Could a Walt Bellamy (4th best center of the 1960's) be the best center today?

[CavaliersFTW]

Here's film of him early in his career and against Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH8tpl04EDI

Yay or nay?

Really surprised me how complete his offensive game was he does a little bit of everything. I presume his competition for the top spot of the center position today would be guys like old Tim Duncan, DeMarcus Cousins, Marc Gasol, Dwight Howard, etc

[GIF REACTION]

No because Demarcus Cousins would be

Don't dare put those other players in the same sentence as Cousins

He is a top 10 player

[sundizz]

I watch that video and all it makes me think is how dominant Pau Gasol and Marc would be in that era stat wise. They'd prolly just call off the league cuz it'd be too unfair.

Walt Bellamy is no better than Jason Thompson. And yes I watched the whole video.

[CavaliersFTW]

I watch that video and all it makes me think is how dominant Pau Gasol and Marc would be in that era stat wise. They'd prolly just call off the league cuz it'd be too unfair.

Walt Bellamy is no better than Jason Thompson. And yes I watched the whole video.
Pau could honestly get 100 points scored on him if he's not careful. Could put up slightly better numbers than Mel Counts.

Marc would be like a Tom Boerwinkle best passing bigman not named Wilt Chamberlain, Wes Unseld or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

[dankok8]

Love the video!

Bellamy is very strong inside on both ends, very physical, has good hands, and has serious shooting range. 6'11'' barefoot 250 lbs and pretty athletic as well so he definitely has the body of a good NBA center as well. No reason to think he wouldn't be the best C in the league today when he put up some huge numbers against Wilt and Russell.

[senelcoolidge]

Love the video!

Bellamy is very strong inside on both ends, very physical, has good hands, and has serious shooting range. 6'11'' barefoot 250 lbs and pretty athletic as well so he definitely has the body of a good NBA center as well. No reason to think he wouldn't be the best C in the league today when he put up some huge numbers against Wilt and Russell.

Pretty much this. He was a legit 6'11, I guess he would be 7'0" by today's measurements:rolleyes: . He was strong and was a good athlete. Players stayed in school 3-4 years so they when they came into the league they had a good foundation of fundamentals. It was a big man's league. Facing the apex of big men competition on a nightly basis. He held his own against Wilt, Bill Russell, Thurmond, Kareem, and company. I believe he would be the best center in the league today. You have some incredible athletes playing center today, but the likes of DeAndre Jordan, Dwight Howard, Cousins, etc these guys have big holes in their games whether it's on offense or defense.

[CavaliersFTW]

Pretty much this. He was a legit 6'11, I guess he would be 7'0" by today's measurements:rolleyes: . He was strong and was a good athlete. Players stayed in school 3-4 years so they when they came into the league they had a good foundation of fundamentals. It was a big man's league. Facing the apex of big men competition on a nightly basis. He held his own against Wilt, Bill Russell, Thurmond, Kareem, and company. I believe he would be the best center in the league today. You have some incredible athletes playing center today, but the likes of DeAndre Jordan, Dwight Howard, Cousins, etc these guys have big holes in their games whether it's on offense or defense.
Walt Bellamy played against:

* Wilt Chamberlain 100 times
* Bill Russell 75 times
* Nate Thurmond 62 times
* Willis Reed 39 times
* Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 24 times

To name just a few of his HOF matchups. That kind of frequency against dominant centers is unheard of today. Bellamy had to be a master of his craft by virtue of being against those guys all the time.

[ClipperRevival]

Walt Bellamy played against:

* Wilt Chamberlain 100 times
* Bill Russell 75 times
* Nate Thurmond 62 times
* Willis Reed 39 times
* Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 24 times

To name just a few of his HOF matchups. That kind of frequency against dominant centers is unheard of today. Bellamy had to be a master of his craft by virtue of being against those guys all the time.

Do you happen to have their h2h numbers?

[jongib369]

I'm not going to pretend like I know for certain....But from what I can tell all the tools are there. He was incredible, his game was reminiscent of Ewings....Though I don't agree with the primitive comment I mentioned.

His dunks where nasty, especially that one on Wilt. Can only imagine how Wilt would of gone back at him had this been footage of them going at it both young.


Looks like you have enough to make a

"Golden era of big men" mix

[LAZERUSS]

Pretty much this. He was a legit 6'11, I guess he would be 7'0" by today's measurements:rolleyes: . He was strong and was a good athlete. Players stayed in school 3-4 years so they when they came into the league they had a good foundation of fundamentals. It was a big man's league. Facing the apex of big men competition on a nightly basis. He held his own against Wilt, Bill Russell, Thurmond, Kareem, and company. I believe he would be the best center in the league today. You have some incredible athletes playing center today, but the likes of DeAndre Jordan, Dwight Howard, Cousins, etc these guys have big holes in their games whether it's on offense or defense.

It appears that Bellamy may have been a seven-footer...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/sports/basketball/15TALL.html


Some players prefer to be smaller than they actually are. Blake said Walt Bellamy, a Hall of Famer, asked to be listed at 6-11 even though he was 7 feet tall.

"I know he was 7 feet, but Walt thought it made him look extraordinarily tall," Blake said.

[dankok8]

Walt Bellamy's H2H's against other great centers have a lot of FG% data missing for the regular season but we can get an idea for their numbers. For the playoffs we have full numbers.

Wilt vs. Bellamy H2H

Regular Season (90 games)

Wilt: 31.2 ppg, 22.5 rpg (89 games) 4.7 apg (71 games) on 55.3 %FG (77 games)
Bellamy: 24.2 ppg, 16.7 rpg (80 games), 3.4 apg (62 games) on 43.7 %FG (35 games)

Playoffs (10 games)

Wilt: 22.2 ppg, 23.3 rpg, 5.5 apg on 52.3 %FG
Bellamy: 20.0 ppg, 15.9 rpg, 3.0 apg on 43.4 %FG

Russell vs. Bellamy H2H

Regular Season (71 games)

Russell: 14.6 ppg, 20.2 rpg (69 games), 5.0 apg (44 games) on 48.7 %FG (40 games)
Bellamy: 24.4 ppg, 17.6 rpg (53 games), 2.0 apg (29 games) on 46.8 %FG (31 games)

Playoffs (4 games)

Russell: 9.5 ppg, 20.3 rpg, 5.0 apg on 36.4 %FG
Bellamy: 18.3 ppg, 16.5 rpg, 3.0 apg on 51.9 %FG

Not that it is not a surprise that Bellamy has higher career numbers against Russell compared to Wilt. Bells played a lot more games out of his prime against Wilt from 1970-1973 after Russell retired.

I don't have his H2H's against Thurmond complied but I'll post that as well. Stay tuned!

[bizil]

Bellamy could be as high as #2. Some may argue Marc Gasol or Howard. I think Boogie is the best center in the world right now. But besides that, Bellamy could be as high as #2.

[LAZERUSS]

Walt Bellamy's H2H's against other great centers have a lot of FG% data missing for the regular season but we can get an idea for their numbers. For the playoffs we have full numbers.

Wilt vs. Bellamy H2H

Regular Season (90 games)

Wilt: 31.2 ppg, 22.5 rpg (89 games) 4.7 apg (71 games) on 55.3 %FG (77 games)
Bellamy: 24.2 ppg, 16.7 rpg (80 games), 3.4 apg (62 games) on 43.7 %FG (35 games)

Playoffs (10 games)

Wilt: 22.2 ppg, 23.3 rpg, 5.5 apg on 52.3 %FG
Bellamy: 20.0 ppg, 15.9 rpg, 3.0 apg on 43.4 %FG

Russell vs. Bellamy H2H

Regular Season (71 games)

Russell: 14.6 ppg, 20.2 rpg (69 games), 5.0 apg (44 games) on 48.7 %FG (40 games)
Bellamy: 24.4 ppg, 17.6 rpg (53 games), 2.0 apg (29 games) on 46.8 %FG (31 games)

Playoffs (4 games)

Russell: 9.5 ppg, 20.3 rpg, 5.0 apg on 36.4 %FG
Bellamy: 18.3 ppg, 16.5 rpg, 3.0 apg on 51.9 %FG

Not that it is not a surprise that Bellamy has higher career numbers against Russell compared to Wilt. Bells played a lot more games out of his prime against Wilt from 1970-1973 after Russell retired.

I don't have his H2H's against Thurmond complied but I'll post that as well. Stay tuned!

Wilt' scoring dropped dramatically in that period, as well.

I have posted their seasonal H2H's, and Chamberlain just DESTROYED Bellamy almost every season. Even in their '66-67 H2H's, when Bellamy FINALLY had a seasonal edge in scoring (and it was just barely), Wilt outshot him from the floor by a .709 to .449 margin.

Prior to that season, Wilt's career scoring margin over Bellamy was likely 10-15 ppg. As an example, Bellamy averaged 34.7 ppg against Chamberlain in their 10 H2H's in the '61-62 season...and Wilt outscored him by a full 18 ppg (52.7 ppg!).

And I haven't taken the time to double-check nbastats.net since I did my topic on a prime Wilt's domination of his peers, but in his 62-63 season, he outscored Bellamy, per game, in their 10 H2H's, by a 42.8 ppg to 29.7 ppg margin, and in the known nine games Wilt shot .542 against Bellamy.

Oh, and a prime Chamberlain met Bellamy in the '68 EC playoffs, and outscored him, per game, 25.5 ppg to 20.0 ppg; outrebounded him, per game, 24.2 rpg to 16.0 rpg,; outassisted him, 6.7 apg to 3.5 apg; and outshot him from the floor by a .584 to .421 margin (BTW, Bellamy shot .541 against the NBA in the regular season.)

[FKAri]

He'd be the best center in the Pakistani League

[senelcoolidge]

Bellamy could be as high as #2. Some may argue Marc Gasol or Howard. I think Boogie is the best center in the world right now. But besides that, Bellamy could be as high as #2.

Bellamy was more efficient in an era that had a faster pace. Cousins is not efficient in today's era. Bellamy had range and a supreme post game compared to anything in the league today minus Duncan perhaps. He could defend which Cousins can't. Bellamy had the talent to lead the league in rebounding or at least be top 3. He was more athletic than Cousins. He could run the floor and finish. Sorry I can't see Cousins being better than Hall of Famer Bellamy.

[LAZERUSS]

A peak Chamberlain in his '64-65 season...(and again, I haven't updated my topic with nbastats.net's more recent finds...)


64-65.

Overall, here were the HOF centers numbers against the league:

Bellamy: 24.8 ppg, 14.6 rpg, and .509 FG%.
Russell: 14.1 ppg, 24.1 rpg (led league), 4.7 apg, and .438 FG%.
Reed: 19.5 ppg, 14.7 rpg, and a .432 FG%.

Nate (full season): 16.5 ppg, 18.1 rpg, .419 FG%.
Nate (as a starter- 40 games): 20.9 ppg 24.9 rpg (known 17 games), no known FG% games.

