school memories of jumpin in buddy's car and blazing off to Baltimore or Syracuse to catch a game, girls in the back, Stones or Beatles blaring on the AM radio and the windows steaming over... Those days are the ones that hang on and on in the memory while later days memories do fade more!

[SHAQisGOAT]

No. I have great respect for Laz. Dude has deep knowledge and high research skills. Knows what he's talking about and always brings it.

You must be blind or not reading some of his posts then, but whatever, some people will always get fooled...

[Dr.J4ever]

Absolutely. You can't replace the high school memories of jumpin in buddy's car and blazing off to Baltimore or Syracuse to catch a game, girls in the back, Stones or Beatles blaring on the AM radio and the windows steaming over... Those days are the ones that hang on and on in the memory while later days memories do fade more!
:rockon:

This is why we must guard from those great memories and turning them to something that is false. When we discuss the game we all love today, let us appreciate all eras as inherently unique.

[BoutPractice]

I doubt LAZERUS would spend all this time playing a character. He's not trolling... trolls make outrageous claims with no evidence behind them on purpose, that's not his thing.

[LAZERUSS]

Yes it's true about their first few games, but that didn't happen over seasons. Chamberlain had to move into a role after his knee injury so we'll never know what would have happened.

Like I said, nobody ever stopped Kareem.
Walton knew how to work around that irresistable force called Jabbar. He had lots of film, too. And I'm not certain that he had the best supporting cast of the mid-70s, there's a good argument for the Celtics who were the only team that pulled down 2 rings in the mid-70s but injuries and age caught up with Havlicek in particular.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]
And in the '77 WCF's, it was LUCAS who was carrying them. He was torching an inept Laker frontline, while Walton was being shelled by Kareem.
{/quote}
Lucas was on fire all right, but it was Walton who was leading that team. Jimmy MacMillian was on fire in the '72 playoffs too (really all season long)... but nobody thinks he was leading the Lakers.


Saying that Walton was "NOWHERE NEAR" is what I'm protesting, Laz. Walton is widely regarded as one of the, if not THE, best passing center ever. Sure, you know I believe Chamberlain is one of the 3 G.O.A.T.s with Kareem & Mike.
but dang man that's tipping over into hyperbole!!

The Wilt-KAJ arguments are unfair to Wilt. We simply don't know how a PRIME Chamberlain would have fared against THAT PEAK Kareem. What we do have is that, in their lone H2H before he shredded his knee, he outplayed (to be fair, rookie) Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. We also know that in KAJ's PEAK season, 70-71, that a 34 year old Wilt, only a year removed from major knee surgery, statistically (and in actuality) outplayed Kareem in their ten H2H meetings.

Kareem definitely got the better of Wilt in their five regular season H2Hs in 71-72 (albeit, his best games came in blowout losses, and overall, his Bucks went 1-4 in them.) BUT, in the WCF's, and by virtually every account, Wilt OUTPLAYED Kareem. Time Magazine hailed it as DECISIVELY outplaying Kareem. Why? Because KAJ couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat from games 3-6.

And even in Wilt's LAST post-season, and covering six H2H's, he held Kareem to a .450 FG%. In fact, over the course of their last ten straight H2H games, KAJ shot ... .434 against Wilt.

AND, we do KNOW that a PRIME Chamberlain was FAR more dominant against Reed, Dierking, Imhoff, Bellamy, and Thurmond...the same centers that a PEAK Kareem faced (and all of them past their peaks when Kareem was battling them.)


Walton may not have had the best supporting casts in '77, but they were much better than what Kareem had in the WCF's. Keep in mind during the regular season, and with his regular starters, Kareem's Lakers went 2-0 against Walton's Blazers. However, in the post-season, he didn't have his starting PF, Kermit Washington, and in the first two games of that series, he didn't have his starting PG, Lucius Allen. And the reality was, even Allen was no match for the Blazers backcourt rotation. Between Lucas's domination of KAJ's forwards, and the Blazers complete back court domination, it was simply amazing that Kareem kept them in that series at all.


Now, if you want to argue that Walton did more his roster in '78, than Kareem did with his, fine. The problem was, though, that Walton never made it to the post-season (well, he tried to go in two games...)

And again, I am not claiming that Lucas was a better player than a healthy Walton, but he was CLEARLY their best player in the '77 WCF's.


As far as passing goes...you are horribly under-estimating Wilt's passing ability if you claim that he was not signficantly better than Walton. Chamberlain's '67 season was astonishing, when he put up 24 ppg, 24 rpg, 8 apg and shot .683, BUT, how about his post-season run? He had TWO straight TRIPLE-DOUBLE series, and damn near averaged a triple-double in his entire post-season!

And then he followed that up by leading the league in assists. The REALITY was, a PRIME passing Chamberlain was the ONLY center to ever average more than 5.8 apg in a season, and he blew that number away TWICE.

Walton was an exceptional passer for a big man, but so was Kareem, who was tasked with scoring far more than Walton ever did, as well.

[jongib369]

No he didn't, he's like 16, at most (and it's clear he's not even watching older games nor has a slight clue about basketball)... Dude's just a liar and a flat-out joke, but let him with his "research" :roll:
Even though things have gotten ridiculous and you're tired of dealing with it, when you're calling someone a child it'd probably be best to not form your arguments like one either. Being disrespectful in any sense instead of just sticking with the facts that you have would be enough to get your point across. Would likely make him or anyone for that matter more willing to look at what you say a little more seriously.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/8164d81c5924dd69fa956cf74d877e55/tumblr_n7w0hxfvPb1szikivo1_400.png

[SHAQisGOAT]

I doubt LAZERUS would spend all this time playing a character. He's not trolling... trolls make outrageous claims with no evidence behind them on purpose, that's not his thing.

Not that "type" of trolling though, but dude still says some really outrageous/ignorant claims plenty of times (if you didn't see any, you better check your sight), and he's just blind about them, then tries to "back it up" with very selected and easy to find stats (saying it's research or something). Claims that he's been watching for ever but never talks about the actual games, the circumstances and stuff that can't be easily checked, no knowledge whatsoever about everything that went down, then posts some selected stats, like I've said.
Dude also has countless posts and multiple accounts that only turn up to agree with him on many things, he tries to "hide it" by disagreeing on small shit and posting here and there but it's clear as day... Oh, and on his jlauber account, at 1st, he also even talked shit about Wilt and that era, and so on, as well.
Almost everything with the ultimate goal of propping up/overrating Wilt, who he's strangely in love with, a player whom he never met or seen... While underrating/shitting on many players in the process.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Even though things have gotten ridiculous and you're tired of dealing with it, when you're calling someone a child it'd probably be best to not form your arguments like one either. Being disrespectful in any sense instead of just sticking with the facts that you have would be enough to get your point across. Would likely make him or anyone for that matter more willing to look at what you say a little more seriously.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/8164d81c5924dd69fa956cf74d877e55/tumblr_n7w0hxfvPb1szikivo1_400.png

Dude disrespected plenty of people here before, calls me a pos every chance he got since way back before I've even said anything like that... I can't deal it with any other way, just funny at this point, and it's clear what he is.

[jongib369]

Dude disrespected plenty of people here before, calls me a pos every chance he got since way back before I've even said anything like that... I can't deal it with any other way, just funny at this point, and it's clear what he is.
Think I've called him out for it too TBH in the past. People have their opinions and get overly passionate about them especially when they think they're being disrespected.

[LAZERUSS]

No. I have great respect for Laz. Dude has deep knowledge and high research skills. Knows what he's talking about and always brings it.

And as always, I have the utmost respect for you opinions. You and I grew up in the same era, and we have witnessed every great player since the mid-60's. I generally agree with most everything you post, and we will just have to agree to disagree on the few that we don't see eye-to-eye.

And I agree with you about KAJ, MJ, and Wilt, although I rank Magic's CAREER over Kareem's. But, in terms of PEAK play, those three are 1-2-3.


As for Stanlove1111...he is just another Wilt-basher here (the very few that remain), much like ShaqisGoat and 86_Celtics, both of whom are also Magic bashers. The Magic bashers, like 86_Celtics (aka 87_Lakers) are really fascinating. They will claim that they are Magic "fans", but then go out their way to disparage him at every opportunity.

I have ZERO respect for those clowns, and again, they haven't done a shred of actual RESEARCH in their entire lives. In fact, I suspect that they couldn't tell you the height of the basket, or how many points a basket is worth.

[Hands of Iron]

And as always, I have the utmost respect for you opinions. You and I grew up in the same era, and we have witnessed every great player since the mid-60's. I generally agree with most everything you post, and we will just have to agree to disagree on the few that we don't see eye-to-eye.

And I agree with you about KAJ, MJ, and Wilt, although I rank Magic's CAREER over Kareem's. But, in terms of PEAK play, those three are 1-2-3.


As for Stanlove1111...he is just another Wilt-basher here (the very few that remain), much like ShaqisGoat and 86_Celtics, both of whom are also Magic bashers. The Magic bashers, like 86_Celtics (aka 87_Lakers) are really fascinating. They will claim that they are Magic "fans", but then go out their way to disparage him at every opportunity.

I have ZERO respect for those clowns, and again, they haven't done a shred of actual RESEARCH in their entire lives. In fact, I suspect that they couldn't tell you the height of the basket, or how many points a basket is worth.

I've never seen SHAQisGOAT or 87_Lakers truly shred into Magic in a derogatory or demeaning manner. I'd find that quite surprising given how important he is in the career and story of a mutual favorite we all share. Johnson was literally EXPLODING WITH TALENT (http://youtu.be/v4Dm0lZTqCc)... One of the greatest physical marvels and most skilled players the NBA has ever beared witness to.

[LAZERUSS]

I've never seen SHAQisGOAT or 87_Lakers truly shred into Magic in a derogatory or demeaning manner. I'd find that quite surprising given how important he is in the career and story of a mutual favorite we all share. Johnson was literally EXPLODING WITH TALENT (http://youtu.be/v4Dm0lZTqCc)... One of the greatest physical marvels and most skilled players the NBA has ever beared witness to.

I am not going to waste my time looking their old posts, but they are notorious Magic bashers.

And, as I have said before, I rank Bird's PEAK near the top of any all-time list. And I always have. But, I just don't see his overall CAREER resume as great as other's do here.

BTW, I certainly respect your knowledge of the game, as well, even if we too, disagree.

The reality is, there is probably no two people here who would completely agree on any all-time lists. But there are some that are just being ridiculous. Anyone can just blindly post a list and claim that it is THE list, but very few can back it up with any kind of criteria.

[SHAQisGOAT]

You and I grew up in the same era, and we have witnessed every great player since the mid-60's.

:roll: :roll:

When are you going to stop lying? It's sad at this point, check a doctor or something :facepalm






As for Stanlove1111...he is just another Wilt-basher here (the very few that remain), much like ShaqisGoat and 86_Celtics, both of whom are also Magic bashers. The Magic bashers, like 86_Celtics (aka 87_Lakers) are really fascinating. They will claim that they are Magic "fans", but then go out their way to disparage him at every opportunity.

I have ZERO respect for those clowns, and again, they haven't done a shred of actual RESEARCH in their entire lives. In fact, I suspect that they couldn't tell you the height of the basket, or how many points a basket is worth.

Yea just because people are not majorly biased like you and actually have knowledge... they're bashers/haters :rolleyes: :facepalm

I got Magic in my top5, I always say Wilt had a top5 peak at least, I love both their games... Shit, most likely I've seen more from them than you :oldlol: (at least Magic because not all that much from Wilt out there, too).
Bird's one of my favorite players and I don't even have him on my top3, same for Shaq, and I can see both out of the top5.
Now let me ask you, where do you rank Wilt, Magic, Bird and Kareem, for example? Right there we're gonna see how biased you are, you're gonna see real stanning, real hating, and real ignorance :lol

"RESEARCH" :roll: Ignorant, lying psychotic child talking about research or knowledge :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

:roll: :roll:

When are you going to stop lying? It's sad at this point, check a doctor or something :facepalm





Yea just because people are not majorly biased like you and actual have knowledge... they're bashers/haters :rolleyes: :facepalm

I got Magic in my top5, I always say Wilt had a top5 peak at least, I love both their games... Shit, most likely I've seen more from them than you :oldlol: (at least Magic because not all that much from Wilt out there, too).
Bird's one of my favorite players and I don't even have him on my top3, same for Shaq, and I can see both out of the top5.
Now let me ask you, where do you rank Wilt, Magic, Bird and Kareem, for example? Right there we're gonna see how biased you are, you're gonna see real stanning, real hating, and real ignorance :lol

"RESEARCH" :roll: Ignorant, lying psychotic child talking about research or knowledge :roll:



Pretty easy...

1. Wilt
5. Kareem
10. Bird

Wilt needs no "defense" here. His name is plastered all over the Record Book, BOTH in regular season, and in the post-season. He faced the greatest dynasty in NBA history, eight times, and usually with putrid rosters that played even worse in those series, and lost FOUR times in game SEVEN's, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. Oh, and if you rank Russell highly, Chamberlain just downright outplayed him in the vast majority of their H2H', including EVERY post-season series between the two, AND, was voted First Team All-NBA over him by a 7-2 margin in their ten years in the league together. John Wooden said it best, had Wilt had Russell's rosters, and Auerbach for a coach, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.


Kareem? At his absolute PEAK, from the last half of his rookie season (69-70), thru his entire 70-71 season, and then thru his entire 71-72 season, he was the perhaps the second most dominant player of all-time (Wilt in the mid-60's just BLEW AWAY EVERY peer he faced BTW.) However, my problem with Kareem was that, in his prime, and in a mostly weaker NBA (at least from '75 thru '79), he just didn't dominate the way he should have. I have pointed it out before, but take a look what a PEAK Kareem (circa '70 thru '73) did to his peers. He just murdered Lanier, Cowens, et al. As the decade wore on, the gap was narrowed dramatically. By the mid-70's he was probably not even the best player in the league (McAdoo), and by the late 70's, players like Gilmore and Lanier were battling him to statistical draws, AND, Moses came along and just POUNDED him.

From '80 thru the end of his career, covering 10 seasons, he played on FIVE title teams. What changed? How could a past-his-prime KAJ who could only win ONE ring at his PEAK, and only went to TWO Finals, in his PRIME...suddenly win FIVE rings at past his prime? Well, everyone knows the reason. MAGIC. In KAJ's last dominant season, 79-80, it was MAGIC who turned that team around. And it was MAGIC who completely dominated the clinching game six of the Finals, while KAJ was at home on his couch.