Wilt (with SF...38 games): 38.9 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 3.1 apg, .499 FG%.
Wilt (with Phil... 35 games): 30.1 ppg, 22.3 rpg, 3.8 apg, .528 FG%.
Wilt (full season ...73 games): 34.7 ppg, 22.9 prg, 3.4 apg, .510 FG%.

BTW, the NBA averaged 110.6 ppg on an eFG% of .426. And in the post-season, it averaged 113.7 ppg on an eFG% of .429.


Reed's stats vs the other HOF centers:

Thurmond in 3 H2H's: 9.7 ppg, no known rpg, and no known FG%s.
Russell in 9 H2H's: 19.7 ppg, 18.6 rpg, no known FG%'s.
Bellamy in 10 H2H's: 21.2 ppg, 17.0 rpg (3 known games) and no known FG%.
Wilt in 12 H2H's: 22.9 ppg, 17.0 rpg (2 known H2H's), .333 FG% (1 known game.).

Reed had games of 38 and 35 points against Wilt. His high game against Russell was 25 points. His high game against Nate was only 15 points. And his high game against Bellamy was 31.



Bellamy's stats vs. the other HOF centers:

Thurmond in 5 H2H's: 17.4 ppg, 13.0 rpg (3 known games), no known FG%'s.
Reed in 10 H2H's: 22.6 ppg, 14.0 rpg (only 1 known game), no known FG%'s.
Russell in 9 H2H's: 25.8 ppg, 15.8 rpg (5 known games), no known FG%'s.
Wilt in 9 H2H's: 26.3 ppg, 14.1 rpg (7 known games), no known FG%'s.

Bellamy's high scoring game against Russell was 45 points. He also had two other 32 point games against him. He had games of 30 and 31 points against Reed. He had a 30 point game against Nate (his next highest was 20.) And his high games against Wilt were 37, 33, 32, and 31 points.



Thurmond's stats against the other HOF centers:

Reed in 3 H2H's: 20.0 ppg, 30.0 rpg (1 known game), no known FG%'s.
Bellamy in 5 H2H's: 22.0 ppg, 29.7 rpg (3 known games), no known FG%'s.
Russell in 4 H2H's: 22.0 ppg, 22.7 rpg (3 known games), no known FG%'s.
Wilt in 3 H2H's: 18.7 ppg, 20.0 rpg (1 known game), no known FG%'s.

Thurmond had a monster 30-32 game against Bellamy, as well as another 28-37 game against him. He had a 21-30 game against Reed, and a high point game of 22 points against him. He had games of 26-20, 22-19, and 21-29 against Russell in their four H2H's. And against Wilt he had a 25-20 game.



Russell vs. the other HOF centers:

Nate in 4 H2H's: 12.0 ppg, 32.7 rpg (3 known games), .333 FG% (1 known)
Reed in 9 H2H's: 16.0 ppg, 21.1 rpg (8 known), .547 FG% (6 known games)
Bellamy in 9 H2H's: 12.9 ppg, 19.7 rpg, .475 FG% (5 known games.)
Wilt in 11 reg H2H's: 12.6 ppg, 22.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, .281 FG% (10 known)

Russell had games of 20-25, 22-30, 24-23, and 24-24 against Reed (and another with 38 rebounds.) Russell had one game against Nate of 20-41 (yes 41 rebounds.) He had games of 22-17 and 22-22 against Bellamy. And against Wilt, Russell's high point game was 18, and his high rebounding game was 27.

And continuing with the Laker H2H's for both Russell and Wilt:

Russell against LA in 10 reg H2H's: 15.9 ppg, 26.7 rpg, .436 FG% (9 known)
Russell vs. LA in 5 Finals games: 17.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, .702 FG% (yes .702.)

Russell vs, Wilt in 7 EDF games:
15.6 ppg, 25.1 rpg, 6.7 apg, .447 FG%.

Russell's high point game in the EDF"s against Wilt was 22 points. His high rebounding game was 32.



Wilt vs. the other HOF centers:

Bellamy in 9 H2H's: 38.3 ppg, 21.7 rpg, .547 FG% (8 known games.)
Reed in 12 H2H's: 38.6 ppg, 21.2 rpg, .532 FG% (8 known games.)
Russell in 11 reg H2H's: 25.4 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 4.2 apg, .473 FG%
Nate in 3 H2H's: 26.7 ppg, 26.3 rpg, .500 FG%.

Chamberlain had a horrible 7-21 FG/FGA game against Nate, but historically, that was an aberration. He also had a 34-26 game, on 13-20 FG/FGA against him, as well. Overall, in their 3 H2H's, Wilt held a 3-0 scoring margin, and a 1-0 margin in their only known rebounding H2H.

Wilt just shelled Reed in the majority of their 12 H2H's. He outscored him 11-1, including margins of 37-22, 29-12, 46-25, 52-23, 41-8, and 58-28. He also had rebounding games of 28, 32, and 32 against Reed.

Wilt continued his plastering of Bellamy, too. He held a 7-2 scoring margin edge, including margins of 51-33, 43-25, 56-37, 40-16, and 53-20. Chamberlain also held a 6-1 edge in their known rebounding H2H's, which included margins of 29-16, and 28-10.

The Chamberlain-Russell duels were continuing to become more-and-more one-sided, as well. In their 11 regular season H2H's, Chamberlain enjoyed a 10-1 scoring edge (and Russell's lone "win" was 11-8 in a game in which Wilt left injured.) Included were margins of 24-6, 31-7, and 37-16. Wilt also outrebounded Russell by an 8-3 margin, which included margins of 32-24, 26-17, 34-17, and 43-26. And again, look at Russell's known FG%... an unfathomable .281 in the known 10 of their 11 season H2H's (and in one game Russell shot an unbelievable 0-14!)!

And, Wilt vs. LA in 8 H2H games:

29.9 ppg, 22.4 rpg, and on a .476 FG%.

This was Wilt's worst season against the Lakers to date, but he still put up three 40+ games (with a high of 41 points.)

Wilt vs Russell in 7 EDF's games:

30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, 3.3 apg, and a .555 eFG%.

Wilt outscored Russell in all 7 games, including margins of 30-15, 34-18, 30-12, 30-12, and 33-11. Chamberlain also held a 5-2 margin in rebounding H2H's in that post-season, including margins of 37-26, and 39-16.

Again...just total domination against four HOF centers.


So, as you can see, Thurmond averaged a near peak HIGH in ppg in that season. His scoring would drop slightly after that when the Warriors adeed rookie Rick Barry and also Jeff Mullins. In terms of pure athleticism...a PEAK Nate played from '65 thru '67. Injuries slowly took a toll after that.

As for his 73-74 season...he was in a state of severe decline. He only played in 65 games, and his overall production took a HUGE drop.

So, the reality was, a prime Nate played from '65 thru '73. And a PEAK Thurmond played from '65 thru '67. And as you and I both know, he came in second in the MVP balloting in the '67 season (and behind Chamberlain.)


BTW, here were Nate's and Wilt's H2H numbers from that '64-65 season, thru their six H2H's in the '65-66 season, and their first two H2H's in the 66-67 season...or first 14 games...

Nate: 16.1 ppg, 18.9 rpg, .356 FG% (4 known games)
Wilt: 28.2 ppg, 26.2 rpg, .514 FG%.

Chamberlain outscored Nate in those 14 games by a 13-1 margin, and outrebounded him by a 12-2 margin. And again, in those 14 games...SIX games of 30+ points, (30, 30, 33, 34, 38, and 45 points), including margins of 30-10, 33-17, 38-15, and 45-13.

Overall, and thru their first 24 h2H's, which covered the '67 Finals...Chamberlain enjoyed a 21-2-1 scoring margin, and an 18-5-1 rebounding margin.

And then '65-66...


65-66:

Thurmond vs Wilt in 9 regular season H2H's:

Nate: 16.1 ppg, 19.7 rpg, 1.1 apg, .382 FG% (3 known games)
Wilt: 28.6 ppg, 25.4 rpg, 4.4 apg (8 known games), .489 FG%

Wilt held an 8-1 scoring margin in their nine H2H's. He had four games of 30+ (30, 33, 38, and 45.) Nate had a high game of 30 points. Chamberlain had games in which he outscored Thurmond by margins of 33-17, 30-10, 38-15, and 45-13.

Chamberlain held a 7-2 rebounding margin in those nine games. Nate's high game was 32, while Wilt had games of 30 and 31. Wilt had rebounding margins of 30-19, 29-10, and 28-7.

Wilt outassisted Nate in Chamberlain's known eight games.

And Chamberlain had shooting games of 13-22, 17-32, and 15-22 against Thurmond. Nate shot 8-17, 6-16, and 7-22 in his three known games.



Bellamy vs Wilt in 11 regular season H2H games:

Bellamy: 25.2 ppg, 16.4 rpg, 4.0 apg, no known FG% games.
Wilt: 33.0 ppg, 19.9 rpg, 5.0 apg, and on a .565 FG%

Wilt held a 9-1-1 scoring margin over Bells. Bellamy's high games were 36, and 39 points. Chamberlain had 7 games of 30+ against Bellamy (Walter only had two against Wilt) and his high games were 35, 37, 38, and 50.

Chamberlain held a 10-1 margin in rebounding, albeit, many were close games. Amazingly, Wilt had two games of only 12 and 13 rebounds. He also had six of 20+ with a high's of 25 and 26. Bellamy's high games were 22 and 24.

Wilt held a 7-4 advantage in assist games, with highs of 10 and 12. Bellamy's high was 7.

Chamberlain had a remarkable FG% against Bellamy in that season. Overall, Wilt shot .540 against the entire NBA, and .565 against Bellamy.



Russell vs. Wilt in 9 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 9.6 ppg, 21.2 rpg, 4.9 apg, and on a .301 FG%
Wilt: 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, 4.1 apg, and on a .473 FG%.

Wilt outscored Russell in all nine games. In fact, he annihilated Russell by margins of 27-6, 32-8, 30-5, 31-11, and 37-14.

Chamberlain outrebounded Russell by a 6-3 margin. Included were margins of 32-22, 30-20, 36-20, 30-10, 40-17, and 42-25.

Russell held a slight edge in apg, with a high game of 9. Wilt's high game was 7.

Russell did an outstanding job of holding Wilt's efficiency down (.473), BUT, Chamberlain did an even better job against Russell (.301.)


Russell vs Wilt in 5 EDF games:

Russell: 14.0 ppg, 26.2 rpg, 5.6 apg, and on a .424 FG%.
Wilt: 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, 3.0 apg, and on a .509 FG%.

Wilt held a 4-1 margin in scoring; and a 4-1 margin rebounding. Russell held a 3-2 margin in apg. Chamberlain outshot Russell from the floor in every game. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt outscored Russell, 46-18, on 19-34 shooting to Russell's 6-11, and outrebounded Russell, 34-31.

[dankok8]

Wilt' scoring dropped dramatically in that period, as well.

I have posted their seasonal H2H's, and Chamberlain just DESTROYED Bellamy almost every season. Even in their '66-67 H2H's, when Bellamy FINALLY had a seasonal edge in scoring (and it was just barely), Wilt outshot him from the floor by a .709 to .449 margin.