And from '81 on, it was MAGIC's team. KAJ was a major contributor from '81 thru '86, and even won a deserved FMVP in '85 (but he was NOT their best player in that post-season.) But it was MAGIC who led them to a title in '82 (and again won a FMVP.) And when Magic became THE first option on the offensive end after Kareem had a meltdown in the '86 WCF's, he carried them on his back to titles in '87 and '88. Those Laker teams were so dominant that they likely would have won a title withOUT Kareem in '87, and SURELY would have won a title in '88 withOUT him.

When Kareem finally hung it, MAGIC took the Lakers to a 63-19 record, which was their SECOND best record in the Magic-era. And in his last season, he carried an injury-plagued and rapidly declining team to a 58-24 record, and yet another trip to the Finals. When he retired, LA immediately plunged to a 43-39 record, and followed that up with a 39-43 record the very next year, or at about where MAGIC found them in his rookie season.


Next...Bird...

[jongib369]

Just because you say they would do this or not does not make it true..

As I said, I don't disagree that the game has evolved. It absolutely has. Guards would have the hardest time of all. Not disagreeing.

But those Centers wouldn't struggle one bit.

I've been watching the NBA since Chamberlain won his first ring. Nikola Pekovic is my current favorite player. He destroys every one of today's NBA Centers and has one of the, if not the, best skillsets of any center. Brook Lopez also plays at a high level. Those guys are not close.
Wilt Chamberlain would not struggle. I watched him on the playgrounds in Philly & NYC doing Mikan drills by the hour. He worked on his game believe it.

Tyson Chandler & Kendrick Perkins are in no way better defensive bulwarks than Bill Russell would be.

You say you watched the NBA in those days but clearly you did not if you think all Willis Reed could do was shoot.
You've seen him in person?

[STATUTORY]

jlauber is just a typical directionless teenager, looking for something to adhere to. For some reason he found his cause in Wilt's jock

[SHAQisGOAT]

Pretty easy...

1. Wilt
5. Kareem
10. Bird

Wilt needs no "defense" here. His name is plastered all over the Record Book, BOTH in regular season, and in the post-season. He faced the greatest dynasty in NBA history, eight times, and usually with putrid rosters that played even worse in those series, and lost FOUR times in game SEVEN's, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. Oh, and if you rank Russell highly, Chamberlain just downright outplayed him in the vast majority of their H2H', including EVERY post-season series between the two, AND, was voted First Team All-NBA over him by a 7-2 margin in their ten years in the league together. John Wooden said it best, had Wilt had Russell's rosters, and Auerbach for a coach, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.


Kareem? At his absolute PEAK, from the last half of his rookie season (69-70), thru his entire 70-71 season, and then thru his entire 71-72 season, he was the perhaps the second most dominant player of all-time (Wilt in the mid-60's just BLEW AWAY EVERY peer he faced BTW.) However, my problem with Kareem was that, in his prime, and in a mostly weaker NBA (at least from '75 thru '79), he just didn't dominate the way he should have. I have pointed it out before, but take a look what a PEAK Kareem (circa '70 thru '73) did to his peers. He just murdered Lanier, Cowens, et al. As the decade wore on, the gap was narrowed dramatically. By the mid-70's he was probably not even the best player in the league (McAdoo), and by the late 70's, players like Gilmore and Lanier were battling him to statistical draws, AND, Moses came along and just POUNDED him.

From '80 thru the end of his career, covering 10 seasons, he played on FIVE title teams. What changed? How could a past-his-prime KAJ who could only win ONE ring at his PEAK, and only went to TWO Finals, in his PRIME...suddenly win FIVE rings at past his prime? Well, everyone knows the reason. MAGIC. In KAJ's last dominant season, 79-80, it was MAGIC who turned that team around. And it was MAGIC who completely dominated the clinching game six of the Finals, while KAJ was at home on his couch.

And from '81 on, it was MAGIC's team. KAJ was a major contributor from '81 thru '86, and even won a deserved FMVP in '85 (but he was NOT their best player in that post-season.) But it was MAGIC who led them to a title in '82 (and again won a FMVP.) And when Magic became THE first option on the offensive end after Kareem had a meltdown in the '86 WCF's, he carried them on his back to titles in '87 and '88. Those Laker teams were so dominant that they likely would have won a title withOUT Kareem in '87, and SURELY would have won a title in '88 withOUT him.

When Kareem finally hung it, MAGIC took the Lakers to a 63-19 record, which was their SECOND best record in the Magic-era. And in his last season, he carried an injury-plagued and rapidly declining team to a 58-24 record, and yet another trip to the Finals. When he retired, LA immediately plunged to a 43-39 record, and followed that up with a 39-43 record the very next year, or at about where MAGIC found them in his rookie season.


Next...Bird...


:roll: And this dude had the nerve to call me biased, basheful and a hater :roll:

Such a big-ass essay for nothing, filled with fallacies; I'll sum it up... You're strangely in love with Wilt to ridiculous levels, and hate on players like Kareem, Bird and so on...

I actually got Magic on my top5, I can easily "see" someone putting Wilt there and imo he had a top5 peak at least. I don't have Bird or Shaq in my top3 and can see them out of the top5.
l
You got Wilt at #1, Bird at 10th and Kareem at 5th.

Bird, who had a top5 all-time peak, played in the GOAT era/conference, leading/carrying a team that was shitty before him, when he was out and when he left, to 3 titles, won 3 MVPs, so on... you rank him at 10th. Yet Wilt who won 1 less, and only 1 more MVP, while playing in a weaker era, you rank at #1 :rolleyes: :oldlol:

Who's the hater, who's biased, who does the bashing, who's a fool????
:roll:

You're just mad that lots of people hate on Wilt and that era (I'm the other way around and it's easy to see, but whatever...), mostly known as a choker, people going around saying he played in a weak era... While most put Kareem and even Bird, ahead of him... Don't be mad at me though :lol

Oh and I've forgotten more about basketball than you'll ever know, while you just go around portraing yourself as a knowledge adult that has been watching since a long-ass time ago, posting selected, easy to find stats calling it RESEARCH, when you're just a sad, pathetic lying-ass, ignorant child. :facepalm

I'd be totally down for something like people posting pics of random players throughout history while you and I have to name the player... You'd leave embarrassed, son, trust me (oh and your alts can't post :lol)

[SHAQisGOAT]

jlauber is just a typical directionless teenager, looking for something to adhere to. For some reason he found his cause in Wilt's jock

I actually have to agree.

[LAZERUSS]

Bird's PEAK was arguably among the best ever. From '84 thru '86, he won THREE straight MVPs, went to THREE Finals, won TWO rings, and won TWO FMVPs. Very few players in NBA history can make that claim.

And from '84 thru '88 he was a truly great player. He had his greatest statistical season of his career in '87-88, BUT, then put up arguably his worst post-season (at least in his prime.)

And the facts were, Bird has had more excuses than any other great of all-time. I counted TEN post-season series, and in his PRIME, in which he played poorly, and at the very least, shot horribly. TEN. And that was in his PRIME. If you include his last four seasons (when he was an obvious shell) it swells even moreso.

This is NOT my post, but it is a clear illustration of the mutilple failures that Bird had in his entire post-season career...

Colts18:


Just look at Bird's long list of playoff failures while Dirk improves his play in the postseason:

1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

1984- Great playoffs. Averaged 27-14-4 in the Finals and had a .607 TS% in the playoffs. First great playoff of his career. Celtics win the title over the Lakers.