Prior to that season, Wilt's career scoring margin over Bellamy was likely 10-15 ppg. As an example, Bellamy averaged 34.7 ppg against Chamberlain in their 10 H2H's in the '61-62 season...and Wilt outscored him by a full 18 ppg (52.7 ppg!).

And I haven't taken the time to double-check nbastats.net since I did my topic on a prime Wilt's domination of his peers, but in his 62-63 season, he outscored Bellamy, per game, in their 10 H2H's, by a 42.8 ppg to 29.7 ppg margin, and in the known nine games Wilt shot .542 against Bellamy.

Oh, and a prime Chamberlain met Bellamy in the '68 EC playoffs, and outscored him, per game, 25.5 ppg to 20.0 ppg; outrebounded him, per game, 24.2 rpg to 16.0 rpg,; outassisted him, 6.7 apg to 3.5 apg; and outshot him from the floor by a .584 to .421 margin (BTW, Bellamy shot .541 against the NBA in the regular season.)

You're right.

Not doubt Wilt killed Bellamy. It was pretty one-sided in their match-ups. I'd say the only time Bells played him almost even was the 1970 WDF when he outscored and outshot Wilt but even then his team was swept.

My point was I tried to explain why Bellamy's numbers against Russell seem better than against Wilt. It's because he played four more seasons in the twilight of his career against Wilt.

Bellamy vs. Thurmond

Regular Season (46 games)

Thurmond: 18.5 ppg, 16.3 rpg (43 games), 3.0 apg (32 games) on 44.3 %FG (23 games)
Bellamy: 12.5 ppg, 11.8 rpg (35 games), 2.4 apg (28 games) on 42.2 %FG (22 games)

I only took the games after Wilt got traded in Jan 1965 and Nate became the starting center. He did the best against Bells by far. Another victim of Nate that shows he is the GOAT man-to-man defender.

[bizil]

Bellamy was more efficient in an era that had a faster pace. Cousins is not efficient in today's era. Bellamy had range and a supreme post game compared to anything in the league today minus Duncan perhaps. He could defend which Cousins can't. Bellamy had the talent to lead the league in rebounding or at least be top 3. He was more athletic than Cousins. He could run the floor and finish. Sorry I can't see Cousins being better than Hall of Famer Bellamy.

But in today's era, u don't have as many dominant centers. Boogie's style of play at center fits more into today's style. Boogie is still a beast on the glass getting 12 boards a night. And his TOTAL SCORING SKILLSET is better than Bellamy's was. In terms of being efficient, Cousins shot 50% from the field two years ago. I wouldn't call that being inefficient.

His scoring skillset is also more varied than Bellamy's. ALSO KEEP IN MIND that Cousins is 6'11 and 270 pounds. He has like a 30-40 pound weight advantage on Bellamy. Bellamy was great, but he wasn't Wilt, Kareem, etc. I can see an argument either way actually. But I PREFER Cousins versatility WHICH IS MORE CONDUSIVE for today's game. The only edge I would give Bellamy FOR SURE is defense.

[LAZERUSS]

You're right.

Not doubt Wilt killed Bellamy. It was pretty one-sided in their match-ups. I'd say the only time Bells played him almost even was the 1970 WDF when he outscored and outshot Wilt but even then his team was swept.

My point was I tried to explain why Bellamy's numbers against Russell seem better than against Wilt. It's because he played four more seasons in the twilight of his career against Wilt.

Bellamy vs. Thurmond

Regular Season (46 games)

Thurmond: 18.5 ppg, 16.3 rpg (43 games), 3.0 apg (32 games) on 44.3 %FG (23 games)
Bellamy: 12.5 ppg, 11.8 rpg (35 games), 2.4 apg (28 games) on 42.2 %FG (22 games)

I only took the games after Wilt got traded in Jan 1965 and Nate became the starting center. He did the best against Bells by far. Another victim of Nate that shows he is the GOAT man-to-man defender.

Excellent research...as always.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

But in today's era, u don't have as many dominant centers. Boogie's style of play at center fits more into today's style. Boogie is still a beast on the glass getting 12 boards a night. And his TOTAL SCORING SKILLSET is better than Bellamy's was. In terms of being efficient, Cousins shot 50% from the field two years ago. I wouldn't call that being inefficient.

His scoring skillset is also more varied than Bellamy's. ALSO KEEP IN MIND that Cousins is 6'11 and 270 pounds. He has like a 30-40 pound weight advantage on Bellamy. Bellamy was great, but he wasn't Wilt, Kareem, etc. I can see an argument either way actually. But I PREFER Cousins versatility WHICH IS MORE CONDUSIVE for today's game. The only edge I would give Bellamy FOR SURE is defense.

Cousins is 6-9 1/2 with a 28 " vertical. And his skill-set includes "carrying the ball", which is something he would not have gotten away with in the 60's.

And I have found an article that actually lists Bellamy's height at 7-0.

[GIF REACTION]

Shut the **** up laz

Demarcus is 6-11, 290 and ALL muscle. He is far too athletic for Walt to handle.

[LAZERUSS]

Shut the **** up laz

Demarcus is 6-11, 290 and ALL muscle. He is far too athletic for Walt to handle.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/DeMarcus-Cousins-1318/

[CavaliersFTW]

But in today's era, u don't have as many dominant centers. Boogie's style of play at center fits more into today's style. Boogie is still a beast on the glass getting 12 boards a night. And his TOTAL SCORING SKILLSET is better than Bellamy's was. In terms of being efficient, Cousins shot 50% from the field two years ago. I wouldn't call that being inefficient.

His scoring skillset is also more varied than Bellamy's. ALSO KEEP IN MIND that Cousins is 6'11 and 270 pounds. He has like a 30-40 pound weight advantage on Bellamy. Bellamy was great, but he wasn't Wilt, Kareem, etc. I can see an argument either way actually. But I PREFER Cousins versatility WHICH IS MORE CONDUSIVE for today's game. The only edge I would give Bellamy FOR SURE is defense.
Bellamy topped out at 265 (albeit, overweight), and liked to play at 245 in an era when weight lifting wasn't fashionable. Turn Bellamy's out of shape weight into muscle mass and that's likely what he'd play at today with weight training no? So about 260-265?

[GIF REACTION]

He's 6-11.

[GIF REACTION]

Demarcus is way too versatile on offense for Walt

[LAZERUSS]

He's 6-11.

Bellamy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/sports/basketball/15TALL.html


Some players prefer to be smaller than they actually are. Blake said Walt Bellamy, a Hall of Famer, asked to be listed at 6-11 even though he was 7 feet tall.

"I know he was 7 feet, but Walt thought it made him look extraordinarily tall," Blake said.

So, Bellamy would have TOWERED over the 6-9 1/2 Cousins (with his 28" vertical...:roll: :roll: :roll: )

[GIF REACTION]

He's 6-11.

[LAZERUSS]

He's 6-11.

Keep believing it. And I'm reasonably sure that the Tooth Fairy will be leaving a nickel under your pillow tonight, too.

[Jameerthefear]

no he'd be like top 10 probably though

[bizil]

Cousins is 6-9 1/2 with a 28 " vertical. And his skill-set includes "carrying the ball", which is something he would not have gotten away with in the 60's.

And I have found an article that actually lists Bellamy's height at 7-0.

But we are talking IN TODAY'S GAME!! If the refs let him get away with it then OH WELL! We are talking about in today's game!! And let's face it, Demarcus HASN'T even hit his prime yet. I just think that Cousins' versatility, size, and rebounding would trump Bellamy in today's game.

I do see the argument for Walt though. But Walt IS NOT Kareem, Wilt, or Walton from the 60's and 70's. So ITS NOT out of the question for Cousins to be better. Some of you guys act like THERE IS NO WAY Cousins could be as good or better than Bellamy!

[Jameerthefear]

But we are talking IN TODAY'S GAME!! If the refs let him get away with it then OH WELL! We are talking about in today's game!! And let's face it, Demarcus HASN'T even hit his prime yet. I just think that Cousins' versatility, size, and rebounding would trump Bellamy in today's game.

I do see the argument for Walt though. But Walt IS NOT Kareem, Wilt, or Walton from the 60's and 70's. So ITS NOT out of the question for Cousins to be better. Some of you guys act like THERE IS NO WAY Cousins could be as good or better than Bellamy!
why do you argue with him? he's a ****ing biased moron. if it was some random ass scrub he'd say he'd come into the NBA and dominate. dude is a complete clown and he doesn't even believe the shit he says.

[dankok8]

Cousins and Bellamy are about the same height (about 6'11'' barefoot) and Cousins is a bit more muscular and 20-30 lbs heavier. Bellamy was strong as an ox though and probably jumped higher. He seems pretty explosive and most of those clips are after his best years. Honestly as pure athletes it seems like a very close comparison.

[sundizz]

Lol at thinking Cousins is tiny

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a9/4a/de/a94ade615aa4827c667676a338ef81d7.jpg

http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Shaq-is-bidding-for-Cousins-to-make-All-Star-Team..png

versus these two sticks lol

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/183/849/WALT_BELLAMY_20100808172138_640_480_display_image. jpg?1313143212

[bizil]

From reading some of these posts, I don't think some people realize how good Boogie Cousins really is. And how his offensive skillset is matched by VERY FEW CENTERS! We are talking a center putting up 24 points, 12 boards, and 4 dimes a night! And he does it with a very effective inside-outside game. And he has GREAT HANDLES for a guy his size. In terms of centers, ONLY guys like Walton, Robinson, Duncan (pretty much a center) and the Dream have his offensive skillset.

I'm NOT SAYING he is as good as any of those guys yet. But in terms of his TOTAL OFFENSIVE SKILLSET, those are the only centers that can match and exceed Cousins. By skillset, I mean handles, passing, and great inside-outside scoring flexibilty. And I ALSO mean how dominant u are with it. Guys like Divac and Sabonis were very skilled in that sense. But they weren't AS DOMINANT as Cousins. Plus he's one of the league's top rebounders on top of it.

[GIF REACTION]

From reading some of these posts, I don't think some people realize how good Boogie Cousins really is. And how his offensive skillset is matched by VERY FEW CENTERS! We are talking a center putting up 24 points, 12 boards, and 4 dimes a night! And he does it with a very effective inside-outside game. And he has GREAT HANDLES for a guy his size. In terms of centers, ONLY guys like Walton, Robinson, Duncan (pretty much a center) and the Dream have his offensive skillset.

I'm NOT SAYING he is as good as any of those guys yet. But in terms of his TOTAL OFFENSIVE SKILLSET, those are the only centers that can match and exceed Cousins. By skillset, I mean handles, passing, and great inside-outside scoring flexibilty. And I ALSO mean how dominant u are with it. Guys like Divac and Sabonis were very skilled in that sense. But they weren't AS DOMINANT as Cousins. Plus he's one of the league's top rebounders on top of it.
THIS!

Just wait til the Kings win 50 games this season. Suddenly people will start calling DMC a great player.

If you actually watch him play, you see first hand the impact he has on games. This season will be the first time in his career that he will have an adequate amount of shooters to give him space down low. He got double and triple teamed like crazy down low. Not to mention he finally has a shotblocker that can play along side him, and another big body to ease the work load. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if DMC finishes in the top 5 in the MVP this year. He's that good.

[LAZERUSS]

Lol at thinking Cousins is tiny

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a9/4a/de/a94ade615aa4827c667676a338ef81d7.jpg

http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Shaq-is-bidding-for-Cousins-to-make-All-Star-Team..png

versus these two sticks lol

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/183/849/WALT_BELLAMY_20100808172138_640_480_display_image. jpg?1313143212

http://i.imgur.com/oY6kM.png


#33 Daniel Orton...

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Daniel-Orton-5272/

Measured 6-8 3/4 at NBA draft express...

#55 Josh Harrellson...

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Josh-Harrellson-6381/

measured 6-8 1/2 at NBA draft express...

Of course, Cousins' himself...measured 6-9 1/2 at NBA draft express...

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/DeMarcus-Cousins-1318/


Next...

[LAZERUSS]

Cousins and Bellamy are about the same height (about 6'11'' barefoot) and Cousins is a bit more muscular and 20-30 lbs heavier. Bellamy was strong as an ox though and probably jumped higher. He seems pretty explosive and most of those clips are after his best years. Honestly as pure athletes it seems like a very close comparison.

Cousins didn't even measure 6-11 in SHOES (6-9 1/2 without.)

Again, Bellamy was listed at 6-11, but he was likely 7-0 barefoot.

And Cousins is not some athletic marvel, either. He was measured with a max vertical of 27-5."

I am not disputing his size, nor his skill-set, but he isn't 6-11.

[CavaliersFTW]

Cousins didn't even measure 6-11 in SHOES (6-9 1/2 without.)

Again, Bellamy was listed at 6-11, but he was likely 7-0 barefoot.

And Cousins is not some athletic marvel, either. H was measured with a max vertical of 27-5."

I am not disputing his size, nor his skill-set, but he isn't 6-11.
I wouldn't get too hung up on that article, according to jockbio.com and several Newspaper archives Bellamy was 6-10 and 1/2 in real life. I could just as easily cite them rather than some person who swears Bellamy was 7 feet. He could just swear that because modern era 6-10.5 players like to list 7 feet (Joakim Noah would be a good example) and if Bellamy looks that height he prob figures that's how tall he is. I don't think Bellamy is as tall or taller than Shaq, Shaq is 6-11.5.

I wouldn't think he and Boogie are all that different in size. Boogie is 270 in weightlifting era, Bellamy is 245-260. They'd prob be about on par size wize. If some people want to say Boogie is better in their opinion that's fine. We don't have a lot to go by on Bellamy in terms of film. The film I have of him though, is great. He's very athletic, big, and skilled that much is clear.

[SHAQisGOAT]

To keep it short... Not saying he'd clearly be it but yes, he most definitely could.

[LAZERUSS]

I wouldn't get too hung up on that article, according to jockbio.com and several Newspaper archives Bellamy was 6-10 and 1/2 in real life. I could just as easily cite them rather than some person who swears Bellamy was 7 feet. He could just swear that because modern era 6-10.5 players like to list 7 feet (Joakim Noah would be a good example) and if Bellamy looks that height he prob figures that's how tall he is. I don't think Bellamy is as tall or taller than Shaq, Shaq is 6-11.5.

I wouldn't think he and Boogie are all that different in size. Boogie is 270 in weightlifting era, Bellamy is 245-260. They'd prob be about on par size wize. If some people want to say Boogie is better in their opinion that's fine. We don't have a lot to go by on Bellamy in terms of film. The film I have of him though, is great. He's very athletic, big, and skilled that much is clear.

Maybe, maybe not. I have read a few articles that had Bellamy listed at 6-10, but the vast majority were at 6-11.

But we KNOW that Cousins isn't close to 6-11. Same with the vast majority of players in college.

That photo of those Kentucky players... all of them between 6-8 1/2 to Cousins 6-9 1/2...

They were listed at 6-9, 6-10, and 6-11 at UK in 2010.

Earlier this year BB Reference listed Spencer Hawes at 7-1 (they have since "reduced" him 7-0),...and yet he was 6-10 1/2 at NBA Draft Express.

We both know Hakeem was listed at 7-0, and Bill Walton at 6-11.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/08/sports/on-pro-basketball-feet-of-dancer-touch-of-surgeon-and-a-shot-too.html


The skinny on Hakeem Olajuwon is that he was taller when he was Akeem Olajuwon. He used to be a 7-foot center, when he played for the University of Houston and for many of his years here with the Rockets.

He never looked seven feet. In fact, when he played against the Boston Celtics in the 1986 finals, he appeared to be dwarfed by Bill Walton, who was listed as 6 feet 11 inches.

Walton was 7-2, at least, but didn't enjoy the stigma that went along with it. Asked that year why he looked so much taller than Olajuwon when he was supposed to be one inch smaller, Walton said, rather testily, "The floor's warped."

About the time Olajuwon corrected the world on the spelling of his first name, he also admitted he was closer to 6-10.

We both could go on, but it has been a travesty in the last 30 years. Even the article on Bellamy's height went off on how players just claim whatever height they want to be, and then they are listed at that height. It is a complete joke.

[GIF REACTION]

STOP spreading lies laz.

[LAZERUSS]

I wouldn't get too hung up on that article, according to jockbio.com and several Newspaper archives Bellamy was 6-10 and 1/2 in real life. I could just as easily cite them rather than some person who swears Bellamy was 7 feet. He could just swear that because modern era 6-10.5 players like to list 7 feet (Joakim Noah would be a good example) and if Bellamy looks that height he prob figures that's how tall he is. I don't think Bellamy is as tall or taller than Shaq, Shaq is 6-11.5.

I wouldn't think he and Boogie are all that different in size. Boogie is 270 in weightlifting era, Bellamy is 245-260. They'd prob be about on par size wize. If some people want to say Boogie is better in their opinion that's fine. We don't have a lot to go by on Bellamy in terms of film. The film I have of him though, is great. He's very athletic, big, and skilled that much is clear.

BTW, that "some person" was...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/sports/basketball/15TALL.html


Marty Blake, the N.B.A.'s director of scouting

And again...


Some players prefer to be smaller than they actually are. Blake said Walt Bellamy, a Hall of Famer, asked to be listed at 6-11 even though he was 7 feet tall.

"I know he was 7 feet, but Walt thought it made him look extraordinarily tall," Blake said.

[CavaliersFTW]

BTW, that "some person" was...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/sports/basketball/15TALL.html



And again...
Well that does give his word a bit more weight. Thanks, I'm just saying though I still wouldn't get too hung up on their size their size. They're both legit sized centers.

[LAZERUSS]

Well that does give his word a bit more weight. Thanks, I'm just saying though I still wouldn't get too hung up on their size their size. They're both legit sized centers.

We both know height isn't everything. But it is interesting that we are seeing more "legit sized centers" at Bill Russell's height. Cousins, DJ, Drummond, and Howard, to name a few.

[LAZERUSS]

From reading some of these posts, I don't think some people realize how good Boogie Cousins really is. And how his offensive skillset is matched by VERY FEW CENTERS! We are talking a center putting up 24 points, 12 boards, and 4 dimes a night! And he does it with a very effective inside-outside game. And he has GREAT HANDLES for a guy his size. In terms of centers, ONLY guys like Walton, Robinson, Duncan (pretty much a center) and the Dream have his offensive skillset.

I'm NOT SAYING he is as good as any of those guys yet. But in terms of his TOTAL OFFENSIVE SKILLSET, those are the only centers that can match and exceed Cousins. By skillset, I mean handles, passing, and great inside-outside scoring flexibilty. And I ALSO mean how dominant u are with it. Guys like Divac and Sabonis were very skilled in that sense. But they weren't AS DOMINANT as Cousins. Plus he's one of the league's top rebounders on top of it.

I'm not arguing about how good Cousins is. But I find it interesting that he can average a 24-13 and in only 34 mpg.

Players like a peak Shaq, Kareem, and Wilt played 40+ (well, Wilt damn near played every minute of every game)...so what would those guys do in this era, and playing 40+ mpg?

[LAZERUSS]

Here's film of him early in his career and against Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH8tpl04EDI

Yay or nay?

Really surprised me how complete his offensive game was he does a little bit of everything. I presume his competition for the top spot of the center position today would be guys like old Tim Duncan, DeMarcus Cousins, Marc Gasol, Dwight Howard, etc


BTW...I forgot to add...

OUTSTANDING video.

And yes, Bellamy would be a top-tier center in TODAY's NBA.

[Jameerthefear]

BTW...I forgot to add...

OUTSTANDING video.

And yes, Bellamy would be a top-tier center in TODAY's NBA.
No he wouldn't. Old ass clown.

[LAZERUSS]

CavsFTW,

When was KAJ measured at 7-1 5/8"?

Looking at footage of him throughout his career, and he seems to dwarf his peers...even moreso than Wilt did his.

[LAZERUSS]

Oh, and can you dig up some solid footage of Thurmond? IMHO, he is one of the most under-rated players in NBA history.

[LAZERUSS]

Walt Bellamy's H2H's against other great centers have a lot of FG% data missing for the regular season but we can get an idea for their numbers. For the playoffs we have full numbers.

Wilt vs. Bellamy H2H

Regular Season (90 games)

Wilt: 31.2 ppg, 22.5 rpg (89 games) 4.7 apg (71 games) on 55.3 %FG (77 games)
Bellamy: 24.2 ppg, 16.7 rpg (80 games), 3.4 apg (62 games) on 43.7 %FG (35 games)

Playoffs (10 games)

Wilt: 22.2 ppg, 23.3 rpg, 5.5 apg on 52.3 %FG
Bellamy: 20.0 ppg, 15.9 rpg, 3.0 apg on 43.4 %FG

Russell vs. Bellamy H2H

Regular Season (71 games)

Russell: 14.6 ppg, 20.2 rpg (69 games), 5.0 apg (44 games) on 48.7 %FG (40 games)
Bellamy: 24.4 ppg, 17.6 rpg (53 games), 2.0 apg (29 games) on 46.8 %FG (31 games)

Playoffs (4 games)

Russell: 9.5 ppg, 20.3 rpg, 5.0 apg on 36.4 %FG
Bellamy: 18.3 ppg, 16.5 rpg, 3.0 apg on 51.9 %FG

Not that it is not a surprise that Bellamy has higher career numbers against Russell compared to Wilt. Bells played a lot more games out of his prime against Wilt from 1970-1973 after Russell retired.

I don't have his H2H's against Thurmond complied but I'll post that as well. Stay tuned!

How about Russell vs Nate?

[Round Mound]

Yes

[warriorfan]

Of course everyone is shrunken down except wilt who keeps growing and growing after being dead for 20 years

[iznogood]

Here's film of him early in his career and against Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH8tpl04EDI

Yay or nay?