1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

1986- Great year. His best year ever. Wins the title. .615 TS% in the postseason and amazing finals.

1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

1989- Injured doesn't play in the postseason.

1990- Bird shoots .539 TS% and has 3.6 TOV as the Celtics once again you guessed it, lose with HCA.

1991- In the first round, his team needs to go 5 vs. the 41 win Pacers. His PPG drop by 2.3 PPG and his Rebounds and Assists also drop quite a bit. Has a .490 TS% 15.8 PER in the playoffs. Against the Pistons Bird averages 13.4 PPG on .446 TS%. His 56 win team played with you guessed it HCA and loses with it.

1992- Doesn't play in the first round as the Celtics sweep the Pacers. In round 2, his team goes 7 against the Cavs, but Bird plays in 4 games and his team was 1-3 in those games. Averages a pathetic 11.3 PPG and 4.5 Reb which are 8.4 PPG and 5.2 Reb down from his regular season average. He has a .514 TS% and 16.4 PER in the postseason.


So out of 12 years, you get 9 years under .540 TS%, 5 under .520 TS%, and 3 under .500 TS%. From 80-83, he had a 19.9 playoff PER. In that span, Johnny Moore, Franklin Edwards, Gus Williams, and Bob Lanier all had better playoff PER and WS/48. Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span. From 88-92, he had a 18.8 PER which is 25th among players with 10 playoff games played. Players who had better playoff PER's in that span include Fat Lever, Terry Cummings, Roy Tarpley, Cedric Ceballos, and Sarunas Marciulionis. His teammates Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale had better playoff PER's in that span.

With Bird you get a nice 4 year run that had 4 straight finals appearances but outside of that you get a 4 year span of .505 TS% (80-83) and a .525 TS% span (88-92). In 12 years, you get 7 losses with HCA. Basically out of Bird's 13 year career, you have 1 injury season and 3 non-descript postseasons at the end of his plus some playoff disappointments early in his career.

I'm sorry, but these All-Time rankings are based on CAREERS...not a THREE YEAR PEAK.

Now think about this...

What CAREER criteria (and we are dealing with MUTIPLE criteria, like Rings, MVPs, FMVPs, post-season success, regular season accolades, and simple DOMINATION)...would place Bird over these players...

Wilt
MJ
Magic
Russell
KAJ
Shaq
Duncan
Lebron

I mean really. Take Lebron for instance. Believe it or not, he has been MUCH better in his post-seasons. The numbers do not lie. A MUCH better scorer, and considerably more efficient one (he blows Bird away in eFG% and TS%.) His peak post-season scoring is miles ahead of Bird, including the Finals. More MVPs, as many FMVPs, played with much worse rosters for the majority of his career (and was still able to get those rosters to one Final, and had two teams that went 60-22 and 66-16.) His PER is much higher (granted, Bird's was brought down in his last few years), and his playoff PER was much higher.
The ONLY real criteria in which Bird holds an edge, is in RINGS, and that is by a 3-2 margin.

Shaq? Shaq's PEAK was greater, plain-and-simple. He didn't win MVPs in '01 and '02, but he three-peated, and won three FMVPs. His statistical domination at his peak, and in his career, was much higher, too. He also holds a 4-3 margin in rings.

Duncan? Again...CAREER resume. Sorry, but I am not going to spend the time to compare accolades. Duncan's CAREER was considerably better.

Kareem? There is absolutely no CRITERIA that exists, that places Bird above Kareem.

Russell? MVPs, RINGS, and surely FMVPs. True, he played with stacked rosters his entire career, but except for Wilt, and an ankle injury in '58, he would have gone 13-13 in rings.

Magic? Magic was better in the post-season, won more rings, was a better "winner" especially in the post-season, was better H2H, had more FMVPs (and was robbed of one in '88), and overall, his CAREER was better.

MJ? Again, aside from Bird holding a 2-0 playoff record against MJ's TEAMs, there is no other criteria that exists that puts Bird even remotely close to Bird. NONE.

Wilt? Where to begin? The Wilt-bashers always bring up RINGS, but NEVER the fact that Chamberlain single-handedly carried much worse rosters to within an eyelash of beating Russell on multiple occasions. And when he finally had a supporting roster that was the equal of Russell's, he and his team just destroyed the Dynasty. Wilt also outplayed, or downright dominated Russell in both the regular season AND post-season. And held a 7-2 margin in First Team All-NBA selections in their ten years in the league together.

After that, it is ALL Chamberlain. More MVPs (and robbed of TWO in '62 and '64), would have had as many FMVPs, shattered the record book, anchored two teams that went 68-13 and 69-13 and won dominating world titles, was a better post-season player, especially in his PRIME, was more clutch in his overall post-season play, dominated all of his opposing centers in the post-season (arguably '72 against KAJ, although he shut him down in the last four games of that series.) and was far more dominant against his peers in his PRIME. In fact, in his PRIME, he was the most dominant player of all-time.

And then there was also REALITY. Aside from FT shooting, and keep in mind that Wilt MADE 2000 MORE FTs in his career than Bird did in his (in roughly the same amount of games), there was not ONE area in which Bird was better. A PRIME Chamberlain was a MUCH better scorer, both in the regular and post-seasons; a MUCH better rebounder (best ever); MUCH more efficient from the field, and if you factor in league average and FT rules during his time, even in terms of TS%; an equal passer (Wilt passed much less and shot much more early in his career, and at his peak, he was Bird's equal); a MUCH better shot blocker (#1 all-time); and a MUCH better defender, both in terms of individual and team defense.

Wilt was simply, MUCH better.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Bird's PEAK was arguably among the best ever. From '84 thru '86, he won THREE straight MVPs, went to THREE Finals, won TWO rings, and won TWO FMVPs. Very few players in NBA history can make that claim.

And from '84 thru '88 he was a truly great player. He had his greatest statistical season of his career in '87-88, BUT, then put up arguably his worst post-season (at least in his prime.)

And the facts were, Bird has had more excuses than any other great of all-time. I counted TEN post-season series, and in his PRIME, in which he played poorly, and at the very least, shot horribly. TEN. And that was in his PRIME. If you include his last four seasons (when he was an obvious shell) it swells even moreso.

This is NOT my post, but it is a clear illustration of the mutilple failures that Bird had in his entire post-season career...

Colts18:



I'm sorry, but these All-Time rankings are based on CAREERS...not a THREE YEAR PEAK.

Now think about this...

What CAREER criteria (and we are dealing with MUTIPLE criteria, like Rings, MVPs, FMVPs, post-season success, regular season accolades, and simple DOMINATION)...would place Bird over these players...

Wilt
MJ
Magic
Russell
KAJ
Shaq
Duncan
Lebron

I mean really. Take Lebron for instance. Believe it or not, he has been MUCH better in his post-seasons. The numbers do not lie. A MUCH better scorer, and considerably more efficient one (he blows Bird away in eFG% and TS%.) His peak post-season scoring is miles ahead of Bird, including the Finals. More MVPs, as many FMVPs, played with much worse rosters for the majority of his career (and was still able to get those rosters to one Final, and had two teams that went 60-22 and 66-16.) His PER is much higher (granted, Bird's was brought down in his last few years), and his playoff PER was much higher.
The ONLY real criteria in which Bird holds an edge, is in RINGS, and that is by a 3-2 margin.