Really surprised me how complete his offensive game was he does a little bit of everything. I presume his competition for the top spot of the center position today would be guys like old Tim Duncan, DeMarcus Cousins, Marc Gasol, Dwight Howard, etc
Great video! I do believe he could be one of the best centers today. As for his chance of being the best player today with the same abilities he displays in the video, I have some concerns.

First of all, I think his athleticism, passing and ability to make a jumper alone would've made him a very successful player today if he played in a system which is based on ball and player movement. However, he doesn't have a post game and his scoring is not very diverse. I don't think he could be the go to player of a team that relies on isolations.

The biggest reason why I don't like comparing bigs from early eras to the basketball we were watching later and are seeing today is the amount of contact allowed. There's almost no contact in your video and when there is, it's almost always a foul. This is why bigs produce such great numbers. It was very easy back then to get a good position near the basket and finish. No bumping, no hip checking, no pushing, no battling for position. The basketball back than might be dirtier, but it was much MUCH softer. This is why people nowadays don't use finger rolls - it's harder to position yourself close to the basket. And when you manage to and turn over the inside shoulder, you'll always get bumped and you can't finish a finger roll when somebody's on your shoulder. This is why so many players prefer to use a turnaround jumper when going to the middle (Duncan would be my favourite example) from the right side or simply shoot a lefty.


Pau could honestly get 100 points scored on him if he's not careful. Could put up slightly better numbers than Mel Counts.

Marc would be like a Tom Boerwinkle best passing bigman not named Wilt Chamberlain, Wes Unseld or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Pau would probably put up great numbers in that era. The reason being is the fact that it would be very easy for him to establish the position close to the basket with so much less contact then what he's facing right now. And Pau has one of the best and the most diverse array of finishes for a big the game has seen.

As for his defense, I don't see the rules allowing anyone to physically bully him, which is his biggest problem. Basically his defense is very close to how the guys in the 60s played defense - doesn't use contact very often, not even when boxing out. He doesn't go for the shot blocks when defending man to man, but makes a good contest.

As for Marc, I think you're underestimating him. Marc Gasol was a very good post scorer, who lost some of his ability to score with the back against the basket as he lost weight. Simply because the weight makes such difference when battling sealing position, sealing your man and finishing through contact. His post moves are still there, but he's not that efficient, because he has to use too much stamina to compensate for the weight advantage he no longer has. Put him up against a guy that is not allowed to muscle him and he's going to be scoring a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_g-mn-DHww

Players who would have a harder time scoring are guys who's scoring is based on bullying their defenders (ZBo, Blake etc.).


Bellamy topped out at 265 (albeit, overweight), and liked to play at 245 in an era when weight lifting wasn't fashionable. Turn Bellamy's out of shape weight into muscle mass and that's likely what he'd play at today with weight training no? So about 260-265?
Not necessarily. It's wrong to think weightlifting is the only type of training that can give you lean mass. You see a lot of guys who get big by only doing bodyweight exercises. And exercising was popular in 50s and 60s, people always wanted to look good and be strong.

The other thing is that no all body types respond to bulking, every body has got a limit. Walt was by no means a scrawny dude, so he had obviously a decent amount of mass, so maybe his weight gain was a sign that he reached his potential in terms of gaining lean body mass. Just look at all the bigs that recently lost weight (Duncan, Cousins, Marc Gasol), they all came out slimmer and none of them just turned the his into muscles.


Bellamy was more efficient in an era that had a faster pace. Cousins is not efficient in today's era. Bellamy had range and a supreme post game compared to anything in the league today minus Duncan perhaps. He could defend which Cousins can't. Bellamy had the talent to lead the league in rebounding or at least be top 3. He was more athletic than Cousins. He could run the floor and finish. Sorry I can't see Cousins being better than Hall of Famer Bellamy.
Bellamy showed literally no post game in the whole clip playing against Kareem. The only "move" he does is a jumper in the lane @ 2:10. He also makes a bail out finger roll @ 4:45, not much of a move. No pump fakes, no shakes, no hooks, no lefties, nothing. There's tons of centers in today's game who have better moves than he shows in that video.

As for his range, you do realise that there's great amount centers today who can make 3s consistently. Bellamy has a great jumper, but his range is not as good.

Also wrong is the notion that Cousins can't defend. Cousins is by no means Tim Duncan, but his defense is solid, when he puts some effort in it.

[dankok8]

How about Russell vs Nate?

Russell vs. Thurmond H2H

Regular Season (29 games)

Russell: 11.6 ppg, 22.1 rpg (28 games), 5.8 apg (25 games) on 43.4 %FG (20 games)
Thurmond: 19.6 ppg, 20.8 rpg (27 games), 2.4 apg (21 games) on 39.4 %FG (20 games)

Again just like against Bellamy I only included the games after Jan 1965 when Nate was the starting center.

[LAZERUSS]

Russell vs. Thurmond H2H

Regular Season (29 games)

Russell: 11.6 ppg, 22.1 rpg (28 games), 5.8 apg (25 games) on 43.4 %FG (20 games)
Thurmond: 19.6 ppg, 20.8 rpg (27 games), 2.4 apg (21 games) on 39.4 %FG (20 games)

Again just like against Bellamy I only included the games after Jan 1965 when Nate was the starting center.

Thank you sir!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

:cheers:

[La Frescobaldi]

Congratulations cavs.

You have destroyed thine enemies, yea, smote them hip & thigh.

And most amazing of all, is your display of prowess upon this glorious field of battle; their eyes so fixed upon your shield, they didn't even see your arm rise and mightily smash in their 1,000 stupid heads with the jawbone of an ass.

Truly this thread is an ish-slay that would make Samson himself proud. Perhaps the greatest ish-slaying you have inflicted, even in a career of glittering victories.

Yes, great congratulations indeed my friend.

[CavaliersFTW]

Doing a more extensive mix on Bellamy with college footage and a few more game and doc sources - almost finished.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Doing a more extensive mix on Bellamy with college footage and a few more game and doc sources - almost finished.

woot

as for the conversation... I guess?
in terms of best center, his biggest competition is Cousins, and while I think a peak cousins would beat Bellamy, right now, a prime Bellamy is ahead.
Bellamy was a good passer. dont know enough about this part of his game so Im not quite sure if he was a better passer than cousins, but he was a better scorer, so offensively, he has the edge. Cousins is an underrated defender, and I dont know enough about Bellamy's defensive abilities, though I would say they are probably = to or better than cousin's

Walt was probably weaker. a little bit taller at 6ft 11, but his ffmi was probably a bit worse.

both liked to face up more I guess.

I would take Walt, but I would probably take a peak cousins.

This is best center though right? if its best center, then I guess I take Walt.

[CavaliersFTW]

Okay I've accumulated all the stock film of Bellamy that I can think of.

Now the question is, should I do this in the format of a "scouting tool" a-la what I did for Wilt and George Mikan? Or should I just do a montage of clips a-la the Baylor, Gus Johnson, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy etc videos.

[jongib369]

Okay I've accumulated all the stock film of Bellamy that I can think of.

Now the question is, should I do this in the format of a "scouting tool" a-la what I did for Wilt and George Mikan? Or should I just do a montage of clips a-la the Baylor, Gus Johnson, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy etc videos.

Maybe both? Have it start out like a scouting tool/educational doc so people who don't know him can get an idea how he played, eventually leading to an awesome montage.

Always wanted to see you highlight Wilts general strategy....Even if it came to putting text over the video, describing how he would first try to go deep and dunk it, but if you denied him that he'd either finger roll(Has a chance of being an offensive foul if the defender hits the back of his hand), and that could be countered with a fade away after faking a roll(could leave the defenders legs springless to block the fadeaway). Or do this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC3KfhYRtG4) etc etc

Same could be said for Bellamy, or any other future highlight.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Okay I've accumulated all the stock film of Bellamy that I can think of.

Now the question is, should I do this in the format of a "scouting tool" a-la what I did for Wilt and George Mikan? Or should I just do a montage of clips a-la the Baylor, Gus Johnson, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy etc videos.


1 thing, when you do scouting tools, I suggest you include the full play, including the guard bringing it up, and misses, so we can really see it as a scouting tool.

[dhsilv]

Okay I've accumulated all the stock film of Bellamy that I can think of.

Now the question is, should I do this in the format of a "scouting tool" a-la what I did for Wilt and George Mikan? Or should I just do a montage of clips a-la the Baylor, Gus Johnson, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy etc videos.

Just make sure we see full plays and show bad plays. There's nothing worse than seeing nothing but a guy finishing at the rim or rebounding the ball. It's kinda useless unless you just want to watch someone scoring.

Seeing the earlier clip was interesting. Kinds reminds me of a poor mans marc gasol (without offensive moves) in this era but built perfectly for that era.

[MiseryCityTexas]

Hell the **** yes he would be the best center today. I'm kinda mad that he's not in NBA 2k16.

[Psileas]

Okay I've accumulated all the stock film of Bellamy that I can think of.

Now the question is, should I do this in the format of a "scouting tool" a-la what I did for Wilt and George Mikan? Or should I just do a montage of clips a-la the Baylor, Gus Johnson, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy etc videos.

Νοt sure how many are going to bother with a scouting tool of a player who doesn't belong to the absolute elite of all time. So, to be honest, I'd rather see something like this for a player like Oscar or Russell (esp.defensively). Is there even enough footage to create a decent scouting tool to begin with?

[SpanishACB]

Pau could honestly get 100 points scored on him if he's not careful. Could put up slightly better numbers than Mel Counts.

Marc would be like a Tom Boerwinkle best passing bigman not named Wilt Chamberlain, Wes Unseld or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
yep people 50 years ago had some sort of magic power to score 100 on pau, something that players nowadays can't replicate

do you even listen to yourself?

[Psileas]

yep people 50 years ago had some sort of magic power to score 100 on pau, something that players nowadays can't replicate

do you even listen to yourself?

How come you didn't address the post that came before?

[SpecialQue]

Yes.

[CavaliersFTW]

1 thing, when you do scouting tools, I suggest you include the full play, including the guard bringing it up, and misses, so we can really see it as a scouting tool.

Just make sure we see full plays and show bad plays. There's nothing worse than seeing nothing but a guy finishing at the rim or rebounding the ball. It's kinda useless unless you just want to watch someone scoring.

Seeing the earlier clip was interesting. Kinds reminds me of a poor mans marc gasol (without offensive moves) in this era but built perfectly for that era.
No. To be blunt, I believe that's a stupid idea. At least given the era and the actual source material that is out there. And I do show the 'full plays' in the scouting tool style vids. I show as much as is possible based on the available source (a documentary, etc) and I made that very clear when I first made the Wilt scouting tool that I was doing that. Some clips are literally only a fraction of a second long, and that's just the way they are I didn't make them that short. I showed plenty of other clips that were the guard dribbling up the floor too, whenever they were possible. And anyone with a brain and the patience to watch should start to figure out that you only need to see a few of those anyways to fill in the blanks where some of the set up was missing.

There's a purpose to what I offer that is more than just seeing finishes. It shows habits. The misses are the same patterns and shot selection as the makes. Some of the best videos out there like McHale, or Olajuwon scoring vids, Michael Jordan scoring vids, etc are all serving the same purpose. Nobody groans about seeing misses in those videos and if they do my goodness, I'd question their actual purpose of watching those videos. It all looks the same. Michael Jordan taking a jumper from 18 feet that misses looks the same as Michael Jordan taking a jumper that goes in. Olajuwoon missing a jump hook looks the same as when he makes them. Players repeat moves. The misses are the same as the makes.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

No. To be blunt, I believe that's a stupid idea. At least given the era and the actual source material that is out there. And I do show the 'full plays' in the scouting tool style vids. I show as much as is possible based on the available source (a documentary, etc) and I made that very clear when I first made the Wilt scouting tool that I was doing that. Some clips are literally only a fraction of a second long, and that's just the way they are I didn't make them that short. I showed plenty of other clips that were the guard dribbling up the floor too, whenever they were possible. And anyone with a brain and the patience to watch should start to figure out that you only need to see a few of those anyways to fill in the blanks where some of the set up was missing.

There's a purpose to what I offer that is more than just seeing finishes. It shows habits. The misses are the same patterns and shot selection as the makes. Some of the best videos out there like McHale, or Olajuwon scoring vids, Michael Jordan scoring vids, etc are all serving the same purpose. Nobody groans about seeing misses in those videos and if they do my goodness, I'd question their actual purpose of watching those videos. It all looks the same. Michael Jordan taking a jumper from 18 feet that misses looks the same as Michael Jordan taking a jumper that goes in. Olajuwoon missing a jump hook looks the same as when he makes them. Players repeat moves. The misses are the same as the makes.

Well that was harsh.

TBH, the only reason I want to see the misses is to see how good he was in certain shots. true, we cant get any real volume with only 5% of footage, but still, it would provide a good basis.

Its your video though, so its your choice :D

[CavaliersFTW]

Well that was harsh.

TBH, the only reason I want to see the misses is to see how good he was in certain shots. true, we cant get any real volume with only 5% of footage, but still, it would provide a good basis.

Its your video though, so its your choice :D
Harsh but true, there's only 4 complete (or mostly complete) games of Walt Bellamy in existence and I've only got 3 of them. So there's really only 3 games I could even do that with.

I could do a misses/makes of Bellamy for those 3 games if you'd like. But, that's a lot of effort for such a niche project that only like 1% of my (already niche audience) viewers would be interested to watch. I did that with a Nate Thurmond game, and the like to dislike ratio was immediately not good and the video got like almost no views and it took a great deal of time to do. Showing all touches makes what would otherwise be a 4 minute highlight into a 13 or 14 minute video complete with misses and errors which most fans of these players or the game don't even care to see. With limited time to edit, I'd rather get content out that shows how good a wide variety of players of that era were on par with the videos of modern or more recent players like that. Nobody is out there making game-error and missed shot break downs of Lebron, or Michael Jordan, or Larry Bird. It's just a waste of my capabilities to spend time showing misses of players of that era when nobody shows misses from any other era and I could be using that time to show the makes of an entirely different player nobody has seen before. You know?

So maybe a project like that could be done in the future. I could do it for like a reddit post or something. But it's such a focused project, until I see people doing it for other players with success I'm not interested to do it for the players in question.

Also to the bolded - 5% doesn't exist of any player from that era. The highest 'career field goals made' percent is 2.4% and Wilt holds that much footage but that's because he was a superstar playing for repeat finals appearance teams. Bellamy, and other players who played for smaller markets or non-playoff run teams have more like 1% or less of their careers on film. Like I said, I've only got 3 actual games of Bellamy.

[iznogood]

Couldn't you just upload whole games? The makes/misses are basically nothing but extended highlights in my opinion. Watching the whole game gives much better insight into how the teams played.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Harsh but true, there's only 4 complete (or mostly complete) games of Walt Bellamy in existence and I've only got 3 of them. So there's really only 3 games I could even do that with.

I could do a misses/makes of Bellamy for those 3 games if you'd like. But, that's a lot of effort for such a niche project that only like 1% of my (already niche audience) viewers would be interested to watch. I did that with a Nate Thurmond game, and the like to dislike ratio was immediately not good and the video got like almost no views and it took a great deal of time to do. Showing all touches makes what would otherwise be a 4 minute highlight into a 13 or 14 minute video complete with misses and errors which most fans of these players or the game don't even care to see. With limited time to edit, I'd rather get content out that shows how good a wide variety of players of that era were on par with the videos of modern or more recent players like that. Nobody is out there making game-error and missed shot break downs of Lebron, or Michael Jordan, or Larry Bird. It's just a waste of my capabilities to spend time showing misses of players of that era when nobody shows misses from any other era and I could be using that time to show the makes of an entirely different player nobody has seen before. You know?

So maybe a project like that could be done in the future. I could do it for like a reddit post or something. But it's such a focused project, until I see people doing it for other players with success I'm not interested to do it for the players in question.

Also to the bolded - 5% doesn't exist of any player from that era. The highest 'career field goals made' percent is 2.4% and Wilt holds that much footage but that's because he was a superstar playing for repeat finals appearance teams. Bellamy, and other players who played for smaller markets or non-playoff run teams have more like 1% or less of their careers on film. Like I said, I've only got 3 actual games of Bellamy.

Alright, that makes sense.

On the other hand, if you do have full games, why dont you post them to realgm as a retro game thread.

I would say it would open many eyes, but since it would be in the player comparison thread, they all respect the 60s enough anyway.

Personally, I dont believe eras are stronger than others. I believe that, at least before analytics were made, in terms of teams, they all had to deal with what the rules told them to do.

But in terms of teams, I consider them to be "different" if that makes sense. but a great 80s team, send them back to the 60s and make them play by their rules, and the 80s team would look out of place. ditto for the other way around.

That being said, I have heard some people (namely, coach nick) say that stats back then were "hard" to show impact. That being said, he said the GOAT center is bill walton (though he is a top 15 peak ever imo) so im not sure what to think of that.

[CavaliersFTW]

Couldn't you just upload whole games? The makes/misses are basically nothing but extended highlights in my opinion. Watching the whole game gives much better insight into how the teams played.
I've thought about it, and even done it but unlisted those videos almost immediately. The channels that tend to stay up on YouTube are ones that have original content. The ones with the highest rate of being removed or getting strikes are ones that upload full games. So I'm a bit overly cautious to do that. If you look at my channel though I've recently tried to do thorough game breakdowns everyone from role players to superstars - from both teams. In such breakdowns you get to see the entire game. Just broken apart player by player.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

I've thought about it, and even done it but unlisted those videos almost immediately. The channels that tend to stay up on YouTube are ones that have original content. The ones with the highest rate of being removed or getting strikes are ones that upload full games. So I'm a bit overly cautious to do that. If you look at my channel though I've recently tried to do thorough game breakdowns everyone from role players to superstars - from both teams. In such breakdowns you get to see the entire game. Just broken apart player by player.

Ill give you my youtube username and password for one of my Alternate accounts if you wish.

Why dont you post it on realgm?

[CavaliersFTW]

Νοt sure how many are going to bother with a scouting tool of a player who doesn't belong to the absolute elite of all time. So, to be honest, I'd rather see something like this for a player like Oscar or Russell (esp.defensively). Is there even enough footage to create a decent scouting tool to begin with?
I'm about 90% along now, it's going to be a Scouting tool, and yes I've got enough footage. Just enough to sort of see the habits he had sort of like the Mikan scouting tool I made.

I might do Russell in the form of a Scouting tool. Not Oscar. I'm only able to mentally handle center position players in the form of a Scouting tool as great 'all around' players have so many skills there would be too many chapters for players like Baylor or Oscar. But I like the idea of breaking down centers into scouting tools, after all I've already done it for Wilt, and Mikan. And soon Bellamy.

[CavaliersFTW]

I wish draftexpress would keep their 'scouting' videos up.

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

They used to have them up for players like Dwight, Bynum, etc. And every year they make them for guys like Jahil, Embiid, etc but it seems like they remove them once those players go off the market. Those are great for catching a similar glimpse of modern player habits and abilities in a short presentable form. Currently no other YouTubers that I'm aware of make similar videos past or present that attempt to break down the individual habits of players.

[Lebron23]

Cousins > Bellamy

[SHAQisGOAT]

Cavsftw, been meaning to ask you, what you know about Bob Christian? Center that was a pro from '69 til '74... He was one of Bellamy's backups with the Hawks.

Dude's listed at 6'10, 255 lbs...
Seems pretty well built:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut3R7SViJlY&t=12m5s
And has a nice putback dunk, here, showing good leaping ability, speed and strength:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut3R7SViJlY&t=13m55s

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/32/15/35/32153557263dfc5ff31d6565f78b8298.jpg

Did very little as a player though... Another "argument" to debunk the myth that back then you only needed to be very big and a good athlete or something, in order to dominate.

[feyki]

Reed,Lucas are better than Bellamy.

Bellamy is 60's Al-Jeff . No defence , he has good stats in weak teams (like Monta-gsw , Love-Minny , Al-Jeff-Hornets) . But Bellamy better player than Al-Jeff. I think he's to be in the top 3 centers at present .

[90sgoat]

Bellamy looking good in those clips, reminds me of Patrick Ewing in his movement.

Hard to say if he would be best because center play has changed and diminished. I would say skill wise Timmy is still the best big man in the league but now can only show it in brief spurts in the finals.

If he held his own against Jabbar then clearly he is a very good player and from looking at the tape, his game would translate fine with that mid range jumper and some nice short hooks.

[CavaliersFTW]

Reed,Lucas are better than Bellamy.

Bellamy is 60's Al-Jeff . No defence , he has good stats in weak teams (like Monta-gsw , Love-Minny , Al-Jeff-Hornets) . But Bellamy better player than Al-Jeff. I think he's to be in the top 3 centers at present .
Bellamy played on both ends. It's both part of testimony as stated by Lakers coach Fred Schaus, and visible on film in the various sources of game film I've got.

As a pure center, I think Bellamy was the 4th best guy in the 1960's at that particular role. Not Reed or Lucas, who were Forwards/Centers. So you could try and argue they were better players, but at least in the 1960's they were not better centers and I don't think Lucas was ever a better center. Reed was an emotional leader for the Knicks, something Bellamy never was for any team he played for. But when Bellamy and Reed played on the same team together guess who the starting center was? Walt Bellamy. I think Bellamy's legacy, and people's perception of how good he was is held back by the teams he played on - and the position he played at a time when that position was stacked. His teams never even made it to the Finals. Lucas on the other hand, rode the '73 Knicks to a title and became a "50-greatest" player.

Think about this: there are 2 forward spots and 2 guard spots on "All-NBA" and "All-Star" teams for every 1 "center". Bellamy is playing behind Russell, Chamberlain, and Thurmond and eventually Jabbar automatically every time those guys are in the league. Then you've got guys peaking like Reed, Cowens, Lanier, Unseld, even guys like Zelmo Beatty etc.