Shaq? Shaq's PEAK was greater, plain-and-simple. He didn't win MVPs in '01 and '02, but he three-peated, and won three FMVPs. His statistical domination at his peak, and in his career, was much higher, too. He also holds a 4-3 margin in rings.

Duncan? Again...CAREER resume. Sorry, but I am not going to spend the time to compare accolades. Duncan's CAREER was considerably better.

Kareem? There is absolutely no CRITERIA that exists, that places Bird above Kareem.

Russell? MVPs, RINGS, and surely FMVPs. True, he played with stacked rosters his entire career, but except for Wilt, and an ankle injury in '58, he would have gone 13-13 in rings.

Magic? Magic was better in the post-season, won more rings, was a better "winner" especially in the post-season, was better H2H, had more FMVPs (and was robbed of one in '88), and overall, his CAREER was better.

MJ? Again, aside from Bird holding a 2-0 playoff record against MJ's TEAMs, there is no other criteria that exists that puts Bird even remotely close to Bird. NONE.

Wilt? Where to begin? The Wilt-bashers always bring up RINGS, but NEVER the fact that Chamberlain single-handedly carried much worse rosters to within an eyelash of beating Russell on multiple occasions. And when he finally had a supporting roster that was the equal of Russell's, he and his team just destroyed the Dynasty. Wilt also outplayed, or downright dominated Russell in both the regular season AND post-season. And held a 7-2 margin in First Team All-NBA selections in their ten years in the league together.

After that, it is ALL Chamberlain. More MVPs (and robbed of TWO in '62 and '64), would have had as many FMVPs, shattered the record book, anchored two teams that went 68-13 and 69-13 and won dominating world titles, was a better post-season player, especially in his PRIME, was more clutch in his overall post-season play, dominated all of his opposing centers in the post-season (arguably '72 against KAJ, although he shut him down in the last four games of that series.) and was far more dominant against his peers in his PRIME. In fact, in his PRIME, he was the most dominant player of all-time.

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ignorance_is_bliss_matrix.gif

http://www.stuffyouwillhate.com/wp-content/uploads/haters.gif

:lol

Oh and....


And this dude had the nerve to call me biased, basheful and a hater :roll:

Such a big-ass essay for nothing, filled with fallacies; I'll sum it up... You're strangely in love with Wilt to ridiculous levels, and hate on players like Kareem, Bird and so on...

I actually got Magic on my top5, I can easily "see" someone putting Wilt there and imo he had a top5 peak at least. I don't have Bird or Shaq in my top3 and can see them out of the top5.
l
You got Wilt at #1, Bird at 10th and Kareem at 5th.

Bird, who had a top5 all-time peak, played in the GOAT era/conference, leading/carrying a team that was shitty before him, when he was out and when he left, to 3 titles, won 3 MVPs, so on... you rank him at 10th. Yet Wilt who won 1 less, and only 1 more MVP, while playing in a weaker era, you rank at #1 :rolleyes: :oldlol:

Who's the hater, who's biased, who does the bashing, who's a fool????
:roll:

You're just mad that lots of people hate on Wilt and that era (I'm the other way around and it's easy to see, but whatever...), mostly known as a choker, people going around saying he played in a weak era... While most put Kareem and even Bird, ahead of him... Don't be mad at me though :lol

Oh and I've forgotten more about basketball than you'll ever know, while you just go around portraing yourself as a knowledge adult that has been watching since a long-ass time ago, posting selected, easy to find stats calling it RESEARCH, when you're just a sad, pathetic lying-ass, ignorant child. :facepalm

I'd be totally down for something like people posting pics of random players throughout history while you and I have to name the player... You'd leave embarrassed, son, trust me (oh and your alts can't post :lol)

[1987_Lakers]

Again, Walton was NOT better a PASSER than Kareem. And was NOWHERE NEAR a prime Chamberlain.

lmfao, you have to be kidding me.:oldlol:

[1987_Lakers]

And as always, I have the utmost respect for you opinions. You and I grew up in the same era, and we have witnessed every great player since the mid-60's. I generally agree with most everything you post, and we will just have to agree to disagree on the few that we don't see eye-to-eye.

And I agree with you about KAJ, MJ, and Wilt, although I rank Magic's CAREER over Kareem's. But, in terms of PEAK play, those three are 1-2-3.


As for Stanlove1111...he is just another Wilt-basher here (the very few that remain), much like ShaqisGoat and 86_Celtics, both of whom are also Magic bashers. The Magic bashers, like 86_Celtics (aka 87_Lakers) are really fascinating. They will claim that they are Magic "fans", but then go out their way to disparage him at every opportunity.

I have ZERO respect for those clowns, and again, they haven't done a shred of actual RESEARCH in their entire lives. In fact, I suspect that they couldn't tell you the height of the basket, or how many points a basket is worth.

Show me one post where I disrespected Magic.:oldlol:

If anything you should call out your boy 97_bulls for saying Stockton was a better player than Magic.

[La Frescobaldi]

You've seen him in person?
probably 150 times. maybe more

[jongib369]

probably 150 times. maybe more
Oh wow, mind sharing the things you've seen? How old were you at the time?

[La Frescobaldi]

Oh wow, mind sharing the things you've seen? How old were you at the time?
teenager. Saw him, Connie Hawkins and Sonny Hill plenty of times, Earl Monroe, quite a few guys nobody ever heard of like Don Ohl, Dick Snider, some of the Celtics.
Saw Cousy and the Celtics when I was a kid but it was just jerseys running around the court to me. Auerbach and all that.
You gotta understand it was nothing like today. The players would park out in the lot like anybody. It was more like a city league in a way, I mean they were national stars and all, but it was nothing like the media blitz since the 80s.

Chamberlain was just better. There's no other way to describe it. He would come outside after games sometimes and he'd have hot dogs and cokes and the little crowd of kids would all gawk. You'd see him running out to the car with Billy Cunningham and they'd just be laughing their heads off. Those guys were true friends it was just obvious.
And girls? You never saw anything like it, I'm telling you I saw all the rock stars and it was just like that. Surrounded by ladies of every description. Constantly. They would write their phone number on a piece of paper and just give it to him and he would have dozens of these little slips of paper, sorting through them kind of casual like.

don't know if you knew it but Chamberlain drank 7-Up, and it was literally by the gallon. They didn't have the 2 liter bottle in those days but he would just drain 7-Up sodas one after the other. It seems like he would fill up a whole trash can with em.

You gotta understand, tickets were 2 bucks in those days and after half time or 4th quarter lots of times they'd let you in free. Exhibition games everywhere in those days - arenas, college gyms, little gyms in the middle of nowhere. Those guys travelled by bus, you would see the Celtics come off the bus plenty or whoever it was. Walt Frazier was the most styling hippie there ever was as far as I know and we lived right through the whole thing. Dude had a Rolls freaking Royce I mean really? And his clothes well Clyde was a clothes horse for a fact.
Oscar Robertson too, they all came to Philly, you saw all of them. The guy who filled seats like nobody else but Chamberlain was Jerry West. He was Mr. Charisma the whole place would just roar when he ran on the court.