I think most players and coaches in the 1960's would probably have picked Walt Bellamy behind Wilt, Russell, and Thurmond as the most impactful two-way center at that time. Not on resume or team success, but on individual ability.

[feyki]

Bellamy played on both ends. It's both part of testimony as stated by Lakers coach Fred Schaus, and visible on film in the various sources of game film I've got.

As a pure center, I think Bellamy was the 4th best guy in the 1960's at that particular role. Not Reed or Lucas, who were Forwards/Centers. So you could try and argue they were better players, but at least in the 1960's they were not better centers and I don't think Lucas was ever a better center. Reed was an emotional leader for the Knicks, something Bellamy never was for any team he played for. But when Bellamy and Reed played on the same team together guess who the starting center was? Walt Bellamy. I think Bellamy's legacy, and people's perception of how good he was is held back by the teams he played on - and the position he played at a time when that position was stacked. His teams never even made it to the Finals. Lucas on the other hand, rode the '73 Knicks to a title and became a "50-greatest" player.

Think about this: there are 2 forward spots and 2 guard spots on "All-NBA" and "All-Star" teams for every 1 "center". Bellamy is playing behind Russell, Chamberlain, and Thurmond and eventually Jabbar automatically every time those guys are in the league. Then you've got guys peaking like Reed, Cowens, Lanier, Unseld, even guys like Zelmo Beatty etc.

I think most players and coaches in the 1960's would probably have picked Walt Bellamy behind Wilt, Russell, and Thurmond as the most impactful two-way center at that time. Not on resume or team success, but on individual ability.

You said like "both ends , two way player" but Walt Bellamy is poor defender.

Walt Bellamy's best five seasons total defensive win shares at 60's = 11.6

Jerry Lucas's best five seasons total defensive win shares at 60's = 16.7

Willis Reed's best five seasons total defensive win shares at 60's = 19.8

Walt Bellamy never top 5 in mvp votes. Jerry Lucas fifth at 65-66 season mvp votes. Willis Reed second at 68-69 mvp votes and he's first at 69-70 mvp votes .

Zelma Beaty and Wayne Embry are good centers.

There is 60's top 10 centers ;

1- Bill
2- Wilt
3-Reed
4-Thurmond
5-Lucas
6-Bellamy
7-Wayne Embry
8-Zelma Beaty
9-Red Kerr
10-Clyde Lovelette

[CavaliersFTW]

You said like "both ends , two way player" but Walt Bellamy is poor defender.

Walt Bellamy's best five seasons total defensive win shares at 60's = 11.6

Jerry Lucas's best five seasons total defensive win shares at 60's = 16.7

Willis Reed's best five seasons total defensive win shares at 60's = 19.8

Walt Bellamy never top 5 in mvp votes. Jerry Lucas fifth at 65-66 season mvp votes. Willis Reed second at 68-69 mvp votes and he's first at 69-70 mvp votes .

Zelma Beaty and Wayne Embry are good centers.

There is 60's top 10 centers ;

1- Bill
2- Wilt
3-Reed
4-Thurmond
5-Lucas
6-Bellamy
7-Wayne Embry
8-Zelma Beaty
9-Red Kerr
10-Clyde Lovelette
So according to advanced stats that assume all guards, centers and forwards of that era have 0 steals, and 0 blocked shots he's a bad defender. But according to coaches and players he's a dominant two-way center that gets named alongside Wilt, Russell, and Nate Thurmond by former players like Wilt or Richie Guerrin or coaches like Lakers coach Fred Schauss.

Lucas and Reed were not centers in the 60's save for part time duty, or 1 or 2 seasons. They are more appropriately 60's "forwards". Not 60's centers. They both played center in the 1970's. Lucas actually carved his HOF career out of playing the forward position, his center years are lackluster by comparison. Reed on the other hand did in fact carve his HOF career out of playing at the center position but again he did the majority of that in the 1970's. He played just two seasons at center in the 1960's and was less impressive than Bellamy's best seasons in those two seasons.

You don't rank Tim Duncan as a center/forward of the 90's do you? He's as much of that in the 90's as Reed and Lucas are 'centers' in the 1960's. Or LeBron is about as much a "shooting guard" of the '00's as Reed and Lucas are centers of the 60's.

[feyki]

So according to advanced stats that assume all guards, centers and forwards of that era have 0 steals, and 0 blocked shots he's a bad defender. But according to coaches and players he's a dominant two-way center that gets named alongside Wilt, Russell, and Nate Thurmond by former players like Wilt or Richie Guerrin or coaches like Lakers coach Fred Schauss.

Lucas and Reed were not centers in the 60's save for part time duty, or 1 or 2 seasons. They are more appropriately 60's "forwards". Not 60's centers. They both played center in the 1970's.

You don't rank Tim Duncan as a center/forward of the 90's do you? He's as much of that in the 90's as Reed and Lucas are 'centers' in the 1960's. Or LeBron is about as much a "shooting guard" of the '00's as Reed and Lucas are centers of the 60's.

Not a same situation brother.

For example this site tag "center" for Reed and Lucas ;

http://thehoopdoctors.com/2011/09/top-10-centers-of-the-1960%E2%80%99s/


Defensive win shares according from team points allowed per poss . We must be look , players impact on team defences. So , i think my way is not wrong. Lucas is little bit mobile player and Reed has undersized physical attributes for center position. They are not center as Walt's at floor but I think them position is more center than forwards. Cause both players are rim protector at defensive side and main offensive rebounder and main post up players at offensive side.

[CavaliersFTW]

Not a same situation brother.

For example this site tag "center" for Reed and Lucas ;

http://thehoopdoctors.com/2011/09/top-10-centers-of-the-1960%E2%80%99s/


Defensive win shares according from team points allowed per poss . We must be look , players impact on team defences. So , i think my way is not wrong. Lucas is little bit mobile player and Reed has undersized physical attributes for center position. They are not center as Walt's at floor but I think them position is more center than forwards. Cause both players are rim protector at defensive side and main offensive rebounder and main post up players at offensive side.
I don't care what a "site" says, that site is wrong.

Willis Reed played center for the Knicks as a rookie in 1965, and in 1969 after Bellamy was traded to the Pistons. And in both of those seasons he did not match much less outperform Bellamy's top few seasons in the 1960's. The entire time Bellamy played on the Knicks Willis Reed was that teams power forward. IE the majority of Willis' 1960's career. He was a forward 3 out of 5 seasons in the 1960's.

Jerry Lucas was exclusively a forward in the 1960's. Players like Connie Dierking and Wayne Embry were his centers. He played center for two seasons in the 1970's along side Willis Reed on the Knicks. Mostly to fill in for Reed when Reed was out with injury, but also to alleviate Reed's minutes when Reed was breaking down. Lucas is on the 50-greatest players team as a forward for a reason. In his entire career he played about as much center as LeBron has played power forward. And in the 60's he played about as much at center as... well as LeBron has played center. Might be for a few possessions in a given game, that's about it. He was on the roster exclusively as a forward in that decade.

[CavaliersFTW]

That site you listed links Gus Johnson as an "honorable mention" CENTER of the 1960's...

That's about all I need to see to know the author of that article is probably a basketball fan, but not an encyclopedia on basketball history. Basketball reference used to list players like him and many more as "F/C's" and many fans curious about the history of the game looked at those labels and assumed it meant those players actually played as centers or w/e in the 1960's. Recently, basketball reference has updated those labels. It's actually now gotten a lot more accurate as far as I can tell. You will see now, seasons which Willis or Gus Johnson for example actually played specific positions. Gus never played center in the NBA ever. He was 6 foot 5. A person who actually had an understanding of the history back then would know that. A person who just checked basketball reference's old outdated labels (back in 2011) wouldn't know that. So again, Jerry Lucas was a forward in the 1960's. Willis Reed was a center for only 2 seasons in the 1960's and both those seasons he was not as good as Bellamy at his best, and Bellamy was a center for 8 seasons in the 1960's.

A sensible way to rank Bellamy is as 4th best center of the 1960's. Reed could be in the rankings for his two seasons (1965, and 1969). Lucas shouldn't even be in the rankings.

[GIF REACTION]

**** no

Demarcus is way better

[CavaliersFTW]

**** no

Demarcus is way better
You might actually like the video I'm about to put out on Bellamy. He's got a lot in common with Cousins. Particularly, their ability to play triple threat and drive inside despite their great size.

[Duffy Pratt]

He played just two seasons at center in the 1960's and was less impressive than Bellamy's best seasons in those two seasons.

He played center as a rookie, then three years out of position as a power forward, then moved back to center in 68-9. I assume you count 69-70, his MVP year, as part of the seventies. His rookie year, as a center, he averaged 20 and 15. In his first year moving back to center, he averaged 21 and 15. These numbers compare reasonably well with any of Bellamy's post 1965 numbers.

Agree with you on Lucas. With the Knicks, it was clear that he was playing out of position, and he functioned at center in much the same way that Bill Laimbeer did with the Pistons. On offense, he largely was a kick-out option at the top of the key or further back. The main reason the team could get away with it was because both he and Debusschere were outstanding defenders and rebounders, so they could make up some for the height they were giving up. Also interesting to note that that 73 team, without a large center, and with two superstar guards in Frazier and Monroe, was something of the prototype for the Thomas/Dumars model, which has since morphed into small ball.

[G-train]

Cousins could not carry Bellamy's jock strap into the arena.

Cousins has individual talent, but has proven NOTHING to me about being a winning basketball player.
Were comparing a HoFer to a guy that's comparable to Roy Tarpley.
GTFO.
A center that gets over 4 turnovers a game and is a spoilt brat horrible team player.
Do you NOOBs still not understand basketball? It's not a game of horse.
Cousins doesn't belong in the same sentence.

YES Bellamy would be the best center in the NBA.
The stupidity and trolling in this place is unbearable at times.

[GIF REACTION]

Cousins could not carry Bellamy's jock strap into the arena.

Cousins has individual talent, but has proven NOTHING to me about being a winning basketball player.
Were comparing a HoFer to a guy that's comparable to Roy Tarpley.
GTFO.
A center that gets over 4 turnovers a game and is a spoilt brat horrible team player.
Do you NOOBs still not understand basketball? It's not a game of horse.
Cousins doesn't belong in the same sentence.

YES Bellamy would be the best center in the NBA.
The stupidity and trolling in this place is unbearable at times.
You clearly don't watch Sacramento nor have an understanding of what is going on there, outside of the national media's perception

It's all relative bro. The level of standard in the 60's was much less than it is today. Bellamy might be that good, but to use team accomplishments from a time when there was not even a handful of team is stupid.

I bet you think Demarcus is a terrible defender

Even though everything including the advanced stats say he is a top 5 center defender

[G-train]

You clearly don't watch Sacramento nor have an understanding of what is going on there, outside of the national media's perception

It's all relative bro. The level of standard in the 60's was much less than it is today. Bellamy might be that good, but to use team accomplishments from a time when there was not even a handful of team is stupid.

I bet you think Demarcus is a terrible defender

Even though everything including the advanced stats say he is a top 5 center defender

Yes I do watch Sacramento.
When did I mention team accomplishments?
Learn to read before you question my decades of basketball expertise.