But when you look at it nobody was like Connie Hawkins, he was the king because Chamberlain and all those guys they were NBA but the Hawk was outlawed so there he was making real serious money on the playgrounds. They'd bet on if he could dunk a ball on each side of the basket without coming down, one in each hand. Or he'd say I'm gonna score 20 this quarter and nobody can stop that. Quickness oh man just wow and the most insane moves that nobody had ever even heard of.
Saw Wilt make 20 free throws in a row one time at a playground. Which is insane because he was soo bad in the games it was all in his head. Sometimes you'd sneak into those practices and all. It was like that back then. Times changed in the 70s but then I guess I did too, we all did.

#13 had a drill where he had a guy bounce the ball off the backboard and he'd lay it in. Well the idea was to build his quick leap. So then the guys would throw 2 balls at the backboard, and he'd put both of them in. High, low, off the rim, didn't matter he would get it and just almost always make that shot.
He showed up real early like 10 AM or something, maybe earlier, I think he had some sleep disorder, so lots of people would miss some of that kind of stuff. Of course there were big announcements too that those guys would be showing up some place.
City life, had to debate about is it the concert? or the game. But the Knicks were my favorite team even though everybody was on the Sixer wagon they were so amazing.
Oh yeah lots of old days. I've tried to get my friends to go on insidehoops but they don't go in for that much although they do read it a lot. We used to keep our score cards and the guys kept track of blocked shots and stuffs but mine are all long gone. Sat bleachers when they were beating up on the Celtics in '67, Nate Thurmond in the Finals played a lot better than Russell did in the EDF but there was just no hope of anybody stopping that team. Only injuries did it in '68 and Wilt was even better that season, to me that was his very best ever. Although I didn't see those early years, getting 50 and 100 and crazy numbers.

[DatAsh]

I feel like peak Walton gets really underrated. Not that it isn't close, but I'd take 77 Walton over 77 Kareem, and I'd take 77 Kareem over any other Kareem.

In my opinion the best passing big man ever, one of the best defenders ever, and solid overall scorer.

Someone asked for the Blazer's record/stats with and without Walton over that span:

91-31 with Walton
16-26 w/o Walton

112 ppg with Walton
103 ppg w/o Walton

102 Opp ppg with Walton
107 Opp ppg w/o Walton

[La Frescobaldi]

I feel like peak Walton gets really underrated. Not that it isn't close, but I'd take 77 Walton over 77 Kareem, and I'd take 77 Kareem over any other Kareem.

In my opinion the best passing big man ever, one of the best defenders ever, and solid overall scorer.

Someone asked for the Blazer's record/stats with and without Walton over that span:

91-31 with Walton
16-26 w/o Walton

112 ppg with Walton
103 ppg w/o Walton

102 Opp ppg with Walton
107 Opp ppg w/o Walton
It was just crazy how great Big Bill was at that point. Everything coalesced at long last and he showed what he could really do. It was as high a level as I ever saw.
Walton and Gale Sayers are the two guys you can truly say, it didn't matter about their injuries. There isn't any "What if..." with those 2 guys.
They are among the all-time greats.

[stanlove1111]

As for Stanlove1111...he is just another Wilt-basher here (the very few that remain), .

I have ZERO respect for those clowns, and again, they haven't done a shred of actual RESEARCH in their entire lives. In fact, I suspect that they couldn't tell you the height of the basket, or how many points a basket is worth.


So I am a Wilt basher? That's why I rank him somewhere between 3-6 on the all time great list and he did happen to be my favorite player..Just don't believe he is flawless like some on this board..I guess to some Wilt is the greatest ever by a mile or you are a Wilt hater..

Actual research.. Translation..I know more about basketball then just stats..

The ones who deserve no respect are the guys who think stats tell the whole story in basketball..Very clownish..

[STATUTORY]

teenager. Saw him, Connie Hawkins and Sonny Hill plenty of times, Earl Monroe, quite a few guys nobody ever heard of like Don Ohl, Dick Snider, some of the Celtics.
Saw Cousy and the Celtics when I was a kid but it was just jerseys running around the court to me. Auerbach and all that.
You gotta understand it was nothing like today. The players would park out in the lot like anybody. It was more like a city league in a way, I mean they were national stars and all, but it was nothing like the media blitz since the 80s.

Chamberlain was just better. There's no other way to describe it. He would come outside after games sometimes and he'd have hot dogs and cokes and the little crowd of kids would all gawk. You'd see him running out to the car with Billy Cunningham and they'd just be laughing their heads off. Those guys were true friends it was just obvious.
And girls? You never saw anything like it, I'm telling you I saw all the rock stars and it was just like that. Surrounded by ladies of every description. Constantly. They would write their phone number on a piece of paper and just give it to him and he would have dozens of these little slips of paper, sorting through them kind of casual like.

don't know if you knew it but Chamberlain drank 7-Up, and it was literally by the gallon. They didn't have the 2 liter bottle in those days but he would just drain 7-Up sodas one after the other. It seems like he would fill up a whole trash can with em.

You gotta understand, tickets were 2 bucks in those days and after half time or 4th quarter lots of times they'd let you in free. Exhibition games everywhere in those days - arenas, college gyms, little gyms in the middle of nowhere. Those guys travelled by bus, you would see the Celtics come off the bus plenty or whoever it was. Walt Frazier was the most styling hippie there ever was as far as I know and we lived right through the whole thing. Dude had a Rolls freaking Royce I mean really? And his clothes well Clyde was a clothes horse for a fact.
Oscar Robertson too, they all came to Philly, you saw all of them. The guy who filled seats like nobody else but Chamberlain was Jerry West. He was Mr. Charisma the whole place would just roar when he ran on the court.

But when you look at it nobody was like Connie Hawkins, he was the king because Chamberlain and all those guys they were NBA but the Hawk was outlawed so there he was making real serious money on the playgrounds. They'd bet on if he could dunk a ball on each side of the basket without coming down, one in each hand. Or he'd say I'm gonna score 20 this quarter and nobody can stop that. Quickness oh man just wow and the most insane moves that nobody had ever even heard of.
Saw Wilt make 20 free throws in a row one time at a playground. Which is insane because he was soo bad in the games it was all in his head. Sometimes you'd sneak into those practices and all. It was like that back then. Times changed in the 70s but then I guess I did too, we all did.

#13 had a drill where he had a guy bounce the ball off the backboard and he'd lay it in. Well the idea was to build his quick leap. So then the guys would throw 2 balls at the backboard, and he'd put both of them in. High, low, off the rim, didn't matter he would get it and just almost always make that shot.
He showed up real early like 10 AM or something, maybe earlier, I think he had some sleep disorder, so lots of people would miss some of that kind of stuff. Of course there were big announcements too that those guys would be showing up some place.
City life, had to debate about is it the concert? or the game. But the Knicks were my favorite team even though everybody was on the Sixer wagon they were so amazing.
Oh yeah lots of old days. I've tried to get my friends to go on insidehoops but they don't go in for that much although they do read it a lot. We used to keep our score cards and the guys kept track of blocked shots and stuffs but mine are all long gone. Sat bleachers when they were beating up on the Celtics in '67, Nate Thurmond in the Finals played a lot better than Russell did in the EDF but there was just no hope of anybody stopping that team. Only injuries did it in '68 and Wilt was even better that season, to me that was his very best ever. Although I didn't see those early years, getting 50 and 100 and crazy numbers.


:applause: :applause: now this is something I can appreciate, actual knowledge and account of the past instead of a wannabe reciting stats

[SHAQisGOAT]

:applause: :applause: now this is something I can appreciate, actual knowledge and account of the past instead of a wannabe reciting stats

Gonna have to agree again, well said.

[LA Lakers]

Bill Walton was the greatest college player of all time and if his body didnt break down, the argument for greatest center of all time wouldn't be a 2 man race between Kareem and Wilt. You can throw in Shaq, but it's really Kareem and Wilt.

[LAZERUSS]

I feel like peak Walton gets really underrated. Not that it isn't close, but I'd take 77 Walton over 77 Kareem, and I'd take 77 Kareem over any other Kareem.

In my opinion the best passing big man ever, one of the best defenders ever, and solid overall scorer.

Someone asked for the Blazer's record/stats with and without Walton over that span:

91-31 with Walton
16-26 w/o Walton

112 ppg with Walton
103 ppg w/o Walton

102 Opp ppg with Walton
107 Opp ppg w/o Walton

Kareem's Bucks at his PEAK, from '70-71 thru '71-72 and in his 163 starts:

129-35
116.5 ppg
105 ppg Opp.
.503 Team FG%
.422 Opp FG%

Kareem's averages: 33.2 ppg, 16.3 rpg, 3.9 apg, .575 FG% (in leagues that shot .453 combined in those two seasons), .604 TS%.


Now, back to the '76-77 WCF's.

Kareem's Lakers were missing their starting PF, Kermit Washington, who had averaged 9.7 ppg, 9.3 rpg, and shot .503 before being injured mid-way thru the season, and missed the entire series, and his replacement, according to Kareem, Don Ford, was outrebounded by Maurice Lucas in that series, 50-12.

LA was also missing their starting PG, Lucius Allen, in the first two games (and when the series was effectively over), and he was playing hurt in the last two games. How important was Allen? The LA back court was just overwhelmed by the Blazers guard rotation in that series, and struggled to even get the ball past half-court the entire series.

BTW, and while I don't put a lot of relevance into regular season games, the Lakers with both Washington and Allen, went 2-0 against the Blazers.

How dominant was KAJ against Walton?

Their stats in the 76-77 WCF's:

KAJ: 30.3 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.8 bpg, .608 FG%, .660 TS%
Walton: 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, .507 FG%, .570 TS%

And again, KAJ's assists were mis-leading. His open teammates repeatedly bricked their shots.


Here is footage of Game 2. Granted, it is almost all KAJ highlights, but to be perfectly honest, it just as one-sided as the footage clearly illustrates. And watch the footage at about the 4 minute mark. In a span of about ten seconds, and with KAJ on the bench and LA leading by 7 points, the Blazer guards demolish the LA guards, and score six straight points on steals against the hapless Laker back court. As for Walton-KAJ in that game...Kareem shells Walton on every one-on-one sequence (the few in which Walton was defending him by himself), and in fact, the Blazers repeatedly doubled, tripled, and even swarmed the unstoppable Kareem.

In that game, Kareem outscored Walton, 40-14, outshot Walton from the field, 17-23 to 7-13; shot 6-9 from the line (Walton didn't attempt a FT), battled Walton to a tie on the glass, 17-17; Walton had a 2-1 assist edge, and a 4-3 block edge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMKlx7Was&playnext=1&videos=YqP06ya0k4w

Again, with the Lakers missing their starting PF, and Maurice Lucas dominating the Laker front-court, and with the Blazers guard rotation thoroughly embarrassing the Lakers back court, it was truly a testament to Kareem's overwhelming dominance of Walton in the entire series, that LA was in three of the games in the waning seconds. Hell, in this game two, and with Kareem getting zero help, his TEAM lost the game by a 99-97 margin.

Swap rosters, and it would have been Walton on the receiving end of a sweep, and probably by huge margins.


And again, over the course of their entire career H2H's, Kareem just stomped Walton.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=abdulka01&p2=waltobi01

And those numbers don't reflect Kareem's massive FG%'s either. He routinely put up games of 60% shooting against Walton.

[LAZERUSS]

Bill Walton was the greatest college player of all time and if his body didnt break down, the argument for greatest center of all time wouldn't be a 2 man race between Kareem and Wilt. You can throw in Shaq, but it's really Kareem and Wilt.

I have Walton at #2 in college careers, behind, of course, Alcindor (KAJ.)

Walton's teams went 86-4, won two titles, and he won two tourney MVPs.

Kareem was statistically, considerably greater than Walton, and his team's went 88-2 (losing those two games by margins of 71-69 and 46-44.) He won three titles, and three FMVPs.

I would say that Walton's 71-72 team was the greatest college team of all-time, going 30-0 and with a ppg differential of 94.6 to 64.3, or +30.3 (which is the all-time record.) And Walton's championship game in '73 was the greatest single game ever, by anyone. 44 points, on 21-22 shooting, with 13 rebounds.

Kareem's '67 Bruins went 30-0 and had something like a 26 ppg differential, but I would argue that his '68 team, which went 29-1 with again, a 26 ppg differential, was greater than his '67 team. That one loss came against Elvin Hayes' Houston Cougars in the famous astrodome game, 71-69 and in that game Alcindor played partialy blind. The two teams would meet again in the NCAA semi's, and the Bruins just annihilated the Cougars, 101-69 (and the game was nowhere near that close...UCLA led by 44 points mid-way thru the second half.) And Kareem also had a great game in his Final game at UCLA, when he put up a Finals game of 37 points, on 15-20 shooting, with 20 rebounds.

And BOTH Walton and Alcindor would probably have won one more title each, had freshmen been allowed to play at the time (most assuredly Walton would have.)

[stanlove1111]

I either listened to, or watched all four games of the '77 Game 2: Kareem ANNIHILATED a HELPLESS Walton. Only a complete idiot would claim other wise. KAJ hung a 40-17 17-23, 6-9 game on as all Walton could do was watch him score. Walton shot 7-13 to get his 14 points.


Being outscored 40-14 is all anyone needs to know.


Continued...
So being outscored 40-14 is all one needs to know..Thats weird because in the 5 meetings between Jabbar and Wilt in the 71-72 regular season, Jabbar outscored him 40 points a game to 14 points a game..


I bet getting outscored 40-14 isn't all you need to know anymore..

[LAZERUSS]

So being outscored 40-14 is all one needs to know..Thats weird because in the 5 meetings between Jabbar and Wilt in the 71-72 regular season, Jabbar outscored him 40 points a game to 14 points a game..


I bet getting outscored 40-14 isn't all you need to know anymore..

Yes, KAJ easily outplayed Wilt in that ONE regular season, coverling 5 H2H games. No doubt. BUT, this was a 35 year old Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee. And, it was on a .500 FG% in those five games. That FG% would have been a BAD one for KAJ in his career H2H's with Walton.

Wilt and KAJ would also meet in the '72 WCF's, and while KAJ outscored Wilt, 33-11 ppg in THAT six game series, he shot .457 overall...AND, only .414 in the last FOUR straight games (three of them Laker wins.)

In their four seasons together, here are the breakdowns.

'69-70 regular season. 1 game, and a near-prime Chamberlain dominated a near-prime KAJ in every facet of the game.

70-71 regular season, covering five games. Close, but Wilt, only a year removed from majoer knee surgery, outplayed a PEAK Kareem overall.

70-71 WCF's, covering five games. Again, close, but in the five games, Wilt was consensus winner (probably 3-1-1.)