[GIF REACTION]

No, you don't watch Sacramento

I guarantee you that

You got a guy dropping games of 20/20/10/6 in similar fashion throughout the year and you say he's not a team player?

You don't even watch the game so you wouldn't even know

You know how many times the plays just break down and they throw it to Demarcus at the end of the shot clock?

Happens all game long

Demarcus chopped it up in the FIBA world champs

He's a bonafide winner by nature

Watch him get MVP hype this season now that he actually has serviceable teammates

[feyki]

Cavs;

Bellamy peak bettter than Reed? No way brother . Reed's peak has second at mvp votes , won the mvp and won the fmvp . Bellamy's peak just one 3 place mvp vote .

[CavaliersFTW]

Cavs;

Bellamy peak bettter than Reed? No way brother . Reed's peak has second at mvp votes , won the mvp and won the fmvp . Bellamy's peak just one 3 place mvp vote .
As a center in the 60s (1965 and 1969) yes Bellamys best seasons trumped those two by Reed. I'm specifically talking 60s decade.

[feyki]

As a center in the 60s (1965 and 1969) yes Bellamys best seasons trumped those two by Reed. I'm specifically talking 60s decade.

Reed's 68-69 season > Walt's all seasons , for best peak .

[dankok8]

I'm inclined to say that a 1969 or 1970 Reed was better than any version of Bellamy. Regular season scoring and rebounding definitely goes to Bells but Reed always stepped up huge in the playoffs and was a better postseason scorer. Reed was also a better defender and a more effective team player and leader. It's not a death sentence or anything but both the Bullets and the Knicks got better after they traded Bellamy so it's fair to question his impact. Dave DeBusschere probably did more to help the Knicks win games than Bells did.

[CavaliersFTW]

Reed's 68-69 season > Walt's all seasons , for best peak .
31 and 19 > 21 and 14.5

You mentioned defensive win shares. How come you didn't mention Walt Bellamy's peak win shares? Flat out "dominant". Higher than any of Reed's including peak Reed (not even just '1960's' Reed) and by a significant margin. Only players like Russell, Shaq, Wilt, Jabbar, David Robinson, Artis Gilmore etc are higher than peak Walt Bellamy in win shares - players like Malone, Ewing, Reed, Olajuwon, etc are lower. I'm not even a fan of advanced stats but if you're going to use one against him you might as will not ignore the ones that make him shine.

Like I said - being that Reed only played 2 seasons as a center in the 1960's decade, and being that his best year was 21 and 14.5 and he didn't yet win anything, Bellamy hands-down has a vastly superior resume and vastly superior impact in that 1960's decade at center position. Bellamy set records in the 1960's.

[feyki]

31 and 19 > 21 and 14.5

You mentioned defensive win shares. How come you didn't mention Walt Bellamy's peak win shares? Flat out "dominant". Higher than any of Reed's including peak Reed (not even just '1960's' Reed) and by a significant margin. Only players like Russell, Shaq, Wilt, Jabbar, David Robinson, Artis Gilmore etc are higher than peak Walt Bellamy in win shares - players like Malone, Ewing, Reed, Olajuwon, etc are lower. I'm not even a fan of advanced stats but if you're going to use one against him you might as will not ignore the ones that make him shine.

Like I said - being that Reed only played 2 seasons as a center in the 1960's decade, and being that his best year was 21 and 14.5 and he didn't yet win anything, Bellamy hands-down has a vastly superior resume and vastly superior impact in that 1960's decade at center position. Bellamy set records in the 1960's.


Bellamy's best season ws48 - 0.2333

Reed's 68-69 season ws48 - 0.2268

Bellamy's best playoff ws48 - 0.1667

Reed's 68-69 playoff ws48 - 0.2420

And 1967-1968 stats of Walt and Willis on the same team ;

Season ;

Reed - 21-13-2 on %52.7 TS and 0.167

Bellamy - 17-12-2 on %583 TS and 0.198 ws48

Playoff ;

Walt - 20-16-3.5 on %47 TS and 0.041 ws48

Reed - 21-10-2 on %57 TS and 0.183 ws48

Last one ,

Bellamy's best season is just one 3th place vote and 1 points at 1963 mvp votes(like Embry's 64 season) . Reed's 68-69 season is 18 1th place votes and 137 point (2th) at mvp votes.

I choose playoff and mvp votes above season .

[CavaliersFTW]

Bellamy's best season ws48 - 0.2333

Reed's 68-69 season ws48 - 0.2268

Bellamy's best playoff ws48 - 0.1667

Reed's 68-69 playoff ws48 - 0.2420

And 1967-1968 stats of Walt and Willis on the same team ;

Season ;

Reed - 21-13-2 on %52.7 TS and 0.167

Bellamy - 17-12-2 on %583 TS and 0.198 ws48

Playoff ;

Walt - 20-16-3.5 on %47 TS and 0.041 ws48

Reed - 21-10-2 on %57 TS and 0.183 ws48

Last one ,

Bellamy's best season is just one 3th place vote and 1 points at 1963 mvp votes(like Embry's 64 season) . Reed's 68-69 season is 18 1th place votes and 137 point (2th) at mvp votes.

I choose playoff and mvp votes above season .
"per 48" just penalizes players who are durable and in shape. And Bellamy's per 48 is still better anyways.

Bellamy's total body of work was done with more minutes on the floor. Can't take that away from him.

And Bellamy's early teams were bad, real bad, they weren't playoff material and that's not Bellamy's fault. His packers teams had like only 3 players even still in the league within 5 years.

In the early 70's, sure I'd take Reed on my team as a center over early 70's Bellamy. Those two guys in their 60's form? I think Bellamy was more dominant. Reed more versatile being that he could play PF, but strictly in the pivot I think Bellamy's 60's body of work indicates he was better.

[dankok8]

"per 48" just penalizes players who are durable and in shape. And Bellamy's per 48 is still better anyways.

Bellamy's total body of work was done with more minutes on the floor. Can't take that away from him.

And Bellamy's early teams were bad, real bad, they weren't playoff material and that's not Bellamy's fault. His packers teams had like only 3 players even still in the league within 5 years.

In the early 70's, sure I'd take Reed on my team as a center over early 70's Bellamy. Those two guys in their 60's form? I think Bellamy was more dominant. Reed more versatile being that he could play PF, but strictly in the pivot I think Bellamy's 60's body of work indicates he was better.

When is the Bellamy mix gonna be done? :rockon:

[CavaliersFTW]

When is the Bellamy mix gonna be done? :rockon:
It's close, honestly it's really close I should have finished it tonight but I feel asleep after work. I expect it'll be done some day this weekend. Basically the next time I feel like working on it

[CavaliersFTW]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jSSWqcjS9mk/VhxDLHiShfI/AAAAAAAAHLM/xtEkPakcbNU/s640-Ic42/BellamyYoutubethumbnail2.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYCnrkv_GL8

[dankok8]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jSSWqcjS9mk/VhxDLHiShfI/AAAAAAAAHLM/xtEkPakcbNU/s640-Ic42/BellamyYoutubethumbnail2.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYCnrkv_GL8

Just watched it. Great work!

I have to say it's too bad we don't have more footage from this early days. Some of those plays in a Chicago uniform were astounding. Bells was very athletic. Not only jumped high but fast. He had good spring in his legs and was very strong and physical. Obviously pretty skilled as well with good coordination and his jumper is money up to 15 feet.

[CavaliersFTW]

Just watched it. Great work!

I have to say it's too bad we don't have more footage from this early days. Some of those plays in a Chicago uniform were astounding. Bells was very athletic. Not only jumped high but fast. He had good spring in his legs and was very strong and physical. Obviously pretty skilled as well with good coordination and his jumper is money up to 15 feet.
Yeah, it's nice to finally visualize the abilities behind the stats and the name of Walt Bellamy. Some of that footage is also college footage from Indiana.

Simply collecting footage gives me a loose idea of the abilities and habits of many players of that era but it's not until I make or break down video clips like this into play-by-play categories that I really can understand and see the habits/physical talent that made them successful.

[feyki]

Cavsftw;

Is Bellamy in the top 100 players at nba history ? What are you think about that?

I think Walt Bellamy good as Nate Archibald . I ranked both at between 90-100.

[La Frescobaldi]

I'm not going to pretend like I know for certain....But from what I can tell all the tools are there. He was incredible, his game was reminiscent of Ewings....Though I don't agree with the primitive comment I mentioned.

His dunks where nasty, especially that one on Wilt. Can only imagine how Wilt would of gone back at him had this been footage of them going at it both young.


Looks like you have enough to make a

"Golden era of big men" mix

lol was that primitive comment mine actually?
Bells was a great great player but his skillset was not so smooth and polished like Patrick's before his legs went bad. Ewing really was something else in his days although I wasn't really a fan that much.
I always saw a lot of Bellamy style in early days Ewing but of course by then Walt was already forgotten by the public for the most part. I don't remember him ever getting attention on the tv shows of the 80s. Here and there but it was rare. See you just don't get the accolades playing in a league like the 60s because the NBA was so incredibly loaded in those days.
Today each team has one or two really fine players, and they are called a stacked team when there's a 'big 3' or something. But with such a smaller league, 14 teams or 17 every position was taken by outstanding talent. Skills are so very high today, but the talent per team is very very thin compared.
Bells though he was great all right and you can see glimpses of it in this little movie that Cavs made

[La Frescobaldi]

Harsh but true, there's only 4 complete (or mostly complete) games of Walt Bellamy in existence and I've only got 3 of them. So there's really only 3 games I could even do that with.

I could do a misses/makes of Bellamy for those 3 games if you'd like. But, that's a lot of effort for such a niche project that only like 1% of my (already niche audience) viewers would be interested to watch. I did that with a Nate Thurmond game, and the like to dislike ratio was immediately not good and the video got like almost no views and it took a great deal of time to do. Showing all touches makes what would otherwise be a 4 minute highlight into a 13 or 14 minute video complete with misses and errors which most fans of these players or the game don't even care to see. With limited time to edit, I'd rather get content out that shows how good a wide variety of players of that era were on par with the videos of modern or more recent players like that. Nobody is out there making game-error and missed shot break downs of Lebron, or Michael Jordan, or Larry Bird. It's just a waste of my capabilities to spend time showing misses of players of that era when nobody shows misses from any other era and I could be using that time to show the makes of an entirely different player nobody has seen before. You know?

So maybe a project like that could be done in the future. I could do it for like a reddit post or something. But it's such a focused project, until I see people doing it for other players with success I'm not interested to do it for the players in question.

Also to the bolded - 5% doesn't exist of any player from that era. The highest 'career field goals made' percent is 2.4% and Wilt holds that much footage but that's because he was a superstar playing for repeat finals appearance teams. Bellamy, and other players who played for smaller markets or non-playoff run teams have more like 1% or less of their careers on film. Like I said, I've only got 3 actual games of Bellamy.

there's not any Hawks games out there? With Maravich and Bellamy?