71-72 regular season covering five games. A PEAK KAJ easily outplayed Wilt (who seemed to be content with a 4-1 w-l record.)

71-72 WCF's, covering six games. EVERYONE who watched that series gives Wilt the edge in that series. Time Magazine hailed it as a DECISIVE "win" for Wilt.

72-73 regular season covering six H2H's. KAJ outscored Wilt, per game, 29-11 ppg, but Wilt outshot Kareem, .737 to .450. In fact, in one game, Chamberlain outscored KAJ, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-14 to 10-27.

In their last TEN straight games, Wilt held a PEAK Kareem to a collective .434 FG%.

Now, when KAJ was SHELLING Walton (and it was OFTEN), he was routinely shooting over 60%. In the '77 WCF's, KAJ averaged 30 ppg on a .603 FG%. In Kareem's 28 H2H's with Wilt, he had exactly ONE GAME in which he shot over 60%.

A PRIME KAJ >>>>>>>>> A PRIME Walton.

The REAL question would be...how would a PRIME Wilt have fared against a PRIME Kareem. Given their career H2H's against the SAME centers when both were in their PRIMES (Reed, Bellamy, Imhoff, Dierking, and Thurmond)...the answer would seem to be WILT, who dominated those same guys (most of whom were on the decline when they faced a PEAK Kareem) FAR greater than Kareem did.

[kshutts1]

I don't have time to read this thread, just gotta say real quick...

If you time-traveled players from then to today? They'd get destroyed. Except for maybe some bigs. Their game has not changed much.

But I dunno about anyone else that defends older players, but when I do it I do it assuming they would have the same advantages. Like, you know, growing up with a certain style of play.

I have to believe that if Russell, Wilt, West, Cousy, Maravich, etc were good enough to dominate their own times, that they could adapt and dominate current.

Same goes for players of today. AI is a legend, but he would not make it back then. Nor would Curry, current Ray Allen, basically any player that relies on a 3p shot and a lot of space, or in AI's case, clear ball-handling advantages.

Each era would have to adapt to the one they are thrust in to, but the greats would adapt, and would still be great.

[LAZERUSS]

So being outscored 40-14 is all one needs to know..Thats weird because in the 5 meetings between Jabbar and Wilt in the 71-72 regular season, Jabbar outscored him 40 points a game to 14 points a game..


I bet getting outscored 40-14 isn't all you need to know anymore..

I notice you didn't respond to this post...


Kareem's Bucks at his PEAK, from '70-71 thru '71-72 and in his 163 starts:

129-35
116.5 ppg
105 ppg Opp.
.503 Team FG%
.422 Opp FG%

Kareem's averages: 33.2 ppg, 16.3 rpg, 3.9 apg, .575 FG% (in leagues that shot .453 combined in those two seasons), .604 TS%.


Now, back to the '76-77 WCF's.

Kareem's Lakers were missing their starting PF, Kermit Washington, who had averaged 9.7 ppg, 9.3 rpg, and shot .503 before being injured mid-way thru the season, and missed the entire series, and his replacement, according to Kareem, Don Ford, was outrebounded by Maurice Lucas in that series, 50-12.

LA was also missing their starting PG, Lucius Allen, in the first two games (and when the series was effectively over), and he was playing hurt in the last two games. How important was Allen? The LA back court was just overwhelmed by the Blazers guard rotation in that series, and struggled to even get the ball past half-court the entire series.

BTW, and while I don't put a lot of relevance into regular season games, the Lakers with both Washington and Allen, went 2-0 against the Blazers.

How dominant was KAJ against Walton?

Their stats in the 76-77 WCF's:

KAJ: 30.3 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.8 bpg, .608 FG%, .660 TS%
Walton: 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, .507 FG%, .570 TS%

And again, KAJ's assists were mis-leading. His open teammates repeatedly bricked their shots.


Here is footage of Game 2. Granted, it is almost all KAJ highlights, but to be perfectly honest, it just as one-sided as the footage clearly illustrates. And watch the footage at about the 4 minute mark. In a span of about ten seconds, and with KAJ on the bench and LA leading by 7 points, the Blazer guards demolish the LA guards, and score six straight points on steals against the hapless Laker back court. As for Walton-KAJ in that game...Kareem shells Walton on every one-on-one sequence (the few in which Walton was defending him by himself), and in fact, the Blazers repeatedly doubled, tripled, and even swarmed the unstoppable Kareem.

In that game, Kareem outscored Walton, 40-14, outshot Walton from the field, 17-23 to 7-13; shot 6-9 from the line (Walton didn't attempt a FT), battled Walton to a tie on the glass, 17-17; Walton had a 2-1 assist edge, and a 4-3 block edge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMK...os=YqP06ya0k4w

Again, with the Lakers missing their starting PF, and Maurice Lucas dominating the Laker front-court, and with the Blazers guard rotation thoroughly embarrassing the Lakers back court, it was truly a testament to Kareem's overwhelming dominance of Walton in the entire series, that LA was in three of the games in the waning seconds. Hell, in this game two, and with Kareem getting zero help, his TEAM lost the game by a 99-97 margin.

Swap rosters, and it would have been Walton on the receiving end of a sweep, and probably by huge margins.


And again, over the course of their entire career H2H's, Kareem just stomped Walton.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=waltobi01

And those numbers don't reflect Kareem's massive FG%'s either. He routinely put up games of 60% shooting against Walton.


And in their first seven H2H's, covering their lone H2H in the 74-75 season, and their six H2H's in the 75-76 season, KAJ averaged 35.6 ppg on a .565 FG% against Walton (16.9 ppg.) Included were games of 35, 39, 48, and 50.

Walton would face Kareem in 15 games (including the '77 playoffs) before sustaining his injuries near the end of the 77-78 season (basically Walton's very small prime)...and KAJ averaged 30.7 ppg on a .547 FG%. I don't have much of Walton's FG%'s, but he averaged 17.5 ppg in that same span of 15 games.

BTW, in those 15 games against a healthy Walton, KAJ had SIX games of 60% shooting. In his 28 career H2H's against Wilt (27 of them against a 34-36 year old Wilt playing on a surgically repaired knee), KAJ had ONE game of 60%+, a total of 10 of 50%+, 18 below 50%, and SIX below 40%. And a PRIME Kareem, against a PRIME Walton, in the biggest H2H's of their careers, in the '77 WCF's... 30.3 ppg on a .608 FG%!

Kareem in '77 got a taste of what Wilt endured for the first half of the decade of the 60's. He was by-far-and-away the best player on the floor, but his team's were simply overwhelmed in talent. Swap rosters, and much like Wilt in the '60's and against Russell's Celtics, it would have been KAJ winning a ring in '77.

Just watch the damned footage!

Again, what would a PRIME Chamberlain have done against this PEAK Kareem?

[Stringer Bell]

Kareem > Wilt

Accept it.

[G.O.A.T]

Kareem > Wilt

Accept it.

Tend to agree now, but understand there is just as strong an argument the other way

[La Frescobaldi]

Kareem > Wilt

Accept it.

Kareem > Wilt

Wilt > Jordan

Jordan > Kareem

Wilt > Kareem

Jordan > Wilt

Kareem > Jordan

round it goes and I never have figured it out. They are the three that stand above everyone else, nobody better. Nor close, really, except for Larry Bird is somewhere just outside.

They are in their own little circle and that circle is still closed as far as I have ever seen.